This week in stupid, with a surprise ending

So yep, It looks like its that time again. Thy stupid spilleth over. Which means its time for another edition of this week in stupid.

Up first Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA). First off, holy shit California has Republicans????

With that out of the way, how did Rep McClintock make it to this list?

Well at a town hall he was asked for his “stance on Wall Street criminal practices.”

His answer: “Well first of all, for a criminal practice there has to be a gun. It’s pretty simple.”

Good news folks, Rep McClintock just came out in favor of legalizing Weed. Also Gay marriage, Also polygamy. Also wife beating. Also Breaking and entering. Also roofie rape. Also Stalking. Oh and also this

Yep. turns out the first 2 minutes of that....all legal. In fact the only crime involved there was the murder of the man with the tommy gun. The rest of it was totally not a crime by the McClintock Standard.

I guess maybe criminal practices are a bit more complicated then Rep McClintock thought.

Next up we go international as Mexican politician Ana Maria Jimenez Ortiz makes our list.

In an piece with the rather ironically named On Top magazine Miss (I assume) Ortiz said this: (quoting the magizine directly)

"that “marriage should only be considered as those relationships in which the members have sex while facing each other.”

Jimenez Ortiz said that this “does not occur between gay couples,”Mexican media reported. She added that blind people are also in that category, but it was unclear whether she was talking about legally blind people or those who prefer to have sex with the lights off.

She said that this was based on the scientific method, asserting that only eye contract at time of copulation creates a true union."

Seriously? your against BLIND marriage? WTF? and what ever happened to "love is blind"? Just saying....

Also what if a blind person is married to a sighted one? is only the sighted one married????

But again some good news:

Turns out, they arnt married, and thats not even sex or a crime (by the McClintock standard). However on the downside, the dude might be gay. I mean after all they are the only ones who cant see each other when having sex (well actually they can, but I aint posting a video of that, I do try to stay somewhat SFW)

Also by the way, if it turns out I was wrong and Miss Ortiz is married, her husband has to be the most vanilla guy EVER. No blindfolds, lights are always on, and wont even hit it doggy style. And just for the record, Miss Ortiz might need to work on her head game, I'm just saying eye contact is important Ladies, although I suppose by the Bill Clinton standard thats already not sex....

Next up we return back to the states, specifically to the Heritage Foundation, and its president former Senator Jim DeMitt.

Now the Heritage Foundation is best known for leading the charge to repeal the evil obamacare, which was actually created by the Heritage Foundation 20 years ago.

Now here is their new plan, according to Frm Sen Demitt who said “will get better health care just going to the emergency room.” then they would under Obamacare.

Now on the one hand, I guess Heritage would know, they did design Obamacare after all.

But on the other, You've had 5 years to come with an alternative, and thats the best you got?

So yea, your new plan is basically "hey lets go back to the way shit used to be".....what happened to your replacement plan? Just saying.  Seriously 5 years....and thats it?

Next up, the entire fucking state of Louisiana, or at least the Republican parts of it.

In a recent survey Louisianians were asked "who do you think was more responsible for the poor response to Hurricane Katrina; George W. Bush or Barack Obama?"

Now for most of us with fully functional brains we remember Katrina hit in 2005. Now in 2005 George W. Bush was president, and Barack Obama had been in the senate for all of 8 months.

Now this should be a really fucking easy question, kinda like "what number comes after 4? 5 or 9"
So how did Louisiana do?

Survey says....... 44% picked Not sure.

Coming in Second, 29% picked Barack Obama.

Coming in last, 28% picked George W. Bush.

So yea, only 1/4th of Louisiana Republicans actually got it right.

Congratulations Louisiana Republicans, 3/4th of you may be the dumbest fucking people on the planet....

Next up our final entry, Christina Katok. Now look, I dont usually pick on private citizens, but this one did agree to do an interview in the newspaper and get filmed for a piece for the story.

Now like most Republican idiots, she says she doesnt believe Barack Obama is eligible to be president because he was born in Kenya and therefore "not a natural born American"

Now when it is pointed out to her that Ted Cruz, whos event she was attending at the time and who she supports for president, was born in Canada, she said this:

“As far as I’m concerned, Canada is not really foreign soil”

Yea, I must have missed it when the 51st state of Canada joined the US.....or maybe she just thinks that state (and not Hawaii) came in when Alaska did.

Or maybe as is clear if you watch the video in the link (around the 2 min mark) that laugh means she realizes as she said it shes being a fucking moron, but given a choice between accepting reality, and that she has previously been an idiot with her beliefs on Obama and has let herself be lied to for 5 years, and basically embracing stupidity so as not to be forced to accept a fact, she chose option B.

Because she would rather appear to be even fucking dumber than she is then give the correct answer that would qualify Cruz (his citizenship comes from his mom) because that same answer would also exonerate Obama even if every other piece of bullshit she believed about his birth was actually true.

So yea, when faced with facts, she voluntarily chose retardation.

Now you may have noticed Ms. Katok was the last entry, but I havnt declared her the winner. And thats because she's not.

See for the first time ever here on "this week in stupid" we have a tie.

For pure voluntary personal stupidity I have to give the win to Ms. Katok. The problem is for massive scale of idiocy to the level its almost terrifying I have to give the win to Louisiana.

Now I suppose I could just name the winner "anyone suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome" but that seems like a cop out.

So instead we split the prize this week. Congrats to Ms. Katok and the State of Louisiana, you are both some of the dumbest fucking people the world has ever seen, and this weeks winners of "this week in stupid.

Irony Alert: Ted Cruz and the Birthers edition.

Ok look, I'm an avowed atheist, but I gotta be honest, its things like this that convince me there is a God and that He (or She) is a massive liberal democrat, because on He/She could think up an irony like this.

For years now the extreme right wing of the GOP has been pushing the idea that President Obama isnt a legitimate president because he wasnt born in this country. Now it turns out the people on the extreme right actually want Senator Ted Cruz to be the next President.

And they really couldnt have picked a better candidate to show they and their birther ilk are totally and completely full of shit and have always known it, and were basically lying for years, and making fools out of 51% of the republican party.

And I dont just mean the obvious "issue" that Ted Cruz was born in Canada. And if you dont believe me, Senator Cruz (for no apparent or obviously beneficial reason) released his birth certificate this morning:

The GOP already did the whole "lets run a candidate against the "foreign" president" thing back in 2008 with the Panamanian born John McCain. So that's nothing new.

No see the similarities between the REAL Ted Cruz and the Birther version of Obama go much farther.

Now before I start, I do want to put out this one disclaimer, Ted Cruz is actually 100% eligible to be president of the United States under the Constitution, and exactly for the reasons Senator Cruz claims, his mother was an American Citizen, and that was the exact same standard that was used to determine that George Romney was eligible to run for president back in the 1960's.  So the point of these comparisons is not to undermine Ted Cruz's claim of constitutional eligibility, but only to point out the massive hypocrisy of his own supporters and his own party by not attacking his eligibility.

Now on to the comparisons: Birther Obama Vs Real Ted Cruz

Obama was born in Kenya (again remember this is Birther Obama, not Real Obama) so cant be President
Ted Cruz was born in Canada.

Obama may actually have dual citizenship in Indonesia and therefore is not allowed to be President.
Ted Cruz DOES have dual citizenship in Canada. (not actually unconstitutional for the record)

Barack Obama at one time went by a different first name (Barry) andt therefore is clearly suspicious.
Rafael Cruz currently uses a different first name (Ted).

Obama's father may have had ties to an anti "western" socialist group, the Mau Mau's (real Mau Mau's not socalist, but again this is Birther Obama) and therefore through vaginal osmosis Obama is unamerican.
Ted Cruz's father IS actually from an anti "western" country (Cuba) and is actually connected to a communist group (he fought on the Pro Castro side of the revolution)

Barack Obama is of mixed race, his father was black not born in the US, his mother was white and part Irish and born in the United States. (key point, the birthers dont dispute Obama's mothers birthplace)
Ted Cruz is of mixed race, his father was Hispanic not born in the US, his mother was white and part Irish and born in the United States.

Barack Obama attended an Ivy League Undergraduate School (Columbia). Has not presented any documentation to prove he didnt claim his foreign citizenship to get in.
Ted Cruz attended an Ivy League Undergraduate School (Princeton) Has not presented any documentation to prove he didnt claim his foreign citizenship to get in.
(again, disclaimer, I dont think either of them did claim to be a foreign national/exchange student, I'm just saying it matches up with the Birther conspiracy)

Barack Obama attended Harvard Law school and graduated Manga cum Laude with a law degree.

Ted Cruz attended Harvard Law school and graduated Manga cum Laude with a law degree.

Barack Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review.
Ted Cruz was the editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Before entering politics Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, a job that left him bereft of "real world experience"
Before entering politics, Ted Cruz taught U.S. Supreme Court Litigation (basically Law) at the University of Texas School of Law.

When he was elected President Barack Obama had only been in the Senate for 3 years, making him way to inexperienced for the job.
If elected President in 2016 Ted Cruz will have served 3 years in the Senate.

President Obama is married with two daughter.
Ted Cruz is married with two daughters.
(ok so that last one doesnt matter worth a shit, but still seemed like a "thing in common")

So everyone caught that right? After 5 years of telling you WHY Barack Obama isnt allowed to be President the GOP's right wing has gone and dug up their own more or less identical version of the fictional Obama they have made up and hated for 5 years.....Well except that guy is apparently perfectly eligible to be President of the United States.

I mean seriously could they have picked a more perfect candidate to prove they are totally and completely full of shit?

Look in all fairness to Ted Cruz, the dude is bat shit crazy and willing to lie his ass off to get attention, but he actually hasnt said any pro Birther comments that I can find, or challenged Obama's eligibility.

Yet that appears to be what his role will be in the 2016 election, to show the hypocrisy of the 51% of his party who believes Obama isnt eligible. Already anyone of the Republican side who is making noise about possibly running for President (as Cruz is believed to be doing) is being asked "So is Ted Cruz eligible?".

We have already seen Donald Trump (who is a birther and now basically exposed as a hypocritical liar) and Rand Paul (who isnt actually a Birther in fairness, just as he said) asked, and this likely is going to be the pattern for all the possible GOP nominees, most of whom HAVE chimed in one way on the other on the Birther issue

Which means Ted Cruz's role in the 2016 elections will be to force the GOP to pick an option

1) Are they going to actually take a principled stand for what they claim the definition of "natural born citizen" actually is, and thereby force Cruz to drop out? (hint: NO)

2) Are they going to simultaneously bash Obama on birther grounds, so as to appeal to the right wing base they need to win to primaries, while also defending Cruz's legitimacy to run so as to not alienate the right wing base they need to win the primaries? (Hint: YES)

And of course one they make that choice, the only real question left to be asked is going to be this, are Republicans:

1) liars who conned most of their party into believing something that wasnt true simply to try to gain political advantage/for votes, and presumably will continue to lie to their own supporters.

2) hypocrites who will say whatever is politically beneficial at the time, and sell out any issue no matter what they think of the actual eligibility of Cruz, and therefore can never be trusted on any issue.

3) both of the above.

So yea, as I said, if there really is a God, He/She is a liberal democrat, because they just gave the GOP exactly the Frankenstein Monster they had created on the other side

And lets be honest, there is no better irony the Democrats could have wished on the GOP than to watch them be torn apart by the Birther issue they created.

You cant fix stupid. RNC edition.

Ok so for those who dont know, there is a comedian out there named Ron White. He's not quite as famous as his friends/fellow blue collar comedy tour members Larry the Cable Guy, Jeff Foxworthy or even Bill Engvall. But like those guys he has his own catch phrase. You cant fix stupid.

And it appears the RNC just proved him right. See they just voted UNANIMOUSLY to pass Renice Preibus' hostage threat/suicide pact.  So there will be no republican debates on NBC or CNN.

Yep that's right, not a single member of the RNC actually thought it was a bad idea to cut themselves off of two of the 3 national news networks.

Oh and actually its slightly worse then that. See the boycott will also extend to all brands owned by either company, including Telemundo and CNN espanol.

Remember all that noise the GOP made about needing to reach out to latino voters because they got crushed by them in 2012? well....OOPS.

Now to be fair its not a complete cutoff, after all they could still broadcast a debate on Univision, which is independently owned, and one of the largest Spanish speaking networks in the country.

But really this is the same party that cant seem to pass immigration reform, even though they all agree they need it to pass to have a political future. This is the same party who's base appears to be solidly behind Steve "Dreamers are drug mules with cantaloupe sized calves" King, who also got almost all of them to vote to deport Dreamers.

How well do you think a debate on a Spanish language network will go over with those folks? IE with the base AKA primary voters?  Yea.....once again outreach FAIL.

Actually more of an outreach backtrack. See in 2012 the GOP did hold several debates that played on Spanish language television.

See anytime they held a debate on CNN, it was also aired on CNN espanol. Ditto with NBC and Telemundo. So basically they got to do debates that would be seen by a Latino audience without letting their base know they were doing it. Its not the most P.C. way to do it, but at least it was something.

Something they just lost.

So yea, pissing away free exposure to Latino's just passed the RNC unanimously.

But to be fair to the RNC they did catch one break. FOX it turns out is not actually going to produce the NBC series on Clinton, so that free's the RNC from a hypocrisy charge. Or it did.....

First up its worth noting that FOX is claiming the entire reason it pulled out is financial (and for what its worth I personally believe them) but the problem is, its being reported like this (from politico):

"But in the wake of the Republican National Committee's vote to bar NBC and CNN, which is producing a Hillary Clinton documentary film, from the GOP primary debates, FTVS has apparently pulled out."

In other words they gave in to what the RNC wanted. So instead of being the "one principled network" the way the RNC is trying to set them up to be, they instead look like the only network weak enough to bow to the demands of a political party.

Way to go credibility booster FAIL.

And thats a fail that will rebound on the RNC when they host debates on what appears to be their "pet network" making it look like the GOP doesnt want to speak to people who dont agree with them and are to chickenshit to face questions on a network that isnt afraid of them. (once again I should point out in fairness to FOX, many of the moments/questions that made republicans look horrible actually happened in FOX debates, IE the refusal of all candidates to take a 10:1 deal on spending cuts to tax increases, so they are actually no better or easier than CNN/NBC are to the GOP)

Oh and as I said, turns out the RNC didnt quite escape the hypocrisy problem either even with FOX passing on making the NBC Hilary series.

See in the resolution banning the debates the RNC had to give reasons NBC and CNN shouldnt be allowed to hold debates, and they gave several, including this one:

"WHEREAS, Robert Greenblatt, Chairman of NBC Entertainment,contributed the maximum amount to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign committee, contributed $25,000 to Obama’s 2012 Victory Fund, and this year contributed $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee;"

Now first, yes that is totally true, and yes once again the RNC as a whole dont seem to understand how media works and cant tell the difference between news and entertainment.  But in any case, lets accept their argument for the moment.

Ok you dont want your candidates to appear on any network where a guy who worked for a related network gave money to democrats. because thats an unfair democratic bias. Ok fine.

So you probably dont want to appear on a network who has a connection to a guy who maxed out his contributions to Hilary's 2012 presidential run.

Nor do you want to appear on a network who's company PAC has contributed money to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Chuck Schumer, and the newest member of the Senate, Democrat Ed Markey (John Kerry's replacement). On top of that, the PAC in question News America PAC, has also contributed more money to the Democrats than the Republicans, in 2002, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2012, and already 2014.

The problem for the RNC, the guy who set up that PAC, and who maxed out his contributions to the Clinton Campaign is this man:

Rupert Murdoch. Owner of FOX news.

Again OOPS.

Actually double OOPS on this one, since it was entirely an unforced error by the RNC, if they could have just resisted the cheap shot at a guy who has nothing to do with NBC news they wouldnt look like hypocrites.

So Hypocrisy FAIL.

And now and only now do we even make it to the practical problems the RNC just created.

Namely who exactly is going to moderate these debates, you just cut off 2/3rds of the national news reporters.

And even the ones on FOX catn be trusted. Bret Baier is the reason I keep saying even the FOX news guys made the GOP look bad. Shep Smith, half the time calls out even his own network for lying and bullshit and tends to be liberal. And Megyn Kelly, FOX's rising star is currently being blasted as an evil liberal following her promotion to prime time due to many of the liberal potions that she does actually hold.

So you if you want, as Preibus put it, moderators interested in the future of the Republican Party and their candidates, you cant use the news side of FOX either.

So there really isnt anyone left to moderate any debates.

But dont worry the RNC actually has an answer for that as well: Right Wing radio talk show hosts. They actually have been suggesting this for a few days now.

Specifically they have in mind Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

2 of which at least are major poblems. See of the 3 only Sean Hannity actually has a contract with FOX or any television station for that matter.

Which means either of the other two would have to be paid by FOX to appear, making the debates a lot more expensive.

And even Hannity might be risky. Remember how I said Megyn Kelly was under fire following her promotion into primetime? yea well that timeslot she was promoted into is Hannity's slot. It kinda looks like she just took his job.

Nor is that Hannity's only issue. His radio network just announced they are dropping his show, AND they said the same thing about Rush's show too.

Meaning unless some network is willing to shell out an appearance fee for a debate being hosted by two guys who were recently fired, neither of them can even host a radio debate since they wont have a network.

And this assumes anyone wants a man who doesnt know how birth control works (Rush) or a man who cant remember Bush was elected before 9/11 (Hannity) vetting candidates as moderator in the first place.

Leaving Mark Levin as the one person who could actually host a debate on his own air. Which is a problem for two reasons. 1st, who the hell is Mark Levin? I mean seriously raise your hand if you've heard of this guy before......I'm not seeing any hands.

Second, he did also just recently say in reference to Chris Christie "I will do everything I can, in my little way, to make sure he is not the nominee,", meaning he wouldnt even attempt to appear non-biased.

So yes, once again my hat is off to the RNC, you managed to pick moderators who dont have networks to host debates. So yea even the networks you havnt boycotted are going to have to spend money to host debates for you. And the moderators you picked are crack pots, two of whom may have gotten the Glenn Beck (remember him?) treatment by primary season.

Anyone else think that might not work so well?

So yea. Moderator FAIL.

Oh and one last thing. Its about how exactly the RNC could enforce this ban.

See its not uncommon for non RNC or non DNC sponsored debates to happen, 2012 had 3 of them as an example. Because no matter what, neither party can actually stop an independent network from extending an offer for a debate, or a candidate from accepting, the parties dont have that level of control over the campaigns.

In fact the only thing the parties have any actual control over is their nominating conventions. Which themselves only allow one form of punishment.

Anytime a state holds the primary "early" that is before the party wants them too, you hear about that state having its delegates blocked/reduced. Basically for breaking the rules your states votes dont count as much.

Now the problem is, that is the same thing they would have to do to the candidates.

Blocking delegates from a state doesnt hurt any specific candidate, they all know in advance to just not put as much time and effort into that state.

But thats a very different thing when applied to the specific candidate.

Lets say in a bid to get enough national attention to win not just the primaries by large margins but to help get the exposure needed to win the national debate, Chris Christie and Rand Paul both agree to a debate on NBC (which is a national network) and one on CNN.

Well clearly if they are the only two republicans to do that, they will likely get the most votes in the primaries, partly due to being the only two candidates anyones heard of or seen debate.

Now what the RNC will be forced to do, is cut their delegates in half or more. lets say both men have 1000 delegates, the RNC will actually be forced to say "actually no, you two only have 500 delegates"

now not only will that result in no one actually clearly the 1,100 delegate threshold needed to win the nomination cleanly, it would likely result in the person who came the closest but didnt make the threshold win the nomination. Which could be I dont know, Congressman Ted Yoho of FL who might only have 550 delegates.

Which means the nominee for the republican party would be a person the majority of the party actually voted against.

Even though the person they all voted for DID have enough votes to win, their own party just told them their opinions dont matter and nominated an idiot they didnt like and didnt vote for

How well do you think that would work in the general election?

So yea. Democracy FAIL.

So to recap: EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE RNC just voted to set up a system where
1) They just made it harder to reach out to minority groups they admit they need to win any election.
2) Did so with reasons to make them look like hypocrites for no good reason AND slandered the one network they want to support.
3) results in a system where the moderators they want dont have television networks.....making it hard or impossible to have ANY debates without networks volunteering to pay extra cash.
4) If enforced requires them to tell the majority of their own party their votes dont actually matter worth shit, and results in a candidate the majority of their party doesnt want.

Yep, that totally sounds like a winning strategy, reach out to no one, functionally broadcast no debates, and refuse to listen to your own party....

Like I started with. "You cant fix stupid" and the RNC is living proof.

Its the return of the Stupid......This week in stupid.

FINALLY This week in stupid has come back to Random Rants!!!!!!!!
(ok fine I admit it, The Rock's version is better :( )

I gotta admit, I'm a bit shocked it took this long. I havnt actually had to do one of these in months (4 to be exact), as most of the stupid has been stand alone incidents that got their own blogs,but something about this time of year must bring out the stupid in people, because suddenly it's coming fast and furious.

First up we have The Donald. And I'll be honest, I'm also tempted to file this under "honorable mention" or just even pass over it entirely. Because here's the thing about Donald Trump, I dont think he actually believes any of his own bullshit, he just really is that much of an attention whore (see his claims to send a task force to Hawaii to investigate the Presidents Birth Certificate that he never actually followed through on). But he's here because he is in part responsible for half of the rest of the list. Well that and he is actually foreshadowing the future of all the Birthers.

Up and coming Freshman Senator Ted Cruz of Texas is considering one of the major prospects of the Right Wing in the 2016 presidential race. The Right loves him, the Tea Party loves him ect, ect.

There is however one small problem. As Jonathan Karl put it when Interviewing Mr. Trump:

“Ted Cruz, born in Canada — is he eligible to be president of the United States?”

yep thats right, the [way too early] hope of the GOP for 2016 is Canadian.

Trump's response by the way?

“Well, if he was born in Canada, then perhaps not, But I’m not sure where he was born.”

He was born in Canada, you just got told that.

Also "Perhaps not?"  how exactly could one be born in Canada and still be president Mr. Trump? Havnt you and your birther ilk been running around for 5 years now claiming unless you were born here inside America your not naturally born?

Shouldnt that be a hard "no"?

Or are you just too much of a chickenshit to hold to your same standards when its allegedly someone from your own party (by which I mean I also dont believe Trump is actually a Republican)

By the way, as it turns out, Cruz is eligible, ever since George Romney, who was born in Mexico, ran for president the standard has been you only need 1 american parent to be legally eligible, and Curz's mother is.
Trump and the rest of the birthers cant say that however, because the one and only fact they have accepted in their crazy theory is that Obama's mother was American.

So if they try to excuse Cruz, they have to admit to the world they knowingly lied to them for years about Obama just to manipulate them. Which means if Cruz does run, your gonna see a lot more birthers look stupid in the next few years....something the next few nominees on my list really should pay attention too.

Those next nominees are Representatives Markwayne Mullin (OK), Blake Farenthold (TX) and Ted Yoho (FL)

All 4 of these guys have one thing in common, they are all birthers or just play one on TV.

First up was Mullin who told a woman at one of his town halls who was demanding an investigation of Obama's birth that:

"I believe what you’re saying and I don’t support this president whatsoever. But ma’am, we lost November 6th. We had the opportunity to get another president in there. [...] We had four years to take care of that. Our country’s facing some serious issues. If the rest of the American people thought that was a big enough issue which, I thought it probably would’ve been. Who would’ve thought we would ever actually be questioning if we had a natural-born president being president? Who would’ve ever thought that we’d actually be there? [...] So when I say we lost the argument, we lost that argument. Now let’s move on to some other issues. I believe it’s still there, but my God if we didn’t prove it the first four years, what do you think the chances are now?"

Now he gets bottom billing because lets be honest, he just wants this woman to shut up and go away, at least judging by the end of his comments. But he still got on the list for being stupid enough to think that somehow he could also feed the troll.

I mean really it takes a major brain malfunction to both think the president is illegal, but that there also isnt any point in attempting to enforce the law because hey we lost?

Hmm actually I have a thought there, but before I get into it lets bring in Congressman Farenthold, who at his town hall said this:

“I think unfortunately the horse is already out of the barn on this, on the whole birth certificate issue. The original Congress when his eligibility came up should have looked into this and they didn’t. I’m not sure how we fix it.

You tie into a question I get a lot, if everybody's so unhappy with what the President’s done, why don’t you impeach him, I’ll give you a real frank answer about that, if we were to impeach the President tomorrow, you could probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it. But it would go to the Senate and he wouldn’t be convicted.

What message do we send to America if we impeach Obama and he gets away with what he’s impeached for and is found innocent? What do we say then is okay, Aside from the fact that it wouldn’t be effective, I think there’s some potential damage to society that would be done with a failed attempt at impeachment.”

Ok so to answer the first part of Mr. Farenthold's question I actually have a suggestion as to how to "fix it"......STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS and tell the truth.

Cause lets be honest, both of your excuses SUCK.

See my thought for Mr. Mullin kind of apply's to you too. If the rule is the house shouldnt waste its time doing ANYTHING that couldnt pass the senate, how exactly do you explain those 40 votes to repeal Obamacare?

I'm just saying, by y'alls own logic your own party (and yourselves for voting to repeal) are incompetent and insane.

Oh by the way, having had sometime to think about it, Mr. Farenthold isnt backing down, when asked if he was a Birther his spokesman said "I think that issue has come and passed. His comments on the video are what we’re going with.”

So thats a "Yes he's a birther AND totally incompetent at his job" basically.

Next up the final of our 3 birthers, Ted Yoho.

Unlike Morons 1 and 2, Yoho claims he is actually is going to do something, claiming he called Representative Steve Stockman to sign on to a bill that Stockman is allegedly rumored to be introducing that would launch a congressional investigation into Obama's Birth Certificate.

Yoho also said a Pirates life was for him. No wait sorry, Yoho also said in his reply: "But then they said, well, if [the birth certificate] is truly illegal, he shouldn't be there and we can get rid of everything and I said I agree with that,"

Um yea, see thats not actually how impeachment works. I know I've covered this before (basically every this week in stupid article that has a birther) but even if you impeached Obama, you wouldnt get rid of everything. All you would do is make Joe Biden President, everything passed into law in the last 5 years would still be law.....

It says something about how stupid you are when you actually have the power to impeach (as a member of congress) and still cant be bothered to figure out how it works. Seriously, sounds like maybe your job is too complicated for you.......

Next up, we actually pivot off the birthers, yet somehow still cant away from the stupid people.

By which I mean our next Nominee is Ted Yoho (Again).

At the same town hall as mentioned above Pirate Cap'n Yoho, also had this to say about the tanning tax in Obamacare.

“I had an Indian doctor in our office the other day, very dark skin, with two non-dark skin people, and I asked this to him. I said, ‘Have you ever been to a tanning booth?’ and he goes, ‘No, no need.’ So therefore it’s a racist tax and I thought I might need to get to a sun tanning booth so I can come out and say I’ve been disenfranchised because I got taxed because of the color of my skin."

Yea, three points:
1) Um, no one actually HAS to tan. I'm white, I've never been in a tanning bed. You know why? no need. Just like your doctor, I've never actually needed a tan. Choosing to engage or not engage in a voluntary activity that is open to all is not racist.....unless you can prove to me a tanning salon wouldnt actually take the money of your Indian doctor....

2) You can actually tan naturally, I believe the term is called sun bathing. It's an activity that is actually done on most beaches all the time, and would still be tax free. You do have beaches in your home state of Florida right?

Rep. Yoho's family picture, from his campaign website. I think its safe to say he's heard of beaches... 

Also, and I realize this is a stretch, maybe, that's what your Indian Doctor meant? I mean maybe he just goes to the beach to tan, therefore there is no need to pay for something he's getting for free? Just saying.....

3) and this is my favorite: you basically just admitted to my first two points yourself in your own rant. See the part where you say: "I thought I might need to get to a sun tanning booth so I can come out and say I’ve been disenfranchised because I got taxed because of the color of my skin."?
Well if you actually needed or had ever wanted a tan, I'm pretty sure youd have already been to a booth, and therefore by your logic, would have already been discriminated against. yet clearly, by your own admission, you havnt. Because you dont need a tan and its a totally voluntary thing.

Way to accidentally shoot down your own point.....sadly your too stupid to even notice you did so. Luckily for you, thats why I'm here, to help you figure it out.....

Next up, another familiar name, also earning his second nomination of the night, Congressman Markwayne Mullin.

See according to Mr. Mullin all food stamp recipients are committing fraud. How does he know this?

"So I’m in Crystal City and I’m buying my groceries…and I noticed everybody was giving that card. They had these huge baskets, and I realized it was the first of the month. But then I’m looking over, and there’s a couple beside me. This guy was built like a brick house. I mean he had muscles all over him. He was in a little tank top and pair of shorts and really nice Nike shoes. And she was standing there, and she was all in shape and she looked like she had just come from a fitness program. She was in the spandex, and you know, they were both physically fit. And they go up in front of me and they pay with that card. Fraud. Absolute 100% all it is is fraud…it’s all over the place. And there you go, to the fact that we shouldn’t tbe supporting those who won’t work. They’re spending their money someplace."

The first thing I notice is that math really isnt Mullin's strong point. see according to him EVERYONE he saw had "that card". Now its safe to assume this is a much higher number than two.

two being the number of people Mullin said looked "fit". Now even if we buy Millin's premise that eating is the only way and only thing needed to look fit (and my fat ass is proof that aint true since I eat all the time :p ), he is basically saying that only 2 of the X number of people he saw were committing fraud.

Which according to him is 100% I think its a safe bet that 2 of my readers are very attractive women. Therefore I guess I can say all of my readers are very attractive women. I mean I have had 21 readers today alone, but by using Mullin math I can safely say you are all very sexy women.

Of course in the real world, using the Mullin standard, Mr. Mullin saw a hell of a lot of people who clearly were not fit, therefore if they were all on food stamps cant possible be committing fraud since they dont meet the Mullin standard.

And of course, as hinted at before it is in fact entirely possible to be in good shape and really not eat that well....its also (shockingly to morons like Mullin) possible to be working AND be on food stamps (IE the 100 million in food stamps spend each year by military families) due to not making enough money and other issues. Just saying.

So yea, not only do you disprove your own math, you also just proved you have no idea how fitness works either. So yea, proving your self stupid in two subjects at once = Bonus Stupid points...

That said, our winner of the week is actually Ted Yoho (yo ho a pirates life for me)....and not for either of his two previous nominations. What can I say dudes having a brutal week.

Yoho's 3rd and winning nomination is for this comment about NOT paying back our debt to other countries:

"I say, You know what, I know we need the money, and I’m gonna pay it, I’m just not paying you today, and we’ll pay you with interest, but we need to do a major reset and look at us internally, and say we can’t afford this...So let's just address the problem, and I think if we address it, I think the creditors that we owe money to around the world would say, "you know what, they're getting their house in order." And I think our credit rating would do better, if we did that than face the mass [sic] program we've been up to"

Because hey, having just stiffed you on your money and the interest we already owe, should totally convince you that next time I'll be good for it.....

And I mean lets be honest, who doesnt get a break on their mortgage payments, student loans and credit card bills when they just tell their debtors that "hey dude I need the money for something else, so I cant pay you yet. I'm using the money to fix up some other stuff but I will totally pay you later". I know that excuse always works for me.

I mean really, thats how borrowing money works right? you give me cash when I need it, I give it back to you....unless I'd rather not because I might need it for something else. Right?

Yea so for basically failing to understand how debt works in addition to all the other things he doesnt understand, Ted Yoho is the stupidest person of the week (and actually by default, the stupidest person of the last four months.....)

More RNC PR BS.

Ladies and gentlemen......HHHHHEEEEEEEE'SSSSS BBBBAAAAAAACCCCKKKK!

Thats right, the worlds worst hostage taker, RNC chairman Reince Preibus has returned.

When we last left Mr. Preibus, he had just taken his own party hostage and was threatening to shoot unless two news networks somehow convinced two entertainment networks to stop production on two projects that may or may not be finished before 2016 and may or may not be about a 2016 presidential candidate.

Now shockingly, it turns out, to use the video I inserted into the last blog, some of those people in the crowd really are stupid enough to put their own guns down after the RNC threatened to blow its own head off.  Chuck Todd and Andera Mitchell of NBC, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, and Liberal watchdog group Media Matters backed Preibus and suggested NBC should not make their series because it might be seen as biased.

So actually things were going pretty well for Priebus, and I owe him an applogy, the media really is as dumb as he thinks,.....and then this happened:

In an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe, Co-Host Mika Brzezinski tired to point out the oddity of Preibus' claim, given that Preibus himself was a guest on the shiow. She said:
But Reince, my point is that you expected an honest and fair conversation here, even though we’re a part of NBC. I mean you understand there’s a difference.

To which he replied:  Listen, but I’m not going to have you moderate the Republican debates in our primary. I mean there’s a difference.
Nicole Wallace [another guest on the show]: Why not?
Preibus:  Because you’re not interested, because you’re not actually interested in the future of the Republican Party and our nominees. That’s not a slam on your Mika, but I have to choose moderators that are actually interested in the Republican Party and our nominees. I mean it’s not going to be NBC if they continue to go forward with this miniseries.

Everyone caught that right? Apparently Reince Preibus only wants people who actually like Republican's asking them questions. Its got nothing to do with the Hilary Projects, Preibus just wants reassurance that he is the popular kid in the class and that everyone likes him.

It might be worth nothing too by the way, that since the Morning Joe interview all of Reince's left wing support seems to have vanished.

Now why does Preibus want only Republican friendly moderators? well for that we can turn to one of the right wing supporter of Reince Preibus' Senator Rand Paul, who when asked if he supported Preibus said he did and gave the following example:

"You can look back to the last primary season and wonder whether there was collusion between some reporters, You know, Stephanopoulos asks an obscure question about Griswold and birth control when no Republicans were bringing up anything about trying to have any limits on birth control. The thing is, it was a weird thing to bring up in a debate, and nobody understood why, “But then for two years, the President’s campaign then ran ads saying that the Republicans were against people allowing birth control. So you wonder if there was a concerted action between a former Democrat operative and basically the President’s campaign.”

So yea see, thats the problem, politically biased moderators keep bringing up points that are just designed to make Republican's look bad.

Except not really. Ok Look I admit I'm not shocked Rand Paul doesnt understand why the question was asked, mostly because there is shockingly little Rand Paul does understand, including his own political positions (including how drones actually work, how state welfare works and the roll and number of military bases in giving out welfare, and most recently if the man he would want to run the fed is still actually breathing)

So I'm gonna help Paul out, and not only explain to him why the question was asked.

First, in the Paul example, the Griswold he was talking about is an old Supreme Court case from 1965 having to do with Birth Control, that basically ruled a state trying to ban contraception was unconstitutional.

Wanting that decision overturned was a central point of then possible front runner, Rick Santourm's campaign. In fact it was the very issue he was campaigning on that same day of the debate.

So basically the question was asked because the moderator wanted to know if the other candidates agreed or disagreed with one of the major positions pushed by the party front runner.

that is pretty much EXACTLY the point of primary debates, to figure out which candidate has the position closest to your (the voter) own.

But again this wouldnt have been note worthy at all, nor lead to a 2 year campaign ad attack, if the guy who eventually won the nomination fucked up the answer.

Mitt Romeny's answer was as follows:

"States have the right to ban contraception? I can’t imagine that states would want to ban contraception. If I were a governor or a legislator in a state, I would totally oppose any effort to ban contraception. So you’re asking -- given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so -- you are asking could it constitutionally be done? We could we could ask our constitutionalist here, [motions to Ron Paul]”

In other-words "wait you mean we have actually ever debated this issue as a country?.....I'm paying so little attention I missed the fact the very answer to that question was in the question you just asked me....can I phone a friend? if so ask Ron Paul"

His follow ups when the moderator pressed the issue didnt go any better

“George, I don’t know whether the state has the right to ban contraception. No state wants to. The idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do is kind of a silly thing, I think.” 

Well except that they do, as witnessed by the very case in question here that had to stop a state from doing just that....which of course you would know if you paid attention to anything.
In other-words the example Rand Paul himself provided shows the eventual GOP nominee not knowing a damn thing about one of the major issues of his competition. Now in a fully functional party, that would have ensure the idiot who knows nothing didnt get nominated, and after all the idiots had been dismissed people would choose between the remaining reasonable candidates and pick the one with the best chance of winning.

Thats exactly how primaries work, and thats how they are supposed to work.

The problem the GOP has is they nominated their idiot because they didnt have anyone else. And now the GOP solution, as stated by Reince Preibus on Morning Joe, is to ensure all the moderators of the few GOP debates wont actually ask any questions that will make the candidates look stupid.

Instead they will leave that to the General Election debate moderators....you know, the debates that happen well after the Republican Party will be stuck with whatever idiot who doesnt understand issues (like Rand Paul?) manages to slip through the primary without ever being asked a hard question.

Yep, after all, sticking your party with an idiot and hoping people felt obligated to vote for him worked out great for the GOP in 2012....just ask President Romney.

Oh and by the way, lest you think I am making too much out of one comment on Morning Joe, I should point out there is one other late breaking/recent piece to this story.

Quoting the New York Times:

"While NBC has come under heavy fire, especially from Republican critics, for agreeing to broadcast the series, the project may wind up being produced by another company: Fox Television Studios, the sister company of the conservative favorite, Fox News."

And the article goes on to add that according to FOX's own spokesman, the deal currently being worked out FOX would also be "the distributor of the film internationally" 

In otherwords FOX is going to create the series and in all other countries but the US is going to decide where to air the series.  (it should be noted this is in no way unusual for a television program).

Basically FOX is now guilty of exactly the same sins as CNN and NBC.

Which is kinda awkward, because that leaves the RNC without a single national network to air any primary debate on, pretty much ensuring no one actually sees any of the debates, so no matter who the GOP winds up with the person will be a total unknown trying to compete against a Democrat with lots of national exposure (from the Democratic debates).

Or at least it would, if the Hilary related series have ever actually been the problem here.

See here's what Priebus had to say when confronted by Candy Crowley on CNN with the fact that FOX is producing the NBC series:

"Our party has to quit availing itself to biased moderators and companies that put on television, in this particular case, documentaries and mini-series about a particular candidate that we all know is gearing up to run for president and that’s Hillary Clinton and so the big question for me, Candy is number one, which company is putting it on the air. Who is doing the work? I’m not interested if they’re using the same caterer or whether they all drink Diet Coke and I’m not boycotting Diane Lane. I am going to boycott the company that puts the mini-series and the documentaries on the air for the American people to view. I’m not interested in whether they use the same sound studio or whether they use the same set."

Now there's an irony in this answer, if he really cared about the Hilary show itself Reince Preibus just openly admitted he doesnt trust FOX. After all FOX is going to be making all the decisions about how to make portray Clinton, but he still assumes the series would paint her in an awesome light. Except again he really doesnt give a shit about the show, he just needs to cover up his real motive.

Luckily he knows most people dont care enough about who produces their shows just where they air (as an example, most people dont know or care that House M.D. was made and distributed by NBC, they still will always think of it as a FOX show).

So he's instead going to just blame the network that is airing the show, as it will help him advance his real agenda of hiding the fact his parties nominee will likely be an idiot by cutting down on their national exposure. And he actually believes that the one network that will help him do that is the one whos actually making the show he objects to. (By the way, in fairness to FOX, it should be noted that their moderators went no easier on anyone or asked easier questions than anyone else did in the 2012 debates so its not even clear why Preibus believes FOX will protect them)

Thats the other thing. By Preibus' new revised "spare FOX" ultimatum where only the company that is airing the show gets blamed he actually should lift his ultimatum against CNN, since they are producing (same as FOX) a film for theatrical release, not directly to their own airwaves.

But of course he's not doing that either, because only FOX gets an exception, and by only giving FOX the exception Priebus has made it clear, he doesnt actually have a hostage he's willing to release. He's going to do this no matter what, he's just looking for an excuse.

And since it looks like several members of  the RNC agree with Priebus' threat(and the number is growing), his threat might actually come to pass in 3 days when the deadline is up as the RNC may well pass the resolution not allowing NBC or CNN to have any GOP debates.

At which point this will transition from the world's worst hostage taking to a suicide pact that will kill the GOP's chances in 2016.

And dont take my word for it, instead take the word of the "autopsy report" commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Preibus a few months ago. In that report it laid out the strategies the RNC and the GOp need to follow if they want to have any shot at winning in 2016. Chief among them:

"The Republican Party needs to stop talking to itself, We have lost the ability to be persuasive with — or welcoming to — those who do not agree with us on every issue."

And really, what embodies that strategy more than retreating from all television networks you think dont like you, only dealing with the on that does, and insisting that all the moderators be "interested in the Republican Party"?

I guess that explains why the RNC called it an "autopsy" even though the party isnt dead....yet. It was intended as foreshadowing.

Looks like its Blazing Saddles for the GOP.

For years a common line of attack from democrats has been to call the Republicans "Hostage Takers" in that every time their is a negotiation the Republicans take a political issue hostage and threaten to do away with it unless they get their way. And hell its been a fairly effective strategy, even if the GOP objects to the name

Well it appears the GOP has a new hostage.......however this time they appear to have chosen poorly

You see this time their hostage taking looks a little something like this (and as you can see from the clips title, the youtube account I pulled this from doesnt think its the first time the GOP hostage taking has gone this way) :

See the problem is this, the black Sheriff holding a gun to his own head is played by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, and well everyone else is the white town folk.

See Yesterday Mr. Priebus had a written a letter of demands for CNN and NBC, pull shows he doesnt like by the end of next week or the GOP wont hold primaries on your network.

Now to be fair, he's not objecting because he is not a fan of say, The Voice, or a show like that. The shows he wants pulled are pretty specific.  Both networks are currently working on content about former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. In the case of NBC, they have a 4 episode mini series coming, and CNN actually has a biographical movie they are releasing into theaters.

Now to be honest, none of that is all that weird, CBS did a series called "The Reagans", and the movie DC 9/11 (W.). CNN's parent company did a series on John Adams, and a TV movie about Teddy Roosevelt, and an actual movie about JFK. ABC's parent helped produce Nixon  NBC, ABC and FOX all teamed up to do "Crawford" (W.)  ect ect ect.

In other-words, just like sex, politics sells. And pretty much every major news network is owned by a massive parent company, all of whom have at least one entertainment branch. Thing is, Mr. Priebus doesnt seem to understand that.

In fact in his letters Priebus claimed that this is an unprecedented (remember like most republican leaders Priebus was in a coma until 2009, and only watches FOX so has never heard of any of the other presidential mini series)attack and "thinly veiled attempts to put a thumb on the scale for the 2016 election" that would also damage the networks credibility as unbiased.

Which of course led to the following response from NBC, underlying the very point about massive corporations that Priebus shockingly doesnt understand

"NBC News is completely independent of NBC Entertainment, and has no involvement in this project."

CNN went a similar route in the first part of their response.

"CNN Films, a division of CNN Worldwide, commissioned a documentary about Hillary Clinton earlier this year, It is expected to premiere in 2014 with a theatrical run prior to airing on CNN."

Basically in short, both news networks are trying to tell Priebus "Dude you know this isnt actually US right? I mean most people kinda know how super companies work....."

So basically yea, Priebus is threatening the wrong people.

CNN actually went on to elaborate on some of the other mistakes Priebus made here.
"This documentary will be a non-fiction look at the life of a former First Lady and Secretary of State. Instead of making premature decisions about a project that is in the very early stages of development and months from completion, we would encourage the members of the Republican National Committee to reserve judgment until they know more."

In other-words CNN is saying that its even possible their film wont even paint Mrs. Clinton in a flattering light, and maybe the RNC would be better served waiting until they know, and not you know preemptively shitting their pants at the mere mention of her name.

And honestly, the fact that they do is kinda telling. I mean either Mr. Priebus and the rest of the GOP already thinks that the GOP candidate in 2016 will suck so badly they will lose to Hilary no matter what, even with bad press, which is a great show of faith in his own party. Or  Mr. Priebus has such respect and admiration for Mrs. Clinton that he couldnt possibly see anything negative about her. Which raises the question as to why any of these guys are actually Republicans? I mean you'd think they'd jump parties just for the chance to vote for her.

And actually to be honest, that second point might have some truth to is. After all Priebus did site in both letters a list of candidates he's concerned about:

“This special treatment is unfair to the candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2016 who might compete against Secretary Clinton (including Vice President Biden; Govs. O’Malley, Cuomo and Hickenlooper; Sen. Klobuchar and others) and to the Republican nominee, should Clinton compete in the general election."

Note that everyone he listed is a democrat, and they got 98% of his concern......

But all of this only sets up the hostage situation, we still havnt gotten to the gun to the head problem.

So what happens if the networks dont pull/cancel these projects before the deadline? well as Mr. Priebus said  “If you have not agreed to pull this programming prior to the start of the RNC’s summer meeting on Aug. 14, I will seek a binding vote of the RNC stating that the committee will neither partner with you in 2015 primary debates nor sanction primary debates which you sponsor.”

So there you go. Priebus has the gun to his own head. The problem is, unlike the nice white folks in the movie, who may be racist but are also nice enough they dont want anyone killed, NBC and CNN arnt putting the guns down.

as CNN put it "Should they decide not to participate in debates on CNN, we would find it curious, as limiting their debate participation seems to be the ultimate disservice to voters.”

So Priebus is now forced to pull the trigger. Which could mean any number of things

1) The rest of the RNC laughs in his face when he calls for that vote, he turns himself into a joke and not even his own organization takes him seriously anymore. So yea, career suicide.

2) the RNC gets completely cut out of the debate process, as Republican candidates work out deals with each other and the networks on their own.

Of course hosting a debate is expensive, so only the rich candidates who also have many many rich friends would be able to participate.

A rich candidate with rich friends....what could possibly go wrong? its gotta work 47% of the time.

3) There just arnt any GOP primary debates. Which means a basically unknown and untested person would face off for the first time on the national stage against a debate hardened democrat. This assumes of course the RNC would allow the republican candidate to actually appear in the debates. Ironically the likely refusal to allow that too would actually turn the debates into infomercials for the other side, ala 1980 when President Carter decided not to show up 

Nationally unknown and untested person on the national stage for the first time? Why does that sound familiar?

Also isnt the whole reason according to the RNC the dude on the right lost because he couldnt compete for press coverage due to the democrats having more debates well after he locked up the nomination? 

So yea, basically 2 and 3 combined or separate, make it that much easier for the Democrats to win, no matter who the nominee is they will either be running against an out of touch super rich guy or some shuck no one has ever heard of/heard anything from.

I mean I guess its nice that Reince Priebus is so concerned about the Democrats having a level playing field and getting the best candidate that he is willing to basically hand them the election as a show of support. You'd think other republicans might object to that though.

Nor actually is the impact on the Republican party the only stupid part about this.

See again the white folks in the movies put their guns down presumably because they are both a little stupid and didnt really want anyone to die. As I said they are nice people.

But you know what doesnt generate huge rating or huge advertiser revenues? Political Debates.

Basically what Priebus is threatening the networks with is several nights of primetime television that wont be preempted by low rated political bullshit.

As the old expression goes "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."

In the last primary NBC and CNN hosted 11 of the 20 debates, so thats basically 5 to 6 nights each of primetime profit Priebus is forcing them to take. Somehow I dont think they will mind.

Furthermore it also gives the Democrats basically the pick of any night they want, whenever they want, to host their primaries. I mean its not like any other party is going to be using that air time.....

So yea, more coverage and more options for the Democrats (Again)

So to recap, Basically Priebus was counting on the networks to be as dumb as the white folks in blazing saddles. That isnt gonna happen. So if he pulls the trigger he loses and everyone gets everything they want. Way to go.

Which means he needs to put the gun down and release the hostage/himself. Except even that has a problem. His credibility and the credibility of the whole RNC and by extension the Republican Party, is kinda on the line here.

If he puts the gun away, no one will believe the next bluff. Which again is doubly problematic. Taking Hostages has worked decently for the GOP so far......but only because the other side tends to believe they really will follow through. If Priebus doesnt, why should anyone believe the next hostage threat?

Or for that matter, why would his own party believe him if, as has happened, he has to threaten to cut a candidates funding off for saying something stupid.

I mean he thinks guys like Todd Akin are a hassle to control NOW, imagine what they will be like if they realize he never actually means it.

So yea, congratulations to Mr. Preibus, he has managed to get awesome amounts of attention for these two Hillary projects, and set himself, and maybe even the RNC up, to be humiliated.

That takes special talent. I finally see what the RNC sees in this guy. (well other then the fact that if you remove the vowels from his name it spells RNC PR BS)

Actually wait no. I can see why the DNC loves this guy....but I have no idea why the RNC actually gave this guy a second term to lead them, not if hes really this bad at hostage taking and not drawing attention to things you dont want people to know about.