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

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

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

The Not So Shocking Death Of Amy Winehouse

So, Amy Winehouse died. Now, I keep reading interviews with people who knew her and I'm a little surprised by the number of times that someone has said, "I am shocked to learn of her death." Really? Shocked? Look, I might have been a lot of things when I heard that she had croaked it, but shocked was not one of them. As far as whether it is sad or not, that's a matter of opinion. I don't know that it's "sad" that someone dies when that death was totally preventable. Sure, it's sad for her family, but is the event itself "sad"? I think that it's more stupid than sad. But I'm sure that will be interpreted as my being insensitive. What else is new? Listen, watch the video of her singing in Serbia (of all places) about a month ago. If it doesn't load, click here. And after watching it, you tell me if you're "shocked" to learn that she died or if you're simply "shocked" that it didn't happen sooner.

moreless

Separated At Birth

Today (that being Friday) as I was looking for something to post for Thursday, I made an incredible discovery. Ready? I realized that Val Kilmer:


Looks like Chaz Bono. Behold!

Day complete.

moreless

Don't Call Me Shirley

Well, Leslie Nielsen died yesterday. I'm guessing that right at this very moment, you're thinking that surely, I can't be serious. But I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

But while an unknown portion of the United States mourns this ridiculous actor, their sorrow is nothing compared to that of the Chileans in Chile today. You remember Chile, right? They had a bunch of miners trapped underground for some God-awful length of time before they were miraculously rescued alive. (And I'd like to take this opportunity to mention that while it was all very nice that they were thanking God and all of that, I really would have liked a shout-out to the US, as it was the majority of our technology and expertise that got them out of there in one piece and without having had their bones gnawed upon by their compadres. I'm just sayin'. Now where was I?) They are also, apparently, huge fans of Leslie Nielsen. Behold!

Yep. What you're looking at is the front page of a daily Chilean periodical called Las Ultimas Noticias. That translates into The Latest News (according to Google Translate, which I freaking love). The page which reads "Leslie Nielsen fallecio de una neumonia" and "Repentina muerte de la estrella de "Donde esta el policia?" translates into "Leslie Nielsen died of pneumonia" and "Sudden death of the star of "Where is the police?" I guess that, since that picture is from The Naked Gun, they call it Where Is The Police? That's odd because it's not like you can't translate The Naked Gun into Spanish. Why don't they call it "Agárralo como puedas"? I don't know either, but they don't and he's still dead.

I felt the need to check out other stories on their website to get some sort of a grip on what kind of news they report on, especially if the death of Leslie Nielsen warrants taking up the entire front page over there. I'm still not really sure what they're all about. They had this picture:

And the title or headline that accompanied it read "La esposa del campeon dejo ver sus encantos", which Google Translate says is "The wife of champion left to see its charms". I'm looking at the picture and I'm reading that accompaniment and I'm still not getting it. Nice rack, though. And hey! Before you start judging me for saying that, I'm just going to add that underneath that cryptic description, it also said "Peligroso escote", which apparently means "dangerous cleavage"! Hmm. I'm really wanting to know more about these folks AND about her cleavage. Just HOW dangerous is it?

Then there was this picture:

That was accompanied by "Pas Buscunan se la juega por la vida sana" and "La actriz lanza su página web con audaz foto" which apparently means "Pas Buscunan it plays for healthy living" and "The actress launches its website with bold picture." Well, that's definitely a bold picture. So far, we have dangerous cleavage and a bold picture. Is there anything in this newspaper that doesn't have to do with female physique and (of all things) an unabated love for the newly deceased Leslie Nielsen?

Well, there's this: It's accompanying caption reads "Zafrada cuenta su vida en Internet" and "Tiene su propia página web". Uh-huh. As confusing as that is for me, the English translation didn't do much to clear things up for me when I read it means "Zafra has your Internet life" and "It has its own website". What is Zafra? Or maybe the question should be WHO is Zafra? Is that little boy Zafra? Does Zafra mean leather loafers and courdoroy pants in Spanish? I'm very confused by this entire newspaper and the events upon which they report. I think I'm just going to go back to mourning Leslie Nielsen by watching "Where is the police?" in English.

moreless

The Worst Cartoon Ever

The awesome folks over there at Urlesque had a little feature called "13 Old Cartoons You Didn't Think Anyone Else Watched". It was awesome. But after reading it and watching some of the old cartoons, I'm fairly convinced that no one watched them. That is, except The Ant and The Aardvark, which aired during episodes of The Pink Panther. That was awesome. The rest of those cartoons are simply crap.

But the one which I found to be absolutely awful as well as inexplicable was The Gary Coleman Show. Yes. That is correct. The Gary Coleman Show. From what I can tell, the Gary Coleman character is an angel that is sent back down to earth by some school marm looking angel who wears gladiator sandals (which is strange since she's an angel and lives in the clouds where there really isn't a pressing need for footwear). I guess he's supposed to do good deeds. I'm not really sure. I'm more interested in what the story was behind the dead kid, but I don't really think that they got into that very much back then. (By the way, I'm merely assuming that he's a small child in this cartoon. For all I know, he could have been an adult. Hard to tell with that guy.)

The point here is that is appears to have been terrible and I cannot believe that anyone watched it. Actually, I can't believe that anyone thought that this thing was a good idea in the first place. Who comes up with these things? What was it that made someone think that what the world was clamoring for at the time was a Gary Coleman cartoon where he's an angel? And after whoever it was voiced this opinion, who in the world was it that agreed with that individual?

I've included a sample of this madness below. It's only the opening credits, but it's enough for you to grasp just how horrible it was (and still is, in a way). If you need some of the actual crap show, do a You Tube search. There are a few on there for you to gape in amazement at.

moreless

A Parent Strikes Again

Today's post follows in the steps of yesterday's post in which we discovered how one parent (one who is likely a moron and who also likely just enjoys stirring things up) can cause the entire system to grind to a halt. We discovered how if just ONE person is "offended" by something or thinks that there is something wrong with something that the way that the complainer and the complainee think is the best way to handle it is to completely overreact and remove the "offending" item from the access of everyone, even those who are not offended. That's what we discovered. And it was through that discovery that we learned that there are just some pain in the ass people out there who want to up-end the system under the guise of "being offended". Today is another one of those stories. Please don't let that keep you from reading. It's just as idiotic as yesterday's, I promise.

Our post today takes us to Culpeper County Public Schools in (surprise) Culpeper, Virginia. It's there that we learn via the Star Exponent that the Anne Frank diary entitled "The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition"...will no longer be assigned to CCPS students". That is according to a one Jim Allen who is the school system's director of instruction. Great. So we're banning The Diary of Anne Frank now? Why is this? Oh, right. Because of the vagina passage. Wait. The what now?

I had the same reaction. What vagina passage? See, apparently there are two versions of The Diary of Anne Frank. There's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years (you know, trying to avoid being taken to a concentration camp by the Nazis and all) and then there's the version where she's hiding out in an attic with her family for almost two years, trying to avoid the same fate as described above. The thing is that in the second version, there are apparently some "...sexually suggestive references". Uh-huh. The girl was 13, right? And there were only SOME sexually suggestive references? OK. And that's a problem?

It shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a problem. But guess what? It was a problem. For A parent. That's right. For ONE parent it was a problem. The problem was what was touted in several news stories that I read about this as "the vagina passage". Now, these publications don't have a problem printing the phrase "vagina passage" no matter how ridiculous it sounds. But do you think that any of them could actually print what the "vagina passage" was? No. Apparently not. Thank goodness for some thing called The Raw Story (which dubs their publication as "an alternative news nexus") that actually saw fit to include what was so freaking offensive to A parent. (It's a good thing that they found it via Valerie Strauss at The Answer Sheet otherwise we might never have known.

Ahem! The offending "vagina passage": "There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can't imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!" That's it?

Wait a minute. That's it? That is "the vagina passage"? What is wrong with that, exactly? That seems like a perfectly reasonable for a thirteen year old to think and to write. I totally remember wondering how that whole birth thing was possible (as it is akin to shoving a pot roast through one's nostril). There's nary a hint of anything fictitious in that statement. It's just as she describes. I have no qualms with it.

But here's the thing: Let's say I was a moron and I did have a qualm with it. We could even say that I had qualms. Why is it that I can't just ask if my kid can read the less "seedy" version? Why is it that I have to go in there and say that I don't want this book taught at all to any of the children? By the way, I'm using the term "children" extremely loosely here as we are talking about eighth graders in this situation. Yes! Eighth graders! Some moron has a problem out there with their eighth grader reading a passage which very vaguely and extremely tamely describes a vagina and the functions that one may or may not believe that it has the capacity to perform!

What is it about our society that if one person complains, everyone has to be affected? I don't get that. But that's what happened. According to the article linked above in the Star Exponent "Citing a parent’s concern over the sexual nature of the vagina passage in the definitive edition, Allen said school officials immediately chose to pull this version and use an alternative copy." Please note the usage of the term "A parent". I'm not kidding, nor exaggerating, when I say that it was because of ONE complaint. ONE.

The article continues with the aforementioned Mr. Allen stating, “What we have asked is that this particular edition will not be taught...I’m happy when parents get involved with these things because it lets me know that they are really looking and have their kids’ best interest (in mind). And that’s where good parenting and good teaching comes in." Hey, I'm happy when parents get involved as well. I'm not happy when parents interfere with the rest of the learning potential of the rest of the class. But I agree that when parents are looking into what their kids are doing, the (assumedly) have their kid's best interest in mind. But I'm going to have to disagree that this sort of a reaction could be defined as "good parenting" OR "good teaching" because I don't think that it's either one.

I'm curious as to what the response of this particular school would have been if there hadn't been another alternative to this book that was essentially the same book (only with less referencing of said vaginas and all). Would they have just banned the book altogether? That seems rash. After all, this is a book about a thirteen year old girl who ultimately dies at the hands of the Nazis in a concentration camp. It's not like it's light reading material at all. If anything, I'd like to thing that the "vagina passage" kind of lightened things up a little bit. But I'm apparently the only one who would like to think anything like that of the sort. Morons.

This has got to stop. We cannot keep altering the course of the masses because one individual complains. This is not setting a good precedence AT ALL. Man, I wish I had a kid in public school so that I could just try being a pain in the ass and see what I could get away with. Maybe then I'd start to understand the thinking patterns of these school administrators that simply cave with every "offended" parent that presents an issue before them. Because as it stands now, I don't understand a thing about it other than it's completely moronic and is going to doom us eventually. And probably sooner rather than later.

moreless

If This Cockpit is a-Rockin....

Tell me something. When did it become permissible or acceptable or perhaps even advisable that one tell a lie that is so far from what the truth could possibly be that everyone knows it is a lie from the get go? You know the ones I mean. The lies that when we hear them, the first thing that we think is, "Yeah, right." Things like, "I haven't had plastic surgery." "My son is in a balloon." "I'm neither a Muslim, nor a Kenyan and can be your President." You know them. I'm going to give you a new one to add to that list. "We were having a heated discussion about airline policy." Wait. What now?

Correct. Let's go over to Minneapolis, Minnesota where Northwest flight 188 was supposed to have landed at 8:01pm last night. The plane was an hour and fifteen minutes late when it finally landed. And during that time there were many attempts to try to contact the pilots in the cockpit, but to no avail. The pilots weren't responding.

So what gives? There weren't air traffic problems. There weren't mechanical problems. There hadn't been a delay. There wasn't some strong headwind. But there's some wind blowin' now. According to the fine folks over there at MYFox - Twin Cities, the explanation from the two pilots (the regular and the co-) was that they had "...stated they were in a heated discussion over airline policy and they lost situational awareness." Um, wait. They lost what?

Lost situational awareness. It's a term that is used when you have just done something or are supposed to do something but don't remember doing it or having to do it. We've all probably done something sort of like this. Like if we're driving to work or to go home and we're thinking about something other than driving and suddenly, there we are! Home! We have no idea how in the heck we got there, but yet, there we are. We clearly drove ourselves there, but we "lost situational awareness" and were surprised when we realized we were home.

Say, Captain Words-A-Lot, are you trying to say "forgot"? The pilots forgot to land the plane? I don't think that happened. Seriously. How freaking heated could a discussion over "airline policy" actually get? Tell me this: What part of the "airline policy" were they in such a heated discussion over? I'll tell you what part of "airline policy" I wish they'd been in a heated discussion over. It's the part of "airline policy" that tells you to land the damn plane in Minneapolis and not fly 150 miles past the airport before you finally realize that you're in Wisconsin!

That's right. Wisconsin. Numerous attempts to contact the pilots failed and so the plane just kept right on flying until it was somewhere near Eau Claire (home of that tasty, creme filled donut. Oh, wait. That's eclair. Never mind. Carry on!), Wisconsin when the pilots finally responded. Wisconsin. What the hell? And you expect us to believe that they were arguing with each other? I can't possibly imagine. There are quite a few things that I can get into a passionate discussion with someone about, but I highly doubt that the discussion is going to cause me to completely ignore the twinkling lights of Minneapolis and not cause me to realize that the discussion is going to have to wait because we have a plane to land!

There is speculation that the pilots may have been asleep. Um, perhaps. Now, this is where I'd like to make the disclaimer that there are few things in life that I enjoy more than wild, rampant, irresponsible speculation and I will commence doing so now. Sure, they could have been asleep. I kind of don't have too much of a problem with that. I mean, there is that "auto-pilot" thing that seems to work pretty well and that's kind of what it's for; to pilot the plane automatically. However, the fact that no one else could get into the cockpit (to tell these dumbasses that those pretty lights down there are where they want to put the plane) because it was locked during this time, yeah that's troubling. But it's also...convenient. Hmmmm.

Now, I'm not saying that they weren't sleeping. They absolutely could have been. And nothing makes most people more tired and in need of a nap than a good heavy dose of fornication. Let's look closer at the statements of one of the pilots, first officer Richard Cole (brother of Nat King Cole, of course), who said that falling asleep "...wasn't the case. He also said an argument wasn't to blame." This according to MetroNews.ca up there in Calgary, Canada, America's Hat. Anything else you'd like to share with us, Rich? "All I'm saying is we were not asleep; we were not having a fight; there was nothing serious going on in the cockpit that would threaten the people in the back at all," he told The Associated Press in an interview at his home in Salem, Ore." And....? "He declined to discuss what exactly happened but did insist "it was not a serious event, from a safety issue." "I can't go into it, but it was innocuous." Um, right.

You dumbass! It's "innocuous" now! But that's only because you didn't a) crash or b) get shot down by military fighters that were standing by. (How a military fighter "stands by" is completely beyond me.) Whatever y'all were doing up there was only "innocuous" because nothing happened! (Note to self: Always check to see who my pilot is on future flights and run like the wind if it's that dude.)

Maybe it's a little bit of everything. Maybe co-pilot Rich and master pilot Timothy Cheney (brother of Dick Cheney, of course) were up there in the cockpit (which is really becoming quite the appropriate term for this little tryst). They were all alone. One looked over at the other. "How you doin'?" Huh? I think I'm close. Not as close as I think that those two probably were, but pretty close never the less.

Their own altitudes become elevated, they're playing with each other's instrument panels, moving joysticks into highly inappropriate positions, keeping their "tray" in the upright position and really hoping to stick the landing. Afterwards, maybe they spooned a bit. You know. A little cockpit cuddle before deciding they could break free from each other's embrace and let those 140 people on the plane go to their destination. First things first, they had to get their "ass" out of "Wisconsin". (Why'd I put the quotes around "ass"? I'm pretty sure that's what I meant.)

This will be interesting to see what comes out as the real story. All I know is that they were not in a heated discussion. A heated moment, ummmmm, perhaps! But a heated discussion? I doubt it. And back to my initial point. Don't lie when you're totally busted. We're going to see right through it. You did have plastic surgery. Your kid isn't in that balloon. OK, fine, you're not a Muslim or a Kenyan, but you do smoke! And you two were making sweet, sweet love at 37,000 feet when you...whoopsie! Overshot the runway by 150 miles. We know. We know. Just admit it. You'll feel better. Not as good as you did in that cockpit, but better.

moreless