Dedicated non-readers might recall that I ran afoul of one of Nicole Curtis's lackeys, some time ago, and he challenged me to show up on the job site and he'd give me what for. What for? I (and a few others) had taken exception to her tact of using volunteers to paint the projects on her TV show, "The Rehab Addict". (See: "Kicked Out Of Rehab" elsewhere in these pages) I didn't get e-tough with the kid, he started in on me. I got a kick out of it because it was just about the last thing I expected. Some people just can't take criticism.
Turns out Nicole Curtis is one of them. Over Xmas there was some mishap with T-shirts from her show that she was selling and a lot of people were angry that they hadn't received their shirts. I looked at her site and saw that she said she had to kick 100+ people out of Rehab, I guess because they had been mean or rude in their complaints. Well, OK. But, at the end of her mini-rant she stated that "(and anyone else) feel free to set an appt. and personally tell my dedicated crew off face to face rather than on this page". Yikes!
Personally, I'd like to take her over my knee and give her a moderate to severe spanking for her petulant behavior but, we all know that would just encourage more of such behavior. And, Minneapolis is too far a drive for spanking or fighting. Not to mention, this call to arms (the limb kind) wasn't directed at me, this time. I can look at the page but, I'm poster non grata as far as commenting. It's the finest page this Ferrerman has been kicked of to this minute.
Maybe it's the holidays but I saw that Brandon Marshall of the Bears challenged Carmen De Falco of ESPN radio to fight because Carmen had brought up a fight challenge Brandon had made to a fan on Twitter. I think it was a smartass Packer fan, but aren't they all? Marshall apologized by the end of the interview. He's a nice enough guy but seems to have anger issues.
The internet is full of such conflicts though. It's kind of a natural really given that people are relatively anonymous and may have thousands of miles between them. Or, be sitting at the same Starbucks sipping a halfacafadoublefoofylatte. I don't know what they serve there as I like my coffee "Halle Berry"- hot, strong and black. And, I make it myself. Faaaaar cheaper.
On Topix it's a fairly regular occurrence for posters to challenge each other. Most recently, an idiot who I'll call "Stringy Cheese" challenged someone who uses too many names to meet at a Portillos hotdog stand to fight. The interesting thing about that title fight was that Stringy Cheese was probably both the challenger and the challenged. The dude is definitely challenged. Quite likely too was that the other opponent was someone from his own troll gang, trolling him for sport. Regardless, there was never going to be fisticuffs between imaginary people.
I doubt anyone will answer the Rehab challenge either. T-shirts aren't really worth brawling for, now are they? This stuff is amusing because it's so silly and because of the impersonal venue that is the internet. People still act like it's a bar on Saturday night though, making dates and promises that they will never meet. Hopefully they don't act this way in real life. Something tells me most don't and I hope so because face to face often leads to fist to face. I like to think that cute, little blonde rehabbers are really as nice as they seem on TV, but have their bad days too.
Monday, December 29, 2014
The Boobs Tube
Last night I caught parts of the CBS show "Undercover Boss", a program I have long since passed on because if you've seen one episode, you've seen them all. I would have to believe that after the first season, the premise being known to the public, you couldn't fool too many employees with the "this guy/gal is participating in a reality show" scam that explains why a film crew is following "the new guy" around as he trains for a job. The episodes are predictable and derivative in that the undercover boss always seems to be placed with nice employees who tend to have money troubles and sick kids that make for feel good stories and feel really good stories when the generous, corporate boss rewards them with cash, vacations and life-saving cancer treatments for little Timmy. The takeaway might be that corporate rule truly rocks! Just pick out a few employees here and there, lavish them with gifts and keep the rest of them as you found them. It's like a game show where a chosen few walk out with fabulous prizes. The bosses, incidentally, may walk out with a better knowledge of how to improve their business but, if nothing else, they get some nationwide publicity.
One humorous aspect is that though they may be the boss, they rarely are any good at the jobs they pay people to do. That is where it gets real for me. Most bosses I've had couldn't do my job. The Ferrerman Principle is that some people achieve a level of incompetence that highlights their general uselessness and life has no choice put to make them the boss because they can't do anything else. I had a boss who bragged that he was a better bartender than anyone of us. We knew better but, one busy night he jumped behind the bar "to help us" and I put up with about 10-15 minutes of that told him to get out from my bar. He had no clue and was in our way, making a temporarily bad situation ridiculous. He was better suited to being the owner's son. It was the same in painting, even if the guy had actually worked his way through the company. Stories for another day but, those guys usually were back-stabbing rat bastards who weren't really good workers. They just kept an eye on people. It always amazed me that if you were the guy who snitched to get your position, why would you rely on snitches when you took over? These were scumbags who were after your job, if you were paying attention to your own history. Dumb.
On this episode of "Boss", the guy was the owner of a bar/restaurant chain called "Bikinis". The concept is cute chicks with bikini-clad spankable bottoms serving cocktails and wings. Where'd he get that idea? Well, business didn't seem to good at any of the Texas locations. I missed the opening so I don't know what the ploy was, but with it being a female wait and bar staff, all he could really pretend to be training for was kitchen or maybe manager. He worked the bar and followed a waitress around and did not wear a bikini. Evidently the bartender, knowing she would be on camera, opted to wear a t-shirt. Odd choice in a bikini bar but she wasn't comfortable on camera in beachwear.
That was a violation. She also displayed a laissez faire attitude towards a power-drinking customer who was downing double whiskey shots with a beer back. The "boss" was undercoverly concerned and wondered if he should break character and deal with the potentially fiscally responsible situation. The bartender wasn't as concerned. Eventually a manager stepped in to cut the guy off. He was ambulatory enough and not driving (well, according to him...) and he left without incident. As a ex-bartender who cut-off a few thousand drunks, her lack of concern concerned me. As a guy who watches reality TV though, I wondered about the editing.
At the awards portion of the show, the bartender was rewarded with a pink slip. I don't think this usually happens on such a feel good show. The boss cited her non-handling of the drunk, her t-shirt and a remark she had made about the job not being her life's work. She just wasn't Bikini material. She left the set in angry tears. Maybe she's on her way to see a lawyer but, Texas is a "right to work" state and the unadvertised side effect of that is "right to be fired"- for any reason. I'm betting she had to sign some sort of waiver for the show. Her dismissal on national TV sucked but, she likely move on to something better where she isn't expected to undress for the camera.
That wasn't the odd one though. It's kinda fun when they sit down with the now undisguised undercover boss and learned they had been duped by wigs and make up. Some look genuinely surprised. Maybe they don't watch much TV? The scheme is that they are supposed to meet with someone to give their evaluation of the "new guy" and that's when it's revealed that the "new guy" to be reviewed is the corporate boss guy before them. Yikes if you are going to get fired but, payday if not. The cook got a raise, back pay and money for a vacation with his family. The manager lady got a smaller raise, cash, and new teeth and a growth removed for her daughter. And, of course, the waitress got new tits.
I'm not kidding. The gal who 'trained' him as a server had confided in him that she dreamed of having bigger "boobies", a full C-cup to be exact. His beef with her was that she talked on the phone too much so, if she ditched the phone for six months, he would pay for breast augmentation. I'm still not kidding.
I wonder if he can write that off on his taxes as a business improvement?
One humorous aspect is that though they may be the boss, they rarely are any good at the jobs they pay people to do. That is where it gets real for me. Most bosses I've had couldn't do my job. The Ferrerman Principle is that some people achieve a level of incompetence that highlights their general uselessness and life has no choice put to make them the boss because they can't do anything else. I had a boss who bragged that he was a better bartender than anyone of us. We knew better but, one busy night he jumped behind the bar "to help us" and I put up with about 10-15 minutes of that told him to get out from my bar. He had no clue and was in our way, making a temporarily bad situation ridiculous. He was better suited to being the owner's son. It was the same in painting, even if the guy had actually worked his way through the company. Stories for another day but, those guys usually were back-stabbing rat bastards who weren't really good workers. They just kept an eye on people. It always amazed me that if you were the guy who snitched to get your position, why would you rely on snitches when you took over? These were scumbags who were after your job, if you were paying attention to your own history. Dumb.
On this episode of "Boss", the guy was the owner of a bar/restaurant chain called "Bikinis". The concept is cute chicks with bikini-clad spankable bottoms serving cocktails and wings. Where'd he get that idea? Well, business didn't seem to good at any of the Texas locations. I missed the opening so I don't know what the ploy was, but with it being a female wait and bar staff, all he could really pretend to be training for was kitchen or maybe manager. He worked the bar and followed a waitress around and did not wear a bikini. Evidently the bartender, knowing she would be on camera, opted to wear a t-shirt. Odd choice in a bikini bar but she wasn't comfortable on camera in beachwear.
That was a violation. She also displayed a laissez faire attitude towards a power-drinking customer who was downing double whiskey shots with a beer back. The "boss" was undercoverly concerned and wondered if he should break character and deal with the potentially fiscally responsible situation. The bartender wasn't as concerned. Eventually a manager stepped in to cut the guy off. He was ambulatory enough and not driving (well, according to him...) and he left without incident. As a ex-bartender who cut-off a few thousand drunks, her lack of concern concerned me. As a guy who watches reality TV though, I wondered about the editing.
At the awards portion of the show, the bartender was rewarded with a pink slip. I don't think this usually happens on such a feel good show. The boss cited her non-handling of the drunk, her t-shirt and a remark she had made about the job not being her life's work. She just wasn't Bikini material. She left the set in angry tears. Maybe she's on her way to see a lawyer but, Texas is a "right to work" state and the unadvertised side effect of that is "right to be fired"- for any reason. I'm betting she had to sign some sort of waiver for the show. Her dismissal on national TV sucked but, she likely move on to something better where she isn't expected to undress for the camera.
That wasn't the odd one though. It's kinda fun when they sit down with the now undisguised undercover boss and learned they had been duped by wigs and make up. Some look genuinely surprised. Maybe they don't watch much TV? The scheme is that they are supposed to meet with someone to give their evaluation of the "new guy" and that's when it's revealed that the "new guy" to be reviewed is the corporate boss guy before them. Yikes if you are going to get fired but, payday if not. The cook got a raise, back pay and money for a vacation with his family. The manager lady got a smaller raise, cash, and new teeth and a growth removed for her daughter. And, of course, the waitress got new tits.
I'm not kidding. The gal who 'trained' him as a server had confided in him that she dreamed of having bigger "boobies", a full C-cup to be exact. His beef with her was that she talked on the phone too much so, if she ditched the phone for six months, he would pay for breast augmentation. I'm still not kidding.
I wonder if he can write that off on his taxes as a business improvement?
Sunday, December 28, 2014
It's a thin, blurry line
I see where, at the funeral for one of the officers killed recently in New York, the police turned their backs on Bill DeBlasio, the mayor. They feel his rhetoric incited the gunman to murder the two cops. They seem to have solved this one pretty quickly. Did it even take an hour like the cop shows on TV?No word on whether the mayor's rhetoric incited Ismaaiyl Brinsley to first shoot his girlfriend, then the officers, and then himself. Nobody is really talking about that. I'm no cop but, I'm thinking the guy was more a mentally disturbed criminal than he was a revolutionary martyr.
Politics sure does make strange bedfellows. Republicans are up in arms about this because a black guy killed two cops, as we've learned, because NY's democrat mayor pretty much told him to. Interesting bed partner choice here is that, you may think you know that republicans dislike blacks but you know for sure that they don't like unions especially government ones. Under the right circumstances- like, if a white "patriot" had killed the cops- the dialogue might have been about two lazy, union thugs getting what they deserved for sloughing off in their taxpayer paid for patrol car. They really could look at it that way. They do hate unions with their expensive wages and benefits. It's a fine, very thin, blue line. On the one hand the police target minorities and keep the prisons full. But on the other, they have those pesky wages and benefits. Don't believe me? Look at the death of Eric Garner. According to Sean Hannity and Fox *news* Garner was killed by government tax collectors because of his selling of un-taxed cigarettes. They do have a way of looking at things, don't they? They can turn on a dime. And, give you change.
But ya know, that's politics. The whole idea is to separate you from your money and make it seem like it's your idea. People voting against their own interests is nothing knew. There surely are tens of thousands of cops who are staunch republicans, perhaps because of the party's mask of conservative ethics, and are willing to overlook the whole anti-union thing because they favor law and order in society. The best explanation of cops I ever heard came from a cop on the show "COPS". He said that people needed to understand that cops come out of the same general population we all do. They're not super beings. Just people. Like doctors and lawyers. Half of them graduated in the bottom half of their class so, half are better or worse than the other half. Just like some lawyers become patent or tax attorneys, some cops are better suited to safe suburban departments or blending into the background of a huge department like the NYPD. Think about people that you work with. Not everyone gets it. Not everyone is smart. A lot of people just show up.
Same with politics. Republicans are outraged that black people are being given all this money and special rights by the gubmint- just for being black- and now they are acting up and killing cops, because democrats told them to!
That's essentially what it boils down to. Never mind that by sheer volume of population, far more white people are "on welfare" than blacks, the perception is that of blacks in ghettos being supported by white taxpayers, not whites in Kentucky being supported by taxes. It doesn't take much Googling to discover that the republican base includes a lot red states that receive more gubmint assistance than blue states. This means that hillbillies may well vote against welfare that they are receiving, because they think it will stop blacks from getting it. Priorities.
The reality is that the middle class makes too much money. Their pensions and Social Security are a heavy burden too. Well, for someone. Wall Street maybe? They sure want their hands on everyone's pensions and SS and lot's of politicians are willing to help them get it. And poor people are a burden on the middle class because middle class taxpayers are the ones that pay for their welfare. It will all end when welfare handouts and demands for increases in the minimum wage ends. That's pretty much the way the media presents it to us. Everyone will be better off once democrats quit punishing the wealthy for being successful. You'll appreciate that too because, one day you will live the American dream of being rich and successful too and you won't want to be punished either. That's the way it works, the logic of the American mind. Unions are blamed for high prices. Your neighbor who is in a union "makes too much money." Who are you to say anyone makes too much money? Can't people all over the internet decide you make too much money?
If you are a struggling single mother of three who desperately needs a job, a conservative might tell you to get a job at McDonald's. But, conservatives also believe those McDonald's jobs are designed for teenagers not adults looking to support a family. So...go to college! Make something of yourself! It's still pretty much true that college is a path to higher earning potential but, how many single mom's can afford the $100k or so it takes to get that degree. Feeding and housing the kids takes precedent. Well, no one told you to have those kids...
The world does need ditch diggers and always will even though in our modern times that means the guy who operates the Ditch Witch- something you can't do, by the way. You can be trained, but do you want to? You can cook a hamburger, likely better than McDonald's but, don't you just love the convenience that Mickey D's offers? If you recognize that people need these jobs to better serve you, why can't you grasp that these people need to be compensated for their labors? We should all be ashamed that, in the "Greatest Country In The World" millions of our fellow citizens can work a 40 hour week and still barely scrape by. It's really obscene. Forty years ago that job at McDonalds actually would get a person through college. Now it barely affords a singe person a place to live unless he or she has roommates. It's kinda like college, I guess, without the classes and the parties.
Forty years. The price of everything goes up and wages go down. And politically minded conservatives believe that wages- for some- have not gone down enough! And instead of welcoming more fellow Americans into the middle class, let's shut the door! And nail it closed! Anyone know how to operate a hammer? The conservatives know they can get illegals to do it. Their fans out there in the general population tacitly approved that. Now that illegals have helped lower wages, it's time to rid the country of the foreign menace.
It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about it. Most Americans did not think about it. The politicians and the corporations did. Strange bedfellows indeed. Only the people got fucked though. Some are still fucking themselves and others in a desperate attempt to keep the residue of the American dream as portrayed on television in the 1960's, alive. That is the gift of hopelessness that politicians have left some of us, the hatred and contempt for the other Americans we are told are really the ones stealing our dreams. It couldn't be the powerful ones doing it! It's got to the poor, those greedy bastards! Who else could it be?
Politics sure does make strange bedfellows. Republicans are up in arms about this because a black guy killed two cops, as we've learned, because NY's democrat mayor pretty much told him to. Interesting bed partner choice here is that, you may think you know that republicans dislike blacks but you know for sure that they don't like unions especially government ones. Under the right circumstances- like, if a white "patriot" had killed the cops- the dialogue might have been about two lazy, union thugs getting what they deserved for sloughing off in their taxpayer paid for patrol car. They really could look at it that way. They do hate unions with their expensive wages and benefits. It's a fine, very thin, blue line. On the one hand the police target minorities and keep the prisons full. But on the other, they have those pesky wages and benefits. Don't believe me? Look at the death of Eric Garner. According to Sean Hannity and Fox *news* Garner was killed by government tax collectors because of his selling of un-taxed cigarettes. They do have a way of looking at things, don't they? They can turn on a dime. And, give you change.
But ya know, that's politics. The whole idea is to separate you from your money and make it seem like it's your idea. People voting against their own interests is nothing knew. There surely are tens of thousands of cops who are staunch republicans, perhaps because of the party's mask of conservative ethics, and are willing to overlook the whole anti-union thing because they favor law and order in society. The best explanation of cops I ever heard came from a cop on the show "COPS". He said that people needed to understand that cops come out of the same general population we all do. They're not super beings. Just people. Like doctors and lawyers. Half of them graduated in the bottom half of their class so, half are better or worse than the other half. Just like some lawyers become patent or tax attorneys, some cops are better suited to safe suburban departments or blending into the background of a huge department like the NYPD. Think about people that you work with. Not everyone gets it. Not everyone is smart. A lot of people just show up.
Same with politics. Republicans are outraged that black people are being given all this money and special rights by the gubmint- just for being black- and now they are acting up and killing cops, because democrats told them to!
That's essentially what it boils down to. Never mind that by sheer volume of population, far more white people are "on welfare" than blacks, the perception is that of blacks in ghettos being supported by white taxpayers, not whites in Kentucky being supported by taxes. It doesn't take much Googling to discover that the republican base includes a lot red states that receive more gubmint assistance than blue states. This means that hillbillies may well vote against welfare that they are receiving, because they think it will stop blacks from getting it. Priorities.
The reality is that the middle class makes too much money. Their pensions and Social Security are a heavy burden too. Well, for someone. Wall Street maybe? They sure want their hands on everyone's pensions and SS and lot's of politicians are willing to help them get it. And poor people are a burden on the middle class because middle class taxpayers are the ones that pay for their welfare. It will all end when welfare handouts and demands for increases in the minimum wage ends. That's pretty much the way the media presents it to us. Everyone will be better off once democrats quit punishing the wealthy for being successful. You'll appreciate that too because, one day you will live the American dream of being rich and successful too and you won't want to be punished either. That's the way it works, the logic of the American mind. Unions are blamed for high prices. Your neighbor who is in a union "makes too much money." Who are you to say anyone makes too much money? Can't people all over the internet decide you make too much money?
If you are a struggling single mother of three who desperately needs a job, a conservative might tell you to get a job at McDonald's. But, conservatives also believe those McDonald's jobs are designed for teenagers not adults looking to support a family. So...go to college! Make something of yourself! It's still pretty much true that college is a path to higher earning potential but, how many single mom's can afford the $100k or so it takes to get that degree. Feeding and housing the kids takes precedent. Well, no one told you to have those kids...
The world does need ditch diggers and always will even though in our modern times that means the guy who operates the Ditch Witch- something you can't do, by the way. You can be trained, but do you want to? You can cook a hamburger, likely better than McDonald's but, don't you just love the convenience that Mickey D's offers? If you recognize that people need these jobs to better serve you, why can't you grasp that these people need to be compensated for their labors? We should all be ashamed that, in the "Greatest Country In The World" millions of our fellow citizens can work a 40 hour week and still barely scrape by. It's really obscene. Forty years ago that job at McDonalds actually would get a person through college. Now it barely affords a singe person a place to live unless he or she has roommates. It's kinda like college, I guess, without the classes and the parties.
Forty years. The price of everything goes up and wages go down. And politically minded conservatives believe that wages- for some- have not gone down enough! And instead of welcoming more fellow Americans into the middle class, let's shut the door! And nail it closed! Anyone know how to operate a hammer? The conservatives know they can get illegals to do it. Their fans out there in the general population tacitly approved that. Now that illegals have helped lower wages, it's time to rid the country of the foreign menace.
It makes a lot of sense if you don't think about it. Most Americans did not think about it. The politicians and the corporations did. Strange bedfellows indeed. Only the people got fucked though. Some are still fucking themselves and others in a desperate attempt to keep the residue of the American dream as portrayed on television in the 1960's, alive. That is the gift of hopelessness that politicians have left some of us, the hatred and contempt for the other Americans we are told are really the ones stealing our dreams. It couldn't be the powerful ones doing it! It's got to the poor, those greedy bastards! Who else could it be?
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Happy Holidays To My Dedicated Non-readers!!!
Some, are more dedicated than others! A quick perusal of the Topix index showed someone calling themselves The Butthurt Blogger posted on 20+ threads in succession. They were mostly word threads, the usual suspect's favorite way of building post counts. I think we all know who that sad camper is and how it observes holidays. Stalking Ferrerman knows no holidays! Not even ones that, for all intense and porpoises are for families sharing love.
Elsewhere on the internet I found more hatred, this time of the Christian variety. I just know all the good places to go, I guess....
There's a conservative site I visit because, no matter the topic, it's chock full o' nuts, very angry, crazy nuts. Them's the best kind. They all hate Obama and liberals but, they have serious disagreements as to how much to hate and who to adore in place of him. For example, there is a bunches of them that don't think Ted Cruz is crazy enough to be their president. Some long for Putin. Really. They think Obama is a ruthless anti-American dictator but they think Putin would be a good president. Still others like Palin, Rand Paul or Ben Carson. None seem to like Jeb Bush but, not for his lineage as you might suspect. They think he "too liberal". In fact, that's a common criticism of all the conservative possibles except Putin. Any one of the suspects for '16 are viewed by many as too liberal. I think of that scene in the great film, "Slapshot" where Michael Onteaken's character comes upon a fan taking a sledgehammer to the team bus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfroUSUcbdc
I could see these folks taking a sledgehammer to whoever the regular republicans wind up choosing for the losing in '16. They still wouldn't be happy. Bush or Cruz might not be thrilled either.
Anyway, on this site, some of the hatriots were upset with the nerve of President Obama even mentioning the birth of Jesus in an address to the nation because, he's a Muslim, donchaknow. Yep, it's that kinda crowd. They know he's Kenyan too. And, he's coming for their guns. You know the teatard drill. They believe it all as gospel.
Sigh. The hatriots can't take even one day off from anti-Ferrerman or anti-Obama sentiment. Not one day. They had one thing to do today! They failed...
Oh well, that's their problem not ours!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS, DEDICATED NON-READERS!
Love,
Ferrerman
Elsewhere on the internet I found more hatred, this time of the Christian variety. I just know all the good places to go, I guess....
There's a conservative site I visit because, no matter the topic, it's chock full o' nuts, very angry, crazy nuts. Them's the best kind. They all hate Obama and liberals but, they have serious disagreements as to how much to hate and who to adore in place of him. For example, there is a bunches of them that don't think Ted Cruz is crazy enough to be their president. Some long for Putin. Really. They think Obama is a ruthless anti-American dictator but they think Putin would be a good president. Still others like Palin, Rand Paul or Ben Carson. None seem to like Jeb Bush but, not for his lineage as you might suspect. They think he "too liberal". In fact, that's a common criticism of all the conservative possibles except Putin. Any one of the suspects for '16 are viewed by many as too liberal. I think of that scene in the great film, "Slapshot" where Michael Onteaken's character comes upon a fan taking a sledgehammer to the team bus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfroUSUcbdc
I could see these folks taking a sledgehammer to whoever the regular republicans wind up choosing for the losing in '16. They still wouldn't be happy. Bush or Cruz might not be thrilled either.
Anyway, on this site, some of the hatriots were upset with the nerve of President Obama even mentioning the birth of Jesus in an address to the nation because, he's a Muslim, donchaknow. Yep, it's that kinda crowd. They know he's Kenyan too. And, he's coming for their guns. You know the teatard drill. They believe it all as gospel.
Sigh. The hatriots can't take even one day off from anti-Ferrerman or anti-Obama sentiment. Not one day. They had one thing to do today! They failed...
Oh well, that's their problem not ours!
HAPPY HOLIDAYS, DEDICATED NON-READERS!
Love,
Ferrerman
Monday, December 22, 2014
The Usual Suspects
It was an awful thing to murder two cops in cold blood, as happened in New York City. The cops are pissed but, as is fitting with the times, they are pissed at the wrong people.
Rudy Guiliani- you may know him from his 9/11 fame- blames current NYC mayor, Bill De Blasio, and Whipping Boy in Chief, Barack Obama, for the deaths of the two cops. He's joined in this assertion by NYPD Union chief, Patrick Lynch. Isn't it nice to see conservatives and public union rep's getting along so well? This never happened after school shootings where teachers were murdered along with children. Maybe the conservative teapublicans are warming to unions?
Not a chance. It's just the strange bed-mates of politics meeting any port in a storm.
Patrick Lynch is calling for a sort of work slow down, telling his cop members to only make arrests that are "absolutely necessary". Looks like the sale of loose cigarettes is not a capital offense for the time being.
But, isn't "only arrests that are absolutely necessary" kinda telling about what police work is really all about in the 21st century whether it's practiced in NYC or Reduced Speed, Arizona? Arresting folks is big business in NY as it is in other places and the cops are telling the liberal mayor that they despise that, they won't be filling city coffers for awhile. Presumably they will going after murderers and robbers instead. So, there!
I know that if I were a cop, I'd be very upset at the murder of my brothers. Kinda like, if I were black I'd be very upset at the murder of my brothers.
The cop-killer took his own life after the murders. There was no one left to blame but the president, De Blasio, Al Sharpton, maybe MSNBC, all of the people- black and white- who protested the Ferguson and Eric Garner killings...
Republicans tout themselves as the party of personal responsibility (at times) but, usually this just means holding someone else (like President Obama) personally responsible rather than actual transgressors. BENGHAZI!!!!!! and few hundred other incidents come to mind.
This wasn't De Blasio's or Obama's fault. NYPD has a right to be hurt. They ought to man and woman up and not misdirect their anger. All signs point towards the killer acting alone, using social media and protests about the killings to justify his cowardly actions. He shot his girlfriend. He didn't do that in vengeance for Eric Garner or Mike Brown, now did he? After murdering the cops he then took his own life. This was not a revolutionary martyr. This was nut job.
Like the husband and wife nut jobs who, inspired by the stand against law enforcement that Cliven Bundy took earlier this year, killed two Las Vegas cops, a "good guy with a gun" and then themselves. Or, in 2009, Richard Poplawski killed three Pittsburgh cops because he feared an "Obama gun ban was on the way".
Now, where'd he get that idea?
Conservatives! The same conservatives who blame Obama for (somehow) inciting protests against the police, have in the past incited action against the police. This doesn't give them credibility as much as it gives them portfolio.
In 2008, a guy walked in, guns-a-blazing into a Tennessee church and killed two people and wounded seven because he had felt liberals were bad for the country. At his home were several books by Fox "news" persons disparaging liberals. So, that's where he heard that.
Of course, neither Sean Hannity nor Bill O'Reilly or any of the other assholes at Fox news told any of these people to murder in so many words. Frankly, they're not that bold or committed. Actual revolution is not their thing. They are not leaders, they just carry the water. It would actually be bad for business. But, hey, shit happens. They'd probably claim it's unfair to blame them for the actions of others. Well, they would say that, now wouldn't they?
Rudy Guiliani- you may know him from his 9/11 fame- blames current NYC mayor, Bill De Blasio, and Whipping Boy in Chief, Barack Obama, for the deaths of the two cops. He's joined in this assertion by NYPD Union chief, Patrick Lynch. Isn't it nice to see conservatives and public union rep's getting along so well? This never happened after school shootings where teachers were murdered along with children. Maybe the conservative teapublicans are warming to unions?
Not a chance. It's just the strange bed-mates of politics meeting any port in a storm.
Patrick Lynch is calling for a sort of work slow down, telling his cop members to only make arrests that are "absolutely necessary". Looks like the sale of loose cigarettes is not a capital offense for the time being.
But, isn't "only arrests that are absolutely necessary" kinda telling about what police work is really all about in the 21st century whether it's practiced in NYC or Reduced Speed, Arizona? Arresting folks is big business in NY as it is in other places and the cops are telling the liberal mayor that they despise that, they won't be filling city coffers for awhile. Presumably they will going after murderers and robbers instead. So, there!
I know that if I were a cop, I'd be very upset at the murder of my brothers. Kinda like, if I were black I'd be very upset at the murder of my brothers.
The cop-killer took his own life after the murders. There was no one left to blame but the president, De Blasio, Al Sharpton, maybe MSNBC, all of the people- black and white- who protested the Ferguson and Eric Garner killings...
Republicans tout themselves as the party of personal responsibility (at times) but, usually this just means holding someone else (like President Obama) personally responsible rather than actual transgressors. BENGHAZI!!!!!! and few hundred other incidents come to mind.
This wasn't De Blasio's or Obama's fault. NYPD has a right to be hurt. They ought to man and woman up and not misdirect their anger. All signs point towards the killer acting alone, using social media and protests about the killings to justify his cowardly actions. He shot his girlfriend. He didn't do that in vengeance for Eric Garner or Mike Brown, now did he? After murdering the cops he then took his own life. This was not a revolutionary martyr. This was nut job.
Like the husband and wife nut jobs who, inspired by the stand against law enforcement that Cliven Bundy took earlier this year, killed two Las Vegas cops, a "good guy with a gun" and then themselves. Or, in 2009, Richard Poplawski killed three Pittsburgh cops because he feared an "Obama gun ban was on the way".
Now, where'd he get that idea?
Conservatives! The same conservatives who blame Obama for (somehow) inciting protests against the police, have in the past incited action against the police. This doesn't give them credibility as much as it gives them portfolio.
In 2008, a guy walked in, guns-a-blazing into a Tennessee church and killed two people and wounded seven because he had felt liberals were bad for the country. At his home were several books by Fox "news" persons disparaging liberals. So, that's where he heard that.
Of course, neither Sean Hannity nor Bill O'Reilly or any of the other assholes at Fox news told any of these people to murder in so many words. Frankly, they're not that bold or committed. Actual revolution is not their thing. They are not leaders, they just carry the water. It would actually be bad for business. But, hey, shit happens. They'd probably claim it's unfair to blame them for the actions of others. Well, they would say that, now wouldn't they?
Thursday, December 18, 2014
If you see only one movie this year...
...I hope it wasn't supposed to be "The Interview" with James Franco and Seth Rogen, because that's been pulled from the theaters due to terrorist threats.
Yep. Somewhere Kirk Cameron is thinking: "Why didn't I think of that??"
The Interview is a comedy about Franco and Rogen involved in a CIA plot to kill real-life North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. I saw an interview with Rogen where he was asked why they opted to portray a real dictator when they really could have portrayed a fake one from a made up country. His reply was kinda along the lines of "Who are we kidding anyway?" The audience would know they meant Kim Jong-un if they called him something like "Kim Bong-doin" so, why beat around the bush? Frankly, I think they figured North Korea was so socially slow that they wouldn't see the film until it was released on Betamax so, they figured they were good to go.
They might have had something there. There was a South Korean woman on The Daily Show last week that had taught in North Korea, and she noted that the best and brightest students in the north studying computers had no knowledge of the internet.
When I first heard about the Sony hacking and how North Korea was being blamed for it, I saw it as a cheap publicity stunt. That branch of Korea can't hack anybody if their best and brightest can't even Google. These people eat bark. They don't bite. They have all they can do to survive.
I don't know who hacked Sony and I don't know who made the threats concerning the movie but, I just don't think there's a young, chubby dictator behind this.
And, I don't think the movie is a dog that needed a publicity bone. They are actually not going to show it in any theaters, anywhere. That's not your usual straight-to-video avenue when terrorist threats are involved. I can't see a financial boon to Sony bypassing theaters for pay-per-view. They seem to be really concerned about the theaters being attacked for showing this film. Yikes.
I don't go to the movies anymore. Even when I did several years ago, we'd opt for the early Saturday or Sunday showings that were bargain priced but- more importantly- not patronized by loud, obnoxious, goofy people like on weekend date nights. With the advent of big screen, HD television, Netflix, etc. as well as the turnaround in getting "to video" being quicker than the olden days, there just isn't the impetus for folks like me to rush out to the theater anymore. You don't have to threaten me!
Frankly, I'm not big on Rogen or Franco. Seth Rogen has that nervous laughter thing going on, giggling after everything he says in case you don't like it you'll know he was kidding. I find that very annoying. I had a boss like that. Franco doesn't giggle but I'm not very familiar with his work beyond that. I'm sure he's good.
I'm also sure that neither of these guys are worth killing and that no movie they could make is worth dying for. I also think "Kim Bong-doin" would have been a better name for the dictator in a fictional comedy. It might have saved a lot of trouble too...
Yep. Somewhere Kirk Cameron is thinking: "Why didn't I think of that??"
The Interview is a comedy about Franco and Rogen involved in a CIA plot to kill real-life North Korean dictator, Kim Jong-un. I saw an interview with Rogen where he was asked why they opted to portray a real dictator when they really could have portrayed a fake one from a made up country. His reply was kinda along the lines of "Who are we kidding anyway?" The audience would know they meant Kim Jong-un if they called him something like "Kim Bong-doin" so, why beat around the bush? Frankly, I think they figured North Korea was so socially slow that they wouldn't see the film until it was released on Betamax so, they figured they were good to go.
They might have had something there. There was a South Korean woman on The Daily Show last week that had taught in North Korea, and she noted that the best and brightest students in the north studying computers had no knowledge of the internet.
When I first heard about the Sony hacking and how North Korea was being blamed for it, I saw it as a cheap publicity stunt. That branch of Korea can't hack anybody if their best and brightest can't even Google. These people eat bark. They don't bite. They have all they can do to survive.
I don't know who hacked Sony and I don't know who made the threats concerning the movie but, I just don't think there's a young, chubby dictator behind this.
And, I don't think the movie is a dog that needed a publicity bone. They are actually not going to show it in any theaters, anywhere. That's not your usual straight-to-video avenue when terrorist threats are involved. I can't see a financial boon to Sony bypassing theaters for pay-per-view. They seem to be really concerned about the theaters being attacked for showing this film. Yikes.
I don't go to the movies anymore. Even when I did several years ago, we'd opt for the early Saturday or Sunday showings that were bargain priced but- more importantly- not patronized by loud, obnoxious, goofy people like on weekend date nights. With the advent of big screen, HD television, Netflix, etc. as well as the turnaround in getting "to video" being quicker than the olden days, there just isn't the impetus for folks like me to rush out to the theater anymore. You don't have to threaten me!
Frankly, I'm not big on Rogen or Franco. Seth Rogen has that nervous laughter thing going on, giggling after everything he says in case you don't like it you'll know he was kidding. I find that very annoying. I had a boss like that. Franco doesn't giggle but I'm not very familiar with his work beyond that. I'm sure he's good.
I'm also sure that neither of these guys are worth killing and that no movie they could make is worth dying for. I also think "Kim Bong-doin" would have been a better name for the dictator in a fictional comedy. It might have saved a lot of trouble too...
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Bush Trimming Tips From Ferrerman
Good Gawd Amighty, Jeb Bush is thinking about running for president. Sheesh. In 2000, Dick Cheney sat down the Bush brothers, George and Jeb, and asked them if either one of them would invade Iraq, no questions asked. George answered "yup" and, the rest is history.
Now, maybe Jeb is willing to answer in the affirmative about a country to be named later? Hopefully it doesn't get that far.
Dick Cheney and his pals at Haliburton had plans before the election for war with Iraq. They seemed to know they would get in the White House. As you might recall, it was very close. The US Supreme Court had to make the call. Then, they had to have a reason for war. The best they could come up with was blaming Saddam Hussein for some Saudis flying planes in the Twin Towers in New York City. Pretty thin thread there so they added the weapons of mass destruction they knew he had, because the US had given them to him. Add in the fact that Saddamn was the egotistical dictator of a sovereign nation and that he didn't like anyone telling him what to do, and you had the recipe for war because- you know- 9/11.... and the rest was the shock and awe of history.
All that alone should be enough to discount any Bush from from contention, even running back Reggie Bush, who is no relation. The brand recognition should be such that consumers hear "bush" and immediately shave and/or wax their genitalia which, if you've seen porn lately, they have done.
But, even without all that, a third Bush as president? What is this, a monarchy? Even if the first two had been good (they weren't) it's the thought that counts. And it's a thought that goes against the grain of America, Because Daddy Bush was Reagan's Vice President, you'd have to go back to 1972 to find a winning republican ticket without a Bush on it. Maybe that's why Jeb's running? He's their good luck charm?
Mind you- full disclosure- I'm not thrilled about Hillary Clinton's possible run either even though her husband was a pretty good president. I like her. She'd probably be a pretty good president too. It's just that matching her against a Bush kinda highlights the royalty aspect of it all that this country is not supposed to have. If it were to come down to those two being the nominees of their party, then we are assured of either having a third Bush or a second Clinton as POTUS. That would mean that, aside from two Obama terms, we've either had a Bush or a Clinton as president since 1988. Is that the best this country can do?
There are 310 million people in this country. There are more than two families capable of fielding presidential teams. I'm not looking at you, Romney's. Don't get any ideas.
And to be Ferrer, I don't know that Cheney and company sat Jeb down with George. I may have taken dramatic license there. They might not have asked Jeb at all, probably knowing he wouldn't be party to a scheme like that. Well, I don't think he would but, I don't know. Jeb was a governor of Florida who could give press conferences in English and Spanish. George could give then in fractured English and gibberish. Dick Cheney put himself in charge of star-searching for a VP contender and, after an exhaustive search, decided he himself should be a heartbeat away from the presidency. How the fuck does any of this happen in the greatest country in the world?
If it does come down to those two against each other, America as we used to pretend it was, is gone, the final screw in the coffin.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Too Rolling Stoned
A couple of weeks ago a friend posted the Rolling Stone article about the alleged gang rape of a University of Virginia freshman student by members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. It's a long-ass read that could have been a lot longer but Rolling Stone opted to leave out interviews with the perpetrators at the request of the victim.
What the fuck kinda *journalism* is that?
Here's my story. I only ask that you take my word as gospel and not interview any suspects....
Rolling Stone now sees that putting so much trust in her was "misplaced". Not a good idea. Duh.
I'm not a regular RS reader but I have enjoyed them over the years and, most recently, with various reports by actual journalist, Matt Taibbi, whose work actually does get fact checked.
Was there a rape at the campus? Probably. Poor reporting doesn't change that. The Rolling Stone article was no grand jury whitewash. It was close but, holds no legal standing.
This past week Fox *news* called out Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for erroneously including a black youth in California who had died (in police custody) of a drug overdose, in a segment about young black men who had been murdered by police. Stewart's team dropped the ball on that one and in Fox's blurry vision, that fumble of his wiped the Fox slate clean. Stewart pointed out that he has to be right 100% of the time. Fox only has to be right once. They probably agreed with him on that.
Jon Stewart's people are very good at what they do. It may be "fake news" but they use real facts and figures to entertain us with their fake news. Jon and Steven Colbert are regarded as the most trusted men in news. That's no joke. Our two funniest men have more integrity than network anchors.
Rolling Stone is very highly regarded too. The aforementioned Matt Taibbi was aghast at RS's actions and inaction's. In fact, the editor responsible was one that Taibbi found to be thorough to an aggravating (to him) degree.
So, why did this happen? Well, people make mistakes. They have bad days. They misplace trust.
But, like Rolling Stone and Jon Stewart, they own up to it and they move on, striving to do better. They have to- they are journalists and they are not perfect. We don't need them to be perfect but we do need them to try.
You see, without them we are at the mercy of the lawyers, politicians, and those that look for the loopholes everywhere in life. It's nice to believe that the truth will set you free but, more often than that, doesn't it usually seem to be technicalities?
What the fuck kinda *journalism* is that?
Here's my story. I only ask that you take my word as gospel and not interview any suspects....
Rolling Stone now sees that putting so much trust in her was "misplaced". Not a good idea. Duh.
I'm not a regular RS reader but I have enjoyed them over the years and, most recently, with various reports by actual journalist, Matt Taibbi, whose work actually does get fact checked.
Was there a rape at the campus? Probably. Poor reporting doesn't change that. The Rolling Stone article was no grand jury whitewash. It was close but, holds no legal standing.
This past week Fox *news* called out Jon Stewart of The Daily Show for erroneously including a black youth in California who had died (in police custody) of a drug overdose, in a segment about young black men who had been murdered by police. Stewart's team dropped the ball on that one and in Fox's blurry vision, that fumble of his wiped the Fox slate clean. Stewart pointed out that he has to be right 100% of the time. Fox only has to be right once. They probably agreed with him on that.
Jon Stewart's people are very good at what they do. It may be "fake news" but they use real facts and figures to entertain us with their fake news. Jon and Steven Colbert are regarded as the most trusted men in news. That's no joke. Our two funniest men have more integrity than network anchors.
Rolling Stone is very highly regarded too. The aforementioned Matt Taibbi was aghast at RS's actions and inaction's. In fact, the editor responsible was one that Taibbi found to be thorough to an aggravating (to him) degree.
So, why did this happen? Well, people make mistakes. They have bad days. They misplace trust.
But, like Rolling Stone and Jon Stewart, they own up to it and they move on, striving to do better. They have to- they are journalists and they are not perfect. We don't need them to be perfect but we do need them to try.
You see, without them we are at the mercy of the lawyers, politicians, and those that look for the loopholes everywhere in life. It's nice to believe that the truth will set you free but, more often than that, doesn't it usually seem to be technicalities?
Saturday, December 6, 2014
Revenge, party of one...
Hopefully Snopes gets a hold of this and debunks it before it becomes a major motion picture, but this has been making the internet rounds:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/05/louisa-manning-finally-gets-chance-to-smack-down-bully-from-middle-school-and-does-it-brilliantly/
I'm happy to see that the majority of commentators in the Facebook realm have been in concert with my take on it, and not like those fat losers that think the ugly fucking bitch is some kind of heroine.
Well, I wouldn't quite put it that way, not at this age, but I was pleased to see that most people's take on the whole thing was that the guy in the story had grown up and out of his childhood self and the girl had not.
It's great that she turned out to be attractive eight/ten years later but she's clearly still stuck in the emotional past. The boy, as man, is not. We don't know what he looks like but we can assume he's quite attractive because she did not happy dance at his weight gain, hair loss or disfiguring scars from a well-deserved tragedy. I think she very well would have delighted in those happenstances, had they happened. Her revenge was looking good and standing the guy up so that he would feel rejection. Ouch. That's "brilliant"?
Come now, is it fair to judge the guy by his 12 year old self, ten years after? If she is no longer a "hairy man-beast" maybe he is no longer a bully? Would you like to be judged by your 12 year old self?
I recall a former love of mine who was blonde, 5'7", 118 pounds- quite spankable, when this Ferrerman knew her. By almost all accounts she was all that and a bag of chips. Yet I spoke with a few women who insisted she was a "fat pig", not just back in school but fat pig emeritus, in their minds. Clearly these were young women who had bullied her at the time and reserved the right to bully her for the rest of her life, regardless of how she looked. Some people never grow up. Some people were assholes at 12 and would still be assholes ten, twenty- sixty years later. There's a word for people like that. The word is assholes. These girls were thisclose to that.
But, a lot of kids who were 12 years old at one point, are years and decades older now. They grew up, evolved, matured. Louisa Manning makes a deal of him asking her out instead of immediately apologizing to her. She presumes that dinner was to be a prelude to him fucking her now beautiful self. That may have crossed his mind but we don't get that story because she cut him off before dinner. That was her victory, her revenge.
I'm of the opinion that he most likely intended to make amends for his youthful indiscretions over a nice dinner while they caught up on the past ten years. Of course, he never got the chance. However, we did. He seemed to have turned out well. She's 12 years old with the body of a 22 year old. I won't diminish anyone's childhood torment here because I know full well how real that is for so many hundreds of millions of people. But at some point people have to get over it and realize that maybe they aren't 12 anymore and that maybe their tormentor grew up, while they did not.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/05/louisa-manning-finally-gets-chance-to-smack-down-bully-from-middle-school-and-does-it-brilliantly/
I'm happy to see that the majority of commentators in the Facebook realm have been in concert with my take on it, and not like those fat losers that think the ugly fucking bitch is some kind of heroine.
Well, I wouldn't quite put it that way, not at this age, but I was pleased to see that most people's take on the whole thing was that the guy in the story had grown up and out of his childhood self and the girl had not.
It's great that she turned out to be attractive eight/ten years later but she's clearly still stuck in the emotional past. The boy, as man, is not. We don't know what he looks like but we can assume he's quite attractive because she did not happy dance at his weight gain, hair loss or disfiguring scars from a well-deserved tragedy. I think she very well would have delighted in those happenstances, had they happened. Her revenge was looking good and standing the guy up so that he would feel rejection. Ouch. That's "brilliant"?
Come now, is it fair to judge the guy by his 12 year old self, ten years after? If she is no longer a "hairy man-beast" maybe he is no longer a bully? Would you like to be judged by your 12 year old self?
I recall a former love of mine who was blonde, 5'7", 118 pounds- quite spankable, when this Ferrerman knew her. By almost all accounts she was all that and a bag of chips. Yet I spoke with a few women who insisted she was a "fat pig", not just back in school but fat pig emeritus, in their minds. Clearly these were young women who had bullied her at the time and reserved the right to bully her for the rest of her life, regardless of how she looked. Some people never grow up. Some people were assholes at 12 and would still be assholes ten, twenty- sixty years later. There's a word for people like that. The word is assholes. These girls were thisclose to that.
But, a lot of kids who were 12 years old at one point, are years and decades older now. They grew up, evolved, matured. Louisa Manning makes a deal of him asking her out instead of immediately apologizing to her. She presumes that dinner was to be a prelude to him fucking her now beautiful self. That may have crossed his mind but we don't get that story because she cut him off before dinner. That was her victory, her revenge.
I'm of the opinion that he most likely intended to make amends for his youthful indiscretions over a nice dinner while they caught up on the past ten years. Of course, he never got the chance. However, we did. He seemed to have turned out well. She's 12 years old with the body of a 22 year old. I won't diminish anyone's childhood torment here because I know full well how real that is for so many hundreds of millions of people. But at some point people have to get over it and realize that maybe they aren't 12 anymore and that maybe their tormentor grew up, while they did not.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Conservative is in italics for a purpose
I wonder if, with the reactions of the last two grand jury *verdicts*, we're not getting a hard glimpse into the cowardly new world of a republican controlled United States?
Our conservative citizens are quite matter-a-fact about the penalty for theft and/or resisting arrest being death. I think I'd have Koch money if I had a dollar for every time I heard words to that effect coming out of conservative mouths. Eric Garner would be alive today if he hadn't resisted arrest. So would Mike Brown. Had he had better parents, Tamir Rice would have know better than to wave a fake gun around. All these blacks are dead because they flaunted the law. To conservatives that is the new, world order of things.
We saw this with- pick any of the school or theater shootings. The conservative reaction to everyone of those tragedies was "more guns". Now it's "do what you're told and you won't get killed".
You know who says that? The bad guys in the movies! That what you tell hostages in the bank!
The conservatives are telling us that, if we do what we're told, when we are told, we just might get outa this alive!
No, that's what the hero says. The conservatives are probably more apt to tell us to get in the boxcars in an orderly fashion. You know, 'cause if you don't, you get killed, right? Everybody knows that!
What country is it that these assholes want to take back, anyway?
Chris Rock says that the white people his children are meeting today are the best white people this country has ever produced. It didn't take me long to think about that and understand what he meant. It is true. But- fuck me a running- we've still got a long way to go. These conservative assholes still stand in the way, trying to slow everybody down. They must think there's money in it because it makes no other kind of sense. And let's face it- it's all about money with these fuckers. The only thing conservative about them is conserving their few brain cells for reasons they have yet to told why. I don't think we'll be expected to think much in their world.
Conservatives...it's just a family friendly way of saying Asshole-Americans, our oldest minority seeking their special rights....
Our conservative citizens are quite matter-a-fact about the penalty for theft and/or resisting arrest being death. I think I'd have Koch money if I had a dollar for every time I heard words to that effect coming out of conservative mouths. Eric Garner would be alive today if he hadn't resisted arrest. So would Mike Brown. Had he had better parents, Tamir Rice would have know better than to wave a fake gun around. All these blacks are dead because they flaunted the law. To conservatives that is the new, world order of things.
We saw this with- pick any of the school or theater shootings. The conservative reaction to everyone of those tragedies was "more guns". Now it's "do what you're told and you won't get killed".
You know who says that? The bad guys in the movies! That what you tell hostages in the bank!
The conservatives are telling us that, if we do what we're told, when we are told, we just might get outa this alive!
No, that's what the hero says. The conservatives are probably more apt to tell us to get in the boxcars in an orderly fashion. You know, 'cause if you don't, you get killed, right? Everybody knows that!
What country is it that these assholes want to take back, anyway?
Chris Rock says that the white people his children are meeting today are the best white people this country has ever produced. It didn't take me long to think about that and understand what he meant. It is true. But- fuck me a running- we've still got a long way to go. These conservative assholes still stand in the way, trying to slow everybody down. They must think there's money in it because it makes no other kind of sense. And let's face it- it's all about money with these fuckers. The only thing conservative about them is conserving their few brain cells for reasons they have yet to told why. I don't think we'll be expected to think much in their world.
Conservatives...it's just a family friendly way of saying Asshole-Americans, our oldest minority seeking their special rights....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)