Sunday, June 19, 2011

Fathers, Wildfires, and McCain.

Happy Father's Day!  Er...well, unless you're this guy.

I won't lie to you, readers.  I had a hard time coming up with this post, Father's Day or not.  How can I celebrate such a day, much less write about it, when my own biological father is no better at raising children than an autistic dust mite?  Last night while I tried to fall asleep, I thought about what it was I was going to make this particular post about.  It couldn't be my own dad.  Trust me, I really do want to write about what it was he did, to share with the world how much breathable oxygen is being wasted on him, but I simply can't bring myself to sharing that... yet.

So, while this post will focus on the antics of one particular father in this country, it won't be mine.  Or yours, for that matter.  As far as the day goes, I do indeed want to wish a happy father's day to all of the competent, caring, and loving dads out there.  As for the rest of you, well, go fuck yourselves.  There's no excuse not to be a part of your child's life. 

At any rate, the man I want to talk about today is none other than Senator John McCain.  He's been called a maverick, a flip-flopper, and a wrinkled old dude that's way past his prime.  I call him far more than that, and judging by the news stories that have exploded onto my retinas this morning, so does most of the world.

Found this and loved it.  While the post has nothing to do 
with his failed 2008 presidential run, this picture is too
 funny not to make note of.

Two (count 'em), two news articles mentioned McCain today, which is two too many.  The first one blew my mind.  I don't know whether he's entered that "I'm an old man and I'll say whatever the fuck I want" stage of his life, or if he is so devoted to pandering to his party that he'll say any crazy thing just to get some media attention, but man does he have some stones.

As most people know, wildfires are sweeping across Arizona state, tragically destroying homes, wildlife, and making an already hot fucking place that much hotter.  Now, sensible people know that oxygen plus fuel plus a spark equals fire.  It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Arizona has perfect fire-starting conditions.  I'm willing to bet that, by merely picturing a spark in your mind while in Arizona, your head would catch on fire.

Wildfires are started by any number of things and, in a state like Arizona, the list of causes is a lot longer than, say, the list of causes in a New England state.  Nature is usually the one to blame.  It's a vicious cycle of growth, stagnation, burn, growth that reinvigorates the soil by returning the trees/plants to the earth.  Nature, as it usually does, really doesn't take into account where us humans build our shitty, flammable dwellings.  

My guess is that a lightning bolt struck some dry patch of vegetation, lit it on fire, and started the whole damn crisis.  McCain's guess?  

That's right.  Illegal immigrants.  According to McCain, "There is substantial evidence that some of these fires have been caused by people who have crossed our border illegally."  What is that substantial evidence?


He doesn't have any goddamn evidence!  Apparently, a bunch of illegal immigrants went out to a wooded area and just decided to start a fire.  Yes.  Because that makes sense.  They risked their lives to come here from their poor country, and now a select group has banded together to start fires.  In Arizona.  

According to the CNN article, "McCain said that illegal immigrants set such fires either to send signals, keep warm or distract law enforcement agents.  But he did not specify which fires allegedly had been start by illegal immigrants, nor did he identify his sources or provide details of the 'substantial' evidence he cited."  In other words, he spouted a bunch of bullshit with no proof to back up his ridiculous claims.  My first thought, upon reading this, was, "Holy fuck, he might as well have said that aliens from another galaxy started the fire."  But, surprisingly, Angelo Falcon, the president of the National Institute for Latino Policy beat me to that thought.  Sir, you should come write for me.  I can pay you in cookies, not cash, and as far as benefits go, well, I can drive you to the ER and drop you off on their doorstep should an emergency occur.  Think about it and get back to me.

"Open mouth, remove foot, eh?"

The next article was just fucking hilarious.  Basically, it was McCain yelling at Republican 2012 presidential contenders and saying that the U.S. cannot sit back and become isolated from the world.  Yeah, because we're totally doing that right now.  We have our greasy, fat fingers dipped into pretty much every country in one way or another.  

While he surprisingly stood up for President Obama's decision to lend military aid to Libya (or, rather, the president's logical adherence to a really old treaty), he also had me "ROFLing", if you will, with this sparkling gem of wisdom:

"We cannot repeat the lessons of the 1930's, when the United States of America stood by while bad things happened in the world."

First of all, Senator, do you really want to remind us how you've been alive that long?  You were what, a thirty-year old man by then?  What's even holding you together at this point?

Second of all, while we tried to stay out of both world wars and were brought into them anyway, I don't think the lesson we should have taken away from that tidbit of history is, "If we don't intervene in a conflict, the world will burn."  It is not our duty, as a nation, to police the other nations of planet Earth.  It is, however, our duty as humans to help other humans in need.  If something terrible is going on in Libya, for example, a coalition of nation's should band together to stop it rather than have one John Wayne nation run in, guns blazing.  See what I'm saying?  Of course you don't.  

That about does it for today's break from the insanity.  Honor thy good fathers, ignore the bad, and laugh at a washed up, pasty white politician that looks as though he eats nothing but egg Mcmuffins.  

Remember to follow me on Twitter @A_Sane_Break
or subscribe on the left for updates on new posts, old posts,
and (as soon as I get my damn phone hooked up to the twitter),
140 character breaks from the insanity! 



Anonymous said...

Coalition of nations? Like the Evian Conference during the Holocaust in "trying" to help the Jews? The result was just the Dominican Republic helping and even then, only about 100 refugees were able to go. I think we all know what happened as a result of this "coalition" of nations not taking in refugees. Sometimes there are no other countries willing to help so one nation has to set an example. Despite being heavily in debt, and having problems of our own, it is just a fact of life that America acts as a police to other nations. We do so to set an example that the strong cannot overpower the weak. That one day, we can hope that what we do will be an example and others can follow.

A Sane Break said...

History has taught us that we should indeed learn from our mistakes. I am merely saying that having us police the world isn't the answer when we could police the world with other like-minded nations.

As a single force, we look like we're trying to bully the weak by, for example, telling the UN to screw off because we're invading Iraq with or without their consent.

At one point in time, we were, as you say, the force that needed to take a stand. But it's 2011 now. The conflict in Libya shows that nations can band together towards the common goal of overthrowing a dangerous leader.

Trust me, I am just as angry as any person can be about the outcome of the Evian Conference. More nations should have stepped up. But it's important to remember that anti-semitism was, unfortunately, pervasive in more countries than just Germany, and most had no idea just what the Germans were up to (or didn't want to admit it). It's a lesson that the world learned the hard way. Many nations later agreed that never again would a tragedy like the Holocaust befall the citizens of another country. It's too bad that the lesson was learned as late as it was. Many good lives could have been saved.

Anonymous said...

Really man? Iraq in the eyes of many Americans was viewed negatively because people failed to see beyond the idea of sending our troops to fight a war we didn't have too. Sure, that may be wrong, but Iraq was to be an example for the rest of the Middle East to move towards a democracy. More importantly, as you said we learn from the past, we needed to stop Saddam from his seemingly quiet genocide. Thus, we have a situation like that of Germany and the Jews. By telling the UN off, one sees that America is actually doing something when others aren't. Fact of the matter is, there ISN'T another country like that of America, so good luck finding a like-minded nation, don't try arguing using the UK.

Anti-semitism is one thing, genocide and the mass murder of 6 million Jews is another. Anywhere you go, the hatred of another race is present, you can't avoid it, what you can avoid is killing them, clearly. No idea? Have you ever read Mein Kampf written by Hitler stating his clear hatred of the Jews and his underlying intentions of what he wanted to do? I don't believe one can possibly say they had no idea what was going on.

These nations have NOT agreed to never let an event as such happen again, clearly, because of the events that happen in Rawanda and Darfur among other countries, genocide continues to exist. Also, the Dominican Republic right before World War II in their ethnic clensing of the Haitians. Clearly, this lesson has not been learned and many good lives continue to be lost.

You claim to pass history class in your other posts, but I must say, I'm not seeing it. A break from insanity? I feel like I get more insane knowing people write this kind of stuff out there. You can't believe every article you find on the internet or in the newspaper, there's always two sides to an argument, and usually the media has an underlying task to not tell you something important.

I may not agree with the situation involving America and Libya, but at the end of the day, we do pay our troops for a reason, we have money allocated to defenses for a reason. We don't pay our troops to just train and sit around and do nothing. Tragedies happen, people die everyday, but we're not sending these men on a suicide mission. We're sending them to do their job, what they signed up for, the idea that they can proudly say they are serving their country. We're in debt? Big deal, would you rather live somewhere else like say that of Libya or Iraq? More money more problems, let the president make his decisions, we voted for him for a reason.

A Sane Break said...

Okay, so, either some wires are getting crossed or you're looking for a fight. At any rate, here's my rebuttal:

I agree with the war in Iraq on the basis of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. I do not agree with it on the basis that we, as a people, were lied to. The president used our post 9/11 fears to get us in there, when really all he needed to say was, "This guy is dangerous, and we're going to take him out."

As far as Germany and the Holocaust goes, you are not correct. We did not know about the extent of the genocide taking place there. We knew they were being persecuted, but we didn't know just how far the Third Reich was taking it. And if we - the U.S. - did know, I don't see how you've proven your point. We stayed out of WWII until the Japanese attacked us on our home soil. At the get go, we didn't enter WWII to stop the horrifying genocide, we did it to retaliate against the Japanese and their allies - the Germans and the Italians. So sure, we've established at this point that you believe we knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it for roughly ten or more years.

Now if you're saying that's a lesson we should take to heart, then yes, I again agree with you. And, regardless of what you might think, in 1948, the UN did in fact agree to never again stand by while genocide plagued a country. But, unfortunately, an agreement is just an agreement. We have not stopped the genocide in Darfur, and we did little to help Rwanda. Should we have? Yes. But not the U.S. alone. What I'm saying is that ALL people of ALL nations have a responsibility to help a country in need. The world shouldn't have to rely on us to stop it, and neither should we be going at such a venture alone.

You've proven that you are selective in your historical knowledge, although whether that is by choice or not, I'm not sure. And, by the way, are you reading my posts or just skimming them? I clearly said that I believe Libya's leader needs to go, and it's up to the NATO (of which we are a part) to oust him.

I'm sorry you feel that my site is making you more insane. The point of this is to be both humorous and informative, all the while promoting debate like this one. While my posts are somewhat antagonistic, my comments are (unless provoked with previous insults) far more kind. I would love to continue this conversation with you - truly - so please respond. But I ask that you keep it civil. In return, I will do the same.

Bryan said...

We have a defense budget so that we can defend our own country, not so we can play the "Be the Hero Game". In fact, the DOD was originally called the Department of War. The name was changed after WWII, intentionally, to exclude the word War in reference to our Military dealings.

A Sane Break said...

The government change the name of one if its departments? Nonsense! Oh, wait... the Department of Energy was also know as "The Manhattan Project" back in the day...

Funny how a name change can go a long way into making you forget the past, huh?

Allen Cahuzac said...

Now here is a funny article and I agree with Mr. Anonymous there. Bryan do you really think that the department of defense budget is really just about defending our own country? So what, we just sit here and wait for someone to attack us, then react? Cause that's what defense would be. AS someone who actually works in the defense industry, the department of defense budget is there so that we can protect our country IN ANYWAY POSSIBLE. If we see a threat that can have catastrophic effects on the world, it is our duty to react and dispose of that threat. So we see North Korea with nuclear weapons, do you think the best plan is to sit here and wait for them to use them? Or do you think we should go on the offensive and do something about it? I think common sense will allow you to pick the right answer. Sure, we don't have to always be the hero, but someone has to do it. We have problems here in America that need tending too, but can you really expect a world leader to sit back and allow a nation to commit genocide or wrong acts of any kind. We all hate America being the world police, but sometimes, you gotta lead by example and hope that one day, some other nation will do the same.

Ummm we did not know that genocide was taking place? Are you for real? EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. FDR made it clear that he was not going to go Germany at first, obviously he did after finishing with Japan. Hitler made a whole speech about how the Jews were rejected at Ellis Island and various ports around the world, that nobody wanted them. Thus, they were sent back to Germany to their doom. FDR made it clear that he wanted no part of Germany AND that he knew what was going on. Of course Japan changed things. Who cares if the US does it alone, if you truly care about something you'll do it yourself regardless of who helps you. Say someone you cared about was kidnapped and gone missing for more than 2 weeks. The police refuse to help any further and everyone else has given up hope. Do you give up hope? Knowing that s/he could still be out there? Most likely no, fuck it you say and you go out there and do it by yourself. Because that's what you believe in and that's what you feel is right.

A Sane Break said...

Mr. Cahuzac, you are an interesting person to speak with. I hope you comment more often here.

I agree with you on the major points of your first paragraph, particularly that last sentence. I'm not sure how you agree with the anonymous poster here, as it sounds like you are agreeing with me for the major point (and, by the way, this was thrown up BEFORE my new comment policy went into place but, truthfully, I would have posted it anyway for the debate).

Truthfully though, I have no idea where you all learned history. No one knew about the atrocities of the Holocaust - the actual death camp part - until late June of 1941. The Evian Conference was 3 years prior, in 1938, and WWII itself didn't even start until 1939!

More so, the U.S. didn't join until December of 1941! So, in a way, you're a little right. We could have possibly known about the atrocities a whopping five and a half months before joining the war. But to say we knew the ENTIRE time is completely ignorant.

Oh, and you're also wrong about the whole Germany/Japan thing. Germany was defeated three months BEFORE Japan in August of 1945.

You misunderstand my argument completely, sir. I agree that the lone wolf thing worked well in America's favor during the early 1900's. But the tactic isn't working anymore. And it's 2013 now. We shouldn't HAVE to be going at it alone. We should be trying to convince others to help us.

Here's a good website for some WWII factoids, by the way.

Allen Cahuzac said...

You sir are as ignorant as anyone I have ever met. Are you going to sit there and present timelines and dates as the true and only facts? Does a date really signify when things occur? The world knew of Hitler's feelings towards the Jews come the Berlin Olympics, which I don't know the date, but was definitely before 1941, let alone 1938. Heard of the Nuremberg laws have you son? Or would you like t also direct me to a site showing me the date for that too. When Hitler came to power, he wrote and document how he felt about the Jews for all the world to see. The world and America knew of Hitler's Aryan definition, why do you think Jessie Owens victories in the Olympics were so well documented?

Sure okay, the world did not know of the concentration camps because they didnt happen in 1938, the mass killings didnt. But here's what Hitler tried to do. He actually tried to get rid of the Jews just by forcing them out of his territory, some refused, some didnt. His original plan was not to kill them. But his hatred was written all over the place, his books son, have you ever read them?!? What do you think a dictator with that much hatred is going to do to a group of people if they didnt leave his country? The Evian Conference, you like hard dates, 1938 sure, was given the chance to help a group of people. They did nothing! Cuba and the United States later I don't know when look it up, I think it was called the Saint Louis, also rejected a ship full of fleeing Jews. What do you think happened to them?

Better yet. The world stood by as Hitler invaded Poland. After making threats to Hitler that action would be taken if he invaded Poland, they did nothing and allowed him to continue his rampage. PEOPLE KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON! THEY CHOOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING. This son, is not an opinion but a mere fact. You can read all you want about history and dates, but at the end of the day, people knew what was going to happen. You can't sit there and honestly be defending the world leaders back then that they had no knowledge of Hitler's intentions. No one knew of the death camps sure, but please, no one knew of the atrocities that were going to happen? Yeah right. That's like saying you don't know whats going to happen when your roommate and girlfriend walk into their room, close it and lock it. Then you only knew what happened when they told you. You were like, "OMG I didn't know that was going on" Because that's when the world finds out about stuff right?!? NOT BY PUTTING THINGS TOGETHER but by waiting for someone to tell us right? A history 101 student would know better than to just read what people tell us. Dig a little deeper kid, then you find the facts.

FDR: "Oh Winston, they're just rounding up Jews for kicks and giggles, they aren't going to harm them in any way whatsoever."

Churchill: "Yeah I agree, I can't imagine Hitler doing something like killing them even though he just bans them from doing just about anything or being recognized as real people. Yeah, Hitler just destroys synagogues for fun guy."

Stalin: "Yeah guys, he's just invading Poland and richly Jewish nations for fun. Oh and Kristallnacht was just for fun to, its like Halloween."

Son, please, don't be ignorant.

On another note, my mistake on the German/Japan comment. What I meant to say was that FDR wanted no part of Germany. It was only after Japan had attacked on Pearl Harbor that he decided he was going into war. If you read his speeches and studied the articles, you will find that Germany was NOT his priority. Germany can be seen as a favor and convenience, that since we're in war any way, we'll take care of Germany first. FDR and America were essentially anti-war until Pearl Harbor.

Allen Cahuzac said...

Okay so if we don;t go police the world and no one else does, what do you think is going to happen? Let's say someone where in the world the same shit is happening again. There is genocide in say region X. America can;t convince anybody to help them. Okay so you're saying then if we cant convince people, then we shouldnt do it ourselves either. Yes, the logical solution then by your means is to let this genocide happen, because the world refuses to help. We got problems in the world kid. If no one wants to stop the bad guys, and somehow we as a majority feel like we can and have the power to, then we have too. To let something as awful as the Holocaust happen again would be a shame on all of us.

We are a country in debt. So be it. You just have to hope that by doing the right thing, others will follow suit. No matter how long it takes. No matter how much it costs. Stop reading what you can google. Open up a book or two and dig deeper.

A Sane Break said...

It sounds like you are trying to argue for argument's sake. I never said that no one knew Hitler hated the Jews. Not once. What I'm saying is that no one knew about the death camps. They knew about the laws he was putting into place, and of his hatred for the Jewish peoples, but no once anticipated him slaughtering millions of innocents like that.

I am well aware of Jessie Owens and pretty much everything you stated.

I'm not really sure what your point is anymore, to be honest. You're calling me ignorant for looking up facts (the opposite of being ignorant), but only because you don't believe the places I'm getting those facts from are accurate. Right.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think we are arguing about? Because it sounds like, to me, we are only arguing about the small difference between the world knowing about the death camps and the world not knowing about the death camps.

I'm not debating with you that the world didn't know Hitler hated Jews, or that he was enacting laws to curtail their rights. That's solid fact. You basically just typed up a bunch of information that I already knew, called me ignorant a bunch of times without knowing anything about me or my knowledge background, and then made the case that people back then were able to "put things together."

I'm glad we could get all that cleared up.

A Sane Break said...

If we need to get in there and stop something than we should. But we shouldn't overlook the successes of the Libya campaign. No American military deaths? Not much money spent? Wouldn't it be nice if we could always oust dictators like that? With the help of foreign allies banded together to accomplish the same goal?

This is 2013. We need to work together with the rest of the world, not against it. See yourself as a human being - not just an American.

I have never insinuated that if we can't get someone to help us, then we should just let genocides happen. Darfur and Rwanda were both unacceptable world events that the U.S. did nothing to stop. In cases like that, a little lone wolf action is necessary. However, all I am saying is that we should try to rally the other nations first before going at it alone.

Also, I'm not sure what it is with you telling me to open up a book. I read 2-3 a week as it is (2 for school, 1 for pleasure if I can).

Considering most other people my age and younger hate reading altogether, I'd say I'm a pretty experienced "book opener."

Allen Cahuzac said...

First off you go to school? Please you must be some guy who sits at home and plays Dungeons and Dragons. If you do go to school, I'm sure you're the kind who majors in English or Journalism class just to get a degree, have fun paying the bills. Or did you mean high school. You strike me in selective articles as the kind of kid who disappoints his parents or even America.

Son what do you mean you didn't know what the Germans were capable of? Did you know what settlers were capable of with regards to the natives here? Did you know what Columbus was capable of when he arrived here. Sure maybe then you didn't know it, but look at history now and the slaughter of a group of people, the natives, for whatever reason. THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW what Hitler was capable of. If genocide had been prevalent throughout history, why could it not happen again? Only difference was that the world genocide had not been invented yet.

Hitler documented well his hatred, his observations, his intentions of the Jews in each and everyone of his books. Read huh? Why don't you google that up and see what you can find scholar you. What do you think is going to happen to a group of people when a man like that is put to power? No one anticipated the slaughtering? Right cause revoking every single piece of property they had and forcing them to identify themselves as Jews wasn't a sign of the coming times. Even if the death camps never happened, why would any nation allow such a fate to happen to a group of people. Let them suffer at the hands of the German. You know, cause they the Jews really enjoy having their lives taking away.

People back then put things together? What are you not capable of putting things together there son? Right okay, you can google and look up "facts" from places. Congratulations. But just because things are merely posted with a date, doesn't mean there are underlying things going on. Here's a new analogy. You can look up the fact that Lance Armstrong passed every drug test ever administered on him. Well congratulations, he must be clean then, moving on. That would be you and dumbass's way of doing things, leading to the demise of the world. Smart people and the cycling authorities knew better and dug DEEPER, something you've probably never done. Just cause there are apparent facts, doesn't mean things are necessarily the way they are. Lance Armstrong did the impossible because it was impossible. The committee knew better, they ASSUMED and went further. Something each and every other nation most definitely did, only they choose to do nothing about it. Genocide has happened before, you're telling me nations and leaders couldn't have assumed the worst? And prevented it?

You are ignorant, get over it. I stumbled upon this website because one of your readers told me to get a kick out of your stupidity. You need to get a job son. I'm sorry I mean a real job. So go to school. Just some free advice. Also, do you believe what you read when the papers said that the soldiers who found Bin Laden acted in self-defense when they killed him? I mean your approach would lead you to say yes. When on the other hand, a little more than your "fact finding" ways, would lead to you find out that he in fact was executed. Learn to research kid, the internet is an easily place to get lost in. Stop this whole blogging website. It does nothing but let me know that people like you in the world need to be put in their place. Focus on your school and major in the something useful. Do something to make the people around you proud.

A Sane Break said...

You assume much about me, Mr. Cahuzac, but you're wrong almost entirely across the board. There's no sense in telling you about me, though. You'll probably just say I'm making it up or embellishing. Such is the drawback of the internet.

Our conversation about Hitler is done, by the way. I have no interest in arguing with you further, because neither of us are going to change the other's mind. I know I'm right, you know you're right, so enough.

And no, I won't "stop this whole blogging website." I enjoy doing it in my very little spare time, and you were not forced to read it.

You're saying I don't dig deep into facts, that I take everything at face value, and yet you're not here watching my process. Don't you think that's an ignorant assumption of you to make?

I like your new analogy of Lance Armstrong. You see, I did the same thing. Like everyone assumed he was flying straight thanks to him passing all of those drug tests, I believed you to be an intelligent, capable individual.

But, like a "smart person and the cycling authorities," I dug deeper. I kept talking to you because I knew better. Sure enough, like Armstrong, you didn't disappoint.

I guess you really can't judge a book by its cover. You turned out to be an ignorant, right-wing fuck with nothing constructive to add to a TWO YEAR OLD DEBATE LONG ENDED. You also, clearly, don't know how to properly look through someone's personal site (e.g. your question about comments on another page).

You are sitting there calling me ignorant and assuming, yet that's EXACTLY what you're doing about me! What the hell is wrong with you, man?

I do not hide the fact that this is a liberal humor site written by a college student. I don't. I don't ask for credibility because of that. It's why I back up my point with facts that I:

A) Triple check the sources on and
B) Find similar articles to make sure it's not unique and, therefore, most likely wrong.

OBVIOUSLY my content is liberally biased. That's the fucking point. Why would I, a liberal, write such intelligent conservative articles like, "How Sandy Hook was a Hoax!" or "Mexicans are LITERALLY taking our jobs!"

As I said in a previous post, I will call out Democrats and liberals when they do something fucking stupid. But I work and go to school, and don't have much time to wade through hundreds of news articles every day. I usually pick the most outrageous story and, unfortunately, it's almost always about a right-winger doing or saying something stupid and ignorant.

You have a choice, son. You don't have to read my posts. I'm not making you. You can literally block my site from your browser, if you'd like. I could give a fuck.

I write this because I have the freedom to do so, and if you don't like that, tough. Seriously, tough shit.

If you would like, I'll give you a shot to just talk to me and get to know me. My email is up for anyone to see: We can continue this conversation there, rather than fill up this comment sheet with comments that really don't pertain to this article.

I do actually appreciate your criticism - I do. Constructive feedback of any kind is awesome. But don't talk down to me when you're giving it. As I've said in many posts before, my article-writing personality is far less aggressive than my commenting personality. The two are separate. So take it down a notch and try talking to me like one human being to another.