IMHO Radio - 6/2/15

Last week's show, with Carrie Reimer went really well, it was huge success.  If you didn't catch it, it can be found on the IMHO Radio page.  It is of particular importance to anyone involved with a Narcissist, or anyone who suspects that a friend or loved one might be.  To learn more, please also visit Carrie's blog, Lady With A Truck where she goes in to great detail about some of the most horrible and personal experiences of her life in the hopes that she may help others to recognize the dangers that people with NPD pose. If you would like to support the work that Carrie is doing, you can make a donation, or buy something from her store.

Coming up next week, we've got a really fun show. I've never had so much fun interviewing someone or laughed so hard doing it. My special guest is the very funny and talented Megan Rose Gedris, creator of Meaty Yogurt as well as arguably my favorite web-comic of all-time, YU&ME: Dream. Beyond that she is a member of the Super Happy Fun Time Burlesque troupe, and has rather a few more... *a-hem* adult oriented comics to her name as well.  We had a great time, lots of fun, please join us - you won't regret it!

Tuesday, June 2nd at 10:PM Eastern on RainbowRadio.FM:

Tuesday, June 2nd

7:00 - 8:00 pm est -  The Paul And Matty Show

8:00 pm - 10:00 pm est - Cutmore 

10:00 pm - 11:00 pm est - In My Humble Opinion with Niceguy Eddie

with special guest, Megan Rose Gedris!

Friday Fun: Stuff we don't need & other disappointing products

In the same vain as another extremely disappointing product - the Lasertorch - I've recently come across some other products that over-promise, under-deliver, or just don't serve any positive purpose at all.

Second most disappointing product ever (behind only the Lasertorch):  The DATEFINDER

See this thing?

I was told it was a "Datefinder."  What a piece of junk.  I've had the thing for like ten years, and it hasn't gotten me a single date yet!  I don't get it at all!  At best, women seem positively disinterested in it when I show it to them.  Usually they're just turned off by the whole thing.  Very disappointing.


Something we REALLY don't need? Certain colors of Play-Doh

Did you ever play with Play-Doh as a kid? I did.  As I recall, it came in three colors: Red, Blue and Yellow.  Now it comes in colors that only men who are very secure in their sexuality cam even identify.  ONE COLOR it now comes in, that I think is a REALLY unfortunate choice? Brown.

Think of what most kids do with Play-Doh.  It always ends up looking like this:

Yeah, yeah. The tablecloth is hideous, I know.  DW picked it out.


Why does every woman's Halloween Costume have to be Sexy?

I'm OK with MOST of them - Pirate, Nurse, Cop, Vampire... but check out this ad from a store near us:

What the heck is with that chick in the lower Left Hand Corner?  Sexy IRON MAN Dress?  What the...?  Look, I realize that Pepper Potts is not going to be anyone's first choice, but who really wants to go as the most pathetic Iron-Man groupie in the word?  Why not just make an Iron-Man suit, but with a women's contour?  I mean... what is the point (crime fighting-wise) of ANY PART of that costume?  I mean... WHY?!


Least Appropriate use of SEX in Advertising:

I found this flier stuck in my door a few weeks back.  This was the what the front looked like:

I'm thinking, "OK.  Rather than wait until I've gained back every pound I lost.  maybe I should check this place out.  Says it's "free."  I know that's probably only for a trial membership, but maybe I should check it out.  So I opened it up...

Are you freakin' kidding me?  No, no they're not...

Now, you know I said that this was all about stuff that over-promised and under delivered, right?  Well, I'm going to spare the you obvious attacks against the all-time heavyweight champion of false promises and instead point out something that struck me as just downright bizarre.

What was on the front cover again?  Tits and ass, in a spandex jogging suit.

Talk about your epic bait-and-switch!  Seriously, of all the things you can use SEX to sell - and I've seen sex used to sell a pretty bizarre range of products - RELIGION just should not be on that list.


Anyway, that's it.  No snappy punchline, just a few random braindroppings.  Hope everyone enjoys their weekend!

Friday Fun... just some stuff...

Nothing much going on today.  I was going through some old comic books, and I found the above panels, from  "Kingdom Come," written by Mark Waid and Painted (yes: Painted) by Alex Ross back in 1996.  I love it not only for the sentiment...

"You heard Big Blue's pitch, now for the Democratic Resposne." Priceless!  Green Arrow's always portrayed as one of the most liberal Superheores that ever lived.  Go figure: He modeled his costume and MO after Robin Hood, who "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor." LOL "Big Blue" BTW, in this case, is a reference to SUPERMAN, not the Republicans.  But I can't BEGIN to explain the whole thing.  Suffice to say that it's worth a read, and this is one of my favorite lines in it!

...but also for Alex Ross's ARTWORK which is just masterpiece quality in every panel.  Check out his website for more examples.  IMHO, he's simply the best there is, or ever was.

In any case, I'm keeping the banner until someone tells me to take it down.  :)  It's just way too... apt.

Changing gears...

I learned about a new website today from MMFA:  STOPBECK.COM. Awesome.  Will absolutely be a Gold-Star winner the next time I hand out any.  (There will only be Silver Star awards THIS month, however and THIS SITE warrants a GOLD!)  MMFA's misinformer of the year, 2009 deserves no less!

And seeing it reminded me of another site that was active years ago, back when I first stumbled accross MediaMatters.org and started down the path of enlightenment: SWEET JESUS I HATE BILL O'RIELLY!  Now... that site hasn't been active since 2005, but reading the guy's old posts I could absolutly relate to how he felt back then!  (And with his homage to The Godfather. LOL)  Now... you may or may not know this, but Bill O'Rielly took home the "Misinfomrer of the Year" award back in 2004... 

...So, I find it no suprise that Fox has to have the whole unholy trinity on the air: Does anyone know any good sites grilling 2008 MMFA Misinformer of the Year, Sean Hannity?

Have a happy weekend, everyone!

Friday Fun & Transgenderism revisisted

I spotted this passing by the IT dept today. I almost died...

BTW... if any of you DON'T GET THE JOKE HERE, please let me know and I'll explain in my next post. Yeah... it WILL mean admitting that you don't get it, but if no one says anything, I'll assume that you're all clever enough to figure it out.

Which... I don't know... might suggest that you're all good liberals and not any of those bad conservatives? Does that correlate? I jest. I'm refering to the fun I had frsutrating the hell out of three conservatives over on MediaMatters yesterday and today. Here's the link. It was such a blast! Seriously, I LIVE for this stuff. This is what I was talking about a few posts ago when I THANKED these guys. What a blast. Makes me feel ALIVE!

Yeah... they REALLY DIDN'T like the implication that pedophiles seem to all be Republicans. Oh well. I just go where the evidence takes me. If they were so sure that there was no relationship between pedophilia and conservatism, they really should have been able to produce even a tiny list of counter-examples.

Oh well, enough of THAT.

I want to revisit my last post RE transgenderism. I gave a lot of thought to what David in NYC posted, and he's absolutely right. The same tired arguments that were once used to exclude gays, blacks, jews, and many others, are simply wrong-minded and not worth considering. To spell it out, I realize that you can't wait for society to DECIDE when they're confortable with a given sub-group and that they deserve equal rights, because if that group is never allowed into the mainstream, society will NEVER be comfortable with them. That why things like civil right HAD to be legislated. And once they were, racism began to disappear. (Or at least diminish and evolve.) It exsisted unchanged for thousands of years, and yet every generation since the 1960's (including the one that came of age in that time) has grown up LESS bigoted than there parents. And racial justice no doubt lent it's momentum to the rethinking of gender equality, and helped out the women's rights movement. THAT momentum kept on rolling and things like Atheism, Homosexuality, different Religions, etc... came to be accepted as well. Although I still believe that Gay Marriage will HAVE to be federally mandated, and that it SHOULD BE. The Right will bitch a ton at first, but over time it will be just like civil rights: The sky won't fall, and everyone will get along... eventually. ;)

So back to TRANSGENDERISM. Again, I reiterate: I have nothing against any transgendered PEOPLE. This is not about whether it's right or wrong. It does not harm, so it CAN'T be wrong. Period. There's no victims here, except the TG'd victim of society's prejudice. So I hope we're all on the same page there.

My struggle now is in trying to figure why I STILL think that transgenerdism is different from homosexuality in my mind; why I stop short on one, yet completely accept the other. OK, I accept both... But in the case of homosexuality, I do so naturally and unequivcolly and can't even figure out what everyone's problem is! But with transgenderism, my acceptence is more a consious decision than my natural inclintaion... well... that's not quite right... The issue is that I can SEE homosexual issues from their POV. I can totally get inside their stylish shoes (sorry!) and relate. With transgendered people... I just can't relate. I can't seem to see this from their perspective. And that frustrates the hell out of me! It's usually something I do as a matter of course, but... I don't know! Something about it just makes me think about it... differently.

And I THINK I may have figured out what/why. Maybe one of the more elightened readers out there can reconcile this for me...

Accepting one's own homosexuality is about accepting WHO THEY ARE. It is a total acceptance of one's self.

Transgenderism, OTOH, involves a rejection of at least some part of yourself, no matter WHICH WAY you decide to take it. Either you reject who you are physically, or you reject who you are... mentally? Spiritually? Not sure what the right term is there, but one way or the other, you are chosing to NOT ACCEPT some part of yourself. And THAT'S the part I can't wrap my head around.

And I'm familir with the idea tha there's more to gender than what's between your legs. Yeah: I get that. I accept it. But XX versus XY chromasones and indoor vs. outdoor plumbling still have SOMETHING to do with it, no? So whether you try to embrace your birth gender (if that's the right term) or decide to embrace your trans-gender... well... either way you're forced to reject some part of who you are!

And... that sucks!

And THAT'S the part that I don't get. ACCEPTING one's self... that I'm all about. I can totally relate to that. But deciding what to accept and what to throw out? Wow. I can't even imagine what that must be like. And thus: I can't see the world from their POV. NOt directly anyway, only though clumsy paralells and metaphors.

That doesn't justify bigotry, discrimination, etc... and I'm not saying it does. I'm justing trying to understand something here that is completely foreign to me. Something I cannot relate to in the first person. Shoes I simply have not figured out how to put myself into.

Friday fun, plus: Let's invade Syria! (Just kidding)

Friday Fun: I LOVE this:



Now, on to politics! LOL

In my last post, in unequivocal favor of President Obama sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, unveiling his new strategy, and setting a timetable for withdrawal, I mentioned that I was against the Iraq War from the start. I was; and I always have been. Even after Colin Powell’s UN speech, when I came the closest to supporting it, I was still more inclined to think, “Saddam’s let the inspectors back in, so let them do their jobs now!”

Also, you know something stinks when the reason for it keeps changing. First it was about 9/11. But there wasn’t even fraudulent evidence to back that up. Then it was about WMD’s, which did have some fraudulent evidence backing it up. And once that was all discovered for the codswallop that it was, Iraq was supposed to be about the War on Terror and spreading democracy in the Middle East... something that could have been accomplished just as well FROM AFGHANISTAN!

And, to earn me some conservative / hawk cred, my opposition was not based on legally or morality or international treaty or anything like that. As a freedom loving, pro-human-rights liberal, I am loath to be put in the position of DEFENDING a demonic scumbag like Saddam Hussein on principle. As far as his sovereign rights go? I personally wish the international community would do more to take down leaders like Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Ayatollah Khamenei, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe, General Than Shwe, etc… Now: I know why they don’t! But at some point a government becomes so cruel, so antithetical to basic human rights that I believe they lose the right to this otherwise principled protection of their sovereignty.

So why did I oppose the war? Not for any of my liberal sensibilities but rather because, relative to the War of Terror, it made absolutely no sense from a tactical standpoint! Iraq was the most secular country in the entire region! It’s government had a history of taking a hard line against the very radical Islamic groups most associated with terrorism. And the biggest point: all of their WMD’s were GONE. (Although we were utterly stupid to force him to prove that since for years, their fear of him and those weapons kept IRAN in check!) As much as I hated the man, it would have made far more sense to prop him up, lift the sanctions, work out a treaty so that we can use his air space, and continue to use him to KEEP IRAN IN CHECK while we PROSECUTE THE WAR ON TERROR.

But there’s far more to demonstrate how absolutely incompetent Bush and his military planners were. Rather than do as I outlined above, they got themselves stuck in an expensive quagmire that quickly consumed almost all of the goodwill that Bush had,both from the international community and here at home. (And it’s a lot harder to fight terrorists when countries who you need to share their intelligence with you don’t like you very much!) And, at the end of the day, dismantling Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been enough. Replacing them with a secure, stable, secular, democratic government and wiping out every last remnant of Islamic Power, would have been a very effective deterrent for any other country that we would then need to deal with. If they knew we meant business, and we had the precedent of the Amanita that I’ve described and that George W. Bush no doubt envisioned, but failed to achieve, even the most hard-line country might be willing to negotiate and deal rather than face the extinction of their system of government and backwards way of life.

But “Bush” and “Hussein” may as well be "Cats" and "Dogs." So, after 9/11, Saddam Hussein’s fate was as certain as Bush’s ineptitude. (I always wondered how much Hussein hated Bin Laden for 9/11. He HAD to know the handwriting was on the wall!) But here’s the rub: Even though it was completely unnecessary and tactically unwise to open a second front in the war, if you’re hell-bent of invading someone else, I still fail to see how Iraq would rank as your first choice! If, back in 2003, you felt that we absolute MUST invade another country? Let me offer the same one that I did even back then:

SYRIA.

Sounds odd, perhaps. But that’s only because the media hasn’t spent the last year trying to convince you it’s a good idea. Without the media’s ridiculous cheerleading for the War in Iraq, congressional Democrats might have had the spine to vote against it unanimously, and Bush might never have even been authorized to go there. Also, John Kerry would have won re-election last year. But no matter how you look at it, it just would have made so much more sense to invade SYRIA:

1) Tactical: Smaller Country, easier to invade. (Less Blood / Treasure.)
2) Justification: HAS Chemical Weapons/WMD’s and linke to terrorsim, where Iraq didn’t.
3) Potential Future Threat: Has at least a civilian nuclear power program, which is more that Iraq does.
4) Religion: Is far more cozy, in fact is RUN BY, Radical Islamists – the very people that we were fighting. Saddam took a hard line AGAINST those same people! Thus knocking out that gov’t would weaken the Radicals influence, whilst getting rid of Saddam, if anything, strengthened it.
5) Terrorism: Syria sponsors terrorism, including attacks on U.S. forces. Iraq did not. Thus groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, who really on Syrian support, would be weakened, whereas Al Qaeda actually GREW, though admittedly only for a short time.
6) Iran: Syria is a strong ALLY of Iran – out biggest enemy in the region. So taking out their gov’t would WEAKEN Iran. Iraq, on the other hand, was Iran’s biggest ENEMY, and historically was used as a counterbalance to their power. Toppling Saddam instead strengthened our chief ENEMY, Iran.
7) Balance of Power: Having a puppet government in Syria would strengthen our ally, Israel and create another potentially very strong Ally in Lebanon. Having all these allies, stretching from Saudi Arabia to Turkey, would make it easier for us to negotiate with the Palestinians.
8) Finally: Iran would not be able to come to Syria’s aid, so the conflict would not be likely to broaden, if we had Saddam, continuing to bluff about WMD’s, keeping Iran in check. Other Islamic countries considering an alliance with Iran might think twice after seeing this.

Now, I hope it’s obvious to everyone that I’m not advocating an invasion of Syria! This whole exercise is merely meant to show how utterly stupid it was to invade Iraq. No matter how you look at it, there was nothing we could accomplish in Iraq that we couldn’t have done in Afghanistan and if you are hell-bent on invading an other country unnecessarily, Syria would have been a far better choice, even if they didn’t have a comic-book villain, like Saddam, to use as a poster boy to market the war.

I originally came up with that strategy just before the Iraq War started. Several Conservatives that I shared this with at the time were surprised and impressed that an admitted liberal and anti-Iraq War advocate would have come up with that. I countered that they should be even more dismayed that a simple, independent blogger and admitted liberal had conceived a far superior war strategy than those that they had trusted to RUN THE WAR.

No Friday Fun...

I'm sorry.

This was just too shitty a day to be jovial.

I woke up to the news out at Fort Hood.

As if that travesty wasn't enough, far be it for the RIGHT to miss a chance to distort the facts about a National Tragedy for Political gains. Traitorous, un-American, fucking scumbags.

And after a whole day of hearing half the country MISS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT, I get to drive home to economic reports about unemployment going over 10%.

Here the thing about that... The right blames OBAMA, and says to stop "blaming the previous administration for these things!" (Even though he's been in office 10 months and this recession started almost TWO YEARS ago!) But you know the LAST time unemployment went over 10%? You know was President? REAGAN. And WHO controlled the Senate? THE REPUBLICANS. And even though that was well over a full year into HIS administration, how many conservatives, when presented with those HISTORICAL FACTS, immediately try to blame all THAT on the PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION?! Yeah.. that would be ALL OF THEM.

See, they not only traitorous scumbags, but hypocritical, whiny little bitches to boot.

OK... Bitch session over...

Here's what I wanted to do for my Friday fun, but I was in way too shitty a mood to do it right. I wanted to include a few of my favorite quotes from the campaign trail, some of which were rather unintentionally hilarious. Well, I can't do THAT, but here are a just a few of my fav's overall, anyway. (And I've used all of them on MMFA multiple times, so I'm afraid this will be nothing new to those who already know me.)

"When they stop telling lies about us, we'll stop telling the truth about them."
~Adlai Stephenson-D, c.1952 (about the Republicans, as if you needed to know.)

Scary how apt that still is, fifty-seven years later!

"I don't want the people who managed Hurricane Katrina to be managing my health care!"
~Mitt Romney-R, on the campaign trail, 2008.

I agree entirely, Mitt: I don't want the REPUBLICANS managing my health care either!

On his 11/4/09 Radio Show, Rush Limbaugh touted Doug Hoffmann's "good showing" in the election for the vacated NY-23 seat, applauded the conservative for having "kept a horrible Republican from possibly winning."

Well Rush, there's finally something we can both give him credit him for. You know... I hope y'all pursue this strategy from now though 2010 and on to 2012. It might keep a lot of HORRIBLE REPUBLICANS from winning. And God knows, this country can only benefit from fewer of these HORRIBLE REPUBLICANS .

"It's like they take pride in being ignorant!"
~SENATOR Barack Hussein Obama-D, on the campaign trail in 2008, finally realizing what he's up against.

Good night and good luck!

Friday Fun: Atheist Motivational Posters

Som of my favorites from http://www.scottklarr.com/topic/453/collection-of-atheist-and-atheism-motivational-posters/. BTW, I'm not truly an atheist. I believe that true atheism is every bit as arrogant as religion is. But if I'm going to form a null-hypothesis, in the absence of any other tangible evidence, Atheism is the only reasonable position.

Friday Fun - Chicago's Favorite Sons

If you've been listening to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh (or been on MMFA today) you'll have heard these two no talent ass-clowns celebrating the fact the fact that President Obama "failed" to bring the Olympics to Chicago in 2016. They were rooting for him to fail, of course, and cheered when he (supposedly) did. You see, to them... something that's BAD for Chicago is somehow GOOD, because... well... I have no idea! That's just how deranged these guys have become since... oh... about the 20th of January I'd say.

But it got me thinking... We really should get together a couple of Chicago's 'favorite sons' to go over and "talk some sense" into these morons. I think the scene might look something like this:

I'm no picasso, but I get by. (You can click to enlarge)

(In case my art sux that badly, that's supposed to be Michael Jordan, Carlton Fisk, Andre Dawson and William Perry.)

(And it looked like hell when I tried to color it, so you get what you get and you don't get upset!) :)

Speaking of people getting unhinged lately...

There was a REALLY GREAT article in the LA Times about what exactly is happening here. Ithink it sums up the thinking, and the problem, of the right (and unfortunately the effect it's having on this country) perfectly. Better than I could hope to try to. So please check it out.