Montel Williams Sucks

I was going to do a long post on why Montel Williams sucks. Then I realized, no one cares. Everybody already knows it.



Yeah, he'll work for any scamming company endorse any product.

Just check the Google, and you'll find his latest grift, selling Obama coins that are little more than stickers on regular coins.

http://www.katu.com/home/video/39598022.html?video=pop&t=a

Couple that with his last major endorsement, for a company that charges to help poor people get prescription drugs that they could get for free by contacting the drug companies directly, and you have a shill who makes Shamwow Vince seem like Mother Teresa.


http://www.humorbloggers.com/

Catching up on Stuff

The first interview should be posted on the The Hawg's blog today. I'm sure his answers will be very interesting as he writes one of the best and most entertaining blogs.

Is everyone sick of the Obama Inauguration and Presidency yet? At least the ridiculous amount of coverage? Does CNN do anything any more except cover every movement by Mr. Obama?

The lead story on the PBS news? "Day 2 of the Obama Presidency." How long will this unbelievably ridiculous amount of coverage last? Approval polls are out based upon nothing. Give the guy a chance for heaven's sake. What is the point of keeping anyone under a microscope like this?

And while I'm busy complaining about things, how many times a day do I have to see the commercial about polar bears starving due to whatever the heck it is I am doing wrong? What would happen if all the polar bears died off? Would the world become over run wth seals or penguins or salmon or whatever they eat when they aren't chasing Sarah Palin? Is there a downside to this? Everyone likes seals and penguins, while polar bears are are the murderous coke whores of the animal kingdom.

I'd kill you for a Coke

Make sure you check out The Natural State Hawg's interview, and I'll be getting out the questions for everyone else ASAP. Have a happy day 3 of the Obama Presidency.


ttp://www.humorbloggers.com/

Bring Back National Lampoon

I need to rant about some political nonsense.

What's with all the brouhaha over the picture on the cover of the New Yorker?

Why must we always cater to the lowest common denominator?

Here's the offensive photo.



And the outcry is that the casual observer will see it and have the wrong idea. Have we lost all faith in our American voters that we believe a glimpse of a magazine noted for satire will influence the election?

Thank heaven these uber PC knuckleheads weren't around in the 1970's when National Lampoon ran covers and fake ads that were brutal. For the whippersnappers in the crowd, National Lampoon used to be a magazine, not a cinema company. Before Animal House, and the Chevy Chase movies there was



I can only imagine the protests that would echo today.

The most famous ad ever run in National Lampoon was this one



What is the point of all this? Simple, American journalism had a long history of satire dating back to long before some of the "offended and outraged" folks were born.

Instead of reacting to every potential snippet of nonsense, how about focusing on some freakin' issues?

I believe it is racism, pure and simple. And not by the New Yorker Magazine, but by those crying foul. Barack Obama, as the Democratic Candidate, is fair game. No one has ever pulled any punches in any election before this. Political cartoonists always pretty much had free reign.

Until today.

Please tell me why different rules apply.

Just catching up on political stuff

When watching TV, it seems former NJ governor McGreevey is nearly always listed as former gay Governor of NJ. That's kind of silly. It's like my state had 2 governors. The fact that he was gay had nothing to do with his actions as governor, nor did it have anything to do with his resignation. It had nothing to do with his public life, and was entirely a personal matter. I wonder if Spitzer, former NY governor, will henceforth always be referred to as Whore Monger former Governor Spitzer.

And WTH is up with Hillary Clinton? On Monday, she stated a big announcement will be forthcoming tomorrow. Then she changed it to Friday. Now, it's Saturday. And all this is following her secret meeting with Barack Obama. Oh, the intrigue. I truly had gained a lot of resopect for her during the primary. More than once I stated she was getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop. But now, I am puzzled by her actions. They make no sense, and just seems like she is acting wacky. We'll all find out tomorrow. Maybe.

Here in NJ, Senator Lautenberg will be running again. The guy is 84 years old, and running for a 6 year term. Isn't it time for someone that age to move on to other things? Do some fishing, spend time helping others, playing canasta? I don't know. But being in the Senate is either way too easy a job, or he's the most vigorous octagenarian alive.

I'm still waiting for my tax stimulus money. I should have had it made out directly to Trump's Taj Mahal. That's where it's going to be deposited. Scheduled my big July getaway. Fireworks at the Jersey shore. Sweeeeet.

Is the media biased?

I just read the AP story of Hillary Clinton's win in West Virginia, and it raised a very interesting point. Here's the quote:

Nearly a quarter of the voters in West Virginia's primary were 60 or older, and a similar share had no education beyond high school, exit polls indicated. More than half were in families with incomes of $50,000 or less, and the former first lady was winning nearly 70 percent of their votes.

Now, here's where I have the problem and accuse the media of bias--Mrs. Clinton won with 67% of the vote state-wide. Although I've taught Math, so I'm slightly better at it than most people, but wouldn't almost everyone recognize and agree that 67% is nearly 70%? So, why is the AP writer trying to make it look as if a huge block of the Clinton supporters in West Virginia are old, poor, uneducated (aka dumb) racists? This is starting to annoy me. No one questions why blacks voted 19-1 in favor of Obama, yet it's fine to besmirch Clinton's supporters? I don't understand this at all.

By the way, before anyone accuse me of any kind of agenda, I'm only questioning this from a purely academic standpoint. I wonder why we don't get follow up questions. If the writer truly believed this (the suggestion of voting along racial lines) was significant, why leave it open to speculation? Ask the people at the exit poll why they voted as they did. It could have been done quickly and anonymously. To be perfectly honest, I would be upset if they voted against Mr. Obama because of his color. This is 2008, even in West Virginia.

The more I read about our political process, the more convinced I am that we need some sort of criteria to cast a vote. Perhaps one needs to recite at leat 2 potential policy differences between the candidates before they get in the booth. Hell, I'd take it if a voter could recite one significant policy difference.

Talking about clueless voters, in NJ we voted in a governor a few years ago, and many of those voting for him did so because "he's not a political insider." Of course, the guy who was "new" to the political scene was a former State Assemblyman and then State Senator, and a career politician. Never overestimate the intelligence of the American voting public.

Reverend Wright Apologists

By now everyone knows the story--Reverend Wright spews hatred from the pulpit, and Barack Obama sits quietly and listens to it. FOR 20 YEARS!!!

How long would I sit in church and listen to something I claim to have vehemently opposed? I'm not sure, but I know for damn sure it wouldn't last for 20 years. Nor would I consider the minister spewing that garbage to be my spiritual advisor, nor refer to him as "my uncle." So now, because it is politically expedient, Obama tries to distance himself from Wright?

Sorry, I ain't buying what he's selling.

I was reading Newsweek about Oprah:

According to two sources, Winfrey was never comfortable with the tone of Wright's more incendiary sermons, which she knew had the power to damage her standing as America's favorite daytime talk-show host. "Oprah is a businesswoman, first and foremost," said one longtime friend, who requested anonymity when discussing Winfrey's personal sentiments. "She's always been aware that her audience is very mainstream, and doing anything to offend them just wouldn't be smart. She's been around black churches all her life, so Reverend Wright's anger-filled message didn't surprise her. But it just wasn't what she was looking for in a church."

Oprah was intelligent enough to know that Wright was offensive to many. She distanced herself from him after a short time. We'll never know if it was a business decision or if it was that in her heart, she knew he was wrong, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is that she did not sit there for 20 years without reacting. Just sitting there and taking it all in. Maybe I'm wrong (it's happened before) but sitting quietly is acceptance of the message. No rational person would sit quietly for 20 years unless he or she agreed with the message.

As recently as December 2007, Wright's organization honored Louis Farrakhan, racist extraordinaire. While Obama had begun to seperate himself from Wright before then, it was about 20 years too late. Obama's lack of reaction for so long speaks to me of his character, or lack of it. I wonder if he ever would have reacted if it were not for the public outcry. And, by the way, Obama did apologize for Wright. His initial reactions were that sound bites were used to make him appear worse than he was.

I'm going to have to call shenanignas on that. It is nearly impossible to put denouncing Jews, Italians, and all white people in context. Stop apologizing, and stand up for what is right.