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

Here's boring for you.

From the very beginning, I never wanted my blogdom to be any sort of propagandized political temper tantrum (or as I like to call it, a “PPTT”). I’ve always made fun of people with a single digit online following who blog passionately about politics, revolutions, and non-role model type athletes. I’ve become that person, minus the revolutions. And passion.

When people tell me that they’ve read my blog, I usually respond with, “Oh, that’s embarrassing.” People who are trying to be modest, but are actually happy to hear that someone is taking interest in their work most commonly use this phrase (like Andy Bernard). Not me, I am actually embarrassed. I know that I’m super opinionated and young, and when I write, I think I know who’s going to be reading it. Then I find out that someone I didn’t expect to read it is reading it. I try to remember what I said and if it has the potential to offend this particular reader. When I blog, I act like I’m a “no excuses, no regrets” kind of person, but I’m not. I like to think that I’m conscious and respectful of other feelings and opinions. This blog is my outlet to vent, but in real life I’m much more reserved. I like to unleash on the unsuspecting cyber-world where it seems that there is a bigger safety net. No, I haven’t recently offended someone (that I’m aware of), that’s not the reason for this post. I always thought it would be fun to be a political journalist, but my past style of writing is much too extreme and loose to be taken seriously. I also feel that I lack a good dose of life experience, another reason why I am sometimes embarrassed by what I write. When I say I’m sick of the current political scene, I imagine that someone with more life experience is thinking, “People have always felt this way with every president, it’s nothing new,” which is probably true, and my naivety is exposed. I have also learned that online debating is sort of like the Special Olympics; even if you win, you’re still retarded.

So, here’s my stance on the current political landscape; I’m just waiting out the storm, but I can’t see a safe shore, or even an island yet. I’m tired of arguing and debating, and I’m almost certain that Obama won’t even be around after 2012. I don’t see much need to argue anymore, because I don’t know many people who hold high approval of Obama anyway. I just hope that someone will show up to take his place that I feel comfortable voting for, and soon.

Donald Trump is seriously thinking about running. Heaven help us all.

Hilary Clinton has announced that she will end her career in 2012. “Ding-dong, the witch is dead!” However, I doubt we’ll never see her again.

I would vote for Palin if she ran, but I’m not sure if enough other Americans would. And she’s not the ideal candidate for me anyway.

Of course, then we have an economic wiz. A man with a business degree from Harvard, led Bain & Company out of a financial crisis as an emergency CEO, and then started his own investment firm that grew to be one of the largest and most successful in the nation. This man took control of Salt Lake City’s winter Olympics when they were in massive debt and turned it into massive profit. A man who governed a state into stronger financial security by not being afraid of spending cuts. A man such as he is refreshing to hear about amid huge American deficits. This man is Mitt Romney. Oh wait; he’s that Mormon guy, never mind.

Here is my current beacon of hope: A man by the name of Herman Cain. If you haven’t heard anything about him, look him up. The reason you probably haven’t heard anything about him is because he talks about integrity and morality, and those attributes are shunned by the world today. I still have yet to give this man my entire support, I’m going to need to see more of him first, but I’m very hopeful and happy with what I’ve heard so far. I won’t say much about his political scene now, because I don’t want to give him the official Hardy endorsement yet, but I do want to say something that I’m a little hesitant to say. You see, he’s an African-American and part of the reason I hope he turns out to be a great and successful candidate is because I really want to shut up the liberals who try to tell me that I’m a racist because I don’t like Obama. Of course if I vote for him based on that fact alone, I’m no better than the dummies that voted for Obama based on his skin color in 2008. But wouldn’t that be great? I see it as a way to prove that we actually make decisions based on the merits of the individual, but I’m sure they’ll find a way to make it seem like we’re still uneducated rednecks. I can already hear them saying that he was voted by a racist group trying to mask their racism.

Cain captivates me when I hear him speak. He is like a preacher giving a sermon, speaking boldly, powerfully, and not afraid to speak the truth. It’s refreshing to hear a man who can call a spade a spade. Let’s hope he maintains his good moral character and proves himself an honest candidate. Here is one event that he spoke at. The video is 15 minutes long, and being part of the “need-to-be-constantly-stimulated-by-short-bits-of-mediocre-entertainment” generation I didn’t want to spend that much time watching it. But once it started, I was hooked for the entire speech. I also watched his 30-minute speech at CPAC, and I would recommend it.

Take it away, Keenan!

No snappy title: Playoffs.

It's that time of year again. The only time that my blog is dependable, consistent, and well . . . predictable. That's right, it's NBA Playoff time. I actually write a lot of potential blog posts, but I never get around to finalizing them. I have 15 rough drafts last time I checked. Anyway, that's beside the point. It's PLAYOFF TIME!

Each year, I generally post two different brackets. One represents what I want to happen, and the other represents what I think will actually happen. Well, get ready for me to blow your mind, because in a pure stroke of serendipitous luck, what I want to happen, and what I think will happen are one in the same. Of course, as most of you know, my picks to win it all this year (and every previous year) are as follows, in order of importance: 1, the Spurs; and 2, anyone but the Lakers. Usually there is a number 3, anyone but the Jazz, but since they didn't even make it to the Playoffs this year, they've already been weeded out. And since Deron Williams left, the Jazz are much more tolerable to me now. Anyway, I digest. Here is my one bracket:




I try not to base my decision on my emotions, but I would agree with someone if they told me that I'm still wishfully thinking. But, if I am wishful thinking, it's just BARELY. This bracket is still possible. If I was fully wishfully thinking, the Lakers would get eliminated in the first round by the Hornets. Even though it would be sweet to watch the Spurs kick them out in the semi-finals (as I have predicted here), I would rather weed them out right away. I really like to watch close games, and feel the suspense of not knowing who will win, except when it comes to the Lakers. I would love to see them get swept in the first round, and lose each game by 50 points. Most people would change the channel out of boredom. I would watch all of those games until the final buzzer. Why do I hate the Lakers so much? Anyone reading this who has or had a two-year-old child could understand. When the child doesn't get what he or she wants, they will throw temper tantrums, hit their siblings, cry, scream, disobey, and take their punishment only when forced upon them. A good mother will have patience, teach them to be nice and civilized, accept consequence for their actions, and teach them that they can't have everything they want. They will love them and teach them how to play nice and grow up to be courteous and kind. But what if the tantrum thrower is a grown man in his thirties? This describes most of the players on the Lakers. Do you teach them to play nice? To accept consequences? No, you kick their butt in basketball, assuming they haven't headbutted your star player yet.

Anyway, got on a tangent again.

Just like every year, I'm not so sure about my predictions for the East. I don't pay as much attention to them. I am more confident this year, but I think that the Magic can beat the Bulls in the second round. If the Bulls beat them (as I've predicted), I think that they have a good shot at beating the Celtics too and the finals would be Spurs vs. Bulls.

That is all.