Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Don't Skype Naked

As I tend to rapidly lose faith in humanity a little more each day, here is a story that just drained me of any of the hope that I had left.  And lemme tell you, it wasn't a lot to begin with, but it's really saying something that it can all be zapped at once. 

What we have here is a man who is either one of two things.  He's either a genius or he has an unbelievable talent for finding the dumbest women out there in droves.  I don't understand these stories when they involve just a couple of women, but when they involve over 350 different women, then I'm completely confused. 

The man I'm talking about is named Karen "Gary" Kazaryan.  (OK, first of all, who names their male child Karen?  Maybe I should give the guy a break with a horrible name like that.)  And according to USAToday, he allegedly "...hacked into hundreds of social media and email accounts to coerce more than 350 women into showing him their naked bodies."  Wait. What now?  How many?? 

But wait!  There's more!  Here was his "ingenious" scheme that netted him 350 naked women:  He would hack hack into the women's social media accounts and then search their Facebook messages, emails and other files for nude or semi-nude pictures of them.  Who are these women who are keeping nude photos of themselves on Facebook??  That doesn't seem like the most appropriate place for nude photos of yourself, but that's just me.  But here's where it starts to get weird:  "He then posed as a friend, persuading them to strip while he watched via Skype, captured images of them, or both."  Dafuq?

You are dry shaving me that that worked.  Can someone explain to me how he managed to Skype with them without them realizing that he was not their friend?  Did he just cover up his webcam and say that his didn't work?  Did he sound just like whoever their friend was?  Because that seems like it would be key to this whole thing working.   Do this many women really make it a habit to get naked on Skype?  Am I the only one who thinks that this sounds like a bad idea from the beginning?  Friend or not, if you're Skyping with someone, they can take a screen shot of anything.  These people never considered that before getting undressed in front of a camera?  Apparently not.

The article goes on to say that "When the women discovered that Kazaryan was posing as a friend, he often blackmailed them with the nude photos he had fraudulently obtained to coerce more stripping, prosecutors said. In some cases, he's accused of posting the nude photos to the victims' Facebook pages."  See, now I have several more questions.  These dopes who were tricked into this in the first place, you're telling me that they eventually figured out what was going on?  I find that difficult to believe.  Oh, but if only they could have put those sleuthing skills to better use before disrobing for a total stranger on Skype.  And as far as the blackmailing, what say you just delete your Facebook account and not get naked again?  That seems like a better solution to me. Then again, I'm not taking off my clothes for someone who says that they're my friend on the Internet.  Sorry. 

It's the sheer number of women that fell for this that astonishes me.  350.  That's like one moron a day for almost an entire year (if you took two weeks of for Christmas break or something).  I'm really conflicted as to how much trouble this guy should be in.  On the one hand, he's obviously perverted.  But on the other hand, he wouldn't have been able to do any of this without an awful lot of help from each one of those morons.  Ok, the blackmail part is pretty bad and he should definitely get in trouble for that.  But the other stuff?  Eh. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 28, 2013

Nice Guns, Nancy

I ran across this picture today.  It's Ronald Reagan asking Frank Sinatra to stop dancing with Nancy Reagan.  Behold! 

Jesus, Nancy!  How 'bout them arms you got going on there?!  So it was "Say no to drugs", but "Say yes to guns"?  She's like the original Michelle Obama!  I mean, everyone talks about Michelle's arms, but 1980s Nancy Reagan looks like she could kick Michelle's ass in an arm wrestling competition.   Did Nancy spend her White House time working out her entire body? Or did she just focus on the top half and let the trickle-down theory take care of the rest.  (Good God.  I just made a joke about economic policy from the 1980s.  I don't know whether I should be proud of myself or ashamed.  I'm leaning toward ashamed.) 

And what is with Frank Sinatra's oh-so obvious toupee??  That thing is awful!  It's like a helmet.  A really bad helmet. I've never understood why celebrities who have a lot of money can end up looking so incredibly cheap.  Like the ones who get horrible plastic surgery.  Did you go to some cut rate surgeon?  You have gazillions of dollars.  Why do you look like a clown? Same thing with the toupee.  Come on, Frank.  Spring for something a little more flattering.  Spring for a hat.  Anything is better than that, really.

That's all I have for today.  Thirty year old photos and equally old commentary.  

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Dumb As A Stick

Kind of a slow news day today.  That's a good thing.  So here's a video of a dog who can't quite figure out how to get his stick through a gate.  He's so dumb that it's truly adorable.  And I love how he prances about at the end.  You know that in his head he's all "I did it!  I did it all by myself!"  (Either that or in his head he's just all "Woof...woof...stick...woof...woof.")  Behold! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 24, 2013

And So, What's Wrong With Her?

So get this.  We hear these stories from time to time.  A 15-year old kid kills his entire family.  It's gruesome and disgusting.  Do I need to go into more detail?  I don't think that I do.  It's pretty much just what it sounds like.  And of course, right now there are plenty of people all a-clammoring over what his motivation was.  (That is interspersed with other family members insisting that he was a "good kid".  Yeah, no he wasn't.  I'm going to base this solely on the fact that he gunned down both of his parents and three siblings (as if I'd have anything else to base it on), but that alone constitutes him not being a good kid.  Just saying.)  But I'd like to take a moment to look at another aspect of this story that, for some reason, seems to be getting no attention. 

According to the article over at the Huffington Post, the kid (who I am not going to name for the same reasons that I don't name any of the lunatics that do the mass shootings) apparently took a picture of his dead mother (dead because he had just killed her) and texted it to his girlfriend.  As if that isn't crazy enough, he then went over to the girlfriend's house and spent the day with her and her mother.  Wait a minute.  What now? 

While it is one sort of crazy to gun down your entire family when you are 15, it is an entirely different sort of crazy to be a teenager (or around that age) and have someone text you a picture of their dead mother and you don't do anything about it and instead choose to spend the entire day with that person and not mention to, say, your mother that the kid that's hanging around with them just killed at least one person!  What kind of a person is this girl?!  Good Lord.  How is that even possible?  I can't say for sure what my reaction would be if someone I really liked texted me a picture of their dead mother, but I am fairly certain that it would not include doing nothing!  How does one do nothing and just go about the day like it's no big deal?!  

I don't know that the girl needs to be necessarily charged with a bunch of stuff, but I'm thinking that something is probably appropriate.  You kinda gotta know that if someone texts you a picture of a dead person, you need to say something to someone lest you face some sort of a consequence.  It's odd how people pick and choose what parts of what story they want to focus on.  This is a huge thing in my mind, but I don't see it much in the reports about this incident, so I guess I'm the only one.  What a surprise. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

 Remember the cool little video that was nominated for an Oscar which depicted the making of guacamole out of inanimate objects?  Yeah, here's another one by the same people, only this time they're making spaghetti.  It's not as good as the guacamole one, but it's still pretty awesome.  And since I'm having one hell of a time writing things right now, it's going to have to do.  Behold! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 21, 2013

Lie Witness News - Inauguration Edition

The inauguration was today.  Of course, that didn't stop Jimmy Kimmel from asking people about it on Friday.  It also didn't stop people from commenting on ridiculous and made up details that were presented to them about the inauguration that hadn't happened yet.  Lie Witness News is what Kimmel calls this segment. He's onto something.  I'm not sure what, but something. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 20, 2013


My beloved SF 49ers are back in the Super Bowl after an eighteen year absence and after a whole lot of crappy football. I'm very excited. I am a little concerned that our coach, Jim Harbaugh, might have a heart attack before the big game is over if things don't go his way. Below is a clip of what will go down in history as a classic meltdown. It will also give psychiatrists something to study in the likely event that he is one day committed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 19, 2013


I don't know what my deal is.  I don't know if it's just writer's block or if I'm burnt out or if there really isn't anything overly compelling to mock in the news these days.  I don't get it.  But whatever it is, it's real and it's here.  So in lieu of nothing, here's a dog with a GoPro strapped to it. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 18, 2013

He Finally Admitted It

Lance Armstrong had a little sit down with Oprah and finally admitted that he doped in all seven of his Tour de France wins.  It was a welcome admission considering what a prick he has been about denying everything up until this point.  Seriously, he has been so freaking adamant about not cheating this entire time that it almost wasn't enough that he just simply answered "Yes" when asked if he had cheated.  I can't really explain it any more than that, but if you've seen him previously deny everything, you might understand what I'm talking about.  Below is a compilation of him being an arrogant a-hole time and time and time again.  Maybe that will help. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Whose Guns? All Your Guns

With all of the talk about gun control and whose guns are going to get taken away and if the Second Amendment is getting trampled on, I think it's time for a little Jimmy Kimmel to lighten the load just a bit.  Here is a silly little commercial that he came up with.  I find it particularly amusing due to the context that it ends up being in.  Because if there is one thing that folks love to do with issues like guns, it's ignore context.  Behold! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

23 Orders Of Confusion

OK, so today President Barry signed a bunch  of executive orders regarding gun violence. This was in response to the horror that took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT last month.  He (and a lot of other people) keep saying that if we can do something that will keep just one child safe, then we should do it.  I kind of find that statement to be a bit overreaching, but I understand the sentiment behind it.  So since this is in response to a school shooting, I'm going to go ahead and assume that these measures are an attempt to prevent future school shootings.  Fair enough?  OK, then let's look at these and see if they have any relevance at all to what went on at Sandy Hook or if they seem to be more of a feel good measure that will let people brush their hands together and say "That's that!"  Here we go: 

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.  (I'm sure that's a good idea, but it wouldn't have helped.  The shooter took guns from his mother's house.)

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.  (Again, a fine idea, but wouldn't have helped.)

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.  (It isn't clear to me what this means, but since there was not a background check involved when the shooter got his guns, this wouldn't have helped.)

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.  (I like the idea of people not slipping through the cracks.  But again, how would that have prevented Sandy Hook?)

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.  (This has absolutely no relevance to the Sandy Hook tragedy.)

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.  (Ooohh!  A published letter!  But he didn't buy his guns.  He got them from his mother's house.)

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.  (What is that going to cost me?!  This is just a feel good measure.  I have a hard time believing that if the shooter in Newtown just knew about safe and responsible gun ownership that it would have made a difference in his decision making process.)

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).  (Completely irrelevant to what this is in response to.) 

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.  (We don't do this already?!)

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.  (We don't do this already?!)

11. Nominate an ATF director.  (We don't have one of these already?!  With as much stuff as ATF is involved in, there's NO director?  Great.)

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.  (Sandy Hook had measures in place.  They had plans.  They even took precautions ahead of time.  But I guess it couldn't hurt.)

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.  (This sounds lovely, but it means nothing.  Prosecute gun crime?  Uh, I'm pretty sure we do.  And if we don't, then what the hell?!)

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.  (As if there is going to be A cause and A cure.  Why are we dragging the CDC into this?!)

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.  (This sounds like something that responsible gun owners would be interested in.  This does not sound like something irresponsible gun owners would be interested in.  You tell me which of those groups is going to be more likely to shoot up a school.)

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.  (I hate this.  It is none of my doctor's business whether or not I have a gun in my home.  I do not want health care providers collecting my personal information for the government.  My doctor can ask me all he wants, I will refuse to answer.  I suggest you do the same.)

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.  (As a former health care provider, I'm pretty sure that we're aware of that.  But go ahead and write your letter.  Still wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook.)

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.  (Incentives like what?  I'm not necessarily against this.  It might help.  Hey!  We found one!) 

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.  (How did churches get lumped into this?  What does this even mean?)

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.  (Another letter?  Does President Barry need a pen pal or something?  What do the scope of mental health services have to do with this?  I agree that we need more mental health funding and availability, but I'm not sure how clarifying the limits does anything.  It certainly wouldn't have helped at Sandy Hook.)

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.  (I don't even know what this means.  I don't know that essential health benefits would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooter from doing what he did, however.)

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.  (Again, I don't even know what this means.  Finalize?  Are they in the works?  I don't think that they are.  Then again, I don't know what they are, so it's hard to say.  I will say that it wouldn't have helped the situation that instigated all of this.)

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretary Sebelius.  (Does he think that there isn't already a national dialogue about this?  It's all I've heard about for the last month.  I'm pretty sure we've got that one covered, but thanks.  Oh, and by the way, how would that have prevented anything?  Yeah, it wouldn't have.  That's what I thought.)

So where are we?  Exactly where we were before, only this time we have twenty three executive orders.  And one final note on this.  President Barry made his little speech and signed all of these in front of a bunch of token children.  Look, if you're going to stand up there and talk about shootings in elementary schools and talk about children getting slaughtered, please, for the love of God, do NOT have a bunch of children sitting there to listen to you talk about such horrors.  Is that really necessary?  I don't think that it is!  That was weak.  Please don't drag children into this so that you can look good or whatever.  They don't need to be freaked out by the thought that maybe their school is a dangerous place to go every day. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Bad NFL Lip Reading

Football season is almost over.  And I love NFL football so much that it's a little bittersweet at this time of year.  It's been an awesome season, but I'm sad to see it come to an end.  What I'm not sad about is that this video was possible thanks to the current NFL season.  It's Bad NFL Lip Reading.  And it's just what it says that it is.  You won't be disappointed.  Behold! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 14, 2013

Just Educate Them

Let's talk just a little more about these beauty pageants like the Miss America or whatever it was the other night.  The questions that these women get asked are absolutely perplexing.  Not because they're difficult questions to answer, but because I can't imagine why in the world anyone would give a fat rat's ass about what Miss [Insert State Name Here] would have to say about any of them.  These are women who walk around in bikinis and high heels on purpose.  If you saw someone in your regular life wearing high heels whilst in a bikini, don't tell me you wouldn't think to yourself, "What the heck is wrong with that person?"  You certainly wouldn't go up to them and start asking them "deep" questions. 

But that's what they do at the Miss America pageant. And the answers that are given are almost always pandering to what they think that the most popular answer is at the time.  Let's illustrate that by looking at the almost inexplicable response that Miss New York gave to the question (asked by Sam Champion, a weatherman who is apparently also qualified for pageantry work as well as telling us that we might need to put on a jacket) "In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, there has been a lot of talk about gun control.  One solution being proposed is an armed guard in every school. Do you think that would make our schools safer?”  Here is how Miss New York thinks we should save the children:  "I actually don’t. I don’t think the proper way to fight violence is with violence.  I think the proper way is to educate people about guns and the ways we can use them properly. You can lock them up, we can have gun safety classes. A longer waiting period before they are sold. The answer is not to fight violence with violence.” 

Naturally, that answer won her a round of polite applause.  Then again, from what I can tell, a contestant would practically have to fart her answer in Morse code to not get applause.  But I digress.  The point here is that we've all been missing the obvious!  Here we are debating the merits of video game violence and media coverage (Well, actually, I'm the only one who wants to talk about how these things are covered in the media because I think that the sensationalistic coverage of these mass shootings only encourages more mentally disturbed individuals to act in like manners, but still.) and guns and gun control and we missed the one action that will save us all!  We need to educate people about guns!  Of course!  If someone had just told that nutjob that going into an elementary school classroom and shooting 20 small children was wrong, then this entire problem could have been avoided!  Eureka!  We've found the densest person in the country! 

Educate people on how we can use guns properly.  That might be one of the stupider things that I have ever heard.  (I realize that I've tried to stay away from the word 'stupid' for as long as I've been writing this blog, but in this instance, it's the only word that I can come up with that accurately describes her statement.  'Moronic' just doesn't quite cut it.)  I'm sure that the parents and the relatives and the friends of everyone who was killed over there in Newtown will be relieved to know that if we just educate people on the proper ways to use guns (ie, don't kill people with them because that's not proper) then these things will never happen again.  Sure.  That's the solution.  Tell people not to do it.  Educate them on the proper use of guns.  OK then.  Miss California and her thinking that euthanasia is a vaccine is making her look like Einstein compared to Miss New York over here. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 13, 2013

It's Not A Vaccine

So did you see the Miss America pageant the other night?  Of course you didn't!  Because who is that for?  Who watches that anymore?  Who ever watched that in the first place?  I've never understood the concept or how all of the components fit together.  It's essentially a beauty contest, but yet they ask the contestants questions, make them showcase some sort of talent and then put them in a bikini and high heels (which is a talent in and of itself) and then vote using some sort of discretionary system that seems to be completely subjective!  What are the standards for voting?  What system are they using? Oh, that's right.  Their own opinions.  Whatever.  But the questions can get entertaining.  Rather, the answer can get entertaining.  Come on.  These are people who voluntarily participate in this lunacy.  You tell me how deep and profound their answers to allegedly important questions are actually going to be.  Not very.  Especially in the case of Miss California.  She thinks euthanasia is a vaccine.  I can't make this stuff up.  Behold! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 12, 2013

High Times At Skittles Headquarters

I don't follow the Twitter that much (but of course, you should absolutely follow me on there), but occasionally I'll check in and see what's going on.  I follow Skittles for some reason.  Yes, Skittles.  The delightfully chewy, fruity candy which asserts itself to taste like a rainbow even though I'm pretty sure that's not possible.  But I digress.  I don't know if Skittles are a go-to stoner food (for those of you not familiar with the term "stoner" it refers to a marijuana enthusiast), but I'm fairly certain the the folks who tweet for Skittles are constantly high.  Exhibit A: 

 Uh, yeah.  OK.  Where might this marshmallow homeworld BE exactly?  Actually, never mind.  I'm sure that the answer to that would make about as much sense as that does.  That is to say, none.  What else do we have?  Oh, right.  Exhibit B: 

I'm going to go with doubtful on that one.  I highly doubt that the heavily stoned Skittles eater is going to be able to do anything to an alligator other than stare and utter "Duuuuuuuddddddeee...."  What else?

 Evil aliens.  Right.  See now, if someone had said this to you, your first reaction would be "What are you smoking?"  That's still the correction reaction even though it's a tweet.  Then there's this: 

While a bearsharktopus does sound like a pretty cool evil villain (in a 1970s Japanese D movie sort of way), it's the sign of someone whose mind is slightly altered.  Just a bit.  You know.  From smoking all the pot.  It's the only way to explain this: 
OK, that's pretty funny!  Good one.  See, it's sort of a play on words.  When they say that ostriches can't fly, they don't mean on planes.  They mean literally.  That's why it's funny.  Also, never try to dissect humor.  It's about as funny as what I just did there.   And finally...

 Moustaches for the sky?  Gay moustaches, maybe.  Or maybe just high moustaches.  Probably high.  Definitely high. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 11, 2013

She's Going To Be Just Fine

Remember the other day when Brent Musberger "victimized" poor Miss Alabama during his BCS broadcast commentary by mentioning how absolutely breathtaking she was?  And remember how ESPN apologized for his "insensitive" remarks? (Or maybe they were "inappropriate".  Sometimes, I get the specifics of all of this dumbassery mixed up.)  Well, hey, guess what all of that attention ended up doing to the poor, poor victim?  That's right.  She's going to be in Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue.  Oh, but please, don't comment about her looks!  That might only serve to cause the poor woman further trauma. 

Does anyone who was making a big deal about this see how absolutely ridiculous it was at the time and still is now?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Brent Musberger tastefully commenting on this woman's beautiful appearance was likely one of the best things that has ever happened to her.  She'll end up being in Sports Illustrated.  She'll end up doing other magazine photo shoots.  And then she'll probably end up with a gig on some news station as an entertainment reporter.  Or maybe she just guests on Entertainment Tonight or something like that.  See, because while we act like the most puritanical society out there (as indicated by the fact that we are still hearing about Janet Jackson's nipple almost nine years ago when it was shown for 9/64ths of a second), we really love us some scantily clad, good looking people giving us the weather or the latest on Hollywood celebrities.  She's hardly the "victim" that people made her out to be.  God, I hate the media.  

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Fresh Guacamole

So Oscar nominations were announced today.  I don't know how much we're supposed to actually care about this, but if you base it on all of the coverage that it gets, I'd have to gather that we're supposed to care quite a bit.  But I just don't.  It's a bunch of narcissists all patting each other on the back for their "accomplishments" for which they are grossly overpaid.  Great, you made a movie.  Yes, some a much, much better than others.  But that's how most things in life go.  Do we really need a three hour award ceremony with an awkward host and a memorial segment for those things?  Not really.  And we don't really need them for movies, but here we are. 

They actually have a category for short animation films.  And by short, I mean short.  The one below is only 1:45 long, but it is super cool.  I hope it wins.  It's called Fresh Guacamole and it's by PES.  (I don't know if that's a person or people or a group or what.  I'm just going with PES because that's what it says on the You Tube.)  I like how things that are diced are actually dice.  Get it?  Yeah, you do!  Behold! 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

First Fakeroversy Of 2013

Hey, it's only January 9th and we're already well into our first fakeroversy of 2013!  I'd like to think that it's some sort of record, but we're such a silly people that I'm pretty sure it isn't.  None the less, this one is still fairly amusing.  Apparently, we're supposed to feign shock and outrage when a sports commentator compliments a woman's appearance during a football broadcast.  We're also supposed to keep up that facade when the woman in question is extremely stunning.  Oh, and did I mention that she won Miss Alabama?  Yeah, she's a beauty pageant winner.  But God forbid if you comment about her looks!  This is so ridiculous.  Let me catch you up to speed. 

During the BCS National Championship Game (that's college football for you non-sports folks out there), the camera panned to a one Katherine Webb.  Ms. Webb is the girlfriend of the Alabama quarterback, a one AJ McCarron.  (No word on what he looks like.)  Ms. Webb is quite attractive.  Pretty close to breathtaking.  And as previously mentioned, she was Miss Alabama, so I'm sure that she's used to being noted for her good looks.  So Brent Musberger is doing the announcing on the game and the camera pans to her.  Here is what he said about the lovely (and I do mean lovely) Miss Webb:

"Now, when you're a quarterback at Alabama, you see that lovely lady there?  She does go to Auburn.  I will admit that.  But she's also Miss Alabama and that's AJ McCarron's girlfriend.  OK?  And right there on the right is Dee Dee Bonner.  That's AJ's mother.  Wow.  You quarterbacks.  You get all the good looking women.  That's a beautiful woman.  So if you're a youngster in Alabama, start getting the football out and throw it around the backyard with Pop!" 

That's it.  That's what he said.  He didn't say it in a lecherous way.  He didn't say it in an old man creepy sort of way.  (Musberger is 73 if that makes any difference to you.  And it shouldn't.)  It was very complimentary.  It's certainly not anything that I'm sure she isn't used to.  She was in a beauty pageant for cryin' out loud!  She walked around on a stage in front of hundreds (It can't be more than hundreds, right?  Are there still hundreds of people watching beauty pageants?  Why are those still a thing?) people wearing nothing but a bikini and heels!  And no one is supposed to ever mention that she's good looking?!  Look at the woman!  LOOK AT HER! 

Shortly after the non-controversial remarks were uttered, ESPN felt the need to (wait for it) apologize.  That's right.  Apologize.  I'm still not sure what they were apologizing for, but here's what they said:  We always try to capture interesting storylines and the relationship between an Auburn grad who is Miss Alabama and the current Alabama quarterback certainly met that test.  However, we apologize that the commentary in this instance went too far and Brent understands that.”

Does Brent really understand that?  Because I don't know how he possibly could because it doesn't make any sense!  But who am I?  I'm certainly not a beauty queen sitting in the stands at the BCS Championship getting complimented by Brent Musberger.  No, I'm not.  So maybe we should hear from the incredibly beautiful woman herself.  Whilst on the Today show, here is what she had to say to that little weasel Matt Lauer when he asked her about it.  She said:  "I think the media has been really unfair to (Musberger).  If he would’ve said something along the line that we were hot or sexy or made any derogatory statements like that, I think that would’ve been a little bit different, but the fact that he said that we were beautiful and gorgeous, I don’t see why any woman wouldn’t be flattered by that."  She went on to say "I don’t think (an apology) was needed, honestly.  Of course, I appreciate it, but at the same time, I don’t think that I needed an apology.’’" 

Oh, God.  So she's good looking AND reasonable!  Holy canoli.  AJ, you are a lucky man!  But back to the fakeroversy.  So, the person who is allegedly the "victim" can come out and say that there wasn't anything wrong with what happened and people still want to make a big deal out of it?!  We are a weird, weird culture over here.  We are a society that really praises the attractive.  They are definitely held in a higher esteem than others.  It's just how it is.  But God forbid if anyone actually come out and say something about someone's looks in an arena that isn't about good looks!  If that happens, suddenly we're this virginal, prudish society that believes everyone should lead the lives of monks and nuns!  Which one is it?!  Get over yourself, ESPN.  Get over yourself everyone who thinks that this is a big deal.  She's hot.  Just stare at her for a while and let her be hot.  Works for me. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

That Guy Is Crazy

OK, so the guy who shot up all of those people at the theater in Aurora, CO has been in court the past couple of days while evidence is presented so that the judge can decide if there's just cause for this thing to go to trial.  I, unlike every other news source out there, will not be naming the nutjob who did this for a variety of reasons, but the main one is that I don't want his name out there anymore than it already is.  Does he need any more notoriety?  I don't think that he does.  Yet I keep seeing his name.  Funny how I see none of the names of the victims.  Good job, media.  Are you going to continue to cover this case in a ridiculous fashion?  Of course you are.  Allow me to point out the errors of your ways. 

I'll start with ABC News.  This is actually what their report on the story says:  "(Name redacted by me because I'm the only one with enough sense to do so), 25, displayed the bizarre behavior once he was in custody and taken to Aurora police headquarters after the shooting that left 12 people dead and dozens injured, the lead investigator in the case testified today."  Once is was in custody he displayed "the bizarre behavior"?!  In custody?!  I don't know about you, but I kind of think that dressing up in battle gear and blowing away a bunch of people and injuring scores of others at a screening of a Batman movie in a theater is displaying pretty bizarre behavior.  ABC News feels the need to differentiate bizarre behavior at police headquarters with the behaviors that got him to police headquarters in the first place??  It all seems pretty bizarre to me. 

Then there's NBC News. Their report includes inane details such as "(Name again redacted by me because I'm still the only one with enough sense to do so) bought his ticket, through Fandango, 12 days before the opening of the Batman flick “The Dark Knight Rises,” police testified, though it emerged that he was supposed to see it in Theater No. 8, not No. 9 where the ambush took place"  What does this have to do with anything?  Am I supposed to be suspicious of anyone who uses Fandango?  And am I now supposed to be concerned that not only is he a murderous lunatic, but he also is incapable of following directions because he went into Theater Number 9 instead of Theater Number 8?  Would it have been any less tragic if he had gone into the correct theater that appeared on his ticket that was purchased from Fandango?  Who gives a crap?! 

But here's my favorite part that I've read a variation of in every story that I've read about this subject.  In regard to the suspect's demeanor at this hearing.  The articles keep saying the he shows no emotion when the details about what happened are testified about.  They keep reporting that he just stares straight ahead and refuses to acknowledge any of the victims or their families that are in the courtroom.  Really?!  You don't say?!  So, a psychopathic murderer isn't showing any empathy for what he's done?  You're kidding?!  Of course he isn't!  And what if he was?  What if he turned around and said to one of the parents of someone that he killed, "Hey, sorry about your kid, man.  You know, I, uh, I'm kinda crazy."  Then what?  Would that make it better?  No, of course not.

But the point here is that once again, the media and the public seem to be reluctant to deem someone to be crazy.  And this guy isn't just regular crazy.  This guy is freaking nuts.  He might be a whole new kind of crazy.  All I know is that there is way too much focus on what he did before he killed everyone and not enough acceptance of his obvious mental illness.  Shouldn't the media be taking a closer look at what it takes for someone to be deemed not fit to stand trial and spending less time wondering why he doesn't show any emotion in court?  Of course they should.  But again, I think that people are too afraid of the intangibility of mental illness to appropriately address it at this time.  Maybe some day.  Maybe some day we'll be OK with just crazy being a reason for horrible things that happen.  Maybe. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 7, 2013

What's On A Cruise Ship?

I've never been on a cruise ship.  I'm not sure that I need to or that I want to.  Maybe I just need a little bit more information about what goes on when you're on one.  I mean, I see the commercials and from what I can tell, it's a really big boat (obviously) with a pool and a waterslide (complete with lots of children).  The skies never have clouds and everyone looks happy with their tropical drinks with large fruit wedges on the rims.  Oh, and there seems to be food.  Other than that though, it's hard to say if there's much more.  That's where this guy comes in.  The guy in the video below gives me more of a glimpse of a cruise ship than I have ever had before.  Why don't the cruise companies hire this guy, minus his profanities (or maybe not), to sell their product?  I'm assuming that it does still need selling because I see cruise commercials all the freaking time when the weather outside isn't frightful.  Seriously, I had no idea that half of the stuff that this guy pointed out to me even existed on the ships.  They look like there's a whole lot more to do than just a waterslide.  Check it out.  You might learn something about cruises! If it doesn't load, click here.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 6, 2013

Florida, Of Course

Get this:  In Florida (naturally), there was this couple who had apparently woken up to find their 16-month old child missing and so they called the police.  Turns out that they had just been passed out drunk and when a relative came over and found them completely boozed up and unresponsive, said relative took the child home where the adults there were presumably awake and sober.  Seems reasonable.  Only thing is that the relative didn't leave a note or anything.  (Always leave a note if you're going to remove an infant from its home without telling the owners of the infant first!)  Thus, when the partying parents came to, they were missing a baby.  But that's not what this story is about.  What this story is about is what happened after the cops showed up to figure out where the kid went. 

See, the cops didn't immediately find the baby.  What they did find, however, were animals.  Lots of animals.  Hundreds of animals.  Oh, did I say hundreds?  I mean hundreds and hundreds.  According to the Seattle Times, "Deputies said they found hundreds of snakes, lizards, rats, birds and rabbits being kept in deplorable conditions inside the house."  You know why the conditions were deplorable?  Because there were hundreds of snakes, lizards, rats, birds and rabbits.  That is correct!  I don't think that with over three hundred of those animals that you could have anything other than deplorable conditions!  They certainly wouldn't be plorable conditions. 

The article then just focuses on the idiotic and the mundane when it says "They said the animals were being bred and sold without the proper licensing."  Really?!  I never would have guessed that there wasn't some sort of proper licensing going on in a home with hundreds of creatures living in it!  It shocks the conscience!  Oh, wait.  No, it doesn't.  But that aside, would it have been any better if there had been proper licensing going on there?  Would it be any better for a house to have over three hundred animals in it if they were properly licensed?!  I can't imagine how it could be.  Look, owning three hundred of anything (other than maybe grains of rice) is stepping into crazy territory right there.  License or not, if you have more than a few animals in your house (and certainly into double, and obviously, triple digits) you have a problem. 

But this was my favorite part:  "...authorities...discovered 300 neglected animals in their home, including three dead rats and a dead hamster."  I don't really know what to do with that sentence and/or that information.  There were over three hundred animals and only four dead ones?  And the ones that were dead were typically animals that you would call an exterminator to come out and kill anyway.  I'm not so sure that I'm seeing the problem as being more with the four dead animals as opposed to the hundreds of live ones!  Why was that even included in the article?  I could see if there were maybe fifty dead cats or something like that all lying around.  But three rats and a hamster?  Doesn't seem hardly worth mentioning, really. 

The article wraps itself up with "It was not known if the couple have an attorney."  It might not be known to the person who wrote the article, but it's known to me!  Trust me, I have the feeling that these are the sort of people who are all too familiar with the courts and our legal system.  I have the feeling that they've needed the services of an attorney at least once before their unlicensed animal sanctuary was discovered.  These are people who passed out, stone cold drunk, and left their 16-month old attended to by rodents.  Trust me.  They have an attorney, all right. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Resolutions That Lower The Bar

I had to go to Walmart today.  I am not a fan of the Walmart.  I prefer the Target.  Target is just cleaner and more English speaking-er.  And it's easier to find things.  It's just nicer.  I'm good with paying the extra ten cents per item or whatever the price difference is if I can talk to people that speak the same language as me and if I don't have to see dirty diapers in the parking lot.  Small price to pay if you're asking me. 

And today, I was greeted by this lovely bin of low priced merchandise with a message to the usual Walmart patrons.  Behold! 

Um, OK.  Sooooo...what exactly does Walmart think that its shoppers are resolving to do this year?  Be clean?!  That's a resolution for those folks?  Oh, yeah, I guess it is.  Not that they couldn't use a little cleaning up or anything.  A lot of them absolutely could!  But really, Walmart?  That's a pretty low standard you're setting there.  It's also a rather high expectation by posting the oral care products over there.  How many teeth do you think these people actually have?  Have you not wandered around your own store?  There aren't a whole lot of folks with full sets of chiclets wandering around.  I'm just sayin'.  Way to lower the bar, Walmart.  Just when I thought that you alone were the bottom of the barrel, you found a way to dig just a little deeper.  Congratulations.  Oh, and happy new year, I guess. 


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Friday, January 4, 2013

Dogs Don't Need Shoes

You know what's cute?  Dogs with shoes.  You know what's funny?  Dogs trying to walk in shoes.  While I tend to agree with Monica from Friends (whose biggest pet peeve is "animals dressed like humans") and am not overly fond of beclothed or shod animals (that don't need shodding), I do enjoy videos of dogs that have been made to wear little shoes for some reason.  (I am totally assuming they didn't put them on themselves.)  It seems fairly obvious that they do not like the shoes, but at the same time, they don't appear that they are being harmed by said shoes, nor do they seem overly traumatized.  I think they're mostly wondering why the hell they're wearing shoes since they're a dog.  The point here is that it's cute to watch them try and walk.  Watch the video below and tell me you don't agree.  You're dead inside if you don't find it at least a little adorable. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, January 3, 2013

Nothing Good Ever Happens Past 10pm

Here's a new one.  Well, the stupidity isn't new, but the methodology by which it was expressed is fairly novel at this point.  What we have here is a teenager who wasn't real thrilled with her parents' rule that she be off of the Internet by 10pm every night.  So, you know, she did what you would expect.  She drugged her parents by putting prescription sleeping medication in their milkshakes to render them unconscious and allow her unlimited freedom to view cat videos (I'm assuming), unencumbered from silly rules and regulations. 

So she can't get on the Internet after 10pm at night (as if the Internet knows time or something) and the best that she can come up with is to drug her parents' milkshakes?  First of all, what kind of a family is this where the teenage daughter is making milkshakes for the parental units?  Is this what she always does?  Are they a milkshake family?  If I ever made milkshakes for my parents when I was a teenager, I'd have to guess that they would automatically assume that I drugged them or poisoned them or something.  (Hey, the teen years were rough, what can I say?!)

How dumb is this girl?  I mean, I know she's dumb enough to drug her parents to get online after 10pm (Livin' on the edge!), but I'd still like it to be measured somehow.  Was rendering them unconscious the best that she could come up with?  She never thought to just wait until they went to sleep under their own power and get on the Internet then?  What about having a spare Ehternet cord in case they take that away from her?  (Don't ask why I came up with that.)  What about (now bear with me here) just accepting their rule and realizing that whatever is on the Internet after 10pm will be there during the times that her parents open the Internet?!  What could have possibly been so enthralling that she resorted to pharmaceutical assault?  I can't imagine. 

I guess that when the parents woke up in the morning, they figured that something had gone wrong and apparently they were drug tested and something showed up.  The girl and her friend were "...arrested for conspiracy and willfully mingling a pharmaceutical into food".  She had a friend who went along with this?  So there are two complete morons in this story?  Not only did one of them think it was a good idea, the other one thought that it was also a good idea?  See, this is the thing that always amazes me about inherently bad ideas that people end up going through with.  There is almost always more than one person who thinks it's not a bad idea and they proceed as planned.  All it would take is for one person to say, "I don't know.  I don't think that it's a good idea to knock your parents out with drugs in their milkshakes.  Why don't you just wait until they fall asleep and get on the Internet and look at cats then?  Here, you can borrow my spare Ethernet cord."  But noooo.  That never happens and we end up with stories like this.  This isn't going to end well for anyone involved. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Problem Solved!

Briefly, here's what happened:  A bunch of paparazzi were following a car that they thought was Justin Bieber's.  OK, it was his car, but he wasn't driving it.  Only the paparazzi didn't know that.  Anyway, the car gets pulled over for something and the paparazzi guy, a chap by the name of Chris Guerra, pulls over also and gets out of his car in order to take better pictures of the Biebermobile.  (I guess because that's what pays money these days?  A picture of a car that might have a celebrity behind the wheel?  And we're supposed to be the world's superpower?  OK, then.)  Turns out that wasn't such a good idea because some other car on the freeway wasn't expecting a pedestrian with a camera who wasn't paying any attention to anything other than Justin Bieber's car without Justin Bieber in it and he got squarshed and killed. 

I realize that some of you might see this as tragic.  I'm not so sure that 'tragic' is exactly the word that I would use.  Paparazzi are ruthless, soulless individuals who make other people's life a nightmare with their intrusiveness.  I realize that being a celebrity is going to involve some loss of privacy.  (For the amount of money that celebrities are raking in, you wouldn't think that it would sting too much.)  You don't like being always recognized by people, get out of the spotlight.  No one is forcing you to be there.  However, I think that there need to be some limits.  NOT legally imposed limits.  Morally guided limits.  Limits followed by the sane.  Things like that.  You know, don't do things that could possibly get you killed.  Don't endanger the life of the person that you think that you're speeding after on the freeway.  Basic, basic limits.  But I digress. 

The thing is that Justin Bieber has released a statement on this incident which reads, in part, "Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders, and the photographers themselves."  Huh.  See, I don't look at it as something needing legislation.  I look at it as Darwin thinning the herd.  Really, it's one less paparazzi (Paparazzo?  Whatever.)  for him to worry about.  And is it really a tragedy?  Are things that are stupid tragic?  Maybe the stupidity in and of itself is tragic, but I don't always feel the tragedy vibe when it's for something completely ridiculous and pointless. 

And while I'm being perplexed over his statement, what's with the hodgepodge of potential victims that he threw together there?  Celebrities, I get that part.  Police officers?  Were they endangered?  Innocent public bystanders?  As opposed to innocent private bystanders?  I'm not even really sure what that is supposed to mean.  And photographers themselves?  HE was the one doing all of the stupid things!  Don't we already have an unwritten law that says "Don't step out into traffic on the freeway or else you're going to find yourself underneath the bumper of a Beamer"?  You can't legislate common sense. 

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!  I was going to make a post about some likely changes that are going to be going on around here, but when I saw the video of what Kathy Griffin was simulating doing to Anderson Cooper during their New Year's Eve coverage for CNN and I knew that my little changes could wait because this is good stuff.  Actually, it's not great.  It's about what you'd expect.  It's a giggling Anderson Cooper and a Kathy Griffin who really enjoys making people feel uncomfortable while engaging in some sort of a shenanigan that she hopes will elicit a bunch of talk about how controversial she is. I don't know if it's controversial (can it be controversial when you kind of expect this sort of thing from someone?), but it's kind of entertaining.  If it doesn't show below, try clicking here to watch a little of the silliness that helped usher in 2013.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content