Pastor Matt Trewhella: LORD HAVE MERCY
Warning: THIS IS A RANT’S RANT. Click the link to view the source of today’s vehement outrage.
If this imbecile of a pastor’s version of Christianity is an accurate representation of the faith, then I’m proud to be a heathen. If he’s right and this weblog entry is proselytizing God’s intent for the people of this planet, then I’ll escort myself to Hell. AND I’ll be happy to endure the lake of fire because it’s better than this lame-ass idea of a woman’s place. I want to throttle this man… Gahrg!
Forgive the automatopea, but this is really aggravating on one of those really personal levels where it’s taking all my willpower not to growl out loud and start barking with fury. For those of you who do not want to take the time to read the whole article, let me quote some zingers I want to obliterate with a bazooka!
Lovely little ditty number one:
“I was never keen on McCain to begin with, and his decision to add a woman to his ticket sealed my decision. I won’t vote for them. Why? Because I’m a sexist (as many accuse)? No. But because I’m a theist … I believe in the God of the Bible and I want to see my life conducted according to His Word, and the life of our nation reflect the teaching of His Word. I will not throw my vote behind the Christ-hating egalitarian agenda of the socialist elitists of this nation.”
I know. It’s hard to contain your emotion, isn’t it? I don’t even have to work at rebuttal on this, but for the sake of getting it off my chest, I have to reply: What the fnck? *(and insert incredulous blinking here) At first I had this feeling of “oh did he just go there?” Upon reading further, that feeling evolved (in true Darwinian fashion) into something along the lines of “I MUST DESTROY THIS REPUGNANT MISCONCEPTION!”
First of all, I don’t even like Sarah Palin, but holy shit! You can call this woman all kinds of things, but a “Christ-hating egalitarian socialist elitists” is NOT one of them! And I know. I’ve called her everything else! She’s actually the very opposite of what this ridiculous pastor assumes her to be. She’s not a Christ-hater. In fact, if anything, she’s on Jesus’s hockey team. And they invited the dinosaurs to play the visitor’s team (I’m pretty sure Sarah believes the terrible lizards walked the earth the same time as man.) Let’s see, what’s next. Ah, yes. She’s not an egalitarian, either. If she were, than she wouldn’t make such a big deal out of “insiders,” “outsiders,” or “mavericks.” True egalitarians are fair and patient with everyone, and personally, I find little wrong with that. She’s not a socialist. Republicans seem to fight tooth and nail against democracy becoming even slightly more socialist than it already is. (Again, I’m not sure leaning to a more socialist government isn’t such a bad thing. I’m not saying we should be socialist, but taking on a few more characteristics wouldn’t hurt us right now.) And finally, “elitist.” Seriously? Elitist is the best he can come up with? Everyone is an elitist in politics, and everyone is better than the other guy when running for office. What is this idiot trying to say here?
Lovely little ditty number two:
“John McCain and the Republicans will now use the Christians to further this God-hating agenda in the earth, and most Christians, being devoid of a biblical worldview, will not even recognize how they are being used. There is something unnatural and perverse about men rallying around a woman to lead them. But an effeminized church leads to an effeminized nation.”
This man must never curse his parents, trim his beard, plant wheat and barley in the same furrow, eat pork, wear polyester or masturbate. (Thanks R. Zimmerman for the Leviticus sermon!) He might lay with dudes though. Who knows…
Lovely little ditty number three:
“For those who are horror stricken that Obama might get in with such thinking as mine being propagated, let me tell you, our nation is worthy of Obama – just as it is worthy of a female leader. The state of our nation is rebellion against the Lord. The state of manhood in our nation is at an all-time low (as evidenced by the tolerance and proliferation of homosexuality). The state of the church is abysmal.”
I puked a little in mouth. But hey, my response to this comes in two parts. Part One: The dismal state of the Church and Nation is because of chauvinistic cavemen like Pastor Matt Trewhella. Part Two:
Response to a Misinformed Man
In my last post, I received a comment that I had to blog a response to. Here it is:
Hello Gary Bridge/G. Armstrong,
First of all, it’s Ms. J. to you, not Miss. Thanks. Out of curiosity, what exactly do you assume I’m “trying real hard to do,” here? This is my personal blog. As far as I can tell, all I’m doing is writing my opinion about whatever topic I feel like—from politics to family issues, to what I’m cooking for dinner. That’s not exactly trying to make a worldwide statement and call for a revolution, mind you, but since you seem to believe my blog is important enough to critic on a greater level, I’ll meet you half way and answer your challenge.
So, Gary (or is it just “G?”), I don’t know who you think you are (and by that I mean: are you Gary Bridge of Cisco, or G. Armstrong of… I couldn’t begin to guess), but I don’t get the feeling that you are anyone qualified enough to “educate” Anne Korin, but for humor’s sake, I’ll just pretend that you are a person of some rank in the Ag world. But being somewhat of a headstrong woman, you’ll have to forgive me if I seem to lack respect for your high position. Now then, shall we begin?
First of all, you claim that growing any agri-crop for flex-fuel ethanol is “outdated.” Where do you get your information from, G.? And what is this miracle replacement liquid fuel that will replace it? Specifically what is this “something far more efficient, profitable and biodegraeable?” By the way, you spelled biodegradable wrong. Spell Check is our friend.
Let’s look at your statement from a timeline perspective. You are making the statement that agri-crop converted ethanol is outdated, yet there is nothing to replace it YET. You claim there is a greater cost-effective, bio-degradable liquid fuel in the works, but by definition: “in the works” does not equal “available now.” Thus, agri-crop converted ethanol flex-fuels can’t possibly be outdated. I don’t believe in sitting around and waiting for the next great miracle fuel to be available to everyone. The current (or as you say, “outdated”) flex-fuel technology we have can help out now. Not tomorrow, not a few years down the road—but today. Even yesterday. So why are we not jumping on this strategy like white on rice to rip the power of oil out of the Middle East’s and OAPEC’s greedy little hands? Oh, right. Because you want to wait for something better, that could take years to develop fully. I say “years,” because you’ve not given me a solid example of a replacement liquid fuel, and I gotta tell ya G., America can not push forward in the way we have been without liquid fuels. So humor me. Let me know of this great liquid fuel replacement that is biodegradable and more cost effective. And just so you know, you have to put money into something to get money out—so the miracle you are waiting for, could be a fantasy.
I don’t even know HOW to comment on how your miracle replacement fuel is going to be scarily “decentralized in ownership.” For one, that statement doesn’t make sense to me, and I’m betting to my other readers—I mean, doesn’t a replacement fuel have to exist before it can be “owned,” and coincidentally decentralized in ownership? For two, decentralized ownership of anything in today’s day in age might not be such a bad thing. This is America after all—governed for the people, by the people is just like saying, “decentralizing the ownership of the country,” is it not?
Your second paragraph, I’ll just post it here for your own luxury: “What would you think if ethanol plus other alcohols were produced for 15¢ per gallon from tires, or sewer sludge, or garbage or even coal or CO2 greenhouse gas? And I’m speaking of NOT growing any agri-product for low value carbon content and using diesel tractors, petrochemical-derived fertilizers and copious amounts of fresh water for just ONE annual harvest. Farmers will need to re-concentrate on growing food not fuel crops. Perhaps you have not understood the food vs: fuel issues surrounding corn ethanol and soy grown for biodiesel, etc. ???”
Okay, let me get this straight, are you telling me that other alcohols can be made from things such as coal—because honey, if you watched the videos I posted, you would know that I already know these things, but chose to focus on agri-crop for liquid fuels, mostly because I live in a rural area that grows a lot of corn, so it holds a special interest for me. But since you bring up coal among other things, let me lay this out for you: you are suggesting that you need more fossil energy to produce the energy we’d get out of coal, for example. That’s not a rational argument. Wrong even. First of all, it’s a law of nature—you have to put more energy in than you can get out, whether is converting coal to electricity, a barrel of oil to gasoline, or corncob or sugarcane to ethanol—it’s all basically the same law of nature. You must put energy in to get energy out. Simple. There’s energy inherent in the matter, and energy of conversion—we all learned this pretty early on in science. So arguing the difference in energy expenditure and energy profit is ridiculous. By the way, we get 1.3 times the amount of energy from ethanol than we put in to make it. That’s a profit, if you are not quite sure of the math.
But personally, and I agree with Ms. Korin, none of that should matter, if the overall goal is to take the power of oil away from the enemy and make it so that Americans are not paying for both sides of the war—i.e. paying for oil that funds radical Islam’s attempt to wipe out America. Right? So why even argue that ethanol is a bad idea when all it does is give Americans alternative choices to oil? I’m not saying it’s the only way—au contraire. I’m saying it’s a one way—it’s technology that’s available today, and it should not be ignored or passed off as “outdated,” while people wait around for a miracle that will take time to save us. One of the beautiful things about being human is being resourceful. If we have technology to use, no matter how outdated, we need to use it. Watch MacGyver… he does amazing things with simple “outdated” technology. And by the way, nobody cares about the energy balance for gasoline or electricity—what people care about is the cost. What people care about is if the usable unit of energy is economic.
Now, I believe that the second part of your concern in that paragraph is asking me what I think about sacrificing food crops for fuel crops? Well, let me tackle the food vs. fuel issue, since you obviously do not understand crop ratios grown in the US. You’re trying to ask a question that has been asked too many times to people who don’t do the research. That question is: if we start using our crops for fuel instead of for food, are we causing more poverty and hunger around the world. I understand the concern, but it’s just not going to happen that way, and here’s why:
People are flat out lying about the conversion of corn into ethanol is going to create hunger or starvation around the world. That’s almost a joke. Except I’m not laughing at those lies, and here’s why. OAPEC has been campaigning that very idea into the public, in order to stir up unreasonable fears. It’s an oil interest that is trying to derail its possible competition. Feeding into it is only damaging our situation more. The president of OAPEC himself said that “the 40% rise in oil prices is due to the intrusion of ethanol into the global market.” What does that tell you? It tells you that he doesn’t like his competition. Stupid.
Just think: Net US corn food and feed product, AFTER removing the corn converted to ethanol, has increased 23% on the year. And after you convert corn to ethanol, you have a leftover product called distiller’s grain—which is concentrated protein for animal feed. Maybe you didn’t realize this, but most of the produced corn in the US is used to feed animals, not humans. Besides the corn products that are used to feed us humans is horrible for us. Corn syrup is a horrible substitute for sugar that is converted into fat immediately and is probably the reason why America struggles with obesity. And another bit of info you should remember: we’ve artificially kept the price of corn low through agricultural subsidies, and the price of sugar high (the US sugar price is twice that of the world sugar price…) There are all kinds of artificial price controls out there that are a problem, and they need to be rethought out. None of that would be possible in a truly free market. And the food companies that are complaining the most about a rise in corn product are processed candies that are complaining because the corn used for making corn syrup is higher now that people are using it to convert to ethanol. And do American’s need anymore candy bars? Too bad for Russell Stover’s. That’s the market. They shouldn’t have had to go through the subsidies in the first place—and paid a real market price for their ingredients. But I digress. This is all neither here nor there when it comes to using corn for ethanol, so let’s move on.
The real question is, does this affect global hunger in some way? No. End of story. Net US food exports have increased, so the argument falls flat right there. And it has increased over the last five years. I don’t know why people are so nervous about corn to ethanol starving the world. It’s ridiculous. Truly ridiculous. And remember, there is a lot of land in our country that farmers are paid not to farm. So if the price of crop goes up, the farmers are allowed to use the reserve land to produce more. It’s quite simple. There is really no reduction in world food exports that is due to any corn to ethanol production. Have I made myself clear?
Let’s jump back a bit to the question of poverty. The opposite of poverty and hunger will come about from converting Agri-crops to fuel. There are around one hundred some countries around the world with a suitable climate for growing sugarcane. Sugarcane is by far the best crop to convert into ethanol, by the way. Okay, and many of these countries are poor and on the receiving end of US aid and support. So what does this tell us? We should encourage them to grow sugarcane, (which is way better than manufacturing tennis shoes or answering telephones.) The people in these countries began as subsistent farmers. They don’t want to work at Nike or Dell. They are better qualified to farm a crop that will benefit both our countries. Most people in these countries only have one good tool to lift them out of poverty—and that is industrial agriculture. They could sell their agri-crop into the global market and give options to everyone, thus stripping power away from OAPEC, as I mentioned earlier and in my initial blog on the topic.
Ms. Korin also mentioned that the US would have to lift tariffs and trade barriers to make this possible, but in doing so we could only better the economy from that point, so there’s no reason not too. And on that note, it’s true that in doing so, this idea might not look so great for the middle class. But you know what, this is a miracle for the poorest of the poor all over the world—because suddenly, the agri-crop they are selling has a higher value. Everyone would benefit if poverty were to gradually disappear. There’s no denying that.
I hope that I’ve stood up to your outlandish rebuttal against using ethanol. Again and as I said, it’s not the only option we could use, but a damned good one. Trying to convince people not to use the technology that is available and wait around for some other miracle is a waste of time and a poor decision on anyone’s part. But thanks for your opinion.
Palin-hater Quicky
Referenced from CBS’s Katie Couric interview of Sarah Pathetic.
Couric: In preparing for this conversation, a lot of our viewers … and Internet users wanted to know why you did not get a passport until last year. And they wondered if that indicated a lack of interest and curiosity in the world.
Palin: I’m not one of those who maybe came from a background of, you know, kids who perhaps graduate college and their parents give them a passport and give them a backpack and say go off and travel the world. No, I’ve worked all my life. In fact, I usually had two jobs all my life until I had kids. I was not a part of, I guess, that culture. The way that I have understood the world is through education, through books, through mediums that have provided me a lot of perspective on the world.
Okay, first of all, I watched the interview so some of my complaint might not be well understood without Palin’s inflection to translate my outrage—but holy shit! She made it sound like being young and adventurous (and having more foreign policy experience than she has) sound like a detestable condition that just should not be allowed in America! Secondly, she made it sound like people who travel and see the world don’t work. Who does she think she is?! I work my ass off to get the privilege to explore this wonderful world, and I’ll be damned if I just let Palin slide after insinuating people like me do not work. Jezuz, just hearing her talk about working over travel made me feel like she was lumping me in with a bunch of drop-out pot heads who refuse to get a job and are content to fester in someone’s basement, leaching off another’s pay check and growing fat! The nerve of that bitch! And if traveling is a “culture” than it way better than Palin’s American culture, that’s for damned sure! And as for understanding the world “through education,” the mysterious other “mediums” and “books,” I’m sorry, but the Bible and preDarwinian texts are probably the ONLY ones she’s ever bothered to glance at. How can she claim that her education and books had given her enough worldly experience over first-hand interaction with outside cultures?! I’m sorry, I studied Japanese culture for years, but I learned more in one year of living there than I ever had in the ten years of textbook infatuation. This idiot does not have a clue what she is saying. She has so little knowledge of the world that she actually doesn’t realize how stupid she really is! The extent of her worldly insight probably doesn’t extend through a few hours a week of the travel channel! She also spouted off a shit-ton of BS about the importance of Russia being so close to Alaska, but that’s a rant for another day. Thanks.
Who’s a terrorist? Gag me, Palin.
Well blow me. The Republicans have their panties all in knotty wedgies again. Okay, forgive me, dear readers, but this blog is going to be another bitching, informal spout off about how irritated I get from the McCain/Palin ticket. Alright, so yesterday Palin started foaming at the mouth about Obama’s relationship with Billy Ayers, the 1960’s extremist who in the early 1970’s attacked the pentagon and capitol with a group of underground militant hippies. FYI, Obama was 8 years old at the time of the attacks, so lumping him into terrorism for being an acquaintance with the guy some 35+ years later just ties my testicles in a knot. Here’s a direct quote from Palin on about the “friendship:”
“This is not a man who sees America as you see it, and how I see America. […] We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. If we can be that beacon of light and hope for others who seek freedom and democracy and can live in a country that would allow intolerance in the equal rights that again our military men and women fight for and die for all of us. […] Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”
The New York Times article that I got yesterday’s quote from also stated immediately after that information, “The article to which she referred, in The New York Times on Saturday, traced Mr. Obama’s sporadic interactions with Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weathermen who later became an education professor in Chicago and worked on education projects there with Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president.” Right, so they were practically neighbors and co-workers. They probably called each other “friends” as many people do with acquaintances they see on a daily basis.
Hell, I have a “friend” that I grew up with who (once was an innocent child but) is now a cocaine addict drunk who is so promiscuous that she started having sex with this random guy who came over to her house party a few years ago while I stepped outside to answer a phone call. She and her momentary beau didn’t bother to quit or finish up in a bedroom when I came back into her living room, but decided their drunken passion wouldn’t be bothered by my presence. I’d never do what this girl does, and I don’t approve of it, but it’s not my business to tell her what or what not to do, and I guarantee I’ll not end up in a similar situation again… so does that make me a drunk, promiscuous coke addict by association? No. So does living in the same city and working at the same place as Billy Ayers make Obama a fncking terrorist? Well sure it does! Not.
People should not be judged by the company they keep; it’s not fair. Everyone has a friend or two that they just don’t agree with, but still have heart enough to be kind and friendly toward them. Hell, Joe Biden is friends with McCain. I don’t judge him for it. Obama’s wife creeps me out, but I don’t judge him for it. I question what he sees in her, but I do not fault him for it. There’s more to a person than the people they talk to or party with. Lots more. It even goes as far as family. I have family members I disagree with and some I don’t even like (none of them are in my immediate family), but I’ll still sit down to a Christmas dinner with them. You gonna fault me for that? I do it to keep the whole family at peace, not because I agree with them. I just can’t understand what drives people judge others based on who they drink with or who they talk to or who they sent chain emails too. If I were the people I hang out with, I should be under house arrest, in rehab, therapy, and six feet under. But I’m not. I’m Jenai, an individual who doesn’t judge people the way fncking Palin does. I judge people on what they do and say for themselves. I judge Palin for her own fnckups, not the fnckups of her friends and family. But I guarantee if Palin were to judge me, she’d tell people I’m a bad person because of who I went to a pool hall with three years ago. She really REALLY pisses me off. And anyone who shares her opinions and stupidity breaks my heart.
But let me play devil’s advocate for a moment, just to make a point. Let’s say that I’m okay with Palin attacking Obama for the company he keeps. Let’s say that her argument is legit… she thought she’d be all smooth referencing a NY Times article that suggested a friendship between the Obama and Ayers, but guess what! Palin failed to mention the article very pointedly explained “the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called ’somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.’” Jezuz, the two had not spoken over the phone or by e-mail since Obama came to the U.S. Senate three years ago. What’s her damn problem?
My References:
New York Times A
New York Times B
CNN
Oh, and who is Palin calling a terrorist anyway? I could give several reasons how Palin is more of a terrorist than Obama. She terrorizes the crap out of me… oh by the way, there are many Alaskans who don’t like her either. Check this out:
Random side note: This is serious. We should call all Republican-Hippy cross breeds “Sarah Palins.”
Natural Talent vs. Experience (Translation: Obama vs. What Palin ain’t got.)
So my pursuit of understanding Palin as an entity continues; well, I mean my horror continues, really. For my last Palin blog post, I received 3 (actually there were 4, but one comment was kind of broken in 2) comments from people who were not fans of my opinions of Palin. Actually they brought up things that had nothing to do with my blog on a whole, but whatever. I approved the comments, because I see no reason not too, but just make things easier, I’ll quote those comments here.
Comment #1; Arthur Pavis Says: Jenaicklefritz, I read almost your entire blog, but I had to stop. Here is a way that you can help our economy and also our country. Go out and buy a new car. Maybe an environmentally friendly type and drive it over a steep cliff you numb skull!
My thoughts on Pavis: First, “numbskull” is one word. Second, since this is a free country, he had every right to say that—even if it was infantile and pointless. You see this is the type of country I fear we live in today. Education teaches so little and our country is all about being the first to say something that most Americans come off as brazen simpletons. As I see it, the freedom of speech has become the freedom to speak without thinking, make an ass of oneself, and demonstrate one’s own pitiful personality and low I.Q. It’s a shame really. Perhaps if our country had a greater sense of pride in the future of our country and of ourselves, the overall American population would be less crass and have a firmer handle on rhetoric and debate; these are qualities I feel we need as a people to better ourselves and our nation. Plus, it would make is look better to other countries if we’re not slobbering over ourselves whenever we disagree with someone or something. Anyway, I also realize that this Pavis individual is probably only thirteen and hormonal, and not as stupid as he came off. Perhaps Pavis has democratic parents whom he’s rebelling against. I mean hey—it makes sense, right?
Comments #2 and #3; NANCY Says: The [D]emocrarts under Clinton are the guilty ones starting with Freddie Mac. Clinton put his buddies in there[] they took bad loans and cooked the books, and left with millions in their pockets. Of course it is easier to just point the finger to Bush. Pelosi and Reid would never have a proper investigation. Democrats protect their criminals. Rangel, Jefferson (refrigerator money) and the list goes on, even the [C]lintons(did we ever get the Whitehouse furnishings back?). Obama has NO experience he has a puppet-master. I wonder who is really running for President on the Dem side?? It sure isn’t Obama. … with [B]iden’s big mouth and [O]bama’s lack of info and needing a prompter…the debates will be a gas!!
My thoughts on NANCY: Well, it is easy to point a finger at Bush for the Nation’s fiscal slump, but I didn’t do that in this blog. I’m not sure I’ve done that in any of my blogs yet. I should do a little research and try it sometime. And, who cares about the White House furnishings? Really? What does she mean “did *we* ever get [them] back?” I never owned any White House furnishings to begin with, so I wish NANCY would please not flip out on a tangent that has nothing to do with the state of our nation. Honestly, would she ask her neighbors if they ever got their stolen TV set back for her? Whatever, moving on… I know the Clintons were not the most pristine people in the White House. But I’m not voting for him or her or any of their former “buddies” as NANCY called them. I’m voting for someone else—someone I can believe in to make things better after all the recent hullabaloo. And about Biden’s big mouth, sure he’s said some stupid things… for example: “Earlier in the week, in Columbia, Missouri, Biden urged a paraplegic state official to stand up to be recognized. “Chuck, stand up, let the people see you,” Biden shouted to State Senator Chuck Graham, before realizing, to his horror, that Graham uses a wheelchair. “Oh, God love ya,” Biden said. “What am I talking about?””
However, that’s not exactly the same as Palin’s verbal blunders—such as her entire interview with ABC’S Charlie Gibson. No, most of Biden’s errors on the job have been foolish little slip-ups, not flat out ignorance. He has the same stupid moments as everyone else. But he knows his government and his country. Can Palin say that honestly? No, she can see Russia from her house.
And accusing Obama of having a lack of info and needing a prompter is “a gas,” NANCY, because Sarah Palin couldn’t survive without a prompter. Which brings me to my next point. So many people are accusing Obama of not having enough experience to be a good leader. But is that even a valid argument; what about past bad leaders who’ve had experience and past good leaders who’ve had none? There are leaders of all kinds in this world who do good or ill—and so far I’ve not seen a trend between the quality of leadership and the amount of “experience” that leader has had. To me, leadership is a skill. A person is either good at it or is not. Some get it through practice, others through natural talent. Obama has natural talent—he is a leader already, whether the Republicans want to acknowledge that or not. But Sarah Palin… let’s just say that politicians shouldn’t have to cram for the big test. Obama knows what he’s doing. Palin doesn’t. Obama may not have experience, but neither does Palin. Accusing him of the same thing she is guilty for is hypocritical. The difference between Republicans accusing Obama of inexperience and Democrats accusing Palin of the same thing is that the Democrats know that leadership is a skill and Palin doesn’t have it. That’s where Obama will succeed and Palin with fail.
Comment #4; Rob says: Could it be that the years you described as “fabulous economically from 1991 to 2000″ were truly not…they were laying foundations on sand…
My thoughts on Rob: You make a very good point. There is much speculation about the Clinton administration and his cronies in regard to Fannie May, Freddie Mac, etc. But even if that entire eight or so years was as you say, “laying a foundation of sand, there is still no doubt that those years were good economically. I believe that the fiscal problem America is experiencing right now is a combination of things. I won’t deny that the Clintons may have made some shady moves, but that is not the only thing that through our country into financial turmoil. There have been many MANY mistakes since that sealed the deal. Tyring to blame everything on Clinton is like trying to make ice in the microwave.
I’d like to thank NANCY and Rob for their contributions to my blog today. I’m always interested in reading opposing views. It’s great for reinforcing my own opinions. It was a valiant effort on both their parts, but I believe that my fear and loathing of Sarah Palin is still enough for me to vote Democratic this time around. But thanks. And I’d also like to thank good ‘ol Arthur Pavis for reminding me how childish the American people come across. I had a great laugh, and I hope that he does well in high school government. I also want to recommend that Pavis join a debate team. They could teach him a thing or two about rhetoric, polemics/argument, and how to avoid appearing utterly obtuse—just a suggestion.
I wish like-minded people would comment to my anti-Palin blogs once in a while. Not because I feel bombarded with opposition, but I would like to be reminded that there are other people out there who realize that Palin could likely send women’s rights back 200 years. I want to see the community of people out there who have hope. If anyone out there is as afraid of Palin as I am and would like to read the words of a woman far greater than I on the atrocity that is the Republican VP nominee, please check out this article: Eve Ensler on Sarah Palin. It is amazing and only better states what I’ve been trying to say on my blog for weeks. Thanks for reading.
Never lose hope. Vote for change. Let’s bury Palin’s views with her Jesus horses.
Economic Reform:You’re doing it wrong. (I’m talking to you, Palin)
I’ve been reading a lot about Wall Street in the news recently. Frankly, it’s had me a little worried, though I do not fully understand big business firms and banking as well as I should like. Anyway, I decided that the issues will be resolved by the experts, so I won’t fret about it too much. But then today in Golden, Colorado, Sarah Palin made a speech, which used the demise of Lehman and the buying of Merrill by Bank of America to solidify the Republican plans for economic reforms—which I find to be useless in the overall scheme of the American-Global Economy.
Sarah Palin stated in her speech this morning, “[M]anagement on Wall Street has not run [the banks] responsibly, and has put companies and markets at risk. They place their own interests first instead of their employees and the shareholders who actually own these companies. So John McCain and I—we’re going to put an end to the mismanagement and abuses in Washington and on Wall Street that have resulted in this financial crisis. … It’s so important that the United States gotta remain the strongest financial market in the world. It must be the market that the American people and investors everywhere can trust. … [Wall Street reform] is gonna be one of the highest priorities of our administration.”
Okay, well, it maybe true that there have been errors, mistakes, and wrongdoings in management of a few banks this last week, but let’s get one thing straight: The Democratic Party has always had a far greater grasp on the concept of economy than the Republicans. Sarah Palin’s vow that she and Johnny are going to reform Wall Street and fix our domestic market and improve the global economy is laughable and a little more frightening than the current decline in Wall Street this very moment. Do they even have the experience or knowhow in this area? Let’s look at what really has been happening to the American market, shall we?
The way I see it, the US was doing fabulous economically from 1991 to 2000. If memory serves me correctly, that was nearly the entire terms of President Clinton, who served America from 1993 to 2001. During this time, the US prospered with the longest economic growth in its history. But as soon as the Republicans (George W. Bush) took the White House in 2001 and the US suffered terrorist attacks on Sept. 11th of that year, the economy went into a recession and only became worse over time. It’s true that the US economy began to recuperate in 2002 thanks to increased productivity and household spending, but the tight labor markets, the drag in household markets and the astronomical mortgage problems cannot be ignored as being key in the falling economy today. Overall consumption is affected by the housing and mortgage slump, and without household spending, general US cash flow begins to look like a heart stopped up with grossly high cholesterol. Basically, all the money is stockpiling with the rich, while the middle class vanishes and the lower impoverished class grows at alarming rates. This means US consumption in general is weakening exponentially and a solution could be difficult to find if not employ.
So what does this all mean? It means that bank management is a mere micro-fraction of the problem. It doesn’t even amount to the tip of the iceberg—it’s practically an eyesore on the economy, if that. What we need is economic reform, not simple management reform on Wall Street. The problem is not so high up. We need to start from the bottom, and work our way up. That’s what Obama has been saying for weeks.
In addition to everything else, rising oil and commodity prices can increase the risk of inflation more than we are already experiencing. I’m guessing that most people feel the crunch everyday when they fuel up to drive to the job that might not exist for them tomorrow, or try to buy the groceries for the week’s dinners for a family of four. True, the Federal Reserve is holding back on well-anchored inflation expectations, thanks to the many different scenarios predicting the next great depression and crumbled economy, though I’m not sure if that makes me feel fiscally protected or not. We shouldn’t only prepare for the worst; we should constantly be working for the better. No more economic stagnation! Let’s move for real change and positive reform.
While recent fiscal performance is anything but favorable over the last eight years, the key challenge may still yet to have been recognized, so our politicians really shouldn’t be pussyfooting around with Lehman, Merrill and A.I.G. True, those firms have made an excellent example for the McCain/Palin points of view, but they still pale in comparison to the overall crisis our country is facing. Reforming unsustainable entitlement programs could be the answer for a little while, but how does that help the millions of people who make up the lower class? Sure, without the reforms Palin talked about the federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will increase sharply over coming years, and threaten the long-run of fiscal maintainability, but without a solid middle class, those beneficial programs wouldn’t be accessible to anyone other than the wealthy anyway.
Again, I’m not “technically” a Democrat, because I refuse to blindly follow a political party, but I believe that what Obama is looking at when it comes to our economy is far better than anything McCain and Palin have suggested to fix our nation’s problems. Start from the bottom up. Don’t rely on the trickle-down effect to solve anything. The time is now, we cannot stagnate—and that is exactly how the McCain administration will try to run things. They will fix a small problem at the top, and hope that the trickle-down affect will do the work for him. Well that’s not good enough! We can do better. YES WE CAN.
Oh, and one more thing… I just felt the need to point out that Sarah Palin seriously does not know how to make a real speech. She always makes her addresses in public scream “hockey mom on a soap box” more than political candidate, if you ask me. Point in case: in her speech I just discussed today, she said:
“So glad to be with you here in Jefferson County [Golden, Colorado]—which is the beautiful gateway to the Rocky Mountains—it’s gorgeous here! Kind of selfish here, also; it’s great to be in the state that Denver Bronco Chris Cooper and the Avalanche’s Scott Parker [incomprehensible mumbling]. Both Chris and Scott are from Alaska and they got a lot of fans up there. And, you know, Scott was part of the Avalanche team that brought home the Stanley Cup. Another son of Alaska, Mark Schlereth—he helped the Broncos win the Super Bowl in ’98 and ’99! See we got that connection. And Alaskans—we like winning! And with Colorado’s help, we’re going to keep that streak going, it’s why we’re here—with your help, we’re going to elect John McCain the next President of the United States of America.”
Let’s break this down a little—translate it—if you will.
“I’m glad to be in a state almost as beautiful as my own. It’s gorgeous here! I’m selfish, I know. And it’s also very gratifying to me that some of your top athletes are actually Alaskans in Coloradan disguises. You know, Scott Parker, Chris Cooper, and Mark Schlereth are not really fighting for your state, they’re fighting for mine. And you know what, it’s okay, because we don’t have professional teams in Alaska. We just whore them out to the lower 48’s teams. That’s the only reason your Coloradan teams won at all—because of Alaskan talent. You know, that’s also why I’m running for Vice President, because John’s team wouldn’t stand a chance without a real winner. He’d lose the game and bring shame to the Republican team. But the Republicans know what winning is about, and that’s why they drafted me—an Alaskan—someone who knows about winning and will bring McCain all the way to victory. And that’s how we’ll win the war in Iraq, too! I sent my son over there just four days ago. My son is also an Alaskan, and he will crush the Iraqi team and bring the American team to victory just like his mom will for the Republics and how Scott, Chris, and Mark did for their respective Coloradan teams. We don’t just play they game—we own it—breath it—win it—always. Vote McCain!”
Yes, that woman has been hanging out with too many cheerleaders and listened to too many half-time speeches in the locker rooms. The Presidency is not a sporting event, although every time I listen to her talk, I wonder where the popcorn venders are… No, Sarah Palin is turning the election into the Stanley Cup or the Super Bowl. This is not what politics is about. The war is not played on short clipped grass or ice with distinctive goal lines. Hell, we don’t even know who is playing for whose team in War! Whatever she’s trying to accomplish with the whole “team captain” routine is pretty much lost on me. But, hey, maybe I’m just not as sports-minded as I thought I was. Why don’t you be the judge of her speech? You can view it RIGHT HERE.
Amended ex post facto:
Gawd it felt good to get all that out of my system. I’ve been wanting to be more humerus in my writing and blogging recently, but all I seem capable of doing lately is criticise Palin and the McCain ticket for their obvious shortcomings in the race for the Presidency. It’s just so easy! Anyway I hope you enjoyed today’s read and found this post to make up for my last two cop-outs. Cheers and good luck, Americans.
P.S.
Have I every mentioned on here that if McCain dyed his hair green and wore purple face paint, his head would look like an eggplant? Just thought I’d throw that observation out there. (Hey, at least his head would match what I predict his presidency to be if he makes it in to office– vegetative.)
Hippies aren’t supposed to be Republican, are they?
Not that I’m buying into stereotypes, or suggesting others do it, but it’s been a common naming practice of the tree-hugging liberals to give their children names such as “Strawberry,” “Starbuck,” “Apple,” “Moses,” and “Rain Beau.” And as far as I can tell, the children of Republican-minded parents more often than not sport more conservative names such as “David,” “Matthew,” and “John.” So what happened with Palin? Her children’s names are Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig Paxson Van Palin. You won’t even believe how the Palin’s chose these names, but I assure you, the source of these names are not embellished.
Let’s start with the eldest, Track: Named for the Alaskan migrating salmon. It’s better than being named for spawning Salmon, I suppose…
Next is Bristol: Named for the Bristol Bay. I’d hate my family if they named me after a fat body of water…
Willow: Named for the Alaskan state bird, the willow ptarmigan, which looks like a pigeon, is likened to a skinny chicken, but in fact is nothing but a grouse.
Piper: (this is too easy) was named for the family’s small plane. Which means if she’s not careful, she may find herself listed on ebay. If she is, I hope she has the same luck as the Governor’s private jet, for her sake. Of course she might be better off sold to someone with a soul.
Trig: probably the best name out of the bunch, for its meaning is Norse for “brave victory.” Of course, I believe the original spelling of the Norse word was with a “y” not an “i”. Anyway, in my humble opinion, naming a child with Down-syndrome her “brave victory” suggests that little Trig is nothing more than an object of pride and accomplishment to Governor Palin, rather than an individual. That makes a marvelous statement to other American mothers of down-syndrome children, now, doesn’t it?
So yeah, I find the names of Palin’s children very “hippy”-ish. If that’s even a word. I really didn’t think that a woman of Republican philosophies would ever give her children such names, but hey. You learn something new every day. Perhaps hippies in Alaska are more often than not Republican…
In other news on Palin, apparently her rimless glasses are being called a “style phenomenon” by a BBC writer. My former roommate and I had to giggle about this, because those glasses had been considered high style in Japan (the origin country of her exact frames) for at least five to ten years. So the fact that anyone would call Palin a trend-setter for wearing a Japanese style that is anything but uncommon in Asia is laughable.
Let’s see, what other things about Palin can I mock? Oh, I know! She calls herself a “Wal-Mart mom.” I shouldn’t even have to say anything about that. It speaks for itself. But I will say this, for years my friends and I have joked about going to Wal-Mart purely to feel beautiful. You know how it works. Just walk through the doors, and instantly you realize, “Oh my gawd! I’m the most gorgeous woman in here!”
I’ll be sorry for making that comment later, I’m sure. But I’m not done yet, so I’ll worry over the consequence later! Besides, I haven’t made an update on Palin’s religious standing. Here’s the skinny: baptized a Catholic raised a Pentecostal believer and now attends Wasilla Bible Church, a non-denominational evangelical church. According to the Associated Press reports, Palin’s current church is endorsing a conference that vows to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer and devotion to Jesus! I wish the church would use those powerful prayers to convert republicans into homosexuals. Just to mix things up a bit.
But of course, a person’s church does not always say much about the person proper. After all, Obama’s former church was not exactly the best example of Obama as a man, and so I won’t hold Palin purely accountable for her faith. I will, however, hold her accountable for her political choices. Such as when Palin had backed legislation to encourage the aerial hunting of wolves. Apparently it was for “predator control.” Plus, she opposed the US government’s listing of polar bear and the beluga whale as endangered. And I have to agree with her; she’s absolutely right. There are so many polar bears and beluga whales in this world, I think we should legalize the aerial hunting of them, just to keep their numbers under wraps.
Image photoshopped… Message authentic.
Anyway, I think I’ll wrap today’s blog up with this last Pièce de résistance: Democratic Presidential Nominee, Senator Obama, was favored by a 4-1 margin across the 22,500 people polled in 22 countries. What does that mean? It means the world votes Obama, bitch!
NEW ON THE MENU: Jenai on a Palin Roll.
So I guess she grew up in an Pentecostal church where members suffered from the holy spirit coming on to them, causing severe mandibular tremors which only the Pentecostal Lord Almighty can decipher into intelligible communication. Apparently the church does not recall Palin ever suffering from an overdose of heaven’s carbon monoxide and jabber jaw, but I’m sure we will all get the chance to witness a true miracle now that she’s on a campaign trail.
MTV VMAs and their critics…
So about a million (I embellish) angry Republicans were flame-clogging the message boards on MTV’s website during and after the 2008 VMAs. Thanks to United Kingdom’s comedian Russell Brand’s comments about President Bush, Palin, Palin’s pregnant teen daughter, Palin’s pregnant teen daughter’s unfortunate fiance, the Jonas Brothers’ chastity, and other opinionated comments regarding Americans and our modern media icons, angry men and (mostly) women bombarded MTV with disapproval for picking Brand to host the 25th anniversary of the video music awards. Now that you’re up-to-date (as if the news hadn’t reached you prior to reading my blog) I will now share some of those comments with you, and give my responses to each I deem worthy enough to talk about here.
My favorite comment: “Go back to where u came from Russel, or at least learn how to speak english! and get a better host next time MTV!” Do I even need to give my 2 cents on this one, or is the fact that Russell is more English than she is not as obvious as I thought?
Okay, next we have, “I am a mother of two children who happens to love the Jonas Brothers. I have watched the VMA’s for almost the entire 25 years. I grew up with MTV ! All focused on was sex . Publicity stunt or not,it is no ones business what their choices are about having sex or not. [...] And I feel so disappointed [...].” I think this person might have forgot what all the past 24 VMAs were like. They are all tasteless to some degree. That’s show business. I think it’s interesting how past problematic issues are ignored the moment a current problematic issue pisses someone off.
Here’s another, “How can this be called “the genius of russell brand”? The ‘man’ comes on American television and makes a mockery of our country. It surprises me how people call this comedy. That goes to show you what this country is coming to, when we’re allowing somebody from the united kingdom to come over and call our president a “retarded cowboy” and have a crowd of Americans laugh at it. Whether you like President Bush or not, have some respect and pride as an American. This guy has no right to preach to us on who to vote for. Just when you think MTV couldn’t get worse, they put this sad excuse for comedy to host the VMA’s. [...] Are there such thing as values anymore?” I didn’t think Brand was mocking our country at all. I felt that his humor was perhaps too British for the uber conservative American mindsets, but other than that, his jokes did not scream insulting to me as an American. I felt his political jokes could be found in any American’s personal blog (i.e. like mine) and his sexual jokes were no worse than the overt sexually charged videos the show was awarding. Hell, Britney Spears won video of the year award for a song sporting the lyrics:
“I’m Miss American Dream since I was 17
Don’t matter if I step on the scene
Or sneak away to the Philippines
They’re still gonna put pictures of my derriere in the magazine
You want a piece of me?“
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but does that not glorify her promiscuity and sound proud to have lived through the embarrassment? Why is it so wrong for a British guy to poke fun at the chastity of the American Jonas Brothers, especially when it’s no worse than the American music videos we Americans are glorifying at that very award ceremony?
Anyway, here’s the last one, “I am SO disgusted with MTV. I only signed up to write how disturbed I am at that terrible Russell Brand. He has no right to say what he did at the awards show. It was so terrible, and I am very offended. I will not be watching mtv anymore, its disgusting how they allow some immoral person from another country lecture us on who to vote for and completely bash people who happen to have morals. This show was horrible and i am so disappointed that a channel aimed at young people would sink so low.” First, MTV was never aimed at “young people” in the sense of “children.” It was aimed at “young adults.” Adults generally should be mature enough to handle it. But as I can see from the message board filled with angry adults, obviously our country is not maturing properly. I think that the adults posting on the message board need to lighten up and maybe not expose their children to MTV until everyone is mature enough to handle it.
Most of the people on those message boards were trying to condemn Brand for being a foreigner with an opinion. If he were American, their would not be half the amount of hate filling MTV’s forums. It also seems like there were many Jonas Brothers fans’ moms writing about how inappropriate the host choice was for the show. As if the VMAs were meant to be wholesome.
Fact one: Russell Brand is a comedian. His jokes are to be taken in jest, and from a mature audience. MTV and the Disney Channel have never catered to the same demographic. Just because many of the music talent on MTV started at Disney does not make the two channels equal, and parents need to be aware of that.
Fact two: Freedom of Speech does not only apply to citizens. If Americans can have opinions of Brand, then Brand can have opinions of Americans. If Americans do not like it, that’s fine. They can move to a less free country where opinions are muted and taken away from everyone.
Fact three: Forum arguments never end. They go on until the flamers give up, loose interest, fall asleep, or get disconnected by poor connections. Wasting energy on them is folly, if you ask me. It’s why I blog about my opinions, rather that engage in a battle of bitch with heavily armed persons.
Anyway, I guess the main point I’m trying to make is that MTV will never become a family channel. It never was and never will be; so all this Russell Brand hype is a waste of anger. People will vote how they want, regardless of a foreigner’s suggestion. There will always be idealists hoping that someday the music industry will be as squeaky-clean as the Jonas Brothers, but the likelihood of that is probably less than one percent. Just wanted to get my opinion out of the way. And in the spirit of defending Mr. Brand, I want to give credit to some people who were not retarded with hatred.
Here’s one, “Okay kids, lets calm down a little bit. I think theres some SLIGHT overreaction going on out there. And a LOT of HATING on Russell. I’d like to first point out that those of you calling Russell “ignorant” simply because he obviously disagrees with your viewpoints makes you look just as ignorant. ALSO, you need to remember a few things about Russell. He’s very in-your-face. That’s his persona. He’s known in the UK for being very.. um… lets just say.. gregarious. To him, the Jonas brothers and their promise rings was FUNNY. Russell Brand isn’t the first and he will certainly not be the last comedian to make fun of virgins. Remember, he’s a COMEDIAN. And as for his political beliefs, yeah he can’t vote in America, but our elections greatly impact the world. ALSO, this is an MTV PROGRAM. [...] They talked about it being scandalous from the start. It’s catered toward the young, hip demographic and it just so happens that a lot of the young, hip demographic as well as the majority of the artists at the ceremony have Democratic leanings. Lighten up you guys. Give peace a chance.”
And to second that opinion, here’s a little more support, “As a Brit I’m interested to see all your comments about Russell Brand, he’s averagely well-known in the UK but to be fair he’s not one of our most loved comedians, and it was a surprise to see him on your VMAs! I think most Brits wouldn’t be surprised at a lot of American’s reactions to his humour – I know America can be quite restrictive when it comes to risky humour and the English sarcasm can be a bit too much for some. I’ve just come back from being in the US for a month and it’s great to see that the US is so welcoming to new British talent. Great to see many did get Russell though – honestly the things he says are truly tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be offensive! No more offensive than Family Guy anyway.. Looking forward to seeing the show when it airs in the UK.” Positive, honest, and collected. He could have flipped out at everyone on the boards for their comments, but he didn’t. He was very diplomatic. At least some people were!
Anyway, like I said, just had to get that off my chest and out of my system before all the really scary articles come out. Cheers.
