Well, I've been watching Idle this season and have kept silent until now. Not sure who picked the duet songs this night, but, obviously, Kree and Amber got the raw end of the deal. The four women left to compete are not being given a level playing field. Clearly, the favorite of the judges is Angie, with Amber close behind. I mean, come on, they announce again tonight that she is from Boston, tugging on the sympathy strings and then bring her grandmother on stage to embrace her starlet. Don't get me wrong, Angie can sing - she can sing for Glee with or without the piano. Candice can simply sing her tail off and will have a hard time topping performances she has already given - but they were good enough to win it all. Amber will do fine in Vegas in the casinos and Kree will light up the cross-over country world when she finally gets the chance.
Amber just got a standing ovation for going flat in many places singing MacArthur Park, while Candice lulled me to sleep with a Bee Gees song that even they abandoned. Kree weighed in with A Whiter Shade of Pale with a very loud organ that overshadowed her vocal. While she was supposed to redeem herself for the alleged judges, she chose to just perform a terrific rendition of that song. Angie chose Cry Me A River - yet another fantastic Glee performance.
As far as the alleged judges, Randy is stuck with Dogs and Dudes and In It To Win It, Mariah, the D-Cup Diva has almost learned to put enough words together to make a complete sentence #what?, Keith usually gives constructive criticism without chastising the artist but needs to find a word to replace Baby. He's constantly looking to be moved by the artist, perhaps because his Australian-American country songs are so genuinely emotional. Then there's Ms. Onika Tanya Maraj (Nikki Minaj), who should be judging X-rated singers in a dark alley somewhere. She's like a potty-mouthed Fran Dresher of slang with serious hair issues.
It's funny, I find myself agreeing with Jimmy Iovine more often than any of the judges. I'm not sure his advice eofre they sing is the best they could receive, but his critique after is usually spot on.
I realize that my opinions are like armpits - everybody's got one, but someone has to be the adult in the room and offer up some serious honesty. I wonder - when the judges do their playback of the shows, do they judge themselves and realize what poor performances they are giving many times and yet they get to call out others about each song choice and emotional evocation and wardrobe selection and hairstyle and lipstick color and shoe heel height.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Saturday, October 6, 2012
The Ugly American
Many Americans can't understand why people from other countries don't like us. After all, we're wealthy, technologically advanced, nearly a democracy (actually, we're a representative republic), we dress well, wear perfumes and colognes, give modestly to charities and don't eat our young.
While relaxing today after a round of Wi exercising, I tunes into a couple of college football games. I don't support any particular team, either college or professional - I usually cheer for the underdog. But today while remoting between Arizona vs Stanford and LSU vs Florida, I found myself hoping LSU would defeat Florida in the worst way. It wasn't because of the state or university or ranking or even uniform colors. It was because during the game, actually, early in the game, a couple of plays in a row resulted in a player from LSU staying on the ground after sustaining some type of injury.
In the past, when a payer from either team goes down the crowd would come to a hush while the downed player received medical attention. Once up and leaving the field, either under their own power or with help, the crowd would cheer in support of the wounded warrior. This is a contact sport, with large, powerful young men pounding each other for hours. Sure, they wear protective equipment, but the human body is not designed to take that kind of abuse under any circumstances.
Now, when the players from LSU were lying on the ground getting attention, the crowd from Florida began to boo - both times. One of the players couldn't walk off the field and needed to be assisted to the sideline and the Florida fans booed. What is their problem? Where is the sportsmanship? Where's the decency? Where's the American compassion? Where's the appreciation for the players' efforts?
In the grand scheme of things, hell, in the weeny scheme of things, this game means nothing! It won't cure an illness. It won't bring about world peace. It won't feed the hungry or house the homeless. It's a football game - emphasis on game. The one thing it is supposed to do is build character - players and viewers meeting on the gridiron in the spirit of entertaining competition.
But the fans of Florida University have sullied not only the residents of Florida, but of Americans. It makes us look ugly. It shows a remarkable lack of class. It represents the ideal that Americans must win at any cost. If it takes an opponent to get injured - so be it. If we win by getting a bad call from the officials - so be it. If we need to cheat to win - so be it. All that matters is that we get the win. Sportsmanship? - out the window.
This attitude is represented as well in our politics. We need to lie to win - so be it. We need to cheat to win - so be it. We need to hurt others to win - so be it. As long as we win, we can live with ourselves.
So, we are the Ugly Americans - but we are winning! So be it!
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
While relaxing today after a round of Wi exercising, I tunes into a couple of college football games. I don't support any particular team, either college or professional - I usually cheer for the underdog. But today while remoting between Arizona vs Stanford and LSU vs Florida, I found myself hoping LSU would defeat Florida in the worst way. It wasn't because of the state or university or ranking or even uniform colors. It was because during the game, actually, early in the game, a couple of plays in a row resulted in a player from LSU staying on the ground after sustaining some type of injury.
In the past, when a payer from either team goes down the crowd would come to a hush while the downed player received medical attention. Once up and leaving the field, either under their own power or with help, the crowd would cheer in support of the wounded warrior. This is a contact sport, with large, powerful young men pounding each other for hours. Sure, they wear protective equipment, but the human body is not designed to take that kind of abuse under any circumstances.
Now, when the players from LSU were lying on the ground getting attention, the crowd from Florida began to boo - both times. One of the players couldn't walk off the field and needed to be assisted to the sideline and the Florida fans booed. What is their problem? Where is the sportsmanship? Where's the decency? Where's the American compassion? Where's the appreciation for the players' efforts?
In the grand scheme of things, hell, in the weeny scheme of things, this game means nothing! It won't cure an illness. It won't bring about world peace. It won't feed the hungry or house the homeless. It's a football game - emphasis on game. The one thing it is supposed to do is build character - players and viewers meeting on the gridiron in the spirit of entertaining competition.
But the fans of Florida University have sullied not only the residents of Florida, but of Americans. It makes us look ugly. It shows a remarkable lack of class. It represents the ideal that Americans must win at any cost. If it takes an opponent to get injured - so be it. If we win by getting a bad call from the officials - so be it. If we need to cheat to win - so be it. All that matters is that we get the win. Sportsmanship? - out the window.
This attitude is represented as well in our politics. We need to lie to win - so be it. We need to cheat to win - so be it. We need to hurt others to win - so be it. As long as we win, we can live with ourselves.
So, we are the Ugly Americans - but we are winning! So be it!
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Choice...Small Government
Everyone is clamoring for smaller government, less intrusion in our lives, allowing us to make more choice for ourselves . . . unless, of course, we are talking about government overseeing our private lives - who we can and can't marry, when women can stop a pregnancy, who can serve in combat roles, whether or not you can vote, etc.
I just learned that 31 states demand the mother who gives birth to the child of a rapist must allow the rapist to retain parental rights. Imagine that - you are raped and the state says you have to bring you child to the rapist for parental visits, forcing you the deal with the person who raped you for 18 years. I spent many years in Virginia, home to the current ultra-sound governor. it's no wonder he thinks the way he does. if he was raised in Virginia, he was raised in a state where a man cannot legally rape his wife. she is considered property and must surrender herself to him at his request or demand. I would venture that many states have similar laws still on their books - no one bothered to remove them - just a silly law, like no donkey riding on Sundays through the streets of Norfolk. So, why bother to take it out of the Virginia state law book?
I am breaking my own rule by even broaching the topic of rape and abortion, as I am a man, and it is highly unlikely that I will be raped and impossible to face the difficult decision of abortion personally. But, I am married and am a firm believer in social justice and equality. I fail to see the justice or equality in men making decisions about women's bodies, their choice and rights.
Recently, a congressman started a fury over the abortion debate by using the term "legitimate rape" and claiming a woman can control her body to reject the sperm of her rapist, thus avoiding pregnancy and the decision to abort. It has become a hot topic, perhaps the defining topic of this year's election process, as the same doctor that this congressman cites as evidence for his rape and pregnancy claim, is the same man Mitt Romney chose in 2007 as his advisor on abortion. And, the congressman coauthored two pieces of legislation regarding abortion with the republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan.
This gets us back to smaller government. Romney and Ryan claim that government intrudes too much and too often into our personal and private lives, yet they have chosen to annoint themselves as the leaders ready to decide a woman's most difficult choice and force her by law to give birth to a rapist's child, where, in 31 states, she would be forced again by law to interact with her rapist regarding their child's future. Smaller government indeed.
I think it's time to become totally politically and racially incorrect. I know from experience, that when people have to make decisions based on something happening in their own back yard versus the neighborhood down the road, their opinions are quite different. So, let's make this personal: What if your fifteen-year-old daughter were raped by someone of a different race that worships satan?
Knowing that your daughter would have to take that child for a monthly visit with the child's father for the next eighteen years, would you deny your daughter the right to say "no" again to her rapist? Can't imagine that? How about your sister is taken advantage of by a professor after a night of drinking - date rape? She has one more year to go before getting her degree and has already been offered a job. Should she give up everything she has been working toward for 20 years because she was taken advantage of? How about your wife? What if your wife were attacked in a parking lot, raped and impregnated? Would you want to help raise the child while sharing visitation rights with her rapist? Rape is an extreme invasion of a woman's body - one no man can actually imagine. and abortion most likely her most agonizing decision of her life - remember, first and foremost -it's her life - not yours, not the zygote's, not the sperm's, not the egg's - the woman's - her body - her mind.
As a matter of respect, I would refer decisons that affect only women to women.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
I just learned that 31 states demand the mother who gives birth to the child of a rapist must allow the rapist to retain parental rights. Imagine that - you are raped and the state says you have to bring you child to the rapist for parental visits, forcing you the deal with the person who raped you for 18 years. I spent many years in Virginia, home to the current ultra-sound governor. it's no wonder he thinks the way he does. if he was raised in Virginia, he was raised in a state where a man cannot legally rape his wife. she is considered property and must surrender herself to him at his request or demand. I would venture that many states have similar laws still on their books - no one bothered to remove them - just a silly law, like no donkey riding on Sundays through the streets of Norfolk. So, why bother to take it out of the Virginia state law book?
I am breaking my own rule by even broaching the topic of rape and abortion, as I am a man, and it is highly unlikely that I will be raped and impossible to face the difficult decision of abortion personally. But, I am married and am a firm believer in social justice and equality. I fail to see the justice or equality in men making decisions about women's bodies, their choice and rights.
Recently, a congressman started a fury over the abortion debate by using the term "legitimate rape" and claiming a woman can control her body to reject the sperm of her rapist, thus avoiding pregnancy and the decision to abort. It has become a hot topic, perhaps the defining topic of this year's election process, as the same doctor that this congressman cites as evidence for his rape and pregnancy claim, is the same man Mitt Romney chose in 2007 as his advisor on abortion. And, the congressman coauthored two pieces of legislation regarding abortion with the republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan.
This gets us back to smaller government. Romney and Ryan claim that government intrudes too much and too often into our personal and private lives, yet they have chosen to annoint themselves as the leaders ready to decide a woman's most difficult choice and force her by law to give birth to a rapist's child, where, in 31 states, she would be forced again by law to interact with her rapist regarding their child's future. Smaller government indeed.
I think it's time to become totally politically and racially incorrect. I know from experience, that when people have to make decisions based on something happening in their own back yard versus the neighborhood down the road, their opinions are quite different. So, let's make this personal: What if your fifteen-year-old daughter were raped by someone of a different race that worships satan?
Knowing that your daughter would have to take that child for a monthly visit with the child's father for the next eighteen years, would you deny your daughter the right to say "no" again to her rapist? Can't imagine that? How about your sister is taken advantage of by a professor after a night of drinking - date rape? She has one more year to go before getting her degree and has already been offered a job. Should she give up everything she has been working toward for 20 years because she was taken advantage of? How about your wife? What if your wife were attacked in a parking lot, raped and impregnated? Would you want to help raise the child while sharing visitation rights with her rapist? Rape is an extreme invasion of a woman's body - one no man can actually imagine. and abortion most likely her most agonizing decision of her life - remember, first and foremost -it's her life - not yours, not the zygote's, not the sperm's, not the egg's - the woman's - her body - her mind.
As a matter of respect, I would refer decisons that affect only women to women.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Second Amendment
In light of the recent senseless slayings in Colorado, I stopped again to wonder when Americans would take a serious look at gun regulation. First let's examine the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, written when the definition of arms included muskets, hatchets, knives, swords, spears, bows & arrows and rocks.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So, people in the Militia, should be armed to keep foreign governments from forcing their laws and rules upon them. And, in the event of an attack from some foreign entity, the people, who are members of the Militia by birth, can gather their arms and secure their free State.
Does anyone really believe the brilliant people who penned the Constitution ever imagined a world where automatic rifles and grenades and bazookas and rocket launchers would be part of one's personal arsenal? I think not.
Let's look at the phrase, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Actually, guns rarely kill people, bullets kill people. So, even for those in blinders who claim automatic rifles are for hunting and target shooting, ignoring the mental erection they get every time they fire their weapons, there should be some semblance of intellect that tells them magazine clips with 30 or more rounds are at the least unnecessary to get your rocks off at the range and is definitely overkill to gather meat for the family weekend at the cabin.
And do not all Americans possess the right to not bear arms and still feel safe in their theater, or school, or political gathering? While crazy people will still show up and use their legally obtained sporting equipment meant for their act of duty in the Militia, and possibly kill people in a crowd, their carnage could be limited with sensible legislation that does not infringe upon the gun bearer's rights.
To further deter mass murderers from seeking notoriety, we could pass legislation under a terrorism clause that any person who takes the lives of more than one person at any single event never have their name offered to the public. Seal their identity and you may take away their incentive. Besides being homicidal maniac, completely out of their minds or under an extreme narcotic influence, what other motivation can these mass murderers have than infamy and notoriety?
If legislators are too afraid of the NRA to take away extreme weaponry or outrageous magazine clips, then take away their fame and identity.
But for God's sake - DO SOMETHING!
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So, people in the Militia, should be armed to keep foreign governments from forcing their laws and rules upon them. And, in the event of an attack from some foreign entity, the people, who are members of the Militia by birth, can gather their arms and secure their free State.
Does anyone really believe the brilliant people who penned the Constitution ever imagined a world where automatic rifles and grenades and bazookas and rocket launchers would be part of one's personal arsenal? I think not.
Let's look at the phrase, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Actually, guns rarely kill people, bullets kill people. So, even for those in blinders who claim automatic rifles are for hunting and target shooting, ignoring the mental erection they get every time they fire their weapons, there should be some semblance of intellect that tells them magazine clips with 30 or more rounds are at the least unnecessary to get your rocks off at the range and is definitely overkill to gather meat for the family weekend at the cabin.
And do not all Americans possess the right to not bear arms and still feel safe in their theater, or school, or political gathering? While crazy people will still show up and use their legally obtained sporting equipment meant for their act of duty in the Militia, and possibly kill people in a crowd, their carnage could be limited with sensible legislation that does not infringe upon the gun bearer's rights.
To further deter mass murderers from seeking notoriety, we could pass legislation under a terrorism clause that any person who takes the lives of more than one person at any single event never have their name offered to the public. Seal their identity and you may take away their incentive. Besides being homicidal maniac, completely out of their minds or under an extreme narcotic influence, what other motivation can these mass murderers have than infamy and notoriety?
If legislators are too afraid of the NRA to take away extreme weaponry or outrageous magazine clips, then take away their fame and identity.
But for God's sake - DO SOMETHING!
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
What's The Rush?
Haven't written in a while. enough time has passed to allow people with pens, computers and microphones to expose their focused insanity.
Congreesswoman Michele Bachmann pontificating about Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin, claiming she is a member of an extremist Islamic organization. Her evidence? - her name is Huma. That would be like linking the congresswoman to a now defunked rock band or taking credit as the subject of Paul McCartney's song. The saddest part? - people elected her - people who probably drive, making them some of the most dangerous people on earth - next to, of course the people who elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the listeners of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
I'm not talking about people who err in judgement periodically - we are all guilty of those feats. I am referring to people who require absolutely no proof of any wrongdoing before condemning someone on heresay, gossip and innuendo.
Arpai, the misguided egomaniacal Arizona sheriff, has taken it upon himself to find someone to declare President Obama's birth certificate counterfeit. This is after a republic author researched Obama;s background for a tell-all book and found the accusation to be ludicrous. But evidence won't stop Arpaio, after all, he's only sworn to uphold the law, not follow it. His hatred and prejudice runs so deep that he will stop at nothing to discredit the leader of the free world.
Speaking of hatred and prejudice, enter Beck and Limbaugh, extraordinary mudslingers. Beck has an excuse - he's bonkers. Limbaugh might want to hise behind his drug addiction to pain killers, but his recent claim that the new batman movie's villain is named Bane because of Romney is further evidence that he belongs in the Beck funny farm. There was a comic book character named Bane in a batman comic created in January 1993, long before Romney was officially running for politics. Limbaugh's assertion that it is based on Romney's corporate rading company, Bain is not only utterly false, but a blatant lie.
Across the world in a place of happiness, Nelson Mandela turned 94. the man who would be president of South Africa, spent 27 years in prison as a political prisoner of apartheid - and, upon his release forgave his oppressors - saying if he held any ill will, they would have won.
I don't want to begrudge people the opportunity to step up to the microphone or slap the keyboard to express their views. After all, I am an example of the right to freedom of speech. I would simply ask people who listen to those who claim to be in the know while berating others without any fact or evidence should themselves refrain from accepting the accusations void of veracity.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Congreesswoman Michele Bachmann pontificating about Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's aide Huma Abedin, claiming she is a member of an extremist Islamic organization. Her evidence? - her name is Huma. That would be like linking the congresswoman to a now defunked rock band or taking credit as the subject of Paul McCartney's song. The saddest part? - people elected her - people who probably drive, making them some of the most dangerous people on earth - next to, of course the people who elected Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the listeners of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
I'm not talking about people who err in judgement periodically - we are all guilty of those feats. I am referring to people who require absolutely no proof of any wrongdoing before condemning someone on heresay, gossip and innuendo.
Arpai, the misguided egomaniacal Arizona sheriff, has taken it upon himself to find someone to declare President Obama's birth certificate counterfeit. This is after a republic author researched Obama;s background for a tell-all book and found the accusation to be ludicrous. But evidence won't stop Arpaio, after all, he's only sworn to uphold the law, not follow it. His hatred and prejudice runs so deep that he will stop at nothing to discredit the leader of the free world.
Speaking of hatred and prejudice, enter Beck and Limbaugh, extraordinary mudslingers. Beck has an excuse - he's bonkers. Limbaugh might want to hise behind his drug addiction to pain killers, but his recent claim that the new batman movie's villain is named Bane because of Romney is further evidence that he belongs in the Beck funny farm. There was a comic book character named Bane in a batman comic created in January 1993, long before Romney was officially running for politics. Limbaugh's assertion that it is based on Romney's corporate rading company, Bain is not only utterly false, but a blatant lie.
Across the world in a place of happiness, Nelson Mandela turned 94. the man who would be president of South Africa, spent 27 years in prison as a political prisoner of apartheid - and, upon his release forgave his oppressors - saying if he held any ill will, they would have won.
I don't want to begrudge people the opportunity to step up to the microphone or slap the keyboard to express their views. After all, I am an example of the right to freedom of speech. I would simply ask people who listen to those who claim to be in the know while berating others without any fact or evidence should themselves refrain from accepting the accusations void of veracity.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Let Whitney Houston Go
The Lifetime channel has approved the taping of the Houston Family Chronicles, designed to follow surviving family members of Whitney Houston. According to recent reports, the show will star Whitney's sister-in-law and manager Pat Houston and Pat's daughter Rayah, as well as Whitney's Houston's brother Gary, daughter Bobbi Kristina and mother Cissy Houston.
While some producers claim the show's content will be aimed at showing the healing process of the family since Whitney's death by following their daily routine of continuing grief and reveal how the are growing and moving along as a family.
Interestingly, Whitney's mother, Cissy, gave the green light to proceed with the project, expressing a concern for Whitney's daughter Bobbi Kristina and her upcoming singing career. Pat Houston has said the show was in the works while Whitney was alive - perhaps a take-off on the failed reality show where Whitney and her husband at the time, Bobby Brown, exposed the debased lifestyles of both of the entertainers in the every day lives.
So this is what entertainment has come to . . . voyeurism and stalking. A person reaches super star status and her family is left to wonder what will become of them now that there is void too big to fill any other way than with their own fame and fortune found vicariously through the death of their meal ticket.
So, careers may be launched and talents may be discovered that may not have been realized without the death of Whitney Houston. The benefits are far reaching even beyond the grave.
Perhaps a DNA Ancestry test could prove that I was sired by someone famous and now that I have realized that fact cameras should follow me around to see how I deal with my new found grief.
After all, I just released a CD last November at 57 years-of-age and could use a boost to convince people to go to my music website at http://Rainbows-Angels.com and appreciate the music because I am the survivor of somebody who was once famous. My dad was a super star, bigger than Elvis, bigger than the Beatles, bigger than Dylan and Hendrix - I just don't know who he was. But that shouldn't matter. I should be successful anyway because he was my father.
Well, I have to go now. I am working on another CD and need to work on the songs before all the cameras and paparazzi arrive to follow my every move.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
While some producers claim the show's content will be aimed at showing the healing process of the family since Whitney's death by following their daily routine of continuing grief and reveal how the are growing and moving along as a family.
Interestingly, Whitney's mother, Cissy, gave the green light to proceed with the project, expressing a concern for Whitney's daughter Bobbi Kristina and her upcoming singing career. Pat Houston has said the show was in the works while Whitney was alive - perhaps a take-off on the failed reality show where Whitney and her husband at the time, Bobby Brown, exposed the debased lifestyles of both of the entertainers in the every day lives.
So this is what entertainment has come to . . . voyeurism and stalking. A person reaches super star status and her family is left to wonder what will become of them now that there is void too big to fill any other way than with their own fame and fortune found vicariously through the death of their meal ticket.
So, careers may be launched and talents may be discovered that may not have been realized without the death of Whitney Houston. The benefits are far reaching even beyond the grave.
Perhaps a DNA Ancestry test could prove that I was sired by someone famous and now that I have realized that fact cameras should follow me around to see how I deal with my new found grief.
After all, I just released a CD last November at 57 years-of-age and could use a boost to convince people to go to my music website at http://Rainbows-Angels.com and appreciate the music because I am the survivor of somebody who was once famous. My dad was a super star, bigger than Elvis, bigger than the Beatles, bigger than Dylan and Hendrix - I just don't know who he was. But that shouldn't matter. I should be successful anyway because he was my father.
Well, I have to go now. I am working on another CD and need to work on the songs before all the cameras and paparazzi arrive to follow my every move.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Friday, May 11, 2012
Bachmann Turncoat Overdrive
Well, Michelle Bachmann not only ran for the office of President of the United States while holding a dual citizenship to Switzerland, home of the world's most sexually liberal and homeland to her husband, but she called for an investigation of Congress to see who was Unamerican. The woman who believes you can scare the homosexuality out of someone and took government subsidies to prove it, was, since 1978, through marriage, a citizen of Switzerland. She made it official this week when she and her husband announced their marriage to the Swiss consulate. Should Ms. Bachmann choose to visit her other country, she would find there are many bars, clubs, cafes, restaurants, saunas and organizations specifically dedicated to the GBLT population. And she would find universal healthcare, although universal healthcare would by definition men covering every living entity in the universe - no country can cover that, even with the best of intentions.
Earlier this week, Bachmann announced that she had become a citizen of Switzerland a month earlier, using her husband’s dual U.S.- Swiss nationality to secure fast-track naturalization. She added that the couple’s three youngest children were also now Swiss citizens. In an interview with Swiss TV, Bachmann explained that her family often visits Switzerland — in particular the picturesque region of Thurgau where her husband’s ancestors came from. “Our family loves it when we come because everyone brings home a big bag of chocolate, and everyone’s very happy,” she told reporters in Switzerland. She added “it’s tough to find a place not to like in Switzerland.” Evidently, she didn't find her way to Zurich or Geneva, where these establishments abound.
Now - she's not. She denounced her Swiss citizenship amongst a backlash of criticism from the right, the Tea Party and late night talk show hosts. But the Swiss have not lodged a complaint - no word on her children yet. After all, this is the woman who gave us: "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."
"I look at the Scripture and I read it and I take it for what it is. I give more credence in the Scripture as being kind of a timeless word of God to mankind, and I take it for what it is. And I don't think I give as much credence to my own mind, because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding. So, I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist."
"No one that I know disagrees with natural selection — that you can take various breeds of dogs ... breed them, you get different kinds of dogs," she said. "It's just a fact of life. ... Where there's controversy is (at the question) 'Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being?' There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That's where it's difficult to prove."
“I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We're the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs, we have more women in the workforce than any other state.”
I could go on, but I need a carbonated drink. This person ran for President of the United States and got at least one vote - now that's scary.
I wonder if any of the press is going to ask her if she believes her children should retain their dual citizenship. Probably not, especially those liberal, attacking media.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Earlier this week, Bachmann announced that she had become a citizen of Switzerland a month earlier, using her husband’s dual U.S.- Swiss nationality to secure fast-track naturalization. She added that the couple’s three youngest children were also now Swiss citizens. In an interview with Swiss TV, Bachmann explained that her family often visits Switzerland — in particular the picturesque region of Thurgau where her husband’s ancestors came from. “Our family loves it when we come because everyone brings home a big bag of chocolate, and everyone’s very happy,” she told reporters in Switzerland. She added “it’s tough to find a place not to like in Switzerland.” Evidently, she didn't find her way to Zurich or Geneva, where these establishments abound.
Now - she's not. She denounced her Swiss citizenship amongst a backlash of criticism from the right, the Tea Party and late night talk show hosts. But the Swiss have not lodged a complaint - no word on her children yet. After all, this is the woman who gave us: "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level."
"I look at the Scripture and I read it and I take it for what it is. I give more credence in the Scripture as being kind of a timeless word of God to mankind, and I take it for what it is. And I don't think I give as much credence to my own mind, because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding. So, I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was. I wish I was more knowledgeable, but I'm not a scientist."
"No one that I know disagrees with natural selection — that you can take various breeds of dogs ... breed them, you get different kinds of dogs," she said. "It's just a fact of life. ... Where there's controversy is (at the question) 'Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being?' There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That's where it's difficult to prove."
“I am so proud to be from the state of Minnesota. We're the workingest state in the country, and the reason why we are, we have more people that are working longer hours, we have people that are working two jobs, we have more women in the workforce than any other state.”
I could go on, but I need a carbonated drink. This person ran for President of the United States and got at least one vote - now that's scary.
I wonder if any of the press is going to ask her if she believes her children should retain their dual citizenship. Probably not, especially those liberal, attacking media.
Peace - Ho'oponopono . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
