Sphere: Related Content
Hey, hiker boy. Yeah, you. And your two dimwitted hiker friends who like to hike right next to the Iranian border. Yeah, you guys. I have a question for you. You all seem pretty down on the United States and its policies toward Iran. Actually, you all seem pretty down on the United States in general. (Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of any of the wars. (I've lost count. Are there still just the two or are we counting our NATO involvement over there in Libya as three?) I don't think that the U.S. is perfect and/or flawless. But I'm not so disgusted with it that I'm going to run off and go live in and sing the praises of Syria for cryin' out loud.) You made it VERY clear that you were held in Iran for as long as you were because you were Americans. (Dumbass Americans, but Americans none the less.) You made it sound like the policies of the United States were your ONLY enemy during your situation that you got yourself into. You made it sound like if only the U.S. had done things differently in regard to its stance with Iran that things would have turned out differently for you. Why then is it that everyone went to great lengths to hide the fact that you, Josh Fattal, are Jewish?
what they do in the name of their religion (Islamic extremists, I'm talking to you), but other than that, have at it! I don't care and I don't understand people who do care. But you know who cares? You know who really, really cares if you're Jewish? That's right. Ol' Ahmadinejad (I'm a Dinner Jacket) of Iran. He's not a fan of the Jew. Or of the Israel. He has infamously said that he'd like to see Israel wiped off the map. (And for those of you sticklers out there, the actual quote was "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." Yes, I realize that there's nothing in there about a map, per se. But tell me that doesn't mean the same thing. He does not like them.)
So it wasn't until after all of the wayward hikers had been released from Iranian custody that the word gets out that Josh Fattal is Jewish and that it was purposely kept under wraps while he was in prison. (Can I just say that I am amazed that any secret can be kept these days, especially when it involves a story/person in the news.) Now, why would that be an important thing to keep secret if the only reason that they were being held is because they were Americans and because of U.S. foreign policies? Oh, could it be because Dinner Jacket is a lunatic and if he were to find out that Josh was Jewish that he might never be let go? Yeah, that sounds more like it.
Look, all I'm trying to point out is how intellectually dishonest those three are being with themselves and with others in regard to what they "believe". If they truly believed that they were being held simply because they were pawns, then wouldn't they have believed that it should be OK for it to have been known that Josh is Jewish? You'd think. But obviously, since that information was suppressed (and I totally believe that it should have been), there are other components at work here than simply the nationality of a prisoner or the foreign policies of the countries of origin of the prisoners. They're dealing with a country that is run by a man who may or may not be a lunatic. You really can't get into a lot of "reasons" why things happen when that's the case.
I don't know exactly why this particular story has really ticked me off. Maybe it's because these three seem to be so ungrateful for what people in this country have done for them. Maybe it's because they seem to be so ungrateful for this country in general. Maybe it's because this story is treated in the news as if something horrible had happened to these three that was out of their control. (If you didn't know the whole story and you listened to the recaps, you might be under the impression that they were snatched from their beds in Berkeley and taken to Iran for two years. That's because all of the reporters always use their "Something bad that was completely uncontrollable has happened" voices when reporting this.) I don't know, but I think I'm done with it for a little while. I'm at least maybe going to wait until they start making the talk show rounds before I go off again. Look forward to something that is not this tomorrow.
Sphere: Related Content
I'm warning you right now: This entire post is kind of based solely on a technicality. There's no implied meaning behind any of it. I'm just pointing something out. That's all. Don't blame the messenger. And don't accuse me of being pedantic. I just find it interesting. Barely interesting, but interesting none the less. 
to go down in flames. The study/survey that the Pentagon did was finally concluded and it showed that about 70% of folks that are currently serving said that they would not have a problem serving with other folks who are gay. Seventy percent is a pretty good majority, don't get me wrong, but I find it interesting that it wasn't higher than that. I'm not sure what it means, but I'd like to know. Sadly, I doubt that there is actually any way of knowing, so I'm just going to leave it at 70% said "OK", so woo-hoo! Or something like that. 
And here's where I point out a technicality that I haven't seen addressed yet. Everyone keeps reporting that the Senate has voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Usually, when something is repealed, that means that it goes back to how it was before. For example, the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment which had instated Prohibition. After the Twenty-First Amendment had passed, things went back to how they were before the Eighteenth Amendment had been enacted. That is, alcohol was once again legal, just as it had been before Prohibition.
By calling the vote in favor of discontinuing the US Armed Forces policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", isn't that implying that things in the military will go back to how they were before DADT was implemented? That really doesn't help folks who are gay and want to serve openly, as before DADT, the policy was that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all.
mention of whether or not someone is gay or not? Because if they simply boot out DADT, without new rules, what is to stop it from reverting right back to what it was before? Yeah, see, that's the question that I don't see answered anywhere. Not one single news source that I have read or heard or seen has addressed what the effect is going to be on gay soldiers and those who are gay who want to sign up. And of course, no one mentioned that before DADT, those who are gay couldn't serve at all. They act like DADT is so constrictive and repressive. Uh, it was a little more restrictive before DADT, don't you think?
Sphere: Related Content
You'd think that I'd be happier, what with the election finally over. Finally, I can have the TV on for more than 5 minutes without being bombarded with an ad by Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown telling me why their version of hell is better than their opponent's. But I'm irritated. I started perusing the Innerwebs this morning and just found idiocy after idiocy. Let's review. 
parade in San Francisco for the World Champion San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series in most excellent fashion on Monday. When describing the size of the massive crowd, the article read: "Those arriving in downtown San Francisco -- where police officers gave crowd estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1 million -- were greeted by gigantic orange and black balloons that bobbed on the traffic signals."
much, as I do kind of like what she tends to write. She was probably just having an off day. The point here is that the article focuses on the folks that Sarah Palin endorsed. The title of the article reads "Sarah Palin's Midterm Scorecard: A Winning Record, but Some Key Losses". In essence, it goes on to detail how Sarah Palin supported "...more than 100 conservative candidates during the primary and general elections." Um, OK. I guess she can do that being how she's being whatever it is that she's being these days. (I still haven't quite figured that out yet.) It then goes on to say, "A Politics Daily tally puts Palin's Tuesday successes at 62 wins, 23 losses and seven contests that are still too close to call, with Palin's candidates trailing in five of those races." 
and 7 undecided. That's 92! That's not more than 100. What gives? On top of that, what makes these "wins" or these "losses" Sarah Palin's to absorb? Aren't there a lot of people out there who would support just about any conservative candidate, no matter how wacky they appeared (Christine O'Donnell, I'm talking about you)? I think there are. Since when did the wins and the losses of the conservative candidates fall squarely on the shoulders of Sarah Palin? She's a former half-term governor who once spent a couple of months running for Vice President! (And don't get me wrong. For the most part, I like Sarah Palin. But her endorsement of someone certainly isn't gold by any means and it shouldn't be construed as such.)
a human, it is made into some sort of sensationalistic news, as if something like that is so shocking and so unheard of that we should all just be in a state of disbelief that it ever occurred. Take this headline from The Huffington Post: "Peter Evershed KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe." Um, yes. I would imagine that five lions WOULD kill a man. 
To begin, I get thoroughly annoyed when the media runs the name of some person afflicted by tragedy in a way that makes the reader feel as if something horrendous has happened to someone that they knew. Does anyone know who Peter Evershed was, other than people who actually knew him? No. He was a 59-year-old businessman from Zimbabwe. But the headline makes the reader initially feel as if they've just read "Brad Pitt KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe". (And, in this example, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Brad to have actually been in Zimbabwe. He could have been over there buying another child to complete his collection. They don't have one from Zimbabwe yet, do they?) 
they're given the chance. It's a big piece of meat! Why is that so shocking to people? Or maybe it's only shocking to the media. I'm not sure. But in another example of the inexplicable shock that this article tries to convey is when they quote some Zimbabwe guy as saying, "We appeal to everyone to exercise extreme caution. Animals have become extremely unpredictable." Wait. What now?
Have become? Animals have become unpredictable?! They're animals! Aside from that, since when is a wild animal eating human considered "unpredictable"? Seems pretty predictable to me. If you showed anyone a picture of a human standing in the wild with a bunch of lions walking around and you asked that person to guess what might be about to happen, I'd guess that nine times out of ten (with the tenth being the moron who wrote the article) the person you are asking would correctly infer that the chap in the picture is about to become lion lunch! HOW is that unpredictable?!
Sphere: Related Content
In another example of a company caving into allegedly "offending" a consumer (or potential consumer, I guess), we have a brewing company being informed by some overly sensitive individuals that their label was offensive and contained am image that should not be tolerated in our society anymore. Note: The person was a Wiccan astrologist and "healer". (Translation: She fancies herself a witch.) Side note: The image on the beer bottle was of a "witch" being burned at the stake. Wait. What now?
capitalism isn't the focus of this tale. No, it's that there was a drawing of a person seemingly being burned at the stake with throngs of onlookers gathered 'round. THAT was the nugget of contention that Ms. Noble had with the beer. In her email she wrote: "Can you imagine them showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person going to the oven?...Such images are simply not tolerated in our society anymore (thank the Goddess) and this one should not be, either." Oh, for cryin' out loud.
You know what the difference is between showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person "going to the oven" and the depiction of someone being burned at the stake? The difference is that the first two might stir up some outrage because they actually happened. Witches being burned at the stake did not happen! You'd think that someone who claimed herself to be a witch would know that.
allegedly offensive when it isn't even real? First of all, it's a drawing. It's not like there was a really nice color photo taken at the fiery event that was plastered on the bottle there. No, someone drew that. Second of all, witches that were tried during the Salem witch trials (which is what I'm assuming that she is wrongly referring to with all of her misplaced outrage) were generally hanged. I think that there were only around sixteen of them (not the gazillions like people have been led to believe) and they weren't burned at the stake. They were hanged. And finally, witches aren't real! Good Lord. 
But what do you think the Port Brewing Company, of which Lost Abbey is a division, did? You got it. Instead of saying, "Tough witches teats" they instead will "...spend thousands of dollars to change the label." ::: sigh ::: What is wrong with you people? 
spokesman, a one Sage Osterfeld, said that "complaints flooded the brewery, accusing Port Brewing Company...of "inspiring violence against women. . . . We have been compared to the violence in Darfur." Oh, for Christ's sake! Are they burning people at the stake in Darfur? No? Then that's not a very good comparison then, is it? And it isn't crap like the labels on beer bottles that inspires violence against women. There are plenty of things that do inspire violence of all sorts, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that beer bottle labels are NOT one of them. And I'd really like to know how many complaints "flooded the brewery". Ten? Regardless, if these people weren't loyal consumers of your brand, who gives a fat rat's ass? They can complain all they want; it's not like it's going to hurt sales or anything. 
Port Brewing Company, I am deeply saddened by your actions. There is no reason why you should have had to change your awesome label. Why couldn't you have just told those who were all fake outraged that you were sorry? What did you think was going to happen if you didn't change the label? Were you afraid that they would cast a spell upon you? Psst! I'm going to let you in on a little secret. That doesn't work! 
fake outrage over a non-existent issue, I would have been tempted to go out and buy up your wonderful beverage by the truckload. But now? Now, not so much. Now I just see you as another cowardly company (not that I had ever heard of your before today, mind you, but I'm just saying) who would rather give power to the undeserving rather than stand up for what is right. I won't be buying any of your beverages in the future. Do you think that changing your label is going to make all of those "witches" flock to buy your product? I think not. Good choice, though. Reeeaaaalllly good choice.
Sphere: Related Content
I need for November to hurry up and get here so that everyone can freaking vote and will stop being subjected to the incessant barrage of campaign ads and literature which are seemingly endless. After that, then I need for January to hurry up and get here so that Arnold Schwarzenegger can get the heck out of the office of the governor of California and go about trying to get some cushy job in the Obama administration (which seems to be what he's angling for lately, even though he hasn't said anything about it). Not that his replacement is going to be any better, mind you. We're faced with the abhorrent choices of either Meg Whitman (who has already spent over $108 million of her own money, so you can only imagine how she'll be pissing away mine if she's elected) or Jerry Brown (who might be in the early to middle stages of dementia, depending on the time of day and if he's speaking publicly or not). But I'm so ready to get rid of the Governator right now that either one almost looks appealing. 
heard him talk, you know what his first priority and his first love is. Laughter. That man loves to tell a joke. Making an audience laugh is what he seemingly lives for. He thrives on one-liners. His enormous face just lights up if he can make a crowd laugh with one of his silly jokes. Like back in May, when he was at Emory University in Atlanta to give the commencement speech, and he said, "I was also going to give a graduation speech in Arizona this weekend, but with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me." Or in July when he said that "...while BP appears to have contained the Gulf oil leak...no one has figured out how to contain Mel Gibson.” Oh, yeah. He's a riot. 
If the state wasn't in the complete s***hole that it is (that could say sinkhole; you don't know), I don't know that I'd give a fat rat's ass what he does or said. But the state isn't exactly thriving, so I guess that's why he irritates me so much lately. And after I read that he was on his way to Asia, the irritation continued. I guess he's going over there to bid on having the World Expo in California in 2020. Whatever. We have problems NOW, Arnold! There a little thing called a 19 billion dollar budget deficit that needs tending to now! (Just four more months. Just four more months. Just four more months.)
Sphere: Related Content
Look, we all know that there are people out there who are a-holes. And the best defense against said a-holes is to keep away from them. You know them when you see them, so just stay away. And while that is perfectly logical rule of thumb to follow, that sort of logic seems to just go right out the window when it comes to Facebook. 
know or perhaps don't even know at all, chances are good that the other person (the one whom they don't know, that is correct) will accept their "friend request" and allow them access to their sequestered Facebook world. This is something that I do not understand. It may be that I don't get it because I don't feel the need to boost my own ego with a falsely inflated friend count. Currently I have 42 friends on my Facebook page and I have some sort of a personal relationship with every one of them. Even so, from time to time I find myself wondering what in the hell I'm doing with 42 friends and briefly perusing them to see if there's anywhere that I can cut back. (I haven't found anyone yet. Nice work, guys. Keep it up!) 
Look, having people that you don't really know on your Facebook page means that you could be electronically fraternizing with psychopaths, serial killers, child molesters and the list goes on. I highly doubt that is the case in most instances, but what I will guess is the case in most instances is that you're electronically fraternizing with morons. Mouth breathing, paste eating morons. 
old Rebecca Davey of Southend, Essex (that's in England) and her small child, Ollie (cute name). According to the folks across the pond at the Mail Online, Rebecca had posted a picture on Facebook of her child, the previously aforementioned Ollie, with an unlit cigarette in his mouth. Behold! 
OK, part of me sees that picture and the first thing that part thinks is "Awww..." Then the other part of me sees that picture and wonders if that first part of me should have been thinking "Awww..." Whether I should have thought "Awww..." or not, I know what I most certainly should not have been thinking. What I shouldn't have been thinking was, "Oh, my God! I have to call the police!" Wait. What? 
Correct. According to the article Rebecca "...was reported by online friends who spotted the picture of baby Ollie." What I find most disturbing about that, other than all of it, is the part where it appears to be plural. Plural. As in 'more than one'. More than one person who acted like a Deutschbank and called the cops because the kid had an unlit cigarette in his mouth. Are you kidding me? What is wrong with you people? 
hope/assume that Rebecca 'friended' a bunch of people on Facebook that she didn't actually know. People that you don't' actually know are more likely to act like morons than people that you do know, especially when it comes to being sanctimonious and calling the cops for something as harmless as a photo of a baby with an unlit cigarette in his mouth. Those people, those self-congratulatory, pious, judgmental individuals are the ones that were the problem. I'm hoping that if she had only kept people that she actually knew on her Facebook that this wouldn't have happened because when people actually know you they don't tend to go running off to the police for something as asinine as this. Granted, having a photo of your kid with a cigarette plastered on Facebook probably isn't the best idea anyone has ever come up with, but it shouldn't result in having the cops come to your house for a welfare check on the kid. 
immediate concerns' for the child's welfare. Social services also made inquiries." See? Just because you've got a cute little picture of a child with tobacco doesn't mean that you're a bad mother. Rebecca later posted "Why Would SomeOne Do That To Me U Ollie No was taking U Yur Mine for lyfee Darlinggg Mummy Loves You :)" There you have it. If you're going to turn this chick in for anything, what say you make it to the Grammar Police or something. But if you're going to make your life available on Facebook, what say you only 'friend' people that you know and lessen the chances that you're going to have some moron go running off to the cops because they have deemed your parenting skills to be less than able. After all, there's a reason why it's called "friending". Think about it.
Sphere: Related Content
Wow. Six days into the new year and I've already come across the first human being that I want to just go away. That's right. Away. I want for this person to go away and to never be heard from again for the rest of the year. Hey, it's only 359 days. I don't think that's unreasonable. By the way, the abhorrent individual that I'd like banished from the planet is Tila Tequila. 
for being a media whore, from what I can figure out. She managed to land a "reality show" (and in reality, it was quite a show all right. It was a show of exactly how low a human being can actually stoop for the purpose of being on TV at some point in their existence) on MTV called "A Shot at Love With Tila Tequila". Sounds classy, right? Oh, it was! It was your basic low-rent dating show, but to spice things up a bit, they made it all bisexual and stuff. So this chick had her choice of 12 or so male contestants and 12 or so female contestants. The episodes had scenes with titles such as Foam Party, Car Wash,Brandi & Rebecca Make Out and Brandi & Vanessa Shower. Oh, yeah. The epitome of classy. Can you say whoo-urr? 
So basically, what you have here is your basic chick who wants to be famous but has absolutely no talent what so ever, so she uses her body (and probably the Internet to a large degree, though I'm guessing the MTV gig didn't hurt) and the "allure" of her "bisexuality" to get her "famous". Whatever. I'd prefer she go to college or something like that, but something tells me that this chick is dumber than a box of hair. Being a TV whoo-urr might be all she's got. 
Johnson & Johnson fortune. People like Casey Johnson should not be heiresses. They're not very heiress like. And she was one of the ones who just could not control herself due to her societal standing or whatever you want to call it. Rich. The fact that she was ridiculously rich led her to have no desire what so ever to control herself in any fashion. To give you some idea as to this woman's character, according to the gawky folks over there at Gawker, somewhere around the 1st of December, Ms. Johnson was arrested "for grand theft after stealing fancy clothes and baubles from a supermodel ex...the thief stole jewelry, shoes, 600 pages of a legal document, clothing—even her underwear. The thief also left a bizarre calling card—a used vibrator was found in her bed and a wet towel was on the floor." See? What'd I tell you? Classy. Who does stuff like that? Who doesn't hang up their towel after they've used it to dry off? I will never understand folks like that. 
Is it going to come as any shock to you when I now tell you that Ms. Johnson is now dead. Correct. Dead. 30 years old and dead as a doornail. (I have no idea what that figure of speech means, but I threw it in to try and hit home that I don't give a fat rat's ass about any of the individuals in this tawdry ordeal.) As you can imagine, this came as quite a shock/surprise/(panic that she wouldn't have access to all of that money any more) for Ms. 
speaking, of course) and tweeted. What a twit. Look, I have this "rule" or whatever you want to call it for how people should act when someone dies. My "rule" is that you have free reign to act however you want to act while you deal with someone's death. You want to eat Chunky Monkey ice cream in the shower every morning because that helps you with your grief? Have at it. I won't say a word. But I think I'm going to have to amend my "rule" to "Do whatever you want except for tweet." That's my new rule. And that's why I need Tila 
The first tweet from the grief stricken Ms. 
Wait! Her love of pricacy (and/or privacy) only lasted six minutes that time! At 6:30pm she becomes completely confused and tweets: "I just got news that my fiance is not dead but currently in a coma!!! Omg please pray that she will make it! Hang in there my love please!!!" I'm not sure how one goes from being dead to being in a coma, but I'm going to guess that she was either looking for drama or grief strickenly confused. (Or completely at a loss as to how she's going to pay for anything now that her heiress sugar mama has departed. It's probably one of those.) 
At 6:33pm, Ms. 
At 7:02pm, 1 hour and 25 minutes after the first tweet in which she stated her desire for privacy (or pricacy, we're still not real sure about that) but yet still tweeted four more times, she tweets: "I'm still in shock! Once again thank U for the outpour of love and support. I just wish to have some privacy at this heartbreaking time." You can have your damn privacy AND your pricacy all you want, but you have to pipe down FIRST! 
drug problem and her family had cut off funds to her until she went to rehab and completed a stint. Ms.
Sphere: Related Content
