Three Media

Three Media
Recently, rumors of Katie Couric’s firing from the news has led to speculation – maybe CBS shouldn’t have hired her to replace Dan Rather. I say that CBS should never have hired anyone to replace Dan Rather.
This is an old argument for me – I have advocated this for a long time. Unfortunately, CBS wants to keep it’s news going, despite declining audience numbers. The reason is simple – they still get money from advertisers, and they still have some influence with the electorate – albeit a declining percentage, with their median age over 60.
When Katie was hired, it was supposedly a “groundbreaking” decision. Finally, a woman will get to report the news! Does she have enough stature to do it? Well, apparently not.
Actually, “stature” has nothing to do with who reads the news. The news is the news. A talking monkey could read the news as easily as anyone. All it pretty much takes to get the news across is anyone with an IQ over 60.
But, this is not how the audience looks at it. Reporting the news is a man’s job. No woman has the stature to report it. Otherwise, it isn’t credible.
This was the attitude of this audience – the so-called greatest generation. Walter Cronkite was God to these people. They had absolute faith in big government, big business, big labor, big religion, and yes, big media. The best description for this group is lemmings. And they were sexist pigs, too. It is not totally feminist myth that women couldn’t enter their profession because of their sex – there is a lot of cases where this was true, because they could only be domestics, telephone operators, teachers, or secretaries. For example, when Sandra Day O’Conner went out to find an attorney job, no firm in her town hired women. So when it came to something as serious as “the news,” there was no frivolousness on getting it across.
Of course, today’s Walter Cronkite is Matt Drudge. He is not only the nightly news, but Henry Luce, Bob Woodward, and the National Enquirer all rolled up into one. And there are plenty of alternatives to him, if you think he’s too goofy.
Today, with women in most fields, a chick reading a teleprompter to a national audience is not so revolutionary. It would have been much more of a big deal had the networks hired a woman in 1973 – sure, much of the audience would have left, but the boomer audience would have made up for it by switching. Especially since there were far fewer alternatives to get obtain news since there are today.

Radio
Well, Air America is dead. Now the leftists want to start up a whole new leftwing talk network.
It does not appear they have learned their lesson.This is like some comedy skit. A person wants, lets say, a beer. They go to the bar, the bartender doesn’t like him. The person gets smacked, wanders around aimlessly for a few minutes, then comes back for more. This repeats over and over again. This makes for good comedy – for a while. Then the joke gets old.
It’s like if Pavlov’s dog were retarded.
Ever since the mid 90’s, the leftists have been looking for a replacement for Rush. For arguments hashed out here before, they are not going to find a replacement for him. It’s too little, too late. And their hosts are not very entertaining, which is more of a requirement than 15 years ago, when there was less entertainment on the radio. Even George Soros doesn’t underwrite this stuff.
Whatever it’s called, I don’t see this around very long.

Newspaper
Recently, the newspaper circulation numbers came out. Almost all fell – except for the New York Post, which showed a healthy increase. Even the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times fell – which is somewhat surprising, in that you actually have to pay for a subscription to obtain the news off of their websites. But then again, this stuff is free pretty much everywhere else.
This explains why everyone is falling. Except for the New York Post. Despite being America’s oldest newspaper, it’s numbers keep going up. And why is this? Well, for one thing, it’s more of a tabloid – one that you can read on the subway – than a serious news source (although it is still a newspaper).
In all this bunch, the Seattle PI is at it’s lowest figure in a long, long time – about 125,000 in paid subscriptions. And it’s going down. I believe the rate of decline is eight percent.
Now, you cannot keep a paper going at that rate of paid subscription. And this is not a constant number. This is a logarithmic function. Meaning that the rate is going to keep falling by increasing percentages, largely due to the internet taking away a potential new audience. If costs are not taken into account – i.e., you have the dolts publishing the paper because they keep finding pots of gold to fund it – it will have a very small reader base within a generation – which isn’t reflected in a stable percentage rate of decline.
At some point, it will be too unprofitable to retain, and the plug will have to be pulled. Actually, that time may be now, as the Seattle Times is trying to pull the plug on the JOA. The PI’s argument is that if it goes away, there will only be one editorial opinion in the Seattle area. This point is completely laughable. And totally false. For reasons I have outlined previously.
Despite getting a big payoff over the next forty years, as opposed to losing money for a long time, the Hearst Corporation wants to keep it’s newspaper open in Seattle. I think this has less to do with any business sense – which even William Randolph didn’t have much of – than a desire to keep Democrat opinion in every city.
Hopefully, the judge overhearing this divorce case will be open-minded enough and bright enough to realize that the PI’s arguments are bogus, and he will hopefully grant the divorce.
Due to technological advances, news organizations were able to expand wildly in the 1980’s. Ironically, the same technological advances have threatened their existence in less than a generation.Newspapers have not been around forever – only about 300 years. They are not vital to human existence. But the dissemination of news is. Thus, they are susceptible to the same market forces that most other industries are susceptible to. Which means that, like the buggy manufacturer, they can be driven to extinction. This goes for news that is obtained from the radio and the television. And also, the internet as well.

History tells us that everything is essentially dynamic. And that those institutions you think were around forever - aren't. They teach that what you think is permanent is ephremel.

Testing my laptop, WIFI, etc

Well, I have finally purchased the laptop I wanted for a while.

Now, I am testing this out.

I have a long ride home on the bus. And I read a lot. However, you soon run out of books, and you do internet at home, and Community Transit provides free WIFI on their busses (to make up for the fact that the dolts coudn't get the heater running last winter). It would have been provided a long time ago had the bus system been private, as well as lower fares, but then again, a long time ago government decided it could do it cheaper. Which is true for about ten years, then the advantage goes away because it's government. Just like when the State of Washington decided to nationalize the Black Ball Line, in the 1960's, and make it part of the highway system. Now, there's all kinds of cutbacks, very expensive rate structures, etc.

Enough of that. I am now testing my card to see if my post will be taken by Blogger. I am hijacking off of someone else's portal. I bought my own wireless router today, but need to install it on one of my towers.

I was looking for a cheap laptop because all I would use it for is the internet, pretty much. I heard someone at work announce they were selling them for $30.00 - just what I'm looking for! So I called up the IT department, and bought one (of four) for $30.00. It was a P-2, but no matter - if it surfs the net, it suits my purposes. Unfortunately, there was no wireless card to go with it. They are quite expensive. However, this being the day after turkey day, there are all kinds of sales, and you can get one for as low as $1.97, after all those rebates. So I bought two - since I have two computers.

When all is said and done, I will have spent $25.00 for wireless stuff, including two G-cards and one wireless router. I figure that I got what I needed for about $50.00 - and more stuff to boot. Pretty good deal, huh?

Now, time to get back to my turkey soup.

Thoughts on the Election

As everyone knows, the Democrats have very happily come back to Congress. The nutroots think that they have their way.

Since I am a Republican, all I have to say is that I am not happy with the election. That's a duh. Some of you leftists think that is how I think, but you are wrong - which is why you are a leftist. In any case, since politics is a hobby of mine, I need to weigh in on some of my observations.

1) It was the Republicans that lost, and the Democrats really didn't win.
The Republicans got the country mad at them. As the exit polls indicate, it was primarily over them scandals. The next thing was Iraq. Supposedly, the country was mad over the immigration stance - although some have said that winning Democrats went to the right of Republicans on immigration. Maybe some illegals voted? The Hispanic vote certainly went Democrat.
In any case, the country did not vote for a set of Democrat proposals. We know that Nancy will raise the minimum wage. But hardly anyone gets super excited about that.
Unlike in 1994, the country voted against Clinton, but there was a Republican program - The Contract with America. This was what was promised by Newt - and he delivered. And everyone knew this is what changed Congress over. Had Republicans run totally on anti-Clinton, they would never had regained control of Congress.

2) Thus, Democrats need to work with the minority
As Evan Bayh of Indiana stated, because the country did not vote for Democrat proposals, Congressional Democrats need to find common ground on many issues. They have conceded that gun control is bad (finally). Now, they will try to demand universal, single-payer health care. Trying to force single-payer is going to bring Democrats down, because business will go after them, drying up fundraising. They have to think up more creative solutions besides relabelled dogma. They will have to find common ground to achieve what they want to get, and if they want universal health care, they will have to allow a (huge) role for the market.
BTW: If you like single-payer, look at an Englishman's teeth, and tell me that is something you like (brought to you via a single-payer system that has virtually eliminated the dental industry)
Especially since the Democrats elected a Buchannite in Virginia. Yes, he ran on opposing the war, but so does Buchannan. In fact, they might have brought a Trojan Horse into the party. Now, the nutty survivalists will start voting Democrat, and will start working their way into their structure. Not that I denounce them, but sympathize with them (if they are non-bigoted, as most of them are). And there will be good fireworks at Democrat conventions in the upcoming years, as the nutroots and the survivalists battle it out on the floor.
Unless they do not placate Jim Webb. At which point, he might look favorably at Republicans - especially if there is no war issue, and they get really pushy on some of their leftwing issues.

3) Take heed from the last time you saw on the slogan "Had Enough"
This is not a new slogan. This was tried in 1946. And the slogan worked. The Republicans were returned to Congress, and were set to win the White House in 1948.
Then, Dewey defeated Truman. At least as one headline put it. Truman won handily in 1948 due to Republican high-handedness. As it turned out, this was only one of two breaks in a nearly 64 year Democrat control of Congress. Not a lot got accomplished.
This looks like 1946-1948 again. The Democrats have Dewey. Hillary. Sure, she is not with them on every issue, but neither was Dewey a mainline Republican. While Truman cannot run again, we do have potential to field a scrappy candidate who can surprise all on election day 1948 - er, 2008.
If the Democrats step too much in it, the label "Do-Nothing Congress" can be pinned on them, because they will not accomplish much of anything. And it will show their ultra partisanship, which this country is really sick of right now, so this "do-nothing" label might work (as it did in 1948).

4) We need new methods of running public opinion polls
This election was supposed to be close, per the polls. Instead, the Democrats pulled way ahead of where they were supposed to be. There was supposedly a Republican surge - which didn't materialize on election day.
This is not the first time polls failed us. At one time, they leaned to favor Democrats. Now, they seem to favor Republicans. Remember what happened in 1998? Remember what happened in 2004? That was with the best public polling science out there.
Pollsters need to once again analyze society, to see how they can best gauge attitudes. In fact, they cannot stick to a static model, but now, polling organizations are going to have to hire experts who have an ability to see how society communicates - like sociologists (those not brainwashed into Marxism by their professors) - to get an idea of whom to measure. The famous Literary Digest poll of 1936 showed Langdon handily defeating Roosevelt - but that is because they did their polling via phone - when not a lot of people had one (it was the Depression, and phone and phone minutes were way more expensive then than now). Roosevelt won 46 states (out of 48).
Yes, not everyone today owns a phone. Instead, many people own several. And many of those are not so well off. One can easily get a cheap phone by dumpster diving. Which shows that society constantly changes, so those changes will need to be analyzed to be able to gauge it better - to get more accurate polling results around election time.

5) Seahawks are lucky to survive without their two stars, while the Huskies need to learn to play catch.
Seattle is fortunate in that we have won two games without Hasselback or Alexander, albeit one was a squeeker. It keeps us in the running for the playoffs. Two in one week, and we remain in first place for our division. That is something for this Republican to be happy about.
Something that this Republican was not happy about this week, besides the election, was the fact that the Huskies played an absolutely horrible game. They have no running game. So they decided to play a passing game. Except for the fact that none of the receivers could catch the ball. And this is the game I attended. In fact, every single play the announcer said, again and again, "pass incomplete." Which makes it even worse when an incomplete pass stops the clock. This is torture. At least they could have had a running game and ended the game earlier. In fact, the Huskies had a way worse game than the Republicans had this election.
While this has nothing to do with the election, I thought it is important to bring this up.

6) Lincoln Chafee is a dumbass
There is (was) Lincoln Chafee, a genuine RINO. He did nothing positive to advance the Republican agenda. The Democrats greatly admired him for his stands against Republican legislation. But not enough to not field a candidate against him - in Rhode Island, a blue state, in a blue year, that people long suspected to be a blue year. And as it was quite obvious, he lost.
Now, it is rumored that he will renounce his Republican affiliation. A little late for that. He should have run as a Democrat this year. Everyone knows he has a Democrat voting record. And he would have been returned to Congress as one.
As Forest Gump said, stupid is as stupid does.

7) Joe Lieberman is playing games
Joe Lieberman lost the Democrat primary to Ned Lamont (whose great-grandfather was "the man", by the way). So he ran as an "independent." With the help of Republicans, he won.
It was asked if he would switch party affiliations. He did not rule if out. So some bloggers think it is a possiblity. I think not.
Remember, this was the Democrat Vice-President nominee in 2000. And he almost became Vice-President, too, as we all remember. And he fought tooth-and-nail to try to VP, as we remember. On top of the fac that his ACU voting record is lower than that of Kucinich (who actually has quite a high ACU voting record for someone rumored to be so Progressive), I very highly doubt that he will ever become a Republican.
Despite being elected as an "Independent," he will supposedly head up the Senate Homeland Security Committee. He has an incentive to remain a D. I think that, more than anything, he is playing games with the Democrats, threatening them by indicating that he maybe might leave to the R's if he doesn't get his way. And a maybe might really means "no." He says this to keep his committee chair, and get them to back off on the war. Republicans should not get their hopes too high up.
Which leads to...

8) We will remain in Iraq
The House will pressure the Bush administration to pull out of Iraq. But it will have a harder time in the Senate. A much harder time.
The Senate is made up of an even amount of Democrats and Republicans. There are two "Independents" who almost always vote with Democrats, especially on procedural matters.
Now, despite the fact that anti-war Democrats won in almost every tight race, most of the Republican Senators are of some kind of conservative persuasion. Joe Lieberman will support the administration on this position - especially to get back at the Democrats for getting at him for this issue. Bush might be able to peel away one of two blue Senators from a very red state to vote for the war. If they get 50 votes, Cheney will break a tie.
Thus, for the remainder of this term, I see that it will be very difficult to get out of Iraq.

9) We will see investigations, investigations, investigations
The various House committees know they cannot do much, but they can try to embarass the Bush administration to get an issue for 2008. So expect them to investigate as much as they can possibly investigate.
Fortunately, we have historical experience on how to deflect these things. While the Clintons hid a lot during their term in office, they did teach us about various counter tactics. I think I have said this earlier, but I heard Rush allude to them over the weekend. While Clinton got impeached, it was after four years. They only have 1 1/2 years to do this to Bush. And the American people do not have the patience for all that legal minutia used to block investigations. Unless Bush uses it to hid the facts he is getting blow jobs in the oval office, after a while, independent Joe Voter will not be much interested in what leftist wonks find fascinating.
The Democrats do not intend to impeach Bush, but they intend to use the House to make him look as bad as possible for 2008. At which point, we can use the term "do-nothing Congress."

10) The Democrats should have stuck with Dave Ross
Dave Ross ran against Dave Reichart in 2004, when Jennifer Dunn retired. It was a close race, but in a red year, Dave Reichart won - in a district that went for Kerry.
I believe that Dave Ross, a talk-show host, could have won. He certainly has the gravitas to do so. But instead, the nutroots had to nominate one of their own; someone who spent more time in loony Seattle than in the moderate district herself.
So it was close again. But now, she conceded. Because she lost. So the Democrats will have to find someone else to run again, in a former R District.
Darcy Burner, my age, supposedly had a problem about the truth. She lied a lot about herself. She was not really a manager at Microsoft, but a worker bee. Which isn't a bad thing, considering it is Microsoft, but one ought not give out gross lies.
Speaking of gross, she had a face that looks like a butt. I'm serious. While this may hinder a man in getting elected to office, he might have enough going for him to get elected (see Richard Nixon). But women are not supposed to have a face that looks like a butt. That gets you in trouble electorally. If the Democrats had not elected Buttface, they might have gotten another seat, and had an easier time getting their agenda thru.
Maybe in 2008 they will get another strong challenger. But Dave Reichart seems to be playing a smart game, where he is a conservative on some issues that the base likes, but is a pragmatist on issues that matter to his constitutients - which is a moderate district, and likes to see Representatives who are willing to work to get stuff accomplished.

11) Finally, parties need to give good lecturers to new elected officials about upright behaviour
It was scandals that brought down Republicans. Perverted sex scandals, financial scandals, ethical scandals. And many of these could have been avoided if my plan is followed.
Parties should select candidates who are there to serve a cause. They need to realize that the cause is more important than they themselves. If they have problems with money, they can retire and get some lucrative corporate job. Yes, this isn't Cincinatius, but at least, they are honest. If they are perverted, they should be forced out to "spend more time with their family" and go pursue their own sexual pecadillos outside of range of the press.
The leadership knows about what is going on. We need leadership with more guts in dealing with their own bad boys. In getting this kind of leadership, they will be in a stronger position to get their own agenda across.

That's all. I hope my lessons serve well.

Don't Denouce Behaviours You Engage In

By now, we know about the story about the anti-gay priest who had sex with a male prostitute. And of course, the left screams - actually snickers - hypocracy.

For them, this is a happy day. They are now hoping that gay marriage will be approved. The opposition to gay marriage is nothing more than a stop-gap measure, and will eventually become reality. Gay marriage is what happens in a declining civilization - it was permitted during the Roman Empire, when it started it's decline - and our civilization has been declining since 1914. And it lasts a few hundred years, and terminates when society can no longer afford it. Indeed, there is no other civilization where same-sex marriage was allowed.

But enough about the gay bashing. I am here to write about something else.

It turns out that some of the most prominent gay bashers are themselves buttfuckers. Like they are trying to prove something. Not only this pastor, but also, the head of Exodus, an organization that claims you can cure homosexuality, John Paulk, seems to like to hang around gay bars "to check the scene out." Now, I'm not gay, but I certainly have never been to a gay bar, a meat rack, a tea room, a bathhouse, a "book store," or any other such place. And I have no desire to "check the scene out" - I would probably get grossed out. And there are many people who preach tolerance toward gay behavior, who are straight, who also have never been to such places.

And, yes, I do believe that most gays - but not all (remember "progressives" - that's an absolute) - are "born gay." The problem Christianity has with homosexuality is not some person who has an interest in the same sex, but that they carry out their temptations. Denunciation of homosexuality comes primarily from the Abrahamiac religions. Some gay activists, in arguing for churches to accept them, say "how can you deny your feelings?" Well, actually, the big thing Christianity teaches is to resist temptation, and that means denying your feelings. The late Sam Kinnison was quite clear - you suck the dick, you lose the Kingdom. No ifs, ands, or, well, forgive the pun, butts.

There are some sects of Christianity that both recognize and reconciliate this fact. They accept gay individuals as members. As long as they are celibate (or marry the opposite sex, and have no extramariatial sex). For the Bible - and the Quran, and the Talmud - repeatedly condemn this action. I believe that God gives us our own temptations, as part of our test in life, and we need to be able to overcome them to pass. Anything else is sophistry.

Now, I was once a real homophobe. That is when I was a leftist. But ironically, I became more tolerant the summer I became a conservative. Now, I really don't care if two guys want to engage in such behavior. The reason why I write about it so much is because radical gay activists have pushed their own gay causes so much, that it has pretty much become a top issue. It wasn't W who made it a big issue in 2004, it was Gavin Newsome, who married gays at City Hall. And they have constantly been pushing their agenda since Stonewall.

In any case, now that I have outlined my belief, I will outline the other moral of the story. If you are going to voicifirously condemn something, don't engage in that behaviour yourself.

It turns out that, often, the most ardent opponnents of a behaviour are secret - or not so secret - practitioners of that behaviour. As I mentioned about some bigtime homophobes above. But it is not only on the right.

You see, the left engages in major hypocracy too. Especially the leadership. Because to rise to the top, you need money. And lots of it. And, often, it is unearned.

Who is the biggest opponnent of tax cuts? Ted Kennedy. And how much wealth has he created? Less than I have - and I don't have much. But his wealth is the result of the hard work of four previous generations. Now he gets to live like a degenerate, and denounce low taxes.

You might not grasp how a rich person who denounces tax cuts would be a hypocrite. But that is because you probably do not have the intelligence, or an open-enough mind, to grasp a critical fact. It has to do with a basic economic law, about the value of something.

It is outlined in the diamond-water paradox. Water, essential for life, is very cheap - unless you are snooty and pay $5.00/gallon at PCC markets (see P.T. Barnum). Diamonds, on the other hand, are essentially worthless, and you pay several thousands of dollars for a tiny spec of a glass-like material. (There are diamonds that have value, like in cutting things, but those are not shiny, and are pretty cheap). So why are diamonds worth a ton, and water is very, very cheap? Not only does it have to do with supply, but also in the way people perceive the value of each item. Indeed, if we based something on need, water would still probably be pretty cheap due to supply, but diamonds would be just as cheap, per volume, because they have no real worth whatsoever.

One can extend this to wealth. Someone who is born to tons and tons of wealth have a low marginal value per dollar. On the other hand, someone who does not have a lot of wealth has a high marginal value per dollar. A person who is earning $40,000/year, whose has no real assets, is obviously going to value $500 much more than a person who makes (such person certainly is not doing anything to "earn" this money) $160,000/year and is worth several hundred million dollars. Indeed, the former person is going to value $500 much more than the latter person would value $20 million. Because the former person needs the $500 much more than the worthless, degenerate bum who has spent his life trying to destroy this country and tries to live off of the legacy of a dead brother. Not only is there the supply side argument about creating jobs, there is also this argument that tax cuts benefits average individuals like me much more than drunken politicians who have never earned a dollar in their life.

This is partially where hypocracy comes in. But there is more. If they do not get born into money, they marry into it. They refuse to expose their wealth to the tax collectors by purchasing municipal bonds. Or they set up "trusts." Yes, they might sacrafice by getting a "lower rate of return," but they are still coming out way ahead of most individuals. In a twisted way, maybe WPPSS was a fair way of getting some money back. As we can see by the latter generation of the Kennedys, they certainly have benefited from, and sensually enjoyed, their wealth. The Kennedys have not given all their money to the poor, or lived monk-like lives. If taxes go up, their lifestyles do not change. That is because they have so much wealth, they can still afford to purchase whatever they desire (legal or non-legal). But they advocate that we engage in "sacrifice," by cutting back our consumption, so we can pay more in taxes. As is, the savings rates of Americans may now be nil. A few years ago, it was 2%, which does not allow for much cutting back.

This is not practicing what you preach. This is why rich liberals are much bigger hypocrates than the occasional degenerate conservative. While a degenerate conservative might lobby against gay marriage while buttfucking a male prostitute, at least a studmuffin can still go down to the local bathhouse and have sex with eight men a night. When a leftist pushes for higher taxes, and still continues with their lifestyle, we average folks have to cut back on our consumption to pay for these taxes (as well as the other economic problems created due to high taxes).

Thus, if the left wants to push for higher taxes, I think we conservatives should start publically asking if the Kennedys will cut back on their very high level of consumption to show that they actually empathize with those who work for a living (and do not make a lot). Or if George Soros will give all his wealth to food banks or NGO relief agencies so they can buy food for destitute individuals.

There was one modern individual who tried hard to do this. He preached for the destitute, and he was rich. However, he knew his own hypocracy, so when he couldn't give all his wealth away, he simply left it behind. His name was Leo Tolstoy, and I think those redistributionists need to learn from his example.

I think we conservatives have ammo here, just like the left has ammo against homophobic buttfuckers. We also have ammo against those leftists with armed bodyguards who preach gun-control (they can get serious about this issue when they give them up and live in the real world). Engaging in behaviour you work to prevent ends up in a loss of credibility.

Which is why the pastor not only gave up his position as head of the organization, but as head of his church. Because he really did engage in the behaviour - although the ho failed his lie detector test. Had he engaged in moral activity, he could have withstood those attacks on his character, and if he had backbone, come out with even more credibility. If he truly only wanted massages, he could have legally found one very easily, especially in Colorado Springs. There are tons in that town, because the people there are all fat and unhealthy, and get soft tissue injuries quite easily, creating a lot of demand for their services (and no, I don't mean "services." I'm talking about the legit ones). I know, because over half of my Colorado claims come from that one city, whose metropolitian area is much smaller than that of Denver. And fat people need massages much more than not-fat people. Once I dated this obese chick who "woke up wrong" and had to postpone going out because she needed to massage her condition away. Not only is obesity a turn-off for me, but so is someone who gets injured all the time.

Now, if you do not condemn a behaviour, but get caught doing it, you will not lose face. The best example is Rush Limbaugh's pill behaviour. While the left was complaining about his "hypocracy," they had no basis to so argue. The last time Rush had denounced drugs was in 1996 - two years before he even tried Oxycontin. And he only very sporadically denounced such activities before then. Because he did not denounce a behaviour in which he was engaged, when he was caught taking drugs, his audience did not flee in disgust, but stayed with him. And the left looked silly.

So, if you are a preacher who likes buttfucking, do not volunteer to lead the fight against gay marriage. Or, if you are a rich person who enjoys your wealth, do not denounce tax cuts. Because by doing so, you not only have no credibility, but you also look like a buffoon.