Thursday, November 29, 2007

Home Despot

OK, as long as the folks over at Home Depot are going to continue to be generally clueless, I'm going to feel free to mock them for it.

The Home Depot that I am forced to go to (no Lowe's within 60 miles. Are you reading this, Lowe's guys?!?! NO LOWE'S!!! Build, please.) will, apparently, hire just about anyone, regardless of their knowledge of, well, anything at all. This results in odd, yet amusing interactions between me and the clueless employees. Often.

Here's today's example: I needed to buy some wooden dowels and three 1" x 1" pieces of wood that were each a foot long. So, 1 package of dowels and 3, 1 foot long pieces of wood. With me so far? Good. You're miles ahead of the cashier chick.

She scans the dowels and then becomes perplexed by the wood. She stares at the wood for about 10 seconds and then she asks me, "Is this one piece of wood or is this three pieces of wood?" Believe me when I say that, as confused as she was, her question rendered me even more confused.

What do you say to that? You have to say something. It was a question! So I said, "Well, I see three pieces of wood, but I'm drunk, so it could just be one." She rang up the three pieces and I was on my way.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Calvin Was Right

Yeah, so I missed posting yesterday (and I'd been on a roll lately, too!). This is going to have to make up for it, although it won't be mocking anyone.

Calvin once told Hobbes (both of comic strip fame and yore), "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help."

He was right. Some days, things that make things better for us, just don't. A wise boy, that Calvin. My lucky rocketship underpants aren't working right now either.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

So That's What the $25K Was For!

A couple of days ago, I went off on the $25K dessert that was being served by some restaurant in New York. You may have noticed that I declined to mention the name of the restaurant, mainly because I really didn't want to give them any more undeserved publicity than they had probably already received at that point.

In light of a new development in the ridiculous $25K dessert category. I have NO problem naming the restaurant in this post. See, one week after their ridiculous 'World's Most Expensive Dessert' proclamation was made public, the Serendipity 3 was closed by New York health inspectors after finding many violations of the rodent nature. Translation: They had mice and other creatures.

According to an inspector from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Mental Hygiene? What the heck is that?!) there were, "a live mouse, mouse droppings in multiple areas, fruit flies, house flies, AND more than 100 live cockroaches." The Dept. of H&MH also stated that the Serendipity 3 had failed a previous inspection on October 22.

I can't be the only one wondering what else was under those "gold shavings" in their dessert, now, can I? What a bunch of losers. They can't keep their restaurant "pest-free" (which is really the first and foremost characteristic that I'm looking for in a good restaurant. Only humans, that's my motto.) but they can spend their time ladeling gold over ice cream. Um, hello? McFly? Spend your money on exterminators instead!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Will the Real Guitar Hero Please Stand Up?

OK, confession time. I am a huge Guitar Hero fan/addict. (Now, now, let's not be so quick to judge, shall we?!) I don't know why I like it, I just do. The songs that are on the various GH games do not sound exactly like the original versions, but they're close enough so that you know what you're listening to. (Although 'Hold On Loosely' and 'The Warrior' from GH 80s are some of the worst attempts of imitation-trying-to-sound-like-the-real-thing singing I've ever heard.)

Apparently, The Romantics seem to think that the version of their hit "What I Like About You" sounds good. Really good. In fact, they think that it sounds so good that they're going to prove it by suing those fine folks over there at Activision, the makers of Guitar Hero.

Activision did get permission to use the song and record a cover version. But their version sounded so much like the original that it somehow infringed on "the group's right to its own image and likeness."

Their attorney, William Horton, commented by saying, "It's a very good imitation, and that's our objection. Even the guys in the band said, 'Wow, that's not us, but it sure sounds like us.'"

I don't get it. You're supposed to ask permission to use/copy something that is copyrighted (hence the term, I presume) but then if you copy it too closely, you can get in trouble? Isn't that like someone saying, "I'd like to copy your design of that square" and getting a reply of, "That will be fine as long as you make it look like a circle."

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, November 24, 2007

$25,000 Dessert? Do I Hear $30,000?

A few weeks ago, a restaurant in New York set a world record for the most expensive dessert. when it created something that was a mix of cocoas, milk, edible gold and truffles and topped with whipped cream and more gold. It also comes with an 18K gold bracelet with another 1 carat of white diamonds at the base of the golden goblet.

How is "Most Expensive (Insert Name of Anything You Can Make Here)" even a Guinness category? But regardless of that, what are the rules of this completely arbitrary category? Come on, it comes with a diamond bracelet on the side?? Yeah, that would tend to increase the value a bit, but how can that even count as part of the dessert?

Tell you what....I'm going to break that record. MY World's Most Expensive Dessert will consist of a Duncan Hines brownie, slathered in Cool Whip, sprinkled with a generous helping of M&Ms AND it comes with one, that two, two Hummers on the side. There. I win.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, November 23, 2007

Someone Tell Brad That It's 2007

Just real quick here....I am so over seeing Brad Pitt and that ridiculous little Newsies cap that he is always wearing. Am I the only one who wonders why he doesn't man-up and get a real hat? A cowboy hat, a baseball hat, I don't care as long as it is something that looks like it was actually in style within the past 50 years. What's next, Brad? Knickers and suspenders?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Ethics, Smethics

Ah, yes, a college education in the University of California system. A system just bursting at the seams with knowledgable professors just ready to spill their overflowing knowledge all over you. And you are ready to just soak it up like the sponge that you are, yes? But are you concerned about whether or not what it is that you're soaking up is toxic or not? You should be.

You should be concerned, given the case of Stephen Yagman. Mr. Yagman was convicted of federal tax evasion (for weaseling his way out of paying more than $100,000 taxes) and for bankruptcy fraud. (Did I mention that he was a "prominent divil-rights attorney" during his weasel-ment? He was. And it makes this all the more ridiculous.) This seems fitting considering that the dude was taking vacations to Aspen, purchasing expensive suits from London and generally pissing money away right and left in other similar fashions. Not a very bankrupt lifestyle, if you ask me.

With this kind of behavior, a professor at UCLA, Professor Frances Ohlsen, decided that it would be appropriate to ask Mr. Yagman to teach an undergratuate course in law, morality and social justice at UCLA.

Mr. Yagman's sentencing hearing is currently underway and is set to resume on Monday. His lawyer is urging the judge NOT to impose a potential nine-year prison sentence so that he can teach the course.

Are you KIDDING me?! Not only should this guy NEVER teach anything relating to the law and ethics, but the professor that thought that he SHOULD teach at UCLA should have her head examined. I would love to know how her thinking process works, or doesn't work because it would appear that it's broken.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

So How Many of Them ARE There?

San Francisco is issuing ID cards for illegal aliens. Now, if that's not concerning/disturbing enough for you, it gets better/worse. These ID cards will not list the individual's gender. That's right. It won't say "Male" or "Female". Why? Come ON! It's San Franpsycho. They're not putting the gender on the ID cards because that could cause problems for those who are transgender.

The legal director of the Transgender Law Center in SF says that the card "really makes gender a non-issue". The director also says that "legally changing a name and gender designation can be time-consuming and cost hundreds of dollars. IDs that don't match appearance could "out" people and make them vulnerable to discrimination or abuse."

First off, if you've had gender "re-assignment" surgery, a few hundred more dollars to change your ID isn't out of line. So that "logic" is out. But here's the real problem I have with this: The city of SF is making concessions for illegal immigrants who are transgendered! How many of these people ARE there?! They are developing the parameters of a system that is to be distributed for use city-wide based upon the personal situations of how many (again) illegal immigrants??

Listen, I'm in an area where farming is abdundant. I've seen many, many individuals working in those fields and not ONCE have I ever seen any of them who looked like Charo.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Catching Up With OJ

OK, so it's been a little busy lately, thus making it a little slow around here lately. But I'll catch up. I'll start with OJ and his latest legal debacle.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that out of all of the characters that were involved in the OJ Simpson Personal Sting Operation, the only one of them who is not a felon is OJ!!! I don't know, call me crazy, but that just seems wrong. I dunno, maybe it's because he got away with beheading two people or something like that, but it just seems wrong.

And when I was watching the media circus outside of the courtroom, the first thought I had was, "Oh, my God. It's 1994. My time machine works!"

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, November 19, 2007

Cruel and Unusual Decision Making

Is this ridiculous moratorium or whatever you want to call it that has been placed on executions in this country ever going to be lifted? Is someone (or the collective someones) going to come to their senses and realize what the term "cruel and unusual punishment" is meant to convey?

I wish I could remember the name of the guy that said this gem of wisdom (for reals. It's good!). I think he was a judge. Anyway, the point is that when he was asked his opinion as to whether lethal injection is "cruel and unusual punishment" because the inmate may be aware of what is going on and may actually feel something, this guy says, "Cruel and unusual doesn't have to mean pain free."

That's the most reasonable thing I've heard anyone say in a long, long time.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Drew Peterson - Piece of Work

Is it because Drew Peterson's missing wife's name is Stacy Peterson, which is remarkably similar to that of Laci Peterson who was killed by her husband/slimedog Scott, that Drew feels the need to emulate Scott and his stupidity by granting national TV interviews so that, just in case anyone was on the fence as to whether or not he had anything to do with the disappearance of his wife, everyone can pretty much agree on the fact that something just ain't quite right here?

This guy goes on the Today Show and does an interview with Matt Lauer. (Now, Lauer is a crappy interviewer, but I've seen those pics of him at the beach without a shirt and well, let's just say that all is forgiven, Matt. Take off your shirt and carry on, good man!) Here's a little excerpt from that chat:

LAUER: You have said on occasions that Stacy came to you and said she was seeing someone else, that there was another man. Is it fair to say that you believe that Stacy right now is with that other man?
Mr. PETERSON: She never told me she was seeing another man. She--well, maybe she did. But I believe she's with somebody else right now. (So, "she didn't, wait, yes, she did say that...ah, regardless, that's what I believe." All rightee then....)
LAUER: Let me just go back to, did she or did she not say to you, `I'm seeing someone else, Drew?' (Way to be non-confrontational, Matt.)
Mr. PETERSON: It wasn't put like that. She found somebody else. That was her exact words. (Yes, it is extremely important to make sure that we can quote this missing woman verbatim, because THAT will lead to her being found.)
LAUER: And you believe that she is now not dead, that she is actually run off with another man?
Mr. PETERSON: I believe that, yes. (Might you possibly also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny as well, sir.)

He clearly doesn't seem to understand how BAD that sounds because it is SO unbelievable. I've known 6 year olds that can lie better than that. By the way, WHEN has a scenario like this EVER turned out like he is describing? When? Oh, never? That's what I thought. NO ONE just ups and leaves and then becomes the focus of a HUGE national media story and crime investigation and doesn't just call the police or a family member and say, "Look, I'm OK. I'm not coming back, but I'm not dead, so goodbye."

Just do everyone a favor, sir, and give it up.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 15, 2007

There's No 'E' in 'Word'

I know I've already bagged on "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" once so far, but I'm going to bag on it again. (Spoiler Alert: I'm likely to do it again in the future. Probably more than once. Stay tuned, won't ye?)

Kellie Pickler was the "celebrity contestant" on this show last week. She remarked at one point that she "felt so dumb right now." She gave the impression that wasn't something that happened to her often. Odd.

She gets the following question: "How many times does the letter 'E' appear in the following word". Now, the word doesn't appear on the screen with the question. That's all she sees. Before Foxworthy can give her the word, she says, "None." Foxworthy asks her if she'd like to actually hear the word before she answers, to which she says, "Well, yes! Because I looked up there and I KNOW that there is NO 'E' in 'WORD'. "

I suppose I should just be happy that she did know THAT.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content