It's Spelled M-O-S-Q-U-E

Here's a fun little site I learned about today. It's called Openbook. It sort of allows you to have a gander around Facebook by searching for any particular word(s) that you'd like. Granted, it is only able to search those Facebook profiles where the people have not set their privacy settings in a way that would not able their profile to be searched. And folks that don't care about their privacy settings really don't care about their privacy. That means that they'll post just about whatever. And whatever do they post.

I read somewhere on the Internets that getting a glimmer of how people on Facebook feel about the mosque that may be built by Ground Zero is an amusing way to pass some time. Simply type "mosk" into the search box on Openbook and read the results that come up. So I did. I also searched for variations on that them. That is, the misspelling of mosque. Let's look at the results, shall we? You're probably going to have to click on the images to make them bigger. Blogger has it's limits and apparently making screen captures from Openbook able to be read is one of them.

Let's see...Oh, from Alexis. "Obama isn't Muslim. Even if he was, that shouldn't matter anyway. The rednecks need to get over themselves. And btw, I'm for the mosk near Ground Zero. The Muslims didn't do crap to WTC families, it was the Taliban. Get your facts straight!"

Well, she's close. Taliban...al Qaeda...close enough. She is right, however, that President Barry is not a Muslim. She's also right that folks should get their facts straight. See the Taliban reference. Moving on, to Brad's words of wisdom. "OK, this whole moske thing and yes I know I spelled it wrong but I dont care. Yes they do have every legal righ to build it on ground zero but its quite unethical to do it. You wouldnt see us building a church on heroshema or auswitz. And I am sick of hearing about it."

You tell 'em, Brad! Good points bringing up heroshema and auswitz, too! Hard to argue with that (but that's only because I don't know what the heck he's talking about). Next up is Landis who says: "Ground zero might be at risk cuz they want to build a mossque thats a memerial for those who died if u care about those ppl who lost there lives respost this".

She's awfully confused in several aspects. Spelling and punctuation being only a couple of them. How is Ground Zero at risk if the mossque gets built? Does that mean that the World Trade Center buildings will magically reappear? I don't think that's what it means. Then again, I don't know that she is really all that sure what it means either. (The scary part was that it sounded like she was actually trying to explain it to people) But maybe Nancy knows what she means. Let's see...hmm...it reads: "jonmanncnn jonathan mann developing story from irak war their legancy is islam and the builing of moske on ground zero. Anna coren reporting".

Then again, maybe she doesn't. Really? We've been in Iraq for years now. You still don't know how to spell it? And what in the world is a legancy? Never mind. I don't want to know. Kind of in the same way I don't want to know much more about Peggy's point of view, expressed as "their building a mosk for arabs over ground 0...ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!!?!?"

I'd like to know why she had all of the time for the abundance of exclamation points and question marks, but couldn't find the time to type out the word zero. I wonder if she would express the same disbelief if someone told her that it's they're, mosque and Arabs. Perhaps. Actually, I'm guessing she would. But she's not alone in thinking that the mosque would go right on top of Ground Zero. Russ thinks the same thing and says, "I vote to kick our current president out of office solely on the basis of him wanting to put a moske right where the twin towers used to be.! I mean... WHAT AN IGNORAMIS!!!"

Yes. What an ignoramus, indeed. Speaking of those who might be an ignoramus, Stephen enlightens all of us with this nugget of knowledge: "Oh, you Angelenos with your Emmys and your Glees, what about the MOSK?"

Who should break it to him that Glee isn't an award? Or that Emmy isn't a show? I just know that I can't do it. Nor can I take much more of this. One more. Let's hit 'er, home, William! "Well I agree with the Presadent, Musslems shude be alwoed to build a Mossk near ground zero. To denie them that constitunel right, would make us no beter then the people who attaked us in the first place. besides last time I checked it was alkida that attacked us not Islam".

Typing that out made my head hurt. I'm going to look into who this alkida person is. Sounds like one of Superman's enemies. Alkida from the planet Mossk. Keep your eye out for 'em. And keep your eye out for these folks, too. They're clearly not well.

moreless

They Wore What To The Emmys 2010?

It's time for the Emmy awards again. That means it's time for a brief look at some of the fashions that were worn last night. And as always, I will issue my disclaimer that I am far from a fashion monger. Fashion mongrel would be more like it. Never the less, I intend to relay what it was that I saw there last night (via the Internets).

Here we have who appears to be Jack Nicholson as The Joker. Behold!

What's that? It's not The Joker? It's really someone I've never heard of named Maria Menounos? Huh. My apologies, both to Mr. Nicholson and Ms. Menounos. Well, moving on....let's see. Oh! OK, so I haven't watched Entertainment Tonight in quite some time (if ever), but I don't remember Mary Hart looking anything like this:

Wow. It appears that she could barely bring herself to tone down her big hair from the 80s. Nice try, though. And I kind of feel like I had seen that dress on someone else at the Emmys. Who was it? Oh, I know! January Jones. Behold!

Yeah, see, she just kind of ripped the front of it off there. Other than that, it looks remarkably similar. I'm just glad that it's January Jones with the ripped off front dress and not Mary Hart. That's all I have to say about it. But it's not quite all I have to say about Kyra Sedgwick and Kevin Bacon. Behold!

Mr. Bacon looks the same as he always does. How does he do that? Ms. Sedgwick looks generally lovely in that eggplant colored dress. She appears to be carrying a clutch purse that is made out of a giant kidney bean. Seriously, what on earth can you even fit in something like that? Not much? Not even the kidney beans after which it was modeled, I'd imagine. Wait! Maybe she has the rest of Heidi Klum's dress in there!

From the looks of it, Heidi Klum's entire dress could have fit in that kidney bean purse of Kyra's. There is not much there, is there? I'm not saying that she should dress like Betty White or anything, but come on! Oh, speaking of Betty White, here she is looking radiant and wearing what is seemingly an obligatory lipstick shade for elderly women.

I don't know what it is with the over-70 set of ladies, but they love them a nice bright red lipstick, that's for sure. They wear it everywhere and with everything. I would imagine that they would even wear it to the wedding of the couple below. Oh. Never mind. That's not a wedding couple. That's Ty Burrell and his wife Holly. Yeah, he looks like he's getting married and she looks like the car that they would drive away in together. Odd. Maybe it's their first time at the Emmys. Or out in public. Something.

Both Kim Kardashian...

...and Anna Paquin (seen below) decided to go with either what appears to be some sort of an Egyptian themed gown or what appears to be some sort of gladiator style gown. I really can't tell which it's supposed to be. But I'm sure that it's one of those. I can't imagine that they were just looking that way without basing the look upon something.


And finally, let's wrap this up with the absolutely stunning Lauren Graham who is wearing...um, well, she's wearing....see, it's kind of...well...oh, forget it. I don't know what in the hell this is. Behold!

Let's see if I can decipher this. No. No, I can't. It appears as if she is wearing a dress with what could be a diaper draped over her upper torso and right shoulder. Maybe a small bed sheet. I don't know. I don't know what would possess anyone to wear that on purpose. Ooh! Maybe she lost a bet! Hard to say. But I do know that she is super talented and super hot and I'm sure that she'll be around again for the Emmys next year. Let's hope she's over this look by then.

moreless

Casino Benefits For Welfare Recipients

I don't get up every morning just looking to brand someone a moron. I certainly don't get up every morning hoping that I can find someone to outright despise because of what they stand for and how they're going to contribute to the fall of society as we know it. It's not like I'm trying to be annoyed. But when I find out that in "California and Michigan, welfare recipients have been using their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to withdraw state-funded payment from ATM machines in casinos", I tend to get a little testy.

According to something called Daily Finance, this absurdity that should not be occurring has been surprisingly recognized by politicians who (theoretically) can do something about it like make it so that the ATM machines in the casinos are programmed to not accept the EBT cards (which work like an ATM card does). And look, I realize that someone that is going to spend their money...oh, wait. I said that wrong, didn't I? I realize that someone that is really wants to spend MY money at a casino is going to. They're going to go to some other ATM, withdraw money that my taxes have funded, and then hop their sorry ass to a casino and piss away my money. I get that. But I don't think that the process needs to be made any easier by having the damn ATM AT the freaking casino be capable of giving them MY money.

In California, the surprisingly on the ball Los Angeles Times learned that "...79 out of the 148 tribal casinos and state-licensed poker rooms have welfare-friendly (aka, MY money friendly) ATM machines on the premises." That's over half. Not to mention that it's about 79 too many. And if you're thinking that maybe not a lot of people actually take advantage of this situation, you'd be wrong because "$1.8 million in state welfare revenues were withdrawn from ATMs in gambling establishments over an eight month period." Nice system, California. Whose freaking idea was this to begin with?

Now, you'd think that everyone would be able to be on the same page with getting something like this stopped, wouldn't you? You might think that, but again, you'd be wrong. And that brings me to the woman that I spent today simply loathing. A one Maureen Taylor is the state organizer of the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization advocacy group (that's in Michgian). She has a problem with a bill that was introduced by Michigan Senator Bill Hardiman which would "...stop casino ATMs in his state from processing welfare payments." You know what the problem is that she has? Guess. Go on. Guess. You know what? It's so asininely ridiculous, you'll never get it. So, allow me...

Ms. Taylor "...feels that Hardiman's bill singles out welfare recipients unfairly." What? Singles them out? Well, yes. That's what it's supposed to do. You can't not single out a group that is already singled out. If you want to stop casino ATMs from processing welfare payments, that is automatically going to single out the group of people that are on welfare, that is correct. So, what is the problem that Ms. Taylor finds with this intentional and necessary singling out? She claims, "This is a way to corral low-income welfare recipients, put a red mark on their face and say, 'You're not welcome.' " ::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Um, Ms. Taylor? Yeah, see, that's right! They're NOT welcome to take MY money and go spend it at a CASINO! They're on freaking WELFARE! They shouldn't HAVE any money to spend at a casino! If they did, they wouldn't be on WELFARE! What part of that do you not understand? It's not like we're trying to stop them from spending their money at a grocery store! It's a G-D casino, for cryin' out loud!

I'm glad that Ms. Taylor isn't in politics because that would be cause for alarm. I have no idea what the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization does exactly, but the fact that they use the word "Rights" in their title does not bode well with me. How come there is a "right" to be on welfare, but there isn't a "right" for those of us who pay for it to opt out? Oh, that's right. Because all of us would, that's why. I really wish that she had elaborated on that statement, but she didn't. And in a way, I think I'm glad. I don't know if I could have taken her explanation without needing an entire bottle of gin.

Side note: Against my better judgment, I went to the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization website to see what they were all about. I got as far as what is apparently their mission statement: "You get what you are organized to take!" I couldn't read any more after that, as I kind of think that says it all, don't you? Now, where did I put that gin?

moreless

A Man's Love For His Toys

There's a lot of sadness in today's tale. After all, what would you do if you found out that your mother had gotten rid of that which you had considered to be your life partner and you realized that you would have to go the rest of your life without that partner? Would you burn down your family's home in an attempt to kill yourself? Would you answer these questions differently if your life partner was a toy? Wait. A...toy?

Correct. A toy. What we have here is the story of a Japanese gentleman, a one 30-year old Yoshifumi Takabe. According to the Australian Broadcasting Company, Mr. Takabe and his possessions had been living with his mother. His possessions apparently included enough of his toy robot figures to fill 300 boxes to the ceiling. Now, I'm sure you're thinking that might be a little strange, but they weren't just any toy robots. No, they were "...robot toys were figures from the Gundam animated TV series, which started in the 1970s, about space wars involving giant robots." I'm sure that has you thinking just a little bit differently about him, doesn't it? (Hey, I didn't say it was for the better. I just said it was different!)

I'm all for a collection of vintage toys. (Are the 1970s considered vintage? For the sake of this argument, let's say that they are. I think it might kind of help our impression of Mr. Takabe just a shred. Or not.) But 300 boxes stacked to the ceiling? That's an awful lot of robot toys. What was the show again? Gundam? It's gotta be a Japanese thing, right? Well, even if it's not, it's definitely a Mr. Takabe thing.

This story continues with Mr. Takabe's mother throwing out some of the toys. While I understand her not being overly thrilled (or able to move) in a home with 300 boxes of robot toys, throwing out only some of them seems rather passive-aggressive if you're asking me. It's not like throwing out a box or two is going to make a dent in the enormous collection that has been amassed. She must not have known that Mr. Takabe would become "...suicidal after losing the figures" because he said they "...were partners he wanted to spend his life with." Hmm.

You know, as odd as that sounds, perhaps Mr. Takabe was simply a realist. I'm guessing that with the 300 boxes of robot toys, he was thoroughly immersed in the ways and culture of the un-layable. The toys might have been the perfect mates for him. Polygamy toy heaven. Or something like that.

Not able to deal with the prospect of living without some of his toys, Mr. Takabe set the family home on fire because "...he wanted to die with his robots in the fire." OK, then. If someone wants to die in a fire, there's really only one requirement. That would be to stay in where the fire is at. Apparently, Mr. Takabe wasn't real clear on that concept, as he managed to escape the fire unscathed.

He appeared in court and pled guilty to burning down his house and, presumably, the rest of his toys. Isn't he going to be a little devastated at this point? I mean, talk about overreacting? At least before, he had some toys and a place to live. Now he has no toys and, well, I guess he kind of has a place to live. Jail is definitely a place to live. Man, and he thought he wanted to die before. I'm guessing he won't think that he had it so bad after a little time in a Japanese jail. Then again, perhaps he could meet himself a different sort of life partner, now that his toys are gone.

moreless

The Sad Cheater

Tiger Woods is just completely void of any human emotions, isn't he? Well, wait. Is horny an emotion? What about jackassery? OK, if those two count, then he has two human emotions. But if they don't, then he's just a freaking robot. A lying, cheating, home-wrecking, whore-loving, freaking robot.

Elin's divorce from Tiger was finalized a couple of days ago. Immediately afterward, People magazine announced that she had done an interview with them. There don't seem to be any huge revelations in the interview, just more of what we had all pretty much surmised. After all, how many ways are there to feel when you find out that your husband is a scumbag who has cheated on you with every porn star he could find? Not many ways that people aren't going to be familiar with, that's what I'm guessing.

And naturally, Tiger felt the need to address the issue in the only way that he seems to know how. That is, without any sort of feeling or emotion being expressed and by completely minimizing the entire situation. Here's what he had to say at a press conference at The Barclays golf tournament in New Jersey, according to People Magazine:

"It's a sad time in our lives. And we're looking forward to how we can help our kids the best way we possibly can. And that's the most important thing." Um, are you kidding me? It's a sad time? SAD? I don't know if sad is the word that I would choose. It's so minimal, considering that he slept with every whore out there (and even a few whores in there). I'm also taking issue with how the most important thing is his kids. Hey, Tiger! If the most important things were your kids while you were still married, perhaps you would have been such a man-whore and been doing the Perkins waitress! What a buffoon.

He didn't stop there with his hollow statements. "Asked if he was "relieved" with the split, Woods paused. "I don't think that's the word...I think it's just more sadness. Because I don't think you ever – you don't ever go into a marriage looking to get divorced. That's the thing. That's why it is sad." Good Lord, sir. Does he not understand that this isn't something that has happened to him?! It's not like you just suddenly found yourself divorced, you cheater! And you're right! No one expects what you bestowed upon your completely clueless and rather hot Swedish wife! Did you go into the marriage expecting to never get caught, cheater? He's so in love with himself, he probably did.

He did semi-allude to this possibly being his fault when he said, "My actions certainly led us to this decision...And I've certainly made a lot of errors in my life and that's something I'm going to have to live with." Once again, it's all about him. You know who else has to live with your "errors", you cheater? Your now ex-wife AND your children! And I don't know that they're going to grow up thinking that their father made some simple "errors" and that's why mom and dad divorced before they had even entered kindergarten. Cheater.

And in his final statement (for now) of completely not accepting responsibility OR reality, he said, "I certainly understand that she is sad...And I feel the same way." Oh, my God. Really? Really, cheater? I don't know that sad is a completely accurate description of how she is feeling. Betrayed? Lied to? Cheated on? Humiliated? Embarrassed? Duped? Deceived? I think she feels all of those in addition to being sad! And if Tiger does feel sad, it's simply because he got caught. Cheater. Are you going to dig up your dad's ol' bones again to ease some of your pain? Cheater.

moreless

Now That's A Traffic Jam

You think your commute is bad? Have you heard about the traffic jam in China? Holy canoli, it's unreal.

Get this: There has been a traffic jam for the past ten days! DAYS! Not hours! DAYS! What the what? How is that possible?! According to The Wall Street Journal, it's pretty basic. Too many cars and not enough roads. Really? Yeah, we had no idea that was going to be the answer. Seriously, Wall Street Journal? That's all you've got?

That's all they've got. Apparently, it's a combination of roadwork and a bunch of heads up a bunch of arses. When you're selling at least 13 million vehicles per year and you only have the roadways to keep up with about a thousand vehicles per year, eventually, you're going to find yourself in this sort of a pickle.

The cars are moving somewhere around the rate of about a third of a mile per day. Umm, no. You can't tell me that people aren't just abandoning their cars and saying, "Screw this! I'm walking!" It would be tough not to. At that rate, you could be in your car and stuck in this crap a mile from your home and it would take you three days to get there?! Are you kidding me? Are we sure this is real?

It apparently is. And if you're wondering, as was I, how one makes it through a ten day (and counting) traffic jam, the kind folks over there at The Wall Street Journal have provided pictures for us to get some sort of an idea of what a hellhole that must be right now. It also allows us to be pretty freaking thankful that we're not there. Behold! A ten day traffic jam!

Oh, well. That seems to explain it. They appear to start off with no lanes at all and then expect folks to move in an orderly fashion into only three lanes. Yeah, that should work about as well as...well, as it's working. And they also seem to keep the cars and trucks separated until a specific point, at which time things don't seem to go as smoothly as one would wish. Behold!

That seems highly ineffective. That and the fact that they've been stuck in traffic for ten days! Yeah, that was my other clue. I suppose you might be wondering how these unfortunate drivers take care of various daily activities when they're stuck in their car on a Beijing road. (Don't get too excited. They explain everything except for the one that you know everyone wonders about first.) As far as eating, "Villagers along Highway 110 took advantage of the jam, selling drivers packets of instant noodles from roadside stands and, when traffic was at a standstill, moving between trucks and cars to hawk their wares." Behold!

Hmm. I suppose the sanitary conditions in which those noodles were prepared isn't exactly foremost on the minds of those folks, eh? But man, those "vendors" get into position quickly. And if this picture is any indication, they're not going to be caught empty handed. Look at this, will you? Behold!

They're certainly an entrepreneurial people, aren't they? Now, just because the drivers are willing to eat food that was prepared under questionable conditions at best, that doesn't mean that they're just going to sit around in their own filth! They're going to have to "bathe" somehow. Behold!

Oh. Well. That's...off-putting. Or...something. I'm just glad he kept his spandex undies on...or whatever those are. Once the bathing is finished, then the fun can really begin! And nothing says passing the time in a ten day traffic jam like eating some watermelon wedges and playing cards on top of a newspaper. Behold!

They don't seem to be too concerned with eating their melons. Why is that? Shouldn't they be more concerned about some sort of nutrition than they are about playing Go Fish? Well, regardless, they're going to get awfully tired after a few days of doing nothing in their cars. Don't expect them to sleep in there, either. Why do that when there's a perfectly good roadway to lie down on and a perfectly good truck to curl up under? Behold!

That guy can get as comfortable as he wants, as rumor has it that the traffic might not clear out until the middle of freaking September! Stay tuned!

moreless