That Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means

You know how I'm always saying that the media sucks?  You know, there's a reason that I say that.  It's mainly because the media sucks.  It sucks SO bad.  And today I have a glaring example of their suckitude.  Seriously, this just boggles my mind.  How this is even a thing is beyond me. Maybe you can help me figure it out.

Remember Desmond Hatchett?  He's the dumbass who has fathered 30 children with eleven different women (who are also dumbasses) and he's only 33 years old.  I guess that for some reason, people like it when there is a nickname given to people in the news.  Tanning Mom.  Octomom.  The Barefoot Bandit.  Son of Sam.  People love a nickname.  So I guess that it would be natural for one to be bestowed upon Mr. Hatchett.  Personally, I'm good with 'dumbass'. It's fitting, it's catchy, it's easy to remember.  (And even if  you forget it, you can just think of someone that has had 30 children in 19 years and can't pay for them and remember it that way."Ohhhh!  The dumbass!  That's it!"  See?  Easy to remember.)  But no, apparently the media had to go and give him the stupidest name that they could come up with.

Here's how it starts off over there at the usually reputable Los Angeles Times: "Hatchett, nicknamed Octodad by various media outlets, gained considerable notoriety last week after WREG in Memphis posted a story and video describing his struggles to keep up with child-support payments for his 30 children."  Honestly, my despair is such that at this point, I almost don't know where to go with this.  But I'll try.  (And really LA Times?  You're usually SO much better than this.  Check yourself.  Please.)

Octodad?!?!  The media is calling him Octodad?!?!  Are they not aware that the reason that Octomom was dubbed Octomom is because she had octuplets?  And that having octuplets means that she had eight babies?  And that 'octo' is the prefix for 'eight'? Do you see what I'm driving at here?  Octo...eight...I don't know how else to explain it.  Then again, I feel like that must not be a sufficient explanation if the freaking media is calling him Octodad when he has thirty children!  Octo isn't the prefix for thirty!  Dumbass is the prefix for thirty! 

Octodad. Good Lord. Look, Octomom is a ridiculous name, but at least it's etymology is essentially correct.  We don't just put "octo" in front of a word to indicate that they have a lot of kids. We're not calling the Duggars the OctoDuggars.  (Octogars?  I'm really struggling with what sounds good here.  And the answer is probably 'nothing' because it's all so gosh darned stupid.)  We don't call Kate Gosselin OctoKate.  (Yes, I realize that she actually does have eight children.  But I'm running out of examples of people who have overused their uterus.)  The media needs to stop calling this dumbass Octodad.  I'd be happy to explain to them why that should be.  Send them my way.  Wait.  Can I do that without coming completely unglued on them? Probably not.  What say they just stop and we all call it good?

Sphere: Related Content

Do you know who Manny Pacquiao is?  I had heard the name, but I was unaware of his significance.  After learning that he is a boxer, I'm still not overly sure of his significance, but at least I know who he is.  Then again, Forbes magazine listed him at Number Four on their list of most influential athletes in the world.  Huh.  So there's that.  The point here is that he came out and said that he was against same-sex marriage.  He said that he didn't have anything against gay people (a lot of his friends are gay, of course), but he just wasn't into the whole dudes marrying dudes and chicks marrying chicks dealio.  And that's fine.  It's his deal.  Just like President Barry said, most people that are against gay marriage aren't coming from a hateful perspective.  This should be reiterated to the folks who run some mall in Los Angeles, as they have banned him from the premises because of his opinion. 

The mall is called The Grove and this was their tweet after hearing about another person's opinion:  

 

Quick! Someone call in the irony police!  He's NOT welcome at your mall because he holds the very same opinion that the majority of people in thirty states also hold?!  Is The Grove aware that same-sex marriage is NOT legal in the very state that their mall is IN?!  Do they realize that there is a constitutional amendment in their state that bans same-sex marriage?  Do they also realize that it was voted upon by the people of that state?!  That's right, folks!  The majority of people in the ridiculously blue state of California voted against same-sex marriage.  Over seven million of them. And The Grove is banning someone who holds the same belief as a majority of those voters?  Good Lord. 

My favorite part of that is "not a place for intolerance".  Really?  Cause y'all seem a little bit intolerant yourselves there.  Not letting someone into what I'm assuming is a public mall (as I have yet to see a private mall) because they believe something different than you for reasons that are not rooted in hate?  Yeah, that seems intolerant.  See, tolerance goes both ways, you jack holes. See, tolerance can be defined as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". How tolerant are you being, The Grove?  Doesn't sound like very tolerant at all.

Again, this has nothing to do whether I am for or against gay marriage.  I am simply pointing out the idiocy of it how it is portrayed in the media.  The media has done a fine job making it seem like everyone is in favor of gay marriage and it's really just a handful of bigots who are holding everything back.  In reality, it's quite the opposite of that.  The majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage.  That's just the reality.  I know that you wouldn't get that impression from everything you read or see on the news, but that's where we're at.  So knock it off, The Grove.  Start practicing your tolerance by accepting that there are a whole lot of people who are different than you. 

Sphere: Related Content

Patience, Young Grasshopper

The peculiarity of where this country decides to focus its attention on occasion completely baffles me.  In case you've been under some sort of glorious rock lately, I will tell you that President Barry, during an interview with Robin Roberts, came out in favor of gay marriage.  I think.  And from the reactions I'm reading, you'd think that something wonderful just happened instead of just one guy changing his mind.  Or not. 

Look, President Barry is a pretty progressive guy.  I have a hard time believing that he, deep down in his heart, was ever really against gay marriage.  I'm more inclined to believe that he was against it for purely political reasons.  Whatever the reason is, here is his latest statement on where he stands in regard to gayrriage:  "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." 

While that's a lovely sentiment, I don't know that it's going to make a difference in anything.  And that's for a variety of reasons.  First of all, I just want to point out that he did include the word "personally".  That's what he now suddenly believes on a personal level.  Is that going to translate to a political level?  I have a hard time believing that it would.  That'd be great if he wanted to go and campaign in states that are putting gay marriage bans on their ballots, but I just don't see that happening.  And the reason I don't see that happening is because he also said that "..states should have the right to decide what marriage is".  Of course.  This way, he can be for gay marriage and appease those folks who have really made it their number one social cause, while at the same time allow himself to stay out of the issue because he sees it as not being a federal issue.  Tricky. 

But here's one of the things that I find just fascinating about this whole dynamic.  Until now, President Barry had been, essentially, against gay marriage.  But no one gave him any crap about it.  Everyone was just fine with it and continued to sing his praises as if he were the second coming of Christ himself.  No one called him a bigot.  No one called him a hater.  No one pressed the issue.  There weren't rainbow flag protests outside of the White House.  None of that.  People just let his ideas evolve on their own until he came to a different conclusion that they were happy with.  Why aren't other people who are against gay marriage (or who aren't sure about it) not given that same sort of time and/or leeway for their opinions to change?  Why are people automatically so angry at those folks?  I don't have an answer for this, by the way.  It's merely an observation that I've made. 

Here's another angle of this that I find interesting.  So far, every single state that has put gay marriage to a vote has voted against it.  Every.  Single.  One.  The states that allow gay marriage have only been able to do so through legislation.  But every time that it's given to the people for a vote, they have voted 100% against it.  Every. Time.  What's that all about?  And with the recent passage of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman in North Carolina, that brings the grand total up to 30 states with similar laws on the books.  Thirty!  Yet the topic is still covered in the media as if it is a minority of people who feel this way.  Clearly, that's not the case. 

All I'm trying to say here is that it's a tricky issue for a lot of people.  And the whole gay acceptance thing has come such a long way over the years.  Things just take time.  And really, just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they hate gays.  Sometimes it does.  But sometimes it doesn't.  In fact, most of the people that I've met or that I know who are not exactly for gay marriage are absolutely NOT people who hate gays.  I just think that we just need to be patient with people in the same manner that everyone seems to have been patient with President Barry. Do you have any idea how long it took civil rights legislation to go through?  Longer than you would guess and definitely longer than I would have liked.  (In case you were wondering, Lyndon B. Johnson passed a minor piece of civil rights legislation in 1957.  That was the first legislation passed since the Civil War had ended.  See?  Takes a long time.)  People just need to be patient and see it for what it is.  An evolution of thought.  And evolution is not a speedy process. 

Sphere: Related Content

No One Cares!

I'll be honest with you.  When I heard about President Barry's newly evolved thoughts on gay marriage the other day, I cringed.  It wasn't because I disagree with his re-newly formed stance. (This is the third time that he's changed his mind of the issue.  Not that you would know that because the media sucks so bad.)  No, it was because I knew that once he waded into the issue that it would be all I'd have to hear about for days on end.  Non-stop talk about gay marriage and how "evolved" the President is.  Are you kidding me?!  No one took the time to look at how gay marriage is really perceived in this country.  (That would be that every single state that has voted on gay marriage has voted against it.  That would also be that there are 30 states that ban gay marriage.)  No, all it ended up being was a bunch of feel-good crap that makes everyone involved feel like they're so enlightened on the issue.  You want some enlightenment?  I'm here for you! 

How's this for enlightening?  Gallup did a poll over April 9-12 of this year.  The question was "What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"  Now, if you went strictly by how the news cycle has been reporting things over the past 48 hours, you would swear that gay marriage was at the top of the list.  At the very least, you would have to assume that it was in the top ten, right?  Here are the top ten non-economic (even though gay marriage, and more so, gay divorce court, would do wonders for the economy, it isn't really considered an economic issue) responses from people as gathered by Gallup: 

Dissatisfaction with government.  Healthcare.  Education.  Ethics/Moral/Religious decline.  Foreign aid.  Immigration.  (Have I said gay marriage yet?  I haven't?!  Then I shall continue.)  Energy.  Lack of respect for each other.  Judicial system.  War.  (That's ten.  Not yet?  I'll keep going.)  Poverty.  Care for the elderly.  Crime.  National security.  Abortion.   Lack of military defense.  Race issues/racism.  (Bet you thought that racism would be a little higher up too, wouldn't you?  Nope.  It clocks in at number seventeen.  Huh.  Thanks, media.)  Situation in Iraq.  Welfare.  Environment.  (Environment is at number twenty.  Again, thanks to the reporting of the weak, weak media, you'd have thought that all anyone ever thinks about is global warming.)  Social security.  Situation in Afghanistan. (I'm starting to get tired.  I hope it shows up soon!) Unifying the country.  (I don't even know what this one means.  The Civil War IS over, right?)   International issues. (How this doesn't include the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not quite sure.)  Elections.  Terrorism.  War.  (See previous war comments.)  Drugs.  Gay rights issues.  There it is!  I found it!  Coming in in twenty ninth place, gay rights issues!  Just barely eeking out The way children are raised, Overpopulation, Guns/gun control, The media, and The advancement of computers/technology.

I should also take this time to point out the the gay rights issues received less than 0.5% of the responses in the most recent polling of this question.  It got 1% back in February, but that was the only time this year that it ranked above 0.5%.   But would you get that from everything you read in the media?  Hell no, you wouldn't!  No, instead you'd be left with the impression that everyone wants gay people to be able to get married and that issue is first and foremost on the minds of all Americans!  Not only is it not first, it's damn near DFL (Dead Effing Last).  But that's all I'm hearing about.  Non-stop.  It will stop one day, though, right?  Please?  Why can't we have a President who has affairs again.  At least that was interesting.  (OK, it was still mis-reported, which probably explains why so many people still think that Bill Clinton was impeached for having an affair, but at least it had some substance!  I'll take Presidential blow jobs over gay marriage any day of the week, starting NOW.)

Sphere: Related Content

Does This Change Anyone's Mind?

Guess what?! A new picture of George Zimmerman has been released (for some reason). Now, you might remember (or you might not because you might have blocked it all out of your mind because you just couldn't stand to hear about a bunch of speculation over and over and over again) George Zimmerman is the guy who shot Trayvon Martin about a month ago. If you don't know what I'm talking about, might I suggest you volunteer to be on this man's jury. They're looking for people like you. When the video of George being taken into the police station surfaced, I heard way more than my share of "He looks fine to me" and "I thought that he was in a fight". Too rarely did I hear "He could have been cleaned up by the paramedics" and "That video is so blurry that it might as well have been shot with a potato". Anyway, here's the new picture. Behold!

Well, how 'bout that? Looks like the back of his head was bloody because he had been injured. Just like he had said that it was. Just like the police report said that it was. And I'm not saying that this means anything one way or the other. But it does mean that something happened out there before everything got kind of shooty. I'm not saying that I know what happened (and neither do you, by the way). There are only two people who know exactly what happened and one of them is dead. If I hadn't gotten so sick of hearing this story misreported and misrepresented ad nauseum, I might be interested in what people who were so quick to jump to a conclusion had to say about this. (I'm sure they're already got their conspiracy theories a-brewin'.) What I'd like to know is why this information is just trickling out? Or actually, why it's coming out at all? But considering how irresponsible the media has been up to this point, I see no reason to expect them to handle all of this any differently.

Sphere: Related Content

Three Million?

You know why it's important for news sources to check and edit their stories? Mainly so that they don't publish reports that three million people died as the result of a school shooting. I read this over yonder at CBS.com.

Really? Death toll rises to 3M? I don't think that it does. But then again, they're the news, so....Oh, my God! What happened? What's that? Big thumb? Oh. I see. It was really just three? No millions? Good to know. But CBS, if you need a copy editor, I'm totally available.

Sphere: Related Content

But It WAS Out Of Context!

God, the American people must be a stupid bunch. I mean, I know that the majority of them (from what I can tell) could not not find their ass with both hands and a map. But are they so dumb that the media really thinks that taking someone's comment out of context and disingenuously representing it as truth at face value is a good idea because the public will fall for it? They must because they keep doing it over and over.

The latest victim of the pathetic groups that make up the media is Mitt Romney. To me, Mitt Romney looks like a 1950s game show host. It's between that and Guy Smiley from the Muppets. Now, just in case I was too subtle, neither of those comparisons are compliments. I find Mitt to be about the most phony person I have ever seen in my life. And I've seen a lot of crap. He is as fake as can be. As the wonderfully talented Jon Stewart put it, "He looks like the guy who fired your dad." Exactly.

So when you come across as looking like a tool, it's probably best if you don't say things that will make you sound like a tool. Take, for example, what Mitt said the other day when he was talking about giving people more options in their health care. He wanted to convey that he likes to be able to have choices when it comes to who he trusts his health care to. He wanted to convey that he likes not being able to be stuck with a certain provider simply because that's the plan that an employer has chosen for its employees. Who wouldn't like to have options? Everyone like choices. The problem started with the words that Mitt used to try to get this message across. The problem got worse when the media got hold of it.

What Mitt said was, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me'." Now, I know what he meant. And I know that you're smart (because you're reading this blog) and that you know what he meant. But let's both just admit that no one should really say that the like being able to fire people. That's not going to go over well. And unfortunately, that is the only part of his statement that the media has chosen to report.

Everywhere I look that is covering this incident, is reporting it in a fashion akin to "Mitt Romney Says He Likes Firing People" or "Mitt Romney Likes To Be Able To Fire People". Yeah, see, in a nation with an unemployment rate of about 10 percent, that's not a good thing to say. But the thing is that he didn't say it like that! How disingenuous and intellectually dishonest is the media being by taking what he said totally out of context and reporting it as if all he said was "I like being able to fire people"? It's one of the more irresponsible and egregious acts that a reporter can commit. And it's being committed all over the place. It also reeks of something that rhymes with 'commit'.

Mitt has said that he was taken out of context, but it's not going over very well in terms of damage control. Why is it that if you actually are taken out of context (a la Mitt) and it's so completely obvious that was the case, that if you try to explain that nobody believes you or nobody goes with that story? Yet if you say you were taken out of context in an instance where it is so obvious that it was so not the case that everyone covers that angle of the story! Some guy gets caught saying, "Let's get some hookers and some blow." And then he tries to blow it off by saying, "I was taken out of context." There's no way that "Let's get some hookers and some blow" can be taken out of context! In what world would that sort of context exist?! Apparently the one we're now living in because that's what happens.

I don't know who the media thinks it is doing any sort of favors for by behaving like this, but I find it all reprehensible. If someone's going down, I'd prefer that it be for something that they actually did as opposed to something that the media made it seem like they did. (On a similar note...Mitt, if you're reading this...do you need someone to help you with your debate question answering? I'm available! And I'm cheap (in more ways than one)! You have to do something, Mitt. You can't keep coming off as "I'm Guy Smiley and I'm firing your dad!")

Sphere: Related Content

Really, Fox News?

When I want to stay informed about current events, all I want are the facts of the story. I really don't want it to have a slant. I want the journalists that craft their stories to be impartial. The news isn't meant to be reported as if it were an editorial. If I wanted an editorial, I'd read stuff that I write. I want the news and that's all that I want. That being said...Fox News? What is wrong with you?
::: sigh ::: Behold.

Really? "Impeached President"? Yes, yes. Bill Clinton was impeached. Is there a reason that they felt the need to address him in that manner? That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic that they're about the discuss. And if that's what they're going to be about then really, what's stopping them from using other phrasings that would be technically accurate? Let's see...we could have:

Fellatio Recipient Opines About Something Non-fellatious

Big ol' Liar Is Embarrassed For The Country

Adulterer Wants To Strangle Non-Believers

Yes, we could have any of those headlines, but we don't. You know why? Because it's not good journalism, that is correct. And it really irks me because I try to give cable news the benefit of the doubt most of the time. But a headline like that at the "Fair and Balanced" news station just isn't making that possible for me. Keep it classy, Fox News.

Sphere: Related Content

Blame It On The Rain

(Blogger isn't letting me upload pictures. We might as well blame it on Hurricane Irene, as everything else is getting blamed on that.)


Aaaannndddd the hype has begun. We've got Hurricane Irene hitting land yesterday and it's looking to shape up to be a Category 2 at the most. But since the egocentric media is centered on the east coast, they're going to try and make this storm out to be some sort of a massive killer or something. And expect other news media outlets to follow along. But let me be probably the first to tell you that it's not really like that. For instance, right now, the LA Times is reporting that eight people have already died as a result of this disaster. Really? Eight? Let's check that out for ourselves, shall we?


Let's see..."On Friday, a man installing plywood on the window of his home in Onslow County died of a heart attack". OK, that doesn't count. That's not because of the hurricane. That's because of clogged arteries and a lifetime of unhealthy foods. How is that a hurricane related death? Because he was installing plywood? I'm pretty sure that he would have had that heart attack if he wasn't installing plywood. That doesn't count. Why would it? Next!

Next, "...man died in Pitt County when he lost control of his vehicle and hit a tree, officials said. Two others in the state died in car accidents." All right, this is either really crappy reporting (and it really is) or this storm is so weak that someone is really trying to embellish things to the point where people don't look like complete fools for overreacting. Is the hurricane responsible for the loss of control and all of the tree hitting? If so, I'd like to know how. Otherwise, this is known as an accident. It is NOT known as a deadly hurricane. The same goes with the other two. What is wrong with people?

The article continues with "In Newport News, Va., an 11-year-old boy was killed when a tree crashed into his apartment building...And in Brunswick County, a man died when a tree fell on his car." OK, I'll concede to these two probably being hurricane related. Trees don't usually crash and fall unless there's something going on. These two deaths are legitimately hurricane related. I'm sure that makes the deceased feel much better about their recent demise.


Then we have "And off New Smyrna Beach, Fla., authorities said, a 55-year-old surfer died in 7-foot waves." That doesn't count either. One doesn't simply just die in the middle of some waves. Man, the media really does suck, doesn't it? They are just dying for people to be dropping dead because of this hurricane, aren't they? I suppose that their desire is fine (albeit twisted), but I'm not a fan of them creating their own reality.

And they're trying really hard to get the body count up to nine because "...authorities in New Hanover County, N.C., were searching for a man who either fell or jumped into the Cape Fear River on Friday as the first, outer bands of the storm began to ravage the area." OK, listen! Please! If the guy JUMPED, how in the hell is that because of the storm?! I'm seriously ready to pull my hair out! Jumping isn't storm related! High winds and lots of rain do not make one JUMP recklessly with wild abandon into the sea! What is WRONG with people?!

Sphere: Related Content

No, That Doesn't Look Crazy At All

What we have here is either really bad journalism (probably not) or really one-sided politics (more likely). If you're going to call yourself a news source and you want to "report" on the news, what say you do it in a way that your subject does not look like a crazy person unless, in fact, they are a crazy person. In this situation, we have Michelle Bachmann. She's not crazy, but Newsweek has her plastered on their cover looking like a lunatic with nice hair and conservative makeup. Behold!

Seriously, Newsweek? What's with the moniker "The Queen Of Rage"? Your article doesn't mention the word "rage" once, so it's a little confusing as to why you'd put that on your cover. And was this really the best out of all of the pictures that were taken? I can't imagine that it is. Y'all are just a bunch of biased journalists. And you suck because of it. Whoever it was that paid a dollar for the whole Newsweek operation, well, he overpaid.

Sphere: Related Content

He's STILL Lying!

Well, here's a shocker. I hope you're sitting down because do you remember those weiner shots that were sent from Anthony Weiner's Twitter account last week? The ones that he strongly denied sending? The ones that he said were a result of his Twitter account being hacked? Yeah, he sent them. Shocking, I know.

He held a little press conference yesterday

where he finally admitted what anyone with half of a brain has known since allegations of Weinergate first surface. In short, he sent pictures of his aroused manhood to some chick that he had become acquainted with online. This is where my first issue comes in. Who does this sort of thing? (And I'm asking serious questions here because I am extremely confused.) What kind of a guy takes a picture of his crank and sends it to some chick with his phone? What is the thought process there? "Hey! Look at this! It's mine! Whaddaya think of that?!" I'm open to suggestions. I really don't get the thought mentality.

Next, how is what the Weiner was doing with his weiner any different than some guy in a trench coat flashing people on the street? I mean, are these things planned out? (If they are, I think that would make it a little bit weirder.) I don't think that they are. It seems like what happens is that there might be a little bit of sexy talk and then the next thing you know...BAM! Weiner in your inbox! (Figuratively speaking, of course...and for now). But really, is he any different from your friendly neighborhood flasher? I'm seeing a lot more similarities than I am differences. (And by the way, if you DO have a friendly neighborhood flasher, perhaps consider relocating to a nicer area. That's no way to go through life, son.)

I'd also like to point out that Weiner did a little "crying". I don't know if actual tears were shed, but his voice did

crack a few times and it was fairly obvious that he knew that he was in trouble. What fascinates me about this is that these jackasses can lie like a rug when they're trying to. They have NO trouble covering up ANY emotions when they are vehemently denying everything that they so totally did. They're emotionless, indignant snakes when they're lying. As soon as they're exposed (literally, in this case) they start crying like a little girl. Does anyone actually "buy" it when they cry? It just pisses me off more.And you know what pisses me off even more than that? Crappy media reporting, that is correct. Every freaking report out there that I have read about these schlong shenanigans tell me that the Weiner finally took responsibility for his actions. You're going to read it here first (and, from what I can tell, NO WHERE ELSE) that that's a bunch of crap. He hadn't talked for an entire minute before he was lying! I'm serious! Why am I the only one who caught that?! He said, "Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle." What?! It was so NOT a joke! Why is everyone just breezing right over that?! He's lying! It wasn't a joke! Later on in his lame little speech, he said, "I have exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years." Were those jokes too, you lying piece of crap?! Why is no one calling him on this stuff?!

God, the media sucks. This guy is a weird snake. I hope he has to resign. I don't like people like him in positions of power, especially after blatantly lying to everyone under the sun about showing his wang off on Twitter! Go away, Weiner! And take your weiner with you. (By the way, NBC New York has the transcript of his lame-o apology if you want to read it.

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

That's Not Racism!

Oh, most of news media. How I despise you so. Please stop feeling the need to make things that are completely innocent into something that is falsely inflammatory. David Gregory, I'm talking to you.

Fox Nation gives us the low down of when Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press on Sunday with Mr. Gregory. Gregory played a clip from a speech that Newt gave in Georgia on Friday. The gist of the whole thing was jobs. This is what Newt said: "You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama's is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?" OK. Seems like a bit of a slam, but I'm OK with it. I know what he's trying to say. (He can't blame it all on President Barry though, even though he's trying.)

You want to know what David Gregory thought he was trying to say? I don't know if you do. Let's find out. David Gregory actually had the nerve to say: "First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president." Oh, for cryin' out loud. WHAT?!

Racial?! Racially tinged language?! How do you figure, Dave?? Because it was in Georgia? Well, that doesn't make any sense. Because there are a lot of black people in Georgia? No, that doesn't make any sense either. Is it because David Gregory is trying to start some sort of racial controversy that does not, in any way, shape or form even exist? I don't know if that's the motivation behind it, but it's more logical than the other two possibilities that I mentioned.

I am appalled. That's one of the more ridiculous and inane things that anyone has ever implied racism to be. Do I have to keep reminding people that he's HALF WHITE?! He's the first half white president, NOT the first black president! And if you do want to go with his being partially black, why don't you call him the first half black president?! Oh, because that wouldn't have enough opportunities to imply racism now, would it? Morons. Knock it off, David. You know better than that. The video of this asininity is below. It should make you angry and annoyed. If it doesn't, you're doing it wrong.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Meaningless Polling!

I don't ask much of you guys. In turn, I usually get about what I asked for. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a request. If you or anyone you know has any pull or sway at any news or media institution, could you please see what could be done about ceasing any talk of Presidential polling numbers this early in the game? Please. Because the numbers at this point are pointless. You can't ask people if Barack Obama is going to be re-elected when you don't even know who he is running against! Make it stop!

It troubles me that no news organization has caught onto this yet. No, they just keep churning out poll numbers that are meaningless, only they do it as if they have meaning. It's not exactly like trying to tell non-addle-brained adults that the Easter bunny is real, but it's vaguely similar. The real difference in that fairly poor example is that the non-addle-brained adults can figure out that (SPOILER ALERT) the Easter bunny isn't real. In the case of the insignificant Presidential poll results, I'm afraid that people might actually be paying attention and thinking that it matters. Let me be clear: It does not matter. AT ALL.

I went back to January of 2008 and looked at the poll results for Presidential "candidates" at the time. According to the research done and compiled by American Research Group, as far as the Democratic candidates went, Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead over then-Senator Barry. They even had her at a fairly commanding lead over then-Senator Barry in December of 2007. Both of those results came at a time that was closer to the election that we are now! And the last time I checked, Hillary wasn't our President. (And the last time I checked, she was just getting over being bitter than she lost the nomination. I'm still not sure that she's over it.) And over on the Republican candidate front, in December of 2007, Rudy Giuliani was miles ahead of old man McCain. But by January of 2008, just one month later? Giuliani was nowhere to be found and it was a virtual toss up between old man McCain and pretty catcher's Mitt Romney.

So please, please remember that asking people if Barack Obama can be re-elected at this point and time is absolutely futile. Why doesn't the media understand that? Why don't they realize that they're wasting everyone's time with pointless polls this early on? Oh. Right. Because the media sucks. Yeah. All right. Back to you.

Sphere: Related Content

Now We're Talking

I don't know that I can just keep yammering on about the Jared Lee Loughner being a nutjob situation much longer. Granted, things are starting to simmer down a bit, but people are still giving way too much credit to a bunch of things that don't deserve ANY credit. Thus, I thought that today I would go with this caricature/cartoon which I found on Facebook at something called Chris Spangle's Blog. It's about the most accurate piece of "reporting" that I've run across so far on this topic. Behold! (And thank you.)

Sphere: Related Content

The Media Still Sucks

Today, some asshat decided to get all shooty down there in Arizona and shoot a bunch of people, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Federal Judge John Moll and a 9-year old child. The suspect, a one 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner, is now in custody. I have already heard my share of comments to the effect of "We don't yet know what motivated the shooter". I really don't like it when statements like that are thrown into the mix of reporting for various reasons. One, I'm not really sure, at the point, that it matters what may have "motivated" someone to go to a public event and start shooting people. And two, the most obvious and likely answer to the question of "Why?" is that there is obviously some sort of mental illness afoot. You can't tell me that, whether previously identified or not, whether previously treated or not, that someone who goes to a public event and shoots a bunch of people doesn't have just a touch of mental illness going on. And even if you think that this might be the exception to the rule (which, by the way, would make you such a softhead that I think that you should stop reading this right now and go buy yourself and industrial strength helmet for your soft, soft dome), what say you check out Shooty McShooterson's YouTube page and get back to me with your assessment of his mental stability.

Naturally, the media is practically soiling themselves over all of this news that they suddenly have to cover. It's just unfortunate that they suck so badly at it. And while they don't see the consequences of their suckage at non-critical moments in news coverage, there are quite obvious consequences to their suckage at critical moments in breaking news coverage. I am specifically calling out CNN, Reuters and NPR. I am vaguely calling out all of the others who participated in the same irresponsible acts that CNN, Reuters and NPR did. All of these news stations, with their rush to be the "first" to report, had reported that Rep. Giffords had died. She, in fact, has not died. She, in fact, was shot in the head (yes, I realize that isn't good, but if she's still alive, you can't say that she's dead) and made it through surgery and is in critical condition. That's not dead. (Her neurosurgeon said that he is "optimistic" that she will recover. I don't know what that means, but I do know that it means she still isn't dead.)

What is wrong with you, CNN, Reuters, NPR and others?! You are supposed to be news outlets. You're supposed to report the news, you jackwagons. What does that say about you when you report utter crap that just isn't true? It says that you suck at your job and, while I don't often call for people to lose their jobs, whoever it was that gave the go-ahead to say that someone was dead when she wasn't should lose their job, as they are obviously completely incompetent and incapable of performing at the level needed when the pressure is on. Do you know how many people, including those who know Rep. Giffords, could have been watching any of your crap news sources and heard that she had died? Of course you do! That's why you reported it! Can you imagine the grief that was caused by your irresponsible actions, probably due to wanting to get the story out there first? Of course you don't! That's why you reported it! At the risk of sounding like someone's grandmother, you really should be ashamed of yourselves.

You know what all of this means, don't you? I fear it means that the days of public access to those who represent the people who should be able to have access them are gone. Because if there are two things that the government does well, they are nothing and overreact. I fear the end of those town hall meetings that had gathered so much steam six months ago. I fear the end of any sort of elected official ever poking their head out in public again. (I also fear an overabundance of crappy news reporting on this story over the next few days, but that's a little off the point I was trying to make here.) Way to go, assclown.

In conclusion, The New York Post (while getting their facts straight in not incorrectly reporting that anyone had died, still can't manage to get the name of Gabrielle Giffords father correct, even though they have the SAME last name. Seriously, who edits stuff anymore? Anyone? How can you get his name WRONG? It's the freaking SAME!) reported that "The congresswoman’s father Spencer Gifford, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies. "Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole Tea Party." OK, now I'm going to give the man a pass on that comment, as his daughter had just been shot in the head. I have nothing bad to say about that man and his statement at all. But I would like to point out that the Tea Party doesn't want to shoot Congresswomen in the head. The Tea Party does not want to shoot and kill Federal judges, nor does the Tea Party want to shoot and kill small children. The Tea Party merely wants less spending and lower taxes. See? No shooting involved at all in that statement. This isn't a Tea Party thing. This is a whack-a-do thing. Please remember that. Please encourage others to remember that. One crazy person does not necessarily define an entire organization. (Oh, and President Barry isn't a Muslim, either. I figured I'd just throw that one in there again. As long I'm encouraging people to speak the truth, it can't hurt to remind folks of that just one more time.)

I pray for all of the victims and all of their families to find the strength and the courage to make it through this. (See? I don't have to mock everything.)

Sphere: Related Content