Don't Go There

I am amazed, simply amazed, at the self-centeredness of so many people. The cluelessness. The oblivion. The doe in the headlights idiocy. Seriously, what is wrong with you people when someone influential and famous dies? Do you have NO concept of basic mourning protocol? Apparently not. Let me go through some basics.

First of all, I'm obviously talking about the hoopla surrounding the death of the beloved Steve Jobs. While I personally do not quite understand the whole shrine building practice, it has become quite popular. I guess because people really want to feel like they've made some sort of a connection or an expression of themselves or something. I'm not sure what and I don't get it. But I do know this. You people that are going to Steve Jobs' house are out of line.


Are the people who are pilgrimaging to his home aware of the fact that his family including his three children (who seem to be 20, 16 and 13) still live in that home? Do these moronic pilgrims think that somehow their standing outside of the home in which he likely died is going to be of some comfort to the family? Why are they there? I cannot think of anything more inappropriate. Let's take a quick gander at the statement that the family made. Hmmm...oh, there's this part: "We know many of you will mourn with us, and we ask that you respect our privacy during our time of grief." Respecting their privacy does not mean drawing apples in chalk (or worse, leaving real apples) on the sidewalk in front of their house!


His kids just lost their father, for cryin' out loud. They don't give a crap how much you love your iPod. Maybe one day they will (give a crap). But right now, their dad just died. Let me just tell you that my dad wasn't some great, big famous guy to anyone but me. And when he died, it was all I could do to deal with the delivery people who brought by flowers that people had sent. I cannot imagine what it would have been like if there were a bunch of jackass strangers standing in my front yard during that time. (While I cannot imagine, I can speculate and let me tell you that it would not have gone down well.) Get the hell out of his yard. Now.


Some people seem to think that the building of a shrine outside the home where family members of the deceased are still residing is an appropriate show of grief and sympathy. Those people are known as insensitive idiots. Please do not encourage that sort of behavior should you encounter it in the wild. Really, the only appropriate reaction would be to run those people over.

moreless

It's Just Rain!

The weather is changing. And that can only mean one thing. Stupid ass suggestions from local media outlets on what to do in the case of weather.



Look, I live in an area where the climate is pretty mild. It rains periodically from about October through at least April. So for six months out of the year, it rains. And for the other six months, it doesn't rain. I know that sounds asinine of me to say it like that (you know, because it's such a simple concept that even my cat could understand it and I don't even have a cat), but it's all in the spirit of how local news media seem to think that everyone is completely retard with little to no capacity for short term memory.




This is seriously what I had to hear today: "With the rains that are forecast for the next couple of days, it would be a good idea to stay inside. When venturing out, consider using an umbrella if it is raining."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

No joke. I swear. It's as if it has never rained before, none of us have ever heard of rain and the consequences are dire. And by the way, this isn't even considered a "storm". It's just going to rain. And all hell is apparently going to break loose when it does.

I guess I just don't want to accept that those sorts of forecasts are tailored for a specific group of people that, despite my depression and disbelief, actually do exist. I can tell because for some reason, whenever it rains, they all feel the need to get in their cars and drive as if they are in the Great Blizzard of some year in which there was a great blizzard. They act as if they are driving on sheets of glass. They have their nose about two inches away from the windshield and their hands are in a death grip lock on the steering wheel at the 10 and 2 positions. And if you think that they're doing all of this in a speedily fashion, you would be wrong. 45mph on the freeway TOPS when it starts raining again. It really does wonders for the ol' blood pressure, let me tell you.

I wish that I understood this fascination that folks have with the water that falls from the sky. The power that it has to dumb people down to where they're mouth breathing morons who are terrified of a little precipitation is beyond me.

moreless

The Five Morons

I'm still trying to figure out how and/or why people who are stone cold morons either get or get to be on talk shows that are supposed to be dealing with a serious subject. You know, like those cable news talk shows about politics and world events and, and, and...the like. How, how, how do they find these people? Or maybe the better question is how do these people manage to pass themselves off as capable right up until the time that they go on the air? And once they're on the air and spewing their nonsense, why are they allowed to continue?

Case in point (because you know I have a motive when I ramble) would be a one Eric Bolling and the cast of something called The Five. According to the Huffington Post, The Five is Fox's replacement show for Glenn Beck. I've never watched The Five. I don't know if they have a chalkboard or if they dress up in funny costumes or even if they occasionally smoke a pipe. (That was my favorite Glenn Beck bit. The pipe. You couldn't help but laugh.) I guess that the premise of the show is that there are always five people there at some sort of roundtable to discuss issues. some of the "personalities" that are to be "showcased" include barely recognizable names such as Greg Gutfeld, Juan Williams, Dana Perino, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, Bob Beckel and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Other than Geraldo (who I know you won't admit to knowing who he is, but you do know), do you know who any of them are? I know Dana Perino, but that's just because I'm a news geek. And even being said news geek, I couldn't tell you who any of the others are. Not a good start if you're trying to replace Glenn Beck.

The point here is that the other day, the morons of the round table were discussing whether or not George W Bush engaged in "fear mongering". I think. And this Eric Bolling guy cuts off this Bob Beckel guy (because all they ever do on these shows is cut each other off) and says "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don't remember any attacks on American soil during that period of time." Uh, wait. What?You don't remember ANY attacks on American soil between 2000 and 2008? None? Not even a teensy-weensy attack? ON American soil? Doesn't the year 2001 fall in between 2000 and 2008? Yes. Yes, it does. And he doesn't think that there were any attacks on American soil? Huh. So those planes? You know, the ones that flew into those buildings? I think the date was September 11? 2001? That's not an attack? What the what was it then?

Look, there haven't been a whole lot of major attacks on American soil to begin with. It's not like you have a whole bunch of them to get yourself all confused. You have the whole Pearl Harbor thing that led to that World War II thing. That was an attack on American soil. And then there was 09/11. That was an attack on American soil. Yes, there were things in between that killed people. But I'm not going to consider something like the Oklahoma City bombing an "attack" as much as I'm going to consider it an "act". But that's not the point. How in the world do you forget that 09/11 was during the Bush administration!?

But all of that aside. Let's say that you do forget. These things happen. Apparently. But you know what made me more insane than someone making such a ridiculous statement? NO ONE on the freaking panel corrected him! That's right! FIVE people. All sitting right there. All heard what he said. Not ONE person said, "Dude! September 11?" Not ONE. And yet there they sit. On TV. Offering up completely asinine statements about...something. Something false, of course. And I'm sure that they'll all be back tomorrow doing their job that they so clearly suck at. Grand.

I hate them. I hate them all. Why are people like this allowed to make a living? They need to be destitute and on the streets (not streets anywhere near me, of course) as punishment for their dimwittedness. Please, join me in my agony by watching the clip below where this abomination occurs. If it doesn't load, click here. Or if you'd like to save yourself the pain, just don't watch it. It's cringe worthy.

moreless

Can't We Work Through This Rationally?

I've had it with all of this talk about whether or not people who are gay should be allowed to openly serve in the military. Do you want to know why this topic now only serves to irritate and annoy me whenever it is brought up? It's because no one is using any factual basis for their opinions at all and the whole debate is solely based on what people feel would be best.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what would be best in this situation. Do I think it would be great if folks who were gay were allowed to serve in the military openly? Sure, but only under one condition. That condition being that it won't lessen the chances of success for any given task and/or mission that the troops are on. Now, you might be asking yourself, "How could it possibly be a detriment for folks who are openly gay to serve in the military?" To which I would answer, "I don't know." But that's what my answer would be. Other people, those who are running their lives based solely on what they feel, might answer, "It's a ridiculous policy! It should immediately cease and desist! Gays should be out and about in the military because it's the right thing!" OK, OK. Hold on a minute there, cowboy.

I don't know anything about the military other than they keep me and my country safe. Oh, and I also know that they can kick some serious ass. That's what I want my military to be. If the safety of myself and my country means that those who are gay cannot serve openly in the military, then so be it. However, if that is, in fact, the case, I'd like it to be backed up by some sort of facts based on some sort of comprehensive study which is conducted by folks who know what they're dealing with military-wise.

Is that so much to ask? Look, that's all I want. I want some sort of factual basis which determines it to be perfectly OK to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and that the result isn't a compromised military. That's all. Do you think that devising policy based upon how you feel instead of based upon some sort of facts or investigation is really the way to go? I can't imagine that it is. Yet, if you'll look around at a lot of the fiscal problems that many states and the entire country are in the throes of, you'll start seeing a trend in the number of "feel good" programs that require a great deal of money. Are they necessary programs? Are they effective programs? Are they being implemented correctly? Who knows? All a lot of folks know is that it makes them feel good that those sort of programs are in place. And it's caused me to lose my WTL (will to live) on occasion.

Just wait for the study, folks. If you're so confident (even though you have no basis to base your confidence on) that it's just fine for gays to serve openly in the military, then what is the harm in waiting for this huge, comprehensive study that the Pentagon is conducting to wrap up? Seriously, do you really want to risk the safety of the troops that protect you just because you're all thumbs up for diversity? I can't imagine that people would, but yet, they do.

I'm going to need a prescription for some Xanax soon. I'm just saying

moreless

Mother Of The Year Candidate Part Deux

Thanks to alert blog reader (and now blog contributor) Edge, I must sadly announce that there is now a contender to yesterday's front runner for Mother of the Year. In fact, she might be the new front runner. I know, I know. That's a short front runner reign for the asshat from yesterday, but it's not my fault. I'm not the one "...whose three children were found starving after being shut away in a hotel bathroom for as long as nine months" and whose 11-year old daughter "...was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her mother's boyfriend" during this time. Wait. What the what?

Correct. Unfortunately, correct. We learn of this atrocity from Edge and from the fine folks over there at KTLA. It's pretty much just what I just alluded to. The poor excuse for a human being in this story is a one 31-year old Abernis Santiago. (Perhaps if there's time when I'm done, we can delve into what in the heck kind of a name Abernis is.) We learn from the story that "Police rescued Santiago's 11-year-old daughter and 10- and 5-year-old sons from a bathroom at an extended-stay hotel along one of Dallas' busiest freeways in July 2009. The children, whose skeletons were visible beneath their flaky, stretched skin, were near death from chronic starvation." ::: sigh :::

Look, there are several things wrong with this situation. First and foremost seems to be that this woman was ever born into existence in the first place. Aside from that, explain to me how someone with so little regard for life (let alone the life that they brought into this world) would have three children. While it's not really any surprise that she started when she was around 20, it is a bit surprising that she continued to have the sex and have the children. It's really not some sort of complex math problem that you need to figure out in order to not get pregnant. Then again, those who are as asinine as this woman would appear to be, well, they don't really feel the need to think much about anything. That is evidenced by how this incredibly sad tale turned out.

As if I haven't painted a horrific enough picture, let's just take it a step farther. "A Dallas police detective testified Friday that the 385 square-foot, one-bedroom hotel suite appeared relatively tidy, with the cupboards stocked with crackers, peanut butter, bread and barbecue sauce. The fridge had leftover chicken and rice." Sooooo, simply not having any food wasn't an issue. (And I'm not saying that I ever thought that it was. I think I'm just making an inane point because this story makes me so crazy I want to stab my eyes out after reading it.) No, this was a conscious choice to keep the children locked in the bathroom and to NOT feed them while this scumbag and her piece of crap boyfriend, a one Alfred Santiago, were not locked in the bathroom and were fed. OK. Anything else?

Unfortunately, yes. According to a one Detective Parker Baum, "The bathroom had an oppressive stench of feces and body odor. There were blankets on the floor next to the toilet." Yeah, I would imagine that a bathroom with three small people living in it for nine months would have an oppressive stench...of everything. All I need to know at this point is if this woman got the death penalty.

And sadly, the answer to that would be no. She did, however, plead guilty to the charges of being a completely worthless human being. (I'm not sure if those were the charges verbatim or anything like that, but they were pretty close to that. But you know how the legal system always wants to sugar coat things. I decided to just spell it out in plain English that made it crystal clear what a piece of crap this woman is.) But even though she pleaded guilty, she had complaints. She "...thought her guilty plea Friday would end the proceedings and was confused after testimony continued before the jury for purposes of sentencing."I think this is unnecessary since I already pleaded myself guilty," Santiago told the judge. "I want it over with. This is pointless." Good Lord... Oh, and nice neck tattoo you've got yourself there. Very stylish. And not at all surprising.

Seriously?! It's unnecessary?! So, she was upset that she had to sit in a courtroom for a few more days of testimony? THAT was upsetting to her? I wonder if she thought that her children were upset that they had to sit in a bathroom with minimal amounts of food for nine months? I wonder if she thought that at any point during those nine months that she children thought "I want it over with. This is pointless." I'm guessing that she didn't really see the correlation between the two. Bitch.

This dips**t was sentenced to life in prison. Her dips**t boyfriend was sentenced to two 99-year sentences, to be served concurrently. That seems like an awful lot of taxpayer money that will go toward keeping them in prison. Can't we just use my fifty cent solution? One bullet. One head. Carefully placed. Granted, in this case, we'd need a dollar, but I'd kick in for that.

Oh, wait. We might need another bullet. I forgot about the defense attorney. Now, I realize that they're just doing their job. But do they have to use the weakest arguments ever? You know, like the one that this particular defense attorney, a one James Jamison used when he "...portrayed Abneris Santiago as a victim of domestic violence". I don't ever want to hear that excuse again. Being a victim of domestic violence does not cause one to lock their three children in a hotel bathroom for damn near a year! It just doesn't! I know you're trying to do your job, sir, but please don't.

No, really. I'm serious. Please don't. Because I'm assuming that you were also trying to do your job when you made the most ridiculous statement that anyone could have ever made in regard to this case when you said, "This young lady has made some pretty poor choices in life." Umm...what? I think that damn near starving your three children to death while you and your scumbag boyfriend are well fed is a little bit more than a poor choice! How do you live with yourself, sir? Drink a lot? Meth? Seriously, how? Don't even get me started on him calling her "young lady". She had already pled guilty at that point? Couldn't he just say, "My client is one guilty bitch."? That works for me.

moreless

There are some things out there that are just so idiotic, I have a hard time blaming the folks who create them. I mean, if there is a niche market to sell things to the moronic, then shouldn't it be taken advantage of by some conniving capitalist? A fool and his money...? You know, stuff like that. And let me tell you, I've heard a lot of really stupid ideas. I've read about a lot of really stupid ideas. But I think I've come across one that might be an all time winner. I mean, after all, if you're going to make a jam that allegedly contains the human hair of a deceased former member of royalty and then use that ingredient as the main selling point, you deserve some sort of prize. Nothing monetary, of course. I don't want to encourage this sort of behavior. But maybe just a medal or a trophy that isn't too shiny.

What's that? Oh, right! The hair jam. Did I not mention? Let's see.....idiots...fools...money...hair...no. No, it looks like I did not mention it. My apologies. Here's the scoop: See, there's a guy who claims that he has made some jam (yes, the delicious condiment and accompaniment of things like toast and PB&J sandwiches) which contains the hair of Princess Diana. That's right. Her hair. IN the jam. Um, if I find hair in my jam, I want nothing more than to remove it. This guy is making the jam with the hair in it on purpose! What the what?

According to the folks over there at CBS News, a one Sam Bompas (aka, the con man masquerading as an artist) has created a jam called "occult jam". And according to The Huffington Post, said jam is made by "...infusing a tiny speck of the late princess of Wales' hair with gin, which is then combined with milk and sugar to create a product with a taste resembling condensed milk." Wait. What? Milk? Sugar? Condensed milk? And GIN?? Let's just put the issue of the hair aside for a moment here and talk about the jam itself. Since when is something resembling condensed milk considered to be a jam? I thought jam was made out of fruit. Lots and lots of fruit! There's no milk in my jam! Is this a British thing? Or an alcoholic thing? What's with the gin?

Whatever it is, we're going to have to revisit the hair issue eventually, so we might as well do it now. According to The Huffington Post, "The hair was bought on eBay for $10 from a U.S. dealer who collects what he says is celebrity hair and sells it in extremely tiny parts." Uh-huh. Sure it is. It's her hair. Uh-huh. Yeah. OK. (Why couldn't I have thought of that scam first? Why?!) A hair dealer. Man, I'll give that guy some credit. That's as brilliant as it is asinine.

But why put it in jam? That still isn't all that clear to me. Obviously, it's a gimmick. The jam sells for $7.60 a jar (no word on how big the jar is), but I have no idea how many of these jars of jam with fake Princess hair in them are available. Not that it would matter, I'm just saying. I guess maybe I'm wondering what the monetary opportunity is going to be for ol' Bompas. I'm hoping that there's only like one or two jars available. I'd hate to think that there are throngs of folks out there just clamoring for this sort of thing. That would make me sad. And suicidal.

As far as why he decided to make the fake Princess hair jam, "Bompas said he decided to make the bizarre product to provoke people into thinking about food marketing and how language enhances the everyday eating experience". The only way that this makes me think about food marketing is to the effect of "I really hope I don't find hair in any of my food today." And as for language enhancing some sort of experience? Perhaps. "Holy s***! There's hair in this jam?! Get outta here! Princess Diana's! What moron came up with that?" Huh. He was right. That did enhance this whole experience.

moreless

Pawned Spawn

Hmm. It's been a while since I've done a Walmart post. It's also been a while since I've done a post about people trying to sell their baby. Oh, if there was only some way that I could catch up on both of those topics at the same time. Oh, wait! There is (unfortunately).

Meet a one 20-year old (and old enough to know better) Samantha Tomasini and her obvious soul mate a one 28-year old (and definitely old enough to know better) Patrick Fousek. They look just like you'd expect a couple of people to look if you were told that they were trying to sell their 6-month old baby outside of a Walmart. Behold!

Told you. Here's the story: In the hole of the central part of California, otherwise known as Salinas, the male asshat in this story approached two women and asked them if they would be interested in taking his baby daughter for a small fee. And by "taking" I mean "purchasing". Now, that's pretty gutsy. Not half as gutsy as it is stupid, but still pretty gutsy.

The women, obviously being smarter than the doorknob who was soliciting his offspring, "...said they didn't know if Fousek was joking or not". And while I understand that line of thinking, that's a heck of a thing to be joking about, not to mention extremely odd. But "...he was insistent and kept telling them 'No, I want to sell you the baby.' " It was likely that very persistence which is why "...they reported the incident to police with a description of Fousek's (the male asshat's) car." To my complete amazement, the police were able to trace the car to his apartment. I don't know why I find that so fascinating, but I do.

Now, I know this next part will come as quite a shock to you, but when the police went to his house, they found the aforementioned parents to be (I hope you're sitting down) high on meth. I know! Shocking! Who would have thought that two people who tried to sell their kid for $25 would be high on meth?! I did not see that coming. And I...wait. $25? What the what?

Correct. According to KSBW, the asking price for a 6-month old baby outside of the Westridge Walmart in Salinas is twenty five dollars. Cash money. American. Twenty five bucks seems awfully low. Was that the rollback price? Seriously, what can you buy for twenty five bucks? Not much, can you? I mean, I don't know what the going price for meth is these days, but I'm guessing that it's more than $25, isn't it?

Naturally, these two Einsteins were arrested and charged with a variety of things, all of which were probably a) appropriate and b) not enough. But here's a weird little tidbit that I did not expect. The guy's brother talked to the news people at KSBW. He didn't give them his name, but he said "...that he was he, not Fousek, who tried to sell the child to the two women outside Walmart for the price of $50, and that it was all a joke."The girls knew I was kidding. Who's going to say you want to buy a baby for $50 to strangers at a Walmart? That's preposterous." And while I commend him on his use of the word 'preposterous' and for charging $50 instead of $25, that's the most ridiculous thing that I've ever heard.

And he sort of trips up himself in his own explanation. First he says that it's him who is trying to sell the child. He's the one who says that the girls knew he was kidding. But then he turns around and asks who would say such a thing! Well, you would, sir! You just said that you did! And on top of that, what in the world kind of a joke is that? Offering to sell a baby? It doesn't sound very joke-y to me. Asinine, yes? Joke-y, not so much. Try a knock-knock next time. I can almost guarantee no one will go to jail over a knock-knock joke.

moreless

Signs Of A Protest

Yesterday was May Day, also known as International Workers' Day. For some reason, that seemed to be a good time to break out all of the "We're against Arizona cracking down in illegal immigration because it's racist" rallies. Oh, but they don't use the term "illegal immigration". No, they usually just say "immigration". Listen, doughheads...leaving the "illegal" out of "illegal immigration" is like leaving the "drunk" out of "Mothers Against Drunk Driving". You don't hear them going around calling themselves "Mothers Against Driving", do you? No, of course not. Because why? Because it would be asinine, that is correct.

Speaking of asinine, in downtown Los Angeles, Gloria Estefan spoke out and gave us her opinions. I'm sorry, but did we want her opinions? Why do I give a crap about what a pop singer thinks about a law to combat illegal immigration? Oh, that's right. I don't. I don't give a crap. But she must have thought that people did, as she stood atop a flatbed truck and proclaimed, "We're good people. We've given a lot to this country. This country has given a lot to us." I can't argue with that. This country has given an awful lot to people who don't legally have a right to be here. And this is how we're thanked? Great. I'll remember that. Oh, and by the way? You're welcome. You're freaking welcome.

Now, it wouldn't be an asinine rally without a bunch of poorly made and idiotic signs, would it? Of course not! And I've built up a full head of steam about this whole issue, so let's get right to them, shall we?

Here is a woman proclaiming that "WE JUST WANT A BETTER LIFE". Well, and I want some appropriate capitalization and some decent spacing, but I can understand what she's saying. There are a LOT of people out there in the world who want a better life. We can't do it! Not everyone can live here! It's not possible! Just because you want it doesn't mean you get it, nor does it mean that you're entitled to it!

This sign proclaims "With us, America works". I think that should probably read "With us, America pays". How much of every tax dollar do I pay goes to teaching English as a second language in public schools? That shouldn't be necessary considering that you're theoretically supposed to speak English as a requirement to be a citizen. I'm working AND I'm paying. I don't think that's the case for those who are here illegally and are getting paid in cash and not paying into the tax system, is it?

This young lad wears an ill-thought out sign telling us, "NOW IS THE TIME LEGALIZATION". Actually, I think now is the time for a bigger sign. Y'all barely got that last 'N' in there. Aside from that and the poor grammar (not to mention a questionable violation of child labor laws, making your kid wander around with what equates to a sandwich board on his back. Where's his bell?), I couldn't agree more. It IS time for legalization. If you're not legal, please leave.

The boy underneath this sign looks awfully confused. I am too, considering the sign reads, "DON'T FORGET THAT EVERYTHING HITLER DID IN GERMANY WAS LEGAL." For some reason, the maker of that sign felt the need to make the D-O in DON'T and the 2 Ds in DID into little eyes or something. That's weird. But that aside, when a nation is run by a dictator, as was Germany, the legal system that we are privileged in this country to have ceases to exist. You don't get to have both a dictator and a fair and just legal system, you half-wit. And I feel the need to point out that in Germany, under Hitler, when people were asked for their papers, it was when they were trying to leave, not ENTER. It's clearly NOT the same. Regardless, if you're afraid of folks being rounded up and put into ovens, that's not going to happen. Let me know if it does. I'm against that. But hey, it just wouldn't be a rally without a Hitler reference.

I wish I could see all of this sign, but if grammar alone were reason for deportation, this guy would be on the next bus outta here. It appears to read, "We were born here and they say they're gonna deport us. Where do they gonna send us?" Uh, if I have any say in it, I'm gonna send y'all back to English class. Then I'm going to send y'all to a civics class. If you were born here, because of some bass-ackwards rule, you're automatically a citizen. Now, if your parents were not citizens when they snuck over here and popped you out, they could be deported. I don't know about you, but if I were sent back to my homeland and I had children, my kids are damn well coming with me. No question about it! So we might not gonna send you anywhere, but that doesn't mean y'all shouldn't leave.

This sign could have been much more well thought out. The guy just went with "Nazizona". I would have preferred him to give it a little kick. Something like "Arizona - Putting the AZ back in Nazi". Catchy, no? I'd make a fortune as an idiot signmaker.

This chap wants us to "LEGALIZE MY FUTURE". Hmm. How about we trade? Pretend I have a sign that says "GIMME BACK MY TAX MONEY". Whaddaya say, pal?

Look, let's try and have a little conversation that seems to be getting lost whenever this comes up, OK? Let's be civil about it. I've heard the arguments against this law in Arizona. I understand why some folks are upset about. I don't agree that they have anything to be upset about, but I understand. (By the way, I'm referring to anyone who does NOT say that the law is racist. THAT I do NOT understand and you folks are just softheads.) Now, when are you people who are against this going to listen to what the people who are in favor of it are saying? Why is that only a one way conversation? Furthermore, while I understand that you don't like it, I have yet to hear you offer an alternative solution. What do you want us to do? Do you understand that continuing like we have been is not only financially unsustainable, but is ultimately a threat to national security? Do you GET that? Give me another solution if you don't like this one. In the meantime, put your signs down.

moreless

Easy And Bogus Energy Star Certifications

Newly added to my list of things that annoy me would be the EPA and the DOE. That's the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. Both sound like they would be something that would not annoy me. They certainly sound like things that should not annoy me. But when I read over yonder at Fox News that "The federal government has been slapping "energy-efficient" ratings on products that don't even exist" then I get a little annoyed. I get even more annoyed when I read that one of these non-existent products was "...a space heater with a duster and several fly strips attached to it". Wait. What now?

Correct. A space heater with a feather duster and fly strips attached to it. What. The. Hell? According to the article, the Governmental Accountability Office (which is sort of like the Internal Affairs of the federal government) "...wanted to see how easily the feds could be duped". Apparently, the answer to that question is "very". Very easily is how the feds could be duped.

They submitted 20 different products and 15 of those were approved for the "Energy Star" rating. Great. So 75% of the time, they're just certifying crap. Good to know. What else? Well, the reason this happened was because "...Energy Star does not verify energy-savings data reported by manufacturers." So, wait. So you can just tell them whatever the heck you want to about your product, whether it be real or fake, and they're not going to ask you to prove your claims?! Are you kidding me? LOOK at it!!

For cryin' out loud. Now, this wouldn't annoy me all that much except for the fact that a company that makes a product that is Energy Star certified gets humongous tax breaks. Thus, I can see the incentive for any company to claim that anything that they have is energy efficient in order to get that rating and receive their tax breaks. I can see the incentive even more considering that one of the bogus products that the DOE and the EPA approved was a (wait for it) "a "gas-powered alarm clock" that "...was described as a generator-sized clock run on gasoline." Are you kidding me?

How would an alarm clock that runs on GASOLINE be considered "energy efficient"? Granted, it doesn't use any electricity, I'll give it that! But that's about all I can give it! And it says that it's "generator-sized"? That sounds like it's HUGE. Why would anyone even WANT a gasoline powered alarm clock? How would that work? EVER?!

Now of course, after these departments were notified of this little incident (in which a space heater with a feather duster attached to it was certified as being energy efficient), they responded "...that they continue to check up on products after they are certified." Hmm. That's really not explaining how a space heater with a feather duster on it got certified in the first place, but good to know that you'll be checking up on it in the future! Good. To. Know. Maybe they'll look on one of the bogus product websites that the GAO set up for these things.

Further, "In a joint statement, the DOE and EPA said they take the findings "very seriously" and that they have started "enhanced testing" to improve. But they said the public should not lose confidence in the program. " Enhanced testing? You need enhanced testing to figure out that a space heater with a feather duster on it is NOT an energy saving appliance? You DO? Really?! And because you need that testing, THAT is what is supposed to make me not lose confidence in the program?! Really?! You're going to have to explain to me WHY that would be, because from what I can tell, the folks that are running the certification show over there are a bunch of morons.

They also tried to cover their asses by saying, "A review last year found that 98 percent of the products tested met or exceeded the ENERGY STAR requirements." I find that to be an interesting statistic, as this little experiment done by the GAO managed to get 75% of their fake crap certified. Were they just having an off couple of weeks there? Because this isn't an elongated process at all. That space heater debacle? Yeah, "The EPA approved it in 11 days and listed it on the official Web site." Good Lord.

What have we learned? We've apparently learned that just because something is labeled Energy Star, it doesn't necessarily mean crap. We've also learned that the EPA thought it was a good idea to feature a space heater with a feather duster attached on their website. And that means that we've learned that there is obviously more than one moron working over there and they all seem to be on the same page. And from what we've learned, we can just simply assume that we're doomed. Doomed. And if you'd like to look at the GAO's report and see for yourself just how doomed we are, it's available here.

moreless