Dancing Contest Uproars

Holy crap, people are morons. Paste eatin', mouth breathin' morons. And not in a good way (like when you need someone to get rid of a lot of paste). I mean in the way that just makes me insane because it's so non-sensical. Here's the latest thing that's annoying me: People's reactions to the new cast of Dancing With The Stars. Specifically the issue of having Chaz Bono on there. (For those of you who have been under a rock for God only knows how long, Chaz Bono is the offspring of Cher and Sonny Bono (before he plowed himself into a tree whilst skiing, obviously). Chaz was born as a girl and named Chastity. She declared herself gay at some point, which really wasn't a shocker to anyone that had seen her. And then a few years ago, she had a sex-change and legally became Chaz. And while he's not fully biologically male (he had the top surgery, but has not yet had what I lovingly refer to as the addadicktomy), he is legally a male. Consider yourself caught up.) And thus, it begins.

I first saw a clip of Hoda Kotb (who needs to buy a vowel or something) talking with the nearly insufferable Kathie Lee Gifford on the equally insufferable Today show about Chaz. Kathie Lee said, "Chaz is going to have a female partner." And Yoda Hoda says (rather uncomfortably), "Yes. That's what's going to happen. So it's going to be interesting!" And then they both giggle like idiotic schoolgirls. Good Lord.



Why is that so funny, exactly? Considering that he's a man, baby (say that in an Austin Powers accent and it's a lot funnier), who would you have him dance with? Another man? Well, that would be just strange! Not to mention, wrong. Then again, maybe they're the same type of people that thought that Portia diRossi (should she have actually done the show) should have been paired up with another woman! How ridiculous does that sound?! Very. Very ridiculous. And idiotic. And anything but sane and reasonable.



And speaking of sane and reasonable, that's exactly what some folks are not being over this Chaz Bono announcement. See, I went over to the ABC website to see what folks had to say. Here are some excerpts:



From minnerl: "I believe Chastity Bono, is and always will be a woman. You cannot change what God designed. I will not watch the show now that she is on it. I will definitely skip this season."



From 49TRGll62: "My family and I will be boycotting DWTS this season. My kids love the show but I will not let them watch it this year. I AM TIRED OF THE MEDIA TRYING TO PRETEND THAT PEOPLE WANT TO EXPOSE THEIR YOUNG CHILDREN TO THIS LIFESTYLE! Young children do not even fully understand what it means to be straight yet. Some people still believe in morality and YES, it is something wrong with that lifestyle."



From patjoe55: "What do you think?I won't be watching this season either, as I also cannot agree with the homosexual agenda. I used to enjoy the show, all except for Bruno and his remarks and gyrating all over the place, especially toward the gay dancers. And lately, they are putting more and more gay people on, maybe for Bruno's benefit. No, thank you."





Jesus, where do I start. Here's what I want to ask these people: How have you felt about some of the people that have been on this show in the past who haven't been gay or transgendered, but have had an abhorrent lifestyle? Let's review:



Pamela Anderson: Let's be honest here, she's hot as hell. But she's posed for Playboy, makes a living off of her super hot body, was married to Tommy Lee (Lord only knows what that lifestyle was like) and has used drugs to the point where she contracted hepatitis C. Not exactly a role model, I wouldn't think. (But God, is she hot.)

Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino: Makes a living by getting drunk as can be every night (from what I can tell from the limited, yet torturous amount of time that I've logged with Jersey Shore) and bangs everything in sight that has a vagina. Abercrombie & Fitch offered to pay him money if he would STOP wearing their brand! What does that tell you about the boy?!

Kendra Wilkinson: For cryin' out loud! You people have a problem with Chaz Bono but not with Kendra?! She was whoring herself out to the ancient Hugh Hefner as one of his three girlfriends. And she marketed her own sex tapes! Oh, yeah. That's real family friendly there. Sure.



And let's not forget that also appearing in the upcoming season will be Ron Artest. Allow me to remind these holier-than-thou types that Ron Artest has been known to be an abhorrent human being. From being charged with everything from starving his dogs to jumping into the stands and starting a brawl that resulted in a year long suspension from the NBA. He's not exactly the most non-controversial chap out there. (Granted, he seems to be getting his act together, but I'm not totally convinced. The man wants to change his name to Metta World Peace. That should speak for itself.) Need I go on? (OK, maybe I do just a little bit. Kim Kardashian for cryin' out loud! She's famous because of her ass that was seen my millions on the Internet because of a sex tape!)





So, look. Just relax about the Chaz Bono thing. If you like to watch dancing contests, then watch. If you don't like to watch dancing contests, then don't. But if you're going to judge, at least be freaking consistent about what you're judging people on. Wow. Just wow. You morons.

moreless

BYOB

If trying to cut the federal budget is anything like trying to cut a local budget, we are scroomed. (That's right. Screwed and doomed. Scroomed.) Take for example, my mostly lovely city of San Jose. The city seems to be taking very reasonable steps to try and whittle down the amount that they spend each year. And you won't believe (or you probably will) some of the complaints about one particular cut they're making. Who knew that people could harbor such strong feelings about doggie poop bags. Wait. What?

You heard me. Doggie poop bags. Those little bags that you put poop in when you dog, well, poops. Because no one wants to be anywhere that there's a lot of dog poop lying around, am I right? Yeah, I am. And the San Jose Mercury News reports that the city was spending $60,000 a year on those little bags. Holy crap! (Pun totally intended.) $60,000? Let me guess. There was just one vendor from which these were purchased? And perhaps said vendor contributed heavily to someone's campaign? What's that? Yeah. Uh-huh. Does it happen any other way?



Now get this: Here is the question that the article actually asked: "Just whose responsibility is it anyway to provide the means to clean up when Rover can't hold it anymore?" Wait. Whose responsibility is it to clean up after their own dog? Are you kidding me? What are my choices here? Who else besides the owner of the dog would be responsible? I'm so confused.The article goes on to interview people (some with seemingly soft, soft heads) to get their take on it. They received everything from "I was really bummed out...Everyone's so used to knowing they're here." to "We need garbage cans and poopy bags...Or people won't cooperate." Good Lord.



Aren't we at the point where we all just pick up after our own dogs? We are at least that civilized, are we not? I would imagine that if there is more dog poop out there right now, it's simply because people were unaware that the bags would be removed. (It's not like the city would have had the foresight to put up a notice to let people know that they needed to bring their own bags after a certain date. So simple, yet so foreign to so many.) Besides, who in the world authorized $60,000 to be spent on bags for canine poo?! No one thought that seemed a bit excessive at the time? No one thought to not provide the bags and to let people be responsible for themselves on their own? No one? No one. See? I told you. Scroomed.

moreless

Meanwhile, In Canada

Today I learned just how populous moose are in Canada. Behold!

What are the odds?! That's a lot of moose. It is moose, right? The plural of moose is moose? Isn't it? I'm pretty sure it's not mooses. Moosii? Nooo....right? Hmmm...

moreless

Blame It On The Rain

(Blogger isn't letting me upload pictures. We might as well blame it on Hurricane Irene, as everything else is getting blamed on that.)




Aaaannndddd the hype has begun. We've got Hurricane Irene hitting land yesterday and it's looking to shape up to be a Category 2 at the most. But since the egocentric media is centered on the east coast, they're going to try and make this storm out to be some sort of a massive killer or something. And expect other news media outlets to follow along. But let me be probably the first to tell you that it's not really like that. For instance, right now, the LA Times is reporting that eight people have already died as a result of this disaster. Really? Eight? Let's check that out for ourselves, shall we?





Let's see..."On Friday, a man installing plywood on the window of his home in Onslow County died of a heart attack". OK, that doesn't count. That's not because of the hurricane. That's because of clogged arteries and a lifetime of unhealthy foods. How is that a hurricane related death? Because he was installing plywood? I'm pretty sure that he would have had that heart attack if he wasn't installing plywood. That doesn't count. Why would it? Next!

Next, "...man died in Pitt County when he lost control of his vehicle and hit a tree, officials said. Two others in the state died in car accidents." All right, this is either really crappy reporting (and it really is) or this storm is so weak that someone is really trying to embellish things to the point where people don't look like complete fools for overreacting. Is the hurricane responsible for the loss of control and all of the tree hitting? If so, I'd like to know how. Otherwise, this is known as an accident. It is NOT known as a deadly hurricane. The same goes with the other two. What is wrong with people?

The article continues with "In Newport News, Va., an 11-year-old boy was killed when a tree crashed into his apartment building...And in Brunswick County, a man died when a tree fell on his car." OK, I'll concede to these two probably being hurricane related. Trees don't usually crash and fall unless there's something going on. These two deaths are legitimately hurricane related. I'm sure that makes the deceased feel much better about their recent demise.





Then we have "And off New Smyrna Beach, Fla., authorities said, a 55-year-old surfer died in 7-foot waves." That doesn't count either. One doesn't simply just die in the middle of some waves. Man, the media really does suck, doesn't it? They are just dying for people to be dropping dead because of this hurricane, aren't they? I suppose that their desire is fine (albeit twisted), but I'm not a fan of them creating their own reality.



And they're trying really hard to get the body count up to nine because "...authorities in New Hanover County, N.C., were searching for a man who either fell or jumped into the Cape Fear River on Friday as the first, outer bands of the storm began to ravage the area." OK, listen! Please! If the guy JUMPED, how in the hell is that because of the storm?! I'm seriously ready to pull my hair out! Jumping isn't storm related! High winds and lots of rain do not make one JUMP recklessly with wild abandon into the sea! What is WRONG with people?!

moreless

Can They Do That?

Today's post poses more of a question. A question about whether or not we're being sheep herded into situation under the guise of something being for our own good. And who wants anything for their own good really?



Here's the situation: As you are probably aware (and if you're not aware, how do you do that?!), the east coast is all panicky because of Hurricane Irene that may or may not be coming to town. Yes, I realize that there's a hurricane out there and that it will make contact with land. What kind of contact it makes is yet to be seen. And please remember that we're relying on government employees who seem to specialize in the weather in order for us to make an informed decision. Regular weather forecasters who are not in the government seem to be highly inaccurate when preparing me for whether or not I need a coat. Now you're going to throw the government into that mix? Am I supposed to believe that will make it more effective because everything that government gets into gets more effective? Yeah, no, that doesn't ever happen. But that aside, I'm talking about the mandatory evacuations that are being ordered in various parts of the country that may or may not experience some greater than normal rainfall.



The government is telling you that people that they have to leave their homes. I'm unaware of anything Constitution-wise that allows for that practice. The government can't tell me to leave me home. Yet when things like this are about to potentially happen, that's what they do. (And before you go off on me about how it's all for safety, allow me to remind you that I have a rather libertarian bent within me. The less government for me, the better. And I'm perfectly OK with things that I might not get because of that.)



I mean, let's say that you don't want to leave your home because a hurricane might be coming and because the government might not have any idea how bad it is going to be and decided to overreact as usual. Not that I need a reason (because it's my house and I don't think I need to justify my rationale), but what if I am worried about looters in an area with no people in their homes and I want to stick around and protect my belongings? (Please note that in this scenario, I also think that I'm not going to be in grave danger if I do. Any danger that may arise, I am willing to deal with on my own. Just because I decide to stay behind, I can't expect to be rescued if need be. If I say I'm on my own and I'm not leaving my house, I mean it. And if I end up being screwed, well, at least that was my choice and the government didn't have anything to do with it.) Is the government really able to tell me that I have to leave? I don't think that they can, even though they do it all of the time. It's a practice that I'm not fond of.



And if you're over there screaming at your monitor "What about children?!", just calm down. I'm getting to that. While part of me really would prefer that even if the adult is going to stay, that the children have to go somewhere safer, part of me doesn't like that at all. Isn't that the government saying that they know what is better for your children that you do? On top of that, we make a lot of rules and a lot of laws and a lot of decision in the name of the "best interest for the children". I'm not so sure that's the best way to run things. Again, I don't want the government making decisions for me and my hypothetical and non-existent children.



Am I wrong about this? I don't think I am, but I'm always interested in opposing viewpoints. (I'm not as interested in them as concurring viewpoints, but I always listen.) I just don't think that a government can legally, under the Constitution, tell you to leave your home. Sure, they can ask. But I should be able to decline their request without being under fear of arrest. (I have no idea if the government can ask you to leave your home if you live in government housing, though. That might be a gray area.) I'd really be interested to hear this discussed or reported upon somewhere. But since the media sucks (and is currently practically soiling itself over the minute possibility of imagined impending doom), I highly doubt that will ever happen.

moreless

Condi And Moammar, Sittin' In A Tree

So now that Gaddafi's compound has been taken over by the rebels, we're getting a glimpse into some of the things that the man had a penchant for. Some are more surprising than others. Personally, I was hoping that they'd come upon something with his name spelled on it so that there would finally be some sort of consensus. Maybe like a utility bill or his driver's license or something similar. But as far as I know, nothing like that has turned up yet. What has turned up? Well, for starters, we have this gun. Behold! How come dictators always have lots of guns like this one, but yet when it comes time to fight, they're no where to be found. What good is a gold and diamond plated firearm if you're not going to use it? Then again, if you're a dictator, chances are you're probably pretty cowardly anyway, so I guess that explains it. What has yet to be explained is Gaddafi's apparent love for a one Condoleezza Rice. That's right. Condi. Behold! That's a little odd. I mean, I suppose that she's an attractive woman and all. I just have never thought of her as the sort of attractive that would have someone practically stalking her. Then again, this is kind of a crazy dictator, so I guess anything is possible. He's been quoted as saying "I support my darling black African woman...I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. ... Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. ... I love her very much. I admire her, and I'm proud of her, because she's a black woman of African origin." Now, I don't know about you, but I hear "Leezza" and I think "Gibbons".Gaddafi was really into Condi, though. He didn't think "Gibbons" when he heard her name. No, he wanted her. Badly.

I don't know why I find this all amusing. I'm sure that everyone has their little quirks. I'm sure that everyone has a thing for a former Secretary of State and they keep photo albums of her. Right? No? Yeah, I didn't think so. I can't wait to hear what other things Gaddafi has in his compound. (You know there's porn. It's just a matter of what kind of porn.)

moreless

He Changed My Life

(Warning: Depressing post.) Last night, Steve Jobs announced that he was stepping down as CEO of Apple. All I kept reading was how this would effect Apple. Let me tell you something. I am not worried even in the slightest about Apple. I am, however, extremely worried about Steve Jobs.

I don't know the man. I've never met him. (I did see him a couple of times walking to his car at what my uncle calls "The World Wide Headquarters of Apple in Cupertino". My uncle lives less than half a mile from that building and I don't think that he's ever seen him, so I consider myself lucky. It's like I saw Bigfoot or a really lost Yeti or something.) But I hold him responsible for my love of all that is the computer. And I love computers so much.






My dad brought home an Apple II when I was in 7th grade. He bought it used after seeing an ad in the newspaper classifieds. (For my younger readers, a newspaper used to be delivered daily to one's home and it contained pages and pages of summations of current events.) It came with a ton of games and programs on 5-1/4" floppies (and TWO 5-1/4" external floppy drives so that you could back-up all of your bad ass software). I explored every single one of those disks. I never looked back.





And I'm not an Apple fan girl. I've been using PCs for at least 20 years. But, the first three or four computers that I ever had were Apple. And the first computer I ever bought with my own money was an Apple. (An Apple IIGS to be specific. The GS stood for "graphics and sound". It was beautiful.) The point here is that this isn't about Apple computers and now Apple products for me. It's about a guy who not only changed the entire world, but who also changed my world. And changed it for the absolute better.

When I realized what an iPod could do, I knew that my life was going to be better. And as a complete nerd, I will disclaim that I have but one song on my 32gb iPod Touch. (It's Eric Johnson's Cliffs of Dover if you must know.) The rest? Podcasts and apps. And I never go anywhere without it. It makes me happy. SO freaking happy. I could probably go on and on, but I think that you get the point.



When Steve Jobs took his leave of absence back in January, he wrote in his announcement "I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can." He's not coming back. And when someone has had pancreatic cancer and a liver transplant, that doesn't sound like a good thing. So while I know that Apple will be OK, I don't know that Steve Jobs will. And it makes me sad. I even cried a little when I heard that he was stepping down. He's only 56. The world should have many more years with Steve Jobs in it, but I don't think that's going to be the case. I could be wrong and I hope I am, but I just don't think that this is shaping up to be all that rosy.





I wish the man all the best. I think that he changed the world for the better. I know that he changed my life for the better. I feel very lucky to have been able to watch him develop and grow throughout his entire career. And even if he has to leave us now, his influence on computing and accessories and business will live on forever. Good luck, sir. And thank you for everything.

moreless

Not A Lot Of Shakin' Goin' On

(Sorry for the lateness. I had a fourteen-year-old's birthday to orchestra and pull off flawlessly.) As we all know, the east coast was struck by a devastating earthquake that slightly rearranged patio furniture everywhere over there.

Now, to be fair, the west coast kind of gets the same way whenever it "snows", so I guess it all evens out.

moreless

But That's Not The Problem!

The other day there was a pre-season football game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders. It would have been fairly routine had it not been for the ridiculously high number of brawls. Oh, and that one guy that got shot a couple of times in the stomach. (To be fair, he did have a "F*** the 49ers" shirt on, so he kind of had it coming. I'm just sayin'.) That wasn't very routine at all. None of it was. And that's when everyone totally overreacted.

Because of all of these unfortunate incidents, do you know when the 49ers will be playing the Raiders again during pre-season? That's right. Never. According to the Miami Herald, "The 49ers will recommend to the NFL that their annual preseason games against the cross-bay rival Raiders be postponed". Because of a handful of a-holes? Wait. Are they really serious? Oh, they are. And here's what they say about this decision: "I don't think this is indicative of either of our fans. You have a very, very small percentage of a handful of people who ruin an experience for everyone else, and it's not going to be tolerated".



So, wait a minute. They know it's a very, very small percentage of a handful of people that are up to no good and their solution is to punish everyone. That's not really what I would call a rational decision. And it's completely unnecessary. The 49ers team president, Jed York, even said that all of the hubbub that erupted during and after the game "...is partly due to season ticket holders selling their seats to people who don't normally attend games." Thus, could their response to not continue this rivalry be any stupider? I don't think that it can.



There is stupidity that can be added to this, however. (There's always room for idiots!) "The 49ers will no longer allow tailgating during or after games". Right. Because that was the problem. The tailgating. Oh, wait! No. No, that wasn't it at all. In fact, that had NOTHING to do with it. So of course you can see why they will no longer allow it. There's nothing better than overreacting to solve something. Oh, wait. Yes, yes there are plenty of things better than overreacting. How about just realizing that sometimes, things happen? Or how about trying to figure out WHY they happen and then do something about THAT? Is it because things would actually change? And we can't have that now, can we? Apparently not.

moreless

Which Will Last Longer?

I didn't have any Internet last night (it was like living in Darfur), so my apologies for today's lateness. Now, in case you've been living under a rock somewhere (and really, I would have rather been under that rock with you), you know that Kim Kardashian got married over the weekend to some basketball guy who spells his name like a girl (Kris). Behold!

Yeah, that's not a wedding picture because they sold the "exclusive" rights to their wedding photos to People magazine. So, there's that to look forward to. Or not. But here's where you, the reader, come in. I have a question for you: Which will last longer? Kris and Kim's wedded, blissful union....or this bag of spinach salad that I have in my refrigerator. Behold!


I haven't decided what the winners will get. Maybe the salad. It should still be good then, right?

moreless

Separated At Birth

Today we learn that Susan Boyle and Robert Pattinson look an awfully lot alike (which is weird when you consider everything). Behold!

moreless

That's Depardieu-doo To You

Ever want to hear/see a CNN anchor giggle like a little girl over several (and I mean WAY too many) poop and pee innuendos? Then today is your lucky day, as here is Anderson Cooper covering the Gerard-Depardieu-pees-in-the-aisle-of-an-airplane story. The good stuff starts around 2:30 in.

moreless

How Many Is That?

The other day, new reader Ashley mentioned to me that "...if you ever need new material, go to Wal-Mart...seriously." I did need new material. (Well, new-ish.) I did go to Wal-Mart. Holy s***, was she right. Behold!

There are so many things wrong with this that I don't know where to start. I guess first of all, who are these Wal-Mart shoppers with three hands? Besides, do you really think that someone who does not know how much fifteen of something is is going to be able to read the part when is says "Fifteen is this many"? I don't think they are! I have to ask, why this is only in English? Everything else in Wal-Mart is bi-freaking-lingual. Why is this insult of a sign only in English? I'm having a hard time believing that only the English speaking people are the ones that are having a hard time with this concept.

moreless

The Simpsonization of the Candidates

Just in case you give a fat rat's ass about who may be attempting to secure a nomination to be the Republican's Presidential candidate, but you can't remember anything unless it's in the form of The Simpsons, then have I got the chart for you. Behold (and click to enlarge)!

moreless

Then Pay Them!

You know who needs to pipe down? Warren Buffett, that is correct. I'm pretty much over his act. And here's why:

All I keep hearing him say lately is that the rich should pay more taxes. That's his gig. Telling us that the rich should pay more taxes. He accentuates this stance by saying that he pays less in tax than his secretary. (I have to imagine he's talking percentages there. If he's talking actual dollar figures, then it's just game over.) And his solution is that the "rich" should pay more. Allow me to briefly explain why I can't stand to hear that anymore.



First, taxing the rich more isn't going to solve the problem because it still wouldn't generate enough money to make a difference. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be taxed, but I don't think that they should be overtaxed. What say we cut a butt load of spending first and then see where we're at, OK?



Second, define "rich". Let me tell you that if you're making, say, $100,000 per year in San Francisco, you are far from "rich". You're doing fine, but you're not rich. Now, take that same $100,000 per year salary and move it to some place like Kansas or Iowa (both lovely places). Now you're "rich". So, are we going to tax both of those guys the same even though due to their living situations that they're not really the same at all? I don't know what Warren Buffett's response would be to that, as I haven't heard it proposed. (Actually, I never hear about adjusting people's income based on cost of living in their area. Never. And it's totally a factor. God, this is why I hate the media.)



And finally, if Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, he CAN! You can pay as much in income tax as you would jolly well like. Nothing's stopping you. Just hand it over and they will gladly take it. But I haven't seen Warren Buffett doing that just yet. All I get is him yammering on about how he'll give it to them if they tax him, but he doesn't seem to be offering it up just on its own. Interesting. And really freaking annoying.

moreless

IH8THIS

So, the other day we discussed how the lovely state of California is currently trying to pass a law which will dictate what sort of sheets that hotels will be able to use. Thus, it should come as no shock to you that there are at least TEN people (all collecting a government salary with government benefits) and up to TWENTY people (depending on if there is an appeal) who are involved in determining who gets the personalized license plate that they've requested and who does not get the personalized license plate that they've requested. TEN people. Let's see what their day involves. I guarantee you that it will likely be absolutely nothing like the sort of days that you and I have.

According to NBC Bay Area, there is a four person team that reviews between 200-500 submissions for vanity plates every day. Between 20 and 40 of those plates are up for review by a separate 6-person team. Their decision as to whether or not the vanity plate is acceptable hinges on one question: "Would you find it offensive?" Oh, for cryin' out loud!



What is the point of this? I have no idea. And there are at least ten people who are being paid to participate in this nonsense. Look, I'm probably against any outright profanities on license plates. Probably. I'm not real sure how I feel about it because regardless of what is allowed on license plates, it just seems kind of futile to me considering that you can stick a bumper sticker on your car (right next to the license plate if you'd like!) that says damn near anything and no one can stop you. That's why I'm kind of on the fence about whether or not to allow profanities. I still think I'm against it, but I don't know why.



Back to their rules. There are certain things that they simply don't allow on vanity plates. These are things that I had no idea about and I can't imagine that a lot of other people know anything about either. Like did you know "A few numbers are off limits for plates, such as 13, for its gang association." Thirteen has a gang association? Not just bad luck? How in the world would I know that unless I'm in a gang? And if I am in a gang, is that what I'm going to do? Go get a "13" on my license plate? Because all gangbangers make sure that their vehicle is properly registered and licensed with the state of California? Uh-huh. What else, you ask? Well, "Fourteen and 88 are banned for their connection to white supremacists." What connection is that? 14 and 88 and the KKK? I had no idea. Wait. Now that I know, am I supposed to be offended? 'Cause I'm not. I don't think that anyone is.



But wait. It gets better. They will let you explain yourself if there is a logical explanation. See, "'Ice' can be used for cocaine...So if you're an ice machine repair man, you can send in pictures of your truck with the name of the company." Right. Because if you're dealing coke, the best thing to do to help your business is to advertise it on your license plate! Seriously? What if I just happen to like Vanilla Ice, then what? Do I send them a picture of Robert Matthew Van Winkle with a heart drawn around his head? That just sounds silly.



And in that article over there at NBC, they have a list of 100 banned California vanity plates. I don't even get a lot of them. Like these:

• OQOOQOO Why is that bad? Are the Q's something bad? What is it?

• MERKTR I don't get that one. Merkin trader? No, that'd be weird. Hmmm...

• ETAMPON I don't really want to know what that is, but I would like to meet any pansy ass who would be offended by it.

• WTF HAXX I don't know what the HAXX stands for, but I'm OK with the WTF. I'd rather see that than the f-word wrote out. (And can everyone please just stop acting as if they never say the f-word. It's not some sort of a mortal sin to say 'wtf'. It's actually kind of polite if you think about it.)

I'm dying to know if the salaries of the at least ten people is easily surpassed by the amount of revenue that is brought in from having vanity plates. I'm hoping that it is. But I'm still guessing that you don't need ten (up to twenty) people to do that job. How could you?

moreless

The Gayest Ever

I was watching Family Guy last night and they said that the video below was the gayest video ever made. So I looked it up on YouTube and they were right. It's the gayest. Behold!

moreless

Bed Sheet Insanity

California is in dire straits. The budget is completely out of control. It's going straight down an s-hole, if you will. And with things so freaking bad, what does the state legislature do? They debate whether or not to make it a law that hotels must use fitted sheets. I kid you not. Read on!



According to the lovely LA Times, the law proposal "is intended to address back injuries sustained by hotel housekeepers" And they think they're going to do that by only using fitted sheets in hotel rooms? Clearly, whoever wrote this bill (Kevin De Leon (D-umbass-Los Angeles), I'm talking to you) has never made a bed. Even with a fitted sheet, you still have to lift up the mattress to tuck that little corner thing underneath. So what in the hell good is it going to do to only have fitted sheets?! On top of that, you need to have at least one flat sheet on a bed, don't you?! I'm not going to sleep with a fitted sheet on top of me. That just won't work!


But this is seriously going on. The state of California wants to make it a law that you have to use a certain kind of a sheet if you're a hotel. What happened to "Land of the Free"? You can't possibly tell me that this is it?! I don't think that there needs to be a freaking law that defines the type of bed sheet that a private business uses! The government is going to tell a privately owned business just exactly how to do its business? If that doesn't chill you to your core (AND annoy the holy crap out of you), then you, my friend, need a helmet. We're so doomed.

moreless

Hmmm....

There's a lot of stuff going on right now. I can't quite figure out which one it is, but I think that it's one of the two things Fry is wondering about below. I hope it's the latter, but I don't know how to figure out the difference.

moreless

There's A Class For That?

I heard something mentioned today that I didn't think could possibly be true. With a little perusing of the Innerwebs, however, I discovered that it WAS in fact true. And that's when I realized just how ridiculous things have gotten.


See, I heard that part of Lindsay Lohan's sentence (for whatever her most recent shenanigans were that saw her appear in court) is to attend (wait for it) anti-shoplifting classes. What the hell are those?! Anti-shoplifting? You need an entire class to work on that concept?! How does that work?! If the class is any longer than how long it takes to say "Don't steal from stores", I'm going to need more information. Anti-shoplifting classes. Wow. Just wow.

moreless

They Can't BE Gay

People are running out of ways to spend the (apparently) inordinate amount of free time that they seem to have. They're turning to alternative methods of idiocy by targeting puppets to get gay married. You know. Because everyone already knows that the puppets are gay. Wait. What?

Yep. Over there at change.org there's a petition that was started by someone named Lair Scott. (I think it's a dude.) The goal? To "let" Ernie and Bert of Sesame Street fame (and likely fortune) get married. Never mind that they're puppets. Never mind that they're not gay (because they're puppets, that is correct). This guy thinks that they should be able to be married and that if enough people sign his little petition that it will happen. Or something like that. Here's the text of his petition, behold!



Let Bert & Ernie Get Married On Sesame Street In this horrific age of LGBT kids taking their own lives, they need to know that they ARE BEAUTIFUL and their lives are worth living. Aside from those that are committing suicide, the bullies that facilitate these tragedies need to learn that homophobia is NOT okay. They need to know that acceptance of their fellow human beings would indeed plant a seed of peace that will reverberate throughout the world. We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful by allowing Bert & Ernie to marry. It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different. Let Sesame Street and PBS Kids be a big part in saving many worthy lives.



Has this guy even watched Sesame Street at all?! I don't think that he has. If absolutely nothing else, Sesame Street already teaches that everybody is different and that it's OK. And they all seem to co-exist quite well. You've got a big bird (literally) that has an imaginary friend (Mr. Snuffleupagus) and we're cool with that. You've got a monster that is blue and eats cookies all the time. You have another monster that is green and lives in a smelly trash can. You have Bert and Ernie who are orange and yellow. You have that simpleton red monster, Elmo. There's birds and frogs and chickens and pigs. And they all seem to live in perfect harmony, all the while teaching us about the alphabet AND numbers up to twelve. They don't need to be gay! (But I will say that Grover does have a rather effeminate aura about him. He's a little flamboyant. I'm just sayin'.)



Seriously, what is it with people? Are they just so happy with their own act that they don't even see that they're making things worse with all of their "enlightenment"? People don't need to be categorized and labeled! It's OK if there isn't a gay puppet on TV. Really. It IS! If they would just calm down and not let things go to their heads (and then come up with the ridiculous project of trying to get a couple of puppets to be "able" to get married), I'm pretty sure that things would work themselves out. I swear! Even without gay puppets, I think that things will turn out just fine.

moreless