Actor Corey Haim died early this morning at the age of 38. I didn't follow Corey Haim's recent reality show career, but was aware that he battled problems with addiction. Early reports said he died of an overdose, but other reports say he was no longer taking drugs. He recently filmed a new movie, which has not yet been released, and was attempting a comeback.
I was past the Tiger Beat age when Haim enjoyed his biggest popularity so I never had posters of him on my wall or anything, but I always liked him. I thought he was an adorable kid (who happened to look a lot like one of my cousins when he was young) and he starred in one of my favorite movies of all time, Silver Bullet. It is not as well known as The Lost Boys, which I liked as well, but (in my opinion) is every bit as good. The movie is based on a Stephen King story about a little boy in a wheelchair who battles a werewolf with the assistance of his sister and his kinda crazy, sometimes sober uncle played by Gary Busey. It was made in 1985 so the special effects are not spectacular, but the story is funny and kind of scary and sometimes even a little bit touching -- for a Stephen King werewolf movie anyway. I am not big on what critics think of movies, but they didn't all hate this one. If you have never seen it, I recommend you give it a look.
Shawn at Wizbang shared video of MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan going berserk in a segment on "Anger in America" saying Tea Party members allowed those who wanted to "kill black people and kill Jews" to be associated with them. Today Hot Air links to Michael Bader's piece at AlterNet about those nutty Tea Party people.
These Tea Party folks seem to most liberals -- well, to most of us who live in the "reality community," or, as I like to call it, "reality" --- like crazy f*ckers.I wonder just how many tea parties Michael Bader has attended. Is he basing his hatred of these folks on anything other than a New York Times report? He thinks tea partiers are "paranoid," engaging in "racial stereotypes" and "innuendo"? Has he seen an episode of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, or Dylan Ratigan's show for that matter? Instead of analyzing the MSNBC paranoid haters on parade, or the "left-wing conspiracy theorists" he later mentions, he focuses on a NYT description of tea party participants and psychoanalyzes them. Then he offers his analysis of the role the "right-wing media" plays in feeding this paranoia.
As a recent New York Times article reports, this hodgepodge of people and groups spout frankly paranoid beliefs as received wisdom, e.g. the Federal Reserve is our enemy and should be abolished; citizens should stock up on ammo, gold; and survival food in anticipation of an impending Civil War; states should "nullify" federal laws and even secede; medical records are being shipped to federal bureaucrats; the army is seeking "Internment/Resettlement" specialists; and Obama is trying to create crises in order to destroy the economy, convert Interpol into his personal police force and create a New World Order.
Conspiracy theories involving shadowy elites like the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations have resurfaced. Self-defense and armed resistance are frequently called for. Racist stereotypes, innuendo and hostility run rampant. The Constitution is its sacred text and Glenn Beck its most beloved prophet. They don't usually wear aluminum hats but perhaps they should.
I hate these folks but I also understand them. And, well, uh, I also empathize with them. They share the same psychology as the paranoid patients I treat every day. The only difference is that the paranoid beliefs of the Tea Party movement are political while those in my consulting room are of a more personal nature. The causes and dynamics, however, are the same.
It is also obvious that left-wing conspiracy theorists share much of the same pathology as those on the right wing of the spectrum. For new Tea Party members, however, the drift toward paranoia is facilitated by the right-wing media machine that offers several ready-made narratives perfectly designed to help its consumers clear up their confusion, understand their helplessness, absolve them of any blame and offer a way out. The conspiratorial alliance of business and government, a growing tyranny intended to disenfranchise, disarm and exploit ordinary citizens, secret pacts to overthrow the Constitution, etc. all currently led by an un-American, godless, colored, elitist, contemptuous foreigner: Barack Hussein Obama.
Goodness, that is an awfully long sentence fragment. Where the heck is Bader getting the reference to the "colored" president? What is the obsession liberal critics of the tea parties have with race? I have been to two tea parties -- one in North Carolina and one in DC. I have read and looked at pictures fro dozens more over the past year. I know a few wackos have shown up at some tea parties (just as some wackos show up at liberal protests), but they are a tiny minority of those associating themselves with the tea party movement. You have to make an effort to specifically look for them and then you have to ignore 99.9 percent of the hard working, rational, respectful participants in order to define the tea party groups as racist and paranoid. On the other hand, all it takes to find paranoid, race-obsessed wackos associating themselves with those on the left is to turn on a television and set the channel to MSNBC's prime time lineup.
Crossposted at Wizbang.
I am only just now watching the Oprah interview with Andrew Young and his wife Cheri that I DVR'd yesterday. The topic of the interview was, obviously, Young's book about the role he played covering up Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter, even claiming to be the father of Edwards' baby. Throughout the interview Oprah asks over and over again why the Youngs would even want John Edwards to be President or Vice President once they had seen him perpetrate such a deception. She asked if he lied about something like this what else might he lie about when in office.
I found it hard to watch the interview because I could not stop yelling at the television. Am I the only person watching Oprah's questions who could not stop thinking of Bill Clinton? Was Oprah asking Vernon Jordan or any of the Clinton protectors how they could try to paint a young intern as a lying stalker when they knew Clinton had a sexual relationship with her and she was not lying? Did Oprah ask why we would want a President who would do such a thing? Did she ask what else such a person might lie about if he could tell such a lie as that? Of course not.
I don't know what Oprah would say if asked what the difference between Edwards and Clinton was, but suspect the fact that a child was involved might be one reason given. Another might be the fact that Edwards' wife has a terminal illness. My belief, however, is that the biggest difference is that by the time Edwards' sex scandal and deception were revealed he had no chance at the presidency. Oprah was pulling for Edwards' opponent, Barack Obama, anyway. By the time Clinton got busted, however, Democrats were so invested in him and his presidency that they vigorously defended his outrageous behavior. It is amazing what Democrats can forgive and even attempt to cover up when a political office is at stake.
If you are planning on following the big show today (the so-called "Bipartisan Health Care Summit"), check out the RNC's live response for live coverage and real-time fact checking. The RNC live feed is already underway and you can even submit your own questions and comments. The RNC research department will also be updating their Twitter feed in response to issues arising during the "summit."
Update: The live feed is embedded below:
Update II (11:00 a.m.): So far the so-called health care summit has been about as expected -- lots of throwing around of bogus "facts" and telling of tear jerker stories, but now getting interesting with President telling "Lamar" his facts are wrong and Lamar actually speaking out in response.
Update III (11:40 a.m.):Melissa Clothier has a hilarious and pretty accurate summary of the summit thusfar.
I just noticed that the last thing I posted was about how I was going to start blogging more, then I didn't blog for a really long time and now I have a really horrible headache so I guess I won't be blogging much tonight either.
I have been cooking a lot this week. If you want a really good, really easy recipe, try this one for Crash Hot Potatoes from The Pioneer Woman. I made them tonight and they were great. I only had six potatoes so instead of smashing the whole potato I cut them in half first. I used white potatoes instead of red since that is what I had, but otherwise I followed the recipe. The coarse salt is really good on them so if you make them be sure to use it. I also baked chicken tenders. I seasoned them with garlic powder and Lawry's and then dipped them in butter and rolled them in crushed Ritz crackers. I baked at 350 for about an hour, maybe a little less. They were crispy, but still moist on the inside and the girls really liked them. I put honey mustard on the table, but they ate them without it.
I would love to do some political blogging, but that is sure to make my head start hurting again so I'll put it off for another day.
I have not blogged much lately, kinda on purpose. When I blog my time somehow disappears into thin air and I have had too much to do around the house lately for that. I keep blogging in my head though. I listened to a CD today that I had not listened to in a while and thought "I should blog about this." When I cooked so much over the weekend and when I watched the kids play in the snow I thought "I should blog this." I even took some pictures to post. They are still on the SD card. When I went to my daughter's ballgame and, of course, every time I've read a news item...I've wanted to blog. But the computer was not in front of me at the time so no blogging occurred. Twitter is largely to blame. If not for the ability to micro-blog on Twitter a few seconds at a time, I would probably have gone into blog withdrawal. I have had a nice little break so I should be back to blogging more regularly now.
I have to admit it takes a lot of nerve or self delusion or something to be able to talk about "just stating the facts" after spending a year (including tonight) pointing to fairy tale magical "jobs saved or created" numbers. Gotta give him that -- he's shameless (just stating the facts, baby).
Most striking to me is that he learned he had to use some different buzzwords in reaction to declining poll numbers and losing elections in Virginia, Massachusetts, etc., but he didn't learn that it is not all about him and that he has made mistakes. I heard plenty of rationalizations, but no admissions that his policies were (and are) crap. If he has not gotten that message, I just don't see how he will turn things around. Be it this economy or his poll numbers. Americans are not gonna blindly trust his word anymore. They have smartened up and will now verify. Just stating the facts.
Update: ABC pointed out (and showed video of) Judge Alito mouthing "That's not true" and shaking his head during one portion of the speech. A kinder, gentler version of "You Lie!"
If Scott Brown beats Martha "Marcia" Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate election today Stu Rothenberg says it could be "the biggest political upset of my adult life." It will certainly be one of the happiest election nights in many Republicans' recent memories. For Republicans to take the seat held for so many decades by the most prominent and influential liberal in the Senate should send shockwaves through the state of Massachusetts, the U.S. Senate and the Democratic Party -- and just about everywhere else as well.
It will be fun to see how the Dems try to spin a Brown win. "Marcia" Coakley will, no doubt, be blamed. And George Bush. I can't help but wonder how many Dems are going to tell Obama to stay away from their districts. A lot can change between now and November, but if Brown does win (especially as strongly as it now appears he will) the psychological effect could easily hold into the fall election. As Rothenberg points out, it will help the GOP recruit some strong potential candidates who are now fence sitters and could drive some incumbent Dems into retirement. It will give Republicans confidence and hope (yeah, I said it) that Americans are not only paying attention and don't like the agenda the Democrats are ramming through, but that they are ready to do something about it.
I don't like to rely on exit polls or interesting anecdotes. I am a nervous nellie and like to wait until the votes are counted before celebrating, but things look really, really good for Brown. So good, in fact, that if he doesn't win the result will be a big shock as well because it would show all the polls to be so incredibly wrong.
Tune in tonight to see the results from Massachusetts. Just for fun click on over to MSNBC periodically to see what Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann are saying. I know it is a sacrifice, but if the results are in line with the most recent polls, it will be worth it.
Update: This was posted at Wizbang earlier today. Real results are now coming in. Michelle Malkin has a live blog on the election with lots of links and Kim has an open thread at Wizbang for election coverage.