My Popular WTF Series: I ALWAYS Wear Pants

Although I'm glad that this installment of "WTF" doesn't involve some sort of wayward creature lumbering down Main Street, I never really thought that it would dip into the fashion realm. Oh, but it did. Dip, that is. Actually, it dropped. Far.

There is a company called American Apparel. And while a name like that would tend to lend itself to describing what it sells, I don't know that I would agree in this case. I'm American. I'm in America. This is not (my) American Apparel. I present to you ::drum roll:: the Unisex Flex Fleece V-Neck Sweatshirt:

First things first, it does say "sweatshirt", right? Yes, it does! I asked for clarification because the model has neglected to put on any pants! I'm thinking that she might not realize that she has simply forgotten her pants due to the fact that she is wearing a belt! And a rather long one at that. Now, I'm not Stacy or Clinton, but "belts" do not go with "sweatshirts". I don't know that it's all that complicated, so the real issue is where are her pants?!

I checked the description on the website in hopes that it would clear up this matter. No. It muddled it further. It reads: "A stylish fall/winter piece for men and women. Features a flattering, long and slim cut in the body. Flex Fleece (50% Polyester / 50% Cotton Fleece) construction. V-neck. Matching cuffs and waistband. Unisex size – women may prefer to order one size smaller. " Hmmm....darn. Nothing about needing or not needing to wear pants with it. There are other issues, however.

First issue: Do you think that's what MEN want?! A flattering, long and slim cut in the body?! Since when is that a selling point? I want my MEN to dress like MEN! I do not want my MEN to look like "Drag Queen Ken"! (Sparkly tiara and high heels sold separately.)

Next: "Matching cuffs and waistband." As opposed to NON-matching? I don't think that things that are just a given should be included in the description. "Pants! With TWO legs!" "Gloves! For your hands!"

Continuing: The whole "unisex size" thing? I don't get it. Not sized for either men or women, but definitely not for women, as it would be too big and they should get a smaller one. That sounds an awful lot like "sizing" for "men or women" to me.

What else could there be? How about a link that says, "View a man in this unisex style!" Well, you know I clicked on that. And thank God I did. Otherwise, I wouldn't be showing you this:

To the right, we have the lovely male unisex model posing for us with his "flattering, long and slim body" after placing third in a "Will & Grace" look-alike contest. To his credit, however, he does seem to be wearing pants.

Oh, thank God! More links! "See similar styles here." I must click! Apparently, a similar style is the Velour Long Sleeve Raglan as shown below by this overly enthusiastic model. Judging from the expression on his face, this guy has clearly lost a bet. Or he has just experienced exactly what you'd expect from a guy wearing a pink velour shirt in public. But, he too is wearing pants. I think. (The way this has been going, it could be a mini skirt.) Ladies, you'd better hurry and pick one of these up for your man! You know he wants one! And you want him in one, don't you?

No? Not so much? Not his thing? Not your thing? Well, you're in luck because there is another link to "Styles Men Might Like". The key word here, I believe, is "might", a word commonly used in phrases such as, "Styles men might like", as well as, "And monkeys might fly out of my butt." Here is one of the "styles men might like":

I ask you, "WHERE?! Men WHERE might like this?!"

Sphere: Related Content

Nothing. What's An Emu With You?

It hasn't even been 10 days since my last "runaway animal invades local freeway" story and there's another one. This one is actually in this country. Come on! Guess where in this country? You can do it! Think! Think! What's that? Yes! The South is correct! This time we're stopping by Appling, Georgia on Interstate-20.

This from the fine folks at the WSBTV News website. "Authorities are seeking the owner of a wandering emu that made drivers gawk and clogged traffic on I-20 before it was finally caught." I'm thinking that finding the owner of said rogue emu should not be a difficult task. How many lost emus in Georgia could there possibly be? The actual "seeking" of said owner seems unnecessary.

"The three-toed emu -- a flightless bird -- was spotted by numerous motorists on Wednesday after it appeared in the highway median between the Thomson and Camak exits" I'm going to have to hand it to them for mentioning the number of toes on the bird AND, in case anyone was wondering why the damn thing just didn't fly away, other than the fact that it is a BFB (Big Fat Bird), mentioning that this particular species of bird is, in fact, flightless. The fact that it was spotted by numerous motorists I suppose lends credibility to the argument that people actually use the Interstate.

"The biggest concern was the threat to motorists," said Law Enforcement Capt. Larry
Barnard of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Even with that description, I have no idea what that man's job is. But, what other concerns would there be? That the bird was lonely? "Since an emu is technically livestock it doesn't normally fall under our jurisdiction." What does "an emu is technically livestock" mean? Is that like a chicken is technically my dinner? Which non livestock creatures do fall under your jurisdiction, Captain Larry?

Columbia County animal control officers helped capture the bird, said Pam Tucker, director of the county's Emergency Services Department. "They surrounded it in the median -- with a lot of caution because emus will hurt you," she said. How does she know that? Previous emu experience gone awry, perhaps? "One of the animal control officers grabbed its legs and another grabbed the upper body and another put a covering over its head and they loaded it into the truck." It sounds like a bad movie of the week, but with Patty Hearst as the emu.

Tucker said a man from Wilkes County said he was coming to see if the emu was his. Who else's emu would it be? If I'm in Georgia and I'm missing an emu and I hear there's one traipsing about the freeway, I'm thinking, "Well, there he is!"

"We're hopeful," she said. "Emus are a difficult animal. After four more days, we will put him up for adoption." If no one claims it, the bird will be available for adoption on February 12. IF no one claims it? IF? Trust me, someone will claim the emu. With a selling point of "Emus are a difficult animal" how could it not find a happy new home? I wonder if those four days are the standard wait time for unclaimed emus?

"Emus are native to Australia and are the planet's second-largest bird, behind the ostrich. They are sometimes raised as livestock." Clearly, this was for all of the Southern residents who were wondering more about this strange animal? What is it's habitat? What does it eat? You mean there's a BBFB (Bigger Big Fat Bird)?

Of course all of this wouldn't be complete without mentioning some of the other items on the WSBTV site. "Just what IS an emu?" Once you learn that, you can jump to the next story: "Start Your Own Emu Farm!" And if you're having trouble getting that venture started, here, persue this story: "How to Adopt the Mystery Emu." Now, in the "My Fun" section, we have: "Party Like It's 1999 -- or 1950", "Macho Cars Men Drive" and "Nordic Walking Helps Burn Calories". The definition of "fun" at WSBTV must be a little different than mine if those are the stories under the "fun" category.

The similiarities to the deer on a leash story in the South are simply un-canny. And frightening.

Sphere: Related Content

Biggest Pet Peeve? Animals Dressed as Humans

The whole Britney Spears debacle bothers me. On many levels. Especially this one: Lynne Spears, loser mother of The Brit (Yes, I believe that is her official title.), made some statements in a sworn court declaration for the purpose of obtaining a temporary restraining order against one Sam Lutfi (the "sometime manager" of The Brit). These statements allege that he was drugging The Brit without her knowledge. With knowledge, it's called 'partying'. Without knowledge, it's grounds for a restraining order, which seems reasonable. (Side note: Lutfi's full first name is actually Osama. Yo, Brit! I know you've got a lot going on and all, but don't put all of your trust in a guy named Osama. Please.)

When Lynne showed up at The Brit's home on Jan. 28, 2008, she found Osama in charge (never a pleasant sentence to write) and The Brit more confused than usual. She stated that The Brit, "...became very agitated and could not stop moving." Now that confuses me more than usual because when I think about people "being drugged", I don't think about them being drugged with speed. No, actually, I picture quite the opposite. But I digress. She also stated that The Brit, "...cleaned the house. (Apparently cleaning the house is cause for alarm with members of the Spears' clan?) She changed her clothes many times. She also changed her dogs' clothes many times." Did you catch that?

Just to recap, the person making this statement to the court is supposed to be the sane one. The one who is looking out for the other one. The one who is supposed to be in touch with reality. I'm assuming that also means the one who doesn't think that it is normal for dogs to wear clothes! On purpose! How is it "out of the ordinary" for someone to change the dog's clothes many times?! That would imply that it's ordinary to change the dog's clothes! But it's not! It's not ordinary at all! In fact, what's really "out of the ordinary" is for the dog to have clothes on to actually change!! WTF?!

Look, I'm going to say this one time. I'll be brief, but apparently, it needs to be said.

Dogs don't need clothes. They're dogs. Now put down the leash, and back away from the dog.

Sphere: Related Content

4th and God To Go

Here's a little tidbit from Reuters: Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who also has been inquiring about the National Football League's handling of a spying scandal involving this year's Super Bowl contenders the New England Patriots, criticized the NFL for pulling the plug on church Super Bowl parties.

First of all, where was I when they changed the job description and duties of a US Senator to include overseeing an inquiry into the NFL and how they handle weasely cheaters like the Patriots? Aren't they supposed to be doing more Senator-y things? I don't know, like passing laws or something?

"There's absolutely no reason why you ought to be able to have a big screen in a bar but not in church, where a church is having a social event," Specter said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Hey, now, I've been saying that for YEARS. Wanna get me to go to church? Two words. Big Screen. Either those two words or these four words: Church in a bar.

"According to the Washington Post, the NFL bans public exhibitions of its games on television screens larger than 55 inches, citing copyright law protecting its games, but exempts sports bars."

The NFL doesn't allow it's games on screens larger than 55 inches? WTF?! Who knew that the NFL had a stick up it's butt? Not me. Man, if you've got a church with a TV that is bigger than 55 inches, well, holy canoli that's a BFS for a church if I've ever heard of one (Big Fat Screen). That's a BFS even if you're NOT a church!

He said he plans to introduce legislation on Monday to change federal copyright law granting an exemption for organizations using telecasts at "social events," such as churches".

Again, shouldn't he be doing things a little more Senator-y and a little less Are You Ready For Some Football (on a screen less than 55 inches) ? He's a Senator for Christ sakes!! Somehow, some way, "United States Senator" is turning into a job for which just about everyone is qualified for. That's not good (in case you were wondering).

Side Note: My favorite line from the Super Bowl commercials this year? Will Ferrell saying, "Bud Light. Suck one." Hil-arious.

Sphere: Related Content

This Mattress Not Suitable For Ski Slopes

Some guy in Italy was killed when the mattress he was riding on crashed into a barrier on the side of a piste. (Apparently, piste is Italian for "a downhill ski trail". What's wrong with just saying "trail"? I don't know either.)

All of this comes to you from the fine folks over there at Telegraph.co.uk. (Man, I am really liking these .uk sites! Wacky Brits and the likes running, er, sliding all over Europe, they are!)

The accident occurred when they "lost control" of their mattress. Exactly how much "control" does one have over a mattress in the first place? I'm not talking those Sleep-Number things where you can control your side however you want. I'm talking "control" strictly in the "flying down the icy side of a mountain" sense.

Apparently there was a mattress co-pilot/co-passenger who was getting treatment for his injuries, which were not believed to be life threatening. Mind numbing, yes. Life threatening, apparently not.

An "FCO spokesman said that Italian police had been informed of the death, but were treating it as a tragic accident." As opposed to what?? Some slope-side conspiracy to send tourists careening to their doom strapped atop a Sealy-Posturepedic?

Helmets, anyone?

Sphere: Related Content

Warning: Not For The Soft Headed

Now the CDC has lost it. It's either the CDC or the AP again. But one of them has completely lost their mind.

Apparently, 7,000 children end up in the hospital every year after using cold and cough medicines. OK, that seems like a lot to me. And they end up in the hospital because why? I don't think I've ever read that explained. Is it because they're still sick? Still coughing? I don't get it.

About two-thirds of the cases were children who took the medicines unsupervised. However, about one-quarter involved cases in which parents gave the proper dosage and an allergic reaction or some other problem developed, the study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

Aside from the issue that I have with the basic math demonstrated above (two thirds plus one quarter does not equal a whole. What's up with the other 1/12th? That's at least 583 kids, so I find it a fairly significant omission.), the more obvious issue I have is with the fact that the kids took the medicines "unsupervised". And, shocker, something went wrong? Duh.

See, I'm having trouble finding the point of this story. I am fully capable of determining what the blatantly obvious is on my own. I don't need the AP or the CDC to assume I am of the soft-headed, helmet needing variety who wants to rely on government entities to spell out every little thing for me. Good Lord, that is the complete opposite of what I need.

Parents should not encourage children to take medicine by telling them it's candy, and parents should also avoid taking adult medications in front of kids, CDC officials said.

I suppose I'm OK with the "Parents should not encourage children to take medicine by telling them it's candy" part. Although if you're doing that, you have other issues that someone should be addressing. I don't know exactly what they would be, but I would think that at this point they would require that you have no more children until they're sufficiently dealt with.

I'm really not OK with the "parents should also avoid taking adult medications in front of kids". Why? Why should an adult not take an adult cold medicine in front of a child? Should I also not wear a large T-shirt in front of a child either? Because if that T-shirt isn't made for a child, God forbid if the child sees someone that it is made for with it.

To quote my two favorite morning radio guys (Armstrong & Getty, 910AM, check out the podcast or click the weblink over on the right of this page), "Goodbye, sweet America." When the CDC is telling people not to use items made for adults in front of children, it's a pretty strong sign that the masses either "seem to need" or "seem to want" that type of direction given to them in order to keep their lives on track. And I'm saying it again, for God's sake man, that is the last thing I need.

Sphere: Related Content

So, In Fahrenheit, That Would Be....

It's gotta be really cold in Canada. And really boring. Those have to be the two contributing factors as to why four UPS workers in Calgary decided to make a bet to see who could go the longest wearing shorts on the job. They made the bet eleven years ago. That's 1996 (Canadian or American.).

OK, this bet has potential, I'll give it that. I haven't done extensive travelling in the region, but what I can tell from all of the pictures that I've seen of Canada, it appears to be under 7 feet of snow year round and there are a lot of Saint Bernards and Mounties constantly rescuing people from downtown areas. So wearing shorts all the time would get chilly on occasion (eg, September through July).

On Monday, when the temperature dropped to below -48C (for those of you only familiar with the Fahrenheit system of temperatures, -48C is roughly really-freaking-cold-Fahrenheit.) the last guy caved, er, panted, er, got dressed like a reasonable individual and that left 38-year old Shaun Finnis as the winner.
<

What does one win after eleven years in shorts in the freezing cold? That's right. $400. (And I'm assuming that's Canadian, so it's even less for us blokes over here in the US, I think.) $400?!?! That's it?!!? You'd think they'd throw in a pair of pants to go with that (Shaun doesn't even own UPS pants, apparently). But, no, $400.

That's probably why the other guy just gave up. When that guy woke up that morning and saw that it was really-freaking-cold-Fahrenheit outside, he probably said to himself, "Self....it is really-freaking-cold-Fahrenheit outside and you've been doing this for eleven years for a lousy $400. For God's sake, man, wise up and put on some damn pants!"

What can brown do for you? Not a lot and not with pants, apparently.

Sphere: Related Content

A Good Liar Is Hard To Find

It's hard to find a good liar these days. A liar in general? Oh, easy to find. But a good liar? Damn near impossible. Case in point today: Joran van der Sloot.

The Sloot has been the main focus in the investigation of the disappearance and presumed death of Natalie Holloway in Aruba. On Friday, The Sloot does a TV interview and says that he was lying when he confessed privately to someone that he was involved in Holloway's disappearance. This revelation came only hours after it was announced by the authorities in Aruba that they were reopening the case after they had viewed some footage that was secretly taped by a Dutch journalist. This guy has impeccable timing, yes? Uh, no.

Yes, of course, that makes perfect sense. Someone is going to ask me if I killed someone and, if I didn't, I am going to tell them that I did because that is what they want to hear. (This all being under the presumption that one wasn't being waterboarded at the time.) NO! That makes NO sense! We're talking about murder! You don't say you killed someone if you didn't!

Don't get me wrong, there are absolutely times when you do lie about things. "I love your cooking!" "Those jeans don't make you look fat!" "I adore your mother!" Things like that? Lie, lie and lie some more, people!

But there are also absolutely times when you do not, under any circumstances (sans waterboarding) lie about things! "Did you kill someone?" "Did you kill someone?" and "Did you kill someone?" are three situations that come to mind. Don't lie.

So, just to recap, when you've been asked by someone, anyone, if you've killed someone, and you didn't, the answer is NO.

Sphere: Related Content

They Called Where From A What?!

North Carolina has gotten a reprieve. They can thank the fine folks in Iowa for that. Specifically, those over at KCRG-TV website. \

Here's the story: On the roof of Urbandale High School in Des Moines, there is a large portable heater that is used during construction projects. Those particular portable heaters have flames that, well, flame about from within. (They're quite impressive. And warm.) I guess the crew decided to spiff it up a bit and painted a NASA logo on the side and added some fins. (Nice touch!) I'm thinking, "Cool!" The neighbors thought, "Oh, my God! It's a rocket!"

Correct. Someone who saw the rocket-heater on top of the school called 911 to report the rocket. Or to check to see if NASA had lost one. It's hard to say. OK, so they had to check to make sure it wasn't a rocket (it wasn't) and that there wasn't any danger (there wasn't).

Now, I'm thinking that this sounds like quite the impressive project that they pulled off if it actually stirred concern that it was real. (Granted, one phone call isn't stirring much, but it made people look, I'll give it that.) I wanted to actually see the rocket-heater. This is the picture that accompanied this story that KCRG had on their website:

Just in case you were wondering where that 911 call came from, here's a picture of a phone! Never mind the heater-rocket! Let's start at the beginning for those readers who are new to the planet. Iowa, North Carolina thanks you.

Sphere: Related Content

Speaking of North Carolina

Wednesday's post dealt with the deer-on-a-leash incident gone awry. The details of that story were posted on Channel WXII-12's website. When I was done laughing, but not quite done marveling, at the deer story, I started perusing some of the other headlines they had posted. That's when it became very clear to me that, although the name says North Carolina, it's pretty obvious from the stuff they're reporting on that it's really in the South. Really.

Here's a sampling: "Cat Finds Child Porn"

"Monastery Rents Out Rooms For Super Bowl"

"Man Charged With Giving Xanax Pills To Son"

"All Hail The Power Ballad"

Hmmm. OK. Then, under the heading "Don't Miss This!" we have the following "must reads":

"Olsen Will Not Be Part of Ledger Death Probe"

"Sopranos Knocks 'Em Dead at SAG Awards"

"Craigslist Used To Hire Hitman"

I also ran across a story titled, "Gang Members Arrested After Deputies Raid Meeting". An excerpt: "Gang members in the middle of meeting to educate other members on gang knowledge were arrested during a raid last Wednesday. Deputies with the county's gang unit were conducting an investigation at 627 N. Church St., when they smelled marijuana and overheard the suspects inside an apartment discussing gang activities. Gang members refer to these meetings as "church", deputies said."

Yep. Faaaaarrrr south.

Sphere: Related Content