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

Really, Fox News?

When I want to stay informed about current events, all I want are the facts of the story. I really don't want it to have a slant. I want the journalists that craft their stories to be impartial. The news isn't meant to be reported as if it were an editorial. If I wanted an editorial, I'd read stuff that I write. I want the news and that's all that I want. That being said...Fox News? What is wrong with you?
::: sigh ::: Behold.

Really? "Impeached President"? Yes, yes. Bill Clinton was impeached. Is there a reason that they felt the need to address him in that manner? That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that they're about the discuss. And if that's what they're going to be about then really, what's stopping them from using other phrasings that would be technically accurate? Let's see...we could have:

Fellatio Recipient Opines About Something Non-fellatious

Big ol' Liar Is Embarrassed For The Country

Adulterer Wants To Strangle Non-Believers

Yes, we could have any of those headlines, but we don't. You know why? Because it's not good journalism, that is correct. And it really irks me because I try to give cable news the benefit of the doubt most of the time. But a headline like that at the "Fair and Balanced" news station just isn't making that possible for me. Keep it classy, Fox News.

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

No, That Doesn't Look Crazy At All

What we have here is either really bad journalism (probably not) or really one-sided politics (more likely). If you're going to call yourself a news source and you want to "report" on the news, what say you do it in a way that your subject does not look like a crazy person unless, in fact, they are a crazy person. In this situation, we have Michelle Bachmann. She's not crazy, but Newsweek has her plastered on their cover looking like a lunatic with nice hair and conservative makeup. Behold!

Seriously, Newsweek? What's with the moniker "The Queen Of Rage"? Your article doesn't mention the word "rage" once, so it's a little confusing as to why you'd put that on your cover. And was this really the best out of all of the pictures that were taken? I can't imagine that it is. Y'all are just a bunch of biased journalists. And you suck because of it. Whoever it was that paid a dollar for the whole Newsweek operation, well, he overpaid.

moreless

He's STILL Lying!

Well, here's a shocker. I hope you're sitting down because do you remember those weiner shots that were sent from Anthony Weiner's Twitter account last week? The ones that he strongly denied sending? The ones that he said were a result of his Twitter account being hacked? Yeah, he sent them. Shocking, I know.

He held a little press conference yesterday

where he finally admitted what anyone with half of a brain has known since allegations of Weinergate first surface. In short, he sent pictures of his aroused manhood to some chick that he had become acquainted with online. This is where my first issue comes in. Who does this sort of thing? (And I'm asking serious questions here because I am extremely confused.) What kind of a guy takes a picture of his crank and sends it to some chick with his phone? What is the thought process there? "Hey! Look at this! It's mine! Whaddaya think of that?!" I'm open to suggestions. I really don't get the thought mentality.

Next, how is what the Weiner was doing with his weiner any different than some guy in a trench coat flashing people on the street? I mean, are these things planned out? (If they are, I think that would make it a little bit weirder.) I don't think that they are. It seems like what happens is that there might be a little bit of sexy talk and then the next thing you know...BAM! Weiner in your inbox! (Figuratively speaking, of course...and for now). But really, is he any different from your friendly neighborhood flasher? I'm seeing a lot more similarities than I am differences. (And by the way, if you DO have a friendly neighborhood flasher, perhaps consider relocating to a nicer area. That's no way to go through life, son.)

I'd also like to point out that Weiner did a little "crying". I don't know if actual tears were shed, but his voice did

crack a few times and it was fairly obvious that he knew that he was in trouble. What fascinates me about this is that these jackasses can lie like a rug when they're trying to. They have NO trouble covering up ANY emotions when they are vehemently denying everything that they so totally did. They're emotionless, indignant snakes when they're lying. As soon as they're exposed (literally, in this case) they start crying like a little girl. Does anyone actually "buy" it when they cry? It just pisses me off more.And you know what pisses me off even more than that? Crappy media reporting, that is correct. Every freaking report out there that I have read about these schlong shenanigans tell me that the Weiner finally took responsibility for his actions. You're going to read it here first (and, from what I can tell, NO WHERE ELSE) that that's a bunch of crap. He hadn't talked for an entire minute before he was lying! I'm serious! Why am I the only one who caught that?! He said, "Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle." What?! It was so NOT a joke! Why is everyone just breezing right over that?! He's lying! It wasn't a joke! Later on in his lame little speech, he said, "I have exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years." Were those jokes too, you lying piece of crap?! Why is no one calling him on this stuff?!

God, the media sucks. This guy is a weird snake. I hope he has to resign. I don't like people like him in positions of power, especially after blatantly lying to everyone under the sun about showing his wang off on Twitter! Go away, Weiner! And take your weiner with you. (By the way, NBC New York has the transcript of his lame-o apology if you want to read it.

moreless

Oh, No They Don't

I've gotta say that I'm kind of surprised at the restraint that almost all of the news and tabloid outlets have shown by not publishing a photo of Arnold's newly announced illegitimate child that he fathered with his maid at his house when he was cheating on his wife and the mother of his four legitimate children, the lovely Maria Shriver. If only some of the media could refrain from making idiotic comparisons and/or analogies, then we might very well be on our way toward some responsible reporting of an issue that really kind of doesn't matter. But no. Leave it to ABC to ruin the very, very short streak that we were on. I present to you THEIR way of framing the story. Behold! Utter crap!

Good Lord. Really? Who thought that was a good idea? Well, over at ABC, it would be the director of Yale University's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic, a one Dr. Alan E. Kazdin, as he is actually quoted using the phrase "This event is like a personal 9/11." I know that 9/11 was almost ten years ago, so I'm guessing that he WAS, in fact, around for the events that took place on that day. That's why I'm so perplexed as to why anyone would make such an idiotic statement. ( was about to say "And he's a doctor!" Then I realized that might actually shed some light on his thinking patterns as opposed to confusing me even more. He should step out of his ivory tower once in a while and see how the real world thinks of 9/11. Because while it's thought of in a lot of ways, one of those ways is not when your husband/father turns out to be a lying, cheating, seed-spreading scumbag. It sucks, but it doesn't 9/11 suck.

moreless

That's Not Racism!

Oh, most of news media. How I despise you so. Please stop feeling the need to make things that are completely innocent into something that is falsely inflammatory. David Gregory, I'm talking to you.

Fox Nation gives us the low down of when Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press on Sunday with Mr. Gregory. Gregory played a clip from a speech that Newt gave in Georgia on Friday. The gist of the whole thing was jobs. This is what Newt said: "You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama's is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?" OK. Seems like a bit of a slam, but I'm OK with it. I know what he's trying to say. (He can't blame it all on President Barry though, even though he's trying.)

You want to know what David Gregory thought he was trying to say? I don't know if you do. Let's find out. David Gregory actually had the nerve to say: "First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president." Oh, for cryin' out loud. WHAT?!

Racial?! Racially tinged language?! How do you figure, Dave?? Because it was in Georgia? Well, that doesn't make any sense. Because there are a lot of black people in Georgia? No, that doesn't make any sense either. Is it because David Gregory is trying to start some sort of racial controversy that does not, in any way, shape or form even exist? I don't know if that's the motivation behind it, but it's more logical than the other two possibilities that I mentioned.

I am appalled. That's one of the more ridiculous and inane things that anyone has ever implied racism to be. Do I have to keep reminding people that he's HALF WHITE?! He's the first half white president, NOT the first black president! And if you do want to go with his being partially black, why don't you call him the first half black president?! Oh, because that wouldn't have enough opportunities to imply racism now, would it? Morons. Knock it off, David. You know better than that. The video of this asininity is below. It should make you angry and annoyed. If it doesn't, you're doing it wrong.

moreless

Stop Meaningless Polling!

I don't ask much of you guys. In turn, I usually get about what I asked for. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a request. If you or anyone you know has any pull or sway at any news or media institution, could you please see what could be done about ceasing any talk of Presidential polling numbers this early in the game? Please. Because the numbers at this point are pointless. You can't ask people if Barack Obama is going to be re-elected when you don't even know who he is running against! Make it stop!

It troubles me that no news organization has caught onto this yet. No, they just keep churning out poll numbers that are meaningless, only they do it as if they have meaning. It's not exactly like trying to tell non-addle-brained adults that the Easter bunny is real, but it's vaguely similar. The real difference in that fairly poor example is that the non-addle-brained adults can figure out that (SPOILER ALERT) the Easter bunny isn't real. In the case of the insignificant Presidential poll results, I'm afraid that people might actually be paying attention and thinking that it matters. Let me be clear: It does not matter. AT ALL.

I went back to January of 2008 and looked at the poll results for Presidential "candidates" at the time. According to the research done and compiled by American Research Group, as far as the Democratic candidates went, Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead over then-Senator Barry. They even had her at a fairly commanding lead over then-Senator Barry in December of 2007. Both of those results came at a time that was closer to the election that we are now! And the last time I checked, Hillary wasn't our President. (And the last time I checked, she was just getting over being bitter than she lost the nomination. I'm still not sure that she's over it.) And over on the Republican candidate front, in December of 2007, Rudy Giuliani was miles ahead of old man McCain. But by January of 2008, just one month later? Giuliani was nowhere to be found and it was a virtual toss up between old man McCain and pretty catcher's Mitt Romney.

So please, please remember that asking people if Barack Obama can be re-elected at this point and time is absolutely futile. Why doesn't the media understand that? Why don't they realize that they're wasting everyone's time with pointless polls this early on? Oh. Right. Because the media sucks. Yeah. All right. Back to you.

moreless

Now We're Talking

I don't know that I can just keep yammering on about the Jared Lee Loughner being a nutjob situation much longer. Granted, things are starting to simmer down a bit, but people are still giving way too much credit to a bunch of things that don't deserve ANY credit. Thus, I thought that today I would go with this caricature/cartoon which I found on Facebook at something called Chris Spangle's Blog. It's about the most accurate piece of "reporting" that I've run across so far on this topic. Behold! (And thank you.)

moreless

The Media Still Sucks

Today, some asshat decided to get all shooty down there in Arizona and shoot a bunch of people, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Federal Judge John Moll and a 9-year old child. The suspect, a one 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner, is now in custody. I have already heard my share of comments to the effect of "We don't yet know what motivated the shooter". I really don't like it when statements like that are thrown into the mix of reporting for various reasons. One, I'm not really sure, at the point, that it matters what may have "motivated" someone to go to a public event and start shooting people. And two, the most obvious and likely answer to the question of "Why?" is that there is obviously some sort of mental illness afoot. You can't tell me that, whether previously identified or not, whether previously treated or not, that someone who goes to a public event and shoots a bunch of people doesn't have just a touch of mental illness going on. And even if you think that this might be the exception to the rule (which, by the way, would make you such a softhead that I think that you should stop reading this right now and go buy yourself and industrial strength helmet for your soft, soft dome), what say you check out Shooty McShooterson's YouTube page and get back to me with your assessment of his mental stability.

Naturally, the media is practically soiling themselves over all of this news that they suddenly have to cover. It's just unfortunate that they suck so badly at it. And while they don't see the consequences of their suckage at non-critical moments in news coverage, there are quite obvious consequences to their suckage at critical moments in breaking news coverage. I am specifically calling out CNN, Reuters and NPR. I am vaguely calling out all of the others who participated in the same irresponsible acts that CNN, Reuters and NPR did. All of these news stations, with their rush to be the "first" to report, had reported that Rep. Giffords had died. She, in fact, has not died. She, in fact, was shot in the head (yes, I realize that isn't good, but if she's still alive, you can't say that she's dead) and made it through surgery and is in critical condition. That's not dead. (Her neurosurgeon said that he is "optimistic" that she will recover. I don't know what that means, but I do know that it means she still isn't dead.)

What is wrong with you, CNN, Reuters, NPR and others?! You are supposed to be news outlets. You're supposed to report the news, you jackwagons. What does that say about you when you report utter crap that just isn't true? It says that you suck at your job and, while I don't often call for people to lose their jobs, whoever it was that gave the go-ahead to say that someone was dead when she wasn't should lose their job, as they are obviously completely incompetent and incapable of performing at the level needed when the pressure is on. Do you know how many people, including those who know Rep. Giffords, could have been watching any of your crap news sources and heard that she had died? Of course you do! That's why you reported it! Can you imagine the grief that was caused by your irresponsible actions, probably due to wanting to get the story out there first? Of course you don't! That's why you reported it! At the risk of sounding like someone's grandmother, you really should be ashamed of yourselves.

You know what all of this means, don't you? I fear it means that the days of public access to those who represent the people who should be able to have access them are gone. Because if there are two things that the government does well, they are nothing and overreact. I fear the end of those town hall meetings that had gathered so much steam six months ago. I fear the end of any sort of elected official ever poking their head out in public again. (I also fear an overabundance of crappy news reporting on this story over the next few days, but that's a little off the point I was trying to make here.) Way to go, assclown.

In conclusion, The New York Post (while getting their facts straight in not incorrectly reporting that anyone had died, still can't manage to get the name of Gabrielle Giffords father correct, even though they have the SAME last name. Seriously, who edits stuff anymore? Anyone? How can you get his name WRONG? It's the freaking SAME!) reported that "The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies. "Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole Tea Party." OK, now I'm going to give the man a pass on that comment, as his daughter had just been shot in the head. I have nothing bad to say about that man and his statement at all. But I would like to point out that the Tea Party doesn't want to shoot Congresswomen in the head. The Tea Party does not want to shoot and kill Federal judges, nor does the Tea Party want to shoot and kill small children. The Tea Party merely wants less spending and lower taxes. See? No shooting involved at all in that statement. This isn't a Tea Party thing. This is a whack-a-do thing. Please remember that. Please encourage others to remember that. One crazy person does not necessarily define an entire organization. (Oh, and President Barry isn't a Muslim, either. I figured I'd just throw that one in there again. As long I'm encouraging people to speak the truth, it can't hurt to remind folks of that just one more time.)

I pray for all of the victims and all of their families to find the strength and the courage to make it through this. (See? I don't have to mock everything.)

moreless

That's NOT What Happened!

Have I mentioned how much I despise the media? I do. They suck out loud at times. And the incident I'm about to describe is one of those times.

Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC yesterday. No great loss. I can't stand the guy. But, then again, I can't stand any of those folks who are so one-sided I wonder how they just don't tip right on over in the morning. Olbermann is particularly obnoxious, though. But that's not the point. The point is why he was suspended. And either I'm totally misunderstanding why he was suspended or everyone in the media is blatantly leaving that reason out. And I don't get it.

I'll start with The Huffington Post. Their article starts out: "MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle." OK. Now over to the LA Times blog which tells us (in an extremely pithy fashion which I appreciate) "Keith Olbermann was suspended because he donated a total of $7,200 to three political candidates who had been on his program or supported by his comments." All right, sir. And even from the New York Freaking Times which begins their article with: "Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month." Do you get it? Do you understand why he was suspended? You do? Trust me. You don't.

All three of those examples that I cited are fairly reputable (to say the least) sources of news. That's what makes me so angry. They're leaving out a key part! And it's the part for why he was really suspended! That's the thing! He wasn't suspended for making the donations! Did you get that impression from any of those sources above? Even an organization called FAIR, which stands for "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" got it wrong when they reported "MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions." That's not correct!

What they're all leaving out is that Olbermann was suspended because, according to the president of MSNBC, a one Phil Griffin, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." And the freaking policy to which he is referring to does NOT bar employees from making political contributions. No, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.

Do you see the difference? The way that it is being reported makes it sound (because that's how it sounds) like he was suspended because he donated. No. That's not it! He was suspended because he didn't obtain the approval that was required. There's a difference! Am I the only one who sees that? Why is it not being reported that way? Either way, are we supposed to feel sorry for Keith Olbermann? I can't imagine ever feeling that way toward the man. But that aside, what the hell is going on here?!

And it's not just one news source. It's EVERY news source. ALL of them are reporting that he was suspended for making political donations and ALL of them leave off the part about him doing so without obtaining approval. Why are they doing that? It's maddening is what it is. Do I think that he needed to be suspended indefinitely without pay for doing it? Look, it's not exactly like he's a strict news reporter. He's chock full of opinion! That being said, I think it's a bit harsh, but that's not the point. The point is that the media sucks! And on this one, they suck SO bad that I am almost (almost) completely speechless.

We're so doomed. This is a pretty basic concept to try and report correctly, yet everyone has it wrong. If the media can't get this right, how are we supposed to trust them to explain and report on things more complicated than why some jackass got suspended? We can't be expected to do that at all. And it saddens me. Back to you

moreless

News Navigation Narration

It's been an extremely long day over here. Long, long, long. Anyway, enough about me. Let's get on with the news.

I don't have much to say and the video below pretty much says it all, really. A one Charlie Brooker is apparently a columnist for guardian.co.uk. While I don't typically think of The Guardian as any sort of humorous publication, this Brooker fellow is one funny guy.

The quality which our reporting media continues to strive for is at depths that are lower than most of us could have ever imagined. That is to say, it sucks. It sucks so bad that we're not sure if it can suck any more. But then we realize that it can. But fortunately, there's the wonderful Charlie Brooker to help us navigate through some of those potentially confusing newscasts and understand exactly why it is that we're seeing what it is that's being reported to us. Nice job, Charlie! There might be a glimmer of hope out there yet. Maybe.

moreless

Nicolas Cage is NOT a Victim

It's fairly easy for a headline, probably written by some dumbass 22-year old media intern, to make me irritated and/or angry. Usually that's because I know that what follows a really inflammatory, inaccurate and outright misleading headline is an inflammatory, inaccurate and outright misleading article Today's case in point would be this gem from CNN Money: Nicolas Cage: Movie star, foreclosure victim. Um, what now? Does that say 'victim'?

I've long been under the impression that when someone is a victim it is because something has happened to them. I'm having a hard time understanding how Nicolas Cage, movie star, is a victim of foreclosure. Let's see if a one Hibah Yousuf, a CNN Money.com staff writer, can clear things up for us, shall we?

Her article begins with "Even Academy Award winners are suffering from financial woes this recession. Actor Nicolas Cage lost two homes in New Orleans worth a total of $6.8 million in a foreclosure auction Thursday." Financial woes? During this recession? But...but...but didn't she then just say something about $6.8 million in homes? Right. She did! I see it! It's right there! $6.8 million in homes! Lost to a foreclosure auction! Wait a minute.

I was under the impression that folks that were losing their homes during the recession were doing so because they were unable to make their house payments. Now, you and I both know that in the majority of cases, the home prices were overinflated by people who were just trying to get rich (and did!) and the over-priced homes were bought with people who were allowed to do so with almost no credit check, no down payment and, in many cases, no way of ever making a single payment. Granted, I have a hard time using the term "victim" in those cases either, but they do represent your typical person who has had a home foreclosed upon during this recession. (Idiots.)

Let's see...apparently "Cage owed $5.5 million in mortgage payments and $151,730 to the City of New Orleans in real estate taxes, according to (Civil Sheriff Paul) Valteau." Five and a half million in back mortgage payments? Did he lose his job or something? I...I don't think he did!

According to something called The Movie Times, he made $16 million in 1998 for Snake Eyes; $20 million in 2000 for Gone in 60 Seconds; $20 million in 2002 for something called Windtalkers; and $20 million in 2004 for National Treasure. You have to assume that the National Treasure movie that he made in 2007 would have paid him somewhere around the same $20 million range as the first one did, wouldn't you? I would. I am. Mind you, these were just the movies that were listed at The Movie Times that had a salary attached to them and I only included the ones that were double digit salaries. He made other movies in the past 11 years. He made more than just the $76 million that I detailed in those four movies. And that $20 million in 2007? Wasn't that right around the peak of the "recession" that Ms. Yousuf is attributing Mr. Cage's hardships to? I don't know about you, but $20 million doesn't sound like much of a hardship to me - ever!

The article continues by stating that Mr. Cage is suing a one Samuel Levin who is his former business manager. Mr. Cage is claiming in his lawsuit that Mr. Levin "...duped the Hollywood actor out of more than $20 million since 2001 when he was hired." Really? How is "being duped" part of the "recession"? Did Ms. Yousuf not read her own article when she wrote it?

But wait! There's more. "...Cage owes more than $6 million in back taxes and his properties in California and Las Vegas have also been foreclosed on and are designated for auction later this month." Wait. Wait a minute. Two more houses have been foreclosed on? There's another six million in back taxes that he owes? Well, if that's true, then Mr. Cage had at least four houses. That doesn't sound like the recession, Ms. Yousuf. No, that sounds like stupidity and irresponsibility (much like the kind that is peppered throughout your article). There is a difference.

Look, even if that Levin cretin did "dupe" Nicolas Cage out of $20 million, from what I can figure (and he has 5 projects slated for 2010 and has already done 5 this year so far), he still should have had around $40 million easily to play around with. Tell me something, if you have that much money, why wouldn't you just buy a house outright? Why are you getting a mortgage? I don't get it. Then again, I don't get why you'd have four houses, none of which it would seem like you could pay for.

According to an article over there at New York Magazine, it would seem that Mr. Cage has owned 3 castles, 2 Bahamanian islands, 1 pet shark and 1 Lamborghini (formerly owned by the Shah of Iran, of course, which he paid $493,000 for). He also, in 2007, outbid Leonardo DiCaprio in what they described as a "frenzied auction" for a dinosaur skull and ended up paying $247,000 for it. According to that same article in New York Magazine, "Most of his dozen or so homes, 50 cars, 2 islands, 2 yachts and jet have been sold, foreclosed upon or are on the market." What. The. Hell?

We've only read about four of his houses that have been sold through foreclosure so far. You're telling me that there are at least EIGHT more?! And FIFTY cars?! What in the hell is wrong with someone that they go out and buy FIFTY cars? The only type of island that anyone should be buying is Thousand Island dressing. (And personally, even that is questionable.) According to US Magazine "...one Bel Air home, purchased in 1998, features a billiard room with a 1955 Jaguar parked inside plus an array of "shrunken heads." An...an...array? Of shrunken heads? How many constitutes an array? Why would you want an array of shrunken heads? How do you play billiards in a room with a car parked in it. Perhaps Mr. Cage is confused on the concept because that room with the 1955 Jaguar parked inside of it isn't usually known as a "billiard room" as much as it is known as a garage.

Oh, but according to Hibah Yousuf of CNN Money.com, poor, poor Nicolas Cage is a victim of the recession and a victim of foreclosure. Please don't take this the wrong way Ms. Yousuf when I say that you should resign. Immediately.

Seriously, ma'am, what is wrong with you? How on earth can you even attempt to try to paint Nicolas Cage as some sort of victim of anything other than his own irresponsiblity and his own stupidity? He is a moron. He had a gazillion dollars and he pissed it away. All I needed to know in order to figure that out was "frenzied fossil bidding war with Leonardo DiCaprio". But to CNN Money.com, Nicolas Cage is a victim. Spare me. Does that mean that Leonardo DiCaprio is in jeopardy of becoming the next vicitm of the recession? Does he have an array of unusually tiny heads as well?

If I haven't convinced you by now that CNN Money.com has ZERO credibility at all as a credible news source covering the financial market, then you probably are too dumb to have enough money to be concerned about such erroneous reporting. In which case, crawl on back to your parent's basement and poke your head out when Call of Duty 3 gets released. If I'm missing something or I have misinterpreted something, I'd love to hear about it. But I'm fairly astute in the English language and that articles says "Nicolas Cage...Foreclosure victim" and the first sentence attributes his victimhood to the recession. Again, Ms. Yousuf? Resign. Immediately. And take your editor with you. Please. Good Lord, what a pile of crap that article was.

moreless

A World Minus Critical Thinking

I'd have to say that after viewing the video I'm about to discuss here and noticing the number of views that it has received that people as a whole seem to have lost the ability to invoke critical thinking skills for issues which could end up being a matter of life or death. OK, that last part might be stretching it just a bit, but it's not grossly overstated, I'll tell you that much.

Enter the swine flu. I prefer the term 'hamthrax', but everyone else seems to be going with the ol' H1N1 these days. For some reason, one that is lacking in explick (that is, it is inexplicable), people are really freaked out about this swine flu thing. I understand being freaked out about a communicable disease. That seems reasonable. What doesn't seem reasonable is that people are freaking out about the hamthrax but they are not freaking out about the regular flu? (Scooby head tilt.) Roooo?

That's right. The regular flu. The regular flu, the good ol' flu-flu, that flu, that kills over 30,000 people a year in this country. In case you missed that number, it was THIRTY THOUSAND. In case you missed that time frame, it was EVERY YEAR. And in case you missed the significance of both of these items, it's the NUMBER of PEOPLE who DIE every year from the REGULAR FLU. That's almost 100 per day. Why is that not on the front page of every newspaper in America EVERY DAY?! (Yeah, yeah, because the media sucks. I mean besides that!) That's big news! That's 4.16 people every hour that are croaking from the regular flu. That's one person every 14.4 minutes that's keeling over from the regular flu. By the time I get done writing this, at least two people will have dropped dead in this country from regular flu. And those are people who aren't dropping dead from reading this blog! Now that's sayin' something!

Let's compare the numbers for the regular flu (somebody probably has already dropped dead between the last paragraph and now) and the numbers for the swine flu, shall we? According to the folks at the LA Times (who have really kicked things up a notch since newspapers started to fade from glory. Nice job, LA Times guys! Way to keep a dying art alive!) "...at least 5,700 people worldwide have died from swine flu". Wait. World....did you say worldwide? That's IT?? That's the number of people that die in this country from the regular flu between January 1 and the end of February (with or without that damned Leap Day that no one can figure out why it's there). Worldwide? Are you kidding me?! Why is there a panic? OH, right. Because people are morons. How soon I forget.

Now, there is a vaccine for the hamthrax. Is it necessary? I don't know, but the reason that I don't know isn't because of a bunch of crap that I've read on the Internet. I don't know if a swine flu shot is necessary because I don't necessarily know that a regular flu shot is necessary. But this isn't about people being concerned about whether or not they should get the vaccine because they're in a particular group. No, it's about them not wanting it at all because they're afraid it's going to do something untoward to them. For cryin' out loud, people. Wake the freak up.

Since when did everyone in this country become their own self-trained medical professional who knows more than people who are actually trained medical professionals? Why are people so quick to assume that everything out there that is portrayed as being able to help them is really going to kill them? You know, medical science in this country has done wonders for people, but suddenly, people who just stepped out of their shack in the woods (one, oddly enough, with Internet access) don't want to listen to anything those people tell them. They want to believe whatever it is they want to believe. And here's some of the crap they want to believe:

There was a story on Inside Edition about a young woman in suburban Washington, D.C. named Desiree Jennings. Desiree Jennings allegedly received a flu shot and then ten days later allegedly came down with a rare neurological condition called dystonia. Now she is allegedly only able to walk backwards or run forwards normally. If she tries to walk forwards, all she can do is manage spastic, jerky movements which she seemingly has no control over. She allegedly can only talk normally when she's running. If she is not running, she allegedly has extreme difficulty speaking. Please place your BS Detector Caps on...now!

Look, we've all seen plenty of videos on the Internet by now. Those surfboarding dogs. The surprised hamster. Keyboard cat. Popcorn popping via cell phone. That damned Star Wars kid. We should have a pretty good idea of what's real and what's fake by now, don't you think? I think we should. (That hamster really does look surprised, though.) This whole stunt just reeks of fakeness. Here's the video. It's two minutes-ish. I'd love to hear your impressions in the comments section. In the meantime, behold! A video of what may or may not be an actual neurological condition that was brought on or not by a flu shot that someone may or may not have had! (It's official all right!)

First of all, if you're basing your personal medical decisions upon what you see on Inside Edition, well, that's just Darwin at work, I suppose. I can just look at that as the natural thinning of the herd. (Translation: You're a moron.) But let's say you just want to know if you should feel sorry for this girl or not. This is where the BS Detector Caps and our critical thinking skills need to come into play. The Inside Edition folks claim in their video that this is a one in a million occurrence. There are over 300 million people in the United States. Thus, there should be 299 other people out there with this bizarro condition. Um, there aren't. That either means that their fake statistic is wrong (it likely is) or this doesn't exist (it likely doesn't).

Secondly, with something this bizarre, don't you think that the Inside Edition story would have included at least one, just ONE doctor? Preferably HER doctor?? I see no doctor. I barely saw her husband for more than 10 seconds. Not ONE doctor. This seems like something that would have a whole TEAM of doctors just right there, ready to talk about it. Seriously, how do you overlook having a doctor there??

Third, they associate her "condition" with the swine flu vaccine, but they don't elaborate as to HOW the two are related. I'm sure that she did lots of other things in between the ten days from when she had the shot and when she could only walk backwards. How do they know any of THOSE things didn't cause her "condition". Shellfish. What about shellfish? Did she eat a lot of shellfish? How about peanuts? Good Lord, the whole damn world has some sort of peanut allergy these days! How do we know it wasn't some sort of lethal nut that she got a hold of? Huh?! See? Could be the NUTS. (Trust me. Nuts are involved in this story all right. Plenty of nuts.)

Fourth, she can't walk, but she can run? Hey, tell me something. How in the hell does she get up to running speed if she can't even walk? How does that work? Don't know! That's because Inside Edition only saw fit to show her running at an impressive gait, but did not see fit to show her begin to run.

And finally, this, if true, is absolutely incredible. And yet something this incredible has yet to be picked up by the whores that are cable news. If those folks won't touch it (and they'll touch anything that they think has even a shred of credibility) what does that tell you? The alphabet networks haven't covered it. The news holes on cable haven't covered it. The only nitwit that we have reporting this story is Deborah Norville on Inside Edition. Good Lord, people. Think. THINK!!

What scares the holy living bejeezus out of me is that over ten million people have watched one form or another of this story on freaking YouTube. That's over 3 percent of the population of this great, but stupid, country. What percentage are going to be in a group that should probably be vaccinated for the hamthrax which will not do so because of watching this video and assuming (for God only knows what reason) that if they saw it on the Internets, that is has to be true.

Again, I could just chalk it all up to the thinning of the herd and Darwin at work and just walk away from it all, but I can't. I'm afraid that people will start to think the same thing about all vaccinations. I'm afraid that people will not get their children immunized and then will reap the repercussions of some dread disease that we have worked extremely hard at nearly eradicating in order to better the health and longevity of the human race. We are devolving (that would be the opposite of evolving. Catchy, no?). Use your heads!

If that girl turns out to really suffer from some sort of neurological malady as depicted in the video, regardless as to why she has it, I will totally apologize in another post. But I don't know if we'll ever find out if that's the case if people just accept that sort of crap journalism as covering the story in it's entirety. (ie, Where's her damn doctor?!) And if you think that someone can't pull off a stunt like that and totally have people believing it, I have two words for you. Balloon Boy.

moreless