It's not a complaint as much as an observation...

2000-2008

2008-2010

It isn't asking too much when you are simply asking for more than just Fred Armisen, is it?

Kagan Exercise

The confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan began today.  The Democrats have enough votes to confirm her to the Supreme Court, but the hearings will go on as a formality.

Last April, I pointed out that President Barack Obama voted against both of President Bush's Supreme Court nominations as a Senator (Alito and Roberts... who were both confirmed, of course).

As Rush Limbaugh lovingly reminded his audience today, Barack Obama in 2008 also said he would've voted against confirming Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.  Based on what?-- lack of experience, of course:



So, I thought a quick comparison of 2 resumes would prove informative...

Let's make that jobless number fifteen million... and ONE.

Last Monday, General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, called up Joe Biden and apologized.  He was apologizing for comments his men made in the presence of a Rolling Stones skunk journalist that would be appearing later in the week.  At that time, the Vice President had no clue what Gen. McChrystal was apologizing for... but, today, the General was fired.

Well, if a Rolling Stone article can get the a General fired, it must have had some pretty damning stuff in it, right?
As the Wall Street Journal puts it, General McChrystal and his men "casually mocked the vice president as a nobody, National Security Adviser James Jones as a 'clown' and the president himself as uncomfortable with military leaders and initially unengaged on defense policy."

If you read the article, you'll be surprised by 2 things.  First, almost none of the most salacious quotes are from McChrystal himself, but from men around him.  And, second, the most salacious stuff  reads like this:

"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"

 According to sources familiar with the meeting, McChrystal thought Obama looked "uncomfortable and intimidated" by the roomful of military brass.

The quotes from the General himself go more like this:

Observing his team. "All these men," he tells me. "I'd die for them. And they'd die for me."

You should really read the article yourself.  I'm sure the writer was disgusted by how men talk, and expected he was exposing something.  But, to service men and women, this will all seem very tame.  Hell, from anybody who spent time in a little league dugout, this will seem pretty tame.  But, I digress...

The World Cup of soccer

I watched the England v. USA soccer game. . . match last Friday. I am trying to get into the whole World Cup thing. I don't have anything against soccer. It is a fine game, it just doesn't hold a candle to football/baseball/(non-NBA) basketball/wrasslin'.

I enjoyed the game, mainly I think, because of the energy of the crowd and the possibility of hooliganism from the players. Also, I respect, with all of the integrity at my command, the fantastic shape each player is in.

I may enjoy the game more if I knew what the shit was going on. I don't get yellow cards, "extra time", "off sides", or a lot of other things that foreign, dirt babies learn before they exit the womb.

Related: The Onion just won the internet.


Soccer Officially Announces It Is Gay

Why is the world so madly in love with "football"? (Earth translation: soccer) It seems all non-Americans would give their first born to be able to play in 1 World Cup match. Their toddlers learn to run before they can successfully manipulate their fingers since they have been playing soccer from the first possible instant. It smacks of Catholicism: people from poor countries are born into it and forced to like it.

Why is America so madly indifferent with soccer? Because we didn't grow up on ant hills. By winning the cosmic lottery, we were born in a land where we can choose to play any sport or any number of sports. Your kid wants to play football? Sign him up for Pop Warner. Your kid wants to shoot clay pigeons? Buy him a shotgun. That kid from Ghana wants to compete in the snowboard half-pipe at the X Games? Too freaking bad. Here is a ball, pretend it is a soccer ball. Here is 1000 acres of undeveloped land, pretend it is a soccer pitch. Here are 3 trash cans and a tiki torch, make them into goals.

Now. . . play soccer.

Conspiracy Theories: When the Obvious Truth is Just too Hurtful

 I recently saw a status update on facebook that said, "For those yall supporting Alvin Greene you need to wise up.  You just hurting the cause of the black man."

I laughed pretty hard at first, but then it got me thinking about the whole situation out there in South Carolina.  So, if you are not aware of the controversy, what happened was some no-name gentleman decided to run for the South Carolina US Senate seat in the Democratic primary.  With no money, and hardly any advertisements, Alvin Greene won the primary and is now on the South Carolina ticket for November elections.

Not so controversial yet, I know...but wait.  Within two days of his primary victory he was asked to withdraw by every Democrat in the state pretty much, since he is facing felony charges for showing, uh, inappropriate pictures to some college girl.  It was at this point the conspiracy theories began to fly.

"He is a Republican Plant!" they scream.  "He didn't pay his fees!" "He accepted unauthorized monies!"

Yeah, yeah.   We hear ya.  Want to hear the truth though?  Alvin Greene is a black man, who was running for office against an old white guy in the state with the highest percentage of African Americans in the Union. 

No conspiracy theories needed.  When will these people realize that 97% of citizens know absolutely nothing about the people they vote for other than what they look like, and what their name is?  The populace is retarded.  Well, most of them are.  This is especially true when it comes to politics.

Case and point:




(P.S.  I am not a big Michael Savage fan, but I have to admit he does crack me up once in a blue moon)



SUPER AWESOME UPDATE:

Apparently, this same lady has also called Rush.  The sound and video quality isn't great so here is the transcript.

And the video....

Waiting for November...

My brain is in a holding pattern.

It's difficult to "live in the now", right now. I don't find it thearapeutic to recall and/or dwell upon;

the bailouts, which were an undeniable debacle...

followed by the ham-fisted mishandling of the Chrysler/GM bankruptcies...

followed by the astonomically expensive, yet infinitesimally effective 'stimulus' package...

and capped by the mother of ham-fisted, expensive, government debacles; the passing of ObamaCare.

This current political funk is further exasperated by the general misunderstanding and/or misrepresentations of Rand Paul's statements in regards to a specific aspect of the Civil Rights Act. (Essentially, the question is, 'Should the Federal Government prohibit private businesses from discriminating against customers on the basis of race?')

Rand Paul and the libertarian's contention is, no. The government should not intervene to that degree into private business's business.

Paul is in a camp that views the question as broken down into a more general ideology of, "Should the Federal Government prohibit private businesses from doing something?"

Whereas the other side views the question as, "Shouldn't the Federal government do as much as it can to stop bad things from happening?"

The media and seemingly the general public's general characterization of some of the basic tenents of libertarianism demonstrate how far the pendulum has swung in the direction of government intervention.

Which is disheartening.