Scared Smokeless

I've had kind of a long day and I'm really kind of tired right now, so I'm going to make this one a little short. I just learned that over in Australia, they have made new regulations for what cigarette packages can look like. They're trying to deter young people from starting to smoke. They're method of doing this seems to be to try and scare the holy crap out of kids by making the packages downright scary.

The Federal Government down there in Australia has made it so that companies can no longer display their logo on the packages. The color of the background has to be an ugly olive green color, as someone's research has determined that ugly olive green is the least attractive color to smokers. (I don't know that research was all that necessary, as I think most people are turned off by ugly olive green. Hence the term "ugly".) The name of the brand has to be in a specific font. (They don't mention what the font is, though. From the looks of it, it could be a variation of Arial or the beloved Helvetica. But I only mention that because I'm a nerd and I don't get to throw out my font knowledge...um...ever.) There also have to be huge warnings on the sides and on the front. Also included on the front, a scary ass picture of something horrible that will happen to you if you smoke. The folks over there at news.com.au were kind enough to provide a picture of what the new scary ass cigarette packages will look like. Behold!

Holy S! My God! Why is his eye held open like that?! Shouldn't there be a picture of a seeing eye dog or something else?! Why not a German Shepard?! Oh, right. Because they're trying to scare the holy bejeezus out of folks. Hey, it worked with me. I can't believe that with images like that, they were seriously concerned about whatever font they were going to use. I can tell you right now, I have no idea what any of the wording on the package says. And I am not going to know what it says ever because I will never look at that package again. I will not be smoking in Australia or anywhere else. Granted, I wasn't planning on smoking anywhere to begin with, but that image did deter me from ever thinking about it. Holy crap. I hope I can sleep tonight.

Sphere: Related Content

Make Up Your Mind Already!

Decisions, decisions. It's hard to make up your mind sometimes, isn't it? But the bigger the decision and the bigger the consequences of your decision, isn't that reason enough to really think things through? I mean to really think things through. And sometimes, shouldn't there be a point where even though you might want to change your mind after already deciding on something that you just can't? Shouldn't there be a point where you just have to suck it up and deal with what you've chosen for yourself? Not in all cases; just certain extreme ones. Like, say, oh....having a sex change. And then changing back.

According to something called smh.com.au (whatever it is, it's in Australia), a one "Alan Michael Finch underwent male-to-female sex change surgery in 1988 aged 21 and lived for the next eight years as Helen Finch." OK. These things happen from time to time. Nothing new to see there. But the twist really comes after those eight years when Mr, er, um, Ms. Finch "...wanted to be Alan again, undergoing surgery to reverse the gender change as far as possible." Wait. What now?

Correct. Shim, er, she wanted to go back to being a dude. Now, listen. I don't know about you, but if you're asking me, I'm thinking that I'm going to make this guy wait just a little bit before he delves into this all over again. I mean, clearly he wasn't thinking all that soundly when he made the choice to have his dingus lopped off the first time. Who's to say that he's thinking all that soundly now that he wants to have his new hoots removed?

Regardless of how insane I think that all is, what I think is even crazier is this: "The High Court heard this was a difficult experience for Mr Finch, who had variously worked for Telstra, Foxtel and Qantas but who was now unlikely ever to work again." Wait a minute. He's unlikely ever to work again? Because he went from being a dude to being a chick to back to being a dude? The article doesn't explain why that is, but I'd really like to know. I'd also like to know why, if that is the case, the reversal surgery (or however they do that) was performed in the first place. Doesn't that essentially amount to incapacitating someone? Kind of seems like it if they can't work anymore.

The reason this is even a discussion is because Mr. Finch wants one of his previous employers "...to give him a total and permanent incapacity (TPI) pension benefit." It seems that the previous employer doesn't want to pay out because they determined that he would be likely to be able to work in the future. (At least someone else besides me thinks that would be a possibility.) I can't imagine why they'd be so up in arms about this. Or maybe I can.

Seriously, how is it that someone who makes these choices to do things to their body is supposed to be entitled to some sort of pension benefit that is reserved for if you are incapacitated in some way? I'm pretty sure that the intent of the benefit was in case someone was injured. I'm also pretty sure that the intent of the benefit was NOT in case someone couldn't decide if they wanted to be a man or a woman and kept switching their gender around like a game of musical chairs (or genitalia as the case may be). And what, exactly, has he been doing since 1996 when he went back to the land of boxers or briefs? Working? Not working? Contemplating a surgery to turn himself into a bear? That's an awfully long time to not work (or do whatever) and then suddenly claim you can't work anymore and someone should pay you for the rest of your life to do so.

I don't know how they feel about stuff like this in Australia, but I certainly hope that the previous employer doesn't have to pay anything out to this dude-lady. I'd really like shim him to get some therapy, but I still don't think that the employer should be on the hook for it. For cryin' out loud, who wants not one, but two sex changes in their life? I mean, sure, sometimes I regret getting the soup over the salad, but I always feel as if I've put a great deal of thought into the matter beforehand and I never change my mind after I get my soup. This guy needs to have stuck with his soup. Or his penis. (By the way, this is the only time that "soup" and "penis" will be interchangeable. Just so you know.)

Sphere: Related Content

Mother of the Year Frontrunner

You just never know when you're going to bump into one of those unfortunate individuals who is facetiously referred to as World's Greatest (Fill in the Ironic Blank Here). You know, like when Daniel Allen Everett of Clarkston, Michigan was arrested in a child sex abuse sting operation for arranging to meet a 14-year old girl (that he had met online) for sex. He did so while he was wearing a "World's Greatest Dad" T-shirt. Behold! Either the World's Biggest Typo or the World's Biggest A-Hole!

Asshat. But I digress. (Actually, I just like seizing the opportunity to put the a-hole's picture up so all to see. You know, just so we're all aware of who he is and what he's done. That way, if we ever bump into him in public, we'll know to kick him in the groin as hard as we can.) There's now a candidate for Mother of the Year. Our nominee hails from down under in Australia. She's nineteen years old and the mother of a 4-month old baby boy. She enjoys spending time with her son, breastfeeding, driving drunk, pulling in front of police cars and subsequently getting arrested. All at the same time. Wait. What?

Correct. The 19-year old female, who is not named for some reason unbeknownst to myself, from Alice Springs (that's in Australia) was leaving the Gap View Hotel when she pulled onto Gap Road (they're not very creative with their naming down under, apparently. Either that or they're huge into uniformity.) and did so right in front of a cop. Not good. But in her defense, I'm sure she wouldn't have done that had she not been extremely drunk. And breastfeeding her son at the time. (Hit head here. Continue hitting until head is numb or you are unconscious. Repeat if numbness wears off or consciousness is regained.)

Now, according to NineMSN.com, the woman "...was unable to provide a breath sample to police at the scene when asked to do so." And said a spokeswoman for the Northern Territory police, "She failed to blow into the breathalyser, which shows you how drunk she was." I'm not overly familiar with breathalyzers, other than it should be spelled with a 'z'. But from what I've seen on TV in the US, the cops give you this little straw to put your mouth and when they say "Blow!" you what? Blow, that is correct! So this chick was so hammered she couldn't even puff into a straw. Yep, that's drunk, all right.

I guess in Australia "failing to provide a breath sample" is a charge that is a serious offense which automatically assumes that you had a high blood-alcohol level in your system. And they don't need anymore evidence than that to say that you did. I'd imagine something that like would be difficult to defend yourself against in court. If they don't even need any proof of what your blood-alcohol level actually was, what are you going to say about it to change their mind? I'm thinking that there isn't anything you can say because why would someone change their mind? It's like if you could tell someone that they had to give you $1,000 and didn't have to give them any proof that they owed you that money, why would you listen to anyone's reasoning as to why they don't have to pay you if whatever you say can go without your providing any evidence? You wouldn't change your mind. You'd take your thousand bucks and high tail it over to the next person you think owes you money. Heckuva way to make a living, that's for sure.

So Super Mom was charge with failing to provide a breath sample and a host of other offenses. She was also slapped with (and just should have been plain ol' slapped):

• Driving while disqualified
• Driving an unregistered and uninsured motor vehicle
• Failing to give way
• Driving with a child under 12 months old who was unrestrained

"Driving while disqualified." I like the way that sounds. Hell, that could refer to me for a variety of different circumstances, only in my case it would be called "Doing while disqualified." I can attest that there are plenty of things that I am either disqualified for or definitely should be disqualified for. But I digress, too.

She might be able to get out of the driving with an unrestrained child charge. She was breastfeeding at the time. If that kid had a good enough suction going on, I'd say he was fully restrained and wasn't going anywhere!

Look, all kidding aside, this woman is a Class A Moron who absolutely shouldn't be on the road, probably shouldn't be in a bar, and definitely needs to have her parenting abilities assessed, lest the next time she pulls a stunt like this and gets in an accident and her child becomes the Human Air Bag. Asshattery at it's finest.

The NT Police Superintendent, a one Jamie Chalker, found the incident to be "horrendous" and then issued a statement which had me wondering if he had been drinking. He said: "It is unimaginable that a mother could be so callous in her disregard for the safety of her child.

"As if it weren't bad enough to be so drunk behind the wheel that you almost run into a police car, it defies belief that she had no concept that her actions could have killed her child.

"I find it increasingly frustrating that people show so little responsibility for their actions, but this is without a doubt one of the most stupid and reckless actions I've come across.

"People must take responsibility for their loved ones when they are clearly unable to make rational decisions for their own safety, the safety of others and the risk they pose to the general public."

I really don't know what he meant by that last statement. I don't know if he meant that the people who were not able to make rational decisions that effected the safety of others were the ones that needed to take responsibility, or if he meant that if someone is unable to rationally make decisions effecting other's safety, that a loved on should step in and take responsibility for them. Regardless of which one he meant, neither one of those things are going to happen. If you can't make a rational decision because you're plowed, that's not changing anytime soon (at least, not until the booze wears off). And as far as loved ones stepping in? That sounds a bit enabling to me. Just because they're a "loved one" doesn't mean they're always loved. Nope, quite the contrary in most cases. My "loved ones" bug the crap outta me. Don't get me wrong, I'd give them a ride if they were all drunk and breastfeeding and all, but they'd have to comp me for the gas. What?! They're drunk and lactating in my vehicle?? I get gas money. End of story.


This chick has court on April 23rd (they're quite speedy in turning the wheels of justice down under). Hopefully she'll have sobered up a bit by then and won't come stumbling into the courtroom with a suckling child attached to her bosom.

Sphere: Related Content

Now With Your Choice of Gender!

I think we can all agree that we're pretty much doomed, right? OK, good. It's really just a matter of which country is going to be the trailblazer and lead the rest of humanity right down the crapper with them. And after reading an article from the good folks over at UPI, I'm nominating Australia. Good Lord, Australia. WTF?

For reasons that are still unclear to me, something that the Australian government calls the "Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission" seems to be hell bent on making a slight change to that little box on your passport where you check either 'Male' or 'Female'. Yeah, they want to add another option. Wait. What?

If you're thinking "There are no other options! There are only male and female!" well, you'd be right! But that wouldn't matter because you're not on the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. They have distributed a paper which is titled: "Sex Files -- The legal recognition of sex:" Then there is a section which contains the "Proposed reform" which would entail "adding "intersex" to the recognized genders of male and female for use on passports and driver's licenses" of those who are transgender or transsexual. Oh, my God. WHAT THE HELL?!

Oh, hold on. It gets better! (Or worse. We're doomed. Doomed, I tell you. Doomed.) The paper reads in part: "Recognition of intersex: Persons who cannot or do not identify as either male or female would be able to choose to be identified on their birth certificate and passport as intersex." Cannot identify? Do not identify? With either male or female?! I'm sorry, when did this became a choice? I didn't get that memo. Is there more? I'd better sit down. And start drinking.

"A person who cannot or chooses not to undergo surgery would not be automatically ineligible to request a change in their legal sex." Huh? Oh, wait. The transgender one. Transgender is simply not identifying with the gender that you were born as, so there's no surgery involved with being a transgendered individual. But the transsexual, that is the one where the individual has undergone the surgical procedure to switch teams. So, just because you haven't had surgery or you don't want to have surgery (it seems like the morons who came up with this are presuming that everyone who doesn't identify with their current gender would like to get the surgery. I don't know if that's true. I haven't heard that, which doesn't make it false, but it seems to be quite an assumption without anything to back it up with.)

I cannot possibly be the only person who sees a problem with this. If you're just allowed to decide what you would like your gender to be, who is to say that it's going to be for the reasons for which this asinine program was intended for? You could just want to change your gender on all of your identifying documents (that mean anything) as a way of concealing your identity. Hey, and can you do this more than once? What if you change your mind again? They won't be able to stop you from changing it again, will they? You think identity theft issues are huge now? Just wait until there's a third freaking option for gender! Hilarity will not ensue.

Why, exactly, would someone who has had their gender surgically altered need (or want) to have a third gender category? I thought the purpose of having the surgery was to change your gender from one to the other. Thus, when you've changed it, you're not creating a brand new gender! You're simply joining the other team. Now you're one of them. So call yourself one of them, dammit! There's no need for a third category!

And guess what? I'd be right about that if you asked the spokeswoman for Sex and Gender Education Australia, a one Tracie O'Keefe. She'd agree with me that you can't have three categories. You need to have four. Wha....? Wait. Wait. Dammit, I said WAIT!!

According to those UPI guys (who should really consider keeping stories like this to themselves in the future. I'm not so sure that I need to be this well informed.) "...some transgender lobby groups said the proposed move would not go far enough (of course they did) and requested a fourth option, "other," be made available (of course they did) for those who would not fall under the "intersex" label because they believe their gender is indefinable or constantly changing. (Uh-huh.)"

Guess what? Just because you "believe" that your gender is "indefinable or constantly changing" that doesn't mean that it really is. It also doesn't mean that everyone else has to appease your belief about your self identification being controlled by the always spinning Wheel O' Gender. I can "believe" I speak French. But if you get me started in a conversation with someone who really can speak French, they will tell you that they don't care what I "believe" and that I cannot speak French (Which I can't. And I don't think I can. It was just an example. To highlight their idiocy. I like highlights. They brighten things.)

Aside from semantics, "other" is a rather broad term, don't you think? Dog? Cat? Rat? Pig? Frog? Horse? Fish? Lizard? Bunny? Yes, I realize all of those are animals, but I didn't have any more human examples once you discarded male and female! That's all there is! There isn't anything else! But some people seem to think there is, so I was just hoping maybe I'd get it if I just kept naming things.

The above mentioned Tracie O'Keefe (who, by the way, was a man, became a woman, married and divorced twice and is now happily living her life as a lesbian. So there.) said, "The AHRC proposal does not go far enough in providing legal status and social spaces by only allowing people to be male, female and intersex." And see, Tracie, this is where you and I are different because I think the AHRC proposal goes a bit too far. Do you not hear how ridiculous that sounds? "By only allowing people to be male, female and intersex." ONLY?!?! I'm a little surprised you're not pushing for a fifth option - None of the above! And why stop there? Go for a sixth option - All of the above!

But all of that aside, no one is "allowing" anyone to be anything! That's because you're not "allowed" to just choose your gender like you would choose what you're going to wear each day! Some things just are the way they are. Look, if you're a male and you surgically switch teams, I am perfectly OK with you calling yourself a woman. You know why? Because at that point, you ARE a woman! I'm not letting you "choose" to call yourself a woman. You ARE a woman! Why would you be advocating to call yourself something else?! I thought it was all about equality! By adding more genders to the mix that is already FULL with the two genders that are in there, you're not being very equal.

Seriously, what is so complicated about this with some of you folks? Why must everything be such an ordeal? Did you ever think that perhaps, just perhaps, you're spending WAY too much time worrying about what other people will call you or identify you as? Labels and names seem to have a much bigger presence in these issues than can possibly be healthy. My opinion? Y'all might want to worry less about how other people see you and instead focus more on how you see you. Once you're comfortable in your own skin (and don't feel like you have anything to prove to the rest of the world) it's a lot easier to relax about stuff.

Doomed. Doomed, I tell you. Wake up, Australia. Don't go there. Do not go there.

Sphere: Related Content

At The End Of The Article Armaggeddon

Sometimes at the end of news articles that you read at various online news reporting outlets (or attempting to report what may or may not be news) have a box on the side or the bottom with a bunch of links to other stories that are either related to the one that you just read or that other people who had read the same article had also read. Sometimes these other stories are related your current story. Other times, not so much. But over yonder at Fox News, they seem to think that you need a wide and far reaching variety of news stories, either so you don't miss a thing or so that your selections aren't within too narrow of a category. And for some reason, at the bottom of a story about a bunch of drunken Russian cops beating and burning (yes, burning. As in with fire.) a man to death, there was what could be described as a "melange of whack-a-doodle". It could probably also be described as several other things, but it's not often I can work "melange" into things, as I do not often write about paella.

First, I'll address the crazy Commies. No, actually, first I'll address the horrible job someone did with writing that blurb. It really doesn't tell you much more than the title which says "Officials: Drunk Russian Police Beat, Burned Man To Death." No word on why the three officers were drunk, how they figured out that they were responsible, whether or not it's common for Russian law enforcement to tie one on during their shift, or even who found the body. It was described as being found "in a nearby forest Wednesday with massive burns." Huh. Massive burns. From being set on fire, you say? Interesting. (Note to self: Even though international stories tend to be short, do not let busboy write them, even if he does claim to have "a real way with words.")

Now what other stories could be related to that you ask? Here we go....People who read about the Perestroika Police also read about these intriguing tales:

• Texas Mom Throws 4-Year Old Daughter Into Traffic
  
  
• Police: Husband of Long Island Teacher Choked Her To Death; Staged Broken Down Car Scene
  
  
• Giant Spider Caught On Film Eating Bird In Australian Backyard
  
  
• Pakistani Police Arrest Cleric Who Presided Over Kids' Wedding


• Cheetah Runs Loose On Plane, Bites Baggage Worker
  

Seriously, what the heck is that? I'm pretty sure that at least one of those is a sign of Armageddon. Giant spiders eating birds?! I don't think of that when I think of Australia. I think of koalas, kangaroos, that Crocodile Dundee mate, things like that. Not giant spiders eating birds, for cryin' out loud! And how did that cheetah get loose? Never mind that, how did it get on the plane to begin with?! Now I have to worry about loose and livid flying cheetahs?

I'm sure there was a brilliant mind at work in the choking husband story there. I'll bet The Choker is right at this very minute thinking to himself, "I can't believe the broken down car scene that I staged didn't throw them off of my trail! Dammit! I'm so unlucky!" And of course, that a-hole is one of the guys who (allegedly) kills his wife and then reports her as missing and does a bunch of TV interviews about how much he loves his wife and makes tearful public pleas for her to be returned. When, exactly, did that method start gaining popularity? Was it when Scott Peterson was trying to convince everyone that he was so upset that his wife, Laci, was missing? I think that might have been it. Hey, guys out there thinking about offing your wife and trying the Peterson method, listen up. Before you start choking the Missus, perhaps take a moment to recall how all of that turned out for Scotty-boy there and don't strangle the little lady, OK champ? Grand.

Now, The Choker, also known as William Walsh, has allegedly confessed to killing his wife, Leah. The Choker has an attorney who stated to the media, "If we know anything from recent events, confessions are inherently unreliable, especially when trickery is involved." What recent events would those be sir? And, I'm sorry, did you say trickery? He did indeed say trickery, and when he was asked by the media to clarify what he meant by said trickery, he said, "I am saying unquestionably any confession that they obtain is done by tricks." That still doesn't answer the question. What kind of tricks? Juggling? Cards? Magic? The shell game? Tell us the tricks! I really think someone should have some pretty specific examples if they're going to go throwing words like "trickery" around these days.

What's up with the spider and the bird? Apparently, there is a photo of a lifeless bird trapped in a web near Cairns, Australia, which shows the spider clenching its legs around said lifeless bird. A one Joel Shakespeare, who is "the head spider keeper at NSW's Australian Reptile Park, said the spider was a golden orb weaver." In other news the Australian Reptile Park has a head spider keeper. Now, I don't know if my knowing the particular species of spider is supposed to make this better for me or what. And it really doesn't. Regardless of the fact that most people will respond to such a story by shouting, "Holy crap!" and not "Tell me more about the golden orb weaver and it's day to day existence.", Joel continued by explaining, "Normally they prey on large insects, it's unusual to see one eating a bird." Now is that because a bird is not a large insect or because spider don't eat birds?! He then made everyone reading this story feel tons better by mentioning that "...he had seen golden orb weaver spiders as big as a human hand but the northern species in tropical areas were known to grow larger."

But if you were wondering, Joel said the bird was "a chestnut-breasted mannikin" (was being the key word in that phrase) and that it "appears frozen in an angel-like pose in the pictures." (A chesty breast frozen angel? What is going on down there in Australia?) Then, with his keen deductive abilities he stated that the bird "is likely to have flown into the web and got caught." Do you think, Joel? Huh. So, it's a bird and it just flapped its wings and flew into the web, you say? It didn't just walk in on its own? Are you sure the spider didn't try any of that "Step into my parlor" trickery that I've heard so much about? Joel then added (as if it is supposed to make us feel better), "It wouldn't eat the whole bird." Oh, no, of course not. Because that would be weird. (Not as weird as a goat named Red that wasn't de-horned, but weird just the same.)

The folks over there at news.com.au have the photo of the bird-eating spider (along with a bunch of other stories that should keep me busy for at least a week!). Now, if you're expecting some of that breast-y stuff that was mentioned earlier, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Probably not as disappointed as you're going to be if you are expecting some of that angel-y stuff that was mentioned earlier, but disappointed none the less. And it's really not as bad as you'd think. Then again, we're not the bird. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

There's More Where That Came From

If you were a sheep and you were in Australia and you'd been thinking about what would go with those nice plastic trousers you had heard that you were getting, I hate to disappoint you but you're not getting any pants. What? That's right. No pants. No pants for the sheep. The sheep will not wear pants. Now, that's really supposed to be more of a 'rule' and less of an 'announcement', but in this case, semi-sadly, it's an announcement. And it's straight from those Australian scientists who have abandoned plastic plants for sheep in favor of gas masks. Wait. What?

I do believe I'm a bit ahead of myself here. Allow me to retreat just a tad. See, if you believe a whole lot of scientists (and Al Gore) the Earth is gradually getting hotter. The globe, it is a-warmin'. Hence the term "global warming". (Have you seen Al Gore lately? He's undergone a bit of global expansion since his Veep days. He's packing enough insulation these days to keep his globe plenty warm.) Global warming is bad. Scientists (except the mad ones) are good. We're still not sure what Al Gore is. But the point is, the good scientists are trying to figure out what we can do about global warming and how to slow it down or stop it. In order to do so, they first have to look to the sources of what warms the earth. (Sources other than Al Gorge Gore.)

Greenhouse gases (presumedly the gases that turn the earth warmer and make it like a "greenhouse") are bad for the environment. Methane is a greenhouse gas. Methane is bad for the environment. Sheep emit methane from both ends. The question is how much methane do sheep release from their woolly little bodies? That will help determine if there is a particular breed of sheep that emits more methane than other breeds. It will also help determine if a sheep's diet influences their methane production. (See, I don't get that part. The sheep's diet is whatever is in the field. It's field food. They're field food feeders. Isn't grass just grass no matter how you chew it? It would be a lot easier if you knew which sheep were the ones going out for Indian food every other night, wouldn't it? I'm sure that would narrow down the culprits to a conspicuous group.)

Well since methane is a gas, you have to capture it. You can't just put it in your pocket and walk home with it (thank God). It needs a container. What scientists had been doing (because they're so scientific-y and all) it putting plastic plants on the sheep and measuring the exit emissions that way. Turns out however, "that only about 2 per cent of sheep methane emissions came from their rear." That according to a one Professor James Rowe as quoted by our mates down under at news.com.au. So instead they're just going to put a mask over the sheep's face and measure the methane that way (of course they are.) because, according to Professor Rowe, "Putting plastic trousers on sheep is much more difficult than holding a mask there for a minute or so." Yes. I should think so. Actually, putting ANY kind of clothing on a sheep, aside from being just plain wrong, would in fact be quite difficult.

You may or may not remember the poor cows who were having their methane measured and were being forced to sport these fancy tanks for a while there. Behold! Tank Cow!

Well, ain't that sporty? Naturally, after seeing the cow with his butt backpack there, I had visions of the poor sheep looking something like...Behold! My twisted vision of sheep having their methane measured:

(Yes, I know it's frightening. Just try being in my head for a little while. It's not always that pleasant!) But fortunately, the scientists are a little more balanced than I am (there's a sentence I never thought I'd say) and they had a better way of capturing that methane-y sheep breath in a way so that "The animal is not in any distress ... they don't really object to it." I'll be the judge of that...Behold!

Huh. Maybe he's right. That doesn't look too bad. (The sheep has a much better deal than the poor cow did.) It kind of looks like a breathalyzer for sheep. (I wonder if they'll have them walk a straight line when they're done.) The thing is that down in Australia, they have a lot of sheep and they have a lot of kangaroos. Turns out that kangaroos don't emit very much methane at all regardless of diet. Now, some schools of thought down there say that if people would just eat more kangaroo and less sheep, that they could reduce the number of sheep needed and increase the number of kangaroos needed. (I know how they would do one of those, but I'm not sure about the other. Kangaroo orgy, perhaps? I don't even want to think about it. All of those sexed up marsupials...hopping all over the place on top of each other....it would be madness!) The thing is, people don't want to eat kangaroo. The kangaroo meat that is available now? Yeah, most people that buy it feed it to their pets. Oh, yum! That'd be like if George W. told the US, "Less McDonald's, more ALPO!"

But if they can figure out how to cut the sheep's methane emissions, then it's a win-win all the way around. The earth is helped, kangaroo meat doesn't become dinnertime sustenance and the people can eat the sheep again. (Hmmm. OK, I guess it's not win-win for the sheep. They seem to kind of be getting screwed in the end here, but even if that's true, at least there won't be a lot of methane when it's happening!) And that's why the scientists are giving all of the sheep these little methane breathalyzer tests. It's probably a good thing, too. Professor Rowe doesn't seem to think that breeding kangaroos to take the place of sheep is all that feasible of an idea. "Have you tried to muster kangaroos?" he asked. I have not. However, judging from his tone, it wouldn't be a scenario all that far from the one that I described above. Not far all at.

I have no idea how they measure their Flask o' Flatulence when they've collected their sample, nor do I don't know what they do with it when they're done. I can only assume (and really, really hope) that both processes do not take place near an open flame.

Sphere: Related Content

Helping Priests Through Porn?

Did you hear the one about the porn star who was giving advice to the Pope? Yeah, I only wish it was a joke. UN-fortunately, it's not.

Down under there in Australia they are currently celebrating World Youth Day. World Youth Day was introduced by Pope John Paul II in 1984 and it is a huge ass, youth-oriented celebration of the Catholic faith that takes place once every couple of years or so at an international level. This year's level? Australia. (Glad you were paying attention.) And the Pope will be there. So will Belladonna.

Belladonna is a 27 year old porn star who has traveled from her home in the US to Australia to give the pontiff a little bit of advice about that nasty little priest-sex-scandal-thing that's been going on within the Catholic Church for a while now. Correct. The porn star (star of over 250 X-rated movies, at that!) is giving the Pope some tips on how to deal with all of the Father McFeeleys that have popped up (not literally! Sheesh!) lately. Um, and how is that? Exactly?

See, while Belladonna did come down to Australia to continue the international reach of her porn star-ness, she's also going to help the frustrated priests as long as she's in town. This according to stuff.co.nz. She held a press conference yesterday to address this topic. (OK, wait. Can just ANYONE down in Australia hold a press conference? HOW does a porn star just have a press conference? Are we taking the porn star seriously all of a sudden? Does the porn star hold the all elusive answer as to how to get priests to stop boning the altar boys? I doubt it. So why the press conference? I don't get it.)

During the porn press production, Belladonna stated, "The Pope has indicated he might apologise to victims of sexual abuse and that is a positive thing to do, but unless he follows up with some practical advice that addresses the sexual needs and desires of clergy, the problem will simply continue. Church clergy are at a crisis because they get no real street-level sex education but are expected to ply the streets to deliver their spiritual message." Huh. So I guess that anyone can hold a press conference in Australia. Interesting.

I'm a bit confused. The clergy are sexing up the young boys in their congregations because they "get no real street-level sex education"? (Why do I have the feeling that Belladonna is a huge Rolling Stones fan? "I...can't...get no.....real street-level sex education sa-tis-fac-tion.") What does that even mean? Having sex? Well, NO! They can't have that; they're priests! It's in their contract. They know what they're getting into!

And this "plying of the streets" that the horny priests are supposedly doing, what is that exactly? She makes it sound as if there are just throngs of people fornicating in the streets and these poor, unsexed up priests have to keep stepping over them as they deliver the word of God! And, in the process, the priests become quite horny themselves as a result. Spare me.

Belladonna, a leading expert of theological reform, who is currently practicing her theories within the adult film industry also stressed that the priests, ".....needed to know how to distinguish a sexual fetish or fantasy from real-life sex." DO they? Do you really think that they don't know what IS real life sex and what is NOT real life sex? Even if you've never had sex before, you can kind of get a gist for when it's the real deal or not. I highly doubt that's really an issue. And even if it was, what is she going to do about it?

Oh, God, I'm sorry I asked. Again, according to stuff.co.nz. "Belladonna has offered 300 of her own films to the Catholic Church in Australia for distribution to priests." I just want to know if she's going to put them in the collection plates.

"She also has offered to donate some of her own time to help set up a "meaningful set of exercises for priests to help them deal with sexual tension and stress". A "meaningful set of exercises?" Let me guess....like...push ups? On top of you, Belladonna? Yeah, I thought so.

And according to the Eros Foundation (they would be the national adult retail and entertainment association in Australia. Does the US have one of those? Or do we just use the Internet and call it good?), they say that "The sex industry could help the Catholic priests and, particularly, the Pope." Hmmm. Hey, I'm not Catholic and don't really want to be, so I'm not really all that qualified to be giving an opinion which is firmly based on fact, but I'm going to give one that's firmly based on opinion and some pretty good logic. Ready? Um, no. No, you CAN'T help the priests and you CAN'T help the Pope even more! What is wrong with people?

Listen, sex and porn can't solve everything. (Oh, don't get me wrong. They can solve a lot of things, if only temporarily! But they can't solve everything and they certainly can't solve this.) And look, if you're a porn star and that's what you do, well, OK then. I guess. But really, you're going to have to do your porn stuff away from all of the priest and Pope stuff. Just leave the priests and the Pope out of the porn. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd write.) Porn and Popes don't mix. Ever.

Sphere: Related Content