Nine Percent And Dropping

The approval rating of Congress is at an all time low. And I mean low. According to something called the Inquisitr, the people that approve of the job that Congress is doing is at a whopping nine percent. Nine. My only question at this time is who are those nine people and what, exactly, are their standards? I'm guessing that they have relatives in Congress or they're lobbyists. Because I can't think of any other reason why their approval rating would be as high as nine percent.

And what have people approved of more than Congress? Plenty of things. And a lot of them might surprise you. For example, apparently, a Rasmussen poll in 2011 had an 11% approval rating of the United States going Communist. Now, I don't think that being a Communist nation is all that great of an idea, but more people thought it was a better idea than approved of Congress.



Remember the atrocious BP oil spill? Right in the middle of that, 16% of people approved of BP. That was a complete disaster and yet more people approved of that than they did of Congress.



Even Richard Nixon amidst Watergate had better numbers than Congress does now. 24% of people approved of Nixon when it became obvious that he was a liar (and contrary to what he said, probably a crook). That's over two and a half times as many people (as a percentage) than those who currently approve of Congress.



Banks in 2011 are not exactly on anyone's Christmas card list. But for some reason, 23% of people approve of those. So banks are on a par with Richard Nixon and both were rated over twice as high as Congress. If you haven't caught on by now that people really think that Congress sucks, I don't think that there's much I can do for you at this point.

And for some reason, 40% of people approved of the IRS in 2009. I don't know why that's so high, but when you compare it to the 9% approval rating that Congress received, it's astronomically high. No one likes the IRS. How did they get 40% of folks to approve of them? Maybe they could give Congress some tips.


And here's the most amazing part of all of this: Even with a 9% approval rating, it seems that whenever elections roll around, the majority of these bozos end up getting re-elected. I'm not sure if that means that polls like these are meaningless or if the average American voter is a dumbass. What I'm afraid of is that it means both. In which case, we're totally scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

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

The Semi-Demi

I've been pondering this for a good deal of my day. See there's a woman over in the UK who was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. It's not cancerous, but because of the position and the size, it can't be removed and it is a condition which leads to death. Now, I don't know how I'd react upon hearing a diagnosis like that, but I'm fairly certain that my reaction would be different from that woman's, as she is spending $50,000 for plastic surgery so that she can look like Demi Moore before she dies. Wait. What?

I know, I know! No, actually, I don't know! I don't know what to say or think. The folks across the pond at Mirror News bring us the unfortunate circumstance of a one 29-year old Lisa Connell, who says “I’ve always dreamed of looking like Demi Moore and I’m determined that when I die I will.” Apparently her mother, Angela, had saved up a bunch of money for Lisa’s wedding and Lisa is going to use it for plastic surgery that will transform her into a Demi Moore lookalike instead. ::::sigh::::

Lisa said, "People think I’m crazy for wanting to do this, but I know it will make my last months or years happier. I want to die beautiful.""Crazy" might be a bit harsh. It might be a bit true, but still kinda harsh. I suppose I can sort of understand wanting to "die beautiful"....in a way. But seriously, look at this woman who says she wants to be "beautiful". Behold!
Holy crap, she's hot. (She's the one on the right, by the way. The good looking woman on the left is her mother. Wow.) Is she kidding? Obviously she is not, but that doesn't change the fact that she is extremely attractive. But all good looks aside, this is what she's worried about? Why is that? Exactly? She explains, "I have palsy in the left side of my face. My eye is starting to droop and not open properly and I have been told it will get worse as I will eventually lose all sensation. I want surgery on my face to correct the drooping and make it less drastic when my condition deteriorates." I'm going to interrupt here to point out that she uses the words "less drastic". That doesn't sound like plastic surgery is going to prevent any deterioration from either happening or becoming apparent at all. And really, what is "less drastic"? I mean, if you're Shrek and you have a face lift and end up looking like Yoda, are you really any better off? Was it worth it?

So is the cosmetic face surgery all she's doing? Um, no. "...I won’t leave it at that – I want the full works, top to toe, including my boobs as they are heading south." (Hey, don't they all at some point? Don't they all?) And she fully admits, “It is not the usual dream of someone with a terminal illness" and then adds "but it is my body, my choice.” I've got nothin'. I can't argue with that....even though I want to! I just can't. And Demi Moore? A fine, fine choice.

The transformation or whatever you want to call it will begin in about two weeks at the Skin Health Spa in London. I have to assume that she's aware that she'll need more than a couple of weeks to recuperate from "the works". While I know very little about plastic surgery, I do know that you don't come out of it looking great or feeling great right away. Full face lifts can take longer than a month for the bruising to go away and the swelling to go down. You're not going to be looking all Demi Moore for a while, that's for sure. And again, it's not me and I have no idea what I would do in Lisa's situation, but I don't know that I'd want to spend whatever amount of time I did have left recuperating from plastic surgery and looking less than attractive as I did. It just doesn't sound like how I'd be using my time, but that's just me.

The thing I find odd about this choice for her stems from some of the statements that she's made: "...I want to look beautiful when I die. Inside I’m melting away, but on the outside I want to be strong and stunning.....This is my way of getting the control back in my life....I hope the surgery will give me a new lease of life and the confidence I need to live the rest of my days to the full.” It's not the statements in and of themselves that confuse me. It's when I read those words and then learn that Lisa founded Rent A Date For Charity in 2007. It's the "...Original Auction Dating Website’ allowing everyday people and celebrities to put themselves up for auction to the highest bidder with proceeds going to charity." And "...she has made it her personal mission to raise £1 million pounds for charity through the business she has created."

I suppose I find it rather saddening that she's looking for that "control" in her life through the nip/tuck of plastic surgery to look like the very stunning Demi Moore. She writes in a blog post of how she was beginning to lose muscle coordination in her legs and was falling frequently after the diagnosis of the tumor. She turned to exercise with a fitness coordinator and they worked on muscle strengthening and coordination skills and was back up on her feet within a month and even ran a 10k in July of 2007 and raised £3,000 for charity. Not bad for someone who was told that they would never walk normally again.

See, that all seems to indicate that she possesses an incredibly strong will and determined focus, and all of that without looking like Demi Moore. Yet she needs that "control" in her life through her appearance. Again, I'm not in that situation, so I can't judge, but I think I'm OK with saying that I really wish she didn't feel like that. If you didn't think that there's an influence from society that puts too much emphasis on looks before, perhaps you might consider what that influence could actually be doing to people on the inside. I mean, look at her. I think she's hot. I know you think she's hot. The only one who doesn't think she's hot is her. And the point is that how hot she is or isn't really shouldn't matter right about now, but for some reason it does.

I suppose that if her looking like Demi Moore will help her to feel better about herself to the extent that it could actually prolong her life (they have no idea how long to live she has, just that the tumor is going to be inconvenient), then great. I cannot imagine what it will do to her if the surgery does not turn out the way that she is hoping or expecting it will. The thing is though, that if the surgery is successful or not, it's never going to change how the people that know her and care about her and love her feel about her. And I really wish that was enough for her, but I'm not going to condone her because it isn't. (And I just read that she wants to be the first to do a topless shoot for charity. I'm not going to condone her for that either!)

I started off writing this post expecting to fully rip this chick to shreds for the Demi Moore thing. After reading more about her and her charity and how she's raising money and awareness about brain tumors, it just lost it's comedic edge for me. (And yet oddly enough, I kept writing. Go figure.) I expected her to just be a nutjob lunatic, but I don't get that impression. She's smart, sane, strong, determined and has definitely found purpose in her ordeal. I have no idea why she feels the way that she does about her physical appearance, but it's no secret that society does tend to elevate those who are "pretty" over those who are not and it's total BS that it works like that because the effect that it has upon (mostly) women. If there was ever an indication that we need to change that, I'd say this is it.

Good luck with all you're doing, Lisa. I would love to read that you had reconsidered turning yourself into the Semi-Demi, but if that doesn't happen, I certainly hope that you turn out the way that will make you the happiest and will make it the easiest for you to deal with the unimaginable.

Sphere: Related Content

California's Budget Problem Solved!

Well, hey, in case you haven't heard, California...yeah, it doesn't have any more money. And just in case you haven't heard this, it's going to pose somewhat of a problem. Soon. Shocking, eh? Not really. Oh, I'm sure it's extremely surprising, but only if you're one of the state legislators. If you're just a regular person who pays attention on occasion, it's pretty much what you'd expected.

See, here's the thing: California relies heavily on taxes to fund its massive, massive trough of money which it seems to dole out left and right with not a whole lot of discretion. (Translation: The state spends money like drunken sailors on leave.) But when there are not enough taxes, do they curtail their spending? Oh, no, of course not! That would be fiscally responsible and this is California! Let the spending continue!

But I digress. Where was I? Oh, the budget. Yeah, California is screwed. A drunken sailor is rarely an economics whiz. From what I can tell, the only legislator without their head shoved mercilessly up their own arse is Tom McClintock. He told The Free Republic back in 2007 that the 2008 financial situation was going to be craptastic. BUT, not only did he predict this disaster, he also came up with ways to solve this disaster. And that's the main component that is sorely lacking in the California legislature today; the part about the feasible solutions (not to mention the ability to be able to identify a problem in the first place). There were forty, four zero, forty areas he found where cuts could be made with minimal negative impact upon the program which was being trimmed.

It's not like his suggestions weren't reasonable. They were perfectly reasonable. WHY none have been adopted, implemented, DONE is beyond me. The man makes sense. Come on, does California really need to fork over $5.22 million a year to veterans that have moved from California back to the Philippines? Is it reasonable to spend $10 million dollars a year for an anti-methamphetamine campaign? ($10 mil? A year? Are the people who are running this campaign doing meth themselves? Why so much? What's wrong with some poster board with "Just Say No" scribbled on it in Magic Marker?) There is a $40 million a year Physical Education Teacher Incentive Program to attract gym teachers? Wow, how's that goin'? Yeah, that's what I thought.

So you get what I'm saying, right? California is being run by a bunch of lawmakers who are fiscally acting like, not only drunken sailors on leave, but drunken sailors on leave who are borderline retarded at best! California is going to be about $10 billion in the hole in a few months. Arnold is calling a special session and ideas like raising the state sales tax by 1.25% are being thrown about. (I guess ideas like Tom McClintock's are just being thrown out.) Lawmakers aren't thrilled about returning for a special session. (I can't imagine why not. It's not like they have to pay for their own gas to get there or anything.) It's pandemonium. Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria.

But I've solved the problem! It didn't take me long, maybe about 10 minutes. But once the ol' common sense kicked in, it was smooth sailing. Do you know what California spends each year on illegal immigrants? Neither did I! But I found out! And lo and behold (brother and sister of Flora and Fauna) it was $10.4 billion dollars annually four years ago! There are, by all estimates, approximately 3.5 million illegal immigrants in California. I'll do the math and I'll come to the conclusion that it equates to about $2971.42 per illegal per year. Problem solved!

Now, if the state is so concerned with meth which is illegal, you'd think that they'd be at least a little concerned with people who are illegal and who are contributing to sucking the state dry. Look, it's one thing (and a ridiculous one at that) to let people who aren't even supposed to be here, stay here. But it's another thing to let the people who aren't even supposed to be here, stay here AND give them money as well! (I'm allowed to be here and no one is handing me three grand a year!)That's the silliest thing I've ever heard of! If I walked uninvited into a stranger's home, I'm pretty sure he'd ask me to leave AND expect me to! And if I refused, I highly doubt that the homeowner would just turn around and walk back into the kitchen and let me stay! AND give me money before he left the room! That's not going to happen! Unless you're the state of California.

Look, I know it's a harsh, general, blanket statement (though I do like blankets!) to say just cut off any services that feed money into programs for those who have no legal grounds to be in this country. But I have yet to hear a convincing (let alone valid) argument for why we should continue to run ourselves into the ground because we have overextended our means for those who shouldn't even be here. And the reality is that some things just suck. Decisions like this suck. They do. Suck, suck, suck. (Suck cubed, if you will.) But what's the worst that could happen? The population of illegal individuals dwindles closer to nothing than to not nothing? We'll learn that it turns out that Americans will do those jobs that they're not supposed to want to do? The state won't be in financial turmoil? That programs for people who are supposed to be here don't get cut? Yeah, those all sound horrible. Or they don't. That's right, they don't.

Not once this year have I heard anyone suggest that cutting services to illegal immigrants is a good way to help get the budget deficit down. (In 2007, Tom McClintock did address California's willingness to fund the in-state tuition of illegal immigrants at the cost of $75 million per year as one of his forty areas where cuts could be made. But everyone ignored him then and they're ignoring him now.) All I keep hearing about is how to raise taxes to take care of this. On top of more taxes, Arnold has also suggested cuts to schools (because whenever there's a financial crisis, it's best to just punish the teachers and take money from that which they already don't have) and to Medicaid.

Are you telling me that you'd rather pay 8.50% in sales tax than cut off financial support to people who shouldn't even be here? You'd rather have your child attend an understaffed school taught by overworked and underpaid teachers without enough money for an adequate amount of supplies and books than continue supporting illegals? You'd rather have seniors (who are a large chunk of Medicaid recipients) see their medical and prescription benefits decrease in order to keep doling out cash to illegals? You have to be kidding if you answered 'yes' to any of those. Even if you can't cut off everything, there is NO way that the California lawmakers can't consider cutting services to those who are illegally in this country. Cut the funds of those who are allowed to be here and continue to fund those who are not allowed to be here, does that make sense? Of course not. (Thus, it will most likely continue to happen.)

I'm all for the way that we elect our lawmakers. It's a fine system. But as the population of the state grows, the economics become more complicated. The people need to become concerned about electing officials with a solid grasp on the economic situation (and not just that they know they get free gasoline for their state issued vehicles!). The people also need to become concerned about electing officials who can demonstrate that they are fiscally responsible so that this disaster doesn't just continue until the end of time (and, if I have to keep hearing about it, but then have nothing get accomplished, that could not come too soon for me). The whole situation is a joke and the only ones laughing are the ones in the Legislature. What say we just call one big 'do over' and kick them out along with the illegals and see how we do on our own? It couldn't be worse than it is now. Unless you think that the amigo below is really giving you something to think about, that is.

Sphere: Related Content

Not So Cuil

Look, if you're going to take on the biggest or the best, you're going to want to make sure you do one of two things. Either a) make really, really, really sure you have your S together before you take your shot, or b) don't tell anyone that's what you're doing so that when you fail miserably you don't end up looking like a moron. Or at least so you don't find yourself coming up with the world's worst excuses for your failure. Ever.

The folks over at the search engine Cuil may have wanted to heed my simple, yet relevant, advice when they rolled out their search engine with the stated goal of going up against the giant that is known simply as Google. (And while I do love the Google boys, there's no bias here. No, no, the words of the Cuil folks will speak for themselves. I just get to sit back and enjoy the ride.) The folks behind Cuil (which is pronounced "cool" and the company says it is the Gaelic word for knowledge. That is up for debate in some circles.) are Anna Patterson, a former Google employee, and her husband, Tom Costello, an IBM researchers. They have a vision that it is possible to compete with Google in a way that is better, more comprehensive and will cost a ton less. That's their "vision". That's not necessarily their result.

Cuil was claiming to have a 120 billion page web index which is about three times the size of Google's. They're also claiming to be able to run that index on only 140 computers, whereas Google has their index on thousands of computers. Now that's quite the difference in number of computers. You'd have to assume that it would mean a difference in the resulting products as well, right? Yep, you would. And if you did, you'd be right; there's a huge difference. Once is sent straight from the Gods and the other...well, the other is not. (The other blows.)

Cuil "launched" on July 28 of this year. The "launch" didn't go so well. It had been so hyped (by the folks at Cuil themselves) that a bazillion people wanted to try it out on the first day and I guess those 140 computers got a little overwhelmed. Not to mention the results sucked. Cuil couldn't even find itself when you searched for "Cuil". Now that's a problem. (Hey, someone get that 141st computer in here now!)

It's been about a month and a half since Cuil has had a chance to become cool. It still sucks. But not if you're asking those working for Cuil. No, those guys have a whole different idea than the rest of the planet on what a search engine is for and what it's supposed to do. That became evident during the Day One Debacle. Costello explained in a note that he had posted on Cuil's site that first day by saying "...its results are intentionally different. This is one of our goals, to give people an alternative to existing approaches." Well then, you've succeeded, Tom. If your goal was to be different from a search engine that could actually search, you did it! But why would you want to? And I don't want an alternative to my "existing approach" which is "using something that works to find what I'm looking for" because that would mean I'd do the opposite of that which would be "using something that doesn't work to not find what I'm looking for." How in the hell does that help anyone?!

Did he consult Pee-Wee Herman for that explanation? Because it sounds an awful lot like, "I meant to do that!" And his wife's take on the whole thing isn't much better either. According to the floundering folks over there at the San Jose Mercury News "Patterson said she felt her husband had come up with a better approach to storing and sorting Web data, effectively tripling the amount of data available to Web surfers for a fraction of what it costs companies like Google or Yahoo." She also said that the approach was "very radical and interesting." Yes, promoting "crap" as "not crap" is very radical. But the only interesting part of it is why you would do that! Did you think people wouldn't notice that they couldn't find what they were looking for and would assume it was because they were just overwhelmed with all of the bazillions of results (having no relevance whatsoever to their search) that they couldn't find what they needed? That it was their problem and not the 140 computers? Please.

And these guys just act like everything is fine. That they have a great product because it can index so many web pages; three times more page than Google! And at a fraction of the cost! So they have less equipment and they spend less. Yes, those are good aspects of running a successful business, but they left one out. They forgot the one about the product that works!

I'm glad that they're happy with themselves, because no one else is. They really should bag the Internet search gig and go into public relations or marketing or something along those lines because the hype that they built up for the release of this thing was massive. They did a heck of a job at that. Too bad they didn't think past their own hype and realize, "Hey, maybe I should be hawking something that actually works."

I find it amazing that there are people out there who can completely convince themselves that they are not in a bad situation. People who can put enough spin on something, even something that is un-spinnable, to make it sound like a good thing should really use their talents for good instead of evil. Perhaps if products were as good as the PR surrounding them, things would be better. But you can't sell someone a cat and tell them it's a "new dog experience". That's just not cool.

By the way, I just did a search on Cuil for "cuil". Under the "Explore by Category" section on the right, I can choose from Towns and Villages in Sligo, Lochaber, French Breads, French Cuisine and National Scenic Areas (Scotland). First things first, where the hell is Sligo? Next, I thought "Cuil" was Gaelic for "knowledge", so why am I getting results about things that are French and things that are bread (not to mention the scenic areas of Scotland)? I guess they're still sticking to that "intentionally different" approach of theirs. Well, congratulations, Cuil. Your intentionally different approach works. This is crap.

Sphere: Related Content