The Sad Cheater

Tiger Woods is just completely void of any human emotions, isn't he? Well, wait. Is horny an emotion? What about jackassery? OK, if those two count, then he has two human emotions. But if they don't, then he's just a freaking robot. A lying, cheating, home-wrecking, whore-loving, freaking robot.

Elin's divorce from Tiger was finalized a couple of days ago. Immediately afterward, People magazine announced that she had done an interview with them. There don't seem to be any huge revelations in the interview, just more of what we had all pretty much surmised. After all, how many ways are there to feel when you find out that your husband is a scumbag who has cheated on you with every porn star he could find? Not many ways that people aren't going to be familiar with, that's what I'm guessing.

And naturally, Tiger felt the need to address the issue in the only way that he seems to know how. That is, without any sort of feeling or emotion being expressed and by completely minimizing the entire situation. Here's what he had to say at a press conference at The Barclays golf tournament in New Jersey, according to People Magazine:

"It's a sad time in our lives. And we're looking forward to how we can help our kids the best way we possibly can. And that's the most important thing." Um, are you kidding me? It's a sad time? SAD? I don't know if sad is the word that I would choose. It's so minimal, considering that he slept with every whore out there (and even a few whores in there). I'm also taking issue with how the most important thing is his kids. Hey, Tiger! If the most important things were your kids while you were still married, perhaps you would have been such a man-whore and been doing the Perkins waitress! What a buffoon.

He didn't stop there with his hollow statements. "Asked if he was "relieved" with the split, Woods paused. "I don't think that's the word...I think it's just more sadness. Because I don't think you ever – you don't ever go into a marriage looking to get divorced. That's the thing. That's why it is sad." Good Lord, sir. Does he not understand that this isn't something that has happened to him?! It's not like you just suddenly found yourself divorced, you cheater! And you're right! No one expects what you bestowed upon your completely clueless and rather hot Swedish wife! Did you go into the marriage expecting to never get caught, cheater? He's so in love with himself, he probably did.

He did semi-allude to this possibly being his fault when he said, "My actions certainly led us to this decision...And I've certainly made a lot of errors in my life and that's something I'm going to have to live with." Once again, it's all about him. You know who else has to live with your "errors", you cheater? Your now ex-wife AND your children! And I don't know that they're going to grow up thinking that their father made some simple "errors" and that's why mom and dad divorced before they had even entered kindergarten. Cheater.

And in his final statement (for now) of completely not accepting responsibility OR reality, he said, "I certainly understand that she is sad...And I feel the same way." Oh, my God. Really? Really, cheater? I don't know that sad is a completely accurate description of how she is feeling. Betrayed? Lied to? Cheated on? Humiliated? Embarrassed? Duped? Deceived? I think she feels all of those in addition to being sad! And if Tiger does feel sad, it's simply because he got caught. Cheater. Are you going to dig up your dad's ol' bones again to ease some of your pain? Cheater.

But He Got His Burrito!

How fitting that on the 20th anniversary of the oft-abused Americans With Disabilities Act, some jackass wins a lawsuit against Chipotle because he was (wait for it) deprived of the full Chipotle experience. We're just doomed. So incredibly doomed.

Here's the scoop: According to the San Francisco Chronicle (which is so liberal it probably wets itself every time one of these rulings gets handed down) "...the law entitles wheelchair users at a restaurant to the same view as everyone else at the food that awaits them - in this case, burritos, tacos and the rest of the fare at Chipotle Mexican Grill." Does it now? Does it really?

KGTV-10 in San Diego says that "...the wall at the counter was too tall for people in wheelchairs to see over, to pick out their ingredients and to see their food being prepared." OK, look...I'm not trying to be a callous hard ass here, but are they serious? And when I say "they" I'm referring to a one Maurizio Antoninetti and his attorney, a one Amy Vandeveld. There are other names that come to mind, but that's what I'm going with.

Do you really need to see your food being prepared? Plenty of other restaurants feed you God only knows what without you witnessing the preparation of said food incarnation. Those restaurants are probably just fine for folks in wheelchairs. And again, don't get me wrong, as I'm not dismissing those in wheelchairs as people who are not entitled to the same rights as others. That's not it. I know people in wheelchairs and I know that it sucks. But the people who I know that are in wheelchairs realize the inherent limitations of society in general. Not seeing what goes into your burrito as it is going in there would seem to be one of those inherent limitations.

By the way, it isn't like Chipotle didn't try to accommodate these folks. In fact, "...a trial court had ruled against Antoninetti, saying Chipotle's policy of showing samples to people in wheelchairs was enough." See? They weren't ruthless about it. They were what? Accommodating, that is correct. But unfortunately, this case ended up before (and I'll use the words of Dr. Michael Savage) the 9th Jerkit Court of Shlemeals, who disagreed and overturned that verdict. Of course they did. Apparently, it is very important to see your burrito being made. I don't know why that's important, but to some, it is.

According to KGTV, "I just wanted Chipotle to understand it cannot treat people in a wheelchair in a different way than everybody else," he (Antoninetti) told 10News from Italy." From ITALY?! Well, good to know that he's using his settlement money wisely. But the point here is that they weren't treating people in a wheelchair differently. They were doing what society must (and should) do for folks with disabilities. They were accommodating them. Why is it that the businesses have to be accommodating, but the folks with the disabilities don't? Why is it that the businesses are supposed to recognize the limitations of those with the disabilities, but the disabled folks are not supposed to recognize the limitations of the businesses? I don't get it.

I suppose that the Americans With Disabilities Act was a good thing. I know that only the best intentions went into drafting and enacting that law. And it's something that I am totally in favor of. But can you seriously say that it's a good thing that this Chipotle case dragged on for five years, ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and making a couple of lawyers rich? I'm not so sure that would be considered "good". And by the way, according to Chipotle, "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling. However, the matter is largely moot because several years ago, independent of this lawsuit, we retrofitted all our California restaurants with a new counter design that eliminates concern regarding wheelchair accessibility." And yet the lawsuit continued. Are we really to believe that it was all about the alleged "equality" for Mr. Antoninetti? I'm not so sure that it was.

If you click on the link above for KGTV, there is a video that accompanies this story. In the video, you will see Chipotle employees holding up samples for the person in the wheelchair to view, carrying the man's food to his table, making sure that he has everything that he needs, etc. He received excellent attention despite not being able to see his burrito being made. He appeared to be able to get around just fine inside the restaurant. He appeared to be in most hospitable atmosphere that one could hope for. And yet that wasn't enough for him. Or for his attorney. So they sued. Nice. I'm kind of surprised that Chipotle was willing to lower their counters and didn't just opt for the having no one be able to see their burrito being made so that this ONE guy wouldn't flip out. That would have solved the problem, too. All or nothing. Sounds like a really good way to ruin a perfectly good society. Way to go, sir. You jackass.

Just Read The Law

Ready for this? You're not. Trust me. You know that awesome law they passed down there in Arizona? The one that, essentially, mirrors the federal laws on immigration enforcement almost exactly? Yeah, that's the one. The one in which, according to the Wall Street Journal, 70% of Arizonans favor, 60% of Americans favor, and 50% of Hispanics favor. That's the one. (Man, you sure wouldn't get the idea that those are the numbers in favor of it when all you hear about are people protesting it and boycotting Arizona...as if they are representing the majority, which they are clearly not.) That's the law I'm talking about.

Now, when this law passed, the Attorney General of the United States, a one mustachioed Eric Holder, was critical of the law and said that the federal government may challenge it because " Arizona's new law is subject to potential abuse", according to CBS News That same report also told use that there were "A number of options are under consideration including "the possibility of a court challenge," Holder said in response to questions on the Arizona law". The article also states that President Barry "...has instructed the Justice Department to examine the Arizona law". It also says that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That was on April 27, 2010.

The law is ten pages long. Have you ever seen how these things are wrote up? For some reason, legislation is always written in a four inch wide column (if that) that has two inch margins on the top and bottom of the page. And it's always double-spaced. It might even be triple spaced. And it's not like it's a teeny-tiny font either. No, it's a fair sized font and they format the stuff on the page like it's a Reader's Digest Condensed Version for the Blind. You can read it from at least five feet away with no trouble at all....with dim lighting! The point here is that while it may be ten pages long, there are probably only 50 words on each page. (Mind you, the health care bill was over two thousand pages long.)

Fast forward to May 13, 2010 at some sort of hearing that Eric Holder was being questioned at. That's over two full weeks since Mr. Holder voiced his concern about this law. That's over two full weeks since we were told that "The Justice Department and the Homeland Security Department are reviewing the state law." That's over two full weeks since we were told that President Barry has instructed the Justice Department to check out the law. That would be the Justice Department that Eric Holder is technically over. Ten pages. Over two weeks. Do you see where this is going? Of course you do.

Mr. Holder has not actually read the law. That is correct. He hasn't read it. Now, I realize that being Attorney General of the United States is a job that would probably tend to keep you pretty busy. But if you're telling me that you can't read ten pages of legislation over the course of at least two weeks, then there's something wrong with you and I seriously question your ability to serve in the capacity for which you were appointed. My God, man, what's wrong with you?

According to Fox News it was during these hearings that a one Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas (also now known as "my hero"), asked Holder if he had read the law. Holder responding weakly by stating, "I have not had a chance to -- I've glanced at it." Luckily Rep. Poe offered to give Mr. Holder his copy of the law. It's not like it's a difficult document to lay your hands on. Oh, but this gets better. Or worse. Hard to say. Hard. To. Say.

"When asked by Poe how he could have constitutional concerns about a law he has not read, Holder said: "Well, what I've said is that I've not made up my mind. I've only made the comments that I've made on the basis of things that I've been able to glean by reading newspaper accounts, obviously, television, talking to people who are on the review panel...looking at the law." Um, wait. What now?

He's going by what he has "been able to glean" from the freaking newspapers and television and talking to folks?! Why hasn't he just started consulting bloggers?! Or those folks at those rallies? Why don't you just read the freaking thing yourself?! He can read, right? I mean, I'm kind of assuming that's some sort of a qualification or a necessity in order to be the Attorney General of the most powerful nation on the planet, but I'm kinda starting to wonder.

It's not even so much that he hasn't read it that just burns my toast. It's that he is SO SURE that it MUST be racist or have this HUGE potential for abuse that he's already talking about challenging it in court! Hey, Mr. Holder! What say that before you go all full blown spending taxpayer money on some sort of legal challenge to something, how about you read the damned thing first, all right? Yes, I'm actually suggesting that you READ all ten pages! Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you compare those ten pages to the federal immigration laws on enforcement and see how much they differ?! Guess what? They're almost identical, you jackass.

While I'm glad that Rep. Poe brought this up and got him to admit that he hadn't actually read the law himself and was relying on the town crier to bring him up to speed, I really wish he had held his feet to the fire a little bit more and asked him WHY he hadn't read the whopping ten pages of legislation by now. That would have been great. It's times like these when I miss Tim Russert. He would have had Holder on Meet the Press and would have asked him why he didn't read it. I long for the days when there was at least one journalist out there that would do that. These days, however, we'd be lucky if someone were to ask Eric Holder why he has such a creepy moustache. :: sigh :: Yep, I miss Tim Russert. Heart disease kills, kids! Keep yourselves healthy.

This video here shows Eric Holder being interviewed by the adorable, extremely capable, and frequently scarf-wearing Jake Tapper. In it, Tapper asks him why he doesn't think that the Arizona immigration enforcement law is a good idea. Keep in mind that the answer that he gives is one that he has formulated based on what he's read in some newspapers and heard on TV. Below, you will find the video of Eric Holder at that hearing when he admits to Rep. Poe (still known as "my hero") that he hasn't read the whopping 10 page bill. I think it's somewhere around the 1:00 mark if you want to skip ahead. While I really like Rep. Poe, he tends to drone whenst speaking.