Odd Keyword Searches

People find this blog by a variety of means. (And God bless those Google boys.) But regardless as to which search engine they are using (and the majority of the time, it is a search engine), they have to put in keywords to find what they're looking for. As I have a little program called Stat Counter which keeps track of a multitude of things for me here at the blog, I am privy to what the keywords are that people are searching for. It's usually pretty easy to tell what's in the news on certain days because a lot of searches will have keywords pertaining to a hot news item. But other days, the search keywords just look like a cornucopia of crap with a one way ticket straight to this blog. I don't know if that's good or bad, but I'm going to share with you some of the search terms that brought folks here yesterday. Let's begin.

I had two requests for "rachel raye naked red tube". I don't even know what in the hell that could possible mean. Red tube? I can assume that they mean the cute and perky little cooking chick, Rachel Ray, but I have no idea what in the world the "red tube" is referring to. I can't even guess. Whatever. I certainly hope that this blog post helped them out: The Possibility of the Misperception of Scarves

I had a couple of chicken queries yesterday. One was for "chicken says weatherforcast". (Thank God that people don't need to know how to spell, nor separate words in order to find this blog.) The other was for "one legged chicken". Oddly enough, both of those inquiries were likely directed to this post: Today's News - Now With Chickens!

I receive an unimaginable number of hits from people looking for whores in London. Whores in London. Hookers in London. Prostitutes in London. People want to pay for sex when they're in London, that's for sure! Cheap whores in London. Cheapest hookers in London. Oddly enough, I get almost no inquiries for things like "How to tell if I'm riddled with chlamydia after a trip to Europe." Almost never. But I have gotten plenty of mileage, thanks to the wonderment that is the European hooker, out of this post: Economical Hookers In London. (In fact, if you Google "hookers in london" the first result will be this blog! That's a fact that brings me an equal amount of pride and shame at the same time.)

There's not a day that goes by that someone doesn't inquire as to whether or not Annette Funicello is dead. I don't know why that is. Seriously. No other celebrity on my end of things has had their mortality wondered about than Annette Funicello. I cannot explain it. Nope. Can't even come close. And the post that folks are directed to, Who Are These People & Why Are They Hot?, isn't really going to help you understand that either. But I'm here to tell you, she's alive. And I'm also here to tell you, you'll know when she's dead.

Sometimes the search terms just make me laugh. There was "i got tricked to pose nude on chatroulette" that just made me howl with laughter. Really? Tricked? By a computer? Man, do I want to know the back story on THAT one. What really has me confused is that came up not once, but twice. There are at least TWO morons out there who, inexplicably, took off their clothes with their webcam activated as they were logged onto Chat Roulette. Wow. Who are you people? And why are you looking to blogs for what to do about what ails you? Put your damn clothes on and read a book, for cryin' out loud! "what do you mean by nope" was another one that was quite a head scratcher for me. What does that even mean? Nope means nope! Nope! It's not like it's all cryptic or anything. It means nope! Odd, yet hilarious.

Look, the point to all of this is that regardless as to how you found this blog and whether or not you found it with or without your clothes on, I just wanted to say thanks. Thanks

Sphere: Related Content

It's Below The Belt Friday - Part Deux

Like I said, it's not often I can have a theme for the day. And it's probably better that way. I mean, if today covers "below the belt" then I can only assume that the next "theme" day would have to cover "above the belt". Then what? You got it. After "Below The Belt Friday" and "Above The Belt Saturday" I'd be forced to go with "Remove The Belt Sunday". And while I am absolutely NOT opposed to that idea AT ALL (not at all!) I don't really want to post about it. I'm sure you understand.

In case you've been living under a rock or just hiding out under there so you don't have to hear any more about this topic, California's Supreme Court said that it's OK for gay couples to get married. (Release the pigeons.) And while you may know that, you might not know that 41 out of the 50 states (and Puerto Rico I'm assuming. Oh, and Guam. Throw Guam in there too. The gay Guamites? Guamists? Guammers? I don't know.) have statutes that define marriage as "between one man and one woman". 27 of those states felt so strongly about it that they made sure to put that definition in their constitutions. Nice.

Since about 1985, polls have been done to grasp (Pun might be intended later on. Not sure about now, though.) how the public feels about gay marriage. According to the fine folks over there at Pollster.com, in 1985 about 16 percent were OK with it and around 76 percent were against it. (About 8 percent didn't know how they felt about it and asked the phone pollster what he was wearing.) Fast forward to last week and the California Supreme Court decision and we're down to about 55 percent feeling that those who are gay and want to be married are going straight to hell (otherwise known as "opposed") and up to 40 percent who think the other 55 percent are whacked (otherwise known as "in favor of"). Only five percent had no idea what in the hell to say and wanted details about "the gays". (And as far as I know, none were given.)

So in general, the opposition to gay marriage declined and the acceptance of gay marriage increased. There was a slight reversal there right before 2005, but then it perked right up again and continued along the trend that it had been on. So we had the opponents decrease by 21 percent and the proponents increase by 24 percent, with three of those percent defecting over from the extremely wishy-washy camp of "I don't know". That's about a percentage point per year from 1985 until now. Not bad. Could be better, but it could be worse as well. I've just learned to take what I can get. If it's going to be one percent per year, so be it. I wish it were more, but it could be nothing, so I'll take it.

And while all of this is semi-interesting and possibly fascinating (I realize I could be stretching it there), what is definitely amusing is the graph of this trend. See, it seems to me that whenever the topic of "gay" or "homosexuality" comes up, all that is subliminally focused on is the whole sex aspect of it. Well, that's mostly true when speaking about those who are opposed to it. For those who are not opposed to it and moreso for those who are gay, the sex aspect of it, while extremely pleasant (and it was!), isn't the main focus (all the time). But it's not like the topic never comes up. It might not be as frequently as some would like, but it does occur.

What's my point? Glad you asked. Below is the graph which depicts the trends how people responded to polls asking them if they are opposed to or in support of gay marriage. Behold! The Penis Graph!

You can click on the image above if you wish to enlarge the penis graph and see the penis graph in closer detail. Oh, the irony.

Sphere: Related Content

The Majority IS The Majority!

I like statistics and I like numbers. (Yeah, kinda geeky. I'm well aware, thanks.) Both statistics and the numbers that the statistics are composed of can be extremely useful tools in figuring out a bazillion different things. Therefore, you're going to have to expect that, while statistics can be used for good, when they fall into the wrong hands they can also be used for evil. Or stupidity. (Sometimes, they're the same thing.)

Last week, the California Supreme Court voted 4-3 to overturn a state law that allowed only opposite sex couples to marry. Yep, gay marriage. Gayriage. I have zero problem with gay people getting married. (Although I will admit, I was a little disappointed that I didn't hear more from those who are opposed to this idea. It's such a grand source of amusement to hear idiots attempt to form an argument out of "logic" such as, "What's next? People marrying dogs?" I just can't get enough of the "marrying dogs" argument. I find it hil-iarous.) What I have a problem with is people twisting the numbers to make it seem like everything is just going straight to hell. (By the way, I've got news for those people. We're most of the way there already and it's only getting warmer.)

Some guy over at the Pensito Review (Never heard of it. And that's fine, as I'm sure they've never heard of me either.) wrote an article whose headline proclaims, "Majority of California Supreme Court 'Activist Judges' Who Legalized Gay Marriage Were Republicans". Oh, the horror.

The article states, "Now, in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this month legalizing gay marriage, the right will have trouble making their name-calling stick, because three of the four “activist judges” who voted in favor of extending civil rights to gays were Republicans." And he's right. The ruling was 4-3 in favor of the gay marriage dealio. (Well, it was 4 who affirmed, 2 who dissented and 1 who dissented with caveat. "With caveat" is sort of like, "I see your point, but I've gotta go with these guys over here.") And three of the four who voted in favor of gay marriage ARE Republicans. Oh, but guess what? There's only ONE Democrat on the California Supreme Court to begin with!

Of COURSE the majority of justices who voted in favor of gay marriage are Republicans. The majority of the court is Republican! You will NEVER have the majority of a vote on the California Supreme Court be that of the Democrats with the current political party make up the way it is. There's only ONE Democrat! It will NEVER happen!

Here's the thing. I don't totally understand all of the political party affiliation hypersensitivity that people seem to have these days. I'm not really a big fan of the whole political party system, but I think that, the majority of the time, it works just fine. But just because someone is a member of one political party doesn't mean that they are supposed to interpret the law any differently (ie, with bias) than if they were a member of the opposite party. That's the thing about being a judge. You get to judge. If this were based solely on political party affiliation, there wouldn't be any need to have the judges rule on anything. Most of them are Republicans, so every law should be done the Republican way, right? No. No. No.

I don't know what the point was that the guy who wrote the article was trying to make. I think it was that Republicans are hypocrites, but I'm not sure. I know that I like it when people can think for themselves and do what they believe is the right thing even though it might bring them an onslaught of wrath from their allies. If they had said that the ban on gay marriage was OK, would I feel the same way? If their decision was not based solely on their political party affiliation, absolutely, I would feel the same way. (Personally, I really don't care one way or the other about it. I'm glad that it means something for the people who are all happy about it, but it doesn't have an affect on me.)

So, when you read somewhere that the majority of the justices on the California Supreme Court who voted in favor of gay marriage :::gasp::: are :::gasp again::: Republicans, just remember that all but one ARE Republicans and that statement can be made about EVERY ruling that the California Supreme Court makes.

Sphere: Related Content