Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Dick shoots a man in the face. 'Journalists' waste our time talking about Vanity Fair
Congratulations Harry Whittington! I believe you are the first man to be shot in the face by a standing Vice President in the history of our republic! Cost of a box of birdshot: $8.00, Cost of an emergency helicopter medivac: 10,000 dollars, Access to the Vice President: at least $100,000 in bundled contributions; place in history secured: priceless.
Some of the little details that I find interesting include: That the owner of the Ranch Ms. Armstrong, also a pioneer and thus a $100,000+ contributor to the Bush/Cheney machine. Is this sort of like the Midas Touch in reverse? These guys won't touch anyone who has not laid a hundred large down at their feet. Oh, and Armstrong ran Halliburton when they hired Cheney the first time around.
Also, I hate to admit that I get my news from Jon Stewart, but according to his program the quail shot (at) were the farm raised, 'flight impaired' variety. I'm a big fan of hunting, at least when it's done within such codes that help to nurture the populations, not decimate them, but that sort of shit has always rubbed me the wrong way. That's the indulgent hobby of aristocrats, not the working man's past-time that also puts food on the table.
On to this whole Vanity Fair thing. What's up with that? I can't believe what a big deal all of these articles are making out of nothing. I just don't get it.
Maybe the producers of Vanity Fair thought they need to shy away from the dangerous rep they were getting after scooping every other form of media in the country with the identity of Deep Throat.
I can't help but see a slight glimmer of similarities between the rukus of Mohammed 'toons and these two page jeriamiads condemning Mr. Ford and Vanity Fair. Alito will be sitting on the highest court in the land for decades, religious fundamentalists are making decisions at the FDA over what drugs women should have access to, the debate over a woman's right to control her own body has degraded into 'sluts who'd rather abort than pay for the pill.' I'm sympathetic to the women's movement - in fact it's members are the only women I enjoy forming strong bonds with - but your battle is not my battle. When I see this major offensive against Vanity Fair, I can't help but question the soundness of your amazonian stratagists.
I don't know. If this offends the phillies, go ahead and say so. Perhaps as a sensitive man I'm just not quite on the right frequency to get it. I saw the cover and immediately my brain went into fantasizing land. It seemed to me to be a fantasy. Not a blueprint for how the world should work.
Anyhoo, now I'm just adding to the floodwaters of words.
Damn, it is Valentine's Day today. Should have written something romantic. Sorry.
Some of the little details that I find interesting include: That the owner of the Ranch Ms. Armstrong, also a pioneer and thus a $100,000+ contributor to the Bush/Cheney machine. Is this sort of like the Midas Touch in reverse? These guys won't touch anyone who has not laid a hundred large down at their feet. Oh, and Armstrong ran Halliburton when they hired Cheney the first time around.
Also, I hate to admit that I get my news from Jon Stewart, but according to his program the quail shot (at) were the farm raised, 'flight impaired' variety. I'm a big fan of hunting, at least when it's done within such codes that help to nurture the populations, not decimate them, but that sort of shit has always rubbed me the wrong way. That's the indulgent hobby of aristocrats, not the working man's past-time that also puts food on the table.
On to this whole Vanity Fair thing. What's up with that? I can't believe what a big deal all of these articles are making out of nothing. I just don't get it.
Maybe the producers of Vanity Fair thought they need to shy away from the dangerous rep they were getting after scooping every other form of media in the country with the identity of Deep Throat.
I can't help but see a slight glimmer of similarities between the rukus of Mohammed 'toons and these two page jeriamiads condemning Mr. Ford and Vanity Fair. Alito will be sitting on the highest court in the land for decades, religious fundamentalists are making decisions at the FDA over what drugs women should have access to, the debate over a woman's right to control her own body has degraded into 'sluts who'd rather abort than pay for the pill.' I'm sympathetic to the women's movement - in fact it's members are the only women I enjoy forming strong bonds with - but your battle is not my battle. When I see this major offensive against Vanity Fair, I can't help but question the soundness of your amazonian stratagists.
I don't know. If this offends the phillies, go ahead and say so. Perhaps as a sensitive man I'm just not quite on the right frequency to get it. I saw the cover and immediately my brain went into fantasizing land. It seemed to me to be a fantasy. Not a blueprint for how the world should work.
Anyhoo, now I'm just adding to the floodwaters of words.
Damn, it is Valentine's Day today. Should have written something romantic. Sorry.
Comments:
<< Home
Thank you for not writting something romantic!
Hunting injured animals, how pathetic.
Hmmmm... I don't even look at magazine covers anymore. Especially, women's magazines. Like when "Self" magazine has their main article on "50 ways to please your man." Why is the magazine called Self?
Self-checkout lanes have really helped me avoid reading any magazine covers. That's taking care of myself!
Hunting injured animals, how pathetic.
Hmmmm... I don't even look at magazine covers anymore. Especially, women's magazines. Like when "Self" magazine has their main article on "50 ways to please your man." Why is the magazine called Self?
Self-checkout lanes have really helped me avoid reading any magazine covers. That's taking care of myself!
What a great site Overnight fedex ambien prescription rugs area sports illistated Blumen ruland Refurbished ice machines Concerta warning on 6 29 Acne cyst nodule
Post a Comment
<< Home