The Black Human Torch and race deaf casting.

Ok, I'm going to take a break from ranting directly about politics in this one, and instead do something a bit different

For those of you who arnt paying any attention and arnt huge comic book nerds, FOX studios just announced the new cast for the relaunched Fantastic Four movie series, and its getting ALOT of attention.

You see here's the cast photo

 

And heres the comic book version of the Fantastic Four:

Notice anything different? Like say the lack of a black guy?

Yea see thats what all the outrage is about.  People are a little mad a white comic book character has been turned into a black film character.

Now to be fair, this is not the first time a Marvel movie has done this (nor is it the 2nd or 3rd)

Nick Fury Movie/TV Version

Nick Fury Comic Version

 And every time it generates outrage.  And usually the push back against the outrage comes down to accusations of racism or demanding too much "purity to the source material" and that people should just get over it.  And usually the push back is 100% correct. There is nothing saying these folk cant be black, and no reason they should be competently true to stories designed for a different medium.

But this time its a bit different, the accusations of racism still ring true, and anyone who's ONLY objection is that Johnny Storm, the character played by the black actor, is white, should be told to shut the hell up and get over it.

However the "stay true to the source material" people have a bit a point here, and one I think may need to be examined even further as more and more comic books become movies.

See the gimmick for the fantastic four is that they are a family first, and a superhero team second. And the family part is meant literally, 3 of the 4 members are actually related by blood and marriage, and many of their stories and the reasons things play out the way they do, revolve less around the super powers and more around the family aspect.

See in the comic, Johnny Storm is the younger brother of Susan Storm Richards, the wife of Reed Richards. Now in the movie, as previously stated, Johnny Storm is a black man, and Susan Storm is a white woman.

And that is what makes this different than other previous "race swapping" of characters, because this creates a problem that could take away from the movie, because it creates a question that the movie needs to answer, "how are these two people even remotely related?"

Now to be clear, I dont want to take anything away from either actor, they are both fine choices, but the simple fact is, by looking at them, they dont even come close to passing as siblings.

Susan and Johnny Storm.

Which means the movie has to explain HOW these two people are actually brother and sister. Something is shouldnt have to do, and something that will distract from the rest of the story, but something that HAS to be done in order to set up the right dynamic needed for the Fantastic Four, that they arnt just "4 superheroes on a team" as the Avengers are, but that they are a regular normal real family who happen to be superheroes.

Now I'm not saying Johnny Storm has to be white, by all means make the Invisible Woman black, wouldnt bother me in the slightest. What I am saying though, is that some times race NEEDS to be a factor in casting.

Marvel presumably already knows that, no matter how good the actor in question, they will NEVER be able to cast a black man as Steven Rogers/Captain America. It's simply not believable that in the early 1940's the United States government would pick a black man to give superpowers to, and make THE face of the United States in World War II.

For similar origin and characterization reasons Marvel presumably knows they wont be able to cast a white man as the Black Panther when that movie gets made in the upcoming years.   

Its not something we like to admit, but their are characters who's race and/or religion DO matter and are central to who the character is. Now admittedly its a minority of characters, but they DO exist

The reason I think, that Marvel's race switching has worked so well in the past (well enough that even in the comic's, Nick fury, my previous example, is now a black man, as people liked Sam Jackson in the role so much) is because they have only switched characters whos race really doesnt matter, characters who race needs no explanation, characters who could be any race, and still be able interact exactly the same with every other character they meet.

I think the Storm siblings are different. Although the race of either Storm is not part of their character, the fact that they are biologically related, with the same parentage is. Which means for basically the first time ever, Marvel is taking a character (either Johnny or Susan, it doesnt matter) who should be one race, and making them another, and trying to have it make no difference. But the only way they can do that is by explaining away the difference as part of the story/life/interactions of the characters.

I'm not sure they can pull it off, and I think even if they do they will hurt the film slightly (at best) in the process. And I think its a shame, because while race neutral casting is a admirable goal, and one I hope we as a society achieve, I think "race deaf" casting like this, actually works against that goal. 

Ted Cruz just backstabbed the Republican party........AGAIN.

A famous Texan once said

Now another want to be famous Texan is disproving that old Tennessee/Texas saying.

That man is "Republican" senator Ted Cruz, who this week managed to backstab and severely the Republican Party for the 3rd time in 13 months.

See earlier this week the US congress voted to suspend the debt limit for an entire year. Basically what that means is that until March of 2015, we dont have a debt ceiling. We can basically do whatever we need to pay every bill we have, right up until the presidential primary process is getting underway.

Now Republicans have been saying for years now that they refuse to raise the ceiling without some kind of "concession" so that they can pay for the shit they already bought.

By the way, I tried this with my internet provider, I told them I wont pay the monthly bill until they give me some added benefit, so if this posts cuts out half way through thats likely why.

Now normally the republicans have won on paper, they get some minor policy "concession" that they can sell to their base as a win (the fact that normally that "concession" is either non binding or actually a democratic policy goal is a separate issue).

But that didnt happen this time. This time the Republicans got jack shit, they got nothing. At the same time though they did get 100% of what they asked for, because they asked for jack shit.

See House Republicans could all agree they wanted something in exchange for paying their bills, they just couldnt agree on WHAT they wanted. Which meant they couldnt come up with a demand. Which left them with only two choices:

1) Do nothing and allow the country to default and take 100% of the blame for it
2) Get a small number (28) of republicans in safe seats to cross party lines and vote with the Democrats for a clean increase.

Given that choice House Republicans sucked it up and choose choice #2.

The whole time this was happening Senate Republicans were breathing a HUGE sigh of relief. See thanks to being the minority, they kinda lucked out.

There are currently 55 democrats in the Senate, and only 51 are needed to pass anything. So the Clean Debt Ceiling bill could pass the senate, default could be avoided, and ALL republicans could go on record as being against such "fiscal irresponsibility" (as they call paying bills on time). All they had to do to get this win win situation was nothing.

And then Ted Cruz came along and decided "Fuck that" and he filibustered the bill.

Which meant the Senate Republicans now had a HUGE problem. If the bill failed it would go back to the house, who again have no choice due to lack of consensus, they either pass the bill clean or the GOP takes the blame for allowing default.

Which mean it HAD to pass/overcome the filibuster. Which meant it needed 60 votes. Which meant some Republicans HAD to support the bill.

Now keep in mind, this is an election year. And keep in mind, no matter the truth, the Republican base fully believes that raising the debt ceiling is actually irresponsible. And the Tea Party has been pretty good at knocking out incumbent Republicans in primaries.....only to lose in the general election to the Democrats

Which means, in an election where in theory, control of the senate hangs in the balance, no Republican actually wants to be the one to do this. I mean the 5 who switch sides are basically begging to be picked off in a primary.

But since it had to be done, it had to be done. And the republican answer was safety in numbers. If enough Republicans vote with the Dems it may save the more vulnerable ones by making it appear they had legitimate support.

Which is why 12 Republicans eventually crossed the line and voted with the Dems to overcome to filibuster to allow for a clean debt ceiling vote.

The thing is, the first Republican to be forced to lead the way? Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. And the second? Minority Whip John Cornyn, the other Senator from Texas, both of whom are up for reelection in 2014 and facing tea party threats already.

Only after leadership was committed would 10 other republicans join them, only one of whom is actually up for reelection: Susan Collins of Maine, and half of whom arnt up for reelection until 2018.

Now Collins is a well known moderate Republican, and its a good chance her vote actually will help her in her moderate usually pro democrat state.

But Cornyn and McConnell were basically hung out to dry. Although expected to survive the primary quite easily, Cornyn is looking at a 3 way race (vs Democrats and Libertarians) and will be on the ballot at the same time Democratic Superstar Wendy Davis will be running for the state governor. Which means more Democrats then usual may show up to vote. So anything that could discourage republican base voters (like this vote) could be VERY bad in the long run for Cornyn, and possibly even all Republicans on the ballot in Texas.

McConnell on the other hand is already loosing in the polls to his Democratic Challenger. Now his is expected to beat the tea partier in the primary, but its a much tighter race. In otherwords being force into a vote that will annoy his base is absolutely the last thing he need.  

So basically, thanks to Senator Cruz, its possible the ENTIRE republican senate leadership will be wiped out, and 2 Senate seats could fall to the Dem's (and its likely 1 will, and the republicans will lose their leader)

And what does Cruz get out of doing this? Nothing. Well except name recognition.

Nor actually does it stop there. When asked why he would make reelection harder for McConnell and Cornyn for no reason and to no gain Cruz said this.

“In the 13 months I’ve been in the Senate it has become apparent to me the single thing that Republican politicians hate and fear the most, and that is when they’re forced to tell the truth. It makes their heads explode. A lot of the Republicans wanted exactly what Barack Obama wanted, exactly what Nancy Pelosi wanted, exactly what Harry Reid wanted, which is to raise the debt ceiling, but they wanted to be able to tell what they view as their foolish, gullible constituents back home they didn’t do it.”

In other words, according to senator Cruz.
1) Republicans are liars. In fact they "hate the truth"
2) They dont fear lying because their constituents are too stupid to know they are being lied to.

Yea, that's gonna be in every single Democratic ad against every republican candidate for the next 4 years (or 10 if somehow Cruz wins relection in 2016). Heck that's probably going to in every Tea Party primary attack ad in that same time frame as well.

So good luck Republican's hopefully you've got a good answer as to why your the one republican who can be trusted after one of your own admitted your all liars.

And again what did Cruz get out of this? Nothing......except name recognition, and a mention everytime one of the attack ad's this will appear in gets aired.

But the ultimate irony to this whole thing, Cruz said he only came clean about all Republicans being liars because he was tried of the scam. Yet the first two times Cruz backstabbed the GOP he was lying.

First its when he caused the GOP to make the first ever filibuster of a Defense Secretary nominee based on a claim he appears to have pulled out of his ass, that anyone who thought about it for a second would have been a ridiculous premise (a secret fundraising group for terrorists actually using the terrorist organization name in their name). Of course, it wound up being quickly debunked as made up bull shit.

And of course, by doing so Cruz helped cement the idea of the Republican party as the obstructionist party in the minds of Americans , and at the end of the day, was one of the big examples of abuse of the Filibuster used by Harry Reid when he overhauled the filibuster rules.

The second time was equally bullshit. That would be just a few months ago when Ted Cruz shut down the government. It started with a 21 hour speech Cruz pretended was a Filibuster. The idea, a shut down of the government would stop Obamacare from going into effect. The problem? well a shut down only affects discretionary spending, and Obamacare is mandatory spending, and therefore unaffected.  All you had to do to know that was have a high school reading level. But still republicans went for it, and when Rebublicans did it, and tried to pass his plan to end the Shutdown in their favor, Cruz stabbed them in the back and basically said he wasnt going to support his own idea, they better find their own way out of this.

And that shutdown is one of the big reasons Republican approval ratings are in the toilet. But again Cruz got what he wanted, he became a Household name, oh and he tricked two million more people into joining a Super PAC that supports him.

So again, seeing Cruz of all people take a stand on "Republicans needing to tell the truth" is very ironic. But then again, he's already proven he will say anything or backstab ANYONE if it will advance his goal of staying famous.

If you dont believe me, just ask the birthers.  6 months ago, they were his biggest supporters and were trying to get support for Cruz to run for President in 2016. At which point, for no apparent reason, and completely spontaneously, Ted Cruz released his birth certificate, which showed he was born in Canada. He also released a statement saying that despite that he was still eligible to run because his mother was a citizen and all you need to be a natural born citizen is a single citizen parent (and for the record, he's right). Which is a bit of a problem, as for 4 1/2 years the birthers had been saying the exact opposite about Obama, that his mother's citizenship DID NOT make him a citizen because he was born in Kenya.

So 6 months ago, the birther golden boy Cruz was revealed to be the walking proof they were lying about Obama , no one has heard from the Birthers since.

With that backstab on his own supporters, Ted Cruz  basically eliminated them and ended their movement. All to get his name in the papers for a couple of days.

Which raises the important question, and brings us back to president Bush, given how obvious he is when doing it, how many more times do the GOP and/or the right wing have to get backstabbed by Cruz before they take to heart the message from this song The Who and wont get fooled again?

 

This month in stupid

Alright so its been so long since I did one of these, I'm basically lengthening the period of eligibility and reign of the winner, but otherwise, this is exactly the same as the week long version. So lets get the Million Moron March under way for 2104.

Up first, congresswoman Michelle Bachmann who was on a radio show earlier this month discussing why shes opposed to Obamacare when the following exchange occurred:

Host: There was a story we were playing earlier where a man in Virginia had information stolen by fake healthcare providers. What do you see as the intelligence threats via Obamacare?

Michele Bachmann: Quite simply it appears that Belarus, which is a nation friendly with the Soviet Union, may have a subcontracting contract to build a part of Obamacare.

Ok, for my younger readers, a quick history lesson, just so you can follow what the crazy lady is saying.
About 90 years ago the Russian Empire collapsed and wound up being taken over by a bunch of communists, who managed to spread their view's across a sizable portion of Eastern Europe and became know as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR for short, and also known as the Soviet Union. Now I know all of you who currently in school, from kindergarten to college undergrads, probably never heard of the USSR until the opening ceremony of the Olympics last week. There is a reason for that. The USSR disbanded in 1991.

Meaning that unless Congresswoman Bachmann knows something I don't about the existence of a time machine, I dont think we have to worry about any information about anything being given to the USSR.

Oh and another point, not only does she fail "Time" in her statement, it actually appears Mrs. Bachmann doesnt actually know where the USSR was.

You see, prior to 1991 Belarus didnt exist. Before then it had been part of the USSR (and the Russian Empire, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before that)

So Belarus wouldnt have been a "friendly nation" to the USSR, Belarus WAS the USSR (or part of it).

So yea, in one statement, Bachmann fails "current events", "chronology", "geography", "history", and "logic".

But believe it or not, were just getting started on the cavalcade of the cretins.

As long as we are talking about the USSR, we might as well stay with one of their successor states, the aforementioned hosts of the Olympics, Russia.

See our next entrant, and our first ever foreign entrant, is the Russian Government.Or more specifically deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak, who is responsible for overseeing the Olympics.    

The accommodations in Sochi have gotten a lot of heat for being, generously, sub-par. Seriously look up pictures of the Water or "Double Toilets" if you dont know about this.

But see according to Mr. Kozak most of the problems arnt actually Russia's fault, its international sabotage.
His proof? As he told the Wall Street Journal:

“We have surveillance video from the hotels that shows people turn on the shower, direct the nozzle at the wall and then leave the room for the whole day."

That's right, the Russian's know this because they are spying on every single Olympian in the shower when they are naked.

Now look obviously no one actually thinks the russians have shower camera's, nor is anyone buying his excuse.

But really, what type of moron must this guy be to think that suggesting he's watching you bathe is gonna make you feel better about the fact you cant drink the water??? Yea, problem solver this guy isnt.

Speaking of horrible excuses, that brings us to contestant #3 in this week's iditarod of
ineptitude, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, or at least his office.

Ok so there's the whole bridgegate thing, which I'm hoping your up to date with (if not read this). In one of the most recent turns in the saga, it was revealed that the man directly responsible for closing the lanes, David Wildstein, had had his position created specifically for him at Governors Christie's request. It also came out that, according to Wildstein, Christie had lied at his previous press conference about when he said he knew about the lane closures and Wildstein could prove it.

Now in response, the Governor did 2 things. First he changed his story to match up with when Wildstein was claiming Christie knew about the closing. Second, his office attacked Wildstein in a hit piece, that was presented as if it came from the Governor himself.

The piece contained the following sections that got alot of attention.
" In David Wildstein's past, people and newspaper accounts have described him as "tumultuous" and someone who "made moves that were not productive."

• As a 16-year-old kid, he sued over a local school board election. • He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior"


  Now the reaction to the first paragraph was basically "ok if that was true WHY DID YOU HIRE HIM?"

The second part however was the more problematic. See not only did they slime an adult man for what he did in High School (the same high school he attended with Gov Christie, although according to Christie's previous statements he didnt know anything about him), they also kinda lied.

Yea turns out the teacher who accused him actually says the whole issue was a misunderstanding, that's all, at least thats what he said to the local paper at the time (1979).

So, what do you do when your caught lying about an issue that if true would actually make previous statements you made a lie? Not to mention adding the fact your actually attacking a grown man for his high school behavior, meaning you come across looking like a bully?

 Well simple. It turns out, according to what the governor's office, they kinda forgot to show it to the governor before they put his name on it.

In otherwords, once again, Chris Christie had no idea what his own staff were doing. Just like when his Lt. Gov may have shaken down the Mayor of Hoboken. or when Sandy funds may have "accidentally" gone to complete a developmental complex, that had been undamaged by the hurricane, that just so happened to be owned by a member of Christie's staff. Or just like when Christie didnt know about Bridge-gate until he was asked about it in January....err wait I mean when he saw it on the news in December, or was that November? Well he certainly didnt know about it at the time. Or just like that time in 2009 when his state missed out on a shit ton of educational cash from the federal government, due to a form being filled out incorrectly, and his staff didnt inform him on time(by the way, it was proven they did, they had him on tape)  

So yea, with all this stuff Christie already doesnt seem to know about, is suggesting yet another thing he doesnt know about really the best idea? I'm just saying the dude is starting to look less competent than Rand Paul. Might be time to find a new excuse.

Next up, our runner up. Colorado Republican State Senator Bernie Herpin, who thinks the fact that the Aurora Shooter/the Batman Shooter in 2012 had an 100 round magazine actually may have helped save lives.

Yes, you read that correctly. Here's Mr. Herpin's logic, as presented on the floor of the State Senate when asked why he wouldnt support a bill banning ammunition magazines over a set carrying capacity.

“As it turned out, that was maybe a good thing that he had a 100-round magazine, because it jammed. If he had instead had four, five, six 15-round magazines, no telling how much damage he could have done until a good guy with a gun showed up.”   

Look Mr. Herpin I want to tell you something all of my lovers have said to me, "Dude, size doesnt matter. Really the small ones work just as well as the big ones, I promise"

No really. This idiot actually seems to think the number of bullets in a gun has anything to do with the jam rate. Thing is though, if the gun works perfectly, it wouldnt make a difference how many bullets are in the clip, it would fire all of them

But of course a gun runs the risk of jamming, especially the more its used. But it doesnt matter if those 100 come from one clip or from 6 smaller clips. its about cleaning the gun usually.

So really the only difference between 6 clips of 15 and 1 clip of 100 (other than 10 bullets) is that the shooter would have to STOP shooting to reload. That would be a period of time where people can run without getting shot. and thats also usually when the shooter gets taken down. Just saying.

On the upside I have a new gun bill idea. If you dont know how a gun works, your not responsible enough allowed to own one. How's that sound?

But our winner, and we end on a funny (at least to me) note, is our second foreign nominee, and I dont even know his name.

But you know what, rather than explain to you why he made the list, and won, I'm just gonna copy past the article headline that brought this to my attention.

"Suicide Bomber Instructor Blows Up Suicide Bombers-In-Training"

Now those of you who read my blog regularly know that on occasion I bring in a "special guest" for commentary. Normally its Inigo Montoya of the princess bride. But I think requires a different guest to accurately sum up my initial reaction to the story. So with that in mind, I turn the blog over to Mr. Nelson Munz:

  

Thank you Nelson. In this guys defense though, it is often said the best teachers lead by example, so he must have been AMAZING. In fact all of his [surviving] students have said his class was the BOMB.

Anyways, I think I can safely speak for all of us, as I congratulate our winner on his stupidity and skill at winning the stupidest person of the month, and that is stupidity we can ALL get behind and hope to see more of.

Until next time, this concludes the pilgrimage of the pin-headed.  

The Obamacare Birth Control Pickle

Ok before you begin reading I am legally required to issue this warning:

Surgeon General's WARNING: Reading this blog without an aspirin on hand may be hazardous to your health. Trying to understand the mental backflips needed to understand the reasoning of the people who brought the lawsuit of this blog is about could lead to chronic brain meltage without proper precautions.

Now with that out of the way, lets get started.

Ok so several years ago the Government passed this thing you might of heard of called Obamacare, which requires that everyone have health insurance. And as it turns out the standard insurance package includes covering contraception. Not really shocking since 99% of the country actually uses the stuff.

But of course religious groups object because the bible says you cant use contraception and we can never go against anything in the bible.

(By the way, I was looking up bible passages that banned or suggested contraception was bad, and the one I kept popping across was Genesis 38:8-10, which is all about God telling this dude to nail his sister in law because her husband (the dudes brother) isnt getting the babies made, and then God kills the dude because he jizzed on the ground and not in his sister in law. Just something to keep in mind about how sacred and unchangeable the morality of the bible is and how we should always by biblical standards)

Now the Obama administration actually said "ok fine we will grant an exception for religious groups so that they have access to healthcare that doesnt include contraception". All you have to do is notify the government you want an exception so they can arrange it for you

Well turns out that wasnt good enough for the Catholic Church and they sued on pretty much every possible ground you can think of.

The weirdest of those lawsuits made headlines this week (this part on is where you might need that aspirin)

A group of Catholic nuns sued the government because they object to notifying the government they want an exception, BUT they still want the exception.

To put that another way:
There is a McDonalds across the street from my house, this would be like if I went to the McDonalds and ordered a Big Mac, and then got pissed that they put pickles on it, so I sue them over it.

See I hate pickles. But you dear reader, didnt know that till the last sentence. Nor would the McDonalds worker, since they cant read my mind. And the Big Mac is known to come with pickles. And of course everyone knows how NOT to get pickles on a Big Mac, you order "Big Mac, no pickles", so that they know you dont want pickles and BOOM no pickles. This is pretty much the norm in every aspect of life if you want something that varies slightly from whatever is advertise or sold as the norm.  

Yet despite this fairly simple logic, the Church still decided that being asked to request "no pickles" was a bridge too far and sued. Granted they have what they call a logically explanation for why they needed to do this:

These nuns also operate a nursing home, and believe that, should they tell the government they dont want contraception coverage, the government would tell the insurance company about it. Which would then be followed by the government telling the insurance company they were free to offer separate contraception coverage to the nursing home workers.

Now 3 things here:

1) For the first sentence, I think the Nuns are 100% correct. The government WILL ABSOLUTELY inform the insurance companies the Nun's are entitled to a contraception exception.

Again think back to ordering a Big Mac, if the cashier doesnt tell the cook you dont want pickles, guess what? your still getting fucking pickles! Requesting a special order only works if EVERYONE involved in the transaction know about it.

2) For the second sentence. Yes to be fair I suppose the government COULD tell the insurance company that there is this group of people who could use contraception coverage, but they dont actually need to.

See the insurance company has the insurance policies, so has some idea of the coverage they are granting. All they really need to do is read their own internal information to figure out there is a block of people who they could sell contraception to.

It's a bit like that Cashier at McDonald's telling the Cook how many Big Mac's the cook made without pickles that day. Given that the Cook actually made the Big Mac's, its a safe assumption HE ALREADY KNOWS.

And thats the thing, even if the Nuns had sued on the grounds they ONLY wanted to give the exemption information to the insurance company (which they didnt), they would still have this same problem that the company could if they wanted offer contraception coverage separately, because again, they already know what they themselves are and arnt covering.

3) and this is the real kicker. The insurer the Nun's use, itself has a religious exemption so that it can NOT carry contraception coverage. Which means they dont actually have any contraception coverage to offer the nursing home workers if they wanted to in the first place, which they clearly dont.

Basically this is like walking into the McDonald's and seeing a giant sign across counter saying "PICKLES CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE". Guess what? in that situation no matter what you do your not getting a fucking pickle. Which is great, if you hate pickle's, you can just walk in, order "1 Big Mac" and not have to worry about it.

Which means even if the Nun's were right on the assumption the government would need to tell the insurance company that they could offer Birth Control, the insurance company would say "ok, and? what do you expect us to be able to do about it?"

Which means the entire justification for bringing the case int he first place cant possibly happen. There are no god damn pickles, you cant have them even if you want them. So their is no way their employees could get contraception coverage in the first place.

Yet despite ALL of that, this case was not laughed out of court as it rightly should be, its actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

By the way, I guess I should be glad their is literally NOTHING pressing, no major legal issues or disputes, no laws being challenged, or even no more legitimate challenges to the Obamacare contraception mandate and exception, so that the court can spend time on this inane petty conspiratorial hallucination.

Oh and the other day, the Supreme Court issued a temporary order on this case.

They told the Nun's they DO NOT have to fill out the official government form to request an exception.
Instead the Nuns only have to give all the information that would have been on the official form to the government on a non official form.

In otherwords, instead of telling the Cashier they dont want pickles on their Big Mac, the Nun's can now take out their cell phones, call a friend, tell the friend they dont want pickles, then handing the cell phone to the cashier so the friend can tell the cashier about the "no pickles".

After the SCOTUS order the Nus' promptly filled out their information, upsidedown backwards, and in lemon juice, using the Cyrillic alphabet while writing left handed, so that no one could ever possibly read it without knowing the super secret handshake.

I'm kidding of course(At least I think I am, but who knows as crazy as this case is). But the Nun's and the church are treating this like a MAJOR victory.

Which is actually kinda ironic, given what this "victory" did.

Assuming you believe the Church should not have to request an exemption, this ruling still means you have to request an exemption. So its basically a different colored wrapper on your Big Mac.

Not much of a victory, especially for something thats supposed to be a "moral imperative". Your still doing the thing you morally object to doing, it just now looks like your not doing it.

Nor is that the only irony. Most of the other catholic lawsuits revolve around the idea that the exemption isnt large enough, or easy enough to get, especially as it relates to privately owned businesses run by Catholics

This ruling actually makes it HARDER to get an exception. After all, how do you know what information you need to give the government to get an exception, if there is no where to go where the information is all laid out for you in a standard unchanged order?

You dont, unless you copiously double check everything. You cant just fill out every blank on the page, as you could with say your taxes to get your refund, because their is no page.

So I hope you have the time to figure it all out on your own, and the time to get the information together and the resources to figure out if you'd qualify in the first place.

If not, I dont really like your chances if getting that exemption. God help you if you miss something, you wouldnt even know what it was you were missing.

So yea, I dont see this working well for any Catholic small business owners.

BUT if what you wanted was a headline that said "We win" and wanted to win on a issue you claim to believe in, while not actually doing anything that would anger the 99% of your own practitioners that dont agree with you, then this really is the major victory they are acting like.

I mean think about it. The Church won (for the moment), took a stand for their religious convictions, while affecting no actual real change that might show the divide between their convictions and their followers actions.

But no, the church would never be that hypocritical and deceitful. They would never ever turn a blind eye to the morality laid out in the bible, and only pretend to be fore it while actually letting their followers ignoring it in order to survive as an institution and not face mass dissertation. (pun intended)

Which is why we all remember our "uncles" fucking our mothers as children when our "fathers" couldnt get the job done........        

Meet Regina Egea, the woman who may bring down Chris Christie

So I know, you read  the headline and went who the hellis Regina Egea?

Well let me not keep you in the dark for long.

Regina Egea will be the reason Chris Christie may be impeached and/or resigns.

Now I know, none of this is making sense, so let me start from the beginning

Chris Christie's entire defense/denial of knowledge for bridge-gate, rests on the idea that he is basically incompetent.

On September 9, 2013, until September 13 lanes leading off the GW bridge in NJ were closed in what now appears to be an act of political retribution by Chris Christie.

Now according to Gov. Christie he didnt know anything about his administrations involvement Bridge-gate until January 8th. And even after that he doesnt know anything.

This despite having his office issue an official denial of involvement/dismissal of the idea as "Crazy" on September 17th.

Now look that alone actually isnt a problem, Im sure all politicans have to issue "this shit is crazy" disclaimers to a lot of conspiracy theories, and then they forget all about them and move on. It's what happens next that is the problem.



As can be seen in the video above, on December 2nd Christ Christie is forced to directly address and deny the controversy.

4 days later, Christie appointed official, David Wildstien, who ordered the lanes closed, resigns because of the controversy.

Now for most people, when someone resigns over a scandal you've been asked about for 2 /2 months and just had to personally deny, you'd probably want to look into that. But then again, your competent and Gov. Christie wants you to believe he's not.

Which is why, as shown on the Video, on December 12th Christie responds to being asked if he's looking for any evidence of a crime or cover-up with "why would I"?

And lets be honest, thats a reasonable question. I mean why would you care that a person you gave power too used that power to abuse the people you work for? clearly not a problem....*sarcasm*

But even if Christie did actually think the scandal was over and that was it, you'd think he'd want to make sure or know why?

Especially considering that the next day he personally announcing the resignation of Bill Baroni, Wildstein's boss and also directly involved in the lane closing and currently (at that time) under investigation.

But hey again, why ask questions? its only two people who have resigned. I mean everyone just sees a resignation letter and tells the person. "hey have a nice life" and never asks why they are leaving.

Well clearly at some point, Christie changed his mind, because at the end of that video, December 23rd 203, Christie says "I asked my staff to give me a full briefing"

Which is kinda weird because 16 days later, when firing his deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly for sending the email telling Wildstein and Baroni to close the lanes, Christie claims he didnt know anything about it until then.

Even weirder though in that same press conference, he claims he asked his staff about it 1 month ago. That would make it approximately December 8th, a good 4 days before he told a reporter he wasnt and wouldnt be looking into it. Also did he forget he already knew when he fired Kelly and only remembered later? whats up with that???

And again, its kinda odd you ask your staff about their involvement in something you say you had no reason to think they were involved in until a month after you asked them. Just saying.

By the way, when asked why Kelly did it, Christie says:

"I have -- I have not had any conversation with Bridget Kelly since the email came out. And so she was not given the opportunity to explain to me why she lied because it was so obvious that she had. And I'm, quite frankly, not interested in the explanation at the moment."

So we wind up back at square one, just like with Wildstein, you see absolutely no reason to look into anything because its not remotely possible anyone else could have been involved, the thing MUST be over.

Oh by the way did I mention in the same speech, Christie also removed his support from a former aide, and campaign manager Bill Stepien who had left to take over the state GOP because that guy was involved in it too?

So thats his second "one staff member who lied to him." Must suck to work with so many untrustworthy people.........

And it turns out not the last. Hang on we are almost back to Regina Egea.

See after he took office the second time a lot of his senior staff left to do other things (quite normal) including the aforementioned almost head of the state GOP. Another staffer who left was Chief of Staff Kevin O'Dowd, Christie's pick to be the states new Attorney General, and the person therefore who would investigate Bridge Gate. Well assuming he gets confirmed,  because as of now Mr. O'Dowd's confirmation has been delayed due to his name showing up in some of the Bridge Gate emails. OOPS, that's awkward......

Anyways Mr. O'Dowd's move created a vacancy for Chief of Staff, a vacancy that was filled by Regina Egea.

Which is kinda awkward given what happened yesterday.

See by Saturday it was discovered that WAAAAY back on September the 13th, the New York appointed head of the Port Authority, the organization that oversees the GW bridge and employed Wildstein and Baroni, and also the man who had lifted the lane closures, had sent an email about the closures, calling them possibly illegal and mentioning an investigation would be starting to Gov. Chris Christie's office.

Now you will remember that on September 18th, Christies office dismissed the claims of an intentional closure as crazy....even though it turns out they had been notified 5 days prior to that claim.

or at least he sent it to Christie's Director of the Authorities Unit of the Governor's Office, Regina Egea.

Now unlike many other Christie staffers connected to this, who all CC'ed, forwarded or emailed each other, there is no other evidence that Egea had anything to do with Bridge Gate.

Which means she likely did her job as passed the email along to her boss, Governor Chris Christie.

Which is kinda a big problem for the governor seeing as how he's on record repeatedly saying he didnt know anything about it until at least December, and also telling people their was no need to investigate.

And that ignores the optics of the one person who knew about this and wasnt connected to the scandal getting a MASSIVE promotion (maybe to buy silence?).

Now I suppose its possible Egea will fall on the sword, and have some way to prove that she was in on it from the beginning and therefore had been warned by Kelly or O'Dowd, or Stepien not to forward those messages to the Governor, but if she cant, Christie better buckle up cause its going to be a bumpy ride, especially since the incoming speaker of the State Assembly has said he would be open to impeaching the Governor if it can be proven he lied in the cover-up.


Some people never learn, the cover up can be as bad as the crime........            

Rand Paul is a trained monkey (AKA yet another thing Rand Paul doesnt understand)

So I'm half tempted to invent an excuse as to why this is so late. Something like "Well I wanted to wait to do a Stupidest comment of the year blog" or something like that, and while this comment would qualify the honest truth is I'm late on this because I've been busy (read lazy).

Anyways as long time readers, or anyone who follows me on Facebook will know, I've long been collecting a list of things US Senator Rand Paul doesnt understand, and to be honest its an ever growing list.

Well the latest entry on the list of things from Senator Paul came late last year (or early last month if you prefer), when the federal budget deal was signed without an extension of unemployment benefits, which a lot of people were not happy about, given the still incredibly high number of people out of work.


Rand Paul however defended his vote as follows when asked by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday:

"I do support unemployment benefits for the 26 weeks that they're paid for. If you extend it beyond that, you do a disservice to these workers."

Now the thing you have to understand about Rand Paul is that he is a trained monkey. See you can train a monkey to throw darts at signs on a wall (by the way they have a stock market fund run on that very idea), but the Monkey doesnt actually understand what its doing, doesnt understand WHY it needs to do it, it just knows that if it throws the dart, it gets a banana. And see thats basically what Rand Paul is doing here, except that in his case, there is also a group who will give him a banana if he doesnt throw the dart.

Which is why in the space of two sentences he comes out for AND against unemployment insurance, he just wants both banana's for saying what both sets of people want to hear.

Now maybe you think I'm being a bit harsh, I mean Rand Paul does distinguish between unemployment before and after 26 weeks, by pointing out that unemployment is only paid for for up to 26 weeks. So presumably the disservice he's talking about is financial right? has something to do with increasing the debt now to fund unemployment isnt good, or something around those lines. Well you might think so, but you'd be WRONG. in his very next sentence Senator Paul says this:

"There was a study that came out a few months ago, and it said, if you have a worker that's been unemployed for four weeks and on unemployment insurance and one that's on 99 weeks, which would you hire? Every employer, nearly 100 percent, said they will always hire the person who's been out of work four weeks.
When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy. And it really -- while it seems good, it actually does a disservice to the people you're trying to help." "
And here's where it becomes clear Rand Paul is really just reaching for as many banana's (read: Support, campaign donations, votes) as possible and lacks the skill to decide which banana is bigger, which one he wants more, which would be more long term benefit to him or any other skill most people use when trying to decide their own self interest.

Now you note in the first two sentences Rand Paul is taking about <26 weeks vs >26 weeks, but from that point on out he's talking about 4 weeks vs 99 weeks.

Why the switch? well turns out Rand Paul pulled the 26 week number out of his ass....but its not an entirely random number. See turns out there are actually TWO types of unemployment, and the time you can stay on either varies from state to state. Now as it turns out in Kentucky the number of weeks you can stay on STATE based unemployment insurance is 26 weeks (the number of weeks you could hypothetically stay on any kind of unemployment in Kentucky is 63 weeks, every after week 26 is federal insurance). Take any other state and both of those numbers can change.

So basically in order to get the home state banana, Rand Paul gave the home state number.....even though his next sentence actually suggested 26 weeks would be bad.

See according to the study Paul cited he claims, the less time you collect unemployment the better, 4 weeks for example is better than 99. So by the same logic, 4 weeks is better that 26 so Kentucky should cut back on unemployment benefits.

In fact nothing Rand Paul has suggested does anything to defend the idea of 26 weeks being ideal, except that they are all ready paid for, which is his attempt to get the fiscal conservatives banana, since we cant fund things beyond the date they are already paid for. Granted the X number (depending on state) of weeks after state insurance runs out are also already paid for, but he cant acknowledge that, since doing so would cost him the banana's of the small government libertarian crowd who dont believe the government can or should do anything, paid for or not.

So in order to get all four of those banana's he has to take a random position he cant actually defend, and that his defense pokes holes in. The worst part about all of it though, is he has NO IDEA that is actually the case, he actually thinks he found a "legitimate" way to get all those banana's. Because he doesnt actually understand what his own information is telling him.

Maybe you caught it a few paragraphs up when I said "See according to the study Paul cited he claims, the less time you collect unemployment the better", but that's not actually correct. What the study actually says, is the less time your UNEMPLOYED the better. Collecting unemployment is used only as a way to measure how long the person has been unemployed.

By the same token the reason the 4 week person looks better than the 99 week person is because its believed the 99 week person has lost a much greater amount of their job skills, may need to be retrained, may not be as up to date as the 4 week person.

No employer looks at how long you took unemployment on your resume.....they look at how long you were out of work. In fact, in all the interviews I have ever had for any job ever, I've never once been asked how long I have been on or was on unemployment. I have however had to convince several people that the 4 year gap in my work record (from when I went to college) wasnt a real gap (because of college)....some werent convinced, and clearly since I was in college I wasnt getting unemployment.

But that simple fact is beyond Rand Paul, he seems to think based on the end his own statement ("When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you're causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy" )that if we take away people's unemployment at a number he randomly made up [26 weeks] people would be better off based on that fact alone on week 27 than if we didnt.  Because in Rand Paul world, the only thing sitting between you and a magically created job is the fact that you have on your resume that you were on unemployment insurance over an arbitrarily picked length of time.

Now I will give Rand Paul credit for one thing, he is right, being unemployed for 99 weeks, heck being unemployed for 26 weeks is a problem we need to fix. But heck probability demands that even a monkey with a dart is right on occasion, MonkeyDex (the stock fund I mentioned earlier) massively outperformed the market in its first year of existence. But being right doesnt change the fact that its still a monkey with a dart, with no actual understanding of what its actually doing, and no real way to learn or change anything.

In defense of the Pope....

Ok so upfront, I'm an atheist. And not really a huge fan of religion either. So the title of this piece is 5 words I never thought I would ever actually have to write. But then Fox News happened.

So before I go any farther, let me just send a personal message to Fox News: DAMN IT LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO!

Now with that out of the way, we can look at WHY I'm actually defending the Pope. Earlier this week Fox News published an article entitled "Pope Francis is the Catholic Church’s Obama – God help us", and unfortunately for me, it's adherence to  logic, fact and history, and knowledge about the subject the author claims to know about was up to Fox's usual standards (which is to say, the words are in English and spelled correctly).  Which means it tripped my anti stupid alarms, and now I have to dissect the piece and defend the Pope (again, thanks for that FOX....)

So here we go, lets dive right in to the full unedited article as presented by FOX News:

"Pope Francis is undergoing a popularity surge comparable to the way Barack Obama was greeted by the world in 2008. And just as President Obama has been a disappointment for America, Pope Francis will prove a disaster for the Catholic Church."

Yep. Which is why America replaced President Obama in 2012 with this guy named Mitt Romney, because that's what this country does when our leaders disappoint us. Oh wait no, I forgot THAT DIDNT HAPPEN.  But anyways, continuing with your delusion;

"My fellow Catholics should be suspicious when bastions of anti-Catholicism in the left-wing media are in love with him.

Much is being made of his ‘compassion’ and ‘humility,’ but kissing babies and hugging the sick is nothing new. Every pope in recent memory has done the same, yet only now are the media paying attention. Benedict XVI and John Paul II refused to kowtow to the liberal agenda, and so such displays of tenderness were under-covered."
Yea, Pope John Paul II never kowtowed to the liberal agenda. In fact I'm sure he never would have been the first Pope to declare Gay People are entitled to the same inherent rights and dignity as everyone else.  He also never pushed the idea of religious liberty, or was a major player in the Vatican II conference that helped modernize and liberalize the Church on many issues. Oh wait....I just did a Google search, apparently he actually did all of that.

"But Francis is beating a retreat for the Catholic Church, and making sure its controversial doctrines are whispered, not yelled – no wonder the New York Times is in love.
Just like President Obama loved apologizing for America, Pope Francis likes to apologize for the Catholic Church, thinking that the Church is at its best when it is passive and not offending anyone’s sensibilities."

So Francis is not saying anything controversial and is shying away from any church teachings that might be so......actually lets save this thought for later, I dont want to give anything away, but this gets funnier by the end.

But yea I do agree, clearly the catholic church has nothing to apologize for, like child rape or anything like that (by the way, guess whats on the list of things Francis (and the Church) havnt apologized for?)

"In his interviews with those in the left-wing media he seeks to impress, Francis has said that the Church needs to stop being ‘obsessed’ with abortion and gay marriage, and instead of seeking to convert people, “we need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”"
So your mad because the Pope thinks its a good idea to figure out what Catholics believe in compared to other Catholics? Again, I'm an Atheist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt the whole point of religion supposed to be about shared belief in a series of universal "truthes?"


I'm just saying, making sure you all still believe the same things, and that therefore you are in fact still catholic, seems like it might be kinda important.......

"This softly-softly approach of not making a fuss has been tried before, and failed. The Second Vatican Council of the 1960’s aimed to “open the windows” of the Church to the modern world by doing just this.

The result was the Catholic version of New Coke. Across the West where the effects were felt, seminaries and convents emptied, church attendance plummeted, and adherence to Church doctrine diminished.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI worked hard to turn this trend around, but now Pope Francis wants the bad old days to resume."
You know who actually part of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's? Bishop Karol Wojtyła and Father Jospeh Ratzinger. Also known as John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Thats right, they worked SO hard to turn around the trend of Vatican II, they wrote the damn thing. In fact in 2011, then Pope Benedict declared the year between October 2012 and end of November 2013, a Year of Faith that provided "a good opportunity to help people understand that the texts bequeathed by the Council Fathers, in the words of Blessed John Paul II, 'have lost nothing of their value or brilliance. They need to be read correctly, to be widely known and taken to heart as important and normative texts of the Magisterium, within the Church's Tradition ... I feel more than ever in duty bound to point to the Council as the great grace bestowed on the Church in the twentieth century: there we find a sure compass by which to take our bearings in the century now beginning."
Yea, sounds like Benedict was trying REAL hard to backpedal away from Vatican II there.

Anyways, now that your done botching the history of your own religion over the course of your own life time (give or take a decade maybe, depending on how old the author of the piece is), what else you got for us?


"Proof of this is Francis’ aforementioned statement of the Church being obsessed with controversial issues and the need to rebalance by talking about it less.

That Francis didn’t see that this would be translated into headlines of “Pope tells Catholics to shut up about things that offend Sandra Fluke” by every left-wing media outlet shows a terrifying naivety.

Nor do his comments reflect reality.

For years, the majority of priests didn't dare cover controversial topics in their homilies in fear of getting angry letters from pick-and-choose Catholics outraged that their pastor dared to say something out of line with the Democratic Party."

So lets see, your pissed because Francis called on the Church to do something your claiming it was already doing? (not being controversial).

Ok so if the Church is already doing it, whats the problem again?

Also, your claiming the reason the Church is already noncontraversial is because of fear of Democrats.
This either means you have no idea the Democrats are an AMERICAN political party, and dont exist outside this country, or you dont realize Catholics exist outside this country. In fact Pope Francis exists outside this country, or do you not know where the Vatican is?

"Most parishioners therefore haven’t heard the Church’s argument on controversial topics. Consequently, usage of contraception is only slightly lower in Catholics than in the general population, and support of gay marriage is actually higher in Catholics than the general population. Perhaps talking about it even less isn’t the answer?"

Ok so if your own practitioners ignore you, and you cant seem to communicate with them the ideas they are supposed the AGREE with you on, why the fuck do you think the rest of us would give a shit about your belief on any issue.

Oh and by the way, I have an answer to your rhetorical question. Talking about it less isnt the answer, you know what is, finding ways "to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.” By the way if that sounds familiar, it should. Its from your own article about 6 paragraphs back. In was Pope Francis' suggestion for how to deal with that very problem.

Which means basically your entire article to this point has been you attacking the Pope for addressing the problem you want him to address in a manner you imply you'd like him to address it. Just saying, I'm half way though your piece, and I still dont understand your complaint, and I'm strongly starting to suspect you dont either.




"In trying to please the media and the modern world, Francis mistakes their glee for respect. Just like Obama thought he’d won over Putin by promising a reset, Francis thinks by talking vacuously about the poor, he will be respected. And it is vacuous -- the pontiff recently asked why it’s news that the stock market drops but not when an old person dies. When your leader is asking, “Why isn’t the newspaper a laundry list of obituaries?” you know you elected the wrong guy.

What effect is this having? For all we’re being told about how ‘disenfranchised’ Catholics are being brought back by Francis ‘reaching out,’ a recent Pew Research study showed that in America, the number of people who identify as Catholic has actually decreased. Lesson: rubbing the egos of Church-hating left-wingers doesn’t make more Catholics, it just makes the Church less respected."

I'm going to leave the link in your piece intact, that way people can click on it, and go see what that poll says for themselves. Like say this part where they summarize the findings "But attendance at Mass and Catholic identification in the U.S. has been steady since 2007". Also known as not what you claimed the poll said. But hey kudos to you for providing your own readers with a link that proves your lying to them. I guess at this point anyone who believes anything in this article really only has themselves to blame.

And to be honest, its not really surprising Pope Francis is having no affect on Church Attendance in either direction yet, given that he's only been Pope about 6 months, thats not a statistically significant period of time really.

"Francis not only panders to enemies and professional grievance mongers, but also attacks his allies. Just as Obama snubs Britain and Israel, Pope Francis swipes at practicing Catholics. 
So not only has he insulted, and severely damaged the work of, pro-life and pro-marriage groups with his comments, he has also gone on the attack, dismissing Catholics who attend the older rites in Latin as ‘ideologizing’ and being guilty of ‘exploitation.’ Apparently “Who am I to judge?” doesn’t apply here."
Now without quotes we have to just take your word that these comments exist (odd how you couldn't seem to find any when the rest of your piece is full of them), so I can only really comment on example you claim about the Latin Mass. Which was done away with/severely curtailed by Vatican II, under Popes John Paul and Benedict, the same guys you've been lionizing. But hey we already established you actually dont know the history of your own religion in your life time, so moving on




"On world matters, Francis’ statements are embarrassing. About communism, a destructive ideology that slaughtered millions of Catholics, he said:

“Learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized…an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church."

Not such kind words for the free market, however. In his recent apostolic exhortation he slammed unfettered capitalism, calling it ‘a new tyranny.’

Apart from the fact that there is no major nation practicing unfettered capitalism (like Obama, Francis loves attacking straw men) there is more real tyranny in socialist cesspools like Francis’ home of Argentina than in places where capitalism is predominant.

In the document he rejects the free market and calls for governments to overhaul financial systems so they attack inequality. In doing so he shows himself painfully misguided on economics, failing to see that free markets have consistently lifted the poor out of poverty, while socialism merely entrenches them in it, or kills them outright.

Like Obama, Francis is unable to see the problems that are really endangering his people. Like Obama he mistakes the faithful for the enemy, the enemy for his friend, condescension for respect, socialism for justice and capitalism for tyranny."
You remember when I said I would come back to your earlier claim Francis wants the church passive and not offensive? What happened, I mean you seem to think those comments are pretty offensive.

Could it be your just outraged about being on the wrong side of the offensive comments this time? Could that really be what this temper tantrum is all about? cause we've already established its not about Church History, or solving Church problems.

So is that it? did the Pope hurt your feelings when he dismissed a good chunk of your world view?  I hate to break it to you....so did the last guy.  And the ones before him too. Because again, as you yourself pointed out, most Catholics dont believe in their own churches teachings. That seems to include you.

If only you had a Pope who would take your suggestion and do something about it. One who could, as you put it "see the problems that are really endangering his people." Oh wait, you do. But you just think he's a meany poopoo head.

Anyways lets finish this up.

"As a Catholic, I do hope Francis’ papacy is a successful one, but from his first months he seems hell-bent on a path to undo the great work of Benedict XVI and John Paul II, and to repeat critical mistakes of the past."
Great works that you seem to know nothing about, since apparently you were in a Coma between 1978 and March of last year, and missed the papacy of the last couple of guys.

In fact the only critical mistake I've seen made in this whole article in the 5 minutes I spend reading it I could have devoted to other, more intellectual pursuits like watching paint dry or seeing if I can touch my nose with my tongue..

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go bleach my brain and try to disinfect it from your stupidity....