Australia!

 

Boom.

 — Jackson Williams.

This is great. — J.W.

Weigl

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know or so they tell me.  At the same time, geography it has been said determines more in our lives than any other factor other than birth.  That prior useful adage was assembled by me after several unsuccessful visits to ill-placed, unsanitary, and overpopulated restrooms.  I’m big on bathrooms because I drink a lot of water.  Bathrooms are a big part of my day.  I spend as much time figuring out where the next successful bathroom visit will occur than on any other arbitrary activity.  You may be asking yourself two questions at this point, both of which are legitimate: one; what does a successful bathroom visit entail and two; what does a bathroom and its’ occupants tell you about anything?  The answers are different for each visitor, but for many a bathroom visit is more routine than anything else.  People go…

View original post 1,947 more words

Election 2012: Hope, Change, Teabags & Autobots

This gallery contains 14 photos.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s the night before the 2012 election for the office of The President of the United States. I can’t believe I wasted all those years in college studying Political Science, knowing the entire time that deep … Continue reading →

Josh Romney Scares The Shit Out of Me!

Romney 2012….or ELSE.

— Jackson Williams.

We Only Did It For The Munchies!

I’m making custom belt-buckles now. His eyes are red….from smoking weeeeeeeeeeeed.

I love my home state, and — because I love my home state so much — this article makes way too much sense to me. I have a pretty good theory on just what exactly happened to all that (weed) money, and I think you’ve got a pretty good idea too. Pass me my breakfast burrito that I made after my nap this afternoon.

From the Associated Press:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — As marijuana legalization efforts in Colorado and Washington pick up steam, a similar push in Oregon seems to be going up in smoke.

More than $4 million has flowed to Washington and close to a million in Colorado.

Yet in Oregon — a state with one of the nation’s highest rates of pot use and a reputation for pushing the boundaries on marijuana laws — organizers are looking at a bank account with just $1,800.

Marijuana activists who have ploughed big bucks into campaigns in the other two states complain the Oregon measure is poorly written and doesn’t poll well. It didn’t qualify for the ballot until July, severely limiting the time available to sway voters.

They also don’t care for the man with a blemished record who’s pushing Oregon’s measure.

“That’s just the hard, cold reality,” said Allen St. Pierre, director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “They simply do not trust and will not work with the locals there.”

Paul Stanford, the 51-year-old chief petitioner behind the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, dismissed criticism and said the Legislature can clean up any issues with the law after it passes.

As for funding questions, he said it’s an advantage that the Oregon measure isn’t being pushed by distant interests.

Oregon has been on the leading edge of the decades-long push to loosen marijuana laws. It was the first state to decriminalize small-scale marijuana possession in 1973 and was also among the first to allow medicinal use of marijuana.

The state ranked seventh in the nation for marijuana use among people 12 and older, according to data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Colorado ranked third and Washington 11th.

In both those states, lawyers writing the initiatives took pains to incorporate lessons from earlier failures at the ballot box. Based on the results of polling and focus groups, the measures were carefully written to close down criticism that resonates with voters — both have a tough standard for stoned driving, for example, that’s unpopular with some activists. Both measures include limits on the amount of marijuana a person can have.

“I really think Colorado and Washington did an excellent job in how they set up their measures in a way that does appeal to mainstream voters,” said Sam Chapman, the co-founder of Oregonians for Law Reform.

Oregon voters will be deciding on a far more aggressive change. The state would license growers and buy their weed, which would be sold exclusively through a network of state-run stores. The whole operation would be overseen by a seven-member board, five of whom would be appointed by marijuana growers and processors. There would be no limit on the amount of pot a person could have.

Stanford says he spent $5,000 each on polls in 2008 and 2010 that helped shape his measure, but didn’t have the advantage of the sophisticated political research operations that advocates used in Colorado and Washington.

“We see that prohibition has failed and regulation works, and that’s what we’re trying to do is regulate this market,” Stanford said.

Then there’s the money problem.

TRUTH.

Colorado’s financial success has come about because of strong polling and years of work lining up support, said Mason Tvert, head of Colorado’s Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol. Tvert also helmed a 2006 marijuana legalization measure that failed badly at the polls.

Colorado’s campaign had raised almost $1 million through Monday, most of it from the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which gave $830,000.

Proponents in Washington have raised more than $4 million, much of it from Peter Lewis, the retired chief executive of Progressive Insurance; Rick Steves, the author of popular travel guides; and Drug Policy Action. More than $1 million of that was raised last week alone. The state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has been involved from the beginning.

In Oregon, Stanford bankrolled the bulk of the $350,000 signature-gathering effort to get the measure on the ballot.

Since it qualified, the campaign has raised just $32,000.

Stanford acknowledges that his fundraising struggles stem in part from reports about his financial troubles dating to the mid-1990s.

He’s had federal and state tax judgments and at least two bankruptcies. He was sued for more than $38,000 by a marijuana donor who accused him of stealing the money in 1999. For at least three years, he paid off his personal bills with money from his Hemp & Cannabis Foundation, a network of clinics in several states where doctors approve patients for medical marijuana use.

Stanford declined to address the financial issues in his past, saying it wouldn’t be helpful to his campaign.

Other Oregon activists are trying to salvage the campaign. Chapman and another marijuana activist set up their own political action committee to promote it outside of Stanford’s operation, hoping to attract last-minute donors. They’ve raised $4,600 and spent about $2,000, according to campaign finance records.

But for now, all bets are on Colorado and Washington to be the first state to legalize pot.

“Those two states probably represent the best possibility of legalizing marijuana, and probably the best until 2016,” said Ethan Nadelmann, director of Drug Policy Action, the campaign arm of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance.

Mitt Romney vs. The Airplane

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past day, Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, was on a plane bound for Los Angeles when there was a malfunction inside the cabin. Mr. Romney, obviously fearful for his wife’s safety, posed this question (paraphrasing, of course): “Why the hell can’t we roll down windows on our airplanes?”

And, like me, I’m sure you immediately dropped to the ground, hyperventilating from laughter, cursing what God hath brought upon The United States of America in 2012. Here’s the full quote from Mr. Romney himself:

When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.

But, instead of joining the far-too-easy Snark Parade that is following this story around like a cloud of doom, I’ll redirect you HERE to an article by James Fallows, a writer for The Atlantic.

I decided to post the FULL article by James Fallows on PAGE 2. It’s for all of those who are not sure how airplane-cabins work.

Pages: 1 2

Memo From The Office of General Jack D. Ripper

From Reuters:

Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state was preparing to attack it, a senior commander of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.

Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, made the comments to Iran’s state-run Arabic language Al-Alam television.

“Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it,” Al-Alam said, paraphrasing the military commander.

Hajizadeh said any attack on Iranian soil could trigger “World War Three”.

“We can not imagine the Zionist regime starting a war without America’s support. Therefore, in case of a war, we will get into a war with both of them and we will certainly get into a conflict with American bases,” he said.

“In that case, unpredictable and unmanageable things would happen and it could turn into a World War Three.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made increasing hints that Israel could strike Iran’s nuclear sites and has criticized U.S. President Barack Obama’s position that sanctions and diplomacy should be given more time to stop Iran getting the atomic bomb.

Tehran denied it is seeking weapons capability and says its atomic work is peaceful, aimed at generating electricity.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” — Albert Einstein

“The Zionist entity is militarily incapable of confronting Iran … the circumstances of the region do not enable it to wage war tomorrow or even in the near future,” Hajizadeh said.

“Our response will exceed their expectations,” he said. “Their assessment of our missile capabilities is wrong. Our response will not only be missiles.”

(Reporting by Zahra Hosseinian and Rania El Gamal; Editing by Sophie Hares)

Citizen Romney

From CNN’s Political Ticker:

Mitt Romney on Monday said his controversial statements caught on tape were “off the cuff” and “not elegantly stated,” but he defended the main message of his remarks.

Romney took three questions in a brief press conference with pool reporters late Monday night in California, scheduled at the last minute in response to the release of secretly recorded video of the candidate speaking at a private fund-raiser in May.

The video quickly caught fire as potentially damaging material to the Republican presidential nominee.

In the footage, taped with a hidden camera, Romney argued nearly half of Americans will vote for President Barack Obama because they rely on government support, made apparent jokes about wishing he had Latino heritage, and talks about a Chinese factory his former firm purchased.

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Romney says in one clip. “There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.”

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that for tax year 2011, 46% of households will end up owing nothing in federal income taxes. But if payroll taxes are counted, the number of non-payer households drops precipitously – to an estimated 18% in 2011.

Adding to his argument about entitlement, Romney said his “job is not to worry about those people.”

“I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives,” he added. “What I have to do is convince the 5 percent to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful.”

The videos were posted Monday afternoon on the left-leaning news websites The Huffington Post and Mother Jones. The person responsible for the footage said he or she wishes to remain anonymous for “professional reasons and to avoid a lawsuit,” according to the Huffington Post. Furthermore, the video was altered dramatically – but retains the audio from the event – to mask the location and date of the fund-raiser with high-dollar donors.

Appearing on MSBC late Monday night, the author of the Mother Jones article, David Corn, said the event took place May 17 in Boca Raton, Florida, at the home of Sun Capital executive Marc Leder.

Romney, in his press conference Monday night, said he could have stated his original comments “more clearly” but said he was trying to point out the differences between the two campaigns.

“We have a very different approach – the president and I – between a government-dominated society and a society driven by free people pursuing their dreams,”,Romney said.

As for why he spoke more candidly with the group of donors, Romney said he was addressing some concerns at the fund-raiser.

“At a fundraiser you have people say, ‘Governor how are you going to win this?’ And so I respond ‘Well, the president has his group, I have my group. I want to keep my team strong and motivated and I want to get those people in the middle.’ That’s something which fund-raising people who are parting with their monies are very interested in,” Romney said.

He also called on the unidentified individual to release the entire video, rather than “snippets.”

Shortly after reports began to surface about the video, campaign spokesman Rick Gorka said the campaign will allow pool reporters to film fund-raisers in private homes beginning Tuesday. Previously, reporters were allowed into some of the events but were not permitted to use cameras.

When the campaign released a statement in response to the issue later Monday, it did not directly mention the videos.

“Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy. As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work. Mitt Romney’s plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs,” Gail Gitcho, Romney’s communications director, said in the statement.

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus defended Romney on Monday, saying the nominee was simply describing the “monstrosity” of government.

“The point of all of this is that the size of government is too big, and if we don’t do something about it we’re going to really lose the very idea of America,” Priebus said on CNN’s The Situation Room.

He added: “I don’t have the numbers in front of me but clearly what we do have, very clearly, is a government and a society here in this country that is becoming dependent.”

Also at the event, Romney joked he would be more successful in his White House bid if his father were actually Latino, rather than having been born in Mexico to missionary parents from the United States.

“My dad, as you probably, know was the governor of Michigan and was the head of a car company. But he was born in Mexico … and, uh, had he been born of, uh, Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot at winning this,” Romney said. “But he was unfortunately born to Americans living in Mexico…. I mean I say that jokingly, but it would be helpful to be Latino.”

The tape came the same day as Romney addressed the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Los Angeles as he continues to court Latino voters, which have largely signaled they would fall in Obama’s column in November. According to a recent Gallup poll, Obama leads Romney among Latino registered voters 64%-27%.

Obama’s campaign quickly seized on the reports Monday, calling Romney’s comments “shocking.”

“It’s shocking that a candidate for President of the United States would go behind closed doors and declare to a group of wealthy donors that half the American people view themselves as ‘victims,’ entitled to handouts, and are unwilling to take ‘personal responsibility’ for their lives. It’s hard to serve as president for all Americans when you’ve disdainfully written off half the nation,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina in a statement.

In another part of the video, Romney says he was visiting a Chinese factory during his tenure as chief executive of Bain Capital, a private equity firm.

“When I was back in my private equity days, we went to China to buy a factory there,” Romney is heard saying. “It employed about 20,000 people. And they were almost all young women between the ages of about 18 and 22 or 23. They were saving for potentially becoming married.”

The GOP nominee goes on to detail the conditions he saw, including workers squeezed into dormitory-style housing, and a fence topped by barbed wire circling the factory.

Romney says when he asked the factory’s bosses about the fence, they told him it was meant to keep people out, rather than in, as people were clamoring to come and work at the plant, which Romney said was manufacturing small appliances.

Romney concludes his story by recalling words from a fellow employee of Bain.

“The Bain partner I was with turned to me and said, you know, 95 percent of life is settled if you are born in America,” Romney is heard saying on the tape.

A source familiar with Bain’s investment history says the firm itself did not buy the factory referred in the video, but could not say whether the factory was owned by a company in which Bain later invested. The Boston Globe reported in 1998 that a Bain subsidiary, Brookside Capital Partners Fund, had invested in a Global Tech, a company with factories in China.

Obama’s re-election campaign cited the video Monday while touting the president’s newly filed trade complaint against China, which alleges China has illegally subsidized automotive exports and undercut American suppliers.

Romney, in a statement, called the trade complaint “too little, too late,” asserting the president’s “credibility on this issue has long since vanished.”

Obama, himself, was caught in a secret camera moment in 2008, when he was recorded at a private fund-raiser saying that some voters “cling to their guns and religion.” At the time, Republicans quickly pounced on the comment and now Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, uses the quote against the president on the campaign trail.

“This Catholic deer hunter is guilty as charged and proud to say so,” Ryan said Monday at a campaign event in Iowa. “That’s just weird. Who says things like that? That’s just strange.”

Eastwood Talks To The Chair.

In case you missed it last night, here’s the video of Clint Eastwood speaking at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. Now, I am what you would call a “Political Junkie,” and I’ve been watching these national conventions ever since I was four years old, I’ve been following this presidential race with all the diligence of a bona fide, true-blue crack addict, and — if you happened to watch it, you’ll probably agree with what I’m about to say next — this is by far one of the most surreal goddamn things I’ve ever witnessed happen in politics, especially modern politics. And, in politics just as in life, when it comes to elections, weird, weird shit is bound to happen. It’s inevitable, as this race has so psychotically taught us. It also doesn’t help that it’s Clint fucking Eastwood up there, a man who in modern America might as well be considered a walkin’, talkin’ deity, speaking to a crowd of people who have been going absolutely mad for three days because of the intense heat of Florida and the realization that they’ve made a terrible mistake with their lives by going for “morbidly obese” instead of the relatively safer “just a little bit obese.”

Just watch:

THE CHAIR WON THE ARGUMENT !!!

Dear Homie: Happy Birthday to The United States of America

In honor of America’s 236th birthday tomorrow, I’ve decided to take a break from original work tonight and bring you two documents that every American should know by heart. The first is the Declaration of Independence, which was basically a big “go fuck yourself!” to King George, and the second is the impassioned speech by Patrick Henry, a patriot, not long after the Boston Tea Party that we learned so much about as children. The past year we have seen numerous arguments about what it means to be an American (don’t you just hate election years?) and the silly idea that one person is somehow more American than another (those who do that should be, politely, punched in the teeth) simply based off of whether they vote Democrat or Republican.

I believe that as a people we’re better than that, and we get so caught up in ourselves that we forget just how much was sacrificed to be able to reach the big 2-3-6. Just IMAGINE it: a small collection of colonies decided on freedom and had to fight the greatest superpower the world had ever seen, Britain, and from there those colonies became a nation, and over the course of the last 236 years has grown to become a superpower itself. A few years ago, my genealogy-obsessed relatives discovered that we were related to John Adams (the 2nd President of the United States, amongst other achievements) and, obviously, the rest of the famous Adams clan.

I love this damn country, and tomorrow you will find me drunk, dressed in red, white and blue, carrying way too many fireworks and repeating the words “so this is what a bald eagle feels like when he hears country music. ‘MERICA!” I’m just kidding about that last part…maybe.

On this front page is the “Give Me Liberty…” and on page 2 is The Declaration of Independence. Enjoy.

Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

— Patrick Henry, March 23rd, 1775

Pages: 1 2