Wednesday, June 30, 2010

NO Right To Choose...Ever

I've done a few posts about the seemingly borderline retarded Alvin Greene winning the Democratic nomination to run for the Senate seat in South Carolina. He won the primary almost three weeks ago and still no one can figure out why anyone voted for him. Over in Nevada, there's a Republican candidate running for that Senate seat and I can't figure out why in the world anyone, especially any woman, would have ever voted for her either.

From the Nevada State Democratic Party website we learn of an interview that a one Sharron Angle did with a one Bill Manders back in January of 2010. Why this interview is coming out now is not quite clear to me. What is clear to me is that Ms. Angle should not be elected to anything. It's questionable if she should be allowed to roam about freely as she wishes. Medication might need to be involved. If no such medication is available, I'm all for a good malleting over the noggin.

Now, Manders brought up the topic of abortion. Abortion, if you're asking me, is a silly thing for people to state an opinion on. You know why? Because one side is never going to convince the other side to change their mind. They're just not. People might change their mind on their own over time, but they're not going to be simply convinced because someone presents them with a "reasonable" argument. It's a pointless discussion to have. But it sure does get some people riled up, that's for sure. And it's also a good way to identify some of the morons by listening to people's opinions.

Here's the way the exchange between Manders and Angle went. See if you have a problem with her logic/reasoning/rationale.

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

You have got to be effing kidding me.

Where to begin? Hard to say, really. I guess I can start with her being "pro responsible choice". I didn't know that we were differentiating between "responsible choice" and "irresponsible choice." And I really don't see how there can even be that distinction when referring to abortion. Pro-life means what it means and pro-choice means what it means. She can't just go around assigning her own definition to the sides that have already been defined.

She says that there is no reason at all for an abortion "in her book"? I'm glad we're not going by her book. Mainly because she doesn't seem to think that there should be the option of an abortion in the case of incest or rape. Listen, lady...I believe that God has a plan too, but I don't think that His plan involves some teenage girl getting raped by her uncle and then being forced to carry that baby to term. For instance! You put yourself in that sort of a position, Ms. Angle, and then you tell me how your "faith" is going to work in that situation. What a moron.

People with that sort of thinking pattern cannot be in government. They sure as heck cannot be in the Senate. (I'd sort of prefer that they not be on the planet.) Lawmaking requires logic and reason and facts. It requires very little reliance on faith. Ms. Angle doesn't seem to have enough cranial capacity to do anything other than rely on her "faith". Thus, vote for whoever is running against her. I don't know who that is and I'm not going to look it up. Anyone would be better than her and her "no choice" stance. And if you care to, you can listen to her stance over there at The Huffington Post.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 28, 2010

I Think I Love Jon Kyl

It was only a matter of time before it became apparent how ridiculous and clueless those on city councils and boards of supervisors are as they debate whether or not to impose some sort of idiotic boycott against Arizona for passing their illegal immigration enforcement bill. The only ones who seem to think that these boycotts are a good idea seem to be the members of the councils and the boards which are considering such lunacy. It's like they haven't read the bill at all. And in some cases, it's almost like they don't even know where Arizona is, either.

Let's go over to Milwaukee, Wisconsin and get to know Milwaukee County Supervisor Peggy West. Ms. West supports a boycott of doing business with Arizona. If only we knew what her logic for such support really was. Oh, wait! We DO!

Below, you'll find a video segment from last Thursday's meeting where Ms. West explains why she is in favor of boycotting Arizona. Here's the textual version of her reasoning (the video is so that you'll actually believe me when you read what she said, as it is almost unbelievable):

"If this was Texas...which is a state on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with, you know, with undocumented people, flooding their borders, I would say, I would have to look twice at this. But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border and, um, it doesn't make sense to me that when you Google this subject, if you put in "Arizona SB 1070" that you see a picture of the Governor of Arizona meeting with President Obama in May of 2010. If you have direct linkage to the President, there are already National Guard troops on the border in Arizona." Wait. It's removed from....the border....with MEXICO?!?! But it's...but....she just....oh, never mind. Roll the clip....

Yep. See, if Arizona was a border state, then she'd understand what all of the hubbub was about. But since it's so NOT a border state, she doesn't get it. (And I don't get why that would matter. I guess in her mind, illegal immigrants only stay in border states? I really don't know.) And all of that stuff about Googling the law and seeing pictures of President Barry and the governor of Arizona? I don't know what that has to do with anything at all. I thought I was confused at her questionable geography skills, but that really threw me for a loop. (And by the way, I did Google "Arizona SB 1070" and my results showed NO pictures of President Barry and the governor of Arizona. In fact, the first image result that turned up for me was that fetching young lady in the lingerie right there. She is neither the governor of Arizona, NOR the President of the United States, so that's a little odd.)

But wait! It gets better! According to something called the Phoenix New Times, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl sent Ms. West a letter AND a MAP of the United States which highlighted that Arizona does, in fact, share a border with Mexico. The text of his letter to her is awesome. It reads in part: "You will be interested to learn that Arizona does indeed share a border with Mexico. I have enclosed a map for your convenience." Do we have the map, fellas? We do? Super. Behold!

Awesome. Completely awesome. And he follows up his awesomeness with even more awesomeness when he closes out his letter with: "I hope you will take the time to actually read the Arizona law before formulating an opinion about it and become familiar with our country's geography and the challenges that our border states face." Yeah. I think I'm a little in love with Jon Kyl.

Ms. West pretty much sums up what I've been thinking about all of these political windbags who are advocating and enacting boycotts against Arizona all along. They all seem to be a bunch of dimwits that wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground. And while I don't know anything about Jon Kyl, I know that anyone who sends that sort of letter to someone who deserves to receive it gets a few points in my book. (I'm really hoping that the guy isn't a total prick, because I'd really like to like him.)

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Still Dead!

The one year anniversary of Michael Jackson's death was Friday and it was, in keeping with the theme of his life, a little weird. Let me just say that there are a lot of people out there who really need hobbies. Or jobs. It's kind of hard to tell, but I'm guessing that the latter would mostly be the case.

I'm going to start over there at Forest Lawn Cemetery where Jacko is entombed. They have him in some drawer in one of the crypt walls over there. I don't know exactly how it all works, but I do know that it seems like the reason for that sort of interment was to avoid having his location become a constant freak show. This way, it's inside a building and you need some sort of permission or sparkly glove or small child in order to get in.

Now, the media was treating this like it was going to be some sort of big event. And considering there was a substantial article over there at the still going strong LA Times (nice job, guys!), I was under the impression that there would be some hooplah. Yeah, not so much. According to the article, "About 30 fans lined up early Friday morning outside Forest Lawn cemetery in Glendale to visit Michael Jackson's grave site on the one-year anniversary of his death." Thirty? And what purpose were they serving by lining up early? It's not like he's going anywhere. How early? Why, 3am, of course! If you are lining up at three in the morning so that you can wait until eight in the morning before you can get into a cemetery and not see someone that you never met (and now never will), you need to check yourself. Seriously. You people know that there aren't iPhones in there, right?

After reading the article in the LA Times I was really wanting to know one thing: What were those people expecting to happen? They seemed to be surprised and not all that impressed with the nothing that was made available to them. "After the gates opened, fans were granted limited access at the mausoleum where Jackson is buried...As they passed, they were permitted to hand flowers and cards to cemetery personnel. Once they passed that point, they were asked to move along. Some said they were disappointed at the level of access." Did anyone tell them that he was still dead?

I don't think that they did. One crazy person fan, had asked an attendant, "This is it?" (Probably no pun intended there.) "This is terrible." I'm failing to understand what it is that's so terrible for this woman. The woman said "...she has traveled to the cemetery six times from her home in Atlanta." SIX times?! The man has only been dead a year! And I think that he's only been in the mausoleum for 11 months! She's traveled the equivalent of once every other month from clear across the country? For what exactly? I have no clue. "As she walked through the line, she said Jackson was actually on the opposite side of the mausoleum." Well, I guess that the lady who has been there six times in less than a year would probably know. But she expressed her expectations when she said "I was hoping we would get to go in and see Michael." ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: I don't think he's seeing visitors today. Perhaps come back another time...not that he'll be any less dead.

Another unbalanced individual, a one Irene Childs from the Bay Area, "...said she was unhappy with the security personnel at the cemetery. "They were too pushy. There should have been more viewing time." What exactly was she viewing? It's not like they wheeled his corpse out there for everyone to gawk at. What was she hoping for, exactly? A meet and greet?

But the winner for the individual who could probably benefit the most from a little time on a shrink's couch would be a one 31-year old (and in need of growing up) Tallora Digirolami, who came all the way from freaking Australia because "I couldn't be here last year, so I had to be here this year." Couldn't be there when he died, so you had to be there a year later? You know, if you couldn't have made it this year, you would have had many opportunities to show up on the anniversary of his death, as I anticipate him being dead for quite some time now!

And of course, there were people dressed AS Michael Jackson. Why do people do that? They did it at the memorial service as well. People showed up dressed like Jacko. I've been to a lot of funerals in my time. I've visited a lot of cemeteries on the anniversary of someone's death before as well. I have never attended either function dressed as the deceased. It's never even crossed my mind to do so! It's a little weird if you're asking me. When I go down to check on my Dad's gravesite, I don't don a bolo tie, coke bottle glasses and a wide brimmed hat! Why are people dressed like Jacko?

In Tokyo, a fan appears to have brought a picnic basket to some big wall painting of Jacko and is taking her (I think it's a her) picture in front of it. She's kind of striking that same Jacko pose, but the lime green cover on the picnic basket really detracts from that. There's also the fact that she looks nothing like him, but don't ever expect logic or reality to deter Michael Jackson fanatics.

And in India, a bunch of young fans apparently lit birthday candles around what appears to be some sort of decorative sheet or banner emblazoned with images of Jacko while they all knelt and prayed. Upon closer examination of the photo, I hope that they are praying for some sort of solid flooring, as those candles are just stuck upright directly into the ground.

I still feel just as cheated today as I felt a year ago. Those concerts of his were going to be the gift that kept on giving. I could feel it! I was practically guaranteed to have awesome blog material for months on end. And what did I get? Nothing. Oh, don't get me wrong. The folks showing up at Forest Lawn hoping for a chance to see Jacko are amusing. But they're nothing even close to what those concerts would have been. Not even close.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Why We'll Never Leave Iraq

Um, this would be a video of Iraqi soldiers attempting to do (or get the hang of) jumping jacks. It made me laugh, but that was probably only so I wouldn't cry. Doomed, I tell you. Doomed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

It's Not The Same

I don't watch Fox & Friends. I don't have any intention of ever watching Fox & Friends. First of all, it's a misleading name. It's supposed to be some morning news show with a bunch of news holes discussing current events. And I suppose that is what it is. But the name makes it sound like it is going to be a kid's show. You know, with an animated fox and his friends from the forest (I envision a deer, a bear, several birds, possibly doves, and a talking frog) all having wacky adventures with a feel-good message at the end. Kind of like the After School Specials, only without all of the drugs and teen pregnancy.

But here's why I'm not watching: The people who host the show, the "friends" I guess, are morons. Complete, class A, morons. Allow me to make my case.

Meet a one Gretchen Carlson. Ms. Carlson is one of the "friends". If she were a Spice Girl, she'd be Short Skirt Spice, as she the establishments at which she buys her apparel do not seem to carry items that go below her mid-thigh (on a conservative day). The other day, she was discussing whether or not President Barry show fire General McChrystal for some remarks that he made in a Rolling Stone interview (which didn't seem all that inflammatory to me, but I wasn't the one that the remarks were about). It was during that discussion that she felt the need to point out to people (who might not have been aware of this) that the President of the United States has to make very hard, very tough decisions. Really, Gretchen? Thanks for sharing. Oh, but she didn't stop there.

No, she made sure that we all understood just what being President was all about. So, according to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, she presented us with a herself. That's right. She said that her job is just like being President of the United States. Now, I haven't seen President Barry sporting any mid-thigh skirts lately, but let's take a gander at her reasoning, shall we? She said, "It's just like our job...what's the role of an anchor during huge breaking news? You remember growing up? You'd tune to the television, and that one moment during the year, they would have to carry a story all along, It's the same thing as being the President of the United States."

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

Good Lord, woman! What is wrong with you?! That rationale doesn't even make sense! How is carrying along a news story anything like being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world and trying to decide whether or not to fire the general who is in charge of the war in Afghanistan? I'm sure the connection is there and I'm just missing it by a little bit or something, right? WRONG! It's the most asinine comparison she ever could have come up with. And quite frankly, I don't have any faith that she could, in fact, carry a story all along. I'm actually rather skeptical as to whether or not she can carry her purse out to her car.

And I love how she says "You remember growing up?" Actually, I do remember growing up. It was fabulous. Nothing to worry about, especially the news! I certainly wasn't glued to the TV at 6am watching Fox & Friends. Is she also comparing herself to Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather or some other news fellow? She probably is. If she thinks that her job is just like the President's, then she probably also thinks that she does the same quality and caliber job as Walter Cronkite did. (Side note: Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather didn't do exactly what the President of the United States did either.)

To quote the beloved Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon."

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Then Don't Do That

One of my favorite jokes has always been the one where the guy goes to the doctor and tells him that it hurts when he does this. Naturally, the doctor tells him, "Then don't do that." It's a classic. A timeless classic. Granted, it's hard to say why it's funny, but it just is. And whatever the reason, it doesn't seem to have stopped Apple from using a variation of that theme as a remedy for poor iPhone 4 reception.

Here's the deal: The new iPhone 4 came out the other day. And by all reports, the thing is pretty darned cool. But of course, there are always going to be some glitches or some things that don't work just quite the way that you'd expect them (or like them) to work. And according to the astonishingly still in business CNN, one of those things is "...that holding the phone by its metal edge causes mobile reception to suffer." See, because Apple gets all wacky cool with their technology, they've wrapped the antenna on the iPhone 4 all the way around the edge of the phone. Thus, if you hold the phone the way a normal person holds a phone, you're going to see your reception go all to hell because the antenna is being blocked by your big ol' mitt there.

One guy decided to ask Apple's Grand Poobah about this problem. A chap named Amar wrote the following email to Steve Jobs: "Hi, Mr. Jobs. I love my new iPhone4 (nice work) but when I put my hand on the steel bands I lose all reception. It appears to be a common issue. Any plans to fix this? Thanks, Aram." Nice inquiry. Short. To the point. Complimentary. All of the things that you're going to want to have in an email in order to better your chances of a response. What's that? His response? "Just avoid holding it in that way." Wait. That's it? What now?

That's the response. The modern adaptation of "then don't do that". What exactly does he mean by that? The metal bands go all the way around the phone. How are you supposed to avoid touching them? I'm unclear as to how you're supposed to hold the thing if you're not touching the sides. How would you hold any phone without touching the sides? I'm not so sure that a great piece of technology is something that is only great when it's being held in a certain manner. Steve Jobs tends to pride himself on making the perfect piece of technology, so what is the deal with this?

Did the Apple folks really think that people wouldn't notice or complain? It's a worthy complaint. It's a less than worthy answer of "then don't do that". That's pretty weak. When you have a phone like the iPhone 4, you're going to be concerned with your data speeds and your reception ability. To have to hold your phone a certain way seems vaguely reminiscent of putting tin foil on an aerial TV antenna and then having to hold it with one hand as you stand on one foot. Don't get me wrong. I realize that there wasn't enough room in that teeny-tiny little phone to shove in an antenna as well and so they had to wrap it around the edges so that it would fit in there. I get that. But when it's a matter of getting reception or not getting reception, what say you sacrifice a millimeter of thickness and cram that thing in there, OK? I'm not real thrilled about paying a couple of hundred dollars for something that I have to hold a certain way in order for it to work at an optimal level of performance.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, June 25, 2010

Pawned Spawn

Hmm. It's been a while since I've done a Walmart post. It's also been a while since I've done a post about people trying to sell their baby. Oh, if there was only some way that I could catch up on both of those topics at the same time. Oh, wait! There is (unfortunately).

Meet a one 20-year old (and old enough to know better) Samantha Tomasini and her obvious soul mate a one 28-year old (and definitely old enough to know better) Patrick Fousek. They look just like you'd expect a couple of people to look if you were told that they were trying to sell their 6-month old baby outside of a Walmart. Behold!

Told you. Here's the story: In the hole of the central part of California, otherwise known as Salinas, the male asshat in this story approached two women and asked them if they would be interested in taking his baby daughter for a small fee. And by "taking" I mean "purchasing". Now, that's pretty gutsy. Not half as gutsy as it is stupid, but still pretty gutsy.

The women, obviously being smarter than the doorknob who was soliciting his offspring, "...said they didn't know if Fousek was joking or not". And while I understand that line of thinking, that's a heck of a thing to be joking about, not to mention extremely odd. But "...he was insistent and kept telling them 'No, I want to sell you the baby.' " It was likely that very persistence which is why "...they reported the incident to police with a description of Fousek's (the male asshat's) car." To my complete amazement, the police were able to trace the car to his apartment. I don't know why I find that so fascinating, but I do.

Now, I know this next part will come as quite a shock to you, but when the police went to his house, they found the aforementioned parents to be (I hope you're sitting down) high on meth. I know! Shocking! Who would have thought that two people who tried to sell their kid for $25 would be high on meth?! I did not see that coming. And I...wait. $25? What the what?

Correct. According to KSBW, the asking price for a 6-month old baby outside of the Westridge Walmart in Salinas is twenty five dollars. Cash money. American. Twenty five bucks seems awfully low. Was that the rollback price? Seriously, what can you buy for twenty five bucks? Not much, can you? I mean, I don't know what the going price for meth is these days, but I'm guessing that it's more than $25, isn't it?

Naturally, these two Einsteins were arrested and charged with a variety of things, all of which were probably a) appropriate and b) not enough. But here's a weird little tidbit that I did not expect. The guy's brother talked to the news people at KSBW. He didn't give them his name, but he said "...that he was he, not Fousek, who tried to sell the child to the two women outside Walmart for the price of $50, and that it was all a joke."The girls knew I was kidding. Who's going to say you want to buy a baby for $50 to strangers at a Walmart? That's preposterous." And while I commend him on his use of the word 'preposterous' and for charging $50 instead of $25, that's the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard.

And he sort of trips up himself in his own explanation. First he says that it's him who is trying to sell the child. He's the one who says that the girls knew he was kidding. But then he turns around and asks who would say such a thing! Well, you would, sir! You just said that you did! And on top of that, what in the world kind of a joke is that? Offering to sell a baby? It doesn't sound very joke-y to me. Asinine, yes? Joke-y, not so much. Try a knock-knock next time. I can almost guarantee no one will go to jail over a knock-knock joke.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Something For Everyone

From something in Ireland called the Evening Herald, this headline has a little bit of something for everyone. I really appreciate them going all out to entice the reader. Most excellent.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Nebraska - The Next Arizona

As is the case with most days, I am confused. I'm confused because of a little town called Fremont, Nebraska. There aren't a lot of people in Fremont (and that's probably for good reason). Maybe around 26,000 is all. But when they went to the polls on Monday, at least 57% of the voters voted yes on a measure to help control illegal immigration. Hmm. That sounds vaguely familiar...

According to something called
WOWT (which appears to be some sort of NBC affiliate), the measure does a couple of things. Thing One: "Before landlords can rent any home to a person in Fremont, that person must show a certificate obtained from the city. In order to get the certificate the person will have to prove they are in the United States legally." Ahhh. I like it. And I like Thing Two as well, which is that "The ordinance also requires Fremont employers to verify the legal residency status of people they hire." Sweet!

Way to go Fremont, Nebraska! You certainly are a plucky little town! What was the driving force behind such legislation? You liked won't be shocked to learn that "Supporters said they wanted the city to act because the Federal Government has failed to enforce immigration laws and because it has failed to secure the nation's borders." Hmmm. That sounds vaguely familiar as well...

In case you're missing the obvious correlation here, the Fremont, Nebraska law sounds surprisingly like what they're doing in Arizona. It's just making sure that there is some sort of verification of a person's legal residence in this country. And just like the rationale behind the Arizona law, Fremont, Nebraska is fed up with the Federal Government doing absolutely nothing to enforce immigration laws and secure our borders. And just like in Arizona, these things are FAR from crazy notions. However, what makes the Fremont, Nebraska law stand out from the Arizona law is that the Fremont, Nebraska law was voted on by the people.

That is the part that people who are against the Arizona law need to really pay attention to. So far, they've done a really good job of trying to ignore that, according to polling, 60% of the country and 70% of people in Arizona are all for these sorts of laws. And they could kind of trick themselves into thinking that those numbers didn't hold any weight because the Arizona law wasn't put to the voters. But the Fremont, Nebraska law was put to the voters. And the results were surprisingly close to what the poll numbers showed about the Arizona law; about 60% were in favor of it.

That brings me to my confusion. Why was there all of the hooplah and uproar over the Arizona law, but there isn't that same kind of outcry over the Fremont, Nebraska law? How come I haven't heard of people wanting to boycott Fremont? (Granted, there probably isn't much there to boycott in the first place, but I'm operating on the principle of thing here, so stay with me!) How come there aren't city council meetings far and away where they discuss boycotting Fremont, Nebraska? How come I haven't heard all of the cries of racism over Fremont, Nebraska? Is it because their law only requires some sort of documentation if someone wants something (ie, a place to rent), whereas the Arizona law allows for a general suspicion of someone being in this country illegally to warrant a request to see identity documents? I don't know. I don't get it.

If I had to guess, however, I would guess that it was because the law was enacted through a vote. It's hard to argue with what the voters want. Just look at South Carolina and ol' Alvin Greene, the Democratic Party's candidate for the Senate. The voters voted for him and he appears to be dumb as a post. That's apparently what they wanted (though it's extremely unclear as to why). Fremont, Nebraska passing this law simply reflects what the national polls do, and that is that people are frustrated with the federal government not doing anything to curb illegal immigration and so they're willing to vote on measures that will allow individual states to try and save themselves. And perhaps one of the best things that it can accomplish is maybe all of those people who continually complain about the Arizona law will start to pipe down. I'm all for any law that silences morons.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content