Obama's bigger (tax cut) package

Senator Ben Nelson, speaking before the conservative Heritage Foundation attempted to mute the conservative critique that Obama is spending the country into historic deficits. Defending both Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program (bank bailout) and Obama's stimulus, he reminded the audience that one-third of the latter included the very tax cuts that they worship.


"It's interesting that when one side of the political aisle supplies tax cuts, they tout them as reducing the burden on taxpayers. But when the other side of the political aisle supplies tax cuts... they're labeled as deficit spending," Nelson said. "To me, a tax cut is a tax cut. They save people money they use to promote economic activity, from the ground up. The Bush tax cuts and the Obama tax cuts are both... tax cuts."

Though President Obama's were way bigger.

I'm sure Mrs. Stifler would be very proud

I just discovered a "stats" tool on this blog, where I can find out how many people have visited this site - incredibly over 1000?! And what country they are from (Vietnam and Malta among them) and most interestingly, and maybe most revealingly, what site the person was on, before they came to this one. (Don't worry - it doesn't reveal anything about YOU, just the site you came from).

Of recent links, my favorite was the person who came to my site after googling, and this is not a misprint: "Sex Im Amarica".

Frustratingly for the person, the first link on Google's list was a link to an article in Scientific American. Imagine their disappointment.

Incredibly, mine was the 18th link listed, just two spots ahead of a link to the movie American Pie. 

Oh, and she doesn't sweat much either...I mean EVER, She doesn't sweat EVER!

I just glanced at my blog this morning (I guess that's kind of like googling yourself - a little narcissistic!) to see if I had missed any typos in my recent posts and realized that the juxtaposition of the two posts below this one is just a little bit awkward!

When I wrote about my wife in the post right under this and then entitled the one under it "But she doesn't sweat much for a fat chick" I was NOT, repeat NOT, referring to my wife who is thin and perfect. OK, just wanted to clear that up.

Guys - Don't look at this picture without following the instructions below -->

One of the most important qualities we look for in a spouse is honesty, but then why do we get upset when our partner looks at someone of the opposite gender with some level of physical...OK, sexual, interest?

And I should first point out that one of the MANY things I admire about my wife is that not only does it not bother her when I look at an attractive woman, AND she doesn't mind if I make a comment about it, in most cases she'll even agree with me...or not, as the case may be. And similarly, it never bothers me when she comments on Pat Burrell or Chase Utley's ASSets.

I think the ability to accept this scenario, particularly when a guy comments on an attractive woman, comes when both people involved understand basic qualities, actually inequalities may be the better word, of the two genders. And of course, I'm about to make broad generalizations here.

Men, I believe, have an innate need, or at least desire, to propagate the species. As has been pointed out, we think about sex way out of proportion to women, tho not necessarily my awesome wife (also known here as My Devoted Reader), and when we see a hot young babe walk by in 5 inch heels, a miniskirt and a tight blouse, well, heck, I get turned on just writing the words here. And to gaze, look, stare...and yeah, leer at that PYT, is just what we do.

And if your guy doesn't do that when you're with him, he is either being dishonest with you or more likely is damn boring in bed. And part of what I think it helps a woman to understand is that in our...my looking at that girl, it doesn't mean we want to have sex with her. There is no intent to go try to pick her up or find her later. OK, OK, in a perfect world, we maybe could have sex with her and then come home for dinner (or dessert?!), but at least now speaking for myself here, but I really think for 98% of men, we get it, it just doesn't work that way, and we are beyond content to just stare and enjoy the passing moment in the same way we eat a donut, love it and then move on to cutting the grass.

But from the other point of view, if a guy does that without understanding their partner's view of this is unwise as well. If the guy hasn't made it clear, in word and deed, that his wife is the most perfect, delicious, awesomely beautiful woman any guy has ever laid eyes on, which sadly for any of the rest of you guys is only true for me and by definition can't be for you, then he has lost any right to stare/leer/glance or just turn his head in the general geographical longitude of said pretty young woman.

But she doesn't sweat much for a fat chick

I've been thinking about this the past few days and hate to admit I was hesitant to post it, because it is so unflattering yet likely true. But then I realized, there are only about 2 or 3 people that read this blog regularly anyway, maybe even including my wife and me, so what the heck:

I realized over the weekend that I take some pride in virtually never saying anything bad about anyone without also mentioning something I like about them as well.

But then I also realized with some embarrasment that I probably also never say anything nice about anyone without saying something negative as well.

I'm going to try to monitor this to see if this is accurate over the coming weeks and months and get back to you...well, get back to my wife and myself, I guess.

And I'll bet they had a lot more legroom

ON THIS DAY

On Sept. 28, 1924, two United States Army planes landed in Seattle, Washington, having completed the first round-the-world flight in 175 days.

I'll bet it would have taken a lot less time if they hadn't weighed the plane down with a 5 month supply of little bags of peanuts.

It's news that makes me just wanna go apeshit

NYT News Item:

Dr. Beatrice H. Hahn, who has built the world’s most comprehensive treasury of great ape fecal samples, has found the beginnings of the falciparum strain of malaria and taken the blame off chimps.

Finally! Chimps around the world are declaring a Day of Independence! All hail Queen Beatrice!

Some people just get songs stuck in their head

A line from Mad Men I can't get out of my head from 4-5 episodes ago: "Isn't it funny that we spend so much time trying to figure out what our weaknesses are, when everyone else can tell us exactly what they are?"

And which is tougher - asking someone/everyone what our weaknesses are or, if someone were to ask us, telling them what we think they are?

Keep screwing things up and we'll put one of you in the White House too - dammit!

News Item from today's NYT:

Poll Suggests Big Opening for G.O.P. Going Into Midterms

Republicans are heading into the general election phase of the midterm campaign backed by two powerful currents: the highest proportion of Americans in two decades say it is time for their own member of Congress to be replaced, and voters are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama's leadership.

But the latest New York Times/CBS News poll also finds that while voters rate the performance of Democrats negatively, they view Republicans as even worse, providing a potential opening for Democrats to make a last-ditch case for keeping their hold on power.

So basically Americans are saying to the Republicans "We'll show you, just for that, we're going to vote more of you into office!"

Eagles game #1 post-mortem

So what did we learn from game #1, besides not much:

1 – Omar Gaither just cannot play MLB.
2 – When Stewart Bradley’s in the game, they actually have a pretty good defense, much better than I’d have thought when training camp opened.
3 - (as posted earlier) If they want to win as many games as possible this year, they should be starting Michael Vick. If they want to win as many games next year and for the foreseable future as possible, they should be starting Kevin Kolb. I'd go with Kolb, until or unless he proves he'll never be what they hoped he would be.
4- Shady McCoy is a talent. I loved that play for the TD – I don’t even remember seeing that play before.
5 – You rarely go wrong predicting that Andy Reid is going to throw the ball on any given play, but when the announcer asked out loud what play they might run on 4th and One at the end of the game, I answered it with total confidence – they’ll run left, behind Herremans. Turns out I was wrong. Herremans wasn’t in the game, but I was right about the play call.
6 – Bobby April has a lot to prove.
7 – They can still end up with a decent record this year, but a pretty decent draft pick seems more likely.

Wishing the Rs would oppose the President more often?

I was upset to hear that John Boehner was finally conceding that he would support President Obama's Middle Tax Cut Plan last week, as I think this is a dream scenario for the Dems, exposing the R's as beholden primarily to the wealthy ahead of the middle class.

But today he recanted and said he wouldn't vote for any bill that doesn't include tax cuts for the top 2%. Whew.

Now whether the Dems can avoid being equally stupid and can take full advantage of this remains to be seen.

And just to be clear - raisins have an IQ of about 17

The worst homemade Chocolate Chip cookie I've ever had is still better than the best store bought Chocolate Chip cookie I've ever had...as long as there are no dumb fruits in the homemade ones.

If they have any fruit in them, then you can pretty much reverse that statement.

Here's my take on who should be starting the rest of this year at QB for the Eagles:

If they want to win as many games as possible this year, they should be starting Michael Vick.

If they want to win as many games next year and for the foreseable future as possible, they should be starting Kevin Kolb.

I'd go with Kolb, until or unless he proves he'll never be what they hoped he would be.

Chance of a lifetime

Sometimes, though not often, I feel like I just am not in touch with my Progressive side....like when I see headlines, in this case from the Huffington Post, like this one:

Redskins Star Makes Shocking Claim About Female Reporters

OK, the headline isn't the problem, or at least until you read his shocking claim:

"Washington Redskins running back Clinton Portis spoke out about the situation on Tuesday....(explaining) that when there is a "nice woman" in a room with 53 men, they will "want to say something."

Portis didn't stop there. The Redskins star believes that Sainz was likely attracted to at least one of the Jets players. "You put a woman and you give her a choice of 53 athletes, somebody got to be appealing to her." he said. "Somebody got to spark her interest, or she's gonna want somebody. I don't know what kind of woman won't, if you get to go and look at 53 men's packages."

Maybe there is no better way to explain the mental differences between men and women than the scenario in which one gender would happen to enter the locker room of the opposite gender.

A woman insists she could do it without any titillation, as it were, and would be offended by any "catcalls" or being treated as a sex object, as was the apparent case with the reporter in the story above.

A guy in a room full of partially dressed female tennis players would have his head explode either from the choices of who or what to look at or by trying not to look. And the thought of being "subjected to" being thought of as a sex object by the women in the room? Seriously, does anyone of any gender or preference think the guy would be insulted by that?

Now, from personal experience, I can say that I once not only entered a women's locker room, but was lead into it by the female coach. More specifically, I was lead through the high school girl's locker room at a local private school where I was about to start as coach of the girl's volleyball team. We were about 4-5 strides in when the partially undressed girls yelped, the coach said "Oops, sorry!" and we kept walking.

How did I react? I shielded my eyes and looked down all in one motion. Seriously. And I never thought of it again. Not seriously.

A new category of onomonopia?

Not that one sees the word "ineffable" every day, as I did this morning in the NYT, but nowadays when I see it, it seems to have a whole new meaning, as if describing someone who...who what?
- can't be eff-ed with?
- is so out of your league, you could never dream of eff-ing them?
- is so ugly, you wouldn't dream of eff-ing them?

The word practically defies expression, it's like it's indescribable. It's practically, well, ineffable...old-school, that is.

Liberals love the crossdressers!

The second most viewed item on the Huffington Post this morning is this story about Demi Moore having a teenage boy try on her bikini: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/05/dave-days-wears-demi-moor_n_706069.html

No wonder Dems are going to lose so many elections this coming November, when we have important things like this to spend our time on.

A huge drop...of 3 points!

The latest Wall Street/NBC poll came out this morning and it shows that President Obama's approval/disapproval rate is 45/49. Considering 45.7% of folks voted against him in 2008, give me a minute while I do the math here...let's see, his disapproval rate has risen all of 3.3%! How precipitous.

Usually I like watching Foxes

I was watching Morning Joe on MSNBC this morning, and they were saying that the Dems are probably going to lose 50-60 seats in the upcoming congressional elections.

I decided I'd rather be angry than depressed, so I switched over to watch Fox News instead.