Wherein I express myriad incredulities

Archive for December 2010

America’s Next Top Model

leave a comment »

OKAY, I admit it. America’s Next Top Model is one of my guilty pleasures. There’s just something about a tangled mess of limbs covered in makeup and drowning in drama that is entertaining as all get out.

Now, everybody knows that the best episode of each cycle is the makeover episode. It’s usually episode 3 (why no, I have not watched each of these episodes as they are uploaded onto YouTube WHAT??), and it is where all of the fake foam-brick walls of self-esteem come falling down in a cascade of tears, bitterness, hair dye, and extensions.

I want to see an episode where they shave everyone’s head. It would be priceless.  Although the screaming might break every mirror in America. They could all wear wigs from Kim Zolciak‘s line and promote the Real Housewives of Atlanta and ANTM at the SAME TIME.


Written by fudgebudget

December 20, 2010 at 8:34 pm


leave a comment »

In light of Senator John McCain’s senate record of the last few years (and in celebration of the repeal of DADT passing!), I would like to respectfully demand that he relinquish his self-proclaimed title of “Maverick.”

And I do believe that he honestly thinks he’s a maverick.

Just like I do believe that this woman honestly thinks she’s not crazy.

Now, Webster defines “maverick” as two things:

  1. an unbranded range animal; especially: a motherless calf
  2. an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party

Let’s assume that when McCain claims to be a maverick, he doesn’t mean this:

But, surely, he cannot mean this:

Now, here is where my despair clearly shows through – where I mourn the loss of true Republicans who were social liberals, because they ACTUALLY wanted less government. The Republicans in office today DO want less government … in their pockets. They are all about having the government in our personal lives.

So it would make sense that Senator McCain, who identifies so frequently and vehemently as a “Maverick,” would recognize the opportunity to vote against his party, do the right thing, and use his position of privilege to extend civil rights to one of this country’s largest minorities. Except for not.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say that I do not resent McCain for his service – I admire him for serving in general, and even moreso for serving during a time of war. HOWEVER, I do not believe that his word should be law on this just because he served. Kerry served, too – in the same war – and he doesn’t have a problem with repealing DADT.

Truman desegregated the troops in 1948, so McCain didn’t have a choice about serving with men of color – does his adamant support of DADT also mean that he would have opposed desegregation of the troops if THAT were to have come to vote while he was serving?

McCain’s inconsistency leads me to believe many things, not the least of which being:

  • McCain is homophobic to a fault
  • McCain vastly underestimates the troops if he thinks they can’t get over their fellow men and women being gay (and if something like that bothers them so much, then maybe they aren’t stable enough to be wielding AK-47s)
  • McCain needs to stop calling himself a maverick

For once, I think that Urban Dictionary may be spot on. Their second definition of “maverick” is:

not John McCain.

Written by fudgebudget

December 18, 2010 at 10:37 pm

Posted in Comic, General

Tagged with , , , , ,


leave a comment »

It is a widely known fact between my friends (and probably anyone that’s ever been within ten feet of me) that I HATE television banter. Don’t pretend like you don’t know what I’m talking about.

HAHAHA. Ooooooh everything on local news and morning shows is SO FUNNY and everyone just LAUGHS AND LAUGHS and it’s so fake it makes me want to puke and/or gauge someone’s eyes out. Preferably the people on TV who are the single biggest contributors to the hole in the ozone since everyone in the 1980s.

News background came from here and the squirrel came from here.

Written by fudgebudget

December 9, 2010 at 5:14 pm


leave a comment »

Anyone who has ever worked in a library knows EXACTLY what I am talking about.

Creepers are the patrons who creep the hell out of you.  Every library has at LEAST one patron who does this on a regular basis. At the public library, we had Crazy Hannah Montana Dude, the Stacks Flasher, and before we had an enclosed desk there was a myriad of people who would sneak up behind us and breathe in our ears (yes, that is as creepy and distressing as it sounds).

At my current library, we have a guy who comes in almost every morning to use the computers. He camps out by the door and waits for me to open, pushing his way in before I can even unlock the other door. Sometimes he prints things, and he always manages to get up to the desk before the printer stops, which means that I can’t hear him approach. And he’s just THERE. Staring vacantly. His gaze reminds me of being stalked by a goose, as he has an oddly shaped head and I can never see the whites of his eyes.

The creepiest part, however, is the fact that the tone of his voice never matches his facial expressions. Like he’ll leer at you while speaking cheerfully.

So to those of you who read this and have a buffer between yourself and the public: I envy you. You don’t have stalker geese who are more than vaguely reminiscent of John Wayne Gacy.

I am not responsible for whatever happens if a clown ever shows up in here.

Written by fudgebudget

December 8, 2010 at 6:56 pm

Don’t Ask Don’t Tolerate

leave a comment »

After receiving many complaints from various (one) family member(s), I have removed my “liberal” (which is all subjective, really) political rants from my Facebook page. Which means you get to hear them here!  Hooray for you.

At any rate, here is my issue today: an article on military chaplains and DADT.

A highlights from the article includes the following quote (incidentally, I’m wishing now that this was a NYT article so I could use the nifty new highlighting feature … because I’m a library nerd).

Among the issues raised by chaplains, according to the report, is whether a change in policy would hinder ministers’ religious expression, particularly for those faiths that consider homosexuality immoral.

Wait, I’m sorry, I must have misread – apparently these chaplains, presumably working in such sensitive environments as combat and intelligence collection, don’t feel like they can do their job without engaging in discrimination and divisiveness? What?

Now, I have never served, but I know a lot of people who have, and I have done a whole lot of research about it.  One of the recurring themes that I hear about is trust. You need to be able to trust the people around you when you’re doing dangerous stuff – sounds reasonable, right?

And I know that was one of the issues with repealing DADT – that if some people were to find out that the guys/gals with whom they were working were gay, that they wouldn’t be able to trust them (because the discriminators have serious personal issues that they need to work through, apparently).

So, in light of that, how dangerous is it, then, to have that discrimination sanctioned by your chaplain, who wants to be able to tell you that you’re right – that you can’t trust homosexuals – that they are an abomination and inherently living in sin?

I am totally okay with chaplains being prevented from saying things like that. Completely. I know that some things are valid exceptions to the “no mixing government and religion” rule – and that in stressful situations, a chaplain may be a huge condolence. I get why a person would need his/her faith in the military.

But really? Can a chaplain not do his/her job without engaging in discriminatory speech? If s/he can’t evoke a message of faith without dividing soldiers and military personnel, then maybe s/he doesn’t belong there. At that point, the chaplain is the problem, not the gay soldier.

Written by fudgebudget

December 6, 2010 at 2:12 am