E-mails, Wolves, Snowballs and Swallowing. Lets start off 2015 on the stupid foot.

So I'm going to be honest, I thought I was done writing this series. I havnt had to do one in 8 months. And dont get me wrong, thats a good thing. It means for a while there, we actually had our stupid under control.

WELL SO MUCH FOR THAT. (I blame the upcoming 2016 elections, everyone knows that to politicians brain presidential election years are basically bacon wrapped chocolate covered heroin)

So yea, its once again time for THIS [fill in appreciate time period later] IN STUPID!

So we lead off with the Casually stupid. These are the poor smucks that had they spoken at a more intelligent time in our country wouldnt have made this blog, because, while they are morons, they honestly didnt say anything stupid enough to merit their own blog posts.  They just got in because they got caught in the gravitational pull of even stupider people.....

First up Rep. Don Young of Alaska, who early last week made the following comments about homeless people:

“We've got 79 congressmen sending you a letter, they haven’t got a damn wolf in their whole district, I’d like to introduce them in your district. If I introduced them in your district, you wouldn’t have a homeless problem anymore.”

He's right, you wouldnt have much of a homeless problem......you would have a problem with disease being spread by all the chewed on human corpses. (not to mention the problem of wolves trying to eat you)

And lets just hope the wolves are smarter than the Congressman (actually, they might be....). I mean it would be a shame if they accidentally attacked say, a child on the way home from school or a pregnant mother or something.

Next up, Senator Jim Inhofe. What did he do? well actually let me show you.

WE INTERRUPT THIS BLOG TO BRING YOU BREAKING NEWS!

Testicular cancer has just been cured. See I reached down my pants, and I found not one but TWO balls. And if one ball disproves something, a second ball means the thing in question has been totally eradicated. You're welcome.

(P.S. I'm cooking dinner right now, so by the time you read this, I likely will have solved world hunger too)

Finally our 3rd and final slot in the "entry level stupid" category Iowa State Rep. Vito Barbieri.

In a hearing about the uses of telemedicine, a doctor has just spoken about how colonoscopies could be done via swallowing a camera, and viewing the footage as it "ended it trip"

To which Rep Barbieri said:

"Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?"

See kids, this is why we need comprehensive sex ed.....or at least anatomy classes.........

Next up, we get to mid level stupid. And we start this group off with Dr. Ben Carson, newly announced presidential candidate, who was trying to explain why he believes being gay is a choice:

“A lot of people who go into prison go into prison straight – and when they come out, they’re gay. So, did something happen while they were in there? Ask yourself that question.”

So I asked myself that question, and in about 1/8 of a second I had my answer. Yes something DID happen to them in prison. It's called rape. And it doesnt make them gay, it makes them victims of crimes.

But hey, the good news, by understanding neither gay sex or rape, Dr. Carson has just assured he will do quite well for himself in the primary.

The bad news, the expression "you dont have to be a brain surgeon to understand [X]"/"its not brain surgery" just announced its retirement from the English language due to that bar being lowered to the point its now deep underground.

Next up, the Secretary of State of Kansas Kris Kobach, who on his own radio show this week said this:

"word is going to come down [from the white house] that there just won't be any prosecutions of black criminals and I can see it happening.Well, it's already happening, more or less, in the case of civil rights laws, So I guess it's not a huge jump. I think it's unlikely but, you know, I've learned to say with this president never say never."

Now what he's referencing to there is the infamous "Black Panther voting intimidation case" where the Justice Department decided their hadnt actually been any voter intimidation and dropped the case.

Oh but did I mention this happened in December of 2008? You know who was president in December of 2008 and who's administration made that decision? (right wrong or otherwise)

Although really, I guess I shouldnt be too surprised. Cause if you take Kobach's job title and initials, you have SS KKK.......So I guess assuming it was the black guys fault is kinda a requirement.....

Next up, Govenor of Wisconsin, and front-runner in the race to be the former Republican front-runner, Scott Walker, who in a recent campaign speech said this:

"One of the most powerful foreign policy decisions that I think was made in our lifetime was one that Ronald Reagan made early in his presidency when he fired the air traffic controllers....What it did, it showed our allies around the world that we were serious and more importantly that this man to our adversaries was serious."

Yea....I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Reagan firing the air traffic controllers would be DOMESTIC policy....unless he fired them INTO Russia.....I also have a hunch the rest of the world didnt give a shit.....

"Years later, documents released from the Soviet Union showed that that exactly was the case, The Soviet Union started treating [Reagan] more seriously once he did something like that. Ideas have to have consequences." Then again, maybe I stand corrected.....

Oh wait I have just been handed this special bulletin from Jack Matlock, Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union, who has this to say about Walkers comments:

"It's utter nonsense. There is no evidence of that whatever."

Ok. nevermind I was right, Walkers an idiot. Although to be fair as far as covering for the fact he doesnt even know what foreign policy IS, let alone understand it enough to have one, that was a decent try.

And now, our winners, the people who ignored the advice

went full retard this time around, and are the stupidest people of the last 2/3rds of a year:

Hillary Clinton, her staff and former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Yea, you read that right. I just awarded stupidest people of at least 66% of a year to two Democratics. In fact, Gov Granholm's comments (which I'll get to) were the inspiration for me bringing this series out of retirement.

Ok so, unless you've been living under a rock, you know Clinton is in some trouble, because it appears that during her entire tenure as Sec of State she was using her personal email account.

Now I actually think her team is doing a good job handling the fallout of this, saying they want all the emails public and what have you. And I know most politicans use personal emails. That's not what landed her here.

What got her here was this one line in the original New York Times report:

"Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State 
Department."

Ok. so in a job that basically involves a lot classified government information being sent to and from, it didnt even occur to you or your staff that having some kind of secure account AVAILABLE might be a good idea?  You know, just in case you ever had to deal with an issue of national security?

But as bad as that is, that doesnt hold a candle to Gov Granholm's attempt to defend you. Which may actually be the worst defense ever offered by anyone on any subject.

So on the TV show, "The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell"  Gov Granholm had the following exchange: (which shockingly I'm quoting from Breitbart.com. I saw the exchange live on TV, and they have the best summary I've seen):

“well, the issue, Lawrence, is that — what was the state department’s proper recordkeeping system? What she did was follow the precedent that had happened before, which is that she had — she did e-mail –
O’Donnell then interjected “when there’s a new regulation issued while you are Secretary of State in 2009, you don’t get to say, ‘I’m doing what everyone before this regulation did,'” to which Granholm asked, “why not? [...] Lawrence, if it worked for the previous administration, why not –”
Ok so the key point here, is that in 2009 the law changed, and by all accounts Clinton didnt follow it. Granholm thinks that fine, because she did what everyone before her did, so the fact the law changed doesnt matter.

Which actually, now that I think about it, I kinda like that logic. In fact that logic is about to send me on a shopping spree.

I'm going to go buy a black person (or 3/5ths of one). I know I know, the 13th amendment says I cant do that. Well precedent and the logic of Gov Granholm say I can, so suck it.

And with that, I'm off. I gotta get going before all the good ones are sold.......

The Republican scramble to save Obamacare.

No thats not a typo in the headline. The truth of the matter is that, right now, behind the scenes, the biggest problem facing the Republican party is how to save Obamacare from the Republican party.

Alright, so you might have heard Obamacare is going to be up in front of the Supreme Court again. (arguments started yesterday in fact).

This time the case, King vs Burwell has to do with the specific wording of the law, so I need a minute to explain.

So, basically if you enroll in Obamacare you can qualify for tax subsidies to help make the cost more affordable. Seems simple enough.

Except there are two different kinds of Obamacare exchanges, the ones run by the states, and the ones run by the federal government. But the law, as written only refers to State-based exchanges.

So the republican argument is that the states that chose to have their exchanges managed by the fed's arnt technically state based, and therefore the people in those states arnt eligible for the subsidies.

Now the idea behind the Republican position was to make Obamacare look worse than it is by basically running up the prices/making healthcare unafforable by running up the prices, even in the states that are state run (because as the number of people enrolled in Obamacare goes down, prices would go up across the board), creating a death spiral that would kill Obamacare.

Now of course under this idea the states that have state based exchanges would take a while (years) to feel the affect, but the people in the federally run states would basically lose their insurance as soon as the Court ruled.

Which is actually the easily predictable and fully preventable problem the GOP is trying to save itself from.

You see the list of states that have created state run exchanges are as follows:
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Maryland, Kentucky, Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Idaho, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii. (on top of that New Hampshire, Iowa, West Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa and Arkansas all run state/federal partnerships and could easily transition to solely state run to keep subsidies.)

Now if you pay even the slightest attention to politics you might notice that most of those states have one thing in common, they are solidly Democratic. And those are the states least likely/would take the longest time for the Courts decision to reach.

Which leaves the other states, the Republican controlled states, as the ones who residents are going to get massively fucked over with skyrocketing and disappearing healthcare overnight, if republicans win.

Oh, and it should be pointed out, that the taxes being taken to support the subsidies would still be taken nationwide.....just only distributed to the blue states (+Kentucky Arkansas and Idaho)

So in short, the GOP has devised a system in which, the GOP will fuck over all of its own supporters by stripping them of their healthcare overnight, while still requiring them to pay for the healthcare of Democrats, who will be largely unaffected by any ruling, and will have years to make any needed changes.

I wonder, what do you think the chances are GOP voters might get a little pissed off about that????

You got to hand it to the GOP, thats basically the Mona Lisa of shooting themselves in the foot.

And like I said, its not like it was hard to see this coming, all the GOP had to do was google "Which states have state based healthcare exchanges"  to realize this was a very bad idea.

Which brings us to now,, over a year after they started down this road, the GOP is kinda waking up to the fact this is one of those "extra stupid with a side of moron"  ideas, and they are pretty desperately trying to stave off the negative affects they would bring to themselves if they win.

Case in point, earlier this week Republican Senators Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander and John Barrasso (all from states that will get fucked if the GOP wins), wrote an Op-ed entitled
"We have a plan for fixing health care", just to assuage the fears of any republican voter who is worried the people he voted for are going to fuck him over.

Thing is, the plan, is pretty fucking hilarious in its own right. Now if you want to read the whole Op-ed, just click on the link in the last paragraph, but here are the 3 paragraphs dealing with the republican plan to fix healthcare:

"First and most important: We would provide financial assistance to help Americans keep the coverage they picked for a transitional period. It would be unfair to allow families to lose their coverage, particularly in the middle of the year.[...]"

Second, we will give states the freedom and flexibility to create better, more competitive health insurance markets offering more options and different choices. Republicans understand that what works in Utah is different from what works in Tennessee or Wyoming. We want to give states the time and flexibility to design health-care systems that work for them, not for the bureaucrats in Washington.

People who live in states that have state exchanges will continue to be subject to Obamacare’s costly mandates and rules, along with the subsidies. But their states could also have the benefit of our solution. Every state would have the ability to create better markets suited to the needs of their citizens.

We have had many discussions with our Senate and House Republican colleagues on this issue, and there is a great deal of consensus on how to proceed. Many of our colleagues have good ideas, and we look forward to working together."

Translation:
First, we are going to pass legislation basically undoing the Court's ruling should we win. Now of course such a law would be temporary lasting only as long as we need to create an alternative (indefinite :P ).

(Which would be more reassuring of the GOP wasn't continually failing to pass their own bills, like the abortion bill that died in the House, or the DHS bill the Senate wouldnt pass ect.)

Second, on the subject of creating an alternative this is it:

Cause yea, in the last 6 years, we aint come up with shit and we hope by screaming freedom loud enough and long enough you kinda wont notice that, or the fact we are hoping to vote to save Obamacare if the Supreme Court wrongly decides we are right.

So there you have it folks, the new republican plan to save Obamacare by overruling the supreme court by really loudly yelling freedom. But hey, at least the blue face paint is going to be optional......

Things Rand Paul DOES understand: Rand Paul 2016

So I've stated all over the place that Rand Paul isnt running for president, despite everyone saying he is.

Now the reason I believe he's not running has to do with the laws in his home state of Kentucky, which prohibit appearing on the ballot for more than one statewide office.

Now Rand Paul's senate seat is up for election in 2016.....and since the whole state votes for senate, its a statewide office. As is the presidency. Which means Paul has to pick one.

(As a sidenote by the way, I'm actually on Rand Paul's side on this one. I believe if someone wants they should be able to run for two national level political offices at once. Furthermore these laws banning double ballot appearances pre-date the senate becoming a popularly elected body in 1913, following the passage of the 17th amendment, meaning 100 years ago Rand Paul wouldnt even have this problem, and the law clearly wasnt intended to stop senators from running for president.)

(second sidenote: perhaps ironically, 6 states have never attempted to ratify the 17th amendment....including Kentucky)

And the choice is actually pretty clear, as no former 1 term senator has ever become president with that being their only political office (although Lincoln was only a 1 term former member of the house). Basically if Rand Paul wants to be president some day......or wants to be relevant past the end of next year, he MUST run for the senate, because without that seat he's be irrelevant forever (or at least for 4 years until the next senate election in KY) when he loses the presidential nomination this time out.

Now for a while now, Paul has been trying with no success to get the government of the state of Kentucky to change this law (and most states have), and it hasnt worked.

Well it seems, Paul has found a new loophole. Because it's the parties and not the government who control the primary voting process.

So Rand Paul has asked the Republican party in the state of Kentucky to hold a presidential Caucus not a primary. (although the senate race would still be a primary)

You ses Caucuses dont have ballots and therefore Rand Paul's name would only be on the ballot once....for Senate, in the senate primary. And he could still run for president.

Furthermore it looks like this is going to work. Although nothing official has been announced yet, the republican party in Kentucky appears to be making the preliminary steps to set caucus.

Meaning the door is basically open for Rand Paul to run for president (despite my claims for a while now that this issue in Kentucky would stop him from running)

But there still is one "minor" problem.

And that problem almost caused this blog to be another installment of my "things rand paul doesnt understand" series......until I realized that Paul likely does understand this problem, just doesnt care.

And the problem is this........even if the state allows Caucuses, Rand Paul STILL can not run for President and the Senate at the same time.

Because the parties DO NOT control the General Election, the state does. And the State is still going to go with an ballot election format.   Which would be a problem for Rand Paul, as if he won the Republican Nomination for president, his name would be on the ballot twice.

So he would have to decide how he wants to fuck his state over (from a republican point of view anyways)

Would he remove his name from the presidential ballot....and give Kentucky's 8 electoral votes the the Democrats?

Or would he remove his name from the Senate race.....and effectively hand his senate seat to the Democrats?

Oh and before people mention write in votes as a way out, the state of Kentucky wont count write in votes for candidates who's names appear elsewhere on the ballot. So if Paul withdraws from the senate race, he cant win by write in, and vice versa.

And actually, the "choice"/problem might become much more complicated than that. Assuming I'm reading Kentucky statue 118.212 (which deals with candidates withdrawing from the race) correctly, it appears that after a certain point in the race, even if the candidate withdraws, their name STAYS on the ballot.....the state just doesnt count any votes for them, and posts a warning in all polling places informing people of that.

Which appears to mean that even if Paul chooses to withdraw from one race or the other, if he waits too long, the choice will either already be made for him, (and given how much later the presidential nomination comes than the Senate one, it would presumably be the Presidential Ballot he would be left off) or he might wind up tossed off BOTH races (with votes for him not counting).

Now even best case, where he is off the presidential ballot this is a major national problem for republicans.

Assuming no surprises in state outcomes (so they all go the way they usually do), the basic election map would likely look like this:

2016 Presidential Election: Electoral Map

That map gives the Dems a floor of 240 electoral votes, to the GOP's 208. (you need 270 to win).
But given that normally it would be be 232 electoral votes to the Dems, and 216 to the GOP Kentucky may not seem like that big a deal.

Consider that, with a Red Kentucky, the GOP have 7 paths to victory, to the Dem's 9.
But with a blue Kentucky, the GOP only has 6 paths to victory, and the Dems have 11.

So things become much easier for the Dem's who will have almost twice as many ways to win as the GOP

A blue Kentucky also means the GOP CAN NOT WIN unless they win the state of Florida. All 6 paths to victory include Florida. (with a red Kentucky, they could lose Florida, and still have 1 path the victory to the Dem's 4) By the way it should be pointed out, the Dems dont *need* to win any state. they could win with combinations of states. (so thats not great for the GOP, having one state be "cant lose" without any way to force the Dems into the same position

However winning Florida doesnt do much for the GOP.....they gain nothing (still having 6 ways to win), while reducing the Dems to only 6 ways to win.....meaning the race is now a 50/50.  (as opposed to a Red KY and a Red FL which would reduce the dems to 5 ways to win, a slighly GOP advantage). or at least mathematically it is.

Given that, in this set up the Dems are free to spread money around more than the GOP (who must spend enough in FL to ensure a victory), the GOP need to lock of FL will likely cost them other states, meaning realistically the race is probably has a slight Dem advantage even if the GOP wins FL.

So yea, to sum up, by giving up Kentucky, a Paul Presidential Campaign forces the GOP to win a state they otherwise dont need to win.....simply to keep things even (on paper if not reality), instead of the advantage winning that same state normally gives them.

In otherwords from a national Republican perspective, a Paul presidential campaign is very very bad for the party, and something they likely want to avoid.

Unless of course he has a solution for the general election too......which at the moment he doesnt.

Now for a while I assumed this was yet another sign of Paul's stupidity. He is crowing about fixing his problem.......without actually fixing his problem.

But it dawned on me, as a was preparing to write this blog......Rand Paul probably perfectly understands (or his staff do anyways) everything I laid out in this blog.

The problem is on MY end not his. You see I was assuming Rand Paul actually WANTS to win.

In 2012 people theorized that the Republican Primary had been hijacked by people who really just wanted to use the presidential race to increase their "asking price" and profiles.

It seems maybe they are right, and 2016 will be the same. Because if that is what Rand Paul is after......furthering himself, and not actually intending to win, then he doesnt have a problem.

His "Caucus solution" means, he can run for president, lose in the primary (as he is presumably expecting to and wants to), and go back to the senate suddenly "worth" a lot more, and seemingly higher profile.

He gets everything he wants out of this, and all the problems I address are negated because he's not trying to solve his general election problem, cause he doesnt have one, since he doesnt want to be in it.

In short, Rand Paul presumably understands what he's doing perfectly. This time around he's hoping its his supporters (who presumably want him to be president, and would be pissed off if they realized he was only exploiting the the race for personal/other gain) who dont understand.

the New 3DS. How to not market a video game system.

So if you follow video game systems, especially hand held's. you probably know there's a new dog in town....Nintendo's New 3DS.

Now if your not a hardcore gamer, just a casual gamer, you might be a little confused because the 3DS was the new handheld Nintendo released in 2011, so how can it be the hot new thing now?

Well you see thats because the New 3DS isnt the same as a 3DS, it just sounds like it is.

Which is only one of a ton of mistakes(?) Nintendo seems intent on making to kill their newest product. (cause you know, the Wii U launch failure didnt hurt enough)

Alright so for the non gamers out there, you currently have multiple Nintendo hand helds available to you.

You have the 3ds, this is the basic/generic version of the console, plays all 3ds games (duh) and in keeping with Nintendo tradition all DS (its predecessor) games. You also have the 3ds XL......which is exactly what it sounds like....its an extra large version of your 3ds, so it has larger screens and is larger (and therefore according to some, myself included, easier to hold) than a regular 3DS, but is otherwise identical. And then you have the 2ds. Which sounds a little confusing, as it sounds like it should be the predecessor to the 3ds, but the name actually makes sense when you look at it.

So the big gimmick from the 3DS, and the thing that separates it from the DS, is the ability to play games in "3D" as opposed to the 2D of other systems. The basic 3DS has a slider allowing you to turn the 3D on and off at will, and none of the games require the 3D to be on to play them (although it can make many of them look better)The 2DS is a cheaper low budget of the 3DS, that allows you to play all the 3DS games, but doesnt have to option to use the 3D feature.

So that brings us to the New 3DS, which sounds like it would replace the 3DS....but it doesnt. In fact the New 3DS will be sold concurrently with new 3DS models in stores, however in addition to playing all 3DS and DS software, the New 3DS will also have its own exclusive games called "New 3DS games" that will be released alongside newly developed games for the 3DS.

Which raises a question, is your new game a New 3DS game or just a new 3DS game? Given that the games tend to cost $40-$50 this is a point you definitely want to be sure of before you buy the game. Or prehaps more to the point, before a non gamer buys it for you as a gift.

I mean how awkward is it going to be when your girlfriend goes and buys you the soon to be released and massively hyped Xenoblade Chronicles for your birthday, only for you to have to explain that its a New 3DS game, and the new 3DS you got yourself for Christmas is actually the original model?

Or, maybe your girlfriend goes and gets you the [currently available] New 3DS package deal that comes with Monster Hunter 4....because your a huge Monster Hunter fan and she wants you to be able to play it since it clearly wouldnt work on your current 3DS.

Except it turns out it would, because despite being packaged with the New 3DS, Monster Hunter 4 is simply just a new 3DS game....it runs jut fine on every version of the 3DS.  And it can be bought separately from the New 3DS for about 1/4th of the price.

 You see how people might get confused?

And just wait, it gets worse.

See the reason Monster Hunter 4 is sold with the New 3DS is that, despite being a simple 3DS game, it benefits from the some of the New 3DS features. (well that and presumably to make people THINK its (and the other games you can buy packaged with the system) a New 3DS game when its not, so people think they have to buy the new system to play it)

For example, the New 3DS has an extra circle control pad that the original 3DS does not. In the case of Monster Hunter (and a lot of just released or soon to be released 3DS games), this extra circle pad will control the games "camera" making it easier to see the world around you. (the New 3DS also has 2 extra buttons on the back that will work the same kind of "make slightly easier" functions)

On the original 3DS systems you'll have to settle for using the slightly less accurate and less accessible touch screen controls.......unless of course your willing to shell out $20 for a device Nintendo released 2 years ago, called a Circle Pad pro, which adds that extra circle pad and 2 extra rear buttons to your existing 3DS at 1/5 the price of the New 3DS.

So you COULD buy a New 3DS for more functionality of your 3DS games....or you could save 80% and buy a piece of hardware that does the same thing.

Now the New 3DS  has 2 other innovations over the original 3DS systems;

first it also has something called Amiibo support.   Amiibo's are basically action figures that can interact with your video games....basically they unlock bonus features in the game. Which might sound cool if you really want EVERY feature in your game.  So that sounds like a reason to buy a New 3DS right?

Well except that, later this year, Nintendo plans to release another cheaply priced extra piece of equipment for the 3DS allowing it to do the same thing.

So yea, just wait a few months and your 3DS can do most everything a New 3DS can do.....unless not having to carry around 2 extra things with you (the Circle Pad Pro and the Amiibo support) is worth an extra $100+ to you.

Now the other innovation is, to be fair a New 3DS exclusive and will stay that way. That innovation is a better processor and graphics card. In English that means the games on the New 3DS will look nicer and run smoother than they will on the 3DS.

Except that, those features wont apply to any basic 3DS game being played on the New 3DS....it only applied to New 3DS exclusive games that cant be played on basic 3DS.

Which still sounds like a selling point, until you look at the [current] list of New 3DS exclusive games:

Xenoblade Chronicles.

Thats it. Thats the whole list. And given the time it takes to develop video games (at least a year) and the fact that Nintendo tends to release games in Japan months prior to the US (so all the upcoming american releases are already out in Japan), thats likely to remain the whole list for at least a year.

And the thing is, Xenoblade Chronicles itself was actually released 3 years ago for the Nintendo Wii....so if you really want to play it, you can go buy the Wii version for $55, and play on your Wii or Wii U system.....and if you dont own one you can buy a Wii for another $60, which is still much cheaper than the $200 you would have to spend on the New 3DS and additional $50+ for the game.

Now, for anyone who doesnt live in America, they may be another reason to buy a New 3DS. The "faceplates" (read casing) of the system can be changed and swapped out. In otherwords you can customize your system to give it an exterior apperance to match you. Maybe you love Mario and you want to show everyone....well you can buy the Mario faceplates for the New 3DS.....or maybe your on team Frokie.....well buy the Frokie ones. Or you want your work friends to think your "mature" so you get the Fire Emblem plates.....only to remove them and put on your Zelda plates, when you hang out with your old college friends who know your a nerd.

Its not the best reason in the world to buy a new system....but hey to the right person (admittedly not me) it probibly sounds pretty cool.

But note I said this doesn't apply in America (where I live, and I assume most of my readers do too)

You see, in every other country in the world Nintendo released two new systems, the New 3DS, which was the size of the original 3DS and the New 3DS XL, which was the size of the 3DS XL. However the New 3DS XL does not have the ability to change faceplates for some odd yet unexplained reason.

In this country however Nintendo only released the "New 3DS"....except that the american "New 3DS" is actually the New 3DS XL model in the rest of the world, so we got shafted on the changeable face-plates thing.

Also, if you buy a New 3DS and you read a game review and they make any comment (positive or negative) about the game's visual appearance or resolution, and thats going to impact your purchasing decision, you better make sure you know if its a foreign website/which version of the "New 3DS" they are taking about, the American or International version.

Because it would suck ass to buy a game that was touted as having amazing visuals on the [international] New 3DS screen, only to find out they look slightly distorted on the larger screen your american New 3DS has.

(further adding to the confusion, some websites/stores are using the New 3DS XL name for the american New 3DS, so it may seem like a different item despite being the same thing)

Now you may have noticed that up till now I've been writing this assuming you already own a 3DS and are considering upgrading. Well it turns out theirs a reason for that......that appears to be the same assumption Nintendo is making.

Alright, so given that its a portable system, the New 3DS runs on a battery that needs to be recharged....just like your cell phone, tablet, ect.

Without a recharge, the thing is going to stop working in about 5 hours.

Now in typical Nintendo fashion, the New 3DS uses the same charger as the original 3DS, the 2DS and the DS. So if you happen to already own one of those systems, your golden.

If you dont.....well honestly your fucked.

See unlike those other systems, the New 3DS doesnt come packaged with a charger. You have to buy it separately.

And its almost impossible to find. Amazon doesnt sell them. Neither does Walmart, or Best Buy, or Game Stop (these being the 4 largest video game retailers in the country).

Now Nintendo's on line website DOES sell them.....for an extra 10 dollars (this in addition to the $200 you spend on the system.....more if you want a game). Thing is, based on what I can find online, the fastest Nintendo's on line store ships things seems to be about 3 days.....but seeing claims of 1-2 WEEKS is much more common.

So yea, if you go to the store and buy a New 3DS without already owning one of its predecessors, your going to be able to play it for a whole 5 hours (give or take) over the next 3-14 days.......

So yea, to sum up, Nintendo's new console seems to be entirely directionless.

Its clearly aimed at people looking to upgrade (since it cant be used out of the box), while giving
them absolutely no reason to (1 semi exclusive game, thats actually cheaper to buy for another system, and features that can be added to the existing system for less) Also its name is sure to confuse the living shit out of the casual gamer and make figuring out what you want to/can buy much harder, for no good reason.

In other-words, this system SHOULD be a massive PR disaster and colossal failure.

But this is America, the land of upgrading your smartphone every 6 months for the same fucking phone with different number at the end of the name.  So I fully expect Nintendo to make a record profit and break sales records of all kinds with the New 3DS.

Because Americans are stupid and will buy anything with "New" in the name.....even without a reason.

Then again, as noted at the beginning the Wii U pretty much flopped out of the gate, so maybe Im too cynical and Nintendo just really sucks at this whole "thinking out decisions" thing....

My favorite contradiction in conservative thought

Alright, I'll be honest, this was supposed to be part of my Top 10 political justifications/beliefs that are total bullshit blog, but I kinda forgot to include it. However I actually think this one is so ironically funny, it is somewhat deserving of its own blog. So I'm gonna call this one a "win win" by forgotting :P.

Anyways the entire point of this blog is, as the title suggests, to mock my favorite problem in conservative thought, that being that legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy.

Now the reason this is my favorite, is that, from a conservative point of view......they are 100% correct. However they are also 100% against the conservative point of view.

Alright let me explain. You often see Conservatives asking questions like this:

That was asked just a couple of days ago in fact, during the still ongoing confirmation hearings of Obama's attorney general.

Now liberals like to laugh at that question and just dismiss graham by calling him an idiot.....But here's the thing, Graham is 100% right.

If the Constitution allows the government to redefine marriage to allow gays to get married, why cant they rewrite it to allow multiple people to get married?

Now Loretta Lynch ducked the question, but the real answer is: the government totally could.

And this by and large is the basis of the Conservative objection to gay marriage, that if we allow the government to redefine marriage this way, their is nothing stopping them from redefining it any damn way they please.  Until one day we all wake up and we are all able to marry sheep.

Now of course, the sheep thing is taking this to the high extreme (although republicans like using it or another animal as the "end result), and a difference does eventually come into play with the idea of consent. (another area where conservatives tend to have some confusion, just see their comments on rape)

But in all fairness to Senator Graham, he only took it as far as polygamy, presumably among consenting adults. And he's got a point, when you keep it at that level. It is hard to justify gay marriage without justifying polygamist marriage.

The problem that leads to the contradiction here faced by him, and the rest of the conservative movement, is that they have never considered the opposite question.

By which I mean, they have never asked "hey how come polygamy ISNT legal?' I mean hell ask anybody to name the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the word "Mormon"  and the likely answer is going to be polygamy.

Which is weird because Mormon's are an entirely american religion, they were created HERE, unlike most other religion in this country.

So you'd think there would be a shit ton of polygamist Mormons. Which is weird because all the famous living Mormons only have one wife.  Glenn Beck, Andy Reid, Rep Jason Chaffetz, Sen Harry Reid,  Mitt Romney, Jon Heder, Orson Scott Card, Stephanie Meyers (her husbands only wife in this case), Wilford Brimley, Jon Huntsman, Sen Orrin Hatch, ect.

So what the fuck happened there? why arnt they all marrying multiple women?

well see way back in 1862 President Lincoln signed into law something called the "Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act" which basically made it illegal to marry more than one person as the Mormons had been doing.

Now this (and its successors laws further restricting marriage) was challenged in court in 1878 in a Supreme Court case called Reynolds vs United States.  Which the polygamists lost after the court ruled that marriage was not a religious right and therefore the government was totally fine declaring who could or couldnt get married.

Which means, as of 1878 the Government has had the right to legally redefine marriage whenever it wishes, and in whatever way they wish.

They did the same thing in 1967 with the court case Loving v Virginia, which ruled that it was illegal to prohibit consenting adults of different races from marrying. Now its worth noting that Loving reversed an earlier Supreme Court case (Pace v Arizona from 1883) that said prohibiting interracial marriage was fine and good.  

Actually to be honest, the Government has a long history of redefining marriage. I can find almost 2 dozen cases legalizing or illegalizing various forms of polygamist relationships alone (the most recent being 2013), And then there are the ones about interracial marriage and homosexual marriage which adds another dozen or so. And then you have cases like 1987's Turner v. Safley, which declared marriage a basic undeniable right (even to the incarcerated) adding to that count as well.

So, I've been long winded about it, but the real answer to the fear of the right wing, about what stops polygamist marriage if we legalize gay marriage is "because we say so". Thats it. There really isnt a better defense, or one that couldn't be reversed to allow polygamist marriage "because we say so" as well.

Of course the irony is that, if, we did as conservatives suggest, and got the government totally out of marriage, polygamist marriage would become de facto legal anyways.....as would gay marriage. Because we could no longer restrict it.

oops.

So to sum up, Conservatives want the government out of marriage to stop gay and polygamist marriages from being legal. However doing so would legalize gay and polygamist marriages because the only thing making them illegal is the government. Which means, conservatives would not want us to do what conservatives believe we should do to stop gay/polygamist marriage.

Which is probably why conservatives are so obsessed with the "slippery slope" on this one. Its real, there is no way out....and they were the ones who started us down it in 1862.  

The other problem for conservatives is they really dont want to push back too hard to try to stop [what they assume is] the eventual legalization of gay and polygamist marriage.

Now most religions in this country are incorporated. Its this incorporation that allows them buy and hold property, trademarks (on some of their symbols), distribute assets, set up charities ect.

Now I say most because the Mormon church is NOT incorporated. They used to be, until 1887, when they were disincorporated by the US government for failure to follow the laws on marriage. (read, they were still attempting to practice polygamy). And following the disincorperation, the US government seized the assets of the church for their own.

This disincorporation was held totally constitutional in 1890's Supreme Court case The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States. Furthermore that case stated that the Government could have taken over the "real property" of the church (read the Mormon temples) even though they had not.

Now while most of the seized assets were returned to the churches followers in 1893, after the Mormons altered their teachings to ban polygamy, the government was under no legal obligation to do so. And to this day the Mormon church still hasnt been able to reincorporate, instead its holdings are managed in a hodge-podge fashion being held in a bunch of small private subgroups of the church that the church officially cant control.  

And doing that same thing to any religion that say, refuses to marry gays or allow multiple marriages, is still legal at the governments discretion.

So now maybe you understand both the conservative paranoia about legal polygamist marriages being the next step, and why they cant stop obsession about it....their own ideology on the issue would still lead to that.

So next time you hear a conservative ask that question (or one similar), recognize it for what it is....a desperate plea for help in getting out of the corner they put themselves into in their 150+ year crusade to redefine marriage to match only their religions definitions. 

Top 10 political justifications/beliefs that are total bullshit.

Ok so this is basically a list of justifications people give for specific political beliefs that are so bad the justification doesnt even make sense, no matter if you agree with them or not. I was orginally going to rank them, but then I realized they all just fucking piss me off, so now its just an unranked list of 10.

Basically as a rule, anyone who uses one of these to justify their opinion shouldnt count. They are too damn stupid to be taken even semi seriously.

First off a double header. Two bullshit justifications with the same problem
1) I need guns to protect myself from the government/the government is coming for my guns.

Hey dipshit, if the government wants to kill you....

....you're already dead.

Ever heard of a predator drone? what about the one that "malfunctioned" and landed on your house You can own any gun you want. Still dead. Or what about the M-1 Abrams? AKA the most advanced tank in history, functionally indestructible.  You can double fist any two guns you want.....you aint making a damn dent in that. Just as two of an endless number of examples

Basically what I'm saying is at the end of the day your guns wouldnt do a damn thing if the government came to kill you. Which means they really have no reason to be interested in them.

2) Opposing abortion in the case of the life of the mother because your pro life.

Ironically enough, this one is most problematic if you accept its underlying premise, that life beings at conception and that abortion is murder.

See the whole thing about fetus' and embryo's is that basically they are parasitic. In that they can not live without the nutrients and oxygen they absorb from the host body.....AKA their mothers.

Which means if the mother dies.........they do too.

Which means two people die. As opposed to if you preform the abortion, the mother lives, the fetus doesnt, so only 1 person dies.

Now given that the supposed point of "pro life" is for fewer people to die......this is kinda awkward.

Its worse when you realize 2 things though. First, the person spewing this excuse doesnt understand the simple mathematical formula "1<2"; and Second, that mathematical fact is considered such a basic concept I couldnt find anything on the internet either teaching or mocking it.

3) "man look how unseasonly cold it is....guess that proves climate change is a hoax cause its not hot"

Yea, lets just think about this for a minute. You are saying "man its colder than it normally is" believing your disproving the point "the weather is changing"

So basically:

4) "gay marriage is a threat to my marriage"

Actually look to be fair, this one is actually completely logical in the following situation:

You secretly believe dick is delicious and that your missing out, and if we make it easier for you to get some delicious dick, AND give you the tax benefits your gonna leave your wife for it, because tax breaks was the only reason you tolerated putting in her in the first place.   

Cause yea otherwise this makes no sense at all. I mean what about swingers? You dont seem to have an objection to them, nor do you object to bisexual people, presumably because at the end of the day to get tax breaks they have had to shackle themselves to pussy just like you.

And hell you may not be huge fans of premarital sex, but I've never seen anyone suggest that my getting laid (as a single guy) would break up their marriages. Probably because I'm not getting a tax break like you are. Even if I am entertaining more than one woman (or man) at a time.

So yea since you seem to only dole out the restrictions on "teh gayz" I have to assume you'ev either never thought about this (or anything really)...........................or that your just a bigot pissed off you cant pick on the blacks and jews anymore.

5) "I dont fill out the census because I dont want the government knowing information about my home/family"

Ok so you only hear this one every 10 years, but once a decade it becomes a commonly held belief

And one that might be valid.....if they didnt already KNOW the information they are asking you for.

I mean I realize mail service is becoming obsoletem but theirs a reason why the postman knows where to deliver what little mail you have........because the government knows where you live. And they know what your house looks like, since construction and remodeling permits have to be issued by the government.  And hell they know everything about you, like say Social Security number.....since they are the ones who issued it too you

So your entire argument comes down to the government being too dysfunctional to check its own records, except that your also claiming they WOULD be able to check their own records of the census.....

Granted the only reason they ask you the questions in the first place is because they are too lazy and/or dysfunctional to check their own records.

However the part I never got was the magic exception to government dysfunctionality the Census Bureau gets, espesically as the information is gathered by temporary employees who wont work there in 3 months....in every other employer that would create MORE dysfunction not less.

6) "The president is driving up gas prices"

This is another one you hear frequently, but only at specific intervals, in this case any time a president is up for reelection.

Ok look I understand their are people who assume any president not of their party is an evil power hungry bastard.......but that's actually the problem here. If he's power hungry, he wants to stay in power.

So he's intentionally going to do something that would piss off a shit ton of people, and ensure people are less likely to vote for him to keep power?

How does this even make sense?

Ah, THATS how.......

7) "Abstinence only sex ed works" Or more specifically the thought process that leads to that belief.

Now this one is based on the bible.....which is a pretty good indicator of being justified by bullshit. But what makes this one unique is that the source material kinda calls bullshit on it itself.

Ok so the basic idea is behind this thought is that if you dont tell dudes they can stick their dicks in some chicks girls, neither they or the girl will figure out how do it. Therefore people wont have sex until marriage.

Which is kinda weird since I've been to a lot of weddings and i've never yet seen the priest or minister slip the couple a "how-to" book yet......yet somehow everyone seems to figure it out.

But then again the people who believe in Abstinence only sex education are also the ones who call sex "original sin"

Which gets us to the even bigger reason this is a total bullshit belief.

In the beginning God created Adam and Eve. And its worth noting that he created Eve expressly so Adam could have a "companion".  And at least as originally intended Adam and Eve were supposed to live out their days in the Garden of Eden with no further instructions from God.

Now according to the story Eve bit the apple and that's when everything went south. After all God finds Adam hiding in the bushes ashamed of the fact he's naked.

Now heres where it gets interesting. Because see when Eve bit the apple, this is NOT what happened.

Its' not what happened....because Adam was ALREADY naked, despite the fact that it appears nakedness is immoral. So biting the apple didnt cause "immorality" just humanity thinking such a thing existed.

At this point its worth pointing out that Adam and Eve both appear to have been created with fully functioning sex organs too. So it follows God was fully intending them to fuck each others brains out. Apparently without couching or education of any kind.

What I'm getting at is, according to the bible of the people who believe in abstinence only education, humanity came pre-programmed to fuck, and trying to stop that/assuming its bad is actually a symptom of the apple Eve ate that fucked us all over.......you know the mistake we are supposed to be avoiding making to get back into Eden......OOPS

8) "guns dont kill people. people kill people"  

So this excuse is pushed by the pro gun side of the gun control debate, and their point usually is, we dont need to regulate guns, because guns arnt inherently dangerous and have never, on their own killed anyone.

And technically I suppose they are right. I've never run into a pack of wild guns roaming the streets at night.

But now lets apply that logic elsewhere

You know what ELSE never killed anyone?

For those who dont recognize it, that is auschwitz birkenau, the worlds most infamous concentration camp.

But here's the thing.....Auschwitz never killed anybody.

And calm down I'm not denying the Holocaust or the over a Million people who died at Auschwitz.

But the thing is, all those people were killed by Nazi's.......Auschwitz just happened to be there, minding its own damn business.

Auschwitz never gassed starved, or even locked up a single person on its own. That was all PEOPLE.

Which raises an interesting question. Why did it go out of fashion to build prisons with crematoriums and gas chambers on site?  Its clearly not dangerous or indicitive of anything, or even designed for anything. They would be totally harmless, because like Auschwitz they would never kill anyone on their own.

So hell anyone who wants one should be able to build one right?

Now show of hands, how many people would think I was crazy and needed to be locked up and/or institutionalized if I actually made it for real?

If your hand is up, which I assume is ALL of you, I rest my case.

9) "I dont vote because I dont like any of the candidate"

Yea, see heres the thing. YOURE WHATS FUCKING WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY!

Apparently if someones not a 100% match with you you dont want anything to do with them.

So with that in mind, could you PLEASE let me in on your dating secret? I assume you and your significant other have never had a fight, arguement, misunderstanding, or difference of opinion. And heck I cant say that about the exes I think most highly off. Hell I  cant even say that about my wife, and I havnt even met her yet,

So apparently you can compromise your beliefs to find the person you want to fuck.....just not the person you want running things while your off fucking.

And even if you really do hate the candidate options, they still disagree with each other
For example:
Candidate 1 is promising to sodomize you if they win.
Candidate 2 is promising to sodomize you with this:

Now in this instance you would vote for Candidate 1. Not because you want to be sodomized but because if your going to be sodomized you'd rather not deal with the barbed wire.

Because hey, even if they cant have the perfect candidate, wouldnt you want the one who's position is closer to what you believe in and not farther away?

Or even hell, go vote for Candidate 3. He has no chance of winning, but at least he's anti sodomy.

I get it. People who dont vote think they are  pulling a James T. Kirk on the Kobayashi Maru and by not playing the game, they win. But  here's the thing people dont get. It's not important to a politician that you support him.....its important that you dont oppose him.

If 90% of the population opposes a politician, but 85% doesnt vote, he's likely going to win with 2/3rds of the vote.....even though thats only 10% of the population (the 10% who supported him originally)  Which means that politician will never bother to change his position, or never be removed from office because he keeps winning in landslides, all because 85% of the population couldnt be bothered to oppose him by voting for someone else they disagree with less.

Hell even if the politican still won, if the other-side but up a close fight, he's going to moderate his position, so that next time, less people will oppose him, and hopefully he wins by a more comfortable margin.

So yea, you really dont have an excuse. Go vote. Unless you truly can not see any difference in the candidate, in which case your either mentally incompetent, or Mommy and Daddy need to pay closer attention to what your looking at on-line, your too young to be reading my blog.

So yea there you have it, the top 10 most bullshit political justifications. (And if your wondering where #10is, remember #1 was a two-for-one. Or you can consider the previous sentence bullshit justification #10)

Carmageddon is coming to Virginia...

So one of the first blogs I ever wrote, I pointed out how the new pay lanes of 495 looked like they'd be a fucking disaster.

I suppose technically I was wrong. They didnt make traffic worse, but its only because people were actually smart enough to recognize a scam when they saw one, and no one is using the damn things.

It seems rather than pay an even increasing sum of money for a slightly maybe shorter commute, most people figured "fuck it,I already know how long it takes to get to work, its just not fucking worth it"

In fact according to the end of year reports, the 495 HOV lanes lost 51 MILLION dollars last year.

And that was before the silver line opened, finally allowing metro access to the same area as the express lanes. So I kinda doubt those numbers are going to get any better.

So whats the company going to do?

Well it turns out they had a plan B:

Enter the 95/395 pay express lanes.

This is the second part of the project signed into law by former Virginia Governor Bob McFelon.....sorry McDonnell.

And its the same basic idea as the 495 express lanes but more evil.

See just like the 495 lanes, the new 95 lanes charge you an ever changing rate to use by promising you a allegedly guaranteed travel speed.

Basically the way it works, quoting myself in my older blog.

"So how exactly does the company plan of enforcing its "45+ MPH guarantee"? well thats where the semi random pricing comes in. See the company is going to monitor the traffic flow and make second by second adjustments to the price. High traffic flow on either the HOV or main lanes will lead to prices to get on to the HOV to shoot up, essentially as a disincentive to keep you off of them unless you want to pay consistently inflating prices just for the privilege of driving."

So the more people on the main road, the more people are going to want to use the Express lanes. In order to keep most of those people on the main road, the price goes up, so the people rich enough to afford it can go faster.

But heres where the "more evil" part comes in.

According to the company behind both projects, one of the reasons the 495 lanes are failing is that no one is in the "habit" of driving them, because they were new, and people didnt want to spend the money if they couldnt figure out how the road works.

To that end the company has actually offered free days to try to get people to drive the lanes.
But of course since they want to make money the free days tend to be some of the least traveled days of the year, so the project has met with almost no success.

But thats a problem they wont have with the 95 lanes, because the 95 lanes have existed for years, For decades even. People are totally used to driving them because they drive them all the time.

See the 395 HOV lanes were originally built in the 1970's......at tax payer expense.

And despite the name, they are HOV lanes only 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. The other 18 hours and all of Saturday and Sunday, they are open to anyone. So many, if not all residents of the greater washington metro area are used to driving them.

Because normally 395 is 3 lanes wide on each side, but with the HOV open to all traffic that becomes a 5 lane road. So they actually do reduce traffic very well during the 18 hours a day they are open to all, and severe their stated purpose during the 6 they are restricted.

But after they reopen as toll lanes, you can say good bye to all of that. "normal 5 lane non rush hour traffic" will suddenly become "mild to heavy 3 lane non rush hour traffic"

Unless of course people are willing to suddenly pay cash to do something they have been doing their entire lives for free.  Which seems unlikely.

So most likely most of those people are going to wind up very pissed off and very stuck in much heavier than they are used to traffic.

But hey, at least some people will use these new pay lanes, since they are familiar with them right?

Actually again, probably not. Because these new lanes are confusing as fuck.

For starters, like most toll roads on the east coast, you need an EZ pass to enter this one.

Seems easy enough? but what about if you were one of the carpoolers who had previously used the HOV during Rush Hour?

Well YOU need an EZ Pass FLEX, which is a brand new kind of easy pass used no where else in the country.

But what about if your a carpooler who already happens to have the regular EZ Pass? Well you too need the new unique EZ Pass Flex, which you can exchange your EZ pass for.....for a processing fee of course.

Ah but given that its unique maybe we should explain how the EZ Pass Flex works:

Basically it has a little toggle, you toggle it one way it its a regular easy pass, you toggle it the other its a free pass and you dont get charged for the trip because your carpooling.

Well at least on the 95 express lanes. Everywhere else its an easy pass no matter the toggle.

Sounds easy right?

Yea well there's a catch. If you dont use your EZ Pass Flex in "flex mode" (read carpool mode) frequently enough, the toggle self disables, and it reverts to a regular EZ pass.......and if you try to use it, you're gonna pay....literally.

And at least as originally conceived, you were going to have to pay a monthly fee to use your EZ pass flex as a flex. You can thank current VA governor McAuliffe for getting rid of that feature though.

And that just covers getting ready to get on the road. When you actually get on the road, things dont get any simpler.

See your in the HOT (high occupancy toll road) lanes, driving along, by your self, EZ pass on, the road stretching out for miles ahead of you, and suddenly your pulled over by the police and ticketed for violating the occupancy rules. What the fuck? Arnt you paying to use the HOT lanes?

Yes.....but you may have left those behind miles ago. See the preexisting HOV lanes ran from DC itself to Dumfries,VA. The new HOT lanes, extended the Virginia end to route 610 in Stafford County, 9 miles below the current end.

However the HOT lanes only extend north to Edsall road, 2 miles north of the beltway, but 6 miles short of the city line. But the road itself keeps going unabated, it just reverts to its preexisting HOV-3 status.....so you better have 2 extra people in your car, or your'e getting that ticket.

And its not like that exit is any better marked then most of the exits from the HOT, just a single white sign annoucing HOV-3 from that point forward.

Now yes I'm aware I-66 does the same thing, becoming exclusively HOV after 495. But there is still a difference between the interchange with a major highway as 66 has, and a random exit kinda in the middle of nowhere.

Now to be fair, I should point out originally the plan was for the pay lanes to go all the way to DC....the problem was the counties of Arlington and Alexandria refused to turn over their portion of the HOV to a private company, specifically because they didnt think making them pay lanes would actually help anything.

Which is actually kinda amazing if you think about.

The former republican governor of virginia gave away (read stole) roads the tax payers had already paid for, to give to a private company, that it turns out he didnt actually have the right to give away....a fact that he appears he didnt tell the company until later.  All to avoid having to raise taxes to allow the state to build the 9 mile extension on the southern end, which to be fair was sorely needed.

Although emphasis on the "was" in that last sentence, because now they probably wont make a damn bit of difference, because the most likely outcome (if the 495 lanes are any indicator) is people wont use them.....and possibly even less people will be in a position to use them then were prior to the "creation" (conversion) of the toll road, since the whole system is designed to dissuade people from using the HOT lanes to keep the traffic flowing.

But, that whole edsall road thing isnt the only really fucking confusing part of traveling the 95 HOT lanes, and this time their isnt an excuse outside of the company trying to gouge people.

Basically, depending on where your trip takes you, you have to pay twice.

Ok so explain this, I again have to explain how things work on the 495 lanes.
Your driving along, you decided to get in the 495 HOT lanes, when you do and your EZ pass is scanned, the prices at that moment are locked in. So say your driving the whole length of the lanes, from the mixing bowl to tysons corner, but after you get in the lanes, the prices go up because traffic gets more congested.

Well lucky you, since your price was locked in when you enter the lanes, you'd still pay that lower price when you exit the HOT lanes.

Not so on the 95 HOT lanes. Instead the price could get locked in twice. Once when you enter the lanes, then once again if you happen to pass a certain point (the fairfax county parkway), so if the price happens to go up when your driving (which is highly likely during rush hour) and you drive past the Parkway.....well hope you enjoy getting charged more than you expect....sucker.


Then again, I suppose you COULD always just get off the road before then, and sit in the congested traffic.......but that kinda defeats the whole point of the express lanes in the first place.

Oh, by the way, probably worth pointing out that if you ask Transurban (the company running this thing) about the second charge, they actually wont tell you the same thing I just told you.

What they would tell you is that the second toll point is Heller Road. Which is cool and all, except their ISNT a Heller Road exit going northbound.

Because Heller Road doesnt actually intersect with 95 at all. It runs parallel to it on the South Bound side briefly, which is why it's name appears on the southbound side at the same exit as the Fairfax County Parkway, But since it never crosses 95, its not reachable from the northbound side without going on the Fairfax County Parkway first.

Which might be a problem if your a northbound driver trying to avoid the second toll and looking for the name "Heller Road"......

And actually come to think of it, they do the same thing with the end of the road at Edsall Road.....or as they call it Turkeycock Road.....or Turkeycock Creek depending on which Transurban resource youre looking at.

Which is odd, since according to google (and my own memory of driving 95 every day) their ISNT a turkeycock anything near 95. They seem to have just made the name up (I couldnt find a single thing on google linking to a turkeycock in the right place that wasnt either put out by or quoting transurban).

So yea, hopefully you know ahead of time when to get off the road, and dont actually go to the company in charge for help.......(and they wonder why no one wants to use their roads)

So yea, seeing as how the HOT lanes are just now opening for regular business, you best brace yourself, your commute is only going to get worse with more traffic on the non HOT lanes and a shit ton of confused drivers in the HOT lanes...but hey, at least rich folks will get to enjoy the road your tax dollars already paid for that you cant afford to use anymore right?

Happy driving......