I might have made it on time, except as I was closing the blinds on the sliding glass door I happened to notice a single bird out there, and I just HAD to stop for a picture. Granted, I didn't go upstairs where I could've gotten a good angle. I didn't even go to the side of the door without the screen. So the picture isn't the greatest. But here you have it - a snake bird drying out on the shore after a morning fishing trip.
And then yesterday I did something I never thought I'd do. I asked Scott to set the DVR for me for two episodes... on Fox "News" Channel... of the O'Reilly Factor. (there was a knock on the door this morning. I think it might have been the Florida Democrats coming to take away my membership card) In my defense, I only wanted to watch because Jon Stewart was the guest. It's a two-part interview, so the second half will be airing tonight.
I'm not sure I can stomach it.
Who watches this show? He spins stories worse than The Daily Show. He actually compared his show to TDS, which is ridiculous considering one is on Comedy Central and the other is on Fox News. If he thinks you're making a point he won't like, he just talks over you until you stop. And through all that, I really think that Jon Stewart won Round 1. Also? Either they taped that interview at 8 am or The Daily Show has much more forgiving lighting. Jon was looking old and tired.
After the Stewart interview, I stuck around for Dennis Miller. I thought I liked Dennis Miller. Turns out I must've had him confused with someone - anyone - else. He went on this yelling rant about Rahm and the whole "retarded" debacle*, and his fake indignity was just too much. I stopped and deleted the show mid-sentence. And after I watch the second half of the interview tonight, I'll do the same. I won't make that watch-another-segment mistake again. I'm worried that I'll have to exorcise the far-right demons out of my DVR after all this. For real, watching that show literally raised my blood pressure to a point where my stomach started to hurt. *shudder*
*Question to the group: didn't they stop calling mentally-challenged people "retarded" some time ago? Because "retarded" had a negative connotation? So if we're no longer using the word as anything but an insult, then why does everyone get so pissed off every time someone uses it? What's the difference between "retard" and "bitch" or "homo?" Sure it's unkind, but why does it get everyone's panties in a twist? Sheesh!
1 comment:
Goodgawd, what were you thinking? I've never made it past about 2 minutes of O'Reilly. My stomach hurts for you. Of course, I can't stomach anything on FOX News and generally can feel my IQ dropping any time I attempt to watch. (That knock at the door is the Florida Republicans coming to take away my membership card!)
Showing my age here: When I took Psychology I was taught that retarded is Latin for "delayed" or "hindered" and that the diagnostic term retarded came into use when people began to object to the use of the preceding diagnostic terms "idiot" and "moron". Those had taken on negative connotations and were replaced with retarded because retarded was then considered a neutral term for an actual medical diagnosis. So much for that.
Now instead of descriptive diagnostic terms with concrete meaning we have to use fluffy, shiny euphemisms like "special" and "challenged" which represent so many things to so many different people that they don't actually mean anything.
I get that "retarded" is now generally used as an unkind insult but I don't get the knicker twisting. Unless of course the whole hullaballoo was just manufactured outrage used to score political points and steal headlines? Mm hm.
I have to go now, the Republican villagers at the door are demanding to burn my membership card. I'd be more afraid but the idiots are too moronic to light their own torches.
Post a Comment