My Rachael Ray rant.....

Hoke,

I suspect that all political satire is dated. If not, that would mean our political culture hadn't changed or grown. Well, maybe I should take back my first sentence...

Did anyone see her show today? She had first lady, Laura Bush as her guest. First of all, Rachael wears skin tight, stretch jeans, with a top that looks like a Target purchase and a clunky necklace, another Target purchase. I've seen her looking much better with lesser known guests.
She interrupted the first lady several times, and I noticed Laura shot her an evil look a time or two. Her worst mistake.....after asking Mrs. Bush what she was reading, Mrs. Bush mentioned something about a Canadian personality, and Rachael calls her a "name dropper"! Did I hear this right? Good grief. She did restrain herself at the end of the interview, and did not grab Mrs. Bush and hug her like she does the rest of her guests.

Well, Karen we`ve made it to Page 3. Pretty good eh. She can hug me anytime she likes!

Had no idea Rachael would cause such a discussion. I have another story about her on today's show but I think I'd better keep quiet!

Had no idea Rachael would cause such a discussion. I have another story about her on today's show but I think I'd better keep quiet!

Aw come on, Karen!! If you don't tell us, we'll just come up with much worse on our own!




Mike

Today, she opened the show dressed in a slick, black dress, and pearls. She looked great. She announced that she "dressed up, because she had important guests!" Susan Lucci, Stacey Ballis, Dr. Timothy Brantley, ever heard of them? Susan Lucci, of course!
It was jeans and a turtleneck for the first lady!
Ok, just wondering why Laura Bush appeared on there in the first place.
I just don't get it.
Sorry, but I know how you guys love to get into a discussion/rant/dither over RR.
I suspect she (RR) has a great handler!

Just to keep this legal... tonight, we had tacos for valentine's dinner; our fave wine to drink is a local Merlot, 'Burnsinni' from Cottonwood, CA......a little western town just down the road. Used to be beer.

Rachael Ray must die.



ack

Thanks, Hoke. You said it all about that show -- he skewers everyone, we all need to look at ourselves in an objective, funny way.

I wish I could be so eloquent.

Mostly though, it provides a much needed voice in this era of yelling and shouting huckster/snake oil salesmen/sensationalist Grace/Beck/O'Reilly/everything Fox crap that passes for "journalism and news" in this sorry time.

Hoke,

Lets insert CNN crap (instead of FOX) in there with Zahn/L. King/ Nancy Grace?

All of them are the same in content...just different spin depending on your politics. Same stories, just different hucksters.

Richard

Okay, Richard, a plague on all their houses.

But I have to say (and I suspect you'll ascribe this to either my liberal leanings or my obtuseness), while I certainly don't exclude CNN from the pack, I don't find nearly the strident, hectoring, angry, condemnatory and blinkered view on CNN as I do on Fox. I'd place Fox in a category all by itself. It excels beyond all the others in crudeness and one-sided manipulation of information

Of course, if you consider MSNBC the leading Fox imitator...

Yes, I think you and I can agree on this: it's all dismal.

Lets insert CNN crap (instead of FOX) in there with Zahn/L. King/ Nancy Grace?

All of them are the same in content...just different spin depending on your politics. Same stories, just different hucksters.

Damn, Richard, I guess I have been living in this bluebelly state of Washington too long, because I find CNN pretty moderate. The network news obviously leans to the left -- sad to see Rather ruin a pretty distinguished career like he did. FOX obviously leans to the right. CNN has a little tilt, but still seems pretty moderate.

I guess I'll have to turn in my Okie Redneck carrying card.

I keep the BBC bookmarked on my computer. They seem to fit my idea of the news better than what we get here at home.

That said, I watch FOX, NBC, CNN and occasionally ABC. I like to hear/see the spin on both sides and draw my own conclusions. I don't buy any party line.

I often find the Christian Science Monitor a welcome relief in the news business.

I often find the Christian Science Monitor a welcome relief in the news business.

I have heard that it is a very even-keeled and unbiased publication, and the few articles I've read support that.

I used to think the same of the Economist, but they seem a bit wishy-washy these days, and prone to either being stubbornly contrarian or annoyingly sycophantic, depending on what article you're reading. You can certainly see the British bias against the French sometimes in there (although I can't help but find much of it amusing!).

Randy, I also turn to the BBC Online frequently, primarily because I like the links to past articles that they provide with each current article. Helps me delve more thoroughly into some issues that I may not be all that familiar with.

So people don't believe the position of First Lady deserves any respect because she is not elected. But she does represent the United States at many official functions. What about ambassadors, Supreme court justices?

I have far less respect for ambassadors and Supreme Court justices than I do for "first ladies." Hell, I have less respect for them than I do for Rachel Ray.

My exception is Nancy Reagan, for whom I have utter contempt and scorn. She is an evil woman who has deep responsibility for tens of thousands of deaths and wasted lives, not to mention the wholesale shredding of our Constitution. The next time some first lady decides to take up a political cause, I hope we all Just Say No. Laura Bush, to her credit, has only pushed a major money-waster (No Child Left Behind).

So people don't believe the position of First Lady deserves any respect because she is not elected. But she does represent the United States at many official functions. What about ambassadors, Supreme court justices?

They may not be elected but theirs are functioning government jobs--still, I don't respect them any more than I respect you. They simply represent the people--they do not lord over us.

I'm afraid too many modern Americans have lost touch with the original intent of the American Revolution. Maybe that's why it has been so easy for our leaders to trash our Constitution by eating away at it.

James Madison had little faith in the people, but even he would likely have cringed if we bowed before him.

And then there is that little matter of respect having to be earmed...

Once again, I agree with you, Stuart.

They may not be elected but theirs are functioning government jobs--still, I don't respect them any more than I respect you. They simply represent the people--they do not lord over us.

I would argue that the First Lady or First Gentleman, whatever, is a functioning government job as well. They do receive government funding for their position. Have you ever seen an Ambassador's residence, pretty lord-like if you ask me.

And then there is that little matter of respect having to be earmed...

So you don't respect anyone unless they've already earned it in your eyes.

For me, it's the opposite. Respect is something everyone is entitled to unless they lose it. And even then civility is given unless they really go over the top.

They may not be elected but theirs are functioning government jobs--still, I don't respect them any more than I respect you. They simply represent the people--they do not lord over us.

I would argue that the First Lady or First Gentleman, whatever, is a functioning government job as well. They do receive government funding for their position. Have you ever seen an Ambassador's residence, pretty lord-like if you ask me.

And then there is that little matter of respect having to be earmed...

So you don't respect anyone unless they've already earned it in your eyes.

For me, it's the opposite. Respect is something everyone is entitled to unless they lose it. And even then civility is given unless they really go over the top.

Thank you Eric! I try to not get into pi**ing contests here anymore, so I bit my tongue, but you said it in excellent form, and I thank you.

Mostly though, it provides a much needed voice in this era of yelling and shouting huckster/snake oil salesmen/sensationalist Grace/Beck/O'Reilly/everything Fox crap that passes for "journalism and news" in this sorry time.

Hoke,

Lets insert CNN crap (instead of FOX) in there with Zahn/L. King/ Nancy Grace?

All of them are the same in content...just different spin depending on your politics. Same stories, just different hucksters.

Richard

Okay, Richard, a plague on all their houses.

But I have to say (and I suspect you'll ascribe this to either my liberal leanings or my obtuseness), while I certainly don't exclude CNN from the pack, I don't find nearly the strident, hectoring, angry, condemnatory and blinkered view on CNN as I do on Fox. I'd place Fox in a category all by itself. It excels beyond all the others in crudeness and one-sided manipulation of information

Of course, if you consider MSNBC the leading Fox imitator...

Yes, I think you and I can agree on this: it's all dismal.

Well said, Hoke.

On this point we can completely agree.

Thomas:

Interesting you mention Little Jemmy...I was just reading about him again this week. And you're right; he would be cringing at the idea. Unlike Hamilton, who would've considered it appropriate.

But even John Adams would've been susceptible to some bowing and grovelling from the common people, since he had a little puffed up streak of vanity in him. But thank goodness by the time it got to John Quincy that vanity had disappeared. Unfortunately, so had the sense of humor.

I think I stand somewhere between Eric and Yaniger here: I am perfectly willing to treat someone in an official position respectfully, but no more so than I would treat someone else---if they behave and act respectfully in return, as befits someone who is in public service.

I sat down and shared wine, oysters and dinner with Justice Scalia one night. I doubt there is anyone who is in greater and more direct oppositions to my views, yet we had an enjoyable evening, for he is quite witty and charming. Had political questions come up, I would have discussed things....and argued things...with him just as I would anyone else. (I suspect he would have devastated me in any discussion, for he is highly intelligent and well spoken, and I am not, but that's of no matter.)

In short, I would have disagreed with him, but I would have done so respectfully, just as I would have with anyone else. No one deserves better or worse treatment than that--unless their actions or behavior dictates a different response.

There's nothing wrong with civility. But there's no call for undue deference either. And there's certainly no call for grovelling or deference.

"There's nothing wrong with civility. But there's no call for undue deference either. And there's certainly no call for grovelling or deference."

Hoke, I believe your last sentence (quoted above) says it all. I, as an old military man am probably disposed to give those in superior positions, (and the first lady is in a position superior to an old tired and retired weather guesser) an amount of respect that might be construed by some as deference or even kowtowing. I do not view it that way, but rather as a just way of life. I often tell folks that Mr, was my fathers name by all but myself and my siblings To me and they, his name was sir.

Thomas:

Interesting you mention Little Jemmy...I was just reading about him again this week. And you're right; he would be cringing at the idea. Unlike Hamilton, who would've considered it appropriate.

But even John Adams would've been susceptible to some bowing and grovelling from the common people, since he had a little puffed up streak of vanity in him. But thank goodness by the time it got to John Quincy that vanity had disappeared. Unfortunately, so had the sense of humor.

I think I stand somewhere between Eric and Yaniger here: I am perfectly willing to treat someone in an official position respectfully, but no more so than I would treat someone else---if they behave and act respectfully in return, as befits someone who is in public service.

I sat down and shared wine, oysters and dinner with Justice Scalia one night. I doubt there is anyone who is in greater and more direct oppositions to my views, yet we had an enjoyable evening, for he is quite witty and charming. Had political questions come up, I would have discussed things....and argued things...with him just as I would anyone else. (I suspect he would have devastated me in any discussion, for he is highly intelligent and well spoken, and I am not, but that's of no matter.)

In short, I would have disagreed with him, but I would have done so respectfully, just as I would have with anyone else. No one deserves better or worse treatment than that--unless their actions or behavior dictates a different response.

There's nothing wrong with civility. But there's no call for undue deference either. And there's certainly no call for grovelling or deference.

Hoke,

I am through with this thread, except to say that I agree with your post..

As you know I am not a Bush fan. However, as the old expression goes "You salute the rank, not the person." therefore, R.R. was definitely out of place.

As you know I am not a Bush fan. However, as the old expression goes "You salute the rank, not the person." therefore, R.R. was definitely out of place.

Well said George, and the old story of General Daniel "Chappie" James, USAF, illustrate the fact that you are stating, and does it well.

Rachael Ray is always out of place.