Monday, July 27, 2015


obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, san francisco, pee, urine, paint, splashback
No, no - you're not "missing the joke." This is just a factual illustration for the story below!

From time to time, Hope n' Change has endeavored to bring you "Good News Fridays" and failed miserably. Seriously, it's hard enough to find any good news without also needing the cosmic roulette wheel to have it happen on a Friday. Which is why we're presenting a genuine good news story today!

Specifically, San Francisco has been trying to cope with a serious problem. We're not referring to their sanctuary city status, their uber-liberal politics, or even all the environmental damage done by Nancy Pelosi when she takes San Francisco soil back to Washington to put in the coffin where she sleeps during the day.

No, the problem we're talking about is whizzing on walls, which apparently creates a massive citywide stench, various health hazards, and slippery puddles. And the solution is brilliant: the city's public works department is testing pee-resistant paint on the most peed-upon walls, causing the streams to splash back on the perpetrators - thereby protecting property, teaching a valuable civic lesson, and assuring that Youtube will never run out of hilarious videos!

But as much as we love this idea, we don't think the whole "splashback" concept is being taken far enough yet...

Why not be more liberal (no pun intended) with its use in San Francisco, so that the officials who release criminals and killers might enjoy a little splashback from the actions of those they set free?

How about painting a few Planned Parenthood clinics, so that the (ahem) "physicians" within get some splashback when their own organs become negotiable commodities?

For that matter, Hope n' Change would like to see this miracle paint used to cover every structure in Washington so that those who make our laws would get splashback and have to live under those very same laws.  If you think someone peeing on their own shoes is funny, imagine the hilarious shrieking when Senators and Representatives have to cope with Obamacare! Or when they discover that the money to pay for their many benefits will run dry next year, like the Social Security Disability benefits program!

Of course, at the White House (which could even pick a new color at painting time!) the splashback would be absolutely spectacular - with illegal (and possibly criminal) aliens free to come and go, Michelle picking reluctantly at her own appalling school lunches, and Barry repeatedly getting the hot spray of his own racism splashing back on his wingtip shoes and impressively creased pants.

Best of all, none of this has to cost taxpayers a nickel! Hope n' Change suggests a Kickstarter-style campaign in which the splashback paint is voluntarily paid for by Americans who are pissed off after being pissed on.

We're guessing we can have the whole thing paid for by noon today.


George in Houtx said...

Stilton, I do like your idea about using that paint in D.C. however, I think the desired results could be attained in San Fran as well as D.C. if the maintenance crews would install a shock line in areas to be protected. a country boy knows about shock lines. for city folks, a shock line is a way of delivering an electrical jolt to anything that touches said line / wire. think of a tazer to the penis!

Fred Ciampi said...

What a fantastic idea! Splashback = payback. If all lawmakers were subject to their own idiotic laws what a wonderful world this would be. Couldn't you just see a member of legislative branch attempting to fill an obummercare form on line? What joy that would be to watch. Ahh, the sight of Nancy Pelosi flying coach ........ this is the stuff dreams are made of. Jerry Brown having to ration his own water due to his lack of planning and foresight. I think I'm going to swoon......

Like it has been said many times here and on other forums; if lawmakers had to live under their own laws and draw salaries that represent the national average our country would turn around in a day.

TrickyRicky said...

Stilton, Stilton, Stilton. I must say I am a bit worried about you. I mean really, the beltway elite living under the laws with which they have encumbered us lowly peons? It's a bit early for the "coffee" isn't it?

Wahoo said...

I'd be in favor of an experimental "breakaway" outer wall that collapses onto the culprit when peeded on, squashing the cholo like a cucarhacha.

Colby Muenster said...

Where do I send the check!? I'd gladly go without eating for a week to see some of these politicians being forced to live like us serfs, and reaping the "benefits" of their stupidass, namby-pamby policies. Sanctuary cities, my big ol' hairy butt!

Speaking of that, did anyone catch Jesse Watters addressing the SanFran Board of Liberal BS (or whatever the yare called)? I wish our "president" had those kind of balls.

Geoff King said...

Reverse sexism paint! This could backfire if men simply start peeing in the streets like they do in Paris.

A. Dumas said...

The assumption being that those who urinate on walls are not intelligent enough to learn to aim at an angle and direct the splash away from them?

Gosh, but these folks running San Francisco are some smart fellers...ain't they?

Bruce Bleu said...

Idunno, Stilt, your idea here has me thinking I should start supporting the Detroit Pisstons, referring to lamont and his ilk as being pissillanimous maggots, and trying to be a "whiz" at those things I attempt.

Rod said...

Good ole country boys who have learned to not piss-up the ground right outside the shop door (or don't like to get their dicks cold in winter) have learned to pee in old water jugs & save the stuff up for all kinds of handy and offensive purposes. When it turns dark yellow and starts getting clumps in it, it's ready.

Anonymous said...

If urine San Francisco, what are you? European.


Anonymous said...

So all these wall-pee-ers won't figure out that they can just stand on the curb and pee directly into the streets? And what about hydrants? Is the city going to paint all the hydrants with this stuff? So it can splash back onto all the male dogs? This has endless comic possibilities.

And this has great possibilities for Islam, where every time they say Allah, they add PBUH. Except now it will stand for Piss Be Upon Him. :)

John the Econ said...

As humorous as this seems, I find it a rather an uncharacteristically hostile assault upon the "urban outdoorspeople" for a city that is as sensitive and progressive as San Francisco. Perhaps that is why it's so funny.

That said, it's also a rather short-sighted solution to the problem. After all, how long do they think it will it take for the urban outdoorspeople to identify the treated surfaces and then move on to relieve themselves on other people's untreated surfaces? Oh, yeah. Progressives aren't very good at predicting the future behavior of peoples in response to short-sighted policies, are they? Are they going to paint the entire city with this stuff?

Better, cheaper, and more permanent solutions might be like those undertaken by New York City during the Giuliani era. Pre-Giuliani, there were few public spaces in New York City that did not overwhelmingly reek of urine, or worse. Alas, sensitive Progressives in San Francisco would probably find those solutions far to fascist for their tastes, as does the current administration in New York. So I expect New York City to begin to smell like San Francisco again. Either that, or I should be purchasing stock in the company that makes the pee-resistant paint.

The more salient point that @Stilton brings up is the fundamental problem of how our our Progressive betters insulate themselves from the consequences of the "solutions" that they constantly attempt to impose upon the rest of us. This phenomenon always makes me think of uber-leftist and eco-fascist Barbra Streisand who commutes everywhere in her a carbon-spewing Winnebago just so that she doesn't have to use public restrooms with the common folk like you and I, or the lawyers who fought to make the People's Republic of Santa Monica a homeless "sanctuary city" while they live safely uphill ensconced behind guarded gates in exclusive Brentwood. I could go on for weeks with such examples, but I think you get the point.

In a truly egalitarian society like the Progressives say they want for us, the problems we discuss here would be everyone's problems. And yet, they aren't. The harder they work to solve the problems, they also work to insulate themselves from them. For decades, I've argued that if Washington DC was located somewhere south, say like near El Paso, TX, we'd have a much different immigration policy than the non-policy we have today. If I were to take a leak outside of Nancy Pelosi's office, I have little doubt that I'd get much different treatment than I'd get if I took a leak outside of home of the average resident of San Francisco.


John the Econ said...


Perhaps this is why Donald Trump is leading in the polls. True, Trump is an arrogant elitist who is just as well insulated from reality as anybody. But he's also the only candidate out there pointing out the hypocrisy of the establishment. I don't think anybody (sane) wants Trump as President. But he's the only one out going where the squishies dare not tread. He's currently a protest vote that has everyone on both sides freaked out. The left is fantasizing a Ross Perot-like situation where the GOP jettisons Trump who then goes independent and splits the GOP vote like in '92. My hope is that the reality will be that the threat of Trump forces both sides to start taking hard positions on issues like immigration. Right now, neither seem willing to. They all think they can ride this thing out.

Meanwhile, they offer us splash-back paint.

Social Security: Since long before I even entertained an education in economics, I had come to the conclusion Social Security was a unsustainable Ponzi scheme and that it was only a matter of time before it was converted into just another means-tested welfare program where you wouldn't be eligible to collect until you were certifiably poor. There never was a "lock box" containing the 12.4% of your gross wages that taken from you during your working lifetime. The Econ family has always assumed that by the time we hit retirement age, this would be the case and if we were to ever actually collect anything, it would probably be enough to cover an extra trip per-month to the Golden Corral for a Saturday afternoon buffet.

John the Econ said...

A little Obama news: Was I the only one who had to hold his lunch back when he lectured Kenyans on "democracy, corruption, and getting along with others"?

He did crack a joke about how now that he flies around on Air Force One, his luggage doesn't get lost anymore.

Well, at least that's better than lecturing them about how they shouldn't aspire to owning cars or homes with air conditioning for the sake of the planet before he jets off on the world's most expensive private jet for his next vacation or round of golf.

Colby Muenster said...

@Fred Ciampi,
Silly man... Jerry Brown drinks Zapple and Boones Farm Strawberry, not water. And you know why Nan refuses to retire? She'd have to go back to flying a broom.

Anybody see the movie San Andreas? It's billed as a disaster movie, but I think it's a futuristic view of one of my deepest fantasies. I wonder if there are similar geological features just west of DC about a mile????

Sergio said...

I'd rather be pissed in England than in the US. SF is in the Golden (shower) State

Joseph ET said...

San Francisco, is the largest loony bin in the entire United States! This is where you can abort children but cannot keep a goldfish. One Commissioner said she was concerned that the goldfish would be stuck in the bay after being flushed down the toilet. (she has been watching movies and doesn’t know what happens after the flushing process). SFO has also banned Plastic bottles, Styrofoam takeaway containers, Plastic bags, Tobacco sales at pharmacies, Loitering in front of nightclubs, city employee travel to Arizona in protest at the new immigration law passed there, Happy Meals and the Yellow Pages.
I remember in the 1960s and 1970s one would opt for a plastic bag over a paper bag to “save the trees”.

And coming soon to California you can take rail from the boondocks to Timbuktu and get there really fast with their new bullet train. They are spending billions on high speed rail when it needs to be used to repair or improve the levees. When they do eventually get the big rains they need, there will be massive flooding in or near Sacramento.

Joseph ET said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John the Econ said...

@Joeeph ET, and the state is a place run by a guy who labels those who don't buy into the Democrat's fascist carbon agenda or reject Obama's open borders non-policy as "troglodytes" and "un-Christian".

Oh, I see. Pointing out obvious leftist failure and hypocrisy is "unevolved". And after decades of Progressives purging Christianity from any public policy debate, all of a sudden we're supposed to be granting unqualified amnesty because it's the "Christian" thing to do? Seriously?

This from a guy who helped kill California's water projects back in the '70s, and now runs a state with double the population that is running out of water. So if Californians can't flush their toilets come next year, it's not because a state with nearly 40-million people didn't invest in its storage capacity when they could and should have, but because of "climate change". And in too many communities today, even the oh-so-evolved San Francisco, it's no longer impossible to ignore the costs being imposed upon ordinary citizens by our de-facto open borders.

The San Franciscans who overwhelmingly vote for this insanity deserve what they're now getting. Unfortunately, when it all goes to hell, the rich San Franciscans that financially support this insanity will simply leave, leaving the impoverished hell-hole that is left to those who can't. It's truly ironic that a century and a half ago, Mexico basically abandoned California as hostile and largely uninhabitable. It was Americans who turned it into the golden state. Now that they're going down the tubes, La Raza wants it back. They can have it.

Dave from The Cheese Head Nation said...

The comments on this site are informative and humorous. I enjoy reading them every day. Keep up the fine work everyone.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@George in Houtx- Now you're talking Youtube gold!

@Fred Ciampi- Although I treated the subject in a frivolous way, I couldn't be more sincere about politicians being forced to live under the same rules and laws they enact for everyone else. As you say, in the course of a day we'd be living in an entirely different country.

@TrickyRicky- It may have been too early for "coffee" when you read today's commentary, but wasn't when I wrote it. (grin)

@Wahoo- See, this is the sort of creative synergy that our nation needs more of.

@Colby Muenster- I get puzzled when people use the words "president" and "balls" in the same sentence...

@Geoff King- You bring up a good point; where will the great unwashed pee when the walls have been painted? Heaven forbid that the people of San Francisco actually have to undergo potty training.

@Bruce Bleu- I like your stream of consciousness. So to speak.

@Rod- See, this is the very essence of "thinking green." Save your pee until it turns green, and then pour it where it will do the most good.

@Chish McFicken- Ba-da-boom!

@Anonymous- I'm thinking San Francisco should just go crazy and put up some portable toilets with Rice-a-Roni ads on them.

@John the Econ- I'd never heard the Barbara Streisand story before, and it's a perfect example of leftist hypocrisy. The anti-environmental footprint Babs is leaving ain't just carbon...

Regarding Trump, I echo your thoughts. No way do I want him as president, but I don't mind him saying REAL THINGS and forcing others to do the same. Political correctness is killing us, and maybe it takes a billionaire to shake things up.

Social Security: Again, I feel the same way and have lived my entire life saving (and not spending) so that my family won't have to rely on government promises. Our lives could have been very different if I'd felt free to spend more - so it's ironic that now I'm seen as an evil "wealth hoarder" who should lose eventual benefits because I put money away.

Kenya: Obama shouldn't be lecturing anyone on honest government. Nor should he be whining about the "discrimination" he's faced as an alleged black man in America.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Colby Muenster- Isn't it odd how many liberals who swear by climate change "science" still choose to live on the mother of all fault lines?

@Sergio- Yes, in the UK getting pissed can be perfectly pleasant, and isn't a form of "water sport."

@Joseph ET- I've heard many people say that San Francisco is a beautiful city, but owing to the politics I'd never voluntarily go there and give them a nickel of my money.

@A.Dumas- (Sorry, I inadvertently skipped you in the response above) You make an excellent point; even San Franciscans (or guest criminals from elsewhere in the world) should be able to figure out the "safe" angle of attack over the course of a single good whiz. Although fights caused by peeing on some other guy's shoes could help reduce the population of street urinators.

@John the Econ- California should change its motto to "The Self-Inflicted Wound State." Although as you say, the influential people will be able to avoid the consequences of their own arrogant actions.

@Dave from The Cheese Head Nation- You're right, this is a good site! (Grin) And in complete seriousness, I give huge credit to the community of regulars who keep this comment section smart, lively and funny!

John the Econ said...

@Stilton, Babs is a textbook case of elitist Progressive hypocrisy. Do remember that there's even a meme named after her, the "Streisand Effect"; the result of her trying to keep her Malibu mansion out of the public eye. Seriously, how can any sentient being lecture people about the immorality of owning an SUV while concurrently commuting everywhere in a Winnebago just because they don't like public rest rooms unless they are either mentally ill or they honestly believe that they are somehow superior to the rest of us?

An amusing aside that I'll share because the statute of limitations is probably up on it: Years before the Streisand Effect episode, her eco-hypocrisy was already well recognized as well as the existence and location of her Al Gore scale carbon footprint mansion. Over drinks with some like-minded friends discussing such hypocrisy, we contemplated a methodology for literally measuring Babs carbon footprint by traversing infra-red or laser beams over the home's half-dozen or so chimneys to measure emissions. (Around this time, the State of California was actually considering deploying such technology on streets and highways to measure emissions from individual automobiles as they passed by) Our plan would theoretically be done by soliciting the cooperation of like-minded people living around Babs where transmitters on one side and a receivers on the other would intersect with one or more of her chimneys and emissions from them could be measured and recorded over time. Of course, this was all theoretical and without a large pool of willing participants and a certain amount of time and money invested, impractical. (But even it it wasn't, I'm not sure any aspect of doing so would have been illegal - in fact, we were well ahead of the curve as "Carbon Shaming" was years away from coming into vogue, albeit certainly not intended for use against Progressives) But we did think it would be fun to leak a solicitation for geographically convenient neighbors in Malibu on the Internet in hopes that it would get back to Babs to make her paranoid. (Which as we were to later discover she really was) The alternate goal would have been to see if it were possible to evoke a public reaction to our plan, then it might have been possible to get a reading as to whether Babs was a true Progressive elitist snob, just simply crazy, or both. As the $50-million lawsuit against a photographer proved, it was hard to tell. Sometimes, it's a very fuzzy line.

John the Econ said...

On Trump: "...maybe it takes a billionaire to shake things up."

Maybe, and certainly one that doesn't care about the consequences of doing so. I think Trump is at a point in his life where he's got all the money he wants or needs (even it it's probably a fraction of how much he says he's worth) and so unlike with most of the others in the race, the professional consequences don't matter much to him. People like this are politically dangerous, which is one reason that the bureaucracy works overtime to keep people suppressed. It's also a reason why many establishment billionaires turn on the principles that made them billionaires in order to keep the club elite and exclusive. Trump has spent the better part of his career running with that crowd, and has obviously decided that he doesn't want or care to be socially aligned with them anymore. That is why the establishment politicians, (on both sides) media, and all the other usual suspects are going to do everything they can to destroy him. And that same transparent effort to do so is going to energize the silent majority that is supporting him.

Trump the President would be a disaster rivaling Hillary or Bernie the President. But we certainly have him to thank for making the next year interesting instead of the snorefest it likely would have been without him.

John the Econ said...

Social Security: And that is the danger (aka "unforeseen consequence") of what I think is the inevitable direction Social Security is headed. The "middle class" is going to see the math on the wall; whereas if they live prudently, save and invest for their whole lives, they'll end up with a retirement that will be little better than if they say just "screw it" and not save at all and let welfare exclusively carry them. They'll live big now by buying new cars, bigger houses, better vacations, flashier toys and still end up with $1,200 a month or so to spend when they hit 70 or so. This will certainly keep the consumer economy propped up in the short term, but we'll end up looking like Greece in less than a generation with no Germany or EU willing or able to bail us out.

California: I think of it as the "Ate the Golden Goose State". It once had everything going for it. In another generation after the rich pull out, it will be little better than a third-world country.

ZZMike said...

Add one more enhancement: electrically conductive paint; connect wall to high voltage (low current) source.

John the Econ said...

Speaking of "Carbon Shaming":

Hillary Clinton Launches Global Warming Push, Then Gets on a Private Jet

"Hours after Hillary Clinton delivered a speech Monday outlining how she would combat global warming as president, the Democratic presidential contender was caught on video boarding a private jet. Clinton, just hours earlier, called for cutting carbon emissions and increasing the use of renewable energy, such as solar power.

The plane reportedly burns 347 gallons of jet fuel per hour, costing nearly $6,000 per hour to rent."

So once again, we see how elitists like the Clinton's are dealing with the imminent threat of "climate change". You've been instructed that the only moral thing to do is to turn off your A/C and send your SUV to the crusher for a bicycle, while our moral superiors like the Clintons will continue to travel like this, ultimately on your dime.

And remember, if you think that this is rank hypocrisy and total BS, then the establishment thinks you are a "troglodyte".

You'd think that if they took their climate change rhetoric at least half-seriously, then they'd at least make some effort to strive for better optics. And yet they don't even bother. Do they honestly believe that most Americans are that stupid, or is it just that they have no concept of what they are doing? Or is it simply the case that it's not possible to shame people, like the Clintons, who simply have no shame for anything?

John the Econ said...

...and Victor Davis Hansen sums up the Trump phenomenon:

"To explain the inexplicable rise of Donald Trump is to calibrate the anger of a fed-up crowd that is enjoying the comeuppance of an elite that never pays for the ramifications of its own ideology. The elite media, whose trademark is fad and cant, writes off the fed-up crowd as na├»ve and susceptible to demagoguery as the contradictory and hypocritical Trump manipulates their anger. In fact, they probably got it backwards. Trump is a transitory vehicle of the fed-up crowd, a current expression of their distaste for both Democratic and Republican politics, but not an end in and of himself. The fed-up crowd is tired of being demagogued to death by progressives, who brag of “working across the aisle” and “bipartisanship” as they ram through agendas with executive orders, court decisions, and public ridicule. So the fed-ups want other conservative candidates to emulate Trump’s verve, energy, eagerness to speak the unspeakable, and no-holds barred Lee Atwater style — without otherwise being Trump."

JustaJeepGuy said...

@John the Econ said,

"Do they honestly believe that most Americans are that stupid, or is it just that they have no concept of what they are doing? Or is it simply the case that it's not possible to shame people, like the Clintons, who simply have no shame for anything?"

When they have the news media covering for them, they don't need to believe "most" Americans are that stupid. They want them that way anyway. I doubt it is possible to shame the Clintons, too. They've gotten cover from the news media for the last 25 years, so they have totally lost touch with the concept of shame.