so you're saying we're in trouble

i saw the above car on october 31st, 2012.  the date doesn't really matter, but the stickers sort of do.  what am i talking about, the stickers are about 75% of why i took the photo.

on the driver side of the car, a sticker that reads omg (obama logo for the o), obama must go.
on the passenger side of the car, a romney/ryan sticker.

these aren't that surprising or noteworthy to me, especially living in the valley, which is largely conservative.  and although i didn't get a great look at the guys in the car, they looked working class, white, middle aged.

what really got me was the sticker in the middle.  you see, that's an upside american flag.  from usflag.org, "It is flown upside down only as a distress signal."

now, i know that.  in fact, i used to delight in annoying my dormmates that hung a flag in our lobby because i'd always flip the flag upside down when they weren't paying attention.  it was my little protest to them pushing it on us all, i was a little punk, and i got a kick out of poking them.  i did it enough that they took the flag down.

so, when i saw the combo of these three stickers, i knew that these gents, or at least whomever owns the car, was trying to protest the direction of our country under president obama.  that's cool, you can do that. i disagree with you, i don't think out country is under distress due to presidential direction. however, i wondered how they would have felt if they'd seen something similar under the last president.  or his daddy.  or reagan.  or whatever other president that they liked?  would they have called me unpatriotic?  would they be angered by such a demonstration?  would they told me to love america or leave it?  would it go beyond all that?

obviously, we'll never know.  but, back to the date of the photo.  i'm hoping that on november 7 that these guys will be feeling the blues of another 4 years of president obama -  a president that has turned around the economy, that has produced a housing market that is better than four years ago, a president that is leading our nation out of it's wars, a president that isn't sabre rattling his way into another war, a president that is working to improve the infrastructure of the country, a president that has fought for equality for all americans.  hopefully, these guys will get another 4 years of improvement, even if they won't acknowledge it.

lies romney told me

in one of my classes, the students consider the leadership of kings, specifically king david from the bible and some of his failings.  in it all, there is a question about moral failings of leaders, and the unwillingness to admit fault.  in the context, students frequently make connection to bill clinton, and his lying about the lewinski scandal.  fair point.  some will throw out nixon & watergate.  okay.  a rare few will throw out jfk and the alleged affairs he had.  i'm sure they could go on further, mainly because our leaders continue to demonstrate the ability to screw up.

this brings us to this week and some of the political situation our world is in.  let's look @ facts:

• a strange film promo pops up online, and it's some sort of film that defames islam.  at the time, no one really knows who made this low budget film.
• people in the islamic world react with displeasure to the promo, speaking out against it
• the u.s. embassy in cairo tweeted that it was displeased with the film, that the u.s. was against mocking anyone's religion, and so on.  their tweets, although not the official u.s. government response, were almost identical to the statements released by the bush administration when muslims were upset by a cartoon in a dutch paper.  yep, very similar statement, but not the official u.s. response.  as it should be noted, this statement was made on twitter, before any protests in cairo or libya.  the embassy later deleted these tweets.
• protests began in several countries.
• the  u.s. embassy in libya was attacked.  many credible sources say that this was a preplanned attack.  the snafu over the movie trailer was used as cover for the attack.  it had nothing to do with film, or the tweets, or really the muslim protests over insults to their religion.  the attacks resulted in the deaths of several u.s. citizens at the embassy, including an ambassador.

that's the timeline.  it's clear, it's verifiable.  but, willard romney and his campaign are going to ignore that.  romney's campaign claimed that the obama administration was apologizing for the film, apologizing after the attack, and that obama's foreign policy was weak.  willard romney is willfully ignoring the fact that it wasn't any official statement by the administration.  nope, the official words from the president's office completely condemned the attacks, the loss of life.  when this has been pointed out to willard romney, he refuses to accept it.  he maintains his stance.  he stubbornly refuses, almost childishly, digging in his heels about what he sees as obama's foreign policy, which he clearly is wrong about.  he says that the president shouldn't apologize ever for america.  well, he didn't here.  but, i disagree with that statement anyway.  if our country does something wrong, we should admit it.  in fact, i have no problem with the fact that our president has apologized for the actions of the u.s. gov't in central america during the 40's and 50's.  now, we haven't admitted or apologized for everything we did, but last year we did admit that we did medical experiments on people.  it was unethical, although not illegal.  so, we apologized for our participation.  but, in the situations of this week, no apologies were issued, or needed.

all willard romney needs to do is admit that they were wrong.  they were misinformed about the timeline of events, and that under their initial understanding of the situation, it looked different.  upon being given the correct order of events, the full situation, they have a better understanding, and respond appropriately.  nope, not going to do it.  days later, with tons of time, with a political isht-storm swirling about, willard romney continues to stand his ground.  he is defiant in his interviews about it.

frankly, i'm mystified.  willard as seen as strong, full of resolve in the situation.  he's sticking to his guns.  well, he's also wrong.  who would celebrate his stick-to-itedness when you're completely wrong about a situation?  i guess it's one of those things that you never want to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

man up

i'm not sure if california did this, but it's funny.

colbert says man up

fresno and detroit

so, meg whitman made some remark comparing fresno to detroit. of course, it's getting a lot of press in fresno. we have a chip on our shoulder, and since the statement was part of an interview to a newspaper in san jose, it feels sorta like the big city snobs looking down their noses at us again, taking shots.

now, honestly, there are some parallels that we could actually discuss. detroit is an economically depressed area, and fresno county/the central valley is an economically depressed area. and, we can talk about the fact that it was just a sound byte we're hearing and there is a bigger context we can talk about. but, it's not like we're getting any concrete plans from whitman on how we can change our economic situation here in the valley or here in california. i mean, her commercials tell me that her #1 priority is to bring jobs to california, but nothing about how. and that bugs me.

but i'm not interested in having a huge political discussion here. what it made me thing was, "i wonder if fresno will become a hipster hotbed like i've heard about detroit becoming."

i heard about this blog and a documentary about detroit being somewhat revitalized by hipsters, artists, and other people of that sorts. i'm intrigued.

if you have a long time, watch these segments. or, watch one part, and come back and watch the others as you have time.

i'm on the list

somehow, sometime i got on a list. i can't say exactly what the list is, but it's the call me for surveys list. seriously, every so often, i'll get a random call to see if i'm willing to participate in a survey. some have been local, like the news, but others are national. i remember we even had one call during a podcast, and i was questioned about my thoughts on gay marriage.

i think once you answer one, you're flagged, and more will come. this really heats up during political seasons.

the other day, i was roused from a semi-nap stage to answer a few questions. i agreed because this wasn't just a phone survey. if i fit the right profile, they wanted me to come in for a focus group discussion. i became even more interested when they said that for the two hour experience i'd get $75. after all the questions, i seemed to be something that they wanted, something that fit their criteria. i was scheduled to go over tonight and share my thoughts on political candidates in california's gubernatorial race.

sadly, this morning i got the call. they had overbooked certain groups, and i was now expendable. oh well, i'm sure it won't be the last tie i get called.

conservatives love rape

enoy two minutes of the conservative media using the term rape

black car ban & rush limbaugh lies

ah, as usual, conservative blowhard rush limbaugh is telling half truths, or perhaps even outright lies and sticking to them. you see, his website proclaimed that "tyrants want to ban black cars." rush falsely claims that california lawmakers want to ban black auto paint due to the fact that it's hotter, and will cause more people to use a/c and thus be less fuel efficient.

the problem with his claim: it's bullshit. it's an attempt to start a fire where there isn't even smoke yet. it's rush trying to say, "look at these crazies in california, interfering with your freeeedom. they're socialists."

but even in his own article, he shows how he is full of it. he gives part of what is actually proposed for cars, and here it is, "California Air Resources Board. CARB wants to mandate the phase-in of heat-reflecting paints on vehicle exteriors beginning with the '12 model year, with all colors meeting a 20% reflectivity requirement by the '16 model year."

hmm, where does that say black? oh, that's right. it doesn't. it says that we should use more reflective paint. that doesn't rule out any color, but rather pushes for paints of all colors that reflect energy.
his kicker...obama and stars drive black cars, so them crazy liberals can't even do it themselves.

but here's the truth about what the california air resources board was studying and proposing, "One solution: lower the temperature inside parked cars, thereby reducing the amount of air conditioning — and engine power and gasoline — needed to keep the occupants cool and comfortable.

CARB looked at two possible ways to achieve this: mandating the use of reflective paints that reduce the amount of solar heat absorbed by a vehicle, and requiring manufacturers to install glass with reflective coatings to achieve the same purpose."

reflective glass and reflective paint. nothing about color. and, when the air board realized that paint technology wasn't efficient enough they just went with the reflective glass coating, which adds about $30-$50 per car. not much money to keep your car a lot cooler.


*this is cross posted over @ left turn only, a new blog that i'm a co-author on. check it out.

political attack ad against jesus

cindy mc cain's $300,000 outift

okay, i realize that everyone is wearing outfits when they're on screen @ the convention, but $300,000 seems like crazy money.

here's how vanity fair broke it down:
# Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
# Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
# Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
# Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000 to $25,000
# Shoes, unknown designer: $600
# Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100

maybe that's not how everyone rolls @ the convention. laura bush was onstage for a whole heck of a lot less:
# Oscar de la Renta suit: $2,500
# Stuart Weitzman heels: $325
# Pearl stud earrings: $600 to $1,500
# Total: Between $3,425 and $4,325



and no, this really doesn't mean anything about whether or not her husband is qualified to run the country.


in other interesting political developments, it seems that john mccain and sarah palin aren't on the same page with sex education. this is interesting to me because i'd heard that she was abstinence only. apparently, she's okay w/teaching about condoms, and mc cain isn't.

"In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau."

and in true hypocrical fashion, the conservatives have nothing to say,
"Other conservatives who have backed Palin, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, declined to weigh in."

one more quote from palin on the issue, "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."

mike murphy and peggy noonan talk about sarah palin

um, wow. i don't know if it's rat's on a sinking ship, but listen to these two republican speech writers talk about the choice of palin for vp, thinking that their mics weren't on. let's just say that the language is a little salty, and maybe they're not for her as vp.



read the whole story here.

palin on makes the cover of foreign affairs weekly

ah, the political season is upon us. it's not that it just showed up, but with the conventions it is definitely getting cranked up. i know i've got tons of thoughts on politics, but sometimes it's the humor that i really appreciate. someone was wondering what it would be like if politics were treated like celebrities, a la us weekly. here's their answer



i wonder if any of the local photoshop experts could whip up one of these for fresno?

west virginia is like a tree that falls in the forest

i heard that title phrase tonight in reference to h.clinton winning in west virginia. i respect that she hasn't conceded, and is pushing on, but i wonder why. her campaign is hugely in debt. even more important, the numbers don't add up, at least by most projections.

i was also a bit taken back by the coverage given to the win this evening in light of the amount of delegates given in the contest. clinton won 20, obama won 8. he won more superdelegates last week than clinton won regular delegates this week. so, which contest was more important?

so, we can have grandiose speeches about not giving up, or winning the swing states, and it amounts to little more than a tree falling where no one hears.

get me some aqua dots. i need something. my head is spinning because good
old pat robertson is supporting guiliani. politics does make strange bedfellows.

be afraid,

be very afraid. the devil will be in control this weekend.

places to avoid:
iraq
iran
pakistan
texas
probably most places

bush vetoes spending bill as promised

president defies will of people. that is, if you believe that we are a representative democracy, and that the last election voiced the will of the people on key issues that are country is facing, like, say...the war.

and let us never forget that victory was declared years ago by this same president. now, president says that we will be defeatists, that we will let the terrorists win if we set a time table for withdrawal. so, we're defeatists if we withdraw troops from an area where war is over? oh, does that mean the war never was over? or are we saying that the "sectarian violence" is civil war now?

btw, as much as i have been wholeheartedly against this war, i also don't agree with the proposed timetable. not that i'm against timetables, but i don't see how this particular one actually accomplishes any sort of stability in the area. i also disagree with a president that says he will veto and bill that has a timetable.

Vladimir Luxuria vs. Elisabetta Gardini

i'm always intrigued by other countries governments. you know, you see footage on the news of some parliment in taiwan or somewhere, and the guys are literally duking it out. or other nations that elect former porn stars to high positions. these things always seem the bickering done in our houses of congress seem mild and tame.

here's the latest example:


i don't know when or if the u.s. will get to the point where we elect a trans-gendered person. i hope that if we do, we can figure out who gets to use what toilet.

here are some of the things i find amusing in the article:
first off, Ms. Vladimir Luxuria changed her name from Wladimiro Guadagno. usually, when you change your name, you change your first name. and maybe your last name too. but, why would you just change the spelling of your pretty manish first name? is vladimir more connotative of a woman than wladimiro? but, i've got to hand it to you, i dig luxuria as a last name.

second, a former "showgirl" is upset? i don't know about italy, but "showgirl" is a friendly euphemism for stripper here in the u.s. maybe the transgender person should be upset that she has to share a restroom with her. and, ms. gardini calls it "sexual violence?" uhhh, you might want to dial that claim back a little bit. maybe you might want to save that label for real sexual violence (rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment, and so on).

finally, i feel it's pretty important that they point out that ms. luxuria has never had any sort of surgery. this isn't really funny. but, i think it opens a whole new can of worms to the issue. i mean, this is a guy in the women's restroom. what defines gender? generally, in society, it's the parts attached. if you have male parts, you use the male restroom. if you have women's parts, you use the women's. sure, i definately think that someone dressed in the opposite clothes would be a disturbance. but, if i didn't know, it wouldn't bother me at all. furthermore, if we were using a coed restroom it wouldn't be a problem at all. i thought europe was supposed to be more liberal. i thought they had all sorts of loose morals. yet, they're wierded out over a restroom? come on.

footloose 06

no, kevin bacon isn't making a new movie about how he liberates a town from john lithgo. but, don't get caught dancing in orange cove. it's nice to see a political race not about republicans and democrats, but about to dance or not.



(i guess i was wrong about not posting).

aaaarrgh

i hate political ads. really, i do. on a very rare occassion, there is a funny one. but, most just annoy me. and, i doubt that they convince anyone to vote for a candidate. they just affirm stereotypes for those who are already planning on voting for a person.

unfortunately, tis the season to be barraged with political ads. i just saw an ad for chuck poochigian that bothered me so much i had to write this.

the candidate he is running against, is jerry brown. brown is against the death penalty. "for serial killers and cop killers. he may be the least qualified person in ca. to be attorney general." well, he's not. because a-hole poochigian, i am less qualified. not only do i not have any experience, but i am also against the death penalty. for everyone.

on wiki, here's what they say about you, chuck, "Although he is seeking to become California's chief law enforcement officer, he has no previous experience in the field of criminal law, or in supervising other attorneys in a law office."

sin is sin is sin is sin is sin is sin...

i've been glad that my blogging friends haven't really posted much on the whole congressman foley situation. i don't think anyone is ignoring it, but there has been such a whirlwind of things happening in this country in the last few weeks, i think we've all been a little weary.

tonight, i read a great response that i want to share with you.


(i also upgraded to blogger beta. woo.)