Former Clinton stomping ground named “meanest city” toward homeless– Data also shows it’s not too good for those with homes, either

Some group called the “National Coalition for the Homeless” (must be a real challenge when they have to send out a mailer) has declared Little Rock, Arkansas as the worst place to be if you’re homeless. According to the story, the building of the Clinton Presidential Library and Bowling Metroplex added to the misery for the housing-challenged by displacing a bunch of homeless folks. Not surprising that the man with a monopoly on compassion allowed that to happen. Things in Arkansas were never good under Clinton, especially for minorities.

For most of the ’80s, as Arkansas governor, Clinton did his best to see to it that blacks didn’t fall for all that “decade of greed” talk, with 1990 census statistics showing white families with a median income of $22,550, and black families at $12,128. Good thing Clinton was there to fight for them, or else black families in Arkansas would have finished the ’80s owing money.

Not really what you would expect from the man who author Toni Morrison once called “our first black president.” If that’s true, he’s one hell of an Uncle Tom.

In 2001, the historic landmark, the Choctaw Terminal, built in part by craftsmen who were former slaves, a building which was truly a piece of black history, was leveled to make room for the Clinton Presidential Library. Arkansas finally gets a library and it’s got to be smack on top of a piece of black history? Not something a “black president” would do, I wouldn’t imagine.

For Little Rock, getting the title “worst place to be homeless” is far more desirable than “best place to be homeless”, but to get that title, construction would have to cease on all the Clinton monuments, which ain’t gonna happen.

Would threats of a "pro Bush" speech at the Academy Awards be enough to get the show cancelled?

The 77th annual Academy Awards are still over three months away, but I was thinking about the Oscars this morning, and how distraught most of Malibu must be right now. That said, there are conservative actors, and now they’re more motivated than ever. Would any of them have the guts to give a “pro Bush” speech at the Oscars? The very thought of that would scare the Vera Wang off any leftist starlet. The Academy would sooner cancel than let that happen. If they got word that an actor was preparing a “pro Bush” acceptance speech, you’d probably see a press release along these lines, announcing the cancellation of the show:

“The fine actors and actresses who grace this stage are expected to behave with decorum, decency, and voice their opposition to all war and tax cuts, have a profound interest in freeing the Tibetan people, believe that meat is murder, Bush stole the 2000 election, and probably even the 2004 election, support the ramming of whaling vessels, oppose medical testing on animals, are pro gun control, anti logging, demand freedom for Leonard Peltier, loudly denounce the shafting of Native Americans, want a ban on fossil fuels and nuclear weapons, fly their private 747’s thousands of miles to attend summits on ozone depletion, believe you can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms, want free medical care, spray paint fur coats, and encourage everyone to worship L. Ron Hubbard. Anything other than these common principles is simply political grandstanding, and will not be tolerated. Once this pro-Bush individual is identified and the proper precautions are taken, we will consider the rescheduling of the Oscars.”

Hey…could happen.

Would threats of a “pro Bush” speech at the Academy Awards be enough to get the show cancelled?

The 77th annual Academy Awards are still over three months away, but I was thinking about the Oscars this morning, and how distraught most of Malibu must be right now. That said, there are conservative actors, and now they’re more motivated than ever. Would any of them have the guts to give a “pro Bush” speech at the Oscars? The very thought of that would scare the Vera Wang off any leftist starlet. The Academy would sooner cancel than let that happen. If they got word that an actor was preparing a “pro Bush” acceptance speech, you’d probably see a press release along these lines, announcing the cancellation of the show:

“The fine actors and actresses who grace this stage are expected to behave with decorum, decency, and voice their opposition to all war and tax cuts, have a profound interest in freeing the Tibetan people, believe that meat is murder, Bush stole the 2000 election, and probably even the 2004 election, support the ramming of whaling vessels, oppose medical testing on animals, are pro gun control, anti logging, demand freedom for Leonard Peltier, loudly denounce the shafting of Native Americans, want a ban on fossil fuels and nuclear weapons, fly their private 747’s thousands of miles to attend summits on ozone depletion, believe you can’t hug your kids with nuclear arms, want free medical care, spray paint fur coats, and encourage everyone to worship L. Ron Hubbard. Anything other than these common principles is simply political grandstanding, and will not be tolerated. Once this pro-Bush individual is identified and the proper precautions are taken, we will consider the rescheduling of the Oscars.”

Hey…could happen.

Now they're blaming us for their unwatchable movies

You just have to love Hollywood, in a “loser brother-in-law who won’t get a job, drinks all your beer and keeps you entertained due to your sheer amazement at his stupidity” sort of way. Now they’re blaming Bush and his ilk when their films tank.

Paramount Films’ “Alfie”, about a womanizer, played by Jude Law, was a total floater at the box office after it opened. Wayne Llewellyn, the president of distribution at Paramount, said that the conservative ethos reflected in last week’s election results might have hurt the film. Quoted in the New York Times (so you know it must be true) , Llewellyn said, “It could be the mood of the country right now. It seems to be the result of the election. Maybe they didn’t want to see a guy that slept around.”

There you go. It’s Bush’s fault, and it’s your fault. Could it be that their film blew chunks like a Saturday night beer bonger after a marathon frat party? Nah!

Think about it. They’re now accusing mainstream Americans, in angry condescension no less, of having good taste! That’s an insult we should gracefully accept.

Now they’re blaming us for their unwatchable movies

You just have to love Hollywood, in a “loser brother-in-law who won’t get a job, drinks all your beer and keeps you entertained due to your sheer amazement at his stupidity” sort of way. Now they’re blaming Bush and his ilk when their films tank.

Paramount Films’ “Alfie”, about a womanizer, played by Jude Law, was a total floater at the box office after it opened. Wayne Llewellyn, the president of distribution at Paramount, said that the conservative ethos reflected in last week’s election results might have hurt the film. Quoted in the New York Times (so you know it must be true) , Llewellyn said, “It could be the mood of the country right now. It seems to be the result of the election. Maybe they didn’t want to see a guy that slept around.”

There you go. It’s Bush’s fault, and it’s your fault. Could it be that their film blew chunks like a Saturday night beer bonger after a marathon frat party? Nah!

Think about it. They’re now accusing mainstream Americans, in angry condescension no less, of having good taste! That’s an insult we should gracefully accept.

Streisand weighs in on the election, awaits meds

Barbra Streisand, on her website, has given a brief statement on the election of President Bush. The woman with the gall to take a stage and babble on about the evils of *corporate greed while charging $400 per ticket (*”Barbra Inc.” exempt) even quoted Thomas Jefferson in her statement. The quote is meant as a rallying cry for her fellow loopy, punch drunk lefists:

“A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debtIf the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.”

Uh, Babs… Jefferson was a Republican. The “reign of witches” he’s referring to is the influence of you and your bedwetting activist Malibu neighbors. It’s passed over indeed.

Clarence Thomas as Chief Justice? The end of the world as they know it.

Should Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire for health reasons, Bush may consider nominating Clarence Thomas for the position. If you think the Democrats are in the final stages of apoplexia nervosa now, just wait until this is discussed further.

They’ll pull out all the stops to prevent this from occurring. Ruth Bader Ginsburg will claim to have found a pubic hair on her coke can. Ted Kennedy will yell “Muthna ith nah kreh nathnah!” – Which will be interpreted as some sort of anti-Clarence diatribe, and Tom Daschle will, well, just shake his head in disapproval and then get back to serving drinks at a Sioux City bowling alley.

And that’s just for starters. Bush could have a few appointments to make to the Supreme Court, which has many members who are almost as old as the magazines in my doctor’s waiting room.

The frustration induced hilarity is only beginning.

"Investment in the Balance": Al Gore's latest entrepreneurial endeavor

Al Gore’s at it again. This from the NY Post:

The former vice president is starting a mutual-fund management company that will invest in companies that combine environmental friendliness and social accountability with profitability.

If that sounds logical on the surface, consider this… To Al Gore and his cohorts, it is impossible to be “socially accountable” while being profitable, because money is a divider, separating classes and creating anger which is fueled by politicians like Gore running for office. In addition, it’s impossible to be profitable and environmentally friendly, since all you’d do is buy an SUV or something else that would destroy the earth, with all the profits.

This business will go about as well as that “Gore TV” idea. Too bad Al didn’t get that off the ground, because investors from his mutual fund company could have starred in Gore TV’s hit show, “Who wants to be an ex-millionaire?”

For now, people who dump their money into “Recount Mutual” can rest easy… they may lose it all, but at least they’ll be mentioned in Gore’s new book, “Investment in the Balance.” Just remember, nothing is more socially accountable and environmentally friendly than poverty, so if you lose your shirt, not to mention house and cars, on this investment– You’re saving the planet!

“Investment in the Balance”: Al Gore’s latest entrepreneurial endeavor

Al Gore’s at it again. This from the NY Post:

The former vice president is starting a mutual-fund management company that will invest in companies that combine environmental friendliness and social accountability with profitability.

If that sounds logical on the surface, consider this… To Al Gore and his cohorts, it is impossible to be “socially accountable” while being profitable, because money is a divider, separating classes and creating anger which is fueled by politicians like Gore running for office. In addition, it’s impossible to be profitable and environmentally friendly, since all you’d do is buy an SUV or something else that would destroy the earth, with all the profits.

This business will go about as well as that “Gore TV” idea. Too bad Al didn’t get that off the ground, because investors from his mutual fund company could have starred in Gore TV’s hit show, “Who wants to be an ex-millionaire?”

For now, people who dump their money into “Recount Mutual” can rest easy… they may lose it all, but at least they’ll be mentioned in Gore’s new book, “Investment in the Balance.” Just remember, nothing is more socially accountable and environmentally friendly than poverty, so if you lose your shirt, not to mention house and cars, on this investment– You’re saving the planet!