Warning: This isn't my usual witty fare. But it's important. Granted, I think that other things that I put on here are important as well, but seriously, are they? Kinda. But still not as important as this. Look, my very good friend's father died from melanoma about five years ago. It's not good. But there are things that you can do to catch melanoma early and improve your chances of survival. This video gets to the heart of those things that you should probably know. I know it runs a little bit long at just over five minutes, but give it a watch. If you knew that you were going to be attacked by a lion one day, wouldn't you want to know what to do about it when that lion finally jumped out at you? Of course you would! (Just ask Siegfried and Roy.) Think of melanoma as that lion, only with less hair. And if the video doesn't load, click here.
Showing posts with label lions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lions. Show all posts
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Like A Lion, Only Less Hairy
Warning: This isn't my usual witty fare. But it's important. Granted, I think that other things that I put on here are important as well, but seriously, are they? Kinda. But still not as important as this. Look, my very good friend's father died from melanoma about five years ago. It's not good. But there are things that you can do to catch melanoma early and improve your chances of survival. This video gets to the heart of those things that you should probably know. I know it runs a little bit long at just over five minutes, but give it a watch. If you knew that you were going to be attacked by a lion one day, wouldn't you want to know what to do about it when that lion finally jumped out at you? Of course you would! (Just ask Siegfried and Roy.) Think of melanoma as that lion, only with less hair. And if the video doesn't load, click here.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Idiotic Things I Read Today
You'd think that I'd be happier, what with the election finally over. Finally, I can have the TV on for more than 5 minutes without being bombarded with an ad by Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown telling me why their version of hell is better than their opponent's. But I'm irritated. I started perusing the Innerwebs this morning and just found idiocy after idiocy. Let's review. My semi-beloved San Jose Mercury News ran a piece detailing the most awesome victory
parade in San Francisco for the World Champion San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series in most excellent fashion on Monday. When describing the size of the massive crowd, the article read: "Those arriving in downtown San Francisco -- where police officers gave crowd estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1 million -- were greeted by gigantic orange and black balloons that bobbed on the traffic signals."
parade in San Francisco for the World Champion San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series in most excellent fashion on Monday. When describing the size of the massive crowd, the article read: "Those arriving in downtown San Francisco -- where police officers gave crowd estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1 million -- were greeted by gigantic orange and black balloons that bobbed on the traffic signals."
That's the BEST you can do?! Somewhere between 200,000 and a freaking million? OK, that's not really an estimate. That's just pulling numbers out of your arse. Anyone could come up with an estimate like that! What good does that do anyone? That's just a ridiculous way of saying "The crowd was very, very large". You morons.
Then there was an article over at Politics Daily. I'm not going to bag on the writer of the article so
much, as I do kind of like what she tends to write. She was probably just having an off day. The point here is that the article focuses on the folks that Sarah Palin endorsed. The title of the article reads "Sarah Palin's Midterm Scorecard: A Winning Record, but Some Key Losses". In essence, it goes on to detail how Sarah Palin supported "...more than 100 conservative candidates during the primary and general elections." Um, OK. I guess she can do that being how she's being whatever it is that she's being these days. (I still haven't quite figured that out yet.) It then goes on to say, "A Politics Daily tally puts Palin's Tuesday successes at 62 wins, 23 losses and seven contests that are still too close to call, with Palin's candidates trailing in five of those races."
much, as I do kind of like what she tends to write. She was probably just having an off day. The point here is that the article focuses on the folks that Sarah Palin endorsed. The title of the article reads "Sarah Palin's Midterm Scorecard: A Winning Record, but Some Key Losses". In essence, it goes on to detail how Sarah Palin supported "...more than 100 conservative candidates during the primary and general elections." Um, OK. I guess she can do that being how she's being whatever it is that she's being these days. (I still haven't quite figured that out yet.) It then goes on to say, "A Politics Daily tally puts Palin's Tuesday successes at 62 wins, 23 losses and seven contests that are still too close to call, with Palin's candidates trailing in five of those races." Let's do the math. She supported more than 100 candidates. She currently has 62 wins, 23 losses 
and 7 undecided. That's 92! That's not more than 100. What gives? On top of that, what makes these "wins" or these "losses" Sarah Palin's to absorb? Aren't there a lot of people out there who would support just about any conservative candidate, no matter how wacky they appeared (Christine O'Donnell, I'm talking about you)? I think there are. Since when did the wins and the losses of the conservative candidates fall squarely on the shoulders of Sarah Palin? She's a former half-term governor who once spent a couple of months running for Vice President! (And don't get me wrong. For the most part, I like Sarah Palin. But her endorsement of someone certainly isn't gold by any means and it shouldn't be construed as such.)
and 7 undecided. That's 92! That's not more than 100. What gives? On top of that, what makes these "wins" or these "losses" Sarah Palin's to absorb? Aren't there a lot of people out there who would support just about any conservative candidate, no matter how wacky they appeared (Christine O'Donnell, I'm talking about you)? I think there are. Since when did the wins and the losses of the conservative candidates fall squarely on the shoulders of Sarah Palin? She's a former half-term governor who once spent a couple of months running for Vice President! (And don't get me wrong. For the most part, I like Sarah Palin. But her endorsement of someone certainly isn't gold by any means and it shouldn't be construed as such.)And finally, I'm really getting tired of how any time an animal attacks
a human, it is made into some sort of sensationalistic news, as if something like that is so shocking and so unheard of that we should all just be in a state of disbelief that it ever occurred. Take this headline from The Huffington Post: "Peter Evershed KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe." Um, yes. I would imagine that five lions WOULD kill a man.
a human, it is made into some sort of sensationalistic news, as if something like that is so shocking and so unheard of that we should all just be in a state of disbelief that it ever occurred. Take this headline from The Huffington Post: "Peter Evershed KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe." Um, yes. I would imagine that five lions WOULD kill a man. 
To begin, I get thoroughly annoyed when the media runs the name of some person afflicted by tragedy in a way that makes the reader feel as if something horrendous has happened to someone that they knew. Does anyone know who Peter Evershed was, other than people who actually knew him? No. He was a 59-year-old businessman from Zimbabwe. But the headline makes the reader initially feel as if they've just read "Brad Pitt KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe". (And, in this example, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Brad to have actually been in Zimbabwe. He could have been over there buying another child to complete his collection. They don't have one from Zimbabwe yet, do they?) See, animals eat meat. Humans are made of meat! Of course they're going to eat a human if
they're given the chance. It's a big piece of meat! Why is that so shocking to people? Or maybe it's only shocking to the media. I'm not sure. But in another example of the inexplicable shock that this article tries to convey is when they quote some Zimbabwe guy as saying, "We appeal to everyone to exercise extreme caution. Animals have become extremely unpredictable." Wait. What now?
they're given the chance. It's a big piece of meat! Why is that so shocking to people? Or maybe it's only shocking to the media. I'm not sure. But in another example of the inexplicable shock that this article tries to convey is when they quote some Zimbabwe guy as saying, "We appeal to everyone to exercise extreme caution. Animals have become extremely unpredictable." Wait. What now?
Have become? Animals have become unpredictable?! They're animals! Aside from that, since when is a wild animal eating human considered "unpredictable"? Seems pretty predictable to me. If you showed anyone a picture of a human standing in the wild with a bunch of lions walking around and you asked that person to guess what might be about to happen, I'd guess that nine times out of ten (with the tenth being the moron who wrote the article) the person you are asking would correctly infer that the chap in the picture is about to become lion lunch! HOW is that unpredictable?!I've had enough. I'm going to go watch a little TV without a political ad in sight to try to make myself feel better.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Lion Burgers, Anyone?
I don't understand the whole exotic game animal meat for consumption dealio. Buffalo burgers, ostrich burgers, stuff like that. Does it make it any more of a meal because you're eating something that you wouldn't normally eat? I don't know that it does. And does it really taste SO much better than a regular beef burger or a regular turkey burger? Different? I'd buy that. But better? I don't know. But now I'm afraid that the whole exotic burger deal is trying to one-up itself with an item on the menu at a Sacramento establishment. That's right. The Flaming Grill (which sounds like it would be more apt to be a gay bar than it would a bar and grill) is serving up lion burgers. Wait. What now? Correct. Lion burgers. Well, not just lion burgers. Because that
would be weird. No, they're lion AND antelope burgers. Mostly antelope. So, that should help, right? No. No, it kinda doesn't. Look, I'm not saying that they're disgusting or anything like that. I really don't know. I've never had a lion/antelope burger. (What would that be? Like a lintelope? Sounds fuzzy.) I just don't know that it's necessary, you know? According to KTXL in Sacramento "There are rules and regulations for this type of thing, but the Flaming Grill says it's not breaking any. The business tells FOX40 it can't serve a burger with all lion meat, and it's supply is not imported from another country." Wait. What? 
It's not imported from another country? Where, exactly, in the United States do we have all of these lions roaming around that are fit for eating? I was unaware of the lion-as-food populace in this country. Not imported? How is that possible? And even if it is possible, when did this start? You know, all of the extra lions.Upon further investigation of the Flaming Grill (OK, I went to Yelp) I discovered that the lintelope
burger is not all that they serve that would be classified under the 
Then there's the alligator burger. I want to know what's the difference between alligator meat and crocodile meat. They seem like they're cousins, yet I never hear of crocodile being on a menu anywhere. And if it was going to be anywhere, I'd have to guess that this place would be it.
There's your buffalo burger. Buffalo, the cousin of the yak. Still edible. Still odd. But it's not as odd as, of course, the llama burger. Behold!
Llama? Who would even think of eating a llama? Why would you want to? They're the spitters, right? Yeah, I don't want spit-laden meat. Llamas look like they're half camel, half ostrich. I'm surprised those aren't on the menu at the Flaming Grill as well! But according to the Yelp-sters, there is kangaroo available on some occasions. (Now, I KNOW that isn't from this country! Explain the kangaroo!) I'm not bagging on the Flaming Grill, but I really take issue with the
whole "exotic food" concept. Most of the time, foods that are considered to be "exotic" were only eaten in the first place because the people who were eating them were starving to death at the time! They would have eaten each other if they could have! It's not like they were looking to do the "exotic" thing at the time. They ate what they could. But when you can eat things that are more plentiful (and normal), shouldn't we just stick with those? Do we really need to be eating llamas? I'm not so sure.
