One Picture is Worth Two Breasts

This photo from the Associated Press as "Michelle Obama highlights breast cancer awareness". Apparently she's doing so by having the two microphones appear in place of her breasts. Back to you.

Sphere: Related Content

Irrelevant Details In The News

You'd think I'd be used to this by now. But apparently I'm not. I say that because it still never ceases to amaze me when I read an article that is just a craptastic pile of blather masquerading as journalism. I continue to think the same thing. What in the hell are they thinking?

Today's example and case in point comes to us via the Erin Andrews story. Erin Andrews, if you're not already aware, is a very hot woman who holds a microphone emblazoned with the ESPN logo on it. I have no idea if she knows anything about sports and neither does anyone who has ever seen her or watched her do whatever it is that she does. That's because most people could care less what comes out of her mouth as long as whatever it is that she does, she does looking like that. Good Lord, they're she's beautiful. That microphone could have a swastika on it and folks would still tune in.

Erin Andrews was in the news more than she usually was last July when videos surface on the Internet (shocking, I know) of her getting undressed or being in a glorious state of undress in her hotel room. It appeared that the videos were taken without her knowledge (OK, now that one does shock me) via a reverse peephole dealio or something like that. I didn't know there was such a thing as a reverse peephole, nor did I know that you could utilize one at a hotel room of your choosing. Then again, I'm not a pervert. I swear.

But just the other day the person who is (allegedly) the pervert who took the videos was arrested. The pervert is allegedly a one 47-year old Michael David Barrett of Westmont, Illinois. According to a ridiculous article which was written by an AP Writer and was published on the ABC News website (among others), we learn that the pervert man "...kept his yard manicured, played golf and enjoyed cooking on a gas grill on a patio behind his $300,000 suburban Chicago town house." WHAT?!?!

Cooking? On a gas grill? A pervert?! Are you sure?? What's your source?! Was there chicken? Was he cooking chicken on the gas grill?! I'll be he was! All perverts cook chicken on gas grills! Seriously, how is any of that relevant to anything? I can't figure it out. Yet whenever there is some sort of tawdry goings on out there within all of the Internets, when those partaking in said tawdriness are uncovered (for all the world to shun and mock), the most meaningless details about them in relation to what they have done always seem to surface and I don't get it. What else do we have in this craptastic article?

Oh, good! It includes some of my favorite inexplicable and irrelevant statements in these situations. There's the "It's the apparently normal life of Michael David Barrett, a 47-year-old insurance company employee, that made his arrest for allegedly secretly videotaping Andrews nude so upsetting, his neighbors said Sunday." Wait. What?

So, they're saying that the guy didn't openly act like a pervert? THAT is what is so upsetting to them? The clandestine perversion? OH, well, of course then. That explains their dismay and disbelief. Oh, wait. No, it doesn't. In fact, that doesn't make any sense AT ALL!

Look, he was secretly taping a woman in her hotel room! Did these neighbors expect that he would be candid and open about his little hobby there? I don't think that he would! Why not? Well, for starters, it's right there in the name! SECRETLY taping! He wasn't blatantly opening taping women in their hotel rooms, was he? NO! Why not? Well, because you can usually only do that ONCE. But secretly, you can, theoretically do it more than once!

I'm going to try to go easy on some of the folks that were quoted in this story because they're senior citizens. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let them skate. We're supposed to be looking to our elders for wisdom and guidance. Tell you what. How about if we still do that, but we just look for it someplace other than these folks, OK? OK!

"I'm totally shocked," said David Wayne, 72, a retired corporate executive who lives several doors down from Barrett. "He looked absolutely normal — nothing distinguishing." I can't tell if he thinks that's a good thing or a bad thing. Is he upset that he didn't know he was living on the same street as a pervert? Would he have preferred that Mr. Barrett exhibit some distinguishing and, in all likelihood, disturbing behaviors? Is he surprised that he didn't know he was living on the same street as a pervert? Does he think that he knows everything about all of his other neighbors? He doesn't!

Why do they insist on interviewing the people that always live "several doors down"? First of all, how many is several? Three? Or twenty seven? I could tell you stuff about my neighbors on either side of me and the three directly across the street from me and my two neighbors. Other than that, I don't have much. Granted, my walled off compound does hamper the sociability factor, but that seems to be a reasonable radius within which to limit your interviews in a situation like this.

I still don't know what the interviewer was looking for by talking to these people. It's not like this guy was Phillip Garrido and had a prison camp full of women that he either kidnapped or fathered in his backyard. This is a guy who videotaped Erin Andrews in a state of undress. What sort of things could neighbors say that might indicate that anyone should have seen this coming? I can't think of a single thing.

Everyone that knows him says that he's a "regular guy". Of course they do, because what are the choices in this situation? You can be a "regular guy" or you can be "the perverted weirdo who is always trying to film women". Most guys who are the perverted weirdo, prefer not to be thought of that way. It enables them to hide their untoward activities and it enables them to do them more than once. (By the way, there were seven videos of Ms. Andrews, so that theory I just laid out there would seem to be true.)

Please. Please all news media reporters/journalists out there. Please stop trying to find something in nothing. Every single time a case like this arises and the neighbors are interviewed, it's always the same. He was a regular guy. We had no idea he was a serial killer. That's why I think that the safest place for anyone (anyone who is worried about being offed by a serial killer, that is) is right next door to the maniacs. Maniacs, as a general rule, seem to leave their neighbors alone. They'll stalk someone across state lines when they really could have spent that time stalking their neighbor and staring at them through the Venetian blinds from the comfort of their own perverted home. But that doesn't interest them, so you're safe that way. Serial killers - the best neighbors ever!

Sphere: Related Content

The List of Non Performing Performers

Just in case you've been waiting with baited breath for the announcement of who will be headlining or even just performing at the latest Michael Jackson tribute concert, you can breathe once again. The day of the announcement is finally here! Well, most of the announcement is finally here. Sort of. A little. Hey, he got up there and shouted out names, what more do you want?!

The oft procreating Jermaine Jackson had announced that he was organizing a tribute concert for his newly deceased brother (a la ingesting enough tranquilizers to sedate an elephant), Michael Jackson. He decided to hold the concert in Vienna (yes, that Vienna! The one that is NOT in the US.) at the Schoenbrunn Palace because, according to Jermaine, "Michael loved castles." Now, I don't necessarily know if when most people hear the name "Michael Jackson" that they automatically think of his love of castles. Unless "castles" is some sort of euphemism, in which case, Oh! Castles! I gotcha!

My theory on having Vienna for the location of the concert is that it will be more difficult to track down and trace all of the money pocketed from the fraud that Jermaine is about to perpetuate. Now I'm not saying there isn't going to be a concert. Granted, I have my doubts, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when one of the "important charities and worthy causes" that will directly benefit from this concert just happens to be "Jermaine’s own EARTH CARE FOUNDATION whose goal is to ease, as well as hopefully eliminate, the suffering of children around the world." The problem with that is the mere existence of the Earth Care Foundation is questionable at best. There doesn't seem to be any documentation of its existence other than in Jermaine's head. But apparently if you stick the name "Michael Jackson" on any product or service, people just go completely ape dung over it and rush to get in line for whatever it is. That's why Jermaine has been getting away with promoting this concert under a premise that I don't believe I can recall having been used before.

I'm calling the premise the "Wait and See Method". Also known as "Stalling". Commonly referred to by the person utilizing the method as "I hope I can pull this off and not get killed by the angry mob." When this concert was announced back in June (I don't even think that Jacko was cold yet before Jermaine was off to foreign lands, touring prospective castle venues), there wasn't even a lineup to announce along with the announcement. Then in August, a few details were leaked out. I use the term "details" extremely loosely, as it was still all a "maybe they will, maybe they won't" format when trying to nail down who would be performing at this thing other than Jermaine!

According to Entertainment Daily, Georg Kindel of World Awards Media GmbH was quoted in August as saying that "...Jermaine is assembling the lineup of about 10 “of the biggest artists of our time.” Uh-huh. When "Austrian media reported that Madonna, U2, Lionel Richie and Whitney Houston might be among the artists performing" and Kindel was asked to confirm that, he replied, "I don’t even know myself who will take the stage." Um, aren't you the promoter? Shouldn't you know things like that? I'm thinking you should!

But for the benefit of the doubt, let's say he's telling the truth (and he could very well be) and it's Jermaine who is doing all of the booking and negotiating or whatever it is that they do to organize these things. Tell me, since when has Jermaine Jackson had such pull with the "10 biggest artists of our time"? Just curious. I must have missed that part or something because I haven't heard the name "Jermaine Jackson" 10 times in the last ten years. Now suddenly everyone who is anyone in the music business is his BFF? I don't think they are!

When Madonna's people were asked to confirm that she would be performing, her people said that she was touring and would not be appearing at the castle. Whitney Houston's people said something similar, only without the touring part. Thus, they said "no" also. So why would anyone be planning a huge concert and then start announcing names of performers who they haven't even talked to, let alone booked?! Because they can. It says so right on the tribute website: "This website does not intend to convey the impression that the artists and personalities depicted here within have agreed to participate in the said event in any way, shape or form. " Wait. What now?

It's a website promoting the tribute concert for Michael Jackson. Who else, other than either Michael Jackson OR people who are going to perform at the tribute concert, would be depicted?? It's not like it's Wikipedia with a little of something for everyone. No, it's a tribute concert website where it should be showing you who is going to be doing all of the tribute-ing! That's why they would be depicted at all in the first place! And that's probably the reason why Jermaine has continued along the lines of announcing a lineup whose participants have absolutely no idea, and in a lot of cases, no intention of performing in Vienna.

So yesterday, Jermaine announced the lineup. Here we go. Here are the participants which we were led to believe would be the 10 biggest artists of our time. Ready.....?

• Akon
• Angela Bassett
• Chris Brown
• Mary J. Blige
• Natalie Cole
• Sister Sledge
• US5 (German boy band)
  

Wait a minute. What happened to the lineup for the tribute concert? Those can't be the headliners. Those are just a bunch of names. I have yet to see a top ten artist in there. (What's with the German boy band? US5? Never heard of them. Are they German or are the from the US? Make up your mind!) What now? What do you mean that's them?!?! Angela Bassett?? She doesn't sing! Oh, sure, she played Tina Turner in that one movie, but that was a movie! She isn't really Tina Turner!

And good idea to have a guy who beats up women in there as well. Chris Brown. What a loser. Good idea, put him on a stage thousands of miles away from people who would like nothing better than to give him just a little bit of what he gave Rihanna.

And Sister Sledge? Really? Have they had a hit since 1979's "We Are Family"? When Jermaine mentioned the "top ten artists" did he mean from the current decade? I guess I assumed he did. Apparently, I was wrong. Wow.

That lineup, while not, um, horrible? While not horrible, it is hardly what I would have expected given the hype of it all. Thus, I think that the lineup is absolutely terrible considering that (wait for it) Chris Brown and Mary J. Blige say that they are not performing in the show. Wait. What now?

Correct. Chris Brown and Mary J. Blige and not performing. Yes, yes, I know the Jermaine just said that they were performing. But they're the performers and they say that they're not performing. But don't worry! According to the AP, after obvious displeasure and disappointment was heard from members of the press covering the announcement of anyone whose name Jermaine felt like throwing out there, Jermaine told the reporters, "We're very excited — the list is growing more and more (with)....many major Bollywood names and artists from the Middle East also would be involved." WTH?

Bollywood? The Middle East? That excites you, Jermaine? Bollywood? What would be a "major name" from the Middle East? Saddam Hussein? That's all I've got. Are you kidding me? Where are the real artists, like Madonna and U2? According to a defensive Georg Kindel, "This is not the final lineup — maybe some of the names you mentioned you will hear within the next couple of days." Yes, but will we hear those names in association with them playing at the tribute? Of course not. Because this is the biggest scam ever. And what's killing me is that people are buying the whole deal.

Why are there not more questions about this thing? Why isn't someone in the media looking into Jermaine's "foundation" (which will likely prove to be about as authentic as George Costanza's "Human Fund" and their slogan "Money for People") and what they've accomplished? They should! Because they will learn that it's just a scam. That it doesn't exist. That Jermaine is going to pocket millions of dollars for a concert whose main performers might very well end up being Dr. Teeth and the Electric Band!

But if someone were to investigate it, I would highly doubt that it would be the AP. And even if it was the AP, I don't know that they are capable of putting together that sort of a story. I base that assumption on this sentence from the article cited above: "Over the course of the evening, Jermaine will sing a duet with his late brother, probably with video of Michael to be projected onto nearby walls." ::::blink ::::: :::: blink :::::

Probably? Probably?! Really?! You think that in order for Jermaine to sing a duet with his late brother, that they will probably use video of Michael?! Really?! They're not going to exhume his ol' bones and have him strung up like some sort of a marionette?! Video? Really? Way to go, AP. Way to go.

Sphere: Related Content

You're Not Hiking, You're Having An Affair

When did people become such bad liars? Or maybe the question is, when did people stop caring if they were bad liars? At the very least, when did people start going with completely implausible scenarios and acting as if they expect the public to believe them? Then again, when did the public start believing them?

I do know when people who were prone to lying started altering the content of their lies to conveniently leave out key information that would likely be interpreted by people in a certain way, only to find out that it really wasn't that way at all. But because of the way that the lie was phrased, it allows the weasel to say that he didn't lie and that what he said was "taken out of context". "Taken out of context" is BS talk for "caught lying". That all started with the whole I-did-not-have-sex-with-that-woman Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinksy fiasco. And the liars haven't looked back since.

So when I hear South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford speak in relation to the newly discovered affair that he was having with a woman in Argentina, I notice that there are some details left out and that they're details that most people will just assume they know what they are and fill in the blanks with that assumption. But I prefer to speculate wildly about what could fill in those blanks. And I shall do so right now.

(By the way, I wouldn't have to speculate about anything if the media would just do their damn job once in a while and have the "reporters" actually "report". A reporters story should answer the questions that the reader might have about what they're reading. It's a pretty basic concept, but sadly, it's one that has been lost in so many areas of the media lately. I just wanted to make clear that I'm not out to make the folks who did these interviews at the Associated Press look bad. I'd prefer to just comment on the idiocy of Gov. Sanford. But when the Governor's answers seem to imply rather than answer, the AP should pick up on that and if they don't, I'm left speculating all over the place.)

A brief recap: Gov. Sanford left on June 18 for Argentina where the other woman, a one Maria Belen Chapur, lives. The thing is he didn't tell anyone where he was going and led folks to believe that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. He says he didn't check his voicemail for four days and that's why he had "no idea" people were wondering where he was. He's the governor. Doesn't he have a state to run? Did he really think that would be a) OK with people and/or b) a smart thing to do? If he thought either one, that would make it clear that he's too inept to be a governor. Whether or not having an affair is a reason for a politician to be called upon to resign is debatable. But not telling anyone where you're going and being completely out of touch for four days and then lying not telling the truth about where you were when you're the governor IS reason enough for someone to be compelled to resign. Because not only does that say "I lie to my wife and I cheat on her", it also screams out "AND I'm a dumbass". Dumbasses should not be governors.

For some reason, almost a week after he had held a press conference admitting he was having an affair with the woman from Argentina (Why Argentina? Is that because it's another one of those jobs Americans won't do?), he did three more hours of interviews with the Associated Press that took place from his Statehouse office over a period of two days. The interview was written up as a narrative and the exact questions that were asked of the governor are not completely clear to me because they're not stated. While you can infer what the question was, there's an issue being danced around that makes the question very relevant. The interview and/or the results of such begin like this:

"Sanford also said that he "crossed the lines" with a handful of other women during 20 years of marriage, but not as far as he did with his mistress.
"There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line," he said."

Um, OK. See, I really need to know what the question was. I need to know if the question was along the lines of "Have you ever had an affair before?" , "Was this the first affair that you've had?" or if it was along the lines of, "How many other women have you cheated on your wife with?", "Have there been other women you've had affairs with?" See the difference? It's hard for me to know if his answer is honest or very misleading. And if it is misleading, there's a HUGE reason it is so. Moving on....

"What I would say is that I've never had sex with another woman. Have I done stupid? I have. You know you meet someone. You dance with them. You go to a place where you probably shouldn't have gone," Sanford said, declining to discuss details. "If you're a married guy at the end of the day you shouldn't be dancing with somebody else. So anyway without wandering into that field we'll just say that I let my guard down in all senses of the word without ever crossing the line that I crossed with this situation."

He starts off by making sure that he says that he's never had sex with another woman. That's the last time that he uses the word woman. After that, he says "someone" and "somebody else". He doesn't say "you meet a woman" or "you shouldn't be dancing with a woman who isn't your wife". What a surprise that he doesn't want to discuss details either. I wonder why that would be? Granted, he's not real bright. But he's also a liar. And with the whole implying that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail story, should I really put it past him that he's not trying to do the same thing with this interview? What else, governor?

Sanford, at times crying and unabashedly emotional, acknowledged in the AP interview that he had casual encounters with other women while he was married but before he met Chapur. They took place during trips outside the country to "blow off steam" with male friends.

Now while I'm not a guy, I am familiar with the species. So while I know it is not unusual for guys to have their "guy time" together and when they do, it does tend to be in groups, I can't say that I know of any guys that are married, let alone married with four children, who take a trip sans wife (at the very least!) outside of the country. (Wait. Does Tijuana during Spring Break count? Yeah, I didn't think so either.) Hmmm.

While I don't know much about his wife, Jenny Sanford, but I know this much: I know that she didn't stand there by his side at his confessional press conference. Thus, I LIKE HER. Elliott Spitzer's wife, John Edwards's, the many, many other wives who stand their next to their unfaithful husband and listen to him tell a gaggle of reporters that he was having sex with a woman that wasn't her. I always wonder why those women are there. They never say anything. I'd understand if they were there and kept interrupting him and making sarcastic comments or continually reminding the press to make sure that they don't forget to print how tiny his penis is. That I could respect and understand. But silently pulling the Tammy Wynette "Stand by Your Man" gig? No way. So seeing ol' "Fled" Sanford up there solo was a nice change. Too bad there couldn't have been a non-cheating politician up there as well for another nice change, but one out of two is about par these days.

The point is that I find it hard to believe that she would condone her husband leaving the country when they have FOUR children (aged about 16, 15, 12 and 10) so that he can go and "blow off steam" with "male friends". Don't get me wrong. I have the feeling that there probably were "male friends" involved. I'm also getting the sense that there might have been something being blown, but I don't think it was steam. Unless that's what they're calling it these days.

That's all I've got. I have no idea what the question posed to Mark Sanford by the AP reporter was that would make it easier for me to interpret his answers. If the AP reporter did not specifically state that the questions that were being asked were referring to WOMEN then his answers leave a lot of room for interpretation. The man lies and then blows it off as if people just misinterpreted him. Like when he was asked why his staff said he was on the Appalachian Trail. His initial answer was, "I don't know." But later on "in fairness to his staff" Stanford said that he had told them he might go hiking on the Appalachian Trail. Might. Might! Hey! It's not his fault they took that to mean that he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail! He said "might". Might!

See what kind of guy he is? The weasely kind. The weasely, lying, cheating and throwing your staff under the bus while you're at it, kind of guy is what kind of guy he is. And guys that are that weasely are usually calculated in what they say. That's why I have no idea as to why he's admitting to previous affairs when, as far as I can tell, the question hadn't been raised. Do I think he had other affairs? Oh, totally. Do I think they were all with other women? Hell no I don't. And that's why I'm waiting for a gay male friend in another country to surface and talk about all of the "steam blowing" that went on between him and the Governor of South Carolina. I wouldn't have to wait if reporters doing interviews would just ask questions that are clear and then make it clear in the articles that they write that the clear questions were asked. Until then, I'm going to speculate that there's a gay male lover or two involved here somehow. Nice job, AP.

Sphere: Related Content

F-ing Matt Damon

As you're probably aware, everyone (just about) is F-ing Matt Damon. However, after hearing his political opinions that he voiced to the Associated Press on Wednesday, now I just think of him as "F-ing Matt Damon". Needless to say, I was not impressed.

Apparently, Matt was in Toronto during the aptly named Toronto Film Festival to promote something called ONEXONE which is a Canadian children's charity which will be expanding to the US. (From what their website looks like, ONEXONE does a fine job of holding benefits and letting self important celebrities talk to a bunch of people who also think that the celebrity is great. They also seem to hand out awards to themselves quite a bit. See, ONEXONE doesn't seems to actually DO the charity work, rather they seem to be the gathering place for about eight organizations that DO the actual work. How noble.) It is there that he felt the need to voice how he felt about Sarah Palin being the Vice Presidential nominee.

Well, it's about time! Haven't we all just been waiting around, pacing the halls, worrying ourselves sick wondering when, when, oh when will Matt Damon give us his opinion on the Presidential race? We haven't? No. We haven't. But even though we haven't been waiting to hear from Matt Damon, I'll give him a shot and listen to what he thinks about this. Who knows? Maybe I'll be surprised and he'll have something insightful and intelligent to say. Maybe he'll be able to back his concerns up with some actual facts that are real. And maybe a bunch of monkeys will fly right on out of my arse next Tuesday. Maybe, but not real likely.

He starts off by saying, "I think there's a really good chance that Sarah Palin could be President and I think that's a really scary thing." Does he know what she's not running for President? Let's see. He continues with, "Because I don't know anything about her. I don't think in eight weeks I'm going to know anything about her. I know that she was the mayor of a really, really small town. And she's governor of Alaska for, for less than two years. I just don't understand." I don't understand either. WTF, Matt?

It's unclear why he feels that he won't know anything about her in eight weeks. Perhaps he's planning on spending those eight weeks severely incapacitated under a rock? Is there a reason that he can't find out "anything about her" in eight weeks? You know, Matt, that Google thing that is up and running these days? Yeah, that thing is pretty handy. Perhaps give that a go and see if you can find out "anything about her" in eight weeks. Or do you have to have everything spoon fed to you by your people and no one can find a spoon? And how long would you like her to be governor of Alaska for so that you feel more comfortable? Weren't you in the Barry for President camp in 2004 when he had been a Senator for only two years? I thought so. Next.

"I think the pick was made for political purposes but in terms of governance, it's a disaster." Really, Matt? You think it was a move made for "political purposes"? During a political election? Really?! That's fascinating! I never would have thought that a "political purpose" would find it's way into an election. Wow. You're right, that is hard to understand. (If you're a moron.)

"You do the actuary tables, you know, and there's a one out of three chance, if not more, that McCain doesn't survive his first term and it'll be President Palin." I'm not going to do the actuary tables, but I am going to look at them and from the looks of the actuary tables at the US Social Security Administration (who are just waiting for people to drop dead), you should look at them also, Matt, because you're wrong. McCain just turned 72. He has an approximated average of 12.01 years of life left. (Remember, when it comes to approximating someone's lifespan, in the end, you're just guessing. No one knows. And for good reason.) Where do you get "one out of three" there, Matt? The chance that he kicks it in the next year is 3.2%. Did you get that pesky decimal place in the wrong column again? Did you think that reads 32%, Matt? It's 3.2%. Try and get your facts straight before you go on a rant next time, will you please?

"It's like a really bad Disney movie. You know, the hockey mom. I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska and she's the President! And it's like she's facing down Vladimir Putin. And using, you know, the folksy stuff she, you know, learned at the hockey rink, you know. It's just, it's absurd." Actually, that sounds like a pretty good Disney movie! And if you think about it, all of the movies that have just a regular guy somehow finding himself being the President one morning? Those movies turn out fine! The guy is a great President and everyone loves him! Geez, for an actor, you think you'd know these things, Matt. And Vladimir Putin? Are we at war with Russia? Why is she facing down Putin? What happened to Iran? Where's Im-A-Dinner-Jacket? Wow, if you listen to Matt Damon, the world is a much different place with a female vice president. Who knew?

"It's totally absurd and I don't understand why more people aren't talking about how absurd it is. The fact that we have gotten that far and that we're this close to it being a reality is crazy. I mean, does she, I need to know if she really thinks that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. That's an important, I want to know that. I really do because she's going to have the nuclear codes, you know? I want to know if she thinks dinosaurs were here four thousand years ago. Or if she banned books or tried to ban books. I mean, you know, we can't, we can't have that." Wait. What?

And if she thought that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago (she doesn't, by the way. Oh, and Barry's not a Muslim either. Thought I'd better throw that in just in case.) that would be important because she will have nuclear codes? To...? For....? So....when she...goes back in time she can use the codes and kill all the dinosaurs so that we won't be stumbling over all of those pesky fossils any more? I don't get it. What does thinking that there were dinosaurs here 4,000 years ago (there weren't) have to do with having a nuclear code? I'm thinking nothing. Oh, wait! Is he implying that she would be crazy and then, as a result of her craziness, would just take the codes and just start nuking other countries for no reason? Sure. That would happen. Those two things go together. Sure.

And the book banning thing? Didn't happen, Matt. After hearing these outrageous stories, if you had taken just a little bit of time to do some research, Matt, you would have known these things. But this does explain why, in the next eight weeks, you still won't know anything about her. But please, please continue to give "interviews" to the Associated Press and voice your uninformed opinions which will then be reported and distributed as being "news". Sure, that will help.

You know, with all of Matt's "concern", it occurred to me that if he really seems to think that this is so close to becoming a reality, he must seem to think that McCain is really going to win this thing. That's a pretty good endorsement there, Matt. Do you know whose side your on? Didn't research that either, eh? That's a shame. OK, I'll give it to you one more time, but then you're on your own. It's called Google. Use it to look up some things and learn some things about Sarah Palin and then report back before election day in November and share what you've learned with the world. (Or do nothing and spend the next 6 weeks pacing up and down your hallway wondering if she thinks dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. Sure. That'll help.)

Sphere: Related Content