Have A Safe Sex Halloween

Remember when you were a kid and you went out trick-or-treating and there was always at least one house you went to where the people were just jerks and they gave you something like a penny or a pencil or the dreaded box of raisins or the unwanted and slightly ironic toothbrush? What was wrong with those people? Talk about a bunch of fun-sucks. But those sorts of people haven't gone away. No, in fact, a couple in Oregon have actually taken it up a notch. Wait. Maybe they've taken it down a notch. I'm not sure which one would be correct here. You tell me. What do you call it when people hand out condoms for Halloween? Um, what now?

Correct. According to MSNBC, a one Daniel Harris and a one Kathleen Harris, of Silverton, Oregon, handed out condoms to trick-or-treaters. They claimed that it was their "effort to promote health." It's Halloween! It's not about promoting health! And since when is giving away condoms considered to be promoting health and not making you think about having sex?

See, the way that this came to light was "The father of one 14-year-old girl who received the condoms, Daniel Cote, was offended and says it was inappropriate to give them to children without parents' consent." Oh, for cryin' out loud. Offended? Really? He wasn't just pissed off? Because I think that I'd be a little pissed off if someone was giving my kid a condom for Halloween. Screw being offended. What's wrong with just being pissed off that some people are morons?

Now, now. Before we all get all irritated, I should tell you that "Kathleen Harris says giving the condoms to the 14-year-old was a mistake." See? There you go. Yeah, um, "She says their usual practice is to ask teens if they're 16 or older and to give them a speech on safe sex." What the...? OK. Now we can be pissed off. Are you freaking kidding me?

Look, I don't live in Oregon, but what in the world is going on over there that 16 year old kids are trick-or-treating? For that matter, what's a 14-year old doing trick-or-treating? I mean, I guess you could make the argument that it's OK for the 14-year old, but that would have to be the last year. I thought that trick-or-treating was just for younger kids, like those under 13? I don't get it.

But what I also really don't get is that couple. Boy, they sound like a treat, don't they? You go to their house hoping to get candy and instead you get a lecture about safe sex. Real fun. But, I'm guessing that the 16-year olds that are out trick-or-treating really don't have to worry too much about having sex. What is wrong with some people? It's Halloween! Not Wrap That Rascal Day! Leave the condoms alone! Hand out little Butterfingers! It's a fairly simple concept. Get with it!

Sphere: Related Content

You Think He Had That Memorized?

OK, so get this. You ready? You know how President Barry is on some trip to visit a bunch of different countries in something like 10 days? OK, so the first place he went was to India. And get this: It is news that he will be using a teleprompter. Wait. What?

Correct. They are almost shocked by that reality. The Telegraph of Calcutta starts off their article about this by writing: "The man who mesmerised you with that silver-tongued “Yes we can” will use a teleprompter while addressing Indian MPs in the Central Hall of Parliament on November 8." This is apparently quite surprising to them because "Sources said they could not recall an instance when a teleprompter, also called autocue or telescript, was used in the Parliament Hall earlier. " Wow. Really? Well, considering that they're giving alternative names for the ol' teleprompter, I guess it's the truth. But, man. That's just surprising to me.

The article states that "Used to the machine-gun delivery of Indian politicians who are never at a loss for words, officials here were a bit perplexed when the US embassy broached the topic of affixing a teleprompter to the lectern..." Really? Perplexed? Holy canoli, the whole world just really thought above and beyond the realm of reality with this guy, didn't they?

They certainly did, as evidenced by the one official who said: “We assumed that Obama, being such a brilliant orator, delivers speeches extempore." Riiiiiigght. Are you kidding me? Y'all assumed that he was just winging it the whole time? Any thoughts as to why, if you thought that, he would actually use a teleprompter? “Probably to avoid Bushisms,” suggested a Parliament House source who, along with his colleagues and officials of the external affairs ministry, spent the day discussing the matter with a technical team from the US. Wow.

It took an entire day to discuss putting up a teleprompter for President Barry? Why would that be? And did those guys never hear President Bush speak? Teleprompter or not, he could barely get out a coherent sentence. That was never news. But it is apparently news (in some parts) for President Barry to use a teleprompter. Odd. Very odd indeed.

Sphere: Related Content

That's NOT What Happened!

Have I mentioned how much I despise the media? I do. They suck out loud at times. And the incident I'm about to describe is one of those times.

Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC yesterday. No great loss. I can't stand the guy. But, then again, I can't stand any of those folks who are so one-sided I wonder how they just don't tip right on over in the morning. Olbermann is particularly obnoxious, though. But that's not the point. The point is why he was suspended. And either I'm totally misunderstanding why he was suspended or everyone in the media is blatantly leaving that reason out. And I don't get it.

I'll start with The Huffington Post. Their article starts out: "MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle." OK. Now over to the LA Times blog which tells us (in an extremely pithy fashion which I appreciate) "Keith Olbermann was suspended because he donated a total of $7,200 to three political candidates who had been on his program or supported by his comments." All right, sir. And even from the New York Freaking Times which begins their article with: "Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month." Do you get it? Do you understand why he was suspended? You do? Trust me. You don't.

All three of those examples that I cited are fairly reputable (to say the least) sources of news. That's what makes me so angry. They're leaving out a key part! And it's the part for why he was really suspended! That's the thing! He wasn't suspended for making the donations! Did you get that impression from any of those sources above? Even an organization called FAIR, which stands for "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" got it wrong when they reported "MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions." That's not correct!

What they're all leaving out is that Olbermann was suspended because, according to the president of MSNBC, a one Phil Griffin, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." And the freaking policy to which he is referring to does NOT bar employees from making political contributions. No, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.

Do you see the difference? The way that it is being reported makes it sound (because that's how it sounds) like he was suspended because he donated. No. That's not it! He was suspended because he didn't obtain the approval that was required. There's a difference! Am I the only one who sees that? Why is it not being reported that way? Either way, are we supposed to feel sorry for Keith Olbermann? I can't imagine ever feeling that way toward the man. But that aside, what the hell is going on here?!

And it's not just one news source. It's EVERY news source. ALL of them are reporting that he was suspended for making political donations and ALL of them leave off the part about him doing so without obtaining approval. Why are they doing that? It's maddening is what it is. Do I think that he needed to be suspended indefinitely without pay for doing it? Look, it's not exactly like he's a strict news reporter. He's chock full of opinion! That being said, I think it's a bit harsh, but that's not the point. The point is that the media sucks! And on this one, they suck SO bad that I am almost (almost) completely speechless.

We're so doomed. This is a pretty basic concept to try and report correctly, yet everyone has it wrong. If the media can't get this right, how are we supposed to trust them to explain and report on things more complicated than why some jackass got suspended? We can't be expected to do that at all. And it saddens me. Back to you

Sphere: Related Content

Goin' Coconuts For President Barry

With the number of seats in the House turned over to Republicans, one might be under the impression that there is lot a lot of love for President Barry these days. Of course, one would have to be rather dense or watch a lot of cable news (I know, it's kind of redundant) to believe that, but that's the impression that the media is spewing out there right now. But if you're following the preparations that are being made for his upcoming trip to India (and who isn't?!), you'd know that not only is there still a fondness for the man out there, but it's still in that silly stage in a lot of parts.

According to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, they are taking some rather extreme measures over there in India. Sure, there's the regular security measures that are being tended to. Tons of Secret Service, even though they're not very secret because everyone can tell who they are. Bolted down manhole covers or whatever they use to cover their holes for men over there. Removing all of the coconuts from the trees. Wait. What.

Correct. The article tells us that they are "...removing all natural threats to the president as well". Apparently, 'natural threats' include "All coconuts around the city's Gandhi museum" which is one of President Barry's stops, and they "...are being taken down." Really? The coconuts? Are they that big of a threat that it warrants taking a bunch of them down?

According to the executive secretary (whose name is completely unpronounceable) at one of the places where President Barry is staying, "We told the authorities to remove the dry coconuts from trees near the building. Why take a chance?" Is there a reason why they can't just steer him clear of the trees with the coconuts in them? I'm serious about this. Why is that not the optimal solution? Are they everywhere? Why can't he just wear a helmet? Now that would be something!

Sphere: Related Content

Idiotic Things I Read Today

You'd think that I'd be happier, what with the election finally over. Finally, I can have the TV on for more than 5 minutes without being bombarded with an ad by Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown telling me why their version of hell is better than their opponent's. But I'm irritated. I started perusing the Innerwebs this morning and just found idiocy after idiocy. Let's review.

My semi-beloved San Jose Mercury News ran a piece detailing the most awesome victory parade in San Francisco for the World Champion San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series in most excellent fashion on Monday. When describing the size of the massive crowd, the article read: "Those arriving in downtown San Francisco -- where police officers gave crowd estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1 million -- were greeted by gigantic orange and black balloons that bobbed on the traffic signals."

That's the BEST you can do?! Somewhere between 200,000 and a freaking million? OK, that's not really an estimate. That's just pulling numbers out of your arse. Anyone could come up with an estimate like that! What good does that do anyone? That's just a ridiculous way of saying "The crowd was very, very large". You morons.

Then there was an article over at Politics Daily. I'm not going to bag on the writer of the article so much, as I do kind of like what she tends to write. She was probably just having an off day. The point here is that the article focuses on the folks that Sarah Palin endorsed. The title of the article reads "Sarah Palin's Midterm Scorecard: A Winning Record, but Some Key Losses". In essence, it goes on to detail how Sarah Palin supported "...more than 100 conservative candidates during the primary and general elections." Um, OK. I guess she can do that being how she's being whatever it is that she's being these days. (I still haven't quite figured that out yet.) It then goes on to say, "A Politics Daily tally puts Palin's Tuesday successes at 62 wins, 23 losses and seven contests that are still too close to call, with Palin's candidates trailing in five of those races."

Let's do the math. She supported more than 100 candidates. She currently has 62 wins, 23 losses and 7 undecided. That's 92! That's not more than 100. What gives? On top of that, what makes these "wins" or these "losses" Sarah Palin's to absorb? Aren't there a lot of people out there who would support just about any conservative candidate, no matter how wacky they appeared (Christine O'Donnell, I'm talking about you)? I think there are. Since when did the wins and the losses of the conservative candidates fall squarely on the shoulders of Sarah Palin? She's a former half-term governor who once spent a couple of months running for Vice President! (And don't get me wrong. For the most part, I like Sarah Palin. But her endorsement of someone certainly isn't gold by any means and it shouldn't be construed as such.)

And finally, I'm really getting tired of how any time an animal attacks a human, it is made into some sort of sensationalistic news, as if something like that is so shocking and so unheard of that we should all just be in a state of disbelief that it ever occurred. Take this headline from The Huffington Post: "Peter Evershed KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe." Um, yes. I would imagine that five lions WOULD kill a man.

To begin, I get thoroughly annoyed when the media runs the name of some person afflicted by tragedy in a way that makes the reader feel as if something horrendous has happened to someone that they knew. Does anyone know who Peter Evershed was, other than people who actually knew him? No. He was a 59-year-old businessman from Zimbabwe. But the headline makes the reader initially feel as if they've just read "Brad Pitt KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe". (And, in this example, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Brad to have actually been in Zimbabwe. He could have been over there buying another child to complete his collection. They don't have one from Zimbabwe yet, do they?)

See, animals eat meat. Humans are made of meat! Of course they're going to eat a human if they're given the chance. It's a big piece of meat! Why is that so shocking to people? Or maybe it's only shocking to the media. I'm not sure. But in another example of the inexplicable shock that this article tries to convey is when they quote some Zimbabwe guy as saying, "We appeal to everyone to exercise extreme caution. Animals have become extremely unpredictable." Wait. What now?

Have become? Animals have become unpredictable?! They're animals! Aside from that, since when is a wild animal eating human considered "unpredictable"? Seems pretty predictable to me. If you showed anyone a picture of a human standing in the wild with a bunch of lions walking around and you asked that person to guess what might be about to happen, I'd guess that nine times out of ten (with the tenth being the moron who wrote the article) the person you are asking would correctly infer that the chap in the picture is about to become lion lunch! HOW is that unpredictable?!

I've had enough. I'm going to go watch a little TV without a political ad in sight to try to make myself feel better.

Sphere: Related Content

Rally Signs Part Deux

There were just too darned many signs that the Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear for me to just do one post on them. Besides, I learned that the first post I did ended up being quite informative for some of those who had no idea what so ever that anything was going on at all! That made me feel pretty good; almost like I had done some sort of a public service or something. And since I never intentionally have engaged in a public service before, I thought it might be nice if I did it again. I mean, there really were a lot of signs!

There was one thing that was conspicuously missing from this rally. There was a noticeable absence of misspelled signs. Apparently, I wasn't the only one who noticed.

I appreciate how this lady apparently waited until the rally to craft her sign (as evidenced by the pack of markers over there to her left). And I don't think that I've ever seen such fancy glassware at any rally now that I think about it. What's that all about?

Here's a sentiment that I'd like to think that everyone could rally around. Well, everyone except for that one guy.

I don't know exactly what the sentiment that these two women are displaying is, nor do I know what is up with one woman's Gremlins-esque hairdo, but it's amusing none the less.

I had to include this one simply because the guy holding the sign that says "Burn In Hell" looks so darned happy about it. Maybe he knows something we don't...but I doubt it.
Finally, someone with realistic expectations and sensible fashion advice.

What are the chances of the sentiment behind this next sign really catching on? Any chance? In hell? Just a little bit? Yeah, I didn't think so either, but it's nice to dream.

Yep. This is what I've been saying for a while now. You can't go around comparing people to Hitler. That's because there was only one Hitler. And he's dead. So no matter what you may think about someone, they're not Hitler. They're probably also not a cute little kitten, either, but at least that's a comparison I can live with.

This is an odd concept, but one that I can strangely and deliciously get behind in a weird, certain, sort of way. Mmmm. Sammiches.
And finally, I know this isn't a sign, but he just might be the sanest and the cutest member of the rally.

Sphere: Related Content

Is Obama A Keynesian?

While the Rally to Restore Sanity And/Or Fear was, in general, a seeming success, it was even more successful in my eyes after I saw the video below. In it, one of the chaps at the rally has a sign which reads: "OBAMA = KEYNESIAN?" As you may or may not be aware, Keynesian economics is a macroeconomic theory developed by a one John Keynes (hence, the name). However, what with all of the birth certificate hooplah still in full swing, some people (if we're lucky) might mistake Keynesian for Kenyan. And if we're really lucky, someone might video those sort of encounters at the Jon Stewart rally. And if you're super lucky, I just might post such a video of such an encounter below. You're welcome.

Sphere: Related Content

Restoring Sanity Through Signage

This weekend was the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert "Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear" in Washington, D.C. And I love me a rally because with every rally comes lots of awesome signs. And this time they were particularly awesome due to the predominant message of sanity that they were supposed to be sending. At least, I think that was the message. Whatever it was, it looked like people had a pretty good time. It also looked like there were some pretty awesome signs. Let's take a gander, shall we?

Here's a guy who has a sign which says what I've been saying for a long time. The people that some people don't like aren't Nazis. Obama isn't a Nazi. He's a socialist. They're both equally scary, I understand. But there is a difference.

President Barry isn't a Muslim either, but that's what makes the sign below particularly amusing.

Sometimes, you just have to make sure that some things are still the same.

I do, however, appreciate this lady setting at least one thing straight.

They don't all have to be signs that are political in nature. After all, we're talking about restoring sanity. So why shouldn't we get a few more tortillas with our fajitas? Seems pretty sane to me.

Sadly enough, the sign below might actually contain a pretty good suggestion for some folks.

And I'm certainly inclined to agree with the chap below. Looks like it was a pretty good time. What say we do it on the West coast next time, eh?

In keeping with the theme that people that certain people don't like aren't really Nazis, this woman sums it up in a straightforward, yet charming sort of way. And I thank her for that.

It just wouldn't be a public get together without someone looking to see a little cleavage.

And who doesn't want a sandwich? Nothing insane about that. I'd like a sandwich right now.

Same with waffles. Mmmm...waffles.

Overall, I think the whole thing was a huge success. I think that because, mainly, it's really impossible to define what success would have been in this instance. If there were any regrets when it was over, they were probably a lot like this guy's.

Sphere: Related Content