S.E. Cupp is weird.

I heard that S.E. Cupp had written the "Stupidest Possible Column on Pot," so I figured it must be a real doozy to be stupider than David Brooks's pot column. It is.


Opinion

Pot could put progressives in a tough spot

How enthusiasm for marijuana legalization runs against liberal orthodoxies on other big issues

I'm not sure there is any such thing as a liberal orthodoxy, but whatever.

As Colorado continues its successful rollout of new state marijuana laws, it's not just potheads who are eager to see if legal weed can work. Politicos, too, are wondering how all of this will shake out.
Will pot smokers become a sought-after voting demographic? Will Republicans look like school marms if they oppose legal marijuana? Will liberal supporters suffer when the law change inevitably creates more drug users?



First of all, "school marms" would be a HUUUGE improvement in Republicans' public image. Currently, they're seen by most Americans as self-righteous troglodytes with serious anger issues and persecution complexes.

Second, why would the "inevitable" creation of more drug users cause "liberal supporters" to suffer? She doesn't say.




That all remains to be seen, but some obvious extrapolations make it clear that the legal weed experiment could at least put the politics of progressivism - all the rage in liberal circles now - in a tricky spot

Um, since "liberal" and "progressive" mean pretty much the same thing, it's really a weird thing to say that progressivism is now "all the rage" amongst liberals. It's like saying that the NFL is all the rage amongst football fans.

For one, there are glaring inconsistencies between the liberal argument for pot legalization and positions on other issues. An obvious one is gun control.
Well, it's not obvious to me, but that might be because I'm a "normal" person. You know, "sane."

 The same argument used against guns is used for pot: that legalizing pot and making it more available will reduce crime.

I've read that sentence five times and I'm still not sure what the hell it's supposed to mean. Is she trying to say that legalizing guns, which are already legal, and making them more available will somehow reduce crime? I just read it five more times and I still have no idea.

We're told pot users will "responsibly" use marijuana in the privacy of their own homes. But what barometer are they using to determine that persistent recreational drug users, who have presumably broken the law before by possessing marijuana, are responsible people? And why aren't lawful gun owners afforded the same level of trust?

Why? Really? First of all, THEY ARE. Thanks to the lobbying efforts of the gun industry, pretty much anyone can legally own a gun. And we're all just supposed to trust that they will act responsibly. Even though. . .

Kentucky Legislator Accidentally Fires Handgun Inside State Capitol

Father Faces Manslaughter Charges After Baby Dies Of Gunshot To Abdomen

Man Accidentally Shoots Self, Friend In Busy Restaurant

Father Shoots And Kills 14-Year-Old Daughter, Saying He Mistook Her For Burglar

Flippin mayor shoots out window.Police chief's report indicates shot was accidental

 Oh, hell, just go on Twitter and check the hashtag #GunFail, you'll see a million examples of why "lawful gun owners" maybe don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.

If progressives want to keep gun control in the crosshairs - and many have said they do - they'll have to reconcile this intellectual incongruity.

No, you will. You will have to somehow get your head around the fact that there really is no similarity at all between guns and pot. Until a father accidentally kills his two-month-old daughter with a joint, there is no comparison. Until a pothead goes into a movie theater and kills a bunch of people with marijuana smoke, they have nothing in common. Until a Congresswoman gets brain damaged by a bong-wielding lunatic, there is no comparison between pot and guns. So for "liberals" to treat them differently is entirely logical and sensible. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether pot should be legal or what restrictions should there be on gun ownership, but it's two totally separate discussions.

One liberal whose positions are at least consistent is Michael Bloomberg (yes, I meant liberal).

Yes, I know you meant it. That's why we're laughing.

One liberal whose positions are at least consistent is Michael Bloomberg (yes, I meant liberal). He opposes guns and legal pot, even going so far as to once call medical marijuana "one of the great hoaxes of all time."

You do know that Bloomberg has no medical or scientific background, right? You know he is in no way qualified to comment on the efficacy of medicinal marijuana, right? And that he's an asshole, right?

But for other Democrats who, like him, promote an expansion of the health nut state

Health nut state? Wanting people to have access to doctors makes one a "health nut?"

But for other Democrats who, like him, promote an expansion of the health nut state, but want to also support legal marijuana use, does it really work to rail against trans fats and restrict the smoking of cigarettes but allow pot smoking (and the sloth and munchy-induced snacking that comes with it)?
Don't expect Michelle Obama or Felix Ortiz, the New York assemblyman who proposed banning salt in restaurants, to rally for weed any time soon.


So then that WOULD make them consistent, wouldn't it? Ms Obama and Mr. Ortiz, who both promote healthy eating are NOT supporting legalized pot. Isn't that consistent?

 Don't get me wrong; conservatives are confused, too. While there's obvious support among libertarians, others worry about the moral implications of legalizing risky behavior simply because people are "going to do it anyway" and letting go of the last vestiges of Nixon and Reagan's war on drugs.

Yeah, why would you want to abandon that highly successful policy? And for that matter, why did we ever pull out of Vietnam? We could've won that war! Damn you, liberals!

And we certainly can't legalize any behavior that is "risky!" That would be as irresponsible as encouraging young people to forego getting health insurance because they're young and healthy! And legalizing risky behavior is sort of the opposite of the "nanny state" which conservatives constantly decry.

But as the left struggles with its identity - is it the party of Bloomberg or Bill de Blasio?
Oh, Jeezus. . .
First of all "The Left" isn't a party. Secondly, DeBlasio is a Democrat, Bloomberg is a Republican. Thirdly, Holy fuck, are you really that stupid?

Trick question, of course she is. Because while she thinks she's pointing out this huge logical inconsistency on the left - that they supposedly want pot legal and guns illegal - she wants guns legal and pot illegal, which by her standard, is exactly as inconsistent as the left's positions. A not B is exactly as inconsistent as B not A.
Of course, neither position is actually inconsistent because, as normal people may have noticed, pot and guns are TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS!

There's more weirdness and stupidity in Cupp's column, but there's anly so much I can take.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/pot-put-progressives-tough-spot-article-1.1568639#ixzz2prFpE4t7

Hope they got their money back.

Horrible hack Michael Bay was supposed to tell the gathered throngs all about how wonderful the new Samsung TV is. Instead, he mumbled some bullshit about how wonderful Michael Bay is, then wandered off stage.







"Michael, what inspires you? How do you come up with these unbelievable ideas?"
"Um, dude, I made the fucking Transformers movies! I made movies based on a shitty 80's cartoon that was based on a stupid children's toy. What the fuck unbelievable ideas are you talking about?"

Charlie Crist is terrible at apologizing

Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist Apologizes for Supporting Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

And he starts out really good.

Dyer: When you first ran for governor in 2006, you said that a ban on same-sex marriage was unnecessary, but then you signed a petition to place Amendment 2 [banning same-sex marriage] on the ballot…
Crist: … and I’m sorry. I’m sorry I did that. It was a mistake. I was wrong. Please forgive me.

That's great, Gov. Just leave it there. You're sorry, you want to be forgiven, that's how you do it.

But he goes on. 

Crist: I was a Republican. . .  The examples you cited were examples of me trying to be a good Republican.

And you just blew it. You can't say "I'm so sorry I worked against your rights, but you gotta understand, it was politically expedient!" I mean, I guess you could say that if you were retiring from public life, but if you are again running for public office, you can't say "vote for me, I will betray my principles if I think it will help me win." And you certainly can't say "Sorry about hurting people, but it was more important to me to keep the knuckle-draggers of my party happy than to stand up for what I knew was right. Crist 2014!"

Bad Ads - Verizon

So the point of this ad seems to be that the more Verizon products you buy, the bigger bag of douche you become?






Sure, you might be an unassuming little nerd, but with enough Verizon products, you can become a guy who looks like he's trying to dress as Axl Rose for Halloween and thinks air guitar is acceptable!

Oh, God. Here we go again.

Once again, a right-wing politician has decided to insert himself into a private family tragedy.

About two weeks ago, a young lady named Jahi McMath went into an Oakland hospital for a routine tonsillectomy and somehow ended up losing so much blood that her brain ceased all functioning. Horrible. Just horrible. But while her parents have had to go through the agonizing process of coming to terms with the loss of their daughter, shameless con man Mike Huckabee has decided to turn this tragedy into a political soapbox for his "pro-life" views.


(via)

Mike Huckabee Compares Oakland Hospital To Nazi Concentration Camps

Posted by Priscilla 40.40pc on January 06, 2014

Because of course he fucking did!

I mean, once you've gotten used to the idea of the Affordable care Act as Nazi-style tyranny, it's a pretty easy leap to seeing a hospital as Auschwitz.

Apparently, the similarity between the hospital in Oakland and concentration camps in 1930';s Europe is based on the hospital's plan to remove the already brain-dead girl from machines keeping her heart and lungs functioning artificially. Which is pretty much the same thing, now that I think about it.


Here are some of his comments:
(source)

The decision of a judge in CA has given the family of 8 year old Jahi McMath until January 7 to prove that she is worth at least attempting to save.

Except that she can't possibly be saved because she is completely brain-dead. Which is tragic enough without some scam-artist pretending that she could be saved but someone just doesn't want to.

 The hospital says she’s brain dead and insisted that her life support be discontinued just a couple of days before Christmas.

But what would the hospital know? They're just a bunch of "doctors" and "scientists" and "medical professionals." I'm a former minister and current asshole talk-show host!

Her family has fought in court to prevent the hospital from acting without the family’s permission. I’m not a neurologist and wouldn’t pretend to know the level if any of Jahi’s brain function.

But I'm sure as hell not going to let that stop me from pretending that I know what the fuck I'm talking about and weighing in with my half-assed opinion!

I’m not a neurologist and wouldn’t pretend to know the level if any of Jahi’s brain function. But I am a parent and grandparent

Oh, by all means, then. Proceed, governor!

But I am a parent and grandparent, and I would fight with all within me to hold on to any hope to protect the life of a member of my family

Regardless of whether she was already dead.

 And I would probably not be overly confident of the opinion of the hospital that said my daughter’s brain was dead because they also said the surgery that put her in that condition was routine and low risk.

Well, I'm fairly certain that they didn't say NO risk. It was surgery, after all. And no matter how badly the surgeon might have botched the operation, I'm sure they can read a brain scan. And there isn't going to be another doctor who comes in like Billy Crystal in the Princess Bride and says "lucky for you, she's only MOSTLY dead!"

 “The road that starts that way in deciding that some lives have less value and are unworthy of protection, that leads to a culture that tolerates the undeserved killing of over 55 million unborn children in this country. . ."

So, you're saying that if this girl is taken off life support, next thing you know there will be abortions?

". . . It leads to China’s birth policy that limits the number of children for a family and enforces forced abortion if they deviate from the state-determined ideal.”

Um, okay, sure. With you so far. Any time a young person dies tragically, that's the same thing as China forcing women to have abortions. That pretty much goes without saying.  But what about the concentration camps?

“It’s also that culture that allowed the Nazis to to hideously justify the savage slaughter of millions of Jews, disabled people, old people and those with mental illness,”

Wow! Unless the hospital intentionally botched the operation because they actually wanted this girl to die, I really don't see a comparison here.  But I guess that's not really what's important. The important thing is that you got your name in the papers and your fat ugly face on tv so you could keep feeding your fame addiction, and if you've made the family's suffering even worse, or maybe led some of your less stable followers to make death threats against the hospital or the doctors involved, well that's a small price to pay for dragging out your 15 minutes a few more days. Hey, maybe you can find a way to turn this private family tragedy into a fundraiser, too! Then everybody wins!