Sunday, October 19, 2008

Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live


I can only imagine what the fall-out of this is going to be. I'll have to start searching it up, I guess.

Palin Rap. Oh, dear. Dear, dear, dear.



I still love this woman. You will not sway me, SNL, with your humorous antics!

Friday, October 17, 2008

Obama Bucks! Oh, Good Golly.

Apparently, the Chaffey Community Republican Women, led by Diane Fedele, have been distributing Obama Bucks--$10 Food Stamps with a Very Racist depcition of Obama.

Obama Bucks, Sadly. Oh, the Humanity. If I Didnt Know Better, Id Think This Was Some Pro-Obama Persons Idea. It certainly doesnt help Republicrats.



I swear. With friends like these, who needs enemas? Not good, peoples, not good. Not that John McLame has any chance of winning this thing, but did you actually think this would help? Didn't anybody around you say, "Hey, maybe this isn't a good idea?" Crikey.

Diane Fedele has since apologized, but the damage has been done. What a nin-cow-poop.

Not that there aren't other Republican groups trying to torpedo John McCain and marginalize the Republican party by being dipshizzles.

In other memes, you Internets is searching on about constipation. Why are you searching for that? Actually, after seeing those Obama bucks, I feel a little constipated. Maybe we all need some enemas.

In entertaining news, Eminem (Marshall Mathers, Slim Shady) has apparently had a Relapse. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

The Perot Factor


Years ago, I did an analysis of the 1992 election returns in order to demonstrate the statistical certainty that Perot was a spoiler in that election, handing it to Clinton, despite protests from the MSM, liberals and Perot himself. I finally dusted it off and put it up here, years after having first meant to do this.


General Medical Supplies from DME Supply Group. We carry Invacare, Medline, Graham-Field and More! Check it out today!


I recently engaged in an exchange on a liberal blog about Ross Perot and the '92 election. It went the same way such exchanges always do:

Me: It was Ross Perot that put him in the White House.

Them: A lie. Perot drew votes about equally from Bush and Clinton. Certainly he was not the difference maker despite the Republicans' assertions otherwise.

Then, me again:

Actually, it's true. I did a lengthy analysis of the '92 election results and there is no way that Perot was not a spoiler for Bush senior. Now, in fairness, that was the landscape of that political year, and Bush could not keep Clinton and Perot at bay. But Perot acted as a spoiler, if by no other measure (such as the extra ad buys he made and press coverage he got where he spent 80% of the time attacking H.W. Bush) then electorally--while it may not be impossible, it is statistically highly improbable that Clinton would have won without Perot in the race. Even if you accept the notion that Perot drew evenly from both candidates, which you should not (were Blue Dog Democrats who had voted for Reagan and Bush really going to vote for Clinton, if Perot had not been in the mix? Probably not, but those folks are counted on the Democrat side of "drawing evenly between the two parties") . . . where was I? Oh, yeah, there were enough states with enough electoral votes where the smallest shift in Bush's favor would give Bush the election.

I calculated it as something around 35% of the Perot votes going to H.W. Bush gives him the election in 1992. I'd have to go back through the stats again, it's been a long time, but . . . am I really supposed to believe liberal Democrats were enamored with Perot? The Texas Billionaire who talked like a Kentucky Fried chicken? Yes, he had a populist streak, but still . . .

Okee-dokee.

Nader was a spoiler for Gore in 2000, with much less of the vote than Perot got. Whaddaya think about that bald assertion? Without Nader, Gore wins in 2000. No recounts. Done.

This originally came up on a mailing list I subscribed to in the days before blogging, debating the relative obsession the media had at the time with how bad it was Nader would be a spoiler in the 2000 election, when they had no problem with Perot being in it. Even though Perot was clearly a "spoiler", because he was not going to win the election and was clearly going to draw more votes from the Republicans than the Democrats. My argument at the time was that it was because Perot was going to hurt Bush's chance at winning a 2nd term that Perot never got the question: "Aren't you worried about throwing the election to Clinton?" Which was, of course, exactly the sort of question that Nader got about throwing the election to the junior Bush, since he would clearly take potential votes away from Gore.

So, there was a call, when Nader was running, that he drop out, so only the two parties who had a chance of winning would be running, and it would be more fair. Yet they didn't call for only two parties when Perot was running because the press, and partisan Democrats, knew
Perot was not a serious threat to the Democrats, but could easily spoil the election for Bush.

That Nader's candidacy, and potential as a spoiler, was this huge deal compared to Perot's candidacy, and potential as a spoiler, was just silly.

Perot got a larger percentage of the vote both times he ran than Nader did in 2000. And the difference almost certainly cost Bush, Sr. the election, even with some crossover. He was obviously going to get more of the vote. And he was a lunatic billionaire to boot. The difference is, he obviously was a big siphoner of Republican voters who respond well to the Perot-style Texas-fried southern populism. He certainly cost George, Sr. the '92 election as Nader cost Gore in 2000. And Nader got a much smaller number of votes, overall. And he never polled as high as Perot did, nowhere near it. But during the run up to 2000, there was all sorts of concern in the media about Nader. With Perot? They gave him a soapbox on Larry King. There were no concerned questions about his distorting the elections. Because Perot was most likely to hurt Bush, and they knew it.

The response from the left:

He's in the race. He's out of the race. He's back in the race. There was no "Perot factor" in either of the elections he ran in. Bush and Dole didn't lose to Clinton because Perot siphoned off votes; if 100 percent of the Perot vote would have gone to the GOP, Clinton would have still won both elections.
That was an actual, quoted response from a liberal on the issue, btw. They don't all make the empircally false claim that if 100% of the vote had gone to Bush, he still would have lost both elections (Republicans would have won 1992, and might have squeaked by electorally in 1996, in that case, actually). But it's not entirely atypical of the revisionist history they employ around this issue, either.

Simply put, the numbers show that Perot was a major factor in both elections. In 1992, Clinton got 44,908,233 votes. George H. W. Bush got 39,102,282 votes. H. Ross Perot got 19,741,048 votes. If you add Perot and Bush's votes together, the number you get is . . tada . . . 58,843,330 votes. That's a margin of victory of 24%. If Bush had gotten all of that, which he wouldn't have but Gore would not have gotten all of Ralph Nader's votes, either, as most of those people would have voted for the next socialist candidate on the ballot, or another greenish or liberal-communist party. But that's an election night landslide, put together, that would have nuked Clinton. Statistically, the electoral votes would have gone, in a clear and decisive victory, to George Herbert Walker Bush. In comparison, Nader was a gnat.

Ronald Reagan got 53,428,357 votes in 1984, to Walter Mondale's 36,930,923 votes. That was a victory margin for Reagan of 31%. A huge landslide in a presidential race. 24% is less, but still in popular landslide territory, historically.

As a comparative, John Anderson got 5,588,014 votes in 1980. Ralph Nader got 2,695,696 votes in 2000. That is a pathetic turn out for a 3rd party candidate . . . nearly 3 million less votes than John Anderson in 1980. And the media wasn't wringing their hands about John Anderson--indeed, CNN took the previous unheard of step of the delaying the Carter/Reagan debates to give John Anderson time to respond, during the debates, as if he was actually at the debates. Which he was not.

Even in 1996, Perot got 8,085,294 votes. Dole got 39,197,469. Together, that would have been 47,282,763 to Clinton's 47,401,185. Enough to have the Supreme Court award the election to Dole. Still, 8,085,294 is a much larger factor than 2,695,696. And Perot polled higher than Nader ever did . . . something like 18% at one point.

So the statement that Clinton would have won both elections is patently false. Against Dole, with CLinton running as an incumbent, yes. Without Perot, it is enormously unlikely that Clinton would have beat Bush. Again, Nader is this big deal, polling at 5% and with a final total of 2 million votes, 3 million less than John Anderson in 1980 and 17 million less than Perot . . . Well, the argument that Nader presented this huge threat to the 2 party system while Perot didn't does not hold water. The deciding factor is the political party negatively affected, at least in popular perception.

Nader, OTOH, probably did put Bush in the White House by splitting the
Democratic ticket in Florida.

Yup. Just like Perot put Clinton in the Whitehouse in 1992 (look at the state by state returns for the electoral breakdown--Clinton would have been nuked if less than half the Perot voters went to Bush and Perot courted likely Bush voters like nobody's business). Payback's a bitch, isn't it? ;)

The next liberal objection: Not that I care, but your example depends on all of the people who
voted for Perot voting for Bush or Dole.


The fact is, it depends on less that half the people in several states that went for Perot going for Bush, which exit polling at the time and subsequent polls have indicated would be an underestimate. Even if 1/3rd of the vote that went to Perot went to Bush in the popular election, if Clinton still took it it would be the only time in history there was that large a discrepancy between the final electoral count and the popular vote. It seems very unlikely, and intellectually dishonest, to say Perot was a lesser effect than Nader because a particular state was split dead even and Nader made the difference. While heated and close, so more visible and emotionally impactful, Perot did that same thing to Bush in '92, with a hell of a lot more votes, state after state after state. Add that to the fact that Perot spent a ton of money trashing George Bush and a lot less energy (and money) trashing Clinton and had a personal animus against George Herbert Walker, and went so far as to buy an hour of prime time television on ABC to pimp his candidacy and spent almost all of his money courting likely Bush voters, Republicans, evangelicals and disaffected conservatives, and it's just not rational to assert that Perot didn't cost Bush the 1992 election.

As I have documented, it would have taken all of them voting for Dole (which would not have happened) but it would have only taken 1/3rd of them voting for Bush. Given the circumstances, that's a very reasonable expectation.

Anecdote from the left: I know a
couple who voted for Perot who would have voted for Clinton and I
assume there must be others.


Oh, no doubt, it takes all kinds. There are people who would have voted for one or the other if Harry Browne hadn't run, etc., etc. Some Perotistas would have voted for Clinton. Less likely that many Naderites would have voted for Bush . . . a lot more likely that those, unconvinced by the constant and public attacks on Nader to abandon him, would have stayed home and not voted, period, or voted for another eco-ultra-liberal-socialist. But the 1/3rd threshold, given both the active extra negative campaigning (almost 2 against one at some points) and the appeal of southern-fried populist to the Christian Right and a lot of other Grand Old Party types. I knew plenty of people who were all Bushy, until they found lust in their heart for Perot. If that pretty pair of eyes hadn't shown up, they would have stayed faithful and true. ;)

Another objection from the left to the Perot factor idea: It also does not allow for the number of people who would have said, "Screw it" and not voted at all.

It does. It accommodates 2/3rds of them. Not to mention the statistical probability of at least one big state going for Bush without the Perot factor . . . I am specific not to require all., but just a percentage (about 35%) of Perot voters going for Bush to give Bush the victory in '92.

Now, I'm not saying Nader wasn't a spoiler in 2000. Statistically, enough votes would have gone to Gore, in Florida, that Gore would have won Florida with thousands of votes to spare. No recounts. Only 3% of the votes for Nader, as few as they were, would have had to have gone to Gore, in Florida, for Gore to take the Whitehouse in the 2000 election. Probably at minimum 10% of those votes would have gone to Gore instead, as the lesser of two evils in the minds of those voters.

The next objection (from folks who embrace erratic and inconclusive models for global warming as hard fact): No one knows what the numbers
would have been in 92 or 96.


Well, no, you can't know for sure, in 92, 96, or 2000, but statistical likelihood makes to a frickin' good bet, and my central argument regarding the existence of a "Perot Factor" is about the disparity between the attacks and concerns over Nader and the lack thereof over Perot, and the attempt to assert that Perot was irrelevant to the results while Nader was crucial.

My assertion is that Perot was so influential that the Clinton victory was so decisive that it would be tough to notice, even if you wanted to. Without an exhaustive trip through the numbers, which I will make below.

More to the point, unless you knew Florida was going to happen before hand, all the polling data indicated Perot was going to be a much bigger factor than Nader, while still having no chance in hell of winning, so he would just be a spoiler, almost certainly for Bush. The idea that there was no big issue with Perot like there was with Nader because Perot "clearly" wasn't a "factor" . . . well, that's just absurd. There's nothing to back that up with.

Not that I object at all the the outcome on that basis, as Bush and Clinton had to earn their votes, just like Dubya and Gore, and if Nader or Perot was a factor, they didn't do their job convincing enough of the people that they were a better choice.

...

So, how do we establish that Perot was a spoiler? Really and tuly? Read the state returns. Perot cost Bush the election, period. To deny it is wishful thinking. To say Nader did it, but Perot didn't, is to apply an obvious double-standard. 19 million votes to 2 million votes. If half of Perot's votes went to Bush, it's a popular victory of 12%! There hasn't been an election in history where the electoral vote was the opposite of a 12% margin of popular victory. And the state returns bear it out. With even with half of what Perot got, Bush would have gotten some 30-odd or more electoral votes than Clinton, and taken the election. Even if 1/3rd of the Perot voters
swung to Bush, he would have taken it. If 1/3 of the Nader voters swung to Gore, he still could have lost the election as it recount stands (if the other Nader voters voted instead for Bush, which is not likely, but still, it's the argument the anti-Perot-Factor people make: that Perot split the vote evenly between Democrats and Republicans so, in truth, "it was like he wasn't even there at all".

While Florida went Bush, anyway, by 100,000 votes in 1992, it's worth noting that Perot picked up over 1 million votes in Florida . . . Clinton and Bush both got a few hundred thousand over 2 million . . . had the ballots been extra confusing in Palm Beach County that year, that million votes could have made the difference. By contrast, Nader picked up 97,488 votes in Florida . . . less than 10% of what Perot managed. It was decisive in this case, but if you go through state-by-state returns, Perot, with 3/4 to 1/2 of the vote going to Bush, if not him, was decisive in '92. Just, your guy was in, and benefited from it, so why complain?

Unless the MSM and liberals were psychic, and could see a 300 vote difference in Florida determining the presidency, there is no way that the bitching about Nader was an objective, bi-partisan protest against diluting the two-party system. Perot cost Bush the election in '92, and the risk of that was very clear in '92--Perot was polling at 18% in some polls at one point in time, light years above anything Nader could even hope to have managed (and if you did the same math--Clinton's numbers vs. Bush's numbers vs. Perots, you could see that a 1/2 to 3/4 shift of Perot voters to Bush could easily make the difference in the election). There were almost no complaints about that, because most of the news media, if not overtly supporting Clinton, was at least plenty happy to have him win, vs. Bush, Sr. Certainly, I recall no interviews of Perot that took on the tone of the 11th hours interviews of Nader: "So, the election is tomorrow, and you wake up, and Bush is president because of you. Can you live with yourself?" "For the good of the
country, shouldn't you withdraw?" Yada, yada.

I haven't done an exhaustive state by state for 1996, because I figured Clinton probably took it no matter, but it is interesting to note the returns of one state . . . Florida!

In 1996, Clinton won Florida, 2,546,600 to 2,224,164 over Dole, or a
difference of 322,436 votes. Perot got 483,841 votes. If 3/4 of those
votes went to Dole, that would have been 362,881 extra votes for
Dole, giving Dole a lead of 40,445 votes, which would have given Dole
Florida. And some spiffy electoral votes, to boot.

Activity Room Accessories for Clinical, Nursing Home and Hospice Applications from DME Supply Group


And here they come. Just some quick numbers for '92:

Arizona went to Clinton, 653,288 to 622,073. Perot got 112,072. If just 1/3 of those Perot votes went to George H. W. Bush, Bush takes Arizona and it's 8 electoral votes.

California went to Clinton, 5,121,325 to 3,630,574. A tidy victory of 1,490,751 votes. However, Perot got 2,296,006 votes in CA in '92. If 3/4 of those votes went to Bush instead of Perot, Bush would have taken CA, and its 54 honkin' electoral votes.

Colarado went to Clinton, 629,681 to 562,850. A fairly decent victory for Clinton of 66,831 votes. Perot got 366,010 votes. If just a paltry 1/4 of those votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have taken Colorado by some 25,000 odd votes. That would have given Colorado to Bush, and its 8 electoral votes.

Connecticut went to Clinton, 682,318 to 578,313. Perot got 348,771 votes. Same as Colorado: a meager 1/4 of Perot voters voting for Bush, Bush takes Connecticut and its 8 electoral votes.

Delaware: 126,054 to 102,313, Clinton. Perot took 59,213. If half that went to Bush, Delaware goes Bush, and 3 more electoral votes.

Georgia went to Clinton in '92, 1,008,966 to 995,252. Perot took 308,657. If less than 1/3 of that vote went to Bush, Bush would have taken Georgia, and its 13 electoral votes.

Iowa went to Clinton, 586,353 to 504,891 for G.H.W.Bush . . . Perot scored 253,468 votes. If a little less than 1/3rd of those went to Bush, Bush would have taken Iowa, and it's 7 electoral votes.

Kentucky? 665,104 for Clinton to 617,178 for Bush. Perot got 203,994 votes. Less than 1/4th of those tips Kentucky in Bush country, and Bush would have taken Kentucky's 8 electoral votes.

Louisianna: 815,971 Clinton to 733,386 Bush, 211,478 Perot. You do the math. If Bush scored half of the Perotistas, Bush takes Lousiana and its 9 votes.

Maine went Clinton, 263,420 to 206,504 for Bush. Perot took 206,820. 1/4th of those to Bush, Bush takes Maine and 4 more electorals.

Maryland went to Clinton, 988,571 to 707,094 for Bush. If pretty much all of Perot's 281,414 votes went to Bush, it would have been a dead heat, with Clinton still taking it by 63 votes.

If all of Massachusetts' Perot votes went to Bush, Bush would have won the state by 100,000 votes.

Michigan went to Clinton, 1,871,182 to 1,554,940. 1/3 of Perot's 824,813 votes bring Michigan, and its 18 electoral votes, into Bush country.

Minnesota went to Clinton, 1,020,997 to 747,841. However, 3/4 of Perot's 562,506 votes would have swung Minnesota, and it's 10 electorals, for Bush. Missouri went to Clinton, 1,053,873 to 811,159. Half of Perot's 518,741 votes, and Missouri and its 11 electoral votes go Bush.

Clinton took Montana by 10,000 votes. Perot got 107,225 votes. If 10 percent of Perot voters took Bush instead, Bush takes Montana in 92, and it's 3 electoral votes.

Nevada went Clinton, 189,148 to 175,828 . . . about 14,000 votes. Perot got 132,580 in Nevada. If 12% of that had gone to Bush instead, Bush takes Nevada, and the 4 Electoral votes.

New Hampshire went to Clinton. 209,040 to 202,484, a difference of some 7000 votes. Perot won 121,337 votes in New Hampshire. In this case, about 8% of the vote that went to Perot going to Bush gives Bush the victory, and NH's 4 electoral votes.

New Jersey went Clinton with 1,436,206 to 1,356,865. A difference of 79,341 votes. Perot got 521,829 votes in NJ in '92. Less than 1/4th of that to Bush, and Bush would have taken New Jersey and its 15 electoral votes.

New Mexico went to Clinton, 261,617 to 212,824. If a little more than half of Perot's 91,895 votes went to Bush instead, Bush takes New Mexico and its 5 electoral votes. At this point, even not counting California, Bush wins with Perot, and we aren't even done yet.

Ohio and it's 21 electoral votes went to Clinton, with a 90,000 vote victory. However, Perot got over a million votes. 1/10th of that vote to Bush, and Bush takes the state instead. At this point, without the Perot factor, Bush has beat Clinton.

Oregon went to Clinton, 621,314 to 475,757. Perot got 354,091. If most of that had gone Bush, Bush would have taken Oregon. But, assuming he didn't, he would still beat Clinton, absent the Perot factor.

Pennsylvania goes Clinton, 2,239,164 to 1,791,841. Perot wins 902,667 votes. A little under half that to Bush, and Bush would have taken Pennsylvania.

Rhode Island goes Clinton, 213,299 to 131,601. A decisive victory, although if Perot's 105,045 votes had gone to Bush, Bush would have won (although, in cases where all of Perot's vote would have gone to the GOP, I assume Clinton gets it . . . 1/2 or under is the yard stick, and Bush wins using that measure).

Tennessee goes Clinton, 933,521 to 841,300. Perot scored 199,968 votes. Half that to Bush, Bush takes Tennessee, and its 11 electoral votes.

In Vermont, 133,592 to 88,122 Clinton. If most of Perot's 65,991 had gone to Bush, Bush would have taken it.

Washington State: 993,037 Clinton, 731,234 Bush, 541,780 Perot. Just a hair over half of Perot votes to Bush, Bush takes the state. And 11 more electoral votes . . .

West Virginia, 331,001 Clinton, 241,974 Bush, 108,829 Perot. If Bush had gotten all the Perot voters, he wins.

Wisconsin, 1,041,066 to 930,855. 544,479 to Perot, Bush takes the state if under half the Perot vote went to him. And 11 more electoral votes. Additionally, if half the popular Perot vote went to Bush, he would have won with a 12% margin of victory, making the win decisive.

By contrast, there were very few states where the Nader vote could have possibly made the difference. Florida, yes, and he did make the difference. But Perot made the difference in a dozen states, and effectively put Clinton in the Whitehouse in 1992.

State returns + Perot courting Bush voters + Perot targeting most of his advertising against the Bush administration + Perot's Kentucky-Fried-Billionaire-Populism = Perot was a spoiler, and cost Bush the election.

No Perot factor, my ass. ;)


A full line of Surgical Supplies from DME Supply Group! If you're in the medical profession, check them out today!

Tim Mahoney in Sex Scandal? Nah, It's Not A Scandal! He's a Democrat!

Congressman Tim Mahoney, who replaced Mark Foley (the Republican congressman who was a little too friendly in his IMs to certain staffers), has an inconvenient scandal of his own. Of course, it's nothing like sending suggestive IMs to certain staffers, but having a mistress that you bribe with a job and who then blackmails you for a payoff to avoid a lawsuit . . . heck, that's okay, cuz Mahoney is a Democrat. Sex scandals are cool when you're a Democrat.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="164" caption="Tim Mahoney. I hope his mistress was cuter than he is. Eww."]Tim Mahoney. I hope his mistress was cuter than he is. Eww.[/caption]

Says in the article (click Tim Mahoney's ugly mug to read it) that Mahoney is also calling for a probe into himself. He wants them to probe him. Dude is messed up. Seriously. A major perv. This is what they dumped Mark Foley for? Good thinking, voters.

Remember how terrible and evil and insidious Mark Foley's sexually suggestive text messages were? Remember what a horrible, terrible thing George Allen's macaca was? But Tim Mahoney was paying hush money to an ex-mistress and the defense is: well, it wasn't campaign funds. So it's okay. I'm sorry, George Allen was using campaign funds to buy macacas? Mark Foley was using campaign funds to solicit interns?

Double-standard? Yes. Surprising. Nope.

Ah, here's the homewrecker, Patricia Allen:

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="320" caption="Here she is. Jeesh, she's about as hard to look at as he is."]Here she is. Jeesh, shes about as hard to look at as he is.[/caption]

More on the Mahoney Scandal from Right Pundits. Ace of Spades notes that Tim Mahoney does have a Republican challenger. That would be Tom Rooney. Tom looks more All-American, and is just Better Looking, than Tim Mahoney. By a long shot. Vote Tom Rooney, you people in Florida who can vote for him. Send Obama to the Whitehouse if you must, but kick old Tim Mahoney the heck out.

Update: Now you folks are searching a lot on Patricia Allen. More news and views on the whole mess here. For you folks who think I got my head up my arse, and there ain't no difference in how Republicrats and Demogogicals get treated in these sexy, sexy scandals, I don't care what you think. You're just wrong with a capital 'P', and that's hard to do, but you've done it.

He may get the heave-ho, but the Dems already tried to cover it up--when complaining about how Hastert tried to cover up Foley--and they aren't getting called out on it, or calling out themselves. They get treated different.

But, when it comes down to it, they are all Politicians, which are basically just Lawyers who already have all your money, so they are all pretty much full of shiznit. They just prove themselves to be monumentally stupid, too.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Still Searching for Karla Escobar? Be Carefully, Pipples!

Here's my post on my WordPress Blog about Karla Escobar. I didn't copy that one over here, since it has an embedded video, and I don't like spending time changing how the video is embedded for Blogger. Otherwise, I woulda. But you can see it, anyway, so why complaint?

But be careful when searching for Karla. Absolute top search result on The Google as of the time I am posting this is a spyware/malware hijacking type site.

Link Title is "Montpelier KARLA ESCOBAR".

Link says "business.vermonttoday.com/search.pg?q=KARLA+ESCOBAR%3C/title%3E%3Cscript%3Edocument.locati..." but it redirects and attempts to hijack your computer. Shows a fake "Virus Checking" screen and tries to bully you into downloading some kind of trojan horse. Apparently, no easy place to complain about such things to The Google, so I'm warning you.

Karla Escobar. Dont know where they got this photo. Dont click on the little Play Button Icon. It button does nothing!
Karla Escobar. Don't know where they got this photo. Don't click on the little Play Button Icon. It button does nothing!


A few others do similar things. Don't add any software. Don't click Okay. Don't let websites run "the following add-ons". Don't let any of them install new active-x controls, etc. Just run! Run fast as you can! Force quite as necessary.



Want worthy Karla Escobar articles, check the news search results, or you can just go here.



Karla Escobar coverage at Mahalo.

Janet Jackson Suffers From Vestibular Migraines

Headaches you get from standing in the vestibule? Apparently not. Vestibular Migraines are is a nuerological events characterized by altered bodily experiences, painful headaches, and nausea and, in the case of vestibular migraines, dizziness and loss of balance.

Janet Jackson, like many folks, suffer from them.



Janet Jackson Suffers from Vestibular Migraines. And Multiple Wardrobe Malfunction Syndrome.
Janet Jackson Suffers from Vestibular Migraines. And Multiple Wardrobe Malfunction Syndrome.

There are a coupla things I'd recommend for migraines. First, see your doctor. There are lots of prescription meds that do wonders.


Hold up, hold up, I ain't done. You might try instant cold compresses. They are portable, handy dandy, and for some people really help relieve migraine pain.

There are plenty of other cold and hot therapies for pain to consider for headache or other pain. Just sayin'.

You know who else suffered from migraines? Founding father and brilliant thinker and writer, Thomas Jefferson.


Thomas Jefferson suffered from migraines, too. Wasnt much he could do put draw the shades and lay down for a few days. Sucks. Imagine what he could have gotten done if he could have just taken a Migrazone and cleared that shiznit right up?
Thomas Jefferson suffered from migraines, too. Wasn't much he could do put draw the shades and lay down for a few days. Sucks. Imagine what he could have gotten done if he could have just taken a Migrazone and cleared that shiznit right up?

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson has a Podcast? It's true. The man's still keeping busy, 182 years after he died. That's what you call a true patriot.


Jenny McCarthy: You Pipples Continue to Like Her

Lots of people showing up on my blog are coming on the term "Jenny McCarthy".

Hmmm. That doesn't sound right. Well, never mind, the point is I'm not sure I get it. Not much new with her mouthing off about vaccines and autism since last week.



[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="524" caption="Jenny McCarthy Cools Herself Down With a Completely Innocent Hose-Based Metaphor."]Jenny McCarthy Cools Herself Down With a Completely Innocent Hose-Based Metaphor.[/caption]

Not that you need a reason to search out Jenny McCarthy. She is a classic. Although Dirty Love, her 2005 movie, sucked donkey balloons.



[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="The movie poster was reasonably enticing. It was, as it turns out, the only good thing about the movie."]The movie poster was reasonably enticing. It was, as it turns out, the only good thing about the movie.[/caption]



[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Jenny McCarthy taking a bath. Just console yourself with the knowledge that beautiful people, and the folks married to or involved with the beautiful people, all tend to have really effed up lives. That's all you got."]Jenny McCarthy taking a bath. Just console yourself with the knowledge that beautiful people, and the folks married to or involved with the beautiful people, all tend to have really effed up lives. Thats all you got.[/caption]

And on and on it goes.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Here, Jenny McCarthy Innocently Mustards up a Hotdog, In a Scene That Cannot Possibly Be Misconstrued as a Metaphor for Something Else."]Here, Jenny McCarthy Innocently Mustards up a Hotdog, In a Scene That Cannot Possibly Be Misconstrued as a Metaphor for Something Else.[/caption]


[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Jenny is thirsty. What a playful scene of All-American innocence. "]Jenny is thirsty. What a playful scene of All-American innocence. [/caption]

Laterz, Internets. I'm getting tired. Sleep well, see ya tomorrow sometime. Or Monday, if I get busy mowing the lawn and shiznit.

Jenny McCarthy Finds Steve Fossett, Alive on Desert Island, Thanks to His Coconut Based Satellite Phone

Steve Fossett faked his own death? And where did he go? Could be, I guess.
Steve Fossett faked his own death? And where did he go? Could be, I guess.

So you pipples think that Steve Fossett faked his own death? Hmmm. Why did you care so much? Don't you have work to be doing?

Here's the coconut phone he should be using to contact civilization, on his uncharted desert isle:


Steve Fossetts Coconut Phone is In Progress
Steve Fossett's Coconut Phone is In Progress


In other news, you people don't know how to spell Gwen Eiffel. It's Iffil, by the way.

Yawn. Travis Henry is trouble with the law. You peoples love yourselves some footballs. Double-extra-yawn.


Jenny McCarthy still on about the autism. Are you searching because of the autism debate, or have you got something else on your mind?
Jenny McCarthy still on about the autism. Are you searching because of the autism debate, or have you got something else on your mind?


And who needs an excuse for another pic of Jenny McCarthy? Amanda Peet, no so much.

Update: More Jenny McCarthy. Since you're looking for her so hard.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Tim Hasselbeck: Is This The Same Story?

Not quite sure, but you Internetsers are sure looking for the both of them. Elisabeth Hasselbeck is annoyed by the liberals on "The View". Like, duh.

Nothing is going on with Tim Hasselbeck. Whatchu people care about 'em for?



[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="292" caption="This is the Tim and the Elisabeth, Apparently. What you so interested in them for?"]This is the Tim and the Elisabeth, Apparently. What you so interested in them for?[/caption]

I can guess why you're interested in Ashley Force. She's a looker.




Yeah, Ashley Force is cute. And shes got a great name. But what suddenly piqued your interest, Internets? Tell me that.
Yeah, Ashley Force is cute. And she's got a great name. But what suddenly piqued your interest, Internets? Tell me that.

Jenny McCarthy to Wrestle Amanda Peet in Bikinis

So, Jenny McCarthy is on about autism.
Jenny McCarthy is opposed to vaccinations, because maybe they cause Autism. Shes a scientist, right?
Jenny McCarthy is opposed to vaccinations, because maybe they cause Autism. She's a scientist, right?

So, she slams Amanda Peet.
Amanda Peet says people who dont get their kids vaccinated are parasites. Shes a scientist, right?
Amanda Peet says people who don't get their kids vaccinated are parasites. She's a scientist, right?

I think this important conflict will only be settled if Jenny and Amanda work out there differences, while wearing bikinis, by wrestling in a vat of hot oil. They are both scientists, right, and that's how we normally work out these kind of analytical inconsistencies. Right?

You're also interesting in Summer Bailey. There's also a Summer Bailey who does porno, I'm guessing they aren't the same Summer Bailey.

You've also developed a sudden interest in the Alternative Minimum Tax out there on the Internets. You people must be rich, if you're paying that. It's just for rich people, right?

And Lou Dobbs on the Bailout. Good for you. Making you Internets are getting smarter. Lou Dobbs has a much better idea what he's talking about than most of the Talking Heads out there.

Also, you pipples are apparently very interested in the Senate version of the bailout bill. It's not that complicated. First, you bend over. Second, you grab the ankles. Third, the government takes your money and gives it to their big leftist friends running Wall Street. Done and done.

And you want to know about The Hampton Coliseum. Why? Phish again. Jeeze, you Phish-heads out there. A lot of you are, apparently. They broke up, what, four years ago? Some bands don't do a tour or come out with an album for five or six years. Settle down, people.

So, are you people doing the Googlification out there for the latest Quinnipiac Poll because you're all about reading how Obama is ahead in the polls, or just because you like saying the word Quinnipiac?

A sudden interest in Robert Kardashian because of what exactly? Whatever, Internets. Whatever.

Hewlett Packard is buying LeftHand Networks. They are rumored to be in talks with one Ned Flanders to buy The Leftorium at the Springfield Mall. Because it would make about as much sense.

I think you Womens out there must be the ones searching for Yummie Tummie. Watching the Oprah again?
Yummie Tummie. Dont think they actually work on hard plastic mannequins.
Yummie Tummie. Don't think they actually work on hard plastic mannequins.

Laters, Internets.

* This is a sub-selection of my blog, Whassup, People? Just so you know.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Aubrey O'Day Naked with Danity Kane, Playing Lingerie Football With Jayde Nicole . . . Plus Bacon

Hah. Made you look. No, seriously, she's almost naked. That's as far as I go here.


And why am I going there? Lots of you are searching for Aubrey O'Day. I can't figure it out. Oh, wait. I just did.




[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="431" caption="Hamana-hamana-hamana. Wholly Owned Subsidiary, She's Hot! Some accuse her of being dumb as a box of rocks. Like that would matter. Please see above."]Hamana-hamana-hamana. Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Shes Hot![/caption]

There's Aubrey O'Day. Lovely Name. Might also explain you Internets perpetual fascination with frackin' Danity Kane.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Danity Kane, Go Away, Come Again Some Other Day. Or Don't. In fact, We'd Rather You Not."]Danity Kane, Go Away, Come Again Some Other Day. Not.[/caption]

Proof Aubrey O'Day is, indeed, as dumb as a box of rocks? She just recently endorsed Obamarama for Presidential of These United Snakes. As a way of taking attention away from skankiness, which she apparently spent a lot of time originally trying to draw attention to. Well, it takes all kinds, I guess.

You're also exhibiting a growing interest in Lingerie Football. There are seriously Lingerie Football Teams and a League, now? Well, well, well. Maybe football could be more interesting than I thought.

[caption id="attachment_197" align="aligncenter" width="267" caption="If This is the New Face of Football, Count Me In."]If This is the New Face of Football, Count Me In.[/caption]

They must be doing this just to get people like me to watch football. Cuz if anything would do it, this probably would.

Heh. I said "wood".

Your interest in Savannah Guthrie proves not to be nearly so prurient, but, of course, leads back to Sarah Palin. The short story is: NBC was jealous, so ran a smear story on Palin. More likely, NBC is just full of the genus Waccus Liberalis, and so ran a smear story on Palin. Though, regarding Savannah Guthrie, I'd say she's pretty cute . . .

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="174" caption="Savannah Guthrie. She's a Professional Journalists. A Cute Professional Journalist. Or Former Journalist. Whatever."]Savannah Guthrie. Shes a Professional Journalists. A Cute Professional Journalist. Or Former Journalist. Whatever.[/caption]

BTW, Savannah Guthrie also did one of NBC's so-called "fact checks" on Sarah Palin, and Newsbusters takes issue with her objectivity and accuracy.

Also, there is a certain amount of growing interest in Playboy Playmate Jayde Nicole out there.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="357" caption="Jayde Nicole is some sort of Playdate of This Year in some sort of Magazine for Discerning Young Gentlemen. I Get a Very Maternal Vibe Off Her. Don't You?"]Jayde Nicole is some sort of Playdate of This Year in some sort of Magazine for Discerning Young Gentlemen. I Get a Very Maternal Vibe Off Her. Dont You?[/caption]

Again, I can't figure it out. Some kind of flannel vest fetish? You like the name "Jayde"? Sometimes, you peeples out in the Internets are very hard to read. You're all like a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in bacon. Mmmmm. Bacon.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Mmmmm. Delicious, delicious bacon. Aubrey O'Who, Now?"]Mmmmm. Delicious, delicious bacon. Aubrey OWho, Now?[/caption]