Big O at the Big O House

Of course I DVR'd Oprah at the White House Christmas Special. I love seeing the inside of the White House. All of the history. All of the grandeur. All of the fawning...wait, that is just Oprah! I know that they are probably BFF's since the campaign, but it was hilarious watching her try to mask her adoration of the Obama's. Several times during the interview, during an answer to one of her "difficult" questions, she would pucker her lips almost as if to hide a creeping smile. Or you know when you are really happy, or you are enjoying yourself out in the sun, and your eyes water just a little bit, not enough to form tears but almost like a sensory overload? She had that! You could see her mind working, "Try to keep a straight face!" But I didn't expect anything less, thank goodness she contained herself from falling to the floor and kissing his feet! That would have been a little much.
After the sugar coating shock wore off, I very much enjoyed it. I think it is good to have reminders that people in the public eye, are just that: PEOPLE! Although I completely and passionately disagree with his political positions and his solutions on how to remedy many issues plaguing our country...I enjoyed him as a person. He is smart, thoughtful, seemingly a great dad and husband. He is like that friend that you think highly of, even though they think highly of themselves too...and probably more so than you do! And I was also very impressed with Mrs. Obama. She is very classy, yet down to earth. And do I really need to comment on his B+ rating? Here's my take: That is the proper answer. He can't rate himself lower, because you want a confident President. He can't rate himself any higher (even though, he would if health care passed: which I interpreted as "if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed would run their houses like I run mine!", anyhoo, I digress.) So who cares what he thinks of himself. It is becoming more apparent what the country thinks of the job he is doing. And if I remember correctly, most of the polls are similar to my feelings. You approve of the President as a PERSON, but don't agree with how he is handling issues like health care, Afghanistan, cap and tax, 9-11 mastermind's trials, etc.

Palin-Envy

...or Hatred? I'm not quite sure.

Of course, I watched the promoted showdown between two media darlings, Oprah v. Palin. In the left corner, we have Oprah; and in the right, Palin. And instead of a knock out heavy weight fight, I got a "friendly-dancing-around-the-ring" round! Out of curiosity, and boredom, I found my way to Oprah's message boards. I found more than I had expected! I anticipated the "don't-cha-know" stay at home mom's, Sarah Palin supporters, rehashing Obama's birth certificate and pallin' around with terrorist talk. Which, I think I saw one or two. But instead, Harpobear, the community moderator had to step in frequently to remind the Palin-Haters to keep the discussion "respectful".

Which leads me to my point. I am completely baffled at the absolute disdain, despise, detest, and even hatred some people have regarding Sarah Palin. Although I find her relatable, practical, and entertaining, at this point I would not vote for her. In the same sense, I consider Hillary Clinton a very intelligent, driven, and accomplished, and would not vote for her. But I do not spew venom when talking about her, the way some liberals do when discussing Sarah Palin. Most especially the women! And in my quest for understanding, I stumbled across a few blogs, articles, and discussions. But they can have the same disagreements with other politicians (namely men) without the same vitriol. So what makes her such a target?

I googled "I Hate Sarah Palin", which brought up t-shirts, bumper stickers, and other merchandise. I also found several blogs which created lists for why the liberal women hate her. I found ridiculous reasons such as "she was a beauty pageant contestant" and "she married her high school sweetheart". The only substantive issues women had with her were completely policy based. She's pro-life, pro-guns, pro-traditional marriage, pro-energy (which equals anti-earth), pro-death penalty, etc.

Here was a fabulous explanation, which seems pretty accurate: "She is the embodiment of the anti-choice, the opposite of every choice that lefty elites have ever made (wife, mother to five, rural, conservative) That everything she is is the antithesis of everything that liberal urban elites are, so it's not just enough to say, 'I disagree with you,'; she has to be repudiated and crushed." (Hugh Hewitt) Jim Garaghty continues, "To the left, I think, she embodies a sort of comfort with ignorance that they think characterizes most/all conservatives. If liberals are right that Palin really is ignorant, and moreover, completely comfortable with that ignorance, and moreover still, thought she ought to be Vice President of the United States, they have perhaps ample reason to dislike her. On the other hand, if they dismiss Palin because she looks pretty or talks funny or doesn't read the same newspapers they do, that goes to their being snobs."

So is the anti-feminist? Is she the absolute antithesis of everything that feminism has tried to accomplish? I would argue that she is a perfect example of it! You can have a beautiful family, adoring husband, and still be a strong, confident woman with a career you created. Is anyone else completely puzzled over all of this Palin-envy, especially by her fellow females?

A Civilian Trial!?!?!?

Disclaimer: Although I am dying to go to law school, and study all the legal in's and out's of our judicial system, I am definitely not there yet. As I was reading articles, case studies, encyclopedia entries, I realized I jumped in the deep end of a wave pool wearing arm floaties! Especially when you throw on top of civilian court cases, military tribunals, the Geneva Convention, acts of war, enemy combatants, etc! I was drowning in too much information. However, I needed a forum to verbalize my outrage, so I can get the inner dialogue out of my head!

What in the world was Eric Holder thinking?!? When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed mass murdered 2974 innocent victims, including 55 military personnel at the Pentagon, he commited an act of war and should be tried in a military tribunal. Khalid was not a citizen of the United States, nor were his associates. They are unlawful enemy combatants, because they are apart of a non-state terrorist organization. Because of this, they are not subject to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Will their Constitutional rights be envoked ex post facto? Will evidence be thrown out because they were not mirandized, or because they were not granted the right to a speedy trial? Will there be a mistrial because they can not find an impartial jury of their peers? Will their confessions be thrown out because of the interrogation tactics used, or because they didn't have their lawyers present?

I believe that this is an attempt by this administration, to put former President Bush's policies regarding the War on Terror on trial, instead of seeking justice for the thousands of victims of this horrorific crime! When Khalid asked to receive the death penalty, why didn't we grant him his wish, and swiftly send him to our Perfect Judge, instead of his anticipated 74 virgins? This is an outrageous decision where I do not see any positive outcome for those of us who are citizens of this great country, and uphold the Constitution Khalid and his terrorist allies spit on.

This was HILARIOUS!

If it wasn't for SNL's political skits and Kristen Wiig's characters, I would have stopped watching a long time ago! And this is a great combination of both. Fox News has been setting itself up for this perfect parody. I would say the Glenn impression was my favorite, but all of them were spot on!

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

Reporters v. Commentators

There has been a war of words between President Obama and his administration and Fox News. Each side enjoying the drama. The administration relieved that the focus has been taken off the lack of an actual written health care bill and the Afghanistan debacle. Fox News honored for being the singled out media organization by the evil empire.

David Axelrod asserts that Fox News is "not really a news organization", and "other news organizations like [George Stephanopolus, who was Clinton's White House communications' director] ought not to treat them that way". Rahm Emmanuel expressed President Obama's worries that Fox is corrupting other networks, and is concerned that "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Anita Dunn, Obama's communication director labeled the entire Fox News network as "opinion journalism masquerading as news".

What is considered "news"? What separates journalists and commentators?

Is the White House suggesting that MSNBC is a news organization and Fox News isn't? That Keith Olbermann is a reporter and not a commentator like Bill O'Reilly? Is President Obama labeling Fox News as a talk radio because Glenn Beck has been in both media outlets, and somehow that comparison doesn't apply to Rachel Maddow, a former liberal radio host on Air America? The only difference I see between MSNBC and Fox News is which side of the political spectrum they fall. And where would MSNBC be without Fox News?

But the war of words escalated into the White House's attempt to exclude Fox News from the live feed of an interview with the pay advisor, Kenneth Feinberg. Thankfully the real media outlets protested, and the White House caved. Was the President and his advisers attempting to punish Fox News for having differing opinions? When pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper about the appropriateness of President Obama's opinion regarding Fox News, or "sweeping declarations", Robert Gibbs responded "That's our opinion." Yes, Robert Gibbs, that is all it is, opinion. And in my opinion, if you exclude Fox News because of their format and who they include in their programs, MSNBC should also be excluded. Do we need to remind you, you are the President of both MSNBC viewers and Fox viewers?

Publicity Stunt?

Is being on t.v. the new American dream? There is only speculation that this family faked the emergency that their young son had climbed into a helium balloon and needed to be rescued. It does seem a little orchestrated. You be the judge! Crazy!

A Preemptive Peace Prize?

I woke up to a shocker this morning. President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! The nominations were February 1st, only 12 days after he was sworn into office. Other nominees were President Sarkozy of France, who proposed the cease fire plan for the Gaza Strip, and as the EU President proposed a progressive energy package to reduce carbon emissions. Or Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Columbian senate candidate, who was kidnapped and held captive by Marxist nationals for 6 1/2 years. Or Dr. Denis Mukwege, the only Congo gynecological doctor who has treated 21,000 women suffering from devastating gynecological injuries as a result of rape in Congo's brutal war.

Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, said today that President Obama was awarded the prize because "he has emphasized multilateral diplomacy, he has addressed international institutions, dialogue negotiations. He has inspired the world with his vision of a world without nuclear arms. He has changed the U.S. policy dramatically. There's a whole list."

Previous winners are recognizable symbols of peace, Martin Luther King, Jr, Nelson Mandela, and Mother Theresa. Muhammad Yunus was the 2006 winner, for their establishing of the Grameen Bank, which instituted the micro credit loans to help women pull their families out of poverty. Other winners have been awarded the prize because of their efforts in the green peace movement. Al Gore in 2007 and Wangari Maathai in 2004 for her Green Belt Movement in Kenya.

My take: In reading several statements by the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and others who are giving their congratulations across the world including former winners, used the words like "anticipates an even greater contribution" or "Nobel committee hopes the award will enhance his moral authority" or "he gave hope". I didn't read any actual policies enacted, treaties written, or international actions taken, which validate this award. Lech Walesa, who won the prize in 1983, spoke for many with his reaction. "Obama? So fast? Too fast - he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet," the former Polish president told reporters in Warsaw. Michael Cox, a North America expert at the Chatham House thinktank, said: "It is difficult to see why it would be awarded to him at this stage in his presidency. There are problems in the Middle East and an ongoing war in Afghanistan. You could say it is a little bit premature." Why did President Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize? Hope. Hope for peace. Let's see how far this "hope" takes us. How will this affect his policies in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is the world setting the US up for great accomplishments or tragic failure? In reading over several of the other nominees, I believe they were far more deserving. They are doing the day-to-day grind, hard work, in actually being the change. President Obama may be the spokesman for change, but I have not seen anything more than words. Now the question may be, will he follow Al Gore's footsteps and this be the first of future awards? Oscars? Grammys? World's Best Dad?