Nancy Pelosi

The Politics of Dating

In Broascaating, you collect a lot of unemployment and you end up out of desperation doing odd jobs for very odd people who really, really liked you on the air.   They almost only ever agreed to an interview just to see if one  looked  as hot as one sounded.     I made it through a couple of interviews….I guess that was because I was actually worthy of being the subject of  their fantasy; Laurinella, Queen of SultryVox, Land of CarboHydratia.    Eeewwwww.   I can remember having some of the creepiest temporary bosses.

Anyway, I was thinking back on my long  career and one particular  period of unemployment appeared front and center on ye olde memory banks or in my mammary banks according to some of my creepier bosses.

I’d been doing a little freelance work for a Houston magazine (heavy on the “free”, by the way).   Days earlier, my editor asked me what I wanted to do next in terms of a subject.

I told her that I really didn’t care–anything would be fine–I wasn’t picky. Whatever. I suggested  she throw out a couple of potential topics.

Right off the bat, she suggested I do an in-depth piece on the Interior Department’s finalized proposal to open 48 jillion  acres of previously off-limits land for oil exploration and drilling.

“Nah, that’s a little heavy. Too many facts and numbers”, I said. “But anything else would be fine. Really. I’m amenable to anything,  seriously.  Just name it.  What other topics do you have in mind?”

She then suggested that I write an article on Venezuelan despot, Hugo Chavez (he was still and alive and killing back then) and his ardent criticism of neo-liberal globalization.

I shook my head and told her no; too many abstract political principles. Nor was I in the mood to do a lot of boring research. Plus my head started to spin. I told her I’d do anything , ANYTHING but that.

She then suggested an overview of Nancy Pelosi’s first two years as Speaker of the House.

I vomited a little in my mouth, then suggested an overview of anything else.

She then told me of her idea for a story about the dating world for older Houstonians. (And by older, I mean age 40 and up)

I thought about it for a second: it had possibilities; some creative potential. There would be no mention of Hugo Chavez or Nancy P.  that I could think of and besides, I was a Houstonian over 40.

I told her I’d do it.

But I quickly learned that I wouldn’t be talking to older Houstonians trying to date. I’d have to become one of the older Houstonians trying to date.

The story, as it was conveyed to me, would be far more interesting if I participated in it. First person perspective.

As in, I should actually go out on a date.

Yeah, uh-huh.

A date.

I’m not even sure what constitutes a date in 2017 much less in what it was in 2008 when I was given this assignment,   Certainly not for a woman whose birth  predates Eisenhower’s incessant rants about then military- industrial complex.   

See, at the time, I hasn’t had a real by God date per se since December 2004.    I was Tin Man rusty and way off my game, but a few years earliermImhad some success at what I called “guerrilla dating”. I attacked it with Gunga Din-like precision; I had the enthusiasm of a Sandinista with new boots during the rainy season.

This was my M.O.—I’d get all tarted up and go to the nearest Barnes and Noble Bookstore (ALWAYS date a literate man and do brick and mortar book stores still esxist?).   I’d find a pretentious stack of books to stand near. If I saw a nice looking man, I’d grab a book and open it. Remember, the book really doesn’t matter, but the title and cover made all the difference .  Just make sure whatever you grab as a prop, makes you look intellectual and even a bit mysterious.

I remember on one occasion, I actually trained my eyes to go Marty Feldman. Seriously! One eye scanned the room looking for a mark, while the other focused on the book allowing me to feign interest in the Runic alphabet. I didn’t get that many dates, but I learned that Runic/Futhark is Runic for “how’s it hanging”.

That should come in handy if I’m ever going out with a holdover who’s lineage is that of the ancient Goths.

Still, I remember being nervous about all of it.  The dynamics of dating had changed since I last went out one a date four years prior.  Should I be worried I hasnt changed enough to accommodate all the social changes? But surely, some of the basics were still in existence, right?

All the latest books and authors insisted that men and women have innate “hard wiring” that time can’t change.    The wrote that it all goes back to that feral thing; when we lived in caves, communicated through grunts and screeches and were the mono-browed forebearers to that clever caveman Geico ad campaign eight years ago.

We all saw the movie, “Quest for Fire”, right?    We learned from that flick that prehistoric men looked at women and sized them up as breeding stock. They’d ask themselves, “Is she physically able to bare my progeny and propagate my DNA for generations to come?….Ugh!” If so, he grabbed her by the hair and pulled her into the cave where he would proceed make a big carnal Mesozoic smack dab all over her Jurassic.

So, what’s changed?  Women still do as they did way back then; we look at every man and subconsciously wonder if “he’s the one?”  . We can’t help it. We want to know if these brave, hunter/gatherers can provide for our families.   And by that I don’t  mean bringing home a brontosaurus or fire, for that matter.

But we’re older now, so more than likely, we’ll still size each other up, but for entirely different reasons.

Older men look at older women and hope that we can prepare a meal that’s either low or no sodium and we women will be hoping that men will still be able to—–my God! Is that a crease in his pants or is that his prostate???

Oh yes, things have changed.

And what if sex enters the picture??? There are so many factors now in place that weren’t there years ago. I was 49 then…..(Jeez, really?????) and at the time inconvenienced with “free range” periods–they came and went as they pleased and usually at the worst times!    I had to deal with that, plus, there was the awkward issue of Cialis and Viagra; performance anxiety and feminine…. whatever.

There’s nothing scarier than a “first anything”. Especially a first date. You’ve got a 50-50 chance you won’t like each other physically and if that attraction isn’t there, you know it right off the bat. That’s not to say that perceived looks won’t change as you get to know each other, but rarely will a couple on their first date, ever feel that need and desire at the same time.

The truth is we’re older. Much older.

In fact, too damn old to be dating in the first place.   Writing about it would be fiction.    I’d be Steven Glass  Glass with a better rack.

This whole damn idea is nuts.  Completely insane.   I remember sweating, feeling nauseous and burping up something akin to sulfur.   I called my editor in a complete panic.

So, long story short,  my piece on Hugo Chavez’s disdain of neo-liberal globalization affected his dating rituals  was on her desk and ready to go to print.

Jeez……The things  we do for a paycheck.

,

The Politics of Dating

Lately, I’ve been doing a little freelance work for a Houston magazine (heavy on the “free”, by the way). Earlier this week, my editor asked me what I wanted to do next in terms of a subject.

I told her that I really didn’t care–anything would be fine–I wasn’t picky. Whatever. She should throw out a couple of topics.

Right off the bat, she suggested I do an in-depth piece on the Interior Department’s finalized proposal to open 48 million acres of previously off-limits land for oil exploration and drilling.

“Nah, that’s a little heavy. Too many facts and numbers”, I said. “But anything else would be fine. Really. What other topics do you have in mind?”

She then suggested that I write an article on Venezuelan despot, Hugo Chavez and his ardent criticism of neo-liberal globalization.

I shook my head and told her no…too many abstract political principles. Nor was I in the mood to do a lot of boring research. Plus my head started to spin. I told her ANYTHING but that.

She then suggested an overview of Nancy Pelosi’s first two years as Speaker of the House.

I suggested an overview of anything else.

She told me of her idea for a story about the dating world for older Houstonians. (And by older, I mean age 40 and up)

I thought about it for a second: it had possibilities; some creative potential. There would be no mention of Hugo Chavez or Nancy that I could think of and besides, I AM a Houstonian over 40.

I told her I’d do it.

But I quickly learned that I wouldn’t merely be talking to older Houstonians trying to date. I’d have to become one of the older Houstonians trying to date.

The story, as it was conveyed to me, would be far more interesting if I participated in it. First person perspective.

As in, I should actually go out on a date.

Yeah, uh-huh.

A date.

I’m not even sure what constitutes a date in 2008. Certainly not for a woman whose birth pre-dates the Kennedy administration—by one entire presidential term.

See, I’ve not had a date per se since December 2004. Four very looooooooooooooooong years ago. I’m rusty now–way off my game, but back then, I tried my hand at “guerrilla dating”. I attacked it with Gunga Din-like precision; I had the enthusiasm of a Sandinista with new boots during the rainy season.

This was my M.O.—I’d get all tarted up and go to the nearest Barnes and Noble (ALWAYS date a literate man) and I’d find a pretentious stack to stand near. If I saw a nice looking man, I’d grab a book and open it. Remember, the book really doesn’t matter, but the title and cover do. Just make sure whatever you grab as a prop, makes you look intellectual and even a bit mysterious.

I remember on one occasion, I actually trained my eyes to go Marty Feldman. Seriously! One eye scanned the room looking for a mark, while the other focused on the book allowing me to feign interest in the Runic alphabet. I didn’t get that many dates, but  I know that Runic/Futhark is Runic for “how’s it hanging”.

That should come in handy if I’m ever going out with a holdover who’s lineage is that of the ancient Goths.

Still, I’m nervous about all of it.  The dynamics of dating have changed since I last went out one a date four years ago. Should I be worried I haven’t changed enough to accommodate all the social changes? But surely, some of the basics are still in existence, right?

Right.

All the latest books and authors insist that men and women have innate “hard wiring” that time can’t change.  It all goes back to that feral thing; when we lived in caves, communicated through grunts and screeches and were the mono-browed forebearers to that clever Geico ad campaign. We all saw the movie, “Quest for Fire”, right? We learned from that flick that prehistoric men looked at women and sized them up as breeding stock. They’d ask themselves, “Is she physically able to bare my progeny and propagate my DNA for generations to come?….Ugh!” If so, he grabbed her by the hair and pulled her into the cave where he would proceed make a big carnal Mesozoic smack dab on her Jurassic.

So, what’s changed?  Women still do as they did way back then; we look at every man and subconsciously wonder if “he’s the one, ugh?“. We can’t help it. We want to know if these brave, hunter/gatherers can provide for our families.

Women nest–men do the rest.

But we’re older now, so more than likely, we’ll still size each other up, but for entirely different reasons.

Older men look at older women and hope that we can prepare a meal that’s either low or no sodium and we women will be hoping that men will still be able to—–my God! Is that a crease in his pants or is that his prostate???

Oh yes, things have changed.

And what if sex enters the picture??? There are so many factors now in place that weren’t there years ago. At 49, I’m now inconvenienced with “free range” periods–they come and go when they want–and usually at the worst times! I have to deal with that, plus, there’s the awkward issue of Cialis and Viagra; performance anxiety and feminine…. whatever.

There’s nothing scarier than a “first anything”. Especially a first date. You’ve got a 50-50 chance you won’t like each other physically and if that attraction isn’t there, you know it right off the bat. That’s not to say that perceived looks won’t change as you get to know each other, but rarely will a couple on their first date, ever feel that need and desire at the same time.

The truth is we’re older. Much older.

In fact, too damn old to be dating in the first place.

This is insane!!!  Completely nuts!!  Now, my head is spinning and I call my editor in a complete panic.

My piece on Hugo Chavez’s disdain of neo-liberal globalization will be on her desk and ready to go to print,  February 1st.

,

Beauty & All That “Eye Of The Beholder” Shit

(Republished by special request.  Original posting 10/6/08)

.

Governor Sarah Palin, the former beauty queen is being hailed, by some, as the Republican’s secret weapon.

The truth is, no matter what you might think of the woman’s politics, character, experience or moral fiber, she’s easy on the eyes.  

Admittedly, she’s pretty.

And not necessarily in a nasty High School valedictorian or naughty librarian way, although the glasses and that hair up-do of hers, give her an air of wanton studiosity.   Wait, is “studiosity” a real word?   Maybe not, but neither is “nucular” and well, “you betcha” no one is going to tell a real, gosh darn, doggone “meeeeyaverick” anything different.

Palin has also been good for john McCain’s numbers.  She’s very well liked by those who like her and she’s also been good for ratings at “Saturday Night Live”, at least since Tina Fey started impersonating her three weeks ago.

And viewers have loved it!! Eaten it up, in fact.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, since the season began in early September,  “SNL” averaged a 7.4 household rating/18 share in the metered market overnights, Nielsen Media Research said on Sunday afternoon.  That’s within a tenth of a rating point of its September 13 premiere, which itself was the highest-rated show since December 14, 2002, when Al Gore and Phish appeared.

“SNL” is up 49 percent in the metered markets compared with the first four weeks of last season, as well as up 42 percent this past Saturday compared to episode No. 4 last season.

Why are ratings up?  The reason isn’t soley because of a few well written jokes about Palin.  Oh no, no, no!!!.  They’re up because (as we stated earlier) of Fey’s spot on impersonation of the Alaskan Governor.  The former SNL head writer is no longer a regular–she currently writes and stars on the Emmy award-winning NBC offering, “30 Rock”,  but comes back from time to time and has appeared as Palin during every one of the show’s opening segments since the season premier three weeks ago.

The two bear a striking resemblance.

It’s uncanny really.

Are Palin’s good looks,  as some Libs fear,  really the Republican’s secret weapon?  Is that, coupled with the fact that a popular NBC star looks just like her, making Dems uneasy?  Well, in some circles, more than a few Democrats have hinted that Palin’s physical attributes are a concern.  They’re thinking that her allure could possibly translate into more votes for the Republican ticket at the ballot box next month.

Come on now, Dems…you know this is much ado about nothing!!  OK so, Palin does have movie and TV star good looks.  So what?   I’m here to tell the Donkey party that you haven’t a thing to worry about.  There are lovely women in mainstream roles with liberal leanings who bear strong resemblances to many well-known American icons.

The Dems just need to play them up more.

For example:  Much more could be made between Hillary Clinton and her resemblance to one of the symbols that so aptly describes the art of a thespian–the Mask of Tragedy

.

.

Then, there’s former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.  You know, there absolutely is something about that wide, down sloping nose with flaring nostrils of hers and and a downward pointing arrow.   It’s not exactly an icon of the living variety, but you’d be hard pressed to find a basement, cellar, an escalator or federally mandated fall out shelter without one!!

.

,

There’s the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Ren, Stempy’s best friend!

,,…. ,

,

Finally Democrats, you’ve really nothing to fear with Governor Palin’s looks.  As I’ve proven, you also have your share of lookers.   Your lovely Ladies of the Left are also things of…of uh…of uh, things of beauty to be treasured and revered and if you don’t believe me, well, the proof is in the pudding with our last offering.

Talk about your icons!!

Behold!!

Venerable Liberal-leaning journalist, Helen Thomas and one of the Talking Apple Trees from the beloved movie classic, “The Wizard of Oz”.

,

.

Hot, Hot Politics

Governor Sarah Palin, the former beauty queen is being hailed, by some, as the Republican’s secret weapon.

The truth is, no matter what you might think of the woman’s politics, character, experience or moral fiber, she’s easy on the eyes.  

Admittedly, she’s pretty.

And not necessarily in a nasty High School valedictorian or naughty librarian way, although the glasses and that hair up-do of hers, give her an air of wanton studiosity.   Wait, is “studiosity” a real word?   Maybe not, but neither is “nucular” and well, “you betcha” no one is going to tell a real, gosh darn, doggone “meeeeyaverick” anything different.

Palin has also been good for john McCain’s numbers.  She’s very well liked by those who like her and she’s also been good for ratings at “Saturday Night Live”, at least since Tina Fey started impersonating her three weeks ago.

And viewers have loved it!! Eaten it up, in fact.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, since the season began in early September,  “SNL” averaged a 7.4 household rating/18 share in the metered market overnights, Nielsen Media Research said on Sunday afternoon.  That’s within a tenth of a rating point of its September 13 premiere, which itself was the highest-rated show since December 14, 2002, when Al Gore and Phish appeared.

“SNL” is up 49 percent in the metered markets compared with the first four weeks of last season, as well as up 42 percent this past Saturday compared to episode No. 4 last season.

Why are ratings up?  The reason isn’t soley because of a few well written jokes about Palin.  Oh no, no, no!!!.  They’re up because (as we stated earlier) of Fey’s spot on impersonation of the Alaskan Governor.  The former SNL head writer is no longer a regular–she currently writes and stars on the Emmy award-winning NBC offering, “30 Rock”,  but comes back from time to time and has appeared as Palin during every one of the show’s opening segments since the season premier three weeks ago.

The two bear a striking resemblance.

It’s uncanny really.

Are Palin’s good looks,  as some Libs fear,  really the Republican’s secret weapon?  Is that, coupled with the fact that a popular NBC star looks just like her, making Dems uneasy?  Well, in some circles, more than a few Democrats have hinted that Palin’s physical attributes are a concern.  They’re thinking that her allure could possibly translate into more votes for the Republican ticket at the ballot box next month.

Come on now, Dems…you know this is much ado about nothing!!  OK so, Palin does have movie and TV star good looks.  So what?   I’m here to tell the Donkey party that you haven’t a thing to worry about.  There are lovely women in mainstream roles with liberal leanings who bear strong resemblances to many well-known American icons.

The Dems just need to play them up more.

For example:  Much more could be made between Hillary Clinton and her resemblance to one of the symbols that so aptly describes the art of a thespian–the Mask of Tragedy

.

.

Then, there’s former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright.  You know, there absolutely is something about that wide, down sloping nose with flaring nostrils of hers and and a downward pointing arrow.   It’s not exactly an icon, but you’d be hard pressed to find a basement, cellar or federally mandated fall out shelter without one!!

.

,

There’s the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Ren, Stempy’s best friend!

,,…. ,

,

Finally Democrats, you’ve really nothing to fear with Governor Palin’s looks.  As I’ve proven, you also have your share of lookers.   Your lovely Ladies of the Left are also things of…of uh…of uh, things of beauty to be treasured and revered and if you don’t believe me, well, the proof is in the pudding with our last offering.

Talk about your icons!!

Behold!!

Venerable Liberal-leaning journalist, Helen Thomas and one of the Talking Apple Trees from the beloved movie classic, “The Wizard of Oz”.

,

.

Ah Yes….The Failed Bail Out

I don’t know that much about the economy…not enough to make an educated comment about it one way or the other.  But I know this much:  if you think this mess is Wall Street’s fault…or that the responsibility lies squarely on the now crumpled shoulders of Freddie and Fannie, you’re sadly mistaken.  We’re in a heap of trouble and it’s also bi-partisan irresponsibility that’s brought us to this point.

And while I’m aware the blame for this problem is one that goes across the board, I still cannot and will not EVER understand the Left.   As I’ve said many times here in this blog, I don’t like the Democrats because they have become a party of finger pointers and whiners.  They have this mindset that Clinton was God and that life was so rosy when he was flinging his DNA throughout the Oval Office.  We were operating at a surplus and everyone was happy.  Well, if we had a fiscal surplus under Clinton, it’s because we also had one under Reagan and Bush 41.

Well, life under Clinton was anything BUT rosy for some of us.   With a pen stroke, he single-handedly destroyed my livelihood and ruined radio.  I’m referring to the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which deregulated radio ownership and plunged a scimitar deep into it’s heart.

I’ve made more money and worked steadily during the Bush administration…more so than I ever did during the Clinton years.   So, whenever I  hear Democrats disdainfully discuss the evils and perils of “the past eight years”, I get a little bile lodged near my uvula.  Bush hasn’t been an exemplary president–not by any means, but neither was Clinton.  While I’ll be the first to admit “W” has been ill advised on a number of things, he’s also had to deal with extraordinary matters and issues with which  few other presidents before him have had to contend.  I think many people are forgetting that.  In fact, some people are choosing to ignore this altogether.

I grew up in the 60’s and ’70’s..I still have a few leanings that could be construed as Liberal-esque.  I still have an interest in and a keen desire for the propagation of certain social programs but NOT in their current state.  Most programs are fractured–beyond repair in some cases, but there’s still a need for the truly deserving.  That said, I’ve become increasingly more Conservative as I’ve gotten older and fiscally, there’s little doubt where my politics lie.  But even so, I was never in support of the bail out;  not until they cut the middle class a break.  That’s who’s really hurting.  Big business be damned.

Let’s listen to the Speaker of the House addressing Congress as she informs members of the evils of the bail out.

.

I agree with  political vampire, Bela Pelosi in theory, but what she says makes my blood boil–especially the part about President Bush.  As I see it, what she and so many other anti-Republican glad-handers are forgetting  about are those little “monkey wrenches” that were thrown into “the past eight years”.  Oh, you know; those pesky, little things that might have negatively affected that illustrious Clintonian surplus such as:

  • September 11th (which occurred less that nine months into Bush first term)
  • The tsunami
  • Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Ike
  • The fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq
  • The massive tornado in Greensburg Kansas
  • The bridge collapse in Minnesota
  • Corporate greed (Enron, World Com and Martha Stewart)

And that’s just a few of the tiny troublesome but costly things that have reared their heads during “the past eight years”.   But obviously, Pelosi and the mob of angry, torch and pitch-fork wielding villagers of Democratia have extremely selective memories.

The Historical Subtext of Man and Politics

We are an interesting lot, we humans.

We’ve been on this Big Blue Marble an awfully long time. And contingent on your belief system, we either crawled out of the primordial goo and evolved OR….we just appeared as part of some incredible decree visa vie an incredible Creator.

Regardless of who or what sat at a big, cosmic drafting table and “architected” our design, we were given certain gifts. Gifts that would soon be esoteric to man and man alone. Once we discovered meat, we became carnivores and all that tasty protein made our brains grow. Then, we developed rationale. That’s when we realized that we weren’t supposed to be alone. So, we learned to be proverbial parts of the whole. We formed nomadic tribes and roamed the countryside in search of food and shelter. Select members of these tribes went out–far beyond that which we knew and were familiar with and that turned us into what anthropologist and feminists call “hunter/gatherers”. Our early forefathers learned to track wild beasts and with sheer cunning. Then, they killed them. They lived on mastodon and prehistoric carnivorous fishes. Out of climatic necessity, they called the mountains home in the summer and in the winter, the coastal plains were where they hung their Fred Flinstonian water buffalo hats.

And then came progress.

Two very important things were discovered or invented during this auspicious time. We’re talking two things pivotal to mankind: fire and the wheel. Fire was invented simply to create a bonfire which would serve as a Neanderthalic social setting. The wheel came about simply as a means to eventually get man to the bonfire. These things were the very foundation of modern civilization and helped to create the catalyst for the division of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

Liberal Democrats and Conservative Republicans.

As man learned to become more agrarian and we ate vegetation as well as meat, we became less nomadic. Man learned to farm and cultivate. He learned to till the soil. to reap the metaphorical fruit that was vital to his sustenance as a living being and of course, it was needed for the eventual production of beer.

Make no mistake: early man LOVED beer. That said, ancient breweries and bonfires were two things that would join forces to eventually become what we call “The Kiwanis Club”, today.

Neither the aluminum can nor the glass bottle were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for someone to learn how to mine, then smelt ore and for someone to figure out that by melting silica, you can create glass, they just stayed close to the brewery with mouths open and ready to swallow the heavenly nectar in any way they could. This meant a more sedentary lifestyle and THAT lead to the formation of villages, with fixed structures. Gone were the yurts made of animal skins and what not. Early man bid adieu to thatch-roofed huts; the wigwams and to the lean-to’s. The prosperous hunters lived in lovely enclaves in nice sprawling neighborhoods. This saw the advent of high end places like The Hampton’s.

The poor and those lacking in ambition lived in public housing. Hence, becoming the domiciliary precursors to East L.A. and Chicago’s Cabrini Green.

The men with drive and goals spent their days tracking and killing animals to roast over a raging fire. They met and exchanged stories and ideas. This was the beginning of what is known as “Republicans” and “The Conservative Movement.”

Other men who were weaker and far less skilled at hunting learned to live off the Conservatives by showing up for the nightly grill fests and eating whatever was thrown to them. They paid for this peripheral existence by offering to do the sewing, the flower arranging, the hair dressing and interior design.

This, my friends, was the beginning of Democrats and the Liberal movement.

Please note that at this stage of being, early Dems didn’t have pulses and but their hearts did bleed. Their bodies didn’t have electrical systems either–not as we know them today. Their synapses were (and continue to be) fired by a prehistoric computer program of sorts; something called “al-gore rhythms”. Now, traces of this archaic program can be seen at Hollywood fund raisers or in actor, Leonard DiCaprio’s back pocket.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. This gender metamorphoses occurred frequently during the Pelosizoic Period. They had male-to-female names that still sound familiar today.

EXAMPLES:

  • Alice Franken
  • Michelle Moore
  • Harriet Reid
  • Cindy Blumenthal
  • Hillary Clinton

These were but a few of names of the primitive men who eventually became Democratic women.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of ferns, whining, the invention of group therapy, time outs for kids, Scientology, the ACLU, “The West Wing”, The Tony Awards and the concept of Democratic voting. Early on, this was used to decide how to divide the mastodon meat and other forms of sustenance that the Conservatives provided.

It would be a talent they’d never lose.

Modern liberals prefer expensive, imported bottled water. Anything “vichy“. Tofu, French food, anti-Zionist vitriol and Bush-bashing are standard liberal fare.

Here an interesting revolutionary side note: Democratic women were/are a mannish sort. Many have musculature (calf muscles, namely) and enough testosterone to make their menfolk jealous. This makes them aggressively ambitious, not to mention frequent lip and chin waxers. Many become social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, actresses, tubby ex-talk show hosts and group therapists for self-help groups. As for social contributions? There are a few: Liberals invented welfare, Neapolitan ice cream, two-for-one specials and all you-can-eat buffets.

Conservatives eat red meat and still provide for their women and proudly so. Conservatives are big-game hunters, cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, dock workers, firemen, doctors and many lawyers. They’re also police officers, bank presidents, judges, CEO’s of multi-national corporations, Marines, white athletes and several U.S. presidents.

Other than concepts, Liberals produce little or nothing at all, however, they certainly like to “govern” those who produce and they love to decide what to do with that which is produced and how it’s distributed to needy voters. And the needier, the better. You see, this party wholeheartedly believes in the vote/reward system. Consequently, Liberals invented New Orleans.

Liberal Democrats have through the ages, always believed that Europeans (especially the French) are more enlightened than Americans. Superior, really. In fact, many Liberal Europeans came to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed—in environmentally friendly Conestoga wagons. They settled in California mostly and with glitter and tinsel, created Hollywood. With Birkenstocks and bean sprouts, San Francisco was born. These are two places where they excelled at the fine art of trying to get something for absolutely nothing.

This determined effort by the Republicans who fix problems, is the principle reason why the elephant–the largest and most powerful land animal on Earth–became the symbol of Conservative Republicans.

Liberal Democrats, who fix blame, are still represented by the jackass.

.

……………. .THE END

.

.

(Concept taken from anonymous e-mail piece sent by friends)