LeBron James Whines Again

Apparently, Tuesday was "Hater Day" as declared by a one LeBron James. Dang it! And I missed it! Dang it! I miss everything! Wait. What was it? Well, from what I can tell, it was one more time that LeBron felt the need to whine about things. Aw, poor LeBron. Always getting his widdle feewings hurt.

According to The Huffington Post, James "...declared on Tuesday via twitter that the day was "Hater Day" and shared racists tweets that were directed at him." Let's just remember that LeBron has come to the conclusion that the reason that people are unhappy with him for the way that he made his exit out of Cleveland (via a huge one hour production, complete with dog AND pony, on ESPN for an hour) is because folks are racist. That's right. If you're black and you act like an ass and other folks don't like it, it's not just because you're an ass that people don't like. It's the fact that you're black that people don't like. This, of course, is according to LeBron after he was done acting like an ass.

I guess his official tweet to kick of "Hater Day" (he could not have come up with a more ridiculous name for a more ridiculous concept) said "Today is Hater Day. Everyone please let them get their 2 mins of fame and light! I Love You Haters. Continue to make me proud of u guys! LOL". Now, I'm not sure why you'd WANT to give anyone who is a jackass their 2 minutes of fame and light (when did we start throwing light into it?), but LeBron apparently did. And his reasoning, as he explained to ESPN was "I just want you guys to see it also. To see what type of words that are said toward me and towards us as professional athletes. Everybody thinks it is a bed of roses and it's not." To which I say "Wah." Tell you what, LeBron. You give me the position that you have and the money that you make and we'll see how I do with what people say. We all know I would do horrible in the NBA, so I can imagine that some of the derision directed at me would have something to do with that, but for the salary that you're raking it, I think that I could suck it up pretty darn well. I certainly think that I wouldn't have to go crying all over Twitter, for cryin' out loud.

Let's see some of the things that have Mr. James sooooo upset. One tweet said: "hey good game last night, too bad you're a fraud, BITCH". Hmm. Quite honestly, I'm just impressed that the bloke who wrote that knew to use you're instead of your. That would make me pretty happy to receive a grammatically correct tweet and not some POS filled with 4 and 2 and U.

Another tweet read that James is "a big nosed big lipped bug eyed (racial slur). Ur greedy, u try to hide ur ghettoness." OK, the racial slur is always out of line. That's never necessary. But seriously? Does the rest really bother him? He does know that not everyone in the world thinks that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, right? Actually, I'm beginning to believe that he does not know that. Otherwise, why would he be reacting this way to tweets from anonymous douchebags on the Internet? I don't get it.

One literary genius tweeted to him: "why don't u speak by laying ur head under a moving car". Yeah, that makes no sense, moron. Putting your head under a moving car is far from a substitute for speech. On top of that, how is he supposed to get his head underneath there in the first place if the car is already moving? That suggestion contains nothing more than faulty engineering is what that contains.

I guess "Hater Day" (still hate that name) came to a close with this parting message from the founder of said ridiculous day: "U see world how people feel! Just use it as extra motivation in whatever u do best! No one can stop your dreams from becoming reality!" What the heck does that even mean? "U see world how people feel!"? Yes. Yes, I do see how they feel. Some people really do not like you at all. Some folks want you to do physically impossible things with your head in lieu of actually speaking. I see that. But I don't know that that was your original point. I only wish that he had taken his own advice and used it as extra motivation in what he does best instead of whining about how some people don't like him on Twitter.

I can't believe that this stuff really bothers him. It's on Twitter, for cryin' out loud! It's not like it's his mother who is telling him all of this stuff. These are faceless, anonymous cowards on the freaking Internet. And it bothers him? I don't get it. Do you know how many times I've been called an idiot because of something I've wrote on this blog? Let's just say that it is plenty. And each time, it does nothing more than amuse the hell out of me. I don't know these people and I don't know that I want to know them if they're actually calling me an idiot. Ideas can be exchanged without name calling. That's why when it happens, I really don't give it a second thought (though I do walk around for the remainder of the day feeling quite proud, as if I've accomplished something by annoying a stranger somewhere in the world). I wonder why LeBron can't do the same thing? Maybe all of his concern over what people think of him was what was getting in the way of him winning a championship.

Sphere: Related Content

Make Up Your Mind Already!

Decisions, decisions. It's hard to make up your mind sometimes, isn't it? But the bigger the decision and the bigger the consequences of your decision, isn't that reason enough to really think things through? I mean to really think things through. And sometimes, shouldn't there be a point where even though you might want to change your mind after already deciding on something that you just can't? Shouldn't there be a point where you just have to suck it up and deal with what you've chosen for yourself? Not in all cases; just certain extreme ones. Like, say, oh....having a sex change. And then changing back.

According to something called smh.com.au (whatever it is, it's in Australia), a one "Alan Michael Finch underwent male-to-female sex change surgery in 1988 aged 21 and lived for the next eight years as Helen Finch." OK. These things happen from time to time. Nothing new to see there. But the twist really comes after those eight years when Mr, er, um, Ms. Finch "...wanted to be Alan again, undergoing surgery to reverse the gender change as far as possible." Wait. What now?

Correct. Shim, er, she wanted to go back to being a dude. Now, listen. I don't know about you, but if you're asking me, I'm thinking that I'm going to make this guy wait just a little bit before he delves into this all over again. I mean, clearly he wasn't thinking all that soundly when he made the choice to have his dingus lopped off the first time. Who's to say that he's thinking all that soundly now that he wants to have his new hoots removed?

Regardless of how insane I think that all is, what I think is even crazier is this: "The High Court heard this was a difficult experience for Mr Finch, who had variously worked for Telstra, Foxtel and Qantas but who was now unlikely ever to work again." Wait a minute. He's unlikely ever to work again? Because he went from being a dude to being a chick to back to being a dude? The article doesn't explain why that is, but I'd really like to know. I'd also like to know why, if that is the case, the reversal surgery (or however they do that) was performed in the first place. Doesn't that essentially amount to incapacitating someone? Kind of seems like it if they can't work anymore.

The reason this is even a discussion is because Mr. Finch wants one of his previous employers "...to give him a total and permanent incapacity (TPI) pension benefit." It seems that the previous employer doesn't want to pay out because they determined that he would be likely to be able to work in the future. (At least someone else besides me thinks that would be a possibility.) I can't imagine why they'd be so up in arms about this. Or maybe I can.

Seriously, how is it that someone who makes these choices to do things to their body is supposed to be entitled to some sort of pension benefit that is reserved for if you are incapacitated in some way? I'm pretty sure that the intent of the benefit was in case someone was injured. I'm also pretty sure that the intent of the benefit was NOT in case someone couldn't decide if they wanted to be a man or a woman and kept switching their gender around like a game of musical chairs (or genitalia as the case may be). And what, exactly, has he been doing since 1996 when he went back to the land of boxers or briefs? Working? Not working? Contemplating a surgery to turn himself into a bear? That's an awfully long time to not work (or do whatever) and then suddenly claim you can't work anymore and someone should pay you for the rest of your life to do so.

I don't know how they feel about stuff like this in Australia, but I certainly hope that the previous employer doesn't have to pay anything out to this dude-lady. I'd really like shim him to get some therapy, but I still don't think that the employer should be on the hook for it. For cryin' out loud, who wants not one, but two sex changes in their life? I mean, sure, sometimes I regret getting the soup over the salad, but I always feel as if I've put a great deal of thought into the matter beforehand and I never change my mind after I get my soup. This guy needs to have stuck with his soup. Or his penis. (By the way, this is the only time that "soup" and "penis" will be interchangeable. Just so you know.)

Sphere: Related Content

Demon In The White House

I rarely use this blog to spew the word "hate". Oh, sure. I proclaim my dislike, my abhorrence, my loathing, my despising, my fed-up-ness and a few other things, but I rarely use the word hate. I feel myself getting closer, however. Especially when the topic of Rush Limbaugh and whatever comes out of his ridiculous mouth comes up.

See, according to the fine folks over yonder at Politico, yesterday on his radio show (which is listened to by a frighteningly large number of people who seem to really enjoy and agree with what he has to say) he made reference to some pictures of President Barry that had been posted on The Drudge Report website. What he said was idiotic at best. He said, "...folks, these pictures, they look demonic. And I don't say this lightly. There are a couple pictures, and the eyes, I'm not saying anything here, but just look. It is strange that these pictures would be released...It's very, very, very strange. An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we've never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this. "

What. The. What. Seriously? Demonic? What is that supposed to mean? Was he referencing a Harris Poll taken earlier this year which indicated that 24% of Republicans believed that President Barry was the Antichrist? Or is he just grasping at any straw that he can to try and bring down more Democrats (which will inevitably happen) in the upcoming election? Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of Democrats who do deserve to be booted out of whatever office they're in. There are. There are a lot of Republicans who need to get the boot as well. But what is Rush Limbaugh's rationale for saying something so incredibly asinine? I guess only he knows.

First of all, President Barry has got to be the most photographed President in history. He's on TV every freaking day. And when he's on vacation, we (the public) are inundated with photos of him eating ice cream the entire time! I don't care that he eats ice cream! Why do I need 57 different photos from 36 different angles and 12 commentators giving me the low down on what flavor he chose? I don't remember it being like this with other Presidents. Did we have a million photographs of Bush flying all over the place all the time? It doesn't seem like we did. (Then again, Bush would have never been accused of looking demonic because he always looked so damned clueless that that's all anyone could ever focus on.)

The point here is that when you're having your photo taken all the time by a bazillion different outlets, the chances increase that you're going to have a few that are not so flattering. That doesn't mean you're demonic or possessed or anything. And it certainly doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh should be trying to rile up the inexplicable masses that listen to his drivel every day.

My second point was that since when are everyone's facial expressions all the same? Or since when can they all fit into the same category? I'm pretty sure that Rush probably has some expressions that aren't seen anywhere else on this earth. (That's a good thing, in case you were wondering.) It's just a ridiculous thing to say. I wish that someone with so much radio time and (I hate to say it) so much power to sway the opinions of the meeker and weaker among us would use his pulpit for something useful instead of fear mongering. That's all. (And by the way, is he going to tell us that the photo of him doesn't look a little demonic? Geez, at least President Barry isn't spewing smoke out of his orifices. Though that would be a million dollar shot if anyone were to come up with one. I'll give you that.)

Sphere: Related Content

A Trial Won't Help The Crazy

From the fine folks over there at the NY Times, we learn of a one David Tarloff and his trials and tribulations. Mr. Tarloff is schizophrenic. That was evidenced no more clearly than back in 2008 when he killed his psychologist, a one Dr. Kathryn Faughey, by hacking her to death in her office. In what would seem to shock no one, Mr. Tarloff was deemed unfit to stand trial.

The article states that "This was the second time Mr. Tarloff, who has a history of psychosis, was declared unfit for trial since his arrest." Really? History of psychosis? You don't say. Was that figured out before or after all of the hacking that went on? I'm guessing that afterwards it was probably really clear if it hadn't been beforehand. In fact, after all of the slashing "His lawyers had told the court that...he was driven to it by voices that he thought were God telling him to do it." I see. So, what is it that is the problem here?

Well, last year "...doctors determined that Mr. Tarloff was in a good enough mental state to stand trial, and so the case proceeded and opening statements were expected Monday." Is that our standard now? A "good enough" mental state? Not great. Good enough. Look, I'm all for putting people on trial who are completely competent, but when you're dealing with schizophrenia, you might just want to hold off a little bit. Good enough might not actually be good enough, you know?

By the way, the reason that they declared him unfit for his trial this time? He "...refused to leave his holding cell to go to court for jury selection on Friday afternoon." That's it? He doesn't want to go into court and so that makes him unfit? Why is that? The article explains that "Someone is declared unfit when he or she is mentally unable to assist in his or her own defense." Sooo...not going into court is unable to assist in their own defense? Since when? If you're so hell bent on putting this obviously crazy individual on trial, what say you just haul his ass in there anyway and see how it goes, alright? How bad could it be? He's nuts, after all. His contribution will likely be minimal. (It will also likely be entertaining as hell, but I'm told that's not what the justice system is for.)

Look, it's pretty obvious that this guy is fruit loops. He needs a mental institution...for a long, long time. No need to rush things. It's not like he's going anywhere. But I certainly don't see any point in trying to hurry along a trial for a guy who really needs some serious head shrinking. It's just a waste of everyone's time. He did it. We know he did it. Is the trial really all that necessary when that conclusion is completely obvious? I'm not so sure that it is.

Sphere: Related Content

California Is On Crack

It's official. California is definitely some sort of crack addict who is selling anything and everything that it has so that it can get its next fix. Oh, sure, it will give the state immediate access to some cash that it needs, but that's just the instant gratification part of the deal. In the long run, it will end up costing the state more and probably making things worse for a state that is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to its unwillingness to cut anything at all out of the budget.

Here's the story as reported by the lovely folks over at ABC News and by the ever so diligent reporters over at the LA Times. See, California needs cash because it spends way more than it takes in. I won't even begin to delve into how the extremely large population of folks who are in this country illegally plays into this dilemma, but I will say that there are many areas in which California could trim its budget, yet it chooses not to. Just like a crack addict, California wants what it wants when it wants it.

So, California came up with a way to make a couple of billion dollars. And some of that could even be applied to its debt! California decided to sell 24 of however many buildings that it owns for the whopping total of $2.23 billion. While that sounds like a lot, just keep your pants on (because if California catches you without your pants on, you're going to be in for quite the surprise). Of the $2.23 billion, only $1.2 billion will go into the state general fund. That's because $1.09 billion goes to pay off bonds on the buildings. (I'm not sure what happened to the other .04 billion. Those are the figures that the LA Times gives me.) OK, so problem solved, right? Not so fast.

See, California is still using those buildings. It's not like they were abandoned or anything like that. No, they're fully in use every single day. They sold buildings like the Attorney General Building and the Franchise Tax Board Complex up in Sacramento. Yeah, California still needs those. But that's OK. Now California is just going to pay rent to the people that own them. Wait. What now?

Correct. Whereas before California owned the buildings, now it does not and it must rent them from the new owners. It would be like if you had a car that you owned and, because you needed some crack right that very moment, you sold it to the neighbor. Now you have money, but you have no car. Now you have to take that money that you got and you turn around and lease the car that you just sold your neighbor. How smart does that sound? Not very? Welcome to California.

According to the estimates from the California Legislative Analyst's Office "...It will cost the state $30 million more in the first year to remain in those buildings and that differential will increase to almost $200 million over the course of the 20 year leases." But do it now because you need crack now! What a bunch of morons.

Tell me something. What good is the Legislative Analyst's Office if no one listens to them? This state is already in a financial freefall into the abyss of bankruptcy, what say they trim a little bit off of the budget by eliminating the Legislative Analyst's Office. No one listens to them anyway. They just do what they want because why? They're addicted to crack, that is correct.

We're so doomed. And now we're screwed. We're totally scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Climate Change v. Santa Claus

Do people who are running for office or even the people who are already in office ever listen to what is actually coming out of their mouths? Or do they just really like the sound of their own voice? I'm getting a little tired of hearing asinine things from people and then having them explain it away by saying, "Oh, I misspoke" or something along those lines. If they would just say, "Well, that's because I'm an idiot", that's something I could get behind. The only thing that makes the idiocy even slightly tolerable is that it's A) usually amusing, and B) extremely mockable. I just wish it wasn't coming out of the mouths of folks who are supposed to be guiding this fine land of ours.

Today's case in point comes to us courtesy of the great state of West Virginia. Apparently, a one Rep. Nick Rahall, who is the incumbent Democratic for the U.S. House in the 3rd District, was asked "...six questions posed to him by members of The Register-Herald editorial board earlier this week." I don't know why only six. Why not ten? Then again, why ten? I don't know either. The point is that one of the questions was, inevitably, about climate change.

The question posed before him was "Will the EPA always have an adversarial relationship with West Virginia or is there room for compromise, and is climate change a real issue and what role does West Virginia play in the future of the environment?" OK, maybe that's why there were only six questions. I didn't realize that they were cramming more than one question into each inquiry. That's an awful lot to ask in one run-on sentence. Regardless, he did answer it. And what he said had me extremely confused.

The man replied, in part, "Climate change — to deny it exists, to just put your head in the sand and, ‘oh no, it doesn’t exist, what are you talking about,’ is about like standing on the floor of Macy’s during the month of December and claiming Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Come on, get real. There are responsible coal operators who work with us and continue to work with us, not only on climate change, but safety is another example.” Wait. What now?

He claims that to state that climate change does not exist is the same thing as claiming that Santa Claus doesn't exist? But...wait. I thought that....hmmm. Does he know something that I don't know? He does appear to be quite old. Maybe there's some sort of lore that I am unaware of? Lore that indicates that Santa Claus does exist?

Would it only be during the month of December that one could make that proclamation? I'm not sure how that plays into it. It's a charming thought, though. I'd really like it if someone did stand of the floor of the Macy's during December and claim that Santa Claus didn't exist and have that proclamation be met with a rousing round of shocked gasps from other yuletide shoppers. That would be amazing. But I'm kind of thinking it would barely get people to turn their heads. Me, it would only get to turn up my iPod so that I didn't have to be bothered by the ranting man who was spouting the obvious. Yeah, yeah. We know. Now are you going to buy that meat fork that is also a meat thermometer or can I buy it?

Now, I'm sure that if you asked this guy about this, he would simply say that he misspoke. And I'm going to pray that he did misspeak. But should this be something that you're misspeaking about? It seems a little strange that you'd take complete fiction and throw it into your argument to make a point about what is factual. Hopefully, in the future, he'll shy away from any sort of Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny references. Then again, if he doesn't and he refers to them in the same way that he did Santa Claus, then we've got a story on our hands! And it'll be goooooood!

Sphere: Related Content

Balloon Boy Revisited

Yesterday was the one year anniversary of the Balloon Boy debacle. I'm not sure why it's still being called that considering that he was never IN the balloon. If anything, they should be calling him Attic Boy. But whatever. The point is that it was a year ago. I'm not sure what's more disconcerting; that it feels like it was five years ago or that it was only one year ago. It's one of those. And whichever one it is, I'm not sure it matters. It probably only matters in instances when something happens and the public is skeptic about whether or not it really occurred; especially in cases when it actually did happen. Fake stories about a little boy being transported across two or three states via some sort of balloon contraption that he was allegedly trapped in don't exactly do much to help the public's unquestioned support for such "tragedies".

Regardless, let's take a fond look back at that day and the events as they unfolded, shall we? We shall.

***********

By now, you've no doubt heard the tale of the Runaway Wife Swap Falcon Carrying Zeppelin, though most folks are choosing to go with the moniker "The Balloon Boy" story.

First of all, let's not get Balloon Boy confused with Bubble Boy. Bubble Boy was the character on Seinfeld who flipped out when he gave the answer "the Moors" to a Trivial Pursuit question which George subsequently told him was incorrect because the card, containing an obvious typo, said that the answer was "the Moops". He then attempted to strangle George, thus bursting the proverbial (and in this case, literal) bubble, and hilarity did then ensue. The Balloon Boy is none other than 6-year old Falcon Heene (pronounced Hee-knee, with the emphasis wherever you'd like it to be) who was thought to have inadvertently been inside one of his father's homemade helium balloon projects when it mysteriously came untethered and flew away. The whole event lasted at least three hours, with news station helicopters following the object (because the Dad called them and told them that his homemade mylar balloon had just flew off with his son inside of it. Of course.) and broadcasting their live footage the whole time. When the thing finally came to rest in a field in southern Colorado, a whopping 50+ miles from where it had started, the thing was ripped open like a can of tuna fish only to metaphorically hear "Sorry, Charlie" when they did not find the boy inside.

Turns out the kid was "hiding" in the family's attic the entire time. It also turns out that this family had been on Wife Swap, the hilarious ABC comedy series in which two families with completely opposite backgrounds, swap wives/mothers for a week so that they can attempt to raise the other family's children. After the week is over, the couples/families sit across from each other and tell each other how horrible their family is and that their children will likely grow up to be destitutes or prostitutes or some other sort of undesirable -tute. Sounds like just the sort of thing that I would absolutely recommend for anyone wanting to make a quick buck at the expense and sacrifice of their own children. Sure. (Good Lord, we are so doomed.)

Just knowing that the family was on Wife Swap tells you something about this family to begin with. Aside that they were building some sort of giant, silver, mylar balloon thing in the backyard that was, inexplicably, filled up with helium (that they got from only God knows where, really) even though the thing wasn't completely finished yet, if you're willingly going on Wife Swap, there's something wrong with you. Seriously. Just think about it. Actually, scratch that. If you have to think about why having your family go on Wife Swap, you don't get it and you probably won't, despite the alleged "thinking" you may be doing.

There is a lot about this story that is beginning to smell funny. Actually, there was a lot about it from the beginning that didn't smell quite right. But far be it from me to dampen a potential tragedy that a nation has spent a few hours rallying behind and Tweeting about. I'm going to point out just a few of the myriad of things that I find to be, well, a little hinky.

Let's start with the Dad, a one Richard Heene, calling KUSA-TV news first to tell them that his son may be aboard this homemade contraption of his. He's calling the TV station before he calls 911? He claims it was because he knew that the TV station had a helicopter or whatever "eye in the sky" that they have and it would be able to follow the balloon. Um, OK. But how about YOU call 911 and your wife or someone call the TV station if that's your concern. He called the TV station?

I don't know about you, but it would take me a good three to five minutes to remember which one of my local crappy news stations has the helicopter and then when I figured that out, to lookup the number and figure out who at the station would be the most appropriate person to call. (I mean, after all, you really don't want to waste a lot of time when you're trying to find just the right person to charter their work helicopter for your own personal project.) See, I don't know the number to my local crappy news stations. I do know the number for 911, though! I believe it's 9-1-1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's it. Really, on my phones, I don't even have to dial 9-1-1 because I have the "Holy S---" button that you just push for emergencies and then the phone dials 9-1-1 for me. I do not have a "Need a helicopter right now" button on any of my phones. But maybe there's an app for that.

Throughout this ordeal, I kept hearing how they had searched the house and the surrounding area of the suburban complex of Caucasian Acres where they appear to reside. So when the balloon came down and there was no one aboard the thing, well, that was perplexing indeed. But what was more perplexing to me was when the kid was found to be at the house in the attic the entire time. Who in the hell taught those people how to search? Was it the parole department that was in charge of Phil Garrido?! Are law enforcement officers incapable of doing a thorough and effective search at all these days? To "search" does not mean to poke your head somewhere that you can see and then to look around. No, to "search" means to move things, look in things, open doors, check boxes, ask questions such as "Does your backyard really just stop right there or do you have a prison camp of women that you've fathered and kidnapped beyond that fence and those tarps? THOSE are the kind of questions that will be a lot more effective than just eyeballing something.

But now he's found and everyone is relieved that he's OK and so on we go with our lives as before, correct? Not so fast. Now, instead of spending time recuperating from this anguishing event, the Heenes do what any normal family in this situation would do and they go on every talk show imaginable. That evening! Who does that?! And why? I'm thinking I'd be more about issuing a statement saying that we appreciated everyone's kind thoughts and everyone's help, but we're going to be getting back to our regular life now (just as soon as we beat this boy clear into next week for scaring us all half to death by hiding in the attic for 3 hours).

It was during one of these interviews, however, where things seemed to take an interesting turn for the Heenes. When the family was on Larry King, little Falcon was asked by his Dad if he heard people calling his name and Falcon said, "Yes." The Dad seemed surprised and asked why he didn't come out and Falcon said, "You said we did this for a show." Oh. Well, now. Awkward.

Did it for a show? Here's the thing: If that was my kid and I had decided to spare him the beating of his life just long enough for us to do the Larry King show and he said that, you can bet your ass that if I knew that none of this had been orchestrated in some way, shape or form that I would be asking him, "What the heck do you mean by that?!" But that didn't happen. Odd. (And I guess we can't blame Larry King for not delving deeper into it. He was probably just wondering where Jon and Kate's other five children were.) Then later, when on Wolf Blitzer's show and asked about this, Richard tries to ask Falcon what he meant by that and he could barely get the question out. In fact, he had to ask Wolf to "say it again" so that he knew what he was supposed to be asking. Um, hello?! You don't think that's a statement that needs to be gotten to the bottom of?! I do!!

But that interview with Wolf Blitzer is the one where I started having my doubts about ol' hinky Heene there. It's the one thing that will always give the liars away. It's their eyes. Look at people who are speaking in front of cameras in odd situations (like this one) where they're proclaiming either that they're a) innocent or b) not weird. They can't look up. They can't keep their eyes open. Their eyes are constantly shutting for long periods of time to the point where you start to wonder if they've nodded off. The best example of this (and the one where I first took notice of it) is Susan Smith. I have looked high and low for that video where she is pleading for the return of her two children and I have only been able to find it here. Now, it's in Spanish (for some reason), but it doesn't matter. Zip through to the part where she's giving her whiny, fake plea with her eyes completely shut the entire time (probably because she knows that she drown her two boys by strapping them in their car seats and letting her car roll off of a dock into a lake. Yeah, that's probably why.).

When Wolf Blitzer asks him to ask what Falcon meant by that and instead of asking a very simple question, Richard starts playing the victim, saying that he is "appalled" that people are insinuating something else is going on here. He says that "we weren't even going to do this interview". OK. But you did. And you continued to do the interview even after being "appalled". Let me tell you, if I was "appalled" because I knew that I had nothing to do with orchestrating the illusion that my son was in a giant runaway party balloon that I built in my backyard, that would be the end of the interview. That would be the end of all interviews. I'd be done. But not him. Nope. No, instead, he continues to attempt to chastise the diminutive brained Wolf Blitzer by saying that he's appalled and he does it all with his little squinty eyed/can't look at the camera thing going on.

For some reason, I can't get CNN's link to embed on this blog, but you can click here and see the interview with Wolf Blitzer that includes the "You said we did this for a show" comment.

Do you expect the public to believe that you're some super smart scientist guy and you can't understand why people don't understand any of your story at this point? How about this part: Your kid was in the attic for how long? Three plus hours? I'm watching this interview they gave to Wolf Blitzer and that kid cannot sit still for longer than 3 seconds. I am not kidding. How in the hell was he able to hide in the attic for so long? Either that or why is he so nervous now?

But wait. One last thing. So the family goes on Good Morning America and is being interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Now, I've always thought of Diane Sawyer as a rather patronizing individual. It's that tone of voice that is like she's always speaking to a 5-year old. But this time, it actually really hit home was what going on when she was talking to them. They're in the interview and the question comes up again about why Falcon said that about the show. That's when he tells his Mom that he thinks he's going to vomit. OK, look, I have NO children, all right? None. But if my kid says that he's going to vomit, that's it. The interview can wait. But Diane Sawyer practically has to prod the family into helping the kid get to a bathroom or something so that he can hurl. And even then, the kid runs off to the bathroom and everyone else just sits there! My Mom would have not only stopped the interview had that been me, but she would have been the one taking me to the bathroom, not watching me, as a six year old, run off to puke my guts out by myself. Idiots.

And speaking of idiots, for some reason, nothing is embedding today, but the Diane Sawyer interview with the Heenes, complete with puking, can be seen here. (Sorry for all of the linkage. I'd much rather have everything on just one page...this one! But Blogger is being uncooperative. Maybe it should go hide in the attic.)

But the Richard, the scientific genius of the bunch, tries to explain this incident away by telling Diane Sawyer and all of America that, "he has asthma". He what? Asthma? Vomitaceous (I made that up) asthma? What the hell are you talking about sir? Who has asthma that includes vomiting? Um, no one! That's correct!

So what was the point? Hard to say, but TMZ is reporting that the Heenes were pitching a reality to show to TLC a few months ago. The network apparently passed, but perhaps the Heenes were not wanting to take "no" for an answer and just needed a little feel-good publicity to prod them into picking up the show.

Still undecided on whether or not this whole ordeal was for real or not? There's video (again, not here) over there at Gizmodo and it actually shows the moment the balloon got loose. It doesn't seem to jive with any of the stories that have been told before, but aside from that, look at how mad Richard gets. Not the behavior of a sane individual, whether you have untethered giant mylar balloons in your backyard or not. It's not normal.

Sphere: Related Content