Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Those Aren't Real Fortunes

So, we're an even softer country than I had thought we were. And that's really saying something because I have absolutely no confidence at all in this country's ability to tough things out that aren't that big of a deal. Tell me I'm wrong after I explain to you that they are discontinuing certain "romantic" themed fortunes in fortune cookies because the company faced complaints from parents who thought that the messages were "inappropriate" for their children to be reading. That's right. Fortune cookie fortunes. Apparently, a whole lot of people take them much more seriously than I do.

The company that is giving into these ridiculous complaints is called Wonton Foods. They are apparently the largest manufacturer of fortune cookies. They make over five million fortune cookies every day! They also have a catalog consisting of over 10,000 fortunes, about 5,000 of which are in rotation at any given time, which are compiled by the freelancers that they employ to write said fortunes. This will prove to be important to my point later on. Oh, what the heck. I'll just spoil it for you right now. See, those people that they employ? Yeah, they're writers. They're writing these things. Brace yourself, but they're not real! Those cookies can NOT actually tell you your fortune. For reals.

But here are some of the fortunes that some soft heads were complaining about being inappropriate for their children: "One who admires you greatly is hidden before your eyes", "Romance and travel go together", "The evening promises romantic interest". Let's look at their reasoning for removing these particular fortunes. One of the Vice Presidents at Wonton, a one Danny Zeng, explained the “Romance and travel go together". He said "Suppose you’re on a business trip with a colleague, that doesn’t mean you want to have a romantic affair." Well, no. No, it doesn't. But just because it was in a COOKIE doesn't mean that it means anything at all! Were people actually getting with their co-workers on business trips because they got that fortune in their cookie? I have a hard time imagining that was actually happening. Or that anyone actually thought that it should. Jennifer Lee, who is the author of something called “The Fortune Cookie Chronicles” explained it like this: "You never know who will get the cookie. ‘You will meet a tall, dark stranger,’ means one thing to a 20-year-old fashionista — and another to a 6-year-old kid. Romantic messages aren’t one size fits all." Shouldn't it mean the same thing to everyone? And that thing being that it's NOT REAL and it MEANS NOTHING?! This 20-year-old sounds like an awfully dumb fashionista (whatever that is).

A one Derrick Wong, another Vice President at Wonton Food explained that “Some parents sent us e-mails. They said they didn’t want their kids reading them. Different people have a different perspective.” Wow. Who are you parents who are sending emails to the fortune cookie company telling them that they don't want their children reading their fortunes? Then don't (wait for it) let them read them! You're the parents! Don't leave the rearing of your children up to the fortune cookie company! And why couldn't Mr. Wong have just expressed the sentiment that he explained here to those parents. You know, just tell them "Different people have a different perspective. We're going with the perspective of it's a piece of paper in a cookie that means nothing and is only meant in fun. If you don't like that, we're sorry." (I only threw in the "we're sorry" part because it sounded polite. I would not be sorry. I would also not be that wordy. I could respond to their complaints with two words and they rhyme with Buck Goo.)

They're going to replace those with phrases such as: "You make every day special" and "No one on Earth is as beautiful as you." Now, I'd like to point out that, while those are lovely sentiments, what they are NOT are fortunes. No, those are just statements. They're not statement cookies. Well, they weren't. Clearly, they are now, since the world was apparently in some sort of jeopardy with the other fortunes in there. I'd also like to point out that at no point, whether it be the new fortunes or the old fortunes, did any of these have any futuristic predicting or telling abilities! They were picked out of a catalog! Do you think that it's some sort of a magic catalog? It's not! I could write fortunes! You could write fortunes! We ALL could write fortunes! In the end, they would all be the same! They'd be little pieces of paper inside a not particularly delicious cookie that is universally distributed after a meal of sweet and sour pork. That's it. People need to get a grip on themselves. And companies need to stop giving those sort of people power! Why would you do that? I have no idea. But I'll mention again that I will support for the rest of my life any and every company that does not cave in to ridiculous customer complaints. Any and every company that stands up to complete nonsense from "customers" will have my business for as long as I can give it to them. (And in this case, I really like Chinese food, so there could be a lot gained in this instance.) 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 11, 2013

That's Not How Asteroids Work

Ever wonder why no one watches CNN anymore?  Of course you don't.  You just figure it's because their reporting sucks.  And if the clip below is any indication, well, you'd be right.  (And it is an indication.  And their reporting does suck.  I'm merely pointing it out.)  What we have here is astounding.  A CNN anchor is about to have on Bill Nye the Science Guy  (I'm pretty sure that's his full name) to ask him about this fairly large asteroid that is going to buzz right by our planet.  It's close.  It's big.  But most importantly, it's an asteroid.  That's why it's all the more amusing to hear the anchor chick ask Mr. Science Guy "What’s coming our way? Is this an effect of, perhaps, of global warming or is this just some meteoric occasion?"  Oh, good Lord.  I'm sorry, what now?  What was that incredibly ridiculous thing you just asked?

Has this person never heard of an asteroid?  I mean, she obviously has no clue as to what they are, right?  Why else would you ask if an asteroid coming close to Earth has anything to do with global warming?  No, cupcake, I don't think that someone's failure to drive a Prius is going to cause a giant rock to slam into the planet.  I'm pretty sure that's not how asteroids work at all.  How did this woman get her job?  They need to have a little talk with her (using small, monosyllabic words) about not ad-libbing a lot with the guests.  Just ask things like, "So, what's up?"  And then see where it goes.  It can't possibly be any worse than asking if global warming is responsible for the path of an asteroid.  Can it?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 7, 2013

Wait For It

So, this is pretty cool.  This guy, D. Westry, was on gay little Anderson Cooper's show a few months back and showed off a pretty amazing talent.  I can't say too much about it without giving it away, but it's pretty impressive.  Just wait for it.  You'll know what I mean when you see it. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Duck Foo, Judge

This is a fantastic example of my favorite saying "Stupid should hurt".  What we have here is a chick who has been arrested for the possession of Xanax and is now appearing before a judge.  I can't tell if she's super high or super stupid.  It's definitely at least one of those, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of a little bit of both.  The bottom line is that she has no clue as to how life works.  She's before a judge and the judge is trying to ascertain whether or not she qualifies for free legal counsel (as implied by the whole "If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you" part of that Miranda rights dealio) and she thinks that's a good time to brag about how much expensive jewelry she owns.  Brilliant!  But it gets better!  The judge finishes off with her and tells her "Bye bye" and she feels the need to respond with "Adios!"  That's when the judge had her return (as she was adios-ing herself out of there before that) and ups her bail from $5,000 to $10,000.  She didn't like that very much and as an expression of her dislike, she flipped off the judge and blurted out a phrase that rhymes with "Duck foo".  THAT act of brilliance earned her thirty days in jail.  It's awesome.  Simply awesome.  Naturally, this took place in Florida.  Who does that?!  Penelope Soto does that, that's who.  I can't wait to see the video of her after she gets done with her thirty days and has to appear before the same judge again.  That's because a normal and intelligently functioning human being would have learned something from this whole ordeal.  But that's not going to be the case with this chick.  After thirty days, I'll bet she'll have a lot more to say than "Duck foo". 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 4, 2013

Beyonce's Crotch XLVII

Whelp, the Super Bowl didn't end up exactly how I had hoped it would.  Yeah, it went pretty much the opposite of what I had hoped.  So let's talk about something game related, but not the game itself because that was just terrible.  What about the halftime show where that nice stripper lady came out and practically pushed her vagina flat up against the camera lens for everyone to practically see all of her parts in HD?  Yeah, that was something.  What's that?  Oh, come ON!  You can't be telling me that you didn't catch Beyonce's act at halftime??  Let's talk.

Now, this is a sporting even that over one hundred million people in the United States watch.  That's a lot of people.  And it has become such an event that it has become customary to have some sort of viewing party to watch the game.  A Super Bowl party, if you will. I find these to be relevant points to make because all that was missing from the halftime show was a stripper pole and that's not really what I was expecting to see.  Here's just one shot of what would end up being many view of Beyonce's crotch.  Behold! 

Holy cat.  That's not exactly what I'd call family friendly.  Not that the Super Bowl is supposed to be family friendly, but considering how many families probably watch the thing, a little family friendliness couldn't hurt.  And I'm not being a prude here.  I'm not saying she should come out in a parka or anything.  But maybe some pants!  Or something that covers at least half of her nether regions!  (By the way, if you were wondering about her legs, they were constantly like that throughout the entire show.  I don't know if she has rickets or is just permanently bow-legged from riding horses (or Jay-Z), but for some reason, her knees were never within 12 inches of each other.  Maybe it was a contract thing.) 

Do you know what it's like to have a stranger's vagina shoved into your face in HD when you were least expecting it?  It's surprising to say the least!  Could someone please explain to me how this is just fine and dandy, but seeing Janet Jackson's nipple for 9/64ths of a second (Yes!  9/64ths!  That's all it was!  And we're still talking about it nine years later!) is an abomination against humanity?!  With all of the thrusting and gyrating and spinning around that she was doing, it was nothing short of soft core porn.  All she needed was a disco ball and a pole and people would have started throwing dollars at her. 

I find it interesting that this whole show starts out with a very demure singing of our national anthem.  No one is showing off their vagina at the beginning of the game.  But by the middle of the game, suddenly there are no rules and everything goes.  How come we don't start things off like this?  It would really rile up the crowd and get them going for the game!  Maybe we should think about that.  A little crotch thrusting to really get things hummin'!  Uh, yeah.  No.  Can we go back to ancient bands from the 70s at halftime?  I'll take their old wrinkled faces in HD over Beyonce's pornographic pelvis any day.  

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 1, 2013

I'm Back!

Finally!  My long suffering nightmare is over and Internet access has been restored to my house at last!  Do you know what it's like to go three days without reliable Internet service in your home?  It's like living in Darfur.  Or the 1800s.  What's even worse than the deplorable conditions that you're left with is all of the customer service reps that you are forced to talk to if you're ever to have any hope of restoring your service and fixing the problem.  If this experience has taught me anything about customer service, it would have to be that they lie.  Lie, lie and then lie some more!  Whatever they need to do to get you off of the phone with a false sense that something is being done, they will do.  And it is my very recent experience that lying is what they do best.  Actually, once you catch on to the fact that they're so lying to you, you realize that they're not very good at it.  They're not really good at many aspects of their job, really.  Like the one guy who, after asking me for my name (which is definitely female), continued to call me "sir" for the rest of our conversation.  It really doesn't do a whole lot for my demeanor when I've just been told that I won't have Internet access for three days and then I'm asked, "Is there anything else I can do for you, sir?"  YES!  You can give me back my f***ing Internet!  AND STOP CALLING ME SIR!!! 

Whew!  But I digress.  Once I returned to the world of the online, one of the first things I did was catch up on all of the cat videos that I had missed out on while I was living like some sort of peasant.  After that, I checked in on Jimmy Kimmel to see if he had asked people about the outcome of the Super Bowl that hasn't even happened yet.  He had.  I was not disappointed.  Welcome back, Internet.  I've missed you. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Don't Skype Naked

As I tend to rapidly lose faith in humanity a little more each day, here is a story that just drained me of any of the hope that I had left.  And lemme tell you, it wasn't a lot to begin with, but it's really saying something that it can all be zapped at once. 

What we have here is a man who is either one of two things.  He's either a genius or he has an unbelievable talent for finding the dumbest women out there in droves.  I don't understand these stories when they involve just a couple of women, but when they involve over 350 different women, then I'm completely confused. 

The man I'm talking about is named Karen "Gary" Kazaryan.  (OK, first of all, who names their male child Karen?  Maybe I should give the guy a break with a horrible name like that.)  And according to USAToday, he allegedly "...hacked into hundreds of social media and email accounts to coerce more than 350 women into showing him their naked bodies."  Wait. What now?  How many?? 

But wait!  There's more!  Here was his "ingenious" scheme that netted him 350 naked women:  He would hack hack into the women's social media accounts and then search their Facebook messages, emails and other files for nude or semi-nude pictures of them.  Who are these women who are keeping nude photos of themselves on Facebook??  That doesn't seem like the most appropriate place for nude photos of yourself, but that's just me.  But here's where it starts to get weird:  "He then posed as a friend, persuading them to strip while he watched via Skype, captured images of them, or both."  Dafuq?

You are dry shaving me that that worked.  Can someone explain to me how he managed to Skype with them without them realizing that he was not their friend?  Did he just cover up his webcam and say that his didn't work?  Did he sound just like whoever their friend was?  Because that seems like it would be key to this whole thing working.   Do this many women really make it a habit to get naked on Skype?  Am I the only one who thinks that this sounds like a bad idea from the beginning?  Friend or not, if you're Skyping with someone, they can take a screen shot of anything.  These people never considered that before getting undressed in front of a camera?  Apparently not.

The article goes on to say that "When the women discovered that Kazaryan was posing as a friend, he often blackmailed them with the nude photos he had fraudulently obtained to coerce more stripping, prosecutors said. In some cases, he's accused of posting the nude photos to the victims' Facebook pages."  See, now I have several more questions.  These dopes who were tricked into this in the first place, you're telling me that they eventually figured out what was going on?  I find that difficult to believe.  Oh, but if only they could have put those sleuthing skills to better use before disrobing for a total stranger on Skype.  And as far as the blackmailing, what say you just delete your Facebook account and not get naked again?  That seems like a better solution to me. Then again, I'm not taking off my clothes for someone who says that they're my friend on the Internet.  Sorry. 

It's the sheer number of women that fell for this that astonishes me.  350.  That's like one moron a day for almost an entire year (if you took two weeks of for Christmas break or something).  I'm really conflicted as to how much trouble this guy should be in.  On the one hand, he's obviously perverted.  But on the other hand, he wouldn't have been able to do any of this without an awful lot of help from each one of those morons.  Ok, the blackmail part is pretty bad and he should definitely get in trouble for that.  But the other stuff?  Eh. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 28, 2013

Nice Guns, Nancy

I ran across this picture today.  It's Ronald Reagan asking Frank Sinatra to stop dancing with Nancy Reagan.  Behold! 

Jesus, Nancy!  How 'bout them arms you got going on there?!  So it was "Say no to drugs", but "Say yes to guns"?  She's like the original Michelle Obama!  I mean, everyone talks about Michelle's arms, but 1980s Nancy Reagan looks like she could kick Michelle's ass in an arm wrestling competition.   Did Nancy spend her White House time working out her entire body? Or did she just focus on the top half and let the trickle-down theory take care of the rest.  (Good God.  I just made a joke about economic policy from the 1980s.  I don't know whether I should be proud of myself or ashamed.  I'm leaning toward ashamed.) 

And what is with Frank Sinatra's oh-so obvious toupee??  That thing is awful!  It's like a helmet.  A really bad helmet. I've never understood why celebrities who have a lot of money can end up looking so incredibly cheap.  Like the ones who get horrible plastic surgery.  Did you go to some cut rate surgeon?  You have gazillions of dollars.  Why do you look like a clown? Same thing with the toupee.  Come on, Frank.  Spring for something a little more flattering.  Spring for a hat.  Anything is better than that, really.

That's all I have for today.  Thirty year old photos and equally old commentary.  

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Dumb As A Stick

Kind of a slow news day today.  That's a good thing.  So here's a video of a dog who can't quite figure out how to get his stick through a gate.  He's so dumb that it's truly adorable.  And I love how he prances about at the end.  You know that in his head he's all "I did it!  I did it all by myself!"  (Either that or in his head he's just all "Woof...woof...stick...woof...woof.")  Behold! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 24, 2013

And So, What's Wrong With Her?

So get this.  We hear these stories from time to time.  A 15-year old kid kills his entire family.  It's gruesome and disgusting.  Do I need to go into more detail?  I don't think that I do.  It's pretty much just what it sounds like.  And of course, right now there are plenty of people all a-clammoring over what his motivation was.  (That is interspersed with other family members insisting that he was a "good kid".  Yeah, no he wasn't.  I'm going to base this solely on the fact that he gunned down both of his parents and three siblings (as if I'd have anything else to base it on), but that alone constitutes him not being a good kid.  Just saying.)  But I'd like to take a moment to look at another aspect of this story that, for some reason, seems to be getting no attention. 

According to the article over at the Huffington Post, the kid (who I am not going to name for the same reasons that I don't name any of the lunatics that do the mass shootings) apparently took a picture of his dead mother (dead because he had just killed her) and texted it to his girlfriend.  As if that isn't crazy enough, he then went over to the girlfriend's house and spent the day with her and her mother.  Wait a minute.  What now? 

While it is one sort of crazy to gun down your entire family when you are 15, it is an entirely different sort of crazy to be a teenager (or around that age) and have someone text you a picture of their dead mother and you don't do anything about it and instead choose to spend the entire day with that person and not mention to, say, your mother that the kid that's hanging around with them just killed at least one person!  What kind of a person is this girl?!  Good Lord.  How is that even possible?  I can't say for sure what my reaction would be if someone I really liked texted me a picture of their dead mother, but I am fairly certain that it would not include doing nothing!  How does one do nothing and just go about the day like it's no big deal?!  

I don't know that the girl needs to be necessarily charged with a bunch of stuff, but I'm thinking that something is probably appropriate.  You kinda gotta know that if someone texts you a picture of a dead person, you need to say something to someone lest you face some sort of a consequence.  It's odd how people pick and choose what parts of what story they want to focus on.  This is a huge thing in my mind, but I don't see it much in the reports about this incident, so I guess I'm the only one.  What a surprise. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content