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.

Here we go...

It reached 84º today at Philadelphia International Airport.  I didn't know it was supposed to do this.  Was it a surprise?  Did they forecast this?  (Not that I'd be surprised to find out the weather people screwed up!  Is it just me or have they been absolutely atrocious since last fall?)  Now it's 7:30 p.m. and it's still in the 80's.  Yuck. 

I am always surprised at how quickly these transitions happen.  Two days ago, the low was 31º!  Now we've spent hours and hours in the 80's.  I mean, 84º:  That's sickening.  I'm going to Philly tonight and I half-expect to see those giant brown roaches running around the streets.  (But I do know they don't show up until the humidity kicks in.)

The National Weather Service has issued a statement about "fire weather concerns."  Fire!  Apparently, we are really done with winter weather.  (Actually, I don't remember the last time we had any winter weather.  Maybe the whole deal is a thing of the past.  Sad.)

Open letter to Hillary

Geoff Garin from the Clinton campaign sent a message to supporters recently asking for feedback about the campaign.  I've been sending money instead of feedback--and I was sure Hillary wouldn't see my message anyway--so I didn't respond.  Today, we got another e-mail from him which highlighted a few of the responses they've received.  He also asked for more feedback.  Here's what I sent:

After Hillary wins in Pennsylvania, it will have to be time to turn the screws on the super-delegates.  As you know, the longer this thing drags, the shorter the fall campaign gets.  It's well past the time that Hillary needs to be running for the presidency; not for the nomination.  The polls ask questions of the uneducated masses:  Truth is, we all know the GOP will tear Obama to shreds and that McCain will beat him handily.  After Pennsylvania, please just do what needs to be done to end this.  America can't stand--nor can she afford--another four years of this GOP dictatorship.

It's well past time to pick a candidate

Earlier today, a friend forwarded me a petition from moveon.org.  The point was to voice our collective outrage with the inanity of Wednesday night's debate/debacle.  Now, moveon.org scares me almost as much as al-Qaida so it's not like I pay much mind to their ramblings but they're not the only ones screaming about this.  The entire country, it seems, is up-in-arms over it.  Is this all we have to be up-in-arms about?

This whole uproar is pretty funny, in my opinion.  I think the fact that they're still debating at all is much more ridiculous than the way the debate was handled.  Clearly, after twenty debates, ABC decided to try something a little different.  People obviously didn't like it.  And personally, I didn't like it much either. 

But it was, like, their twenty-first debate (or something like that).  The fact of the matter is Americans already know where Clinton and Obama stand on the issues.  Since issues are no longer what's driving the contest, it appears ABC was simply focusing on what the rest of the country is focusing on:  Gaffes and hearsay.  It's pretty much all we have left to help swing this thing!

"Hope you don't get shot!"

So Philadelphia has some controversial, new gun control laws.  They are separate from the laws of the Pennsylvania because the city has a much higher murder rate than the rest of the commonwealth. 

Although it's clear that stricter gun control is necessary, the NRA is naturally pissed off.  They're suing the city, insisting Pennsylvania municipalities aren't allowed to create their own laws.  According to the Associated Press, lawyer C. Scott Shields, says "The city has no basis to pass any of these gun control ordinances and they know it."  ("And they know it"?  In the true spirit of the NRA, this guy argues like a five-year-old who's been grounded by his parents.)  The NRA, worrying only about money, apparently doesn't think it's basis enough that Philly's got a murder rate of about one-per-day. 

It is appalling that there are organizations who make a good deal of their money by knowingly putting guns into the hands of murderers.  Even more appalling is that they don't care.  They fight any and all attempts to reduce crime and save lives by making it harder for criminals to get guns.  Most appalling of all:  As a result of the lawsuit, Common Pleas Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan has blocked Philadelphia from enforcing the new laws.

And get a load of this:  In the news article, she's quoted as saying (partially under her breath), "Hopefully, nobody will be shot with a gun purchased [during the time she's stopping enforcement of the new law]."  Cute.  Instead of hoping no one will get shot--even though you know it's going to happen--how about not siding with the freakin NRA?  Blocking the new law from going into effect was ridiculous.

Obama: What a loser!

Oops. I meant to say he's a sore loser.

Barack Obama totally sucked it at the debate last night. Things were pretty subtle but when all was said and done, Hillary cleaned the floor with him. The debate itself was pretty shoddy. The moderators ribbed the candidates with trivial garbage for the first half of the event. Nothing of any substance--no topics that will matter a year from now--were brought up until the second half.

Particularly galling on the day after: Obama himself is one of the people publicly talking about how the debate was poorly executed. No sir, he didn't like it. Not one bit. Well, I guess not. He fuckin lost! Going out the next day and publicly squeezing his sour grapes isn't going to make his situation any better! In fact, drawing attention to his poor performance will likely make things worse. How unpresidential!

Americans are showing their stupidity again

I've said it before (2000 and 2004, for instance) and I'll say it again: The stupidity of Americans never ceases to amaze me. Forget about their bitterness. They're just plain stupid.

If you honestly think Barack Obama has more of the skills required to run this country than Hillary Clinton, you're an idiot. (If you believe John McCain is better, you're certifiably insane.)

The Pennsylvania debate starts in an hour. Due to this ridiculous work schedule, I won't be home to watch it. I just pray Obama's true colors (all shades of green, by the way) come through and Hillary gets in a good "one-two punch." America needs to wake the fuck up.

XM and Sirius get the OK...but Clear Channel may just be getting what they deserve

The Department of Justice, apparently eschewing its own name, approved the merger of XM and Sirius the other day. Apparently it matters not a whit that the company will present a monopoly which will lord an unfair advantage over terrestrial (local over-the-air) radio in every market across the nation. It's all about politics and money; about repaying favors. The Department of Justice, just like the FCC (and the current White House administration for that matter), is no more than a shill for big business. Disgusting.

On the lighter side of the news, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the buyout of Clear Channel is on the brink of collapse. And I say, "Bravo!" Clear Channel has been fucking consumers for years so they thought it'd be just as easy to fuck investment groups like Thomas H. Lee and Bain Capital Partners. What they weren't counting on was the immense approval delay which gave the financing banks time to stop and think, Just what the hell are we doing here?

Clear Channel has spent decades ruining the radio industry. It's no surprise they're trying to make millions on a bailout which is only necessary because of their own rape-and-pillage business model. They've made their bed and now they should be made to sleep in it.

Breakin the law! Breakin the law!

George W. Bush: The lamest of lame ducks?

I read a scary article in the Washington Post last week which detailed a Wednesday George W. Bush news conference.  Some harsh light was shed on what kind of leader this man is.

 

A reporter asked Bush what his advice is for American families who are "hurting now, facing the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing..."

 

Bush interrupted, "Wait, what did you just say?  You're predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline?"

 

In front of everyone in attendance, the reporter had to tell Bush that "a number of analysts are predicting $4-a-gallon gasoline."

 

"Oh, yeah?" Bush said.  "That's interesting. I hadn't heard that."  He hadn't heard that?!

 

In the hours and days preceding the news conference, $4-a-gallon gasoline was discussed on the front page of the New York Times and on The Today Show (NBC) and The Early Show (CBS).  It had also been predicted by automobile association AAA and covered by the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the New York Post, and the Dallas Morning News, to name but a few.  Earlier in the day, the White House press secretary took a question about $4-a-gallon gas at her morning press briefing. A poll last month found that nearly three-quarters of Americans expect $4-a-gallon gas.

 

But wait!  There's more:  When another reporter threw Bush a softball and invited him to talk shit on Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for not knowing much about new Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, Bush replied, "I don't know much about Medvedev either."  Whoa.

 

When a reporter asked Bush why he was going to attend the Olympic Games in China even though the country has a disgraceful human rights record, he said "I'm a sports fan."  Oh, well in that case, it's alright.  Certainly being a sports fan takes precedence over setting an example as the leader of the free world.

 

When Bush threatened that Turkey "must move [into Northern Iraq] quickly, achieve their objective, and get out," a reporter asked "How quickly, sir, do they need to move out?"

 

"You know," Bush replied.  "As quickly as possible."

 

"Days or weeks?" the reporter pressed.

 

"Well, as possible."

 

To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/28/AR2008022804135.html?referrer=emailarticle

Hillary Clinton: On to Pennsylvania! Wow!

I gotta tell ya, I am simply thrilled and amazed about what happened last night in Texas.  Early in the day, I had a feeling Hillary Clinton might pull out an upset…but it was a very cautious optimism.  (After all, in 2004, I was sure Americans wouldn't even come close to letting George W. Bush stay in office.  Stupid Americans!)  Until very recently (like the previous day?), polls showed Obama ahead in Ohio and Texas.  At the last minute,  Hillary pulled ahead in Ohio.  But Texas was still looking like it would go to the first-term Illinois Senator with the basket of speeches and dreams. 

 

When I tuned into the coverage, I planned to turn it off and start reading a book.  But it didn't work out that way.  And as much as I thought I could fight it, Hillary Clinton election coverage is like cashews.  I am addicted. 

 

I was pleased to see Hillary had won Ohio.  She also won Rhode Island but for some reason, that just didn't matter to me.  (Just like it didn't matter that Obama had won Vermont.)

 

As I'm sure you know, Obama had won the last dozen contests so everyone was writing Hillary off.  They thought she wouldn't win any of the primaries yesterday.  I knew she would win at least Ohio and I was happy about that.  As I watched the returns, I figured she can move on from there:  She's won two of the four contests and Texas was going to be very close!

 

Every sixty seconds or so, the Texas numbers would be flashed on the lower left corner of the screen.  My eyes would fly to that little corner, desperately scrambling for something to change.  But every time it changed, Obama still had a lead of around 2,000 votes. 

 

John King was telling Wolf Blitzer why Obama's doing better than Clinton:  Although she was winning what appeared on the map to be an insurmountable majority of the counties, he was winning in the hugely populated ones. 

 

Having won Ohio, and wanting to address the nation before East Coast viewers went to sleep, Clinton came out and addressed the crowd.  It was an electrifying speech which is no surprise because she's very good at that.

 

Shortly afterward, Obama came out and gave what appeared on TV to be a much more subdued missive.  And maybe it's just me but it felt like his façade had begun slipping.  Everyone knows he's all about speeches and words and giving hope without substance.  This time was no different…except that it seemed really obvious.  Suddenly, I felt like he wasn't fooling as many people anymore.  Or maybe he was just depressed because after 12 wins, on this night, he'd only own Vermont and Texas was slipping away. 

 

I really wanted to go to sleep after the candidates addressed supporters but I just couldn't.  Texas was going down to the wire.  I wouldn't be able to sleep.  So I kept watching.  And as more results came in, Clinton started closing the gap.  Suddenly, Blitzer and Co. shifted their rhetoric to a "What if?" scenario.  And a few minutes later, things changed again.  Clinton surpassed Obama.  His 2,000 vote cushion had turned into a few hundred vote cushion for her.   

 

King was quick to warn Wolf—and the viewers—that Obama can wipe her lead away by simply maintaining his majorities being reported in those heavily populated counties.  He was winning them by 60% and 70% margins and the results were still rolling in.  We'd better not change the channel!  We'd better not go to sleep!

 

For as many times as King repeated the threat, it just wouldn't come true.  Clinton's edge kept expanding.  She had a 20,000 vote lead, then 30,000.  For a long time, it was 50,000 and then it grew to 60,000.  Then 70,000.  And then 80,000.  I started wondering how Obama could possibly close such a gap even if those populated counties stayed in his column.  Turns out he couldn't. 

 

With 75% of the precincts reporting, CNN went to commercial.  I flipped to FOX News (some of their pundits were actually less annoying than that eyebrow guy on CNN who just whines and cries all night about how much he loves Obama)—and before my very eyes, they called Texas for Clinton.  Like any clear-thinking American, I don't trust FOX News as far as I can throw my television so I flipped back to CNN and waited for them to come back from the break.  When they did, their first order of business was projecting Texas for Clinton.

 

I stayed up a little while longer to see what that annoying Obama guy would say.  He had been saying "the Clintons" move to goal post all the time—and that's pretty much what he did after Texas slipped into Hillary's column.  I wish I could remember the guy's name because I'd love to publicly tear him apart…but I can't remember it.  And I am unable to find him on the Internet.  Apparently, he's a total no one who simply has a hard-on for Barack Obama.

 

In the end (well, near the end—99% of precincts have reported), Clinton won Texas by 98,223 votes.  It's "on to Pennsylvania!"  And then?  The White House, of course.

FINALLY! I can breathe again!

You guys can't possibly know how relieved I am right now! This will be long, but I'm gonna try to nutshell it for you.

In 2004, I lost a job I'd been at for seven years. I had been planning to leave anyway because the company was in bad shape. But I wasn't planning on losing the job I had before I started the new one.

For me, the feeling of being unemployed was shocking. I had no idea it would impact me quite the way it did. I was scared. I felt worthless. I actually cried constantly. And I never cry! It is a feeling I never want to experience again. It is nauseating and horrific…and I'm sure it shaved years off my life.

Eventually, I did get the job I'd applied for. But it was way out in West Chester, PA which is nowhere near my home. Not even close. The job was terrible but I fnally was making a salary I deserved. I ended up segueing into a position that was perfect for me—at the same salary. The only thing was that it was still in West Chester.

When I decided I couldn't keep living that way, I started applying for internal jobs near where I live. I took the first one I was offered—which, in retrospect, may have been a huge mistake.

I got an apartment ten minutes from my work location but the job was absolutely atrocious. There was no way I could stay in it. It was way over my head and I had no interest in it so there was no chance I'd get any better at it.

That's when this awful dude I used to work with decided to steal me away from my boss. He hates my then-boss so he actually created a position for me in his one-man department.

The job was fine: It was important but mostly consisted of menial numbers-crunching. At any rate, I could have done it forever and ever. But the department function will dissolve into irrelevance in a matter of just a few years. It was worse than a dead-end job. It was, like, an "impending doom" job. The kind where you keep working, knowing that the bottom's gonna drop out eventually.

Well, my new boss turned out to be quite a piece of work. All the time, I hear people complaining about their bosses and I always think it's funny. Because there's no way these bosses-from-hell can be as rotten as everyone says. I realize now that I'd simply been lucky up to that point. I'd never had a real boss-from-hell. But this dude is a monster.

In all the years I'd known him, I was benevolent about his sad little "life" (for want of a better term). I believe that, to a large extent, people create their own situations. Sure, things happen that are out of our control. But if you're living a completely miserable existence, completely devoid of happiness or friendship, that is all you. You created that. And you can change that. He just doesn't seem to have the relatively tiny amount of get-up-and-go required to improve his life. And I don't need to have that in my life.

I was desperate to get out of the job I had and he was waving this new position under my nose, making everything sound like wine & roses. So I jumped at it. I thought I could separate my life from his dark clouds. After all, we're talking about two separate things here: My work life and my real life. Never the twain should meet. But he made that impossible.

It was immediately clear that he wanted two things from me: First, he wanted me to do all the day-to-day functions of his department. (I honestly have no idea what he was doing from August through October.) And second, he wanted a friend. But he didn't want a friend to improve his bleak non-existence. He wanted someone he could suck into his black hole.

While I was more than happy to do all the work, I was not letting him suck me into his hole. And being the unprofessional freak he is, he decided to throw everything away because he wasn't getting his way.

One morning, he asked me exactly what it is I do there all week. That's the sign of a good boss, isn't it? He told me what to do—and I was doing it, otherwise it wouldn't be getting done—but he didn't really know what any of it was. So I spent an entire week writing down every single thing I did so I could present it to him in the form of a report. (As if I had time for this bullshit. I was busy running his fucking department.)

A week or two later, after months of telling me what a great job I'd been doing, he sat me down and said, "I don't think this is the job for you." He'd obviously realized there wasn't enough work to justify two people. And since my salary is about half of his, he was in a bad position. I was doing all the work, after all. When it came time to get rid of one of us, it wasn't gonna be me.

He couldn't fire me outright because he'd been terribly unprofessional throughout the entire experience. I also suspect he knew I'd begun documenting every infraction he'd perpetrated. So he took all the work away from me. He had to start doing everything himself again because his boss could ask for an accounting at any moment.

That was at the end of October and since then, he's had me going into work and collecting paychecks for doing nothing more than showing up. I've done no work. None. There is nothing work-related on my desk.

The cunt was pretending to be kind enough to give me the time to find another position in the company. And I found one. In fact, I found two. But as the offers were being finalized, my entire division was placed under a hiring freeze. So months went by during which he tortured me however he could and acted as though the ax could fall at any moment. I hate to admit that he was effective to any extent…but he was.

Every year, I wait for November and December. I love that time of year. I live for it. And he was ruining it. The only stress I should be experiencing during that time of year is shopping!

Fortunately, things kept popping up to make the important dates (my birthday, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's) better. I kept getting little bits of good news at all the right times. Inevitably however, I'd receive more bad news. But I had some breathing room during the most important days of the season. I don't know how it happened, but I'm so glad it did.

Anyway, my point—and I do have one—is that everything finally got unfrozen. All the approvals went through and I'm getting my offer letter tomorrow. I start my new job on Monday! I think when I get that letter in my hands, I'll be able to really start breathing again—the full, deep breaths I've been robbed of since early fall!

And things are starting to look up in other areas of my life too. My friends who were living abroad have moved back to Philly. And I may actually end up moving to within a few blocks of them. And you have no idea how much I would love to live in South Philly!

My mom's worries about losing her job and being able to afford the costs of her healthcare are working out even though she actually did lose her job. Believe it or not, it couldn't have come at a better time: She's eligible for Medicare and my father will be eligible in a few months!

And I have a date with a real cute guy this weekend. I was worried that I wouldn't be able to concentrate on him (or anyone) with all this drama going on…but now the drama is over!

So here we go, on to the next chapter of my life! I really can't wait!

Mike Huckabee: "It's not like I'm some homophobe." Really? REALLY?!

Tyra Banks has a talk show. (I know, right? It's on in the afternoon.) While she normally does shows about the usual talk show fluff, she's recently had on a whole bunch of the folks who are running for president. (I know, right?) The other day, it was Mike Huckabee's turn, which I find hilarious because he wasn't ever really running for president. He was walking. And now he's pretty much just standing. But hey, man: Props for still standing. I guess.

Anyway, Tyra started pressing him on the gay marriage issue and, as they all do, Huckabee tried to lie his way out of being part of the Republican hate machine. But Tyra wasn't having it. After he babbled on incessantly without actually saying whether he's for or against it, Tyra finally threw down her compact and demanded an answer.

Below, I'm including the three questions with which Tyra was finally able to get Huckabee to answer the question. His response to the second question shows why he's perfect for politics: It barely consists of sentences and it makes no sense. But what is that part about training replacements? Replacements for what? Replacements for husbands or wives?

BANKS: You're open to a public discussion [of gay marriage], at least?

HUCKABEE: I think we're having that. Whether or not we should change the rules and marriage and redefine it some way, I'm not comfortable with that.

BANKS: Comfortable or opposed?

HUCKABEE: Opposed. I think it's something that is not a good thing. I go back to the point the a marriage ought to be, the context in which two people not only have...they may not have children but have the capacity and ultimately to train replacements and create the kind of environment in which people are able to thrive. [Emphasis mine.]

BANKS: I'm asking you so many questions about this because I love the gays and the gays love me. And I know I cannot walk down the street here in New York City if I didn't press that issue and truly ask you that.

HUCKABEE: I think you should. I think people will respect my views on that; I respect theirs. The great thing about America is, we can have totally different viewpoints and we can do it without having animosity and hatred. This is one of the great countries where you can have sharp disagreements without killing each other over it. That's where I think we need to celebrate what is great about America, and that is, we all don't have to agree.

Come on, Huck! Who do you think you're fooling? We know you don't respect our views. And simply lying about it on Tyra won't trick us into respecting yours.

And where exactly do you find people disagreeing about things like this "without killing each other over it?" Do you even know what a hate crime is? Pick up a newspaper!

By the way, Tyra missed a really good opportunity to bring Huckabee to his knees. Earlier in the interview, she asked him if he wants the gay vote and he said he said, "Sure. I can disagree with people over a choice they make in their life or over a lifestyle and still be their president..." Uh, no. No, you can't.

Restroom etiquette

There are a couple things we need to discuss, some things you need to understand.

When you are in the restroom and you keep drying your already-dry hands...then staring blankly at yourself in the mirror...then back to drying your already-dry hands, you're not fooling anyone. We know you're waiting for us to open the door so you won't have to touch the door handle. How stupid do you think we are?

You're almost as disgusting as the freaks who don't even bother to wash their hands. These pigs don't worry about the door handle because they have no concern about hygeine (and certainly not about public safety). The only thing mildly amusing is knowing that the next time they go to the restroom, they'll be grabbing their dicks with the same hand that touched the filthy door handle. They may as well just slap their dicks against the door handle. These people all have herpes.

But there is one other group of boorish animals who need a verbal lashing. I've addressed this group before but it bears repeating: Even if I knew you, even if you and I were best friends, it would be inappropriate for you to stand at the urinal next to me and fart. We are already forced to be in each other's personal space. How can you think it's appropriate that one of us should start polluting the air at a time like that? Your mother should have aborted you.

Mother Nature is a real cunt

Well, it's pretty much over. We have once again gone from fall to spring with almost no sign of winter. I always overhear crotchety old men sharing stories about how "when I was a kid, it snowed every couple days. Big, huge piles of snow! Six inches, ten inches... All the time! We thought it'd never stop!" Of course, these are the same old men who absolutely refuse to believe global warming exists.

I know it doesn't make sense to most people but I love winter. There are many reasons for this and I think a lot of them spring from my childhood. And winter's ending always makes me kinda depressed. Usually, I can at least think back to a few cool snowstorms we all trudged through. But for the past couple years, winter's just been total shit; worthless shots of cold air that always give way to warm air just as the precipitation reaches us.

This year, all the long-term forecasters predicted we'd have a disgusting, spring-like season with brief shots of winter at the beginning and end. When we had a cold snap in December, they all said, "See? I told you!" I wonder what they'll say if this marching-straight-into-Spring pattern holds up. I see no indication that another shot of winter is on the way. There was a slight chance of a nice snowfall about nine days out but, as is usually the case, that's fallen apart and is now looking to be a big, fat rain event.

For about a week now, when I leave work at 6:00 p.m., I've noticed the sun is just in the midst of setting. I prefer when it's completely dark before 5:00. (Call me crazy but it's my favorite time of the year. Always has been.) And for the past couple days, I've noticed the sun is now at that spring-like angle that always pisses me off: It's the angle where it warms the inside of your car so you have to open your windows…even though it's actually quite chilly outside. (This is the same angle that warms the atmosphere to the point where it's very difficult for snow to make it the ground. Grrr.)

In recent years, I try to think, Well, summer's not really that bad. Bars and restaurants with decks are kinda cool, going to the beach with friends can be fun, and it's nice to not have to wear a coat! But the truth is, I don't go to restaurants or bars hoping so I can eat or drink while being drenched in humidity, I don't even like the beach, and wearing a coat is a good thing. (We all look better in fall/winter fashions. You know I'm right!) I don't like the heat, I hate the humidity, the pollen is literally sickening, and it's insane that all manner of creepy crawly, venom-filled critters apparently spend their days and nights trying to fing a way into my living room. (Stay outside, ya bastards!)

No. I don't like it. As usual, I'll try to make the best of it. But as is also usual, the thought will never actually leave the back of my mind: Three months til October! I can't wait!

Look at the bright side, France: At least you don't have a REAL loser like George W. Bush!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has never mattered much to me but lately, I've been hearing some fascinating things about him. 

He was caught on film this weekend reaching out to shake hands with a local man who recoiled and spat, "Don't touch me.  You are soiling me."  Sarkozy's reply:  "Get lost, dumb ass!"  My favorite part is that the President smiled after the altercation.  That takes balls!  (Do a search on "Sarkozy" at youtube.com and you'll find the clip immediately.)

In November, at a protest against rising fuel costs, he actually called out a fisherman who had insulted him.  "Come down [here] and say that!" he threatened. 

You may also remember him as the guy who walked out in the middle of a 60 Minutes interview last year after being asked about swirling rumors that his marriage was in trouble.  Not long after, it was announced he and his wife (a former fashion model who had left her first husband to shack up with Sarkozy) had divorced.  And a few months after that, he was married to singer and former model Carla Bruni.  Classy!

Reuters reports Sarkozy's "popularity ratings are in freefall and his hands-on style of government is attracting growing criticism."  Indeed, the President's satisfaction rating recently fell 9 percentage points to 38%. 

Sad irony:  Here in America, our President's favorability rating is even lower:  35%.  (And that's from a poll done by FOX!)

It's a cute little dog though

An e-mail I sent to Target today...

When shopping online, it is a great idea to let us check to see whether the item is in stock in our local store. Of course, if you're going to offer that service, could you at least make it ACCURATE? Yesterday, I rushed to Target on my lunch to purchase the Canon PowerShot 7.1MP digital camera - A560 (ASIN: B000NK3NBA DPCI: 056-10-0016) because the site told me it was available at my store in Voorhees, NJ.

Not only was it not there, a store associate who tried to help me ended up asking ANOTHER store associate. That second associate, standing three feet away from me exclaimed loudly and rudely, "That's discontinued! We don't have it no more. We don't even have the display no more."

Not good: A bad online experience which led to a bad in-store experience. Even worse: I bought the item later yesterday. At Wal-Mart.

I'm sure they won't give a shit. But it makes me feel better to express my frustration.

Are Republicans EVER held accountable for ANYTHING anymore?

The scumbag Senator Larry Craig is being slapped with a "letter of admonition" from the Senate Ethics Committee. In case you were living under a rock last year, Craig is the Senator who tried to get a blow job from an undercover cop in a restroom at a Minneapolois airport. (Although all gay men don't engage in it, we all know the steps involved in getting laid in a public restroom. The arresting officer indicated that Craig took pretty much all the steps.)

You'll remember that the 62-year-old married Senator--who adamantly denies he's gay--ppleaded guilty and then tried to reverse the plea when the world found out what he'd done. At that point, he said he'd resign...but a few days later he said he changed his mind.

The Committee also criticized him for using more than $200,000 in campaign funds to pay the legal fees he incurred from getting caught trying to get his dick sucked. They gave him a little slap for attempting to get "special and favorable treatment" by flashing his Senate business card at the officer who turned down his advances.

Like so many Republicans, this lying scumbag should have been forcibly removed from office long ago. Instead, he got a letter. And he had the nerve to respond to it by saying "While I am disappointed and strongly disagree with the conclusions reached by the Senate Ethics Committee, from the outset I have encouraged the Committee to act in a timely fashion and they have done so. I will continue to serve the people of Idaho."

I would like to say I can't imagine why the Committee would stop short of full adjudication hearings but I think the answer is fairly obvious. I guess if Craig's gonna be taking things in the "backdoor," it may as well be politics. It's a shame the rest of us end up getting fucked in the process.