Archive for December, 2010

Sweet Tits and Ass

Posted in Food & Drink, Humor, Society on December 31st, 2010

Who doesn’t love cookies? More importantly, who among straight men – and not a few women – doesn’t love tits and ass?


Mmmmmm…Cookies. Sweet And Hot

Of course most would say that these cookies aren’t as good as the real thing, but they’re still a fine way to start the new year off. 😀

Related Reading:

Let's Pretend This Never Happened: A Mostly True Memoir
In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto
Who Was Babe Ruth?
Bare Reality: 100 Women, Their Breasts, Their Stories
What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions

Obama Backs Vick

Posted in Politics, Society on December 28th, 2010

Sadly, Michael “Sick” Vick, the herpes-infected sexual predating, dog-killing, ghetto thug, escaped justice and was allowed to return to the NFL via the utter moral failure of the Philadelphia Eagles’ management.

This was an unacceptable but not unexpected turn of events.

Sadly, society has degenerated and organizations like the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles only see the fact that this vile buck nigger can play football very well and bring more money into their coffers.

Personally, since the legal system failed America, I firmly believe that it’s up to the American people to exact retribution upon Sick Vick and those who’ve enabled him to escape true justice.

In simpler and blunter terms, remove Vick’s ability to run and throw – whether through killing him or mutilating his arms and legs (my personal preference) – and the NFL would have no further use for him and justice would be served.

What was unexpected – though I suppose it really shouldn’t have been – was President Obama going out of his way to personally thank and commend the Eagles’ owner, Jeffrey Lurie for hiring this ghetto trash.

Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie was surprised to hear the president’s voice on the phone. Barack Obama had two things to discuss with Lurie: the redemption of Michael Vick and the alternative-energy plans Lurie unveiled this fall for Lincoln Financial Field. I talked about the Vick story on NBC last night.

“The president wanted to talk about two things, but the first was Michael,” Lurie told me. “He said, ‘So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance. He was … passionate about it. He said it’s never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail. And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall.”

Lurie said Obama and he talked football. “He’s a real football fan,” Lurie said. “He loves his Bears. He really follows it. He knew how Michael was doing. It was really interesting to hear.”

In sporting terms this is known as an Unforced Error. There was no valid reason for Obama to have interjected his praise of Vick and Lurie’s hiring of him into a call about the Eagles’ plans to use alternative energy sources at their stadium.

One of Sick Vick’s Surviving Victims


This Is What Obama Is Supporting With His Praise

While there are no valid reasons for the POTUS to laud the Philadelphia Eagles hiring of the sick and vicious felon, Michael Vick – or for any human being possessed of a conscience to do so – there are reasons and/or excuses why Barack Obama might choose to vocally endorse the dog killer’s actions and those of his enablers.

Black Is Black

As Whoopi Goldberg said during her earlier defense of Sick Vick’s dog fighting, such cruel bloodsports are part of the Black Identity and Barack Obama has gone out of his way to self-identify as wholly and solely Black.

It may be that, as part of his expunging his White heritage and adoption of a solely Black persona, that he has either lost the capacity to be outraged by Vick’s activities or has restrained any such outrage in favor of racial solidarity and an acceptance of all of the Blacks’ “culture,” including those that normal people find intolerable.

This degraded ethical base might make it far easier for Obama to sympathize with Vick, irrespective of the atrocities the vermin committed. With Blacks and Hispanics making up only approximately 25% of the US population but 60% of the convicted felons, this would almost make sense from a purely pragmatic, racialist viewpoint.

Black Is Bloc

By and large – one of my wives being an exception – Blacks rallied behind Sick Vick from the very beginning and have been unwavering in both their support and their use of him to further their racialist agenda. President Obama’s open support of Vick might be nothing but another cynical ploy to cement the support of the Blacks in his upcoming 2012 election, an election that he is unlikely to win even with their support and foredoomed to loose without it.

If this is the case, it’s not too shabby of a political ploy. The Blacks will eat it up and be a little more likely to turn out to vote for him and the Liberals will, despite how they might feel about Vick, will see it as, or twist it into, an tacit attack on the American judicial system and, therefor, a sign that they should continue to support Obama.

~*~

Irrespective of whether Obama has become enamored of his Black Identity enough to not to be bothered by Sick Vick’s depravity or has become cynical enough to disregard it in order to use the Blacks racial solidarity for his own devices, or some combination of both, his supporting Vick and praising Lurie for making use of Vick’s skills to enhance the Eagles’ bottom line was a disgusting and grossly reprehensible act.

The only true and worthwhile question is what form should America’s retribution take. That is a difficult question since it inherently deals with how far the chain of culpability stretches and what each link in that chain deserves as punishment.

Related Reading:

Big Book of Who: Football Revised & Updated (Sports Illustrated Kids: Big Book of Who)
Politics from A to Z
Eagles
Government by the People, Brief 2012 Election Edition (10th Edition)
The 48 Laws of Power

Stupid, Brave, or Evil?

Posted in Politics on December 24th, 2010

US Senate Democrats want to significant change the current Senate procedures. They want to streamline the process and curb the ability of the minority party to block pending legislation via use of Senate procedures such as the filibuster.

The immediate, pertinent, and critical question before Americans is whether this desire of the Democrats is stupid, brave, or evil.

As reported by the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Frustrated by regular filibusters and other procedural blockades, Senate Democrats are urging their leadership to negotiate with Republicans to change the rules that govern how the Senate does business.

The Democrats would leave intact the ability of the minority party to filibuster legislation and nominations, meaning that in most cases it would still take 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. But they want to require senators to be on the floor if they intend to try to debate a bill to death and would make other changes to streamline the Senate’s operations, including ending the practice of secret “holds” by a single senator on legislation or nominees.

Republicans are likely to resist, and should no compromise be found, some Democrats are prepared to propose their own package of rules changes on the first day of the session.

This is certainly both interesting and ironic. It’s interesting because the premise that partisanship and use / misuse of Senate has reached the point that it often interferes with the Senate getting anything accomplished and changing the procedures in some fashion may well be needed. It’s ironic because this behavior started with a Democrat Senate minority under President Bush.

But interest and irony don’t address whether the Democrats desires are based upon is stupidity, bravery, or evil.

Stupid?

That the Senate Dems are being childish, shortsighted,  and stupid is certainly the easiest answer. Frankly, when dealing with any grouping of people it is almost always wiser to attribute to stupidity what one might otherwise attribute to some other motivation.

There are 23 Senate Democrats 2 Independents who consistently caucus with them up for reelection in 2012 and only 8 Republicans. Simple math combined with the current political climate indicates that the Republicans will win the Senate majority in the 2012 elections. Hence, anything they do to weaken the minority party will certainly come back to haunt them in the near future.

Brave?

There’s also the chance, albeit a slim one, that the Senate Democrats are being brave and putting the needs of the nation before their personal desires. With the odds on bet being that they’ll shortly be the minority party in the Senate it could be an act of courage and statesmanship to curtail what power they will soon be limited to.

It is most certainly a surety that something needs to be done to modify Senate procedures. They’ve reached the point where it is almost impossible to get anything accomplished without a level of “sausage making” that is nothing but legally excused corruption and bribery. If the Democrats in the Senate are actually honest in their goals, this is a rare act of statesmanship, patriotism, and courage.

Evil?

Of course this attempt to change Senate procedures could just be another example of the Democrats’ self-centeredness and evil. If the Democrats are following President Obama’s twisted model of bipartisanship then their claims about seeking to reach out to the Republicans in order to craft sensible changes to the Senate procedures is just a sham.

This could all just be a show played out to trick the American people into thinking that the GOP is nothing more than needlessly obstructive. These Democrats could easily be planning on offering up an unacceptable set of changes, forcing the Republican to block them, and then claiming that those Senate Republicans just want to shutdown the government.

Since some of the Democrats are openly speaking of trying to invoke the untested-to-date “constitutional option” on the opening day of the next Senate session, self-centeredness and evil as motivation for their actions has some evidence to support it.

~*~

I’d truly like to believe that the Senate Democrats are showing a rare occurrence of bravery and statesmanship; I’m more than willing to believe and settle for their actions are based upon shortsightedness and stupidity; history, however, indicates that self-centeredness and outright evil has a very good chance of being what is behind the Democrats’ desire to change the Senate procedures.

It is, however, far too early to make a judgment upon this matter. The American people must watch and wait until we have enough information to make the decision as whether the Senate Democrats are being stupid, brave, or evil.

Related Reading:

Politics in America, 2012 Election Edition (10th Edition)
Courage: The Backbone of Leadership
The basic laws of human stupidity
Reasons To Vote For Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide
Lies Women Believe: And the Truth that Sets Them Free