Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Lorde's "Royals" song gets temporarily banned in San Francisco

The World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Kansas City Royals is officially underway. In light of this, apparently two San Francisco radio stations (KFOG Radio and 96.5 KOIT) have decided to ban Lorde's "Royals" song until the World Series is over. Personally, I think this is kind of a silly move, but, eh, whatever. Well, based on this story, here's a list of what the city of San Francisco would likely do if the Giants faced one of the other fourteen American League teams.

Baltimore Orioles - Oreos will not be sold because they sound too much like Orioles.

Boston Red Sox - Anyone wearing a red stocking on their head will be banned, including Santa Claus.

Chicago White Sox - No one will be allowed to wear socks. If they wear socks with flip-flops, they'll be permanently barred from the city.

Cleveland Indians - IDs will be checked at the gate and for anyone with the first name of Christopher or the last name of Columbus, they'll be asked to leave, get drunk, claim to discover a bar and call it a library. From that point forward, bartenders at the place will be called librarians.

Detroit Tigers - Anyone with a boombox playing the song "Eye of the Tiger" will be knocked out by a security guard wearing boxing gloves, and when this occurs, the guard will yell out, "Yo, Adrien! I did it!"

Houston Astros - If someone appears to be a member of the Jetsons, they will not be allowed in the stadium. This will especially be the case for anyone who hums the Jetsons' theme song.

Los Angeles (of Anaheim) Angels - Angels in the Outfield won't be aired anywhere in the city during the World Series. If the Angels win the series, it will never be aired in San Francisco again.

Minnesota Twins - Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger will not be allowed at any of the games.

New York Yankees - Any overweight men whom simultaneously smoke a stogie and drink a beer will be asked to leave. If their last name happens to be Ruth, they'll be asked to never return.

Oakland Athletics - Anyone sporting green and yellow and walking like they're cool will be told to leave and to do some shopping with their girlfriends or gay buddies.

Seattle Mariners - Sleepless in Seattle will be barred from the city indefinitely, regardless of whether the Giants win or lose the series.

Tampa Bay Rays - If anyone pokes fun at tuberculosis by wearing attire with the letters TB on it, they'll be asked to leave and to take some sensitivity classes.

Texas Rangers - Chuck Norris will be told he's not allowed in the stadium. Chances are he'll wind up in there anyway, however.

Toronto Blue Jays - People who seem so nice, you think, "Well, they have to be from Canada," will be asked to leave, and not to come back until they get some attitude.

Does the SEC really deserve 4 of the top 5 spots in the AP poll? Probably not...

I, like many college football fans, am quite excited about the 4-team playoff this season. However, when I hear talking heads in the media and see the latest AP top 25 poll, I notice a common theme: "Let's have at least 3 of the 4 teams be from the SEC, if not all 4!" This I'm not excited about.

The thing is this, the SEC may very well be the best conference in all of college football, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as most sports commentators think it is, and how will we know if any conferences compare if we don't give them a chance to beat the SEC in the 4-team playoff?

In the latest AP top 25 poll, four unbeatens are in the poll, along with 15 one-loss teams. Here's how those teams rank:

1) Mississippi State (6-0/SEC)

2) Florida State (7-0/ACC)

3) Mississippi (7-0/SEC)

4) Alabama (6-1/SEC)

5) Auburn (5-1/SEC)

6) Oregon (6-1/Pac-12)

7) Notre Dame (6-1/Independent)

8) Michigan State (6-1/Big Ten)

9) Georgia (6-1/SEC)

10) TCU (5-1/Big XII)

11) Kansas State (5-1/Big XII)

12) Baylor (6-1/Big XII)

13) Ohio State (5-1/Big Ten)

14) Arizona State (5-1/Pac-12)

15) Arizona (5-1/Pac-12)

16) Nebraska (6-1/Big Ten)

18) East Carolina (5-1/American Athletic)

19) Utah (5-1/Pac-12)

23) Marshall (7-0/Conference USA)

Yes, four of the top five teams in the country are from the SEC, and among the top six one-loss teams, three are from the SEC. So, what gives? Is the SEC THAT superior to all other conferences? After digging through some numbers, the answer to this point is actually no.

How are we to measure conferences' strength in any other way than how they fare against the top conferences? When it comes to the power 5 (ACC, Big XII, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC), here's how those very numbers break down to this point in the season:

Record (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)

1) SEC: 5-2 (.714)

2) Pac-12: 6-3 (.667)

3) ACC: 5-7 (.417)

4) Big XII: 4-6 (.400)

5) Big Ten: 5-11 (.313)

- So, yes, the SEC currently has the best record here, but have also played fewer such games than any other conference. The Pac-12 and Big-12, which only play three non-conference games as opposed to four, have played 2 and 3 more games against the other four power conferences than the SEC. The ACC has played 5 more games against the other four power conferences, and the Big Ten has played 9 more. To have played just 7 games against the other four power conferences among 14 teams isn't very impressive from a strength of schedule standpoint.

Opponents record in wins (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) ACC: 23-11 (.676)

2) Big XII: 18-9 (.667)

2) SEC: 22-11 (.667)

4) Pac-12: 22-20 (.524)

5) Big Ten: 16-17 (.485)

- Again, the SEC is fairly impressive here, but aren't any more impressive than the Big XII or ACC.

Point differential in wins (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) ACC: +13.6

2) Big XII: +13.2

3) Pac-12: +13.0

3) SEC: +13.0

5) Big Ten: +8.8

- Once again, the SEC is right in line with everyone else except for the Big Ten, who hasn't been very impressive in the breakdown to this point.

Opponents record in losses (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) ACC: 39-10 (.796)

2) Big XII: 32-9 (.780)

3) Pac-12: 15-6 (.714)

4) Big Ten: 54-22 (.711)

5) SEC: 8-6 (.571)

- The SEC hasn't had nearly as many losses as the ACC, Big XII, or Big Ten, however, they still rank dead last in this category.

Point differential in losses (against the other four major conferences and Notre Dame)
1) Pac-12: -4.0

2) ACC: -11.8

3) Big XII: -14.0

3) SEC: -14.0

5) Big Ten: -14.6

- Once again, the SEC is right in line with everyone except for the Pac-12, which was just three plays away from being 9-0 against the other major conferences.

So, as you can see, to this point in the season, the SEC definitely hasn't proven itself as the far superior conference and worthy of four of the top five spots in the latest AP poll. While the conference has played very well to this point in the season, the sample size against quality competition is smaller than any of the other four power conferences and it appears as if they've been rewarded based on history and bias. By the end of the season, they may very well prove that they're the top conference in all of football, but they haven't done so yet, and while I wouldn't be against having two SEC teams in the 4-team playoff, I think having 3-4 teams from the same conference in that playoff would do a disservice to the playoff's intent. The SEC may have won the majority of national titles over the past decade, but how can any conference dethrone them if they're not given an opportunity to do so?

Flip-flopping with John Kasich

Ohio Governor John Kasich recently got himself into a bit of a pickle. When speaking with the Associated Press, Kasich said that the repeal of "Obamacare" is "never going to happen."

He also said that the "political or ideological" opposition to the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") - the Medicaid expansion in particular - doesn't "hold water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people's lives."

After likely receiving some backlash for his statements, Kasich went to the Washington Post to "clarify" his position, when he said:

"I don't back Obamacare. I never have. I want it to be repealed. If the House and the Senate [are Republican-controlled] and we have a Republican president, Obamacare will be repealed flat out. Flat out. And it will be replaced."

Okay, so Kasich went from saying the Affordable Care Act wasn't going to get repealed and that improving people's lives was of far greater importance than trying to repeal the healthcare law just for political reasons to he wants the ACA to be repealed and it will happen if the GOP has control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Interesting...

Sadly, Kasich's dancing about the issue didn't stop there.

The Ohio Governor then spoke to Politico, where he said this:

"I have favored expanding Medicaid, but I don't really see expanding Medicaid as really connected to Obamacare. [If Republicans take the Senate,] you better believe they're going to repeal Obamacare and I agree with that. {But], there's got to be an accommodation [for Medicaid expansion]."

So, let's try to make sense of this and go about Kasich's statements chronologically:

1) ACA won't get repealed and people's lives are more important than partisan politics

2) He wants to repeal the ACA and it will happen if the GOP gets its way

3) The GOP will repeal the ACA if it gets its way, which he's in favor of, but he's also in favor of expanding Medicaid, which is a component of the ACA, but claims isn't.

Okay then... John Kasich sounds confused. Based on all of his dancing about the issue of "Obamacare," I could see him engage in the following discussion at some point in the future:

Reporter Jan Udintjusaythat: "So, what's your stance on the Affordable Care Act?"

John Kasich: "I want Obamacare to be fully repealed!"

Udintjusaythat: "What about the part where it gives the option of expanding Medicaid?"

Kasich: "I'm in favor of expanding Medicaid."

Udintjusaythat: "Does that mean you don't want the Affordable Care Act fully repealed?"

Kasich: "Yes, yes I do."

Udintjusaythat: "But you just said you were in favor of expanding Medicaid..."

Kasich: "That's correct."

Udintjusaythat: "So, how can you be in favor of fully repealing the healthcare law while also being strongly in favor of a central component of it?"

Kasich: "What component is that?"

Udintjusaythat: "Expanding Medicaid..."

Kasich: "Yes, I'm in favor of that."

Udintjusaythat: "So then, you're not in favor of fully repealing the Affordable Care Act?"

Kasich: "Yes, yes I am."

Udintjusaythat: "But, expanding Medicaid is a part of the Affordable Care Act. If you fully repeal the healthcare law, the expansion of Medicaid will go along with it."

Kasich: "No it won't. Expanding Medicaid does, but doesn't have anything to do with Obamacare."

Udintjusaythat: "It does."

Kasich: "Not completely"

Udintjusaythat: "So then, you're in favor of partially repealing the healthcare law, so you can maintain the bit about expanding Medicaid?"

Kasich: "No, I want a full repeal of Obamacare!"

Udintjusaythat: "Including the part where you can expand Medicaid?"

Kasich: "No, I want to expand Medicaid."

Udintjusaythat: "You're impossible!"

Kasich: "That's what my wife says a lot of times."

Udintjusaythat: "She's right!"

Kasich: "She is and she's not."

Udintjusaythat: "Ugh! I'm leaving!!"

Fox News Irony

Recently, co-host of the Fox News show The Five, Kimberly Guilfoyle, said young women shouldn't vote because "they don't get it" due to a lack of life experience.

This isn't the first time someone on Fox News has made such a statement.

Earlier this month on the Fox show, Outnumbered, Tucker Carlson said, "Do you want your government run by people whose favorite show is Say Yes (To the Dress)?"

Fox's Harris Faulkner also said this on the show Outnumbered earlier this month: "Do we want young people to vote if they don't know the issues?"

This is ironic on multiple fronts. First off, when a person turns 18-years-old, he or she is eligible to join the military, which could result in going to war and placing his or her life on the line as a sacrifice for the country. So, in these Fox News pundits' minds, just because you're old enough to die for this country in war doesn't make you old enough to vote.

Fox News: "Sure, you all can go to war and die for this country, but there's no way in hell you should have the right to vote for these leaders that could possibly send you to war!"

Also, study after study shows Fox News viewers to be the least informed of anyone, even those whom don't watch any news.

Fox News: "These young people are too uninformed to be voting! They don't know the issues!"

Reality: "If people watch Fox News, they're too uninformed to be voting! They don't know the issues!"

Fox News: "We distort, we decide, and the uninformed continue to abide!"

Congrats to Rush Limbaugh for being the king of untrustworthiness!

No, he may not claim to be a "news" source, however, Rush Limbaugh does spout his views on the air throughout the course of the week and many of his listeners consider his opinions to be facts - so the man does influence a great number of people, whom treat his show like actual news. Sadly for Rush (not really), according to a new Pew Research poll, he is the least trusted name in all of "news."

According to this survey, while 12% of respondents trust Rush Limbaugh, 39% do not. Fox News came in second at 37%. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity came in 3rd and 5th at 24% and 21%, respectively. The only non-conservative leaning network or show to make the top 5 was MSNBC, which came in at 22% untrustworthiness.

Fact-checking site probably couldn't blame the public for not trusting Limbaugh very much. Here's the breakdown of the 28 statements of his they've researched:

True: 0 (0%)

Mostly True: 2 (7%)

Half True: 3 (11%)

Mostly False: 7 (25%)

False: 9 (32%)

Pants on Fire: 7 (25%)

So, out of his 28 statements, just 5 are at least half true (18%), while 23 are at least mostly false (82%), and 0% are completely true. Yes, that's quite the credible record right there!

Here are the 7 statements by Limbaugh which resulted in a "Pants on Fire" grade:

1) "Obama regime planned the influx of illegal alien children at the border."

2) "Says the media created the term 'polar vortex' and the cold air proves 'the ice isn't melting.'"

3) "Says it's not 'accidental' that the villain in the Batman movie is named Bane."

4) "Obamacare is ... the largest tax increase in the history of the world."

5) "People 'can't go fishing anymore because of Obama.'"

6) "There are 'high administrative costs' when you donate to Haiti relief through the White House Web site."

7) "President Obama ... wants to mandate circumcision."

Ah, yes, it's still a wonder how 12% of the respondents trust him...

"Thug" is the new "N-word"

According to the dictionary, the noun "thug" can be defined as: "a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer." However, anymore, it seems as if the term is used only in reference to a certain demographic - African-Americans. Seriously, when's the last time you heard a white guy referred to as a thug? Take your time...

This especially seems to be the case with regard to far right-wingers. Check out such a site. all of the comments below the article, and try counting the number of times commentators refer to an African-American as a thug. Then go through and count the number of times they call a person of a different race (especially whites) a thug.

Just over the past year, I've heard the following comments:

- "Richard Sherman is a thug!"

- "Barack Obama is a thug!"

- "Basketball is full of thugs!"

- "Trayvon Martin was a thug!"

- "Most rappers are thugs!"

Never have I heard any of the following statements:

- "You know who was a major thug? George W. Bush."

- "Robert Downey, Jr. was a thug back in the day."

- "I can't stand those '80s rock-star thugs!"

- "Phillip Rivers is kind of a thug."

- "The sport with the most thugs is definitely golf!"

It seems that since 99% of people know not to use the n-word, many have instead attempted to hide their prejudices against African-Americans by referring to some (or many) as thugs. They may be getting away with it for the most part, but an increasing number of people are catching onto their little scheme, including Jamelle Bouie of The Daily Beast, who wrote the following:

"...these constant declarations of Obama's 'thuggery' are a dog-whistle - an attempt to make the president a dangerous 'other' without resorting to the kind of language that earns wide public condemnation. It allows the speaker to indulge in racial taboos without ever crossing the line.

It's a nifty trick, and one that we should expect to see for the remainder of Obama's presidency, and whenever a famous African-American - like [Richard] Sherman - crosses some invisible line of perceived misconduct."

"I am a Liberian, not a virus"

It's getting increasingly disturbing how ignorant so many are about both geography and Ebola. I noted yesterday that there have been at least a handful of documented cases where a student, principal, school bus driver, or guests at a school have either been sent home or have prompted parents to keep their children home due to fear of a person from Africa or traveling from Africa potentially spreading Ebola to their kids. The crazy thing about every one of these cases is the fact these individuals, whom were from or traveled from Africa, were between 1,000 and 3,000 miles away from the Ebola outbreak.

That brings me to an even more recent such case, where Liberian-American mother and TV presenter, Shoana Solomon, released a viral video telling a sad tale about her 9-year-old daughter, whom was told at school that she has a disease because she's Liberian. Just a day later, after the little girl sneezed in class, she was sent home. This is despite the fact that, in the past two years, she hasn't traveled to Liberia or interacted with anyone whom had visited the country.

In the video, Ms. Solomon says the following:

"I am hurt and upset. We are Liberians, Sierra Leoneans, Guineans, and Nigerians. We live in a region that has been devastated by a deadly disease, but we're not all infected. It is wrong to stereotype and stigmatize an entire people. Remember, we are human beings."

Ms. Solomon is absolutely correct. Sadly, these are times when I think fear, paranoia, and ignorance, in conjunction with prejudices, gets the better of some people's common sense. Out of 47 countries in the continent of Africa, only 3 are currently battling the Ebola outbreak (Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea). According to my math, that means 44 of the 47 countries in Africa aren't fighting the Ebola outbreak.

What's worse than many people not appearing to know that Africa is more than just one large country is the fact some people seem to believe that, regardless whether a person has traveled to Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea since the outbreak started or not, they think natives from those countries automatically have Ebola in their blood and should stay far, far away.

It's like with the little girl I mentioned earlier - she may have been Liberian, but hadn't traveled to nor interacted with anyone from Liberia for the past two years. In other words, there's close to a 0% chance she has Ebola. What, do members of the school faculty and some parents think that, even though she hasn't been to Liberia in two years, since she's Liberian, Ebola automatically goes into her system? This is when people's prejudices gets the better of their judgment.

School faculty: "Have you been to Liberia recently?"

Little Liberian girl: "No, not for a long time - probably two years, I'm guessing."

School faculty: "Have you talked to anyone from Liberia recently?"

Little Liberian girl: "Nope"

School faculty: "Didn't you sneeze in class today?"

Little Liberian girl: "Yeah, probably allergies"

School faculty: "Hmm... But, you're Liberian, right?"

Little Liberian girl: "Yup"

School faculty: "Hmm, yeah, that's what we thought. Well, since you sneezed and you look so much like 'one of them,' I think we should probably send you home, because, well, you kind of frighten us. If we have an Ebola outbreak at this school, you'll likely be to blame."

Little Liberian girl: "I just sneezed. Other kids sneezed in class too."

School faculty: "Yeah, but they're not black, I mean, Liberian, I mean, why don't you just go home, so we can all feel better about things? Thanks."

Little Liberian girl: "But... but..."

School faculty: "Go on out now, and please wear one of these while you do so." :: hands her a mask ::

Yeah, as Ms. Shoana Solomon said, "I am a Liberian, not a virus." Amen.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Donald Trump Tweets "Black-ish" and Fails

Heard of the new critically-acclaimed ABC sitcom, Black-ish? I've seen every episode to this point, have found it to be quite funny, even clever in some spots, and look forward to seeing how the show progresses both this season and hopefully seasons to come. Fortunately, I'm not alone. According to, 85% of critics like the show (45 approve, 8 disapprove) and give it a solid average grade of 7.3 out of 10.

Here are just a few comments from some of the positive reviews:

- "In the capable hands of executive producers Larry Wilmore and Kenya Barris, Black-ish presents the topic as more of an open conversation that's welcoming to all." - Tim Surette (

- "At first glance, one could easily call this an updated version of The Cosby Show, but to do so would be doing a disservice to this uniquely ambitious undertaking." - David Griffin (ScreenRant)

- "In its own sweet way, this is a landmark show." - Matt Zoller Seitz (Vulture)

- "Black-ish is fun, cool, and hip. It just so happens to also have a lot going on upstairs." - LaToya Ferguson (AV Club)

- "What is revolutionary about Black-ish is that it talks about race, jokes about race and isn't squeamish about the results." - Brian Moylan (Guardian)

- "The African American experience is not one of easy assimilation into mainstream culture. What makes Black-ish potentially great is Barris' recognition of that." - Mary McNamara (Los Angeles Times)

- "It can't just be funny, it has to be astute and adept as well. The good news is that so far, it navigates that challenging territory with intelligence, wit and subversive purpose." - Maureen Ryan (Huffington Post)

- "[It] works on several levels -- multigenerational sitcom, workplace comedy, cultural and class satire. Will it have Cosby Show crossover appeal? That's one of those questions we shouldn't have to ask in post-racial America, but it tackles it with finesse." - Vicki Hyman (Newark Star-Ledger)

- "The pilot episode may be a discussion of ethnic identity, but for all the seriousness, it's a very funny discussion." - David Wiegand (San Francisco Chronicle)

- "At a time when so much talk about race is so serious, it's a pleasure to see a show which has a good time poking fun at everyone's misconceptions and hangups." - Eric Deggans (NPR)

Like with the new award-winning film, Dear White People, however, it appears as if a few have issues with this show's title. Many in the IMDb community have once again called this show racist. Donald Trump has been the one leading the chorus on the matter, as he tweeted the following message on October 1st:

"How is ABC Television allowed to have a show entitled 'Blackish'? Can you imagine the furor of a show, 'Whiteish'! Racism at highest level?"

What Donald Trump and those like him don't seem to understand about films like Dear White People and shows like Black-ish is that there's a big difference between signifying one's racism through making racist comments (and actions) and exposing others' racism through satire. Black-ish isn't about painting white people as inferior or racist. It's about African-Americans' identity in the "post-racial" age after Barack Obama got elected twice as President of the United States. This is especially the case for younger generations since this country continues to become more diverse. The show also cleverly shows the subtle (and not so subtle) types of racism African-Americans experience even in this day and age.

So, Donald, let me try and simplify things for you a bit. Exposing racism through comedy is not racism.

Racism: "I hate those (derogatory term)! They're so (adjective with a negative connotation)!"

Not racism: Exposing that above racist statement for what it is through comedy.

Get it now? No? Well then, there's only one thing to do, I guess - you're fired!

Americans: "Africa? Huh? What is that, like, a country or something?"

When Christopher Columbus came to the U.S. thinking it was India and, still to this day, many people refer to Native Americans as "Indians," it seemed all but inevitable that Americans would excel at geography like Rip Van Winkle excelled at speed-dating.

Case and point, it appears as if some schools, in light of the Ebola outbreak in Africa, feel that the continent is one country, as opposed to 47 countries. The thing is, this outbreak has broke out in just 3 of the 47 countries in Africa (6.4%). According to my math, that leaves 44 of 47 countries in Africa Ebola-free (93.6%). However, these wild numbers haven't seemed to cease the panic any at some schools.

In New Burlington, New Jersey, two Rwandan students are being forced to stay home due to the school's and parents' paranoia they'll magically infect kids with Ebola. Judging by the map and those crazy numbers again, Rwanda is about as close to a country fighting the Ebola outbreak as New York City is to Seattle. For those whom have to check a map for that, New York City is on the east coast and Seattle is on the west coast, so they're not very close to one another. If Seattle were somehow in Washington, D.C., as opposed to Washington state, then it would be closer to New York City, but I don't want to confuse anyone any - especially those affiliated with that before-mentioned school in New Burlington, New Jersey.

In Hazlehurst, Mississippi, a school's principal recently visited Zambia, which has led many parents to keep their children at home, because, you know, "Zambia" sounds like an illness all on its own. With the fact it's also located in Africa, well, that's doubly as troubling. However, sarcasm aside (for just a moment), Zambia is located in the southern part of Africa, which is over 3,000 miles away from any area which is being hit by the Ebola outbreak. That's the same distance as it is from New Hampshire to Los Angeles. Yes, once again, New Hampshire is on the east coast and Los Angeles is on the west coast. They're as much neighbors as I am to Prince Charles and Kate Middleton.

In Poplarville, Mississippi, a school bus driver, whom had recently visited Ghana, is not being allowed to return to work. Ghana is over 1,000 miles away from the Ebola outbreak. That's similar to the distance between Chicago, Illinois, and Savannah, Georgia. Chicago is in the middle portion of the country while Savannah is in the southeast. That's between a 14- and 15-hour drive. One could watch Gone With the Wind almost four times through in that time-span.

Lastly (for the time being anyway), in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, a school hosted a couple of visitors from Uganda, so this of course led some parents to keep their kids home. Uganda, for the record, is about 3,000 miles away from the Ebola outbreak. Once again, it's about as close to the Ebola outbreak as a virgin is to getting pregnant.

In light of these troubling comments and actions of ignorance with regard to world geography, expect these same people to make the following statements at some point in the future:

- "So, the Middle East is just opposite the Midwest, right? So, like, Tennessee and Kentucky? Is that right?"

- "Don't most Muslims live in Utah?"

- "If Iceland is so icy and Greenland is so green, how can they be so close to one another?"

- "Those Swedish Swiss are something else!"

- "So, what's Malaysia? Did Massachusetts buy Asia or something?"

- "Because of how similar they sound, I bet you Austria and Australia are just as close as New York and New Jersey."

- "Is Central America north or south of North and South America?"

- "I wonder if New Mexico has as many illegals coming into this country as Mexico."

- "Is there a country by the name of chicken near Turkey? Mm... I'm getting hungry."

- "What kind of name is Canada anyway? No, you cannot ada! U.SA.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

GOP candidate Anthony Culler: "Gays are like gremlins (you know, like in the movie)!"

The Republican Party really needs to stop trying to be clever when talking about gay marriage.

They've gone the slippery-slope route: "What's next? Poly-Sci, poly-something, what is that again? Oh, Polygon-gamy, or whatever."

They've gone the don't-know-our-Bible-too-well route: "Look, just read your Bible - besides those 5-10 other kinds of marriages, the only marriage in the sacred book is between one man and one woman. The rape marriages and those concu- or porcupine marriages, I mean, they don't mean anything anymore!"

They've also gone the gross-people-out route: "So, what? If gays can marry each other now, who says I can't marry my horse? I mean, come on, people! On second thought, it's true what they say about being hung like one. Maybe I should give that some thought after all!"

Then just recently, Anthony Culler - South Carolinian challenging Representative James Clyburn for a House seat - made the following post on his Facebook page:

"Same-sex couples that seek to destroy our way of life and the institution of marriage are NOT cute and cuddly but rather (for those of you that are old enough to remember the movie), Gremlins that will only destroy our way of life. These people, like my opponent SC-6 Congressman Jim Clyburn who OPENLY supports same-sex 'marriage,' seek to destroy the traditional family and the values we cherish. For years this insidious plan has been in the works."

He also referred to the LGBT community as "bullies."

First off, bullies? Really?

African-Americans: "We feel we should have equal education and equal employment opportunities as everyone else."

Women: "We feel we should receive equal pay as men for equal work."

LGBT community: "We feel we should have the right to get married just like heterosexual couples."

Anthony Culler: "Stop your whining! Just accept your inferior statuses, move on, and allow us straight white males to continually kick you while you're down! You're all such bullies! Geez!

Secondly, Mr. Culler tries to get cute and clever with his gays-are-destroying-our-lives comparison, but based on his quote, I have to wonder if he ever saw the movie Gremlins himself - that or he's just an idiot.

So, Mr. Culler compares gays to gremlins, just like in the movie. They're not those "cute, cuddly" things, also known as Mogwais. Well, as Mr. Culler should know, in order for gremlins to come about, there have to be Mogwais present. So, in other words, according to him, the following must be true about gays:

- Gays were once cute, cuddly Mogwais. Yes, talk about babe-magnets!

- Too much light, especially sunlight, kills gays. This is why gays' theme-song, in Mr. Culler's mind, is Corey Hart's "Sunglasses at Night." They also dig Horatio Caine from CSI:Miami.

- If gays come in contact with water, they produce more gays. Due to this, Mr. Culler, like most other Republicans, is likely against the birth-control method known as KD (or Keeping Dry).

- Lastly, the reason gays became gremlins is because they ate after midnight. At this time, it's uncertain whether or not Mr. Culler was ever a Mogwai, but if he's ever eaten past midnight, we should all be very concerned. There's only one thing which would be even more concerning - him winning an election.

New study: The brainwashing technique known as Fox News

Over the past year, the Pew Research Center has been conducting a study with regard to where people of different political persuasions get their news and how they discuss such matters. Here were some of the findings:

Consistent liberals...

- ...were rather divided when it came to a main news source they consistently went to for information: 15% went to CNN, 13% relied on NPR, 12% checked out MSNBC, and 10% read The New York Times.

- ...trusted 28 of 36 news outlets which were listed in the survey (NPR, PBS, and BBC were the three most trusted).

Consistent conservatives...

- ...went to Fox News first and foremost for news throughout the day. An astounding 47% listed Fox News as their main source for news.

- ...distrusted 28 of 36 news outlets which were listed in the survey. However, 88% said they trusted Fox News.

I can't say these results were surprising, but they're still quite frustrating. It's like I've said all along, while I despise Fox News and think they're a joke of a "news" organization, they did come up with a rather brilliant scheme to win over viewers and consistently be the cable-"news" king over the past several years. They said they were different than other cable-news channels (which was true), that people would hear stories on their channel they wouldn't hear anywhere else (which was also true), and due to this, other such channels couldn't be trusted, making them the only "fair-and-balanced" news network on television (that's the point where people got fooled). Just look at the numbers - consistent conservatives distrust nearly 78% of news outlets, yet 88% of them trust Fox News. This means that consistent conservatives are typically open to hearing about stories from only 22% of news outlets and just 12% of them may be open to hearing another rebut a claim made by someone at Fox News. This doesn't leave much room for open and civilized discussion regarding the political issues of the day.

Consistent conservative: "Obama's a Muslim!"

Consistent liberal: "Where'd you hear that?"

Consistent conservative: "Fox News, of course - the only network that has the balls to speak the truth!"

Consistent liberal: "That's not true! Here, check out these three links which successfully rebut your claim."

Consistent conservative: "Whoa! Wait a minute! What sites are these?"

Consistent liberal: "They're the fact-checking sites,, and"

Consistent conservative: "I don't think so, buddy! I don't trust any of those liberally-biased fact-checking sites! If you want real news, listen to Fox! They're the only ones I trust!"

Consistent liberal: "So, what? Facts are liberally-biased?"

Consistent conservative: "Exactly! I don't trust facts; I just trust Fox!"

Consistent liberal: "Ugh..."

The really sad part about this is the fact that study after study shows Fox News viewers to be more uninformed than anyone except for the deceased. In a PublicMind survey, Fox News viewers finished dead last on their knowledge of both domestic and international news. Here are the rankings:

Domestic Questions

1) NPR (most informed)

2) Sunday Show

3) Daily Show

4) Talk Show

5) CNN


7) No News

8) Fox News

International Questions

1) NPR

2) Daily Show

3) Talk Radio

4) Sunday Show

5) CNN

6) No News


8) Fox News

Yes, when it came to both domestic and international news, people whom didn't watch any kind of news program at all came away better informed than Fox News viewers.

So, let's break down these numbers again:

- 47% of consistent conservatives go to Fox News as their main news outlet

- 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News

- Fox News viewers are less informed about domestic and international news than anyone else, including those whom don't watch the news

In light of these numbers, Fox News should could out with the following ad:

"Want to feel smarter while actually becoming dumber about what's going on in the world? Then watch Fox News, where we distort, we decide, and you go along for the ride! Who needs facts and numbers when we can yell things that make us feel good? Who wants to be the nerd when you can be the bully and force that nerd into doing your homework? Fox News - bullying the nerds to better the world since 1996! Fox yeah!"

Info on my Facebook business, Twitter, and Tumblr pages

Here's the URL to my Facebook business page. I update it fairly regularly, but still haven't put forth a great deal of effort yet in researching matters and attempting to make the most out of it. In any case, it can be perused here:

Up next is my Twitter page. I'm still not 100% certain what I'm doing on there yet, but feel I'm gradually getting the hang of it and am up to 13.1 K followers. I update it daily with many of my own tweets, but also by retweeting some others'. It can be found here:

Lastly, here's my Tumblr page, which I've neglected quite a bit recently, but if you're at all curious, you can find it at the following link:

Weekly update of my book information

For new readers (and regular ones, I suppose), here's some information pertaining to my books.

All twelve of my books can be purchased in paperback form at the following site (and others):

The ten books I've written and released in the past 3 years (yes, I've been on a roll) can be purchased for much cheaper in Kindle form at the following link:

What I learned in Week 7 of the NFL season

In Week 7 of the NFL season, I learned that...

- ...St. Louis Rams head coach Jeff Fisher has balls the size of Uranus.

 - ..., even when being spotted a 13-point lead fairly late in the 4th quarter, the New Orleans Saints still have as good of a chance of winning a road game as I have in finding a sugar-mama by the name of Sophia Vergara.

- ...Cincinnati may want to bring back Boomer Esiason and Icky Woods when they face teams above .500.

- ...the Cleveland Browns just wanted to remind fans not to get too excited and that they're still the Browns by losing to winless Jacksonville by 18 points.

- ...the New York Giants likely do a weekly practice drill, called, "Where'd it go? I lost the ball again..."

- ...when former Baltimore Ravens head coach Brian Billick recently compared Jay Cutler to Jeff George, George probably said, "Hell no! Come on, man!"

- ...Aaron Rodgers might as well change his middle name to "Relax."

- ..., on Thanksgiving, Carolina Panthers players, in unison, will say, "We're so very thankful we play in the NFC South."

- ...Andy Reid winning after a bye week is about as certain as Andy Reid losing in the playoffs.

- ...the Kirk Cousins/Colt McCoy quarterback controversy is what everyone expected in Washington to start the season...

Week 8 NFL Predictions

Game: San Diego at Denver

Pick: Denver - For as well as both teams have played to this point in the season, it really is a shame neither will get a full week to prepare for the other - especially the road team. Due to the shortened week and travels, I'm going to give the slight edge to the hometown Broncos. I'll take Denver by a touchdown.



Game: Detroit vs. Atlanta (in London)

Pick: Detroit - Atlanta may be listed as the home team on, but the game is actually being played at Wembley in London, and as I've learned, if the Falcons aren't playing at home, the odds are not in their favor of winning the game. For as beat up as their offensive line has been, I have a hard time seeing the Falcons having a great deal of success against the stout Lions defense. Also, while Detroit's offense hasn't met expectations to this point in the season, they haven't played many defenses as bad as Atlanta's. I'll take the Lions by at least a touchdown.



Game: St. Louis at Kansas City

Pick: Kansas City - St. Louis is a very pesky team, but due to injuries, they've been limited this year on both sides of the ball, and I highly doubt the Chiefs will let the Rams get away with as much trickery as they got away with against Seattle this past weekend. With the game at Arrowhead and the Chiefs playing better of late, I'll go with them by a touchdown.



Game: Houston at Tennessee

Pick: Houston - Houston's offense makes me nervous at times, especially if they're forced to throw the football, being led by Ryan Fitzpatrick. However, I'd be even more nervous if I were Tennessee's offense in this one, for they're not sure if they'll be led by Jake Locker or Charlie Whitehurst, and know J.J. Watt is on the other side. Arien Foster and Andre Johnson should be able to provide just enough spark for the Texans offense to vault them to a 4-point win on the road.



Game: Minnesota at Tampa Bay

Pick: Tampa Bay - I really don't want to pick Tampa, arguably one of the worst teams in all of the NFL. However, while the Bucs have gotten blown out twice this year against the likes of Atlanta and Baltimore, they have been quite competitive against the likes of Carolina, St. Louis, and New Orleans, and even beat Pittsburgh. With the game at home and coming off a bye week, I'm going to give the ever so slightest of edges to Tampa. The main reason for this is Minnesota's offense. After starting the year off with a convincing 34-6 win over St. Louis, the Vikings have lost 5 of 6, and in those 5 losses, have scored a total of just 45 points (average of 9.0 per game). I don't care how bad Tampa is, if they can continue the bad trend for Minnesota's offense, they should come out with a W. I'll take the Bucs by 3.



Game: Seattle at Carolina

Pick: Seattle - In my opinion, Carolina's defense is the most disappointing defense to this point in the season. They were near dominant a year ago, but have seemingly lost it. Seattle's defense hasn't been as dominant as they were a year ago either, but haven't been nearly as disappointing as Carolina's. This is a huge game for both teams, whom are at .500, and trying to stay relevant in the playoff discussion. Even though they've lost two in a row, I have a great deal more faith in Seattle's offensive and defensive units (and coaching) than I do in Carolina's. I'll take the Seahawks by a field goal.



Game: Baltimore at Cincinnati

Pick: Baltimore - If you had asked me to pick this game 3 weeks ago, I would have taken the Bengals at home by a touchdown. However, since Cincinnati started the year 3-0, they've gone 0-2-1, being outscored 107-54 in those games (average of 35.7 - 18.0 = 17.7). Baltimore, meanwhile, has played better, and unless Cincinnati is able to turn it around, the Ravens appear to be the best team in the AFC North. Given how these two teams are trending, I'm going to take Baltimore on the road by 4.



Game: Miami at Jacksonville

Pick: Miami - Congrats to Jacksonville on winning their first game of the season. I have a very difficult time seeing them win two in a row, however. Miami may be the most difficult team in the NFL to figure out and their 11-11 record in their past 22 games is a direct indicator of that. To the Dolphins' credit, though, they have played better in their past three games, so I'm going to give them the edge in this one. Miami improves to 4-3 with a 10-point win on the road.



Game: Chicago at New England

Pick: New England - Chicago may have a very talented offense, but they simply haven't played like it all season, and unless they can put up points against the Patriots defense, they won't stand a chance in this one. Tom Brady going up against this less-than-stellar Chicago Bears defense (to be kind) at home will result in a few points for the Pats, and I don't trust Jay Cutler and his inconsistencies to match the 3-time Super Bowl champion. I'll go with New England by a touchdown.



Game: Buffalo at NY Jets

Pick: NY Jets - I went back and forth on this one a number of times. However, with Buffalo as banged up as they are at running back (Fred Jackson and C.J. Spiller will be out) and with the Jets acquiring Percy Harvin from the Seattle Seahawks, I like Rex Ryan's crew to pull out of their slump with a low-scoring, tightly-contested win at home against the Bills. I'll go with the Jets by a field goal.



Game: Philadelphia at Arizona

Pick: Philadelphia - I have trouble picking against Bruce Arians' Cardinals anymore. The guy may very well be one of the top coaches in the game. However, for as well as the Eagles played two weeks ago in their 27-0 dismantling of the New York Giants, and being well-rested coming off a bye week, I'm going to take Philly by 4 on the road.



Game: Oakland at Cleveland

Pick: Cleveland - Oakland has started playing better their past two games and I have a hard time seeing them go winless this year. Cleveland, after surprising the NFL world by starting the year 3-2, came back to earth with a 18-point loss to then winless Jacksonville this past weekend. With the game at home, though, I like for the Browns to rebound and beat the still winless Raiders by 10.



Game: Indianapolis at Pittsburgh

Pick: Indianapolis - After starting the year with two tough losses against Denver and Philadelphia, Indianapolis is unbeaten and playing better than I've seen them play for quite some time. Pittsburgh just doesn't seem to be the team they were up until about 3 years ago. Andrew Luck and company should be able to have their way with the Steelers secondary and keep their winning ways going. I'll take the Colts by 10.



Game: Green Bay at New Orleans

Pick: Green Bay - New Orleans is a great deal better at home than on the road, but at this point in the season, I just have a great deal more faith in Aaron Rodgers and the Packers than I do in Drew Brees and the Saints. Rodgers has been lights out ever since he told people to "relax" and should be able to continue his superman ways against the sub-par Saints defense. I'll take the Packers by a field goal.



Game: Washington at Dallas

Pick: Dallas - Let's see here... The Dallas Cowboys are 6-1, having won 6 straight after losing their first game against San Francisco. Washington, meanwhile, doesn't seem to know if their quarterback will be Robert Griffin III, Kirk Cousins, or Colt McCoy. Who knows? Maybe they'll bring back Doug Williams or Mark Rypien... I'll go with the Cowboys at home by 14.



Week 8 Record:

Overall Record: 66-39-1 (.629)

Monday, October 20, 2014

Fox News' Dr. Keith Ablow needs to A-go! the loony bin

Just like Fox News is a joke to news, regular Fox contributor Dr. Keith Ablow is a joke to doctors. When appearing on Fox News Radio's The John Gibson Show, "Dr." Ablow made the following remarks with regard to President Obama and the Ebola scare:

- "He (Obama) has it in for us as disappointing people. people who've been a scourge on the face of the Earth. In his mind, if only unconsciously, he's thinking, 'Really? We're going to prevent folks suffering with illnesses from coming across the border flying into our airports when we have visited a plague of colonialism that has devastated much of the world, on the world? What is the fairness in that?'"

- "How can you protect a country you don't like? Why would you?"

- [Speaking as Obama] "You miserable people have destroyed so much in the world in terms of good things, and now you're going to build a wall? Really? To insulate yourself from things that are devastating other nations when your gains are ill-gotten?'"

- "We don't have a president who has the American people as his primary interest, who believes the country has Manifest Destiny and has been a force for good."

- "I think that we became psychologically mired in a form of national Stockholm Syndrome. We said to ourselves, and the world, 'Look at this guy (Obama). We're going to elect this guy president. Why would you attack us? We're not even voting for somebody who likes us. This guy who ha names very similar to two of our archenemies, Osama, well, Obama. And Hussein. Hussein. Surely you won't attack us now because we've got a shield here of a guy who, as the leader of our country says we're bad."

Well, since Dr. Ablow(hard) attempted to speak for President Obama, I'll attempt to speak for Dr. Ablow, try to get inside his mind, and attempt to understand just what it is he's thinking, if anything. Here we go...

"I love having a voice on television. It's empowering to be able to let my thoughts be known and know full well that people will listen and agree with me. People have to listen and agree with me; I am a doctor after all. I've found that I can disguise my prejudices better with people since I'm a doctor. I can refer to an anonymous study to magically prove my biases, and usually, people will say, 'Well, he's a doctor; he knows what he's talking about,' when I really don't. I mean, I don't like black people - they're just lazy. I call that a case of stereotypical science. I may not have the study to prove it, but one has to be out there somewhere, right? Sure, why not? Women can't ever make up their minds, and due to that, shouldn't be in any position of power. Those are men's jobs, ladies! Just keep that apron on, cook us good meals, and blow Dr. Ablow once in a while! Speaking of which, them homosexual peoples are kind of gross. Due to that, they shouldn't be parents. I read a study on an invisible sheet of paper one time that gays shouldn't be parents. Fact! Don't you even get me started on those terrorist Muslims! Just like my buddies over at the NRA like to say, 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people,' I like to say, 'Bombs don't kill people; Muslims kill people!' I know, pretty clever, right? God, I'm smart, and I love myself. I love myself so much, heck, I wish I could blow myself! Gosh, it feels good to be me. I'm a racist, sexist, homophobe, and xenophobe, but you know what? It doesn't matter, because I'm Dr. Ablow. You're welcome, America."

Yeah, speaking of doctors, I think someone (Dr. Ablow) may need to see a psychiatrist...

Chuck Todd smokes (Roy) Blunt on "Meet the Press"

About a year ago, President Obama nominated Vivek Murthy to serve as the next Surgeon General. However, with the NRA leading the way, Congressional Republicans blocked the nomination and there's been little movement on the matter since then. Now with Ebola hysteria seemingly increasing by the day, this vacancy is becoming all the more noticeable.

On Sunday's Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd engaged in the following back-and-forth regarding the matter with Senator Roy Blunt (Republican - Missouri):

Todd: "The NRA said they were going to score the vote and suddenly everybody froze him. That seems a little petty in hindsight, does it not?"

Blunt: "Well, the president really ought to nominate people that can be confirmed to these jobs, and frankly then we should confirm them, there's no question about that."

The NRA led the charge to block Murthy's nomination because he stated that we should expand background checks on gun purchases and feels gun violence is a public health concern. Yes, his views are so radical, every major medical association agrees with him on the matter. After reading about this, I can just picture Vivek Murthy and the NRA engaging in the following discussion:

Vivek Murthy: "I, like every major medical association, feel that gun violence is a public health concern."

NRA: "Say what?!? Guns don't kill people; people kill people!"

Murthy: "Over 32,000 people died by way of guns last year."

NRA: "What's so concerning about that? What does that have to do with public health? Huh?"

Murthy: "You're joking, right? Death is pretty devastating to one's health, wouldn't you say?"

NRA: "What's your point?"

Murthy: "Over 32,000 people died last year because of guns. Don't you think guns were pretty devastating to those people's health, you know, since they died and all?"

NRA: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!"

Murthy: "Jesus..."

NRA: "Jesus saves people!"

Murthy: :: sighs :: "Let me try this one last time... Over 32,000 people died last year when a person used a gun to shoot and kill another or themselves. That means we wouldn't have had this gun violence without A) the person or B) the gun. Do you get me so far?"

NRA: "I think so... What do you think, we're stupid or something?"

Murthy: "I won't comment on that. Anyway, so because of these people shooting guns and killing others or themselves, over 32,000 people died last year, which was devastating to their health, and is very concerning for the public at large moving forward. That's where I and every major medical association stand on the matter. Now do you understand where we're coming from?"

NRA: "Yeah, guns don't kill people; people kill people!"

Murthy: "But gun-violence wouldn't be 'gun-violence' without guns or people, correct?"

NRA: "Just the people!"

Murthy: "Do you understand what gun-violence is? A gun has to be used in order for gun-violence to occur..."

NRA: "A person has to be there too!"

Murthy: "That's correct. Now we're getting somewhere. In order for an act of gun-violence to occur, there needs to be a person and a firearm. So, now do you understand why I and every major medical association feel gun-violence is a public health concern?"

NRA: "Absolutely not, for guns don't kill people; people kill people!"

Murthy: "I give up. Hey, it's gotta be 5 'o'clock somewhere, right?" :: does a shot of tequila :: "A couple more of these and I may be able to start seeing your logic. Cheers!"

Going back to the interview, Senator Blunt then told Chuck Todd that we need a surgeon general. After Todd asked Blunt if the senator would vote for Murthy's confirmation, the Missouri senator decided to not answer the question and instead blame the Obama administration yet again. That's a special kind of logic right there:

1) President Obama nominates Vivek Murthy for Surgeon General

2) Republicans in Congress block the nomination

3) Multiple people get infected by Ebola in the U.S.

4) The cries get louder for a Surgeon General

5) Republicans blame President Obama for there not being a Surgeon General

That would be like the following scenario taking place:

Mr. Blunt: "Honey, I think I'd like to buy you a new car. What do you say?"

Mrs. Blunt: "No thanks"

Mr. Blunt: "Really? How come? We've got the money for it and everything. Come on - it'll be fun!"

Mrs. Blunt: "That's alright. Thanks anyway, though."

:: a few months later, Mrs. Blunt's old car breaks down and dies ::

Mrs. Blunt: "Why do I still have this old piece of crap anyway?!? Why?!? It's all your fault I don't have a new car! I hate you!"

...and they lived happily ever after, or

Friday, October 17, 2014

Grub at the Parkway Pub

My favorite local pub, Parkway Pub, now officially has food. I just received the following flier regarding the matter, which says this:

We are excited about the official launch of Parkway Grub this weekend.  We want to thank you for all of your support and feedback over the past couple of months as we prepared for the big launch.  Even though tomorrow is our official launch, the truck is ready and will be serving food TONIGHT starting at 4 PM.  Our weekend menu is below.

A couple of quick points about the menu and how we will be running the Grub side of the Pub.

All of our food and ingredients are fresh and made to order.  We pick up our breads fresh from the bakery every morning. Our meats, cheeses and produce are all from local distributors.
Our mission is to support local providers and the local community as much as possible with the truck and the food we serve.
Noon to 8 PM Sunday
4- 2 AM Friday and Saturday
4-Midnight Wednesday and Thursday
We will be the only place in north Powell that you can get a fresh plate of food after midnight.
Come sit in the Pub, order food from the bartender, add it to your tab, and your food will be delivered right to your table... just like a restaurant.
If you aren't in the mood for a cocktail and want to order right from the truck, that is not a problem
You can even order food to go!
The menu will be DYNAMIC and will feature weekly specials. E.G. - Wing Nights, 'your favorite' baby back ribs, kegs and eggs, etc.
We are excited for the future and look forward to seeing you all soon. Lastly, we couldn't do this without you, our sincere thank you for your support and business.

-Ron and Lori"

To learn more, please visit their homepage, at the following link:

You can also "like" and check for updates on their Facebook page here:

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Pastor Mark Driscoll makes a big announcement...

Allow me to take you all back about 18 months. On April 26th of 2013, I wrote a blog, entitled, "I smell bacon - no, it's not the cops. The pig I smell is Pastor Mark Driscoll." For those whom read the blog, but can't remember it, or for those whom have yet to read it, here's how it went:

It's people like evangelical leader Mark Driscoll who pushed me away from the Christianity and honestly, religion altogether.

Driscoll is the pastor of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle, Washington, who gave a sermon recently which has a few people talking.

At this sermon, Driscoll said:

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be their own husbands in everything."

He wasn't done there. Driscoll added this:

"If the wife disrespects the husband in front of his coworkers, will they respect the husband? No. Women who publicly disrespect their husbands, they encourage others to disrespect their husbands. And this doesn't mean you don't disagree with your husband but you do so respectfully, privately."

The portion of the sermon which has garnered the most attention is the following:

"Being married to [nagging wives] is like a life sentence, and the guy's just scratching on his wall every day. Proverbs talks about certain women - they're like a dripping faucet. You ever tried to sleep with a dripping faucet? Plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk. It's what we use to torture people who are prisoners of war."

It's no wonder people like Driscoll don't believe gays should receive equal treatment and rights, for he (they) doesn't (don't) even believe women should receive equal treatment and rights. It amazes me Driscoll adamantly declares that women must treat their husbands with respect, yet he also states that women must "submit" to their husbands and that the "husband is head of the wife." So, in other words, the wife must respect the husband, but it's not necessary for the husband to respect the wife. Driscoll then went off the deep-end by comparing a nagging wife to torture. I'd like to hear him define "nagging wife," because I have a feeling when she's not worshiping him as he so wishes, that would constitute her as one.

Here's how I picture Driscoll would want his wife to always behave:

Mr. Driscoll: "Hello, honey. How was your day? Were you a good wife? Did you clean the house, take care of the kids, run errands, do laundry, do the dishes, and cook dinner?"

Mrs. Driscoll: "Of course, sweetie - anything for you. I love you so much. You're my man. You're the greatest man in the history of the world, outside of Jesus, of course. You're the kind of man and husband God envisioned. Let me bow down to you."

Mr. Driscoll: "That's very good. It's the 794th consecutive day you've followed both my and God's orders on being my slave, I mean, wife. Now, I've drawn a few new things for you to try. Do them... Right now..."

Mrs. Driscoll: "Anything. Just name it. I'm just a woman and can't think for myself. Please tell me what to do, oh master of all that is wonderful."

Now here's how I picture Driscol wound envision his wife as nagging:

Mr. Driscoll: "Hello, honey. How was your day? Were you a good wife? Did you clean the house, take care of the kids, run errands, do laundry, do the dishes, and cook dinner?"

Mrs. Driscoll: "Of course, sweetie - anything for you. How was your day?"

Mr. Driscoll: "No questions, remember?"

Mrs. Driscoll: "Yes, of course. So, dinner is ready. Would you like to sit down and eat now or would you like to relax for a while and I can warm it up in a bit?"

Mr. Driscoll: "I told you - no questions!"

Mrs. Driscoll: "I'm sorry. Is there anything I can do to make it up to you? Anything at all?"

Mr. Driscoll: "That does it! Nag! Nag! Nag! Nag! Nag! I'm going to take my food and head up to my room! You may pick up my plate and clean it once I ring the bell."

Yes, Mr. Driscoll obviously feels that women are inferior to men, which is funny to me, because if it weren't for a woman giving birth to him, he wouldn't be alive. Women need to respect men? Very well. But men also need to respect women. If Mr. Driscoll doesn't learn that, he may wind up being single and writing a personal ad like this and not receiving any responses:

"My name is Mark Driscoll and I am a man of God. I'm looking for a woman to treat me like her God - to praise me, worship me, spread the good word about me, and do all that I ask without question. She must be good at all the things real women and wives are supposed to be good at: Cooking, cleaning, taking care of the kids, pleasing me sexually, allowing me to be lazy, and letting me treat her like my slave. Let me be your master, so that I don't have to masturbate any more. Oh, and I like long walks on the beach."

Well, it appears as if Mr. Driscoll has run into some problems in recent months. Amid charges of plagiarism, bullying, and an unhealthy ego, Driscoll stepped aside for 6+ weeks in August while Mars Hill Church investigated the matter.

Following the investigation, Mark Driscoll sent a letter of resignation to the Mars Hill Church, which said:

"Recent months have proven unhealthy for our family - even physically unsafe at times - and we believe the time has now come for the elders to choose new pastoral leadership for Mars Hill."

Isn't it a shame this man is no longer a pastor? I know, I may shed a tear too...

Mr. Driscoll, would you please reiterate what you said in a sermon about a year and a half ago which resulted in so much backlash?

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be their own husbands in everything."

Anything else?

"If the wife disrespects the husband in front of his coworkers, will they respect the husband? No. Women who publicly disrespect their husbands, they encourage others to disrespect their husbands. And this doesn't mean you don't disagree with your husband but you do so respectfully, privately."

That's not all, is it? Come on, the most controversial quote of all - let me have it!

"Being married to [nagging wives] is like a life sentence, and the guy's just scratching on his wall every day. Proverbs talks about certain women - they're like a dripping faucet. You ever tried to sleep with a dripping faucet? Plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk. It's what we use to torture people who are prisoners of war."

There it is! Yeah, after hearing all of that, I have to wonder if it was his wife who made him feel physically unsafe at times... He should just be thankful he's not married to Lorena Bobbitt!

The Top Ten "Koch" Brothers Slogans

I've heard several different pronunciations for the last name of the Koch Brothers, Charles and David Koch. I've heard the name pronounced as: Kotch, Coke, Cook, and yes, Kock. Even though the final of the four pronunciations isn't the correct one, I feel it most accurately represents the duo. So, with this pronunciation in mind, I bring to you my Top Ten "Koch" Brothers Slogans

The Top Ten "Koch" Brothers Slogans

10. Once a Koch, Always a Koch

9. Let's Koch-fight

8. Koch-blocking Democracy

7. Why Must the Biggest Influence on Election Day Be a Pair of Kochs?

6. Big Money, Small Kochs

5. Putting Money Where Their Kochs Are

4. Hoping the Kochs Go Limp on Election Day

3. The GOP May Be Anti-Gay, but They Still Suck a Lot of Koch

2. Hands Off! Who Knows Where Those Kochs Have Been?!?

1. (drum roll) The GOP - Taking the Koch in Deep for 20 Years

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

The Ebola Craze

While we mustn't take Ebola lightly, it really amazes me how news channels have blown the situation completely out of proportion and how many people have started panicking as a result. Unless a person is traveling from West Africa or has had direct contact with a person whom is suffering from the condition, there's nothing to worry about.

As Ohio Department of Health (ODH) state epidemiologist Dr. Mary DiOrio recently stated, "Only individuals who travel to or from West Africa, where the Ebola outbreak is occurring, or individuals in close contact with someone ill with Ebola [need to worry about getting sick]."

Let's put things in their proper perspective for a second here. In 2010, here were the leading causes of death in this country:

1) Heart disease: 596,577

2) Cancer: 576,691

3) Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 142,943

4) Accidents (unintentional injuries): 126,438

5) Alzheimer's disease: 84,974

6) Diabetes: 73,831

7) Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,826

8) Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,591

In 2013, there were a total of 32,351 deaths via firearms.

To this point, there has been 1 reported death in this country via Ebola, and a total of 3 people whom have contracted it.

Yes, while we should take the Ebola threat seriously, why are some people, news networks, and politicians panicking and going paranoid about a condition which has directly affected three people and killed one in this country to this point, and been seemingly indifferent about the 32,351 people whom died of gun violence last year? Or the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people whom die every year of far more common health conditions, such as heart disease and cancer? Wouldn't our time, energy, and money be much better spent on trying to decrease the number of deaths of far more common causes of it? It seems pretty ridiculous for the following reactions to occur when comparing Ebola to something which resulted in far more casualties:

Event: Sandy Hook school shooting (27 people were shot and killed)

Citizens: "Oh no! That's so sad!"

The news: "Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens far too often anymore in this country."

Politicians: "What will passing stricter laws do? Guns don't kill people; people kill people - over 30,000 with guns!"

Event: Ebola (3 people contract it and 1 person dies)

Citizens/The news/Politicians (in unison): "Oh no! We're all gonna die!!!"

Having fun with Joe Biden's gaffes, I mean, honesty (okay, they're kind of one and the same...)

While I honestly couldn't see him ever becoming president, I personally like Vice President Joe Biden. The guy wears his heart on his sleeve (not literally, of course), comes across as kind of an every-man, and for both good and bad, seems to always say what's on his mind and mean what he says. This has gotten him into trouble on a number of occasions. Yes, if he became president for a couple of terms, we'd likely wind up seeing just as many Bidenism books on the shelves as Bushism books (or close to as many).

Here are just a few of Biden's gaffes:

- "If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30% chance we're going to get it wrong." - speaking to members of the House Democratic caucus gathered in Williamsburg, Virginia, on February 6th of 2009

- "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." - speaking at a town hall meeting in Nashua, New Hampshire, on September 10th of 2008

- "This is a big f**king deal!" - caught on an open mic when congratulating President Obama during the Affordable Care Act signing ceremony in Washington, D.C., on March 23rd of 2010

Yes, sometimes Joe Biden comes across as a drunken bar buddy of mine who can't help but utter lines which make half the people around him simultaneously shake their heads and laugh. Due to this trend of being overly honest and mixing words up here and there, I imagine in the following scenarios, Joe Biden would utter these lines:

Setting: At a wedding ceremony

Biden: "I don't care how old the groom is, he's not going to be needing a boner-pill tonight, trust me!"

Setting: At a funeral

Biden: "Why's it so dead in here today?"

Setting: At a gay pride parade

Biden: "How's it going? Need a macho man to help you out with that big pole you got there?"

Setting: At a Hooter's restaurant

Biden: "How big are the jugs here and how much do they cost?"

Setting: At a sermon

Biden: "I tell you, that Jesus was a big f**king deal!"

Debbie Dunnegan Waters claims she didn't say what she actually said...

Debbie Dunnegan Waters, Jefferson County Recorder of Deeds (Missouri), and yes, a Republican, recently posted this message on her Facebook page:

"I have a question for all my friends who have served or are currently serving in our military ... have not put on a uniform nor taken any type military oath, there has to be something that I am just not aware of. But I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the constitution gives you the authority. What am I missing? Thank you for your bravery and may God keep you safe."

After receiving the inevitable backlash for posting this message, Ms. Dunnegan Waters said this in a telephone interview on St. Louis Public Radio:

"I'm not calling the president a domestic enemy. I'm not calling the president anything. He is the president. Do I agree with what the president is doing? Absolutely not. Anybody that asks me, I'll be happy to tell you that."

She also tweeted this message: "The rest choose to hate me w/o cause. Judge me on half truth and spins."

Finally, she told the Post-Dispatch that, "Something innocent and simple got twisted into a disaster because it's an election."

Let's back up a moment here. Ms. Dunnegan Waters, would you please repeat the third and fourth lines of your Facebook message, starting with, "But I cannot..."?

"But I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the constitution gives you the authority."

Okay then... ...and who is the Commander-in-Chief?

"President Barack Obama"

What does the "he," with regard to the Commander-in-Chief, represent in the previous sentence?

"Our domestic enemy"

In other words, our Commander-in-Chief, President Barack Obama, is our domestic enemy? Is that what you're saying, Ms. Dunnegan Waters? Please respond with your quote from the telephone interview on St. Louis Public Radio.

"I'm not calling the president a domestic enemy. I'm not calling the president anything. He is the president. Do I agree with what the president is doing? Absolutely not. Anybody that asks me, I'll be happy to tell you that."

So, you referred to the president as our domestic enemy, yet you didn't? Interesting... Is there anything you'd like to add?

"Something innocent and simple got twisted into a disaster because it's an election."

Twisting what you said by repeating what you said? Fascinating... Anything else?

"The rest choose to hate me w/o cause. Judge me on half truth and spins."

Even though it's been documented that you referred to the president as our "domestic enemy" and asked why no violent action has been taken against him? Who's providing the half-truths and spins again? Those in the media reporting the documented information, or the person trying to dismiss and hide from that documented information?

Ah, Debbie Dunnegan Waters, just another far-right politician blaming the "liberal" media for factually reporting her crazy thoughts. Maybe Stephen Colbert was right when he said, "Facts are liberally biased."

The oddity of "pro-life" parents being against comprehensive sex education

The Clark County School District in Las Vegas, Nevada may soon implement a more comprehensive sex education program, which lawmakers have been trying to accomplish for a number of years.

As reported by Tara Culp-Ressler of ThinkProgress, the following has already taken place, which has left some parents feeling uneasy about the possible change:

"In order to prepare for that potential policy change, school district officials began considering adopting some of the guidelines laid out in the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, a model curriculum published by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). For over five decades, that group has helped schools develop sex ed classes that include age-appropriate information about anatomy, birth control, sexually transmitted infections, gender identity, and healthy relationships."

As I already mentioned, this has left some parents feeling uneasy.

At a Board of Trustees meeting in September, one parent said, "You want to teach my 5-year-old how to masturbate?"

Another parent said, "We certainly should not be teaching five-year-olds that masturbation and pleasuring one's body is good and that a 12-year-old should know about the very details of anal and oral sex."

Yeah, I'm not thinking these parents read what they thought they read. SIECUS director of programs, Kurt Conklin, is there anything you'd like to say in response to these angry parents?

"The section that became the lightning rod here is about five lines of text. It's just factual pieces of information about masturbation. The guidelines give teachers the tools to address it if the school district chooses to authorize them to answer students' questions."

So, no, in other words, teachers wouldn't be teaching 5-year-olds how to masturbate. Considering that kind of demonstration would be in violation of the law, it's hard for me to fathom how any even semi-intelligent adult could believe such a thing.

It frustrates me to no end how so many "pro-life" individuals consistently criticize comprehensive sex education, and instead, believe abstinence-only education would be a better, more effective method. Common sense dictates that the more people learn about something, the more prepared they'll be if that event takes place. Didn't these parents ever take classes or have jobs? Did their teachers or bosses just give them a test or a project without any form of education or training? They just said, "I know you're not prepared, but get to it! You'll be fine!" Sure, sex is a difficult topic for most people to talk about, especially parents to their children. However, it's not Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy - something they'll never see or experience in reality, and will all but be forget after a certain age. It's also not like the just-say-no message will always work. Did that work for these very parents when it came to things like sex, drugs, smoking, and alcohol? I don't think so... So wouldn't it be better to educate children so they're better prepared when they do finally have sex? Multiple studies will back me up on this, but when kids receive a comprehensive sex education, they're less likely to engage in unsafe sex, and due to that, are less likely to experience unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and sexually-transmitted diseases. So, what's it going to be, "pro-life" parents? Would you rather your kids receive a comprehensive sex education and be less prone to suffering the ills of teenage pregnancies, abortions, and STDs, or would you rather they receive an abstinence-only education and be more at risk to unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and sexually-transmitted diseases? If it's the latter option, I sadly picture the mother and her pregnant daughter engaging in the following conversation:

Theresa Ignant (daughter): "Mom, there's something I need to tell you..."

Mary Ignant (mother): "What's that, dear?"

Theresa: "I don't know how to tell you this..."

Mary: "Go right ahead..."

Theresa: "I'm, I'm, I'm pregnant..."

Mary: "You're WHAT?!?"

Theresa: "I knew something was wrong. I went to the doctor. I'm pregnant."

Mary: "How? What? How could you? You should know better than that! What did they teach you in school?"

Theresa: "Nothing, really"

Mary: "Yes, they did, Terry! What did they teach you?"

Theresa: "To just say no"

Mary: "That's right! So, how could you be so foolish?"

Theresa: "I really like Tommy. We've been spending a lot of time together, and one day, one thing kind of led to another..."

Mary: "Oh, Terry... I'm so disappointed in you. Do you have no self-control? Jesus does not approve of your behavior, young lady!"

Theresa: "Tommy and I went to the same school. We just didn't know about those condom things I learned about at the doctor's, so we weren't prepared."

Mary: "Well, you should just have said no!"

Theresa: "Did you ever have sex before you got married?"

Mary: "Uh..."

Theresa: "Mom?"

Mary: "Eh..."

Theresa: "Did you?"

Mary: "That's none of your... That's none of your... Your father is going to be very disappointed in you!"

Theresa: "Didn't you have me before you and dad got married?"

Mary: "Um... Chris (the husband/father)... Didn't you want me to help you with something?"

Theresa: "Dad's not even home..."

Mary: "We'll talk about this later! Just remember, you should always know what you never learned in the first place!"

Theresa: "Wait... What? Mom... That doesn't make any sense..."

Mary: "Hmph..." :: storms off ::

A Fear-Inducing Sermon For Fear-Inducing Preachers

Especially nowadays, with the rise in televangelists and mega-churches, it seems that preachers are increasingly getting paid for inducing fear in others. Sure, it's always been that way. Let's look at the condensed version of the age-old sermon: 

"If you accept Jesus as your lord and savior, you will be saved and sent to the kingdom of heaven to join him after this life. If you don't accept him as such, however, you will be sent to the fiery pits of hell for all eternity! If this scares you and you want to continue to get scared, please donate some money to this church. Thanks."

With all of the technological expansions through the years, however, such fear-inducing sermons have appeared to become more widespread and more over-the-top than ever before. Whenever something bad gets reported, such as a damaging storm, violence, an outbreak of an illness, etc., at least one preacher will say, "This could be a sign from God that the end of times is near!" Yes, they've been pushing this end-of-the-world idea for quite some time, but now just have more avenues on which to spread the message. How I wish I could have had a psychic vision of these fear-inducing sermons before they started and given the following sermon (yes, I'd use a time-machine to record the sermon and place it on YouTube):

"There's something I have to tell all of you right now. In the not-too-distant future, people are going to start talking, and I'm not talking chit-chat type of talking; I'm talking crazy-talk talking. They're going to use this talk to strike fear into your minds and hearts, try to get you to empty your wallets as a result, and limit you on your potential. These people are going to tell you an invisible man created this world in just 6 days and that he is in control of all of our destinies. They're going to tell us about a virgin woman who gave birth to a baby that was perfect. These people will say that this perfect baby sacrificed himself for all of our sins and then rose again 3 days later. They'll say that in order to meet this perfect being, you'll have to worship him, and if you do this, you'll be rewarded after this life by being sent to an indescribable paradise, not unlike Hawaii. If you don't worship him, however, they'll say you're going to burn for all of eternity, just like some already do in the Middle East. I know you all probably think I'm crazy right now, but after the talk starts, you'll understand. These people are also going to say men are superior to women, even though, without women, men couldn't have been born. They'll say you also have to believe everything they believe in order to have a great afterlife, even though these beliefs alter through the times. Every time something bad happens in the world, they'll say it could be the end of days and this invisible being could end the world at any moment. Yes, they'll say this quite frequently, so much so that you start marking each Monday down as a possible end-of-the-world day. These people will also find groups to blame for the possible Armageddon - mostly men that like other men and women that like other women, because, well, I'm not sure why to be perfectly honest. Maybe they're jealous of Elton John's voice or something. Ah, yes, that's a few years from now. Trust me - he's something special. I'll bring "Rocket Man" back for you to listen to sometime. Back to the topic at hand, these crazy-talkers will try to frighten you into going against what you feel is right in your heart because you think this bogeyman may come to get you. They'll try to frighten you into not trying new things and expanding your horizons, because according to them, this invisible man could strike you down at any moment. They'll try to frighten you to a point where you're fearful of loving, accepting, and just being yourself. So, when you start hearing these crazy-talks, don't listen to them! Be strong! Take pride in who you are! Dare to dream! Reach for the stars! ...and don't let this invisible monster in your closet prevent you from making the most of yourself and this life! Oh, and if you're in a relationship with a virgin guy, ladies, and you get pregnant, let's not pull out the I'm-still-a-virgin card, okay?"


Do a lot of far-right preachers think the devil is gay or something?

For as much as it seems many far-right preachers obsess over homosexuality and it's alleged negative impact on the world - some going so far as to say it may lead to Armageddon - it makes me wonder, do some of these preachers think the devil is gay? Think about it... According to them, evil derives from the devil and due to the "evils" of homosexuality, the world could end, so is homosexuality then the ultimate of all evils, just like the devil? I'm sorry, but since I don't actually believe in the devil, this paints a very funny picture in my mind.

While it may not be accurate, due to cartoons, movies, and Halloween costumes, like most people, I picture the devil as a red guy with horns, a tail, and a pitchfork. So, just picture this devil being stereotypically gay. Just how would he tempt people over to his side? Allow me to give some examples (...and yes, much of this will be over-the-top and stereotypical, just to showcase how ridiculous the idea is):

- "Oh my God! Where did you get that shirt? At Kohl's or something? That is hideous! Go to the GAP or something. Geez..."

- "You're not going out like that, right? We're going to a club, not a funeral. Put on something - make it sparkly!"

- "Where do you want to eat? Ugh, not there! You know I don't eat meat! I like meat, but I don't eat it, if you catch my drift. Let's go to that vegan joint downtown. What do you say?"

- "I can't believe you still listen to that garbage! Why are you so into the latest pop music? Here, give this new techno CD a try!"

- "Because of these things on top of my head, I guess people could say I'm horny for anybody, right? But, the truth of the matter is, I'm especially horny for other guys - guys like you."

Yeah, like I said, ridiculous...

Baptist Preacher Ron Baity Goes Cray-Cray

For those of you whom don't go to the Berean Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, allow me to introduce you to the preacher of that church, Ron Baity.

In light of a federal judge striking down the ban on gay marriage in North Carolina, Mr. Baity said the following during a sermon of his this past Sunday:

"If you think for one skinny minute, God is going to stand idly by and allow this to go forward without repercussions, you better back up and rethink this situation. I want you to understand, that is raw, pure blasphemy."

He added this:

"My friend, we are meriting, we are bringing the judgment of God on this nation as sure as Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, don't be surprised at the plagues. Don't be surprised at the judgment of God. You think Ebola is bad now, just wait. If it's not that, it's going to be something else. My friends, I want you to understand, you can't thumb your nose at God, and God turn his head away without getting your attention."

It really amazes me that so many people think like Ron Baity do, and believe that homosexuals are to blame for just about everything.

AIDS? It's the gays' fault.

Divorces? That's their fault too.

Tornadoes? Yup, that's their fault as well.

Hurricanes? Definitely the gays.

Ebola? Of course it's the gays.

It's really getting to be quite ridiculous. While I haven't gone to church for some time (largely due to the widespread inclusion of politics in sermons), last I heard, that fella Christians worship - Mr. Jesus - appeared to be a bigger hippy than The Dude. He apparently loved everyone so much that he sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind so that we can one day live in an afterlife paradise known as heaven. But, instead of focusing sermons on this "savior's" alleged words, accepting and loving people regardless of who they are, doing good deeds in the community - especially for those least fortunate, etc., we must instead focus our attention on God being so angry at homosexuality becoming accepted, that the world is going to end.

Do Mr. Baity and his ilk realize how ridiculous that sounds? Allow me to try and show them. Here's my condensed and exaggerated sermon on the matter:

"The world is big. It's so big, we can hardly even imagine it. We can only see little bits and pieces at a time and may never see it all, it's so massive. God created all of this in 6 days - literally! He started on a Monday at 6 am Eastern Standard Time, and when 6 am rolled around on Sunday, he said, 'Well, that about does it.' It just took him 6 days to create all that's before us! Think about how amazing that is! It sometimes takes me 6 days to clean my house! Then his son, but not by fornication or anything, so not biologically speaking, but his son - the boy Mary and Joseph had together, so I guess it would be their son, oh, and they never had sex either to produce this son, but anyway... Where was I? Okay, so this son birthed by a virgin by the name of Mary was named Jesus, and besides the fact he didn't come about via sperm and eggs, there was always something special about that boy. You see, he was perfect. That's right; even though it's slightly subjective on what constitutes as a sin, Jesus never committed any! Fact! There then came a time when Jesus was so saddened by the sins of everyone else, and because he loved everyone so much, he decided to sacrifice himself on a cross in order to save all of us from our own sins. This way, so long as we believe in and worship him, we'll join him in a paradise known as heaven after we leave this life. So, yes, we've got that going for us, which is nice. But, don't be fooled, ladies and gentlemen! The devil is very much alive and present in all corners of this world, and he will continually try to tempt you to join him in evil, sinful behaviors, which could ultimately doom you to the fiery pits known as hell! Oh, by the way, after Jesus died, he rose from the dead three days later. Anyway, where was I again? Ah, yes, the devil, hell, and all of that stuff. As I was saying, the devil is all around us and will continually try to take us over to the dark side, far, far away from JC. So, I ask all of you to accept Jesus in your hearts right now, believe in him, worship him, so you will be saved, because we don't have much longer on this earth, I'm afraid. The end of times is near! How do I know this? The Ebola outbreak in Africa? No. The seemingly constant wars in the Middle East? No again. Major storms all across the globe? No yet again. Violence seeming to be epidemic anymore? Not hardly. No, for as awful as those things are, the world is going to soon end because the likes of Lance Bass, George Michael, and Ricky Martin will be able to marry each other in this country! God may have created the world in 6 days, may have been very proud of his masterpiece upon completion, and while he hasn't destroyed it due to all the wars, murders, rapes, abuses, and the like, you can sure as heck believe he'll destroy it when two dudes can legally say 'I do' to one another all across this once great nation. When two dudes can legally say 'I do' to one another, just say 'I do' to Jesus, because he'll be coming for us all soon. Amen."

Nope, that's not crazy at all...

"The Colbert Report" - "Say Yes to Rick Scott"

I don't often times share video clips on here, but after seeing a segment on The Colbert Report last night which had me in tears, I was laughing so hard, I felt the need to do so this time.

The video is called, "Say Yes to Rick Scott," and is about the GOP's sad recent attempt at appealing to women voters. Enjoy!

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Dear IMDb White People: Stop Being So Offended By "Dear White People"

It seems sad that in the year 2014, most people don't appear to understand satire and we still mustn't talk about race, and perhaps this is why many in the IMDb community are so uncomfortable with the upcoming Sundance award-winning film, Dear White People.

At the 2014 Sundance Film Festival, Dear White People won the Special Jury Award for Breakthrough talent, and film review site summarizes the soon-to-be-released satire in the following manner:

"...Dear White People is a sly, provocative satire of race relations in the age of Obama. Writer/director Justin Simien follows a group of African-American students as they navigate campus life and racial politics at a predominantly white college in a sharp and funny feature film debut that earned him a spot on Variety's annual '10 Directors to Watch.'"

To this point, the Rotten Tomatoes tomoatometer is at 100% fresh, as 15 out of 15 critics have reviewed it favorably, giving it an average rating of 7.6/10.

Here are some of the critics' comments regarding the film:

"One of the sharpest and most audacious comedies of the year ..." - Stephanie Zacharek (Village Voice)

"An edgy premise and memorable cast make for a potent first impression." - Justin Lowe (Hollywood Reporter)

"Percolates with pointed observations about racial and cultural dislocation." - Colin Covert (Minneapolis Star Tribune)

"It's anger that gives Dear White People the charge lifting it from funny to great." - Calum Marsh (Village Voice)

"While it veers toward smugness and self-satisfaction at times, the Spike-Lee-lite exercise nonetheless heralds a fresh and funny new voice on the scene in writer-director Justin Simien ..." - Justin Chang (Variety)

"Clearly a work by a young director, the film comes at you with a torrent of sharp dialogue, multiple characters and a traffic jam of scenes and story points." - Kirk Honeycutt (

"Smart, funny, generally on early Spike Lee, only more polished." - Roger Moore (McClatchy-Tribune News Service)

"A delightful dissection of the Ivy League that stirs the pot in the way most folks mean when they call for a national discussion of race." - Kam Williams (Baret News)

"Justin Simien impresses with this debut - a social satire, exploring, debating and studying racial identity, and what it means to be black in contemporary America." - Stefan Pape (HeyUGuys)

"Despite some melodramatic moments and an overabundance of characters and incidents, the film smartly pinpoints people's universal need for acceptance and belonging." - Tim Grierson (Screen International)

"The film doesn't aim to condemn the fools who believe racism in America has ended, but rather open a vast discussion of how the subject of race -- and merely identity -- in our country has evolved." - R. Kurt Oslenlund (Slant Magazine)

"One of the most vibrant, engaging debuts at this year's Sundance Film Festival." - Michelle Orange (

"Works almost perfectly to showcase for its cast and crew of mostly unknowns, demonstrating a considerable pool of talent waiting to be tapped for bigger and better things." - Dan Schindel (Movie Mezzanine)

"Dear White People has both ambition and execution, with its satire sharpened, not dulled, by the characters and real emotions inside it." - James Rocchi (The Playlist)

"Simien's script is at its funniest when at its most confrontational, touching on a number of keen, pointed observations on the subtleties of racism." - Travis Hopson (

So, according to film critics (thus far), the film is sharp, funny, about identity (and how it has evolved), and opens a discussion about race. In other words, people of all stripes should see this film, it will likely make us both laugh and uncomfortable, challenge our beliefs, and most likely prompt us to engage in a discussion with others about the subject matter at hand. That right there sounds like I film I want to see!

However, some in the IMDb community feel differently, and without having seen the film, have decided to take the title and run with it, by making the following comments (among others):

- "That's what all of this is about. There exists a double standard in America. If you have light skin you better damn well keep your mouth shut about other races and ethnicities. But if your skin is darker than white then... yawn 'whatever'. Its simply amazing. Going off what others have previously said, can you imagine what kind of sh!tstorm would happen if this movie was titled 'Dear Mexicans', 'Dear Black People', 'Dear Yellow People', or 'Dear Redskin People'... lol are you kidding me?? But 'Dear White People'... ohh well you know I guess we (as in all of us crackers) had that coming didn't we. Yes it is 2014 and we are still paying for the sins of our grandfathers, great grandfathers, and great great grandfathers."

- "If there were a movie called Dear Black People the whole country would go crazy. But black people can make this..."

- "(I'm gonna make dear black people) It's about black people needing to stop blaming white people for everything. Get off welfare, stop having multiple kids to get a fat welfare check and get a damn job. Respect yourself."

- "If someone were to make a movie called 'Dear Black People' and have it be about white people at a college campus starting a culture war because a black person took a position normally associated with white people. How fast would it take for all these racist black people to start crying racism and rioting(complete with assaults, vandalisms, muggings, murders, and burglaries) in the streets, all while calling it peaceful protesting and claiming all white people are racist? My guess is, less than a week of the movie's announcement. I have no issue with this movie being in existence. However, the movie's purpose is to start a race war. There's no other reason than to see how non-black people react so that black people can call them racists."

- "Giving voice to stupidity is exactly part of the problem with 21st century America. Yes, I see the irony in posting this fact on a message board but to counter fictitious ramblings the truth must be at least seen at times. Paranoid reverse racism is neither funny nor enlightening. It's tolerated for all the wrong reasons. It's a shame that the African American community encourages such moronic endeavors."

- "Thats right, its against white people so its not racist, and its black people saying it, black people cant be racist i forgot"

- "Granted, I've only seen the trailer but this looks to be this movie appears to be blatantly racist. It does nothing but create an unnecessary friction between two groups of people. Sure it might be good for a few laughs but not at the expense of the well being of the community.

I'm disappointed that this kind of movie can be considered entertainment."

Yes, it's like I said at the outset of this writing, "It seems sad that in the year 2014, most people don't appear to understand satire and we still mustn't talk about race, and perhaps this is why many in the IMDb community are so uncomfortable with the upcoming Sundance award-winning film, Dear White People."