2025??

Bought gas lately? I have. I just paid $4.29 a gallon in Santa Cruz. Yes, yes, I realize that Santa Cruz is a little touristy and that could account for some of it, but not much. I paid $4.21 in San Jose the other day. The point here is that we're being screwed for no apparent reason. But what is becoming more and more apparent is that no one cares, no one is going to do anything and we are at the mercy of whatever anyone wants to charge us.

Even President Barry has commented on this recent inexplicable surge in petroleum pricing. What he had to say on the matter was one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Then again, I was listening as someone hoping for some sort of solution. A light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, if you will. There's no light. None. Just darkness. Oily darkness.

President Barry gave his weekly radio address the other day. (Did you know that President Barry gave a weekly radio address? Me neither. He does know about the Internet, right? Radio seems to be a strange medium to get a message across. Then again, it was just an asinine statement that he made, he might not have wanted a lot of people to actually hear it. Maybe he figured if it was on the radio that it would just be overlooked.) And do you know what his solution to high gas prices is? Better cars. Duh.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune (and apparently the radio), he said that "Detroit automakers are on track to build cars that average nearly 55 miles per gallon by 2025, doubling current mileage standards." Oh, really? 2025?! That will help me out soooo much next week! And they're "on track" to build those sorts of cars? On TRACK?! How hard is this really? I have a telephone in my pocket that accesses the Internet and takes pictures. (I assume it also makes phone calls, but I really couldn't say for sure.) You're telling me that with aaalllllll of the technology and knowledge that we have about so many things that it is still going to take until 2025 to build a car with better gas mileage?! That's pretty pathetic.

Didn't John F. Kennedy challenge us to put a man on the moon within the decade when he said that? (That was 1962, by the way. I'm not just making this stuff up.) And didn't we put a man on the moon in 1969? So we can get a man from Earth to another freaking planet (Yes, I know a moon is not a planet per se. That's not the point here. FOCUS!), but we're only "on track" to have a car that gets 55 mpg in 13 years? I don't want a flying car; I just want a regular car! (OK, that's a lie. I totally want a flying car! But you know what I'm saying.) It's taking us almost twice as long to build a fuel efficient vehicle that people want than it took us to get people on the moon and back safely?! Are we supposed to be excited about this? Because I'm hardly excited. I'm angry, but I'm not excited.

He continued along with this rainbow and unicorn way of thinking with "That means folks will be able to fill up every two weeks instead of every week, saving the typical family more than $8,000 at the pump over time. That’s a big deal, especially as families are yet again feeling the pinch from rising gas prices." Uhhh...am I the only one who caught the "over time" he put in there. Saving $8,000 over how much time, President Barry? I can save $8,000 "over time" too. Oh, did I mention how much time? Forty years. How's that? Sound ridiculous? So does he.

This is such crap. No one is willing to give anyone a straight answer about why gas prices do what they do. (Current speculation is that gas prices got so high because we might go to war with Iran. How does that work? We're already IN two wars. One more makes that big of a difference? Besides, I don't think it's going to happen. My money's on Israel doing their thing and the US feigning ignorance over it. "They did what? Bombed them? We are so surprised. This is brand new information!") And for President Barry to stand there (Or sit. I have no idea how antiquated radio broadcasts work.) and act like we should be excited that we might get a fuel efficient vehicle in about 13 years is pandering beyond pandering. We're not really dumb children. (OK, people as a whole aren't exactly geniuses. But they do know that this is crap!) All we want is for the price of gas to go down. And we don't really care how it's done, but we're going to need it to be sooner than 13 years. Ok. Thanks.

Sphere: Related Content

Misplaced Outrage Is Misplaced

I'm a little surprised that radio talk show hosts John and Ken were suspended yesterday for making on-air remarks about Whitney Houston that didn't exactly paint her in the most flattering light. If you're not familiar with John and Ken, it's not like they're journalists or anything. They mostly go over their topics from a subjective point of view. And I'm trying to figure out why what they said was interpreted as being so over the top that they were suspended until February 27.

Here's part of what they said. Tell me how this is crossing some sort of line. "She's been cracked out for 20 years, and we heard how obnoxious she was these parties, I mean, she's doing handstands, she's babbling like an idiot, running around ... she's a mess ... She's been doing this for 20 years.... So, how much of a pain in the ass do you think she was? Can you imagine, you're Clive Davis, and she has not been -- she has not had her head screwed on right for 20 years? At some point you’re just sick of it all, and so is everybody else in the industry, all her friends and hangers on, everybody who knew had to deal with her, it’s like, 'ah, Jesus, here comes the crack ho again, what’s she gonna do; Oh, look at that, she’s doing handstands next to the pool. Very good, crack ho, nice.' After a while, everybody’s exhausted. And then you find out she’s dead. It’s like, 'really ... took this long?'"

Wow. That does not seem like it's suspension worthy. John and Ken say an awful lot of things and I'd consider some (or a lot) of them to be more inflammatory than that. Is it because of the 'ho' part? I mean, I don't recall there being any hard evidence that she was, in fact, a ho. So that could be misleading...if you're a complete moron. If you're a complete moron and you're listening to that and what you took away from that was that she was performing sexual acts in exchange for crack then you should never listen to the radio ever again. Turn it off immediately and read a book. Preferably something factual like a dictionary or a phone book. Whatever you do, just do not listen to anyone's opinion. And please don't listen to anyone's sarcastic opinion. That's not going to help you.

But other than that, I don't think that they said anything that is out of line. In fact, what they said seems kind of like what a lot of other people have said and/or what a lot of other people have thought. She was on drugs. She was a mess for 20 years. She was obnoxious at parties. But now that she's dead, no one can say that in a sarcastic manner? Or has 'ho' become SO offensive now that it's the new n-word? This is ridiculous.

Let's look at some "political" cartoons that are out there depicting the death of Whitney Houston. Now, none of them use the word 'ho', but they're not showing anything that is not almost just what John and Ken said. Like this:

"Do not snort the clouds" is acceptable, but "crack ho" is not? Yes, I know that there are two different companies involved here and that they are in no way expected to do the same thing, nor adhere to the same ambiguous "standards" as each other. But if there was "outrage" over the "crack ho" comment, why isn't there outrage over "Do not snort the clouds"? And what about this cartoon:

There's a syringe in the background of that cartoon. Do we know for sure that she was injecting drugs? I haven't heard that (though it wouldn't surprise me if that took place at least once). How come it's OK to make a drawing that implies intravenous drug usage, but it isn't OK to refer to her as a woman of extremely loose sexual morals? Again, I realize that these are two different companies that are involved here, but where is the outrage over this? Same with this cartoon:


There's a syringe. Why isn't there outrage? I don't get it. (By the way, I like this cartoon. It's probably a pretty accurate depiction of how she felt. I'm guessing. I have nothing to base it on other than her having everything at one point and then spending twenty years doing drugs. That's all.) John and Ken say "crack ho" and they're off the air for a week? It makes no sense. Way to go, Clear Channel. How many people actually complained? I can't imagine it being that many. And even if it was, so what? They don't have to listen. They need to get over themselves. So does Clear Channel. Way to go, morons.

Sphere: Related Content

Demon In The White House

I rarely use this blog to spew the word "hate". Oh, sure. I proclaim my dislike, my abhorrence, my loathing, my despising, my fed-up-ness and a few other things, but I rarely use the word hate. I feel myself getting closer, however. Especially when the topic of Rush Limbaugh and whatever comes out of his ridiculous mouth comes up.

See, according to the fine folks over yonder at Politico, yesterday on his radio show (which is listened to by a frighteningly large number of people who seem to really enjoy and agree with what he has to say) he made reference to some pictures of President Barry that had been posted on The Drudge Report website. What he said was idiotic at best. He said, "...folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released...It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we've never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this. "

What. The. What. Seriously? Demonic? What is that supposed to mean? Was he referencing a Harris Poll taken earlier this year which indicated that 24% of Republicans believed that President Barry was the Antichrist? Or is he just grasping at any straw that he can to try and bring down more Democrats (which will inevitably happen) in the upcoming election? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of Democrats who do deserve to be booted out of whatever office they're in. There are. There are a lot of Republicans who need to get the boot as well. But what is Rush Limbaugh's rationale for saying something so incredibly asinine? I guess only he knows.

First of all, President Barry has got to be the most photographed President in history. He's on TV every freaking day. And when he's on vacation, we (the public) are inundated with photos of him eating ice cream the entire time! I don't care that he eats ice cream! Why do I need 57 different photos from 36 different angles and 12 commentators giving me the low down on what flavor he chose? I don't remember it being like this with other Presidents. Did we have a million photographs of Bush flying all over the place all the time? It doesn't seem like we did. (Then again, Bush would have never been accused of looking demonic because he always looked so damned clueless that that's all anyone could ever focus on.)

The point here is that when you're having your photo taken all the time by a bazillion different outlets, the chances increase that you're going to have a few that are not so flattering. That doesn't mean you're demonic or possessed or anything. And it certainly doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh should be trying to rile up the inexplicable masses that listen to his drivel every day.

My second point was that since when are everyone's facial expressions all the same? Or since when can they all fit into the same category? I'm pretty sure that Rush probably has some expressions that aren't seen anywhere else on this earth. (That's a good thing, in case you were wondering.) It's just a ridiculous thing to say. I wish that someone with so much radio time and (I hate to say it) so much power to sway the opinions of the meeker and weaker among us would use his pulpit for something useful instead of fear mongering. That's all. (And by the way, is he going to tell us that the photo of him doesn't look a little demonic? Geez, at least President Barry isn't spewing smoke out of his orifices. Though that would be a million dollar shot if anyone were to come up with one. I'll give you that.)

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not Racist; It's A Fakeroversy

You know why no one watches CNN anymore? I'm guessing it's because they lead with ridiculous stories with descriptions such as "Radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger engages in a racially charged discussion with a caller to her show" as well as "Dr. Laura's racist rant". Good Lord, people. Seriously?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Laura, allow me. Dr. Laura is a somewhat sanctimonious radio talk show personality who takes calls from people who don't know what to do about some sort of problem that they're having in their life. Dr. Laura believes in not having sex before marriage (she tends to call woman who engage in such behaviors the lovely pet name of "whores"), not living together before marriage, stay at home moms, two parent families and stuff of that nature. Her message is wonderful. It's a little unrealistic on some fronts, but very few. There isn't a lot that people who don't like her can say in disagreement with the messages that she sends. Granted, she can be hard to take at times. But the things that she advocates are excellent messages to send to people.

You'd imagine that it would be unlikely for a person of that caliber to go on a "racist rant". Yeah, that's because she didn't. Here's what happened: A called phoned her show

"I'm having an issue with my husband where I'm starting to grow very resentful of him. I'm black and he's white. We've been around some of his friends and family members who start making racist comments as if I'm not there or if I'm not black. And my husband ignores those comments, and it hurts my feelings. And he acts like..." And here is where Dr. Laura jumps in with "Well, can you give me an example of a racist comment? 'Cause sometimes people are hypersensitive. So tell me what's...give me two good examples of racist comments." The woman continues, "OK. Last night, good example, we had a neighbor come over, and this neighbor, when every time he comes over, it's always a black comment." (Well, if he's commenting about her grammar skills, given that sentence right there, he might be right.) "It's 'Oh, well, how do you black people like doing this?' And, 'Do black people really like doing that?' And for a long time, I would ignore it. But last night I got to the point where it..." Fortunately, Dr. Laura broke in with exactly what I was thinking when she said, "I don't think that's racist." I don't either. Inquisitive, perhaps. Racist? Nah.

The caller tried to defend her position by saying, "Well, the stereotype..." And unfortunately, we didn't get to hear what stereotype she was referring to. Was it some sort of archaic watermelon or fried chicken stereotype? We'll never know. Dr. Laura responded by saying, "I don't think that's racist. No, I think that..." And the caller was a bit surprised by this and uttered a, "Seriously." (You know. Because if a black person says that something is racist, it is automatically, by definition, racist. That's why all us white folks are racist. Some black person said that we were and voila!) Dr. Laura was, apparently, serious as she explained, "No, no, no. I think that's...well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply because he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says...we had friends over the other day. We got about 35 people here...the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was going to go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, 'White men can't jump. I want you on my team.' That was racist? That was funny." Wow. That was quite a diversion. (She needs a bodyguard to play basketball at her house? Maybe she does, what do I know. It was just a little surprising, that's all.) Oh, boy. Here we go.

And we did go. Well, the caller went. The caller went to the place where if you're white, you're going to lose. That's right. She went to The N-word Land. She said, "How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around..." And here is where Dr. Laura took the opportunity to make a most excellent point. She said, "Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is N-word, N-word, N-word." Only she didn't say "N-word". No, she said the word. And no, the caller didn't like it.

"That isn't..." But Dr. Laura wasn't going to stop making her point there (which seems like a good idea as I would imagine it would be hard for your point to stick if you ended your argument with the N-word). She continued, "I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing. Don't hang up. I want to talk to you some more. Don't go away." And somewhat to my surprise, the caller didn't go away. And neither did the demonstrative spewing of epithets. Awesome!

She comes back after the commercial and says, "I'm Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talking to Jade. What did you think about during the break, by the way?" That's a nice way to ease into it. But I don't think that Jade was quite on the same page as Dr. Laura was. "I was a little caught back by the N-word that you spewed out. I have to be honest with you. But my point is, race relations..." Oh, OK. So, during the break, you thought about the ways in which you were just wronged by the white woman. Grand. But Dr. Laura stayed on her toes and said, "Oh, then I guess you don't watch HBO or listen to any black comedians." (I don't know what the stretch is there that implies that everyone on the planet has HBO. I get the part about the comedians, but HBO? I find that odd. But, go on...) The woman responds, "But that doesn't make it right." Good Lord....

I wasn't the only one thinking that. "I think you have too much sensitivity..." Dr. Laura said to Jade. Jade, completely missing the point, said, "So, it's OK to say N-word?" No, you twit. That's not what she said.

Dr. Laura: "...and not enough sense of humor."

Jade: "It's OK to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "It depends how it's said." (She's right, by the way. Jade, it won't likely surprise you, doesn't really agree.)

Jade: "Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "It's...it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK." (They do seem to. I get that impression and I don't even have the HBO.)

Jade: "But you're not black. They're not black. My husband is white."

Dr. Laura: "Oh, I see. So a word is restricted to race. Got it. Can't do much about that." (And here is where Jade becomes completely irrational. She also starts making stuff up.)

Jade: "I can't believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out the N-word, and I hope everybody heard it." (She has over nine million listeners. I'm going to bet that at least one of them heard it. Now if only Jade could have heard her point.)

Dr. Laura: "I didn't spew out the N-word."

Jade: "You said, 'N-word, N-word, N-word." (She heard that, but not much else.)

Dr. Laura: "Right. I said that's what you hear."

Jade: "Everybody heard it." (Ahh. So she's well versed on the concept of the radio. That's good.)

Dr. Laura: "Yes, they did."

Jade: "I hope everybody heard it." (I take back what I said about being well versed on the concept of the radio.)

Dr. Laura: "They did...and I'll say it again..."

Jade: "So, what makes it OK for you to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "N-word, N-word, N-word is what you hear on HB..."

Jade: "So what makes it..."

Dr. Laura: "Why don't you let me finish a sentence?"

Jade: "OK."

Dr. Laura: "Don't take things out of context. Don't double N...NAACP me...didn't call anybody a n---er. Nice try, Jade. Actually sucky try. You need a sense of humor."

I still don't see anything wrong with what she said or how she handled it. But someone must have. Someone with power over her (ie, advertisers, syndicators, radio gods, etc.) must have seen something wrong with it because she ended up apologizing. I found it odd. Apologizing when you've done nothing wrong. This is what she said:

"I talk every day about doing the right thing. And yesterday, I did the wrong thing. I didn't intend to hurt people, but I did. And that makes it the wrong thing to have done. I was attempting to make a philosophical point, and I articulated the N-word all the way out, more than one time. And that was wrong. I'll say it again. That was wrong."

Is that how it works for reals? Even if you didn't intend to hurt people, if it does, then it's wrong? I'm not so sure that's true when it comes to pointing out factual instances. Just because someone isn't good at dealing with reality, does that mean that when people point out reality to them and it hurts them that it's wrong? I don't think that it does. What about her apology? What if her apology hurts people who believed that what she was saying at first was right? Does that make her apology wrong? I don't think that it does. It's strange. It's all very strange.

This is so not a "racist rant". It's also so not a controversy. It's nothing more than a few folks trying to stir up a fakeroversy (fake controversy). Granted, Dr. Laura's apology makes it sound like more of a real controversy, but don't be fooled! There is absolutely nothing to this. NOTHING. And anyone who tries to make something of it is a complete moron.

I am disappointed that Jade wasn't able to explain why it is OK for black people to say it to each other. I understand that it's a slur for white people to say it. That doesn't need to be explained to me. But how come a slur isn't always a slur? Why is this word allowed contextual acceptance? I don't get it.

But to end things on a more amusing note, here is a snippet from an episode of South Park that kind of deals with just this very issue. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

It's Getting A Little Squirrelly Over At NPR

I have to admit, I really don't know what to think about this one. Either I'm missing the point or someone else is completely insane. Both very distinct possibilities.

So over there at The Denver Post there's a story about public radio station KRCC. Public radio is financially dependent on donations from its listeners. Twice a year, KRCC holds a pledge drive in order to raise those their funds. For some reason, KRCC wants people to donate early. They want people to donate early so badly that the station "...likes to offer members a thank-you gift" for those who do donate before the pledge drive actually starts. I guess the reasoning being that maybe you will be more likely to donate if you're getting something in return. (Of course, that's usually called 'buying', but I'm really not going to argue semantics with NPR.) Some years they've given out symphony tickets. Other years they've given out museum passes. This year they're giving out neither symphony tickets, nor museum passes.

This year they're giving out squirrel underpants.

Behold!

Uh, underpants for what? Oh, for squirrels? REAL squirrels?! OK, see, squirrels don't need underpants. They're squirrels! What the hell?

According to one KRCC general manager (and future mental patient) Delaney Utterback, "They are really tiny cotton underwear," Well, I imagined they would be if they were for squirrels! I wasn't having a problem with the term "squirrel underpants". I was having a problem with why anyone would want squirrel underpants, even if they're a squirrel! What are they going UNDER?? Nothing! That's right! Because they're squirrels!! They don't wear pants! Thus, they don't need underpants! They're pantsless all the way around!

What am I missing? Perhaps it is the distributor of said squirrel underpants, the "Seattle based oddity peddler Archee McPhee." Just in case you're unfamiliar with that particular product distributor, I will tell you that Archee McPhee is also the "purveyor of the inflatable fruitcake and the unisex prosthetic chest hair" and markets the rodent undergarments as "The underpants squirrels prefer!" Good Lord. Wait. What?!

Behold!

(Side note: They also have inflatable toast!)

I should mention that the Squirrel Underpants are apparently not just for squirrels. Oh, no! No, it's claimed that they're " Also good for hamsters, frogs and gerbils!" (You know, I'm going to disagree! Hamsters, frogs and gerbils are all quite a bit different from each other, let alone from the squirrel! Besides, they have a three inch waist. If you have a frog with a 3-inch waist, you've got quite a problem on your hands and I don't think underpants are going to fix it. And I will again reiterate that we are talking about underpants for squirrels! Think about that!)

For some reason, the Denver Post article also informs us that "The 100-percent cotton tighty-whiteys have a 3-inch waist and are machine-washable." Well, good. I'll be sure to let the squirrel know because I am not doing his laundry! He's on his own!

Below is a one Jennifer Newman. She is (currently) the membership coordinator for KRCC. (No word on whether or not she'll still be the membership coordinator after endorsing the Squirrel Underpants promotion.) She says that it's true! Every early pledge donor will receive at no extra cost and theirs to keep as their free gift, a package of Squirrel Underpants! Hurry and pledge today! Operators are standing by!

OK, OK, that's enough of this! What are they doing?! Is the "Squirrel Underpants" novelty just such a...a....OK, a novelty that they're willing to be that their early pledges just go through the roof by giving away these things? I mean, novel they may be, but they sell for $6.95 each. I'm guessing that symphony tickets or museum tickets were a bit more than seven bucks. Even still, all I'm saying is that I just don't know that they're a tool for economic prosperity in the public radio industry. That's all.

Not only are the Squirrel Underpants available at Archee McPhee's website, the Squirrel Underpants have their own website! (Of course they do.) Squirrelunderpants.com, where they ask you to "Help a squirrel hide his nuts for the winter." It is there that you will learn that they are endorsed by S.A.D., which stands for Small Animal Decency. (Of course it does.) And of course you know that they have their own website as well.

The S.A.D. website claims to be "...an organization that works to keep animal nudity away from the eyes of innocents." Good Lord.... They also claim that "...you don't have to be human to experience shame." And while I'm sure that may be true for all of the pantsless squirrels running around the forests of the world, it's still unclear to me as to whether the Squirrel Underpants would remove the shame or if they would induce it. Tough call, really.

So what have we learned? Not enough from our past, I'll tell you that much. But from this, we've learned that the NPR station in Colorado is betting the farm that the naked squirrel epidemic will result in a stampede of pledges never before seen in our lifetime (or something like that). We've also learned that to some, hamsters, gerbils and frogs can be similar enough to a squirrel that they can mix and match their clothing. (Sort of like a real life version of Garanimals!) And while that may be some of what we've learned, what has been apparently forgotten is that squirrels are animals. Animals, as a general rule, don't need clothes. They're animals!

But KRCC does need donations, so don't let my little hang-ups about keeping the denizens of the forest unclothed stop you from giving as generously as you feel like if that's what you're so inclined to do. And if you do, lemme know how those Squirrel Underpants are working out for that special squirrel in your life.

Sphere: Related Content