When I want to stay informed about current events, all I want are the facts of the story. I really don't want it to have a slant. I want the journalists that craft their stories to be impartial. The news isn't meant to be reported as if it were an editorial. If I wanted an editorial, I'd read stuff that I write. I want the news and that's all that I want. That being said...Fox News? What is wrong with you? ::: sigh ::: Behold.
Really? "Impeached President"? Yes, yes. Bill Clinton was impeached. Is there a reason that they felt the need to address him in that manner? That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that they're about the discuss. And if that's what they're going to be about then really, what's stopping them from using other phrasings that would be technically accurate? Let's see...we could have:
Fellatio Recipient Opines About Something Non-fellatious
Big ol' Liar Is Embarrassed For The Country
Adulterer Wants To Strangle Non-Believers
Yes, we could have any of those headlines, but we don't. You know why? Because it's not good journalism, that is correct. And it really irks me because I try to give cable news the benefit of the doubt most of the time. But a headline like that at the "Fair and Balanced" news station just isn't making that possible for me. Keep it classy, Fox News.
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.
Well. Pretty much, I can't stress enough how glad I am that we did not elect Old Man McCain as President and instead went with now-President Barry. Who knew that McCain would turn out to be as delusional as I think he might have proven himself to be yesterday? (Don't get me wrong. I don't think that the guy is senile or anything like that. But I was never fully convinced about how in tact all of his critical thinking faculties really were. I have a much better idea now and the answer is "not entirely".)
It's pretty easy to see. Here's what went down": McCain was on something called "Fox News Sunday" yesterday and was asked if former almost-half-of-a-term governor of Alaska, the super hot Sarah Palin, could beat Barack Obama in a 2012 Presidential election. Let's not forget that Palin was McCain's running mate in 2008. Let's also not forget that they lost fairly handily. President Barry won with about 66% of the vote. I know that from all of the pre-election hooplah with how he was supposed to be our savior and all that you would have thought that it would have been around 96%. But still, 66% of the vote is a pretty good ass-whooping. According to thePolitical Ticker blog over yonder at CNN, McCain responded "Of course she can. She can. Now, whether she will or not, whether she'll even run or not, I don't know...But she certainly is a major factor and I believe she can be very competitive." Wait. Those...those are just a bunch of words and I'm not sure that they make a lot of sense. Let's break that down a little bit and try to figure out what's going on there.
So he starts out stating "Of course she can. She can." Sooo...is he saying that it was HIM who was the problem in 2008? Because if I had to pick an office for Sarah Palin to be in, I sure as hell would rather have her as a Vice President than the freaking President. It's nothing personal, but she just doesn't have the knowledge that she would need to be President. You could have someone who is comatose for your Veep and it'd be all right. Look at Joe Biden. He looks barely conscious most of the time and I'm perfectly OK with that. If he was President though, I'd be moving to Canada, America's Hat.
So McCain has just stated that Sarah Palin can win against Barack Obama. Then, in the very next sentence, he says "...whether she will or not... I don't know." What does that even mean? He's not even a sentence removed from saying that she can win before he says that he doesn't know if she will win?! That's not flip-flopping. That's putting your opinion in a blender and watching it go 'round and 'round really fast and when it stops, it ends up resembling nothing like what you shoved in there in the first place. He JUST said he thought that she could win! I guess it's the little things that start to go first.
And what's all this about her being a "major factor"? A major factor in...what? Yeah, a lot of people like her. I get that. She's very likable. (Even if you don't personally like her, you can't argue that she's not likable. She is. You might not agree with some of the things that she says (like if she insists that it's Tuesday when it's really Friday), but she's likable.) But what is she a major factor of? An election? Her own candidacy? I don't know what that means. Could her endorsement of a Republican candidate help boost that individual to a victory over President Barry? I doubt it. If it could, then Old Man McCain would be President right now. If you can't boost the guy on your own ticket into office, good luck doing it with someone else.
Seriously, if McCain is this delusional, not just about Sarah Palin becoming President, but about Sarah Palin beating President Barry in the next election, then we really dodged a bullet with that guy. Again, I like John McCain. But it won't take many more statements like that one for him to go from being the aging Senator of Arizona to that doddering old man in the desert. I'm just saying.
Holy crap, how slow of a news day was it yesterday over at The Huffington Post? Pretty slow if you consider that one of their stories sported the headline "Michelle Obama Does Midday Shoe Change In Ronda". Oh, for cryin' out loud. What?!
That's right. They were reporting on the fact that the First Lady changed her shoes whilst in Spain. That's where Ronda is. It's in Spain. And it's apparently a shoe-changin' city if there ever was one. Just look! Here she is with one pair of shoes on...
And here she is with another pair of shoes on! And since she's wearing the same clothes, the shoe change was clearly on the same day! ::: gasp :::
I can't decide if I'm OK with this or if it horrifies me. On the one hand, if this is all that there was to report on, that's kind of a good thing, right? But then again, on the other hand, both you and I know that even if this WAS the only thing to report on, we'd be better off with nothing. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this horrifies me. Good Lord, Huffington Post....
I don't watch Fox & Friends. I don't have any intention of ever watching Fox & Friends. First of all, it's a misleading name. It's supposed to be some morning news show with a bunch of news holes discussing current events. And I suppose that is what it is. But the name makes it sound like it is going to be a kid's show. You know, with an animated fox and his friends from the forest (I envision a deer, a bear, several birds, possibly doves, and a talking frog) all having wacky adventures with a feel-good message at the end. Kind of like the After School Specials, only without all of the drugs and teen pregnancy.
But here's why I'm not watching: The people who host the show, the "friends" I guess, are morons. Complete, class A, morons. Allow me to make my case.
Meet a one Gretchen Carlson. Ms. Carlson is one of the "friends". If she were a Spice Girl, she'd be Short Skirt Spice, as she the establishments at which she buys her apparel do not seem to carry items that go below her mid-thigh (on a conservative day). The other day, she was discussing whether or not President Barry show fire General McChrystal for some remarks that he made in a Rolling Stone interview (which didn't seem all that inflammatory to me, but I wasn't the one that the remarks were about). It was during that discussion that she felt the need to point out to people (who might not have been aware of this) that the President of the United States has to make very hard, very tough decisions. Really, Gretchen? Thanks for sharing. Oh, but she didn't stop there.
No, she made sure that we all understood just what being President was all about. So, according to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, she presented us with a comparison...to herself. That's right. She said that her job is just like being President of the United States. Now, I haven't seen President Barry sporting any mid-thigh skirts lately, but let's take a gander at her reasoning, shall we? She said, "It's just like our job...what's the role of an anchor during huge breaking news? You remember growing up? You'd tune to the television, and that one moment during the year, they would have to carry a story all along, It's the same thing as being the President of the United States."
::: blink ::: ::: blink :::
Good Lord, woman! What is wrong with you?! That rationale doesn't even make sense! How is carrying along a news story anything like being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world and trying to decide whether or not to fire the general who is in charge of the war in Afghanistan? I'm sure the connection is there and I'm just missing it by a little bit or something, right? WRONG! It's the most asinine comparison she ever could have come up with. And quite frankly, I don't have any faith that she could, in fact, carry a story all along. I'm actually rather skeptical as to whether or not she can carry her purse out to her car.
And I love how she says "You remember growing up?" Actually, I do remember growing up. It was fabulous. Nothing to worry about, especially the news! I certainly wasn't glued to the TV at 6am watching Fox & Friends. Is she also comparing herself to Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather or some other news fellow? She probably is. If she thinks that her job is just like the President's, then she probably also thinks that she does the same quality and caliber job as Walter Cronkite did. (Side note: Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather didn't do exactly what the President of the United States did either.)
Let me ask you something. What, exactly, is this country's stance on terrorism and/or terroristic acts that are taken against us? Because from what I can tell, it's an awfully pansy-assed stance at best.
Let's just take a look back at what Hillary Clinton said on 60 Minutes this past Sunday. According toFox News (well, and 60 Minutes), Mrs. Clinton was asked questions about our stance on Pakistan. Now, look, we all know that Pakistan can't be trusted. But for some reason, we felt the need to help them with their nuclear reactor research program back in 1960. Hard to say exactly what the reasoning was behind that, but what's done is done (apparently). It's also hard to say what's behind her Florence Henderson hairdo there, but I guess what's done is done in that regard as well.
When asked about Pakistan's commitment, Mrs. Clinton came across as saying that "...she did not want to meddle and alienate the Pakistani government at a time when the country's military is complementing U.S. efforts across the border in Afghanistan." Hmm. I don't know. I'm thinking that when it comes to anything having to do with Pakistan, I think there's always room for meddling. It wouldn't have to be a big meddle. Perhaps just a teensy meddle. But whatever it is, for cryin' out loud, don't let those guys just figure out on their own what to do and what's going on. Remember? We don't trust them.
Actually, her quote was "I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking." Aren't we the most powerful country in the world? What say you tell them what stands to take else wise we blow them forward into the Stone Age? What? Too harsh? I'm sick of this stuff, can you tell? There are reasons why we have bombs. One of those reasons is compliance. The other reason is to keep me from getting a headache every time I have to keep reading about the same thing over and over and over. Enough already. Let's get a little bomb-y and speed things up, all right?
Yeah, I'm pretty much the only one who takes that stance these days. I'm over it. We're too soft as a country. Don't believe me? Let's look at what Fox News called Hillary Clinton's "...stern warning in reference to the Times Square case."
She said, "We've made it very clear that, if, heaven forbid, that an attack like this, if we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences. " Uh, wait a minute. What now?
So let me get this straight. TRY and attack us all you want?! But it's only if it is SUCCESSFUL that we're going to do anything?! What in the hell kind of a position to take is THAT?! Why are there not consequences for TRYING to blow us up? Why are we telling the terrorists that "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"? It's already sounding like this Times Square moron and his evil (not to mention extremely inept) plan can be traced back to Pakistan (where their bomb making instruction seems to have waned a bit). So, there aren't severe consequences for THAT?! Why in the world not?? Anyone? Anyone? Great.
We're doomed. We are a pansy assed country who thinks that sternly worded memos are going to get other countries of this world to keep themselves in line. We can't have a policy that only inflicts a consequence for an attack that is successful. We need to be bombing the bejeezus out of anywhere that terror plots are financed from. I know that sounds harsh, but I prefer to be able to go about my business in my own country without having to worry about being blown to bits by a weird beard from one of the sand lands. I have no beef with anyone...right up until they come over here and start trying to get all 'slpode-y with us. That's when I get angry. And if I'm in charge, that's when I start bombing. It's very simple. Leave us alone.
Here are four words I never thought I'd think, much less type: Nancy Pelosi was right.
On March 9, 2010, Speaker Pelosi (who I'm pretty sure is missing a human soul and warms her body by sunning herself on a rock) gave a little speech to the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties and during said speech, she actually said what I thought might have been the most ridiculous thing to ever come out of her mouth. She said, in reference to the then-pending health care bill, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Um, what now?
That's what she said. I swear. The text of the entire speech is over at her website. That particular little gem is about six paragraphs up from the bottom. But it turns out, she was right. How did I determine that? I came to that conclusion after readingan article by the extremely talented reporter William La Jeunesse of Fox News. The article outlined a provision of the bill, which is now law, called the Class Act, "...otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act" which "...is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program."
Now, why we didn't hear about this beforehand is beyond me. No, wait. No, it's not. We didn't hear about it because people out there in the media are simply not doing their jobs. It's not like this bill wasn't available for review beforehand. (Right? It was available, right?) Granted, the thing clocked in at over 2,000 pages long. Am I supposed to read all of those 2,000 pages? Technically, I think that I should want to. And don't get me wrong, I DO want to want to. I DON'T want to, though. But again, technically, I don't think that I should have to. (Don't get me started on how I don't think that ANYTHING should be 2,000 pages long, unless it's a document telling me how great I am, and even then that would be pushing it. My greatness can easily be summed up in a thousand pages or so.) It's not my JOB to read the damn thing. That's the job of the media. Their job is to report. They can't report unless they know what they're reporting on. The only way to know that is to do their damn job and read all 2,000 freaking pages. But no one did, otherwise we would have heard about this before now.
Ready for this? I hope you're either sitting down or sharpening your pitchfork tines. "...The program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care." Wait. What now? How much? A month?!
Now, call me silly, but can't you get long term care from the insurance that you're already supposed to be mandated to be purchasing thanks to the passage of the health care bill? I'm thinking that something along those lines would make the most sense. Ohh. That's why they didn't do it that way. It would have made sense. Carry on.
Now, this is a policy where you are automatically opted into unless you opt out. That is the complete opposite of what I thought that things were supposed to be being done. I thought it was supposed to be that you were automatically opted out of something unless you wanted to opt in. Oh, right. That's for things that the federal government isn't trying to siphon money from you for. Got it.
According to William's article, here are some of the more pressing details that you need to know about:
The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240. Wait. The CBO and the Medicare/Medicaid folks have figures that differ in cost of around a hundred bucks? Shocking, I know. Who am I going to believe? I'm going to go with the Medicare/Medicaid folks, as they are already ridiculously underpaid, thus the CBO's low estimate would seem to be wrong, all things considered. I'm also going to with with how that seems like an awful lot of money to be deducted monthly from folks. (And just remember, those figures are an "average". That means that some people will pay more than that and some people will pay less than that. My guess is that some people will pay much, much less.)
After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care. Only a five year vesting period? And then you're good? How do they figure that? By my calculations (and I'll go with the higher figure just to give them the benefit of the doubt), if you're paying in $240 a month, after five years, you'll have contributed $14,400. At benefits of $75 a day that you can tap if you need to after those five years, you'll have yourself a whopping 192 days of care. That's not a full year. That's barely over six months. Now, I don't know what your definition of "long term care" is, but mine is definitely more than six months. Six months isn't what I'd call "long term". Six months is "just gettin' started".
Here's the other frightening part of this: The money that is put into this fund (generously and likely erroneously estimated to be $109 billion in collected premiums by 2019 after being implemented as early as 2012) will not be in a "lockbox" sort of situation. No, it's going to be more of a general fund sort of situation. You know how Social Security money is supposed to be just for Social Security? You know how the Social Security funds have been tapped by everything else AND how it will give out more than it takes in next year? You know how that works? Sure you do. Now, do you expect that this thing will work any differently? Of course you don't. Thus, it's going to end up being what? A mitigated disaster, that is correct.
Of course "The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion." Sounds great. Good thing that this was passed into law so that we could find out that this was in it!
Since I enjoy math and numbers, let's look at a few more, shall we? If this thing starts in 2012, $109 billion in premiums by 2019 equals out to be $15.57 billion a year. If folks are paying $240 a month, that's 5,228,125 people needed to sustain that figure. If folks are paying $146 a year, that's 8,594,178 people needed to sustain that figure. That's a difference of 3,366,053 people. Um, that's kind of a lot. How do they figure this is going to work? AT ALL! And let's not forget, those are the figures to make it all work out without money being drawn out of the fund. Those are just the numbers for money being theoretically deposited into the fund.
But let's say you participate in this charade starting from the time you're 20. And let's say that you're paying the low, low rate of $146 a month. Fast forward forty five years. You're now sixty five and you're going to retire. You'll have amassed for yourself, after forty five years of paying premiums and at the flex-rate of $75 per day allotted to you for long term care, a whopping three years of long term care. Three. Forty five years, $146 a month for a total of $78,840. That gets you three years of in-home long term care. That doesn't seem like a lot to me. Wouldn't you be better off taking that $146 and investing it somewhere or even setting up a 401k type of dealio so that you can take care of your own expenses? Wouldn't that $146 amount to a hell of a lot more than the $78,840 after 45 years? I'm kind of thinking that it would.
This is ridiculous. And it's now law. Congratulations, Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for saddling the country with another obligation that it cannot afford. What in the hell happened to people taking care of themselves when they retire anyway? (Has she not noticed the high unemployment rate which is still besieging the country? Perhaps she has overlooked the still sagging economy? The perpetually high foreclosure rate? And she's thinking that folks in "times like these" are going to be OK with forking over another $200 a month? Not to be unjustifiably disrespectful to the soulless snake, but she's high.)
I don't say things like this very often, but please read William's article and pass it along to your friends. I guarantee that the majority of them, if not all of them, have never heard a single word about this. I guarantee that the majority of them have no idea that they've already been opted into a plan that is going to cost them a minimum of $146 a month unless they opt out. And again, the reason that people don't know this is because people in the media are not doing their job. Well, except for William. William rocks at his job. But everyone else just sucks. I can't wait to find out what else is in the bill now that it's passed into law. How exciting!
Sphere: Related Content
