No Change

I have a question for President Barry's senior advisor David Plouffe. For lack of better phrasing, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

See, in an article over there at Politico, they go through some of the things that Mr. Plouffe said on Good Morning America yesterday. He was asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests. He was also asked about the Republicans and what they're doing these days. And then he was asked about "...challenges facing Obama’s reelection efforts". His reply is disconcerting at best and I'm not sure if there was any follow up to what he said. And what he said was this: "I mean, some things aren’t going to change between now and next November. We’re obviously in a tough economy. We’re going to have a very close election, as most presidential elections are. So we’re going to fight for every vote and that’s what we intend to do." Wait. What?

Did he really just say that "some things aren't going to change between now and next November"?! Uh, next November is over a year away. Not much more than a year, but still more than a year none the less. What, exactly, is not going to change? Wait. Let me rephrase that. What things (as in "more than one") are NOT going to change in the next year? And why are they not going to change? What sort of campaign starts out by stating that there will be upcoming stagnancy? Not a good one if you're asking me.

That this is coming from Change-y McOptimism's camp is disconcerting to me. Look, I am tired of paying almost four bucks for a gallon of gas. I am tired of knowing so many people that are out of work. I am tired of how much groceries are costing. I am tired of NOTHING getting better and NO ONE doing anything about it. And now here comes along David Plouffe who flat out states that things just aren't going to change in the next year. Great. Now what? (And before you offer any suggestions, I certainly hope that occupying Wall Street isn't one of them. That's not going to help matters. I appreciate the effort, but it's useless.)

So if some things are not going to change in the next year (as stated by someone who really would probably know) then who in the hell am I supposed to vote for? The Republicans don't have squat over there and I won't be voting Republican for President. But how can I vote for President Barry again when it seems as if nothing is getting done and things are not better. I distinctly remember being promised change! Things still suck! That's not change. Do I want four more years of suckitude? Oh, wait. I guess that should be five more years of suckitude. Well I don't want either one. So now what? No, really. I'm asking. Now what?

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Mess With The Classics

There are lots of things out there that are classics. All different sorts of things can be classics. And do you know why a classic is a classic? Because it just is, that is correct. There's something about whatever it is that works. You know what that means? You don't mess with a classic, that is correct. Hey! I'm talkin' to YOU, George Lucas! Stop making changes to the original Star Wars trilogy! They're not for the better! Sure, go ahead and improve the quality of what the film looks like all you want. But everything else? Leave it alone! Don't make Darth Vader speak before he throws the Emperor over the edge! Just don't. It humanizes the character too much, am I right? Of course I am. Watch the abomination I speak of below and tell me that I'm right. And I'm right. He should have left it alone.

Sphere: Related Content

Change Is Hard

Well. It seems like lately I've been seeing just little snippets of things in the news that get me so riled up that I immediately want to build the wall around my walled off compound even higher. Either that or finally look into some permits for those alligators swimming around in the moat. All I know is that I keep hearing things that just seem to be completely asinine. And I really do try to avoid using the word "stupid" around here, but it's starting to get stupid. Really stupid.

And it doesn't take much for the stupidity to be completely obvious. I was just reading over at AOL News about President Barry's speech that he gave to a bunch of supporters in San Francisco. There were about 200 people there and they each paid somewhere in the neighborhood of $35,800 to be there. Thus, the stupidity begins. Over thirty-five grand? Really? The only way that I'd pay that much to hear someone speak is if they had brought that person back from the dead. And even then, I'd still have a pretty short list. But I digress. According to the article, President Barry "...told supporters...that "change turned out to be a lot tougher than expected." Oh, for God sakes.

Really? Are you effing kidding me? He didn't realize how tough this was going to be? Apparently not! No! I guess that he just went into all of this thinking that it would be a complete piece of cake to get everything all whipped around and back into shape, eh? Riiiiight. Because there didn't seem to be any sort of obvious discourse between the two parties up until now. Is he on glue?! Change turned out to be tougher than expected. I'm dying to know what, exactly, he expected! That suddenly, the first half black and half white (why does everyone forget that he's half white?!) guy elected President by the adoring masses (half of which couldn't tell their arse from a hole in the ground) realized that this might be a bit of a monumental task to accomplish is amazing to me. I've been wondering how disillusioned this guy really is and I guess now I know. Very. He is very disillusioned.

I could just end this right here with just that quote and I think that my point would have been handily made and done so hands down. Or something like that. But I'm going to throw in one more quote that President Messiah uttered at his ridiculously overpriced chicken-or-fish fundraiser. He also said, "There are times when I've felt the same way you do. It's a big, complicated, messy democracy." Wait. So he only feels the same way that "we" do sometimes? SOMETIMES?! I just paid $4.13 for a gallon of freaking unleaded at a blasted AM/PM! That's supposed to be the cheap stuff! But you know what? $4.13 for a gallon of freaking unleaded IS cheap! He only feels the way that I do SOMETIMES?! Screw that.

I had no idea that he was living in such a bubble. I thought that he would have had at least a little bit of insight into how all of us little people live our daily lives. I thought he would have had a least a little bit of empathy for how bad it sucks for some people right now and how it has continued to suck ever since he got his half-black and half-white arse elected. But he's evidently completely clueless. Was he that sucked in by his own "Yes, we can" mantra and thought that it would be just as easy as that ridiculous chant was? Sadly, that appears to be the case. Now if you'll excuse me, with gas prices being so ridiculously out of control, I'm going to look into buying a horse for transportation. That should give you some sort of an idea as to how much faith I have left in this guy that things are ever going to get better.

Sphere: Related Content

Fantasies of Font-o-philes

It would seem as if humankind has gone over to the bad place. I think we're going to need to shut down the Internets for a couple of hours AT LEAST in order for people to find their bearings in this world again. There has been madness, madness I tell you, over the past couple of days! And why?? NO, not because of the Lockerbie terrorist guy being released. NO, not because of health care reform. NO, not because Ted Kennedy died. NO, not because Michelle Obama wore shorts. NO, not because the fifth dentist caved and now they're all recommending Trident. NONE of those. The uproar?

IKEA changed their font.

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

What now? Their font?!

Yep. Their font. Wait.

Their font? As in the style of the printing? That font?

That font. The style of their printing. It's changed. It's different. It's not the same. It's new. It's hated. It's caused turmoil and uproar. Cats and dogs, living together. Mass hysteria! Had there not been a rather extensive article in Time magazine on this, perhaps the most ridiculous thing ever for folks to get their boxers in a wad over, I might have just thought that someone had completely overblown the situation. But actually, I guess that's really kind of true. Someone HAS completely overblown the situation. That would be anyone who thinks that a font change constitutes a "situation".

For the past 60 years, Swedish chain IKEA has attracted the masses who wish to put all of their household furniture together themselves with little more than a small wrench. Thrifty, yet trendy, all in one convenient location. Since the actual physical location of an IKEA is sort of hard to come by for a lot of folks, the IKEA catalog arriving in one's mailbox each year is like welcoming home a member of your family. Until this year when that family member showed up and you discovered that they'd had a sex change without telling you.

In this case, the IKEA sex change went from being a Futura font to a Verdana font. Granted the Futura font was customized just a bit for IKEA by Microsoft, so it's not a TRUE Futura, but it was IKEA's Futura and folks liked it. I guess. I'm willing to wager that 95% of the folks who are having a cow right now had no idea what the name of the font was or even if they liked it or not. It was just there. But now it's gone.

The new, redheaded step-font, Verdana, is described by a bloke over there at crikey.com.au as "Its specific purpose is to make small text more readable on computer screens: its letters are wide, open and loosely spaced, with deliberate distinctions between similar-looking characters to help readers tell them apart. In other words, it’s meant for pixels, not print, and it looks terrible writ large on in-store signage ---or billboards."

Huh. Interesting. I'm surprised that people aren't reading that passage like they're reading the health care reform bill. That is to say, interpreting it in a way that is sure to get people all fired up. I'll show you, it's like this: Hmmm....made for pixels, not print...make small text more readable on computer screens....I know! It means that IKEA is getting rid of their printed catalog and will be online only from now on! Take it a step farther and imply that IKEA will likely close all of it's retail locations and be simply Internet based from now on and you're likely to start a world wide panic before noon. As far as it not looking good on in-store signage or in "the large", behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud, it looks fine! Since IKEA hasn't really commented much on the issue, it's hard to say for sure why they decided upon a font change. But one Ikea spokeswoman, a one Monika Gocic, did say "It's more efficient and cost-effective. Plus, it's a simple, modern-looking typeface." OK, so let me get this straight. There's a global recession, sales are down in all sectors and perhaps IKEA was looking for a way to cut costs without cutting products or laying off employees and so they chose to go with a freely distributed font instead of one that they pay for, thus saving products and jobs all the way around. Those bastards!

Look, if you're THAT upset about a font change, you need to step away from your computer and get out of your parent's basement once in a while. And I mean all of you (because on August 26, this little to-do was "...drawing more tweets than even Ted Kennedy"! And speaking of Twitter, a few sample tweets from mental font geeks: "Ikea, stop the Verdana madness!" "Words can't describe my disgust." "Horrific." "It's a sad day." Why, yes. Yes, it is a sad day when a barely noticeable font change has the Internets all in an uproar.

Sometimes, companies make alterations in the way that they do things. It's a barely noticeable difference, for hell's sake. I can barely think of any design changes for products that were met with such fervent backlash from consumers that they went back to the old way. There was the recent Tropicana carton fiasco, but that makes sense. The new design made it look like it was a generic brand. Behold!

Yeah, that was crap. As far as product changes go, I'm sure that the biggest blunder in the history of consumer goods was the inexplicable switch to New Coke. Talk about a company underestimating it's own product. But that was different as that was the product itself. It's not as if IKEA is rolling out big and bulky furniture items that have to be delivered to your house by movers that have come to this fine nation from another land. They're changing the damn font. They even said they're changing the damn font. Of course, they didn't say it quite like that. They left out the 'damn'. And all of the other words there, but it means the same thing when they say "...the visual identity of IKEA does not rely primarily on typography." See?! The same! (Although theirs does seem to imply a sort of "get over it" at the end there.)

You know, IKEA has a specific name for every single one of the products that it sells. Sometimes they're interesting and whimsical, but for me, that's only the first time I peruse through the catalog. After that, I find it annoying. I don't feel the pressing urge to be so damned trendy that I have to make up some specific name for some specific product that, in all likelihood, already HAS a name! (Are you listening Starbucks?! I don't want a 'venti', I want a damned LARGE!) Instead of saving money on the font, would you font-o-philes want them to can the product naming people? The PNPs? Then you wouldn't have your Godmorgon, you'd just have a wall cabinet. You wouldn't have your MALM, you'd just be stuck with your three drawer chest.

I'd really like to get a quick look at some of these folks who are protesting the loudest. Are they still wearing the same style clothes that they did 20 years ago? Are the chicks still sporting the feathered Farrah hair-do? Are the guys still going with wide collared disco shirts and platform shoes? You folks need to branch out just a bit. I can't come up with a single font/logo from any company FORTY years ago that is EXACTLY the same today. There ISN'T one. INCLUDING IKEA's! Sara who blogs at her ikke tikke theo blog has posted images from a 1965 IKEA catalog. Aside from the fact that all of the items look pretty much the same that they do now (which, actually, says a lot about folks who like IKEA and folks who are all upset by the demise of their beloved Futura font), the font is clearly different. So get over it. Please.

Of course there's already an online petition to bring back the bygone font of yore (which has already garnered over 700 signatures). I'm sure there's a freaking Facebook page as well (because if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, how will it ever make it to a Facebook status update?). I'll be interested to see if the IKEA folks elaborate a bit more on their fatalistic font fix. Though I'm also eagerly awaiting for the first YouTube video of one of these font geeks having a complete meltdown. That'd be awesome. Let's find out what other minuscule details people love to freak out over and change those and THEN see what happens!

OK, now I'm going to need to step away from the Internets. But let me know if there's a meltdown in progress. I really wouldn't want to miss that.

Sphere: Related Content

Terrorism's Identity Crisis in the US

From what I can tell, President Barry has spent most of his time (so far) in office spending our money. Well, that an choosing people that haven't paid all of their taxes to fill Cabinet positions. But still, that's what he's been up to and it's not exactly all of the 'change' that I had envisioned or that I distinctly remember being promised to us. I guess I was expecting more...I don't know...change-y change. Or something like that. But then I learned of other changes that President Barry has made that I had been unaware of. Things like changing the names of things, for example. Things like the war on terror. It has a new name. Did you know that? It does. I swear.

The Obama administration has ditched the term "global war on terror" and it's cousin "the war on terror". According to the fine journalism on display over there in The Washington Post, "the war on terror" and all variations and derivations thereof are too much a reminder of the very unpopular Bush administration of yore. In situations like this, the most popular thing to do is to send out a memo. So in an office of security review over there at the Defense Department, it was "...noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' " Wait. Please use what?

'Overseas Contingency Operation', that is correct. Let's just noodle this one through for a moment, shall we? 'Overseas' I think is fairly self-explanatory. Now if it were 'underseas', well, that would be something! But it's not, so we know that it means 'over there across all of the water.' Next is 'Contingency'. According to the wordy folks over at Merriam-Webster, 'contingent' is defined as an even that may happen, but it's not for sure that it will happen. It's also something that is liable to happen in response to or as a result of something else. It lists the synonym as 'juncture', which is defined as "an instance of joining" or "a point of time, especially one made critical by a concurrence of circumstances". Synonyms of 'juncture' include 'contingency', but in this instance, 'contingency' is defined as something that implies a possible emergency where the likelihood of occurrence is uncertain. It then lists the example 'contingency plans'. And finally, 'Operation'. I think we're all aware of the various definitions of 'operation' and can safely conclude that is not that wonderful Mitlon Bradley game where you must extract all sort of internal organs and other objects from a rather rotund (and frightened looking) Sam the patient.

Putting all of those definitions together into the newest 'change' in this country, "Overseas Contingency Operation", we still have no idea what that means. We certainly don't know that it means kicking the asses of terrorists (if that is, in fact, what we're doing. They're very unclear on that, but I prefer to think of it as serious ass kicking that's taking place.). From our definitions, it could very well mean, "Something that may happen on the other side of all of that water, but we're not quite sure yet." That doesn't sound good at all. It could be taken to mean, "Something that might happen overseas IF all of the other pieces fall into place through the implementation of our magic and very secret method." That just sounds inept.

The bottom line, however, is that it means the same damn thing. You can call it whatever you want, it's still terrorist ass kicking at it's best. When President Barry was still Candidate Barry, wasn't he the one who said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."? I think he was. And now that he's President Barry, what is he doing? He's putting lipstick on our war on terror, that is correct!

Apparently, early in Bush's term (you know, before he was so widely abhorred by the masses for standing by and watching our country fall victim to fraud and greed) "...then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld promoted a change in wording to "global struggle against violent extremism," or GSAVE." That's horrible. Fortunately, Bush liked "global war on terror" and went with that. So really, that was actually better than the 'change' that we received. The irony. Oh, if only all of his decisions could have turned out so well.

Captain Words-a-Lot also is changing the term for what we call the inmates at Guantanamo Bay. We will not be referring to them as "enemy combatants" any more. The thing is, they haven't come up with a new name for them yet. All they've said, according to The Washington Post, is that the Justice Department "...would seek to hold only terrorism suspects who "substantially supported" those groups and not those who "provide unwitting or insignificant support" to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. " Soooooo....wait. What?

Substantial supporters? What, pray tell, constitutes "insignificant support"? Like if you're Osama bin Laden's paperboy? All you do is throw the morning news into his cave, so that's just insignificant support? They have to come up with something to replace it with, don't they? How about Taliban Groupies or Bin Laden Fanboys. Kill Meisters. The ones in training can be the Junior Jihad and we'll call them the JJs for short. They could be Allah's Death Squad or The Munsters. Wait. (That last one may already be taken.)

Perhaps President Barry is just taking a cue from new Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (not to be confused with the ice cream trifecta of the same name. Oh, wait. That's neopolitan. Never mind.) and her referring to 'terrorism' as 'man-caused disasters' during an interview she gave with Spiegel Online. Wait. What? I mean, WTH?

Napolitano claims that she prefers the term 'man-caused disasters' because "... it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur." Um, what? Is she saying that we are currently not prepared for all risks that can occur because we've been referring to 'terrorism' as 'terrorism'? Because if that's the argument, I'm going to have disagree (right before I jump off a cliff and spare myself the time of waiting around for the impending doom). That's a rather all encompassing term that really has very little to do with what comes to mind when one thinks of 'terrorism'. 'Man-caused disasters' could refer to a wide variety of calamities. The Exxon Valdez spill would be a 'man-caused disaster'. The shooting rampages of late would be 'man-caused disasters'. The current state of the economy and the financial crisis would both be 'man-caused disasters'. None of those things have a lot to do with terrorism really.

You know what? Fear is a pretty good motivator in a lot of instances. I'm OK with a little bit of fear if it keeps us safe. I don't think we all need to be wandering around in a state of fear similar to that on September 12, 2001. But fear (or implied danger/risk) is what guides certain decisions that we make. We lock our house when we leave it for fear that it will get robbed if we don't. We wear our seat belt when we drive for fear that we'll get a ticket (and possibly get injured if we crash, but I think it's the ticket thing that's a motivator).We install anti-virus software on our computers out of fear that it will get a virus and trash the entire hard drive. Without fear, everyone would be living their life as the village idiot.

These folks can call anything they want whatever they want to, call the war on terror 'Bob' for all I care, but it isn't going to change what anything inherently is. If I have a tuba and I put it on my head and call it a hat (like I do every Thursday), that doesn't mean that it's a hat. I can call it a hat all I want, but it's still a tuba. I can even put a tuba on my head and call it a blue-finned mackerel; it's still a tuba. And President Barry can call things whatever he wants, but the bottom line is that the Overseas Contingency Operation is still a war against people who want to kill us and a terrorist is still an A-hole.

Sphere: Related Content

We Wanted Things Changed, Not Deranged!

Oh, I don't say it often, but when I do, I mean it. God bless Jon Leibowitz. Well, you know him as Jon Stewart, the quick witted host of The Daily Show. That guy really needs to be airing in a time slot which could ensure that more people would catch his act because let me just tell you, folks would learn a heck of a lot about how things really are and how things work. It's what this country has been missing for oh-so many years! A prime time cynic! (No, Archie Bunker did not count!)

Jon Stewart's brilliance is highlighted this time in the political sector which is but one of many of the wide variety of sectors that this country has to offer in order to keep the citizens thoroughly confused at all times. Confusing? Good, it's working.

We begin with our President, Change-y McOptimism Barack Obama, speaking to soldiers and the media and anyone else who could just wander in at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. And with all of the rhetoric of previous administrations, he announced that our war in Iraq would soon come to an end. These were his words: "Let me say this as plainly as I can, by August 31, 2010, our mission in Iraq will end."

Well, that is good news! So they're all coming home?! Ehhhh....not so fast. President Barry, please continue.

"We will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions. This force will likely be made up of 35 thousand to 50 thousand US troops."

Well, that sounds kind of like they're staying there. See, this is what I hate about politicians and politics in general. They talk to the American public as if we're stupid or as if we are four years old and retarded. Look, you can say what you're saying one of two ways. You can say "One mission will end while another one begins" or you can say "We're wrapping it up, but we're not quite done yet." Either of those or a variation thereof is fine. What is not fine is saying that the mission in Iraq "will end". See, "end" means "done", "over", "finished", "kaput", "completed", "no more to do"! Those words mean "end". "Retain" does not mean "end". No, "retain" is just a fancy "not end" is what "retain" is.

But if you're asking the most fervent supporters of the Obama administration or even the less fervent, but still supportive supporters, they will tell you that what the President said, well, that was change and change, as you may distinctly recall, is what we were promised. After all, this is what President Barry had to say about our troops in Iraq:

"Our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government...training, equipping and advising Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter terrorism."

See? Change! Right?.....What?.....Really?.....Wrong?? It can't be wrong! It's change! Let's just compare what President Barry just said to one of Bush's speeches about our troops in Iraq and then the change will be apparent:



George W. Bush on September 14, 2007: "As this transition in our mission takes place our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counter terrorism operations and training, equipping and supporting Iraqi forces."

President Obama on March 3, 2009: "Our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government...training, equipping and advising Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter terrorism."



OK, that's not change. That's the SAME!! We were promised change!! He said the word "change", but he didn't "change" anything! It's the same!!

I'm catching onto this administration. What they do is re-hash the same old jargon. (I'm tired of the word "rhetoric." Good Lord, give the mainstream media a new word, especially one with a catchy spelling like "rhetoric" and damn it all if they don't beat that word into the ground within a week. Do those folks not own a thesaurus? Even a pocket version would be fine.) They just mix up the words and they seem really fond of keeping something the same and just calling it something else. But I already know that if something has "changed" it will be "different"! But that wasn't "different!" That was the SAME!!

Let's look at a statement by the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates from March 1, 2009 when he was on Meet the Press and said, "The units that will be left there will be characterized differently. They won't be called 'combat brigades'. They'll be called 'advisory and assistance brigades.' " That's like the political-speak version of tom-AY-to / tom-AH-to. Either way you slice it, it's still the same thing.

Below is the video clip of the brilliant and witty Jon Leibowitz on one The Daily Show. It's exactly the same as I described above, so don't go expecting any "change" other than pictures and people who talk so that you can hear them. Aside from that, it's the same.

Rock on, President Barry! I'm still waiting for the change that is being distinctly remembered as having been promised to us. It'd be OK if you started with your speeches. Everyone's gotta start somewhere.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mess O'Potamia - The Iraq War Is Over

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Sphere: Related Content

When It's Time To Change

Are you ready for your change? Because change is coming. We were promised change. It is distinctly remembered that is what we were promised. Change. And here it is! Your day of change! Oh, and you'll feel changed all right. By the time it's over, a lot of people will feel change. And I have the feeling that a lot of people are going to be rather disappointed when they step back and look at the change that has occurred. They'll think that it wasn't the kind of change that they signed up for when, in fact, it is exactly the kind of change they signed up for. They were just too busy swooning and softly weeping to really wrap their heads around the changes. We'll get back to these folks in a few.

There are also the folks who are aware that "change is coming" and, while they're prepared for it, they're not overly thrilled about it. A few of those folks are seen here:

I have absolutely NO idea what in the world any of those guys and the ones that aren't pictures are going to talk about on their shows from now on. Opening monologues? Virtually eliminated with the departure of George W. Bush. Look for 5-7 minutes of shadow puppets and Knock-Knock jokes.

But those guys are ready for it. They live their fantasy lives based firmly in reality. Others? Not so much. People think they want change. But that's only because people have forgotten that we don't like change. No, we don't. We prefer things to be the same in the vaguest of senses. If our lives are good, we prefer to keep the goodness about them. If our lives suck, we prefer to keep the suckiness about them because we've gotten really good at all of the bitching we do about said suckiness. Here are just a few examples of people who are going to be disappointed with their forthcoming "change".

• The Gays.

Now, I don't know how they all missed it, but Barack Obama is not in favor of gay marriage. For some unknown reason, even though he had made it very clear that was his position, many of those in the gay community were seemingly confused. (I don't know what it was that confused them. Maybe they thought he was a top?) Thus, when he invited Rick Warren to speak at the inauguration, there were gay hissy fits being thrown nationwide. I think that a fair number of those who were upset by Barry's selection of Rev. Warren are thinking that things are going "to change". I don't think that they are, meaning, I don't think Barry is going to change his mind about this one. So the gays will be disappointed.

• Left-Left-And-Farther-To-The-Left Liberals

These folks are going to be disappointed when they realize that Barry isn't and never was that much of a leftie. He's left, but he's not psycho left. As depicted in the handy chart below, these folks see Barry as the image on the left (catchy, eh?), but he's really more like the image on the right. And regardless of left or right, Barry has done something that most politicians (yes, he really is a politician!) don't do and that is he has tried to be all inclusive with those that surround him. He has also tried to come across (and succeeded) as the sort of guy who can see things from all sides. But that comes across to some as he's going to see things from all sides and then side with the left. I don't think that's necessarily true. These folks will be disappointed.

• The folks who constantly keep referring to him as our "first black President"

They will be disappointed when, after they have run that phrase and that categorization into the freaking ground (which, by my estimations, based upon current overuse figures, should be right about 10.73 minutes after he is sworn in as our "first black President") and then people start shooting back with, "Um, he's half white!" They will be disappointed to learn that they have to share Messiah Barry with the rest of us. To speed up their disappointment, I'm just going to start referring to him as our "first half-white President" and see how that goes for awhile

• The woman who left this message.

The angry and delusional woman who left the message was clearly agitated that the bank was "trippin' " and was going to repossess her vehicle. After all she told them that she "was going to get it tooken care of." (Tooken? Honeybabe, forget about the car and get some English lessons tooken care of, will you?) She also clearly explains that she is "not rich like y'all". Apparently, in her world, "y'all" is "rich". But she lets them know that she will be rich. Why? "That's because we got Ba-rack o-BA-ma!" That woman is going to be disappointed. And angrier. Probably still delusional as well. But she will definitely be disappointed.

• The woman who made this statement:

Clearly, that woman knows something that I am not aware of. According to her, with Barry being President, she is no longer going to have to worry about putting gasoline in her car! She is also no longer going to have to worry about paying her mortgage! Why? Because she helped Barry (get elected) and now Barry is going to help her! You know, I pay close attention to the news nearly every day, but I must have missed the day when Barry said that when he was elected that he was giving away free gasoline AND free houses! I like houses! I like gasoline! I helped Barry get elected! Where's my free gas and house?! Yep, that woman is going to be disappointed.

• Many, many individuals in this crowd:
  
  

The emerging theme that I keep hearing in Barry's proclamations of change to come is individual responsibility and hard work. For everyone. But that's not the emerging theme that I hear from a lot of people. No, a lot of people expect to sit back and have this whole recession nonsense cleared up by the weekend or, at the very latest, Super Bowl Sunday. (Barry wouldn't let us have our Super Bowl all recession-y, would he? No! Of course not!) Then again, I don't know if I blame 'em. When things are going crappy, who doesn't want someone to just step in and save the day? But what if someone 'saving the day' is them telling you what it is that you need to do? That's not the kind of saving a lot of people have in mind. Those people are going to be disappointed.

And finally, I have to imagine, after seeing the photo below, that the Bush daughters are going to be a little disappointed, but not so much in Barry but more for how things are going to go for them. After all, their dad wasn't even officially out of office at the time that the photo was taken during the Pre-Inaugural Bash With Lotsa Singing Celebrity Folks, and look at 'em! Suddenly and without warning: bag ladies! That was quick!

Sphere: Related Content