Mar 27 2007
I'm cheap! And selfish!
Well, there's probably a better word for it, and it's not exactly frugal/thrifty. More like a discerning capitalist who loves a good value. And I'm a selfish little bastard who will stop at nothing to line the piggy! Well, except get a job.
Anyway, there are two elements to this. I'll first define what I mean by "cheap" and second define how I got there.
CHEAP
I'm not cheap in the sense that I like cheap things, like two dollar whores and stuff from the dollar store. In fact, I'm very adamant about purchasing some high quality goods, especially those which retain their value, like houses, cars, investments, electronic stuff, etc. Well okay, cars and electronic stuff don't really retain their value, but I don't like shitty cars, and since I don't really care about music, I have the girlie-man IPod nano. And houses are of course, in theory, since I don't yet have the capability to purchase one of them...apart from a plot of land, a trailer, and a mule in Idaho.
However, the essence of my cheapness comes in demanding I find the absolute best deal on a product of ANY price range, and I spend an absurd amount of time mentally calculating which object to choose based on the maximum utility I will get out of the object for the absolute minimum price.
For example, let's say I go to McDonalds. I could get the BigMac meal for $4.99...but I ask, "Hmmm, is there any combination of objects I can order that will yield an equal or greater amount of taste, health, and volume utility for less than $4.99? Maybe I can enlist my dad to order me a senior drink I can refill 4 times?"
It can also be as simple as, "I can to go to two stores that have blueberry muffins. Store A has $1.10 blueberry muffins and is 700ft away, while Store B has $1.30 blueberry muffins and is 250ft away. Is 450 more feet of walking worth $0.20?"
I also like exact change and paying even dollar/quarter amounts. I'll become enfuriated if a purchase I'm making costs $1.26 and I have $6.25 and can't get that clean $5 back. While $4.99 is functionally $5, it will eat at me if I don't have my crisp $5, hence I use a credit card for most purchases and pay it off every month.
It also excites me greatly to hear of good deals, no matter what product and cost range they are in. My brain steps into a state of euphoria when I can get much more utility and value for a lesser price than I would have purchased that utility for anyway. That ranges from a good deal on a blueberry muffin to a deal on a nice computer to a new car, etc. In other words, I'm not averse to buying expensive things...I just like to get a good deal on them. And I hate buying things I don't need. Ugh!
I neurotically do all this with every purchase. It's real sick and sad, I know.
BACKGROUND/ORIGIN
My grandpa grew up during the great depression. He ended up making a lot of money with a successful company that distributed camera equipment, but always remained extremely frugal because of the GD terror in the back of his mind.
Consequently, my dad grew up with that same mentality, except reformed to a type of cheap like mine. He would never buy anything that wasn't a good deal, but would go all out when he found something HE thought was an exceptional deal. He's also very self-centered about his frugality, criticizing purchases that he doesn't value. In the 1980's, he would rail on my mom for her Salvadore Ferragamo shoes, while he bought a $15,000+ computer when computers were a joke. While I'm sure he got a good deal, he would be frustrated if my mom got an amazing deal on Salvadore Ferragamo shoes. If my mom didn't have her wonderful Pan Am job, her Salvadore Ferragamo spending would have been more severely reigned in.
Also ethnicity: I'm about 3.25% Scottish, so that's not really in play. But I probably do have a decent amount of Sephardic Jew.
"Hurry boobala, this nice shirt is on sale for $29.95, but I wonder if we can get that schmock to bargain down. [Sees the child underdressed]. Oh my Gawd boobala, put on ya sweater or ya gonna catch cold! Oh Gawd, the weather has been horrible! It must be the Republicans' fault."
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
It's Inaccurate to Call Libertarians "Socially Liberal"
Mar 21 2007
While I generally identify as "conservative"...
I sometimes like to call myself "Libertarian" to signify to others my departure from the strongly "Southern Conservative" wing of the Republican Party (even though I personally like Southern Conservatives). While I note that I'm strongly economically conservative and emphasize small government, I very much hesitate to call myself a "social liberal". When I think of people who are socially liberal, I think of people who aggressively pursue left-leaning social policy and want to use government as a tool to bring such left-leaning social policy to fruition.
In contrast, I don't see libertarians as pursuing a leftist or conservative view of social policy but rather seeking a "social free market policy". In other words, we really don't want the government screwing with social policy, which includes the implimentation of aggressively socially liberal and socially conservative policies; or at the very least, government should work towards socially free markets, where policy is dictated by what works best for the majority (and what they desire). We opine that neither Jerry Falwell's opinions nor BAMN's/CodePink's opinions belong anywhere near government. For the most part, we feel society is pretty much fine and not in need of dramatic social overhauls. I personally have a strong distaste for people who try to radically legislate cultural change against the will of the people.
So some "social free market" examples:
1. Gun control (side with conservatives).
It's a socially liberal policy to advocate high levels of gun control, or on the far left, complete abolition of firearms. Whether such policy works is highly debatable.
However the libertarian position is far different. We don't believe it's the government's right to tell you what objects you can and cannot own; you're not guilty until you do anything with a dangerous object. That being said, we believe in very strict punishment for people who abuse those freedoms, and none of that rehabilitation instead of punishment nonsense.
2. Gays (side with moderates)
It's preposterous of the far-right to think that gays just don't exist. If you do a sociological calculation, there's no way in hell (no pun intended) 10% of the population would choose a path that mainstream society views as socially aberrant. I'm totally cool with gay people; I'm not cool with flamboyancy from either gay or straight people.
Religion and religious ethos is totally fine as long as it's not used to guide governmental policy. It's not appropriate to say that gays can't have civil unions because Jerry Falwell thinks that gay is a choice (and a bad one at that). If someone is placed in a situation beyond their control, like being gay, it is appropriate to make civil union legislation to ensure non-discrimination and equality under the law.
That being said, marriage is a religious institution that just happens to be issued by the government to propagate family and stability. If the majority of US citizens don't find gay marriage acceptable, and gays have equal marriage rights in the US with civil unions, then libertarians should not be proponents of legislating against the majority. If gay activists need a piece of paper telling them how much they love each other and want to break with the traditional framework on which our society was built, I don't take much stock in their cause. (In the near future, I do want to blog on my discomfiture with radical gay politics, and how they hurt any gay causes).
3. Affirmative Action (side with conservatives)
BAMN (a violent far-left fringe group entitled "By Any Means Necessary") needs to look up the definition of "racism". Racism, as defined, means making decisions or judgments based on race. If BAMN chooses to use the technical definition, then they are one of the most racist groups in the world, second only to Hitler and the KKK. They just do it backwards by taking radical legislative and physical action to enact discriminatory policies to benefit groups that they stereotype everyone in them to be disadvantaged (while no white people are ever disadvantaged). Libertarians and Republicans are not "racist" at all because they want a society with racially blind and non-discriminatory government and private sector decisions. It's not the place of a government institution to correct what they see as social ills if it discriminates against anybody. The governments shouldn't have opinions; they are required to regard every citizen as unequivocally equal (apart from financial issues, of course).
Anyway, my point is that previous discrimination cannot be righted with reverse discrimination. Libertarians also believe that disadvantaged groups suffer with handouts because it does not incentivize them to overcome shortcomings by outdoing peers. In other words, if you reward mediocrity, the disadvantaged group will have no incentive to overcome mediocrity and will remain mediocre. When I was six and learning how to swim, I swam beautifully in the shallow end but refused to ever enter the deep end. The swimming teacher's method to correct this was to have herself and my parents collectively restrain me and throw me into the deep end. I believe we have to throw disadvantaged groups in the deep end and force them to swim, cause they can, and it will change their lives.
I'm living proof that Affirmative Action is flawed. I'm 50% lumped in some kind of Latin American group just because my mom was born way down there (even though we have Arabesque, Basque, Galacian, Italian, Spanish, Indian, Sephardic etc roots), which entitles me to check the "Hispanic" category on anything if I want, and benefit from any affirmative action policies. At the same time, I look reasonably white (most guess Greek or Italian...okay), I talk totally white, I was raised societally very white, I was raised upper middle class, I went to a private rich high school that costs 2.5 times my Berkeley tuition, I never had a roadblock or a disadvantage, and besides my corruption and wildness (and my Aunt Pay's heavy accent), I have no vestiges of any kind of "Hispanic/Latin" cultural or racial structures; and yet, wow, I can benefit. When I told my college counselor this, he basically said, "Sweet. Whore it up for all it's worth." Is that right?
When it comes right down to it, there are not many issues that libertarians can really say they're actually liberal on. If libertarians say they side more with liberals on the issues or vote more with liberals, then they're not libertarians. They're, uh, liberals!
Western Conservatism all the way baby!
Republicans in Congress and The White House are making some horrible anti-conservative policy decisions, but that doesn't mean that it's smart to vote for the other party if they're doubly worse. Unfortunately, the Democrats have marked their return to Congress with useless and wasteful bickering over foreign policy decisions over which they have no juristiction. If they continue wasting time and being even more divisive than the Republicans just for the sake of being posturatively divisive, they're going to sink themselves again.
USA love.
You Guys Should Wait A Few Months Before Slobbering All Over Obama
Mar 18 2007
It's almost like y'all are Michael Jackson and Barack Obama is Macaulay Culkin. It's kind of gross.
In order to be reasonable here, I'm going to make a concession. It's going to hurt.
Ouch! My Republican friends are going to have my neck, but I don't really mind Bill Clinton. It's not really chic in Republican circles to admit this, but I will because I believe in saying what's right and not towing the party line, especially if it's wrong. His economic policies weren't half bad, he broke with the left in the Welfare Reform Act, and did a few other good things as well as a few bad things. God knows he and Hillary are corrupt, but I can live with that - I'm Latin/Spanish for God sakes, and if there's anything we know about, it's corruption (just take a trip down to see Hugo). And I think the "horny hick" idea is kind of cool (however I think his impeachment was quite appropriate, and his behavior unbecoming for a head of state). This is of course not to say that George Bush Sr. or Bob Dole wouldn't have done a better job. I'm just saying Clinton is a decent compromise if things don't go your way, unlike Nancy "San Francisco Values" Pelosi.
So here's my point: it seems to be chic right now to salivate over Barack Obama as president in much the same way my dog Buddy finds it chic to salivate over my leg. However, none of us really know where he stands or really know where Billary, uh oops, I mean Hillary stands. There's not much talk of policy in Obama's grandiose sweeping diatribes of civil rights and uniting America. Obama's actual record, despite being shorter than Kim Jong-Il's "nuclear love/pepe weapon", is very left-leaning, and those with agendas on the staunch left or right don't have good records in uniting America.
So before you sloppily throw your support behind one candidate or the other, give things a chance to play out. I don't mind if anyone throws their support behind Obama as long as you've given yourself ample time for review and introspection of Obama and other candidates.
Admittedly, I think I've been too early to throw my support behind Giuliani and haven't given myself adequate time to explore Romney. However, I do know where Giuliani stands on most issues, which are made clear by his recent statements and consistent record. His moderate vibe is also very appealing, and I do think his idea of gun-control being a states' rights issue is a nice compromise. My strong family history from New York also makes him personally attractive. And I don't like Romney's flip-flopping. It reeks of John Kerry (equals Phil Angelides, equals gross). McCain is tired, and he wants to repeal tax cuts. That just took me over the edge.
Anyways, I gave Billy a chance, and I think y'all on the left and especially moderates should give Giuliani and perhaps Hillary a look over. This does not apply to John Edwards however. John Edwards = Phil Angelides = real big douche bag. Ironically, I think John Edwards will be at his "Orange County" ranch for quite a long time, and his adding of Kate Michelman as a campaign advisor and Amanda Marcotte as horrifically vulgar blogger have already more than sealed the deal.
It's almost like y'all are Michael Jackson and Barack Obama is Macaulay Culkin. It's kind of gross.
In order to be reasonable here, I'm going to make a concession. It's going to hurt.
Ouch! My Republican friends are going to have my neck, but I don't really mind Bill Clinton. It's not really chic in Republican circles to admit this, but I will because I believe in saying what's right and not towing the party line, especially if it's wrong. His economic policies weren't half bad, he broke with the left in the Welfare Reform Act, and did a few other good things as well as a few bad things. God knows he and Hillary are corrupt, but I can live with that - I'm Latin/Spanish for God sakes, and if there's anything we know about, it's corruption (just take a trip down to see Hugo). And I think the "horny hick" idea is kind of cool (however I think his impeachment was quite appropriate, and his behavior unbecoming for a head of state). This is of course not to say that George Bush Sr. or Bob Dole wouldn't have done a better job. I'm just saying Clinton is a decent compromise if things don't go your way, unlike Nancy "San Francisco Values" Pelosi.
So here's my point: it seems to be chic right now to salivate over Barack Obama as president in much the same way my dog Buddy finds it chic to salivate over my leg. However, none of us really know where he stands or really know where Billary, uh oops, I mean Hillary stands. There's not much talk of policy in Obama's grandiose sweeping diatribes of civil rights and uniting America. Obama's actual record, despite being shorter than Kim Jong-Il's "nuclear love/pepe weapon", is very left-leaning, and those with agendas on the staunch left or right don't have good records in uniting America.
So before you sloppily throw your support behind one candidate or the other, give things a chance to play out. I don't mind if anyone throws their support behind Obama as long as you've given yourself ample time for review and introspection of Obama and other candidates.
Admittedly, I think I've been too early to throw my support behind Giuliani and haven't given myself adequate time to explore Romney. However, I do know where Giuliani stands on most issues, which are made clear by his recent statements and consistent record. His moderate vibe is also very appealing, and I do think his idea of gun-control being a states' rights issue is a nice compromise. My strong family history from New York also makes him personally attractive. And I don't like Romney's flip-flopping. It reeks of John Kerry (equals Phil Angelides, equals gross). McCain is tired, and he wants to repeal tax cuts. That just took me over the edge.
Anyways, I gave Billy a chance, and I think y'all on the left and especially moderates should give Giuliani and perhaps Hillary a look over. This does not apply to John Edwards however. John Edwards = Phil Angelides = real big douche bag. Ironically, I think John Edwards will be at his "Orange County" ranch for quite a long time, and his adding of Kate Michelman as a campaign advisor and Amanda Marcotte as horrifically vulgar blogger have already more than sealed the deal.
Fabulous Realities
Mar 15 2007
Back in the 10th Grade, we had this snooty British teacher for English named Mrs. Katrina Atsinger. She always made sure we knew she had "Hons" (whatever that means) from Oxford in English Language & Literature as she pranced delicately around the room like a gazelle far removed from her heat.
Anyway, we had an assignment that Mrs. Atsinger demanded we do over Christmas Break: look out for "Fabulous Realities". Fabulous realities are kind of like the ironic and hypocritical things people do that totally contrast with what they say they do or believe. It's like finding a militant vegan you know eating a bucket of chicken at KFC.
So I've found some "fabulous realities" over here at Berkeley that I've elected to share:
ONE
Ryan Seacrest......................(okay, I kid).
TWO
I came across a chick with a shirt entitled "be compassionate, go Vegan" outside of Moffitt today. That's fine except for the fact that she was brooding under that big tree outside FSC smoking a cigarette! When I think of Veganism, I think of people who are concerned with good health and the well being of their bodies. What's the point of not ingesting meat if smoking is doubly unhealthful for your body? Where's the "compassion" for your body? Who cares about saving a fucking chicken if you're going to die of lung cancer? Not only that, but she looked brooding and weird like those PETA people who only care about animals and not about people...not to mention she looked gaunt and unhealthy.
THREE
So I was walking down Shattuck after having ingested about 60 oz worth of ice and Coke (about two months ago). It was about 35 Deg F outside, I was shivering & seizuring from all the ice, and I had a sweater and a hoodie on with the hood wrapped tightly around my head. Now get ready for this: at about Center Street, some guy wearing a blue "Environment" t-shirt with about 10 face piercings approaches me (like those fuckers on Sproul), must have noticed my extreme cold and wrapping, and still has the balls to ask: "Care to help fight global warming?" Are you fucking serious? I gave him a cold piercing stare for about 15 seconds, and finally ask "Are you serious?". He apparently doesn't understand what a extremely inconvenient time (no pun intended) that was for him to ask and seemed to be confused. No I don't care to right now, Mr. Greenpeace (I want to go home and heat myself in the bathtub). I scoffed and walked away from the ultra-left element. It seems as if Berkeley liberals are latching onto global warming like Bill Clinton latches onto heavyset Jewish interns.
FOUR
Violent Anti-War activists (not to mention Cindy Sheehan's association with the Chavez-Mahmoud alliance)
FIVE
Al Gore transferring from his Prius to Private Gulfstream Jet...on the way to a Global Warming Conference! (any efficiency Al Gore has gotten in the lifetime of his Prius is immediately eradicated by one trip in his Gulfstream jet).
SIX
Teddy Kennedy talking about preserving life. That's rich.
That's all I can think of right now. Kudos to anyone who can think of any more.
Back in the 10th Grade, we had this snooty British teacher for English named Mrs. Katrina Atsinger. She always made sure we knew she had "Hons" (whatever that means) from Oxford in English Language & Literature as she pranced delicately around the room like a gazelle far removed from her heat.
Anyway, we had an assignment that Mrs. Atsinger demanded we do over Christmas Break: look out for "Fabulous Realities". Fabulous realities are kind of like the ironic and hypocritical things people do that totally contrast with what they say they do or believe. It's like finding a militant vegan you know eating a bucket of chicken at KFC.
So I've found some "fabulous realities" over here at Berkeley that I've elected to share:
ONE
Ryan Seacrest......................(okay, I kid).
TWO
I came across a chick with a shirt entitled "be compassionate, go Vegan" outside of Moffitt today. That's fine except for the fact that she was brooding under that big tree outside FSC smoking a cigarette! When I think of Veganism, I think of people who are concerned with good health and the well being of their bodies. What's the point of not ingesting meat if smoking is doubly unhealthful for your body? Where's the "compassion" for your body? Who cares about saving a fucking chicken if you're going to die of lung cancer? Not only that, but she looked brooding and weird like those PETA people who only care about animals and not about people...not to mention she looked gaunt and unhealthy.
THREE
So I was walking down Shattuck after having ingested about 60 oz worth of ice and Coke (about two months ago). It was about 35 Deg F outside, I was shivering & seizuring from all the ice, and I had a sweater and a hoodie on with the hood wrapped tightly around my head. Now get ready for this: at about Center Street, some guy wearing a blue "Environment" t-shirt with about 10 face piercings approaches me (like those fuckers on Sproul), must have noticed my extreme cold and wrapping, and still has the balls to ask: "Care to help fight global warming?" Are you fucking serious? I gave him a cold piercing stare for about 15 seconds, and finally ask "Are you serious?". He apparently doesn't understand what a extremely inconvenient time (no pun intended) that was for him to ask and seemed to be confused. No I don't care to right now, Mr. Greenpeace (I want to go home and heat myself in the bathtub). I scoffed and walked away from the ultra-left element. It seems as if Berkeley liberals are latching onto global warming like Bill Clinton latches onto heavyset Jewish interns.
FOUR
Violent Anti-War activists (not to mention Cindy Sheehan's association with the Chavez-Mahmoud alliance)
FIVE
Al Gore transferring from his Prius to Private Gulfstream Jet...on the way to a Global Warming Conference! (any efficiency Al Gore has gotten in the lifetime of his Prius is immediately eradicated by one trip in his Gulfstream jet).
SIX
Teddy Kennedy talking about preserving life. That's rich.
That's all I can think of right now. Kudos to anyone who can think of any more.
Why I Have No Sympathy For John Edwards
Mar 5 2007
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" Coulter said.
All right. So Ann Coulter's "faggot" comment was a little off color.
But it's really stupid of people to make a huge hissy fit over it, using such dramatic language as "hate filled speech", "gay slur", or even John McCain's term "wildly inappropriate".
It's not hate filled speech when it's obvious Ann Coulter was not making any reference to any sexual preference; she was simply calling him a douche, a remark which I am guilty of making towards John Edwards; she was also making a witty reference to how stupid it was for Isaiah Washington to be banished to rehab over calling T.R. Knight a "faggot" (when he actually was one). When people do something stupid or act like a douche, it's not unusual for another friend to go, "man, you're such a faggot" or "dude, you're a total fag." I personally don't elect to use those terms, but people have said it to me when I'm acting stupid, and even to infer I was gay, and I'm not terribly bothered by it. It's not like Ann Coulter demanded that John Edwards come out of the closet or called for the murder and persecution of gays; she just used a slang term for stupid. She's not a politician and doesn't have to be polite. In fact, it's mildly refreshing in a society where we're suffocated into using terms like "people of color" and "people of size". If an off-color term slips out of my mouth and I'm not trying to disparage anyone, then I'm not going to be happy with anyone that makes a big deal out of it.
While obviously not the same thing, I'll tell a little anecdote here: When they screwed up my billing a couple years ago, I had to go into the B&P services office for a couple days to sort it out. When I worked with a different person the second day, that person asked me, "Who were you working with yesterday?" And since I didn't know the lady's name, I said, "She was a taller black woman." The lady then GLARED at me and said, "Well, we only had two AFRICAN-AMERICAN women on staff" (and boy did you notice that capitalization).
So back on topic, Coulter made the following remark yesterday which more than clarified what she meant, and really sent me chuckling:
"C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean," Coulter told the New York Times.
Now here's my beef: John Edwards could have been the more mature one, and let it go. In that case, I for once would have had a smidge of respect for him. So a political pundit essentially calls you a "douche" - that's not a big deal; it's done all the time.
But no! John Edwards makes a much huger deal out of it that it was, and further whores it up for his political benefit. He even is creating a $100,000 fight political hate speech donation pot on his website. How shameless! If he really cared about fighting hate speech, he wouldn't cause such a stir, which has given a joyous rise to Ann Coulter (she's totally loving this), and will prompt her to do it again.
Now, I'm not an Ann Coulter apologist. Her inane analysis of the 2008 Republican presidential contenders irked me a bit and her views are too religious right for my tastes. However, out of desperation to finally hear someone speak their mind and knowing that it's obviously not an "anti-gay" slur, I'm not going to decry it, and people shouldn't be making a huge deal out of it. I'm a little tired of Barack's eloquent politically correct sweeping airbrushed statements anyways.
Lighten up people. Seriously.
Here's a link to her explanation of the situation on Hannity & Colmes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKVwrHQXXaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYFijV9pOsE
References: JibJab's earlier works
"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" Coulter said.
All right. So Ann Coulter's "faggot" comment was a little off color.
But it's really stupid of people to make a huge hissy fit over it, using such dramatic language as "hate filled speech", "gay slur", or even John McCain's term "wildly inappropriate".
It's not hate filled speech when it's obvious Ann Coulter was not making any reference to any sexual preference; she was simply calling him a douche, a remark which I am guilty of making towards John Edwards; she was also making a witty reference to how stupid it was for Isaiah Washington to be banished to rehab over calling T.R. Knight a "faggot" (when he actually was one). When people do something stupid or act like a douche, it's not unusual for another friend to go, "man, you're such a faggot" or "dude, you're a total fag." I personally don't elect to use those terms, but people have said it to me when I'm acting stupid, and even to infer I was gay, and I'm not terribly bothered by it. It's not like Ann Coulter demanded that John Edwards come out of the closet or called for the murder and persecution of gays; she just used a slang term for stupid. She's not a politician and doesn't have to be polite. In fact, it's mildly refreshing in a society where we're suffocated into using terms like "people of color" and "people of size". If an off-color term slips out of my mouth and I'm not trying to disparage anyone, then I'm not going to be happy with anyone that makes a big deal out of it.
While obviously not the same thing, I'll tell a little anecdote here: When they screwed up my billing a couple years ago, I had to go into the B&P services office for a couple days to sort it out. When I worked with a different person the second day, that person asked me, "Who were you working with yesterday?" And since I didn't know the lady's name, I said, "She was a taller black woman." The lady then GLARED at me and said, "Well, we only had two AFRICAN-AMERICAN women on staff" (and boy did you notice that capitalization).
So back on topic, Coulter made the following remark yesterday which more than clarified what she meant, and really sent me chuckling:
"C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean," Coulter told the New York Times.
Now here's my beef: John Edwards could have been the more mature one, and let it go. In that case, I for once would have had a smidge of respect for him. So a political pundit essentially calls you a "douche" - that's not a big deal; it's done all the time.
But no! John Edwards makes a much huger deal out of it that it was, and further whores it up for his political benefit. He even is creating a $100,000 fight political hate speech donation pot on his website. How shameless! If he really cared about fighting hate speech, he wouldn't cause such a stir, which has given a joyous rise to Ann Coulter (she's totally loving this), and will prompt her to do it again.
Now, I'm not an Ann Coulter apologist. Her inane analysis of the 2008 Republican presidential contenders irked me a bit and her views are too religious right for my tastes. However, out of desperation to finally hear someone speak their mind and knowing that it's obviously not an "anti-gay" slur, I'm not going to decry it, and people shouldn't be making a huge deal out of it. I'm a little tired of Barack's eloquent politically correct sweeping airbrushed statements anyways.
Lighten up people. Seriously.
Here's a link to her explanation of the situation on Hannity & Colmes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKVwrHQXXaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYFijV9pOsE
References: JibJab's earlier works
Hollywood Hypocrites and Their Old Pal, Al "Chubbycakes" Gore
Mar 1 2007
I've been thinking about blogging on this important issue for some time now, but Al "Double Cheeseburger" Gore's recent stunt at the Academy Awards propelled me to write post-haste.
Despite their general lack of education, most Hollywood celebrities have the audacity to think that the general populace (generally more educated) should be required to endure their incessant bloviating about foreign issues, the economy, and most hypocritically, the environment and global warming.
ONE
Without any knowledge of what kind of tax rates and economic policies stimulate and grow the economy (and certainly without knowledge of the Laffer curve), Hollywood adopts a moronic Robin Hood type view of the economy where people who are in the upper brackets of income earning should be required to redistribute a humongous share so it can be wasted within the government instead of building the economy with investment in small businesses and buying goods and services (which grows the economy and creates jobs for the poor). You know, Hollywood's love for those kind of Pelosi-esque policies where money oozes into the federal bureaucracy so it can either inefficiently be wasted with ridiculous government programs or redistributed to people who don't want to work, giving them less incentive to do so and more time to commit crime.
Hollywood would be surely be content with a 70% tax rate on the upper class. Heaven forbid anyone should be allowed to have a million dollar house and a couple of BMW's to reward their hard work, superb IQ capacity, and innovation. What does Leonardo DiCaprio care of a 70% annual tax rate on salary when he still would have money left over for a house in West Palm, Malibu, and The Hamptons, not to mention 50 leather bound Priuses and Gisele's daily meal of Campbell's soup. Is it too much to ask that the $250K income earner have a jet ski, a bi-decennial trip to Tuscany, one house in Los Angeles, and perhaps half a can of Campbell's soup?
TWO
If Iran were about aim a missle at American soil, and heaven forbid we wanted to do something about it, Hollywood would immediately decry the government for "attacking Iran" and promptly "demand an end our imperalist behavior". Hollywood's feminist view of foreign policy is simply that war is bad, and we should gayly release a bird, demand peace, form a hippy happy circle, and "talk it out". Yeah - try telling that to Mahmoud Ahmadimejad. I'm sure he'll stop enriching uranium over a nice afternoon tea witk Kofi Annan. Oh, but Kofi Annan asked nicely.
Kofi: "Mahmoud, I FEEL that it would nice if you stopped enriching uranium."
Mahmoud: "Sure, sure. *Cough*. I'll shut down my plants Kofi, just for you. You have my word sugarcake."
Yeah, right.
There's a part of the world (ala North Korea and the Middle East) that foolishly demands to play with the big-boys and won't be persuaded with the UN and Europe's unwholesome brand of liberal sugarcakeing. If I were Mahmoud, I'd go into Iraq immediately after a US retreat and dominate the oil market, effectively doubling my power and potentially crippling the US economy. Oh, and the UN has passed a resolution. How sweet! Maybe sugarcake Kofi will invite me over to a lovely brunch where he can give me a femmy slap on the wrist and tell me how bad I've been. I'm shakin' in my turban.
THREE
Al Gore really has his balls...and the only place his balls should be is in an "ironclad lockbox" (a cute little election 2000 reference if you picked up on that). And don't give me this attack the messenger thing, because the messenger is a total hypocrite and has severe credibility problems.
To tell you the truth, I don't want to hear about sustainability from a man who can't even sustain himself. Al Gore's as fat as a bloated elephant, and he looks like he's going to run out of breath and die at every one of his global warming conferences. What's his point in saving the earth if he's two fried chicken wings away from his grave?
Who the hell does Al Gore think we are? Al Gore demands that the minions begin consuming less energy per person, have housing & livability growth on a more sustainable footprint, drive those painfully ugly and overpriced Priuses, and bust our booming industrial economy so the temperate won't go up 3 degrees in the next 100 years (to only which a fraction is can be attributed to US behavior, and even a fraction more that's not natural causes).
Meanwhile, Mr. Holier Than Thou can sail around to his self-flagellating global warming conferences with entourage on multiple private Gulfstream jets, own multiple houses which severely damage the sustainable environmental footprint, consume 20 times the energy in his households that the average family consumes, and ruin a healthy industrial economy and become globally less competitive by placing margin busting governmental restrictions on how businesses can operate "greenly". Meanwhile, China and India are roaring along, surpassing us (which they seem to be doing already) with real free market efficiencies and laughing at us the whole way for giving in to Al Gore and his entourage of Greenpeace nutcases. And with China's booming size and horrible environmental record, our footprint in the global warming problem is going to become even more negligible.
Al Gore is going to criticize me for driving my four family members around in a suburban and owning a house that's a little bigger than what I need while he and other celebrities have the balls to troll around in private jets and 30,000 square foot energy sucking Mansions in the Hamptons and Malibu? I don't think so.
Justin L.
For Future Reference on this topic:
South Park 10.2: Smug Alert
South Park 10.5: Manbearpig
South Park ?---?: Rob Reiner and Smoking
I've been thinking about blogging on this important issue for some time now, but Al "Double Cheeseburger" Gore's recent stunt at the Academy Awards propelled me to write post-haste.
Despite their general lack of education, most Hollywood celebrities have the audacity to think that the general populace (generally more educated) should be required to endure their incessant bloviating about foreign issues, the economy, and most hypocritically, the environment and global warming.
ONE
Without any knowledge of what kind of tax rates and economic policies stimulate and grow the economy (and certainly without knowledge of the Laffer curve), Hollywood adopts a moronic Robin Hood type view of the economy where people who are in the upper brackets of income earning should be required to redistribute a humongous share so it can be wasted within the government instead of building the economy with investment in small businesses and buying goods and services (which grows the economy and creates jobs for the poor). You know, Hollywood's love for those kind of Pelosi-esque policies where money oozes into the federal bureaucracy so it can either inefficiently be wasted with ridiculous government programs or redistributed to people who don't want to work, giving them less incentive to do so and more time to commit crime.
Hollywood would be surely be content with a 70% tax rate on the upper class. Heaven forbid anyone should be allowed to have a million dollar house and a couple of BMW's to reward their hard work, superb IQ capacity, and innovation. What does Leonardo DiCaprio care of a 70% annual tax rate on salary when he still would have money left over for a house in West Palm, Malibu, and The Hamptons, not to mention 50 leather bound Priuses and Gisele's daily meal of Campbell's soup. Is it too much to ask that the $250K income earner have a jet ski, a bi-decennial trip to Tuscany, one house in Los Angeles, and perhaps half a can of Campbell's soup?
TWO
If Iran were about aim a missle at American soil, and heaven forbid we wanted to do something about it, Hollywood would immediately decry the government for "attacking Iran" and promptly "demand an end our imperalist behavior". Hollywood's feminist view of foreign policy is simply that war is bad, and we should gayly release a bird, demand peace, form a hippy happy circle, and "talk it out". Yeah - try telling that to Mahmoud Ahmadimejad. I'm sure he'll stop enriching uranium over a nice afternoon tea witk Kofi Annan. Oh, but Kofi Annan asked nicely.
Kofi: "Mahmoud, I FEEL that it would nice if you stopped enriching uranium."
Mahmoud: "Sure, sure. *Cough*. I'll shut down my plants Kofi, just for you. You have my word sugarcake."
Yeah, right.
There's a part of the world (ala North Korea and the Middle East) that foolishly demands to play with the big-boys and won't be persuaded with the UN and Europe's unwholesome brand of liberal sugarcakeing. If I were Mahmoud, I'd go into Iraq immediately after a US retreat and dominate the oil market, effectively doubling my power and potentially crippling the US economy. Oh, and the UN has passed a resolution. How sweet! Maybe sugarcake Kofi will invite me over to a lovely brunch where he can give me a femmy slap on the wrist and tell me how bad I've been. I'm shakin' in my turban.
THREE
Al Gore really has his balls...and the only place his balls should be is in an "ironclad lockbox" (a cute little election 2000 reference if you picked up on that). And don't give me this attack the messenger thing, because the messenger is a total hypocrite and has severe credibility problems.
To tell you the truth, I don't want to hear about sustainability from a man who can't even sustain himself. Al Gore's as fat as a bloated elephant, and he looks like he's going to run out of breath and die at every one of his global warming conferences. What's his point in saving the earth if he's two fried chicken wings away from his grave?
Who the hell does Al Gore think we are? Al Gore demands that the minions begin consuming less energy per person, have housing & livability growth on a more sustainable footprint, drive those painfully ugly and overpriced Priuses, and bust our booming industrial economy so the temperate won't go up 3 degrees in the next 100 years (to only which a fraction is can be attributed to US behavior, and even a fraction more that's not natural causes).
Meanwhile, Mr. Holier Than Thou can sail around to his self-flagellating global warming conferences with entourage on multiple private Gulfstream jets, own multiple houses which severely damage the sustainable environmental footprint, consume 20 times the energy in his households that the average family consumes, and ruin a healthy industrial economy and become globally less competitive by placing margin busting governmental restrictions on how businesses can operate "greenly". Meanwhile, China and India are roaring along, surpassing us (which they seem to be doing already) with real free market efficiencies and laughing at us the whole way for giving in to Al Gore and his entourage of Greenpeace nutcases. And with China's booming size and horrible environmental record, our footprint in the global warming problem is going to become even more negligible.
Al Gore is going to criticize me for driving my four family members around in a suburban and owning a house that's a little bigger than what I need while he and other celebrities have the balls to troll around in private jets and 30,000 square foot energy sucking Mansions in the Hamptons and Malibu? I don't think so.
Justin L.
For Future Reference on this topic:
South Park 10.2: Smug Alert
South Park 10.5: Manbearpig
South Park ?---?: Rob Reiner and Smoking
Barack HUSSEIN Obama and the Democrats' 2008 Woes
Feb 15 2007
Since I can't go to sleep for the life of me and have been endlessly bombarded with "Obama" this and "Obama" that, I thought I'd take a few minutes to comment on the issue.
People are railing on Joe Biden for his "clean" black comment, and Biden swears he didn't really mean it that way. Guess what, he did! And to a certain extent, his inferences are true.
America's image of the, uh, antithesis of a clean black, or an "unclean" black, might be how our culture sees and some black people seem to glorify their own culture: Snoop Dog talkin ebonics with an almost flamingly gay amount of bling, a laughably stupid "grill", and his pants around he' ass (or something like that). Obama, who grew up with his white mother in Honolulu, has less fitness to be "black" than I do. It's no secret that folks in America look down on Ebonics and rappers, or what one would normally stereotype "black folks" as - look no further than the satirization of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on Saturday Night Live. Now America is truly overwhelmed that we've finally found a black person that's not really spiritually and culturally black, yet we're glorifying it as a huge advancement in civil rights. What's going on? Is this a convenient excuse to finally assuage "white guilt" by thinking we're electing a black leader when in fact subconsciously we know we're really safely electing a white sheep in "black clothing"?
He's half black and culturally white, and yet we're totally focused on the fact that were electing a black person - the lines are becoming incredibly blurred in America - we can't continue thinking like this. How much black is required before we can say it's an advancement in civil rights?
As I look independently of the fact that Obama is black, the following comes to mind:Besides Obama's slightly better than average oratory skills and his uncanny ability to recite these painfully cliche Hallmark revelations about the future, why on Earth should we elect this overglorified celebrity? He brings a next to nil amount of experience to the table, his policies are decidedly left of center and somewhat out of the mainstream, he's made the brutal mistake of associating with such ridiculous figures as Jesse Jackson, and he's beginning to reek of that decidedly vulgar CodePink stench.
You have a real dilemma within the Democratic Party for 2008. Normal trends would indicate that a Democrat has a real shot at winning the White House in 2008, however the slew of potential candidates throws a wrench into these trends and threatens to sink the Democratic Party, no matter how poorly the image of the Republican Party is at this point. When you have a woman, a black, and a blow dried ambulance chasing hicky Ken doll losing douche bag in competition for the prized spot on the Democratic ticket, there's going to be finger-pointing on all sides until all of them are dragged through the mud, bringing to light all their perceived "roadblocks".
For example, the primaries:
The actual campaigns:
The voting booth:
A Democrat hasn't been elected into the White House for 32 years, save for Bill "lollipop" Clinton, who was pretty centrist and slightly right of center on a few issues. Once the hype dies down, I don't see a left-of-center non-white or non-male person getting remotely close to the White House, no matter how much of a beautiful speaker they are and how much exposure they are getting on yahoo.com.
I'd be more excited for Obama if he was more of a Harold Ford (Tennessee) Democrat - more of a dynamic moderate figure who didn't always embarrasingly tow the party line. I even like Hillary more than Obama, and that says alot.
If we're going to race-and-sex bait, I'll take Condi please. Apart from her difficulties with the current foreign policy, her politics are savory and her life inspiring. That's a true revolution.
(Feel free to disagree with me. I live for debate, and would like to stand corrected if you believe otherwise)
Since I can't go to sleep for the life of me and have been endlessly bombarded with "Obama" this and "Obama" that, I thought I'd take a few minutes to comment on the issue.
People are railing on Joe Biden for his "clean" black comment, and Biden swears he didn't really mean it that way. Guess what, he did! And to a certain extent, his inferences are true.
America's image of the, uh, antithesis of a clean black, or an "unclean" black, might be how our culture sees and some black people seem to glorify their own culture: Snoop Dog talkin ebonics with an almost flamingly gay amount of bling, a laughably stupid "grill", and his pants around he' ass (or something like that). Obama, who grew up with his white mother in Honolulu, has less fitness to be "black" than I do. It's no secret that folks in America look down on Ebonics and rappers, or what one would normally stereotype "black folks" as - look no further than the satirization of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on Saturday Night Live. Now America is truly overwhelmed that we've finally found a black person that's not really spiritually and culturally black, yet we're glorifying it as a huge advancement in civil rights. What's going on? Is this a convenient excuse to finally assuage "white guilt" by thinking we're electing a black leader when in fact subconsciously we know we're really safely electing a white sheep in "black clothing"?
He's half black and culturally white, and yet we're totally focused on the fact that were electing a black person - the lines are becoming incredibly blurred in America - we can't continue thinking like this. How much black is required before we can say it's an advancement in civil rights?
As I look independently of the fact that Obama is black, the following comes to mind:Besides Obama's slightly better than average oratory skills and his uncanny ability to recite these painfully cliche Hallmark revelations about the future, why on Earth should we elect this overglorified celebrity? He brings a next to nil amount of experience to the table, his policies are decidedly left of center and somewhat out of the mainstream, he's made the brutal mistake of associating with such ridiculous figures as Jesse Jackson, and he's beginning to reek of that decidedly vulgar CodePink stench.
You have a real dilemma within the Democratic Party for 2008. Normal trends would indicate that a Democrat has a real shot at winning the White House in 2008, however the slew of potential candidates throws a wrench into these trends and threatens to sink the Democratic Party, no matter how poorly the image of the Republican Party is at this point. When you have a woman, a black, and a blow dried ambulance chasing hicky Ken doll losing douche bag in competition for the prized spot on the Democratic ticket, there's going to be finger-pointing on all sides until all of them are dragged through the mud, bringing to light all their perceived "roadblocks".
For example, the primaries:
- You didn't vote for Hillary, you're a sexist.
- You didn't vote for Obama, you're a racist.
- You didn't vote for Edwards, you're...well, um, actually very smart.
The actual campaigns:
- Hillary's 12 pages of Wikipedia controversies
- Barack's unwholesome political values
- John Edwards...he's too much of a lame douche to make it that far
The voting booth:
- Hillary's got a vagina
- Barack's middle name is HUSSEIN? WTF?
- John Edwards...well his name isn't here...does he ever stop smiling?
A Democrat hasn't been elected into the White House for 32 years, save for Bill "lollipop" Clinton, who was pretty centrist and slightly right of center on a few issues. Once the hype dies down, I don't see a left-of-center non-white or non-male person getting remotely close to the White House, no matter how much of a beautiful speaker they are and how much exposure they are getting on yahoo.com.
I'd be more excited for Obama if he was more of a Harold Ford (Tennessee) Democrat - more of a dynamic moderate figure who didn't always embarrasingly tow the party line. I even like Hillary more than Obama, and that says alot.
If we're going to race-and-sex bait, I'll take Condi please. Apart from her difficulties with the current foreign policy, her politics are savory and her life inspiring. That's a true revolution.
(Feel free to disagree with me. I live for debate, and would like to stand corrected if you believe otherwise)
Berkeley Facebook Group Exposure: "Dirty Hippies"
Nov 25 2006
God knows how I came upon this, but I found a group, appropriately Berkeley, called "Dirty Hippies".
As you will find no one on this campus who seriously loathes hippies more than I do, I thought it might be neat to check it out, as my blood pressure had dropped during the Holidays anyway.
"Name: Dirty Hippies"
You got that right.
"Description: This is an all inclusive group."
Unless your not a dirty hippie.
"Old school, new age, and appropriately Berkeley."
Appropriately Berkeley immediately destroys credibility as legitimate entity.
"If you hate shoes"
Or love diseases and nails in your foot.
"Wear obscene amounts of jewelry"
Like those horrific materialistic rappers...
"Wear nothing at all"
Hippies are usually quite ugly. This is ill-advised.
"Think all time is leisure time"
And you wonder why no one has respect for their politics or useless behavior. What a societal drain. I sure as hell won't be redistributing any of my income to you, dirty hippies.
"Live "naturally", smoke cannabis, hair? who cares"
That explains some stuff...and some smells.
"Push "organically grown" on everyone"
To which people reply, "Oh, there's a dirty hippie, and it's making a scene. How cute".
"Get excited about Saturday's Farmer's Market"
How lame...and cheap.
"Surf the used clothing stores"
Gross.
"Just can't swing LA"
Cause LA would suck you lame'os up and spit you back out. Can't swing LA my ass - LA's not stupid enough to let you sit on your ass all day. Maybe you should try not getting on the 405 with a bicycle.
"Or contemplate world peace..."
Perhaps you'd like to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to one of your happy hippy love circles. I'm sure he'll promise to cease developing nuclear weapons.
"any and all of that, you're probably a big dirty hippy and belong right here."
We'll see how long that lasts.
Gross.
God knows how I came upon this, but I found a group, appropriately Berkeley, called "Dirty Hippies".
As you will find no one on this campus who seriously loathes hippies more than I do, I thought it might be neat to check it out, as my blood pressure had dropped during the Holidays anyway.
"Name: Dirty Hippies"
You got that right.
"Description: This is an all inclusive group."
Unless your not a dirty hippie.
"Old school, new age, and appropriately Berkeley."
Appropriately Berkeley immediately destroys credibility as legitimate entity.
"If you hate shoes"
Or love diseases and nails in your foot.
"Wear obscene amounts of jewelry"
Like those horrific materialistic rappers...
"Wear nothing at all"
Hippies are usually quite ugly. This is ill-advised.
"Think all time is leisure time"
And you wonder why no one has respect for their politics or useless behavior. What a societal drain. I sure as hell won't be redistributing any of my income to you, dirty hippies.
"Live "naturally", smoke cannabis, hair? who cares"
That explains some stuff...and some smells.
"Push "organically grown" on everyone"
To which people reply, "Oh, there's a dirty hippie, and it's making a scene. How cute".
"Get excited about Saturday's Farmer's Market"
How lame...and cheap.
"Surf the used clothing stores"
Gross.
"Just can't swing LA"
Cause LA would suck you lame'os up and spit you back out. Can't swing LA my ass - LA's not stupid enough to let you sit on your ass all day. Maybe you should try not getting on the 405 with a bicycle.
"Or contemplate world peace..."
Perhaps you'd like to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to one of your happy hippy love circles. I'm sure he'll promise to cease developing nuclear weapons.
"any and all of that, you're probably a big dirty hippy and belong right here."
We'll see how long that lasts.
Gross.
Had Some Fun Commenting on Dirty Phil Angelides' Facebook Note Page
Oct 26 2006
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T NOTICE ON MY MINI-FEED.
I'm not that political. Really, I'm not. Ya know, whatever. But there is one huge pimple on my ass, one huge boil that wont go away, one enormous pet-peeve that drives me up the wall with its flaming egregiousness - that pimple is Phil Angelides. It's so egregious of the Democratic Party to throw away their moderate candidate (who had a good chance of winning) for this flaming Trotskyite who has the personality of mud. They've gone too far - past ridiculousness.
Anyway, I had some fun today posting on about thirty something NOTES written by Phil Angelides (aka poser in campaign 2006), making fun pokes at their most ridiculous remarks. I had so much fun, thanks for the fodder Philgelides.
Have fun:
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T NOTICE ON MY MINI-FEED.
I'm not that political. Really, I'm not. Ya know, whatever. But there is one huge pimple on my ass, one huge boil that wont go away, one enormous pet-peeve that drives me up the wall with its flaming egregiousness - that pimple is Phil Angelides. It's so egregious of the Democratic Party to throw away their moderate candidate (who had a good chance of winning) for this flaming Trotskyite who has the personality of mud. They've gone too far - past ridiculousness.
Anyway, I had some fun today posting on about thirty something NOTES written by Phil Angelides (aka poser in campaign 2006), making fun pokes at their most ridiculous remarks. I had so much fun, thanks for the fodder Philgelides.
Have fun:
- If the Tonight Show is out to make a joke of people's administrations, then God knows why Mr. Angelides would want to come on. The truth is that NBC, especially in its current state, cannot afford to lose viewers by putting people with the personality of dirt on its show. Putting Phil Angelides on a star studded show like the Tonight Show is like having my great grandma Edna on the first guest spot talking about her false teeth and missed bowl movements.
- Linking Arnold to Georgie is a very sad and desperate attempt by the Angelides campaign to make up for double digit poll trailing, which in a Democratic state, doesn't say very much for Phil Angelides.
- As a corporation in the business of entertaining people, NBC doesn't want to put its viewers to sleep by having the excessively boring and square Phil Angelides on its show. As a free market business enterprise, NBC should not be required to lose market share by placing a product on its show (aka Phil Angelides) that will bore the living hell out of its viewers.
- Again, if Phil Angelides wasn't so incredibly boring, maybe he could secure a spot on the Tonight Show without having to cry foul to the government and FCC. Ya know, NBC is in the business of entertaining people, and doesn't like to lose viewers and money by putting people on their shows that will put audiences into a deep sleep.
- Phil Angelides, Always on your side...unless your a white taxpayer
- If only the voters were as fired up about Phil Angelides.
- Oh, support from Barbara Boxer! In any other non-backwards society, that would be considered an extreme liability.
- Maybe you should visit Facebook PULSE, and see how students don't really quite love Phil Angelides.
- If Phil Angelides had any redeeming qualities or things to offer the voters of California, he wouldn't have to resort to egregious fabrications, the most being any linkage between Arnold and the Whitehouse. Last time I checked, a politician stumping for another politician's presidential campaign is NOT defined as a personal, ideological, or policy link. Democrats are excellent at pointing out every minor ineptitude of the Republican party without ever offering any better policy. In fact, they usually offer no policy at all.
- College fees in CA are too low, and way below the market price. I'd double my $7.5K if necessary to continue going to Berkeley. I paid $15K/year for high school. If you're poor, there's an ample amount of scholarships and Gov Aid for college. And heaven forbid you must pay the disparity between that and your tuition, tell your cheap parents to take it out of their drinking & smoking budgets.
- So you link Arnold to President Bush in all these horribly misleading advertisements, and now say Arnold's running from President Bush. You've effectively contradicted your own commercials. Since you people don't like President Bush, wouldn't you consider that a good thing.
- You make for good nap time Philgelides.
- Oh, Gavin Newsom!And in Philgelides corner, the radical elements of the far left. That's it.
- Even in a democratic state like California, Philgelides cannot get elected by associating with and adopting the ideology of the Cindy Sheehan crowd.
- Perhaps if California teachers weren't so terribly inept, people wouldn't be so ankling to block their taxpayer funded pay raises.
- So this group is supported by those on the far-left fringes. Why am I not surprised
- Hmmm, so how are you doing on Facebook Pulse these days Phil?
- Perhaps these groups should take a look at Angelides' horrible environmental record, which ironically was put forth by a fellow (and much more qualified) Democrat named Steve Westly.
- At least your daughter is hot Phil. That's one peg in your corner. Unfortunately, the horrific Gavin Newson cancels out that peg by proxy.
- Associating with such radical filth should not make you proud of your father. His concession speech, marking California's removal from any potential danger, should be what makes you proud.
- Steve Westly would have never stooped so low!
- Phil Angelides fails to understand that the upper middle class and upper class are the classes that fuel California's economy. The people of California, whether rich or poor, should not have to pay for bloated government bureaucracy and inept public schools.
- I'm sorry Greling, but it appears you've never heard of a man named Gray Davis, who the Democratic state of California overwhelmingly recalled. It's not PR, it's not the energy crisis - it's simply his overwhelming ineptitudes. But what can one expect from your loony Sharpton and Jesse Jackson politics over there at Morehouse. I'm dying to make a joke regarding Morehouse and "LessHouse", but I'll refrain, for you, Greling.
- Two people with the personality of dirt. One past, and one future loser. Both sore.
- Students are not for you Phil. Maybe you haven't checked your Facebook PULSE lately. And that's among college students, an overwhelming Democratic majority.
- Frank wants to milk the taxpayer with his lucrative government job.
- Phil Angelides: Opening the border wider than Paris Hilton's legs on a Saturday night.
- Yeah, Phil. If you want a fighting chance, you'll be required to abandon everything you believe in and all those nutjobs you associate with.
- Another losing embarrasment on the Philgelides stumproll.
- San Francisco, the only town nutty enough to vote for Phil in majority.
- Again, framing the campaign on non-issues. In case you don't know, the Governor of any state plays almost no role in national and foreign policy decisions. It doesn't matter what stance they have on Iraq. Again, the way Philgelides spins on the PR war, to detract from the fact that he brings nothing to the table.
Someone Finally Admits Berkeley's A Dump
Sep 15 2006
I came across a great article in the Berkeley Daily Californian (in case you didn't read it already) that I just had to share. The article was written by columnist John Waste, and I generally tend to think his articles are a WASTE of time, but I couldn't help but love how one student will finally admit what a God-Forsaken crime ridden dump Berkeley is - ain't it the truth!
JOHN WASTE
Protect and DisserviceFriday, September 15th, 2006
Thank God that every rape, murder and assault case in the greater Berkeley/Oakland area has been solved, freeing up the necessary law enforcement resources to pursue the real menace facing our quiet, God-fearing community: hippies who bake pot food. Lo, these four years that I've dwelt in Berkeley I've woken up nightly in a cold sweat, emerging from my recurring nightmare of a Birkenstock-clad deviant jamming space cake into my innocent, flag-waving, troop-supporting maw. Patriotic and decent Berkeleyans evidently need no longer fear another day of these dreadlocked menaces' reign of terror. As just and righteous as the crusade to stop every last member of this culinary narcotic jihad no doubt is, one must stop to make a cursory evaluation of the priorities of our local boys in blue. It seems, based on empirical evidence gathered in the news these last couple of weeks, that arresting co-op-dwelling ganja barons is a greater priority than, oh, you know, everything else that goes wrong in this God-forsaken crime-infested hellhole.
Now, I'm not the forensic pathologist from "CSI: Miami" or anything, but last I checked nobody has ever been fatally stabbed with a pot brownie. This dearth of fatal stabbings stands in sharp contrast to the dozens of people that have been stabbed by meth-addled vagrants in Berkeley since you started reading this article.
This crackdown on pot-cookie barons is only the latest example of the UC Police Department's egregiously misplaced priorities. In 5,000 years of recorded use by humans, there has never been a single fatal overdose of marijuana. Feelings of doom, while they might not be altogether pleasant, do not kill. On the other hand, someone recently got shot on Durant and we still don't know who did it.
The UCPD have the uncanny ability to shut down frat parties before they even start, yet armed thugs prowl campus night and day hassling students for change. Currently our police devote all their energy to cruising with their ears alert for the slightest hint of amplified rap music or the sounds of Natural Ice beer cans popping open. Meanwhile a bunch of drifters in People's Park are busy eating babies and falling asleep on beds of hypodermic needles.
The real criminals in Berkeley aren't (by and large) UC Berkeley students, and it's time our police took note of this. While I was walking past People's Park once, a drifter threatened to cut my dick off and then chased me down the block (believe it or not, I am not making this up). Now, I wasn't in a position to check if he had a student ID card, but something tells me that he wasn't a Cal student.
I love Berkeley, but even I have to admit that this town is chock-full of vagrants and creepy people. These spare-change enthusiasts sit in front of the Asian Ghetto getting loaded on Colt 45 malt liquor and the police don't seem to care-an attitude that stands in stark contrast to their Gestapo-like attitude towards drinking in fraternities. Perhaps this isn't the fault of misplaced law-enforcement priorities. I suppose it's possible that the cops just never noticed that all these homeless people are drinking too. Here's a hint: It's not Gatorade inside those brown paper bags.
The fact is that fraternity parties are a timeless institution and the keystone of traditional collegiate revelry. Instead of protecting this valuable facet of our campus community, the police crack down on frats as though keg stands are the new bio-terrorism. The argument is that underage drinking can be fatal-an argument that helped to get the police a large Alcoholic Beverage Control grant. Sure, occasionally some freshman drinks himself to death, but that's not a matter for the police! It's just a little thinning of the herd: Darwin's theories verified in real life. These kids choose to drink themselves retarded, but nobody chooses to have their dick cut off by an insane bum. Well ... except for my friend Stumpy, I guess ... but he's a weird guy.
Our police devote their energy to hassling students instead of protecting them. Cal students are more than a source of noise complaints from cranky neighbors on frat row-we are the economic engine of this town. The police need to leave the fraternities and co-ops alone and go after the real criminals. It's past time that the cops started serving and protecting us, too.
I came across a great article in the Berkeley Daily Californian (in case you didn't read it already) that I just had to share. The article was written by columnist John Waste, and I generally tend to think his articles are a WASTE of time, but I couldn't help but love how one student will finally admit what a God-Forsaken crime ridden dump Berkeley is - ain't it the truth!
JOHN WASTE
Protect and DisserviceFriday, September 15th, 2006
Thank God that every rape, murder and assault case in the greater Berkeley/Oakland area has been solved, freeing up the necessary law enforcement resources to pursue the real menace facing our quiet, God-fearing community: hippies who bake pot food. Lo, these four years that I've dwelt in Berkeley I've woken up nightly in a cold sweat, emerging from my recurring nightmare of a Birkenstock-clad deviant jamming space cake into my innocent, flag-waving, troop-supporting maw. Patriotic and decent Berkeleyans evidently need no longer fear another day of these dreadlocked menaces' reign of terror. As just and righteous as the crusade to stop every last member of this culinary narcotic jihad no doubt is, one must stop to make a cursory evaluation of the priorities of our local boys in blue. It seems, based on empirical evidence gathered in the news these last couple of weeks, that arresting co-op-dwelling ganja barons is a greater priority than, oh, you know, everything else that goes wrong in this God-forsaken crime-infested hellhole.
Now, I'm not the forensic pathologist from "CSI: Miami" or anything, but last I checked nobody has ever been fatally stabbed with a pot brownie. This dearth of fatal stabbings stands in sharp contrast to the dozens of people that have been stabbed by meth-addled vagrants in Berkeley since you started reading this article.
This crackdown on pot-cookie barons is only the latest example of the UC Police Department's egregiously misplaced priorities. In 5,000 years of recorded use by humans, there has never been a single fatal overdose of marijuana. Feelings of doom, while they might not be altogether pleasant, do not kill. On the other hand, someone recently got shot on Durant and we still don't know who did it.
The UCPD have the uncanny ability to shut down frat parties before they even start, yet armed thugs prowl campus night and day hassling students for change. Currently our police devote all their energy to cruising with their ears alert for the slightest hint of amplified rap music or the sounds of Natural Ice beer cans popping open. Meanwhile a bunch of drifters in People's Park are busy eating babies and falling asleep on beds of hypodermic needles.
The real criminals in Berkeley aren't (by and large) UC Berkeley students, and it's time our police took note of this. While I was walking past People's Park once, a drifter threatened to cut my dick off and then chased me down the block (believe it or not, I am not making this up). Now, I wasn't in a position to check if he had a student ID card, but something tells me that he wasn't a Cal student.
I love Berkeley, but even I have to admit that this town is chock-full of vagrants and creepy people. These spare-change enthusiasts sit in front of the Asian Ghetto getting loaded on Colt 45 malt liquor and the police don't seem to care-an attitude that stands in stark contrast to their Gestapo-like attitude towards drinking in fraternities. Perhaps this isn't the fault of misplaced law-enforcement priorities. I suppose it's possible that the cops just never noticed that all these homeless people are drinking too. Here's a hint: It's not Gatorade inside those brown paper bags.
The fact is that fraternity parties are a timeless institution and the keystone of traditional collegiate revelry. Instead of protecting this valuable facet of our campus community, the police crack down on frats as though keg stands are the new bio-terrorism. The argument is that underage drinking can be fatal-an argument that helped to get the police a large Alcoholic Beverage Control grant. Sure, occasionally some freshman drinks himself to death, but that's not a matter for the police! It's just a little thinning of the herd: Darwin's theories verified in real life. These kids choose to drink themselves retarded, but nobody chooses to have their dick cut off by an insane bum. Well ... except for my friend Stumpy, I guess ... but he's a weird guy.
Our police devote their energy to hassling students instead of protecting them. Cal students are more than a source of noise complaints from cranky neighbors on frat row-we are the economic engine of this town. The police need to leave the fraternities and co-ops alone and go after the real criminals. It's past time that the cops started serving and protecting us, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)