Important News

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I LOVE the foreign press.

Below is the entire article as it appeared in The Metro over there across the pond in the UK.

Important news: woman rides giant penis thingy

"Performer May Flower riding a bucking penis yesterday, during an exibition in the SEXEXPO at the Cape Town Convention Center in South Africa.

We have absolutely no comment on this photo, and are publishing this important news merely as part of our public duty, being a noted Paper of Record.

That is all."

Sphere: Related Content

Carbon Footprints In The Sand

All right. I have had it with this global warming crap. (Oh, calm down! I'm not done yet!) If I never hear the term "global warming" ever again in my lifetime it will be too soon. Don't get me wrong, I am aware that the earth is gradually getting warmer. (I'm also aware that human beings generate heat and there are an awful lot of us hanging around the globe these days.) And I am also aware that there are plenty of things that people can do that will help not make the current condition of the environment any worse. But what I'm really aware of is how softheaded a lot of people in this country and on this planet really are. And, in a rare moment when I am going to advocate regulating something, if someone doesn't come up with some sort of a standard for what some of these actions relate to, we're never going to get anything done. Oh, hey, kind of like now.

The term that I dislike as much as "global warming" is "carbon footprint". Whenever I hear "carbon footprint" I want to plant my "carbon footprint" right on that person's arse. The "carbon footprint" is supposed to refer to the amount of carbon that is being emitted by something or someone and through their actions or activities. And regardless as to how much I dislike the term, the "carbon footprint" is a real thing. However, I have yet to see a standard method for measuring what the "carbon footprint" actually is. Thus, that means that people or organizations that claim to be all for saving the environment (and who are usually, ironically, doing so via some sort of business that they hope to capitalize upon. Shocking, I know.) seem to measure the carbon emissions of things however they want to. And we wouldn't really know how that is because they don't tell us. But for some reason, if you claim to know about the "carbon footprint" and how to measure it, they will line up in droves, like zombies, to listen to you and to throw money at your feet.

I'm not exaggerating. Here's an example: Delta Airlines has a "Carbon Offset Program" where you can choose to contribute $5.50 per round trip domestic flight ($11.00 per international round trip flight) to help "offset" their "carbon footprint". That money goes into their Conservation Fund. The Conservation Fund uses that money to plant trees. I find it interesting that it's the same $5.50 regardless as to the length of the flight that you're taking. See, I find it doubtful that my "carbon footprint" if I flew from California to Utah would be the same as if I flew from California to New York. But they're "offsetting" something with "carbon" in it, so it must be good. Offputting is what it is. But I digress.

So, over at the "Global Footprint Network - Advancing the Science of Sustainability" they have a "Personal Footprint Calculator" which claims to help "you see how your living habits relate to your use of the planet's resources." I don't know how they figure stuff out based upon your answers, and neither will you because they don't say. But that's not my entire issue. No, my issue is with some of the questions. Let's begin.

They have only figured out how to do carbon footprint analysis in the United States and Australia. So if you're reading this in Europe (where I'm HUGE), sorry, you're going to have to continue ruining the planet blissfully unaware of the damage that you're doing. (Oh, how I wish I was in Europe right now.) Once you select your country, you're given the opportunity to create an avatar that will represent the Earth killing you throughout this activity. I guess the purpose is to make your gradual depleting of the earth's resources seem kitschy and fun. You can custom design your avatar or have one randomly generated. If you don't like the randomly generated one, you can randomly generate them until the cows come home. (Or, if you don't hear any mooing, until you find one you like.) Here is the avatar I chose to represent the wasteful me (I liked the hair):

The questions can be answered with a general response or with a more specific response. The questions covered the basics. How much of and what kind of food do you eat? How much trash do you generate? What are your driving habits? How often do you fly a year? Stuff like that. Those questions seem reasonable. But then I ran across some questions that did NOT seem reasonable.

The first question I had a problem with was, "Which housing type best describes your home?" You are then given seven choices. One of the choices is "Free standing house without running water." WTF?! What am I? A yurt dweller? (With the Internet, oddly enough.) WITHOUT running water? Are they serious? They must be, because there it was. Grrr.

But the question that just made me want to twist right off was, "Do you have electricity in your home?" ::blink:: ::blink:: ::stare:: ::blink:: ::blink:: Is it really asking me if I have electricity in my home as I take this quiz on the freaking INTERNET?!?! And it's asking me this right after it asked me if I have running water in my home?! Who am I? The Unabomber?! (Although, now that I think about it, that guy was pretty environmentally friendly. Aside from all the bombs, of course.)

OK, so I DID manage to finish the quiz. (The quiz that wasn't sure if I had electricity or not because they're taking into consideration I could be living in a teepee on an island in the middle of the Pacific somewhere as I use what little power my solar cells have generated for my computer to take their ridiculous quiz). And for me the bottom line was that my habits, running water and electricity and all, allegedly require 4.1 planet Earths "if everyone lived like me". My habits allegedly take up 18.2 global acres of the Earth's productive area and emit 19.8 tons of carbon dioxide. That's when I moved to Australia.

I took the quiz again, but this time I clicked on Australia. The only difference in the questions was that they did include one about how often I used a bicycle for transportation and they also had the responses in metric units. It also asked for which region of Australia. Now, I don't know why that would make a difference, as it didn't ask for what region of the US I lived in, but it definitely seemed to. If I had the exact same electricity using, water running, food eating habits that I had in the US in (Western) Australia, I would only require 2.6 planet Earths "if everyone lived like me" and I would only take up 2.6 planet earths 4.7 hectares (6.67 acres) 8.6 tonnes (9.47 tons) of carbon dioxide. HOW is that possible?!? Oh, and if I moved to one of the other regions in Australia, my usage needs were even less than that!

I mean, if it were a little bit different, that would seem different, but normal. Kind of like how the water in the toilet swirls a different direction in Australia. It's different, but it seems normal, so I'm OK with that. But the difference between the wasteful US me and the wasteful Australian me seems greatly different and for no apparent reason other than location, location, location.

Now, I'm not saying that this particular company is trying to scam people into...something. I'm not sure what their overall goal it (although it does say that they're non-profit). But that just doesn't make any sense to me. And if they have to ask if I have electricity when I'm taking their Internet quiz, that raises some serious concerns about their overall competence for dealing with environmental issues. I mean, maybe they know what they're doing, maybe they don't. But you and I have no way of knowing because there are no standards for which comparisons can be made. That's why we need some standards. And until we get some, if everyone (except for smart scientist folk) could please just pipe down, we'd appreciate it.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tote some well water back to the yurt.

Sphere: Related Content

Easier Inebriation

See, while here in the US, if a city has a problem with drunks in public, they usually deal with the drunks. Oh, but that's the US. See, over there in the UK in Cardiff (that's in the UK), they decided that they should deal with the public instead. Literally. That's why the scientists there have come up with the notion that redesigning the streets to make them more "user friendly" for the drunks would be a good step toward reducing the conflict and violence. Wait. What?

Apparently, they used some computer simulations to recreate the movements of people who were staggering home after a night on the town. (They could have saved themselves all that trouble and just followed Amy Winehouse around for a few hours.) And when they looked at the results of the simulations they were shocked, just shocked, to find out that drunk people trip over things! Imagine!

So then, being the good little scientists that they were, decided they needed some hand on information and went out into the streets to find real drunks and analyze real behavior by giving breathalyzer tests to people who appeared intoxicated. They found that 25% of the individuals were so drunk that they couldn't walk straight. (Otherwise known as Wednesday in my world.) Then it starts to get weird.

According to the article from those good chaps over there at The Metro, "Simulations were then run showing crowds in various states of inebriation trying to pass through a narrow alleyway to three different destinations." Why are crowds of drunk people all going through an alley? Why are crowds of drunk people only going to THREE different locations? Are these locations BARS? I don't understand. At all. It continues confusing me when it says, "When a fifth of the people were staggering, progress was reduced by 9%, while a whole crowd of drunks led to a 38% reduction in movement." OK, so if you have one in five people drunk, you're going to slow things up 9%, but if you have a whole gaggle of drunks, then you're going to slow things up 38%. Well, if you do the math (and I know you don't, so I will), that gaggle of drunks is adapting better to their situation than the 1 in 5, because if all 5 of the 5 were drunk, you'd slow things up 45%. So I guess I'm supposed to come to the conclusion that if I'm going to get drunk and walk home through an alleyway, I should make sure that everyone around me is plastered also? Notice taken. Will do!

Now, it may surprise you that what the scientists concluded from all of this was not what I concluded from all of this. I concluded that people that are drunk experience the natural consequences of being drunk. Things take longer to do. You get lost. You fall down. You fall down and decide that would be a great place to spend the night. All natural consequences. But that's just me. And I'm no scientist. But those who ARE scientists concluded that because the drunks are so much slower at doing things (you know, because they're drunk) that they irritate those who are not drunk and, therefore, are the targets of violence. Wait. What?

I guess in the UK, if you have a slow moving drunk in front of you going through that alleyway, you just whack him and then step over the groaning, writhing body that just fell to the ground. (One quick blow to the kneecaps is all it takes!) Violence toward drunks. Interesting concept, but so what? Well, now that they've identified the problem, it must be fixed! "We must fix it so that the drunks are not so slow! And when I say "not so slow" I mean to make it so that it's easier for them to get around. You know, like relocating benches and other things they might trip over or become confused about how to navigate around." Wait. What?

Correct. According to The Metro,"The researchers plan to investigate how moving street obstacles or increasing pedestrianisation might ease congestion around nightspot." So they want to move things that could get in the way of someone who is unable to walk around the thing. How does that make sense? You're going to try to de-obstacle-ize your city so it's easier to walk through without bumping into anything?? Are you kidding me? Wow. And I thought the US pandered to the chronically inebriated.

The article also says that the scientists "hope to come up with street designs that direct late-night revellers safely home to their beds instead of into the path of trouble." Now how in the hell are they going to do that? I am envisioning many, many directional arrows all over town reading similarly to, 'Bill - Home Is This Way" "Jane - Home Is This Way" "Fred - If You See This Sign, Turn Around! Home Is The Other Way!" "Susan - Drunk Again? Keep Going, You're Not Home Yet." "Tom -Watch Out For That Curb!" Oh, what could possibly go wrong?

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that this idea might be a little bit off center. The Metro folks went with the headline, "Boffins to redesign streets for drunks." Since I am so not British, I had to look up what a "boffin" was. And I learned that a boffin is a scientist or an engineer or someone who engages in technical and/or scientific research. A boffin is usually portrayed as someone who displays both eccentric genius and a naive ineptitude in social situations or with social interactions. Ah. Thus, the headline, "Boffins To Redesign Streets For Drunks." And another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

Sphere: Related Content

Please Explain These Photos

Real quick here...if someone could explain these photos to me, I'd really appreciate it. I don't get it.

Photo one, taken by Jerry Lara, was in the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday. The article that it accompanied was about Hurricane Dolly (insert "Hello, Dolly" catchy little tune here). The caption read: "Andre Nicoli carries a football along Gulf Boulevard on South Padre Island through Hurricane Dolly's winds on Wednesday. The storm knocked out power to thousands of homes on the island."

So there's a hurricane coming and this guy figures the best thing to do is to walk around with a bag on his head carrying a football in a cup? Why is that? I don't get it.

Photo number two I ran across while looking online for photo number one. It appeared on The Ledger.com. The article was, again, about Hurricane Dolly (insert "Hello, Dolly" catchy little tune here).. The caption for that photo read, "A man holds on to a sign as the eye wall of Hurricane Dolly bears down on South Padre Island, Texas, on Wednesday."

Again, there's a hurricane coming and this guy decides to hold onto a sign. A sign that looks to be in front of what would appear to be a perfectly good HOUSE in the background. And yet he's outside (which is where the hurricane is, by the way) hanging on to the sign...why? I don't get it.

Things like the football picture keep me up at night. Any explanation would be greatly appreciated.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday's Foreign Press Files

Well, well, well. It is QUITE the day over yonder at the Metro.co.uk. Yep, quite the day. Where to begin, where to begin?

I suppose I could start in New Zealand, where a judge has banned two parents from continuing to have their child named "Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii." Yes, that was her GIVEN and REGISTERED name. (The poor girl told people that her name was "K" because she was so embarrassed and didn't want to be made fun of. And who wouldn't have done the same thing? Other than the two asshats who named her that. What in the hell are you people thinking?) The judge in the case ordered that the court take custody of the girl until her name could be formally changed, which they did and which it later was.

So, here are a few of the other names (chosen by different parents) that were also disallowed:

• Fish and Chips (Mmmm...fish and chips)
  
  
• Yeah Detroit (What? No "Woo-Hoo!" at the end of that?)


• Stallion (Yes, the baby looked just like Sly Stallone. I'm sure of it.)


• Twisty Poi (You can't twist poi, can you? It's like mashed potatoes. They don't twist.)
  
  
• Keenan Got Lucy (I had a dog named Lucy, so I find this one particularly disturbing.)
  
  
• Sex Fruit (Not that this will make this any better, but it was unclear to me if the last entry on this list was two separate names, ie 1. Keenan Got Lucy, 2. Sex Fruit, OR if it was, in fact, just one name, ie Keenan Got Lucy and Sex Fruit. I just don't know. I think I'd prefer that it's just one name, because if it were TWO names, then that's just one more set of crazy parents out there and we really don't need that, do we?)

Um, WTF, people? Oh, wait. I should have held that comment back until after I shared a few of the names that WERE allowed:

• 16 Bus Shelter (Clearly, where the child was conceived. I can picture it now, although I'd rather not.)


• Benson and Hedges (Twins, it says. As if that makes it all right.)


• Midnight Chardonnay (I picture Midnight Chardonnay having a lot of Afternoon Tequila with a name like that.)


• Hitler (Yes, this child will grow up to be perfectly normal. Sure.)
  
  
• Cinderella Beauty Blossom (Oh, how I PRAY that this is a girl's name.)


• Violence (Again, should grow up perfectly normal. What could possibly go wrong?)

Over there at the recorder's office, Brian Clarke, the registrar general of Births, Deaths and Marriages, explained that the law in New Zealand disallows names that would "cause offense to a reasonable person". ( He also said that they disallow names with "more than 100 characters (glad they narrowed THAT down. Phew! Those folks wanting to name their "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" can now breathe a sigh of relief that they have 61 characters to spare.), that include titles or military rank or that include punctuation marks or numerals. (Thus explaining why it wasn't "Yeah! Detroit!! #1!! Woooo!!"

So, "Stallion" is NOT OK, but sign your kid up to be named "Hitler" because that's just FINE and dandy?! How is "Stallion" offensive to a reasonable person? I understand that it's not reasonable to a reasonable person, but offensive? Compared to "HITLER"?! I think not.

But wait! There's more! (I told you, The Metro is on a roll today!)

Then the Metro provides us with a story about a dwarf who was participating in a show called the Circus of Horrors (trust me, that name is beyond appropriate for this story). It was the aforementioned dwarf who "accidentally glued his penis to a vacuum cleaner."

Accidentally?!?! What in the hell was he trying to do? Which part of that sentence was involved in "the accident"? Was it the penis or was it the vacuum? Was he trying to glue his ASS to the vacuum and attached his minuscule unit instead? Was he trying to attach his schlong (or in this case, probably a schort) to a feather duster and got the Hoover instead? And how is trying to glue your penis to ANYTHING an accident!??! You know how to prevent those sorts of accidents? Exactly! By trying to NOT glue your penis to ANYTHING!

Captain Dan The Demon Dwarf (soon to be renamed Castrated Dan, Just An Idiot) "was taken to a hospital when he became stuck to the machine after misreading superglue instructions." Again, misreading WHAT exactly? The part that says, "If your penis has fallen off, please do not use our product to reattach it. Instead, seek medical help immediately. And bring your severed schlong with you!" Did he think it said "Please use our fabulous product to glue your penis to motorized residential cleaning apparati, and do it now!"?

I guess the gist of his "act" is that he pulls the vacuum across the stage with it attached to...you know....that. Somehow, it's supposed to be attached, but that came loose and so he used the glue to fix it. He only waited 20 seconds instead of 20 minutes before, um, reinsertion and that's when the problem became evident. It took the fine folks at the hospital (who are clearly paid no where near enough when it comes to dealing with things like this) about an hour to remove him from it.

Why not just turn the vacuum ON and use it's wondrous powers of suction to keep him attached to it? Or, better yet, here's another idea: Don't use your PENIS to pull a VACUUM CLEANER across a stage! (Or anything else for that matter! It wasn't meant for that! I might not have one, but I AM aware of the basic functions it performs, and vacuum relocation is NOT one of those functions!) I don't care how wild the crowd goes when you do it! Can't you juggle or do something more...you know...NORMAL and circus-y?

God, I love the foreign press.

Sphere: Related Content

The Summer Is Responsible For That? Really?

I'm not easily confused, but a lot of things confuse me. Physics. The homeless. Right and left. There's a number of them. Today my confusion was provided by the Houston Zoo.

The Houston Zoo apparently attracts record numbers of guests. I'm not sure why. I can't think of many things less appealing than wandering around in the Houston heat looking at animals that are so obviously out of their natural habitat that it would be comical if it weren't kind of, somehow wrong. I don't know what the big attraction is. Do they have a panda? That might explain it, because for some reason, Americans LOVE the panda. (I'd guess it's because of the eyes, but raccoons have that same feature and, to my knowledge, Americans are not in love with the raccoon. But a panda? Americans will wait in lines longer than those to get an iPhone just so they can see the damn panda.) But I think that Houston is panda-free, which is one reason why I'm confused.

So the zoo is looking for ways to attract more low-income families. NO. Not for exhibits. As visitors to the zoo. They came up with the idea that families that receive food stamps will be able to have unlimited free admission to the zoo for themselves and up to eight guests. According to the president and CEO of the zoo, a one Deborah Cannon, "We're always trying to expand access." Why? I don't know either, but they're intent on it. Since 2002, the zoo has had five days a year where admission was free and boy, did the Houstonians (?) love that. Between 50,000 and 80,000 people went to the damn zoo on the days when it was free. Between FIFTY and EIGHTY THOUSAND people? Went to the ZOO? My confusion continues to grow at this point. Those figures are mind boggling.

The problem they had with that many people, according to the zoo director, Rick Barongi, is that "It can be stressful, just too many people." Oh, do you think? He also noted that on Memorial Day this year, one of the free days, "the police were needed to control angry crowds at the zoo gate an hour before closing." WHAT?! What were they angry about?! That the wonderful, fabulous, FREE zoo was closing?! And that was enough for a mob mentality to set in to the point where the authorities were called? Were they hoping for a late night stroll through the Reptile House? Midnight Monkey Madness? What did they want?

But even with the crowd and the attracting more people and all, the zoo was disappointed that less than nine percent of their free visitors were from low income areas. The rest? That's right. Regular people just wanted a free peek at the animals. (Although, some of them could have been just like me and been completely bewildered as to what in the world all of the fuss was at the zoo and so they had to check it out for themselves.) So the zoo was getting more people, but they weren't the right kind of people. And that's why it's free for people on food stamps now! Are you with me? No? Good! That makes ALL of us! WTF??

They wanted to make sure that those who can't afford to go to the zoo are not limited by just those 5 days. So, by expanding the number of days that the zoo is free (for those on food stamps) from five days to ALL days, that gives those on food stamps the freedom to come to the zoo whenever they want to. And they will continue to have the five free days for everyone. You know, just so those who can afford to go to the zoo don't get pissed off. And I guess that sounds fine, but, um, if they're on food stamps shouldn't they be working or looking for a job instead of going to the zoo? I'm just asking! Remember? I'm confused!

But here's the part that almost made my head explode. According to the article by the fine folks down there at the Houston Chronicle, "To make matters worse, animals were getting sick after the summer free days because too many people were throwing cotton candy and other items into their pens. To alleviate the problem, none of the five free days will be scheduled for the summer." Wait. What?

Ah, yes, you have to take the good with the bad, I suppose. Along with the freedoms and the joys of summertime you must also deal with how those summer days cause people to become unable to stop themselves from throwing cotton candy and other items into animals pens! They're just out of control and no one, NO ONE, not even the 50,000 to 80,000 zoo visitors themselves, can stop this summertime phenomenon from occurring at the zoo, right? NO!!

Are you KIDDING ME?!!? How are the two related? Oh, oh, that's right! THEY'RE NOT!! I suppose I should ask if there are any strange wintertime phenomena that occur at the zoo that I should be aware of? Are the visiting patrons in January stripping off their winter garb (in Houston, that's a T-shirt instead of a tank top) and riding the giraffes bareback, completely unable to stop themselves from doing so? Or do they have that season completely under control? This is the most confusing and complicated zoo EVER.

See what I mean? You have a panda-less zoo in Houston that attracts between 50,000 and 80,000 visitors on days when the zoo is free. But the zoo wants visitors who are on food stamps to visit the zoo, so they're making every day a free zoo day for those folks. And none of the five days that are free for everyone will be during the summer because it's the summer that causes people to throw cotton candy at the animals. How's your head? Pounding? Ready to explode? Welcome to my world.

Sphere: Related Content

He's Not A Muslim, By The Way

I didn't think that the concept of "satire" in humor (or as humor) was all that difficult of a concept. But apparently it is. And it's not just difficult for regular people to get, it's difficult for people who publish magazines to get. Well, people who publish magazines like Vanity Fair. They definitely have a hard time with the "satire" concept. The people who publish magazines like The New Yorker? Oh, they get it.

I need to back up here. A lot of people seem to be confused about who Barack Obama is as a person, how he grew up, what his heritage is and what he believes in. According to a Pew Research Center poll whose results were published on July 15, 2008, 12% of people polled believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim (that 12% also includes people who thought he was Islamic, so they're the same for this purpose. They're kind of the same for a lot of other purposes, though. I'm just saying.). That 12% is actually up 2% from a poll done by USA Today who published their poll results on April 1, 2008 which said that 1 in 10 (or 10% for those of you not willing to do the math) believed that Barack Obama was a Muslim. For God sakes, people. Where DO you get that kind of info? (He's not a Muslim, by the way.)

Well, there are several places they get that kind of information. (He's NOT a Muslim, by the way.) Part of it stems from his name. It is extremely unfortunate to have the name Barack Hussein Obama these days. I mean, come on, if you hear "Hussein" you think "Saddam", do you not? Well, sure you do. But that doesn't mean you have to think that he IS Saddam Hussein or that he has anything to do with Saddam Hussein. And then there's the Obama part. I listened to one ignorant redneck being interviewed on some nightly newscast in the south who, when asked what religion Barack Obama was, replied, 'His name sounds like Osama, so I think he might be Islamic. If you just change one letter in each one, you have the same name. Take the "B" and make it an "S" and you have Osama." And even when a guy standing nearby asked him, "Well, my name is Andy. So are you saying that I hold the same beliefs as someone named Randy? Because they're just one letter off." The redneck replied with, "I don't think you get what I'm saying at all." (Well, that's probably the only thing Cleetus got right all day because I don't get what the hell kind of logic that is at all.) And when the reporter asking the question said to him, "You know, however, that he's actually NOT a Muslim, right?" the guy replied, "No." Nice. Someone should point out the the moron that not only is his last name just one letter away from "Osama", his first name RHYMES with IRAQ! Eh?! What does that tell you?! Huh?? Not much, unless you're Dr. Seuss.("I do not like that man, Barack. Because I think he's from Iraq.") (He's not a Muslim, by the way.)

So having a name that reminds people of Saddam Hussein AND Osama bin Laden does NOT help matters for Barack. I mean, the Osama/Obama pronunciation similarity has caused even the most seasoned newscasters to misspeak and say "Osama" when they meant to say "Obama". The only way it could be worse is if the guy's name was Adolf Hickler.

Those are just some basics. Sorry that I had to spell them out like that, but it's relevant to explaining the lack of understanding the concept of satire that seems to be way more prevalent than I would have thought. (But I don't know why I wouldn't have thought that. After all, it is MY tagline at the top of this blog that reads "Never underestimate America's capacity to ignore the blatantly obvious.")

The thing about satire that makes it funny is that it's so ridiculous. Thus, you take something that is "ridiculous" and you "ridicule" it. (Hence the term. Clever, eh?) So The New Yorker, in an attempt to show just how ridiculous the "Barack's a Muslim & Michelle isn't proud of her country" rumors are, had the cover of the July 21, 2008 issue illustrate all of these rumors. And if you see the cover and you think about it, it's really funny. But if you see the cover and you don't think about it, you won't think it's very funny at all. If you're an idiot, you'll be more convinced now than ever before that Barack IS a Muslim. (He's not a Muslim by the way.) Here's the cover:

OK, come on, THAT is funny! Do you REALLY think that's who Barack and Michelle really are? (Are we to believe that if WAS a Muslim and he had spent his entire life/career covering it up and then he suddenly slipped and let it get out just as he was trying to be elected President of the United States? I don't think so. I think if you've been that good at keeping something covered up your entire life, you're going to do a pretty good job of continuing to cover it up as you're running for freaking President. In fact, I'm sure of it.) Yes, that's exactly how the White House will be if he were to be elected. Michelle would suddenly start sporting the Angela Davis 'fro and carrying her AK-47 around the Oval Office wearing camouflage pants and combat boots! And she will greet her husband Barack, (who will be swaddled in an Islamic robe and will be wearing a Taliban style turban) with a terrorist fist jab as they warm their cold, cold souls in front of a fire which is fueled by the US flag burning bright beneath a full framed image of Osama bin Laden. These are all of the things that people are afraid of and when you put the all together and illustrate them in full color, you get a sense of how ridiculous all of it really is. Or do you? (It's a rhetorical question. Because while WE get it, THEY do not.)

Maybe if they had added a unicorn or had that Lucky Charms leprechaun be Secretary of State it would have helped people understand that it's NOT true and that it's satire! The cover is making fun of the RUMORS! It's NOT making fun of Barack and his "Muslim beliefs"! (He's not a Muslim, by the way.) But even Vanity Fair didn't get it.

Vanity Fair, in what they call "A selfless act of solidarity with our downstairs neighbors here at the Condé Nast building" has created a cover, similar to The New Yorker's, of their own! There are a few differences, however. This time, the subject is John McCain and his wife, Cindy. It's also not a real "cover" that will be on actual magazines, but rather an illustration on the Internet. Another glaring difference is that, unlike the New Yorker's cover of the Obamas, Vanity Fair is not satire! It's just a cartoon!

The Vanity Fair cover shows John McCain looking very old and in need of using a walker. There is a large bandage on his head (I'm not sure if that is in reference to old people falling and bonking their heads a lot or to the two or three bouts of skin cancer that he's had). He is giving a terrorist fist jab to his clearly, much younger wife, Cindy, who is cradling an armful of what appear to be prescription pill bottles. The fire in the fireplace is fueled by the Constitution. And hanging over the fireplace is a framed portrait of who I think is supposed to be George W. Bush (portrayed as if he were part Vulcan). And it's unclear to me if the light blue blotches on the rug that McCain is standing on are supposed to be part of the rug or if they are supposed to indicate a problem with incontinence. You know, because he's old.

Do you see the difference? The majority of the McCain cover is TRUE! It's not satire! I mean, I hate to break it to the folks over there at Vanity Fair, but McCain really is old! He's 72. THAT'S OLD when you're running for President. (That's kind of old even when you're NOT running for President) His wife IS a lot younger than him. And she DID have an addiction to prescription pain medications! He did have skin cancer! (He may have bumped his head! I've bumped mine! Usually on purpose after seeing things like the Vanity Fair cover.) Those things are TRUE! I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Michelle Obama has never had an addiction to AK-47s.

The walker thing would only be comparable to the "Obama is a Muslim" thing (He's not a Muslim, by the way) if it was rumored that he actually used a walker in private and tried to hide it from the public. But it isn't, so it's not the same! The pill bottle thing would only be comparable to the "Michelle has an AK-47" thing if it was rumored that Cindy McCain had an addiction to pills. But she really did, so it's not the same! Do you see where I'm going with this? Vanity Fair doesn't get it. That is correct.

Look, while I see what the New Yorker's point was, it certainly didn't help anything, except for quite possibly, their sales. If their goal was to freak people out, they should have waited until after he won the election. That would have caused that 12% of the population who think he's a Muslim (He's not a Muslim, by the way.) to all have a heart attack. I can picture it now...."Oh, my God! Look who we've elected President! Aaahhh!! My chest!" But that wasn't their goal. Their goal was to show how ridiculous all of the rumors are. Unfortunately, the number of people who understood that were the people who already understood that the rumors were ridiculous to begin with.

Listen, if you don't want to vote for Barack Obama for whatever reason you have, that's fine. You're not obligated to tell anyone who you voted for or why you don't want to vote for someone. But since so many people feel like they DO need to justify WHY they're not voting for Obama, I'm going to offer a suggestion. (He's not a Muslim, by the way.) If you don't want to vote for Barack, don't vote for him because he has ideologies that really seem to be of a socialist nature. And he also seems to be in favor of many socialist-like programs. So if you need a reason not to vote for him, don't vote for him and say it's because he might be Muslim. (He's not a Muslim, by the way.) Don't vote for him and say it's because of his socialist-like platforms. At least then you won't sound like a moron.

And if you don't want to vote for John McCain because he's old, well, I don't know what to tell you. He is old. Is he old and incapable? I don't know. Is he old and capable? I don't know that either. But don't not vote for John McCain because you think he's a Muslim. (He's not a Muslim, by the way.) I just figured I'd throw that in. With all of the confusion that seems to be running rampant these days, it seemed necessary.

Sphere: Related Content

Ex-Model Turned French First Lady

Please help us if Laura Bush ever gets a taste of the wild hair that Sarkozy's wife had that prompted her to write some songs and sing them. On an album. That was recorded and released. For public listening. Enjoyment?

Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, you may or may not be aware of, is a fairly hot French woman who ended up marrying the President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, less than three months after they met. Look at her. Look at him. He really didn't have a lot of time to mess around with this one. For whatever reason, and I'm guessing "being President of France" was one of them, she liked him enough to "spend time" with him and when you're him, you don't ask questions. You just marry the broad.

Bruni-Sarkozy's record is entitled "Comme si de rien n'etait". Translated, that means, "As if nothing had happened." I have the feeling she will be singing that tune after they are divorced. Regardless, her record has topped the charts, knocking off Coldplay. (Really?) And she claims to have wrote the lyrics herself. That is a claim which I completely believe, especially after reading some of them.

The thing you should know about the First Lady of France is that before marrying the President of France, she, um, "spent time" with a lot of other fairly high profile men. Men like Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton, Donald Trump and Kevin Costner. Apparently she finds monogamy "boring". (Well, who doesn't?) Some of her lyrics seem to reflect these ideas. She also used to be a model. Some of her lyrics seem to reflect these ideas.

One song did not exactly make for smooth relations between France and Colombia. It might have had something to do with the lyrics, "You are my drug, more lethal than heroin from Afghanistan and more dangerous than Colombian cocaine." Apparently, Colombia was not amused. (I don't know what their problem was. What? Do they think that because the wife of the President of France sings that Colombian cocaine is dangerous that all of their loyal customers will go elsewhere for their 2-ton cocaine shipments?)

Actually, the name of that song is Ma Came (which apparently translates to "My Junk".) that full section goes, "You are my junk. More deadly than Afghan heroin. More dangerous than Colombian white powder. My guy, I roll him up and smoke him." I see. Did she really mean to say that she smokes him? That involves inhaling. I'm thinking she might have meant to allude to a synonym for exhaling. THAT would make more sense than all of the inhaling. (No, I'm not explaining. You can figure it out. I have faith.)

Then there's the song in which she apparently is blowing off criticism that she received after hooking up with President Sarkozy. She sings, "It's not correct, but it's good nonetheless. Let them curse me and I don't give a damn. I couldn't care less, I take all the blame, you need to know, you need to understand, I who made men dance, I give myself to you entirely, you are my lord, you are my love, you are my orgy." My. Well, it sounds like she adapts well to situations that, perhaps, are not optimal. Coping skills are good.

Again, I'm glad that Laura Bush isn't putting out albums that equate ol' G.W. there to Colombian cocaine and Afghanistan heroin. (Though, he would probably compare better to some free trade marijuana and a bottle of Jack Daniels. Both of those have rather mind numbing characteristics about them. The possible similarities are seemingly endless, now that I think about it.) I'm also glad that she didn't used to be a model or date Mick Jagger. I'm not quite sure why. There's just something about it that doesn't seem very First Lady-ish to me. And while I don't know exactly what I think a First Lady should act like, I'm not all that sure that I want her to sing to me that her husband is her orgy. No, I can do without that.

Sphere: Related Content