So I was watching History Channel the other night and they had this 2 hour thing about Apocalypse Island. So for 2 hours, we watch these dudes talking about the Mayans and some island that is supposed to do something or other in 2012, when the world ends.

So, you have to wait an hour and a half to see this rock the guy claims the Mayans carved. It’s supposed to be a head and a lion behind it or something. But, really, it just looks like a tall rock with another one behind it. Rare! Mysterious! Never do they even talk about tool marks (are there any?) to make him think it was carved or maybe it was just a natural formation. History Channel even goes out of its way (on multiple occasions) to show the rock as this guy imagines it (a head with a lion behind it) and not even show a graphic saying this was computer generated. It doesn’t even matter that the features they claim the rocks should have don’t even fit with the way the rocks look at all. Just awful.

Then, these guys climb all over this thing. As if you’d crawl to the top of the Egyptian Pyramids without taking any care to, you know, damage them?

Then they talk about the solar eclipse in 2012 and Venus crossing in front of the Sun in 2012 as well. Both of these are visible from, you know, a ton of places on the planet. The island’s location is simply a post hoc logical fallacy on part of these idiots. No proof of any of the assertions made, but 2 hours of trying (too hard, if you ask me) to convince without any effort of evidence.

I think it’s a huge shame that the History Channel is pimping this 2012 stuff so hard. Giving credibility to guys who, for all intents and purposes, are probably crack pots. The lack of any real science done during this show, and others of the 2012 series are just awful.

Then they countdown the 13 eras of the Mayans or whatever. Saying this happened on 12th, that on the 11th, etc etc etc. Well, of course something happened on those years. It’s amazing, really. Mayans were so apt at predicting the future, you’d think they would have foresaw their own demise. Doh!

Imagine if the Mayans did carve something on Apocalypse Island, so they could see the end of the world. Then, a few years after it was done…they were like “Ah, screw it. I’m not waiting. Let’s up and vanish, instead.” The thought seems to disprove the point that the Mayans had any clue about anything.

In an odd defense of Bob Etheridge and his assault on a student who asked him a question, Barry Saunders admits to abusing animals.

Most guys who’ve ever dated a woman with a pet they didn’t like know how to surreptitiously poke Fluffy or elbow it in the ribs while appearing to caress it.

(Note to the woman he’s dating: Yeah, you might not want him to look after Fluffy for the weekend. It might end up in the freezer.)

That’s quite the defense, I suppose. A lot of analogies could be made here, I think (So that’s how Democrats treat voters!, So that’s how politicians treat tax payers!, etc etc etc) but I think this little comment here – which apparently he thinks is somewhat normal – betrays his true feelings.

Instead of ignoring the kid on the street (Etheridge is, of course, under no obligation to answer or even acknowledge the person), he grabs his wrist, steals his phone and goes all creeper on him. Fluffy deserved to be poked, and elbowed for doing, um, nothing wrong.

In the rest of the column, Saunders seems to be obsessed with the students for not having a face. He mentions it 6 or 7 times. There might be some further issues here to discuss, but that’d really be between him and his therapist, I’m sure.

In the mean time, I’d like to invite PETA to denounce Saunders for admitting to casual animal abuse.

This guy is just amazing. I love him. The one thing you can never say about this guy is that he’s never talking from his heart. No teleprompters. No um’ing or ah’ing. Or politically correct bull crap. Just the honest truth. This clip is almost 7 minutes of it. Forget Romney or Palin or (eek!) Huckabee – I hope this guy runs for President in 2012. Him and Jindal.

While the national Republican Party is incompetent, these two men communicate small government principles better than anyone else out there that I’ve seen in a very long time. Christie is out there fighting obscene union benefits and cutting the pork laden NJ budget – and watching him give a speech – it’s just incredible. And look at the audience. Smiling, nodding and attentive. They know he’s sincere in what he’s saying and they know what he’s saying is the truth.

The day of reckoning is here. The fat man is singing it every day.

Also, homeless man tells Christie how awesome he is.

h/t Instapundit.

So that’s Senate Candidate Alvin Greene on Olbermann the other night. Wow. Ooookay.

Let’s get a few things straight. Yes, he’s obviously unprepared. One could argue he’s mentally disabled, I guess. So how did he get to be candidate for Senate in South Carolina?

First, let’s go thru the conspiracy theory that he’s a Republican plant.

Let’s assume he’s a plant. So, the GOP put this guy out there, hoping he’d get the nomination. Did the Republicans send him any money? No. Did they vote for him? No. Do the moronic Republicans even seem capable of pulling something like this off? No. The theory just doesn’t wash on any level at all.

The far more plausible theory is, is that democrat voters are mindless robots. His name was top on the ballot, given that there was no incumbent on the Democrat side. Lazy voters just picked the first name they saw and went with it. That is far more plausible than a Republican plant (and it’s not even the first time it has happened). It’s something Democrats obviously don’t want to hear – but that’s normal for them . Coming to terms with reality has never been their strong point.

So, in that light, let’s think about Clyburn’s call for an investigation into the vote. The exact same people who voted for Greene voted for Clyburn – especially in the primary. So are both results questionable, or is just Greene’s?  Are Democrats in SC simply not capable of voting properly? If so, should Clyburn’s election also be put into doubt?

Let’s take it even further. What’s so bad about Greene? He says he’s a lifelong Democrat. One would presume he’d be a reliable vote for anything he’s told to vote for. Seems to me, he’s exactly what Democrats want up there. How is he different than, say, John Kerry? Or Al Franken? His voting record would probably be near identical to theirs. He’s a perfect fit into the caucus. Just another nameless/faceless automaton in the Senate – voting for whatever he’s told to vote for. He’s the perfect distillation of what  the Democrats want – mindless, obedient, reliable, no ambition. How is he any different than, say, Cynthia McKinney? Or Maxine Waters?

Really, does it scare them that the logical conclusion of their beliefs is people like Alvin Greene? Or is it that they just don’t want him to the face of it? Why do they tolerate people like Maxine Waters? or Cynthia McKinney?

Final thought on the Olbermann interview. Did Greene really say anything more stupid than what Olbermann says on a nightly basis? Or Maddow? Or Leg Thrill Matthews?