Have you seen Hillary Clinton lately? I know that being Secretary of State can probably be a pretty non-stop and grueling job. You're always traveling around and trying to work things out between various heads of state and what not. I can see where it would get to you after a while. And I think that the time has come that it has gotten to Hillary. She was in Bali not too long ago. She looks like the crazy lady that asks you for change on the street. Behold!
Seriously, what is going on there? The frock. The glasses. The hair. My God, the hair! That woman needs a vacation. And not in Bali! She needs to vacation somewhere that they do not have frocks such as that. Good Lord, does she need that.
Are newspapers still in trouble? I think that they are, but I haven't heard much about it lately. I have noticed that newspapers are kind of becoming a little more Internet-y, though. I guess it's their way of trying to keep up. I can't say I don't appreciate their effort, but we have the Internet for that sort of stuff.
Here's a correction that the New York Times felt the need to make note of. I really don't know that any of us would have noticed the error, nor given a fat rat's ass about it. But for those of you who are really sticklers for things like the origin of the name "Orcrist the Goblin Cleaver" (which was apparently what some Mets pitcher named one of his bats), then this correction is for you.
Coming to us courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune (and my dear friend Julie on Facebook), we have a little blurb about a woman who used to be a stripper, but now does "Pole Dancing For Jesus". I'm pretty sure that she was dancing for Jesus when she was a stripper, but at that time, it was pronounced "Hay-Seuss".
In need for an invisible man? That's right. An invisible man. According to the newspaper announcement/advertisement/crackpot below, one is for hire. And yes, you bet your ass that I have emailed him and inquired as to his location, his rates and his sanity. I'm waiting to hear back. Feel free to send him your own email with your own requests. We can compare quotes.
Today I learned that the Yiddish language Ultra-Orthodox daily newspaper called Der Tzitung felt that their policy of keeping photos of women out of their publication (for fear of sexually exciting Hasidic men, of course) took precedence over the presence of Hillary Clinton in the photo. So they got rid of her. Personally, I think that our way of getting rid of bin Laden was much more impressive than their way of getting rid of Hillary Clinton. I also think that our getting rid of bin Laden was much more necessary than erasing Hillary Clinton from a historic moment. Ok, then.
The picture below isn't from a newspaper, but it's in black and white and I'm trying to extend the length of this post, so it's being included. From 1982, an advertisement for a 10MB hard disk drive for the extremely outlandish price of $3,495 (which I believe was also the MSRP for the Yugo when it came out).
And finally, not because it has anything to do with newspapers, but just because it's been bugging me and I'm hoping that I will be able to find some answers. If anyone knows who the shirt below is made by, I'd really appreciate it if you could let me know. Thanks.
Let me ask you something. What, exactly, is this country's stance on terrorism and/or terroristic acts that are taken against us? Because from what I can tell, it's an awfully pansy-assed stance at best.
Let's just take a look back at what Hillary Clinton said on 60 Minutes this past Sunday. According toFox News (well, and 60 Minutes), Mrs. Clinton was asked questions about our stance on Pakistan. Now, look, we all know that Pakistan can't be trusted. But for some reason, we felt the need to help them with their nuclear reactor research program back in 1960. Hard to say exactly what the reasoning was behind that, but what's done is done (apparently). It's also hard to say what's behind her Florence Henderson hairdo there, but I guess what's done is done in that regard as well.
When asked about Pakistan's commitment, Mrs. Clinton came across as saying that "...she did not want to meddle and alienate the Pakistani government at a time when the country's military is complementing U.S. efforts across the border in Afghanistan." Hmm. I don't know. I'm thinking that when it comes to anything having to do with Pakistan, I think there's always room for meddling. It wouldn't have to be a big meddle. Perhaps just a teensy meddle. But whatever it is, for cryin' out loud, don't let those guys just figure out on their own what to do and what's going on. Remember? We don't trust them.
Actually, her quote was "I have to stand up for the efforts the Pakistani government is taking." Aren't we the most powerful country in the world? What say you tell them what stands to take else wise we blow them forward into the Stone Age? What? Too harsh? I'm sick of this stuff, can you tell? There are reasons why we have bombs. One of those reasons is compliance. The other reason is to keep me from getting a headache every time I have to keep reading about the same thing over and over and over. Enough already. Let's get a little bomb-y and speed things up, all right?
Yeah, I'm pretty much the only one who takes that stance these days. I'm over it. We're too soft as a country. Don't believe me? Let's look at what Fox News called Hillary Clinton's "...stern warning in reference to the Times Square case."
She said, "We've made it very clear that, if, heaven forbid, that an attack like this, if we can trace back to Pakistan, were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences. " Uh, wait a minute. What now?
So let me get this straight. TRY and attack us all you want?! But it's only if it is SUCCESSFUL that we're going to do anything?! What in the hell kind of a position to take is THAT?! Why are there not consequences for TRYING to blow us up? Why are we telling the terrorists that "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again"? It's already sounding like this Times Square moron and his evil (not to mention extremely inept) plan can be traced back to Pakistan (where their bomb making instruction seems to have waned a bit). So, there aren't severe consequences for THAT?! Why in the world not?? Anyone? Anyone? Great.
We're doomed. We are a pansy assed country who thinks that sternly worded memos are going to get other countries of this world to keep themselves in line. We can't have a policy that only inflicts a consequence for an attack that is successful. We need to be bombing the bejeezus out of anywhere that terror plots are financed from. I know that sounds harsh, but I prefer to be able to go about my business in my own country without having to worry about being blown to bits by a weird beard from one of the sand lands. I have no beef with anyone...right up until they come over here and start trying to get all 'slpode-y with us. That's when I get angry. And if I'm in charge, that's when I start bombing. It's very simple. Leave us alone.
I'm all for a good tattoo. The key words there are "good" and "tattoo". The "tattoo" being that of the singular variety, as people can get a little carried away once they decide to venture into the land of multiple tattoos. It's like they start thinking "If one is good, covering my entire body, including my face, would be better!" And that's really just not the case. But the other key word is "good". A tattoo must be "good". Who's to decide what qualifies as "good" or not? Definitely not the person getting the tattoo, because even those with the most hideous tattoos or the stupidest tattoos you've ever seen in your life will be the people who think that they're just great. So they don't count. Who does that leave? If my calculations are correct (and I believe that they are), it leaves you, me and anyone else who uses the Internet. (So as you can see I've really narrowed it down.)
I don't know why I never thought about Obama-mania seeping into the world of tattooing, but apparently it has. People have actually had Obama-themed tattoos permanently emblazoned on their skin. In general, getting a tattoo depicting a person is a risky move to start with. You don't know if you're still going to feel the same way about that person several years down the road. What if they do something heinous and there you are with their mug permanently etched on your body, leaving people to wonder why you chose a bodily tribute to a pedophile, for instance. It will leave you ruing the day that you decided to get that John Wayne Gacy clown tat on your forearm. (It can just get awkward, is what I'm trying to say.)
I became aware of the oddity of permanent tattoos of political figures when I saw a photo of what I deemed to be a very poorly done tattoo of a very poorly thought out idea. And the fellow who is now sporting this statement for the rest of his existence is NBA player Gilbert Arenas. Below is his inked tribute to our President-elect, a tribute to a man that I call Barry, one Barack Obama. Behold!
"In believe we charge"? What the hell does that mean? Oh, wait. Start at the bottom and work your way up? "Change we believe in." OK, that....um...kind of makes sense. Why the heck did he have it going in that direction, though? And that does look like "charge" from over here, doesn't it? It's either "charge" or "chapge" and "chapge" makes even less sense than "charge" does.
According to the folks over there at NBC Washington, and a one Dan Hellie, "He told me he got it so he could look at it during games and see the, 'We Believe.' " Well, what about the 'In Change" or the "Change In"? You don't need the "change", you just need to "believe"? What are you going to "believe" in if there isn't any "change"? I'm so confused. Not as confused as Mr. 'We Believe, But Not In Change" there, but still confused.
And on the other side of the "In" pinky finger there you will find a tattoo of the number 44, presumedly representing Barry being the 44th US President. (Is he sure he needs both 4's? Maybe he only needs to look at one of those during a game!)
So after I marvelled in this for a while, I started wondering how many other political themed tattoos are out there, just wandering around on their respective owners. (Please note, that word is "respective", NOT "respected". Some of these you can't respect. You just can't. And nor should you.) Fortunately, there were less than I had feared there would be. Unfortunately, some of them were downright scary. Behold! Political themed tattoos you never knew existed until now!
In sticking with the Obama theme......
I can see the resemblance, but only to the extent that the tattoo below looks like it could be of one of Barry's distant cousins or something like that. The hairline is wrong, the jaw is too thin, so many problems. And that's just with the tattoo!
The tattoo artist who did this one clearly has artistic abilities which far surpass that of those responsible for the above tattoo. But the artistic abilities don't change the fact that it really doesn't look like Barry very much. It kind of looks like Earle Hyman, the guy that played Cliff's Dad on "The Cosby Show."
See?
If you wanted the tattoo below of Barry on your body, a tattoo shop in Oklahoma was offering to do it for free. It was their way of contributing to his efforts. They claim to have done about 100 of them. Go figure. (It looks kind of small. I wouldn't be surprised if it looks like a big glob in a few years that will appear to read "Obama Zoos".)
This one is probably the best, and while it doesn't look exactly like him, it looks more like him than the other ones do. He does look more confused in this rendition, however. It's as if the tattoo is thinking "I can't believe you're getting my head tattooed on your leg, man."
I'm not sure what this one is supposed to represent, exactly, but it reminds me of something out of 'A Clockwork Orange' or 'The Wall'. I don't think it's good, but I'm not really sure. This chap decided to just go with the Obama campaign logo. Nice of him to show it off like that. It wouldn't appear that anyone ever would have known about it otherwise. (Might I recommend some time in the sun, my good boy? Perhaps a few moments in a tanning bed?)
I then started looking for more tattoos of other political figures. To my dismay, I couldn't find any of either Joe Biden or John McCain. I thought that since McCain had been a Navy guy that there would be other Navy guys out there sporting a McCain tat, but to no avail. Surprisingly, I did find one guy who has a Sarah Palin tattoo. Behold! A tattoo of Sarah Palin that doesn't look a lot like Sarah Palin but you know it's her because the guy with the tattoo said so! She looks a little frightened and unsure and I can't say that I blame her. The guy who had this "artwork" implanted on his body is pretty darned proud of it, too. He even made a short little video clip which he put on YouTube.
I found tattooed tributes to other political figures from this past year's campaigning. I would like to know a little bit more about the dude who had this Ron Paul tattoo done. I'm sure that the EVOL, which spells "LOVE" backwards is of some significance, but whatever it is was completely lost on me (probably because I was still in disbelief that there was a Ron Paul tattoo out there.).
I don't know what scared the hell out of me more, the actual tattoo or the actual Hillary.
I'm going to assume/hope that the photo below was the inspiration for the frightening tattoo. (Why would you do that to yourself? The guy must have lost a bet.)
And would you have ever thought that someone would have a tattoo of our current President? Well, in fact, someone does. And it's on the bottom of their foot. I think it had something to do with "stomping out Bush" or "stomping on Bush". Either way, Bush was involved and there was some stomping going on.
At this point, I've found way more political tattoos that I thought that I would've. Since I was on a roll, I kept looking. Can't really say if that was a good idea or not, considering what I found. We have.........
A couple tributes to Ronald Reagan (very surprised that there weren't more of these out there. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Republican that wants to swoon about Reagan. And that's only good in the way that you really shouldn't be swinging around dead cats. It serves no purpose other than to see what you can or cannot hit and really, there's probably better ways of doing that.)
Here's JFK in a UFO, which prompted me to ask WTF? And finally, what is easily the worst and likely the most regrettable political tattoo ever. The Howard Dean Truth & Hope '04 tattoo (complete with brightly colored flying birds!). What were you people thinking?Sphere: Related Content
There are new reality shows popping up all the time (because there just isn't quite enough crap on TV as it is). But it's when you hear about what sounds like a reality show and it turns out that it's just reality, that's when you really need to start taking a good look at that "reality". Chances are that you're not going to like it very much. I am referring to the fact that you or I or anyone else can (you guessed it) Win A Date With Hillary Clinton! Woot-woot!! Wait. What-what?
I know. I was a little surprised when I heard about it myself. It's like my worst nightmare come true and broadcast and reported by MSNBC. Here's the scoop: Hillary's now defunct campaign is in debt. A lot of debt. Her campaign owed around $22.5 million at the end of May. Somewhere around $10 million to $12 million of that is in personal loans that she made to her campaign. So as far as the vendors and the "little people" go, Hillary's campaign owes somewhere between ten and twelve million bucks. For those of you who are not mathematically inclined, that's a lot of cheese.
Since money hasn't exactly come pouring in to help her pay off this debt, she's adopted a new strategy.Hillary's website sports the photo below along with it's emblazoned caption "Have A Meal With Hillary." Then if you click on her "Blog" link at the top of her page, it takes you to (surprise) her blog and there "she" explains how you, yes YOU, can have dinner with Hillary.
Basically, if you contribute at least five dollars to her campaign, you will be eligible to be chosen at random to have dinner with Hillary. So it's kind of like a lottery. But it's with Hillary. It's a Hillottery. And I think people are supposed to be excited about this, but I'm having a hard time feeling anything but annoyed. Here's why:
Hillary was technically and mathematically eliminated from securing the Democratic party nomination sometime in May. (Technically, I think it was over before that, but "technically" doesn't really count when you're trying to explain that to Hillary.) And yet she kept pumping money into her campaign, mostly through personal loans. That really wasn't the best plan. But even with the money she was pumping in, that didn't stop her campaign from over spending. And while I don't give a fat rat's ass if she gets paid back, I do give a fat rat's ass if the vendors get paid back.
Look, I'll be the first one to admit I don't know a heck of a lot about running a Presidential campaign. But I do know a lot about finance. And spending money that you don't have is rarely a good idea. Especially when you don't immediately have the means to recoup that money and even worse is when you have to rely upon others to help you. Others who you haven't even asked at the time that you're spending all of the money!
And Hillary isn't the only one asking :the people" for help. (Yes, "the people". Those are the same "people" who are paying almost five bucks for a gallon of gasoline. The same "people" whose economy is in the tank at the moment. Yes, those "people". She's asking "them" for money. That doesn't exactly paint me a picture that looks like someone who was a firm grip on the economics that have beset this nation at the moment. No, that looks like someone who has maxed out their credit card and is crossing their fingers as they apply for another one.) Barry has asked "the people" to chip in to help Hillary out. And today, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico announced that he's going to host two fundraisers in New Mexico on August 17 to help Hillary raise money to pay off her debt.
OK, to me, all of this is the equivalent of holding a bake sale to raise money for freaking HILLARY CLINTON! Hillary and Bill, since leaving the White House eight years ago, have managed to scrape together in earnings $104 MILLION DOLLARS. IN 2006, Bill earned $10.1 MILLION DOLLARS from giving 54 speeches. (That averages out to $187,000 per talk.) And they are asking people to GIVE THEM MONEY. What is going on?!
WHY should someone who has OVERSPENT get bailed out? Without going too far off on a tangent, it's like the mortgage and housing mess. A whole bunch of people bought a whole bunch of houses that they couldn't afford and they used loans that they'd never be able to make the payments on to do it. Now it's caught up to everyone and foreclosures abound. So what should happen? Should the people who spent irresponsibly have to deal with the natural (and logical) consequence of losing their home or should they be able to get bailed out from what is nothing more than the results of their OWN irresponsible (and pretty dumb) actions? Well, if you ask the people who are losing their homes they can't (and never could) afford, you'd think that they were entitled to be bailed out. Why do I get the same feeling from this "Pay Off Hillary's Campaign Debt" cross country crusade? Oh, that's right. Because it's the same.
I am not, nor will I ever, send ANY money or ANYTHING else to someone who earned $104 MILLION dollars over eight years so that they can PAY OFF A DEBT that THEY incurred for FOOLISH reasons! She should have been out of the race for the nomination SO long before she finally and begrudgingly conceded to Barry. And don't get me wrong, I understand how badly she wanted it. And I understand how hard it would be to have to admit to yourself, "Suck it, self. You lost." That would be hard. I get that. I don't get the irresponsible spending from someone who wants to lead this country one day.
And that Barry and Gov. Richardson think that they need to pull their constituents together to help BAIL OUT Hillary? That doesn't bode well at all. So, Barry, if you're elected, is that how you're going to deal with situations where people or corporations or banks make inadvisable decisions and spend money right and left until it's gone and they need more but there isn't any because they spent it all? Are you just going to bail them out as well? Why aren't these people just left alone to be responsible for their own debt? How come being held accountable isn't a freaking option anymore?
Perhaps, if Hillary had bowed out sooner, I'd have more sympathy. But I wouldn't have much more. Her campaign had to know that she was over spending. Do you think that right now, because her campaign debt isn't paid off, that she is stressing out about it? Do you really think that she is missing her $10 million or $12 million dollar "loan" that she made HERSELF? I doubt it. But I don't doubt that the vendors that she owes money to (you know, the "little people") are missing that money. I don't doubt that they would really like to get paid and that they really need to get paid. On top of that, they really DESERVE to get paid. To spend money that you don't have buying services from people who make their living off of those services seems fairly out of touch and really selfish. I don't know if I could vote for someone whose money management procedures went like that. Yeah, that'd be a hard sell.
But if you want to chow down with Hillary (Bill will probably come along too, I'd think. I mean, it could be an intern that wins.), by all means, contribute at least five dollars to her campaign to help pay off the vendors that she's screwing over and you might get that chance. Hey, and if you win, you might want to make sure that you have a way to pay for dinner when it's over. You know, just in case, for some reason, Hillary can't pay the bill.
I'm not a political individual. I don't particularly identify with any specific political party. It used to be that the parties had very different ideologies. Today? Not so much. A lot of the views held by a lot of politicians, whether they be Republican or Democrat, are similar. I think it's become more how they go about expressing their views and how they decide which bills/laws that they want to back. There's too many liberal Republicans and too many conservative Democrats to make much of a distinction anymore. (Translation: A lot of politicians are just morons. And the only thing more sad than that is that they were chosen to represent the people by those very people that they're doing a poor job of representing.) So, I didn't have a preference for who the Democratic nominee for President was. I did have a preference for when they finally chose one so that the damn thing would finally be over and I wouldn't have to hear about it any more. (Sadly, that preference was about a month and a half ago. Man, they can drag things out, can't they?)
But today, the lady in the pantsuit has finally sung. And that means it's over. Somehow, some way, Hillary Clinton is NOT the Democratic nominee to President of the United States. How in the hell that happened, I'm not quite sure. She had, seemingly, one of the biggest leads/advantages when this whole process started, than any other candidate since (quite possibly) George Washington. She had a boatload of cash. She had a ton of supporters. She had a husband who used to BE the freaking President! (And people kind of liked him when he was President. He's a little different now, but then? They liked ol' Billy Jeff.) I don't know what it was, but I don't think it was entirely just because a lot of people see Barack Obama as charismatic and a good public speaker. (I am probably the only one who does not think that this guy is a great orator. I just don't get it.)
If I had to guess what the downfall was, I'd probably lean toward personality and the impression she gives. I don't know that she comes across as being very "real". I don't want to say "honest", because that implies that she's lying or being dishonest, and that's not what I'm implying. But when you see her interacting with the "little people", her smile seems forced, her words seem rehearsed (and poorly, at that), and it all adds up to a feeling of her just "going through the motions". Don't get me wrong; that woman wanted to be President SO bad. And she was SO close that she could taste it. She could taste it, she could smell it, it was on a plate in front of her and someone handed her a fork. And she didn't even get to put a fork in it, because it had already been determined by then that she was done.
So today she "suspended" her campaign. The term "suspended" is used rather than "quit" because if it's "suspended" then the campaign can continue to receive donations so that the campaign can continue to pay off the debt that it apparently has. (HOW in the hell did she run out of money? WHAT was it being spent on? She had boatloads of cash! Where did it go?!) And I missed seeing her announcement live, but I have a clip. And the clip pretty much sums up what her disposition has come across like the entire time. Do you believe that she's happy? Do you believe what she's saying about her support for Barack and her wanting the party to unify? I guarantee you, this was the hardest thing she has ever had to do in her entire life and she had never once, not once, ever prepared for even the possibility of that moment. I do not envy her a bit.
Do I feel sorry for her? Not in the sense that she lost something that she really, really wanted. But I do in the sense that I know that people who have a difficulty connecting and communicating with other people have a hard time. Especially when their job requires them and needs them to be personable. It's frustrating if you know you are competent and quite possibly the absolute best person for something, but you just can't communicate that well or you can't display the personality that makes people want to warm up to you. You'll see what I mean.
If she could have said all of that in less than 10 seconds it would have been too long for her. She looked like she was forcing every single word, including "a" and "the", to come out of her mouth. I guess she gave that speech around noon. So, I'll have to say she was probably drunk by 1:03pm. Here's another clip to compare that one with. Granted, this one is from a Super Tuesday (which was likely not very "super" and that would make it just "Tuesday") victory speech after she had won a bunch of states. It's really long, I don't advocate watching the whole thing unless you have 11 minutes to kill. But within the first minute, you'll see some of the "trying to connect with the little people" moments that just make me cringe. The thumbs up! (Yes. Thumbs up. More than once, I'm sad to say. More than once. ::sigh::) The ridiculously huge smile. (It frightens small children and probably a few small dogs as well.) But it's not a smile that says "I'm happy to be supported by everyone here!" It's a smile that says, "I'm so freaking proud of myself. I am going to be the freaking President of the United States!"
After watching both of those again, I'm really leaning toward the idea that if she was just more personable, she would have nailed it. (Maybe that would help. Maybe she needs to get nailed once in a while. Something like that pretty much puts most people in a pretty good mood. I mean, really, even if it's bad, how bad can it be? You're having sex, for cryin' out loud. Even when it's bad, it's still pretty good.)
Like I said, I am completely un-qualified to assess who would be a good President. Given how phony a lot of them sound and how rehearsed everything comes across, I don't know that anyone can accurately assess who would be the best choice. (By the way, the term for the method of having to make a decision based upon limited information that may or may not be factual or accurate is called SWAG. Speculate Wildly And Guess.) But instead of having to deploy the SWAG method, why don't we just try something completely different for a change? How about if everyone just votes for Walter instead. You're unfamiliar with Walter? Figures. Well, you can see who Walter is and the kind of guy he is in the clip below. And after you watch it, just try and tell me that Walter isn't exactly the kind of guy that we could probably use right now. (He's got more personality than Hillary, I'll tell you that.)
Seriously, what is going on there? The frock. The glasses. The hair. My God, the hair! That woman needs a vacation. And not in Bali! She needs to vacation somewhere that they do not have frocks such as that. Good Lord, does she need that.
Sphere: Related Content
