What Are YOU Smoking, Arlen?

Ancient Senator Arlen Specter was handily defeated the other day over yonder in Pennsylvania. Now, it was probably his stating that the reason that he switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party was so that he could be re-elected. I don't doubt that is what he thought. What I can't figure out is why he would be so freaking boneheaded as to actually come out and SAY that's what you were thinking? Does he not quite understand that it makes it sound like it's all about HIM? Apparently not. Because he said it and now he's done.

But I'm pretty sure that it was time for him to go anyway. Look, I don't have anything against people who are old. I don't have anything against people who are ancient. But I do have issues with people who are old and out of touch, but they try and convince you that they're not. Take ol' Robert Byrd. How is that guy still a senator? Seriously. My sources (which are far from trustworthy, as I make them up myself) tell me that Robert Byrd is somewhere around 147 years old and the last coherent thought that he had was midway through the Taft administration. Why do you folks in West Virginia continue to re-elect that man? Not to mention that he used to be a member of the Klan, the man is not fit for civic duty.

But back to Arlen Specter. According to TPM, Arlen Specter did an interview with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC on May 18. (Side note: Is it just me or does Andrea Mitchell bear an odd resemblance to Barbara Walters? Maybe I wouldn't think it was so odd if they both weren't technically considered to be news reporters/anchors/whatever. Do you think that she's trying to look like that? I have a hard time believing that she naturally looks like that. I'm not implying plastic surgery (but you could make that leap if you wanted to), I'm just sayin'.) She asked him if his opponent was more vigorous than he was. Uh-huh. Remember, Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, so she would know a thing or two about vigor...or a lack thereof.

Arlen Specter is 80. It's fair to say that there are a lot of things more vigorous than Arlen Specter. Puppies and baby ducks, for example. Possibly Abe Vigoda. Definitely Betty White. But I find it unlikely that he is more vigorous than his opponent. Of course that's not what he thinks/thought. His response to Andrea Mitchell's question was...well...it was interesting. He said, "When you talk about Sestak being more vigorous, you must be smoking dutch cleanser." Of course. I must be...wait. What now?

Smoking dutch cleanser? What the heck is that? Dutch cleanser? I did a quick search online to see if I could find out what in the heck he was talking about (and, more importantly, if I should be smoking dutch cleanser, whatever it is). It was not easy. It is a rather obscure reference, apparently. Dutch cleanser is apparently a cleaning product akin to Comet and Bon Ami. It's been around since 1906 (so, almost as long as Arlen Specter). That's just the product. I had to dig deeper to find the meaning behind his asking if someone was smoking it.

I only found one other reference of someone using the phrase "smoking Dutch cleanser" on the Inner Webs. Guess who it was? That's right. Arlen Specter.

It was sometime in early February of 2006. According to Time Magazine he used the phrase when he was "Criticizing then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez during hearings on the Bush administrations warrantless domestic-wiretapping program, saying Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English." Wait. Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English? But an obscure reference to smoking some sort of turn of the 20th century cleaning product is completely logical? I don't think it is, sir. I just don't think so.

It really didn't help his case for how vigorous he was when he answered Andrea Mitchell and mispronounced Sestak's name. I'm not sure exactly what he said, but it wasn't Sestak.

But even after the odd Dutch cleanser as a mind altering substance reference, he continued to try and make his point about how vigorous he was. He went on with, "Did you see us on the debate? Did you see us on the debate? If you didn't see it, John Bayer (could be Mayor), the moderator, wrote about it, how strong and vibrant I was and how weak he was. You saw that town meeting. That Tea Party guy rushed up at me with his fists clenched. Security wanted to throw him out. I said no, no. And I fought him right there on the spot. Verbally. Beating. Uh, when you talk about vigor, uhhhh....it's all on Arlen Specter's side."

Again, I don't think that you're helping your case when you have to repeat yourself. It's not like she didn't hear you. She's sitting right there. Perhaps you forgot you had just said that? I don't know. But I do like how he implies for a moment that he all but stripped to the waist and knocked out some Tea Party dude before throwing in that he had fought him "verbally". It also didn't help him that after he said, "When you talk about vigor" he really didn't seem to know where he was going with that. And he was talking about himself!

I don't know that you can really make a good point about how vigorous you are by using some Victorian era reference that no one else knows what you're talking about. You're certainly not helping your case. I wonder what we would be thinking if he had answered the question by saying "Are you on glue?" I'm pretty sure I would have thought that was all sorts of awesome. It wouldn't mean that I would think that he needed to or should be re-elected. But at least I'd know that he knew what year it was. I'd also know that he knew that we knew what he was talking about.

Sphere: Related Content

Bully For You

I'm not going to pretend to understand bullfighting. I don't understand why in the world anyone would want to participate in it and I certainly don't understand why in the world anyone would want to watch it. I see it as a publicly sanctioned event in which the torture of an animal is wildly cheered on by the masses. I find it strange. I think what I find even more strange is that there aren't more unhappy endings for the bullfighter. And I use the term "unhappy" only in regard to what the bullfighter must be thinking when he gets gored by a bull. (It's probably what he's thinking right after "Holy hell! That effing hurts!!") My opinion? The bullfighter has whatever he gets coming to him.

All of that being said, it still didn't stop me from actually saying, "Holy S!" (though I did use the elongated version) when I saw pictures of a one Julio Aparicio being gored by a bull during something called the Festival of Saint Isidro that takes place somewhere in Spain. Apparently, that is like the most important event in the bullfighting calendar. I guess it's like the Super Bowl of bullfighting. Super Bull, if you will. (Or if you won't. That was pretty bad.) It takes place at something called the Plaza de Toros las Ventas bullring. I tried to get The Google magical translate tool to translate that into English. It didn't go so well. It would translate Plaza de Toros into bullring and it would translate las Ventas into sales. Bullring Sales? That can't be right. Whatever it means, it's freaking huge. Up to 24,000 can get in there to watch this madness. And yesterday when they went to madness watch, this is what they saw. Behold!

Holy. Crap. That bull stuck that big 'ol horn right on through ol' Julio there. No bueno. It looks like it enters underneath his chin and exits right out of his mouth. Good Lord, man. According to the Huffington Post via something called AFP one of the medics who worked on Julio said, "It went through the tongue and penetrated the roof of the mouth, fracturing the jawbone." Went through the tongue? Through. The tongue. Again, I say Oh. My. God.

Now, below is a picture right before el Bull did all of the goring and tongue piercing and what not. Can you honestly say that you blame the bull? Look at him! (I'm assuming it's a him based solely on that huge dingus that he has hanging from his nether region.) He's covered in his own blood. I'd be a little pissed off too if someone was constantly riling me up and stabbing me with something as I ran by.

While that's not a little bit of blood, that's an awfully big animal. And look at that stabbing instrument that Julio is using there. That looks like nothing more than a skewer for shishkabobs! How long does it take him to kill the animal using his specially formulated Ginsu knife there? I'm guessing quite a while! But back to the blood. That blood is all from the bull. That has to hurt. No, I know it hurts. Why do you think the bull was so angry? Because someone was slowly torturing him to death, that is correct. According to the Chicago Sun-Times blog Sports Pros(e) "Aparicio fell during the part of the match where the matador uses his cape and sword to entertain the crowd before delivering the death blow." Uh-huh. How...entertaining? Really? Whatever. Good for the bull.

I'm guessing that it doesn't matter that the bull won. I'm guessing that he will still be killed at some future fight. I wish they had some sort of rule that if the bull wins, he gets to go free. Then again, in order to do that, they'd have to come up with what constitutes a "win". But I'd guess that having the bull's horn go in under your chin and come out of your mouth would be a pretty simple baseline to establish what a "win" is. I'm totally on the bull's side with this one. Sorry, Julio. That's what you get. Am I saying that I'm glad he was gored? Not necessarily. Am I saying that I'm sad he was gored? Not necessarily. All I'm saying is what did he expect?

Sphere: Related Content

Now That's A Tat!

It's been a while since we've taken a gander at some of the best of the worst that tattoos have to offer. I think it's time to remedy that a bit. Here we go....

This is something on top of someone's leg. I don't know what it is. It sort of looks like a double ended penis. And while I can't really say that that's what is, I also can't say for sure that it's not. It could easily go either way. Flip a coin. Let me know which one it is.

Speaking of penises, I'm kind of thinking that the one below is fake. It looks awfully Magic Marker-y to me. Then again, judging from the expression on the guy's face, he doesn't look like the most stable of all individuals. Thus, a real penis tattoo is not out of the realm of possibilities at all.

Speaking of strange tattoos of small things that I don't understand, here is a Gary Coleman tattoo on someone's left buttock side cheek area. The thing that is just a little bit more perplexing to me than someone wanting a HUGE tattoo of Gary Coleman on their ass-lear region is why someone has a weird black and white cut out photo of Gary Coleman stuck to a tongue depressor.

Next, we have a man who seems to be really unclear on the concept of what it is that ladies love. Granted, there are an awful lot of ladies out there and there are an awful lot of different things that they all love, but I think it's pretty safe for me to say that I highly doubt that any of them are going to love that.

Sure. That's how the days go. 1st. 2nd. 3th. Wait. What?

Clearly, this was not thought out very well. Once she's given birth to that baby elephant (I'm guessing, based solely on the size there) or herd of gazelles (again, still speculating) that "THUNDERDOME" tattoo is going to look a little silly. That is, unless she plans on continuing her enormous carriage weight there.

Oh, if only a little bit more patience had been practiced here, one might have taken the time to consult a dictionary and figure out how to spell correctly. And what is with the weird "e" floating about the "n" there? Is that an arrow pointing to the "n"? In case I lost it?

The sad part about these tattoos is that there are apparently two different individuals involved here. That means that not one, but two people thought that this would be a good idea. It's like a permanent ink version of the medallion broken in two halves that each tool wears. And while I think that everything is spelled correctly, it's really hard to tell because you can barely read the damned things. I'm sure that every ending does have a new beginning. This is the end of them not being made fun of and the beginning of relentless teasing and probably celibacy.

Sure. Having "F*** You" tattooed where your eyebrows are supposed to be is completely appropriate. No, it's not off-putting at all. In fact, I'd be surprised if prospective employers weren't lining up outside of your prison cell for a chance to hire you. Seriously, what is wrong with you, sir?

And for the last time, Y-O-U apostrophe R-E spells "you are". Y-O-U-R spells your!

Sphere: Related Content

Can YOU Use An ATM?

I know politicians are out of touch. You know politicians are out of touch. You know who the only ones who don't know that politicians are out of touch? Politicians. That is correct.



Take a one Senator Ben Nelson. He is a Senator from Nebraska. Now, in an article that appeared over there in the Omaha World-Herald (I don't know why there is that hyphen between World and Herald. Can't it be both? And if it can't, why aren't they able to just choose one?), Senator Nelson was "...asked this week whether Congress should cap ATM fees". That almost seems like a reasonable question. But in order for it to be completely reasonable, you have to believe that the government should be meddling in private business. Now, I'm all for reasonable fees. (Actually, I'm all for NO fees. It's a freaking ATM. Transferring money around costs the banks pennies. If they're going to charge me three bucks, I'm going to find another ATM. It's pretty simple. Can't the free market and/or supply and demand take care of this on its own? Do we really need to have Congress telling us what to do all of the time? Sweet Mother of God, I hope not.) So, technically, it was a reasonable question.

What wasn't reasonable was Senator Nelson's response. He said, “I've never used an ATM, so I don't know what the fees are,” Nelson said, adding that he gets his cash from bank tellers, just not automatic ones. “It's true, I don't know how to use one." Um, what now? You don't know how to....? An ATM?? Really? Good Lord, man....

Now, I don't know if he realized that his response wasn't exactly the most down to earth thing that anyone has ever heard or what, but he decided to do the most inadvisable thing that anyone could do in this situation. He tried to make it sound better. And you know how that tends to end. That's right. By making it worse.

He then said, "But I could learn how to do it just like I've . . . I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.” Oh. My. God. What I want to know is when he learned to "swipe". I also really want to know what he knows about "the holograms" and how he knows it. If I had to guess, I'd probably go with his knowledge being limited to "Ooohh! Shiny!" Turns out, it was worse than that. The article tells us "By “holograms,” Nelson clarified that he meant the bar codes on products read by automatic scanners in the checkout lanes at stores such as Lowe's and Menard's." Wait. HE clarified "holograms" to mean "bar codes"? Where has this man been living since the mid-1970s? Under a rock? Under a holographic rock, was he?And it keeps getting worse!

No, I swear! In an effort to not make himself sound like a complete, out of touch tool, he added, "I go and get my own seating assignment on an airplane...I mean, I'm not without some skills. I just haven't had the need to use an ATM.” ::: sigh :::

Wow. He gets his own seating assignment on an airplane. Yes, he clearly has skills! You might notice that he didn't say he books his own airline flights. He just knows how to go to the airport, stand in line and tell someone his name when he gets to the counter. I'm not so sure that I would call standing a "skill".

Look, how old is this guy? Hmm...it appears he was born in 1941. So he's 69. OK, I get the feeling comfortable with going into the bank to get your cash. My Mom is 78 and my uncle is 80 and they both do that. But they both also know how to use an ATM! They both also know the difference between a freaking bar code and a hologram! And finally, neither one of them would add swiping a card to pay for gas or groceries as one of their "skills".

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Everybody Draw Muhammed Day

Look, I'm not an overly political activist-y type of person. But if I can make some sort of a stand whilst sitting from the comfort of my walled-off compound, I'll think about it. And today, I've decided to sit here in front of my computer and take a stand.

Today is "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day". According to the self-proclaimed fair and balanced folks over there at Fox News, "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" was the brainchild of a one cartoonist from Seattle, Molly Norris. Molly was appalled (as anyone else who values the freedom of speech and expression should have been) at Comedy Central's decision about a month ago to censor an episode of South Park which showed the prophet, Muhammed, in a bear suit. Wait. In a....?

Correct. In a bear suit. See, it's apparently against some sort of Muslim or Islamic tenet to depict the prophet Muhammed at all. And so even though he was in a bear suit, that was enough for a bunch of tools over at something called RevolutionMuslim.com to post a message which read “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show…This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.” I see. (By the way, Theo Van Gogh ended up dead in the street. Oh, but it's not a threat.)

You know, they can say it's not a threat, but it certainly sounds very threat-ish to me. You know, radical Muslims or Muslim extremists or whatever you want to call them sure do get awfully riled up over cartoons. Wow. And of course, their solution is to just kill people who don't agree with them. Yeah, that seems perfectly normal. Or not.

Molly explained that she had felt "...that Viacom or Comedy Central had overreacted to a veiled threat from a tiny blog or website that not many people even belong to, and I think it just set a precedent for a slippery slope in censorship." She also said that "If artists have to be afraid of what they draw, then what’s the point of even living here? That's what really bothered me." Good point.

Her solution (since we're really kind of grasping at straws with how to handle nutjobs that can't be reasoned with because they justify all of their actions as being under the guise of some sort of religion that sanctions their killing anyone who breaks rules that they don't even have to follow) was that if the market was saturated with images of Muhammed then it would be a demonstration of some sort of solidarity by people who "....will not be intimidated or silenced by those who want to subjugate us simply because they find what we do offensive." I couldn't agree more.

Look, if you've ever watched an episode of South Park for more than a few minutes, you know how ridiculous it is for a group to issue a veiled death threat over some dude in a bear suit (some dude, by the way, who isn't even real as it's a freaking cartoon!). There are FAR more things that are FAR more offensive to get yourself all worked up over. Seriously. I watched an episode last night that had me cringing at times. I'm just going to say that there were gerbils involved and leave it at that. Well, and I wanted to stab my eyes out before it was over. (You can click here if you want to know more. But I'm warning you, that episode should have been rated NO for No One!) But my point is that threatening someone's life over their drawing a cartoon bear is insane. And Comedy Central was insane for editing and censoring the episode.

Therefore, I am totally supporting "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day". I'm not an artist. I don't play one on TV. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But today, I am drawing Muhammed and posting my drawing here. I'm not afraid of backlash or veiled threats. I am afraid of the First Amendment to our Constitution being squelched because of fear. I'm not going to just sit here (figuratively speaking, of course) and be OK with a group of people trying to scare others into submission. This isn't a stand taken out of disrespect. It's a stand taken sitting down and it's one that's taken out of necessity.

Here is my Muhammed. He's at work. And he's tired. So he's taking a little nap. The office is bright, so he needs that newspaper over his face so that he can get some proper rest. Happy "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day". Now go out there and stand up for something! Even if you have to do it sitting down!

Sphere: Related Content

Heil Hanes!

Usually I take a little bit of time to work up to the point that I'm trying to make. Today, I'm just going to jump right into it, mainly because I have more questions that I have answers. So what better way to start it off than with a question. Ready? Why in the world is Michael Jordan rockin' a Hitler moustache in his new Hanes commercial? Wait. What now?

Correct. Michael Jordan has a new Hanes commercial out. The product alone is perplexing enough to me. It's apparently for some sort of T-shirt that fits snugly against your body when you're wearing in underneath some other article of clothing (like some sort of sweater vest or something, because we all know how popular that look is). According to the commercial, when you just wear a regular T-shirt underneath your sporty sweater vest, you tend to end up with something that they call "bacon neck". In other words, the collar of the T-shirt is wrinkly and looks like a piece of bacon. Um, OK. I guess.

Having spent a lot of time in states that actually have snow in the winter, I am familiar with the layering of clothing concept. But I would just buy a shirt that's a size too small and use that for the underneath layer. I don't recall it having a bacon neck. Then again, I wasn't wearing it with a sweater vest. Whatever. My point here is that I don't understand the product to begin with. Does it have some sort of fake pecs sewn in it? (You know. For those of you who want to look like you work out without actually working out. Or for those of you who want to harkin back to your days of wearing Underoos and pretending like you're He-Man.) They didn't mention any, so I'm guessing not.

But that wasn't the only thing that they didn't address. They didn't address the fact that Michael Jordan, the basketball god of recent yore, is sporting a Hitler moustache. What in the world is up with THAT? Now, I realize that one could argue that "it's not a Hitler moustache, it's a tribute to Charlie Chaplin". One could argue that. One would be very unsuccessful at convincing anyone that it was in homage to the Little Tramp. Admit it. You see that little moustache, you think Hitler. Behold!

Now, does this mean that I think that Michael Jordan admires Hitler? Um, no. No, I don't. (I mean, I hope he doesn't, but I also really don't think that he does.) Does this mean that I think it's really freaking weird that he has a Hitler moustache in a Hanes commercial? You're darn straight I do. What the hell is up with that?! Didn't the Hanes people think it a bit odd that Air Jordan was sporting Hair Hitler? What do they want us to think? "Hey, what a great idea for a new T-shirt! Sieg heil!" That's not exactly what came to my mind! No, it was more like "Why is a black Hitler pitching me underwear?"

As is my practice with all of these things, the video is below. It's Hitler, isn't it? How weird is that? If the video below doesn't play, check it out here.

Sphere: Related Content