Monday, October 31, 2011

Not So Happy Halloween Treats

And Happy Halloween. Halloween is a weird-ass holiday if you're asking me. It's like the ultimate in contradictions when raising a child. You drill things into your child's head (Not literally! Yes, I know it's Halloween, but cranial drilling of one's offspring is never acceptable.) to keep them safe. Things like the old "Don't take candy from strangers." Then, after the kids think that they're clear on the concept, along rolls Halloween and BAM! Confusion runs amok. Not only are they going to be taking candy from strangers on Halloween, they're going to be encouraged to do so. AND they don't even have to wait for the strangers to come to them! No, they can randomly go to people's homes, knock on their door and ASK them to give them candy! And the strangers comply!! OH, but wait! There's a catch! You must ask strangers for candy only if you are dressed up in some sort of scary-ish garb. That's it? That's the catch? Deal! And the merriment begins!

Now if you're a grown-up, or you play one on TV, or even if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, it is your job to get candy for these small people that you do not know. My advice is simple: Don't screw it up. You must remember what it was like when you were a child and you went Trick-or-Treating and ended up with horrible candy at the end of the night. It's not pleasant. And as a child, you really feel like you were ripped off somehow by coming home with a bag full of crap. You need to remember that feeling and make sure that you don't continue to pass it around to the hopeful and unsuspecting youngsters who will trample your flowers instead of using the perfectly good walkway as they traipse to your door in search of sugary handouts.

Thus, here are several items that you need to avoid distributing to jovial children who have donned bedsheets for the evening.

  • First up are the inexplicable Boston Baked Beans. These are not good. Why someone thought that they could make a candy that looks like and is named after a picnic side dish is beyond me. No one wants candy that is pretending to be a bean. Beans aren't all that fun.

  • Next up are the Dum Dums. First of all, Dum Dums are way too small for any good use. Second, they never taste like the flavor that the wrapper says. And third, you almost always, for some reason, end up with the cream soda flavored Dum Dums or the pineapple flavored Dum Dums. Probably because the folks handing them out took out all of the good ones. If you're going to hand out lollipops, go with a Tootsie Roll Pop. You can't go wrong with those

  • Necco Wafers. From what I can tell, Necco Wafers are Tums antacid tablets that have been flattened out and dusted with sugar. They do not taste good. Contrary to what the waxy wrapper says down there, they are not "an American Classic" and the "flavors" are not "great." And of course they're "fat free". They're made out of chalk, what do you expect? Avoid these at all costs.

  • The general assortment of hard candies. As a rule, if it is a candy that is typically found in a grandmother's purse, you really want to avoid handing those out on Halloween. Especially the butterscotch ones. Children do not like butterscotch. Adults do not like butterscotch. Those elderly women with the candies in their purses? Right, even they don't like butterscotch, that's why they're always giving them away.
  • One of the more perplexing candies out there, the Idaho Spud. This is a candy that I guess is supposed to look like an Idaho potato. The thing is, it doesn't really look like that. It looks more like....well, um....OK, fine I'll say it, the thing looks like poo! And no one wants poo on Halloween. Ever. Hand out Necco Wafers before you hand out poo-like treats.

  • Now we arrive at the Tootsie Roll. If you must give out Tootsie Rolls, give out a bunch of them to each kid. Those of you who give A Tootsie Roll to A kid are just angry, angry individuals who should probably seek counseling. You'll feel much better about things if you toss a handful of Tootsie Rolls into a kid's bag and watch them shriek with joy (until they realize they were just Tootsie Rolls). It's a lot better than watching them stare at you as you drop A Tootsie roll into their bag. Much better.

  • Another candy that is not for children and is barely for adults is the Big Hunk. Big Hunk of what has always been my question. This thing is disgusting. It's like some sort of conglomeration of leftovers from another candy making process. Look at it! No one wants that.


  • You want to see how close you can get a kid to crying on Halloween? Hand out raisins. What a waste of a walk from the sidewalk to the front door only to be given a very tiny box of raisins which you will not eat. You will use them as ammunition for torturing siblings. You will also use them as a counting aid when trying to figure out how many of them will fit up the dog's nose. You will not eat them.

  • Finally, we arrive at the "feel good" treats. Oh, but they're not making the kids "feel good". No, they're making the smug, sanctimonious treat giver "feel good". Those kind of people like to be "practical" on Halloween. (Liking to be "practical" also seems to equate to "liking removing rolls and rolls of toilet paper from the front yard foliage the next morning." Go figure.) There is no place for anything "practical" when a bunch of people under four feet tall and running around the neighborhood, anticipating free candy AND getting it. Nothing practical about that and that's how it should be. Thus, no pencils, erasers, or any other type of school supply. If that was what the kids were after, they just would have gone over to Office Max and knocked on their door.

  • The only folks who are allowed to hand out dental floss, toothbrushes or toothpaste are dentists and other professional individuals who do business inside of the mouth (preferably those with degrees and licenses, not hanging out on street corners under neon blinking lights that say "Massage"). But even then, they can only hand out those things at their office! At their home, they're not a dentist, they're a candy guy. So keep your floss to yourself and fork over the Snickers.


See? It's very simple. Avoid the stuff on this list, hand out stuff that kids want, and you'll be fine. Most importantly, whatever you do, just have a good time and just have good candy.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Smoking Is Legal

Apparently, some people are all up in arms (however that happens) about the smoking at the end of the Herman Cain ad that was published on the Internets. And I'll admit that I thought it was a little odd when I first saw it. But I hardly think that it's anything to get all worked up about. Others, however, did not feel the same way.

According to an article over yonder at the Huffington Post,
a one Bob Schieffer was none too pleased with the weird smoking man at the end of Herm Cain's Internet missive. He inquired about it during his interview with Cain in a manner that was as if Cain had killed a live chicken in the ad. His tone was absolutely that of someone who was completely offended. The dude wasn't snorting a rail of coke. He just took a drag off of a cigarette, for cryin' out loud. Calm down, folks.Bob Schieffer, who sounds and looks like a little elf, actually said to Cain, "It sends the message that it's cool to smoke." How does it do that? Did you see the guy doing the actual smoking? It's not much to aspire to via smoking, I'll tell you that.

Let's go over Schieffers chastising of the smoking in Cain's ad. "Was it meant to be funny? Because let me tell you, it was not funny to me. I am a cancer survivor. I had cancer that was smoking related. I don't think that it serves the country well, and this is an editorial opinion here, to be showing someone smoking a cigarette. And you're the front runner now. And it seems to me that as front runner, you have a responsibility not to take that kind of a tone. I would suggest that as the front runner that you would want to raise the level of the campaign."

But here's where Bob Schieffer's age might be getting the best of him. He asks Cain if he's going to take the ad down, to which Cain replies, "It's on the Internet." Schieffer clearly doesn't get what that means because he follows up with, "Why don't you take it off the Internet?" Cain tells him, "It's impossible to do now." He's right about that. If you ever want something to last for eternity, put it on the Internet. That stuff is never going anywhere. That Schieffer would even ask that question makes me wonder about how much he knows about the Internet. He must be a 'series of tubes' guy.

Schieffer asked, "Have you ever thought of just saying to young people, 'Don't smoke. 400,000 people in America die every year from smoking related diseases'?" (How would that even work? "Hi. I'm Herman Cain. I'm running for President and smoking is bad for you. Please vote!) It's not an anti-smoking PSA, Bob! It's a...well...OK, I'm not sure exactly what it is. But it isn't about smoking! Get over it. Maybe he was just trying to be edgy. Personally, I think that he was just doing something to get more people talking about him and to get more name recognition for himself. It worked. He was on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer chastising him. Mission accomplished.


Look, I despise smoking. I find it absolutely disgusting. It will kill you and it could possibly kill those around you. It also makes you stink and makes me not want to be around you. (It also makes me not want to do anything else with you. Just sayin'.) There is nothing about smoking that is good or ok in moderation. We all know that. It's just all bad. That being said, it's freaking legal. It's as legal as can be. Yet there is nothing more ostracizing in parts of this country than smoking. I'd really like it if there could be some sort of consistency in this area. If it's going to be legal, then let's act like it's legal. But I digress.


And not that it matters what his campaign manager (or whatever that guy's role is) does or doesn't do, but I will hand it to them for at least acknowledging that people smoke. You know, President Barry smokes. Last I heard he had done pretty well with quitting, but you might not know that because they did such a good job covering up the fact that he smokes in the first place. Does Bob Schieffer ever get on President Barry's case for his smoking? Does Bob Schieffer ever tell President Barry what to say to the masses about smoking? I don't think that he does. But for some reason, he wants Herman Cain to run some sort of anti-smoking campaign. It's odd. (Well, not really. The media has been President Barry's bitch since before he was elected. It's a wonder that anything is reported accurately, given their complete adoration for the man.)

Cain told Schieffer "This wasn't intended to send any subliminal signal what so ever." Yeah, I don't know so much about that. It could send one subliminal signal. And that would be that he's just blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Or in their face. (I don't know how you browse the Internet, but from what I gather, either one of those could be correct.) I don't know if he's serious about being President or not, but he is serious about getting his name out there and amassing some recognition. You can't say that he hasn't accomplished that. He certainly has. And if he does end up being the nominee or the President, I have the feeling that we're going to be seeing a whole lot more smoke in a whole lot more commercials in the future.












Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Every Time I'm Asked To Help Someone Move

I've been catching up on episodes of The Big Bang Theory. It's an entertaining show. I can oddly relate to the four, smart, misfit science nerds trying to negotiate their way through various social situations. That Sheldon guy comes up with some stellar observations, only one of which is below. He's a wise man, that freak of nature. A wise man indeed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 28, 2011

Protesting Against Equality And Change

Still confused about what the whole #Occupy movement is about? Still not sure what those folks want? (I'm not sure what they want either. But I know that a lot of them need a shower.) Well let this woman from the Occupy Atlanta dealio fill you in. Because sometimes, you're just haftin' to be uproared. If it doesn't load, click here.


Aren't you glad that she cleared all of that up for you?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 27, 2011

They're A Little Racist, But It's OK

Finally! The WB has gotten it right. They're not trying to change or ignore "history". (I'm using the quotation marks because I'm about to start referencing cartoons and giving them a "historical" status felt a little weird.) They're just showing it for what it is. And what it is is Tom and Jerry cartoons that weren't always politically correct.

Look, there were some things in older cartoons that were fairly racist. Now, I'm not a big fan of the word "racist" because it gets thrown around all of the time lately, usually in the context of things that are so not racist, but it's appropriate here. Take the character Mammy Two Shoes. Yep, that was her name. Behold!
Yeah, that doesn't look all that great. And usually, Mammy Two Shoes didn't have a face. She was usually depicted as such:
See? Not much better. And that's not really the extent of it, but you get my drift. And while I personally don't think that it's a big deal, you know that there are people out there who would think it's a big deal. (Or, at least, they're going to want to make a big deal out of it. Big difference.) And those are the sorts of people that usually complain until something is taken off the air because they find it sooooo offensive. And unfortunately, a lot of companies simply comply because they are afraid of offending people, even though the number of people who are NOT offended greatly outnumber the nimrods who are offended. But not The WB. Nope. When they were airing a bunch of Tom and Jerry cartoons recently, they came up with this "disclaimer" or warning label or whatever you want to call it. Behold!
It's brilliant. Simply brilliant. You can't ignore this sort of stuff. And just because there might be something in it that isn't acceptable in current times, doesn't mean that it still can't be enjoyed in the proper context. Or even the improper context. Hell, they're freaking cartoons! They're going to be enjoyable in spite of the unflattering depiction of the maid (who, by the way, is NOT REAL). And I cannot even tell you how grateful I am that The WB is still showing these cartoons. It might not seem like much, but trust me. It's a lot. And now, we sit back and wait for the complaints to roll in. And they will. Roll.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Do I Smell Smoke?

You know who Herman Cain is, right? He's that Republican dude that everyone seems to like and who is doing quite well in the polls. He's not exactly running a conventional campaign, nor is he putting out conventional ads. Look at this thing he's running. It's different. (If you're pressed for time, just go to 0:41 and watch from there. That's really the part that got my attention.)




See that? What's with the smoking at the end? Is that guy trying to look like a badass? I thought this country was anti-smoking. Has that changed? Are we pro-smoking now? 'Cause I was kind of liking it without all of the smoke. And I don't know about that sideways smile that he gives there at the very end. It's a little creepy. It kind of has a little bit of "You'll never find the bodies" look to it. He might want to work on that.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Separated At Birth: Gaddafi Style

Gaddafi's body has been on display for a few days now. I guess they have him in some sort of store front freezer or something like that? Yeah, that's a third world viewing if I've ever heard of one. But I'd like to share with you the top ten things that were overheard from people who went to view the body. Ready? Here we go...


Number Ten...Hey, look, it's the dark haired guy from Hall & Oates.

Number Nine...Hey, look, it's Sonia Sotomayor.

Number Eight...Hey, look, it's Charles Bronson.

Number Seven...Hey, look, it's Keith Richards.

Number Six...Hey, look, it's Mick Jagger.

Number Five...Hey, look, it's Animal from the Muppets.

Number Four...Hey, look, it's Gene Simmons.

Number Three...Hey, look, it's Lionel Richie.

Number Two...Hey, look, it's the guitarist from Metallica.

And the number one thing overheard from the people who were looking at Gaddafi's body in a freezer...Hey, look, it's Carlos Santana.



Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 24, 2011

That's A Kick In The Pants

Well, just when the you thought that whole Gaddafi thing couldn't get any weirder, it kind of did. Those rebels were pissed at him. And from what you can see when you slow down the video of his capture, it would appear that the rebels felt that a just action at the time would be attempting to shove some sort of stick or handle up his arse, a la sodomy style. Behold!

Hmm. Yes, yes there does appear to be someone attempting to rectally insert that...object. But I'm going to need another picture. What else do we have?

Yeah, he's pretty intent on getting whatever that is up Gaddafi's ass. Interesting. But really, how far does he expect that thing to go when he's still wearing pants? I appreciate the effort, but it seem futile.

But he does really give it the ol' rebel try there, I'll give him that. And that aside, I'm not quite convinced that this falls in the category of being "sodomized". Oh, it looks absolutely uncomfortable, there's not much of a doubt about that. But I don't know that it isn't sensationalism to say that he was sodomized. He was poked in the butt with some sort of poking device. And while that is extremely accurate, I guess it just doesn't make for a very good headline.


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Really? A Vegan Diet?

(Note: Blogger is being super awesome today and not letting me add pictures. Sorry for all of the text without something shiny to distract you on occasion.)

My mental image and personal feelings about Steve Jobs have been altered and I want to know how to get the original ones back. The original feelings that I had about him were those of admiration and appreciation. Now I'm just angry at him. (Yes, I know that he's dead and that I never met him. That's not the point.) How could someone so smart be so incredibly stupid?


I'm a big fan of modern medicine. Big. Huge. If you tell me that there's something wrong with me (medically wrong with me), the first thing that I'm going to ask is "How do we fix this?" (That's assuming that I'm even at the asking question stage. Usually I'm more direct and would probably tend to go with "Fix it.") If you tell me that there is something really wrong with me, say like a rare form of pancreatic cancer, I'm going to have a much more urgent feeling about all of the fixing. And surprisingly, that is one of the many things that was different about me and Steve Jobs.

See, Steve Jobs, when presented with the fact that he had the only type of curable pancreatic cancer (as opposed to the regular kind that just kills you almost instantly), decided that instead of having the surgery to fix it that he would instead try "...fruit juices, acupuncture, herbal remedies and other treatments — some of which he found on the Internet". This according to the New York Times and cited from his biography which comes out tomorrow. Good Lord.


Fruit juices?! He tried to cure his cancer with freaking fruit juices?! He was a freaking genius who had all of the money that he would need to do anything he wanted to do to try to combat pancreatic cancer and instead he goes for fruits and herbs and...and...stuff he found on the freaking Internet?! Had he been on the Internet...EVER?! You know what's on the Internet? Crap. Crap and porn. And yes, obviously there are some good things on the Internet, but I guess Steve Jobs wasn't aware of those sites because he tried to cure pancreatic cancer with a rutabaga!

Basically, if he had the surgery when he was first diagnosed (instead of spending nine months trying alternative methods, some of which included going to a freaking spiritualist), there is a good chance that he would be alive today. But by the time that he finally let them "open up his body" the cancer had spread to his liver. And that's because fruit juices don't stop the spread of cancer. (Make a note of that, kids.) So now I'm mad at him and I see him in a totally different manner than I did before I learned how ridiculous he was being.

I guess that when you have built the most successful company on the planet that you're going to get somewhat of a swelled head. I understand that. The ego is a pretty powerful thing. But does it really affect someone so much that they can't think in a rational manner when the circumstances and the consequences become a matter of life and death? For Steve Jobs, it apparently did. He thought he knew what was best and what was better than what doctors (and common freaking sense) would have told him. And for nine months there was apparently no changing his mind. Oh, sure. After the surgery, he was all gung-ho about how to beat his cancer. But by then, from all accounts, it was likely too late. The cancer had spread, he needed a liver transplant and he eventually died. And now I'm mad at him.

I'm always marveling at how different every single person is from each other. Thus, it never ceases to amaze me when people make choices that I just flat out do not understand. Why didn't he just get the surgery? Would it have killed him to just have listened to his doctors? Probably not. And that's my point.


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 22, 2011

A Little Bit, But Not Much

Sorry for the lack of more lengthy posts this week. It's been kind of busy around here. That doesn't mean that it's going to be any different today. I'm just apologizing.


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, October 21, 2011

Tripods For Libya

You know what I wish for "new Libya" now that Gaddafi is gone? Well, for starters, I wish for more steady impromptu video recordings. Is it some sort of hotbed of seismic activity over there? How come all of this footage of Gaddafi getting captured is as if the person with the camera was atop a very active trampoline during these events? I want steady footage of Gaddafi getting what he had coming to him. Hopefully, the new regime will see the need for watchable video and get right on that. Seriously, check out the video below to see what I'm talking about. It's unwatchable.












Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Ding Dong, Gaddafi's Gone

Well, hey. Moammar Gaddafi was killed today. I'm guessing that he's really regretting signing up for that whole "Find My Friends" thing on his new iPhone 4S. And with Gaddafi dead, that definitely means some big changes. Not only for the future of Libya, but also for the future of my Halloween costume. OK, I think I'm done with my typewritten stand-up routine. For now.



I was reading various comment sections of various online publications to see how people felt about this turn of events. (By the way, I love how he was found hiding in some sort of drain. What is it with deposed dictators who end up hiding in holes? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. I just didn't know that it was some sort of 'thing'.) And I just wanted to take this moment to make one thing clear. Anytime you read a comment from someone who says that he shouldn't have been killed and that he should have been put on trial or something like that? Yeah, those people are also known as idiots. Things work differently in different parts of the world. Folks really need to remember that.




I was really kind of hoping that they were going to cut off his head and parade it around on a pike or something like that. Granted, it might seem a bit extreme, but I think it's warranted in this situation. I mean, we didn't get any macabre resolution with bin Laden. We should really be treated to a gruesome show of triumph every now and then. But I'm willing to wait if more and more dictators end up being taken out. Where's Kim Jung Il these days?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

What Was That Code Again?

Sorry that this is late. I've been thinking about going to Vegas and was looking online for good deals and promo codes. OH, and I found one all right. It just wasn't what I was expecting. Behold!


Don't get me wrong. That's about right for Vegas. I was just a little surprised that it had been so embraced, that's all.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Separated At Birth

I just wanted to let you know that Ellen Degeneres kinda sorta looks like Wayne Gretzky. That is all. Behold!



Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, October 17, 2011

He Took The Other Options

Um, OK, so Herman Cain was on Meet the Press yesterday and he was asked about abortion. I found his answer to be both disturbing and peculiar at the same time. (I don't have much of an opinion on Herman Cain at this point, by the way. But he doesn't seem to be a guy who is actually running for President. I think he has a book out. Maybe this is just a misguided book tour.) Let's take a look at what he said. It went like this: "I do not agree with abortion under any circumstance". He was pressed on that issue and was asked, "Exceptions for rape and incest?" He replied, "Not for rape and incest...Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options.”

OK, no exceptions for any kind of abortion is ludicrous. (Then again, I'm of the bent that making abortion illegal is ludicrous, but that's just me. One thing I've learned about certain issues (with abortion being one of them) is that you're just not going to change anyone's mind. You're not. Just don't try to do that, but DO try to avoid talking about those subjects and you'll fare much better than if you ignore my sage wisdom on this topic.) But what in the world does he mean when he says that "there are other options" because those instances make up such a small number? There aren't other options if you want an abortion and abortions are illegal! What the hell is he talking about?!

Maybe he'll be a bit more reasonable on the issue of abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Let's see...he said, "If it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision." Oh, OK. So if the mother might die, then he's good with it. Oh, but if some perverted relative rapes some younger relative and she gets knocked up, then she's on her own? I don't understand how he's OK with that exception, but not OK with other exceptions. Oh, wait. I might understand how he thinks like this. He doesn't have a uterus. thus he's completely clueless.

While I don't really think that the abortion issue needs to be a major part (or any part) of someone's campaign, I don't think that I would ever be comfortable casting a vote for someone who won't allow an abortion in the case of rape or incest. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable voting for someone who mentions "other options" without realizing that he's already taken away those options. Yeah, that wouldn't work out well at all.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Really? Al Qaeda?

So, here's an annoying, not to mention rather depressing, poll that was taken by New York Magazine. They surveyed 100 participants of the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York. And I don't think that a sampling of only 100 people is necessarily completely indicative of all the people that are protesting, but just that it's indicative of those 100 people is rather disturbing. Let's see what the magazine learned.

Let's start off with what would seem to be a very simple question to answer. Male or female? OK, 66% answered "Male". 30% answered "Female". And 4% answered "Other". Other?! WTF? There can't be "Other" in a gender question! Jesus. No wonder these protests have gone on for so long (and in venues where I really don't think that a lot of things are going to change). If they can't even figure out their gender, how are they going to figure out what they're doing.

Next, these dimwits (even the super clueless 4%) were posed with the open-ended question: "The country with the best government in the world is …" Now, they didn't provide the percentages of how many people answered what I'm going to assume are the top three answers. But here is what they came up with:

"Canada. It’s most like the U.S. but more the way I want.”
“Denmark.”
“I don’t accept the premises of this question."

Oh, God. Hey, for all of you that really like Canada, do you know what you can do about that? Go to Canada, that is correct. It's right there. Just head north. You'll eventually bump into it. And please hurry. The sooner that you go, the better.

This is probably the most telling response. When asked "Did you vote in the 2010 midterm elections?" 39% said yes, 55% said no and 5% said no, but only because they weren't 18 yet. So over half of the people that are out there pooping in the streets didn't even bother to vote last time. And yet for some reason, the feel disempowered. Huh. Go figure. What happened to not complaining if you weren't a part of the process? That's not in effect any more? Hmm. It doesn't appear to be. And that is unfortunate.

When posed with the query "Explain how you would fix Wall Street", the (I'm guessing) top three responses were: “A maximum-wage law", “President Elizabeth Warren" and “Burn it down.” Really? Elizabeth Warren? I find it amazing that all someone has to do is just have one thought or premise that resonates with a particular movement and the next thing you know, that movement is acting as if that person is qualified to run the country. And even if she did run for President, with 55% of these morons not voting, exactly how were they hoping that her winning an election would take place?

But here's my favorite. They asked these folks to rank themselves on this "Scale of Liberalism" that the magazine came up with. The results will shock you. Here we go...

Not liberal at all: 6%
Liberal but fairly mainstream (i.e., Barack Obama): 3%
Strongly liberal (i.e., Paul Krugman): 12%
Fed up with Democrats, believe country needs overhaul (i.e., Ralph Nader): 41%
Convinced the U.S. government is no better than, say, Al Qaeda (i.e., Noam Chomsky): 34%

Wait. What? Thirty four percent of those folks are convinced that the US government is no better than Al Qaeda?! Al Qaeda?! Good Lord. Those people have really come off the rails And does that mean that they're liberal or not liberal? I'm not sure where Al Qaeda is on that scale. They're rather extreme. I do know that. Who thinks these questions up, anyway? I only ask that because I want them to go to a real polling organization and have them do their thing with whack-a-do questions involving Al Qaeda and then I want to see those results. I realize that it could be even more frightening than this, but I have to know. And then I have the feeling that I need to move Australia. (I was going to pick Canada, but I'm afraid all of the morons here who love it there so much might show up.)

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, October 15, 2011

It's All In How You Phrase It

The Google is an interesting tool. And it will apparently either smarten things up for you OR dumb them down for you depending on how you phrase your query. Behold! (You're probably going to have to click on it to make it bigger. That's me doing the dumbing down for you this time.)

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content