Boortz on what we can expect for the future:

As you undoubtedly have noticed, the 2008 campaign has, for Democrats, been nothing but new entitlement programs, expansions of old entitlement programs, and tax increases. This is the essence of what it means to be a member of the MoveOn Democrat Party. Create more government dependency, and tax those not dependent on government to pay for it.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:50 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Republicans waste WAY more money on government spending than democrats. But for some reason, because the republicans waste the money on bombs instead of health care, and because they refuse to balance the budget and instead drive the country into debt and dependence on foreign banks, conservatives think it's the party of fiscal responsibility. Oh well. I live in Canada. My dollar is worth MORE than yours now. Think I'll take a trip down to seattle to buy some cheap pumas with my almighty Canadian dollar. Yeah, keep those economic geniuses of the republican party in power... it works at well for us in the rest of the world.

Posted by: Will at October 25, 2007 12:44 PM (bNKhO)

2 You live in Canada? Heh, I knew something wasn't right about you

Posted by: Sarah at October 25, 2007 01:20 PM (TWet1)

3 Or maybe Canada's conservative government is doing an excellent job with *their* economy?

Posted by: Ted at October 25, 2007 01:28 PM (yRolC)

4 I wish I could respond to either of you, but no matter what I write, I get a "questionable content" error message.

Posted by: Will at October 26, 2007 10:16 AM (JzKuA)

5 canada

Posted by: Will at October 26, 2007 10:16 AM (JzKuA)

6 Oh, i figured it out. I'm not allowed to write the word: S O C I A L I S T

Posted by: Will at October 26, 2007 10:18 AM (JzKuA)

7 Ha. I share a comments spam blocker with all other mu.nu blogs, so someone else must've blocked the s-word And as a real response to your comment: Trust me, you can't be any more disgusted with the Republicans than we are. They have abandoned their principles and deserved the beat-down they got last election. The problem is that the alternative is so much worse, in my opinion.

Posted by: Sarah at October 26, 2007 10:24 AM (TWet1)

8 It's not the "S" word, it's that "c i a l i s" is embedded in there. Death to drug spam, and the mu.nu commies just have to deal with it.

Posted by: Ted at October 26, 2007 01:45 PM (yRolC)

9 God damn drug companies are ruining Sarah's comment section.

Posted by: Will at October 28, 2007 01:22 PM (0Yps+)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I wasn't going to waste time writing about this because if I wrote about every time something on TV made me mad, well, this would become a TV blog. But I saw this link on Conservative Grapevine and immediately thought, "I saw that piece of crap episode."

The latest episode of the CBS crime show "Cold Case" depicted presumably devout Christian teens in an abstinence club as sexually active hypocrites who literally stone a member to keep their sins secret.

OK, look, I get that most of Hollywood is going to scoff at abstinence programs in schools. Fine. But there was something just so wrong about some of the scenes in this show. The cops kept rolling their eyes at the witnesses they interviewed from the abstinence club. Smirking and making smartass comments about how weird their beliefs are. And we're talking about the murder of a fifteen year old. The 40-year-old virgin might bring in some laughs, but seriously? Cops are sneering at 15 year olds who aren't gettin' any? It was just offensive. Who in their right mind looks down on abstinent 15 year olds?

So the show had the repressed Christian kids who kill the slut with the heart of gold. Now I'm rolling my eyes...

Posted by: Sarah at 08:09 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 1 kb.

Awww, man. I just heard that Jim Michaels passed away last night. I'm going to miss him on Forbes on Fox. What a lovable, crusty old man...

Posted by: Sarah at 12:03 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been following the Hollywood debate articles between Ehrenstein and Breitbart. Breitbart's last hurrah:

I would argue the entertainment industry does matter — because it is the way we send out the message to the world that we take our freedoms seriously. And with freedom comes deep responsibility and I don't think Hollywood quite gets that.

[Boos]

For one it's our second largest export behind aero-space. Surely if China has a responsibility not to send us toxic toys, we have a responsibility not to send them toxic entertainment.

Heh. Indeed.

When I read Ehrenstein's submission on Day 2, I had to read the beginning twice, and then out loud to my husband, just to make sure I was actually seeing straight.

A fortiori I'm not so sure about the "love my country" bit as I'm markedly disenchanted with the entire concept of all nation-states. Move an inch beyond language and culture and their meaning and purpose almost invariably mirrors that of the Crips and the Bloods.

I don't know how you can debate any details of our national image with someone who doesn't believe there should even be countries. This goes back to the idea of common ground. Lileks, in one of those Bleats I return to often:

My point? Simple: we live in an era of non-contiguous information streams. I believe one thing; someone else believes another – and the bedrock assumptions are utterly contradictory. This is what drives me nuts about discussing current events with some people. It’s like discussing the Apollo program with people who think it was all faked, or discussing archeology with those who believe the world is six thousand years old. I think the Iraq Campaign was part of a broad war against Islamicist fascism and the states that enable it; others think it’s all about oil and Halliburton jerking the strings of a Jeebus puppet. No. Middle. Ground.

We can debate Hollywood's message and we can debate whether she projects a favorable image of the US around the world, but if we can't even agree on the validity of the concept of the nation-state, well, what's the point of debating anything after that?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:44 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 365 words, total size 3 kb.

So here's something that happened over the weekend.

A man was in custody Sunday after police said he ripped the head off a tame duck that lived in a hotel lobbyÂ’s ornamental pond.

Scott D. Clark, a guest at the Embassy Suites Hotel in St. Paul, cornered the duck early Saturday morning, grabbed the bird and ripped its head from its body while a hotel security guard and others watched, police said.

And let's look at the conclusion the article gives us.

If convicted, he could face up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine, said Tim Shields, general counsel with the Minnesota Federated Humane Societies. Shields said the incident was “unconscionable,” and that having live ducks in a hotel lobby puts them at risk of being stepped on or run over by suitcases.

“I think Embassy Suites needs to take another look at this and review how they keep ducks safe, or use fish like most hotels would use,” Shields said.

So it's the hotel's fault for keeping ducks in the first place. They should've protected their ducks from every sort of harm that could possibly befall them, including having their heads ripped off. Oh, I get it, it was a failure of imagination.

What is wrong with our priorities when we feel blame has to be shared between the psycho and the hotel?

Posted by: Sarah at 02:41 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 229 words, total size 1 kb.