The Computer Wore Menace Shoes

There’s a pattern to Tim Shriver‘s one-man crusade to curb the use of the word “retard” and its derivatives in the popular lexicon.

When it came out that Rahm Emanuel used the phrase “fucking retarded” to describe a proposed strategy for accelerating healthcare reform in August, Shriver pounced on the opportunity for some publicity. Barack Obama’s political pitbull was reduced to a puppy on a leash before most people were aware he had used that phrase.

Maria Shriver accompanies Tim Shriver to a Special Olympics event.

A few months before Emanuel’s outburst, Obama had his own disability-related miscue, on national TV, no less. Shriver was on “Good Morning America” the next day to play up the president’s apology for the good of the Special Olympics.

Yet between those two incidents, actress Megan Fox declared to People magazine, “I resent having to prove that I’m not a retard – but I do.” That remark didn’t even register on the Shriver righteous anger meter (despite other people showing outrage).

In January, Shriver even had a chance to drum up international support for the Special Olympics. Argentine soccer star Carlos Tevez called former Manchester United teammate Gary Neville a retard in the press after a heated exchange during a match with Tevez’s new team, rivals Manchester City. Again, not as much as a blip on Shriver’s offensive comments radar.

Rush Limbaugh’s “retard summit” registered a 10 on the Shriver scale, and the CEO’s rebuke was swift. But Utah Sen. Chris Buttars will preside over a gay wedding before Limbaugh apologizes for anything.

(And, interestingly enough, although Emanuel’s use of the word prompted Sarah Palin to call for his dismissal and remind everyone she’s still here – as if anyone needed reminding – Limbaugh’s usage brought her to his defense. No word from Shriver on that front, either, but it did inspire this gem from Stephen Colbert.)

Even though there’s a growing consensus that Shriver is playing word cop and/or self-appointed censor, if you look at his actions you’ll see some pretty deliberate outrage. The targets of his ire – Obama, Emanuel and Limbaugh – have all been big political figures. Celebrities’ and athletes’ retard-related faux pas are forgettable because they wield influence only in popular opinion.

If Shriver chastises a famous person, he gets his or her apology and attention from that person’s fans. That’s great, but it doesn’t pay the bills or pass laws.

If, however, he takes a politician to task, his or her livelihood has been threatened, and it’s going to take significant backpedaling and promises of support and cooperation to make it go away, which is exactly where Obama and Emanuel ended up. How did they make up for it? Committing “that the administration would continue to look for ways to partner with [the Special Olympics], including examining pending legislation in Congress to remove the R word from federal law,” according to a press release from the Special Olympics.

Maybe Shriver’s repeated scoldings of public figures for using “retard” is annoying, but it’s getting him what he wants. By putting the spotlight on people with considerable political pull, Shriver is guaranteeing himself and his organization a shot at favorable legislation and perhaps other benefits. Once the word is eliminated from federal legalese, what’s left? Funding. More legislation that benefits him. A national intellectual disabilities awareness day/week/month.

Shriver might be playing word cop now, but if he keeps getting his way, he’ll be in a position to ask for much more later.

Mmm. Presidential.

The following analogy is inspired by Jon Meachem’s article, “The Trouble with Barack Obama,” in the Feb. 1 issue of Newsweek.

How Obama leads
I would really like to eat Cap’n Crunch this morning; however, it is full of empty calories and lacking real nutrition, substance and fiber, each of which is important for my health.

Let me be clear – eating it would be enjoyable, but there would be palpable consequences later. Cap’n Crunch does not contain sufficient vitamins and minerals to sustain my vital functions. The high sugar content would flood my bloodstream with cheap, readily available glucose that would surely plummet in the future, leaving me exhausted and hungry. And the lack of fiber would surely put my digestive system at a disadvantage.

Therefore, I have a three-part plan for a nutritious, satisfying breakfast. First, freshly squeezed orange juice. Second, a bowl of steel-cut oatmeal topped with nuts and dried fruit. And third, a hard-boiled egg.

Freshly squeezed orange juice is our national health beverage. It is delicious and full of vitamin C, which keeps us healthy. Orange juice is also a good source of potassium to help kidney function and folate to aid red blood cell production, among other things. It’s true: “A day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine.”

The steel-cut oats, nuts and dried fruit is perhaps the most important part of this breakfast. This collaboration will give me the complex carbohydrates to focus without crashing and generous amounts of vitamins, minerals, beneficial fats, protein and fiber. It is truly a breakfast powerhouse.

Now, steel-cut oats are the gold standard, but similar benefits could be had with rolled oats, quick cooking oats or unflavored instant oatmeal. There is no excuse for not eating this whole-grain staple.

Many Americans may wonder where the hard-boiled egg comes in. This breakfast I’ve planned already has an abundance of nutrients. But the egg fills in some of the gaps left, especially for protein. Because nuts are plant-based, their protein content is made up of incomplete amino acids. Not only do eggs contain complete proteins, but they also contain leucine, which helps the body use glucose for energy. And a hard-boiled egg is easy to prepare ahead of time and grab out of the refrigerator.

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Healthy breakfasts set the stage for a healthier life, and the three-part breakfast I have outlined will surely succeed.

How America wants Obama to lead
Cap’n Crunch sounds awesome today! I’m going to eat half the box out of a mixing bowl with a side of bacon and a tall boy. And after breakfast, I’m going to give everybody $10,000 without raising taxes or adding to the deficit!

From left: racist, racist, racist (at least sometimes). Background: more racists (at least sometimes).

In case you missed the last couple days or were focusing your attention on football like most normal people, let me bring you up to speed on the latest Capitol Hill nonsense.

Saturday
Nevada Sen. Harry Reid apologizes for what he probably believed to be complimentary remarks about Barack Obama made during the 2008 campaign. An excerpt from the book “Game Change” quoted him attributing Barack Obama’s electability to being “light-skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Sunday
Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele, who is black, hit the largely ignored Sunday political talk show circuit to condemn Reid and demand he step down as majority party leader.

“There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism,” said Steele. “It’s either racist or it’s not. And it’s inappropriate, absolutely.”

Meanwhile, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton said Reid will continue to have the support of black Americans.

“While Sen. Reid has been producing for African-Americans, many of his critics were opposing him on these same issues,” Norton said in a statement. “Majority Leader Reid has a record. They do not. Words matter, but what matters most are the actions of a man whose committed career on our issues speaks for itself.”

Monday
Obama and Rahm Emmanuel accept Reid’s apology. (See? They were watching football.) Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) joins Steele in demanding Reid resign. And Attorney General Eric Holder, who is black, and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) agree with the White House that the apology was enough.

That brings us to now. Instead of making progress on the myriad important issues before them, the leaders in government are engaged in a pissing contest over who’s racist and who isn’t.

Guess what? You’re all racist. At least a little bit, sometimes. Perhaps Steele forgot what he said a couple weeks ago, but YouTube never does.

Steele hasn’t been called on to resign as a result. Sure, some people – including a congressman – were upset, but Steele hasn’t even had to apologize.

The point is, saying stupid things, even racist stupid things, isn’t a reason to demand the head of a public figure. Heck, Joe Biden was under fire two years ago for calling Obama “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” and he’s the vice president now.

This is not the point in time that the United States can afford somebody boiling every little thing down to a Republican-Democrat double standard. Reid said something regretful a year and a half ago, and it ended up in a book. It doesn’t reflect on his true feelings, he apologized and it was nowhere near as offensive as what Rod Blagojevich told Esquire magazine, so let it go and move on to something more important.

Besides, if there were a precedent for forcing people to resign after saying something stupid, don’t you think it would have happend at least once from 2001-2009?

Foreground, from left: President Barack Obama, spotlight chaser, jackass.

In general, prosecuting people who just want to be on reality TV shows sounds like a great idea. As heinous as the shows are getting, there’s got to be something wrong with them anyway. (“I am totally in the running for ‘VD Cruise 10!’ Wait until I tell my kids!”)

But, as a couple of “Real Housewives” wannabes recently showed us, the idea of being a reality TV star has become so alluring that it’s worth breaking federal laws.

Tareq and Michaele Salahi sneaked into Barack Obama’s first state dinner, held Tuesday night. OK, sneaked isn’t the right word. They lied their way into the event. Thus far, exactly what deception they told the Marines stationed at the gate hasn’t been revealed, but it’s clear they were not on the guest list.

Although the Salahis weren’t seated at the actual dinner, they made their rounds mingling with invited guests – evidenced by Michaele’s Facebook album – and, as a White House photo shows, they even met Barack Obama. The couple may have gone through rigorous security, but Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan said the Salahis still could have posed a threat had they had a more sinister motive than garnering publicity to worm their way onto “Real Housewives of D.C.” (It’s debatable if there actually is a more sinister motive.)

Today, Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin indicated federal prosecution is a possibility.

“As this moves closer to a criminal investigation there’s less that we can say,” Mackin told the Associated Press. “I don’t want to jeopardize what could be a criminal investigation. We’re not leaving any option off the table at this point.”

A word of advice for the feds: do it. And do it swiftly. The list of acceptable excuses for breaking federal laws is very short, and “I was trying to get on a reality TV show about wealthy, self-centered women who think they’re better than everyone but still have raging insecurities about everything that their Type-A-plus personalities can’t overcome” is not on it. And if it were, it might be worded differently.

This wouldn’t be a very difficult case, either. Knowingly and willfully falsifying statements on matters within the federal government’s jurisdiction is a federal crime. The Salahis claim they were invited, but it’s safe to assume they knew they weren’t because an invitation with a return address of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. never came in the mail. Participating in a reality TV show is – at least for now – entirely optional, and the reports saying the couple was trying to be cast are a clear indication their false statements were made willingly. And if a White House state dinner isn’t a matter within the federal government’s jurisdiction, then what is besides health care, private banking and insurance, the auto industry, consumer debt, and the Bowl Championship Series?

The Salahis’ lawyer, Peter Gardner, left the comment, “My clients were cleared by the White House, to be there,” on their Facebook page, but he’s got a pretty tough claim to support if nobody in the administration is admitting they were on a guest list at any point in time. Obviously, this is an embarrassing breach for Obama’s security team, but the Salahis are so wrapped up in their own absurd notions of celebrity and self-importance that they constitute and innocuous mistake. The Secret Service can learn and hopefully improve. Failing to prosecute the Salahis, however, would just show Americans that it really is OK to do whatever it takes to be famous.

Add it to the Oval Office trophy cabinet.

President Barack Obama, you’ve just won the Nobel Peace Prize! What are you going to do now?

That’s easy: the same things you’ve already been doing.

Act graciously and say something nice

Obama said he’ll travel to Oslo to accept the award and will give the $1.4 million cash prize to charity. His first remarks – made after Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told him he’d won the award – were exactly the sort of dignified rhetoric we’ve heard all along.

“I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures that have been honored by this prize,” said Obama. Nobody says they deserved the peace prize, so this is no surprise. Neither is the way Obama turned this unexpected win into a plan for the future.

“I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century,” he said. Critics are quick to point out Obama hasn’t done much as president, and it wouldn’t be a shock to hear them parlay that comment into more of the same.

Put up with conservative blowhards

The list of conservatives with nothing nice to say about Obama in this case is long and includes the usual suspects, so let’s start at the top. Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele thought it was “unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights” and doesn’t think “any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action” are in Obama’s near future.

South Carolina Rep. Gresham Barrett was harsher in his assessment of the honor.

“I’m not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran,” Barrett said.

The conservative pundits pulled no punches, either. Blogger Rick Moran wondered what peace Obama had negotiated and noted that – generally considered to be – despot Yasser Arafat won the same award 15 years ago. Erick Erickson said he didn’t realize “the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it.” And Fox News columnist Tom De  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”De “>Seno rehashed Obama’s schedule for the 12 days in office that overlapped the nominations period. “The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.”

Hold the phone. Obama skipped church? Strip him of the peace prize now! We all know peace is dependent upon religion.

And the right-wing backlash to the honor wouldn’t be complete without Rush Limbaugh, who said … Limbaugh hasn’t been quoted in the press on this? Somebody go make sure he’s still alive, please.

Continue to endear yourself to the international community – minus the Middle East – while alienating Americans

For the most part, the international community’s opinion of Obama is vastly different than theAmerican public’s. Why the discrepancy?

Pictured: folks who disagree with Obama being honored with the Nobel Peace Prize.

Because the international community and the American people are focused on two very different things. The international community gains hope from Obama’s diplomacy after eight years of unilateralism and aw-shucksiness. It doesn’t much care if Obama’s knocking out domestic issues. Americans, on the other hand, could care less if Obama’s making headway with improving our international reputation because we’re worried about – in no particular order – our jobs, the economy, health care, two wars and various threats from abroad. We’ve looked so poor to the rest of the world for so long, now isn’t the time to get concerned about it.

The committee’s selection of Obama as the peace prize recipient merely reflects his political alignment in relation to other democratic nations with an international presence. He’s not going to get that reaction in America, because we can’t even agree to disagree. On anything.

Make promises that: a) involve goals that are too long-term for you to accomplish, so no one cares, or b) involve goals nobody agrees on

Before Obama can get to work on the big international issues of nuclear disarmament and climate change, he’s got to get the U.S. on board with the ideas. Before that happens, he’s got to get some domestic things worked out. The domestic agenda, however, is made up of things he can’t get squared away for various reasons.

Reducing emissions? Obama’s reduction target is set after his term, even two terms, is over. And as long as other sources of energy are cheaper and available, nobody cares.

Health care? It’s a legislative quagmire. Is a public option good or bad? Are there going to be death panels and government-subsidized abortions? Who’s going to be denied what treatment because of rationing? How much is this all going to cost, anyway? It’s complicated, and nobody can agree on the solutions.

The economy? You know how all those retirement brochures that stress it’s a marathon, not a sprint? You’d think the same idea applies to the economy, but nobody seems to think so. Billions of bailout dollars and stimulus funds later, it’s still a recession. Why? Because it’s been less than a year. It took longer than a year to create the situation, and it will take longer than a year to fix it. But that’s going to take too long and it’s going to distract us from an international agenda.

And that’s it!

Really, all this hubbub about Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is unnecessary. What the peace prize comes down to is the voting of five Norwegians selected by their country’s parliament. There’s really no difference between Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize and Obama being named best dancer among world leaders. I mean, besides the peace prize stirring up less controversy. You’ve got to think at least one world leader could top Obama’s dancing.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), yells, "You lie!" during President Barack Obama's speech to Congress Wednesday. Democratic leaders are considering a resolution condemning his outburst, even though Obama accepted an apology.

Democratic leaders in Congress are threatening to proceed with a resolution condemning Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during President Barack Obama’s health care address to the legislature Wednesday.

Uh, Democrats … do you realize what you’re doing? You’re acting like the stereotypical Republican you’ve been so glad to get a majority over because now you can get things done. By focusing on Wilson’s heckling, which he already apologized to Obama for, you’re not working on the health care debate.

And if you aren’t working on the No. 1 national priority, then you aren’t getting things done.

“How great it’ll be to have a president from our party and a majority in Congress,” you thought. “Imagine all the wonderful, socially responsible things we can accomplish,” you whispered excitedly among yourselves.

Yet here you are, stuck on two words yelled out during the president’s speech.

“I am not going to apologize again. I apologized to the president on Wednesday night. I was advised then that, ‘Thank you, now let’s get on to a civil discussion of the issues,’” Wilson said. “I’ve apologized one time. The apology was accepted by the president, by the vice president, who I know. I am not apologizing again.”

Not all Republicans are sticking up for Wilson, either. Texas Sen. John Cornyn acknowledged Wilson was out of line.

“Well, there’s a time and a place for everything, and that was not the time or the place for that kind of comment,” he said. “This is not the time to be demonizing anybody, calling anybody names on either side. This is a time to try to work together to solve a practical problem.”

And if that’s not enough for Democrats, all they need to know that Obama is over it and ready to get back to a civil health care debate instead of stew over something so insignificant in comparison.

“See, this is part of what happens. I mean, it just – it becomes a big circus instead of us focusing on health care,” Obama said on “60 Minutes.”

So get over it already, Democrats. There are bigger fish to fry, and every time you defer to such a ticky-tack issue rather than shrugging it off and returning to the real matter at hand, you stir up doubt in your ability to be the “ruling party.”

"You are in my power. Study hard. Vote Democrat when you turn 18. Black is the new white. Support socialized health care."

Heads up!

In mere hours, President Barack Obama will address the nation’s school children with a load of good-sounding-but-subversive liberal garbage. Parents have been freaking out. Educators are making their own choices in some districts.

Well, the text of the speech is available online now. And guess what? It’s going to inspire students who pay attention and get it. It won’t have any effect on kids who don’t pay attention. (Sorry to disappoint you, subliminal message conspiracy theorists.)

To be fair, it’s not completely harmless. Obama is going to tell a success story about an (assumed-to-be) illegal immigrant. The nerve! He’ll say educated kids will “develop new energy technologies and protect our environment” and “fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free.” How dare that Socialist hippie! He’s going to give kids the reality check that chances are they won’t be rappers, professional athletes or TV stars. That realistic son of a bitch.

Otherwise, it’s really so innocuous that even Glenn Beck is going to be reaching for points of contention.

It makes you wonder what the big deal was in the first place. Were there people out there who truly believed Obama was going to use this opportunity to brainwash children into believing in socialized health care, willy-nilly government spending and the certain doom of the environment? (I’d like to see a Venn diagram of people who thought this way and people who still believe Obama is a Muslim.)

Maybe too many people have already forgotten that in 1988 and 1991, President Ronald Regan and President George H.W. Bush addressed the nation’s students. Reagan didn’t try to make school children subconscious agents against Communism. Bush didn’t stump for NAFTA. In fact, Obama’s remarks have less partisan rhetoric than either of the former presidents’ did. (Yes, unfortunately the second clip on that page is dominated by Keith “Proud to be a Liberal” Olbermann. I apologize.)

OK, fine. Some parents still don’t want the president talking to their kids. They don’t want little Jimmy and Susie to be told to buckle down and study because they’re the future of America. Whatever.

But there was never a reason to induce national hysteria because Obama wanted to tell kids to do their best. It all smacks of a smoke screen to divert focus from and/or increase resistance to the rest of Obama’s agenda as president.

There never needed to be so much commotion over what amounts to a school event, anyway. It could have been handled like anything else: a permission slip. Send home a permission slip. If you don’t want your child addressed by the president, then mark that down. Problem solved.

(By the way, did you see Beck wearing a pink shirt in that video clip? Everybody knows Conservatives, especially ones on Fox News, don’t wear pink. Impostor! Gay agenda supporter! Affirmative actionist! Uh … tax cutter!)

(If you would like to join a class action lawsuit regarding the defamatory remarks made about Glenn Beck, click here.)

Dear Special Olympics,

As you probably remember, President Obama made what many people have labeled a gaffe on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” a couple months ago when he compared his bowling ability to special olympians’. The fallout from his remark has been far-reaching and schlocky.

Obama has since apologized, and while I realize time may not, as the saying goes, heal all wounds, it does offer other people to harangue.

Good people of the Special Olympics, I would like to offer you Megan Fox as your newest effigy. The “Transformers” and wet dream starlet recently told People magazine, “I resent having to prove that I’m not a retard — but I do.”

I know, I know. Fox’s comment wasn’t related to sports, so it’s not exactly the same. But, take it in context, and I believe she’s said something worse than Obama.

Fox said she’s tired of proving she isn’t dumb, saying, “Take me seriously, I am intelligent, I can speak.” I don’t know about you, but I think saying people who have Down Syndrome can’t speak, are unintelligent and should not be taken seriously is far worse than assuming they can’t bowl well.

Perhaps of more serious concern, if Fox is among the 10 hottest women alive and she is retarded, how will that affect the millions of men who want some of that? Where will they turn if they can’t bag their assumed-retarded celebrity of choice? I believe we all have a duty to protect the disabled from such sexual predators.

Maybe the pain felt by Obama’s remark has not completely faded away, but I hope you agree Fox has made a comment that is far worse and potentially dangerous and take appropriate action.

Sincerely (but not seriously),

One American for equality

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., decided parishioners who voted for Barack Obama sinned and should not receive communion until doing penance.

“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law,” said Newman. “Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”

Although not all Catholic officials agree with Newman’s stance, there are some who do, according to the Associated Press article.

“I don’t understand anyone who would call themselves a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and could vote for someone who’s a pro-abortion candidate,” said Ted Kelly, 64, who volunteers his time as lector for the church. “You’re talking about the murder of innocent beings.”

Now, I’m no theologian, but I firmly believe church and state should be separate at all times. (This belief, however, excludes obviously benign things, such as crosses on the city of Las Cruces, N.M.’s logo. It’s the city’s name, for crying out loud.) Church members shouldn’t have to feel guilty for voting a certain way.

Newman claimed his position – it’s a sin to vote for a pro-choice candidate when there’s a pro-life one – would have been the same had the Republican candidate been pro-choice and the Democrat been pro-life. That’s a terrible voting philosophy.

Imagine if everyone voted that way, choosing a candidate for a reason that, in the grand scheme of things, isn’t that important: for Obama because he’s black, for McCain because Sarah Palin is hot. Wait, people did that? Dammit, America!

What would happen if we could move to a socially responsible method of voting? Rather than voting for who you like, who you want to see naked, who will do the most for you or your small group or who you feel guilted into voting for, perhaps it’s time we start voting for what we logically believe will do the most good for our city/county/state/nation. I think some Americans – including me – voted for Obama for that reason.

I’m not saying abortion isn’t an important issue, but it had its heyday in the 1970s. There were several issues facing Americans that were more important during this election: the economy, Iraq, and health care easily outranked abortion. There’s simply no way someone could have – or should have – ignored all those issues and simply decided the next president should be the one who leans furthest toward pro-life.

Besides, if Kelly can’t bring himself to vote for Obama because he’s for the “murder of innocent beings,” how could he bring himself to vote for McCain? McCain was far more supportive of continuing a war that has killed nearly 100,000 innocent people, but maybe those people don’t count because they’re on the other side of the planet and predominantly Muslim.

In any case, how many Hail Marys does a parishioner have to do before he or she is forgiven for voting for Obama?