Like A Lion, Only Less Hairy

Warning: This isn't my usual witty fare. But it's important. Granted, I think that other things that I put on here are important as well, but seriously, are they? Kinda. But still not as important as this. Look, my very good friend's father died from melanoma about five years ago. It's not good. But there are things that you can do to catch melanoma early and improve your chances of survival. This video gets to the heart of those things that you should probably know. I know it runs a little bit long at just over five minutes, but give it a watch. If you knew that you were going to be attacked by a lion one day, wouldn't you want to know what to do about it when that lion finally jumped out at you? Of course you would! (Just ask Siegfried and Roy.) Think of melanoma as that lion, only with less hair. And if the video doesn't load, click here.

Sphere: Related Content

You Can Wear Your Jersey Anywhere You Want

From the files of "No One Deserves To Be Beaten Within An Inch Of Their Life After A Sporting Event, You Ass", we have a column written by a one John Steigerwald. Mr. Steigerwald seems to think that if a victim of a beating was wearing a jersey from the opposing team then it is somehow that person's fault that they were damn near killed by a couple of idiotic thugs.

Let me bring you up to date. A couple of weeks ago, the San Francisco Giants played the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium. After the game, a couple of thugs wearing Dodger garb blindsided a one 42-year old Giant fan, Bryan Stow, in the parking lot. They sucker punched him and then when he was down on the ground, they repeatedly kicked him in the head before they fled like the cowards that they are. Mr. Stow, a paramedic and father of 2, is still in ICU in a medically induced coma with half of his skull removed because his brain was swelling up too much for it to fit inside of his skull when it was in one piece. He shows signs of brain damage and it's pretty obvious that his life will never be the same. While he was being kicked in the head, the Dodger clad a-holes made it clear that Mr. Stow was targeted because he was wearing a San Francisco Giants jersey. Real nice, LA. Stay classy.

Consider yourself up to date. Enter Mr. Steigerwald and his asinine column that he wrote for the Observer-Reporter.com. The title of his article is "Know when you've outgrown the uniform". The premise of his column seems to be his bewilderment at why Mr. Stow would have been so "stupid" (I'm paraphrasing here) as to wear a jersey from the opposing team to the home team's stadium. In fact, he coldly states "Maybe someone can ask Stow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years."

Uhh...wow. Let me give you the answer, Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy. He wore his jersey to the game because he wanted to. That was his team that he was cheering on and that's what he wanted to wear. Land of the free, remember? Or maybe he just didn't think that there would be people out there who would pummel someone into a coma simply because they rooted for the opposite team. Or maybe he wasn't worried about anything because stadiums are supposed to provide security. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. He didn't deserve to get beaten up because he had on a Giants jersey!

Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy goes on to ask "Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team?" Of course, he states no basis for that question, as there is no indication that Mr. Stow or ANYONE who wears a jersey to a game thinks that. I just bought my best friend a Giants jersey today. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't think that she is a member of the team simply because she's wearing a jersey that says "Lincecum" on the back of it. No, actually, I am positive of it. I, myself, have several sports jerseys which I enjoy wearing. I've never once equated myself to Joe Montana. Never.

His does make the astute observation that "Obviously, not every fan who wears his team's jersey to a game is looking for someone from "the enemy" to beat up." You don't say?! Then why are you acting like he did?! Why are you acting like Mr. Stow did something wrong? Do you believe that women who are scantily dressed deserve to get raped? Wait. Don't answer that. You probably do. You're such an a-hole.

Provocation is a funny thing. I mean, does it even exist if it is being ignored? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But my point isn't to get all philosophical here. The point is that someone wearing a sports jersey isn't provoking anyone. And the other point is that no one is asking to be beaten up no matter what they are wearing. People are supposed to act like human beings around one another. Bryan Stow did not deserve this and it doesn't matter why he wore his jersey to the Dodger game. Mr. Steigerwald is clearly a huge douchelord. Using his own logic, I wonder why he would write something as inflammatory as he did, knowing full well that there are going to be unstable people out there that read it and might possibly want revenge. Why would you do such a thing, Mr. Porn Star Moustache? Why? Oh, because you want to and because you can? Well, that's why Bryan Stow wore his jersey. Because he wanted to and because he could. Now, stop acting like the biggest a-hole around, Mr. Steigerwald, and donate to a fund to help the man. Do it now.

For the rest of you who aren't column writing a-holes and who would like to help out Mr. Stow's family, please visit http://www.support4bryanstow.com/ There are a variety of fundraisers going on if you're local, but there's also a way to donate if you're not. And please remember that no one deserves to get beaten. Even Mr. Steigerwald. I think.

Sphere: Related Content

Help Out Japan

Hey. Japan is effed up right now. Fortunately, this time it wasn't caused by the US out of retaliation for an ill advised sneak attack at the beginning of a World War. But that's really not much of a consolation when your island country has been struck by an earthquake which has now been measured at a whopping 9.0 on the Richter Scale. And they're still being constantly bombarded with aftershocks that are between 5.0 and 7.0. Those are aftershocks. If an earthquake of that size hit anywhere in the US, it is all that would be talked about on the news. That is a HUGE quake. And the Japanese are experiencing multitudes of those huge quakes almost constantly right now. And as if the earthquake wasn't enough, there was a massive tsunami which only made things a bazillion times worse. I don't get that. It's like pouring salt in the wound. Is it necessary? I guess it is, but it's definitely rude on the part of Mother Nature or whoever is in charge of this sort of thing.

You know what I find interesting about this disaster in particular? The people of Japan have had their lives ruined in the blink of an eye. (Well, two blinks. The first blink was the earthquake and the second blink was the tsunami.) And you know what makes this disaster different from other ones that have happened in recent memory? There's no looting. There's no despicable behavior like that. I'm impressed. It's a sociological phenomenon that should be studied. No looting. Amazing. Way to go, Japan. And as you know, I'm not one for a lot of compassion. That's why, when these disasters strike, as soon as the looting begins, that's when my compassion goes away. If people have the energy to break the glass on store windows and haul out big screen TVs and 57 pairs of Nike shoes, I figure that they can use that energy to help themselves and that I really shouldn't interfere. Not to mention that I lose a lot of respect for anyone like that.

But not in this case. In this case, these people need help and they're deserving of it. (Please don't judge me based on that sentence. You know what I mean.) And it is rare that I ever advocate just giving away your money, but in this case, I'm going to suggest that if you can spare a few bucks, that you donate it to the American Red Cross so that they can get some help out to Japan. If you're not a fan of the American Red Cross (even though I cannot imagine why you wouldn't be), then donate some to an organization that you feel would be of assistance in helping out the people in Japan. Just do something if you can. You'd want someone to help you out, wouldn't you?

Sphere: Related Content

This Beltway is the Wrong Way

I'll be the first to admit, I'm far from a fashion monger. Fashion mongrel is probably more like it (though I do possess the uncanny ability to pick out which shoes go with any outfit; a talent that has succeeded in advancing my place in life approximately never). But from monger to mongrel, from blogger to blogee, from layman to standman, for the love of God will someone please explain to Michelle Obama how to wear a damn belt for Christ's sake?!

I love Michelle Obama. I find her to be about as real as any wife of a politician can be. She also seems to take that whole 'I am a mother and these are my children, so back off' role rather seriously, which I appreciate and respect a heck of a lot more than the realness of a politician's wife. And being one who isn't all fashion-y herself, I don't necessarily think that I should be one to judge. That would just be like, "Hello, Kettle? This is The Pot. You're black!" (By the way, I find that delivery of that particular analogy funny. Every. Time.) But even I know when something like this is fashionably amiss. Behold!

Seriously. It's just wrong. And trust me, as a fashion mongrel, if even I can sense that it's wrong, then it's really wrong. Look at her standing there next to the luscious Carla Bruni. Look at the difference in torso size as defined by the location of the belt! Carla Bruni looks fine. Michelle Obama's stature is akin to that of a grape on top of a candlestick. The thing is that it can so easily be fixed. So why isn't it?! Where the bottom of her belt lies in these photos is where the top of the belt should probably be. That's all it would take. It would at least be a start! And YES, I am familiar with how a belt works. Complicated contraption, but thanks for asking. I understand that there is the hip factor involved. But come on! Where she's wearing the belt now, it's like a shelf for her breasts. No one needs that, really. Do they?

God, and it just keeps going.....


And going.....


And going.....

She's a tall woman. Wearing a belt in such a manner that makes it appear as if your torso is comparable to that of Herve Villachaize is not a flattering look. Again, breast shelf. A shelf for breasts. Unnecessary and unwelcome.

The fact that she seems to have a favorite belt does not help the situation. What? You haven't noticed her favorite belt? I'm I the only one who knows about the favorite belt? In fact, three of the five photos above (those would be the last three) involve the belt of choice. If I glance at a photo of her and it appears that she is be-belted, I immediately check to see if it is the belt Quite often, it is. The belt. Behold!

It appears to be some sort of shiny, be-studded number. Behold!

One which I assume clasps or....what do belts do? Cinch? Cinch in the back? Whatever it is, you just keep beholding! There's more of that belt and whatever it does where that belt came from!

Even has it in white, for cryin' out loud! (Granted, not the best photo for the accentuation of the white version of the belt, but trust me. It's the same. Only white.)

And let's face it, our First Lady is hot. She doesn't need the belt. She's perfectly capable of rockin' many other looks that are sans belt. For instance....behold!

See? Now there, she might be be-belted, but you don't really notice for a variety of reasons. A) You're busy wondering why her pants are so short (Answer: It's OK. They're supposed to be like that for some unknown reason. Me? I say, Make a choice! Shorts or pants! You can't have both!), B) You're busy scoping out the one bare shoulder look and praying to God that the Flashdance look doesn't come roaring back, or C) It's all camouflaged up in there by the spectacular pattern of...stuff that she has going on there.

Are you going to tell me that any of our other recent First Ladies could have pulled that look off? Hillary?

OH, stop screaming! It's only Photoshop. Calm down. But you see what I'm saying, correct? I mean, even in the photo below, taken on Stevie Wonder night at the White House a couple of months back, where Michelle is trying out her Whitney Houston look, she looks pretty good and she can pull it off, but the belt is just too darned high.

So then I started thinking, why does she need a belt at all? I'll show you why. Behold! Why!

OK, so we've established that without a belt, she can look rather frock-ish. But with a belt in the wrong place, she can really look a bit like someone grabbed two Garanimals tags that didn't match. It's like someone put the giraffe with the tiger or some other animal that isn't a giraffe. (Not that I have anything against giraffes. I happen to be quite fond! I'm just sayin'.) But whose to say that she has to be wearing a dress all the time? Behold!

Now we're talkin'. Belt's still up there, but it blends with everything else, so you don't notice as much. Bravo!

So, what have we learned? Plenty. We've learned that Michelle Obama wears her belts too high and that she does not seem to need the breast shelf that it seems to create. We've learned that she appears to have a favorite belt which comes in both black and white (just like her husband). We've also learned that Michelle Obama can definitely rock a pair of trousers or slacks or whatever those are just fine. And finally, we've learned that I pay attention to some of the weirdest things that are out there.

Sphere: Related Content

The Comfort of Our Lucky Underpants

That Calvin is a wise chap. No, not John Calvin, the guy who helped develop Reformed theology, otherwise known as Calvinism. No, not Calvin Klein, the guy who helped develop the jeans that make your ass look good. Calvin as in Calvin and Hobbes. Calvin can be quite sage-like with his words of wisdom. Turning to him for such wisdom is oddly helpful at times. I don't know why it seems to help, nor do I know the full extent to which it seems to help. But it does.

The key word in the understanding of how Calvin (or anything else utilized in this fashion, really) helps is "seems". As I just said, I don't know if it does help or not. But it "seems" to. Sometimes, things can "seem" to be good, but it turns out that maybe they weren't so good after all. And other times, things can "seem" to be bad, but it turns out that they're not as bad as you thought they were. The thing about "seeming" is that it might not be what you think, which gives a possibility that the situation can change. Whichever is the case, Calvin "seems" to help out.

It's hard to say in which situation the Calvin Comfort theory is the most effective. Most likely, it's when things seem to be good and then they head south that you'd want to induce a little Calvin. I mean, when things seem like they're just a disaster, they usually turn out to be not as bad as they were perceived. (Well, not at first. At first, a disaster is a disaster. But in taking time for a second or a third look, you might see that it wasn't as bad as you'd thought.) Now, when things are good and then turn not so good, it's harder than things that just suck from the beginning.

When it goes from good to not so good for reasons that seem to indicate it can't be better until it's worse, well, that's even harder. That's when you're going to need something other than continually, questioning or wondering WTF? That's when you need to stop trying to figure out why and just try to figure out how. How to deal. How to cope. How to help.

And while Calvin can't fix it either (because it might not be something that's fixable or sometehing that really even needs fixing), he can help you find perspective through words that are oddly inspiring, considering that they come from a comic strip kid who talks to a stuffed tiger that talks back.

Calvin's one sentence statement to Hobbes below sums up exactly how things feel when they seem to be not so great; things feel as if nothing that we have going for us is making a difference at that particular time; not even our lucky rocketship underpants. But Hobbes knows that not everything out there is able to be impacted by us. And he knows that sometimes it's not going to matter what we do because it's not a matter of doing, it's a matter of waiting. And that makes sense.

It seems to help, even if just a little bit, because if Hobbes can see that Calvin wishes that things were different, that's enough for us to hope that someone else will notice that we wished that things were different too. And just like how Hobbes is there for Calvin, and Calvin is there for us, it makes us want to let someone else know that we're there for them. Whether it's just taking time to listen or making sure that they know we're their friend or that we just wish we could help things to get better, there's that hope that it's known that we want it to be different too, and we'll stand by 'em while they figure things out. With or without our underpants.

Sphere: Related Content