Am I the only person who thinks that Sony "hacked" itself?
How can you take an otherwise bland comedy about a reclusive third-world country and turn it into an international "I've-gotta-see-it" sensation? I think the facts speak for themselves.
1. Does North Korea really have the infrastructure to launch a hack?
2. How else can you get the President of the United States to endorse a movie?
3. How can you get the FBI to finger the object of the movie?
4. Can you get the theaters where it was to be debuted on Christmas Day to pull it from their screens?
5. Rehash the movie in the media over-and-over again, by playing the blame game.
6. Decide to release the movie AGAIN in theaters, but, also, let's add an online release, through Google's YouTube and Apple's iTunes.
As I write this blog, I am on the verge of watching the movie online. Would I have watched the movie in theaters, otherwise?
Lord, no! I just don't watch movies in theaters. But I'm sort of interested in seeing what this movie is about, but not so much as I'd grace the doors of a who's-that-getting-a-blowjob-down-front, sticky, icky movie house.
Perhaps, Sony is testing the waters of the "at-home" audience for future reference.
I may be wrong, but I smell an international I Love Lucy-worthy publicity stunt! (That may just be working on me.)
Showing posts with label Absurdity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Absurdity. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Let's sue the President
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (pronounced "boner") has announced a plan to ask the United States House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the President, which would require him to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Isn't that a noble concept?
Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.
Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?
No.
Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?
No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)
So, who can help in such a quagmire?
Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?
When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.
In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!
Isn't that a noble concept?
Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.
Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?
No.
Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?
No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)
So, who can help in such a quagmire?
Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?
When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.
In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Silly Canadian, you can't be President!
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Canadian born citizen, thinks he can be president of the United States.
Cruz, who is a Tea Party wunderkind, is slated to be one of the top Republican picks for 2016. I truly wonder how the Tea Party could in all clear conscience put forth a candidate who was clearly not born in the United States?
His father was born in Cuba and his mother was born in Delaware, which is his only claim to American citizenship. I'm sure, however, that Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, says only "a natural born citizen" can be considered for Executive. The only other way I can see Ted Cruz being legitimate is if he were living in the United States prior to September 17, 1787. And, with that said, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen his name in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living man.
So, Tea Party members, don't be hypocritical. You raked Barack Obama over the coals for being a black man born in Hawaii. How can you put forward an individual who was clearly not born in the United States?
It's remarkably insane! Gracious!
Cruz, who is a Tea Party wunderkind, is slated to be one of the top Republican picks for 2016. I truly wonder how the Tea Party could in all clear conscience put forth a candidate who was clearly not born in the United States?
His father was born in Cuba and his mother was born in Delaware, which is his only claim to American citizenship. I'm sure, however, that Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, says only "a natural born citizen" can be considered for Executive. The only other way I can see Ted Cruz being legitimate is if he were living in the United States prior to September 17, 1787. And, with that said, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen his name in the Guinness Book of World Records as the world's oldest living man.
So, Tea Party members, don't be hypocritical. You raked Barack Obama over the coals for being a black man born in Hawaii. How can you put forward an individual who was clearly not born in the United States?
It's remarkably insane! Gracious!
Thursday, January 23, 2014
The Celebrity Trend
It would seem that in order to be a successful celebrity in the United States, you must be a terrible human being.
For a pittance of $2,500 I can have my armed security (including my father) seal off a Florida neighborhood, hold its residents hostage, and drag race my Lamborghini (or was it a Ferrari, I forget?) through their streets, while intoxicated on alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs (that my mother helped procure).
After Justin Bieber did it and got out of jail for $2,500, I think other celebrities should follow his example. That much money, in terms of a bond, is a joke to someone with millions of dollars at their disposal.
A slap on the wrist? Hardly! I think it would be a blip that would barely register on his radar.
A $250,000 bond may have been a slap on the wrist. A $2.5 million bond would have truly slowed things down. As the judge, I would have taken into account every person's life and liberty, who lives in that neighborhood, when assigning Bieber's bond amount.
Justice is equitable, not equal. In other words, what is fair to me may not be fair to you. $2,500 is a large sum for the average person. In that case, equal justice would demand that Bieber pay $2,500. But, at the same time, if justice is equitable to the individual, by holding him or her to account for his or her actions, then in this case $2,500 hardly seems justifiable.
For a pittance of $2,500 I can have my armed security (including my father) seal off a Florida neighborhood, hold its residents hostage, and drag race my Lamborghini (or was it a Ferrari, I forget?) through their streets, while intoxicated on alcohol, marijuana and prescription drugs (that my mother helped procure).
After Justin Bieber did it and got out of jail for $2,500, I think other celebrities should follow his example. That much money, in terms of a bond, is a joke to someone with millions of dollars at their disposal.
A slap on the wrist? Hardly! I think it would be a blip that would barely register on his radar.
A $250,000 bond may have been a slap on the wrist. A $2.5 million bond would have truly slowed things down. As the judge, I would have taken into account every person's life and liberty, who lives in that neighborhood, when assigning Bieber's bond amount.
Justice is equitable, not equal. In other words, what is fair to me may not be fair to you. $2,500 is a large sum for the average person. In that case, equal justice would demand that Bieber pay $2,500. But, at the same time, if justice is equitable to the individual, by holding him or her to account for his or her actions, then in this case $2,500 hardly seems justifiable.
Sunday, November 03, 2013
What stops a thief from stealing a car?
I was reading through some of Yahoo!'s usual news filler this morning, and I noticed an article that really made me chuckle out-loud. It would seem that the best security feature any car can have is a garage.
Originally, the article made me click on it because I thought it was going to discuss sophisticated anti-theft options on the vehicles. Instead, it made numerous references to "soccer moms" and the "suburbs," which I found a little less like anti-theft for my vehicle and more about what's chic for the modern-day suburban soccer mom to drive around her babies. (Unfortunately, the Chevy Suburban did make the cut. I suppose it doesn't fit so well in those cookie-cutter houses' garages in the 'burbs!)
Originally, the article made me click on it because I thought it was going to discuss sophisticated anti-theft options on the vehicles. Instead, it made numerous references to "soccer moms" and the "suburbs," which I found a little less like anti-theft for my vehicle and more about what's chic for the modern-day suburban soccer mom to drive around her babies. (Unfortunately, the Chevy Suburban did make the cut. I suppose it doesn't fit so well in those cookie-cutter houses' garages in the 'burbs!)
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Easter
On this holiest of holy days, I want to reflect on probably something I have probably already said at some other time and/or some where else.
Facebook is a good place to keep in touch with people, but it is also a good place to be reminded of how foolish people can be. I am far from the most religious/spiritual person on the planet, but I don't take take out of my day (irony here) to tell people about it by plastering their Facebook walls with countless posts.
Whereas, Christmas has a since of joviality and the spirit of giving (and, yes, a virgin birth for good measure), Easter is simply a day to celebrate something that to me is quite absurd to me: execution, burial and resurrection.
So what's my point?
Were people executed by crucifixion? Yes.
Were people buried in caves/tombs? Sure.
Did someone come back from the dead after a crucifixion? Nope.
Yes, Easter is more about the eggs and bunny rabbits, for me. After all, Easter was originally a pagan celebration of fertility (duh, it's spring). I'll take my fertile little bunnies and life-giving chickens' eggs over the belief that some Jewish person chose to die for my sins, had to be buried for three days, and then brought back miraculously from the dead for all the world to marvel, even 2,000+ years later!
Facebook is a good place to keep in touch with people, but it is also a good place to be reminded of how foolish people can be. I am far from the most religious/spiritual person on the planet, but I don't take take out of my day (irony here) to tell people about it by plastering their Facebook walls with countless posts.
Whereas, Christmas has a since of joviality and the spirit of giving (and, yes, a virgin birth for good measure), Easter is simply a day to celebrate something that to me is quite absurd to me: execution, burial and resurrection.
So what's my point?
Were people executed by crucifixion? Yes.
Were people buried in caves/tombs? Sure.
Did someone come back from the dead after a crucifixion? Nope.
Yes, Easter is more about the eggs and bunny rabbits, for me. After all, Easter was originally a pagan celebration of fertility (duh, it's spring). I'll take my fertile little bunnies and life-giving chickens' eggs over the belief that some Jewish person chose to die for my sins, had to be buried for three days, and then brought back miraculously from the dead for all the world to marvel, even 2,000+ years later!
Monday, December 31, 2012
Kim Kardashian
You know, thinking back on 2012, we've had a lot of ups and downs. We weathered a presidential election, fiscal cliffs, the Mayan calendar apocalypse and revived the gun debate, but I really believe the most historic moment of this year happened today. It's fitting that such an event occurred on the very last day of 2012: the announcement that Kim Kardashian is having a baby!
When future historians write about this year, they'll glaze over the other 365 days (it was a leap year, after all) for this one super magical moment. America is blessed with such great news. Everything else just seems awkwardly superficial!
Happy 2013!
When future historians write about this year, they'll glaze over the other 365 days (it was a leap year, after all) for this one super magical moment. America is blessed with such great news. Everything else just seems awkwardly superficial!
Happy 2013!
Monday, December 10, 2012
Afternoon Delight
Last night my mom and I were having a conversation about people in general. Mom made a comment about how "crazy" people are in the world. I thought on what she said for a few seconds, before I realized that while she was making her observation she was giving a haircut to a dog.
It gave me a good tickle!
It gave me a good tickle!
Monday, August 20, 2012
Pregnancy=No Rape
I tell people that I learn something new everyday. Yesterday was no exception to that rule. According to a member of the United States Congress, Todd Akin (R-MO), pregnancy does not occur when legitimate rape has been committed. I suppose that the female body has a way of warding off the sperm of a rapist. But, if you say it's rape, and you get pregnant, then it's not really rape.
Representative Akin sounds like a real piece of work. The sad thing (other than he is an elected official) is that he is running for the Senate this fall. What's interesting now is that Republican leaders are attempting to get Akin to withdraw from the race. These leaders include Kentucky's own bigot, Mitch McConnell, who is the Minority Leader in the Senate.
The more you know!
Representative Akin sounds like a real piece of work. The sad thing (other than he is an elected official) is that he is running for the Senate this fall. What's interesting now is that Republican leaders are attempting to get Akin to withdraw from the race. These leaders include Kentucky's own bigot, Mitch McConnell, who is the Minority Leader in the Senate.
The more you know!
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Parasites
I'm not a dog person. I never really liked dogs, but I can tolerate them. They just seem too needy and overly pleasing compared to my sloth-like, hedonistic values. They must always know their place. And that place is at least 100 feet from me at all times. Last year, in the spring I think, my parents got a dog. Now mind you, they have had dogs in the past. Of course, 90% of them ended up ran-over in the middle of the highway, but not this new dog. She's blessed.
This little furry dog, that probably weighs ten pounds, is the pride-and-joy of my parents. It is the child they never had. They dote, they spoil, they indulge this horrid thing. The irony is that my mother is the one who used to criticize her own aunt for the same actions. But now, they are one in the same. It's like the two musketeers of well fed rat-dogs.
This dog, of course, lives in the house. She eats her weight in cat shit each day. My mother says she is fickle, because she doesn't eat her over-priced, designer dog food. (Mother, though, overlooks the previous stated fact about the kitty snacks.) In fact, this dog eats anything that goes into her mouth, with the exception of dog food. I've seen her devour used toilet tissue, Kleenex, anything in the garbage basically.
Then, there's the humping. I didn't realize this, because I'd never seen it before, but female dogs are humpers. This dog humps anything with or without a pulse. I'm an exception. Mom says is shows she is dominate over all she surveys. She surveys me and goes the other way. I'm not mean to her, perse; I just set limits. I suppose I am the surrogate alpha. She has tried the crawling on her belly, eyes lowered routine with me, but I'm not buying it. She's selfish. Unyielding. As am I. I will persevere.
Am I jealous? You bet. This dog has received attention that I was denied as a child. My mother's kisses and acceptance was all being saved for this dog. I've surmised that it may be her way of compensating for grandchildren she has never had. Perhaps, if she had small kids to love, then the dog I so unlovingly call Cujo, may take a backseat. But somehow I doubt it. Even my father takes her on long, tethered walks that I never got as a boy. It's absurd!
I did once tell mom that if this dog--and I--survived her and Dad, not to fear. Whichever of them goes last--Mom or Dad--would get the pleasure of taking the dog with them into eternal bliss. A companion for the ages. I'm a good son, goddamnit!
This little furry dog, that probably weighs ten pounds, is the pride-and-joy of my parents. It is the child they never had. They dote, they spoil, they indulge this horrid thing. The irony is that my mother is the one who used to criticize her own aunt for the same actions. But now, they are one in the same. It's like the two musketeers of well fed rat-dogs.
This dog, of course, lives in the house. She eats her weight in cat shit each day. My mother says she is fickle, because she doesn't eat her over-priced, designer dog food. (Mother, though, overlooks the previous stated fact about the kitty snacks.) In fact, this dog eats anything that goes into her mouth, with the exception of dog food. I've seen her devour used toilet tissue, Kleenex, anything in the garbage basically.
Then, there's the humping. I didn't realize this, because I'd never seen it before, but female dogs are humpers. This dog humps anything with or without a pulse. I'm an exception. Mom says is shows she is dominate over all she surveys. She surveys me and goes the other way. I'm not mean to her, perse; I just set limits. I suppose I am the surrogate alpha. She has tried the crawling on her belly, eyes lowered routine with me, but I'm not buying it. She's selfish. Unyielding. As am I. I will persevere.
Am I jealous? You bet. This dog has received attention that I was denied as a child. My mother's kisses and acceptance was all being saved for this dog. I've surmised that it may be her way of compensating for grandchildren she has never had. Perhaps, if she had small kids to love, then the dog I so unlovingly call Cujo, may take a backseat. But somehow I doubt it. Even my father takes her on long, tethered walks that I never got as a boy. It's absurd!
I did once tell mom that if this dog--and I--survived her and Dad, not to fear. Whichever of them goes last--Mom or Dad--would get the pleasure of taking the dog with them into eternal bliss. A companion for the ages. I'm a good son, goddamnit!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Illinois Rant
I don't think this video needs an introduction! Okay, okay. I'll introduce it: Illinois Republican lawmaker Rep. Mike Bost goes insane on the floor of the Illinois' House.
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Tanning Mom is the real Coppertone girl!
Suddenly, my tan isn't looking so good! Thanks Tanning Mom for ruining my summer!
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Disturbed by Google
Google how could you design such a disturbing Google Doodle? It's Jim Henson's 75th birthday, and Google, in partnership with Jim Henson studios (or something), designed one of their famous doodles for people to tinker around with on the search engine's website. It so happens that one of the creatures (i.e., puppets) eats its neighbor. Even as a grown up, I find that slightly disturbing.
But it's all in fun, right? After all, a frog can fall in love with a pig!
Monday, June 13, 2011
Weinergate
Who wants to see the pics that Congressman Anthony Weiner tweeted to me? Not to mention the inappropriate banter he forced me to read!
Oh Lordy! When will these politicians learn?
Oh Lordy! When will these politicians learn?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Judgement Day!
As the end of the world draws near (only two hours remain), I am left with a few parting words for those of you who will be raptured: GET REAL!
History is full of people calling for the "Lord's return" for over 2,000 years. God almighty!
History is full of people calling for the "Lord's return" for over 2,000 years. God almighty!
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Saturday, April 02, 2011
America's Middle East
With the burning of a Qu'ran by a Florida church, America is now faced with its own outrage at the hands of the Afghans.
Last year, the church in Gainesville, Florida, was set to host the "International Burn a Quran Day" on 9/11. Instead, Terry Jones, who is the church's pastor (cult leader), decided to postpone the hateful act after much domestic and international pressure. The event was resurrected (I can't help myself), in the form of the "International Judge the Koran Day." This event took place recently.
Sufficed-to-say, Muslims did not take kindly to the video burning of a single Qu'ran on the church's website. Now, I am not a religious fanatic. Actually, I am not religious at all. But you know what you get when you pit two groups of ignorant people against each other. That's right, people get hurt, and some even die, which is the case in Afghanistan.
Even though the act showed poor taste and utter ignorance, I am a firm believer in First Amendment rights. I believe every American has the right to protest and support his/her beliefs in a non-violent way. Although, I believe you may burn any book you wish, the fact remains that the people who participated in this act of protest understood the ramifications of their act. It wasn't simply speaking out against a governmental policy, but a slap-in-the-face of over a billion people, who are easily pissed off when it comes to their faith.
Now, the American government and military must bear the burden of the burning of a single Qu'ran. Americans and Afghans have died in what has become a cauldron of hate and retaliation in Afghanistan. As someone who teaches American National Government, I am puzzled by what should be the outcome of what has happened. I teach my students that their rights end where another individual's rights begin. (I often cite Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion, in re: Schenck v. United States, of the figurative man shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, as a caveat.) As such, I believe the people who knowingly participated in this act should be expatriated to Afghanistan. Sometimes you must freely sacrifice a lamb to the wolf in order to save your flock. How's that for atonement?
Last year, the church in Gainesville, Florida, was set to host the "International Burn a Quran Day" on 9/11. Instead, Terry Jones, who is the church's pastor (cult leader), decided to postpone the hateful act after much domestic and international pressure. The event was resurrected (I can't help myself), in the form of the "International Judge the Koran Day." This event took place recently.
Sufficed-to-say, Muslims did not take kindly to the video burning of a single Qu'ran on the church's website. Now, I am not a religious fanatic. Actually, I am not religious at all. But you know what you get when you pit two groups of ignorant people against each other. That's right, people get hurt, and some even die, which is the case in Afghanistan.
Even though the act showed poor taste and utter ignorance, I am a firm believer in First Amendment rights. I believe every American has the right to protest and support his/her beliefs in a non-violent way. Although, I believe you may burn any book you wish, the fact remains that the people who participated in this act of protest understood the ramifications of their act. It wasn't simply speaking out against a governmental policy, but a slap-in-the-face of over a billion people, who are easily pissed off when it comes to their faith.
Now, the American government and military must bear the burden of the burning of a single Qu'ran. Americans and Afghans have died in what has become a cauldron of hate and retaliation in Afghanistan. As someone who teaches American National Government, I am puzzled by what should be the outcome of what has happened. I teach my students that their rights end where another individual's rights begin. (I often cite Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' opinion, in re: Schenck v. United States, of the figurative man shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, as a caveat.) As such, I believe the people who knowingly participated in this act should be expatriated to Afghanistan. Sometimes you must freely sacrifice a lamb to the wolf in order to save your flock. How's that for atonement?
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Jon Kyl is a bigot
After the Senate voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) declared the repealing of the law would "cost lives."
I wonder exactly how being homosexual would cost heterosexuals their lives. Is that what he meant? He went further to qualify his comments by saying the discrimination found in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was not characteristic of the racial integration of the armed forces over fifty years ago. His attitude was that all lawmakers were 100% behind racial integration of the armed forces.
Let's face it, there were lawmakers who felt that anything that brough the races together was a catastrophe waiting to happen. This is similiar to what Senator Kyl is expressing through is comments now. Senator, it is 2010, not 1960! I wonder if fifty years from now, someone will look back and wonder how anyone could say such comments about a group of people? You would never hear a lawmaker today say that the racial integration of yesteryear was a bad policy. The same will be said about allowing gays to serve openly in the United States military.
I wonder exactly how being homosexual would cost heterosexuals their lives. Is that what he meant? He went further to qualify his comments by saying the discrimination found in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was not characteristic of the racial integration of the armed forces over fifty years ago. His attitude was that all lawmakers were 100% behind racial integration of the armed forces.
Let's face it, there were lawmakers who felt that anything that brough the races together was a catastrophe waiting to happen. This is similiar to what Senator Kyl is expressing through is comments now. Senator, it is 2010, not 1960! I wonder if fifty years from now, someone will look back and wonder how anyone could say such comments about a group of people? You would never hear a lawmaker today say that the racial integration of yesteryear was a bad policy. The same will be said about allowing gays to serve openly in the United States military.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Sarah Palin supports North Korea
In an interview, former Alaska governor and vice president candidate Sarah Palin declared her support of America's ally, North Korea.
She really should check her facts before she writes them on her palms.
She really should check her facts before she writes them on her palms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)