Walmart's really really stupid new idea.

So heres a lucky bonus for my readers (or single reader sadly) who live in the US, next time you order something on-line from walmart, you might actually get to meet me.

And no I didnt get a new job, and no I dont work for walmart. But thanks to Walmarts new idea, I no longer need to actually be employed by walmart or anyone actually, to have your personal property turned over to me before I give it to you.

See Walmart needs to compete with Amazon these days, and if you've ordered anything from Amazon you know that stuff gets to you REAL quick, usually faster then they claim it will (at least in my experience).

Walmart just cant keep with that. Now of course their is a pretty obvious solution, hire more employees for their own delivery service Walmart To Go. But that would cost money.

Or they could up their contracts with FEDEX and UPS to carry their goods. But that also would cost money.

Or they could just let me do it. And thats pretty cheap. So what with walmart being walmart, thats the option they decided to go with.

Here's how it works. I (or anyone else) go to walmart as a shopper and I give them my address, they notice your house happens to be on my way home. So they ask me if I would be willing to drop off your item for you on the way, in exchange for a discount roughly equivalent to my gas money. If I say yes, I get the discount on my purchase and then they hand me your item and address send me on my way to your house.

Or at least you better hope that's where I'm going. I mean who knows where I might end up. See FEDEX/UPS Deliveries are insured, not to mention tracked and the company is accountable for delivery. Makes it rather hard for the driver to steal something no matter how much he wants to....

But me? well I anit accountable to anyone to deliver shit nor as an individual operating without a contract do I have any legal obligation to deliver anything, and Walmart's liability ends when they turn over the package.

So good luck getting that big screen TV you just paid for (which by the way looks AWESOME in my living room). Unless of course your name sounds sexy. Maybe a "Monica" or a "Rachel" or "Phoebe" (just to pic 3 names totally at random that never had a connection between them :P). Then I might well show up at your house.

I mean I still might not bring your stuff, but I can at least park across the street and check to see if you really are the slender brunette with the amazing legs that I hope you are. And if you are, it wont be too hard to follow you to, and then "accidentally" bump into you at the supermarket, or your favorite bar/club or the Laundromat and we can "get to know each other".

Or maybe I will bring your stuff. I mean after all, if you can afford this super nice big screen TV, you probably have a bunch of other really nice shit too. Blue Ray player,  Wii U, PS4, A couple of Kindle's and possibly a shit ton of jewelry or sports memorabilia. And I mean I would never ever know about any of it unless I was around to help you carry your new TV into the house.  Then all i got to do is come back later on your "date night" and I can actually have even more then just your TV.

Just one quick favor please, if your a gun owner please keep track of when you might have a package coming. I dont really plan on dressing up for my deliveries, and I dont want you to think some punk in a t-shirt and jeans is trying to break into your house, when really I'm just delivering your new camera. I mean it would be a shame to get shot before I get the chance to come back and take all your stuff.

I'm just saying, I may be a rapist stalker thief, but I shouldnt be exposed to any extra risk simply because you decided to order from a company stupid enough to give me your name, address, and property, just so they could save a few bucks on not having to pay someone they could actually vouch for/be accountable for an hourly salary. (which to be fair would make it hard to have Extra Low prices, Always)

So please, put the gun down and let me in.....and then never leave your house again. Also if you wouldnt mind saving me some time, leave a picture of yourself at walmart, that way I wont have to waste time tracking you down if your not a leggy brunette, also the picture will help ensure deliver and a date if you are a leggy brunette....or even a leggy blonde, I'm really not that picky. Also lastly, if somehow, oddly I dont deliver your package, your more then welcome to come to my house and pick it up. My address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Washington, D.C. Just tell the man at the gate you think the homeowner stole from you, he will take care of you from there.

 

Coroner's report: Republican edition (part 2 election strategy)

I know I know, I said I would have this done by Sunday and its Monday. But I'm not late. See I never said which Sunday I would have part 2 done by :P.

Seriously though, to recap, or for those who skipped part 1, last week the RNC release a 100 page postmortem (again their word) on the republican party.

Specifically they want to avoid another whooping like the one they took in 2012. In part 1 we covered the first 23 pages all devoted to how the republicans were planning on reaching out to minorities. ***SPOILER ALERT*** they are going to say the exact same things they have been saying but be browner and have tits while saying them.

So now in part 2 we are going to cover the remaining 77 pages. I know its not an even split, but the truth is most of that 77 pages focuses on fixing the technical aspects of campaigning and isnt nearly as funny or easy to mock so I needed more source material.

First up, in the "DUH" category the republican suggestion on how to turn out more voters

"Working with other committees and state parties, the RNC must design, fund, and implement  an aggressive early voting and absentee effort for target races in 2013. The program must task the field team with the responsibility for local follow-up on voters contacted about early voting. Where possible, early voting prospects should not be absorbed into a national follow-up program, but remain a primary concern of the local campaign and Victory team "

Translation: we really need to have people show up to vote on all the days they can vote and not forget where those people live.

Like I said DUH. I mean really if you needed to commission a study to discover that in order to win an election you actually need to take every opportunity to bring voters to the polls, you guys really are in major trouble.

Followed later in the report by these two gems:

"Where possible, the RNC should encourage and support the hiring of locals who are known to be active in a particular area for participation in field operations."

"State parties should create a specific program for follow-up with new registrants. One thing we learned during our 72-hour program testing is to treat a newly registered voter uniquely, making certain they know their polling location and how to vote early or absentee."
Again really? you actually needed someone to tell you hiring people to go door to door who actually know where the doors are and actually making sure people know HOW to vote is a good idea?

Seriously guys, I'm starting to think the question shouldnt be "how did we lose so badly?" but "how the fuck did we manage to do so well when a second grader has more common sense then we do?"

And sadly actually making sure people know how and when to vote isnt the biggest problem they have

"The RNC should recruit and hire a chief technology and digital officer for the RNC by May 1, 2013, whose experience and background sends a strong and immediate signal that we are serious about growing our digital and tech operations and data integration. The chief technology and digital officer should identify, recruit and hire a working group of data scientists, tech and digital advocates to build a structure that can eventually be deployed during the 2014 midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race to provide a 21st century digital, data and tech operation for our candidates."

Once again, YOU NEEDED A MILLION DOLLAR STUDY TO TELL YOU IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HIRE SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HOW TO USE A COMPUTER!?!?!?!?!

And once again, its not an isolated reference to a total lack of common sense about modern things.

"Train campaign managers and candidates in basic media terminology and media budgeting/
management. Campaigns spend the bulk of their budget on advertising placement, 
and our survey shows that television is second only to personal contact as an effective 
communications tool. Yet most managers are uncomfortable admitting that they do not really 
know what a GRP is or what cookies do. Consequently, they do not know the right questions 
to ask their consultants or how to best manage them" 

But even the TOTAL apprent lack of how technology works isnt the saddest revelation.

"Targeted media demands targeted messages. The one-spot-fits-all model used by Republican 
presidential campaigns since the Reagan era is no longer enough. On television, Obama ran 
at least four separate media schedules, each with a different series of creative executions. 
Pollsters, ad producers, and media buyers working together can determine the right mix 
of creative executions and media weight"

Wow you mean the country is NOT homogeneous? 1956 called, they want their epiphany back......


Now with all the technical stuff out of the way, we get to my favorite part of the autopsy, the analysis of the primary process. This is my favorite part because it includes some of my favorite suggestions yet.

"The number of debates should be reduced by roughly half to a still robust number of  approximately 10 to 12, with the first occurring no earlier than September 1, 2015, and the last ending just after the first several primaries (February – March 2016)."

In other words, lets talk to people less and give them less of a chance to know where we stand on issues and what we think.  To be fair its not a bad suggestion given that "legitimate rape" "please proceed governor" "I like being able to fire people" cheering killing people, and booing gay soldiers did all happen at various GOP debates, and that is why they got their asses kicked.

But I'm not entirely sure thats addressing the problem as much as a symptom.

Oh except I forgot, there is an exception to that first suggestion and its the second suggestion:

"After the first several primaries (February – March 2016), candidates themselves should decide whether they want to accept or decline additional debates. In the event the Party is in a position similar to the Democratic primary of 2008, the candidates and the GOP may gain by holding additional debates. At that stage, it should be up to the candidates to decide. The Party’s limits will not apply after that time"

Translation: rule one applies.....unless the Democrats are kicking our asses in which case, just do whatever the Democrats are doing.

But back to following the first suggestion we have two more suggestions about making sure people have less time to learn where the nominees stand, and less time/chances for the nominee to say anything stupid.

"The Republican Convention should be held earlier in the summer. It should be moved to late June or sometime in July, allowing our nominee more time to begin the general election phase. (Note: The 2016 Olympics will be held August 5–21.)"

"Because the nominee will still need an estimated 60–90 days to prepare for the Convention, 

changes will need to be made to the primary calendar. If the Convention were to be held 

in July, the last primary would need to be held no later than May 15. If the Convention 

were to be held in late June, the final primary would need to be held no later than April 30. 

Moving primaries up will require states and state parties to cooperate." 

In short we need to unify the party as soon as possible and really, we need to give less time for our own side to point out why we suck. Because see thats the problem when all of your ideas are basically scams, all it takes is someone to point out the scam and you no longer have an idea. Clearly giving our own side less time to point out the scams is easier then actually coming up with various working solutions that could be defended. Well except our base is insane and we cant defend anything they would want.

Ok so that ^ actually wasnt shorter then what the RNC said. So let me try again.

The entire RNC postmortem can be boiled down to 4 points

1) Say the exact same things we have been saying but be browner and have tits while saying it.
2) Learn to use technology invented after 1950
3) Teach our base how to vote
4) Spend less time talking among ourselves/letting people know what we think.

Yep there you go. It took 3 months, thousands if not millions of dollars and the best minds in the Republican Party to come up with those 4 "solutions" to the problems plaguing the GOP. Most of which a second grader could have come up with in 10 minutes, and a third grader could explain how they are actually kinda missing the problems in 15 minutes.

But on the upside I think we have all gained a deeper understanding of what exactly is wrong with the GOP.....

Profiles in cowardice

Ok so i was going to do part 2 of my corners report, and that is coming when I get the time (likely tomorrow friday or Sunday.), but something else came up that I wanted to address, the recent revelations by both Rob Portman and Hillary Clinton that they support Gay Marriage. More to the point the media reaction to said revelations.

See the media is treating it like a bold new courageous step and applauding it, but really its nothing of the sort.

Now look I'm not condemning or against gay marriage, I'm all for it. Honestly unless your trying to/are sleeping with me I could give two fucks about who your sleeping with. Whatever floats your boat is fine with me, has no impact on my life at all, and I wish you all the best, and I think you should have all the same relationship options I do.

The problem is this, Rob Portman and Hillary Clinton did not suddenly wake up in the last week and go "hmm you know I just realized, gay people getting married has nothing to do with me", they both reached that point months ago, if not years.

So for months or years they basically just lied about it.

Just check Rob Portman's own explanation if you dont believe me

'"I've come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I've had for over 26 years. That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay, My son came to Jane, my wife, and I, told us that he was gay, and that it was not a choice, and that it's just part of who he is, and that's who he'd been that way for as long as he could remember,"

Now look a "traditional values" conservative flip flopping on said traditional values when its his/her own family is nothing new. But what makes it a noticeable act of cowardice is that his son came out to him in 2011.

Now if his son coming out in 2011 led Portman to reconsider, rather quickly as he claims his first reaction was, "Love. Support,", he's been pro gay marriage for some time.

In fact in 2011 when giving the commencement address at U of Michigan law school, 100 students walked out due to his public stand on gay marriage. By Portman's own admission, this was after his son came out.

Same with his working to defeat the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, last year. the Act would make it illegal to fire someone for being a homosexual.

In fact last year he was being considered for Vice President on the Romney ticket, and while he claims he told Romney, he still didnt say anything different publicly.

Instead he waited not only until Romney picked someone else for the VP slot, but after the election, and until the lull period before the 2014 election (and a few years before his own reelection campaign will have to start for 2016) when most people arnt paying attention.

Lying/supporting bills you dont support to cover that lie, then coming out when no ones looking isnt courage.

A similar case can be made for Hillary Clinton. It was her husband who signed DADT and DOMA into law in the 90's, and she herself came out against gay marriage when running for president in 2008 (as did Barack Obama for that matter). Now in 2009 her husband came out in favor of gay marriage, but it took Hillary until now, after she exited public life, to join him.

Now look I dont doubt that in the 90's both Clinton's were opposed to gay marriage, and just because they are married doesnt mean they have to agree on everything, so its possible Hillary was telling the truth in 2008 that she still opposed it.

However that doesnt change the fact she waited until she was no longer in any political office to reveal that she had changed positions.

This despite serving as Secretary of State under the first president in history to be openly in favor of gay marriage. As is the Vice President (2nd consecutive VP to be in favor) so its not like she'd have been going against the administration.

Just saying, waiting until you no longer have the power to change anything before revealing you'd like to change something isnt courage.

And as a side note, honestly we should hit Obama on this same issue. Personally I never believed him in 2008 when he said he was against gay marriage,but I cant prove it.

What I can prove though is that likely the only reason he came out in favor is because Joe Biden pushed him into it last year when Biden said the administration was for it. Now Biden has been known to say some wacky things, but he's never misrepresented the position of the Administration.

In otherwords it was such a well known fact privately at least by the beginning of last year that Obama was pro gay marriage that Biden felt comfortable enough saying it publicly not knowing the president was still not telling the truth publicly.

Look dont get me wrong, I'm sure the pro gay marriage movement is trilled to have the support of Portman, Clinton and President Obama, and likely all 3 of them have helped ensure being in favor of gay marriage quickly becomes the political norm. So in that sense yes, they did us and the idea of actual equality a big favor. We just shouldnt conflate helping a movement, but only when its politically safe to do so/you'er forced into it as an act of courage,

Coroner's report: Republican edition (part 1 minority outreach)

So for those who dont know yesterday the Republican National Committee released, what even they are calling an "autopsy" on the republican party.

Now the vernacular name here is quite telling. See an Autopsy is something you preform on a dead body, so this is a tacit admission by the RNC that the republican party is basically dead.

The good news is, being dead is cool. Zombies are in.

The GOP in their free time working as extras on "The Walking Dead"

Seriously though, I mean really I think the first sign of how dysfunctional the GOP is at the moment comes from the fact they named what is supposed to be a report/study on re-branding, and thereby growing and expanding their party an autopsy, a name that implies its too late to do anything.

Now look I'll be fair there are some suggestions in the 100 page autopsy that are actually good ideas:

"We have to blow the whistle at corporate malfeasance and attack corporate welfare. We  should speak out when a company liquidates itself and its executives receive bonuses but rank-and-file workers are left unemployed. We should speak out when CEOs receive tens of millions of dollars in retirement packages but middle-class workers have not had a meaningful raise in years."

Just as one example. The problem is for each good idea there are about 10 really bad or just awkward ones.

Some of the greatest hits:

"our candidates and office holders need to do a better job talking in normal, people-oriented terms"

Well ya'll said it, not me. Republicans dont speak like normal people. Right Mitt 47% Romney, and Todd Legitimate Rape" Akin?

Seriously though, damn their wasnt a better way to phrase that? I mean your not doing any favors by putting in writing that your party doesnt talk like "normal" people.....

"For the GOP to appeal to younger voters, we do not have to agree on every issue, but we do need to make sure young people do not see the Party as totally intolerant of alternative points of view. Already, there is a generational difference within the conservative movement about issues involving the treatment and the rights of gays — and for many younger voters, these issues are a gateway into whether the Party is a place they want to be."

Which is why we shut GOProud and other pro gay GOP groups out of the CPAC convention just 48 hours ago......really that should teach the lesson of tolerance of others views.

In that same vein,

"If we want ethnic minority voters to support Republicans, we have to engage them, and show our sincerity."

For the record, engage does not mean talk about how great slavery was at the CPAC convention. Specifically not to have it brought up at your “Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You’re Not One?” workshop. Just saying, tolerance: You're doing it wrong"

Later on in the report, the RNC suggests looking to state level republicans as a model of how to act. Awkwardly enough one of their picks for roll model:

"New Jersey Governor Chris Christie saved retirees their pensions through pension reform, which also resulted in taxpayers saving $120 billion over 30 years. "

And then he said something nice about Obama. And pretty much ever since your entire party treated him as a pariah and want nothing to do with him. Just saying if your suggestion is to follow the lead of the state level republicans, might not be a great idea to functionally exile your state level roll models.

Even later in the 100 plus page report, they have an entire section on how to reach out to Hispanic's ....and the very first suggestion just proves they still dont understand the problem.

"The RNC should hire Hispanic communications directors and political directors  for key states and communities across the country. "

Yea see here's the thing, its not the "brownness" of the messenger that is your problem. Its the message.

Thats why despite having Marco Rubio play point man on your immigration reform ideas, people still dont like it compared to the democratic version.

And this is why, despite the honest truth that (with the exception of African Americans) I can name more nationally known minorities in the GOP then the Democratic party, minorities still dont like you.

When Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Tim Scott, Alan West, ect say the same things white republicans say that minorities dont like....people still dont like it.

Their last point in that same section, and the section on Asian Americans, and the section of African Americans, just doubles down on that same failure to get the issue

"The RNC and State Parties should make every effort to feature and use diverse committee members." 

Instead of say, the most qualified or people who can do the best job. Again I look at Rubio and Jindal as exhibit A/B as to why this is a problem.

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the entire GOP argument against affirmative action that minorities are featured and used simply because they are minorities  I'm having trouble seeing how this isnt actually doing just that thing.....

 And then we reach the suggestions to reach out to Women, and this is where the real fun is. And by real fun, I mean most obvious case of their own ass backwards antiquated beliefs blinding them from actually seeing the problem.

"Female voters want to hear the facts; many of them run the economies of their homes and understand economics better than the men in their families. But they are also the caregivers for their families."

Yea see heres the thing, with almost no effort I can come up with more examples then I have fingers of families in which the first question they have about that, for a variety of reasons is "What men?"

And I can also think of many families (my own included) in which most/all of the household economics are handled by the men, simply because as it turns out, they happen to be better at it.

Same thing with the caregiver part, their are plenty of families in which the man is actually is actually the primary care giver.

And again, like with the minorities, the GOP sees convinced outreach to women is directly proportional to the number of people who lack a penis.

The end of the section I quoted above is :

"and we need to do a better job communicating why our policies are better, while using female spokespeople to do it."   

and another idea in that same section says in part:

"Many female voters feel that Washington, D.C., is a city full of politicians that simply don’t listen and don’t understand what their daily lives are like. Female candidates are far better at connecting with these voters because they are more likely to understand them."

This is the same logic that convinced the GOP in 2008 they could pick up all the disgruntled Hilary supports because they had Sarah Palin on the ticket, and both Hilary and Palin lack a penis.

Didnt work then, isnt gonna work now. Just like the minorities, its not about the messenger.    

Basically what the outreach part of the GOP report comes down to is: change nothing but get someone browner and without a penis to say it.

Good luck with that.

And by the way, there is more, but I think this is a long enough article for now. When i do get around to writing part 2, that will focus on the larger half of the report, how the GOP wants to restructure campaigns so they dont do as bad. And sadly for them, it may be even more humorous then outreach part. As an preview, one of their suggestions to getting a more electable candidate is "less debates" cause letting people know what they think is a problem......

It's CPAC Week, time to send in the clowns.

So for those of you who dont pay attention to crazy right wingers, you may not know this, but just like everyone else, crazy right wingers like to go to conventions. Specifically they like the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) which is currently going on right now.

Now heres the really odd thing. Even as what a CPAC attendee would surely call a rabid communist, socialist fascist, I actually really enjoy CPAC. After all where else can I see such luminaries, as Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, Ted Curz and Mitt Romney  giving what are billed as policy speeches  about the future of the republican party?

So with that in mind, here are some of the high lights of what you missed because your just not cool enough to follow CPAC.

First we start with the actual introduction video to CPAC this year

So they say freedom died 15 years ago. By my math that was 1998 so I'm not entirely sure what they are referring to, no new president was elected, and the GOP retained control of congress. In fact as near as I can tell the most notable thing to happen in 1998 was the Clinton impeachment. I guess they finally realized trying to impeach someone for getting his rod spit shined really is a bridge too far.

Either that, or Tea Party Patriots are being ironic. After all their all allegations the TPP is funded by Freedom Works and Dick Armey, Armey by the way because the Senate Majority Leader in 1998. So maybe what they are really saying is that was the birth of seed that became the Tea Party and the tea party kills freedom?

And of course no convention is complete without brochures and boy oh boy did CPAC have some interesting ones

First up the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Prosperity 10 reasons we cant allow gay marriage. In this handout you discover that one of the reasons (number 8 specifically) we cant allow gay marriage is “It Imposes its Acceptance on all Society.”

And lets be honest, acceptance and tolerance are clearly against God's plan. if it wasn't he wouldn't have created bigots.  But hey at least they are honest Bigots.

And another handout from the group "America’s Survival" that the catholic church was complicit with getting Obamacare passed, after the bishops made a deal with a 3rd party, Satan.

Well on the upside, at least they arnt blaming a massive Democratic conspiracy anymore.

Nor were those the only two handouts available, you could also get a hand out on how the UN was just given 25% of american territory, including your house. Puerto Rico's statehood referendum was rigged as part of a plan to increase illegal voting (never mind Puerto Ricans are already citizens), and of course a handout detailing the life of Frank Marshall Davis, the American reporter and poet who was really Barack Obama's father....

And finally, what gathering of right wingers would be complete with out some rabid racism?

First up, former republican presidential frontrunner and professional joke, Donald trump, who said this:

“When it comes to immigration, you know that the 11 million illegals, even if given the right to vote — you know, you’re gonna have to do what’s right — but the fact is, 11 million people will be voting Democratic,”

and then 90 seconds later follows it up with this:

“Now I say to myself, why aren’t we letting people in from Europe? Nobody wants to say it, but I have many friends from Europe, they want to come in.Tremendous people, hard-working people, They can’t come in. I know people whose sons went to Harvard, top of their class, went to the Wharton School of finance, great, great students. They happen to be a citizen of a foreign country. They learn, they take all of our knowledge, and they can’t work in this country. We throw them out. We educate them, we make them really good, they go home — they can’t stay here — so they work from their country and they work very effectively against this. how stupid is that?”

Now on the one hand I think its ironic the man who is always rallying against the European socialist Obama wants to allow more European socialists into the country.

On the other hand, what exactly is the difference between the stereotypical illegal immigrant and the stereotypical European?

First google image result for Illegal Immigrant.

And the one for European people. Who can spot the difference?

Just saying. But just in case you didnt get it, lets give Rep Steve King a shot on the same subject.

Well kinda, see he didnt actually say Illegal Immigrants. No he called them Illegal Democrats. (really i cant for the life of me figure out why these people wont vote for you guys)

But that was far from the only racism, or hate on display....or well not on display.

See the gay republican group GOProud, who actually want to sponsor the event were told to go the fuck away and not invited because they might get "teh gay" everywhere.

To be fair, the GOP is trying to be more tolerant. In fact they even had a panel at CPAC called:

“Trump The Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You’re Not One?”

Except that didnt exactly go according to plan:

In case you cant hear it, I'll provide a write up of the exchange as well (from Business Insider) : 

“It seems to be that you’re reaching out to voters at the expense of young white Southern males,” Terry [White man] said, adding he “came to love my people and culture” who were “being systematically disenfranchised.”

Smith[black man] responded that Douglass forgave his slavemaster.

“For giving him food? And shelter?” Terry said.

At this point the event devolved into a mess of shouting. Organizers calmed things down by asking everyone to “take the debate outside after the presentation.”

Not that it ended there either. According to BI a few minutes later this happened:

"Brown [a black attendee] , who took offense at [a previous] suggestion modern Democrats were descendants of the KKK, tried to ask a question later once things finally calmed down. She was booed and screamed at by audience members.

“Let someone else speak!” one attendee in Revolutionary War garb shouted.

“You’re not welcome!” a white-haired older woman yelled.

Eventually she asked a question. It was about whether Republicans should call out racist ads".
Well I guess she got her answer.......

Now it should be noted, this was not just fringe people at CPAC, I only hit a few of my highlights, but literally anyone who was anyone in the Republican Party was there, including almost all of the 2012 presidential candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich) and both the losing presidential and vice presidential nominees (Romney/Ryan), as well as the potential 2016 nominees (Bush, Rubio, Jindal and Rand Paul, who won the straw poll to be the nominee in 2016). In fact that whole list gave speeches at the event, that frankly I dont have time to pan.

As did Trump, Palin, Ann Coulter, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre and David Keene, GOP house Majority Leader Eric Cantor, GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Governor Scott Walker of WI, Governor want-to-be and current Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli, Senators Kelly Ayotte, Mike Lee, John Barasso, Ron Johnson, Tim Scott, Pat Toomey, and the Key note speaker for the entire event, Joe McCarthy want-to-be, Ted Cruz, who you may remember (along with all the other senators mentioned, including McConnell, Paul and Rubio) filibustering Chuck hagel for some shit ted cruz made up. 

By the way thats 10 of 45 GOP senators at this event, or basically a bit under 1/4 of the GOP caucus.

One good piece of news for sane Republicans, notably absent and explicitly uninvited, and therefore totally untainted by this mad house, Chris Christie.

And the reason he wasnt invited? well he dared to work with Obama after his state got crushed....and thats the one sin the GOP cant abide.

Just saying if you all want to know why the GOP is broken, and why it cant fix itself, just look up the speeches given by the people I listed. It wont take long to figure out.........

What the fuck is in the drinking water? Iowa edition

Well its time for a new, and I hope never reoccurring post, "What the fuck is in the drinking water in _____"

This weeks state is Iowa, which is currently proposing all kinds of insane laws. Sadly I should point out my "prequel" of sorts to this bit "I'm too sexy for a job" was also about Iowa.

The first comes thanks to State Rep. Pat Grassley, grandson of US Senator Chuck Grassley.

Grassley's new bill removes the funding for teaching “voting statutes and procedures, voter registration requirements, the use of paper ballots and voting systems in the election process, and the method of acquiring and casting an absentee ballot.”

Which is good, since as we all know 100% of young people vote, and everyone knows exactly where and how to register.

Doubly ironic, the stated purpose of the bill according to Grassley is teaching and funding "tenets of American citizenship” and “the principles of American citizenship.” In fact it does increase social studies funding.....just not for teaching how to vote.

Because voting is not really a part of being a citizen. Just ask the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th amendments.......

Second up, the more "fun" of the WTF stories today. Iowa Republican Todd Gassbag.......err wait sorry Todd Gassman, wants to ban no fault divorce for any parent with a child under 18.

Why? well as Rep Gassman tells it:

"This basically is an attempt on my part to keep fathers in the home, I sincerely believe that the family is the foundation of this nation and this nation will go the direction of our families. If our families break up, so will this nation."

"You know, in my opinion, it's time to look out for the children, instead of constantly worrying about the adults. If my daughter and son-in-law would've had some time to work this out, we would have a much different situation today.  And there's a 16-year-old girl in this whole mix now -- guess what? What are the possibilities of her being more promiscuous? What are the possibilities of all these other things surrounding her life that a 16-year-old girl with hormones raging can get herself into?"

Got that parents: if you break up your daughter will become a slut. (Son's on the other hand we all know have an irresistible attraction to pussy, so really they are a lost cause anyways, right?)

So yes, think of your marriage like your daughters legs, you want to keep it together.

Because after all, we all know no 16 year old girl with two happily married.....or in this case unhappily married parents has ever fucked anyone. Right guys? *sees no agreement from any dude*

Also can I just say I love the first bit. I mean look if you really cant get divorced, why bother getting married? I mean what exactly would happen if say some guy knocked a girl up and didnt marry her? He could still leave right?

Oh wait sorry I get it now, that was a stupid question. After all all the women who get pregnant outside of marriage are sluts because their parents broke up. So if the parents cant break up their will be no more sluts. and if their are no more sluts then there will be no more premarital sex. And then happy days will be here again and we will all hold hands (non sexually of course), and their will be peace on earth, and all gays will be straight, and we will cure aids. And then Jesus will lead an epic Conga line

Or I assume thats the logic......because like most things in Iowa apparently  its not based in reality.

Seriously though WTF is going on in that state? fired for being too hot (see link), trying to make it illegal to divorce and not teaching people they can vote.....just WTF?

The ACORN of justice?

Perhaps you heard of the group ACORN? They were a community organizing group that was driven out of existence after congress bought into a fraud perpetrated by James O'Keefe, Andrew Breitbart, and FOX news, and cut their funding.

See according to the fraud, ACORN was providing homes for underage child trafficker's, prostitutes, drug dealers and helping fake tax forms to cover it up as well as voter registration fraud (in favor of Obama) in the 2008 election, the alleged impetus for the tapes . Now of course NONE of that is true, it was all due to doctored tapes, as multiple investigations have shown from various state, federal and independent groups.

In fact, no one has found a single illegal thing ACORN did ever. But that didnt matter, since the media (read FOX) was off and running with the story. Which lead to the vote in the House of Representatives that was 345-75 in favor of defunding ACORN. It was this vote which lead to the group having to shut down as they lost too much money.

And again, keep in mind, as has been proven over the last 3 years they did NOTHING wrong.

And yet so far, all the people involved in this fraud have more or less continued on with life as Normal.

FOX News is still FOX news, and while there ratings are at a 12 year low, they seem to escaped taking a reputation hit for airing doctored footage. In fact if you remember when the White House tried to limit FOX's access to them, in part because of this, the other media companies defended FOX.

Andrew Breitbart, who paid for the production of the footage meanwhile has passed away, but before his death, he also perpetrated the Shirley Sherrod Hoax, in which he again doctored tapes to make it seem as if Mrs Sherrod has said something other then what she had, leading to her firing. At the time of his death he was working on a big release (later released by the website he founded Breitbart.com) of a "secret" tape of the president hugging a terrorist (and by terrorist they meant a random college professor breitbart pretended was a terrorist). Even after his death his associates at Breitbart.com were the ones responsible for the completely false and made up story about Sec of Defense Chuck Hagel taking donations from a group called "Friends of Hamas" which didnt exist, but which did play a role in the history making filibuster against him.

In case you havnt noticed, the Right Wing media tends not to learn from their mistakes, they will trust anything that agrees with what they really really wish was true even if 5 seconds of thought would disprove it.

And lastly we have the Camera-man himself, James O'keefe. Now to be fair, O'Keefe IS a convicted criminal, due to his attempts to break into Senator Mary Landrieu's office. But up till now he hasnt actually gotten into trouble for all the frauds he's attempted.

See like his patron, he didnt just stop at the ACORN fraud, O'Keefe also did a "sting" on NPR as well, and of doctoring the tapes to get the desired conversation even if it wasnt what was really said. He was also taped trying and (unbeknownst to him failing) to commit voter fraud in the New Hampshire Primary, although no changes were filed. And lastly he tried to tape the NY census workers training others to commit fraud. As with his other videos he edited it. Unlike his other videos however it never really saw the light of day, since unknown to anyone the NY census department was secretly taping its own training sessions, and they had an unedited tape before O'Keefe had ever finished editing his version.

The thing with O'keefe so far had been, though luck and skill he had managed to  avoid any real legal trouble for the ACORN fraud. Basically what he's been doing is providing the unedited tapes to prosecutors investigating ACORN's alleged frauds, in exchange for immunity.

And of course in every case his tape exonerated ACORN from the investigation his fraud started. But no one has been able to go after him. Until now.

Juan Carlos Vera was one of the ACORN employee's O'Keefe ran his fraud on. In Vera's case O'Keefe claimed he needed a safe house to smuggle in underage child prostitutes into the country and needed ACORN's help to get cheap housing. Now on the edited version of the tape Vera seemed open to the idea and discussed exactly what kind of house O'keefe needed to complete his smuggling ring and gave him some paper work to fill out.

In the unedited version however Vera says he cant help, nor can ACORN, but offers to put O'keefe in contact with his "cousin" who helps run a child smuggling ring, and after getting info on what O'keefe needs gives him the "cousins" business card.

Which still sounds pretty damning, until you discover Vera's "cousin" is actually a friend of his who was an undercover police officer working on a task force to stop child smuggling. In other words Vera was assisting the cops and trying to get what he believed to be a child smuggler to [unknowingly] turn himself in.

And for that he got fired. Or well for what O'keefe edited it to look like he was fired. So now he's suing. And since O'keefe had already turned over the unedited tapes to avoid previous prosecution, he had no way out of this one.

Which means for the first time since the ACORN fraud was pulled off, he actually DID have some consequence. Sadly it was only $100,000 in an out of court settlement. But at least its a start.

For there part, the Republican Party is in such denial about this whole event, they cant even admit this happened, let alone anything else.

Far from admitting they got scammed and/or conned repeatedly by these people (sherrod, NPR, Friends of Hamas and this), the GOP has just decided to break from reality.

5 days ago the GOP passed a continuing resolution to keep the government running. The following sentence is included in Section 510, on page 221:

"None of the funds made available in this Act may be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries or successors."

ACORN no longer exists, for going on 3 years now. So yea, they just passed a provision to not fund a non existent entity.....

But I guess when you spend the last 3 years getting rolled over and over and over and over and over and over and over again by the same guys the only thing you can do is pretend it didnt happen.

This week in bad excuses.

Ok so i admit, this is basically my normal (and these days seeming only, but not for much longer) post about the week in stupid. 

Except that this week, most of the really stupid stuff seems to be coming in the form of excuses

See first up we have failed republican nominee Mitt Romney.

His most recent excuse for losing came out in an interview with Chris Wallace:

ROMNEY: We did very well with the majority population, but not with minority populations, and that was a failing, that was a real mistake.

CHRIS WALLACE: Why do you think that was?

ROMNEY: Well, I think the Obamacare attractiveness and feature was something we underestimated, particularly among lower incomes. And, uh, just didn’t do as good a job in connecting with that audience as we should have.

Now look I'll be the first to admit, that normally would be a totally reasonable statement. In fact if anyone else had made the statement, it wouldnt make this list. But Mitt Romney is different. And to understand why Mitt Romney is different one need look no farther then his official portrait as governor

 

Now of you notice, other then the office, his portrait contains only two objects other then the back drop of his office. The first understandably is a picture of his wife (bet he got major husband points for that too). The second may be a little hard to see, even with the enhanced detail. but its a folder containing a law. And not just any law see the symbol on the folder is the Caduceus. Which you might recognize more like this:

If it looks familiar, you likely saw it at your doctors office. See in this country the Caduceus is a symbol of medicine.

Basically thats the Romneycare bill, that governor Romney chose to have included in his portrait. Romneycare of course was the basis for Obamacare, and one of the reasons Romneycare worked so well he wanted it included in his portrait is because of its popularity among the middle and lower classes in Massachusetts.

So really Mitt Romney's excuse for loosing the presidential race is that he didnt think what was basically his own plan  would be popular with the poor......even though it already was.

Our next excuse comes from Washington State Senator Michael Baumgartner.

Baumgartner doesnt really like the recent Washington State Supreme Court (WSSC) decision requiring the state to actually fund public education.

So  Baumgartner is now using the case itself as a way to get rid of the WSSC. In fact he just introduced legislation that reads:

“On June 30, 2013, all existing judges of the state supreme court, shall meet in public to cast lots by drawing straws,” the bill says. “Effective July 1,2013, the positions of the four judges casting losing lots by drawing the shortest straws shall be terminated.”

Yep thats right, for ruling against the way he wanted them too, 45% of the WSSC should be fired.

And why? “Every dollar we save by eliminating these four positions would be automatically funneled to K-12 education to help meet the guidelines the Supreme Court laid out in the McCleary decision, [requiring the full funding of education]”

And heres the real kicker and the reason this is really a bad excuse. The case in question was decided 7-2. Which means even if the bill passed and 4 justices were fired the court would still have 3 justices in favor, 2 against, in the best case set up for Conservatives. But its actually much more likely one of the 2 conservatives would get sacked as well, weakening Mr. Baumgartner's own future policy goals.

Yea so not only are you attacking the justice system cause they had the gall to disagree with you.....its likely your own temper tantrum would actually hurt your own side... and then you try to pass blame off by pretending you agree with the decision. Nice Job.

Next up Bill O'Reilly, who after blowing his top as only he can, revealed a very interesting (read: WTF) excuse for his claim President Obama isnt offering any cuts to specific programs:

O’REILLY: There is nothing put forth, nothing. [...]
COLMES: I disagree with what is being said here. He has offered $2.50 in tax cuts for every dollar.
O’REILLY: That’s not–
COLMES: Yes, he has. Cuts in Medicare. Offered cuts to entitlements.
O’REILLY: That’s not specific. He has to say here are the programs that are going to go down. Here is how we are going to reform Medicare and Social Security. and the man refuses to do it. [...]
COLMES: What do you want to yell for?
O’REILLY: Because you are lying. you are lying.
COLMES: Don’t call me a liar. Don’t you sit there and call me a liar. [...] I’m not lying. We can have a disagreement without you calling me a liar. That’s not necessary.
O’REILLY: You are lying here… where is the proof.. give me one program he would cut.
COLMES: He would cut medicare and medicaid offered cuts to those programs.

O’REILLY: That’s not a specific program.

Its that last line that really cracks me up, magically medicare and medicaid arnt actually programs anymore. So I'm not entirely sure what they are in Bill's mind. They did seem to be specific cuts in specific programs back when Mitt Romney was [correctly] pointing out that Obamacare did cut 716 Billion dollars from Medicare (even if he did forget to mention his own plan had the same cuts).

Also fail of the week to Alan Combs for not mentioning the repeatedly offered (and rejected) Chain CPI change that all sides agree would be a cut to social security. its a much easier example.

Unless magically in Bill O'world Social Security is not longer a specific program either.

And last up our winner, GOP Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, the only woman in the House to vote against the Violence Against Women Act.

Now look I gotta be honest, this one might actually be my fault. See a few months back I did a satire piece pretending I was part Native American and asking the republicans to stand up for my rights to Slap-a-ho and/or Beat-a-Bitch.

Well it seems Mrs. Blackburn may have read my piece, and missed the joke. So my apologies.

 See here is Mrs. Blackburns excuse for her vote in favor of me being aloud to Whoop-a-Whore:

"When you start to make this about other things it becomes an “against violence act” and not a targeted focus act… I didn’t like the way it was expanded to include other different groups. What you need is something that is focused specifically to help the shelters and to help out law enforcement, who is trying to work with the crimes that have been committed against women and helping them to stand up."

Yea see, heres the thing, those other groups the VAWA was expanded to help were; Native American Women, lesbian Women and illegal immigrant Women. Or as they are all otherwise known Women, all of whom the title of the law suggests should be covered.

Then again, the Declaration of Independence only says "all men are created equal". SOME women might be created equal to men.....but apparently that only goes so far. See if we over extend to too many women, we might as well have no protection at all.

So to those woman Mrs.Blackburn believes are equal to men, congrats, even if she was willing to throw you all under the bus because of those who arnt. To the rest of you, might I suggest getting me a sandwich before I take my belt off and practice the arts of smacking-a-skank? And dont bitch about it either, its just how you were created, separate and unequal.     
  

Repeal the 27th amendment?

Yea so I admit a slight reluctance at writing this blog. See my normal theory of life is that if someone tells you repealing a constitutional amendment will fix everything that person is a moron who doesn't actually understand the amendment. Most popularly, you see this with those who think repealing the 16th amendment would make income tax illegal, which would magically fix the tax code, ect.......even though the income tax existed as legal prior to the 16th amendment. (by a good few decades).

But the thing is, sometimes, especially when they arnt claiming its a magic pill for everything, repealing or editing could actually work. Here I'm thinking of those who want to change the 14th amendment to remove the word "birth" from the citizenship cause, thereby paving the way for fetal personhood//citizenship.

Of course the law of unintended consequences would enter as well. While that change would make it possible maybe to de facto outlaw abortions, that same change would mean that if a tourist got pregnant here, and then when back to her home country her offspring could be considered american....which is not something I think most of the pro life side would be ok with (moving from anchor baby fears to anchor fetuses)

Point is, if you understand the amendment or not, their are very few that are easy to remove or change without creating another possible problem.

That said, their does seem one amendment people at the moment would likely see done away with.....but its not one of the popular ones you hear about people wanting to overturn all the time (2nd, 14th, 16th, 17th, 19th, and 26th, depending on the circles you travel in)

Its actually our "newest" amendment the 27th.

I put "newest" in "" because it turns out the amendment has a rather long and complicated history, starting with the fact it was supposed to be the 2nd amendment, and was written by the founding fathers.

See when the Bill of Rights was first proposed it contained 12 amendments and not 10 as we were all taught in school. Yes only 10 managed to pass, but both the intended 1st and 2nd amendment failed to get ratified by enough states to become law.

But unlike pretty much every amendment that followed, the proposed 2nd (and 1st) amendment had no time limit on how long states had to ratify. And there was a push in the 1980's to once again pass the intended first amendment, a push that became successful on either may 5th or may 7th 1992.

I say either, because a handful of states, starting with Maryland (1789), had ratified the amendment back in the 1700's, including the state of Kentucky......which forgot to keep good records, therefore people forgot they had ratified it, a discovery that wasnt made until after the amendment passed. So the ratification on may 7th 92 by Michigan is officially the one that put the amendment over the top, but arguably should have been Alabama's ratification on the 5th that had done so.

Point is, at some point in May 1992, the intended 2nd amendment became the 27th amendment.....and is causing all kinds of trouble these days.

See this is the wording of the 2nd/27th amendment.

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened"   

To translate, it means no change congresses pay can go into effect until after the next congressional election. Congress can vote to change its pay whenever it wants, but the pay change wont happen until after a congressional election.

This is why when the House GOP introduced the "No Budget No Pay" act, it didnt actually affect their pay, and was nothing but a cheap political stunt. And earlier this week Democratic Senator Bill Nelson became the most recent (that I'm aware of anyways) person to suggest that because of the sequester, congress should be forced to take a pay cut.

But it turns out once again its a stunt. I'm sure Senator Nelson is well aware of the 27th amendment, so he knows his idea is flat out unconstitutional, as does everyone else from both sides who proposes something similar.

Yet the reason both sides continue to suggest this (or things like it) is because the idea is MASSIVELY popular at the moment.

And that in my opinion is where things get a little odd. I suppose nothing is that odd about having a huge majority disagree with an amendment to the Constitution, but I do think its a bit odd that elected officials are basically fueling this, while pretending the amendment doesn't actually exist/refusing to mention it.

Seems to me their is much more consensus behind repealing/editing the 27th amendment (or would be if people knew it existed) then any of the other "controversial" amendments I mentioned before.

Yet somehow no one is actually calling for any changes in this case.

And that right there I think is actually indicative of the problem in politics these days. People see a problem, but have chosen to learn so little about the government, they dont realize the solution they want (correct or not) is not doable.....unless something else gets fixed first. (repealing or editing the amendment)

But unlike a lot of things in politics, this isnt some obscure thing hidden in the bowels of the House Rules or Supreme Court Precedent. This is right their in front of their eyes, in the Constitution  if only the american people would look.

Point is, that while personally opposed to touching the 27th amendment, I just find it fascinating that an amendment so controversial and/or seemingly unneeded it took 202 1/2 years to pass it has both become so central to today's political games and so totally totally forgotten by the american people, they cant even remember it exists.

Normally it would be a matter of time before someone called for the repeal of an amendment they dont like....in this case I'm much more interested to see if anyone will ever actually realize the amendment exists in the first place, so that they know they could call for its repeal.              

Yet another week in stupid.

Ok so honestly their was so much stupid from last week I could actually just do an "overflow" edition of that if I choose to. But I was too buzy/exhausted from my new job to get it done this week, and if I did now I wouldnt get a chance to cover this week.

Now that said, there are two contenders (out of many I had left from last week) this week who actually are from last week, but hey its MY blog so I can break my own rules :P

First up of our two "seasoned" entries, Senate Minority leader, Mitch McConnell. Last week he (or more likely his office to be fair, but his name is on it) wrote to Elizabeth King, the congressional liaison over at the pentagon, about the following

“I am writing on behalf of a constituent who has contacted me regarding Guantanamo Bay prisoners receiving Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits,”  

now just stop and think about that for 3 seconds. How likely does it seem that that is remotely true, that Gitmo detainees get government benifits? I mean would anyone actually bother to even confirm this?

Oh and it gets worse, the constituent letter McConnell's office is referring to was also released. And the letter contains a URL to an article and a stated reference to a web site called the Duffel Blog.

Now most of the media is laughing at McConnell's office for having never heard of the Duffel Blog, but to be fair I never heard of it either, so I'm guessing not everyone has. Well let me just give you a quote from the article referenced in the letter, and I think you can figure out what kind of website it is:

"DoD Spokesman Wesley Manheim said that it was all a matter of fairness.

“The DoD has been doing everything it can to prevent torture from being used against detainees at GTMO. By allowing the detainees to use the Department of Veterans Affairs, we hope to completely crush their souls with bureaucracy, which to be noted, is completely different from torture. I mean hell, the VA does that to our veterans on a daily basis.”

When pressed as to how the detainees would be able to use the money, Manheim stated, “Mostly through online courses. Probably Phoenix College. Don’t worry, it’s not like they’ll be able to get a REAL degree.”"

Yea, its basically a parody website like the Onion. Now look I get that occasionally our government, and others (North Korea most famously) do fall for articles published on parody websites, but honestly to actually be handed the URL for said parody website, AND read the article and still not get its a joke and send a letter up the chain of command.....that takes a special kind of stupid.

Now "seasoned" entry number #2, GOP senator Orin Hatch of Utah, who in an interview with his local paper said


""I'm for sequestration," Hatch said, if Congress can't cut spending. "We’ve got to face the music now, or it will be much tougher later."

With across-the-board spending cuts set to kick in next week, Hatch said sequestration would lead to an economic disaster in Utah as two-thirds of civilians working at Hill Air Force Base would be furloughed. He said it would be "devastating to our nation’s readiness."

So it's going to be devastating AND your for it? O.....k.....a.....y, good luck with your reelection bid senator, some how I dont think "I support fucking the country over" is a winning slogan but I could be wrong.

Now to be fair, it is possible the paper was using an older quote in one of those two quotes, which would only put you in the same boat as John "I got 98% of what I wanted [in the deal that created the sequester]" Boehner (and most of the rest of the GOP), where only now that the Sequester is here can you no longer claim its awesome and bad.  Which I kinda hope is the case.....otherwise it kind of looks like even you dont listen to the words coming out of your mouth.

Now on to the fresh and newly opened stupid:

First up Sheriff Joe Arpaio. If you read my blog regularly you know I think Arpaio is an idiot who's much more into personal fame and glory then pretty much anything else, doing everything from embracing Birtherism to hiring a sex offender to patrol kids schools. So this is just another drop in the bucket.

So as part of the sequester, immigration released a number of non violent illegal immigrants to a home release program. Joe Arpaio's reaction: he's offered to house the 300 from Arizona in a tent city he will run in order to keep them detained at no cost to the federal government.....but its the reason WHY his tent city is needed that got him on this list.

"We’re going to have these people report back to a court’ — do you think they’re going to come back? No. They’re heading south or to another state,”

See thats the thing, these people who are waiting in jail to be deported, cant be released and must be given to Sheriff Joe because otherwise they might actually  you know, leave the country. Also know as exactly what was going to happen to them anyways....just faster

I think there is a word for that:

Ah yes, thank you Mitt, thats the word I was looking for: Self-Deportation. Apparently Mitt was right that it exists, but at least according to Sheriff Joe its a bad thing. Instead we should keep them here for a while longer......for no good reason.  

And next of the March of a Million Mental Midgets: Dennis Rodman.

See Rodman went to North Korea this week and meet with new wackjob in charge leader Kim Jong Un, and apparently told him “You have a friend for life,” after Tweeting "It's true I'm in North Korea. Looking forward to sitting down with Kim Jong Un. I love the people of North Korea"
See heres the thing about North Korea, its kinda hard to be friends with the guy running the country and love the people, just saying. I mean its generally accepted that North Korea is kinda a brutal dictatorship, so I'm not exactly sure how Rodman is able to hold both positions at once......well unless the conspiracy theorists are right and their really is a "new World order" trying to impose communist brainwashing on all of us, and Rodman is part it.

Just saying, it wouldnt be the first NWO he was in....

Next up we return to the political sphere for a little of of EWWW mixed in with a huge helping of dumb.

The Democratic deputy speaker of Connecticut Ernest Hewett was stripped of his leadership post after making an allusion to his dick.

See a 17 year old girl was testifying about a program that helped her get over a fear of snakes to which Rep Hewett said "If you're bashful I got a snake sitting under my desk here."

Now normally a reference to a penis wont land you on my list, it may be creepy as shit, but this is not "creepiest person of the week". What landed him here is his excuse.

See he's claiming he mispoke, he's claiming he meant to say “if you are shy then I have an acre of land in the Everglades.”
Now on the upside, its not a dick joke.
On the downside IT DOESNT EVER MAKE SENSE.

Look if your creepy enough to hit on teenage girls during congress, at least think of a better excuse....now your both a perv and an idiot.

Now next up another well know favorite here, Republican Representative Louie Gomert.

This time he made the list for well actually taking a pretty decent comparison and shitting all over it. 

“Slavery and abortion are the two most horrendous things this country has done but when you think about the immorality of wild, lavish spending on our generation and forcing future generations to do without essentials just so we can live lavishly now, it’s pretty immoral.”

Yea look in fairness to Rep Gomert, I dont agree with him at all on Abortion, but if I did, I could actually see how that might be somewhat similar to slavery. So that part is fine.

But I think you kinda undercut both arguments about the immorality of slavery and [from your point of view] murder when you compare them to owning someone some money.

I'm just saying, having no free will....not really the same as needing to repay a loan. And Murder? yea well dont get me started. You might want to try a little something called "reasonable comparison" next time....makes you look smarter and more reasonable.

But hey, dont get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy for you to look like a moron, means my side is more likely to win the debt and the abortion argument to boot. So really i guess I should say thanks.

And finally our winner, who is accepting on behalf of many others who have said the same thing as her, GOP Congresswoman Diane Black:

" I want to make sure that we’re looking at this issue intelligently and from all — why Adam Lanza did what he did. Unprecedented levels of violent games, music, so on. None of these things that we’re talking about right now that are the biggest in the message is really going to help what happened in Newtown."
Congresswoman Black, did you know that in 1954, under the premise of protecting children from violence and how it was the leading cause of moral degradation in our country, Comic Books were put on trial in front of the US senate, to see if they could be banned under an exception of the right of free speech? I do. It was my thesis topic.

Did you know as well that they used exactly the same arguments against comics then as you are now against games/music?

And did you know it worked? Comics were forced under strict government censorship for the next 50 years? But oddly just a few years prior they had hit movies under the same charges....and hit them again a few years after 1954? Did you know they also hit TV just a few years ago, again under the same argument?

Yet somehow as many industries as they hit, it never seems to work.....

Oh by the way Congresswoman, did you know they have video games in Canada? did you know they make movies in Britain? and that they have american TV shows in Germany? or the Czech Republic? or Austria, Greece, Greenland, France, Spain, Italy, Switzerland ect.

And did you know that somehow none of those countries see mass killings to the levels we do?

But you know what, you seem like a nice lady, so let me help you out. You want to know why Adam Lanza did what he did? well he was probably nuts. I mean even if he was acting out a scene from Black Ops II or Call of Duty in his mind, thats not really a normal thing. MILLIONS of people play those games, none of us kill anyone.

So the problem with Lanza, is that somehow a crazy person got a gun.

Oddly enough, you know what might help that? Universal Background Checks. Maybe you remember those, you came out against them in 2002, and again a few weeks ago.

You know what else might help? gun locks. Maybe you remember opposing those in 2000?  

Basically what I'm getting at Mrs. Black, is that YOU are the problem. You either have no grasp of history, or you assume I dont. And you have no grasp of the outside world....or again assume I dont.

And lastly you yourself oppose the very legislation to fix, or at least help the problem you claim you want to fix.

For being an idoit/or assuming I am one....and standing in your own way on an issue you claim is important, you and the thousands like you using the same failed arguments, are my stupidest people of the week.