Imagine hairy voters

Imaginary people of the republican persuasion on the internet are quick to point out that Barack Obama did NOT physically kill Osama Bin Laden. Oh. Well, OK, no one of the democratic persuasion has actually claimed that he had. It would seem kinda stupid to say that he had. Yet they say this, a lot.

Well, people are kinda stupid. You may have noticed this. Imaginary people on the internet come from the same stupid portion of the population where Indiana or Missouri congressmen come from, who have stupid ideas about rape and the birthing of babies under absolutely any circumstances. They poop in their pants, stumble over thoughts and their own feet just like non-internet idiots do.

And evidently, they vote!

Yikes!

Anybody who is 'undecided' at this point in the election is an idiot. Their opinion should not matter. But, it does.

It's storming! There's shelter over there. Do I go to the shelter or wait to see if the lightning gets me? Someone could come along with an umbrella. They might have sandwiches too. What if the sandwiches are soggy? Is there any place to sit inside or will I have to stand? What if there's a hole in the roof? I might get wet anyway...

Fucking-stupid-idiots! Sheesh- at least with reichtards you can see and hear their idiotic, hateful racism and- goddamn their asshole selves- at least they have a motherfucking opinion! Amazing but, that counts for something.

Maybe the undecideds are just undecided in hopes of getting on CNN and maybe getting discovered by a producer and becoming a movie star?

I saw you on CNN. You are just what I'm looking for! I need someone to play a beating victim in my next film. For realism, we're going to use actual baseball bats and actually kill you. Would you be OK with that?

Um, will the bats be aluminum or wood? I'm concerned about the environment...

The cable news folks keep saying that this election will be decided by undecided voters. One poll said that the typical undecided voter was a female, 18-29, with a low-income job and very little interest in politics. Yeah, sure. Let's let our nation's highest office be decided by Muffy . However the knuckleheads they parade after the debates do not reflect that demographic. They tend to look like your neighbors. Well, you know how stupid they are...

Undecideds should probably not be confused with independents. Those people are like bisexuals. They may be thinking : "Dick? Or pussy?" all the time but they will make up their minds. Undecideds eventually might too. They just won't know why. It won't be based on any deep thought or personal conviction. Maybe a coin toss?

Oh shit! Heads...or tails...what it it lands on it's edge....

And independents tend to simply be non-committal types  who like people to think they are free of party lines and maybe bolder and smarter than everyone else. Maybe one or five are. The others, just may like dick AND pussy. Good for them, I guess. They double their chances for weekend fun

Sigh. Every election is like this so, it's nothing new. That same guy in front of you at McDonald's trying to figure out the Dollar Menu will wind up in a voting booth, the first Tuesday in November, and ponder that at the last moment too. Like it's so fucking hard...

I can't wait until it's over. Some people are just getting started...

Give me some good news, baby!

I like to crush on news chicks. The local news stations, MSNBC, CNN and even Fox knows this and they parade a constant supply of women to tempt and, perhaps, taunt Ferrerman. I've always been this way. When on the road, I surf the channels in the new town to check out the 'farm system for the majors'.

I'm bi-partisan in my news chick choices. I shouldn't have to be but, such is cable news these days. A newswoman is not just judged for her journalism skills and her spankability but, her political leanings as well. See Megyn Kelly and S E Cupp. They are both unabashed republicans. MSNBC has several women every bit as beautiful as those two.

The MSNBC women are more attractive to me though because, beyond their obvious good looks, I admire their intelligence and political views. To be blunt: after Ferrerman would rock their world in the bedroom (or perhaps over there on the couch?) I could discuss, say, the homeless dilemma with Krystal Ball or Erin McPike and they would offer smart, viable solutions. S E or Megyn might just say: "Fuck 'em. Make me a sammich. Bitch". Talk about blunt!

Sarah Elizabeth Cupp has very obvious redheaded spectuality that I find quite appealing but, like Megyn, I don't find her views attractive. We'd fight a lot. That kinda conflict makes good fodder on situation comedies but it tends to make divorce lawyers busy in real life. Neither is necessarily insane like Sean Hannity insane but, unless they're just democrat actresses filling a niche on their respective networks, it's doubtful there is an 'us'in our future. That's pretty much all that keeps us from happening. That's all I can think of, at least.

Now, closer to home and- admittedly- reality, I would scratch a woman off my dance card of life if I knew we were polar opposites politically. That doesn't mean I'd hate her or refuse to know her but, no commitment. You have to be on the same page and being in the same book helps a lot too. I guess some people can do it. You hear about happy couples who are of different religions. Their secret, aside from tolerance and respect, might be that they never- EVER- discuss religion. I'n not religious but respect another's right to be so as long as they don't try to kill me or make their religion the national religion of my country. And maybe democrats and republicans can lie down together but, I bet they don't talk much either. They probably grunt a lot. Ugh.

OK. I'm in no danger of romancing any news pundits regardless of their spankability or their views. You're probably not either so, it's a tie. But, ya know,  as I watch Anna Marie Cox on MSNBC, i'm thinking that she probably talks to smart, funny men all day long. Maybe a smart, funny Ferrerman would be the last thing she needs after a hard day of punditing. She probably would rather relax with a good book and a better glass of wine. I guess I'll never know..but, I don't blame her. .

You didn't build that!

Barack H, Obama did not personally shoot Osama Bin Laden. He merely gave the order, something anyone could do.

Well, anybody but George Bush, I guess, but, I digress...

I saw an interesting internet meme today, on the internet actually...which- BTW- Al Gore did NOT build. It noted that the great Generals of our history, from George Washington to Eisenhower, did not actually single-handedly win any battles or wars they were involved in. They just gave the orders. History gives these men the credit and blame and lauds them as heroes  even though thousands of other men do the actual fighting and killing and dying. That's the way that works. We accept that.

Henry Ford didn't actually build the Model T's. In fact, if you were broke down on the side of the road whether in a Model T or a brand new Ford, it probably wouldn't be much good to have the late, great Henry or his great-grandson who heads the company now, with you. They didn't actually build the cars, you see. They could, at best, give you a 'great deal' on a new one though even though they don't literally sell the cars either. What the heck do they do?!

It's pretty neat though that Henry Ford got the financing together and created the assembly line process to crank out automobiles for the masses at a competitive price. It's doubly neat that he paid the line workers enough so that they could afford to buy the cars they made! The guy must have been a communist or something... So, maybe he didn't have mad mechanical skills (and, maybe he did- I don't actually know) but, it's safe to say he made all those cars happen. That's what Henry did and, to a lesser extent, that's what his progeny does. It's pretty neat, just the same. I can't say that my great-grandfather could or could not have done that. I can only report that he did not.

So, if any teapublican asshole feels the need to severely downplay Obama's roll in the killing of Osama Bin Laden, they better be ready and willing to downplay any aspirations for Willard Mittens Rmoney to actually go over to Iran and kick their asses, 'cause that's not gonna happen. Not even with tough guy Tagg on his wing. Iran is not some allegedly gay kid who Rmoney feels needs a haircut.

And they better accept the fact that, though Rmoney did not physically load the cargo ships with American people's hopes and dreams while he was at Bain, and personally steer the boat to China, he built the fucking company that made that happen. Yeah, he 'built' that. He made that happen. And he made fucking hundreds of millions of dollars doing it.

Why is he admired for that...success? Couldn't any asshole do that? Mafia guys do that. See "Goodfellas".

Mittens got off to a pretty good start in life. Daddy had some money. So, prep school and Harvard pretty naturally led to a career in business. His dad had a car company and, though he didn't literally build the cars himself, he made lots of money giving the orders. I think I might have liked his dad. He employed people. You could actually drive one of his products and know that, in buying one of his cars, you made the lives of hundreds (thousands?) of people better, through your purchase.

There is no brick and mortar business with this Rmoney. There is no building you can drive past and say: "That's Rmoney & Sons! My uncle works there making widgets! Great job! Great product! But two!"

Rmoney makes money with money. He doesn't even actually print the money he makes. It just seems that way...

That is my beef with Rmoney. He didn't literally build a fucking thing in life. He built a personal fortune but, he built it at the very personal expense of others who actually made a living making things. He's not a job creator. He's a job destroyer. Creating jobs, he makes a living. Destroying jobs, he makes a fortune!

I joke that, as president, Rmoney will sell off lesser-performing states like Mississippi and Arkansas after first gutting them of their resources and bankrupting them. I kid but, he'll probably do just that. He does believe that the Federal government shouldn't own land like Yosemite and few thousand other parks and that land should be sold to private enterprise whom may profit from them. I guess our public lands, which were largely the idea of republican Teddy Roosevelt (though he didn't literally plant the trees...) are communist. Well, we can't have THAT! If you've ever been to Yosemite and and never shook your head at the complete lack of oil rigs and/or million dollar homes, then you deserve to be poor! You have no vision!

Vision is all Rmoney has. But, it's a tunnel vision of profit for his friends and family only though. That's it. That's what he does. Worse, that's what he will do.

We can't let him do that. We the people built this country. We the people shouldn't let him destroy it.

CHEAP WOMEN!

I rather doubt that a presidential candidate who was a bishop of a church that does not allow women in it's Temples actually cares about women in general or even women in particular. Add to that the history of polygamy and you can see why he might object to any or all women's issues.

Willard Rmoney's "binders of women" comment at last night's debate was- of course- taken out of context. Context has long been a problem in politics and always will be. There's no getting away from or around that.  If it's true that, as governor, he noticed that there were no women contending for any positions in his regime as governor, it's kind of extremely interesting that Mitt opted for an affirmative action approach to the matter. See, Mitt and the republicans do not like Affirmative Action. I think he was trying to show 'political correctness, then and now. (That's something they hate too!)

I doubt Mitt the Mormon is in favor of women working at all. They should be home, churning butter- all of your wives! Like other Christian conservatives who probably share the same sentiments, I bet these guys didn't much care for the women's liberation movement which began in the 60's. I bet they hated that!

But, do you know who liked the women's lib movement?

Business. Once they figured out that more women could be employed at about half the cost of men, they realized there was big bucks in them thar wimmins!

Mind you, there always was. Women have long been in the workforce and always been underpaid. The deal used to be that a man was paid more because, well, he's a man and, he usually had a family to support. But, I think, in the 70's they realized the opportunity to employ more women and slash payroll while doing it. It was the same with Affirmative Action and, I believe, tied into that, as well. They learned they could slash payroll and use Affirmative Action  to hire less-expensive (and less threatening?) black women, rather than black men. It's business. That's how it works. It's more about the bottom line than it is about adapting to social change.

This is why there was republican outrage towards the Lily Ledbetter Act. How can you object to equal pay for women unless you object to BIG GOVERNMENT forcing business to do it? You sound like a real misogynist asshole if you say: "Fuck them bitches!". So, you go with the ol' "Big Government Is Bad" approach that made the Tea Parties what they are today- a bunch of aimless, anarchist twerps who didn't consider the denotations of their choice of titles for their club.

Today there are more women in the workforce than ever. I cannot (except for combat troops) think of any job that women don't do. Well, OK, president but, that could change in '16. I promise you that I would have voted for Hillary Clinton in '08 and was truly on the fence between her and Obama. And I'm never minding pro sports here for obvious size reasons though I could see a woman kicker in the NFL or maybe a second baseman in the majors. Anyway, there is no good reason for paying a woman less to do the same work as a man. All men do not get paid the same, just because they are men. You come up through the ranks. Skills vary. You are supposed to earn your way. These days, it's quite common for a woman to be the head of household, to be working and raising children. Some men, too. Obama spoke of his mother who had to train men who would advance beyond her at the bank where she worked. She had gone as far as a woman could go at the time. Would you be OK training your next boss? Does that even make sense?

I think business, which shows us each day that they only care about profit, is telling us we are ALL overpaid and expendable. I believe that such is the reason for jobs going overseas where people regardless of gender are willing to work for whatever they are offered, no questions asked. We are all in this together, folks. It is truly US against THEM. 

CHINESE DEMOCRACY

I'm not the numbers guy that Paul Ryan claims to be. Well, Paul Ryan isn't even the numbers guy he claims to be if you remember he misremembered his marathon time by about an hour or so (in his favor...) and that that equals....a whole bunch of minutes, if you want to get technical about it. They want him to get technical about numbers- even FOX does- but, he doesn't want to worry our pretty, little heads with numbers just yet.  We'll just have to elect him and Willard Rmoney to find out how those numbers crunch.

You know something? Electing president's isn't "Let's Make A Deal!". For one thing, there are really only two doors. There's the republican door and the democrat door. Libertarians and the occasional Ralph Nader are merely windows or, at best, garage doors that no one really cares to open because we know there's just a lot of junk in the garage. Might be some good stuff but, you'd have to sort through a lot of junk to get to it. Why bother? We like to wish there was a third door available but, the two parties are against that since they've kinda got a monopoly going. Truth be told, the two doors tend to lead to the same place anyway. It's as if there's only one party...

The republicans just might be trying to change that. They've certainly gone off the reservation lately! For the first time in a long time I can actually tell the difference between the two. Frankly, I'm kinda scared. They've always been a contrary bunch but, since '08 and certainly since '10, they've gotten seriously crazy. They sound exactly like the idiot 'tards I smack around on the threads.

Willard Rmoney actually complains that 47% of Americans don't pay taxes. Give or take a few points, this is probably true. OK. we agree on that. I'm going to go out on a limb though and say that, the reason for this non-payment of income taxes is that they don't fucking make enough money to qualify to have to PAY income taxes! This is because they are poor.

One of the most obscene things Mitten's said in a speech was that he was *proud* of us because, though we had lost jobs that paid $22.50 an hour, we endeavoured  to survive by getting TWO jobs that paid $9 an hour. For those keeping score at home, that adds up to $18 but, not per the hour because you're not doing Paul Ryan math here. Nope, you're working eight hours more per day and still making less. I gathered that Mittens was proud of us because, we can take a lickin' and keep on tickin' like he's sure heard about cheap watches. I was surprised the media didn't pick upon this. To be fair though, Rmoney lies so much and modifies his positions so much that it takes 24 hour cable news outlets 24 hours a day to keep up with his nonsense. They might have had to hire extra help....

The thing is, Rmoney, and those of his kind, made those $22,50 an hour jobs go away because payroll and good-paying jobs cut into profits!!!! Rich people fucking hate that. I promise you that their bottom line is their bottom line and they seriously do not care how they get there as long as it is as cheaply as possible. Prior to the American Civil War, there was more money in Vicksburg, Mississippi than there was in New York City. Guess why? The low-overhead of slavery. After the initial expense of buying a human being, all you had to do was feed them and beat them. We fought a long, bloody war that was not at all about slavery! It was about "state's rights" or, more to the point, whether states had the right to have slaves. So, you see, it wasn't about slavery AT ALL!

We still have slavery in the world today though it's not called slavery anymore. It's called: Chinese Labor. It differs from slavery in that the workers aren't bought at auction and, in fact, are actually paid, so, it's not slavery. The people want to work. To hear Willard Rmoney tell it, they want to work so badly that fences and guard towers are in place to keep people from coming in and working in the hopes of getting hired on and paid! Yep, this cocksucker went to Harvard and he knows human nature. People want to work. They just don't want to be paid too much for it....

Well, I'm no Harvard grad. I think it's got more to do with hunger than a desire to stay busy.

Currently, in Freeport, Illinois, Rmoney's old business, Bain Capital, is moving 170 jobs from the Sensata  company there to China. You probably heard about that. If not, google it. The bottom line is, workers in China will be making 99 cents to $1.37 per hour, far less than the men and women of Freeport are willing to work for. And Bain and those fellows have a duty to show a profit to their shareholders. (Ferrerman note: I think shareholders are the citizens of the new millennium. Unlike us, they have a vested interest in this country.) The Freeport Sensata workers have had to suffer the indignity of training their Chinese replacements. This is the equivalent of having to dig your own grave before the Mafia kills you. I don't know why people do that. I guess we're used to last-minute heroics? As long as there is a breath in your lungs, you might have a chance...

Well, 170 jobs. Is that a big deal? After all, this has been going on for 30 some years. Surely those Freeport folks can replace those jobs with a couple of $9 an hour jobs, right? Bain Capital has to answer to shareholders, after all. If they are not making the most profit possible, then they are not doing there job for those shareholders. They might as well be communists. Better to deal with communists than be one.

Of course, those communists do have a way with non-shareholders. Our glorious corporate masters can learn a thing or two from them. Well, they are. We can have full employment here, in our not-too-distant future. It just won't pay very well. You see, it can't. Payroll cuts into profit and profit is the bottom line. Without profit, there is no trickle down. It's like "our" oil. The oil companies can sell "our" oil for far more profit, far more satisfying shareholders in foreign countries with burgeoning economies. IRONY ALERT: one of those burgeoning countries is... CHINA! There's more than a billion of them folks and, more and more are becoming shareholders. And they are not burdened by a Constitution or founding fathers or an EPA.

It's a brave, new world order, isn't it?

A Cup of JOE!

Last night, Laurence O'Donnell had a nice piece to end his show about debates. He's a former writer for the old political show, "The West Wing" and he showed a clip from that series about a presidential debate where, feeling shackled by the rules of the debate, both candidates agreed to throw aside the rules and just wing it. Sounds good to me! Though I was never a viewer, I should have been.

Two minute statements and thirty second rebuttals just don't get it. Worse, he pointed out, the format encourages both participants to be good memorizers rather than actual debaters. And the "no notes" rule certainly hinders that as well. Evidently, the candidates are not given previous knowledge of the questions to be asked either. Laurence pointed out that, no president has to on-the-spot create policy all by himself so, why ask him or his opponent to do that in front of a live audience and millions of citizens? In other words, why all the surprise?

The format of the VP debate pleased me as it was a bit more like the above. Two guys sitting around interrupting each other is just like real life. There has to be a moderator and I think Martha Raddatz did an excellent job and not just because Jim Lehrer had not. She pretty much let them go without the anal "me-me-ME!- that Romney had insisted on in his first go 'round with Obama.

Of course, I fucking loved Joe Biden's mugging and laughing and his full range of emotions while Paul Ryan spewed lie after lie. It was the smackdown we wished Obama had given Romney and- better- it was the smackdown republicans think Romney gave Obama. It was fun to watch!

I'd like to see more debates like it. We don't want a Memorizer In Chief whether he's an us or a them. I think the debate formats are the way they are because that's what the parties agree to because that's the way they've always been. And one will be a Town Hall format so, there's that. Some pizza guy (not Herman Cain, is promising free pizza for life to any citizen who wastes the nation's time by asking if the candidates prefer sausage or pepperoni. Maybe the pizza for life is a threat. I don't know. Whatever, it's not the sort of free-form debate O'Donnell or Ferrerman is advocating.

I would like to see limited audience participation with questions of the non-pizza variety. I'd like to hear the people laughing at any zingers even if they're planned and, especially if they are truly off the cuff. And, groaning at lies and deflections from the R's is our right as citizens. So much of our political process is a dog and pony show. Let's let these guys go at it. Make them defend lies or policies to be explained later.  Make them answer to us... It is about us, isn't it?

No decaf, please.

The Play-offs

As a life-long Chicago Cub fan, I know that losing can be very relaxing. One can enjoy the play-offs and World Series without any serious angst. You can pick a favorite and be kinda happy if they win and sorta sad if they lose. There's no real pressure, just good baseball.

Now, presidential elections, on the other hand...

It's crossed my mind to just say: "Fuck it!" Let these assholes have their fucking Rmoney and eat it too!" Let US be the divisive assholes who complain about everything he does! Let us hang on his every other word like they do with Obama. It'll be fun- and different- because Willard Mittens Rmoney is a stiff-walking, stiff-talking idiot so, it will be true and honest instead of Junior League Al Queda  stuff that we see from them now.

But, alas, if I were them- if we were them- we'd already be assholes. Being an asshole is nothing to aspire to anyway. It may seem like fun at first but, as a lifetime commitment, it's not a good career goal. Imagine your poor behavior in a public setting while drinking a bit too much. Now imagine that behavior being you for the rest of your life. Yikes! Hopefully, that makes you re-think your commitment to any teaparty aspirations or teabangelical-like behavior.

Still, proving these idiots wrong and saying, "I told you so..." could be fun. However, a Rmoney victory would bring four more years of blaming Barack Obama for all of America's ills. Note I said 'four MORE years'. They started blaming Obama for EVERYTHING on election day in '08. This time around they'd give no grace period either. They would disavow any notion of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" citing "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which was invoked also the moment Obama was elected and supposedly somehow inherited not only the worst recession since The Great Depression but, all responsibility FOR it. How the fuck does that happen?

But, I digress. Or do I? I know these people. I see them on TV and read them on the threads and other venues on the internet. They are not going to stop being crazy just because *they* won. Was Hitler satisfied with a fake war with Poland? Cheney with Weapons of Mass Distraction? Nope.

These people would be empowered by a Rmoney presidency, seeing it as a mandate from the people to run screaming ahead with every little thing he may have promised them and some that they might have imagined while masturbating.

I understand billionaires wanting to hire a millionaire to impose their will. I don't understand the not-so rich doing this, however. The pecking order is all askew here. You making $50k a year is maybe a day in the life of a Mitt Rmoney who is retired and living off of stock dividends like when he and Ann were first married and "struggling"... He's actually done better since then. You might too, IF you win Mega Millions.

But, you won't do better under Mittens. You may not be the 47% that he doesn't care about but, you likely fall into the net of the 98% he doesn't care about either. He's got you covered. You just may not know it. These folks don't. They said all along: "ANYBODY but Obama..." and, indeed, Rmoney is "anybody". He's just not an anybody that cares about all Americans.

In a straight up, honest vote, Rmoney DOES NOT win this election. Voter suppression hasn't worked out like they planned but, it might have been a diversion from the fact that, the electronic voting machines used in many states are owned and operated by white men who have contributed HEAVILY to the Rmoney campaign. So, yes, via cheating, he could *prevail*...

It's a frightening thought. A good man does not do this. Not in the wonderful America we all imagine that we live in. Look at the last several elections. There was electoral shenanigans when Bush *beat* Kerry. It took a USSC decision to put him in office in 2000. Going back to daddy Bush is maybe the last time a republican was popularly elected. They're not on a winning streak even when we seem to be taking turns. What does this tell you?

It tells me they might be going all in for their very survival as a party. They act as if it's for the very survival of the country though. Can you imagine suppressing voting (of one party) as a viable practice in the greatest country in the world?!

I can. It's only been in my lifetime that Black Americans have been guaranteed the right to vote. It took an act of Congress to force half the country to allow them to vote. That is obscene. We have a history of this... It isn't pretty. We have as much nationalistic pride as the next nation and we overlook our faults far better than most, to that end. Are their any full-blooded Native Americans in your neighborhood? There's a reason for that and it's very, very ugly.

Sigh. It's possible that a Rmoney presidency could be comical, fun and business as usual. I doubt it. In the poker game of life, the republicans and their fans are tipping their hand. Yeah they've got nothing but, if a pair of threes can beat a full house of freedom, we're fucked. It could happen...

They've shown their intention to go all in. If Rmoney were to *win*, this might be the last election we have. A few new justices on the Supreme Court could take care of that. Imagine that plus Rmoney AND a republican House and Senate. What wouldn't they do? What couldn't they do?

Ask any asshole what they would do. They'll tell you. Right now they have that First Amendment right to do so. Right now, that is...