Not Intended To Be Factual

Here's a new one. Man, I always hate it when I say that. Only because it means that something more ridiculous than previously thought has occurred. It's almost never really good. And I'd guess that probably only about half of the time it's amusing. And this instance follows those guidelines. Not really good and kind of amusing. But only amusing in the way that is so ridiculous that you don't know what else to think.

Let's take a look at some of the profound statements of a one Senator Jon Kyl (R-eally? Arizona.) Senator Kyl is the Senate Minority Whip. I don't know what that is and I don't think that I care. If I had to make an assumption, I'd probably guess it has something to do with Miracle Whip, but I don't know what. Regardless, Senator Kyl had the floor on Friday during the whole budget showdown/will the government shut down debacle of 2011. He said that abortion was “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” And for the record, really only about three percent of Planned Parenthood's work has to do with abortion. There's a big difference between almost all and almost none. But that's OK. It wasn't supposed to be factual. Wait. What?

Correct. It wasn't meant to be factual. What was it meant to be? According to the thinking folks over at Think Progress, "...CNN anchor TJ Holmes relayed a statement from Kyl’s office walking back the comment". How do you walk something like that back? It's so far out of the gate, isn't it going to be impossible to walk back? Not if you're a moron, apparently, Kyl's office explained that "his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions." But....but...he said....what...whatis going on here?!

His remark was not intended to be a factual statement? Why in the hell not?! Isn't that what you're supposed to be doing when you're making an argument for your side? Give your basis in facts?! No? When did that change? Oh, that's right. IT DIDN'T. You can't just say something that is totally false and then pull a Pee Wee Herman on everyone and say, "I meant to do that!" That's not how this works!

I certainly hope that this doesn't become some sort of trend. I hope that all of these clueless politicians don't just start blowing alleged facts out of their arse and then blow over it when they're confronted on their falsehoods by saying that it wasn't supposed to be the truth and that it was supposed to illustrate a point. Oh, believe me. Senator Kyl made a point all right. He made the point that he's clearly not fit for the office that he holds. He made the point that he'll say whatever he needs to in order to sway people whichever way he wants to. He made the point that he isn't about the truth, he's just about what he wants. I can't get behind that. We're just doomed. Doomed, I tell you.

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.

What Are YOU Smoking, Arlen?

Ancient Senator Arlen Specter was handily defeated the other day over yonder in Pennsylvania. Now, it was probably his stating that the reason that he switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party was so that he could be re-elected. I don't doubt that is what he thought. What I can't figure out is why he would be so freaking boneheaded as to actually come out and SAY that's what you were thinking? Does he not quite understand that it makes it sound like it's all about HIM? Apparently not. Because he said it and now he's done.

But I'm pretty sure that it was time for him to go anyway. Look, I don't have anything against people who are old. I don't have anything against people who are ancient. But I do have issues with people who are old and out of touch, but they try and convince you that they're not. Take ol' Robert Byrd. How is that guy still a senator? Seriously. My sources (which are far from trustworthy, as I make them up myself) tell me that Robert Byrd is somewhere around 147 years old and the last coherent thought that he had was midway through the Taft administration. Why do you folks in West Virginia continue to re-elect that man? Not to mention that he used to be a member of the Klan, the man is not fit for civic duty.

But back to Arlen Specter. According to TPM, Arlen Specter did an interview with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC on May 18. (Side note: Is it just me or does Andrea Mitchell bear an odd resemblance to Barbara Walters? Maybe I wouldn't think it was so odd if they both weren't technically considered to be news reporters/anchors/whatever. Do you think that she's trying to look like that? I have a hard time believing that she naturally looks like that. I'm not implying plastic surgery (but you could make that leap if you wanted to), I'm just sayin'.) She asked him if his opponent was more vigorous than he was. Uh-huh. Remember, Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, so she would know a thing or two about vigor...or a lack thereof.

Arlen Specter is 80. It's fair to say that there are a lot of things more vigorous than Arlen Specter. Puppies and baby ducks, for example. Possibly Abe Vigoda. Definitely Betty White. But I find it unlikely that he is more vigorous than his opponent. Of course that's not what he thinks/thought. His response to Andrea Mitchell's question was...well...it was interesting. He said, "When you talk about Sestak being more vigorous, you must be smoking dutch cleanser." Of course. I must be...wait. What now?

Smoking dutch cleanser? What the heck is that? Dutch cleanser? I did a quick search online to see if I could find out what in the heck he was talking about (and, more importantly, if I should be smoking dutch cleanser, whatever it is). It was not easy. It is a rather obscure reference, apparently. Dutch cleanser is apparently a cleaning product akin to Comet and Bon Ami. It's been around since 1906 (so, almost as long as Arlen Specter). That's just the product. I had to dig deeper to find the meaning behind his asking if someone was smoking it.

I only found one other reference of someone using the phrase "smoking Dutch cleanser" on the Inner Webs. Guess who it was? That's right. Arlen Specter.

It was sometime in early February of 2006. According to Time Magazine he used the phrase when he was "Criticizing then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez during hearings on the Bush administrations warrantless domestic-wiretapping program, saying Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English." Wait. Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English? But an obscure reference to smoking some sort of turn of the 20th century cleaning product is completely logical? I don't think it is, sir. I just don't think so.

It really didn't help his case for how vigorous he was when he answered Andrea Mitchell and mispronounced Sestak's name. I'm not sure exactly what he said, but it wasn't Sestak.

But even after the odd Dutch cleanser as a mind altering substance reference, he continued to try and make his point about how vigorous he was. He went on with, "Did you see us on the debate? Did you see us on the debate? If you didn't see it, John Bayer (could be Mayor), the moderator, wrote about it, how strong and vibrant I was and how weak he was. You saw that town meeting. That Tea Party guy rushed up at me with his fists clenched. Security wanted to throw him out. I said no, no. And I fought him right there on the spot. Verbally. Beating. Uh, when you talk about vigor, uhhhh....it's all on Arlen Specter's side."

Again, I don't think that you're helping your case when you have to repeat yourself. It's not like she didn't hear you. She's sitting right there. Perhaps you forgot you had just said that? I don't know. But I do like how he implies for a moment that he all but stripped to the waist and knocked out some Tea Party dude before throwing in that he had fought him "verbally". It also didn't help him that after he said, "When you talk about vigor" he really didn't seem to know where he was going with that. And he was talking about himself!

I don't know that you can really make a good point about how vigorous you are by using some Victorian era reference that no one else knows what you're talking about. You're certainly not helping your case. I wonder what we would be thinking if he had answered the question by saying "Are you on glue?" I'm pretty sure I would have thought that was all sorts of awesome. It wouldn't mean that I would think that he needed to or should be re-elected. But at least I'd know that he knew what year it was. I'd also know that he knew that we knew what he was talking about.

Can YOU Use An ATM?

I know politicians are out of touch. You know politicians are out of touch. You know who the only ones who don't know that politicians are out of touch? Politicians. That is correct.



Take a one Senator Ben Nelson. He is a Senator from Nebraska. Now, in an article that appeared over there in the Omaha World-Herald (I don't know why there is that hyphen between World and Herald. Can't it be both? And if it can't, why aren't they able to just choose one?), Senator Nelson was "...asked this week whether Congress should cap ATM fees". That almost seems like a reasonable question. But in order for it to be completely reasonable, you have to believe that the government should be meddling in private business. Now, I'm all for reasonable fees. (Actually, I'm all for NO fees. It's a freaking ATM. Transferring money around costs the banks pennies. If they're going to charge me three bucks, I'm going to find another ATM. It's pretty simple. Can't the free market and/or supply and demand take care of this on its own? Do we really need to have Congress telling us what to do all of the time? Sweet Mother of God, I hope not.) So, technically, it was a reasonable question.

What wasn't reasonable was Senator Nelson's response. He said, “I've never used an ATM, so I don't know what the fees are,” Nelson said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. “It's true, I don't know how to use one." Um, what now? You don't know how to....? An ATM?? Really? Good Lord, man....

Now, I don't know if he realized that his response wasn't exactly the most down to earth thing that anyone has ever heard or what, but he decided to do the most inadvisable thing that anyone could do in this situation. He tried to make it sound better. And you know how that tends to end. That's right. By making it worse.

He then said, "But I could learn how to do it just like I've . . . I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.” Oh. My. God. What I want to know is when he learned to "swipe". I also really want to know what he knows about "the holograms" and how he knows it. If I had to guess, I'd probably go with his knowledge being limited to "Ooohh! Shiny!" Turns out, it was worse than that. The article tells us "By “holograms,” Nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as Lowe's and Menard's." Wait. HE clarified "holograms" to mean "bar codes"? Where has this man been living since the mid-1970s? Under a rock? Under a holographic rock, was he?And it keeps getting worse!

No, I swear! In an effort to not make himself sound like a complete, out of touch tool, he added, "I go and get my own seating assignment on an airplane...I mean, I'm not without some skills. I just haven't had the need to use an ATM.” ::: sigh :::

Wow. He gets his own seating assignment on an airplane. Yes, he clearly has skills! You might notice that he didn't say he books his own airline flights. He just knows how to go to the airport, stand in line and tell someone his name when he gets to the counter. I'm not so sure that I would call standing a "skill".

Look, how old is this guy? Hmm...it appears he was born in 1941. So he's 69. OK, I get the feeling comfortable with going into the bank to get your cash. My Mom is 78 and my uncle is 80 and they both do that. But they both also know how to use an ATM! They both also know the difference between a freaking bar code and a hologram! And finally, neither one of them would add swiping a card to pay for gas or groceries as one of their "skills".