BREAKING NEWS! Well, according to theHuffington 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.
Want a good way to not get elected to a public office that you're running for? Try the Dan Fanelli approach, as seen below. Go with a bunch of stereotypes. That's a good start to not getting elected. Then make sure that you only focus your ad on things that you probably aren't going to have a lot of say in, like how the TSA operates, for example. But I will commend you on finding people to play the parts of the stereotypical terrorists in this commercial. That's pretty impressive. Everything else, though? Yeah, you might want to rethink some of that if you're kind of serious about getting elected. To anything.
Sarah Palin's back. I don't know why, exactly, but I have the feeling that it has something to do with trying to run for President in an election that she will surely lose. And truthfully, I don't know how much of her I can take. Don't get me wrong; I think that I like her as a person. I think that she'd be a swell neighbor. But those people that are just so gung-ho about anything that she does need to be realistic. She's not qualified to be President. Do I think that she was qualified to be Vice President had Old Man McCain won? Let me put it to you this way: When was the last time you heard about Joe Biden doing anything? That's my point. She would have been fine as Vice President because the Vice President doesn't DO much. The President? He's got stuff to do.
She currently seems to be on some sort of a schizophrenic bus tour. She doesn't appear to really have a list of the states or the places that she is planning on visiting. She kind of just seems to be showing up at things as they happen. I guess that's one way to do it. And due to the lack of letting anyone in on where she plans on going, I find it hard to make a guess as to what she's really doing. I mean, I could guess that she's seeing how much support she might be able to drum up from the various places that she visits. But I would think that if someone was being genuine about something like that that they would go to places where they aren't sure if they are loved or not. It's one thing to do a book tour and know that everywhere that you go the people that are there want to see you. It's a completely different thing to just show up to someone's house at dinner time and see if you'll be invited in.
And while I can't judge what she's doing, I can assess the bus that she'll be traveling in to do this little jaunt. You know how rock stars always have those enormous tour buses? OK, now imagine Thomas Jefferson doing one of those tours. This seems like the kind of bus that he'd be riding around in. Behold! Well, it's very patriotic. And gaudy. I guess it's a pretty good way to announce yourself, but only if people know that you're coming. Look, I really don't understand the point of any of this, so I'm going to keep making fun of her ridiculous bus. And here's a close-up picture of it to aid me in that goal: That's a mighty fine lookin' Constitution you've got there. Can I just ask a question that I haven't heard anyone ask? And I'm sure that I'll sound incredibly un-patriotic, but I'm willing to risk it. When did the Constitution get so darned popular? How many of those folks who are Sarah Palin lovers (not literally, I hope) who go around spewing all the time about the Constitution and our rights have any idea as to what they are talking about? Is it even that important to mention when you're running for President? I suppose some aspects of it are. I don't know. How about more bus pictures? Behold! See, that's why I don't give to any sort of political person. That's quite the bus. Paid for by her PAC. She made about $20 million in the six months after she bailed out of being the governor of Alaska. I know that it's all fine and good that donations to a PAC can be used for something like this. I guess my issue is more with folks who donate to these things. You want to give you money away, you hit me up instead. It would probably be about as well used. Well, I just hope that she figures out that she isn't going to be President any time soon and disbands this little project. It's over 500 days until the Presidential election. I can't have all of those days being taken up with talk about Sarah Palin. I can't. Do you hear me? I can't.
We finally have some clarification on Jon Kyl's statement that wasn't intended to be factual. I would be referring to his ridiculous statement about Planned Parenthood when he said that about 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. In reality, about 3 percent of the Planned Parenthood agenda is abortions. See, when I do the math, that's a pretty big difference. But when that difference was pointed out to Jon Kyl, it was justified by the simple explanation of "that wasn't intended to be a factual statement". (And at first, I got really excited when I heard that because I thought that a politician was finally admitting that he spews crap on purpose. Yeah, but that wasn't what he meant. He was just a moron.) Well, now we have an explanation for the explanation! Don't get too excited, though. It's still lame.
According to the political folks over there at Politico, when "Asked if he regretted the flap, Kyl said Thursday: "I misspoke when I said what I said on the floor – and I said so." And look, I don't know if he said so or not. What I know is that he said 90 percent when it was 3 percent and then someone else said that it wasn't supposed to be the truth. What I also know is that the difference between 3 percent and 90 percent is a little bit more than just "misspeaking". It's kind of like the difference between one's ass and a hole in the ground. No word on whether or not Senator Kyl has been asked about either one of those. But then he was asked about the explanation that his statement was "...not intended to be a factual statement". His reply? "That was not me - that was my press person." Oh, for cryin' out loud.
I really wish that whoever asked him about that explanation had followed it up with "Is that person still your press person?" Because I don't know about you, but I know about me. And if it were me and if I had a press person who was idiotic enough to tell the press that when I speak, my statements are not intended to be factual?! Yeah, they'd be my ex-press person so fast that it would make their newly unemployed head spin. But I'm just going to guess that he's sticking with them. Probably because he was the one that told them to say that in the first place. I'm merely speculating here, of course. But at least it's me doing the speculating and not my press person.
You'd think that I'd be happier, what with the election finally over. Finally, I can have the TV on for more than 5 minutes without being bombarded with an ad by Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown telling me why their version of hell is better than their opponent's. But I'm irritated. I started perusing the Innerwebs this morning and just found idiocy after idiocy. Let's review.
My semi-beloved San Jose Mercury News ran a piece detailing the most awesome victory parade in San Francisco for the World Champion San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series in most excellent fashion on Monday. When describing the size of the massive crowd, the article read: "Those arriving in downtown San Francisco -- where police officers gave crowd estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1 million -- were greeted by gigantic orange and black balloons that bobbed on the traffic signals."
That's the BEST you can do?! Somewhere between 200,000 and a freaking million? OK, that's not really an estimate. That's just pulling numbers out of your arse. Anyone could come up with an estimate like that! What good does that do anyone? That's just a ridiculous way of saying "The crowd was very, very large". You morons.
Then there was an article over at Politics Daily. I'm not going to bag on the writer of the article so much, as I do kind of like what she tends to write. She was probably just having an off day. The point here is that the article focuses on the folks that Sarah Palin endorsed. The title of the article reads "Sarah Palin's Midterm Scorecard: A Winning Record, but Some Key Losses". In essence, it goes on to detail how Sarah Palin supported "...more than 100 conservative candidates during the primary and general elections." Um, OK. I guess she can do that being how she's being whatever it is that she's being these days. (I still haven't quite figured that out yet.) It then goes on to say, "A Politics Daily tally puts Palin's Tuesday successes at 62 wins, 23 losses and seven contests that are still too close to call, with Palin's candidates trailing in five of those races."
Let's do the math. She supported more than 100 candidates. She currently has 62 wins, 23 losses and 7 undecided. That's 92! That's not more than 100. What gives? On top of that, what makes these "wins" or these "losses" Sarah Palin's to absorb? Aren't there a lot of people out there who would support just about any conservative candidate, no matter how wacky they appeared (Christine O'Donnell, I'm talking about you)? I think there are. Since when did the wins and the losses of the conservative candidates fall squarely on the shoulders of Sarah Palin? She's a former half-term governor who once spent a couple of months running for Vice President! (And don't get me wrong. For the most part, I like Sarah Palin. But her endorsement of someone certainly isn't gold by any means and it shouldn't be construed as such.)
And finally, I'm really getting tired of how any time an animal attacks a human, it is made into some sort of sensationalistic news, as if something like that is so shocking and so unheard of that we should all just be in a state of disbelief that it ever occurred. Take this headline from The Huffington Post: "Peter Evershed KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe." Um, yes. I would imagine that five lions WOULD kill a man.
To begin, I get thoroughly annoyed when the media runs the name of some person afflicted by tragedy in a way that makes the reader feel as if something horrendous has happened to someone that they knew. Does anyone know who Peter Evershed was, other than people who actually knew him? No. He was a 59-year-old businessman from Zimbabwe. But the headline makes the reader initially feel as if they've just read "Brad Pitt KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe". (And, in this example, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Brad to have actually been in Zimbabwe. He could have been over there buying another child to complete his collection. They don't have one from Zimbabwe yet, do they?)
See, animals eat meat. Humans are made of meat! Of course they're going to eat a human if they're given the chance. It's a big piece of meat! Why is that so shocking to people? Or maybe it's only shocking to the media. I'm not sure. But in another example of the inexplicable shock that this article tries to convey is when they quote some Zimbabwe guy as saying, "We appeal to everyone to exercise extreme caution. Animals have become extremely unpredictable." Wait. What now?
Have become? Animals havebecome unpredictable?! They're animals! Aside from that, since when is a wild animal eating human considered "unpredictable"? Seems pretty predictable to me. If you showed anyone a picture of a human standing in the wild with a bunch of lions walking around and you asked that person to guess what might be about to happen, I'd guess that nine times out of ten (with the tenth being the moron who wrote the article) the person you are asking would correctly infer that the chap in the picture is about to become lion lunch! HOW is that unpredictable?!
I've had enough. I'm going to go watch a little TV without a political ad in sight to try to make myself feel better.
There were just too darned many signs that the Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear for me to just do one post on them. Besides, I learned that the first post I did ended up being quite informative for some of those who had no idea what so ever that anything was going on at all! That made me feel pretty good; almost like I had done some sort of a public service or something. And since I never intentionally have engaged in a public service before, I thought it might be nice if I did it again. I mean, there really were a lot of signs!
There was one thing that was conspicuously missing from this rally. There was a noticeable absence of misspelled signs. Apparently, I wasn't the only one who noticed.
I appreciate how this lady apparently waited until the rally to craft her sign (as evidenced by the pack of markers over there to her left). And I don't think that I've ever seen such fancy glassware at any rally now that I think about it. What's that all about?
Here's a sentiment that I'd like to think that everyone could rally around. Well, everyone except for that one guy.
I don't know exactly what the sentiment that these two women are displaying is, nor do I know what is up with one woman's Gremlins-esque hairdo, but it's amusing none the less. I had to include this one simply because the guy holding the sign that says "Burn In Hell" looks so darned happy about it. Maybe he knows something we don't...but I doubt it. Finally, someone with realistic expectations and sensible fashion advice. What are the chances of the sentiment behind this next sign really catching on? Any chance? In hell? Just a little bit? Yeah, I didn't think so either, but it's nice to dream. Yep. This is what I've been saying for a while now. You can't go around comparing people to Hitler. That's because there was only one Hitler. And he's dead. So no matter what you may think about someone, they're not Hitler. They're probably also not a cute little kitten, either, but at least that's a comparison I can live with. This is an odd concept, but one that I can strangely and deliciously get behind in a weird, certain, sort of way. Mmmm. Sammiches. And finally, I know this isn't a sign, but he just might be the sanest and the cutest member of the rally. Sphere: Related Content
Here's a few words I never thought I'd say: Thank goodness for Nancy Pelosi.
No, I haven't completely lost my mind. But I do feel like I've lost a little bit of sleep lately and I'm tired. Fortunately, I can always turn to Nancy Pelosi for something fairly amusing which won't require a whole lot of effort from myself so that I can go to sleep. Granted, my rest, relaxation and nighttime slumber are far from the reasons that she's in that position, but sometimes, like when you're tired, you'll take what you can get.
It would seem that the other day there was a little powwow at the White House amongst the senators. I'm not sure if it was just the Democrats or what the deal was, all I know is that they emerged from their lair and began speaking to the press. There they were Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, and Nancy Pelosi, from the TLC series When Plastic Surgery Goes Awry the Speaker of the House, standing next to each other, together as a united front, together as one with the goal of doing...something. Anything. For God's sake, do anything! Well, one of them did something. And the other one apparently didn't like it very much.
According to the folks over there atPolitico.com, "...Reid put his arm around Pelosi to announce that “everyone” would support “whatever” Afghanistan policy the president produces." Not so fast there, Harry Reid. As evidenced by the video below, "...the TV cameras captured the California Democrat rolling her eyes and slightly recoiling from Reid’s grasp as he spoke." It was, in a word, hilarious. Behold!
It would seem that "Back at the Capitol, Pelosi made it clear to staff that she was angry about Reid's unilateral offer of unequivocal support." But later on, when seemingly asked to demonstrate just how much of a politician she actually is, Nancy Pelosi told Politico "...that she was “not upset,” adding: “I don’t know where you would have heard such a thing.” Oh, for cryin' out loud!
Did she not see herself?! Was she not THERE when she was so obviously NOT happy about Mr. Reid's little gesture there? Of course she was! It was akin to Angela Merkel when George W. Bush playfully (I think) and impromptu-ly massaged her shoulders when they were at some world leader meeting. Now that was funny. Behold!
Man, we're going to be getting good stuff out of ol' W for years to come, aren't we? But back to Pelosi. I'm surprised that she could get her face to show that much emotion. Perhaps someone loosened the assumed large knot of skin on the back of her head from having had her face pulled so damn tight that every time she blinks, her jaw drops open. And aren't they supposed to be on the same side? I'm sure if you asked Nancy Pelosi that, she'd tell you that they were. But if you just watched her reactions, I'm sure you'd gather that they're not really.
If there's one thing I despise, it is a lying politician. The only thing I despise more is a lying politician who is obviously lying and blatantly lies to you and says that they're not lying. They're the worst. I firmly believe that Nancy Pelosi is in that category. She is allegedly devoid of a human soul and also allegedly warms her body temperature by sunning herself on a rock like other snakes do. Snakes also tend to recoil when they don't like something and that is exactly what Nancy Pelosi does when Harry Reid actually touches her. She recoils...just like a snake.
Listen, if you're going to lie to me, at least do it in a way that it doesn't seem like you think that I am completely stupid, all right? I mean, no one wants to be lied to (yet it happens incessantly at times), but the times when you know that the other person is lying? Don't you want them to at least put forth the effort to make it a good lie? Don't you want them to at least try to lie in a way that sounds sort of believable? Because if they don't, if they just give you some completely implausible story and do so with a straight face as if you're just expected to believe it no matter how unlikely it may be, doesn't it just make you feel like the other person thinks that you're so dumb that you'll believe anything? That's why I prefer a lie with a little substance. Don't get me wrong, I'll still think that you're a sneaky weasel whether your lie is creative or not, but as long as there's some substance to the story you're weaving, I'll at least know you know that I'm paying attention.
I don't like to think the stereotype that all politicians lie is a reality. I'd rather not believe and/or think that all politicians or even the majority of politicians lie. But the more attention I pay to these sorts of things, the more I realize that, sadly, the majority of them are just disingenuous, two faced, self-serving a-holes. A-holes who really think highly of their own act, might I add. And if they're caught in a compromising situation, whether it be physically or simply immorally or unethically, that's when the stretching of the truth (if there is even any to be found) really gets cranked up a notch. Rod Blagojevich is one of those kind of guys. Mike Duvall is definitely another one of those kind of guys.
Mike Duvall, a freshly resigned Republican Assemblyman has just recently popped up on the lying, self-centered A-hole radar. This guy is a piece of work. You want to talk about someone who is pleased with himself, this is the guy. He's so pleased that he feels the need to brag about his sexual conquests to his fellow lawmakers during some committee hearing back in July. And by "brag" I mean "give lurid and graphic details to your co-workers about every physical aspect of the bodily functions during pre- and post- coital activities." Ugh. Oh, yeah, and he's married. That's right. Married. So he's Married-Guy-Who-Cheats-On-His-Wife-And-Tells-Everyone-All-About-The-Sex Guy. We, as a society in general, find that type of guy loathsome. That's the kind of guy who will brag to anyone that they can back into a corner (because no one really wants to listen). In this particular instance though, the thing was that he thought that he was bragging just to his constituents, but at that particular hearing he happened to be in front of a live microphone. Awkward.
And while I don't think that I could or would ever claim this to be a family values blog here, even I can draw a line in the sand, not necessarily to distinguish between what is appropriate and what isn't, but moreso to acknowledge that there are legitimate instances which can really make folks uncomfortable. The sort of things that Mike Duvall was saying to the guy next to him (who, oddly, just sat there quietly throughout his boastful tale of prowess; whereas I would have called the guy a perv and told him (albeit nicely) to kindly shut the hell up) were just crude and disgusting. They rate far beyond a PG-13 rating. They're not even tame enough for an R rating. His comments could be rated N-O, as in NO ONE wants to hear that. Thus, I'm linking to the sordid part of his yarns over at TPM. You want disgusting and vile sex talk, you click. Otherwise you'll just have to put up with my paraphrasing the tamer parts. Onward!
The following are some of the highlights of the revelations from the sexcapades which Mike Duvall was sharing with the guy next to him during that ill fated hearing. Well, sharing with him and with the live mike. And with the rest of the world (at this point). It's now assumed, if not known, that the female in reference (again, allegedly) is "...a lobbyist who does business before his chief committee", according to theAP.They frown upon that sort of thing in the Capital. But more on her in a minute. Other things they frown on would be things like....:
...."So, I am getting into spanking her. Yeah, I like it. I like spanking her. She goes, 'I know you like spanking me.' I said, 'Yeah! Because you're such a bad girl!'"
...."She wears little eye-patch underwear."
...."So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot...."
OK, I think that's enough. You see what kind of a guy he is, right? (Eye-patch underwear?? Is she a pirate? Argh! Those are some might nice undergarments ye are sportin' are yer booty! Argh!)Yeah. He's that guy. And I will guarantee you that he thinks that he's a completely different kind of that guy. He thinks that he's Mr. Cool-I-Cheat-On-My-Wife-And-Everyone-Knows-Because-I'm-So-Cool Guy. In reality, he's Mr. God-That-Guy's-An-A-Hole Guy. How do I know I'm right and he's wrong? Here's how:
Here's him:
Here's her:
Now, she's allegedly a lobbyist for an energy firm. Are you telling me that she just finds him attractive? That her and him have some sort of "special" connection? That he's her soulmate? I don't think you're telling me that. (If you are? Helmet. Now!) Come on! She sleeps with him, he votes the way she wants him to! He's older, he's fat, likely pasty white, probably sweats profusely, and just has that creepy guy look to him. Who is going to voluntarily and with no ulterior motives or unsaid agreements get beneath that while he (that) sweats on top of them for two minutes? Just because she likes him? Fat chance (pun totally intended).
Yo, Mr. Duvall! Think back for a moment. Think about all of the times when the two of you would hook up in Sacramento. Tell me, was there ever a time when she did not drink? How about a time when she did not drink herself into oblivion? How many drinks did it take her on the average in order for her to be able to just let you do whatever it is that you do? I'm guessing quite a few. If she was ever sober with you, I'd be surprised. Not as surprised as she would have been, but surprised none the less. My point? You're far from as cool as you think you are.
Which brings me to his blatant, blatant lie. Mr. Duvall ended up resigning the next day. The resignation was true. He did resign. His reasons for resigning are lies. Total lies. And I think he expects the stupid, stupid public (some so stupid that they voted for him) to believe him when he says these things. According to his website, the heading reads: "Assemblyman Duvall Denies Reports that he Had Affair" (That's exactly how it appears over there, by the way. Was he saving that capital letter 'T' and capital letter 'H' for something else? I guess he won't be getting a new job as a copy editor.)
And drum roll please.....: "I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs. My offense was engaging in inappropriate story-telling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state." Um, what now?
You didn't have an affair?!!? I'm pretty sure that you did! So you're going to resign from your cushy lawmaker job because you didn't have an affair? I don't think you are! And please! You wanted to allow your colleagues to return to the business of the state? Wow. He's quite the gentleman isn't he? NO!! NO!! Have you been paying attention? California is a steaming pile of excrement these days! They're not paying attention to the business of the state! Perhaps instead of engaging in your 'creative storytelling' there, Aesop, maybe you should have been paying attention in those meetings so that you could see that the "business of the state" is screwed!
But look at how he worded his carefully worded statement. He says that it is "in no way an admission", but he doesn't say that it is a denial! He's not saying he did it, but he's not saying that he did NOT do it, either! Just because you don't give an "admission" of guilt does not automatically mean that you are giving a denial! If he didn't have an affair, wouldn't he have just SAID so?! Of course he would have! But he didn't because he DID! But we're supposed to believe...what?! What are we supposed to believe?! That he's the sort of guy who just makes up sexual exploits and shares these encounters with anyone who will give him the time of day or breathe in the same airspace as he does? That he's so proud of his erotic story telling and his ability to craft a raunchy yarn at any given moment that he even engages in such behaviors at work?!? No ONE makes up crap with the details that he put in there! NO ONE! And if they do, they should be immediately placed into a vehicle and whisked off to the closest mental institution for indefinite treatment.
It makes me wonder, how stupid is your wife, sir? What about your grown children? Are they stupid? Even if your answer is 'maybe' or 'a little', they're still going to see right through this one! Everyone can! And yet you still said it! Way to go, you disgusting, perverted coward.
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
Sphere: Related Content
