A quick thought about Bill O'Reilly and drug policy

“I’ll remind you, in Singapore they have no [drug] problem. Why? They hang them. They hang them,” O’Reilly offered, referring to a notoriously draconian capital punishment regime.
“OK, but we’re obviously not suggesting that as the answer,” Tarlov interrupted.
O’Reilly pressed on, clearly not disturbed by his suggestion of capitol punishment for low-level drug offenders: “I don’t know. I mean, look, Singapore at one time had the most pernicious opium problem you could possibly have, it destroyed their entire society. So they said, you know what, we’re not going to have this anymore. And that’s what they did, bingo, no drug problem.”

Ya know, it's funny how, for a certain segment of the population, whenever another country is doing something good for it people like providing health insurance or keeping lunatics from owning machine guns, we have absolutely nothing to learn from any other country because America America America!!! Greatest country on earth, no one can teach us anything.

But when a country is doing something horrific like chopping off the hands of thieves, or hanging people for the crime of wanting to feel good for a while, then suddenly, you know what? We could learn a thing or two from this bloodthirsty Medieval theocracy!

Republicans have demands!

Reince Priebus and the GOP have decided that if they are going to participate in any further debates, well they have a list of demands that must be met first.

And they actually sent out this form letter detailing those demands. Here are some highlights.

Dear _____:
This letter is on behalf of the 15 Republican Presidential campaigns. We are aware that you are sponsoring a debate on _____ at ______. Below and attached are questions about your debate to which the campaigns would appreciate answers at your earliest convenience, and in any event no later than a month from today.

Or, in other words, "Dear tv channel. We understand that you are going to allow us to use your air time for what is essentially a group press conference. If you intend to provide us with free air time and publicity, we have a few demands to make of you.

The answers you provide to these questions are part of a process that each campaign will use to determine whether its candidate will participate in your debate.

The arrogance of these bastards! In a sane world, every media outlet should, at this point, just say "no, you know what? Not interested. Go have your little dog and pony show on some street corner, shouting at each other through bullhorns from atop overturned milk crates. We will just do the news, thank you." Of course, this is absolutely not a sane world, so the various campaign staffs can make as many ridiculous demands as they want.

- Answer the questions below within 30 days of receipt by communicating directly with the campaigns. We’ll provide an email list for that distribution.
- No later than a month before your debate (earlier if possible), schedule a conference with all the campaigns participating jointly so that the campaigns may ask questions about the format for your debate, the moderators and your answers to the questions below. The campaigns may request an additional call(s) to discuss specific issues.

 Fuck You. Is this how it works now? The fourth estate is supposed to run its questions by you in advance so you can prepare bullshit answers for some and reject others altogether? You're asking the American public to choose you to fill the highest office in the nation. You don't get to pick and choose what questions you will deign to answer.

 - The campaigns’ will use the manner in which your debate(s) are run (and changes you say you will make from your past debates), the quality and fairness of your moderators’ questions, their enforcement of the rules and their ability to achieve parity in distribution and quality of questions and time among the candidates to evaluate whether the candidates wish to participate in your future debates.

 You know, this is basically a job interview. You don't get to tell potential employers "I'll answer this and that question, but if you're going to ask me about my time in prison, I am so outta here!"

 How about this? There's going to be a debate. You can show up, or there can be an empty podium with your name on it. If you do show up, you will be asked questions that we deem fitting. If you are bothered by these questions, feel free to storm off the stage. The grownups will be asked further questions.

 - In addition, based on their evaluation of previous debates, the campaigns wish to have in all future debates a minimum 30-second opening statement and a minimum 30-second closing statement for each participant; candidate pre-approval of any graphics and bios you plan to include in your broadcast about each candidate, and that there be no “lightning rounds” because of their frivolousness or “gotcha” nature, or in some cases both.

All right, most of that is reasonable. Allowing for an opening and a closing statement seems fine. And God knows those "lightning-round" question-type things are insultingly stupid. But you think you should have pre-approval of what parts of your bio the network presents? I call bullshit on that. I'm pretty sure the viewers are not going to get an accurate idea of who you are if you're allowed to, for instance, say "you can tell them that I'm a wealthy business tycoon, but you may not mention my multiple bankruptcies." 

 In addition to addressing the above points, please answer the following:
 Where and when will the debate be held?

 Wait. Is that really an issue? Has there been a problem in the past where a network held a debate and didn't tell the candidates when or where? Like Santorum is knocking on the door of an empty auditorium saying "It's tonight, right? They said it was gonna be here, right? No? Hello? Anyone?'

 Who is the moderator? Will there be any additional questioners?                                 Are they seated?

 Because if these fuckers think they're going to ask me questions from a seated position, they got another think coming! If I have to stand throughout this whole thing, by God so do they! Or so help me I will NOT show up for this debate!

 What is the estimated audience for the debate? Will it be disseminated on-line? By radio? Will it be disseminated by other means and do you have any additional partners?

 Because it's noe thing for us to say the things we do on some basic cable shitstation no one watches, but if this stuff is going to be getting out to the general public, then we're going to have to do some serious editing!

 What format do you envision – podiums, table, other?

How could that POSSIBLY make any difference?
 And of course it's going to be podiums. This is a Presidential debate, not Doug Loves Movies!

  Will there be questions from the audience or social media? How many? How will they be presented to the candidates? Will you acknowledge that you, as the sponsor, take responsibility for all questions asked, even if not asked by your personnel?

 Because Goddammit, we better not be getting a bunch of questions from the fucking voters!
 If any taxpayers end up asking us anything, that is on you!

 What is your proposed length of the debate?

 

  Will there be opening and closing statements. How long will they be?

 Well, you've already demanded that, and I'm guessing if we're still reading this far, we must have already agreed to it. Remember? "Minimum 30-second opening?" And "minimum 30-second closing?" Remember? It was like two paragraphs ago, and it was you that said it!

  Will there be a gong/buzzer/bell when time is up? How will the moderator enforce the time limits?

 Yeah, I think we'll go with the gong.

 Will you commit that you will not:

o Allow candidate-to-candidate questioning
o Allow props or pledges by the candidates

 Wait. So you're asking the moderators to prevent your candidates from doing things like asking each other questions? You're saying that your candidates can't possibly be expected to control their own behavior, so the moderators are going to have to be the grownups in the room and make them not do these things? How are you going to stop a candidate from making a pledge? One of these guys starts saying "and if I'm elected I pledge to you that I will . . ." and you're going to jump in and say "woah, governor, I thought we agreed? No pledges? Remember? We said no pledges tonight and then after the debate we'll have ice cream, remember? And we said we were going to use our inside voices, and not bother the other nice candidates with our questions? And remember we said that props are for playtime? Not for during the debate? Remember?"

 o Use behind shots of the candidates showing their notes

Because, really, everyone totally believes that these clowns are answering questions off the cuff. We've totally got everyone fooled, don't blow that for us!

 o Leave microphones on during breaks

 Because there's a pretty good chance at least one of us will pull a Robert Durst.


 Anyway, it goes on in that vein. It's basically an open letter stating "we are a bunch of giant babies, don't pick on us! And also one of us should be the leader of the Free World."

Republicans are the biggest crybabies

So I guess things didn't go exactly as planned in the most recent GOP debate. From what I understand, one of the moderators asked the candidates some actual questions about things. And the GOP's reaction can be summed up in one word: WAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus has sent a letter to NBC News Chairman Andrew Lack saying that the RNC will be “suspending” all partnerships with NBC News including pulling out of the NBC News debate in February of 2016.

We're taking our bat and ball and going home!

 Also -  fuck you, you're not supposed to have "partnerships" with news organizations.
You know, back when this country was relatively sane, the League of Women Voters used to hold the debates and you showed up and answered their questions and that's all there was to it. You didn't have buffoons like Trump and Carson demanding to set the debate rules to their liking or they won't deign to show up.

His letter reads, in part:
“The CNBC network is one of your media properties, and its handling of the debate was conducted in bad faith. We understand that NBC does not exercise full editorial control over CNBC’s journalistic approach. However, the network is an arm of your organization, and we need to ensure there is not a repeat performance.

Um, if you don't want a repeat performance of your candidates embarrassing themselves on national tv, send better candidates. You keep sending dullards, dolts and dunces to represent you on the national stage, you're not going to come out looking all that great.

“CNBC billed the debate as one that would focus on “the key issues that matter to all voters—job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.”  That was not the case.

It wasn't? I couldn't bring myself to watch the trainwreck, so I Googled a transcript. Here are some of the questions that got asked.
And remember, Priebus is complaining about the following subjects not being asked about: job growth, taxes, technology, retirement and the health of our national economy.

HARWOOD: We're at 60 seconds, but I gotta ask you, you talked about your tax plan. You say that it would not increase the deficit because you cut taxes $10 trillion in the economy would take off like...
(CROSSTALK)
HARWOOD: Hold on, hold on. The economy would take off like a rocket ship.
TRUMP: Right. Dynamically.
HARWOOD: I talked to economic advisers who have served presidents of both parties. They said that you have as chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.

QUICK: Dr. Carson, let's talk about taxes.
You have a flat tax plan of 10 percent flat taxes, and -- I've looked at it -- and this is something that is very appealing to a lot of voters, but I've had a really tough time trying to make the math work on this. . .  So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?

QUICK: Governor Christie, I'd like to (inaudible) a question next. Actually, I have a question for you (inaudible).
In your tell it like it is campaign, you've said a lot of tough things. You've said that we need to raise the retirement age for Social Security. You think that we need to cut benefits for people who make over $80,000 and eliminate them entirely for seniors who are making over $200,000.
Governor Huckabee, who is here on the stage, has said that you and others who think this way are trying to rob seniors of the benefits that they've earned. It raises the question: When it is acceptable to break a social compact?

Governor Bush, in a debate like this four years ago, every Republican running for president pledged to oppose a budget deal containing any tax increase even if it had spending cuts ten times as large.
A few months later, you told Congress, put me in, coach, you said you would take that deal. Still feel that way?

 QUINTANILLA: Mrs. Fiorina, in 2010, while running for Senate in Tech Ridge (ph), California, you called an Internet sales tax a bad idea. Traditional brick and mortar stores obviously disagree. Now that the Internet shopping playing field has matured, what would be a fair plan to even that playing field?

 Anyway, that's just a few, but those seem like fairly substantive questions to me.
Or as Reince puts it: Questions were inaccurate or downright offensive. 

 Before the debate, the candidates were promised an opening question on economic or financial matters. That was not the case. Candidates were promised that speaking time would be carefully monitored to ensure fairness. That was not the case.  

Wahhhhhhh!!! You didn't ask us exactly the questions we wanted. And speaking time wasn't fair! Wahhhh!!!


So, what was so "inaccurate?" I know Ben Carson is complaining that he was asked to explain how his magical 10% Old Testament tax plan is supposed to work. So here's how that went:

If you were to took a 10 percent tax, with the numbers right now in total personal income, you're gonna come in with bring in $1.5 trillion. That is less than half of what we bring in right now. And by the way, it's gonna leave us in a $2 trillion hole.
So what analysis got you to the point where you think this will work?
CARSON: Well, first of all, I didn't say that the rate would be 10 percent. I used the tithing analogy.

No, you did say 10%. Everyone heard you say 10%. Just because someone is pointing out that 10% is a stupid idea doesn't mean you can just pretend you didn't really say it.

QUICK: I -- I understand that, but if you -- if you look at the numbers you probably have to get to 28.
CARSON: The rate -- the rate -- the rate is gonna be much closer to 15 percent.
QUICK: 15 percent still leaves you with a $1.1 trillion hole.

So, as the kids say, where's the lie, tho? Unless you crunch the numbers yourself, which you won't because you are not smart, and you come up with a different figure, which you won't because you are not smart, then you really have no basis to object to this line of questioning.

So basically what seems to be happening here is that these guys are so used to being "interviewed" by FOX "News" and various end-times radio shows that anything other than being spoon-fed softball questions w2hose answers go completely unchallenged seems like some harsh interrogation that they simply shouldn't have to tolerate. Or, in other words, WAHHHHHH!!!

Scary Halloween Post #2: Scary Music

From our friends over at Charisma News:

With Halloween just days away, children—and some parents, too—are eagerly anticipating donning costumes and asking for a 'treat' from neighbors as the price for not having a 'trick' played on them. Meanwhile, decorations designed to terrify—from skulls and witches to life-sized graveyards and giant insects—have turned homes across America into virtual haunted houses.
It's all just harmless fun. Or, is it?

 

Dum-da-DUMMMM!!!!

 Religion and culture expert Dr. Alex McFarland says that while many see Halloween as a chance to dress up and get goodies, there is real danger involved.

 

Da-da-da DUMMMM!!!!

 "Halloween in America has become a celebration of darkness and of the supernatural as it relates to darkness,"

Well, it is the only time of year most people see these:

  

Darkness: Now available in Fun Size!

 This is compounded by the fact that people long for spiritual experiences, spiritual fulfillment and a place to 'fit in'—all of which are promised by witchcraft and other occult activities. 

 Having trouble fitting in? Feeling unfulfilled? Why not try devil worship? One brief meeting with the forces of eternal darkness and you'll say "Hail Satan! Mmm, that's good occultism!"

  While it used to be that witchcraft was widely viewed as evil, today there is growing mainstream acceptance of it. Much of our media and culture in recent years has centered on themes of witchcraft, vampirism, communication with the dead and paranormal phenomenon in general—for example, the 'Twilight' books and films; Katy Perry's 'Dark Horse' performance at the Grammys, which had the feel of a satanic ritual; Nicki Minaj's 'Roman Holiday' performance; and more.



Wait, Katy Perry?
I mean, if Katy Perry was involved in occultic rituals, that would actually explain her mystifying level of success, but. . . Katy Perry? Really?


So I checked it out on the YouTube. (Ugh, the sacrifices I make for my readers!)



Click play at your own risk, but you'd probably be better off just letting me summarize.

Perry starts off the performance in a snow globe surrounded by the Knights Who Say Ni!
Then the snow globe lifts off of her, the mystic knights shed their spooky acoutrements  and they all dance like strippers. It really seems to have more in common with A Midsummer Night's Dream than Rosemary's Baby.

Then I looked up the Nicki Minaj performance which the helpful YouTube user had posted with the descriptive title:

Nicki Minaj Roman Holiday Demonic Demon Possessed Exclusive HD Performance

I mean, she does levitate, but so did Doug Henning. And she is in a set made to look like a church surrounded by monks, so. . . .Satan?



 

So, anyway, those songs maybe weren't all that scary. Here are a few that always made me feel a bit spooky:







I'm so afraid that he has a body in the trunk of his car. And he's begging the trooper not to stop him because he doesn't want to have to kill him too.
And that yelp/howl/whatever at the end. I could not listen to this with the lights off.




Love song? Murder song? I think it's both.





I don't know, the synth lines are spooky, Annie Lenox's voice is ghostly and the whole song just feels weirdly frightening.




I don't know what this song is even about, but there's such menace in it. Especially when he says "Hey little sister, what have you done?" Sends a chill down my spine.


What songs do you find frightening?

Presidential Candidates as Simpsons Characters

Hilary Rodham Clinton





Dr. Ben Carson




JEB! Bush




Bobby Jindal



Rand Paul




Chris Christie

 

 Mike Huckabee



Lindsey Graham



Marco Rubio




Ted Cruz



Carly "Fire 'em All" Fiorina



Donald Trump