Kim Kardashian Reaches a New Level of Shamelessness.

It was once said of someone that "She would go to the opening of an envelope." That used to be the standard for someone being a pathetic publicity whore. Now, thanks to Kim Kardashian, we have a new, lower, standard.

(via The Superficial)

 

Yeah, she's cutting the ribbon at the grand opening of a public toilet.

Today, Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG) Charmin® Restrooms return to Times Square for the fifth consecutive year, giving holiday visitors and local New Yorkers a free, clean and family-friendly place to “enjoy the go” during this busy time of year. To launch the 2010 Restrooms, Charmin is calling on one of the newest New Yorkers, Kim Kardashian, to reveal its new location at 142 West 42nd Street, and this year’s themed bathroom stalls representing iconic U.S. locations, as part of the first-ever Charmin Go Nation national competition.

I don't know what's worse, the fact that Charmin is having a grand opening for a toilet, or that they use the phrase "enjoy the go." That is just horrible. Just really awful. And then what sort of competition are they having? No, wait. I don't want to know. 

“With my recent transition to New York, I’ve been checking out all the gifts the City has to offer visitors and New Yorkers alike,” says Kardashian. “During the holiday shopping season, I’m happy to join Charmin as they give the gift of the Restrooms near Times Square.”

"Also, I have no shame and not a spec of dignity!" she might as well have added. "Are people looking at me? LOOK AT ME!!!!! TALK ABOUT ME!!!! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!!!" she practically continued. "How many times do I have to humiliate myself in public before you like me?"

 

How about now? Are people talking about me now? I'm practically committing statutory rape here, people!

 

How about now?

Now?

 

Oh my gosh, quit looking at my big butt! 

 

I'm serious, you guys! Quit looking at my butt!

 

Seriously, stop! Heeheeeheeeheee!

 

Hooray! I'm Famous!

This is who they are

This is who Joe Barton is, or who he would like to be.

Joe Barton put together a Powerpoint slideshow to e-mail to his colleagues in the House laying out his case for why he should be the next chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, because what better way to decide who to put in charge of important government things than a Powerpoint slideshow? Here's one of his slides:

 

  

That's it. That's all he's got. ". . . put anything in my scope and I will shoot it." All he can promise is to destroy. He has no ideas of his own. He just wants to destroy any accomplishments of the guys on the other side. These guys are like teenage anarchists destroying for the sheer joy of destruction. They have no interest in actually governing. They have made it quite clear that they don't believe in government. And yet, a large number of people apparently think that it's a good idea to have the government run by anti-government ideologues. It's like putting a Klansman in charge of the NAACP. It just makes no fucking sense. It's like putting Richard Simmons in charge of a bakery. Or making Madeleine Murray O'Hare  the next pope.

This is who they are:

GOP says it'll block bills until tax cuts extended

Senate Republicans threatened Wednesday to block virtually all legislation until expiring tax cuts are extended 

Like children throwing a tantrum, they will not let the grownups do anything until they get what they want, and they don't give a damn whether we cab afford it. They want their tax cuts, they want their tax cuts now, they want their tax cuts for all eternity, for ever and ever amen and deficit be damned! Oh, they'll be the first ones to cry and wail about the deficit. Once they get  their tax cuts, then the deficit will suddenly become important again, but right now they have the opportunity to cut into the deficit simply by doing nothing and they would rather hold every piece of legislation hostage in service to tax cuts for the top 2%. They don't care. They do not care if the country goes bankrupt, they don't care if we can't fix roads and bridges or we can't have decent schools or libraries, they do not care. They know what they want and that is all that matters to them. They are spoiled greedy nasty children. This is who they are.

P.S. I gotta think Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave right about now.

Latest Discoveries

 From the fertile musical soil of Atlanta, GA come these new musical discoveries.

1) We saw these guys at the Little 5 Points Halloween Parade/Festival. I looooooooooved 'em. They're sort of a jug-band / psychobilly mix, I guess? Anyway, their name is Uncle Daddy & The Kissin' Cousins. Check 'em out:


2-muleskinner blues from rob downs on Vimeo.


1-moonshine from rob downs on Vimeo.

2) Our scooter club rode behind these guys in the parade. They kept us entertained and we did our best to dance while riding scooters. They're called Mermaids:


Mermaids - "Whirlpool" from Alex Adan on Vimeo.

Find more artists like Mermaids at Myspace Music

when we saw them, they had a Theremin player which was pretty cool.

3) This guy I just happened to hear on the radio on the way home from work. This is Tyler Lyle:

Find more artists like Tyler Lyle at Myspace Music

4) These guys are actually from Athens, GA, but they spend a fair amount of time in ATL, and they've been getting a lot of buzz lately, so here are Modern Skirts:

Why is the 17th Amendment Suddenly Controversial?

Seriously, America, what the hell? Why would anyone want to repeal the 17th Amendment? Why would you want to make things less democratic?

I don't know, but  apparently a lot of people do. Just type "17th Amendment" into Google and see what comes up:

Republican Candidates Call for Repeal of Seventeenth Amendment ...

Nov 1, 2010 ... One of the clearest measures of anti-Washington feeling this election year is the attack on a little-remembered, century-old amendment to ...
www.foxnews.com/.../republican-candidates-repeal-seventeenth-amendment/ - Cached

Repeal the 17th Amendment

Oct 25, 2010 ... This web-log calls for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and addresses the hegemony committed by the US Senate. The first significant step to ...
repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/ -

Repeal the 17th Amendment? - By John Yoo - The Corner - National ...

John Yoo writes on NRO: One popular idea making the rounds among some conservatives and Tea Partiers is a call for the repeal of the 17th ...
www.nationalreview.com/corner/.../repeal-17th-amendment-john-yoo

Repeal the 17th Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center

Oct 24, 2008 ... The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal ...
www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/.../repeal-the-17th-amendment/ -  

and it goes on and on. I don't get it. what is the motivation for wanting to go back to having senators appointed by state legislators? So I checked out d=some of their arguments:

The 17th Amendment caused a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and federal control over a number of state institutions.
The amendment has also caused a fundamental breakdown in campaign finance issues with respect to United States Senators. As to United States Senators, campaign finance reform

Also, it has caused plagues and pestilence, earthquakes and famine and the cancellation of Deadwood.

The first significant step to remove the domination and unmistakable corruption deriving from the Federal Government is to repeal the 17th Amendment. Americans should fear the steady hegemonic growth by the Senate oligarchy because the US Constitution cannot be spoiled by bombs, the courts, or the President, but only through malevolent legislation.

Because nothing puts a stop to corruption faster than state governments having the ability to appoint senators.

 

The most efficient method of regaining the original constitutional balance is to return to the original constitutional structure. If senators were again selected by state legislatures, the longevity of Senate careers would be tethered to their vigilant defense of their state's interest -- rather than to the interest of Washington forces of influence.

Right, because now if the voters aren't happy with the job their senators are doing, they have absolutely no recourse. Oh, if only there were some way, some method by which voters might effect change in Washington. If only there were some sort of mechanism by which the voters could say, replace their current senator with a new one.  If only there was some sort of process by which every, oh say six years or so, senators would have to go back to the voters of their states and ask to be sent back to Washington for another term. And if the voters weren't happy with the job their senators were doing they would have some way of saying "no, Senator! We are going to send this fellow in your place, as we suspect that he might better serve our interests." Well, a guy can dream can't he?

Oh, the last little bit of unassailable logic comes not from some random weirdo with a blog, but from very serious commentator Tony Blankley

 

Blankley justifies his absurd position  absurdly, going on to say:

Senators still would be just as likely to be corrupted. But the corruption would be dispersed to the 50 separate state legislatures. The corruption more often would be on behalf of state interests.

The time effort and expense it would take to amend the Constitution would be a small price to pay to acheive the re-location of government corruption.

The corruption more often would be on behalf of state interests. And its remedy would be achievable by the vigilance of voters for more responsive state legislative seats (typically, about less than 50,000 residences per state legislator), rather than Senate seats (the entire population of the state -- usually millions.)

So, if there was a problem with a senator, all the people would have to do is vote in a bunch of new state legislators, who would then hopefully appoint a somewhat better senator. That's much simpler than having to um, vote for a new senator. 

So, sure let's go back to the old ways. Senators appointed by  state legislatures, only white, male property-owners get to vote, and hey, why don't we restore the monarchy? That used to work pretty well.

Terrible Marketing Campaigns -- Miller Lite

Miller Lite certainly isn't the first product to use the "if you don't buy our product, you're not a real man" approach, but usually it's somewhat less blatant than this:



I don't know what's more ridiculous, the whole "If you don't like Miller Lite, you're probably just some big ol' pansy" approach or the initial premise that a person might actually walk up to a bar, order a beer, and then say "No, I don't care what it tastes like." Who would say that? What would be the motivation for saying that?  Of course, maybe the most absurd facet is the idea that someone who cares about the taste of their beer would order Miller Lite. What, were they all out of aquarium water? No saline solution around? Run out of Pruno?

But yeah, if you're not interested in Miller Lite, you're probably all gay or something. Or European! And we all know how silly and effete Europeans are!



And I don't know what the Hell is supposed to be going on here:



I guess they just went to all that trouble so they could get away with sorta calling the guy a "pussy?"