Thursday, July 29, 2010

Slow News Day In Iran

There are plenty of slow news days in the US, especially during the summer. That's when we tend to hear more about things like Lindsay Lohan's nether regions than we do during other times of the year, simply because there isn't a lot going on. (Fortunately, we're spared from that this time around, as Lindsay is still holed up in the Lynwood pokey and should be for a few more days now.) But it must be a really slow news day in Iran. How else would you explain their wacky leader, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pronounced "I'm a dinner jacket") speaking out about Paul the Octopus. Wait. The what now?

Paul. The Octopus. That is correct. If you're unfamiliar with Paul, allow me to familiarize you. Paul is an octopus. It's right there in his name. According to the folks across the pond at
The Telegraph Paul "...became an international star after predicting the outcome of all seven German World Cup matches accurately." The way I understand how that worked was someone would put a little octopus treat into two different containers, each one labeled with the flag of the country that was playing in the match. Whichever treat Paul selected was assumed to be his pick for the winner of the match. Paul not only selected the winner once, he selected the winner seven times. (Granted, I don't think that Paul knew what in the world he was doing other than getting himself a little snack, but that's what happened.)

I'm a Dinner Jacket felt the need to mention Paul on more than one occasion when he gave a speech this past weekend in Tehran. Some of his anti-Paul points were:

He "...accused the octopus of spreading "western propaganda and superstition." It is unclear how an octopus does that. I am also unfamiliar with any sort of western propaganda involving octopuses. Octopi? Octopussies? You know what I mean.


He "...claims that the octopus is a symbol of decadence and decay among "his enemies". If "his enemies" include the German soccer team, then he may have a point. Granted, there is no evidence indicating that this is what the deal is. I get that. You get that. Dinner jacket does not get that.


He says that Paul "...is a symbol of all that is wrong with the western world." I don't know if it's a symbol of all that's wrong. Have you paid attention to the western world lately? There's an awful lot of things that are wrong. I highly doubt that they can all be symbolized by one octopus. Please. Even symbols have limits.


And finally, this nutjob said, "Those who believe in this type of thing cannot be the leaders of the global nations that aspire, like Iran, to human perfection, basing themselves in the love of all sacred values." Hey, valuing an octopus that can predict the outcome of sports events where betting and subsequent winning can be involved sounds just like the sort of thing that I'd like to base myself in. Who said that just because we like a tricky octopus that we aspire to lead a nation? Why can't we just want to watch some soccer and eat some hot wings? OK, fine. I don't really want to watch soccer, but I do enjoy the hot wings. Can't we just do that? And have the octopus get his treat? Seems reasonable to me. Then again, I'm not some crazy dictator of one of the sand lands, so what do I know? Probably not much, but I'd like to think that I'd be able to talk about something other than the alleged evils of an octopus which may or may not be able to predict the outcome of soccer matches.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

They Didn't Ask For Signs

I think I love Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Seriously. This video rules. Way to call out the Federal Government! Nice.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

But He Got His Burrito!

How fitting that on the 20th anniversary of the oft-abused Americans With Disabilities Act, some jackass wins a lawsuit against Chipotle because he was (wait for it) deprived of the full Chipotle experience. We're just doomed. So incredibly doomed.

Here's the scoop: According to the
San Francisco Chronicle (which is so liberal it probably wets itself every time one of these rulings gets handed down) "...the law entitles wheelchair users at a restaurant to the same view as everyone else at the food that awaits them - in this case, burritos, tacos and the rest of the fare at Chipotle Mexican Grill." Does it now? Does it really?

KGTV-10 in San Diego says that "...the wall at the counter was too tall for people in wheelchairs to see over, to pick out their ingredients and to see their food being prepared." OK, look...I'm not trying to be a callous hard ass here, but are they serious? And when I say "they" I'm referring to a one Maurizio Antoninetti and his attorney, a one Amy Vandeveld. There are other names that come to mind, but that's what I'm going with.

Do you really need to see your food being prepared? Plenty of other restaurants feed you God only knows what without you witnessing the preparation of said food incarnation. Those restaurants are probably just fine for folks in wheelchairs. And again, don't get me wrong, as I'm not dismissing those in wheelchairs as people who are not entitled to the same rights as others. That's not it. I know people in wheelchairs and I know that it sucks. But the people who I know that are in wheelchairs realize the inherent limitations of society in general. Not seeing what goes into your burrito as it is going in there would seem to be one of those inherent limitations.

By the way, it isn't like Chipotle didn't try to accommodate these folks. In fact, "...a trial court had ruled against Antoninetti, saying Chipotle's policy of showing samples to people in wheelchairs was enough." See? They weren't ruthless about it. They were what? Accommodating, that is correct. But unfortunately, this case ended up before (and I'll use the words of Dr. Michael Savage) the 9th Jerkit Court of Shlemeals, who disagreed and overturned that verdict. Of course they did. Apparently, it is very important to see your burrito being made. I don't know why that's important, but to some, it is.

According to KGTV, "I just wanted Chipotle to understand it cannot treat people in a wheelchair in a different way than everybody else," he (Antoninetti) told 10News from Italy." From ITALY?! Well, good to know that he's using his settlement money wisely. But the point here is that they weren't treating people in a wheelchair differently. They were doing what society must (and should) do for folks with disabilities. They were accommodating them. Why is it that the businesses have to be accommodating, but the folks with the disabilities don't? Why is it that the businesses are supposed to recognize the limitations of those with the disabilities, but the disabled folks are not supposed to recognize the limitations of the businesses? I don't get it.

I suppose that the Americans With Disabilities Act was a good thing. I know that only the best intentions went into drafting and enacting that law. And it's something that I am totally in favor of. But can you seriously say that it's a good thing that this Chipotle case dragged on for five years, ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and making a couple of lawyers rich? I'm not so sure that would be considered "good". And by the way, according to Chipotle, "We respectfully disagree with the court's ruling. However, the matter is largely moot because several years ago, independent of this lawsuit, we retrofitted all our California restaurants with a new counter design that eliminates concern regarding wheelchair accessibility." And yet the lawsuit continued. Are we really to believe that it was all about the alleged "equality" for Mr. Antoninetti? I'm not so sure that it was.

If you click on the link above for KGTV, there is a video that accompanies this story. In the video, you will see Chipotle employees holding up samples for the person in the wheelchair to view, carrying the man's food to his table, making sure that he has everything that he needs, etc. He received excellent attention despite not being able to see his burrito being made. He appeared to be able to get around just fine inside the restaurant. He appeared to be in most hospitable atmosphere that one could hope for. And yet that wasn't enough for him. Or for his attorney. So they sued. Nice. I'm kind of surprised that Chipotle was willing to lower their counters and didn't just opt for the having no one be able to see their burrito being made so that this ONE guy wouldn't flip out. That would have solved the problem, too. All or nothing. Sounds like a really good way to ruin a perfectly good society. Way to go, sir. You jackass.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Now Here's A World's Record

With my ranting lately about ridiculous world records, I just happened to run across on that was actually pretty cool. It required some work, isn't just something that just anyone can do and has clearly defined parameters. What we have here is a parrot; yes, a parrot; a parrot that does tricks. Actually, it's a parrot that does some very amusing tricks as well as some seemingly difficult ones. (I base this strictly on the fact that it's a parrot performing the tricks. They probably wouldn't be so hard for most humans. Most.) All I know is that it's a Kili Senegal parrot. (Even though I know that, it means absolutely nothing to me. You could have told me it was a Flux Capacitor parrot and I would have believed you and nodded knowingly.) Oh, and the other thing I know is that the guy who trained the parrot seems to be very good at training parrots. He was very good at training this particular parrot, at least. The point here is that the video below depicts a REAL world record. Finally.


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 26, 2010

We Have A Wiener

I knew this would happen. I do a post about the world's most expensive beer and the next thing I know, there's another story in the news about the world's most expensive hot dog. Really? A hot dog? See, this is what I mean by people just making stuff up so that it can be the most expensive. Trust me. There isn't much expense that goes into hot dogs.

According to the newsy folks over there at the
NY Daily News, a local restaurant called Serendipity 3 (I'm not sure what's up with Serendipities 1 and 2) created the world's most expensive hot dog at $69. Now, if you're wondering what goes into a $69 hot dog (which they call the "haute dog" in a failed effort at being cutesy), so was I. Seriously, it's a hot dog. Do you know what goes in a hot dog? Everything but the oink, that is correct. How are you going to have a $69 hot dog? Easy. The same way you could have a $89 hot dog or a $109 hot dog. You charge that much and then you get someone to buy it.

And that's pretty much what happened over there at Serendipity 3. The owner of said establishment, a one Stephen Bruce, came across an awfully gullible tourist, a one Trudy Tant of Rock Hill, South Carolina, and "...asked her to spend her dough on the pricey frankfurter." If someone had asked me to spend almost seventy bucks on a hot dog, my response wouldn't have been "Sure!" It would have been more along the lines of something that I'm not overly comfortable typing here. It would not have been pretty.

But this soft headed woman was all for the idea! "The publishing company worker said she relished the opportunity "to do something out of the ordinary." (I'm sure that "relished the opportunity" was not on purpose because I can't imagine that someone who is dense enough to fall for this would be so quick to make an appropriate pun such as that.) I can think of a whole bunch more things that would have been "out of the ordinary" that would have left her less seventy dollars in the end. Some legal, some possibly not so much. Most of them would have been money better spent than on a hot dog.

In case your a-clamoring to make your own $69 dog at home and see how many of your friends you can weasel into coughing up the dough for it, here's what you're going to need: Some truffle oil, a salted pretzel bed, truffle butter, duck foie gras, Dijon mustard, Vidalia onions and ketchup." Wait a minute. You're going to put ketchup on a dog that has foie gras on it? That's just gross. Foie gras in and of itself is gross, but to put ketchup on it? That's just wrong. But basically, the only thing worth anything on this dog is the truffle stuff and the duck liver. Other than that, you've got yourself some pretty basic hot dog fixin's. See what I mean? It's all just a ruse. And who wants their hot dog on a pretzel bun? No one. That's why it's supposed to be a pretzel and not a hot dog enclosure. Pay attention!

But here's the best (or worst) part of this dealio: "The restaurant racked up the priciest dog record right away; there was no previous titleholder." Wait. What now? There wasn't a record? So...basically, EVERY hot dog that was sold before this one technically WAS the titleholder?! This is why there can't be world records for things that you can just make up and put whatever price you want on them. I could take a Ball Park frank, sprinkle it with gold flakes and diamonds, say that it's a thousand dollars, and set it up with a friend ahead of time for them to "pay" me for the dog and then I have just sold the world's most expensive hot dog. Technically. Then again, I wouldn't want to be the world record holder of something so ridiculous. Not to mention so NOT world record-y.

Apparently, this isn't the first world record that Serendipity 3 holds and the other records are just as ridiculous as this one is. They hold the record for the the most expensive ice-cream sundae (which someone paid $1,000 for) and for the largest hot chocolate which was 4 gallons. No word on how much that was or how many morons paid for it. Back to you.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 25, 2010

Getting A Little Squirrelly

I'm not a fan of "The Most Expensive ____" (put whatever you want in the blank) because there's no reasonable scale on which to judge something. I can say that I have a pair of socks for sale for one million dollars and that they are the most expensive socks in the world, but that doesn't necessarily make them so, you know what I mean? It's just like having "The World's Biggest (insert food item here)". If it's a food that you're growing in the ground or on a tree, that's fine. But if it's a food that anyone can make, that's ridiculous. Sure, you can have the World's Biggest Hamburger and have it weigh 750 pounds, but what is stopping anyone from having a 751 pound hamburger (other than sheer sanity)? Not much. World records that are the biggest and the most expensive should have a small degree of luck or chance to them.

That's all why I was not overly interested when I heard that, at $770 per bottle, a brewery in Fraserberg, Scotland, is selling a new Belgian blonde ale which is 55 percent alcohol. It's the process to make the beer which the brewers claim is the reason for the exorbitant expense. Apparently they need to keep the beer at far below freezing temperatures so that water separates from the solution. They apparently repeat that process a gazillion times and it takes hundreds of liters of the beer in order to make just one 330 ml bottle. Granted, it's a super boozy bottle, but it's still just one.

Is the process necessary? I have no idea. And while I have a fondness for beer, I don't have much of an interest in drinking a $770 bottle of beer. I just don't. That's not what beer is about. You know what else beer isn't about? Dead rodent road kill that are all taxidermied up with the bottle of beer shoved down inside them. Wait. What? Behold!



Oh, what the hell is that? That is the End of History Beer by BrewDog. According to AOL News the BrewDog co-founder, a one 29-year old James Watt said, "This is the beer to end all beers. It's an audacious blend of eccentricity, artistry and rebellion; changing the general perception of beer one stuffed animal at a time." OK, then. I'd definitely say that a $770 bottle of beer is audacious and reeks of a rebellion. But I'm not so sure that it changes the general perception of beer as much as it changes the general perception of anyone out there who is trying (sometimes desperately) to make a buck. I'm not much for gimmicks. I'm all for gimme, as in "Gimme my beer and leave me the hell alone". THAT I can totally get behind. A gimmick? Not so much.

Mr. Watt went on to say, "We want to show people there is an alternative to monolithic corporate beers, introduce them to a completely new approach to beer and elevate the status of beer in our culture." Well, that's all fine and good, but I don't know that you're going to elevate the status of much by cramming it down roadkill. I'm just saying. Mr. Watt added that (referring to beer drinkers in the United Kingdom) "are constrained by lack of choice; seduced by the monolithic corporate brewers' huge advertising budgets and brainwashed by vindictive lies perpetrated with the veracity of propaganda." I really wish he had given an example of the vindictive lies by corporate brewers. What could a brewer lie about? This beer won't get you drunk even a little bit? I don't get that. As for the constraining lack of choice, you DO live on an island, my good man. It's hard to have much variety when there isn't a lot of choice to be had. That doesn't mean that one needs to create variety by shoving a bottle of beer down a....what is that? A chipmunk? Never mind. All I'm saying is that you'll adjust the the drudgery of no variety.

Fortunately, there are only 12 bottles of The End of History. Unfortunately, they've already sold out of them. Of course they have. (In case you were wondering, the one creature is a stoat and the other one is a squirrel. There were 8 stoats available and only 4 squirrels. Apparently, stoats are more prone to getting clobbered by traffic than are the squirrels.) This is only going to make them try to do something of this nature again. They'll just strive for something a little more outrageous, is all. Maybe they'll cram a keg of ale inside of a hippopotamus or something. Or have a whole variety of beers on tap being poured from a cow's udder. Who knows? I only wish that I wouldn't have to find out.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Have You Seen My Dog?


It's not very often that I read a headline and really don't know where to start. I mean, I know there has to be a starting point somewhere in the midst of all of it, but it's like my brain demands to know everything all at once! Such was the case with a headline appearing across the pond in The Telegraph, which read "Transvestite had sex with a dog at English Heritage castle". Ah-HA! See? You felt the same way, didn't you? Had to know it all at once, didn't you? I knew it!

I found the sub-heading to be of little help, as it read "A transvestite had sex with a dog in the moat of an English Heritage castle". Yes, we know that. We just read that. OK, the part about the moat was new. But other than that, it's pretty much the same. No need to repeat. But, my God, what is wrong with you, sir?

According to the article it would seem that the owner of the pet was with a friend and taking a stroll around the castle. The article states "...the pair spotted the lone transvestite on the morning of Saturday July 10th at around a quarter to twelve." The lone transvestite. That was important because...they usually travel in packs? What's more than one transvestite? It can't possibly be a pride, can it? Not much there to be proud of. Um...a gaggle? A gaygle? Help me out here!

In case you were wondering, said transvestite "...was wearing a black dress and walking around the steep-walled, empty moat." No word on what kind of shoes or bag, if any. But a black dress on a beautiful Saturday morning? Seems a bit somber to me. Not as somber as what was about to happen, but still pretty somber. When the transvestite saw the two women, he ran away (as they are known to due in their natural habitat). But it's later where things really start to pick up. That's when "...one of the dogs chased after the man; by the time the women had caught up, the man was having sex with the pet." Good Lord. So many questions. So, SO many questions.

I'm going to assume that this was a rather large dog. Though I don't know why I'm jumping to that conclusion. I think it's because as unpalatable as human-dog sex is, it is somehow more tolerable when it's a larger creature. Something small like a chihuahua just seems especially wrong. Huh. You wouldn't think that there would be varying degrees of wrongness when it comes to having sex with a dog, but apparently, there are.

My main question is how long did it take these women to find the dog? That is one dog-screwing transvestite that doesn't mess around, let me tell you. Gets right down to business, that one does. Did the mood just strike him or something? Seriously, who sees a dog running past them when they're cross dressing in a black dress whilst wandering about the outside of a castle and thinks, "I'm gonna get me some of that!" Holy canoli, man. And what do you say when you encounter something like that. "Stop that" just doesn't seem like enough, you know?

The article goes on to say that the man was restrained by the castle staff while they called the police. That'd be hard to do. I don't know that I would want to physically restrain someone who had just been making sweet, sweet love to a canine beast. I realize that it was completely necessary, but I wouldn't have liked it. Those staff members should have got the rest of the day off after that. Or a particularly tasty scone to go with their lunch or something.

In case you were wondering the castle in particular was Pendennis Castle. That's too close to some weird spelling or insinuation of "penis" if you're asking me. I'm not implying that they were asking for it. I'm merely noting the coincidence of it all. Regardless of the name, Pendennis Castle "...is a popular family tourist attraction and was heaving with visitors in high season." That's not all it was heaving with. It seemed to also be heaving with a fair amount (in this case, ANY is a fair amount, even if it's only ONE) of animal fornicators.

But get this: "He was escorted home and later made a "full and frank confession", and received a caution for outraging public decency." Escorted home?! That's IT?! A guy wearing a dress does it with a dog in the moat of a castle and he gets a ride home?! What on earth is going on over there?! You don't lock up or at least arrest your petophiles over there? (I know. Bad pun. But I couldn't resist.) Just drove him home and gave him a stern talking to, eh? Wow. All right then. Anything else we should know?

Just that "A spokesman for English Heritage said: "This was a very rare incident". You think?! Did he feel the need to say that because he was worried that Pendennis Castle was going to get some sort of misappropriated reputation for being the sort of establishment where transvestites do it with dogs all the time?! Was that the fear? A very rare incident. Well, I should certainly hope so! Good Lord....

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 23, 2010

That's Not What It Is

Over there at Live Science, we learn that there was a little bit of excavating going on the other day in Sweden. I don't usually think of Sweden as a place that needs to be excavated, but I guess it does. Anyway, all of their excavating "...turned up an object that bears the unmistakable look of a penis carved out of antler bone." Of course. No, wait. What now?

Sometimes, I think of scientists as just like you and I (we would be the non-scientists). But when I read that sentence and learn that there IS an unmistakable look to an antler bone carved like a schlong that I realize that scientists see things in a whole different way than you and I. What was that? Oh, the bone? Heh-heh. (Pun totally intended.) Sure. Behold!


Well, they have a point. That's definitely penile look, I'll give them that. And according to a one G┼íran Gruber (you pronounce that any way you want to), a archaeologist of the National Heritage Board in Sweden, "Your mind and my mind wanders away to make this interpretation about what it looks like – for you and me, it signals this erected-penis-like shape...But if that's the way the Stone Age people thought about it, I can't say." Oh, please.

Look, if there's one thing that has been an unfortunate constant through time and all eternity, it has been the penis. We all know what it looks like and we all laugh when we see it. (Seriously, I do not know how you guys walk around with those things down there.) And I'm sure the Stone Age people did the same thing. Either way, that's not a very scientific way of explaining this thing. Anyone could do that. ("Uh, it kind of looks like this, but I dunno.")


Contributing to quotes without a lot of scientific mojo to them would be a one Swedish archaeologist Martin Rundkvist, who says that "Without doubt anyone alive at the time of its making would have seen the penile similarities just as easily as we do today." You don't say. So, people thousands of years ago would have recognized a penis if they saw one? Really? Fascinating. Or not.


They don't know whether it was a dildo or not. It doesn't take a scientist with a fancy Swedish name to figure that out. That Gruber guy said, "Perhaps instead of, or in addition to, its sexual purpose, the object may have been used as a tool, such as to chip flakes of flint". What? I understand the part about "instead of", but I became a bit confused with the infusion of "in addition to". Are they saying that ancient dildos also doubled as some sort of a chisel? That doesn't seem like a very good idea at all. (First of all, you really need to hold that chisel steady to get the most effective cut. It can't be slipping and sliding all over the place, you know.)


They also don't know what it was for even if it was a dildo, as the article states, "It's not immediately clear whether the tool would have been one most likely to be used by men or women or both." Now, when they say "tool", are they referring to a tool like a hammer or are they referring to a tool like something that gets the job done? Hard to say. Not sure I want to know, either. Wait a minute. It says that the thing "...is about 4 inches (10.5 cm) long and 0.8 inches (2 cm) in diameter." Four inches long? Not even an inch in diameter? It's not a dildo. Trust me. It's not a dildo.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 22, 2010

That's Just A Sketch

I will admit that I feel a little cheated with this whole Lindsay Lohan going to jail dealio. I was expecting (and hoping) that the whole thing would be a spectacle. And I love a good spectacle! But this was far from. There was no Paris Hilton-esque crying. There were no throngs of helicopters. Sure, there were the dingbats outside of the courthouse, but they paled in comparison to, say, the people outside of the courthouse when Michael Jackson was on trial. Amateurs is all that I saw.

Today, I thought that I was finally going to get a glimpse of all that I had longed for when I saw a link over at
People.com that said "See Lindsay Lohan Getting Handcuffed". Now, I got pretty excited because from what I had read, the judge had ordered no pictures or video be taken when she was getting cuffed. I figured that this had to be some sort of rogue photo that someone managed to sneak and then promptly sold to People for a gazillion dollars. I couldn't click fast enough. I was, as you can imagine, sorely disappointed. Not to mention, I was a little irritated as well. This is what they showed me. Behold!

Oh, what the hell is that? That isn't a picture of Lindsay Lohan getting handcuffed! No, THAT is a sketch. I could have drawn a sketch! ANYONE could have drawn a sketch. And, well, someone DID. But that's not the point. It's not the same! Way to go, People. That's pretty weak if you're asking me. And I'm not even sure that it's all that accurate. Her lips appear to be normal sized in that sketch. And clearly, from the footage that was shot in the courtroom before she was cuffed, her lips are far from normal size. Behold!

Those are not the normal lips of a normal human being. She looks sort of like a duck. It's like her lips are too big to close on their own and so she ends up seeming like some sort of collagen-filled mouth breather. Whose idea was it that big, fat lips are attractive? I do not see the allure in any of it. None. Although I will say that her mugshot is one of the better photographs that she has taken in a while. Behold!

It's just unfortunate (or maybe not so much depending on how you're looking at this) that she had to go to jail to have a semi-flattering picture taken of her. Whatever. It's only been a little over 24 hours. Word is that she'll be doing between 14 and 23 days of her 90 day sentence. There's still plenty of time for spectacle and drama. And if it happens, I'll be enjoying every moment of it.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content