On the subject of videos. These are from a person/group named CamPain2008. You may have seen these already. But if not, enjoy.
The first one is funny, but it burns my eyes:
This has an Obama-Bollywood theme. I love Bollywood style music, so this one was cool:
And this one from the archives on Rudy Giuliani. Awesome.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
I'm F**ing Ben Affleck
After my big self-righteous post (in what my father would have called "your usual high dudgeon") about being a fantastic adult and a fully-realized human and a mother beyond reproach, I now post the following links to two recent videos that make me laugh hysterically every time I watch them. I guiltily admitted to my girl C that I like them, and she god bless her, said that she and the mr. sing it randomly around the house.
Some of you will find these offensive. Those of you potentially my age who love those Massholes Damon and Affleck (or Sarah Silverman and Jimmy Kimmel) will find these very funny. The Affleck response comes around 1:40 on the second video.
Some of you will find these offensive. Those of you potentially my age who love those Massholes Damon and Affleck (or Sarah Silverman and Jimmy Kimmel) will find these very funny. The Affleck response comes around 1:40 on the second video.
White Ministers Can't Hate
A great piece over at Salon on the double standard involving, shall we say, controversial men of the cloth. The summary: Obama has to "reject and denounce" Farrakan, a man he has never met. Yet Bush, McCain and Giuliani, stand on the same stage and hug Hagee, Robertson, et. al, and yet never receive the Russert grilling. Greenwald, the author, offers a few statements by these eminent theologians that are just as troubling as those of Farrakhan, e.g., gays caused Katrina, Muslims are programmed to kill, etc.
Why no rejecting and denouncing on the Right?
salon.com/
Why no rejecting and denouncing on the Right?
salon.com/
Let's Hear it For The Hague
Okay, it's time for a mini-rant. As many of you may know, there are new Hague Conventions regarding adoption, which I support. They help to ensure safety and transparency for both the children placed for adoption and for the waiting families. I get that and I support that. The new conventions are the reason that the adoption programs of some countries have been suspended pending compliance. Anything that ensures the safety and well-being of the kids is something I'm all for.
But here's where I get all NIMBY about it. We now have to take Parenting courses in order to qualify. We have to pay for and take classes on parenting, with a set number of credit hours that must be verified by the course provider, before we will be allowed to travel to get our daughter. I think I'd be lying if I said that this didn't irritate the f*** out of me. Why? Because, after all the paperwork, all the financial statements, all the doctors letters of appropriate health, all the completely invasive and unbelievably detailed information we have already provided--happily I might add-- including lengthy essays on our parenting philosophy, what skills we feel we have that qualify us to be parents, detailed screeds on previous experience with children (duh. Does having a 3.9 year old count!?), we still have to take classes to prove we're "qualified" enough to be parents.
I get it in theory, that there is no harm in knowing as much as you can. I get that and really do agree with it. And obviously I'm going to get over my pique, take the classes, do the damn credit hours, pay the damn fees and think it was all no big deal the second I'm holding my daughter. I get that. I think I'm just chafing under the notion that somehow I'm not a good mother unless I have the Certificate of Course Completion to verify it to someone else's satisfaction. That somehow an adoptive parent needs classes where a biological parent doesn't. Why not mandate parenting classes for every woman who walks into an OB's office? Because most people would balk, that's why. Especially if they already have children they are currently parenting.
Blah blah. I get it, I get the theory behind it, I get it. But it annoys me. I guess I want them to magically recognize that anyone who spends this much time and energy "applying" for the gift of parenthood is probably, you know, somewhat committed to being a stellar parent. But if it's hoops they want jumped, it is hoops they shall get. All I'm saying is that if one more person says, "Oh, so you were an 'instant mother'!" I might have to whip out my transcript to show how so very not instant this all is.
But here's where I get all NIMBY about it. We now have to take Parenting courses in order to qualify. We have to pay for and take classes on parenting, with a set number of credit hours that must be verified by the course provider, before we will be allowed to travel to get our daughter. I think I'd be lying if I said that this didn't irritate the f*** out of me. Why? Because, after all the paperwork, all the financial statements, all the doctors letters of appropriate health, all the completely invasive and unbelievably detailed information we have already provided--happily I might add-- including lengthy essays on our parenting philosophy, what skills we feel we have that qualify us to be parents, detailed screeds on previous experience with children (duh. Does having a 3.9 year old count!?), we still have to take classes to prove we're "qualified" enough to be parents.
I get it in theory, that there is no harm in knowing as much as you can. I get that and really do agree with it. And obviously I'm going to get over my pique, take the classes, do the damn credit hours, pay the damn fees and think it was all no big deal the second I'm holding my daughter. I get that. I think I'm just chafing under the notion that somehow I'm not a good mother unless I have the Certificate of Course Completion to verify it to someone else's satisfaction. That somehow an adoptive parent needs classes where a biological parent doesn't. Why not mandate parenting classes for every woman who walks into an OB's office? Because most people would balk, that's why. Especially if they already have children they are currently parenting.
Blah blah. I get it, I get the theory behind it, I get it. But it annoys me. I guess I want them to magically recognize that anyone who spends this much time and energy "applying" for the gift of parenthood is probably, you know, somewhat committed to being a stellar parent. But if it's hoops they want jumped, it is hoops they shall get. All I'm saying is that if one more person says, "Oh, so you were an 'instant mother'!" I might have to whip out my transcript to show how so very not instant this all is.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
That is (Hazel)Nuts!
From our friends across the pond, an article regarding Nutella, that most delicious of delectable and devilish food products:
A TV advert for Nutella has been withdrawn after the advertising watchdog ruled it exaggerated the hazelnut spread's nutritional value. The commercial showed several mothers giving their children Nutella on toast with a voiceover saying it could be part of a balanced breakfast. But it was pulled to be amended following 53 complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). Manufacturers Ferrero UK said it took advice from independent nutritionists. The commercial included a voiceover saying: "Surprisingly, each jar contains 52 hazelnuts, the equivalent of a glass of skimmed milk and some cocoa." We think it is highly irresponsible of Nutella to imply that their spread is healthier than it actually is...That would also mean consuming over 100g of sugar, even for the smallest jar of Nutella," she added. The ASA ruled the commercial misleadingly implied that the spread made a more significant nutritional contribution to a balanced breakfast than was the case.
Nutella is the single most decadent and delicious thing I have ever eaten in my entire life. As a kid in Scotland we'd get it as a special treat, and damn, I remember every single time like it was yesterday. Folks, if you haven't tried Nutella you really, really should. If you have, then you already know that no one--adult OR child--should be eating that stuff for breakfast! Let's review: it's hazelnut-chocolate spread. What about that says "Ah yes, let's put it on my kid's toast"? There are 100 calories per tablespoon in Nutella, half of them fat (and from personal experience I'm just gonna say that a person can go through a tablespoon pretty easily, until you realize you're on tablespoon number 5 and hell, that could have been some pepperoni pizza for that kind of caloric investment). So unless you are preparing for a role in Bridget Jones or to be the next Rulon Gardner, you need to love the Nutella, but keep that mess in the cupboard for special occasions. And, Ferrero, you should NOT be implying it has as much calcium as skim milk unless you also add, "...If you consume the entire 1,000 calorie jar."
Or, in other words, I thank you for the joy in my heart Nutella, but I do not thank you for the jiggle in my ass.
Vandalism of the English Language and...
at the Obama campaign office in Longview, TX. I'm sure we could all write a few paragraphs on it, but I will let the photos speak for themselves. After all, the kind of person who would do something like this has bigger problems than just being an a**hole. Because if your goal is to cover an office with the word "racist", you probably should make sure you know how to spell it first.
On a serious note, the saddest part of this story is that the man who owns the building and vans marred is a longtime Longview resident. So the real injured party here is a local ordinary business man. Sad.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Millionth Democratic Debate
I'm a political dork junkie as you know. But for the love of God, isn't this the 20th debate between the Democratic candidates? At what point do we just get honest and say that we are doing this in the hopes that someone trips up? What more must we hear from these candidates?
Rant aside, you know I'm watching it because that's what I do.
Tonight it's on MSNBC, which means Williams and Russert, the gruesome twosome. We just did 16 minutes on the minutiae of each candidate's health care plans. HRC is strong on this issue, so she really wanted to stay on this topic. One sour note in her response was her use of a recent SNL skit to justify her belief that she is being treated unfairly by the media. She wondered aloud why she keeps getting asked "all these questions first." Most people I know who are ambitious enough to be POTUS WANT to get the question first, so the second responder has to say, "yeah--what she said" and look like a follower. Who doesn't want the question first? Whiners.
Next up is NAFTA. And here comes Russert with his "I have a quote from you from 1984, in your kitchen, where you said you loved NAFTA and would totally marry it and yet now you say you don't like it. Explain." Timmy's been on Wikipedia. Now it's Obama's turn to get "gotcha'd" on NAFTA.
I don't like Timmy, even if he's doing his voodoo on HRC. All this quoting from 1998 just makes me squirm because it's just meaningless. I mean, if you asked me about a quote I delivered in 1994, I'd be hard pressed to know if you were making it up or whether I really did say it. And, quite frankly, more often than not I'd probably have to say, "Wow. Did I really say that? Sorry." Which is why I don't have a political career and instead get my jollies watching those who do.
Now onto foreign policy and HRC's characterization of Obama's experience level as being akin to that of GWB. His response is that on the most important foreign policy vote of our generation--whether to get into Iraq--he clearly was on the side of good judgment. HRC says that his position on Iraq was just a speech, that he had no responsibility, so his speech has no credibility. She says he "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan" and that she abhors his position that he'd meet with dictators. She feels that she will have a much better case to make side by side against John McCain.
Obama responds that he made "the speech" during his campaign for Senate, so it actually did have consequences. Oh snap, the gloves are OFF. He's saying that she's not ready on Day One. Because on day one, she voted to give GWB full power. Blah blah. Lots of details, read the transcript. Just know that it is all very respectful but really really raw.
More to come.
Rant aside, you know I'm watching it because that's what I do.
Tonight it's on MSNBC, which means Williams and Russert, the gruesome twosome. We just did 16 minutes on the minutiae of each candidate's health care plans. HRC is strong on this issue, so she really wanted to stay on this topic. One sour note in her response was her use of a recent SNL skit to justify her belief that she is being treated unfairly by the media. She wondered aloud why she keeps getting asked "all these questions first." Most people I know who are ambitious enough to be POTUS WANT to get the question first, so the second responder has to say, "yeah--what she said" and look like a follower. Who doesn't want the question first? Whiners.
Next up is NAFTA. And here comes Russert with his "I have a quote from you from 1984, in your kitchen, where you said you loved NAFTA and would totally marry it and yet now you say you don't like it. Explain." Timmy's been on Wikipedia. Now it's Obama's turn to get "gotcha'd" on NAFTA.
I don't like Timmy, even if he's doing his voodoo on HRC. All this quoting from 1998 just makes me squirm because it's just meaningless. I mean, if you asked me about a quote I delivered in 1994, I'd be hard pressed to know if you were making it up or whether I really did say it. And, quite frankly, more often than not I'd probably have to say, "Wow. Did I really say that? Sorry." Which is why I don't have a political career and instead get my jollies watching those who do.
Now onto foreign policy and HRC's characterization of Obama's experience level as being akin to that of GWB. His response is that on the most important foreign policy vote of our generation--whether to get into Iraq--he clearly was on the side of good judgment. HRC says that his position on Iraq was just a speech, that he had no responsibility, so his speech has no credibility. She says he "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan" and that she abhors his position that he'd meet with dictators. She feels that she will have a much better case to make side by side against John McCain.
Obama responds that he made "the speech" during his campaign for Senate, so it actually did have consequences. Oh snap, the gloves are OFF. He's saying that she's not ready on Day One. Because on day one, she voted to give GWB full power. Blah blah. Lots of details, read the transcript. Just know that it is all very respectful but really really raw.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)