Category: Uncategorized

By on

I don’t know who the genius behind the Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ads is but surely this person deserves a raise. They created a significant amout of buzz. A lot of people are talking about it. Hell, the ad might being getting more buzz than Donald Trump the king of manipulating the media for buzz.

The ad is both ambiguous enough for American Eagle to continue to use it and controversial enough for people to debate the true meaning. Even if American Eagle is force to withdraw it at some point, they got their money’s worth. Being a strictly Levi’s guy myself and not much of a shopper, I now learned all about American Eagle — a brand of jeans that I knew nothing about before I saw Sweeney struggling to pull up her pair of “good” jeans.

By on

The Texas Legislature is about to redraw the district boundaries for the US Congress in their state. Something, by the way, they just finished doing after the 2020 census. The problem is that the Republican majority in Congress is so small that Trump is trying to get Republican leaning states to gerrymander their district boundaries in order to gain more seats in 2024 election. All of this is perfectly legal and will probably happen.

California Democrats have threatened to redraw the congressional districts in their state if Texas follows through with their plan. Again all perfectly legal. In the meantime, real problems are being ignored in order to jerry rig Congress into something easier to control. Of course, this has to be done because the present political climate is so poisonous that achieving anything that resembles compromise is now impossible. Indeed, it is easier to redraw district boundaries than to work with one another for the good of their constituents.

Just one more distraction from all the real troubles of our country. Sadly it is both important and a colossal waste of time, money, and energy.

By on

I admitted the other day that I would love to see Donald Trump pardon Ghislaine Maxwell — mostly for the pure entertainment value of the experience. Upon thinking about, I have some reservations but I am still leaning to the hellfire that Trump will unleash. Here are my problems:

  1. Maxwell wants to get out of prison. She will do anything Trump wants to do so. This means, given her record of aiding and abetting a man engaged in human trafficking, she is capable of anything, so lying to protect Trump would be very much in her wheelhouse. Nothing coming out of her mouth can actually be trusted.
  2. Pardoning Maxwell is not the same as releasing the Epstein files that Trump’s Attorney General is so closely guarding. If Maxwell clears Trump without the release of the evidence regarding Epstein, we will probably learn nothing new.
  3. Given that Trump is the president she has to please, Maxwell had every reason to throw the Clintons and any other Democrat caught in Epstein’s web under the bus. So, in the short term, at least, Maxwell could torpedo the present Democratic Establishment. Personally, I am all for it. The sooner the debris from Democratic Party Past is cleared, the sooner we can get on with the business of defeating Trump and building a more representative Democratic Party. But it will be ugly. Really really ugly.

So pardoning her is not without repercussions. But one things is for certain, Donald Trump will release the hounds from Hell if he pardons Maxwell, and, if anyone deserves the Hounds from Hell, it is Donald Trump.

By on

I try not to be petty. I try to think of the good of the country but I have to confess I would love for Trump to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell.

I have no idea what would happen but I, much to my own chagrin, would love to see the shit storm this would create. So against my better judgment I am pleading with Donald Trump to please please please pardon her and let the fun begin.

By on

Trump wants to resume using racist names for Washington’s football team.

I never understand why people clung to the Redskins name. It is obviously a racist name. Now, Donald Trump may not view it that way — mostly because he is White, and even if some Native Americans view Redskins as OK, other Native Americans do not. The only reason to resume the argument regarding the Redskins is to piss off people which is Trump’s whole game.

A sports team’s name would seem to be a low priority item to piss people off about but that is rarely a problem for Trump though he has an incredibly weak case to make. Tradition. Jesus. Americans used to have slaves. Women didn’t have the vote. Would tradition be a justifiable case to keep these two practices? Just because people have been calling the team a racist name for 100 years doesn’t mean we should continue — particularly when people have a problem with it.

But Trump wants to rumble about this and when he wants to rumble, there is no stopping him. It seems like a big waste of time. What harm occurs to the people who can no longer call the team the Redskins? None as far as I can see. The team still plays. The fans still watch. The only thing that is different is the name. “Go, Commanders” instead of “Go Redskins.”

Why not avoid aggravating people who object? But Trump doesn’t have an ounce of grace in him, he enjoys pissing people off. He has one speed — bull in china shop. At the end of his term, Trump will stand among the broken shards, gleefully proclaiming look what I have done. Quite an accomplishment — breaking everything. Quite another to build and to repair.

In the meantime, forget about Gaza, or tariffs, or healthcare, or immigration or homeless people or any one of a million more important things facing the country, let’s reopen an argument about the name of a football team.

By on

I am not sure why the word female was added to this Daily Beast headline. Shouldn’t it read ‘Drunk’ Delta Pilot? The gender of the pilot is an unnecessary addition and it makes the whole headline awkward. Read it out loud and compare Drunk Female Delta Pilot and Drunk Delta Pilot.

I took a photograph of the headline because I am pretty sure it will be taken down but here is the link.

By on

I know a Christian who, on occasion, posts about the coming of judgment day. She thinks it is  imminent. She usually adds a little jibe about how an awful lot of people are going to be going to Hell if they don’t get right with the Lord now. I am sure she would see this as a gentle reminder about finding Jesus before it is too late but it reeks with delight that a bunch of sinners will finally get what they deserve. I wish I believed her good intentions story but there is too much condescension in her tone to ignore. She is trying to save us from Hell but people are ignoring her.

This nasty superiority, more than anything else, detracts from what passes as Christianity in the modern world. So I wasn’t much surprised that Pope Francis was criticized for wanting to find Hell empty if he ever happened to visit. Of course, these Christians felt Pope Francis was missing Jesus’ whole point (see here, here and here) which is sending non-believers and miscreants to Hell.

It isn’t that Jesus wants us to be good so we can join Him in Heaven. The important thing here is that sinners must be punished. What is the point of being a good Christian if everyone gets to Heaven later?

The more I hear about these Christians, the more I prefer Hell than their version of Heaven. Besides most everyone I know and like will be in Hell so I much rather spend an eternity with people I like than with those assholes.

By on

Because government programs like SNAP and Medicaid are paid for by the government, the government qualifies and monitors the people. who receive these benefits in order to ensure they aren’t buying liquor and cigarettes. There are legitimate arguments on whether this type of costly monitoring is necessary, however, I am willing to go along with them because if some people, in order to maintain programs that help the poor, need this kind of information in order to have them, I am all in. Qualify and monitor. These are the type of compromises that make governing in a politically diverse country possible.

What is annoying is the same oversight is not given to people who receive tax breaks. They just get the money and can do whatever they want with it including buying liquor and cigarettes. Now the notion here is that these good people are going to spend the money they received in tax breaks in investing money in their businesses thus creating more jobs however they are under no obligation to prove this. They could be spending the money on call centers located overseas and spa vacations for all we know. But no one asks them to show how they are spending these breaks on creating jobs here in America.

Here in lies the problem I have with tax breaks. They are unmonitored and given without nary a thought on how these windfalls are actually spent. So what, you might ask. Even if the jobs are created for call centers located in India and European vacations — this money eventually gets put back into the economy for the good of all. Right?

Well, yes but then very same thing can be said for giving money to the poor. Buying liquor and cigarettes at the local convenience store juices the American economy too. In fact, giving money to the poor is more likely to juice the American economy because the poor stay locally while the rich might wander off to Tahiti or Bali to spend their money.

Some people would argue that tax breaks are allowing the rich to keep their money and they should do anything they want with it. I would argue that it isn’t their money. The American people have a tax rate, whether you like that tax rate or not — it is the law. The tax obligation is the amount owed before tax breaks are calculated. The tax breaks then become government benefits — like Medicaid or SNAP.

If government benefits for the poor need to rigorously monitored then the same idea applies to tax breaks for the rich. I would like to see more tangible evidence that the rich are using their money wisely.

By on

Michael Bloomberg, ex-mayor of New York and billionaire, donated $5 million plus to Andrew Cuomo’s losing bid for mayor. Cuomo lost but is staying in the race because he thinks he can win in the general election. This leaves billionaire New Yorkers in the dilemma of which incredibly weak candidate (Cuomo or Adams) to throw their cash at in their effort to stop Mamdani.

Before you shed too many tears for Bloomberg, realize that he dropped all this money when it became apparent that Cuomo might lose and the people with money were desperately trying to drag Cuomo over the finish line. He probably knew he was flushing money down the toilet but he had to start somewhere, Cuomo’s losing campaign was as good a place to start as anywhere.

If a normal person were to donate $100 to a political campaign, it hurts a little. $5 million is a lot of dollars to drop on one mayoral campaign, yet Bloomberg seems to be more alarmed about a Socialist running the city than the fact he blew 5 million on a loser. Even after such a large loss of money, he is financially able to throw even more money at any candidate that might beat the Commie Mamdani. Think about it. He lost $5 million dollars and still has money burning in his wallet to give away to really lackluster candidates.

Bloomberg is also donating to other candidates running for city offices in the upcoming general election. This is not without consequence in how Bloomberg is seen at City Hall. Some officials might have the courage to vote against one of their bank rollers, but they certainly would feel obligated to sit down in a tony Manhattan eatery and listen to what Bloomberg has to say. Particularly if Bloomberg is paying. Bloomberg is getting access that the average New Yorker is unable to get.

If anyone has this type of cash, they also have enough cash to pay more taxes. Let’s face it if he is willing to panic contribute to a losing campaign, he can afford to drop some money in the public till for a better pay for government employees, better services for the poor, more money for education and a whole list of general welfare needs.

What about a law that if a person can contribute $1 million or more in any one campaign they must also pay an equal amount in taxes. It doesn’t discourage small contributors and big contributors get a reality check and, perhaps, think a bit harder before blowing their wad on losers like Cuomo.

By on

The Huffington Post headline reads: Kim Carnes Seemingly Shades JoJo Siwa over her “Bette Davis Eyes” cover. Oh my, how horrible. Now everyone is talking about it.

Seemingly is the most important word in this headline. Huffington Post hedged its bets — they can’t positively say for sure that Carnes was shading JoJo Siwa. On the other hand, there is enough ambiguity here for them to speculate. What’s the harm in a little speculation, right?

Kim Carnes and JoJo Siwa were getting along fine or, more likely, completely unaware of the other person’s existence. Then some reporter comes along and speculates. It is a slow news days. Why not stir the pot a little and see what pseudo controversy can be created that will grab readers attention. This will go on for a few days. With both parties being asked what they think of the other’s increasingly vitriolic statements until the reporter tires of the feud and creates a new one.

This formula for creating pseudo controversies is the bread and butter of the new business these days — particularly when celebrities are involved. And everyone seems to be on board with this. Celebrities love headlines. Newspapers love reporting gossip. It is what you call a win/win relationship.

It is also a terrible diet for people needing information. Feeding people bon bon after bon bon without a vegetable or a piece of fruit in sight. Now, I get that controversies sell newspapers but there needs to be something more substantive on the menu so while I can enjoy my bon bon, I need to eat my broccoli as well.

This terrible strategy has spilled over to political reporting which now boils down to people reacting to whatever nonsense comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth. It is all about one upping the other person and the press is there breathlessly reporting responses to each new outrageous comment. What does this mean? How will they respond? Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

But it is hardly substantive reporting about what ails the country.