Congratulations

The Masters golf tournament wrapped up yesterday. I'm not so much into golf, but I do enjoy a nice Tiger Woods meltdown every now and then. But even his kicking his club when he hit a spectacularly bad shot wasn't as amusing as what happened at the very end. (And he wasn't even involved.) Yeah, for me, the best part was at the end where the winner was supposed to shake hands with some other guy. Somehow, things got a little confused. I don't know how that's possible considering that a handshake isn't exactly the most complicated exchange in the world, but it happened. And it amused me. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Literally, The Worst Answer Ever

Could someone please tell Rick Perry to quit while he's behind (and I mean very behind) and just get out of the Republican Presidential nominee race as soon as he can. If he's not going to do that, could someone at least explain to him how to use "literally" correctly in a sentence. (Here's a hint: It does not mean "figuratively".)

In Saturday's debate (which was a complete debacle in terms of any sort of substantive issues being raised, thanks to the overly proud of himself and his lefty stance, George Stephanopolous), Rick Perry stated "I would send troops back into Iraq." Wow! Really, Rick? You're going for this nomination by touting the re-start the war in Iraq platform? We've spent eight years trying to get the hell out of there and you're saying that you would unequivocally put us back there? That's a brave, albeit asinine, position to state. Out loud. Well, I guess you can't accuse him of pandering with that sort of stance. I will give him that.

And why does he want to send troops back into Iraq, you ask? He continues by explaining: "We're going to see Iran, in my opinion, go back in at literally the speed of light." Oh, Lord. Where to begin? I suppose I should start by saying that is literally the worst usage of the word 'literally' that I have ever heard. I think that if you think that the Iranians can go into Iraq at "literally the speed of light" then you are probably literally unqualified to be President. And I guess that if you interpret what he's saying to mean that we need to keep our eye on Iran just so that they don't go getting all froggy over there, well that's one thing. But if he's saying that Iran has the capability to go into Iraq at literally the speed of light, well then, we're screwed. If that's the case, I suggest that we all bow down to our new Iranian overlords right now because we, ladies and gentlemen, have been bested in the "Troops Having The Speed of Light" category.

Holy crap. Now, whether or not he actually meant literally isn't exactly the point here. (And that's mainly because I'm praying to God that he just doesn't know what 'literally' means. Literally.) The point here is that he sounds like a complete tool box. Go back into Iraq? Yeah, that's a winning platform there. I literally want him to drop out before the next debate.

Sphere: Related Content

Um, Yes, I'm Calling About The Couch?

OK, so there is so much wrong with this story it's hard to know where to begin. I'll start out by saying that it took place in Flori-duh. That should give you some indication of how this whole thing is going to go.

According to MSNBC, "A nine-year-old got a pornographic photo sent to his cell phone of a woman performing a sex act on a man." Good Lord. First of all, who are you people who send pictures of yourself either naked or engaged in various sexual activities? What makes you think that's a good idea? Ever! I just don't get that. What? You're sitting around one day and you suddenly think, "I know. I think I'm going to send a picture of my junk to this li'l lady that I know. That should seal the deal!" And then not only do you think it, you go ahead and do it. Very odd behavior indeed.

Second, why does a nine year old have a cell phone that can receive picture texts? I'm torn as to whether or not a nine year old needs a cell phone to begin with. I know, I know, it's so the parents can keep in touch with their kid. My question for that "reasoning" is, "Or if they don't, what's going to happen?" I can't imagine much. But let's say that they DO need a phone. Why does it have to be capable of being anything but a phone? Why can't it be one of those Jitterbugs for the oldsters? A nine year old doesn't need a fancy cell phone.

But I digress, as this story is really more about what led up to some dimwit sending a picture of a couple engaged in sexual gratification anyone other than the intended recipient. Now, the boy who received the text is a lad named Ty'Ge Moore. (I have no idea how to pronounce that, nor do I have any idea what happened to the rest of the vowels in his first name. Don't even get me started on the apostrophe.) He gets the photo and immediately goes to show his mom. So, kudos for the kid for not showing it to everyone at school first, even though I'm kind of surprised that he didn't. He sounds like a good kid. This certainly isn't about him.

Needless to say, his mother was none to happy about the situation. Neither was his grandmother. In fact, the grandmother seemed so upset by the situation that, according to her recollection, she was only able to utter something to the effect of: "I am like let me see that text and I am like wow." Um....huh. Look, I know it's Flori-duh and all, but is his grandmother sixteen? Why is she talking like that? "I am like wow." No, lady. Lemme tell you, I am like wow. Wow. Moving on...

After the grandmother was like wow, she took the cell phone and called the number and when she spoke to the individual on the other end she said that she threatened to call the sheriff. To which the asshat that sent the picture in the first place replied just as you would have expected him to when he said, "...do what you got to do." All right then. While that might have seemed like a good response to him at the time, he quickly realized that it was probably the wrong response and he called the number back. What he said, will shock you. Or not. "They say the man called back later and told them he was trying to sell the couch in the sexually explicit picture."

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

What the what?! Said he was trying to sell the couch?! How much of the couch could you actually see? I'm guessing not a whole lot, as the majority of the image was probably taken up with all of the oral sex going on! Seriously, dude, that's the best you can come up with? For reals?! I guess that means that all of the porn that is available out there is simply just a whole bunch of informercials for the furniture in such productions! Trying to sell the couch. Uh-huh. Tell me, does it come with the guy and the whore? No? Aww, that's too bad. Yeah, that's kind of a deal breaker for me. But good luck with that!

According to the article, "The Lee County Sheriff's Office is investigating and the boy's cell phone was turned over to deputies on the case." The grandmother summed up the incident by saying: "Some people make mistakes. I don't think this was a mistake after he text you and told you he was nine-years-old." For cryin' out loud, forget about the phone and take some English classes! He'll get over it! You, on the other hand, need to learn how to speak better. I mean, like, when I hear you say "after he text you", I am like wow. I am like, wow, she needs like, a refresher course or like, two on like, properly spoken English that like, doesn't make you like, sound like you just fell off of a turnip truck. (I'm really not sure what turnips have to do with intelligence, but it's hard to sneak that phrase into conversation these days.)

And is she really contemplating whether or not the guy was really trying to sell his couch? I think she might be! So while I'm pretty sure that the kid is going to recover from receiving such a raunchy text, I am a bit concerned about him growing up around someone who is trying to discern the plausibility of the "I was trying to get a good picture of my couch so I could sell it, but when I went to take pictures, there were these two people doing it on the couch and so I just took the picture anyway and used that" excuse. Please.

Sphere: Related Content

Now That's A Tat!

It's been a while since we've taken a gander at some of the best of the worst that tattoos have to offer. I think it's time to remedy that a bit. Here we go....

This is something on top of someone's leg. I don't know what it is. It sort of looks like a double ended penis. And while I can't really say that that's what is, I also can't say for sure that it's not. It could easily go either way. Flip a coin. Let me know which one it is.

Speaking of penises, I'm kind of thinking that the one below is fake. It looks awfully Magic Marker-y to me. Then again, judging from the expression on the guy's face, he doesn't look like the most stable of all individuals. Thus, a real penis tattoo is not out of the realm of possibilities at all.

Speaking of strange tattoos of small things that I don't understand, here is a Gary Coleman tattoo on someone's left buttock side cheek area. The thing that is just a little bit more perplexing to me than someone wanting a HUGE tattoo of Gary Coleman on their ass-lear region is why someone has a weird black and white cut out photo of Gary Coleman stuck to a tongue depressor.

Next, we have a man who seems to be really unclear on the concept of what it is that ladies love. Granted, there are an awful lot of ladies out there and there are an awful lot of different things that they all love, but I think it's pretty safe for me to say that I highly doubt that any of them are going to love that.

Sure. That's how the days go. 1st. 2nd. 3th. Wait. What?

Clearly, this was not thought out very well. Once she's given birth to that baby elephant (I'm guessing, based solely on the size there) or herd of gazelles (again, still speculating) that "THUNDERDOME" tattoo is going to look a little silly. That is, unless she plans on continuing her enormous carriage weight there.

Oh, if only a little bit more patience had been practiced here, one might have taken the time to consult a dictionary and figure out how to spell correctly. And what is with the weird "e" floating about the "n" there? Is that an arrow pointing to the "n"? In case I lost it?

The sad part about these tattoos is that there are apparently two different individuals involved here. That means that not one, but two people thought that this would be a good idea. It's like a permanent ink version of the medallion broken in two halves that each tool wears. And while I think that everything is spelled correctly, it's really hard to tell because you can barely read the damned things. I'm sure that every ending does have a new beginning. This is the end of them not being made fun of and the beginning of relentless teasing and probably celibacy.

Sure. Having "F*** You" tattooed where your eyebrows are supposed to be is completely appropriate. No, it's not off-putting at all. In fact, I'd be surprised if prospective employers weren't lining up outside of your prison cell for a chance to hire you. Seriously, what is wrong with you, sir?

And for the last time, Y-O-U apostrophe R-E spells "you are". Y-O-U-R spells your!

Sphere: Related Content

Deal With It

Finally! A corporate response to an "incident" that I can finally get behind! I can only hope that more will follow. After all, it IS rather illogical to think that someone would have intentionally meant for a recipe to include "ground black people", right? Right. Wait. What?

Correct. According to the huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post, Penguin Group Australia published a cookbook called Pasta Bible. That's right. A bible for pasta. Anyway, there was a recipe in it for that dish that we've all had a hankerin' to cook at one point or another (or perhaps, not), something called spelt tagliatelle with sardines and prosciutto. Tagliatelle is just a fancy-shmancy name for long, flat pasta. (Oh, how I long for the days when "noodles" would have been just fine.) Anyway, the recipe was was supposed to call for salt and freshly ground black pepper. Yeah. It read "salt and freshly ground black people". Oh. Awkward.

Now, if this had been Carl's Jr. or Burger King or any other corporate entity here in the US, they would have done what they always do and would have immediately caved to any sort of "complaints" about the issue. They would have removed every single book from the shelf and issued a ridiculously long apology that would have encompassed everything from the misprint to slavery itself. Then I would have had to see people on fallen-so-far-from-grace-CNN talking about how traumatized that they were and I would have had to listen to them demand an explanation. An explanation other than "Ooops", of course.

But not Penguin Group Australia. Their head of publishing, a one Bob Sessions, "...acknowledged the proofreader for the Pasta Bible should have picked up the error, but called it nothing more than a "silly mistake." I think I love Bob.

But here's the best part! He said, "We're mortified that this has become an issue of any kind and why anyone would be offended, we don't know." Yeah, I DO love Bob. He continued with, "We've said to bookstores that if anyone is small-minded enough to complain about this ... silly mistake, we will happily replace (the book) for them." Marry me.

Finally. Finally someone has some sense about these things. Finally someone just came out and said that they can't imagine why someone would be offended over something that was clearly not intended to offend. I love that he labeled them "small minded", though I would have been ecstatic if he had called them morons or softheads. I'm good with small minded, though.

But what about the books that are already on the shelves? Surely, they must be recalling those as quickly as possible, right? Not so fast. According to the article, "The reprint will cost Penguin 20,000 Australian dollars ($18,500), but books already in stores will not be recalled because doing so would be "extremely hard." Awesome. So, basically, deal with it.

This is what I want more of. I want to hear more often that folks shouldn't be getting upset or "offended" over something that is clearly a mistake. And since people are so damned whiny these days, I'd really like it if more corporations would take this approach. Just deal with it. You'll be fine.

Sphere: Related Content

Gift-gate, Grope-gate and now Bow-gate

All right, that's it! President Barry is not, repeat, not allowed to leave the country anymore! At least not until he's read a book or something on how all of this going overseas stuff and interacting with the leaders of foreign countries (who are supposed to be on our side!) is supposed to go. Maybe "Foreign Relations and Home and Abroad for Dummies" or something like that? Because I was able to overlook Gift-gate when President Barry gave Gordon Brown of the UK a bunch of DVDs (which I still think would have been fine if and only if they had been DVDs of the appropriate Region so that Gordon Brown could actually watch them. But they were the wrong region and he cannot watch them, thus rendering the gift inappropriate and wrong.) and I was totally against Grope-gate when Michelle Obama and her new BFF, the Queen of England, actually touched one another (you'd have thought they were in a tub full of Jell-O in the middle of a bar the way everyone was carrying on about it. Though I would like to see that, simply because it'd be so, so strange.). But now President Barry is teetering on the brink of "buffoonage." (Made that up. Just now!) And it has to stop. Soon. Tell me I'm overreacting. I'm not (for once)! Look, I'll spell it out for you.

For example, according to Gadling, whilst President Barry was over there in Europe and taking questions from reporters, an Austrian reporter asked "...about his impressions of European leaders." A simple enough question, right? Regardless as to your real impressions, you always, always say you liked 'em. That's easy. And President Barry pretty much went with that by saying that "...the interaction between European lawmakers was really not all that different than the way in which the US Senate operates." (He didn't say whether that was supposed to mean how the two parties of the US Senate can't get anything done or how the two parties of the US Senate are spending money like drunken sailors on leave or if it meant something completely different. I can't imagine what, however.)

In explaining that answer, he said, "...there's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian -- wheeling and dealing -- and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics." He doesn't know what the term is in Austrian?! Perhaps that's because there isn't an Austrian language! ::::sigh:::: Video of Language-gate below. ::::sigh again:::::

Even though that's pretty bad, it's almost like I've come to expect these things. You know, what with 8 years of GW out there saying things that don't make sense to anyone (including himself, I have the feeling). So while I wish he had not implied that he thought Austrian was a language (I'm just glad he wasn't up in Canada, America's Hat, and implied that he thought they spoke Canadian!), there are a few other things that I wish hadn't happened on his little jaunt abroad. Like bowing to the King. Of Saudi freaking Arabia. Huh?

The whole 'to bow or not to bow' thing (and apparently there is a thing) is a tricky one. I was under the impression that all of that Declaration of Independence stuff was to get away from the subservience that accompanies royalty. Besides that, to bow in someone's presence is seen as a sign of respect. Let me just give a brief refresher course on how Saudi Arabia works with King Abdullah in charge:

• Corporal punishment, such as lashes, for 'crimes' such as 'sexual deviance' or 'drunkenness'.
• There's no set number for these punishments. It's up to the judges. It can range from a few dozen to several thousand.
• They're also very behead-y over there.
• If a woman is raped, she will can be punished for 'her part' in the rape.
  

Nice, eh? Those are just a few But my favorite one that shows just how bass-ackwards they are over there is that women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles. They are, however, allowed to fly aircraft! Granted, they have to be driven to the airport, but still! WTF is that all about? Their human rights record is not all that great (that's putting it mildly) and PARADE Magazine named King Abdullah the Number Five World's Worst Dictator for 2009. So if PARADE Magazine says so, it has to be true.

The thing is, the US protocol on bowing is that we don't. So when footage was shown of President Barry allegedly bowing to King Abdullah, some people got their burkas all in a wad. (Naturally, the whole "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim" conspiracy theory reared it's head again with the emergence of this footage. He's not a Muslim!) And really, come on, President Barry! Can we not trust you to leave the White House for just a little while without causing an international stir?! You're the President of the United States! You bowed to King Abdullah as if you were inferior, as if you were subservient. I understand you're new and all, but we don't bow!

It does get worse, by the way. But not before the video. The bowing starts to come in around 0:49 through 0:59 in the video below. It's three minutes long and the commentary is in Spanish (maybe Portuguese, definitely not Austrian), so you might just want to zip ahead to the bow. Video first, then then more bad! Behold!

OK, so what could be worse that the President of the US bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia and all of his oil? If you thought George Bush holding hands with the King of Saudi Arabia as they went for a leisurely stroll, well, you'd be right, but it wasn't what I had in mind this time. But Behold! anyway.

That's lovely. They're a lovely couple. No, the part that really burns my toast is that the White House is denying that he bowed! How stupid do they think we are? VERY apparently! They're saying he didn't bow. "Didn't bow" as in "did not bow". Right. Why would you lie to us, White House? Why? Why?

Over there at Politico.com, a one Ben Smith apparently asked, "Why the bow?" and an Obama aide who would only speak on the condition of anonymity (because you never want people to know who you are when you're blatantly lying) answered with: "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah." Um, no he didn't. Nor was he looking for a lost contact lens or drop his iPod or comparing shoe size with said King. He was bowing. I have proof. I swear. Behold! Proof!

Here he is starting to go in.

Here he is grasping at the hand which holds all of our fuel in it's oily grasp.

And here he is in the middle of his 'two hand' handshake due to the striking height difference between the two, whatever that means. OH, but what's that?! Why, it's his other hand! It's going to be a bit hard to perform the "two hand handshake" with one of your hands not shaking because you're really bowing!


And there it is again in plainer sight. The uncooperative second hand of Barack Obama. (Is this the part where I get to say "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"? I hope so! I've been dying to say that to someone. Preferably someone I don't know. This works.)


The Washington Times called the bow a "shocking display of fealty to a foreign potentate." Wow. I'm glad the Washington Times is getting plenty of use out of their thesaurus! Now I need a dictionary. Fealty?(Intense fidelity.) Potentate? (One who has great power or sway.) They also said that "...it violated centuries of American tradition of not deferring to royalty." And it apparently started a new American tradition of lying to the public about something that is blatantly obvious. They say it's protocol to not bow, but he bowed! They're protocol liars,.that's what they are!


Can someone please inform him of the rules around there? I know that's someone's job. Who's Secretary of State? Oh, that's right. I forgot. It's her. Hillary. :::deep breath::: OK, I never thought I'd say this, but where's Hillary when you need her?

Sphere: Related Content

You Want To Be Offended, Don't You?

Am I really supposed to be upset or outraged that President Barry made an ill-advised, off the cuff remark during his chat with Jay Leno? I really hope I'm not because I don't think that I can really muster up enough outrage to be convincing and to make it worthwhile. That's because it's just another fake controversy (or fakeroversy) that's been contrived (a contrivroversy), mainly by the media (way to go, CNN), over something that I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who is actually enraged by this and not just people who think that they should be enraged. You shouldn't.

Here's the scoop: President Barry can't bowl. During the campaign he infamously bowled a whopping 37. And of course, almost a year later, the media still leaves out the part that it was not a full game!! He only bowled five or seven frames. That doesn't change the suckiness of the score, but at least it makes it sound like it's explainable. (Yeah, right. As if there is any explanation for an adult with all of his major limbs and organs in functional order who could only bowl a 37. The only explanation for that is 'you are the world's worst bowler'.) So Jay Leno was asking him if he had already ripped the bowling alley out of the White House and was surprised to hear that President Barry had not removed the bowling lanes and had been practicing to the point where he managed to bowl a 129!

That's when Jay started giving him crap about his 37 game and they were both laughing and that's when, in the midst of the laughter, President Barry said, "It was like the Special Olympics or something."

QUICK! Alert the press! Call in the media! Outrage! Bring your fake outrage! Pretend to be really angry! Offended! We need offense! Sound the alarms! Ring the sirens! Bang a drum! (Do we have drums? We do? Then bang them, for cryin' out loud! Didn't you hear what he just said?!?! At least, that's how I picture things right before a media frenzy begins.

OK, look, was it a bonehead thing to say? Sure. Should he have said it? Of course not. Do I think that because he said that it means that President Barry hates disabled people? No. Do I think he said that out of malice? No. Do I think that he has anything at all against anyone because of their disability? No. Of course not. And anyone who does needs to have their soft, soft head that is made out of cheese examined.

Now there's the "outcry" by those claiming to be "offended". To my knowledge, none of those who are "crying out" are either a) Special Olympians or b) disabled. Some of those weighing in on the non-issue were Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, herself the mother of a child with Down syndrome. She said that the comment was “degrading...especially since it was...coming from the most powerful position in the world." "These athletes overcome more challenges, discrimination and adversity than most of us ever will," she said, her words obviously directed to the black President. And still not content to hop off her soap box, she voiced these words of hope: "I hope President Obama’s comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community."

Oh, for God's sake, woman, did you lose the election and your mind at the same time?! You "hope" he doesn't really feel that way? Do you mean that you think there's a possibility, given all that you know about him, given all that you've seen of him, that he does feel that way? I can't imagine that you really think he might feel that way as opposed to just having said something stupid. You know what it's like to say something stupid that you later really regretted, don't you, Mrs. Palin? Think hard! I'm sure you can come up with a time or two (October and November, perhaps?) when you may have said things that, in hindsight, were not the most well-thought out statements. You keep thinking. I'll get back to you. Or I'll have Katie Couric give you a call.

Who else wants to throw in their inflammatory remarks of fake offense taken after the President's comment? How about Special Olympics Chairman Timothy Shriver? He said, "I think it’s important to see that words hurt, and words do matter." And I totally agree with the guy. But I have yet to hear from the those who were "hurt" by the "words." “And these words that in some respect can be seen as humiliating or a put-down to people with special needs do cause pain, and they do result in stereotypes.” They can be seen that way, yes. Were they in this instance? I don't think so. It wasn't a mean or malicious statement. And he certainly wasn't trying to "humiliate" anyone! That is just ridiculous to even insinuate at. (And fortunately, not all of those involved with Special Olympics in a managerial sense feel the same way as Mr. Shriver, as Lori Arnold, the head of the Special Olympics in MIchigan stated, "We appreciate that the president "wasn't attempting to humiliate the Special Olympics." Finally! Sanity.) But let's see what a Special Olympian's reaction to this was.

Meet Kolan McConiughey, one of the nation's top Special Olympics bowlers with an average of 212 and a total of 5 perfect games. Holy crap, he's good! According to the AJC “He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily." Yeah, he could! President Barry only bowled a 129 once! Kolan would also like to bowl against President Barry and show him a thing or two about bowling. “I’d tell him to get a new bowling ball, new shoes and bring him down to the lane. Keep his body straight, his arm straight and keep his steps straight. He has to practice every single day.” Good advice. Anyone else?

Then there's a one 21-year old Daniel Fletcher of Brentwood. His reaction? "I am willing to get a team to challenge him. I'd challenge him myself." Huh. Doesn't sound bothered. What about his dad, Warren? What did he think? "A little off-key, but he really didn't mean anything negative." Huh.

Actually, his father Warren puts how he feels about what President Barry said into words that are damn near eloquent. The video of him speaking is below and I can only hope that some of those who are trying to stir up something that isn't there would watch it and listen to this guy. They know what he meant. So if something that is supposed to be offensive to a certain person or group is not offensive to that person or group, is it still "offensive"? I don't know. I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, it can still be a stupid thing to say, but I don't think it has to be offensive.

Sphere: Related Content