Archive for the ‘fun’ Category

…there is always this post about a movie called the Runaways.

It’s rock and roll: they tore each other apart. For a time. (There are exceptions: see Ford, Lita, whose beauty was more conventional that that of the front girls. And her music? Much less, thank you very much.)

I envy Joy right now, my favorite distraction is unavailable for another two weeks.

If you need to walk away from the healthcare vote for a bit a movie isn’t a bad idea.

Let’s take a peek around the blogroll and see what we can see:

Dan Collins notes a double standard on gaffes:

But despite all of the available evidence that so easily destroys the meta-narrative of Obama’s brilliance, we still have yet to see him get the same treatment that Gerald Ford, Reagan, Quayle, or G.W. Bush did; where are all of the jokes about his educated idiocy? About Hirohito signing the surrender aboard the Missouri? About him listing the 57 states? No one seems to see the humor in any of this.

This reminds me a bit of why I think Obamacare is such a priority for this administration.

On the left side of the aisle Dissenting Justice takes issue with John Sheehan and his opinion of Gay Soldiers in the Dutch army:

Sheehan’s comments are absolutely bankrupt. 23 of the 26 NATO members allow out gays and lesbians to serve in the military. Only the US, Turkey and Portugal do not. Under Sheehan’s “logic,” NATO itself is ineffective due to the presence of gay soldiers.

There is no question however that the Dutch certainly didn’t cover themselves with glory in Bosnia. I’ve given my opinion on gays in the military here.

And Finally Peg at What if notes that both the administrations dealings with Israel and her showing in the North American Bridge association championships leave much to be desired:

his kind of excessive and weirdly paternalistic attitude to the state of Israel, directed so clearly from the top, seems to come out of a kind of unexamined personal animus. The long record that Obama has of friendship with virulent enemies of Israel has not gone unnoticed.

As the old saying goes; only time will tell. Let’s hope that the rest of the time this week is kinder to my bridge performance, too!

Hey Peg, at least you never played with a partner who liked to bluff when bidding. It really changes the game.

Spent the night working on my taxes and at a hospitality meeting for my church.

Meanwhile in at a blog near you see see the following:

Camp of the Saints celebrates St. Patrick’s day by bringing on Rule 5 a few days early as he puts it “Erin go braless”.

How is it that visiting the camp of the saints tend to make a person want to sin?

Over at the DaHospitalityGuy’s place he talks on a much more serious note about anti-depressants and unemployment:

Am I depressed? Of course I am. Naturally who wouldn’t be? I’m without a job. I’m without my family. I miss reading to my daughter. I miss playing with my son. I miss giving hugs and kisses and hearing them say I love you daddy.

Do I need a pill to take those feelings away? No. I want to miss my children. I want to care. I have a purpose. I don’t want a pill to cover that up and make me feel artificially better.

I know things have been hard for me but If you have some prayers to offer, I’d send them his way first.

Meanwhile at Haemet the charming Roxeanne (yet another example of 20/40) reminds of that we conservatives have been declared defeated many times before:

In the fifteen months since the Left declared us to be a waning political group and a thing of the past, we’ve seen:

* The popularity of conservatism eclipse that of liberalism;
* “Swing state” Virginia elect a hard-core conservative a twenty-point margin;
* New Jersey elect a conservative governor;
* Prius-driving Bostonians go crazy over Scott Brown, who campaigned on the promise of stopping the liberals in DC; and
* Barack Obama’s approval ratings drop to the lowest point of any sitting President at this time in an administration.

Running score: Leftists, 0; conservatives, 1.

Have of the battle is the willingness to keep fighting.

I was perusing memeorandum to see if there was anything I wanted to rant about before I hit the sack and noticed a link that included Ann Althouse. I don’t normally see Althouse listed there so I checked out the post. It was in answer to Rush Limbaugh and the lessons of the 60’s.

The post is typical Althouse, well written, intelligent and a pleasure to read but in reading the post I was struck dumb by a sentence near the end that really threw me for a loop:

I’d say the 60s left quite a mark on Rush Limbaugh. They left a mark on me too — quite a different mark though (and I was born on the same day in 1951 as Rush).

My reaction. Ann Althouse was born in 1951! She is twelve years older than me and pushing 60?

I mean look at the woman:

If this woman looks like this at 59 can you imagine what she must have looked like 30 years ago? Meade I tip my fedora to you and Ann as gentlemen used to say in an earlier time: My complements marm!

Update: For an explanation of the 20/40 rule click here.