Want to help support Obscanity.com? Use my Shopping Portal to make your holiday purchases! It won't cost you an extra cent, but it'll help support this site. Doing all your shopping at Amazon.com? Go there now!
Karl Rove has ignored a Congressional subpoena and refuses to testify in a case relating to the prosecution of a Democratic governor, news sources report. Interestingly, he IS willing to answer questions informally, “but only with no transcript taken and not under oath.” Wow. He might as well say, “Sure, I’ll talk, but only if I don’t have to swear to tell the truth, and only if there’s no record of anything I said.” Thanks, Rover. Thanks a bunch.
The worst part of it, I think, is that nobody will compel him to speak. What is Congress going to do, appeal to the rightist Supreme Court – the court that was probably stacked by Rove himself?
What on earth? Are we still in the 1960’s, pre-Loving v. Virginia? If this same-sex couple travels to CA to be married, they could face JAIL time if they return to Wisconsin. Sounds to me like a good case for the Supreme Court – if it hadn’t been stacked by the rightist White House.
Cross-posted from my Hubpages article, though I’ve posted the text below for preservation’s sake:
If you’re graduating with a mountain of student loans some time in the near future (or recent past), you should be aware of a new federal student loan forgiveness program (a part of the new “College Cost Reduction and Access Act“) designed to ease the burden of education debt and encourage new graduates to pursue work in the public sector.
What Kind of Debt Is Eligible For Forgiveness?
The loan forgiveness program applies to Stafford, PLUS and federal consolidation loans made through the U.S. Education Department’s Direct Loan program. In case your federal loans were borrowed through another lender, you should be happy to learn that as of Tuesday, July 1, 2008, any federally guaranteed student loan can be converted into a Direct Loan consolidation loan so the borrower can qualify for the debt forgiveness program [PDF].
Federal loans have the added benefit of allowing graduated payments so that your monthly payment amount is commensurate with your income. Since public sector jobs tend not to pay as much as those in the private sector, you’ll pay less over those ten years than you would have if you made more money, and a greater portion of the principal balance will be forgiven at the end of the ten-year period.
Who Can Qualify For This Program?
According to a recent article in the LA Times, the new loan forgiveness program is open to “anyone who works full-time for a state, federal or local government — including police officers, firefighters, the military and public school teachers. It also applies to some people outside of government, including employees of tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations and those working in emergency services, public interest law or public child care, healthcare or social work.”
The Bottom Line
If you’re graduating with minimal student loan debt, this program may not be the optimal solution for you, although the public can always use more talented professionals.
However, college education costs are growing by the minute, especially if you are working toward an advanced degree (since you’ve still got your undergraduate loans to deal with, too!). If you will be graduating with a seemingly insurmountable amount of federal student loan debt, this program might be the answer for you, as long as you are willing to devote the first ten years of your career to working for the public good.
Over the past several weeks I have seen a huge number of articles spring up in protest of last month’s CA Supreme Court ruling in favor of same-sex marriages. I want to address some of the arguments and claims that I’ve seen in those articles.
Myth #1: Four liberal activist judges overruled the will of the people.
What You Should Know: The California Supreme Court, a conservative court, struggled with the issue, looked to the CA Constitution, and concluded that equality means equality for ALL – and that includes those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.
Many have argued that legislatures, not judges, should be responsible for making marriage law. The CA legislature has twice passed the Religious Freedom and Marriage Equality Act, which equalized civil marriage rights among couples but explicitly stated that no religious institution shall be compelled to preside over a same-sex marriage. The bill was passed by two different assemblies of the legislature, since one passage was prior to a major election and once occurred after. The bill was twice vetoed by the Governor specifically because he believed it WAS an issue for the courts, not for the legislature.
Of the seven CA Supreme Court Justices, six were appointed by Republicans. The CA Supreme Court is traditionally known for being fairly conservative. If you think “CA” and think “liberal judges,” you might be mistaking the CA Supreme Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit. They are two very different courts. Incidentally, one of the dissenters is personally in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. Judges can and do go against their own personally-held beliefs in favor of upholding the CA Constitution.
The Supreme Court decision did not create a “new right” – rather, it acknowledged prior decisions stating that every person has a right to choose his or her life partner, and determined that this right cannot be abridged based solely on sexual orientation, which the Court views as akin to race and religion as far as discrimination practices are concerned. The judges did not come to their decision easily; they struggled with it, and that struggle is documented in the extremely lengthy opinion released last month (most court decisions are NOT this long – the Massachusetts marriage decision was less than a third of this length). If you think all it took was a stroke of a pen, I challenge you to read the 172-page opinion. I did.
Myth #2: The people of CA already spoke on the issue of gay marriage by passing Proposition 22
What You Should Know: Only 29% of registered California voters (21.5% of eligible voters) voted in favor of Prop 22. Is that an overwhelming majority?
In Re Marriage Cases (CA, 2008) (PDF only, due to length)
While Proposition 22 was a statewide ballot initiative, it was not an accurate reflection of all of CA, for two major reasons:
First, contrary to popular belief, Prop 22 was not approved by an overwhelming majority of CA voters. Prop 22 was passed by an overwhelming majority of the voters who came out in March of 2000 to pick between John McCain and George Bush, since there was no true competition in the Democratic race, with Vice President Al Gore being the assumed winner. True, more Democrats than Republicans voted in the election, but if you count by who they voted for instead of their party identification, you get 2,654,114 voting Democratic and 3,702,487 voting Republican. In a consistently blue state, these statistics are not representative of the true population (about 30 million people). Overall, the election had a pretty low turnout rate. That primary election had around 7 million voters out of about 15 million registered voters. This past February primary (2008) had about the same number of registered voters, but more than 9 million actually turned out – and THAT was with closed primaries, which we didn’t have before, and no real contest in the Republican race.
In a state of more than 30 million people, only 4,618,673 voted in favor of Prop 22, and 2,909,370 voted against it. With only about a third of eligible voters, and barely half of registered voters, having voted on Prop 22 (that’s overall, not just in favor), it’s hard to use the word “overwhelming” to describe the outcome. Basically, 29% of registered voters (21.5% of eligible voters) voted in favor of Prop 22 – and that was eight years ago. The world has changed since then. People have changed since then. I know a LOT of people who voted for Prop 22 and are, in retrospect, utterly ashamed of themselves for it.
Second, Proposition 22, while appearing simple, was actually quite misleading. It came as a response to DOMA, which allowed states to refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and the entire campaign was centered around the notion that CA should not be forced to recognize other states’ marriages. The argument was framed in such a way that many people who had no particular opinion on same-sex marriage voted for Prop 22 because they believed CA should be allowed to make the decision for itself and not be forced into it by another state. While this same Supreme Court ruling ultimately determined that Prop 22 did apply to all marriages and not just those performed out of state, the “yes” campaign intimated otherwise, and countless voters were duped in the process.
Even if Proposition 22 HAD passed with the approval of most Californians (which it didn’t), the CA Supreme Court had the responsibility to ensure that it complied with the CA Constitution (which it didn’t). The Court here didn’t ignore Proposition 22; it attacked it head on and found it to violate the spirit of the California Constitution. Courts have declared other initiatives unconstitutional as well, and in the 1960’s the US Supreme Court even invalidated a voter-approved CA constitutional amendment which sought to overturn a recently-passed legislative act banning housing discrimination based on ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status. Propositions don’t just glide into law just because the voters approved them. They still have to meet the rigorous standards of our great state and federal constitutions, and Proposition 22 violated what both the CA and US Supreme Courts have called a basic human right, the right to marry and create a family with your chosen spouse.
Myth #3: Marriage is a sacrament and has always been between one man and one woman.
I could go on for pages about the ways in which marriage has changed over the years. One man can no longer have eight wives. Women are no longer subsumed by their husband’s identity and viewed as property. Couples are no longer barred from marriage based on their racial makeup. Most importantly, however, couples do not have to have their marriage blessed or sanctified by a religious institution, and they do not have to be married by a member of the clergy. This is the key to the constitutionality argument for same-sex marriage. The court cannot, and must not, and WILL not force religious institutions to officiate marriage for same-gender couples. Religions have the right to dictate their requirements for marriage, and the government may not interfere.
However, the state does not “recognize” religious institutions’ marriages; it creates the official status itself, and it officiates marriages outside the religious sphere. We call this civil marriage. It is an entirely different institution from religious marriage; it just happens that the state grants clergymen the status to officiate civil marriages at the same time as religious ones, for convenience’s purpose, so that a couple can be married in a single ceremony. A couple that goes to church and exchanges vows before witnesses is NOT married unless they fill out the necessary paperwork for a civil marriage. Likewise, a couple can obtain a civil marriage license and be married by a judge, a marriage deputy, or other civil servants acting as agents for the state, and never even interact with a religious institution.
Religious institutions can discriminate against certain couples; for example, most rabbis will not officiate at a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, because Jewish law only recognizes as valid a marriage between two Jews. However, the STATE cannot discriminate in the same way and purport to be upholding the Constitution, state OR federal. If the STATE offers civil marriage, it must allow it to all adult couples, not just those who fit religious descriptions of propriety. After all, can you imagine the chaos if the state refused to issue a marriage license to a couple because one of them was Jewish and one was not? It is not the state’s business to uphold or enforce religious restrictions on marriage. (In fact, considering the VAST number of religious institutions and clergy who submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in support of same-gender marriage, I would argue that the state would have been in violation of the Establishment Clause had it NOT allowed the marriages to take place, since barring same-gender couples would have been equivalent to expressing a preference for some religions over others, at the expense of individual civil rights.)
If you want Biblical proof that it hasn’t always been about men and women, read I Samuel, not just the lines I have provided below, but the entire story – and read a translation that is as close to the original Hebrew as possible, as modern versions have diluted the story, often explicitly changing words entirely to tone down the relationship. Think about what it means to make a “covenant.” In nearly every other case in the Bible, the word “covenant” refers to the relationship between God and people, or to people promising to serve God. A covenant is an eternal promise – why else would some states institute “covenant marriages,” which are not as easy to dissolve?
1 Samuel 18
1. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
3. Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
1 Samuel 23
18. And they two made a covenant before the LORD: and David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.
Myth #4: Allowing same-sex marriage will lead to legalization of incest, pedophilia, and polygamy! Next thing you know, people will be marrying their dogs!
What You Need To Know: It’s far too late for that.
Let’s get this one over with: A dog is not and will never be a consenting adult. Nor will a goat. In addition to being morally and utterly repugnant, sex with animals is always rape, because an animal cannot consent. Likewise, a paw print does not suffice as a signature on a marriage license – and no matter how sure you are that your dog is trying to tell you something, absent a licensed dog-to-human translator, “Arf arf” cannot be properly construed to mean “I do.” Get your mind out of the gutter and stick to the issue at hand.
Incest is already legal in the 26 states where individuals can marry their first cousins. Cousins are the next degree of siblings; they are the children of your parents’ siblings. The great irony of today’s marriage laws is that I can marry my black cousin, the son of my aunt, but I can’t marry my wife. Or rather… I couldn’t. Now I can.
Pedophilia is already legal in the 1/3 of states that allow children under age 16 to marry, with some allowing marriage as early as age 13 with permission from the court. I’d be willing to bet that in most cases the men marrying adolescent girls are not also in their teens. If you want to protect children, you can start by lobbying states to prohibit children from getting married before they are old enough to see R-rated movies.
Polygamy is a separate issue because it doesn’t involve marital prohibition so much as it involves individuals trying to “double-dip” on the marital property and tax systems, among other things. A marriage is a union of two individuals into one economic unit. You can’t “become one” with one person if you’re already “one” with another person. There’s an argument to be made for allowing “threesomes” of people to marry, but I highly doubt anybody would take the economic risk, considering that one individual could wind up paying alimony to everybody else in the group if s/he decided to leave. I think the specter of alimony would be enough to prevent anybody from seriously raising this concern – not to mention that it’s an extremely rare arrangement in the first place.
Myth #5: Gay couples don’t need marriage in order to get their legal matters in order. Calling it “marriage” does nothing but devalue the sanctity of marriage.
What You Need To Know: Allowing committed couples to marry encourages and promotes monogamy and family responsibility, two crucial family values. As a result, federal and state governments have instituted a system of rights and responsibilities that have become necessary and irreplaceable for two people sharing their lives together. These rights are not replicable in private legal arrangements since most of them have to do with third-party or government recognition.
First, I have to point out that same-gender couples can’t possibly do more harm to the institution of marriage than that already inflicted by the heterosexuals who have held a monopoly on it for so long. (Hello Britney; hello “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?”) With more than half of all marriages ending in divorce, marriage needs all the good role models it can get. Many of the couples that are getting married in California this week have been together longer than most heterosexual marriages ever last. In fact, some social scientists believe that studying the way same-sex couples communicate and deal with conflict may actually help decrease the divorce rate among heterosexual couples by helping them overcome conflict.
Whether you like it or not, same-sex couples will have children. Children fare better in life when their parents are married. Why would you deny these children the right to be raised by married parents? Studies show that there is no substantial difference between children raised by gay parents and those raised by straight parents. They do, however, show that two parents are better than one. Marriage encourages two-parent childrearing, and provides economic safety-nets for situations where one parent abandons the family. Without marriage, the protections are substantially reduced. Marriage also encourages personal responsibility and shifts economic support responsibilities from the government to the individual and the private sector; with gay marriage legalized, many people will no longer have a need for state-provided benefits because they will be eligible for benefits through their spouse.
Children tend to thrive when they have one parent at home and one parent working to support the family; in an ideal world, families could afford to live on the salary of only one working parent (this is becoming less common as the cost of living skyrockets). Federal marriage recognition encourages parents to stay home with their children; spouses are entitled to their deceased spouses’ Social Security benefits if their own are insufficient. Gay couples do not receive this benefit, effectively removing this incentive to keep one parent at home. Additionally, federal marriage recognition keeps families from being uprooted in case of the death of a spouse; the property passes from one spouse to the other without tax repercussions, which means that in the tragic event of one spouse’s death, the other spouse and their children will not be forced to sell their home to pay estate taxes. Gay partners are taxed on bequests as though they were granted by any acquaintance; a partner of 55 years could be forced to sell her home to pay the taxes on property inherited from the deceased partner. Finally, the federal tax system actually penalizes gay couples who choose to have one partner remain at home to care for the children; the wage-earning partner is taxed on her income as a single person even though her salary is supporting both partners and their children. Stay-at-home moms should relate to this – imagine if your husband had to pay taxes as a single person!
I could go on forever, but I think it’s time to wrap up this article. However, I am happy to answer any questions you might have. As for me, my wife and I got married this past Tuesday, on the one-year anniversary of our religious wedding. We were already married in the eyes of God – it was time for the state to catch up.
McCain, GOP unleash anti-Obama plan: Proof positive that a McCain win in November means another four years of the Worst Presidency Ever, four more years of the Bush White House. McCain + Karl Rove = McBush ’08
Obama winning over former Clinton supporters: In case you had forgotten how ignorant people could be — Obama may be winning over some former Clinton supporters, but many of them are positively clueless.
Commentary: Obama no, McCain maybe: Conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck writes an attempted ode to Conservatism (not Republicanism), but fails to convince me how any of these conservative values 1) are beliefs anybody should brag about, regardless of whether they are phrased so melodramatically you can only assume the author intended them to be accompanied by “Battle Hymn of the Republic,” 2) are actually championed by today’s conservatives, and 3) can seriously be interpreted apart from their barely-disguised subtext. Remember, the meaning between the lines is generally much more relevant than what’s actually being said.
p.s. Somebody tell Ralph Nader to just stop talking. Of course, maybe he should keep talking – the more he opens his mouth, the more he comes off as a bigoted ass.
Did John McCain call his wife a cunt? Maybe, or maybe not. I still think it’s interesting that the question was asked flat out and he conveniently didn’t deny it. In fact he got on his high horse about “that kind of language.” Of course… whether he said it that particular time or not, it’d be hard for him to deny he’s ever used the word, considering this fabulous Freudian slip… because honestly, how often do we accidentally slip and say words that aren’t already in our general lexicon? Methinks the good senator had cunts on the brain.
Today on CNN Political Ticker: New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson told CNN that drilling is not the answer, explaining, “You can’t drill your way out of the problem.” He criticized Bush and McCain for emphasizing offshore drilling as the best solution to the energy crisis, adding, “What is needed is a comprehensive strategy of fuel efficiency, 50 miles-per-gallon vehicles… mass transit. What is needed is investments in renewable energy and solar and wind.”
Before comments were closed for the news entry, four people managed to insert their brilliant contributions:
Ron, NY June 22nd, 2008 5:07 pm ET
Now Bill Richardson is an energy expert -he says we can’t drill our way out of the oil problem – gee that makes sense -so let’s not drill our way out of the oil problem.
Walt, Belton,TX June 22nd, 2008 5:10 pm ET
McCain’s plan must have some real merit if the ultra liberal Hindsight Bowery Boys think the idea stinks!
Bill, Miami June 22nd, 2008 5:10 pm ET
All of a sudden Bill Richardson has the answer to our energy problem isn’t that politically convenient? where was he when we needed the answers 10-20 years ago????? Where were they all 10-20 years ago???? Funny how they all become experts in an election year.
Former Clinton Supporter June 22nd, 2008 6:40 pm ET
We must allow new drilling as well as increase fuel efficiency for new cars and increase use of public transportation. Only doing one thing will not help much.
Hey geniuses: Where was Bill Richardson ten years ago? He was UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF ENERGY, you nitwits!
Richardson is not “suddenly” an energy expert; his focus has been energy all along, and he has the credentials, achievements, and plans to prove it. At least do your damned research before you start tossing around insults and accuse people of being amateurs who are posturing in an election year.
[edit: comments were finally reinstated and maybe one or two people got around to noting Richardson’s qualifications… for the most part, people seemed to ignore it.]
If you seem to always guess correctly as to how sports games, current events, and other occurrences will turn out, perhaps you need to sign up for Predictify.
I am always a little bit too optimistic or a little bit too pessimistic, so I haven’t made a dime — but my wife has made a little under $15 already, just by predicting the outcome of such questions as “What will Sex and the City: The Movie gross in the box office on its opening weekend?” or “Who will be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election?”
Want to try your hand at predicting the future? Give it a shot!
I once gave my university journalism students a multiple-choice exam with this question: What is the size of Israel? Quite a few chose “slightly smaller than China.” One of my best students interviewed a former Auschwitz inmate, and in her article she identified him as a “survivor of a concentration campus.” “Is ‘campus’ a typo?” I asked. She responded no. Today she’s a reporter on an NPR affiliate.
For insights into healthy marriages, social scientists are looking in an unexpected place.
A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.
A state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in California – and forcibly divorce thousands of gay and lesbian couples that will have married between June 17 and November – isn’t the only problematic constitutional amendment being placed before voters this fall. Colorado voters are being asked to approve a constitutional amendment that will make a fertilized egg – not an implanted egg, just a fertilized egg -a “person” under the law.
I don’t know about you, but I’m just dying to read Scott McClellan’s tentative “expose” of the Bush White House, entitled What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception. I’m sure Mr. McClellan has lots to say – just be wary of how he says it; the man is still a conservative and he still lied to Americans on a daily basis for nearly three years. Whatever he says about his own lack of information, you KNOW there were countless times when he looked the White House press corps in its zoom-lens eye and flat-out lied.
Not to sound naive, but when we first heard this on NPR the other day, I thought they were talking about something that happened 40 years ago. Then I realized this was recent, and my stomach turned over. What the hell? Has this country evolved at ALL?
We have friends over fairly often, and the game of Cranium is definitely one of our favorites to bring out. The game is terrific because it relies on teamwork and a variety of creative and intellectual tasks.
This is no “Candy Land“; if you want to win, you’re going to have to use your… cranium, as it were. You can get the basic board rules from the game’s instructions; the more important information you need to know is about the different tasks you could be assigned.
The Basic Stuff
Each space on the Cranium game board is marked with a color, either red, blue, green or yellow. At the four “corners” of the gameboard (actually located in the middle of each side) is a purple “brain.”. Regardless of how many spaces a player is supposed to move, they must stop when they reach each brain, even if their roll would have taken them further. Between each “brain” spot is an inside track and an outside track; the inside track has fewer spaces, so you get to the next brain more quickly. The team that goes first is the team including the player with the next birthday. I’m not kidding; this is in the rules!
At the start of the game, every player is on the initial “brain” spot, and therefore they get to pick their first task. If they are successful in their first task, they get to roll the dice and move to the appropriate color via the inside track, and on their next turn, they will draw a card from the deck of this color. If they do not succeed in their first task, their turn is over. When they do successfully complete a task, they must go along the outside track until they reach the next brain. The inside-outside path resets at each brain, so you can still catch up even if you miss your first challenge.
Once you’ve made your way around the board, you enter the center “brain” – the big brain, if you will, and you must answer, on each of your subsequent turns, a question from each of the four categories. Once you finish the fourth, you move to the middle of the brain, and on your next turn, all of the other teams get to pick a card for you. That’s all of the teams, not each of the teams. They will have to agree on a category. Usually this category is red (Data Head), unless your team includes one of those people who just knows everything about everything. In order to win, your team must successfully complete this last task.
So What Are These Challenges?
The game’s challenges are broken up into four key categories: Word Worm (yellow), Creative Cat (blue), Data Head (red), and Star Performer (green).
Yellow is “Word Worm,” and contains such wacky tasks as:
Gnilleps: One player from the team must correctly spell a word backwards on your first attempt, and without writing anything down.
Spellbound: The same as Gnilleps, only you get to spell it the normal way!
Zelpuz: The team must unscramble words using a very vague clue.
Lexicon: Multiple choice definitions. Be careful – these aren’t SAT questions. Here, they ARE trying to trick you; watch out for homonyms, because inevitably both words’ definitions will be potential answers
Blankout: These are the hardest; you must complete a word with letters whited out. You do get a clue, but the clues usually aren’t too helpful.
Green, “Star Performer,” is my favorite; it involves various physical performance skills, including:
Humdinger: One team member must hum the song on the card, while the other members attempt to guess the song. Generally when we play, we allow the team member to hand over the card to another teammate if she doesn’t know the song; she is forbidden to guess. If no player knows the song, then we allow them to pick another card.
Cameo: Basically, charades. In theory, you’re not supposed to be allowed to give any indication of how many words or whether your team is on the right track, but we generally just follow the rules of charades instead.
Copycat: The performing team member must get her teammates to guess which famous person she is imitating by mimicking the person’s speech, actions, characteristics. No names of people or places are permitted, and the team member cannot respond to anything the guessers ask. This challenge can either be really boring or absolutely hilarious, depending on how strictly you adhere to the rules. Given “Elvis Presley,” some people will say something boring like, “I have left the building,” or “Thank you very much.” More creative performances will involve hip thrusting and curled lips. It’s up to the game’s players to decide what they will and will not allow here.
Blue, “Creative Cat,” is my other favorite; it involves artistic tasks such as:
Cloodle: Basically, Pictionary.
Sensosketch: Like Cloodle, except that the drawer’s eyes must be shut. This can be extremely entertaining, and I like to hold on to the most brilliant “Cloodle” masterpieces for reminiscing in future games. If you do this, you might want to label it after the turn is over; some of them will be pretty unrecognizable later on!
Sculptorades: The player has to translate the answer into sculpted form. No gestures/acting/pointing is allowed; this isn’t charades!
Red, “Data Head,” is my least favorite, although some people are freakishly good at this. The tasks include:
Factoid: Random trivia questions. No list to choose from. These can be ridiculously hard.
Selectaquest: Trivia, but with multiple choice answers.
Polygraph: True or false trivia. The logical answer is rarely the actual answer.
? 
: The Movie gross in the box office on its opening weekend?” or “Who will be the 
for the 2008 presidential election?” 
. I’m sure Mr. McClellan has lots to say – just be wary of how he says it; the man is still a conservative and he still lied to Americans on a daily basis for nearly three years. Whatever he says about his own lack of information, you KNOW there were countless times when he looked the White House press corps in its zoom-lens eye and flat-out lied. 
[Cross-posted at my epinions account.] 
“; if you want to win, you’re going to have to use your… cranium, as it were. You can get the basic board rules from the game’s instructions; the more important information you need to know is about the different tasks you could be assigned. 
