It's A President Eat Dog World Out There

For some reason, people have decided that now is a good time to bring up the fact that President Barry ate dog when he lived in Indonesia.  I can't possibly imagine how this is suddenly a revelation for some folks considering that this information was in his book "Dreams of my Father" which was published in 1995.  1995!  So, seventeen years ago, the guy writes about something that happened in his childhood which was a perfectly accepted practice for the culture that he was living amongst and NOW people want to make a big deal about it?  This can only mean that it's just going to get worse when the election starts to get closer.  But before things get worse, what say we just make fun of them in a fashion that really the Internet can do best, shall we?  I know!  Let's take pictures of various dogs in various poses and humorously caption them with references to President Barry's eating dogs almost fifty years ago.  Like this:  

 Or this:
 

We can always make it more interesting with The Most Interesting Man In The World:

Yes, we can?

And this  one is my favorite.  Mainly because I think that "Labradoodle" sounds funny.  Labradoodle. HA!  See?

How fun, right?  Yeah, whatever.  Can we let this go now?  Please.  There are eight gazillion things that need to be fixed right now and a bunch of yahoos are focusing on what President Barry had for dinner when he was four.  And you wonder why I think we're doomed?  That is why!

Sphere: Related Content

Male, Female, Neither Or Both

Hoo-boy. I have a full head of steam today. Let me tell you what. Good Lord. People have gone off the rails when it comes to trying to build their utopia where everything is just perfect for everything and every environment is perfectly welcoming and comfortable. And do you know which topic just makes those self-righteous morons feel really good about themselves? Gender issues and gender roles. (Mmm...gender rolls.) God, they just love those. But I think that Roosevelt Elementary School in San Leandro, California has gone a little too far. No, I take that back. They've gone completely over the edge.

Apparently, there was a letter that was send home with kids at some point. Here is a link to said letter which is entitled "Strategies for Re-Thinking and Discussing Gender Issues". Remember, this was sent home by the school. This is how the school thinks that gender issues should be dealt with. The school, presumably where children are, thinks these steps are a good idea. Keep that in mind because you're going to think that a radical crazy person in need of medication came up with these guidelines. Let's begin...

The first thing on the list is this: Be proactive in your conversations, bring up topics of gender and gender identity; don’t wait for your child to bring it up or for an experience or incident to talk about." Now, I don't know what sort of an "experience" or "incident" they're referring to here. They make it sound absolutely terrible. (And by the way, the word "don't" was bolded in their letter. They are apparently very serious about your not waiting. Boldly serious.) But what I think sounds even more terrible is the idea of just out of blue bringing up gender identity to your, say, six-year old. I think that when I was six, if my parents had started a conversation with me like "You know, you're a girl on the outside, but that doesn't mean that you're a girl on the inside. It's perfectly OK if you want to be a boy." I think I would have been really confused. (I also think I would have thought my parents were lunatics because, at six, girls ARE girls and boys ARE boys and that's just how it is.)

Here's another one: "When someone says something gender-biased (e.g. He is all boy! Look at all the energy he has!), take the opportunity to mention counter examples (e.g. One of the girls he plays with has even more energy than he does!). Seriously, what is the point of all of this? Is someone really afraid that people are going to think that ONLY boys are high energy? For God's sake. If someone ever said something like that to me, I think I'd have to politely ask them to never speak to me again. What are you people so afraid of? Who cares?! The thing is that no one comes away from a conversation which includes "He's all boy! Look at all his energy!" and thinks that only boy can have a lot of energy! NO ONE! No one thinks that, so stop with idiotic guidelines that are clearly only for scared, utopia building softheads.

Moving right along..."Question and explore your own biases. For example, how do you feel about boys wearing long hair? Girls who “dress like boys?” Girls playing football or boys wearing earrings or fingernail polish? What messages are you giving your child(ren) about how they and others express themselves?" Wait a minute. I said WAIT! Are they actually playing the long hair card in the year 2012?! And guys with earrings?! Are they really trying to get us to believe that people are simply befuddled by these developments? Are they saying that children are confused as to whether a guy with long hair is a boy or a girl? I don't think that they are! I really don't. Whose grandfather came up with this one?!

Next up: "Watch TV shows and ads and discuss with your child(ren): 1) How gender roles are portrayed; and 2) what messages are being sent. Is the mom always making cookies or dinner with the daughter and serving the boys? Are only boys playing with the Tonka trucks or Hot Wheels?" See, I just don't understand the premise of this. Are the children in question only watching Leave it to Beaver? Serving the boys?! Are you dry shaving me?!

This one might be my favorite: Mix up gender language when reading stories to your kids – especially with typically male dominated characters. For example, if the story is about a “boy” animal, mix it up and make the lion a girl. Consider adopting this strategy for the people in a story, too." These people do not read a lot of children's books. I know that because there are a lot of pictures in children's books. And male lions look very different from female lions. (Perhaps the lion community could benefit from these little guidelines because I certainly don't see how these are going to help people.) So now you're going to confuse your kid to where he can't identify a male lion. He'll see a lion with a big bushy mane and he'll say "That can be either a boy lion OR a girl lion." And someone will have to tell him, "No. You're an idiot. That's a boy." Do we really want future generations not being able to easily identify large cats in the wild?! Because that's what's going to happen!

But here's my most favorite. Seriously, I laughed out loud at this one: "Consider asking the adults around you what, if any, pronoun they would like you to use. Ask politely; it is not rude, but rather respectful. Try asking that of everyone you know as a way to bring the topic up in conversation. Start with people you would feel comfortable having the conversation with. You might explain that you are working to create a more gender inclusive environment for all people. This is particularly supportive for people who are questioning their gender or in the early stages of transition."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Ummm...what now? Ask adults...what...pronoun (pronoun, right?) I should use? Sooooo...like, "Hey, Bob. Nice to meet you. Listen, Bob....in the future, when I talk to other people about you, would you like me to refer to you as a he or a she or neither or both?" HOW is that "respectful"? It might not be "rude", but do you know what it is? Effing weird, that is correct! And I can only imagine that Bob would answer such an inquiry with, "It doesn't matter. We'll never speak again after a question like that." That's how I would be answering a question like that. And "Start with people you would feel comfortable having the conversation with."?! I don't think I'd EVER be comfortable asking someone what pronoun I should use when I meet them. Sure, I could explain that I am "working to create a more gender inclusive environment for all people", but that would likely lead to them responding that they are working to create a more lunatic excluded environment for all people. Wow.

These people who came up with these "guidelines" seem to be actively looking for something to be wrong when there really isn't a problem. It's like they want to have a world with all of these problems so that they can feel so danged good about themselves for "fixing" them. I got news for these yo-yos. These problems don't exist! They certainly don't exist on a massive, global scale as they would like you to believe. And I swear, I can't be held responsible for my actions if I meet someone and they ask me if I want to be referred to as he, she, it, all of the above or none of the above. We are so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Bad Example

No one likes homework. And you know what people like even less than homework? Homework where the word problems use slaves and slavery as an example. For reals.

Let's go down to Norcross, Georgia and head on over to Beaver Ridge Elementary School. It is there that we learn from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the math worksheet that some third graders received. Apparently, some dimwit teacher down there decided that it would be a good idea to use slavery as the basis for some of the word problems. That's right. Slavery. Now, I don't know how anyone could think that would be a good idea to begin with. It's not as if there aren't a gazillion appropriate topics to choose from in the first place. But that someone would actually knowingly go with the slavery reference is really a head scratcher. Nothing else sounded good, eh? Puppies? Flowers? Trucks? Decided to go with slaves, huh? All right then. Interesting choice. And just what were some of the questions. Well...

"Each tree had 56 oranges. If 8 slaves pick them equally, then how much would each slave pick?"

And...

"Frederick had 6 baskets filled with cotton. If each basket held 5 pounds, how many pounds did he have all together?"

And...

"If Frederick got two beatings per day, how many beatings did he get in 1 week?"

Let's see, two beating per day...is this your standard 5-day work week? What's that? Oh, right. Slaves. Yeah, so seven days. Time two beatings per day. That comes out to be the most ridiculous example that a particular educator could have chosen for a third grade math problem. For cryin' out loud, what is wrong with people?

And it's not just the person who put that on the worksheet whose sanity I'm questioning right about now. I'm also wondering about the mental status of the district spokeswoman, a one Sloan Roach, as she said, “Clearly, they did not do as good of a job as they should have done." Well. That seems like a pretty dumbed down understatement if there ever was one. Oh, wait. No, I was wrong. This Roach person added, "It was just a poorly written question.” Really?! I don't know, I think that this involved something just a little bit more than just poor writing. Someone had to think of it first! That involves poor thinking! I love how this woman is just trying to blow this off as if someone forgot the "I before E except after C" rule.

(I do want to just interject here and say that I'm glad that none of the articles that I read about this referenced the race of anyone. I'm so glad that this didn't turn into a story about racism when it is clearly a story about stupidity. Just thought I'd mention that. Carry on.)

But it would seem that this sort of asinine thinking is common in that particular school district. I say that because, in regard to what is going to be done about this, "...district officials said the elementary school's principal will "work with teachers to come up with more appropriate lessons." Work with the teachers?! Are you kidding me?! I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that if the teacher can't figure out on their own that it is inappropriate (at the very least) to include slavery references in math problems, then I don't think that they can be helped. Seriously, that seems like the most basic of all basic common sense things that you would have to noodle through at some point as a teacher. I don't know that they have enough gray matter to work with. Give them some severance pay and send them on their way. Perhaps direct them to a nice community college. Or a store that sells helmets. But you can't teach a pig to sing. It frustrates you and annoys the pig.

Sphere: Related Content

The Stupidest Thing of 2012 So Far

Wow. It is only January 2nd and I have already read the stupidest thing I've read all year. And it's quite possible that it's going to win out as the stupidest thing that I read all year. The thing is that I really can't tell where the stupidity arises from. I don't know if it's from the person who wrote the article (please note my omission of the word 'journalist) or if the article was written in such a way as to appeal to the sort of soft headed moron that might be reading it. Whatever it is, there is so much wrong with it that it's hard to know where to begin. But let's see what I can do.

According to the huffy folks over yonder at The Huffington Post, President Barry has signed the defense bill "despite serious reservations". Now while that may sound idiotic, I'm guessing that the reason that he ended up signing the thing is because, like all other bills, there was a whole bunch of crap in there that had nothing to do with defense that needed to be pushed through. And actually, that part of how bills are drawn up in Washington is completely asinine. Why there is stuff in a defense bill that has to do with unemployment benefits is beyond me. But as ridiculous as all of this is, that's not the stupidest part yet.

No, that honor goes to this part of the article: "Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

You have GOT to be kidding me. President Barry just signed a bill that allows for the government to detain American citizens as long as they want to for whatever reason they want (or don't want) to have and I'm supposed to feel better because he said that he isn't going to do that?! Please, someone, anyone, tell me that the last part was not actually uttered and included in his justification for signing this thing as a way to make anyone feel better. Do these people realize that Barack Obama is not our king? Do they realize that eventually, whether it be this year or four years from now, someone else will be President of the United States? Do they realize that any and all future Presidents can use that authority regardless as to whether President Barry says that he will or will not? Do they realize that if that law is on the books (and it is) that someone will one day use it?! Why am I the only one flipping out over this?!

See, this isn't one of those things where the brain dead argument of "If I'm not doing anything wrong then I don't have anything to worry about" doesn't come into play at all. That's the exact problem with this law! You don't have to be doing anything wrong to have something to worry about. All you need to have is some overzealous a-hole in a position to detain you and that's it. You're screwed. You're indefinitely screwed. If that doesn't chill you to your very core then might I suggest moving somewhere a bit more oppressive than the United States? North Korea, perhaps? You'll love it there.

I cannot believe that President Barry went ahead and signed that bill with that new law in it. What good is our Constitution if there can be federal laws enacted that will essentially strip away all of our rights that are guaranteed to us under said Constitution? And while I'm mad at President Barry, I'm absolutely appalled at Congress, as voted something like 94-6 in favor of this provision. All of those people who voted for this need to be thrown out of their office on their ass as soon as possible. For God's sake, please do not vote in November to re-elect any of these jokers that are currently in office and making decisions like this. Lord only knows what they'll come up with next time.

Sphere: Related Content

Ungrateful Christmas Tweets

Well, Christmas is over and that means it's time to scour Twitter to see how many people are out there that I want to have eradicated from the planet. I'm not a huge fan of Twitter to begin with. I think it has something to do with the fact that when you can only have 140 characters and everything that people write consists of too many abbreviations and misspellings. Seriously, I could do without ever again seeing a word that ends with a 'Z' instead of the 'S'. (It's NOT cool! It makes you look like an illiterate dimwit.) Anyway, here is a compilation of some of the post-Christmas tweets from the most ungrateful members of our species. Seriously, it is stuff like this that makes me build the wall around my walled off compound even higher. (I know that it's too small to read, but if you click on this link and then click on the image that the link takes you to, you'll be able to see all of this asininity in its full fledged glory. Try not to stab yourself when you're done reading. Oh, and congratulations if you actually make it to the end of the tweets. I almost didn't.)

Sphere: Related Content

There's A Class For That?

I heard something mentioned today that I didn't think could possibly be true. With a little perusing of the Innerwebs, however, I discovered that it WAS in fact true. And that's when I realized just how ridiculous things have gotten.

See, I heard that part of Lindsay Lohan's sentence (for whatever her most recent shenanigans were that saw her appear in court) is to attend (wait for it) anti-shoplifting classes. What the hell are those?! Anti-shoplifting? You need an entire class to work on that concept?! How does that work?! If the class is any longer than how long it takes to say "Don't steal from stores", I'm going to need more information. Anti-shoplifting classes. Wow. Just wow.

Sphere: Related Content

Who Cares WHERE He Found It?!

Here's a story that I don't understand at all. I feel like I'm missing an integral part of the whole thing because it doesn't make a lick of sense. It starts out cool and then becomes unbelievably ridiculous. I guess I'm just amazed at some of the opportunities in which certain people choose to be incredible jackasses. In this case, the jackasses seem to be the Rolling Meadows Police Department who got their uniforms in a wad when someone lied about where they found seventeen thousand dollars that they turned in.

According to the story in the Chicago Tribune, a one 54-year old Robert Adams "...found a Chase

Bank bag full of cash totaling about $17,000 near a Walgreens ATM in Midlothian". (By the way, I'm guessing that all of these places are somewhere around Chicago. It's their Tribune, after all.) Holy canoli! Seventeen grand! That's a lot of cheese. I have to admit that if I found that sum of money, I would be giving some serious thought to what I would be doing with it. I'd like to think that I'd do the right thing, but would I really? I have no idea. But for some reason, this guy, Mr. Adams, "...drove to Rolling Meadows and turned in the bag at a Chase Bank." OK. I don't get that, but at least he turned it in. It's seventeen grand, for cryin' out loud. What more do these people want? And apparently Mr. Adams "...later told police he found the cash outside a newspaper stand in Rolling Meadows."

OK, look, I don't know why he told the police that. But if it were my seventeen thousand dollars that I lost, I wouldn't give a fat rat's ass where someone SAID that they found it. Someone gives me my seventeen grand back and they can say that they found it wherever they want. Where they actually found it is the least of my concerns after I have received it back. Funnily enough, I'm like the only one who sees it this way because the police decided that he needed to be fined for his horrible misdeed. Wait. What now?

That's right. He was FINED $500 for filing a false report! And look, I don't know why he did it. According to him, he said "...he felt more comfortable turning the cash in to Rolling Meadows officials and filing the report with Rolling Meadows police." OK. I don't get that, but I'm OK with it. He says that "...It was a hot day and he just wanted to get home". I totally get that. Whatever. Seriously, who the hell cares WHERE he found it?! He RETURNED seventeen THOUSAND dollars and he was under NO obligation to do so. And he was really fined five hundred bucks?!

What is wrong with you people? Why couldn't that have just been let go? This is Illinois, where four of the last seven governors have ended up in JAIL for various convictions for corruption, bribery and the like. And they're going to get all bent out of shape and actually fine someone $500 for returning a boatload of money but not being totally honest about where he found it because he said it was hot outside?! Note to self: If ever running across large sums of wayward cash whilst in Illinois, keep for self. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT turn it in...especially if it's hot outside.

Sphere: Related Content

The Money Shot

So Anthony Weiner sent the money shot. That's right. He sent a relatively unobscured photo of his genitalia to some chick via his cellular telephone. That's right. It's a telephone that also takes pictures. And it sends those pictures to other people whether they want them or not! What a great time to be alive! Or not. I'm kind of starting to think that it's the latter.

He kind of has to resign now, doesn't he? I mean, now that it has come out that he has been sending pictures of his naked manhood to college girls that he met online via Twitter (of all things), can he really still be a member of Congress? I think that's really the question. And it bothers me that I don't have a freaking answer.

On the one hand, he's obviously a total perv. But what if he is a perv who gets the job that he was elected to do done? Should it matter than he's a total perv? I don't really know if it should, but I know that it does. Shouldn't there be some sort of moral standard for our elected officials? And I don't think I'm being all that radical by suggesting that one of those standards be NOT taking pictures of your junk and texting it to people. No, wait. Let me revise that. I don't think that I'm being all that radical by suggesting that one of those standards be to NOT GET CAUGHT doing whatever it is that you do with your various body parts.

Private lives are supposed to be private, just the same way that private parts are supposed to be private. Look, what you do with your weiner in your own time is your own business. Take as many pictures of it as you want. Put different little hats on it or dress it up for special occasions. I really don't care. But I sure don't want to know about it! The day I get a picture on my phone of some guy's wang with a little bowler hat and a necktie on it (where the tie would go if it HAD a neck) is the day when that person is forever after declared a perv and and idiot. He could have avoided both labels by just not getting caught OR by simply not doing something so freaking weird.

If you're interested in the money shot, you can click here and it will take you there. But remember, it's a shot of an erect penis. Do I really need to shout that it is NSFW? It's not safe for work. It's not safe for home. It's not safe for anywhere! (How did he get that angle? Is there a timer on the camera on his phone? I'm so confused.)

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, No They Don't

I've gotta say that I'm kind of surprised at the restraint that almost all of the news and tabloid outlets have shown by not publishing a photo of Arnold's newly announced illegitimate child that he fathered with his maid at his house when he was cheating on his wife and the mother of his four legitimate children, the lovely Maria Shriver. If only some of the media could refrain from making idiotic comparisons and/or analogies, then we might very well be on our way toward some responsible reporting of an issue that really kind of doesn't matter. But no. Leave it to ABC to ruin the very, very short streak that we were on. I present to you THEIR way of framing the story. Behold! Utter crap!

Good Lord. Really? Who thought that was a good idea? Well, over at ABC, it would be the director of Yale University's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic, a one Dr. Alan E. Kazdin, as he is actually quoted using the phrase "This event is like a personal 9/11." I know that 9/11 was almost ten years ago, so I'm guessing that he WAS, in fact, around for the events that took place on that day. That's why I'm so perplexed as to why anyone would make such an idiotic statement. ( was about to say "And he's a doctor!" Then I realized that might actually shed some light on his thinking patterns as opposed to confusing me even more. He should step out of his ivory tower once in a while and see how the real world thinks of 9/11. Because while it's thought of in a lot of ways, one of those ways is not when your husband/father turns out to be a lying, cheating, seed-spreading scumbag. It sucks, but it doesn't 9/11 suck.

Sphere: Related Content

I Understand

I'm certainly not saying that people should WANT to kill us. I'm merely saying that I think I understand. It's like what Chris Rock says about OJ Simpson. "So you gotta think about OJ's situation: $25,000 a month, another man drivin' his car, f***in' his wife, in a house he's still payin' a mortgage on. Now, I'm not sayin' he should have killed her...but I understand." So, when I hear the evil doers rant about how much they hate the United States, how we are the infidels, how they want to kill Americans....and then see websites like the one called Who is Osama?...I understand.
Basically, it's a Tumblr site with screen caps of tweets that folks have twat after our troops shot Osama bin Laden in the eyes and sent him to live in a pineapple under the sea. (Credit to Jon Stewart for the basis of that joke.) And the number of people who had NO CLUE as to who this a-hole was simply amazed me. And since my Photoshopp-y computer is still out of commission, I'll just copy and paste some text to give you a small sample of what kind of pinheads are out there. (Don't freak out about the lack of capitalization or punctuation. That's how these twits communicate. We are so doomed.) Try not to be afraid. Just build that wall around your house higher and higher.

"who is osama bin laden that everyone seems to be going on about?!" That one actually got a reply. Unfortunately, it was: "was just about to tweet exactly the same question! i have no idea. :L x" I don't know what that emoticon is. I don't want to know. Please don't tell me.

"Im being really stupid here, who is Osama Bin Laden? Should i know who he is?" That was also responded to. Someone replied: "i dont hAve a clue!:Lxx" I don't know why only the A is capitalized. I don't want to know. Please don't tell me.

"Wait who is osama bin laden again? I thought he got hung like 4 years ago? Considering i do geography i should reeeally know this kinda thing". Yes. Considering you "do geography" you really should know this kinda thing.

See what I mean? I'm not saying I agree with the terrorists, but sometimes, just sometimes, I understand.

Sphere: Related Content

Idiocy In The Wake Of Victory

Things like the killing of Osama Bin Laden always result in good things and bad things. Good things would be stuff like Jon Stewart said. "...we shot him in the eyes and now he lives in a pineapple under the sea." Bad things would be the drivel that some NFL player named Rashard Mendenhall had to say.

Mendenhall plays for the Steelers. After the death of Weird Beard was announced, Mendenhall did what so many celebritards feel compelled to do these days...he took to Twitter to tweet. And what did he twat, you ask? He twat: "What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We've only heard one side..." Wait. What now?

I heard him speak plenty of times! Whenever he would release one of those poorly made videotapes in which the subject was "Death to America" and "Death to the infidels". I did hear him speak. I heard him speak of killing Americans. And I don't know that when someone says that they want to kill us that I need to hear "the other side". Besides, isn't HE the other side? When 3,000 people are killed, I don't think I need another side.

But his tweeting didn't stop there! Why would you think that it would! Why would you think that he would stop such ridiculous ramblings right there? Someone who thinks that is likely someone with a lot more to say. And he didn't disappoint. He followed his initial insanity up with: "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style." Oh, God.

So, he's one of those. And by "those" I mean "morons". I know the NFL is trying to be more vigilant with following up with players with concussions. Perhaps they might want to start with this guy. Give him a good and thorough CAT scan. Maybe an MRI just to be on the safe side. Oh, and show him some footage of September 11, 2001. That might help him understand how a plane could take a skyscraper down. Demolition style.

Sphere: Related Content

More Depressing Poll Results

Well, yesterday I posted what I thought were the most depressing poll results ever. Today, I have equally depressing poll results to share with you. The only good news that I have is that these poll results came from the exact same place that yesterday's poll results came from. Thus, we can hold out a sliver of hope that it's just asshats that read the NY Daily News that feel this way. But really, I'm hoping that what Scott said yesterday was true and that Skynet thing becomes self aware and kills us all.

Back to the NY Daily News where we learn about how New York is making all sorts of new regulations for summer camps. You remember summer camp, don't you? If you're like me, you probably look back on summer camp much more fondly than you did when you were actually in attendance. Oh, don't get me wrong, camp was OK. But it certainly wasn't the best thing that ever happened to me. (I'm still waiting for the best thing to ever happen to me to finally freaking happen. I hope it's not much longer. I don't know how much more I have left in me after reading stories like this one.) The point is that there were lots of games at summer camp. And since New York is now regulating summer camp, those games will be no more. Why? Because they're too dangerous, of course.

What sort of games were they offering that put children's lives in peril? Why, games such as (brace yourself) freeze tag, Wiffle Ball, kickball, dodgeball, Capture the Flag, Steal the Bacon and Red Rover are "...deemed dangerous in new state regulations for day camps." Freeze tag is dangerous?! They do know that no one actually gets frozen, right? This isn't some sort of cryogenic camp. Who is doing this and why? According to the article it is the Health Department. "The Health Department created a list of supposedly risky recreational activities - which also includes more perilous pursuits like archery, scuba and horseback riding - in response to a state law passed in 2009." Umm, wait. What summer camp offers scuba diving? And archery is ONLY dangerous if you stand in front of the target. (And if you are standing in front of the target, I'm kind of thinking that you deserve to get shot with an arrow. I guarantee you that it would only happen once.)

It would appear that "The state Camp Directors Association backed the 2009 law, and Health Department spokeswoman Diane Mathis said the list of risky activities was crafted with help from camp groups." Risky activities. That would be fine if they actually included risky activities in their list. Wiffle ball isn't risky! Oh, and if you're wondering what they don't think is risky, that would include Frisbee, tug of war and sack races. Sack races?! There's a risky activity! Trying to hop around in a burlap sack? That never ends well. How did sack races make the list but Red Rover has to go? Because people are morons, that's how.

Now, they did interview two fairly reasonable people who agreed that banning these activities was ludicrous. But, they also interviewed one softheaded individual, a one Kim Wainwright (whose head, I'm assuming, is softer than melted butter), who has a 5-year old and who said, "Kids these days are kinda brutal so I can see those games being dangerous...I agree with it." No mention of teaching kids not to be "kinda brutal". No mention of the games not being dangerous in the first place! Just don't let them do it. Don't try to help them have fun. Don't try to teach them that getting hurt is a part of life. Just don't let them do it. Good Lord....

And my frustration doesn't end with just her. No, I did something that I shouldn't have. Why couldn't I have just learned from my experience yesterday and not taken the poll? Why? I don't know either, but I did. I took the poll. Here is the question: "Do you agree with the Health Department that Wiffle Ball, kickball and Red Rover are dangerous?" Here are your choices (even though you know how it's going to turn out):

Yes, kids could get seriously hurt playing them.

No, they're childhood classics that every kid can enjoy.

I'm too stupid to make a rational decision on this issue. (Again, I made that up and the real choice was "I don't know"."

I hope you're sitting down because eighty seven percent answered "Yes, kids could get seriously hurt playing them." Eighty-seven percent. Eighty-seven percent think that kids shouldn't play kickball or dodgeball or freeze tag because they might get hurt. Eighty-seven percent. We're scroomed. So completely scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Here's An Explanation

We finally have some clarification on Jon Kyl's statement that wasn't intended to be factual. I would be referring to his ridiculous statement about Planned Parenthood when he said that about 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions. In reality, about 3 percent of the Planned Parenthood agenda is abortions. See, when I do the math, that's a pretty big difference. But when that difference was pointed out to Jon Kyl, it was justified by the simple explanation of "that wasn't intended to be a factual statement". (And at first, I got really excited when I heard that because I thought that a politician was finally admitting that he spews crap on purpose. Yeah, but that wasn't what he meant. He was just a moron.) Well, now we have an explanation for the explanation! Don't get too excited, though. It's still lame.

According to the political folks over there at Politico, when "Asked if he regretted the flap, Kyl said Thursday: "I misspoke when I said what I said on the floor – and I said so." And look, I don't know if he said so or not. What I know is that he said 90 percent when it was 3 percent and then someone else said that it wasn't supposed to be the truth. What I also know is that the difference between 3 percent and 90 percent is a little bit more than just "misspeaking". It's kind of like the difference between one's ass and a hole in the ground. No word on whether or not Senator Kyl has been asked about either one of those. But then he was asked about the explanation that his statement was "...not intended to be a factual statement". His reply? "That was not me - that was my press person." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

I really wish that whoever asked him about that explanation had followed it up with "Is that person still your press person?" Because I don't know about you, but I know about me. And if it were me and if I had a press person who was idiotic enough to tell the press that when I speak, my statements are not intended to be factual?! Yeah, they'd be my ex-press person so fast that it would make their newly unemployed head spin. But I'm just going to guess that he's sticking with them. Probably because he was the one that told them to say that in the first place. I'm merely speculating here, of course. But at least it's me doing the speculating and not my press person.

Sphere: Related Content