Just in Case

I wanted to make a short post in case you were looking for my world-famous *cough* review of last night's SYTYCD.

One, I did watch the show.
Two, I did not do a post (call the laziness police if you like)
Three, I loved the show.

Finally, if Karen makes the top 10, I may have to boycott the show. Just sayin'. Will post later!

Kisses all.

Why I love Twitter - Reason #76

So, last night I watched the American Music Awards along with the world of Twitter. As usual, it was waaayyyyy more entertaining sharing it with the Twitterati. Here were some of my favs from the show and Twitter:

The show opened with a Janet Jackson medley of tunes. It was a mess, in my opinion. Most of the tweets I saw thought her get-up was a little too MC Hammer-ish.

Daughtry started the American Idol segment, errrrr, was up next. It was one of the more understated performances of the night, for sure. Job well done in an otherwise crappy show. Twitter BUZZ? Stuff like this: 'This show sure is boring.' 'When is Whitney coming on?'

The blazingly hot Shakira performed "Give It Up to Me". As this number started, I was totally digging it. As it kept going, it started to feel like I was watching one long stripper step-show. I love the song & I thought she was HAWT:

But the performance? Meh. On Twitter, the breakdown was pretty gender-divided.

Keith Urban, little tiny cute dude, sang next. Again, a more subtle, laid-back and therefore tolerable performance. Plus, he's married to Nicole and he looks nice in a tight pair of jeans. There's that.

Kelly Clarkston performed next. She looked bored, perhaps slightly medicated? I worry that all the weight talk just drags her down. I like that song, truly. But ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Twitter BUZZ? The usual: Kelly's weight.

In one of the absolute BEST performances of the night, Alicia Keys & Jay-Z sang "Empire State of Mind." Twitter BUZZ? All good, like @AtlantaJJ said "Hova woke that dead crowd up!!!!" Others remarked: "It's about time this show had a good performance." Ms. Keys looked flawless and sang even better:

He looked pretty damn good too. (just sayin', Bey)

Next up: Black Eyed Peas did a medley. Highlight? Fergie shakin' the kitty for the whole world to see and surely saying something like, "So my hubby banged a skanky stripper? THIS is what he has at home and he did that??!! My husband is an idiot." Or something close to that.

Highly anticipated, though slightly disappointing, was the appearance of Rihanna. Ok, so she can't really sing live very well. I'll give you that. I don't care what ANY of you say, I thought this outfit was rockin' HAWT.

C'mon! It is WHITE, see-thru, skin-tight, and has horizontal lines!!!! WHO can wear that? I'll tell you who. Ri-Ri. Bonus: she had lasers shooting out of her shoulder pads. Pretty sure those were targeted directly at Chris Brown. Just sayin'. Twitter BUZZ: blah blah Chris Brown, blah blah, Brazilian wax, blah blah.

Next up on the American Idol AMA stage: Carrie Underwood performed in her underwear. I mean seriously. I love Carrie, but this is full of fashion FAIL.





In a much anticipated appearance, Lady GaGa displayed her penis and performed in yet ANOTHER weird get-up that screamed: 'I wanna be Grace Jones!'. I am not a Lady GaGa fan; this performance cemented that position. The piano on fire, the glass breaking, the neon light-up antelope head costume. DO.NOT.GET.THE.HYPE. Twitter BUZZ? Equally divided between: 1) 'what the FUCK is that?', and 2) 'Lady GaGa is the best thing in music since Madonna'. (HAR!)

After the 74th completely unnecessary crowd shot of Perez Hilton, we moved on to the good stuff. (But only temporarily; see next paragraph if you absolutely cannot wait). In another low-key (read: no dancers, light show, special effects, or simulated fellatio) performance, Mary J. Blige did what she always does: PERFORM. As in, sing ... live and shit.

The absolute WORST performance of the night: Jennifer "I am past my prime as a dancer" Lopez. Concept? Horrible. Dancing? Worse than lame. Singing? None. Performance? Ass-kicking ... as in falling on her ass.  PERFECTLY appropriate analogy to the performance. Truly. People like @GinaATL posted the video almost instantaneously. AWESOME for the West Coasters to see the glory of the ass-blast twice! wOOt!

After the diva wanna-be left the stage, a true diva returned! Whitney Houston performed "I Didn't Know My Own Strength". I thought it was pretty good, considering. The Twitter BUZZ wasn't so kind. Some of you were loving it, most were giving it high grades for determination and a classy comeback, but not exactly sterling reviews of her voice. Weirdest BUZZ? The 'is she pregnant?' question. Silly stuff, IMO. Good stuff extra bonus: She looked FAN-FREAKIN'-TASTIC.

Since once is never enough, we got to see Alicia Keys performing solo. The first half was kinda too production-y for me. I mean, just sit down and float on the piano and I'm good, Alicia. Oh, wait.... that's what the second half of the performance was all about. She came floating out into space on a platform ... playing a grand piano. WIN! Twitter BUZZ? A bunch of shit talking about her being a house wrecker. SMH.

Next up: Eminem & 50-Cent. On the one hand, it was nice to see them performing again. On the other hand, well .. there is no other hand. Nothing memorable. Most of the Twitter BUZZ was about Eminem NOT looking like a sausage singing into a microphone.

Some of the cattiest (yeeehawwww) stuff on Twitter all night was during the number by Timbaland, SoShy, and Nelly Furtado. Timbaland was a little *ahem* ... well ... *cough* ... ummmm ... husky. But the performance was pretty good, sort of an updated Thriller homage with a nod to Twilight. Nelly Furtado looked really great, but the Twitter BUZZ? Here's one example: @thewayoftheid: "I guess the clock struck midnight and turned Timbo's muscle back to fat." Such nastiness!


Green Day (ok .. the truth is I was taking a shower during this one, so I won't act like I can actually critique this one. Sorry.)

The final American Idol-overkill night was the much-hyped performance of Adam Lambert. Where do I start? It was a smorgasbord of censor-offending shock value theatrics. In fact, I can't even remember the song that well because I was trying to see how bad ride was going to get.

This was one of the tamer moments.

Something tells me he will never EVAH make it back to the American Idol stage. Pretty sure of that. Other highlights, crotch grabbing (his own and others), simulated head jobs (given & received), some sort of strange crotch pull of a pole dancer, and assorted screaming. (To be clear: I like Adam.) But it looked to me like he was going over the top just to be over the top. I, for one, wasn't offended. At least not at the gratuitousness. I just don't think he did himself any favors. But, c'est la vie. An artist is an artist. My fav Twitter BUZZ: @MacGeekGrl: "Congrats, Adam Lambert. You win the award for most egregiously homoerotic #ama performance, 2009."

All in all, it was great fun to 'watch' it with tweeps. @lilnerdette said it best: "really, the only reason awards shows are great is because of twitter. thank you!!!!"  Sooooooo true. Thanks all.

Sarah Palin is not so bright - Part 423

I didn't think I would do Sarah Palin posts back-to-back. Alas, I should have known better. Could not resist this story. The Caribou Barbie apparently told People magazine that the job she would most want right now in the White House is the Chief of Staff.

GOD.DAMN.HILARIOUS. It gets better. Here's a direct quote:

"It would be chief of staff, so I could start appointing people who would recognize those things that America needs to get our economy back on the right track and to secure our nation."

Where do I start? Let's do Civics 101. Here are the responsibilities of the White House Chief of Staff.
Here are the people who report to him.

Now that we have cleared that up, what EXACTLY is Sarah saying here? That the current WHCS appoints only people who hate this country and truly wish for it to fail miserably? That she fully acknowledges she knows so little about the executive branch that she does not even KNOW who gets 'appointed' or who is on the White House staff? Or maybe she is saying that only she holds the super seeekret formula for choosing just the right candidate to bow to her every whim to drill baby drill to save the country.

But, wait. Appointing Washington power brokers? People who have influence over policy? Without congressional oversight? Sarah .. have you lost touch with your wingnut base? The appointment of influential policy makers without proper vetting is unconstitutional, communist, abuse of power, and shadowy.

Awwwww... too bad Sarah. You won't get THAT White House position either.

Tonight's SYTYCD Episode .. My thoughts in 100 words or so

Cat was fabulosity again. Nigel was less grumpy. Adam was subdued.

The top 3 and full of awesomeness:

1. Ryan & Ellenore - graceful, beautiful, passionate (yeah Travis!)
   
2. Noelle & Russell - WOW. A foxtrot that was fun to watch? Hu nu.
3. Kathryn & Legacy - shocking, I know. All kinds of good.
   

VERY good, with a little something missing:

• Channing & Viktor - loved the piece, love the dancing, thought the quirkiness was lacking

Good, not great:

• Ashleigh & Jakob - good effort, unexpectedly good; but still awkward at times
• Mollie & Nathan - painful to say it, but it was boring
  

The undeniably clear bottom of the barrel tonight = Karen & Kevin

Sarah Palin - Ad Nauseam

Soooooo, since the whole of the world is focused on Sarah Palin, I thought I would jump in here and give my little ol' opinion (check the title of my blog).

First, I point to the definition of ad nauseam - 'to a disgusting or ridiculous degree; to the point of nausea'. Yep, that is EXACTLY where I am. Why, you ask? Thanks for asking, here's why (with a little background).

I remember when John McCain inflicted announced he was choosing Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential pick. I was watching it live while I was at my Mom's house. It was an interesting confluence for me, in large part because I was just coming back into my own political voice. I had spent the last 7 years moving multiple times, getting married, having 2 children, and completing my doctoral training. It wasn't a time that I spent thinking about politics. Sure, I followed it, but not with the consistency I had had before & not with the passion that I have now.

I remember the sense of shock in the crowd, mixed with some excitement. I listened to her speech and I immediately had two reactions:

1. I see why McCain picked her and I'm a little worried.
   
2. Please don't let ANYONE be fooled by this charade.

The early press on her was all about her being an outsider, a maverick, a fresh voice, blah blah blah. I understood the politics behind the choice: a woman, an anti-abortion candidate, an unknown (and therefore hard to attack at first), etc.  But there was also, instantly, a controversy surrounding the pick. I held out hope that others were responding the same way, especially those without much interest in politics.

Fast forward a bit to the campaign trail. She was rumored to be outdrawing McCain at some rallies. This was troublesome to me, especially considering how racist and hate-filled her audiences were turning out to be. Granted, VP picks are supposed to be attack dogs. But her thinly-veiled anti-anything but white Americans born in this country "real Americans" talk was really disgusting to me. Did she take some hits during the campaign? Sure, she did. NOT ONCE did I feel sorry for her. I believed then and I believe now that she is an impulsive and naive woman. She got thrown into the national spotlight, ill-prepared, ill-informed, and ill-mannered. The Couric & Gibson interviews revealed that.  But seriously, put on your big girl panties, Sarah. After all, you are Sarah Barracuda, right?

I could go on and on, but let's fast forward to the present day. Now Palin, or more precisely, her ghostwriter (who has a *ahem* shady background, FYI, see here and here) has blessed cursed us with her new book Going Rogue. Cue ad nauseam. I know, I know. I am contributing to my own aversion, but here's my opinion. If we look at Sarah then and Sarah now, what do we notice?

For me, several things stand out. One, her seeming obsession with branding herself a 'maverick' has only grown more obnoxious. You know what would be maverick-y Sarah? Taking R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-L-I-T-Y.  I know how terribly hard that is for many folks, especially politicians. But seriously, if you are going to go all over this country of ours touting 'real American values' and spouting off about being 'a normal mom', then how about do all your minions a favor and teach them responsibility.  YOU are responsible for your actions.  Lots of people/women get thrown into situations they are ill-prepared to handle.  Said people often flounder around and screw up some decisions.  But, in the end, we must take responsibility or we lose credibility to those are allegedly trying to lead.  Hell, even if you aren't going to lead, it is basic lesson of adulthood: take responsibility for your decisions.  My parents made sure I understood that.

Secondly, I notice that she does not seem to have learned a lot from her experience (other than reinforcing her standard position of 'blame, duck, & run').  She still does not appear to have focused on learning more about policy, foreign affairs, or even basic tact.  I won't pretend that I wait anxiously for every new statement Sarah Palin makes and then voraciously read through it looking for evidence of her stupidity or her newfound growth.  But let's be honest.  When you come out with a book with the sole purpose of trying to whine and blame marketed under the guise of 'setting the story straight', you AGAIN lose credibility as a worthy political leader on the national level.

My point here is that I am fine (albeit nauseated) with the media Palinpalooza; I am okay with it.  It seems obvious to me that NOTHING will change because of this book.  Those that worship her will continue to do so; those of us who despise everything she stands for will likewise continue to feel the same way.  Homeostasis ... political style.

Finally, I would be remiss to not have a snicker-worthy moment. See below for the definition of rogue:

1.	a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.

2.	a playfully mischievous person; scamp.

3.	a tramp or vagabond.

4.	a rogue elephant or other animal of similar disposition.

You BETCHA.

Here's my prediction for the next wingnut freak-out conspiracy

So the story broke recently that the Republican National Committee provides insurance to it's employees that covers elective abortions. There is not a word in the English language that can properly describe the hypocrisy in this load of shit. The Republicans, especially the neocons, having been trying for YEARS to strip away a woman's right to choose. Yet, they use contributor's money to buy insurance that would allow THEIR employees to exercise this right. So, it's okay for Republicans with jobs to not only get an abortion, but to have their employer contribute to the funding of the abortion? But NO WAY public money could be used for poor women, right? FUCK YOU GOP.

What could possibly be the motivation for doing something like this? They could have opted out of that part of the insurance coverage, but they didn't. Only NOW are they saying that it will 'be addressed'. So, that tells me that they have known all along that the coverage was in place. Why would they do that?

Here's my theory. Given that no wingnut theory is off-limits no matter how crazy, I am weighing in on the next one. In 1990, when Barack Obama was like 8 1/2, he secretly plotted, planned, and funded a conspiracy to try to kill off Republicans slowly by something so diabolical, devious, and horrid that we are only NOW realizing the full effects of his anti-Christ abilities. See BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA planned it so that Republicans working for the national party could off future little Republicans and get paid to do it! That man is truly brilliant.

I await the truth of my prediction coming to light.

My take on last night's SYTYCD episode

My take on last night's episode in 100 words or less ...

Cat = HAWTNESS defined (no doubt she has a new stylist)

GREAT performances:

• Jakob & Ashleigh's jazzy number (hot costumes, hot 'ography, hot music)
• Channing & Viktor's contemporary number (see above)

Good performances:

• Peter & Pauline's quick step (mostly because it was unexpected)
• Karen & Kevin's hustle (close to great)
  
• Noelle & Russell (tho I want to put Russell in the above category)
  

Train-wrecks:

• Ryan & Ellinore's hip-hop clusterfuck (horrid costumes, terrible execution)
• Mollie & Nathan (my winner for the unsexiest number EVAH)

Bottom 4: (see trainwrecks)
Going home? Mollie & Nathan

Remembering Maddie

Still a heartbreaking story, but now with a silver lining.


Remembering Maddie.

That Damn Liberal Oscar the Grouch

I always get a little chuckle over the 'liberal media' argument, especially when someone tries to make that argument during this reign of Rupert Murdoch. But wingnut-mania is seriously making me guffaw ... loudly...over their latest freak-out.

It seems that liberal bastion 'Sesame Street' has offended the *cough* senses of the far Right. In a skit that first ran TWO YEARS AGO, Oscar the Grouch has a caller who tells him his Grouch News Network (get it .. pun on Cable News Network) isn't grouchy enough and she is going to switch the channel to "Pox News" because that is really "trashy" news. (snort)

First, Andrew Breitbart pouts about how the liberal media is infesting his every minute and by God, it ain't fair. After all, they are using HIS tax money to support this horrible intrusion of 10th amendment rights, and inciting death panels, and where's the birth certificate, and ... wait ... that's a different paranoid delusion. Back to Sesame Street. In a complete laughfest, he goes on to cite the overwhelming popularity of Fox News (anyone catch that irony) and how offensive it is that he cannot get away from all Obama all the time. Here's his ridiculousness:

"If Mom and Dad watch cable news, it’s better than 50/50 they watch “POX News.”  So what gives? PBS — a network partially funded with my tax dollars — has the right to tell my kids that their parents watch “trashy” news?  The message is clear, I can’t even sit my kids in front of “Sesame Street” without having to worry about the Left attempting to undermine my authority. And don’t tell me, “If you don’t like it change the channel.”  There are no channels left! It’s everywhere. Just last week I had Obama’s service and volunteerism promoted on every single major network, including Disney and Nickelodeon."

Andrew cannot get away from that horrid, embarrassing, socialist, Marxist, fascist idea of *gasp* volunteer service. Hide your eyes, quick! It's everywhere!!! The height of ridiculousness, really. Now Bill O'Reilly has jumped on the paranoid wagon too.

The Right remind me of that obstinate bonehead who KNOWS that the best thing to do is stop and ask for directions, but he/she doesn't want to be TOLD to do it, so they just drive around... bitching because they are lost ... and blaming the shitty GPS navigation.

But Breitbart is not done there, he goes on blathering about television shows "steering children toward left-infested "volunteer" web sites', NEA sekreet agendas to take over the world, & don't forget that Presidential indoctrination school speech that the Right got their panties all in a wad over. Hey, you dumbasses... it's called VOLUNTEER-ing for a reason. It means: To perform or offer to perform a service of one's own free will. Get it? Your OWN FREE WILL. So, Andrew, are you scared that you have no free will or are you scared that you're utterly unable to overcome the Nazi, Maoist, flaming liberal, voodoo influence and will ultimately find yourself zombie-like serving food in a soup kitchen unaware of how you even got there?

But he has to build the supernest of paranoia in order to make his point.  Yeah .. and you know what the point is? Wait for it ... wait for it ... wait .....

"The Left’s worst nightmare came true:  The conservatives are the hip ones."

 That would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Brief Thoughts on the Tragedy at Ft. Hood

Yesterday's tragic massacre at Ft. Hood has me thinking about many things: the horror our soldiers endure, the reality of mental health problems in all segments of society, and the clusterfuck that is the reaction to the whole event.

I'm sure I will post more feelings about this later, but for now I want to say two things:

First, I cannot begin to imagine the horror the entire military community is feeling right now. Men & women who deploy overseas, leaving their families behind only to see them attacked...on American soil...on a military base...by a fellow soldier. That is just the definition of horrid. The mental damage done by war alone is horrific, now they have to deal with the frightening memories of this event. It's just very sad. My heart goes out to them. As I was putting my son to bed last night, I had an overwhelming sense of sadness that some little boy had lost his mother or father last night. By the time I awoke this morning, it occurred to me that this is a 'normal' part of military life. Sounds lame, I know. But it occurred to me that I should recognize that this is a reality every week, sometimes every day, in the military. Moreover, it seems every week brings a news story about some horrific shooting, torture, child abuse, serial killer, etc etc etc. So, somewhere a child becomes an orphan...sometimes because they lose a parent; sometimes because they are beaten up by a cruel world.


So, all of that left me feeling pretty shitty. Now I see that the blame game has started. I know this is an understandable human reaction to try to make sense of something so senseless. But really...does it HAVE to follow the same old lame script? The Muslim-bashing, the Obama-hating, the fake patriots who support war then balk and blame when soldiers are killed ... all of it just makes me sick.

I don't know what to do with that feeling. I'm sure the answer will come to me, but for now I'm left with a sick feeling that this is just ANOTHER division in our fragile U.S. psyche.

SYTYCD recap

So, I took a welcome break from watching election coverage to revel in last night's episode of SYTYCD. Good news: I didn't watch election coverage. Bad news: didn't love the show.

I'll start with the good parts:

• Cat was fabulously hot. Shoes = yummy, dress = perfection.

• Adam STILL rocks as a judge.

• Nathan (disclosure: I have a big 'ol crush on him) and Mollee were fantastic in the Bollywood number.

• Kevin and Karen = HAWTNESS-squared

• Biggest surprise of the night? Legacy was really great. (I know, I NEVER thought I would type those words).

Hot mess for the rest of the show. Nigel was cranky and off center on many of his comments, IMO. Noelle was raggedy in her number. Viktor and Bianca (both of whom I really like) were a mess. Philip and Channing looked like senior citizens trying to do lifts. Pauline & Peter choked on Wade's number...totally undersold it.

Biggest mess of the whole show? The judging. Well, at least some of it. I should declare that I think judges should NEVER criticize choreography. It's not a show about choreography. Whatever they say, they should critique them privately. So, I was quite annoyed by several of Adam's comments, even though I think he is the best judge on the panel.

Finally, I am quite disappointed at the ... ummmmm ... pale-ness created by the last two JUDGES cuts. I know, I know. You shouldn't keep or cut people based on that, but still. Three out of the last four cuts??? I'll be glad when the public is voting again. Come to think of it, I will probably bitch about that too. *shrugs*

"Indecisive" is not an insult

See Cartoons by Cartoon by John Trever - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

You're not going to catch me calling myself: 1) an expert on Afghanistan, 2) a policy wonk, or 3) vastly qualified to blather on about the 'true' problem of Afghanistan.  That being said, I'm deep in thought about this:

There is much gnashing of teeth lately over President Obama's supposed waffling on Afghanistan. Old, tired, worn-out terms like 'soft on defense', 'weak', 'indecisive' are being bantered about willy-nilly by the Right. Former Vice President Dick "I have a really short memory for the relevant, yet stupid shit my administration did" Cheney weighs in, too. He says the administration is "dithering" on Afghanistan. This from the man who declared the Taliban "out of business permanently".

It gets better ...

Bush NOW thinks Afghanistan is vital..

and we trust his judgment because ...

All of the windbags on the Right are having a boner party criticizing President Obama's decision-making...wholly ironic given that the 2008 GOP candidate for President did not think Afghanistan was a big deal, insisting that Iraq was the real war of concern.

Some think President Obama has no right to blame Bush for the mess that is Afghanistan. Oh, ok. My bad. I thought this war started during W's administration? I thought Bush and Cheney were the ones who lost focus on Afghanistan...focus spent on starting an immoral war, based on lies, against Iraq? I thought that Republican administrations had funded the Afghans' fight against the Soviet Union? Sure, whatever you say Party of No.

"Waffling", "weak", "indecisive", "just plain ignorant"? It's an old strategy that the Republicans drag out of the broom closet against pretty much anyone in the Democratic Party facing issues of national security and/or foreign policy. It usually involves some combination of unilateralism, poo-pooing the U.N., and incitement of a boogeyman.

But let's be honest here. Afghanistan is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. The President is weighing his options. The answers are far from clear. But the warmongers on the Right ranting on about the President not giving an answer about troop decisions fast enough to please the them frustrates the shit out of me.

Yes, the war is a serious thing. All war is serious and sending troops into harm's way should ALWAYS be carefully considered.

Yes, the Taliban is gaining influence. But to many Afghans, having the Taliban in power is a brutal, but necessary evil to ease the constant civil war and tribal tensions.

DO NOT FORGET, that 9/11 planning was conducted in Afghanistan. We trained and funded many of Bin Laden's people. We knew Al-Qaeda was there, being hidden and supported by the Taliban. But we squandered 7 years there with a hodge-podge strategy. We let Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda elude capture and escape into (probably) Pakistan. Yet, we remain there fighting a war... for what? Do the Taliban really threaten the U.S.? Yes, if they were harboring Al-Queda. Nobody really thinks they are anymore. Do we need stability in that part of the world? Sure.

The point is that the situation is complicated and deserving of thoughtful, well-intentioned decision-making. If you have never read "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson, you should. It is a fantastic book that gives a poignant & realistic picture of the complications and nuances of life in that part of the world. Perhaps having read that book has given me a modicum of understanding and more to the point, a healthy respect for thoughtful decision-making when it comes to foreign policy in that region of our world. If the Right chooses to call that 'indecisive', then I'll have to let them know that that isn't an insult. Sorry to disappoint warmongers. It isn't going to stick.

Our President will take his time and make his decision. Godspeed to him. I hope he makes a good one. But take the necessary time, he will. Funny how this same group of howling monkeys complains that health care reform is moving too FAST. Alas, they will never be happy as long as Obama is president. That is the real truth.