Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
That's right. The fuzzy footwear worn by famous metrosexuals such as Tom Brady has been banned at Pottstown Middle School in Pottstown, PA after more than one student was caught hiding a cell phone in this particular sort of footwear. According to a letter that was sent home with the students, something called The Mercury tells us that the principal, a one Gail Cooper, wrote that “...we have been experiencing problems with some students wearing open top boots and carrying items in their boots that are prohibited in school.” And she also wrote that "...following several problems with these items, I have banned the outdoor, open top boots from our classrooms". Good Lord.
What I can't figure out here is how Ms. Cooper was able to work her way up to the position of middle school principal without knowing about pockets! Granted, I'm totally assuming that she doesn't know about pockets (and that most pants are bepocketed), but I can't think of any other explanation for what seems like an idiotic ban on something that won't even address the problem. Not to mention that there are plenty of other places on a person's person where one could conceal a cell phone if they wanted to. But Ms. Cooper doesn't seem to know about those either, hence her attacking the Uggs.
What is this woman going to ban next when she realizes that there are other ways to sneak one's cell phone into class? Clearly, bras will be out. As will socks and, really, any kind of footwear. As far as their pants go, I guess the kids will all have to wear Speedos or mankinis. Boys won't be allowed to wear shirts and the girls will just have to have on some sort of leotard like gymasts wear. Look forward to a school full of pre-pubescent boys clad in Speedos wearing flip-flops! That'll do it! Sure, they'll get chilly during the winter months, but it's clearly the ONLY way to stop kids from bringing their cell phones into class. Right?
Wrong. I'm still confused as to why this has come down to this. It seems very simple. If the rule is that you don't use a cell phone in class, then you just take the cell phones of those who break the rule. The first time, they can have the phone back at the end of class. The second time, they can have the phone back at the end of the day. And the third time, they can have the phone back at the end of the school year. Problem solved. And you can do all of that AND wear Uggs at the same time! It's like a footwear miracle!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
By the way, Obama gave a State of the Union speech the other night. And I know that they're not the most interesting things in the world, but you'd think that you'd be able to last longer than eight minutes, especially if you were actually there! Sadly, that wasn't the case with one guy. Eight minutes in. Just 480 seconds. Behold!
According to the NY Daily News, Nancy Pelosi was asked by CNN about what she thought about the change that there might be a "President Gingrich". She responded with: "Let me just say this. That will never happen...He's not going to be President of the United States ... Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen." Now, while I agree with her feelings, I don't know that I think that it's a very good idea to go around saying it quite like that. There are too many dumbasses out there who go to vote. I'd hate to have any of them get wind of this and think, "Oh, yeah?! C'mon, Cletus. Let's go show her wrong!" (And by the way, there would be no particular reason for the dumbasses to think this. They're dumbasses. They don't need a reason.) But she didn't really stop there. No, she went on to jabber: "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him, that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen." Wait. There is something that she knows?
What could she possibly know? (Other than it would appear, based on the photo below, that Dwight Schrute is quite possibly Newt's love child.) Does she know something that the rest of us don't? Really, those sentences didn't string together very well, so it's entirely possible that she didn't know what she was talking about either. (I wonder if that happens when you've had your face lifted just one too many times. Hmm...) But you can't just come out and says "There is something I know" and not back it up with...anything, lest you sound like a crazy(er) person. At the very least, make your subsequent sentences flow!
I can't imagine that she has some sort of 'secret weapon' that she's going to break out if Newt should get the nomination. And even if she did, why wouldn't she keep that sort of thing to herself? You don't want to be letting everyone in on your 'strategy', do you? Granted, if it is a 'strategy', it's probably the worst one I've ever heard of. (It's a good thing she isn't in charge of our SEAL operations. She'd tip everyone off before anything could get done. Can you picture it? "There is something I know. Osama bin Laden is about to hear a knock at his door." Yeah, that wouldn't be very effective.)
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
You know how I know it's just me? Because I just read what the Costa Concordia people offered the passengers that were on their cruise ship that is now perpendicular with the waterline. These are people who had to escape the sinking ship without the direction from the majority of the crew and captain, as a lot of them were practicing the "save yourself" mantra and getting themselves into lifeboats first. These are people who were aboard a ship that ran aground and dozens of people died as a result. I'm not saying that it's the worst tragedy that's ever happened (it was not 'just like Titanic'), but I am saying that it was bad enough that the cruise line should offer those who were on the ship a little bit more than thirty percent off of a future cruise!
That's right. According to the Daily Mail, Carnival Cruises (which owns the now horizontal Costa Concordia) said "The company is not only going to refund everybody but they will offer a 30 per cent discount on future cruises if they want to stay loyal to the company." Well, I should hope that they'd be refund everybody. Was that even an option? And I don't know what other compensation they should receive, but I think that it should be something that doesn't involve having to do business with them ever again. The boat is laying down! What makes them think that any of those passengers would want to take another cruise with Sideways Liners?!
And really, only thirty percent off?! Not like a free cruise to make up for the one that the (allegedly) drunken captain ran aground off the coast and caused the ship to eventually capsize? No, not even half off of your future (and possibly doomed) cruise that of course you would want to book with these yahoos. Yeah, they're offering a whopping thirty percent off. Sure. That should calm some tempers.
Seriously, let me get this straight. You're the cruise line and your plan for disaster is every man for himself. The captain is going to leave and it's going to be absolute bedlam aboard the sinking vessel. Not to mention the dozens of deaths that will occur. And you're offering people thirty percent off? Are you on glue? What if someone lost their spouse? Could they get forty percent off? And you know, the one compensation that I hate the most is the one where those who have given you crappy service expect you to come back to them so that they can discount whatever they give you (which may or may not still be crappy) the next time. Next time?! What on earth makes you think I would ever want to come back here? The boat sank for Christ's sake!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Take the national anthem. The NFL had Steven Tyler sing the anthem before the start of the other game yesterday. Now, I find it an interesting choice, but I'm not going to be surprised if he ends up singing a 'non-traditional' sounding anthem. What would you expect? It's Steven freaking Tyler. There's not one single thing that's 'traditional' about that man. Nothing. (And I'm a Steven Tyler fan, by the way. That doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm getting when he's the choice to sing the national anthem. I know. And I know it'll be something, but that something likely won't be great.)
But people complained about it. Were they expecting anything different? How could they have been? But yet ESPN guy Skip Bayless tweeted "How could Patriots be inspired by that awful anthem sung by Steven Tyler? At least give him some screaming guitars to camouflage voice." Again, his voice wasn't made for the national anthem. What did he expect? I don't know, but it must have been the same thing that an abundance of other people expected.
Deadspin.com went with "Steven Tyler's 'Star-Spangled Banner' was terrible, but was it the worst ever?" Oh, for crying out loud! He wasn't trying to...it's not that kind of a....never mind. And I have those same sentiments for a one Greg Gutfeld of FOX News who tweeted "I went outside to put a raccoon out of its misery - then I realized my neighbor was watching Steven Tyler sing the Star-Spangled Banner." It's not supposed to sound all perfect! It's Steven Tyler! Why were you expecting something other than a miserable raccoon sound?!
OK, sure, it did sound like he kind of got some of the words wrong a couple of the times.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
Take Newt Gingrich. His giant pumpkin head aside, he is one who will not embrace his d**kishness. And it's nothing new. Let's remember that at the time of the Clinton impeachment hearings (which you'd have thought were about Clinton getting all Lewinsky-ed in the Oval Office, but were actually not about that at all), Newt was being extremely sanctimonious about the whole ordeal and the entire time that he was doing so, he was cheating on his wife! That's a d**k move if there ever was one. Does he hang out with John Edwards? I think that the two of them would get along just swell together.
Well now, one of his ex-wives has come out with a 'revelation' that she thinks will ruin his quest for the Republican nomination for President. This would be a one Marianne Gingrich, also known as Wife Number Two. (I think she was the second wife. I'm just not sure if she was the wife that he left when she had cancer or if she was the wife that he left when she had MS. See why I think he'd get along so well with John Edwards?) Why she is just coming out with this now is beyond me. But I'm guessing that what she has to say is probably true since after she announced that she was going to make an announcement, Newt swung into full PR mode and had his daughters make statements. One usually doesn't call out the daughters unless they're worried about something. And I could see why this might worry him a little.
The point here is that Marianne Gingrich said that when she was married to Newt and found out that he was having an affair, he not only declined to end the affair, but he also asked her to agree to an open relationship. That's right. Oh, and did I mention that less than 48 hours after asking her to agree to this (she declined, by the way) "...he gave a lecture to the Republican Women Leaders Forum titled, "The Demise of American Culture" in which he decried the way liberals "talk about values." Yeah, he did.
Look, there are a lot of reasons why Newt is un-electable and this is just one of the reasons why he can't be trusted with the nomination. He had to step down as Speaker of the House because of ethics violations, for crying out loud! Does this open marriage request thing surprise anyone? It doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that people are surprised that someone who has proven himself to be grossly unethical, cheated on his wife and wanted an open marriage, all the while preaching morals and values to the rest of the world. I wonder why she's coming out with this now. And really, I'm a little disappointed that this is all that her information holds. I think I was hoping she'd say something like Newt was a cat hoarder and had 100s of cats living with him. That would have been awesome.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
People have been hammering Mitt more and more lately to release his tax returns. Not surprisingly, Mitt doesn't really want to do that. Oh, sure, he's said that he is considering releasing them around tax time in April. But that would be a point in time that is likely past when the Republicans will have decided upon a nominee for their clueless party. (Don't get me wrong. The Democrats are just as clueless, but they already have their nominee chosen.) How convenient. Release something that you must think is going to be damaging after you've already secured the position that you want. I wonder if he's surprised that we're all seeing through his complex scheme?
He might actually be surprised because he seems so out of touch with other things that it wouldn't be improbable for him to think that all of us little people can just be swayed with his toothy grin and suave words that he got from all of that book learnin'. He did come out and say a few things about his taxes. The first thing he mentioned was that his tax rate is probably around 15%. OK, the guy has over $200 million dollars. He makes a buttload of money every year from that money. Kids, this is what is known as a tax loophole. Making money off of capital gains is taxed at a different rate than the money you make when you haul your ass out of bed every morning and do something in exchange for cash. People with lots of money like these sorts of loopholes.
But that's not the most out of touch thing that he said in regard to his own income and financial situation. See, he made money from speaker's fees. Apparently, there are a lot of people and/or organizations out there that think Mitt Romney is worth paying in order to have him talk to you. In regard to these fees, Mitt said, "I get speaker's fees from time to time, but not very much." Really, Mitt? Not very much? Oh, that must mean 'not very much' for someone who is worth about $200 million because the amount of money that he earned from speaking for one year (2010 through early 2011) was $374,328. I'll wait while you process that.
I'm back! Yes, he actually referred to almost four hundred thousand dollars as "not very much". Good Lord, Mitt. I realize that to someone with his sort of money, almost four hundred grand might not be very much. But to come out and say it like that? That's just idiotic. He is in the upper one percent of the one percent and he just doesn't get that. Does he know that in South Carolina (where the next round of Republican nominee powwows is set to take place) that the average annual personal income per capita is $28,285? Now, twenty-eight grand is "not very much". Mitt's "not very much" is over thirteen times South Carolina's "not very much"! You know what that equals? Very much! That is correct!
Seriously, who are this man's handlers? Or does it even matter? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without having to ever answer to anyone? Is he just so rich that he has gone through his entire life without anyone ever questioning anything that he ever said? (Because people will kiss a rich man's ass like no other.) I'll bet Mitt also thinks that he's hilarious because all of his life everyone has laughed at every joke he's ever told, even when most of them aren't funny, because of the position that he's in. I'm guessing that he sees the world and the world around him in a completely different way than it actually is.
I think that I've made this offer before, but I'm making it again. Mitt, if you need a consultant, an adviser, a handler, whatever you want to call it, I'm available. Mind you, I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney or the Republican party. But I could teach this guy a few things about the public's perception of politicians. I could also give him some better jokes.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Wikipedia is one of the major sites that will be dark today. Now, I don't know about you, but if I found out that a certain website that I frequented was unavailable in protest of some sort of new law that might happen, I'm pretty sure that I'd find out what the heck is going on. (And actually, one of my favorite websites, Reddit, is dark today in protest of SOPA. I imagine that today could end up being quite productive once I stop twitching from withdrawals..) But that doesn't seem to be the case with Wikipedia. No, people don't seem all that interested in why. Shocking, I know. All people seem to be interested in is (brace yourself) themselves. The big picture appears to be non-existent for a lot of folks.
I say that because I've been perusing the tweets that have gone out in regard to the darkness of Wikipedia. What I've learned is disconcerting at best and hypothesis affirming at worst. (That hypothesis being that we're doomed. OK, maybe that's not so much a hypothesis as it is something that I see society inching a little closer to every single day. It's still bad.) Let's look at some tweets and see if you notice the one thing that is glaringly missing from all of them.
By the way, I wish that I could take credit for compiling all of these lovely tweets, but alas, I cannot. I found them in the Twitter feed of a (I'm sure) lovely one Katie Notopoulos. She seems like a hoot. But I'm simply basing that on her tweet that read "fight SOPA; send your congressman a d**kpic". (And by the way, under SOPA, neither Katie, nor I would be able to be putting any of this stuff on the Internet. So there's that. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right. She's funny and she retweeted the following. Behold!
First of all, I can only hope that some of these people were tweeting these sentiments in an ironic fashion. Second, are they aware that Wikipedia, while a lovely source of information, is edited by regular people and can be changed at any given moment to say whatever you want it to say until someone else notices that Gary Oldman really isn't a giraffe or that Snoop Dogg's "Gin & Juice" is a "masterpiece" and then edits it to be more factual? I didn't even know that Wikipedia was being accepted by teachers/professors as a citable source. I'm not saying that there isn't great information on Wikipedia. There is. I'm just saying that it can't always be trusted to be correct. (I'm also saying that I may or may not have participated at one time in the altering of some Wikipedia entries in order to make them more humorous and to reflect my incredible disdain for people who may or may not be Gloria Allred. That's all.)
But did you notice that not one of these Wikipedia dependent individuals didn't even question what in the world SOPA is? They think that Wikipedia shutting down for twelve hours is a problem? Are they aware that if SOPA was to pass that Wikipedia would likely be shut down for good? Why isn't anyone asking what SOPA is? Why isn't anyone asking why Wikipedia will be shut down? Man, how I wish that Facebook would do something like this. Could you imagine? The country would collectively wet itself if it couldn't get on Facebook for an entire day. (And let me tell you that if SOPA were to pass, Facebook would need to be shut down as well.) And people would ask what is up if Facebook went dark.
Today might be my most productive day ever without some of my favorite websites to mess around on and waste an extraordinary amount of time on. I might even go outside. I hear that's nice.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Monday, January 16, 2012
We go over to ABC News to learn a little bit more about what occurred. Basically, it's what I just said above. A cruise ship ran aground fairly close to shore in Italy. Here's a picture of how close to the shore it actually was. (This is relevant for the points that I will be making shortly.) Behold!
Yeah, that's bad. Ships shouldn't look like that. It's unsafe and not very inviting. Let's look at the ship from a different angle. Behold!
Good thing that it's pretty close to the land, huh? And it certainly didn't just topple over like that all of a sudden. Here's a picture of it when it was starting to go that way. Behold!
And just one more to illustrate the distance from the shoreline and the not-so-deep depth of the water there (hence all of the running aground, don't you know?). Behold!
But the fact that it's not totally submerged and that land is so close and the waters are so shallow is definitely something to take into consideration when determining how to think about this accident. Well, those are things that a reasonable person would take into consideration. Let's look at some of the perspectives that other people had on this event. Take this one woman who had been aboard the ship when this happened who said, "Have you seen 'Titanic'? That's exactly what it was." Now, I'm not sure what part she's unclear on here. What actually happened in Titanic, what actually happened aboard the actual Titanic, or what the definition of 'exactly' is. But she seems confused about at least one of those three because I can tell you right now that this was not 'exactly' like what happened to the Titanic.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that poor woman wasn't scared to death and I'm not saying that the situation wasn't dangerous and life-threatening. What I'm saying is that it was not exactly like Titanic. Sure, they both involved a large ship, but for me, the similarities end there. One was right off the coast of Italy, the other was in the middle of the ocean in the middle of freaking nowhere and in freezing cold water with icebergs all around. Those two scenarios are not 'exactly' the same. Again, I'm sorry that this woman was involved in this accident and I am glad that she's OK. But I am tired of everything needing to be elevated to an artificial level of tragedy that just doesn't exist. Things don't have to be super-duper bad in order for them to be 'bad enough'. Bad is bad. Why make it worse with inaccurate hyperbole?
ABC News asked some people who were visiting something called "Titanic the Experience" ("a tour through recovered artifacts and replicas of the famed ship in Orlando.) what they thought. I have no idea why they thought to do that, but they did. I guess that ABC News must have thought that the Titanic sinking in the middle of the ocean and killing over 1,500 people in the freezing water is the same as a boat slowly tipping over because it ran aground on the coast of Italy. Other than the fact that they're both boats, I'm not seeing a lot of similarities. But I guess I'm the only one because one guy said, "When I saw the Concordia on the news this morning, this is what I thought about." Huh. So this guy saw (I'm assuming) something similar to the picture that I included here and his first thought was "It's just like Titanic"? How is that possible? My first thought was "Oh, good. It's pretty close to shore and it's in fairly shallow water. Did anyone die?" I did not think about the Titanic. Good Lord.
Seriously, is this what our society hath wrought? Any sort of misdoing involving a large ship and people automatically equate it to the Titanic disaster? Have the critical thinking skills in this country sank so low that people can't differentiate between two different boats, not to mention completely different circumstances, one hundred years apart? Even ABC News delves into the similarities between the two incidents. (Then again, on the ABC News website, they also tell us: "Authorities investigate whether ship's captain sailed too close to rocks." The ship is currently sideways! I'm guessing the captain was, in fact, too close to the rocks! They need an 'investigation' to determine this?! The boat is sideways, for the love of God!) Just because they're both boats that had problems doesn't mean that they're the same! AT ALL! I'm trying to think of a ridiculous example that I could use as a comparison to this, but the actual story itself is so ridiculous that I don't think I can come up with a comparison. They're both boats, but they're not the SAME! Think, people! Think! It's our only hope!