Proof That Drugs Are Not Necessary For Bizarreness

Really, I have no reason to believe at all that anyone involved in the making of this video was high or otherwise on something at the time. Maybe it was boredom. Maybe it was just a perverse sense of humor. Maybe it was some of both and something else too. In any case, it's proof you don't need drugs to do something that might otherwise make people think you were as high as a kite at the time you did it.

I have no idea who made this vid; I just know it's very funny. And very weird.

Finest Hour... Not

I make it a point, for several reasons, not to endorse or denounce a political candidate on public venues like blogs, Facebook, etc. I just decided that 1) Enough people do this already and 2) By and large, doing so doesn't have any effect on others' opinions in any case. Aside from those, I have other reasons, but those are the biggies.
Having said that, I'm making an exception, one you may never see me make again. It's this: If either Romney or Obama had dropped their campaign grandstanding entirely on Tuesday and committed himself exclusively to the Hurricane Sandy Disaster of 2012, doing anything he could on-site, with no more election-season speeches or state-hopping, to devote himself 100% to helping the victims, then regardless of how I planned to vote before, I'd've voted for the candidate that did that. Why? Leadership and priorities. The largest, most densely-populated area in the US has just been whacked hard by a massive hurricane leaving it pretty much devastated, and what are BOTH of them doing? Making speeches and trying to get elected, all while just hours away from anyplace in the country, either of them, with all the clout their presence would bring and the personal/public resources they could be personally overseeing the marshaling of, could show up there and do whatever they could to expedite the rescues, deployment of humanitarian aid, and generally act like someone who genuinely cares about the victims. I simply do not buy the "Well, only so much I can do-- I serve the cause better by staying out of the way and letting the pros handle it." On the contrary, I guarantee that if one or both of them did as I have described the hardest-hit areas would be even now doing a lot better. That's what effect their presence would have. Instead, both are sending a clear signal to the area and indeed the whole country: "Nothing's more important than my personal political ambitions."
It's easy to forget that among other things, elected politicians are first and foremost the people's employees. We pay them and in the context of national- and state-level executive positions, we finance their lavish lifestyles, often giving them mansions to live in for their terms of office. They receive perks and benefits during and after office the typical person can only dream of having. So what should we be getting in return? We ought to be getting not just good service, but outstanding service. This particular criticism is not aimed just at our current president and my feelings about how he is handling the current disaster; I'd say the same thing if Romney were in office right now acting this way, too. We're paying a premium for high-level political leadership, we ought to be getting just that. Well, I am not seeing it. Not in this case and not in too many other cases as well. (You all know my thoughts about our insane national debt and the seemingly callous disregard for its effects on the country being displayed by our Congressoids.)
So in closing, I am very disappointed in both of these politicians and am quite tempted, though I know it won't influence the outcome, to write-in "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck" this year for the President-VP ticket. Stumping for office while millions remain homeless and without power, heat, food, or healthcare isn't leadership. It's dereliction and they're both guilty of it. Just ask yourself: Would Winston Churchill have behaved this way? No, he wouldn't, and he didn't. Even as the London Blitz continued for months, he never left London. Even after their palace had been hit by German bombs, the royal family of Britain would not hear of leaving Britain (though I don't know if like Churchill they never left London) even as it looked very much like Germany would invade, and probably successfully, at any time. They and Churchill stayed there with the people, taking the same chances that a German bomb would find them. And what is our president and would-be president both doing at a time like this, in a situation that hardly can be said to place them in anything like the danger Churchill and the royals exposed themselves to? Going around and giving speeches.
Not their finest hour.