You're Not Searching For These, Either

To recap, yesterday was the Top Ten Searches on Google for 2009. I don't know who was searching for these things, but apparently people were. Hence, the list. But I noticed that the Yahoo! list of their top searches for the year was a little different than the Google list. Not much, but a little. Both lists accentuate my theory that the Internet is not so much of a tool as it is a toy. And that's fine, I'm all for toys. But let's just stop pretending that we're all doing such important work when we're online, all right? We're either on Facebook or looking for porn. The end.

Just for the sake of memory refreshing (as I can't remember what I had for breakfast, let alone what I read yesterday), the Google list was as follows:

10. Torpedo Gratis (free text messaging, not free self propelled, aquatic weaponry)

9. Dantri.com.vn

8. Windows 7

7. Lady Gaga

6. New Moon (the movie, not the lunar rotation cycle)

5. Sanalika

4. Twitter

3. Tuenti

2. Facebook (2, 3, and 4 are due to the laziness of the Turkish Internet users, apparently)

1. Michael Jackson

That's what people are searching for on Google most frequently. Now, onto the Yahoo! list.

While text messaging for free was a priority for Google searchers, for Yahoo! searchers, their Number Ten search was Runescape, the popular (duh) free online role playing game which, according to the description, involves "...monsters to kill, quests to complete, and treasure to win." OK, then. You now know as much as I do.

Number Nine was NASCAR. NASCAR has been really popular in the recent past, but it's popularity has been waning. I attribute that to folks figuring out that no matter how long they watch, those folks ain't never going to turn right.

Number Eight, for reasons that are inexplicable to me, is Kim Kardashian. You must really know how to work...something if your father was technically a lawyer for OJ Simpson during his first trial (you know, the one where he was acquitted of the killing that he did of his wife and her friend) and that's all you've got. Well, that and, apparently, a pretty nice ass. OH, wait! AND a sex tape! It seems that everyone except for me has made a sex tape! If you haven't made yours, you'd better get on it because from what I can figure, it's becoming some sort of a requirement for all human beings that are or will be fornicating at some point. But other than that, you're dumb as a post and haven't accomplished a thing in your life. Amazing.

Number Seven was American Idol. I'm a little surprised that it didn't rank higher than 7. What with the be-makeup-ed and tongue wagging Adam Lambert turning in his spectacle of a performance week after week and all.

Number Six is something called Naruto. According to Wikipedia, Naruto is "...an ongoing Japanese manga series....(which)...tells the story of Naruto Uzumaki, an adolescent ninja who constantly searches for recognition and aspires to become a Hokage, the ninja in his village that is acknowledged as the leader and the strongest of all." Ninja aspirations. Sixth most popular search on Yahoo! Huh. More popular than NASCAR, but less popular than Britney Spears. That sounds about right.

Number Five is the aforementioned Ms. Spears. I think that's because she was doing her whole comeback thing this past year. I can't think of any other antics that would warrant her ranking fifth. No divorces, head shavings, seat belt-less driving, beating down vehicles with umbrellas, pregnancies, births, et cetera. She is hot again, though. But not hot enough to rank #1, which is where she has spent the past FOUR years. Good Lord, Yahoo! searchers. Get a grip on yourself. Oh. Wait. That's probably why she's ranked so high. All of the gripping. Never mind. (But just so you know, God sees everything!)

Clocking in at Number Four is Megan Fox. Look, I'll give you that she's attractive. But what in the hell has she done? Anything? Other than look hot? That's it? Huh. All right then. Number Four it is, but you people stay the hell away from me.

Number Three gives us WWE. Remember that Number Nine was NASCAR. Are you kind of getting a feel for the type of person who is using Yahoo! search as opposed to Google? Yeah, I think we are...and it scares me. (Somehow though, they've figured out how to operate their computers, so maybe it's not all that bad. Who am I kidding? It's that bad. We all know it.)

Want to not be shocked? Then how about if I tell you that the Number Two search was Twilight. Sparkly vampires? Very popular with the Yahoo! search crowd. The only part that I find slightly shocking about this is that the new movie was New Moon. Last year's sparkly vampire movie was Twilight. What's up with that Yahoo! searchers?

And the one thing that searchers far and wide can agree upon, Michael Jackson! Sadly, the King of Pop's death propelled him to the top of many, many lists this year. It's odd. When you're alive, people shun you because you were accused of child molestation and might have been a pedophile. But when you're dead and you've still been accused of child molestation and still might have been a pedophile, no one cares and thinks you're the greatest thing since sliced bread. Go figure.

I just wanted to point out the differences between the Google searches and the Yahoo! searches. The Google searches were mostly social networking sites, with a single technology site, the obligatory sparkly vampires, a freakazoid singer and Jacko. Meanwhile, over at The Yahoo!, you've got three hotties, two redneck pastimes, a role playing game with monsters, some anime with ninjas, a little American Idol, the obligatory sparkly vampires and Jacko. Yahoo! searchers don't seem all that interested in social networking at all. They don't give a fat rat's ass about anyone else unless it's a hottie or a sparkly vampire. They don't need anyone else to talk to. All they need is good looking chicks to look at and cars that turn left. Screw everyone else, so sayeth the Yahoo! searchers.

Should we take a look at the Top Ten searches on Bing tomorrow? I think we're going to because I've looked through them and (Spoiler Alert!) while Jacko is Number One on Bing as well, it's a very, very different list from The Yahoo! and from The Google. (By the way, Twitter made it to #2 on Bing, but I don't know if it's because of lazy Turks like it was on Google.)

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Things You're Not Searching For

I've just glanced through the top Internet searches for 2009 on Google and on Yahoo! and I've come to this conclusion: The Internet is a toy which we use strictly for our enjoyment and pleasure. I've also concluded that while most folks are morons and judging strictly on what was searched for, folks that are searching on Yahoo! are simpletons compared to those searching on Google.

Let's just run down the Top Ten Searches for 2009 on Google first, shall we? In a very particular order, starting with Number Ten is something called Torpedo Gratis. I believe that translates roughly to "free torpedo". I would like a free torpedo. (It'd be a nice conversation piece. I never know what to say when I have company.) I have never thought of searching for one however. But since so many people did over the course of 2009, I figured I'd better check it out. It is a website in Brazil that allows you to send a free text message from your computer to a cell phone. I guess that's needed in Brazil. Hard to imagine it doing very well in the US.

Number Nine was equally puzzling to me, as it was something called Dantri.com.vn. It's in Vietnamese, so just looking at the page didn't help me a bit. But according to something called Xomba, "...it is a Vietnamese page where you can find news...Each news has its own headline that you can select to see the whole information." OK, so it's like a news aggregator t kind of a deal, only in Vietnamese. I get that. (Then again, Xomba could be lying. I don't know. It could be Vietnamese human trafficking and porn for all we know.)

Number Eight was Windows 7. Finally something I understand!

Number Seven was Lady Gaga. Crap. Right back to things I don't understand.

Number Six was New Moon (the sparkly vampire movie sequel thing to Twilight, the sparkly vampire movie original that started it all!).

Number Five was another head scratcher. It was something called Sanalika and according to the European Tech Crunch it is "a virtual world where you can play multiplayer games and join realtime events. It was launched on November 2008 and has already reached over 3 million users." That doesn't help me understand why it's so popular, but it seems like it has to do with little anime characters, and no one can ever help me understand why those are so popular, so I'm just going to have to take The Google's word for it that folks like it.

Numbers Four, Three and Two perplex the heck out of me. Four is Twitter (which is perplexing in and of itself, I realize that, but stay with me here), Three is Tuenti (which I think is pronounced like "twenty" and is basically the Spanish Facebook) and Two is Facebook. Now, I understand that those sites are popular, but I don't understand why they would be so popular on a Google search that it would warrant them being the top second, third and fourth search for an entire year. I wouldn't have thought that so many people didn't know what they were that they needed to search for them. But I only thought that because I was wrong. Fortunately for me, I can use Google to actually search rather than using it to be lazy, which is what would account for this phenomenon.

Back to the Tech Crunch folks for the answer to this. They claim that "Most Turkish Internet users search for the domain or keyword of a website on Google then click on the first search result to go to the actual site." Wow. I don't understand. I thought computers were computers. Do they not have the automatic fill in thing with web browsers in Turkey? You type in the URL once and then it remembers it? Or better yet, they don't have bookmarks in Turkey? Y'all can't bookmark your damn Facebook and click on that? Instead you type "Facebook" into Google and then click on it. This is why Turkey is Turkey and the US is the US. No further explanation needed. What is wrong with people?

The Number One search on Google this year, if you haven't already figured it out, was Michael Jackson. It took the guy dying for people to want to pay attention to him again. That's pretty sad. I'm not saying that he didn't bring a lot of it upon himself, I'm just saying that it's pretty sad. I'd like to think that maybe if he had known how much people had liked him and how many people had liked him that he wouldn't have had nearly all of the issues that he had. But it's the answer to that and other questions that are much more important that can't be found through a Google search. The Google is to entertain you and me and to make Sergey and Larry a gazillion more dollars. That's it. That's the sole purpose of the Google. The Google is like the Internet version of The Oprah (only without the intermittent weight gain and the lesbian rumors about Gayle King). It's to entertain and to make money. Tomorrow I'll delve into how Yahoo! is just like The Google...only without the making money part.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not An Egg

It's been a while since we've had God or Jesus show up on a grilled cheese sandwich or in the back of someone's pickup truck. Not literally, of course. I'm referring to those folks that pour their Cheerios into their bowl in the morning and they go to take that first bite and look down to see those toasty O's looking like the Son of God. Next thing you know, the local TV stations are involved and people are getting ready to bid on the damn thing on eBay. So since there hasn't been a Jesus-in-an-object sighting lately, it's only fitting that there would be one around holiday time. After all, it's Jesus's birthday that's coming up. Perhaps he'd like to stop by and drop some hints for what he's like, you know?

Actually, this time it wasn't Jesus that showed up either. No, this time, some cuckoo birds from Texas claim that one of their chickens (yes, their chickens!) laid an egg (yes, an egg!) that had a cross on it (yes, a cross!). Now, listen, it might be a cross. That's hard to deny. But I'm not so certain about the whole "egg" part. Behold!

See what I mean? That IS a cross, but I don't know if that IS an egg. Here's the story according to CBS-2 in Chicago: It seems that in the town of Burleson, Texas (that's about 13 miles south of Fort Worth, in case you give a crap) a one Tracy and a one Pam Norrell have a small farm with some chickens. Every day, they do what people that own chickens do. That's right. The people go out and steal the chickens unborn children right out from under their arse so that they can make themselves some grub. Doesn't sound so tasty and delicious when I put it that way, now does it?

But one day, the Norrell's claim that one of their chickens laid an egg with a cross on it. According to those CBS-2 folks, "...this egg isn't smooth and a very noticeable cross is indented on the top." And according to those Norrell folks, this egg "...was laid 'straight from heaven' and is a message of encouragement that comes at the right time." What now?

You'd think that the folks that actually owned the chickens would know that the egg didn't come "straight from heaven" but rather, straight from the chicken's butt. They're not amateurs; why would they think that? And what sort of encouragement is it to have a deformed looking egg like that? I'm not so sure that it's very encouraging at all! Hey, your chickens are are going start laying funky looking eggs! Feel encouraged? No? Think about it some more and get back to me. Maybe then?

Pam Norrell claims that "This time of the year, we get so taken up with the presents and money and we forget about the reason. I think He (God) was just telling us he is the reason for the season." Eggs? Eggs are the reason for the season? I don't think so. Now if that chicken was laying fully wrapped presents? Well, that would be something! THAT would be the reason for the season! Gift giving! And what a gift that would be? (Think that chicken has a Playstation3 up there? That's what I'm hoping for this year!)

I'm not buying this one. First of all, that's not looking like any egg I've ever seen before. It barely looks like an egg at all. Secondly, that cross is just a little too well defined. I don't know a lot about the formation of an eggshell inside of a chicken, but I think I know enough to know that this is highly unlikely. Now, I realize that you might be thinking that the news people who went over there and did a little filming of this story for the news might have been able to tell if it was a real egg or not. I don't think that they would have because they keep referring to the cross on the egg as being 'indented'. The cross does not appear to be 'indented', it appears to be raised or embossed or not indented. Thus, I don't know if they'd know their arse from a hole in the ground, so I'm certainly not leaving this egg identifying business up to them either.

The lady seems very nice. Not very sensible and not the dangerous kind of crazy, but crazy none the less. She calls herself a farmer, yet she appears to have slightly purple hair. I've known farmers. I've never known any purple haired farmers, though. That doesn't mean they don't exist, I'm just saying. But nice or not, purple hair or not, egg or not, it wasn't sent from God. It was sent from that chicken IF it's an egg AT ALL (which I doubt that it is). But hey, if it comforts her to think that God is sending her messages from inside of a chicken's butt, good for her. Everyone needs comfort. And if she can find some sucker on eBay to pay a few grand for a fake God-send egg with a cross not indented on it, more power to her. The video of the news story is below. You can take a gander at that and decide what you think (but if you think it's an egg, I'm telling you, it's not).

Sphere: Related Content

Tiger Woops

Today, my favorite person is a guy who I don't think I even knew existed before today. Even though the guy is a pro athlete (well, he's a golfer, but that's the same, isn't it?) and even though I do follow sports, I don't think that I'd heard the guy's name before today. But today, after not only hearing the guy's name, but also having heard what he had to say, he's one of my favorite people. That guy is Jesper Parnevik.

Casper Parsnip? What? Who? No. Jesper Parnevik. He is, apparently, a golfer of sorts. He's a pro golfer. And he has a little connection to a one newly discovered adulterer, Tiger Woods. If you've been under a rock since Thanksgiving, it's come out not once, not twice, but three times now that Tiger Woods has cheated on his wife, Elin, with a variety of a lower class of women. Then again, I don't know how high class they're supposed to be when he's the one cheating on his wife. That ain't so high class right there. Let's just say they run in different social circles, shall we? OK, then.

Tiger Woods, up until now, was the epitome of squeaky clean. He's the world's best golfer, probably the world's most recognized athlete, will be the first sports billionaire, has a good looking wife, and the list goes on. But even if you're Tiger Woods all of that stuff doesn't matter so much when the National Enquirer runs a story that claims you have had an affair with some chick that you flew to Australia with you when you were there for the Australian Open and your wife was at home taking care of your two very, very small children. Yeah, it doesn't matter at all. You're just another cheatin' dirtbag.

But for some reason, people (not me) are hesitant to attach that "cheatin' dirtbag" label to Tiger Woods just yet. You know, it's kind of odd. Media sources are totally willing to print stuff that's complete crap, they're totally willing to engage in completely irresponsible journalism, but yet they completely stay away from being subjective or from getting a slew of subjective opinions. Then again, with stuff like this, a lot of folks who should be able to give a subjective opinions, who should be able to state their point of view often don't.

They come up with reasons like "It's none of our business" and....well....that's what you hear the most. Whether it is or isn't any of our business, if you're going to be a public figure, you can't have it both ways. You can't have your life be public when you're fine with it, but then when you're a cheating dirtbag say that you don't want it to be public. Here's an idea: If you're a public figure, what say you just don't cheat on your spouse? What say you just don't act like a dirtbag and then you don't have to worry about watching your image get torched even more than you've already torched it, all right? All right.

But back to my favorite person du jour. This Jesper Parnevik fellow, he is the one who set up Tiger and Tiger's wife, the lovely Elin Nordegren. Apparently, Elin used to be a nanny for the Parneviks and Tiger had wanted to go out with her. It seems that the Parneviks convinced Elin to give the guy a chance. So she did and they ended up getting married and having two children. They've only been married since 2004 and one of Tiger's mistresses claims to have had a 30 month affair with him, so that puts his cheating as starting somewhere around mid-2006. Wow. You couldn't even stay faithful to your wife for more than two-ish years, eh? That's weak. That is so weak. (Oh, and I should also mention that when Tiger was first doing some driving on this chick's course that his wife was only a couple of weeks away from giving birth to their first child. Nice. Good job. That's what every kid wants to know about the integrity of their Dad.)

So Access Hollywood caught up with Jesper and asked him for a comment on the whole Tiger-Woods-is-a-cheating-dirtbag. His reply was awesome. “I feel really sorry for Elin. I would be especially sad about it since I’m kind of — I really feel sorry for Elin — since me and my wife were at fault for hooking her up with him. We probably thought he was a better guy than he is." Do you see why I love that man? That is an awesome thing to say. "We probably thought he was a better guy than he is." Excellent. That's an excellent thing to say because it's pretty obvious that any guy who would cheat on his wife with whom he has two small children is clearly not the great guy that you thought he was when you set him up with your nanny.

What I also like about this Jesper guy is how he feels a slight twinge of responsibility for hooking the two of them up. What I really like about this guy is how he offers Elin a bit of advice. You know, just in case she made the mistake of signing a pre-nup and can't soak him for half of his bazillion dollars that he has. Jesper stated, "I would probably need to apologize to her and hope she uses a driver next time instead of the 3-iron." You, sir, are my hero.

He addressed the privacy thing in the context of the whole situation as well when he said, "It’s a private thing, of course. But when you are the guy he is, the world’s best athlete, you should think more before you do stuff. . . And maybe not just do it, like Nike says.”

You should think more before you do stuff. Those are words to live by, are they not? Well, for some people they are. For upstanding people who are faithful to their spouse and who take their marital vows seriously like Mr. Parnevik seems to, those words make sense. For people like Tiger Woods, who seem to think that they're just above stuff like fidelity and trust and honesty, those words never even enter their minds.

Side note: I need to credit my friend, Stacey, for the title of this post. I only wish I could have thought of it first, but I didn't. Thanks!

Sphere: Related Content

Hot When He's Shirtless Matt Lauer's Tell Nothing Interview

If there was a new reality show called "Real Asshats of Washington, DC", Tareq and Michaele Salahi would be the stars. As you may or may not choose to be familiar with them, Tareq and Micheale were the two jokers who thought it amusing to weasel their way into the State Dinner at the White House last week. Don't get me wrong, this is a story that is more about lackadaisical job performance at the Secret Service and more about national security than it is whether or not these two did anything wrong by sneaking in. By FAR the story is more about how this could have been allowed to happen rather than the two assclowns who pulled it off.

But if you were ever looking for a walking definition of media whores, these two would fit that bill. Holy crap, they've been photographed with just about every celebrity you can think of. Not to mention the fact that they seemed to have pushed their bodies up against almost every politician out there that you've had to hear about. Here they are at some dinner with crooked Congressman Charlie Rangel. Of course, as seems to be their way, they weren't invited to that dinner either and were booted. Could the security folks at that function give an inservice to the Secret Service please?

Now, even though the Salahis had been shopping their story for a mere $500,000, they continued their tradition of lying about everything and denied that was the case. As if to prove that they would never stoop so low as to demand a half million they appeared on the Today show with the incredibly well built Matt Lauer. Right out of the gate, Matt asked them if they were being paid for this interview and they denied it. I'm sure that it will come out later if they had been paid in some way for the interview, but considering they only did the one show, I'm guessing that they either were actually paid or actually expect to be paid or will be be paid for a future interview. (That's probably how they got around it, actually. They do this one for free, that way they can say that they weren't paid for this interview, then they do the other one and that question isn't asked and they do get paid. Weasely, weasely. But taking another look at shirtless Matt Lauer over there, I'm good with his weaselness. As long as he keeps his shirt off, he can join the Ku Klux Klan for all I care.)

Now, I've included the full video of their interview below, but I just want to hit upon the highlights. First of all, it's come to my attention that Tareq, he's the dude, is three years younger than Michaele! HOW is that possible?! On top of THAT, Wikipedia (take it for what it's worth) lists him as being three years younger than her. Um, really? And on top of THAT, they list him as being only 41!! Wow. Someone did not age well.

Lauer read them part of a statement from Pentagon official Michelle Jones which stated: "I did not state at any time, or imply that I had tickets for ANY portion of the evening's events. I specifically stated that they did not have tickets and in fact that I did not have the authority to authorize attendance, admittance or access to any part of the evening's activities. Even though I informed them of this, they still decided to come." Hmm. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Seems like Matt should have a pretty easy question based upon that statement.

Super Hot When He's Shirtless Matt Lauer: "Do you disagree with what Michelle Jones says in that statement?"

And now I trust that Mr. Salahi will have a pretty easy answer based upon that question.

Not Good At Lying Tareq Salahi: "Well, what we're going to do...we're definitely going to work with the Secret Service and um, you know, and our, and, uh,uh, and you know, between Michaele and I, um, to really shed light on this, and we're going to be coming up to New York, sitting on your couch. We're going to show you, uh, documentation, um, uh, from emails that, uh, you know, that you'll get a chance to see."

What? I'm sorry, I must have gotten distracted or something because I completely missed the part of your response where you either said "yes" or "no". It WAS a "yes or no" question, after all. What does sitting on Matt Lauer's couch have to do with anything?

I also enjoyed this bit of the interview:

Equally Bad At Lying Michaele Salahi: "We were invited, not crashers, and there isn't anyone who would have the audacity or the poor behavior to do that. No one would do that, and certainly not us." Um, this is America. We thrive on audacity. Have you not met America?

Super Hot When He's Shirtless Matt Lauer: "Who invited you?" (Here's where it gets good.)

Still Bad At Lying Tareq Salahi: "Well, you know, Matt, um, one of the things that we're doing is, um, we're working closely with the Secret Service and their, uh, internal investigation..."

Still Equally Bad At Lying Michaele Salahi: "Respect everything they do..."

Continuing to Lie Poorly Tareq Salahi: "We're respecting their timeline and..."

Still Butting In And Lying Michaele Salahi: "And what they need to do." (Nodding assertively (the classic sign of a liar who can't answer the question, "Who da heck invited y'all?")

Trying To Get A Lying Word In Edgewise Tareq Salahi: "...and we're working on that timeline. We want to get through that process. Uh, we've been very candid, uh, with them. We've turned over, uh, documentation to them, um, and, uh, will continue to work with!...uh, the US Secret Service completely, um all the way through this process."

Um, what? You know, I can remember when I was little and someone would be having a birthday party and they'd send out invitations. (I was forced to socialize back then.) If I was asked by my Mom or my Dad or anyone "Who invited you?" to the party, I'd be able to whip out my little invitation (usually with some cute little doggie or kitty on it, though I doubt the White House has doggies and/or kitties on their State Dinner invites, but I guess you never know, what with the new administration and all) and tell them who invited me. I wouldn't be sitting there and start spinning some yarn about how I'm working closely with the parents of my friends and respecting their timeline and showing them documents (which may or may not contain a doggie or a kitty) and working my way through their process. No, I'd just show them the damn invite and retreat to my room.

Clearly these folks are liars. They busted their way past the Secret Service security and managed to shake hands with President Barry. We (the United States "we") are lucky that these folks weren't the violent kind of crazy (as opposed to the sedate kind of crazy that they actually are) and went after President Barry's jugular with a salad fork or something.

It seems that Matt needed to set the scene for these guys to act all butthurt and stuff so that they'll really look like morons when it comes out how badly they were lying, so he led into that realm with: "You wake up to the headlines that say 'White House party crashers'. What was your reaction when you saw the headlines?"

Clueless Michaele Talahi: Devastated.

Agreeable And Equally Clueless Tareq Talahi: Very saddened to see that.

Super Hot When He's Shirtless Matt Lauer: "Why devastated?"

Really Believing People Are Buying This Crap Michaele Talahi: "Shocked. Devastated. Um, we knew, um the facts, that with time, you know, our side of the story and everything will be heard and right now it's just, um, been really unbearable to go through."

Super Hot When He's Shirtless Matt Lauer: "Do you feel as if you've been mischaracterized in the media?"

Trying To Appear The Pathetic Victim Tareq Talahi: "No question. Unfortunately we've been mischaracterized through the media. and our homes have been invaded and it's been devastating to Michaele and I..."

Playing Up The Poor Me Facade Michaele Talahi: "Our lives have been destroyed."

Following His Wife's Lead Tareq Talahi: "Our lives have really been destroyed."

Not Trusting Her Husband To Handle This One Michaele Talahi: "Everything we've worked for, Matt. Um, for me....44 years. Just...destroyed."

Um, destroyed? Destroyed how? You're on the Today show with super hot Matt Lauer. Destroyed? Because you were called a "party crasher"? THAT is destructive material right there? I don't think it is. I'll tell you what else I think. I think if you're going to consider your life "devastated" because someone called you a "party crasher", you're going to need to toughen up a little bit. If that "devastates" you, you're so damn soft it's a wonder you can stand upright without collapsing into a ball of mush. Spare me. Devastated. Someone left me a comment here about a month ago and called me a complete idiot. Was I devastated? Hardly. I found it to be hil-arious.

These people are Class A morons. There is no way that they had a legitimate invite to that wing ding and they know it. I don't know what they're hoping to accomplish by going on national TV and lying about it. Whatever it was though, I guarantee it will backfire on them. They have just put themselves under the microscope that is the modern day cable media. Whatever they have in their past or in the current lives will be coming out shortly. Then their lives might be destroyed. Now? Not so much. Give it time, though. They'll set the stage to have their lives destroyed soon enough.

The video of the devastated morons with the destroyed lives is below. Enjoy.

Whoops. I take that back. The video is NOT below because whenever I try to embed the thing with the code that I copy from over there at MSNBC, it gives me a clip to The Rachel Maddow Show. I have nothing against Rachel Maddow, but she's not Matt Lauer interviewing the Salahis. So you can go to the Today show website (provided at that lovely link right there) and watch it that way. Sorry for the inconvenience, but don't blame me or Rachel Maddow. And for God's sake, don't blame Matt Lauer either. We need to keep him happy and shirtless from time to time. It's not his fault!

Sphere: Related Content

We're Doomed

I'm just playing around with a few things here. Since this seems to be my theme lately, I thought I'd try a little sound bite to go with it.

We're doomed! sound bite Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope sound bites

I'm kind of liking that. Look for posts chock full o' sound bites in the future. But for now, just remember, we're doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Tweet, Tweet! Whoops.

It doesn't surprise me that according to a LinkedIn Research Network/Harris Poll 69% of folks surveyed "said they didn't know enough about Twitter to comment on the service". That's because Twitter is ridiculous. And even when Twitter is explained to you, it's really hard to grasp the concept at first because, well, because it's so narcissistic, usually. But considering it is a tool for mass marketing, it did surprise me a little bit that there were "17% of advertisers who admitted to not knowing much about the website." That seems kind of high for the group of people who are responsible for shoving advertising down our throats every waking second that we are on The Internets.

Regardless, do you really want to trust that your ad guy is not one of the 17% OR that he's not one of the 69% who is lying about not being one of the 17%? I don't know that you do. I'm fairly certain that you DON'T if you're WPMI-TV in Alabama. See, they might have thought that they had a firm grasp on what Twitter does and what Twitter is, but as you might have guessed from the tone of this post, they did not.

Someone over there had the brilliant idea to have a WPMI-TV billboard with a live streaming Twitter feed of the daily news stories. That in and of itself doesn't seem like it would be a bad idea. The problem was that it wasn't just in and of itself. No, they decided that they would position the live Twitter feed (of which they would have little to no control over) next to a photo of their smiley and perky anchors. Hmmm. I wonder if that might pose a problem which could be misleading in anyway to anyone who viewed it? After all, we're talking about Alabama here. I also wonder if there would be any way that an idea like this could be potentially embarrassing for the smiley, perky anchors? The answers to those questions are "Yes" and "Oh, God, yes".

The anchors over there at WPMI are a one Greg Peterson and a one Kym Thurman. Their weather sidekick is a one Derek Beasley. Behold!

A fine looking group of folks. It's very likely that they're all extremely upstanding citizens. But you wouldn't necessarily know that if you saw their pictures on one half of the billboard like this:

And the live Twitter feed with this story on the other half. Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud. Did no one stop to think that something like this could happen? Well, clearly not, but you know what I mean! Don't get me wrong, it's funny as hell! But come on! I'm not so sure that the anchors or Derek found it funny. And I know that whoever is in charge of things over there didn't find it funny since over there across the pond at The Telegraph, they are reporting that "two of the station's senior staff have been suspended" but that "...the station has yet to confirm this." And that means it's true.

Technology. It's a real kick in the pants if you don't know what you're doing. I'm wondering if the "senior staff" that were suspended had once worked at the TV station which aired the unfortunate pairing of a certain anchor alongside a certain police sketch of a rape suspect. Again, awkward? Yes. Friggin hilarious? Oh, absolutely.

Sphere: Related Content