Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Oh, for cryin' out loud. What?! That's right. Meet Kitler. (OK, the name cracks me up. Who would not want a cat named Kitler?! That's awesome! I might just name a cat that because it's funny. Kitler!) But I might be the only one who can see the awesomeness in all of this. Certainly, the morons who go to that particular shelter looking for an animal and pass over Kitler because of her markings are complete softheads. Besides, it doesn't REALLY look like Hitler! It just looks like it has a little moustache. Like Charlie Chaplin! Hitler really gave that style of facial hair a bad name.
And besides, it doesn't matter what the markings are, that doesn't mean the cat IS Hitler! THIS is Hitler! Behold!
There are SO many differences (and NONE of them are subtle) that I'm not even going to go into it. And I'm not saying that the shelter did the cat any favors by naming her Kitler, but I don't think it really matters. You have no idea how hard I am hoping that there is some other reason that this cat has not been adopted yet. Maybe it screeches uncontrollably at the sight of strangers. Maybe it smells like poo. Something. Anything! Anything other than people that think that it looks like freaking Hitler! See what I mean?! Doomed! We. Are. Doomed! Get 'em, kitty!
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
The atheists in question here are having a cow for some reason. They say that the iron cross isn't a religious symbol and that a bunch of people shouldn't be acting like it is. What I don't understand is that if they're atheists, why do they even care? For people that don't believe in something, they sure do get all worked up over other people who do believe in it. I wonder if they have the same disposition towards small children who still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? Does that both them as well? A lot of them are such pain in the asses about it, I'm going to guess that it does.
But here's the other weird thing. Along the sidebar, there was a selection of videos that are supposed to be related to the article at hand. It started off OK. But just look at how it ended!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Then I learned that the tickets to this thing are either $210 or $360! I have no idea what the difference in price gets you, but considering that you're out in the middle of the scorching Nevada desert for three days (or something like that), I should hope that it is something besides admittance and a T-shirt. The blog even says "The Black Rock Desert is an extremely remote, inhospitable environment with limited resources, minimal facilities, and few camping opportunities in the vicinity." Inhospitable? For $360?! For any amount of money, if I am staying somewhere, I'm going to have to insist on hospitable. Call me crazy.
And while I'm not sure just how many tickets were sold this year, I looked at past year's attendance records and the figure seems to be gradually growing to where it was around 49,000 in 2008. At $210 per ticket, that's $10,290,000!! Does ALL of that get paid to the Bureau of Land Management or whatever it is?! And that's just the low figure. If you figured that half of those tickets were $210 and the other half were $360, then that comes out to right around $13,965,000! Now I am dying to know how the financials of this whole thing work. It's expensive and fascinating!
The blog also encourages people who are selling their tickets to do so at face value or, better yet, to just give them away! I guess that is supposed to be in the "spirit" of Burning Man. Then again, if that's the "spirit" of Burning Man, I'm not sure what the charge is for in the first place. But I did a quick run down on San Francisco's craigslist and from what I can tell, not a lot of people are selling them. Those who were selling seemed to actually be abiding by the request to just sell them at face value. The interesting part is that those who were looking for tickets seemed to be willing to pay more than face value for them. I don't know if that is violating the "spirit" or not. I also noticed that quite a few people are willing to trade a lot of weed for Burning Man tickets. That seems to be totally within the "spirit".
It's an interesting outing, the Burning Man. Maybe I should look into a press pass or something. I have the feeling that a couple of days at that thing would give me blog fodder for weeks to come afterward. Just a hunchl
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
According to Huffington Post, Jesse James and Kat Von D have broken up. Shocking, I know. Who would have thought that the guy who would be so freaking stupid as to cheat on the extremely lovely Sandra Bullock would be unable to have a committed relationship. I'm not saying that it was his fault. I'm saying that he's a jackass.
Also in the news, the lawyer for lunatic Norwegian shooter Anders Behring Breivik says that his client is possibly insane. Possibly? Really? A guy starts shooting anyone and everyone that he can find in an attack that he planned for at least nine years because he sees himself as some sort of a warrior and some sort of Western world savior and he's only possibly insane? Jesus, what do you have to do over there in order to be probably insane?!
And by the way, you're not going to pretend that when you first heard of this horrific ordeal and when you first saw a picture of the obviously insane lunatic that you didn't think that Julian Assange had gone off the deep end, are you? Behold!
Yeah, they're the same. Maybe not Val Kilmer/Chaz Bono the same, but still the same. And finally, I had been doing some reading about all of the human-animal hybrids that are being created in labs all over. First thing I thought of was this guy. Behold!
Monday, July 25, 2011
Now, I'm OK with that. I enjoy a healthy discussion. And I'm not saying that my comment was in good taste. It most certainly was not. That's what made it funny. One person who commented felt the need to attempt to read into my life, going as far as to call me a schmuck that had such a miserable life that I needed to make fun of others in order to feel better about myself. That sort of a philosophy might have worked on someone in grade school, but it was completely not applicable to this situation. (It also didn't help her theory that I was on a semi-fantastic vacation at the time that I wrote it and had just spent a week seeing my most awesome friends. Yeah, I'm far from miserable. Angry about a lot of things? Absolutely! But miserable? Hardly.)
But then there was the chick who said that my comment was "mean". And I'm not saying that it wasn't. It kind of was. But you know what else I think is "mean"? I think that it's "mean" for someone to allow themselves to get so wrapped up in drugs and alcohol that they end up killing themselves at 27 and their parents have to go to their daughter's funeral. I find that to be "mean". I'm not a big fan of people squandering opportunity.
But I think that even if, a day or two before she died, you asked Amy Winehouse if she wanted to be clean and sober that she would have told you no. That's what she wanted to do. She was doing that before she became known for her lone hit. (Is it too soon to call her a "One Hit Wonder"? Or is that mean? And while I don't necessarily consider her death to be a loss, I do consider it to be a waste. She was talented, but going out this early in the game, hasn't she just automatically put herself in the classification of acts such as Dexys Midnight Runners and Lipps, Inc.? (Yes, yes. I KNOW they sang Funkytown! And as wonderful as that is, it's still just ONE hit!)
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who so blatantly waste their life. Not to sound all Pollyanna or anything here (God forbid), but there are so many people out there who are fighting SO hard to stick around. There are people out there who are fighting SO hard to go about their everyday lives in spite of their struggles. And I'm supposed to be reverent towards someone who could have had everything and instead chose to drink and/or drug herself to death? I don't think so.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
What we have here is a little boy meeting his first married gay couple. They're a couple of dudes and that throws him for a couple of seconds, but after he kind of grasps what they're telling him, he doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it. After all, he does invite them to play ping-pong with him. And the kid is right when he says that it's "funny" that there are two guys married to each other. He's not used to that. They're his very first "husbands and husbands" encounter and I think that he doesn't really give a fat rat's ass about it. I don't know if his parents are doing something right or if he's just a really cool kid on his own, but I'd play ping-pong with him any day.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Have you thought about Chris Brown lately? No? Me neither. And I don't know that there aren't a lot of other people that are in the same boat. All floating there and all not thinking about Chris Brown. Maybe he realized that and that's why he decided to send out a tweet that seemed to convey how butthurt he is these days. Then again, since the tweet didn't really make a lot of sense, he might not have known what he was tweeting at all.
See, he got done with an appearance on the Today show. According to something called The Gothamist, it was the largest crowd to ever show up for one of those morning show, musical guest taping things. So what was his problem? I don't know. You tell me. Here's the tweet that he twat after his performance: "Its funny how many second chances mainstream America gives some of their white celebs(Charlie sheen, kacey anthony. etc)". Behold! Oh, and WTF?
OK, where to begin? I'll tell you where I'm NOT going to begin and that is with the racist implication. We don't hate you because you're black, Chris. We hate you because when you say things like this it makes you sound like a total douche canoe. Oh, and because you beat up women. So since I'm not starting there, I guess I'll go with the next obvious being the Casey Anthony thing. If he thinks that "mainstream America" is giving Casey Anthony a second chance, then he has a pretty funny idea of what a second chance consists of. People want to kill her. They don't just want to see her dead. No, they want to do the actual killing. That's not very second chance-y if you ask me. And Charlie Sheen? He's just that train wreck that we all love watching. AND if he has been given a "second chance" it's because he doesn't pretend to be anything that he is not. With Charlie, what you see is what you get and he doesn't make any excuses for that. Can you say that about yourself, Chris Brown? I didn't think so.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
What we have here is a young woman who was found dead at a mansion in Coronado, California. According to 10news.com, "Autopsy results and evidence gathered...will not be available to the public as the investigation continues". OK, I get that. That seems reasonable. Here's the part I'm having trouble with: See, "The woman found dead at a Coronado mansion on Wednesday was discovered naked with her hands and feet bound hanging from a balcony off the main house by a rope around her neck". Yipes. Horrible, right? Absolutely. No doubt about that. That's not my question. My question comes after learning that "...authorities are not prepared to call her death a homicide." Because seriously? What else are you going to call it?!
The chick is totally naked with both her hands and feet bound by "...what appeared to be an orange electrical cord". And she's hanging off of a balcony with a rope tied around her neck? But they're not just quite ready to jump to the crazy conclusion that it was a homicide?! What the hell else would it have been? (If she offed herself, that's one hell of an impressive suicide. She should get some sort of posthumous medal or plaque or something for that.) I can't possibly imagine. But the Sheriff's Captain, a one Tim Curran, said that the woman died "violently" and "I'm not really prepared to comment on what led us to believe that, but the scene does indicate some type of very suspicious circumstances." Huh??
Look, I wasn't there or anything. I wasn't present when a search warrant was executed. I'm not a cop and don't even play one on TV. But come on! Do they really need more than a woman with all of her limbs bound with an electrical cord and a noose around her neck hanging off of a balcony to indicate some type of "very suspicious circumstances"?! I'll comment on what led them to believe that, and it's what I just said! If that situation isn't suspicious then I don't know what in the world would be suspicious.
I really hope that they can get to the bottom of this, but with the sort of logic that has already been demonstrated, forgive me if I don't hold my breath, OK? Seriously, what else could it possibly be? I'm open to suggestions.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
According to the fine folks over there at ABC News, Casey Anthony "...filed an appeal (today) of her conviction that she lied to law enforcement officers." Why in the world would someone in her position do that? Is it just because she can? Is it because she already got away with the biggest crime of them all, the alleged murder of her little girl, and now she just wants to see if she can get off totally scot free? I mean, it's pretty obvious that she did a lot of things that were so wrong in so many different ways. Whether or not those things were "proven" might be in question, but what is not in question is that she lied. What else would you call it if you took police officers to your office in Universal Studios, only to stop them after you led them down various hallways and tell them that you lied about working there? It's right there in the description! You lied!
This girl will find herself in legal trouble again quite soon I predict. And I also predict that her convictions for lying will not be overturned because it's quite obvious that she lied. Then again, I also predicted that she would be convicted for killing her daughter because it's quite obvious that she did. Huh. No wonder she appealed.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Case in point (because you know I have a motive when I ramble) would be a one Eric Bolling and the cast of something called The Five. According to the Huffington Post, The Five is Fox's replacement show for Glenn Beck. I've never watched The Five. I don't know if they have a chalkboard or if they dress up in funny costumes or even if they occasionally smoke a pipe. (That was my favorite Glenn Beck bit. The pipe. You couldn't help but laugh.) I guess that the premise of the show is that there are always five people there at some sort of roundtable to discuss issues. some of the "personalities" that are to be "showcased" include barely recognizable names such as Greg Gutfeld, Juan Williams, Dana Perino, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Geraldo Rivera, Andrea Tantaros, Eric Bolling, Monica Crowley, Bob Beckel and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Other than Geraldo (who I know you won't admit to knowing who he is, but you do know), do you know who any of them are? I know Dana Perino, but that's just because I'm a news geek. And even being said news geek, I couldn't tell you who any of the others are. Not a good start if you're trying to replace Glenn Beck.
The point here is that the other day, the morons of the round table were discussing whether or not George W Bush engaged in "fear mongering". I think. And this Eric Bolling guy cuts off this Bob Beckel guy (because all they ever do on these shows is cut each other off) and says "America was certainly safe between 2000 and 2008. I don't remember any attacks on American soil during that period of time." Uh, wait. What?You don't remember ANY attacks on American soil between 2000 and 2008? None? Not even a teensy-weensy attack? ON American soil? Doesn't the year 2001 fall in between 2000 and 2008? Yes. Yes, it does. And he doesn't think that there were any attacks on American soil? Huh. So those planes? You know, the ones that flew into those buildings? I think the date was September 11? 2001? That's not an attack? What the what was it then?
Look, there haven't been a whole lot of major attacks on American soil to begin with. It's not like you have a whole bunch of them to get yourself all confused. You have the whole Pearl Harbor thing that led to that World War II thing. That was an attack on American soil. And then there was 09/11. That was an attack on American soil. Yes, there were things in between that killed people. But I'm not going to consider something like the Oklahoma City bombing an "attack" as much as I'm going to consider it an "act". But that's not the point. How in the world do you forget that 09/11 was during the Bush administration!?
But all of that aside. Let's say that you do forget. These things happen. Apparently. But you know what made me more insane than someone making such a ridiculous statement? NO ONE on the freaking panel corrected him! That's right! FIVE people. All sitting right there. All heard what he said. Not ONE person said, "Dude! September 11?" Not ONE. And yet there they sit. On TV. Offering up completely asinine statements about...something. Something false, of course. And I'm sure that they'll all be back tomorrow doing their job that they so clearly suck at. Grand.
I hate them. I hate them all. Why are people like this allowed to make a living? They need to be destitute and on the streets (not streets anywhere near me, of course) as punishment for their dimwittedness. Please, join me in my agony by watching the clip below where this abomination occurs. If it doesn't load, click here. Or if you'd like to save yourself the pain, just don't watch it. It's cringe worthy.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The debt ceiling is supposed to be just what it says that it is. It's like a cap on how much debt the country can be in. See, the United States doesn't take in enough money to pay all of its bills. Yeah, that's a problem. So, the US has to borrow a boatload of money all of the time in order to pay for everything. And by "everything" I mean things like Social Security, the military, stuff like that. Stuff that (mostly) needs to be paid for. And if we don't raise the debt ceiling, then come August 3rd, things won't get paid. The country won't be able to borrow the money that it needs to pay its bills. And while that's bad, you would think that this would be a good opportunity to open up some discussion on the matter of what to do about all of that debt that we have. You would think.
I'm not trying to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue. President Barry wants the debt ceiling raised. According to USA Today, they want to "...to cut spending and raise taxes while raising the debt limit by the Aug. 2 deadline". OK. President Barry doesn't want to raise taxes. He says that "...the White House could reach $1.7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years without new revenues". OK. Now, I have no idea if that $1.7 trillion is accurate. I have no idea if it's even close to being true. But there are some things that I do know.
I know that all of this posturing over whether or not one side or the other is going to agree to raise the debt ceiling is just for show. It will get raised. How do I know this? Mainly, I speculate a lot. But I do so based on things that I see. See, people that are in Congress want to get re-elected. If this thing doesn't get raised and a bunch of people don't get paid and it becomes the Republicans "fault", that's not going to go over well come election time. It's also not going to go over well if taxes get raised when our tax dollars are being pissed away right and left with wasteful spending. That won't help that whole re-election cycle that they all drool over.
But before I get to the real reason, I'd just like to suggest that perhaps they consider changing the name of this thing. In what way is the "debt ceiling" or the "debt limit" either a ceiling OR a limit when you can just keep changing it? It's like when you go to buy a car and there is a suggested retail price. That thing can move all over the place. (And hopefully if you're buying a car, you're haggling to get the price reduced and not raised.) It's not a firm price. And this magical number that we have for what our debt can be? That's not a firm number. And it never has been.
And that brings me to the main reason why the debt ceiling will be raised without the government shutting down. They do it ALL THE TIME. According to CNN Money, "Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001." Seventy four times?! SEVENTY FOUR?! Since 1962?! That's 49 years. That averages out to once every 8.1 months! Are you freaking kidding me?! That's not even a full term pregnancy! 8.1 months! Oh, for cryin' out loud. Just raise the damn thing and get over it. What the what?! This happens ALL THE TIME! Stop it with the phony posturing all ready! Geez. We're doomed. Doomed!
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
OK, do you think that's going to happen? I don't know for sure (even though I can't imagine that they'd go for it), but I'm going to guess that at least one of those groups wouldn't go for it. (It would mess up the pattern of stars on the flag to have to add another one. And 51 is just a weird number of states to have. I think that's why we've never officially added Puerto Rico. No one wants to mess up the flag.) Maybe this guy could at least get a feel for what successfully seceding would entail before he goes and wastes his time on this little project. And I'm also kind of interested in what sort of legislative role Mr. Stone envisions for himself in this new state. He doesn't exactly have a history of being the most stand-up guy. This is what the Examiner had to say about the man: "In November 1999, Temecula Mayor Jeff Stone, a pharmacist, agreed to a settlement with the State Board of Pharmacy over 20 accusations they had made alleging Stone had operated an unlicensed pharmacy, improperly labeled drugs and committed dishonesty, fraud, deceit and corruption. Under the settlement, Stone admitted to four of the charges, all of them minor, and reimbursed the pharmacy board and state attorney general's office a total of $10,000 for the cost of the investigation." Yeah, he seems like a great guy. I'm sure that all of this collecting money from private donors is on the up and up. Sure. It won't end poorly at all. Nope. Not at all.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Monday, July 11, 2011
It appears that there is some sort of a group called The Family Value. They seem to have come up with some sort of a "...pro-traditional marriage pledge" that they have "...given to White House contenders" for them to sign. Now, I don't know who this group is and let's face it, it's likely that you don't either. Therefore, I don't know why anyone would give a fat rat's ass what their pledge said. I also don't know why anyone who is seriously thinking about running for President would give it a second look. But apparently Michelle Bachmann did. She looked, she looked again and then she signed this thing which has no bearing upon anything.
From what I can tell, this "pledge" condemns "...gay marriage, abortion, infidelity and pornography." Hmm. I can really only condemn the infidelity. You want to get gay married? Have at it. You want to have an abortion? Please think about it beforehand, but have it if you must. You want to look at pornography? As long as it's not kiddie porn, have at it. But being a cheater just makes you a scumbag, so I'm kind of against that. But it's not like I think that there's anything that can be done about infidelity. You're either a scumbag cheater or you're not. It's not something that can be regulated.
But all of this non-influential pledge contents aside, it's the "preamble" to this thing that really has folks talking. It reads like this: "Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President." Umm...wait. What now?
There are so many things wrong with that sentiment that it's hard to know where to begin. First of all, (and this is in no way in defense of President Barry) I'm pretty sure that the African -American household has been in disarray long before President Barry was elected. And I'm also pretty sure that no one expected his being elected to have a major impact on that social circle. If you did think that it would, then you need a helmet at all times to protect your soft, soft head from damage. According to a one Cheryl Contee who has a blog called Jack and Jill Politics (which bills itself as "a black bourgeoisie perspective on U.S. politics"), "Given that families were broken up regularly for sales during slavery and that rape by masters was pretty common, this could not be more offensive." She would seem to have a pretty good point there. It's really hard to argue with that, so I think I'll stop there.
Seriously, why would anyone sign anything that alludes to the implication that slaves had it better than black folks do now? You should probably have your head examined if that's something that makes sense to you. Actually, I'm pretty sure that you should never imply that families that were slaves were somehow better off than anyone today who is not a slave and that those who are not slaves today are somehow the victim of politics. Or...something. See, I get lost in my own explanation because what I'm arguing about is so ridiculous that I can't believe I have to go over this.
Hey, potential Presidential candidates. A word of advice. Don't sign meaningless pledges placed before you by unheard of groups that do...something. Just don't. Don't pander. Just get out there and say what you stand for. Why do you need to sign something that could not be any more meaningless? It makes you look like an ass is what it does. And you don't want that, do you? DO YOU?