Amazon Contextual Product Ads

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Summarized Versions of Fairy Tales For Busy Parents



The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf
If you lie wolves will eat you. No one will care because you are a dirty liar.

Cinderella
If you are mean to your children they might torture you and marry a stranger. Go to school so you wont have to marry the first asshole that brings you a shoe.

The Three Little Pigs
If you do a job half ass and you're not prepared wolves will eat you.

Goldie Locks and the 3 Bears
If you break into people's houses, it doesn't matter how cute you are bears will eat you (even scarier since bear has come to mean large hairy men).

Little Red Riding Hood
Don't talk to strangers or wolves will eat your grandma.

Sleeping Beauty
If you do your own thing eventually a great man will find you. You will have to hang out with some goofy people for a while. You need plenty of rest. If a stranger kisses you in your sleep you punch them in the throat.

The Ugly Duckling
The hottest ducks go through awkward stages so don't worry about it. Also be nice to everyone because you never know who you will want to get with later.

Beauty and the Beast
When talking to boys- If you're a hairy beast you better have a fucking castle and not be an asshole.
When talking to girls- Be nice to the beast they might be a good person with a fucking castle!

The Princess Bride
Is the best ever and we should watch it right now.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Word of the day- Schadenfreude

I took my kids to the park today. There was a man there who was constantly bitching at the woman and young child (I would guess he was under 2 years) he was there with. I'm not sure if he was loudly bitching but I was actively trying to ignore him and couldn't pull it off. He was going all drill sergeant on the kid. Making him play on the older kid toys that he didn't want to go on. Bitching at the mother for trying to help him. Just a complete ass. Right before we left he was swinging real high on the kids swings (the ones that or only like 3 inches off the ground) jumped out, busted his ass, and slid into the wall. My first thought was OH MY GOD DID I DO THAT WITH MY MIND? I had schadenfreude the whole way home.


 scha·den·freu·de  

n.
Pleasure derived from the misfortunes of others.



P.S. He got up and blamed the mother for letting the child get in front of the swing. I have no idea what his logic was behind that. I'm guessing his brain was over power with some kind of extra strength prescription grade dick head serum. That is the only explanation I could come up with.  






Wednesday, September 21, 2011

slutty McSlut pants

I know my infatuation with the human body, strippers, hookers, trampy looking models has come off at times as not very feminist like, but I think it is. Hear me out.

I'll start out with the old argument that women getting naked when they want to is empowering. The key word being want. Granted that is if they want to because they want to and not because they are messed up in the head or have daddy issues. Even then that is their own deal that they need to fix it doesn't bring down women. Getting money to do it is very empowering.

It makes us more equal then someone might think. It is easier for a man to make a descent living with out an education because there are plenty of manual labor jobs. Not too many people look down on a construction worker and say they are degrading themselves. Why do they look down on strippers? Who are also just using their body to make money. We are all just trying to use what god gave us to do they best we can.

People say busty models are bad for women. I don't see it. They have male models and it does not make women think men are just objects. If men think women are objects they are going to think that if their are dirty pictures or not.

Hookers are just doing manual labor. You don't think a lot of those construction workers wouldn't have sex for money if it was super easy?

I sure as hell don't see a problem with women doing what they want to do with what they got. More power to them. It is not a good long term plan since looks don't last long. Plus you have to stay on your toes so you don't become a coke whore, but that has nothing to do with bringing women down.

Plus porn is just awesome.

We need to teach girls (and boys) that they should not be threatened by models and make sure they have good self esteem. We need to teach boys (and girls) that all people are people no matter what is between their legs and need to be treated with a certain level of respect. Make sure they are well rounded and not on blow. As a country we need to get our priorities straight. Hookers are not what is bringing this country down. Republicans and wall street are whats bringing this country down. They are the real bitches keeping women down. Give those hookers voter registration cards maybe we can get this shit legalized and help the economy and their safety.

Strangely enough republicans love hookers and porn when no one is watching.

Rant finished.

Friday, September 16, 2011

La la la I can't hear you the gardasil debate

Let's review.
Gardasil has been in the news a lot this week. Michele Bachmann got up in front of god and everyone and said it causes mental retardation. :sigh: Even for someone like her I was shocked. There is a giant list of well known side effects to gardasil. I mean an ass load. You have a good chance of naming one if you just start randomly stringing words together. She pretty much named the one thing it does not cause (as far as I know).
The side effect list reads like this.


The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
On Topic - Colbert Case Files - Side Effects May Include...
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive





In the left's rush to bash Bachmann they are trying to make her look stupid by making this vaccine look good. Which if you know anything about this vaccine you know this is not true. We don't have to work to make Bachmann look stupid just listen to her. 
 

Distorting facts to make some one look bad is just a sad tactic. They should stop down playing the serious side effects of a drug not proven beneficial for these young girls. On top of that while bashing Bachmann the harmless oaf they are making Rick Perry look reasonable. A man who was bribed by merck  for way more the 5,000 to mandate a dangerous drug  on young girls against theirs and their parents wishes. A man who if we like it or not might be a serious contender for Obama job (vomit).  


The media is doing it again. Manipulating it to make anyone who question big corporations look crazy. Remember when that woman sued McDonalds for her hot coffee burning her? She was prosecuted in the media. Even though that particular McDanalds have been ticketed multiple times for selling their coffee at dangerous temperatures. They decided them saving money on coffee was more important then public safety. They got sued and people lost their damn minds because one woman with a fucked up lap won a law suit against one of the largest corporations in the world. That probably wouldn't happen today. Corporation are more powerful. But I got off topic. 




I have been talking about it for days now. Some people refuse to listen to anything that doesn't back up their views. People keep spewing things they heard on that TV show that one time.
Vomit


and 

  


The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Side Effects
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive


http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1232/false-advertising-of-the-hpv-vaccines The ads were banned in France for lying.

I love Bill Maher. He explains the whole thing very well.


People are afraid to even talk about it. 

Now they are trying to mandate it in California. Do not get this confused this is not about children safety or sex. These mandates are bought and paid for by drug companies.   This is a sick abuse of power and disgusting violation of parental rights. 

1. They can't prove it will work.

2. In the US the vaccine is either as, or more deadly then cervical cancer. Depending on whose numbers you are using.

3. The government will not be with those children if they have a vaccine reaction.

4. You still have to get pap smears because it does not keep you from getting HPV or cancer.

People keep trying to argue that this vaccine does not cause mental retardation and does not make girls slutty. WOOPIE FUCKING DO! That doesn't make it a safe vaccine.

Them: We don't have polio any more.

Me: Fantastic, but has nothing to do with gardasil.

Them: It's FDA approve.

Me: So? FDA approved drugs are proven dangerous all the time.

Them: You're just fear mongering.

Me: People can't seem to find any flaws in my logic or data, but I'm fear mongering. I get that reality is scary, but come on people. Put on your big girl panties and deal with this shit. People say if you don't buy this shot you will die of cancer and I'm fear mongering. Even though cervical cancer is very rare.

Them: You're just anti vaccine because your son has Autism.

Me: Really? because my son has had vaccines. So has his younger siblings. Not gardasil because HPV is the common cold of std that 80% of sexual active people will have at one time in their lives, and in 90% of the cases clears up on it's own. Plus the only way to prevent cervical cancer is regular pap smears even with the shot. Cervical cancer is very rare in the US and declining with out the vaccine due to more women getting pap smears. It has not been proven to work with a side effect of death. I would think my years of research and personal experience would be considered a good thing when it came to a discussion about vaccines. You're welcome. 

Them: Cancer is bad.

Me:Yes it is, but so is teenagers dying from vaccines that has not be proven to stop cancer.

Them: :stick fingers in ears: Lalalalala I can't hear you.

Me: Head shake of shame


Here is a novel concept why can't we just have unbiased education and let parents decide if they want the vaccine? I really wish Republicans would stop pushing this shit on children and everyone would just pull their heads out of their asses and maybe do some of their own research before developing a strong opinion about something.

Sunday, September 11, 2011

How I Remember 9/11

I would like to start out by saying thank you to all the first responders. Thank you to any one who helped out the first responders. I also want to thank all the people who served in the military now and in the past. Plus I think it is a damn shame that there hasn't been more done for you.

I thought the best way to remember today is to bring up some old articles. Because memories change, words on paper do not.

I came across this gem. Even if it is incredible depressing I thought I had to share it. I will give you some of the high lights (to hook you), then the whole article, then the link to the original post. Always give credit where credit is due. Then a pallet cleanser because you've earned it.

From Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003 Sept 2003

[The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."]


[First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.]


[Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". ]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea, Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before 9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group, the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October 6 2002).
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this. The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically 57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and 90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its oil.
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.
· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

Now some soldiers with puppies.


































Friday, September 2, 2011

The Fashion Police Are Getting Out Of Hands.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/fashion/30baggy.html

I just heard on the news about how like in other places TX might make saggy pants against the law.

Don't get me wrong I really, really, REALLY don't like looking at people with their pants way low and their underwear showing, (especially knowing that the fashion started by "punks" in prisons trying to advertise) but I don't think we should have laws against it. They aren't hurting anyone. When did this country start having actual fashion police.

This is starting to seem way too much like morality police in Saudi Arabia to me.

Where does this stop? I mean I don't like to sag but it is hard for me to get pants that fit right. If I bend over and my pants aren't as high as they should be am I getting in trouble? It happens a lot this could really screw me over. Are they going to start saying how long our sleeves have to be next? If I have a whale tail that is my problem. If I can see topless women selling jeans on billboards (like god intended) people should be able to be tacky. I would say that things are getting ridicules, but at least I'm allowed to wear pants. What I should say is lets try not to let this country backslid. I don't want to have to wear a bonnet.

How can you take away freedoms? Especially over a fad.

Here is a little more info on whale tails