He's Kind Of Old, Isn't He?

Both Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez have quit American Idol.  Naturally, they're going to have to be replaced.  We can't have just Randy sitting there all by himself saying, "Yo, dawg" without anyone to back him up or disagree with him.  And we're going to need someone who really has their finger on the pulse of what America wants in terms of their next pop singing star.  We're going to want someone who can relate to the American Idol audience and be someone that we look forward to seeing every week.  We're going to want...Jerry Lewis? 

That's right.  For some reason, according to USA Today, "...Jerry Lewis, who was mentioned on Nigel Lythgoe's wish list with Charlie Sheen, is definitely in the mix." In the mix?! In the mix of what?! Poligrip and Metamucil?!  Don't even get me started on what I think about that crazed loser Charlie Sheen.  Why on earth anyone would think that we want his weekly opinion on anything other than blow and hookers (which I will readily admit that he is more than qualified to judge and should probably be listened to) is beyond me.  But Jerry Lewis?  When was the last time he sang with Dean Martin (who died 17 years ago at the age of 78)?  More importantly, who cares?!  Actually, I take that back.  Who remembers?!  I'll tell you who remembers.  Everyone who is NOT watching American Idol, that's who. 


Jerry Lewis?  You have got to be kidding me.  In a way though, this is kind of typical of how American Idol does things.  Ever pay close attention to the guests that they have on the very last show?  Almost no one is currently relevant.  Actually, almost no one is even recently relevant.  Sure, they have feel good people on there like Neil Diamond, but is he really going to hit the mark with the majority of American Idol's target audience?  Hardly.  Then they always trot out some ridiculously old rocker who doesn't know he's ridiculously old (eg, Iggy Pop and Rod Stewart, both of whom performed sans shirts for reasons that are still being questioned by everyone who had to witness that atrocity of nature, not to mention the optometrists who had to treat said viewers).  There's the defunct pop-star (Chaka Khan is still alive?), the one-hit wonders (Herman's Hermits, anyone?) the recent American Idol contestants who may or may not have won (we can't remember) that come back to try and plug their album that will end up selling 25,000 copies (mostly to churches holding raffles).  All of those "acts" the American Idol people feel are a good idea and add something to the show.  They don't.  They never had.  And now, with the possible inclusion of Jerry Lewis, we're going to have that same sort of irrelevance and confusion all season long.  Grand! 

I had a hard enough time following this last season of American Idol without my interest waning about two episodes into the real deal.  I cannot take five months of Jerry Lewis and/or Charlie Sheen.  And what if Jerry dies halfway through the season?!  That's kind of going to put a damper on things, isn't it?  Will the contestants have to sing funeral songs the following week?  It's just a bad idea all the way around.  If they don't want to do American Idol anymore, just say so.  No need to run it into the ground before you go. 

Sphere: Related Content

They Know They're Fat

I ran across this story in the LA Times yesterday.  Essentially, it says that "...a federal health advisory panel on Monday recommended that all obese adults receive intensive counseling".  You know, to rein in the fatness.  And really, it wouldn't be that big of a deal what the advisory panel said except that since Obamacare has been ruled to be constitutional (don't get me started), part of that whole deal "...requires adoption of certain recommendations from the task force, such as this one on obesity."

Now, I'm way more into preventative health care than I am just letting people's bodies go completely to hell and then trying to maintain some semblance of "normal" living through medication.  I'm not so sure how I feel about "intensive counseling", but that's kind of only because I don't know what in the hell that means.  But here's the part where I realized that it's likely going to be some utopian effort to try and change something that might not be changeable.  It's the part that said "...a recent study that found that more than half of all obese patients had never been told by their physician that they needed to lose weight."

More than half of all obese patients?  Soooooo...someone is obese and because they were never told by a doctor that they needed to lose weight....that they what?  They didn't know that they were obese?  They didn't know that it's not normal to wheeze and gasp for air every few steps?  They didn't know that using their Fry Daddy for all three meals each day (and snacks) was a bad idea?  Because no one TOLD them they needed to lose weight, they just assumed that they didn't?  Is that what I am supposed to take from that?  Or am I supposed to be blaming the physician for the fatness of the patient?  Either way, no matter which answer I get to that question, it's not good.

Since when did we need to be told everything to do?  I understand giving people nutritional counseling, I suppose.  It can get a little complicated at times if you're really trying to improve your health.  But if you're obese, I'm pretty sure that you can figure out why you're obese without someone telling you.  And I'm also going to find it difficult to believe that an obese individual doesn't know that it's not good for them to be obese.  Do you really think that an obese person can't figure out that they (most likely) would lose some weight if they ate less? 

And please do not email me your stories of obese individuals that you know or are related to and tell me all about their "thyroid problem" or their other metabolic condition that prevents them from losing weight.  Even IF that was the reason that those particular individuals are obese, those people make up such a small percentage that it isn't even worth discussing.  (It's funny how all of those thyroid folks eat fast food and Ding Dongs all the time, isn't it?  Must be part of their "condition".  Go figure.)    Also please refrain from the emails and comments telling me that I must hate fat people.  I don't.  What I hate is people unwilling to take responsibility for anything that they do to themselves and then blaming the government or someone else for their "misfortune".  Granted, I hate the government enabling those people more than I hate the unwillingness of the people in the first place.  But I gotta focus on something.  And right now, my focus in on the government thinking it can fix things that it can't.  Good Lord, we're doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Back

I think that I said a while back that if things like the "bling" in the picture below caught on that we were all doomed. 

Well, it's happened again.  Welcome to doom.  Behold! 

Since he has sunglasses on, I can't tell if it's the same guy or not.  It could be.  And if it is the same guy, I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.  In a way, I suppose that it would be better because it's just one asshat who is out there with Bedazzled boxes of cereal draped around his neck.  And in case you were wondering, yes, his pants are on backwards.  I guess he's trying to make a Kriss Kross komeback or something. 

Sphere: Related Content

Who Is This For?

Yesterday was the first day of summer.  Yes, I know that it used to be that today was the first day of summer.  I don't know when and why it changed, but I'm not a fan.  I like consistency.  Most consistency.  Certain sorts of consistent things I do not like.  Some of those things would include the sorts of stories that a lot of news outlets feel the need to be carrying when the temperature outside begins to increase.  That's right.  Stories about the heat AND what you need to do when it gets warmer.  Good Lord, who are those stories for? 

The thing I hate the most about the heat is when it reaches at least 100 degrees.  That's when the media damn near wets its collective self because it gets to report that the temperature is now in "triple digits".  You can't go an hour without hearing "triple digits" in one form or another.  It's just ridiculous.  Is 100 degrees much different from 99 degrees?  No.  It's not.  But just because you have to add an extra number, its reported as if you might burst into a ball of flames should you come in contact with heat that is in "triple digits".  Call me when we hit quadruple digits.  Now THAT would get my attention. 

Seriously though, who on earth are these broadcasts about tips to "deal with" elevated temperatures actually for?  Stay inside.  Drink lots of water.  Use a fan.  Who in the hell is that for?  Is there anyone out there who actually stays tuned to such banality and when it's over, thinks to themselves, "Well, that was really helpful.  I certainly am glad that they did that because otherwise, I would have had no clue as to what to do when it gets warm outside.  After all, it is four degrees warmer than it was last week.  I have no idea what I should do."  Who's perking up in their chair when they tease this feature?  Who is turning up the volume?  Who is making sure that everyone in the room stops talking so that they can fully absorb this valuable information about to be beset upon them by the sage-like newscasters?  Anyone?  Anyone? 

I have somehow managed for my entire life to make it to where I am now without anyone telling me, "Hey, you know, it's really hot outside, so here are a few things that you should do."  I'm serious!  And it's on almost every newscast.  It's astounding.  There can't be anyone that that is for, is there?  Who are you programmers at these media outlets who think that this is good idea?  I notice that you don't do something similar when it rains.  ("It's raining today.  That means water is falling from the sky.  If you just walk outside, you're going to get wet.  Here's Bob with some helpful tips on how to not get wet when it rains.  Bob...")  Why do they do it when it gets slightly warmer?  I don't know and I don't get it, but I wish they'd stop.  Now.

Sphere: Related Content

He's Got A Point

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Sphere: Related Content

Pakistani Beer?

Oh, my God.  A travesty has been committed.  Scout Willis, the daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, has been arrested!  Arrested!  And are you ready for the heinous offense that she committed?  I hope you're sitting down.  The 20-year old was arrested for (brace yourselves!) drinking an 8-ounce Pakistani beer.  Holy cow, are we a soft country or what? 

First of all, what in the hell is an 8-ounce Pakistani beer?  Why isn't it twelve ounces?  Is it some sort of Pakistani law?  I realize that's a minor point here, but I found it odd that all the articles that I read about this travesty, they all mentioned the Pakistani beer.  Maybe that's because the type of beer that she was drinking is more interesting than this entire story. 

Did the cops not have anything better to do that day than to actually arrest her for underage drinking?  Her birthday is July 20, 1991 for cryin' out loud!  So, she's a month and a half away from turning 21 and they arrest her for that?!  I can't be the only one who thinks that having the legal drinking age be 21 is a bit antiquated?  I hate to sound cliche or anything like that, but if you're allowed to join the armed forces when you're 18, you should be able to drink.  If anyone wants to raise the age of something, what say we up the voting age?  18 and voting on stuff?  That's a horrible idea!  All you care about when you're eighteen is rockin' the vote.  No!  Don't rock the vote!  You don't know what you're doing!  Nor do you care!  But I digress. 

I cannot possibly understand why Scout or anyone else a month and a half away from their 21st birthday would be arrested for consuming 8 ounces of beer from a foreign land.  It's not like she was driving (which would be a completely different issue in and of itself) or endangering anyone.  She was having A beer.  Why couldn't they have just cited her and sent her on her way?  Did they feel that they needed to make an example out of her because she has famous parents?  No one cares.  Bruce Willis and Demi Moore aren't exactly headliners these days.  They're not totally B-List or anything, but I don't think that they're still riding the A Train or anything.  This is just silly.  We're losing focus people!  Keep your eye on the ball! 

Sphere: Related Content

No Need For Questions

Did you hear about the guy down on Florida who was all hopped up on some sort of wacky new drug (bath salts, I believe) and ate a homeless guy's face clean off? If you haven't heard about it, it's just exactly what it sounds like it is.  Florida is really trying hard to solidify its status as America's wackiest state.  And with this little incident, I don't think that they have anything to worry about.  The title is safely in the hands of its people.

And of course, what do you think happened after the guy was shot dead right in the middle of all of the face eating (also known as cannibalism)?  That's right.  Members of his family and people who knew him were interviewed.  Do you think that their answers differed from other times that people have done horrible things and people who knew them are asked about their character?  (As if it would even matter at that point.  I don't care if someone was a freaking Boy Scout for his entire life.  If you eat off someone's face, every good thing that you'd accomplished prior to your meal is irrelevant.)  Of course they didn't. 

It's not even just the interviews that are asinine.  Here's a headline from the Miami Herald: "Questions remain about why naked man on Miami causeway tried to rip flesh off another man's face". Questions remain?  Well, of course questions remain!  He ate the guy's face, for cryin' out loud!  It's not easily explained!  And really, what if it was?  Is an explanation going to make people think, "Ohhhh.  So that's why.  Oh, well, that makes sense!  OK.  I was confused before I heard the explanation.  But now that it's been explained, it's all good."  Does that EVER happen? I don't think it does. 


And why can't the "explanation" ever just be something simple.  eg, Hey, the guy was nutty as a fruit bat.  He was also high as a freaking kite.  Why isn't something like that ever given as the "explanation"?  Why does there always have to be some sort of deep seeded meaning in these things?  Crazy is a highly underrated rationale for many, many behaviors.  I wish people would realize that more and act accordingly.  Then again, it helps if the person being asked these questions isn't a little bit crazy themselves, as seems to be the case with his girlfriend. 

See, the girlfriend was asked for her thoughts on the matter and she came up with a couple of really great possibilities.  The first was that he "...was drugged unknowingly."  Because of course, that's the sort of thing that happens all the time.  One minute you're fine and the next minute, you're drugged unknowingly and gnawing someone's face off.  It's either that or "The only other explanation, she said, was supernatural — that someone put a voodoo curse on him. The girlfriend...said she has never believed in voodoo, until now."  Right.  That's the only other explanation.  Voodoo.  A voodoo curse.  Because again, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time.  The ol' voodoo curse.  The ol' VDC.   Naturally.  Because according to her ""I don't know how else to explain this."  Yep.  Because it's either a voodoo curse or nothing.  All rightee then.  I think I'm done here.


Shouldn't that answer alone be reason enough to stop asking people their opinions on things like this?  Then again, maybe that answer alone is exactly the reason why people keep getting asked their opinions on things like that.  Voodoo curse is a pretty amusing answer.  And it definitely gives me a look inside of a cage at the human zoo that I didn't know was there.  OK, I'm convinced.  We should keep these sorts of interviews around.  I can't believe my mind was so easily swayed.  Do you think it was a voodoo curse?  I don't know how else to explain it. 

Sphere: Related Content

Everything's Ruined!

Remember Casey Anthony?  She is the soulless creature in Florida who was acquitted of murdering her daughter Caylee and then covering up said murder with some whackadoo story about the kid being kidnapped by a babysitter?  The only way that I can figure out that she would have been acquitted is because it was in Florida, America's wackiest and dimmest state.  After having been in hiding since her improbably acquittal, she's now back in the news and there's a lot to take from this latest story. 

She's being sued by a woman named Zenaida Gonzalez.  That's the name of the woman who Casey claimed had kidnapped her daughter.  See, the woman is kind of pissed because, well, her name was sort of dragged through the mud.  You know, after being accused of being, at the very least, a baby kidnapper and at the very worst, a baby murderer.  And since none of that was true (Casey did admit to fabricating that whole tale), she decided that she should sue her.  Seems about right to me.  Want to guess how Casey feels about it? 

Obviously, someone who seems to have been (and likely was) responsible for the death of their child is not going to be someone who has any sort of appropriate reaction to any sort of appropriate actions being taken against them.  This is no exception.  Casey has been in hiding since the surprising (and seemingly wrong) verdict was handed down.  That seems like the smartest thing that she's done from the beginning of this fiasco, as there were plenty of nutjobs out there who wouldn't have thought twice about killing her.  (I'm not saying that anyone deserves to be the victim of vigilante justice simply because someone doesn't agree with how the law played out in a particular instance.  But I am saying that I'd be OK with about 2% vigilante justice.  I'm also saying that I'd like to test this theoretical paradigm of justice out on Casey Anthony.  See?  Completely reasonable!) 

According to People Magazine, Casey Anthony "... is angry that her required appearance will affect her plans to leave the country after her probation ends in August. She will now have to be available to testify."  Yeah, it must be completely angering when the person whose good name you totally slandered (and essentially accused them of murder) is upset enough to sue you.  How frustrating!  I mean, she expected this to just be done.  Let bygones be bygones and the past be the past!  How dare this woman want to hold her accountable for her actions?!  The nerve of some people, I swear...

But here's my favorite part of the article: "Casey was really hoping to leave Florida and never look back," explains a source close to her. "She was really ready to move on with her life. This has ruined everything." Really?  This has ruined everything?!  Soooo...it's not anything that she did or that she brought upon herself, of course.  It's not like Casey Anthony had any hand in all of the ruining.  No, this has nothing to do with her and now everything is 'ruined'.  She was done and ready to 'move on'!  OK, then.  Wow.  What a narcissistic lunatic. 

Hey, you know what?  I was thinking that I might like to leave the country for a while.  I wonder how Casey Anthony is able to afford that (assuming that it's even true)?  According to the article "She does nothing but sit in front of her computer and eat." Anthony remains unemployed and broke, and, according to probation reports, she recently stopped attending counseling."  Hey, I eat in front of my computer too!  Sure, I do other things and I don't kill small children, but maybe I'll be able to get in on this going out of the country dela after all!  She's unemployed and broke, yet a-fixin' to leave the country?  Is she going to stow away in the wheel well of a plane?  (Let's hope that's her plan, as not many people actually survive that trip.)  Most countries don't let you just wander in without a job or any money and live there.  Granted, I could see why she might be under that impression as that's apparently what this country does.  But I assure you, it's not that way anywhere else. 

Why am I not surprised that she's just annoyed by this entire thing?  I guess she thinks that when you are miraculously acquitted of killing your kid that you'd just be able to go on with your life as if nothing ever happened and that everyone else should just leave you alone.   How annoying that she's still being asked to be accountable for herself.  It's ruining everything, don't you know?  You know, probably the person who really should think that everything has been "ruined" would be her daughter.  You know, the dead one.  Were she able to hold an opinion on this matter at the moment, I'm guessing "ruined" might be one word that she would use to describe everything that went on.  One minute, you're a cute little 2-year old girl and the next minute you're dead somewhere in a Florida swamp.  That's the definition of everything being "ruined".  Being asked to explain yourself when you've implemented a totally innocent person in your little scheme?  Not so much. 

Sphere: Related Content

I'm In The Wrong Business

I am clearly in the wrong business.  What I should be doing to make my fortune is to find some sort of vapid celebrity to endorse a product that is probably worth no more than fifty cents and then turn around and sell said product for twenty-five dollars.  And if things go really well, I'll be able to sell some of those items without any celebrity endorsement.  That's right.  My other ridiculous marketing ploy will have worked so well that I'll just be able to crank out crap and have people buy it for no other reason that it's from the same place that sells the crap that that one celebrity endorses.  Let's see...I'm going to need a cheap product.  Oooh!  Oooh!  I know!  Lollipops!  Perfect.  Now I just need my vapid celebrity.  Oooh!  Oooh!  I know!  Kim Kardashian!  Perfect.  She's the queen of vapid.  (OK, I concur that we'll probably have to explain to "the queen" what vapid means, but that's really neither here nor there.)  No.  No.  That's too stupid.  That would never work.  Who would pay twenty five dollars for a single lollipop?  (You see where this is going, right?) 

Apparently there is a place called Couture Pops and they sell ridiculously priced items.  One of those items, you guessed it, is lollipops.  But not just ordinary lollipops!  Oh, wait.  Yeah, never mind.  They are ordinary lollipops.  The stick-ular area seems to be adorned with some sort of baubles.  And there also appears to be a clear plastic, protective case for the actual licking area of the lollipop.  Other than that, they're regular lollipops.  Regular lollipops that go for twenty-five dollars.  Behold!

OK, I know you can't really see the lollipop, so here's a close up.  Behold! 

Just remember:  Twenty-five bucks.  But it's not just Kim Kardashian who is endorsing these things.  There's also a Britney Spears lollipop.  Behold! 

 Here's a lollipop endorsed by Mel B of the Spice Girls (and long ago fame): 

What about a lollipop endorsed by Nicole Scherzinger (recently fired from American X Factor and from the yesterday fame of the Pussycat Dolls):

 Need a lollipop endorsed by The Situation from Jersey Shore?  They've got you covered, moron. 

 What about one endorsed by Hello Kitty?  Here it is! 

Do you see how asinine this is?!  They're all essentially the same thing.  And that "thing" is a lollipop!  Who endorses it doesn't give it a special hidden value!   Hello Kitty isn't even a real cat, for cryin' out loud!  How do you justify that?  (Oh, it's so expensive because it's endorsed by a fake, yet wildly popular in Japan, feline character that pre-teen girls find whimsical.  That'll be twenty-five dollars, please.)  Seriously, I don't know if I can make my brain become so soft that I would actually think up something this ridiculous and that would actually make money.  That there are people out there that can figure out that there is a market for twenty-five dollar lollipops that all look the same except for the celebrity du jour who endorses them is just astounding to me.  Simply astounding. 

Sphere: Related Content

Poor Darwin

So, Fort Lee, New Jersey has gone ahead and banned texting whilst walking.  That's right.  While walking.  In the 'Land of the Free', you are no longer allowed to text while you're walking in Fort Lee, lest you end up with a $54 ticket.  It's actually technically when you're jaywalking, but that's a separate ticket in and of itself, so I'm not quite sure why they felt the need to add texting to it.  Then again, the entire idea is so completely asinine that it's probably pointless for me to try to make any sense of it at all.

According to MSNBC, "...Fort Lee saw three fatalities and more than 20 pedestrian accidents since the beginning of the year".  And that statement alone is enough for me to pose the question "Won't this thing eventually work itself out on its own?"  See, because I'm going to guess that the 20 pedestrians who were involved in an "accident" (whatever that means) aren't going to do it again if they were injured enough.  Stupid should hurt.  And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those three people that were killed certainly won't be doing it again.  Why does the government need to be involved?  Why can't the "fine", instead of being $54, simply be a head injury when one walks into a pole because they weren't paying attention to where they were going?


What's that you say?  It's being done in the name of safety?  If that were actually true, there would be a lot less potentially dangerous things around us.  If people are so worried about safety, why isn't there a ban on backyard pools yet?  Those things are a death trap!  We should ban those in the name of safety.  What about exposure to the sun?  That's potentially dangerous, what with the skin cancer and all.  Why don't we have a law that you are required to use sunscreen before you go outdoors?  All in the name of safety!  We've gotta have that law, right?  What about when the temperature outside goes above ninety degrees?  Isn't there more of a potential for heat stroke at higher temperatures?  Shouldn't we have a law saying that you must stay inside in order to protect yourself when it's really hot?  All in the name of safety!  While we're at it, since we already have a seat belt law, why don't we add to that having drivers be required to wear helmets when driving.  I know that those would potentially spare dozens of lives that would otherwise be lost if the vehicle operator what helmetless.  Seriously, where in the hell does it stop? 

I can't believe that law even passed at all.  Maybe this Fort Lee, New Jersey just isn't a particularly bright town.  Three fatalities related to texting since January?  It's only May, for cryin' out loud.  And while I can find plenty Google search results about this law, I have yet to find any evidence that the people in Fort Lee are really so stupid that they end up getting killed due to texting while strolling about.  I did find this article, which does mention pedestrian deaths, but in no way alludes to them being related to texting.  Now, I'm not saying that the people who passed this law were being disingenuous in the name of safety.  I'm just saying that I can find no mention of it even occurring before this law passed.  Oh, well.  I guess if we're all going to be safer as a result, the reason shouldn't matter right?  God, we're so doomed.  

Sphere: Related Content

Do you know who Manny Pacquiao is?  I had heard the name, but I was unaware of his significance.  After learning that he is a boxer, I'm still not overly sure of his significance, but at least I know who he is.  Then again, Forbes magazine listed him at Number Four on their list of most influential athletes in the world.  Huh.  So there's that.  The point here is that he came out and said that he was against same-sex marriage.  He said that he didn't have anything against gay people (a lot of his friends are gay, of course), but he just wasn't into the whole dudes marrying dudes and chicks marrying chicks dealio.  And that's fine.  It's his deal.  Just like President Barry said, most people that are against gay marriage aren't coming from a hateful perspective.  This should be reiterated to the folks who run some mall in Los Angeles, as they have banned him from the premises because of his opinion. 

The mall is called The Grove and this was their tweet after hearing about another person's opinion:  

 

Quick! Someone call in the irony police!  He's NOT welcome at your mall because he holds the very same opinion that the majority of people in thirty states also hold?!  Is The Grove aware that same-sex marriage is NOT legal in the very state that their mall is IN?!  Do they realize that there is a constitutional amendment in their state that bans same-sex marriage?  Do they also realize that it was voted upon by the people of that state?!  That's right, folks!  The majority of people in the ridiculously blue state of California voted against same-sex marriage.  Over seven million of them. And The Grove is banning someone who holds the same belief as a majority of those voters?  Good Lord. 

My favorite part of that is "not a place for intolerance".  Really?  Cause y'all seem a little bit intolerant yourselves there.  Not letting someone into what I'm assuming is a public mall (as I have yet to see a private mall) because they believe something different than you for reasons that are not rooted in hate?  Yeah, that seems intolerant.  See, tolerance goes both ways, you jack holes. See, tolerance can be defined as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". How tolerant are you being, The Grove?  Doesn't sound like very tolerant at all.

Again, this has nothing to do whether I am for or against gay marriage.  I am simply pointing out the idiocy of it how it is portrayed in the media.  The media has done a fine job making it seem like everyone is in favor of gay marriage and it's really just a handful of bigots who are holding everything back.  In reality, it's quite the opposite of that.  The majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage.  That's just the reality.  I know that you wouldn't get that impression from everything you read or see on the news, but that's where we're at.  So knock it off, The Grove.  Start practicing your tolerance by accepting that there are a whole lot of people who are different than you. 

Sphere: Related Content

From The Idiots At Newsweek

You know, when President Barry announced his "newfound" position on the gay marriage, I thought that I was one step closer to having a dream of mine realized.  That dream being that I might never have to hear about this subject ever again.  Yeah, that didn't happen.  In fact, it was quite the opposite.  Now, all of my news feeds are inundated with the glowing media reporting of his "announcement".  And since it would seem that no one else is going to do it, I guess I'm going to have to be the one to report this accurately.  I certainly can't leave any sort of unbiased reporting up to Newsweek.  Look at their cover!  Look at it! 

Are you freaking kidding me, Newsweek?  A gay halo?  A gaylo, if you will.  This isn't news!  And even if it was news, you're reporting it wrong!  Ahem...allow me...

See, before President Barry was against gay marriage, he was for it.  That's right.  When he ran for the Illinois Senate for the first time in 1996, he was all for the gays getting all married and stuff.  But then when he ran for re-election in 1998, he wasn't quite sure about it.   And then when it came to run for the U.S.Senate in 2004 and for President in 2008, that's when he decided that he should be against it.   I should also mention that he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.  That would have made it so that marriage would have been defined as being between one man and one woman.  So he was against that.  But in 2008, that's when he said that he personally felt that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he isn't in favor of gay marriage.  And now here we are in 2012 and he's all for it again.  Good grief.  And now we're supposed to be all excited about his "announcement"?  No one else but me sees it as a transparent political move that just works for him right about now?  OK, then. 

You know, there's one part of his sudden "enlightenment" that I think has been under-reported.  And that's probably for the same reason that other key issues about this story have been under-reported as well.  It just doesn't fit the narrative that the sucky, sucky media wants so badly to portray.   It's the part where he said, "I think it's important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman, uh, many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. A bunch of them are friends of mine."

EXACTLY!  Just because people aren't exactly for gay marriage, doesn't mean that those people are hateful bigots.  Now, don't get me wrong.  Some of them absolutely are.  Those sorts of people are commonly known as a-holes.  But the folks who have a strong religious component to their opinions or those who just aren't quite very comfortable with redefining something that has been the same since the beginning of time, those folks don't deserve the wrath that is sometimes placed upon them.  That's a component to this issue that I have always found fascinating.  Those who want to be treated equally even though they're different lashing out at those who don't agree with them.  Uhhh, didn't you just say that it's OK that you're different?  So, it's OK for you to be different than them, but it isn't OK for them to be different than YOU? 

Let's also make sure that we don't overlook the caption.  "The First Gay President".  Holy crap!  Did he come out?!  I always thought that he looked a little TOO lovingly at Biden, if you know what I mean!  Jesus, Newsweek.  Just because someone comes out in favor of something, that doesn't mean that they ARE that thing.  President Barry has drones bombing the crap out of terrorists in foreign lands.  Is your next cover going to be of him with the caption "The First Homicidal President"?  "The First Murdering President"?  Of course not! You know why?  Because it would be not only incorrect, but completely freaking asinine as well!  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.  (OK, I don't know for sure if Newsweek was ever 'mighty'.  But that cover is definitely crap.) 
 

Sphere: Related Content