Monday, August 23, 2010

So You Say You Have Written a "Visitor's Guide" to DC?

Take a look at the web page for the "MAINE REFOUNDERS/ Tea Party. Dedicated to Preserving the Constitution!" I know, it's a mouthful. And what is immediately evident is that they really enjoy varying uses of punctuation. Just take a look at their and my equally inspired blog title, "So You Are Coming to the Glenn Beck 8/28 Rally on Washington?" You'll notice that they didn't use a contraction when any native speaker knows that "So You Are Coming to the Glenn Beck 8/28 Rally on Washington?" should actually read "So You're Coming to the Glenn Beck 8/28 Rally on Washington?" Therefore, I do have to call into question the nationality of Andrew Ian Dodge for his non use of contraction as the "author" of this blog. I mean, if someone says "lift" instead of elevator in a movie, we know that's the spy, that dude definitely learned English from the KGB and not growing up in a working class suburban family like the rest of us Americans.

And so, I was equally inspired by his further use of punctuation when he noted: "(Dupont Circle, gay area)". Therefore, I will translate his punctuation prevalent punditry parenthetically:

"Many parts of DC are safe beyond the areas I will list here, but why chance it if you don't know where you are?" (black area)

"DC's population includes refugees from every country, as the families of embassy staffs of third world countries tend to stay in DC whenever a revolution in their homeland means that anyone in their family would be in danger if they went back. Most taxi drivers and many waiters/waitresses (especially in local coffee shops like the Bread and Chocolate chain) are immigrants, frequently from east Africa or Arab countries. As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African Americans and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country..." (foreign black area)

"If you are on the Blue or Orange line do not go past Eastern Market toward the Potomac Avenue stop and beyond; stay in NW DC and points in Virginia. Do not use the Green line or the Yellow line. These rules are even more important at night." (black area) Though, I'd like to add, not exactly. You know these lines all cross through The Mall which is coincidentally where the rally is being held. Oh, my god! Glenn Beck is black!

"But you don't know where you are so you cannot go, especially at night, unless you take me with you." (is this guy hitting on me? area)

And finally, there's just one travel tip missing from this blog: What's the exchange rate at the border crossing? (these white people sure are scared of black people area)

Monday, August 16, 2010

All Balls, No Brakes

What do you want to bet this guy doesn't wear a helmet?

Balls of steel, brains of mush.

Trophy balls.

Go nads.

Career Metaphor

Gibson crashes Maserati into a Malibu hillside. Was he disappointed in his a)

self, b)

midlife-crisis-mobile or c)

geological formations?

Friday, August 13, 2010


I took this photo while speaking to my friend on speakerphone via the very same device. Our topic: getting a key made. I feel the passersby may have been concerned that I was having a conversation with this snail about trying to get into his teeny tiny house. When in reality, the snail only asked me one question: does this make my ass look big? And I was like, what? Did you just get the Larry Sanders box set on DVD? And he was said, I wrote that joke for Gary Shandling. And I was duly impressed. Long story short, we're getting coffee next week.

Friday, August 6, 2010

Historical Doppelganger

I posted this in June during Elena Kagan's confirmation hearings but I believe it bears repeating: British comedian David Mitchell looks a hell of a lot like Elena Kagan.

See what I mean?

And even though you've never heard of him, he's BIG in England. And therefore, in honor of Kagan's successful confirmation I repost my point so that Mitchell can get straight to impersonating her as I know all male comedians enjoy dressing up as women and approximating our intolerably high voices.

Wednesday, August 4, 2010


A PRIVATE MORAL VIEW THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE INFERIOR TO OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES IS NOT A PROPER BASIS FOR LEGISLATION is my favorite chapter heading in the 136 page finding that was passed today in California declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional.

I decided to read the whole thing. Well, skim for great quotes and there were some but the most interesting thing that I found was the use of a 1973 ruling concerning the interpretation of the 14th Amendment:

"'It is difficult to conceive of a rational basis for penalizing [undocumented children] for their presence within the United States,' despite the state’s interest in preserving resources." This is a very interesting use of this ruling as part of the anti-Prop 8 argument that "A law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a particular group." Take a moment and read that again. "A law must do more than disadvantage or otherwise harm a particular group." That's a good one. And that's really the crux of the argument, that one group declared that if another group had the same rights as them that they would be harmed when it's really the opposite of that. That exclusion is what causes harm not inclusion. This country was formed by those who were motivated by exclusion.

And so here is what I mean by that, the 14th Amendment is a hot topic in Arizona right now where they are looking for any way to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants which currently is manifesting as a movement towards reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. You know, the one that overturned Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision which held that "a negro of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood and were brought into this country and sold as slaves" could never become a citizen. Yeah, that one. So there are those who want to amend that amendment in order to deny children born in the United States automatic citizenship depending on the status of their parents. You know, exclusion.

Political arguments and society in general is based on exclusion. Every one wants to feel special and if you exclude, then you'll be part of a minority. Yet, you only want to be part of a certain type of minority. Majority, minority, inclusion, exclusion, who's who, it's all getting pretty confusing. What I do know is that the children are our future because they're apparently the only ones with rights (except for undocumented children, but otherwise this argument stands).

So much of our nation's political arguments concentrate on the safety of children these days: marriage (in that if children learn about gay marriage they will become gay and also that children must be raised by a man AND a woman or they won't be well adjusted. Speaking from experience, I think we all know how that well adjusted thing turned out), immigration (in that adults get citizenship on the backs of the very children whose lives they're attempting to improve by moving here), abortion (all right, this one is a little more linear in that, it effects the safety of children, I mean, depending upon your definition of when a child begins cause lord knows they never stop. Can I get an amen?), stem cell research (see abortion), pedophilia (bull shit stereotype placed on gays when those who associate them with this should be looking at their most trusted "celibate" "moral" leaders).

Yes, kids should have a safe childhood but you spend more of your time as a maladjusted adult so there should be some rights for us adults. We want to be special and exclusionary. I guess that's where the voting age, the drinking age, the becoming President age comes into play. All right, so we get those three things and you babies get everything else. That seems fair.

I'd be interested to see if anyone else concentrates on the 14th Amendment being included in the finding as illegal immigrants are trending high in the political zeitgeist. And we all know that the top three threats to our way of life are foreigners, gays, and Sharks. Happy Shark Week, everybody.

Anyway, here are some of the quotes that stood out for me from the earlier portions of the Prop 8 ruling:

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals." Sounds like a judgmental mother: Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for you, honey.

"Discrimination against gays and lesbians occurs in California and in the United States." Part of the obvious section of the ruling.

"Proponents failed to put forth any credible evidence that married opposite-sex households are made more stable through Proposition 8." Find me a stable household and I'll find you a barn with some horses who live in the plural of that word that appears before household.