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.