like we say around here: when janklow’s turbo-bitter and filled with absinthe (which is excellent, by the way) and has no real topic… it’s time for a turbo-angry rant.
oh, men’s restroom… why must you be the scene of so many horrifying events
on still more proper behavior in the men’s restroom
having addressed this in a rant once before, i was sort of hoping we’d made some progress in the Baltimore-Washington area on bathroom behaviors:
01. now, i get it that sometimes you have a lot of personal property that you have to take into the bathroom with you: coats, suitcases, whatever. and this might cause you to leave it sitting around or hog a stall so that you can hang all your junk up, and that’s fine; that’s sort of the way this whole bathroom thing works. but here’s what’s unacceptable: hanging your coat on a stall door and then using a urinal. it’s not like anyone’s going to use that stall with your coat hanging inside of it, so why don’t YOU use that stall?
granted, this might seem like i’m being extra-bitter because i am a stall-user in my general day-to-day public restroom use, and that would be correct. however, the lack of logic involved still infuriates me. just use the stall!
02. we have simply GOT to have an agreement on how much noise you are allowed to make in the restroom, but more to the point: whatever the agreement is, it has to be something below the level that creeps me out. what’s something that i don’t ever need to hear AND something that i hear more often than i would like? as in, something that i had to hear recently? a man have what appears to be an orgasmic response to using a urinal. i do not care how long you have been holding it and/or how refreshing it feels, CONTROL YOURSELF. enough with the moaning! unless you are literally fucking that urinal, this is completely unacceptable! and it’s also completely unacceptable to fuck a urinal!
in summation, no moaning in the restroom.
for some reason, this “massive amounts of hogs feeding at the trough” image is the only thing i picture when we talk about politics
on this whole “democracy” thing that they claim is going on
you know… i shouldn’t really talk about politics. i tried to beg off from doing so the other night only to get completely livid over the mere thought of these… politicians. i know, i know, it’s all a big game and they’re all on the hustle and we all know this, but still, somehow i find myself able to get completely outraged (probably TOO outraged, but i like to go berserk sometimes) about some new event or statement that’s come out. the recent topics of disgust? this whole “earmarks” thing.
granted, i think we all knew that the opposition to them that was on display last year during the elections was just a show for the elections: we wanted to believe otherwise, of course, but i think we all knew what was up. but still, even taking such a dim view of things, stories like these really get to me:
–Lawmakers’ taste for pork returns to Capitol Hill: so last year, 48 of 535 members of Congress forswore earmarks, a shitty less-than-10%-of-Congress number, but still, i suppose a notable chunk. this year? 23. is it wrong of me to assume that the reason a lot of people aren’t repeating what they PLEDGED TO DO is because they assume there’s no need to acknowledge keep their word when it comes to election-year promises? pardon me for being so negative.
–Top Democrats cross Obama on earmarks: now let me just say that i don’t think Obama is entirely sincerely about his talk of getting rid of earmarks (he’s cool with signing off on them when they can be blamed on Bush).
also, i apologize for linking to the Washington Times so exclusively; it just happens to be the paper i have found lying around recently. i don’t know what this paper guy is up to, but he delivers in a random fashion. sometimes no paper, sometimes two papers that aren’t the ones you subscribe to!
yes, it’s true… this man has no dick
on why Eric Holder can “eat a bowl of fuck” or whatever other vulgarity you prefer
oh, Eric Holder… you and your shady talk about my guns. now, i was willing to give Obama’s centrism the benefit of the doubt, and the argument that he didn’t want to spend the kind of political capital an assault weapons bans would require (or, failing that, that he’d be too busy to worry about guns) seemed valid. still, it’s barely been a month into the Obama administration (less than a month for Holder himself) and we’ve already got the Attorney General promoting AWBs… which would, of course, make statements from Obama about keeping his hands off my guns yet another election-year lie from yet another politician. sure, this could just be Holder’s personal opinion, but i don’t think i trust that at this point.
and i also find it annoying when terms like “AK-47s” get thrown around. look, AK-47s aren’t getting sold like that from US gun stores. could they be selling semi-auto AK clones? perhaps. sometimes unrelated guns (like SKSes) get called AKs. i’d just like some accuracy on the topic. i admit this is nitpicking, though, but the language of the debate about guns is an issue with me.
don’t get me wrong: if someone’s illegally selling guns to Mexico (or smuggling them or whatever), lock them up, prosecute them, whatever. enforce the laws now on the books and see how that goes. how is it that the BATFE and/or the Attorney General think this is an issue that deals with certain shops … and yet think a national ban that affects shops that have NOTHING to do with the issue is the appropriate solution?
and i don’t understand the “90% of illegal guns in Mexico come from the US” mainly because i don’t understand why people think that’s the ONLY way they could get there. we’re talking about billion-dollar cartels that make a living smuggling illegal product from nation to nation and, in the process, corrupting state and federal authorities, including things like police and the military. we always hear about organizations in South America that are a) hooked up with drug dealers and b) armed to the teeth. so rebels and paramilitaries further south can sell cocaine and purchase firepower without US gun dealers being involved… but Mexican criminals cannot? and again, we’re also hearing talk of things like grenades and rocket launchers that are not being sold over the counter in the US. so if someone can illegally purchase rocket launchers… why not automatic weapons?
anyway, i’m pretty sure i’m not going to be any less angry about all this next week, but, hey, we’ll see… but if we could just stop guys from moaning like maniacs in the public restrooms, that’d be a good start. i’ll take what i can get at this point.