Plastic In the Afterlife

The Word "Muslim" is a "metaphor for racism"?

Amid a "firestorm" of controversy, President Obama finally released the long form version of his birth certificate, proving that he is---gasp!---in fact, an American citizen!  Dumbass attention hog Donald Trump trumpeted his self-gratification and pride at having "accomplished something nobody else has accomplished...I am really honored to have played such a big role in hopefully getting rid of this issue."  You the fuckin' man.  Please, please, please run for president---the GOP needs you!

In a recent Associated Press article, Charles Babington cited a new New York Times-ABC News poll in which 2/3 of adult Republicans "either embrace or are open to" the false claim that Obama is a foreigner.   ABC News pollster Gary Langer thinks that the real reason some people polled claimed that they believed in the birther issue is because "Some people who strongly oppose a person...will take virtually any opportunity to express that antipathy."  I do see what Langer is saying.  I know some people who don't like Obama, not only for his politics, but also because the man himself makes them uncomfortable, as if having a man of color in the highest public office in the nation makes some white people feel as if they're "losing ground" and need to regain this ground at any cost. 

 In a roundtable discussion Easter Sunday on This Week, ABC reporter Cokie Roberts and a team of panelists had, what I like to call "A Jerry McGuire Moment"---that is, they said what many people think, but do not have the balls to say, because once you say it, you get neutered.  So, what was their "Jerry McGuire Moment"?  It was that people's objection to Obama is often times a reflection of deep-seeded or even just-under-the-surface racism and xenophobia.  Panelist Steven Roberts said during the discussion that: "The word Muslim is a code word, and it's a metaphor. It's a metaphor for racism. It's a metaphor for he's different from us, he's not like us, he's got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is - and he's an alien on some level...there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who's different..."  Cokie Roberts added: "But...the bad part about this is that...it's acceptable to say that he's a Muslim...because the same people won't - won't say, 'I don't like him cause he's black.' " 

Now pause a second to listen for the gasps and outcries of shock and admonition.  Then wait a bit longer for the predictable network reproaches and apologies, accompanied by statements of remorse by the panelists in question.  Finally, take a step back and take a look at yourself and think about the people you've encountered in your life.  Think about all of the times you yourself have held a bias against someone because of some perceived or real difference.  Maybe you or people around you teased someone in your school days because that person was obese, very tall, very short, too white, too dark, had a speech impediment, wore the wrong clothes, had a strange name, was very poor or rich, etc.  People are devisive.  People take note of differences, and some people are uncomfortable with those who are not like them.  Being able to tell the difference between things and people is a necessary survival skill, like knowing to eat those berries, but not those other berries because they're poisonous.  But being that we are endowed with the ability to "reason", the perception of those differences between people can be skewed to fit that person's perception of the world.  As they say, "perception is reality".

So, let's not get all huffy-puffy about what was said in the program "This Week".  This birther issue, along with the Christian-or-Muslim issue, are just a reflection of the larger issue of fear/hate of "the other".  Noel Sheppard, who writes for "Newsbusters" (whose byline reads: "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias"), wrote in response to the "This Week" discussion: "Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday.  I doubt I'm the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day."  Some play "the race card", some play the "religious holier-than-thou card"---I prefer to throw down the "truth hurts card".  No, not that all Americans are racist---that wasn't what they were saying.  But, having watched enough videos from the 2008 election in which people at McCain-Palin rallies spewed racist and xenophobic slurs about Obama, and having seen videos of Tea Party rallies where like comments were also in abundance, in addition to national polls (such as the aforementioned one) which reveal pervasive and persistent adherence to falsehoods, even in the clear light of the truth, it is then accurate to say that some Americans are, in fact, afraid of those who are not like them, and sometimes for those Americans, it goes far beyond simple politics.

 

Even Rats Leave a Sinking Ship...

As countries across the Middle East explode in protest against existing regimes, we are sure to see some strange political moves and countermoves over the next few months and years.  Libya is the latest Middle Eastern nation to be rocked by the tidal wave of political unrest, and in that wave, some of Qaddafi's former political supporters are jumping ship, leaving the captain to go down with the vessel.

Libya's deputy U.N. ambassador, Ibrahim O. Dabbashi, along with a dozen other Libyan U.N. colleagues denounced and disowned Colonel Qaddafi's regime, which has reigned over Libya for over 40 years. Dabbashi called for a "no-fly zone" to be established over Libya to prevent military aid to be flown into Libya to assist Qaddafi in his quest to crush protests.  Dabbashi also called for the International Crimes Court at the Hague to investigate Colonel Qaddafi for “crimes against humanity and crimes of war”, in addition to requesting that other nations not offer him a safe haven. 

However, Dabbashi and colleagues such as Libya's U.S. Ambassador Ali Aujali refused to resign, as did other Libyan regime members, opting instead to retain their positions.  Dabbashi said he and his U.N. colleagues "were not resigning because they served the people of Libya and not the regime."  He further added that,"This is in fact a declaration of war against the Libyan people...The regime of Gadhafi has already started the genocide against the Libyan people."  Ambassador Aujali explained to the Associated Press "that he was not resigning his post, because he is part of the 'good side' of the Libyan government and not part of the killing."

Now, I understand that just because you work for a jerk, it doesn't, ergo, make you a jerk by association; however, it is likely that Dabbashi and Aujali got their political positions only through political favors paid to Qaddafi or through familial connections.  This level of nepotism does speak, then, to the fact that these said politicians were well aware of Qaddafi's prior "crimes against humanity", as he had more than 40 years in which to commit them, and thus are complicit in his reign of terror.  

One could argue that these politicians were only accepting their posts in the fear that if they did not they would be considered traitorous and would be endangering themselves and their families.  While that may be partly true, to rise to the level of ambassador, you had to be pretty cozy with the Q-Man prior to your appointment.  Also, these guys were the spokespersons, the cheerleaders, if you will, of Qaddafi's policies and practices for years.  I'm sure in statements previous to the Libyan uprisings, Dabbashi's and Aujali's words were most complimentary and supportive of their great leader Qaddafi's ideas and actions.  

No matter how you slice it, you can't speak out of both sides of your mouth and not come off like a total hypocrite; a hypocrite who very much benefitted from Qaddafi's favor.  Thus, one can not have been a part of a despotic regime, and all at once, suddenly against it and "with the people".  The people of Libya deserve a clean-sweep, and that includes the sweeping out such self-serving turncoats as Dabbashi, Aujali and their ilk. 

Drill Baby Drill, Just Don't Spill Baby Spill!

Ah, yes...the phrase "Drill Baby Drill" first coined by current GOP Chairman Michael Steele at the 2008 Republican National Convention, and since championed and repeated (ad nauseum) by Sarah Palin lately leaves a slight oil-slick-like taste in conservatives' mouths as the BP oil leak disaster continues to spew hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean every day.  Still, Palin refuses to stay silent and forges blindly ahead in an attempt to stay somewhat relevant, kind of like the Kardashians or Paris Hilton. 

On the "Fair and Balanced" "news" program Fox News Sunday, Palin clumsily tried to create some nefarious conspiracy theory in which Obama and his administration were dragging their feet on stopping the oil leak because they were in cahoots with each other.  Said the astute Palin: 

"...the oil companies who have so supported President Obama in his campaign...if there's any connection there to President Obama taking so doggone long to get in there, to dive in there, and grasp the complexity and the potential tragedy that we are seeing here in the Gulf of Mexico."

You can always count on Mrs. Palin to lay some real doozies and make some real stretches in logic.  And how about her uncanny ability to intertwine quaint colloquialisms with hard-hitting political analysis---who else could use the words "doggone" and "complexity" in the same sentence?  I dare you to find someone else---I DARE YOU!!!

Anyway, while it is true that then 2008 Presidential candidate Obama received more money from BP employees ($71,051) than did McCain ($36,649), McCain and Palin benefited much more from campaign donations from the oil industry than did Obama, to the tune of $2.4 million to Obama's $900,000.  Darn those pesky facts!  Really, money from the oil industry flows through our nation's capital as free as the oil spewing from BP's well a mile down in the ocean!  According to PolitiFact.com, "The industry spent $174 million lobbying Congress in 2009, ranking it behind only the pharmaceutical/health products industry and business associations."  And to further chip away at Palin's pebble of truth, the Center on Responsive Politics has noted that "as an industry, about three quarters of the oil and gas money has gone to Republicans since 1990."  Mmm...ain't truth a bitch, Sarah?

As to the criticism leveled at President Obama himself that he is not personally doing enough to stop the oil leak, I guess he should don his spandex suit and cape and fly a mile down under the ocean and seal off the well with his laser-beam eyes.  It's ironic how people rail against "BIG GOVERNMENT" when they try to solve a problem so astronomical that the average person cannot even fathom what the solution could be, such as the health-care and health insurance industry mess, for example, but when another problem so astronomical that the average person cannot even fathom what the solution could be, such as the oil spill, then they call on "BIG GOVERNMENT" to come save the day.  Newsflash, folks---the government actually has the political ability to create laws that will result in concrete changes to the health-care and health insurance industries because debating the merits of bills and allocating funds is their "thing".   Stopping oil from spewing a mile beneath the ocean's surface is not their "thing", got it? 

George Lods, a seafood wholesaler whose business is based right in the affected Gulf region, a man who has every reason to resort to emotional diatribes on "slow" governmental response, stands as one reasonable voice amidst the clamor and political rhetoric surrounding this man-made environmental debacle.  I leave you with his sage wisdom:

"My personal opinion, I think they (the government) are doing what they are capable of doing. They probably could do a little bit more. But BP and Transocean, that was their rig, that was their business, just like this is my business. If something happens here, I'm responsible for it. The government can only do so much. They didn't drill the well. They can't stop it. That is not their expertise...I think it is his (Obama's) responsibility to see that BP and that we do everything we can to clean up this mess. But the president didn't make the oil well blow. The government really...doesn't know what to do.  The people that are in the oil field business know what to do, and they can tell the government, hey, we need this and we need that. But the government is not in the shrimping business either. They can't tell the shrimpers how to go catch shrimp. I don't think they can tell BP how to clean it up, because that is not the government's job."

Louise Slaughter threatened with her namesake

Health Care Reform has been an emotional issue, and due to high emotions, not an altogether rational one.  One way to temper the irrational fears born of relentless fearmongering by various conservative groups, such as the "Teabaggers", is to present cold, hard facts to the contrary.  On one hand, examine the fact that 1 in 6 (46.3 million) Americans are uninsured, and of that number, 8 in 10 are members of working families---not "freeloaders" as many have argued.  Also, according to a Time magazine report, "Eighty percent of those without health insurance are native-born or naturalized citizens. However, immigrants are more likely to be uninsured than legal residents. Racial minorities are also disproportionately represented; about one-third of Hispanics and one-fifth of blacks go without insurance, compared with 13% of whites."  This disproportionate representation and the largely white conservative backlash against Health Care Reform certainly could lead one to draw the conclusion that the ruling white majority is doing what it can to preserve the power balance that it currently enjoys, and that many in the majority fear that any change in health care equity will further tip the scales of equality in the favor of minority classes.  As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Things that make you go 'Hmm...' ".

Anyway, how discouraging it was to learn that a few extreme Health Care Reform opponents took to throwing a brick through the window of the Democratic Headquarters in Rochester, NY and also through the window of Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter's Niagara Falls office.  Affixed to the brick thrown through Slaughter's window was a note that read "Exremism [sic] in the defense of liberty is no vice".  Um, learn how to spell, douche bag.  Mike Vanderboegh, author of the conservative Alabama-based blog Sipsey Street Irregulars (no link provided, thank you), said in a telephone interview with WHAM News 13 out of Rochester, NY:  "I’m advocating broken windows. I’m advocating vandalism...Wake up and understand what is happening in this country. You need to start listening to people who you think you didn't have to pay any attention to, because sooner or later they will get your attention".  Brick-by-brick, I guess.  Well, this brickhead is claiming that he was the inspiration for the incidents that occurred in New York State, as well as similar incidents that occurred in Tucson and Kansas.  Hey---there's a proud legacy to leave to your children.  Um, if you don't already have any offspring, Mike---don't spawn, alright?

To make matters worse for Louise Slaughter, there was a recent voicemail left at her campaign headquarters that advocated "assassination" "toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes."  Ironic how Slaughter, who championed a bill that would help preserve human life is herself being threatened with death, as are the innocent children of like-minded legislators.  Highly illogical, captain. 

But geez, I sure can understand how utterly enraged opponents to the Health Care Reform bill must be when they consider the fact that this bill would now make it illegal for health insurance companies to deny people coverage based on what they consider to be "pre-existing conditions", such as domestic abuse, for one.  Ah, the injustices of this reform!  The humanity! 

Maybe some people should consider grabbing a brick and knocking some sense into their own heads; how's that sound?

 

WTF?!? How does Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi still have a job?

Is Italy a sexist nation that openly engages in the exploitation of its women?  Well, having traveled through Italy I know that it was not uncommon to see racks full of magazines and newspapers plastered with pictures of scantily-dressed (or naked) women.  These fine publications were in full display and they weren't of the Playboy or Penthouse variety---these were regular news magazines and newspapers.  Sex sells, right?  Take, for example, this collection of ads from the Italian clothier Relish Clothing that depict policemen roughing up young female "suspects".  These ads were plastered on billboards all over Italy---yes, even the one of a cop grinding a woman's face into the pavement.   These ads went even farther into the depiction of violence and degradation of women than did the 2007 "gang rape" ad by Italian clothing designers Dolce & Gabbana.  Sure, companies often try to "push the envelope" when it comes to sexy advertisements, but most are contained within the pages of magazines---not on billboards for all to see.    

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has been implicated in various political and sexual scandals in his tenure.  His second wife is divorcing him and claimed that he "consorts with minors".  His other alleged sexual exploits include having sex with a prostitute after a party and having a relationship with an 18 year-old underwear model.  In addition, Berlusconi faces a bribery trial hearing and is being investigated for possible connections to the Mafia.  Despite these and other scandals, Berlusconi has not suffered much politically and maintains great popularity among Italians.  Berlusconi has claimed publicly that he is "no saint" and remains unrepentant over his transgressions. 

Berlusconi is also a brazen sexist pig, who has repeatedly publicly degraded women.  In an NPR story on Berlusconi, they cite many of his horrifically tasteless quotes, such as this one in which he states that "Women are 'God's most beautiful gift to men.' In order to prevent rape, 'we would need as many soldiers as there are beautiful Italian women.' "  The report also cites how "Berlusconi, 73, boasts of the good looks of his party's young female members of parliament, dismissing the opposition ranks as menopausal."  In response to charges that he slept with a prostitute, Berlusconi retorted: "For those who love to conquer, the joy and the most beautiful satisfaction is in the conquest. If you have to pay, what joy is there?" As if that wasn't enough, Berlusconi called in to a talk show and said to female opposition parliament member, Rosy Bindi, "You're more beautiful than you are intelligent." 

So, you may be saying to yourself, "How the fuck does this corrupt sexist idiot not only still have a job, but also enjoy widespread popularity?"  Well, I guess as in advertising, sex sells.  Prime Minister Berlusconi may not be a "saint", but that is evidently what many find appealing about this man.  In some respects, one can see some parallels between Berlusconi and Bill Clinton in regards to their personal-made-public foibles.  It's great theatre---or at least a national trashy soap opera.  That's why talk shows like Maury Povich and reality shows like Big Brother exist---who can truly not rubberneck when they pass a car crash? 

 Anyway, to further heighten the absurd seeming approval of Berlusconi, the Italian edition of Rolling Stone magazine declared this man their "Rock Star of the Year".  Rock star?  I thought this guy was an elected leader of a powerful European nation?  Rolling Stone editor Carlo Antonelli says that the editorial staff unanimously nominated Berlusconi because he has the "lifestyle worth of the greatest rock star" and that "Rod Stewart, Brian Jones, Keith Richards in their prime were schoolboys compared to him."  Well, I wish I could say "ROCK ON!" to this ridiculous choice, but the only thing that can be said is "Walk on", as in "walk on out of office, you sexist pig."  

  

The irony of Obama's hate crimes bill

On Wednesday President Obama signed his name to a defense bill that not only authorizes $680 billion in spending, yet cuts wasteful projects such as the cold-war era F-22 fighter jet program, but also makes it a federal crime to assault people based on sexual orientation.  On the surface, the irony of tacking the hate crime provision on to a defense bill of all things is wholly evident.  The military has been practicing their Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) policy since 1993, a policy that "prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces" and prohibits superiors from investigating service personnel based purely on the suspicion of homosexuality.  This policy openly hinders the personal freedom of gays and bisexuals to (gasp!) be who they are!  This is one of those stupid policies that creates an "elephant in the room" type scenario.  We all know that there are gays and bisexuals serving in the military, but let's not acknowledge it in any way shape or form.  That's like making a policy that prohibits people from acknowledging their nationality.  "I know your ancestors are from Denmark, but for God's sake, man---don't say it!"  Now, I know there's a large number of people who feel that homosexuality is a choice, and for some, maybe it is, but on the whole, it is an issue of biology determined in the womb.  Basically, during a male fetus' development, the brain does not absorb enough testosterone for the future adult male to be attracted to females (I can't adequately explain it---watch the National Geographic video below). 

This hate crimes bill was named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming man who was murdered more than a decade ago.  This bill "expands current hate crimes law to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability."  There is nothing negative about the passing of such a measure, but I just find it so odd that bills totally unrelated to each other are paired up in an effort to get the necessary votes to pass.  What this says to me is that there wouldn't be enough people in our government who care enough about basic human rights to pass a bill that would ensure that those who victimize a certain segment of the American population based solely on an attribute would receive the proper punishment?  Am I correct in this assessment? 

Another thing at work here is the fact that President Obama and his administration has largely disappointed the gays and bisexuals who cast their hopeful votes for Obama, buoyed up on his campaign promise to abolish the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.  Now, I am sure that they are thrilled that he fulfilled his campaign promise to pass the Matthew Shepard Act, but gays are still waiting for the repeal of both DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), both unfulfilled, but highly publicized campaign promises. 

In light of the economic crisis, coupled with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the health care debacle, the Obama administration has been stretched to the brink on an endless list of domestic and foreign issues, so it is understandable that the progression of social issues has been slow at best.  All in all, it is a good thing that this hate crimes bill has been passed, no matter how they got it through.  Hopefully Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which has led to the discharge of close to 13,000 servicemen and servicewomen, and cost our nation an estimated $363 million dollars (lost in training, recruiting, and other related costs) since 1993, will soon find itself square on Obama's chopping block.  Until then, I guess "mum's the word".          

Boycotting Glenn Beck

I've been doing this for years, only now, after accusing President Obama of being a "racist" with a "deep-seeded hatred of white people", advertisers are also starting to boycott conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck.  That's right, back in July on Fox and Friends (aw, how quaint it sounds!), Mr. Beck shot off his mouth and shot himself in the foot, not once, but twice.  You see, after the initial allegation of racism, host Brian Kilmeade gave Beck a chance to remove his foot from his big mouth, and Beck, instead of retracting his original accusation, promptly put his other foot in his mouth and added: "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."  

In response to Beck's irresponsible rantings, the African-American advocacy group Color Of Change has, through its many members, pressured companies that advertised on Beck's program to cease, lest they be associated with his inflammatory conservative rhetoric, and thus be seen as tacitly condoning such views.  Thus far they have commitments from 36 major corporations that they will not advertise during Beck's time slot.

Beck has fired back on his FoxNews show by attacking the character of Van Jones, who was a former co-founder of Color of Change and a current environmental consultant (dubbed the "Green Czar") to the Obama administration.  Beck referenced how Jones had been arrested twice for political protests in the past, which led Beck to opine "Why is it that such a committed revolutionary has made it so high into the Obama administration as one of his chief advisers?"  Hello---conspiracy against White America!  Duh!    

To say that Glenn Beck is an idiot is a charge that I refuse to make, not only because it is the same kind of inflammatory rhetoric that Beck spews out, but also because it would be an insult to idiots everywhere, who themselves possess more sense than Mr. Beck. 

Ah, but issues of race and the wonderful complications that always arise from them are never as simple as they seem on the surface.  Do you remember Kanye West's angry assertion that "Bush doesn't care about black people" during a fundraising drive for the Katrina hurricane victims in New Orleans back in 2005?  First of all, that has to be one of the best television moments ever---I just love the shocked and uncomfortable expressions on Mike Meyers' and Chris Tucker's faces after West dropped his comment.  Classic!  Anyway, Color For Change, while decrying Glenn Beck's charge of racism, are guilty themselves of marketing a racist viewpoint in the fact that they are selling t-shirts that state "Kanye Was Right" boldly on the front of the shirt.  Hmmm...

Ding Dong the witch is dead?

Sarah Palin's sudden resignation on Friday as Governor of Alaska sent shockwaves through an already fractured Republican party, still reeling from their crushing defeat in the 2008 election.  While Palin made it clear that she would still try to serve the public as a private citizen, many see her move as an attempt to ready herself for the 2012 election.  It has long been a common practice for those in public office to decline a bid for re-election in order to gear up for a run at the White House.  Former Massachusettes Governor Mit Romney did not run for re-election in order to enter the race for the Presidency in 2008.  Likewise, present Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty says he won't seek re-election, which would leave him time to gear up for the 2012 Presidential bid.  The big difference with the two former cases is that Romney finished out his term and Pawlenty plans to finish out his.  Andrew Halcro, a political rival who lost the 2006 gubernatorial race to Palin said of her move:  "If she is thinking that leaving her term 16 months early is going to help her prepare to maybe go on to bigger and better things on the political stage, I think she's sadly mistaken. You just can't quit."   Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, concurred: "I think it eliminates her from serious consideration for the presidency in 2012."  Oh, DARN!!!

In reality, Palin can rake in a whole lot more dough in the private sector than the $125,000 she's been pulling in as Governor of Alaska.  For instance, Palin recently inked a deal with publisher HarperCollins to write her memoirs for an undisclosed amount.  Tentative titles include:  Golly, I Really Am A Crazy Bitch, or Of Bullets and Beauty Queens, or I Ran For Vice President And Other Neat-O Stuff, or 20 Other Wacked-Out Names I Considered Giving My Kids.  The book will be pamphlet-sized, will be large-print, and will be filled with colorful pictures and illustations for the enjoyment of little kids and for ultra-conservative-types who were so suspicious of the liberal public educational system that they never learned how to read.

Palin, who spent exorbitant amounts of campaign dollars on fashionable clothing for herself and her kids during the 2008 Presidential election, will also be starting up her own line of professional-looking clothing targeting post-menopausal businesswomen who:  "Want to get a leg up in their profession, without having to put their 'legs up'."  Her new Palin Professional Wear line will be sold exclusively at K-Mart, and will be supplanting the Jacqueline Smith line of clothing, which was K-Mart's previous nod towards the "mature" woman shopper. 

Credit Card Reform Act of 2009: A victory for the NRA?!?

We live in a consumer society, and for years politicians have practically played up being a slave to capitalism as being your patriotic duty.  The ironic thing is that instead of the rallying cry of "Buy American!", they might as well be saying "Buy Chinese!", since every bit of plastic crap people snatch eagerly off Walmart shelves comes from our neighbors from the Far East, but whatever.  In a climate of unchecked spending, Americans have dug their own holes of debt, with credit cards companies handing us the shovels with which to bury ourselves. 

In response to the usurous practices of credit card companies, Congress recently passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 in order to stop said practices and protect consumers from getting hoodwinked.  Looks great; that is, save for that pesky small print. 

You see, there are some strange bedfellows one must commune with when trying to get a bill passed, and this bill's paramours were Oklahoma's Republican Senator Tom Coburn and the National Rifle Association.  He, along with fellow Republicans and the more conservative elements of the Democratic Party, introduced a provision into the bill that allows owners of licensed firearms to bring them into national parks and wildlife refuges, as long as they are allowed to do so by state law.  Said Senator Coburn, “The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed." 

Gee, thanks, Tom.  So, the next time I'm out camping with my family, do I have to worry that some cowboy from Oklahoma's going to pop a cap in my ass when I'm sitting around the campfire roasting some marshmallows?  Why the hell are totally unrelated provisions even allowed to be tacked onto bills?  So, just in the interest of securing the necessary votes to pass the bill, liberal Democrats have to pander not only to the Republicans, and to the more conservative elements of their own party, but also to the NRA?  Said California Senator Barbara Boxer, "It's a shame, but you have to come to a realization around here that at this point in time, the NRA gets the votes."  Aw, shoot!  So, I should give you a pass on this one, eh, Miss Boxer?  This is yet another reason to not trust our elected officials.  Even though the promise of change still rings in my ears from Obama's successful election, the truth of the matter is that practices like this will continue to go on.  Where's the outraged cries of Americans over this matter?  Well, they're too busy texting and shutting themselves off from the world by permenantly planting thier ear buds into their earholes to even notice crap like this.  

Well, I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em---I'm packin' my AK-47 when I go camping this summer.  It's going to be a BLAST!

Hell has frozen over

On Monday Dick Cheney gave his support of gay marriage and expressed his belief that "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish."  He does not, however, favor federal legislation to make this a reality, but approves of states making the decision.  6 states have legalized gay marriage, with New Hampshire making it official earlier this week.  Of course, Cheney's gay daughter Mary Cheney has had some influence in swaying her father's opinion, revealing that Dick Cheney does, in fact, have a heart...a cold, stony heart, but a heart nonetheless.  Weird thing is, now Cheney has one area of his life in which he is more liberal than Obama!   

Well, I guess I'd better make my last will and testament, because evidently the world is coming to an end soon.  And if not, then when my state approves of gay marriage, I can fulfill my dream of marrying my pet cat, which would confirm conservatives' long-standing fear that the legalization of gay marriage would lead to a disintegration of social mores, including rampant beastiality and the like.