Dealing with delusional Phil Robertson supporters

With the A&E Duck Dynasty fiasco going on right now, I am seeing a lot of misinformation flying around from conservatives. In most instances, people are simply not telling the truth. Let me tackle most of these asinine claims in list form.

Claim #1. He couldn't speak his mind/express himself.

Fact: The article is in GQ Magazine. His words have not been censored. Everything GQ published in the article is from Phil. His 1st Amendment rights have not been limited.

That's how we got into this mess. He expressed himself. His rights are intact.

What happened was, his words had consequences. You know what consequences are, right? When you say something that is offensive and ignorant, you're going to catch hell for it. You learn not to let your mouth run faster than you can think. You learn that there are some things you just should not say.

It isn't a crime to turn off your verbal filter, but it can end your career. In this world, we hold people accountable, or at least we try to.

Claim #2: "We never judge" blah blah blah from the article in question. "I would never treat anyone with disrespect."

This is not what A&E suspended him for. His comments about blacks, anal sex, vaginas, bestiality, etc reflected poorly on A&E's reputation. Being gay isn't logical? That's judgment. Making anal sex the focal point of your perspective on gays? That's judgment.

All of his views on blacks and homosexuals are disrespectful. He doesn't love all of humanity. That's simply not supported by the rest of what he said.

Claim #3: Liberal hypocrisy/Political Correctness hypocrisy

This claim surmises that Christians are unfairly targeted and that, had this been a Muslim or a liberal, nothing would have happened.

Fact: This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, Islamic Extremists hold the same beliefs as Phil on homosexuality, so in essence, by condemning his ideals, we also condemn anyone else who thinks of gays as he does. On top of that, the Dixie Chicks were met with extreme scrutiny for expressing themselves and I didn't hear much from the Right Wing freedom fighters then. Lots of liberals have been given the axe.

John Edwards. Anthony Weiner. Alec Baldwin. Keith Olbermann. Shall I continue listing people?

Claim #4: Miley Cyrus got away with groping herself on national television and poor Phil gets the axe.

Did Miley get away with her performance? I'm fairly certain she was made a mockery of on several networks and online. I saw the joke photos of Will Smith and his family. I saw the outrage on Twitter. I saw the complaints that this aired on television. I saw the SNL skits. I saw the comparisons to her former Disney persona.

Miley Cyrus did not get away with groping herself. She was immediately ridiculed, condemned, and chastised. She was held accountable and lost several fans as a result.

Duck Dynasty fans, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. You are defending the indefensible words of religious-based hatred of an entire group of people in the process.

David M. Draiman politicizes Rolling Stone cover

One of the problems with this country is that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING becomes politicized. Whether it is the Zimmerman trial, Climate Change, or Boston bombing suspects, someone somewhere has to get their political jabs in. I specifically hate it when someone miscategorizes something as liberal when it is not.

The Zimmerman verdict was split down political lines. The fucking weather is disputed at the level of political affiliation, not science. In the case of today's situation, Rolling Stone putting Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on their cover, Disturbed band member David Draiman tied politics to an apolitical situation.

Quote from Draiman's rant with the questionable content in bold:

YOU…DARE…TO…PUT…THE…IMAGE…OF…THE…BOSTON…BOMBER…ON…THE…FUCKING…COVER…OF…YOUR…MAGAZINE!!!!????
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR ULTRA-LIBERAL, SYMPATHETIC TO A FAULT, FUCKING MINDS???

Since when is it specifically ultra-liberal to glorify a terrorist?

It isn't. It hasn't.

Let's make something very clear here. Americans, liberals included, condemned the actions of the Boston bombing suspects. Let's also be clear that liberals are not happy that Rolling Stone has chosen to put Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Why is it, then, that David Draiman attributed liberalism to Rolling Stone's poor decision?

Time and time again, I have to put up with having my views as a liberal insulted here in Louisiana. I am despised for no other reason than being a liberal. I am ridiculed on a regular basis by flagrant assholes of the conservative ilk in the city in which I live. I am also attacked by random conservatives on the internet.

In a back and forth Twitter dispute with Scott Wherle, Wherle correctly identified the misplaced attribution of blame on liberals and Draiman, in a state of ignorance, supplied a retort that included justification of his comments because he himself holds liberal views on social issues.

While the back and forth was going on, confrontational conservatives were latching onto the comments made by Draiman to disparage liberals. When confronted with that evidence via Wherle's tweets, Draiman acted as though Wherle's involvement brought on the anti-liberal tweets. Draiman clearly doesn't understand the English language, nor does he understand cause and effect.

Remove "ultra-liberal" from his rant. Now what do you have? Can conservatives use it to tarnish liberals outright? Nope. Draiman is to blame for this mess, through and through.

Here are some examples of conservative hate latching onto Draiman's comments. There are certainly numerous other examples. What I found is just the tip of the iceberg. None of these tweets are valid, nor would they have existed had Draiman left out the "ultra-liberal" jab.

If Michelle Malkin can cling to his comments, something is wrong with having said them in the first place. Opportunistic conservatives came right out of the woodwork to validate their overt hatred of liberals through Draiman's words. Had he refrained from politicizing the issue, we would be united together in condemnation, not getting angry over his tainted misrepresentation of liberalism. Instead of evoking disgust over the cover on the magazine, Dave Draiman has inspired a fresh cut of unsubstantiated anti-liberal hate.

You see, everything for conservatives revolves around politics. Liberals are to blame for everything. They spend every waking hour bitching about liberals. They would blame liberals for the shit stain skidmarks in their tighty whities if they had the inclination.

In response, I have deleted all of Disturbed's songs from my iTunes library. If you think that's an overreaction to these events, ask yourself if you would listen to a band who openly insulted your political views and miscategorized your politics as defending a monster like Tsarnaev.

This has nothing to do with being liberal and to suggest so tells us how apt you are to incorrectly politicize the world around you. Wherle is dead on with his criticism of Draiman. Dave Draiman can go to Hell.

http://twitchy.com/2013/07/17/go-to-hell-disturbed-vocalist-david-draiman-destroys-ultra-liberal-rolling-stone-in-epic-rant/

Maher wasn't racist on Leno

I missed Bill Maher on The Tonight Show moments ago, but to see how he did, I went straight to Twitter for the commentary. What I found, in addition to a few hateful Republicans from Texas and Louisiana (not surprising), were complaints about Maher's choice of language. He apparently referred to Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained.

Some people on Twitter had a shit fit, crying racism.

Let me set you folks straight, ok?

Here's why it was not racism.

President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained are all terms representing how Republicans feel about Obama. Bill Maher is merely a voice describing the situation that is the racist attitude toward Barack Obama coming from the Right Wing types. Those nicknames are characterizations of Right Wing angst, not of Left Wing racism. Anyone who thinks such commentary is racist is a complete idiot, disconnected from the national dialogue present on the conservative side of the fence. 

In other words, you clearly don't get it. 

Maher does not believe Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, or Django Unchained. He understands that Republicans think Obama is President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. There are two Obamas. One is the real Obama. The other is Fantasy Obama, the one Republicans have made up in order to validate their disproportionate fear of a black man. Fantasy Obama is this big scary black guy who represents every stereotype they believe about black people.

It also is not a case of it being okay for a liberal to say something and not okay for a conservative to say something. In this instance, Maher is saying it is not okay for conservatives to perceive Barack Obama as President Blackenstein, President Kenya, and Django Unchained. He is saying it is not okay for them to be racist. He is not speaking in a derogatory fashion about the President. On the contrary, he is saying these are derogatory perceptions of the President held by conservatives. It's like if I said it's not okay for you to say the N word and in that very condemnation of you, I actually said the N word, not "N word." We're condemning you for your racism, not being racist. It's like if your five year old child said "shit" and in response you said "It's not okay to say shit." What you're doing is responding to my condemnation by saying "But you just said it." Your reasoning is like a five year old being a smart ass instead of learning right from wrong.

Any questions?

Would you rather us NOT talk about how the GOP views President Obama? Tell me why that is. Perhaps you are in denial. Perhaps you aren't aware of the problem. 

Tell me if you'd prefer that he would say "Big scary black guy" instead of the other terms. At what point does the message lose its value? The racism inside the GOP has to be called out. We can't sit here and say nothing.

(If you don't like that I called some of you idiots, here's a tip. Pay attention to the news. You are most definitely not up to speed on this particular issue. That makes you the idiot.)

This just in...

This just in...

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are reportedly getting a divorce. Fox News blames Obama and claims it is a liberal conspiracy to erode away at the sanctity of marriage and the American way of life. Mitt Romney will hold a press conference later today.

Because we value entertainment more

People are now asking why it was such a disaster was allowed to happen at the Indiana State Fair this past week end. The band, Sugarland, was about to go on stage. The crowd was awaiting their performance. While all this was going on, storm clouds were on their way, Indiana officials were seeking out advice regarding the weather, and people were admittedly concerned about the looming storm.

So, why was it, then, that people didn't leave?

I'm sure there were people who decided to head out. I'm sure some people looked at the sky and said "No, I'm not hanging around for this storm." I've been in situations where storms were looming as well.

Peer pressure is a powerful thing. If some people don't start the gradual flow, nobody leaves.

People came to that concert to see a show. They stand there waiting. They expect a show. Even when a severe storm stares them in the face, they stare right back at it and hope no rain comes. They still think everything is going to be okay. They think there will still be a show.

On the 4th of July this year, in Shreveport-Bossier, a healthy storm system moved its way across East Texas and Southwest Arkansas. I was watching it on the radar, wondering if the fireworks would be cancelled or delayed. Live footage of the celebratory events were being broadcast on one local television station. From their perspective, skies were clear. The weatherman was on tv, telling us that everything looked good and he hoped things would go off without a hitch. Nothing was further from the truth. I was staring right at the radar. I wasn't going to leave the house just yet.

But as the threat of rain loomed, I decided to hop in the car and head out. As I drove into town, lightning flashed around me. Skies were dark. Rain was pouring down. Streets were soon flooded, at least in one lane, sewer drains overwhelmed by the rush of water. Word spread that people at the Boardwalk were leaving. The crowds were thinning. Rain had scared everyone off. The show had been either delayed or canceled. Nobody really knew.

After the storm passed, people were still on their way out. I was stranded in traffic, but after 30 minutes of waiting in bumper to bumper traffic, the fireworks began going off. I was able to enjoy the show, but at what cost? My legs were still damp from getting drenched by the rain. It was really a mess I should have avoided.

But people in our area have taken this one step further.

When bad storms are approaching, in the past, our local news really didn't throw up a fuss. Over the past two years, the weather teams have improved their coverage of severe weather, complete with early warnings and detailed coverage. They still don't compare to other weather teams I've had the pleasure of knowing, but it's better than nothing.

Sounds great, right?

Well, they interrupted an LSU game and all hell broke loose on the internet. People were extremely unhappy that their beloved LSU Tigers were being blotted out by severe weather coverage. They wanted to see the game. There is even a Facebook page dedicated to this complaining.

So apparently, we'd rather sacrifice our own safety in the name of entertainment. We care more about being entertained than using our better judgment. We don't have the sense to realize bad weather can kill. We'd much rather watch a football game or some fireworks.

Because we value entertainment more than our own lives, we will continue to see sad stories like the one in Indiana.

Legalization: Tell me why

One of the hottest debates out there in the US is whether or not marijuana should be legalized. Among the links and rants I find online in support of legalization, I find lunatics, belligerence, stereotypical stoners, and tangents which lack a cohesiveness that I can digest. Among those people, I find a pronounced disgust with authority, skepticism (if not demonization) of the medical community, and an overall lack of organized rationality.

So with this post, I am going to throw out some of the reasons I've been given for legalizing marijuana. Then, I'll follow each point with a brief criticism of those individual points.

I will not entertain rants from the likes of the same people I described above. You have to convince me why it is I should support legalization and my counterpoints must be addressed, not ignored by way of restating the original claim I am questioning.

I will not discuss marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I support its use for medicinal purposes if prescribed by your physician. While the method of administration is still in question, I cannot object to its use if no other pharmacological alternatives exist.


1. Marijuana as a substance vs Alcohol as a substance

The first, and often frequent point proponents use to advance their cause is that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, yet we allow everyone to drink. It is the anti-prohibition stance. For some, it is the lunacy which coincides with the anti-pharmaceutical industry stance.

My rebuttal to this point is not to question the effects of marijuana. As someone in the medical field, I know the effects and as a member of the scientific community and as a reasonable person, I must hold fast to the peer reviewed evidence, not the propaganda out there often produced as evidence by potheads. I will not entertain arguments related to those studies. Even potheads know smoking marijuana carries similar risks to smoking anything. Leave this one alone. There is another very important point to make regarding the effects of this substance that has nothing to do with the studies for or against marijuana use. We respectfully disagree with each other on that subject, so I cannot reasonably have that discussion.

What I have to do is take this discussion to the next level and I urge you to come along if you're still with me. If you're not, I'll wait for your mental preparedness to catch up.

Ready? Thank you to those of you who opt to continue reading with some sense of decency.

One of the main reasons people drink alcohol is for the effect it has on our bodies. The disinhibition and the "liquid courage" reputation alcohol has is one of the biggest influences for its use. The burn of a whiskey shot or a cherry soaked in Everclear is by no means a responsible method for ingesting alcohol. While it remains a legal form of use, it is by no means a responsible act, right?

In other words, lots of people drink to get sloshed. Getting drunk, last I checked, is a behavior we frown upon. Glorified intoxication is not at all entertaining, but sad. You should not drink to get drunk. By the same token, you should not use other substances to get high for the same reason you should not want to get drunk.

Among the stoner community, getting fucked up seems to be a priority. To me, this qualifies as a form of mental escapism which equates to getting drunk. You are using a substance to alter your mental and physical state not sanctioned by the supervision of a physician. These features make it a substance of abuse, not merely an enjoyable experience.

If it isn't, then tell me what your goal is when you take this substance? If the goal is no different than the college kid at the bar on the week end, then I cannot support legalization of mental escapism. Getting stoned is just as ridiculous a notion as getting piss drunk. The problem is, marijuana really doesn't have an in-between phase. A glass of wine at dinner does not have the same marijuana-equivalent. Stoned is stoned.

In addition, alcohol is a beverage. As a beverage, it has a certain appeal to our taste buds. Wine enthusiasts and many beer fans drink because they enjoy the taste of their favorite drink. The qualities of individual liquors are savored. Marijuana does not offer this culinary feature. When you eat brownies supplemented with THC, you aren't getting any additional flavor. You eat the laced brownie for the intoxicating effects. Because your aim is not the appreciation of flavor, but rather the effect the drug has on your body, I will refer you to the previous paragraphs and end there.

If, after this, your goal is still to get fucked up, make sure you read #3 below. Intoxication will come with regulations just like alcohol intoxication.


2. Marijuana as a cash crop

In the last few years, given the major budget issues present in both local government and within the Federal Government, supporters of legalization have argued that, if legalized, marijuana will generate tax revenue.

How exactly will it do this? In order to be taxed, it has to be sold just like cigarettes and alcohol. Marijuana will have to be produced and distributed by companies in order for profits to be taxed. There are problems within that system, including corporate loopholes for avoiding paying taxes altogether, but as a cash crop, a corporate solution seems to be the only option, whether it be through a large or small business.

If it does not go through a company-based system, then we are talking about individual growers and consumption. So you're telling me that if you grow it in the basement, you're going to charge for it? You will report this revenue to the IRS? If everyone can grow the stuff, once legal, then why would anyone pay for it? My point is, a personal system of distribution will not generate revenue.

On top of this, potheads really never thought through the notion of weed becoming a cash crop. Let's assume we were able to institute a system where companies produce marijuana for mass consumption by the public. Let's assume it becomes a source of tax revenue as you claim it should. How much will you pay for your weed then compared to now? More? Less? You can't expect me to believe that your local corner dealer who is holding will charge more than some company with an added tax on top of the base price. Just like cigarettes, you'll be paying more. A tax will mean you will be paying more for your weed.

If your personal preference is to guard your wallet, I would highly recommend keeping the current system we have. Marijuana can't be a cash crop, so unless you want to pay more, you might rethink this point and live life accepting the drug as an illegal product. Continue with the status quo.


3. Decriminalization

This is the only argument that has any validity to it, but with decriminalization comes responsibility and other forms of regulation. Like the cash crop idea, it is apparent that potheads have not fully thought through this step either.

Do I think possession and intent to sell should be a crime punishable by imprisonment? Probably not. Our prisons should not be holding places for stoners.

What I cannot tolerate, however, is public intoxication. We punish people who are in public, drunk. We require that you do not drive under the influence. Marijuana most definitely impairs your reaction time and perception of reality. We cannot allow you to be in public under the influence. Marijuana use must strictly be limited to your home or in bars designed to distribute the substance. If you get in a car, high, you should still be held accountable under the law, subject to harsh punishment just as someone who drives drunk.

If you opt for decriminalization, the laws must still be modified to moderate public domain. You can do whatever you want in your own home or on your own property, but the second you step into the public domain, you will be held accountable. Your personal freedoms cannot extend into the public domain if your impairment poses a risk to the general public.

With that, I leave you to advance the conversation. Any comments which cling to old ideas and tired arguments I could read via a Google search will be deleted without any consideration.

Double Standard: UCLA Miss Piggy

When a student at UCLA posted a racist rant towards Asians on YouTube, all hell broke loose. The video itself is arguably protected by First Amendment rights, but defenders of her "ooooohhh ching chong ling long ting tong" impression tend to be white, middle aged, loudmouths.

Let me give you all a lesson on comeuppance in the white community.

When you run your mouth, shit happens. You get your ass beat. It's Jerry Springer. It's white trash Maury. That's just how it goes.

There is a double standard being allowed to flourish underneath defending this young woman's comments.

As white people tend to put it, she bit off more than she could chew. She stepped in it. Now she's getting what she deserves.

Lesson:
Don't run your mouth. You're going to piss people off, and usually rightly so. Comeuppance is a bitch.

The Political Correctness critics are all over this one. I'll clue you. If this had been made about a white person, the reverse racism card would have been played in a heartbeat. Sometimes the people with the thinnest skins have the loudest mouths. Just remember that the next time White Honkey gets offended.

Being PC saves yourself from getting your ass handed to you for being stupid. The Golden Rule should guide you in the right direction. This poor fool wasn't thinking and she put something stupid on YouTube. Now, it'll haunt her for years.

If I were her, I'd stop studying in the library. If I were Asian, I'd target the hell out of her all the time just to make her angry. She started the fight and now she's going to have to live with the repercussions. That's how it works. She'll get a dose of just how un-PC the world can be to someone who doesn't have a filter.

She'll be forever known as White Bimbo Racist Miss Piggy.

Who the hell is Robert Caspar Lintner?

Thanksgiving is upon us and while many are scrambling to make a flight, cook a turkey, and put up with family members, I'm standing here wondering who the hell Robert Caspar Lintner is.

Go ahead, do a Google search. Look on Wikipedia.

Nothing.

Well, except for the sites which provide two quotes about Thanksgiving. Why do you think I'm asking who this person is in the first place? Yeah. THAT quote is popping up everywhere. It's almost as if someone made the guy up. There are no other mentions of Robert Caspar Lintner, except in reference to either of the two quotes below.

Thanksgiving was never meant to be shut up in a single day.
and
Thanksgiving is nothing if not a glad and reverent lifting of the heart to God in honor and praise for His goodness.

Did I miss a lesson in History class? Am I not religiously well connected enough? Who is this guy? I do not pass along a quote unless I know who it is that coined the phrase.

Palin vs Macfarlane...and Maher?

There is a small Twitter war brewing and for someone liberal like me, it's friggin hilarious.

The Back Story:
On the most recent episode of Family Guy, Sarah Palin and her Down Syndrome son, Trig, were the subject of a questionably low, but still fairly humorous joke. A new character in the series goes on a date with the eldest Griffin son, Chris. Chris asks the girl with Down Syndrome what her parents do. The girl responds that her mother is the former governor of Alaska.

There's the jab.

Palin went on Fox News to speak out against Seth Macfarlane and the show, Family Guy. Apparently the world is full of evil people. Yeah, I know. The poor gal hasn't looked in the mirror. Her snarky and bitchy comments from stump speeches and party affiliated addresses serve as evidence for her own evil streak.

But that's not where I'm going with this post. I'm taking it in a new direction. I'm calling out the Palin dittoheads.

Retweets on Twitter are quoting Maher as saying the following:
Palin’s Job at Fox Equivalent to Talking to Her Down Syndrome Baby

Made me laugh. Anyway.

Dittoheads at the FreeRepublic are going on their usual tangents, referring to Maher as scum, someone lacking intellect, and the like. By extension, these dittoheads are also referring to liberals in general, but specifically to Maher fans.

Hate to break it to you guys, but we feel the same about you wingnuts. We're not the ones opposing science.

So I have a proposition for the Sarah Palin dittoheads and ass kissers. Show me you differ with her on some issues. The entire thread I found on the FreeRepublic paints Maher fans as kiss asses who await his every word.

I'm a Maher fan, but I also do not agree with everything he has to say.

Proof? Sure.

On legalizing marijuana, I'm against it. Maher is adamantly for it. As a member of the medical community, I am against illicit substance use and abuse. Even if it were legal, I'd be against it. Medicinal purposes are different. Maher wants more than that. I don't. I really really don't. Potheads piss me off.

Along the same lines, Maher has a twisted perception of the medical community as a whole. He doesn't understand what makes people sick. He doesn't understand that more is involved in health care than eating healthy and all of that jazz. Maher goes on a rant like he has stock in Whole Foods. He has a thing against vaccines and medications. Those rants of his are crazy. Even his panel gets uncomfortable when he brings that crap up.

I have disagreed with some of his criticisms of Barack Obama, mainly with regard to the war on terror.

I have disagreed with Maher, to some extent, when it comes to religion. While I enjoyed Religulous, I consider myself more of an agnostic and have slightly more respect for certain people of Faith than he does. Yes, there are batshit crazy religious folks. Nuts are nuts. He and I are on the same page there.

There are several other smaller instances where I have shaken my head at the man, but he's a comedian, not a pundit, so he's there to make us laugh. I watch the show for a laugh. Republicans generally don't see Maher in that light. They consider him an entertainer with a following like Limbaugh can influence. Maher is something different, but I digress. No sense in trying to rationalize with a right winger.

So let's start with you, Palin ass kisser. What has she done or said that you personally disagree with as an "informed" voter?

That's the challenge. Who has the balls to step up? Who doesn't eat up every word the stretch mark-laden hockey mom says?

Worried About Steve Jobs & Apple

Ever since Steve Jobs was diagnosed with some form of benign pancreatic cancer, questions and concerns about his health have lingered. I would like to get my hands on the pathology report. After recent appearances where he apparently looked thinner and less healthy, more speculation started flying around. Official releases from those at Apple continued to insist Steve was fine. Now Steve has announced he will go on medical leave until some time in June.

Where does this leave Apple? The stock has already taken a hit over this recent news. A similar situation occurred when an "iReporter" falsely posted a news story that Jobs had been taken off in an ambulance. What Apple is to the Macworld Expo is what Steve Jobs is to Apple in many respects. One may not succeed without the other. I can't help but express that somewhat reserved sense of irony (for those Apple fans out there aware of Apple abandoning future Macworld Expos). Combined with the the recent lackluster Macworld Keynote, this story is making many of us very worried.

Should he pass away, whoever takes over needs to share the vision Steve Jobs had. That should be a no brainer, but anyone who knows the history of Apple is aware of how various CEO's have taken the company in the wrong direction. We can't help but feel very worried about our beloved Apple. For those newcomers and perhaps for many news anchors, Steve Jobs is just the guy that brought us the iPod and the iPhone. For the rest of us who have been Mac users for ages, Steve has always been a visionary of great significance in the world of tech.

Steve, we wish you well and hope for the best.

I found this article at MSNBC to be an interesting read that helped me to understand the underlying pathology in question. Most of us are in the dark because Jobs is good at keeping secrets.

Golden Globe Nominations?

What the hell is this crap? Is anyone watching NBC?

They are announcing Golden Globe nominations live. Random actors are getting up at the microphone rattling off names of the nominations. Why? Good god this is boring! Perhaps they knew it would be boring, so to counteract the boredom, they hired big name stars to read the list. I'm guessing they got paid to do that. Eh?

What was the point of that? Did we really need Brooke Shields rattling off names shooting odd stares at the audience in between each one? In Public Speaking, that's what we call maintaining eye contact. It looked like she had something wrong with her eyes. Was that Elizabeth Banks? For some reason, I could imagine her sitting there practicing saying "Frost Nixon" over and over again. She made it sound like some kind of German sausage. "Froschtnixen."

The laughter from the crowd was irrelevant. The follow-up guy said it was because the movies mentioned were rather outrageous comedies. So what!

Was that really necessary? Did anyone get a rise out of that performance? I could care less about the Golden Globes, but there had to have been a better way to present the nominations. I'm obviously out of the loop on this one.

Paris Hilton Responds To McCain

Well, at least we got Paris to respond to the ad by McCain that uses the images of both Paris Hilton and Britney Spears to portray Barack Obama as a pop culture superstar that isn't ready to lead.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/64ad536a6d

I don't usually watch anything that has Paris Hilton in it to begin with, but this one is hilarious. When I stopped by, it already had more than 3 million views and over 6000 diggs.

McCain is called "the oldest celebrity in the world" characterized by such visual aids as The Golden Girls, the Tales from the Crypt Crypt Keeper, Larry King, the KFC Colonel Sanders, and Yoda.

The folks at Funny or Die were right. McCain bit off more than he could chew when he decided to enter the realm of pop culture. It falls in line with my belief that Republicans get their asses handed to them when we take things into the private sector and out of the regulated world of political campaigns. Sorry, I couldn't resist using the words "bit off more than he could chew," a common phrase used by rednecks when you piss them off, but they can't do anything about it aside from fall back to their sewing circle.

"I'll see you at the debates bitches."

Screaming for the Pope???

I'm just watching the coverage of the walking talking freak show they call the Pope. At one point I heard people screaming for him in the background almost like I was watching American Idol. You've got to be joking. He's there to talk about priest sex abuse and people are acting like the Beatles are in town instead of maintaining some kind of serious demeanor. Contain yourselves people.

The dude's name is Joseph Alois Ratzinger. Ratzinger? That's not sexy. Neither is Benedict. Don't scream at him like he's a pop star or a sex symbol. He's not.

I bet there are women in the background holding up signs that read "I want to have your love child." Can you imagine?

Silly Catholics.

I would have considered meeting John Paul both an honorable and memorable experience.

This guy is just too much of an ass in comparison and he just plain looks creepy. Halloween creepy.

(time passes)

Ha!
CNN is discussing how the Pope is connecting with young people at a time when he's talking about sexual abuse of young people. I can't stop laughing. This is a comedian's dream come true. Are you kidding? Too easy to pick these gems up.

By the way, Bushie boy is a Methodist.

As for the priest shortage, it's all about market share. Simple as that.

Utah Teens Texting Nude Pics

Teens send nude photos by text message

Monticello, Utah

Apparently about 25 teens sent shots of body parts, sex acts, sexy dancing, etc to members of the opposite sex. Of course they got caught. So HNN runs the story and asks...

Who's to blame? The options offered by HNN:
Lax parents? Lax parents my ass. Media? Maybe in a round-about way. Remember, it's Utah. Fighting off "sex sex sex" is what people in a red state like Utah do best. Blame the media? What a cop out. Blame the classic rebellious teen mentality. When you try to keep the topic of sex away from youngins with raging hormones, you're going to get stories like this.

A HNN hired shrink says narcissism is the root of the problem. You know, Myspace and Paris Hilton. Me me me? No way chickie. You're way out of touch, especially for a blonde.

It's REBELLION. They live in Utah. I've been to Utah. It's always heartwarming to see goth kids in the malls instead of Mormon kids dressed up covering their magic underwear and refusing to interact with people around them. Yeah. That does happen in Utah. Utah parents try to keep their kids away from sex.

Way to go Utah. It's about damn time you showed us your tits. Granted the tits are jailbait, but it's still good to see the youth of our nation rebelling.

Question:
Where does possession of age appropriate naked photos fit in the kiddie porn legal scheme of things? If you're a 15 year old boy and the 15 year old girl texts you a naked photo, are you in possession of child pornography or age appropriate content? Both are wrong, I'm guessing, but still, it's a relevant question to ask.

And for the perverts who land on this page looking for porn, go get help you creepy old men. While teen rebellion is normal, what you're doing is not. Sicko.

• NutriSystem Commercial

By now you have probably seen the NutriSystem commercial with Dan Marino and Larry the Cable Guy. Let's look at the marketing plan here. Who is the audience? No brainer. Fat redneck men who may or may not have the typical invincible male ego appear to be their target audience. The one with bowling balls even features a twangy country tune in the background.

Go after 'em with the same marketing angle for smoking too while you're at it.

If I hear Git R Done one more time, I might have to raid Ted Nugent's military grade arsenal and take out a few of these people. I sure hope this phrase is a fad that will fade away like "Where's The Beef?"

• Eli Stone On Shaky Ground

The first episode of the show Eli Stone featured a story about a woman taking a vaccine company to court over a mercury/autism claim. There isn't a proven assocation between the preservatives and autism, but the episode portrayed it as such ending in the company cutting a deal with the mother. At the end of the episode, they put up a black screen with white text with a disclaimer that the story was fictional, that the association has not been proven, and information is available at the CDC web site. What? You can have a completely fictional yet controversial and incorrect story line and get away with airing it as long as you cover your ass with a silly disclaimer? I guess you can only expect underhanded goings-on from people who try to revive George Michael. This show stinks of hidden messages. Faith?

Let's talk about the mercury/thimerosal autism association crazies. Look, scientists have studied it and can't find a statistically significant connection. Science showed that the Earth wasn't flat. The world accepted it. The people jumping all over vaccines causing autism are just as hell bent with their cause as the people who don't believe in evolution. The science says otherwise. I could go through all of the data, but the one thing you need to consider is that the preservative was taken out and no impact was seen in autism cases. Oh, that's right. There's a huge cover up behind the science. If you don't get the answer you want, bitch, moan, and groan about it being a conspiracy until somebody kisses your ass. Americans have become the poster children for conspiracy theories. There are people that say there is a connection and I say those people probably can't sit down with you and have an in depth discussion on live attenuated vaccines, inactivated vaccines, toxoid vaccines, or component vaccines, let alone discuss the immunology involved. I challenge any one of you skeptics to do just that, and yes, I want it in essay format, not internet rant format. I want to know you are able to organize the information and understand it. Doctors can. Shouldn't I expect you to if I want to take you seriously?

How about you use those noggins and start thinking of other causes? You know, all the crap we eat, all the pollution in air and water, and let's not leave out genetics. We're surrounded by things that can harm us. Think about how people, including yourself, dispose of batteries, televisions, and computer parts. If you were as passionate about finding a cause as I think you'd want to be, you would be turning over every rock in search of a reason and trying to remedy the easy stuff first. If you can't find something in one place, you probably need to go looking somewhere else. As a medical professional, that's what I will be telling my patients in a much calmer and more charming tone. Who taught you how to look for things? What in the hell happens to these people when they lose their keys? Let's be a little systematic in our search. There's being reasonably skeptical about corporations and then there's having your head completely up your arse. The idea that we all believe our own truths is the real problem. We all get it in our heads that we believe something and we are uncompromising in nature, so these people will never get it into their heads that any other answer is even remotely possible. The quest to be right no matter what is sickening.

Stop hunting zebras when similar four legged creatures in your area don't have stripes.

Don't have a background in statistics or health care? Don't know what a p value is? People in this country don't seem to have enough education to process information anymore. The medical community is going to be the only group that will be able to find out what's going on with autism. When you allow people like McCain to say there is strong evidence supporting a link with vaccines and autism, you're effectually tearing down the one institution that is willing to find the cause.

• Knight Rider

Okay, I know I've been sounding awfully political. I'll switch gears and head for the pop culture stuff.

Doesn't anyone have a problem with Kitt being a Mustang? Is this Ford propaganda? Will this show just die like the previous attempts to bring the duo back? Bring back the Pontiac Firebird T/A we know and love! You did the same thing with Knight Rider in the 90's. Ford? Yeesh. Did GM decide not to help?

It is true that if I would ever by a Mustang, it would be nothing less than a Cobra. However, fans of the show are probably already exchanging words.

• Leno Humor

I'll start out a little light. I was watching Leno tonight and he was doing the monologue. He started to tell one of his jokes and sitting in my chair, I finished the joke before he did. However, he said something completely different than where my mind went. 

The joke you should have heard Jay tell:

A study found that the 1st thing men say they notice about a woman is her eyes.

His joke: 1st thing women notice is that men are a bunch of liars.

My joke: 1st thing women notice is a man's eyes looking down at their breasts

Maybe my mind is in the gutter way too often, but given the context of the set up, the logical punch line spun off the part about the eyes. Either one is funny and both poke fun at the same male behavior.