Zepling

I'm Michael Myers tonight, hehe. *stab stab* I'm supposed to go to some parties tonight but I really don't want to. I think I'm going to the midnight showing/production/extravaganza of Rocky Horror Picture Show instead. Science fiction...double feature...

Yay! $3.15 yesterday!

I am happily voting NO on Prop 8. It is not right to take rights away from people because of a factor which is out of their control. I don't believe same sex marriage has anything to do with schools, as the horribly deceptive Yes on 8 ads say. This prop is causing a lot of controversy here in the bay area. I have seen demonstrations, vandalism, and loud arguments on both sides. Yes on 8 people are putting their signs all over my town and painting their car windows with "Protect families! Protect our children! Vote Yes on 8". Conversely, I've seen No on 8 people vandalize those cars and signs with "Bigot" written over them.

What a horrible way to go...Poor whale.

I prefer Maddow over Olbermann. Olbermann can get on my nerves with his rantings sometimes but it doesn't keep me from watching his show. Maddow is much more level headed and and can whip out facts like it's no one's business. She's a much better host than that rude Bill O character (whom, admittedly, I used to watch most nights during my summer break because he can be so ridiculous). Now I refuse to give him the ratings. I agree with you about her interview style. I think she is a great interviewer. My only complaint is that now that she has her own show, she is modeling it solidly after 'Countdown.' I felt that when she guest hosted on Countdown, she was less smart-alicky and more objective. She always had an opinion but she usually told it how she saw the topic, explaining both the good and the bad. But I think since MSNBC is marketing the two shows together, it would make sense if she changed her exaggerated her style a little to match Countdown. Do you watch Harball? Were you watching when Matthews said that Obama's speech made him "tingle?" I also love David Gergen. I wish he'd get his own show.

I am admittedly an animal rights nut and I have to say that hunting an animal from a helicopter is just incredibly fucked up. On top of that, Palin couldn't save these poor creatures and put them in a zoo. I think I'm seeing red.

There has never been any hard evidence that he has profited directly from his organizations lawsuits. He does own stock, however. I do have a question about Ron Paul. Under a hypothetical Paul administration, how would people like my brother be handled? I'm a bit confused by his stance on Public health. I looked it up on ontheissues.org but I'm still having some trouble. for background: my brother is on both (federal) MediCare and (state) MedicAid. He also collects Social Security. He is severely disabled and cannot work. Under a supposed Paul Administration, would he be unable to collect MedicAid since Paul has stated that we should dissolve it into an all-volunteer, pro-bono medical care system? Would his MediCaid, which is used to pay for some of his medical supplies (not actual care) be cut off? If that were the case he'd have to go to a nursing home, which would be unfortunate. I don't mean to press you about Ron Paul since you aren't his spokesperson. I just want to understand him because I see a lot in him that 1) is contradictory (not a big deal, everyone has contradictions within themselves) 2) a lot of what he stands for could be very damaging to my family if implemented 3) he has a very loyal group of supporters (is it just me or do a minority of Paul's supporters have a "holier than thou, I'm smarter than you"/Libertarian attitude? Not accusing you, just do a YouTube search on Ron Paul you'll see what I mean, I think)

All that he did was point out that the muscle car lacked certain safety features that are now standard. He got the Corvair booted, big whoop. The gas embargo killed the muscle car, not Ralph Nader. And much, much later he was responsible for the seat belt law being passed which saves an estimated 10,000 lives yearly. I think that is deserving of praise. Even if he had killed the muscle car, is that not what a "maverick" would do? To go against the grain, disregard popularity, take on Congress and big business for what he knows is right? John McCain better watch himself.

If Ron Paul is a maverick, what does that make a guy like Nader who can't gain enough support [to save his life] for any position in public office? What is more "mavericky" than that? Well if we're planning on writing in and throwing the election anyway, then I guess I don't feel quite as bad about writing in Nader. http://www.votenader.org/index.html Nader/Gonzalez '08! Or we can just write in Joe the Plumber. I mean, geez. He got 26 shout outs last night during the debates. Have you heard his opinions. He sounds like just the guy we need in office. He's got spunk. :spiritgun Actually, I'm thinking about writing in this smiley for president: He won't use a hatchet or a scalpel when dealing with the economy, he'll use a medieval sword that kind of looks suspiciously naughty. Ugh, I'm sick of this election. The only thing I find important in this election is Prop 8. For those of you who don't live in California, Prop 8 is the ban against gay marriage put forth by the "family coalitions" with the dirtiest, cheapest campaign ads I have ever seen. That is the only prop or measure that I am going to feel proud voting either for or against. Well, against, to be exact. Oh yeah, I forgot to say what I say to an undecided. I would say "I'm sorry that you are being bombarded with dirty ads and studied like rats." But jeez, if you are still undecided, you need to stay home or flip a coin because all you need to know is on the internet. Does what happens in the campaign actually INFLUENCE votes, or does it just reinforce your already solid opinions? (When I say "you" I am not actually addressing anyone specifically).

I was really hoping that Alice in Wonderland would be live action.

My dad lost half of his 401k in only one f*ing day. Not to mention the whole world is pissed at us right now because now their economies are in the toilet. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/22/marketturmoil.creditcrunch?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-euromood20-2008sep20,0,7535469.story http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fg-iran23-2008sep23,0,4954098.story

Same can be said about the Hillary campaign. Sorry, I couldn't resist...But seriously, just because she came in second does not mean she deserves the vp nomination. Just like how Obama does not deserve votes from Hillary supporters just because he's a Democrat. Palin is just a ploy to grab the angry Hillary voters and at the same time, pander to the fundies. Bleh. It's sad but she is energizing the Republican base. I thought the either party was more intelligent than to fall for this bull. Sad bit number two, where I live, a ton of Hillary chicks are leaning toward McCain because of this Palin pick. Count me in for a write in...only I'm writing in Nader.

I actually got into a dumb fight with my bf over breast implants. When we were first dating, he mentioned to me that he thought fakies looked bad and he did not find them attractive. Then I learned of his fascination with Ice T's wife COCO. Grrr, it still ticks me off a bit. He called her perfect *ruffles feathers*. Anyway, it's really not that important an issue. here's a pic of Coco. I am very much against shallow cosmetic surgery (elective, unecessary). I'm very much a "what you see is what you get" kind of gal. I don't wear dresses (too drafty), high heels (can't walk in them), no wonder bras (I had one once, but the cheap thing's wire kept poking me), no make up (at all, I just don't like it), no nail polish (I keep them nice though). I realize that personal appearance is a choice and I don't look down on people who don't live like me, I just do what works for me (like not wearing make up). I am a bit of a hypocrite though. I have very pale skin so I dyed my blonde hair a brownish red to compliment my skin tone instead of washing me out like had looked before.

That Piccolo looks more like Garlic Jr.

Wow, if they were working to please the fans they would have AT LEAST included Krillin.

I just finished up my third week of Fall Semester. I'm already exhausted.

Great video. Sheppard Smith is such an asshole. Check this one out (unrelated) Anyway, I'm tired of our media always jumping on Russia. I'm not saying they're the humanitarians of the century but they helped MANY Latin American countries out when the U.S. was stomping all over them. And Russian TV is telling the story from BOTH sides of the conflict, not just their own, unlike what the U.S. is doing right now in their coverage. The Georgian government is just as corrupt as the Russian one and should not be put on a pedestal. Condi was talking about how the U.S. supports the Georgian government unwaveringly and it really grinds my gears. IF we want to help, we should offer our sympathies to the people who are directly effected by this, not to the Georgian government.

Both sides are using the people of South Ossetia as political pawns. Neither Georgia nor Russia are in the right here and it's so sad to see. And John McCain's speech saying that "we're all Georgians" is just sickening. How can he condemn the Russians for a reactionary strike, when we have invaded Iraq on a pre-empitive whim? He just wants to protect the pipeline that runs through Georgia, not Georgia itself.

Ignore.

I've been noticing a lot of scheduled Deadliest Catch...does the Discovery Channel even feature other shows anymore? I used to be able to watch the History Channel for hours on any given day. But it seems that now they play just as many reality shows as FOX with Ax Men, Ice Road Truckers, and Tougher in Alaska. If I want to watch a reality show, I'll tune into Bravo, thank you! Even the shows that they feature which aren't reality shows aren't my cup of tea (Battle 360, The Works). Then there are shows that CAN be interesting, but are over played such as: Modern Marvels, Mega Disasters, Monster Quest, and UFO Hunters..... What happened to discussing...ummm....history? I've stopped watching the history channel.

Why is the Sci-Fi Channel showing the newer episodes of the X-Files? Give us more mumbly mumblerson Moulder!

Well I'm a vegetarian and I eat a ton of fresh fruit and veggies. How can I afford it? I buy locally grown stuff at farmer's markets. I know that in some places, farmer's markets are a little difficult to come by so I apologize if my suggestions are not helpful. If I am pressed for time I go to Trader Joe's (or if I'm out of EVERYTHING I go to Costco). Now about entrees, I just get creative. I use recipes from websites (usually under categories such as "broke college student").

I wasn't posting that in order to engage in a point for point debate because I do not believe that Ron Paul is wrong. I have a copy of the Constitution, I know what it says. I disagree with Ron Paul. I am not a strict "Constitutionalist" because I believe that we live in a different world now that requires a different way of looking at things. Ron Paul does not represent MY interests, so as a politician, why should I support him? Yes but embryonic stem cell research is so expensive that if a University cannot afford to conduct it, the money needs to come from somewhere that can. Because public donations are already factored into said University's budget, and the State's education fund cannot possibly squeeze out the extra dough for this important scientific research, the money must come from the Feds. It's the only way to get the research off the ground in a timely manner. If the research was no so important to the American people (such as brain damaged people like my older brother) then this wouldn't be an issue. Again, same as above. The money has to come from somewhere. The government by the people and for the people. The research is too important to NOT fund. Well he just doesn't believe the Government should give aid abroad anyway. I don't care if it isn't in the Constitution. Again, different times call for a different way of looking at things. In 1789, we wouldn't have even thought of giving aid to a foreign country with tax payer money. But now that we can, why the hell not? Now I can see why we shouldn't give aid to foreign Governments. That's why I think that our foreign aid should go to foreign non-profits. Different times from the early '90s. One cannot say that's it's a good or bad policy without having any knowledge of the attitudes about gays in the army itself. I know of a few isolated incidents of gays in the army (openly) and their peers had no problems with it. It was the superiors of their supervisors that had a problem with it. I think it's time to overturn this policy if it is indeed, a non-issue anymore (it should at least be reviewed closely). But I think "dishonorable discharge" for homosexuals is quite insulting when one considers the fact that when you get too fat to do your job in the army, you receive an "honorable discharge." And the problem is that you can't convince every employee in a given workplace to unionize. In fact, there is such a stigma attached to unions, that in this day and age, you can't even convince a majority of the workforce to unionize. Different times. That is just fear mongering. Just because a group CAN have rights, does not mean that my rights are going to be dictating by said group. Individuals do have rights, but groups can have rights too. Take unions for example, the employees in the union are a collective group that that rights of their own, while also protecting the rights of the individual employee. Did he vote YES because of his beliefs or because it involved tax payer money. His gay and civil rights voting record is appalling (in my opinion). And this just seems like one more vote against gays in his already less than stellar voting record (when it comes to homosexual issues). My main issue with this one is the use of the word BAN. NOT presenting scientific facts that support creationism involved using tax payers' money? We should present scientific facts that support creationism because it wouldn't be at the cost of tax payer money? I'm sorry I don't understand. I was under the impression that this was just ideological. But I call this Government sponsored Religion. If people want their kids to have a Christian education, they should fork over the money themselves and pay for Christian and Catholic education. And what about Muslim or Jewish educations, would they not get tax-credits too? It's a slippery slope to give tax-credits for religious schooling. But these tax payers' are also can't afford to go to college. If a student cannot afford to go to college but CAN get it otherwise, I believe they should be awarded some Fed cash. Black and Hispanic college have so little public funding and small enrollment as it is, where are they supposed to get the grant money on their own? Surely SOMETHING can be done. I just plain disagree with this one. I just disagree. That is why animal protection laws are on the State level. I am big on animal rights, and with a score such as 14%, I have no choice but to take issue with that. That means that there were measures FOR animals that he voted against. I may get to the rest later but right now I don't have time to discuss anymore of the highlighted issues. Edit: I just took a big dose of FUKITOL and realized that I don't care anymore. I just don't agree with Ron Paul on these issues because I'm not a strict "consitutionalist." Happy????? ^.~

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007) Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006) Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003) State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987) Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007) UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003) Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001) Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003) Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) I'm not trying to blast the guy, that's not my intention. Those are some things that concern me about Ron Paul's stances/voting record and why I can't fully support the guy. There are many things that I've read that I agree do agree with...but there are also more things I don't like about him that I didn't get to...

I think I'm going to change my name to Midnight Chardonnay.