Friday, April 30, 2010

EEWWWW!!

Directly from the file of "EEWWWW!!", we have this headline from Yahoo! Lifestyle: "I'm in love with my grandson and we're having a baby." Have I already said EEWWWW? I did? Well, something like this warrants it again. EEWWWW!!

What the what?! Correct. What we have here is extreme oddness portraying itself as fine and dandy. Granted, there are only TWO people that are in the fine and dandy camp, as the rest of us are pretty much going with EEWWWW!! Those two folks would be a one 72-year old Pearl Carter (that's right; could she have a more old person's name than Pearl Carter?) and a one 26-year old grandson by the name of Phil Bailey. He's not just any grandson. He's Pearl's grandson. Good Lord.

Here's the scoop: Apparently, when Pearl was 18, she became pregnant (presumably through the normal means and nothing incestuous) and her parents insisted that she give the baby away as to "not to bring the family into disrepute." (Yeah, I don't think her family would be all that thrilled with her current relationship if they were all worried about the disrepute and all. Sleeping with your grandson is a surefire ticket straight to disrepute. And probably to hell, also.)

She gives her baby daughter away and never sees it again. In 1983, that baby is all grown up and gives birth to Phil. When Phil is 18, his mom tells him that she was adopted. She also told him that she had brain cancer. (That must have been quite a day for ol' Phil there.) He took care of her for six months before she succumbed to her cancer. That's when he decided it would be a good idea to track down his grandmother. It took him three years, but he finally did it. And considering that I know how this story turned out, I'm kind of wishing that it took him a little bit longer, you know?

So, Phil found an address for Pearl and he wrote to her. That's quaint. A letter. I wonder if he used a quill and an ink well to make her feel more comfortable? Regardless, Pearl said that she "... was stunned to get his letter...My heart jumped that I'd be re-united with a grandson. I wrote back immediately and included my phone number." To her rotary phone, I presume?

Phil called Pearl. As Pearl describes the conversation, "We both cried but kept talking for three hours." Huh. Really? OK. After that the relationship progressed and according to Pearl, "When he emailed me a photo, I thought what a handsome and sexy man he was before pinching myself – he was my grandson!" EEWWWW!! Look, I'm OK with the seeing a photo of the guy and thinking how handsome he was. That's normal. Thinking he's sexy? When you know he's your grandson? Not so normal. I'm guessing that Pearl didn't send him an image of herself because it was really short notice to find someone to do an oil painting of her.

"Confused, Pearl talked to a friend, who told her about an article she'd read on Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA), which occurs when close relatives meet as adults and are attracted to each other." Wow. I'll give her props for telling anyone at all (though I would be interested to know if that friend has ever talked to her since), but it seems to be at this juncture that things begin to go horribly awry when Pearl concluded "I could now understand my feelings and realise they weren't wrong."

I'm going to have to disagree with that conclusion. Just because something has a name, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong! Just because you pour syrup on something, that doesn't make it a pancake!

Pearl recalls that "From the first moment that I saw him, I knew we would never have a grandmother-grandson relationship. For the first time in years I felt sexually alive." Excuse me for a minute. I think I have something in my throat. I believe it's my lunch. EEWWWW!!

They spent their first week getting to know each other by shopping, bowling and eating out. It was the second week when things got a little too close for my comfort (and it should have been for theirs as well!). That's when Pearl kissed Phil and Phil kissed her back. That's also when Pearl "...explained to Phil what she'd discovered about GSA." Upon hearing about GSA, Phil stated that he "...was thrilled and excited" because "I could be with Pearl and it was OK because she'd never raised me or been in my life." Oh! UN-fortunate! Something got lost in the translation there! Because it's clearly NOT OK! It's not a matter of whether or not she has ever been in your life! She's RELATED to you! It's OK for her to be in your life. It's NOT OK for her to be in your pants! I'm certainly glad that his mother wasn't around for him to explain to her that he's doing HER mother! That's beyond how wrong even this whole ordeal is.

(WARNING: This next part is not for children. It's barely for adults.) The night that they kissed is when "...grandmother and grandson became lovers." Oh, God. "Making love to Pearl was a real eye-opener." Oh, I don't doubt that for minute! Even though if it were me and I would most definitely want my eyes closed, I'm sure that having sex with your Grandma IS an eye-opener. No kidding. He said, "It was love combined with all this sexual tension that had been building up." Sexual tension or not, it doesn't mean you should be doin' Granny! Ever!

Now, you know that this story cannot possibly end there, right? No, what would make this freak show absolutely complete would be if they hired a surrogate to carry a baby for them. Yep, that should do it. Meet Roxanne Campbell!


Yep, that's a picture of what you think it is. They met Roxanne after they decided to use "Pearl's retirement money to find a surrogate mother and buy a donor egg to inseminate with Phil's sperm." They placed an ad and though it doesn't say where, I'm guessing craigslist? Where else would you find someone to go along with this sort of oddity?! Upon finding out of the incestuous nature of the whole thing, Roxanne says that she was "shocked". But never let a little shock hold anyone back from helping an incestuous couple reproduce! Especially if you're like Roxanne and you see that "...they're a brilliant pair and I saw how much they loved each other. I know the baby will be loved too." Sure. It'll be loved. From the retirement home, I have the feeling.

And Pearl's take on how things ended up? "I am finally going to be a mum and not forced to give up my child. Phil's going to be a great dad. I never in a million years thought at 72 I'd be "pregnant" and in love with my grandson. I make no apologies and I believe God's given me a second chance." Oh, really?! You NEVER thought you'd be in love with your grandson? I'm shocked! That never entered your mind? Go figure! And by the way, you probably should apologize. I don't know to who, but it just seems as if there's an apology that's necessary here somewhere. (I feel a little violated. I'd take an apology.) Also, while I do believe that God gives second chances, I don't think He does so in this way, exactly. Yeah, I think He does it differently. I PRAY He does it differently. Just because your cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them biscuits. Or something like that.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Leave Arizona Alone!


I'm so confused by the reaction to this immigration status law that passed in Arizona that I really don't know what to think anymore. I have been completely surprised at the majority of the reactions that I've been hearing. I've even had at least one really close friend join some dumbass anti-racism group on freaking Facebook protesting this law. And this is a person who is extremely educated and extremely sane. I'm completely blown away. Let's review a couple of things, shall we?

If you're in this country illegally, you're breaking the law. Period. There's no way around this fact. To say that "most" of the illegals are law-abiding individuals is completely false. They're breaking the law by being here illegally. That's not law-abiding.

From
New American, we learn that Phoenix has averaged a kidnapping a day in recent years, the AP reports, with some resulting in torture and death. A kidnapping per day? Really? Yep. Many of these kidnappings are fueled by the illegal drug trade which has wandered its way across the border and into Phoenix. And that makes Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the United States. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

Now, if you just listen to East Cost media, you'll think that there is no one in the country, sans Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who is in favor of this new law. Not quite. A
Rasmussen Reports telephone survey showed that "...70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while just 23% oppose it." Seventy percent of the people IN the state where the law is are just fine and dandy with it. (I'd really like to know what is up with the other 7% that weren't represented by a yes or a no answer. Who can't answer yes or no to a simple question like that?) Why is that figure not reported more often? Because that wouldn't fit the narrative of what the media wants you to believe.

Granted, that's just the voters in Arizona. What about the rest of the country? Well, again, according to a
Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, when people were asked "Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?" 60% of them said that they were in FAVOR of it. Only 31% said that they opposed it and the rest said that they weren't sure. Even with the sampling error of +/- 3%, that's still a majority of 57% in favor of it at the very least. And that's nationwide.

The next person who is within an arm's length of me that says "We're a nation of immigrants" is going to get punched. I'm going to point out again that when this great nation was being built, it's not like just anyone was allowed to come in. At the whole Ellis Island checkpoint thing, they checked to make sure you had either money, a job, or relatives over here. THEN they asked you a series of 29 questions. I'm pretty sure that there was some sort of health screening involved. The point here is that they did not let people just wander on over simply because they wanted to!

Next in line of people that I'd like to punch would be anyone suggesting any sort of a boycott of anything having to do with Arizona. I've mentioned this before, but because of the number of softheads that have crawled out of the woodwork (as they so often do when needed legislation is passed) I'm going to mention it again. Boycotts rarely work. I can cite the Montgomery bus boycott as an effective boycott that took place in this country. I am hard pressed to come up with another one, probably because there aren't any. Getting a boycott to actually accomplish something is extremely difficult. The main problem is having enough people all on the same page. Do you think that you can get anyone in the year 2010 to be on the same page as someone else? Highly unlikely. While you're explaining which page to go to, they're updating their Facebook. It's a lost cause.

But here's the most ridiculous idea for a boycott against Arizona that I have heard so far. According to the huffy folks over at the
Huffington Post, "An initiative apparently started on the Internet asks people to boycott the AriZona Beverage Co. because of claims the law will unfairly target Hispanics." Wait. What now?

They want people to stop buying AriZona Iced Tea products? Look, the stuff isn't that great to begin with, but that's not the point. The point is that it's only A NAME! You nimrods! AriZona Beverage Co. is based in Woodbury, 20 miles east of New York City! According to the article "Chairman Don Vultaggio says it was started by "two hardworking guys from Brooklyn" in 1992 and has always been in New York." Good Lord....

This is how some people are choosing to make a statement? By not buying cold beverages from a company that has nothing to do with the law OR the state? Are you the type of people who tell people not to ever buy sheets from bedding manufacturers because you're against the Ku Klux Klan? (They still use the sheets, right? That's still a Klan staple? I'm really not sure. I've never been real up on my Klan references. And these days, when you're looking to make a racist analogy, everyone automatically reaches for Hitler, so I'm a little fuzzy on the Klan. But I'm sure you understand my point.) Are you people going to boycott the NFL's Arizona Cardinals? What about the Arizona Diamondbacks? Are the Phoenix Suns out as well? Seriously, what is wrong with you?

This law wasn't something that was just thought up and passed overnight. No, it was passed because there was a need for it. It was a need that the Federal government refused to address. Governor Brewer had written at least FIVE letters over the past two years (so those of you that want to blame Bush for everything, make sure that you realize that President Barry ignored her letters, too) to the White House explaining that they needed some help to combat the illegal immigration problem that was occurring in Arizona. She never received a reply. Not ONE. Just completely ignored. If the Federal government wasn't going to do the job that it is supposed to do, then Arizona was going to take care of itself. And I'm glad that it did. Come on, California. Stop being such a wuss and do the same thing.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Ark! What Goes There?

Over there across the pond at the Daily Mail we learn that a bunch of explorers who "...say they found seven large wooden compartments beneath snow and volcanic debris near the peak of Mount Ararat". Yeah, that's right. They think that they've found Noah's Ark.

Now, the whole Noah's Ark thing is an interesting story. And depending on what your views on the Bible are (meaning, you believe it), the prospect of finding Noah's Ark would be very exciting and have great meaning. That's why you can't really be too careful when it comes to believing any claims of finding said ark. After all one of the guys making this claim is a documentary filmmaker from Hong Kong. Finding Noah's Ark would make for a pretty good movie. Claiming that you've found Noah's Ark would make for an equally pretty good movie. I think it's all going to be in how he sells it.

Right now, the filmmaker, a one Yeung Wing-cheung (everybody Wing-cheung tonight) has started selling his "find" by telling the Daily Mail "It's not 100 per cent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it." Yeah, see, thinking that it's 99.9 percent Noah's Ark doesn't really make it 99.9 percent really Noah's Ark. If they had something to back that 99.9 percent thought up with, I might consider it. But they kind of don't.

Here's what they claim to have: They claim that "...wood taken from the site, which is more than 13,000ft above sea level, dates to 2,800BC." It's a little unclear (ie, they don't say) where and how this testing was done. I don't know if they just gave some of the wood the ol' eyeball test or what, but it would be good to know. There are pictures, though! Oh, but they're not of the exterior of the structure or anything like that. But they're very...uh...um...convincing? Yes. I believe that they are going for convincing. Let's see, shall we? Behold!



What is that? Well, clearly, from the cards, you can tell that from the top and going left to right, a Noah's Ark Crystal, Noah's Ark White Pellets, Noah's Ark Rope and a Noah's Ark Wood Specimen. Was there a Science Fair? What's with the display? It is unclear what is in between the rope and the wood specimen. Further un-clarity would include the question as to what makes a "wood specimen" any different from "a piece of wood". And while I am familiar with the story of Noah's Ark, I don't recall the tale including any crystals. Perhaps that was in the JRR Tolkien version, but not in the regular Biblical version that most folks conjure up in their brains. Yeah, that tale is usually crystal-less. Also, I don't know what to make of the "white pellets". Yes, we see that. But what is the significance? We don't know. But, yay! Pellets?! Something? (Hey, I'm trying!)

Here is a piece of wood up close. I don't know if it's Noah's Ark wood, but I am confident in saying that it is wood.

Yep. That's wood. Definitely wood. I think. Moving on...here is a photo that "...is said to show part of a wall inside the structure found by the explorers."

Hmm. I don't know what that pack-like looking thing is there in the middle, but it does look well preserved. And I don't know about the hay or straw or whatever that is. Would hay or straw still be around some 4,800 years after the fact? I mean, I know it's really cold in this area of Turkey where they claim to have found this, but hay or straw doesn't exactly strike me as the most hardy of all substances to survive that long, you know?

Here's a picture of Wing-cheung standing in front of a lot of rocks with what looks to be some stairs underneath.

Those are stairs. And that is a guy. But whether that's a guy standing in front of stairs on Noah's Ark is yet to be determined. Apparently, this group of 15 fundamentalist Christians exploring the Turkish mountain started looking in this direction after 2006 when a one "U.S. national security analyst Porcher Taylor claimed this satellite image revealed a a baffling 'anomaly' on the mountain's north-west corner that he believed to be the remains of the Ark." Behold!

OK, look, there may be a baffling anomaly there. There might not be a baffling anomaly. It's really hard to tell. The red oval is very distinct. I will admit to recognizing that. As far as anything else goes? I couldn't tell you if there's an anomaly or not. But I will buy into the baffling part, as I have no clue as to what I'm looking at.

Would it be cool if this really was Noah's Ark. Hell, yes, it would be cool. But am I holding my breath? Not hardly. I'm going to need a little bit more than what we've been given. Some external photos would be appreciated. And an explanation as to what the white pellets are. Both of those would help. I'll be waiting.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Lion Burgers, Anyone?

I don't understand the whole exotic game animal meat for consumption dealio. Buffalo burgers, ostrich burgers, stuff like that. Does it make it any more of a meal because you're eating something that you wouldn't normally eat? I don't know that it does. And does it really taste SO much better than a regular beef burger or a regular turkey burger? Different? I'd buy that. But better? I don't know. But now I'm afraid that the whole exotic burger deal is trying to one-up itself with an item on the menu at a Sacramento establishment. That's right. The Flaming Grill (which sounds like it would be more apt to be a gay bar than it would a bar and grill) is serving up lion burgers. Wait. What now?

Correct. Lion burgers. Well, not just lion burgers. Because that would be weird. No, they're lion AND antelope burgers. Mostly antelope. So, that should help, right? No. No, it kinda doesn't. Look, I'm not saying that they're disgusting or anything like that. I really don't know. I've never had a lion/antelope burger. (What would that be? Like a lintelope? Sounds fuzzy.) I just don't know that it's necessary, you know? According to KTXL in Sacramento "There are rules and regulations for this type of thing, but the Flaming Grill says it's not breaking any. The business tells FOX40 it can't serve a burger with all lion meat, and it's supply is not imported from another country." Wait. What?

It's not imported from another country? Where, exactly, in the United States do we have all of these lions roaming around that are fit for eating? I was unaware of the lion-as-food populace in this country. Not imported? How is that possible? And even if it is possible, when did this start? You know, all of the extra lions.

Upon further investigation of the Flaming Grill (OK, I went to Yelp) I discovered that the lintelope burger is not all that they serve that would be classified under the weird exotic menu. No, they have other things as well. For example, the yak burger. Made just for those of you with a hankerin' for some yak. Lemme guess. Is that meat not imported from another country either? Just a little Yellowstone poaching, perhaps?


Then there's the alligator burger. I want to know what's the difference between alligator meat and crocodile meat. They seem like they're cousins, yet I never hear of crocodile being on a menu anywhere. And if it was going to be anywhere, I'd have to guess that this place would be it.


There's your buffalo burger. Buffalo, the cousin of the yak. Still edible. Still odd. But it's not as odd as, of course, the llama burger. Behold!


Llama? Who would even think of eating a llama? Why would you want to? They're the spitters, right? Yeah, I don't want spit-laden meat. Llamas look like they're half camel, half ostrich. I'm surprised those aren't on the menu at the Flaming Grill as well! But according to the Yelp-sters, there is kangaroo available on some occasions. (Now, I KNOW that isn't from this country! Explain the kangaroo!)

I'm not bagging on the Flaming Grill, but I really take issue with the whole "exotic food" concept. Most of the time, foods that are considered to be "exotic" were only eaten in the first place because the people who were eating them were starving to death at the time! They would have eaten each other if they could have! It's not like they were looking to do the "exotic" thing at the time. They ate what they could. But when you can eat things that are more plentiful (and normal), shouldn't we just stick with those? Do we really need to be eating llamas? I'm not so sure.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, April 26, 2010

They're Not Immigrants; They're Illegals!

A whole bunch of people have their shorts in a wad over a new law that was just recently passed and signed into law in Arizona. See, the law makes it illegal to be in this country illegally. And that makes some people (I'm guessing the softheaded ones AND the ones who ARE here illegally) angry. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to
CBS, "...country civil rights advocates are protesting the immigration law with rallies and boycotts" because "They fear the new law will lead to harassment and racial profiling." Uhh, really? Have they read the law and what it entails? Or are they whining? I'm guessing whining. Let's take a look.

The law makes it "...a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally." Now, the fact that a law like this is even necessary is what should be drawing protesters. But, no. No, instead people are protesting. Go figure. The law also says that "Police will also now be able to ask anyone to prove their legal status by demanding to see a valid I.D. Violators could be arrested and sent to jail for up to 6 months." Oh, no! Are they kidding?! People will be made to produce a valid ID?? To prove that they are legally allowed to be in this country? Who came up with such madness?!

One of those who is against this is a one Julie Gonzales who with with something called Reform Immigration for America. (How ironic. This law seems to aim to do just that. Yet she's against it. Shocking.) She said, "Immigrant communities and Chicano communities across the state of Arizona are in a state of terror." Hmm. I don't think that they are. I really don't. Now, I would be more inclined to believe her if she had said that illegal immigrant communities were afraid. Sure, because THAT would make SENSE. But the thought that those who have immigrated here legally would be afraid? That's kooky talk, right there.

Ms. Gonzales claims that "Along with planning a May 1 rally they are preparing for Arizona families to flee and seek refuge in Colorado." Really? They think that folks that are in Arizona illegally are going to flee to Colorado? Huh. Good news for the legal residents of Arizona. And even better news for the legal residents of California, as we have our own illegal immigration issues here. We don't need any refugees from...Arizona? (I can't believe I just wrote that.)

Ms. Gonzales also said that, "We know that at least one family has come to Colorado, brought their families, dropped everything and left because there is such a state of panic." OK, that sentence doesn't even really make sense to me. But I find it highly amusing that because she knows of ONE family that bailed, that means that EVERYONE is going to be doing it. Sure. That's going to happen. Way to go, Arizona. I wish California had your guts.

Now, I realize that protesting this sort of law sounds ridiculous. That's because it IS ridiculous. But I didn't realize that not only were the softheads (and illegals) going to be out there saying how unfair it it, that one of the people who would be joining them, in essence, would be President Barry. What the what?! That's right. According to another one of the alphabet networks,
ABC is reporting that President Barry said that he "...instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation." Really? Has he not been briefed on what illegal immigration is and why it's a bad thing? Did he miss that part? I mean, he's really busy and all. I get that. But I was unaware that the civil rights that are afforded to citizens were now being afforded to people who are not only not citizens, but who are breaking the law as well. When did that start happening?

Perhaps President Barry should come out and live in some of these communities for a little while so that he can get a better idea of exactly how illegal immigration affects the lifestyles of those who are legal residents. California has almost three million illegal residents. With a statewide population of about 33,000,000, that's ten percent. Are you freaking kidding me?! Ten percent?! Do you know how much money is spent on this ten percent? A ridiculous amount. Oh, but that's OK because California has plenty of money just oozing all over the place, right? Uh, not exactly. The state is damn near broke. Yeah, that's right. It's a problem.

We are the only country in the world that deals with people who do not have a legal right to be in this country the way that we do. You might recall that those two American journalists who were allegedly on the wrong side of the border in North Korea were arrested, put on "trial" and ultimately sentenced to twelve years in a North Korean prison before ol' Willie Jeff Clinton went over and secured their release. They weren't living in North Korea. At the most, they were walking in North Korea. And they were looking at twelve years in jail! This country has people LIVING here without permission and we're supposed to be cool with that? I'm sorry, but I'm not. This law doesn't go too far. This law doesn't go far enough.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content