The Five Morons

I'm still trying to figure out how and/or why people who are stone cold morons either get or get to be on talk shows that are supposed to be dealing with a serious subject. You know, like those cable news talk shows about politics and world events and, and, and...the like. How, how, how do they find these people? Or maybe the better question is how do these people manage to pass themselves off as capable right up until the time that they go on the air? And once they're on the air and spewing their nonsense, why are they allowed to continue?

Case in point (because you know I have a motive when I ramble) would be a one Eric Bolling and the cast of something called The Five. According to the Huffington Post, The Five is Fox's replacement show for Glenn Beck. I've never watched The Five. I don't know if they have a chalkboard or if they dress up in funny costumes or even if they occasionally smoke a pipe. (That was my favorite Glenn Beck bit. The pipe. You couldn't help but laugh.) I guess that the premise of the show is that there are always five people there at some sort of roundtable to discuss issues. some of the "personalities" that are to be "showcased" include barely recognizable names such as Greg Gutfeld, Juan Williams, Dana Perino, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, Bob Beckel and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Other than Geraldo (who I know you won't admit to knowing who he is, but you do know), do you know who any of them are? I know Dana Perino, but that's just because I'm a news geek. And even being said news geek, I couldn't tell you who any of the others are. Not a good start if you're trying to replace Glenn Beck.

The point here is that the other day, the morons of the round table were discussing whether or not George W Bush engaged in "fear mongering". I think. And this Eric Bolling guy cuts off this Bob Beckel guy (because all they ever do on these shows is cut each other off) and says "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don't remember any attacks on American soil during that period of time." Uh, wait. What?You don't remember ANY attacks on American soil between 2000 and 2008? None? Not even a teensy-weensy attack? ON American soil? Doesn't the year 2001 fall in between 2000 and 2008? Yes. Yes, it does. And he doesn't think that there were any attacks on American soil? Huh. So those planes? You know, the ones that flew into those buildings? I think the date was September 11? 2001? That's not an attack? What the what was it then?

Look, there haven't been a whole lot of major attacks on American soil to begin with. It's not like you have a whole bunch of them to get yourself all confused. You have the whole Pearl Harbor thing that led to that World War II thing. That was an attack on American soil. And then there was 09/11. That was an attack on American soil. Yes, there were things in between that killed people. But I'm not going to consider something like the Oklahoma City bombing an "attack" as much as I'm going to consider it an "act". But that's not the point. How in the world do you forget that 09/11 was during the Bush administration!?

But all of that aside. Let's say that you do forget. These things happen. Apparently. But you know what made me more insane than someone making such a ridiculous statement? NO ONE on the freaking panel corrected him! That's right! FIVE people. All sitting right there. All heard what he said. Not ONE person said, "Dude! September 11?" Not ONE. And yet there they sit. On TV. Offering up completely asinine statements about...something. Something false, of course. And I'm sure that they'll all be back tomorrow doing their job that they so clearly suck at. Grand.

I hate them. I hate them all. Why are people like this allowed to make a living? They need to be destitute and on the streets (not streets anywhere near me, of course) as punishment for their dimwittedness. Please, join me in my agony by watching the clip below where this abomination occurs. If it doesn't load, click here. Or if you'd like to save yourself the pain, just don't watch it. It's cringe worthy.

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, No They Don't

I've gotta say that I'm kind of surprised at the restraint that almost all of the news and tabloid outlets have shown by not publishing a photo of Arnold's newly announced illegitimate child that he fathered with his maid at his house when he was cheating on his wife and the mother of his four legitimate children, the lovely Maria Shriver. If only some of the media could refrain from making idiotic comparisons and/or analogies, then we might very well be on our way toward some responsible reporting of an issue that really kind of doesn't matter. But no. Leave it to ABC to ruin the very, very short streak that we were on. I present to you THEIR way of framing the story. Behold! Utter crap!

Good Lord. Really? Who thought that was a good idea? Well, over at ABC, it would be the director of Yale University's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic, a one Dr. Alan E. Kazdin, as he is actually quoted using the phrase "This event is like a personal 9/11." I know that 9/11 was almost ten years ago, so I'm guessing that he WAS, in fact, around for the events that took place on that day. That's why I'm so perplexed as to why anyone would make such an idiotic statement. ( was about to say "And he's a doctor!" Then I realized that might actually shed some light on his thinking patterns as opposed to confusing me even more. He should step out of his ivory tower once in a while and see how the real world thinks of 9/11. Because while it's thought of in a lot of ways, one of those ways is not when your husband/father turns out to be a lying, cheating, seed-spreading scumbag. It sucks, but it doesn't 9/11 suck.

Sphere: Related Content

The Mosque Mess

I'm going to try my best to delve into this whole "should they build a mosque at Ground Zero" debate that seems to be going on. I'm not so sure how well I'm going to do with this, as it doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept to wrap my head around. When something is that easy for me to understand, I always feel like I must be missing something. Yet, folks are all up in arms about it, and understandably so. Let's see what all the hubbub is about, shall we?

According to the Boston Herald, "A controversial mosque and Islamic center to be built some 600 feet from Ground Zero cleared its last legal hurdle this week, winning approval from New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission." That's right. A group of folks headed by a one Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (pronounce any of those however you'd like) want to build a mosque a couple of blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand and where almost three thousand people were killed as the result of "...the actions of a group of Islamic radicals.". As you can imagine, that idea isn't setting very well with folks.

People are upset. People want to prevent them from building a mosque there, saying that it's disrespectful, it's awful, etc. And they're right. It would appear to be all of those things and a whole hell of a lot more. But here's the thing: No matter how much we don't like it, there isn't anything we can do about it to prevent it from being built.

That whole First Amendment, you know, the one that makes this country freaking awesome? Yeah, that thing is exactly why nothing can be done and it's probably why nothing should be done. The First Amendment, for those who might be a little fuzzy on the text, reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You can't just ignore that.

I wish that, instead of focusing on how much people dislike and abhor this idea, people would focus more on things like why in the world is it being built there of all freaking places? Yeah, yeah, I know that they have the land and that land in Manhattan is rather difficult to come by. I get that. That doesn't make it any more palatable. And it certainly doesn't make it any more justifiable.

Apparently, this project has a web site that the Boston Herald inexplicably does not link to. Oh, that's right. The media sucks. I forgot. But they do say "The Web site for the $100 million project says all the right things about its aims at bringing people of different faiths together and about honoring the memory of 9/11 victims." Hmm. Tell you what, mosque guys. How about you let us decide when we'd like to be brought together, OK? How about you help us honor the memory of the 09/11 victims by not building a mosque a couple of blocks away? How about that? I can't see how something this disrespectful is going to do anything other than strain relations between folks of different faiths. (And by "between folks of different faiths" I mean the mosque-goers and the non-mosque goers.)

I'm guessing because it doesn't have anything to do with any of that flowery crap that he was spouting. See, "He has repeatedly refused to disclose who is putting up the money for the project, although he told an Arab-language newspaper that such funding would come from the Middle East." Why wouldn't you disclose that, dude? Why the secrets? You expect people to be perfectly OK with this and not ask you questions? You expect people are going to be perfectly OK with this when you refuse to answer their questions about funding? This can't be good.

Obviously, this is just a kick in the head of the American people. They could build this thing anywhere they wanted to, but they're not. And I think that they're not because it's their way of letting us know that they're here and they're not going away. And as the United States, we have to allow that, as that is what our Constitution guides us to do. Now, I keep hearing the argument or the point or whatever they want to call it about Pearl Harbor. Basically, would we have let the Japanese build some sort of Shinto shrine or temple next to the USS Arizona? It kind of sounds valid, but I don't think that it really is when the context of how it's being argued is used.

See, the Japanese would not have built a temple next to the USS Arizona. You know why not? Because we kicked their ass, that is correct. We not only kicked their ass, we obliterated it. Twice. We haven't kicked anyone's ass in retaliation for 09/11. Oh, sure. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with it and deposed of their dictator who was eventually executed. We've been traipsing around the God-forsaken rocks of Afghanistan for a while without a lot of success. (But that's only because success hasn't been defined yet. As soon as it's defined, I'm sure that we'll have fallen incredibly short. But until then, we'll just stay vague about the degree of success which we may or may not have achieved.)

If someone's ass had been kicked over 09/11, you can bet that there wouldn't be any mosque building going on that close to Ground Zero. They're doing it simply because they can and, more importantly, because they want to. They want to appear the martyr in this situation. They want to have rationale for all of their twisted logic under Islamic law and Sharia law. And since we operate under our Constitution, we have to allow them to do so.

I don't know what would be better; to civilly protest this thing or to stay quiet about this thing. Legally, nothing can be done and nothing should be done. Legal action for something like this would point the country in a direction that I'm not so sure you really want it to go in. In fact, I'm positive you don't. But would a lack of attention be better in this case? I don't know. I just know that people need to take their emotions out of the issue. I realize that is damn near impossible for some. But we can't go around making decisions based on feelings. (Look at California's freaking financial situation. The state is swimming in expensive "feel good" programs. It doesn't work to legislate with feelings.) That just doesn't work.

Sphere: Related Content

Willie Nelson - Truther

Are you familiar with the Truther movement? Or just the Truthers? They're the folks who don't believe the accepted explanations for what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11. Yeah, they're the folks who believe that it was some sort of inside job by the US government. The basis for their beliefs seems to be strongly rooted in wanting to believe in a conspiracy. That's really the only explanation for it, as there isn't any logical reason one would believe that there is evidence pointing toward it being an inside job.

Now, there are plenty of folks out there who have come out and questioned what "really happened". Granted, when they get told what did really happen, they don't want to believe that. That's what makes them a truther. (It's also what makes them a nutjob, but that's a different topic all together.) There are some rather famous people who have publicly questioned what happened that day. Martin Sheen...Charlie Sheen (must run in the family)...Jesse Ventura (maybe it runs in Minnesota, too)...Rosie O'Donnell...and now we can add to that list. Now we can add old stoner, country singer Willie Nelson to that list.

Willie Nelson was on ancient Larry King's show the other night. And the ancient Larry King asked him about his truther views on 9/11. That, in and of itself, was shocking, as Larry King seems to be really good at lobbing softballs at people these days. (Quite frankly, it's amazing that Larry King can lob anything. What is he? Like one hundred?) He started off the conversation with, "What prompted you to look into this from another angle?" And Willie answered with the most ironic of answers when he said, "Just logic."

No, see, if you were using the "logic" that you claimed that you were using, you would have come to the conclusion that all of the conspiracy theories are completely ridiculous. But that's the problem with truthers. They are really into their own definition of logic. And Willie exemplified that point by explaining, "I've seen buildings implode before. I just saw the Texas Stadium implode just a couple of days ago. And these two building imploded. And the one next to it. Nothing hit it. No plane hit the one next to it. It just decided to fall on its own. Naturally, I have questions about how did that happen." Do you Willie? Really? Why? Because it's the same? Uh-huh. Whatever.

Did the building have to be hit with a plane for it to collapse? You don't think that it was possible for it to have been hit by debris from the two falling towers in order for it to collapse? That thought never crossed your mind, Willie? Apparently it did not. Then the ancient Larry King tries to reason with Willie Nelson (there's a sentence I never thought I'd type) by saying, "I'm told that the reason that it imploded was the so much heat from above and so much fuel on the jets that that caused it to go down rather than go over." OK. I'm not a fan of how he phrased that, but fair enough. Willie? Your response? "Never before has a building collapsed because it was hit by an airplane. A steel building. Never. Before." Oh, for cryin' out loud. Really?

This is where Larry King comes back with a pretty good response for someone who is 120 years old. He asked, "Uh, has any building been hit by a 747, though?" Willie? "I'm sure they have." Are you now? That's the best you can do? You're sure that they have? See, in order to avoid looking like a cuckoo bird, that would really have been the best place to provide the folks with some facts. But you don't have any facts. No, you have marijuana. That doesn't help sharpen your logic and reasoning skills, I'm guessing.

Larry King: "You think that there was something going on inside the building." Crazy Willie: "Well, I just question the whole thing. I question the story. I question the implosions. It just looks...too simple. You know?" Actually, no. No, I don't know. Simple doesn't necessarily mean "simple". Physics, while complex, are very simple when you understand the basic concepts. Heat melts steel! Get over it!

This is where I get a little annoyed at Larry King. He placates Willie by saying, "Well, others have questioned it too...although there was an investigation." How is that helping?! Don't tell these nutjobs that it's OK that they're thinking and promoting a bunch of stuff that is complete crap. What good does that do? None! All it does is give Willie Nelson the opportunity to say, "There was an investigation and I think that there should be more." Do you? How high are you right now, Willie? Very, I'm guessing.

So, Willie Nelson thinks that there should be more of an investigation as to how those buildings that were hit with airliners managed to implode because he saw Texas Stadium go down a few days ago? Sure, that makes sense. Who are you people? I don't get you at all. Listen, if you folks really believe that crap, what are you still doing here? Seriously. Because I think that if I believed that the government of my country had done something that sinister, I don't think that I could continue to live there. So, what are you people still doing here? Why haven't you moved to France or Germany? (Sorry, France and Germany. It's nothing personal. I was just thinking of someplace far away. I'm not trying to push all of these nutjobs on you.) What are you still doing here? Go! If the United States is so damn evil, get the hell out.

The video of Larry King and the stoned nutjob Willie Nelson is below. Hopefully, you'll enjoy it, but all it did was frustrate the hell out of me.

Sphere: Related Content