Microsoft is developing a new app for their phones. And a lot of people are getting their panties in a wad over it.

The app is still under development, but word of it has leaked out, as has the working title of the app: Avoid The Ghetto.

According to the patent filing, the app is to help a pedestrian avoid “traveling through an unsafe neighborhood or being in an open area that is subject to harsh temperatures.” It uses weather data, crime stats, and such to make the determination.

Well, the NAACP is all up in arms over that. Or is going to be:

“I’m going to be up in arms about it if it happens,” said Dallas NAACP President Juanita Wallace.

Wallace spent her afternoon at a rally on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and said she felt safe there, but fears the app may project otherwise.

“Can you imagine me not being able to go to MLK Blvd. because my GPS says that’s a dangerous crime area? I can’t even imagine that,” she said.

The thing she’s missing is that it won’t say that MLK Boulevard is a high crime area unless, well, stats show it’s a high crime area.

You think maybe the problem isn’t that people are pointing out that crime occurs, but that crime occurs? Nah, that’d make too much sense to actually address the real problem, when fake outrage over fake problems is much more fun.

But, you know, maybe Microsoft is on to something. I wonder what other apps they could develop.

• Avoid The Idiots. Using voter registration roles, it could find where Democrats live, and then you could avoid having to deal with idiots.
• Avoid The Tide. Using college records, it could find where Alabama fans live and help you not get someone’s wang thrust in your face.
• Avoid The Crazy Women. Using information from Facebook, dating sites, and news stories, it will help you avoid hooking up with the future Ex-Mrs. Ex-Speaker Of The House. (Boy, could I have used this one, once upon a time!)

There are probably several apps that could be developed that would be of benefit.

Maybe I need to rethink my position on Microsoft being all evil and such.

As the vote in Iowa approaches, the Republican candidates are turning up the heat on each other. Newt Gingrich had some not-so-nice words for Ron Paul, according the National Journal:

“I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul’s views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American,” Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? “No.” If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? “You’d have a very hard choice at that point.”

Newt and Frank J. sound more and more alike:

So, if it were between Obama and Ron Paul, who would you vote for? I’m leaning Obama there; he’s a known entity and can at least be bullied into doing what’s right. Ron Paul would just stand back while nukes are launched at us and say, “We had this coming for abandoning the gold standard!”

Then there’s Mitt Romney, who seems to be every conservative’s last or next-to-last choice. He compared Newt Gingrich to the I Love Lucy “Chocolate Factory” sketch:

Appearing in Portsmouth, Romney noted a statement that Gingrich’s campaign director compared the former House speaker’s recent inability to qualify for the Virginia ballot as a setback comparable to Pearl Harbor from which the campaign would recover.

“I think he compared that to Pearl Harbor? I think it’s more like Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory,” Romney said in reference to the famous I Love Lucy skit in which the comedienne was overwhelmed by a rapid assembly line of candies. “You’ve got to get it organized.”

That was a good line. Let’s look at Lucy in the Chocolate Factory:

[Direct link]

That’s funny stuff. But, you know what? I still think Lucy and Ethel would do a better job than Obama and Biden.

Ricardo/Mertz 2012!

Newt Gingrich is making some news because he told someone at a campaign event to vote for Obama. Really.

Okay, here’s what happened. At a Gingrich rally in Oskaloosa, Iowa, a gay Democrat Obama supporter got into a “cordial” one-on-one with Gingrich, that ended with Gingrich telling the questioner to support Obama:

Gingrich: “I think those for whom the only issue that really matters is the definition of marriage, I won’t get their support. I accept that as reality. On the other hand, for those to whom it’s not the central issue in their life, if they care about job creation, if they care about national security, if they care about a better future for the country at large, then I think I’ll get their support.”

Q: So what if it is the biggest issue?

Gingrich: Then I won’t get their support.

Q: How do we engage if you’re elected. Then what, what does that mean?

Gingrich: Well then you engage in every topic except that.

Q: Except it’s most important (some crosstalk).

Gingrich: Well, if that’s most important to you then you should be for Obama.

Q: I am, thank you

Now, personally, I’m fine with what Newt said. I’m not talking about my agreeing or disagreeing with his stance on gay marriage. I’m talking about his standing his ground and telling the gay Democrat Obama supporter the same thing he tells his own lesbian sister. That’s unusual for a politician to tell someone “go vote for the other guy.”

But, apparently, that’s not what a candidate is supposed to do. A candidate is supposed to pander to all the little piss-ants and ass-clowns that crash a campaign event and come up to him. The candidate is supposed to say whatever it takes to make them happy — even if the clown is going to vote for the other candidate anyway.

Newt Gingrich isn’t doing that. And I like that about him. But, of course, standing firm and not backing down for what you believe is a bad thing, to hear the media, Democrats (but I repeat myself), and most other Republicans and their supporters talk. Except Ron Paul supporters. They like that their candidate has been consistent for years. They don’t like it when Newt Gingrich is consistent. It shows how much he’s part of the establishment … though all of the Washington establishment has come out against Gingrich.

Wait. We’re looking for someone who the Washington establishment doesn’t like? Yet someone who knows how Washington politics works? And someone who can balance a budget? And someone who, when he makes a mistake, can admit it? Even big mistakes?

I better stop now. I’m finding that I’m liking Gingrich more and more. And I don’t think I’m supposed to.

Students of history agree: the upcoming celebration doesn’t accurately reflect the birthday of the person being celebrated. This holiday has traditions that go back far beyond the birth of the One who is worshiped by many. But, over the years, the two celebrations became intertwined. There is no actual physical proof of the circumstances of birth of the child, but there are documents and writings from around the time. Though their authenticity is questioned by some, we have enough evidence from other sources to establish an approximate date and location of the birth of the one worshiped by His followers.

So, despite Barack Obama being born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, the trees are trimmed with decorations celebrating Him during this holiday season.

What?

Christmas tree? What Christmas tree?

Oh, that thing in front of the U.S. Capitol? Yeah, some people still call it by that archaic name, but we can’t have anything related to this “Christ” person, because of the Separation of Church and State that’s in the Constitution, so…

What?

Oh, it’s in there. Somewhere. Let me look.

Okay, it’s not in the first seven articles. Maybe it’s in one of the amendments. Ah, here it is.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

See? Oh, wait. It goes on.

…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Well, that’s not it. But everybody knows it’s in there, even if nobody can find it. And, as a result, we can’t have a tree that celebrates this Jesus person.

But, the Constitution doesn’t say we can’t celebrate Obama. In fact, it says we have to. I think that’s in the Commerce Clause or something. Or maybe it’s in the Right to Privacy section. But it’s got to be in there.

So, in celebration of Barack Hussein Obama, we urge you to take that tree you have in your house and get rid of anything that has a Jesus implication. Like Angels. Except Albert Pujols. You can keep him.

And watch that Santa stuff. We don’t want children getting the idea that Santa brings them things, when everyone knows Obama is responsible for the stuff you have. He lets you keep some things, and we are beholden to him for that. So don’t confuse the kiddies with that silly Santa nonsense.

We know that some traditions die hard. So, if you want to have something from that Bible book on it, maybe something from Psalms. Number 19 would be good:

The decrees of the LORD are firm, and all of them are righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold

See, that could apply to Obama, so it would be okay. But, you got to be careful. You don’t want people reading something into it and get the idea that there could be worship going on. Unless it’s worshiping Obama, which is good. And right. And required.

What if you don’t have a tree? Because you’re a Jew or a Muslim or a Jehovah’s Witness or an atheist or a Pastafarian or something else? Simple. Go get one. Gaia won’t mind you cutting down a tree for something as important as Obama. And put up your Obama tree. Like the U.S. Capitol did.

And, be sure to have ornaments that actually mention Obama. But not Jesus.

We don’t want to forget the reason for the season.

Who is our enemy? Well, it’s not the Taliban. That’s the word from Joseph R. Biden — or is it Yosef ar Biden?

Air Force Two’s Prime Cargo declared in an interview with Newsweek that the Taliban isn’t our enemy:

There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests.

Naturally, the White House issued a clarification. Oh, it seems they stood by Biden’s statements.

So, the Taliban isn’t our enemy. Then, who is?

Looking at the actions of the Obama administration, here are the likely candidates:

• The Queen of England
• White people that are conservative
• Black people that are conservative
• Brown people that are conservative
• Navy SEALS
• Republicans that support Ron Paul
• Republicans that don’t support Ron Paul
• Libertarians
• Liberaltarians reassessed as not a threat
• Fox News
• A little bit of ABC News
• You, simply for reading this

Be on guard. Report any of these people you see. It’s your duty.

Do the Republicans have the power to control Obama?

Remember when Obama was planning that 17-day vacation in Hawaii? You know, he needed a break from screwing things up; that can be tiring if you do too much of it.

Well, last week, it was suddenly decided that he’d have to stay in town after all. This, right after GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney criticized the president for taking the vacation:

“I just think it’s time to have a president whose idea of being ‘hands on’ doesn’t mean getting a better grip on the golf club,” Romney told potential caucus voters in Iowa.

Then, last week, GOP candidate Rick Perry took aim at Obama by way of religion:

As President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion. And I’ll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.

What did Obama do this weekend? He went to church. First time since Easter.

Now, maybe he thought it was Christmas. His calendar does seem to be about 12 days off. Or, he reacted to Perry’s attack. Let’s go with the latter, because it fits with his reaction to Romney’s attack.

This means that Republicans can attack Obama about something, and he’ll then react to it.

If we have Gingrich say that the president doesn’t understand what it’s like to have to flip burgers or wash cars, will we see Obama behind the counter at a Hardee’s or working at the car wash?

If Michele Bachmann says the president doesn’t know what it’s like for families to shop for food on a budget, will we see Obama pushing a shopping cart at the Piggly Wiggly?

It’s possible.

So, what can we criticize Obama about and get him to do in response?

Criticize him for not understanding how hard it is to catch a Road Runner. Then, he’ll put on some ACME Rocket-Powered Tennis Shoes and go running through the desert.

Say he doesn’t understand the plight of bucket inspectors. Then, he’ll stick his head in a bucket.

Slam Obama for not understanding how hard things are for Irish Folk Dance performers. Then, he’ll dance a jig.

Bring up that people who ride shopping carts down hills are having a difficult time in this economy. And there’s only one way for him to understand what they’re going through.

Point out how doesn’t relate to 1950s motorcyclists from Milwaukee who visits Hollywood with his friends. Then, he’ll … no, never mind this one. Obama jumped the shark a long time ago.

Rosie O’Donnell, the wunder gehirn that says fire can’t melt steel, now suggests that Newt Gingrich read a history book.

I agree.

Gingrich is currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, and, given Obama’s current approval rating, could very well be our next president.

I’ve put together a list of history books Newt Gingrich should read — some history, some historical fiction, but all worthy of consideration.

The last thing we need is an uninformed person trying to play president. It happened before. Remember the 2008 election? We don’t want to go through that again.

What’s the greatest threat facing America today?

Turkey.

Not the country, the bird. And not just the bird, but the dead bird.

The Department of Homeland Security tweeted on Monday how dangerous it can be to fry a turkey.

And, in case you thought that someone left their computer unlocked and somebody tweeted it as a joke, they also put up a blog post about it.

The Department of Homeland Security, that great arm of Big Brother, knows that Islamic terrorists aren’t so much of a threat. Sure, they want to kill us, but that’s our fault. Just ask Ron Paul.

After flirting with the idea that right wingers were a threat — not because of things they’ve done, but because there’s the possibility that some right-winger might do something… Left-wing violence was never an issue. Sure, they’ve been shooting Congresswomen and crashing planes into buildings and raping hippies, but that’s actual violence. The real threat has always been potential violence. Since the left has actual violence, and the right has potential violence, the right must be a bigger threat.

Until now.

As DHS has so kindly informed us, the real threat is dead turkeys. They’re evil. So evil, that after they’re dead and frozen, they’ll still try to burn down your house.

So, as we approach Thanksgiving, be thankful that we have a government department that wants to protect us from turkeys.

Now, if we can only find someone to protect us from the turkeys at DHS.

Have you seen the new ad from the Herman Cain campaign?

[Direct link]

CBS calls it “bizarre” and notes that the ad is, currently, unlisted. Which means you can’t go to the Cain YouTube channel and find it unless you know where to look.

ABC takes the opportunity to run down a list of Cain campaign staff with “interesting” backgrounds.

The Atlantic asks, “For real?”

Rather than go on, let me sum up the reaction: the ad generated a lot of criticism from people who already didn’t like Herman Cain.

I’m not a smoker, so it didn’t particularly appeal to me. But smokers don’t like being criticized, just like everybody else.

Obama smokes, but hides it. Cain’s campaign manager smokes, and posts it on YouTube.

I’m wondering how this is going to play out.

Joe Biden wants to raise your taxes so you won’t get raped.

[Direct link]
Excerpt:

In 2008, when Flint had 265 sworn officers on their police force, there were 35 murders and 91 rapes in this city. In 2010, when Flint had only 144 police officers, the murder rate climbed to 65 and rapes–just to pick two categories–climbed to 229. In 2011, you now only have 125 shields. God only knows what the numbers will be this year for Flint if we don’t rectify it. And God only knows what that number would have been had we not been able to get a little bit of help to you.

So, if you weren’t raped or murdered this year, thank Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

If you were raped or murdered, blamed the Republicans. In fact, the Republicans are tired of rapists and murders getting all the credit. They have formed a task force to climb into your windows, snatch your people up, and rape them.

How do you defend against it? You need to hide your kids, hide your wife, and hide your husbands because the Republicans will be raping everybody.

And they’re all racist. Especially that colored fellow. He’s the most racist of them all.

According to CBS News, Jon Huntsman said he won’t light his hair on fire in tonight’s debate.

I didn’t realize that was even a possibility that he might do that. I mean, if he has to actually say he won’t, then either it had been under discussion, or people think he’s crazy enough to consider it. I’m leaning toward the latter; Huntsman was part of the Obama administration, after all, and if that doesn’t say crazy, I dont’ know what does … other than supporting Ron Paul.

Anyway, we now know to not expect Jon Huntsman to light his hair on fire. And now I’m wondering what else we won’t see.

• Michele Bachmann won’t swing from the ceiling like a monkey. (Ron Paul might, but Bachmann definitely won’t.)
• Newt Gingrich will not propose everyone get naked and cook hamburgers. (But Ron Paul might.)
• Herman Cain won’t sing “I’m a little teapot, short and stout.” (Although Ron Paul won’t rule it out.)
• Mitt Romney won’t show his underwear, although Ron Paul will show his.
• Rick Perry won’t pull a gun on the panel. A knife, maybe, but not a gun.
• Rick Santorum won’t answer every question with an 80s power ballad.

If you plan to watch tonight’s debate, you now know what to not expect.

I haven’t followed much of the whole Occupy Wall Street thing for a few reasons. First, unless it’s well-financed by lots of money, it’ll go away soon. Next, it’s up in New York, and that kind of stuff won’t happen around here.

Only, now, there’s an Occupy Atlanta group. Which is a little closer to home.

Now, lots of people confuse Atlanta with Georgia. Atlanta is in Georgia, but Atlanta isn’t Georgia. (Don’t make me spend a bunch of time explaining the difference; it’ll end up with you acknowledging I’m right and a lot of time wasted. Or, you could just accept what I say save yourself a lot of time and aggravation. Agreed? Good.)

The geography involved with protests being in Atlanta makes the whole protest thing suddenly relevant to people who live or work in Georgia.

Nobody really knows what they’re protesting. Maybe the Braves’ end-of-season collapse, I don’t know. Best I can tell, they saw some protests on the television and said, “Hey, we can do that!” And so they are doing that.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has decided that they’re protesting “corporate greed and the war in Afghanistan,” although it couldn’t find anyone to actually say that. They did find a fellow from Copwatch, an anti-police group, who’s not sure why they’re there, either.

Just like a pile of manure attracts flies, the Occupy Atlanta protests have attracted flies like John Lewis.

The whole left likes to make out like he’s some civil rights hero or something. He’s not. He was a media whore then, and he’s a media whore now. And, in case you forgot, he’s the little liar who made false claims that TEA Party protesters hurled racial epithets at him. They didn’t.

So there are the players: a protest group that doesn’t know what they’re protesting about and a long-time left-wing protester who got himself elected to Congress a while back.

Lewis showed up at the Occupy Atlanta the other day, wanting to show his supporte for their protests about … whatever the hell it is they’re protesting. And, he wanted to address the group. They told him “no.”

Who do you root for in this one? John Lewis, who’s way past his 15 minutes? Or Occupy Atlanta, which has camped out in Woodruff Park (where Atlanta’s homeless-away-from-home reside).

I’m sort of amused by all this. Media Whore vs Media Whore. I just wish they were a little further way.

In case you weren’t aware, Barack Obama is teh awesomest person in the whole wide world. Just ask him. Or Nancy Pelosi.

The former Speaker of the House and current Minority Leader who represents Planet San Francisco, told The Weekly Standard that, without Obama’s 2009 Stimulus, we’d be in worse shape than we are now:

“Without the Recovery Act and accompanying federal interventions, whether from the Fed, or Cash for Clunkers, or other initiatives, the unemployment rate last year at the time of the election would have been fourteen and a half percent, not nine and a half percent,” said Minority Leader Pelosi.

You see? You see? The Stimulus was a good thing. Crazy Aunt Nancy said so.

I wonder why she stopped there, though. Because there must have been more that the Obama Stimulus did. Because Obama and the Democrats are so awesome you know.

We did some digging, and found out that, not only did the Obama Stimulus save 8.3 million imaginary jobs, it did a bunch of other things, too.

• It helped Steve Jobs invent the iPad.
• The stimulus kept the asteroid 99942 Apophis from striking the Earth.
• It killed Osama bin Laden.
• The stimulus won Super Bowl XLV.
• It blew up the Death Star.
• The stimulus is what gave the Old Spice Guy his job.
• That thing you thought you lost? The stimulus actually found it and put it there on the table for you.
• It kept the sun from burning out.
• Remember when Global Warming was going to melt all the ice caps by 2011? The stimulus stopped it.
• The stimulus saved Chuck Norris.
• It kept Windows 7 from sucking as bad as Windows Vista.
• The stimulus kept Pluto from leaving the solar system after scientists fired it.

There are so many wonderful things the stimulus has done, we need a new one every month.

ESPN pulled the standard Hank Williams, Jr. opening from Monday Night Football after some comments the singer made on Fox and Friends:

In an interview Monday morning on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” Williams, unprompted, said of Obama’s outing on the links with House Speaker John Boehner: “It’d be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu.”

I, for one, applaude the decision by ESPN.

Comparing the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, to Adolf Hitler was a horrible thing for Williams to do.

Then, comparing Obama to Benjamin Netanyahu? Our Israeli friend deserves better.

Disclosure: I have financially contributed to the Herman Cain campaign.

There’s a minor kerfuffle going on about something that Herman Cain said. It’s widely reported that he said he couldn’t support Rick Perry as the Republican nominee:

[Edited: The previous video no longer allows embedding. So, here is the original excerpt from CNN. The quote begins immediately after the commercial.]

[Direct link]

Yep. That’s what he said. And that bothers me.

You see, I’ve been going on and on about how, no matter who the GOP nominee is, we need to support him. And some of you get your panties all in a wad about that.

“I’m not ever going to support Mitt Romney!”

“I won’t vote for Rick Perry!”

“If Sarah Palin isn’t the nominee, I’m not voting!”

“If Sarah Palin is the nominee, I’m not voting!”

“Ron Paul is nuts!”

Okay, that last one is okay. But still, nuts as he is, he’d a darn sight better than Barack Obama. But some of you are saying you won’t support this guy or that girl. Well, now Herman Cain sounds a lot like some of you people. Maybe he’s pandering to the panties-in-a-wad crowd.

I don’t care for that. I suspect Cain will backtrack, and soon. He’ll come up with some statement that sounds like some crafted statement talking about how we can disagree about important issues, but still have the same overriding goal: defeat Barack Obama and return competence to the White House.

But what should he say? Or, better, what should he have said to Wolf Blitzer’s question, “Could you support Rick Perry if he were the nominee?”

• Against Obama? Of course. Hell, Wolf, I’d support you over Barack Obama.
• I fully support Rick Perry for vice-president.
• I would support Rick Perry if Zombie Reagan turned down the nomination.
• Nine, nine, nine.
• Not if he was the Democrat nominee. Has he switched back to being a Democrat?
• That’s a stupid question, Wolf. What do you think I’m going to say? That I wouldn’t support Rick Perry? Do you think I’m stupid?

What do you think Herman Cain should have said?