I did not watch your press conference last night.  There are several reasons.  One is that after 100 days, I find nothing enchanted or enchanting about your Administration's agenda.  I find your responses to the vapid questions you are asked to be excessively long, uninformative and misleading.  I find your demeanor to be almost unbearably self-satisfied. I know I will learn nothing but will be pained for a very long hour.  And finally, since you have no interest in listening to me, why should I listen to you?  In fact, you use feigned amusement to ridicule me and people like me, as you did in your town hall meeting yesterday, talking about people who watch "some" news channels and wave tea bags, which is a very effective tool to marginalize people who disagree with you.  You, sir, are an arrogant man who is so acclimated to fawning praise that you are unable to accept that intelligent people might not agree with your every thought and action.  When faced with honest dissent from people who are willing, in fact, eager to have an intelligent debate, you react like a spoiled child.

Your administration behaved in a pouting, childish manner again this morning when you chastised Chrysler's bond holders for not going along with your plan to hand over the company to the Unions.  Your Administration scolded these people who had a legitimate claim and, indeed, a duty to assure that the people they represented recouped as much money as they could, and told them they were not acting in the national interest.  Excuse me?  I do not believe it is in the nation's interest for the Government to decide whether or not a business should stay in business.  I do not think it is in the nation's best interest for the Government to decide that Unions should take over management of a company.  I do not think it is in the nation's interest for the Unions to manage any business. The purpose of a union is to represent employees in negotiations with management.  Unions have a very bad track record of managing their own retirement funds and spending their members dues, so why should I feel good about them managing any business of which I am a major stockholder.  And since we the people now are major stockholders of an astonishing number of banks and businesses, and since this Administration has decided we should be voting stockholders, I have the right and responsibility to provide feedback on how my money is spent.  And I do not stand with you as you feel the need to chide organizations responsible for assuring that investors, many of whom are average Americans who have invested in mutual funds, IRA's, 401k's, etc., and have already lost enormous amounts of money through no fault of their own, get back the maximum amount possible.  Why is it that you feel these Americans have not sacrificed enough?

Mr. President, I am not alone.  There are millions of us, some of whom feel even more strongly than I that the decisions your Administration is making with lightening speed have the potential to fundamentally ruin this country.  Your subtle, dismissive chiding and ridicule will not shut us up.  We are vocal, we are worried, and we feel a responsibility to question your actions.  We have a stake in our own future and the future of our country and we are not going away. 

Janeane Garofalo is a mediocre actress, a bad comedienne, a failed radio talk-show host, and a bigot.  After watching her on Keith Olbermann, I have decided I will never watch her again.  In the interest of honesty, I must admit that I have not watched 24, but I know lots of people who do and love it.  I was planning on ordering the entire series on Netflix, but now I won't.  The irony of that woman, (I just can't call her Ms. anymore and my name is Jennine so it's too painful for me to use her first name) categorizing hundreds of thousands of middle class Americans as brain damaged, sexually deviant, redneck racists, is that 24 draws an audience which includes many of these people for whom she has nothing but disdain.  In the interest of my own personal boycott, I convinced my sister-in-law to throw her personal DVD of The Truth About Cats and Dogs away after breaking it.  I don't want to take the chance that someone might find it intact and watch it.  That woman's astonishing tirade did inspire me to make a conscious list of other entertainers whose bigotry I can no longer overlook.  Bigotry is just as ugly when directed at middle class, conservative Americans exercising their Constitutional right to free speech as it is when directed at anyone because of race, religion, physical disability, or sexual orientation.   Silence is consent, and contributing to people by watching movies or television, or listening to music goes beyond consent to support. This personal boycott is somewhat difficult as much of my youth and young adulthood was spent admiring these annoying entertainers.  Now when I think of these people and the incidents which have caused them to be added to my list, the lyrics to another song of my youth come to mind - How can people be so ugly, .....especially people who care about strangers, who say they care about social injustice......   I intend to consciously not support any of the following people, and will encourage others to follow suit.  Why would anyone want to support someone who feels disdain, disgust or antipathy for you?  So here's my list.

Barbara Streisand - I grew up singing People so often that "people" wanted to hit me.  I cried through"The Way We Were" at least 4 times.  My memories are now tainted by Babs not so brilliant political observations.  While I was over her long before the advent of CD's, I own a number of albums and cassettes.  When I find those boxes deep in storage, her albums go into the fire pit.

Robert Redford - I just realized how this list is aging me.  But Robert used to be very pretty, and I grew up with a poster of him on my bedroom wall.  I once accidentally turned up in the mud room of his house in Sundance, Utah while looking for another lodge.  I thought I had died and gone to heaven.  Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, another much-watched and loved movie like the previously mentioned The Way We Were, will sadly never be watched again as I could find none of the heart-palpitating joy of previous viewings.  Now I see a not-so-gracefully aging man so out of touch with most of America he could be living in parallel universe.

Linda Ronstadt - I've been dancing to the beat of a different drum ever since she so sweetly announced that it took the joy out of her concerts when she knew there were Republicans or fundamental Christians in the audience.  I am an Independent and a Hopeful Agnostic, but I took offense at this bashing of the people who had made her famous and given her a lot of money.  Like others who became rich off the people they despise, this money seems to give them the need to publicly support the causes of the common folk.  That is, the common folk who are not Republican or Christian.  So that'll be the day when I ever listen to her again. Her albums - also in the fire pit.

Then there is the list of people I happily avoid with no nostalgic memories like Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Alec Baldwin, the Dixie Chicks and Madonna.  In fact, does anyone right or left, really like these people?

Here's someone I add with true sadness - Tom Hanks.  I have admired him personally and professionally since I first saw him.  He's usually a very good actor and has many wonderful personal qualities.  However, I have many friends and family members who are Mormon and I was deeply offended when he singled Mormons out in California's gay marriage vote, while ignoring the fact that Catholics, the Jewish population, blacks and many other demographics voted against gay marriage.  His apology was a nice gesture, but was more politically expedient than heart-felt.  His Big Love series is a clear example of using his star power to target a group to marginalize because he disagrees with them. Even though Mormons don't practice polygamy, most people don't or won't get that and I believe he uses this confusion to demonize Mormons.  Speaking of Demons, I won't feel bad missing Angels and Demons.  His performance in the Da Vinci code was so bad I can't believe anyone would watch a sequel.  At the time I found it puzzling that he could give such a wooden, unbelievable performance in a story that was so riveting in it's written form.  But then the character was a man of deep faith and obviously this was too much of a stretch or a stretch he didn't wish to make.  Tom is one of the more dangerous anti-conservative entertainers as he is not a ranting lunatic, he is subtle, thoughtful and methodical in advancing his liberal agenda.  Watch out for the candidate Tom Hanks, as he would be lethally effective.

So there's my small but growing list.  I started this blog because I wanted to take a stand.  I will undoubtedly struggle with this issue as there will be movies, TV shows and music I will want to see and hear and talk about with friends.  Principles are tricky things, and require some sacrifice if they are deeply held and true.  So here's to you, all you entertainers who find me morally objectionable while taking my money and using it against me.  To other entertainers, here's my motto - I work hard for my money so you better treat me right.

You have concerns about illegal aliens, and actually call them aliens rather than immigrants; you're a returning Gulf War, Afghanistan,, or Iraq War veteran; you perceive the government might be infringing on your civil liberties; you're worried about the economic collapse of the country; you have concerns about gun control legislation; you are pro-life; you belong to a church whose core principles include right-to-life; you are stockpiling food; you're worried about the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, and China's investment in U. S. real estate and corporations; you reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

You may have read through this abbreviated list of concerns described in the Assessment of Department of Homeland Security, Rightwing Extremism, Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, and thought, whew, I'm safe, I only worry about one or two of those things, not all of them.  Well, that would be stupid because there's a footnote in the report that reports that rightwing extemism may include groups or individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.  And if your one issue is gun control, well you're automatically on the list.

What is most astonishing about this document is that it even exists.  Someone in our Administration actually thinks these things, sits down and has meetings about them, commits them to paper, has the DHS Secretary sign off on the document and distributes it nationwide.  There is also a statement in this document that it is not to be distributed to the media, the general public or non-secure internet servers, and then makes it available for any semi-computer savy person to download  in it's entirety.  So I have to assume the real audience is you and me and it's intended to make us frightened.  If this is what is in a summary document, what do they really think?   As I said in an earlier blog, be scared, be very scared.

I have decided that it is my patriotic duty to save DHS time and money  looking for those of us who fit the profile described above.  Let's identify ourselves and send the list to Janet.  Then maybe they can devote their time and money to looking for real terrorists.   So go to the site listed below if you fit the profile and agree it would be a patriotic thing to do to step forward:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/rightwingextremists/