Un-Beliebable

Is there any way that we could get away from asking questions of certain people who have no idea what they're talking about and have no business answering certain questions that they're asked? And by "certain people" I mean celebretards and Justin Bieber.

It was all I could do not to write about a press release that came out about a week ago, which started out: "REAL HOUSEWIVES STAR DANIELLE STAUB GIVES ADVICE TO EGYPT'S MUBARAK." Really? Who was asking? And who cared? And which of those two was the most dense intellectually? It had to have been a toss up. An excerpt: "Staub, who notoriously walked away from the show, was asked whether it was time for Mubarak to walk away as well...'If he feels in his heart that it's really time then, yeah, it is time," Staub stated." Kill me now. Don't delay! I'm standing by! But wait, before you do that? Could you tell me what's wrong with her face?

But I'm having a hard time not commenting on the Justin Bieber article in Rolling Stone. Again, why someone is asking these questions of ANY sixteen year old is beyond me, but asking them of Justin Bieber is simply stupefying. For instance, Bieber (who may or may not be a 30-year old lesbian impersonating a teenage boy) was apparently asked if he had any plans to become an American citizen. Thank God, he does not. He seems to be very fond of his homeland, America's Hat. But his reasons are...annoying at best. He 'jokes', "You guys are evil...Canada's the best country in the world...We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

Are you kidding me?! His bodyguard has to PAY For his OWN BABY?!?! It's madness!! Hey, Bieber. He works for you, you little twit! If you're so big on your socialist system, what say, since you have WAY more money than your peon of a bodyguard, YOU pay for it?! And you DO pay for your doctor in Canada! It's just not directly! How do you think they get paid?! Where do you think that money comes from?! And there's a big freaking difference between your bodyguard having to pay for his own child and someone's premature baby getting to stay in the hospital as long as it needs to. Those two aren't the same thing. Is your bodyguard so idiotic that he didn't have insurance before deciding to have a baby? Pipe down, little lesbian.

The article continues to annoy me by apparently asking him "...what political party he'd support if he was old enough to vote." He responds with "I'm not sure about the parties...But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad." OK, so he's not going to join the...Korean...Party? What does that have to do with anything at all? Does he know that there is a North AND a South Korea? He makes it sound like he does not. But I guess it's good to know that he would be against doing things in Canada the way that they do things in at least one of the Koreas. (This guy still goes to school, right? Perhaps a little more focus on political parties around the globe is in order.)

And here's my favorite part. Here's where the interviewer asks a 16-year old boy about his opinion on, you guessed it, abortion. Listen, here's my opinion on asking people their opinion on abortion: It's pointless. No one is going to change anyone else's mind based on their opinion. It just doesn't happen. Once your opinion is formed, it's going to take something pretty major for you to go over to your perceived dark side. All asking for opinions on abortion ever does is start arguments. It's highly unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal in this country, so what's the point in arguing about it? I understand that some of you don't like it, but it's not going to change, so I suggest you get used to the fact that there are going to be some goings on in the world that you don't like.

But I digress. Back to Bieber. The article claims: "He does have a solid opinion on abortion." Oh, good! A solid opinion. Lay it on me. "I really don't believe in abortion...It's like killing a baby?" That's his solid opinion? One that ends with a question which inquires about the very issue being discussed? Let's see if we can narrow down the view of a 16-year old boy who may or may not be a lesbian. "How about in cases of rape?" Ohhhh! The devil's advocate clause that always comes out when people are against abortion. Let's see how he handles it! "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that." Sweet fancy Moses. Are you dry shaving me?

He thinks rape is "really sad"? Do you now? Really sad? Yeah, that's the very least of what rape is! But I'm going to overlook that simply because his claim that "everything happens for a reason" has be so infuriated that I can barely type. So if a woman gets raped by a schizophrenic scumbag dripping with syphilis and becomes impregnated with his demon child, you "don't see how that would be a reason"?! For reals?! Oh, how I only wish that I could say "Who asked you?", but I can't because some dimwit actually DID ask him! For the purpose of what I cannot imagine.

Why would you ask a 16-year old, let alone a 16-year old boy, about abortion in the first place? Unless...maybe he really is a 30-year old lesbian. Have you been to Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber? If that website can teach us anything, it's that we really have no idea what he is. And I'm good with that. I don't need to know what he is anymore than I need to know what he thinks. If I never heard another word from or about Justin Bieber for the rest of my life it would be too soon. Because, you know, everything happens for a reason!

Rape = Lemons

Sharron Angle is back in the news. The only good thing about her continuing to let people know where she stands on the issues is that it will help solidify her getting soundly beaten when the election rolls around in November. She is the Republican candidate trying to wrestle the Senate seat away from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Soon, she'll just be another nutjob that I (hopefully) never have to hear from again. What a maroon.

Here's her deal: She doesn't believe in abortion even in the cases of rape and/or incest. Nope. Doesn't believe in it. She does, apparently, believe in using flowery metaphors to explain how she thinks that things should be. You know, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Only in this case, the lemons are being raped and getting pregnant, and the lemonade is carrying that child to term and having it. Of course. That seems perfectly reasonable. If you live on another planet.

It seems that Ms. Angle appeared on the Alan Stock Show, which is apparently a conservative radio program. It was during that show that Mr. Stock asked her "Where do you stand on the issue of abortion, a consensual abortion, from a person who is raped or is pregnant as a result of incest?" That seems like a fairly straight forward question. Let's see if she can give a fairly straight forward answer, shall we?

She responded, "My own personal feelings and that is always what I express, my personal feeling is that we need to err on the side of life. There is a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it's location, age, gender or disability." Hmm. That's not as straight forward as I would have liked. And I'm wondering why that "plan" can't include having an abortion if you're raped.

And apparently Mr. Stock wondered the same thing. That's why he followed up his question with, basically, the same question, when he asked, "What do you say then to a young girl, I am going to place it as he said it, when a young girl is raped by her father, let's say, and she is pregnant. How do you explain this to her in terms of wanting her to go through the process of having the baby?" Ugh.

First of all, how could anyone WANT a young girl, who has been raped by her father, to HAVE that baby? HOW? I do not understand that AT ALL. And it fascinates me in a way that I cannot explain that this viewpoint is being expressed by a woman. I am completely at a loss as to what to say other than, "You're a moron."

So, how does she explain it? Well, like this: "I think that two wrongs don't make a right. And I have been in the situation of counseling young girls, not 13 but 15, who have had very at risk, difficult pregnancies. And my counsel was to look for some alternatives, which they did. And they found that they had made what was really a lemon situation into lemonade. Well one girl in particular moved in with the adoptive parents of her child, and they both were adopted. Both of them grew up, one graduated from high school, the other had parents that loved her and she also graduated from high school. And I'll tell you the little girl who was born from that very poor situation came to me when she was 13 and said 'I know what you did thank you for saving my life.' So it is meaningful to me to err on the side of life." Good Lord. What is wrong with you?

Might I just point out how she answered the question by giving an example that had nothing to do with the question. She claims that she has been in a position where she had to counsel young girls who had "at risk" pregnancies. OK, if you're asking me, anyone having a kid when they're 13 or 15 if "at risk". But that doesn't address a rape or an incest situation! No, that just addresses a high risk pregnancy situation.

And I have to tell you, I'm not really buying her example that she gave. That sounds like too much of a perfectly flowery ending if you're asking me. But even if it were true, are we supposed to assume that ALL situations would turn out equally as well? Anyone who thinks that, as Ms. Angle appears to, would be a moron. And since she's so fond of metaphors, here's one for her: Nice tale, but it's apples and oranges that you're comparing. Your little example there has nothing to do with a girl who has been raped or is a victim of incest. None. And there isn't a drop of lemonade to be found in those situations. On top of that, being raped isn't life handing you "a lemon", you twit. It's a horrible thing to happen to any woman and the fact that you clearly minimize the affect that being raped can have on a woman is reprehensible.

Please, Ms. Angle, do everyone a favor and go back to your little fantasy land that you seemed to have came from and stay there. Stay there and make your lemonade. Whatever you do, don't ever run for the Senate again. Remember, you said it yourself, two wrongs don't make a right. You're incredibly wrong. And you're not going to make it right. Now, shoo!

NO Right To Choose...Ever

I've done a few posts about the seemingly borderline retarded Alvin Greene winning the Democratic nomination to run for the Senate seat in South Carolina. He won the primary almost three weeks ago and still no one can figure out why anyone voted for him. Over in Nevada, there's a Republican candidate running for that Senate seat and I can't figure out why in the world anyone, especially any woman, would have ever voted for her either.

From the Nevada State Democratic Party website we learn of an interview that a one Sharron Angle did with a one Bill Manders back in January of 2010. Why this interview is coming out now is not quite clear to me. What is clear to me is that Ms. Angle should not be elected to anything. It's questionable if she should be allowed to roam about freely as she wishes. Medication might need to be involved. If no such medication is available, I'm all for a good malleting over the noggin.

Now, Manders brought up the topic of abortion. Abortion, if you're asking me, is a silly thing for people to state an opinion on. You know why? Because one side is never going to convince the other side to change their mind. They're just not. People might change their mind on their own over time, but they're not going to be simply convinced because someone presents them with a "reasonable" argument. It's a pointless discussion to have. But it sure does get some people riled up, that's for sure. And it's also a good way to identify some of the morons by listening to people's opinions.

Here's the way the exchange between Manders and Angle went. See if you have a problem with her logic/reasoning/rationale.

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

You have got to be effing kidding me.

Where to begin? Hard to say, really. I guess I can start with her being "pro responsible choice". I didn't know that we were differentiating between "responsible choice" and "irresponsible choice." And I really don't see how there can even be that distinction when referring to abortion. Pro-life means what it means and pro-choice means what it means. She can't just go around assigning her own definition to the sides that have already been defined.

She says that there is no reason at all for an abortion "in her book"? I'm glad we're not going by her book. Mainly because she doesn't seem to think that there should be the option of an abortion in the case of incest or rape. Listen, lady...I believe that God has a plan too, but I don't think that His plan involves some teenage girl getting raped by her uncle and then being forced to carry that baby to term. For instance! You put yourself in that sort of a position, Ms. Angle, and then you tell me how your "faith" is going to work in that situation. What a moron.

People with that sort of thinking pattern cannot be in government. They sure as heck cannot be in the Senate. (I'd sort of prefer that they not be on the planet.) Lawmaking requires logic and reason and facts. It requires very little reliance on faith. Ms. Angle doesn't seem to have enough cranial capacity to do anything other than rely on her "faith". Thus, vote for whoever is running against her. I don't know who that is and I'm not going to look it up. Anyone would be better than her and her "no choice" stance. And if you care to, you can listen to her stance over there at The Huffington Post.

Fakeroversy at the Super Bowl

We've got the Super Bowl just right around the corner. Well, it's next week. I realize that's a pretty big corner, but it's still pretty close. And when it's Super Bowl time, that's when the station that's airing the game starts to wrap up finalizing all of the commercials that are going to be shown during the game. Already there is a lot of controversy over some of the ads and they've got nothing to do with those cute Clydesdales.

What we have stirring up some fake controversy (yep, another fakeroversy) is an ad that was paid for by the Christian conservative group Focus on the Family. Conservative. Family. Yep. You guessed it. They're "pro-life", also known as anti-abortion. This ad is going to convey the meaning behind the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." It is also going to contain a one Tim Tebow (apparently a really good collegiate quarterback for Florida) and a one Pam Tebow, the mother of the aforementioned Tim.

According to the huffy folks over there at the Huffington Post the ad will be "...chronicling Pam Tebow's 1987 pregnancy. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim." Um, OK. But can I just say something here? I want my freaking Clydesdales back!!

Look, do I personally care if this group wants to buy this ad time? No, not really. I'm not offended by it. It doesn't particularly bother me because of the subject matter. However, lately it has come to light that abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since the 1930s and it would have been odd for the doctors there to recommend such a procedure. See, that does bother me. You want to send your anti-abortion message to a bazillion people watching a football game? I guess if you have the money for that, you can do so. But I'd really rather that you didn't. And here's why:

I like the commercials during the Super Bowl. I find them to be interesting and hilarious. (And in the case of the GoDaddy commercials, I find them to be interesting and...uh....um...what? Oh. Sorry. I was just envisioning GoDaddy commercials of the past and got distracted. GoDaddy isn't so much pro-life or pro-choice as much as it is pro-breasts.) I want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl. I especially want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl if I am watching said game at a venue with other people, some of which may or may not have imbibed just a little bit too much of any sort of alcoholic beverage furnished for said viewing.

You're never going to come to a nationwide consensus on whether or not abortion is OK or not. And from what I can tell, people have some really strong opinions about the whole matter. Don't believe me? Just ask that dude down in Kansas who blew away the abortion doc whilst he was sitting in church. I'm thinking that if your opinion is so strong that it leads you to justify blowing other people away with a gun while they're in church that you're not going to be swayed very easily to see the other side's point of view, you know what I'm saying?

And the last thing I want is a room full of people who may or may not have been drinking and who may or may not have extremely strong opinions about this whole abortion matter. That right there could turn the Super Bowl into the Super Brawl. It's supposed to be fun! Why do are we being subjected to commercials about abortions?!

Can you imagine if this sort of thing catches on? What if next year, instead of having all of the cute little dogs and horses unite in their ways to pull some sort of decrepit wagon into Small Town, USA so that all of the residents can have icy cold beer (some with a minimal amount of calories), we were instead subjected to political ads? And abortion ads? And gay marriage ads? And grandparent visitation rights ads? Oh, my God, I'd hang myself.

We could find ourselves in the not so distant future, sitting down for the big game with our family and friends with some youngsters, hopefully belonging to said family and friends. We could find ourselves saying to said youngsters, "You know, Billy...it wasn't that long ago that the commercials during the Super Bowl were really funny! Yes! Funny! There used to be these horses...Clydesdales, they were called...furry hooves, boy were they a hoot! But now, we've just got these political commercials all the time and...my God! How many of these with President Hillary are we going to have to sit through?!" That would be rough. Really. Rough.

It's not a controversy that CBS sold a commercial spot for an ad that is going to be anti-abortion. It's not. It's a fakeroversy. If there's such a problem with it, what say you pro-abortion folks roll out your own ad and get your message out there as well. And actually, I wish that they would. I'd find that very interesting, because I'm not all that aware of many pro-abortion advertising mediums of late. It's a tricky thing to advocate without sounding like a villain, I get that. But maybe try the Clydesdales! People really enjoy those!

Really, what are people worried about? That the ad is going to sway people into what? Not having abortions? I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that anyone out there that is contemplating an abortion is going to change her mind simply because of the possibility that their child could grow up to be a college football quarterback. I don't think the reason that they're considering the abortion in the first place is because they're worried that the youngster won't be good at sports. I think that has next to nothing to do with the decision. Besides, the only people that one would have to be concerned with being swayed by something like this would be the Supreme Court. And from what I can tell, they're about as anxious to have anything to do with the subject as I am, that is to say, they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Nor do I think that they're the sort of bunch that's going to be swayed by a freaking ad airing during the Super Bowl.

By the way, below is a Bud Light ad which was rejected as a Super Bowl ad a couple of years ago. Apparently, its subject matter was not suitable for the big game. Suitable or not, its freaking hilarious. And I'd rather watch that than I would watch a commercial having anything to do with abortion.

I can only hope that this will be the last "serious" ad which will air during the Super Bowl. We're not wanting to have brawls with drunken family members because of an argument instigated by an anti-abortion commercial. We're wanting to be happy drunks. Drunk and happy and covered in grease and sauce from too many Buffalo wings. That's what we want. We're America. It's what we strive for. Now...where are those horses? What about that talking E*Trade kid? He's a riot.

Wait! It's just come to my attention that the actors in the above disallowed Bud Light commercial have an encore commercial. Please, please, please let it make it to the Super Bowl this year. We can handle this can't we?