02 September 2012

The Senility of Eastwood...

Apparently, this old guy, Clint Eastwood (some of you may have heard of him) gave this little speech the other day at the RNC Convention. It was unique because he was talking to, well, an empty chair that allegedly contained the spirit and soul of POTUS Obama. 

Now, when I saw this on the TV the other night, and then saw clips of it later, I thought, "Holy shit! That looked totally incoherent and rambling." Well, other people told me that they thought his speech was "Stunning!", and "Awesome!" and that Clint totally made some great points in his little talk to the chair. 

I had to go back, and look at it again to see where these "great points" were made. Of course, watching it again, and then reading the transcript, he made exactly Z-E-R-O good points, as in, none. Was it a little red meat for the party faithful? Of course it was. I just wish folks would stop extolling the virtues of his speech because to me at least, it exposes them as being really not very bright about public speaking, and or what a good speech is comprised of. I do believe, firmly, that a lot of republicans, and or conservatives loved this speech because it was an Obama bashing speech, and again, that's fine. It was totally devoid of anything resembling coherent topic, but hey, he told Obama to shut up (as he sat invisible in the chair in front of him). 

See, Eastwood had a perfectly good opportunity to come out, and tell the country why he thought the Romney/Ryan ticket was the best. He failed at that, miserably. Instead, he ended up looking like a doddering old fool who couldn't speak his way out of a paper bag.

With that in mind, I'm going to go through his speech, and pick out some points that I think need to be refuted, and or just talked about in all of their ignorant glory.

I know what you are thinking. You are thinking, what’s a movie tradesman doing out here? You know they are all left wingers out there, left of Lenin
Yeah, see, this is funny, because you know, the conservative love to think that Hollywood is super and uber liberal, and a lot of time they are pretty close to the truth on this. Sure, there are a lot of liberals in Hollywood, and when said liberals come out, and talk about politics what is the typical response from those on the right? Typically, it's something like, "That stupid commie should just stick to acting and stop talking about politics! They're awful!"

Of course, in this case, when it's Eastwood, they're more than happy to welcome them into their loving arms. And for the record, hey, I'm glad Eastwood is involved in politics. That's cool. I don't care. See the difference there? Thing is, him making cracks about the liberals in Hollywood being like Lenin, well, doesn't he have to work with those people again? Maybe.

There are a lot of conservative people, a lot of moderate people, Republicans, Democrats, in Hollywood. It is just that the conservative people by the nature of the word itself play closer to the vest. They do not go around hot dogging it
Oh, you mean like showing up to give a speech in primetime during the Republican National Convention? Is that not, umm, "hot dogging" it? This, is a great example of conservative cognitive dissonance, or the ability to hold 1 opposing idea in your head, while doing exactly what you're talking about other people doing. Like in this case. Liberals are "hot dogging" it, but, Clint is actually the one doing the alleged "hot dogging".

I saw Jon Voight, a lot of people around.
I am pretty sure you don't want to talk about Voight in regards to conservatives from Hollywood. Dude is a class A kook in terms of being conservative, but then again, that's what a lot of the party faithful love and embrace, but to objective people looking in from the outside, Voight, has lots his marbles.

Everybody is trying, Oprah was crying. 
Now, these guys LOVE to talk about Oprah crying on election night. Thing is, they never stop and wonder WHY she was crying? Maybe it was the whole historical moment that within 50 years of a community going from not being able to legally vote, to holding the highest office in the land? Yeah, that might just have something to do with it. But hey, it's always easier to make fun of Oprah crying, even though she could buy and sell 20 times over, and which is their typical yardstick to measure success by. But since she's a democrat, they scorn her for being, well, happy.
I was even crying. And then finally — and I haven’t cried that hard since I found out that there is 23 million unemployed people in this country.
Above is Clint's first lie. There are not 23 million people unemployed in this country. This isn't even close to the truth. As a matter of fact, there are almost half of the number unemployed as what Clint said in his little speech. There are 12.8 million people unemployed. As according to the BLS. Like Clint's political leaders, he can't help himself but to lie about what is really going on in order to attempt to make the current POTUS look bad.
Now that is something to cry for because that is a disgrace, a national disgrace, and we haven’t done enough, obviously — this administration hasn’t done enough to cure that. Whenever interest they have is not strong enough, and I think possibly now it may be time for somebody else to come along and solve the problem.
How does Mitt and Paul want to solve the problem? Yep, they want to go directly back to the policies and economic policy that got us to this place before. They want to go back to POTUS W Bush's economic dream state where more tax cuts for super rich people will equal more jobs. Well, it has been almost 11 years now since the Bush tax cuts were put into place, and employment is still not great. I think we can say, without a doubt, more tax cuts are not the answer. Also, the want to bring back the de-regulation that almost destroyed the world economy. One thing I know for sure is that if Romney/Ryan are elected, and implement the policies that they want, our unemployment will skyrocket well above 10%.
Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo. And I thought, well closing Gitmo — why close that, we spent so much money on it.
We may have spent so much money on it, but do you know why it would have been good to close it? Simply for the fact of appearances. Gitmo, in the greater realm of the world, has become synonymous with American overreach. American arrogance. And American torture. Yeah, I can't imagine why it would have been a good thing to close that Gulag in Cuba.
OK, I thought maybe it was just because somebody had the stupid idea of trying terrorists in downtown New York City.
This has been a talking point for a long time. Why is this a stupid idea? Why not try them in NY, or other American cities instead of in kangaroo military tribunals where the suspects really have no chance to hear the evidence against them, or provide for their own defense. This is still America right? Our justice system is allegedly, the best in the world, but conservatives like Eastwood don't think we should use it. This is another thing conservatives are afraid of. We can't try terrorists in NYC! Imagine the terrorist attacks that would take place! They're dreaming. They're morons. Let's prove our legal system is the best. Try them. Convict them. And then send their asses to Hell while inserting a needle into their arm.
I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK. You know, I mean — you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did it — they did there for 10 years
I am pretty sure Clint forgot who took us to those places in the first place. That would be your guy, POTUS Bush. I will agree, I thought Afghanistan was the right choice. I still think it's the right choice. But Clint, old buddy, you missed an almost 8 year span of POTUS Bush's terms.
But we did it, and it is something to be thought about, and I think that, when we get to maybe — I think you’ve mentioned something about having a target date for bringing everybody home. You gave that target date, and I think Mr. Romney asked the only sensible question, you know, he says, “Why are you giving the date out now? Why don’t you just bring them home tomorrow morning?”
There are myriad reasons as to why we can't just bring them home tomorrow. You should probably stick to playing military personnel, because in this case, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I'd say he isn't bringing them home tomorrow because, the country is still not stable, PLUS, I'm pretty sure the guys running the war, the Generals, Admirals, and other General Officers in the military said, "We can't just pull out." And even if Obama did, you assholes would be up there talking about how he cut and ran from the enemy. Don't even act like you wouldn't. If we had withdrawn from AFG right after Obama was elected, you assholes would be talking about what a wimp Obama was.
See, I never thought it was a good idea for attorneys to the president, anyway.
Phew! This, is awesome. Because, what degree did Romney get at Harvard along with his MBA? Yeah, a LAW DEGREE. You can't possibly be this stupid. Can you?
I think attorneys are so busy — you know they’re always taught to argue everything, and always weight everything — weigh both sides...
It makes me LAUGH that, for some reason, assholes like Clint think that taking your time making decisions, weighing evidence, is a BAD thing? Amazing...
And I think it’s that time. And I think if you just step aside and Mr. Romney can kind of take over. You can maybe still use a plane. Though maybe a smaller one. Not that big gas guzzler you are going around to colleges and talking about student loans and stuff like that.
Here is another oft repeated republican talking point. Obama has the AUDACITY to use AF-1 to, you know, fly around the country and the world. Apparently, he's not supposed to do that because he believes in trying to ecologically sound, and because, let's face it, it's expensive to operate that plane. It's a fucking ridiculous though. The POTUS shouldn't use AF-1. What do they want him to do? Fly commercial? Coach? Fucking morons.

I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we — we own this country. We — we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours. 
And here, is where we really get into it. Clint, and the rest of the republican party believe that indeed, they own this country. He's not talking about bi-partisan ownership here. They really believe THEY own this country. And when you're talking to a bunch of old white people that are in the room, well, that story kind of writes itself. And also, doesn't this sort of implode the whole, "I built this!" mantra that was repeated time and time again last week at the RNC? Instead, Clint here is embracing the "WE". We in this case though means republicans and conservatives. There is no space for us liberals.

Now, going through his whole speech, where are the "good points" in it again?

There aren't any. And I will say, in speeches like this, there seldom are, but normally, they're presented a lot better, and not by a cranky old white guy who would get you off of his lawn with a garden hose, or in Eastwood's case, a .44 Magnum (which, by the way, is NOT the most powerful handgun in the world - just another conservative lie).

Full transcript and video of Clint Eastwood's speech.

19 February 2012

Obama Agenda Not Based on Bible - Says Rick Santorum

Hey, Ricky. I should hope that Obama's agenda ISN'T based on the Bible. Why? Because we, here in America follow a secular founding document called The Constitution. I suggest that maybe, just maybe, you read it. You and your fellow republicans and Tea Party followers fetishize The Constitution, but methinks you guys have no idea what is really IN the document itself. And this is where you get yourself into trouble.

What this is really about of course is the fact that Santorum hasn't got anything of substance to run on. His ideas and policy positions are so out of whack, and so far from what the mainstream in America believe he has not chance in a general election against Obama. Heck, not even just against Obama, Biden would probably beat him in a general election. This is a man, who, not too long ago lost his own re-election bid in his home state by over 15 points. No matter what world you're from, that is an ass beating. Just remember though, Santorum is now barely leading Mitt Romney in polling in regards to who will be the nominee for the republican party to go against President Obama. None of them really have a chance, especially when Obama is going to mop the floor with whoever they put up against him in a debate. But I digress.

What I think this is also about is that the republicans, since before Obama took office, have been trying to paint him as something other than, American. Other than Christian. They are trying to paint him as a foreigner, I mean, look at that name. Barack HUSSEIN Obama (never mind of course that Hussein is one of the most popular names in the Islamic world). They desperately want him to be not from here. Not an American. This led to the whole birther bullshit that went on, and actually, is STILL going on. 

The quote from the article linked above that I most "like" from Santorum is this:

"A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using "political science" in the debate about climate change."

Actually, Obama is using real science in the debate about global climate change. Republicans are the ones using rhetoric of belief to describe what is really going. Such as, they believe global climate change doesn't exist, so, they deny that it is happening, contrary to ALL of the evidence (and there is a lot of it) to the contrary. They stand so firm and fixed to their belief system that even when their ideas are dis proven, they still grasp to them and hold tight, instead of re-evaluating, and maybe seeing what is really going on. Of course, global climate change is all a hoax foisted upon the people of the world by that horrible Al Gore, so that's why they really hate it. If Obama came out tomorrow, and said that global climate change was a hoax and that there was no science to back it up, I predict the republicans would flip just to be opposite of our President. Maybe he ought to do that, and then we can get some changes rolling.

This other thing, the stupid about how the President (whoever he is) can control gas prices is bullshit too. For people who profess to love the free market and capitalism they don't seem to know how it works too well. Same as their Constitutional knowledge. They love it, but they don't know what is going on within it.

Let me break it down simply. The world oil market is controlled by the oil and gas producers. Not the United States President. OPEC has a pretty big say about it. When demand goes DOWN, the speculators and or oil producers make adjustments, and the prices of their products go UP. When demand goes up, prices go down. It's pretty simple really. And with the more recent advent of higher gas prices (over the last 4-5 years) I suspect the fact that a lot of people are buying more fuel efficient vehicles, and are using LESS gas contributes greatly to the higher gas prices that we're experiencing. Which I think is actually OK. Why? Mostly because compared to the rest of the world, our gas prices are still incredibly low. Higher prices encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, use more public transportation, and or find alternate means of transportation to and from work, like riding a bicycle (which is something I really need to do, and practice what I preach). 

Look, Rick, in summary, just keep your stupid ideas about religion out of my Government. I would appreciate it. Plus, it's un-Constitutional. 


22 January 2012

It has been awhile, and now, it's campaign season...

"To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine,"

Newt Gingrich, at the republican primary debate on 19 Jan 12 in South Carolina.

Sorry that this story made it inconvenient for you Newt. See, here is how it works. The press gets a story, in this case, an interview with your ex wife, who, let’s not forget, you were cheating on for a LONG time, and broadcasts it. We knew you were a scumbag cheating adulterer before, this interview just sort of reinforced it really. Of course, the audience applauded and cheered, because they believe the Mainstream Media (who we’ll call the MSM from now on) unfairly maligned your “good” reputation and or standing in the community. Which, of course, is laughable, because once again, you were cheating on your second wife with the woman you’re married to now. For 6 years. Is it really that much of a reach that you’d want an open marriage? Not likely.

This was a big story when this interview came out. Did you expect the panel who were lobbing questions at you guys to just, you know, ignore what she said? Remember, you’re a member of the Republican party. The party that tells us they are the MORAL party, the party who are religious and the more moral between the 2 parties. Of course they were going to ask the question. To think otherwise is ridiculous. You could have played this one better of course, answered the question, without the snotty attitude, but then again, the republican base LOVES that because they’ve been told for many years that the MSM just maligns republicans. If a former wife of a democrat had done this, they would have totally ignored the story. Except for, of course, that they don’t. The media loves a scandal, they don’t much care who it is. And let’s remember, what your wife said, wasn’t, or isn’t even a scandal, she’s just detailing bits and pieces of your life together.

Another quote from Newt last night, "I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama." Are you really going to go down THAT road Newt? Really? Let’s just run down a few things that YOU’VE said about President Obama while you were a member of said Elite Media, when you were working for FoxNews. Here we go…

“The president of the United States, the most radical president in American history, has now thrown down the gauntlet to the American people. He has said, "I run a machine, I own Washington, and there's nothing you can do about it." Now, that's where we are”. C-SPAN, 4/8/10
Of course, the above quote is a familiar refrain from anyone who has listened to what Newt has been saying since he started his campaign. He likes to say that Obama is the MOST radical President. EVER! Of course, any objective review of his record as POTUS would reveal that not only is Obama NOT radical, but he’s probably more in line with President Bush’s political ideology. Definitely in the realm of the military and foreign policy. Little has changed since Mr. Bush left office, and Mr. Obama took over in terms of the wars we’re waging, and the expenditures on the Armed Forces. And, Mr. Obama, as he said during the campaign in 2008, has increased the amount of military personnel in Afghanistan and stepped up drone attacks inside of Pakistan, which is even more traditionally right wing than what President Bush did whilst in office. Radical Newt? No, not really. Not even close. He’s slightly left of President Bush, and slightly right of Clinton in his first term in office. What you said above, about him being a “radical” is just flat out wrong, and a lie, and you know it. Where was your outrage of the media falsely claiming something here? Oh, that’s right, you were part of the media then, and you were attacking Obama, so that is OK. Attacking with falsehoods that is.

This one below is from the National Review from 11 Sep 2010:

“Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D'Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a "Kenyan, anti-colonial" worldview. What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?"
Newt. What does this even mean? I’ve heard the charge thrown about that Obama is some sort of anti colonial Kenyan something or other because his father was. First, do you know who else was anti colonial? Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and so on. Yeah, our Founding Fathers. If they had NOT been anti colonial (as we all know, against the British, just like the Kenyans were) we’d be drinking tea and hailing the Queen. Kenya was anti colonial because they wanted to be free from the loving embrace of Great Britain. Why do you have a problem with freedom Newt? Seriously. Also, to suggest that Obama had any sort of influence from his father is ridiculous. Why you might ask? Mostly because, the man never really knew his father. Sure, he spent a couple of weeks with him, once, but that was about it. How much influence does a father have on a son when said father is not around? I reckon, not a whole lot. See, what Newt was trying to do here, was trying to introduce Obama’s “other-ness” into the conversation. As in, Obama is NOT one of us! His father was Kenyan! He’s got a weird sounding name, and Hussein is his middle name! Quick! Panic!

Here is a great one from the O’Reilly Factor on 14 November 2008.

“Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.”
Oh Newt. Here is what this boils down to. Gay people in this country just want the same rights that everyone else in this country has. That’s it. They don’t want anything more, and they certainly don’t want anything less. They want the SAME rights. Hear that? They’re not a threat to religion, as a lot of gay people are also believers in Christianity and other religions. They just want the same exact rights that you have. That’s it. As far as secularism goes, do you know who else thought that was a pretty good idea? The guys who wrote the Constitution. The laws of this country are not supposed to be religious, or based on religion. What violence are you talking about? Gay people glitter bombing you and your fellow bigots? Yeah, that’s a real attack on you. I am a secular person Newt. I, am an Atheist. I don’t want to impose my views on you in that regard, I don’t begrudge anyone their religion, they’re free to do as they choose. What we do constantly see though is the Christian Theocracy in this country really actively trying to ram religion down our throats. From trying to get prayer back into public schools, to the stupid thing about Intelligent Design which is creationism with a shiny coating on it, to not allowing gay marriage, to not allowing a woman to choose what to do with her own body, and so on. The only people in America actively trying to force their ideas on other people are Christians. OK, maybe not the ONLY, but they are definitely the most vocal, and the most public about it.

Let’s just bask in the glow of a bunch of Newt quotes to end this off.

"The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did."

“This is not about the right. First of all, there are over a hundred mosques in New York City. So people have the right to free religion if they want it. I've said it openly: If they want to build this mosque in the South Bronx, I'm all for it. Governor Patterson has offered them state land -- which interestingly, I don't know of any state that's offered a church or synagogue free land. But he's trying to solve the problem by getting them away from the site.

The folks who want to build this mosque, who are really radical islamists who want to triumphally prove that they can build a mosque right next to a place where 3,000 Americans were killed by radical Islamists. Those folks don't have any interest in reaching out to the community. They're trying to make a case about supremacy. That's why they won't go anywhere else, that's why they won't accept any other offer. And I think we ought to be honest about the fact that we have a right -- and this happens all the time in America. You know, Nazis don't have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There's no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center. Fox News, Fox & Friends, 8/16/10

(Remember, of the above quote, the people who want to build this community center – it’s not a Mosque – condemned the 9/11 attacks repeatedly as being atrocious, and the group is NOT a radical Islamic group.)

"The government should quit mandating that various documents be printed in any one of 700 languages depending on who randomly shows up" to vote, Gingrich said. The former Georgia congressman, who is considering seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, made the comments in a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women.

"The American people believe English should be the official language of the government. . . . We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto," Gingrich said, drawing cheers from the crowd of more than 100.

"Citizenship requires passing a test on American history in English. If that's true, then we do not have to create ballots in any language except English," he said. AP 1 April 2007.

So, why did I write this and collect the Newt quotes? Well, mostly because Newt keeps attacking the media saying that they are attacking him every chance they get because they’re liberal. Newt, these few select quotes I put up here are you, working in the media, attacking Obama and democrats with outright falsehoods and lies. The thing that got your underwear in a wad was that your wife detailed things that went on between you and her. Are they true? Based on your past behaviors, I actually have no doubt. Stop attacking the media Newt, you’ve done a lot worse things in the media than ABC did with the interview with your ex wife.

Oh, and guess what else? Politics is kind of a blood sport. You know this. It’s just that everytime you get hit, you cry, whine, complain, and then want to take your ball and go home. Doesn’t work like that Super Chief, unless of course you want to just quit, which I suggest you do, because you’ll never beat Obama in an election.


03 October 2010

Damn, it's been awhile...

Looking at the last time I posted something on here, it was February. Needless to say, I'm wayyyy off the pace. Ah well, fuck it. Life happens sometimes. Quick updates. I now live permanently in Alexandria, VA. Yep, I'm now a Virginian instead of a North Carolinian. We sold our house in Asheville, NC, a place I was sad not to spend more time in. But hey, job is a job, or well, this job is a much better job than the last job that's for sure. That's about it though.

Anyway, reason I'm writing today is to point out THIS GUY. This dude needs to get fired from his job, and fast if you ask me. Why? Let me explain.

Here is a grown ass man, protesting a college student who is student body President at the University of Michigan. Really? Honestly? Sir, you don't have anything else better to do with your time than to protest a college kid who, in reality, holds very little sway and or power in his elected position at a University that you went to? You sir, are an assistant attorney general for the State of Michigan. I'm pretty sure you've got some cases to work on. Also, don't you thin this might look, well, a little bad for your office, and your State in general? Of course you don't. Why? Because your bigotry knows no bounds. That's why. How are you supposed to represent the State of Michigan, and her citizens without prejudice if, well, you're highly and publicly prejudiced against at least one type of citizen from Michigan. Yes, I'm talking about teh gays.

From the story linked about,
Earlier this week, Attorney General Mike Cox defended his assistant's constitutional right to wage the internet campaign against Chris Armstrong, even though he said he considers Shirvell a "bully."
So let me get this straight Mr. Cox. If you think he's a bully, fire his ass. Why? Because, he's a bully. This doesn't have one thing to do with his first amendment rights. Nobody is taking his blog away from him. Nobody is passing a law saying he can't say the repugnant things that he's saying, and doing (protesting in front of the student's house). He's just a class A douchebag, and doesn't represent the State of Michigan very well.

Another quote from AG Mike Cox
"Here in America, we have this thing called the First Amendment, which allows people to express what they think and engage in political and social speech," Cox told Anderson Cooper on CNN's "AC 360" on Wednesday night. "He's clearly a bully ... but is that protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution? Yes."
Yes sir, it is protected under the 1st, but his employment is not protected under the 1st amendment that's for sure. On another note, someone should probably fire Mike Cox for allowing this to go on as well. As soon as Mr. Cox heard about it, this guy should have been tossed into the street. No, I'm not worried about him finding employment again. Why? Oh, he'll go and work for some hard core right wing Christian Taliban legal group, yelling and screaming about how teh gays are messing up the country (without one shred of proof of course), and how we shouldn't allow them to get married, or maybe even kiss in public, because, you know, that's yucky. Oh, I'm sure he'll find another job right quick. Maybe with Focus on the Family, or some other somewhat militant Christian worldview organization.

"Mr. [Andrew] Shirvell is sort of a frontline grunt assistant prosecutor in my office," Cox said. "He does satisfactory work and off-hours, he's free to engage under both our civil service rules, Michigan Supreme Court rulings and the United States Supreme Court rule."
This might be true, but... Isn't it also true that for a lot of places where people work (myself included), you CAN get fired for any number of reasons. Like maybe testing positive for drugs. You do those things in your own free time, and yet can get the heave and the ho for that. I know that in NC, school teachers who act inappropriately during off work hours can get fired as well. Why? For not representing their school systems in a graceful manner. Why isn't it the same for the AG's office of Michigan. Do you guys WANT this clown representing you in court? What if he had to prosecute a hate crime against someone who beat and killed a gay man? I'm pretty sure, that he would not give a case such as that his full attention and time.

On "AC 360" on Tuesday, Shirvell made no apologies for his blog postings, which include a picture of Armstrong with "Resign" written over his face. The same picture also had a swastika superimposed over a gay pride flag, with an arrow pointing toward Armstrong.
And really, here is where the real stupid starts (not that the other stuff wasn't stupid, but this takes the cake). Maybe Mr. Shirvell should go back to school somewhere, and study, you know, history. He superimposed a swastika over a gay pride flag. This, doesn't even make sense? Why? Umm, for Mr. Shirvelli's education, Nazis KILLED possibly millions of people as part of the Holocaust. Why? Because they were G-A-Y. This guy sounds like just another tea bagger with no idea about what really happened in history.

"I'm a Christian citizen exercising my First Amendment rights," Shirvell told Cooper. "I have no problem with the fact that Chris is a homosexual. I have a problem with the fact that he's advancing a radical homosexual agenda."

You may be asking yourself, what is the radical homosexual agenda that this student body President has been pushing that is going to destroy the University of Michigan?

Armstrong has supported gender-neutral housing at the university for transgender students who haven't had sexual reassignment surgery.
Yeah, I mean, it's not as if those group of folks don't get singled out or anything.

Also, according to Mr. Shirvell,
...engaging in "flagrant sexual promiscuity" with another male member of the student government; sexually seducing and influencing "a previously conservative [male] student" so much so that the student, according to Shirvell, "morphed into a proponent of the radical homosexual agenda;" hosting a gay orgy in his dorm room in October 2009; and trying to recruit incoming first-year students "to join the homosexual 'lifestyle.' "
Oh noes! Flagrant sexual promiscuity probably equaled making out with his boyfriend somewhere in public. Again, if he weren't gay, this jackass would have no problem with I'm guessing. If the other guy was enjoying it, it's not an illegal act. And he "converted" a student to teh gay radical lifestyle? Really? I'm pretty sure you can't be "converted" to gay. And wait a minute. I thought you said you didn't have a problem with him being gay? Because according to the quotes you provided above Mr. Shirvell, you DO have a large problem with him being gay. You don't want him flaunting his sexuality. You don't want him maybe encouraging another member of the gay community to come out of the closet and embrace who he is. And of course, no gay orgies in his dorm room (again not illegal), because things like that are only allowed in Republican circles possibly.

This section of the article at the end is probably my favorite,
Armstrong told CNN he has hired an attorney and is pursuing legal action against Shirvell.
Mr. Armstrong, I don't know you, but take this asshole to the cleaners, and make him pay for smearing and degrading you in public. I can only hope that Mr. Shirvell ends up broke, and out of work, due to his rampant bigotry against you.

Labels: ,

07 February 2010

Winter training set up...

Snow everywhereYo, when it looks like this (see to the left) outside, it's time to ride the trainer damn it all. I hate the trainer. I loathe the trainer. I'd rather do nothing than ride the trainer, but since I have been doing nothing for like a month (or more), and the snow is piled up outside, and I don't have anything else to do, I might as well ride the accursed trainer. I already did my laundry for the travel I have coming up this week (Lansing, MI, and then Burlington, VT), I've already cleaned my bathroom. I suppose, I could always watch a million hours of Super Bowl pre-game, but that will only interest me for so long. So, again, trainer ride.

Winter trainingHere is the trainer set up right now, as it stands, in my tiny bedroom. Not optimal, but I've got the TV in front of me, iPod close by, and if I get really tired, I can hop off the bike, and jump into bed. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather ride outside, but currently, I've got no knobby tired bikes in DC with me, and to ride the road bike out in the crap out there right now, that would be, well, bad isn't the word for it. I'm sure there would be pain and suffering, and NOT the good kind. Continuing on the cycling path of things, I was sorry to see that Franco Ballerini died in a car crash in a rally where he was navigating for the driver. Gone too soon I think. He won some races himself, and then coached the Italian team, and sometimes even got them to stop fighting amongst themselves, in order to pull in a few world championships and not to mention, a gold medal from Bettini in Athens. He had a good career on the bike, and off. I'm sure he'll be missed. I'll leave you all with this little snippet of the 1994 Roubaix with Ballerini throwing it down...

Ballerini throwing down in PR.

Labels: , , ,

31 January 2010

Another one bites it...

ZirbelZirbel's B sample also positive from Velonews. com. Oops, looks like someone tested positive 2 times now, and will be banned for a couple of years. Say goodbye to the career you never really had doper. Don't let the proverbial door hit you in the arse on the way out. Seems as though, he has read the excuse list though, because just like everyone else who has ever gotten busted (well, almost everyone), he's got several excuses, all of which are 99.9% lies. Sure there is a small, very small, almost miniscule chance he's telling the truth, but those chances are not very good. I think it goes back to the old slim and none, and instead of slim just leaving town, slim and none both RAN outta town. Anyone have the over and under on how many doping positives we'll get this year during the race season once it gets cranked up? How many more times will Boonen get busted for recreational drugs? He does seem to like to snort the powder. My wife has officially jumped off of the Boonen fan wagon, after she found out he was dating a 16 year old girl (well, she's probably 18 or so now I guess, or getting close to that age). Now, she finds him creepy. She's moved over to liking Cavendish, or Millar. She has a thing for pale lanky Englishmen. How she ended up with me (swarthy, dark, hairy, Frenchman) I'll never really know, but I'm not going to question it. She pretty much rocks my world.

Anyway, regardless of doping going on, I'm still pretty psyched for the real season to start. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, spring classics are where it's at. This is where the hard men (or the best dopers) come into their own. I think I read somewhere the Lancey-poo is going to be riding the Classics this year, which makes me like him, just a little bit. I know, another Lance hater. Don't get me wrong. I completely respect what he's done on the bike, and I respect what he's done off the bike (Livestrong and cancer stuff and things like that), it still doesn't make me a fan of him though. That's all I will say about that for now. But, get out there like you did in the old days Lance, and get in the mud, it'll be good for you. Ride some cobbles. Taste some cow shit from the roads in Belgium. It's going to be another great Spring season.

VosCross Worlds happened this weekend. And I'm disappointed and sad for one Katie Compton, who had cramp issues this weekend, and didn't finish the race. I feel sad, because she's is one fucking super fast woman out there, and she's not yet gotten her World Championship, and this year, she was on FIRE. Vos won, again, which doesn't surprise me, because after Compton, she's got the goods as well. Here is hoping that Katie can figure out her leg cramping issues, and come back again next year, and put the smack down on the women 'crossers of the world. Maybe she needs to pull a "Page" and just pack up camp, and just stay in Europe from late August until World Championships, because it does appear that her cramping issues come up with lots of travel. She doesn't need to come back to the US to ride National Championships, she's already proven, time and again, that she can kick the shit out of the women's fields here (most of the time) without really trying. Stay in Europe Katie, and bring home the rainbow jersey. What I hope she doesn't do though, is give up, because she seems to be getting stronger every single year (when she's not cramping). Good luck Katie, here's hoping you come back stronger next year, and kick the ass that most of us know that you can.

Labels: ,

17 January 2010

Team Sky cracking the whip early...

Bike racing season has just started, and already, Team Sky are cracking the whip. Seems as though Greg Henderson took a win in the warm up the Tour Down Under at the Cancer Council Helpline Classic in Australia. Not too shabby, actually, they went 1-2 in the finale with Henderson's last lead out man taking second, over the guy Henderson was hired to help out last year, Andre Greipel. Talk about sweet revenge/irony, or whatever it is you want to call it. True enough, Henderson did not win over Cavendish, who is still the best sprinter out there in my opinion, but, this bodes well for the young Team Sky, and will keep their "made a deal with the Devil" owner Rupert Murdoch happy at least for a little while. Now, I'm not going to hold Sky accountable, just because they're owned by a raging maniacal egomaniac, just pointing out that they're owned by such a man. Or is it his son? Anyway, what it boils down to, is Murdoch is in the driver's seat. Also what it boils down to, they had a good opening race of the 2010 season.

Now the other thing I found amazing about this race, was the size of the crowds. I mean, seriously, check this picture out. We're seeing 3, 4, 5, and sometimes 6 deep out there to basically watch a parking lot crit. Fucking awesome really. Then again, the Australians seem to have a better sense of these things anyway, and or, are more into it. Oh, and Lance was there too, always a big crowd draw, no matter how you feel about him. He brings it. Same for his silly "little" tweet ride the other day. 6000 people showed up? Again, amazing the drawing ability that guy has. Would I have gone and done a ride like that? Hells yeah! When would be the next time you could ride along with 6000 people (clusterfuck no doubt) with a full police escort an closed roads? For many of us, that time would be never. I'm sure, like with all other large scale rides of this nature, there was shredded skin, and carnage on the roadways, but this is the price we pay.

Anyway, all of this early season shit only gets me more excited for the main event. Yeah, you guys know what I'm talking about. Flanders - GW - and then PR in April. For me, there is no finer time of the year. The smell of mud and dog shit is in the air from everything thawing out from its winter freeze. Cobbles are hammered over. Belgians are drunk off of their asses at 0800 on a Sunday morning. Frites are being consumed in mass quantities. There isn't any better time of the year for bike racing, and for those of you who think that there is, you're fucking absolutely wrong. Just accept it. Those 3 Spring Classics (and 1 semi classic) are what it's all about folks. OK, I'll throw in LBL as well, but that week of racing can't be beat. I'm definitely going over there for vacation some year, just to take it all in.

Anyway, it's mid January, let the racing begin. Seems as if it were just a couple of days again when he harkened the end of the race season with Lombardy. Time to crank it up again on the roads.