Friday, April 01, 2005
Why I have learned to hate liberals and their policies
It's still April 1st in the Central Time Zone........ so you know what this post title means!! Seriously though, liberals suck.
Tonight I was all eager to try oxtail (the tail of a cow) at this Columbian restaurant but it was their weekend special and they were all out! I was suspicious that would be the case, because I don't think cow's tails are that big and like if they bought a bunch of cows for their restaurant they could get like dozens of cheesburgers and only one tail. Anyway I did have a nice meal, which included a ribeye steak in this tomatoey sauce, yucca, potatoes, rice, and a plaintain. And it was a BYOB restaurant which I have never dealt with before. Someone brought some beer though, Corona, but I thought you have to stick limes in them or else it tastes bad. Tasted all right, though. A very starchy heavy meal, I'm suprised I can still sit up.
Anyway, I would like to direct your attention to my Flickr photo page. I can share random neat photos with you there without adding pesky attachments. Here you go. I will add it to my left column if I feel like it.
Uh, Good Shabbas I guess.
Tonight I was all eager to try oxtail (the tail of a cow) at this Columbian restaurant but it was their weekend special and they were all out! I was suspicious that would be the case, because I don't think cow's tails are that big and like if they bought a bunch of cows for their restaurant they could get like dozens of cheesburgers and only one tail. Anyway I did have a nice meal, which included a ribeye steak in this tomatoey sauce, yucca, potatoes, rice, and a plaintain. And it was a BYOB restaurant which I have never dealt with before. Someone brought some beer though, Corona, but I thought you have to stick limes in them or else it tastes bad. Tasted all right, though. A very starchy heavy meal, I'm suprised I can still sit up.
Anyway, I would like to direct your attention to my Flickr photo page. I can share random neat photos with you there without adding pesky attachments. Here you go. I will add it to my left column if I feel like it.
Uh, Good Shabbas I guess.
Monday, March 28, 2005
More questions for Chris Lyon
I wanted to practice my Web searching skills for more substantive blogging, so I decided to search for 3 key pieces of evidence I had come across earlier that convinces me to not completely respect the Powerline blog that Lyon likes to reference. I could only find 2 out of 3.
Exhibit A: Powerline's John Hinderaker responds to a political debate opponent in a very intellectural way fitting of someone with a law degree
Exhibit B: A lovely video clip with John Hinderaker saying liberals don't care about terrorism, don't care about 9-11, the Democrats have betrayed America, and what liberals are saying impedes the war on terrorism And I'm not paraphrasing. Take a look at it (4.1mb)
Exhibit C: I couldn't find this link but it's just another characterization. When Powerline's Hinderaker was asked by Time or Newsweek to define the media event of the year for an article, he nominated himself and his Powerline boys for bringing down Dan Rather. A little patting on your back is OK, but this article did not call for such blatant ego-stroking. Demonstrates overwhelming arrogance and self-aggrandizing.
So, Lyon, is Powerline an important influence on your views, or an extreme one that you only look at for news and commentary occasionally? Do you want to respond to my political arguments with a "Fuck-you Shithead?". Do you think by me being a liberal and supporting politicians that share my views, that I am increasing the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Where do you stand? I know I have to be careful to not be too biased or uninformed by the news and opinion filter I get from liberal blogs. What about you?
Exhibit A: Powerline's John Hinderaker responds to a political debate opponent in a very intellectural way fitting of someone with a law degree
Exhibit B: A lovely video clip with John Hinderaker saying liberals don't care about terrorism, don't care about 9-11, the Democrats have betrayed America, and what liberals are saying impedes the war on terrorism And I'm not paraphrasing. Take a look at it (4.1mb)
Exhibit C: I couldn't find this link but it's just another characterization. When Powerline's Hinderaker was asked by Time or Newsweek to define the media event of the year for an article, he nominated himself and his Powerline boys for bringing down Dan Rather. A little patting on your back is OK, but this article did not call for such blatant ego-stroking. Demonstrates overwhelming arrogance and self-aggrandizing.
So, Lyon, is Powerline an important influence on your views, or an extreme one that you only look at for news and commentary occasionally? Do you want to respond to my political arguments with a "Fuck-you Shithead?". Do you think by me being a liberal and supporting politicians that share my views, that I am increasing the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Where do you stand? I know I have to be careful to not be too biased or uninformed by the news and opinion filter I get from liberal blogs. What about you?
Next question...
Sorry Laura and Amy, I don't have the time to back you both up completely. I'm sure Chris will give me a lot to work with myself. I eagerly anticipate your response to my post, Chris. Don't let me get all high and mighty about how I was 100% right by your silence.
From Chris' comments to my original response to his reaction to my Terri Schiavo post:
The question I have asked, which has yet to be answered is this: Why does Michael Schiavo feel so strongly about this now, and not fifteen years before?,
I do not know what right-wing media outlets you are listening to whose main line of discourse in this civilized debate is to demonize Michael Shiavo in any way possible, but I would like to answer your question you want so much answered, which I hinted to at a degree on my original response.
Michael Schiavo did not feel strongly about this 15 years ago because Terri Schiavo's heart attack had just occurred. He then waited 7 years caring for her at her bedside hoping for some kind of recovery. A right-wing talking point is that he's a bad man because a restraining order was filed against him during this time, but that was because he was making strong and repeated passionate demands that her hair was combed right, etc... that she looked as beautiful as possible. If you think it is legitimate to bring this private issue into the realm of political debate, you better understand the humanity of everyone involved, and we can speculate based on our own personal values about what the parties are thinking. If you are so upset at Amy bringing her thoughts about trusting husbands in a different way than parents into this discussion, than you can stop throwing about phrases like Michael's 'selective adamancy' or 'selective responsibility' with no base? Michael Schiavo was waiting 7 whole years for her to get better. I knew about this Shiavo issue for a while, and I believe the real legal fireworks over her right-to-die began in 2000. This isn't an all of sudden strong feeling he has. This was an evolution of acceptance to Terri's condition that her parents have not adopted. I hope your awareness of this controversy did not emerge with the Republicans last-ditch legislative tactics, because if Michael Schiavo can be criticized for feeling strongly about Terri's right-to-die now, than you should be tearing your hair out that Delay and Frist have decided to weigh in on their deep thoughts and completely appropriate opinions over this personal matter.
Now there are some issues I'm following involving money from lawsuits and conflicts between Mr. Shiavo and the Schindlers over that, and I can't understand the complexities of this all, but I cannot make the cynical leap to believe that one of the parties involved is fanning this controversy for the primary purpose of money, so I would not like that to be brought into the discussion. Have you followed the news long enough to know that Michael Shiavo was offered a million or so dollars to cede guardianship rights, and he refused? I don't think money is an issue at all.
I do know that Terri Schiavo had a severe problem with bullemia, which primarily deals with severe issues of bad body image. I cannot be on the couch in the late 1980s with Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo to hear their discussions, but just maybe, do you think, them both knowing her condition, they might have had some discussions about severe health consequences of her ailment, and these discussions had an intimacy that did not exist between Terri and her parents? Do you also think, that if there is any essence of Terri left, the thing she would most want is not to be forced to live as an involuntarily moving vegetable, with no control over any of her bodily functions (including the gross ones). And if Terri and Michael had never had a discussion about what would happen if she was in a persistent vegetative state, don't you think that Michael Schiavo who was likely to personally know more than anyone in the world about Terri's condition, her fears and her wishes? Would keeping a bullemic alive to where she appears in the most unnattractive way possible, both physically and mentally, really the proper course of action?
I mean what are you arguing about here? Are we not allowed to take this personally or analyze this from a personal level?
So you can address this seperately or incorporate it into your response. This is one of the most repulsive issues for Republicans to fan the flames of and it would be really sorry if you found some twisted logic to justify it. But I await your post. I just wanted to point out what I know about the case, and hopefully my perspective helps answer your question.
From Chris' comments to my original response to his reaction to my Terri Schiavo post:
The question I have asked, which has yet to be answered is this: Why does Michael Schiavo feel so strongly about this now, and not fifteen years before?,
I do not know what right-wing media outlets you are listening to whose main line of discourse in this civilized debate is to demonize Michael Shiavo in any way possible, but I would like to answer your question you want so much answered, which I hinted to at a degree on my original response.
Michael Schiavo did not feel strongly about this 15 years ago because Terri Schiavo's heart attack had just occurred. He then waited 7 years caring for her at her bedside hoping for some kind of recovery. A right-wing talking point is that he's a bad man because a restraining order was filed against him during this time, but that was because he was making strong and repeated passionate demands that her hair was combed right, etc... that she looked as beautiful as possible. If you think it is legitimate to bring this private issue into the realm of political debate, you better understand the humanity of everyone involved, and we can speculate based on our own personal values about what the parties are thinking. If you are so upset at Amy bringing her thoughts about trusting husbands in a different way than parents into this discussion, than you can stop throwing about phrases like Michael's 'selective adamancy' or 'selective responsibility' with no base? Michael Schiavo was waiting 7 whole years for her to get better. I knew about this Shiavo issue for a while, and I believe the real legal fireworks over her right-to-die began in 2000. This isn't an all of sudden strong feeling he has. This was an evolution of acceptance to Terri's condition that her parents have not adopted. I hope your awareness of this controversy did not emerge with the Republicans last-ditch legislative tactics, because if Michael Schiavo can be criticized for feeling strongly about Terri's right-to-die now, than you should be tearing your hair out that Delay and Frist have decided to weigh in on their deep thoughts and completely appropriate opinions over this personal matter.
Now there are some issues I'm following involving money from lawsuits and conflicts between Mr. Shiavo and the Schindlers over that, and I can't understand the complexities of this all, but I cannot make the cynical leap to believe that one of the parties involved is fanning this controversy for the primary purpose of money, so I would not like that to be brought into the discussion. Have you followed the news long enough to know that Michael Shiavo was offered a million or so dollars to cede guardianship rights, and he refused? I don't think money is an issue at all.
I do know that Terri Schiavo had a severe problem with bullemia, which primarily deals with severe issues of bad body image. I cannot be on the couch in the late 1980s with Mr. and Mrs. Schiavo to hear their discussions, but just maybe, do you think, them both knowing her condition, they might have had some discussions about severe health consequences of her ailment, and these discussions had an intimacy that did not exist between Terri and her parents? Do you also think, that if there is any essence of Terri left, the thing she would most want is not to be forced to live as an involuntarily moving vegetable, with no control over any of her bodily functions (including the gross ones). And if Terri and Michael had never had a discussion about what would happen if she was in a persistent vegetative state, don't you think that Michael Schiavo who was likely to personally know more than anyone in the world about Terri's condition, her fears and her wishes? Would keeping a bullemic alive to where she appears in the most unnattractive way possible, both physically and mentally, really the proper course of action?
I mean what are you arguing about here? Are we not allowed to take this personally or analyze this from a personal level?
So you can address this seperately or incorporate it into your response. This is one of the most repulsive issues for Republicans to fan the flames of and it would be really sorry if you found some twisted logic to justify it. But I await your post. I just wanted to point out what I know about the case, and hopefully my perspective helps answer your question.
