I hate change. One time an observant employer forced me to attend a course on "Change Management". The course was taught by a fat woman who dared to employ such extremist tactics as directing the attendees to remove their wrist watches and place them on their other arms! The fat woman, revelling in her success as the class gasped at this sudden and unexpected measure of changiness, instructed us to "sit there with our watches on our wrong arms and try to allow the sensation of change to wash over your bodies. Embrace the change." She knew how to create an atmosphere of change. I remember thinking, "fuck this crazy change shit". Then I was all like, "later fatty" and I rolled. Actually I stayed til the end of the day, but I left as soon as it was 5 o'clock and I didn't even pick up any of her pamphlets or give her my real email address.
Townsend, DE -- All the talk about Super Tuesday caused confusion for one man who was said to be experiencing more of a “Mediocre Tuesday”.
In theUnited States, Super Tuesday commonly refers to the Tuesday in early February or March of a presidential election year when the greatest number of states hold primary elections to select delegates to national conventions at which each party's presidential candidates are officially nominated.
“It all began this morning”, said the local Townsend resident who wishes to remain anonymous. “I planned to get up about a half hour early so I could go vote before my 8:00 a.m. meeting at work. Then, about 10 minutes before I planned to get up, my phone rings and it’s my neighbor. My stupid dog is out of our yard and has their stupid dog cornered in their stupid deck behind their stupid house. They told me to come get her”.
During today’s primary elections more delegates can be won than on any other single day of the primary calendar, and accordingly, candidates seeking the presidency traditionally must do well on this day to secure their party's nomination.
“I had to put on my pajama bottoms and flip flops to go out and find a flashlight in the garage so I could see while I walked all over the wet lawn in the dark trying to find my ill-bahaved dog” the visibly vexed man reported. “Then she wouldn’t come back over to our lawn because she knew her shock collar would zap her. I don’t even know how she’s getting out” the exasperated resident said.
In 2008, Super Tuesday is February 5; 24 states will hold primaries or caucuses on this date, with 52 percent of all pledged Democratic Party delegates and 41 percent of the total Republican Party delegates at stake.
“So I head over to the local polling place (an elementary school known for its secret locking doors that open one minute and then magically lock you in and/or out of the building when you least expect it and its dew-kissed, unmowed lawns which you have to walk around in while wearing your work shoes so you can find your way back into the building when its leprachauny locking doors have worked their magic on you) and get there at about 6:35 a.m. Of course they don’t open until 7. I can’t wait because I have a meeting at 8 at work. So I’ll have to go back after work.”
To increase importance of their votes, many states have moved up their primaries to February 5, 2008. This new, earlier cohort of primaries and caucuses has thus come to be referred to as "Super Tuesday." (By way of denoting its political magnitude, some pundits have variously dubbed it "Giga Tuesday," "Mega Giga Tuesday," "Tsunami Tuesday" or even "Super Duper Tuesday." "Super Tuesday" is, however, the nominal term and the one most widely used.)
“Then when I get to work I am immediately bludgeoned with about 15 assignments that are hurled at me from one of the 15 directors, managers and officers I indirectly report to. The idea of today being super is just a sham. What a misnomer. ‘Oh boy, can’t wait to go back to the zany locking door polling place to register my superfluous vote’” the man sighed as he typed these bitter words into his computer in his cramped and smelly cubicle sadly decorated with cute pictures hanging all over and work-approved motivational posters about “Behavioral Styles” and “Be Here Now” hanging all over the place.
by: fileboy
posted by File Boy & D.Tkon at 3:45 PM
11 Comments:
I wonder if Hilary Rodupherass Clinton becomes president... will she get oral from an intern?
I don't think anyone who has the honor of becoming President of the United States of America would ever stoop to such a level as
a.) cheating on their spouse,
b.) cheating on their spouse on hallowed ground,
c.) cheating on their spouse with a direct report thus eschewing all of the advances women have made in the workforce for a moment of pleasure,
d.) lying about it under oath, and e.) betraying the trust of all of the Americans who worked so hard to put said person in office and take time out of their lives to vote for them thinking they were a candidate "of the people". These kinds of things might happen in our ho-hum existences in the trenches of corporate America and in all of the various 9-5 environments, but NEVER in the oval office and NEVER by a person in power. Why, it would be unthinkable!
Plus no one wants to be anywhere near her, um, "oral area".
As long as they don't suspend habeas corpus, spy on Americans, blow a war harder than any we've ever blown, and piss all over America by torturing prisoners... I don't really care what they do what their sex life, even if they're cheating on their spouse, whether it's Clinton & Lewinsky, Kennedy & Monroe, or Thomas Jefferson & Elizabeth Walker/Maria Cosway/Sally Hemings/maybe even her half-sister Mary/probably Betty Brown...
Touche. You have made a good point. Our politicians, even those we celebrate, have fallen short of the glory of God.
But your argument seems to say that other presidents cheated, so just because one does it now isn't important. I agree that the USA PATRIOT ACT (insert additional references to other shortfalls of our current administration here) is a sham for spying on citizens, I'm just not sure I like the alternative.
I know a few people who still cling to their beliefs that cheating on your spouse (thus breaking your sacred oath) is wrong. If you can break that oath, what difference is it to you that you break other oaths?
To quote a Hyundai commercial: "Don't like your nose? Get a new one. Don't like your boss? Get a new one. Don't like your spouse? Get a new one. Whatever happened to commitment?"
It would be great if we all could stick to our commitments, but we're imperfect. It's not that infidelity isn't important now because past presidents have cheated. It's just that it may not be a good indicator of a generalized faithlessness that would make one a "bad" president.
Did the first Bush cheat on his wife? He DID break his oath not to raise taxes. Where's the correlation?
About.com's "Divorce Support" page has some infidelity statistics showing that it may be an all-too-common human failing, rather than an exceptional mark of a dangerously faithless rogue.
Have you ever cheated:
* Yes: 41%
* No: 59%
Have you ever been cheated on:
* Yes: 68%
* No: 32%
Would you be unfaithful if you knew you wouldn't be caught:
* Yes: 8%
* No: 92%
Husbands who admit to cheating on their spouse:
* 1 in 20 or 5%
Wives who admit to cheating on their spouse:
* 1 in 22 or 4.55%
Number of men who take off their rings when they go out without the spouse:
* 1 out of every 3
Percentage of cheating men who are caught:
* 80%
Percentage of marriages that stay together after infidelity:
* 64%
Following your logic I could insert anything in lieu of the word "cheating", and it in and of itself would not mean a person would make a "bad" president.
Let's try inserting: "drug addict". There were a lot of Democrats whot were gung-ho about how Bush Jr. had a dui and there were allegations of cocaine abuse. Why did the Democrats even bring those things up then?
Insert the word: "Child Porn enthusiast". What if your president was into that, but it had no effect on his/her ability to rule the country. He/she liked that kind of porn, but when it came to making the big decisions about war and taxes, they were right-on. And the economy did well when they were in office. Would you say that problem didn't matter either?
What I hate from either party is this notion that certain failures are meaningless in their leaders. Republicans should stand up and say we have a bad president now, and Democrats should admit that Clinton wasn't great either. Democrats should express some disappointment in their leader when he's perjured himself and cheated and did all that. If this happened, maybe we'd have better candidates to chose from instead of having to pick someone who is already so corrupt because he/she has ties to the party and certain allegances that trump what's best for the citizens.
You can't insert much in lieu of "cheating". Drug addiction that severaly affects one's behavior and reason. Child pornography is widely regarded as a sign of deep psychological disturbance. Both of those would be "bad" for a president.
The original point: The infidelities of past presidents like Jefferson are a very common personal failing that have little to do with the running of the nation. Distracting small potatoes compared to the calamitous blunders and Republic-threatening abuses of power of the present administration.
It's about levels of stupidity. They got away with cheating because back then people didn't pry, paparazzi weren't common, and the news turned a blind eye. Clinton should have known better than to: 1.) do it in the first place, 2.) do it with a blabbermouth, 3.) do it with someone he couldn't blackmail into shutting the f*** up about it, 4.) do it without covering his tracks, 5.) get caught, 6.) lie about it, 7.) do it in the Oval office, and 8.) think the news wouldn't be all over it like cheap on polyester. How stupid can you be? The issue isn't cheating. The issue is being so stupid as to do it and get caught.
you're right - I was stupid to draw a relationship between the deep emotional disturbance of an individual who enjoys child porn and the deep emotional disturbance displayed by an individual who enjoys cheating on their spouse, ruining a family, and exposing a loved-one to disease. What was I thinking? Cheating isn't really bad after all. The statistics bear it out. Everyone's doing it. Fuck it, let's all cheat. Good point.
I don't think there's much comparison between infidelity and child pornography and I think despite your sarcasm you know that.
As far as infidelity goes, I doubt there are many who "enjoy cheating on their spouse, ruining a family, and exposing a loved-one to disease". I would think they would be regrets.
I also don't think infidelity is a sign of "deep emotional disturbance". Given how common it is, does that mean all those cheaters are "deeply emotionally disturbed"? By what standard? It seems they are closer to the norm, given their numbers.
And cheating is bad, of course. Who would disagree with that? But to return to the original point that everyone continues to skirt, presidential infidelity has been with us since Jefferson and probably before. Does it really compare to domestic spying, badly launched and fought wars, torture, and disregard for the Constitution?
You have a valid point - cheating only effects the cheater, the person he's cheating with and their families. While it may be the most painful thing a couple ever has to go through, and while it may even end the marriage and displace children, it pales in comparison to domestic spying, but then again, that is your term for the war on terror, which is evidence of semantics on both sides.
"Launching a poorly fought war" is misleading as well. The war has been fought incredibly well, as is evidenced by the low number of casulties we've suffered compared to the other side. Declaring war is like a bell, once rung you can't "unring" it. Knowing that both sides were pro-war (including Hillary Clinton and others) at the time, based on whatever faulty evidence they had to go on, lessens the effictiveness of your argument. Whatever the motivation was to go in, we've done a hell of a job while there. Maybe we should not have gone in, hindsigh is always 20/20. Maybe it doesn't result in any tangible benefits for either side. But, that bell was rung by both Republicans and Democrats (with the exception of a few, most notably Obama).
A lot has been made about the Jefferson (et al) cheating issue, which reminds me of a child who scores poorly on a test but points out that other students did poorly also and the teacher is mean. That doesn' make it ok to do poorly. In law, a defense that other people broke the same law and got away with it holds no water.
Post a Comment
<< Home