I have an update!

Does anyone have this blog in their feed?  I mean, it's been so long since I wrote anything here.  Is anyone getting a notification that it's been updated?  (Send me an email, won't you?)

I have a story to tell you.  I'm just too tired to tell it right now.  Meh.  I'll be back!  I promise!

Wow!

Remember how I used to blog all the time?  Seems like so long ago!  Meh.

I'm moving!

Have I updated this at all?  Do I ever update it?  What's happened to me?  Do you know anything that's been going on?  So much has been happening. 

Do you know that my parents are getting divorced?  We always knew my dad is a loser but after all these years, turns out he's also a lying scumbag.  He somehow managed to trick a 28-year-old girl (total white trash--I've met her) to fool around with him.  I strongly suspect she agreed to do it since she needs a job and he happens to be her boss.  Anyway in case you're a little slow, this means he cheated on my mom.  My mom who has put up with him being an inhumane asshole for almost four decades and who is the mother of his three kids and who who has inoperable cancer. 

Do you know that I started dating a guy in October in what was pretty much a fairy tale and that we quickly moved in together and that he turned out to be a basketcase of self-doubt and depression?  Did I mention passive aggression?  I loved him so much but I just couldn't deal with the stress of it.  He wasn't doing anything to help himself, even though I asked him to.  You can't be around that negativity all the time, ya know?  I was forced out of love with him.

You'd think that with these kinds of things going on, I'd be miserable.  But I'm not.  I'm still a happy person.  After all, my only real goal in life is to be happy.  Part of the responsibility of having such a goal is to rid myself of things that threaten my happiness.  As such, I got rid of the father and sadly I had to get rid of the boy. 

The apartment I got with the boyfriend is a very nice place but it's more space than I need and at $795 a month, it's more than I want to pay.  Since I moved to Philly, all I ever wanted was a studio.  A small space where I can store myself and my belongings.  So last week, I began using the internet to find out what kinda prices I can expect for studio apartments.  My lease isn't up until December so this research was just for informational purposes but I was contacted by a girl who's looking to upgrade from her studio to a 1BR.  (Ironically, she needs more room because her boyfriend is moving in.) 

We met this weekend and we like each others' apartments so in three weeks, I'm moving.  She lives on my street, less than one block south.  It's so amazing because I really want to live on Broad Street and I had no idea I could find a studio right here.  It faces the back so I lose my view of Center City but I'd stopped looking at it anyway.  I also won't be able to see the parade from my living room anymore...but that also means I won't have any of the road noise that comes with living on Broad Street.  I am totally cool with these trade-offs.  Plus, it's only $625!  It's $170 per month less than I was gonna be paying if I stayed in my current apartment.  Oh!  And check this out:  She has a portable washer & dryer in her apartment and she's giving them to me in exchange for my sofa and my dining room set!  I didn't have room for them anyway! 

Can you imagine?  A studio apartment for $625, right where I want to live, and with my very own washer & dryer!  Life is good!

Here we go! I'm going to be normal now!

It's 4:00 on Thursday afternoon.  In three hours, I'll walk out the door and when I come back, it'll be Monday morning at 8:30.  8:30 in the morning.  Yeesh.  And then I'll have to do that every day through Friday. 

Putting aside (for just one moment) the trouble I'll have waking up every weekday for the rest of my life, there will be traffic and long lines at Dunkin Donuts.  Then on the way home, there will be traffic again.  And now that I'll be working regular hours, the gym will be filled with other people who work regular hours--instead of being completely empty as I'm used to.

The upsides sound really great right now but it's yet to be seen whether I'm right about that.  I'll have off both Saturday and Sunday like normal people.  (I have always kinda wondered how those normal people live.  What's it like to go to a bar at, like, 8:00 p.m.--and not close the place?)  I'll be able to get home at, like, 6:15 p.m. and have a full night to be able to get things done (or movies watched or clothes cleaned).  And last but not least, I will be sitting over there (I'm pointing right now) with the normal-ish people. 

No more will I have to hear the constant bleating of that infantile (though over 50) moron, nor that of his new equally (alarmingly) immature partner in crime.  My god, they're perfect or each other.  And they can have this side of the building all to themselves.  Well, of course they'll have to share it with a few people.

They'll have to share with the kid on the other side of this wall whose obvious cocaine habit requires that he sniff loudly and clear his throat every minute or so.  (I once saw him lean out of his driver's side door and vomit onto the parking lot.) 

They'll have to share with angry foreigner--who seems as if he could blow up at any moment and who refuses to get a tighter grasp on the English language than the relatively loose one he's had since I met him. 

They'll have to share with the little intern who could, 400 lb's of battering ram who's always trying to prove he's a man...and who doesn't seem to realize he's hopelessly in love with the girl who sits on the other side of his wall.  Everyone else seems to realize it but mostly because it makes us nauseous. 

Looking at things that way, the pros have to outweight the cons!  I think I'll have a drink tonight to celebrate!

Cafferty Commentary: Time for Cheney to go hunting

Jack Cafferty and I don't always agree but he is right on the money this time.  No way I could have said it better.  I've tried but ended up nowhere near as eloquent.  And the second-to-last paragraph is so true...

Commentary: Time for Cheney to go hunting

[SOURCE:  cnn.com] -- It's time for the Republican Party to tell former Vice President Dick Cheney to put a sock in it.

Here we are 100 days into the new administration of Barack Obama, and Darth Vader is still wandering around grumbling about why the new administration is all wrong.

Nobody is interested anymore, Mr. Vice President. You and your gaggle of miscreants had your shot, and we are in the toilet because of it. Don't you get it?

The election of this nation's first African-American president and his massacre of John McCain in the Electoral College is because of you and President Bush and the myriad problems you left us all with.

Last week, you were predicting President Obama's economic policies would have devastating effects in the long term. This from a member of an administration that more than doubled the national debt in eight years and gave $700 billion to its buddies on Wall Street, no questions asked. You're a little short on credibility when it comes to the economy, don't you think?

We are reading about enhanced interrogation memos written by lawyers at the Justice Department that authorized the United States of America to behave like some Third World gang of hoodlums like the Taliban or al Qaeda.

Two members of al Qaeda were waterboarded 266 times in a single month in violation of the Geneva Conventions as well as other international agreements we are signatories to. Who authorized those memos to be written, Mr. Vice President?

President Obama has done an about-face and said he now favors an investigation into those memos. Where will that investigation lead, Mr. Vice President? This country used to stand for something before you and President Bush got your hooks into it.

Now our reputation is shot, we are bankrupt, we continue to fight two wars that you started and the economy is in the worst recession since the Great Depression. And you have the temerity to go around criticizing those who replaced you? How dare you?

If the Republican Party has any hopes of redeeming itself in the eyes of the voters, they must distance themselves from the likes of Dick Cheney and the fundamentalist right-wingers who have become the poster children of political intolerance in this country.

Why do you think some members of your party are suggesting you embrace same-sex marriage? Because of a change of heart? I doubt it. More likely, the wiser heads in the party recognize that without some nod toward inclusion of someone besides the extremists you represent, your party's political chances going forward hover between slim and none.

Please, go quail hunting and leave the rest of us alone.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Jack Cafferty (and me!).

Bea Arthur

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true
You're a pal and a confidante

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say
Thank you for being a friend

Those are the cutest microphones I have ever seen

Republicans are all bottoms!

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was on FOX News (naturally) yesterday and he was talking about how there are no "factions" of the Republican party.  A lot has been said lately about so-called liberal issues (liberals, moderates, and otherwise clear-thinking individuals call them "civil rights issues") causing problems for the Republican party. 

One of the big topics in recent days has been gay marriage.  A lot of Republicans are now saying the party is going to have to start supporting it if they want to ever again have any political power.  (This doesn't mean they'll actually support it.  It means they'll openly pretend to support it since their current out-of-touch stance is making it increasingly difficult to win elections.) 

During the segment, Steels made a shocking admission.  He said the GOP had "bottomed and we hope that's the case."  He cautioned, "whether or not you've bottomed or not, you better have something to say to the American people."  (Whether or not or not?)

For years, I've been hoping the Republicans would stop being so anti-gay.  But I never intended for them to all rush out and get fucked in the ass.  I mean, I'm gay and I don't even do it!  But hey, if it helps turn them around (pun intended), I guess I'm all for it. 

Miss California blames pageant loss on her own homophobia

Miss California Carrie Prejean is claiming that she lost the Miss USA title last night because of her anti-gay answer to a question about same-sex marriage. 

To be fair, one of the judges was Perez Hilton so the pageant instantly loses any previous shred of credibility.  And let's face it, a pageant that isn't even Miss America is already skating on pretty thin ice.

During the pageant, Hilton asked her for her opinion on same-sex marriage.  Her reply:  "In my country, and in my family, I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman."  The audience made some noise but it was hard to tell whether they were happy, sad, or wondering what country she was talking about and how she got in the Miss USA pageant in the first place.  Later in the evening, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton, having not mentioned whether she's a friend of Dorothy, sneaked off with the crown.

Prejean stuck to her guns in an interview today, telling Billy Bush (don't even get me started on that one) that she said what she feels and was true to herself so she wouldn't have it any other way.  She insists the anti-gay answer is why a prettier girl won instead of her. 
 
Then Prejean said something almost as appalling as what she said last night:  "I feel like I'm the winner. I really do."  For evidence, she pointed to her 200+ friend requests and 1,000 new messages on Facebook. 

Poor, misguided, not-quite-as-pretty-or-smart-as-Miss-Carolina thing!  Looks like someone forgot to tell her the rules:  Being really popular on the Internet can get you disqualified from American Idol but it can't make you Miss USA.  

Rethinking gun control

Anyone who knows me knows that I hate when people sneeze.  I literally find it disgusting.  The sound of a sneeze can often be quite sickening and I don't want to be responsible for making others hear it.  Personally, when I have to sneeze, I try to get as far away from others as I can.  I don't think it's appropriate to inconvenience them with thousands of particles of my saliva coming at them at hundreds of miles per hour.  If I have no choice, I rush to find something with which to cover my mouth.  Other people of course aren't as considerate.

Speaking of inconvenience, the ShopRite near my job keeps moving their salad bar.  It is now in its third--and least convenient--location since the beginning of the year.  All three locations have been clear across the store from the beverages so if you stop in to pick up a salad for lunch--presumably what the salad bar is for--and you'd also like a beverage, you are forced into an unprovoked cardio workout.

Today, during my hike from the salad bar to the iced tea, I spotted a man standing in front of the poultry, holding onto a package of chicken parts.  To be completely frank, he was appalling even without sneezing.  He was at least a hundred pounds overweight, his clothes were dirty (in addition to being unfashionable), and his hair had clearly not seen shampoo or a professional scissor in many a moon.  Oh, and the index finger of his right hand was wiggling around in his right ear, presumably trying to find something that had made its way in there.  Disgusted as I was by the very sight of him, things only went downhill from there.

As I approached, he sneezed.  He didn't bother to cover his mouth and he didn't appear to care who saw.  As we've established, he's grossly overweight, he doesn't clean his clothes, he doesn't wash his hair, and he ear-fishes in public.  He has to know he's a lost cause so we can hardly expect him to care what others think of him. 

Now this was not just a garden variety, run-of-the-mill sneeze.  This detestable pig-man is so lazy, he couldn't even be bothered to open his mouth.  So the sneeze was forced through pursed lips.  It was an extended, obviously wet release of spit and god-knows-what-else which he sprayed all over the entire display of poultry, as well as the package of chicken in his left hand.  His mouth was actually aimed at the chicken he was holding.

As I passed, I actually uttered the word "disgusting" out loud.  And when I turned the corner toward the iced teas, I saw him put back his package of chicken, apparently having decided he didn't want that one after all.

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Starting May 4, my work schedule will be changing to Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.  (It was previously Sunday through Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.)  I am scared!  I've tried this in the past and it's never worked.  Although I'd venture a guess that I was single when I've tried this in the past and that's why it never worked. 

Now that I'm in a relationship where I actually live with the guy--and Benny is also currently looking for a position with a normal schedule--I imagine things will make much more sense.  It's not like I'm going to be in bars until 2:00 a.m. on weekdays.  I will definitely be in bars.  Just not til closing time.  (I haven't gone out since we started dating and I'm not going to act like I don't miss it.  Of course, the experience will be totally different as a person in a relationship.  So who knows?)

Anyway, if Benny's going to sleep at 11:00 p.m., it's not like I'm going to stay up tinkering on the computer or heading out to the bars.  It'll be bedtime in our house.  so I'll go to bed.  God, I just hope I can fall asleep!

Conservatives upset over Obama commencement. (Yawn!)

CNN and other news outlets have been reporting that conservative groups are upset that the University of Notre Dame has invited President Barack Obama to be the commencement speaker at its graduation ceremony.  Now comes news that the Catholic bishop of South Bend, Indiana has announced he will not attend the ceremony because of it.  I had the same reactions to both pieces of news:  Who is surprised?  And who gives a fuck?  I mean, seriously:  Could anyone care less about the Catholic bishop of South Bend, Indiana? 

Two things real quick

1. I just overheard my co-worker on the phone saying, "more than the universe."  It was obvious that he was being forced to answer the eternal question "How much do you love me?"  But he was answering with that weary tone that lets you know he's really thinking, "Aww, fuck.  Shit's been going on long enough.  This bitch needs to go!"  
2. I can't wait to start my new schedule.  May 3.  That is so far away.  A whole other month and a half of sitting with these people who are all obviously infected with whatever virus makes you sneeze most frequently and cough the loudest (and most productively).  Mostly, I can't wait to get away from that short, round, pink fucker.  He is so annoying.  And fuckin ugly.  He looks like a cartoon pig with the face of a cartoon frog.  An ugly cartoon frog.

No Saturday mail delivery? Fuck you bitches!

The postmaster general asked Congress today to lift the requirement that the postal service deliver mail six days a week.  He wants them to allow him to cut Saturday mail delivery.  Well then you know what, bitch?  You'd better also cut the price of stamps!  (Yet another rate increase is schedule for May, which takes a lot of balls considering this latest news, don't you think?)

This really galls me because I am currently in the midst of a postal service fiasco.  I moved a three months ago and the pigs still haven't managed to forward my mail!  They have my old address (an apartment with another apartment above it) in their system as non-residential so the change of address can't be done online.  I contacted them about the error twice but get this:  They told me point-blank they have no intention of fixing the error! 

So I printed their little old skool Change of Address form and left it for my mail carrier, which it says to do right on the form.  I put it in my mailbox with huge red lettering stating "FOR MAIL CARRIER - CHANGE OF ADDRESS REQUEST."  And for six days, that lazy pig opened the box and pretended he didn't see it.  When I taped it to the outside of the box, making it so obvious he could no longer pretend it he'd missed it, he finally took it.  But the mother fucker obviously threw it away because it never got processed. 

There's also an address on the form so I found a stamp and put the letter in an envelope with the exact address stated on the form.  It was returned to me with no explanation.  Just a huge stamp of a hand pointing its index finger.  I have no time for this bullshit so my boyfriend took the envelope to an actual post office where he encountered yet another lazy pig.  The lazy pig told him the address on the envelope was incomplete.  THE ADDRESS ON THE ENVELOPE WAS A PERFECT-TO-THE-LETTER COPY OF THE ADDRESS STATED ON THE FORM! 

Aside form that whole drama, the US postal service is one of the worst organization I can even think of.  It consists of a bunch of lazy assholes who get paid too much and do too little.  You know what Congress should do about the postmaster general's request?  They should just shut the thing down and the American public get things delivered via paid services like FedEx or UPS.  "There, postmaster:  Your funding issues are solved.  Now get lost!"

Republican Phil Gingrey's vagina apologizes for criticizing Rush Limbaugh

Last week, big fat drug addict and radio host Rush Limbaugh said on his show that he hopes President Obama "fails" and went on to sharply criticize Republicans who've said they hope Obama succeeds.  Pretending to not be one of them, Limbaugh said, "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down.  I hope he fails." 

His comments brought angry responses from Democrats and Republicans alike.  And rightly so:  With America teetering on the brink of collapse, there's perhaps never been a time when it was more important for our president to succeed.  Republican lawmakers realize that in order to fix the country, we need to put partisan bickering aside and get things done.  But without partisan bickering, Rush Limbaugh is left with nothing but empty prescription bottles and empty KFC buckets.  Thus, his idiotic comments.

In repudiating Limbaugh, Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia told Politico, "It's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks.  You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party."  Then Gingrey got a backlash of his own:  Conservatives flooded his office with phone calls, forcing him to, as school children say, "take it back."

What his mouth giveth, his vagina taketh away.  His lady parts released a statement which included:  "I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives.  That was not my intent.  As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so-called 'stimulus.'  And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh."

And his sheeplike constituents ate it all up.

Environmental Thuggery

In an interview published Monday ,Republican senator James Inhofe (anyone ever heard of him?) has called President Obama's plan to let 14 states regulate their own fuel emission standards "environmental thuggery."  Obama issued an executive order seeking to reduce greenhouse gases by allowing states to require stricter fuel standards for cars. 

The federal government's fuel standards guidelines are thought by  many to be lax and many states have wanted for a long time to enforce stricter limits on themselves.  There's no reason to stop them from doing so except that it could be harmful to industries--industries who give a lot of money to Republicans.  So it should come as no surprise that federal government--then under the control of former Texas governor (and Republican) George W. Bush--explicity prohibited them from doing so.

And Obama is the thug?  C'mon, Inhofe.  Get your head out of your ass.

It's over!

I can't believe it.  After eight long years, Bush & Cheney's reign of terror has finally come to an end.  Surprising is that no one forced it to an end before today.  Even worse, if history is any indicator, the GOP gets to start fucking things up again eight years from today.  For now, however, we heave a sigh of relief and pray that the new administration has enough time and assistance to get our country back on the right track.

How can that be?

In the two seconds before I turned off the radio, the announcer said, "For tickets to this once-in-a-lifetime event, happening October 10th and 11th, call..."  How, I wondered, can it be a once-in-a-lifetime event if it's occurring twice? 

CNN hits a new low: Hillary's body language

As many of you may know, I have retired from discussing politics until after the general election.  This post may look like I'm reversing that position but I can guarantee you I am not.  This post is about CNN and news coverage in general.

 

In recent years, people are increasingly getting their news from the internet.  And for good reason:  It's been a lot easier to find actual, unbiased news and to form one's own opinion.  Television news—for decades the dominant way people got information—has become nothing more than agenda-laden video tabloids.  It should come as a surprise to no one that the same thing is happening to the internet news sites. 

 

The Internet has been lousy with stories of how the Clintons don't want Barack Obama to win.  The stories are fabricated at best since there's no real way to substantiate them.  All the stories have been based on conjecture and some even include quotes from Democratic figures…but none of the quotes state any actual facts.  It's pathetic

 

With so much news in the world to cover, the media will not let go of this ridiculous notion that the Clintons want to sabotage the Democrat's chances of winning back the White House and fixing this country.   

 

Last night, Hillary Clinton gave an amazing speech during the second night of the Democratic National Convention and she did exactly what Obama and the Democrats needed her to do.  She made glowing comments about Obama and Biden (and about Michelle Obama).  She explained why she supports Obama and that she believes we need to elect him.  And perhaps most importantly, she explained to her supporters that they were involved in her campaign not for Hillary Clinton but for the shared Democratic ideals.  She told the crowd that she is not the nominee and that the only possible way to further the fight they were sharing is to elect Barack Obama President of the United States of America. 

 

Hillary has already done more for Barack Obama than could ever be expected from someone who was locked with him in a historic nomination battle.  And last night, she left no doubt that she's on board with the Obama/Biden campaign.    

 

So today, in an obviously desperate bid to somehow keep the story alive despite Hillary's speech, CNN went with a story asking "What did Hillary Clinton's body language give away at the Democratic National Convention?" 

 

Yep.  Her body language.  This is doesn't sound like something suitable for CNN.  In fact it doesn't even sound like something suitable for FOX News.  (And almost anything is suitable for FOX News!)  No, this story looked more like something out of an old Maury or Montell Williams show.

 

They actually had a "body language expert" (is there some sort of organization that gives out such credentials) who said that her body language was less than an unequivocal endorsement of Barack Obama.  He admits that the words did offer that…but just, you know, not her body language.  He actually mentioned that her cheeks weren't lifting very much.  Well dude, she's sixty years old.  Maybe that's just the way things work. 

 

The so-called-expert is quoted as saying "I don't think that helped move the 30 percent of her supporters who say they won't vote for Obama."  Who the fuck cares what a body language expert thinks about politics?  CNN has done some questionable stories in the past but this, in my opinion, is for them a new journalistic low.

 

I have never written an e-mail to CNN before but I couldn't stop myself today…    

 

Are you guys kidding?  I mean, really?  I am embarrassed for you.  You should take the item down.  Hillary finally showed you that she is on board so you scraped the absolute bottom of the barrel—a body language analyst—to try to keep this media-made Obama vs. Clinton non-story alive.  There's another news story you might want to consider covering instead:  Obama vs. McCain.  Or maybe spend some time updating your electoral college map instead of skimming the bottom of a cess pool for "articles" I doubt even FOX would run.  If you can't tell, I am getting pretty disgusted and wondering where I should be turning for news.  

LUBE isn't a petroleum product, right?

Have Republicans and their friends in Big Oil actually lost their minds? Or is it just that they know how complacent (see also "lazy," "stupid") Americans tend to be?

GOP lawmakers are currently upset with Democrats for blocking Big Oil's attempts to grab more federal land for off-shore drilling. Doing so may well lower the price of oil--in the very, very long run--but since when are oil companies interested in bringing down the price of oil? Please stop being so stupid, America. Big Oil doesn't want lower prices at the pump. And neither do Republicans.

Allowing off-shore drilling is upsetting to many people for many reasons, not the least of which are environmental concerns, but even more so because the oil companies don't even need another land grab. Big Oil already has over 40 million acres of federal waters in which they could be drilling--but aren't. FORTY MILLION ACRES! They've simply made no attempt to develop the existing properties.

Now why do you think Republicans are trying to hand Big Oil more places to drill--places closer to our shores--when the companies already have 40 million acres they're not even using? Especially at this point in the history of our world, when lawmakers should be convincing companies to come up with alternate, cleaner energy sources? Think about it, America.

And while GOP lawmakers are complaining about Democrats holding up passage of this obnoxious plan, Republicans have been busy stopping Democrats from passing bills that would do useful things that are actually in the best interest of Americans. Things like making gas pump price-gouging a federal offense and taxing the record-breaking windfall profits Big Oil has been earning during this "crisis."

How exactly is it in the best interest of US citizens--not to mention US law--to allow price-gouging to be legal? Republicans actually expect us to believe they think price-gouging isn't as prevalent as it obviously is. Just in case any of us are bright enough to realize that can't possibly be right, Republicans also say it would be difficult to enforce such a law. But there is no legitimate defense. They simply don't want Big Oil getting pissed at them, especially considering the huge chunks of those windfall profits that somehow end up in Republican coffers. And how does it not make sense to tax the profits--profits which have increased in an almost unbelievable way--of these oil companies who are obviously, clearly, unquestionably, inarguably ripping us off?

I'm sick of Americans being so stupid. And I'm sick of Republican lawmakers being such sleazy scumbags. But you know what else really pisses me off? That Democratic lawmakers just repeatedly bend over and allow themselves--and us--to get fucked. DO SOMETHING!

Gotta make a move to a town that's right for me

Next weekend my life is going to change in a very drastic way and it's kinda starting to freak me out. For years, I've moved almost annually from one apartment to another and I've almost always had more space than any one person could ever require. During those years, rents in my area of South Jersey have exploded to the point where none of the apartments are worth it. No basic one-bedroom apartment in South Jersey is worth $900. There's no justification other than the fact that people are forced to pay it because they can't get mortgages. I wouldn't have a problem getting a mortgage...but I certainly don't want one. So I'm moving to South Philly with a roommate in a small apartment with no washer, no dryer, no dishwasher, and no parking space.

This is a lot to get used to. I'll be sharing a bathroom for one thing, which is just something I never can quite wrap my brain around. After years of needing to do my laundry in machines being used by only me, I will be figuring out the ins and outs of schlepping everything to and from a laundromat. (I still have no idea how people do t-shirts, which obviously need to be ripped from the dryer after ten minutes and hung immediately.) And with my worse-than-garbage sense of direction, I can't believe I'll be looking for parking spaces every night and expecting to remember where my car is when I wake up the next day.

My bedroom is a good size which is important because it's where I'm going to be living for the most part. The rest of the apartment consists of a bathroom, a kitchen, and a living room--and the living room has been converted to the second bedroom! Even though my room is big, I have been standing in my current living room, staring at the boxes I've packed and wondering just where in the hell I think it's all going to go.

Still, this is exciting. Living with my new roommate is certainly part of the adventure because I've known him for years but not that well and I'd never even considered what it might be like to live with him. I'll be incurring some new costs (tolls coming over the bridge from work every day, a laundromat, almost-certainly-higher auto insurance, and the occasional cab) but they should be more-than-outweighed by what I'm saving in rent, which is going from $825 to $325. Yeah, that's $500 a month back into my budget. Can you even imagine? It's like getting a $6,000 raise.

Even more exciting, however, is that I love South Philly. I mean, I fucking love it. And all my friends suddenly live there. Amy & Paul, Sandy, Vince, Todd, Dane... The list goes on and on. Plus, my favorite restaurant is, like, two minutes away.

So it's going to be an adventure in that it'll be a totally different way of life...but it's also going to save me a ton of money...and it's going to be a blast because I'll be in a place I love and surrounded by people I love. Who could ask for anything more?

Obama campaign pretends they can win without Florida and Ohio

See? This is the scary part. Barack Obama is once again unable to seal the deal. This time, it's in a really big way. And Democratic leadership knew about it even as they turned the other way and handed him the nomination. It's as if they don't want a Democrat to be president. There continues to be no indication that Obama can win three all-important battleground states in November so his people are publicly saying they can win the general election without the benefit of Florida and Ohio. It's bullshit.

Democrats have long acknowledged it's nearly impossible to win the presidency without carrying Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Looking toward November, none of those states is in Obama's column. All three are "toss-up" states, meaning they aren't exactly in John McCain's column either. But based on the demographics and the results of the past couple elections, it's hard to even wish Florida might go to anyone other than McCain. The vast majority of Pennsylvania is made up of red-necks (the "bitter," gun-toting ones you may have heard about). Fortunately, they are bordered to the west by Pittsburgh and to the east by Philadelphia. These two cities often outweigh the rest of the commonwealth and ensure a nice blue hue on political maps. But that's never seemed more like a long-shot than it does now: Pennsylvania loved Hillary Clinton and really disliked some of the things Barack Obama said in the lead-up to the primary. Ohio, by the way, is anyone's guess.

Obama's campaign is slicing up the map into all these hypotheticals; talking about how they might win Virginia, Georgia, and a bunch of Rocky Mountain states and how that could be enough to get them by without benefit of Florida and Ohio. You might remember Ohio giving George Bush the election in 2004. Even more vividly, you may remember an extremely close vote and a stopped recount in Florida which began the destruction of this once-fine country by handing Bush the election four years before that.

Obama's campaign manager made a private pitch last week to donors and former Clinton supporters during which he went over "several alternatives" to reaching the magic number of 270 (the number of electoral votes needed to win the White House). I wasn't there so I can't say whether he also indicated it might be possible to win the election the way Democrats have in the past--by winning the important battleground states. But it's worrisome that he had to offer "several alternatives" to it.

My plea to the Obama folks: Campaigning "around" these three states is not going to work. Let's not pretend Florida and Ohio's combined 47 electoral votes aren't important. Considering Obama stands a good chance of losing Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio have actually never been more important. You fought for this nomination, knowing full-well you were the weaker candidate. To beat John McCain, you have to work harder than Hillary Clinton would have. Now is not the time for excuses, wishful thinking, and fuzzy math that somehow, hopefully equals 270. Get out there and do the work.

One Week Later: Examining the Latest Failure of Democratic Leadership

You know, I was really hoping that I'd experience this shift everyone's been talking about for the past few months. General wisdom dictated that whichever candidate won the Democratic nomination, supporters of the other candidate would instantly line up in support of the nominee.

I still can't understand why the Democratic super-delegates gave the nomination to Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton. She is, after all, inarguably more electable vs. John McCain. But I've given up trying to understand these things. Since November of 2000, it's become crystal clear that US politics--as well as the US judicial system--is almost completely nonsensical. With the country in such rotten shape, the November election is one the Democrats would have to try to lose. And they're well on their way.

My problem is that I haven't felt this shift everyone's talking about. It's been a week now and it's just not happening. I was fired up for Hillary. My excitement was based on what I know about her; memories which stretch all the way back to the glorious, progressive 1990s when the country was being run by Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. When it comes to Barack Obama, there's no excitement.

I have the same reservations I've had all along. Although he's a great speaker with lots of sparkly-sounding thoughts and ideas, he's awfully young and obviously wet behind the ears. Plus, he's black! Now anyone who knows me can tell you I'm not a racist. But mine isn't the only vote that counts. Anyone who mentioned race during the campaign was instantly thrown under a wheels of the Straight Talk Express. But let's face facts: A black man has an uphill battle trying to get votes in this country. Sadly, racism is alive and well in this country. It's a "non-change you can depend on."

Nothing could have stopped me from voting for Hillary Clinton. If the polls in my state showed her with a 99-point advantage over John McCain, I would still get in line and cast my vote. And I am sure I'll...you know, probably vote for Barack Obama. Of course, if the polls show he's going to win in my state anyway (not a guarantee as it would have been with Hillary), I may just stay home and hope the polls are right. I'm just not excited enough to care.

Therein lies the danger: I am surely not the only Democrat who feels that way. How many people will be staying home instead of voting for the Democrat? It's almost as damaging as going out and voting for the Republican (which I'd never do because protest votes are stupid and I am not stupid). Anyway, am I a Democrat? I only registered as one so I could vote in the primary...and look where that got me.

I knew it was too good to last...

The weather has been far too cool so far this season.  I have suspicions that the seasons are shifting due to global warming.  Not only are we getting warmer, but the seasons seem to be starting and ending later than they used to.  Regardless, the National Weather Service has issued the season's first Excessive Heat Watch for Saturday afternoon through Sunday evening.  The forecast is for "hot and humid" weather, including our first official heat wave (three consecutive days with highs at or above 90º).  

The NWS statement actually says "Heat index values will easily make it into the upper 90s & possibly even reach 100 degrees or higher, making it uncomfortable for anyone to be outdoors."  Uncomfortable to be outdoors.  For anyone.  Anyone!

Super-delegates are about to super-fuck us

I'm looking again at the "polls of polls" and Hillary Clinton is still clearly more electable against John McCain than Barack Obama.  There is still every indication that Democratic Super-delegates who care about this country (as opposed to only caring about their own re-elections) should swing the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

Looking at the national popular vote, Hillary and Obama both have slight edges over McCain.  Hillary beats him by a slightly larger margin but that doesn't really matter.  We all know that a popular vote win--even if it's half-a-million votes--doesn't get you the keys to the White House.

What matters are the battleground states which give electoral votes to the Democrat or the Republican candidate.  As I've told you previously, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are always the biggies.  It's almost impossible for a Democrat to win a general election without taking two of those three states.  So how do things stand in the most recent "polls of polls"?

• Florida:  John McCain beats Hillary by 0.3 points.  (That will of course swing one way and the other--probably several times--between now and November.)  McCain beats Obama by 7.9 points.  That would require a hell of a swing.
• Ohio:  Hillary beats McCain by more than 6 points.  Obama loses to McCain by 0.2 points.
• Pennsylvania:  Hillary beats McCain by more than 8 points.  Obama's lead currently stands at less than 2 points.

There are lots of other states with plenty of electoral votes but those three are ultra-important.  Hillary and Obama perform similarly in polls of other battleground states like Michigan, Georgia, New York, and Texas.  Massachusetts popped into my mind for some reason so I checked that states polls before any of the others.  Hillary beats McCain there by almost 18.5 points!  But McCain creams Obama by almost eight. 

The whole idea of having super-delegates is to make sure Democrats have the best nominee in November if the primaries and caucuses don't get either candidate to the magic number of delegates.  If the super-delegates don't put Hillary in the general election, they are defeating their entire purpose.

The "Click It or Ticket" Scam

I am so sick of government and elected officials bullshitting us why they steal our hard-earned money.  The DRPA announced today that, beginning May 19th and running through June 2nd, they will be assisting the South Jersey police to "step up enforcement and education of the state's Primary Seat Belt Law." 

John J. Matheussen, CEO of DRPA and President of PATCO, is quoted as saying "The intent of the 'Click It or Ticket' campaign is simple:  To save lives and prevent injuires."  Who do you think you're fooling, Johnny?  The intent of the campaign is and always has been to rake in money for the state by writing tickets for people who make a personal choice to not wear a seat belt. 

Here's an idea:  Instead of charging people who are causing potential harm to no one but themselves, how about adding incentives for people who do wear seat belts?  Didn't think so...

Nothing's changed: Clinton is still more electable than Obama

I still don't understand this nomination argument. The very concept of it makes no sense. A certain number of delegates are needed to clinch the nomination. There's no nominee until someone reaches that number. If no one can reach that number, it has to be decided by a committee. Though rarely applied, those are the rules. And here we are, needing to apply those rules. So why are people acting like the rules don't exist? Why are people saying one candidate--and the more electable of the two--should drop out of race for the nomination?

The only thing Barack Obama has going for him is that Democrats currently prefer him (although mildly) over Hillary Clinton as the nominee. But that doesn't matter. What matters is which of the two has a better chance of beating John McCain in the fall. And by that measure, Hillary's got it all over Obama.

Nationally, Hillary's got an edge over McCain of 2 - 5 points. Obama's got an edge too...but it's only 1 - 2 points. (For whichever wins the nomination, this edge will increase as Democrats circle the wagons. But I'd rather build on an existing 5 point lead, wouldn't you?)

Looking at polling for the upcoming primaries, Hillary will win West Virgina. She'll cream Obama in Kentucky. She'll win Oregon and it's not even fathomable that she might lose Puerto Rico. (I don't see any recent polls for South Dakota or Montana.)

You've heard of the "battleground states" which Democrats must win in a general election to clinch the presidency. Three such states--Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida--are always mentioned as being critically important since a Democrat typically can't win without taking at least two of them. Let's take a look at the most recent current polling for those states...

• Pennsylvania: Hillary beats McCain by more than 6 points. Obama is 0.2 points behind McCain.
• Ohio: Hillary's 7 points ahead of McCain. Obama is behind McCain by 1 point.
• Florida: Hillary is 0.3 points behind McCain. Obama loses to McCain by a landslide.

People can argue over how superdelegates should draw their conclusions and people can argue over who has more of the popular vote so far... People can argue about a lot of things. What cannot be argued, however, is a cold, hard fact that hasn't changed since day one: Hillary Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama.

If the superdelegates allow Barack Obama to become the nominee, there's no saying what will happen. (Although it's a pretty safe bet the GOP will tear him to shreds based on his inexperience, his name, and yes: his race.) If the superdelegates do what's right for the party and nominate Hillary Clinton, there's a much stronger chance we'll have a Democrat in the White House come 2009. What else matters?

"Nobody" named John Rich doesn't like Paula Abdul

Reuters reports:

Country artist and upcoming "Nashville Star" judge John Rich laid into "American Idol" judge Paula Abdul for her lack of attentiveness during a recent episode.

"'American Idol' infuriates me as an artist," Rich, of the multiplatinum country duo Big & Rich, said at an NBC press event in Pasadena, California. "They're being fake about it. When you can't make a cognizant comment about someone's performance and you're commenting on something that happened the day before, why don't you just walk up onstage and slap them right across the face while you're at it? As an artist, I would just flip them the bird and walk off the stage. ... She wasn't even paying attention to what was going on."

Question:  Who the fuck is John Rich and why does he think anyone cares what he thinks?

At any rate, American Idol had a pretty good smackdown in response to this nobody's ramblings...

In response to Rich's comments, Fox released a statement: "John Rich's ungentlemanly and opportunistic comments are particularly disturbing considering the fact he attended a taping of 'American Idol' last April, told producers, judges and performers he enjoyed himself and also did an interview with a crew from 'American Idol Extra' where he was extremely complimentary toward the show."

The shocking--and never-ending--stupidity of former Texas governor George W. Bush

CNN reports:  

The vast majority of Americans think things are going badly in the country, according to a new poll.  Seven in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say things are going badly, with only 30 percent saying things are going well.  

"It's been 16 years since the public gave the country's condition such a bad rating: January 1992, to be precise, in the last year in office of the last president named Bush," CNN pollster Keating Holland said.

Is it too obvious to ask whether you see a trend?  

Also, George W. Bush said today that the government's latest jobs figures showed that the economy is "not as robust" as it should be.  Do ya fuckin think so, Georgie?  

For the love of God, let's all fast-forward to January 2009.  It's well beyond time for this nightmare to end.

Finally!

Well, finally!  I may be able to get a normal life going again!  Starting this weekend, my work schedule will be Sundays through Thursdays, 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  I know that sounds like a nightmare but stop and give it a second thought.  About forty-seven Sundays out of each year are total bullshit.  The other four I can schedule as vacation days.  And when you work Sundays, there's on management and you can pretty much dress however you want.  It's a total throw-away day. 

Then you work Monday through Thursday...but you have off on Friday!  Umm, can you say "perfect?"  Oh, not perfect enough yet?  You wake up Saturday morning (or afternoon) and realize you don't have to work that day either!  And you can totally go out again that night because, seriously, you don't have anywhere to be until 10:00 the next morning!

Yeah, this is my dream schedule.  You Monday through Friday nine-to-fivers can have that shit.  It's for the birds.  I'll keep doing this for as long as I can! 

And BTW, for those of you who have been feeling neglected:  "I'm back" starting next week.  It'll be just like old times (but without years and years of George W. Bush ahead of us).

Stop the insanity: Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate

Hillary Clinton is more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election. So I don't understand the logic behind the assertions by Obama and his supporters that Hillary Clinton can't--or worse, shouldn't--win the nomination. The Democratic party has established a system which utilizes super-delegates. Regardless of its popularity, the system lets party bigwigs attempt to override the will of the people and install the strongest candidate as the nominee.

The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who the stronger candidate is. Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote. Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan. But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote. There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes. But you know what? I'll bend on this one: I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass. Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes." (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!)

Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination. So delegate count is no longer the issue. Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play. Super-delegates will decide the nomination. Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates. So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?

As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee. So the question is: How should super-delegates decide who to support? Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game. (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls. Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote. Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)

Here are the facts: Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House. As this primary season has proven, she outperforms Obama in California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Again: Hillary is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall.

So why are there still questions? The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate. The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton. This should be over.

Why is there any question as to who is the stronger candidate?

Hillary Clinton is more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election.  So I don't understand the logic behind the assertions by Obama and his supporters that Hillary Clinton can't--or worse, shouldn't--win the nomination.  The Democratic party has established a system which utilizes super-delegates.  Regardless of its popularity, the system lets party bigwigs attempt to override the will of the people and install the strongest candidate as the nominee.

The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who is the stronger candidate.  Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote.  Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan.  But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote.  There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes.  But you know what?  I'll bend on this one:  I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass.  Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes."  (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!) 

Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination.  So delegate count is no longer the issue.  Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play.  Super-delegates will decide the nomination.  Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates.  So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?

As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee.  So the question is:  How should super-delegates decide who to support?  Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November.  Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game.  (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls.  Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote.  Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)

Here are the facts:  Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House.  As this primary season has proven, she outperforms Obama in California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida.  Again:  Hillary is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall. 

So why are there still questions?  The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate.  The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton.  This should be over. 

Why is there any question as to who is the stronger candidate?

Hillary Clinton is more likely than Barack Obama to beat John McCain in the fall election.  So I don't understand the logic behind the assertions by Obama and his supporters that Hillary Clinton can't--or worse, shouldn't--win the nomination.  The Democratic party has established a system which utilizes super-delegates.  Regardless of its popularity, the system lets party bigwigs attempt to override the will of the people and install the strongest candidate as the nominee.

The question that boggles the mind is why people are still wondering who is the stronger candidate.  Try as you may (and as Obama does), you can't argue that Hillary has received more of the popular vote.  Obama doesn't think when you tally the popular vote, it should include the votes cast in Florida and Michigan.  But votes were cast in those states and they are part of the popular vote.  There is simply no arguing that Hillary has received more votes.  But you know what?  I'll bend on this one:  I'll let Obama and his supporters have a pass.  Undemocratic as it may be, let's just pretend for a second that it's not necessary to count "all the votes."  (Hell, that's how our current president got his job eight years ago!) 

Now, Obama has more delegates than Hillary but neither can reach the amount of delegates necessary to secure the nomination.  So delegate count is no longer the issue.  Hillary has more super-delegates and the remainder are still in play.  Super-delegates will decide the nomination.  Both candidates are still capable of wooing super-delegates.  So how, exactly, is it appropriate for one candidate to say the other should drop out?

As stated above, the very purpose of super-delegates is to ensure the strongest candidate becomes the nominee.  So the question is:  How should super-delegates decide who to support?  Clearly, they need to support the candidate who stands a better chance of winning in November.  Regardless of arguments to the contrary, it is the only thing that matters--especially at this late stage of the game.  (Don't give me a bunch of talk about the polls.  Nationwide polls don't matter because they estimate the popular vote.  Ask Al Gore if the popular vote is how presidential elections are decided.)

Here is a fact:  Hillary wins more of the battleground states needed to carry a Democrat into the White House.  Again, she is more likely than Obama to beat John McCain in the fall.  So why are there still questions?  The super-delegates need to start lining up behind the stronger candidate.  The stronger candidate is Hillary Clinton.  This should be over. 

Amazing: She did it!

Hillary Clinton is doing exactly what she needed to do in Pennsylvania. She needed something like a "double-digit" finish over Barack Obama to prove that she's more electable than he. With 88% of the precincts reporting, Hillary has that double-digit lead.

The fact of the matter is Obama isn't getting the votes he needed in the counties surrounding Philadelphia (Montgomery, Bucks, Delaware, and Chester). He needed to get a shitload of votes in those counties and even in the ones he won, it just didn't happen.

The irony is hearing the reporters who were saying she couldn't do it. Now that she's done it, they're moving the goal post. Now the problem is that she doesn't have enough money or she's not likable enough. When she's the nominee, the money will come rushing in...and likable or no, she's more electable than Barack Obama, especially in bellwether states (like, uhhhh, Pennsylvania).

And I'm really sick of hearing Larry Kane on KYW, who obviously doesn't like Hillary Clinton. I don't know if he's a Republican but he's certainly a Hillary-hater. The anchor on tonight actually had to argue with him (albeit, through a forced smile). Kane obviously has a horse in this race. Local celebrity or not (and regardless of this political season, I'd vote "no"), he shouldn't be covering this race.

Is it bad to smear someone by comparing him to Osama bin Laden? The GOP isn't sure.

Frank Donatelli, a longtime Washington lobbyist who has been feverishly working for John McCain and who last month took a post with the RNC as chief liaison to McCain's campaign, was being interviewed this afternoon on CNBC or MSNBC or one of those NBC-owned things.  (I wouldn't normally watch any of them but someone at work left the channel on in the break room.)

They showed a picture of a sign out front of a church.  The sign reads:  "OBAMA OSAMA/HUMM/ARE THEY BROTHERS?"  Sorry to say, this sort of political smear--which flies in the face of a little idea called separation of church and state--has become all too typical of organized religion. 

The question for Frank:  "Do Republicans condemn this sort of thing?"  Frank's response began, "Well...  I didn't even know about this until, um, until it was brought to my attention."  Well, yeah Frank.  That's pretty much how people find out about things. 

How appalling that anyone would have to stall before admitting it's not cool to smear one's opponent by comparing him to Osama bin Laden.  Sorry to say, this sort of thing has become all too typical of the shithead Republicans.