Joe Jackson - Child Abusing Leech

There has to be an island out there for a certain segment of society. I envision it being inhabited by the likes of Jon Gosselin, Michael Lohan, Chris Brown, Jermaine Jackson and other loathsome individuals of the same bent. And by all means, leave room for Joe Jackson.

Joseph Jackson is the despicable human being who is Michael Jackson's father. Before going any further, let's just remember and keep in perspective that Joe Jackson is a child abuser. He beat Michael when he was growing up when he wasn't doing dance steps or singing correctly. He constantly ridiculed him about his nose and his acne. He was a child abuser. Is it any wonder that Jacko ended up being the oddity that he was? Probably not. So just remember: Joe Jackson = child abuser. Clear? Good.

When Jacko died from an unfortunate combination of the equivalent of elephant tranquilizers and an incompetent, unethical and amoral physician, his total net worth was unclear. What was clear, especially to Child Abuser Joe Jackson, was that Jacko had amassed an insane amount of money (which will happen when you have the number one selling album of all time and are the most famous pop star in the world). What was also clear to Child Abuser Joe Jackson was that he was going to go after that money in any way that he could. And he did. And he has.

According to the LA Times, Abuser of His Own Children Joe Jackson "...wants the late singer's estate to help him cover living expenses that exceed $20,000 a month." Yeah, see, he has to petition the court for that money because Jacko left him out of his will. That's right. Left him out. Out. As in, "not in". THAT kind of "out". Funny how that works, huh? Some guy abuses you to the point where you are completely whacked out about your appearance to where you end up having your nose shaved down into two slits and a point and you leave him out of your will. Shocking, I know.

The thing that I find most appalling, aside from all of it, is that Joe Jackson has publicly admitted that he beat Michael and his brothers. Of course he didn't call it "beating" per se and he felt the need to quibble over semantics when, back in 2003, he told the BBC's Louis Theroux "I whipped him with a switch and a belt. I never beat him. You beat someone with a stick." (It's at that point that I wondered if Louis Theroux was tempted to whip out a stick and bash Joe Jackson over the head with it repeatedly and then ask, "Like that?") If that doesn't give you just a hint of an idea as to what an A-hole this guy is, then there's no helping you. Please leave now.

So the guy publicly admits to beating Michael, gets left out of Jacko's will, and then decides that for some reason, he should be entitled to some of Jacko's money. Um, you sir, are a buffoon. Joe Jackson is no more entitled to any of Michael's money than I am! The guy made a will and he left child abusin' Joe Jackson out of it. That should be the end of the story. But, as we've learned from too many instances of things like this cropping up in the news, people are awfully full of themselves these days.

I wondered what Joe Jackson, Child Abuser, was asking for in terms of money. Like how much does this man think that he is entitled to? Hold onto your butts, but according to L.A. Now, this jackass is asking for enough money "...to help cover living expenses that exceed $20,000 a month." I'm sorry. Twenty....twenty thousand?? Dollars?! WTF?

If we turn back to the LA Times we learn that "The filing does not specify the amount Joe Jackson seeks, but a monthly budget included in the court papers lists more than $15,000 in expenses, including $1,500 for rent, $2,500 for eating out and $5,000 for hotels and air travel." It should be noted that this jackass receives $1,700 a month from Social Security. I don't know why that should be noted, but now it is.) $2,500 for eating out?! Are you freaking kidding me? Go on. Explain to me how it is possible and/or necessary for someone to require a daily food budget which averages approximately $83 and change. What say you stick to the Dollar Menu there, Joey, and get on with yourself?

And $5,000 for hotels and air travel? It doesn't sound like he's taking Southwest! What do you want to bet that is one flight at the MOST and the rest is a swanky hotel? Bet me. Because seriously, where in the hell is this man going all of the time? Who in their right mind would want to see him?

Now, mind you, Jacko's mom, Katherine, gets a stipend from Jacko's estate of $23,000, but she was in the will. But see, that $23,000 covers herself AND Jacko's three kids. Child Abuse Joey there wants around $20 just for himself! I don't think so, Joe. I don't think so.

The thing is, when there's the extraordinary amount of money floating about like there is around Jacko's estate, people will spend money on all sorts of crap because it's not their money and there's a seemingly endless supply. That is obviously what Joe Jackson is up to. (That and he's a human leech trying to suck money out of a corpse.) If you look at just the expenses for Jacko's funeral that People Magazine details, you'll see what I'm talking about. They claim that among some of the costs "His casket cost $25,000, his burial garments came to $35,000, while $175,089 was spent on security." How in the hell could his "burial garments" cost $35k? Did the man not own enough of his own clothes that he could be buried in for free? OH, wait. If they buried him in some of his own clothes, then that particular outfit would not have been able to be sold at a later date in order to line the pockets of some greedy family members, right? I'll bet you I'm close!

They also detail out that they spent "$3,682 for framing of a photograph of Jackson next to his casket, $1,975 for wardrobe costs for the family, $11,716 for invitations/programs, $16,000 for flowers, $30,000 for additional cars and security." Almost FOUR grand to frame a photo?! Spare me. And almost TWO grand for wardrobe for the family?! How is that? I've been to a number of funerals in my time, a fair amount for family members, and I was never provided with a wardrobe! And you're telling me no one in the Jackson family had anything to wear to a funeral?! I think they did! (Besides, if we're talking "family" like Joe Jackson, Child Abuser, was part of, then that would be five brothers, three sisters, two parents, and his three children. That's 13 people. $151 each? For what? Sparkly gloves?)

What have we learned here? Nothing we didn't already know. Joe Jackson, Child Abuser, is also a leech. It just occurred to me that he didn't seem to have a favorable review of the "This Is It" movie. I guess that means that he won't be sharing in any of the profits of that either. Shouldn't have beat your boy, Joe. Should not have beat your boy.

Sphere: Related Content

Chris Brown Beats Women

Call me crazy but I'm of the bent that if you do something to harm another human being, how they deal with the aftermath of that, not to mention how they deal with you, is none of your business. Furthermore, I don't necessarily think that if you're a victim of violence that there is a "correct" way for you to deal with that. So if you're the perpetrator of said violence against another, what say you just pipe right down, OK?

If you're not familiar with the Rihanna-Chris Brown story, let me summarize it briefly. Rihanna was dating Chris Brown. Rihanna did not realize that Chris Brown was a lunatic. Rihanna realized that Chris Brown was a lunatic the night that he beat the holy hell out of her. Consider yourself up to date.

So, the one they call Rihanna did an interview the other night with with patronizing voiced Diane Sawyer. According to People Magazine, she says that the whole thing started when "I caught him in a lie, and he wouldn't tell the truth. And I wouldn't drop it." Yeah, funny thing with liars. They always want you to drop it when they're busted. Funny how that works, eh? For God's sake, don't ask them about the lie! That just won't do!

Since she wouldn't drop the confrontation of the liar, he decided that the appropriate measure to take would be to just start beating on her. "I was battered, I was bleeding, I was swollen in my face." Any guy who hits a woman is such a lowlife I don't even know where to start. But a guy who hits a woman because she catches him lying?! Spare me, dude. God, you're pathetic. But enough about the guy who beats women. Back to Rihanna.

What did she do next? "My next option was to get out of the car and walk, start walking in a gown and a bloody face. I didn't have a plan. That whole night was not part of my plan." Um, no. I can't imagine that would be part of anyone's plan, really.

Now, most people knew that she had really been hammered on by this jackass who beats women. That we knew. We also knew that Chris Brown had issued a "public" apology (if you can call putting some dumbass video on YouTube an "apology") and had done a couple of interviews. And let's just say that those interviews were less than well received by the public. (I don't know how anyone can expect to be "well received" when you're going on Larry King wearing a baby blue sweater and a matching bow tie. Who dressed him for that interview? June Cleaver?) He claimed on Larry King that he didn't remember hitting her. Amnesia? Never a good excuse for a woman beater. NOT going to be well received at all.

So when it was revealed that Rihanna was finally doing a sit down interview for the first time since all of this happened just hours before the Grammy awards last February, MTV contacted the now convicted and sentenced and still woman beater Chris Brown to see if he had anything to say about her finally doing an interview. (By the way, it should probably be noted that Rihanna said that she was "embarrassed" that she ever loved Chris Brown and that she said that she finally did an interview because she realized that by talking about her experience, it could really help others who have been or are in that situation, as well as perhaps help prevent others from getting into such a situation. Got that, women beaters?! People are embarrassed that they ever loved you. It should also probably be noted that I abhor Chris Brown and any other man who ever raises a fist to a woman. Other than his publicly stating, "I beat women because I am a piece of crap", there really isn't much that he can do to redeem himself in my viewpoint. Just so you know where I'm coming from. By the way, that would be I'm coming from the side of reason.) Oh, he had something to say, all right.

"While I respect Rihanna's right to discuss the specific events of February 8, I maintain my position that all of the details should remain a private matter between us." Um, what?

You think that she should just keep it all to herself? You think that she shouldn't talk to anyone about it? You think that she should just keep quiet and not tell everyone how you beat her face to a bloody pulp? Really? That's what you think? Why am I not surprised by that? Oh, that's right. Because he hasn't learned a damned thing from all of this and it's likely that he will do it again.

It should remain a private matter. Good Lord. That's rich. And dude, soon? You won't be! If all goes well, you won't be rich at all. You are pathetic. What say you elaborate on that little sentiment there, woman beater? How about you explain why it is that the woman that you beat up and bloodied because you were lying to her and got busted should not be publicly talking about what you did to her? Tell us why you think that! Afraid it's going to ruin your little comeback trail that you're hoping to get on sooner than you deserve to?

This ordeal is far beyond anything that should remain a "private matter", you jackass. The only thing that I would like to see remain a "private matter" is you because having your name come up in the public realm ever again can only serve to sicken people. What say you go become your own "private matter" and leave everyone else alone? Moron.

Sphere: Related Content

She Am Them

No one is in favor of DUI. Pretty much, I think it's safe to say everyone thinks it's a bad idea. That being said, I have some awesome DUI stories here. It takes a certain sort of numb nut to pull stuff like this off. Thank goodness neither of these morons hurt anyone in the midst of their drunken stupor in which they felt the need to drive. Idiots.

First, we'll go to Salem, Oregon and meet a one Calvin Hoover. According to KGW News Channel 8 over there in Portland, our friend Calvin there had called authorities to report a theft from his truck outside of the Free Loader Tavern (catchy), but by the time that a deputy showed up, Calvin and his truck were gone. But that wouldn't be the last that the authorities heard from him.

Calvin called back about an hour later and explained that he had left because he got tired of waiting (he thought that it was taking them too long). He was obviously driving when he made the second 911 call and was also obviously intoxicated. The dispatcher did have a bit of a problem trying to understand Calvin, as he had to keep pulling over. That's right. To throw up. Aim high, Cal! Aim. High.

Now, because the media is crap, the article doesn't tell us exactly how it came to be that they located ol' Calvin, but they did. He was walking, obviously plastered, down a street not too far from where he had parked his truck (probably after the last round of vomiting). He explained to the officer that approached him that he was looking for the people who had stolen from him earlier. He told them that "he was looking for the people who took his "weed.” Um...wait. What now? Your...weed?

Correct. His weed. His marijuana. Stolen. It would seem that the items that had been taken from his truck earlier included "...$400 in cash, a Carhartt jacket and 3/4 ounces of pot valued at $180". All stolen out of his truck. All reported to the police (in between hurling the contents of his stomach in reverse order out onto the pavement) as stolen. Where the hell do I begin?

What is wrong with you people who are on drugs?! I mean, aside from being on drugs! Obviously THAT is an issue. I know that drugs don't exactly enhance your cerebral functioning (no matter what Timothy Leary or Hunter S. Thompson might want you to believe), but do they make you so incredibly stupid that you think you can go to the cops when your stash gets stolen? Do you really think that the cops are going to overlook your illegal dealings because you ended up on the wrong end of the bong? I don't think they are! Honestly, how much do you have to drink to believe that your crimes no longer matter if you're somehow wronged in some way? How much? A gallon? Two? It has to be a lot because that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Calvin was arrested and charged with DUI. The geniuses over there at KGW felt the need to include that the police "...warned him he would face possession charges if he had had marijuana with him, since he didn’t have a medical marijuana card. " Were you folks not paying attention? Hello! McFly! Anybody home? His marijuana was STOLEN! That's why he called the cops! Your news media, hard at work, ladies and gentlemen. What else is there?

Well, there's this lovely lady who hails from Wisconsin that we could take a look at. From a blog which calls itself "What's Wrong With Wisconsin" (a simply awesome name) we learn about a woman, a one Mary Strey, who was driving home on what appears to have been Halloween night when she called 911 to report a drunk driver. There you go! A good citizen! Helping out her fellow Wisconsinites by alerting the authorities to the presence of an irresponsible drunk driver on the roadways. Good for you lady! Right? Not so fast.

See, the drunk driver that Mary Strey was calling to report was herself! That's right. She was the drunk driver. When the dispatcher asked her if she was behind them, she replied, "I am them." (To which the awesome dispatcher, just to clarify, asked, "You am them?" How great is that? Of course she replied, "I am them." All rightee then. Carry on!)

The dispatcher coaxed her into pulling over and putting on her flashers. She had a pretty good idea as to where she was, but didn't seem aware as to what direction she was traveling in, a point that I'm not going to fault her for. (Hey, I'm rarely aware of which direction I'm traveling in when I'm not drunk. Do I look like I'm carrying a compass around with me all the time?) She stopped, turned off her car, turned on her flashers, took off her seatbelt and waited for the cops to get there so that they could follow procedure, give her a field sobriety test and let her fail miserably. Later, it would be determined that she had a BAC of 0.17, over 2 times the legal limit of 0.08. (Both of those numbers are figures that mean absolutely nothing to anyone unless you've been stopped for DUI. No one knows how much that really is, only that it's illegal. Personally, I'd be OK if they went to a system that instead of giving us a number, they just gave us a name for the condition that the intoxicated individuals are in. Plowed, Really Plowed, Completely Smashed, Obliterated and Can't Believe He's Alive. Or something like those. I'm flexible on the actual terminology.)

I don't really know what to think about this one. Do I want people to be SO stupid that not only will they drink and drive, but they'll call 911 on themselves when they do so? I...I...I don't know that I do. Do I? Oooh!! This is a tough one! I don't know! I don't know! It almost seems as if this would be the only instance in which advocating for idiocy would come in handy, but those idiots won't be drunk and driving all the time, would they? They'd still be idiots even when they weren't drunk, right? Yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't make that trade. I'm going to have to go with wanting people to be smart enough to not drink and drive - period. The audio of Ms. Strey's 911 call is below. It is, in a word, hilarious. Enjoy.

Sphere: Related Content

Healthcare Reactions From The Speaker of the House

Last night at around 11pm, the House passed some sort of health care bill. We could be doomed. I doubt we're saved. Regardless, Nancy Pelosi, lacking a human soul, was strangely overcome with emotion. She was so emotional, she almost blinked. Back to you.

Sphere: Related Content

Grundle v. Hanes

I'd like to welcome back to the blog our old friend, the penis. Hi, penis! (Admit it. Penis is a funny word. I wouldn't have to do these stories if it wasn't so funny sounding and if it wasn't so ridiculous looking. I still have no idea how you guys walk around with those things.)

This account of a grundle wronged comes to us from the website Above The Law (a highly entertaining and simultaneously informative website which I highly recommend) and the courts of Escambia County in Florida. It would seem that a one Albert Freed was given some Hanes tightie whities by his wife to wear for their trip to Hawaii. Mr Freed, being a man of larger stature, subsequently ended up suing Hanes because of said briefs. It would seem that Mr. Freed claimed that the undergarment did not contain his genitals the way that they are intended to be contained (that is to say, inside the underwear) and as a result, his unit was somewhat exposed. Mr. Freed claimed that due to said unit exposure, coupled with a Hawaiian condition known as "the sand", his penis was unnecessarily chafed and rubbed raw. Wait. Ow. Wait. Ow. What now? Ow.

Look, I don't even have a penis, but having a raw one seems like it would really hurt. Now, mind you, they were in Hawaii for three weeks. He claims that he knew his manhood hurt, but he never looked at it to see why it hurt. Um, wait. He never...looked? At it? Yes, that is correct. It would seem that Mr. Freed is SO large that he is unable to gaze lovingly at his own genitalia. That's right. He's lost his own penis on his own body due to an overly substantial bodily girth (and not in a good way).

I know I've mentioned this before, but even though I don't have a penis, I would think that if I DID have one, I wouldn't lose track of it. I'd think I'd want to know where it is and what it's doing at all times! How do you not know what's going on with your own penis? I don't understand that at all.

Now, Mr. Freed would have countered my bewilderment with the argument that he used in court which was that he is a "belly man" and his weight prevents him from looking down and seeing his own penis. He also would contend that he didn't stand in front of a mirror or some other type of reflective device to inspect said raw unit because that's "just not something that he would do". He also would claim that he didn't ask his wife to look at it because "she he would never do such a thing". Really?

They're in Hawaii and he's not going to involve his penis in this trip at any point in time? He's not going to want to involve his penis at any point in time? I find that amazing. The last time I went to Hawaii, there was fornication before we even unpacked! This guy is there for three weeks and not only does he not see his penis, neither does his wife. Odd.

So how did he come to the conclusion that it was the Hanes underwear that was causing him to have an irritated wiener? Apparently, the second to the last day before the end of the trip, his wife was not around and he was walking around the condo that they had rented in just his allegedly defective undergarments and walked past a mirror. That's when he noticed that he was slightly protruding from the briefs. All right now.

Now, if this had been going on the entire time (and we're talking almost three weeks, folks) and right at the end this "belly man" happens to wander past a mirror and see his unit poking out, it had to be reminiscent of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer at that point, wouldn't you think? That or an angry turtle poking its head out into the world. Isn't that about the same point where the case would have gone from being called Freed v. Hanes to Fireman's Helmet v. Hanes?

So, this guy is claiming that with the protruding penis and the sand from the water (he was wearing his underwear underneath his swim trunks? That strikes me as odd. Does he not know how swim trunks work? They usually work sans underpants.), the little sides of the pee hole there acted like abrasive sandpaper. Ouchie! Sounds like (if this was actually the case) that he's damn lucky he didn't decapitate the little fellow. Who wears their underwear underneath their swim trunks?

The court decided against this lunatic. Perhaps it was the "expert testimony" (an expert in underwear? Nice profession. Is there a degree for that?) in which they basically said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that any sort of 'yawning' by said briefs would be due to too large of an ass shoved into too small of a pant for underneath. So had Mr. Freed perhaps stepped it up a notch and gotten the 58s instead of the 56s there might have been all of the raw penis that developed. Then again, in Mr. Freed's defense, it was his wife that bought them for him for the trip. Perhaps those are the sorts of gifts that older couples exchange before embarking on a three week journey to the Hawaiian Islands, but again, the last time I went to Hawaii, I think I was given the pre-trip gift of lots of liquor (not to mention the gift of groping I was given on said plane ride to said islands. Ah, Hawaii.). And I don't know how she could have been expected to get the correct size. After all, he doesn't ask her to inspect his penis, remember? That's just not something that he would do. Clearly.

And get this: At the end of the ruling (you know, the part where they said in legalese that the guy was too damn fat for his own underwear and wasn't getting a dime for his raw weenie) the judge writes "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that plaintiff shall recover nothing from defendant who shall go hence without day." Go hence without day? What does that even mean? Let's break it down. There's "Go". We know what that means. "Hence". That doesn't seem to have anything to do with this at all. "Without" means not with. And then "day". So it seems to mean "don't have a day". Is that right? Did that judge sentence that poor fat man with the super sore schlong to death? Good Lord, Your Honor, isn't that a bit much?! (You know, even if that isn't what it means, I'm going to start saying that. A lot. To everyone.)

What have we learned from this? More than we bargained for, I'll tell you that much. We've learned that it's important to always keep your genitals where you can see them at a moment's notice. We've learned that grundle pain should most likely be investigated the moment it happens. Most importantly I think that we've learned to buy some damned underwear that actually fit and that won't be giving the contents of said underwear a room with a view. Thank you and go hence without day.

Sphere: Related Content

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.

Sphere: Related Content

The Crucification of Common Sense

Do trends start here in America and are picked up by the folks over in Europe or do the trends start in Europe and are picked up by the folks over here in America? Either way, there's a scary one that has reared it's head and the outrage seems not as much as I would have expected. I don't know if it's due to complacency or idiocy, but I fear the latter.

According to our friends across the pond at The Telegraph "....seven judges in Strasbourg said the display of Christian crosses, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be "disturbing" for children from other faiths." Wait. What now?

Correct. Apparently, Italian schools frequently have some sort of crucifix hanging somewhere in the classroom. So how distracting are these crucifixes? (Or is it crucifii?) From what I can tell, these crucifixes are not life sized replicas of the one in which Jesus (allegedly) used. No, they seem to be small and able to be affixed to the walls of said classrooms. They don't seem to light up, be aflame, make noise or do anything other than simply hang there. Hmmm. It seems odd that this would be a problem, doesn't it? When you learn how this idiotic case came to be in front of the seven judges of the apocalypse, it's really not so odd at all.

See, this is the result of a lawsuit that was brought about by an atheist woman, a one Soile Lautsi, "...who complained that her children had to attend a state school in northern Italy which had crucifixes in every classroom." Um, I don't think they did. They had to attend a state school which had crucifixes (I guess crucifii is out!) in every classroom? Let's think about this for just a moment, shall we?

Let's assume that the entire school is just riddled with crucifixes. That would seem to indicate that the school has a certain way of thinking about things. They're big on the crucifix! The entire school would join the crucifix's Fan Page on Facebook if there was one. (Please don't tell me if there is. I just cannot handle any more weirdness.) I don't know if she should be so concerned about the crucifix being in the classroom if it's put there out of a belief in Jesus Christ dying upon that symbol as a way to save the rest of us from out sins. Thus, why is this about the symbol and not about the ideology? Because this pain in the ass woman is an atheist, that's why.

In defense of atheists that I know, y'all are wonderful people. Y'all are brilliant people! I have no problem with your beliefs. But can I ask if there's anything that you can do to reel in people like the cuckoo bird that created the swirling maelstrom of s***? Anything? Because it's people like her who really give all atheists a bad name. (Actually, it's people like her who give all human beings a bad name, but I digress.)

If this woman doesn't want her children attending the school with all of the crucifixes in it, what say she put her children in a different school? What say she home school them? Now, I realize that by her home schooling them, they're likely to turn out just as nutso as she is and that would be unfortunate. I get that. But I am SO over having everything being altered because ONE person claims to be offended.

According to the P.O.S. ruling, "The presence of the crucifix could be ... disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities." Wait. What? "Could be"?? Could? Do they mean "might"? Might? As in "Monkeys might fly out of my arse." (They're not gonna, but they might!) THAT kind of "might"? Lots of things might happen. Does that mean that we need to start changing everything that everyone (sans one moron) is perfectly OK with? I don't think it does! Then again, I'm not some 200 year old judge in Italy, apparently.

Lady, I've got news for you. Your kids are going to need to learn to ignore more outside influences in their life than simply a damn crucifix hanging on a wall. I love it when these rulings come out and they are always, without a doubt, always totally vague on HOW the disturbance might occur. And in the case of the atheist versus the crucifix, I don't see how the disturbance could occur. See, the crucifix is a religious symbol that is rooted in the belief in God. If you don't believe in God, the crucifix means nothing. How can you be offended by something that means nothing to you that you don't believe in? Are they also offended by pictures of ghosts and goblins at Halloween? Those don't exist, yet I'm sure that there are representations of those displayed prominently during the Halloween season. How are ghosts and goblins any different than a crucifix when it comes to being an atheist? I don't see that there is a difference. All I see is that this woman is still a pain in the ass.

I don't understand why her relocating to someplace that was more accommodating to her belief system was not an option. Oh, wait. She did relocate. She is Finnish and possesses Italian citizenship! Was she unaware of the overly Catholic influence throughout Italy when she moved there?! I find that hard to believe and yet she moved there anyway. It must not have bothered her enough to go there on purpose. To live! And wait a minute! The Finnish flag is just a sideways crucifix (minus the dead Jesus, of course)! Has she sued Finland as well?! It might offend someone that it's a sideways crucifix! (It probably would offend someone to know that Jesus was missing as well!)

I also don't understand why things that "might" happen are supposed to dictate our actions. And finally, I really don't understand exactly what in the hell would happen to her kids if they had to continue to go to school with a crucifix hanging on the wall. It's not like they're making them carry some 10-foot wooden crucifix across the playground every day at recess (though I personally would have rather done that than had to endure another game of Dodge Ball). Good luck, Italy! You're going to need it! (But quick! Someone put that Jesus bobblehead doll on the bus!)

(Side note: I'd like to thank my friend Patty for bringing this lunacy to my attention. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a wall that I need to go finish banging my head against.)

Sphere: Related Content

What Can Electricity Do For YOU?

You know, I've been saying we're doomed for quite some time now. But I suppose that I had thought that it was only a recent phenomenon in which we, as a people, were propelling ourselves down a path of stupidity. I'm beginning to think that people in general (excluding the majority of you reading this right now) have always been rather dim-bulbed. I say that because apparently, at one point, it was necessary to inform folks of all of the things that electricity in the home can do for you. Wait. What?

Look, I wasn't around during the advent of all of the electricity, but I'd think that all I'd need to see is that light bulb glowing and realize that life is good! But the thing is, this video doesn't seem to have been made around the advent or discovery of electricity. I mean, it does reference television at some point, so it's not like the wonders of electricity were not well known during the filming of this odd, odd PSA. The video is below and I'm going to run through just a few of the things that I found particularly entertaining. Behold!

1930's Infomercial About Electricity, Funny - Click here for more blooper videos

Do you know that electricity will switch on your kettle and when it boils, make tea, light the lamp and ring the alarm to wake you up? Am I sleeping with Rube Goldberg? Who in the world had that contraption next to their bed?

"And when, half an hour later, when your husband is waiting to get off to work, it will boil another kettle for breakfast and cook his toast at the table for him in the twink. Perhaps he'll even offer you a piece!" OK, I might not have heard the lovely British fellow correctly when he talked about cooking toast in the "twink". I've listened to it several times and that's the best I can come up with. Regardless, maybe your husband will OFFER you a piece? A piece? Of the toast YOU just cooked for HIM? Good Lord...

But this voice over guy is a crack up! After making the comment about the guy offering a piece of toast up to the little lady, the guy says "I'll be he doesn't when we're not filming him!" Nice!

"In this country, the waffle griddle may still be something of a newcomer, but it is growing in favor every day." (Apparently this wasn't filmed in Belgium, home of delicious waffles!) But here's where he loses me. "It uses only one unit in twenty hours and will also give you toasted sandwiches." What? A unit of what? Twenty hours? Is there a timer on this waffle cooker contraption? And toasted sandwiches? In a waffle iron? Er, griddle. Machine. Whatever! There are no sandwiches in my waffle iron!

This whole thing cracks me up! "And if you're husband feels in need of a little fresh air..." Enter some guy who was not the guy sharing his toast with you earlier. "Hello! You've got a new husband!" Funny how electricity informercial guy can mention that it's a different person playing the husband, but do you think anyone ever wanted to talk about the second Darrin? Not so much. Odd.

"...Electricity to warm you as you recline so beautifully in front of the drawing room fire as you wonder what's keeping your husband out so late. I wouldn't stay out so late, madam, were I your husband." Is he hitting on our electricity model? I believe he is! First he tells her that her husband is a selfish toast hoarder, now he's telling her that he's out carousing around! Does he know that she can't hear him?

It's just a tad bit unnerving for me to see the hot water heater positioned directly above the tub. Why is it there? There had to have been plumbing pipes at that time, didn't there? I mean, it's not like the tub was the only appliance the in the home that used hot water. Why positioned directly over the tub?

Well I don't know if this little Public Service Announcement explaining how electricity can be useful in the human home would have been successful at convincing me of anything other than those women did a hell of a lot of work all the live long day...electricity or not!

Sphere: Related Content

I Don't Know Why He Swallowed The Fly

You know, the most effective way to complete your high school course work and earn decent grades is to a) study, and b) to actually do the course work. Using some sort of entymological ingestion procedure as a way of getting an 'A' on your Algebra II test is probably not a really good way to go about things.

Dateline: El Dorado Hills, California. Sub-dateline: Oak Ridge High School, Algebra II class, test day. From CBS-13 KOVR News, the story plays out as follows. The Algebra II teacher killed a fly in class with his hands and then dared any of his students to eat the dead fly, allegedly enticing them by saying, "If anybody eats this fly then I will give them an A on this test." Go on. Guess what happened next. Guess! You got it. Some paste eater ate it. (Maybe he was branching out.) Now guess what happened after that! Go on. Guess! That's right. No A.

Steven Zeldag is the lad in question and judging from his score on his Algebra II test, he's not just dumb, he's fly-eatin' dumb. The lad scored 9 out of 46. That's just a hair under twenty percent correct. He claims that his teacher said that "...I told you I'd give you an A on your test, so here's your A, but it's not going in the gradebook." "The teacher even wrote, "Here is your A on your test," when he returned the paper to the student." Behold!

The story continues by explaining Steven's revelation, saying that "...he realized what he thought was a deal was really just a joke at his expense." Dun-dun-DUNNNNNNNN!! Ya think? What a moron.

"I didn't think he was joking at all," said the fly eater.

You know, I should probably take that back. The moron part, that is. The kid might really be a good kid. Maybe he's good with his hands. (Well, if he's not, he'd better get good with his hands, because I don't know how well that book learnin' is going to be turning out for him.) But judging from his ability to discern whether or not a teacher is jerking you around by saying "I'll give anyone an A who eats this fly", I don't know that he was ever going to pass that Algebra II test in the first place.

See, he seems to have overlooked a real key piece to this ordeal. Son, your math teacher can't give you a grade that is contingent upon your ingesting any insects. Hell, or mammal for that matter. Insect. Mammal. Egg layer. Unless you are enrolled in a course that specifically requires the ingesting of animals, eating any sort of animal isn't going to help you. If you gobble down a field mouse, you're not going to get an A on your biology exam. If you consume an entire raccoon, it's not going to get you an A on your term paper. That's not the way that it works...at all!

Mind you, this is an algebra class. Algebra consists of solving for the unknown. There are not a lot of unknowns in this story. There's an awful lot of "known"s though. The way that scholastic achievement grades are doled out. The general area of the kid's overall IQ. Things like that. Things like your future if you keep thinking that the eating of a freshly squashed insect is going to propel you to the top of the class. Your future won't be unknown. Your future will be dim. Your future will be counting change out for people. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But when you're a high school student, don't you want something more than that to look forward to? My point.

Those are the knowns. Here are a few of the unknowns:

One: The article said that this fly-for-grades debacle took place last month. What does that mean? Today is the 4th of November, so "last month" could have been just last week, but we don't know that. I have no idea why that wasn't clarified. (I take that back. I have some idea. It's called "The media is crap".)

Two: When the principal was contacted to comment on this story, he said that "...it was the first time he heard about it." OK. Since the principal hadn't heard about it that means that neither the boy, nor the teacher went to him. I'm guessing that, out of the two of them, the only one that I would foresee going to the media with it would be the boy. Now, that makes little to no sense to me because "Stephen said he was afraid to tell his principal because his teacher would punish him." Um, so you go to Channel 13? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Oh, wait. This is the same kid who ate the fly, right? Never mind. It all makes perfect sense.

Three: I don't think the kid is being totally honest about why he didn't study for the test. He made it sound like the deal was made (an A for a fly snack) in advance of the test being given and because he was under his self inflicted delusion that he would be getting an A, he didn't study. I'm thinking it was more like he didn't study and saw the chance to weasel out of possibly (likely) getting a bad grade and when the fly opportunity buzzed in (pun totally intended) and presented itself, he took it. No way he ate the fly a week in advance or something and just didn't bother to study for the test because he had a tummy chock full o'fly. No way. I'm not buyin' it. But from the news report, it's hard to tell. That's right, because the media sucks. How'd you guess?

We're so doomed. Let me just tell you, if I had pulled this stunt in high school, it would not have ended up on the news. If I was dumb enough to eat the fly and expect an A and then I was dumb enough to tell my family about it, I probably would have been slapped upside the head by one or both parents before they laughed me out of the house for being such a moron. Oh, and if I even thought about bringing up the subject of "Hey, so, the local news wants to do a story on me being an idiot and eating a bug", do you know what would have happened then? It would have been loud, I'll tell you that! I'm guessing something to the effect of my needing to think about how important the roof over my head and the food in my stomach and the clothes on my back actually were to me because if they weren't that important, I'd be doing that story on the news and my parents would have stopped providing all of those things to me. No WAY would they let that happen. THEY don't want to be known far and wide as the two people that raised the fly-eating, test-failing dumbass. But now? Sure! Go on the news! Tell everyone how dumb you are. Enjoy! Oh, and when you come around to cut my grass, don't cut it too short, all right? Thanks.

Sphere: Related Content

The Führer's Take On Balloon Boy

You know, you never really think that you'd ever say "I guess Hitler said it best." But in this case...well...you kinda can say that. I mean, it's a parody of a movie scene is all. It's not like you're really agreeing with Hitler. So it's OK. Right? The Hitler thing? Just this once? Ah, you know what? Screw it. We were all pretty torqued when we found out it was a hoax. You GO, Hitler!

Sphere: Related Content