Saturday, June 30, 2012

They Know They're Fat

I ran across this story in the LA Times yesterday.  Essentially, it says that "...a federal health advisory panel on Monday recommended that all obese adults receive intensive counseling".  You know, to rein in the fatness.  And really, it wouldn't be that big of a deal what the advisory panel said except that since Obamacare has been ruled to be constitutional (don't get me started), part of that whole deal "...requires adoption of certain recommendations from the task force, such as this one on obesity."

Now, I'm way more into preventative health care than I am just letting people's bodies go completely to hell and then trying to maintain some semblance of "normal" living through medication.  I'm not so sure how I feel about "intensive counseling", but that's kind of only because I don't know what in the hell that means.  But here's the part where I realized that it's likely going to be some utopian effort to try and change something that might not be changeable.  It's the part that said "...a recent study that found that more than half of all obese patients had never been told by their physician that they needed to lose weight."

More than half of all obese patients?  Soooooo...someone is obese and because they were never told by a doctor that they needed to lose weight....that they what?  They didn't know that they were obese?  They didn't know that it's not normal to wheeze and gasp for air every few steps?  They didn't know that using their Fry Daddy for all three meals each day (and snacks) was a bad idea?  Because no one TOLD them they needed to lose weight, they just assumed that they didn't?  Is that what I am supposed to take from that?  Or am I supposed to be blaming the physician for the fatness of the patient?  Either way, no matter which answer I get to that question, it's not good.

Since when did we need to be told everything to do?  I understand giving people nutritional counseling, I suppose.  It can get a little complicated at times if you're really trying to improve your health.  But if you're obese, I'm pretty sure that you can figure out why you're obese without someone telling you.  And I'm also going to find it difficult to believe that an obese individual doesn't know that it's not good for them to be obese.  Do you really think that an obese person can't figure out that they (most likely) would lose some weight if they ate less? 

And please do not email me your stories of obese individuals that you know or are related to and tell me all about their "thyroid problem" or their other metabolic condition that prevents them from losing weight.  Even IF that was the reason that those particular individuals are obese, those people make up such a small percentage that it isn't even worth discussing.  (It's funny how all of those thyroid folks eat fast food and Ding Dongs all the time, isn't it?  Must be part of their "condition".  Go figure.)    Also please refrain from the emails and comments telling me that I must hate fat people.  I don't.  What I hate is people unwilling to take responsibility for anything that they do to themselves and then blaming the government or someone else for their "misfortune".  Granted, I hate the government enabling those people more than I hate the unwillingness of the people in the first place.  But I gotta focus on something.  And right now, my focus in on the government thinking it can fix things that it can't.  Good Lord, we're doomed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, June 29, 2012

Where Are His Pants?

I ran across the cartoon below today.  While I'm a little tired of the whole "From Penn State to the State Pen" witticism, I thought that this cartoon was interesting only in the sense that the artist made it look like Sandusky isn't wearing any pants!  I can't imagine that this was on purpose, but come on!  Doesn't it look like he's pantless?!  You know it does. Behold! 

And again, I realize that it's not a misrepresentation of anything that went on, it's just weird. And kinda funny. That's all I've got.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 28, 2012


If I were a lawyer (and I think that we can all breathe a sigh of relief that I am not), I think that I could help this woman that was arrested in Florida (of course) the other day.  I'm pretty sure that I could get her off on a fairly glaring, yet rather subtle, technicality.  See if you follow me here. 

What we have is a 400-pound woman, a one 52-year old Patricia McCollum, who was sitting at a bus stop in Fort Lauderdale.  She allegedly decided that she needed to change clothes, perhaps to something more summery as the seasons have changed, and felt that the best place to do so was right there at the bus stop.  She is currently sans home, so I guess that changing right in the middle of everything was the best that she felt that she could do?  I don't know.  Me, I'm thinking, what's the rush?  Wait until it's dark outside before you go off doing something like that.  Find someplace besides a bus stop for cryin' out loud.  Other people sit on that thing.  I'm pretty sure they don't want someone's bare arse on it.  But I digress. 

So you've got a naked, homeless, 400 pounder at a bus stop.  Naturally, she got arrested.  The charge?  According to UPI, she was charged with "...exposure of sexual organs in public".  Hold it.  Wait just a minute there.  Exposure of sexual organs?  For real?  Is that even possible with a 400-pound woman sitting on a bus bench?  I'm not so sure that it is!  I'm not so sure that would be possible without some sort of a series of levers and pulleys in order for things to be exposed.  400 pounds is a whole lotta woman.  And while she may not have been clothed, I'm going to go ahead and guess that her sexual organs were not exposed to anyone (and probably haven't been for quite some time).  

I realize it might not be the best defense anyone has ever come up with, but it certainly can't be the worst one either.  And really, the solution to things like this is to simply not change your clothes in public no matter how much you weigh.  But I'm thinking that if someone weighs 400 pounds and is naked in public, you're going to have to come up with something a little bit more applicable than "exposure of sexual organs in public"  because that simply didn't happen.  Naked or not, it didn't happen.  

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

I Do(nate)

Let's say that you have a birthday or a wedding or even an anniversary coming up in the near future.  And let's say that you want to make sure to really irritate all of your potential guests and possibly sever relationships with them for quite some time.  Well have I got the solution for YOU!  Now, for what I'm going to presume is a limited time, you can sign up for the Obama Event Registry and instruct your would-be guests to donate to his campaign in lieu of getting you a gift!  Doesn't that sound great?!  And by 'great', I mean 'really freaking weird'. 

I seriously thought that this was just some sort of an Internet rumor when I first read about it.  But no, it's right over yonder at  It simply (while ignoring the weirdness of it all) says: "Got a birthday, anniversary, or wedding coming up? Let your friends know how important this election is to you—register with Obama 2012, and ask for a donation in lieu of a gift. It’s a great way to support the President on your big day. Plus, it’s a gift that we can all appreciate—and goes a lot further than a gravy bowl. Setting up and sharing your registry page is easy—so get started today"  I'm not so sure that donating to his campaign is going to get you more than you'd get out of a gravy...bowl?  Isn't it a gravy boat?  What the what is a gravy bowl?  Never mind.  I digress.  (But I'm pretty sure it's boat, not bowl.) 

I'm going to go right ahead and say that this is pretty tacky.  How the Obama campaign can even think to ask to be a gift recipient for someone's special occasion is beyond me.  I realize that people sometimes choose a charity or an organization that they'd prefer that people donate to instead of giving a gift.  These people I collectively think of as saps (provided it isn't for a funeral).  But to just come right out and ask that people consider collecting money, cleverly disguised as a gift, for your campaign is just flat out weird.  It kind of has the slight stench of desperation as well. 

Here's the main reason why I think it's just a bizarre thought:  It seems to presume that every single one of your friends that  you would even consider inviting to such an important life event has the same political affiliation that you do.  What a great way to create a huge divide between yourself and your friends with different political views than yourself!  Is the Obama campaign so narrow minded that they think that everyone only has a group of friends and acquaintances that think the exact same way that they do?  Good Lord, could you imagine bringing up something like this at Thanksgiving dinner?  I'm sure that your older and more conservative relatives will just relish in joy of your requesting to make a donation to the opposite of their beliefs.  Because who doesn't like good old fashioned political talk at a wedding?! 

Why stop at just birthdays and weddings and anniversaries?  Why not include graduations in that mix as well?  Oh, and in lieu of having flowers sent to a funeral, how about you just instruct them to donate to his campaign instead?  And for God's sake, don't just stop at your own birthday.  Make sure that's what your children's friends do as well.  Besides, having all of those gifts around just clutters up the party space, right?  Riiiiight. Don't forget the Tooth Fairy!  Might as well include Santa and the Easter Bunny in all of that too, wouldn't you think? 

I would love to have statistics on how many soft heads out there actually participate in this particular campaign of giving or whatever you want to call it.  (I want to call it one of the weirdest and tackiest things ever, but that's just me.)  I've said it several times before, he's not a Muslim; he's a socialist.  Keep your eye on the ball, people.  He's coming after your gifts!  Run!  RUN!

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

It's Back

I think that I said a while back that if things like the "bling" in the picture below caught on that we were all doomed. 

Well, it's happened again.  Welcome to doom.  Behold! 

Since he has sunglasses on, I can't tell if it's the same guy or not.  It could be.  And if it is the same guy, I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse.  In a way, I suppose that it would be better because it's just one asshat who is out there with Bedazzled boxes of cereal draped around his neck.  And in case you were wondering, yes, his pants are on backwards.  I guess he's trying to make a Kriss Kross komeback or something. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 25, 2012

Always Wear Sunscreen

Stories like this one make me want to strangle someone.  What we have here is a couple of kids who were at school and they went on a field trip.  They were outside for five hours, but the children were not allowed to put on sunscreen.  Why not?  Because according to either the "school policy" or the "statewide law" (it's a little unclear as to which means of asshattery was involved her) "...teachers are not allowed to apply sunscreen to students and students can only apply it to themselves if they have a doctor's note."  What the actual eff is going on over there? 

According to the Huffington Post, a one Jesse Michener of Washington had two of her children come home from a school field day with sunburns that were so bad that they "hurt to look at".  After seeing pictures of the kids, I'm going to have to agree with that assessment.  Behold!


The kid on the left looks just miserable.  Not that the kid on the right has fared any better.  But holy canoli, is that a bright red sunburn she's got there.  Ms. Michener has documented this incident on her blog, "Life. Photographed." She says that after contacting the principal and asking why her children were not provided with sunscreen for the outing, the response "...centered around the the school inability to administer what they considered a prescription/medication (sunscreen) for liability reasons."  And this is where my head starts to explode.  See, if you buy something in the store and you don't need a (wait for it) prescription in order to purchase it, then it is by definition NOT a "prescription".  And since when is sunscreen considered to be a "medication"?!  It's sunscreen, for cryin' out loud!  But wait!  There's more! 
In the telling of this tale of administrative idiocy, she mentions that during said field trip, "...their teacher used sunscreen in her presence and that it was 'just for her'."  Oh, so the teacher knew enough to put sunscreen on herself, but wouldn't put any on the children for fear of some sort of liability repercussion?!  You have got to be kidding me?  How much of a sheeple is that teacher?  Good Lord.  Follow the policy to the letter of the law or else!  Never mind whether or not it's an asinine rule that will do more harm that good!  That's what it says, so God forbid if you actually do some thinking on your own and do something about it!  Nope, just let those kids get massive sunburns and then you can sleep well at night knowing that you followed the ridiculous rule because that's what you are supposed to do!  Good job, moron.

Now, maybe you're sitting over there and I haven't quite incensed you just enough yet.  Maybe you're sitting there thinking, "Well, if they couldn't wear sunscreen, they should at least have worn a hat to keep the sun off of their faces."  You'd think that, wouldn't you?  But guess what?  No, really.  Go ahead and guess!  I'll wait.  Did you guess?  OK, if you guessed that hats are not allowed at school even on field trip days, step forward and claim your prize!  That's right.  They don't allow hats and they don't allow kids to use sunscreen unless they have a prescription and put it on themselves.  (Have you ever seen a little kid put on sunscreen?  Let's just say that they're not very good at it.  You know why?  Because they're little kids!  They're not good at much!  They haven't been around very long!)

As you can imagine, this received quite a bit of attention, mostly from Ms. Michener being angry as hell that she had stupid people in charge of her children during the day.  She actually received a call from the Director of Elementary Education in Tacoma Public Schools. According to her blog, "...a new law – just on the books since June 7 – allowed for districts to make their own distinctions about what is and isn’t allowed at school with regard to sunscreen and other over-the-counter medications."  And while all of that is fine and good, let's just back up a little bit.  At some point, I'm guessing that more than one person came up with the previous policy.  And more than one person had to have said, "Yeah, I think that's a good idea.  I think it's good that the kids need a prescription from a doctor in order to put on over the counter sunscreen.  And if they're out in the sun for an extended period of time and they don't have a prescription, I think it's a fabulous idea that they not be allowed to use any.  I completely agree with this policy.  Let's implement it immediately!"  And they DID.  Who ARE those people?  They need to be removed from their jobs because they are so concerned with "liability" that they can't DO their jobs effectively.  What sort of liability could their be with sunscreen?  Is the kid going to be too slippery for a little while?  I don't get it. 

People that are in positions of authority and decision making who only go by the rules in the book should not be in those positions.  It goes without saying that if something is going to be run by the rules in a book, then why bother having the person there in the first place?  Just follow the rules and things will be fine.  There's no need for personal intervention.  It's all right there in the book.  We are fast becoming an over-regulated society which is void of people who are able to think for themselves and on their own.  Couple that with a bunch of morons who make non-sensical rules and regulations in the first place and it's a recipe for the sort of disaster that Ms. Michener's small children got to experience first hand.  Doomed, I tell you.  We're doomed. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Guilty As Charged

As I'm sure that you know by now, that pig Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 counts of child sexual abuse that he was charged with.  That seems about right.  I just have a few final thoughts on this. 

I've been thinking about Sandusky's wife and whether or not she knew what had been going on for all of these years.  Naturally, she claims that she didn't know anything was happening, let alone happening in her own basement for years and years.  While I would like to believe her (as it sickens me to think that she really knew and just let it happen to all of those boys for so long), I'm having a hard time believing that she was the only one around him who was clueless.  Everyone else seemed to know and everyone else seemed to inexplicably keep their mouths shut.  I don't know that she was any different. 

But let's just assume for the sake of assuming that she didn't know.  Can someone explain to me how she could sit there through all of the testimonies of all of those victims and listen to the vile and atrocious acts that her husband committed against them and after hearing all of that, repeatedly, how could she still take the stand and testify in his defense?  How?!  Because even if she didn't know about it before then, she certainly knew about it after all of that.  Why on earth wouldn't she just say, "You clearly did it.  You're a sick, sick pervert and there is no way in hell that I'm getting up there and saying nice things about you."  Why wouldn't she do that?  Why would she instead get up there and sing his praises?  Why would any of the people that testified for the defense still agree to get up there in defense of him?  Shouldn't they all have been barfing in disgust after hearing those heartbreaking testimonies?  There are so many things so wrong on every single side of this case that it is simply unbelievable how people act in the face of sexual abuse.  Absolutely stunning.  And another example of how we're doomed. 

 Last I had heard, Sandusky was on suicide watch.  Perfect.  I'd love to watch him commit suicide.  Show me to my seat.  What's that?  It doesn't mean that?  Huh.  Well, that's unfortunate.  I'd really enjoy it if it was.  Bummer.  I guess that means I just have to wait until sentencing where I continue to hold out hope that this will be the very first sentence of death by stoning handed down in the United States.  In the meantime, I will take small pleasure in knowing that Sandusky is about to realize that showering with inmates is going to be an awful lot different than showering with young, helpless little boys.  A lot different. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Nice Hat

I saw this story over at ABC News, but it was linked within a different story that had absolutely nothing to do with it and it won't let me link directly to it.  Just take my word for what happened, OK?  Besides, the point I'm about to make is rather pedantic anyway.  What's new, right? 

There long and short of it is that an 87-year old woman (who also happens to be a grandmother) was arrested for selling cocaine.  She ended up getting 18 months in prison and it was implied that it was due to her age.  Whatever.  If you're dumb enough to be selling cocaine, I don't care how old you are when you get caught.  The point here is her mugshot. Behold! 

Nice.  What in the world is on her head?!  Is that a nightcap?  Is she a Looney Tunes characters? When was this picture taken?  Is this the late 1800s?  People still wear those?  For reals?  I only remember them being worn in Little House on the Prairie.  This was the best picture that I could find to back up that memory.  Behold! 

Ignoring the fact that Laura has it pulled up as if she might secretly be one of the Coneheads, it's essentially the same.  At least Half Pint wasn't selling drugs.  Maybe if this woman felt the need to emulate those from the 19th century, she could have noticed all of the not dealing of cocaine that they did and gone with that instead of the wacky hat.  Just a thought. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 21, 2012

This Is Why People Don't Come Forward

The Sandusky case has gone to the jury. I was looking for a different video when I stumbled upon this one. Holy crap. This woman is a danger to society. I appreciate wispy little Anderson Cooper sticking with his line of questioning and keeping just enough of an incredulous tone in his voice to get across that he thought she was nuts, while at the same time downplaying his disgust with her enough so that she would continue answering questions with her more than bizarre justified answers. This woman is exactly the sort of person who makes it terrifying for those who are sexually abused or assaulted to come forward and face their perpetrators. This woman is exactly the sort of person who allows these sort of horrible crimes to continue on and repeat themselves over and over because she is in too much denial to see the facts and to accept the truth. If you know this woman and you're ever sexually abused, don't expect her to help you. She will simply explain away all of the reasons why you're wrong and go about her business. Try not to throw anything at your monitor when you watch the video. If it doesn't play, try clicking here and watching it over at CNN.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Who Is This For?

Yesterday was the first day of summer.  Yes, I know that it used to be that today was the first day of summer.  I don't know when and why it changed, but I'm not a fan.  I like consistency.  Most consistency.  Certain sorts of consistent things I do not like.  Some of those things would include the sorts of stories that a lot of news outlets feel the need to be carrying when the temperature outside begins to increase.  That's right.  Stories about the heat AND what you need to do when it gets warmer.  Good Lord, who are those stories for? 

The thing I hate the most about the heat is when it reaches at least 100 degrees.  That's when the media damn near wets its collective self because it gets to report that the temperature is now in "triple digits".  You can't go an hour without hearing "triple digits" in one form or another.  It's just ridiculous.  Is 100 degrees much different from 99 degrees?  No.  It's not.  But just because you have to add an extra number, its reported as if you might burst into a ball of flames should you come in contact with heat that is in "triple digits".  Call me when we hit quadruple digits.  Now THAT would get my attention. 

Seriously though, who on earth are these broadcasts about tips to "deal with" elevated temperatures actually for?  Stay inside.  Drink lots of water.  Use a fan.  Who in the hell is that for?  Is there anyone out there who actually stays tuned to such banality and when it's over, thinks to themselves, "Well, that was really helpful.  I certainly am glad that they did that because otherwise, I would have had no clue as to what to do when it gets warm outside.  After all, it is four degrees warmer than it was last week.  I have no idea what I should do."  Who's perking up in their chair when they tease this feature?  Who is turning up the volume?  Who is making sure that everyone in the room stops talking so that they can fully absorb this valuable information about to be beset upon them by the sage-like newscasters?  Anyone?  Anyone? 

I have somehow managed for my entire life to make it to where I am now without anyone telling me, "Hey, you know, it's really hot outside, so here are a few things that you should do."  I'm serious!  And it's on almost every newscast.  It's astounding.  There can't be anyone that that is for, is there?  Who are you programmers at these media outlets who think that this is good idea?  I notice that you don't do something similar when it rains.  ("It's raining today.  That means water is falling from the sky.  If you just walk outside, you're going to get wet.  Here's Bob with some helpful tips on how to not get wet when it rains.  Bob...")  Why do they do it when it gets slightly warmer?  I don't know and I don't get it, but I wish they'd stop.  Now.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Dos And Don'ts Of Defending A Pedophile

I have a few more thoughts about the ongoing trial of "alleged" child molester and child rapist, Jerry Sandusky.  Again, I realize that the defense has to come up with something, anything, in order to try and get this guy off (no pun intended).  But I just find their particular lines of defense so incredibly ridiculous.  Granted, it could be because I think the guy is obviously guilty (not to mention that I also think that people at Penn State obviously knew about his disgusting endeavors and covered it up in order to not damage their prized football program), but it could also be because it's just lame. 

One angle that defense attorney Joe Amendola is taking is to imply that the guys who are asserting that Jerry Sandusky sexually abused them when they were small children  are simply doing it for financial gain.  I kind of think that if that were the case, there would be a hell of a lot more than the nine or ten men who have come forward.  And by the way, should he be found guilty, those guys absolutely should sue Penn State and him for as much as they can possibly get.  I'm not one for frivolous lawsuit filing, but this is hardly frivolous.  If you're going around and systematically and methodically sexually abusing small boys and then threatening them and scaring the ever living crap out of them if they were to tell, you deserve to have every single penny you currently have dispersed amongst your victims.  And if you're the sort of college whose employees help cover up a pervert like this, that college, as well as those particular employees, deserves to have its coffers bled dry as well. 

The other angle that Mr. Amendola is taking is to ask these defense witnesses if they ever saw anything inappropriate take place.  Of course they didn't!  These things don't happen out in public!  It's like if you accuse someone of being a pervert and their reply is, "I'm not a pervert."  Well, that's like the pervert motto!  Of course that's what you're going to say! 

Mr. Amendola even put Mr. Sandusky's wife, Dottie, on the stand yesterday.  Now, I don't know if Mrs. Sandusky knew what was going on and just turned a blind eye to the whole thing or if she was really kept in the dark all of these years.  But considering that it would seem that he was caught on at least two different occasions by a couple of people at Penn State, I'm going to go ahead and assume that those weren't the only two times that someone caught on to his whole act and chose not to say anything.  She was asked by prosecutor Joe McGettigan why the men might lie in making the accusations that they have made.  According to Fox News, that question "...appeared to stump her" and she answered "I don't know what it would be for," she said, with a slight shake of her head."  Of course you don't know what it would be for!  Because there is not a reason to lie about this!  You think that people are really going to perjure themselves and say that they were raped when they were little boys in the hopes of a possible financial settlement?  I don't think that's going to happen. 

For some reason, the defense also chose to put on the stand a one psychologist, Elliott Atkins, "...who told jurors he believes Jerry Sandusky has a personality disorder that might explain letters addressed to one of his accusers".  You know, I'm pretty sure that anyone who did the things that Mr. Sandusky is accused of absolutely has some sort of personality disorder.  That's a given!  And I don't know that a grown man writing what essentially amount to love letters to a young boy needs to be classified with some sort of official diagnosis.  You know, the term "freaking weird" is definitely underutilized in the legal field these days.  "Freaking weird" pretty much covers it (and does so quite well). 

Finally, if you're the defense attorney in this case and you're asked by reporters if you're going to put your alleged scumbag client on the stand, what say you don't act like some hot shot director who has just been asked about his latest upcoming project and respond with an almost playful, "Stay tuned!"  And one more tip:  If you're said attorney for said alleged scumbag and you feel the need to make a comment about how you think the proceedings have been going, what say you don't say that it's been like a soap opera?  And then when you're asked which soap opera (Seriously, reporters?  How lame are you for asking such a lame ass question?), please don't say "All My Children" when we're talking about the sexual abuse of young boys.  Good Lord, why do I even have to mention that?!  WHY?!

Word seems to be right now that the defense lawyers are leaning toward putting Sandusky on the stand.  I cannot possibly imagine how that would go down other than being a complete disaster, but I think that I'd like to find out.  The previous interviews that he did with reporters were some of the most incriminating things that I've ever seen.  That is one train wreck that I will absolutely enjoy watching.  The only thing that will be better than that is when he's finally convicted.  Oh, but how I hope they allow cameras in the courtroom for the verdict.  I would really like to see his face when he finally gets what has been coming to him for far too long.  Allegedly.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

THAT'S Your Defense?!

"Alleged" (Translation:  Damn near certain) pervert and child molester Jerry Sandusky has been on trial for the last week.  The prosecution rested after calling a string of young men with heartbreaking testimony about how Sandusky "allegedly" sexually abused them by a variety means, including those of oral and anal sex.  Yesterday, the defense got to take their swing at things and I'm having a hard time with their line of defense.  See if you feel the same way that I do about how they're going about defending his "allegedly" heinous actions. 

According to the fine folks at the Washington Post (one of the very few media outlets that I would love to work for), the defense called to the stand "...two former coaching colleagues who said that it was routine for adults and boys to shower together in large public locker rooms."  Uh-huh.  Before I continue, I'm just going to point out that the "allegations" indicate that Sandusky routinely sexually abused young boys.  Just because something is routine, doesn't make it OK!  If you're an adult and part of your "routine" is to shower with young boys (or young girls for that matter), I'm going to suggest you change your "routine".  Good Lord. 

The first to testify on Sandusky's behalf was a one Richard Anderson.  Mr. Anderson apparently had no problem sitting up there on the stand under oath where he "...vouched for the defendant’s “wonderful” reputation."  Yeah, his reputation hasn't been so "wonderful" since these "allegations" came out.  "Wonderful" isn't exactly a likely adjective when describing someone who has every indicator pointing at him being a vicious child molester and rapist.  That man has a lot of nerve standing up for this guy.  I'm not sure what his problem his, but he is not a good human being, I can tell you that right now. 

Mr. Anderson went on to say that he routinely saw Sandusky in the shower, naked, with young boys and that it happened all the time.  How is that a defense?!  Sure, Mr. Anderson said that he never saw anything inappropriate happen, but would anyone expect him to?!  It's not like Sandusky wanted an audience while he was doing the most unspeakable things you can think of to those young kids.  Verifying that he was often taking showers with young boys doesn't seem like the best way to go in my opinion!  I don't know about you, but I'd think that a better defense for this lowlife would be to not emphasize that he routinely showered completely naked with children.  But I guess that's just me because that is not what is currently happening. 

I guess the good thing about a defense as poorly thought out as the one that they seem to be going with is that it increases the already high (in my opinion) chance that this abhorrent individual and poor excuse for a human being is convicted.  If and when he is convicted, I'm going to go ahead and hold out hope that his punishment will include the first ever death by stoning in the United States.  A girl can dream, can't she?   

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 18, 2012

Revisiting Rodney

So Rodney King died yesterday.  I have to say that he made it longer than I thought that he would have.  The guy has a mess load of problems even before he had the holy snot beat out of him by a bunch of a-hole cops.  If you look at statistics for guys like Rodney (who apparently went by Glen most of the time), they don't usually make it to 47.  And really, he's lucky that he made it past that one night.  But now he's dead and as is the custom, people have spent a lot of time reflecting on the riots that took place and on the beating that he received.  I guess I won't try to be any different.  Here's the video of Rodney King getting the crap beat out of him. You know, he was pretty forgiving after all of this happened. Probably a hell of a lot more forgiving that I could ever be. Maybe we can all learn just a little bit from that. I can certainly think of at least one person who could use a pretty good lesson in forgiveness these days.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Exhausted? Again?

It's time for another Lindsay Lohan update!  And surprise, I'm not going to tell you that she's dead.  One of these days, I'm sure that I will.  But that day is not today.  Instead, I'm here to tell you that paramedics were called to her hotel room after she was 'non-responsive'.  But have no fear!  The story that she came up with is about what you'd expect.  That being highly unlikely and not very well thought out.  But she's still not dead, so there's that. 

Here's the scoop:  See, for some reason, some producer out there thought that tired and worn out looking Lindsay Lohan would be the perfect choice to play Elizabeth Taylor in some sort of movie.  I don't know exactly why that decision was made or who thought it was a good idea.  Let's just say that she wouldn't have been my first choice.  (She probably wouldn't have even been my last choice, but that's an entirely different blog post.  Sort of.)  And lately, they've been doing some filming.  This requires Lindsay to be there and to actually work.  But that didn't go so well the other night when she didn't answer her hotel room door and someone called the paramedics.  According to the article over at the Huffington Post, "Producers were concerned when she did not come out of her room".  (Translation:  We knocked.  No one answered.  Everyone assumed she was dead.  We were wrong.  This time.)

The paramedics came and went, but not before the story was all over the Internet about Lindsay being found unconscious in her room.  Thus, she needed to go into damage control mode so that people didn't start getting the wrong idea about her, of course!  (Can you imagine if people started thinking that she was on drugs or something?  The horror!)  Naturally, she did what anyone in her situation would do.  She took to Twitter to give her version of events.  As I'm sure you can imagine, anyone without a drug addled noggin may be able to find fault in her explanation.  Let's take a look.  Behold! 

Of course!  The old "exhaustion" excuse!  Why didn't I see that coming?!  Isn't that what they always say?  They were "exhausted" and that accounts for their odd behavior that no one else in the history of the world has ever displayed.  Wasn't she "exhausted" right before she plowed her car into a tree or something?  Probably.  But let's try to focus on the real gem of these tweets.  That being this part:  "After working 85 hours in 4 days".  Uh, does someone want to tell Lindsay that there are only 24 hours in a day?  And that 85 hours in 4 days would equate to about 21.25 hours per day?  Call me crazy (or call her crazy), but that seems, oh, excessive?  So, eleven hours of sleep in four days?  Doesn't she have a history with cocaine?  Doesn't cocaine keep you up for hours on end?  Meth does the same thing, right?  Yeah.  OK.  I'm not insinuating anything.  I'm just making a statement in the form of a question.  That's all I've got. 
I don't know what her deal was, but I'm pretty sure that she wasn't slaving away for 21.25 hours each and every one of those four days that she was working on a movie to portray a woman that she looks (and acts) nothing like.  And I'm not saying that she wasn't working at all.  I'm sure that she was.  I'm not even saying that she wasn't a little tired.  I'm sure that she was.  But I am saying that her explanation for these events qualifies as a work of fiction, and not a very good one at that.  Does Vegas have an over/under line on how long this chick is going to live?  I'll take 30 and the unders. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Who Talks Like This?

It's not like Mitt Romney has never run for President before.  Hell, it's not even like he's never run for office before.  He managed to get himself elected Governor of a small state, but I have no idea how.  Then again, the state was Massachusetts.  There's a lot of uppity folks there.  Maybe they are used to people who talk like Mitt does.  Check out the clip below.  Tell me if you have ever heard anyone use the terminology that Mitt uses when discussing the activities that a 7-foot tall man might be expected to participate in.  Ready, go!  

See what I mean?  Who talks like that?  Figured that he had to be "in sport"?  Singular?  Not plural, as in "sports"?  He seemed pretty astonished at the fact that he had met someone who was seven feet tall.  Maybe that's something that has never happened to him before and he was just overwhelmed by all of the tallness so that made him sound like some sort of robotic, British vaudeville performer. All I know is that I have never heard anyone refer to someone's athletic abilities as being "in sport".  What part of connecting with real people does he not quite understand, I wonder?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, June 15, 2012

What A Page Turner

I guess that if I'm going to continue reading the paper in the morning, I should maybe consider trying to liven it up a little bit.  After all, a good portion of what the newspaper has to offer me I've already read the night before online.  It's a little depressing.  I enjoy a newspaper.  This might be just what I need to put just a little bit of the enjoyment back into it. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 14, 2012

It's IN The Name!

In a story that shows just how uptight some people can actually be, we have two women who were arrested for exposing their breasts whilst on a public golf course.  Oh, did I mention that it was during what had been dubbed a "naked golf tournament"?  Yeah, it was.  And they were (wait for it) naked.  Go figure. 

According to The Telegraph, "...a "naked" golf tournament was taking place at the golf course."  Now, I haven't played golf in a number of years, so I don't know if this is a new thing that happens frequently or just at the Woodlands Golf Club in unincorporated Madison County outside Alton city limits in Missouri.  But I do know that if I heard that there was a naked golf tournament going on, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see naked golfers.  OK, I might be a little surprised that anyone would willingly participate in such an event, but if that's what it's supposed to be, I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it. 

But as I'm sure that you've probably guess by now, someone obviously did have a problem with it.  A one Capt. T. Mike Dixon "...said investigators responded to the golf course in reference to a complaint of women exposing their sexual organs while on the golf course."  Well, of COURSE they were!  It was a naked golf tournament!  It's right there in the name!  Naked!  He went on to say that "...when investigators arrived they observed  Alicia L. Binford, 43, and Shelly L. Lewis, 45, "lewdly exposing their breasts on the golf course property."  Again, right there in the name.  Naked!  Oooh.  Wait a minute.  Maybe it's bad naked.  You know, there's way more bad naked out there than there is good naked.  Maybe this was a double case of bad naked.  Let's look at their mugshots.  Behold! 

OK, those two ladies are not going to be bad naked.  No, they're going to be good naked.  The one on the left kind of looks like Jennifer Aniston, for cryin' out loud!  How would that be bad naked?!  And I know I'm going to be repeating myself here, but since they were arrested, I feel that it needs to be reiterated that it was a naked golf tournament!!  Do we have a more revealing mug shot?  We do?!  Bring it! 

Yeah, they were obviously the very, very good (or at least perfectly acceptable) sort of naked.  Seriously, if you're calling the cops because you've just seen one (or even better, both) of these women in public without a shirt and with their presumably glorious breasts bared for all to see, you need to check yourself.  Especially if it's during a naked golf tournament.  (Have I said that enough?  I'm not sure that I have considering that they were arrested.) We might need more of this sort of thing, not less! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content