But That's Not The Problem!

The other day there was a pre-season football game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders. It would have been fairly routine had it not been for the ridiculously high number of brawls. Oh, and that one guy that got shot a couple of times in the stomach. (To be fair, he did have a "F*** the 49ers" shirt on, so he kind of had it coming. I'm just sayin'.) That wasn't very routine at all. None of it was. And that's when everyone totally overreacted.

Because of all of these unfortunate incidents, do you know when the 49ers will be playing the Raiders again during pre-season? That's right. Never. According to the Miami Herald, "The 49ers will recommend to the NFL that their annual preseason games against the cross-bay rival Raiders be postponed". Because of a handful of a-holes? Wait. Are they really serious? Oh, they are. And here's what they say about this decision: "I don't think this is indicative of either of our fans. You have a very, very small percentage of a handful of people who ruin an experience for everyone else, and it's not going to be tolerated".

So, wait a minute. They know it's a very, very small percentage of a handful of people that are up to no good and their solution is to punish everyone. That's not really what I would call a rational decision. And it's completely unnecessary. The 49ers team president, Jed York, even said that all of the hubbub that erupted during and after the game "...is partly due to season ticket holders selling their seats to people who don't normally attend games." Thus, could their response to not continue this rivalry be any stupider? I don't think that it can.

There is stupidity that can be added to this, however. (There's always room for idiots!) "The 49ers will no longer allow tailgating during or after games". Right. Because that was the problem. The tailgating. Oh, wait! No. No, that wasn't it at all. In fact, that had NOTHING to do with it. So of course you can see why they will no longer allow it. There's nothing better than overreacting to solve something. Oh, wait. Yes, yes there are plenty of things better than overreacting. How about just realizing that sometimes, things happen? Or how about trying to figure out WHY they happen and then do something about THAT? Is it because things would actually change? And we can't have that now, can we? Apparently not.

Sphere: Related Content

Bully For You!

There's a video that's been making the rounds on the Innerwebs recently and I find it completely awesome. Essentially what we have is your typical school bullying situation, only this time, it's a little weasely kid picking on a much bigger kid. And the much bigger kid takes it...for a while. And when he's done taking it, he is done taking it. The picked on kid wrestles around with the little jackass for about all of four seconds before he gets a good enough grip on him to pick him up and body slam him into the ground. It's beautiful. I've watched it several times and it just doesn't get old. I think that my favorite part is watching the kid try and figure out how to stand up and walk again as he stumbles around in circles wondering what in the hell just hit him. And even better is how the picked-on kid just stands there for a minute and makes sure that he's done. He really could have let him have it some more. The little a-hole is lucky that he didn't get the real pounding that he had coming to him. But it's still a great thing to watch. Bullying isn't cool. I'm all for this approach to getting kids to stop. If the video below doesn't load or whatever, click here and watch it on YouTube.

Sphere: Related Content

The Girl Scout Scissor Stabbin' Badge

I think that we can all pretty much agree that Girl Scout cookies are freaking delicious. Just how delicious might be up to personal interpretation, but there isn't much denying that they're delicious. That they come around only once a year can be a bit stressful. You really need to ration your cookies and, more importantly, you really need to be prepared for when they are gone. Because when they are gone, that's it. They're really gone. Therefore, if you were expecting to still have some Girl Scout cookies left and found out that you suddenly had none, that could make an individual rather angry. I don't know if I could justify that it's the stabbing someone sort of angry, but angry none the less.

Let's go down to Flori-duh where this sort of crap seems to always be occurring and see what happened in the case of a one Hersha Howard. (Hersha? All right. I guess.) According to the folks over there at MSNBC, Ms. Howard noticed that her Thin Mints were gone. Eaten, if you will. She then "...confronted her sleeping roommate and accused her of eating the box of treats." Her roommate, a one Jasmin Wanke (Wanke? That's a pretty name.), told her that "... she'd given the cookies to Howard's kids, who were awake and hungry around 1 a.m." Huh. These folks seem to live a very different life than the one I currently live and the one that I grew up living. I'm sure that, as a small child, I was awake on occasion at 1 a.m. I'm also sure that I was never given Thin Mints cookies due to all of the being awake. Yeah, didn't happen. And I'm not sure why it's happening in this scenario, but I can take a guess. (Here's a hint: Responsible parenting does in no way factor into this equation.)

Well, the news of her eaten Thin Mints was apparently a bit too much for Ms. Howard to take. This is when Ms. Howard jumped on top of Ms. Wanke and began pummeling her in the face. Man, there is so much to like about this story! Oh, but wait! Did I mention that Ms. Howard is four hundred pounds? I didn't? I apologize. She's four hundred freaking pounds. It's amazing she could jump on top of anything, let alone a woman sleeping in bed. I've seen folks that appeared to be pushing the four hundred pound mark and they needed a Rascal scooter in order to become ambulatory. So I have to say that I am a little impressed that this big ol' gal was so mobile.

Now, they apparently fought on the bed for a little bit before Wanke's husband pulled Ms. Howard off of her. Wait. He's in the same bed as her and this chick just walks on in and starts asking about cookies? I don't know about you, but I'm thinking I'd prefer the man that I'm sleeping with to stop things a little bit before they got to this point. I'm thinking just a brief, "What are you doing in here?" followed by a short "Get out!" would be sufficient. But he let it get to the point where he had a four hundred pound woman in his bed on top of his wife. If it weren't for the four hundred pounds, it sounds like most guys' fantasy.

Ms. Wanke fled and Ms. Howard took off after her. Again, incredibly mobile for such a behemoth giant woman. She allegedly grabbed a pair of scissors and threatened to kill Ms. Wanke over the now consumed delicious Thin Mints. And like I said, I know that Thin Mints are good. They're really good. But are they scissor stabbin' good? I don't know about that. Then again, I don't know how good I'd really be at stabbing someone. I can barely get that little straw into the Capri Sun.

Ms. Howard chased Ms. Wanke down the stairs. That is when she dropped the scissors and picked up a board of some sort and struck Ms. Wanke with that. What sort of folks are these that they're feeding Thin Mints to their children at 1 a.m. and that they also have random pieces of lumber lying about? I'm also guessing that if a four hundred pound anything hits you with a board, that's going to leave quite a mark.

From there it was into the kitchen (a shocking locale for a four hundred pound individual to end up) where more fighting occurred and the husband had to separate the two of them once more. This husband is getting quite the workout. And to think he was just rudely awakened only moments ago! I don't know that I'd have it in me to do all of that right after I woke up. I'm not a morning person. Granted, this was the middle of the night, but I still wouldn't feel up to all of the running and separating and tackling that was taking place.

Following that separation, Ms. Wanke ran outside and was, naturally, followed by Ms. Howard. This time, Ms. Howard picked up some sort of a sign and wailed on Ms. Wanke with that for a while until she was tackled by Ms. Wanke's husband. That had to have been amusing. Some four hundred pound, completely enraged, cookieless woman, beating down on her roommate with an undefined sign when she is tackled by the "man" of the house. It sounds like a pretty awesome cartoon, actually. I'm picturing something like Foghorn Leghorn getting tackled by that little chick that said he was a chicken hawk. It sounds like it would be just about as effective.

Wow. Clearly as evidenced by the several different pieces of weaponry that this nutjob wielded against the perpetrator of her apparently beloved Thin Mints, this woman definitely has a certain level of enthusiasm for her snacks. It really might be unmatched by any I've heard of up until this point. (And I have a friend who practically covets the Cadbury Mini Eggs. She has them sent to her from out of town if they first appear in cities other than her own. But I don't think that she'd go after someone with a pair of scissors if they took her Cadbury Mini Eggs. She might give them a good hearty shove to get them away; I think I could see that happening pretty easily. But stabbing? Not really.)

Ms. Howard ended up going to jail and being booked. I'm guessing she could be there for a while, as it's entirely possible she could get stuck in that cell. Perhaps during her downtime in the pokey, she might try to learn some new problem solving skills. Maybe even some new negotiation tactics. Hopefully, none of them will involve scissors, boards or outdoor signs. Then again, I'm pretty sure that you can't teach a four hundred pound Thin Mint fanatic new tricks.

Sphere: Related Content

Awesome Brawling Lawmakers

You know what would make the Senate more interesting on a day to day basis? The potential for knock down, drag out fights to break out between the lawmakers. Why, oh, why can't our lawmakers do that? They don't seem to be doing much else. The least that they could do is be entertaining. My God, they're boring. But not in Taiwan! Nope, in Taiwan, they all seem to damn near want to kill each other. One guy pelted the other guy in the face with a clock! The video is below. It's awesome. Imagine if that had been Nancy Pelosi. That alone might have restored my faith in humanity. (OK...not all of my faith, but a little bit! It's better than nothing, which is what I have right now!)

Sphere: Related Content

Bowling - The Newest Contact Sport

There are plenty of reasons to get into a fight. You run into cattle rustlers rustling your cattle. There's a big tub of Jell-O and a bunch of girls in bikinis. Someone gets their chocolate in your peanut butter. The possibilities are endless, really. But more than there are reasons to get into a fight, are many, many reasons to not get into a fight. A disagreement over bowling etiquette would be one of the latter reasons.

Correct. Bowling. The game where the object is to roll a large ball made of....of....hey. What is a bowling made out of? There's a variety of a colors and they're usually swirly. (That's probably because it makes the ball look cool when you're forced to watch someone else bowl and it was the only way to keep the spectators from turning to wood.) I guess I'm unfamiliar with the swirly element which composes the bowl for which to bowl. Huh. Cement? No, that wouldn't work. Marble? No, it's too big for a marble. Marbles are little. Cork? I'm never going to get it. I give. Where was I?

Oh, yeah! Bowling. The point is that there's not much to the game. It's apparently the etiquette, however, that became an item of discontent for a one Ryan Scott David during a bowling outing at the Rocklin AMF Lanes in Rocklin, CA.

According to the barely adequate reporting from MSNBC.com, "...a professional bowler from Vacaville, was upset because a group bowling next to him did not wait for their turn to bowl." That non-waiting group would be the one RSD was in. If you're not familiar with this rule, it works like this. If there are people bowling in adjacent lanes and they each approach to bowl, basically whoever gets to the approach (starting) dots first goes....? First! How'd you guess? The point of the rule is that it's easy to lose your concentration if you see someone out of the corner of your eye as your doing your bowling thing. And if someone is continually doing this, then it becomes even harder to keep your concentration and all the while keep muttering, "You stupid m-f'er" under your breath.)

So whenever this guy is getting ready to bowl, rather than just letting him take his turn before RSD and those in his group would bowl, they just didn't give a fat rat's ass and would walk right on up and bowl away. Not cool. What's wrong with you, RSD? Why can't you wait your turn? It's not that hard. You should have been learning all about waiting and taking turns since you were in elementary school. Probably didn't care then either, did you, loser?

(Side note: While not disputing that this did occur, I am a bit skeptical about the "pro bowler" actually being a "pro bowler". Have you ever bowled in a public bowling alley? It'd be similar to a pro golfer playing on a city course. That is to say, not likely to happen I wouldn't think. I suppose it could. I'm just not real sure how accurate that is. Hell, three or four beers in, if I'm bowling and you ask me if I'm a pro bowler, I'll tell you YES! And that is not just me!)

Pro bowler guy finally had enough and said something to the group. RSD didn't take to kindly to being told....well...probably anything, really. That's when the brawling began. That's correct. The brawling. Over who bowls first. ....Jesus. Don't you people have jobs to go to or some other way to expend your energy?

"During the brawl, 24-year-old Ryan Scott David allegedly tried to use a bowling ball to settle the dispute, knocking the victim's front tooth out in one piece -- root and all." Holy crap! He hit him in the face with the swirly ball of an unknown substance! Those swirly balls are heavy! I can't believe the tooth popped out in one piece! That's either a hell of a shot or a hell of a tooth, I don't know which one, but I'm feeling a little guilty that I kinda would have liked to have seen that happen (but only if it didn't involve someone getting their head bashed in by a lunatic wielding a bowling ball). And ol' Ryan Scott David? He looks about like you'd expect. Behold!

A quick-thinking EMT saved the tooth in a glass of milk to preserve it as they transported the victim to the hospital, where they reattached it." Of course. Because EMTs are always carrying around a glass of milk when assisting victims of bowling alley fights stemming from a disagreement over "I'm first! No, I'm first!"

"Doctors at Sutter Roseville Medical Center were able to replace the tooth with the hope that it will be able to re-attach itself." Re-attach itself? They're hoping for that? The doctors? They're the ones doing all of the hoping? You know, I tend to expect a bit more than "hope" from my physicians, but maybe this is what works for them. A whole lot of "hoping". (As in, "I hope I don't find myself at that hospital.")

"The victim suffered other injuries to his face from the impact of the bowling ball." Really? After being hit in the face with a bowling ball there were other injuries? Huh. Yeah, go figure.

And in another not-so-shocking move, RSD was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. (And again I ask, isn't anything and everything a deadly weapon if you're using it to bash someone else with? I think it is.) His father, a one Vernon David said, "He was just protecting himself. The other guy swung first. It was self-defense." Um, "self-defense" is when the other guy swings at you and you swing back without a bowling ball in your hand! It's called "assault" when you pummel the guy in the face with a bowling ball because you didn't want to wait your turn. (Psst! It's also called "being a dumbass" when you try and defend your son like that.)

But he then added, "He made a bad decision." There's a whole lot of bad decision making that goes on with members of your family, isn't there, sir? Your son made a bad decision to act like a feral child having a tantrum and you made a bad decision to try to say it was in self-defense. Hmmm. Apple. Tree. Got it.

Seriously, what is wrong with people? I'm noticing trends in behavior that are not encouraging and it's due to either one of two things. It's either that there are more dumbasses in the world or that there is just more access (ie, the Internet) to the dumbasses and their antics. And I really don't know which one would be better, but I do know that people need to stop acting like they are the only one on the planet that matters.

Sphere: Related Content

Cat Got Your Tongue?

The average length of an adult human tongue (yes, tongue) is about four inches. Mark Coghill's tongue is approximately two and two thirds inches long. It wasn't always that short. No, I'd imagine it was about the size of an average adult human tongue before his girlfriend bit off one third of it while they were celebrating Mr. Coghill's 45th birthday. Wait. (Didn't see that one comin', did ya?) What?

Correct. Apparently, over there in the UK, Newcastle to be more precise, a one Tracy Davies (aka, the lunatic) aged forty, bit off one third of Mr. Coghill's tongue whilst they were engaged in a drunken birthday kiss in October of 2008. See, he was comforting her because she was upset because she had not gotten pregnant yet. (Of course, this was right after they had returned from buying a couple of bottles of vodka for the evening, but before they ventured out to a local pub together. Seems to me that if she wanted to be pregnant so badly, she might want to ease up a bit on the alcohol, but that's an entirely different issue...in a way.) Now usually, I think of 'not pregnant' as a joyous occasion and cause for celebration, but for Ms. Davies, that was apparently not the case.

No, she was upset and, being a good and dutiful boyfriend, Mr. Coghill moved closer to her to comfort her. It was then that she asked him to kiss her. (There must have been a reason why he didn't just kiss her to begin with and had to be asked, but I'm guessing that she isn't the most likable of women. Or humans.) Mr. Coghill complied and within seconds, you guessed it, CHOMP!

Well, the guy jumped back in what had to have been blinding pain and that is apparently when the tongue (according to BBC News) "had come clean off in her mouth." (You can finish reading this when you're done gagging. It's OK. It'll still be here.)

According to one Julian Smith, the prosecutor on the case against Ms. Davies, "She had the piece of tongue in her mouth, he saw her take it from her mouth, and it fell to the floor." Said "piece of tongue" that was spit on said "floor" was approximately one third of his entire tongue. Thus, out of the four inch average, approximately an inch and a third was severed. For a vague idea as to how much of your tongue that actually is, approximately one inch is equal to the width of your first two fingers. So if you made the 'Live long and prosper' sign, it's the width of your index finger and your F-U finger together like that. Then add on about the width of your little finger. That's how much of his tongue she bit off. And had in her mouth. And spit out onto the floor! Good Lord.....

Now, the fact that they're in court tells you that she was charged with a crime, that being "one count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. " And the fact that they're in court also tells you that she's denying the charge. Um, ma'am? Must you waste everyone's time with this? Seriously. He had his tongue, he kissed you, you bit off his tongue, you spit out his tongue. Yep, that has all of the components that one would think would be necessary to reasonably conclude (without the help of a jury trial) that bodily harm that was in fact grievous was intentionally caused. And really, if you spit someone's tongue out of your mouth, I don't care what you were trying to do, I care about what you did and in this case, you bit the man's tongue off, for cryin' out loud! What is wrong with you?

When Mr Coghill testified he said that "...he could no longer work, struggled to speak, and had lost many of his taste buds." Yes, I'd say you lost "many" taste buds! A third of your tongue = a third of your taste buds! It's just how it works! He also said "I can't use my tongue for eating. Those are things you take for granted." Not any more, sir. No longer will I take my four inch tongue and all of it's taste buds for granted. I can almost guarantee that.

"I will never enjoy a curry again." OK, now that sucks. Not being able to taste your favorite foods has just got to be extremely disappointing and frustrating. I'd have more sympathy if it wasn't curry that he missed. "I can't distinguish between certain foods, like the difference between cheese and toast, and just toast." Hold on a minute! You can't taste cheese?! That's outrageous!! What's the penalty for this in the UK?? Twenty years? Twenty five? At hard labor, no doubt! After all, the man can't taste cheese!! My God, the cheese!

The trial is in recess until Monday and I guess that's when whatever absurd defense this crazy woman is spouting off (legitimately and truthfully under a duly sworn oath, of course) will pick up then. I don't know how the trial system works over there, but if it's anything like the US, I hope that when it's the prosecution's turn to cross examine this crazy woman, I hope they just ask her, "Why?" Seriously, why would you do that? You think chomping off his tongue is going to get you pregnant? Did you think that's where your path to maternity and motherhood was led astray and went horribly awry? That you weren't biting down hard enough on his tongue to become impregnated? Was that it? I just don't get it.

Well, at least it wasn't in Florida. That's a bright spot in an otherwise very bleak and very tongue-less tale.

Sphere: Related Content

Gary Coleman Pics A Fight

There are 5 (sometimes 6) words that can explain the majority of incidents involving very odd behavior. The 5 words can vary slightly, but the overall point is still the same. "Alcohol may have been involved." Variations on this theme include "Authorities suspect alcohol was involved", "It's unclear if alcohol was involved", "Alcohol may be a factor", "Alcohol use has been suspected", and the list goes on. You might notice a theme. The theme of "innocent until proven guilty" which, in cases where those 5 words are uttered, is just another way of saying, "No one is that stupid. They had to be drunk!" Therefore, I'm guessing that in the majority (read: all) cases, no one ever has to report back and say, "We thought he was drunk, but it turns out, he wasn't drunk; he really IS a dumbass!" But what about when you're...oh, say...."not quite right" AND "alcohol may have been involved"? There's a name for that. That name....is Gary Coleman.

Coleman, as we are not allowed to forget, portrayed the diminutive Arnold Jackson on the 1978-86 TV series "Diff'rent Strokes". (Has anyone ever wondered where that "e" in the middle there went? What's the deal with the missing "e"?) Unfortunately (for all involved. Gary AND the public who have to read about his antics), Coleman is not exactly known these days for his comedic thespian performances of yore. No, these days he's known for his marriage to Amazon 22-year old Shannon Price. He's also known for showing up in Divorce Court with her less than a year later and explaining that they had not consummated their marriage (presumedly because Coleman could not find a ladder). Coleman was also on the ballot as a candidate for Governor of California during the 2003 recall election. In case you haven't heard, he lost. (Puh-lease. Like they're going to elect an actor to be governor of California!)

So what's Gary up to these days? Well, you know, the usual stuff. Living in Santaquin, Utah and going to the bowling alley with his ridiculously tall wife, where he's hounded by a very persistent individual wanting to take some pictures. Stuff like that. Oh, did I mention how "alcohol may have been involved" in the part where Coleman became a little bit agitated and punched the guy several times before getting in his pickup truck and running over the guys foot as the guy claims that he was trying to get back his cell phone that Coleman's wife swiped from him? Wait. Wha'choo talkin' 'bout? (Sorry. I couldn't resist. I know, I'm going straight to hell. I'll start packing.)

According to the kinda-Mormon folk over there at the Salt Lake Tribune "Coleman, 40, (yes, forty!) was backing out of a Payson bowling alley around midnight Friday when his truck hit another car and a pedestrian identified as Colt Rushton." (That's a pretty cool name. Colt Rushton. It makes him sound like a bad ass, but since this was in Payson, it probably means that he's just a jackass. ) Now this wasn't just a wayward pedestrian who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and just happened to run into Hurricane Tropical Storm Light Breeze Coleman. No, this Rushton guy was "a fan" who wanted to take some photos of Gary and his towering bride. For unknown reasons, Coleman refused. For more unknown reasons, the "fan" persisted. (Come on, dude! Get a life, it's freaking Gary Coleman, for cryin' out loud!) From there, the fracas moved from inside the bowling alley out into the parking lot. Hilarity did then ensue.

According to Payson Police Lt. Bill Wright, Rushton photographed Coleman anyway, despite his jumping up and down so that he could tell Rushton "NO" to his face. Words were exchanged in the parking lot (I'm guessing the "words exchanged" were the typical "What are you going to do about it?" or "Oh, yeah? Make me!" and "Oh, I'll make you, all right!" That's the thing about morons. They're moronic. Thus, there's not a whole lot of original dialogue being spouted during these altercations.) and then things started to get weird.

Coleman became so agitated that, according to Rushton, he threw several punches at him before he climbed into his pickup truck, grabbed the phone book to sit on and backed out and into another vehicle before running into Rushton with his truck. This after Rushton claims that Coleman's wife, Shannon, took his cell phone. (She probably didn't even have to get up to do so. Probably just reached one of those 8-foot arms out and just scooped it up from afar.) Rushton was taken to a local hospital and treated for minor injuries. (If the article hadn't mentioned that Coleman was in a truck, I just would have assumed that the "minor injuries" were caused by Coleman in his clown car.)

But no charges were filed and no citations were issued because both men were uncooperative with the investigation. According to Lt. Wright, "Authorities are continuing to investigate the incident ." Why, you ask? (Wait for it.)

"Wright said there are "indications" that alcohol may be a factor in the incident." I KNEW IT!

Um, yo! Arnold! Gary! Whoever you are. Listen, the guy just wanted a couple of pictures, is that so bad? I mean, I could see if you were Brad Pitt or someone like that. (Actually, I could not see that. Ever.) Someone who was wildly popular and always getting bothered by fans for photos or autographs or whatever else crazed and stalking fans ask celebrities for. But you're Gary Coleman. That Rushton guy could have been your only fan. And you show your appreciation by running him over with your truck? That's not nice.

It's not like you have a stellar reputation for being pleasant OR sane, Gary. Remember back in 1998 when that woman asked you for an autograph and you punched her in the face? Or back in February after you had married Tallness there and she told a reporter how you tend to get angry at inanimate objects (like printers and fax machines) and yell at them and then throw them across the room.

I mean, if you're upset because you think that everyone still thinks of you as little Arnold Jackson from the one TV show that you did, you're wrong. They don't think of you that way. They think of you as a crazy person who throws computer peripherals and runs people over in bowling alley parking lots. That's how you're perceived! As a lunatic! Isn't that great? You've finally broke free from the typecasting that's haunted you all of these years! Congratulations!

Seriously, this guy needs some therapy or a hot bath (but not without adult supervision. Hundreds of children drown in small amounts of water every year!) or something to calm his itty-bitty ass down. One of these days, he's going to climb up on a chair and really hurt someone. Either that or he's just going to be so drunk he falls off the chair and hurts himself. Neither of those scenarios is a) desirable, or b) out of the realm of possibilities.

But it's hard to say what I find more disturbing, the fact that I'm reading yet another story about Gary Coleman acting like a feral child or the fact that there are no less than three hundred different reports of this circulating across the globe at this very moment. I'm not kidding. 332 according to Google News, actually. The BBC News in the UK, The Herald in Ireland, NineMSN in Australia, The National Post in Canada, America's Hat, Goal.com in Switzerland, The Telegraph, Thaindian.com in Thailand, The Standard in China, and the list goes on! Holy crap. You'd have thought Coleman ran over Osama bin Laden with the amount of coverage it's getting around the world.

Hey, but would that not be the biggest news story ever? I can picture the news reports now...."And in other news, after a long night of bowling at a local bowling alley, Gary Coleman ran over and killed Osama bin Laden! Film at eleven. Back to you."

Sphere: Related Content

Detroit Is Screwed

I'm pretty sure I've been to Michigan. At least once. But I don't think I've ever been to Detroit. Regardless, there are a lot of places I have never been that I know at least a couple of things about. And Detroit is right in that mix. I know a couple of things about Detroit, but the Detroit City Council is another story. I don't know anything about it. I don't know what the issues are that they deal with. I don't know anything about the people that serve as council members. Oh, wait, that last one isn't totally true. I don't know specifics about the Detroit City council members, but I know a couple of things about a couple of them, mainly that they shouldn't be council members.

Look, even though I don't know what Detroit deals with in terms of a functioning as a city, I do know that if the video below is typical of the council meetings there, Detroit is screwed. Here's what we've got: Detroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers (a President Pro Tem is kind of like being Vice President. Hunting and accidentally shooting your buddy are optional.) got into a shouting match (yes, shouting match) with Council President Ken Cockrel during a special investigative session involving a lawsuit settlement and a police whistle-blower. (I think when they say "whistle-blower" they don't mean the kind that directs traffic and actually has a whistle. I think they mean the other kind of "whistle-blower". Just so we're clear.) Great.

Apparently, Conyers asked the testifying independent attorney if Detroit residents could sue the council because they approved an $8.4-million lawsuit settlement. That's when Councilwoman JoAnn Watson felt the need to cover her ass and said: "They can sue you; I voted no." Conyers, who would seem to be just a joy to work with, told Watson she needed to stop interrupting because it was disrespecting her. She also felt the need to throw in, "We all know how you voted; you don't have to keep repeating it." (Translation: "I'm kind of pissed because I might be screwed here.")

But apparently, the interrupting is only disrespectful if it is someone else who is interrupting Conyers because she had no problem interrupting Council President Ken Cockrel as he was questioning someone. Cockrel then engages in some gavel banging that seems to be rather futile in this instance. (It also seems to be the only situation in which gavel banging is even an option. We should consider giving the gavel some sort of a role in more situations. It'd be different. Possibly even fun. Definitely a bit wacky.) But then it starts to get weird.

I'm not a big fan of the "Who's your daddy?" line or any line involving the term "daddy". (Even Puff Daddy sounds/sounded ridiculous.) So when a Council President Pro Tem tells the Council President "You're not my daddy." any and all respect that one might have had for the individual doing the "daddy" calling is gone (and never to return in most instances). HOW did this woman end up as a Detroit City Council member? How?! (Any answers you might have, please hang onto them until after you've seen the clip below. You'll be just a puzzled, I promise. You'll forget any logical explanation you might have concocted because there isn't any logic to be found anywhere near that Council meeting.)

See what I mean? Sorry, Detroit, but you're screwed. Come on, she called the dude 'Shrek', for cryin' out loud! Who does that? (Aside from her? No one. I hope.) And here's an interesting (and frightening) little fact that I just learned.....Conyers is President Pro Tem for the Detroit City Council, but do you know who is President Pro Tem for the US Senate? That's right. It's West Virginia's favorite 140 year old US Senator, Robert Byrd! Unbelievable. I see a trend. Granted, it's only TWO President Pro Tems who are both just a tad unfit to serve in a capacity that is supposed to benefit the public, but it's an odd (and somewhat disturbing) coincidence at the very least. Where's my gavel?

Sphere: Related Content

Cat Fight!

OK, so for a while there we had The Rosie O'Donnell vs. The Donald Trump. You remember, where they would trade barbs every other day for a couple of weeks and then let things simmer down a bit before getting all riled up once again and heading straight for the other's jugular? Then we had the utterly annoying Heather Mills vs. Paul McCartney with Mills' "Ugly Divorce Comments In Public Made To Look Like They Were Not Trying To Be Vicious" hobby. And while that WAS entertaining, we all felt sorry for Paul because, well, because he's Paul Freaking McCartney, for cryin' out loud. But it's been a while since we've had any sort of public/celebrity "feud" going on. Until now. And it's a good one. Enter Barbara Walters vs. Star Jones!

You want to talk "cat fight"? These ladies are right in the middle of a heated one. All they need to do now is strip down to their underwear and attack each other with pillows and look like two totally different people (if you really want the full "cat fight" effect). What I am enjoying the most about this one is the way that both individuals are able to articulate the words "I think you're a bitch" in such a creative, articulate and, surprisingly enough, seemingly innocent way.

Barbara Walters, has written a book called "Audition: A Memoir", which is now out and debuted at Number One. Perhaps the reason that it debuted at Number One is that in the book, Walters reveals that, 31 years ago, she had an affair with former Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke (they were both married at the time). Oh, and not only was Brooke a Senator, he was the first black Senator. (And while it would have been a huge scandal then, it's still a pretty juicy piece of gossip today.)

I'm not really in the camp that would think a revelation such as that would be a good thing for the "legacy" of Barbara Walters. It has nothing to do with Sen. Brooke being black; it has to do with anyone having an affair. It's not exactly a reputable hobby. People will not look up to you for it. (Senator Brooke is still alive, by the way. He's 88 and he has refused any public comment about the book, Barbara Walters, the affair, or anything else. Just like you would expect almost any 88 year old guy to do. Seems reasonable. I don't have a problem with that.) And I'm not saying I'm a saint or anything. (Likeable? Absolutely! (See?) A saint? Oh, far from it, my friend. Far from it.) I'm just saying that I've been on both sides of the fence and they both suck. And it doesn't matter which side you're on, no one likes you.

And I'm not the only one who feels this way. Enter Star Jones. Jones, as you may or may not choose to recall, was a co-host on "The View" for several years. Star was a large woman who suddenly started shedding pounds left and right as if she had a couple of tapeworms. She insisted there was no gastric bypass and that it was done with diet and Pilates. Turns out, it was the other way around. There WAS a gastric bypass and there was NOT Pilates. But Jones insisted it was the former and managed to get all of her "View" co-hosts to go along with that story and lie for her. Until recently. Can you guess what might have happened?

Correct. Barbara spilled the dealio on Star in her book. So, guess what Star did? You got it. Star did an interview with US Weekly and made this gem of a statement: "It is a sad day when an icon like Barbara Walters, in the sunset of her life, is reduced to publicly branding herself as an adulterer, humiliating an innocent family with accounts of her illicit affair and speaking negatively against me all for the sake of selling a book. It speaks to her true character."

Oh, my. Here, allow me to translate that for you. "It is a sad day (it is TODAY) when an icon (bitch) like Barbara Walters Baba Wawa), in the sunset of her life (is a really old woman and I can't believe she's still alive), is reduced (stooped to her own lowly level) to publicly branding herself as an adulterer (is a slut and a whore), humiliating an innocent family (and also a home wrecker) with accounts of her illicit affair (by telling about when she was sleeping with a black, married Senator) and speaking negatively against me (and talking sh*t about me in her book) all for the sake of selling a book (all to make a quick buck). It speaks to her true character. (Did I mention I think she's a shallow bitch? I do. She is. She's a bitch.)"

See, statements like the one Star Jones made to US Weekly are masterpieces created by the most brilliant of all brilliant PR people. It says what it says, but it doesn't say it in a way that "technically" can be called "malicious" or "hurtful". That's probably why, initially, Barbara Walters first response was "I wouldn't dignify this with a comment." But since one brilliant PR mind deserves another, Barbara found another way to comment when Larry King when he asked her about the Star Jones comments. (I'll translate this one as it goes.)

When asked by Larry King, Barbara responded with, "Star is going through a very hard time in her life (Star Jones is screwed!). She's lost her show (She's unemployed). She went into that marriage SO in love you know (Her marriage just failed) ....I really want to remember the happy days (The days when she had a job and had a husband and wasn't pathetic) and the good days (What I just said. )because Star was a wonderful talent (Did you notice I said "was"? She was then, she's not anymore!) . But what happened was, Star had a gastric bypass. She's talked about it recently, but she didn't then (She lied her ass off and made me and the other co-hosts lie as well. )....(rambles on about the gastric bypass for a bit.)...It took her a long time to get a job (She was so screwed up that it took her forever to get another job. Loser.). Star is a very special person (Special. The most condescending of compliments.) . And this is not the time...Star is going through a very difficult time right now (Her life is hell and mine is great.)....and I was very sad when that (Star's divorce) came out (I saw that one coming a mile away!) because she went into that SO lovingly (But she was an idiot for marrying him. He didn't love her.)...I don't want to re-hash Star (If I talk about it now, no one will buy my book.). Yeah, I wrote about it in the book (You need something to sell books), but she's having a tough time (She's a train wreck right now) right now. Why should I add to that? (I'll just pile this on top of everything else and hope that bitch really suffers.)"

Wow. For someone who initially went with "No comment", she sure found a mouthful there on Larry King, didn't she? Oh, but that wasn't all. No, she steered Larry off of the Star Jones topic with these words (again, translated by me), "Poor woman. (You got what you deserved, bitch!) She's gone through so much (You got what you deserved, bitch!). I think Star is a great talent (Star Jones is a hack.) and I wish her well (Burn in hell.) and I think that she's suffering now (You got what you deserved, bitch!) and that's why she's lashing out (being a bitch) and I'm not going to be a part of that (I always get the last word in.)."

Let's review, shall we? (Please remember, I'm paraphrasing here.) Star Jones called Barbara Walters an old slut and an old whore. She said she was a home wrecker. And she accused her of shameless self promotion to sell her book. Star Jones considers her to be a liar and an evil backstabber. In turn Barbara Walters called Star Jones a crazy and miserable woman who has a history of being a liar. She said that Star really wanted her marriage to work out, but that it was doomed for failure from the star. She said Star can't get a job and has lost any and all gigs that she once had. Barbara Walters considers her pathetic.

A civil-ish cat fight! I can't even remember the last time there was something so good going on between two bitter celebrities! And here's to hoping this goes at least another round or two before it's over.

Sphere: Related Content