What's Next? People Making Sandwiches For Dogs?

While the California Supreme Court let a ruling stand that allowed gay marriage (or, as those who are gay and getting married refer to it, "marriage") to occur, that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is thrilled about it, nor are they going to be thrilled about it any time soon. Yep, that's right. Two people of the same gender are legally allowed to marry each other in California. ("What's next? People marrying dogs?" I love that, the most ridiculous of all ridiculous arguments.) And while it's legal there, it isn't necessarily a union that will be recognized in all of the other 49 states. That's up to the states whether or not they want to acknowledge the gayrriage. And some do and some (most) don't. But if the United Kingdom were a US state and it's Governor was the Heinz Corporation, there wouldn't be any gayrriage there. No way. There certainly wouldn't be any Deli Mayonnaise commercials that have two guys kissing, that's for sure. Wait. What?

About a week ago, Heinz aired a TV ad for it's Deli Mayonnaise. The ad was scheduled to run for five weeks. It was pulled last Friday and is not scheduled to be run again following what Heinz is calling "consumer feedback". (Translation: People freaked. In fact, over 200 people formally freaked.) According to our friends across the pond at The Daily Mail Online, the Heinz PR guy, a one Nigel Dickie (oh, that's the name of the PR guy, but the commercial gets pulled. OK, I see how you are.) said, "'It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognise that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it. The advertisement, part of a short-run campaign, was intended to be humorous and we apologise to anyone who felt offended." Interesting. Hmm...

Well, if over 200 people are going to pick up the phone or start typing out an angry email because of a commercial for mayo, I want to know what's what. I mean, it's mayonnaise, for cryin' out loud. It's probably the least intrusive of all the condiments (along with it's cousin, the Miracle Whip). Both flavor enhancing, but not anything to raise a ruckus about on most occasions. The commercial as it aired is below.

That was it? Um, I don't get it. I mean, I get the commercial (Humorous. I liked it.), but I don't get what all the uproar was about. Well, apparently, the uproar from viewers about the ad was that it was "offensive", "inappropriate" and "unsuitable to be seen by children". (Yeah, so was my last date. Big deal.) According to The Daily Mail, "...some parents were angry that they had been forced to explain same-sex relationships to their youngsters who asked them about the ad." The AD "forced" them to explain?!? It DID?!? Well, that is some Must-See-TV right there, if you're asking me! How...how...what....Good hell, I don't know where to start.

First of all, I have to say, I'm a little disappointed in the UK. They're supposed to be a bit more liberal over there. Yeah, they're stuck up and tight asses a lot of the time, but in a good way. Not in a horrifyingly, overreacting way.

Second of all, it's a commercial. It's supposed to be funny. It's not supposed to be "real" (although it is required that the product being advertised IS). How boring would THAT be? (About as boring as mayonnaise itself. Do you really blame them for trying to be creative?)

And finally, back to the "forced to explain" scenario described above. What exactly did these people feel that they were being made to say against their will and to their children? Is there some sort of UK tenet that I am unaware of that would disallow a simple, "They're just being silly."? I mean, good Lord, if they find themselves in that sort of a predicament when their kids see a commercial, I'm going to have to recommend they keep their children far away from things like "Bambi" and "Old Yeller". You think explaining the Great Mayo Caper of 2008 was tough? You're going to have a lot more explaining to do when Bambi's mother gets shot (also known as "when the guy stopped drawing the deer."). Or worse, when a title character, such as the Yeller himself, gets put down for the last time. Good luck with that one, ol' chaps!

Naturally, I had to find another offbeat commercial which had aired over there in the UK that people didn't have a problem with but, given their clamor over the homosexual mayonnaise (and it's apparent ability to force parents to give their children explicit details in regard to the sexual habits of gay men who are living in sin whilst simultaneously enjoying a particular condiment atop their sandwich), you'd think that they would have had a problem with.

Introducing the 'Angry Whopper'! Correct. Apparently, this was launched by Burger King last year. It's a Whopper (shocker, I know) with jalapeno peppers, pepper jack cheese and spicy onion rings (also known as "Angry Onion Rings"). I guess because the toppings on the burger are spicy and fiery that makes it angry? I really don't know and I couldn't find a clear answer anywhere. But here's the commercial for it anyway.

Seriously, how come no one bitched about that? You mean the parents didn't have to hear, "Mommy, why is that woman going crazy as she eats that meat sandwich? Does meat make you crazy? Are women crazy? Are all women crazy? Is it because she ate that meat sandwich that she's crazy? And angry? Is she angry just that man or at all men? Why does she hate all men? Mommy, what's a lesbian?"

Way to cave to the over-reacting soft-heads, there, Heinz Corporation. If you had just stood ground and kept running the ad despite the hypersensitive maroons that complained, you would have had a customer for life over here. But now? Eh. Not so much. (Now, granted, they could say that they just appointed Satan as their CEO and moved their headquarters to the middle of Hell, I'd still buy their ketchup. But it's the principle of the thing with the mayonnaise. The principle, and that I don't care that much about mayonnaise.)

Sphere: Related Content

This Just Seems Wrong

I might not be a guy, but that doesn't mean that some of the things that might (and do) make a guy cringe won't make me cringe as well. That's because I'm empathetic. It's also because some things are just wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And just when you think that they can't be any more wrong, they are.

Take the scientists down under in Australia. They seem to have a lot of free time on their hands when it comes to pondering how they can help the environment. Or maybe they don't have enough time on their hands. That might explain why they could have been trying to figure out how to stop all of those discarded latex condoms from impacting the environment. Wait. What? (Not yet. Not yet. You'll be 'Wait-What-ing' soon enough.) Well, there wouldn't be a need for a condom if there wasn't, um, the concern of getting pregnant, right? And since 'not having sex' to accomplish that goal should be the absolute LAST option EVER (unless you're a girl and you're hot and then you might want to consider stepping over into the world of girl-meets-girl. I'm just saying.), you're going to need something else. How about a way to stop the sperm from being able to contact the egg? That would be a great idea! How would that happen? Well, if you listen to the Australian scientists, they'll tell you that you should insert a microchip inside of the penis in the vas deferens. (Aaaaand....now!) Wait. Wha-wha-what?!?!

You see, the vas deferens (hereafter known as the VD. Wait. Never mind. Vas deferens it is.) is the male apparatus that deliver the mighty, mighty sperm in the form of semen. If you insert this microchip in there (this is where the empathetic part comes in, as I think, "Ow, ow, OWWW!!"), then when the guy is about to have sex, he simply presses "pause" on a device that would send an RF wave to the chip (micro, not potato). When the microchip receives the transmission, it translates the RF waves into acoustic waves. The acoustic waves then cause the chip to expand (as if there isn't enough expansion going on at that moment as it is). With the chip expanded, it acts as a barrier and no sperm can get through. They say.

Now, I have several questions. But I'm going to try and focus here. See, when the sperm is "released", it's not usually "released" under, um, well, "calm and sedate" circumstances. In fact, I think that the term "released" isn't exactly the term that would be most appropriate. "Released" makes it sound as if the sperm had been jailed and one day they were granted parole and the cell door was opened up and they were "released". That's not exactly it. But, using the same "sperm in jail" parable here, the process is more akin to the sperm having been in solitary confinement for a long time and have grown quite antsy to the point where, when they just can't take it any more, in a show of supersperman strength, burst through the door and out into the pubic public realm. So my question is, can the microchip really hold everything back? And if it does, wouldn't the guy himself just explode?

I must thank the fine folks over there at GreenDaily.com for sharing this bit of knowledge with myself and the rest of the Internet. I don't know if it was useful, but it was definitely thought provoking. A little uncomfortable, but thought provoking.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Doing That All Night Long

There are times when something might seem like a good idea, but then later on you realize that it wasn't such a good idea, but at least you knew why you thought it was a good idea in the first place (like the time you took that "All-You-Can-Eat Shrimp" special down at the Sizzler a bit too seriously after a night of heavy drinking). But then there are times when something is such a bad idea, you wonder how it EVER was thought of as a good idea in the first place. EVER. I have an example of one of those things. I call it: Celine Dion did a cover version of AC/DC's "You Shook Me All Night Long". Wait. What?

I am not the only one who thinks that this is a disaster. No, Total Guitar magazine has released a list of the worst cover songs of all time. Clearly, Celine made the top of the list. Number One! Worst EVER. And there's really no disagreeing with that assessment. Let me set the stage for you:

It's in Las Vegas. It's a duet with Anastacia (no, I'm not quite sure who she is either). Celine parades her 84-pound frame across stage atop 4-inch stiletto heels (which I usually have NO problem with) and has scarf like appendages hanging from the arms of her shirt (which I usually ALWAYS have a problem with). Occasionally, the Anastacia chick shouts/sings at/with her. She also says, "Come on!" a lot. It's pretty bad. But don't take my word for it. See/listen/cringe for yourself.

I had to watch this again to make sure it was as bad as I remember it. And I'm glad I did because it wasn't as bad. No, it was worse. I had forgotten about the one-legged hop across the stage a la Angus Young. But wait! I might have to rescind what I said just a minute ago. There actually might BE some disagreement with the assessment that it's the worst cover of all time. That's because, as I was searching YouTube for the above atrocity, I ran across what is possibly a greater atrocity. Indeed. It's...it's the same song. But....it's.....well.....it's Shania Twain singing it this time. It's not good. I don't know what it is (other than kind of confusing), but it's definitely not good.

OK, that wasn't good on many, many different levels. The first level being that it sucked. But then, well, Shania Twain's kinda hot. But after hearing that and watching that? Not so much. She really needs to not do that anymore, as it completely negates any and all hotness she might have going for her. And it also puts her in a dead heat with Celine for worst cover song of all time. (Did she realize that the song was NOT of the country music genre?)

These are both perfect examples of things that you have no idea why anyone ever thought they were a good idea in the first place. Look....ladies, you both can sing many, many types of songs very, very well. And you look marvelous. But AC/DC songs are not your forte. Nor will they ever BE your forte. So just knock it off and don't do it again. Shania, you can go back to just being hot and Celine you can go back to, um, being Candian. Just don't sing AC/DC anymore. Please.

Sphere: Related Content

Father's Day Recant

OK, if I had anything to do with this, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm SO freaking, fracking sorry! I know that I said that I wasn't thrilled with the whole "Father's Day" thing. I know that I said I was over it and I was tired of being bombarded by advertisements from every retailer on the planet telling me what to buy for my Dad. I know I said I just wanted it to be over and done with. I know. I KNOW! Look, it was just my way of saying that I miss my Dad, is all. It was just my way of saying that hanging out with my Dad and having a little Kentucky Colonel was way better than just handing him a card. I didn't mean for things to go completely whack-a-do over there in Scotland. So if I had anything to do with it, again, I'm sorry. With what? Oh, sorry. Yeah, the Scottish schools prevented thousands of students from making Father's Day cards at school because the administration was afraid that it might embarrass those students who live with single mothers and lesbians. Wait. What?

Correct. According to our friends across the pond at the Telegraph, "The politically correct policy was quietly adopted at schools "in the interests of sensitivity" over the growing number of lone-parent and same-sex households. " Um, WTF? First of all, I hardly see this as "politically correct". Second, how is it "sensitive" to intentionally not acknowledge something that has absolutely nothing to do with something else? Are they going to fore go Christmas this year as well? I would imagine so (unfortunately).

The Office for National Statistics over there found that one in four British children lives with a lone parent. This is apparently twice as many as it was 20 years ago. I wish that they had a statistic for the number of soft-headed educators currently working administration jobs in the school systems in Scotland. But back to the one in four statistic...the last time I checked, one in four was still not a majority. But yet they're going to take ridiculous measures to ensure that the minority population of their students (who haven't said that they had any problem at all with the whole Father's Day card making thing...because they DON'T!) are not "embarrassed". Well, great. What are they going to do about the rest of the human race who IS "embarrassed" that they would engage in such asshattery?

According to a parent of one of the children at Edinburgh's Blackhall primary school, "The teachers are aware of the family circumstances of the children in each class and if a child hasn't got a father living at home, the teacher will avoid getting the children to make a card." The same school had previously enacted other asinine procedures, such as the removal of Christian references from festive greeting cards, by the way. (Twisting....off....NOW.)

Naturally, those in charge of the implementing the asshattery defended their change, saying that "the teachers needed to act "sensitively" at a time when many children were experiencing family breakdown and divorce." And a spokesman for East Renfrewshire Council said, "Increasingly, it is the case that there are children who haven't got fathers or haven't got fathers living with them and teachers are having to be sensitive about this. Teachers have always had to deal with some pupils not having fathers or mothers, but with marital breakdown it is accelerating." And then, with the most ironic of all defense statements, we have Jim Goodall, head of education at Clackmannanshire Council, who says that "teachers are expected to behave with common sense but be sensitive to "the changing pattern of family life." And then the practice that contained the least amount of common sense ever was introduced and implemented in the schools. Grand.

I'm not quite sure HOW the swaddling a child in a thick, insulating wrap of overprotectiveness by removing any sort of conflict or difficulty from the child's life is in the least bit sensitive. I find it highly insensitive that the soft-headed educators over there (just those who think it's a good idea to do this; not ALL educators.) are refusing to do just that. EDUCATE! If the child doesn't learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and that other people with cause to celebrate something are going to do so in spite of their individual circumstance, then they're going to be in for quite the rude awakening one day. It doesn't sound very "educational" if you're asking me.

I can think of many, many ways that one might be "insensitive" to a child's situation at home. (Comments that include the term "little bastard" for one.) But making Father's Day cards isn't one of them. And just so I'm clear, I have a problem with the capitalistic properties that have overtaken Father's Day (at least in the US), not so much with the day itself. I also don't have a problem with other people who have fathers and who are celebrating Father's Day. But what I do have a problem with is people who think that if everyone isn't the same, then they should make it appear as if everyone IS the same, even if that means taking away from those who "have" so that everyone can be a member of the "have nots". Because I'll tell you, if it was an option to spend Father's Day with my Dad, that would be awesome. And it would be so awesome that I cannot imagine depriving someone else of the thing that I would want more than anything else. Because if it's that cool, why would I not want someone else to experience it, despite the fact that I can't (anymore)? So, yo, Scotland. Make it stop. Just please make it stop.

Sphere: Related Content

Cats and Dogs, Living Together, Mass Hysteria

George Carlin has died. I'm very sad. The man was, in a word, hil-arious. (OK, a divided word. But it's still a word.) And if you're that funny, you have to be part genius. And he was that too. But now that he's gone, the world has gone over the edge. This is why certain people should not die. (I'ld like to put myself in that category. If for no other reason than to avoid death.) When they do, everything becomes chaotic. Cats and dogs, living together, mass hysteria. And the only explanation for today's chaos is the death of George Carlin. It's either that or I have to accept the sad state of affairs that the media of today is in.

I am at a loss for the numerous ridiculous headlines I have seen online today. NOT ones that are pun-filled. However groan-inducing those may be, I find them amusing. (Hey, a good pun is hard to come by. If one drops into your lap, roll with it. It'll feel good. Pun probably intended.) But today's are a combination of "WTF?" and "What an idiot. Who wrote that?" with a teensy-weensy bit of "DUH" thrown in and a dash of "Oh, God" on the side.

Idiot headline Number One comes from the shameless exploitation masters over there at TMZ.com. They are to blame for my reading "Ex Says Nate Dogg's A Roadside Terrorist". Oh, crap. What? What in the hell is a "roadside terrorist"? So I had to read the four sentences that accompanied the headline. (That is the good thing about TMZ. They're only capable of stringing together four or five sentences max in their stories. And if you're looking for compound words or sentences, I suggest perhaps trying the Schoolhouse Rock website and NOT TMZ.) Here's what I got"

• Cops tell us a woman who said she was Nate's estranged wife called into 911 freaking out as she was driving, claiming Nate was making death threats against her and "dangerously" following her as she drove down the road. The CHP stopped them both, and after interviewing both parties, arrested him for making terrorist threats and driving on a suspended license. The singer, whose real name is Nathaniel Hale, is currently in the process of being booked into the medical ward of the Twin Towers jail in downtown L.A. He suffered a debilitating stroke last December.

Where in the hell does "roadside terrorist" come into play? That's right. Never. And "suffered a debilitating stroke"? It couldn't be THAT debilitating if he was able to conduct his "roadside terrorist" activities, TMZ!! (Although, judging from the photo, perhaps the "debilitating" part was the need to wear a 'kerchief in an attempt to assimilate with Aunt Jemima. ) And that was just the beginning.

We have flooding going on over there in Midwest. Now, I don't know about you, but when I think "flood" I think "Where's my ark?" So I don't know if someone was trying to be cute or dramatic, but this is just asinine. "Forecast Says End Is Near for River Rise" Oh, the "forecast" says that? Not the fact that there's not as much water? You mean that the river is NOT going to keep rising FOREVER? (Do you really think I needed someone to TELL me that?) And "end is near"? Definitely a "Better find an ark" inducing headline if there ever was one.

The World Health Organization has been in China assessing the mental health needs of those who have survived the recent earthquakes there. (By the way, the earthquake that they had that was 8.0 on the Richter scale. That went on for over THREE minutes. Holy crap. At some point, I'm thinking after, oh, minute one, you have to think that it's just never going to stop and that the earth is going to continue to shake until everyone on the planet is dead. Three minutes would seem like an eternity.) Now, it's hard to tell from the headline if the people in China really DO need some sort of mental health intervention ("from the headline" it's hard to tell. From my opinion, it's not hard to tell. They do. You would too.). The headline reads "WHO says China needs mental health care" Who says? That's cute. What's next? "China responds with: I know you are but what am I?"

Over in 'Health' (which, by the way, if you're concerned about your health, don't read the 'Health' section of anything online. That's what doctors are for; so you can avoid the 'Health' sections.), we have this attention grabber: "What You Eyes Are Telling You." Here, let me help so you don't have to actually read the article. If they're closed, they're telling me I'm asleep. If they're open, they're telling me I'm awake. Next!

My second favorite headline from the world of entertainment today. "Actress Taunted by Angry Russian." (Kind of makes it sound as if Baryshnikov finally came off the rails, doesn't it?) Here's what we know: " According to Showbiz Spy while filming 'Get Smart' in Russia, an angry stranger pushed the star and menaced her with a bottle before security intervened." So....he's not only angry and he's not only Russian, he's a bottler menacer as well! Good thing security was there. Good Lord..........

Also in entertainment we have "Beauty wants public divorce from cheating hubby." What in the hell is a "public divorce"? Is it like when the villagers used to round up people and put them in the middle of the town square and stone them to death? Like that? Seems odd, but I might watch for a minute or two, maybe longer if it wasn't too stone-y at first. Here's what we know (but wish that we didn't): Christie Brinkley is still 'spitting' mad at her ex, architect Peter Cook. In 2006, the former supermodel filed for divorce after a decade of marriage, accusing him of having an affair with his then 18-year-old assistant. If made public, allegations that Cook surfs Internet porn sites are expected to surface. I like how "spitting" is in quotes, just so we know she wasn't really "spitting". But my favorite is the last line. "If made public". Wait. What? I'm reading about this ON THE FREAKING INTERNET!! It doesn't get any MORE public than the Internet!! So where's all the porn?!?!

And finally, the one you've been waiting for. The one that just had me laughing my ass off. I don't even have a good enough build up for it to lead with. It's pretty funny. Ready? What you read will (apparently) shock you.

• Amy Winehouse's father break shocking news about the troubled singer's health

Shocking news about her health. Um, folks....THIS is Amy Winehouse:

Are you "shocked", just "shocked" that she has health issues? Oh, yeah, I was too! Sure, if "yes" means "um, NO!" Come ON! "Shocking"? I can't think of many things that could possibly be LESS shocking than her health problems. Like we couldn't figure that out on our own from all of the photogenic images that we've seen plastered everywhere lately. Health problems? I just figured she smoked all of that crack, got into a fight with her boyfriend, (whose name, if you listened to her at the Grammys, you would think is "Blake Incarcerated", as that's what she said in her speech. "This is for my Blake. My Blake Incarcerated!" Riiiiiight. And you're the winner. The winner intoxicated!) took off some clothes and then went for a run around London. She has health problems? I am shocked. Just shocked.

As I wrap this up, I must issue this warning that the following is not suitable for a family reading environment. George Carlin....nice job, dude. And you might not be able to say them on TV, but they didn't say anything about writing them online. So thanks for letting me remember you with just those seven words.

ShitPissFuckCuntCockSuckerMotherFuckerTits

Sphere: Related Content

Half-Cocked Signage

Will Smith has a new movie coming out. Now, if you're in, say, London, it's entirely possible that you could learn about the plot of this movie in a completely different fashion than if you were in, say, the US. See, if you were in the US and you learned about Smith's new film, you'd know that it's called 'Hancock" and it's about an alcoholic superhero who is hated by the public. (Of course. No one likes a drunken superhero.) You'd know that after he saves the life of PR executive Ray Embrey (who is played, interestingly enough, by Jason Bateman), Embrey attempts to rehabilitate the drunken superhero's public image. (Step one: Stop getting drunk. Step two: Be more super.) As a way of showing his gratitude, Hancock has an affair with Embrey's wife (played by the very hot and extremely luscious Charlize Theron). Nice. What a d**k.

But see, look at how long that took me to explain. I mean, it wasn't terribly long, but it was more than it would have taken those chaps over in London at Leicester Square where the movie was premiering. For some reason, the blokes putting up the lettering for the sign started at the back. They apparently needed some sort of a break about halfway through this chore and so they took one, leaving their job half finished, but still conveying the basic premise of the main character in the movie.

And that seems to sum up the main character. Totally different delivery of the exact same message. And although a bit more vague, I think Ilike their method a bit more than those used in the US. Yeah, little bit.

Sphere: Related Content

Mac, PC or WTF?

With the Presidential election less than a mere 140 days away (Good God, shoot me now), I still don't think we've had a really close look at the candidates yet. I mean, there's been plenty of ridiculous dirt slinging (mostly via online) in Barack's direction a la "He's a Muslim". (He's NOT a Muslim, by the way. Look, if you don't want to vote for Barack, don't vote for him because he's a socialist. Don't not vote for him because you think he's a Muslim. At least if you don't vote for him because he's a socialist, at least then you'll sound informed and intelligent about the whole dealio, instead of sounding like an ignorant jackass if you say you didn't vote for him because he's Muslim; which, just to clarify again, he is NOT a Muslim. ) Not a whole lot of talk about John McCain, however. A little bit of talk about his younger, very hot, chairwoman of Anheuser-Busch wife (Young? Hot? All the beer you can drink? Where do I sign up to get me one of those?), but not a lot about him. Well, a little about him.

What do we know about Grandpa John McCain? We know he's older than most Presidential candidates. (We know he's older than most people (mentioned in the Bible).) We know (or we should know) that the "Hilton" that he spent five years in over there during the Vietnam War came with the sort of room service that was of the torturing nature. That's about it, really. I don't know a lot about where he stands on a lot of the issues . I don't know a lot about his career. And I don't know a lot about him personally. I do know that when I am looking for information about him, that I'm trying to find info that will allow me to make a determination as to whether or not I think that he is "too old" to be President. And if "too old" is "too vague", how about if I refine that to be "someone who is going to be in touch with the needs of the people of the country"? Better? Good.

So far, my information quest hasn't turned up a whole lot that doesn't lean in the "too old" direction. It has turned up various items that seem to show him as a personable guy with a sense of humor and also as an individual who is absolutely, 100% in full control of his faculties and completely sane. All of that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm going to be OK with everything about the guy, because I am not. In fact, there's one HUGE thing that I am just way not OK with.

Somewhere around when Super Tuesday was (yes, I know it was a Tuesday! Thanks for that. I have no idea what month.), Politico.com, for Yahoo! News, interviewed some of the potential Presidential candidates and asked them, "PC or Mac?" And if you're asking me, that's a much better line of questioning than "Boxers or briefs?" (Because really, where is the "Boxers or briefs?" inquisition going to go when we're asking female candidates? "G-string or Jockey?" "Tampons or pads?" I shudder at the very thought.)

They asked the question of Ron Paul (who is a year older than Uncle John), Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Ron Paul was a PC guy. Mitt Romney was a PC guy who would use a Mac because his sons do. Mike Huckabee (who did an unintentionally hilarious video for YouTube to introduce himself to America) was a PC guy as well. And John Methuselah McCain? John McCain said, and I quote, "Neither. I am an illiterate who has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance that I can get." (That sound you hear is my screaming and beating my head up against a wall. And not for the usual reasons, either.) Are you freaking kidding me?

Neither?! Neither?! Is the man from the Stone Age? Does he live next to a guy named Barney? Does he ride a horse to work? Has anyone seen his feet? Does he have shoes on? Neither?!?! WTF?!

Now, granted, I am currently residing smack dab in the middle of the birthplace of the technology industry, in San Jose, CA. (We might be a little geeky, but if it weren't for us, y'all would be cuddling up to John McCain right now to see how he manages to get all of the words so legible with that hammer and chisel when he chips out memos in marble.) We can get a little, um, excessive with our tech and our tech products. But come on! Not even email? Not even reading the news? Not even pretending to read the news while you look for porn? None of that, John?

I don't know if I can have a President with his finger on the button if he doesn't even know which button it is or what it does and has to go and find his wife to help him!! If you are under (and I'll be generous here) forty and learn of this phenomenon, you're going to be in a daze all day long. I was! (Shuffling around, muttering to myself, "Neither. Neither? How is that possible? How does he know what's up next in his Netflix queue? How does he watch Obama Girl on YouTube? Oh, my God! That means he doesn't read this blog!!" And then I passed out.)

Here's the video of McCain admitting that he doesn't use a computer. (In essence, he's also admitting that he walked uphill, in the snow, to school every day. BOTH ways!) Make up your own mind. But if you're not going to vote for McCain, don't not vote for him because he's old. Don't vote for him because he can't use a computer.

Sphere: Related Content

It Takes A Village Idiot

When 17 girls at Gloucester High School in (surprise) Gloucester, Mass., got pregnant, it was four times more than the number of girls (in the school of about 1,200 students) that got pregnant the year before. Those in the softheaded department came to the conclusion that movies such as "Juno" and "Knocked Up" "glamorized" young, teenage, unwed mothers. Yeah, that's it. I'm sure there's a more ridiculous rationalization than that, but I can't think of it.

Fortunately, someone at the school was paying attention and noticed that the number of pregnant high school students was way more than it should be (and the fact that it should be any number other than zero is a sad reality). Those paying attention and not blaming the preggers boom on the Hollywood media also noticed that when some of the girls would go into the school clinic to find out if they're pregnant (What? They don't have EPT over there in Massachusetts?), some of them would seem to be upset if they weren't pregnant. Wait. What?

Now, I, for one, could not imagine thinking I was pregnant when I was in high school. But if I were in that situation, I absolutely, positively, for the life of me, could not imagine being freaking UPSET if I was NOT! But some of those chicks were. So what gives? You better sit down. And have a case of beer handy. Apparently, a bunch of girls at the school, none of whom were older than sixteen, made a pact to get pregnant and raise the babies together. WTF?

According to the principal, a Joseph Sullivan, some of the girls reacted to the news that they're going to have another human being growing inside of them (as if they were the human host of an alien creature) by high fiving each other and planning baby showers. Now, in case you're unfamiliar with what most people who are sixteen react like when told that they're pregnant, it goes something like this: Picture what those girls were doing, the high fives, etc. OK. So, it's the exact OPPOSITE of that. Usually complete with tears, more tears, phone calls to the one friend they told, more tears, and then complete hysteria. Please note the absence of any high fives, low fives, or any other kind of five.

Oh, wait! I almost forgot. Yeah, one of the fathers (translation: sperm donors) turned out to be a 24-year old homeless dude. (If you feel that the shedding of tears as mentioned in the above description for this situation would be appropriate, now would be the time to open the floodgates.)

Seriously, what the hell? Aside from these girls not quite understanding the entire picture of not just carrying and expelling the child from their bodies (in a process akin to taking a pot roast and shoving it through one's nostril), but of raising the child and providing for the child for the next eighteen freaking years. EIGHTEEN. And girls, you're going to need a little bit more than this "It takes a village" mentality to raise these children. Yes, it takes at least one other important aspect that I have yet to hear mentioned. (Granted, there's more than just one other things these girls overlooked. I'm just trying to hit the basic and more obvious ones.) Money. I must have missed the part about which of them (who are willingly reproducing before they have entered their junior year of high school) has a job. And I'm sorry, but I guess I also missed the part about how you will be supporting these children without a job? Oh, MY federal tax dollars? Oh, OK. Um, NOT.

See, this isn't the "It takes a village" mentality at work here. No, this is the "It takes a village idiot" mentality at work here. Are they all going to move into one big commune and pile the babies up in the middle? What's yours is mine and what's mine is yours? Are you girls crazy? What are you thinking?
In case you missed it, none of them are older than 16. 16 is young to anyone who is not 16. 16 is THE age...until you turn 18. Then 18 is THE age...until you turn 21. Then 21 is THE age...until...yeah, after that you don't care any more. But when you're about 30 you start to realize how young 16 was. (You also start to realize that it is somewhat of a miracle that you're still alive somehow, given some of the stunts you pulled. And can you believe someone thought it was perfectly acceptable for you to DRIVE when you were 16? Holy crap, are you kidding me?! See, that's only one of the many, many reasons I will never reproduce. It would be too tempting for me to just keep the kid in a box in the back room of my house. "Hell, no, you're not going out there. Why? Because I went out there too when I was your age. And I know darn good and well what I was capable of and what I did. Like what? Oh, I'm sorry, that information is still classified. and will remain that way until the statute of limitations runs out on that unfortunate incident in the peach orchard involving couple of wayward alpacas.")

Another ridiculously speculative theory is that, because the high school that the girls attend is very liberal in it's treatment of teenage mothers (going as far as to provide free day care at the school for those who made the mistake of getting pregnant whilst still in high school), perhaps the girls thought they should just do this now while they have these free services that they can take advantage of, because they'd have a difficult time paying for day care later on. (Please note that at the beginning of this paragraph I deemed this a "ridiculously speculative theory". I was being kind. That is the stupidest reason I have heard yet. I don't think they were getting pregnant because of their "economic situation". If they were that aware of what was going on in the world or even just around them, I highly doubt that their response to it would be "I know, I'll have a baby!" Morons.)

A lot of the speculation (since the girls aren't talking) as to the reason for the intentional knocking up of ones 16 year old self, is that it's a small community whose economy centers around the fishing industry. No, they're not blaming the fish. Yet. (Although, if they're looking for someone to blame, they're not trying very hard. Movies. Fish. Come on, people, you can do better than that.) What they're saying is that it's one of those towns where your future is almost set in stone for you. You'll go to this high school (because it's the only one). You'll live in those houses after you graduate (because everyone always does). You'll work for this business (because everyone always has). Your whole family lives here (and continues to live here). You get the point. Thus, one of the theories is that it was a "way out" or a way to "add a little excitement" to their lives.

Wait. Why does that scenario sound familiar? Well, everything but the pregnancy part. Seriously, it sounds strangely familiar. A small town. A boring place for teenagers. Everything is always the same. Teenagers aching for something different. Teenagers trying to find a way to do something, to make a difference, to make a change. Oh! That's it! Now I remember! Sure! It's the plot of Footloose.


Why couldn't those girls just do that? You know, stage a dance in some barn somewhere. Or, since they fish over there, on some dock (away from the bait station, however). A mirrored disco ball, some tin foil stars, LOTS of glitter floating down from above, Kevin Bacon, Sarah Jessica Parker, why couldn't they do that?! It sounds better than giving birth. Maybe John Lithgow could show up with a big kettle of fish, professing the importance of sustainable fisheries and the need for protein in a daily diet. Anything, really. Anything other than intentionally getting knocked up by a 24 year old homeless guy when you're 16 or younger. Anything.

Yeah, those girls were the wrong kind of "loose". They should have been Footloose. There weren't any babies in Footloose and everyone seemed to like that JUST fine.

Sphere: Related Content

Does This Hat Match My Plane?

Look, we're all under stress at work in one form or another. If you're a pilot, there are going to be a lot of things to stress out about (I would imagine). You have to keep that big metal tube in the air for an extended period of time, for starters. And if there's bad weather, that could affect your stress level. Or if the flight is running behind schedule, that could have you on edge. Or if you're not sure whether or not to wear your pilot's hat. Wait. What?

According to our good friends across the pond at the Telegraph, over there in my second home of Salt Lake City, Utah, United Airlines had to cancel one of their flights because the pilot decided he was "not calmed and focused enough" to fly the plane to Denver. This revelation coming to him after everyone was already ON the plane. ( I would have twisted right on off. )

One of the passengers on the plane, a one Paul Jacobson, explained to the good folks over there at USA Today, how this unraveled. He said that the pilot got on the PA and said, "Some of you may have witnessed an incident I was involved in at the gate. I'm not going to go into the details, but it was an interpersonal confrontation that upset me significantly to the point where I'm not focused enough to fly you to Denver. I feel like I may not be calmed and focused enough to fly to Denver for another hour." As you can imagine, hilarity did not ensue after that announcement. Apparently, the passengers let out the obligatory groan after learning of this delay (followed by lots of the under the breath cursing and the oh-so rhetorical inquiry, "Are you freaking kidding me?" Sadly, no. They're not. But then things start to get weird.

The pilot, who oddly enough, was not identified, (yet. Just wait. We will know who this tool is soon enough.) had apparently been conflicted as to whether or not he should wear his hat. Yes, his hat. That thing perched atop a pilot's head. THAT hat. In fact, he was so conflicted that he was having an argument with his colleagues about whether or not to wear his hat in front of management. (No word on whether the colleagues were or were not hatless. Repeat, hatless.) Be-cause....management doesn't....like....hats? Maybe? WTF?!

I can't believe that the pilot couldn't fly the plane to Denver because he was upset about an argument over a hat. This is because of a hat. (Yeah, an asshat!) Now, it's not management that has the hat hang up. It's the pilots' union. The pilots union has apparently encouraged it's members (ie, pilots) to not wear their hats. This orchestrated hat removal is said to represent the universal symbol for protesting difficulties that the pilots have suffered since United's bankruptcy. It is? NO! Of course it isn't!!

What does not wearing your HAT have to do with being pissy that the company went rudder end up?! Let me see...oh, that's right! NOTHING! It has NOTHING to do with it! Whose crazy ass idea was that?! ("I know! We'll all take off our hats! Let them see OUR hair, for once. We're always staring at theirs. That'll show them. Then they'll know just how much trouble we've had to endure. Phffftt! Stupid bankruptcy. We'll show them though. As we must unite, hatless, as one!")

How many of these precious little snowflakes are employed by United to fly their planes? The answer should be ZERO. Listen up, dude. If you can't handle getting into it with some of your co-workers regarding whether or not you should wear a hat I don't want you piloting the long metal tube that I am on (that sounds worse than it is. I meant "the plane".). I mean, if you're THAT easily upset, God only knows what might happen to you up there at our cruising altitude of 35,000 feet. ("What was that?! Oh, my GOD! It's a cloud! Somebody get the co-pilot in here! I'm feeling weak! I'm rather upset! I need to calm and focus after seeing that cloud! Stop mocking me! It was really big! And white and fluffy! My God!")

United is investigating and the pilots union isn't talking. No word on whether or not they're wearing their hats, though.

Sphere: Related Content

What Kind of Trespassing?

So if you're 20 years old and you're arrested for providing a sex act (to the husband of a US senator, nonetheless), it makes sense to take the plea agreement that they offer you and plead guilty to a lesser charge, doesn't it? Sure it does. Especially is the "lesser charge" to "providing a sex act" is "trespassing". Wait. What?

Apparently, a one Alycia Martin, a 21-year old chick from Westland, Michigan had pled guilty under something called the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act. (Are you guys SURE she's 21? Because from the looks of that picture over there, she's looking more like 12 than 21. Was the booking officer dyslexic? Actually, I probably shouldn't complain. She looks older than she did in her booking photo, below on the left.) Basically, if you're young (and I guess in Michigan, 21 is considered "young". I guess "young" is different than "old enough to know better") and you successfully complete your probation, the charge disappears from your record. Other states (and grown-ups) know it as a "plea in abeyance". So in August, Ms. Martin will return to court and they'll see how she did. How nice.

Now, she was only 20 when she was arrested for hooking herself out. But when she was arrested, she had just finished performing $150 worth of a sex act on a Thomas Athans. (No word on how much sex $150 gets you in Michigan. Eliot Spitzer's hookers don't even answer your call for $150.) He would be the husband of US Senator Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing. (His designation would probably be Thomas Athans, A-Asshat.) And while it's never a good idea to be paying a hooker for sex, it's really not a good idea when your spouse is a Senator. Yeah, that's a really bad idea. (And although it's a bad idea, I kind of get it. I mean, if you want some, you want some. And even if you have a spouse, that doesn't mean you're getting some. (Their pics are below. You tell me if that looks like a match made in heaven to you.) And at least with a hooker (otherwise known as a whore) you don't have to worry about all of the things that usually come with (pun probably intended) someone you're having sex with. You don't have to worry about calling them, you don't have to talk to them, you don't have to worry if you're they're "type". ("Type", very important to some; "type" also not very flexible for some. Unfortunately. For them, probably.), so many things.

But back to the plea bargain. How does one "bargain" one's way down from "prostitution" to "trespassing"? Trespassing is being on someone's property without their permission. Now, in this case, the only way that I could see "trespassing" being a charge would be if by "property" they meant "his penis" and by "being on someone's property" they meant "her on him." But I really don't think that was the case. I'm not thinking that the $150 was for her to get off OF him. Get him off? Perhaps. But that's hardly trespassing.

Well, I guess if it was his wife who pressed the charges, THEN I could see where it might be "trespassing", but it still doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense either way.

Oh, and hey, whoring yourself out chick over there? Yeah, listen cupcake, what say you maybe get yourself out of the hooker biz and maybe take a couple of classes somewhere. What? No, CLASSES! I said CLASSES! Not asses. CLASSES! Geez. (Yeah, I can't see it ending well. Not after that.)

Sphere: Related Content