Colors - They're the New Black

Let it be known that I am officially giving my OK for the newspaper industry, in lieu of any real news and sans enough paid advertising, to leave large sections of the newspaper blank. Just don't have anything there. No picture. No print. Nothing. Just a big blank space. I'm perfectly fine with that as it is better than some of the stuff that I am convinced was just put there to take up space and make the paper look all complete and wordy and chock full o' news. I've read some of that filler. I'd rather have blank space.

Now, I'll admit to not being entirely sure why it is that I am paying someone to throw a pile of paper on my driveway that contains the news that I have already read about the day before on the Internet. You'd think I'd be paying someone to take away crap like that, but instead, I'm paying to have it brought to me. Go figure. I can't explain it. I've just always had a newspaper in the morning. I haven't always had this kind of newspaper. You know, the kind that is more paper and less news. But I've always had a newspaper, I guess that's why. Onward.

Today's waste of time and space is an article which appeared in the San Jose Mercury News (a newspaper which is declining in quality so rapidly I can barely keep up) on Friday. The article talks about the "colors" which will be popular fashion-wise and decor-wise for the year 2009. I don't know who is in charge of choosing the "colors". I also don't know how those mysterious folks go about choosing the "colors". I'd imagine it's something akin to how they name hurricanes, but I'm not positive about that. All I know is that at some point, we hear what the "color" for the upcoming year is. We are then supposed to incorporate that color into our daily lives immediately or else be seen as one of "those people" who are "so last year". Ugh. Them! (OK, "us"!)

The "colors" for 2009 are (drum roll, please...).......yellow and purple! Yellow and purple? What the hell? Actually, the "yellow" is really "mimosa yellow", which I find odd as a mimosa is orange. But that doesn't seem to matter to a one Leatrice Eiseman, as she said that yellow, "is a hue that sparks imagination and innovation." I see. Yes, I seem to remember Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers all clad head to toe in yellow, 365 days of the year. That explains a lot. Good to know! By the way, the "purple" is more of a softer shade of purple, such as a lavender or a lilac (both of which actually are purple, so I'm fine with that).

The people who are quoted for this story make statements that seem to link two separate entities to each other in a fashion that is unfathomable to me. For example, a one Debbie Zimmer, a "color and decorating expert at the Rohm & Haas Paint Quality Institute in Spring House, PA" (See? Do I need to know all of that? No, of course not. Filler. Leave the space blank, please.) says the following, "As we head toward a more difficult economy, we'll see more conservative colors - dusty purple, lavender and violet." Wait. What?

Why is it that the difficult economy will be surrounded by soft hues of purple again? It's because....oh, that's right, there is no basis for that statement. It's very similar to this statement made by a one Patricia Call, an interior designer in New York, when she said, "Historically, purple is associated with royalty. Now it's being used for everything from cooking ranges to washing machines. In a bad economy, it gives you a lift to feel royal in the kitchen or laundry." First of all, WTF? Second, historically, purple is associated with a) Donny Osmond's socks, b) Prince, and c) probably Barney. Third, I do not recall a purple cooking range (otherwise known as a "stove") or a purple washing machine down at my local Home Depot. And finally, in a bad economy, it gives me a lift to have money. I don't care where it is. The kitchen, the laundry, the garage, it's doesn't matter. Money will give me a lift, not purple.

But here's where I lost it. "Don't care for yellow or purple?" the article asks. Then it proceeds to give us some alternatives to yellow or purple, the official colors of the year 2009. Here are your choices: " 'Menswear' colors, such as gray, navy blue, brown and black....expanding the palette beyond green to embrace blues....fruited shades, such as mango, orange, apple and pumpkin....orange, red, turquoise and teal....white and a whole range of blue."

So, let me get this straight. Instead of yellow or purple, I can go with gray, dark blue, brown, black, green, blue, orange, red, turquoise, teal, and white? That's ALL the other colors!! That's not a choice! Those are just all of the colors! You can't select TWO and say those are the colors for the year and your other choices are ALL of them! What's the point?!?! So basically, you can wear whatever color you want and whatever it is, it's the color of the year! Great! That means I'll never have to read another ridiculous article about this nonsense ever again, as every color is assigned to every year from here on out!

Blank. Leave the pages blank. Please. You have permission. Anything, anything but drivel like this on my driveway in the morning. Anything.

Sphere: Related Content

But It's Only Been Three Days

If the Gallup Poll numbers released today are any indication, it would appear that we can look forward to at least four years of having things skewed in President Barry's favor as to make him appear to be even more God-like than he is perceived as being. That sounds like great fun, doesn't it?! Ugh.

Today, Gallup (who I generally like and tend to find validity in the polls that they do), with seemingly nothing better to do than crap like this, released the results of a survey done by conducting telephone interviews of 1,591 adults Wednesday to Friday. The results show that 68 percent of Americans approve of Barry's performance. Wow! 68 percent! That's amazing! That's like...hey, wait a minute. He's only been in office for THREE DAYS!!

Oh, wait. Sorry. He had been in office for three days for the folks that were polled on Friday! For the folks that were polled on Wednesday, he hadn't even been President for 24 hours! How are you supposed to answer that question?! "Um, well, OK, I...I guess." Would you really have a reason to disapprove less than 24 hours later? (That question posed as if you were an impartial observer giving a fair and balanced answer. Hahahaha!!)

Seriously, what would it take for people, after THREE DAYS, to disapprove of the job he's doing? Turn the White House into a pyramid? Start sagging his pants and wearing a baseball cap crooked? Put those two adorable little daughters of his up for auction on eBay? What would it take?

The article by the Associated Press states "That's a number near the high end for new presidents, but short of President John F. Kennedy's 72 percent in 1961." The article then goes on to seemingly reiterate that statement, but it turns out instead to be completely useless information that they're continuing to give us when they write "Among presidents elected to their first term, Kennedy had the highest initial job approval rating, 72 percent, in Gallup polling three weeks after his inauguration." Three weeks! Why are they polling people on President Barry only three days (or less) after his botched and flubbed inauguration? And why are they comparing it to other polls that they've conducted after three weeks?!

In more misleading and useless information, we're told that "The poll also found that 12 percent in the survey disapprove of Obama's job performance, a typical number all presidents face after an election." OK, so that's typical, right? That's what it says, but that's not what it says. Later. That's not what it says later. Not much later, but later. "Compared with his immediate predecessors, Obama faces fewer Americans who disapprove of his performance." But wait! You just said....

They don't care. They don't. I know they don't care because they threw out a contradicting statistic, hoping that you had forgotten what you had just read less than two minutes ago and are SO dumb that you'll find this new factoid simply lovely! "Clinton faced 20 percent disapproval after taking office in 1993, and George W. Bush faced 25 percent disapproval after the Supreme Court delivered him the presidency in 2000." Well, 20 percent and 25 percent do not seem like the typical 12 percent that all Presidents face after an election, now, does it? NO!!

This is either crap journalism, crap reporting or crap surveying methods. It's crap and it's one of those. I know that it's one of those because it's only been THREE DAYS since the man was sworn in and they're acting like a poll that was conducted after three days (TOPS!) is indicative of what a wonderfully popular president he is already! Whose idea was this survey anyway? Whoever it is should be fired, as they are clearly a moron. And having morons in charge of things or just running around making decisions all willy-nilly is never a good idea. Ever.

Three days. Three. If the Gallup folks had called me for this survey, I'd have to say that there's at least a 50% chance that I yell at the poor pollster. (Unless I was one of the folks that they called on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after the inauguration. Then there is a 100% chance I yell.) There's absolutely a 100% chance that I would refuse to answer that question. It's whether I would just decline to state an opinion or whether I would absolutely state an opinion (and most likely state it loudly), but it wouldn't be an opinion that they could check off a box on their tally sheet for. It would probably be an opinion that would get me on the Mandatory Do Not Call (Under Any Circumstances) list.

So the Associated Press is in the tank for President Barry. Good to know. I'll keep that in mind whenever I read any future articles they may write about President Barry. That way I'll be able to spot the bias more quickly which will enable me to spend less time reading Associated Press material as I will be moving on to another news source rather soon. What is wrong with you people?

Sphere: Related Content

I Will Always Have Gum

I like gum. I'm a fan of "the gum" in general. It's refreshing. Chewy. Blows better bubbles than saliva. I also like things to read. And as one with the attention span that is equal to that of a gnat, it isn't long before I am easily bored and will start looking around for something to do. Reading is the thing that I have found gets me in the least amount of trouble. So I'm at a red light the other day, bored immediately, and began looking for entertainment. One's resources are limited when they are inside of their vehicle. There are only so many times you can ponder why your door is "a jar" and not just "a door" before it really isn't all that funny anymore. So I reached for the gum and perused the packaging whilst chewing (and whilst waiting for that damned light to change! I don't have all day! What's the hold up?!). Behold! My gum package!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping places clean and neat and tidy. I abhor litter. But I became confused when looking at the gum and it's reminder (I'm assuming that's what it was - a reminder) to throw away the garbage that results after having a piece of gum. It states to "DO YOUR PART!" Then it has a little picture which, I presume, is of me doing my part. That's where I became befuddled. Behold!



What is it exactly that my "part" is supposed to be doing? Why are my other "parts" spurting things into the receptacle that my groin "part" is thrusting towards? While I'm on the subject, why are my other "parts" so long and straight that they extend out twice the diameter of my head? I don't want to do my "part" that way! No one informed me of this BEFORE I bought the gum! I want to opt out! (And really, I don't think that my "parts", the ones that I actually have" can perform like that diagram is instructing them to. I just don't think they're capable. I'm fairly certain they don't have that sort of aim. I can barely get a wadded up piece of paper from my desk to the wastebasket. How am I supposed to make some tricky groin maneuver so that I can expel other things from my body into the target area, as defined by the directional arrow?)

The gum thrust command line there made me wonder if the Federal government is in charge of Orbit gum, as I seem to recall that their instructions/information for what people should do in case of a terrorist attack was very similar. It included odd pictures similar to the gum instructions.

For example, in the pictures below, if you are being sprayed by a chemical or you encounter a pile of dead fish, stop to think about it.

If large pieces of concrete have befallen you, get out your magic flashlight to gently levitate them above you while you crawl to safety.

The government wants us all to know what to do in case there is radiation around after said attack. In this diagram, it seems to indicate that Houston is radioactive; perhaps, get your ass to Austin ASAP.


This man is able to absorb the radiation with his groin. According to the digital readout, he has been doing so for 5 minutes and 12 seconds. He's going to have one glow-y nether region when he's finished. (He certainly won't have children, I can tell you that!) Perhaps he will know how to "do his part", as it seemed to involves one's groin area as well.


The arrow pointing into this building indicates where one is supposed to enter. One can only assume that the arrow is also there to remind one to duck before entering, as you are now three feet from the entrance and your head reaches the bottom of the top windows in the building because you are now at least 20 feet tall. I'm guessing that the gigantoid growth is a direct result of the 5 minutes and 12 seconds one has spent standing in front of a radioactive source. (I knew there would be a drawback to that.)


This is a perfect example of why these things need WORDS. I don't know if this sign shows that if a door is locked that I am supposed to use my karate moves and chop the door down with one hand or if it indicates that I am supposed to go with "Paper" when doing Rock, Paper, Scissors to see who gets to do through the door first.

You would think that this one would go without saying, but I guess we should all know that we should not drive if there is a utility pole coming out of the hood of our vehicle. That would be bad.

Now, with all of the radiation that was warned of above, be prepared for anything. Such as if your internal organs begin speaking to you in a cartoon like fashion. If this should occur (and, quite frankly, it's something I'd love to see!) stand upright, legs slightly apart, set in a firm stance, arms akimbo, and wait for help!

Always remember that if you see a large red arrow, pin it against the door with your shoulder until help arrives.

To summon that help, blow your whistle. Unless you are bald, and then you should yell for help.


If you find yourself on fire, for God's sake, DON'T RUN!! (When will people learn? When?)

I'm fairly convinced at this point that the government is definitely responsible for using the gum packaging to remind us all (who chew that gum) to "do our part".

Sphere: Related Content

Liar, Liar

(Side note: The next time you hear about a business failing "because of the economy" or "because of the recession", just realize that could easily be translated to "Too freaking stupid to have survived as long as they have and it's a miracle they didn't exit the economy, recessed or not, sooner." I say that because it just boggles my mind that an ISP provider which shall remain nameless (Covad. Covad. Covad. It's COVAD!!!) seems to be able to figure out how to get all of those tubes and pipes and things from house to house and make the Internet go like it's supposed to, but cannot fathom how to let people know when "scheduled maintenance" is going to be and instead simply surprise them with said "maintenance" at the most inopportune of times. You people could not be a "victim of the economy" too soon for me, thank you very much. Their logo over there reads "The Internet as it should be." Really? You guys don't seem to be doing a very good job up holding that motto because in my opinion, the way that the "Internet should be" is ON!! I should probably apologize to the tech from India, "Jimmy" (who sounded remarkably like Apu from "The Simpsons", for my slight conniption fit over the situation and the length of time said "maintenance" was going to take. But, then again, he kept insisting his name was "Jimmy" and he kept calling me "sir", neither of which is correct and thus, no apology. Whew! Well, that's out. I'm still pissed, but at least it's known why this post was late.)

In what is quite possibly the worst attempt ever at trying to discredit the obvious, the folks over there at TY are leading the pack. TY, as you may or may not choose to remember, is the maker of the Beanie Baby stuffed toys that were once a "must have" item for everyone in the country and now sit in bags, stowed away into attics across America. They have a new line of toys/dolls/Beanies out. And it's a change! (Do you not see where this is going? Really?)

TY has a line of dolls which they have called the TY Girlz. The "Z", of course, is to make sure that you know that they're cool AND so you don't mistake them with regular "girls". That would be just awkward. Well, there are two new additions to the Girlz line of must have toys. (Remember, those little Beanie Baby animal toy things turned people into lunatics. It was like the day after Thanksgiving sales and with all of the trampling to get these things when they came out. People paid hundreds of dollars for a single little cloth sack full of beans. Some even sold the family cow for a handful of beans. Wait. That was something different. Never mind. Carry on.) And contrary to what TY has said, I'm sure that they can't wait to be part of the newest fad sweeping the country. The fad....of change. Behold! The TY Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha Girlz dolls!

Huh. Interesting. So, they're obviously designed with the Obama girls in mind, right? Oh, no! No, no, no! Not according to TY! According to TY, Malia Obama and Sasha Obama had nothing to do with the inspiration for these two dolls which were just released. Really?? Uh, I kinda think that they did.

According to the folks over there at CNN (who are masters at stating the obvious, so they should have no trouble at all with this story) who talked to the spokeswoman for TY, they were told, "Information concerning the development of our products and how we come up with names, how we select them, how we trademark -- that's considered as proprietary. I can't go any further with that question." That is apparently what they were actually told that by a one Senior Vice President of Sales, Tania Lundeen. This is the point where the person from CNN presumably shouted, "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!"

She continued to pull excuses out of her ass by saying, "Sasha and Malia are beautiful names that worked very well with the dolls we were making." Well, yes, of course they did. Sasha and Malia are very beautiful names and definitely do work very well with the dolls that you were making....to look like the Obama girls, Malia and Sasha! Funny how that worked out, eh?

She also said that "The dolls follow 'the exact patterns' used for the other Ty Girlz dolls, so we did not make the dolls to physically resemble either of the Obama girls." Um, wait. So you didn't do ANYTHING differently to these two dolls than you had done to the other dolls that you make? Nothing?? Nothing that would unintentionally mislead a consumer to believe that the dolls, Malia and Sasha, are intended to represent the other Malia and Sasha? Of the White House Malia and Sasha? Huh. Interesting. Let's compare, shall we?

Here are the Marvelous Malia Not Obama doll and the Sweet Sasha Not Obama doll:

Here are ten other TY Girlz dolls:

Yeah, they're the same all right. Can't see how anyone would get a crazy notion in their head that Marvelous Malia and Sweet Sasha were inspired by the Obama girls. Nope. You're right, Miss Vice President of Sales and Lying, we're all crazy. Let's look at some more of the Girlz dolls.

Yeah, we're nuts. WE the consumers are the ones that are reading too much into this whole thing. Any more dolls we can look at, just to make sure that our misinterpretation is etched in stone? Oh, good! More dolls! Behold!

She continued to spout forth falsehoods when she said that her, "...company avoids naming dolls for "any particular living individual" because it might interfere with how kids use their imaginations to play with them." Well, they certainly didn't avoid it this time! She also didn't avoid a slight slip up when she said, "Malia and Sasha are two adorable dolls, or Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia, forgive me." Forgive you for....calling the dolls by their names? Sans cutesy adjectives? I don't know if that's forgivable, ma'am. Perhaps if you stop lying we'll consider it.

What exactly does that mean? That they don't want to "...interfere with how kids use their imaginations to play with them?" Any doll is going to look like something. And that something is going to probably play a role in how the child plays with the doll. Any name that you give a doll could relate to a specific individual; it just depends on the child. But why is that a bad thing again? What are they afraid will happen with the Malia and Sasha dolls? That children will have the dolls watch their dad become the first half-white President of the United States? Yeah, that would be tragic, all right. What is wrong with people?

She also pointed out, "There's nothing on the dolls that refers to the Obama girls. It would not be fair to say they are exact replications of these girls. They are not." Um, your toys are made out of cloth and some sort of polyfiber filling which resemble small beans (hence, the name). How much of an "exact replication" do you expect to get with cloth and fiberfill? Not much! Does it HAVE to be an "exact replication" to know what you're implying? I don't think it does! Ma'am. And I'm getting a bit irritated with your insistence that one has nothing to do with the other when they both clearly do!

This is a blatant example of a disturbing and annoying trend that has become more and more prevalent in the past couple of years. It's the trend where a reason or an explanation is given for an occurrence and even though the reason is ridiculous, improbable, impossible or all three, it is expected that it will be accepted as how things are because "they said so". That doesn't cut it. There's a difference between "explaining" and "lying". But for some reason, if you're "lying" and trying to make it come across as "explaining", well then, that's OK. It's really not. Ever.

The Ty folks must be worried about litigation or something like that because I can't figure out why one would be so blatantly untruthful about the obvious. And if you're that worried about litigation, you probably shouldn't have done whatever it is that you did in the first place if your only defense against any sort of accusation is going to be "Nuh-uh!"

Sphere: Related Content

Now That's A Hat

Watch the inauguration? Did you see change? I saw a whole lot stuff! Some stuff I definitely recognized as change. I saw President Barry as a guy who was cool and slick and having the time of his life, all the while with a slight look on his face that said, "Can you effing believe this?" That is total change from the guy that always sounded as if he was reading from a script that someone else wrote and handed to him ten seconds before he opened his mouth. President Barry was "change" from that! And that's awesome. Because I don't care who you are, if you're in the position that he was in, with millions (literally) of people standing ten deep in some places, screaming your name and you don't have a hit movie, TV show or an album? I couldn't effing believe that was happening and it wasn't even happening to me! I can only imagine how he felt! I'm pretty sure his life wasn't like that before he was President, so that too, seems like change. Now, the other stuff, well, I don't know if that stuff is "change" or not, but it's different! And I wish it would change. Soon. You know what I'm talking about. You know you saw it.

Did you see it? If you didn't see it, you heard about it, right? It was practically the first thing I heard about. (NO, I didn't miss any of it. I was on time (for once) to my place of viewing (Note to Barry: When you save this country's sorry ass and are re-elected in four years, could your next inauguration start a wee bit later. 9 am on the left coast is a little early. It's hard to get too riled up for change when your main concern is re-gaining consciousness via coffee and a muffin.) And when I saw it, I knew it couldn't be thrown into a post with all of the others. No, this needed to be addressed on it's own merit (if it had any). It was that big. Literally. You know what I mean. That's right. Aretha Franklin's hat. Behold.

Oh, what the hell is that? It looks like that hat was fashioned in a way similar to that of trussing a turkey. It's at least as large as a turkey! It's almost as large as Aretha. Did the Secret Service OK that hat, because I was thinking it could be a threat to national security. How is anyone going to see anything with that bobbing all over the place? It would have needed it's very own Secret Service agent. Hell, it needed it's own zip code. What is it trying to say? I know what I was trying to say when I saw it (as I did have a difficult time forming words at first)! Take. It. Off.

Now, to be sort of fair (well, observant, really), Aretha seems to have a pattern that I've noticed of wearing things that are not exactly what I would call "flattering" for a lady. Or for Aretha. She seems to wear things that are definitely one of a kind items that will draw a bit of attention from anyone with a camera (or a sketchpad). And she wears these things to events that will be seen by millions. She doesn't exactly blend in with the crowd is what I'm trying to say. (She is the crowd in a lot of cases. "A lot" meaning "all".) She is considered to be the "Queen of Soul", but from the looks of it, she could also be considered the California King of Soul as well. Behold!

That is a large woman wearing something that she should not be. And I am not making fun of the majorly girthed. She could have a slow metabolism, I realize that. Or no metabolism, from the looks of it. (From the looks of it, she might owe someone a metabolism or two.) But when you are a public figure or someone that the public knows who you are, you have to expect that people will a) notice you and b) pay attention to you when you're out. (I'm not saying it's fair or right, it's just how it is.) And if "a" and "b" are happening and you wear something like "the hat", expect that "a" and "b" will double or, in the case of Aretha, triple in size. It's just how it is.

But I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to make a point. And ask a few questions. I'll start with "What the hell?!" What's the thought process of someone choosing that hat? "Hmmm....I need something for the inauguration. I'm thinking something wool (hope it doesn't rain). Possibly gray, definitely with diamonds. I enjoy a large bow. Hmmm....if only there was a way to have all of those things combined into one very large inaugural hat outfit!" I can't imagine that's it. Nor can I imagine the thought process of someone making that hat. "Hmmm...I sure to have a lot of left over gray wool and little tiny diamonds. There's only enough here to make either one large hat or a bunch of studded blankets for the homeless shelter. What to do, what to do? Oh, my God! I know! Aretha!" I don't think that's it either.

It's what I call a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Moment Gone Awry. It is NOT two great things that go great together. It's two great things! Great big things! But they don't go great together. A lot of people have things end badly when they just assume that if both things are great that together they will be great. Not so, my friend. Not so.

But as a public figure, some people in the public do look to these events for ideas about fashion. After all, these are celebrities and if they're wearing it, it has to be good right? Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. That's my main problem with "the hat". First of all, if it's at the point that it is now where you can just say "the hat" and people know what you're talking about, something has gone terribly wrong. But second, what if people start thinking that "the hat" is "the style"? Seriously! That would be a problem! What if everyone went for "the hat" look? What would have happened if others had "the hat"? I'll show you! Ahem...Behold! What might have been!

Oh, well, that's not good. (Aw, Hill. Sorry ya lost. Before you start jaunting off to other lands as Secretary of State, you really must do something about that eye-popping thing you have going on when you're (acting) surprised to see someone. You're going to frighten foreign dignitaries. With or without the hat.)

That isn't much better. Ol' Bush senior up there with....is that the Quaker Oats guy? Oh, no. Whoops. Sorry. No, that's Mrs. Bush! Mrs. Got it.


Do you see what could have happened? Look at poor One Term Jimmy there sportin' the hat. Not a good look. It's just sad is what it is. (And I would really like to know more about the bloke in the lower left hand corner of that shot. What's with the red fedora, sir?

The really sad part about the photo above is that the hat actually looks like it's supposed to be on Barbara Bush. (Huh. Even after Jenna got hitched, her and Barbara still go everywhere together. Interesting. I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that she can make that hat work.)

Arnold and Gavin up there look like a couple of old lesbians out for a day on the town. Either that or a couple of old lesbians sorting laundry.

Just look at John McCain below. Is it any wonder that he lost with that scowl? He looks as if he is either dying or about to have a movement the size of Mount Rushmore.

Look at those adorable little Obama girls. Fortunately, they have not been permanently marred by the hat. I firmly believe in the need to have our President's daughters hatless throughout the administration. Just say no. No to the hat.

President Barry is way too cool for the hat. And it was just wrong to have Abe try on the hat. Besides, he rocks the stovepipe all the way.

What have we learned? Plenty, that's right. First, if you're going to be in public, dress appropriately and I'm not just talking about "for the weather", either. Second, if we're ever a public figure, we need to take that responsibility seriously. And third, never, ever wear a freaking hat like Aretha's. Never. And finally, if you're going to change something, change your hat to something a little less conspicuous, a little smaller, something that won't draw so much attention to you and/or it. A fully inflated beach ball, perhaps.

Sphere: Related Content