Monday, January 31, 2011

Effing Awesome

It's less than a week until the Super Bowl. And that means less than a week to some awesome commercials. Granted, they're not as good as they used to be. But there's usually at least one or two that will really stand out for years to come. And those that do stand out? Well, we can usually thank Bud Light for those. In fact, some of the best Super Bowl commercials (in my never to be humble opinion) are the ones that never aired. But, thanks to the accessibility of the Innerwebs and the YouTube, now they are available every day, all the time! How great is that? Pretty great, that is correct. And allow me to demonstrate just how pretty great it is with probably what is my all time favorite, never aired on TV, Bud Light ad. They call it, humbly enough, The Swear Jar. Enjoy it, you effers.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Riot Like An Egyptian

Well. It's going DOWN in Egypt. The proverbial poo has hit the proverbial fan and it is chaos over yonder in Cairo. And while I don't want to oversimplify the whole ordeal, I do want to point a couple of things out.

First, I'm not pro-dictatorship. Dictators are really bossy. I don't like it when someone thinks that they're the boss of me, so I have to imagine that the Egyptians aren't all that keen on it either. But we're talking about one of the Sand Lands. So, you know what could be the alternative to the current government? That's right. A government that is based on Islamic Fundamentalism. That would not be good for our relations with Egypt. It certainly wouldn't bode well for Israel. They're already worried that Iran is going to get all froggy and do something. I can't imagine that they'd be real thrilled about having to watch their backs for the same sort of behavior from the Egyptians. Just remember, different doesn't always mean better. While getting rid of a dictator sounds like a good idea, it's not like they're going to end up with a democracy that is identical to that of the United States'.

That brings me to my second point. If you think that this is going to happen overnight, you're wrong. Please remember that after the uprising in Tunisia, they had three different presidents in ONE DAY! (Imagine their State of the Union addresses! "Are you better off than you were at lunchtime?") Even if the current government is overthrown, it will likely be YEARS before there is anything overly functional over there. Again, it certainly isn't going to end up looking like the United States. I totally get that all of those folks who think that the United States is so freaking great could not possibly understand why other countries would not want to mold their government in an exact mirror image of what we have going on over here. I get that. I just don't know how to explain to them that it's not true. A lot of those Sand Lands are ruled by religion (and not always in a good way). Have we learned nothing from what went down in Iraq? Apparently not. Morons.

And finally, while I'm all in favor of a nice revolution, you know what I'm not in favor of? I'm not so much in favor of the asshats that look at a time of political unrest as a justification to start looting stuff. People who are out there stealing stuff don't seem to have as much of an interest in overthrowing the government as much as they do getting a new TV for free. Same goes with looting the museums and ripping the heads off of the mummies. No one wants to see that and it perplexes me as to why someone would do that. The merchants of Egypt have little to do with the dictatorship. And I'm pretty sure that the mummies are completely blameless. So stop breaking their windows and stealing their stuff. And leave the dead guy's dome in tact, would you? You folks want to rain down your disgruntledness (it's a word) on the palaces and things like that? Have at it. Burn them to the ground if you want to (just don't tell anyone that I said it was OK). But try and stay focused, rebels. You've got a job to do. You can't carry out a thorough and effective ousting if you're running through the streets of Cairo with a flat screen TV that you just swiped from the Kwik-E-Mart. Focus, people. Focus!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 30, 2011

What Is Internet?

Technically, the Internet hasn't been around that long. Granted, I have a hard time remembering what I did in my spare time before the Internet. (I'd like to think that I was productive, but who knows?) Then again, I was an early adopter of the Internet. Are you kidding? Something that allowed me to do stuff without actually having to talk to other people? I'd been waiting for something like that my entire life!

And when I was first introduced to the concept of the Internet, while I didn't quite understand all of it or the immense capabilities, I was able to grasp the concept of the "@" symbol. It's pronounced 'at'. You know that. I know that. You know who didn't know that? Katie Couric. (Are you really that surprised? Of course you're not.)

I'm including a link to some video from 1994 that has surfaced. (I would have just embedded the video, but for some reason, YouTube wasn't giving it up.) It was when Katie Couric was on Today with the insufferable Bryant Gumbel. Not only did they have a discussion over what "@" stood for, they were both completely flummoxed by the entire concept of the Internet in general. That kind of explains why they were calling it "Internet". No the. Just Internet. As in, "Can you explain what Internet is?" Even after they get their explanation, they're still not completely sure what it means. Bryant Gumbel is completely perplexed by email addresses and has no earthly idea what they mean, let alone what they're supposed to do. Click here to be taken back to the glory days of 1994, when Internet was just beginning.

And while I find it amusing, I'm a little perplexed on why those folks don't do any research for their job. Seriously, if they knew that they were going to be talking about "Internet" that day at work, don't you think that they maybe should have brushed up on what the heck it was first? I mean, they're already completely morons. Do they really want to appear to be complete morons? Hmm. I guess if I look at how things turned out for them today, I guess it really doesn't matter. Nope. Doesn't matter if you're stupid, you can still get ahead in media. We're scroomed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 29, 2011

Almost An Alpaca

Just so you know, Taylor Lautner of sparkly vampire fame, looks an awful lot like an alpaca.

My thanks go out to BuzzFeed for pointing out this stellar similarity. Seriously, who knew? Granted, who cared? But who knew?!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 28, 2011

Something's Missing

All I know about this story here is that it feels like something isn't quite right. I don't know if I'm missing part of the story or if everyone involved is just a moron or a weirdo. I'm guessing it's probably the latter, but you never know. All I'm saying is that you don't hear about this very often. And when I say "this", I mean a guy who sought police protection from his wife who has an "insatiable sexual appetite". Uh-huh. What now?

You got it. According to The Register, a Turkish fellow " in Germany has asked cops to protect him from his sex-mad missus". Wait a minute. Why does it matter that he's Turkish? If they're not going to tell me how he got to Germany or if it isn't relevant in any other way, I don't care. Aside from that, however, what exactly does he mean "protect him"? Well, again referring to the article at The Register, "The bleary-eyed victim of his wife's "voracious embraces" walked into a police station in the southwestern city of Waiblingen on Tuesday to explain he'd spent four years kipping on the sofa in a vain attempt to get some shut-eye." Apparently, kipping is like a nap. I would have rather had them tell me that than that all of this took place in the southwestern city of Waiblingen. I can't wrap my head around the location of Waiblingen, but I would have completely been able to comprehend what a nap was if they had bothered to include that.

But seriously, four years? Sleeping on the sofa in an attempt to escape his wife always wanting to have sex with him? He's been married to this chick for eighteen years and they have two kids. That doesn't seem like he's always been opposed to it. There are way too many unknowns in this story for me to just choose a side.

On the one hand, it could sound as if the guy has every guys dream with his seemingly nympho of a wife there. Who would turn down a wife who is wanting sex every night? On the other hand, we know nothing about his wife. Think about it. How large is she? What's her hygiene like? Is she missing teeth? Bald or no? What sort of stuff is she into? (I'm not going to elaborate on that one. I'm going to leave it up to you as to why a humongous, fragrant, toothless, hairless woman would not exactly rev up the desires of her man.) I'm not so sure that we shouldn't be thinking that this guy is nuts and instead should be feeling sorry for him.

I still think it's weird that he's stuck around for as long as he has. I mean, four years of sleeping/napping on the sofa seems like a bit much. I am leaning toward asking the question of how long it could possibly take him to perform his marital duties. Couldn't he just fake it? Is there reverse Viagara? She's not going to be clamoring all over him if he's displaying a limp shrimp all of the time. I wonder if once he gets all caught up on his sleep if he'll start missing all of the sex. Don't get me wrong, sleep is great. Sex is better, though. Usually. But probably not with her. I think I'm done here. (But before I finish, I have to thank my friend Liz for bringing all of this German sex craziness to my attention! Nice job! Thanks!)

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Goodbye, Keith

Keith Olbermann left MSNBC last Friday. Apparently, his contract was up and MSNBC chose to not renew it. Does that mean he was fired? I'm not so sure that it does, even though so many media reports say that he was fired (but that's probably because the media sucks and not because it's true). Whatever the reason, he's gone and people are acting like it's a big deal. I'm here to tell you that it's not a big deal.

Do you know how many people watch cable news? You'd think, judging from the way everyone always seems to be going on and on about it, that it was dang near everyone. Yeah, it's not even close to everyone. In fact, it's closer to no one than it is closer to everyone. And MSNBC is no exception. For the week that Olbermann's stint with MSNBC ended, do you know where MSNBC fell in the ratings during prime time? If you guessed anything in single digits, you'd be wrong. No, those spots were taken up by stations like USA, TNT, MTV and Nick at freaking Nite. (I was paraphrasing on that last one there, of course.) According to
Media Bistro, MSNBC came in 25th last week. The chart is a little hard to read (is 'Microscopic' a new font?), but it looks like prime time viewership on MSNBC averaged somewhere between 690,000 and 838,000 people. That's nothing. NOTHING. Nick at Nite's prime time viewership is practically double those numbers. But no one is talking about what Spongebob is up to, are they?! (I'm really not even sure what that means.)

You'd never guess that from all that you've heard across the Interwebs, would you? You'd have thought that Olbermann was some sort of liberal god who preached nightly to his masses of devoted followers. But no. In essence, he was spouting off his lopsided rants to an audience that was somewhere around the same number as the population of Baltimore. Big whoop. And now there's talk about him wanting to run for Congress or the Senate or something like that. (I'll support that endeavor only if he can take Al Franken's place. I'm not a fan.) Are you kidding me? I mean, if he wants to run, that's his deal. But I hope he isn't surprised if a whole lot of people have no idea who he is. Ooh! Maybe if he does decide to run for office that will mean that he'll be off the air longer! Run! Run! Run! But in the meantime, I've heard that if he needs a job, the photo below gives an inkling of who might hire him for what.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 26, 2011


I apologize for this being late (Mark), but I had nothing. Nothing. Completely blank. Blanker than usual. I think it might have been the State of the Union address that numbed me out. That was one thing about George W. Bush that you could always count on. Whenever he spoke, there was no guarantee that it would make any sense. That alone was reason to watch/listen. It's going to be hard to top "human-animal hybrids". So I think that it must be the mundane-ness that numbed me out. And here's why:

I did a little research (ie, I looked at something else besides porn online) on the whole State of the Union address. I went as far back as Reagan and in every single President's State of the Union address, a phrase similar to "Our union is strong" was uttered. Every time. And that's when I realized, what else do I expect them to say? Can I really picture President Barry standing up there all stoic and saying, "Country...We. Are. Effed." No, I can't. I could kind of picture Bill Clinton doing something like that, but we kind of did all right under him (which is probably how he likes it!).

But that's five Presidents in a row who claimed that and it probably goes back as long as we have recorded speech. The point here is maybe we're strong, maybe we're not. (Personally, I think we're a little soft. But again, who's going to tell you that?) But not claiming that we're strong would be like all of the commentators not claiming that a State of the Union address is a "historic event". Is it? Historic? Every year? I find that hard to believe. I find it hard to believe in general. I believe that some of the events that occurred throughout the year are historic. But the recap of them? THAT is historic? Come on. (Not to mention that at least half of the commentators say "an historic event". It's not 'an'. It's 'a'. You don't say "an hotel", do you? No. Stop saying "an historic". Morons.)

And who is to blame for making it into a speech? It's so long. Wait a minute. I take that back. The speech wouldn't be so dang long if everyone would hold their applause and keep their butt in their seat. It's like watching a room full of Jack-in-the-boxes. (No, not the fast food chain with the oh-so delicious Breakfast Jack. The childhood toy of yore is what I was referring to.) Every single sentence that comes out of the President's mouth gets a round of applause from the peanut gallery and they all jump to their collective feet. Why? All he said was "Good evening"! He gets a standing O for that? Sit down and let him finish so that we can be done with this already! I'll bet you that if you didn't have to wait for all of the clapping and all of the standing and all of the sitting that he'd be done with that thing in twenty minutes. But no. No, now we're all locked in for at least an hour. I pass the time by trying to figure out how John Boehner got to be so orange. (And in case you're still wondering, it was Woodrow Wilson who is responsible for bringing the State of the Union back in the orated form. Jackass.)

See, it doesn't have to be a speech. It's apparently mandated in the Constitution by Article 2, Section 3 that the President, "...shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union". From time to time. I find that hilarious. What say every now and then you let us know how things are goin'? I mean, I know it doesn't sound as good the way that I said it (and without the fancy script it really loses a lot), but that's essentially what's going on there. It says nothing about a speech. Future presidents, current president, please make a note.

So how great would it be if the President just dropped off a letter to Congress? Oh, it would be fabulous! (Besides, the text of the speech always leaks out ahead of time, so it's not like we don't know what he's going to say.) You know what would be even greater? If it said something like "We're doing good over here. Hope y'all are doing good, too. TTYL. Barry." Wouldn't that be fabulous? I think it would be great. If nothing else, it might possibly get all of the media folks to stop saying that it's "an historic event".

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

State of the Union Bingo is HERE!

Today is the State of the Union address by President Barry. Can you believe that the last State of the Union address, the one where Joe Wilson shouted out, "You lie!", was a year ago? Holy cats, it seems like ten years ago when that happened. Actually, it seems like more like a hundred. Wow. Just thinking of that whole ordeal makes my ass tired. Thus, in order to avoid an overly exhausted anterior region, let's not think about last year. Instead, let's think about this year's State of the Union. And what better way to think of it and to get geared up for it than with a little State of the Union bingo?! Here's your card. Mark off a space every time President Barry utters one of the following words or phrases. Regular Bingo rules apply. If you get a bingo, pat yourself on the back or do a shot or whatever it is that you would do in that sort of celebratory situation. Playing this is probably the only way that I'm going to be able to stay awake through the whole thing.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 24, 2011

Ridiculous Things I Read About Today

Wow. I read a bunch of ridiculous things today and now I must share.

I was reading about Barry Bonds' upcoming trial for perjury. The perjury charges (and there are ten of them) stem from his telling a grand jury back in December of 2003 that "he never knowingly took steroids." Yeah, right. Did you see Barry Bonds back then? He was a mammoth. Of course he took steroids. Everyone in baseball took steroids and he was no exception. His arms were gigantic. His trained testified that at one point, he had to order new hats for Barry because his head was bigger. I don't know about you, but I don't know of many adult males whose head suddenly starts to grow if they are not on steroids.

But all of that isn't my point. My point is what I read in an article over at the Huffington Post. The article was talking about the hearing on Friday and it said, "Dressed in a dark suit and slimmed down from his San Francisco Giants playing days...." That's all you need to know. Gee, I wonder WHY he was all slimmed down? Could it be that there isn't any reason for him to take steroids any more? Yeah, that's a tough one to noodle through. Man, I hope they find him guilty. I know that there were a lot of players that roided up during the 1990s. But Barry is so smug about it. AND he did a lot of damage to the game by going on the juice. Guilty, guilty, guilty. Can't wait to see how that one turns out.

And then there's Nadya Suleman. Man, I have had about enough of her to last a lifetime. She was on Oprah the other day along with Suze Orman. You know who Suze Orman is, right? She's that attractive lesbian woman who gives sound financial advice in a rather obnoxious manner. She was on there to go through Octomom's finances. I don't know why they needed Suze Orman for that. I could have told you that she's broke. But in the discussion of her finances, Suze Orman asked Octomom if, back before she had herself impregnated with enough embryos to fill a gumball machine, she knew then what she knows now, would she have had the extra eight children. (Please remember that at the time that she pulled this completely inexcusable and utterly insane stunt, she already had six kids which she had no means of supporting. Oh, and of course there has never been a father in the picture.) It took her forever to answer the question, but she finally came out and said that if she had known then what she knew now that she would not have gone ahead with trying to have a litter of children. OK, what now?

What, exactly, is it that she knows now that she didn't know then? Let's see....she didn't have a husband then and she certainly wasn't going to get one in the near future. She didn't have a way to support herself and her six kids back then and she certainly wasn't going to be able to in the near future. How could she have not foreseen that this was going to turn out badly?! She now has fourteen children. What does it cost the taxpayer to pay for those fourteen children? And how much is it going to cost the taxpayer when they're over eighteen and end up in jail or, for the girls, knocked up themselves? Oh, come on! You think that those kids are going to grow up and be just fine? I doubt it. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt it.

And finally, let's just wrap this up with the guy who is quickly shaping up to be the D-Bag of the year, Jesse James. As you may or may not care to recall, Mr. James was married to the ridiculously attractive Sandra Bullock and decided that it would be a good idea to cheat on her with at least one (but more like six) heavily tattooed skank(s). Mr. James has recently become engaged to another be-tatted woman, Kat Von D. In regard to this new found bliss, he says, " 2010 was actually the best year of my life because I fell in love with my best friend. An amazing woman who stood behind me when the world turned their backs." Yeah, the world can be a fickle bitch when you cheat on a beloved (and super hot) public figure like the delicious Ms. Bullock. What a maroon. I'm guessing that Sandra Bullock would probably express different sentiments about how her 2010 went. Oh, but that wasn't the best thing that he said. This serial cheater actually had the stones to say "Growing old with her is going to be a f****** blast!"

Right. Like the two of you are going to stay married long enough to grow old together. You guys won't even be married long enough to buy a new couch, let alone to grow old together. I'm pretty sure that a gallon of milk could last longer than your eternal bond is going to. And while I find his statements absolutely vacuous, I'm almost more amused at Kat Von D for agreeing to marry this dirtbag. You think that you're different, do you, cupcake? You think that y'all were meant for each other? You think that he isn't currently cheating on you? You must have answered yes to all of those semi-rhetorical questions, as you're actually going to marry him. Wow. Good luck with that.

And those are the ridiculous going-ons that I read about today. What about you? Got anything good for me?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 23, 2011

Don't Target Target

So, get this: I'm talking to my mom today. Yes, that is quite the accomplishment, but it's really not the point. She had lunch with a friend of hers who is in town visiting from somewhere around the Boston area. My mom tells me that during their lunch conversation, the subject of the Arizona shooting came up. Since I'm pretty much on overload with that whole story, I almost tuned her out right then, but I didn't. I'm not quite sure if that was a good idea or not.

She proceeds to tell me that this woman was telling her that there is a lot of talk on the East coast by folks who want Target to change its name. That's right. Target. Because why? Because it has the name 'Target' and it has a bullseye and it might incite violence.

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

Are you dry shaving me?! I didn't even know what to say for a second, I was so completely stunned and disgusted at the same time. Are we that weak of a nation that people really think that a retail chain named 'Target' is going to cause violence? Please tell me we're not. Why aren't you telling me? Speak. SPEAK! Oh, God. Wait. It's true, isn't it? For cryin' out loud...
I asked my mom if this friend of hers was in favor of that sort of insanity and she said that she claimed that she wasn't. I would certainly hope not. I mean, people are free to think what they want (despite most of my objections), but if my mom was friends with someone whose dome was so incredibly soft that she thought that the name Target would incite violence, I'd really have to consider my relationship with her. Either that or start looking into suitable homes for her. At least under this pretense, I'd have a reason.

I swear to you, if there is ever a shooting at a Target store, I'm going to turn off all media, possibly forever. I don't think that I could take listening to people debate whether or not the name was at fault. I think that would absolutely be the straw that drove me over the edge when I didn't want to drink. Or something like that.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Watch Where You're Going

Texting while driving? Bad. Texting while walking? Hilarious...if you're in a mall and you end up doing a header into the mall fountain! For now, just enjoy the gloriousness that is this dingbat tripping and falling into a fountain because she wasn't watching where she was going. Yes, I've heard that she is thinking about suing the mall because of this. I've also heard that she has a rather colorful history with the law and seems to be an overall despicable individual. (I also heard her giving an interview to some organization in which she says that she called her husband after she did her swan dive to tell him what happened. That's fine. What isn't so fine is that she explains that she refers to her husband as "Daddy". Yeah, I'm done here.)

Side note: Blogger was being all weird when I was trying to post this, so if the video doesn't work, try accessing it over at YouTube.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 21, 2011

No Mo Spending!

Holy crap. Someone in Washington (well, more than one someone) has actually come up with a list of proposed cuts to cut Federal spending. It actually happened. I'm stunned. Now, there's no guarantee that any of these things are going to actually get cut. But as I read the list, I was wondering how in the world we ended up spending a freaking DIME on some of these things! Seriously. Did you know that annually, the Federal government shells out $1 million in (wait for it) mohair subsidies?! Subsidies for the hair of a mo! I've never even seen a mo! How much hair do they have? How much do they need? Why do the mos and their hair require my money?! Ah, so many questions, so few answers. Let's look at some other proposed cuts that I can't believe we're already spending money on. (For the record, while I am a proponent of almost any sort of cut in spending, I am against any cuts to any sort of non-wasteful, effective spending on our military and for our veterans. Listen, you take a job knowing that you could end up stationed in one of the crazy, crazy Sand Lands for a few years, the least I can do is help you out a little bit when you get back.)

Get this: Did you know that there is a "death gratuity" for members of Congress? There is. Do you know what that means? I didn't, but when I looked it up, I was appalled. If you're a member of Congress and you die, your family gets a payment (that is paid for by the taxpayers) that is equal to one year's salary. According to something called The Daily Caller, when crooked ol' John Murtha croaked it "his family got a $174,000 payment". When the overly ancient Sen. Robert Byrd died, "...his family received $193,400." When Sen. Ted Kennedy died, "...taxpayers footed the bill for $174,000 in payments to his family." Do you think that ol' Ted Kennedy's family needed almost $200k? I can't possibly imagine that they did. Apparently, this thing "...was at one time meant to act as a form of life insurance for the families of Members who met an untimely demise". But now that almost every single Senator is a millionaire, I'm hardly thinking that this is necessary. (By the way, when my dad died, do you know how much the Social Security payout was to my mom? $252. Not $252 thousand. $252. I was so insulted I almost told them to keep it. Oh, and this was in 2005, not the fifties or anything. And I know that it's sort of apples and oranges, but they're both fruits, so there's some parallel here. Man, I like fruit.)

What else? Oh, they want to eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act (which has been screwing taxpayers since 1931) to save more than $1 billion annually. This Act basically made it so that government contracts must pay a prevailing wage. According to Wikipedia (take it for what it's worth), "All federal government construction contracts, and most contracts for federally assisted construction over $2,000, must include provisions for paying workers on-site no less than the locally prevailing wages and benefits paid on similar projects." So, there's no getting anything done cheaper if you can. Nope. No sense in even bidding low. Nope. That it costs over a billion dollars a year makes me insane. That it has been in effect since 1931 (even though it has been suspended from time to time), makes me even crazier. Wouldn't you think that someone would realize that if it is being suspended (for reasons such as faster recovery from hurricanes) on occasion and things are just fine without it, shouldn't it pretty much be deemed unnecessary? Oh, wait. It's a government program. Never mind.

Did you know that we provide economic assistance to Egypt? We do. Do you know how much assistance we provide Egypt? $250 million per year. Do you know WHY we assist Egypt? Neither do I. Their economy ranks 27th in the world. That's not too shabby. Their unemployment rate in 2009 was 9.37%. Um, that's kind of about the same as the unemployment here in the US. You don't think that we could have used that $250 million to economically assist our own citizens? Unbelievable. By the way, we're also giving $17 million dollars each year to Ireland. No answer for that one, either.

And this little recap wouldn't be complete if I didn't mention that we spent $76 million annually on something called the Appalachian Regional Commission. According to their website, "The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a regional economic development agency that represents a partnership of federal, state, and local government." Why just in the Appalachian region? Let's see...well, it was established in 1965 by an act of Congress. OK. I'm noticing that it seems to encompass all of West Virginia, so I'm going to have to assume that a Senator from West Virginia was heavily involved in this getting started. Hmm...I'm also reading that it has something to do with the War on Poverty in the mountains. OK, that's it. What a bunch of crap. $76 million? Really? For 40 years? Unbelievable.

Below is the entire list of cuts that are proposed by my new heroes (well, for today), the Republican Study Committee (courtesy of The Huffington Post). Their study claims that "The plan would reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion over a decade". So when you hear some softhead say something to the effect of "it's just a drop in the bucket", please remind their dense, non-functioning selves that if you don't start putting drops of water IN the bucket, you're never going to fill up the bucket! You have to start somewhere! What part of that don't people understand?! Stop spending my money on the hair of the mo!

➢ Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.
➢ Save America's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.
➢ International Fund for Ireland. $17 million annual savings.
➢ Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.
➢ Hope VI Program. $250 million annual savings.
➢ Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.
➢ Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.
➢ U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.
➢ Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.
➢ Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.
➢ John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.
➢ Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.
➢ Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.
➢ Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

➢ Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.
➢ Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.
➢ Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.
➢ Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.
➢ New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.
➢ Exchange Programs for Alaska, Natives Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts. $9 million annual savings.
➢ Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.
➢ Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.
➢ Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.
➢ Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.
➢ Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.
➢ Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.
➢ FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.
➢ Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

➢ Economic Assistance to Egypt. $250 million annually.
➢ U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.
➢ General Assistance to District of Columbia. $210 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

➢ Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.
➢ No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.
➢ End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services.
➢ Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.
➢ IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for some services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing it to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.
➢ Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.
➢ Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.
➢ Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.
➢ Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.
➢ USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.
➢ Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). $93 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.
➢ Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.
➢ Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 20, 2011

How Old IS Al Davis?

I enjoy sports. So I pay attention when changes go on in sports. I especially pay attention to any time the owner of the Oakland Raiders makes an appearance in public. Al Davis is at least 130 years old and he's not wearing it well. The other day, he gave a press conference to introduce his new head coach and to try to explain some of why he fired the previous coach. All of that has nothing to do with what I found to be the more interesting (and frightening) aspect of said press conference. And that would be Al Davis' general appearance these days. Brace yourselves. It's not pretty. (Al's the one sitting down.) Behold!

Oh, good Lord! What the hell is that?! That is Al Davis. I think. It could be Nosferatu. Let's see if we can spot a difference between the two.

Hmm. Yeah, they might be the same person. Wow. What the what? Should he be out during the daytime? What's the deal with his head? Why isn't he having someone else do the speaking for him? He's scaring the children. Maybe they just photographed his bad side. Maybe he has a...a...good...side? Maybe? (I know! I know! I'm stretching it! Geez! YOU try and think of something to say in this situation. It ain't easy!) Where was I? Oh, that's right. Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud! It got worse! How could it have gotten worse?! Is there anything worse than that? (You know that I already know the answer to that, don't you?) Brace yourselves again. It's about to get real. Real scary.

My eyes! MY EYES! Kill it! Kill it with fire! NOW!! And if you're not going to kill it with fire then someone needs to make sure that his one eyeball doesn't pop itself loose because that's exactly what it looks like is about to happen. Would it hurt you to smile once in a while there, Al?

Holy crap. Wow. Yeah, it looks like it might. Never mind. Just go away and it will be like we never brought it up, OK? Good. Good. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go bleach my eyeballs.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Stop Spending My Money On Stupid Crap

When people get all angry and uppity when talk of raising taxes comes around, it's not like there isn't a reason. There are plenty of reasons why so many people are sick of a buttload of wasteful spending and then having politicians tell us that we need higher taxes because there isn't enough revenue. Can't those morons figure this stuff out before they waste a gazillion of our tax dollars? The answer is no and I'm here to give you another example of an insane amount of money that was wasted on a bunch of crap. And by the way, it was pretty much crap from the get-go.

Have you heard of the "virtual fence"? In essence, it was supposed to be a technology based approach that would help secure our borders. No one ever really explained how it would work exactly and when they did try to explain how it would (hypothetically) work, they were still never sure if it would actually work. Even the freaking government knew how far-fetched it was. But do you think that stopped them from going full speed ahead with their project and your money? Of course not.

For the last five years, this unicorn project has been underway. Now, I don't know everything that they have been doing for the last five years, but I do know that they managed to spend ONE BILLION dollars while they were doing it. And if you're thinking that one billion dollars seems like a lot of money, you're damned straight that it is. It's going to seem like an awful lot after I tell you that after five years, this project has finally been deemed un-doable and has been canceled. Finally. One billion dollars later and someone finally pulled their head out of their arse. Great. It would have been a little bit nicer if someone could have pulled their head out of their arse before the one billion dollars had been spent. Perhaps, just maybe, someone could have paid attention to any one of a number of scathing reports that had been put together by the Government Accountability Office and then we wouldn't be in this position. But no. It took a billion dollars to induce said head pulling. Idiots.

And if you're wondering if we got anything at all for that one billion dollars, the answer is yes. Granted, it's not much, but it's something. Is it a billion dollars worth of something? Hell no. According to the New York Times, "In a pilot program in Arizona, it cost about $1 billion to build the system across 53 miles of the state’s border." A billion dollars? For fifty three miles of border? Yes. And mind you that in the "new approach" to border security, "...using mobile surveillance systems and unmanned drones already in the Border Patrol’s arsenal, would cost less than $750 million to cover the remaining 323 miles of Arizona’s border." Uh-huh. I see. Sooooo...if I do the math here, let's see...carry the two...divide into the...bring down the zero...all right then! ONE mile of "border security" cost approximately $18,867,925. That comes out to approximately $3,573 per foot. If you weren't angry before, you should be now.

While I enjoy the thought of unmanned drones whizzing along the border, I have a question. And I'm guessing that I must be missing something because I never even hear this brought up during discussions of border security. What in the world would be wrong with a big ass G-D fence? Have it go about ten stories below ground and about five stories above ground. Make it ten feet thick. Put some barbed wire at the top. Voila! What's wrong with that? I don't understand why it has to be all high-tech. Sure, high-tech is cool as can be, but all I want is for people to be kept out. I don't care if we don't use laser beams or teleporters to keep them out, just keep them out. And stop spending my money on stupid crap that isn't going to work! Spend my money to build a freaking fence and be done with it! At the very least, explain to me why a fence like I've described wouldn't work. But whatever you do, stop spending my money on stupid crap!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content