Weekend Recession: ‘We’re Not Young’ For the 30-Something Crowd
Sometimes, growing up sucks. “We’re Not Young” — a depressing but funny viral video that turns indie pop band Fun’s “We Are Young” smash hit on its head — captures the conflicts people encounter in their 30s.Part of Yahoo’s Sketchy comedy series, the parody lampoons 30-year-olds’ drinking problems, married friends, long-term relationships, expanded waistlines, prostate appointments and not-so-desirable jobs.Fun’s original version (listen below) has become an anthem for the younger set with lyrics celebrating the carefree nature of, well, not being older than 30.The lines in the music video spoof, however, portray a much more tormented period in someone’s life. For example:
- “Tonight, we’re not young. We’re all somewhere in our 30s and nothing worthy. This ain’t fun. Tonight, we’re not young. I guess I’ll learn Photoshop. Maybe I’ll sell pot. Start a blog.”
- “I guess I’ll do elliptical. Maybe I can finally do that yoga class. But I probably won’t. HGTV. Going to stay at home. Watch Modern Family.”
Number of People on Food Stamps Explodes
Alternate headline: Congressional Budget Office Gets All Racist on President Obama.
‘Cause, you know, it’s racist to call him the Food Stamp President…
Via the Wall Street Journal:
The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to $72 billion in 2011, up from $30 billion four years earlier. The CBO projected that one in seven U.S. residents received food stamps last year.In a report, the CBO said roughly two-thirds of jump in spending was tied to an increase in the number of people participating in the program, which provides access to food for the poor, elderly, and disabled. It said another 20% “of the growth in spending can be attributed to temporarily higher benefit amounts enacted in the” 2009 stimulus law.
Breaking: Just Released Photo Shows Bloody George Zimmerman Minutes After Altercation
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson unavailable for comment…
Ironically, the image (seen below) was released by ABC News, the same group who hastily released video that allegedly showed no marks on Zimmerman’s head – that is, until conservative bloggers enhanced the video to demonstrate otherwise.
ABC News exclusively obtained a graphic photograph of George Zimmerman’s head covered in blood that was taken just three minutes after the shooting that left 17-year-old Trayvon Martin dead. This news comes as Zimmerman is set to go before a judge in a bond hearing on Friday. The picture shows two cuts on the back of Zimmerman’s head with blood trickling down.
Zimmerman, who shot and killed 17-year-old Martin on February 26 in a gated Sanford community, claimed he killed Martin in self-defense. Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder for the shooting death of Martin.
The photograph appears to be the first publicly disclosed piece of evidence that could help support Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Sources tell ABC News that investigators have seen the photograph and are aware of the photographer’s story.
Sadly, ABC is still trying to justify their shoddy journalism regarding the video, saying:
Zimmerman was treated at the scene, then transferred to the police station, where his wounds appear to be less visible in surveillance video.
He was treated and cleaned up at the scene, just as the Daily Caller and Breitbart.com were alleging was a possibility from the beginning.
Is there any doubt that new media has eclipsed the main stream media any longer?
Nancy Pelosi Wants to Amend the First Amendment
 |
| Zip it! |
Since when is adhering to the Constitution a concern for Pelosi anyway?
From CNSNews.com:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats on Wednesday to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.
The First Amendment says in part: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . .”
Television networks, newspapers, publishing houses, movie studios and think tanks, as well as political action committees, are usually organized as, or elements of, corporations.
Pelosi said the Democrats’ effort to amend the Constitution is part of a three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads, and “reducing the roll of money in campaigns” (which some Democrats have said can be done through taxpayer funding of campaigns).
The constitutional amendment the Democrats seek would reverse the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. In that decision the court said that the First Amendment protects a right of free speech for corporations as well as for individuals, and that corporations (including those that produce newspapers, films and books) have a right to speak about politicians and their records just as individuals do.
If you’re wondering how this would lead to censorship of everyday things like books, papers, or the internet, Chief Justice Roberts can explain…
The case in question led to this opinion written by Roberts:
“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech,” wrote Roberts. “It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concerns.”
Liberal Tool Calls Romney’s ‘Obama’s Not Working’ Banner Racist
Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher is kind of the male version of Joan Walsh – he can find racism in just about everything. Including, apparently, the phrase, “Obama’s Not Working”. Now, to the average human being, that phrase obviously means that his policies aren’t working. But lo, to Tommy Christopher it means that Obama himself isn’t working. And in kind, that means Mitt Romney is mocking a ‘black man’ for not working. Seriously.
To actually come away with such an asinine conclusion shows that this phrase is actually working as a Rorschach test for Christopher. Most people look at this ink blot and see a benign, simple message. But Tommy sees racism and prejudice. For someone to immediately assume the words ‘not working’ must apply only to a black man, they themselves must ultimately harbor stereotypes of the lazy black man.
Therefore, I’m declaring Tommy’s post to be flat-out racist.
Via Weasel Zippers:
Mitt Romney’s ‘Obama Isn’t Working’ Banner Evokes Racial Stereotypes— Mediate, Tommy Christopher
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney rolled out a new accessory at a speech in Ohio today, delivering his remarks in front of a black banner that said “Obama Isn’t Working,” which is also the name of a website his campaign set up several months ago (in case you didn’t get the message from the banner, it was also on the front of Romney’s podium).
The slogan is a multiple entendre, but one of those entendres, intentionally or not, is evocative of a nasty racial stereotype about black men.
When I first saw the banner this afternoon, the multiple meanings were clear: President Obama‘s policies aren’t working, the Obama presidency isn’t working, President Obama…isn’t working, as in, doing any work. That’s not a nice thing to say about any president, but like it or not, it becomes a more loaded accusation when leveled at our first black president.
Just to be sure it wasn’t just me, though, I asked several friends about the banner, and four out of four pointed out, unprompted, the stereotype of the “lazy,” “shiftless” black man. One of the people I called was cable news fixture Goldie Taylor, who, upon hearing my description of the banner, said “Are you kidding me? You have got to be kidding me.”
Asking all four of your friends Tommy doesn’t prove anything, other than they are equally as pathetic as you are.
Speaking of entendres, you know who just loves to use them in his posts? Tommy Christopher.
Like this one when he used an image of Rick Perry eating a corn dog when discussing LGBT issues abroad:
Mental Recession 