No Need For Questions

Did you hear about the guy down on Florida who was all hopped up on some sort of wacky new drug (bath salts, I believe) and ate a homeless guy's face clean off? If you haven't heard about it, it's just exactly what it sounds like it is.  Florida is really trying hard to solidify its status as America's wackiest state.  And with this little incident, I don't think that they have anything to worry about.  The title is safely in the hands of its people.

And of course, what do you think happened after the guy was shot dead right in the middle of all of the face eating (also known as cannibalism)?  That's right.  Members of his family and people who knew him were interviewed.  Do you think that their answers differed from other times that people have done horrible things and people who knew them are asked about their character?  (As if it would even matter at that point.  I don't care if someone was a freaking Boy Scout for his entire life.  If you eat off someone's face, every good thing that you'd accomplished prior to your meal is irrelevant.)  Of course they didn't. 

It's not even just the interviews that are asinine.  Here's a headline from the Miami Herald: "Questions remain about why naked man on Miami causeway tried to rip flesh off another man's face". Questions remain?  Well, of course questions remain!  He ate the guy's face, for cryin' out loud!  It's not easily explained!  And really, what if it was?  Is an explanation going to make people think, "Ohhhh.  So that's why.  Oh, well, that makes sense!  OK.  I was confused before I heard the explanation.  But now that it's been explained, it's all good."  Does that EVER happen? I don't think it does. 


And why can't the "explanation" ever just be something simple.  eg, Hey, the guy was nutty as a fruit bat.  He was also high as a freaking kite.  Why isn't something like that ever given as the "explanation"?  Why does there always have to be some sort of deep seeded meaning in these things?  Crazy is a highly underrated rationale for many, many behaviors.  I wish people would realize that more and act accordingly.  Then again, it helps if the person being asked these questions isn't a little bit crazy themselves, as seems to be the case with his girlfriend. 

See, the girlfriend was asked for her thoughts on the matter and she came up with a couple of really great possibilities.  The first was that he "...was drugged unknowingly."  Because of course, that's the sort of thing that happens all the time.  One minute you're fine and the next minute, you're drugged unknowingly and gnawing someone's face off.  It's either that or "The only other explanation, she said, was supernatural — that someone put a voodoo curse on him. The girlfriend...said she has never believed in voodoo, until now."  Right.  That's the only other explanation.  Voodoo.  A voodoo curse.  Because again, it's the sort of thing that happens all the time.  The ol' voodoo curse.  The ol' VDC.   Naturally.  Because according to her ""I don't know how else to explain this."  Yep.  Because it's either a voodoo curse or nothing.  All rightee then.  I think I'm done here.


Shouldn't that answer alone be reason enough to stop asking people their opinions on things like this?  Then again, maybe that answer alone is exactly the reason why people keep getting asked their opinions on things like that.  Voodoo curse is a pretty amusing answer.  And it definitely gives me a look inside of a cage at the human zoo that I didn't know was there.  OK, I'm convinced.  We should keep these sorts of interviews around.  I can't believe my mind was so easily swayed.  Do you think it was a voodoo curse?  I don't know how else to explain it. 

Sphere: Related Content

Just Keep Quiet

Once again, a scumbag was arrested for a heinous crime.  And once again, at least one family member had to speak out in favor of said scumbag.  I've said it countless times before, but I guess that it's time to repeat it.  Please, relatives of scumbags, do NOT defend these asshats when you speak with the media.  Better yet?  Don't speak to the media.  I don't need to see you, armed with minimal information, defending someone who appears to be clearly guilty (or, at the very least, mired in some extremely questionable circumstances which could use a whole lot of explaining) simply because you're related to them.  Please stop this.  Please stop this now.

The alleged scumbag is Antolin Garcia-Torres.  He's being charged with kidnapping and murder in the case of the disappearance of Sierra Lamar.  They arrested him after having him under 24-hour surveillance because his DNA was found in her discarded bag of clothes after she disappeared.  After his car was impounded, they found Sierra's DNA inside of his car.  Of course, he's told his mom that he's never seen her before.  Naturally.  Actually, what he said was "I've never seen that lady. I've never made contact with her."  (I kind of thought that was a weird thing to say about a 15-year old.  "That lady"?  Really?  She's 15, dude.)  


Anyway, his sister was interviewed and she has decided that he's innocent.  There's his DNA all over the place and his sister has the nerve to say that he's innocent.  What she said (among other things) was "It wasn't him."  Right.  Of course.  Because she knows what he's been doing at every moment of every day.  It wasn't him?  Please pipe down.  She has absolutely zero basis to say such a thing and in light of the evidence that's out there, I find it rather insulting that she'd go there.

She went on to say, among other things, "I'm sure he didn't do it. We're all sure."  Well, I gotta tell you, I'm not so sure.  Has anyone explained to her about the DNA evidence that they have?  It's probably pretty unusual for a guy to have the DNA of someone that he's never met in his car.  It's probably equally as unusual for the guy to have his very own DNA on the clothing of someone he's never met as well.  I wonder if his all knowing sister has any explanation for any of that?  I'm guessing that she doesn't.  Did I also mention that she called him "genuine" and "sweet".  Yeah, those are not the adjectives that you want to use when describing someone in his situation. 


If, God forbid, you ever find yourself in the unfortunate situation that Antolin Garcia-Torres' sister finds herself in, might I please request once again that you say nothing in defense of the person.  Please don't tell us what a great guy you think he is.  Please don't tell us that you know he's innocent, when in reality, you know nothing.  Please don't say anything that even remotely comes to the defense of likely and alleged scumbags who kidnap young 15-year old girls and allegedly kill them.  (Do you have any idea how much I despise feeling the need to throw in the 'allegedly' part?  I'm a big fan of DNA evidence.  And also of reality.)  Just keep quiet.  There's nothing that you can say at that point that is going to make anything any better.  The situation is a mess and  you need to start dealing with that.  The best way to deal with it?  Not do interviews where you defend those sorts of people.  That's going to be best for everyone involved. 

Sphere: Related Content

Patience, Young Grasshopper

The peculiarity of where this country decides to focus its attention on occasion completely baffles me.  In case you've been under some sort of glorious rock lately, I will tell you that President Barry, during an interview with Robin Roberts, came out in favor of gay marriage.  I think.  And from the reactions I'm reading, you'd think that something wonderful just happened instead of just one guy changing his mind.  Or not. 

Look, President Barry is a pretty progressive guy.  I have a hard time believing that he, deep down in his heart, was ever really against gay marriage.  I'm more inclined to believe that he was against it for purely political reasons.  Whatever the reason is, here is his latest statement on where he stands in regard to gayrriage:  "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married." 

While that's a lovely sentiment, I don't know that it's going to make a difference in anything.  And that's for a variety of reasons.  First of all, I just want to point out that he did include the word "personally".  That's what he now suddenly believes on a personal level.  Is that going to translate to a political level?  I have a hard time believing that it would.  That'd be great if he wanted to go and campaign in states that are putting gay marriage bans on their ballots, but I just don't see that happening.  And the reason I don't see that happening is because he also said that "..states should have the right to decide what marriage is".  Of course.  This way, he can be for gay marriage and appease those folks who have really made it their number one social cause, while at the same time allow himself to stay out of the issue because he sees it as not being a federal issue.  Tricky. 

But here's one of the things that I find just fascinating about this whole dynamic.  Until now, President Barry had been, essentially, against gay marriage.  But no one gave him any crap about it.  Everyone was just fine with it and continued to sing his praises as if he were the second coming of Christ himself.  No one called him a bigot.  No one called him a hater.  No one pressed the issue.  There weren't rainbow flag protests outside of the White House.  None of that.  People just let his ideas evolve on their own until he came to a different conclusion that they were happy with.  Why aren't other people who are against gay marriage (or who aren't sure about it) not given that same sort of time and/or leeway for their opinions to change?  Why are people automatically so angry at those folks?  I don't have an answer for this, by the way.  It's merely an observation that I've made. 

Here's another angle of this that I find interesting.  So far, every single state that has put gay marriage to a vote has voted against it.  Every.  Single.  One.  The states that allow gay marriage have only been able to do so through legislation.  But every time that it's given to the people for a vote, they have voted 100% against it.  Every. Time.  What's that all about?  And with the recent passage of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman in North Carolina, that brings the grand total up to 30 states with similar laws on the books.  Thirty!  Yet the topic is still covered in the media as if it is a minority of people who feel this way.  Clearly, that's not the case. 

All I'm trying to say here is that it's a tricky issue for a lot of people.  And the whole gay acceptance thing has come such a long way over the years.  Things just take time.  And really, just because someone is against gay marriage doesn't mean that they hate gays.  Sometimes it does.  But sometimes it doesn't.  In fact, most of the people that I've met or that I know who are not exactly for gay marriage are absolutely NOT people who hate gays.  I just think that we just need to be patient with people in the same manner that everyone seems to have been patient with President Barry. Do you have any idea how long it took civil rights legislation to go through?  Longer than you would guess and definitely longer than I would have liked.  (In case you were wondering, Lyndon B. Johnson passed a minor piece of civil rights legislation in 1957.  That was the first legislation passed since the Civil War had ended.  See?  Takes a long time.)  People just need to be patient and see it for what it is.  An evolution of thought.  And evolution is not a speedy process. 

Sphere: Related Content

Ain't Nobody Got Time For That

You knew that this was coming. You knew that when there was that interview with the extremely colorful Ms. Sweet Brown that there would be an Autotune version of said interview coming shortly. And thankfully, we are not to be disappointed. There's even a cameo by Antoine Dodson (who I swear is this woman's long lost brother or something). It's a rather catchy tune. I think that I'm going to make it my alarm, maybe for the rest of my life.

Sphere: Related Content

No Time For Bronchitis

I seem to be noticing a slight trend these days in the whole "man on the street interview" department. It seems that ever since Antoine Dodson graced us with his poetic words of wisdom when telling us to "Hide yo kids, hide yo wife and hide yo husband 'cause they're rapin' everrbody out here!" that the goal is to find the wackiest person to interview for the local evening newscast. And that appears to be exactly what occurred when Ms. Sweet Brown (I swear that's her name) was interviewed after her apartment building caught on fire. At least, I think that it's her apartment building. It's not overly clear to me. (She seems wacky enough that she might have fled her own dwelling even if it wasn't the one burning to the ground.) But what is clear is that she's pretty colorful. Seems like she'd make an entertaining neighbor. Check her out below. Click here if she doesn't show up.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Money!

So yesterday I showed you a video made by Alexandra Pelosi (and despite her mother, Nancy Pelosi, probably being related to the devil, Alexandra seems like a charming woman) where she went to the heart of Mississippi and gathered some opinions about Obama. As you might be able to imagine, the responses were not exactly favorable (or tooth filled, in at least one instance). And as promised yesterday, here is the flip side of that. Here is Alexandra Pelosi interviewing welfare recipients in New York and getting their opinions about Obama. As you might be able to imagine, the responses were certainly more favorable than those from the south. That doesn't mean that it's going to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over inside. No, it will probably do quite the opposite. Regardless, here's the video. (As always, if it doesn't show up or play, click here. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

Welcome To Mississippi

A little while ago, I think I had mentioned that Nancy Pelosi's daughter had made a video where she interviewed folks from Mississippi about their thoughts on the current President. I don't know exactly what the goal was, but if she was attempting to reinforce stereotypes (or at least help show how stereotypes are usually rooted in at least a little bit of fact) then she did a bang up job. And don't worry! She interviewed folks who have a better opinion of President Barry in a separate video. We'll see that one tomorrow. Today we have the toothless dissenters from the south. If it doesn't show up, click here. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Wrong Team, Cupcake

If you're going to cheer for a sports team, you might want to make sure that you at least know the names of just some of the players. It doesn't have to be all of them. Just a few. Just one even. Just know the name of at least one player on the team. That way when you're asked by a reporter who your favorite player is you won't say the name of someone on another team. That way you won't sound just like the woman in the clip below who was asked who her favorite New York Giant player is and responded, "Sanchez!" Umm...he plays for the Jets, cupcake. Still New York, but that's not good enough. Let's watch what not to do. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

The Future Of America

You know how I keep saying that we're doomed? It's because we are. Check out the video below and tell me differently. Some guy went and interviewed a bunch of teenagers at his school and asked them fairly basic questions along the lines of "What is the capital of Washington?" and "Who is the Vice President of the United States?" Not. Too. Tricky. Then again, I'm showing you this video, so how good could it possibly be? You're right. Not good at all. We're doomed. I mean, they really tried to think of the answer. But it just wasn't enough. We're still doomed. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Another Jerry Sandusky Interview

Who in the hell is Jerry Sandusky's lawyer? I need to know so that I can make sure that, should the need ever arise (and I can't for the life of me imagine a scenario in which it would) and I need a lawyer, I can make damn sure that I don't hire him. Good Lord. Is his lawyer authorizing these interviews that Sandusky is giving to the press? Oh. Wait. Did I not mention that Sandusky gave another interview, this time on camera? And did I mention that (to no real surprise) that it comes off as a complete disaster if he is still going to try to maintain his innocence (which he seems to be doing, albeit poorly)? I left those out? My bad. Here's the interview Sandusky did with a reporter who appears to be from the New York Times (The actual interview part is only about 2:45 in length. Also, try to not be annoyed when the Good Morning America guy pronounces it as 'lenth'.):

"Those allegations are false. I didn't do those things....I don't know." Right, Jerry. It's all just craaaaaaaaazy that you're being charged with at least forty counts of child touching in one form or another. "I don't know." Yeah, that's really not the best defense and it certainly is probably the worst explanation ever.


In regard to what Joe Paterno said to him after Paterno learned of the allegations against Sandusky: "I don't know that he didn't know. I know that he didn't never said anything to me." I'm going to overlook the "didn't never" debacle simply because this is just so full of crap that grammatical correctness should probably be the least of Sandusky's worries after this interview aired. Oh, and way to throw Paterno under the bus. I'm not saying that Paterno doesn't deserve to be under the bus (as he most likely does and I'd really like to be driving said bus), but way to go.


When asked about his reaction to being confronted with the time that Mike McQueary (allegedly) saw him raping a little boy in the Penn State showers: "Yeah...uh...I told him that it didn't happen. And uh, you know, in my mind, there wasn't inappropriate behavior." Oh. My. God. So, he's just one of those guys who thinks that the man-boy love is perfectly all right, isn't he? What do those sickos call themselves? NAMBLA? Given that answer (and that he was smiling about it and appeared to be adjusting his shoes when he was responding), I'm leaning in that direction. So, in his mind, raping a little boy isn't inappropriate at all. Ok, then. (By the way, it SO is!) Wow. This guy is weird. Way to go, Penn State, for letting him continue to roam your campus and bring young boys there for freaking years! The whole campus should just be burned the to ground and rebuilt or something. This whole thing makes me sick.


When asked about his bizarre response to Bob Costas when Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he said: "I was sitting there saying just 'What in the world is this question?'" Yeah, it's a head scratcher all right. You're charged with over forty counts of child touching and someone asks you if you're sexually attracted to young boys. Completely out of the blue! Who would have seen that coming?!


And trying to explain that question is where he dooms himself. He actually says, "Am I gonna be...If I say "No, I'm not attracted to boys" that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people. Boys...girls..." And then he stops talking because off camera, someone is speaking loudly to him. The voice over on the video suggests it might be his dumbass lawyer who was apparently cool with him doing this sort of interview in the first place.


Whatever. This is just irritating me to the point where my commentary is going to end here. This guy obviously has a jackass for an attorney and I'm actually glad about that. I hate it when these sorts of scumbags have some slick lawyer who can get them off on some sort of technicality even though they're obviously guilty as hell. Sandusky is guilty as hell and if all goes well, he'll be spending the rest of his life in prison (where one can only hope that he'll get a taste of some of his own behavior that he didn't think was inappropriate). These interviews are just too damning for him to get off, especially when he's being represented by a lawyer who not only lets him do these sorts of things, but hangs out and watches as they go down. I hope his trial is televised because with his idiot lawyer at the helm, Sandusky will probably take the stand. THAT is something that I'd like to see, as he will get torn to shreds by the prosecutors. Bring it on.

Sphere: Related Content

Hating In Peace

I'm not a huge fan of rap (or hip hop as it is apparently now being called), but as a lover of pop culture, I do know who various rappers are. Today, we're going to take a look at a rapper called T.I. and what he thinks about gay people who don't like it when other people don't like the aforementioned gay people.

T.I. did an interview with Vibe magazine. During the interview, the subject of all Americans having equal rights came up. Here are his words of wisdom on the subject: "While T.I. makes clear that he supports anyone’s sexual preference, he then connects, in his opinion, a current oversensitivity among gay people with a consequential and ironic offense of the First Amendment. "They’re like, 'If you have an opinion against us, we're gonna shut you down.' ... That's not American. If you're gay you should have the right to be gay in peace, and if you're against it you should have the right to be against it in peace."


Soooo....wait. He's saying that if someone doesn't like you because of who you are that you should just take it? You shouldn't say anything? You should just let them have their opinion even if it's 'wrong'? And what's this about having the right to be against it "in peace"? See, if someone has an opinion of someone else that is hateful simply because of who that person is and then they kept that opinion to themselves, that would be being against it "in peace". It's the ones who are not against it "in peace" that folks have a problem with.


And wait a minute. Does T.I. know that he's black? Because he's kind of sounding like he doesn't. See, because there are and have been a lot of people who are and have been against people just because they're black. Is he saying that folks just should have let those closed minded bigots be that way in peace and not say anything about it? Is it "un-American" (in T.I.'s weird little world) to try and change narrow minded thinking when it's about skin color? It sounds kind of like it might be. And while I didn't really know who T.I. was before reading this about him, I didn't have an opinion about him. Now that I've read this though? I have an opinion, all right.

Sphere: Related Content

She Probably Didn't Know

Ruth Madoff is making the rounds. You might remember her as the wife of scumbag thief Bernie Madoff. You might remember Bernie Madoff as the orchestrator of the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world; to the tune of about $65 billion dollars. If you have a hard time remembering his name, just call him Scumbag. It's accurate and it works. But I digress. His wife is now promoting a book (of course) and I needed to comment on some of the delusions that she appears to be suffering from.

First of all, I'd really appreciate it if she would stop talking about this incident as if something, like that akin to a hurricane, has happened to her. She's a little too victim-y for my liking. She can be mad all she wants, but I'd appreciate it if she would direct that anger at her scumbag swindler of a husband and not everyone who justifiably hates her and her entire family. Her not acknowledging that the hatred is probably deserved (or, at the very least,justifiable) isn't going to make anyone like her any more than they already don't.

Next, I keep hearing that she isn't going to be receiving any of the profits from the book that is coming out. Now, when I first heard that, I was fairly surprised and rather pleased. Then I heard that the money would be going to her son's fiance. Yeah, that's the same as her getting the money. Do you really think that she agreed to participate in the writing of the book without requiring one cent in return? I highly doubt it. She's getting paid and I'd appreciate it if folks would stop acting like she isn't.


I watched a lot of her interview on 60 Minutes. I would have watched more than I did except that I kept getting distracted by wondering how much plastic surgery she'd had over the years in order to look the way that she currently does. But one of the things that I did manage to take away from that interview was my assessment of her involvement in the whole ripping off people trying to save for retirement dealio. She says she didn't know and I kind of don't think that she did. Think about it. How much do you know about your spouse's work? I mean the intricate ins and outs. What do you know? Not squat, that's right. I'll give her a break. I'm not so sure about the son, though. That he doesn't appear to have an upper lip isn't helping him win any credibility points with me, either. He really should have had that fixed when they were all rolling around in Scrooge McDuck sized piles of cash.

Sphere: Related Content

He Took The Other Options

Um, OK, so Herman Cain was on Meet the Press yesterday and he was asked about abortion. I found his answer to be both disturbing and peculiar at the same time. (I don't have much of an opinion on Herman Cain at this point, by the way. But he doesn't seem to be a guy who is actually running for President. I think he has a book out. Maybe this is just a misguided book tour.) Let's take a look at what he said. It went like this: "I do not agree with abortion under any circumstance". He was pressed on that issue and was asked, "Exceptions for rape and incest?" He replied, "Not for rape and incest...Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options.”

OK, no exceptions for any kind of abortion is ludicrous. (Then again, I'm of the bent that making abortion illegal is ludicrous, but that's just me. One thing I've learned about certain issues (with abortion being one of them) is that you're just not going to change anyone's mind. You're not. Just don't try to do that, but DO try to avoid talking about those subjects and you'll fare much better than if you ignore my sage wisdom on this topic.) But what in the world does he mean when he says that "there are other options" because those instances make up such a small number? There aren't other options if you want an abortion and abortions are illegal! What the hell is he talking about?!

Maybe he'll be a bit more reasonable on the issue of abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Let's see...he said, "If it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision." Oh, OK. So if the mother might die, then he's good with it. Oh, but if some perverted relative rapes some younger relative and she gets knocked up, then she's on her own? I don't understand how he's OK with that exception, but not OK with other exceptions. Oh, wait. I might understand how he thinks like this. He doesn't have a uterus. thus he's completely clueless.

While I don't really think that the abortion issue needs to be a major part (or any part) of someone's campaign, I don't think that I would ever be comfortable casting a vote for someone who won't allow an abortion in the case of rape or incest. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable voting for someone who mentions "other options" without realizing that he's already taken away those options. Yeah, that wouldn't work out well at all.

Sphere: Related Content

No Change

I have a question for President Barry's senior advisor David Plouffe. For lack of better phrasing, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

See, in an article over there at Politico, they go through some of the things that Mr. Plouffe said on Good Morning America yesterday. He was asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests. He was also asked about the Republicans and what they're doing these days. And then he was asked about "...challenges facing Obama’s reelection efforts". His reply is disconcerting at best and I'm not sure if there was any follow up to what he said. And what he said was this: "I mean, some things aren’t going to change between now and next November. We’re obviously in a tough economy. We’re going to have a very close election, as most presidential elections are. So we’re going to fight for every vote and that’s what we intend to do." Wait. What?

Did he really just say that "some things aren't going to change between now and next November"?! Uh, next November is over a year away. Not much more than a year, but still more than a year none the less. What, exactly, is not going to change? Wait. Let me rephrase that. What things (as in "more than one") are NOT going to change in the next year? And why are they not going to change? What sort of campaign starts out by stating that there will be upcoming stagnancy? Not a good one if you're asking me.

That this is coming from Change-y McOptimism's camp is disconcerting to me. Look, I am tired of paying almost four bucks for a gallon of gas. I am tired of knowing so many people that are out of work. I am tired of how much groceries are costing. I am tired of NOTHING getting better and NO ONE doing anything about it. And now here comes along David Plouffe who flat out states that things just aren't going to change in the next year. Great. Now what? (And before you offer any suggestions, I certainly hope that occupying Wall Street isn't one of them. That's not going to help matters. I appreciate the effort, but it's useless.)

So if some things are not going to change in the next year (as stated by someone who really would probably know) then who in the hell am I supposed to vote for? The Republicans don't have squat over there and I won't be voting Republican for President. But how can I vote for President Barry again when it seems as if nothing is getting done and things are not better. I distinctly remember being promised change! Things still suck! That's not change. Do I want four more years of suckitude? Oh, wait. I guess that should be five more years of suckitude. Well I don't want either one. So now what? No, really. I'm asking. Now what?

Sphere: Related Content

You Can't Run And You Can't Hide

World didn't end. Gotta mow the lawn now. I guess that without the Rapture happening yesterday that this means that Harold Camping (the nutjob who was predicting all of the demise and luring an uncomfortably large number of softheads into believing him as well) is now the leader of a non-prophet organization? (Aside from not wanting to meet my demise just quite yet, the other reason I was hoping that it wasn't going to be the end of the world was mostly so I could use that joke today. It would have been such a waste if it had to go unsaid.)

While I'm relatively sure that it's a good thing that the world did not come to an end, there were certain people that I was looking forward to either never seeing again or knowing that they would meet a fiery and painful doom. The guy in the article below is one of those folks. You'll know which one I'm talking about when you read it. (Click to enlarge the photo if it's just too danged small.)

I'm not quite sure that he totally understood either the question that he was asked or the concept of the Rapture. He "...would run if it was serious." Um...it's the end of the world, sir. Where, exactly, would you be running to? Mars? I don't think that you can outrun Jesus. Or the end of the world, really. It's just really not possible. Sooooo...yeah. OK. I'm just going to leave it at that and see about buying more alligators for my moat that protects me from the thinking of people like Mr. Wilson. It seems like a pretty good investment, given his statement and all.

Sphere: Related Content

That's Not Racism!

Oh, most of news media. How I despise you so. Please stop feeling the need to make things that are completely innocent into something that is falsely inflammatory. David Gregory, I'm talking to you.

Fox Nation gives us the low down of when Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press on Sunday with Mr. Gregory. Gregory played a clip from a speech that Newt gave in Georgia on Friday. The gist of the whole thing was jobs. This is what Newt said: "You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama's is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?" OK. Seems like a bit of a slam, but I'm OK with it. I know what he's trying to say. (He can't blame it all on President Barry though, even though he's trying.)

You want to know what David Gregory thought he was trying to say? I don't know if you do. Let's find out. David Gregory actually had the nerve to say: "First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president." Oh, for cryin' out loud. WHAT?!

Racial?! Racially tinged language?! How do you figure, Dave?? Because it was in Georgia? Well, that doesn't make any sense. Because there are a lot of black people in Georgia? No, that doesn't make any sense either. Is it because David Gregory is trying to start some sort of racial controversy that does not, in any way, shape or form even exist? I don't know if that's the motivation behind it, but it's more logical than the other two possibilities that I mentioned.

I am appalled. That's one of the more ridiculous and inane things that anyone has ever implied racism to be. Do I have to keep reminding people that he's HALF WHITE?! He's the first half white president, NOT the first black president! And if you do want to go with his being partially black, why don't you call him the first half black president?! Oh, because that wouldn't have enough opportunities to imply racism now, would it? Morons. Knock it off, David. You know better than that. The video of this asininity is below. It should make you angry and annoyed. If it doesn't, you're doing it wrong.

Sphere: Related Content

That's Not Slavery

Currently, the chances of a 2011-2012 NFL season are not good. Almost non-existent, if you will. Something about the collective bargaining contract expiring and the players unions and the owners not being able to agree on new terms. And while I lean toward being on the side of the players (there's no reasonable argument for why the season should consist of eighteen games instead of the current sixteen), I really don't feel sorry for anyone in this scenario except for the fans. All I want is for September to roll around and have NFL games on TV. That's what I want. And I don't care how they make it happen just as long as they make it happen.

Seriously, who am I supposed to feel sorry for in this scenario? It's millionaires arguing with billionaires. There's an awful lot to not like there. (And the NFL is super hot right now. It would be asinine for both sides to end up forgoing an entire season because of any of this.) But you know what makes the whole thing even less likable? When one of the players compares the current agreement in the NFL to "modern-day slavery". For cryin' out loud.

According to an article over at The Huddle at USAToday, a one Adrian Peterson was talking to Yahoo! Sports and made the following statement: "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football."

Now, look...I don't know what "modern-day slavery" would even look like. Because slavery, in and of itself, seems like it would be a timeless profession. You work for someone, you do what they tell you to do, you don't have a choice in the matter and you don't get compensated for your work. That's slavery. So, would "modern-day slavery" simply be with different clothes and with different chores? I guess it would. It's hard to say why I'm taking so much time trying to noodle this one through, as his entire statement is asinine.

I think what he was trying to say is that by making the players play an extra two games per season and not giving them any more monetary compensation for those two games, it is like when people were slaves and didn't get paid for the work that they were forced to perform. What he neglects to realize is that the non-modern-day slaves were not millionaires who were seen by millions on TV every Sunday. Yeah, not a good comparison. Not a good comparison at all. And I don't know that the real slaves of yore would take all that kindly to your making that comparison, as they were far from millionaires. They were barely dollar-aires.

I didn't know if there was any way that I could feel any less sorry for the parties involved. But apparently, I can. Quit your whining, Adrian Peterson. Focus on getting talks between the owners and the players back on track so that I can watch football all the live long day every Sunday for four months come September. That's what's really important here. My leisure time. So chop-chop! Time's a-wastin'.

Side note: The article at USAToday, which was published at 1:07 EST, noted that Yahoo! Sports, where the ill-advised "modern-day slavery" comment first appears, had removed that comment from its story at 2:47 EST. Although it does go on to say that the author of the story did confirm on his Twitter page that Peterson had made the remark. Even weirder than that is that it goes on to say that by 4:24 EST, Yahoo! Sports had returned Peterson's comments to the article. Good to know that Yahoo! Sports will be editing the content of interviews in their articles as to not "offend" anyone. Nice. Just what we all don't need. Edited reporting. Jackasses. I've sent them an email asking them why they removed the comment in the first place. I'm sure you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that I have not yet heard back. Don't hold your breath, either. I'm not.

Sphere: Related Content

Not Working Means You Don't Work

If you ask anyone other than Charlie Sheen, they will tell you that Charlie Sheen seems a little crazy these days. In fact, most folks will tell you that it sounds as if Charlie Sheen has gone completely off the rails. But they would only say that because he sounds exactly like that is what has happened. He sounds like a crazy man. And he keeps calling into various radio talk shows to try to profess that he's not a crazy man, but I really think that's doing him more harm than good at this point. Really, I think that what would help him the most is just to keep quiet for a little while and stop irritating people who pay his salary. The other thing that would help him to not look so crazy is for him to stop saying that he's going to show up for work on Monday when there is no work to show up for. Wait. What?

Correct. See, for some reason, the guys that are in charge of the gold mine that is the television show Two And A Half Men have decided to cancel the remainder of the production season. The show has already been on hiatus for a few weeks while Mr. Sheen is supposed to be trying to kick his unhealthy ways. Apparently, things like trashing hotel rooms because you think a $20,000 hooker stole your watch and going on weekend cocaine binges coupled with unlimited sex with various mattress actresses really gets the attention of your "superiors" and causes them to think that you might have "a problem". Go figure.

But the other thing that catches the attention of your "superiors" are saying things in interviews that aren't exactly complimentary to those who are in charge. Most people, in charge of anything or not, would not take kindly to being called, among other things, "...a stupid . . little man and a p***y punk." And "This contaminated little maggot can't handle my power . . . Clearly I have defeated this earthworm with my words." (By the way, in that first quote, the redacted part does not say 'puppy'. I thought I should throw that in there just in case you were confused as to why he would be calling someone a puppy. He wasn't. It was more of a feline insult, if you will.)

So after all of this attention getting and even after all of the times that Charlie Sheen has been saying that he doesn't have a problem with anything, the New York Post reports: "Claiming he is completely sober, actor Charlie Sheen said today he plans to show up for work despite CBS's decision yesterday to pull the plug on the top-rated comedy "Two and a Half Men" this season." OK, see, those are not the actions of a person who is completely sober. Or maybe they are, but the person is just sober AND crazy. You see, Charlie, there's no work to show up for! That's part of what they mean by they have cancelled the remainder of the season! There's no more work there. It's done. And your showing up is only going to serve to make you look crazier than you already do. Please don't show up for your non-existent job/work on Monday, Charlie. Please. I realize that the show's character was sort of written just for someone like you, but even the character wouldn't show up for work when there was no work there for him. He'd stay home. You should do the same. Stay home with one of your female porn enthusiasts and stop giving interviews that make you sound like your brain is riddled with a late stage syphillitic condition.

Sphere: Related Content

Un-Beliebable

Is there any way that we could get away from asking questions of certain people who have no idea what they're talking about and have no business answering certain questions that they're asked? And by "certain people" I mean celebretards and Justin Bieber.

It was all I could do not to write about a press release that came out about a week ago, which started out: "REAL HOUSEWIVES STAR DANIELLE STAUB GIVES ADVICE TO EGYPT'S MUBARAK." Really? Who was asking? And who cared? And which of those two was the most dense intellectually? It had to have been a toss up. An excerpt: "Staub, who notoriously walked away from the show, was asked whether it was time for Mubarak to walk away as well...'If he feels in his heart that it's really time then, yeah, it is time," Staub stated." Kill me now. Don't delay! I'm standing by! But wait, before you do that? Could you tell me what's wrong with her face?

But I'm having a hard time not commenting on the Justin Bieber article in Rolling Stone. Again, why someone is asking these questions of ANY sixteen year old is beyond me, but asking them of Justin Bieber is simply stupefying. For instance, Bieber (who may or may not be a 30-year old lesbian impersonating a teenage boy) was apparently asked if he had any plans to become an American citizen. Thank God, he does not. He seems to be very fond of his homeland, America's Hat. But his reasons are...annoying at best. He 'jokes', "You guys are evil...Canada's the best country in the world...We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

Are you kidding me?! His bodyguard has to PAY For his OWN BABY?!?! It's madness!! Hey, Bieber. He works for you, you little twit! If you're so big on your socialist system, what say, since you have WAY more money than your peon of a bodyguard, YOU pay for it?! And you DO pay for your doctor in Canada! It's just not directly! How do you think they get paid?! Where do you think that money comes from?! And there's a big freaking difference between your bodyguard having to pay for his own child and someone's premature baby getting to stay in the hospital as long as it needs to. Those two aren't the same thing. Is your bodyguard so idiotic that he didn't have insurance before deciding to have a baby? Pipe down, little lesbian.

The article continues to annoy me by apparently asking him "...what political party he'd support if he was old enough to vote." He responds with "I'm not sure about the parties...But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad." OK, so he's not going to join the...Korean...Party? What does that have to do with anything at all? Does he know that there is a North AND a South Korea? He makes it sound like he does not. But I guess it's good to know that he would be against doing things in Canada the way that they do things in at least one of the Koreas. (This guy still goes to school, right? Perhaps a little more focus on political parties around the globe is in order.)

And here's my favorite part. Here's where the interviewer asks a 16-year old boy about his opinion on, you guessed it, abortion. Listen, here's my opinion on asking people their opinion on abortion: It's pointless. No one is going to change anyone else's mind based on their opinion. It just doesn't happen. Once your opinion is formed, it's going to take something pretty major for you to go over to your perceived dark side. All asking for opinions on abortion ever does is start arguments. It's highly unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal in this country, so what's the point in arguing about it? I understand that some of you don't like it, but it's not going to change, so I suggest you get used to the fact that there are going to be some goings on in the world that you don't like.

But I digress. Back to Bieber. The article claims: "He does have a solid opinion on abortion." Oh, good! A solid opinion. Lay it on me. "I really don't believe in abortion...It's like killing a baby?" That's his solid opinion? One that ends with a question which inquires about the very issue being discussed? Let's see if we can narrow down the view of a 16-year old boy who may or may not be a lesbian. "How about in cases of rape?" Ohhhh! The devil's advocate clause that always comes out when people are against abortion. Let's see how he handles it! "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that." Sweet fancy Moses. Are you dry shaving me?

He thinks rape is "really sad"? Do you now? Really sad? Yeah, that's the very least of what rape is! But I'm going to overlook that simply because his claim that "everything happens for a reason" has be so infuriated that I can barely type. So if a woman gets raped by a schizophrenic scumbag dripping with syphilis and becomes impregnated with his demon child, you "don't see how that would be a reason"?! For reals?! Oh, how I only wish that I could say "Who asked you?", but I can't because some dimwit actually DID ask him! For the purpose of what I cannot imagine.

Why would you ask a 16-year old, let alone a 16-year old boy, about abortion in the first place? Unless...maybe he really is a 30-year old lesbian. Have you been to Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber? If that website can teach us anything, it's that we really have no idea what he is. And I'm good with that. I don't need to know what he is anymore than I need to know what he thinks. If I never heard another word from or about Justin Bieber for the rest of my life it would be too soon. Because, you know, everything happens for a reason!

Sphere: Related Content