Wednesday, December 8, 2010

But Iran Doesn't Like Us

Remember the three American "hikers" that had inadvertently hiked into Iran whilst they were attempting to hike along the Iran-Iraq border? And remember how they were taken into custody by the Iranians? And remember Iran released the girl but the other two have been in custody ever since because Iran says that they were spies? Well, if you didn't remember, consider yourself caught up.

Before I continue, I just need to say a few things about the situation that put those three folks in the position that they are/were in. First of all, if you're in the Middle East and you want to go "hiking", I cannot for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't be either more cognizant of where the borders were or wouldn't just hike really far away from the borders to begin with. Hiking so close to Iran's borders seems to be just asking for trouble if you're asking me.

Second, I find myself conflicted as to how Iran is dealing with this situation. On the one hand, I am fairly certain that these folks were not and are not spies. On that same hand, I really have absolutely nothing to base that on other than the fact that they don't seem like they would be spies. This ideology is based loosely on watching the Pink Panther when I was a child. Oh, and Scooby Doo. Thus, if I am Iran, what do I do? I have to say that I will lend a certain degree of respect to a country that protects its borders. I'm not even so sure that I'm concerned with how a country protects its borders, as long as it does so.

Those perspectives that I have are the reasons why I'm not overly sympathetic to the hikers. Sure, people make mistakes. But, come on! How delusional are you if you think you'll be just fine if you accidentally hike into Iran? You should be wearing a helmet at all times if that's how your mind works. And then I read an opinion piece by Sarah Shourd, the freed female American hiker, over there at CNN. And her logic in the piece is a bit surprising. It's as if she has no clue as to the history between the United States and Iran. Then again, this is the same person who was doing all of the border hiking, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Sarah states in her piece that "At a very personal level, I never would have been kept in jail for 14 months if Iran and the United States had a better relationship." I'm not so sure that I believe that to be accurate. It sounds nice, but I doubt it. The United States has pretty good relationships with other countries whose citizens have been caught spying. We don't just let them go. Again, you have to go on the basis that Iran is using, that being that they were spies or doing something that would harm Iran, in order to justify them keeping them in custody. Then again, they were not in the country lawfully, so I guess you don't even really need to justify it with anything other than that.

She goes on to say that "How different our situation would have been if the United States had an embassy in Iran when Shane, Josh and I were arrested on the border with Kurdistan, where we had gone hiking." Um, is she kidding me?! The United States did have an embassy in Iran. Perhaps she is unaware of the little disturbance that took place in that embassy in 1979 when Sixty-six Americans were taken captive when Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Perhaps she is also unaware that 52 of those hostages were held for a total of 444 days. And if that's the case, I guess she also didn't hear about the eight American servicemen who lost their lives during a rescue mission. And she thinks that we need an embassy in Iran? Are you dry shaving me?

Allow me to show you a picture of what the former US embassy in Iran looked like after the hostages were taken. Picture is courtesy of Wikipedia.


Oh, sure. They just loooooove us. She also has the nerve to say "I hope our leaders find the courage to begin to break from our nations' hostile past..." Do you now? Our leaders? Plural? Explain to me what the United States is supposed to be doing when I'm A Dinner Jacket (Ahmadinejad) continues with his nuclear program against everyone's wishes? Explain to me what we're supposed to do with a guy, who wants to blow Israel off of the map, who is intent on making his country a nuclear power? It's not a hostile past that is all of the problem. It's the hostile present, cupcake. I should also note that there are some former hostages who believe that Ahmadinejad was actually one of their captors and have identified him as such. If that's the case and he's now the President of Iran, I'm not so sure that the "courage" is going to be "found" by him to "break from our nations' hostile past".

Look, I totally understand that her two friends are still being imprisoned over there in Iran and she wants to have them freed. Therefore, I can understand why she wouldn't write anything that would be overly critical or take a harsh tone with the Iranian government. But I can't understand why she would write anything like what she did in the first place. Does she really think that it's going to matter what she says? I don't think that it is. Then again, this woman does seems to have a fairly delusional way of thinking when it comes to international relations, so I guess it's to be expected.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Leave Ballroom Dancing Alone

It would seem that Portia de Rossi will not be doing Dancing With The Stars next season. At first, I was kind of disappointed, as I really like what she does with her life and how she handles herself and I thought that she'd be interesting to watch on the show. The fact that she is smoking hot doesn't hurt, either. Then I heard what the producers had in store for her if she were to join the show and I have to say that I'm really glad that she's not going along with their idiocy.

From the lovely Rob Shuter over at PopEater, what the producers had in mind for Portia was for her to dance with another girl. You know. Because she's gay and all. That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have heard in quite some time. Are they serious? Apparently they were. According to an "ABC insider" who corresponded in some fashion with Rob, "If Portia had agreed then this would have been a done deal...She was the only star that could have pulled this off without completely offending the program's conservative viewers." What about offending the rational thinking viewers?

Let me get this straight (no pun at all intended). If a woman is gay and wants to ballroom dance, she has to do it with another woman? Because....why? I can't think of a single reason why this would have to be. Ballroom dancing isn't about one's sexuality. It's about two people dancing. And the way that it works is that one of the people is a male and one of the people is a female. That's just how it is. You don't need to feel obligated to change it because one of the participants is gay.

Some Hollywood casting director told Rob that "With all the debate going on about Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the country, this would have been the perfect time to do this...Yet, the show has never been about pushing the envelope. It's a huge hit because it doesn't make anyone uncomfortable." So much to like and so much to dislike in that statement. First of all, there would never be a perfect time to do this because it shouldn't be done. And second of all, not only should a show not make people uncomfortable, it shouldn't make them watch something that is patently absurd.

And let me just make the statement right now and say that if you think that ever male dancer on that show is straight, well, you'd better think again. (For cryin' out loud, judge Bruno Tonioli is about as flaming of an individual as you can be.) You don't see them paired up with other men, do you? No, you don't. Why? Because it would be ridiculous, that is correct. Don't they realize that the dance partners are just that? Dance partners. There's nothing sexual going on between them. They're just doing their job. So why couldn't Portia be on the show and dance with a man? I just don't get it.

I don't know how else to make this point. I'm kind of surprised that I have to make it at all. I'm definitely annoyed I have to make it. Just because a man or a woman is gay, that doesn't mean that they have to ballroom dance with another person of the same gender. I'm so glad that Portia turned them down. It would have been an embarrassment if she had gone along with it. Maybe the season after this one, the producers will have come to their senses and have her on and dancing with a male partner like it should be. People are so damned worried about being politically correct that they forget to be worried about looking like a jackass.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, December 6, 2010

"Let It Be" In Norwegian Is Still "Let It Be"

I never thought that I'd be writing about the promo video for a Norwegian TV show called 'Gylne Tider', which translates into 'Golden Times', but yet I am. How the Norwegians managed to put this together, I have no idea. I also have no idea what this promo video has to do with their show. Actually, I'm really confused about all of it. And it's not like I can't explain it. I just don't get it. But I really like it anyway.

Here's the scoop: Apparently, the Norwegians that make promo videos for upcoming television programs in Norway decided to have a bunch of random celebrities lip syncing to The Beatles "Let It Be". And when I say random, I mean freaking random. There are people who participate in this endeavor whose names you likely haven't heard for years. At the very least, you certainly haven't thought of most of these folks for years. And the ones that you have thought about? You're going to wonder what they're doing making a Norwegian video with some of these other folks. I know that I'm wondering that very thing still.

I've taken the time to compile a list of the folks who are in this thing. I'm not sure why I did it, but it does save you the trouble of watching the entire thing, as it does run just a few seconds over six minutes. The video is below the cast of characters, but if that doesn't work, try watching it over at Videogum. It's really worth a gander. It's so random that it's awesome.

Roger Moore (James Bond)

Huey Lewis (Sans The News)



Jason Alexander (The one from Seinfeld, not the one that was married to Britney Spears for an hour.)

Rikki Lake (From the show with the same name)

Josie Bissett (Hot, hot Jane on the Melrose Place that didn't suck)


Alberto Tomba (Olympic skier)

John Nettles (English guy, plays something called Bergerac)

Corbin Bernsen (Arnie from the late 1980s series LA Law)

George Wendt (Norm from Cheers has had plastic surgery)

Paul McKenna (A "top hypnotist", whatever that means)

Philip Michael Thomas (Tubbs from Miami Vice. Really?!)



Steve Guttenberg (Mahoney in the Police Academy movies)

Katarina Witt (German figure skater, which they call "OL mester i kunstlop". I like their way better.)

Tonya Harding (Really? They call her "kunstloper i trobbel" which translates to "figure skating in trouble.)


Glenn Close (Awesome US actress, dubbed "Farlig begjaer" (Fatal Attraction) by the Norwegians)

David Faustino (Bud Bundy from Married With Children)

Gorden Kaye (English actor guy)

Alfonso Ribeiero (Carlton from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air)


Pamela Anderson (From Baywatch and from just being freaking hot)

Leslie Nielsen (So...does that make this his last work?)

Mickey Rourke (They list 9-1/2 weeks as his known achievement)

Sheryl Lee (Laura Palmer from Twin Peaks)

Jamie Walters (The afterthought character Ray from Beverly Hills 90210.)

Larry Drake (Who played the mildly retarded Benny on LA Law. How do you even find someone that obscure?)

Dolph Lundgren (Rocky IV)


Malcolm Jamal Warner (Looking a lot like Bobby McFerrin, but Theo from The Cosby Show)

Judd Nelson (Now bearded and bespectacled, but still from The Breakfast Club)

Ana Alicia (Extremely attractive and apparently known for being Melissa on freaking Falcon Crest.)

Peter Falk (From Columbo...he's still alive?)

Kelly McGillis (Now gay, but not when she was in Top Gun sweating under Tom Cruise)


Sherilyn Fenn (a one Audrey on Twin Peaks.)
Rick Schroeder (Who I met at a wedding reception in July and who was the kid in Silver Spoons)

Bud Spencer (Dubbed a "Spaghetti-western filmer")

Robert Englund (Freddy Kruger from A Nightmare on Elm Street)

Roy Marsden (Who played someone called Inspector Adam Dalgliesh)

Boyzone (An Irish boy band)

Dan Jansen (Olympic skater)

Kathleen Turner (They have her listed as from War of the Roses, but to me, she'll always be Chandler's Dad on Friends)


Maggie Reilly (Everytime We Touch)

Harpo (Listed oddly as simply "Movie Star")

Maria McKee (Show Me Heaven)

Meja (Very attractive and from something called "All About The Money")

Fab Morvan (That's right. From Milli Vanilli. He's probably really good at this lip syncing stuff.)

Dee Snider (From Twisted Sister but, thankfully, not looking quite as scary.)


Dr ALBAN (Sing Hallelujah)

Right Said Fred (The "I'm Too Sexy" guys. And by the way, they're not.)

Daryl Hannah (Still looking like a hippie chick and still from Splash!)

Rednex (Cotton Eye Joe)

Michael Conner Humphreys (The guy who played Forrest Gump as a child with braces on his legs, but who now sports a nose ring.)

Michael Learns To Rock (The Actor)

Ten Sharp (You)

Lou Ferrigno (The Incredible Hulk)

Berlin (The "Take My Breath Away" chick)

Style (Vill Ha Dej)

I told you they were random. All in all there are fifty four people that, for the most part, we weren't sure were still kickin' around. My only question is how can you go from Tonya Harding, a certifiable, trailer trash, whackjob to Glenn Close, a class act, Emmy award winning actress?! I have many other questions as well. How did they find all of these people? What is the significance? Are all Norwegian TV show promotions six minutes long? I need to know!


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Do Not Buy That On The Internet

Sometimes I read things and I just think to myself "Who are you people?" Then I immediately retract that thought because I really don't think that I want to know in most cases. That's what happened when I stumbled across this headline over at The Vancouver Sun: "Don't buy breast milk on the Web, doctors warn". Good Lord. What now?

Seriously? Is this a warning that needs to be out there? You don't already know that you shouldn't be buying some random fluid from some stranger on the Internet and feeding it to your baby? Really? What part of that is the toughest for you to noodle through? I'm guessing all of it is a pretty novel concept to certain folks, as the sub-headline reads: "Lack of medical information about donors can result in problems, Health Canada says". Huh. In what way?

Of course it can result in problems! What is wrong with you people?! Who can't figure that out?! Who is buying breast milk over the Internet and feeding it (presumably and kind of hopefully) to their infant? Well, apparently the kind of people who joined a "...breast milk sharing program launched by a Montreal woman on social networking website Facebook". Why does Facebook have to be involved with everything?! I'm sick of hearing about Facebook, for cryin' out loud!

Look, do I really have to delve very far into this entire concept before I can just get to the common sense part of it that would tell any normal person that buying breast milk over the Internet is a BAD idea? According to the statement (that is clearly for people who are not going to read it, comprehend it, nor care what it says) that was released along with the whole "Don't buy breast milk over the Internet" shpiel, "There is a potential risk that the milk may be contaminated with viruses such as HIV or bacteria, which can cause food poisoning".

Really? Are you the sort of person who is going to do something so reckless that it potentially puts your child at risk for contracting HIV? Or any other sort of disease? Really? Powdered or pre-made formula is sooooo terrible in your mind that it is a better option to risk your child contracting HIV than to feed them milk not directly from a breast? You should not have children. At the very least, you certainly shouldn't be allowed the feed the children that you do have.

I'm sure that this sounds harsh and judgmental. Good. It's supposed to. Remember, a word to the wise isn't necessary; it's the stupid ones who need advice. And here's the advice: Don't buy breast milk over the Internet to feed to your baby. If you're wondering if it could possibly be so simple, trust me. It is. Just don't do it and you'll be fine. And, probably to your surprise, your baby will be fine too. Lots of people weren't breast fed and they turned out just fine.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Your Tax Dollars Hard At Waste

Today I learned about ExpectMore.gov. (It's actually called www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore, but ExpectMore.gov will get you there.) It is a website, the purpose of such is apparently to make me very angry. It definitely sucked out most of my WTL (Will To Live) and kind of filled me with an HFOH (Heart Full Of Hate). Let's see if it makes you angry as well!

The purpose of the site (which is run by the Federal government) is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of all Federal programs and then rate whether the program is Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective or Results Not Demonstrated. According to
the page which explains what each rating actually means, Results Not Demonstrated means "...that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing." In other words, they're just screwing around. An Ineffective rating means that "Programs receiving this rating are not using your tax dollars effectively. Ineffective programs have been unable to achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding the program's purpose or goals, poor management, or some other significant weakness." Well, that doesn't sound good. I guess the rating "Piece of S**t" didn't sound very official and that's why they went with Ineffective.

They have so far evaluated about 98% of the Federal programs and that amounts to 1,015 of them. Do you want to know how many are below Adequate? (And let me just tell you that the definition of Adequate isn't anything to throw a party over. It is indicative of a "...program that needs to set more ambitious goals, achieve better results, improve accountability or strengthen its management practices." Seriously, do you feel good about that? I don't.) Ready? 199 out of 1,015 are a complete waste of money. 19.6%. And that's not even ALL of the programs yet! More to come! Stay stuned!

Twenty percent of the governments programs have been deemed by the government to be doing nothing other than pissing away your money! That's astounding. Take a look at your next pay stub. Look at what you paid in Federal taxes. Take twenty percent of that and realize that, not only did you work to earn it and you can't have it, it isn't doing a damn thing and is being wasted. And when you hear what some of these programs are, you're going to be wondering why they were ever given money in the first place.

There's the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program. It's goal is "To improve the likelihood that persons eligible for the Food Stamp Program (FSP) will make healthy food choices within a limited budget and choose physically active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) and My Pyramid". Uh-huh. Like that's going to happen. Of course, they really have no way that they're doing this. And that's why their budget has gone from $600,000 in 1992 to (brace yourself) $147 million in 1992 and THAT was eight years ago! So in ten years, their budget grew to 245 times what it started out at! And if I'm reading the chart correctly (it's a little hard to follow and I know that's completely shocking to you) their funding for 2008 was $312 million. That means that it's doubled and then some in two years. And it's not doing anything! I wish I could have a budget for some worthless piece of crap double in the span of only two years. Good Lord. Got your axe handles at the ready? Torches? Pitchforks? I'm just getting started.

There's the National Writing Project which is "...to promote K-16 teacher training and professional development in the area of writing. The Project consists of one national office and a network of local sites through which teachers have access to training, professional development, and current research about the teaching of writing." HOW MANY teachers does that scope actually make up? Is it enough to make it worthy of $22 million in funding in 2008? Since when do our grades go from kindergarten to Grade Sixteen?! Isn't that a senior in college? Shouldn't they know how to write by then? Why do they still need to be taught how to write?

There is the Black Lung Clinics Program (BLCP) which received $6 million in 2008 and is "...to establish and operate clinics that identify, diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate active and retired coal miners with occupational exposure to airborne particles resulting in respiratory and pulmonary ailments." I'm sure that you'll be comforted and satisfied to learn that "Since implementation of the Black Lung Clinics Program in 1979, only one independent assessment of the program has been conducted. This assessment did not provide an evaluation of the program's effectiveness and was limited in the range of issues addressed." Oh, good. So, in thirty-one years there has been ONE assessment. Sure. That seems easily explainable. Not by me, of course.

Let's not forget the Workforce Investment Act - Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers which got $83 million in 2008 for the purpose of providing "...competitive grants to fund training, employment, and other services to help economically disadvantaged farmworkers and their families. Through these services, the program seeks to help them achieve economic self-sufficiency by strengthening their ability to gain stable employment." What the what?! You'll also want to know that "Each year, more than 60 percent of the program's approximately 30,000 participants receive only supportive services, like emergency cash assistance." Wait a minute.

30,000 participants and they get $83 million dollars?! For the guys that pick the strawberries that are frequently permanently visiting here from foreign lands?! Emergency cash assistance?! I know some folks who could use some emergency cash assistance. Oh, but they're citizens and they don't pick strawberries. Why is this sounding more and more backwards the more I go on. (And by the way, do you want to or should I tell the Federal government that it's not "farmworkers", it's "farm workers"? Two words. We're doomed.)

And these few that I have listed were merely some of the Ineffective programs. There are plenty of programs with ridiculous sounding names that were rated Results Not Demonstrated. Programs like the $49 million Mentoring Program (I swear to you that's what it's called), the $120 million Teaching American History program, the $20 million Packers and Stockyards program and the $4.783 billion Universal Service Fund E-Rate program which is supposed to "...help ensure that the educational benefits of telecommunications services are provided to schools and libraries. The program provides discounts on these services in varying amounts based on demonstrated economic need." (What, exactly, do they mean by "telecommunications"? A PHONE?!)

Now, maybe some of those or the other 169 programs whose results cannot be demonstrated are actually doing some good. Since they results can't be demonstrated, I'm sure that some jackass congressperson will make that argument. Hard to imagine that if they were actually doing some good that they wouldn't be able to prove it, though. Hard to imagine. It's also hard to imagine that 20% of these Federal programs don't do squat. And they wonder why we're having budgetary issues. They wonder why the consumer isn't spending more. It's because the country is being run by a bunch of folks who keep spending our money on crap like this. That's why.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 3, 2010

Uncomfortably Numb

This is clearly the worst cover "band" on the planet. And if any of their other songs that they "play" are anything like this one, they're moving closer toward the worst band on the planet, period. I realize that I'm using the term "band" loosely, as they're absolutely horrible. Towards the end, the look on the singer's face makes me realize that even he knows they couldn't place last at a 4th grade talent show.

If the video below doesn't play, you can try clicking here to watch it over at YouTube.


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, December 2, 2010

The Fat Folds Of Christmas

OK, so it's officially the Christmas/holiday shopping season and people are out in full swing. And you know how you get when you're really doing a lot of Christmas shopping. You end up with bags and bags of stuff and not enough hands to hold them. Maybe sometimes you wish that you had another way to hold all of your newly begotten wares. Maybe sometimes you even wish that you didn't have to pay for things at all. And that's when you go back to thinking about how you wish you had another way to hold things that you didn't want to pay for. That's probably when you decide at the time that it's a good idea to attempt to conceal merchandise underneath your breasts (that must have been the size of Canada) and fat rolls as you walk out of an Oklahoma TJ Maxx. Wait. What now?

Correct. Meet a one 28-year old Ailene Brown and a one 37-year old Shmeco Thomas. (I'm guessing that "Shmeco" is pronounced phonetically, since someone clearly neglected to buy a vowel at some point during the naming process. And it would be remiss if I did not point out that Shmeco kind of sounds a little bit like and looks a little bit like the word Shamu. And that this story is about people concealing things underneath their body fat makes it sound all that more whale like!) Behold!


If you're wondering which one is which, Shamu Shmeco is the one that looks like Kenan Thompson from Saturday Night Live.


Now that we all know who's who, let's continue. It would appear that the two aforementioned ladies were shopping at a TJ Maxx in Edmond, Oklahoma. According to The Orlando Sentinel, "...police say they used their bodies to conceal the goods. Edmond police authorities say it was at the Edmond TJ Maxx that loss prevention officers found the duo stuffing items under their belly fat and breasts." Stuffing items. Underneath...their...belly fat and...(I don't know if I can go on without hurling)....breasts. Good Lord, I think I'm going to be sick.


Yep, just tucked a few things away in there for safe keeping, I guess. What the what?! If you're big enough that you can stick things in between your mammoth rolls of fat and have them not fall out or (hopefully) be discovered, how large are you exactly? What is the surface area of your body? What is your getaway car? A Rascal scooter because you're too fat to walk? Seriously now. There has to be more to this story than just this. Are they sure?


Oh, yeah. They're sure. (Whoever those loss prevention folks are, I certainly hope that they get a raise of some sort. I would not have wanted to be a part of this.) According to a one Officer James Hamm, "These two were actually concealing them in areas of their body where excess skin was, under their chest area and armpits." I think I'm going to be sick again. Do you want to know what they were trying to steal? Do you? Really? What if I told you that there were multiple items? Then would you still want to know? I'll wait. Let's say that you do (but don't say I didn't warn you). That's when I'd have to tell you that they tried to steal four pairs of boots, three pairs of jeans, a wallet and some gloves. Wait a minute.

Boots?! They were sticking boots under their boobs?! Boob boots?! Ewww! And did I mention ewww?! What kind of boots? Hiking boots? Those spiky heeled boots that no one I know could ever possibly wear, yet I see them in stores all over the place? What kind of boots? And three pairs of jeans? Look, I've only seen the heads of these ladies, but if this story is any indication of their actual size, those jeans must have been made by Omar the Tentmaker if they were picking them up for themselves. And what's with the wallet? Clearly, they don't have anything to put in it. Was it an impulse steal? At the register that they attempted to bypass?

According to the officer on the video (handily provided below) one of the women actually had three boots concealed underneath her breast and bra. Three boots...two boobs...you do the math! (I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I'm still a little in shock by all of this and usually when numbers get thrown around, there's math involved. My apologies.) Where were the other...five boots?! If you've got hoots big enough for three boots to be stuffed under there, those are some pretty big hoots! Good Lord, woman.

I think that we really need to take a moment to soak in just how many items we are talking about here. Thus, I have prepared this handy visual aid to help with that task. Behold!


Now, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty darn sure that I could not conceal a single shoe anywhere on my body in the fashion that these two ladies did. But somehow, they managed to stuff eight boots in their somehow AND some jeans on top of that! And even once you have the eight boots concealed on your person, you're just getting started! You've still got three pairs of jeans, gloves and a wallet to go! And yes, I realize that the story said that just one of the woman had the three boots concealed underneath her hoots. Where were the other five boots?! Huh?! That means the other chick had the other five stashed about under her folds of...of...skin. Ugh.

People never cease to amaze. Or in this case, they never crease to amaze me. I know, I know. It's a poor play on words. Especially since we're all dealing with the mental image of all of those boots with boob sweat all over them. What? You hadn't thought of that? Well, think of it now because you know that's what happened! Here's to hoping that none of that merchandise was placed back on the shelf and was instead taken out back and burned in some sort of ritual. The video of this story is below. It's pretty much what I've already described, but perhaps you want to hear it for yourself.


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Not-So-Shocking Willie Nelson Arrest

I haven't got a whole lot today. I did read that Willie Nelson was arrested for (wait for it) possession of marijuana.

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::


Really? Really? Is that what we've come to in our war against drugs? We're arresting Willie freaking Nelson who was, from all accounts, riding on his tour bus when it was pulled over and the evil leaf was subsequently discovered? Really? Look, I know that we can't come to any sort of an agreement about marijuana in this country, but can we at least come to an agreement about Willie Nelson and marijuana in this country?

The man is 77 years old and has been smoking pot since before I was born. Is there anyone out there who heard the news that Willie was arrested and was shocked to learn that it was for possession of pot? Of course there wasn't. You know why? Because Willie Nelson smokes pot. You know it. I know it. We all know it. And I'm not so sure that any of us care that Willie Nelson smokes pot.

Give the guy a break. We can even call it "The Willie Nelson Clause". Under this aptly named clause, there would be certain people who would be exempt from being busted for smoking pot. Willie Nelson....Cheech Marin (Chong, too, if you can find him)....Bob Dylan...Bob Marley...NOT Nick Nolte (because he's a crazy SOB)....And NOT Lindsay Lohan (for the same reason as Nick Nolte and because she needs help)....Woody Harrelson....you get my drift, right? They're not going to hurt anyone and it's almost like we expect them to be doing it, right? Right. So let's just back off of Willie Nelson, shall we?

I will say, however, that I can only wish for a life where I have nothing better to do than pull over Willie Nelson's tour bus and bust a 77-year old man for possession of marijuana. What a life that would be.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content