JUSTIN BIEBER AIN'T GOT NO HAIR!!!

Just a little background here, folks. When I was a student at Wayne High School in what is now Huber Heights, Ohio we had an expression for a male who exhibited a lack of enthusiasm for taking up a challenge. It was said of such a one that he "didn't have the hair" for it.

 

The hair being referenced therein was not, of course, the hair on one's head but rather the bodily hair that signalled the transformation from boy to man. Today this attitude may be considered somewhat skewed, but it is the American Midwestern ethos I came of age in.

 

Well, that was then and this is now, but really not a whole lot has changed. Well, maybe social norms and such have changed, but reality has not. At some point in your life, you need to "have the hair" to deal with it. "The hair" of course refers to the secondary sex carachteristic that appears around puberty and manifests itself chiefly in the armpits and the pubic area.

 

Two days ago, a photograph of Justin Beiber laying in a bed was released and aired on TMZ.  His left arm is behind his head, and the pose exposes a left armpit with no trace of hair growth.

 

I wonder if he shaves his pubic area. Not that I care, but he seems to want to be such a tough guy. We have not seen such a conflict between pretence and reality since Humphrey Bogart.

 

Hey, Bieber. How's about we set up a wrestling match between you and me? Not "Greco-Roman"; I'm thinking more "mixed martial arts".   You are - what? 18? - and I am 60. If you accept, I will kick your young ass. (and don't think a couple weeks studying Krav Maga will help. I hold rank in both the karate philosphy of Shotokan and the realm of Aikido.)

 

Anyway, Justin; you can accept the challenge via the "comments: widget. However, I am not holding my breath. You ain't got the hair, puddin' haid.

 

 

PSST, REPUBLICANS! STOP TAKING DEMOCRAT ADVICE!

Okay, look you RNC "Establishment" types, I've been watching you guys for a while. And I've noticed a pattern. When some Democrat pundit or operative remarks that if "the Republicans expect to win, they are going to have to (insert the thing the Democrats want the Republicans to do so the Republicans WILL NOT WIN ) or risk alienating (insert name of "minority" "etnic group" etc.) and losing the election"; the leadership of the Republican Party begins doing exactly that.

 

Why the HELL do you think that the Democrat party is trying to give you ADVICE??  News flash, you idiots: Obama and the Democrat Party are trying to GET RID OF YOU! When they say these sort of things, it's like they are telling you to back up a bit more to get more of the scenery in the picture, and you keep backing up. They're hoping you'll step back into the FUCKING GRAND CANYON YOU FOOLS!

 

Look at what you old Establishment types are trying to do to the TEA party. You are aiding and abetting the Democrats who fear the TEA party. You have purged almost all the important committees of TEA party people. Well, we aren't going anywhere.  Did you perhaps notice Senator Rand Paul's 11-hour filibuster yesterday? That filibuster was discussed like nobody's business on Twitter and other "social network media". And all indicators say that Rand Paul got the message across to the 18-34 voting demographic, loud and clear.

 

And consider that the 3.000 McCain voters who could have gotten Obama out of the White House had they not stayed home on Election Day are mostly "Ron Paulistas".  Rand is the son of Ron, and he will attract a lot of his pop's fans.

 

More importantly, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mario Rubio and others are becoming the very public faces of the movement that, if played right, will leave Obama facing veto-proof majorities in both houses plus a cloture-proof majority in the Senate come November 2014.

 

Meanwhile, the Democrats act like a burglar who advises his victim that if he doesn't leave his house unlocked his neighbors will think that he mistrusts them and will be offended. And the Republicans are acting like the idiot homeowner who follows the burglar's advice and is shocked to wake up the next morning to find all his stuff gone. And then wonders why his neighbors think he's an idiot.

 

Don't listen to the Democrat burglars. Listen to Rand and Ted and Mario. Vote Republican in November 2014, impeach Obama January 2015.  

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

Sic Semper Tyrannis. Thus do we here at the Alexandria Daily Poop bid good riddance to Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez, who died of cancer of the asshole yesterday (Some folks say it was prostate cancer, but even if it was lung cancer, in Chavez's case it was still cancer of the asshole).

 

Chavez was a player right out of the Castroite chapter of the Marxist playbook. He achieved "social equality" by making everybody poor, of course enriching himself in the process. He nationalized the petroleum industry in Venezuela and all but wrecked it.

 

Chavez disarmed the citizenry and made them so dependent on government handouts that people in that country yesterday mourned, saying: "Who will take care of us now?" That, by the way, is the path Current Resident Obama is attempting to take the nation down.

 

In the end, all of Chavez's pilfered wealth could not save him. Now a line of Venezuelans waits to piss into his grave and then dance on it.

 

Rest in Peace? Hardly. Sic Semper Tyrannis - thus always unto tyrants.

SOMETIMES I WONDER ABOUT PEOPLES' PRIORITIES

I was just checking the stats for this blog, and to my surprise by far the most "page views" are my recounting my experience with Boston Market's "Tuscan Chicken" which, as I said, is nothing but boring old rotisserie chicken with some spices on the skin. Variants on "Tuscan Chicken" are also the most common search words since I wrote that piece.

 

Of course I am aware that most folks read at least one or two other posts before moving on. I'll take what I can get.

 

Any port in a storm, as the wino said as he drank his MD20/20 in the Bowery as "Superstorm Sandy" blew in.

 

(I'm pretty sure nobody tunes in here for the lame jokes).

THE NETWORKS CAN AND SHOULD DO BETTER THAN "REALITY SHOWS"

Aren't you sick and tired of watching a bunch of people thrown together in a situation wherein mutual cooperation is needed for survival - and then are slathered with motives to betray and shaft each other for a prize?

 

Do you really enjoy watching a bunch of lard-ass waddlers trying to lose the most weight for a prize? Hells bells, people. If you really are entertained by a watching a bunch of fat pigs trying to sweat off the weight, go over to the YMCA and see if you can't get them to build an observation lounge over the excersize room (the membership "fitness clubs" and gyms only have people who aare already fit. You need to go to the Y to see the real sweathogs torture themselves).

 

"AMERICAN IDOL"???!!! GOOD LORD. That and its ilk have week upon week of excruciatingly awful and lame "acts" before someone who possibly has some real talent emerges. For the most part you could be treated to screeching, yowling, and acrobatics just by dabbing some turpentine on the family cat's asshole and watching it tear all over the house. And this with no commercial interruption!

 

Why do people like to watch a bunch of people engaging in office politics while they brown-nose the boss? And this applies equally to "The Apprentice" and "The Office" (and speaking of "The Office": who gives a fuck about Scranton, Pennsylvania? Scranton gave us Joe Biden. Thanks a pantload, Scranton). Don't you people get enough "office reality" AT THE OFFICE ALREADY??

 

Really, it's time to bring back the good, old-fashioned variety show. The hell with "America's Idols Got Talent". Screw watching a bunch of weight watchers watching their lard. Have some host present a show full of real talent from around the world. It's been done. It was called the "Ed Sullivan Show". 

 

You name it, it might be on Ed's show any given Sunday night. Mom and Dad might want to watch for Robert Preston singing a scene from "The Music Man" while the kids waited for, oh, say THE BEATLES. And in between, acts nobody ever heard of that were fascinating. Maybe a Mongolian "throat singer" or a troupe of acrobats from Burma.  Perhaps violinist Isaac Stern or flamenco guitarist Carlos Montoya; Spanish puppeteer Senor Wences. George Carlin took a turn or two on Sullivan's show. So did Jonathon Winters, the master comedian from my hometown of Dayton, Ohio.

 

There are great sitcoms and dramas still out there, too. "Big Bang Theory" is hi-freaking-larious (I'd like to see them improve it by having Clint Eastwood play a retired detective recalled to the cold-case squad move in down the hall: his interactions with particularly Sheldon would be a riot); and "Criminal Minds" is a great crime drama.

 

Doesn't that sound better than watching a bunch of people stab each other in the back, sing off-key, or jiggle their man-tits doing jumping jacks?  Get a pen and some paper and write the networks; and demand some entertainment in exchange for your watching the damn stupid commercials.

 

Or, we suppose you could save on electricity by turpentining your cat. Your call.

LET'S HAVE TERM LIMITS FOR ALL REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS, AND GO BACK TO ELECTING SENATORS BY VOTE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES

I've always been skeptical of having "term limits" imposed on Senators and members of the House. After all, the populace has an opportunity to "term limit" every single house member and a third of the Senate every two years. 

I suppose that's the way our Founders envisioned things. And there were damned few things that the Founders did not forsee, at least in the abstract. Maybe they didn't forsee the telephone and E-mail, but basically these are just modern forms of "speech and the press"; just like this blog is sort of a modern broadside. And as far as weaponry goes, maybe they didn't specifically forsee the AK-47 and the M-16; but they certainly knew that "arms" - which are what the Second Amendment refers to, MILITARY BATTLEFIELD WEAPONRY carried by the common light infantryman - would steadily improve. (there was even an attempt to have a "full auto" musket, based on the technology of the Roman candle).

 

One thing they did not forsee, however, was the rise of the Professional Politician. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a man aged 70 was old, indeed. The mortality rates of the day made "professional politicians" a self-solving problem. Some Congressmen and Senators served at length, but they were the exception and not the rule. 

 

Senators have always served multiple, consecutive terms, but "Senators for Life" like Robert Byrd were fairly rare. And the Senate was after all meant to provide a modicum of stability to the Legislature.

 

Today, however things have come to such a pass that recently a Congressman who was voted out of some Eastern state remarked that maybe he would run for Congress in a state out West because "(he) heard that there's a seat coming open there". As if he were a plumber who was thinking of packing up and setting up a Roto-Rooter franchise on the other side of the country. 

 

It's high time we acted to break up the big caucuses and little cliques formed by these professional pols.  After a set number of terms, let them be forced to return to the civilian population and live under the conditions they have created. It's time for term limits on Senators and Congresspersons. 

 

As concerns the House of Representatives, each member should be limited to four consecutive terms, after which he or she would not be able to run for either the House or the Senate for ten years. Representatives serving fewer than four consecutive terms should be barred from running for the House or for the Senate for a period equal to the number of years of consecutive service. 

 

As to the Senate, Senators should be limited to serving during a period of 18 years following their first being seated in the Senate. That is, a Senator may be sworn in and serve six years; but win or lose he may only run in the next two Senate races for his seat. In any case, 18 years after a Senator is first seated and regardless of the outcome of the other two races for that seat during that time period (and regardless of whether the Senator chooses to run or not); his or her "career" in the Federal Legislature is OVER and he or she shall not hold the position of United States Representative nor United States Senator again (but may if elected Vice President cast the deciding vote in a split and may - if House rules provide for it - be appointed Speaker of the House by the House membership. 

 

Finally, let's repeal the popular election of Senators and replace it with the original method of having them chosen by the State legislatures. I think that would be a great way to get people more concerned about just who it is they are sending to the State capital. Plus, these United States Senators have houses in the D.C. area and spend much of their time away from the influence of their constituents. State legislators have no such cozy insulation, and would know that there woudl be no escaping the wrath of citizens who saw them as having inflicted them with a Bozo Senator; and so would probably be very careful who they sent to the Senate. 

 

I'm not Jaques Pepi'n, but these are "term limits my way". (cue French accordion music)  

THIS IS UNFAIR!!

Pardon us, but isn't it the folks on the Left who are always calling people "bullies"? And yet the other day veteran Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward - he of "Deep Throat" and Watergate fame - recieved an E-mail from one of Obama's flunkies telling him that he would "regret" having said out loud that Obama was flat out lying his ass off about the "sequester" and the Republicans. 

 

This is just so damn unfair. And not to Bob Woodward, either. We at the Alexandria Daily Poop find this incredibly unfair to US. 

 

We shall explain:

 

One of our key policies here is to deliberately write our political posts in such a manner as to muddy the line as to where the serious ends and the bullshit begins. Some of the stuff in here is dead serious and some of it is satire and reductio ad absurdem. We are kind of like the Garry Trudeau of the Right, except that we don't say stuff that isn't true and try to disguise it as a cartoon. What we like to do is provide as true and account as possible of something Obama or one of his cronies has done, and then lampoon the hell out of it. 

 

This can be hard as all hell sometimes. Right now we are trying to decide whether Maxine Waters (D - California) or Vice President Joe Biden is more deserving of being compared to Martha Mitchell; the loud-mouthed cocktail fuelled blabbermouth wife of Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell. It's a tough choice. 

 

But we've also called Mr. Obama a liar and a fraud time and again. And for the record, he's a piece of shit, and we've said so several times in this blog. 

 

For all this, neither Mr. Obama nor any of his flunkies have E-mailed us to say we would "regret" the writing. And this deprives us of an opportunity.

 

That would be the opportunity to hit "reply" and write:

 

EAT A DICK,

 

Bobby, my man, if you are one of our three readers then you owe it to us to send that E-mail reply to Obama's flunky.If a puny little obscure blog like US would't take that crap from Obama, why do you. It's just damned unfair, is all it is.