Lesbian Date My Mom!!! Has to be good

Lesbian Date My Mom could only end in such shenanigans. Note the obvious literary reference and enjoy the clip.

Click Here

Potential Nominees to the Supreme Court

As you all know, GW (song provided by Steveo) has got his candidate John Roberts approved to be Supreme Court MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE. So, thanks to the timely death of Renquist, there is yet another opening. Who will he chose? Well lets look at some of the candidates:

Yoda:

+'s Wisest Jedi in the Universe
-'s Muppet

Judge Dredd:

+'s His sense of justice is eye for an eye
-'s Incoherent ramblings of Sly Stallone make decisions from 8 judges instead of 9
-'s Judicial intern Rob Schneider

Judge Ito:

+'s Asian
+'s Plays a mean Jazz Flute
+'s Inability to control Defense when media involved leads to passage of "The Whore and Bong Act of 2006"
-'s Suicide inevitable after Jazz Flute LP flops miserably

Just some considerations

Check This Web Site Out

The saddest thing is this guy really thinks this is amazing and artistic when sadly it's probably the funniest thing I've seen all week.
Check out the music video!

Tell Me What You Think of This!

Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says
By Ceci ConnollyWashington Post Staff Writer

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.
Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.In providing nearly $170 million next year to fund groups that teach abstinence only, the Bush administration, with backing from the Republican Congress, is investing heavily in a just-say-no strategy for teenagers and sex. But youngsters taking the courses frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists, said the report, by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), a critic of the administration who has long argued for comprehensive sex education.

Several million children ages 9 to 18 have participated in the more than 100 federal abstinence programs since the efforts began in 1999. Waxman's staff reviewed the 13 most commonly used curricula -- those used by at least five programs apiece.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:
• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

"I have no objection talking about abstinence as a surefire way to prevent unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases," Waxman said. "I don't think we ought to lie to our children about science. Something is seriously wrong when federal tax dollars are being used to mislead kids about basic health facts."

When used properly and consistently, condoms fail to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) less than 3 percent of the time, federal researchers say, and it is not known how many gay teenagers are HIV-positive. The assertion regarding gay teenagers may be a misinterpretation of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found that 59 percent of HIV-infected males ages 13 to 19 contracted the virus through homosexual relations.

Joe. S. McIlhaney Jr., who runs the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, which developed much of the material that was surveyed, said he is "saddened" that Waxman chose to "blast" well-intentioned abstinence educators when there is much the two sides could agree on.
McIlhaney acknowledged that his group, which publishes "Sexual Health Today" instruction manuals, made a mistake in describing the relationship between a rare type of infection caused by chlamydia bacteria and heart failure. Chlamydia also causes a common type of sexually transmitted infection, but that is not linked to heart disease. But McIlhaney said Waxman misinterpreted a slide that warns young people about the possibility of pregnancy without intercourse. McIlhaney said the slide accurately describes a real, though small, risk of pregnancy in mutual masturbation.

Congress first allocated money for abstinence-only programs in 1999, setting aside $80 million in grants, which go to a variety of religious, civic and medical organizations. To be eligible, groups must limit discussion of contraception to failure rates.

President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years. It does not appear that the abstinence-only curricula are being taught in the Washington area.

Waxman and other liberal sex-education proponents argue that adolescents who take abstinence-only programs are ill-equipped to protect themselves if they become sexually active. According to the latest CDC data, 61 percent of graduating high school seniors have had sex.
Supporters of the abstinence approach, also called abstinence until marriage, counter that teaching young people about "safer sex" is an invitation to have sex.

Alma Golden, deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the Department of Health and Human Services, said in a statement that Waxman's report is a political document that does a "disservice to our children." Speaking as a pediatrician, Golden said, she knows "abstaining from sex is the most effective means of preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, STDs and preventing pregnancy."

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.

Bill Smith, vice president of public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a comprehensive sex education group that also receives federal funding, said the Waxman report underscored the need for closer monitoring of what he called the "shame-based, fear-based, medically inaccurate messages" being disseminated with tax money. He said the danger of abstinence education lies in the omission of useful medical information.
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

(Bolded phrases were done by me the Pineapple man)

Kudo's Bush!

Finally, Bush admits he screwed up.... kinda. I was very pleased with his speech last night (9/15/05) purely because I saw something I never saw from this president before, remorse (however fake you want to think it was).

"Bush -- who earlier this week took responsibility for a disaster response widely seen as sluggish and confused -- said the federal government would henceforth react to large disasters differently.

He conceded "the system, at every level of government, was not well coordinated and was overwhelmed in the first few days." "It is now clear that a challenge on this scale requires greater federal authority," he said, "and a broader role for the armed forces -- the institution of our government most capable of massive logistical operations on a moment's notice."
The president called on U.S. cities to have "clear and up-to-date plans for responding to natural disasters, disease outbreaks or terrorist attacks, for evacuating large numbers of people in an emergency and for providing the food, water and security they would need."
"I consider detailed emergency planning to be a national security priority," he said.

"
Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/16/bush.main/index.html)

After all the stuff that Bush has done that has proven wrong, this is the first time that he actually admitted to dropping the ball to some degree. He even covered a main point from my previous post. The US should be better prepared for a natural disaster or attack. The only upside about the Hurricane is, it has no agenda and won't continue to bother us like say Al Qaeda ( I know there will be more hurricanes smart ass but thats not the point). I listen to Sean Hannity on the way home every morning, mainly so I get pissed enough to go to the gym, and it is funny how he was knocking people for critizing Bush but then he turns around and points fingers at the Mayor and the Governor. So it's ok to point fingers, just not at people of your own party. Hypocrit. Here's my answer to Captain Conservative. If you are in an operating room and the intern is performing a surgery and something drastic happens, the doctor takes over. If he can't handle it, the chief of surgery takes over. This happens in a matter of minutes. It took us almost two weeks to react to a problem and begin dealing with it. In the current day and age, that is totally unacceptable and hopefully steps can be made to prevent that in the future.

p.s. search "Failure" from google.com and see what the top entry is. Someone has a sense of humor.

Just So People Know Where I'm Coming From

I've been getting alot of flak (again) recently for my views on life. I would like to use this post to clarify how I view the world, if you don't like it, check this out and bang your head into a wall for four hours (I have to admit I moved the cursor over their names for about 5 minutes at full volume before I even realized it).

Gun Control:
For ( 1+ Republican)

Big Government:
Against (1+ Republican)

Prayer in Schools:
Against (1+ Democrat)

Abortion:
??? (1+ ???)

Death Penalty:
For in most cases (1+ Republican)

Affirmative Action: (2 pics)
Against (0+ Republican, 0+ Democrat)

Social Security:
Against (1+ Republican)

Flat Tax:
For (1+ Teve Torbes)

Capitolism:
For (1+ Republican)

Universal Health Care:
Against (1+ Republican)

Operation "Iraqi Freedom": (no sense picture, just funny)
Against (Well I guess that 1+ Democrat, gotta support the troops or die)

Free Air Waves i.e. REAL freedom of speech (i.e. not flipping out when we see a breast on TV):
FOR: (1+ Democrat)

Total:
Republican: 6
Democrat: 3
Other: 2

So why am I so "liberal" huh.... good question. First off, my main two points of disention with the current adminstration are 1) Where they think God belongs.(apparently everywhere) 2) Questioning leadership isn't "liberal" its fucking American assholes. You've read enough of my stuff to know where I lie without me repeating myself like Kanye West.

Some thoughts on New Orleans

I have taken alot of flak from my family for my views on this issue, so I will use the only forum they don't read to blatantly attack them! :) I would like to start where all issues in America should start, the top. I will quote an article for you to read and then add a little of my own "wisdom."

"Every city and town in Louisiana that wasn't blasted by the hurricane is full of evacuees. Then there are the tens of thousands in Texas and the multitudes scattered across neighboring states. Their host communities have the best of intentions, but many won't be able to stand the added drain on resources indefinitely. Where will these people go? Why wasn't there a plan?
That's when I start my finger-pointing, because a few days in and around this ground zero have convinced me that there are two things the federal government failed to do, and that for these failures there's ultimately no one to blame but the president.

First, an administration that since Sept. 11, 2001, has told us a major terrorist strike is inevitable should have had in place a well-elaborated plan for evacuating a major American city. Even if there wasn't a specific plan for New Orleans -- although it was clear that a breach of the city's levees was one of the likeliest natural catastrophes -- there should have been a generic plan. George W. Bush told us time and again that our cities were threatened. Shouldn't he have ordered up a plan to get people out?

Second, someone should have thought about what to do with hundreds of thousands of evacuees, both in the days after a disaster and in the long term. As people flooded out of New Orleans, it was officials at the state and local level who rose to the challenge, making it up as they went along. Bring a bunch of people to the Astrodome. We have a vacant hotel that we can use. Send a hundred or so down to our church and we'll do the best we can."

~Eugene Robinson

The most valid point in this article has to be this: A president who is constantly holding the threat of a terrorist attack on a major American city should have plans to evacuate cities in case such an attack or disaster takes place. Isn't this why we have a department of homeland security? This President organized our Department of Homeland Security. Clearly, it is a huge piece of crap. What if a nuclear bomb went off in Atlanta? Would the government take 5 days to react (or would they just invade France for no reason at all)? Would the government just randomly send people in buses to random cities without telling them what to hope for in the future? Probably so, hopefully no. I hope that we can learn from this horrible disaster and prepare for the future, hopefully when Iraq uses their "weapons of mass distruction" against us.
We have a responsiblity to our citizens to look after them. In times of trouble, people will always look to the government, the government better have answers or they will be critizied like you have seen recently.


p.s. To all you "liberal media" assholes, what do you think Bill O'Reiley, Sean Hannity, and all the fox news bunch would say if a democrat or independant was the president ? HOW BOUT THEM APPLES?!?