The “Deadliest Catch” isn’t about contracting TB and they don’t accept applications.
Always make sure to enunciate your words properly lest you get slapped. You would be surprised at how many women get “best” and “breast intentions” mixed up.
Jailers do not accept chest dander as a form of bribe.
Classes in rectal thermometry are more “in depth” than one might realize.
If a potential employer asks you if you have any questions for them don’t inquire if him and his wife “swing.”
Try to speak constantly with your tongue flicking the roof of your mouth and you can talk and sing like Dave Matthews.
Steve Perry’s mother and the father of Dave Matthews had an affair producing James Blunt.
With just a little stint in the exciting world of narcotics, you too could master the delicate art of lip-picking.
A Korean Thicket kicks the crap out of a China grove any day of the week.
If your pants won’t fit due to a succession of close birthdays, holidays and wedding celebrations, a quick incision near the undercarriage of the garment will help immensely.
Remember, a Peter Gabriel album played backwards produces some profound teachings in Scientology.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, nor look into an irate horse’s anus.
Licking your chops all the time because you want to be Prince is enough to get you excommunicated.
The goal of Anthropology is NOT to destroy other cultures.
Every home needs a designated opium den.
The English language is an amazing thing. Especially when it is organized into an erotic novel.
If you purchase a Jetta you are required by law in 39 states to put a Roxy decal on the back window and hang a lei from your rearview mirror.
If you have a neon green liquid spilling out onto your driveway from underneath your truck don’t be too concerned about cleaning it up. The neighborhood pets usually do a pretty thorough job.
One doesn’t need to be “open” with their sexuality to become a Polymath. Stupid lying professors.
On Easter authorities do not find stealing eagle eggs to be an acceptable form of celebration.
While riding the bus, always avoid the slightly damp seat and anyone named “Russell.”
Because “Flame Retardant” could be considered to be offensive to either gays, or the mentally handicapped, or both, one should opt to say, “A material that is impervious to being lit alight.”
Superman isn’t dead. He just moved to San Fran under the name of Kenneth Kent.
There is no better place than Twitter to annoy celebrities without subsequent litigation.
Utilize a Bedazzler to give any boring old laptop a little flare.
If a girl asks for you to hold her, she probably doesn’t mean underwater.
Never let a cross-eyed man measure your bungee cord length.
Protected species are always the most tasty.
Celebrities usually have their homes protected, but not their garbage.
According to DNA tests, the Robert Patrick scabs I bought off E-Bay don’t match the “Terminator 2” star. Beware of E-Bay scab scams.
Urinating in a jar and lightening it underneath with a flashlight doesn’t create authentic psychedelics.
Decompression chambers are not to be used for comedic purposes. The bends are no laughing matter people.
Luck Dragons really don’t exist. They are usually just dead poodles with mange.
I know I haven’t been around for a while and for that I apologize. I would like to express my appreciation to those who contacted me wondering where another blog entry was. It is quite flattering and to those who took the time I would just like to say thank you. It doesn’t go unnoticed!
There has been so much going on in the news that I have been dying to comment on, but I honestly have been pretty busy with school and taking my cats’ temperatures (a preemptive strike against feline illness if you will). At any rate, I will now briefly attempt to offer up some negative assessments of Barney Frank, critiques of American foreign policy and due to my slight pseudo-stoicism, a surprising defense of Obama.
But first . . .
As you may or may not know, last week the consistently over-defensive Barney Frank got up in front of a bunch of students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. After his lisp-filled tirade, the always gracious Frank decided to take some questions from the audience and initiated a question/answer format.
A student named Joe Pollak got up to make his inquiry to the congressman. He asked the following horrible and unforgivable question, which a student, whose primary duty is to learn, should never do:
“How much responsibility, if any, do you have for the financial crisis?”
How completely unreasonable of him! Now generally, if there is one thing Barney Frank doesn’t like it is a question. Indeed, his plumage goes up instantly in a defensive posture anytime anything is asked of him and it was no different this time. Frank stated the student’s question was accusatory. This conclusion was not induced from the actual question itself, but rather the independent modifying statements which preceded it. Yet, these were completely unrelated to the question. It basically just modified the question in Frank’s mind due to a preconception of the “right.” Thus, perhaps he did hear an accusatory tone within the question, but the question itself intrinsically contains no suggested accusations and in fact, even if it did, the conditional operator of “if any” would negate it, or at least give Frank the freedom to respond however he wanted to the question posed to him.
Thereby, I draw the conclusion that Frank’s perception of accusation is nothing more than a feigned sense of outrage to assist in nullifying the challenge the question poses. It helps shift the focus and redirect or negate the responsibility of the presupposed answer, which the very nature of a question suggests. This focus is taken off the person who has been approached with the inquest by negation and it is attempted to shift the scope of focus back unto the asker. This point we will revisit in a minute.
First though, let us actually grant what Mr. Frank asserts and say it is accusatory. Does this abolish the need for him to answer the question? No, absolutely not, for intention may change exact word usage, but the merits of inquiry remain steadfast. I believe this can be proven by a simple mental exercise. Picture any person you like asking the same question to Barney Frank and then switch the intention of the asker to whatever you like. Does the question lose any of its value considering the merits of the question, the question/answer format, the audience, or the relation between the student and the authoritative figure? No, in fact the question still has merit and thereby we can determine the inquiry is not dependent upon intention as supposed by Frank.
In fact, he still has a responsibility to answer the question by the very intrinsic properties of the office he holds and to deny this is a form of delusion that is not healthy for him, or the state he represents. This is a matter that is becoming ever more frequent and an issue we certainly need to stop. To return to the feigned outrage point, any vilification of those asking a question, no matter who that may be, especially when it comes to policy, should be perceived poorly by the public and by the press. For, it is upon policies and decision where we are able to judge performance. If we can’t inquire of performance, then our ability to judge accurately and effectively is seriously hindered. If it is hindered, then the very real possibility remains that we will not be able to hold our officials to any form of accountability. Furthermore, the quality of our questions will decrease and our voice will become ever more silenced amongst those who put on a guise of anger. This tactic of feigned outrage, however, can show us something profound. If it is exercised, then one can induce that those under the guise are being challenged and have a spongy foundation, rather than a concrete one, upon which any answer they set forth rests. Thereby, the target of the inquiry feels threatened and alarmed, this manifesting in any way to take the focus off them, usually by conversing it back to the asker. The press secretary Gibbs employs this method almost daily.
This is a sad state of affairs, when one is demonized for asking a question, yet weren’t we always told there was no such thing as a stupid one? Now they are stupid if you don’t share someone’s ideology, which isn’t based on questions at all, but rather based on a community of people with like-feelings. A political, ideological ghetto if you will. We have been working at completely divorcing the mind from shaping our world by relying almost wholly on our sensibilities and although these can be useful, they can also be dangerous, for particular exceptions will soon give way to generalities which govern all our lives and contradict a democracy. A politician should realize for every single person posing a question, there are probably thousands of others wondering the same thing and it would serve them well to look beyond superficial things such as intention to the very heart and merits of the question, which they can then refute or acknowledge at their leisure.
So, even granting Frank his charge, we find his argument to be so lacking and his attack so inappropriate, it is almost beyond belief for a man who holds public office. Yet, let’s go even further. Let us grant Frank every condition. Let us take away the setting, format, relation and everything. Just two people of equal stature in discourse. By this mental exercise something else comes into focus: the feigned outrage only works with an audience. Within a personal setting it becomes almost completely void of any power. I would assert Frank wasn’t as mad as he seemed, but was rather doing a performance piece. Therefore, if this guise wouldn’t suit him within a personal conversation, why would it have any bearing within the conditions of the setting? It only does because it’s not applying to the mind, but to an inherent bias or “feelings”.
In fact, I would argue the exact opposite of what Frank did and would say he had much to gain by answering the question. Remember, if we take away everything, there is only a great benefit to be manifest by answering the charge. Even more so in front of a group of people! Unless of course he has nothing to back it up except rhetoric, of which he has plenty, but words which come from people such as him are empty and if I were the democratic party I would be thinking about putting someone else up for election in that great state.
I believe the people at Harvard began to notice all these things too though, for even the woman behind Pollak cried out for Frank to “Just answer the question.” Though admittedly she could have been annoyed at Pollak and wanted him to sit down, but it scarcely matters. Why? Because politicians need to answer to us, not the other way around! Where along the line did things get so confused? Those who are afraid of questions are those who are not qualified to answer them, which is no place we want our elected officials to be in. Lastly, and finally, where is the honesty? Reflect for a moment on the last time you were involved in a situation which was less than ideal and what if someone asked you what you would do differently or how much responsibility you had in it? I almost guarantee we would all, if honest with ourselves and them, reflect on it, answer truthfully by recounting the experience, what exactly we would have done differently if we had the opportunity (for there is ALWAYS something), and what we are doing to rectify the situation. This is a form of honesty that should be REQUIRED for our elected officials, no matter if you come from a blue state or a red. Yet, we shrug these things off because they have less impact if those not answering the charge have our same color coding. The only color such people have who won’t answer an honest question with an honest answer is “yella!”
This is what Barney Frank is and maybe I am being a little harsh here. Perhaps. Yet, it gets me really mad when a person asking a question is vilified for exercising a right they have and that was encouraged by the founding fathers. I long for the days when there were upright men and women in office who would answer the charge posed to them thoughtfully and elegantly. However, those days preceded even my existence in the world and with every passing moment, day, week, year and generation the rift spreads between the virtue of those who hold office and the current state of politics where we the public are held captive in ignorance, our voices becoming too small to penetrate the overpowering din of arrogance emanating from Washington D.C.
On Obama’s Bow and Trip Overseas.
If you have read any of my postings in the past, you probably know I am not a fan of Obama and will call him out whenever I deduce or induce a proper conclusion from the information available. Thus, it may surprise you to find I am going to defend Obama a little in this part, though the two democrat readers I have will probably be secretly pleased, so I guess I could go ahead and dedicate this part to them. Yet, I put it in the middle of the blog so they don’t get too big of a head or anything. :-P~*
At any rate there is this huge deal over Obama’s already infamous bow and quite frankly, I think there are much greater things to be worried about than if Obama bowed or not. Yet, despite me joking at the start of this section, I did put the Barney Frank entry first for a reason, so I could introduce my conclusions based upon intention, that one is hard pressed to make a judgment on intention alone as some are doing concerning this “Bowgate” thing. In fact, I will make the argument that there is another property to bowing which supersedes the one supposed by those stating the bow is somehow bad.
Now first let me say both arguments have a certain validity, but I believe another can be introduced with greater probability, due to the subservient relation between the two premises. There are really two main parts to the reasoning behind a bow:
1) Respect 2) Submission
Of course, there are various intermediate conditions within the act of bowing, which can be referred to as “status.” Yet, though the two elements of bowing can be thought of to be separate sides of the spectrum, the truth is “submission” is actually subservient to “respect”, ironically enough. That is, whatever conclusion you draw from Bowgate, the only element which remains constant is respect. In fact, without it one would cease to bow in the first place.
It is this form I saw behind Obama’s bow and not any submission to another culture. In fact, if I were to meet a world leader, just with how I am in my personality, it is the very same thing I would do. I would bow, not saying their will envelops and controls me from that moment on, but rather indicating I am humbling myself representing a form of respect that would hopefully communicate a desire for partnership despite ideological differences. Therefore, weighing the respect and submission, respect has a greater probability than submission for the reasons I just mentioned.
What submission seems to suppose is that an expressed humility is a form of weakness. I couldn’t disagree more. Some of the most humble people I know are also the first people you don’t want to mess with. As Barney Frank would be wise, so would we to not look at superficial things from bowing to displays of emotion, for our judgments on these things tend to be more projections of the self, rather than judgment of the events at hand. Thus, since they are so superficial and subjective, no real conclusion can ever be reached and they are better ignored lest they distract from other more important pressing issues. We should wait till objective evidence becomes available being not dependent on things like intention, but rather real action and things which can be measured or fully analyzed to enumerate their possible merits or falsehoods.
Some of Obama’s rhetoric was under attack too, with which I disagree as well, for contextually they seem to have more validity than not. First was in France where Obama stated America was arrogant. If one looks at this premise alone it appears to be a very harsh statement, but right after he accused Europe of having an anti-Americanism which we have been complaining about for years. The fact that Obama said this so bluntly was really the important thing. When communicating to someone some potentially abrasive information, one needs to communicate a relation and an understanding so it is received and pondered upon, instead of a defensive posture arising which deflects or defuses the convictions. One is wise to seek such things out, so I find no fault with Obama concerning this either.
Lastly, what he said in Turkey, which is perhaps the strongest argument concerning things he said and did. He mentioned our past in the US, especially with how we treated the Indians, which is so far in the past an inference that it was wrong is completely understandable. However, I think conversely it had more to do with Turkey’s past than our past with the genocide they experienced. I think Obama wanted to establish some sort of connection or relationship there by articulating similarities, good and bad. So, thus I can’t find fault for him on this either, for even if one supposes this the evidence is still not enough and the arguments really lie upon subjective grounds. Thereby, any induction is weak at best and it is certainly not enough to infer a sound deductive conclusion.
I also like the fact he stopped in and said hi to the troops and thanked them. Though I am not in the military and never have been I can see how important a presidential visit is to the troops despite your politics and what Obama did there probably boosted morale greatly. This, of course is never a bad thing unless it trespass against the conditional requirements of being a solider. So it will get applause from me any day of the week. Some wanted to attack him because it was expected, but if he wouldn’t have visited Iraq then there would have been outrage about that too.
In fact, it may have very well bumped him up another grade from the lower C’s I was giving him, though honestly with such a complex job as the presidency this is an abstract ballpark figure, for a pure letter grade is kind of unfair so take what I say concerning this with a grain of salt. Actually, just throw the whole lick on it. Anyway, though he said everything good, or rather correctly, the response by the international community was lacking, which really shows we as Americans need to be self-reliant more than anything. This “one world” thing, though reeking of drum circles, Patchouli and musk, doesn’t really ring realistic for me. The simple answer is I feel our country is trying to give away something or distribute (forgo the socialist implications of the terms for a moment) some element which we have not mastered or have not acquired ourselves. Therefore, how can we give something if we don’t have it first to begin with? It’s paradoxical, but I feel to really help the world we must help ourselves. Let us not be selfish, but let us not be selfless either. For there is some merit to Rand’s “virtue of selfishness,” which can be helpful.
Let us move from the Atlantic to the Pacific for a moment with the launch of North Korea’s “satellite.” Now everyone can pretty much see this was some sort of ICBM test, but nonetheless, the international, “one world” community is failing us and themselves by not causing a ruckus. Why should we cause a scene or attempt through political and economic channels to hinder their military might? Simple. They have an army that goose-steps. It is my theory that if a country has a military force which goose-steps (note the distinction between marching) they are up to no good and preemptive measures need to be taken to keep them, the goose-stepping crazies, at bay. Just sayin’. This being said, America has no leverage anymore. We gave that away by borrowing more money from China. China has a hold over us, so we cannot put any diplomatic pressure upon them to impose any sanction whatsoever, for they own us now. Literally. We try to impose upon them, they claim Nebraska. Or something. I think you get the point.
Now, let us fly Indiana Jones style back to the Middle East and discuss Iran. Fun times that Iran. This is a situation where we may actually appear weak because of our diplomacy. To explain I will incorporate a person who I have always admired, though who is on attack by Glenn Beck at the moment: President Teddy Roosevelt. Actually, Glenn Beck and Teddy have something in common, that though I don’t always agree with their politics, I admire them both so I have no problem citing Roosevelt here, for though I don't agree with how he did things, there is something to be admired about the man’s character.
Americans at that time also had issue with some of Teddy’s strong arm tactics, and concerning the Panama canal he stated:
"There was much accusation about my having acted in an 'unconstitutional' manner. I took the isthmus, started the canal, and then left Congress -- not to debate the canal, but to debate me. . . . While the debate goes on, the canal does too; and they are welcome to debate me as long as they wish, provided that we can go on with the canal."
Granted, his means of “persuasion” leaves a lot to be desired. Yet, how does this apply to Iran exactly? Am I drunk? No, the place I would like to focus on is the place where Teddy talks about the debate and that they can debate him all they wish and, “While the debate goes on, the canal does too.” This is the identical point I am trying to make about why we appear weak when it comes to Iran. It’s not what happens during the course of diplomatic discussions, it’s what’s going on beyond them and the fact we are engaging in them in the first place. Further understanding is required to extrapolate this point.
It should be realized Iran right now is proceeding with their program of enriching the fissionable Uranium 235 out of the Uranium 238 which is a process by which weapons grade material is produced. This variable in the diplomatic negotiations changes things dramatically, for one could pose the argument of the benefits of negotiations if their enrichment programs remains in a particular state, but if it is proceeding then they have the upper hand, for the incoming diplomatic actions are not having a desired effect as determined by those engaging the country. In fact, it suits Iran quite well to have these negotiations for it puts on an air of international cooperation, while they still have the ability to plot its demise if need be. This is why Teddy welcomed such debates about things like the Panama canal and his Navy circumnavigation, for the debates gave him freedom. It is this is element I hadn’t recognized before till recently to be honest. I thought like others, that no harm can come from negotiations and this is true, unless the talks are being used by a particular side as a means of pacification, which Iran may very well be doing. Yet, this conclusion applies the variable of intention, which is superficial as stated earlier, so other evidence must be found to base the conclusion on rather than this supposition. I believe the very fact Iran has not altered their enrichment program suggests the cogent assertion that Iran is using negotiation as opportunity. It certainly isn’t beyond the realm of probability and this probability I find pretty high, for reasons I hope I articulated clearly enough.
I find a trend in my blogs and to help defeat the trend in order to keep my bias at bay, I am going to diverge from the trend and actually close with something good I find about Obama and defend him again. Yet, we need to go to his foreign policy again for this concerning his actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are rather good and I find no fault at this time. Yes, he did go back on some of the statements he made in the campaign, but I would say we all need to take those lightly, for anyone who thinks there isn’t a difference between the amount of information available to those in the public sphere and those who sit at the desk in the oval office briefed by all military commanders and chiefs of staff are really immersed in an illogical delusion of sorts. Truth is, Obama stated a goal and when the full reality was made known to him, he needed to shift his opinions and any liberal or conservative who wants to call him out on that alone should cut him some slack. Also, he is putting more troops in Afghanistan and if the numbers are to be believed, and I see no reason that we shouldn’t take them for face value, violence is on the rise there and more troops should be sent it. Though he doesn’t need it he has my support on this front to protect the people of the region and by doing so at the same time protecting our very nation.
The circumstances concerning both Iran and North Korea I find to be separate matters, which President Obama will have to confront with the aid of the State Department and the international community.
So, I give Obama an overall grade of B- on his trip and what did occur because I think he may have changed some perceptions about our nation in the eyes of the world. Furthermore, I think he boosted the troops’ morale. Also, for enumerated reasons earlier, I don’t think he gaffed at all, though the iPod thing is a little weird, but come on; what are supposed to get the freaking Queen?!? She probably isn’t into the Nintendo DS. Plus, if he signed off on taking out the Pirates, he has my support on this as well. Though, we can’t call them “Pirates” anymore. They are now called: "Aquatic Based Individuals With Intentions Concerning The Forceful Acquisition of Various Properties Due To The Poverty Imposed On Them By Determined External Capitalist Forces." Or, “ABIWICTFAOVPDTTPIOTBDECF” for short.
In life, accountability for our actions is a necessity and one which directly affects the way we act in any given situation or when presented with any problem. This goes for every one of us and must be a truth under which our elected officials are likewise subject to if we wish for them not to abuse their power while propelling this country in a direction that is beneficial for us all. By the actions of others, predetermined consequential problems may arise, this is true, yet what it does not do is negate us from our personal responsibility when handling these problems, especially when we are in a position to rectify the issues.
Let us for a moment suppose we are hired by a company to take on a task, which the previous employee of the very same position had left in a less than desirable state. The company has let the previous employee go and we have been determined by a vetting process as having the abilities to fill the vacant spot for the purposes of fixing the situation while still furthering the company. Would the company not hold us liable for the decisions we make while occupying that position? Perhaps a different level of responsibility would be placed upon us, let us grant that, but it would be our responsibility from the moment of hiring nonetheless and any arguments concerning the previous employee’s decision making would not grant us too much extra leeway. For even if there is extra responsibility placed on us by the previous employee, we have already been vetted and determined by the management to have the ability to rectify the situation after our resume was juxtaposed with all other applicants. It could still be said that if we are given extra freedom in our position due to the mistakes of the previous employee, such explanations will ring hollow after a short time and in depth examination is still, not only justified, but it could also be argued that it is much more important as determined by the contractual obligations of the position itself, which we ourselves had applied for. In this illustration, it is obviously easy to substitute Bush as the previous employee, Obama as the present employee, and the American public as the management, while still having it all ring true.
Yet, that is not what we are hearing from some. Quite the adverse is being said and various people charge that we are not justified in passing any judgment on Obama due to the previous administrations decisions. Let us consider this true for a quick moment. What does it mean? It means the position has not really been filled, for enough power or fortitude has not been introduced to rectify the previous state, so the applicant remains ineffective. This, of course, is no more an enviable position to be in than the one who is being held to account and to say this fact somehow pacifies the need to be held presently accountable is somewhat of a delusion or misrepresentation of the facts.
Despite all this being said, it is true that presidencies are judged from a historical perspective and immediate decisions are best represented after a progression of time, for it is only after something takes full effect that its true effects can be known. We see this represented in even our own lives and coming from whatever perspective these effects can be changed if one only narrow or broaden the degree of focus. Yet, is this to say we can only judge a person’s decisions based on eventual outcome? If we indeed did this then we could not judge anyone in an immediate instance of what we have determined as being right or wrong, or indeed put any kind of ethical value on it whatsoever. Let us put it into practice and supposed a man running late for work decides to run a red light and does so successfully without anyone being hurt by the outcome. Indeed, let us say after the progression of time and broadening of perspective, he gets to work on time and we see there was only benefit in his actions and not any negative consequence. Therefore, a traffic cop who sees the traffic violation in the immediate is not justified in pulling him over. I think most people would agree it is unrealistic to judge strictly on outcome when applied in this, and many, situations.
This is the real question we need to pose to ourselves: Where can value and judgment on decision be placed? This is a highly debated question and one I think we can see representing itself in pop opinion and news coverage of the Obama presidency thus far. First, as already touched upon, some think the value in decision only lies in the outcome the decision produces. I hope I have already illustrated how unreliable the theory is. The second is that the value in decision only lies in its immediate empirical effects. Lastly, it is thought the value in decision is dependent on the will behind it. It is the last one I feel contains the most value and should be judged accordingly and it is this view upon which we build our system of law and ethics. This is not to say empirical effects are not taken into account, for this would be delusional as well, but rather effect serves as the evidence of the will which is in question.
I would like to demonstrate this point by using another illustration. Let us shift our focus from these values of decision and move to values of aesthetic expression. Where are true aesthetical values placed? Is it in the product of aesthetic desire or is it within the action itself? True aesthetic value is not solely manifest in the final object and how can it be, for aesthetics is a concept generated by human thought and not by any mere empirical object.
Let us suppose then that an individual wishes to create a work of art. The man within his studio then proceeds to splatter paint randomly upon a canvas, as in a nature in tune with the current conception of modern art. This act, henceforth, can be labeled as his aesthetic expression, but again it is not in this act where aesthetical value lies. Furthermore, let us take an example from what is empirical and confer it with the justified truth thereof, which shows us no object can be propelled forward through time and space without some applying force. To apply this with the aforementioned aesthetic example, it’s not the act, but rather, in that which propels the act, where the true value of artistic or aesthetic expression lies in terms of the expressions creator.
Therefore, it can be asserted that the real value lies within the motive and the will, which is personal in nature and this is why we hold people individually to account for their actions. So, what assigns something an aesthetical value is the cause behind which it is created. The value can be changed by those who view it, who subjectively project their aesthetical evaluation upon the manifestation of the artist’s basal motive. Therefore, this illustration also provides us a way to explain the justification in both praise and negative judgments towards our elected officials for they are projections of our own bias and motive. What we find pleasing in people, or in art, are those things we can identify with and in which we see ourselves or our desires.
Yet, to determine what the self, in an external observance of aesthetic products, considers truly aesthetical and how we assigns values to such, is a much bigger issue and one more difficult to reconcile without some underlying postulation, but such inquiries would detract from the issue which I am trying to address: The justification in judging Obama in his decision making and the will behind the decisions. By these illustrations we see there is, not only a necessity of current judgments, but also of immediate results which can be determined as evidence of those motives. So for one to say a person is not justified in passing judgment on Obama or his decisions is absurd. In fact, one could not even begin to praise him at all, if one cannot negatively judge him, for this would be an inherent contradiction. If one says that we must wait on passing judgment, then this simply means no exhortation of his presidency in its current state is justified either.
This raises another issue, for one could not make such a supposition without considering its resolution. When would be the appropriate time for judgment? I have heard everything from 1 to 3 years, but to say this, one would have to admit that perhaps the financial collapse wasn’t a bad thing at all, or perhaps the Iraq war could be a good thing, or whatever, for no true line in the sand can be drawn concerning when to judge. Truth is, one could always claim not enough time has passed for one to gain full perspective on an issue and if this is the case, nobody would ever be justified in any praise or in any negative judgments. That is, if the stock market rises, Obama could take no more credit than could Bush, Clinton or Reagan. Most Obama supporters would find such a conclusion unacceptable, but it is the conclusion that is reached if one supposes that judgments could not be made till an eventual outcome is reached.
It is the will that is most important when judging, and it is this which propels both immediate and eventual effects. Since this is indeed the source of the decision, anyone is completely justified in the values they place on Obama’s decisions. I was watching O’Reilly last week and he had mentioned it was only what he did that mattered and not the will behind it, but I could not disagree with him more. It is the will behind it that matters, for if it wasn’t, the subsequent action wouldn’t even exist at all in its present form, nor could it be molded to a will and would probably even cease to exist if completely independent from it. This will is the first cause of the effect when it comes to decision and it is this conclusion which is the most reliable when judging either decision, or action.
I would assert this very argument, that nothing can be judged till it reaches full effect, is representational of an unease which is contrary to the individual’s bias (I use “bias” here not as something horrible, but rather an inevitability of the human condition). That is, if an Obama supporter feels conflicted or disagrees with a decision, they can still vindicate themselves by saying they cannot pass judgment on it yet lest it contradict with their predetermined view on Obama. It is a means of pacification, but in my view, or in my bias, not realistic. Judgments are based on will and immediate evidence all the time. To say there is no justification in this puts government officials in a place beyond the normal human condition, which they are bound to and which are a necessary, important element in how they govern. Thus I reach the conclusion that those who judge now are not only justified, but it should also be encouraged, for it is a means of communication to those in power that they will be held accountable for their decisions. To base judgments on a future that has not occurred can neither produce an empirical negative or positive result, but it is always dependent on a subjective bias and not the immediate evidence of the will which the will is bound to produce.
The Heimlich maneuver does NOT include punching the victim in the face.
Trout Flesh Lamp Shades: Not as good of an idea as it sounds.
A tide rip is a great natural tool one can utilize to hide evidence.
Kill indiscriminately. You never know who is out to get you.
Things aren't always as they seem on the surface. Sometimes they are really a man.
Since reason isn't enough to avoid trouble, flip a coin concerning all decisions. This way at least you can blame all your mistakes on chance.
Use discernment when determining what kind of jokes are appropriate to make at an airport.
A "Donkey Show" is NOT a form of Spanish rodeo!
Don't trust clowns with nightsticks, car batteries and air compressors. The air compressor is not for balloon animals!
Don't chew your fingernails after waking in the morning. You never know where your fingers have been during the night.
If you find yourself in a bind, a shower curtain will easily wrap any good sized bundle and minimize leakage.
Striking a walker or wheelchair in your car can cause significant damage and tends to leave evidence behind even though you may take off. Grab the items if you can to avoid your life being ruined just because you happened to glance down at the radio real quick to turn up the newest "Snow Patrol" song.
Never under any circumstances start a new medication before a job interview!
Defecating in your pants when getting pulled over doesn’t get you out of a ticket. The “speedometer is not accurate” excuse works much better.
When in prison, anyone named "Tiny" should be avoided. Furthermore, when people begin to chant "fresh fish" they probably aren't just being nice and trying to tell you what is on the lunch menu for later that day. Rather, it's probably you on the menu.
Supporting your local tricks helps to stimulate the economy.
To increase one's pain threshold, try ingrown toenails.
While cruising the Ave for drugs, never accept "Sweaty Crack." IT IS NOT A NEW KIND OF NARCOTIC! Neither is “Crank Shaft” for that matter.
An extensive collection of Jeff Goldblum memorabilia doesn't impress anyone and won't help you to "get the chicks."
Alarm clock not waking you up? Try meth and just don't sleep.
Sometimes just slipping something into someone's drink isn't enough. Always carry a backup club just in case.
To look cool make up as many acronyms as you can and use them abundantly. –YFBJMY
Slapping around a hobo is a great, harmless way to vent oppressed rage. It's also rather funny.
Ladies: There is no need to snicker about a guy behind his back. We are all better than that.
Make sure you actually research what a "doo-rag" is before you try and make a homemade one for a friend. Here is a hint: It's spelled "Do-Rag," or "Durag." "Doo-Rag" is not accurate.
Don’t Ask For A “Shot in The Dark” From One of Those Back Alley Baristas.
Never order anything anywhere containing both “rest stop” and “casserole” in the name.
Not All Antiques are Authentic. Some are Fakes Made by Sam Donaldson.
A human skull makes a mighty fine doorstop.
Turkey has to be the laziest country in the world. All that Tryptophan and everything.
Insecure with your body? Try cutting back on sweets or murdering all those people who called you fat in the first place. Either way, happy times lay before you friend.
Trendy fashions may come and go, but skin is always in style. Well, unless its all flakey and stuff, then that is just gross.
It is easier to try and sell 14 pairs of pants at a local thrift store if you are wearing some.
The ladies love a guy in uniform, but unfortunately, somehow, this doesn't apply to a Subway getup. I didn't want to talk to her anyways.
People, please. That "Dingo ate my baby" line just isn't funny.
It takes a steady hand to perform surgery. Not so much to commit armed robbery and assault.
Talk is cheap, but it could sure land you in some hot water with the federal government.
Guns and violence don't solve anything this is true, but they do further your ego. Cheers guns and violence!
The “Tennessee Waltz” can get a party started, but the “Jonestown Boogie” can really kill one.
Starbucks baristas do not find the term “coffee whore” to be endearing.
I am going to go against the grain here, open myself up to some harsh criticism, and defend Jim Cramer a little bit concerning his appearance on the “Daily Show.” Before I get into this though, I must say I am really not a fan of either of them, which was all the more reason to tune in. John Stewart’s program I don’t enjoy because of his copy and paste style editing through which he attempts to make everyone he has ideological differences with comic fodder and an object of ridicule. Though he isn’t always off the mark, contextual references are hardly included and whatever the program, news article or any various medium which attempts to do this, I immediately switch off, for it is a contorting of a persons words in order to vilify rather than represent fact. Yet, admittedly he is a comedy show so he gets a lot more leeway than say a true news show, but when you take clips from the news or quote people you suppose a responsibility to do it accurately and fully. When it is not it is simply beyond excuse.
Cramer is quite a different matter. I don’t enjoy his program because he is simply just annoying. I don’t like how he plays with dolls and dances around all the time. It just doesn’t instill in me a confidence to put any trust in him concerning what the markets are going to do or where I am going to place my money. However, sometimes a person’s demeanor when they are confronted can change a viewer’s perception and though I still would never have any inkling into placing my trust in Cramer, I still consider him the better man when compared with Stewart.
Stewart of course just laced into Cramer, who I wish stood up for himself a little bit more, but who took it civilly nonetheless. I kind of felt bad for Cramer and felt Stewart was overstepping his bounds by attacking the wrong person. Cramer has unfairly become the poster child of the bad economy, but it is not his fault really. In fact, if Stewart really felt like attacking those responsible, he would be attacking those who share in his ideology and messed up, but God forbid he do that. No, Stewart would much rather go after a messenger or someone who by his very job description has to make calls on the future as a commentator, than have to attack those who are truly responsible. That is not to say people outside of Stewart’s ideology aren’t to blame either, but I am positive he has no problem raising issue with these people.
Now, there is the big difference between Stewart and Cramer, which made Cramer’s treatment so unfair to me. Cramer does economic commentary and attempts to make picks on stocks. If anyone knows anything about stocks, they know that it is always a gamble, no matter whose advice you follow. Stocks are not based in fact, but rather on statistical data and probability, so errors are going to inevitably occur. Though Cramer said he was an expert, to think this means he is going to get everything right 100% of the time is an unfair expectation. Furthermore, if you base your stock picks on someone on TV alone, you are taking a huge risk and if you feel there is no risk, you should have no business buying stocks. Cramer goes out there night after night making calls on the future and weighing probability, not fact, for no fact can be determined from the market. Add in the one fact we do know, the huge text that appears on the screen on his show saying essentially, “Don’t take this advice to be gospel,” and you have the responsibility going to the viewer who should not have put all their security and money on the words of a mere journalist and commentator. If you do the fault is just as much your own as with anything else.
Stewart on the other hand doesn’t have to put his neck out and make calls on the future. No, he is a comedian and criticizes and critiques the past. Now I ask you, which one is more uncertain in its outcome and which one is taking more of the risk? All the risk falls on Cramer and for Stewart to sit back and attack him in such a way when he offers nothing except critiques and criticisms on that which has already occurred is unreasonable. It is nice to be able to sit behind a comfy desk and insult and spit at people when offering nothing of yourself to criticism. Stewart has the ability to call anyone stupid who disagrees with him and insult whoever when he is questioned. He offers nothing, but comedy and insults, while real news people have to put their butt on the line every night.
Stewart’s family apparently lost money listening to Cramer and the CNBC network, and while I can be sensitive to that, the fact remains where was Stewart? Why didn’t he with his omniscient knowledge and wisdom bestow this deep intelligence towards his own mother or viewers, if he knew so much? Why did he sit on his butt? It is because he didn’t know anymore then the rest of us did and now is reaching for straws to attack and tear apart anyone he can, including news commentators, who do real news and have a responsibility to call what may happen tomorrow by the positions they have. All economic commentators are asked to do this, but one needs to weigh their words with what they truly believe and if they believe a commentator and engage in stocks on those very words alone, then the fault does not lie with the commentator, but rather those who took their words as complete truth.
People make mistakes, even people in the news. Every time you turn on the TV you should always remember to carry a handful of salt to sprinkle about because nothing you see is guaranteed to represent what has really happened, is happening, or going to happen. This you need to figure out for yourself concerning all evidence and if you need someone to tell you what to believe and how to act then the fault really lies with you. Cramer sure had nothing to gain out of being wrong. He had his viewership on the line, his reputation, his career and his respect. What did Stewart have? Nothing whatsoever and if he knows so much then he should have at very least told his mother not to invest according to Cramer, but he didn’t so where does the fault lie? It is only in the sleep of reason that people like Cramer, who merely comment and make calls on the markets, are held to account and judged, while those people who actually affected the markets walk away scot free. This is just another example of the misplaced power we put in our television personalities and our willingness to overlook those really responsible.
