joepaterno coach

moreless

Please Win

The 49ers play today. The last time that the 49ers were in the NFC Championship game, it was 1994. So while I have technically been waiting for this game for the past week, theoretically, I have been waiting for this game for the past eighteen years. And I don't want to do anything to jinx it. I'm just going to have happy thoughts. And what better way to induce happy thoughts than a golden retriever who likes guitar music. Behold! (And please win.)

moreless

Stupid Sparkles

A lot of people who follow sports have certain superstitions. And they're pretty serious about them. They believe that doing just one thing wrong could jinx your team and they'd lose. That's the case with the lovely young lady in the video below. She appears to be distraught that her beloved Green Bay Packers lost their game last week. And she blames Megan. And the sparkles. That's right. The sparkles. Enjoy.

moreless

He Doesn't Have Cats

There are a lot of different people in the world. Some are nice, some are not so nice. But here's my take on all of them: Just be who you are and don't try to hide it and while I might not like you, I will at least respect you. You could be the world's biggest bitch or biggest d**k and as long as you don't try to pretend like you're not, I'm good. It's when people who are clearly d-bags try and act like they're not. Those people I have a problem with.

Take Newt Gingrich. His giant pumpkin head aside, he is one who will not embrace his d**kishness. And it's nothing new. Let's remember that at the time of the Clinton impeachment hearings (which you'd have thought were about Clinton getting all Lewinsky-ed in the Oval Office, but were actually not about that at all), Newt was being extremely sanctimonious about the whole ordeal and the entire time that he was doing so, he was cheating on his wife! That's a d**k move if there ever was one. Does he hang out with John Edwards? I think that the two of them would get along just swell together.

Well now, one of his ex-wives has come out with a 'revelation' that she thinks will ruin his quest for the Republican nomination for President. This would be a one Marianne Gingrich, also known as Wife Number Two. (I think she was the second wife. I'm just not sure if she was the wife that he left when she had cancer or if she was the wife that he left when she had MS. See why I think he'd get along so well with John Edwards?) Why she is just coming out with this now is beyond me. But I'm guessing that what she has to say is probably true since after she announced that she was going to make an announcement, Newt swung into full PR mode and had his daughters make statements. One usually doesn't call out the daughters unless they're worried about something. And I could see why this might worry him a little.

The point here is that Marianne Gingrich said that when she was married to Newt and found out that he was having an affair, he not only declined to end the affair, but he also asked her to agree to an open relationship. That's right. Oh, and did I mention that less than 48 hours after asking her to agree to this (she declined, by the way) "...he gave a lecture to the Republican Women Leaders Forum titled, "The Demise of American Culture" in which he decried the way liberals "talk about values." Yeah, he did.

Look, there are a lot of reasons why Newt is un-electable and this is just one of the reasons why he can't be trusted with the nomination. He had to step down as Speaker of the House because of ethics violations, for crying out loud! Does this open marriage request thing surprise anyone? It doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that people are surprised that someone who has proven himself to be grossly unethical, cheated on his wife and wanted an open marriage, all the while preaching morals and values to the rest of the world. I wonder why she's coming out with this now. And really, I'm a little disappointed that this is all that her information holds. I think I was hoping she'd say something like Newt was a cat hoarder and had 100s of cats living with him. That would have been awesome.

moreless

Not Very Much

Holy smokes, how out of touch is Mitt Romney? The man already comes across as a tool and a phony. Did he really have to go and say something that would glaringly highlight how wealthy he is and how he doesn't look at money the same way that regular people do? Apparently he must have because he did.

People have been hammering Mitt more and more lately to release his tax returns. Not surprisingly, Mitt doesn't really want to do that. Oh, sure, he's said that he is considering releasing them around tax time in April. But that would be a point in time that is likely past when the Republicans will have decided upon a nominee for their clueless party. (Don't get me wrong. The Democrats are just as clueless, but they already have their nominee chosen.) How convenient. Release something that you must think is going to be damaging after you've already secured the position that you want. I wonder if he's surprised that we're all seeing through his complex scheme?

He might actually be surprised because he seems so out of touch with other things that it wouldn't be improbable for him to think that all of us little people can just be swayed with his toothy grin and suave words that he got from all of that book learnin'. He did come out and say a few things about his taxes. The first thing he mentioned was that his tax rate is probably around 15%. OK, the guy has over $200 million dollars. He makes a buttload of money every year from that money. Kids, this is what is known as a tax loophole. Making money off of capital gains is taxed at a different rate than the money you make when you haul your ass out of bed every morning and do something in exchange for cash. People with lots of money like these sorts of loopholes.

But that's not the most out of touch thing that he said in regard to his own income and financial situation. See, he made money from speaker's fees. Apparently, there are a lot of people and/or organizations out there that think Mitt Romney is worth paying in order to have him talk to you. In regard to these fees, Mitt said, "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much." Really, Mitt? Not very much? Oh, that must mean 'not very much' for someone who is worth about $200 million because the amount of money that he earned from speaking for one year (2010 through early 2011) was $374,328. I'll wait while you process that.

I'm back! Yes, he actually referred to almost four hundred thousand dollars as "not very much". Good Lord, Mitt. I realize that to someone with his sort of money, almost four hundred grand might not be very much. But to come out and say it like that? That's just idiotic. He is in the upper one percent of the one percent and he just doesn't get that. Does he know that in South Carolina (where the next round of Republican nominee powwows is set to take place) that the average annual personal income per capita is $28,285? Now, twenty-eight grand is "not very much". Mitt's "not very much" is over thirteen times South Carolina's "not very much"! You know what that equals? Very much! That is correct!

Seriously, who are this man's handlers? Or does it even matter? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without having to ever answer to anyone? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without anyone ever questioning anything that he ever said? (Because people will kiss a rich man's ass like no other.) I'll bet Mitt also thinks that he's hilarious because all of his life everyone has laughed at every joke he's ever told, even when most of them aren't funny, because of the position that he's in. I'm guessing that he sees the world and the world around him in a completely different way than it actually is.

I think that I've made this offer before, but I'm making it again. Mitt, if you need a consultant, an adviser, a handler, whatever you want to call it, I'm available. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney or the Republican party. But I could teach this guy a few things about the public's perception of politicians. I could also give him some better jokes.

moreless

Don't They Want To Know What SOPA Is?

In case you haven't heard, some pretty big websites will be shutting down for 12 hours today in protest of a bill that some out of touch lawmakers are trying to get passed. The bill is called SOPA and that stands for the Stop Online Piracy Act. And while online piracy is bad, SOPA is even worse. Basically, SOPA would make it criminal to have any copyrighted material (and the definition of 'material' is so broad that it applies to just about anything and everything) on any website. Think about that. That's impossible to work around if you're a website. And really, it wouldn't exactly stop piracy. (The bill itself seems to have little indication that whoever wrote it has ever used the Internet or understands what piracy actually is.) This blog would cease to exist because of all of the pictures that I use with neither permission, nor malice. The implication of SOPA is that so many websites would cease to exist because of this law. Thus, several websites are going dark today to not only protest, but to also raise awareness of what this law could potentially do. But shockingly enough, people aren't quite understanding that this isn't a personal attack upon them.


Wikipedia is one of the major sites that will be dark today. Now, I don't know about you, but if I found out that a certain website that I frequented was unavailable in protest of some sort of new law that might happen, I'm pretty sure that I'd find out what the heck is going on. (And actually, one of my favorite websites, Reddit, is dark today in protest of SOPA. I imagine that today could end up being quite productive once I stop twitching from withdrawals..) But that doesn't seem to be the case with Wikipedia. No, people don't seem all that interested in why. Shocking, I know. All people seem to be interested in is (brace yourself) themselves. The big picture appears to be non-existent for a lot of folks.

I say that because I've been perusing the tweets that have gone out in regard to the darkness of Wikipedia. What I've learned is disconcerting at best and hypothesis affirming at worst. (That hypothesis being that we're doomed. OK, maybe that's not so much a hypothesis as it is something that I see society inching a little closer to every single day. It's still bad.) Let's look at some tweets and see if you notice the one thing that is glaringly missing from all of them.

By the way, I wish that I could take credit for compiling all of these lovely tweets, but alas, I cannot. I found them in the Twitter feed of a (I'm sure) lovely one Katie Notopoulos. She seems like a hoot. But I'm simply basing that on her tweet that read "fight SOPA; send your congressman a d**kpic". (And by the way, under SOPA, neither Katie, nor I would be able to be putting any of this stuff on the Internet. So there's that. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right. She's funny and she retweeted the following. Behold!







First of all, I can only hope that some of these people were tweeting these sentiments in an ironic fashion. Second, are they aware that Wikipedia, while a lovely source of information, is edited by regular people and can be changed at any given moment to say whatever you want it to say until someone else notices that Gary Oldman really isn't a giraffe or that Snoop Dogg's "Gin & Juice" is a "masterpiece" and then edits it to be more factual? I didn't even know that Wikipedia was being accepted by teachers/professors as a citable source. I'm not saying that there isn't great information on Wikipedia. There is. I'm just saying that it can't always be trusted to be correct. (I'm also saying that I may or may not have participated at one time in the altering of some Wikipedia entries in order to make them more humorous and to reflect my incredible disdain for people who may or may not be Gloria Allred. That's all.)

But did you notice that not one of these Wikipedia dependent individuals didn't even question what in the world SOPA is? They think that Wikipedia shutting down for twelve hours is a problem? Are they aware that if SOPA was to pass that Wikipedia would likely be shut down for good? Why isn't anyone asking what SOPA is? Why isn't anyone asking why Wikipedia will be shut down? Man, how I wish that Facebook would do something like this. Could you imagine? The country would collectively wet itself if it couldn't get on Facebook for an entire day. (And let me tell you that if SOPA were to pass, Facebook would need to be shut down as well.) And people would ask what is up if Facebook went dark.

Today might be my most productive day ever without some of my favorite websites to mess around on and waste an extraordinary amount of time on. I might even go outside. I hear that's nice.

moreless

The Hilarity Of A Super PAC

I think I love Stephen Colbert. His effort to attempt to point out (through glorious parody and general amusement) just how ridiculous the rules for things like Super PACs are. And the rules would seem to be that there are no rules. Pretty much, you can say whatever you'd like and it doesn't seem that there are any consequences for anything.

moreless

They're Not The Same

Some cruise ship ran aground in Italy. And it is because of that unfortunate incident that we have to be subjected to the opinions of people which will ultimately make us realize how out of touch people are with reality. It's really in the aftermath of an accident where we learn that we are surrounded by morons who equate two things to be identical based on any sort of a remote similarity. This is exactly why I'm rethinking democracy. I can't trust these people to vote on stuff. I just can't. Nor do I want to. And you might be joining me after this little story.

We go over to ABC News to learn a little bit more about what occurred. Basically, it's what I just said above. A cruise ship ran aground fairly close to shore in Italy. Here's a picture of how close to the shore it actually was. (This is relevant for the points that I will be making shortly.) Behold!


Yeah, that's bad. Ships shouldn't look like that. It's unsafe and not very inviting. Let's look at the ship from a different angle. Behold!

Good thing that it's pretty close to the land, huh? And it certainly didn't just topple over like that all of a sudden. Here's a picture of it when it was starting to go that way. Behold!

And just one more to illustrate the distance from the shoreline and the not-so-deep depth of the water there (hence all of the running aground, don't you know?). Behold!


But the fact that it's not totally submerged and that land is so close and the waters are so shallow is definitely something to take into consideration when determining how to think about this accident. Well, those are things that a reasonable person would take into consideration. Let's look at some of the perspectives that other people had on this event. Take this one woman who had been aboard the ship when this happened who said, "Have you seen 'Titanic'? That's exactly what it was." Now, I'm not sure what part she's unclear on here. What actually happened in Titanic, what actually happened aboard the actual Titanic, or what the definition of 'exactly' is. But she seems confused about at least one of those three because I can tell you right now that this was not 'exactly' like what happened to the Titanic.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that poor woman wasn't scared to death and I'm not saying that the situation wasn't dangerous and life-threatening. What I'm saying is that it was not exactly like Titanic. Sure, they both involved a large ship, but for me, the similarities end there. One was right off the coast of Italy, the other was in the middle of the ocean in the middle of freaking nowhere and in freezing cold water with icebergs all around. Those two scenarios are not 'exactly' the same. Again, I'm sorry that this woman was involved in this accident and I am glad that she's OK. But I am tired of everything needing to be elevated to an artificial level of tragedy that just doesn't exist. Things don't have to be super-duper bad in order for them to be 'bad enough'. Bad is bad. Why make it worse with inaccurate hyperbole?

ABC News asked some people who were visiting something called "Titanic the Experience" ("a tour through recovered artifacts and replicas of the famed ship in Orlando.) what they thought. I have no idea why they thought to do that, but they did. I guess that ABC News must have thought that the Titanic sinking in the middle of the ocean and killing over 1,500 people in the freezing water is the same as a boat slowly tipping over because it ran aground on the coast of Italy. Other than the fact that they're both boats, I'm not seeing a lot of similarities. But I guess I'm the only one because one guy said, "When I saw the Concordia on the news this morning, this is what I thought about." Huh. So this guy saw (I'm assuming) something similar to the picture that I included here and his first thought was "It's just like Titanic"? How is that possible? My first thought was "Oh, good. It's pretty close to shore and it's in fairly shallow water. Did anyone die?" I did not think about the Titanic. Good Lord.

Seriously, is this what our society hath wrought? Any sort of misdoing involving a large ship and people automatically equate it to the Titanic disaster? Have the critical thinking skills in this country sank so low that people can't differentiate between two different boats, not to mention completely different circumstances, one hundred years apart? Even ABC News delves into the similarities between the two incidents. (Then again, on the ABC News website, they also tell us: "Authorities investigate whether ship's captain sailed too close to rocks." The ship is currently sideways! I'm guessing the captain was, in fact, too close to the rocks! They need an 'investigation' to determine this?! The boat is sideways, for the love of God!) Just because they're both boats that had problems doesn't mean that they're the same! AT ALL! I'm trying to think of a ridiculous example that I could use as a comparison to this, but the actual story itself is so ridiculous that I don't think I can come up with a comparison. They're both boats, but they're not the SAME! Think, people! Think! It's our only hope!

moreless

We Won

I don't write about my personal life here very much. But I'm going to briefly do so today. And with good reason. I have been a San Francisco 49ers fan my entire life. I love that team so much. The past eight years that we have missed the playoffs because we've sucked have not been fun. I was seriously worried that yesterday's playoff game could potentially end in disaster. And just when I would think that we were ahead enough that we could win, the Saints came roaring back to push our imminent shot at victory aside. But in the end, it was the 49ers who prevailed in spectacular fashion. And in the video below, you can relive that very spectacular fashion. And pay attention to the guy who caught it and how he's just bawling his head off afterwards. Those are some mighty manly tears of relief and happiness. It was just awesome. One of the best things I've ever seen in my life. I still can't believe that we flipping won!

moreless

Well, That Explains That

Remember when the little runt in North Korea kicked it and I was amazed at all of the public mourning that was going on? Seriously, people appeared to be beside themselves with grief as they fell all over each other in the streets. There was so much hysterical sobbing. It seemed weird. And it was. And now we know why.

According to something called Daily NK, "The North Korean authorities have completed the criticism sessions which began after the mourning period for Kim Jong Il and begun to punish those who transgressed during the highly orchestrated mourning events." Uhhh...come again? "The authorities are handing down at least six months in a labor-training camp to anybody who didn’t participate in the organized gatherings during the mourning period, or who did participate but didn’t cry and didn't seem genuine." Holy police state, Batman. I guess that would explain the scenes that we saw like this:

And this:

And this:

I think that I'd be sobbing my head off in public too if I knew that if I didn't that I was going to be picked up and sent to some sort of North Korean labor camp. Just the thought of that almost makes me burst out crying right now! Oh, but look! It gets worse! "...the source added that people who are accused of circulating rumors criticizing the country’s 3rd generation dynastic system are also being sent to re-education camps or being banished with their families to remote rural areas." Not that this needs to be said or anything, but that seems rather extreme. So let me get this straight. If a member of my family circulates some sort of rumor about the newest runt to run that hell hole-ish regime, then my family gets banished along with the naysayer?! What about that particularly mouthy aunt that everyone seems to have? Just because she opens her yap then the rest of us end up rurally banished?! That seems...what's the word I want? Oh, that's right. Bat s*** crazy.


In this country people can say whatever they want about this country without fear of having themselves and/or their families banished. And while there might be an awful lot of things to complain about around here, the freedom to say whatever you want or whatever you don't want should never be complained about. And here, I thought that maybe things could be different in North Korea with a new leader. Yeah, that's not going to happen. Crap.

moreless

This Is Not A Good Idea

Those beauty pageants for small children? Yeah, the ones where there are little girls dressed up like pole dancers and/or whores. What's that? Oh. Right. They're not not pole dancers and/or whores. They're future pole dancers and/or whores. My mistake. But from what I can figure out, the only people who actually think that this is an OK thing to put your daughter through are the pageant moms. They seem to think it's just fine while the majority of the rest of the world finds it all completely abhorrent. I don't quite get that. I mean, if everyone hates it, why does it still exist? (While the rational answer might appear to be that everyone doesn't hate it, I refuse to accept that reason. The thought that people are OK with this depresses me.) I guess I digress. If you're still undecided on the matter, check out the little video below. This is what can happen when you put your kid in pageants. Why do I have a horrible feeling that this kid is going to have her own reality show someday?

Alana, Age 6, Best Beauty Pageant Kid, Ever - Watch More Funny Videos

moreless

That's A Lot Of Mitt

If Newt Gingrich was just a little more sarcastic and a little more childish with some of his statements and retorts, he could put his campaign headquarters in a playground somewhere. The man is one step away from going down to a "I know you are but what am I?" level. And in case you haven't noticed, Newt is not a big fan of Mitt Romney. Newt would seem to see Mitt in the same light that I do, that of a phony tool. But since Newt is the one trying to run for President, he put a little more effort into pointing out Mitt's toolishness by making a video of some of his more memorable statements. And don't get me wrong. I don't think that either one of these numbskulls should be President. But that doesn't mean that the video isn't amusing. Behold! (And if it doesn't load, please click here.)

moreless

But It WAS Out Of Context!

God, the American people must be a stupid bunch. I mean, I know that the majority of them (from what I can tell) could not not find their ass with both hands and a map. But are they so dumb that the media really thinks that taking someone's comment out of context and disingenuously representing it as truth at face value is a good idea because the public will fall for it? They must because they keep doing it over and over.

The latest victim of the pathetic groups that make up the media is Mitt Romney. To me, Mitt Romney looks like a 1950s game show host. It's between that and Guy Smiley from the Muppets. Now, just in case I was too subtle, neither of those comparisons are compliments. I find Mitt to be about the most phony person I have ever seen in my life. And I've seen a lot of crap. He is as fake as can be. As the wonderfully talented Jon Stewart put it, "He looks like the guy who fired your dad." Exactly.

So when you come across as looking like a tool, it's probably best if you don't say things that will make you sound like a tool. Take, for example, what Mitt said the other day when he was talking about giving people more options in their health care. He wanted to convey that he likes to be able to have choices when it comes to who he trusts his health care to. He wanted to convey that he likes not being able to be stuck with a certain provider simply because that's the plan that an employer has chosen for its employees. Who wouldn't like to have options? Everyone like choices. The problem started with the words that Mitt used to try to get this message across. The problem got worse when the media got hold of it.

What Mitt said was, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me'." Now, I know what he meant. And I know that you're smart (because you're reading this blog) and that you know what he meant. But let's both just admit that no one should really say that the like being able to fire people. That's not going to go over well. And unfortunately, that is the only part of his statement that the media has chosen to report.

Everywhere I look that is covering this incident, is reporting it in a fashion akin to "Mitt Romney Says He Likes Firing People" or "Mitt Romney Likes To Be Able To Fire People". Yeah, see, in a nation with an unemployment rate of about 10 percent, that's not a good thing to say. But the thing is that he didn't say it like that! How disingenuous and intellectually dishonest is the media being by taking what he said totally out of context and reporting it as if all he said was "I like being able to fire people"? It's one of the more irresponsible and egregious acts that a reporter can commit. And it's being committed all over the place. It also reeks of something that rhymes with 'commit'.

Mitt has said that he was taken out of context, but it's not going over very well in terms of damage control. Why is it that if you actually are taken out of context (a la Mitt) and it's so completely obvious that was the case, that if you try to explain that nobody believes you or nobody goes with that story? Yet if you say you were taken out of context in an instance where it is so obvious that it was so not the case that everyone covers that angle of the story! Some guy gets caught saying, "Let's get some hookers and some blow." And then he tries to blow it off by saying, "I was taken out of context." There's no way that "Let's get some hookers and some blow" can be taken out of context! In what world would that sort of context exist?! Apparently the one we're now living in because that's what happens.

I don't know who the media thinks it is doing any sort of favors for by behaving like this, but I find it all reprehensible. If someone's going down, I'd prefer that it be for something that they actually did as opposed to something that the media made it seem like they did. (On a similar note...Mitt, if you're reading this...do you need someone to help you with your debate question answering? I'm available! And I'm cheap (in more ways than one)! You have to do something, Mitt. You can't keep coming off as "I'm Guy Smiley and I'm firing your dad!")

moreless