What Does This MEAN?!

Ferris Bueller's Day Off is one of my all time favorite movies. I could probably quote the whole thing all the way through. And I don't know that it's really a movie that one could make a sequel to. I mean, I could see it if they did a sequel maybe, say, 25 years after the fact. I could see a sequel that featured an adult Ferris taking the day off of work or something like that. It would be tricky to get just right, but I think it could be done. That is why the clip below intrigues me to no end. It's only ten seconds, but it sets the stage for something Ferris Bueller related. I guess it could be some sort of product endorsement (Volkswagen has done ads that feature "Coming Soon" as a tease before), but I'm not hoping for that because I don't give a fat rat's ass what Matthew Broderick endorses. No, I'm hoping for just a little bit more of Ferris Bueller. Just a little. And definitely a little bit more than only the ten freaking seconds in the clip! Click here if the clip below doesn't play. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Eight Minutes Later

By the way, Obama gave a State of the Union speech the other night. And I know that they're not the most interesting things in the world, but you'd think that you'd be able to last longer than eight minutes, especially if you were actually there! Sadly, that wasn't the case with one guy. Eight minutes in. Just 480 seconds. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

She Doesn't Know Anything

Is it the silly season already? I thought that wasn't until September. I must be wrong because Nancy Pelosi has been spouting out the ramblings of a crazy person. And when someone can do that when they're talking about Newt Gingrich (who isn't exactly someone I would put in the 'completely sane' category), well, that's certainly something.

According to the NY Daily News, Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNN about what she thought about the change that there might be a "President Gingrich". She responded with: "Let me just say this. That will never happen...He's not going to be President of the United States ... Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen." Now, while I agree with her feelings, I don't know that I think that it's a very good idea to go around saying it quite like that. There are too many dumbasses out there who go to vote. I'd hate to have any of them get wind of this and think, "Oh, yeah?! C'mon, Cletus. Let's go show her wrong!" (And by the way, there would be no particular reason for the dumbasses to think this. They're dumbasses. They don't need a reason.) But she didn't really stop there. No, she went on to jabber: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him, that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen." Wait. There is something that she knows?

What could she possibly know? (Other than it would appear, based on the photo below, that Dwight Schrute is quite possibly Newt's love child.) Does she know something that the rest of us don't? Really, those sentences didn't string together very well, so it's entirely possible that she didn't know what she was talking about either. (I wonder if that happens when you've had your face lifted just one too many times. Hmm...) But you can't just come out and says "There is something I know" and not back it up with...anything, lest you sound like a crazy(er) person. At the very least, make your subsequent sentences flow!

I can't imagine that she has some sort of 'secret weapon' that she's going to break out if Newt should get the nomination. And even if she did, why wouldn't she keep that sort of thing to herself? You don't want to be letting everyone in on your 'strategy', do you? Granted, if it is a 'strategy', it's probably the worst one I've ever heard of. (It's a good thing she isn't in charge of our SEAL operations. She'd tip everyone off before anything could get done. Can you picture it? "There is something I know. Osama bin Laden is about to hear a knock at his door." Yeah, that wouldn't be very effective.)

Sphere: Related Content

A Whopping Thirty Percent

If I'm on a cruise, I have a few expectations that might not be written down. They're not too much to ask, I don't think. All I want is that the boat that I'm on stays on top of the water. And I'd really like it if all of the parts of the boat that are supposed to be above the water stay that way throughout my cruise. If that fails to occur, I'm going to consider my cruise a failure. Call me crazy, but if I'm on a cruise and the boat sinks while I'm on it, someone has failed in their quest to provide me with what I would consider a 'cruise'. If when I exit the ship it is no longer upright, I'm going to go ahead and consider that a failure. Crazy, I know. But that's just me.

You know how I know it's just me? Because I just read what the Costa Concordia people offered the passengers that were on their cruise ship that is now perpendicular with the waterline. These are people who had to escape the sinking ship without the direction from the majority of the crew and captain, as a lot of them were practicing the "save yourself" mantra and getting themselves into lifeboats first. These are people who were aboard a ship that ran aground and dozens of people died as a result. I'm not saying that it's the worst tragedy that's ever happened (it was not 'just like Titanic'), but I am saying that it was bad enough that the cruise line should offer those who were on the ship a little bit more than thirty percent off of a future cruise!

That's right. According to the Daily Mail, Carnival Cruises (which owns the now horizontal Costa Concordia) said "The company is not only going to refund everybody but they will offer a 30 per cent discount on future cruises if they want to stay loyal to the company." Well, I should hope that they'd be refund everybody. Was that even an option? And I don't know what other compensation they should receive, but I think that it should be something that doesn't involve having to do business with them ever again. The boat is laying down! What makes them think that any of those passengers would want to take another cruise with Sideways Liners?!

And really, only thirty percent off?! Not like a free cruise to make up for the one that the (allegedly) drunken captain ran aground off the coast and caused the ship to eventually capsize? No, not even half off of your future (and possibly doomed) cruise that of course you would want to book with these yahoos. Yeah, they're offering a whopping thirty percent off. Sure. That should calm some tempers.

Seriously, let me get this straight. You're the cruise line and your plan for disaster is every man for himself. The captain is going to leave and it's going to be absolute bedlam aboard the sinking vessel. Not to mention the dozens of deaths that will occur. And you're offering people thirty percent off? Are you on glue? What if someone lost their spouse? Could they get forty percent off? And you know, the one compensation that I hate the most is the one where those who have given you crappy service expect you to come back to them so that they can discount whatever they give you (which may or may not still be crappy) the next time. Next time?! What on earth makes you think I would ever want to come back here? The boat sank for Christ's sake!

Sphere: Related Content

This Guy?

Yeah, I'm still not totally over the 49ers loss on Sunday. I'm not not over it, but I'm just having a hard time dealing with the fact that they lost to this guy. Behold!

Seriously? That guy doesn't look like he could fight his way out of a wet paper bag, let alone through an entire game of football.

Sphere: Related Content

I Never Thought It Would Be Good

Well, the 49ers lost yesterday. I'm semi-consolable. I'd be inconsolable if this hadn't been the best season that they'd had in at least a dozen years and if they hadn't gotten farther than 29 other teams in the NFL. It's hard to complain about something like that. Easy to be sad, but hard to complain. But don't think that's going to stop people from complaining. No, they complain. You know why? Because people are a-holes when it comes to sports, that's why. Actually, they'll complain about anything that they can find to complain about when sports are involved.

Take the national anthem. The NFL had Steven Tyler sing the anthem before the start of the other game yesterday. Now, I find it an interesting choice, but I'm not going to be surprised if he ends up singing a 'non-traditional' sounding anthem. What would you expect? It's Steven freaking Tyler. There's not one single thing that's 'traditional' about that man. Nothing. (And I'm a Steven Tyler fan, by the way. That doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm getting when he's the choice to sing the national anthem. I know. And I know it'll be something, but that something likely won't be great.)


But people complained about it. Were they expecting anything different? How could they have been? But yet ESPN guy Skip Bayless tweeted "How could Patriots be inspired by that awful anthem sung by Steven Tyler? At least give him some screaming guitars to camouflage voice." Again, his voice wasn't made for the national anthem. What did he expect? I don't know, but it must have been the same thing that an abundance of other people expected.

Deadspin.com went with "Steven Tyler's 'Star-Spangled Banner' was terrible, but was it the worst ever?" Oh, for crying out loud! He wasn't trying to...it's not that kind of a....never mind. And I have those same sentiments for a one Greg Gutfeld of FOX News who tweeted "I went outside to put a raccoon out of its misery - then I realized my neighbor was watching Steven Tyler sing the Star-Spangled Banner." It's not supposed to sound all perfect! It's Steven Tyler! Why were you expecting something other than a miserable raccoon sound?!

OK, sure, it did sound like he kind of got some of the words wrong a couple of the times.

Sphere: Related Content

Please Win

The 49ers play today. The last time that the 49ers were in the NFC Championship game, it was 1994. So while I have technically been waiting for this game for the past week, theoretically, I have been waiting for this game for the past eighteen years. And I don't want to do anything to jinx it. I'm just going to have happy thoughts. And what better way to induce happy thoughts than a golden retriever who likes guitar music. Behold! (And please win.)

Sphere: Related Content

Stupid Sparkles

A lot of people who follow sports have certain superstitions. And they're pretty serious about them. They believe that doing just one thing wrong could jinx your team and they'd lose. That's the case with the lovely young lady in the video below. She appears to be distraught that her beloved Green Bay Packers lost their game last week. And she blames Megan. And the sparkles. That's right. The sparkles. Enjoy.

Sphere: Related Content

He Doesn't Have Cats

There are a lot of different people in the world. Some are nice, some are not so nice. But here's my take on all of them: Just be who you are and don't try to hide it and while I might not like you, I will at least respect you. You could be the world's biggest bitch or biggest d**k and as long as you don't try to pretend like you're not, I'm good. It's when people who are clearly d-bags try and act like they're not. Those people I have a problem with.

Take Newt Gingrich. His giant pumpkin head aside, he is one who will not embrace his d**kishness. And it's nothing new. Let's remember that at the time of the Clinton impeachment hearings (which you'd have thought were about Clinton getting all Lewinsky-ed in the Oval Office, but were actually not about that at all), Newt was being extremely sanctimonious about the whole ordeal and the entire time that he was doing so, he was cheating on his wife! That's a d**k move if there ever was one. Does he hang out with John Edwards? I think that the two of them would get along just swell together.

Well now, one of his ex-wives has come out with a 'revelation' that she thinks will ruin his quest for the Republican nomination for President. This would be a one Marianne Gingrich, also known as Wife Number Two. (I think she was the second wife. I'm just not sure if she was the wife that he left when she had cancer or if she was the wife that he left when she had MS. See why I think he'd get along so well with John Edwards?) Why she is just coming out with this now is beyond me. But I'm guessing that what she has to say is probably true since after she announced that she was going to make an announcement, Newt swung into full PR mode and had his daughters make statements. One usually doesn't call out the daughters unless they're worried about something. And I could see why this might worry him a little.

The point here is that Marianne Gingrich said that when she was married to Newt and found out that he was having an affair, he not only declined to end the affair, but he also asked her to agree to an open relationship. That's right. Oh, and did I mention that less than 48 hours after asking her to agree to this (she declined, by the way) "...he gave a lecture to the Republican Women Leaders Forum titled, "The Demise of American Culture" in which he decried the way liberals "talk about values." Yeah, he did.

Look, there are a lot of reasons why Newt is un-electable and this is just one of the reasons why he can't be trusted with the nomination. He had to step down as Speaker of the House because of ethics violations, for crying out loud! Does this open marriage request thing surprise anyone? It doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that people are surprised that someone who has proven himself to be grossly unethical, cheated on his wife and wanted an open marriage, all the while preaching morals and values to the rest of the world. I wonder why she's coming out with this now. And really, I'm a little disappointed that this is all that her information holds. I think I was hoping she'd say something like Newt was a cat hoarder and had 100s of cats living with him. That would have been awesome.

Sphere: Related Content

Not Very Much

Holy smokes, how out of touch is Mitt Romney? The man already comes across as a tool and a phony. Did he really have to go and say something that would glaringly highlight how wealthy he is and how he doesn't look at money the same way that regular people do? Apparently he must have because he did.

People have been hammering Mitt more and more lately to release his tax returns. Not surprisingly, Mitt doesn't really want to do that. Oh, sure, he's said that he is considering releasing them around tax time in April. But that would be a point in time that is likely past when the Republicans will have decided upon a nominee for their clueless party. (Don't get me wrong. The Democrats are just as clueless, but they already have their nominee chosen.) How convenient. Release something that you must think is going to be damaging after you've already secured the position that you want. I wonder if he's surprised that we're all seeing through his complex scheme?

He might actually be surprised because he seems so out of touch with other things that it wouldn't be improbable for him to think that all of us little people can just be swayed with his toothy grin and suave words that he got from all of that book learnin'. He did come out and say a few things about his taxes. The first thing he mentioned was that his tax rate is probably around 15%. OK, the guy has over $200 million dollars. He makes a buttload of money every year from that money. Kids, this is what is known as a tax loophole. Making money off of capital gains is taxed at a different rate than the money you make when you haul your ass out of bed every morning and do something in exchange for cash. People with lots of money like these sorts of loopholes.

But that's not the most out of touch thing that he said in regard to his own income and financial situation. See, he made money from speaker's fees. Apparently, there are a lot of people and/or organizations out there that think Mitt Romney is worth paying in order to have him talk to you. In regard to these fees, Mitt said, "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much." Really, Mitt? Not very much? Oh, that must mean 'not very much' for someone who is worth about $200 million because the amount of money that he earned from speaking for one year (2010 through early 2011) was $374,328. I'll wait while you process that.

I'm back! Yes, he actually referred to almost four hundred thousand dollars as "not very much". Good Lord, Mitt. I realize that to someone with his sort of money, almost four hundred grand might not be very much. But to come out and say it like that? That's just idiotic. He is in the upper one percent of the one percent and he just doesn't get that. Does he know that in South Carolina (where the next round of Republican nominee powwows is set to take place) that the average annual personal income per capita is $28,285? Now, twenty-eight grand is "not very much". Mitt's "not very much" is over thirteen times South Carolina's "not very much"! You know what that equals? Very much! That is correct!

Seriously, who are this man's handlers? Or does it even matter? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without having to ever answer to anyone? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without anyone ever questioning anything that he ever said? (Because people will kiss a rich man's ass like no other.) I'll bet Mitt also thinks that he's hilarious because all of his life everyone has laughed at every joke he's ever told, even when most of them aren't funny, because of the position that he's in. I'm guessing that he sees the world and the world around him in a completely different way than it actually is.

I think that I've made this offer before, but I'm making it again. Mitt, if you need a consultant, an adviser, a handler, whatever you want to call it, I'm available. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney or the Republican party. But I could teach this guy a few things about the public's perception of politicians. I could also give him some better jokes.

Sphere: Related Content