首页
<source id="3oodw" ><sup id="3oodw" ></sup></source>

      1. <s id="3oodw" ><th id="3oodw" ><small id="3oodw" ></small></th></s>
        <i id="3oodw" ><optgroup id="3oodw" ></optgroup></i>

            <input id="3oodw" ><bdo id="3oodw" ><cite id="3oodw" ></cite></bdo></input>
            <delect id="3oodw" ><ruby id="3oodw" ></ruby></delect>

            <em id="3oodw" ><progress id="3oodw" ></progress></em><input id="3oodw" ></input>
            <strike id="3oodw" ></strike>
            Showing posts with label People I Strongly Dislike.
            Showing posts with label People I Strongly Dislike.

            Thursday, January 26, 2017

            Trump's Sr Adviser Participated In Voter Fraud.

            I've been quiet throughout this transition from the Obama administration to whatever you wanna call this spectacle that Donald Trump's got going on. The reasons are many. One, because I'm sorta depressed that this whole thing is actually happening, two because I'm sorta scared that Trump's gonna label bloggers as "the press" and come after me with lawyers, and three, because see reason one.

            This next 4 years will probably look at lot like the Trump candidacy did: a series of unforced errors, legitimate scandals that rile up the left only to be completely dismissed by the right, and oh yeah, plenty of unintentional comedy. Speaking of which, "Alternative Facts" would be an awesome name for a 90's grunge band. But as justification for a errand crowd counts by an official WH spokeswoman? Bruh, there's nothing funny about that. This shit is bordering on tragic and we're not even a week in yet.

            In addition to inflating his inaugural crowd size (I was there in 2009. Friday was no 2009) Trump's been spouting off this week about "5 million illegal votes for Hilary" as if to say that he also won the popular vote in addition to the electoral college. Not only is the untrue (there's no proof, but facts don't matter when you have "alternative facts"), it's also just downright petty. Dude, you won. You are the POTUS. What's your point?

            Oddly, his statement about voter fraud does have some basis in reality. It just so happens that the architect of his campaign's got a minor scandal of his own.
            A senior White House adviser to Donald Trump is registered to vote in two different states, a practice that the US president wrongly claimed amounted to electoral fraud on Wednesday as he called for an inquiry.

            Stephen Bannon registered to vote in New York shortly before the presidential election last year, after the Guardian disclosed that he was registered to vote at a vacant house in Florida where his ex-wife had once lived.

            Bannon, whose registration lists a rented apartment in Manhattan as his address, cast his ballot for Trump in New York, according to a source familiar with his arrangements, who was not authorized to speak to the media.

            Bannon, however, also remains registered to vote in Florida, according to state records. His registration lists as his address the 北京体彩网官方网站 of Andy Badolato, a friend of Bannon’s who has worked on some of his political documentary films and written for Breitbart News, the far-right website that Bannon controlled before entering the White House as chief strategist and senior counselor to the president.

            His registration in Florida was moved to Badolato’s 北京体彩网官方网站 shortly after the publication of the Guardian report in August. Bannon has not cast a ballot in Florida, according to state records. Badolato, who was also registered to vote at the 北京体彩网官方网站 with his adult sons, declined at the time to answer questions on whether Bannon actually lived at the property, which is required under the registration rules of the Florida division of elections.

            In a pair of tweets early on Wednesday morning, Trump said that arrangements such as Bannon’s were unacceptable as he appeared to threaten a crackdown on access to the ballot box.

            “I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and … even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!” the president wrote.
            You couldn't make this shit up. I mean, seriously, how long before we find out Trump actually voted 5x (for Hilary himself)?

            This is gonna be a very sad/scary/awful/hilarious/pick your adjective four years.

            Question: Could you make this sorta sh*t up if you tried?!?

            Friday, January 16, 2015

            Why Can't Black Barbers Just Cut Your Hair The Way You Ask Them To?

            [Editor's Note: Yes, this is an old post. I'm rerunning it because this just happened to me (again) this morning and I'm super pissed. My hairline is crooked and it got pushed back to 1994. Just read it already, while I try and figure out how to "fix" this.]

            Something finally occurred to me the other day as I got out of the barber's chair. I hate strongly dislike barbers.

            I have only had roughly 4-5 people who cut my hair on a consistent basis in my short lifetime, and I eventually had a falling out with each and every one of them for the exact same reason: because they cut your hair the way they want it to look, not the way you ask for it.

            I have what is probably a moderately difficult head of hair to cut. I have what some older Black folks might refer to as "good" hair, which has always been the dumbest of statements to me. Isn't all hair good hair? Ask a balding dude if he'd rather have a "good" George Jefferson, or an "average" head of full hair. So enough of that nonsense.

            Anyways, since I do have "good hair", this also means it's hard for most novices to cut the right way because it grows in very odd directions, as well as in odd lengths (ie: shorter at the top, longer near the temples). Also, over the past couple of years, I've noticed some light thinning around my hairline, which only adds to the complexity.

            I usually stick with a barber who seems to figure out how to cut my hair correctly initially, but over time they all seem to revert to doing it "their way", regardless of what I ask for. So when I go in looking like a Wolfman and ask for "a little off the top and please don't push back my hairline!", then walk out looking like Kirk Franklin, you know something is wrong. These dudes are clearly just cutting it the way they want for the instant gratification and the praise of the other barbers when I step out the chair. They don't have to live with a pushed back hairline and a too-close for cold weather cut for the next couple of weeks. I do. And that kinda sucks.

            [Editor's Note: None of these haircuts look "bad", "gapped up" or even remotely "jacked up" by any stretch of the imagination. But none of them happen to be what I ask for, so it doesn't really matter.]

            Since I left my most recent barber a year or so ago[1] I've tried probably a half-dozen other barbers in search of someone who would just do what I asked them to. There was a girl who was cutting my hair for awhile that did a good job, but didn't do a great shape up, although she didn't push my sh*t back as I requested. There was a dude who cut pretty well, but then stopped showing up at the shop and answering text messages. Apparently he's taking a state-paid vacation in Jessup right now. And then, there's my current shop (and I use the word "current" loosely), owned by the Koreans. They, like everyone else, don't cut my hair the way I ask for, but the end result is usually not too bad looking, there's seldom a long wait (wonder why?), and the whole thing only costs $13, which in this economy is a steal.

            But again, why can't people just cut hair the way they're asked to?[2]

            To end on a positive note, I now present to you the greatest barbershop scene evar. Cop the headphones first.



            Question: Fellas, do you have a similar experience with barbers who cut your hair the way they want it to look, not how you ask? Ladies, I guess I could pose the same question to you, although it's a given that women's hair is a different animal in and of itself.

            [1] Yeah, that dude with the and the $22 cuts. I'll give him credit though, that soundtrack is still pretty tight. Listen to it. I guess that's why the cuts are so expensive. Somebody's gotta pay for all that flash animation and studio time.

            [2] And before you ask, no, I'm not about to start cutting my own hair. I don't have that sorta talent.

            Monday, April 28, 2014

            The Problem With Donald Sterling (And The NBA).

            . I suppose I'm obligated to discuss it here.
            Donald Sterling wasn’t in a courtside seat Sunday afternoon, where he would’ve had an up-close view of what his coarse words and corrosive opinions did to his Los Angeles Clippers.

            The team was drained and unenthusiastic despite a crucial NBA playoff game in Oakland, Calif., against the Golden State Warriors. The Clippers’ most impactful action in a decisive loss came during pregame warmups, when they gathered at midcourt and peeled off their team-issued warmup jackets to reveal red shirts turned inside-out to hide the team logo — a sign of protest against the team’s 80-year-old owner, who allegedly made racist remarks to a girlfriend that were recorded and posted Saturday on the Web site TMZ.

            The report is the latest in a series of allegations of racial and gender discrimination against Sterling, a real estate mogul and the longest-tenured team owner in a league whose player pool is more than three-quarters African American.

            In the recording, a man identified as Sterling scolded the woman, identified as V. Stiviano, for posting to Instagram photographs of herself with African Americans and for attending Clippers games with them.

            Sterling’s history paints a picture of a man who has let slip bigoted beliefs for years — and has, at least so far, sidestepped major repercussions. He was sued in 1996 for sexual harassment. In 2003 he testified in a separate court case that he occasionally paid women for sex. The same year, Sterling was sued by 19 tenants of a building he owned, along with the Housing Rights Center; they claimed Sterling’s employees refused repairs to black tenants and frequently threatened to evict them. Sterling settled the case for an undisclosed sum.

            In 2009, Sterling spent $2.73 million to settle another suit, this time brought by the Justice Department, which alleged Sterling refused to rent his apartments to non-Korean tenants, preferring that black and Hispanic prospective tenants look elsewhere. The lawsuit quoted Sterling as saying in sworn testimony that “Hispanics smoke, drink and just hang around the building,” adding that “black tenants smell and attract vermin.”

            Sterling also feuded with Elgin Baylor, a Washington native, NBA legend and the Clippers’ general manager for 22 years. Baylor, who has declined commenting publicly this weekend, sued Sterling in 2009 for discrimination and wrongful termination. In the lawsuit, Baylor, who is African American, alleged Sterling built his franchise with the “vision of a Southern plantation-type structure” and accused the team owner of a “pervasive and ongoing racist attitude.” A jury ruled in Sterling’s favor in 2011.

            Nothing, though, has attracted attention like the recorded conversation that TMZ obtained and posted Saturday. Some have called for Silver to force Sterling to sell the Clippers, and others have said publicly that Sterling should face significant sanctions if the voice on the audio is proved to be his.
            Let's not kid ourselves here: there is no defending what Sterling says here. Period. No qualifications. I'm sick of people who have made this a Conservative/Liberal issue (stop it already), a privacy issue (bullsh*t[1]) a free speech issue (free speech doesn't mean free of consequences) or an issue on par with the civil rights movement (please, kill the hyperbole) in some way.

            Nope, what's here is an employer, making comments about his employees that would constitute creating a hostile work environment in 99% of workplaces. And yes, if the CEO of your company said something similar, he'd be in trouble as well.

            My biggest issue here isn't necessarily with Sterling. It's with the NBA itself, which has allowed this racist ingrate to own a team for 3 decades, despite plenty of prior evidence that he is in fact, a racist ingrate. New commissioner Adam Silver is playing things as well as he possibly can thus far, as he's obviously beholden to owners first, players second. So yeah, good job, Mr. Silver. But if you're gonna move to have Sterling ousted, make sure it's clearly understood that this isn't merely because his golddigging girlfriend[2] secretly taped him saying some really racist sh*t. Nope, make it because Sterling has a well publicized history of doing some really racist sh*t, and this was just the tipping point.

            On a somewhat related note, I hate that the Clippers had to stage that paltry "protest" prior to yesterday's game, then came out and got their asses handed to them by the Warriors. To me, it sorta seems like they spent a bit too much time watching ESPN and worrying about how to publicly respond, when they really shoulda just kept their heads down, focused on the task at hand (winning a crucial game) and let others (like Lebron James, whose comments were spot-on and pretty brave) speak on their behalf. Getting blown out is the absolute last way to stick it to Da' Man, especially when Da' Man is your employer. Play for the fans and each other. Eff' the racist owner.

            I obviously think Sterling should be removed as owner, just as Marge Schott was, and just as Rush Limbaugh was prevented from becoming. The NBA is a multibillion dollar, worldwide corporate entity. It has no place for idiots like Donald Sterling.

            Question: What should the NBA do to Donald Sterling? Should Magic Johnson be allowed to buy the team now?

            [1] In a normal workplace, management can be held responsible for things said off the record, and away from/after office hours. The NBA is no different.

            [2] Seriously, sista, what's up with you? #BlackGirlLost

            Monday, March 10, 2014

            Kill A Black Kid. Become A Folk Hero.

            I've seen since Myrtle Beach Bike Week, this past Saturday.
            Only a few handfuls of people showed up Saturday to meet a Florida gun show’s special guest of dishonor — George Zimmerman.

            Over the course of six hours, fewer than 20 people at the New Orlando Gun Show asked for a free autograph or photo with Trayvon Martin’s reclusive killer, who was hanging out in a rear office of The Arms Room gun store in Orlando.

            Zimmerman, who has complained of receiving a steady stream of death threats and is overwhelmed by debt since he killed unarmed teen Martin in 2012, said he was enjoying himself.

            “Everything’s good. We’re having fun,” said the 30-year-old, who was signing pictures of himself with his dog. “I’m just here to meet supporters.”

            He was joined at the event by his on-again-off-again gal pal Samantha Scheibe, who last year accused him of pointing a gun at her.

            The meet-and-greet almost didn’t happen after the original venue for the gun show backed out because of the controversy surrounding Zimmerman, according to organizer Mike Piwowarski.

            “Come on out and meet George Z! He’s here a few more hours. And no matter what you read, there are no protesters, lunatics or other varieties of a-- clowns,” the store posted on Facebook.
            For those of you scoring at 北京体彩网官方网站, yes, this man received an appearance fee to sign autographs. His sole claim to fame is shooting a killing an unarmed black minor. But 20-some people found him enough of a hero to show up.



            This ought to make you very nauseous.

            Question: What sort of person shows up to get George Zimmerman's autograph?

            Monday, November 11, 2013

            Richie Incognito Wants You To Know "He Isn't Racist". Because Is Anyone Actually Racist Anymore?

            I suppose I'm contractually obligated to weigh in on this Richie Incognito/Johnathan Martin story, simply because I occasionally play fantasy football watch pro football while waiting for the NBA season to start. But honestly, I don't know what more to add.

            While Martin has seemingly gone into witness protection since leaving the team, Incognito hit a series of softballs lobbed gently in his direction .
            Suspended Miami Dolphins player Richie Incognito said the apparently threatening and abusive voicemails and text messages he sent to teammate Jonathan Martin, whom he called a good friend, "were coming from a place of love."

            Incognito, in an interview with Fox's Jay Glazer, excerpts of which were broadcast today, addressed the accusations of hazing and racism he has faced since his suspension from the team for expletive-laced rants directed at the rookie.

            "My actions were coming from a place of love," Incognito said. "No matter how bad or how vulgar it sounds, that's how we communicate, that's how our friendship was. Those are the facts and that's what I'm accountable for."

            Dolphins coach Joe Philbin said the team suspended Incognito indefinitely on Nov. 4 after Martin turned in voicemails and text messages showing Incognito using the N-word to describe Martin and threatening his family, according to ESPN.

            The controversy came to light after Fox Sports reported that Martin and other rookies had been forced to pay thousands of dollars for dinner tabs and vacations for more veteran members of the team.

            The NFL is now investigating the Dolphins' workplace, according to Philbin. Incognito turned his cell phone over to Glazer to let him see the 1,142 text messages between the two men in their 18 months as teammates, including some showing that Martin and Incognito have been in contact even after the scandal broke.

            In one message, sent after Martin left the team, the rookie congratulated Incognito on the Dolphins' win, and told Incognito, "I'm good."

            In another message, Martin wrote, "I don't blame you guys at all. It's just the culture around football and the locker room got to me a little."
            Here's part of the interview. Notice how Mr. Incognito has a fresh haircut, crisp Oxford, and speaks proper English the entire time. Word to Mike Vick.



            Seriously, who's a guy gotta lynch around here to be called racist?

            It might shock some of you, but I don't think Richie Incognito is racist. He's not racist, because nobody is racist in post-racial America. Richie's got black co-signers in the Dolphins' locker room who give him free license to spew the word "nigger" as frequently as he'd like without retribution, or for that matter, pushback. He's an honorary black man, far more honorable than the "half nigger" Martin, who simply didn't fit in and probably shouldn't have even been drafted by a team with this sort of locker room "culture".

            What's most disheartening about all of this is listening to all the former players turns "analysts" essentially agreeing with Incognito and blaming the victim here. Negroes please.

            What's clear to me is that Martin and Incognito have likely both played their last NFL games, albeit for drastically different reasons. Martin, because no team wants to hire a guy who will likely go to the press when something doesn't go his way, and Incognito because he's a racist scumbag. This isn't Riley Cooper, a guy who seemed to immediately understand what he did was wrong, make no excuses, and apologize to his teammates. Incognito's got a long history of misdeeds, and I suspect his 9th life was just pissed away.

            But I could be wrong, I suppose.

            Question: What's your read on this whole situation?

            Monday, October 28, 2013

            Jay Z, Barney's, Shop & Frisk, And Black Peoples' Perpetual Search For A Savior.

            I love Black people. A lot. I'm married to one, and I've created three more of them. So yeah, we're cool and whatnot. But if there's one thing about us that really annoys me, it's our insistence on holding a handful of relatively well off people responsible for the "saving" all 44,456,009 of us when something goes wrong. You'll recall the backlash Oprah Winfrey took when she donated money to start a school for girls in Africa. Folks complained about pro-athletes who didn't jump on the Jena Six bandwagon and boycott the state of Louisiana. Dr. Dre gave millions to USC, but didn't give sh*t to Morris Brown. Reverend Al Sharpton (and at one point Jesse Jackson) is expected to fly into town and launch a Million Aggrieved Black Persons march everytime some kid gets yelled at by a white teacher. And how come nobody famous broke Trayvon Martin's parents off with a lil' somethin'?

            I've always found this "pick a savior, as long as he/she is famous" line of reasoning faulty. It presumes that the person being asked to take a stand not only cares about said stand, but is actually capable of taking said stand. Just because someone can rap doesn't mean they're literate on issues as complex as racial disparities in public school funding. When you take someone (black/white/or other) and try to shoehorn them into making a social statement when they probably can't even spell "social statement", you end up with bewilidering scenes like this.[1]

            No celebrity personifies this "please save us" mentality quite like Jay Z. His rags to riches ascension from the projects to household name has been told (and embellished) ad nauseum. He's the rare rapper who can get away with calling his own wife a b*tch in a song, and skirt charges of sexism.[2] He allows himself to be used as the smiling public face of emminent domain, yet can spin it by claiming he "owns the team", when he owned about as much of the Nets as I own Sirius XM. He's a walking, talking contridiction. Actually, that's untrue. He's a business, man. Not a businessman. Expecting him to be about anything more than money is unrealistic.

            So forgive me if I can't get on board with the petition asking the Jigga Man to sever his relationship with Barney's, after to harass a couple of young black customers last week.
            Jay-Z — under increasing pressure to back out of a collaboration with the luxury store Barneys New York after it was accused of racially profiling two black customers — said Saturday he's being unfairly "demonized" for just waiting to hear all of the facts.

            The rap mogul made his first statement about the controversy in a posting on his website. He has come under fire for remaining silent as news surfaced this week that two young black people said they were profiled by Barneys after they purchased expensive items from their Manhattan store.

            An online petition and Twitter messages from fans have been circulating this week, calling on the star to bow out of his upcoming partnership with Barneys for the holiday season, which will have the store selling items by top designers, inspired by Jay-Z, with some of the proceeds going to his charity. He is also working with the store to create its artistic holiday window display.

            But Jay-Z — whose real name is Shawn Carter — defended himself, saying that he hasn't spoken about it because he's still trying to figure out exactly what happened.

            "I move and speak based on facts and not emotion," the statement said. "I haven't made any comments because I am waiting on facts and the outcome of a meeting between community leaders and Barneys. Why am I being demonized, denounced and thrown on the cover of a newspaper for not speaking immediately?" he said, referring to local newspaper headlines.

            The two Barneys customers, Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, said this week they were detained by police after making expensive purchases.

            Christian sued Barneys, saying he was accused of fraud after using his debit card to buy a $349 Ferragamo belt in April. Philips filed a notice of claim saying she would sue after she was stopped by detectives outside the store when she bought a $2,500 Celine handbag in February.

            As the criticism grew, Barneys said Thursday it had retained a civil rights expert to help review its procedures. The CEO of Barneys, Mark Lee, offered his "sincere regret and deepest apologies." Kirsten John Foy, an official with the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network, said he would meet with Barneys officials on Tuesday to discuss the racial profiling allegations.

            Jay Z also dismissed reports that he would profit from the collaboration. He said he's "not making a dime" from working with Barneys. Instead, his Shawn Carter Foundation, which provides college scholarships to economically challenged students, will get 25 percent of all sales from the collaboration.

            "This money is going to help individuals facing socio-economic hardships to help further their education at institutions of higher learning," he said. "My idea was born out of creativity and charity... not profit."

            He also said that "making a decision prematurely to pull out of this project wouldn't hurt Barneys or Shawn Carter but all the people that stand a chance at higher education," he said. "I have been working with my team ever since the situation was brought to my attention to get to the bottom of these incidents and at the same time find a solution that doesn't harm all those that stand to benefit from this collaboration."
            There are so many things wrong with this story. Where should I begin?

            1) Jay Z thinks he's "being demonized, denounced and thrown on the cover of a newspaper for not speaking immediately?" Jigga please. You're being asked to be held accountable for the actions of the people you got in bed with. Whether fair or unfair (or downright misplaced), this is what sometimes happens when you're the sole, smiling black face attached to a multibillion dollar corporation. Deal with it.

            2) Jay Z says he's "not making a dime" and doesn't want to stop his Barney's promotion because it would cut off funds that would otherwise be going to charity. Seriously? A guy who raps about watches he can't spell and most of his listeners couldn't afford is suddenly worried about a few hundred thousand dollars? Really? We don't believe you. Cut the damn check out of your own pocket. It's just a tax writeoff anyway.

            3) "I move and speak based on facts and not emotion" has to be the biggest crock of Jigga Nonsense I've heard since American Gangster. In other words, unless these kids have proof that they were profiled, he's gonna side with the people who are paying him. And make no mistake: whether with actual cash or social currency, Barney's is paying Jay Z. If you think he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart, you prolly actually liked American Gangster.

            4) "I have been working with my team ever since the situation was brought to my attention to get to the bottom of these incidents and at the same time find a solution that doesn't harm all those that stand to benefit from this collaboration." = I had a weedcarrier Memphis Bleek Google this to see what he could find out. He didn't find anything, so I just sent him to pickup my Outback to-go order instead.

            5) In response to the claims, {read between the lines here) Barney's called Reverend Al and cut a check to the National Action Network. Damnit that man is great at extortion! He is the Michael Jordan of recordin' Extortion!

            The most ironic part of this entire story is that the two poor saps who were (allegedly) profiled as they bought those overpriced belts and bags probably got the idea from a Jay Z song.

            Just so nobody is mistaken, I don't think a petition to get Jay Z to end his relationship with Barney's is a good idea. Mostly because Jay Z isn't the sort of artist who gives two sh*ts if you get profiled at Barney's. Also because Jay Z is an ass who only cares about getting paid. And even if he wasn't that kinda guy, a better solution is to simply not give good money to people who don't respect you.

            Which would also include one Shawn Corey Carter.

            Question: Should Jay Z be more socially conscious and tell Barneys he is one of their 99 Problems? Shouldn't the National Action Network give some of that shakedown money to the actual victims of this sad episode? Are there better ways of telling Barney's "F*ck You!" than the ones I suggested?

            [1] Seriously, do you think Kanye had any idea what "Occupy Wall Street" was all about? Did 90% of the Occupiers even understand what "Occupy Wall Street" was all about? I haven't seen a black man who looked more clueless about his surroundings since... well... since I watched RGIII vs the Broncos yesterday. Seriously, Robert, get your sh*t together.

            [2] "Bad b*tch... H-Town.."

            Wednesday, June 26, 2013

            Rachel Jeantel: Worst. Witness. Ever.

            You saw it (or are seeing it live right now). It's a total trainwreck, and I can't stop watching it.



            Talk about it here.

            Question: Has Rachel Jeantel singlehandedly set George Zimmerman free?!?

            Friday, May 24, 2013

            Trayvon Martin Smoked Weed, (Possibly) Handled Guns, & Rode Horses. Does It Even Matter?!?

            to taint the potential pool of jurors.
            Items taken from Trayvon Martin's cell phone -- including a text-message discussion of drug use and pictures of a gun and marijuana plants -- are among new details released Thursday by attorneys for the neighborhood watch volunteer accused of killing him without provocation 14 months ago.

            The evidence, George Zimmerman's attorneys say, paints a different picture of the 17-year-old than the one portrayed by his family and supporters. Lead defense attorney Mark O'Mara says he will try to use the evidence if prosecutors attempt to attack Zimmerman's character during his trial on second-degree murder charges, set to begin next month.

            Much of the new evidence disclosed Thursday in filings by Zimmerman's attorneys comes from Martin's cell phone, including photos showing a semiautomatic pistol and ammunition and small marijuana plants growing in pots.
            Photos: Trayvon Martin evidence

            In other pictures, Martin is pictured making obscene gestures in an apparent self-portrait, as well pictures showing him with friends and in other settings. The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after "da police caught me outta skool."

            The attorney for Martin's family, Benjamin Crump, says the evidence is "irrelevant" and predicted it would never be used at Zimmerman's trial. "Is the defense trying to prove Trayvon deserved to be killed by George Zimmerman because (of) the way he looked?" Crump said in a statement released Thursday.

            Zimmerman's defense also released Thursday a handwritten note that was allegedly written by someone who was on the phone with Martin when the confrontation with Zimmerman took place.
            Here's defense attorney Mark O'Mara, pretending he will only use this "evidence" in court "if he has to", which is the biggest crock of sh*t I've heard in some time.



            Seriously, I wonder how this guy (and for that matter, Fox's Megan Kelly) sleeps at night. Probably on 1,000 thread count sheets, sure. But I doubt it's peacefully.

            How you view this evidence likely says a lot about how you view America through the prism of race. Some people are gonna see a track record of a teenager engaged in risky behavior and come to O'Mara's conclusion that Martin had a propensity for violence and attacked Zimmerman. Others will see the photos and texts as irrelevant, because Martin simply was defending himself against a man he didn't know, who shot him dead when he could have just as easily called 911.

            One thing's for certain: this trial is not gonna be boring.

            Question: What do you think of this latest "evidence"?!?

            Thursday, April 11, 2013

            Rand Paul Goes To Howard University. Lies His A$$ Off.

            Part of the GOP's Autopsy Report issued in the wake of their November 2012 thrashing noted that the party needed to "re-engage African American voters" by "going into their communities" to "explain how Conservative principles" can appeal to them. The party pledged to spend $10 Million dollars as part of this outreach effort.

            Of course, any black person with a working brain knows this "effort at engaging black voters" means one thing, and one thing only: giving more "street money" to black pastors in hopes of influencing votes. And quite honestly, I couldn't blame them. This tactic worked in 2004 when Bush used it to get black votes by pushing fear of gay marriage via the pulpit. And while nobody was paying attention, last Fall President Obama only won 93% of the black vote (down 2% from 2008) because the GOP played the exact same card. The party has no interest in addressing it's systematic problems that offend/hurt black voters. You know it, I know it, and so do they.

            All of this makes Rand Paul's decision to go to Howard University and deliver a speech on the merits of Conservatism somewhat puzzling. It wasn't an appearance "sanctioned" by the party, and given some of Paul's past statements, had the potential to end very, very badly.



            I'll save you all the trouble of watching the entire tape. Except for a few notable exchanges (and one really embarrassing audience question about Malcolm X's assassination, and another from a dude who appeared to be wearing a FUBU jersey... WTF, HU?!?) it's mostly boring, boilerplate "Party of Lincoln" crap you've already heard a million times. The kids were civil, and the thunderous applause is deceiving, given the fact that Paul obviously shipped in a bunch of his supporters, as seemingly all Conservatives do when speaking in front of "The Blacks".

            Paul does get called to the mat for his past statements about the Civil Rights Act, and wouldn't you know it, he made some "factual inaccuracies". The Washington Post's .
            Rand Paul, a potential GOP candidate for the 2016 presidential election, gave an interesting speech on Wednesday to historically black Howard University, but his remarks were overshadowed by his attempt to explain the controversy over his 2010 comments on the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            “I have never wavered in my support for civil rights and the Civil Rights Act,” he said in his speech. “The dispute, if there is one, has always been about how much of the remedy should come under federal or state or private purview.”

            But then Paul expanded on his remarks in the question-and-answer period, saying in response to a tough question that he had been concerned really only about the “ramifications and extensions” of the Civil Rights Act.

            The problem for Paul started when the Louisville Courier-Journal placed on its Web site an April 17, 2010, interview between Paul and the paper’s editorial board. Presumably that is the extended interview that Paul referenced. We have embedded the relevant section below and have highlighted the key sections.

            Then here’s what Paul said on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show on May 20, in which he suggested he would have wanted to modify one section of the Civil Rights Act, one dealing with “private institutions.” However, his logic is a bit confusing because he appears to be referring to Title 2 — “public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce” — (such as hotels and restaurants) — but there is also Title 7, which prohibits discrimination in businesses of a certain size.

            Paul is rewriting history here. We don’t see anywhere in these interviews “an extended conversation about the ramifications beyond race,” at least in the way that Paul describes it at Howard University.

            Indeed, Paul claims he “never wavered” on the Civil Right Act but in the MSNBC interview he mused openly about possibly wanting to change one provision if he had been a senator. Ironically, the issue that troubled Paul was what Senate Republicans at the time had modified in order to deal with the very concerns that Paul raises almost five decades later.

            We were tempted to give this Four Pinocchios but some of his language at Howard appears to be a product of fuzzy thinking. Still, Paul does earn Three Pinocchios for trying to recast and essentially erase what he said in 2010. It would be better to own up to his mistake — if he now thinks it was one — rather than sugarcoat it.
            If there's anything I actually admire about Paul, it's his a ability to tell complete lies with a totally straight face, and spin his way into a suitable answer. This dude's gonna be a serious problem come the 2016 debates. He's really, really good at peddling bullsh*t.

            But more than anything else, this speech highlight's the party's biggest problem with engaging black voters: a total and utter amnesia about everything the party has done (ie: The Southern Strategy) to turn away those voters in droves since the mid-60's. Paul keeps harping on the fact that Democrats were the party of segregation, that Lincoln freed the slaves, and Booker T Washington was an ideological Conservative. But guess what? Black people care about what you're doing today, not 2 centuries ago.

            What have you done for us lately?

            Question: How, assuming they actually cared, could the GOP honestly engage black voters?!?

            Tuesday, April 9, 2013

            Sean Hannity Loves The Blacks. As Long As They're Conservative.

            I've harped on my qualms with "Black Conservatives" here many times. It seems like so many of these guys have some real self-identity issues, and use "Conservatism" as a convenient excuse for explaining away the lack of acceptance they get from other black people. I mean, seriously.

            I actually watched about half of this very special episode of Hannity with my wife last night. There were a bunch of open mouth "did he/she just say that" moments. But one common theme was that very few of these people could talk about substantive examples of how Conservative policies help the black community. Instead, there was a bunch of woe-is-me victimhood, a teaspoon of self loathing, and some blatant "other Negroes just won't accept me" blathering. I really think these people, to a man, experienced some serious bullying during adolescence that now makes them ashamed of their community. This gets manifested in a very perverted mentality in which the Black Conservative is almost slavelike in defending a party which for all intents and purposes depends on race baiting as a winning campaign strategy.



            I've engaged some of the people on this panel online before. When I've done so, I've always respectfully asked for tangible examples of how Conservative policy can help Black America. Instead, you get the usual BS about "the Democratic plantation" and "blacks voting like their parents did" and "free market capitalism", but nothing of substance. Instead they'll point to anecdotal examples of hard work and perseverance like Clarence Thomas and Dr. Carson, as if only black people who are Conservative actually value hard work and education.

            It's almost like a Negro version of Stockholm Syndrome.

            Question: What's up with these people? Do they truly believe in the GOP's policies, or is this some convenient way of not dealing with feelings of being ostracized as a child?

            Monday, April 8, 2013

            How Can You Work Customer Service If You Can't Parlez Englais?!?

            So, I'm grabbing some quick lunch for the fam from my local fast food joint the other day, and I need some artificial sweetener.[1] I kindly ask the woman at the window for some Sweet -N- Low. Trouble ensues.
            AB: "Could I have some Sweet -N- Low, please?"

            Puzzled Window Lady: "Swing Low?"

            AB: "No, Sweet -N- Low."

            Puzzled Window Lady: "Coffee?"

            AB: "Yes, the stuff that goes in the coffee."

            Puzzled Window Lady: "Coffee?"

            AB: "No, Sweet -N- Low."

            Puzzled Window Lady, handing me a coffee stirrer: "Here. You go now."

            AB: "No, Sweet -N- Low. It's like sugar. Pink packet!"

            Puzzled Window Lady: "Sweet?"

            AB: "Yes, Sweet -N- Low."

            Puzzled Window Lady, handing me a pack of Sweet & Sour sauce: "Here. You go now."

            AB: "NOOOOO!!!! Sweet -N- Low!!! It's like sugar. It goes in coffee! Arrgghhh!!!"

            Suddenly Gully Window Lady, tossing me BBQ sauce: "Here. You go now. Line stop. You go now."

            AB: "D MOTHER******!!!!! D!!!!"
            Yeah, it almost got this bad.



            Seriously, shouldn't there be some sort of language requirement when the job's main function involves speaking?

            Before anyone gets bent out of shape, this isn't a racial issue. Yes, the woman behind the window was Hispanic, but I've has similar experiences with folks from all races. The gas station attendant at the Sheetz in West Virginia. The gum poppin' Safeway cashier in Soufeas'. The offshore client services agent now handling my account inquires for Bank Of America. It's all the same.

            Question: Should certain jobs have a baseline language competency requirement? Do you have any similarly aggravating customer service stories?

            [1] Unless you haven't eaten a single meal from a window/bag in the past year, please don't judge me.

            Friday, April 5, 2013

            Personal Trainers Suck.

            For a largely passive activity[1], my daily trip to the gym still serves as a huge, and constant source of agitation. The reasons are simple: because most gyms contain a host of unsavory and mostly annoying people whose sole purpose in life is to get in your way.

            There's "do curls with 95 pound dumbbells and grunt like you're having sex with each rep" guy. There's "show everyone how strong I am, squat 450 and look at myself in the mirror" guy. There's "dress in workout gear totally inappropriate for my body type and walk around an hour trying to get hit on" girl. But perhaps nobody is more annoying than "the personal trainer".

            I should be very clear in my distinction here: I have a good friend who's a personal trainer and takes the job very seriously. He wastes no motions or time when in the club. He charges reasonable rates. He understands proper workout techniques and nutrition. He can create reasonable workout routines to help his customers reach attainable personal goals. He treats his customers like any professional rendering a service would. I'm not talkin' about him.

            I'm talkin' bout' Big Al.

            Big Al is the standard bearer for why I hate personal trainers like their last names were Palin. 9 times of out ten, when I arrive, he is either standing in front of the club trying to holler at office workers passing by on their lunch break, or inside trying to holler at women as they come out of the dressing room. For a personal trainer, he isn't even really in that great shape. He looks like a former CIAA running back, 20 years after his last game. This bama looks just like , and sounds just like Steve Harvey. He probably should be somewhere downtown behind a desk working for Wackenhut, but instead, he's working at a large, franchised personal fitness center which shall not be named for legal purposes.[2]

            Perhaps oddest is the one time out of ten that Big Al actually does have a client. Man, I gotta tell you, I just don't understand middle-aged suburban housewives sometimes. Again, Al has a stomach out to here, but these poor, clueless women take his advice like it's gold, albeit gold that costs $35 per session. Big Al "talks" them through a pretty flimsy "workout" of situps, stretches, and band exercises when he's not busy flirting with passersby or talking on his phone. And perhaps most disturbing is when Al has these women laying down on one of those huge "workout balls", which I assume is for the abs.[3] Watching Al playfully tap the women (repeatedly and forcefully) on the backside with each rep, and watching them smile at the attention is sorta gross in a "catching your aunt and uncle making out in the living room" sorta way.[4]

            I'm sure these women come to Big Al to make up for some of the attention they might be missing at 北京体彩网官方网站, and he gladly provides it for a mere $140/week. Are they getting an actual "workout"? Judging by the continually expanding waistlines of many of these chicks, I seriously doubt it. And sadly, I can probably say the same for most of the other personal trainers at my gym, who also seem to prey on middle aged women, and are rather, shall we say, "liberal" with their hands when showing these women how to stretch, and bend, and whatnot. It's like a 2am SkineMax flick with fewer plastic parts, more clothes, and even worse music.

            Then again if I looked like Clifton Powell and sounded like Steve Harvey, I'd prolly rather grope these thirsty, middle-aged chicks than do some lame security gig myself.

            I ain't (that) mad at ya' Big Al.

            Question: Do you use a personal trainer? Have you actually gotten results, or are they simply telling you to do what you already know? Is Big Al pimpin' these chicks, or is he providing a valuable service to the suburban community?

            [1] I usually keep my headphones on the entire time, even in the shower. Yes, it's possible.

            [2] But just for the record, it rhymes with "Gold's Gym".

            [3] What the heck are those big balls for anyway?

            [4] All together now... "Eeeewwwwwwwwww!"

            Thursday, April 4, 2013

            Why I Hate Black Barbers. But Couldn't Quit Them If I Wanted To.

            Something finally occurred to me the other day as I got out of the barber's chair. I hate strongly dislike barbers.

            I have only had roughly 4-5 people who cut my hair on a consistent basis in my short lifetime, and I eventually had a falling out with each and every one of them for the exact same reason: because they cut your hair the way they want it to look, not the way you ask for it.

            I have what is probably a moderately difficult head of hair to cut. I have what some older Black folks might refer to as "good" hair, which has always been the dumbest of statements to me. Isn't all hair good hair? Ask a balding dude if he'd rather have a "good" George Jefferson, or an "average" head of full hair. So enough of that nonsense.

            Anyways, since I do have "good hair", this also means it's hard for most novices to cut the right way because it grows in very odd directions, as well as in odd lengths (ie: shorter at the top, longer near the temples). Also, over the past couple of years, I've noticed some light thinning around my hairline, which only adds to the complexity.

            I usually stick with a barber who seems to figure out how to cut my hair correctly initially, but over time they all seem to revert to doing it "their way", regardless of what I ask for. So when I go in looking like a Wolfman and ask for "a little off the top and please don't push back my hairline!", then walk out looking like Kirk Franklin, you know something is wrong. These dudes are clearly just cutting it the way they want for the instant gratification and the praise of the other barbers when I step out the chair. They don't have to live with a pushed back hairline and a too-close for cold weather cut for the next couple of weeks. I do. And that kinda sucks.

            [Editor's Note: None of these haircuts look "bad", "gapped up" or even remotely "jacked up" by any stretch of the imagination. But none of them happen to be what I ask for, so it doesn't really matter.]

            Since I left my most recent barber a year or so ago[1] I've tried probably a half-dozen other barbers in search of someone who would just do what I asked them to. There was a girl who was cutting my hair for awhile that did a good job, but didn't do a great shape up, although she didn't push my sh*t back as I requested. There was a dude who cut pretty well, but then stopped showing up at the shop and answering text messages. Apparently he's taking a state-paid vacation in Jessup right now. And then, there's my current shop (and I use the word "current" loosely), owned by the Koreans. They, like everyone else, don't cut my hair the way I ask for, but the end result is usually not too bad looking, there's seldom a long wait (wonder why?), and the whole thing only costs $13, which in this economy is a steal.

            But again, why can't people just cut hair the way they're asked to?[2]

            To end on a positive note, I now present to you the greatest barbershop scene evar. Cop the headphones first.



            Question: Fellas, do you have a similar experience with barbers who cut your hair the way they want it to look, not how you ask? Ladies, I guess I could pose the same question to you, although it's a given that women's hair is a different animal in and of itself.

            [1] Yeah, that dude with the and the $22 cuts. I'll give him credit though, that soundtrack is still pretty tight. Listen to it. I guess that's why the cuts are so expensive. Somebody's gotta pay for all that flash animation and studio time.

            [2] And before you ask, no, I'm not about to start cutting my own hair. I don't have that sorta talent.

            Wednesday, December 12, 2012

            Fox News Douchebag Contributor Fights Union Protestor. Loses. Badly.

            I don't condone violence. I just don't. There are so many other more reasonable ways to resolve disputes that do not involve putting your hands on another human being.

            All that said, I'm glad someone finally punched this asshole Fox News "contributor" in the grill. It has been long overdue.

            Crowder, for those unaware, does provocative Breitbart-style "cyber journalism", with the goal of making progressives look silly. His entire goal is to agitate, then put stuff on YouTube. You might recall he's the creative genius behind that poorly conceived, definitely racist "Niggers/Knickers" joke at last year's CPAC.

            So yeah, I'm just see this is payback for that ignorant sh*t.[1]



            You can't make a mockery of the Governor taking food out of people's mouths, rub it in their noses, and not expect some sorta retribution. And given how heavily edited this tape is, I'm willing to bet Crowder provoked the guy who delivered that two piece. A prideful man woulda at least tried to punch back. But gotcha journalism and pride don't necessarily go hand in hand.

            Props for talkin' sh*t like a tough guy after the fact and challenging him to an MMA fight (while putting an odd, probably illegal bounty on his head on national TV) while sitting there with your collar popped. Seems like punching back mighta been a little easier. But hey...

            This guy's a real jerk-wad.

            Question: Did Crowder deserve to get punched? Is this sorta "journalism" below the belt?

            [1] My views on the whole anti-labor jack move going on in Michigan right now are pretty obvious. No need to go there.

            Friday, November 16, 2012

            America Dodged A Bullet Named Mitt Romney.

            Real talk, I felt more relief than elation when President Obama won last week. Sure, the historical significance was there, but more than anything else, the feeling that the crazies hadn't won (this time) was a sigh-worthy.

            As the post-mortem unfolds (as you can tell, I'm rather obsessed with this), it's becoming clearer and clearer that not only did Amurrica choose the absolutely right guy, we as well.
            Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is telling top donors that President Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" he had already provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters and because of the president's effort to paint Romney as anti-immigrant.

            "The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift," Romney said in a call to donors Wednesday. "He made a big effort on small things."

            Among the "gifts" Romney cited were free health care "in perpetuity," which he said was highly motivational to black and Hispanic voters as well as for voters making $25,000 to $35,000 a year.

            Romney also said the administration's promise to offer what he called "amnesty" to the children of illegal immigrants — what he termed "the so-called DREAM Act kids" — helped send Hispanics to the polls for Obama.

            Young voters, Romney said, were motivated by the administration's plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and being able to remain on their parents' health insurance plans. Young women had an additional incentive to vote for Obama because of free contraception coverage under the president's health care plan, he said.
            People who can't admit wrong, under any circumstances whatsoever, have no place in public office. None. Romney, in the remarks that we're privvy to, never seems to acknowledge that he ran a really lackluster campaign, that his running mate was not ready for primetime, that his "Us vs Them" fiscal policy didn't appeal to voters, nor that his constantly changing stances on issues gave voters the illusion that he had no principles. Nope, it's all the voters' fault for not understanding him well enough, and for being bribed with goodies that the 53% have to pay for.

            This tone deaf, clueless understanding of how the world outside his bubble works was clear to 51% of Americans. I'm still failing to understand what the 49% who voted for Romney saw in him. There can't possibly be that many Americans making over $1M a year.

            BTW, it's not like Romney wasn't promising goodies of his own. Tax cuts for the wealthy. Eliminating the estate tax. Eliminating capital gains tax.

            Of course, goodies are only goodies when broke n*ggas, hispanics, college students, and single women get them. Rich dudes, not so much.

            Get lost, Mittens. Go visit your money in Switzerland. Us broke n*ggas gotta deal with broke n*gga sh*t.

            It's a 47% thang. You wouldn't understand.

            Question: Does this latest Romney snafu surprise you, or is the man merely confirming what we already knew about him all along?

            Monday, August 13, 2012

            Chad Johnson And The Reality TV Curse.

            ...

            Longtime NFL wide receiver Chad Johnson has been released by the Miami Dolphins after his arrest over the weekend. Johnson is accused of head-butting his newlywed wife, authorities said.

            The Dolphins announced Sunday on their website that they had terminated the contract of Johnson, who played a preseason game on Friday but had not participated in a regular season game with the team. No reason was given for his release.

            Johnson and Evelyn Lozada, a cast member on the VH1 reality TV show "Basketball Wives," married on July 4 and their time together is set to be subject of an upcoming show on the same network.

            According to the arrest report from the Davie Police Department released Sunday, the football player's wife returned to the couple's 北京体彩网官方网站 in that southern Florida city from grocery shopping shortly after 7 p.m. Saturday and noticed a receipt with a charge for a box of condoms.

            The couple then began talking about the sales receipt and their marriage, according to the arrest report.

            "As they were talking, Johnson became upset and without (his wife's) permission, grabbed her and butted her on the forehead, causing a laceration," the police report said, giving the alleged victim's account.

            A Davie police officer soon responded to the area and found Johnson's wife with an approximately 3-inch cut on the center of her forehead.

            Officer Christopher Epps then went to the couple's 北京体彩网官方网站, where he found the football player, the arrest report said. Johnson confirmed there had been an argument over the sales receipt, saying his wife had been yelling and that "she then head butted Johnson" to cause the cut to her forehead.

            Johnson did not have "visible marks or bruises," the arrest report said.
            I'm not trying to make light of domestic violence here, but admit it: when you heard he headbutted her, I'm sure your initial thought was "Man, that's one big assed forehead! How many times did he have to headbutt her?"

            Nobody deserves to be beaten, and much like other celebrity wife(or GF)-beaters, I hope Johnson gets the public scorn his actions merit. Losing his day job is prolly a good start, although as long as Johnson can run an out pattern, someone will be more than willing to pick him up.[1] Believe that.

            BTW, I don't watch Hard Knocks, but how's this for foreshadowing?!?



            That said, I hope their already reviled reality show doesn't try and seize this very real life situation and use it as a plot device. Seriously, that would be tacky. I'm no fan of either of the principals in this story, and I generally find them to be very nauseating, arrogant people whom I strongly dislike, but who oddly seem to deserve each other. And oddly, one of the few things I recall from having (briefly) watched them on Basketball Wives is "They're getting married and they really don't seem to even like each other. At all."

            Lets just hope they don't both use this situation as a come up.

            Best of luck, Ocho. Don't be so mad. UPS is hirin'.

            Question: Should Johnson get another shot at the NFL after this? Do these two very bad people actually deserve each other?

            [1] As of right now though, he is, to borrow the phrase, a non-m************ factor.

            Monday, February 27, 2012

            Rick Santorum Thinks College Makes You A "Snob". Rick Santorum Has 3 College Degrees.

            , but at this point, little shocks me anymore.

            Speaking to a tea party group in Michigan on Saturday, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) accused President Obama of being a “snob” because he wants “everybody in America to go to college.”

            The statement is a curious one considering that Santorum — who holds a B.A., M.B.A. and J.D. — holds more advanced degrees than Obama, who has a B.A. and a J.D.

            And Talking Points Memo reported Saturday that in 2006, Santorum’s campaign Web site stated his commitment to making “higher education more accessible and affordable.”

            “Not all folks are gifted in the same way,” Santorum told a crowd of more than 1,000 activists at the Americans for Prosperity forum in Troy, Mich. “Some people have incredible gifts with their hands. Some people have incredible gifts and ... want to work out there making things. President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob.”

            As the crowd applauded, Santorum continued.

            “There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them,” he said. “Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his.”

            Santorum graduated from Penn State with a B.A. in 1980, then earned an M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1981. In 1986, he earned a J.D. from Penn State’s Dickinson School of Law.

            Obama attended Occidental College, then transferred to Columbia University, where he earned a B.A. in 1983. He later graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. in 1991.

            Both the messenger and his message appear to be resonating with working-class voters, a bloc of the electorate to which Romney has struggled to appeal, with limited success.
            Here's the moving pictures.



            I'll save my commentary for the next episode of The AverageBro Show™, coming later this week. Till then, I'll cede the floor.

            Question: Does Santorum have a valid point here, or does this just prove that the GOP candidates will disagree with Obama over anything to win political points?!?

            Tuesday, February 14, 2012

            .

            The CPAC conference has concluded with several days of political discourse and equally interesting conversations on both sides of the coin.

            One aspect of the conference that sparked much media attention was due to two conference attendees premiering a rap song.

            Christopher Loesch and Steven Crowder wearing powdered wigs and wearing track suits performed their pro-conservative rap, “Mr. America” before a small crowd of conference attendees. During their performance, they appear to have used the N-word.

            The WORD PLAY was part of the spheal because the deejay cut off the beat as they said the word. What? Knickers? I can say knickers!” they exclaim.

            Crowder told Raw Story that they just wanted to try out “something that Conservatives haven’t done before.” Crowder often comments that liberals are evil and he can't be racist because he has a black Republican friend.

            Although much of the crowd was dancing and moving around, a few of the people there thought it was all in very poor taste.

            "I didn't appreciate the play-on-words," said Kathy Wilcox. "The GOP is better than that, and I wish I had not seen their performance."

            Another attendee said, "I didn't hear or see it, but I don't see anything wrong with what they did. Blacks are allowed to use far worse language."
            Unless you have a sick fetish strange affinity for really awful Colonial-era rap music, fast forward to around the 1:50 mark.



            Yet another brilliant, culturally sensitive move by Today's GOP. Way to grow the tent, fellas. Bravo!

            And they wonder why black folks won't even remotely consider voting for them.

            Contrary to some reports out there, it's quite clear that they didn't actually say the "N-word", but they definitely used the work "Knickers" as a tongue-in-cheek play-on-words. Which, if you think about it, in some ways, is actually even worse. Lamer still in about "hyper-PC, disingenuous liberals who today seek for a reason to be offended under every rock".

            Yeah, what the f*ck ever, dude.

            I'm really don't understand the logic here. What does offending black folks with not-so-clever and rather offensive wordplay do to help expand the GOP's shriveling base. If Crowder, a Fox News contributor, thinks this is somehow helping, maybe he's dumber than he looks. And yeah, he looks pretty f*ckin' dumb.

            BTW, Andy Samberg called. He wants his shtick back.

            Question: If you're a black conservative, please tell me how this "helps the cause" of getting fellow Negroes off the Democratic plantation and onto the life-saving, free market driven utopia that is the GOP.

            Monday, February 6, 2012

            Things I Strongly Dislike: Kiddie Birthday Parties.

            . Not really sure how often I'll do this, but if the response is favorable, I might make this a regular feature. Anyways, listen to my whiny rant below, and chime in you-know-where.



            Question: Do you also find yourself largely annoyed with kiddie birthday parties? Should I keep audioblogging, or does my voice annoy you to no end?

            [1] BTW, if you missed the relevance of the caption on the photo above, clearly you slept through 10th grade English. And yes, a pox upon YOUR house for that one.

            [2] Yes, that is my son talking in the background. Yes, I realize I sound like a bit of a jerk for telling him to chill out. It happens. He had his earphones on and was watching a DVD in the backseat, so he was being a real trooper, all things considered. So, he really didn't hear much of Daddy's rant.

            Wednesday, January 25, 2012

            Mitt Romney Pays (Much!) Less In Taxes Than You Do. Don't Hate The Player!!!

            .

            Mitt Romney’s campaign released details of his federal tax returns on Tuesday morning, showing that he is likely to pay a total of $6.2 million in taxes on $45 million in income over the two tax years of 2010 and 2011.

            The details of the returns, confirmed by a senior campaign official, provide the most detailed view yet of his wealthy family’s finances. The disclosure comes after a barrage of pressure to release his returns — which Mr. Romney has never done, even when he was elected governor of Massachusetts.

            The disclosure — reported early Tuesday by The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News — showed a vast array of investments, from a recently closed Swiss bank account to holdings in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, all underscoring the breadth and depth of his wealth, which has become a central issue in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

            Mr. Romney said last week that his effective tax rate was “about 15 percent,” a figure lower than that of many affluent Americans. But his returns suggested that he paid an effective tax rate of nearly 14 percent.

            In addition to his 2010 taxes, Mr. Romney is set to release estimates for his 2011 taxes, which he will file in April. The campaign will report that he will pay $3.2 million in taxes for 2011, for an effective tax rate of 15.4 percent. That is a slightly higher effective rate than he paid the year before, when he paid about $3 million to the Internal Revenue Service.

            Mr. Romney also said that there were “no surprises” in his tax returns. Referring to the fact that nearly all of his income is taxed as capital gains at a 15 percent rate, rather than as earned income at rates of up to 35 percent, Mr. Romney questioned a proposal by Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, to reduce capital gains taxes to zero.
            Let's be clear here: there's nothing wrong, or even remotely immoral about the percentage of taxes Romney is paying. It's the law. Money gained from investments (as well as money gained from investing someone else's money!) is taxed at a much lower clip than earned income. Always has been, always will be. It is what it is, and you can't hate the player here. Nor the game for that matter.



            What does piss me off is Mitt's perpetual assertion that people are somehow envious of his success. This line of reasoning comes up in every debate, as well as Mitt's assertion that he is a self-made millionaire who didn't inherit anything. The inference seems to be that practically anyone can pull this off, if they just happen to be smart and resourceful enough. This is obvious bullsh*t.

            Romney's Dad was the one-time Governor of Michigan, and CEO of American Motors Corporation. It's fair to say that Mitt's upbringing wasn't that of a typical American, and it's equally fair to say that his father's wealth and influence opened doors that many other Americans aren't privy to.

            So, coming from a rich family and becoming rich isn't really all that impressive to me. Sorry. Bragging on your success when you Dad's a millionaire is like starting on third base and bragging about scoring a run. Most of us start at 北京体彩网官方网站 plate. Hell, some of us start in the dugout.

            We don't hate you because of your success, Mitt. We dislike you because you're a jerk.

            Question: Is is fair to tax earned income at a far higher rate than investment income? Should Mitt stop running with that "don't hate my success" line, or is it a tailor-made Obama campaign ad just waiting to get made?!?