Miller, Tiller, and Price: 3 old white guys walk into a bar

Breaking: comedian, Larry Miller, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and as-of-now Former HHS Secretary Tom Price are apparently different people.

In related news: the first guy in the picture is Tom Price has resigned. I know you don’t care, and you have no reason to, so here are the quick hits:

HHS Secretary is the leader of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Tom Price was the guy in charge. He was an advocate for doctors.

He got hassled in the press over flying in private jets at taxpayers expense even though he claimed he was reimbursing tax payers for those flights. So he resigned because of all the bad publicity – and yes, he reimbursed the United States Treasury for his private flights, like he said.

Here he is performing his famous “Five Levels of Drinking” bit on stage in the 90s:

*Addendum: it’s been brought to my attention that this might be Tillerson in the above comic routine. Standby for further research.

Update: Interesting observation – Every time the President focuses on policy, that Cabinet secretary disappears.

The Protestors Who Brought Down Boston Interstate Are Predictably, Hippie Losers

Earlier this month a bunch of dumb hippies who have been both ingesting and perpetuating the brainwash that pushes victimhood mentality on dark skinned racial minorities decided that it was about time they did something about race relations between white police officers and people with dark skin so of course they chained themselves to barrels to block traffic on the interstate.

The sarcasm in the “of course” part in that sentence speaks both to the illogic bizarreness of the act and the completely routine and cliche predictableness of hippie protest, which is not so much to argue a point or raise awareness in any kind of constructive manner but rather is to throw a tantrum for attention so the participants feel good about themselves. Tools.

Protesters who said they were trying to call attention to racial oppression blocked traffic on Interstate 93 north and south of Boston Thursday morning. The actions surprised police, snarled the commute for thousands, and forced the diversion of an ambulance rushing a car crash victim to a Boston hospital, State Police said.

The narcissistic tantrum accomplished nothing but the addition of more negativity to people in the areas days but as is the case with all stunts like this, could have gone much worse as it blocked the path of not only innocent civilians commuting and generally trying to just go about their day but also an ambulance trying to save a mans life.

An ambulance carrying a car crash victim with life-threatening injuries had to be diverted Thursday morning because of protests that shut down parts of Interstate 93, officials said.

Self absorbed, non-productive, annoying, destructive, and accomplishes nothing. 

Could these people be any more cliche? Turns out the answer is yes… They could be dirty looking dreaded white dudes who still live with their enabler parents…

To cleanse the palate, via Joel Pollak, nothing says “blocking ambulances for social justice” like white-guy dreads. This makes twice in the span of four days that our worst stereotypes about liberals were magically vindicated, the other being John Kerry rolling out his favorite hippie troubadour to serenade France with an apology on Friday. As with celebrity deaths, these things tend to happen in threes, which makes me wonder what sort of show Obama might be preparing to put on for us tomorrow night during the SOTU. Maybe he’ll use the speech to dump on “American Sniper”? That’s the bleeding edge of left-wing hot takes at this particular moment.

Poll Dancing: with 6 months to go, Romney leads Obama but there’s a “But…”

The latest Gallup Tracking Poll looks like my ex-girlfriends legs after one fourth of one beer:

Obama Romney; Romney Lead
15-Apr 45 47 2
16-Apr 43 48 5

Pew polls also confirm that as of now at least, it’s down to the wire.

As the general election campaign gets underway, Obama’s slim 49% to 45% edge over Mitt Romney is based on his continued support among women, college graduates, blacks, Latinos and lower-income voters. Obama leads Romney by 13 points among women, which is identical to his victory margin over McCain among women four years ago, according to National Election Pool exit polls. Men, who split their vote between Obama (49%) and McCain (48%), are leaning slightly toward Romney today, by a 50% to 44% margin…

Obama has lost support among several groups: Obama carried the independent vote by a margin of 52% to 44% in 2008. Today, 42% of independents favor him, while 48% back Romney. Obama also is faring worse among lower-income voters and those with less education than he did in 2008.

The problem here that it seems no one but me is either aware of or willing to talk about is the racial minority vote and the emotional appeals the Obama campaign uses to drive that voter turnout. Sorry, but a majority of Barack Obama’s appeal as a politician is race-based and that shiz translates to votes. Romney can counter if, and only if he puts the brakes on that appeal by choosing a non-white-male running mate. My pick is son-of-Cuban immigrants, Florida Senator Marco Rubio but there are plenty of acceptable options. This is an issue of marketing and optics. The point is not that the Repbulicans should play the same bogus identity-politics game that the Democrats are but rather merely to slow the dishonest attacks on their own brand. In other words: the strategy in my plan is not to try and get Republican votes by making people say of someone on the voting ticket “they are just like me regarding ethnic or racial makeup and I would like to have what I ignorantly feel is ‘one of my own’ in positions of power” in the way that skyrocketed black votes for Obama in 2008 to 96% which became 13% of the voting electorate (and my pick of Rubio should be evidence of that, since Cuban Americans are already solid Republican voting blocks and have little to no ethnic identity crossover appeal to Blacks or other Latino segments) – but rather its merely to debunk that very notion. Obama is going to try to win not by ideas and arguments and honest appraisals of Republican policies and how they may or may not benefit society – he’s going to try to win with smearing his opponents as elitists that don’t understand or care about the struggle of the underclass, which is to many minority voters, a dog whistle for “the other side is racist and you can’t trust them”. Romney can’t merely rely on his life history of helping those in need to end the effectiveness of those attacks. He needs a running mate that can show the key demographic of voters (of all races and ethnicities) that don’t follow the specifics of politics and aren’t terribly informed on policy, that he and his party are not the stuffy white-guys coming in to take down the first half-black President of the nation and, unfortunately, the only way to earn the listenership of that demographic is to match the optics of the opponent in some way and then make the argument from there. The argument will be made regardless, obviously, but if that argument comes from 2 white guys against a half-black guy and old white guy, the team with the half-black guy will get enough votes from non-politic followers across the board and especially in racial minority demographics and it will be enough to tip the election.

Romney is halfway there…

Obama trails Romney by a wide margin among white voters (54% Romney, 39% Obama), though that is little changed from 2008. But Obama has lost ground among certain groups of white voters. In 2008, whites with household incomes under $50,000 favored McCain over Obama by a slim 51% to 47% margin. Today, lower-income whites favor Romney over Obama by a 16-point margin (54% to 38%).

To sow up a victory in November, it all hinges on this decision.

NY Times wants to remind you that Andy Rooney said controversial things about Race

This NY Times Obit-type article on Andy Rooney today by Richard Severo and Peter Keepnews seemed wildly inappropriate to me for dwelling on “controversial” things he said that people got pissy about.

Time magazine once called him “the most felicitous nonfiction writer in television.” But Mr. Rooney was decidedly not everyone’s cup of tea.

The New York Times columnist Anna Quindlen, for example, took strong issue with Mr. Rooney’s dismissive comments after Kurt Cobain of the band Nirvana committed suicide in 1994. It was not surprising, she wrote, that Mr. Rooney “brought to the issue of youthful despair a mixture of sarcasm and contempt,” but it was “worth noting because in 1994 that sort of attitude is as dated and foolish as believing that cancer is contagious.”

Mr. Rooney’s opinions sometimes landed him in trouble. In 1990, CBS News suspended him without pay in response to complaints that he had made remarks offensive to black and gay people.

The trigger was a December 1989 special, “A Year With Andy Rooney,” in which he said: “There was some recognition in 1989 of the fact that many of the ills which kill us are self-induced. Too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes. They’re all known to lead quite often to premature death.” He later apologized for the statement.

But the gay newspaper The Advocate subsequently quoted him as saying in an interview: “I’ve believed all along that most people are born with equal intelligence, but blacks have watered down their genes because the less intelligent ones are the ones that have the most children. They drop out of school early, do drugs and get pregnant.”

Mr. Rooney denied that he had made such a statement, and because the interview had apparently not been taped, the reporter was unable to prove that he had. “It is a know-nothing statement, which I abhor,” Mr. Rooney said.

He said that he had accepted the suspension rather than end his relationship with CBS News. He said that when he was an Army trainee, he had been arrested in the South because he insisted on riding in the back of a bus with some black soldiers who were friends of his.

Many of his colleagues rushed to his defense. “I know he is not a racist,” Walter Cronkite said.

Mr. Rooney was suspended for three months but was brought back after only one. During his absence, the ratings for “60 Minutes” declined by 20 percent and the network received thousands of letters and telephone calls from viewers who missed his commentaries.

Mr. Rooney generated more criticism in 2002, when he said in an interview on a cable sports show that women had “no business” being sideline television reporters at football games because they did not understand football.

He did it again in 2007, with a newspaper column complaining about the current state of baseball. “I know all about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, but today’s baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me,” he wrote.

He subsequently acknowledged that he “probably shouldn’t have said it,” but denied that his intent had been to denigrate Latin American players.

Years ago Michelle Malkin made a similar stink over Rooney saying that “negro” is a perfectly fine word to use and I thought that was equally cheap a criticism as all these others. Wtf is wrong with the word negro other than “racists used to say it along with everyone else when it was in our lexicon”? It’s not a racist word. It’s just not in fashion to say. so what is wrong with Rooney saying he doesn’t see whats wrong with the word? Stupid.

And all these other charges are stupid too but its worse to dwell on them and give them the same stature as other events in his life that actually mattered (good or bad). Shame on you.

Blame it on White Male Privilage

Here’s a fun Facebook encounter I had:

?”According to the C.I.A.’s own ranking of countries by INCOME INEQUALITY, the UNITED STATES is MORE UNEQUAL a society THAN either TUNISIA or EGYPT.”

Richard: well duh. if you accept that a percentage of people will always choose poverty and shit lives and another percentage will always not choose but still not have what it takes to climb out of a poverty stricken shit life – then the country with the most millionaires and billionaires automatically becomes the one with highest inequality in income. the most communist nation will have the most equal and the most free nation will have the most unequal.

Sarah Polen: Yes, because we all know that poverty isn’t generational or anything. It also isn’t a result of white male privilege. We don’t have anything called an ol’ boys network. And we are clearly putting our dollars into programs (education, healthcare, etc.) and NOT things like the military/financial bailouts so as to give people who do live in poverty the opportunity to succeed. And when we have an President like Obama who wants to close this gap, we’re all behind him 100%.

Sarah Polen: Also, on a completely unsarcastic note, who in the fuck thought Egypt (or Tunisia for that matter) was a communist country?

Richard: lol. bravo! Sarah’s satire of what an ignorant hippie would say is spot on! your sarcastic illustration of the foolish thing they believe is perfect, but unfortunately there are people stupid enough to actually believe those things and what is worse – they flaunt their ignorance instead of investigating the nonsense they preach.

they think generational poverty is an answer to anything, as if millions didn’t climb out of it and become middle class, upper class or millionaires. they actually think that “white male privilege” and good ol boys make people poor because they don’t understand how economies work and they think there are limited pieces of a pie so if the privileged have access to large chunks then that leaves just small pieces and crumbs for everyone else. they studied socialist propaganda instead of economic reality so they dont even know or begin to understand the limitlessness of the pie. you may joke that people dont know we spend $800 billion on education and are ignorant, stupid and intellectually incurious enough to never find out – but they exist! They have no clue (and dont care) that we spend 4% of our GDP on defense and 5 to 7%% on education.

There are actual Marxists out there that believe money is the answer to every problem and if we have a problem then spending more [of other peoples] money on it will fix it. Unfortunately, though you and I may mock the ignorance of these people through sarcasm, there are actually a large number of them who exist and earnestly believe (evidence be damned) that government should pulling people back who are producing too much will help poor people.

Richard: In response to the unsarcastic part: your reading comprehension is a little off, but I suspect you’re still fooling around and are still satirizing what a dumb hippie would say (very clever. very dry!). While ignorant but passionate leftists believe every issue is black and white and fail to notice nuances – smart people like us are able to understand things like a sliding scale and when they read “freedom” and “communism” at opposite ends of a spectrum, they are unable to think within the parameters of the two. People “in the fuck” who thought Egypt and Tunisia had economically leftist/socialist governments are the people who know what they’re talking about (though the other part of what I said that you conveniently ignored is most likely more to blame for their state of affairs).

Sarah Polen: A few notes/links:

Sarah Polen: USA Government Spending as required by the new act for transparent spending: Dept. of Education = 59 billion; Dept. of Defense = 263 billion. Study on the good ol’ boys network as prevalent (as explained by those uneducated “liberals” in higher education): Information on the governments of Egypt and Tunisia – founded on similar principles as those of the USA: I just want to make sure I’m not being confused for a “dumb, ignorant” hippie.

Richard: So you’re not dumb and ignorant, you just play it on facebook? how else do you explain ignoring 100% of what i said? lol. this must still be performance art. i get it… you’re illustrating how dumb people argue things by showing what they do is ignore what you say but use words that you said to make different points that they are more comfortable talking about, is that it? excellent job! its almost as if youre fooling anyone. almost.

Richard: Tip for the future though: be more subtle when trolling. its better when you walk the line of “is she serious??” instead of giving it away with crazy things like Egypt and Tunisia being founded on similar principals to the US. where as you might fool some people with the first half of changing the subject from GDP to raw dollars to both undermine your silly claim that we dont spend enough on education and ignore the one that was made in response to it – its too obvious that you’re mocking people who think these things when you go “full retard” with things like the leftward government of Egypt or socialist party of Tunisia being close to american principals. its better to dial it back a tick so you dont give yourself away and people are left to ponder what you said instead of realizing that you ignored the direct challenges made against your previous false claims. practice makes perfect!

Richard: ?”hey random guy on the street: why are some people poor?” – “white privilege.” – haha. that part is my favorite. the follow up of an obtuse article about the existence of good ol boys is just precious. how long have you been satarizing leftists like this? youre good.

Jessica Schneider: Hey Richard, I don’t care what your viewpoints are, don’t talk to Sarah like that. Your opinions don’t make you right, they simply mean you have a different ideology that you would like to see shape this country than Sarah. And being degrading and name-calling because you think you’re smarter is just more of the bullshit of the exact male privilege she just described. And another reason that compromise and cooperation continue to be pushed aside in favor of a static democracy (you know, those governments that are supposed to represent more than one viewpoint) that can’t progress. Name calling like a child says more about you than it does about Sarah. Seriously, you have more to learn about how to have a respectful dialogue than Sarah has to learn about political economy. It has nothing to do with what your opinions actually are, but how you express them. So far, I don’t know anyone who has ever heard of Richard Bushnell, but I know a lot of very famous and highly respected intellectuals who espouse similar ideologies to Sarah. So once again, having different viewpoints doesn’t make someone dumber than you, it just means they have a different value system. At least Sarah’s includes respectful disagreement. So yes, you actually could learn a thing or two from her. Grow up, Richard.

Richard: Hey Jessica, I don’t care what your viewpoints are, don’t be an elitist jerk and tell people they’re not allowed to respond to snotty sarcasm with factual sarcasm. No ones opinions make them right. the facts they’re based on do. Are you a performance artist too? Calling a response to baseless put downs, “male privilege”, sounds like more satire. HINT: Free speech is not a female privilege, babycakes. All sexes are allowed to exercise it, so if your outrage that someone didn’t just shut up and take the abuse they were dished isn’t satire then that’s pretty pathetic.

What “names” are you claiming I called anyone prior to babycakes? If you’re referring to “full retard”, thats a quote from Tropic Thunder that references the way a person acts (ie: is not calling someone retarded). If you’re just referring to a general tone that you cant pinpoint and thus is why you provided no examples (because you cant) then…lol. So is this part of the satire where you make things up to show how to act foolish? or are you falsely calling legit responses to silly claims “name calling”? Again, I think you’re making a mistake like Sarah in going overboard with the trolling because it’s too obvious. When you say things like “name calling like a child” (ie: hypocritically chiding someone for name calling in the same sentence you call them a name), it just gives the whole thing away too soon.

Where exactly can I learn how to have a respectful dialogue? From your free speech stifling name calling hypocrisy? or from Sarahs sarcastic bullying and eloquent use of phrases like “who in the fuck thought [what you just said]”? Why don’t you lead by example? Wanna take a poll on how many people have heard of me vs Sarah? or do you want to abandone that Appeal to Authority fallacy on account of it being total nonsense? No one said a different opinion makes anyone dumb, so it’d be awesome if you didn’t use strawman fallacies as the basis for your attacks either. I still can’t learn anything when you fail to provide any details though so I don’t know what I am to learn from Sarah via respectful dialogue since my replies were mirrors of hers in tone. Was it that I didn’t mock her understanding of a subject by saying “who in the fuck would think XYZ”? That must be it, cuz I got her sarcastic dismissal down pretty well. I will try harder to use “fuck” more often when baselessly attacking people I disagree with. ?

[Original Poster of the link]: Dance puppets, dance!

Richard: any time! puppet shows are my favorite!

Richard: wait… im still doing it wrong. Jessica says I should take my que from Sarah on proper responses so scratch that last reply and lemme try again:

*clears throat* “yes, because we all know that we’re puppets. we’re not human beings or anything. we don’t have anything called an ol’ boys network. and on an unsarcastic note: who in the fuck thought i (or anyone else for that matter) was a puppet?” — hope that is better 🙂

The whitest “Black icon” there was

Marc Lamont Hill is too bright a guy to be peddling this bad of a race-based FAIL. as O’Reo opined: dude lives his life non-culturally black, bleaches his skin white and chooses to in vitro 3 kids with 2 white parents and he’s a “Black icon”? um. how bout an “American icon” since there’s zero things “black” about him beyond his DNA.

Tonight O’Reilly read an e-mail from someone asking if Elvis is a white icon since his music crossed racial lines too. the answer is of course NO because that would be racist and reta–wait a tick…