Bob Woodward fears paper airplanes, coloring books, Disney movies, and apologies

In a back-and-forth e-mail exchange with White House economic adviser Gene Sperling, fiction-posing-as-nonfiction author Bob Woodward told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Sperling had threatened him in the e-mail, saying, "It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in."

So, just what did Sperling say in this e-mail? Let me share that bit of information with you. Sperling said:

"I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall -- but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. but perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying that Potus (President of the United States) asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim ... My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize."

If that's not a threat, I don't know what is... It reminds me of this make-believe dialogue I'm going to concoct from the film Forrest Gump:

Forrest Gump: "I'm sorry, Lieutenant Dan. I'm sorry. Please forgive me."

Lieutenant Dan: "What? Are you threatening me? Do you wanna go?"

Gump: "I'm just saying I'm sorry."

Dan: "Oh, that's it! I'm calling the cops! You're going down, Gump!"

What makes this joke of a statement by Woodward on CNN even worse is after reading his response to Sperling's e-mail. In response to that oh so threatening e-mail I just shared with you, Woodward responded with the following words:

"Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice."

Given this quote, let's return to the fictional dialogue:

Gump: "I'm sorry, Lieutenant Dan. I'm sorry. Please forgive me."

Dan: "Oh, don't worry about it, Forrest. You don't need to apologize. It's all good in the hizzy as the kids say it nowadays. Wanna go get some shrimp?"

::hours later when speaking to a reporter::

Dan: "That no good, angry, sack of (bleep)! Gump threatened me! He threatened to kill me if I didn't accept his apology! Would you believe that? What a... What a... He's something else, I tell you. He should go to jail for what he did! Then he'll really be sorry for trying to say he was sorry!"

In light of this bit of news, rumor now has it that Woodward plans on releasing a new book in the fall, entitled, "Why I Fear Paper Airplanes, Coloring Books, Disney Movies, and Apologies."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"

The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Search This Blog