Worst Christmas Song Ever

I do believe that I have stumbled upon the worst Christmas song ever. And I'm sure you have your guesses, but I feel fairly confident in saying that none of your choices will include this one. And believe me, it was hard to choose between this one and any of Bob Dylan's Christmas songs which seem to include an ample amount of lung butter being regurgitated when he sings them. (Who thought a Bob Dylan Christmas album was a good idea? It is an awful piece of....music. It scares small children and some adults, like me.) But I'm comfortable with my choice for a couple of reasons.

Reason One: It's by John Denver. Who would have thought that the guy who played Gilligan would also record a Christmas song? (What's that? That was Bob Denver? Huh. Sooo...John Denver was...the guy who thought he was such a big shot that he didn't need to make sure he had enough gas in his plane? Is that him? OK, now I'm with you!)

Reason One (now that I know who I'm talking about): It's by John Denver. Who would have thought that the late bespectacled American crooner would be capable of putting out a terrible Christmas song. He tends to have a rather soothing voice. Though more than a couple songs in a row and I kind of want to claw my ears off.

Reason Two: The lyrics are absolutely depressing. They're not melancholy or wistful holiday prose that makes you think back to the Christmases of yore with fond memories of those Norman Rockwell-esque times. No, they remind you that your dad is a drunk and he gets drunk on holidays and last Christmas, he fell down under the Christmas tree and made your mom cry! HOW is that even considered a Christmas song and not some sort of Yuletide suicide anthem?!

The song is entitled "Please Daddy (Don't Get Drunk This Christmas)" and it's just like what it sounds like. It's supposed to be a little almost-eight-year old boy who is pleading with his father to not get drunk like he did last year when he fell under the Christmas tree and the little boy had to see his mom cry at the sight of her lush of a husband rolling on the floor on the day of the celebration of the birth of Christ!

I've included the song below and the lyrics below that. Please don't blow your head off after listening to it. It's not a very Christmas-y thing to do.

Please Daddy, don’t get drunk this Christmas

I don’t wanna see my Momma cry

Please Daddy, don’t get drunk this Christmas

I don’t wanna see my Momma cry

Just last year when I was only seven

And now I’m almost eight as you can see

You came home at a quarter past eleven

Fell down underneath our Christmas tree

Please Daddy, don’t get drunk this Christmas

I don’t wanna see my Momma cry

Please Daddy, don’t get drunk this Christmas

I don’t wanna see my Momma cry

Momma smiled and looked outside the window

She told me son, you better go upstairs

Then you laughed and hollered Merry Christmas

I turned around and saw my Momma’s tears

Please Daddy, don’t get drunk this Christmas

I don’t wanna see my Momma cry

Please Daddy, don’t get drunk this Christmas

I don’t wanna see my Momma cry

No, I don’t wanna see my Momma cry

Sphere: Related Content

A Trololo Holiday Greeting

Here's a new one for you. I'm going to guess that you might be familiar with Eduard Khil, otherwise known as the Trololo (that's pronounced Tro-Lo-Lo) Man from YouTube. He's this Russian fellow who sings this song, the only words to which seem to be Tro Lo Lo. And he also appears to be very pleased with his own act while he does it. Take a gander.

Yeah, so I think that we can all agree that it's pretty flipping weird. Could it get any weirder? Oddly enough, just when you think that it can't, it absolutely can! I really don't know what to make of this, but maybe you'll have some ideas for me. This is the Gifford Children's Choir from Racine, Washington. All it says on YouTube is "Please accept this singing Christmas card from us to you. We hope it brings a smile to your face. Ho Ho Ho, Merry Christmas!" That doesn't tell me a thing! What does it mean?! Why are they all wearing masks like they're in Sliptknot or something?! Why are they "singing" that song?! (Is it really singing if all you do is say "Tro" and "Lo" in various keys with different emphasises? Emphasese? Emphasii?) It's completely without splick. That is to say that it's inexplicable. Watch and see.

Sphere: Related Content

An Unhappy Meal

When, exactly, was the downfall of responsible parenting? When was it that parents simply gave up and blamed everyone and everything else for their unwillingness to do the hard stuff? I know that people have been like that for a while, but it seems that more recently it has been OK to vocally be that way. Take the Sacramento woman who is suing McDonald's for "deceptive advertising". Want to hear her example of their "deception"? They're putting toys in Happy Meals. I swear. And we're doomed.

According to the fine and thrifty folks over there at Wallet Pop, a Sacramento woman who isn't shy about being named in this insanity, a one Monet Parham says in her lawsuit that "Dangling a toy in front of a child is like putting a scantily clad woman in front of men." Good Lord. I can't believe she went there. There is so much to not like in that statement that it's hard to know where to begin, but I'll give it a good go here. I'm going to start with "Are you on glue?" (I tried to find a picture of this individual and the only one I could locate offhand was what appears to be what she uses as her profile picture on Facebook. I'm sure you won't be surprised at all. Behold!)

Um, yeah. Ok, then. Where was I? Oh, yeah. She must be, as in the article, she goes on to exemplify her incompetence as a person in charge of raising children when she says "My children really want the toys that are in those meals. I'm concerned about the health of my children frankly...I don't think it's OK to entice children." Soooo...because your children really want something, you have to get it for them? And of course, in this scenario, you're being forced to eat at McDonald's, otherwise why else would you be in such a situation where the health of your children is jeopardized because you have to buy them an unhealthy meal with a toy because you were forced to take them there to eat. Oh, wait. Those are all choices that someone with half a spine could actually make. Never mind. Carry on.

The article also includes the revelation that "...the meals often get cold while her children -- ages 6 and 2 -- play with the toys instead of eating." So, now McDonald's is responsible for her not being able to keep the toys from her children until they're done eating to play with them? Wow. I had no idea that McDonald's was such a powerful parenting entity. I might have actually decided to have children if I knew that McDonald's could have raised them for me!

What is wrong with this person? Does she honestly believe this nonsense that she is spouting for the sake of her lawsuit? Why can't she tell these kids no? Are they giants? Particularly menacing giants? Why does she have to take them to McDonald's? Why does the 2-year old even understand the concept of a Happy Meal? Why is she feeding McDonald's to a 2-year old? So many questions. So few answers. Actually, I take that back. There is one answer. She's a moron who can't stand up to a freaking two-year old.

It's unclear to me in what context the woman was saying the things that I've quoted. Oh, how I wish that the person she was talking to could have asked the follow up questions that I just asked. Not because there would have been any sort of rational explanation, but because it would have been ten times more amusing to hear her explain why she's such an irresponsible parent who is completely incapable of telling her children no.

The children aren't buying these meals. She is. She is taking absolutely no responsibility for her part in this and it angers me. If it's all about the toy, shouldn't she be suing other fast food franchises that include toys in their meals for children? (She probably isn't suing them because she doesn't take her children there, thus they don't want their toys. Ah-HA! Problem solved.) For that matter, she better include Cracker Jack in her lawsuit. After all, they've been including "toys" with their unhealthy product since 1896! (I realize that it's a stretch to call the things that are in Cracker Jacks "toys". I was trying to make a point!) I hope that someone is around to interview her after she loses. I'd like to hear what her strategy for keeping Happy Meal toys out of the hands of her own children is going to be then.

Sphere: Related Content

Get The Lead Out...Or Don't

If you can figure out the rationale on this one, I'm all ears. Granted, I realize that it involves the Federal government, but still. There has to be a reason why some lead tainted drinking glasses were recalled because it was thought that they were for children. Once they found out that they were technically not for children, then the recall was recalled. Never mind that the glasses still have over 1,000 times the acceptable amount of lead in them. As long as their purpose is defined, everything should turn out just dandy, right? Wait. What?

Here's the story: See, there were these drinking glasses that had Wizard of Oz characters on them and Star Wars characters on them. Pretty cool, yes? Yes. According to The Daily Herald, the "...Consumer Product Safety Commission (the ol' CPSC) said last month the glasses were children's products and thus subject to strict federal lead limits". That seems like a good thing, especially since "Lab testing by The Associated Press found lead in the colored decorations up to 1,000 times the federal maximum for children's products." That's a whole lotta lead. But they were recalled so everyone is safe. Problem solved! Ummm, yeah....not so fast.

Lead is bad. No one wants a mouthful of lead. Ever. It's just a bad, bad thing to ingest into your body. But for some reason, there are no limits on lead for adult drinking glasses. None! As adults, our products can be as lead-y as they can be (and a thousand times more than a maximum sounds like an awful lot of lead) and they're just fine to sell and use willy-nilly. Am I the only one confused as to why something like lead would only be monitored for children's products and not for adult products? I must be. That's because once the CPSC decided that a drinking glass with a Wizard of Oz character or a Star Wars character on it was not a drinking glass made for an adult (an assumption that I take great umbrage at!), they recalled their recall and all is well in drinking glass land again. Right? What now? Oh, the lead! Yeah, I was getting to that.

Who ARE these morons?! Are they serious?! It's a drinking glass. Do you think that kids (or adults, for that matter) actually differentiate between which drinking receptacles are for children and which are for adults? I'm not so sure that they do. I'll go as far as to say that I will draw the line at a sippy cup. I don't think that adults should be drinking out of one of those (no matter how spill proof they may seem). Other than that, I don't think that there's going to be much differentiating going on.

Seriously, the glasses have pictures of cool things on them. What kid, given a choice, would not opt for one with a picture on it as opposed to one that does not have a picture? I'm not imagining that too many would. Heck, I would choose the Yoda glass over a plain glass any day. (May the Force be with me and my liquids!) But according to a one Scott Wolfson, the spokeshole for CPSC, "These glasses are not primarily intended for use by a child 12 or younger. ... Since these glasses are not intended for use by young children, it is recommended that parents not provide them to children to use." Oh. OK, then. If it's that simple then...wait a minute! That's not going to work!

Clearly, this Mr. Wolfson does not have small children. It's questionable, given his reasoning, as to whether he's ever been around a small child. If either of those scenarios had been true, he'd realize that is near idiotic. You think that an 11-year old isn't going to be drinking out of the Chewbacca glass? You're wrong. They are. And what are you supposed to tell them as to why they can't drink out of the cool glasses?

You: You can't use that glass.

Child Susceptible To Lead: Why?

You: Because it has a whole lot of lead in it.

Child Confused With Your Logic: What's lead?

You: It's a chemical that's really, really bad for you. Worse than masturbating.

Child With More Sense Than The CPSC: Then how come you can use it?

You: I'm like Superman. Lead doesn't hurt me. Now, go play on the freeway.

I'm not sure why things with lead in them are not regulated for adults. I'm also not sure why drinking glasses need to have any lead in them in the first place, let alone 1,000 times more lead that they're allowed to have. Did I mention that they're made in China? They are. The Chinese seem to just love lead, as they seem to put it in a lot of stuff that they're selling us. Hmm. Maybe that's how they think that they'll overtake us. Tempt us with Chewbacca glasses and then wait until our lead-y, lead-y brains end up like pickled turnips. The sad part is, given how we apparently regulate things in this country, it just might work.

Sphere: Related Content

A Festivus For Anyone

I'm not really a proponent of giving inmates behind bars a bunch of privileges. I'm more in favor of hard labor. Chain gangs, to be precise. I think we could get a lot of stuff done with inmate labor. If nothing else, I'm at least in favor of having them crush up big rocks into little rocks, complete with that big heavy ball chained to one leg. It'd give a nice old-timey feel to incarceration! So, given my outlook on the coddling of inmates, you can imagine that I built up a full head of steam after reading that one inmate managed to get special meals because of his religious beliefs. And before you go off telling me that they're allowed special diets for religious reasons, let me tell you that his "religious belief" was Festivus. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to my local San Jose Mercury News, a one Malcolm Alarmo King (Alarmo? Really? Is he supposed to be some sort of superhero?), currently behind bars at the Theo Lacy Jail down there in Orange County, was not a big fan of salami. (I'm merely guessing that the meals were heavy on the salami, as that's the only basis that the article gives for what transpired next.) He had originally "...asked for kosher meals at the Theo Lacy jail to maintain his healthy physique." Yep. One must be in tip-top shape to prepare for all of the drug dealing that they do when they're not behind bars, don't you know?

But, alas! His kosher meals were not to be, for simply wanting to be healthy, as "...sheriff's officials reserve kosher meals for inmates with a religious need." Now, apparently, this sort of thing has to be OK'ed be a judge. The judge that was apparently involved in this instance was a one Judge Derek G. Johnson and he "...demanded a religious reason for King to receive the meals and defense attorney Fred Thiagarajah cited his client's devotion to Festivus". Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Just in case you were living under a rock during most of the 1990s, allow me to explain Festivus to you. It derives from the TV show "Seinfeld". According to Wikipedia, it was a holiday that Frank Costanza invented "...as an alternative holiday in response to the commercialization of Christmas." Sure. That seems reasonable.

Festivus doesn't have a tree. Instead, there is simply an unadorned aluminum pole (Frank found tinsel to be distracting). According to Frank, the aluminum provides a "Very high strength-to-weight ratio", an important factor to consider when choosing any holiday centerpiece. Some Festivus traditions include "Airing of Grievances," where one lashes out at others and the world about how one has been disappointed in the past year, and the "Feats of Strength" where "...the head of the household selects one person at the Festivus celebration and challenges that person to a wrestling match." My point with all of this being is that it sounds absolutely ridiculous. It also sounds just like something that would have been made up by someone.

Unfortunately, the judge didn't seem to see it that way. Nope. He saw celebrating Festivus as a perfectly legitimate claim and granted the inmates request. This went on for two months before "...the sheriff's food services staff, who interviews those needing special diets, realized Festivus sounded phony." Good Lord. It took the food services staff to figure this farce out?! I'm not trying to belittle anyone with this next question, but what is their highest level of achieved education as compared to that of the freaking judge who gave this thing the green light?!

What was that judge thinking? Even if he hadn't heard of the Seinfeld episode, wouldn't you think that if he heard "Festivus" that he might ask something to the effect of "What the hell are you talking about?" Apparently not. And that's why an inmate got kosher meals for two months that the taxpayers footed the bill for. Now...where do I air my grievances?

Sphere: Related Content

He's Mister Heat Blister

Look, it's kind of late and I'm kind of tired. I had a long day fighting with outdoor Christmas lights. I eventually won, but the lights gave me a run for my money. So, in lieu of some heartfelt mocking, I think I'm going to go with a video clip from that lovely 1974 Rankin-Bass production "The Year Without A Santa Claus". It still amuses me to this day. And that's a good thing because after a day of wrangling with a bunch of little lights that would rather stay in a tangled ball than spread out on the rooftop looking all Christmas-y, I need a little amusement.

Sphere: Related Content

Racist Cupcakes? Really?

Today's story about a company caving into complaints about nothing (instead of standing their ground because they did nothing wrong) involves...*spins wheel*...Duncan Hines amid complaints that allege that their commercial for what appeas to be some sort of cupcake frosting is...*spins wheel*...racist.

Before I even get into the ridiculous incident which sparked these ridiculous cries of racism, I have to bring up the point that I always bring up when this happens (and it happens far too frequently). That point being do these people making these claims actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial are racist? Do they actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial decided this would be a good idea because it was racist? Do they actually think that the makers of this commercial and Duncan Hines thought that the best way to express their racist views was under the guise of trying to sell cupcake frosting? Really? Because if you do think that this commercial is racist and if you do think that any of these things that I just listed are true, then you need to wear a helmet at all times. And not just one of those skull cap helmets, either. I'm talking full noggin, full facial covering helmet. And possibly a suit of armor as well. You are a soft, soft individual. So soft.

Since Duncan Hines was cowardly and, instead of standing up to these morons shouting "Racist cupcake makers!", they have pulled their ad from YouTube. I wanted to include the ad first, have you watch it and then tell you what the problem is that some people wanted to have with it. (Naturally, there's no telling just how many people saw this as a problem. These days, it could have been one. Who knows?) But since the ad isn't there anymore, I'm just going to past the link to it here. So, do me a favor. Watch the video, but don't read anything in the article that accompanies it just yet. Just watch the video and then continue reading. Fair enough? (Come on. I rarely ask anything of you other than to just read my drivel on a daily basis and pass the link along to everyone you know and random strangers. You can do this for me just this once, right?

::: waiting ::: ::: waiting :::

You're back! Nice to see you again! OK, so now you've seen the video. Did you see how it was just oozing and dripping with racism? Did you see how all of those cupcakes were calling each other the N-word? Did you see how the black cupcakes had to sit at the back of the bus? Of course you didn't! Partly because there wasn't a bus, but mostly because there WAS NO RACISM!

I turned to the good folks over there at the New York Daily News to find out what the dealio was. Turns out, there are people out there that think that those cupcakes actually resemble (wait for it) people in blackface. ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Wait. I thought that they looked kind of like the claymation California Raisins dudes. Were those racist? They weren't, were they? Nah. I'm pretty sure they weren't. Almost positive. OK, soooo...what now?

Correct. Blackface. I was seriously confused. I still am. They really don't look like they're in blackface to me. Let's look again. Here's a cupcake from the commercial:

And here's "World's Greatest Entertainer" (as he was dubbed back in his heyday) Al Jolson in blackface:

Yeah, I still don't get it. I decided to check other sites to see if there could be any rational light shed on this and sadly, there was not. I did learn of a blog called Racialicious which delved into the subject lightly. And by 'delved' I mean that there were more comments than there were words in the article itself. And those people need my helmets! Holy canoli, I was stunned. Sadly, sadly stunned. The only legitimate point that someone over there made was that the title of this ad was "Hip Hop Cupcakes". There wasn't really any hip-hop involved in the thing, though. I guess if you mention hip-hop, it automatically means that you must be talking about black people? I wonder if there would have been all of this to-do about it if they had simply called it by a different name?

It's chocolate frosting or chocolate glaze or something chocolate on white cake cupcakes! If anything, wouldn't that be a harmony of black and white, coming together in harmony for the sake of all that is delicious? Why is it racist? That's right. It's NOT! Oh, but one person opined "Clearly there are no minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines." Hmmm. Interesting assumption. And not surprising since you also assume that it's clearly a concerted work of shouting racism across the baked good airwaves. What if there ARE minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines? Then what?? Is it still racist in your mind, oh-wee-little-commenter? What's your race? It's almost as if it would make you feel better if people actually were racist. It's such an odd thing to want, especially considering how against it you claim to be.

I cannot tell you how angry made-up racism accusations make me. Just because I am white, that doesn't make me a racist. I am tired of defending my non-racism. I am tired of mentioning that I have plenty of friends who are not white. I am tired of hearing the black vs. white argument, as I don't see that there is one within my circle of existence. Yes, I realize that it does exist out there, but how much of that is a continuation of the apparent desire to make SURE that it exists with asinine claims of blatant racism against entities such as the makers of freaking cupcake frosting?!

Screw you, Duncan Hines. You know it's not racist, so why didn't you just say so and let the commercial keep running up on YouTube? Why aren't you releasing statement that declares how angry and incensed you are at any accusation that your company ran a racist commercial? Why aren't you standing up for yourself for what you know is true? I've said it before (and unfortunately, I'm still waiting for it to happen), but I guarantee you that the first company to respond to accusations like this in the manner that I've suggested will be hailed as the retail messiah from sea to shining sea. If Duncan Hines had stood up to these accusations, I would have bought Duncan Hines products for the rest of whatever and I would have recommended them to everyone I know at any given opportunity. Now? Well, now I'm buying Betty Crocker. She hasn't proven herself to be a corporate wussy yet.

Sphere: Related Content

So, Is It Dangerous Or Not?

I'm not a big fan of people suing some company because there was an accident that involved the particular company's product. Look, accidents happen. Do you sue the manufacturer of a knife if you accidentally cut yourself with it? Well, I don't and you (hopefully) don't, but some low lifes do. But I always thought that they believed in their ridiculousness. I guess I thought that they really believed that the knife manufacturer should have warned the public that their product had sharp edges. I mean, I guess I would have thought that was the case in the story of a boy whose parents are suing the manufacturer of a baseball bat company because their son got beaned in the head by a ball that was hit with said bat. But then I read that they're still letting their son play baseball. With the same bat. Wait. What?

Correct. Meet Jake Schutter. Jake is 11 and plays baseball in Moneka, Illinois. Last May, Jake was pitching for the Moneka Blaze when, according to the

Chicago Sun Times "...a ball hit off a metal baseball bat crashed into the side of his head". The resulting bash to the noggin resulted in Jake losing the hearing in that ear. Naturally, the parents decided to sue Easton, the company that makes said bats. I find it mildly interesting that they didn't sue the manufacturer of the ball of that bashed into him. Why is it only the bat's fault and not the ball's fault?

I don't know either. But I do know that Jake's parents have said in their lawsuit that "...the manufacturer created a dangerous product that should not be on the market" and they're asking that "Easton pay for his injuries and suffering as well as attorney fees." And all the while, they're continuing to let their son play baseball with the dangerous product that should not be on the market. Yeah, sure. That makes perfect sense.

Oh, for cryin' out loud, no, it does not! If the bat is so damned dangerous and if you, as a parent, honest to God believed that, why, why, WHY in the world would you let your kid continue to play with said bat?! Well, you wouldn't. And that's probably because you don't (believe that, that is). But that doesn't mean that it's going to keep you from suing. Even the boy recognizes that these things happen and it's the chance that you have to take when you're playing sports! He said, "...he has no choice but to continue using a metal bat because all of his peers use it.“If everyone has a metal bat, why wouldn’t I have a metal bat?” Exactly.

What I want to know is what is going to happen if the kid gets beaned in the head again. What if he loses an eye or a nose or an ear or something like that. Then what? (Actually, I'd kind of like to see someone lose a nose from playing baseball. That'd be something to see.) Are they going to say that they shouldn't have dangerous products on the market because even people who have been injured by said product in the past might be too dense to realize the alleged danger and continue playing with them until the product finally just kills them? Given the proven non-rational thinking of these folks in the first place, I'm guessing they might attempt to legitimately make that point. I'm guessing that they'd fail miserably, but what's to stop them from trying. I can't wait to see how this one pans out. Unless, of course, it pans out with the company having to pay money to these folks. That I can do without.

Sphere: Related Content

This Stuff Writes Itself

Sometimes, I read stuff that will practically write itself on this blog. Today was no exception. I read this little gem over at Roanoke.com: "A man who hung his GED certificate above his methamphetamine-cooking rig, then fled police by taking to the woods with a tent and a bowl of macaroni and cheese, pleaded guilty today to charges that could send him to prison for years." Seriously, does it get much easier than that? Not by a lot it doesn't.

Here's the scoop: A one 29-year old and old enough to know better John Thomas Nelon Jr., had been making meth in his garage. That alone shows he's not all that bright to begin with. And when police received tips and conducted a search back in May, this genius left little doubt as to who the police were looking for. That's because this proud, proud scholar had conveniently hung his freaking GED certificate on the wall directly above his meth making contraption. (Is it a contraption? Or a process? I'm a little unclear on all of the particulars of the methamphetamine-production-out-of-your-garage gig.) And by the way, he looks just about like you'd expect him to look. That's him over there on the right.

Wow. 29 years old and proudly displaying your GED. I wonder when he got it? Being as how it was so prominently displayed, I would just gather he's a recent recipient of said GED. I can't figure why you'd put something like that above your meth maker. (That's what I'm going to call it since I don't know what it is.) Maybe he was doing it to impress his girlfriend. Because, you know, girls who are only fifteen are quite impressionable. Wait. What?

Correct. He has a fifteen year old girlfriend. Nice life she's living there, eh? I wonder what her story is. Actually, I can kind of probably guess what her story is and my guess would be sad. There didn't seem to be any charges relating to his having a 15-year old girlfriend, so I guess that sort of thing is just fine and dandy in Virginia. I mean, he basically admitted, by pleading guilty, that he had "...manufactured meth and that he did so in the presence of a minor." I had not idea that was even a charge. What about the other things he probably did with said minor? Y'all don't have anything for that?

Apparently, after Einstein made a break for the woods with his tent and his trusty bowl of mac n' cheese, he relied upon said girlfriend to resupply him. And with her being about as smart as he was, she apparently did not notice (or didn't even consider the possibility) that she was being watched by officers when she trotted back into the woods with...I don't know what. More mac n' cheese? Some Spaghettios, perhaps? When officers went in to apprehend him, "Nelon tried to run, but he did not outrun the police dog". I wonder what he took with him during his run that time? His peanut butter and jelly sandwich?

See, I never understand what these folks who run from the authorities are thinking is going to happen. Did he really think that his ingenious plan of fleeing into the nearby woods with A tent and A bowl of macaroni and cheese was going to help him foil a fleet of cops that were going to be looking for him? Was he hoping they were just going to give up like it was a game of Hide and Seek? Did he really think that this was going to help him in any way? He must have, but I just don't get that way of thinking. Then again, I fancy myself a tad more intelligent that a carrot, which might be a little too generous of a vegetable to compare Mr. Nelon to.

When in court, after a description of what went down was presented, "Nelon chuckled at (the) account and told the judge he did not dispute it." Even he knows how ridiculous he was! And I'll be that the wasn't the only one in that courtroom laughing. What a maroon.

Sphere: Related Content

Julian Assange's Double Talk

Up until now, I've kept myself out of this whole WikiLeaks thing. Mainly because I don't like saying WikiLeaks. I think it sounds ridiculous. But I do have an opinion on this whole thing and I also have a point to make. Shocking, I know. But bear with me.

So, this Julian Assange character likes to obtain classified or secret documents from various governments or institutions and then publish said information online. His most recent target has been the United States. It's not really all that clear to me what his goal is, as he is an Australian and doesn't seem to have any direct dealings with the United States. He is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that has a lot to do with it. I also think that he's delusional if he thinks that he's going to be able to put a stop to these wars with his reckless release of information. Extremely delusional.

Just the other day, The Australian ran a piece by Mr. Assange entitled "Don't shoot messenger for revealing uncomfortable truths". It is within this piece that Mr. Assange rambles on about how people need to know the truth. In some ways, he is correct. The people of a country should not be lied to by their government. That doesn't mean that the people need to know every bit of information that goes on behind the scenes. It's not something that is unique to America. Every country has information that is classified. I don't get what he doesn't understand about that.

But it's in this piece that Mr. Assange proclaims his "innocence". According to him, it's not like these releases of classified information are hurting anyone. He's just putting the truth out there. In fact, he states "WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed." Not so fast WikiWeenie.

Back in August, Mr. Assange was the subject of a piece by a one Carole Cadwalladr over at The Guardian. In that piece, Mr. Assange talks about "...the Kenyan 2007 elections when a WikiLeak document "swung the election"." Really? According to him, yes. Really. The document of which he speaks "...exposed massive corruption by Daniel Arap Moi, and the Kenyan people sat up and took notice. In the ensuing elections, in which corruption became a major issue, violence swept the country." Huh. Anything else? Glad you asked! He then claimed "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak." Ohhhh. So close!

Look, I don't know what document he's talking about and I'm not interested in looking into it. But I absolutely believe him that people lost their lives because of his leak. He knows what he's doing and it isn't to promote "open government". If anything, other than being a pain in the ass, he's promoting anarchy. And while I'm really unhappy with the way that this guy has chosen to go about things, I'm even more unhappy with the fact that classified documents were so easily accessible in the United States that it was possible for a lowly Private First Class to download them all onto CDs and hand them over to Assange. I do agree with him that he's the "messenger", but give me a break, that doesn't mean that he's blameless in all of this.

Sphere: Related Content