another week has come and gone and the parade marches on. i really should have gotten well past the point where anything surprises me any more, but there are still times when my jaw drops at the quality (or lack of) logical thought that some people possess. though probably not as extensive as the lists from previous weeks, the lack in numbers does not diminish the quality of their content
for instance, probably deserving of a "wanker-lite" rating, we have a certain reverend bob larson (although doing a search, i could find nothing that makes him qualify as a reverend....no school, no religious affiliation...nada. though i feel he belongs to the church of the holy imagonnagetyomoneysucka) who claims to have performed exorcisms all around the world ( though apparently mostly in the ukraine) and now brings them to you on-line for a mere $295 donation to his international missions program (tax deductible, mind you). rev. bob also runs the international school of exorcism, based in arizona (they must be so proud). he is also the father of the three girls who went to london last year to perform an exorcism to help save it from the satanic influence of the evil harry potter. how rude! to ignore voldemort like that!
we also have dr. (he holds degrees in neurology and neuropsychology from chicago medical school) rhawn joseph, a self-proclaimed astrobiologist, who is suing nasa to force them to further investigate a donut-shaped rock that appeared in an image sent back from opportunity, the mars rover. not there one minute and suddenly there the next it is, according to him, evidence of an alien life form and not just one of your run-of-the-mill mars rocks. one that even an uneducated child or curious monkey would feel needs further study. please, oh please, don't show him the picture of the rock that looks like a coffee cup.
those in the economic and financial arena fall into two categories: those that get it and those that don't. i present three that definitely fall into the latter. first we have financial advisor and commentator peter schiff, who thinks that raising the current minimum wage would be bad for the economy (translated that means "my wallet") and it would be good business sense to have people work for less. when asked if he could give an example of who he would suggest fill that proposed workforce willing to work for, say, $2 an hour, he stammered for a while before finally settling on the oh-so-obvious...."the mentally retarded". because, as he puts it "you get what you pay for". in that case, he's vastly overpaid, because, as the saying goes, he ain't worth shit". of course, trying to defend himself in future statements, he blamed the interviewer who saw he was having trouble coming up with the proper, politically correct wording and didn't step in to help him. typical. blame the media when you come off looking like a totally insensitive and ignorant douchebag.
second, i give you kevin o'leary, of 'shark tank' fame, who stated on his show from canada, the lang and o'leary exchange, that he thinks it's a good thing that people like him (with their multi-millions) are around because they give the 3,5 billion living in poverty something to look up to, a goal to strive for if they just work hard and pull up their bootstraps. his co-host, an obviously peeved amanda lang, tried to point out that he was referring to people who most often had no boots, probably no socks and potentially no feet. while he was trying to further defend his position, she cut to commercial. good move.
finally, in this area of such empathy and understanding, i bring you venture capitalist tom perkins with an estimated personal wealth of 8 billion dollars (yes, BILLION!) who claimed that his (perceived) feeling that the wealthy are starting to be persecuted much, like the kristallnacht, the night that the nazi's brought their private program of jewish persecution out and made it public policy, painting these poor-little-rich-kids as an oppressed and unfairly demonized class. his views are not entirely surprising yet no less disgusting, since a study (i know, i've always said i hate studies since they too often come up with conclusions that to most of us are glaringly obvious) out of uc berkeley and the university of illinois found that people of wealth tend to "suffer from a level of disconnect from reality" that leads them to consider them-selves more entitled and, in many ways, superior to those of a lower economic standing. did anyone else just say "well, DUH!". i wish i could say (no i don't) that i could muster some feelings (other than contempt) for this poor man, but as the saying goes, if you're looking for sympathy, you'll find it in the dictionary between "shit" and "syphilis".
my final offering has to do with the potus sotua (sounds like a body part or an std). i was really put off with a few of the things that happened, having nothing to do with the speech itself or he president. i realize people are going to say it's tradition, and things i'll be pointing out could just as well be said if the president had been a republican, but considering the current atmosphere they, in my humble opinion, seemed to stand out this year. i do wish to point out in advance, i did not watch the whole thing as originally aired, but caught up after the fact, so if i missed something or get something wrong...i beg your pardon. but, actually, everything has nothing to do with actual content but mostly it does with the behavior of those in attendance (i will say i was pleased nobody was so rude as to shout out "liar!" but i can imagine some badly bitten lips and restraint marks).
where was i? oh, yes...tradition. starting at the very beginning, it was business as usual. gavel. president is announced and he comes down the aisle. standing ovation. FREEZE! appearing to be unanimous, they stand and applaud. you may say they are simply showing their respect. WRONG! i say they are showing their hypocrisy since so many have refused to show him an ounce of respect since he took office...the first time. sure, i probably would have been one of the first ones to say "how RUDE! how VERY FUCKING RUDE!" had they just sat there on their well-padded asses but you know i would have at least have the satisfaction of knowing for that one fleeting moment they were being honest with those watching from home or in the chamber. which brings me to the cameras. everything was done for the sake of the cameras. president says something, insert applause here (even if it's insincere), camera pans and...WAP!!...slap those smiles on those pasty, mostly white faces like you're putting a grin on a mr. potatohead. sure, many appeared to be more of a grimace (see reference to bitten lips) and definitely insincere, but you have to play to the camera, remembering you're still trying to attract those voters that haven't made up their minds. and repeat, repeat, repeat (note: the one moment of sincerity was the ovation for the young medal of honor winner was long, deserved and touching). when he's not in the room, they have no problem bashing everything he says, does or tries to do, but you have to remember those cameras. now, to be fair, stockman did get up and walk out, silently and rather unnoticed, basically saying afterward he couldn't stand anymore bullshit. but seeing as how he WAS someone who prided himself on never missing a vote and after disappearing for weeks "campaigning" (but even his staff said they didn't know where he was) and had "personal business" to take care of (hmmm. i wonder what, or who, that business could have been?), i'm just surprised he showed up at all. but there's those pesky cameras, and what better photo-op that to be seen walking out on the president. but to return to the basic subject at hand, they have no problem with disrespect when the president isn't in the rooms and they have the cameras all to themselves to which they can bloviate at their leisure, but in this situation, must appear courteous and respectful <gag!!!>.
the only thing the president did, which either i've never noticed before or it's never really been done, was signing autographs on his way out. it just seemed a little strange and slightly out of place, but i guess that's just me nit-picking.
as for responses from the many who felt the need to respond, going to show just how fractured the republican party has become....i could care less. didn't watch them and don't believe i ever have, no matter who's in office. most of the time they seem to have been written long before the speech was ever delivered, with blanks to fill in like it was some politically themed mad-lib in order to make it seem just a little bit relevant. they could save a lot of time by just having one person stand there and say "didn't like it. he's all wrong. i totally disagree with everything he said.", and just to be on the safe side, throw in references to god, gay marriage and, of course, "BENGHAZI!!!" and what was with cruz jumping the gun entirely and giving his "response" before the speech was even given? was he afraid the president would go on and keep him up past his bedtime?
i would be remiss if i didn't at least give a couple of shout-outs. these are not officially nominees, but i felt they at least deserved a mention.
ted cruz had to respond, once more, to john boehner's admission that the republican party was responsible for the government shutdown. ted adamantly stuck to his guns, saying it was the president and the democrats that did it when they refused to "cooperate" and "negotiate" in good faith. even the interviewer had to laugh in his face. i'd have laughed, too, since this is coming from a man whose party believed that blackmail was a legitimate negotiating tool.
while we're at it, the three stooges (cruz, bachmann and king) said they're not giving up and they will continue to ride the "repeal obamacare train" until the very end. perfect example of one of the definitions of insanity....doing the same thing over and over and over, each time expecting different results. i'd so love to punch more than their ticket.
and finally, a brief mention of our dear ann coulter who felt it necessary to call the president a "retard". a young man who works with and competes in the special olympics took it upon himself to write a beautiful and touching letter, which certainly didn't deserve to be received by a.c. and which she, it seems, more or less dismissed and ignored. to read the letter....http://wp.me/p2uuJh-80M (at least i'm pretty sure that's it. it's on the aattp site).
but the wiener...i'm sorry, winner...is hands down the republicans in attendance at the president's address, for their overwhelming volume of hypocrisy on display. there. i hope you're happy. i am.
until next week.
ADDENDUM: sorry, but i just realized i left out some people whom, i felt, truly needed to be mentioned. i'm referring to the people down south who, through their brilliant powers of observation and terrifically scientific reasoning and logic, attempted to explain the weather event that recently happened on the east coast, especially in and around the city of atlanta. phew! i'm sure everyone was terribly relieved when they were told....it wasn't even real snow! theories are ranging from weather controlling devices to a chemical attack by obama and his terrorist buddies and, the latest, that it's a bunch of nanobots being dropped for some reason or other. the main "fact" they're throwing out is "it's true because the snow doesn't melt!" it "burns". actually it chars when held to the flame of a lighter. totally ignoring two natural processes, long words i can now not remember because i wasn't smart enough to write them down (i think one was sublimation, but i'm not sure) and the fact that snow contains so much more than, well, water, people are coming up with all kinds of explanations, however none as of yet are apocalyptic. when i first posted, commenting on the oh-so-scientific methods of those holding matches to snowballs and being incapable of spelling let alone saying either of those two words i failed to write down, one apparent local resident replied that he was offended because he felt i was being demeaning and insulting. at the risk of being accused further of being demeaning and insulting, i refrained from telling him what a good, perceptive boy he was and that, apparently, he wasn't as stupid as his neighbors.
No comments:
Post a Comment