Monday, July 1, 2013

Sit Down, Wendy Davis.

The following article was penned earlier this evening. The photos and editorials from the protests in Austin are courtesy of the bottle of wine I found chilling in my crisper. 
Still went home alone.
Were you drunk when you made this sign? 
You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores
Is it that the government is small enough or that you're...?
Just one? Now we know why you're there...

Today, the Texas legislature began its second special session. The issue on the lips of people the world over to be determined during this session? Abortion rights. The bill at hand was presented to be voted on by the Senate last week, but due to a catheter-using, pink-shoe-wearing nightmare of a woman and her loud-mouthed followers, the bill could not be voted on in time to make it under the deadline for the initial special session. Not to be outdone, Governor Rick Perry called a second session to show that obnoxious anarchists would not act as a determining factor in Texas legislation under his watch.
So what does this bill really say? It states that abortions after 20 weeks would be banned in the state of Texas. That is 5 months. A woman has 5 months to decide if she would like to have an abortion. Additionally, it would raise the standards for those clinics providing the abortions to make them safer for women receiving the procedures. Part of this would necessitate that the performing physician have admitting rights at a hospital within 30 miles of where the procedure would take place. Due to geographic locations, this would hurt most clinics. Only 5 would be left running as they would be the only ones able to comply with these stringent new rules.
Also, for the record, this is a fetus at 20 weeks gestation. And yes, that is a face, not a clump of cells.

According to the internet and MSM in general, 99.9999% of the world wants to see this bill go down. However, according to a poll conducted by the University of Texas and the Texas Tribune, 16% of Texans favor an outright ban on abortion, 30% only in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother's life and 13% only where need is established; comprising 59% of Texas voters surveyed. Thirty-six percent of voters surveyed thought it should be left to personal choice and 5% didn't know. Furthermore, 38% of voters surveyed thought that Texas abortion laws should be more strict and 21% thought they should be left as is. Only 26% favored lessening the current restrictions. Sixty-two percent of voters surveyed said they would support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks on the grounds that a fetus could feel pain with 49% strongly supporting that position. Even without the qualification of the fetus' ability to feel pain, 62% still supported a ban after 20 weeks with 47% saying they would strongly support the ban.
In 2008, the Allen Guttmacher Institute (Planned Parenthood's research affiliate) reported 1.21 million abortions were performed in the United States alone. While the CDC compiles its own figures, a number of states fail to contribute their statistics, leaving the numbers hopelessly skewed. A common argument for allowing abortions is "what about victims of rape and incest?" Rape and incest comprise approximately 1% of all abortions performed and according to the 1987 by the institute, 95%  of that 1% claimed a motive beyond the rape or incest for wanting the procedure. In 2004, an updated study by the Guttmacher Institute found that 92% of the women surveyed sought out a medical abortion for "social or other reasons", that is to say, medically unnecessary for the health of both the mother and child. "Social" reasons ranged from not being able to afford a child to not wanting to be a single parent and even to not feeling mature enough to have a child (but they were mature enough to have sex, go figure.)
The remaining eight percent was left with 4% of mother's fearing for their health, 3% fearing for the fetus's and 1% for rape/incest.
Anytime this issue is adressed, it seems to become a "war on women" with men trying to control the bodies of their fairer counterparts. However, I propose that in seeking to limit the scope of abortionists, the politicians are not mounting a war on women, but attempting to diffuse a war against people of color. Hear me out. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a devout racist. In a 1939 letter she penned, she said "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population?" While democrats like Barack Obama laud Ms Sanger's establishment of the clinic, they fail to adress this inconvenient fact alongside the fact that many of her clinics have come to reside in urban neighborhoods much less frequented by white faces. According to the US Census, in 2007 of all white women in the United states age 15-44, the abortion rate was 13.8 per 1,000 women. Among African Americans, the abortion rate was 48.2 abortions per 1,000 women, just shy of 4 times the rate in white women. For other races, the abortion rate was 21.6 per 1,000 women, almost twice the rate of white women.
According to Gallup polling, currently, approximately 48% of Americans identify as pro-life and 45% identifying as pro-choice. An inconvenient truth for the likes of Wendy Davis? Maybe, but she'll be dammed if she's going to let the public know THAT statistic.
If you are at all squeamish, look no further. A huge part of the aim of SB5 is to improve the quality of facilities and doctor performing these operations to prevent abortionists like Kermit Gosnell from harmng Texas women. The following is just a few pictures from his little shop of horrors.
(Clockwise from top right) A refridgerator with parts of aborted fetuses, an aborted fetus that was approximately 30 weeks old and was joked by Gosnell to be "Big enough to walk to the bus stop", another aborted fetus and the snipped spinal cord of a baby that was "aborted"

Waiting room Gossnell's patients (victims) waited in prior to their procedures

Many consider Gossnell's atrocities to be a problem that was an outlier in the system  far removed from Texas, but it is not. As late as May 2013, abortionist Douglas Karpen of Houston, TX has been accused of murdering babies able to sustain outside of the womb in late term abortions in his THREE clinics. While his actions are considered illegal under even the current restrictions, cracking down on abortion clinics and more strictly regulating those that do operate would go a long way in preserving the sanctity of life for both the mother and child. 

Thursday, May 9, 2013

A Simplistic Explanation of America's Political Descent

This was for my intro to American government course I took this year. Very shallow analysis, but it was an intro course. 
According to Rasmussen Reports, as of May 2nd, 2013, Barack Obama’s approval rating sits at forty-seven percent, while his disapproval rate is at fifty-two percent. This is the lowest his approval rating has been since his reelection. Further more, only twenty-four percent of the electorate surveyed says that they strongly approve of his performance, while forty percent strongly disapprove of his job performance.[1] This has been blamed on partisan preference, skewed polling results and the fact that the president gets all of the glory in good times and all of the blame in bad times. It is of note though that in modern American politics, substantial portions of the population are always fiercely unhappy with the President, Congress, parties and interest groups, and there is seemingly nothing anyone can to about that. This problem is complex, but for the interest of generality, it should be considered threefold: extreme partisanship, unparalleled dissemination of information via the Internet to the electorate, and misrepresentation of constituents by elected officials.
According to Gallup, presidential approval in modern history peaked with John F Kennedy Jr. with his average approval rating being seventy-point one percent.[2] This could be attributable to his not having served a full term and thus the results of his policies never being fully realized, or it could be directly correlated to his being the first televised presidency that showcased what is thought to be the most charismatic United States president. Previously, presidents had reached out to the masses via print and radio, but never before had a campaign debate been televised. Despite the fact that by all accounts Nixon won the debate on merit, Kennedy won by the fact that he was so much better suited to the camera. From that moment on, public persona came to play a larger role in presidential elections. While affairs were known to pervade the highest office in America, they were never seen as definitive of the president’s term in office. This changed however with the election of Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton came into office after twelve years of republican leadership (and abysmal democratic leadership the previous four years before that). His presidency was however marred by scandal when news of his infidelity with a White House intern broke via the Drudge Report and was later picked up by the more mainstream, The Washington Post.[3] This was really the Internet’s first foray into directly influencing politics. Officially gone were the days that all Americans received their news from the same news outlet with one side of the story being presented. This opened the proverbial Pandora’s box in that the electorate now realized that from the Internet, they could ascertain more information from more sources and compare the facts of positions and issues more easily. From there, the Internet exploded. Debates from the 2012 election were viewed by millions of people the world over live via Google, YouTube, CNN and more with many offering charts at the bottom of the screen that showed electorate approval dipping and peaking as the candidates were speaking. Furthermore, social networks such as Facebook and Twitter played vital roles in this past election in that people on either coast were able to instantaneously communicate with one another and debate amongst themselves. From this, Romney’s “binders of women” and promise to fire Big Bird took on a life of their own as they became blog fodder for weeks after the debates.
The internet, as it relates to politics, is a two edged sword as it allows for the immediate sharing of information from various sources to people all over the world, not just within the confines of the United States. However, it also allows off hand remarks to become overexposed and be ruthlessly torn apart long after they are made. Additionally, the Internet allows for the dissemination of false information that has a tendency to go mainstream. An asterisk to how the Internet has undermined politics must be made to include the sharing of lewd and/or embarrassing pictures of politicians via the Internet. This has done incalculable damage to candidates and their respective parties. Essentially, the proliferation of television, and now the Internet, has allowed the electorate to see every flaw of politicians and blow them out of proportion.
The cynicism and disappointment coming from the electorate cannot be solely based upon the Internet however. Partisanship has been crucial in the devolution of modern politics. In the mid 19th century, the United States divided into the North (The Union) and the South  (The Confederates). These were essentially different countries, but were in fact still one in the same. These factions were divided on the basis of what was at its basest level, political ideological differences, with elements of racism and state pride mixed in. Today, democrats and republicans have split off into two separate factions of their own, with their own respective network news stations, websites and clubs. This fracture that has split America has led to violence, racism and class-warfare that has more in common with the Civil War than most would care to admit. One of the main differences would be that the Southern states tend to lean Republican this time around, whereas they were previously largely democratic.
The average voter has never heard of the delegate, trustee and responsible parties models. Research suggests that on easier to understand issues (i.e. racial issues, etc…) voters would prefer that their elected officials acted as delegates, directly representing the beliefs and wishes of their constituents when voting. On issues of economics, discerning a stance can prove too taxing for many average voters, so they trust that through the trustee model that their representative will vote how he or she thinks most of the constituents would vote were they to fully understand the matter at hand. Lastly, many voters would have their elected official vote with their party alignment on matters of foreign affairs so as to more easily assign blame and gratitude.[4]  However, voters do not and will not ever understand the nuances of these three models and no entire constituency will be comfortable with how their elected official chooses to apply them to their own voting. On some level, yes, the political elites have become too far removed from the people that they represent, especially in a day in age when career politicians reign supreme. Votes tend to be cast often times for political reasons with little to no regard for the stance of their constituency. Members of congress needing support for a bill may solicit votes from fellow members in exchange for help with a bill they are spear heading. An interest group could  influence a member of congress to vote contrary to what the people who elected him or her would want him to. Whether or not this is an example of failure on the part of political elites or a testament to the power of interest groups and lobbyists is up for debate.
Congress tends to be the most directly linked to the American people, causing this particular branch to take the majority of the flack. However, the executive office is far from immune to the sting of the scorned electorate. In short terms, it could easily be argued that a lot of Americans do not know what the job of the president entails. If the economy is bad, it is the president’s fault. If the price of gas increases, it is the president’s fault. If it rains on a picnic, it is the president’s fault. This is a position with significant power not only within the United States, but also in the world. This position is not however God, something people seem to forget. President Obama is inextricably linked too much of the policy making in this country as he has the power to veto legislation, influence policy and act as the face of America for foreign affairs. With his spearheading of the very controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he is rightly lauded by his fans and raked across the coals by his opponents. This legislation was the basis of his 2008 campaign and the finishing of it a substantial portion of his 2012 platform. In this instance, it is not unreasonable for voters to hold the executive office accountable. To blame President Bush for the entirety of the recession was not, but more simplistically minded voters did not understand the abstracts of the situation and did just that.
 Until the American voting pool becomes more educated, it will continue to demand more from politicians than they can possibly give. It is completely reasonable to expect congressional members to vote in the way they were elected to do, but they cannot be held responsible for pleasing everyone. While the president can have a great effect on many aspects of policy and legislation, this position is not solely responsible for every aspect of government, a fact that many Americans should be made aware of.
To put it simply, the political elites have largely failed. While it can be hard to discern exactly what constituents want from their elected officials, it can be argued that the elected officials are not really even trying to figure that out anymore.  Career politician has become an unofficial job title with, at the federal level, no term limits on those elected to congress, the body of government supposedly most relatable to the average person. Sadly, these career politicians care most about reelection and with Americans reelecting ninety percent of United State House incumbents and ninety-one percent of United States Senate incumbents, once elected they’re pretty much set. Americans are so busy bickering in the comments section of Yahoo articles and buying bumper stickers to reflect their political ideology that they do not take the time to ensure that the person they are putting into office adequately reflects their own views. This leads directly into the problem of partisanship, as Republican voters tend to vote for the Republican candidate and Democrat voters for the democrat candidate, regardless of their specific policy preferences. Because politicians realize this, once elected they tend to do what they want once in Washington, regardless of what their constituents would want from them. Sure, once they are in office they will go to a few parades in their district and make everyone feel special because they got to meet Senator X and he shook their hand and was a real nice guy. Then they go back up to Washington and fail their constituents again. That same voter who had the best handshake of his or her life will read about how a bill that they felt so passionately for was defeated and they will curse congress and the president and God and everyone, but they won’t check to see how their elected official voted. They will not see that he was part of the majority that voted against the bill. So then come the next election they will vote him back into office and the cycle continues.
While the founding fathers would have never in their wildest dreams have imagined the globalization and technological advances that now play an inextricable role in American politics, they did see partisanship as a great danger. Federalist No. 10 is evidence that the founders of this country had no intentions of American politics being as partisan as it has become. In its very first lines, the document says that “among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice”.[5] This is to say that fervent opponent of factionalism and author of this paper, James Madison, saw it as one of the chief duties of any adequate union to prevent and/or stop the proliferation of factions, as they would work to weaken the union. The pessimism towards the government has a great many sources, but is deeply rooted in the extreme partisanship that has divided states, cities and even at times families within America.
Every branch of the political system must work to restore the public’s confidence in the system, or else it is doomed to further deteriorate. The office of the president should lead by example in overhauling its own image. Lofty campaign promises are made, but seldom kept. In President Obama’s first bid for the White House, he promised an improved economy, a prompt evacuation of American troops from Middle Eastern countries and transparency throughout. Whether or not his promises were well intended, they were not put into practice on the timetable he had given or in some cases, at all. This caused him to lose a rather substantial number of formerly ardent supporters as the hope and change they had voted for was slow coming.
Congress bears what is arguably the brunt of public scorn as these people are more accessible to the average voter than offices such as the presidency. In order to restore public confidence in congress, representatives and senators would do well to be more in tune with and available to their constituency. In a day in which members of congress vote on whims or to comply with a fellow congress member or interest group, voters feel that they have no real say in policy, a feeling that generates extreme apathy.
American politics has been condensed down to a two party system with various other, smaller factions that have little power other than to detract votes from the mainstream parties. These two parties, the GOP and Democratic Party, are accountable for nearly everything good and bad that their respective members do. Because of this, when a Republican congressman says something to the effect of rape acting as its own form of birth control, the entire GOP takes the heat from the media, democratic elites and inevitably the American people. The same can be said of scandals within the Democratic Party. These slip-ups seem to be becoming more and more frequent, but are in large part garnering this level of publicity because the other party’s incessant attempts to denigrate the opposition and the media being ever willing to oblige them. Once this reaches the public, the public finds the party to be more corrupt than they had previously thought and can become disenfranchised with the party system. If the parties were able to be less antagonistic of one another, it is possible that bipartisanship of both government elites and the people would be more easily achieved, but that would be a long shot.
Interest groups at their purest form are some of the best-intended aspects of the political system. Their intent is to represent a group of likeminded individuals to perpetuate a belief or cause to a level that reaches the government elites and impacts legislation. However, these groups often distort and corrupt their initial positions in the name of gaining political and/or cultural prominence. They also frequently work to sway votes by congressional members and underhandedly sway policy by all branches of government. Most Americans are blissfully unaware of the power of interest groups, but these groups tend to act as one of the chief problems in legislation not reflecting the wishes of voters. In short, interest groups need more regulation so as to limit their scope of power.
The media has in large part in the last several years been considered an extension of the Obama White House, with Fox News being the glaring exception. Because of this, liberals tend to hear what they want to from the mainstream media, or MSM, while conservatives marvel at its one-sidedness. Gone are the days that bias was said to be the worst quality any reputable news source could have. Today, there are news stations, newspapers, magazines and websites for literally any political bias an American could possibly have. Because of this, people tend to tune into what they consider to be their opinion’s respective news source so that they can hear what they want to hear and then look down on the opposition. This has done more to promote partisanship than either political party could have ever fathomed. While it may be refreshing to hear the news from a like-minded source, this has caused different factions to have entirely different facts on issues and created further political discontentment. If possible, a less polarized media would be one of the best ways to branch the partisan divide in America.
To ask what is wrong with American politics is a question bound to be responded to with snorts of derision. Everyone knows there is a grave problem, but no one is willing to bend enough to make bipartisanship happen. The elites continue to seek power as the people sit idly by, convinced that corruption in Washington has reached the point of no return with the media goading them on in this belief. The problems in D.C. are many, but the ultimate solution to many of these problems would be to take sincere steps towards bipartisanship.

[1] "Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™." Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

[2] "Presidential Approval Ratings -- Gallup Historical Statistics and Trends." Presidential Approval Ratings. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

[3] CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 02 May 2013.

[4] Jillson, Calvin C. American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.

[5] Jillson, Calvin C. American Government: Political Development and Institutional Change. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print.

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Hugo Chavez- Another Dictator Bites The Dust

Imagine you are drowning, and then someone starts asking you to group, list and tell minute differences between things that are is essence the same effing thing: That is what it is like studying for the LSAT. That is why I no longer have friends or free time and why this blog has been so neglected.
In international news, yesterday the world lost the dictator Hugo Chavez, causing a few of the Hollywood bleeding hearts to lose a few extra drops today. Below is a list of just some of the friends Chavez had in American celebrities.

Michael Moore
"54 countries around the world allowed the US to detain(& torture) suspects. Latin America, thanks 2 Chávez, was the only place that said no."
Sean Penn
"Today the people of the United States lost a friend it never knew it had. And poor people around the world lost a champion. I lost a friend I was blessed to have. My thoughts are with the family of President Chavez and the people of Venezuela." 
Oliver Stone

''I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place," he said. "Hated by the entrenched classes, 
Hugo Chavez will live forever in history. My friend, rest finally in a peace long earned."

Danny Glover
Danny Glover visited Venezuela along with the SEIU vice president and African-American activists in January 2004. He later met Chavez in January 2006 on a delegation led by actor Harry Belafonte. When Chavez visited New York in September 2006 to address the United Nations General Assembly, Glover introduced Chavez to speak at an oil-for-poor event at a Harlem church. In May 2007, the Venezuelan parliament approved $20 million to finance two Glover films, including the movie "Toussaint". Glover has also appeared on Chavez's television and radio show, "Alo Presidente!"
Kevin Spacey
Spacey went to Venezuelan in September 2007 for a three-hour meeting with Hugo Chavez. In addition to the private meeting, Spacey toured a Venezuelan film studio, just at the time that Chavez was touting the Venezuelan film industry as an alternative to Hollywood filmmaking. 
Naomi Campbell
Campbell came away from her November 2007 meeting with Hugo Chavez calling him a "rebel angel." Campbell interviewed Chavez as a contributing editor for British GQ magazine. She asked Chavez if he would ever pose shirtless like judo master and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and Chavez said, "Why not? Touch my muscles!" They bonded over their hatred of then President Bush "I found him [Chavez] to be fearless, but not threatening or unreasonable," she wrote. "I hope Venezuela's relations with America will improve in the immediate future." 
Courtney Love
When Hugo Chavez went to address the United Nations General Assembly in September 2009, he attended an exhibition of Oliver Stone's film "South of the Border." It was here that he met up with Hole singer Courtney Love, who was easily charmed by the leader. Love later said that Chavez was checking her out after the film Q&A. "It was the third wink that sold me," Love said. "He's a sexy dawg. He invited me to visit his country and I'd like to go. I'll rock Caracas!" 

“If I were American, I’d vote for Obama.”- Hugo Chavez
Fair weather friends to be sure, but were he American, Chavez wouldn't have gotten behind America's comeback team. Shocker.

On an international policy stand point, this is great, regardless of what Hollywood and communist sympathizers would have you believe. will this lead to peace or just more turmoil in the nation? Stay tuned...

Monday, January 21, 2013

It's 9:39pm and Obama Still Sucks

Today was the most depressing day of the year. Allegedly it had nothing to do with Obama being sworn in for a second term, but I'm not 100% on that. Rather than watch liberal-fest in Washington, I partook in some other more worthwhile endeavors:

7am: I awoke to a kidney kick from my Yorkie, let her out of my room for someone else to deal with and went back to sleep
9am: My mother called me (On my phone... I'm serious) from downstairs to wake me up
12pm: I saw "Mama"- It had its good moments, but I wasn't all that jazzed about the special effects.
2pm: I played with my dog for an hour
3pm: I took a three hour nap
6pm: I ate dinner
6:30-now: I watched trashy TV

Do you see the picture I am painting for you? I had to be extra slovenly to avoid what was all over TV all day. Really put me out.

This photo is of the 2009 Inauguration Day crowds in which it is estimate 1.8 million people attended. Gag me with a spoon much? I haven't been able to find anything from this same angle from today, but about 800,000 fewer people are thought to have attended this go-around. That's a substantial number. Could the higher turn out last time be attributed to the novelty of electing the first African American president in 2008? Waning popularity in 2013? Economic factors impacting the ease of travel for many in 2013? Were people, like Miss America, wary of the cold? Could people just be seeing through his BS finally? Who knows. 

What I do know is that the only former presidents in attendance were former President Carter and Hillary Clinton's husband who used to be president, Bill Clinton. George HW Bush's recent illness prevented his attendance and is thought to have been his son's reason for not attending, although no official reason was given. Also, contrary to convention, Mitt Romney failed to show citing work conflicts. Unlike Obama, Mitt Romney works for what he has so I'd consider that a valid excuse. Oprah also wasn't there due to a conflict with a speaking engagement. Maybe the rumors of MO being jealous of the Queen of Talk's relationship with BO are true? Who cares. 

This was kind of funny though because you can tell her mom is like "Stahp it!" Kid's got moves. 

1,460 days until Inauguration Day 2017...

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

My Hiatus Comes To A Close, The Obama Campaign's Ungratefulness Does Not

Wahhh wahhhhhh

My epic hiatus is finally (almost) over. Between finals back in December, recruitment now and catching up on sleep all break, it's been a hectic couple of months. However, once school resumes I plan to be back to normal.
Some things that between then and now that have annoyed me:

  • Hillary Clinton's various maladies holding off her testifying on the Benghazi scandal until January 23rd
  • So much talk of gun bans, revoking the second amendment and the exploitation of the Sandy Hook tragedy by anti-gun activists to further their agenda
  • Taxes being raised on 77% of Americans- but I mean hahahah to the Obama supporters who wanted the "rich" taxed into poverty and taxes reduced for everyone else probably got jacked on your last paycheck too. HOPE! CHANGE! FORWARD!
  • The fiscal cliff debacle was obnoxious
  • Like seventy-five million other things- this is going to be a LONG next four years...

Just a mini post for today coming from the liberal-biased, yet amusing, Buzzfeed, which is reporting that former staffers for the Obama campaign are none to pleased with their former boss.
Despite my indignation at their cause, I know these people worked harder leading up to the election than a stripper the day before rent was due. Because of this, it is natural to assume that they would be compensated for getting this know-nothing into office, correct? Wrong. This was basically the message coming from the presidential inaugural committee and the Obama campaign in general to them.
For one thing, they did not let them know details necessary for making travel plans to attend the inauguration of the candidate they helped get into office until last week, when travel costs would have been significantly higher than had they been made in November when it was evident there would be yet another Obama inauguration. Additionally, only a very limited number of staffers were able to get their hands on tickets for the 35,000 person inaugural ball being held and are being charged $10 a piece to attend the official staff inaugural ball, leaving some of them worried about how skimpy it may be if $10 per person covers costs. More salt in the wound? Romney staffers were paid better, had their last pay check several weeks after the election (as opposed to Obama staffers who were cut off the Friday following the election) and Obama staffers saw their health insurance cut-off in November. This is in addition to them having taken pay cuts of up to $30,000 to work on the campaign. As of now, a significant number of them remain unemployed.
In response to these allegations, DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse tweeted the following:
Pretty uncool, right? Stay classy, Obama.