...Why I Sometimes Hate Artists...and People in General

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/arts/design/06wate.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th

Our Government's Unconstitutional Secrecy

Here's an editorial from the New York Times: let's hope the bill passes, but I'm a bit skeptical...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18fri1.html?th&emc=th

Randi Rhodes got Dismissed from Air America for THIS?!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DfdhWi5MILo

Why? This is what she does...she's done it for years, and it's why we enjoy her so much.

...must have been written by a woman...typical

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120674839234873285.html?mod=home_we_banner_left
The article from the Wall Street Journal is called "At the Barricades in the Gender Wars, and it is by Jonathan Kaufman and Carol Hymowitz, March 29, 2008, Page A1 ___________________________________________________

There are a few issues at hand here. One, this story should not have been labeled as a political story about Hillary Clinton. This was a story about women's equality in the workforce. That would be a good story. Two, it is not a gender issue when people don't like a female candidate, or even when they call her derogatory names. People refer to every presidential candidate or famous person, in general, in derogatory terms. If you, we, want to be treated equally, we can't cry sexism every time someone hurts our feelings!

This story in the Wall Street Journal mentions a Facebook page that's called, "Hillary Clinton Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich." I wasn't offended; I thought that was funny. People need to lighten up: it's a joke.

In another part of the story, Dr. Jill Fiore who teaches at a college in Pennsylvania is quoted as saying, "The sexism aimed at Hillary is astounding me. We want to let our daughters know that we can be anything. It's a lie. If even Hillary Clinton can't make it, what chance do we have?"

Are you kidding? What kind of a defeatist attitude is that? I'm glad she's not my mom. When people say things like that (not just gender issues about Clinton, bus race issues about Obama, or maybe even age issues about McCain) they are enforcing the exact prejudices they're trying to fight against. If you think that ONE woman or ONE man is going to make or break your chances of achieving something, you're setting yourself up for failure. Why would one assume that Clinton was our only chance of a female president? I find it sexist to consider voting for someone just because of her gender, or racist to vote because of his race, or ageist to vote because he's been around since the dawn of time.

Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy Experience Put in Check

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_adventures_abroad.html

FactCheck.org looked into Hillary Clinton's commonly-made assertions that she has foreign policy experience that Barack Obama does not. It is true that she has more; however, her claims are exaggerated.

(I should note that in an effort to be unbiased, I will also post information about Barack Obama and John McCain not living up to their claims. I would like to become more informed about each of the candidates' records. I will share the wealth.)

Millions of White House Emails Suspiciously Missing

The National Archives has been warning the administration for about 4 years because these communications are protected by federal law, but this administration just has absolutely no respect for anything other than itself...constitutionality---pshaw. Federal law---yeah right, whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/opinion/01sat3.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Are the people ready for a president who is intelligent?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Never mind the people who say, 'is America ready for a black president?' or 'is America ready for a female president?'--I'm beginning to think that the people are not ready for a president who acts in an intelligent manner. People complained for about 6 years about Bush's lack of intelligence, inability to speak well, and condescending attitude. Now that we have the possibility to fix those things with the next president, people are changing their tunes. Deep down, maybe people want a president that they can insult, rather than one that actually expects something of us. Someone who challenges people's thinking can be threatening. Perhaps we'd feel safer with the same old story in politics--not much change, not much challenge, etc. That's what we would get with the other two candidates--some minor changes, but nothing major. That feels comfortable to many people.

In this article, William Kristol complains about Barack not wearing a flag lapel pin (I'm so sick of people caring about others' fashion statements, which is really all that is anyway.) I agree with Barack that the important thing isn't what you wear, but what you do. Then, when he attempts to explain his decision, Kristol criticizes him for that. He then states that in nearly every empirical respect, we're doing better than we were 25 years ago, but he does not explain how we're doing better...I'm not so sure that that's the case. Kristol is being purposefully obtuse, and as a result, I think he sounds about as wise as President Bush.

This op-ed piece is the type of thinking that worries me.

Study about the Uninsured and Cancer

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/health/18cancer.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203364134-HI54IczizzX7a8aSY3hF3Q

and here I thought high school was over...

"Obama Says It Was a Turn, Not a Snub"
I thought I was the only one who obsessed over dumb stuff like this

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/obama-says-it-was-a-turn-not-a-snub/index.html?nl=pol&emc=pol

Writers

The presidential speechwriters should go on strike. This is not because I know of any particular injustice they're suffering or anything, but although I feel bad that the writers for Conan and Leno and Letterman, etc are not getting what they deserve, it's making me actually want to watch the shows again. It was embarrassingly late that I realized these people even HAD writers; I was naive enough to think that they wrote it all themselves. Duh. But I find them much funnier when they are left to their own devices. The same is true for presidential candidates; it took me a long time to realize THEY didn't write their own speeches. I think they should; then we'd have a much better idea of what we were actually going to get. Also, IF anyone reads this, does anyone know a good resource for getting past all the dumbing-down and b.s. of the candidates' speeches and finding details of HOW the candidates are going to do all the stuff they're talking about doing? Is it naive to think there is such a place?

E.P.A. denies waiver to California: why?

This denial is asinine: why, if you were really an organization put in place to protect the environment, would you deny a state's efforts to protect the environment?! Their explanation is so typical of the government...'no, really, we have this great plan...you'll see...just as soon as we put it into effect...you just watch! Meanwhile, just don't make us look bad with your forward-thinking, common-sense approach.' At least California is fighting back...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/03suit.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

If they're trying to convince us that their food is NOT terrible...this is not helping

"How to Make a Perfect Casserole: Just Add Badger" (from The Guardian)
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2233976,00.html