Showing posts with label POLITICAL COMMENTARY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POLITICAL COMMENTARY. Show all posts
Monday, January 21, 2013
IF I WAS A POLITICAL CARTOONIST
If I was a political cartoonist I would portray President Obama addressing the crowd at his second inauguration, saying, ''Friends, countrymen lend me your fears,'' as horrific pictures of our society's ills filled the imaginations of those assembled.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
THE ASCENDANT LIBERAL
Several days ago I was watching a panel discussion on television which was attempting to tackle some of the most controversial issues facing our society today. As is typical of televised panel discussions, both sides quickly degenerated into an attempt to shout down opposing viewpoints. If you squinted your eyes you could almost imagine them as enraged chimps hurling feces, beating the ground and shaking branches. It was about as comfortable to watch as an eyeball extraction. Only a macabre fascination with their red-faced huffery and puffery kept me from changing the channel. In the wake of the furor surrounding Chick Fil-A's support of a traditional definition of marriage the discussion predictably turned toward gay marriage. One of the panelists, a young lady whose credentials were printed on the bottom of the screen as a DNC strategist, made the observation that the arc of history is marching unstoppably toward the legalization of gay marriage and the normalization of homosexual relationships. She confidently presented it as an inevitability, and predicted a coming day when popular attitudes would adjust to reflect greater acceptance of homosexual relationships and gay marriage. She drew some tiresome comparisons between the current debate and the civil rights movement of the 60's, and concluded that although homosexuals still had hills to climb things were generally trending in the direction of increased acceptance. Clearly, in her view, opponents of the movement were on the wrong side of history and would one day change their minds or die, leaving a more enlightened generation at the nation's helm. At the risk of coming off as a fatalist, I actually agreed with her that this is most likely the trajectory of things, but I can only imagine we hold differing emotions about such an outcome.
Liberals have no reason to be tolerant of conservatives or respectful of their perspective. After all, in their minds conservatives are already irrelevant- an ideological speed bump.
Although it would be fair to describe me as "conservative" with regards to my political preferences, my primary identity is that of a Christian. As such, I believe in a larger metanarrative, which transcends the waxings and wanings of the American socio-political scene, and which finds its eventual culmination in the judgment at the end of time. The church was made for such a time as this. God has brought His people and the country in which they live to this intersection so that who He is can be put on full display through the church.
I am supremely confident in the ultimate victory of Christ. "Every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." (Phil. 2:11)
During these days of huffery and puffery, panel discussions and rancorous debate I am finding it increasingly helpful to untether from my identity as a conservative American and settle more firmly into my role as an ambassador for Christ.
Speak the truth with love.
That is not the point of this post, however.
The thought I've been chewing on for the past couple of days is this, and I'm a little surprised that I've never thought of it before; Liberals fully expect our society to someday evolve beyond conservatism. They believe that conservative thought will one day cease to play a significant role in shaping our society. Conservatives, on the other hand, hold no such expectation for a post-liberal America. In short, conservatives don't think liberals are going anywhere. The implications are enormous for the dialogue(a polite sort of word which does not accurately capture the spirit of the discourse I've witnessed on televised panel discussions) between the two camps.
The dynamic, which largely goes unspoken, is that liberal thought is ascendant, unstoppable as the tide, and conservatism is back on its heels in a permanent posture of defense. Conservatives may still win a few significant national elections, possibly even the upcoming presidential election, but that would not negate the general thrust of my position. The only chance that conservatism has of surviving is to be redefined to such an extent that it is merely a more conservative form of liberalism. Liberals have no reason to be tolerant of conservatives or respectful of their perspective. After all, in their minds conservatives are already irrelevant- an ideological speed bump.
Although it would be fair to describe me as "conservative" with regards to my political preferences, my primary identity is that of a Christian. As such, I believe in a larger metanarrative, which transcends the waxings and wanings of the American socio-political scene, and which finds its eventual culmination in the judgment at the end of time. The church was made for such a time as this. God has brought His people and the country in which they live to this intersection so that who He is can be put on full display through the church.
I am supremely confident in the ultimate victory of Christ. "Every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord." (Phil. 2:11)
During these days of huffery and puffery, panel discussions and rancorous debate I am finding it increasingly helpful to untether from my identity as a conservative American and settle more firmly into my role as an ambassador for Christ.
Speak the truth with love.
Be eager to do what is good.
Let your words toward outsiders be seasoned with salt.
Let your words toward outsiders be seasoned with salt.
Monday, September 5, 2011
I WANT TO PAY TAXES
It’s a fact that causes me some discomfort and even some embarrassment that I am one of those leaches that conservative ideologues rail against when they wax indignant about the tax code. Not five minutes ago I heard Sean Hannity of FOX news say incredulously, “48% of Americans don’t pay any federal income tax at all!” I am one of those. When filing our federal tax return this past spring, Sarah and I took advantage of the earned income credit as well as the additional child tax credit. Although I am ideologically opposed to the very existence of these credits, rational self-interest requires me to take advantage of them. They amounted to a significant windfall for us. To decline these credits would have amounted to fiscal martyrdom. If I could vote it away I would, but as long as I’m offered free money I have to admit I’ll continue to take it. I’m ideologically compromised on this issue.
Like most Americans I am concerned about our nation’s financial situation, and as I flick back and forth between MSNBC and FOX news I have noticed the not so subtle differences between the ways that liberals and conservatives frame the debate surrounding the national debt. Liberals speak of taxes in terms of fairness. Their narrative is that the proverbial little guy is playing against a stacked deck and needs help, protection and succor from the gubment. This help either takes the form a direct cash infusion (like the one Sarah and I received last spring) or government funded programs designed to help the lowest strata of our society (like Medi-Cal which pays for our kids’ health care). We are such leaches! The flip side of their narrative is that the wealthiest members of our society need to pay their “fair” share. There they go with fairness again. Liberals often portray wealth as vaguely ill-gotten and greedily accumulated on the backs of the aforementioned “little guys.” To them taxes seem primarily designed to right societal wrongs.
Conservatives frame the debate in terms of freedom and opportunity. Taxes, especially taxes that fund social/welfare programs, are viewed as parasitical insofar as they threaten to kill the host by crowding out private enterprise and sapping the national vigor. Get these onerous and burdensome taxes off the backs of “America’s job creator’s,” they reason, and the economy would roar back to life. Perhaps on a more philosophical level conservatives also view such taxes which fund the expansion of government as an insidious threat to personal liberty.
You long-time readers of the BFZ will not be surprised to learn that my sympathies lie with the conservative perspective. I don’t pretend to be a dispassionate third party. No, I am a guy with an opinion, and I write as such. The refund we received (refund being a complete misnomer in this scenario) could only be described as a pornographic sum of money. I can’t blame you tax payers for finding that outrageous and appalling! (…but can I be blamed for taking it?)
The truth is I want to pay taxes, I really do, and here’s why- Conventional wisdom says that Americans express ownership of the political process through the act of voting. I think though that it is the act of paying taxes, not voting, that gives individuals a sense of ownership and concern in national affairs. When I hear the astounding figure that 48% of Americans pay no federal income taxes I am always struck with the idea that 48% of Americans have no skin in the game. The current tax code can only breed a sense of entitlement, and a shabby view of the individual’s obligation to the rest of society. It is my opinion that everyone who makes money in America should pay something in federal income tax.
Even the poor? Yes, even the poor. Liberals will scream about the injustice of taxing the poor (remember it’s all about fairness for them), but through paying taxes I believe every citizen would experience a greater interest in national affairs, and also a greater sense of self-worth. It’s honest and good to be a contributor. It rots the soul of a free man to be subsidized his whole life. Any amount would do! For the lower income brackets taxes would be more of a nominal contribution. Perhaps taxes could even be waived for the poorest Americans if they served on a jury, served in the military, or did some other kind of civic service over the course of the year. It’s the point of the thing really! We should all be contributors.
When I traveled to Quebec to study French at the University of Laval’s immersion program I was warned by a Mexican gentleman named Guillermo, who was in the same program, not to partner with Canadians on any projects. “Pourquoi?” I remember asking. He spoke no English and I spoke no Spanish so we had no choice but to converse in broken French. The gist of his counsel, as conveyed in broken French, was that because the Canadian government was paying their way through the program the Canadian students were famously indifferent to the coursework and should be avoided as partners. In other words they had no skin in the game and, with nothing on the line, they had consequently become horrible students. The well-intentioned government subsidies for Canadian students led predictably to a cavalier and lazy attitude toward the program’s demands. In my experience, Guillermo was right. Foreign students like my friend Guillermo had paid their own way to Laval with hard-earned pesos and so they took a greater interest in getting everything they could from the experience. They were good students. It was a valuable lesson in economics for me. My point is this- The American public, or at least 48% of it, is beginning to resemble a great mob of Canadian students. Laissez les bon temps roulez!
Although issues of fairness, freedom, and opportunity are important and worthy of discussion, for me, the issue of paying taxes should be focused primarily on ownership of the society in which we live and being a contributor. I have no doubt that paying taxes would make 48% of us better citizens. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. So true.
Like most Americans I am concerned about our nation’s financial situation, and as I flick back and forth between MSNBC and FOX news I have noticed the not so subtle differences between the ways that liberals and conservatives frame the debate surrounding the national debt. Liberals speak of taxes in terms of fairness. Their narrative is that the proverbial little guy is playing against a stacked deck and needs help, protection and succor from the gubment. This help either takes the form a direct cash infusion (like the one Sarah and I received last spring) or government funded programs designed to help the lowest strata of our society (like Medi-Cal which pays for our kids’ health care). We are such leaches! The flip side of their narrative is that the wealthiest members of our society need to pay their “fair” share. There they go with fairness again. Liberals often portray wealth as vaguely ill-gotten and greedily accumulated on the backs of the aforementioned “little guys.” To them taxes seem primarily designed to right societal wrongs.
Conservatives frame the debate in terms of freedom and opportunity. Taxes, especially taxes that fund social/welfare programs, are viewed as parasitical insofar as they threaten to kill the host by crowding out private enterprise and sapping the national vigor. Get these onerous and burdensome taxes off the backs of “America’s job creator’s,” they reason, and the economy would roar back to life. Perhaps on a more philosophical level conservatives also view such taxes which fund the expansion of government as an insidious threat to personal liberty.
You long-time readers of the BFZ will not be surprised to learn that my sympathies lie with the conservative perspective. I don’t pretend to be a dispassionate third party. No, I am a guy with an opinion, and I write as such. The refund we received (refund being a complete misnomer in this scenario) could only be described as a pornographic sum of money. I can’t blame you tax payers for finding that outrageous and appalling! (…but can I be blamed for taking it?)
The truth is I want to pay taxes, I really do, and here’s why- Conventional wisdom says that Americans express ownership of the political process through the act of voting. I think though that it is the act of paying taxes, not voting, that gives individuals a sense of ownership and concern in national affairs. When I hear the astounding figure that 48% of Americans pay no federal income taxes I am always struck with the idea that 48% of Americans have no skin in the game. The current tax code can only breed a sense of entitlement, and a shabby view of the individual’s obligation to the rest of society. It is my opinion that everyone who makes money in America should pay something in federal income tax.
Even the poor? Yes, even the poor. Liberals will scream about the injustice of taxing the poor (remember it’s all about fairness for them), but through paying taxes I believe every citizen would experience a greater interest in national affairs, and also a greater sense of self-worth. It’s honest and good to be a contributor. It rots the soul of a free man to be subsidized his whole life. Any amount would do! For the lower income brackets taxes would be more of a nominal contribution. Perhaps taxes could even be waived for the poorest Americans if they served on a jury, served in the military, or did some other kind of civic service over the course of the year. It’s the point of the thing really! We should all be contributors.
When I traveled to Quebec to study French at the University of Laval’s immersion program I was warned by a Mexican gentleman named Guillermo, who was in the same program, not to partner with Canadians on any projects. “Pourquoi?” I remember asking. He spoke no English and I spoke no Spanish so we had no choice but to converse in broken French. The gist of his counsel, as conveyed in broken French, was that because the Canadian government was paying their way through the program the Canadian students were famously indifferent to the coursework and should be avoided as partners. In other words they had no skin in the game and, with nothing on the line, they had consequently become horrible students. The well-intentioned government subsidies for Canadian students led predictably to a cavalier and lazy attitude toward the program’s demands. In my experience, Guillermo was right. Foreign students like my friend Guillermo had paid their own way to Laval with hard-earned pesos and so they took a greater interest in getting everything they could from the experience. They were good students. It was a valuable lesson in economics for me. My point is this- The American public, or at least 48% of it, is beginning to resemble a great mob of Canadian students. Laissez les bon temps roulez!
Although issues of fairness, freedom, and opportunity are important and worthy of discussion, for me, the issue of paying taxes should be focused primarily on ownership of the society in which we live and being a contributor. I have no doubt that paying taxes would make 48% of us better citizens. Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. So true.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
BREAKING NEWS
Earlier this morning, Josh Tate, President for Life of the Bummer-Free Zone and a fine specimen of a man, held an impromptu press conference to announce a major policy shift toward long-time ally Israel. President Tate, who appeared artfully disheveled after a night’s sleep, demanded that Israel "return to its pre-930 b.c. borders." The statement prompted a collective gasp from the assembled media.
Following the President's prepared remarks, CNN's Chuck Berlinsky asked if the timimg of this morning's announcement had anything to do with President Obama's historic speech earlier this week wherein he called for Israel to return to its borders prior to 1967 as part of a plan for the creation of a Palestinian state. In response, Tate pointed to Berlinsky's chest and said, "You've got something there on your tie, Chuck," but when Berlinsky glanced down at his tie, Tate dissolved into laughter before crowing "Made you look, Chuck! Look at his stupid face everybody! Hahaha! Made you look!" A nearby aid high-fived the exultant president before adding, "Good one, sir!"
Sunday, May 8, 2011
GERONIMO?
Since the daring raid last week in which a team of U.S. Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's compound, killing him and making off with his corpse and a treasure trove of intelligence, much has been made in the media over Bin Laden's code name of "Geronimo." Honestly, I can see why indignenous Americans, especially our Apache friends, might have taken offense. I wouldn't want to be identified with the likes of Bin Laden either.
I think the department of defense should take me on as a consultant to come up with code names for all of their future black-op targets. I think I would be awesome at that! I could certainly do better than Geronimo!
Here are my top ten alternative code names for Osama Bin Laden:
10. Bubbles
9. Turd-burger
8. Shabby Sheikh
7. Snookie
6. Jeff
5. Birthday Boy
4. Boo
3. Whiskers
2. Dimes (just 'cause I have always thought it would make the coolest nickname in the world)
1. Cochise
Department of Defense, if you are monitoring this bit of internet traffic (We all know that you spy on us, D.O.D.!) and you like my ideas, then I'll meet you on the bench outside of the Idyllwild Public Library Wednesday afternoon at 11:30 am. Wear a red hat. I'll have an envelope containing more suggested codenames, which I will hand over in exchange for an envelope stuffed with cash. See ya then!
I think the department of defense should take me on as a consultant to come up with code names for all of their future black-op targets. I think I would be awesome at that! I could certainly do better than Geronimo!
Here are my top ten alternative code names for Osama Bin Laden:
10. Bubbles
9. Turd-burger
8. Shabby Sheikh
7. Snookie
6. Jeff
5. Birthday Boy
4. Boo
3. Whiskers
2. Dimes (just 'cause I have always thought it would make the coolest nickname in the world)
1. Cochise
Department of Defense, if you are monitoring this bit of internet traffic (We all know that you spy on us, D.O.D.!) and you like my ideas, then I'll meet you on the bench outside of the Idyllwild Public Library Wednesday afternoon at 11:30 am. Wear a red hat. I'll have an envelope containing more suggested codenames, which I will hand over in exchange for an envelope stuffed with cash. See ya then!
Saturday, May 7, 2011
BIN LADEN'S STYLE INSPIRES FASHION CRAZE AMONG AMERICA'S HOMELESS
Saturday, February 5, 2011
RONALDUS MAGNUS
With Reagan's 100th birthday upon us there has been a lot in the news recently about our 40th president. I went back into the BFZ's archives and retrieved this post from January, 2009 about when I (little 10 year old Josh Tate) first understood that Reagan wasn't going to be President anymore. Happy Birthday, Gipper!
I SUPPORT HIGHER TAXES...
...but not increased government spending.
In general, when it comes to politics I consider myself a pure conservative, and that's not because I am keen to appear a certain way, but because it is, in my opinion, the right side of the argument.
As a fiscal conservative, you would normally find me a staunch advocate of tax cuts. Even though I am not a person of means and have no immediate plans to become one, I even support tax policies which reward the nation's job-creators for their successes. I think most progressive tax policies are just a scheme to punish success and redistribute wealth, and like Lincoln said, "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Liberal tax policies are misguided and short-sighted. Disagree with me if you want, but that's the view from my house. I am one of those shamefully small-hearted people who supports tax cuts for the rich (or as I tend to think of them "job creators"), and by saying that publicly I put myself, in the minds of some, just a step below Darth-Vader.
Having said that, you may be surprised to hear that I have been dismayed since the midterm elections that few conservatives have emerged advocating dramatic tax increases across the board. It runs contrary to my DNA as a fiscal conservative, but I think it is what we need right now. We need to increase government revenue while making real cuts in spending. It's not because I think the Government makes wise use of its tax revenue that we should give it more. No, not that at all. It's because they have behaved like a teenager with Daddy's credit card, and are now buried in a debt so crippling that it threatens both our present and future as a nation. We have to pay down this debt, but making payments isn't enough if we fail to stop spending this way. We also need to slam on the brakes hard! This issue of being brave enough to cut those sacred cows is what Obama has effectively dared the republicans in the congress to do. "Go on," he is saying, "commit political suicide by cutting medicare, social security, and my healthcare plan. I dare you!" Republicans are put in an impossibly tight spot. They could forward plans to cut these sacred cows, which Obama would bravely veto, and then be pilloried in 2012 for making that effort. they're truly damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they do what must be done there are likely to be dire consequences in the next election cycle. Doing the right thing may just ensure that Obama gets reelected. I'm done with all of this jockeying and strategizing. Just do the right thing and let the chips fall. I would get behind temporary tax increases and decreased government services for the purposes of retiring national debt, but I am filled with an impotent rage when I think about increased taxes to fund a government that is already morbidly obese and ravenously hungry for more.
Mine is just a single voice among the millions, but to the republican leadership I say, "As far as I am concerned, you are released to hike taxes and cut spending to the bone. To the bone, I say!!! I will not punish you. It must be done. Go with my blessing."
The "greatest generation" understood that sacrifices had to be made for the national good during WWII, and indeed they may be called on to sacrifice again, but if they don't, if we don't, than all that they fought for will be reduced to a line in the history books- the eulogy of a nation. I have the same understanding today. I am not so spoiled that I think we can have our cake and eat it too. Lets do what needs to be done. I'll still vote for you.
In general, when it comes to politics I consider myself a pure conservative, and that's not because I am keen to appear a certain way, but because it is, in my opinion, the right side of the argument.
As a fiscal conservative, you would normally find me a staunch advocate of tax cuts. Even though I am not a person of means and have no immediate plans to become one, I even support tax policies which reward the nation's job-creators for their successes. I think most progressive tax policies are just a scheme to punish success and redistribute wealth, and like Lincoln said, "You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong." Liberal tax policies are misguided and short-sighted. Disagree with me if you want, but that's the view from my house. I am one of those shamefully small-hearted people who supports tax cuts for the rich (or as I tend to think of them "job creators"), and by saying that publicly I put myself, in the minds of some, just a step below Darth-Vader.
Having said that, you may be surprised to hear that I have been dismayed since the midterm elections that few conservatives have emerged advocating dramatic tax increases across the board. It runs contrary to my DNA as a fiscal conservative, but I think it is what we need right now. We need to increase government revenue while making real cuts in spending. It's not because I think the Government makes wise use of its tax revenue that we should give it more. No, not that at all. It's because they have behaved like a teenager with Daddy's credit card, and are now buried in a debt so crippling that it threatens both our present and future as a nation. We have to pay down this debt, but making payments isn't enough if we fail to stop spending this way. We also need to slam on the brakes hard! This issue of being brave enough to cut those sacred cows is what Obama has effectively dared the republicans in the congress to do. "Go on," he is saying, "commit political suicide by cutting medicare, social security, and my healthcare plan. I dare you!" Republicans are put in an impossibly tight spot. They could forward plans to cut these sacred cows, which Obama would bravely veto, and then be pilloried in 2012 for making that effort. they're truly damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they do what must be done there are likely to be dire consequences in the next election cycle. Doing the right thing may just ensure that Obama gets reelected. I'm done with all of this jockeying and strategizing. Just do the right thing and let the chips fall. I would get behind temporary tax increases and decreased government services for the purposes of retiring national debt, but I am filled with an impotent rage when I think about increased taxes to fund a government that is already morbidly obese and ravenously hungry for more.
Mine is just a single voice among the millions, but to the republican leadership I say, "As far as I am concerned, you are released to hike taxes and cut spending to the bone. To the bone, I say!!! I will not punish you. It must be done. Go with my blessing."
The "greatest generation" understood that sacrifices had to be made for the national good during WWII, and indeed they may be called on to sacrifice again, but if they don't, if we don't, than all that they fought for will be reduced to a line in the history books- the eulogy of a nation. I have the same understanding today. I am not so spoiled that I think we can have our cake and eat it too. Lets do what needs to be done. I'll still vote for you.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
HAIRSTYLES OF AMERICA'S FIRST LADIES
I stumbled upon this article recently, which originally went to print last February in the New York Times. It features the distinctive hair styles of every first lady from Martha to Michelle. No bangs. Huh. I've never been fond of bangs either.
Hair-Portraits of First Ladies. From left to right: Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, Martha Randolph, Dolley Madison, Elizabeth Monroe, Louisa Adams, Rachel Jackson, Hannah Van Buren, Anna Harrison, Letitia Tyler, Julia Tyler, Sarah Polk, Margaret Taylor, Abigail Fillmore, Jane Pierce, Harriet Lane, Mary Lincoln, Eliza Johnson, Julia Grant, Lucy Hayes, Lucretia Garfield, Ellen Arthur, Frances Cleveland, Caroline Harrison, Frances Cleveland, Ida McKinley, Edith Roosevelt, Helen Taft, Ellen Wilson, Edith Wilson, Florence Harding, Grace Coolidge, Lou Hoover, Eleanor Roosevelt, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Jacqueline Kennedy, Lady Bird Johnson, Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama.
The first thing that struck me was that even though I think of myself as someone who has an above average knowledge of our nation's history, many of these names were unknown to me. We had a first lady named Letitia?
I wish we could also see, by way of comparison, the hair styles of the presidents. Probably wouldn't be as interesting or as diverse, but it would be kind of neat to see that side by side with the ladies.
I wonder how Sarah would do her hair if she became first lady, or should I say... if she were elected President. I don't want to appear chauvinistic. (I know that 3/4 of BFZ readers are ladies, and I wouldn't want to piss you guys off...I mean gals...oh darn it!) If Sarah was President and I was her boy toy I don't think I would do much differently with my hair unless my handlers forced me to get my hair did, but this is my pledge to you, America, I will never put product in my hair, and nor will I dye it. If I start to go bald, so be it. Read my lips...
While we are on the topic of hairstyles of first ladies, check out the mighty mane belonging to the first lady of Cameroon. I found pictures of her alongside our own Michelle Obama during a visit to the Drudge Report this morning. Not since Rod Blagojevich have I found a hairstyle so arresting. Her hair is a force to be sure. It is rumored that her unnatural ginger tresses, which smell precisely like a Strawberry Shortcake doll, singlehandedly put down a coup earlier this year.
The first thing that struck me was that even though I think of myself as someone who has an above average knowledge of our nation's history, many of these names were unknown to me. We had a first lady named Letitia?
I wish we could also see, by way of comparison, the hair styles of the presidents. Probably wouldn't be as interesting or as diverse, but it would be kind of neat to see that side by side with the ladies.
I wonder how Sarah would do her hair if she became first lady, or should I say... if she were elected President. I don't want to appear chauvinistic. (I know that 3/4 of BFZ readers are ladies, and I wouldn't want to piss you guys off...I mean gals...oh darn it!) If Sarah was President and I was her boy toy I don't think I would do much differently with my hair unless my handlers forced me to get my hair did, but this is my pledge to you, America, I will never put product in my hair, and nor will I dye it. If I start to go bald, so be it. Read my lips...
While we are on the topic of hairstyles of first ladies, check out the mighty mane belonging to the first lady of Cameroon. I found pictures of her alongside our own Michelle Obama during a visit to the Drudge Report this morning. Not since Rod Blagojevich have I found a hairstyle so arresting. Her hair is a force to be sure. It is rumored that her unnatural ginger tresses, which smell precisely like a Strawberry Shortcake doll, singlehandedly put down a coup earlier this year.
Seeing her garish style juxtaposed with our own first lady gave me an appreciation for Michelle Obama's personal style. As a fellow, I find it understated and classy. Way to represent, Michelle!
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
Obama has solved the illegal immigration problem. That's right, Jan Brewer, he did it, so you can just shut your trap. According to a new study by the Pew Hispanic Center the number of immigrants entering the U.S. illegally has dropped from 850,000 a year to 300,000, and the number of individuals residing illegally in the U.S. has dropped from 12 to 11 million. Ever since taking office two years ago conservatives have painted Obama as being soft on the border and the enforcement of immigration laws, but Obama has seemingly done what miles of fences, an army of border agents, and racial profiling failed to do. How has he done it? By killing the host! Brilliant! The same study cites America's bleak job market as the most likely cause for the change in immigration numbers. Conservatives need to prove themselves fairminded and give credit where credit is due. Let me be the first- Congratulations President Obama! You and your fiscal policies have turned America into a barren, unproductive wasteland, and by sapping the nation's vigor you have ingeniously brought closure to the illegal immigration debate. I would never have thought of that. Kudos! My hat is off to you, sir.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
