Emails To Companies: Part 2

Dear Everest Institute:

I am writing to ask you a question about your latest commercial, featuring the same hip black guy we have seen in a previous ad, who wears his hat(s) cocked to the side and seems to be trying to belittle people into getting an education from Everest. Indeed, we have seen this guy express what can fairly be called genuine frustration with the people he is addressing, as we listen to him throw jabs at watching too much television, talking on a cell phone too often, and people who make easy things difficult. 

In the latest ad, we see a series of  ten or so head shots of this guy, with each shot showing him wearing a different baseball cap. As in the last ad, he wears the hat(s) cocked to the side. However, in every shot throughout the ad his hat is cocked to his right, except for one. Just wondering, was this a conscious editing decision or just a coincidence? Perhaps he just normally wears the hat cocked to the right, and decided to switch his hat over to the left for 1 shot to change things up a bit? I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.

Sincerely,

dr. holmes  

Change We Never Should Have Believed In

More news about the Obama Administration for "liberals" and "conservatives" alike to ignore completely. After all, the Neo-Con right wingers are too busy attacking Obama for ridiculous, racist and made up reasons, while "liberals" must spend all of their time defending Obama from said ridiculous attacks. Where is the reporting on Obama's policies? To watch the news on any mainstream outlet in America these days, any viewer could easily walk away with the impression that the USA was not at war with anyone, and that the only problem if you are a democrat is the republicans, and the only problem if you're a republican is the democrats, and let's make sure we all keep hating each other forever. Yes, let's continue twisting in this deepening whirlpool of us vs. them, and also make sure to never actually discuss any relevant issues or look at anything from a non-emotional and factual perspective. No, pick your network and defend it. Pick your political group and defend that, too.

My Senator is a Neo-Conservative Republican

Fantastic! In the meantime, stock in Martha Coakley's political career has taken a "Black Friday" level downslide. No politician should ever assume that they don't have to campaign, particularly in areas where people can be convinced that you are not as good as the alternative. What role did hatred for Obama (race-based or otherwise) play in causing this to happen? And did the fact that Obama is proving himself to be little more than a more extreme version of Bush/Cheney actually help the Republican candidate? I know I've given up on both parties; does that make me an "Independent" by default? Independents are the ones who made this election happen. Whether you are happy about this election or not, at the very least it proves that people can still wage a successful grassroots campaign. People who are unhappy with Obama (for racial reasons, or for the continuation of Bush policy, and you probably won't find many people who hate him for both) wanted to vote for someone who didn't seem like as much of a shrill, unlikable, and overly-cocksure candidate as the one the Democrats (the party of Obama) were offering.

Where does this go? Our new Senator is pro-choice; am I wrong to assume he could never be the Republican candidate for President? It sounds like a joke, but right now this guy it the best thing the G.O.P. has. This doesn't say anywhere near as much about him as it does about the horrible state of the Republican party. I don't want to mention her name, but a certain *u** *u** who isn't intellectually qualified to be a crossing guard is still the #1 choice in the minds of Neo-Cons everywhere, and a runner-up choice doesn't seem to even be on the map. I think work has most likely already begun on handling questions during the potential post-Senatorial period, where the former Senator explains, in true Mormon fashion, how he used to be for it and now he's against it, and how he also reserves the right to return back to the previously held opinion should circumstances call for it.

Paul Joseph Watson writes that the victory was due to "51% of Independents who are now the majority in the state." And, why are "Independents" the majority here? Because, like me, they have COMPLETELY GIVEN UP ON BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, and with good reason. Because both political parties are made up of (for the most part) completely useless do-nothing F****** A******* who only care about themselves and whatever particular agenda they happen to be advancing. When you don't have any faith whatsoever in either politicial party, you have 2 choices, 1 is to completely ignore politics (reccomended for short-term sanity, and the cause of low voter turnout in many areas of the state) or 2) be an "Independent" by default. The next step? Hope for a real Independent candidate, one who really represents the Independent majority, rather than one who many voted for out of spite and loathing of all things typical politician.

My Brain: Unable To Add Another Massive Conspiracy to The Group

At this point, I am not willing to delve into trying to figure out whether there is any sort of conspiracy going on with regard to global warming, and what we are told is the "truth" about it, and what isn't. My brain cannot take it; I have read so much, and watched so many hours of video, in an attempt to find answers to questions I want to know the answers to about other conspiracies, that I do not have any more time and space to devote to this subject in addition.

My "liberal" friends tend to get very irritated when the IDEA of asking questions about the conclusions made about global warming, and the information we have been given about it by Al Gore and others, is even brought up. I find it hard to believe that all of the pollution that humans have produced on earth is not damaging the environment. However, I also believe that to reach an important conclusion, a person should, if possible, find out for themselves what the truth is, rather than accepting someone else's opinion (expert or not) and smearing anyone else who questions it.

The problem is, I am not willing to try and figure out what the truth is about global warming at this point. I am too busy trying to figure out the truth about so many other issues that I have already devoted a lot of time to. I can't give up on those right now, and because there are only so many you can work on at once, the global warming debate has to be put on hold.

Check out the leaked CRU emails which, if genuine, undoubtedly show that anything which did not conform completely to the 1 version of the warming question was immediately dismissed and smeared. This is almost the exact opposite of what science is supposed to be about. Every scientist should be heard from, not just the ones who support a pre-determined conclusion. If science is on your side, and you have the right answer, debate should be encouraged as it will strengthen your case and make the other side look weaker. Smear tactics and immidiate dismissal of anyone who questions anything was a staple technique of the Bush Administration, who equated debate and criticism to terrorism or worse. The exact same type of fearful, strike-first and smear later attitude is seen in these emails. Not good.

Man Discovers His Long-Lost Father, Charles Manson

Imagine if this happened on "The Locator"? Not that I've ever seen that show.

Fomer Cleveland Indians Third Baseman Brook Jacoby: Related to Jeff?

Any relation between the player Japanese fans nicknamed "The Wide Brook" and the Boston Globe's resident neo-conservative and (former?) member of the ever-dwindling Sarah Palin Fan Club & Circle Jerk?

Text Messaging about the Bathroom Bill

Most probably did not bother to notice the recent short-lived headlines regarding the Bathroom Bill in Boston, a bill which sought to determine how public bathrooms are to be used by transvestites. This bill was nicknamed the "Tranny In The Canny" bill for this reason. Needless to say, this bill has many hilarious aspects to it, including transvestites and public bathrooms, both of which are subjects well-known to comedy writers.

During the Bathroom Bill's short-lived moment in the Boston newspaper headlines, my friend Mike and I saw an opportunity for jokes at the expense of the Bathroom Bill via text-message, which resulted in the following exchange:

5:57 PM drh
flush the bathroom bill.
7:26 PM mikeL
bathroom bill stuck on house floor.
7:31 PM drh
bathroom bill polished to a shining winter white.
8:30 PM drh
bathroom bill cuts urinal cake budget by 23%.
8:36 PM drh
bathroom bill detailed with old toothbrush and rubber gloves.
9:10 PM drh
Dame Edna supports bathroom bill.
9:40 PM mikeL
sponsored by american standard brand urinals.
9:43 PM drh
bathroom bill de-lodged with coat hanger.
11:45 drh
bathroom bill stalled.
11:47 mikeL
bathroom bill backed up in committee.
11:52 PM drh
support for bathroom bill plunging.
11:57 PM mikeL
bathroom bill doesn't pass the smell test.
12:02 AM drh
bathroom bill uses up too much paper.
12:05 AM mikeL
line forms outside hearing room as bathroom bill clogs debate on senate budget.
12:14 AM drh
urinal company lobbyist stands in support of bathroom bill.

Dennis Farina is the Poor Man's Frank Vincent

Vincent has The Sopranos, GoodFellas, and Raging Bull; Farina has Midnight Run and Get Shorty.