In case you live under a rock, in Corporate America we typically have to deal with these monthly celebrations of “This Month’s Diversity Awareness Event to Put on the Face that We’re All the Same Yet Different Because if We Don’t Do This Some Lazy Idiot Could Sue our HR Dept on Baseless Grounds of Discrimination/Diversity Insensitivity and We’d All Be Up Shit Creek Without a Job”

During February it’s Black History Month, a celebration of American historical figures/events of those who are from the black (oh, how racist of me), er, African-American ethnicity. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about honoring ancestry and acknowledging our differences in culture. I’m just irked when we see an entire month devoted to “you better celebrate our unique cultural attributes” but the other 11 months of the year if you point them out then you’re a direct target for the racist label.

Case in point – the latest “scandal” in racism over at NBC (via HotAir).  Apparently at NBC, the company chef (WHO IS BLACK, btw) decided to fix the following menu in honor of this diversity month celebration.

Well I guess soul food is now racist in the eyes of some notable black figures like Questlove – drummer for the band The Roots. His current gig is as a drummer on The Late Show with Jimmy Fallon (at NBC) and I guess he felt the need to call out HR for their “racially insensitive” menu planning.

Keep in mind he throws this out despite the fact that HR probably had NOTHING to do with the menu planning (or that he had any evidence of it) AND that soul food like collard greens and fried chicken is typically a staple of cuisine in BOTH southern and northern black family households. There was even a f@#$ing movie (and following TV series) about it, called…..wait.for.it – SOUL FOOD and the entire family at the movie’s story was African-American.  Here’s the tagline for the movie:

A story of the people who make us strong and the recipe that makes us a family.

Gee, sure sounds racist to me. Also, I think this is real rich considering QuestLove performed several times on Chappelle’s Show, one skit which focused on mocking racial stereotypes. Here’s the episode description:

Dave doesn’t believe the stereotype that white people can’t dance – so he brings in musical guests John Mayer, QuestLove and Ahmir-Khalib Thompson to play with this stereotype. One of the funnier sketches of the second season.

Oh, so let me get this straight. It’s okay for someone to mock racial stereotypes – especially those outside of his own culture/race – when it’s convenient for him, but nobody else, even someone who at worst is acknowledging THEIR OWN culture’s characteristics, is allowed to do so for the culture he is a part of.  Mindless hypocrite say wha-wha-whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

And just to add one more nail in the coffin of this baseless accusation of racial insensitivity, here are the menus from the last three Black History Month luncheons we’ve had at my company. Oh, and the committee who plans these luncheons has nobody from HR on it and is 99% comprised of black employees at the company.

2009 – Fried Chicken, Collard Greens, Green Beans, Yams, Sweet Potatoes, Cornbread, Mac & Cheese, Black-eyed Peas and Rice

2008 – Fried chicken, collard greens with smoked turkey, yams, corn bread muffins, corn, macaroni and cheese, banana pudding and peach cobbler (Also, a black employee played the jazz saxophone at the luncheon.)

2007 – Fried chicken, collard greens, sweet potatoes, cornbread, and macaroni and cheese. (Also, music by famous African-American artists played while employees enjoyed the festivities.)

But throughout the last 7 months, with this thing called pregnancy, I’ve experienced various times shaking my head in disbelief at how anyone could pose doubts about Palin’s pregnancy w/ Trig during the 2008 election. I’m convinced now more than ever that this kind of dribbling proves those who even questioned her pregnancy (with grand fables lacking evidence no less) were so desperate to defame her that their conspiracies do more to slander their reputation than hers.

Case in point, Sullivan claimed that because some “sources” from Palin’s administration couldn’t tell she was pregnant until she told them at 7 months was clear “evidence” that he was justified in  dragging her family through conspiracy-laddened mud – oh that and three questionable photographs….ZING! Move over, RDJ…we’ve already got our generation’s Sherlock Holmes.

I keep this in mind as today at work I had not one, not two, but three people give me the side eye because they had no idea I was pregnant. The difference was that today I wore a form fitting top that emphasized a belly resulting from either someone preggoing my eggo OR from me going on a massive beer binge in celebration during the Patriots loss over the weekend – if you know me, you know either is possible.   The responses could have been just nice formalities, but most small talk doesn’t result in “You hid it so well,” “I had no idea,” “You’re telling me when I saw you three weeks ago that you were pregnant???”

So I say to Sullivan – SIT DOWN with your “knowledge” of how Palin faked her pregnancy.  SIT DOWN and quit watching that Paulie Walnuts confession episode from the the Sopranos – SPOILER ALERT: It’s FICTION!

Because here’s the news flash that you might not have figured out – Some women don’t look pregnant even at six or seven months. I was at a labor class last night and some chick was due in two weeks and she looked all of four months pregnant.   I’ve never understood where Sullivan got off acting like an authority to make such exagggerated claims about Palin.

Note to Sullivan: Just because you are a big, walking vagina, doesn’t make you the authority on how a woman should or shouldn’t look when carrying a child.

Hell, even my baby doctor will tell you every woman and even every pregnancy with the same woman is carried different.

So that’s my rant on smug elitism of Sullivan for the month. Funny how self-experience sheds new light on “justified” accusations. And I’m not beating a dead horse by any means. As of October, Sullivan was still beating himself with the crazy stick according to Ann Althouse.

For instance, you’ll hear a lot from liberals about how the executives at health insurance companies are overpaid and shouldn’t be making that much while people suffer. Of course, they ignore the facts of profit margins and actual compensation package details when making these claims.  But they are liberals so for them using facts is me having too high of an expectation. As Trying To Grok has noted in a couple posts, you’ll never hear anything from liberals for the government to tax, regulate or engineer the market-dictated salaries or profits of Democrat-aligned companies such as Google. Hmmm, funny how that goes.

But let’s take a look at who’s making what in these industries. For the purpose of this example I’ll use Cigna since they are a major company in the health insurance market that’s come under fire during the topic of healthcare reform.

First, what were the salaries of the CEOs of Cigna vs. Google.

Edward Hanway, CEO Cigna -   2008 Total Compensation: $12,236,740 (including a base salary of $1,142,885)

Eric Schmidt, CEO Google – 2008 Total Compensation:  A base salary of $1; and other compensation of $508,763; Oh, and let’s not forget his stock options in Google which have allowed him to amass $5.5 BILLION in his past compensation package of 12.5 million shares.  Schmidt currently no longer accepts stock options in Google, but he’s set as one of the world’s richest men.

It’s not that Hanway hasn’t amassed some degree of wealth over the years as Cigna’s CEO. The last few years his compensations have been $22 million in 2007 and $15.2 million in 2006.

But the issue is IF you’re going to start taxing executive pay, which executives do you tax? What industries do you tax – the ones that accrue the most wealth from the economy? Who gets to make those taxation classification decisions? Why do they get to make those decisions? And since those decisions will be subjective in manner anyways, isn’t that a reason for them not to be made at all (and thus salaries shouldn’t be engineered by the government)?

I mean if we just look at the years between 2006 – 2008, CEO Schmidt of Google has a wealth that far surpasses even the majority of companies in this world. He certainly seems like he can afford to be taxed more on his wealth more so than Hanway.

But a liberal may say Cigna profits too much from their own industry. Well, what about market share – shouldn’t that show how much Cigna is really the one taking America to the cleaners. Ummm, not so much.

Google has a near majority in some of the services it provides. In the industry of Search Engine Marketing, Google owns around 70% of the SEM market share. SEM is roughly around a $20 billion industry in terms of revenue, set to move upwards of $26 – $30 billion by 2013.

Cigna on the other hand covers around 11.7 million people with its health insurance plans. If you figure 165 million people are currently under a form of private insurance, 11.7 million of those people equate to around 7% of the industry market share.

And to those liberals who say that healthcare is a right. Well, Cigna doesn’t offer healthcare. It offers a risk policy aka insurance. And a service of providing an insurance policy should not be held to a higher moral ground in service retention than a search engine’s services. Sorry, I have a heart – I just don’t let it bleed for unnecessary, illogical sentiments.

Also, let’s look at net profit margins to see how much of America’s hard-earned dollars is being hoarded between Cigna vs. Google:

For 2008, Cigna’s net profit margin was 1.51% (profiting only $292 million out of $19.1 billion in revenue)

And guess what Google’s was – 19.39% (profiting more than $4.3 BILLION out of $21.8 BILLION in revenue)

Gee, it sure seems like Google is a dominant monopoly with more greed to be taxed. 70% vs. 7% market share? 1.51% vs. 19.35% profit margins? Makes someone wonder why liberals are fussing so much over companies like Cigna when they could get more $$ for their tax out of companies like Google.

But at least as much blame for the disillusionment goes to progressives who simply expected too much of him. Some are disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner proposed even higher defense spending than George W. Bush did — but Obama never said he would cut the Pentagon’s budget. Many liberals are disappointed that he isn’t pushing the “public option” more forcefully in the health-care debate — but it was never something Obama emphasized during the campaign.

I know why these liberals are suddenly shocked – because they WILLINGLY (again, emphasis on WILLINGLY) ignored that Obama was an ambition politician, an empty-suit who would say anything to get elected. Seriously, this was a politician who threw his pastor of 20-years under the bus in order to present himself as more mainstream and less controversial, and NOW you want to question his inability to stick to campaign/ideology promises, Michael Moore? Wake up and smell the false rhetoric you bozo!  And get a Q-tip to clean out yo ears while you’re at it – because you obviously have some listening issues.

I think liberals and many youths got swept up in their own personal agendas not realizing the politician they voted for would underneath it all would have an agenda of his own – which was being ELECTED President. Not being President, just getting elected as one.  If you really paid attention to the context of what Obama said during the campaign, looked at his historical voting/position records, and still voted for him, you wouldn’t be shocked here today. But if you kept boozin’ it up on Kool-aid like a sorority girl at a fraternity kegger (I speak from experience), you have nobody but yourself to blame for not paying attention to the glaring obvious signs.

For a politician whose main stance has been ‘present’ on many issues, it’s not then surprising to see him play the back-and-forth shuffle on issues that require strong executive leadership. For a politician who has a repetitive history of making political decisions based on self-ambition goals, is it really surprising that he’s not fulfilling far-left campaign promises when a 2012 re-election is within his perception (as delusional as it may be)?

I’m so irritated with the blind, drooling adulation of Jon “Liberal Squire”‘ Stewart by my liberal friends. The Daily Show runs a 5-minute segment that consists of fragmented “evidence” or news clips to support sarcastic jabs and people start taking this crap as real news????

I don’t have a problem with The Daily Show in general. I actually watch it and do find it humorous, even when he cracks jokes at Fox and conservatives. But that’s my point – I watch it for pure entertainment while liberals watch it as a way to provide some type of logic to their illogical musings.  Why not just say fuck it to researching information all together and watch nothing but SNL, the Colbert Report and South Park to solely base all your political ideology on.

If we continue on this trend, I just can’t wait to see how long it takes us until “Oww, My Balls” cracks the Nielson charts.

Instead of picking up a book and learning something, yeah, let’s listen to the sage advice of someone who prior to The Daily Show was on a slippery slope down within the comedy circuit.

In the words of Matt Stone and Trey Parker – Waaaaaaaaay to go, YOU! (and I say that with my eyes closed)

I’m having problems uploading some of my favorite SP clips, so I’ll do so when I get home (stupid work – kidding, dear bosses!). But go over to Trying to Grok to check out a classic one in the meantime.  Then be sure to post to your FB page like any good liberal and use that as your sole basis to somehow justify an entire, complex political issue. Waaaay to go!

Remember this interview the next time somebody is even paying attention to anything coming out of good ole Phil’s mouth.

But I’m amazed at how far and how many excuses people will stretch in order to justify the actions of a guy basically acting like an asshole to the men protecting his home and causing a public disturbance, thus resulting in his disorderly conduct arrest.

It’ like Tawana Brawley all over again. How soon we forget. Someone accuses cops of a heinous crime, only later to be proven those accused did nothing wrong but accuser’s irresponsible actions somehow still justified by weak arguments based in race-card politics.

I’ve already stated my case on the subject. A Harvard-elitist acting like an asshole, can still be called out for being an asshole – I don’t care what race he is. Just like a racist cop is a racist, despite his race as well. But defamming the character of a decorated and diversity-educating officer as a racist despite evidence to the contrary – somehow justified?

You might be asking why. Get ready for an eye roll. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Well, according to some of my liberal friends it’s because there have been acts of racial profiling in the US in the past and currently. Yes, you read that right. Because injustices still occur that gives people like Gates the right to excuse their behavior even when those injustices are not related to the situation. Because a racist cop like Justin Barrett exists, then it’s a default justification that Crowley “could be” a racist himself (even though there IS NO EVIDENCE), and also Gates is justified to libelously proclaim Crowley as having racially profiled him, falsified a police report about him, and then demanded Crowley owed him an apology.

Please, that’s ridiculous and inexcusable. The same goes for Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley. It’s okay since cops may have abused black women in other instances, that Sharpton and Brawley were justified in outright lying to the public, creating mass hysteria with no evidence, and labeling NYC officers as rapists/racists even when proved they had done nothing to this woman. Classic case of defamation of character, just like has happened with Crowley.

In fact Gates’ daughter in her latest piece on The Daily Beast after the beer summit, literally still proclaims false accusations that Crowley falsified the arrest report on her father. Yet, we don’t hear an apology or a retraction from anyone in the Gates camp that there was wrong doing on Gates’ behalf. No, no, no…that would get in the way of this idiot taking responsibility for the bad actions he made himself.

“and Sgt. Crowley isn’t the first officer to fudge a police report.”

Yeah, honey. Just ignore the fact there that another officer separately wrote a report that was nearly identical to the one Crowley wrote. I bet that officer was racial profiling too – oh OOOPS! that officer was hispanic.

The real teachable moment on post-racial relations comes from Sgt. Leon Lashley who was also at the scene (via Pundit Review). What’s really sad is that Gates will be respected (???) and praised more than Lashley when clearly Lashley is the more decent of the two. Men like Gates, Rev. Wright and Al Sharpton are excused with more money going in their greedy pockets from spewing the equivalent of revenge hate while good men like Lashley are called Uncle Toms. Those defending Gates in this way should be ashamed of themselves.

On the flipside, many say that Gates is justified because he was arrested on his private property and shouldn’t have been arrested because of his civil liberties. Well, to that – not so fast jack.

First, Gates didn’t cry wolf on the basis of his civil liberties being violated. No, he went for the good ol’ “cops are racist” defamation card, and guess what, it backfired. So it’s is proper to call Gates out on this offense. We can’t go around justifying people’s actions when they degrade cops branding them as racists based solely on the heinous actions of other bad cops. It would be the same as judging our troops who are professional and heroic everyday on those bad apple troops who committed abuse. Back to the civil liberties “defense.” While I understand this argument more, here’s where the line in the sand is drawn. A man has a right to be an asshole on his private property, should his actions not permeate within a certain limit of that property.

Remember Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes – one man’s right to swing his fist ends at the tip of another man’s nose. Gates can scream, yell profanities all he wants inside his home, but to a point. Once that disturbance breaks to the level it is saturating through to the rest of his community and neighbors, then the cops have the right to arrest him on the grounds of disorderly conduct. For example, any man has the right to watch porn in his house. Despite whether you think this is right or wrong, he has the right. What he doesn’t have the right to do though is hang a big white sheet over the front of his house and project “Debbie Does Dallas” on a 200 inch screen for the whole neighborhood to view. That’s called being a public disturbance, a violation of disorderly conduct. It would also be justified if Gates was causing such a disturbance inside his home that the noise reached the property of his neighbors. Therefore, to the civil liberties argument, yes, a man can be arrested for being an asshole on his own property.

So color me SHOCKED when Wal-Mart refused to carry Green Day’s latest album and then being the card-carrying liberal pansies they are, Green Day cried foul about it. (via Big Hollywood)

Wal-Mart won’t carry their new CD, entitled 21st Century Breakdown, unless they provide a special version that doesn’t contain language considered offensive by the retail giant.

Boo-Hoo!

It seems that Green Day missed the memo on private businesses being able to do whatever they want within the scope of what their shareholders and/or customers approve of. If Green Day doesn’t want to produce a separate album with the offensive language then they don’t have to sell it through Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart’s private enterprise decisions are not bound by the freedom of speech. Wal-Mart has its business freedom to CHOOSE whether or not to distribute that product. Green Day has the right to CHOOSE to produce their album filled with colorful lyrics. Both are decisions made by the owners, but neither is obligated to consider how directly connected their respective freedoms are by said decisions.

That’s the beauty of a republic that some liberals are not understanding. The government cannot dictate to a private business what products they choose or not choose to sell. I know there are times where it becomes a matter of public health and/or welfare, so the government steps in with regulations. But last time I checked, choosing to not endorse offensive language for a profit doesn’t seem to be endangering anyone’s well being.

But bassist Mike Dirnt said: “As the biggest record store in America, they should probably have an obligation to sell people the correct art.”

Why should Wal-Mart carry your record as is – WHY? Because you produced some “art.” Because you’re THE band Green Day. LMFAO!!! God, liberals are so full of themselves.

And really, is this surprising? Doesn’t Mike Dirnt know that this is a long standing policy with the giant retailer. Sheryl Crow anyone? Wal-Mart refused to carry her album because in one of the songs on the album she made a negative-slanted smirk about buying a gun at Wal-Mart. Newsflash – it’s called the game of business. You don’t bring the power to trump the HBIC’s rules – then guess what you either suck it up to play by their rules or leave.  That’s called life.  I know you missed out on that lesson because your nambi bambi parents were too busy shuffling you to a game of little league where they didn’t keep score – because EVERYONE’s a WINNER! – but this is how the real world works.

Enough with these trolls, as if they actually contribute something to the advancement of society. NEXT! (And don’t let Billie Joe’s bucket of eye liner hit you on the way out!)

Here’s The Stossel on the hyped up myths of the financial crisis in order to fuel the myth of support for increased government spending. Agenda setting, say what!!!!

Also, at the end when Stossel asks if this will work the response is “I Hope so.”

Ummm, HOPE isn’t a fucking strategy, idiot!

Okay, I’ll admit I can sometimes be blinded by politics. Hey, it happens to us all. Nobody is innocent even though I have tons of far left friends who would argue otherwise about themselves. Because that’s how you are when you’re a liberal. Your POV is right and there’s nothing else, even FACTS, that can prove you wrong. Pfffffffffffff. O-oookay.

So this cracks me up. Over the last week during the whole swine flu “epidemic” Democrats have taken their unsubstantiated shots at Republicans for not doing enough to prepare for a flu pandemic. Like for instance, opposing more funding in the porkulus. (via Michelle Malkin)

Well, it didn’t take long for partisan Democrats to blame the swine flu outbreak on the Republican Party.

Here’s the line: Since House Republicans all opposed the trillion-dollar-porkulus, which included funding for pandemic preparations, it’s all. Our. Fault.

That’s it??? That’s the evidence that Republicans are responsible for not being ready for the swine flu??? Because they took a general stand against the out-of-control-spending porkulus which happened to have a little funding for pandemic preparations??? Yeah, don’t let MAH eye roll beat down all that restylane in your lips Smancy Pelotox.

What liberals and the MSM don’t want to bother telling you is that under the Bush Administration, the Department of Homeland Security worked with the Treasury department (and other depts.) to come up with business continuity plans for industries in the event of OH! wait for it….

A Flu Pandemic.

You mean the GOP had a hand in actual pandemic preparations???  GAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

And there’s even a lovely report on it from the private sector I work in …..BAM!

Now, I know this would be a lot to ask, but do you think people in Congress could do a thing called reading before running their yaps to add to their B-roll from MSNBC about how Republicans didn’t support pandemic preparedness???

I’ll give you a little heads up too – the report I’m referencing was conducted in 2007, and the report was finalized and distributed in January 2008. I know because I worked on the project. And I know for a fact this project wasn’t just confined to the financial/banking industry even though that sector primarily financed it. There’s even a Flu Pandemic Exercise web site if anyone in the media would bother conducting a Google search *cough*The Nation*cough*.

So riddle me this, liberals – how are Republicans against funding preparations for flu pandemics when they’ve been doing so for the last 2 years under the Bush Administration???  Are you going to tell me that they are against national security the next time they oppose your spending bills even though they created the DHS out of nothing?

The other interesting point that I’ll note is how politics play huge into people’s influence when it comes to upholding objectivity while conducting their jobs. When it came time to create the introduction to this report, one of the writers of this report objected to the acknowledgment of President Bush in the report.

Why? As Michelle Malkin would say – NAME. THAT. PARTY!  Because you guessed it – the writer is an uuuuuuuuber liberal – and I know for a fact because he is liberal that’s why he didn’t want to include the reference to the sitting President. If he ever came across this, he’d probably deny it. But come on folks, let’s be real…if this report was created under Captain Kool-Aid’s administration how much you wanna bet that same person would have been begging for Obama’s headshot to be on the front cover.

Alex, I’ll take Liberal Hypocrisy for $1,000.