Call Me Senator

I've become less and less enamored with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Actually, I don't think I was ever all that enamored with her in the first place. Can you be enamored with a potted plant? I don't think that you can. And that's about what I think of Barbara Boxer. My final straw with her was summer of 2009. She was in some sort of hearing where an Army general was testifying. As per how the military is trained, he addressed her as "Ma'am." She didn't like that very much and interrupted him in order to tell him that she preferred being addressed as "Senator" because, as she put it, she "worked so hard to get that title".

That's what she was worried about. Being called "Senator" as opposed to being called "ma'am". Mind you, she called him "sir" as opposed to "General". I'm pretty sure that he worked pretty hard to get that title as well. I guess that he just wasn't as petty as she was and didn't feel the need to point that out to her at the time. He wasn't being disrespectful. If anything, he was treating her with the utmost respect. But whatever. She treated him like crap for no reason is the bottom line. She's a bit of a blowhard. And I'm apparently not the only one who thinks so.

Enter a one David Zucker. Mr. Zucker is a reformed liberal who was also a main part of the group of folks who made such awesome satirical movies such as "Naked Gun" and "Airplane!" That sort of experience really proves to come in handy when one wants to make a video which mocks Barbara Boxer for her elitist position about her, um, well, her position. And it's hilarious. It's win-win. See the awesomeness for yourself below.

By the way, my dislike for Barbara Boxer should be in no way interpreted as an endorsement for Carly Fiorina. While I think Carly has potential, I just don't know about her in the capacity as Senator. That doesn't mean that I think Barbara Boxer should stay put. I hate having only two viable choices. It only serves to make me feel all the more scroomed.

She's Not Me

Who is managing wacky Christine O'Donnell's campaign for Senate over there in Delaware? (I think that she's representing the MILF party.) I'd really like to hear their reasoning for her latest TV ad, as I'm not so sure that you need to automatically assume that everyone who watches TV is going to be aware of the fact that she claims to have dabbled in witchcraft (whatever the hell that means) when she was younger and therefore, that justifies having that disclaimer right off the bat. Wait. What?

Correct. See, back in October of 1999 when Bill Maher had her on his show, Politically Incorrect, she claimed "I dabbled into witchcraft. I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. … I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do....One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar, and I didn’t know it. I mean, there’s little blood there and stuff like that...We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar." Uh-huh. OK, then. Since I've already been over this, I'll direct you over to the folks at Think Progress for the video of that whole debacle.

Now, maybe you hear that clip and think that she's a nutjob. Maybe you hear that clip and you think that you're not going to vote for anyone that whack-a-do. You know what I'm guessing that you're not thinking? I'm guessing that you're not thinking that she's really a witch. You know. Because of the whole witches not being real sort of thing. Yeah, that. But she apparently seems to think differently. She seems to think that it is really important to point out that she is not a witch. Oh, for cryin' out loud.

So, here's her first ad. First thing she says is, "I'm not a witch." Uh, yeah. We know. No one is. But seriously, if you hadn't heard the whole deal about her and her witchy-poo dabblings and then that commercial came on, wouldn't your head spin around just a little bit as you exclaimed, "What the hell is she talking about?!" I'm pretty sure that's what's going to happen with several people over there. Does the ad get better after that? Not really. Next thing she says is, "I'm nothing you've heard." See, I don't know about that one. I've heard she's a little cuckoo and I'm inclined to agree a little bit with that assessment. But what I won't agree with is what she says next. She states, "I'm you."

Yeah. See, you're really not. You're really not me. I'm not the one who stated that I believed that folks shouldn't masturbate. I'm not the one who said she wanted to stop the country from having sex. I'm not the one who said that masturbation was the equivalent of committing adultery. I'm not certainly not the one who said, "We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools. Now we're having weekly shootings. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS." (I don't even know what that means.) And I don't buy into the theory that "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." (Again, I don't even know what that means.)

All of that? That's not me. That's her. And it scares the hell out of me to think that she could be sitting in the Senate helping to decide what is best for the country.

Witchy Woman

This Christine O'Donnell woman who won the Republican nomination for the Senate in Delaware might just be the gift that keeps on giving. Apparently, she appear on Bill Maher's "Politically Incorrect" some 22 times during the course of its run. (Really? 22 times? In my reading up on this woman, it has yet to be explained to me why she was on any show at all. What does she do? What is her habitat? What does she feed her young? So many questions.) And now he wants her on his show. "Maher joked that he’s going to show a fresh clip of O’Donnell every week on his show until O’Donnell agrees to appear again on his show. “I’m just saying, Christine, it’s like a hostage crisis,” he said, “every week you don’t show up, I’m going to throw another body out.” And judging from the body that was thrown out yesterday, she's really going to need to think this one over...and quick.

The latest revelation to come via a clip from Bill Maher is brought to us by the fine folks over there at Think Progress. This was apparently a previously unaired clip. I have no idea why it was unaired, as it is simply fabulous. In the segment, Ms. O'Donnell, the anti-masturbation candidate, talks about her foray into (wait for it) witchcraft. That's right. Witchery. She said, "I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar and I didn't know it. I mean, there was a little blood there and stuff like that....We went to a movie and then had a little picnic on a satanic altar."

OK, hold on a minute there, lady! How does one "dabble" in witchcraft? You had a cauldron, but no stir stick? You had the eye of newt, but not the tongue of frog? What does that mean? And what does it mean that you hung around folks "who were doing these things"? Doing what things? Chanting crazy spells and acting like they have powers? Those sort of things?

I'd also like to know how one goes on a date with an alleged (and likely self-proclaimed) witch and doesn't know it. Seriously, wouldn't the pointy hat give it away? And what movie does one go to see on a witchy first date? I mean, is it a Witches of Eastwick sort of deal or is it more of a Harry Potter-ish genre? I also have several questions about the "little blood" on the satanic altar. Um, so...how'd...how'd that get there? What kind of blood are we talking here? Like, biting the head off of a chicken, a la Ozzy Osbourne blood? Or sacrificing a human being to the all mighty Satan sort of blood? If I had to guess, I'd probably go with the red paint from Home Depot wanna be blood. But that's just a guess.

You know, witches aren't real. There are people who call themselves witches. They're real. But the as for being able to do the real witch stuff? I'm not so sure that there's a lot of validity in their craft. (I mean, flying on a broom? That doesn't seem like it would work all that well.) But I'd really like to know what those two kids did on their second date, I can tell you that. Oh, but in her defense (if there is such a thing in this matter), she did make it clear that she did not join a coven, so that's something! I don't know what, but it is absolutely something. (What would that entail do you suppose? The whole joining of the coven? Like some sort of sorority initiation or something? Is there hazing involved? What about a keg?)

She's only been the nominee for less than a week and we've already be privy to her anti-masturbation stance and her tendency to go on dates with witches atop a satanic altar. (I still really want to know what they ate at the picnic.) And I'm sure that there are more glorious revelations to come. In the meantime, if you're still a little confused on who Christine O'Donnell is and what she stands for (sort of), you can check out the always amusing and sometime enlightening Taiwanese animation of the whole deal. Please do not let the scene in which the young farm boy is choking a chicken go by without acknowledging the double entendre. It's sheer genius is what it is.

Can't Touch That

Meet the latest "fringe" candidate to upset the incumbent in a primary, a one Christine O'Donnell, a Republican from Delaware. Ms. O'Donnell was able to beat out former Delaware governor and nine-term congressman, a one Mike Castle, for the nomination. While I am all for booting out folks that have made politics their lifelong career (while not doing much more than furthering their own power and ridiculously inflated egos), I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being...oh, what's the word I want? Controversial? Maybe, but not quite. Nutty isn't quite what I'm going for either, although it is closer. How about bizarre? That seems to work. Let me try it out. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being bizarre. Yeah, that's it. And so is she. Bizarre, that is.

This woman has interesting opinions on just about everything. Even things where you wouldn't think that you could have an opinion because you didn't know that a certain angle even existed, she does not disappoint. Take, for example, an appearance this woman made on C-SPAN in 1996. (I know, I know. It's a little weak to be going through footage from 14 years ago. I agree. But I'm assuming that, since this is her stance from a moral perspective, she pretty much still holds this opinion.) She stated that it is a "...misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality." Wait. She thinks that it's what now?

A misconception, that is correct. She went on to elaborate by saying, "The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality. So you can't get around legislating morality." Oohhh. I get it. Wait. No, I don't. What the hell is she talking about? Isn't this like proving a negative? If you're not doing one thing than you're automatically doing the opposite thing? That's not always true. And in this case, I'm pretty sure that it isn't true at all.

Now, if that was the only slightly strange thing that she had voiced in the past, I'd probably let it go. But she doesn't stop there. No, she's big on morality. In 1998, she was on Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect". I'm not sure why she was there, but she was. In fact, she was on a panel with Martin Mull, Jasmine Guy and Eddie Izzard discussing the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky fiasco. (I cannot come up with one thing that all of these folks have in common. Jasmine Guy? Really? To discuss politics? Wow. It's like the iPod 'Shuffle' feature picked those guests. I'm actually finding having these four people on the same show for some reason a little more interesting that what Christine O'Donnell actually said.) She didn't want to let ol' Willie Jeff off the hook that easily. And do you know why? School shootings, of course. See, "If we as a nation tolerate sin, generations to come will reap the effects of that....For example, we took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, now we're having weekly shootings practically." Oh, good Lord, woman.

It's hard to imagine that taking the Bible and pray out of public schools was the only thing stopping school shootings for all of the years prior to 1998. But what any of that has to do with a President getting blown in his office by a plowhorse of an intern is beyond me.

As I'm sure you've guessed by now, she's not so much a fan of the evolution. In 1996, she was a spokeswoman for something called the Concerned Women of America. For some reason, she was on CNN debating a one Michael McKinney, am evolutionary biology professors over there at the University of Tennessee. Her take on evolution was: "The tests...they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory." Merely a theory? As opposed to what? Creation? Why, yes, actually. "Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

Thank you for breaking down what six days amounts to. She didn't really get into the evidence that she says is out there that supports that other than the Bible saying that it's so. She gives more evidence that there are 24 hours in a day than she does to prove creation. I'm also thinking that those concerned women should be a little more concerned that she is going around spewing out ridiculousness like she was.

And you know that I've saved the best for last! And what could be better to save for last than her views on masturbation? Not much, let me tell you. Would you be surprised to learn that she is pro-abstinence? Of course you wouldn't. We all saw that one coming. (No pun really intended there, though it's not bad.) Back in 1996, she was on MTV's "Sex in the 90s" speaking about her campaign

"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So, you can't masturbate without lust...The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue...You're gonna be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" Has this woman ever had sex in her life?! Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Look, lady...if you think that taking care of business yourself is on a par with having sex, you are clearly mistaken. Taking care of business yourself gets the job done; there's no doubt about that. But it is a far cry from having sex. You know why everyone wants to have sex? Because it's great! Masturbation isn't a substitute for sex! You could sit around all day long pleasuring yourself like a monkey in a cage, but that isn't going to change the fact that you're not going to turn down sex instead should it present itself. And how in the world is it committing adultery? What if you're doing it, but you're not in a relationship with anyone? Are you cheating on yourself? I don't think that you are. And if you expect me to believe that this woman has never pleasured herself, that is more ridiculous than her statement that you're committing adultery if you do.

The good thing is that if she is elected to the Senate, it's highly unlikely that she'll be involved in any sort of legislation aiming to curb masturbatory practices amongst Americans. So you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things that she may do if she's elected, but dictating (again, no pun intended) the relationship that you have with your own genitalia is not going to be one of them.

Awesome Brawling Lawmakers

You know what would make the Senate more interesting on a day to day basis? The potential for knock down, drag out fights to break out between the lawmakers. Why, oh, why can't our lawmakers do that? They don't seem to be doing much else. The least that they could do is be entertaining. My God, they're boring. But not in Taiwan! Nope, in Taiwan, they all seem to damn near want to kill each other. One guy pelted the other guy in the face with a clock! The video is below. It's awesome. Imagine if that had been Nancy Pelosi. That alone might have restored my faith in humanity. (OK...not all of my faith, but a little bit! It's better than nothing, which is what I have right now!)

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.

The Unlikely, Felonious Candidate

As Scott pointed out in my post the other day about the debacle that is Alvin Greene in South Carolina, I left out the best part. That part being that the aforementioned Mr. Greene was charged with one felony count of, what the AP reports to be, "...showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student, then talking about going to her room at a university dorm." Now, I don't know if that's the official charge (it seems rather lengthy) or if that's just what happened, but the bottom line is that our buddy, Clem, here, is the nominee for a Senate seat and does weird things in his spare time. Allegedly.

Let's look into the accusation a little more closely. Again referencing the story over at the AP, it would seem that a one 19-year old Camille McCoy, who is described as a "rising sophomore at the University of South Carolina", alleges that while in a computer lab, Greene sat down next to her "...and asked her to look at his screen, which showed a pornographic website." First of all, what in the world is a "rising sophomore"? Is that supposed to imply that she will one day be a junior after she "rises" in the ranks? Seriously, what's up with that little moniker there, AP guys? A rising sophomore. OK, fine. Call her what you want.

But second, what's with the being able to view porn in the university computer labs? Most of the people I know can't even view Facebook from work because their fascist employers have blocked access to it (not to mention anything streaming, which sounds like it would probably include porn sites). You know what college kids want to do in computer labs? Look at porn, that is correct. You know what college kids want to do when they're not in computer labs? Look at porn, that is correct. You know what half of the Internet consists of? Porn, that is correct. Now, I'm not blaming the university, but I am suggesting that they block the porn.

But back to the allegations (which I have no reason to disbelieve that he actually did, as he seems dim enough to have pulled such a stunt). Who does that? You sit down next to some chick and pull yourself up some good ol' computer porn and say, "Look at this! Look at it!" (I'm not certain of the specific vernacular that was used. I'm merely paraphrasing.) That's a strange ranger right there. Granted, the mascot of the University of South Carolina is the gamecock, it's still no excuse for this sort of behavior.

The article goes on to document that, according to Miss McCoy, "I said, 'That's offensive,' and he sat there laughing...It was very disgusting." Hold on there, sweetheart. You look at his screen o'porn and you said, "That's offensive"? No, you didn't! What 18-year old would say it like that? You mean to tell me that you didn't call him a pervert? You didn't shout out "Oh, my God!" (Or "OMG!" as kids your age are pretty into the whole texting thing.) I find it difficult to believe that you said, "That's offensive." I'm not saying it wasn't offensive. It certainly sounds offensive. I'm just saying I highly doubt that's how you handled it.

She goes on to state that "He said, 'Let's go to your room now.' It was kind of scary. He's a pretty big boy. He could've overpowered me." Could have overpowered you? Right there in the middle of the computer lab? Granted, the kinds of folks that are usually hanging around the computer labs aren't exactly your broad shouldered, strapping lads or anything like that. But I find it hard to believe that's what went through your head at the time. Sounds like she handles things very pleasantly in her little world.

I found this next part to be the most interesting, yet it's the part that's getting the least attention. "McCoy, who is from Charleston, said she was stunned to learn that the same man she later identified from a photo lineup was running for office, much less had won a party's nomination." First of all, why do we need to know that she is from Charleston? Who cares? Why tell me inconsequential information, AP? Why? I know, I know! It's because the media sucks. I get that. But usually it's because they're not putting in enough information, rather than inserting crap that isn't even relevant to the story. Was the author of this piece under some sort of minimum word count requirement or something?

But that's not the most interesting part (it's merely the most annoying). If she was identifying him from a photo lineup, where did the police get his photo? If he was arrested before, that would be a pretty good reason for the cops to already have a photo of him, yes? I would think so. So ,how come I'm not hearing about what else he may have done before his potentially storied career as a US Senator? Oh, right. Back to the media sucks. Never mind.

This is a very strange thing to be accused of. It's an even stranger thing to do. It's unfortunate that no one had ever heard of this guy (before he won the nomination) because if they had, perhaps background checks would have been done and people would have wanted to vote for someone that they had never heard of without a pending felony charge as opposed to who they did vote for, someone that they had never heard of with a pending felony charge. And as weird as it sounds, this guy is pretty weird. He doesn't seem real bright, either. But he's the nominee for the Democratic Party for a Senate seat in South Carolina. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

California Budget Busters

Look, there are a lot of great things about living in the People's Gay-Public of Drugifornia (also known as California), but I've gotta tell you, there are a lot of not so great things about living here. It's really borderline sucky to live here if you're asking me. And I'm doing just fine. The walled off compound protects me from the morons of society quite nicely, thank you. Employment isn't an issue and neither is revenue. But unfortunately, employment and revenue are an issue for the state.

The current unemployment rate in California is hovering somewhere around 12.3% and the state is also expected to be running a deficit which is somewhere right around $15 billion. (Yep, billion. With a B.) And that's "deficit". As in "not enough money". So with that knowledge, what has the California Senate decided to do? Well, according to the SF Gate they "...passed a measure to create a state-run, single-payer health system." Wait. They what now?

Correct. The California Senate voted 22-14 to pass this thing. Only one Democrat had the sanity to vote against this measure. That Democrat would be a one Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana. You can vote for him next time. The rest of the Democrats? Yeah, you're going to want to be NOT voting for them. The Republicans? They can stay. Lou can stay. Everyone else? Out. Out!

Now, this might not sound like such a big deal. I mean, after all, a state-run, single-payer health system sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Sure it does. And when you get back from Xanadu, let me know how it works there because it certainly isn't a viable option in this utopia that the Senators appear to be trying to create.

Let's just run over the basic basics of the state of California's fiscal issues, shall we? I'll be brief. That will be easy to do because there really isn't a lot to talk about, seeing as how the state is running that deficit of about $15 billion (still with a B). According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (the ol' LAO) California stands to make in revenue somewhere in the neighborhood of $82.5 billion. Sure, that sounds like a lot, but when you consider that it's around $5 billion less than a couple of years ago, you're going to kind of get the idea that revenue, well, it ain't what it used to be.

But here's the kicker: This utopian health care plan "All state residents would be provided health care and people could buy private health care to cover services not offered through the state plan." Um....what?

Everyone gets health care?! Score! Oh, wait. Maybe not. After all, this has just passed through the California Senate. The Governator has vetoed things like this before, so can I take it to mean that he's going to veto this as well? I should certainly hope so because, again according to the SF Gate, "It is anticipated to cost about $200 billion a year."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

It's going to cost what? $200 billion? A YEAR?! But...but....the state only takes IN about $82 billion a year. See....see....that....that....that's NOT ENOUGH! What in the world is wrong with those morons?!

I want an explanation from every single one of those morons who voted for this. What could their rationale possibly be?! Oh, that it sounds good?! It's because of all of the "sound good" and "feel good" programs that they're constantly passing legislation on that the state is in the fiscal toilet that it swirls around in daily! This isn't news! The state handed out IOUs last summer, for cryin' out loud! They're not kidding! The state is broke!!

You people in the California Senate have a lot of nerve, I'll tell you that. Every single one of you who voted for this garbage clearly have about as many brains as the state has surplus cash. That is to say NONE! Nice waste of time. Nice job wasting everyone's time and money to pass something that the Governator is sure to veto. Nice job accomplishing nothing. You morons.

It's $200 billion dollars! And that's just for this health care fantasy that they passed! It's not like there isn't the rest of the budget to continue to fund! You remember the rest of the budget, don't you? It's that thing that isn't fully funded as it is! Now just tack on another $200 billion to that. Oh, sure. Let me know how that works out, will you? I'll be over here, making the walls on my walled off compound even higher. After this show of stupidity, I'm considering adding a dome. We're so doomed.