|
Martha Stewart Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:46 p.m. Martha Stewart is going to jail. There's only one thing that can some up my thoughts and feelings about this. Return to topThings I Hate Tuesday, March 2, 2004 05:14 p.m.
Oh Yeah! Monday, March 1, 2004 10:45 p.m. So I go to Google and type in "I love Steve Buscemi" without the quotes and what do you suppose I find? My blog comes up as first of 55,800. Add the quotes and it drops to 58, but still, 55,800. You want blog traffic? Change the title of your blog to something cool like mine. Oh, and as noted in the Tagboard Amber gave birth to a healthy baby dinosaur today. Congratulations! Return to top"It's a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" Friday, February 27, 2004 10:34 p.m. Though, sadly, I saw no report of it from any news source, today was the anniversary of the death of one of those few special people in the world. Mr. Rogers passed away a year ago today. Rarely does a man come around that can touch the lives of so many children the way Mr Rogers did. Thousands of children learned valuable life lessons from watching and enjoying his television show, Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood every morning. Whether it was the crafts or the goldfish or going to the Neighborhood of Make- Believe, everyone has some sort of memory related to his show. His dedication to children was almost unparalleled, even on into his later years in life. Though there were the rumors of a violent past, all unfounded and easily disproven, he persevered and became a sort of "friend" that children got to visit every day. Sure he touched some of us more than others, but there is nobody out there that doesn't have at least some small connection to this Presbyterian minister. He warmed our hearts and made the world a better place. And He's "A Uniter, Not a Divider" Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:40 p.m. Today Bush made an announcement that he wants Congress to work towards an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriages. In a recent interview with Diane Sawyer the president said that he would support an amendment such as this if it came up. Diane then went on to remind him that in 2000, when running for president, both he and Dick Cheney said that this was an issue for the states and not the federal government. His reply three years after those remarks: Except and unless judicial rulings undermine the sanctity of marriage. In which case, we may need a Constitutional amendment.So, basically, no matter what, he doesn't want the judicial system of America to run it's course. He says he wants to protect the sanctity of marriage. If that's truly the case, why hasn't he said anything about divorce or adultery, both of which his brother Neil seems to have some experience with. GW says he wants, "to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever." So that's his big argument? We have to keep the meaning the same? I thought this ran deeper than a simple dictionary term. This is all about terminology? Well shit. He says they can have civil unions but not marriage. Well then this is a case of attempting to bring back the separate but equal doctrine, which we proved doesn't work. Are civil unions even "equal"?He has made comments about the "activists judges" that were interpreting the law. Massachusetts' Supreme Court is allegedly full of activists now, just because they disagree with what Bush's personal religious preferences tell him to believe? Does that make them terrorists too? I wonder what people thought about the activist judges that allowed black men to vote back in the 1800's. Or perhaps what people thought about the activist judges that allowed women to vote in 1920. What about the political activists that started a war with the strongest country on this planet over their beliefs and created the United States of America? Or more recently, the same activist judges he's criticizing now, that actually got him in to office three years ago in the Florida debacle? The solution to all of this was set forth back in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Up until then it was illegal for a black to marry a white in Virginia. The court ruled that restricting the freedom to marry based on race violates the 14th Amendment. Since the US does not allow discrimination based on sexual orientation as well, this one court case should set a precedent and there should be no problem for anyone to marry any other human being. Marriage in itself is a religious institution. Why doesn't the government back off and just give civil unions to everyone for tax purposes, and let people go to their church or synagogue or temple or whatever if they truly want their marriage as a religious symbol to themselves? Once again Bush says he wants to protect marriage. Protect marriage from what? How are two gay guys in San Francisco getting married going to affect my marriage? Bush said, "the family, consisting of a man and a woman and off-spring is the most fundamental building block of civilization" And yet the government condones artificial in semination. What about all the childless marriages out there? Should their marriage rights be taken away? Or what about single parents? Are they suddenly unworthy of children? Then the argument that comes up is that it would not be good for children to live with a gay couple as parents. If you can look me in the eye, and honestly tell me from the bottom of your heart that this couple is more deserving of a marriage and could handle children better than this couple, then I am ashamed to know you. Return to top Passion of the Christ Monday, February 23, 2004 05:28 p.m. After reading many reviews of Mel Gibson's upcoming movie, one of which is published on The New Yorker's website, I am very disappointed. People are attacking the movie left and right, and like all movie critics do, are trying to skew everyone's opinion of the movie before it's even released (February 25th.) First off, they say the film is anti-Semitic. Do they not realize that Jesus, a Jew himself was put to death by Jews? How does something that portrays a horrible act done by Jews not come off as at least a little anti-Semitic? You see a movie about gang violence and your immediate first thought afterwards isn't, "Damn, that director sure was a white supremacist!" Secondly, David Denby says that: From the movie, we get the impression that the priests are either merely envious of Jesus’ spiritual power or inherently and inexplicably vicious. And Pilate is not the bloody governor of history (even Tiberius paused at his crimes against the Jews) but a civilized and humane leader tormented by the burdens of powerAnyone who has ever read or heard the story from the Bible knows that this was true, at least in this case. He may have been a shitty man, but he did not want to kill Jesus. Gibson ignores most of the dismaying political context, as well as the likelihood that the Gospel writers, still under Roman rule, had very practical reasons to downplay the Romans’ role in the Crucifixion.Once again, the film is about what he went through on his way to death, not the political motivations surrounding his death. Then comes the Crucifixion itself, dramatized with a curious fixation on the technical details—an arm pulled out of its socket, huge nails hammered into hands, with Caviezel jumping after each whack.As soon as you can sit still and not flinch when cold, steel pieces of metal are being driven through your flesh I'll give you this one. Obviously I haven't seen the film yet, but from what I understand this isn't about the greatness of Jesus or anything he accomplished in life, but rather the brutality he faced at his death. Gibson may have stepped over the line a little bit on this one, but even the Godfather films were once considered controversial. And that is what is going to make this film a ton of money. The controversy surrounding it is going to send millions of people to see it and some people are going to make a lot of money. So thank you critics for fueling this film to what I'm sure will be great box office numbers. Return to top Schwarzenegger Sunday, February 22, 2004 04:45 p.m. Two posts in one day, weird. California's governor is opposed to gay marriages 100 percent, but thinks the constitution is biased against foreign born Americans because they can't run for president? Come on now Arnold. Get your head out of your ass. If you're going to give civil rights to one group you better be prepared to give everyone their civil rights, regardless of your opinion of them. Return to topNader 2004 Sunday, February 22, 2004 12:58 p.m. Ralph Nader has announced that he will run for the presidency this year, and there are mixed feelings about this announcement. Many think that this is just a case of ego, and that Nader will lose everything he has gained politically because of this decision. However, there are many still out there that think it is the right move. His website details his views on many issues and asks for anyone to help that can. I'm not going to decide for sure who I will vote for until I see which Democratic candidate gets the nod, though I want to stick to my guns, and therefore, regardless of whether he should run or not, Nader still deserves his name on the ballot and once I get a little more information back will let everyone know how they can help to get his name printed on the November ballots. I don't care if you personally want to vote for him or not. His name on the ballot won't change your vote, and therefore I ask for everyone to help get his name on there. The two party system really hurts America, and needs to be reformed.  Are you in? Return to topGay Rights Friday, February 20, 2004 09:31 p.m. There has been a lot of coverage recently of homosexuals lining up at city hall in San Francisco to be legally married. Many people have put up a big argument saying that this should be banned. Why? Because of religious views? We are supposed to have separation of church and state and therefore this should be a non-issue. Homosexuals are people too. They are citizens of the United States of America, and thus are allowed certain rights under law. One of those is marriage. Despite what one's religion says about the subject, many religions look down on and ban homosexual acts, the United States cannot legally ban this. Religion does not run our country. At one point in time it was illegal in this country for a black man to vote, or for a woman to vote, based solely on the fact that they were "different." I should hope that we have grown out of this petty foolishness. Based on a recent poll, two- thirds of Americans think that it is wrong for homosexuals to be married. But on the flip side, 33% of us think it is fine. That's a pretty decent sum of people. What ever happened to majority rule with minority rights? Personally I don't think that 97 MILLION PEOPLE is a very small minority. I just want to leave you with one thing: this picture was taken after the rush by homosexual couples to tie the knot on Sunday the 15th; the rose petals and rice lying on the steps of city hall in San Francisco shortly after a light sprinkling began.
Things I Like Thursday, February 19, 2004 06:48 p.m.
FOX Monday, February 16, 2004 10:54 p.m. So, I'm sitting at home sipping on a root beer float, while Nicole's flipping through the TV channels. Suddenly she comes upon FOX, home of many great shows such as "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance" and other "great" programs. The show this time though, happens to be "The Littlest Groom." Apparently they're trying to set a midget, wait sorry, a dwarf, up with another dwarf by presenting him with a group of dwarfs that he has to choose from. Unbeknownst to him there will also be average sized women thrown in later. Now, I don't expect a lot from FOX, but damn. I think they've hit a new low with this one, though this article from the Boston Globe online seems to show that this won't turn into a bad joke. Hopefully. Either way, I didn't watch it. Instead I got my ass kicked in Jenga. Return to topScholarships Sunday, February 15, 2004 05:46 p.m. Finally. Someone has put out a scholarship for whites only. And the sad thing is that people are actually upset about this. Minorities aren't the only ones that have money problems. Scholarship money should given based solely on need and merit. Race should not be an issue. And yet there are scholarships just for minorities, just for people with red hair, and more. The problem (or not) is that whoever puts forth the money for a scholarship can add any stipulations that they want. Therefore there should never be an argument about who receives a scholarship, because students have no say in it. It's solely up to the donor of the money. The greatest thing about this story however is that the group's president "is of Puerto Rican descent," and "is himself a recipient of a ,000 scholarship open only to a minority group." So why all the fuss? Return to topNine More Months... Sunday, February 8, 2004 11:35 a.m. Most will say that the Superbowl went off with just a few slight problems last weekend (i.e. Janet Jackson's breast being exposed, and the much overshadowed and more entertaining to watch streaker). But many people do not realize that they missed out on something in that Superbowl. CBS banned an anti-Bush ad that was the winner of a competition sponsored by MoveOn.org. All of the finalists are listed at Bush in 30 Seconds along with other information about the competition held last year. How can they refuse to play this ad when the Whitehouse itself was allowed to run an anti-drug ad linking casual drug use to terrorism. "For the third year in a row, the White House has used taxpayer money to pay between .5 and million each for 30-second spots during the broadcast."Taxpayer money? I don't know about you, but I can think of many other places where 9 million dollars can be spent, like say education for one. To fix up every school in America would cost a little over 100 billion dollars. Nine million doesn't sound like a lot compared to that, but it would help. And though I may be active duty, The US does not need to spend nearly 400 billion dollars on the military. Yeah that's 400 billion dollars. Cut 25% of that, fix the schools, and you still have 300 billion dollars to the military. Ever heard of the word compromise? Return to topYour Daily Dose of Misery Friday, February 6, 2004 06:50 p.m.
Mystic River Wednesday, February 4, 2004 05:45 p.m. I went and saw Mystic River a few nights ago. I thought it was a pretty good movie. Sean Penn played his part surprisingly well, so did Tim Robbins. I still don't think I've figured out the end exactly. If you figured it out E-mail me and let me know. Now I'm going to eat glue. Return to topUpdates Friday, January 30, 2004 10:56 p.m. I just archived the posts from Christmas through the end of January, so if you haven't had a chance to check out the blog lately, you may want to check out the archive link to the right. I also added a banner to the bottom of the page. I don't know how long it will stay up, but I encourage everyone to check it out and register. The United States is not the only country that will be affected by the upcoming elections. If you want to see how the world would vote in our elections, sign up now. It's free. I want to change the Picture of the Day, but I like the current one so much. It brings a smile to my face to see it. I am currently reading a book entitled "Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad." It's about the world's best intelligence agency; yeah, even better than the CIA (which really isn't too hard to beat as of late.) I'll let you know how it is when I finish. I hope everyone that reads this will check out this game. WARNING: NOT FOR THOSE WITH EPILEPSY OR THOSE PRONE TO SEIZURES!! I also added two more links on the right side. One of which is a classic except a little, ummm, better? It's Mario Twins! Return to top |
|
What do you think America should be? What do you want America to stand for?