Since When Did Democrats Have a Monopoly on Cool?

It seems like everytime we enter a new level of schooling, there's always a new chic thing that we are required to do. In elementary school, it was purchasing a sexy new Sonic the Hedgehog lunchbox. In middle school, it was ensuring that part of one's belt was hanging down at least nine inches below the wasteline. In high school, it was having sex and at least pretending that you were doing drugs.

In college, it was becoming a liberal.

Parading around like a hippie, excusing terrible behavior with moral relativism, and spouting out these ridiculous self-righteous platitudes about "supposedly" disadvantaged groups somehow became the cool thing to do upon entering college. New freshmen, oblivious to how to behave or what kind of personality to adopt, somehow decide to become idealist brooding liberals. Oh, and did I mention a requisite clueless fawning over B. Hussein Obama? It must be his drug use, provocation of white guilt, and his anti-"garlic-nosed Italians" pastor that the kids find cool these days. Cause who likes Italians anyway? Take a ride on Alitalia and you'll never want to see another Italian again - trust me.

Anyway, I'm here to say that the liberal monopoly on "cool" can end. How, you ask? Well, by exploiting assets that Republicans inherently have that can be spun into incredibly cool and incredibly sexy forms.

Liberals foster a culture of community and dependency, where stereotypically you have losers in government homes wasting away and feeding off welfare checks, robbing hardworking people who want to buy a jet ski, a BMW, and a sweet ass little condo in Tahoe. Conservatives are champions of economic freedom and independence - the ideal of the hardworking individual rising up and working hard in the marketplace. I believe they call it "Dirty Sexy Money" over at ABC - money is sexy and everybody knows it.

Also, it's just not cool to think of fat ugly wasteful usurping bureaucrats sitting in a bland goverment office robbing wealthy people from sexy Southern California who would rather spend their hard earned money on cool things like Hummers, fake boobs, and tanning salons which we can relish on hip modern shows like The Real Housewives of Orange County. Phew, that was a long sentence. Liberals love their fat bureaucrats that can't be fired despite severe incompetence. They love to waste our money with bloated inefficient government programs that foster dependency and worsen motivation for "disadvantaged" groups to be successful in a modern marketplace.

And we sure as hell all know that conservatives are much more attractive than liberals (in general, and we all know that that drug addicted psychopath Kirsten Dunst is gaunt and ugly; so is her Prius). Why is it that at Berkeley, severe liberals seem to be these gross gaunt complaining smoking tattooed emo chicks and these pathetic skinny odd looking whiny guys who robotically recite regurgitated lines about imperialism and the oppressed? I get bored by these nutcases in our trees. Whining about Iraq was so totally last year. Apparently now it's all about bailing out a bunch of idiots who don't understand the dynamic nature of the real estate market and want others to take responsibility for their impudent decisions.

And as for severely under-educated Hollywood actors glorifying liberalism by spewing these ridiculous inane comments that rival the Berkeley population in their stupidity, they're totally uncool. Also, what credibility does Hollywood have when half of it is in rehab and have marriages that last about as long as Rosie O'Donnell's bowel cycle. Does Kiki Dunst understand complex market theory? I don't think so. Kiki understands that the economy should work in a fashion where we tax rich people so much - to give back to the poor, of course - that the poor become equalized with the rich. Kiki, of course, fails to understand that if you force rich people to live like everybody else, they - um - kind of have no incentive to become rich in the first place. Then, without reward, nobody's rich, we get no innovation, and there's no money to redistribute to the poor because nobody's incentivized to innovate and output.

Younger, flashier, and edgier conservatives like me are parting with the stuffy religious right while still appreciating a slight glaze of moral values; there's nothing more grotesque and unclassy than an unbehaved demoralized liberal in its drug laden habitat. To highlight, the very sexy, rich, etiquette-laden, and edgy Heidi Montag has recently endorsed John McCain. In contrast, uneducated barbarians like Roseanne and Kanye West are endorsing Hillary Clinton and B. Hussein Obama, respectively.

And finally, Republicans kick the bad people's asses (get it done baby) while pussy liberals retreat behind Michael "Double Quarter Pounder" Moore and his silly misinformed glossy selectively edited movies. We are the America "300" - conservatives will not retreat against filthy radical deranged terrorists. We prefer to save those 53 million people and restore their freedoms from Xerxes - oh I mean Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. We are proud, strong, and shining at the top of a hill. And no, we don't need a bunch of weak secular humanists in the UN telling us what to do.

Might I also mention that the anti-military/Iraq film Stop-Loss was an absolute bust at the box office. Apparently a movie that explores defying one's duty to the US Military is - what Democrats? - quite unpopular! Who would have thought that any film that loaded with beefcake guys like Ryan Philippe could do so badly? In The Valley of Elah, Lions for Lambs, and that other anti-American movie with Reese Witherspoon and Jake Gyllenhaal (that apparently no one knows about) have also bombed very heavily at the box office. In contrast, Mel Gibson's The Patriot made about $115M at the box office and his Passion of the Christ made bank upwards of $300M.

And finally, the environment. These smelly "green" hippies, who ironically smoke and pollute the direct environment around them, are totally uncool. They're gross, and no one wants to be around them. The more sophisticated brand name douche of environmental liberalism, Al Gore, is boring and fat (also insane and alarmist). And need I mention the Prius and those who drive it? I think not.

Conservatives are amazing. We are "the party of the rich", we're glossy, we're cool, we have values, we hate hippies, we hate people that hate the US, and we're totally on Team Heidi. Liberals simply can't beat that!

Conditional Support of John McCain; Must Defeat Barack Obama

Conditional Support of McCain

So much to the chagrin of my more conservative friends and acquaintances, I have relucantly decided to support Yon McCain. You'll notice I say "Yon" McCain, because I believe McCain will capture an even larger slice of the crucial Latino vote than President Bush (who I think got about 40-44% in 2004), and will henceforth be called "Yon"; I asked my Aunt to say "John McCain" this weekend and she said "Yon McCain", so I said, hell, I'm going to call him "Yon" McCain from now on. Anyway...

You see, most Latinos frankly don't trust blacks (just ask one of the gangs in Los Angeles) and they don't totally trust women in positions of power (despite the so called "love" for the Clinton machine, and they're aren't many deep South American Latinos in the US), so the only real choice for a good number of Latinos will be the immigration friendly McCain. It's not to say Latinos are bad or to blame for this, as it's an intensely cultural and inherent thing (especially to not see these groups in positions of power), but to not risk offending Latinos, this is what the news media and political analysts are too afraid to say aloud, and what the politicially correct pigeonholers do not want to acknowledge. I'm Latino (okay, half, whatever), so I should know.

To reiterate, I support John McCain not because I have any racial or gender concerns of Obama or Clinton - I simply like his politics better. And I bring up the Latino and politics issue to highlight why I think McCain will get more Latino votes and win the presidency. Conservatives loathe McCain mostly for his immigration policies - it's not because their racist (as they're lambasted by the hard left), but they can't fathom our country not being a sovereign country (like nearly every other country on Earth) and folks with illegal status crowding US hospitals and overloading schools funded with their taxpayer dollars. It has nothing to do with race - if Mexicans looked like Swedes or Gingers, the same people up here would still be pissed.

However, I believe McCain will take measures to fully secure the Southern United States border, but will take a rational (and not necessarily conservative) approach to amnesty that's not quite as liberal as his previous foray that was supported by President Bush. Too many conservatives whine about paths to citizenship and what not, but something reasonable has to be done. And too many liberals are overzealous for open borders and amnesty because they think they'll add to their voting base and exploit Latinos more than they already have. Liberals would turn on minorities so quick if they stopped voting for them - they like to dole out gratuitous handouts to secure loyalty among these groups. Conservatives would give these groups the independence they deserve and would refuse to patronize them, infantilize them, and buy their loyalty as liberals do; it's also imperative to note that most minority groups are extremely socially conservative.

I also believe McCain would do an "okay" job at implimenting conservative economic principles. Firstly, McCain would hopefully as he's said keep the Bush tax cuts permanent, putting money back into the hands of people who willingly spend in all branches of our economy and grow it through entrepreneurship. As much as the concept of low taxes actually bringing in more revenue to the government is so spellbinding for liberals, the leftist associated press admittedly recently that government revenue is at an absolutely all time high (high taxes stifle business, spending, and growth therefore shrinking the economy, and thus the government brings in less revenue); despite the gloriousness of Reaganomics, I'll save that for another blog. Secondly, McCain would hopefully stick to his anti-pork barrel pledges, and unlike President Bush, not be afraid to whip out the veto pen so our taxpayer dollars aren't spent on multi-$100M bridges to nowhere. And if you shrink spending on ridiculous things, you can keep taxes low and shrink the deficits (whose magnitudes are exaggerated, btw). Thirdly, as a Republican, I instinctively think Maverick McCain will tone down the "class-warfare" rhetoric.

His anti-torture and Guantanamo positions aren't too troubling for me, and he'll do a good job in terms of national security and the geo-political arena. As for McCain-Feingold, there's simply no excuse for that.

McCain was not anybody's first choice, but the consequences of not fully backing him and possibly conceding the US to Barack, whose been rated as one of the most liberal Senators in the Senate, are horrifying.

However - the condition - if McCain picks that horrific goon Mike Huckabee of Arkansas to be vice-president, I will refuse to support his campaign at any level as well as during the presidency.

Barack Hussein Obama

B. Obama's record is absolutely troubling, and the nature of his endorsements is terrifying. I will give him credit for a couple more conservative positions (but not conservative enough) on teacher merit pay and healthcare, though. I will also give him credit for being brilliant and "with it". However, the combination of dangerous record and inexperience make him an absolutely unacceptable candidate that must be defeated.

• Endorsed by the dangerous ultra-left and Anti-American "MoveOn.org", which he readily accepted and bestowed praise upon the dangerous group.

• Endorsed by murderer, slanderer, and drunkard Teddy Kennedy (just look up Mary Jo Kopechne on google).
• Refused to say Pledge Of Allegiance as vulgar symbolic gesture.

• Barack Obama's 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics describes him as 87% economically liberal and 12% economically conservative.

• Not open to private social security accounts.

• Opposes vouchers or any kind of school choice, however is fine with a type of choice in which a woman chooses to impale the skull of her fetus.

• Socialized health insurance.

• Opposes estate tax cuts, despite those monies already having been taxed.

• His 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Foreign Policy is 85% liberal, 12% conservative.

• Irresponsible withdrawal from Iraq.

• Drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

• Willing to speak to rogue/terrorist states (criticized by H. Clinton)

• Early opponent of Iraq, before it was questionable, showing a far-left Code Pink view of using military force.

• 100% rating from far-left Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

• Hypocritical association with anti-gay pastors in his "40 Days of Faith and Family".

• Rated "F" by NRA.

• Unacceptable levels of disrespect shown to current Commander and Chief President Bush.

• One of the ten ultra-left Democrats to vote NO for Vote 181 to authorize $120M for the funding of the Iraq War and the troops.

• Ultra-partisan in senate: voted 96% with Democrats.

• Voted against bill to prevent desecration of the American flag.

• Voted NO against extension of the Bush tax-cuts.

• Voted NO on confirmation of brilliant and superbly qualified John Roberts to be Chief Supreme Court Justice.

• Polarizing class and race warfare rhetoric.

I Think Gays Should Be Republicans

I love gay people. That's why I think they should be Republicans.

Gays have "fabulous" taste in clothes. Gays have "spectacular" taste in cars, save for the Mazda Miata. Gays shine at a party with their "fabulous" sense of humor and bubbly personalities. In fact, gays are actually becoming the new straight people - with masculine haircuts and a new focus on buffness, they make their liberal straight counterparts look gay.

But for some odd reason, gays by and large are sucked up in the strange world of whiny liberal secular-progressivism (SP). Democrats have recruited gays into a party that does absolutely nothing for them.

I honestly think that Democrats are secretly more "pro-gay marriage" than Republicans are, but with the Catholics and Hispanics swinging toward their side, Democrats are willing to sell out the gays. So in essence, assuming that the new face of the Republican Party is the relatively socially libertarian Rudolph Giuliani, gays are not going to find anyone in either party that's going to allow them to be pushed into the death trap of marriage where they're likely to get divorced and physically abuse each other - it'll be pretty even on the other gay issues.

Instead of whining about a petty antiquated little piece of paper that gays think is somehow required for them to actually love each other, why don't they focus on policies that boost the quality of their everyday lives and share their values on helping gays throughout the rest of the world. Let me explain:

The War on Terror
It is no secret that liberals are overly sympathetic to radical Middle East governments. Whether it's Saddam that killed hundreds of thousands of people (many his own) or the wildly Islamofascist governments in Iran, Afghanistan, or what not, liberals do not see it pertinent to do anything about these nutcases who stand in the way of democracy and freedom.

Ironically, these same governments and radical fringe groups in the middle east are the ones that claim homosexuality doesn't exist and hang/execute people who participate in homosexual acts (Bill Richardson is one for two on the above). Despite the only complaint about gays by the Republican Party being the signing of a marriage bill, gays still talk about President Bush as being considerably more heinous than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose government has executed people committing gay acts, most recently by hanging. If you'll recall, President Bush had a warm and lovely conversation recently with America's most lovable lesbian, Ellen De Generes.

Taxes
So apparently gays have a much higher income than the average straights, especially in a two person gay household vs. two person straight household. Why do they want Democrats and redistributionist liberals taxing the shit out of them so they won't have enough money left over for their big gay cruise to St. Croix or that precious Mazda Miata? Let's face it - gays are by and large self-absorbed, superficial, and money-grubbing...like me. If they understood what Democrats really wanted to do with their hard earned money, they would have a huge fright.

Crimes
Republicans punish criminals and put them away. Democrats want their ridiculous touchy-feely rehabilitation, which as any rational person knows, means they are going to exit jail and orchestrate another gay bashing as they would have otherwise. With so called "hate crimes", or crimes, against gays on the upswing, gays should be concerned about liberals' excessive coddling and defending criminals instead of victims. I certainly wish liberals were as concerned with the four Asian victims of Tookie Williams than they were with that monster himself - perhaps it was a case of affirmative action.

Apparently My "B. Hussein Obama" Facebook Group Was a Flop

So apparently my "B. Hussein Obama" group was wildly unsuccessful, unlike all the other facebook groups I've created or administered.

Let's analyze it piece by piece.

Title. B. Hussein Obama

It's funny cause it's innovative and provocative. And anybody who regularly watches Hannity & Colmes or reads a certain individual's provocative column should recognize where this came from.

1. B. Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, HI. Nothing good comes out of Honolulu except for obese football players.

Funny cause it's true, unless you seriously like pineapples. I guess not many of you have been to Honolulu.

2. B. Hussein Obama turned to drugs due to his racial confusion as a teenager. I'm much more racially confused than B. Hussein Obama and I never did drugs.

Okay, fine. Not so funny, but he shouldn't have claimed he turned to drugs for something so god damn lame. That gives every hybrid white-latino or white-black an excuse for riding the mary jane bandwagon.

3. B. Hussein Obama does not favor profiling at airports. Tell your 85 year old grandmother Eunice to watch the fuck out.

This is funny because all old people have funny names such as Mildred or Eunice. It's also funny because the government refuses to hold more than two arabs at a time whilst they cavity search poor old Mississippi bred Eunice's vagina.

4. B. Hussein Obama, much like John Edwards, is a filthy scumbag lawyer. Fortunately, unlike Edwards, he is not a medium for dead paralyzed children.

Lawyers are scumbags, obviously. And I'm not even talking about the ACLU yet, which was about the caliber of Obama's lawyership.

Does anyone remember when John Edwards, who during his tenure as a scummy trial lawyer (and who is partially responsible for extremely high insurance premiums in America) was trying to defraud a doctor out of millions of dollars by putting on a dog and pony show in which he was the medium for a dead disabled girl? It was the epitome of trial lawyer scum.

5. B. Hussein Obama has used the word "ironclad" to describe the demand from his wife that he quit smoking. The last time someone used a word as stupid as "ironclad" was Al "Chubbycakes" Gore to describe his lunchbox... oops, I mean lockbox.

Ironclad Lockbox. Think back to 2000 you pathetic fools. And lunchbox, because we all know that Al Gore thinks of cheeseburgers all day.

6. B. Hussein Obama is a closet atheist. There are too many closets in the Democratic Party, but lets save Hillary Rodham Clinton for another facebook group.

Let's not pretend that Barack Obama isn't an atheist. His uncomfortable wishy-washyness about religion when confronted with the issue (and refusal to talk firmly about it, or about anything for that matter) makes that perfectly clear.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is widely rumored to be a lesbian. I do believe she has erotic nude shots of Melissa Etheridge...perhaps with some Tammy Lynn Michaels thrown in for good measure.

7. B. Hussein Obama is related to Dick Cheney, which means he may have heart problems.

It's a joke people. It's making fun of how liberals and critics incessantly address Vice President Cheney's heart problems.

8. B. Hussein Obama describes people in his family as looking like retarted people such as Bernic Mac or old white bitches like Margaret Thatcher.

B. Obama really did describe his extended family as a model UN. He said he has people in his family that look like Bernie Mac (who I find retarted) and Margaret Thatcher (who I love, but find to be an old white bitch).

9. B. Hussein Obama's father herded goats - what a hick! Oh, and speaking of hick, his mother is from Wichita.

I'll give this one to you guys. It was stupid. But you know there are only hicks in Wichita.

10. B. Hussein Obama, despite being African-American and moderately wealthy, refuses to drive a Cadillac Escalade.

Now this one is just plain well executed and hilarious. No arguments there.

11. B. Hussein Obama lives on the South Side of Chicago. That's not even "westside" or "eastside"...bitches.

Okay, maybe I was accidentally thinking of Los Angeles. Nobody, who values their life at least, goes to the South of Los Angeles.
___________________________________________________________

I want to know if it was really that bad.

America's Wal-Mart Abortions: Uphold Morals or Logic?

br />

http://sibbyonline.blogs.com/sibbyonline/images/abortion0801_1.jpeg

mini-VAN Nguyen's Big Multisex Bathroom Boat Ride

April 23, 2007

Well, the self-aggrandizing elections are over, and while it's not very appetizing to have that nutjob Van "Nancy Pelosi with a Penelosi" Nguyen in the Presidency, at least he's not in control of anything important. The federal government deals in trillions, so thank God Mr. "Transvestite Bathrooms" deals only in millions, although that's still millions too much. I wonder how he plans to miraculously override Proposition 209 and subvert state law.

But enough about that male feminazi. I'll outline some of my personal observations on the election:

BCR Success
This is excellent. Not only do I think this candidate will do an excellent job, but it flusters the ultra-left elitists who think they can go unchecked in the Senate.

DAAP Loss
Finally people wised up to shunning candidates that selfishly pump their personal agendas out their bloated blowholes. Dmitri Garcia and his little clan are so grossly self-serving. He's like the Latino Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson, except much less entertaining.

Phallic Composition in the Senate
Does anyone find it funny that four people (or 20%) in the Senate have phallic sounding names.
~ Dong
~ Weiner
~ Wong
~ Urena*

*either referencing urine or urethra

If I really wanted to stretch it, I could do at least three more. If we count rhyming names, I can find at least four of the female anatomy.

TGIF: Too Gay Initiative Fund
Oh God, you have got to be kidding. What's wrong with you people? How can you vote to put an extra $5 per student into the hands of a bunch of radical environmentalists who think that "waterless urinals" are "sexy"? You people are so stupid. As a result of getting roped into "green guilt" propaganda, you're throwing $200,000 bucks away to Berkeley students who have not even vaguely outlined where this exorbitant amount is to be spent.

This is the result of a bunch of arrogant elitist Berkeley students who want to massage their inflated egos by wasting others money in delusional inventions that make them feel they are important.

I'm sure Student Action will find some way to divert a percentage of these funds to fight off a lawsuit anyway.

My Struggle in Voting for President: "Whiny" Student Action vs. "My Hippie Volkswagen" Van Nguyen
I found myself extremely disappointed with The Cal Patriot's endorsement of nutty CalServe candidates for Executive Slates. Out of sheer principle, they should have figured out something else or abstained. Really gross.

I of course voted for neither, but if I had to choose, I think I'd edge it out for Ivanka Napkin. Unfortunately, she's the spawn of Oren Gabriel, the biggest douche bag on the planet, who oddly enough brought his hippie looking parents out to campaign for Miss Napkin (thinking that somehow UC students would be fans of monarchism and royal SA blood). Besides being a dense, stupid, over-indulgent drunk boob, Oren GAYbriel actually hired a real legal firm over a lame unimportant office of self-aggrandizing child's play. Next year, Oren Gabrielle can find a different type of gay bar in which to pop his collar.

Student Action, which should really be named "Students With Egos Bigger Than Oprah's Ass", is so incredibly delusional about its importance. If they really wanted to lower our student fees, they would just cease to exist.

Anyway, so why Ivanka? Well, she's actually labeled a "moderate" on her Facebook profile, and doesn't seem to personally advocate nutty things like most of the other candidates. I like that. She's also kind of hot, and in an office that doesn't matter, I don't want to be looking at mini-VAN Nguyen all year. I wonder if he has a brother named short-BUS Nguyen? If not, we know he has at least taken a ride on one.

As is no surprise for the loopy CalServe candidates, miniVAN Nguyen is a rather sterile commonplace formulation of your average ultra-left nutbag. He demands we think outside of the racial binary, as he feels he is a "white hippie" trapped in an Asian body. I can't wait to see what type of stunts he pulls next year. In fact, voting for him might have been worth the value of watching him try to carry out his laughable policies. I'd chain him to a tree and throw away the key, forcing him to cut down the tree if he wanted to be released. He'd probably write a sob email out to all of us about his crying green tears.

Anyway, For a school that bitches about diversity 24/7, I'm wondering why it chose to elect a rather strongly un-diverse composition in Student Government. Oh well.

I voted for the gay guy whose building the gay fraternity. It would have been a bubbly entertaining event if they tried to disqualify him and controversies of "homophobia" ensued against the most "tolerant" student body in the world. I also was hoping he would institute a big gay boat ride in lieu of the 51.

UC Berkeley: Red-Blooded Greens Seek To Destroy Yellow Fever

From Red, To Yellow, To Green...

April 11 2007

RED

Ah, the 60's. Angry hippies on periods with ample flow. Communism blanketing Berkeley redder than Al Gore's flustered cheeks after public erection grabs from Tipper. Mario Savio and Cesar Chavez pretending their inane unproductive public nuisances were societally relevant (outside of Berkeley). A bunch of exasperating red-faced pot-laced Rasta hippies parading around in their unseemly state of nude indulging in hippy-happy circles and tree hugging parties with Zachary RunningWolf (or as he's known outside of Berkeley, RunningPMS).

YELLOW

Fast forward a good 30 years, and we've mellowed out a bit thanks to the rise of sane hardworking Asians displacing more of the lazy unproductive activist white folk. Despite being a bureaucracy plagued public school, we've still managed to elevate our academic and research superiority and scope; and thanks to this "sane" free market composition, the school continues its place of core importance to students and the state in regards to excellence in competition, innovation, science, and academic drive by [racially blindly] selecting top candidates.

GREEN

Unfortunately, the ultra-left activists at UC Berkeley are trying to immunize the campus from yellow fever and turn it into a new age S-P mantra called "green". In other words, they seek to subvert the state's fair policies of admission in exchange for the radical construction of a campus that a bunch of reverse-racist BAMN nutcases think reflects what they FEEL would be nice in their multicultural heroin ridden fantasies, without regard to the deleterious consequences in the academic and competitive integrity of the school. Just in case you didn't know, hippies have had a poor track record in producing concrete results based on how they FEEL things should be.

"Green", which is pretty much a term that anybody of a radical far-left persuasion loves to throw around, also refers to anything from radical and economically unproductive environmental activism to socialism to an unpractical anti-military ethos. The term can be used widely today to describe such activism as an offshoot of the nutty "green" party, and encompasses far more than just the idea of "green" environmentalism. "Green" is also ironically associated with that which makes one vomit.

Relating to an affirmative action and an anti-Asian agenda, "green" people prefer to describe minority groups as a bunch of incompetent boobs that they are required to babysit. Instead of solving the problem by encouraging accountability from new generations and more widespread school vouchers for choice, "greens" feel they have to systematically take it upon themselves to radically legislate policy that sticks people into positions for which they were not given the tools to really work out the intermediary steps and relegates them to continue marinating in a standard of unsatisfactory performance. The "greens" are not interested in solving the problem. They seek to foster this culture of dependency and helplessness, because without it, they have no reason to exist.

To add insult to the fact that affirmative action simply does not mechanically work, greens "think" it's the public university's job to defy the fact that it's an institution legally required to act impartially on behalf of government. Under equal and non-discriminatory civil protections, it's totally inappropriate for the university and the state to vaguely decide how many Blacks or Hispanics it finds appropriate to satisfy its cushy notions of social justice. Normal people aren't stupid and recognize this, hence the voting for Proposition 209 in California and its counterpart in Michigan.

Another problem the greens are having is marketing "non-market based quota diversity" to students who are already here. I don't understand how my quality of life is going to improve with an extra number of minority students, most of which I never see because they've segregated themselves in La Raza groups or meetings in which they invariably drool over Cesar Chavez. I don't particularly care if my classes are 0% black or 99% black, as long as my peers are of a comparible academic caliber and contribute to furthering the marketability of my Berkeley name education. Enrichment from "multiculturalism" and "cultural diversity" is a concept that doesn't tangibly exist; the marketplace of ideas among all races at UC Berkeley is awash with monolithic liberal scallywagging. These words are simply a cover to forward the radical agenda of subverting fair competitive behavior by convincing Whites and Asians that stepping aside from their hard earned positions would be for the greater good. The "Multicultural Center" at UC Berkeley will be a Unicultural Center for Berkeley whites to marinate in their self-righteousness.

The actual truth is that affirmative action hurts minority groups because it allows them to enter into positions for which they are not directly qualified, thereby preserving a status quo of mediocrity and doing nothing to further their competitiveness for such positions in the future. I'm the one that really cares about disadvantaged minorities. I want them to gain excellent educational opportunities by using their directed public school monies for private vouches where disadvantaged parents can choose where they want their kids to go to school and grow voucher funded private school franchises/charter schools. Liberals choose to soak minorities in dispair by funneling their public school directed monies to selfish violent public school unions and bureaucracy who want to line their own pockets, don't care about performance, and prohibit child molestors from being fired.

In the far-left liberals' aggressive scheme to make the campus into an uncompetitive hotbed of multiculturalism, Asians are unfortunately the disposable commodity. Yes, I'm sorry Mr. Chang, but your superior application must be denied because you're over-represented. Unfortunately, your 1600 and promising experiments to cure cancer must be brushed aside so we can create a diverse multicultural haven.

Mr. Chang posted his response here:

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/01/17/opinion/17109.shtml

Self-Aggrandizing Elitists vs. Out of This World Nutjobs...Oops, I Mean Student Action vs. CalSERVE

Apr 5 2007

It's another year of elitist do nothing self-promoting snobbery or even worse, people who want to waste your money with their horrific CodePink and Greenpeace values.

I suppose I'd rather have my student fees going to a bunch of do nothing hacks like Oren "Douchebag" GAYbriel than a bunch of strange vague non-student related ultra-left programs like unisex bathrooms, a "green" campus (whatever that means), and money that's probably funneled to violent reverse-racists like BAMN.

CalSERVE, what do you plan to do for us White or Asian non-Transvestite folk?

According to CalSERVE's facebook, they're huffing up the S-P keywords "racial justice", "social justice", "transcultural", and "divest". You know CalSERVE, a good 80% of us are White, Asian, have access, and are not disabled...not to mention traditional African-Americans and Hispanics find you hippies kind of strange and socially undesirable. What do you plan to do for us? As much as I've always wanted to pee right next to a girl, I don't know...Perhaps we can gain the matriculation of Ricky Martin, as CalSERVE's "access" policies will give him ample access to dole out golden showers.

And guess what CalSERVE, not only are Iraq, the environment, world issues, and President Bush not helpful to students and none of your business, but you're wasting our time and money trying to do things that belong to important people we actually elect on a state and national level (and no, you're not important). If your going to run for student government, pretend to actually do something that would do something for students (gasp!), like promise a revitalization of Sproul which wont happen or give money to student groups which you'll probably funnel to the Cayman Islands...or your legal defense team. And newsflash, we're already here, so we don't need minority recruitment. And you're vague terms like "justice" and "green" are empty and annoying.

And guess what. Most of the stuff listed below is just fluff that you blowhards can't deliver on:
http://berkeley.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2256200585

Oh, except abortion-on-demand at the Tang Center. That I'm sure you'll pour your heart and soul into.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I leave you with what CalSERVE has called their "accomplishments" ...and what I call a "total joke". I'll embolden terms I find an absolute total and utter bunch of egregious nuttiness, even though it goes without saying that the entire thing should be emboldened.

Spring 2003: Bill Title
SB 6a In Support of the 2003 BESSA Career Fair
SB 15a In Support of Exit Magazine
SB 32 To Support Students Subject to INS Registration
SB 33a In Support of Students for Hip Hop
SB 39a In Support of Splitends Magazine
SB 40 In Support of the 2003 Leadership Symposium
SB 41 In Support of the Committee for Korea Studies
SB 42 In Support of the Eggster Hunt and Learning Festival
SB 50 In Support of Society of Cal Integrative Biology Undergraduate Students
SB 59 To Oppose the USA Patriot Act, Justice Department Directives, and Executive Orders that Prevent the Protection of Civil Liberties and Rights
SB 62 In Support of Berkeley Minority Women
SB 63a In Support of Lambda Theta Nu Sorority's Second Annual Latina Youth Leadership Conference
SB 64 In Support of Efficient and Effective Mediation of Elections Disputes
SB 65 In Support of the Unity Statement
SB 66 In Support of the Colombia Working Group
SB 67 In Support of La Voz de Berkeley
SB 70a In Support of PAA's 27th Annual Pilipino Cultural Night of UC Berkeley
SB 76 In Support of the Third Annual Ethnic Studies Conference
SB 77 In Support of the Themis Journal: Berkeley Journal of Environmental, Health, and Development
SB 81 In Support of Correcting an Error in Title I of the ASUC By-Laws

Fall 2002:Bill Title
SB 2a A Resolution Against the Information Ban
SB 7a In Support of a Hotel and Spa Worker-Led Boycott of the Claremont Resort and Spa
SB 8a In Support of AB 2001 - Ethnic Studies for California Public High Schools
SB 9a In Support of More Classrooms and Better Schools: Yes on Prop 47
SB 11a To Co-Sponsor the Petition to Reverse the Drop in Underrepresented Minority Enrollment at UC Berkeley
SB 16 In Support of Election Day Voter Registration
SB 17a In Support of Financial Aid for All Students
SB 23 In Support of the Greek System's Efforts to Lift the Moratorium on Alcohol
SB 30 In Support of Chicanos and Latinos for Empowerment (Chale)
SB 35 In Support of the Latino Pre-Law Society
SB 36 In Support of Green Building and Clean, Renewable Energy
SB 37 In Support of March Primary Elections
SB 38a In Support of Cal Community Action Days 2002, UC Berkeley's Week of Service
SB 40 In Support of the Arab American Student Union
SB 41 In Support of the Berkeley Chinese Students and Scholars Association
SB 43a In Support of Chaitanya and Chaitanya's Publicity Efforts
SB 48a In Support of a Peaceful Foreign Policy Towards Iraq
SB 49a In Support of Dropping Student Conduct Charges
SB 55a In Support of Let's Rise Asian Mentorship Program
SB 56a In Support of the Youth Vote Coalition Voter Registration Drive
SB 63 In Support of the Berkeley Law Foundation
SB 69 In Support of Students for Out-of-State and International Diversity: An Organization for Non-Residents and Residents (SOID)
SB 71 In Support of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Scholar Chapter
SB 72 In Support of the Associated Students of Psychology (ASP)
SB 76a In Support of an Immediate Moratorium of the Deportation of Southeast Asians
SB 82 In Support of Sigma Omega Tau (SOT)
SB 88a In Support of Cal Libertarians
SB 91 In Support of Cal Women's Boxing Association
SB 98a In Support of Volunteerism and a Thanksgiving Feeding at the First Universal Unitarian Church
SB 99a In Support of PAHC's Mission Iloilo Benefit Concert
SB 100 In Support of Retaining Immigrant Airport Screeners Working at America's Airports
SB 101a In Support of maganda Magazine
SB 102 In Support of the Common Mic
SB 103 In Support of Coca-Cola Corporate Responsibility
SB 104 In Support of Fair Trade Coffee
SB 108a In Support of the Arts for Healing Benefit Performance
SB 115a In Support of Black Unity
SB 116a In Support of Installing Code Blue Phones at Extension Buildings and Etcheverry-Soda Breezeway
SB 118a In Support of Farm Worker Support Committee Speaking Event: Revitalizing La Causa SB 121a In Support of the Student Parent Association
SB 129 Concerning the Rights of the Accused
SB 131 In Support of the Disabled Students Union
SB 138 In Support of the 3rd Annual Women's Rights Conference: A Day of Action and Awareness

The "Spare Any Change" Homeless and Berkeley's Rampant Idiocy

Apr 1 2007

When you look at Berkeley skeletally as a city, it's really not too bad...kind of pretty actually. Unfortunately, the people who live in it, uh, live in it.

I'd have a nice walk down Shattuck if I wasn't bombarded every five seconds with, "Can you spare any change?" or walk by all those crazy rastafarian guttersnipes. I can't even use the word "spare" anymore in normal conversation now thanks to those fetid homeless people.

People - please stop giving to the homeless, especially you, you damn old white haired ultra liberal ladies. You just foster their behavior and cause more homeless to pollute the city. And to you Berkeley city government - you are the biggest problem! Giving the homeless lockers, money, centers, programs, a $8M/year budget, and food will not incentivize them to quit their homeless lifestyle (which a lot actually choose) when they can live it up as "homeless", much to the misfortunate of businesses and citizens who have to endure your European tax rates.

Anyway, here are the staples of the Berkeley Homeless Community I always encounter:

Angry "Dollar for the Bus" Woman

Looks pretty normal. Always standing at the Shattuck & Durant stop. She'll calculatingly approach you and ask for "a dollar for the bus" even though she does not nor will ever have any intention of going on the bus. Once you refuse her, she'll mutter some obscenities under her breath and angrily move onto the next person to whom she'll immediately cheer up for. She'll never realize that she's asked you multiple times over the years, and should realize that no one's going to give her change after she performed her mumble-cuss the first time.

Stupid Rastafarian White Middle Class Hippy

Oh God - they're the worst. These losers are strung out (pun intended) somewhere along Shattuck near Center Street. They're just white middle class potheads who thanks to Berkeley decided capitalism is evil, their parents are totalitarian regressives, and drugs are the way to enlightenment - the essence of Berkeley's inane socialist S-P agenda. As if that wasn't bad enough, they have the effrontery to admit that they want money for drugs...well, some just flat out ask for drugs. Absolutely awful.

Most of the more normal homeless people are generally cheap looking rastas who share the aforementioned philosophies and are more than capable of working with a little cleanup.

I've decided I'm going to take a cup around with me and actually preempt these bastards with an obnoxious "Can you spare any change?" before they are able to get to me.

Super Oversmoked Lady

This old lady has ostensibly had her brain and body just fried by drugs - she looks like a vulture. Her face is wrinkled and has a snarl permanently installed. To add insult to injury, she's usually puffing away at a cigarette whenever she has the balls to ask for change.

Mr. Outside Baja Fresh Breathing Machine

This is the fat black guy with the breathing machine who usually peddles outside Baja Fresh. He always seems very aware and pretty articulate, and knows how to work those puppy eyes to his benefit.

I didn't mind him as much as the other homeless until I found him lounging on the two front disabled seats on the 51 bus talking on a cellphone. What the hell is that? You have the audacity to peddle me for change while you ride the luxurious 51 and use a cellphone? The next time I find him outside Baja Fresh I'm going to ask if my money will be going towards his cellphone payments, since I thought he said he "needed money for a meal today".

Miss Crispy Schizophrenic

This is the crazy fit black lady who is found all around Berkeley either cussing wildly or having a conversation with some entity that does not exist. Fortunately, she does not participate in either of those activities with entities that do exist. Unlike the other homeless, she has a quite fit physique.

Angry Psychopath

Often times, there are just angry psychopaths that go madly yelling through the streets. They're sometimes dangerous, and should have priority in being locked up.

Some of these people are just really high on drugs, and look really freaky and scary.

Creepy Psychopath

This is the kind of guy who for some odd reason has not made it to the looney bin. He sits down next to you at your table at McDonalds, stares at you with tongue out & bloodshot eyes, takes a bite of your hamburger, licks your arm, and proceeds to bark (like a dog) and coo (like an out of tune bird).

El Cheapo Egoísta Con Orígenes Sefarditas y Escoceses

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."

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.

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.

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

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

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:

• 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.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Phil Angelides, Always on your side...unless your a white taxpayer
6. If only the voters were as fired up about Phil Angelides.
7. Oh, support from Barbara Boxer! In any other non-backwards society, that would be considered an extreme liability.
8. Maybe you should visit Facebook PULSE, and see how students don't really quite love Phil Angelides.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. You make for good nap time Philgelides.
13. Oh, Gavin Newsom!And in Philgelides corner, the radical elements of the far left. That's it.
14. Even in a democratic state like California, Philgelides cannot get elected by associating with and adopting the ideology of the Cindy Sheehan crowd.
15. Perhaps if California teachers weren't so terribly inept, people wouldn't be so ankling to block their taxpayer funded pay raises.
16. So this group is supported by those on the far-left fringes. Why am I not surprised
17. Hmmm, so how are you doing on Facebook Pulse these days Phil?
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Steve Westly would have never stooped so low!
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Two people with the personality of dirt. One past, and one future loser. Both sore.
25. 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.
26. Frank wants to milk the taxpayer with his lucrative government job.
27. Phil Angelides: Opening the border wider than Paris Hilton's legs on a Saturday night.
28. 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.
29. Another losing embarrasment on the Philgelides stumproll.
30. San Francisco, the only town nutty enough to vote for Phil in majority.
31. 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.