PRES. OBAMA FISHING FOR A 3RD TERM?? Not So Fast...

My conservative friends are up in arms right now, stocking up on guns and preparing for the worst.

...no, it's not because of Obama's reelection 2 months ago, it's because he may be prepping for his campaign in 2016.

...wait, what?  A 3rd term?  You can't do that...

Chris Christie or John Candy?  You decide...

The Examiner published an article this weekend of a congressman's proposal, abolishing the 22nd amendment and removing term limits for Presidents.

It's a fun read.  Go ahead, read it and come back.  I'll wait.

The post mentions Rep. Serrano, a (gasp) Democrat also proposing this bill in 2009.  It was laughed at and shut down, just like this proposal will be laughed at and shut down.

But that's as far as they report.  It makes the article look like Serrano is just trying to help his Democratic brother stay in office indefinitely, right?

Not so fast, kemosabe.  Serrano has been a representative since 1989, and has proposed these 'Repeal Amendement 22' bills every new congress since 1997.

Every other year.  Including through the GW Bush administration.  He wants the amendement repealed and term limits gone, period.  He did it under the Clinton (D) administration, the GW Bush (R) administration as well as Obama's.

Democrat or not, I think Serrano is off-base.  He needs to propose term limits for all government service jobs, so we don't have comfy lifers in the House and Senate.  You know, the endless number of old coots (on BOTH SIDES of the aisle) that have been bought-out by special interests and lobbyists, that are slowing down our growth and adding to our woes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, our government and the US stagnation isn't a Democrat problem or a Republican problem, it's a political problem.

And shitty reporting from The Examiner and this post's author Angel Clark help perpetuate the stupidity and fear-mongering.  Good job in only showing the facts to make this seam like an 'Obama's out to git'cha' story, instead of reporting the whole truth.

This isn't about Obama secretly gunning for a 3rd term.  This is about one Representative who has been trying to repeal the 22nd amendment for 16 years, through Red and through Blue Presidents.

Good job, Examiner, for showing your bias again.  No complaining about media bias for you, since you're just as bad as the rest.

Some People Shouldn't Have Guns (There, I Said It)

Newtown.

Aurora.

Virginia Tech.

Columbine.

All tragedies, all involving guns.

All resulting in overreaction, politics, and idiots on both sides up in arms.

"Ban all the guns."

"Arm everyone."

"Think of the children..."

"...hell, give them guns too..."

No matter what side you're on, you are probably sick and tired of the overreaction of people on news stations and in social media.  The definition of an 'assault rifle' varies from person to person, as well as the opinion of whether we need them or not.

My take on it?  I'm a firm believer of the 2nd amendment.  I know about gun safety, I know how to clean and maintain a firearm, and I educated myself thoroughly before ever touching a gun.  I was not allowed to drive until I learned how to 'do it right' and passed multiple tests, and I treated a firearm with the same respect I did a car.

I had to earn a Driver's License before I could lawfully operate a vehicle.

Could I own a car without a license?  You bet.  But I couldn't drive it until I proved that I knew how.

I think this should be the case with firearms as well.  Sure, there are statistics that prove automobiles are more deadly than guns, but more people die in 'accidents' with cars than in 'accidents' with guns.  Most gun-related deaths are intentional, and are often due to people who shouldn't have them in the first place (criminals, idiots, etc.).

I believe it is my right as an American Citizen to own a gun if I choose to.  However, it is my responsibility to know how to use it properly.  It is my responsibility to not use the gun unless absolutely necessary.  I believe that gun owners should be able to prove they know how to be responsible, just like drivers need to pass tests in order to operate a vehicle.

Gun safety courses should be as mandatory as driver's education, whether you consider one to be a 'right' and the other a 'privilege' or not.  Not only for your own safety, but for the safety of others around you.

A popular sign in Idaho, unfortunately....

If you believe the 2nd amendment means 'trespassers will be shot on sight' you should not own a gun.  If you believe in 'shoot first, ask questions later' you are not responsible enough to own a gun.

(Hell, a lot of these rules also apply to parenting.  If you don't know how to take care of a child or can't afford one, you shouldn't be having children, but that's another argument for another time...)

Comic book quote here, but "with great power comes great responsibility."  There are a lot of smart, responsible gun owners out there, and I don't want to infringe on them at all.  But it's the criminals... the idiots... and the irresponsible that I fear.  A few drops of oil can ruin a gallon of water, and while 99% (ish, maybe) of guns aren't used in crimes, we make laws to protect 100% of the nation.

The idiots on the right are making gun owners look rash and uncontrollable.  The idiots on the left are making gun laws look oppressing and absolute.  No matter what side of the debate you're on, can we talk about this in a civil way?

Don't be an idiot.  Just like you should think before you shoot, thinking before you react (or overreact) is just as important.

Asshole Drivers and Politics: Is There a Relation?

Over the last 5 months, I have been taking a slow tally.

I have been looking for patterns in asshole drivers.

Do you weave through traffic using no turn signal and no regard for other drivers?  Asshole.

Do you flip people off or flash your lights if someone is in your way or not going fast enough?  Asshole.

Do you speed excessively and think people going 10 over the speed limit are 'fucking slowpokes?'  Asshole.  (and by the way, the speed on freeways in Idaho is 75...)

So I've been keeping a tally of assholes.  And since it's an election year, I've been keeping a tally of who the assholes are voting for.

From June to October I have been in California, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana and Wyoming.  In other words, 4 very red states, one very very blue state, and Nevada (a current battleground, but leaning left).

During that time, I have accumulated the following statistics:

- 54 traffic weavers, ducking and dodging through other cars, skimming seconds off their precious drive time.  Of the 54, 20 had Romney stickers, 8 had Obama stickers, and the rest had none.

- 28 bird-flippers.  10 of the 28 were Republicans, 2 were Democrats, and 6, while having no political stickers, had BYU logos on their cars, leading me to believe they were Republican (as I have not yet met a Mormon Democrat).  That makes 16... out of 28...

- 103 speeders.  This was a pretty even split.  30 Romnites, 31 Obama-mamas, and the rest neutral.  Hell, even I speed...

- 25 Light-flashers, or people who ride your ass because you're going too slow. 5 Red, 1 blue, the rest it was too dark to see.

Oddly enough, there were more 'Coexist' bumper stickers on the ass-riding jerks than Republican stickers...

Coexist my hairy white-ass....

So.  5 months, 210 offenders.  71 confirmed Republican, 42 confirmed Democrat.  34% Red, 20% Blue.

In summary?

...you know... in theory...

What Would YOU Do With Mitt Romney?

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I'm a sucker for the Claw Machine.  It's tough to pass them up...

It's my addiction, and not a bad one to have when compared to other addictive things out there...

One morning I was coming back home from the gym, when I decided to stop by my local grocery store for a Rockstar (another addiction of mine) and to see if I won the Powerball jackpot (I didn't).

My grocery store has a claw machine, and I peek inside from time to time to see if there is anything worth grabbing.  Nine times out of ten it is filled with garbage, and today was no exception...

Until I saw it...

Half-buried in the mess was a plush Mitt Romney doll.  I stopped, stared, and laughed at the stupidity.

But then, Mitt won me over.

I made my purchase, cursed my losing lottery ticket, and was exiting the store when Mitt called out to me...

I had to win it.

See the look of worry on his face?

And win it I did, because (again) I am fucking awesome at Claw Machine games...

...he only cost me one dollar too... It's like he wanted to come with me...

So now the big question, my wonderful readers:  What am I going to do with him?

Do I give him to my dog, let her rip him to shreds, and become a YouTube sensation when my video is featured at next week's Democratic National Convention?

Do I cut a slit where his mouth is, whip out my willy, give him the old what-what and send a picture to Todd Akin, asking if this is considered 'legitimate rape?'

Or do you have a better idea?

Please leave a comment below, telling me what I should do with Mitt.  I'm using Disqus commenting now, which means you can up-vote and down-vote other comments as well.

The comment with the most up-votes by Tuesday morning (I'm taking Labor Day OFF) wins, and if it's blog-worthy, I'll show the aftermath.

You speak, I listen.  Now show me what you're made of, and let's have some fun with Mitt!!

Hot Dogs Cause BUTT CANCER (among other things)

I was aghast (and amused) when I read a recent news article about hot dogs and butt cancer.

You see, PCRM is mentioning a study where processed meats can increase colorectal cancer risk.  However, putting BUTT CANCER in big bold letters on a Chicago billboard is much more fun.

My favorite paragraph of the article says "Janet Riley, president of the hot dog council (ha!!) said in a statement that hot dogs are 'part of a healthy, balanced diet.'...."

First off, a hot dog council sounds epic.  Secondly, part of a healthy, balanced diet?  Could you imagine hot dog commercials using that as a tag line?  I know cereal companies do, but hot dogs?!?  SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

Depending on which side you are on, this is either showing people the truth about processed meats, or this is just propaganda from a PETA-esque company.  Either or, it makes for some good humor.

Besides butt cancer, hot dogs are also known to:

Turn Men On (when used properly)

Turn Men Off (when used improperly)

Bring your mind into the gutter...

Cost you a run for the US Presidency...

Create internet lol's galore...

And, every now and then, just look kind of gay.
(See?  Even Michelle is confused by Barack's... um... enthusiasm.)

So yes, hot dogs are extremely versatile, cause butt cancer, are a part of a complete and balanced diet, and WILL DRIVE YOU INSANE.

Book Review: Cure Your Democracy by John Cooker, MRI

The ongoing battle of Republican v Democrat (also known as Conservatives / Liberals, as well as some uglier terms) has been getting more and more fierce as the years go on.

If you have been following any political news, you have probably noticed any voting in congress is almost always a 'Red v Blue' battle, and virtually nothing gets done.  What little production there is always causes arguments, name calling, and plenty of fuel for the Glenn Becks and Ariana Huffingtons of the world.

I was recently offered to review a book that addresses such partisanship, and I love it.  The book, Cure Your Democracy, not only discusses the dangerousness of partisanship in a 21st century environment, but it proves that this partisanship is, in actuality, A DISEASE.

Yep, you heard right.  If you're hardcore left or right, you are diseased.  But fret not, there is a cure!

This book is, of course, a little tongue in cheek.  It reads almost like a medical journal, and took me a few days to paw through the 260-plus pages.  However, it was well-worth the read, and I recommend this book to anyone who gives a damn about politics.

As for me, I'm mostly a centrist, but have found myself infected with both diseases (Democratitus and Democratosis) at different stages of my life.  Nowadays, I'd like to consider myself virtually political-disease free, but I carry around a 55-gallon drum of Purell just in case.

(...the way political strife is growing in this country, I'm considering a Haz-Mat suit as well...)

This book is a very fun read.  It explains how both the left and right are guilty of stalling this country, and it's obvious when you read blogs and listen to radio/tv shows how each side viciously blames the other for our current woes.

The book will help you test for, identify, and (hopefully) treat whichever disease you find yourself infected with.  There are allergy tests (Does NASCAR turn you on?  Does the thought of Michael Moore make you queasy?) which will make you smirk, and by the time you reach the 'Treatment' section you'll have a goofy grin on your face about how stupid partisanship really is.

Taking the thought of this partisanship and extremism as an actual illness, it becomes obvious to me.  Rush, Fox News, MSNBC, Thom Hartmann and other far left/right outlets are only spreading this disease and making it more powerful by the hour.  If we want to cure this pandemic, we need to treat it at the source and eliminate the major contagions.

Yet, both sides would argue that Knowledge is Power, free speech, and the like.  It's a shame too, since these political shepherds are corralling as many mindless sheep as possible, and all in the name 'of the greater good.'

Speaking as someone who has voted both R and D, depending on the person and the issue, I would like to see partisanship end.  Mr. Cooker also has a petition going to help end partisanship and get American moving forward.  If you think like I do, and want to see an end to 'politics as usual' please click the below button and sign with me.

Change.org|Start an Online Petition »

Again, I highly recommend this book if you like to read about politics.  While I'll never run for office, I do care where this country goes, and make sure to vote at every election.  Whether on the left, right, or somewhere in the middle, Cure Your Democracy is a book you need to read.

Also be sure to check out www.cureyourdemocracy.com.

Wheel! Of! Republicans!! (Place Your Bets, Folks)

Primaries are finally around the corner, and we can stop playing this odd "Flavor of the Month" game where a new candidate is the front-runner every damn month, and Mitt Romney is a close #2.

Iowa's caucuses are days away, and not only is Ron Paul surging in the polls, but now Rick Santorum is becoming a relevant number 3 in the race.

Almost time to do-see-do again, candidates.  Michele Bachmann needs her 5 minutes in the sun or she's going to whither away from lack of exposure...

It'll be nice to see these primaries done and over with, so the Dem's have their champion (Obama) and the Republicans have theirs.  I know debates and primaries are supposed to separate the candidates from the contenders, but I have never seen such infighting amongst ranks as I have this year.

Oh, and don't forget... if Donald Trump doesn't like America's choice, he may just run as an Independent to make sure a person he doesn't like doesn't get the office.

If there is any bright side to the "Wheel of Republicans" it's that Rick Perry got on, was at the top for a brief few days, and then slipped back into obscurity.  This could mean one of two things:

- He's more irrelevant than he thinks, and will not gain any traction for the rest of the race, or

- It's his turn to surge and become leader again.  And at just the right time.

If he does end up getting the nomination, or becomes relevant again in any way shape or form, I suggest looking at a line of "Fuck Rick Perry" accessories.  Hats, T-Shirts, Bumper Stickers, etc.  Show your love, and get that tool booted off the island of misfit politicians already.

Can it be voting time now please?  So we can get most of these clowns off the air?

It's OK, America. My Credit Isn't Perfect Either

...but you don't see me yelling at Transamerica, blaming them for my faults, do you?

As you know, the US has had their credit rating downgraded from AAA to AA+ by Standard & Poor's, one of the agencies that monitors international lending.  This was done because of the very public (and very ugly) debate in our government, whether or not to raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes, cut spending (and to what), etc.  This was very much a "red vs blue" battle, and the world took notice.

...and US Citizens suffered because of it.

So who's to blame?

Republicans?

Democrats?

Obama?

The Tea Party?

How about "All of the above?"

Thanks to the rise of talk shows, pundits and bloggers like Rush Limbaugh, Arianna Huffington and Glenn Beck,  US Citizens have become more and more angry with "the other side."  Tensions were high in the 90's, but boiled over following the Bush/Gore election.  The country was divided 50/50, and the poll numbers proved that.  Even if Gore had won, 50% of the country would have been up in arms, and outraged by the result.

The 20th century saw the US becoming more and more polarized.  By the dawn of the 21st century, we were being ripped apart by partisan politics.

Over the last 10-12 years, we have been becoming economically weaker and weaker.  The softening of the dollar, coupled with a housing market crash, government spending increasing yet taxes are being cut, and multiple wars took a toll on Uncle Sam's checkbook.  We received tax cuts and stimulus breaks galore under the W administration, yet programs like Medicare Part D were being launched, which cost over $100 Billion annually to fund.  In short (Checkbook balancing 101 here...) we were taking in less money and spending more.

China has recently commented on America's current situation, and I couldn't agree more with the Chinese.  Simply put, they told the US to "cure its addiction to debt" and "learn to live within your means."  Sound advice.  One any financial analyst would tell a person like me.

I'm currently renting a house.  I'd like to buy one soon.  What do I have to do?  Have a good credit rating.  I need to pay my bills on time, keep a livable debt-to-income ratio, and show lenders that I am a good investment.  Why should the government be any different?  Why are we not judged on a debt-to-income ratio?  If we were, this country's credit rating would be abysmal.  Maybe that's what it would take to get government back in check and get politicians to put some squabbles aside and get shit done?

Sorry, congress.  Finger pointing doesn't strengthen a government.  And with the rest of the world watching (you're doing it in a public forum, you idiots...) you're just making the US look even more out of control.

Can be purchased as a t-shirt here

These current times make me miss the days of Clinton and Reagan.  Tax rates were higher, yes.  But job growth was strong, the economy wasn't drowning in its own filth, and politicians actually knew how to compromise.  There were problems with both administrations, and neither President was perfect, but you know what?  Shit got done.

We need another Clinton in the White House.  Someone who can make congress mellow out and work together.  Someone who bangs all the interns, keeps dissident countries in check, and who will get the legislative branch stoned off their ass.

This country needs a pimp.  Someone with a strong pimp hand to keep us in check.  Someone that walks into congress and says "Do I need to slap a bitch?"

Oh, and term limits on congressmen (as suggested by Q) wouldn't be bad either.  Too many of these politicians (both sides) have grown complacent and/or are in bed with too many corporations/lobbyists.

Spending.  WTF.  Our tax dollar is being wasted in so many ways it's not funny.  A great post to read is from Gucci Mama about cutting down spending to avoid raising taxes.  (quote from her article:  "Currently the government borrows forty cents for every dollar it spends."  I believe it, and that fucking sucks...)  A few good points, and well worth the read.  Do I agree with everything?  No, but I don't agree 100% on either side's stance.  So there....

For the voters that voted Obama, looking for change:  This is how you do it.  Hit the reset button on the US government.  Got some fresh faces in DC, and keep it fresh.  If a President is limited to 8 years, let's do that across the board.

After all... old dogs and new tricks... I think it's time to put Old Yeller down...

Another fun internet tool: The Political Compass

Are you a liberal or conservative?

Wait, that doesn't make a lot of sense.  Why?  Because there is more to life than wearing a 'D' or an 'R' next to your name.

I would like to use this website and their scale as a perfect example of why a 4-party system would be ideal for this country instead of our traditional "Left or Right" scale we use now.

Folks, take a gander at the Political Compass.  It is a neat little internet tool that not only shows you a 'left or right' scale you can measure yourself with, but an 'up or down' scale as well.

Wait wait... up or down?  Yes!  We're in stunning 2-D now!!! (oooooo....)

On a social scale, there are both Libertarian and Authoritarian ideals.  Authoritarians like to see state-imposed collectivism (i.e. - Government control and regulations) whereas Libertarians prefer a voluntary, regional collectivism (i.e. - States/Counties/Communities making the majority of the decisions).  You have heard of 'liberal vs conservative'... You can think of these as 'big vs small government.'

And yes, there is a Libertarian party, but are they right or left-leaning libertarians?  Hard to tell...

If you want to take the test for yourself, I will provide a link at the bottom of the page.  Please feel free to share your results by leaving a comment, and joining in on the discussion.  But first, where do I rank up??

I have a lot of centric values, so I am close to the middle of the graph.  Officially I belong to the Libertarian Left.  I believe in regional governances (like California passing the 'marijuana is ok' law, and the U.S. letting them do their own thing) and like to see society help their fellow man.  I believe in Medicare, Social Security, and other aid programs, but I would like to see more conservative rules put in place.  To be eligible for welfare and food stamps, you have to pass a drug test.  To be eligible for medicare supplemental insurance, you must show proof that you can't afford to take care of your own medical needs.  And so on.

I also have conservative views on gun rights (right to bear arms, but not AK-47's) and illegal immigration (if you break the law, you need to be held accountable, but work on better-assimilating those already here into citizenship.  No free admissions though...).

I personally have some views in all 4 quadrants, but don't see myself as fitting into any definite category.  Maybe I'm just not as passionate in my politics as someone who would rank higher into the x or y axis?

Where do I rank on the scale?  Well let's compare current political leaders...

As well as famous leaders in history...

G.W. Bush = Margaret Thatcher??  But which one looks better in a dress???

(Note:  If your results put you next to Hitler, try not to read into it too much.  Unless you really really hate the Jews, then meh...)

Now the fun part... where do my peers rank?  I asked bloggers and readers to participate, and received a handful of results.  Here is where YOU rank:

(if your name doesn't appear on the graph, I'm sorry.  There was probably a cluster in your area and I wanted people to see the names)

Melanie:  -6.5, -5.23
Autumnforest:  -4.38, -2.62
D4:  -1.5, 3.85
Mama Still Wears Gucci:  7.12, -0.82
Kev D:  -6.62, -6.97
Simple Dude:  -2.98, -2.79
Squatlo:  -8.21, -6.17
Byakuya:  0, 0 (yes, this dude broke the scale)
Jillsmo:  -7.5, -6.56
Minx:  -3.25, -4.15
Q (closest to mine, my brotha...):  -2.88, -2.67
Anon1 (a Facebook Reader):  -3.75, 2.92

Analyze as you will.  Are my readers more left-leaning than the average blog, or are they the majority that decided to participate?  Most taking this poll landed in the Libertarian half as well.  Is this because of the unhappiness of current government activity over the last 10-20 years, or do I just attract that kind of reader?  Hard to tell.

As you could imagine, those on the ultra-left are going to clash with those on the ultra-right.  Same with authoritarian vs libertarian.  A left-lib is going to approach an issue in a completely different manner than a left-auth.  I mean, look at Ghandi and Stalin.  Two different people, but both on the left...

Because of this, I would like to recommend a structured 4-party system.  Right now it's D vs R, with a little squeak of resistance from those bold enough to call themselves "Independent" or "Green", etc.  Let's turn this into four parties, four primaries, and four major candidates on equal footing.

Maybe then we don't see a 50/50 vote like we did in 2000, or a 53/46/1 vote like we saw in 2008.  In both instances, it left our country divided, and very much polarized.  If we had a four-party system and the result came back as 43/20/12/25, we would have a clear winner.  Yes, 57 percent of the country didn't vote for that person... would that cause MORE turmoil or less?  Maybe have #1 as president and #2 as vice-president?  Imagine GW Bush and Al Gore working TOGETHER....

Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion, as well as take the test yourself on the Political Compass website.  I would love to know where you find yourself on the scale, and what you think would help improve the state of overall government stability (if there can ever be such a thing...).

Thank you, as always, for participating in the discussion.

The political depth in this town is amazing

I overheard two guys talking about the 2012 presidential election, and who they were hoping was going to be the Republican primary contender...

One wanted trump.

The other wanted Mike Huckabee.

hehehe....

I interjected, and pointed out to the gentleman that both of their choices have bowed out in recent days, saying they had no intention in running for president.

Their response?  "Well I don't care WHO it is, as long as it's not Obama!"

Wow people, really?

This type of political ignorance drives me crazy.  People who vote along party lines, no matter who the candidate is.  If you're a Democrat, you're only allowed to vote Democrat.  Even when you have a schlub canidate like Michael Dukakis... Or Republicans only voting red, even when Bob Dole is the voice of your party.

I'm sorry, but I refrain from casting my vote until I look at the people running.  I want to know where they stand, what they believe in, and what they want to do in office before I vote A vs B.

So far, looking at the Republican side of things, I'm not too impressed with the choices.  The only one I think stands a chance of unifying the country and getting support from both sides would be Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico.  He has no problem calling out BS, even from his own party.  Reading about him, I agree with a decent amount of issues he brings up.  And, unlike Trump, GJ has succeeded in business without hitting the "BK" button over and over.

But, for now, it's too early to tell.  Sadly, people like the two stooges mentioned above don't care.  If you put a Butterball Turkey against Obama right now, and like the Turkey as a Republican, I'm afraid it would get at least 20%-30% of the vote.

Back to a phrase I used: unifying the country and getting support from both sides.  This is what I want to see in a candidate, whether it be an R or a D after his name.  Why?  We have been at a 50/50 split since the 2000 election.  This country is divided, and in a bad bad way.  I'm hoping to see this change, and soon.  The battle of "Dems vs Repubs: We Are Right (and you are not)" is getting old.

Oh well.  The BS is the same for both sides.  About 25% will always vote red, and 25% will always vote blue.  Let's just hope the remaining 50% (the smart ones) make the right decision in 2012, whatever that may be.