Breaking News Or Something

BREAKING NEWS!  Well, according to the Huffington Post it's breaking news.  For me, it might be my breaking point. Brace yourselves.  Jimmie Walker is not a fan of President Barry.

That's right.  Jimmie Walker.  Now, if you're sitting there and thinking to yourself, "Who the eff is Jimmie Walker?" I have the feeling that you are not alone.  See, Jimmie Walker was the star of a relatively successful television program that went off the air in 1979.  I'll save you the trouble and do the math.  It was thirty-three years ago.  Of course, just because his show went off the air six presidents ago, that doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't relevant.  I mean, he's not, but it's not really a given.  He hasn't done hardly anything since then (unless you're going to count his Syfy movie Super Shark, and why wouldn't you?) and even if he had, I don't know why we would care what he thinks about President Barry.

I don't know exactly how it was that Jimmie Walker was asked about his views on President Barry and I'm not so sure that I care to  know.  Actually, I'd like to know who asked him about them because I have a few questions for that person.  Questions like "Was Todd Bridges not available?" and "Do you know what Sherman Hemsley thinks about gay marriage?"  Oh, and of course "HOW IS THIS ACTUAL REPORTING?!?!"

We really need a moratorium on all sorts of political "reporting" until about two weeks before the election (which cannot come soon enough, thank you very much).  And we need a complete end to asking once-celebrities what they think about anything political.  And dear God, if you're someone who is going to base your vote depending upon the political leanings of Jimmie Walker, please, please don't vote.  Ever. 

Sphere: Related Content

From The Idiots At Newsweek

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sphere: Related Content

Patience, Young Grasshopper

The peculiarity of where this country decides to focus its attention on occasion completely baffles me.  In case you've been under some sort of glorious rock lately, I will tell you that President Barry, during an interview with Robin Roberts, came out in favor of gay marriage.  I think.  And from the reactions I'm reading, you'd think that something wonderful just happened instead of just one guy changing his mind.  Or not. 

Look, President Barry is a pretty progressive guy.  I have a hard time believing that he, deep down in his heart, was ever really against gay marriage.  I'm more inclined to believe that he was against it for purely political reasons.  Whatever the reason is, here is his latest statement on where he stands in regard to gayrriage:  "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." 

While that's a lovely sentiment, I don't know that it's going to make a difference in anything.  And that's for a variety of reasons.  First of all, I just want to point out that he did include the word "personally".  That's what he now suddenly believes on a personal level.  Is that going to translate to a political level?  I have a hard time believing that it would.  That'd be great if he wanted to go and campaign in states that are putting gay marriage bans on their ballots, but I just don't see that happening.  And the reason I don't see that happening is because he also said that "..states should have the right to decide what marriage is".  Of course.  This way, he can be for gay marriage and appease those folks who have really made it their number one social cause, while at the same time allow himself to stay out of the issue because he sees it as not being a federal issue.  Tricky. 

But here's one of the things that I find just fascinating about this whole dynamic.  Until now, President Barry had been, essentially, against gay marriage.  But no one gave him any crap about it.  Everyone was just fine with it and continued to sing his praises as if he were the second coming of Christ himself.  No one called him a bigot.  No one called him a hater.  No one pressed the issue.  There weren't rainbow flag protests outside of the White House.  None of that.  People just let his ideas evolve on their own until he came to a different conclusion that they were happy with.  Why aren't other people who are against gay marriage (or who aren't sure about it) not given that same sort of time and/or leeway for their opinions to change?  Why are people automatically so angry at those folks?  I don't have an answer for this, by the way.  It's merely an observation that I've made. 

Here's another angle of this that I find interesting.  So far, every single state that has put gay marriage to a vote has voted against it.  Every.  Single.  One.  The states that allow gay marriage have only been able to do so through legislation.  But every time that it's given to the people for a vote, they have voted 100% against it.  Every. Time.  What's that all about?  And with the recent passage of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman in North Carolina, that brings the grand total up to 30 states with similar laws on the books.  Thirty!  Yet the topic is still covered in the media as if it is a minority of people who feel this way.  Clearly, that's not the case. 

All I'm trying to say here is that it's a tricky issue for a lot of people.  And the whole gay acceptance thing has come such a long way over the years.  Things just take time.  And really, just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they hate gays.  Sometimes it does.  But sometimes it doesn't.  In fact, most of the people that I've met or that I know who are not exactly for gay marriage are absolutely NOT people who hate gays.  I just think that we just need to be patient with people in the same manner that everyone seems to have been patient with President Barry. Do you have any idea how long it took civil rights legislation to go through?  Longer than you would guess and definitely longer than I would have liked.  (In case you were wondering, Lyndon B. Johnson passed a minor piece of civil rights legislation in 1957.  That was the first legislation passed since the Civil War had ended.  See?  Takes a long time.)  People just need to be patient and see it for what it is.  An evolution of thought.  And evolution is not a speedy process. 

Sphere: Related Content

No One Cares!

I'll be honest with you.  When I heard about President Barry's newly evolved thoughts on gay marriage the other day, I cringed.  It wasn't because I disagree with his re-newly formed stance. (This is the third time that he's changed his mind of the issue.  Not that you would know that because the media sucks so bad.)  No, it was because I knew that once he waded into the issue that it would be all I'd have to hear about for days on end.  Non-stop talk about gay marriage and how "evolved" the President is.  Are you kidding me?!  No one took the time to look at how gay marriage is really perceived in this country.  (That would be that every single state that has voted on gay marriage has voted against it.  That would also be that there are 30 states that ban gay marriage.)  No, all it ended up being was a bunch of feel-good crap that makes everyone involved feel like they're so enlightened on the issue.  You want some enlightenment?  I'm here for you! 

How's this for enlightening?  Gallup did a poll over April 9-12 of this year.  The question was "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"  Now, if you went strictly by how the news cycle has been reporting things over the past 48 hours, you would swear that gay marriage was at the top of the list.  At the very least, you would have to assume that it was in the top ten, right?  Here are the top ten non-economic (even though gay marriage, and more so, gay divorce court, would do wonders for the economy, it isn't really considered an economic issue) responses from people as gathered by Gallup: 

Dissatisfaction with government.  Healthcare.  Education.  Ethics/Moral/Religious decline.  Foreign aid.  Immigration.  (Have I said gay marriage yet?  I haven't?!  Then I shall continue.)  Energy.  Lack of respect for each other.  Judicial system.  War.  (That's ten.  Not yet?  I'll keep going.)  Poverty.  Care for the elderly.  Crime.  National security.  Abortion.   Lack of military defense.  Race issues/racism.  (Bet you thought that racism would be a little higher up too, wouldn't you?  Nope.  It clocks in at number seventeen.  Huh.  Thanks, media.)  Situation in Iraq.  Welfare.  Environment.  (Environment is at number twenty.  Again, thanks to the reporting of the weak, weak media, you'd have thought that all anyone ever thinks about is global warming.)  Social security.  Situation in Afghanistan. (I'm starting to get tired.  I hope it shows up soon!) Unifying the country.  (I don't even know what this one means.  The Civil War IS over, right?)   International issues. (How this doesn't include the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not quite sure.)  Elections.  Terrorism.  War.  (See previous war comments.)  Drugs.  Gay rights issues.  There it is!  I found it!  Coming in in twenty ninth place, gay rights issues!  Just barely eeking out The way children are raised, Overpopulation, Guns/gun control, The media, and The advancement of computers/technology.

I should also take this time to point out the the gay rights issues received less than 0.5% of the responses in the most recent polling of this question.  It got 1% back in February, but that was the only time this year that it ranked above 0.5%.   But would you get that from everything you read in the media?  Hell no, you wouldn't!  No, instead you'd be left with the impression that everyone wants gay people to be able to get married and that issue is first and foremost on the minds of all Americans!  Not only is it not first, it's damn near DFL (Dead Effing Last).  But that's all I'm hearing about.  Non-stop.  It will stop one day, though, right?  Please?  Why can't we have a President who has affairs again.  At least that was interesting.  (OK, it was still mis-reported, which probably explains why so many people still think that Bill Clinton was impeached for having an affair, but at least it had some substance!  I'll take Presidential blow jobs over gay marriage any day of the week, starting NOW.)

Sphere: Related Content

Watch out, Bo!

Why this song hasn't received more attention in the few weeks since it has been out is beyond me.  It's hilarious.  Continuing to play on the not-so-recent revelation that President Barry ate dog when he was a child in Indonesia, some genius came up with a parody of the delightfully 80s tune by Hall & Oates "Man Eater".  The lyrics are awesome, but the real highlight is the chorus that goes:

Ohhhhh, here he comes.

Watch out Bo, he’ll chew you up.

Ohhhhh, here he comes.

He’s a dog eater.

Seriously brilliant, don't you think?  OK, at least it's funny.  And all of you people out there who find the time to do these things?  I salute you.  You are the treasures of the Internets.  All of them.  Full lyrics are below the video.  Behold! 

He only comes out at night To find a tasty bite 
Nothing is new, I’ve seen his gaze before 
Watching and waiting 
He’s sitting with you but eyeing some Basset Hounds


So many to taste and see 
Chihuahua friccasse 
Dear Leader is wild, but he’s tamed by the taste of a puppy’s tail 
Served up on a platter 
The school lunches are sure gonna get bizarre


Ohhhhh here he comes 
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up 
Ohhhhh here he comes 
He’s a dogeater 
Ohhhhh here he comes 
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up 
Ohhhhh here he comes 
He’s a dogeater
 
I wonder if Michelle approves 
Fried puppy just won’t do 
Poached poodle flan, the One will really rip their fur apart 
Mind over matter 
Tele-promp-ter glaze but a beast is in his heart


Ohhhhh here he comes 
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up 
Ohhhhh here he comes 
He’s a dogeater 
Ohhhhh here he comes 
Watch out Bo he’ll chew you up 
Ohhhhh here he comes 
He’s a dogeater

Sphere: Related Content

It's A President Eat Dog World Out There

For some reason, people have decided that now is a good time to bring up the fact that President Barry ate dog when he lived in Indonesia.  I can't possibly imagine how this is suddenly a revelation for some folks considering that this information was in his book "Dreams of my Father" which was published in 1995.  1995!  So, seventeen years ago, the guy writes about something that happened in his childhood which was a perfectly accepted practice for the culture that he was living amongst and NOW people want to make a big deal about it?  This can only mean that it's just going to get worse when the election starts to get closer.  But before things get worse, what say we just make fun of them in a fashion that really the Internet can do best, shall we?  I know!  Let's take pictures of various dogs in various poses and humorously caption them with references to President Barry's eating dogs almost fifty years ago.  Like this:  

 Or this:
 

We can always make it more interesting with The Most Interesting Man In The World:

Yes, we can?

And this  one is my favorite.  Mainly because I think that "Labradoodle" sounds funny.  Labradoodle. HA!  See?

How fun, right?  Yeah, whatever.  Can we let this go now?  Please.  There are eight gazillion things that need to be fixed right now and a bunch of yahoos are focusing on what President Barry had for dinner when he was four.  And you wonder why I think we're doomed?  That is why!

Sphere: Related Content

That's About Right

I don't know how I missed this one, but better late than never, I suppose. Apparently, last month, a woman named Christine Wright-Darrislaw called the White House and threatened President Barry. The nerve! In the complaint against her, it says that the White House operator who answered Wright's call said that she was "...screaming into the phone with regard to how unfair the child custody laws were and that she needed Obama to fix this." I guess she didn't understand that child custody laws aren't a federal matter. (And you know, all of that screaming isn't going to help her much. You'd think that people would realize this, but they don't. They just keep acting like lunatics and then wonder why everyone treats them accordingly.) And that's when she decided that it would be a good idea to tell the operator "I am going to (blank) and kill Obama."

I am dying to know what the (blank) is! I can't imagine what they could possibly need to redact in this context. I suppose it could be an obscenity, but that doesn't make sense. Why would she say she was going to f*** and kill President Barry? That doesn't make any sense. You know what? I'll bet it was effing kill! I'll bet that's what she said and it was just transcribed wrong. That makes more sense than to blank and kill. But I digress. Where was I?

Oh, right! The lunatic. Look, the highlight of this story is really the mugshot, so let's just get to it, shall we? Behold!

Seems about right, doesn't it? Totally. I find this to be absolutely hilarious. And spot on. That's exactly the face that I would expect from someone who called the White House and was screaming about child support and wanting to kill the President. Exactly the face.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons...

A friend of mine had posted on Facebook that Sarah Palin, for some reason, said that she would be up to debating President Barry anytime and anywhere. Now, I wasn't so much aware that just regular citizens could debate the President. I didn't know that was something that we're doing now. But good for her if that's what she wants to do. Actually, I take that back. She needs to not say things like that as to not make herself look like a buffoon. And really, this is the woman who, when preparing for the Vice Presidential debate in 2008, couldn't stop herself from calling Joe Biden "Joe O'Biden". Does she really want to go up against President Barry? Because say what you will about the guy, you can't deny that he is a brilliant public speaker and would probably wipe the floor with Sarah Palin's hot little Alaskan MILF ass. But are there reasons why she should go ahead and debate him? (Hypothetically, of course, as a Palin-Obama debate is never going to happen.) Of course there are. There are at least ten. Here we go.

The Top Ten reasons that Sarah Palin should debate President Barry.

Number Ten: She'd show him a thing or two when the topic turned to snow machine racing or moose skinning.

Number Nine: Perfect opportunity to point out that none of his daughters are knocked up yet, while one of hers already accomplished that AND given birth.

Number Eight: Might finally have come up with an answer to that age old question "What do you read?"

Number Seven: Could point out Russia from her house.

Number Six: Perfect time to give Michelle Obama tips on how to improve her 'sexy librarian' look.

Number Five: It'd be a good time to finally break out her Tina Fey impersonation that she's been working on.

Number Four: Wouldn't accidentally call him "Grandpa" like she did with McCain that one time.

Number Three: Could always have a pit bull wearing lipstick stand in for her in case something came up at the last minute.

Number Two: If it was a foreign policy debate, they could have it at the International House of Pancakes in Wasilla.

And the Number One reason Sarah Palin should debate President Barry: Everyone loves a train wreck!

Sphere: Related Content

Hello, Slut?

I've been thinking about this whole Rush Limbaugh calling some chick who wants the government to pay for birth control a "slut". I don't know why I've been thinking about it. I just have. (Don't you judge me! What was the last thing you thought about?! Ah-HA! Now get your hand out of your pocket. God sees everything.) I just want to go over a couple of things about it.

Now, this Sandra Fluke woman is a 31-year old students at Georgetown Law School. So many news outlets are referring to her as a "college student". OK, technically that's true. A law school is a college. But come on! When you hear "college student", don't you think of someone in their early twenties? Typically? Of course you do. So she's hardly some chick who was just barely a teenager a couple of years ago. She's a grown ass woman. It's not like she's an 18-year old freshman or anything like that. On top of that, she appears to be some sort of feminist activist. I'm pretty sure that with a hobby like that one is going to be fairly thick skinned. I can't imagine how you'd do something like that if you're going to let what people say about you bother you all that much.


Regardless, Limbaugh calls her a slut and a prostitute because he equates having the government pay for birth control with someone being paid to have sex. Now, don't get me wrong. The government should not be providing birth control to people. If you want birth control, I suggest you buy it yourself. Condoms are fairly inexpensive. Then again, any form of birth control is inexpensive when you compare it to the cost of raising a child. Regardless, hit up Planned Parenthood if that's what you need. Don't be asking me and every other taxpayer to subsidize it. There are like a million other things I'd rather my tax money go for.

I'm totally off track. My point here is that President Barry actually called this chick on Friday to "see if she was OK". Good Lord, what a publicity stunt that was. Not to mention what a great idea! Who was the aide who ran breathlessly into the Oval Office? "Mr. President! Mr. President! I have an idea! You know that woman that Rush called a whore?! Slut. Whatever. How about you call that girl to check on her?! It'll make the 5 o'clock news right before the weekend! Here's her number! Thank you, Mr. President! I'll get out of your hair as soon as I catch my breath! But don't let me be in your way. Call now! See if she's OK!"


What a bunch of crap. Does he really think that a grown ass woman is just going to be falling apart because some rotund blowhard called her a 'slut'? Please. Hey, wait a minute. Didn't MSNBC's Ed Schultz call Laura Ingraham a slut? Let's see, what he said exactly was "Like this right-wing slut, what's her name, Laura Ingraham? Yeah, she's a talk slut." Yep, that's what he said all right. Did President Barry call Laura Ingraham and see if she was OK? No? How does that work? Oh, don't tell me it's because Sandra Fluke was "standing up" for a liberal cause and Laura Ingraham is a conservative foe of President Barry's? Wow. So politically motivated. Not to mention pathetic. Who cares?


Is President Barry going to start calling everyone who gets called a name by someone in public? Is this how soft we've really become? Man, if he called her because someone called her a slut, I should let him take a look at some of the email that I get in regard to this blog. He'd move in with me.

And on a side note, SleepTrain has pulled all of their advertising from Limbaugh's show. SleepTrain sells mattresses. (And darn good ones, too! They're a bit pricey, but you can't beat their quality! And same day delivery if you buy it before 2pm? Show me another business where they're going to do that for you! Wow. I'm either quite the shill for SleepTrain or I just have a really comfortable mattress.) Why do I feel like there is some sort of an opportunity here? I'm not sure exactly what it is or what it would entail, but somehow with the topic of birth control and sex and sluts, I'm pretty sure there's at the very least some sort of reprehensible commercial that could be derived from all of this nonsense. Ooooh! Saturday Night Live, do your thing! I'm begging you!

Sphere: Related Content

2025??

Bought gas lately? I have. I just paid $4.29 a gallon in Santa Cruz. Yes, yes, I realize that Santa Cruz is a little touristy and that could account for some of it, but not much. I paid $4.21 in San Jose the other day. The point here is that we're being screwed for no apparent reason. But what is becoming more and more apparent is that no one cares, no one is going to do anything and we are at the mercy of whatever anyone wants to charge us.

Even President Barry has commented on this recent inexplicable surge in petroleum pricing. What he had to say on the matter was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Then again, I was listening as someone hoping for some sort of solution. A light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, if you will. There's no light. None. Just darkness. Oily darkness.

President Barry gave his weekly radio address the other day. (Did you know that President Barry gave a weekly radio address? Me neither. He does know about the Internet, right? Radio seems to be a strange medium to get a message across. Then again, it was just an asinine statement that he made, he might not have wanted a lot of people to actually hear it. Maybe he figured if it was on the radio that it would just be overlooked.) And do you know what his solution to high gas prices is? Better cars. Duh.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune (and apparently the radio), he said that "Detroit automakers are on track to build cars that average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025, doubling current mileage standards." Oh, really? 2025?! That will help me out soooo much next week! And they're "on track" to build those sorts of cars? On TRACK?! How hard is this really? I have a telephone in my pocket that accesses the Internet and takes pictures. (I assume it also makes phone calls, but I really couldn't say for sure.) You're telling me that with aaalllllll of the technology and knowledge that we have about so many things that it is still going to take until 2025 to build a car with better gas mileage?! That's pretty pathetic.

Didn't John F. Kennedy challenge us to put a man on the moon within the decade when he said that? (That was 1962, by the way. I'm not just making this stuff up.) And didn't we put a man on the moon in 1969? So we can get a man from Earth to another freaking planet (Yes, I know a moon is not a planet per se. That's not the point here. FOCUS!), but we're only "on track" to have a car that gets 55 mpg in 13 years? I don't want a flying car; I just want a regular car! (OK, that's a lie. I totally want a flying car! But you know what I'm saying.) It's taking us almost twice as long to build a fuel efficient vehicle that people want than it took us to get people on the moon and back safely?! Are we supposed to be excited about this? Because I'm hardly excited. I'm angry, but I'm not excited.

He continued along with this rainbow and unicorn way of thinking with "That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time. That’s a big deal, especially as families are yet again feeling the pinch from rising gas prices." Uhhh...am I the only one who caught the "over time" he put in there. Saving $8,000 over how much time, President Barry? I can save $8,000 "over time" too. Oh, did I mention how much time? Forty years. How's that? Sound ridiculous? So does he.

This is such crap. No one is willing to give anyone a straight answer about why gas prices do what they do. (Current speculation is that gas prices got so high because we might go to war with Iran. How does that work? We're already IN two wars. One more makes that big of a difference? Besides, I don't think it's going to happen. My money's on Israel doing their thing and the US feigning ignorance over it. "They did what? Bombed them? We are so surprised. This is brand new information!") And for President Barry to stand there (Or sit. I have no idea how antiquated radio broadcasts work.) and act like we should be excited that we might get a fuel efficient vehicle in about 13 years is pandering beyond pandering. We're not really dumb children. (OK, people as a whole aren't exactly geniuses. But they do know that this is crap!) All we want is for the price of gas to go down. And we don't really care how it's done, but we're going to need it to be sooner than 13 years. Ok. Thanks.

Sphere: Related Content

He's Not The Only One

I just wanted to say one more quick thing that I left out (and that everyone else always leaves out) about the college students attacking Rick Santorum for a) being against gay marriage and, b) asking about how polygamy will fit into our laws if we're going to be OK with gay marriage. (Contrary to popular reporting, Rick Santorum was not comparing gay marriage to polygamy. But that's how it has been reported in most of the articles that I've read. And that's because...? The media sucks, that is correct.)

I want to speak to that chick that was asking Mr. Santorum the initial question about why he was against gay marriage. I want to speak to her (and the rest of the sanctimonious college students who booed Mr. Santorum during his town hall thingee that he did over there in Concord, N.H.) and I want to ask her one question. OK, fine. I want to ask her several questions, but only one that pertains to this discussion. The pertinent question is: Do you know that President Barry is against gay marriage? Because he is.

Not only is President Barry against gay marriage, but Vice President Biden (aka Joey Veep) is against gay marriage also. Not only that, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (who was very nearly the Democratic party's nominee candidate for President last time around) is also against gay marriage. They're all against it. But no one ever talks about that! No, whenever this subject comes up with any candidate out there, if they're against it, it's portrayed in the media as if they're some sort of pariah who is so out of touch with the rest of the world. And every person who asks these questions of these candidates acts the same way. Would all of those college students who were booing Rick Santorum been cheering the President? Of course they would have. Because they just don't get it.

For some reason, the media portrays gay marriage as something that is just universally accepted by everyone in the country and if you're against gay marriage that there is something wrong with you and you are in the minority. And I'm not pointing this out because I'm against gay marriage. I'm not. I'm pointing this out because no one else will! Out of the fifty states in America, there are six (plus Washington D.C.) where same-sex marriage is legal. And in all six of those states, same-sex marriage was legalized through legislation or a court ruling. It was not legalized through a vote put to the people. In the states where a vote was put to the people? Yeah, those states didn't vote in favor of it. Yet Rick Santorum gets booed and the media portrays him as being out of touch. Oh, someone's out of touch here. And while that might include Rick Santorum (but for reasons other than this), it includes a whole lot of other people that don't even know how out of touch they are. Media, I'm talking to you!

Sphere: Related Content

The Stupidest Thing of 2012 So Far

Wow. It is only January 2nd and I have already read the stupidest thing I've read all year. And it's quite possible that it's going to win out as the stupidest thing that I read all year. The thing is that I really can't tell where the stupidity arises from. I don't know if it's from the person who wrote the article (please note my omission of the word 'journalist) or if the article was written in such a way as to appeal to the sort of soft headed moron that might be reading it. Whatever it is, there is so much wrong with it that it's hard to know where to begin. But let's see what I can do.

According to the huffy folks over yonder at The Huffington Post, President Barry has signed the defense bill "despite serious reservations". Now while that may sound idiotic, I'm guessing that the reason that he ended up signing the thing is because, like all other bills, there was a whole bunch of crap in there that had nothing to do with defense that needed to be pushed through. And actually, that part of how bills are drawn up in Washington is completely asinine. Why there is stuff in a defense bill that has to do with unemployment benefits is beyond me. But as ridiculous as all of this is, that's not the stupidest part yet.

No, that honor goes to this part of the article: "Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it."

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

You have GOT to be kidding me. President Barry just signed a bill that allows for the government to detain American citizens as long as they want to for whatever reason they want (or don't want) to have and I'm supposed to feel better because he said that he isn't going to do that?! Please, someone, anyone, tell me that the last part was not actually uttered and included in his justification for signing this thing as a way to make anyone feel better. Do these people realize that Barack Obama is not our king? Do they realize that eventually, whether it be this year or four years from now, someone else will be President of the United States? Do they realize that any and all future Presidents can use that authority regardless as to whether President Barry says that he will or will not? Do they realize that if that law is on the books (and it is) that someone will one day use it?! Why am I the only one flipping out over this?!

See, this isn't one of those things where the brain dead argument of "If I'm not doing anything wrong then I don't have anything to worry about" doesn't come into play at all. That's the exact problem with this law! You don't have to be doing anything wrong to have something to worry about. All you need to have is some overzealous a-hole in a position to detain you and that's it. You're screwed. You're indefinitely screwed. If that doesn't chill you to your very core then might I suggest moving somewhere a bit more oppressive than the United States? North Korea, perhaps? You'll love it there.

I cannot believe that President Barry went ahead and signed that bill with that new law in it. What good is our Constitution if there can be federal laws enacted that will essentially strip away all of our rights that are guaranteed to us under said Constitution? And while I'm mad at President Barry, I'm absolutely appalled at Congress, as voted something like 94-6 in favor of this provision. All of those people who voted for this need to be thrown out of their office on their ass as soon as possible. For God's sake, please do not vote in November to re-elect any of these jokers that are currently in office and making decisions like this. Lord only knows what they'll come up with next time.

Sphere: Related Content

Not Everyone Left

This morning, I received a rather disingenuous email from President Barry. It read as follows:

Mary --

Early this morning, the last of our troops left Iraq.

As we honor and reflect on the sacrifices that millions of men and women made for this war, I wanted to make sure you heard the news.

Bringing this war to a responsible end was a cause that sparked many Americans to get involved in the political process for the first time. Today's outcome is a reminder that we all have a stake in our country's future, and a say in the direction we choose.

Thank you.

Barack

Yeah, um, let's talk about for just a second, shall we? Do you know where the largest United State Embassy is in the world? Yeah, it's in Baghdad. Why is this not mentioned more? What do you think we're doing by building our largest embassy right there in the middle of Iraq? No, really. What do you think? Because I can't figure it out. Regardless, our presence in Iraq is now permanent due to that embassy. Yes, I realize that the embassy is not a military base. My point here is that I'm tired of this withdrawal of troops from Iraq being portrayed as the US being completely absent from Iraq because that's simply not true. And it doesn't sound as good. I imagine that it might raise some questions that people don't want to answer during an election year as well.

And about the troops. Sure, the troops have "exited" Iraq. But everything that I read about this "exit" makes it sound as if there are NO Americans left Iraq who are working for the US government. According to CNN, "The United States will still maintain a presence in Iraq: hundreds of nonmilitary personnel, including 1,700 diplomats, law enforcement officers, and economic, agricultural and other experts, according to the State Department. In addition, 5,000 security contractors will protect Americans and another 4,500 contractors will serve in other roles." Wait a minute. 5,000 security contractors? What sort of security and for whom? I thought that we were "out of Iraq". Oh, that's right. For some reason, the White House and the State Department don't consider non-military personnel to be worthy of mentioning. Hmmm...I wonder who those security contractors operate under? Someone has to be giving them directions, right? Am I supposed to believe that it is someone other than our government? Because I'm really not going to do that. They can call it whatever they want to call it, but to keep saying over and over that the US is "out of Iraq" is really borderline lying. Really borderline.

So there you have it. At least 10,000 contractors and embassy related personnel are still in Iraq. The world's biggest embassy is in Baghdad. But President Barry and the State Department are going around touting the departure of the US from Iraq. And for some reason, the media is buying right into that hype and continuing to report it that way. That's because the media sucks. Sucks bad.

Sphere: Related Content

No Change

I have a question for President Barry's senior advisor David Plouffe. For lack of better phrasing, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

See, in an article over there at Politico, they go through some of the things that Mr. Plouffe said on Good Morning America yesterday. He was asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests. He was also asked about the Republicans and what they're doing these days. And then he was asked about "...challenges facing Obama’s reelection efforts". His reply is disconcerting at best and I'm not sure if there was any follow up to what he said. And what he said was this: "I mean, some things aren’t going to change between now and next November. We’re obviously in a tough economy. We’re going to have a very close election, as most presidential elections are. So we’re going to fight for every vote and that’s what we intend to do." Wait. What?

Did he really just say that "some things aren't going to change between now and next November"?! Uh, next November is over a year away. Not much more than a year, but still more than a year none the less. What, exactly, is not going to change? Wait. Let me rephrase that. What things (as in "more than one") are NOT going to change in the next year? And why are they not going to change? What sort of campaign starts out by stating that there will be upcoming stagnancy? Not a good one if you're asking me.

That this is coming from Change-y McOptimism's camp is disconcerting to me. Look, I am tired of paying almost four bucks for a gallon of gas. I am tired of knowing so many people that are out of work. I am tired of how much groceries are costing. I am tired of NOTHING getting better and NO ONE doing anything about it. And now here comes along David Plouffe who flat out states that things just aren't going to change in the next year. Great. Now what? (And before you offer any suggestions, I certainly hope that occupying Wall Street isn't one of them. That's not going to help matters. I appreciate the effort, but it's useless.)

So if some things are not going to change in the next year (as stated by someone who really would probably know) then who in the hell am I supposed to vote for? The Republicans don't have squat over there and I won't be voting Republican for President. But how can I vote for President Barry again when it seems as if nothing is getting done and things are not better. I distinctly remember being promised change! Things still suck! That's not change. Do I want four more years of suckitude? Oh, wait. I guess that should be five more years of suckitude. Well I don't want either one. So now what? No, really. I'm asking. Now what?

Sphere: Related Content

Is He Supposed To Look Like That?

I watched President Barry's jobs speech yesterday. The whole thing would have been over in about ten minutes if Congress had just kept their collective asses in their seats instead of jumping up like a bunch of Jack-in-the-boxes after every other sentence. (And the jumping up is always accompanied with the oddly-obligatory applause as if President Barry had just won a washer/dryer on The Price Is Right.) And his whole speech sounded a lot like he was trying to say that he wants to enact another stimulus program. (The first rule of the stimulus program is apparently to not call it a stimulus program. I think because we just tried one of those rather recently and it didn't seem to do very much good. I can't imagine why another one would help.) But I was having a hard time paying attention because I kept getting distracted by something. Behold!

Is the Speaker of the House blacker than President Barry? I'm pretty sure that he is.

Sphere: Related Content

She Won't Win, Old Man

Well. Pretty much, I can't stress enough how glad I am that we did not elect Old Man McCain as President and instead went with now-President Barry. Who knew that McCain would turn out to be as delusional as I think he might have proven himself to be yesterday? (Don't get me wrong. I don't think that the guy is senile or anything like that. But I was never fully convinced about how in tact all of his critical thinking faculties really were. I have a much better idea now and the answer is "not entirely".)

It's pretty easy to see. Here's what went down": McCain was on something called "Fox News Sunday" yesterday and was asked if former almost-half-of-a-term governor of Alaska, the super hot Sarah Palin, could beat Barack Obama in a 2012 Presidential election. Let's not forget that Palin was McCain's running mate in 2008. Let's also not forget that they lost fairly handily. President Barry won with about 66% of the vote. I know that from all of the pre-election hooplah with how he was supposed to be our savior and all that you would have thought that it would have been around 96%. But still, 66% of the vote is a pretty good ass-whooping.

According to the Political Ticker blog over yonder at CNN, McCain responded "Of course she can. She can. Now, whether she will or not, whether she'll even run or not, I don't know...But she certainly is a major factor and I believe she can be very competitive." Wait. Those...those are just a bunch of words and I'm not sure that they make a lot of sense. Let's break that down a little bit and try to figure out what's going on there.

So he starts out stating "Of course she can. She can." Sooo...is he saying that it was HIM who was the problem in 2008? Because if I had to pick an office for Sarah Palin to be in, I sure as hell would rather have her as a Vice President than the freaking President. It's nothing personal, but she just doesn't have the knowledge that she would need to be President. You could have someone who is comatose for your Veep and it'd be all right. Look at Joe Biden. He looks barely conscious most of the time and I'm perfectly OK with that. If he was President though, I'd be moving to Canada, America's Hat.

So McCain has just stated that Sarah Palin can win against Barack Obama. Then, in the very next sentence, he says "...whether she will or not... I don't know." What does that even mean? He's not even a sentence removed from saying that she can win before he says that he doesn't know if she will win?! That's not flip-flopping. That's putting your opinion in a blender and watching it go 'round and 'round really fast and when it stops, it ends up resembling nothing like what you shoved in there in the first place. He JUST said he thought that she could win! I guess it's the little things that start to go first.

And what's all this about her being a "major factor"? A major factor in...what? Yeah, a lot of people like her. I get that. She's very likable. (Even if you don't personally like her, you can't argue that she's not likable. She is. You might not agree with some of the things that she says (like if she insists that it's Tuesday when it's really Friday), but she's likable.) But what is she a major factor of? An election? Her own candidacy? I don't know what that means. Could her endorsement of a Republican candidate help boost that individual to a victory over President Barry? I doubt it. If it could, then Old Man McCain would be President right now. If you can't boost the guy on your own ticket into office, good luck doing it with someone else.

Seriously, if McCain is this delusional, not just about Sarah Palin becoming President, but about Sarah Palin beating President Barry in the next election, then we really dodged a bullet with that guy. Again, I like John McCain. But it won't take many more statements like that one for him to go from being the aging Senator of Arizona to that doddering old man in the desert. I'm just saying.

Sphere: Related Content