brainCandy

VPILF, sarah palin, calls audible, drives through full court press, participates in various other empty mixed metaphors

in case you thought she'd been living under a rock for the last 6 months, there is news from the sarah palin camp: she was not, but she's about to be. sarah palin "doesn't want to disappoint anyone with this announcement," but, she has resigned from alaska's governorship! i don't normally believe in god, but i think i just heard angels singing. so discounting the 3 months she was on the VP campaign trail, and the 1 month she spent afterward, hanging out with rachel ray, and talking about how it's a new day for women everywhere, sarah palin, once the "best" chance this country had at getting a women in executive office, has officially acted as governor of alaska for 28 months. good one. why did she do this? you ask. i'll give you 2,012 guesses.

for those of you who have seen the (ex!)governor's resignation speech, i won't even ask you to read on. you already know that no comedian can top what she herself (i hope, for her speech writer's sake, that she wrote that thing herself) pulled out of her ass, and delivered with all the gusto and charisma of a nervous 12 year old, telling her mommy she had just gotten her first period. all the while her stupid jackass kid fidgets and potty dances next to the podium, like she just got her first period. as paul begala wrote in the huffington post, "her statement was incoherent, bizarre, and juvenile. the text, as posted on gov. palin's official website, uses 2,549 words and 18 exclamation points. lincoln freed the slaves with 719 words and nary an exclamation". just a short snippet of her speech, verbatim, to show you how she unwittingly fucks herself (and not in that hot, nailin' paylin sort of way):

-Some Alaskans don’t mind wasting public dollars and state time. I do. I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor. And my children won’t allow it either.

i couldn't have said it better myself. i don't think anybody wants to waste any more time and money keeping you in the governor's seat.

according to palin, she polled her kids in regards to her resignation from the governorship, and the response was, "four yeses, and one 'hell yeah', and the 'hell yeah' sealed it". i don't know if that "hell yeah" came from trip or track or troops or terror or tribble, but i know one thing: there's one little alaskan redneck who's getting a thank you card from me this xmas.

palin rambles on for some time about how her decision is based partly in her disillusionment in "politics as usual", thanks in no small part to the public and media outcry that has blasted her in the face (and not in that hot, nailin' paylin sort of way) since she hit the public eye, for being a dumb, conniving, manipulatable, bitch. palin also pounds home the notion (over and over again) that this move is what's best for alaska. no shit, you dumb, conniving, manipulatable, bitch, that's what the rest of us have been saying all along.

now, peppered amongst her horrid, drawn out sports metaphors (driving toward the basket with confidence, and keeping my head up, because i need to keep my head up to keep my eye on the basket...), she made a number of other ridiculous claims. one such claim was that she had had some sort of existential awakening while visiting troops (in kosovo? way to throw yourself into the 1995 line of fire, lady) which made her realize that we need to start spending more money on troops (like those in kosovo?), and war funding, and stop spending money on "superficial, wasteful, political bloodsport". if there is a phrase more suited to describe military actions than "superficial, wasteful, political bloodsport" i don't know what it is. but i guess the kind that lets our kids play with guns, and learn to hate dark skinned people is the kind of superficial, wasteful, political bloodsport that blows palin's signature double breasted red wool peacoat up (possibly in that hot, nailin' paylin sort of way).

but what scares me more than her blatant ignorance of sort of important statements that she herself makes only moments prior to totally contradicting herself or running off on some moot tangent, is the way in which she continues to discuss her move to step down. she repeats phrases like "we can better affect change in the world this way", or "i can do more good from outside the governor's office", and how she seeks "real climate change" (as in political climate change, she remains ignorant of real real climate change), she wants to make "change on the outside", and "her administration" will be better positioned, this way, to fight against "politics as usual". basically, she speaks not as though she is humbled, and resigning from the highest position she currently holds, but as though she has risen above, and holds a much more important position, for which she needs more time and effort redirected from her lesser gig as governor.

based on her rhetoric, anecdotes, and metaphors, i can only assume that that more important position is a run for president in 2012, or starting an alaska-based secessionist militia. either way, as nothing but a simple, humble clown, i think i will defer once again to paul begala who opened his article this-a-wise:

"i wish hunter s. thompson had lived to see this."

guantanamo prisoner torture outsourced to palau. pork legislation has nowhere to hide, now that we can hunt it in national parks. wait...what?

hey, look, i like obama as much as the next liberal progressive democrat, but i think it's time to face up to one big fact: he ain't as great as we think he is.

bottom line is, politicians are politicians, and now that campaign cycles begin the day after the most recent election (the only competition longer than the NBA playoffs. at this rate the 2010 season will start sometime in 2016), buckle up and prepare for a whole lot of idling in the garage until the US breaks down into independent, poverty stricken, war-torn stans, republics, and soviets, like the USSR. what? them again? no. us, this time.

and now that iraq has more money in the bank than we do, get ready for a 40 year run of aziz bond movies, in which an international militant of mystery repeatedly saves the world from total destruction at the hands of over-the-top american stereotype villains with cool scars over their eyes, all the while having tawdry affairs with conveniently named women like "skimpi burkha"; wooing them with lines like "let's liberate you from those wet clothes and rebuild you with a democratically elected interim shirley temple (no drinking there, and all)", "i've got an IED in my pants and i want you to drive your hummer over it", and "let's go back to my place, so you can occupy my former arab dick-tatorship".

"it's a good day to die, vice general greenspan, and it looks like it's time for you to cash out." oh my god, somebody make this movie!

wait...where was i?

oh yeah. less progress, more of the same. a good slogan for miller genuine draft, perhaps, but we're trying to run a country, here. so, what's new? or should i say, what's old? aside from the fact that this financial bailout is all happening with the same players and the same playbook as the bush administration's financial fumbleruski (again with the russians?), which is how we got in this mess in the first place (well, in the first place, we deregulated the banks, well before w got his grubby mitts on the country).

what's old is that obama, while making some strong and progressive moves, is no golden god, and it shows. don't get me wrong. i love the guy, partly because elmo would seem like a great president compared to w, and partly because he is making some strong moves toward a better US (that is just the opinion of this liberal progressive, however). but like i said, politicians are politicians, and at the end of the day, mr o is a politician.

let's discuss guantanamo bay, shall we? ok, so it's going to be closed. hip hip hurray! so what does that change? not a damn thing. all those prisoners are going to be sent to other prisons. look, the important thing about guantanamo is that we stop using it to hold prisoners without fair trial, and stop using it as a dungeon for sick and perverse modes of "information extraction". the prison itself isn't the problem. it's not like it's built on an old cuban revolutionary burial ground, and the ghosts of che's army are returning from the dead to torture people and refuse them due process. the important thing is not the empty gesture of closing the prison. the important thing is that we prove that we've learned our lessons. so we've stopped torturing (so i hear) and we are going to start putting these people through the court circuit (one would hope), so why do we need to start this argument about where to keep them, and whether or not regular, stateside maximum security prisons will be able to hold these super powered evil geniuses? just leave guantanamo open and stop treating it like thunderdome.

let's discuss progressive legislation. i don't know where everyone got the idea that, if elected, obama would legalize pot, and gay marriage, but apparently those ideas got out there in the ether, somehow. neither of those things is going to happen. look, obama said he wants equal rights for the lgbt community. but never did he say that, without following it with that fine print item: i believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. he may have said that he would be willing to open a discussion with the pro-pot folk, about the state of marijuana policy, but he never said he was even going to try to legalize it. in political speak, "open a discussion" could very well mean he invites them to stop by his office so he can tell them to fuck off, in person. but it's so deliciously vague, that it's pretty much assumed by the rubes that it means the flood gates are open and everything's coming up milhouse. we need to understand that there are going to be a lot of things that we thought obama was going to do, but unless he said it specifically (and in many cases, not even then) we're living in a fool's paradise (perhaps my 420 savvy readers are more comfortable with the term "pipe dream"? then again, maybe some of my lgbt readers are more comfortable with that phrase, too...).

let's talk fixing the mess we're in. i pointed out the non-progress of the financial bailout already, as well as the guantanamo affair. but what about the other turds w left on the white house lawn? we've renamed the mission in iraq, but the "exit strategy" is nothing of the sort, and in fact, aside from the name change, it's essentially the same plan w had laid out by the end of his term. so let's chalk that one up to another empty gesture. about GM... you know what? we've been over and over this. my problems with the GM plan were discussed explicitly in who needs capitalism... (06-01-09). about healthcare. somehow the terms universal, and socialized keep getting copy pasted to the front of his healthcare plan. this idea has a snowball's chance in hell of coming to fruition. which brings me to my next point.

mr pork slayer, mr lobby buster, mr transparent, himself. b to the o. transparent, maybe. he certainly seemed to be on tv a lot during the first months of his term, apologizing for things, taking the blame for things, swallowing his pride. so maybe he is transparent. but that's actually a call that history will have to make. as for mr lobby buster, i thought he had his justice league of filibuster proof superfriends to push all this shit through. what happened? every time obama talks about his new healthcare plan, he walks right up to the edge, then takes two steps back. i can just barely make out the health insurance lobbyists hiding behind the door, clearing their throats a little too loud, right before he disclaims the ways in which his new plan won't be universal healthcare, or socialized medicine. and what about mr pork slayer? i think this topic needs to be dealt with via a very sharp left turn, much like mr o did. when it was time to reform the credit industry, mr o sure showed those greedy fat cats and wall street slicksters who's boss. he passed a credit reform and regulation bill that allowed visitors to carry concealed weapons in national parks. shocked and a little thrown off? i was, too. so there goes mr pork slayer, right?

but with those filibuster proof superfriends behind him, at least most of the pork (after this gun thing) will be in the best interest of the progressives out there, right? i can't believe i am about to agree with (gulp) joe scarborough. too many people representing either party is a not a good thing. like bill burr says, humans are not meant to live alone, because when you live alone there's nobody to walk in and catch you doing stupid things, and tell you to put your pants back on and put the scissors away...after you've cleaned them. in a system with occasionally questionable checks and balances, the best way to make sure we don't run right off the edge of the left or the right, is to allow an open forum comprised of a good sampling of all those being represented (remember how we need to add a hispanic woman to the supreme court?). i'm about to agree with scarborough again here (super gulp). the problem is not that there are too many republicans in the government, peeing in the soup. the problem is that there are too many idiots in the government farting on the omelet bar. it just so happens that, at the moment, the republicans are in the majority when it comes to idiot production (i am still in agreement with scarborough at this point...where is this bizzaro joe hiding? you ask. certainly not on morning joe. you have to get waaaaaay deep, to find this joborough. you have to get tavis smiley deep. don't worry, the circus is here to do that for you). the term republican has grown to be synonymous with brain dead ass hat, but in reality, republican doesn't have to be a four letter word. in fact, republican is just that: a word. republicans can be whomever they wish to be, and they don't all have to act the same (dems can do this too). its perfectly ok for a person, regardless of their political affiliation, to use their own brain, instead of borrowing the collective brain that most people plug into when they choose sides. in fact, conservative doesn't, by definition, mean bigoted, whitebread, mississippi mudflappin', truck driving, gun nut (sweet virgin jesus mother mary theresa, joborough, why aren't you this intelligent and introspective on starbucks presents: moaning joe?). this is where me and scarborough go our separate ways, however. joe believes that republican stands for the obtuse idea of conservatism (this i agree with), and that conservatism is a good thing (not always).

i think that it is important to try to keep the intent of the founding fathers in mind (keep in mind, the founding fathers also had a serious discussion over the idea that the constitution they were writing should be rewritten every 19 years, even if it's rewritten word for word, to be a more contemporary, and appropriate document, imagine what an amazing country we would live in...). so if that is conservative, than i am conservative on that point. but as for clinging to their expressed written ideas? i think that we need to keep in mind that the world is a place that is itself progressive (as some of the founding fathers obviously knew), in that it is always changing, with or without us.

to look back at a document written during a time of revolution, building, and rebuilding of a small rogue state, a document that states, "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and only see the part that says "the right to keep and bear arms" is ignorant. the world has progressed past that place. even if you wanted to look at that amendment literally, it does not give the right to keep and bear arms to random people who like to go out back and shoot stuff. it provides the right of people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. we've got one of those. it's called the US military, and those people have every right to keep and bear arms. if you're not part of the maintenance of our well regulated militia, then you have no right, or reason, to bear arms. if you plan on starting your own militia to overthrow the government, don't expect to be sanctioned or sponsored by the government you plan on overthrowing. rather, expect to receive sanctions (it's different) and subpoenas from that government. if you're planning on building a people's militia to overthrow the government, and you think you will have the legal support of that government, i don't predict your revolution will go well for you.

nevertheless, mr pork slayer, mr lobby buster, mr liberal progressive, the great and powerful mr o, has deemed it necessary toward wrangling the immoral practices of the credit industry, to allow the expressed legal consent of carrying concealed weapons in state parks. why? in case we come across a creditor while we're hiking Half Dome, and want to shoot them in the face?

who needs capitalism when you can have this slightly used auto industry for the low low price of your ideals?

chapter 1 (seriously):

tell me again, george, how taxes, welfare, labor unions, and religious tithing aren't socialist ideas.

i've said it before, and i'll say it again: i'm down with many things socialist.

but in the spirit of darwinism, i'm also down with many things capitalist. much like socialism, in theory, capitalism is good for the civilization. capitalism, in theory, encourages the constant improvement of goods and services, and keeps prices at a reasonable level... in theory.

great, your thinking. the circus is going to start talking about social darwinism.

not today, friend.

today i'm more concerned with the confusion that our elected officials, media mongers, and general populace have about socialist and capitalist tenets, and the effect this is having on the auto industry.

first allow me to point out that communism is not the issue here.

socialism is the grey area between a capitalist democracy and full blown communism (which isn't that scary, people. you've been watching too much red dawn). socialism refers mainly to an economic structure, where as democracy refers to a form of government. a socialist country doesn't have to be a monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny, or anything else. most socialist countries, for example, are social democracies.

in sweden, let's say, there isn't just one brown, unisex shoe, they democratically elect their leaders, and, unlike seattle, not everyone owns a volvo (oh, seattle i can't stay mad at you...).

so where does the good ol' U S of A-holes fit in to this?

i suppose, technically, we are a socio-democratic aristocratic plutocracy.

don't believe we're a plutocracy? the entirety of our representation fits into a handful of buildings in a small neighborhood of a district approximately 1/4 the size of chicago, and believe me, they make a lot more money than you do, and that money makes a big difference. don't believe we're an aristocracy? then why are so many kennedys and bushes running around DC, mispronouncing words (the governator counts for this one, he's a shriver, and who the hell knows what he's saying half the time)? don't believe we are socialist? quit paying your taxes then, see how the government feels about that. or try joining a union shop without joining your local. it won't happen.

so we're afraid to let the government run the banks (which is a great idea, in that all interest accrued would generate capital for the country, and all the jobs normally provided by a bank system would still be present, aside from the fat cats who usually own the banks, and don't do much work aside from backstroking through a tub of gold coins, whose jobs would be handed over to government fat cats), and we're afraid to implement universal health care (which is also a great idea, because health care is part of the one universal human right to life), but god forbid we let the car companies fail.

chapter 2:

tell me again about the socialists, george. tell me about how they have basic human rights.

i appreciate socialist regulation of banks and healthcare because those should not be businesses. those are institutions that should be handled by the government because:

A) money is a societal construct that is based on nothing (even when it was based on the gold standard), and exists only as a numerical representation of debt, which in itself is only a numerical record of how unfit we are to live in a particular market or trade circuit, which are societal constructs in themselves (and there's your social darwinism. but it's cool, i'm still down with credit, and welfare, so long as we have to exist in a money based society).

B) it is grossly criminal to make money off of healthcare. what if it was you who was sick, and had no healthcare? what if it was you who couldn't even put your insurance payment on plastic because your job doesn't pull enough money to back a sufficient line of credit? what if it was you who couldn't pay for your insulin, or HIV meds, or your chemo because it was a "preexisting condition" and your provider wouldn't cover it? what if it was your child who fell off the monkey bars and broke her arm? what if you were the one getting the call at work? the call saying she had been taken to the hospital, and she was doing fine now, that'll be 12 grand, please. what if it was you who had to walk in the front door, hiding a last notice letter behind your back, and tell your baby girl how happy you are that her arm felt so good today that she could play softball at recess?

chapter 3:

tell me again about the capitalists, george. all about how they're gonna have cars. tell me, again.

i believe in capitalist ideas for business, and capitalist means every man, woman, child, and invalid for themselves.

"too big to fail" means it has already failed.

if a business, like GM or chrysler, provides shitty product, service, and job security, they have failed. by the laws of capitalism, they go under, and other companies fill in the market segment that they failed to fill, or, perhaps that market segment disappears, if it is one that the consumer public doesn't deem necessary.

in the case of GM, we are now paying them to go bankrupt, we are buying their horrible, horrible company, and pushing forward with their miserable business model.

"but the jobs" you say, "but the capital"

here's what i propose:

first, we do not rescue big business... ever.

second, we take the money we keep crapping all over GM and chrysler, and we invest it. we invest it in companies like honda, nissan, toyota, and volkswagen who have US devisions. we offer them money to build new factories in the US. the jobs generated by these new factories pick up the pieces left behind by the fall of the big 2, they also keep tax money stateside (as the companies have US divisions, they do pay taxes here, as do their workers), they also produce better, and more efficient cars, which is an instant positive move toward CAFE standards, and we get paid back partially in stock, that we agree to sell back at time when it will not hurt the company. we invest in companies like tesla, who could use the money to push their model portfolio growth, add new factories (read: jobs) and, consequently, lower the cost of their product. we invest in places like MIT, and UC Davis PHEV (plug-in hybrid electric vehicle) research center, who are furthering, at an incredible rate, the technology used in clean vehicles. we invest in small companies that convert regular cars to all electric and bio-diesel (they are already out there). we invest in a clean energy vehicle infrastructure, so people who actually drive bio-diesel cars don't have to go to mcdonald's with an 80 gallon drum, or pay ludicrous prices at the small handful of stations that actually sell bio-fuel around the country (safeway gas stations in seattle were, at one point charging $4.89 for bio, while premium petrol ran $3.07). we use what's left over of the money (the amount we've invested in GM and chrysler minus what may have been invested in the aforementioned areas) and dump it into the government subsidizing of efficient cars, and buy-back programs for older, less efficient cars.

but this is just my pie in the sky idea of a world where the government doesn't use other people's money to bet on the 3 legged horse (47 straight loses. Glue Stick was due, i tell ya! it was a lock!).

so now, you, me, dupree, the auto unions, and fiat, own the big 2.

GREAT!

hey, guess what i got you for christmas?! a punch in the nuts!

awesome! when can i pick it up?!

how 'bout now?! no backsies!

you know what i wish for at night when the lights are out and it's just me and the big man downstairs (my older brother lives downstairs)? i clasp my hands real tight and close my eyes, and say, "please old man in the sky, pretty pretty please, don't let some bizarre turn of events occur wherein i wake up in the morning and i own GM."

well thanks for nothing, god. you know what i want even less than to own GM? the US government calling the shots at GM! ever seen the fight scene in see no evil, hear no evil? the one where richard pryor is blind, and gene wilder is deaf, and wilder is trying to instruct pryor on where and how to hit the guy, and everyone ends up on the floor choking each other? i am now usurping that as an allegory for the US auto industry.

chapter 4:

just look out at the river there, lenny, while i tell you all about the cars we're gonna have.

you know, i bet pirates were pretty upset when the air travel industry usurped the maritime industry (meanwhile, air pirates? when's that happening?) and horse fans probably were sad to see that mode of transport go by the wayside. i'd also be willing to bet that people who made or used electric and steam powered cars way back in the day were a bit confused when this new internal combustion engine, that required the discovery, extraction, and refinement of a limited resource, and emitted nasty poison smoke somehow took over the auto industry (i will not take the time to explain why that happened other that to point out how great it is for short term profits to have an entire industry that demands a finite supply).

but despite progress in the transport industries, people still use boats, and ride horses. people still buy vinyl, too, even though there have been multiple advances in music convenience technology. and despite the perfection of intravenous injection, i still ingest my fluids with my mouth, most of the time.

so to all those people who have these strange complaints about the way the auto industry is progressing, allow me to retort:

1) the internal combustion engine is dying. soon all cars will be run on alternative fuels.

so? as stated before, sometimes popular things, no matter how long, or how universally they were popular, go by the wayside. hanging on to old trends as though your life depends on them is never a good way to live. but, just like boats and horses persist. so can cars. who's to say car racing will go away? that there won't be places that you can take a nice thirsty v8 out for a joy ride? no one is saying that. what is being said is that the petrol powered internal combustion engine may not be the choice for the masses anymore.

2) what about freedom of choice? people who want gas powered cars are being discriminated against.

wrong. i'm sick of people crying discrimination over stupid shit. i want a platinum-plated space shuttle armed with nuclear warheads and manned by easy supermodels. but until that store opens up, it looks like i'm gonna have to figure that one out myself. that doesn't mean i'm being discriminated against, it means freedom of choice is based on the available options. so what about all of the people out there who want cars that run on alternative fuels? where is their freedom of choice? there are sparse few cars out there that don't use gas to some degree (yes, all you prius owners, time to fess up, your car does use gas), so what's the big deal about offering them more? and really, what's the big deal about offering the gas fans less? you've got too many options out there as it is. i mean, how many cars out there are actually decent compared to the number that are available for purchase? so we get rid of the duds and add some efficient cars in the process.

3) but pontiac is a sacred american institution.

no it's not.

4) we're all going to end up driving cars that look the same, like the prius and insight.

idiot. ok, so the prius and insght look the same. so do the sienna and quest, so do the toureg and the cayenne and the xc90, so do the avalon, malibu, and the last generation accord, so do the challenger and camaro, so do the g8 and the last generation altima, so do the fit and the aveo, so do the 300c and everything bentley makes, so does everything maserati makes and everything aston martin makes, so does the accord and the genesis sedan. need i go on? cars have mimicked each other since the dawn of the wheel (they just couldn't sell that square wheel, no matter how utilitarian it looked). so two of the hybrids look the same, they are in the same market segment, hunting the same consumers. and the civic doesn't look like the prius, nor does the camry look like the insight, nor do the escape or fusion resemble any of the above and those are all available as hybrids.

5) small cars are unsafe on the road.

nope. small cars are just as safe as any other. car companies want you to believe big cars are safer because big cars pull more commission, but cars are also being designed with smaller and smaller windows, because while inside, less glass feels safer. but in reality, i'd rather not be driving behind someone who has no windows aft of the B or C pillar, and a rear windshield the size of my bank account (real small). small cars feel less safe, because you are surrounded by massive cars and trucks and because there's an urban legend out there that makes that claim, but the bottom line is, the same safety features are possible in all cars no matter the size, and the real danger about driving any car is the driver.

6) but GM has hybrids now.

false. GM has "mild" hybrids. that means that the new malibu hybrid gets approximately 2mpg better on the freeway than the regular malibu, and costs approximately $4000 more. oh, the government will subsidize your purchase of the malibu "hybrid" to offset the cost? yeah, the government will. after you give that extra money to GM. get it yet? oh, chevy has the volt. not yet they don't. and don't hold your breath. but if they do come through on that one, i have some questions. why only 40 miles per charge when the saturn EV-1 got 60, ten years ago? why does it switch to full gas engine, instead of switching to a version of hybrid power? last i checked cars still have alternators, and charging batteries is what they are bolted to your engine block for. alternator thing not flying with you? how about regenerative breaking? that's been happening with success for some years now. why not use all electric for X miles, then switch to gas/electric hybrid using regenerative breaking? and if GM was making cars with 60 mile batteries ten years ago, without the aid of regenerative breaking, then couldn't the application of regenerative breaking boost the life of a charge, at least by ten miles or so?

but what do i know?

now, if you've made it this far, thank you, and you are about to be rewarded with some humor: the dodge viper brand name is for sale, and the most serious bidder is the "garlic bread king" of michigan.

is it that bad, chrysler?

if it truly is, then i think it's time to face the music, america. when it comes to the auto industry, we have the technology. we can rebuild it, better, faster, more efficient. but GM and chrysler aren't the american auto industry, they are just players in the game. the industry is what we make it, regardless of the names on the roster. so when it comes to GM and chrysler, instead of buying them a puppy and enrolling them in the remedial market, i think it's time we took them for a nice walk down to the river, and tell them all about the rabbits.

don't look back, lenny. just keep looking out across that river... and i'll tell you all about the rabbits... 

suggested reading:

1) the communist manifesto karl marx and friedrich engels

2) of mice and men john steinbeck

suggested watching:

1) who killed the electric car?

2) see no evil, hear no evil (fight scene available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FHF2TWFNAw )

for transparency's sake:

when not causing multiple car pile-ups on my bicycle, i drive one of the nondescript gas hogs pictured below. see if you can pick out which one makes me a hypocrite.