Guilt By Association: Why Romney May Wish To Avoid Bloomberg

Among Mitt Romney's rumored choices for running mates, one name stands out above all: Michael Bloomberg. But the old-school Republican could bring something else to the Romney camp that could destroy the campaign entirely, the New York Blizzard of 2010.

December 27th, 2010 has been hailed as the "busiest day for 911 calls since Sept. 11, 2001" in an article published December 29th, 2010 by the New York Daily News. That day was faced with the helplessness of being trapped by seemingly endless drifts of snow, and a city government that seemed unwilling to protect its citizens.

By December 30th,  Mayor Bloomberg finally ventured out to see the aftermath of the four boroughs and how they fared without the support that Manhattan had received. It is speculated that since Manhattan is a major tourist destination, the city went out of it's way to ensure the streets were cleared. New York Public Advocat Bill de Blasio, second-in-line to the Mayor, had sent a letter to the office of Bloomberg demanding an explanation for the late and ineffective response, which remained unanswered. Even after plows finally made it to the outer boroughs on and after December 30th, the streets were not salted, thereby weakening any effect that plowing would have to the 20 inches of snow; a final insult to the lives lost during the storm.

Flash forward two years later, and the man at the helm of this city is now being hailed as a 'safe' choice for Mitt Romney by ESPN columnist L.Z. Granderson. It seems that the memory of the Republican party, once again, is fuzzy and measurable in nano-seconds. This textbook result of ineffectual leadership should be foremost in the mind of Romney, and to head off any bad press at the proverbial pass, he'd ought to look to another running mate. Preferrably a running mate with less blood on their hands.

Bloomberg's track record of attempting a $34-million dollar cut in childcare services and the forced layoff of over 4,600 teachers in the City of New York is -comparatively- light work in the face of the blizzard. This does nothing to give the impression that he is an "old-school" Republican and is more in-step with the modern incarnation of the standard issue Republican: "All for None, and More For Me" being the generalized concept.

Given Bloomberg's history, and the already shaky foundation of Romney's campaign, choosing Bloomberg as a running mate may prove to be the winter of Romney's discontent.

It'll Get Finished When It's Finished!

(I promised myself this blog wouldn't turn into a personal gripe page, but I personally don't give a shit what gets posted on it now.)

I think we all get a little bent out of shape on our purpose in life. Some of us may achieve great things, while others become the "anti-example" by which to live. No doubt, the times we live in are dicked up like a gangbang. But do we every truly admit to ourselves what we want out of life?

Sometimes, some important times, we have to give ourselves a gut check and take a little inventory on what we want. Lets use myself as an example: I enjoy video games, eating, sleeping, working out and getting drunk. I'd add "getting laid" in that equation but that would require me to "give a fuck" (nyuk-nyuk). In that little list, you'll note that I didn't include my occupation, and there's a reason for that. The truth of the matter is that none of us actually want to work for a living. Some of us aren't even fucking passionate about what we do, we'd like to think we are; we're not. But for those of us that really don't care about the end-state of our environment, our neighborhood or our fellow man, there's hope. Hope in the fact that there are others who do give a damn, and we should be gracious enough to stay out of their way.

But how? How do we help those people without stepping away from our double xp weekends on Call of Duty you ask? By simply being honest with them. I can assure you, many people would be beyond thrilled if you just admitted to them that you really don't care about their neighborhood watch, their food drive or their petition (unless there's something in it for you.) I should know, I drop the "no, I don't think that's really worth getting worked up over" spiel on a regular basis.  Be wary, however, of those who are so civic-minded that they want to drag you into their pile of horse-hockey.  These motherfuckers will do nothing good for your peace of mind and totally destroy your chances of getting to that next prestige level on whatever game you're playing online. 

The civic-minded volunteer is the worst type of individual. They give a hoot for the sake of giving said hoot, which is no reason to ever give a hoot unless someone is hooting up in your business. So be the smart field mouse and hide from these bird-brains whenever it can be managed. Couldn't their time be better spent masturbating or otherwise finding a way to go fuck themselves, I ask you? 

So, if you're lazy, are only motivated by that which will pay or entertain you, and only work because it keeps you in the life you're most comfortable living then take heart. You are closer to happiness than Mr. Save-the-Whales will ever be, and far closer to getting what you want out of life.

Question everything, or not; not my problem.

FLATWARE: NOT AS WELL REGULATED AS YOU MAY THINK

In the wake of the obesity epidemic gripping the United States, have we overlooked the main accomplice to the sometime friend and enemy, food? Moreover, have we actually asked ourselves the hard question: Can flatware be the blame?

With the increasing prices in high-grade, high-performance, high-capacity food rich in nutrients our eyes have been blinded by costs. It begs to be asked however if we're actually seeing the farm beyond the dinner table, but in fact the dinner table may hold the key to the issue. Utensils otherwise known as flatware are responsible for the vast majority of the food we eat. Food -as has been well documented- is one of the major factors contributing to obesity. Looking at the sum of its parts, flatware seems to be a dangerously overlooked factor. Flatware is imperative in bringing most foods to our mouths, but those who suffer from obesity may very well be abusing such a major tool in eating, resulting in their higher chances of suffering from diabetes and heart failure.

This is not to say that all flatware is bad, and that anyone who uses flatware will inevitably use it to make themselves obese, though it may be time to ask precisely what level and how strictly flatware should be issued to the general public, if issued at all. Flatware has had a long history of going without regulation. According to the Sheffield Knife Book (Tweetdale, 1996) flatware's use and inventory has been documented in British Tax Records as early as 1297. But in our modern times, why have we failed to heed the lessons from our past and not maintain register and accountability of our flatware? Instead, the populace has been roving about, utensil in hand and ready to give themselves a hard case of indigestion at the very least.

High-capacity kitchen utensils are not to be ruled out, as was mentioned in a previous article. It begs to be asked why so many people wish to have restaurant-grade cooking implements in their house. True, some may enjoy the thrill of cooking and the security that you can prepare haute cuisine in their own home at their leisure. On the other hand, is it really necessary when there are fully qualified culinary specialists able to make better use of it? Even if the restaurant is closed, there's always prepared meals to be had from the grocer's freezer.  Not to mention, the multifunctional mass murder machine known mainly as the "spork."

As a people, we'd ought to count the gravestones of those who've died from obesity-related disorders. Can it not be asked if there was limited access to flatware, these people would be living fulfilling lives instead of the dreadful fate they've met? But without doubt, it can be said that in the defense of regulating and limiting access to flatware, "forks can, and will, make you fat."

An Open Letter To Theists

Dear Believers,

Ah, and so I come to you again. I wanted to see how things were going. I'm pretty sure you're cross with me, and while not necessarily a good reason, it is a reason that I don't agree with you. How are you? How's the family? I'm sure they're doing quite well, whatever the standard opinion of "well" may be. In any case I'd like to say the following:

There's a limit to your faith.

Yes, call it a wager, an impolite remark reserved for someone trying to get in your head (as if your ilk didn't try to get into mine in my formative years.) But there is some observable truth to my claim, a truth that you yourself confirm quite easily. Were I forced to, there would be untold scores of books I could write on the subject. But since you seldom bother to read the one book you swear by in its entirety, it would be a waste of energy to write more than one on the subject. As I've written this so far, I cannot help but find myself contemplating the events in Genesis 22:5-8. The "Binding of Isaac" was one of many Bible-approved examples of displaying one's faith in God, but then I find myself muttering the old adage "Talk to God; call it prayer. Talked to by God; call a psychiatrist." But it goes much deeper than that, oh yes. It goes right down to you, Theist. It goes right down to your humanity and what you'd do to prove your faith.

Remember that lovely family of yours? The one I asked about? Yes, that one. Would you be willing to tie any one of them to patio furniture, any one at all? Would you, could you, be willing to carve them to bits in His mercy? Let us dispense with paltry excuses highlighting how merciful God is when the Bible is a litany of how unmerciful one with great power can be. Let us instead stay focused on you. Because I'm not writing to you about any one god, I'm writing about you, to you.

Not one to bandy about metaphysical concepts, but I can almost sense your hesitance. If you were to answer "no" you'd find yourself locked in a paradoxical crisis of faith. Trapped in a room where the purrs and gentle reassurances of your oh-so-laughable cognitive dissonance cannot save you. But, were you to say "yes" then not only would you be looked upon as insane, but your family would start looking at you funny, and I'm pretty sure the spouse would be filing for divorce.

But as I mentioned before, there are several examples that would push your faith to its breaking point; the aforementioned is merely the one that sticks out the most in my mind. But now, it sticks out in your mind as well. So look on the bright side, for the first time in a long time, we are like-minded individuals. In any case, send the family my love, and don't go stabbing anyone.

Sincerely,
Rey Ignatius Fawkes

Gingrich's Twelve Steps To Rewritten History

Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich has published a "draft" of his soon to be infamous "Presidential Comission on Religious Freedom," set to be finalized as an Executive order by September 27th, 2012. As a reinforcement to the guiding concept of "freedom of religion," it hopes to set in place a committee to oversee that freedom to worship openly is enforced. But does Gingrich realize how deep the Christian leanings of the nation, and the words of his proposal, actually are?
Published to Gingrich's campaign website on December 18th, 2011, the comission outlines twelve steps that, to put it lightly, partially increase the size of government by establishing a "working group" to go forth and ensure that freedom to worship is upheld in all aspects of our society. This is quite ironic, considering the Republican agenda to decrease the size of said government has been made apparent for decades, if only to refocus the size on issues relevant to the Republican Party. A major question is precisely who qualifies to serve on the working group? This, given that it is not outlined in any level of specificity that this writer can ascertain from reading.
A few varying degrees of political double-speak permeate the comission document, notably in the reference to the "Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" despite the fact that the ramifications of such a comission may very well require action from Congress. Another, following the Republican trope of interpreting and thereby asserting to know the will of the Founding Fathers, punctuates the document as often as a comma or period would in a letter. This is visible in the "Six Themes Summarize The Founders’ Vision For Church And State" section of the document (Federalist, Nationalist, Democratic, Libertarian, Philosophical and Theological.)
The final highlight goes into a laundry list of "low-points" in American History, characterizing them as issues that could only be resolved through religious morality. This, despite the fact that the true resolutions of issues such as the eugenics movement and slavery had been ousted not by religious intervention or hinging on a change of conscience, but by political means. Most especially slavery, despite the fact that Europeans could not support a country that perpetuated a law they had long since abolished was more of a contributing factor to the abolition of slavery than the fact that Lincoln appealed to the moral "conscience" of Americans. Through interpretation of the Founding Fathers intentions with "cherry-picked" quotes from those same men, there is also a laughable reference to Machiavelli's "The Prince," a book written with the sole intention of satirizing the Medici family's rise to power, however brief in quotation; not unlike using an episode of "All In The Family" to illustrate America in the early 1980s .
Though the intention to ensure religious freedom may be encouraged in the "spirit" of the document, Gingrich's "Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom" seems more bent on ensuring the free practice of the Christian faith, and contradicts itself at every sloppily executed turn. This writer would suggest to any Republican, regardless of faith (or lack thereof) to familiarize themself with this comission before taking one step (or twelve) towards supporting the Gingrich campaign.

(The actual draft is available here: http://www.newt.org/presidential-commission-religious-freedom)