Saturday, February 28, 2009


It's becoming more evident to me that people that run companies, businesses, etc., think that the public in general is absolutely clueless. There's something to be said about a false sense of empowerment which your potential audience, customer base, whatever, embraces like it's their long lost, rich, and about to die uncle. I blame the Internet, mainly because it's the easiest, but also because it's the most likely in this case.

Let's take Facebook for a moment, shall we? Take it and do whatever you want with it, by the way. I find the whole social networking thing not so much "necessary" as it is "expected" and I really don't do well with expectations of me. But really I don't see the overall appeal of being a constant voyeur into other people's mundane existence. Yes, mundane! Try as you might, I do not think that you're cool when you're doing whatever it is that you're doing and I'm not. There's a reason I'm not doing what you are and you might want to look at what you're doing just a little closer to understand why I'm not doing it.

But I digress. Back to Facebook. Last week, Facebook changed their Terms of Service in a way that basically said that you're granting rights to Facebook to do whatever they want with whatever you put on Facebook and that you're granting them those rights even if you terminate your account. Sound good? No, of course not, it sounds like crap.

The Consumerist was where the crap originally hit the fan with this dealio. After all, who reads the Terms of Service? (OK, fine, I read them. I like fine print! I find it comical and in this case, informative.) When folks got wind of the new TOS, it was the Boston Tea Party all over again, except that it was online and there wasn't any tea and it wasn't in Boston. (It's just an easy metaphor for revolt, all right?) And the next thing you know, Facebook caved. Or did they?

Facebook reinstated the original TOS after CEO Mark Zuckerberg (who looks like he's 12 and actually isn't much older than that) posted a response on the Facebook blog that essentially said, "Whoa! Baby! Calm down! I wasn't saying you looked fat! I was just looking out for you! I didn't want you to be uncomfortable, they...always have the heat turned up really high! And um, that outfit would have...uh, made you really hot! Not sweaty hot! I didn't mean to say 'sweat like a pig'. I was just trying to take care of you, baby. Now go put that tent, I mean dress! Go put that dress back on and let's go already."

As if Facebook folks weren't pretentious enough with their false sense of empowerment, now they're really full of themselves. "Look what our big, bad revolt did! We told Facebook where to go and what to do! We really do own Facebook!" Oh, please. Facebook plays nice with it's users, I'll give it that. Whether or not they were really trying to retain control over everything that was ever uploaded to their site, I have no idea. But they've seized an opportunity to reinforce that false sense of empowerment that the Facebook community is rolling around in right now. And they're doing so in a way that implies fairness. Sort of.

Their new policy is this: Some changes and some new policies will be put to a vote by Facebook users. According to Facebook, "The results of the vote will be made public and will be binding, if more than 30 percent of all active registered users vote." Well, that sounds great doesn't it? After all, when the uproar over the TOS began, the Facebook group "People Against the New Terms of Service" immediately formed and over 139,000 people joined up! Power to the FB people! Not so fast, FB-ers.Facebook has 175 million active registered users. That means that 52,500,000 "active registered users" need to vote. So, it sounds like the "People Against the New Terms of Service" group is going to fall just about 52,361,000 votes short as it is. Hmmm. Power to the people! Wait. What?

Facebook could have even gone with 10 percent of all "active registered users" needing to cast a vote before something was binding and they still (most likely) would have been just fine doing whatever they wanted to do. Numbers are a funny thing, aren't they? 139,000 people sounds like a really big number, but only until you realize that you don't need hundreds of thousands of people, but tens of millions of people. That's when that 139,000 seems like the total attendance at your Mom's book club meeting last week.

And not everything will be left up to the FB-users to vote on. In his blog post, Zuckerberg wrote that some things will change whether FB users like it or not. Those in management at Facebook are still the ones running the company. FB-ers can think that they are going to have this massive amount of say in what goes on, but if Facebook wants to change something, they will.

If I'm looking at the numbers that we're talking about in this instance, it makes me tend to think that the vastness of the Internet isn't something that you can just assume everyone is touched by. It's like if you only hang out with people who play Guitar Hero (and who wouldn't want a group of friends like that!? Hey, I'd take just ONE person at this point!), you're going to get the impression after a while that everyone plays Guitar Hero. I think that a lot of these Facebook folks think that everyone's world revolves around Facebook just like theirs does. Not so much. But what happens is that those who do think that everyone's world is the Facebook world start to influence other people to believe the same way. That's why people are so shocked when they come across someone who is not in the FB world. (On Facebook, it's FB. People tend to FB a lot of things. My favorite? "Keep in FB touch." Translation: "For God's sake, don't ever call me or email me. I really don't know you very well and I'm not sure I even like you. But drop me a note on Facebook once or twice a year just so I can compare my life to yours and feel superior. FB bye!")

If they meet someone without an FB life, this look which is a cross of confusion, sadness and pity sweeps across their face as if to say, "Aw. Why not? Too poor for an Internet connection? Can't afford a computer? Too dumb to log on? No friends? Social outcast? Is that why no FB for you?" They could not comprehend the rationale of "No, I think it's stupid." They would FB die if they heard that!

The point is that Facebook sort of pulled an FB FU to all of these folks who freaked out. (By the way, I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of a company or a business just arbitrarily being able to change the TOS whenever they want to. I don't think it mentions they retain the right to do that in the original TOS that people had to agree to in order to join Facebook.) I'm dying for Facebook to put the TOS that everyone flipped out over up for the vote. In fact, I'm begging them to do it! I'd be really interested to see if 52 million people would give a crap about it enough to log on and vote. Heck, I'd be shocked if 5 million people would give a crap about it enough to log on and vote.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, February 27, 2009

No, That's a Coin Slot

What the hell, people? Look, I'm pretty sure that in most cities in America (this is America, after all) one can find themselves a perfectly good hooker if they need to. Now granted there's almost always a price to pay (unless it's like some sort of summer internship, I would imagine) and there's rarely a coupon to be found. Regardless, it's a human being with which you will be having all the sex. And while I'm not up on what the current rate for some hookage is, I know this much: I know that it's cheaper than being caught having sex at a car wash. With the car wash vacuum. Wait. What?

Correct. A man in Michigan was arrested last October when he was caught sexing up the vacuum at the local car wash. And I think I speak for most anyone reading this when I write: WTF?!?!?

A one Jason L. Savage was arrested on October 16, 2008 by police in Saginaw, Michigan (yes, I AM surprised this wasn't in Florida!) after there were reports of "suspicious activity at a car wash." Now, I don't know if I'd use the term "suspicious" as opposed to, say, "effing weird", but if I saw someone with his schlong in a suction hose, I wouldn't deny that would raise (no pun intended) suspicion. Would not deny it, would not doubt it, would not stop running until I had locked myself inside my home.

This guy has got to be the cheapest guy in the history of self gratification. You can't do it just by yourself, you need a little help. But you don't want to fork over cash for a hooker and you can't even go out and pick up some little toy or whatever it is that y'all do with that or those and that or....look, never mind. The point is that this guy was willing to spring for all of about seventy five cents to get a blow job from a vacuum cleaner. And at a car wash nonetheless! It's not like it's some private car wash where the vacuum cleaner is way in the back underneath a tarp or the cover of darkness. Usually the vacuums? Right in front, that is correct.

He pled no contest in court yesterday. Was I surprised he pled no contest to indecent exposure because he was caught having sex with a vacuum at a car wash? I was surprised at the whole incident, yes. (Though, I'll bet I'm not half as surprised as whoever it was that discovered him making sweet, sweet love to the suction-y appliance. And I'm positive that I'm not even a tenth as surprised as the poor vacuum.)

But you know what surprised me more? The fact that this was not an isolated incident of vacuum fornication perhaps? Well, yes. That did surprise me. It also troubled the hell out of me. But I was more surprised when I learned that the other incidents involved someone other than this freak? Yes! I was! I did not want to know that there are MORE people who see nothing wrong with placing their penis in prohibited parts of appliances in public! Good Lord. We are doomed. We're doomed now. Welcome to doom.

It's even gone worldwide, so there's no escaping it. There's no place to hide! The folks over there at The reported this on March 3, 2008:

"A builder working at Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital has reportedly been sacked, after he was caught pleasuring himself with a vacuum cleaner in the canteen. The man was allegedly discovered naked, on his hands and knees, with his rude bits in the business end of a smiling Henry vacuum cleaner. (Ooh...awkward.) The Polish man claimed to bosses that he had merely been vacuuming in his underwear, which was supposedly a common practice in Poland. Hmmm."

Yes, that's definitely not a Polish tradition that I've ever heard of. Must be from ancient Poland and all of their traditions. Yeah, that's it! So, so many things to like about that article. God bless those guys. That is fantastic reporting right there. If all newspapers wrote like that, they wouldn't be going out of business, I guarantee it. Nice job, Metro guys!

When that story broke, it prompted comedian Russell Brand to admit that he tried to sex up a vacuum when he was 14. Why would you admit that? On purpose and out loud? I don't get it, but he said that the experience traumatized him a bit. (I can imagine. I was just reading about it and I was traumatized.) Digital Spy reported that Brand said, "Perhaps ultimately the manufacturers of these sexy little appliances ought be held responsible. Who in their right mind designs a machine with the capacity for suction and then puts a face on it? You might as well put eyelashes on a toaster." Right. Because the only thing missing from a toaster that's keeping it from being sexy and attractive are eyelashes. Sure. (This is why I love the ocean. It separates me from people like Russell Brand.)

I'll agree with him that the vacuum cleaner with the face is an odd concept that someone saw to fruition. Part of me really wants to know the story behind that and I'm sure that parts of the Polish guy and Russell Brand would probably like to know more as well, only in a much different way. And I think that if you're starting to think of your vacuum or any other household appliance (that is not designed in a way that was meant for self-gratification) as being "sexy" or "attractive" or even just "a good idea", just don't. (This is the only time I think I'll advocate for getting a hooker, but if it's between a hooker and a Hoover, please! My God, man, take the hooker!)

Back in 2007, The Register ran a story of a guy who broke into his neighbor's house and rather than steal things, he "played sex games in the bathroom and constructed a sex toy from a bottle of detergent, a piece of wood and a rubber glove". When the court heard a vacuum cleaner was also discovered in the bathroom and the defense was maintaining that there wasn't proof it was used with the, uh, makeshift, um, toy? The Judge, a one Tony Rafter, didn't buy it and said, "I'm sure that your client didn't Hoover the carpets." Given the state of his device that he constructed, I'm pretty sure he didn't do that either. But the guy didn't go to jail! The judge only gave him a year of community service because he "was now a father". A father to what?!? A Dustbuster?!

Look, for whatever reason, I know you guys are really attached to your genitalia, which is why I wouldn't think that you'd want to place it inside of a device that could detach it from your nether region. How sexy is that, really? And the noise?! My God, the noise! Then again, men are pretty good at tuning things out, especially dull, loud, blaring noises that go on and on. (Like their wife. OH, but I kid!) Well, another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

Look, boys, you guys are the ringmasters of that circus that's always going on in groin. And we, as women (and society), are counting on you to keep things in line AND in your pants. We're also counting on you to not keep it in any household appliances or in any public, suction driven, cleaning devices. (I mean, something like that? It's really untoward.) And really, if you feel so drawn to such an item, couldn't you just fantasize about Rosie from the Jetsons (or the Robot from Lost in Space if that's the way you'd prefer to go...not that there's anything wrong with that!) in the privacy of your own home and take care of business that way? Now if you'll excuse me, all of this talk about suction sex has made me feel like I need a shower as the whole thing has left me feeling rather unclean.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 26, 2009

What's That Number Again, Joe?

And I was worried that there wouldn't be enough material to make fun of when Grandpa Old Man Senator John McCain lost the Presidential election and wouldn't be in the public eye every day. He was a near endless source of amusement, especially toward the end of the campaign when you could tell he really needed a nap. In his state of elderly exhaustion, things just came flying out of his mouth that would have been sheer genius if they were intended to be funny and to mock the old. But they weren't, so instead he was the one being mocked.

But those days are over and new ones are upon us! And I knew that this guy would eventually poke his head out of his shell and give us a glimpse of what we're in for. I just wasn't sure how long it would take before he would do the head poking. Turns out, it was just a little over a month. Meet my new source for go-to political entertainment, Vice President Joe Biden!

VP Biden is one of those guys that, once you get to know him you realize that he is a really smart man and really does know what he's doing. But the other thing you realize when you get to know the guy is that he might know what he's doing, but he doesn't always seem to know what he's saying. Or if he does know what he's saying, he certainly doesn't do a very good job of letting other people know that he knows what he's talking about. Other times, he's crystal clear though. Some times, too clear.

Take for example, back when he was trying to campaign for the Presidential nomination. (This guy has tried to run for President at least twice, maybe three times. And no one wanted him for President, but they were just fine with him being Vice President. Go figure. I guess having President Barry leading the charge works well no matter who you are.) During the Democratic primary he told a crowd that Rudy Giuliani always mentions three things in every sentence - ``a noun, a verb, and 9/11''. That's funny stuff. Funnier because it's true, but still funny.

Then there was the campaign in 2008. That's when Joe made it clear that he might understand the importance of getting people in this country employed, and at the same time made it appear as if his counting skills need a bit of work when he told a crowd, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

(By the way, that little bit of amusement reminds me of this little roadside cafe somewhere in fairly rural Idaho where the menu offers you a "Choice of three vegetables: Carrots, peas, macaroni and cheese." And I remember reading that and thinking, "Morons. That's four.")

This is also the guy who, before Obama announced that he had chosen him to be his running mate, was asked by a reporter if he had anything to report on. Biden thinks for a second and then says, "A successful dump." Too much information, but still hilarious.

But we haven't heard anything out of Joe the Veep since the inauguration. Well, wait no longer! We can thank Al Gore for inventing the Internet for this one! (That darned Internet. All of those tubes and pipes, they just confuse the hell out of some folks.) First we had Vice President Biden directing 80 mayors (who had all gathered for some sort of powwow at the White House last Friday) to the wrong website when he gave out the wrong URL. Biden told them that it was when in fact it is Now, that's not so much funny as it is just a bit embarrassing. (Psst! Biden! It's dot-g-o-v. GOV. Like in government! That's how you can try to remember it in the future. GOV, like in government. Got that? Um, hello?)

But this is actually amusing. Below we have a short clip of Joe Biden appearing on the Early Show on CBS Wednesday morning. Biden is the one in charge of getting the stimulus money distributed and overseeing that it is spent in the most effective manner. The ways that all of that money is being spent is supposed to be put on a website that the public can access and see how all of our money is being wasted, I mean, used. So we can see where all of our money is being used. When asked for the name of the website, Joe had a bit of a problem. For some reason, he could not come up with Not only could he not come up with the name of it, he couldn't even come up with the term "website address" or even "URL". No, instead he asked someone if they knew the "website number". The conversation went something like this (the video clip follows):
RODRIGUEZ: By the way, do you know the website?
BIDEN: You know, I am embarrassed. You know the website number? You know, I should have it in front of me, and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed.
RODRIGUEZ: All right. I'm going call your office, too, and get it.
BIDEN: It is
RODRIGUEZ: Recovery -- is that up and running already?
BIDEN: That's up and running.

Look, the guy is only 66, but that is enough for me to give him a pass on the term "URL". But I can't give him or anyone else a pass on "website number". When was the last time that he dialed up the ol' Internet there I wonder? Hooks up that 1200 Baud coupler modem does he? Let's that thing just dial away? Even just "What's the name of the website?" would have been better than "website number" Was he up all night with Al Gore inventing the Internet and so he was a little tired? Come on!

Is he the one in charge of getting all of the info uploaded to the website number? Because if he is, I'm a little worried. Actually, I'm already a little worried about this whole deal, I don't need a website number fiasco making me more worried. (Oh, and if you're headed over to that website number to see where all of your money has gone, don't bother. It has lovely charts (not pie, nor graph, but rather, bubble! Hey, it's change you can believe in! Or something.) but the charts don't tell you anything because the money hasn't been "spent" yet. You'd think they could have up there who is getting what, but as of today, they don't.

At least when McCain made his ridiculous statements, I was OK with some of them because at the time that he said them, a) he was old and b) he was harmless. Joe Biden isn't really either one of those, as I don't consider 66 to be "old". And when Dick Cheney was Vice President, he shot his best friend in the face, so I'm not so much feeling the "harmless" either. Could someone over there at Camp Obama please show Joe how to turn on the Internet and check the website number of the stimulus package, please? Your country awaits.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Predictive Text Predicts Hilarity

Google's predictive text feature is amusing. Look, I'll admit it's been a slow day around here, but I don't think that has much to do with it. (Maybe some, but not a lot.) Here's the thing: People are weird. Here's the other thing: People at Google are freaking weird geniuses.

Here's how predictive text works: It's just like it sounds. You start typing in the magic box of The Google and it will magically come up with a myriad of things that you might be typing next. Granted, you might not type any of those things next. But the point is that either enough people HAVE typed similar things into the magic box or there are enough sites out there which cover the topic in the magic box so that the "algorithm" can make what it assumes to be a rational prediction as to what you want or what direction you're headed. Most of the predictions from things I typed in seemed to indicate that people could really use a bit more direction in their lives. Quite a bit.

Take for instance "I like". Now, there are a lot of things to like. There are as many things to like as there are things. What do people "like" the most, according to The Google? You. Far and away, they like you. There are 499,000,000 results for "I like you". You know what else people like? Pie. "I like pie" generates 10,800,000 results. And it's true, I DO like pie! Who wouldn't like pie? I'd like pie right now. Mmmm...pie. And pie is just one likeness above....? That's right, turtles. What the hell?

"I like turtles." 5,720,000 results for "I like turtles". A little bit more than half as many results for turtles as there are for pie. I'm not surprised that pie surpassed turtles, but I'm a little surprised that it's only a 2:1 pie to turtle ratio. There should be at least three times as many results for pie. What? Pie is good! Have you not had pie?! It's delicious! A turtle? Not so much.

The logical way to go next seemed to be "I hate". I got as far as "I ha" before I had to stop and ponder. The winner by far at that point ended up being "I have no friends" with 806,000,000 results. There are almost eighty times more people with no friends than there are pie likers? That's just sad. Not for those without any friends, but for all of those missing out on the joy of pie. Who needs friends when you have pie? Those of you without friends should really drown your sorrows in some pie. Other biggies for "I ha" were "I has a bucket" and "I has a hotdog". Right after "I have no friends" is "I have nothing" with 94,600,000 results. Again, more than pie. Pie is greatly underappreciated on The Google and on the Internet in general.

Oddly, if I don't space after "I hate" it automatically goes to "I hated". Apparently The Google is in past tense. The big winner? "I hated college" with 17,000,000 results. Running a very close second with 13,400,000 was the precursor to hating college, "I hated high school". Rounding out the top 3 results there is "I hated Bush before it was cool". Well, aren't you just the little trendsetter? (By the way, I did an Image Search for just "college" and my results included a lot of porn, so I'm not sure why people "hate college" because in this instance, I found it rather enjoyable. And yes, you can look forward to a "Google Searches That Seem Innocent But Net a Lot of Porn" post in the future.)

"I said" is weird. It nets us "I said a beef hot links", "I said boom chicka boom" and "I said I loved you but I lied". OK, the last one isn't totally weird. (Unfortunately, it's rather familiar.) "I didn't" shows the most results for "I didn't know I was pregnant" (which was also the most amusing result.)

As I have been reminded often (just today actually), I ask a lot of questions. Therefore, I am well versed in words that tend to start a question and I typed a lot of them into the magic box to see what text would be predicted. I began with "Is" and it was predictively followed by winners such as "Is bronchitis contagious" and "Is pneumonia contagious". Now, before you go getting all excited and thinking about how health conscious those who use The Google are, let me give you more of the "is" trailers. "Is Santa real", "Is Walmart open on Christmas" and "Is Angelina Jolie pregnant again". Good Lord, people! Talk about diverse. But my favorite? "Is Obama the antichrist". Too much, folks. Too diverse.

Predictively texting "How" gives us "How to kiss" which was followed by "How to get pregnant" which was followed shortly there after by "How to lose weight". (I like that things seem to be in order in this case.) It also gives us "How to tie a tie" and "How to cook a turkey".

More specifically, "How does" has the top result getter as "How does a bill become a law". Have these people never heard of Schoolhouse Rock? It's just a bill. And it's sitting there on Capitol Hill. Why The Google for that? (Most of the results were for "How does (blank) work" with the blank being filled in by Skype, Paypal, Facebook and the Internet. Huh. Websites apparently perplex people. (By the way, "How can" is followed by "make my hair grow faster", "keep from singing", "get taller" and "make my computer go faster". I'll say it again, we are a diverse people.)

"Can a..." what? Well, "Can a dog catch a cold" and "Can a felon get a passport". Just in case a dog-loving felon needs to go overseas and Rover seems to be sneezing a lot, those are things you'll need to know! "Did a..." "Did a plane really hit the pentagon" and "Did a dingo eat your baby". (At least we're diverse and funny!)

I just realized this is sort of like the old game show Match Game. Where's Gene Rayburn?

"Why did..." is followed by inquiries such as "Why did Obama win", "Why did Hitler dislike the Jews", "Why did the pilgrims come to America" and of course "Why did the chicken cross the road". (Still funny.)

"You are not...." yields "You are not privileged to mount the volume". (That must be SOME volume if you need privileges in order to do a little mounting.) "You are not the father" and "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake". Yeah, it's harsh, but it had to be said.

Things that start with "was" seem to indicate that people need to pay more attention either in class to or the news. "Was Bill Clinton impeached", "Was Hitler Jewish", "Was Abraham Lincoln black", "Was Obama born in Kenya", "Was Jesus black" and "Was Jesus a Jew". What the hell? It's Google, not a Magic 8 Ball! (I'm envisioning people shaking their monitors and waiting for that little triangle to float up through the viscous liquid so that you can read "It is decidedly so" in the little window.)

"Would the..." had me thinking "What the...?" "Would the last honest reporter please turn on the lights", "Would these arms be in your way", "Would the world end in 2012", "Would the following errors cause an increase or decrease in absorbance and transmittance".

"How much..." OK, this could be a reason as to why the US is in the dire financial straits that it is. "How much is my house worth", "How much is my car worth", "How much are stamps". If you add "can" to that question and make it "How much can...." the results are similar. "How much can I afford mortgage", "How much can I borrow mortgage" and "How much can I drink". All very relevant.

Fun with Google's predictive text feature. Who knew? Stayed tuned next time for Satanic verses in your thesaurus!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

OctoDad? Is That You?

It didn't take too long to find someone crazier than the OctoMom, Nadya Suleman. Yes, I said crazier. More crazy than the unemployed, 33-year old, single woman who lives at home with her parents and has fourteen children under the age of eight. On purpose! Yep, there's someone nuttier than her. That'd be her ex-boyfriend who is willing to admit how much he loved her, that he gave her his sperm three times because of his undying love for her, that he thinks he's the father of the Mocktuplets, that he wants a DNA test to find out if he is actually the father and even if he isn't he still wants to help Nadya out with raising the children because, you know, it's going to be hard. See? Told you. Nutjob.

Meet Denis Beaudoin. According to the LA Times folks, when Beaudoin was on "Good Morning America," he says "...he "might" be the father of the octuplets" because he "...said he donated sperm to Suleman a decade ago when they were dating. He now wants a DNA test to see if he is the father." Um, seriously? Seriously. You can watch the video of this guy (who ends up trying not to cry at one point) over there at The Huffington Post. I watched it and, putting aside my intense dislike for crying men (it's harder for them to move heavy objects for me if they're blubbering), I found the guy to have a story that could be believable. It incorporated the major facets of this fiasco so far (sperm, donating sperm, Nadya wanting children, Nadya lying, Nadya manipulating, you get the point) and they were inadvertently backed up by Nadya herself. There are a few problem areas, but again, what aspect of this ordeal hasn't had a few of those? Every day?

Here's the scoop: Denis (yes, with only one "n". Why do people do that? You folks with whatever it is that you have against the double "n", get over yourselves and spell things properly!) says that he dated Nadya for three years. During the timeline that he gives, he says that he now believes that she was married when she was dating him. For three years? She's crazy alright, but to pull something like that off for that long would be tricky for even the most insane person out there (which she could very well be). So that's a problem.

At some point, she asked him for his sperm. OK, I don't usually ask my dates for their sperm. (Then again, my dates don't have sperm.) But Nadya does a lot of things that most people don't do. And Denis realized this because he said that he thought the request for his sperm was "out of the ordinary" But he made a donation anyway because "...I cared about her so much. And I mean, we were, we were in love. I mean, I loved Nadya very much." And that's when I heard the cuckoo bird alarm go off. And it kept going off because he kept talking. He said that he and his friends had nicknamed her "Giggles" because "She really had a really infectious laugh. You know, just her laugh would, it would make you crack up. It's kind of like she had a real high-pitch, squeaky cartoon voice. And, you know, she was a lot of fun to be around. Just her whole bubbly outward personality was really, really cool." Uh-huh. Well, at least one of them is completely nuts. I don't know which one, but I am leaning toward it being her for sure.

As for the reason OctoMom gave him for why she needed his sperm, he claims "Suleman told him that she had ovarian cancer and was unable to conceive without the help of a doctor." Oh, for cryin' out loud! What the hell?? Oh wait! He also says that "....he donated sperm once at the fertility clinic and twice more gave her sperm at home that she carried to the fertility clinic in a container -- keeping it warm by tucking it between her breasts." OK, that sounds just crazy enough for her to have done.

And what's her take on this? Well, she clearly knows the guy. I make that statement based upon her not saying that she had no idea who he was. The RadarOnline guys said that OctoMom told them, "That guy is definitely not the father of my kids. I know who the father is and I can tell you it is definitely not him." Well, yeah, you do know who the father is. But since the father's name isn't on all of the birth certificates and she claims that all of the sperm came from the same donor, I guess that she couldn't say that his name wasn't on the birth certificates, so obviously it wasn't him. (Why that name isn't on all of the birth certificates is another story, but I think it's kind of related to this somehow.) It was just a weird answer.

(By the way, kudos to the RadarOnline folks. They have been on top of this thing from the beginning. They're out-scooping just about everyone. An excellent source for all of your OctoMom ridiculousness.)

So where is Denis with one "n" going to be if he does get DNA tests and finds out that the Mocktuplets are not his? “Either which way, you know, know that if she needs it I’ll lend a helping hand. She needs help. I mean it’s hard. It’s hard nowadays to raise two kids, let alone 14.” He should know about how hard it is to raise two kids. He HAS two kids. And a wife! The wife is not happy from what he says. (Would you be? No way. Even if he hadn't given her sperm, just knowing that he was so in love with her for three years would be disturbing enough for me.)

Yeah, well, she's going to need some help. Her mother doesn't want OctoMom and the fourteen children living with her anymore. What's an unemployed, single, mother of fourteen children all under the age of eight to do? Probably applying for more food stamps is in the picture. Other than that, it's hard to say what she has in mind for herself. I hear monetary donations aren't exactly flooding in. (That might have something to do with people being just a tad bit annoyed at her living off of the government for the past eight years by collecting disability all the while she's shooting out a kid once every 12 months.)

I don't know what Denis's deal is. He has to know that anyone associating themselves with this nutjob will automatically become as toxic as she is. And I'd like to think that someone who has a wife and a couple of kids would not jeopardize that by wanting to jump in and help a woman who treats her uterus like it's a clown car. There isn't a ton of money involved with this, so I don't know that he can be motivated by the prospect of cashing in other than being paid for various interviews. If she balks on doing DNA testing, then we'll know that something isn't quite right. I mean, we'll know that something else isn't quite right.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, February 23, 2009

Oscar is a Little Grouchy

Huh. It kind of seems like I've been picking on the fashion (or lack thereof) choices of those who are out and about in public. And I realize that I am neither out, nor about (and I loathe the public), but that's what makes it so easy! Besides, the Oscars were last night. You don't really think that I'm going to let an entire evening of Hollywood drama and fashion go uncommented on, do you? Well, I'm not. It's so fun!

Welcome to the 2009 Academy Awards! If they ever need a motto or a slogan, they should think about going with "We're not the Grammys and the Golden Globes was merely a test run!" That's because a lot of what you see at the Oscars looks really familiar. It's as if you had just seen it and in some cases, you sort of had! You saw it at the Golden Globes just a little while ago. Also at the Oscars, you're not usually going to get a lot of the outlandish outfits that you'd see at the Grammys. Oh, you'll get some, but they're usually not on purpose. Yeah, it's sad. So let's work our way through some of the travesty, shall we?

Here we have a one Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens of the 47 High School Musical films. Um, OK, they're young, so I'll give 'em a pass this year. But the mermaid in mourning look is not my favorite. She's adorable and seems to have a shapely bod, but it's hard to get past her looking like she just came from the Little Mermaid's funeral. I'm going to guess that maybe it was Zac's first time doing his own laundry and that is why his tux looks as if it has shrunk down to some sort of formal body suit. The little teeny bow-tie, the little teeny lapel, the little teeny jacket, the tapered pants, it's like he's a leprechaun in mourning.

Heath Ledger won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and his family accepted the award on his behalf since he couldn't be there. (He's still busy being dead. You know, from being a dumbass and OD-ing last year. Yes, it's sad, but my sympathy is limited for things that really didn't have to happen.) And here they are vying for control of the statue. That's Heath's Mom over there on the left, doing her best impersonation of the role that won her son the award.

Next is a one Miley Cyrus Cyrus, I guess. Not the best choice. She looks like a rather pale, very toothy Christmas tree. What was she thinking? Yuletide greetings from the Kodak Theater?

There's Sarah Jessica Parker who decided to come to the Oscars dressed as Tinkerbell. She is shown alongside Melissa George who decided to come to the Oscars dressed as a jellyfish.
Now, you know that just like I was, you were afraid that Sophia Loren's face was going to fall off at some point, weren't you? Look at it! In other news, Sophia Loren is still alive. And in a related story, she still has a face.

I'm thinking that after the Oscars, maybe Mickey Rourke there could help Philip Seymour Hoffman knock over a liquor or something. They both seem to have the attire for it.

There's Jennifer Aniston and Tina Fey, both doing their very best Oscar impersonation. Is it just me or does Jennifer Aniston look scared to death? Either that or she's trying not to laugh because Sophia Loren's face just fell off.

Don't the lovely Sarah Jessica Parker and husband Matthew Broderick look so relaxed and oh-so comfortable? Yeah, not so much. What's up with that? I know it's Hollywood and all, but they're looking fake even for Hollywood. (Now, I'm not one for fashion tips or anything, but this isn't really fashion so much. When one is trying to have it appear as if one's cleavage is perky and taut (and thereby defying all laws of physics and/or gravity), one might want to examine one's cleavage in said outfit and decide of Cleavage One is so far away from Cleavage Two that you'd think there were magnetic forces in each one, pushing them as far away from each other as possible. If that is the case, please either consider making them seem closer together or just get over yourself. They're not even close to being in anything close to a natural position. I want to know how many tubes of Super Glue it took to get them up there. It looks like they're on an invisible shelf. She's practically pouring over the top and then there's absolutely nothing underneath. I found it quite comical.)

There was a theme at the Golden Globes of women wearing a gown that just seemed to blend right into their skin color. You couldn't tell where the dress ended and the person began. That unattractive motif made it's way to the Oscars via Jessica Biel, Evan Rachel Wood and the lovely Anne Hathaway. Ladies, could I have your attention for a moment? I'd like to introduce you to someone. Meet....THE SUN!!

It's nice to see Sean Penn and his lovely wife Robin Wright Penn together, especially since they had filed for divorce last year but then called it off. Note to Sean Penn: Look at her. I have no idea what your differences were or are, but for God's sake man, look at her! Whatever those differences may be (and again, look at her!), I'm sure they can be worked out if they haven't been already. Have you seen your wife? Have you seen you? My point. She's excellent.

What was Whoopi thinking? I'm thinking she should have changed her name to Whoops if she was going to wear that. (Is she having octuplets? What's with the tent?)

Beyonce and her "I'm an Oscar Mermaid" dress. Was there some sort of an 'Under the Sea' theme that I didn't know about this year?

Here's the not too heavy (despite the comments of some crazy and nearsighted fashion designer) Heidi Klum and her husband, Sea Otter.

Hey! How'd OctoMom get into the Oscars?!

Oh. Whoops. Sorry, Brad. My mistake. (Yeah, that chick could have had a million bucks worth of plastic surgery and she wouldn't come out looking half as good as stoic, plastic Angelina Jolie does.)

The Oscars! 2009! Thank you for playing! Can we go back to our recession now?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content