Eight Events which should be eliminated from the Olympics.

1. Basketball
Because, geezus, isn't there enough fucking basketball on the rest of the year? We just finally finished with the 6-month NBA playoffs, now do we really want to watch an NBA all-star team beat Gadzookistan by 70 points? That's not fun for anyone. It's already well established that the US is the world's dominant basketball country. Let's just retire Olympic basketball

 

110-63. What drama!

2. Anything involving a horse.
Unless the medals are going to be awarded to the horse, because the horse is the only one doing any work. I'm sure it takes a certain skill to get a horse to jump over things, but where's the athleticism? I assume the equestrian events were included to give a sort of gentlemanly air to the Olympics, or to have at least one event that couldn't be won by some commoner, but they seem awfully anachronistic now. And it's a pretty good rule of thumb that if it can be done while wearing a top hat and tails, it ain't a sport.

 

This guy is the Micheal Jordan of his "sport."

3. Shooting

Because there really isn't anything athletic about pulling a trigger. It's like flicking a lightswitch or changing channels with a remote.  I know there's a lot of skill involved in shooting small targets over great distances, but a lot of things take skill and we don't call them sports. You don't see chess matches on ESPN. (or maybe you do, I don't know) No one calls billiards a sport. If you're not at any risk of breaking a sweat, it's probably not a sport.

 

I mean, come on. If she can do it. . .

4. "Sprint" cycling

Have you seen this shit? The first half of the race seems to be a contest to see who can go the slowest without tipping over. But even before that, the coaches have to push the cyclists out to the start, hold them steady then push them off like fathers who just removed their sons' training wheels. 

Eventually it turns into an actual race, but by then you've just completely lost me.

5. Badminton
Because whatever amount of skill and athleticism are involved in this sport are just completely overwhelmed by the sheer silliness of grown men playing badminton.

 

Hee hee! Such tiny little racquets.

6. Tennis

Because every year, EVERY SINGLE YEAR, there are at least 4 tennis events more important than the Olympics. Wimbledon, the US Open, The French Open, and the Australian. And it's the same damn players in the Olympics, so what's to get excited about?

7. Diving

Not most diving. Most of the diving is great. I have no beef with diving from the springboard or the high dive. I have no objection to the pike or the tuck position dives. My only objection is to the dives in the position which has come to be referred to at the Chaos Compound as the "taint" position, or the "hey, get a load of this" position.

Honest to God, dude. No one wants to see that.

8. Fencing

Because when you hear fencing, you think you're going to get this

GIFSoup

But you generally get one fencer lunging at the other, then a buzzer goes off.


It's the most anti-climactic event imaginable. 

Oh, Good! I was just thinking I wasn't getting enough E. coli!

Via the AJC, of all places:

Playing chicken on food safety?

USDA defends efforts to speed up poultry slaughter lines and replace most federal inspectors with plant workers

By Tim Eberly

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 

One-third of a second. 

That's how long a federal inspector will have to examine slaughtered chickens for contaminants and disease under new rules proposed by the federal government.  

Yeah, sure. It's not like chicken ever gets contaminated. No bacteria ever make their homes in chicken.

 

What could go wrong?

The proposal would speed up production lines as much as 25 percent. It also would pull most federal inspectors off the lines and replace them with plant workers.  

How in the hell could anyone think that that's a good idea? Plant employees monitoring their own plants? Who's going to report a problem knowing that if they do, it would almost certainly cost them their job? 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says its proposal is a win-win-win that modernizes food inspection while saving money for taxpayers and the poultry industry. 

NO! That is not a win. We don't want to save the industry money, we want our dinner not to poison us! We don't want to save the taxpayers a few bucks, we are the taxpayers. We're willing to pay a little extra money for the privilege of eating non-contaminated food.  And we sure as hell don't want to modernize food inspection if your idea of modernization is speeding up the lines and employing fewer actual inspectors. We don't win on any of those counts.

The biggest changes would:

- Use workers in chicken and turkey plants to replace all but one federal inspector on the conveyor belt, where bad birds are removed from the production line. (Currently, chicken plants have as many as four federal inspectors on their lines.) 

- Let those plants decide how much training their workers receive in identifying diseased or defected birds.  

(emphasis added)
Holy fuck! Since training employees takes time and costs money, how much training do you figure any of these plants is going to decide their employees need?

- Enable plants to speed up their slaughter lines so that the sole federal inspector, stationed at the end of the line, would be required to view up to 175 birds per minute. The maximum speed now is 140 per minute, but that workload is divided among four inspectors so that it averages out at 35 per minute for each inspector.

Oh, yeah. that's not insane at all. going from 35 per minute to 175 per minute? That's "modernizing" the inspection process!

 

- Let poultry plants decide what dangerous bacteria they test carcasses for and how often they test, and no longer require plants to test for E. coli.  

NO longer test for E. Coli? Whose idea is this? Who in the FDA thinks that this is what people want? Is there really anyone out there saying "if only the food supply was being inspected less?" Is there some big voting bloc who thinks that the real problem with this country is not enough E. Coli?

 

Oh, right!

The government says the changes will save taxpayers more than $90 million over three years. But the big winner will be the poultry industry, which will save at least $256 million a year in production costs, the USDA has projected

$90 million over 3 years? That's $30 million a year, or about 10 cents per American per year, so yeah, totally worth getting  salmonella now and again, especially if it saves the good people of the poultry industry some cash!

The Food Safety Inspection Service says the new system would require poultry plants to take more responsibility for weeding out birds with diseases, infections and defects. . . Currently federal inspectors pull these birds off the line when they spot them; the new rules would largely leave that to plant employees. 

So what's the point of this? Oh, well this way the actual inspectors could focus on the most serious bacterial contaminants. They won't, of course, but what's important is that they could.

In redirecting its inspectors from production lines, FSIS says, more inspectors will be freed up to focus on issues that affect public health, such as salmonella and campylobacter. Yet, under the proposed system, FSIS would not increase testing for those pathogens. 

Mmmmm, Chicken!

In 1999, FSIS created a pilot program that allowed 20 chicken plants and five turkey plants to play by a different set of rules. They could run their slaughter lines at faster speeds. They swapped most government inspectors on the lines with their own plant workers. 

Oh, so that must have worked out really well, I assume. So well that this program is being expanded to all chicken plants, right?

Opponents of the proposal say FSIS is distorting the facts on both issues. They cite an audit by the Government Accountability Office in December 2001, which concluded that results from the program would be "unreliable."

The audit also noted that citations for fecal contamination skyrocketed in poultry plants' first year in the pilot program. 

Proposed new uniforms, KFC

You know, I would expect this kind of bullshit from a Bush administration, but why now? What is the upside of this? What constituency is going to be pleased with these new rules?

And is anyone really so naive as to think that any business can be trusted with inspecting themselves? Have we learned nothing from Vioxx? Do we not remember the exploding Pintos, or the roll-over SUV's? Companies seem largely to be run by sociopaths. They honestly don't care if their products kill people, as long as the resulting lawsuits don't cost them all of their profits. And if your chicken kills someone, well that's pretty hard to even prove. You got food poisoning? well, maybe it was the chicken sandwich you had for lunch, maybe it was something you had for breakfast, or dinner? And if it was the chicken sandwich, maybe it was the chicken, maybe the mayo, maybe the lettuce or tomato. An awful lot of people have to get sickened before a pattern can even be established, and then they have to trace the chicken back to the specific plant. Basically, the odds of your getting caught are fairly slim, and if you're saving $256 million, and you're a sociopath, then a few sick or even dead people is a small price to pay.

How did Trump get my E-mail?

How did this show up in my in-box?

The Trump Effect

Why America's Most Famous Billionaire
May Soon Prove to Be Its Most Influential

 

 

Billionaire Donald Trump has put his celebrity status and business power behind Mitt Romney 

Business power? what does that even mean? How is there no explanation of that term? What is "business power" and how is it something that could be "put behind" a candidate?

and with his undeniable appeal among independent voters,

A voting bloc made up of the half-dozen or so people who don't loathe Donald Trump. (All of whom work for CNN)

and with his undeniable appeal among independent voters, a Newsmax magazine special report finds that he may prove to be a political kingmaker come this November. 

Ooooh, Newsmax. Now it makes sense. The online magazine for people who think the moon landing was fake and professional wrestling is real. 

Newsmax magazine's report — "The Trump Effect" — has just been released and reveals Donald Trump's pivotal role in the GOP primary and how he is working behind the scenes to engineer a victory for Mitt Romney. 

Oh, his pivotal role? His pivotal role? You mean waiting until it became obvious that Mitt Romney was inevitably going to be the nominee before jumping in to endorse him? That pivotal role? And when has Trump ever done anything "behind the scenes?" He's been shoving his ugly mug in front of any TV camera he can find to trot out the embarrassing birther crap over and over no matter how many times he's been debunked.Engineer a victory for Romney? If Romney wins, it will be in spite of the albatrosses around his neck with names like Trump, Nugent, and Jameson.

First Lady of Porn Jenna Jameson Endorses Mitt Romney for President

"I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office," the ex-porn queen recently told CBS' San Francisco affiliate. "When you're rich, you want a Republican in office." 

  

Less embarrassing than Trump.

On a side note, how pathetic is it that Romney not only accepts, but actively seeks out the endorsement of someone like Ted Nugent? He had to go meet and interview with Nugent before getting the seal of approval of Mr. "Yank Me Crank Me." The man who wants to be president goes groveling to the guy who waves around machine guns while threatening the Speaker of the House and two US Senators? The guy who admits he shit and pissed himself to get out of going to VietNam?  The guy who made a living singing songs about vaginas while wearing a loincloth? That's the guy whose approval you need to run for president? What a country!

 

So how in the hell did Newsmax magazine get the idea that Donald Trump is in a position to be come some sort of a kingmaker?

The Newsmax magazine report features Klein's exclusive interview with Trump

Oh, of course. They asked Trump. 

In this week's Newsmax, our sources tell us that Donald Trump is the world's greatest lover, a world-class athlete, and is smarter than science! Yes, our source is Donald Trump, why do you ask? He's the greatest, most luxurious source the world has ever seen!

It also reveals the surprising results of a Newsmax poll that provides a unique picture of the "Trump voters" — independent voters in key swing states who listen to Donald Trump. 

Pictured: Both of them

 Newsmax includes incisive commentary from such experts as Bill O'Reilly, George Will, Kathleen Parker, Michael Reagan, Christopher Ruddy, Ben Stein, Dr. Laura and David Limbaugh — to name a few. 

Jeezus, you really got the right-wing farm team workin' for ya there. You couldn't even get the top Limbaugh.

This edition of Newsmax magazine also includes:

• Hidden welfare: disability claims soar under Obama 

You know, I've been on disability. I was laid up for a couple of months after an accident. It is NOT welfare. I paid into disability insurance before I was on it, and I'm paying into it now. It comes out of my paycheck. So fuck you, Newsmax.

• Mayors take action against bloated union pensions
• Corruption laws hurting U.S. businesses 

If our businesses aren't going to be allowed to be corrupt, how can they expect to survive? And what's with these union guys expecting to collect on the pensions they earned during their working years?

• The weight culprit: high-fructose corn syrup linked to obesity

What a scoop! Wait, this isn't 2005!

• Campaign '12: Wisconsin could go red this year

Yeah, Wisconson's totally on the verge of going red! Wait, this isn't 1955!
( you know, cuz back then, "Red" meant that. . . oh, ask your grandpa, he probably got that one)

• Mark McKinnon: GOP should woo independent voters

Brilliant! Also, the Olympic athletes should try to win medals, and vegetarians should avoid eating meat.

Ben Stein says Newsmax reveals the “unafraid, uncomplicated, bare-knuckles truth about today’s dangerous world.” 

And who would have a more objective view of Newsmax than a guy who gets paid by Newsmax? Which this Newsmax promo pointed out itself just like 2 paragraphs ago! Remember: Newsmax includes incisive commentary from such experts as Bill O'Reilly, George Will, Kathleen Parker, Michael Reagan, Christopher Ruddy, Ben Stein, 

You can't get a reccomendation from someone a bit less biased?

Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan and chairman and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation, says: “I guarantee that you’ll love Newsmax magazine. The liberal media moguls hate Newsmax.”

Wow. That is just, actually it's kinda sad. It's like you're not even trying. I know your target market is people with no critical thinking skills, but still, have a little fucking pride in your work.

And Sarah Palin says Newsmax is one of her top news sources and describes it as "very very helpful, valuable."  

Geez, One of her top news sources? So one of the sources included in "ya know, all of them?"
And you couldn't even get her to try and string together a complete sentence? "very very helpful, valuable" is the best word-salad she could toss for this?





Pathetic.

ABC News is Totally Objective -- Haha, just kidding, they're horrible.

From ABC's NewsOTUS blog/website/thingy:

Texas Toast: What A Tea Party Candidate's Win Means For Washington

Well, obviously it means nothing for Washington since what he's won is the Texas GOP primary and not the general election, which he would have to also win in order to go to Washington, but please, do go on.

August 1, 2012

He's already being called the next Marco Rubio. 

They said, as if that were a compliment.

Conservative Republican Ted Cruz, who scored an upset — but rock-solid — victory over Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in yesterday's Texas U.S. Senate runoff is being hailed today as the second coming of the current Florida senator and vice presidential short-lister.

"Just like the upstart Rubio, who started with long odds but defeated long time incumbent Florida Governor Charlie Christ in the 2010 GOP Primary with major support from the Tea Party, Cruz did exactly the same thing in Texas," the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody wrote in an analysis of last night's results. 

And who has more credibility than a reporter from a network founded by Pat Robertson? To whom else could you possibly turn for legitimate political analysis?

 

Okay, maybe.

 By Election Day, Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general, had already overtaken Dewhurst in recent polls. Cruz had the backing of Tea Party stalwarts like Sarah Palin and Sen. Jim DeMint whereas Dewhurst won the support of establishment figures like Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the erstwhile presidential hopeful. 

Um, are we pretending that Rick Perry is not a teabagger? Did he not speak in front of those teabagging rallies? Wasn't it at one of those rallies that he talked about possible secession? 

  

“Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.”
- Texas Governor Rick Perry hinting at secession at a Tea Party rally today 

Thank you, Donklephant.com!

And how is Jim DeMint not an "establishment" figure? He's been in either the House or the Senate since 1999! How long do you have to be there before you're "established?"

I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel! *

Is maybe the point that htere really is no longer any distinction between the Republican "establishment" and the Birthers, Birchers, Tenthers and Thruthers who gather under the umbrella of the "Tea Party?" Oris it too much to expect for ABC to connect those dots? I guess it would interfere with their whole "Tea Party - outsider - rebel - grassroots" narrative.

 So, what does one Republican's victory over a fellow GOPer in the bright red state of Texas mean in the grand scheme of things?

As Brody noted: "Eventually the media and others will realize that the Tea Party is not only far from dead it's just warming up."

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was a "report" from a "news" organization, not  promotional material from FreedomWorks.

Also, I'm not sure that Texas is really all that bright red anymore. It's projected to be a swing state by 2016. But why would you bother checking into that? I mean it took me literally almost an entire minute to type "Texas Swing State" into the Google and come up with these:

Mon May 07, 2012 at 05:20 PM PDT
Texas marches toward swing state status. Only question is 'when?'

Obama predicts Texas will soon be a swing state
www.theblaze.com/    Posted on July 18, 2012 at 9:47am

The Next Swing States: Arizona, Georgia, and Texas
April 12, 2012

www.usnews.com › Opinion › Robert Schlesinger

So, how could I expect ABC to put that much effort into its stenography reportage?

But regardless of who wins control of the Senate this November, we know that the upper body in Washington is going to be as polarized and uncompromising as ever, notes ABC News Political Director Amy Walter. Conservative Republicans like Cruz and Richard Murdouck in Indiana won because they insisted they wouldn't be part of a "go along, get along" culture. 

Yeah, let's pretend that it's all of the Senate that is uncompromising. Let's pretend that one side hasn't bent over backwards to be accomodating while the other side has just filibustered everything time after time after time.

To put it another way, as one smart Republican strategist told the Note: "The fact the Tea Party can win is the 2010 story; whether they can govern and what the 'establishment' will do to retool is the question." SARAH PALIN SEND 'CONGRATS'. ABC's Shushannah Walshe points us toward Sarah Palin's Facebook page, which includes this note: "Congratulations to Ted Cruz! This is a victory both for Ted and for the grassroots Tea Party movement. This primary race has always been about the kind of leadership we need in D.C. Our goal is not just about changing the majority in the Senate. It is about the kind of leadership we want. Ted Cruz represents the kind of strong conservative leadership we want in D.C." 

Yeah, I know there should be a paragraph break in there or something, but that is an exact cut & paste from the ABC site. But that's not the point. The point is, that in an analysis of a story about electoral politics, ABC cites a reporter from the Pat Robertson Network, a "smart Republican strategist" and Sarah fucking Palin. Now that's objectivity!

*

Way to have your priorities straight, Senator Dipshit!

It's not like there are any really pressing issues that the Senate might concern itself with at the present time, like the economy or something. So what better time for Senator Butthead to introduce this frivolous super-important bill?

Rubio bill would make Olympic prize money tax-exempt
By Chris Moody, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 3 hrs ago

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio introduced a bill Wednesday that would exempt Americans competing in the Olympic Games from paying taxes on the financial spoils of their victory.

Athletes are awarded a $25,000 honorarium for first place, $15,000 for second and $10,000 for third, but under Rubio's bill, the money would not be subject to taxes currently imposed by the Internal Revenue Service.

I don't know what the logic is here. I don't know what the logic is in deciding to pursue this ridiculous bill that affects a couple dozen Americans, rather than say, passing the JOBS Act or something,  or what reasoning is behind the idea that Olympic prize money should be tax-exempt. Let's let Senator ShitForBrains explain:

"Athletes representing our nation overseas in the Olympics shouldn't have to worry about an extra tax bill waiting for them back home," Rubio said in a statement. "We can all agree that these Olympians who dedicate their lives to athletic excellence should not be punished when they achieve it."

No. No, we can not all agree. Paying taxes on your earnings is not punishment. It's the price of living in a functioning society. Why would athletes be exempt from that? And I can't imagine that any of the athletes are at all concerned with the extra tax bill waiting at home. How burdensome could the tax bill be when you've just been handed $25 grand or more for doing something that you were going to do anyway because this sport is your passion in life? If I get a bonus for being good at my job, I have to pay income tax on it. So do you, I assume. And I don't even like what I do.  And any bonus I might get is not going to be anywhere near $25 thousand.


We aren't going to pretend that Olympic athletes are sacrificing for the glory of the nation or something, are we? Do you reallynot think that these young men and women are participating in these sports because they love these sports? No 10-year-old little gymnast is getting up at 3 every morning to get screamed at by Marta Karoli while damaging every sinew in her body because she wants the United States to triumph over China in sports, or whatever. They do it because they love what they do and they love being the best and they love winning. And there's nothing at all wrong with that, but are we going to make everyone who follows their passion tax-exempt?

 

It would have been worth all the pain and the hard work if only I didn't have to pay income tax!

 Americans for Tax Reform, a group founded by conservative activist Grover Norquist, estimated that Olympic medalists face a tax burden of as much as $8,986 when they return from the competition.

Now, this may come as a shock to you, but Americans for Tax Reform is being pretty fucking dishonest about this! I know, right? I know I'm stunned.

Here's what they have to say about Olympic taxes: 

 

American medalists face a top income tax rate of 35 percent. Under U.S. tax law, they must add the value of their Olympic medals and prizes to their taxable income. It is therefore easy to calculate the tax bite on Olympic glory.

American gold medal winners will pay the IRS up to $8,986. Silver medal winners will pay up to $5,385. Bronze medal winners will pay up to $3,502.

Read more: http://atr.org/win-olympic-gold-pay-irs-a7091#ixzz22LB8C2S9

There's even a handy little chart that I can't seem to copy here, but suffice it to say that ATR is basing their calculations on the idea that Olympic medal winners would pay 35% on their prize money. Which seems pretty unlikely, given that most of them don't have day jobs, and the 35% tax bracket only applies to income over $388,550. So, sure the basketball team will have to pay the full 35% minus whatever loopholes their army of accountants can come up with, so will Micheal Phelps, but your average Olympian amateur athlete, not really.

Single Filing Status
[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]

    10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,700, plus
    15% on taxable income over $8,700 to $35,350, plus
    25% on taxable income over $35,350 to $85,650, plus
    28% on taxable income over $85,650 to $178,650, plus
    33% on taxable income over $178,650 to $388,350, plus
    35% on taxable income over $388,350.

Now, Olympians are also apparently charged tax on the value of their medals, and that is bullshit, because they aren't really getting any income from that. They aren't going to melt down their gold medals and sell them to Glenn Beck or whoever. But the medal tax is really not a whole lot, even according to the ATR, which lists the tax on a gold medal as $236, which is still assuming a 35% tax rate.

Aaaaanyway. . .

Even Rubio can't think that this stupid piece of legislation has any chance of becoming law, so why is he wasting his time on it? Is he just trying to prove his anti-tax boner fides (see what I did there?) to Grover Norquist? Is it just that he hopes Democrats will vote against it so he can claim that they hate America's athletes? Is he just a moron? I'm going to go with all of the above.