The Bob and Abe Show

The Dumbest Controversy In The History Of The World (This Month)

2010-08-19T19:55:00.003-04:00

On July 21st, Newt Gingrich posted a note on his website explaining his opposition to the building of a "mosque near ground zero in New York." You can find it here: http://bit.ly/ayitFh

About a week later, my grandmother, who has a habit of forwarding various bits of mostly harmless silliness to the entire extended family, e-mailed a link to that note along with a warning that we not "be fooled and sucked in" by the apologists for thinly veiled Islamic jihad.

Ordinarily, I let my grandmother's more nonsensical e-mails slide right on by, but Newt gets under my skin on a good day, and this note was hardly Newt on a good day. I responded to the e-mail, at about four in the morning, by adding my commentary to Newt's note. I won't bore you with the whole thing, but a couple of points are worth repeating here.

Newt: The proposed "Cordoba House" overlooking the World Trade Center site – where a group of jihadists killed over 3000 Americans and destroyed one of our most famous landmarks – is a test of the timidity, passivity and historic ignorance of American elites.

Me: The proposed building is 13-15 stories tall. When One World Trade Center, or Freedom Tower, is complete, it will stand 1,776 feet above street level—the top floor reaching the same height as the top floor on the former WTC buildings, with an additional 400 feet of spires and parapet. EVEN TODAY, the incomplete Freedom Tower is already 26 stories tall, twice as tall as the proposed height of Cordoba House. "Overlooking" is an interesting word to choose for a building that will stand 10% as tall as the building to which it is being compared.

...

Newt: Today, some of the Mosque's backers insist this term is being used to "symbolize interfaith cooperation" when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest. It is a sign of their contempt for Americans and their confidence in our historic ignorance that they would deliberately insult us this way.

Me: Imagine this is actually true. [And by the way, it's not. Also, they've since changed the name from 'Cordoba House' to 'Park51' to tone down the reference.] Who cares? Georgia is named for King George II of England, and he was an asshole that we ended up overthrowing, and somehow we didn't find it necessary to change the name of our state because of how insulting it was to live in a state named after a tyrant. You know why? Because we weren't, and hopefully aren't, a bunch of petulant 6-year-olds. And while I'm no apologist for any religion, ever, but for what it's worth, the Caliphate of Cordoba wasn't all bad. The philosophy and literature of the ancient Greeks were preserved through Arabic translation during this time, and helped introduce Europe to a good deal of the ancients' work. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church of the time is a touch notorious for attempting to keep the work of the ancient Greeks out of the public sphere of knowledge—though it's also worth noting that the Muslims tended to avoid translating the more overtly political texts of the Greeks, as they didn't quite jive with what Islam was all about, so that's a bummer. Oh, and they introduced the region to toothpaste, and deodorant, according to Wikipedia.

...

Newt: Finally where is the money coming from? The people behind the Cordoba House refuse to reveal all their funding sources.

Me: The first time you see a "Newt for Prez 2012" sign, I want you to ask, does Newt agree 100% with the feelings of every individual who donated to his campaign?

...

Newt: America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.

Me: Again, assume this nonsense is actually true. Imagine that the people behind the center really are the jihadist-boogeyman-under-the-bed (or is it in the closet?) that Newt makes them out to be. Do we best combat this "Islamist cultural-political offensive" by playing into their stupid, willful ignorance and sink to their level, where we fight them on their own hateful terms? Can we win by displaying the same level of fear and intolerance that we claim to be railing against? Or do we stand a better chance of winning by standing upon the same moral high-ground that made us the greatest experiment in individual liberty in the history of the world? A giant Muslim YMCA that doesn't even really qualify as a mosque, built two and a half blocks and around the corner from the World Trade Center, is a testament not to what makes this country terrible, but what makes this country great. It says, we are bigger than your hatred, we are bigger than your ignorance, we are bigger than your religion. It sends a message to the world that our foundational values mean more to us than anything, even 3000 lives, even "famous landmarks."

...

Newt: Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

Me: It is Newt, and this line of thinking, that would destroy that which is most important and fundamental about this country. Let them build their mosque. We will be stronger for it.

The best part about Newt's bit of hysteria is his central, grade-schoolish point – "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." – or, put classically, "Nyah, nyah, wah, wah, nyah, nyah, nyah. Also, thhhbbbthhpbbth."

Newt Gingrich would like to see the United States lower itself into a moronic quid pro quo with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a theocratic monarchy where it is illegal to practice any religion besides Islam, gender equality is regarded as a quirky Western oxymoron, and a government ministry determines what is acceptable for Saudis to publish and view on the internet. Newt, a man never shy about his Christianity who has gone so far as to convert to Catholicism, evidently missed the part of the New Testament where Jesus shunned the old brutality of eye-for-an-eye in favor of a morality exhibited not by demanding that those with whom you disagree capitulate to the way you see the world or else face your wrath, but a morality revealed to, and compelled in, others by example and leadership.

But Newt is a political hack with delusions of ascendancy to the White House—I expect him to say these sorts of things, just as I expect the vast majority of the politically aware public to dismiss him out of hand. Shows what I know.

I assumed that this insipid nonsense, an emotional appeal to feelings of fear and sadness and entirely devoid of logic, reason, and even an actual argument, would simply go away. Instead, it turned into the most important thing in the history of the world, this summer. I have spent a goodish amount of time over the last few days trying to remember a "controversy" just plain dumber than this one. I have been unable to think of one.

This mosque controversy stands out because there is absolutely no legal, or even logical, argument being made by the opponents of the center as to why it shouldn't be built. The anti-mosque drive is based entirely on emotion, on feelings—on ethereal notions of what feels right, and what feels wrong. It's like President Obama's 2008 campaign for the White House, but for Palinistas. Stephen Colbert couldn't have scripted it any better.

There's a good reason that the arguments against the proposed Islamic Community Center have been entirely emotion-based: there is not a shred of legal rationale available to oppose its construction. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. Park51's opponents largely acknowledge this fact. The only legal questions at issue are those of the local zoning ordinances variety, which have been sorted out by the local officials in New York City responsible for such things.

Putting aside the pundits and the politicians, about whom it must be assumed only ever do or say anything just for the sake of their own ratings, publicity, or page-views, is there something to be done for the 60% of the American public who are against the building of the fallaciously named Ground Zero Mosque? Probably not.

The fact that this is a nonacademic discussion makes engaging people who are opposed to building the mosque pointless. How do you convince a person that what he feels is wrong, that his visceral reaction to a set of circumstances is just incorrect? Nor would I want it to be that easy—if someone else's mind is so easily changed, what does that say about my own convictions and core beliefs? There is, however, something to be said for pointing those who seem to be blinded by emotion in the general direction of the light of reason.

People will be offended by anything, for any reason, at any time. As has been said many times before, and perhaps said most loudly by some of the very people decrying the "Ground Zero Mosque," no one has any right to not be offended. That we have no right to not be offended is one of the tenets of freedom of speech and expression, if not the very lynchpin of what it means to live in free society.

A woman without a headscarf. A woman in a headscarf. A person with red hair. A nativity scene in the public square. McDonald's. An animated Santa Claus pretending to be an animated prophet inside an animated bearsuit on an animated cable television program. A guy wearing the wrong school's colors. A guy wearing the wrong skin color. Any word or concept or situation or proposal in any conceivable context is going to offend someone, somewhere. Sometimes, things offend lots of people all at once.

It is not at all interesting that people are offended. It happens every second of every day on every corner of the planet. If you are offended by this proposed building, it proves only that you have the ability to have an unthinking, emotional reaction to something that some politician or pundit somewhere desperately wants you to have an unthinking, emotional reaction to. It is manipulation at its most base, and "discourse" at the absolute lowest common denominator.

Not to go too big picture here, but for me, anyway, the fun part about being a human individual is the ability to transcend my base instincts. I have immediate, emotional reactions to things all the time--so do my cats. My emotional reaction to a proposal to build any house of worship--be it a church or a mosque or a temple or a spaceship riding the wake of a comet--is one of immediate opposition. I am, as Christopher Hitchens would say, an antitheist, and rather relieved that no evidence exists to support the idea that some god somewhere actually exists, especially given how monstrously conceived said god might be, according to the various monotheisms.

That said, being a person capable of rational thought and empathy and not a complete narcissist or totalitarian, I can move past my feelings and logically conclude that if someone wants to build a house of worship for themselves and their like-minded fellows to hang out in, I'm in no position to be offended by it, and have no standing whatsoever to deny them the right to do as they see fit.

If anyone has made it this far, I'll close by posing the following worst case scenario:

Instead of just a couple of retarded Somali Muslim pirates getting it into their little heads that a sort-of-mosque sort-of-in-the-neighborhood of the World Trade Center symbolizes Islam's total global victory, it turns out every single Islamic jihadist on the planet believes Park51 to be a symbol of the coming submission of America to the will of Allah. There are high-fives and AK-47's fired into the air and much rejoicing.

Have we so little regard for ourselves and our principles that the delusions of psychopaths make us pink in the face with rage, that we walk around slapped and embarrassed and feeling the self-defeating impotence of "being offended"? We have the rule of law! We have the Constitution! We have a system based on the principle that people should be allowed to think, believe, and speak as the see fit! Our free society is designed to abide the delusions of disturbed human beings because liberty posits that people will behave irrationally, and allows for it. It is a tyrannical impulse that drives this controversy, an emotional impulse that must be overcome in the name of human freedom. We must be that shining beacon in the night that our founding ideals have always demanded of us, but our baser impulses and emotions have seemingly always prevented us from actually achieving.

Don't let Barack Obama's waffling, or Nancy Pelosi's baiting, or Sean Hannity's self-righteousness, confuse the fact that they're pandering to the lowest common denominator, attempting to tease out and manipulate emotions that don't even belong in the conversation. The three of them, and all the rest of the politicians and the pundits, are betting that most of us cannot escape the morass of our basest instincts. Yes, you can.

Listener Generated Content

2010-05-27T15:30:00.001-04:00

On Monday's brilliant episode of The Bob and Abe Show, which you can find right here, we discussed the controversy that was ginned up last week when Rand Paul went on the Rachel Maddow show and shared his views on the constitutionality of one part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Miraculously, this has generated an e-mail from a listener--a listener that neither Abe nor Bob has ever met! Here's the e-mail, from a gentleman who is called Jeff:

The article at the link below argues the libertarian case and Rand Paul's position better (or maybe just clearer) than you did. While I agree with much of the article, I disagree with your arguments in the Rand Paul podcast. From the article: "Ideally, government’s role is to foster an environment in which individuals can pursue happiness in any manner they please — provided they do not impede other individuals’ rights to do the same." The key word in that sentence is "rights". What is the definition? It obviously varies from person to person. For example, I would say that I have a "right" not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, sex, etc. by any public or private party.

Bear with me for a second. In an extreme discrimination hypothetical, a green humanoid person would be discriminated to such an extent that the person would not have access to private businesses (non-profits and for-profits). Now lets go back to the quoted sentence above and apply it here. How can a person pursue happiness in any manner he pleases if that person is denied access to private enterprise? Imagine if you had to grow or kill all your food. Imagine if you had to supply your own water, build your house...the list goes on. My point is that my right to access the free market as a consumer or producer trumps any right to choose which group of customers to serve.

www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37703.html

As Jeff points out, the article that he links to does a helluva job outlining the libertarian principles at the core of Rand Paul's position. I highly recommend taking 5 minutes and giving it a read.

At the core of a lot of the more interesting discussions we've had on the podcast over the last year is a question that has been argued by many people through many ages. What, exactly, is a right? How one answers that question, and how one settles the constitutional issues that arise in corollary from answering that question, serves as the foundation upon which one builds a theory of the role of government.

That question, however, is of practically no consequence to a discussion within the framework of the US Constitution. Listen:

The Constitution of the United States rather succinctly defines the powers granted to the federal government. Our federal government is given its authority by the Constitution, and the government's power is strictly limited by that document. Any action taken by government that is outside the boundaries of power and scope established by the Constitution is therefore illegitimate.

It is important to note that the Constitution places absolutely no burdens, limitations, or boundaries on the action or inaction of citizens or any non-governmental institutions, associations, or entities of any kind. Absolutely none whatsoever. The Constitution was not designed to define or authorize or limit anything besides the scope of the federal government, and therefore has absolutely nothing to say about interpersonal interaction between or among non-governmental agents--including its citizens.

The Constitution only even recognizes the rights of private citizens inasmuch as it denies the federal government the power to infringe upon certain of those rights. It doesn't define or limit or authorize the rights of individuals--it says explicitly only what the federal government can and cannot do.

The Declaration of Independence, which has precisely the same binding legal authority as this here blog-post, says that humans have, among others, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution codify these rights into law--they merely acknowledge the existence of such rights and establish that the federal government cannot legitimately infringe upon them.

Before you even go there, let's talk about the 14th Amendment, which made the logical--and constitutional--leap of applying the same limitations on rights-infringement upon the state governments as already existed at the federal level. It said federal and state law must apply to all citizens equally, and that the rights of the people cannot be infringed upon without the due process application of those laws.

Again, even in the oft-cited 14th Amendment, the Constitution is only laying out the specific and limited powers of government, and not the rights of citizens, or the interactions among those citizens. The Constitution was written in such a way that it compels absolutely nothing of a citizen--it merely limits governmental power. If you can find a passage that suggests something to the contrary, send it my way. More to the point, the Constitution has absolutely nothing to say about the rights of citizens as they relate to other citizens. Not a word.

Therefore, a person may believe that he has the right to not be discriminated against by his fellow citizen for any of an endless number of specific classifications--race, religion, height, weight, acne, intelligence--and that person may well have a moral claim, but he certainly doesn't have a Constitutional claim.

This is the heart of why Rand Paul is 100% correct from a Constitutional perspective. The Constitution does not give the federal government the legal authority to regulate the private affairs of the citizens--it merely places limits on federal power.

The genius of the Constitution is as apparent in the silence between the notes as it is in what it actually says. As Jeff said, the definition of rights is likely to vary a great deal from person to person. The Constitution allows for these individual differences by utterly ignoring the problem. I'll say it in one final way--the Constitution is about the relationship between government and citizen, not citizen and citizen.

Hopefully we can agree that we are not, therefore, having a discussion of Constitutional import. I only make such a big deal of it because that is the crux of what got me so upset about this whole controversy in the first place--Rand Paul was giving his opinion on the Constitutional legitimacy of one part of the Civil Rights Act, and all anyone wanted to hear was that he thinks discrimination is totally cool, despite his constant cries to the contrary.

Moving right along. Jeff's basic point, slightly rephrased, seems to me to be the following: if a producer wants the privilege of access to the free market in order to sell his goods or services, than that producer gives up the freedom to choose to whom he sells his goods or services. Along those same lines, how can an individual consumer pursue happiness "in any manner he pleases" if he is not given unfettered access to purchase goods or services from anyone he chooses?

But we can't very well call it the "free market" if a producer is required to do something he doesn't want to do in order to participate, can we? The consumer is presumably still given the freedom to choose from which producer he will purchase goods or services--why shouldn't the producer be allowed the same freedom to choose to whom he will sell? If the free market is to be truly free, producers and consumers must be allowed to choose with whom they will do business. The consumer's right to pursue happiness cannot trump the producer's right to pursue happiness, can it? Are they equal, or aren't they?

The consumer does not have a right to pursue happiness "in any manner he pleases" because that would imply that his rights extend so far as to encroach on others' exact same rights in the society. Put classically, an individual's right to swing his fist ends where another individual's nose begins.

How about a few illustrative stereotypes?

Should a Jewish delicatessen owner be compelled to sell sandwiches to a guy who walks in with a Swastika plastered across his forehead? Should a private hospital, owned and operated by the Catholic Church, be forced to provide abortion services? Should a black guy who owns a barber shop be required to provide haircutting services to a guy who walks in and pulls a Ku Klux Klan hood off his mulleted head?

No, of course not. The neo-Nazi can go buy his tuna with extra mayo on white bread from somebody who won't be morally horrified by his existence. The pregnant woman can go to a hospital or a clinic where there aren't nurses and doctors who believe that by performing said procedure they are committing themselves and their patient to eternal damnation. The KKK loser can get his cousin/wife to trim his bangs.

When an individual applies a rights claim to economic (or any other sort of) interaction with another individual, he is effectively making a concurrent claim that the other individual is duty-bound to serve him. This is a violation of the very right to which the claimant is appealing, and therefore invalid.

Allowing bigots the freedom to reveal themselves for what they are affords me the freedom to choose to not give them my business. If there is a restaurant owner who refuses to serve Latinos, I value my freedom to choose to eat down the street.

As I said on the show, morality can only really exist when people are free to be immoral. If a person is only "acting morally" because of an authoritarian dictate that commands him to, then he's not really moral--he's just an actor. Free society must abide private discrimination because a free society values liberty above all else--and liberty must be applied to all individuals in the same way. Coercion, even in the name of something so laudable (if illusory) as fairness, is antithetical to liberty and is precisely that which cannot be tolerated in a free society.

Thoughts, Legion?

-Bob.

Barack Obama, sports fanatic.

2010-04-27T16:09:00.002-04:00

Even as I begin to write this, I'm realizing it's hardly worth the effort. We the people are manipulated by politicians, the media, television, movies, religious or spiritual leaders, parents, friends, enemies, strangers, pets, children--the list goes on ad infinitum--on a moment-to-moment basis. There are benevolent, malevolent, and occasionally entirely neutral forces working on an individual's psyche at all times.

The dog barks because he wants to be walked. The priest infuses the tone of his voice with just the right touch of pity-plea and stern reproach before the collection plate is passed down the aisles. Billy Mays screams at you from the great infomercial set in the sky about the AwesomeAuger. The radio plays two or three songs every hour of every day for two months among a rotating mix of maybe twenty or thirty others. The President of the United States pretends to be a sports fanatic so that the sports-crazed public believes he's just like they are.

One cannot, for the most part, walk around worrying about such manipulation. It is a fact of life. A person would go insane trying to recognize, much less avoid the influence of, the hundreds of thousands of tiny manipulations foisted upon him every day. That said, recognizing the big instances are important to developing a healthy awareness of the way the world works.

My example here is hardly one of the big ones. Just one of the more annoying.

Barack Obama is on ESPN's SportsCenter all the time. He did an interview with Stuart Scott during the campaign. He fills out March Madness Tournament brackets in long-running SportsCenter segments--he even filled out a women's bracket this year! He talks at length about being a hardcore Chicago White Sox fan, despite the fact that when asked, he cannot name a single player that he has admired in his extended fandom.

"I'm a South-side kid."

The President was born in Hawaii. He spent much of his young childhood in Indonesia. He went back to Hawaii for high school. He went to college in Los Angeles and New York City. He finally made it to Chicago at 24 or so, where he hung out and organized some communities for a few years before heading back east for Harvard Law. He settled down in Chicago after that, at about 30 years old. He is not a South-side kid. He's a Hawaiian/Indonesian kid who spent his young adulthood in the three biggest non-Chicago cities on either coast. Assuming he picked up his White Sox habit upon his return to Chicago in the early nineties, Frank Thomas is the answer. In fact, Frank Thomas is the answer whenever somebody wants to know your favorite White Sox player no matter what the era in question is--and whether you're a fan or not.

I guess the point here is that Barack Obama is not a diehard White Sox fan, but he portrays himself as one. I'm not mad at him for not being a big-time baseball fan--he certainly has more important things with which to concern himself. Hell, I have more important things with which to concern myself than the Braves and my fantasy baseball team, and I'm a pizza delivery guy, for chrissakes, and he's the leader of the 'free' world. What concerns me is not that he can't name a single, solitary White Sox player, but that he wants us all to think that he really gives a shit about the White Sox.

I don't care if my president is a baseball fan or not. I don't care if he likes to play croquet or go horseback riding or windsurfing or missed the Super Bowl because he was too busy playing gin-rummy with Eleanor Roosevelt and Don Rumsfeld. I just don't want to be told a thousand times, over and over again, that he is something that he is not, solely because his handlers or perhaps he himself believes I will like him more if I think I can sit down with a Budweiser and my Baseball Almanac and yap ChiSox history with him.

SportsCenter, which is on ESPN, which is owned by Disney--a company with quite a history of mass manipulation, in case you missed it--airs Barack Obama stuff all the time. There are many stories out there about how Barack and Michelle like to watch SportsCenter together. He references the show in speeches. He is probably our first basketball playing president, and certainly more has been made of his athleticism than any before him. Oh, and he throws like a girl. (See video evidence above.)

We are a sports-obsessed culture. The Obama administration is using this obsession to manipulate the sports-loving public into believing that Barack Obama is just like them--that he cares about the same meaningless shit that they care about. It validates their nonsensical obsessions while at the same time reinforces an image of Barack Obama in their minds that is not connected with reality.

For the other half of the nation, the public not obsessed with sports, such revelatory comments are a godsend, assuming they recognize his misstep. He's not a jocky meathead like that last asshole, George W. Bush. He has more important things to worry about than overpaid pituitary retards throwing balls around at each other. 'Let him make the idiots believe what they want to believe--I know he's smarter than all that!'

Oddly, this is the same reaction most secularists have when Obama speaks about his faith. 'Oh, he just has to say that, we know better. He's not really that way, he's just pandering--he's just being a politician.' This shouldn't excuse his behavior--we should demand forthrightness and honesty, or at least be willing to call out those that we may hold in high esteem when they're lying, or letting us down, or perhaps more appropriately, revealing their true selves.

Speaking of W, those that hated him believed him to be an idiot. Believing W to be a moron who didn't know anything about the world or current events is akin to the quiet bigotry of deluding oneself into the belief that 9/11 couldn't possibly have been planned by a bunch of sand-dwelling Muslims simply because they're not sophisticated enough. Never underestimate your enemy--foreign or domestic. If W came off as a little bit dumb, it's because that's what W's people wanted us to think, because it best served their agenda. In much the same way, Barack Obama is designed to come off as just a little bit smarter than the smartest guy in the room, because it best serves his agenda.

Manipulation doesn't end when your preferred party takes over, and it's no less acceptable when it's being done by someone whom you may generally like or even occasionally admire.

In summation, I have to go to work now, and have not had the time to make all my points, but that's life in the world of always being too goddamned wordy.

Go Braves!

Six minutes that explain one reason why Paul Broun should be fired.

2010-04-16T04:06:00.003-04:00

I've met Paul Broun. He's a nice man. He understands that the government is spending this country utterly into oblivion. He understands that a lot of what both parties are up to in Washington is in opposition to the best interests of the United States of America and we the people.

He believes that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and that it's words must be taken literally and at face value, as illustrated in the video below. He wants a weekend in May--every year--to be devoted to reflectin' on the importance of the Christian Bible in the founding and subsequent history of the United States, and that goes double for you Jews, Muslims, and atheists.

There are a few reasons to like Paul Broun. There are a few glaring reasons to fire him, not least of which is the video below. Fire him and fire all of his idiot colleagues, no matter what.

4.14 links and Whatnot

2010-04-14T04:19:00.003-04:00

Like the banana, orange juice, and toast to go with that bowl of cereal over at the podcast, the links below are all a part of a balanced Bob and Abe Show diet.

Mark Steyn's rather excellent piece on Canada's distaste for free speech.

The Wikipedia entry on Constance McMillen's battle for her "right" to freak-dance to Little Wayne and Lady Gaga while grinding away prom night on her little girlfriend's tuxedo leg.

And then there's Hank Johnson. He kind of speaks for himself, doesn't he?

Scott Garrett--you're going down!

2010-04-12T13:01:00.002-04:00

Today on the show, Bob and Abe debuted their hot new segment But my Congressmen is all right, I mean, he's not like all----No! Fuck no don't vote for that guy he's a dirtbag politician like all the rest oh God don't vote for that guy! Listen to it here.

First on the hit-list (metaphoric) is Scott Garrett, the congressman from New Jersey's 5th district. While he seems to sort of understand that the United States is heading for financial insolvency--assuming we're not already there, of course--it hasn't stopped him from voting to make the USA PATRIOT act a permanent fixture of American life, sucking up as many federal pork dollars as he can get his greasy little fingers on, and hiring banking lobbyists to work on his Congressional staff. He's a politician, and that should be enough to replace him.

If that's not enough, he's also voted to amend the Constitution to make desecration of the US flag illegal, because apparently he does not believe in the fundamental concept of freedom of speech, thought, and expression. He also supports a Constitutional amendment that would validate and institutionalize his homophobia and hatred of homosexuals, wanting to federally define marriage as that between one man and one woman. I'll say it again: he wants to change the founding document of our nation so that it defines marriage to his liking. He thus does not believe in the foundational principles of this country, and has failed to do his sworn duty, which is to protect and support and uphold the Constitution.

Scott Garrett should be replaced. Vote for your neighbor. Vote for Mickey Mouse. Vote for yourself. Just don't vote for Scott Garrett.

More to follow on the remaining 500+ scumbags "serving" us at the federal level.

Abe v. Thomas Jefferson, et al.

2010-02-23T17:29:00.001-05:00

On Tuesday's episode of the Bob and Abe Show, I rehashed my long-standing position that the problem that plagues today's America can be traced back to a few glaring oversights in the Constitution. I don't want to bore you, yet, with the many ways I think the Constitution can be revised for the better. Instead, I want to discuss one area where I think change can be made with relative ease.

Problem: The Constitution provides no real mechanism to uphold its basic tenets.

Possible Solution: Before any bill is passed into law, why not have a 'litmus test' to see if the law adheres to the very basic principles of the Constitution? Questions like: does this bill violate the Bill of Rights? Does this bill violate any rights reserved for the states? Why is it not part of the bill-making process to have the judicial branch certify that the proposed bill adheres to the very basic tenets of the Constitution?

The way the system works now, the most important obstacle to any bill is not whether it is constitutional but rather whether it can gain enough votes in Congress and whether the president will sign it into law. The only time the judicial branch gets involved is when someone files a lawsuit protesting the law AFTER it has been passed.

Ideally, the way the system should work is when a bill comes out of committee, the bill is sent to the judicial branch for confirmation. Once the judicial branch determines that it does not violate the basic tenets of the Constitution, Congress can then vote on it. Once it's passed in Congress, the President can sign it into law. It’s basically enhanced judicial review.

The US Constitution, by any measurement, is one of the best documents ever written on how government should operate. I am in no way suggesting that we scrap the whole thing and start anew. But it is an incomplete and sometimes toothless document. Incorporating a 'hey, is this shit legal' component to the bill making process would go a long way to curbing some of the shenanigans that goes on in Washington.

Later,

Abe.

Joe Stack Links...

2010-02-21T23:41:00.002-05:00

We'll be talking about this Joe Stack in Austin at the IRS building with an exploding plane thing for the first few days of the week, and below you'll find the links pertinent to our discussion.

The Salon.com article by Glenn Greenwald. When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

Joe Stack's so-called suicide manifesto. Worth a careful read.

The blog Bob posted last week about what he thinks the proper reaction to Joe Stack's suicide attack might be.

Later!

Thoughts on Austin IRS craziness.

2010-02-19T15:30:00.000-05:00

Bob here, with first impressions of the attack on the IRS offices in Austin, Texas by a dude with a plane, a beef with the government, and a death wish.

Ron Paul, a man who I find to be correct about a great deal many things, believes that the United States must look to its own foreign policy decisions and actions when looking for answers to questions such as "why do the 'terrorists' hate, attack, and kill us?" or "why does so much of the rest of the world have such animosity for the United States?"

The idea, of course, is simple: United States interference, imperialism, and generalized war-making in the Middle East makes the people of that part of the world understandably upset at the United States. The power-hungry (and probably smarter) individuals of the understandably upset region then see a golden opportunity: they can capitalize on the anger and hatred that is being felt and provide a series of simple answers to the obvious problem presented by the United States. Thus, a radical is born.

Cause and effect, no? If the United States was not bothering to interfere in the affairs of the Middle East, angering whole generations in the process, they would have no reason to sacrifice their lives in a vain attempt to throw off the yoke of US asshole-ishness. Simplistic, but intuitive.

I tend to agree with Ron Paul on this, but such a philosophy has its own limitations, some of which have only been made plain to me as a result of today's events in Austin, and others that were more obvious all along.

First, there is an unintended consequence of such thought, which is that it can seem to let the individuals who actually commit heinous acts as terrorism or what have you off the proverbial hook. The kid who was molested when he was seven years-old is likely fucked up for life, and is considerably more likely to victimize someone else down the road because of what was done to him.

Cause and effect, no? But, then again, just because you can point to a cause or a trigger for someone's behavior doesn't grant the original victim clemency for future crimes. We still hold the individual responsible for the actions they take to harm others, regardless of how they've been victimized in the past.

Same goes for the pissed off Middle-Easterners. We can point to a series of terrible actions taken by the United States as potential triggers for a "terrorist's" point of view or even their vicious behavior, but this is not a justification nor an excuse for the individual's actions.

I know this is all somewhat obvious. But for whatever reason, whenever someone wants to point to United States foreign policy as a possible causal reason for global discontent, people start screaming about how "you're just trying to blame America!" or "why do you hate the troops?!" This is either very stupid or very intellectually dishonest. It is foolish to expect intelligence or honesty when it comes to politicians or those who discuss them at length in the media. I'm not that naive, and I doubt you are, either.

It is ultimately the responsibility of those capable of massive influence (such as the United States) to take an honest look at what their influence has in fact wrought. In this case, while the US has indeed been at times a force for immeasurable good in the world, American policy and actions have also very much had a negative impact on individuals, countries, and even entire continents. To entirely blame ourselves for the actions taken by others against our interests is of course ignorant and unjust, but to ignore our role or position in the causal chain of events is very much even worse, and leaves us looking to the rest of the world like a country of blind despots.

So what do we do? It wouldn't be humane, prudent, or even really possible to dismantle all institutions of US foreign influence in an attempt to avoid killing, hurting, or even offending anyone's sensibilities in the future. All we can do is try to change our policies in such a way that prevents the future victimization of individuals and their region. We can accept responsibility for what we've done without accepting the blame for what others have done in response to our mistakes, and it is incredibly important that we do so. All it takes is a little bit of intellectual honesty.

9/11 offered the United States a unique opportunity for self-reflection. In the years that followed, it would have been wise to figure out what we could change about our global positioning and policy to change the way we are perceived by our friends and enemies alike while at the same time seeking out those who attacked us and bringing them to justice. Instead, we went to war, which has had the net result of reinforcing many of the worst things the world already believed.

This has been a helluva circuitous route to get to where I'm going, but here we are, finally.

Joseph Andrew Stack flew his plane into a building that housed just shy of 200 employees of the Internal Revenue Service, seemingly because he believed the IRS to be an institution with which it was impossible to reason. He believed the tax code was immoral, unfair, and overwhelming, and felt that he had exhausted all reasonable and legal options available to fight the system. Thus, a radical was born.

It would be irresponsible and unfair to blame the IRS or the federal government at large for the actions and murderous intent of Joe Stack. But as with the "terrorists," it would be just as ignorant, and dangerous, to assume that the causal chain of events that led to Joe Stack's breakdown, radicalization, and ultimate violent recourse began and ended somewhere in his own mind.

No one is responsible for the actions of Joe Stack beyond the individual (deceased) called Joe Stack. The fact remains, however, that the massive tax code is often seemingly unfair, nearly impossible to fully understand, and backed by the full force and fury of a federal United States government that is increasingly acting in the best interests of its corporate sponsors, and not the people it purports to represent.

What Joe Stack did was wrong, pointless, and inexcusable--and he is entirely responsible for his actions. It's also an invaluable window into the mind of a man who represents a way of thinking that is different only in degree, and not in kind, from the thinking of what I think is a substantial swath of the American public. To write him off as a crazy person is to ignore a much greater problem, or even the possibility of such a problem.

BHM pimping hair care products.

2010-02-19T10:52:00.006-05:00

Today on the show, Bob mentioned a display at Kroger that was using a Black History Month theme and the names of famous civil rights leaders to sell personal grooming products specifically designed for today's African American, or something. Has Black History Month officially, and finally, jumped the shark? Seems like it, no?

Each picture links to a bigger image...
The whole display (sorry for the fuzziness...damn cell phone cameras):

Close up on the products: Really? Selling hair relaxers under the banner of BHM?

The bottom part of the display, in which the most important figures in the history of the American civil rights movement are offered up to the consumer gods:

1955: Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus, presumably with gross, too-curly black person hair.

Sheesh! Should we e-mail the Reverends Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and demand action? Seriously considering it...

Feb 12 links

2010-02-13T00:04:00.002-05:00

Here's the link that I, Abe, referred to on Friday's episode.

75% of young americans unfit to serve in the military

- Abe.

Show links...

2010-02-09T03:36:00.001-05:00

Check out Judicial Watch for the Pelosi expense reports.

Later,

Bob.

White people are stupid...

2010-02-05T11:45:00.002-05:00

and here are the commercials to prove it.

On today's episode of The Bob and Abe Show, the guys are discussing a theory that Bob has developed about the way people of different races and genders are consistently portrayed by corporate America in the commercials they use to sell their products. Below are links to a few of the commercials they discuss.

Feel free to send in your own links or thoughts on the issue. Comment here, or e-mail the guys at bobandabeshow@gmail.com.

The AT&T commercial that really seals the deal for Bob.

Abe's favorite home security commercial. Another example here. And here.

Progressive loves to emasculate men.

Dr. Dre is cooler than the white DJ.

White dude loves beer, but can't commit to his girl. And here.

Be sure to let us know what you think!

Venezuela's unfairness doctrine

2010-02-01T15:05:00.001-05:00

Hugo Chavez 'pressured' cable and satellite providers to no longer carry a news channel that was critical of his government.

This, for some reason, angered many Venezuelans. So a few of them have taken to the streets in protest.

It doesn't take a (political) scientist to figure what happened next.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_venezuela_media

"They breed."

2010-01-29T04:05:00.001-05:00

That Paul Shirley article we spend so much time on.

We weren't kidding. An elected official literally said these things.

Next week, the guys will be talking about this commercial, among other things. What do you think we'll have to say? Hmm...

Later,

-Bob and Abe Show.

State of the Union links...

2010-01-28T03:47:00.002-05:00

That handy money supply chart about which Bob keeps talking.

End the Fed by Ron Paul.

The full text of the State of the Union. What? It's only 7000 or so words.

Cheers!

Pat Robertson is a Great American.

2010-01-14T17:27:00.002-05:00

Here's the video of Pat Robertson talking about the deal Haiti made, with the Devil, that sealed their fate hundreds of years ago.

What an asshole.

Later,
The Bob and Abe Show.

NBC: A study in poor judgment

2010-01-12T21:56:00.002-05:00

This late-night talk show debacle over at NBC is quite amusing. In every step of the way, NBC got it wrong. Let me briefly chronicle just how we got to this point. Back in 2004, Conan O'Brien was offered The Tonight Show, only he wouldn't take over until five years later. This was not done because Jay Leno was planning on retiring in five years. This was done to prevent Conan from jumping ship to another network. They thought they could get to keep both of their late-night stars with a compromised solution (force Leno out, defer Conan's promotion five years). Well, the only problem with the plan was that Jay Leno had no intentions of retiring when his term as host of The Tonight Show was up.

So as 2009 approached, NBC, fearing Jay Leno would go to another network (ie Fox) and compete against Conan, offered Jay a prime time show at 10 pm. They threw a bunch of money at him and he decided to give it a shot. Most analysts thought a talk show wouldn't draw enough to be viable. Plus, having a comedy show an hour and a half before The Tonight Show would hurt Conan. NBC disagreed. They went ahead with their plan. Just five months into The Jay Leno Show, NBC raised their white flags and conceded defeat. They were, as most analysts wanred them, wrong. A talk show at 10 pm could not compete with scripted programming.

That left Jay Leno without a timeslot. So the NBC braintrust came up with another plan: move Jay Leno back to 11:35 pm, and push Conan to midnight.To get around the contractual hurdles (Conan was due upwards of $45 million if NBC took The Tonight Show from him), NBC plannned to still call Conan's show "The Tonight Show" and Jay Leno's show as, well, The Jay Leno Show. The only thing that could've derailed this plan was Conan O'Brien coming out against the move to midnight. And guess what? Conan O'Brien did just that. On Tuesday, Conan released a statement that went a little something like this:

People of Earth:

In the last few days, I've been getting a lot of sympathy calls, and I want to start by making it clear that no one should waste a second feeling sorry for me. For 17 years, I've been getting paid to do what I love most and, in a world with real problems, I've been absurdly lucky. That said, I've been suddenly put in a very public predicament and my bosses are demanding an immediate decision.

Six years ago, I signed a contract with NBC to take over The Tonight Show in June of 2009. Like a lot of us, I grew up watching Johnny Carson every night and the chance to one day sit in that chair has meant everything to me. I worked long and hard to get that opportunity, passed up far more lucrative offers, and since 2004 I have spent literally hundreds of hours thinking of ways to extend the franchise long into the future. It was my mistaken belief that, like my predecessor, I would have the benefit of some time and, just as important, some degree of ratings support from the prime-time schedule. Building a lasting audience at 11:30 is impossible without both.

But sadly, we were never given that chance. After only seven months, with my Tonight Show in its infancy, NBC has decided to react to their terrible difficulties in prime-time by making a change in their long-established late night schedule.

Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move the Tonight Show to 12:05 to accommodate the Jay Leno Show at 11:35. For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn't the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet a time slot doesn't matter. But with the Tonight Show, I believe nothing could matter more.

There has been speculation about my going to another network but, to set the record straight, I currently have no other offer and honestly have no idea what happens next. My hope is that NBC and I can resolve this quickly so that my staff, crew, and I can do a show we can be proud of, for a company that values our work.

Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair; it's always been that way.

Yours,

Conan

With Conan's response being a resounding "fuck you" to NBC, the decision now rests with NBC. They can either scrap the whole Jay Leno thing and let Conan and Jimmy (and Carson) keep their current timeslots. Or, they can let Conan walk and give Leno his old show back, for a few more years until Leno actually retires (probably in 5 years or so).

Personally, I think NBC should keep things the way they are with their late night line-up. Conan's show didn't fail; Jay Leno's show did. They should let Leno walk. He will likely go over to Fox and he will likely beat Conan in the ratings for the first year or two. But eventually, Leno and Lettermen will be gone, and Conan will be around, for another 15 years or more. What NBC will lose in the short-term they will make up for it in the long run.

That is what I think NBC should do. That is what the responsible and smart thing to do. The only problem is that throughout this whole process, NBC has made one misguided decision after another. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if NBC screwed over Conan (much like they did with Lettermen 18 years ago). Either way, should be interesting.

p.s. A lot of people are taking sides between Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien, and that's fine. I personally like both of them. I watch both shows.

Later,

- Abe.

Link for today's show.

2010-01-11T00:26:00.001-05:00

Check out the video we've linked to below. Why doesn't anyone want to have the conversation George Will wants to have?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/10/george-will-takes-on-liz_n_417733.html

Random Thoughts w/ Abe (1.7.10)

2010-01-07T19:08:00.001-05:00

New year, new random (albeit brief) thoughts.

So I guess Plaxico Burress' sentence was not harsh enough after all. At least it's not if you subscribe to the theory that prison serves as a deterrent. It has even't been a year since former Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress was sent to jail for illegal possession of a firearm, and we already have another instance of an athlete toying around with weapons in places where they shouldn't. In case you haven't heard, NBA player Gilbert Arenas, of the Washington Wizards, is believed to have brought four guns to the Wizards locker room. This was done to jokingly settle a gambling dispute with a teammate. Well, the DC police, as well as the NBA commissioner did not find the incident funny. Arenas has been suspended indefinitely from the league, and the police are investigating to see if they can bring up charges against the NBA star. I'm not sure what can be to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, but it seems like two years is not nearly enough.

Do you remember back in the 1980's when Coca-Cola rebranded and redesigned their popular soda drink? Remember how miserably the transition went and how they quickly scratched the whole idea? Well, I don't. I wasn't around these parts back than (too busy in some madrasa in Saudi Arabia). But I did see a documentary that chronicled the disastrous campaign. It seems that we may be witnessing another, similarly botched transition. Over at NBC, the late night shake-up that occurred back in June is being looked at as a disastrous mistake. Conan O'Brien, who took over The Tonight Show, is struggling mightily in the ratings. Ratings for the once-popular show are down 52% over the year before. It appears that Conan retained very little of Leno's audience, and it's likely that not all of his 12:35 audience followed him to his new timeslot. This is nothing new for Conan, though. Things started very rough for him on his old show back 15 years ago, but the network brass stuck with him
long enough for him to build an audience and he eventually became a hit. I'm not sure why that same patient strategy isn't being followed this time around. This story is just a rumor for now, though, so nothing may come of this. But Conan can't be all that comfortable in his new LA pad with this hanging around him. I'd hold on the pool expansion for now.

This Artie Lange story can't end well. Just as the Howard Stern side-kick was turning his life around, word has come out that he stabbed himself nine times in an apparent suicide attempt. Nine times! Holy fucking shit. That is a brutal way to end one's life, no? Not sure what defensive role his extra weight played in surviving the self-attack, but it couldn't have hurt. Either way, at this point I just don't see any way Artie Lange's life can end on a good note. It's practically a fait accompli. Sad story.

Right before I went to sleep last night, I caught the tail end of a documentary on the controversial head of PeTA, the animal rights group that often use aggressive and provocative means to get their point across. The film interviewed animal rights supporters that were divided on whether they thought PeTA's tactics were ultimately an effective or harmful approach. I wasn't aware that there were so many like-minded people who hated the 'in-your-face' approach that the group used. It's a very interesting expose on the whole movement. It's currently on HBO, so do tune in.

Speaking of hippy propoganda, there was a recent shake-up in the species power rankings. The chimpanzee has been leapfrogged by the
dolphin. That's according to many scientists. Not only are dolphins the second smartest in the world, they should be considered as 'non-human persons' and strong consideration should be made about granting them certain rights. Now, whether this story is politically or scientifivally motivated remains to be seen. There is, after all, an ongoing battle between Japanese fishermen and animal rights activists. When asked for comment in light of this scientific finding, the Japanese Prime Minister was quoted as saying:

"Fuck you, dorphins!"

Later

- Abe

Bob's 10 Favorite Albums of the 20-oh's.

2009-12-18T11:36:00.001-05:00

What follows is a list of my favorite albums of the last 10 years, sort of. In order to avoid some of my self-admitted myopia, I've only allowed one album per band, with one justifiable exception. For the most part, these are the albums I've listened to the most in the last 10 years, and for the most part I love each entirely. This list has much more to do with love than with greatness (in the rock critic sense), as I am no "expert," if such a thing exists. That said, there is no arguing with me, here.

Honorable Mentions
Toxicity / System of a Down
Rockin' the Suburbs / Ben Folds
Comfort Eagle / Cake
With Teeth / Nine Inch Nails
Them Crooked Vultures / Them Crooked Vultures

10. Speakerboxx/The Love Below -- Outkast
These guys make more interesting sounds than anyone doing the rap/hip-hop thing. I still don't know which half of the double album I love more. Go back and listen to Hey Ya! for the first time in a couple of years and you'll remember how much you loved it before you heard it 47,000 times on 9 different radio stations. Also, if you listen to Ghetto Musick on a decent set of headphones you'll be equally blown away--the high/low dynamics are almost unsettling. Awesome record(s).

9. Demon Days -- Gorillaz
"Feel Good, Inc." is one of my favorite singles of the last decade, and the rest of the album shines just as brightly. Weird, sad, hopeful futuristic pop music at its finest. Great videos, too.

8. The Bedlam in Goliath -- The Mars Volta
The Mars Volta guys apparently don't remember all the details of the experience of recording this album. It explains a lot. The album starts with a scream at a thousand miles an hour and doesn't really let you breathe until halfway through the album, and its only a brief reprieve. If you like this song, you'll like the rest.

7. Elephant -- The White Stripes
Jack White kind of owned this decade, huh? I wanted so badly to not like this band, and in fact avoided liking them until Elephant came out, and with it "Seven Nation Army," the grooviest goddamn four minutes since QOTSA's "The Lost Art of Keeping a Secret." The whole album is terrific. Jack White is an awfully good songwriter, and does a really good job of keeping shit simple.

6. Lateralus -- Tool
Before this album, I thought hard rock meant Godsmack. Needless to say, Tool has enlightened me. Tool fans are among the most annoying in all the world, but this does not change the fact that this is an absolutely remarkable allbum. Parabol/Parabola is a pretty good illustration of the sound of the CD (impatient types should skip to about 3 and 1/2 minutes in), though by no means does it encapsulate everything. The best Tool has yet produced. The follow-up was good, but did not approach the masterpiece that is Lateralus.

5. By the Way -- Red Hot Chili Peppers
For all the continued commercial success of this band, I think people often overlook just how good they are. And I love them. Like a brother, is how I love the Red Hot Chili Peppers. The moments of transcendence on By the Way are many for me--I still get chills listening to "Midnight" and "I Could Die for You," and "Venice Queen," the last song on the album, is my favorite Chili's song ever.

4. Sea Change -- Beck
Call me crazy, but I think this is Beck's best album yet. He's a crazy scientologist type, maybe, but he's a brilliant dude, too. The saddest, most beautiful 50 minutes of his career. So good.

3. Songs for the Deaf -- Queens of the Stone Age
In terms of just straight rock records, this is the best one of the decade, hands down. Start to finish fast, hard, and with all the requisite kinetic QOTSA energy, it's still their best effort. Besides, is there anybody any fucking cooler than these guys?

2. Kid A/Amnesiac -- Radiohead
It's cliche to say these guys are the Pink Floyd of our generation, but that's what they are. I include the two albums as one because I don't think I could choose Amnesiac without giving credit to Kid A, too. They were made at the same time, released less than a year apart--and both brilliant. Maybe my favorite song from both albums, but hard to say.

1. Machina/The Machines of God -- The Smashing Pumpkins
This is my favorite album of all time, so of course it tops this list. The album opens with a kick in the face and closes with one of my favorite songs ever, "Age of Innocence." I guess I understand why people didn't appreciate this album, but I don't understand the hate so many people have for Billy Corgan now. I don't know if anything will ever replace this album on my favorites list, because I don't know that I'll ever again be in such a position to be so affected by an album as I was when I heard this one. It's kind of hard to explain, but if you know what I'm talking about than I guess you know what I'm talking about. Man, do I love me some Pumpkins.

Pretty solid list, if I may say so myself. Let me know what you think!

Later,
-Bob.

I mean, come on! Really!

2009-12-16T13:42:00.004-05:00

I don't have time to allow my simmering outrage to boil over just now, but this is ridiculous.

Ben Bernanke is Time Magazine's Person of the Year.

This is the despicable marriage of corporate, media, government and banking interests at work.

Best quote from the stroke-piece:

So when turbulence in U.S. housing markets metastasized into the worst global financial crisis in more than 75 years, he conjured up trillions of new dollars and blasted them into the economy; engineered massive public rescues of failing private companies; ratcheted down interest rates to zero; lent to mutual funds, hedge funds, foreign banks, investment banks, manufacturers, insurers and other borrowers who had never dreamed of receiving Fed cash; jump-started stalled credit markets in everything from car loans to corporate paper; revolutionized housing finance with a breathtaking shopping spree for mortgage bonds; blew up the Fed's balance sheet to three times its previous size; and generally transformed the staid arena of central banking into a stage for desperate improvisation. He didn't just reshape U.S. monetary policy; he led an effort to save the world economy.
No wonder his eyes look tired.

Aside from the fact that it's a weird lie that turbulence in the U.S. housing market was the cause of the global financial meltdown, why are we praising this guy for the actions delineated? He's the frontman for the most dangerous and powersucking criminal organization with which the world is currently confronted. "No wonder his eyes look tired."

Assholes! I knew it! I'm Surrounded by Assholes!

Later,

-Bob.

Obama's 60 minutes interview

2009-12-15T18:25:00.001-05:00

This past Sunday, I watched the latest episode of '60 minutes'. Though it is one of my favorite tv shows, I rarely ever watch it in its original broadcast (usually catch it online). But, this week it just kind of snuck up on me. The show featured an interview with President Obama and then a celebrity profile of Ricky Gervais (that guy is rich!).

The interview with the President was your run-of-the-mill kind of interview. It wasn't a bad interview, just a predictable interview. But what caught my attention was Obama's answer to an otherwise tame question. Steve Croft asked what the President thought of the bailed-out companies paying back their loans faster than many expected. I figured he'd say he was pleased that the taxpayer-funded loans were being paid back, with interest. But that's not what he said.

The President seemed disappointed that they were in fact paying back the loans so quickly. His take was that it was an effort by those companies to avoid having to abide by certain restrictions. Chief among those restrictions are caps on executive pay as well as bonuses.

Now, I could've swore that the main purpose for the TARP program was to prevent companies from collapsing. And though a few have gone into bankruptcy, most have managed to stay afloat long enough to weather the financial storm. Some can argue weather or not the loans had any effect, but on the surface this is a program that served its purpose, and the President and his minions should be touting the rate of repayment. Not complaining that the companies have gotten out of the grasp of the government's restrictions. But I guess that wasn't the 'intended purpose'. Not according to the President's remark. It seems that the intended purpose all along was to gain influence over private companies and how much they pay their top guys.

And that's kinda fucked up.

Just a quick thought...

2009-12-14T16:24:00.003-05:00

No time for a lengthy diatribe today, as it is about 4:30 and I just found out that I'm supposed to be at work in 30 minutes. Bummer. Quickly, then...

I listen to a lot of radio. Today, I heard a Public Service Announcement brought to me by the Department of Education, the Ad Council, and My Local Station. The speaker was trying to reinforce the importance of education in the lives of the listener's children, which was my first problem. What sort of a person needs to be told that an education is important? And given that there are people out there who do in fact need to be told that an education is important, what the fuck makes anyone think that a radio PSA is going to be just the moment of enlightenment and elucidation that these retarded parents need to realize the error of their apathy? How fucking stupid do you think we are? And if we are that fucking stupid, what makes you think you can possibly make any difference at all? More nanny state nonsense.

And then the ad got interesting: "Remember to instill in your children your own values: tolerance, honestly, and fair play."

Seriously? Now you're going to tell me to remember to instill my values in my children, as though I need a reminder from you, and then you're going to tell me what my values are? I've discussed tolerance here before, in case you don't remember, and you can check that out, here. I'll decide what my own values are, and I'll decide how and when to pass them on to my kids. Fuck you, PSA.

This is what we spend our money on in this country? This is what we commonly accept as the appropriate role of government in our lives? Stop trying to baby each other, world. Grow up.

Later,
-Bob.

The good ol' government teat.

2009-12-11T17:04:00.002-05:00

Apparently the average pay of a federal employee is not over $70,000. That is nearly double the average pay of a non-government employee. To an extent, that's all good, right? I mean, these are no doubt long-serving government bureaucrats with specialties and niche-type jobs who are valuable assets to the function of our massive federal government, whether you agree with its size or ends or not.

I'm struck by the story, which can be found here, because of a slightly different reason than the typical outrage about the story will be, I think. My issue is this: We are increasingly a nation employed by or otherwise receiving a check from the federal government.

It's nearly to the point where as many people receive money from the IRS every year than actually pay out into the system. If you add in those receiving federally paid welfare or other social spending, plus the huge number of federal level government jobs--not to mention the millions of teachers in this country who may work for the state, technically, but are accountable to the federal government for performance if not being outright paid by it--we are a nation that will never choose to reduce the role or size of government.

This is because so many of us are on the payroll, or otherwise on the government dole. Who would vote to make it harder for themselves to maintain their lifestyle? Not too many people. The U.S. government is too big to fail, I suppose, and the tyranny of the majority will ensure the final nail in the coffin of the experiment that was limited government with enumerated powers.

We'll probably be talking about this on the show next week--post away and let us know what you think so we can include your thoughts.

Have a great weekend!

Later,
-Bob.

Random Thoughts with Abe (12.10.2009)

2009-12-10T23:19:00.005-05:00

Alright, it's time for some good old random thoughts, with Abe!

Earlier this week, the Bob and Abe Show discussed the whole Tiger Woods fiasco. I was out of town, so I wasn't able to comment on it. Here is my take. I'm really surprised that the insurance industry has not come up with 'divorce insurance' policy (don't they have insurance policies for body parts?). Think about it. Tiger Woods is worth, what, $1 billion? And he's likely to make a few more billion in the next decade. A person with that sum of wealth should protect himself against any liability. And you'd be hard pressed to find any liability as great as divorce, especially for someone of Tiger Woods' stature. Now I don't want to jump to conclusions, but it wouldn't be a stretch to think that Tiger Woods' wife would leave him. She has every right to leave him. But if she did, half his money would be gone. He'd stand to lose $500 million. That's $50 million per girl (so far). That's - and I don't mean to be graphic - about $72,524.50 per stroke*! That's, a lot. And yet, Tiger Woods and his financial advisers have no defense for it.

Speaking of cheating, they really should come up with another term for infidelity, because “cheating” just sounds petty. I always get a kick hearing grown adults accusing one another of “cheating”. Also, if you're in a relationship with someone and sex is not a part of it and you have sex with someone else, is that cheating? And if so, what are you cheating on? To me, cheating is going outside of the relationship to seek goods and services that are already offered by your partner. So, if you are not fucking, what's it to you that your partner is? It’s like with an iphone. If they offered video and mms and backgrounding and all these other features, nobody would jailbreak their phone. But since they don’t, people do 'cheat' by jailbreaking (like yours truly). Same thing with a relationship. If your partner offered sex, and that was a normal part of the relationship, then going outside of that would be an act of infidelity. Otherwise, I don’t see the conflict (note: I am aware that this sounds like i'm blaming the person who gets cheated on. I just want to make you aware that I am aware that you aware what this sounds like).

Why are athletes who use performance enhancing drugs being punished? They’re trying to enhance their performance. They’re trying to put on a better show for the fans. What’s the harm in that? Sure, they put themselves at greater health risks, but that’s a “them” problem. The reaction to the steroid and HGH abuse by baseball players is silly. This whole “It’s not fair that one player is juicing while another is not” is not valid, in my opinion. Some people are naturally stronger or faster or smarter than others. Are we okay with that disadvantage? Some athletes have different training regiments that positively affect the way they play while others do not. Are we okay with that disadvantage? Just because it’s “god-given” ability, it doesn’t make it any less unfair. Just because god jewed me out of a great 40 yard dash speed, doesn’t mean I should leave it at that and move. No, performance enhancing drugs are the great equalizer. They correct what is inherently unfair. I say, if they want to juice, let them juice, statistical records be damned.

A few months ago I went to go see the latest Harry Potter film. The movie itself was ok, but it probably would've been better had I seen the last three installments. I saw the first two movies, and then the sixth. So, obviously there was a gap in storyline for me. Would it be too much to ask that they attach a “previously on” clip at the beginning of any sequel? I guess I could watch all the movies before watching the 6th, but come on, who has time for that? My suggestion wouldn't take long, just 2 minutes, 3 tops. Just like they do with tv shows, such as “24”. It brings everyone watching up to speed and it makes for a more pleasurable viewing. Or they could show a 10th preview of some movie I’ll never see.

Do you think people who type “lol” or “haha” on their status updates or emails are actually laughing? I don’t think so. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been around a person who included that in their message but instead of laughing, they had that “I’m bored” look on their face. People always fake laugh in person. Is this the online version of that? Speaking of which, can we go easy with the exclamation points!!!!! My god, every other sentence you read nowadays ends with an exclamation. It would be very funny if this was a running joke in tribute to that Seinfeld episode where Elaine went crazy with the exclamation point. But somehow I doubt that’s the case here. All I’m saying is, calm down with the exclamations. It’s very annoying!

On a related thought, I always thought it’d be funny if there was a commercial where they showed two people exchanging texts. One person is describing a festive and fun environment, and the other is sitting at home filled with jealousy, enough to where he alters his plan just so he can attend. But what the jealous friend doesn’t know –but will soon find out – is that his buddy is committing the cardinal sin, “textaggeration”. That’s when there’s a huge discrepancy between what is actually happening and how the person attending describes it as. This may be hard for you to imagine in writing, but I think if this concept was more developed, I think you’d have a solid 30-second spot.

Speaking of which, do you ever lie just out of pure lazyness? Like, someone asks you a question, and instead of answering truthfully, you choose the answer with the least chance of generating a follow-up question? For instance, if someone asks, “so, what did you do last night?” I will usually just say “oh, nothing”, because saying “I went to play poker at some random bar” will automatically generate a follow-up, such as “oh, really? Which one? Who did you go with? Did you win anything? Have you been there before? Is there a buy-in?” Most of the time, I have no problem going with the honest route and fielding follow-up questions, but some days, I just say “oh, nothing” and move on. I can’t imagine I’m alone in that.

And that my friends, is all.

-Abe

*Stroke average based on the commonly accepted stroke-per-sex-session average of american atheletes (49.5).

For the BCS, it's all about the money, and nothing but.

2009-12-09T16:15:00.001-05:00

It’s Saturday night, and I’m in Tampa, Florida. I am there to watch the ACC title game at Raymond James Stadium. It’s late in the fourth quarter, and Georgia Tech, down one point to Clemson, is driving down the field. During a television timeout, I look over at one of the flat screen TV sets in one of the suites behind me. They’re showing the Nebraska-Texas game. It is also a close game. Nebraska, the heavy underdog, just kicked a go-ahead field goal with only a minute left in the game. Texas, the team many predicted would ease into the title game, needed to drive down the field and kick a field goal to win the game. With one-second left, they did just that. They kicked a field goal. Texas wins, and they are headed to the title game. Nebraska loses, and so do all the undefeated non-BCS teams that could’ve played in the national title game instead of Texas. ‘damn it!’, I yelled. ‘TCU was that close to busting up the BCS monopoly’. I turned back from the television set, and apparently Georgia Tech won the Also-ran championship. Oops!

With the best-case scenario – TCU playing the winner of the SEC title game (Alabama) – out the window, I figured TCU, the team many think has the best chance of beating a top-tier BCS team, would get to prove their worth in one of the four BCS bowl games. I figured a Florida-TCU matchup, or an Ohio State-TCU matchup, would make for interesting game. After all, the biggest knock on these mid-major type teams and their undefeated records is that ‘they never play anybody good’. This was their opportunity to play 'somebody good'. Surely the BCS bowl committee would factor that into consideration, right?

Well on Sunday night, the BCS committee made their selections for the five bowl games. The national title game, as predicted, pitted Alabama against Texas. Then TCU’s opponent was named. And what do you know, it was not Florida, and it was not Ohio State or Oregon. It wasn’t even Georgia Tech (sorry, Tyler). The BCS selection committee decided to have TCU play Boise State. Boise State! Boise State? Yeah, Boise fucking State.

The one other non-BCS team. The worst case scenario for TCU and Boise State came into being. They get to play an inconsequential game, and the BCS proponents can continue to spew their idiotic 'who have they played to earn a spot at the top' talking point.

After I went through my usual college-football-is-a-fucking-joke diatribe to one of my friends, I recalled what a taxi driver told me in Tampa. It’s all about the money. It’s all about what match-up in what venue can generate the most money for the respective teams. Who is deserving to play against the top opponents is secondary. And I don’t care how much I love football, that is the absolute worst system in the history of any sport, at least when it comes to crowning a champion. To not be even remotely interested in finding just who are the best teams in the country, boggles the mind. At least my mind. What the fuck is the point? It's like the NFL going off SI's pre-season prediction to determine who plays in February.

I don’t have a problem with college football using a bowl system in lieu of a playoff system. I have a problem with college football, which does not pay its talent their market value, favoring a bowl system that only exists to manufacture hype and generate revenue.

If the objective of the BCS bowl system is to reward teams with winning records to showcase their football program during the holiday break, then I'm fine with it. If it's designed to determine who the best team in the country is, then it fails miserably.

Abe.

Lori: On Christmas.

2009-12-08T12:54:00.003-05:00

Where are the Grinches who yell every year about taking the Christ out of Christmas? "Blah blah blah it's too commercial blah blah blah Jesus is the reason for the season, blah blah blah Santa is Satan!" Where are they? Maybe I'm just not listening to enough talk radio but it seems to me like there used to be a lot more noise from the Crazy Christians about keeping Christmas Christian. Did they all get Wal-Marts and Best Buys for Christmas last year?

They must have, cause since we're all poor, they're pretty quiet.

Sure--the Christian Christmas Crusaders could be spouting their bullshit again this year if they wanted to. The silence can't be because they feel like it's different this year, like it has suddenly become less commercial and more Jesus-y. I'm also pretty sure that it's not because they've finally come to terms with Christmas being inclusive and welcome to everyone, regardless of religion. I'm pretty sure the "Culture Warrior" types hate my participation in my favorite holiday this year as much as they always have. Why do they hate my participation? I'm such a dick I put up a Christmas tree RIGHT NEXT TO my menorah. My favorite Christmas music CD is “A Very Twisted Christmas” by everybody's favorite Christian band, Twisted Sister (you know some of those turds in the PMRC hate my Christmas tree). But they're quieter about it this year, and I think it's because they've realized something.

America needs Christmas. This is true every year, but this is the first year (so far) in a long time that businesses are depending on the days between Black Friday and Christmas (probably Jan 7, actually) just to keep their doors open. Even if we assume that these anti-Christmas fools would be OK with only the true believers buying iPods and PS3s for each other, there just aren't enough of them to save the day. These stores are relying on people like you and me and the rest of the country to buy things we don't need in the spirit of giving. Buying your kid a Bop-It! because a savior was born 2000 years ago doesn't make any sense. Buying your mom a Kindle because the point of Christmas is to give our loved ones gifts makes sense. We don't do it because of Jesus. We do it because it's what we've been doing, and because it's nice.

ANYWAY, if the wackos are successful in making the rest of us feel guilty for running our asses all over town looking for the latest incarnation of Tickle Me Elmo or whatever the hip thing is this year (please see aside below), we might stop. We're already poor, we already can't afford the Cabbage Patch Kids we're putting on the MasterCard. If you tell us that not only can we not afford it, but we shouldn't do it because it hurts God's feelings, nobody wins. We'll spend our money on something else, and Target's and what not all over the country start closing down, taking along with them millions of jobs. Cats and dogs, living together--mass hysteria! The Noel Nay-sayers may not own these stores, but you can bet your ass they depend on their survival as much as the rest of us do. And if we don't all buy our shit, we're all fucked. And they know it.

Merry Fucking Christmas.

-Lori.

Aside:

When I was four, I wanted a Dozzy Doll. It was like Teddy Ruxpin but it was a boy, and his stories weren't all about him. It was WHAT I WANTED FOR CHRISTMAS. And it was one of those highly sought items that was always out of stock. On Christmas Eve, my dad went all over Fairfax to find me a Dozzy. Why did he wait until Christmas Eve? Because it was only then that he discovered that I wanted the Dozzy Boy, not the Dozzy Bear. He went all the fuck over the place looking for that god damn doll, and he found me one. And I loved it. It's probably still in my Mom's basement somewhere. He didn't tell me what a pain it was to get Dozzy until many years later, and I can't put into words the gratitude I still feel.

Check out Dozzy Doll here.

Just another weird piece of the puzzle.

2009-12-07T16:15:00.003-05:00

Within the last couple of weeks an Australian researcher combing through the raw data from the "black box" (obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request) from American Airlines Flight 77, the 9/11 flight that is supposed to have crashed into the Pentagon, discovered what he believes to be proof that the narrative about 9/11 provided by the U.S. government and the media cannot be true.

He claims that there is evidence in the flight data recorder that suggests that the cockpit door was never opened at any point during the flight. This, of course, would be impossible if the door was kicked in by two terrorists who killed the pilots before flying with great speed just above the ground into the Pentagon.

I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the data or of the researcher, as I have never seen a flight data recorder report, nor would I know how to interpret such if it were presented to me. I can, however, say with some confidence that you will never hear the first thing about this in the mainstream media, and if you do it will be dismissed out of hand as a lie or some weirdo's fantasy.

No matter what you think about 9/11, it seems to me that if you can't admit that we haven't been (and probably never will be) given the whole story, you're willfully ignorant. There is far too much evidence out there to suggest that something more was going on than 18 Saudi Arabia nationals and one dude from the UAE armed with box-cutters kicking in doors and crashing planes into buildings.

Here's where I found the story. Worth checking out, anyway.

Again, I still don't know what to think about 9/11. One thing I'm sure of is that the official story is far more fantastical than most of the conspiracy theories I've heard about it.

Later!

-Bob.

A little more on the minarets...

2009-12-04T15:20:00.005-05:00

It's been a while since we last posted an update on the old Bob and Abe Show blog, but that's something I'd like to remedy. I wouldn't bet the farm on us updating every day, but I would like to make this blog a more important part of the entire Bob and Abe Show experience--both yours and ours. Besides all that, a little blogging never hurt anybody in terms of web exposure and maybe pulling in a few eyeballs that could in turn drive traffic to the show, which can be found here.

In the spirit of all that, I wanted to clarify my position on the Swiss minaret controversy. Granted, I made my position pretty clear on Friday's episode, but after receiving an e-mail from a listener I wanted to reiterate a few things and make a couple of new points.

There are an estimated 13,000 Catholics and an estimated 25,000 Jews in Iran. This is in a country of 75,000,000 people. Needless to say, this statistic does not engender in a person the notion that people of non-Muslim belief are particularly welcome there. In Saudi Arabia, there are about 8 million foreign workers that live and work in Saudi Arabia (a country of about 30 million people), and it's a pretty safe bet that about 1 million are Catholic. They are not allowed to practice their faith at all--they may not have a church, they may not wear a crucifix, they may not publicly show their religion in any way. Every citizen of Saudi Arabia must be a Muslim, and conversion from Islam to any other religion is punishable by death.

There are an estimated 400,000 Muslims in Switzerland, a country made up of fewer than 8,000,000 people. They are permitted to freely exercise their faith with virtually no interference from the government, with the exception of the recently instituted ban on minarets, which are a feature of only some mosques, and certainly by no means a feature required of the structure.

Muslim immigration into Switzerland, especially from Kosovo, Bosnia, and Turkey, has brought this influx of Muslims. The Swiss seem to have adopted the mindset that the Muslim immigrants should have to conform to certain aspects of Swiss society if they are going to live there. For whatever reason, they believe that the construction of more minarets will have a detrimental impact on their culture and their history. It seems to me that this is their decision to make. They are not infringing upon anyone's basic human rights (legal, innate, supernatural, or otherwise) and they aren't preventing the free exercise of the Muslims' religion.

I gave an example on the show that I would like to flesh out a little bit more. The neighborhood in which I live has a Homeowner's Association that does not allow basketball hoops to be constructed in driveways. This could be construed in (at least) two ways. First, it could be that the addition of basketball hoops, which could be poorly maintained, unsightly, or even an insurance liability for the community, might have some sort of an effect on the property value of all the houses in the neighborhood. Or, it might be said that basketball, which is a sport currently most popular among young urban males, is not the sort of thing the Homeowner's Association wants to make available because of the type of people it might attract to live here, which could also conceivably have a negative effect on property values. The real reason is, of course, the first one, but this will never stop certain individuals from screaming "discrimination." People always see the explanation they most want to see. The only thing being discriminated against in my example is lower property values.

I don't know why each individual that voted to ban the construction of minarets in Switzerland did so. Some might be bigots, and believe that their vote is a way to tell Muslims to jsut fuck off already. Some might be really, really into Swiss architecture. If I had to guess, most of them did so because of a certain patriotic love they have for their own culture, their own way of doing things. Can an immigrant really demand absolute free reign, to be allowed to write their own rules in a country that is not their homeland? In reality, Switzerland and much of Europe represents a much more flexible, much less unbending sort of tolerance than any of the cultures of the Islamic world generally stand for. The minaret seems like such a small sacrifice to be asked to pay in return for not having to live in Kosovo or Bosnia anymore.

I'm sure this wouldn't fly in America, and that may be just as well--though it may be because we value Twilight: New Moon more than any sense of our own history, but that's another story for another day--this is not a fight I'd like to see happen in the grand ol' U.S. and A. Religious freedom is a birthright in this country, and an adopted right of those that choose to come here from all over this goofy planet, and I'm all about it. But I do worry that we might let a little political correctness, tolerance, and multi-culturalism get in the way of our overall progress--not just as a nation, but as a species.

Thanks for reading along. It's off to work I go. Certainly hope everybody out there has a great weekend.

Later,
-Bob.

October 4 Podcast Links

2009-10-13T22:12:00.003-04:00

As promised, here are the links of the stories we touched on during the October 4 podcast.

Listener Generated Content

2009-10-01T14:49:00.002-04:00

A listener calling himself "The Fareed" has written in to the show and taken umbrage with something Bob said in the most recent episode of The B & A Show.

With Bob on your stance of racism.
Specifically with the 3/5s rule and the 'people in the past were not racist/ the slave traders were not racist'.
I disagree based on the fact that the justification for the action was that the darker skin was a punishment from God.

Or

The fact the people selling the slaves in Africa were black...soooo we can't be racisit. Horrible arguement dude.

Ok well. That's all.

The fareed.

Bob's Response:

The Fareed,

By no means am I suggesting that there were no racist people back in the day, or that elements of racism did not, in some fundamental way, contribute to policies or laws enacted on the state or federal level, such as the 3/5's clause. As you no doubt know, the 3/5's clause was a compromise between the northern and the southern states in terms of determining representation in the House of Representatives in Congress. It was an economic decision, and while revolting, disgusting, and shameful, cannot be said to have been a fundamentally RACIST policy. Slaves were not to be counted as 3/5's of a person because of their race, but because of their legal status as slaves.

While I'll admit the statement is a little controversial, I'm simply trying to say that EVEN slaveholders or slave traders were not NECESSARILY themselves racist. The slave trade was (largely) an economic alliance between black African Muslims and their white European and New World customers. Slavery was a crime against humanity in so profound a way that I think simply writing it off as a vestige of a more racist time does not do justice to the injustices perpetrated against those human beings, and in so doing we risk not really learning anything from our terrible history. What should be gleaned from what happened is not: "gee, those were some racist fucks back then, can you imagine really believing that you're better just because of the color of your skin," but instead: "holy shit, look what they did to their fellow human beings for nothing more than money." Racism is a convenient excuse, obscuring the horror of what was going on--wholesale human trafficking for something so base as wealth.

Without a doubt, some people on both sides of the slave trade believed that they were fundamentally superior to the "brutes" in which they were dealing. But you could be a slave owner without being a racist. You could just be an asshole. In fact, I would probably argue that if you were not a racist and still had slaves than you were an even worse kind of slave owner. Not only did you recognize the humanity of your property, but you continued to perpetuate their bondage. This is, in some ways, a worse crime than simply holding a belief that they were an inferior breed.

The point, I guess, is that we learn nothing by calling people 300 years ago racists, and we learn nothing more by throwing the term or the accusation around today. It's a lot like calling someone stupid, or mean--even if it's true, so what? So far as I can tell, talking with one another, having conversations and arguments, that's the only way to overcome stupidity, racism, or hatred. Simply shouting Racist! or Stupid! is a way of stopping those conversations, and therefore stopping the learning process.

Thoughts, Legion?

-The Bob and Abe Show.

Random Thoughts with Abe (9.17.09)

2009-09-17T19:17:00.001-04:00

Back again with some more random thoughts.

Back in 2005, I made a proclamation. Having watched the courthouse shooting incident unfold on television, I stated that the case would not last very long. It was clear to me, as it should have been to everybody, that Brian Nichols was guilty of killing 4 people in the courtroom. There was, to put it mildly, a plethora of evidence against him. That was 4 years ago. Guess what? Nothing happened with that case. The prosecutors couldn't somehow connect the dots. I've seen people go to prison for life on hearsay and a dumb jury. It was then that I realized that no matter how obvious a person's guilt may be, the justice system is so ineffective and corrupt, that it would be impossible to predict any outcome. So, I haven't made any other proclamation about any crimes in the news since then. Until now. With limited facts currently known, I can conclude that this Yale murder suspect is clearly guilty. It is so painfully obvious. There is no other person who is remotely linked to this murder. There is a ton of evidence that indicates he was at least somehow involved in the murder. I can't imagine how this story can end in any other way. That is my criminal lock of the year. This guy is guilty.

Speaking of crime on campus, this Hofstra gang rape story is rather amusing. This woman claimed she was raped by 5 guys (one named Jesus, and another named Stalin) after a party on campus. The guys were arrested and their names and photos were published in the papers. They were held in jail for 3 days. Then, the woman recanted her story and admitted that she was in fact not gang raped, but instead had consensual sex, with 5 guys, at once. The judge downgraded the gang rape to merely a gang bang, which is not even a misdemeanor. Now, these guys were accused of a serious offense, and for the most part, their names will be linked to this rape case. Sometimes, that's all it takes to sully a good name (though one of the guy's name is Stalin, but you know). I bet you a couple of them will be fired from their jobs simply for taking part in this whole incident. I mean, they were, after all, involved in a 5-on-1 sex encounter, known as the ultimate 'power play' up north (hey, an insensitive hockey reference!). So, what recourse do these guys have in the eyes of public opinion? I guess they can sue in civil court for defamation of character or something, but how far is that going to go. This woman is clearly troubled, and if I can play psychologist for a minute, she probably has had some sexual trauma in her childhood. But that still doesn't mean you can go around accusing guys with a healthy appetite for a gang bang with such a heinous crime as rape. That would be like being accused as a racist whenever you object to or disagree with somebody outside of your race.

Speaking of which, former President Jimmy Carter decided to chime in on the whole health care debate earlier this week. The conclusion he reached was simple: the main reason why there are so many people who disagree with the president on issues such as health care, has all to do with the president's race. That's right, the same country that elected the first black man as president, by a 200 electoral vote margin over a white man, has now turned on the president. It somehow slipped their mind that he was after all, black. Those sneaky blacks. Even Bill Cosby, who conservatives often applaud for his stance against some elements of the black culture, agreed with President Carter's assessment. I was actually surprised by that. Now, don't get me wrong. There are plenty of bigots and xenophobes and even racists out there. And some of them are in those tea-party events and marches down Washington, DC. But to say that the primary reason why there is a significant uprising from the opposition is based on the president's race is not only wrong, it's also very dismissive and counterproductive. It's good to see that the White House is staying away from this land mine of an issue.

I will fault the conservative movement in one respect. It's the same issue I have with Muslims. Why isn't there a stronger push by conservatives to distance themselves from those within their camp that are bigoted, xenophobic, and oftentimes outright racist? Muslims always stated that they are a moderate and peaceful people. That extremists are but a small fringe group that do not represent the whole. Yet, whenever some crazy shit happened by Muslim extremists, you never heard any "not in our name" kind of statements from the Muslim communities. And the few times they did come out against it, they would throw in a bunch of caveats that offset the denouncement (e.g. it sucks, but those Jews deserved it). The same thing is happening with the tea party protests and other conservative gatherings. There's always a bunch of racially motivated banners among the masses, but nobody calls them out on it. Nobody says "hey, that's not what we're about. you don't represent us". They accept them like they do the rest. They implicitly give them credibility, and the end result is the liberal side lumping all of them together, mostly for political gain. They all become 'those racists'. It's not right, but it's like that expression goes, it's the company you keep. And if you have no problem with tea partying with blatant bigots, then what does that say about you? Is all I’m saying.

One last thing. Maureen Dowd. Really? When Joe Wilson, the now infamous congressman from South Carolina, shouted "you lie" to the president, you instead heard "you lie, boy"? That's what we in the business like to call a stretch. I know the argument you were trying to drive home - that there was some racist undertone behind the heckle – but come on. Any statement ending with ‘boy’ towards an adult black male, as history has shown us, has some racial implications. So to suggest Joe Wilson meant to add ‘boy’ to his statement suggests that he is being dismissive of the president because of his race. Unless it can be proven, that sort of salacious accusation should be beneath the New York Times editorial page. Or so I thought. But I digress.

If you can control the news cycle, you can control the debate. With the rising popularity in aggregate news sites, what stories get plucked from the obscurity of the AP wire and local newspapers often shapes the national debate. There is an article on Huffington Post that makes the claim that the conservative-leaning news aggregate Drudgereport.com, especially recently, selects news stories that drive a singular point home: Obama is a failing president, who is black. The author of the article draws this conclusion because of the stories that are in heavy rotation on the website - the firing of Obama’s black adviser, an op-ed article about how bad the president is doing, and the ACORN controversy, just to name a few. Even seemingly non-related stories, such as the video of the school bus fight that shows a white student being beaten by a couple of black students, is a featured story on the website. The reason for all of these story selections, according to the author, is to paint a negative picture of the president as well as to de-legitimize his efforts. Now, I don't necessarily agree with the author's point on this. I frequent the web site, and though I've seen those aforementioned stories featured, I have also seen many other stories featured that do not fit that characterization. But I will say this, I do agree with the general theme of his message. News aggregate website and the stories they feature more often than not align with the ideology of those who make the decisions. But as long as people know that going into, I have no real problem with it.

On a related side-note, once people accept the fact that they seek news stories that reinforce their beliefs, I can finally go ahead with my news website that caters to that type of readership. It'll either be called echochamber.com or filter.com. The main page will have a blue pill (liberal slant) and a red pill (conservative slant). Depending on which pill you take, the news stories will be suited for that ideology. At the bottom right, where it will be hard to see, I will have a black helicopter icon, for those wacky conspiracy theory types. And to top it all, I will have one main forum for everybody to debate/argue the stories of the day. I think it could work.

Earlier this week, Bob sent me a link to a story about this guy who was severely beaten by 10-15 guys. The reason for the attack had all to do with the victim’s race, and that of his girlfriend. He was a white guy. His girlfriend was black. Not an ordinary pairing, but it happens. The 10-15 guys were black and I guess they disapproved of the interracial couple. They felt that this white guy was taking one of their precious black women from them, which puzzled me. I mean, what’s it to them? It’s not like any of those 10-15 guys were going to marry her, or at least stick around for any length of time. The rate for single-mothers in the black community is what, 70%? That figure is especially staggering when you compare it to any other group. So why would a bunch of teenaged black kids, who as the stats show are notoriously against committed relationships, want to break up a seemingly happy couple? I would be okay with this sort of degenerate behavior if, after they beat the poor guy to a bloody pulp, one of the guys asked her hand in marriage, or at least out on a date. But that wasn’t their objective. They were just looking for a reason to beat up on someone. And we cannot stand for that. The other great thing about this story is how it didn’t gain any traction with the community or the media as far as outrage goes. The father of the victim made that obnoxious “if it were the other way around, if a bunch of white guys beat up a black kid” argument. Still, many people didn’t care.

And lastly, I cannot wait until this whole Ramadan thing ends. I have had to eat out for breakfast and lunch for the past 3 and a half weeks. This is due to the fact that I cannot prepare any food to take to work, which I ordinarily do. This, in turn, is due to the fact that nobody in the house can eat because of the 'holy' month of fasting during the daylight hours. I usually budget for eating out each month, and so far I have gone $100 over my usual monthly spending. That would pay for a paramore concert and two week's worth of gas. Thankfully, the 'holy' month comes to an end this weekend, so I can resume my modest eating habits at work. I sure as hell hope that come Ramadan next year, I am out on my own somewhere in the city of Atlanta and not have to abide by these silly rules.

And that my friends, is all

-Abe

Random thoughts with Abe (9.3.09)

2009-09-03T18:35:00.001-04:00

I am back with some more random thoughts.

The Obama administration really needs to consult with conservatives to gauge their reaction about their initiatives before rolling them out to the general public. Between the flag @ whitehouse program and asking school children how they can help the president, it seems Obama's 'deciders' don't have a clue about the political landscape in which they roam. Are these people inside the administration that stupid? That myopic? That ignorant to not see what is so plainly obvious? How can they sit there over at the west wing and come up with these idiotic plans and think nobody will make a big fuss about it? We are, after all, dealing with a general public that stews in paranoia. Overreacting to otherwise innocuous programs is a pastime to many people. So, even if these programs are harmless (which I think they are), they are still not wise moves to pursue politically. I really do think the president should seriously consider my suggestion, and hire some conservative types and see what they think of these proposals. Kind of like President Clinton did with Dick Morris. If he can't find anybody willing to take on that role, hire me. I promise you, the rate of back-tracking from ill-advised initiatives will decrease significantly.

The New International Version bible is going through a revision so that it can be gender-neutral. They’re replacing expressions such as “sons of god” with “children of god”. They say they’re doing this so that the bible reflects the changes in “language usage” that has taken place recently. I think that’s great and all, but why stop only at gender? Why not have a major revision and adopt other changes in ‘language usage’? Wouldn’t it be cool if the bible read “and Moses said to his people, brb”? I think they not only should religious texts be revised, they should have different editions, targeting different demographics. Throw in a little comedy and ‘insider’ lingo for the youth, and play it safe for the adults. I think you could see more people fall back into religion if they did this. Hmm…. Maybe I should offer up my consulting services to churches. I’ll give a 10% discount on my fee, as long as you pass along the savings to Jesus, provided that money goes through me first (I’ll expedite the transfer process).

I never thought I’d agree with Audrey O'Day (random singer/reality TV hack), but she is right about one thing. Evil people are generally smart. Recently on Hannity's TV show, Audrey O'Day said that 'evil' dictators like Adolf Hitler and - to a much lesser extent - Fidel Castro were "brilliant men". Umm... okay? Where's the controversy? How could anyone deny this fact? Adolf Hitler was practically a genius. He and his minions were one pesky Island (the brits) and one ill-advised attack on Russia away from conquering Europe. A stupid person would never be in such a position. Now, does genius and brilliant equate to good? No, and I think that's the problem people like Hannity's sheep have with these statements. They, in their childish wisdom, conflate intelligence with good. Intelligence has very little to do with morality. What smart people do with their intelligence dictates which side of good/evil they fall under. A good smart person becomes a doctor or teacher. An evil smart person becomes a dictator or banker. Their morality doesn't negate their brilliance.

The "sending the wrong message" doctrine is, ironically, sending the wrong message. The social conservatives need to sit down and think through their stance on sex education. What is more important: kids having unprotected sex and the consequences that come from that (kids born out of wedlock, abortion, STD's)? OR curbing those trends by allowing sex education in the classroom and in effect condoning kids having sex? Because, trust me, in either scenario, kids will be having sex. Pretending it's not happening and promoting "purity rings" will not and has not solved the problem. So, at some point, social conservatives will have to give up the delusional notion that abstinence-only is a realistic goal and combat the issue head-on by teaching these horny rug rats a thing or two.

Having said that, the Duggard family -- who are having a 19th child in a few months -- is sending the wrong message. We already have a crapload of kids in this country, so do we really need to cheer on a family that is trying to single-handedly fill a 53-man NFL roster? Why not instead promote adoptions? Like an "infant recycling" initiative, with tax cuts and everything. Or you could hold baby-drafts, where people can scout and select babies based on whatever traits they deem desirable. Shit, you could even spring up a couple of match-making websites such as babymatch.com or infantharmony.com. Any of these ideas are preferable to the ‘crank out as many kids as your lord will allow for’ theory. Oh, and one last thing. We seem to be ok promoting "buy american" initiatives with the auto industry. Why not hold the same views with adoptions?

And lastly, the Atlanta mayoral race is getting pretty 'racy'. For the first time in over 35 years, the city of Atlanta could elect its first white mayor. And that thought doesn't sit very well with some in the black community (read: irony). Currently, there are three viable candidates for the upcoming election on November 3rd, and two of them are black. The lone white candidate, Councilwoman Mary Norwood, has a decent chance of winning. The primary reason for that - according to the Black Leadership Forum - is the belief that the black vote will be split between the two black candidates, resulting in no one receiving a majority of the votes and forcing a runoff. That scenario, again according to the Black Leadership Forum, would be disastrous for the black candidates. As a political science professor put it, "blacks do not return to the polls in a runoff, historically". In other words, a runoff will result in a Mary Norwood victory. So to prevent this from happening, the Black Leadership Forum sent out an email urging black voters to only back one of the two black candidates, and their preference is with City Council President Lisa Borders (her grandfather is of significance in the civil rights movement). This solution would likely avoid having to hold a runoff. The reason I bring this up is to illustrate one of the main gripes I have with 'minority groups'. They never seem to realize the absurdity and hypocrisy of their positions and beliefs. And this is not limited to black people. Women do the same thing (by the way, when did women become a protected minority?). Foreigners do the same. And oddly enough, white males do the same. You no longer even have to be technically a minority anymore. It's a mindset. Those that feel they are disenfranchised, past or present, hold firm to the belief that it's not wrong when they do it. It's a pretty interesting phenomenon.

And that my friends, is all.

Later

-Abe

change you can believe in.

2009-09-03T13:27:00.002-04:00

The Bob and Abe Show is transitioning to a two shows per week format! Starting with next week's episodes, you'll get that which you crave twice as often, and with roughly 3.5 times more enthusiasm, and 1.7 times the incisiveness. Sadly, we've had to sacrifice the humor, of which you will be getting only 70% of previous levels, which is still pretty damn funny.

Don't worry, you won't be expected to listen to three hours of Bob and Abe every week. We're going to be producing two 40-minute (or so) podcasts every week to ease consumption, digestion, and, um, processing. Hopefully now you'll be less reticent to tell all your friends about us, given the new less bulky packaging we come in.

Keep the feedback coming! This may not be a democracy, but we are weak-willed when we hear the pleas of our mouth-breathing serfdom.

Also, this here is getting a little ridiculous, no? I mean, come on, we're biting now?

Random thoughts with Abe

2009-08-12T02:06:00.001-04:00

For as much as we talk on our weekly show, we still don't cover all the newsworthy issues that interest us. So in lieu of having a 4 hour weekly podcast, we will, from time to time, post links and random thoughts about the world at large on this here website.

For this week, I (Abe) will go over some topics I found interesting. It will simply be called “random thoughts with Abe”. Enjoy.

Town hall meetings over health care are taking place all over the country, and boy are they contentious. Already, there have been many protests against the democratically-led plan for health care reform. I’m sure you’ve seen the images on television by now. Politicians, home for august recess, are getting an earful from their constituents. The interesting part in all of this is the claim made by many on the left who say the protests are artificial and staged. That a bunch of people go from town hall to town hall for the sole purpose of disrupting the event and creating the impression that there’s a groundswell of opposition to this health reform. And to counter this effort on the right, the democrats are now mobilizing to get some of their people in these town hall meetings to offset some of the rhetoric. Hopefully a brawl breaks out at one of these meetings.

And speaking of town hall meetings, this whole issue of a "death panel" is about as absurd a talking point as I've heard in some time. Nowhere in the proposed legislation (which I oppose, by the way) does it saying anything about there being a panel which determines who lives and who dies. I wouldn't personally oppose such a measure for old people, mind you (it fits right in with my “phase out” plan that is still in the works). But to have people running around spewing absolute lies won't help the cause. Or maybe it will.

The unemployment rate has finally gone down, not up. First time in a long while that the unemployment rate has gone down. It went from 9.5 to 9.4 (very minimal shift). New unemployment claims have also gone down. Are we nearing the end of the recession or is it still inevitable that we hit 10% unemployment. It will be interesting to see how the next couple of months fare with these figures. I have a sneaking suspicion that the unemployment rate will go back down some more.

With schools starting up for the fall semester, the swine flu hysteria resumes. Is there more to it than we're led on? For such a highly feared virus – at least by the scientific community – it’s not getting a lot of respect by the general public. In fact, some even suggest that there are those out there who are stirring up the hysteria in order to profit off the medicine. I, as you probably have guessed, don’t share that delusional concern, but I do find this whole swine flu “pandemic” amusing. Probably won’t be funny in two years when 2 million people have died. But for now, I’m amused.

New York is implementing a new program to solve the homeless problem. ~~They are giving them homes~~ They are buying them one way plane tickets to go elsewhere. Already, they spent $1 million for 550 homeless families to go bum elsewhere. Is this a great idea, or bad idea? On one hand, you are getting rid of the eyesore that is a homeless person. Finding suitable housing, after all, won’t be an issue with them. But on the other hand, is the problem of panhandlers really that bad to where you’re going to spend millions of dollars to get rid of them? And is this really solving anything? You’re basically dumping the problem elsewhere. It kind of reminds me of that episode of “the Simpsons” where the city of Springfield, strapped for cash, agrees to take in the garbage of nearby towns to generate some revenue. The town is eventually overrun with garbage. I wonder if the city of Detroit would be interested in taking in the nation’s homeless population. They already have a head start.

And that is all for this week. As always, feel free to post comments and direct us to any pertinent links.

Later.

-Abe

what we're thinking about...

2009-08-05T01:25:00.002-04:00

Clinton works his magic to free two U.S. journalists being held in North Korea. North Korean media releases make us giggle.

A bit dry, maybe, but check this out: Alan Greenspan is predicting there will be a national VAT before too much longer. There's just no other way! Didn't you know?

There's also the Drudge vs. Obama White House controversy brewing. All a bit strange, no?
Here. And here. And here.

Don't forget, there's a new episode of the show available over here, and also on iTunes.

-The Bob and Abe Show.

new youtube video.

2009-07-23T02:07:00.002-04:00

We've got another video up over on the YouTube. Abe put together a little photo montage to go along with Bob's "Happy Thoughts" essay on tolerance from week 2 of the show. Pass it along to your friends...it's a rather appropriate introduction to "The Bob and Abe Show" for anyone wondering what we're (or at least Bob is) all about.

Thanks!

health care reform reading material

2009-07-18T18:50:00.002-04:00

With the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor set aside for now, the focus of congress is now squarely on health care reform. Already, a Senate bill has made it out of two committees and a House bill has cleared an important committee as well. So, before bob and abe give their take on this critical issue, here's a few interesting articles detailing the events of this past week.

1. Nancy Pelosi having difficulty with centrist democrats in passing healthcare reform.

2. Conservative Dems Balk on Health Care

3. Why Obama wants healthcare bill by August -- think 2010 elections

4. House Summary America's Affordable Health Choice Act

5. AMA - Leading Doctor´s Association- Supports America´s Affordable Health Choices Act

6. CBO: Health Bill Would Hike Deficit by $239 billion

7. Obama Campaign Arm Doubles Down, Targets House Dems On Health Care

8. House panel passes health bill, critics slam cost

9. Anti-Abortion Democrats Emerge As Obstacle To Health-Care Bill

but was it worth the wait?

2009-07-17T02:32:00.002-04:00

Apologies are in order for the legion of "The Bob and Abe Show" fans that have had to endure an unreasonable wait for this week's episode. Technical difficulties, the somewhat unwieldy length, and some other unforeseeables delayed the posting of this episode.

The good news is that you get a bonus 20 minutes of Bob and Abe. The bad news is that you have to endure 20 minutes extra minutes of Bob and Abe. We'll try to keep future episodes down to the more manageable 60-65 minutes, but we rambled a bit this week.

Further good news is that I hereby promise that we will have this coming week's episode up absolutely no later than 4 a.m. 22 july 2009. Srsly.

Let us know what you think over at bobandabeshow@gmail.com

Thanks!

no news is...good news?

2009-07-11T15:40:00.002-04:00

Without a major national story breaking this week (B&A Show believes this may be a result of the vacuum left by the Jackson Memorial, which sucked all the intelligence and will to live out of our nation's fine reporting pool when it ended) the Bob and Abe Show is left without a lead!

Instead, we'll be doing a quick rundown of the week's headlines, with just a couple of minutes of hilarious insights on each. This got us thinking, and even though it's last second notice, do you have any headlines you'd like to hear our thoughts on? Just comment on this post or send us an e-mail with the link attached one way or another, and we'll check it out, and probably include it in the show.

Hurry up! Let us know!

Some things already on our plate:

Obama says the stimulus is working! Be patient!

HAXORS!!1!!111!

Now Russia wants a global currency, too.

Don't forget about swine flu! Be scared! Stay scared, dammit!

episode 3!

2009-07-09T01:43:00.001-04:00

listen to the new show, here.

a few thoughts on tolerance.

2009-07-09T01:28:00.000-04:00

from week 2 of "the bob and abe show." bob had a few things to say on the concept of tolerance, and here it is, in text form.

In the painfully grade-schoolish fashion of rhetorical essaying, I will begin by defining the term that I have placed under attack. Tolerance, as defined by dictionary.com, is:

1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.

Tolerance, for lack of a better word or, simple irony, is no longer tolerable, on any sort of grand cultural scale. Tolerance is something I have for a two-year-old child, or a dog. I will tolerate a two-year-old screaming uncontrollably at the table next to mine because the two-year-old lacks the ability to reason or use logic, has precious little language with which to communicate its desires—in short, the child does not know any better. I will tolerate a dog that occasionally shits the carpet because while the dog understands on some level that it should not have shat the carpet, it is, after all, just a stupid fucking dog. Dogs are known to occasionally shit carpets, and so I can be neither surprised nor can I get terribly justifiably angry at the dog's action.

Tolerance is something that is expected, if not demanded, of me as a liberal-minded, undogmatic free-thinking person, according to the definition. If there is a part of another culture that goes against something fundamental about the way I see the world, the only fair and objective reaction is to tolerate it as something just a little different from what I believe, but valid just the same. Just because I don't agree with it doesn't make either one of us wrong—we can live in harmony together as two people who just agree to disagree. According to the definition, by my fair and objective assessment of the differences between me and my subject—let's say, the shitty carpet-shitting dog, I am being permissive of the dog's behavior, and by my recognition that the dog doesn't know any goddam better, I am permitting the carpet-shitting to continue.

But what if, just for, well, carpet-shits and giggles, we exchanged the dog in this scenario, with, say, any major religious or political or governmental organization that discriminates against any percentage of its population for any reason whatsoever. Saudi Arabia, China, or the Catholic church. It doesn't matter—any group that willfully violates the human rights of even its own constituents or those that would oppose them will slide in quite nicely. Women in Saudi Arabia. Or loud-mouthed Chinese. Or Catholic children who slip up and sin every once and a while. These are huge numbers of human beings that are treated like property, or less than, and live in fear that the consequences of their actions can mean execution by stoning, life in prison, or eternal damnation just for attempting to freely express their humanity.

Does an intellectual tolerance of other cultures mean that I have to tolerate the marginalization, propertization, and basic systemic hatred of women by huge swaths of Islam? Or that I should find it permissible for freedom seeking Chinese to be locked up for years simply for expressing their basic human rights? Or that I accept the forever recurring abuse perpetrated upon millions and millions of young catholics in the form of promised eternal pain and torture, in the event that they fail to gain entrance to heaven due to the impossibly high standards set for admission.

I don't think I even need to answer the question. The answer is no, by the way—I should not have to tolerate systemic violations of basic human rights in the interest of not hurting anyone's feelings. If you doubt the systemic nature of these violations, I would simply, if admittedly a touch arrogantly, submit that you need to look closer. If you further think that more evolved versions of these systems—basically less completely fucking crazy versions of these religions, are somehow less unacceptable, than I would ask the following: if you have to leave behind the most fervent adherers to a particular way of life in order to deem it culturally acceptable or even to justify its continued existence, do you think that maybe, just maybe, there might be something fundamentally flawed about the belief structure?

The difference between the dog and the institutions is, hopefully, just as apparent. Perhaps the most important revelation we remarkable human animals have derived from the study of ourselves and the world around us is but the fulfillment of the hypotheses of the greatest philosophers who ever put their thoughts, ideals, and hopes to the page. The idea that all men are equal, utterly regardless of breeding or bloodlines, race, religion, or nationality—a fact as revolutionary as it is blatantly plain and as purely beautiful as it is simple and instinctual—is no longer a mere ideal, or concept. It is a fact of our genetic coding, and as such, should free us all from the primitive barbarians who would divide us with such petty distinctions as skin pigmentation, or place of birth.

Though this is probably no great surprise to you by this point, I will say anyway that I find myself to be a rather remarkable creature. I say that not as a confession of hubris, but as a way of relating the level of respect that I have for you as my fellow human being. I know of no higher compliment than to say that I am that remarkable creature, and that you are my equal.

This is why I cannot tolerate the tolerance, or permit the permissiveness, or accept the idea that I should respect someone else's belief system simply because it is their own, and not mine. Call it whatever you want—intolerance, ignorance, close-minded hatred, freshly shat sanctimonious bullshit—I will happily accept all futile attempts at narrowing my perspective down to anything so easily dismissed. Simple truths are so much stronger than that.

The only moral high ground is the one onto which each and every last one of us is born. It is the space which I am proud to occupy. Tolerate it.

episode 2!

2009-07-02T01:24:00.000-04:00

Listen to the Show here.

If you would like to receive an e-mail every time there's a new show available, e-mail Bob and Abe at bobandabeshow@gmail.com with Subscribe in the subject line.

Episode Two of the Bob and Abe Show is finally upon you. You may notice that Abe is, strangely, not a part of the festivities this week, but Augie is here to keep his seat warm and spar with Bob a bit.

On this week's show, Bob and Augie talk about the U.S. health care system, Michael Jackson, Mark Sanford, and Hitler! There's not a whole lot else to ask for, is there? But if that's not enough for you, there's even five minutes of a little segment we'll call Happy Thoughts with Bob.

Don't worry, Abe will be back next week. You may direct your outrage over his absence to bobandabeshow@gmail.com.

Thanks for checking us out, and be sure to check back every week for a new show.

Episode 2 Breakdown:

00:00 Introductions all around.
03:53 Bob and Aug talk ObamaCare, hilarity ensues.
25:20 Bob is allowed to rant for five or so minutes.
31:30 Jack-o Talk. Five whole minutes elapse before the first molestation reference.
44:20 Governor Mark Sanford is banging an Argentinian, and Augie approves.
49:22 Michael Jackson comes back up, and then some weird shit happens. McDo, anyone?
54:09 Bob regales us all with a tale from the wacky world of pizza delivery.

Until next week!

2009-06-24T04:22:00.000-04:00

the show!

try that for all your Bob and Abe Show needs!

A great show? Or the greatest show?

2009-06-13T03:51:00.000-04:00

Hard to say, just yet. Suffice it to say, we're pretty awesome.