Archive for October 23rd, 2008


Small-Town Charm is Pricey!

October 23rd, 2008 by Jenn DiSanto

From CBS News: GOP spends $150,000 on clothes/makeup/hair for Palins.

The McCain campaign released a statement late Tuesday night saying, “With all the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.”

Well, OK, great, but also?

“The problem with this for the campaign,” explains Politico Chief Political Writer Mike Allen, “is it’s the kind of thing that can stick in people’s minds. At a time when they’re cutting back on their own spending, they see a candidate looking extravagant.”

You think? That $400 John Edwards haircut is looking like he went to friggin’ Supercuts now, isn’t it? (You betcha!)

I have no evidence for this, but I’d be surprised if this was the only time this kind of money has been spent on a politician’s appearance. (They said something about Hillary Clinton in that story, for instance.) It’s just not a great time for the story to hit such a mainstream source.

By the way, if what they’re saying is true, some “charitable organization” is going to be tricked OUT in some suits. Dude, I’ll take some of those off your hands!

P.S. Oh, snap, it’s in People, too? With slightly more info, which is kind of disconcerting.

P.P.S. It’s really hard to “donate” hair and makeup maintenance to the tune of $4,716.49. Are you serious? She’s been campaigning for six weeks and you’ve dropped almost five grand? Do the highlights come with a happy ending?

spread the panic!
[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Fark] [Google] [Mixx] [MySpace] [Newsvine] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »
└ Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Live and let… um… you know…

October 23rd, 2008 by Waldorf Van Buren

From CBS News -

San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K – a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.

It won’t be long, I’m sure, before the fundamentalist fanatics come out of the woodwork, clamoring about immorality and the fall of our country, or perhaps even calling upon God to strike down the already godless San Francisco Bay Area. You know what I say to those uptight assholes? I say that you might want to partake as a customer to lighten your sense of frustration and outrage. I am certain that you will see the light and cry out “Oh God!” at the end of your experiment. If you ask, I’m sure you will even find those of different (or without) faiths utter these words. So, it’s really a win-win situation.

Why must we make laws regulating morality? It’s not all morality, either, just what the loudest voices claim is morality. Why is it immoral to allow consenting adults the choice to engage in a free market proposition of barter/money for stress-relieving pleasures but not immoral to deny access to health coverage for our fellow citizens? Why can’t someone get their anus tickled with a feather for a sawbuck if they so desire, but the moralists claim authority by allowing rights to be trampled by the ruling aristocracy “majority”?

No, it doesn’t make sense. But when something doesn’t make sense, we simply throw up our hands and claim it to be God’s will, or a mystery, or the bones have spoken or (insert some other mystical nonsense here).

I feel very strongly about this, not because I have a penchant for prostitutes (I get my stress relief for free), but because I want the stigma of sex erased from our culture. I do not care if a congressman (or woman) had an affair with another consenting adult or if he fathered a child with a staffer, or if he tapped his foot while in a restroom stall. As long as the encounter is consensual, we have NO right to know what they were doing in private. I don’t care whose fault it is for first legislating morality, nor do I care who the first person was to expose a sex “scandal.”  I think the whole thing is bogus, and about as relevant as what color (if any) underwear a politician is currently wearing.

Just stop making laws against sex.In fact, repeal laws against consenting adult sex and sexual acts. It will make us all a little less uptight, more honest, and let us live our own lives without wondering who is in whose pants.

spread the panic!
[Ask] [Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Fark] [Google] [Mixx] [MySpace] [Newsvine] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [Sphere] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »
└ Tags: , , , , ,