Health Care and Hitler Part II

Sarah Palin today:

"As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president's health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, "Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth." Let's stop and think and make our voices heard before it's too late."

Now this is the stuff I cannot stand. It allows me to attach onto someone I dislike very much because she embodies the ignorance in America right now. She is purposefully bringing her own child into the mix when she has constantly chided the media for talking about her children. She is purposefully churning fear and hatred because she knows many men and women who have children will be disturbed to hear that Obama wants to kill her baby with Down Syndrome.

I despise her attempts to sound smart of eloquent. She utterly disgusts me. Not for her own stupidity, mind you. It is because she used her OWN son to make a erroneous remark about Obama's health care plan. HER OWN SON. One who cannot speak for himself. One that has a disabling disease who will never understand what his mother does or says. It is despicable.

You know, I actually want her to go away. I know she's great fodder for anyone who has more than half a brain, but she is truly damaging for progress of this country.

Health Care and Hitler

I love how the United States claims to be the beacon of the world, the way and the light, the bestand mostest Christian nation in the world, the world's only leading superpower, its way or the highway, yet seems to be falling apart at the seams.

To be completely honest with you all, this is my fourth attempt to put into words my thoughts on the current health care debate and the state of the country as a whole. I have no idea how to write my frustration with the sheep that follow who they think are experts. I want to sound smart and knowledgeable, but it all comes too convoluted for even my own brain to make sense of it. My frustration stems from the tactics of the children. I do not feel the human race has much longer if it continues this way. We have no chance to reach a true utopia if people continue this way. Who are the children you may ask? Well, they are the ones telling dumb folks to go out and disrupt real discussion and real debate about health care reform. Whether or not they are Republicans, they are the ones who don't want to the current system to change, who will stop at nothing for progress to be stilted and the new era of America to be stained with naysayers and spoilsports.

The more crazies that get onto the media, the more crazies the world sees and identifies with. I'm just extremely frustrated that these people will never be reasoned with and their opinions will never change. I would like to open a conversation on this, so please comment your thoughts!!!

One more thing:

Firstly, the swastika is wrong if you're comparing Obama to the Nazis. This is why stupid people should not try to make parallels in history. I absolutely love the Nazis-Obama/Democrats parallel, because even though they were called the National Socialist Party, they were not socialist, they were fascist. One man rules while the state owns and controls as much as it can while not giving much to anyone else. I'm not sure the parallels work here... although if the "Kill Grannies" rumor is true, it would be Obama's "Final Solution".

Birthers Should Be Aborted (VIDEOS)

This video is of G. Gordon Liddy acting like an imbecile trying to defend the "birther movement" on Hardball.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I too am flabbergasted as to the "birther movement" on Barack Obama's citizenship. Obviously these crazy folks don't understand parsimony. Usually the simplest answer is the truth. So the entire conspiracy cannot be true (as with most conspiracies), because it is too complicated and it tries to refute the most basic of facts.

I've tried to restrain myself writing on this topic, as I do not believe it should even be talked about. However, watching this clip, the crazy lady from the Mike Castle town hall (video below), and that other crazy woman from last fall (at McCain's rally), I've had it with this stupid speech.

I've had it to fucking here with these racist idiots. I cannot believe for one minute these people hold at least a high school diploma. Liddy says his STEP grandmother was present at his birth. This is absolutely fascinating. Does anyone know what step means? It means mommy and daddy got divorced and mommy or daddy got remarried some time in the future. Obama's parents were happily together (at least happy enough to have a child and present his birth to the world in a classified ad). There was no STEP mother or father that would have been present at his birth because they weren't with the father or the mother. I would assume that would be abundantly clear, that STEP relatives come later. I'll use myself for example: My STEP father didn't come into my life until I was 9 years old, 9 years after my birth. I met my STEP grandmother 1 or 2 years later. My mom did not know my STEP father at the time of my birth, let alone my STEP grandmother. She would not have been present at my birth.

My second beef is that of crazy lady above and the crowd as a whole. I understand they are mostly Republicans due to Mike Castle; however, none of them should have given credence to this woman. First of all, she holds up a plastic bag with documents in it claiming she is a citizen of the United States because she was born, I guess in Delaware. Fair enough. However, I did some light research and I discovered, as did Chris Matthews, that "Certificate of Live Birth" and "Birth Certificate" are usually interchangeable on what are called "short forms" and can be used to get a driver's license, a passport, and oh yeah, give main evidence for CITIZENSHIP. Liddy continued this yarn when he kept the issue on semantics with Matthews. I believe it is because it says "Live" on it. Otherwise it would say "Certificate of Birth" which, in English, means the same thing as "Birth Certificate" with the use of a preposition. Funny that, English being able to transpose words. It wouldn't very well say "Certificate of Dead Birth", because 1) you wouldn't need one because you're dead and 2) that would be a waste of paper. So, in all fairness, this woman's birth certificate is the same as Obama's, with hers being a long form with doctor's signatures and administrators signatures and the like. I can tell you, my birth certificate is a copy of a copy (from 1986, a Xerox of a Xerox) placed onto super cool embossed LA County paper that is multicolored with a stamp on it by the LA County Registrar. It's not an original by an means. I think I have 3 copies of it. Does this mean my birth can be in question? No, because it is on super cool embossed paper that is multicolored, everyone knows it is real, even though it is not an original. I don't even think the LA County Registrar has the original anymore. Which means my entire life will be summed up in one copy of a copy. Luckily it has my mom's signature on it. Whew, dodged that bullet.

She exclaims she wants her country back. I'm not sure what she means, because she never had it. Unless she owned the United States, it was never hers. It is all of ours. And hey, we have this fucking awesome system that has been in place without major change for over 200 years. It's called our election process. Guess what lady, you had your president for 8 years, putting us in this mess, now it's your turn to sit down and shut up. Our lovely electoral process got a new person with a new agenda, and I am truly sorry your life has a close-minded void in it, but that's not my fault nor my problem. I have no idea where WWII got into the picture, seeing as how Obama's uncle or someone also fought in WWII. Greatest generation or not, they have no business in your argument. Waving around an American flag doesn't help you either.

I've got a problem with anyone who does not maintain a certain level of acting intelligence and decency. By acting intelligence, I mean a level at which one can go through a day aware of one's impact on others around them and a clear understanding of how the world works. You don't have to be smart to have a decent acting intelligence, you just have to be able to understand. I do not believe it is hard for anyone who stops and thinks for a moment before acting. I do not believe it is hard for anyone with integrity and respect for others. I am appalled at this woman's blathering, because she would do everyone a favor by keeping her trap shut. To the Republicans who are cosponsoring a bill to require birth certificate presentation during an election cycle, I feel sorry for you and your constituents that you are wasting everyone's time with this feat of bigotry that has come out of this birther movement, not to mention the 43 presidents that did not have to endure such filth (they were all white).

I'll tell you what, if he needed that Certificate of Live Birth to get a driver's license, to get his passport, and to get into college, then that would be good enough for me to establish citizenship. I have a US passport and driver's license that I had to furnish my birth certificate. When I am 35, I could become president (bad thought, I know). Other than skin color, what would be the difference between Barack Obama and I? Nothing, really.

Again I say to all of you birthers, sit down and shut up. I am afraid I will have to punch anyone I come across spouting this shit, this filth, this stupid speech.

A Strong Case for Palin's "Quitter" Status

So Rachel Maddow basically says in the most eloquent terms what I feel about Sarah Palin's desire to resign/quit. This vid is from Monday:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And today, Palin got slammed with her 18th ethics complaint! Regardless what she says, what Levi says, or even John McCain, the circumstances surrounding her resignation give way more light.

Plain and simple, Palin is too dim to handle a politician's life that went from a small town, to a small state, then a huge leap to the national stage. Pride is the worst of all the seven deadly sins (speaking on her "Christian" level), and she has way too much hubris.

Rachel's last summation was right on point, saying that she has the "inability to judge the difference between what bugs her as a person and what's an appropriate use of an elected official's time and the public's resources."

Let's hope she doesn't run again, because I don't know if my brilliance can stand being sucked out of me when all the news channels keep airing her speeches. I know I harp on her a lot, but her being the focus of my first blog post, you gotta wonder how I feel about her.

Bonnie Fuller: Doesn't Make Any Sense

Read this blog, and then read my response:

Bonnie Fuller: Don't Count Saint Sarah Palin Out for President in 2012!

Ok, for one thing, stop calling her Saint Palin. She is far from a saint. Saints show compassion, show restraint, and ultimately following the teachings of Christ. She will NEVER be a saint, and thank Christ for that.

Now to Bonnie's argument that she so mavericky that she could upset a Republican primary in other states other than the south (much like Mike Huckabee did, right?), and if she wins the primary she could upset Obama on his reelection bid. Because she doesn't like politics as usual? Poppycock! Because she'll beat Obama's grassroots organization efforts? Bullpucky! Because she so super-fantastic and relatable to the average hockey (?) mom that everyone will vote for her in 2012? No dice!

Let's be frank: she has served as mayor of Wasilla, AK, which has a population less than the area around my house here in Valley Village, CA, and one half of a first-term governorship in one of least populated and least impactful states in the Union. Other then these two government jobs, she's sought out completely different jobs that don't aid her quest for the presidency. Who cares of it is executive experience, it's shit experience. And the whole time she's been governor, she's been hassled by people who think she's breaking the rules. That's not effective.

This is what I see by her resignation for a "higher calling". She was so mad that the press can get away with saying what they want about her because she is a public figure and she has to keep refuting it, even when she makes an ass out of herself (standing in front of turkey-murdering machine). She has to realize that she has become more irrelevant in actual policy making that she cannot be an effective executive. She's more of a gaffe machine than Joe Biden, and that's saying a lot.

She WILL NOT beat Obama in a face off in 2012. It will shocking if she wins enough primaries to win the nomination, but she cannot defeat the juggernaut that is Obama. It would be funny to see her choose McCain as her VP though! I personally think getting out of politics is better for the Republican party, because if she stays in as a consultant or tries to run for national office in some form or another, she is condemning the Republican Party to become as the Whigs had become in the 1850s--unnecessary. She will polarize the base from the rest of the party, the evangelical Christians and uber-conservatives opposite the fiscal conservatives and social centrists who identify Republican. She cannot win with that crowd. She cannot bring religion to government. She cannot even put a phrase together without putting 'also' and 'too' next to each other (in Spanish, it's like saying 'tambien tambien', dumb, I know).

I guess we'll see where this ride takes us, but please for the love all that is good and decent in the world, don't say she's going to overtake the presidency in 2012. It's more than wishful thinking, it's shit you say when you're fucking high on drugs.

Posted using ShareThis

MJ Memorial = Why the Insanity?

I really really really hope that after today we can stop all of this insanity that is Michael Jackson coverage.

I spent most of the day bemoaning the coverage of the memorial by every media outlet there is and arguing with my coworker on the frivolity and insanity of said coverage.

Ok, he was a great musician and one of a kind. He died in a shocker to a lot of people. I enjoy his music. I know he is a music icon/legend. However, there are many that have been just like him all throughout history and none were given the same treatment. His death was not shocking to me at all. He was frail, troubled, and most likely an addict. Look at Heath ledger, an addict. How did he die? In an overdose. MJ didn't die in an OD, but pretty close to it for someone his age. Say whatever you wish about his two stints in court over child molestation, but you cannot argue that he was a troubled soul and a troubled mind. It is impossible to get around that. He had lupus and a slew of other diseases that were changing him, and so he decided to counteract it by changing himself. He was no longer a black man at 50. His face was very different since "Billie Jean". I get all of this. He was an enigma; curiosity always followed him, considering all of his weird public escapades, his marriage to Lisa Marie Prestley, Debbie Rowe, having kids with Rowe that aren't his own biological offspring, baby-hanging over balconies, and many many more crazy shite.

However, what I do not get is the coverage that is befallen him and his family. Specials on every news channel, and wall to wall coverage today. LA City taxpayers paying the bill to many LAPD officers who really didn't need to be working today to prevent crazy fans from getting to close the Staples Center. California is broke and the city is in uber-debt. Who thought that this would be a good idea? The people who made money today exploited MJ's death, not celebrate it. Who made money today? The people who were putting together MJ's final tour (who own Staples Center, btw), advertisers on the many stations that ran the coverage, and the cable companies selling ad space. Complete exploitation of a person who probably didn't deserve it and of a family that is still in mourning. I watched a few minutes of memorial, and was flabbergasted. For little Paris to be in front a huge crowd dealing with the death of her father is probably not the best way for a child to be dealing with almost insurmountable grief and sadness. I am ashamed of the Jackson family to agreeing to such a spectacle. I am ashamed at the media for giving such credence to things that are so very insignificant to the broader picture. And I don't want to hear that it is a welcome break from all the bad stuff that is going on, because the death of someone in Western culture is never good, so how is that good news to be watching a dead person's memorial. I know I probably sound really really callous, but the whole thing sounds ridiculous when real events that impact the world citizen's life are going but no covered.

The whole frenzy over the memorial also makes me concerned. I have no better term for the entire thing than insanity. Like we are all part of some Branch Davidian sermon, brainwashed and raptured by some figurehead that may or may not be grand in the scheme of the universe. Most of it is too crazy for words, and I pronounce all and sundry on the bandwagon to be legally and clinically insane.

I hope it is mainly over. No replays, no new specials. If hard news is gained from his death, then yes, I will listen to the reporting from any news organization, but there is definitely no need to floss a dead horse. Let the man rest in peace like he deserves.

My thoughts are all over the place on this subject. If you want clarification, I'll try my best. I'm sure there will be some who disagree, and to them I say thank you.

Michelle Bachmann, At It Again! (VIDEO)

Crazy meets crazy, but sometimes, the first crazy says to the second crazy, "You're too crazy for me, I'm outta here!"

It's always fun to poke fun at Michelle Bacmann's utter-stupidity, and by extension the people she represents because they elected her, even AFTER she threw herself into crazy mode.

I've been developing a conspiracy theory about Michelle Bachmann. Could it be that she actually doesn't believe what she is saying, but wants national attention and fame that she just keep coming out to say it, and knows she has an ear- and mouthpiece on Fox News? I can understand her wanting to be famous; there are 435 representatives and locals fail to hear anything about the lower folks on the totem pole because nobody wants to talk to them. So what she does is go out and say crazy shit, gets the audience to follow what she is saying, and videos on YouTube skyrockets as she is consistently passed around, such as I am doing right now, and gets national attention and fame. It works, and therefore she keeps doing it. So that's my conspiracy theory: she really is an intellectual conservative that makes sense to her colleagues and other folks in private and makes a character in public, much like Stephen Colbert. However, if you're not conservative, you already know, he's joking.

I know what you're thinking, and I agree. My theory couldn't possibly be true. To go out in public and claim the Census is going to be used to round-up folks of an undesired race (maybe crazy white women?) is downright silly. To claim further that there should be a question to weed out illegal immigrants by asking "Are you an American citizen?" is downright hilarious. If I were an illegal immigrant, with everything else being equal, you know what I would do when I got my Census survey and it asked me that question? I would lie, and mark "Yes". There, it's now official and no harm can be done to me. Oh wait, there is harm: the statistics are now wrong. We now have no illegal immigration problem. Well, I guess problem solved? Of course, I overly simplified the situation, but the census is not for finding out how many citizens and non-citizens we have, but to find out the current demographics are in particular areas, and adjusting the seats in Congress accordingly. Sure, some states will benefit from illegal populations, but those states have been benefiting for more than the last Census in 2000. most illegal immigrants won't even be filling one out because they can't physically own property or most of the time rent property, so Michelle, I think you lose that argument, mainly because you're FROM MINNESOTA.

Again, even I don't believe my theory, but it was worth a shot, huh? I can dream of a less stupid world can't I? Or will I continually face stupid speech in this world, particularly from one Michelle Bachmann? Oh well, at least I can blog about her and say mean things and she really can't do anything about it.

My Thoughts on Iran

Ok, so I want to begin by saying that I'm all for the protests and such, showing defiance and believing in democracy. However, there's a caveat: You have a person called the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. It's kinda hard to give any credence to an democratic ideal in that country when the Supreme Leader holds almost all the power in the country. The only way to get rid of the Supreme Leader is by the Assembly of Experts voting him out or death/resignation.

He appoints the military leaders, the heads of all the state-run media outlets, and other important posts. Sure, the President of Iran is elected by the people, or "universal suffrage", but when the Supreme Leader likes the current President, and directs his officials to disregard the election results, then what you have is no democracy. You have a theocracy with some figureheads that really don't hold any power. It's almost as if the whole election is a distraction for the people of Iran to make them think they live in a democracy, when in fact it's not really that different from other countries in the Middle East.

There is a disconnect if Iranians truly believe their democratic rights have been violated. How would we feel if President Obama decided to change the title of that office to the Supreme Leader of the United States and says he gets to serve as long as he wants, while he changes the Constitution to make it so we only elect the Speaker of the House every election. We'd be like, "Fuck you, impeach that motherfucker, so he can't harm our democratic union." That is exactly the situation in Iran. If they truly want a democracy, they need to shed the theocracy from the government, and model their government on a parliamentary system.

I think they should continue to be defiant, especially to Ayatollah Khamenei, because he embodies their plight of "where's my vote?". It's too bad, because I don't think anything will change, but the fact that Iranians are continuing to protest is a good sign. It is also a good sign that the chickenhawk Ahmadinejad ran scared to Russia and is now changing his tune about the election. However, I do not think Mousavi is going to much different from him.

It seems to me that Iranians are trying to "party-switch" like we did here in 2008. Change presidents, maybe it will get better, even they maybe closely similar in their policies. I can't blame them.

However, it seems that both guys don't like to wear ties.

Fox Noise is Given Taste of Own Pills (VIDEO)

So, sorry about another block between postings. I've been kinda preoccupied with other things the last couple of weeks. I'm actually do this today because I miss my fiance and she would want me to keep busy.

Anyway, up there was a video of Griff Jenkins being ambushed by a blogger. Kinda reversed, since Griff is usually the one doing the ambushing of bloggers and other liberals. Props to Adam, I believe is his name, for net letting go and not being badgered by the fact that Griff was the one with the microphone.

It's very annoying the tactics Fox uses to get interviews. How very low on the journalism totem pole is that? How desperate to paint the opposition or disagreers in a bad light are they? It's good to see that Griff got a taste of his own medicine.

There is also one extra bit in that clip that I would like to address: Griff mentions the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. I'm sure my finance knows it better than he does since she just took Political Science. Please allow me to quote that amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Which means that a private event that says "no press" has every right to block someone's "free speech" rights, because Congress hasn't made it law. Things said on this blog, the television, the radio, and other such media outlets are not allowed to say whatever they want to say and then say it was their first amendment right to do so. Utterly false. Your free speech is only protected if the government tries to make a law abridging your right to speak out against it. Like what Iran is doing right now with journalists and the protests. That shit is protected. But me calling Sarah Palin a retard (though she is) is not protected. If she could prove actual malice, I'd be in deep doo-doo.

My Thoughts on Dr. Tiller's Murder

So, I begin my comments with this disclaimer: These are my views on abortion, and although you may not agree with me, attacking me will not be worth it. Also, I let others have their views, as long as it doesn't end up with an action.

Ok, so Dr. George Tiller was a late-term pregnancy abortion doctor. He performed abortions of badly deformed fetuses, where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, and things of the like. He performed these legally, and was recently acquitted in Kansas, where he performs the abortions, for any wrongdoing in these abortions. Pro-life extremists believe that he was needlessly executing babies that could have survived outside of the womb. I do not agree with the statement, because it is not logical. Why pay $5,000 to keep a baby alive when it is not viable? Wouldn't the mother just elect to have a premature pregnancy if the baby was cool to live? It doesn't compute to call it needlessly killing babies. There had to have been a reason for the babies to be aborted.

Another thing I do not find logical is the fact that adult human life is less important than baby human life. There is a disconnect there. Is it because the adult life has become worthless? Are we to believe that fetuses who have not become fully capable human beings are more important than a man who has lived a number a years? Shoulda, coulda, woulda is always used about abortion, but it doesn't work, because anything could happen, and one will never know either way, letting the baby live or aborting the baby.

How does one define a human? Do we say that we can reason abstractly, which separates us from animals? If that's the case, then I would say about half of a normal pregnancy is not considered human as we know it. "Life" does begin at conception, however, but it is not human life. A blastocyst resembles more of an amoeba than a human being, and it probably looks like a chimp's blastocysts, and we're not too worried about having to abort a chimp's baby. "Life" is a single cell organism that can sustain itself.  Now, if we are to think the latter half of the pregnancy does have a conscious human being, I can say that abortion would not be a good choice, UNLESS there is a good reason. If a baby is deformed, how is it justified to bring a life into a society that it cannot perform to the best of its ability? And also, which is more important: the adult mother or the unborn fetus? I believe the mother takes the cake.

My last thoughts on this revolve around religiosity. Pro-lifers say that they are Christians (mostly) and then promote or commit murder. If they believe God is the judger (I know, not a word), then the judgement should be left to God. If Jesus' beliefs are to be followed, then one must turn the other cheek. If the 10 Commandments are to be followed, then one shall not kill. There is no caveat to that commandment, there is no asterisk. Murder is not righteous. No killing is warranted. And certainly, murder should not beget murder. If you believe abortion is murder, then your belief tells you that the abortionist will face judgement for those crimes against God.

I have a feeling my thoughts are all over the place. If you have something to contribute, on either side to the debate, please comment to me, and I will try to clarify or continue to the discussion.

Good one NOM!

The National Organization for Marriage made this new ad for New Hampshire's House bill supporting gay marriage:



The guy on HuffPost that posted this made a good point: These children aren't confused about gay marriage, but about homosexuality itself. And the kid who says that it should be "Ann & Eve" was totally put up to say that, so his confusion was manufactured. It's almost like, "oh, kids say the darndest things" and that is it. As someone who watched the "storm gathering" video, completely shocked by the overt homophobia, I find myself even more shocked that this group is using children to sell its point, just like the Prop 8 supporters did last year. Talk about exploitation. Children inherently don't understand many abstract things that adults do. Their brains really can't do it. At the ages shown the commercial, most are egocentric and think concretely. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are very foreign ideas to them, and to use them to sell a sick point is just wrong.

Let's be frank, NOM: You're a homophobic group who want the religious teachings of your intolerant "God" (I use quotes because these people are hardly Christian or understand the teachings of Christ) melded with civic life, so that you may oppress other whom you deem second- or third-class citizens who do not, under any circumstances, deserve the same rights you enjoy.

If they only used that language when selling their filthy shit to the public.

Another point to make about confused children: "Why does Daddy hit Mommy when he drinks out of the green bottle with the reindeer on it (Jägermeister)?" Nobody is exploiting the children on this issue, as it is a delicate issue. Same sex marriage should be the same way.

Let's leave the children out of this fight, you idiots. Go back to spreading your homophobia the "traditional" way, and let's hope you get run out of town.

Sean Hannity Needs to Go Away

Ok, so why not listen to a guy who has served as a Navy SEAL, gone through the SERE training, and served as a Governor of a decently populated state? What does Sean Hannity know more than Jesse Ventura? I wish he could have actually body-slammed Hannity. It was a TV moment I would have paid to see.

But my bigger point of posting about this video: Why does Sean Hannity get to spew his filth on national TV? Why does he get to tell the news and put his opinion on the airwaves when it is clearly wrong? When he clearly doesn't have a grasp of reality? I have this criticism of all cable news shows, including the ones I watch on a daily basis. It is unfortunate that these people are not held accountable for what they say more and that TV shows are based on ratings and not substance. It is a shame that Sean Hannity can say the stupidest things in the world (President Bush "inherited the negative impacts of 9/11") and continue to make money because those statements rev up a base that feels the same way, watch his show, and make him the number one cable news show. It is also unfortunate that he can convince the people who watch his show that what he says is golden truth.

I'm glad he got his ass handed to him by Jesse Ventura. However, it's too bad it won't do anything to change Hannity. He is going to continue to pollute the airwaves with his propaganda and utter falsehoods. Can we do something about that? Perhaps he'll drown if he ever mans up to Charles Grodin's and Keith Olbermann's challenge to be waterboarded for charity.

Oh, if we can only be so lucky!

Some Minor Rumblings and Ramblings

Again, I apologize to all my avid readers that I haven't been updating like I did in April. I will try harder to update at least once a week, but one every other day or every two days.

This post is not going to be on any specific topics, just what has been in the news lately, because I'm not really fuming on anything. Today's topics haven't been all that exciting, either.

So we have all this torture talk, with what seems like new information everyday. Am I alone in thinking this subject is getting very tired? We have two extremes on both sides of the political spectrum: the right is pretty much defending torture, or at least the Bush admin's use of it in some doomsday scenario "we've got a ticking time bomb". On the left we have calls for senior Bush officials to be prosecuted, including Bush and Cheney themselves, which seems like an act that would further divide this country with every taking sides on every issue, the others on each side calling one another morally suspect.

It seems we are at an impasse. I can understand the left's calls for prosecution of torture. It's bad. Really bad. And it has been said time and time again that it is ineffective on all counts. It's only logical that it would be ineffective, since humans will do anything to prevent themselves from feeling pain (physical or psychological). If you are being hurt, and you are being told what information the person hurting wants, the only way to make them stop is to tell them what they want to hear. Thus, the pain stops. You probably have no idea what you said, and it is most likely false information that will be used against you later. It still made the pain stop. Along with it being really bad, it is also globally illegal. The US wasn't a founding member of the UN for no reason. We had an obligation to decide what was right or wrong during times of war or otherwise.

I obviously don't agree with the right on any of their arguments regarding torture, because they lack any evidence or justification under jurisprudence. They may be rationalized nonstop until the wars end, but that's not going to justify them. However, one bit I do agree with is can we stop with the talk of it already. There are many people strongly arguing on both sides, but I think we've heard enough, and we need to stop running our mouths about it. There is only so much speaking we can do on a subject before it is dead and boring. Sure new information comes out daily, whether leaked or otherwise, but it doesn't mean we should spend 16 hours of the news cycle beating and flossing a dead horse. If there isn't going to be prosecution, can we let it go. I mean, I was unhappy about Bush being president, but was anything done about it? Obviously not. So if lawmakers and the people in charge are not going to do anything about it, then please stop talking about it. I beg of thee liberals, I beg of thee Dick Cheney, I beg of thee neo-cons. 

Of course, by no means do I not want prisoners of war treated with any disrespect or without habeas corpus. If there are detainees that are not guilty of anything, release them. Just like we do here in the US. Sure, if they were guilty, and go out and commit another crime, then by all means take 'em down. However, the argument of "oh, but you'll be subjecting innocent lives to a person who wants to see them die" is not valid. You can't know what is uncertain. There is a principle in chemistry, created by Heisenberg, which basically says that subatomic particles are so energetic, that once you get a lock on one, it has already moved, so it is impossible to determine its position and momentum at the same time. So, to put it in the terms I'm talking about: You think crazy Muslim extremist will do harm when he is released, but he has done nothing wrong that can be ascertained by empirical means. Therefore, you have his position, but not his momentum. You think you have his momentum too, but its too tricky to tell. If you focus on momentum too much, you'll lose his position, and you will never know if he will do any harm. Uncertainty to the fullest. Yes, hindsight is 20-20, and foresight is blind. So why not afford due process?

So that went a little longer than I had anticipated, but no worries. I have a slightly different topic to cover now: Miss California Carrie Prejean. First off, shut up. Beauty pageant contestants should not be heard about anything (e.g. Mrs. Palin), because all they offer is their opinion. If you have no real solutions, then who gives a shit about your opinion? I can say that I believe everything should be free, but if I have no solution to make that happen, it is just words. It's not surprising that Trump didn't fire her because is fucking doesn't matter. It's not like she's doing anything noteworthy. IT'S IN THE FUCKING TITLE: BEAUTY pageant. It is also not shocking that she's guest-hosting Fox & Friends, joined the national marriage haters group that think a "storm" (gay storm, in case you weren't aware) is coming, and is an all-around idiot (Two things: she call it opposite marriage for fucksake, and she was saying that Satan asked her the question; I wouldn't give Perez that much credit). Can we end her 15 minutes already?

And lastly: Can we please get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? It doesn't make any sense. Period. First of all, not asking is irrelevant, because it shouldn't be any business of the military to know whether or not someone is gay. Secondly, shouldn't military personnel be upfront with everyone about their lifestyles. "Oh, I wear women's clothing and kill bunnies," is an ok lifestyle, but as soon as that guy says he has sex with other men, it's no good. Getting rid of Arabic translators is also fucking retarded. You know what, let's send it the guys who speak Spanish to Iraq and Afghanistan, I mean full-blooded Latinos, because their machismo will prevent them from being gay and they can speak Spanish to the natives. Yeah, that's sounds real fucking golden.

It's a stupid program and law and needs to die. If I wanted to live int he 12th century, I'd build a time machine and go there. I rest my case.

Joe the "Idiot"

Sorry I haven't update in a couple of weeks, but I've been slightly tired and busy! The beginning of the month will do that to me!

So Joe the "Plumber" is an idiot. A big idiot. So much of an idiot, I do not and will not put it past the conservative movement in this country to keep using him as a semi-spokesman.

Recently, and I'm sure you've heard by now, he spoke with Christianity Today about gay marriage. Here's the excerpt everyone is talking about:

"Christianity Today: In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

Wurzelbacher: At a state level, it's up to them. I don't want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it's wrong. People don't understand the dictionary--it's called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It's not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we're supposed to do--what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we're supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they're people, and they're going to do their thing."

So now we're all idiots because we don't understand the dictionary. You know, it's one of the very few times a dimbulb will use the DICTIONARY to justify a slur. So, by definition, I can call Joe a queer. I mean, in my opinion, he's strange and unusual. So that's makes him a queer by his own explanation. So, following his own logic, his kids shouldn't be allowed around him, because he's a queer and he doesn't want his kids near queers. But you, at the same time, he's a person, and he's going to use stupid speech at every turn, because he's a queer.

Here's the full definition of queer: 

queer      (kwîr)    
adj.   queer·er, queer·est

1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
6. Offensive Slang Homosexual.
7. Usage Problem Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.

n.  

1. Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual person.
2. Usage Problem A lesbian, gay male, bisexual, or transgendered person.

tr.v.   queered, queer·ing, queers Slang

1. To ruin or thwart: "might try to queer the Games with anything from troop movements . . . to a bomb attack"(Newsweek).
2. To put (someone) in a bad position.

[Perhaps from Low German, oblique, off-center, from Middle Low German dwer; see terk^w- in Indo-European roots.]
queer'ish adj., queer'ly adv., queer'ness n.

Usage Note: A reclaimed word is a word that was formerly used solely as a slur but that has been semantically overturned by members of the maligned group, who use it as a term of defiant pride. Queer is an example of a word undergoing this process. For decades queer was used solely as a derogatory adjective for gays and lesbians, but in the 1980s the term began to be used by gay and lesbian activists as a term of self-identification. Eventually, it came to be used as an umbrella term that included gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. Nevertheless, a sizable percentage of people to whom this term might apply still hold queer to be a hateful insult, and its use by heterosexuals is often considered offensive. Similarly, other reclaimed words are usually offensive to the in-group when used by outsiders, so extreme caution must be taken concerning their use when one is not a member of the group.

Actually, by Joe's logic, he's allowed to use the word queer, since he is one. But don't tell him that, he may get offended!

Here's the problem using lexical definitions to support your bigotry: It's always going to backfire. Take the word "gay." It used to mean happy. Men used to say to each other "we're gay together" and it was totally platonic and heterosexual. Now, "gay" primarily means homosexual. It also morphed into a slang term meaning "lame." Many of the definitions of gay still say forms of "happy." So in Joe's case, if he had used gay, then he is basically saying that homosexuals are happier than he is, and damn them to hell! Again, it backfires.

He also does a horrible job of trying to soften his blow about his children and that homosexuals are sinners by using the phrase "at the same time." It doesn't work like that. You can't have an opinion AND be ambivalent. You're either have a feelings about something, or you're apathetic. Bygones are bygones, or they are not. One or the other Joe. You can't walk down both streets just because you have friends that are "actually" homosexual (as if he has tried not believing it, and all of his hair fell out).

Joe the "Plumber", the biggest touted heavyweight of the conservative movement right now, running his mouth like a leaky hose. He is someone in my mind that makes me fear for the future of the human race.

Urinating on Private Property

This technically isn't a current event, but the last few weeks have boiled to a head.

Why must men urinate in public on private property? It is revolting, disgusting, absolutely gross. When it dries, it makes a stain. It's not water, people. It doesn't disappear when you're finished. If you don't do it in the bushed or on plant life, you can still see it. The water in it does evaporate, but it is not only water. there is ammonia, salt, and other things your body doesn't want in the blood. These things, without the presence of water, become solid crystals and stain the ground on which you just urinated. And it stays there, even if cleaned. The longer it is left without water, the more it stains, and it becomes like red wine on white carpet. Let's not forget the smell. We all know how urine smells. Sometimes it smells bad and other times not so bad, but we all admit it is never rose-smelling. So why do we do it? It brings nothing to the table. There are numerous public restrooms at shopping centers/malls.

There is a purpose for my ranting about urinating on buildings. For the last 2 months, I have been dealing with clever individuals that pee at my work that I cannot find on cameras. They find the locations that are out of the angles and views of the cameras. There is also the fact that I cannot pinpoint the people doing it, as there is too much traffic in and out all the time, especially late in the evening after I go home, and early morning before I get to work. Without being able to see who does, I am resigned to cleaning up the stinky mess and hoping it doesn't happen again.

I am revolted by this action. I cannot stand it. It pisses me off to no end and it probably raises my blood pressure. I'm not sure what pisses me off more: the actual urinating on the wall, or the fact that I cannot determine the perpetrators. It is absolutely frustrating. What I would like to do is to catch these fuckers in action and shame them into the pieces of shit they really are. Sometimes I have found that it has happened during the day when the office is open. WE HAVE A FUCKING BATHROOM FOR THE FUCKING PUBLIC.

It's an offense for which I would like to shoot people in the head. I want it to stop. I want to find the urinators. I want to chop off their penises a la Mrs. Bobbitt and dump a shitload (do not pardon the pun) of piss on their fucking houses, in their houses, and on their clothes.

It's time for these fuckers and pissers and douchebags to get some fucking manners and realize that private property and your desire to evacuate your bladder do not go hand-in-hand. I don't think it's too much to ask someone who most likely has a home with at least one toilet and has been using a toilet since they were about 2-3 years old. Perhaps I should start selling adult diapers in the office for these fuckheads who feel so strongly about peeing in public.

I. FUCKING. HATE. PUBLIC. URINATORS.

/end rant

I Weigh in on Miss California

So by now everyone has seen the clip of Miss California totally blowing a question on the issue of same-sex marriage:



Ok, so Perez asked her if other states should follow Vermont's lead, and she starts out by saying that she thinks it is great that Americans can choose. Doesn't answer the question by any means. She is specifically asked if states should fall in line and grant same-sex marriage, and she says that it is great that Americans can choose same-sex marriage. That's not a choice! You either have it or you don't. Heterosexuals don't say to themselves: "Hmmm, I have the choice to either marry the opposite sex or the same sex. The choice is too hard, I think I'll flip a coin." That doesn't make any sense. The legislature CHOSE to enact a law granting same sex marriage, but no individual is choosing to do it just for the fact that the choice has been granted. She also says "we live in a land where you can choose" and she thinks it's "great". But then 10 seconds later she says in her country, marriage is between a man and a woman. In her country? That must not be the USA, because she just said that we live in a land that grants same-sex marriage.

Don't even get me started on "opposite marriage" because I have no idea what that is. For the countless times she's heard traditional marriage, she was so nervous, she couldn't spit that out. In all actuality opposite marriage would be divorce or separation, as the opposite of marriage. If she was going to throw in the word opposite before marriage, she should have squeezed "sex" in the middle and it would have made much more sense.

Another one: "[she] thinks [she] believes" that a marriage is between a man and a woman, but since she said she thinks, she is obviously unsure of herself and her non-answer. She either thinks or believes, but not together or the other way around, because it just makes you sound uncertain and brainwashed. "I think I believe the grass is green, but I am incapable of seeing the color green."

And lastly, you cannot say that you were raised to believe marriage is between a man and a woman, a) as I am sure that never was a conversation when you were a kid, nor were you ever taught that, except maybe sparingly in Sunday school, and b) come out the next day and say your sister is a gay rights activist so it makes it OK, even though you were most likely raised the same way with the same parent who most likely held the same values as the two of you were growing up. It makes it sound like your sister is some sort of black sheep of the family, was raised horribly, or decided to cast off your family values like some rebel with a cause because it magically popped into her head.

The non-answer is filled with crap, and sure she was nervous, but if you're on stage in just a bikini, I think you can answer a simple question. A simple NO and then a supporting explanation would have answered Perez's question. Not some diplomatic "everyone wins" sort of answer with "my opinion" thrown in there for good measure.

DO IT New York

If New York passes the bill proposed by Governor David Paterson on legalizing same-sex marriage, that would be historically awesome. They would be the second state to legalize through the legislature after their neighbor Vermont, and we all know many gays and lesbians live in and around New York City.

I know I haven't talked about same-sex marriage a lot since I first opened my blog with all the jazz on Prop 8 here in California, but I've been extremely happy about the recent developments in Iowa and Vermont, which is better news for us Californians.

Unfortunately, we still have to deal with Constitutional arguments in the California Supreme Court, as opposed to directly attacking the problem of stripping rights away from citizens.

I've got fingers crossed for New York that they do the right thing, and that more states start following suit. California, we're still waiting.

If you are wondering what might become of certain states that might accept same-sex marriage in the end, look to my previous post about secession, all the way at the end. You will all understand since Canada has been allowing same-sex marriage for years.

The Force is Strong ... in Scotland. (LINK)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8003067.stm

Gotta love the British for taking unto themselves an awesome philosophy. Even if it's a joke, it's an awesome joke for those police officers.

Let's hope that for Scotland's sake, they aren't corrupted by the darkside. That would not be good for fighting criminals.

What's All This I Hear About Secession?

Since secession failed so miserably during the Civil War, you'd think Americans wouldn't use it as a go-to slogan anymore. You'd be wrong in your thinking though. All across the dumbass part of the nation, stupid speech reared it's stupid ugly head yesterday during those god-awful tea party protests.

Even Texas Governor Rick Perry got into the spirit of things by stopping just short of suggesting it speaking at a tea party event. He even signed a bill the other say declaring Texas' sovereignty. And while he was speaking, many people would just scream out "secede!

" It wasn't only in Texas either, and it has been going on for weeks since the stimulus package was passed and signed into law. Ignorant people everywhere who haven't learned about how damaging the Civil War actually was just shout it out because they think they are clever or something.

I have news for everyone who thinks that way: You are not clever. You will never be clever. You will live a hateful life. You will live an ignorant life. You will live a stupid life. Believe in what you want, but if you are truly American you will understand that talk of secession is treason and is punishable by death.

The Civil War was HORRIBLE. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It was a war where more Americans were killed than all the other wars we've fought combined. It is the last war we've fought on American soil. That'd be more than 100 years ago. Before that, remember, we fought most of the wars on our soil (e.g. The Revolution or the War of 1812). It is important to note that the Confederacy was only victorious for so many years because the North and South were starkly different. They had no money, they had very few resources, and by far fewer numbers to recruit (as they did not want to allow black slaves to fight on their side). It was a complete disaster for both sides and something that had to prevented in the future at all costs.

So when people say it is patriotic to secede should crack open in a history and look at how patriotism worked then. And then they should think about their stupid speech, wondering why people in power or supposed authority get the right to say such things. For once, I would like to see someone get arrested for treason or conspiracy to commit treason. Show the sheep what it means to talk about secession. Show them what happened to all of the Confederate States of America when they had to rejoin the Union, including Texas. The country is not best served by fanaticism, but by moderation.

Sure, you don't like what Barack Obama is doing, but hey, we put up with George Bush for 8 years, so you can sit down and shut up, because there were legitimate causes to protest back then, and I don't recall any politician screaming we should secede then. It makes all of you secession screamers look foolish and silly, in addition to dumb and easily swayed to the extreme.

However, you can't to these people. They don't get it, and probably never will, because the talking heads don't want to get it. And thus keeps up the vicious cycle of stupid speech.

Oh, human nature, how I lo(ath)ve thee.

This is secession at its finest:

Use Condoms Fools!

The Pope don't know what he be talking about, yo! Listen to kung-fu Jesus!

I like how the Pope's face is blurred out. Probably a Pope John Paul II action figure. Good times.

Barack Obama Spoken Backwards is Satan

So, I'm sure you've all heard about reverse speech found in music and spoken words. It is something that is made fun of by comedians and anyone with a brain. It is used by fear mongers to advance an agenda to the unwitting public. But it actually has some psychological underpinnings. It can be studied, and it has been studied by cognitive psychologists. But first a little taste:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So Barack tells us to serve Satan, and all that jazz, just by reversing his phrases. You would totally be surprised at how many words int he English language when reversed sound like Satan. Now, I used the word "sound like" because no one can be totally sure the reversed audio is actually saying "Satan".

The term used for reversed audio is backmasking, which basically means hiding a message purposefully in reversed music or speech, for a dastardly agenda, like telling people to subconsciously serve Satan. However, if one is not told what to listen for, then most of the time you won't hear what is purported to be said. The main problem with the Rachel Maddow clip is that she shows us what is being said, written on the screen, so your brain doesn't hear the audio without any previously gained knowledge. It is the main difference for top-down and bottom-up processing of information. Bottom-up processing is what your brain would have to do to the reversed audio if you never heard it before and weren't given any cues as to what is being said. Top-down is what the clip did. You read the information presented on the screen, and the more times the audio was played the better you "heard" what it was saying. You were given the knowledge beforehand, which makes it top-down processing.

Not to bore you, but the research I have done, and hope to continue to do, is instead of presenting the actual words of the phrases of the backmasked audio, I presented visual stimuli, i.e. pictures, of what the main item of the phrases were. The majority of the people could not decipher the reversed audio. Which means that the visual stimuli did not present the information necessary to make the processing top-down. Thus, it can be said that backmasking may not be real if one is not told what to listen for.

There are people that are huge proponents of backmasking, essentially with the evil messages of Satan and telling kids to kill people or smoke stuff. Now, I have a test for you:

Listen to the first video/audio for the forward music. Then listen to the second one for the reversed audio. Comment what you think the reversed one is saying. NO cheating either!

The Beatles - I Am Tired Forward

The Beatles - I Am Tired Reversed

(They are links to .mp3 files; they should play automatically in your browser depending on what you're using.)

If you can't get it, I'll tell you later, but you have to work it out for yourself. It is gonna be hard, just a fair warning. However, if you've heard it before and know the answer, it will be as apparent as forward speech. I've heard it so many times, I cannot get it out of my head unless somebody hits me really hard, and even then, who knows if it will be gone.

So the moral of the story is: don't believe everything you hear. Just support Obama and Satan.

Just a quick edit: Here's a site that has a good amount of backmasked audio from famous music sources: BackmaskOnline

Michelle Bachmann... Part Deux

I found this video while surfing HuffPost:



So what is it with this woman? Is she Joe McCarthy reincarnated? Is it some weird ritual that put his soul into her body, like in The Mummy 2? What is it with her? She spews hate like she's a hate-breathing dragon. I get she has her views on the world, but do they have to be so utterly extreme? Does she have to tell the poor confused moderate part of the country that "re-education camps" are what Obama wants to do? Does she realize that she uses words that are intentionally loaded? Does she not understand that people will take her words literally? Does she not understand that people are dying taking words literally (e.g. the Koran)?

I thought when Barack Obama was elected by a large margin over Old Man and Crazy Hypocrite, the country had agreed that right-wing policies were failing the country as a whole. I guess not, seeing as how left-wing policies need to be stopped at all costs! We cannot elect a liberal-centrist and allow him to change the country the way he sees it! Don't be silly, we elect a liberal, but they must follow conservative agendas. That's how the US works.

Wrong. That's how Michelle Bachmann thinks the country works. Lucky for the rest of us, she doesn't get much of a say int eh House of Reps, seeing she is the in the minority of the minority.

She needs to go away. She needs to get out of national politics. Resign, or something. The Radio hosts says at the beginning of the movie that she hopes MB runs against Amy Klobuchar in 2012 for the Senate seat. I hope she does, because Amy Klobuchar has a bigger chance to win the entire state than Michelle Bachmann can squeeze out in her own district. Then she'll be out of the House and Senate! One can only hope.

However, there is one upside to her spouting off her mouth: She and people like Sarah Palin keep putting their feet further down their mouths, digging the hole of the über-conservative part of the Republican party deeper and deeper.

I guess I'll keep up my crusade against stupid speech. I'll be keeping my eye on her. Don't think Part Deux the last...