Why Michele Bachmann Is Wrong To Ask Iraq For Reparations

Michele Bachmann says Iraq should pay us back for giving them freedom. They should also pay each of the 4,000+ families "million of dollars" for their loss of family members there.

Okay. Fair enough.

But then we should pay the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq the same debt.

Sounds like a wash to me. Or a pretty easy way to increase our debt exponentially.

Michelle Bachmann is not a stupid woman, but she does nothing but say stupid things.

What The Fuck, New York City

So I'm reading this article about the new World Trade Center. The mammoth monument to celebrate America's ability to bounce back. Obviously, we're not that good at bouncing back since, you know, the building isn't built yet and it's been nearly ten years. I'm intrigued by it because it's architecture, and architecture fascinates me. I don't particularly care that it's a monument, nor do I feel like a monument means people will "remember" that bad shit went down that day. Really, it just reminds me of bureaucracy. And architecture. I prefer to think of the positive aspects-- you know, the architecture.

But of course, that is nearly impossible when reading about the defense of the not-yet-built milestone that is a giant penis the length equal to this nation's incorporation.

If you want to go visit  this monument when it opens, this is what you have to contend with:

670 police officers devoted solely to the defense of the structure. Think of how many police officers your town or city has compared to this one building.

400 closed circuit cameras monitored by even more NYPD officers and software designed to detect things like unattended bags and other threats.

Any vehicle will be screened before entering the site. Tour buses, deliveries, cars, trucks-- they are all screened. I imagine if you walked up in a wheel barrow or a jet ski they'd screen them too. You won't be able to escape screening by walking in either, because walk-ins will be screened as well. I imagine this will be similar to the joyous occasion that is boarding an airplane. By the way, this screening happens before getting into the building.

Police plan to use a vehicle security center to screen tour buses, trucks and cars before they enter the site and park or makes deliveries using an underground roadway. Pedestrian traffic, including visitors to the museum, also will be screened before they can enter the central plaza.

Ticketed visitors to the memorial will be funneled into a security screening room with airport-style metal detectors and X-ray machines. Employees and frequent visitors will be pre-screened so they can bypass regular checkpoints.

Sounds like potential terrorists just need to try and get a job at the future world trade center if they really, really want to be persistent.

This is all mostly fine to me. I understand why they do this kind of crap. I personally find it to be a waste of resources and pointless, but I get why they do it. Throwing money at a problem makes people feel good, and what they're doing has a very "we're taking it seriously" feel to it. But how far is too far? Is there a point where you lose something with extra security?

Once upon a time, people dressed up to go on a plane. You basically wore your Sunday Best. Now, that'd be asinine because you'd have so much to worry about. Take off your shoes, your belt, empty your pockets, so on and so forth. At this point, flip flops and sweats are the best option for flying, in my opinion. (For convenience purposes only, of course).

But then there's this nugget:

Final touches are also being put on another ambitious piece of the plan: Screening every car, truck and other vehicle for radioactive materials – evidence of a possible dirty bomb – and other potential threats as they enter lower Manhattan. To achieve that, police are installing cameras, radiation detectors and license-plate readers at the 16 bridges and four tunnels going in and out of Manhattan.

Not only is the NYPD attempting to "secure" the building that will become the world trade center, nor just the surrounding area, but they are also attempting to secure essentially the entire island of Manhattan from anything resembling a threat.

So what happens when a camera or detector detects something? I'd hate to have the FBI busting down my door because some sensor detected something it didn't like. Generally the response to these types of things is to act first and ask questions later.

I feel bad for the New Yorkers whose toll costs are about to double to help pay for this surreptitious screening. (Approximately $2 billion out of $33 billion over a 10-year plan)

More selfishly, I'm disappointed that it will now cost even more to visit my brother; I may not be able to put a price on it, but it's worth $15 to New York.

Sometimes Wedding Bells Sound More Like Thunder Claps

Weddings are fickle things. They are important but silly all at the same time. They are kind of like birthdays in a way. I don't feel much different on or after my birthday, but the ticker that keeps track of my life has seemed fit to increase by one. After a wedding, is anything really different than before? I don't think marriage makes you care for someone more or love them more, but the way people treat weddings, you feel like you ought to.

I maintain a wedding is just a big ass party; I don't think you can deny that. Sure, there's a ceremony, but the bulk of a wedding is the reception-- that's the part people have fun at, the part people remember. Do people really remember a ho-hum ceremony when the DJ rocked some pretty phat beats courtesy Kenny G? I highly doubt it.

So it seems silly that for what is essentially a gathering of people, strongly resembling that of a party, has so much pressure put on it. Even more weird is that, most weddings are pretty much the same, formulaic bullshit. No offense to anyone who opts for such a wedding, some people love tradition, I respect that. I just think people should shake things up a bit from time to time.

I don't know if the best way to manifest that is by playing the Sex Pistols at a wedding, though. Just sayin'

There is definitely a weird aura that surrounds weddings and their planning, though. Everyone has an opinion. Most of those people, of course, are the ones who pay for weddings, so their opinions tend to find themselves grounded more in fact than opinion, though. This can be kind of stressful at times though, when the same people are telling you to do what you want to do in one breath, and the next don't seem too thrilled by your choices.

Like rings. Engagement rings aren't really necessary, are they?

Apparently to everyone else they are very important.

A song which will likely be played at the wedding:




This is pretty much verbatim what went down buying a suit. Some words may be slightly off, but I could not understand the tailor at all. Personally, since she was a woman, I think she is a seamstress. To me, tailors are men.

The salesman dude reminded me of an amalgamation of a whole lot of people. I actually quite liked him, though. He wasn't very pushy (until the end, but that's okay, I guess). He was more than patient, gave us space, and didn't mind being playful. Salesmen are all too often far too serious. I know, I used to be one and worked with a bunch of them. Pushy little fuckers. That company is out of business now though, so it serves them right. He had a kindness about him though, sort of Tim Gunn-esque. Just not as fabulous.

Prairie dogs. Need I say more?

Pronghorns. Their horns are unlike that of other horned animals. They actually shed their horns every year. They are also bone, which is covered in a sort of hair-like furryness.

Pygmy marmosets. Pretty much Krissy's favorite animal ever, so they had to be included. The Howler Monkeys are rather fun, too.

Apparently, dinosaurs are not appropriate. I think the dinosaurs and zoo animals would get along just fine. A rather large group of people are under the impression that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted peacefully, so I think they'd get along with peacocks as well.

Seating cards. If we could do it the way I'd want to (in an ideal world) they'd be flawless and seamless. Since we lack the right kinds of equipment and expertise and junk, we'll have to settle for adorable and still pretty kick-ass.

Where the whole shin-dig is going down. This picture is so pro. I should get paid for this kind of thing.

What's nice is that the walls are wood, so any light ends up with a very warm color temperature.



Peacock! They just roam about. There are at least five of them. This one is particularly pretty.



In the end, any stress really isn't worth it, though. Minuscule details, even if not perfect, will probably be forgotten. What people will remember is if the day was fun, if they enjoyed themselves, and hopefully that the day was a bit different.

Bill O'Reilly Teaches Kids About Science

I don't know if you heard, but Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that the tides are proof of God's existence. First of all, whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant in this case, so this isn't an anti-God type post. But really, saying that because the tide always goes in and always goes out is hardly proof of God, or anything else, really. One day, maybe it was. But just like wind currents, gravity, and countless other things, science figured out why there are indeed tides. And it's the Moon. All Bill had to do was check Wikipedia.

Afterwards, Bill pretty much got his ass handed to him by the media and academia because his argument was one that one might expect a child to make, not someone who gives news and commentary to millions of people every night. So he fired back.

Sure, maybe the tides are caused by the moon, he argued. But where, pray tell did the moon come from, smart asses. Well, I'm sure it was something like that. In list form, here were his arguments:

- Where did the Moon come from?
- Why doesn't Mars have a moon?
- Why doesn't Venus have a moon?

Naturally, the scientific community took this challenge and ran with it. They ran with it like a Kenyan racing against a crying little fat kid. In this case, the fat kid would be Bill, if you aren't following along.

The Moon did not actually come from God. The moon is the result of a random, but ancient event where a planet hit Earth (barely) and the dust that flew into space coalesced and formed what we today lovingly call "The Moon."

And his argument that Mars doesn't have a moon is kind of laughable considering it actually has two. Although, one might argue that technically he is correct, since Mars does not have one moon, it has two, but that's stretching it.

As for arguing that Venus doesn't have a moon, or that there's no life on other planets (that we know of) that's just silly. Considering a moon forming can be the result of a totally random event like ours, doesn't guarantee that there is a God any more than the sky not being purple or raining
gold bars does.

It's one thing to argue that something exists, we just don't know what it is or can't explain it as being proof of God's existence. But to use a planet's lack of life and satellite as proof that Earth has a God and Venus doesn't is moronic. Maybe dark matter is proof of God's existence, or any number of other phenomena that we cannot yet explain.

Finally, I don't think that God is something you can prove or disprove. Likewise, I don't think you can use the lack of understanding as proof of concept in regards to God. There have been many events attributed to God over the years Man has roamed the planet and many (most?) of them have been explained by science. Like the tides, for instance.

Here is a video from cracked which is kind of a combination of two things I love. Snarky kids are hilarious, especially since they're still untainted by the real world. And Bill O'Reilly saying something dumb.

And I feel bad for him. It's unfortunate that he's wrong and adamant about everything. Truth be told, if he wasn't such a pompous asshole to people, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, how many people really know anything about the tides and astronomy? Of course astronomers and astrophysicists do; it's their job. That combined with his incessant assertions that Fox News is the best in news because they are the most watched is really why I think he deserves getting called out. If you are the most watched news organization, you'd better be damned sure you've got your facts straight.

On Consequences: When What You Do Provokes Death And Crazy People

First and foremost, the fact that this is necessary sucks, but it is. There are crazy people in the world. Lots of them. There are lots of stupid, idiotic, morons out there, who misinterpret, misunderstand, and otherwise just don't get it.

This is about Congresswoman Giffords who, in case you aren't aware, was shot in the head yesterday, along with several others. The congresswoman is alive but a judge who was passing by to say hello is dead, and so is a little girl. There is no denying that the person who did it is imbalanced to say the least, but a small part of me has to believe that this wasn't a totally random act of violence.

Before the election, Sarah Palin famously marked various congressional seats up for election as targets. These were very literal targets, using crosshairs (wouldn't a circle or a square have sufficed?). Naturally Sarah Palin's camp denies that this has anything to do with the shooting, but what are they supposed to say? "Whoops, our bad!" I'm sorry but that's not going to fly, so all they can do is condemn the action, and duck the blame.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't Sarah Palin's fault. Or Republicans fault. There are far too many aspects of the crime to point to any single fault. But it didn't help any by putting a target on her head, and the heads of nineteen others. Remember when the graphic first came out? Remember how bricks were thrown through windows, bullets were shot into offices, and so on? One of those offices was congresswoman Giffords. And now a bullet is in her head (actually, it went straight through her brain).

So rather than be politically correct, why doesn't Sarah Palin and her aides admit that maybe they might have played a minor, inadvertent role in this? I know they didn't intend on anyone shooting anybody, but when you place crosshairs on people, someone is going to take the message the wrong way.

There is no denying that conservatives love guns. That's fine, they are entitled to them. But when conservatives bow to the bastion of gun lobbyists that is the NRA, and the conservative princess paints crosshairs on democratic "targets" can anyone blame someone for getting a mixed message? I'm not surprised this happened, which is what makes this whole scenario so frustrating. A lot of "liberals" saw this coming, or more accurately, were afraid of it occurring. This fear was unnecessary and could have been avoided.

By the way, if Sarah Palin's Take Back The 20 campaign "had nothing to do" with this, then why is it all of a sudden taken down? Sure, the election is over, but it was over two months ago, why now? Palin also argued that the symbols on the map aren't gun sights, but map crosshairs. But she tweeted this:

Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: 'Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!' Pls see my Facebook page.

and then later congratulated herself on 18 of the 20 on her bulls-eye list being defeated. What kind of message does this send? Reload? Bulls-eyes? Crosshairs? This may not be calling explicitly for violence, but at the very least does so implicitly.

But this isn't Palin's fault. Nor is it the fault of conservatives, republicans, gun owners, or gun rights advocates. This person is imbalanced, and he is to blame. But would he have done it otherwise? We can't be certain, but the rhetoric surrounding the mid term elections cannot have stayed this attack. Journalists are pointing out that he read Karl Marx, and Hitler, and that he wants a return to gold and silver currency. But I don't think that's relevant. Lots of people read Marx, I would read Marx if I read more often. And I remember picking up the biography of Hitler and being earnestly interested in reading it after reading the introduction. But I am the last person who would shoot anybody. And wanting a gold standard? Lots of people want that; Ron Paul for instance.

So if people want to peg his reading material on why he did this, then they should be fair and equate equal blame to the hateful political rhetoric of late. Hate, violence, aggression, these are all things that don't belong in politics. Politics is and should be all about diplomacy, but it's not. Political ads do nothing but attack, attack, attack their opponents. Rarely do these ads talk about the merits of a politician. Instead, we are left with a mentality of "who isn't worse than the other" rather than "who is the best."

The best example of this rhetoric that we need to avoid? Congresswoman Giffords's opponent last election, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event to supplant her. Actually, the event was more specifically themed with removing her from office. This, from the Arizona Daily Star:

Kelly’s campaign event website has a stern-looking photo of the former Marine in military garb holding his weapon. It includes the headline: “Get on Target for Victory in November. Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly.”
The event costs $50.

Yes, a photo of a marine, in uniform, holding his weapon, asking supporters to come fire an M16 for crying out loud, under the guise of removing her from office. Not only is this in extremely poor taste, but this does not strike me as behavior a Marine should exhibit. No one should, but a Marine especially. This is madness (cue 300 references "This. Is. Sparta!) This kind of garbage needs to stop. It shouldn't be tolerated, by anyone regardless of where they stand on issues. And I don't care how badly you disagree with someone, you don't take it into your own hands with a weapon, you do it at the ballot box.


Here's the original graphic, judge for yourself whether or not they are crosshairs or not. I certainly hope those crosshairs were worth a little girls life.

Some People Say...

The trouble with "some people say" is that there are a great many people in this world, and a great many of them say and believe some pretty stupid things.

"Some people say" is a tactic, merely adding a veil of validity to back up a bogus claim you made up. For example: Some people say Tom Cruise is gay. Is he? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? How about Obama is a socialist, fascist, Muslim, et cetera et cetera.

Truth be told, there's nothing wrong with the saying, pending certain caveats. You see, "some people say" is appropriate when expressing an opinion. For example, "Some people say Led Zeppelin is the greatest band to ever produce music." This is a valid sentence, and is correct; I am certain some people believe this. Or, "Some people say Stairway To Heaven is the best song ever recorded." Again, very valid. Do I agree? Probably not; I'm not all that familiar with Led Zeppelin but I'm pretty sure whoever I suggest to be the greatest fill in the blank will find some resistance somewhere. For example, George W. Bush was the greatest president in U.S. history. Is it true? That all depends upon what metrics you use to value success and greatness. So, is President Obama the worst thing to ever happen to the United States as some people might have you believe? Probably not.

Credit card reform is not a very bad thing. Sure it may inconvenience some 18-to-21 year olds but for the vast majority it's a good thing. Student loan reform? Saves bundles of money, makes the government money, and while it may be imperfect the reform is certainly an improvement over how student loans were processed before. The Affordable Care Act sounds nice, right? Truth is, it's a pretty disgusting piece of legislation more commonly known as Obamacare. Why should preventative care be free? That only drives up costs in the long run. Children and infants born, regrettably, with medical conditions shouldnt be eligible for health care like regular, non-sick people. This just makes it cost more for the rest of us, and that's not fair. Why should the bulk of people have to foot the bill for a select few people who, through no fault of their own, need a little help.

In case you can't tell, that last paragraph was a wee bit sarcastic, and I'm sure I will develop upon those thoughts at a later date. I'll maybe talk about things like socialism and things of that ilk, but I digress. As I was saying, there are legitimate uses for "some people say" and none of those legitimate uses belong on the news.

Some people say president Obama was born in Kenya; he wasn't he's an American and was born in Hawaii. Some people say he's muslim; he's not. In fact, a lot of people are unsure of the president's birthplace and religion, but why. This may seem a bit antagonistic, but the blame is probably on Fox News. You see, they pretty much invented the whole concept of "some people say" in the context of news, and they utilize the phrase all the time. So why do Americans think Obama is Muslim? Because for awhile several Fox News hosts would ask people who came on their shows. Now this might sound kind of weird, considering that "Do you think Obama is a Muslim" isn't exactly news, it sounds a bit more like opinion, which it is. But what Fox did was actually quite clever because they can (and will) deny any culpability. They never said he's Muslim, nor suggested it, they merely asked others what they thought. The genius in this plan is that when people hear this question regularly, they will doubt the truth. You hear a question over and over again and even if you are (or were) certain you'll begin to doubt yourself, especially if some of the people who are asked are unsure.

Some people say that more people watch Fox News than any other news show, but I call bullshit. Just because any and all Nielsen ratings put CNN viewers at one-tenth of Fox's viewers doesn't make it factually correct, that's just one groups opinion. I say that CNN is more popular. In fact, I say that 10 million people watch Anderson Cooper keep them honest on a nightly basis. And you know what? They all watch him again at ten o'clock. And some people say I'm right.

FYI: Some people say Obama's recent trip to Asia cost $200 million dollars a day. All of those people were Fox News hosts, correspondents, and a very select few republicans in congress. Oh, and one anonymous person in India. Truth is that's more per day than the entire war costs per day, and was readily debunked by every real journalist and the White House. But Fox News carried on the charade. True Story.

Take It Down A Notch (Or Three)

A bit of a departure today...

People are needlessly crazy. Perhaps it's a poor choice of words, since name calling tends to just feed the fires of crazy, but crazy is the best way to describe what surrounds us every day.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. 

I feel that Yeats' Second Coming perfectly describes today. Nowadays we are complacent; we just don't care enough. Or is it simply that we've given up? Unfortunately, in today's media the more controversial, or extreme a person's view, the more attention they get. Really, when's the last time you read an AP or Reuters report and thought, "Wow! That was interesting!" Yeah, it's probably never happened. Take in your surroundings, and think; look at things objectively and think to yourself, "What is this doing for humanity?" What is more important: The real Housewives of [fill in the blank] or the actual housewives everywhere trying to make a go at this thing called life?

I feel like the media has a certain job to do and for the most part, they do a good job. No one wants to pay for their news anymore; once one gets something for free it's hard to justify paying for that same information (sometimes). There are a lot of people who argue that the media is unabashedly liberal, as if it is some giant conspiracy. To these people, Fox News is a breath of fresh air—the lone David struggling against the Goliath that is, well, everything else. But Fox News is also the most popular, and as a result, the most influential news organization as such I feel they have a certain responsibility to the American people. Lately, Fox News' latest crusade is against NPR, that is, National Public Radio, and therein lies the problem. Fox News is conservative; no one denies that (except for the latter half of their Fair and Balanced slogan). Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal and basically everything else in the media, but that's neither here nor there. Republicans don't like NPR; and lately that anger has boiled over and is crackling and steaming on the burner. Every few years, Republicans try and pass some sort of bill killing public financing of NPR, PBS, and the like. It doesn't work though, because people like NPR and PBS; I mean, who wants to kill Big Bird, Elmo, and Oscar the Grouch? (I won't even mention Cookie Monster.) NPR is incredibly important as a news (and entertainment) organization, as is PBS. The problem, for some, is that NPR recently fired Juan Williams for his rather unnecessary remarks about his fear of muslims. which leads me to this quote from Karl Rove:

45 percent of NPR listeners were Saddam Hussein.

I don't even know what that means. It doesn't make sense, neither logically or grammatically. Let's begin by attacking this from a mathematical standpoint. Let's assume Saddam Hussein did listen to NPR  (I know, I know) For the former dictator to make up nearly one-half of NPR's listeners would suggest no one even listens to NPR. Anyway, to suggest that half of the people who listen to NPR are dictators (dictators in training mayhaps?) is completely asinine. To even make a comparison bewilders me. But then again, Fox seems to like comparing everything to dictators.

To be fair, crazy isn't limited to conservatives and Fox News. Who cares that Linda McMahon kicked a guy in the nuts on the WWE, or that Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager. Isn't there a maxim about people not throwing stones and glass houses? Yeah, that. Why not instead focus on their platforms (or in their cases the complete lack thereof). Christine O'Donnell wants to bring God and Jesus to public schools, convinced the Constitution makes no mention of the separation of church and state. Or, there's Linda McMahon who has slammed all of Connecticut in ads belittling and attacking Richard Blumenthal. But what are her plans? I've seen an awful lot of her commercials pleading to mothers to vote for her, but why? I've not seen a single ad of hers suggesting why I should give her my vote. So far, I've seen that she can afford nicely produced ads, she can get her friends to say what a wonderful person she is, and that Richard Blumenthal has slipped up a couple times. Oh, and that she has no experience, but Blumenthal has been in government for too long.


[As it happens, I wrote this post before Election Day. I'm glad Richard Blumenthal won Connecticut; truth be told, it's nice to be rid of her ads as well]


I feel like this video from Crossfire sums up the premise of this blog: