High brow propaganda from Copenhagen

From the liars who brought you global warming comes this little gem I just couldn't resist to show you. Please give it a few minutes of your precious time. It really is worth the chuckle of that little girl hanging from the tree... you'll see.

Climate-gate: Something’s rotten in Denmark

And so it begins… the Global Climate LoveFest in Copenhagen got started on Monday with hundreds of Global Climate Chicken Little’s arriving via private jet and limousine to kick-off their 10-day bloviating session about our troubled climate.
But as global climate liars were gathering in Copenhagen this weekend to discuss their latest lies and half-truths concerning the global warming sham, the local government was trying to cool things off to near sub-zero temperatures.
Seems Copenhagen’s Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard and her cohorts on the city council delivered a bunch of postcards to about 160 local hotels and their patrons asking them to refrain from participating in the local sex trade – the legal local sex trade.
Come on!  You must know about this by now!
No? Could it be the mainstream media is ignoring this? Could it be?
If you have been following the ClimateGate scandal at all, you know we have learned through the release of various e-mails between the “scientists” who assure us global warming is real, that global warming actually is a manipulation of climate data perpetrated by these very “scientists.”
The well-organized Copenhagen hookers decided to take on the Lord Mayor’s attempt at putting salt peter in the convention’s proverbial water supply (Come on, who ever heard of a convention without hookers) by offering up free sex for anyone who brings in the postcard.
That’s right, the postcard is a sex coupon… bring the coupon and get … well you know.
So let’s get some perspective here.
It’s bad enough the climate liars have been screwing us with all their “manipulated” climate data, now they get to screw the hookers for free? What’s up with that?
I say charge any climate liar attending the conference a surcharge of say…. $1 billion each. That could be used to refund us all for any useless “green” items we were duped into buying because of their lies.
I’m good. I never bought into this whole global warming nonsense from the beginning.
And come to think of it, if you bought into the whole global warming scam you deserved to get ripped off. Let’s just skip the surcharge – and implement the Lord Mayor’s suggestion. Those climate liars don’t deserve a romp in the hay for free, and the hookers don’t deserve to be soiled by those climate lying creeps.
Problem solved.

Marriage is a human right. (period)

The New Jersey State Legislature is currently in the hot seat of the same-sex marriage debate, and the venue for the hotly debated topic is today’s Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.
There is a sense of urgency among same-sex marriage advocates because the clock is ticking on ousted Gov. Jon Corzine’s tenure as chief executive. Corzine has said he will sign the bill if it gets to his desk before he leaves office.
Gov. elect-Christopher Christie, who takes office in mid-January, has said he would veto the measure.
If the same-sex marriage bill moves out of committee on an affirmative vote today, the full Senate could vote on the measure as early as Thursday. But the Assembly has yet to act on the measure that would need the approval of both houses before being placed on the ousted governor’s desk.
If New Jersey were to approve a same-sex marriage provision it would become the sixth state in the union to do so behind Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. New Hampshire becomes the fifth state when its same-sex law takes effect on January 1, 2010.
The Maine state legislature approved a same-sex marriage law, but voters repealed that law by a slim margin last month. And the California Supreme Court gave its approve of same-sex marriage in the Golden State only to have voters knock it down by a 52-percent to 48-percent margin last year.
Last week, the New York State Senate rejected by a 38 to 24 vote margin an attempt to allow same-sex marriage in the ultra-liberal Empire State.
Now the ultra-liberal state legislature in the great Garden State of New Jersey is weighing in on the issue, but it's in a rush to come to a decision on the matter before the baton is handed over to a new governor with a different opinion about the issue.
So let’s get some perspective here, but in the form of a question:  If heterosexuals don’t need a bill to get married why do homosexuals need one?
That’s right… there appears to be no law on the books in New Jersey to permit heterosexual marriage, therefore no bill was ever presented to give men and women the ability to marry, so why do two men or two women need a law to do the same thing? Do we really believe straight couples have a monopoly on love and relationships?
All marriage is is a formal declaration of a couple’s love and commitment to each other.
New Jersey law spells out a man or woman cannot marry his/her sister/brother, aunt/uncle, mother/father, half-sister/half-brother, nieces/nephews, or all-encompassing ancestors or descendants or others whether such collateral kindred be of the whole or half blood.
What no mention of the dog or cat? What’s up with that New Jersey?
I can’t marry my fourteenth cousin 16 times removed, but I can consider the family pet?
New Jersey actually has a law banning bestiality -- banning someone from having sexual relations with an animal -- but marriage is not mentioned. Strange.
I’m sure this will be addressed shortly. You know they will be looking to right a wrong.
Let’s get some perspective here.
I’ve been married twice – yeah -- wow –my ex-wives and I have a real sense of commitment as heterosexual females and a heterosexual male.
Are we afraid homosexuals will show us up?
Are we scared their divorce rate would actually be lower than straight couples?
As I wrote her last week, I think gay couples have the right to be as miserable as I was when I was married, and they should be able to enjoy the rape, pillage and plunder doled out by a divorce lawyer.
Let’s get some perspective here.
Better yet, let’s just get over ourselves – our self-righteous bigoted selves.

World cup fever is burning

World Cup fever got its fire to full burn Friday with the tournament draw to finalize the eight groups of four teams to sure up the first round of the most important sports event in the galaxy.

The U.S. was drawn into Group C with England, Algeria and Slovenia for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.
The U.S. Men's National Football (Soccer) team will be making their ninth appearance in the World Cup tournament dating back to the innaugural World Cup played in 1930 in Uruguay.
Our American side will kick-off its sixth straight visit to the world's largest sports tournament when they face off against England on June 12, 2010 at the Royal Bafokeng Stadium in the city of Rustenburg.The second match in the first round for the Americans will be on June 18 in Johannesburg against the team from Slovenia.
The first round of the World Cup tournament will be completed when the Americans take on the Algerian national team in Pretoria on June 23.
Making it to the second round of the World Cup referred to as the Round of 16 will depend on how well our American boys do on the pitch in the first round.
England is our biggest concern, not just because they are a powerhouse side and our first opponent in the tournament, but let's get some perspective here -- there is a history between these two nations in world history and on the soccer pitch.
So the first question football (soccer) pundits are asking after the draw is will the U.S. team get a repeat of their 1950 World Cup match-up against England?
The obvious answer is "Only time will tell."
Let's get some perspective here, so a look back for some context is truly in order on this event that came to be known as the "miracle on grass."

The opponents: England vs. USA
The date: June 29, 1950
The city: Belo Horizonte, Brazil
The venue: Estádio Independência


It's the first World Cup tournament berth for the braggadocios team from England that bills itself as the "kings of football." The team came into the World Cup as 3-1 favorites to win it all that year.  The U.S. side was given 500-1 odds at winning the tournament.
But England, the nation that is credited with inventing football (soccer), suffers its most significant defeat on the world's biggest sporting stage.
England's team is made up of top professional players, including Stanley Matthews who was considered one of the best in the world in 1950.
The U.S. team is made up of players who are semi-professional at best -- all of the men worked full-time as dishwashers, mailmen --their captain, Walter Bahr, was a high school teacher. Even their coach, Bill Jeffrey, told the international press the team had "no chance" of winning.
The Americans were not taken seriously until Joe Gaetjens headed home a pass from Bahr in the 38th minute of the first-half goal to set-up the 1-0 American victory.
Around the world newspaper headlines told of the shocking defeat of the best by the underdog Americans. But back at home, British newspapers thought there was some mistake and assumed the 0-1 score being reported surely had to be a mistake. Several newspapers corrected the mistake by reporting England had won 10-1.
Let me assure you, in 2010, Brits won't forget a little thing like a 1-0 loss in 1950 -- they will show up to win. Unless, of course, our boys also show up to win, and they will -- count on it.
And THAT will be the battle royal to set the tone of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

Jersey shore enough!!

Welcome to the modern circus where the only purpose of the circus animals is getting laid.
The MTV circus known as "Jersey shore" is a truer-than-life look at the real assholes that find their way to the Jersey shore each and every year.
If you haven’t been privy to the migration and mating rituals of a thoroughbred guido, I can't tell you you're missing much, but turn on MTV Thursdays at 10 p.m. and you'll understand why it sucks to be at the Jersey shore from May to October.
Guidos are not a rare bred in any sense or definition.
Guidos are young males and females who are part of an Italian subculture punctuated by wife-beater T-shirt wearing guys who pump their fists into the air to express their approval, disapproval, disdain or jubilation with any current series of events that are relevant in their lives.
The female guido is recognized immediately by her annoying voice, over-the-top hair style and massive accessorizing, referred to in normal cultures as wearing jewelry.
All guidos possess a propped up ego, self-indulgence, added to a healthy supply of hair gel, big earring and lip gloss  --  and that’s just the needs of the guys.
MTVs latest attempt at reality TV is the show Jersey Shore , which  treats viewers to the mating rituals and everyday activities of  eight hand-selected guidos who are forced to live, breathe, work and play together at a rental home on the boardwalk at Seaside Heights.
The show started out with one guido male declaring his unabashed pride for being a guido.
"I was born and raised a guido," he proudly says before he starts packing up what looks like a case of hair gel tubes.
Self-centered and attention-demanding Nicole (aka Snookie) is the Fatal Instinct chick of the show. The first night she tossed off her tank top and jumped in the hot tub in her bra and thong only to reveal that girl is nowhere near as hot as she thinks she is. Yuck!! But when she woke up in the morning and started puking before heading off to their first day on the job at a local T-shirt and souvenir shop on the broadwalk, her fellow guidos abandon her as she is face down in the toilet.
Snookie threw a temper tantrum towards the end of the first episode because nobody was giving her the attention she so desperately needed. Go figure!
At the outset of the show, Snookie declared, "My ultimate dream is to find a hot, juiced guido in Jersey and live out my life."
I guess, you gotta follow that dream, wherever that dream may be.
The show is exactly what kids are all about today  --  eating, sleeping, hooking up, repeat.
The saddest part of Jersey Shore is that it is so dead on in its depiction of today's youth these eight guidos truly are just caricatures of their own pathetic existences.
It was really hilarious to watch the guido girls get jealous because the guido boys were doing what guido boys do when it comes to any girl(s) jumping into a hot tub naked.
Boys will be boys, but guidos will always be guidos.
Let's get some perspective here.
The guidos of Jersey Shore are no different than the guidos who have been flocking to the Jersey shore since the 1950s.
Guidos from South Philly have been migrating to areas from Long Beach Island to Wildwood in their vain attempt to make sure the world knew just how special they really are when placed side-by-side with non-guidos.
Guidos from Staten Island have made life on the Jersey shore from Seaside Heights to Sandy Hook their own summertime playground. Just ask the mayor of Belmar who has said how much he appreciates all the guidos do for his resort town during those hot summer months.
Burger Bits were the Trenton version of guidos offered up on the menu in Seaside and LBI oh so many years ago. Burger Bits were guidos who came under the Burger Bit moniker because they almost always came from the Chambersburg section of Trenton, better known as The Burg. They were a gentle mix of South Philly and Staten Island guidos all rolled into one great big mess.
Believe guidos are not a new aberration at the Jersey shore. In fact, guidos have been flocking to the Jersey shore for so long they may be entitled to a local moniker by default. (But don’t tell that to the people at bennygohome.com ).
Guidos have been pumping their fists at the Jersey shore for years. Why anybody would be offended by the fact that one of the most pathetic stations on television today has created a pathetic excuse to reveal the excesses and obsessions of today’s guidos in a pathetic television show, is beyond me.
Seaside was a great place to roam when the Chatterbox was a place to stop, but like crabgrass in July the guidos have taken over the place. And no amount of weeding is going to stop their advance.

Misery loves company... let gays and lesbians in on it too.

The New York State Senate rejected a measure on Wednesday to permit same-sex marriage in the Empire State. Big, huge FAIL.

The 38 "no" votes to 24 "yes" votes managed to prop up groups like the National Organization for Marriage, which opposed the law, while serving up more disappointment for gay-rights activists in one of the country's most liberal states.

That is an important footnote to the debate over same-sex marriage. If one of the most liberal states in the Union -- New York -- can't get enough votes together to get the paperwork rolling on gay marriage can there be any reasonable expectation to see it approved in less liberal or conservative states?

You already know the answer so why spell it out.

Five states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont) have already legalized same-sex marriage. But that is overshadowed by the 40 states who have passed specific laws to ban same-sex marriage.

Maine was the sixth state to approve same-sex marriages, but voters repealed the law by a slim margin last month.

The California state supreme court also gave the green light to same-sex marriage in the Golden State, but voters repealed that decision by a margin of 52-percent to 48-percent at the voting booth last year.

Now the ultra-liberal state legislature in the great Garden State of New Jersey is doing all it can to avoid weighing in on the issue. It looks like the writing is on the wall for same-sex marriage.

Let's get some perspective here.

Just because I happen to be a male and am attracted to females doesn't give me any exclusive rights to marriage and all the pain and aggravation that brings. If two men, or two women, want to sign on the dotted line to be just as miserable as I once was when I was married, well more power to ya.

If gay men and lesbian women want to shell out thousands upon thousands of dollars to get out of a bad marriage, they should be able to reach in their bank accounts and hand over the king's ransom to a lawyer just like the heterosexual community.

Let's get some perspective here.

What goes on in the bedrooms of people around the globe is nobody's business but theirs, unless they turn on their camcorders and share the footage with the rest of us... think Paris Hilton, Pam Anderson, Lindsey Lohan, and even Toyna Harding. (Okay, I'm sorry!! Don't think about Tonya Harding.)

Look. There are a lot of people out in the world who are repulsed at the idea or mental imagery of gay sex (well unless it's girl-on-girl sex and then every male out there is all for it). Be repulsed. But keep it to yourself. I assure you nobody cares about what turns you off, just as much as they don't care what turns you on either.

If you were brought up in a repressive family, religion, culture or biosphere, there is only one way to deal with the idea of two men or two women getting hitched... GET OVER IT!

Let's get some more perspective here.

The Declaration of Independence (you remember that document, right?) promises us "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Nowhere in the document does it say anything about "except gays and lesbians."

Nowhere in the document does it says "except for anything that might offend someone else."

The preamble of the U.S. Constitution starts out with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Nowhere does it say gays and lesbians are excluded from the Justice, Tranquility, common defence, general Welfare, or Liberty.

And I suppose we should have followed along with the ideas of denying Blacks and women the right to vote. They were less than people at one time too, and men couldn't stomach the idea of having either of those groups walking into the sacred voting booth.

And isn't that the salient argument of most people who oppose gay marriage? It goes against the sacred institution of marriage.

Try again. If marriage is so sacred why are lawyers raking in huge profits in divorce courts around the country?

The idea of same-sex seems wrong to so many, but the promises of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are more powerful and far more important than our individual sense of right and wrong.

Let the gays and lesbians be miserable -- they deserve it just as much as any heterosexual couple. Why would you want to deny them that simple marital pleasure?

Obama says: Git 'er done, and git on out!!

President Barrack Obama is throwing down the gauntlet and setting a deadline for success in Afghanistan.

The Commander-in-chief announced Tuesday night he is sending 30,000 more troops into the war-zone there but he wants a pull-out strategy to begin within the next 18 months;  coincidentally that time-line falls in-line with the presidents re-election bid.

Also,  do not misread the pull out strategy issue. He wants a pull out of the 30,000 troop surge not of all troops in the region.

Let get some perspective here.

Obama spent an entire election cycle complaining about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and made promises to his peacenik supporters about withdrawals and evacuations  --   that's at least what the peacenik groups thought they heard Obama say as candidate Obama.

The reality is he talked about a withdrawal from Iraq, but never made the same proposals about Afghanistan. In fact, in July 2009, during an interview with Fox News' Bill Hemmer, Obama said he expected to increase troop levels in Afghanistan to get the job done.

Since taking office in January, Obama has hemmed and hawed about his military direction in both places and has most recently been toying with the political ramifications of an increase in troop strength in Afghanistan.

Despite a request for no less than 40,000 additional troops by the commander who is actually on the ground in Afghanistan with the best view of the situation, Obama and his advisers have somewhat ignored his request instead

Obama's rhetoric in the speech and his decision to increase troop strengths by 30,000 seems more about appeasing the military and his anti-war supporters all at the same time. Think about it, he hands the military some more troops, but not what they want, and adds a pull-out date that gives the illusion all at the same time that he is putting in an effort to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people while reassuring his supporters that he still hates the idea of fighting the war. Talk about talking out of both sides of his mouth again.

Which is it? Does Obama want to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, while taking on al-Qaeda head-on? Or does he want to end a war he says he opposes?

He can ' t have it both ways, but he sure is going to try. What a politician!

Okay.

So.

Will these 30,000 new troops help the situation in Afghanistan get better?

Only time will tell for sure, but my bet is no way is this decision going to make any real difference. It will only prolong our stay in Afghanistan and cement our losses there.

Lets get some perspective here. If a WalMart store manager tells his regional manager he will need 400 new employees to get through the holiday season and only gets the go-ahead to hire 300 new employees, do you really think the service at WalMart is going to get any better as the hordes hit the store this holiday season? No.

And that's why I say Obama's rationing of troops to Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan won't help the situation there at all. At best, the situation may stabilize. But we're not looking to stabilize the situation are we? I was under the impression we actually wanted to win a war this time around.