They're Not "More" Mad

Oh, look! It's my favorite ridiculous statement that comes out after the U.S. has killed a high profile terrorist-y type of guy. This time, it comes on the heels of the killing of a one Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American born Islamic extremist who found himself getting droned to death the other day. (I'll say one thing about President Barry: He is a President who is fond of the drone. He uses those things all the time and for everything. And I don't have a problem with it, I'm just sayin'. He's really drone-y.) See, according to CNN, "U.S. officials are warning the killing of American-born militant cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the face of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, could spark retaliatory attacks". I see. Also according to the statement, this guy's death "...could provide motivation for homeland attacks" by "homegrown violent extremists," the type the two men allegedly tried to recruit or inspire."



I don't know that it would only take the death of this particular weird beard to "provide motivation" for attacks on the United States (aka, the aforementioned homeland). I mean, isn't their hatred of the US and our Western culture in general the basis for their attacks in the first place? Can we really do anything else to piss them off even more? I find it hard to believe that's possible. They're willing to take us out over absolutely nothing. I'd be surprised if they feel that they need more reasons to hate us and want to kill us. ("He's dead? They killed him? Well, I might have been on the fence before, but this changes everything! Quick! Get on Craigslist and find me a car to blow up in a densely populated area of a city.") I'm just not seeing it.



I'm not quite sure why they issue these types of warnings. Didn't we get something similar to this when we shot bin Laden in the eye and then dumped him off of a ship in the middle of the ocean so that he could go and live in a pineapple under the sea? Didn't we hear something to the effect of there may be retaliatory attacks for that as well? Yeah, so let me get this straight. NOW we should be worried that we've ANGERED these nutjobs and NOW they're going to try to kill us? Aren't they already trying to kill us? Are they really any more angry because we took out one of their Islamic extremist poster children? I can't imagine that they are. They don't seem to really need much of a reason to want to and/or try to kill innocent people. Their own hate and anger seem to fuel that fire all on its own.

Sphere: Related Content

That's Depardieu-doo To You

Ever want to hear/see a CNN anchor giggle like a little girl over several (and I mean WAY too many) poop and pee innuendos? Then today is your lucky day, as here is Anderson Cooper covering the Gerard-Depardieu-pees-in-the-aisle-of-an-airplane story. The good stuff starts around 2:30 in.

Sphere: Related Content

It Gets Raised All The Time

OK, let's talk about the debt ceiling. Everyone else seems to be. But they seem to be talking about it in terms of gloom and doom. Shocking, I know. And that's really not quite the case. I mean, it's doom-y and it's gloom-y, but that's nothing that's all that new.

The debt ceiling is supposed to be just what it says that it is. It's like a cap on how much debt the country can be in. See, the United States doesn't take in enough money to pay all of its bills. Yeah, that's a problem. So, the US has to borrow a boatload of money all of the time in order to pay for everything. And by "everything" I mean things like Social Security, the military, stuff like that. Stuff that (mostly) needs to be paid for. And if we don't raise the debt ceiling, then come August 3rd, things won't get paid. The country won't be able to borrow the money that it needs to pay its bills. And while that's bad, you would think that this would be a good opportunity to open up some discussion on the matter of what to do about all of that debt that we have. You would think.

I'm not trying to make this a Republican vs. Democrat issue. President Barry wants the debt ceiling raised. According to USA Today, they want to "...to cut spending and raise taxes while raising the debt limit by the Aug. 2 deadline". OK. President Barry doesn't want to raise taxes. He says that "...the White House could reach $1.7 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years without new revenues". OK. Now, I have no idea if that $1.7 trillion is accurate. I have no idea if it's even close to being true. But there are some things that I do know.

I know that all of this posturing over whether or not one side or the other is going to agree to raise the debt ceiling is just for show. It will get raised. How do I know this? Mainly, I speculate a lot. But I do so based on things that I see. See, people that are in Congress want to get re-elected. If this thing doesn't get raised and a bunch of people don't get paid and it becomes the Republicans "fault", that's not going to go over well come election time. It's also not going to go over well if taxes get raised when our tax dollars are being pissed away right and left with wasteful spending. That won't help that whole re-election cycle that they all drool over.

But before I get to the real reason, I'd just like to suggest that perhaps they consider changing the name of this thing. In what way is the "debt ceiling" or the "debt limit" either a ceiling OR a limit when you can just keep changing it? It's like when you go to buy a car and there is a suggested retail price. That thing can move all over the place. (And hopefully if you're buying a car, you're haggling to get the price reduced and not raised.) It's not a firm price. And this magical number that we have for what our debt can be? That's not a firm number. And it never has been.

And that brings me to the main reason why the debt ceiling will be raised without the government shutting down. They do it ALL THE TIME. According to CNN Money, "Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001." Seventy four times?! SEVENTY FOUR?! Since 1962?! That's 49 years. That averages out to once every 8.1 months! Are you freaking kidding me?! That's not even a full term pregnancy! 8.1 months! Oh, for cryin' out loud. Just raise the damn thing and get over it. What the what?! This happens ALL THE TIME! Stop it with the phony posturing all ready! Geez. We're doomed. Doomed!

Sphere: Related Content

But Iran Doesn't Like Us

Remember the three American "hikers" that had inadvertently hiked into Iran whilst they were attempting to hike along the Iran-Iraq border? And remember how they were taken into custody by the Iranians? And remember Iran released the girl but the other two have been in custody ever since because Iran says that they were spies? Well, if you didn't remember, consider yourself caught up.

Before I continue, I just need to say a few things about the situation that put those three folks in the position that they are/were in. First of all, if you're in the Middle East and you want to go "hiking", I cannot for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't be either more cognizant of where the borders were or wouldn't just hike really far away from the borders to begin with. Hiking so close to Iran's borders seems to be just asking for trouble if you're asking me.

Second, I find myself conflicted as to how Iran is dealing with this situation. On the one hand, I am fairly certain that these folks were not and are not spies. On that same hand, I really have absolutely nothing to base that on other than the fact that they don't seem like they would be spies. This ideology is based loosely on watching the Pink Panther when I was a child. Oh, and Scooby Doo. Thus, if I am Iran, what do I do? I have to say that I will lend a certain degree of respect to a country that protects its borders. I'm not even so sure that I'm concerned with how a country protects its borders, as long as it does so.

Those perspectives that I have are the reasons why I'm not overly sympathetic to the hikers. Sure, people make mistakes. But, come on! How delusional are you if you think you'll be just fine if you accidentally hike into Iran? You should be wearing a helmet at all times if that's how your mind works. And then I read an opinion piece by Sarah Shourd, the freed female American hiker, over there at CNN. And her logic in the piece is a bit surprising. It's as if she has no clue as to the history between the United States and Iran. Then again, this is the same person who was doing all of the border hiking, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Sarah states in her piece that "At a very personal level, I never would have been kept in jail for 14 months if Iran and the United States had a better relationship." I'm not so sure that I believe that to be accurate. It sounds nice, but I doubt it. The United States has pretty good relationships with other countries whose citizens have been caught spying. We don't just let them go. Again, you have to go on the basis that Iran is using, that being that they were spies or doing something that would harm Iran, in order to justify them keeping them in custody. Then again, they were not in the country lawfully, so I guess you don't even really need to justify it with anything other than that.

She goes on to say that "How different our situation would have been if the United States had an embassy in Iran when Shane, Josh and I were arrested on the border with Kurdistan, where we had gone hiking." Um, is she kidding me?! The United States did have an embassy in Iran. Perhaps she is unaware of the little disturbance that took place in that embassy in 1979 when Sixty-six Americans were taken captive when Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Perhaps she is also unaware that 52 of those hostages were held for a total of 444 days. And if that's the case, I guess she also didn't hear about the eight American servicemen who lost their lives during a rescue mission. And she thinks that we need an embassy in Iran? Are you dry shaving me?

Allow me to show you a picture of what the former US embassy in Iran looked like after the hostages were taken. Picture is courtesy of Wikipedia.

Oh, sure. They just loooooove us. She also has the nerve to say "I hope our leaders find the courage to begin to break from our nations' hostile past..." Do you now? Our leaders? Plural? Explain to me what the United States is supposed to be doing when I'm A Dinner Jacket (Ahmadinejad) continues with his nuclear program against everyone's wishes? Explain to me what we're supposed to do with a guy, who wants to blow Israel off of the map, who is intent on making his country a nuclear power? It's not a hostile past that is all of the problem. It's the hostile present, cupcake. I should also note that there are some former hostages who believe that Ahmadinejad was actually one of their captors and have identified him as such. If that's the case and he's now the President of Iran, I'm not so sure that the "courage" is going to be "found" by him to "break from our nations' hostile past".

Look, I totally understand that her two friends are still being imprisoned over there in Iran and she wants to have them freed. Therefore, I can understand why she wouldn't write anything that would be overly critical or take a harsh tone with the Iranian government. But I can't understand why she would write anything like what she did in the first place. Does she really think that it's going to matter what she says? I don't think that it is. Then again, this woman does seems to have a fairly delusional way of thinking when it comes to international relations, so I guess it's to be expected.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not The Dress That's The Problem

This is one of those posts that started out as one thing, but quickly became about something else for me. Let's head on over to Oxford High School in Oxford, Alabama to check in on some hubbub that's been going on. While we're there, let's create a little hubbub of our own, shall we? Because from what I can tell, we're going to have to, as the part of this story that made me yell, "What?!" was just completely brushed over in the article that I read.

The article to which I'm referring comes to us courtesy of AOL News. It is there that we learn the tale of a one Erica DeRamus, whose choice of a prom dress ended up getting her not only kicked out of the prom, but suspended for three days on top of that. Really? Really. Apparently, the school has a dress code "...which stipulates that necklines must not plunge below students' breastbones and skirt hems must not be higher than six inches above the knee." Huh. Wait. What?

See, now I thought that this was going to either be some sort of ambiguous dress code requirement or it was going to be something that would have required kids to dress in a way that made members of the FLDS church seem like bimbos. Neither one of those was the case! Serious, does that really say that "skirt hems must not be higher than six inches above the knee"?? I believe it does! Look at your knee! Look at where six inches above it is! Holy crap! Six inches?! That's short! I don't care who you are, you're getting into dangerous territory with a skirt that's six inches above your knee. I'm not sure if I think that it's a perfectly reasonable (not to mention easily attainable) limit to set or if I think that they might want to consider making it three or four inches instead. Holy crap, six inches. That doesn't leave much to the imagination. God forbid if they bend over in something like that. That would render the imagination completely useless.

That requirement seems a little contradictory or counter-productive to the other requirement that the necklines not plunge below the breastbone. Look, you can do a lot with cleavage. It's very a very versatile anatomical part. As proud as all of you guys are about your penile units, y'all ain't got nothin' on our breasts. They're magical. We can do damn near anything with 'em. (And I realize that guys don't care what it is that we do with them, just as long as they can stare at them or, on a good day, grope them. But that's not my point and you know it.) But even if the lowest part of the neckline was below the breastbone, that doesn't necessarily mean that an undue amount of cleavage is going to be revealed. It's not like the neckline goes straight across or anything.

So, just to recap this part of the story, it's OK in Alabama to have your ass damn near coming out of the back of your dress, but keep your breasts under some sort of burlap sack, would you, please? Now, just to see where Ms. DeRamus went afoul of these guidelines, let's look at the dress in question, shall we? Behold!

Oh, good Lord, what the hell is that?! Wow. It's like Tinkerbell on crack. That is not an attractive dress, miss. I'm sorry, but it's hideous. I realize that you can't ban someone from the prom for poor fashion sense, but that's really bad. And she's a cute girl, too. That dress really doesn't do her justice at all. But judging solely on the screen shots from the video (thanks for the crappy reporting WBRC-TV and not including a head-on full length shot of her wearing the dress in question), I'm not sure where you would begin measuring that thing. It's awfully poofy.

According to the principal, a one Trey Holloday, the students and their parents were notified three times in advance of the prom as to what the dress code standards were. That seems reasonable. He also said that "Of the 352 Oxford High students who attended the prom, officials said 18 violated the dress code." Hmm. Five percent. That seems about right. (After seeing Erica's dress, though, I'd really like to see what other folks who got booted from the prom were wearing! I think that would be highly entertaining, yet probably horrifying at the same time!) All of that being said, her dress, while hideous, didn't seem too out of line. It appears to fit within the 6 inches rule. And the cleavage thing seems within limits as well. But I wasn't there, so it's hard to say. Regardless, I think it's fair to say that the dress clearly could fall within a gray area and she probably should have checked with those who make the decision on these sorts of things beforehand and avoided all of this.

But here's the part that just blew me away. Ready? It doesn't have anything to do with the dress or the prom or the dress code. Of the 18 students, Erica is the only one who was suspended for three days. That's because there was a choice of punishments. Erica's choice was suspension. Do you want to guess what the other punishment was that the other 17 students opted for? You'll never guess, so I'm just going to tell you. The other 17 students opted for paddling. Um, wait. Paddl...what the what?

Correct. Apparently, paddling is a punishment option at schools in Alabama! Are you kidding me?! Since when?! Actually, I suppose that the "when" is easy to answer. It's more the "Why are they still doing this?" question that I'd like to have answered. Even Erica sees the archaic-ness of the practice, explaining her choice by saying, "I'm a little too old to get paddled...This is high school, we're seniors. If we're going to act up, give us another option besides being paddled because this isn't the 1940s. We don't take corporal punishment now." Good. For. Her.

And if you read this article over at AOL News or anywhere else, the whole paddling issue is not even addressed. It's just brushed over like it's perfectly normal (which it is not, by the way). You folks in Alabama really paddle 18-year old seniors (who fit the legal definition of an adult) who act up? Why? What is the rationale behind that? What in the world are you people thinking?!

Of course, now I'm totally curious. What does this paddling entail? How big is the paddle? Are we talking like fly-swatter size? Ping-pong paddle size? Tennis racket size? Oh! Wait! Is it like a spanking machine?? Do they make the wrong-doer crawl through the legs of a line of people and they all swat them on the butt as they make their way through? Or is it some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption that they're strapped to until an egg makes its way down a conveyor belt and lights a match which burns a string that unleashes a paddling device upon the hind quarters of the moral defy-er? That must be it. (I wonder where they keep it. Oh! There must be a dungeon! Schools in Alabama have paddling dungeons! Pass it on.)

And who actually does the paddling? I would quit my job (and seriously reconsider my career choice) if I were told that one of my duties was now going to be to physically beat students. Who is OK with performing that act? What kind of people are they? I guess they're the kind of people who work in schools in Alabama where they still paddle students. Un-freaking-believable. I have suddenly forgotten all about the chick and her prom dress that may or may not have been too short. I am now more concerned by the fact that there are still schools in this country that paddle children as a punishment. And I am consumed by the fact that it is seemingly an accepted practice to many folks. I think I'm going to go and contemplate whether or not the wall around my walled-off compound is high enough. I want those people kept far away from me.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Effin New Year

Finally! Finally! The holidays are over! Technically I don't have to speak with or have a meal with another human being until the next major day of nationwide observance which, according to my calculations, might be Groundhog Day. I don't mind the holidays. The alligators in my moat which surrounds my walled off compound kind of freak out my relatives, but other than their needing sedatives rather often, I enjoy them. So many traditions that just keep happening year after year. I embrace consistency like that. I like to know what to expect. You know who else seems to embrace consistency and who else seems to like doing the same thing year after year? Kathy Griffin and her tradition of belting out some sort of expletive or sexually inappropriate reference while hosting some New Year's gala with, of all people, pretty, pretty Anderson Cooper.

Here's the deal: Last year, while hosting the New Year's festivities again with pretty, pretty Anderson Cooper, Kathy was being heckled by none other than, you guessed it, a heckler. And, well, let's just say that she had finally had it with said heckler and she let fly a rather pointed rebuttal when she yelled out to the dude, "Shut up!! Do you know what? Screw you! I'm working! Why don't you get a job, buddy!? I don't go to your job and knock the d**ks out of your mouth." Ah, yes. What a way to welcome in the new year!

But that was last year. I think. Wait. Yes. Yes, it was last year. I was a little confused because Kathy Griffin again hosted the New Year's Eve festivities and she again let her vocabulary fly a little bit off in a direction that I'm sure the FAA will be looking into. It won't be as intense as the scrutiny over Janet Jackson's Nipple-Gate at the Super Bowl that one year, but if she gets the same gig next year, they're really going to have to look into assigning a permanent agent to follow her around or something just to monitor her and her inevitable and predictably unpredictable outbursts. I'm just saying.

So this year, Anderson Cooper, being as how he's a fairly legitimate news reporter and all, decided it would be a good idea to engage Ms. Griffin in a little game of "Who Was Who in the News in 2009". You know, show her some pictures of folks who were prominently in the news (for better or for worse. I'm guessing mostly worse.)...see if she knew who they were. It seems harmless. And if he wasn't doing it with Kathy Griffin, it probably would have been harmless.

First up was a picture of reality show

hopeful asshats Richard and Mayumi Heene who had their kid hide in the attic or somewhere whilst they told the rest of the world that he was flying over a three state area in some sort of mylar balloon thing that the family constructed in the backyard during their spare time. (In spare time at my house growing up, we did yardwork, but whatever.) Ms. Griffin knew exactly who they were and said that she "admired their stick-to-it-tiveness". I hadn't heard it put quite that way before then. They did have stick-to-it-tiveness, didn't they? They would not let go of their lie for what seemed like weeks! OK, fine, kudos for that.

Then Kathy asked Anderson if he followed the story and he said that he did and that his

favorite part was when "Falcon said 'Who the hell is Wolf?' " It was at that moment that Kathy Griffin became a bit confused. It was like Anderson Cooper had suddenly started speaking Chinese or something because she started sputtering words out as if she was hoping to randomly hit upon what it was that he had just said. So she asks him, "Falcon?" And Anderson reiterates, "Falcon Heene." Do you see where this is going? Neither did I.

Even with Anderson's "Falcon Heene" clarification, that didn't seem to clear things up for Kathy Griffin. Nope, instead she continued to question him on what he had said. "Fal....F**kin'....Falcon? How do you say it?" Hoo boy. Nice.

I think that poor ol' closeted Anderson Cooper was having flashbacks of the year before and probably was praying that it wouldn't go any farther. Meanwhile, those of us watching this unfold were praying it would go farther. We wanted it to go really far. We wanted her to continue to act as if she had just been liberated from lifelong deafness and was hearing the spoken word for the very first time. That's what we wanted. Sadly, it didn't go that way.

Anderson acknowledged her "curiosity" by simply bowing his head (likely asking the gods for forgiveness and praying that he either keeps his job or finally loses the New Year's gig) and moving onto the next picture while muttering, "You're terrible...." Good cover, Anderson. I wonder if Kathy will come up with something that clever when she is inevitably asked about it?

Well, in a statement released by her publicist on Friday, she didn't just come up with something that clever; she came up with something more clever. According to the AP, she responded to this incident with the following: "Like every other serious reporter covering the now infamous balloon boy hoax, I struggled to pronounce his name 'Falcon' correctly and have gotten a kick out of how many ways I've heard it pronounced by other serious reporters. Just add me to that list and happy new year!"

It's hard to know where to start with that obviously sarcastic and non-serious statement. There's the hilarious reference to her being a "serious reporter". (Then again, there's the hilarious reference to everyone else who covered that ridiculous story as a "serious reporter" as well.) There's also the implication that she was "covering" the story. She was barely having a conversation, let alone covering anything. But my favorite was the assertion that the name/word/bird "Falcon" is difficult to pronounce. You know, more people had difficulty pronouncing the family's last name of "Heene"

than they did have trouble pronouncing "Falcon". Tell me, just how many ways are there that "Falcon" can be pronounced? Let's see...there's falcon. That's one. And then there's...oh, that's right. THAT'S IT! That's the only way! What else could there be? Fulcrum? You're going to tell me they named their poor child after a lever mechanism? Falco? How into the 80s would his parents have had to be to name him after the one-hit wonder Rock Me Amadeus guy? (Very. Very into the 80s and probably very stoned as well.) Falcon. There's one pronunciation and we all know it. Well, we all know it. Let's just hope that the guys at the FAA don't know it because if CNN gets fined and she gets booted from the New Year's Eve gig then the tradition will never have a chance to properly flourish! And after the year that we just had, we need as much possible flourishment in the upcoming year as we can possibly get. And if it has to be through the means of a raunchy, D-List comedienne dropping a f-bomb at some point during the last night of the year, then so be it.

Sphere: Related Content

Nicolas Cage is NOT a Victim

It's fairly easy for a headline, probably written by some dumbass 22-year old media intern, to make me irritated and/or angry. Usually that's because I know that what follows a really inflammatory, inaccurate and outright misleading headline is an inflammatory, inaccurate and outright misleading article Today's case in point would be this gem from CNN Money: Nicolas Cage: Movie star, foreclosure victim. Um, what now? Does that say 'victim'?

I've long been under the impression that when someone is a victim it is because something has happened to them. I'm having a hard time understanding how Nicolas Cage, movie star, is a victim of foreclosure. Let's see if a one Hibah Yousuf, a CNN Money.com staff writer, can clear things up for us, shall we?

Her article begins with "Even Academy Award winners are suffering from financial woes this recession. Actor Nicolas Cage lost two homes in New Orleans worth a total of $6.8 million in a foreclosure auction Thursday." Financial woes? During this recession? But...but...but didn't she then just say something about $6.8 million in homes? Right. She did! I see it! It's right there! $6.8 million in homes! Lost to a foreclosure auction! Wait a minute.

I was under the impression that folks that were losing their homes during the recession were doing so because they were unable to make their house payments. Now, you and I both know that in the majority of cases, the home prices were overinflated by people who were just trying to get rich (and did!) and the over-priced homes were bought with people who were allowed to do so with almost no credit check, no down payment and, in many cases, no way of ever making a single payment. Granted, I have a hard time using the term "victim" in those cases either, but they do represent your typical person who has had a home foreclosed upon during this recession. (Idiots.)

Let's see...apparently "Cage owed $5.5 million in mortgage payments and $151,730 to the City of New Orleans in real estate taxes, according to (Civil Sheriff Paul) Valteau." Five and a half million in back mortgage payments? Did he lose his job or something? I...I don't think he did!

According to something called The Movie Times, he made $16 million in 1998 for Snake Eyes; $20 million in 2000 for Gone in 60 Seconds; $20 million in 2002 for something called Windtalkers; and $20 million in 2004 for National Treasure. You have to assume that the National Treasure movie that he made in 2007 would have paid him somewhere around the same $20 million range as the first one did, wouldn't you? I would. I am. Mind you, these were just the movies that were listed at The Movie Times that had a salary attached to them and I only included the ones that were double digit salaries. He made other movies in the past 11 years. He made more than just the $76 million that I detailed in those four movies. And that $20 million in 2007? Wasn't that right around the peak of the "recession" that Ms. Yousuf is attributing Mr. Cage's hardships to? I don't know about you, but $20 million doesn't sound like much of a hardship to me - ever!

The article continues by stating that Mr. Cage is suing a one Samuel Levin who is his former business manager. Mr. Cage is claiming in his lawsuit that Mr. Levin "...duped the Hollywood actor out of more than $20 million since 2001 when he was hired." Really? How is "being duped" part of the "recession"? Did Ms. Yousuf not read her own article when she wrote it?

But wait! There's more. "...Cage owes more than $6 million in back taxes and his properties in California and Las Vegas have also been foreclosed on and are designated for auction later this month." Wait. Wait a minute. Two more houses have been foreclosed on? There's another six million in back taxes that he owes? Well, if that's true, then Mr. Cage had at least four houses. That doesn't sound like the recession, Ms. Yousuf. No, that sounds like stupidity and irresponsibility (much like the kind that is peppered throughout your article). There is a difference.

Look, even if that Levin cretin did "dupe" Nicolas Cage out of $20 million, from what I can figure (and he has 5 projects slated for 2010 and has already done 5 this year so far), he still should have had around $40 million easily to play around with. Tell me something, if you have that much money, why wouldn't you just buy a house outright? Why are you getting a mortgage? I don't get it. Then again, I don't get why you'd have four houses, none of which it would seem like you could pay for.

According to an article over there at New York Magazine, it would seem that Mr. Cage has owned 3 castles, 2 Bahamanian islands, 1 pet shark and 1 Lamborghini (formerly owned by the Shah of Iran, of course, which he paid $493,000 for). He also, in 2007, outbid Leonardo DiCaprio in what they described as a "frenzied auction" for a dinosaur skull and ended up paying $247,000 for it. According to that same article in New York Magazine, "Most of his dozen or so homes, 50 cars, 2 islands, 2 yachts and jet have been sold, foreclosed upon or are on the market." What. The. Hell?

We've only read about four of his houses that have been sold through foreclosure so far. You're telling me that there are at least EIGHT more?! And FIFTY cars?! What in the hell is wrong with someone that they go out and buy FIFTY cars? The only type of island that anyone should be buying is Thousand Island dressing. (And personally, even that is questionable.) According to US Magazine "...one Bel Air home, purchased in 1998, features a billiard room with a 1955 Jaguar parked inside plus an array of "shrunken heads." An...an...array? Of shrunken heads? How many constitutes an array? Why would you want an array of shrunken heads? How do you play billiards in a room with a car parked in it. Perhaps Mr. Cage is confused on the concept because that room with the 1955 Jaguar parked inside of it isn't usually known as a "billiard room" as much as it is known as a garage.

Oh, but according to Hibah Yousuf of CNN Money.com, poor, poor Nicolas Cage is a victim of the recession and a victim of foreclosure. Please don't take this the wrong way Ms. Yousuf when I say that you should resign. Immediately.

Seriously, ma'am, what is wrong with you? How on earth can you even attempt to try to paint Nicolas Cage as some sort of victim of anything other than his own irresponsiblity and his own stupidity? He is a moron. He had a gazillion dollars and he pissed it away. All I needed to know in order to figure that out was "frenzied fossil bidding war with Leonardo DiCaprio". But to CNN Money.com, Nicolas Cage is a victim. Spare me. Does that mean that Leonardo DiCaprio is in jeopardy of becoming the next vicitm of the recession? Does he have an array of unusually tiny heads as well?

If I haven't convinced you by now that CNN Money.com has ZERO credibility at all as a credible news source covering the financial market, then you probably are too dumb to have enough money to be concerned about such erroneous reporting. In which case, crawl on back to your parent's basement and poke your head out when Call of Duty 3 gets released. If I'm missing something or I have misinterpreted something, I'd love to hear about it. But I'm fairly astute in the English language and that articles says "Nicolas Cage...Foreclosure victim" and the first sentence attributes his victimhood to the recession. Again, Ms. Yousuf? Resign. Immediately. And take your editor with you. Please. Good Lord, what a pile of crap that article was.

Sphere: Related Content