March 31, 2009
There is free government money out there to be had!
Would someone, please, remind me why I even turn on my TV in the morning?
NBC4 Washington had a “report” on government grants. And, this is how the report started:
“Who couldn’t use some free money these days? And, with all of the government news of bailouts, why shouldn’t you get a piece of it?”
They went on to talk about how there is “free government money” and with the stimulus bill there will be even more of it. Nothing in life is free, especially not “government money” (read: taxpayer dollars).
Then they warned, beware of those scam artists out there who are watching the news. You can be sure they’re coming up with ways to steal your money. “They’re going to deposit your money into thier account,” they said.
Wait, what’s the problem with that? Is that a scam, stealing from one person to give to another? The only thing different about what the government is doing, when it comes to grants, is that they are stealing from me to put it in your account, instead of their own account.
I see the American ideals I so strongly believe in dying a quiet death.
Comments (1)
Does this skirt make me look fat?
I firmly believe that if you have to ask someone’s opinion, you probably already know the answer, but you just don’t like it.
For example, when a woman asks, “Does this skirt make me look fat?” The answer is probably yes, which she knows deep down inside, but she isn’t willing to admit it. Knowing that no one is going to tell her that it does make her look fat, even if it does, she gets the false reassurance she desired so that she can wear the skirt without a second thought. By the way, it’s not the skirt that makes you look fat; it’s the fat that makes you look fat.
Today on cnn.com they are doing an iReport about the smoking tax increase, from 39 cents to $1.01. As they report, this is the “single largest federal tobacco tax increase.” This will be used to fund the ridiculous (my word, not theirs) expansion of the S-CHIP, the child health care bill that provides “free” health care for “poor”–and, now middle-class–children.
They invite you to put yourself on a video and tell them what you think. What one thinks about this is irrelevant. Yes, it is unfair. CNN already knows the answer, now they are just looking for their viewers/readers to give them the guy-on-the-street aspect to convinve the public that the majority of Americans support this.
I would submit a video of my own. Somehow, though, I think it would end up on the editing room floor. One can’t be sure, but I have more important things to do with my time.
Now, where did I put that pack of ciggys? As, I’ve said before, light up, it just may save a child’s life!
Comments (1)March 29, 2009
Conservative Hope for the Future?
It has been brought to my attention a video of three beautiful young conservative women waiting in line for five plus hours at a book signing, while declaring their “fondness” for Mr. Sean Hannity.
Let’s all be hopefull that this is a true sign of “changing” times. Based on my own college experiences, I do think that we are at a crossroads with the conservative movement. There are plenty of “kids” out there that may be able to be convinced. Unfortunately, I see some problems in our midst.
Either way, it’s always promising to see the youth turn out and let us know that they are listening. It disproves the leftist claim’s that the conservative movement and the Republican Party are dead.
Comments (3)
The Chronicles of Testaclese: Weekly Installment Plus Bonus Track
It’s Sunday night, so you know what that means: time for your weekly installment of The Chronicles of Testaclese. I had promised a chapter a week. Unfortunately, the next “chapter” is only about one paragraph. In light of this, I’m printing two chapters for your reading pleasure. In case you missed it, make sure you read the Introduction and Chapter One.
Chapter Two
Some of the monologues are close to verbatim interviews, some are composite interviews, and with some I just began with a seed and I made the rest up. Some are completely fictional, with no basis in fact. Other monologues I heard at one time or another and recalled them to the best of my ability, filling in the gaps however I deemed fit. So basically, I can’t even tell you whether this book should be classified as fiction or non-fiction. Good luck figuring it out!
Chapter Three
HAIR
You cannot love a penis unless you love hair. Many people do not love hair. My first and only wife hated hair. She said it was cluttered and dirty. She made me shave around my penis. It looked puffy and exposed like a little boy. This excited her. When she made love to me, my penis felt the way a beard must feel. It felt good to rub it, and painful. Like scratching a mosquito bite. It felt like it was on fire. There were screaming red bumps. I refused to shave it again. Then my wife had an affair. When we went to marital therapy, she said he screwed around because I wouldn’t please her sexually. I wouldn’t shave around my penis. The therapist had a thick German accent and gasped between sentences to show her empathy. She asked me why I didn’t want to please my wife. I told her I thought it was weird. I felt little when my hair was gone down there, and I couldn’t help talking in a baby voice, and the skin got irritated and even calamine lotion wouldn’t help it. She told me marriage was a compromise. I asked her if shaving around my penis would stop my wife from screwing around. I asked her if she’d had many cases like this before. She said that question diluted the process. I needed to jump in. She was sure it was a good beginning.
This time when we got home, she got to shave around my penis. It was like a therapy bonus prize. She clipped it a few times, and there was a little blood in the bathtub. She didn’t even notice it, ‘cause she was so happy shaving me. Then, later, when my wife was pressing against me, I could feel her spiky sharpness pressing into me, my naked puffy penis. There was no protection. There was no fluff.
I realized then that hair is there for a reason—it’s the leaf around the flower, the lawn around the house. You have to love hair in order to love the penis. You can’t pick the parts you want. And besides, my wife never stopped screwing around.
*Please note, for the majority of this “play” I simply replaced the obvious words. If you are not familiar with the “play” The Vagina Monologues, this is pretty accurate. There were parts where liberites had to be taken in order to make The Chronicles of Testaclese comparable but, for the most part, this is the same play.
Comments (2)
This Tool Might Prove Useful After All
As many people may know, I have been talking trash about Sen. John McCain for years. In fact, I never thought he would get the nomination. In one of my classes, I predicted that his campaign was dead. Boy, was I wrong! And, how I wish I was right.
Although I consider him a tool, I’ve never seen much use for him, until now. Watching him on Meet the Press (sorry, I had to view it using On Demand since I had to go to church), I finally get it. I finally understand how this tool can be used to benefit the Republican Party: hold him up as the example of what not to be!
SEN. McCAIN: I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: Have Republicans heeded that call, and do you think President Obama has heeded that call?
SEN. McCAIN: I think neither side, perhaps, has done it as much as maybe we should. But you establish an environment. Really, bipartisanship is sitting down across a table from each other and negotiating, recognizing there’s got to be compromise. And in all due respect to the incoming administration, the speaker said, “We won. We wrote the bill.” There was never any serious negotiations over the stimulus package, over the omnibus spending bill. Now there doesn’t seem to be any on the budget. Those are all party line votes. There’s not the negotiations. And I–look, I’ll take blame on our side for maybe not being more forthcoming, but really the president does beat the drum and sets the pace. And so far there has not been not an instance where they sat down across the table and said, “OK, what do you want? What are you demanding here? What do you think is best?” And including some of those concerns as we come–as we move forward with really large, encompassing packages about the future of this country.
I don’t want bipartisanship. I don’t elect people to be bipartisan and allow the other side to push through their views. I elected you to represent me. I’m glad that Republicans are getting the name of being the Party of No. That means they are being true to those who voted for them, instead of being true to those who voted for their opponent.
I want the days of “me, too Republicanism” and “liberal-lite Republicanism” to be left in our past. Any time Republicans work with Democrats the Republicans lose. Democrats throw them some table scraps and they go looking for a gold star for being bipartisan.
A bipartisan Republican is a Republican that just sold out his principles and his base. That’s not what you were elected to do. It’s the Democrats that crave this Kumbaya, sit-around-the-campfire, let’s-get-together mentality. Republicans aren’t that needy.
Comments (2)
But, Tim, That’s Simply Not the Question
But, Tim, that’s not what he’s asking:
MR. GREGORY: You shared–you said in a letter, you shared the president’s outrage, and yet the reality is that these bonuses first came to light back in October of 2008. You were still at the New York Fed. They were also the subject of hundreds of e-mails between Treasury and the Fed and AIG during the transition and when you came into office. In fact, the Treasury Department even negotiated with Senator Dodd with regard to executive compensation when the Treasury Department said, “No, no, don’t have this deal with retroactive bonuses. We can’t abrogate those contracts.” So if you were so outraged about all of this, why didn’t you deal with this back when these first came up?
SEC’Y GEITHNER: David, how could people not be angry with this? With the challenges we’re facing now as a country in part because of risks our financial sector took on, how could people not be angry? But our obligation and our deep obligation responsibility is, again, to try to fix this problem so that the trauma in the financial system is not causing more damage to the lives and fortunes of Americans and businesses across the country. That’s the most important thing we do. Everything we do has to be judged by the test of whether we’re getting the economy going again and recover…
MR. GREGORY: Well, and that’s all fair. But if you were so outraged, why didn’t you say that then? Instead, you said, “I was outraged and we should try to get this money back.” The government knew about these bonuses several months ago.
SEC’Y GEITHNER: Look, we had no good choices in that context, David. These were contracts written before the government got involved, before Ed Liddy became CEO of AIG.
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
SEC’Y GEITHNER: We’re a nation of laws. We cannot get the economy going again if there’s an expectation the government’s going to come in and break contracts. Just not a tenable thing to do. But what we did is–and we had no good choices, David–was when, when I was informed about the details of those provisions, we moved very quickly to ask that they–those that could be renegotiated get renegotiated, the government get those–or reduce those payments going forward. And we’re going to use the authority we have to go recoup those payments where we have a good legal basis for doing that. And you’ve already–we’re seeing a lot of those payments returned. But the important thing is going forward that we establish clear conditions, clear rules of the game, prevent this kind of compensation practice in the future from coming back and putting our system at risk. And we want to make sure that where the government is putting up assistance for these, for these banks, that that assistance is going to get lending going again…
MR. GREGORY: Right.
SEC’Y GEITHNER: …not to enrich the people that helped get us in this mess.
MR. GREGORY: But, but my question is, is this: If you thought this was so outrageous at the time, why didn’t you put this on the agenda then? And if you felt that you didn’t have any good choices, that you really couldn’t dissolve those contracts, then when it came to light, why didn’t you and the president stand up and say, “This populist anger is understandable, but you have to understand it has to be put in context and it has to stop”?
SEC’Y GEITHNER: Well, that–but that’s what the president did say. And again, we’re trying to make sure that people understand…
MR. GREGORY: The president said, “We shouldn’t govern in anger,” and then he said, “Yes, I’m angry, too. I don’t want to quell the anger.” You said this was outrageous.
SEC’Y GEITHNER: But…
MR. GREGORY: Did anybody stand up and say, “Let’s put this in context. We didn’t have good choices. This is not worth getting so upset about”?
SEC’Y GEITHNER: But, but, as you’ve seen the president say over the course of the week, the most important thing is we recognize that of course we don’t want to reward failure and we don’t want the government assistance going to reward failure, but we need to make sure we get this economy on–back on track. That’s going to require the financial system getting fixed and repaired. Of course we’re going to put strong conditions on the compensation…(unintelligible). Remember, the first–the second week in office, the president put out very, very broad, ambitious standards on compensation practice. That was before the Congress acted. He was a–took early initiative in this area because we knew this was going to be a significant problem.
I wish I was there because I would have tried to clear it up for you. We get it. These were tough choices that had to be made. The law is the law. People had these contracts that the government couldn’t just re-write. I think we all understand that.
The question is not about the bonuses, it’s about your and President Obama’s faked ignorance and outrage at said bonuses. Real leadership would have called on you and Obama to explain all of this to us when the deal was being made. At the very least, you would have stood up and explained it to us when the news broke, rather than pretending you didn’t know and acting as if you were as angry as we were.
You were dishonest with the American public because they weren’t accepting of your plan at the time, and they definitely were disapproving when these little tidbits came out. We are in uncertain and tumultuous times that require leadership. Obviously, you and your boss don’t get that and don’t have the capability to deliver.
Comments (0)