avonlea2

Cramer and Stewart

Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:58:10 GMT

OK, I just have to say my peace about this whole Cramer vs. Stewart thing. Honestly, I do not understand why some things get so much "buzz" (the Internet is going wild over this right now), but whatever. Here's a shocking idea: Perhaps it evolved into a cooperative publicity stunt between CNBC and Comedy Central. Just a possibility. (Hey, I work in marketing-- it's my nature to always look for the money-making agenda behind everything.)

Anyway, I think everybody agrees that Stewart pretty much ripped Cramer a new one, and most people with any insight see that Stewart brought to light a very valid argument. I've seen a lot of people not so much taking up the charge for Cramer as being very snarky toward Stewart and calling him a hypocrite (I suppose that's bound to happen when you absolutely cream someone in a debate), but more on that later.

Anyway, the bottom line of Stewart's argument was this (and if you don't agree, then I really don't think you watched the entire interview or listened very closely to what Stewart was saying, or you got distracted by other points of contention that are not central to the argument): If CNBC is going to call itself a news channel (you know, a media outlet guided by the basic principles of objective, researched journalism) then their shows and their TV personalities need to be guided by those principles. When those CEO's came on to Cramer's show and, as he is now in agreement, lied to his face, he would have researched their claims. Instead, he allowed personal feelings to make him "take their word for it." That is not good journalism.

I fully respect and appreciate that Cramer wants to make his show entertaining. Financial news is boring as hell. But Jon's point was that, if you are going to position yourself on a serious news channel, and claim to be someone with some authority to provide sound financial advice, then at the very least, you've got to first have the journalistic chutspa to back it up. Once Cramer's got that, he can throw stuff between his legs, yell, and press the buttons on his sound board 'til the cows come home. But don't give me the impression that you are someone I should turn to for financial advice (and if you disagree that's what he is doing, just watch the opening credits: "In Cramer We Trust") if all you want to do is entertain me. Seriously, just have the balls to call a spade a spade.

Which brings me to the attacks on Stewart. When someone makes a very good argument, I think it's human nature to try to look for the faults or hypocrisy in his character to try to de-base his right to make his assertions. I've seen people complaining that Stewart has no right to cast stones because his show is liberally biased, under the pretense that it is an objective news show. Or that he is somehow making slanted assertions under the protection of "It's just a joke." Um, okay, clue # 1: His show airs on COMEDY CENTRAL. Comedy Central is not, and has never been, what CNBC is trying to position itself as.

I am just going to say this: if you get all your news from the Daily Show, then you are an idiot. That would be like getting all of your Internet news from blogs. I watch it every day, not for information, but for commentary and yes, entertainment. There is a HUGE difference there. Most of the stuff that Jon discusses, I have already read about from Reuters or the AP that day in its pure, objective form. Is The Daily Show liberally biased? Yes. But Jon Stewart makes no bones about the fact that he is a comedian, he is liberal, and the point of the show is to make fun and be entertaining. I happen to agree with Stewart politically, but someone who doesn't isn't going to be instantly influenced by watching his show, so long as they're not relying on it as their sole news source and they recognize it for what it is: entertainment.

Cramer, on the other hand, makes his home on a network that is supposedly informational. Under the guise that I am supposed to believe and trust what he says. If backing that up with facts is too difficult-- if the fun of all the sound effects and tomfoolery has distracted him from maintaining the reputation that his network purports-- then maybe it's time for him to move over to Comedy Central. I do give Cramer props for coming to the Daily Show and taking the beating, though.

When it comes right down to it, I don't think anyone in the media should be doling out financial advice, however well they think they researched it. It's kind of in that shady area of giving out medical advice. Most of those shows at least have some sort of disclaimer, citing that everyone's body is different and they should consult their physician, etc. Well, maybe these financial shows needs some sort of disclaimer that says people should consult their own financial advisors. That would be quite the opposite of the "In Cramer We Trust" approach.

I feel like this incident is further indicative of the serious decline in the integrity of journalism in this day and age-- both in how it is being practiced, and people's ability (or inability) to recognize bad journalism when they see it. Kind of scary.

Not into it this year.

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:41:09 GMT

I am trying to figure out what to bring to the office x-mas party on Friday. Behold the lethal combination of food that is already on the sign-up sheet:

Salad

Rolls with butter

Ham and cheese corn bread

Pasta Salad

Cole Slaw

Lasagna

Fried Chicken

Cabbage Rolls

Broccoli-rice casserole

Coconut Cake

Christmas Bear Cake

Does that not sound like the most god-awful mix of food you have ever heard? I think the fried chicken is the piece de resistance. What exactly do I add into that? Should I pick something innocuous that will at least not contribute to the digestive impact of that menu? Like candied nuts or something? Or do I go all out for the Christmas trots? Like, a giant pot of sausage and beef cheese dip?

I love you, Colin Powell.

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:12:16 GMT

From CNN:

"Lately, [McCain] and Governor Palin have actually accused me of -- get this -- socialism," Obama said. "It's kind of hard to figure how Warren Buffett endorsed me, Colin Powell endorsed me, and John McCain thinks I'm socialist."

Obama said he simply wants to give the middle class a tax cut.

Powell came to Obama's defense after endorsing the senator from Illinois.

Powell said he had grown tired of McCain's negative campaigning and that the American people would prefer to focus on issues like education, infrastructure and the economy. He specifically slammed Palin's allegation that Obama's tax plan is socialist, calling it misleading.

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay them -- in roads and airports and hospitals and schools," President Bush's former secretary of state said. "And taxes are necessary for the common good, and there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more, who should be paying less.

"For us to say that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate."

Just pay your taxes so people can eat.

Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:39:17 GMT

Jake and I had a good conversation last night. In political conversation with two people lately-- my mother, and another lady who is conservative and 10 years younger-- I've heard the comment that they really don't like Obama's plan to "redistribute the wealth." I wasn't aware of what a big deal that statement was to some people. Apparently my understanding of it is a bit different from theirs. Both of them basically said this: "I've worked hard all of my life, and so has my husband. It's not fair for the government to take away MY money and give it to people who just sit on their asses."

First, does that way of thinking seem REALLY selfish to anybody but me? Maybe I am just naive because I haven't been working for 30 years or started a family, and I'm not hardened and protective of my money yet. But come on. Yes, you've worked hard (and Jake and I had a discussion about what it really means to "work hard." It seems like everybody always thinks they work harder than anyone else), but there are factors in your life, completely out of your control, that also helped you get ahead. My mom said, "You earned top grades in your class, got into college and did well there, and now you and Jake want to start a business. Can you really tell me you want to give up half of your earnings for someone who never even graduated from high school?" My response? I was extremely lucky to be my parents' daughter. Does my mom really think the people who don't graduate from high school are that way because they understand the repercussions of not doing so? Do they say to themselves, "I'm going to drop out of high school now because I know I'll have a great life with the government taking care of me!"? No, the truth is that, for multiple reasons in their environment and their upbringing, they just plain don't know any better. And when they get to the point in their lives when they do finally know better, it's too late. Society has written them off. They have nothing, and because they have nothing, they'll never get anything.

Now, are there people who take advantage of the system? Sure, just like with anything else. We've all heard the infuriating stories in the media about the guy who uses food stamps to buy one loaf of bread and then buy cigarettes and alcohol with the change. The republican party loves to use these examples to vilify welfare spending. Know what I say? All the more reason to REFORM the system, not cut back on its spending. There are a few bad apples, sure, but most of the people on welfare truly, desperately, need it. Just ask a social worker if she thinks people on welfare are lazy. News flash: nobody WANTS to be on welfare. Welfare absolutely sucks. It's the absolute bare minimum to get by without starving to death. As Jake says, if anybody really wants to live that way, then more power to them. We're talking about the single mother working 3 jobs and living in the projects. Or the injured Vietnam or Iraqi War vet-- we've all seen enough of them holding signs on street corners. These people are NOT lazy. They are doing the best they can with their circumstances and what they were born into in this life.

So yeah, I'm willing to give up some of my money to give others the opportunities for wealth that I have had. Or to at least make it so they can get through each day with enough food. Or some type of medical care for them and their kids. If that makes me a socialist, then sign me up for the Karl Marx meetings.

And my wording there, "some of my money," brings up another point that Jake made. Welfare spending comprises such a tiny portion of our budget and the taxes we pay. Republicans love to harp on it as the reason we shouldn't raise taxes, but the truth is that military spending, money for infastructure and education, and all sorts of other things play SUCH a bigger role in our taxes. I am so tired of this "The poor people are leaching off of us" mentality. Stop whining and pay your taxes for the common good. If you don't like how the funds are appropriated, or the way the programs are run, then start bugging the hell out of your congressman. That is your duty as an American. But just pay your damn taxes.

So back to what Obama means when he says "redistribute the wealth." I did not take that to mean, "Send the poor, lazy people a check." No, he means START MAKING THE PEOPLE WHO HOLD MOST OF THE WEALTH PAY MOST OF THE TAXES. Jake was doing some internet searching on the way the population shares the tax burden last night, and it is absolutely absurd. Ever since Reagan took office, with the exception of the Clinton years, the top 5% of the wealth holders in this country have paid less and less taxes, while the burden is shifted to the middle class. I am sorry, GOP, but that is just NOT fair. Taxes shouldn't be divided among each individual, based on the population. The population should be divided into pools based on who earns what portion of the wealth, and what each pool pays in taxes should be proportionate to what they earn as a group. Oh, and please, somebody get rid of the loopholes that are allowing the extremely rich to lower their tax rates even further.

A 3% tax increase for someone making more than $250,000 per year is such a negligible impact on that person, it's not even funny. We're not talking about a drastic change in lifestyle here. Maybe it means they put a little less into their 401(k), or they don't buy that flat panel TV as soon as they were hoping. They fly coach instead of first class. Or they go to J. Crew one less weekend a month.

But a tax decrease for someone who is making $30,000 per year and trying to support a family? Huge difference! Maybe it just means they don't have to CUT BACK anymore than they already are in the face of rising costs for pretty much everything right now. Maybe it literally is the difference between them starving or losing their house. Or maybe it's a small improvement in the little things that can make SUCH a big difference to someone on a meager salary. Like being able to buy new clothes instead of used ones. Or feeding their kids fresh fruit, fresh fish, or, as Jake says, "Real meat instead of SPAM."

I love this country. I love it because I don't take for granted the rights that we have. I am fully aware that I wouldn't even be able to write this without consequences in other parts of the world. Sadly, I'm afraid other people in this country do take our rights for granted. I think there is a real disconnect right now between the mindset of the 21st century citizens our founding fathers envisioned, and the way people look at things now. I am a firm believer in capitalism and the free market, but I can't help but notice an overriding selfishness, sense of entitlement and lifestyle of excess that I think is potentially threatening to our future financial security and overall welfare. The rest of the world has lost respect for us, and it's really no wonder. I know I am young, and perhaps that's why it all seems so clear and simple to me. But we've got to find that continuity again. We've got to get back to the basics. Allow me to be a little corny: We have to stop thinking "me" and start thinking "we."

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:38:37 GMT

Thank goodness there is only one debate to go. I am really tired of hearing McCain talk. Almost as tired as I am of hearing Bush attempt to do the same.

Save the cows!

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:25:09 GMT

At work today, we mistakenly received a piece of mail and didn't realize it wasn't meant for us until we had opened and read it. It was from someone in India. Inside was a money order and a completed order form that read "Save the Cows!" across the top. The flyer detailed how for $75, $125, or $350, you could "adopt" or sponsor a cow so it would get enough to eat. On the back was a photo of a skinny, depressingly sad looking cow with its ribs showing.

I still can't decide if it is appropriate for me to laugh or be sad about this. I really, really cannot stand to see animals suffering, so it does make me extremely sad. However, perhaps it's because I come from a country where we eat cows regularly, but something sinister inside me makes me want to laugh at this.

I am always so incredibly intrigued by how people in different countries and cultures around the world have such different priorities, values and beliefs about the way things are and the way they should be. I briefly searched for "save the cows" on the Internet and didn't find much. But I did find an article where someone pointed out the hypocrisy of India's concern for its plethora of cows, while their people don't seem to get nearly such nice treatment. For example, apparently if an Indian has more than two children, they are "punished" by being ineligible for public employment, school admission, housing loans and elective office. And they're considering placing bounties on women who get abortions.

That sure puts a lot of the back and forth of this US presidential election into a new perspective.

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:50:14 GMT

There is a great quote by Martin Luther King, Jr. that Senator Obama could have used last night when he was talking about the United States' responsibility when it comes to moral issues in places like Darfur.

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 17:37:50 GMT

I am hoping the fact that John McCain finally pushed me past a breaking point last night is a sign that this election is sealed and delivered. I have tried really hard, for quite some time now, to exercise tolerance, civility, and respect for the other side. But last night, John McCain showed nothing but disrespect, arrogance, snideness, and a complete disregard for actually trying to have a debate based on a respect for the previously discussed issues and keeping one's opponent's comments in context. It wasn't really a debate; it was more lies and more of the party line. I am sure Obama, more than anyone, would have loved to answer the question about entitlement. But unfortunately, McCain didn't afford him that opportunity, like in so many other instances, because he repeatedly harkens back to old issues that have already been, as far as Obama is concerned, addressed. Obama has to resort to wasting his valuable time to rebut fallacies like "Obama will raise your taxes!" I am just sick and tired of it. When I started yelling at the screen for the first time this political season, I realized McCain must be getting desperate.

Mr. McCain, there was a time, way back when, when I would have considered voting for you. I did make my decision not to some months ago, but had I not, last night would have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I don't see how anyone who was even remotely considering voting for you could now do so after that atrocious display. I don't know if your coaches just made you try too hard, or if you really are an asshole (I'm leaning toward the latter), but last night, you were like a fingernail on the chalkboard of humanity. Here's a little debate 101 for you. In case you didn't know, when you make a statement and your opponent debases it with fact, you don't win that point. And you can't keep trying to win that same point over and over. Cause then you're not really debating anymore. You're just talking within the same useless circle. Get it?

But disregarding the fact that you don't know how to debate and you keep pushing the load of crap your party uses to coach you and Palin, your demeanor last night was not at all presidential. You are a loose cannon who I, frankly, don't want making decisions on foreign policy. If you are that much of a jerk to people in your own country, I really don't want you going around pissing off Iran, Pakistan, North Korea and Russia. The snide comments about the time limits, referring to Senator Obama as "that one," playing teacher's pet with Tom Brokaw, and repeatedly calling me your friend (which I am not), to name just a few, were petty, immature, and frankly, unattractive. While Senator Obama treated you with respect, sat in his chair calmly and spoke articulately, you seemed uncomfortable (in a "town hall" setting that is supposed to be your comfort zone) as you paced around the room in circles. If you get this wound up in an election debate, what is the constant, 4-year, everyday stress of the presidency going to do to you?

I'm afraid McCain made a last-ditch effort last night, and all it did was dig his hole deeper. I will be glad when this is all over and I don't have to listen to him anymore.

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:33:57 GMT

For the love of god, Obama did NOT say that we should all-out attack Pakistan, you stupid dummy dumb dumb!!! Either you are too old, too stupid, a bad listener, or EXTREMELY ballsy about taking a person's words out of context when they were just said in the same room 3 minutes earlier!!!

At least Obama has the balls to answer a question with a straight answer, unlike your running mate, who simply repeats "We should not hesitate" and "We should not blink" over and over.

Or you, who says, "I think all three should be priorities."

Way to always take the easy way out, and vilify others who don't, you old stupid ass.

God, somebody put McCain in a home. Please.

Something I just posted on Facebook.

Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:56:47 GMT

Most of you know I am a pretty laid back person. I don’t get fired up very often. Heck, I went to Carolina and honestly couldn’t care less about basketball. But perhaps you didn’t know that when I do get fired up about the things I consider important, I get pretty intense. Last night was the first Presidential Debate, and I hope you watched it. I felt compelled to write because I have something important to say.

I don’t consider myself a person who is into politics. I’ve just never been able to tolerate all of its drama. I’ve only recently fully understood the meaning of the word “spin,” and I had to look up the definition of the word “pundit.” Yeah, I’m not ashamed. But this year, I am into politics in that I am into this Presidential election. And I am into this Presidential election not because I enjoy all of the politics, but because its outcome is immensely important to the next 4 years of our lives. I don’t think I need to spell out my reasons for that statement. I’m sure you, like I, am very aware of the impact the next President will have on the things that DIRECTLY affect you and me, e.g. whether we’re able to get loans for our first houses, whether we can afford the gas we need to get to our jobs, how we’re going to resolve the war in Iraq and what that means about the amount of taxes that are taken out of our weekly paychecks. Lots of you are just starting families and are finding it increasingly difficult to handle the ever-rising cost of groceries and healthcare. If the outcome of decisions that are made about these things is not important to you, then you and I need to talk personally. If they are important to you, then I assume you plan on voting. I sincerely hope all of you who are of voting age are registered to vote and also plan on voting. If you are not registered, please, please do so by October 10th. Or you can register when you do one-stop absentee early voting until November 1st. (These dates apply to Wake County, NC.) I can give you info on how to do it. It’s a super easy process.

You can probably tell that I plan on voting for Barack Obama. The point of this post is not to campaign for him or influence your vote (at least not too much). I’ll point out that I am neither Democrat nor Republican. I’m registered as an Independent and always have been. I believe extremism in either direction on the political scale is dangerous and impedes progress in Washington. Thus my “moderate” political views on my profile. I voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.

So I might be preaching to the choir right now, but I have a feeling some of you may still be undecided. If you want to ask me why I made the decision to vote for Obama, or if you want to discuss any of the issues in depth with me, I’ll be happy to. Perhaps you’ll provide me with a new perspective.

But here’s my main point: whoever you end up voting for, PLEASE make sure your decision is based on solid, unbiased information and real thought about the priorities. Vote for the person who you genuinely believe will do the best job as President at THIS point in history-- not just as President in general. Both candidates are certainly qualified to do the job; if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be running. I mention priorities because I think we have to focus on what is most important to the largest number of people right now. Social issues might be very important to you personally, and I certainly respect that. But I think we can all agree that in this election, there ARE certain issues that must be addressed with swiftness and no error in judgment. Please don’t vote for a candidate just because you think he’s popular or likable. At the same time, please don’t vote against him because his religious views or those of his friends may be different from yours. Do any of these variables have a real impact on his ability to reason, to make intelligent, diplomatic decisions when it comes to the economy, energy, healthcare or nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea?

Don’t listen to the “spin” that is launched into the media by both parties. Check facts by consulting highly credible sources, and form your own opinions from there. Think about the issues that are important to both you personally and the country as a whole, and then weigh them in each candidate. Really focus on the specific actions the candidates claim they are going to take regarding the issues.

A lot of people get uncomfortable talking about politics. But the time is now to put discomfort aside. Men and women like us, who are college age or in their mid to late 20s, often don’t assume the responsibility of politics because our parents’ generation have taken care of it for so long. The time for us is NOW. Now is the time for us to step up, to start demanding a voice about things that are going to affect our lives and the lives of our children for years to come.

Last night, Barack Obama pointed out that the United States of America has lost a lot of respect on the world stage. Let’s regain that respect by all making our votes count. Let’s band together and open our minds to the possibilities of just how great this country could be.

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:13:42 GMT

This week was... wow. I honestly don't even remember a lot of it. I am getting so tired of feeling like my work consumes so much of my life. I really do not want to live that way. I find myself wondering if that's how it is for everyone else, and then I think, no, it can't be. Other people have kids and go to church and do things for their community and see their extended family all the time. So, are those people just perpetually tired? Cause if I did all that, I sure as heck would be. Am I just a wimp? Or maybe those people just have the kinds of jobs that they can clock in and out of with ease every day, with no carryover from the job into their personal lives.

Anyway, the work week is behind me, thank goodness. I was definitely suffering a major energy deficit yesterday, but Jake and went to a party at his co-worker's house. Definitely the most unique party I've ever been to, at least in terms of the guest list. Other than a lady in her sixties who had to leave early, I was the only woman there. I also got to see and hear a lute played in person for the first time, which was extremely interesting. Who knew a used lute cost $3,800?? I have to really admire John (the lute player) and his musical ability and dedication. Jake and I spent $200 on our guitar, and that's about the max we're willing to invest in our un-yet tested musical skill.

Anyway, it was fun-- interesting people and good conversation. I talked so much I started to lose my voice. As usual, we stayed out way too late, so Jake is still in bed, and I have that sore-eyed late morning feeling after a night when you stayed up way past your bedtime. I got up and toodled around on the guitar a little, trying to learn a new Dixie Chicks song. I tried singing but I'm still pretty hoarse, and now my fingers are sore due to the long absence of playing.

Hooray for Saturdays!

Ew.

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:56:23 GMT

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/09/18/breastmilk-key-ingredient-at-swiss-restaurant/?icid=100214839x1209612790x1200558527

So, restaurants have no health codes in Switzerland?

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:13:16 GMT

So the interview process is going okay. It's really long and drawn out this time for some reason, and I really wish it would just be over soon. But we are looking for the perfect person, and I know that takes time.

Something that has been personally disappointing to me is to see how many young women that are applying who have left their hometown or a good job that they enjoy in another part of the country simply because their boyfriends want to move to the Triangle for one personal reason or another. In fact, the person who we are replacing was in that same situation when she started here. People always talk about what a long way women have come with equality, but to see real-life examples of the pre-1970s mentality like this is a bit sobering. Of course, I don't blame the boyfriends. It's the women who are making the decisions to tag along. I suppose they could just say no, right? But one does have to give some thought to how these situations play out-- it would be an interesting sociological study. If all is equal, how is it that it seems like the woman is always the one who loses out?

Granted, I don't see the other side of things. We're interviewing mostly women. Perhaps there are an equal number of men out there who are following their girlfriends around the country. But somehow I just doubt it.

It's just a little wind and rain.

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:51:31 GMT

So Hurricane Ike is barrelling its way toward Houston. It is that time of year, I suppose. I think the US was relatively lucky the past few hurricane seasons, but now it looks like our luck has run out. I saw this storm on the radar way out in the Atlantic a few weeks ago, and it was freaking HUGE then. I really had a feeling this storm was going to cause some trouble.

What gets me-- and what seems to be a recurring theme every hurricane season-- are the idiots who somehow think they are immune to nature. I know we went through it all with Katrina, and the dialogue is a bit tired, but obviously not EVERYONE was paying attention then. If they did, we wouldn't be writing and reading stuff like this (from the NY Times):

"Thousands fled the island earlier in the day in private cars or on government-chartered buses, but a few diehards insisted they would stay in their homes. One was Denise Scurry, a 46-year-old pool hall employee who was sitting on a milk crate Thursday afternoon in downtown Galveston near her two-story home, reading 'Thugs and the Women Who Love Them' and sipping brandy.

'It ain’t going to be nothing but wind and rain,” she said. “Everybody’s all excited about nothing.'"

Um, HELLO??!! Anybody in there? What the hell is wrong with someone who doesn't even have the common sense to leave a place when the government is telling them they will face "certain death" if they stay? What rock was she under when Katrina happened? How is it that people manage to trick themselves into believing things about reality that are so patently moronic and stupid? There's this thing called a risk-benefit ratio: even animals use it at a very primal level. Maybe this is Darwinism exemplified and I am holding every part of the population to too high of a standard, but god. It really doesn't get much stupider than that.

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:17:18 GMT

So Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is. Um, yeah.

National Public Radio

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:41:15 GMT

Does it make me prematurely old that I like NPR? Some of the stuff they air can be a bit hokey-- I swear, there is a female commentator who must be 128 years old. And some of their pieces are obnoxiously stuffy and pointless filler. You know, NPR's version of the stories you see on the local news, like the cat who helps her owner garden or something stupid like that.

But for the most part, I enjoy listening to them, if only for my daily update of local, national and world news. It's a good way to spend my 35 minute commute. The most intriguing to me is when they invite in a guest expert to comment on a news topic. It's usually someone who has written a book or serves as some analyst or consultant to the media or government. They're all really intelligent and, I think, interesting to listen to for the most part. What amazes me is how freaking calm these people always are. I mean, I really don't think most of these guests spend much time talking on air, especially to a national audience. Surely they're too busy fulfilling the necessities of their professions. But I'm telling you-- I think they spike the refreshments in the NPR green room with something. Maybe Xanex, Klonopin, what have you. I'm no seasoned professional, but I think I would either be scared shitless or just so excited to be talking about my passion that I would talk WAY too fast. These people talk like they're having a Sunday afternoon chat at a cafe. Only maybe even a little more monotone.

Ah, well. Maybe they'll invite me to the studio one day so I can shake things up.

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:40:04 GMT

For some very interesting comments on Sarah Palin's speech, take a look at this.

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/sarah_palins_speech.php

I thought the speech and the whole atmosphere in which is was delivered stunk, but I am still adding to the long list of inter-connected reasons for that opinion. I feel a major post coming on soon. I am just about ready to tear Palin and the Republican party a new one.

I want to see the new Office episode now

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:03:30 GMT

"Angela's the office bitch. You'll get used to her."

"Hey, what are all those stains?"
"Blood, urine or semen."
"Oh GOD I hope it's urine."

Burn in hell, Wal-Mart

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:04:01 GMT

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/wal-mart-drops-fight-against-woman/20080402064509990001

Well, well, well. Wal-Mart would have me believe they spontaneously grew a heart in the last week. I could not call Bullshit on that any louder. Usually I am pretty good at ripping into something that pisses me off with viscious rhetoric. But Wal-Mart has pushed me over the loquacity cliff and deep into the canyon of utter speechlessness. Literally, all I can say is, "DOES WAL-MART REALLY THINK WE ARE THAT STUPID??" Oh, wait. Yes. Yes, they do. What a pathetic, harmful, morally and ethically debauched company. I am just waiting for karma to catch up with them. I know it will happen some day.

You can stick that stupid little smiley face where the sun don't shine, Wal-Mart.

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:41:46 GMT

I was just sitting here ruminating: I wonder how many people in this office (we are mostly ALL women) will be voting for Hillary if she makes it?

I wonder how many will vote at all??

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:18:44 GMT

I wish it were warm enough to go for a picnic. That would be so lovely.

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 16:21:22 GMT

Is there a distinct difference between thinking about something intently and worrying?

Adultism

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:33:44 GMT

Perhaps it's different for everyone, but I think it's true that your twenties are when you really grow up the most. I feel so incredibly overwhelmed sometimes by the "responsibility" of it all. Jobs, taxes, insurance, cars, little things like just keeping your toilet clean. And not to mention kids (*shudder*). There are days when I still feel so young-- so naive and green and unable to face all of it. It makes me want a hug from my mom and dad. I find myself wondering if other people feel the same way, and if they do, do they feel that way until they're ninety? Or does one eventually get to an age where the responsibility of life no longer seems daunting? My gut feeling says no. There are some people who ALWAYS seem to have it together, no matter what. They are so composed, so "grown up." And I wonder if they really feel as pulled together on the inside as they appear on the outside. I'm just not completely sure if I enjoy being this thing called an "adult" yet.

Music rox

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:29:31 GMT

I listened to "Hard Day's Night" on the way to work today. The Beatles make me happy. I hadn't listened to any of their stuff in a long time. If I had been a teenager in 1964, I think I totally would have been throwing my panties and fainting everywhere The Beatles went, too.

Friendship

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:11:34 GMT

Perhaps it's partly because it's a new year, and partly because I am thinking a lot about what I want to do with my future, but I've been a bit nostalgic the past few days. I've thought a lot about the people in my past who meant something to me. By "something" it could be anything, good or bad. I used to spend a lot of time regretting things I said or did, or ways I treated people in the past. I realize now that it's all water under the bridge. Whether I positively or negatively affected these people, they are irrevocably a part of my past, and that's something I'm learning to embrace. There's almost something comforting in that-- like I'll always have a connection or base I can return to. I've been busily finding old pals on Facebook, and it feels good to re-connect. It puts a lot in perspective when I am cognizant of the fact that my peers are moving on with their lives much in the same way that I am. It's so easy to still imagine them the way I remember them-- but then I see them living in different cities, getting married, and having babies. They are out there living life and taking on the world, and it truly makes me happy for them. In fact, it gets me all warm and fuzzy. This will probably sound hokey, but here goes: To all my friends out there, old and new, I'm thankful for you and the impact you have made on my life!