More Truth Stretching at MSNBC

How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job? OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. (It's not, but I can try to pretend that he has employable qualities that I don't find loathesome.) How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job at MSNBC doing anything that involves anything more than pushing a mop? I'm not totally sure of the circumstances which enabled him to have his current job as a newshole for MSNBC and I really don't care. All I care about at this point is what circumstances it will take to have him removed from any sort of a position which involves his conveying information to the public under the guise of it being 'news'.

I'm not a big fan of cable news, mainly because the newsholes that run these shows are abhorrent human beings. They clearly have an agenda, but they act as if they don't. I don't know what purpose that serves, other than it technically allows them to have a job title with the word 'news' in it.They are far more commentary disguised as news than they are actual news. Regardless, I am aware of some sort of childish feud which seems to be going on between Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and a one Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.

I use the term 'feud' to be polite. The more correct but also more crude term for what their deal is would be a pissing match. And it's been going on since 2003! It seems to include little more than each one of them belittling the other one on their show. I don't know if they're holding their urination contest nightly these days, but if it isn't nightly, it's damn close.

And just to clarify, these are two grown men who each have their own cable "news" show. Real mature. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George became obsessed with being able to use his snappy comeback for an insult that happened many days before. It was like he was going to literally explode if he didn't track this guy down and tell him, "Oh, yeah? Well, the jerk store called. They're runnin' out of you!" The problem with that was that the guy was quicker on his feet than George and managed to whip out a snarky comment immediately. When that happens, there's nothing else to do other than tell the guy, "I slept with your wife!" Gets 'em every time. Unless the wife is in a coma. But I digress.)

But here's where it goes from a pissing contest to irresponsible journalism, also known as flat out lying. It even goes past lying. This goes under the category of "Making The News What I Want It To Be" by Keith Olbermann.

It seems that on August 24, Bill O'Reilly made this statement on his show: "They have no audience. Nobody. What you just said is like saying 'All right, the Toledo Mud Hens are going to be mad.' OK? I'm not insulting the Toledo Mud Hens, but they're a Double-A baseball team....What they think about the New York Yankees doesn't matter." Wow. A Toledo Mud Hens reference. Didn't see that one coming. Anyway, that was supposed to be some sort of an analogy explaining why the White House should allow President Barry to appear on Fox News even though it would likely cause the folks over at MSNBC to go ape-dung. It shouldn't matter if the folks at MSNBC get miffed because no one watches them, so who cares if they get upset? Fair enough. Lousy analogy, but fair enough.

Mr. Olbermann over there at MSNBC didn't quite see it the same way that I did. Shocking, I know. He saw it from his perspective. The one he invented. Here is his response that he gave on his show that aired on August 25, the night after Bill O'Reilly made the infamous Mud Hens Comparison (the ol' MHC): "I hate to intrude with the facts but ours is the highest rated cable news program viewers 35 and younger and the highest rated cable news program for all viewers not on Fixed News. And since Fixed News has since now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists it is not a news organization making this show the highest rated cable news program, period." Wait. What now?

Sooooo.....the highest rated cable news program for one age demographic? And you're also the highest rated cable news program amongst everyone who isn't watching Fox News? Well, that right there is an extremely handy exclusion to include! That's like if you're running a race and come in 6th and you say, "I was the fastest runner of all runners not crossing the finish line before I did." How convenient! Convenient perhaps, but hardly true or factual.

In fact, Keith Olbermann is not only misrepresenting the facts, it would appear from looking at the ratings over there at TV By the Numbers that he's flat out lying. According to their data,in the 25-54 age group and the 35-64 age group at 8PM The O’Reilly Factor managed to grab the attention of 3,440,000 viewers (916,000 in the 25-54 range and 1,593,000 in the 35-64 range). Meanwhile, over at MSNBC,Countdown with Keith Olbermann reeled in a comparatively paltry 1,114,000 viewers (323,000 in the 25-54 range and 521,000 in the 35-64 range).

Now, if you're looking at the networks viewership ratings overall, the numbers are a lot closer, with Fox reining in 94.82 million households and MSNBC garnering 93 million households, a difference of only 1.82 million households. I don't know if a household equals a viewer (let's see....three feet in a yard....four quarts in a gallon....takes one to know one....nope, not sure if a household equals a viewer), but if it did, that 1.82 million more that Fox has is just a little bit lower than how many more viewers Bill O'Reilly has than Keith Olbermann does. If I'm going to use Keith Olbermann logic and calculations here, I would conclude that Bill O'Reilly is the reason that Fox has higher ratings overall than MSNBC does. But I'm not Keith Olbermann, thank God, so technically, I won't say it. Then again, you can't go back and un-ring a bell either.

And just to clear things up even more, here are the cable news shows ratings for August 24:

The O'Reilly Factor - 3,440,000 viewers

Hannity - 2,937,000 viewers

Glenn Beck - 2,810,000 viewers

On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren - 2,450,000 viewers

Special Report with Bret Baier - 2,066,000 viewers

Fox Report w/Shep Smith - 1,860,000 viewers

Countdown w/ K. Olbermann - 1,114,000 viewers

Larry King Live - 1,063,000 viewers

Olbermann isn't just behind in viewers to O'Reilly; he's behind in viewers to almost everyone. Olbermann is just barely ahead of 127-year old Larry King (Barely A-)Live. And those numbers were for the 8pm time slot. If the shows had aired earlier, Larry King might well have beaten Olbermann, as by 8pm, most of the people who watch Larry King (who are at least as old as he is) have been in bed for 3 hours.

For Keith Olbermann to sit there and flat out claim that he has higher ratings than Bill O'Reilly demonstrates that Olbermann has an agenda (himself) and that he doesn't care what the truth is, he will only say what he wants to say and how he wants to say it, regardless as to whether it is true or not. And in this particular instance, his statements are false. For Keith Olbermann to claim that Fox is spouting propaganda to it's brain dead audience just gives you a little insight as to how brilliant Olbermann thinks that his audience is. If Olbermann thought that his audience had half of a functioning brain cell inside of their teeny, tiny little pin heads, he wouldn't be lying to them by providing them with false information about his own ratings.

Olbermann claims that those who watch Fox News are "tin foil hatters". Mr. Olbermann likely knows a little bit about hats as he seems to be quite the asshat himself, specializing in his own brand of asshattery, apparently.

This instance makes twice in the past ten days that a purported news program on MSNBC has deliberately misled the viewers into believing that something was a fact when, in fact (ironically enough) it was not a fact AND those doing the 'reporting' knew it was not factual information that they were providing. While both O'Reilly and Olbermann are being ridiculously childish and using their platform of cable television news programs to hurl insults at each other on a semi-nightly basis, at least O'Reilly (in this instance) didn't lie. The bottom line here is that if you want to watch a cable news show that will give you the facts without distorting them or lying about them, don't turn to MSNBC for that information. I'm not saying you should turn to Fox, I'm just saying that you'll probably want to turn to a channel that has not lied to the viewers in the past ten days. That's all.

Sphere: Related Content

Bear-ly Reenacting the News

When you think Cleveland, Ohio, I'm going to guess you don't think 'bears'. I think of Cleveland as a place where you can shop for clothing and have at least 50% of your selections to choose from be sports apparel. But I still don't think 'bears'. I'm going to think 'bears' now, however. I'm also going to be thinking that Fox News seems to believe it caters to a target audience in the 4-5 year old range of viewers and is now gearing the newscast segments toward those children.

The Fox News affiliate in Cleveland, Fox8, did a piece back around June 25, 2009 about a black bear that had made its way into a northeast Ohio neighborhood and had been sighted by several residents. Since there are hardly ever bears in Cleveland, this is definitely a news story. However, it would appear that what is also a news story is that you can produce a news story for television with a) very little experience in doing so, b) the skills of a kindergartner and c) very little hesitation in airing the piece (which resembles that done for a class project...that you'll end up getting a "C" on) on actual television.

The segment starts off harmlessly enough, with a woman talking about how she called 911 after spotting a bear in her wooded yard. The reporter, a one Todd Meany, is narrating and after only about 12 seconds, you hear a sentence that indicates great hilarity will be ensuing shortly. He says, "Nina was too stunned to get a picture, but here's what the bear probably looked like...except real." And with that the viewer sees a cardboard cut-out shaped like a bear, propped up next to a tree in the woods. Good Lord people. Behold!

Well, you can barely (pun probably intended) see what that is. Are we sure that it's....

Oh. So it really is a cardboard cutout of a bear. Sort of a stand-in for the real bear which was unavailable for the filming of this segment. While I find this highly amusing, it's also a tad bit disturbing. Next thing you know, we'll be getting rid of the weather forecasters and just having some sort of cut-out ladybug on the wall wearing a raincoat if it's going to rain or watering flowers if it's going to be sunny. Why not get rid of all of the newshole newscasters as well?! We'll have the South Park kids read the news. They're cutouts. Sort of.

And while I'm sure it's hard to imagine, it actually gets better after the first shot of the reenactment bear. You can't just recreate the bear without explaining what it is that the bear might have done! Thus, you guessed it, we are then treated to seeing how the bear might have ran if it were real and if it were there.

Amazing. I'll hand it to Todd. That's pretty gutsy. It's not like there isn't video technology available to recreate what a bear running through a forest looks like!

But then there's this woman that shows up, a one Carly Martin. She is very excited to have found some ursine defecation! (Translation: Bear poop.) Oh! But not just any ursine defection. Fresh ursine defecation! Probably still warm. I'm sure she checked it.

So while she is explaining that bears are capable of climbing trees, our friend the cardboard bear makes another appearance, this time...you guessed it! Climbing a tree. Behold!

Man, the worse it gets, the funnier it gets. Holy canoli. So we have cutout bears running, cutout bears climbing trees, a crazy naturalist talking about bear excrement. Man, if there's one thing this story needs right about now, it's a guy dressed up in a giant rabbit costume. Behold!

For reasons that are inexplicable, the large rabbit fellow there came on the screen as they were telling the viewer that bears do not want to eat humans or other creatures. Which makes perfect sense. Whenever I'm explaining the food chain of a particular animal, I always break out and don the big bunny costume to really hammer home my point. (And if I actually did that, my point would be that I'm insane.)

As our naturalist explains to us, "We'll get a report of a bear, you know, it's at this part of the river one day. And then it moves on. And moves on. And moves on. And then....we don't hear about it for a year or two." So this "bear" of which you speak, it...moves? On it's own? Repeatedly, you say? Hmmm. Interesting. It's almost like it's a regular living creature and of course it freaking moves!

The video of this child-like, yet extremely amusing bear re-enactment is below. No cardboard bears were harmed during the filming of the reenactment.

Sphere: Related Content

Montauk Monster - Part Deux

I'm confused.

Granted, not the most profound statement you'll hear all day, but it does have merit. After all, I AM confused.

About a year ago (sadly, it has not been longer) I did a post about one named Montauk Monster. Montauk, being where Phoebe's Mom lives and also being where the aptly named Montauk Monster 'washed ashore' or 'was found' or 'was planted'. Your choice. Now, I was under the impression (at the time) that most folks were like me and could spot a see-how-much-publicity-we-can-milk-this-for-stunt a mile away. Apparently, either a) most folks were not like me and/or b) they did not see this as a 'stunt', but rather as an unnamed, unknown creature that had suddenly come to the forefront of that which is unexplained and now needed 'splaining.

That's why I was rather surprised to read today over yonder there at Fox News the headline "'Montauk Monster Mystery May Have Been Solved'. Solved? Solved? There's something to solve? Look, whatever the creature is/was I can guarantee you this, it's not some sort of paranormal activity. It's not a unnatural being. Whatever it is/was, is/was perpetrated by humans. End of story. OH, wait. Enter Fox News. NOT end of story. Crap.

Fox leads with "Some speculated it was an escaped mutant from a government lab. Others thought it was an alien. A few suggested it might be a dog or raccoon." For the record, 'some', 'others' and 'a few' are morons if that's what they actually thought. Fox then continues on with the article as if life has just been discovered on Mars by explaining that some guy has come forward and told a blogger (good Lord...) that he and his buddies were responsible for the Montauk Monster. Shocking, I know!

Alleged, self-proclaimed, fake-monster, creator guy told of how he found a "...dead raccoon in the sand on nearby Shelter Island." Since he and his buddies were on vacation, they did the natural thing for guys on vacation to do which is "...put the animal on an inflatable child's swim duck...with a lot of other debris...(and then)set it on fire and pushed it out to sea." Naturally.

This account was recounted over yonder at the blog ASSME. ASSME standing for, of course, "The American Society of Shitcanned Media Elites." What? You were expecting "Aye, Saw Some Monsters Everywhere"? Not so much.

The account over at ASSME (which is a sentence that I never thought I'd write) expounds a bit on the Fox News account with a bit more detail, such as "It was the weekend before July 4th, and the trio were making a raft and putting all sorts of debris on it, just for fun: watermelons, scraps of cloth, plastic swimmie duck, etc." Just for fun? My idea of fun is a lot different than that of those who look for scraps of cloth on a raft as 'fun'. I'm just sayin', is all. I'm juuuuusstt sayin'. Somewhere along the line, 'setting the thing on fire' was added to the very short list of entertainment favors. But it is insisted that “this creature was honored with a viking funeral, not merely exploited for crass entertainment." Oh, well, thank GOD that was the case! I was beginning to get a bit concerned. Whew! No need for alarm! Nothing to see here people! No crass entertainment exploitation being had! Back to your bunkers!

It was also revealed that this wasn't the first activity of the vacation that these lads had embarked upon. No, there were some prior adventures including "...a waterboarding endurance competition, and....a clothespins-on-your-genitals challenge.” Translation: They were drunk.

Look, it doesn't look like much of a raccoon to me and it certainly doesn't look like much of a raccoon carcass that had been set aflame. It's rather smooth. Like a seal. Only not. You know what else it doesn't look like? A monster, that is correct! Whatever it is, it was created by people. The whole illusion of the mystery of the unknown creature was completely and utterly created by humans. Was it created by the drunken fellows on vacation with their flaming duck flotation devices and watermelons afire? I don't know. (But flaming duck flotation devices and watermelons afire sound remarkably similar to my 35th birthday party. From what I remember.) But kudos to those boys (or boy) for bearing his soul to a blogger and getting their drunken deeds of fun out in the open.

Nice job, Fox News. Nice job keeping non-news in the news for years to come. I look forward to 2010 when you report that it was really the blogger himself who was responsible for the non-existent mayhem. Yeah, thanks for that.

By the way, all photos showing the duck floatie were shamelessly lifted with neither permission nor malice from ASSME. Just so you know.

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, Crap, Like Father, Like Son

Well, it appears to be "Like father, like son" in the cash of George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush. Frightening, I know. On Sunday, ol' H.W. gave an interview to Fox News' Chris Wallace on the aptly named show Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace" And when I say "Wow", I mean "Wow". Holy canoli, they both make about as much sense as Ozzy Osbourne, but he's usually trying to speak so he can be understood! And actually, Ozzy's problem isn't so much content as it is just trying to understand what in the hell he's saying. (It's as if he still had the head of that bat or chicken or whatever it was that he munched off years ago still in his mouth!) I'm going to hit the highlights of this train wreck and I think that you'll come to the conclusion that I did. That being that H.W. may or may not know what he's talking about, but whichever it is, his son inherited his exact same style of speaking. Or babbling. (If you figure out which one of those it is, you're one up on me because I'm stumped.)

At the beginning of the interview, Chris Wallace brought up how, next Saturday, our newest aircraft carrier will be commissioned and it will be named the USS George H.W. Bush. Naturally, H.W. is going to attend the ceremony (if he can find his way to the dock. The guy seemed a little doddering.). They chatted about that and then Wallace asked, "I hear that you have been telling friends that this is the last big event of your life, as you just told us. Do you see it as the culmination of a life of public service?" Nice way to phrase, "So, you're old and probably going to die soon. What'd ya think?"

H.W.'s response was, "Well, I do. I really do. I'm going to make one more parachute jump at 85. But that's not — I don't see that as culminating anything." Wait. What? You're going to jump? You do see it, but you don't see it? You what?

Wallace then asked him, "If you have the opportunity to take Mr. Obama aside and talk to him from the heart, what is the key piece of advice you want to give him?" Oh, Lord, here it comes.

"Oh, I — at this juncture, it really would be gratuitous for me to be giving advice to Barack Obama. It would be more to wish him well. I talked to him right after the election and did that then, assured him that he was my president." Why, yes, it would be gratuitous of you. I mean, I know he was President and all, but it was kind of a while ago and how often have we heard from him since then? Not much. We see the guy less than we do Punsutawney Phil. And what's with the assuring him that he's his president? As opposed to...? What? "Dude, you might have won, but there is no way, NO WAY that you're going to be MY president! Do you hear me?! I can't hear myself, that's why I'm asking!"

He didn't stop. He kept going. "But if I saw something I thought was wrong, I'd like to have the feeling I could bring it up with him just based on some experience in the past, war and peace, Middle East, Europe, Germany." War and peace. Thanks for narrowing that down there, H.W.

On the subject of Germany, Bush, Sr. added, "I think one of the best things we participated in doing or facilitating was the unification of Germany." Really? Because that happened slightly less than a month after you were inaugurated and I kind of get the feeling that it was in the works before then, so...well, you know. Maybe he remembers it a little bit differently than, well, history does. :::sigh::: What else?

Along the same "what advice would you give" line of questioning, Wallace went with "From your four years in the Oval Office, is there any piece of advice that you'd give any president coming into office?"

OK, wait. Before that gets answered, I have a question here. Why is he interviewing him in the first place? I don't get it. Because his inept, puppet of a president son is wrapping up his disaster term as President and so it would be a good idea to interview him? Personally, I think if you're going to interview anyone about George W. Bush, the only question that you can ask that is really relevant to anything and everything is, "What's wrong with him?" Other than that, I really don't see the point no matter who it is. But I digress. (Oh, come on! Eight years of this crap, don't tell me you're not a little cranky as well!)

His advice. It went something like this: "Get people around you whom you're confident will not be out there talking to the press and painting — building their own nests, you know, or — and I think — I think he's off to a good start in that." Painting and building nests? What?? Nest painters? In the White House? Is that such a good idea? Why are there nests to begin with?

When asked what he thought of Barry, Bush, Sr. said, "Well, I wish I knew him better. I don't really know him. I met him. He came down here to Houston for a hurricane relief deal several years ago in the Katrina — was it Katrina? (Wow! Both him AND G.W. had trouble identifying the hurricane that was Katrina! You'd think you would know if it was, sir. You know, with the masses of people from other states flooding into Texas and all.) I think it was. Yeah. And we met over here in the auditorium. (And that's the end of that tale that never really got started in the first place.) But I'm impressed with him. I'm very impressed with his style on the campaign and his coolness and his articulate nature. I think he can give a sentence and it will sound like it's been thought out by Shakespeare or something." From what I can tell, my cat could "give a sentence" and it would sound like Shakespeare to you. And I don't even have a cat!

On the leaving of office, Wallace asked, "Your son is also making a big transition pretty soon from president to private citizen. Having been through that, how tough is it, and what advice do you have for him?" To which Bush, Sr. responded, "Well, it's very tough — I think it is — to actually get under way as a private citizen. But it wasn't that hard for me, and I don't think it will be that hard for him." Wait. So it's "tough", but not for you and not for G.W. So....only Jimmy and Bill had a hard time? What does that mean?

It just gets worse. Everything he says is yes-no, black-white, up-down. If you asked the guy if he enjoyed his lunch, I could totally hear him saying, "Well, yes. The chicken, it was, it was good. I liked it very much. Um, you know, but see the chicken was dry and I don't really like dry chicken. That I did not like. But I enjoyed it very much."

Some brief other orations of eloquence from our 41st President:

• "We're very close, and we remain close for many, many years. People don't quite get that, but we're a very close mother — father and son, and his mother, Barbara, is as close as us."
  
• "But I've tried to stay out of his way on the issues, but I'm in touch — telephone. Yesterday evening we got home to Houston. Telephone rings. It's the president. "How's mom? How are you doing, Dad?" And like — it would be like any family. And that's important, I think, and especially in times of real difficulty for our country." (Yes, in times of difficulty, I always feel better, as does the rest of the country, when the President calls his parents in Houston. That is important! We're doomed.)



• 
  
  "...it's very easy for me to sit on the sidelines doing absolutely nothing and speak up in that manner for him. I've avoided a lot of these shows and all that stuff trying to say, "No, wait a minute, here's with the Kurds should have done," or, "Here's what the — you know, should be happening in Germany or in Panama," or something like that." (Again with Germany! And the Kurds? Um, we're kind of in the middle of this Muslim extremist dealio at the moment, but we'll keep the Kurds in mind. Thanks for that.)

But this is my favorite one. This is the one that makes me wish there was some sort of rule or something that if you are a senior citizen and you know little to nothing about the Internet or computers or technology then you are forbidden from speaking about anything having to do with any of it. Ever. (I'd make this rule applicable to everyone, not just senior citizens, but seniors need it the most. I know you guys are trying to be cool and keep up and all and we love ya for it. We do. But it makes you look silly when you misuse the terminology or when you add the word "the" or any sort of a possessive pronoun to those newfangled terms. Besides, if you're not a senior citizen and you don't know squat about technology, etc., then you deserve to be mocked until you crawl back under the rock you came out from under to see what the rest of the world was doing on their computers.)

Wallace: "You said earlier there are some things he could fairly be criticized for. Are you willing to tell me any of those?"

The guy who thinks that answering the rotary dial phone which is bolted to the wall in his avocado green kitchen shows how up to date on technology he is: "No, I don't need to go into that. You can go back to your — what do you call it? — your Google and you figure out all that."

FreeVideoCoding.com

Go back to your Google. Your MAAAAAAAAAA-GIC Google! You go and you use that there, sonny! You young whippersnapper, you! You and your...your...what do you call it? Your Google! Yeah! You just got and figure out all that with that! So there!"

Not so much is my question how did these two men, both Bushes, get elected President, but rather, why in the world did the country keep voting for these guys! Two Vice Presidential terms and three Presidential terms between the two of them! That's FIVE!! FIVE times the moronic voters in this country voted for at least ONE of them to hold one of the top two most powerful positions in the world! What is wrong with people?? I know this is a country that elected a man named Tricky Dick, not once, but twice. I don't get it. I just don't get it.

Now if you'll excuse me, in all of my perplexed-ness, I'm off to figure this whole "voting for morons" tendency that this country seems to have. And I'm going to figure it out with my Google! So there.

Sphere: Related Content

At The End Of The Article Armaggeddon

Sometimes at the end of news articles that you read at various online news reporting outlets (or attempting to report what may or may not be news) have a box on the side or the bottom with a bunch of links to other stories that are either related to the one that you just read or that other people who had read the same article had also read. Sometimes these other stories are related your current story. Other times, not so much. But over yonder at Fox News, they seem to think that you need a wide and far reaching variety of news stories, either so you don't miss a thing or so that your selections aren't within too narrow of a category. And for some reason, at the bottom of a story about a bunch of drunken Russian cops beating and burning (yes, burning. As in with fire.) a man to death, there was what could be described as a "melange of whack-a-doodle". It could probably also be described as several other things, but it's not often I can work "melange" into things, as I do not often write about paella.

First, I'll address the crazy Commies. No, actually, first I'll address the horrible job someone did with writing that blurb. It really doesn't tell you much more than the title which says "Officials: Drunk Russian Police Beat, Burned Man To Death." No word on why the three officers were drunk, how they figured out that they were responsible, whether or not it's common for Russian law enforcement to tie one on during their shift, or even who found the body. It was described as being found "in a nearby forest Wednesday with massive burns." Huh. Massive burns. From being set on fire, you say? Interesting. (Note to self: Even though international stories tend to be short, do not let busboy write them, even if he does claim to have "a real way with words.")

Now what other stories could be related to that you ask? Here we go....People who read about the Perestroika Police also read about these intriguing tales:

• Texas Mom Throws 4-Year Old Daughter Into Traffic
  
  
• Police: Husband of Long Island Teacher Choked Her To Death; Staged Broken Down Car Scene
  
  
• Giant Spider Caught On Film Eating Bird In Australian Backyard
  
  
• Pakistani Police Arrest Cleric Who Presided Over Kids' Wedding


• Cheetah Runs Loose On Plane, Bites Baggage Worker
  

Seriously, what the heck is that? I'm pretty sure that at least one of those is a sign of Armageddon. Giant spiders eating birds?! I don't think of that when I think of Australia. I think of koalas, kangaroos, that Crocodile Dundee mate, things like that. Not giant spiders eating birds, for cryin' out loud! And how did that cheetah get loose? Never mind that, how did it get on the plane to begin with?! Now I have to worry about loose and livid flying cheetahs?

I'm sure there was a brilliant mind at work in the choking husband story there. I'll bet The Choker is right at this very minute thinking to himself, "I can't believe the broken down car scene that I staged didn't throw them off of my trail! Dammit! I'm so unlucky!" And of course, that a-hole is one of the guys who (allegedly) kills his wife and then reports her as missing and does a bunch of TV interviews about how much he loves his wife and makes tearful public pleas for her to be returned. When, exactly, did that method start gaining popularity? Was it when Scott Peterson was trying to convince everyone that he was so upset that his wife, Laci, was missing? I think that might have been it. Hey, guys out there thinking about offing your wife and trying the Peterson method, listen up. Before you start choking the Missus, perhaps take a moment to recall how all of that turned out for Scotty-boy there and don't strangle the little lady, OK champ? Grand.

Now, The Choker, also known as William Walsh, has allegedly confessed to killing his wife, Leah. The Choker has an attorney who stated to the media, "If we know anything from recent events, confessions are inherently unreliable, especially when trickery is involved." What recent events would those be sir? And, I'm sorry, did you say trickery? He did indeed say trickery, and when he was asked by the media to clarify what he meant by said trickery, he said, "I am saying unquestionably any confession that they obtain is done by tricks." That still doesn't answer the question. What kind of tricks? Juggling? Cards? Magic? The shell game? Tell us the tricks! I really think someone should have some pretty specific examples if they're going to go throwing words like "trickery" around these days.

What's up with the spider and the bird? Apparently, there is a photo of a lifeless bird trapped in a web near Cairns, Australia, which shows the spider clenching its legs around said lifeless bird. A one Joel Shakespeare, who is "the head spider keeper at NSW's Australian Reptile Park, said the spider was a golden orb weaver." In other news the Australian Reptile Park has a head spider keeper. Now, I don't know if my knowing the particular species of spider is supposed to make this better for me or what. And it really doesn't. Regardless of the fact that most people will respond to such a story by shouting, "Holy crap!" and not "Tell me more about the golden orb weaver and it's day to day existence.", Joel continued by explaining, "Normally they prey on large insects, it's unusual to see one eating a bird." Now is that because a bird is not a large insect or because spider don't eat birds?! He then made everyone reading this story feel tons better by mentioning that "...he had seen golden orb weaver spiders as big as a human hand but the northern species in tropical areas were known to grow larger."

But if you were wondering, Joel said the bird was "a chestnut-breasted mannikin" (was being the key word in that phrase) and that it "appears frozen in an angel-like pose in the pictures." (A chesty breast frozen angel? What is going on down there in Australia?) Then, with his keen deductive abilities he stated that the bird "is likely to have flown into the web and got caught." Do you think, Joel? Huh. So, it's a bird and it just flapped its wings and flew into the web, you say? It didn't just walk in on its own? Are you sure the spider didn't try any of that "Step into my parlor" trickery that I've heard so much about? Joel then added (as if it is supposed to make us feel better), "It wouldn't eat the whole bird." Oh, no, of course not. Because that would be weird. (Not as weird as a goat named Red that wasn't de-horned, but weird just the same.)

The folks over there at news.com.au have the photo of the bird-eating spider (along with a bunch of other stories that should keep me busy for at least a week!). Now, if you're expecting some of that breast-y stuff that was mentioned earlier, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Probably not as disappointed as you're going to be if you are expecting some of that angel-y stuff that was mentioned earlier, but disappointed none the less. And it's really not as bad as you'd think. Then again, we're not the bird. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content