About Moe

Based in Washington, DC, I'm either hotness or a hotmess. You be the judge. More about me.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Blogroll

March 28, 2009
Did you observe “Earth Hour?” Me neither!
Posted at 9:49 pm, in: Global Warming
Tags: , ,

So, in case you missed it, tonight was the second annual Earth Hour. Oh, you haven’t heard of it and didn’t know? Let me fill you in:

Groups working to combat global warming are urging people in San Diego County and worldwide to dim or turn off all nonessential lighting for an hour starting at 8:30 p.m. Saturday in their local time zone.

The goal of the second annual Earth Hour, sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund, is to have 1 billion participants join in a symbolic act of using less energy. Gasoline, electricity and other power sources drawn mostly from fossil fuels generate greenhouse gases, which trap heat and add to the warming of the planet.

The should start linking hot chicks to garner better publicity and should pick a better time, perhaps not a Saturday night when people are most likely to be entertaining guests.

I won’t lie: I am notorious for leaving every light in my apartment on all day and night so that I never have to walk into a dark, or even dimly lit, apartment. My friend, if she is over before we go out, will walk around my apartment and turn them off for me. I’m a female who lives alone in Washington, DC! I don’t know how I think all of the lighting is going to protect me, but it makes me feel better.

Anyway, I figure my carbon footprint is still pretty small. I mean, I don’t even own a car. I ride a bicycle to and from work. Plus, since the rest of the time I’m typically on foot, I even use a backpack and a re-usable shopping bag for groceries. I’m greener than I even want to be, without trying.

So, in order to balance everything out, starting at 8:30, I turned on every light in my apartment and plugged in every appliance. This will be my tradition every year for Earth Hour. I think you should do the same, until Obama makes Earth Hour mandatory. At which time, I will still urge you to join in my tradition and we’ll call it “Freedom Hour.”

Comments (4)


Scarlett Johansson Losing Curves? Say It Isn’t So!
Posted at 9:08 pm, in: Hollywood
Tags: , , ,

scarlett-johansson05

Oh, Scarlett, say it isn’t so! There have been reports that the beautifully curvaceous hotty has been dropping pounds, and curves, in preparation for an upcoming role in Ironman 2.

scarlett-johansson-drops-weight-for-iron-man-2-2

Now, normally, I wouldn’t have brought this up, but RSM is concerned that the blogosphere, in strict obedience to Rule 5, has resorted to Britney Spears. He has even sent out an SOS to Vodka.

I think Scarlett is one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. So, here’s one last picture for all of you to enjoy:

fav_scarlett

Please, don’t lose your curves! They’re one of your best assets.

Comments (3)


RSM: Twelfth Commandment
Posted at 9:52 am, in: Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

RSM has put us all on notice about the 12th Commandment:

The term derives from the way the smear merchants typically assemble their smears by quoting a phrase here, two words there, and two sentences from something else, and then gluing it together with their own pejorative interpolations and a bit of guilt-by-association, much like a kidnapper cutting out words from a magazine to paste together a ransom note.

I know what you’re thinking, twelfth, what was the eleventh? For full history and explanation, click on the link. It’s well worth a thorough read!

Comments (2)

March 27, 2009
I think I just got B*tch Slapped!
Posted at 7:32 pm, in: War on Drugs
Tags: ,

So, Cynthia Yockey might be out of the running for the referee position in the upcoming Jell-O Wrestling match. I can’t be sure that she can remain unbiased, anymore. She does not agree with some of my thoughts on drugs:

Monique Stuart at HotMES is on about de-criminalizing recreational drugs today, as a follow-up to Obama’s town hall meeting, which I would leave alone although I disagree. But because she based her argument on conflating pharmaceutical drugs, aka medicines, defined as “defined as any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease,” with recreational chemicals that frequently have addiction as a side effect, I must administer unto her the first fisking of my blog.

I welcome the exchange. For tonight, I have already broken my stay-off-the-blog-and-relax rule. Perhaps I’ll address some of her concerns tomorrow. For now, I’m going to take another sip of my drink. It’s Friday, people!

Comments (4)


Let’s Blame White People…with Blue Eyes?
Posted at 5:03 pm, in: Global Economic Crisis
Tags: , ,

As a white person with blue eyes I take great offense to the comment by Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva blaming the global economic crisis on “white people with blue eyes.”

Speaking in Brasília at a joint press conference with Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, Mr Lula da Silva told reporters: “This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing.”

He added: “I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimised more than any other should pay for the crisis.”

Mr Brown appeared to distance himself from Mr Lula da Silva’s remarks. “I’m not going to attribute blame to any individuals,” he said.

The current global economic crisis was caused by a variety of factors, instituions, professions, and people (of all skin and eye colors). Perhaps the president of Brazil should be more careful when he speaks. Although, I am sure he was being careful and these accusations were a calculated move.

One thing is for sure, I am in no way responsible for this mess. So, there’s at least one innocent blue eyed white person out here. Any others willing to come forward?

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Comments (4)


Why can’t Mexico handle its own problems?
Posted at 4:40 pm, in: Economy, Foreign Relations, War on Drugs
Tags: , , ,

Don’t we do enough for Mexico already? I mean, we allow millions of their citizens to pour over our boarder, annually, take jobs that “Americans won’t do,” and then send their earnings back home to boost their economy. Now, we have to start fixing their drug problems, too?

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that Mexico and the United States had agreed to develop a “checklist” of tasks for both sides to intensify the fight against Mexican drug gangs engaged in a bloody turf war.

Speaking near the end of a two-day visit, Clinton said the list would include timelines committing the United States to speed up delivery of drug-fighting aid and getting Mexico to move faster on reforming its judicial and law enforcement institutions.

Clinton also said she was “confident” that a trade tiff with Mexico over trucking would be resolved quickly and that Mexico’s recent decision to slap tariffs on dozens of U.S. products “will be withdrawn.”

I’m sorry that Mexico is having experiencing problems related to drugs. And, I’m sorry America has its own drug-ralated problems to deal with. But, drugs aren’t the problem; they are a symptom of the problem.

We pretend to be a culture that is against drugs, yet we are not. We have a “War on Drugs,” as new drugs are advertised every day. At some point, our government made the decision that some drugs were acceptable and others were not. This is where the problem lies.

It’s one big contradiction. Either we’re against drugs, or were for them. Make up your mind. Heroin isn’t acceptable, but clinics hand out methadone, while doctors prescribe Oxycontin (which makes you feel like you’re on heroin from what I’ve been told).

The reason it’s a contradiction is because drugs aren’t inherently bad, just as guns aren’t inherently bad. It’s how people choose to use them. To be quite honest, I don’t see the difference between someone who smokes a joint at the end of the day versus the person who is having a couple martinis. In fact, one could argue, the former is preferable to the latter.

Why aren’t all drugs, legal, though? Whether prescribed or proscribed, all drugs are the same: most offer some benefit when taken in moderation. As of the year 2000, the “War on Drugs” was estimated to cost over $40 billion, annually. I’m sure it’s costing much more, now.

Obama mocked his online audience in his “town hall meeting” yesterday—to the laughter of the elitist DC crowd that surrounded him in the room—for asking about legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana.

You’re right, Mr. President, it may not remedy our economic woes, but why can’t this be taken into consideration? I believe it’s a serious question, with serious implications, and should be seriously addressed. You are not a comedian, Mr. President. Stop trying to be funny!

I don’t smoke pot or do any other illegal drugs. I don’t take many legal drugs, either. Maybe some Tylenol, here and there. Lately, I have been hitting up the Sudafed (I have some cold that I have named The Illness that won’t seem to go away). But, what’s the difference between the person who pops some Xanax for their anxiety and the person who takes a hit from the bong?

All legal drugs are achieving some goal that could be achieved by an illegal drug, they’re just doing it synthetically instead of naturally. Where do you think the drug companies came up with the idea in the first place? Mexico wouldn’t be having the issues it is, and neither would America, if drugs became legal. People are going to use drugs and some of those people will abuse drugs. The legality of the drugs doesn’t matter.

Legalizing drugs would put the Mexican drug gangs out of business a lot quicker and a lot more effectively than anything our two governments can come up with. Put that at the top of you checklist and you should be done.

Comments (5)


Transparency you can believe in!
Posted at 7:22 am, in: Change, Government Accountability
Tags:

So much for “change you can believe in” and new level of transparency in government. Barack Obama is changing things, all right. Unfortunately, he is changing the way our government does business by shrouding it in more secrecy than we can conceive of.

On Monday, Josh Gerstein presented Obama’s dilemma:

Six weeks after President Barack Obama appointed a blue-ribbon panel to help him dig America out of its economic crisis, the board has yet to hold an official public meeting.

The White House initially said that the 16-member Presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board, headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, would meet “every few weeks.” Last month, a spokesperson told POLITICO the group would meet monthly. More recently, the White House said the high-powered board, set up to address what Obama has called the worst economic emergency since the Great Depression, would gather only about four times a year, with the next session due in “late spring.”

But comments from board members and Obama himself indicate that some members of the panel are meeting, in smaller gatherings that have not been announced or opened to the public. And that raises the question of whether an administration that prides itself on openness and transparency is in fact finding it more convenient to conduct public business in private.

Now, the administration finds itself in a Catch-22: It does not want to say that the president’s economic panel, announced amid much fanfare, is not meeting during the worst economic crisis in generations. But if it is meeting, where’s the announcement, the agenda, the minutes? In short, where’s the sunshine?

And, now it looks like another panel, this time a tax panel, will be assembled to operate behind closed doors:

I think I have a better idea now why the White House was so sensitive about my story Monday questioning the legality and wisdom of secret meetings held by subcommittees of President Obama’s economic advisory panel.

It was because officials planned to announce within days that Obama intended to use just such a subcommittee to prepare his tax simplification and enforcement initiative. And it looks like they’re laying the groundwork to allow the new tax panel to do its work behind closed doors.

He went onto say:

Asked Thursday whether the tax subcommittee planned to do its business in public or private, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said, “The board will provide periodic updates and seek public input.”

That said, the legalities Orszag alluded to all seem to be aimed at allowing the tax panel to meet in private. The reason to have the task force appointed by the advisory board and not Obama is that, if Obama names them and gives them an assignment, they are a freestanding panel subject to the rules of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, including advance public notice of meetings and public meetings in most cases. Having them give their report to the full 16-member advisory board also insulates the group. By not reporting directly to Obama, the tax reform task force will be able to work behind closed doors.

Obama has not offered any of the transparency he campaigned on. There is less transparency in government now than there was six moths ago, and there’s much less transparency with this administration than the last. Now, that’s some change we can believe in!

Comments (1)

March 26, 2009
Joe the Plumber = Gimmick
Posted at 8:50 pm, in: CPAC, Republicans
Tags: ,

Joe the Plumber has, apparently, been enlisted to campaign against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Now, I wouldn’t jump on this guy like the MSM did for asking an honest question of a presidential candidate, but are we serious with this?

I’m not here to belittle the man. I met him at CPAC, while the youngins clamored to him for autographs on his book. That’s what these kids do at CPAC. They’re kids. They’re impressed with just about everyone they meet. Hands held out with their business card to let you know they are on the executive board of their local university’s College Republican club.

jtp-cpac

I wasn’t impressed. I mean, what is this guy famous for, asking a question? That’s retarded. I think his fifteen minutes of fame should have ended a while, ago. I’m not trying to be mean, And, it’s nothing personal. But, come on now. Is Pawlenty going to tap him next to be the poster-child for these “Sam’s Club Republicans” he keeps talking about?

Joe the Plumber is a gimmick. The people see through that. If you really want to campaign against this bill why don’t you find a spokesperson who would actually be harmed by it? Stop reinforcing the idea that all Republicans are rich elitists that can’t communicate with the “common man.”

Joe, could you please do us all a favor and go back to plumbing? You’re cooperation is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

(H/T: Memeorandum)

Comments (4)

March 25, 2009
Naked Tea Parties? It’s On S.Logan!
Posted at 10:26 pm, in: Challenge
Tags: , , , , , ,

So, as I’m sure many of you know, I have challenged S.Logan to a Jell-O wrestling match. For a moment, I was scared that I had insulted her Christian sensibilities when she took a five day hiatus in order to reconcile her decision to accept my challenge with God.

RSM found us someone willing to referee. But, I have to note, perhaps it shouldn’t be S.Logan wrestling me for Big Sexy. Maybe it should be Big Sexy Jell-O wrestling Cynthia Yockey for us?

jason-and-yockey

Although, Jimmie has also thrown his hat into the ring as a referee.

As a child, I had similar ambitions, S.Logan. You wanted to be a porn star. I wanted to see my name in Playboy. It all works out.

Here is my suggestion, as I have also been invited to speak at a Tea Party, in Richmond, VA with the promise of a free t-shirt. Perhaps, we should start our own naked tea parties. I mean, how much longer could the press ignore these if hot conservative women were showing up? It’s just a thought.

Perhaps I should up the challenge? How about a naked Jell-O wrestling match at a Tea Party? I mean, that would definitely ensure some press coverage.

Comments (10)


Yes, Father.
Posted at 2:05 pm, in: Press Conferences
Tags: , , , , ,

As promised, here are my random thoughts about last night’s press conference.

As I predicted, he opened up questioning with this, “All right. With that, let me take some questions. And I’ve got a list here.” Step one of your “filter-free” press strategy might be to stop filtering the press at your “press conferences,” and try calling on random reporters who just might ask you tough question you haven’t pre-screened.

I won’t get into his use of a teleprompter.

Now, let’s get into the Q & A part of the evening. Just a few points on this.

Ann Compton, don’t sound so surprised, I’m calling on you. What the heck was that? You call yourself a reporter? Is that really the best question you could come up with? For those who don’t know what I’m referring to, here was the exchange:

OBAMA: Ann Compton? Hey, Ann. You sound surprised.
QUESTION: I am surprised. Could I ask you about race?
OBAMA: You may.
QUESTION: Yours is a rather historic presidency. And I’m just wondering whether, in any of the policy debates that you’ve had within the White House, the issue of race has come up or whether it has in the way you feel you’ve been perceived by other leaders or by the American people? Or has the last 64 days before a relatively color- blind time?

So, Ms. Compton, this is what we should expect from a “distinguished and highly respected veteran of the White House press corps?” What if he would have told you that you couldn’t have asked him about race? See, I might have found that amusing.

I realize why Obama would pick this question, it gives him a chance to play the race card and pretend he’s not playing the race card. We get it, already! The first black president (I thought Bill Clinton already had that title?). In that sense, everything you do is historical. Get over it! We all are, as is evidenced by your dropping poll numbers.

It must suck for him as people become preoccupied with how his actions and policies are bankrupting our nation rather than how good it felt to finally elect a black man to the presidency and put race behind us (which, as is evidenced by this question, will never be behind us).

I just don’t get why you would asked it, Ms. Compton. As someone who almost entered your chosen profession, let me clarify something for you. Your job is to ask the tough questions, report to the public honestly and objectively, and speak truth to power. You are supposed to act as a watchdog, not a lapdog.

Next, President Obama called on a reporter from the Washington Times. Here, my problem was not with the question as much as it was with the first sentence of Obama’s response, “OK. No, I think it’s — I think it’s a legitimate question.”

Well, thanks Mr. President. I was wondering how you felt about the legitimacy of the question. What is so telling is that you felt you needed, and have the power, to legitimize a question from the press. We knew that you thought it was a legitimate question because you allowed it to be asked in the first place. His name would have never made your list without your stamp of approval.

Other than that, it was another boring lecture from Big Daddy. I don’t get why he’s considered such a great orator. All he ever does is depress me and make me feel like I’m getting scolded. How does this guy inspire hope? I have a new suggestion on how to torture terrorists at Gitmo: make them listen to a “press conference” featuring our Commander-in-Chief. That should do the trick.

Comments (0)
« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
RSS feed
© Monique Stuart