Let's talk about racial profiling.

One thing for sure is that if you ever started an argument this week with something like, "This was racial profiling! If Zimmerman was black/If Trayvon was white . . ." then I'm not taking you seriously. Like, at all.

I am so tired of hearing about racial profiling! But if you insist on talking about it, let's talk about it for a second -

Let me start by saying that the most annoying thing about the Zimmerman (who hereafter shall be called "Zims")/Martin case is the fact that it became so politicized--on BOTH sides. That NEVER should have happened! But it did, so the following is, admittedly, politically driven. And I am disgusted at myself for it.

Conservatives are regularly being told by the left about how terrible this country is for minorities. Blacks are just being openly slaughtered by whites in the streets without consequence! Except they're not.

Here's a bit of inconvenient truth: Not only are whites more often victims of homicide (by nature of being larger in population), a white being murdered is more than 2 times more likely to have a black offender than a black victim/white offender. Well, shoot (sorry for the violent rhetoric there). The difference, apparently, is that when it is white on black crime, it's a hate crime, but not the other way around. Racial profiling much?

For an uber-racist country with a black president, so the story goes, white on black violence is shockingly seldom. And when it became clear that the facts of the Zims case were not quite as racist as the race-baiters dreamed, it became necessary to distort those facts to fit the story that lends to the race agenda that is spoon-fed to the left's mindless zombies.

Obviously the living dead are among us looking for brains, and they actually believe whatever story the media is telling them, but most of us know that blacks are not being mercilessly hunted down in the streets by non-blacks anywhere in this country. What made the Zims case so convenient to the "non-racist" racial profilers is that it was, to their dismay, the first example to reveal itself in several years, notwithstanding the years of condemning violent, and apparently invisible, societal racism in our country.

The story now: instead of being a fully grown, 160 lbs 17-year-old flashing the birdie finger, or the foul-mouthed social media persona that he fostered (twitter user @no_limit_ni**a), or the suspect caught with burglary tools and women's jewelry, or the marijuana agriculturalist seen in photos, or the hot-head who punched a school bus driver, we were regaled with endless lies of Trayvon Martin, and shown a 5 year old photo of the mere child who was only buying Skittles. It's ironic that Martin fit the mold of exactly the kind of person Zims feared was looting his neighborhood, but do we let these facts persuade us to consider that just MAYBE Trayvon had the capacity to pose a real threat to Zims? Nah, racial profiling.

So NBC manipulated 911 recordings, that were played to the entire country, to fit their narrative. It's NBC, are we surprised?

The Department of Justice played an active role in provoking public hatred toward Zims despite the absence of enough evidence to arrest or indict him, thus making him guilty until proven innocent (if you didn't know, that should be the other way around).

Barack decided that his son, if he had one, would look like Trayvon. Don't discount, however, the possibility that the Mr. O was referring to the pot-growing, pot-smoking history that he and Martin have in common.

And conservative media is just as guilty. Both sides of the media grabbed onto this story from day one and, in the absence of facts, filled the gaps to support their own bias. This case was politicized, and that's the problem! A case that, although very tragic, never should have made it to national television, never should have been acknowledged by the highest level of federal government, and never should have been recognized by the mightiest of mighty celebrities and athletes. Why? Because these cases, unfortunately, happen ALL THE TIME!

But it's as if liberals have absolutely no problem with blacks killing blacks, because those instances, although much, MUCH more common, are never mentioned. The left puts enormous amounts of effort into keeping the African American demographic dependent on them, and as long as 97% of them keep voting for Democrats, the left will turn their back to that community's problems unless an opportunity arises to make their conservative opponent look like the real villain contributing to those problems. The left has no credibility or the honesty needed for the race debate, as Eric Holder suggests.

The Zims case has certainly sparked a mixed response across the country, most loudly that of hate and anger. But the hate is continually illuminated by the side that regularly congratulate themselves for their tolerance, open-mindedness, and superior intellect. While members of the left proudly publicize their blatant hatred for one person who committed one out of millions of murders, their unspoken bigotry allows countless murders to be committed by their dependable voting demographic, the ends justify the means.

I think it is well past the time to stop pretending that the left's agenda is not laced with hate.

But some of you are saying that the Zims/Martin case was different. I really don't want to re-hash this again, so I'll be brief--There wasn't any evidence to clearly point to any one conclusion. That's it. I've seen a lot of people claiming that this is a representation of a corrupt judicial system and blah blah blah. No, this was a fair trial, with a jury who analyzed real evidence, and found that there wasn't enough of that evidence to prove without reasonable doubt that Zims was a pre-meditated murderer. As far as I'm concerned, this is an example of a trial that was executed perfectly, like millions of cases JUST LIKE THIS ONE that you've never heard of.

For instance:

Infant killed by two black teens

White girl, killed by 2 black teens for bicycle parts

Group of black kids beat up a Mexican man while yelling "This is for Zimmerman."

And thousands upon millions more of killings and attacks, where minors are both the victim and the suspect, involving mixed races, that you've never heard of.

Thankfully, the prosecution's star witness for the Martin case, Rachel Jeantel shed some light on what racial profiling is--calling the jury's ruling "B.S." and racially motivated because of the white jury members. Racial profiling much? I mean, forget the whole lack of evidence thing, it just comes down to them being white and racist, like all white people.

Jeantel pointed out that Zims' crime prior to the night of the confrontation was being a "creepy-ass cracka." Hmmm.

And at last, Jeantel outlined the difference between the words "ni**er," and "ni**a," ugly words that I can't even fully type out and that Paula Deen got fired for saying 30 years ago. At any rate, thank goodness for that clarification. I now have to backtrack on the very premise of this blog post, that societal racism doesn't exist--Jeantel has proven that some racism is alive and well, and for some reason acceptable, in our society.

But we can't take what Jeantel said seriously, since she was CAUGHT LYING UNDER OATH. This was their "star" witness, and then the prosecution closed their argument by saying that no one really knows what happened the night of Trayvon's death and some of you are STILL surprised at the outcome of the trial!?

Here are some more African American statistics compiled by yours truly from blackdemographics.com:

Did you know that blacks make up 14% of the U.S. population, but commit over half of the nation’s murders?

Therefore, by lowering black murder rates to the same as whites, we could lower the national murder per capita rate by 40%, and we would save thousands of innocent black lives.

70% of our murders in the U.S. are gang related. Other than having his DOJ give assault weapons to Mexican drug gangs, what is Obama doing to combat gang violence?

Law-breaking is not genetic, nor has it ever been. Skin color is neutral and non-behavioral. People do not commit crimes because of the color of their skin.

What we do know is that democratic programs, welfare, glorified thug culture, and perpetual victimization have all contributed to a serious problem of violence and murder within the black communities of the U.S. Consider for a second how the left is stuck in old-fashioned ideas, just as they accuse the right. We have moved beyond the racist past and are attempting to allow real equality to flourish by letting a person's character be the basis for judgment, whereas the left is still holding up the antiquated ideals of the civil rights movement from 50 years ago. If you want racism to stop, then stop pointing out race!

And I want to be clear here that I don't believe that Trayvon deserved it, I don't delight in his death, nor am I saying Zims is completely innocent. I'm just going off of evidence.

At U.C. Berkeley I worked with a professor who lamented the fact that there was an over-representation of African Americans in prisons, citing racial profiling. Is it crazy to believe that African Americans simply commit more crime, usually black on black? I start to get the impression that the only way blacks will feel that profiling has been eradicated is when no more blacks are ever convicted of crimes, or when a white on black crime always favors the black regardless of facts. We have a fair judicial system, we live in a society where that kind of racial profiling couldn't exist in a trial with average citizens sitting on a jury anymore, and I don't think I'm deluded for thinking that. You know what else has an over-representation of African Americans? The NBA, and for obvious reasons that no one is disputing.

Martin Luther King, Jr., once expressed his dream that one day his children would live in a world in which people are judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. Liberals, throughout this disturbing display of blatant hate, have done everything in their power to ignore the content of Zimmerman and Martin's characters, and instead focus exclusively on the colors of their skin.

No wonder MLK was a Republican.

General Conference and the Great Divide

I don't think I'm alone when I say that the topic of gay marriage was occupying my mind when I approached General Conference this past weekend. When social issues overlap with important gospel principles and create a divide in our own global community, we look to modern prophets to guide us through the dark mists of that overlapping of spiritual truths and secularism. I feel like I got a good sense of clarity on the topic. So did everyone else that I know, regardless of which side of the fence they are on.

A gay friend of mine, also LDS, shared an article from the perspective of a pro-gay marriage Mormon and how they interpreted the Conference messages. The article noted, as I just suggested, that people are still no less divided on the issue -- they heard what they wanted to hear. The article laments the fact that pro-traditional marriage advocates were using quotes from the conference, mainly Elder Packer, to warn others against abandoning moral tenets of the church in favor of trendy social issues, and for reiterating the superiority of traditional families when raising children, and confirming that chastity is the most consequential law to break. And while they shoved those messages in everybody's face vindictively, as the article so piously points out, those on the pro-gay marriage side simply heard nothing but messages about being more Christlike, forgiving, tolerant, and treating others the way we want to be treated.

I don't know about you, but I heard both messages.

 

Outlining my rationale for opposing gay marriage, as logical as I think it is, won't change (and frankly, shouldn't change) your opinion. Instead, I've been thinking about 2 1/2 other important principles I've discovered buried in this issue.

The first two are lies that the father of lies wants you to believe.

1. People too easily accept the lie that it is impossible to stick to your morals and be compassionate. This is a lie people believe, unfortunately, for just about any stance that a Conservative takes on any social issue.

A friend of mine once said, and I paraphrase: "Being Conservative is to preach to others what Christ said, and being Liberal is to actually do it."

I take serious offense to that. The notion that I can't be simultaneously opposed to what you believe and Christlike is insulting. In the eyes of most advocates for gay marriage, you either are with them and, by association love them. Or, you are against them and, by association are filled with hate. When good Christians who, let's face it, are just as lost and looking for meaning in a secular world as everyone else is, are labeled as bigots, hate mongers, intolerant, homophobic, and xenophobic before they are even given an opportunity to present a logical explanation, they are involuntarily reduced down to an irrational, non-contributing, mouth-breathing fool, and everything they say is rendered completely trifling before they even say it. When you label a person as a bigot before hearing them speak, you have facilitated the exact irrational division that destroys society. This is completely contradictory to the message that pro-gay marriage advocates preach: tolerance, love, and to not judge others.

2. Another lie that many invest in is that you are perfect and have no need to change your natural feelings - Don't confuse that with being happy with yourself despite imperfection. I believe a gay person when they say that they are naturally attracted to the same gender. I don't believe it is a choice for them. I also don't believe that God thinks that anyone on Earth is perfect -- everyone needs improvement, and everyone needs to overcome the natural man. This is the sole purpose of our entire life. Even a straight man has to resist the alluring temptation of pornography which the world claims is a perfectly normal attraction to indulge in, but that we know is an unhealthy appetite that clouds judgement and sometimes requires help to overcome. Pedophiles don't nurture an attraction to children because it's cool, it's because the attraction is already there and they indulge it instead of enlisting the help of the Savior to correct it. It is exactly the plan of the adversary to make you believe that you are perfect the way you are and have no need to change.

2 1/2 (because it ties in so well with #2). The most serious moral decay in today's world is the idea that we should actively find ways to avoid negative consequences for our actions. If you are attracted to something, that's just as God made you and not even He wants you to change. If you accidentally get pregnant, you can abort it, just like it never happened. There is even a surgery to "restore" your virginity. The foundational principle of the gospel is free agency, stipulating that every decision has a positive or a negative consequence. If you choose good, you find more freedom. If you choose bad, sometimes your freedom is lost along with your ability to choose (i.e. anyone who is currently sitting in prison). And if you choose to call negative consequences good, the lines of good and evil become arbitrary and blurred and spill over into every societal disagreement.

Another important facet of agency is that we will be judged by how we exercise it. Are you going to facilitate the right of others to exercise their agency for wrong things, or are you going to use your agency to be a beacon for the standards of the church as outlined by modern prophets?

I want to clarify the following, because I do have several gay friends, and I love them -- I realize that I have no ounce of comprehension of what you're going through, good or bad, which makes me the least qualified person to talk about this. I admire you for staying strong and working so diligently to help others who are inexcusably bullied and tormented. You, that I know personally, focus more on underlining love for others. A person being gay or straight makes no difference to me. Your sexual preference makes no bearing in my choice of whether I want to be your friend, do business with you, or anything else. It simply does not matter. Even within the church -- I baptized a gay man, and yes, I knew he was gay at the time and I still keep in touch with him and love him very much. You may wonder how any gay person could be my friend after hearing about my feelings. It's because I practice Christlike love, and a lifestyle that I disagree with is no exception to that rule. I'm surely far from perfect, but I would hate to find out that a gay friend of mine was so offended by my views that they didn't want to speak to me anymore. I do love them for who they are: a child of God on earth who is just trying to make it back, just like everyone else.

What I Can't Understand

Candidate "A" entered the presidential race in 2008 as an amateur. He was virtually unknown -- a community organizer with zero business experience, a senator with minimal legislative experience, voted "present" on all controversial issues, and had a blemished but largely secretive past. Despite all those things, I can understand why the people elected him. We were exhausted from Bush, and we associated all things Republican with Bush. Candidate A used cushy words like "hope," "change," and "believe" and those words were exactly what many Americans needed to hear. I personally saw nothing but empty words. My primary reason for neglecting him as president was simply because I knew nothing about him and could find nothing from his past to suggest that he would succeed in his lofty promises.

Four years have passed and I wasn't proven wrong. He promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Instead he spent more money than any other president previous to him, then blamed it on Bush for setting us on that spending path. But if the rate of spending were like driving a car, Bush was driving at 60 mph, and when Candidate A took the drivers seat he floored it to 300 mph. He lost America's AAA financial rating. He implemented universal healthcare, or the biggest tax increase on middle income families since the 1960's, by promising that it wasn't a tax, but then still touted it on the campaign trail after the Supreme Court ruled it, indeed, a tax. He fostered the greatest boost in numbers of the dependent society. He played over a hundred rounds of golf. Your and my taxes have spent more on his vacations than for any other first family, even compared against two-term presidents. He lost more jobs than he created. He spent trillions on green energy: Solyndra (bankrupt, cover-up), Fisker (outsourced, then bankrupt), the Chevy Volt ($80k to make, sells for $40k), and a list that is much, much longer of failed businesses. He ran guns to Mexican drug cartels which were used to kill American border agents and tried to cover it up, and he is currently in the midst of potentially the largest cover up in U.S. history regarding details of the Benghazi consulate attack.

I don't understand how that man could point to that record, which he did, and convince people that it was a success, which he did. How could a man with that kind of track record ever be re-elected?

But what is completely beyond my comprehension is how Candidate A beat Candidate "B".

Let's meet Candidate B. He is an open book. There are no secrets about his past. He is an exceptionally successful and authenticated business man, involved in creating household name companies such as Staples, Domino's Pizza, Sports Authority, Pizza Hut, Brookstone, AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Dunkin Donuts, Sealy, Toys 'R Us, Warner Music Group, Totes, and The Weather Channel all of which employ more people than jobs created by Candidate A. He later turned away from AMC Entertainment because he didn't want to profit from R-rated movies -- placing his morals before profits. He turned the deficit-ruined Olympics into a surplus, he sat in the Massachusetts Governor's seat with a $3 billion deficit, left four years later with a $2 billion surplus, all while not accepting the Governor salary. He is a proven economic turn-around machine! He gave away every penny of his inheritance to charity and then earned and exceeded the amount of his inheritance because of his savvy business skills, and still gives most of it away, and promised also to reject the presidential salary.

But if you're giving into the mainstream media hype, you're supposed to hate him because of the fruits of his success -- his wealth. You're supposed to hate him because he used the word "binders" when articulating the extra initiative he took to hire more women. And I cannot begin to fathom how MSNBC can demonize him for giving supplies to hurricane Sandy victims while many of them are screaming at Candidate A for neglecting to give them the help they need. You're supposed to hate him for helping others. You're suppose to hate him because that's what you're told to do.

If we kept the names of the candidates anonymous and only showed a brief list of their accomplishments and you were required to vote on those merits alone, I can't even imagine that Candidate A would win. I'll give him credit for 2 of his kept promises: that gas prices would "necessarily skyrocket," and that we would have to pass the healthcare reform bill before finding out what's in it. I know, that was Pelosi, but I get the same skin-crawly feeling.

And before you bring in social issues like abortion, gay rights, women's rights, racism, etc, stop the bullcrap train right there. Another thing the mainstream media is imprinting on your brain is that Conservatives want to control your lives. This is, in fact, the Liberal's very agenda and the very antithesis of Conservatism. At the core of Conservatism (and Christianity, especially Mormonism) is what is called "Free Agency" or freedom to choose, and an understanding that our choices bring certain consequences. We are far more interested in stopping the government from controlling our lives than we are in controlling your life. Simply put, we don't want to pay our taxes to fund your personal lifestyle, and we don't expect you to do it for us either. Believe it or not, there are Conservatives who are anti gun, homosexual, vegetarian, atheist, pro-healthcare reform, etc. These Conservatives simply don't buy guns, they quietly lead their lives, they don't eat meat, they don't go to church, and they shop for their own healthcare. Compare that with Liberals who fight for the outlawing of all guns, demand legislated respect, try to ban meat products for everyone, want any mention of God and religion silenced, and demand that everyone pay for their healthcare. They launch attacks on Fox News and anyone else that disagrees with them while Conservatives simply change the channel. Don't tell me that we are trying to control your lives. The government (we the people) is not a piggy bank to solve your problems, it is the problem. I could care less if you have an abortion, or if gays marry each other, or if you don't believe in God. I believe there are consequences for those actions, but you disagree, so who cares? Take a lesson from Conservatives and don't force me to publicly accept and pay for your lifestyle, and we won't force you to publicly accept ours. It is selfish to demand funding for your lifestyle choices when that money should be used to help people that actually have real problems like poverty, homelessness, job-loss, and natural disaster devastation.

And how is that war on women going for you? It must be hard to make us look like the bad guys in that fight when you have Candidate A telling women to "vote with your lady parts," and launching an official campaign ad that compares voting to losing your virginity. Then Sandra Fluke really helped your cause by demanding that the government (which means you and your money) pay for her loose lifestyle so that she can be judicially negated of any and all consequences for her personal choices. Yes, of course, it's your choice and your body, so why do you need my money? It must be tough to maintain your image as "on the side of women" when you consistently objectify them.

The point I'm trying to make here is that our country is a sinking ship. The giant hole on the bottom of the ship is the economy. If that isn't fixed the whole thing goes down and your favorite social issue isn't going to matter any more. Your argument that Conservatives, and not Liberals, are trying to control everyone's life is a spoon-fed load of crap. When are you going to learn that forcing people to do what you think is right is a form of universal repression, and not the progression you extol?

So congratulations, America. You chose Candidate A again. You chose a man who has failed miserably in everything he has done over a man who has succeeded in almost everything he's done. You think the world owes you something. You think the government should legislate your (and my) life and give you what you need. You, who voted for him are more interested in a partisan victory and a country that fulfills your demands to the standard that you want. I don't doubt that many of you are hard-workers -- it isn't my intention to attack your character, aside from evidence pointing to the contrary. I just feel like you lost sight of the big picture this time. Candidate A will give you what you want, but at what cost? And I'm not just talking about money. Your independence is on shaky ground.

But speaking of money, here are the taxes associated with the Affordable Care Act. Enjoy that. Human Resources gave a presentation to us at work about the changes to our benefits in 2013 due to CandidateACare; they were especially upset about their Flex fund being cut in half. There was a whole lot of uproar, and I couldn't help but think to myself that most of them voted for the man who put it in place and will probably re-elect him too. If you think the Affordable Care Act is actually affordable, you're delusional. Keep an eye on the gross vs. net balance of your paychecks for a while -- you'll start to see a difference.

But I can't really get too angry at average Americans. I mean, just take a look at the popular vote map:

Something is wrong.

Mormon? Or, More man?

I'll just say it: If you're a Mormon and you're voting for Romney just because he's a Mormon, you're dumb. If you're not voting for Romney just because he's a Mormon, you're dumb. A person's religion should rarely, if ever, be the basis for voting them into a political office (unless they say something crazy like "the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," but that would be just INSANE!).

I have a lot of Mormon friends who are not voting for Romney, and I don't mean that in the "I'm-not-racist-many-of-my-friends-are-black" sort of way. I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for 5 years--I was a freakazoid outcast at church, politically speaking. But I have a lot of friends from there whom I respect and love, and they are no Romney supporter by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm okay with that.

So here's my beef:

Any LDS person will tell you that the mainstream media's attempt to really understand and positively expose Mormonism generally miss the mark. Inaccuracies overfloweth the cup of misunderstanding, but I think that, as a collective community, we've come to accept that that will happen, and we try our best to personally represent what the church really is about. It's getting more personal now, as the media is using the Mormon card as a basis for an argument that Romney should not be president because of the "wacky" beliefs that he holds. Whatever, I expected that. But I'm seeing a very disturbing trend among many of my Obama supporting Mormon friends--the relaying of articles, blogs, and videos through the channels of Facebook that are not accurately representative of the fundamental Church doctrines, but are expressly intended to make Romney look bad through the lenses of his beliefs, which we share.

I don't care which candidate you support, but I wish we could unite to keep our religious values strong. Remember, you're voting for a secular leader, not a Bishop. Instead of passing along some garbage that demeans our community in the hopes that it will convince others to sway to your political leaning, let's work together to keep the below-the-belt religion fight a non-factor. May I remind you that "We believe . . . that Christ will reign personally upon the earth." At which point, our worldly political parties will no longer exist and we will have One leader (yes, anti-religionists, similar to a Dictatorship, only sans corruption).

SCOTUS, POTUS, and other things that make me giggle

I make serious, conscious effort to be a thoughtful, well-rounded, and educated person. I really try. Some days I have to remind myself to try. Like today, when I learned that the Supreme Court ruled Obamacare constitutional.

I believed that Obamacare was unconstitutional, but I would be an idiot to argue that now. Luckily, The Supreme Court did strike down the unconstitutional mandate, thus satisfying my desire to be right about something. Unfortunately they also ruled that if we were to simply change the term "individual mandate" to "tax" that then it magically becomes constitutional. Ok, whatever, so it's constitutional now, but it's still bad medicine. The philosophy of universal healthcare is great, but it just doesn't work. There are just too many problems that I don't feel like addressing right now. Just ask Canada.

And believe me (I know you won't believe this, but it's true!), I tried to see the good in this. I thought, "ok, maybe it's not so bad and I'm just being a regular ole' stubborn cynic, per usual." But I couldn't wrap my head around a few things.

For instance, now that it's a tax and not a mandate, I should be happy! Reason is, you see, because I don't make $250,000 annually, so my taxes aren't going to go up. Right, Barack? Oh, sorry, didn't mean to bring up yet another botched campaign promise . . . But I still should be happy, because the constitutionality has been proven and that was my only hangup! Except that your healthcare overhaul also includes several OTHER tax provisions in no way related to healthcare. Oh, well, at least I don't have to fund abortion! Oh . . . Stupak squealed . . . Moving on.

My first reaction was something like this: "&#IWKROPUFP(*Q&@#!*)@!*Y*HF{." That's more of a declaration of thunderstruck-tivity rather than a string of obscenity, by the way. Believe it or not, and maybe it's just pure naivety at it's finest, but of all the groups with political power, I think I trust the Supreme Court the most to make decisions. Of course they are probably swayed by their political convictions, but I think they are the best at pushing aside emotion and looking at straight fact. So here are some facts:

Obama and others adamantly denied that it's a tax before the bill is passed, because, seriously, a new tax would look bad and no one would have voted for it:



I would hardly consider a "mandate" more appealing, but what a clever way to disguise a tax. And now, "Obama say 'tax good!'" And followers say "tax was bad, now tax good." 

Please, do not be that person who supported Obama when he made the "it's not a tax!" argument, and then continue to stand by him when he says "See, it's a tax!" You look like a wagon-jumping idiot -- void of awareness, abundant with blind loyalty.

And now we have opened floodgates to the possibilities of the government's broad and ill-defined access to tax power. It would be even more scary to think about if, say, we had a president who was getting on-the-job-training after being elected by the American Idol generation who get their news from Comedy Central. It's not like electing an unknown senator who had zero legislative, business, economic, or leadership experience would be a bad idea, right?

Here's the kicker -- I actually think that Justice Roberts, who was the swing vote for this decision -- is helping the cause of the GOP, and maybe even on purpose. Read what he said about the decision:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

In other words, "You're on your own, suckers!"

Feeling Grumpy. So Grumpy Left.

I have a bunch of drafts written up from when I lived in Berkeley (you know, when I was bottled up by "well meaning peace-seekers" who hated me for having a different opinion) and I want to break them up into smaller, easily digestible word snacks because I think they are funny now that I'm in an environment that isn't as hostile to different views. But now, we have much *ahem* bigger problems: Midget fury.

According to The New York Post, the recent release of the film “Snow White and the Huntsman” has created serious uproar in the community of "little people." We all know that dwarves are an integral part of the story, but the actors playing them were actually “full-size.” For this reason, the Little People of America and dwarf actors are protesting the film, even threatening a “100-Midget March.” Dwarf actor Danny Woodburn is quoted to say, “this is akin to black face,” which was when white people would paint their faces black to portray black individuals.

I can't believe that society has become so over-sensitive.

By sensitive, of course, I mean that we would forget little people during such an economically deficient time. It's understandable that they would feel so shortchanged. Sources say that the Little People of America even offered to stunt the roles for minimum wage, but obviously they were easily overlooked. Some would suggest that the dwarves are being shortsighted and should just act like bigger men and walk away from this small creative licensed script change. Perhaps Woodburn just woke up on the wrong side of the shoebox, but he shouldn't have mounted a soapbox expecting to become a big voice sharing the same arena as those who have larger acting careers. Instead, they should look up to the actors chosen to portray the 7 dwarves and realize that, in comparison, their acting falls short. Perhaps this is just a poor attempt at trying to revive their minuscule career by demanding that tall people be discriminated against instead. But let's not jump to disproportionate conclusions and instead be very compact in our thinking. Why should we build up such a diminutive issue? We should empathize with their dilemma and try not to look down on them during the 100 midget march.

Does this mean that there will be a fat woman march in protest of Tyler Perry movies? Oh, who am I kidding?

The GOP "Elephant in the Room"

*Editor's note: I wrote this a llloooonnnngggg time ago. Way before the GOP primaries, so I'm not jumping aboard any bandwagon like a silly-nanny. Also, my failed attempts at humor should not be laughed at unless it's a courtesy laugh to bolster my ego.

There are really only two things that I talk about on this blog: religion and politics. So, I know you guys must be DYING to know my feelings about Mitt Romney and the whole "controversy" about whether or not he's electable because of his Mormonism. A topic I've been sort of quiet about, but you can be sure that I have an opinion. I'm quiet about it for good reason, I think. So, for all of you die-hard readers out there (hi, Mom!) I am interrupting the silence with my stinky brain farts of wisdom.

I am going to get right to the point and tell you the official Hardy GOP candidate endorsement (and we all know how much weight that holds). Remember long ago, when I said that I was hopeful for Herman Cain? Wow, that's funny! Anyway, what was I saying about just getting to the point? Oh yeah -- I give my official Hardy endorsement to Mitt Romney. I said it. I want the guy to win. Some of you are surprised. Some of you aren't. Some of you have indigestion. Some of you wonder how you ended up here. And one of you is wondering who the other "some" are that I'm referring to. Sorry, Mom, I don't know.

Here's why I've been quiet about it. Well, firstly, I hadn't really made my mind up until about a month ago. Secondly, I don't want anyone to even believe for a split second that I'm just giving my vote blindly to him because we are both Mormons. Not so. Harry Reid is a Mormon, and I desperately want him out of the senate seat of a state that I don't live in nor intend to live in. And I could give you a list a mile long of Mormons that I would not want to become president (starting with some of my very, very good friends, bless 'em).

Fourth, er, thirdly, I really don't think that Romney is the ideal candidate except in today's political climate. Meaning, he doesn't fly, doesn't save school buses from falling off cliffs, doesn't save kittens from burning buildings, but he does have fantastic hair. And furthermost, the man is a financial and echo-nomic genius, and THAT is what we need right now. We need a kick in the pants of the economy, instead of teases of economic stimulation that just leave the country feeling rather randy. And he's the best one to do it. And honestly, will there ever be the ideal candidate? I think not. But, I guess what I should have said is that he is the ideal candidate right now, because let's be honest, the changing political landscape calls for different types of leadership at different times. Have I lost you yet? Because I feel as lost as Obama without a teleprompter.

As far as Mitt's Mormon religion, and those nay-sayers who . . . say "nay," all I have to say is: (ahem) PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER!! Remember when there was bedlam in the streets about JFK, and all those nayers who said that if he, a Catholic, ever got into office, kiss the country goodbye and prepare to be led by the Pope! Well, I don't remember that, because I wasn't born yet, but I read about it (history!). Soooo, why isn't more interest being placed on Obummer's religion (or lack of)? And why does religion matter in voting for a president? I think God cares as much about who the president is as much as He cares about if the Broncos win the superbowl.

Actually, I'm being facetious--I really do think God cares about who is leading the country that, as taught by the LDS church, is a promised land gifted to us that we are very fortunate to live in. Yes, I think God cares that a good person should run the country that allows religious freedom, but I also think that good people exist everywhere and personal relationships with God is not something saved for Mormons alone. I would have no problem at all voting for a man or woman of a different faith, so long as that person has some amount of moral fiber. If you are Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, non-denominational, GOOD-GOLLY, IF YOU'RE AN HONEST, MORAL, UPSTANDING PERSON THEN I WANT YOU TO LEAD! And if you think that Romney is going to force everyone into practicing Mormonism, then you are in essence calling Romney an apostate Mormon (which would actually grab the evangelical vote, right?), because he would be in direct violation of core values and beliefs of the LDS community:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (Articles of Faith, #11)

I'm really trying to take the high road and not make myself an example of exactly the kind of person that bothers me . . . BUT, the main groups that are saying Romney is a cult member and must be avoided at all costs, and are saying that they will never ever vote for him are Southern Baptists and Born Again Christians. And while LDS members go door-to-door and talk to strangers like crazy people, I have never met people more forceful about their religion than Southern Baptists and Born Again Christians. And for being such vocal advocates for "the real Jesus," they sure are mean and unpleasant.

So, if you're against having a Mormon president at all cost, then fine. Just remember that the cost is possibly more of Obama. And curious, how do you feel about Obama's religion? I guess the real question is, can you identify which religion he belongs to, and does that matter to you? And if this rant doesn't apply to you (ie, religion doesn't play a role in who you vote for), then ask if you'd rather re-elect a man who has shown a complete lack of financial comprehension, or bring in someone who has proven that they can manage big budgets. Essentially, we have bigger fish to fry. Religion should be the biggest non-issue of this election.

And since I think it should be a non-issue, let me continue to beat this dead horse. Mormons try to be like Christ, and even if you think we're misguided, is it so bad that we're trying? Even if you don't believe in Christ, is that a bad standard to hold ourselves to? We are extremely family-oriented. We are honest, and hard working. Would it be so bad to have someone like that as the president? You can keep masking your deep-seated hatred and negativity towards Mormonism behind the title "true Christianity." And if Romney did take orders from the prophet, then BE CAREFUL! He's taking advice from this man! And if you don't believe in Christ or God, why would you worry about us trying to act more like the Christ we believe in? And it might be horrible for a Mormon president to act on the principle taught by this prophet.

I didn't really want to delve too much into the religious aspect of it. I just wanted to point out that it's ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as being called racist for not supporting Obama. But, at the same time, just as people voted for Obama simply because he is black, I don't want anyone thinking that I'm voting for Romney just because he's Mormon. People are making connections that just aren't there. My, how the tables have turned.

Hyrum Smith, brother to LDS prophet Joseph Smith and early Church leader said, "We want a President of the United States, not a party President, but a President of the whole people . . . and . . . have a President who will maintain every man in his rights." Rights, including the right to worship in your own way or not at all.

And WOW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehD390q9G3k - from 1965

And, if I was funny, clever, and smart I would've written this article instead of the one you just read.

I have to admit that this blog post is a lie -- my mom doesn't read this.

If you can't do this, then you're dumb dumb dumb.

This is the time of year that I think about the namby-pamby movement of sissies known as the politically correct crusaders. They want the actions of everyone around them to be catered to their fragile feelings because, sadly, they never mentally matured passed the 3-year-old temper tantrum phase. Instead of making passive-aggressive blog posts directed at them while they cry a river, I decided that, hey, they just might be onto something in this movement that seeks to crush all ideological diversity. So I've jumped on the bandwagon, and I have big plans. Ultimately, I want to be able to celebrate Hanukkah without the inconvenience of actually being Jewish. I mean, 8 days of presents sounds pretty sweet, right? If atheists can hop on the Christmas celebration train without believing in Christ, then why can't I also crash the holiday shindigs of other religions regardless of their blatant inconsistency to my own beliefs? I'll definitely have to put a stop to the recited blessings and menorah candles business because that makes me uncomfortable in contrast to the whole Son of God thing that I believe. But, I digress. People are still too scared to boss the Jews around like they do the Christians (for now), so I'll start small, yet think big. I'm outside of the box on this one because this nonsense can really be applied to anything that is public.

In an effort to be more politically correct, I've written a letter to Melissa Rosenburg and Stephanie Meyer, the creators of the Twilight movies: *ahem*

Dear Melissa and Stephanie, creators of the Twilight movies, summoners of tween euphoria, or Phil (because we should be able to call you whatever name we believe you're called),

Your movies are terrible. Yet, they are wildly popular. I know that some people really love them, and have anticipated their release for several months prior. Now, I want to be involved in the rampant enthusiasm, but I just keep coming back to: your movies are terrible. But what do you want me to do? Not watch them? That would be social suicide. I have some suggestions that would make these movies better for everyone regardless of age, race, gender, species, and religion.

Firstly, drop the whole vampire thing. Seriously, vampires are supposed to be scary, but pre-pubescent awkward teen love stories already scare me for different reasons, and the vampire bit is just superfluous after that. And I just don't believe in vampires, nor am I interested in joining your vampire fantasy camp. And if I'm going to participate in something in which I don't really have good reason to participate, you're going to have to be sensitive to my feelings. Maybe we could call them "nocturnal anemic Americans" instead. Yes, that's much more inviting, and actually begs for us to be more sympathetic towards them. "Vampire" is just so derogatory.

Then, lets see some more adult content. Foul language, blood, gore, nudity (except for that pudgy Edward guy), drugs, car chases, mid-air fight scenes, explosions, etc. However, this will not be an R rated movie because that would exclude anyone under 17 from being able to see it and that kind of exclusion is an enemy to political correctivenessity. Instead, you should adopt the video game industry's "E for Everyone" rating. That way we exclude no one and no touchy person will have their feelings hurt.

And last, seriously, drop the vampire thing. I know it's kind of the FOUNDATION of your movie and all, but remember: I want to watch the movie and I don't believe in vampires.

Sincerely,
A hopeful future Twilight fan

Seriously, atheists--if you made your own holiday to celebrate your atheism I wouldn't care. However, I wouldn't join in your celebration because I don't share that belief with you. Furthermore, I wouldn't try to force you to make your celebration more Christian friendly so that I could join. That would be . . . what's the word? Selfish.

Part III, "lol wut?"

I was going to create a graphic for this post, but I got lazy. Imagine a picture of someone sitting at the computer with text at the bottom that said "2000", and a quote next to the person that says "I have no friends." Then imagine the same picture, but the text at the bottom says "2011" and the text says "I have 845,000 friends!" Eh, eh? Okay, it's probably a good thing I didn't put effort into that graphic. It was supposed to convey the idea that people who spent too much time in front of the computer usually were nerds and didn't have a social life (pre social networking). But now, thanks to our materialistic, status based lifestyle, our online friend list is sometimes an astronomically inaccurate representation of how many friends we have in reality, but at least you LOOK like you have a life. But really, you're still the nerd from 2000.

I don’t know if the old ideas of “Street Smart” and “Book Smart” apply anymore, not that I really understood what that ever meant anyway. Now the “smarts” apply in a large array of categories. “Facebook Smart” is when a person knows all the details of all their friend's boring lives and how they intertwine with that friend's friend's boring lives, and you can make sense of it in context of your own boring life. Worse yet, we know all of your inane, trivial thoughts too. “Twitter Smart” is someone who can captivate or be captivated by 140 characters or less because honestly, who has time to read more than 3 paragraphs in our fast world? “Youtube Smart” is the person who knows every single viral video and will give his or her most professional, yet somehow extremely ignorant opinion on every topic that is immortalized on the Tube created by You. “Democratic Smart” is the person that thinks if it helps your cause, it must be creditable. “Republican Smart” is the person that thinks if it challenges your cause, you just have to deny logic and keep believing blindly. You can be "Wikipedia Smart.” As Michael Scott from Dunder Mifflin says, "Anyone can go to Wikipedia and add information on any topic, so you know you're getting the best information possible."

You get the point. In short, I believe all these new “smart” categories are the pretext for the theory of the de-evolution of the human mind. In the movie Idiocracy, an average man with an IQ barely over 100 is frozen and revived several hundred years in the future, where he is then considered the smartest man in the world. The media saturation and desensitized moral standards of the 500 year span have stupefied the society and made them dependent on technology to do everything for them. Watch it next time it's on T.V. It’s the hyperbolic representation of Michael Moore's undaunted effort to bash American Capitalism, then later sue the production company for apparently shorting him a few million dollars. You can thank Capitalism for that one, Mike. Did I say "undaunted?" I meant to say "dull-witted." I’m not blameless, though. I realized the other day that the last book I read was “The Giant Bathroom Reader.” It literally sits on the back of my toilet. So, what am I trying to say, you may be asking? I'm addicted to Youtube.

I posted a video for my friends on my fantasy basketball league's discussion forum that was very “viral” at the time. A girl’s attempt at breaking into the music scene gone horribly wrong. Yet, she gained tons of popularity just because it was so bad. Her horrible song sold millions upon millions, just because the awfulness made people laugh. She became wildly rich at the expense of her dignity because she has no talent. One of my friends pointed out that the video had almost 50 million views and asked “Is it a new marketing strategy to make your music video terrible on purpose so it goes viral? If so, genius.” It sort of elightened me then (and maybe I’m late to realizing this), that society’s standards for entertainment are low. VERRRYY low. When I look at some people who have gotten famous because of something stupid on Youtube, I cry myself to sleep. Stupidity is being rewarded.

If you go to Youtube's homepage, they categorize all the most popular videos of the day. They have "Most Viewed," "Most Favorited," and "Most Popular" categories. I'm not going to recommend watching any of these videos because you'll wish that you could have those precious minutes of your life back (I've watched some at work, where I'm trying to waste my minutes anyway). If you go back everyday for an extended period of time, you'll notice that some of the same users reappear in those categories. They have built up a solid following, and the only question I have is: why? Is moderately funny, sub-par entertainment really worth your time and praise? I can't explain.

For every video, you find a number of comments from people who think they are experts on the subject, but their comments are often very ignorant. If you leave a comment that is remotely contrary to what they believe, they'll reply in the most barbaric, insulting, straight-to-the-jugular way. I think it's a funny, but sad commentary on our modern society.

This doesn't really relate to Youtube, but I've mentioned it in the other posts and I just have to get it out there: Saturday Night Live just isn't funny. At all. Well, I mean, sometimes they can make me chuckle, but it's not worth watching an hour and a half of poor actors not keeping a straight face during their skits, looking at the camera, and Kenan Thompson dressing like an overweight woman but not ever disguising his voice (which you know happens EVERY WEEK) just in hopes that I will chuckle a little.

Ok, so there is this college English professor named Mark Bauerlein, and he wrote a book a few years ago called The Dumbest Generation: Why You Shouldn’t Trust Anyone Under 30. In this Youtube clip, there is an interview with him making some of his points. I think the guy is right on. I remember reading an article about this book a couple years ago as a student and agreeing with it then. As you can imagine, Youtube is a hot venue for the very generation he is insulting. And they are mad! The results are hilarious. Some people have made video responses to this clip (which I don’t recommend watching unless you're suicidal), and some people have made some outrageous comments, all of which only help to solidify Bauerlein’s theory. You don't necessarily have to watch the clip to appreciate the comments, so long as you know the premise of the clip. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, completely unedited, not-making-this-up, cut-and-pasted-ed Youtube user comments for this video clip:

“Why waste time memorizing history when I can check my phone and have any answer I need.” - (notice the missing question mark. Imagine a conversation between this guy and a special interest political activist: "Hey, Youtube guy, would you like to join the Nationalsozialismus Party?"

"What do you stand for?"

"19th Century idealism, romanticism, and global social justice."

"That sounds great! Just let me look it up on my phone real quick and make sure that I'm not making the same mistake as others might have in the past. . . Hmm, well, it looks like 19th Century socialism sucked . . . and this group you're trying to get me to join is also called 'Nazism,' and they do bad things. Thank goodness I had my phone on me so I didn't make a mistake by signing up for something that sounds good on the surface but actually sucks [subtle *nudge nudge* to select readers].")

“Perhaps is that YOUR generation has stupefied our generation with terrible educational systems, lack of good parenting, horrible economic system, etc. Nice going, baby boomers.” - (Who taught you how to blame previous generations for your own faults? Obama? Or Snooki?)

“Things hve changed The Internet is more useful than your inconvenient to reach acess or find information Wir th Wikipedia Google and other search engines CAN EDUCATE YOU TEN TIMES AND INT EN TIMES SHORTER TIME THAN YOU SPENT TO TALK NONSENSENSE sHUT UP YOU ARE RETARD TO BE GIVING ADVISE TO PEOPLE WHO KNOW MUCH MORE THAN YOU UNECESSARY ROBBING CITY OF TEACERS PAY FROM OUR TAXES FOR USELESS SERVICE OF SERMONISING INSTEAD OF LIKE iNTERNET PROVIDE NEEDE DINFORMATION FAST AND 24/7”- (Luckily, this user only needs to know how to say, and not spell, "would you like fries with that?" at his job.)

“maybe the fags right though, we should eat a little bit of cheese with our wine while we read sum shakespear.” (It's like he tripped at the finish line.)

“dIs gi iz Fag...” (This one is funnier if you've seen Idiocracy.)

“The problem is with public schools. Education and entertainment should be all a part of the same system. Schools don't do that though.” (Wait, what?)

“I may have taken LSD, but I did all the reading for my undergraduate and graduate degrees.” - (Yeah . . . is there another doctor in the house?)

“the class of 2012 is the smartest class ever to enter college.” - (Wait, 2012 came? And I missed it!?)

“there are to many people around my age just going off to vote for a governer ceneter somthing like that with apsalutly no idea what there voting for” - (true dat.)

“Part of me hopes that too be true.” (I have no idea what this person is referring too)

“its funny how the last week i was watching about 20 documantarys so yeah i just got done watching a fox news so i guess wese all not tard” (I can't tell if this is just an ironic attempt to make fun of Fox News again.)

“History is WROTE BY THE WINNERS!” - (Maybe we should leave the "WROTE-ing" to the writers instead.)

“I'm fourteen years old and I know that General Patton was a very important figure during World War Two, and I think James Dean was a singer.” - (uh . . .)

“FIRST OFF, ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS NOT IMPORTANT BUT WHAT HE DID TO CHANGE THE WORLD and what THE PROBLEM WAS. -HOW IT WAS- B4 HE CHANGED ANYTHING.” - (I'm sorry; I stopped paying attention when you went to normal caps without warning, then back to caps lock, all without explanation.)

“WE SPEND HUNDREDS OF HOURS TEACHING KIDS IN SCHOOL HISTORY. WHEN A HALF OF THAT TIME SHOULD BE SPENT TALKING ABOUT THE --PRESENT-- AND DOING WHAT WE CAN TO CHANGE WHATS WRONG IN THE PRESENT.” - (*facepalm*)

“just get a job or an education. its that simple. just make college free to those who choose it, and pay for it with government. there is a way to have your cake and eat it too.” (We accept, cash, Visa, Mastercard, and Government. There is so much more wrong with this comment. . .)

“is getting hired at a factory line where a kid spends 10 hours of his days doing nothing really any more productive than guitar hero?” - (yes.)

“i doubt cleopatra sat around studying the past?????” - (I doubt you can make a statement and also make it look like a question . . . oh . . . well played.)

And my personal favorite:

“lol wut?”

More recent video from Mark Bauerlein.

Part II, Palin Derangement Syndrome

Here's an article, or two, I read this morning, emphasizing the point of my last post. And this one is just funny. Read at your own leisure. (Note: The articles are from The Blaze, which is extremely right-wing, enough so to make even me shake my head in shame at the overt bias from time to time. But it helps me remember that extreme Repub Conserves are whacked out too, so I consider it my way of staying balanced when I see what I don't want to become.)

So, I wrote this blog post at the same time as the last one, and it was quite a bit shorter, which I thought would be exciting for you. But now, I will make it longer, and add pictures!

Ironically, one week after posting some offending words directed toward Hollywood, I found myself in Hollywood, with time to kill even. It's just as dirty, maybe dirtier, as I remember. I took pictures. Here is me showing my distaste for Hollywood by eating the sign:



I can sense the oxymoronic concern that is humming in your mind right now. If I have a distaste for Hollywood, why would I eat it? Well, I spit it out later. Then I squished it:



I ran into Albert Einstein at the planetarium! We were immediate friends. I tried to show him all the things he's missed in the decades that he's been gone. He was particularly intrigued by the touch technology of my iPhone:



Then he tried to show me something:



When I couldn't figure out what he was trying to show me, he poked my in the eye:



He's a nice guy, but has quite a temper.

I took a picture of Uranus on my phone, but can't figure out how to get the picture here. It was going to be a great joke, but it's not worth the effort now.

I even had a picture of the show (Les Miserables) that I caught while I was there. My ridiculously expensive balcony seats were in a prime location to see everything that was going on. Obviously I couldn't take pictures during the performance, not that I would want to anyway, because that would mean I would have to take my eyes off the stage for a second, and it was way too good for that.

That's enough of actual blogging, here's part II (if you missed part one, scroll down and read it. But it's not necessary because these read pretty well independently from each other):

As I've said before, I don't have anything against Sarah Palin, but I don't really endorse her either. I don't know why, but I think it's mostly because I'm afraid that people aren't ready to vote for her yet, and I want someone besides Obama to be in office so badly. She also is not my first choice, but if it came between her and another term for Obama, she would have my vote! But that's not really saying much because at this point there aren't many people I wouldn't vote for over Obama. She has said she isn't going to run anyway, so unless anything changes, I'm not going to put too much effort into researching her more.

Besides, the Washington Post is doing a fine job promoting her for us.

About 24,000 pages of Palin's emails have been thoroughly looked over by The Washington Post, some of their recruited readers (yes, WP readers exist), and even the New York Times jumped in on the action. I think I disagree with this ethically, but at the same time it's been refreshing to see a person who has nothing to hide, and has, in fact, come out shining brighter than ever. It makes me wonder, as this article suggests, what would happen if we treated all politicians this way.

What if we rummaged through all of Obama's emails from 2007 to now? What would we find? I'm not sure that we would find anything more incriminating than his destructive political track record already shows. But, geez, it was a 3 year fiasco just to get him to show a long form birth certificate (I'm not a birther either), we still haven't seen his college transcripts, or records from the Illinois State Senate, fer cryin' (to name a few), and what about the anti Israel rally tape that is allegedly withheld since before the election? It may not actually exist, but don't we have a right to know for sure? It would definitely put his current ultimatum to Israel into the light. You can imagine that there might be something in his e-mails. I don't really care that much, except for the principle behind it. If we're going to put such scrutiny on Sarah Palin, a non candidate at this point, why not do the same for real candidates? Why the double standard, AGAIN? I mean, seriously, wouldn't it be more fun to rummage through, say, randomly off the top of my head, Anthony Weiner's emails?

What is refreshing about this whole e-mail search is how spectacularly it has backfired on those who were only trying to find incrimination against her. At start, I was instantly intrigued by the fact that, as far as I could determine, there were no efforts on Palin's part to stop the examination, and she didn't seem flustered at all by it. That should have been the first indication that she had nothing to hide. And when "incriminating" e-mails started to emerge (e.g. her excessive use of the word "flippin,'" her sadness for her daughter, Bristol's exposure to hateful media, and a discussion about dinosaurs), she came out on top as a genuine, honest, God-fearing, sincere, level-headed, intelligent person with a skeleton-less closet. So the question that begs to be asked is: since this group of liberals did not find any dirt on her, doesn't that merit their support for her? You don't have to agree with her views, but for her values? Unfortunately, the media doesn't work that way. Instead the whole operation has been kept quiet while they wait for it to be forgotten: "Move on, nothing to see here." This is a good article about the money, time and effort that was invested into this miserably failed tactic. What's sad to me is that they put so much investment into reading 24,000 pages of personal e-mails at no benefit to them, yet no one could seem to put half as much effort into reading the 2,500 page healthcare bill. Hmm, where are our priorities? Are we so concerned about partisan "wins" that we forget to examine what is actually good for us? Meanwhile, our economy is going to collapse because it’s not sustainable. As a side note, Healthcare reform is named the biggest “victory” for the Democratic party in the last 100 years. We may not be able to afford it, but they won! Good job? Why are we more concerned about winning the battle than what the battle is about?

Why do we hate her? Oh yeah, because of Hollywood. So many people mocked Palin for saying "I can see Russia from my house." That's great, but Tina Fey said that on SNL, not Palin. I guess people believe that if Palin is being mocked on a popular show, everything Fey is saying MUST have been said by Palin. Either that or SNL's Weekend Update is considered legitimate news by some (no surprise here). Bristol Palin appeared on Dancing with the Stars, to add a little "political drama." Goodness, is this what is considered political drama these days? Oooh, look at that spawn of Sarah dance, I just hate her and those flippin' foreign policies! I actually do know people personally who wanted Bristol Palin to be eliminated SOOO badly from the show just because she was a Palin. I never watched the show, so I can't weigh in. If I were to weigh in: Is she a good dancer? If yes, keep her. If no, eliminate her. The merits of a person are not applicable anymore, obviously.

Michelle Malkin aptly calls the media's obsession with Sarah Palin, Palin Derangement Syndrome. Some are suggesting that the reason for such irrational e-mail investigation is because the left believes that she is powerful enough to sway the 2012 election. They want to find dirt against her, because they're afraid of what she's going to do to them. Even if she's not running, an endorsement for another candidate might be enough. If she wasn't a threat, then why not just leave her alone? If she is the idiot that you think she is, then ultimately she will just help your cause anyway. Similar to the way that the Washington Post helped Sarah Palin's image. Understand, libs? Stupid hurts.

I've thought about how unfairly she has been treated ever since she was illogically blamed for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting last year (similar to this instance, that was inexplicably kept silent; nothing to do with media bias, I'm sure.). It intrigues me how much she was hated for an event that she had no relation to for virtually no good reason. Well, the "good" reason is because Palin used the word "crosshairs" when talking about politicians we want to kick out. Anyway, the double standard displayed by the liberal blame game is astounding. "The right's hateful rhetoric is out of hand! Why can't we just hold hands with rainbows and love everyone like the left does?" Oh wait, I was talking about a double standard: Here are some things that the left has said and done (Language and Graphic Content Warning). Yeah, WE'RE the hatemongers. . .

Now, I'm not stupid enough to say that no Republican has ever done anything stupid or hateful. Unfortunately, white supremacists and anarchists align themselves to the (far) right because it is most conducive to their idealogy, and they will resort to violence to make the country even more conducive for them. But let's examine this: Radical Liberals are anti Capitalism, and anti free market (among other "antis" and "pros"), both principles that made this country great to begin with. It's not a secret anymore that they want a revolution. For a revolution, as history will show, you have to use force against your opposer to get them to conform. I haven't heard of any Conservative that wants a revolution. In fact, it's the opposite. It's not that we're scared of change, but we know that upholding the inspired Constitution is the best way to promote the most freedom, and more freedom is how you are able to embrace more change.

K, i ned to brb cuz jursey shor iz on.

(this is an interesting video; not sure if I agree with all of it, but some of it seems pretty logical. It's kind of annoying. Watch at your own risk. May cause death.)

Tokkin bout my Jenerashun

An issue that has been on my mind since I was a teenager is finally taking shape into cohesive thoughts. I figure I’ll take a stab at it now, although I’m not sure if they’re cohesive enough yet. This idea was intensified with the election of Barack Obama, and more recent news stories have pushed away the fog even more (after you read this you're going to wonder why it took so long to shape these thoughts. I have a special brain, ok!?). When first becoming interested in politics, I promised myself that I would never take anything at face value. If you're not questioning something, you're following blindly. I have become particularly interested in sociological factors that play a role in shaping political, secular, and religious landscapes.


Some of you know that I’m not a fan of my own generation, “Generation Y,” as we’re called. We are marked as the “give-it-to-me-now” generation. We hold an undeserved attitude of entitlement. Our once valuable hours are now saturated with substandard television and Internet entertainment. We have short attention spans, lack the ability to effectively manage ourselves, are politically docile, historically starved, and selfish. Even more pathetic is the culture of my generation. Statistics have indicated that of the top 10 shows that are listed among 18-49 year-olds, reality television is only on the list thanks to the 18-29 year-old bracket. A reality show with substance is good for all ages, but among the top rated reality shows are Jersey Shore, The Kardashians, and Real Housewives. Jersey Shore is in no way a good show. It's crass and crude and serves no societal function whatsoever. In Real Housewives, overly rich, high maintenance women show how much they don’t grasp reality, and are kind of useless. Catfights, Botox and egotism has never been so amusing. These shows are the definition of narcissism, entitlement, and provide a horrible display of civility and lack of intelligence among the “stars” of the shows. Take other reality television “stars” like the Kardashians and Paris Hilton. Why are they famous again? I mean, besides having a super wealthy, well-known father and a sex tape. Why should we aspire to their level of . . . success? One favorite reality show from the past year or so was The Hills on MTV. It was scripted. Yes, a SCRIPTED reality show. Brilliant. As a member of this generation, I do believe this is an accurate representation of the majority. Obviously, there are exceptions.

Among entertainment time-wasters for my generation is Youtube. I decided that I will make a separate post about Youtube, because there’s just so much to say about it! Consider this a “two-part” blog. Let it suffice, for now, to say that there is an over representation of idiots and an under representation of quality entertainment on Youtube.

In that part-two, I will also tell you about an author who wrote a book about my generation calling us the dumbest generation so far, his presence on Youtube, and the counter-productive fight against him from some of the dumb ones he’s talking about. For now I’m moving on.

Author Ben Shapiro recently wrote a book called The True Hollywood Story of How The Left Took Over Your T.V. He has interviews from top Hollywood executives, producers, directors, and actors who openly admit to using their “craft” as a propaganda tool to push liberal progressive undertones in popular media. I know you’re not surprised. I’m not either. What is surprising though is how proudly they admit to it. They are thrilled about it. They even use words like “discrimination (against conservatives)”, and “blacklisting” openly conservative people who are looking for work in Hollywood. The Liberal undertones in entertainment even go as far as Sesame Street.

I have always hated Friends. Now I know why (starting in paragraph 4 of this article).

The people in Hollywood have egos that are bigger than the greater Los Angeles area; they believe that “normal” people idolize them and aspire to be just like them. Sadly, they are right when it comes to my generation. Many view television shows as an ideal lifestyle that they should try to emulate. I use the term “Hollywood” loosely to include most popular media.

The other day I was watching the Colbert Report on Comedy Central. Even though that show frequently makes fun of Republicans and Conservatives, I think it is hilarious! When I was watching, they were playing pieces of a Bill O’Reilly clip out of context. I knew it was out of context because I had seen the original clip. They made it appear like he held the exact opposite opinion about a subject than he actually did. I didn’t care, it worked for the joke, and I can laugh at something funny. But I started to wonder how many people consider the Colbert Report to be an actual source for news?

Turns out, about 30% of 18-30 year-olds list Jon Stewart, and the Colbert Report as their news resources. Isn’t it a good feeling to know that so many people are voting based on what they heard from a comedy show that will do anything for a laugh? It literally scares me to think about people watching the Colbert Report, and then regurgitating the jokes as political facts. So much for my dream of a world where people actually use common sense.

There is an inexplicable hatred for Sarah Palin among people my age (maybe a Sarah Palin commentary will be part 3 of this post?). I’m not necessarily standing up for her, but why is there such hatred? I hear it all the time from people my age. They just despise her! No one can tell me why, but I've noticed that it’s a wildly popular thing to make fun of her on SNL, Comedy Central, late night programming and other top rated shows that are targeted toward the Gen Y demographic. The hatred has nothing to do with her policies as far as I can tell, but rather the fact that Hollywood has made it popular to hate her. As someone who doesn’t hate her (but I don’t exactly endorse her either), I can tell you that people my age who find out that I don’t hate her have begun to treat me differently. But, alas, there is no substance to their reasoning. I think it’s because she’s a threat. Look for part 3.

Here’s my conclusion: Liberalism is a test of popularity. The Hollywood entertainers who captivate and, frankly, control millions of my generation are telling us that Liberalism is the most modern and trendy way to think. Conservatism is outdated and old-fashioned, they'll say. By golly, we're just a bunch of back-woodsy, uneducated rednecks who hate blacks, marry our cousins, and love war! Conservatism is belittled and mocked at every opportunity, letting insecure youngsters know that if you don’t want to be “blacklisted” you should be a Liberal. I bet if you ask the average person in the 18-30 year-old bracket to name a Supreme Court Justice, they couldn’t. Ask them to name a cast member from Jersey Shore now. How does this really tie into today’s political scene? Obama holds a record for the highest turnout of first time voters between the age of 18-25. Using mass media and a bit of peer pressure, entertainment “puppeteers” made Obama look like a rock star candidate without annoying us with pesky details concerning his policies, track record, etc; because we don’t care about those things. Instead, look how young he is, and how eloquent and smart; and look, he plays basketball, he’s thin, he’s black and that is a big deal because we’re making history. Most Gen Y-ers were probably more concerned about their next Facebook update than about Obama's policies. Barack was voted into office by the attention grabbing, I-want-it-now, American Idol generation. I can see why the average individual of my generation would find him appealing back in 2008: Tax cuts for anyone making less than $250K a year, school debt forgiveness, free secondary education, end of wars, free healthcare, etc (all of those things were promised during his campaign, and have not been realized. If you want to argue free healthcare with me, I want you to study the operative word “free” first). Luckily, I know that some people are awakening to the destructive results of his poorly run presidency, and will not vote for him in 2012. The people I know of who are still planning to re-elect him probably haven't changed the channel away from MTV since 2008 (insert more hyperbole here, if you’d like). It’s the Hollywood Liberals that are recruiting for the fight against Fox News at the behest of progressive “leaders” in office, because they want to shut up anyone with different opinions that threaten their agenda. And it is my generation that is joining the attacks, even though you’d be hard pressed to find anyone from that group that actually has watched a second of Fox or any "news" channel aside from Colbert for that matter. Liberal groups are led by bullies who will turn to insulting and degrading others when their opinions are challenged. It’s amazing to me how Liberal groups can make their members feel like it’s the Republicans who are intolerant and full of hate, then they use words like “discrimination,” and “blacklisting” proudly. More amazing are the generation of idiots who believe the obvious double standard. If you believe that Liberals truly are the most tolerant of political differences, then I dare you to walk through downtown Berkeley with a sign around your neck that reads, “I’m a Conservative Republican,” and see how you’re treated. I would actually like to do that as an experiment. Not me though. We should get a Democrat to do it, it would be very enlightening . . . hmm, I'm on to something!

This is not a blanket statement for all Liberals, but the Liberals I know who are able to think for themselves, do. Those who are shallow, concerned about popularity, try to keep up with what some whacked out Hollywood community deems as cool, and don’t care to study out current political issues that actually affect them default to the most popularized political party, Liberalism. Are you happy that Hollywood has rendered you unable to think critically for yourself? Your thinking has been retarded so much that you’re actually de-evolving. I don’t mean to rip into this generation so much. After all, I am one of them. I don’t think I’m better than the rest, and I certainly indulge in too much mind-numbing television, but it’s never been in my nature to let someone else do my thinking for me.

Just as a side note, I don't understand why people aspire to Hollywood standards anyway. Have you ever been to Hollywood? I've walked down Hollywood Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, and visited the sites. I didn't see a lot of stars, but I did see a lot of trash, homeless people sharing needles, soliciting prostitutes, drug deals, and people who's minds were fried to the point of hallucination. Hollywood is a dirty, disgusting place. Their ideas of reality are so unrealistic, I could probably spend the rest of my life trying to lick my own elbow and live a more rewarding life.

Please, fellow Generation Y, prove to everyone that we’re not mindless drones. Start thinking for yourself! Lead or be led! Lead, follow, or get out of the way! [Another cliche]!

Does this post make me look like a conspiracy theorist?

Another interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDcF2BwGNkY