Houston, We Have A Problem

Dammit, Costner! You had ONE job! (Too soon? I've been trying really hard not to crack any jokes. What's that? I did it again?...Dammit!) That's right. Whitney Houston has apparently died. This is going to be the worst Black History Month ever. (Yeah, I'm giving up that whole 'too soon for jokes' thing. I was never very good at it. I can't let a good joke just blow on by.) I can feel it! And while I find her death unfortunate, but not unexpected. She never seemed to me like she was ever off of the drugs. (Thanks a lot, BOBBAY!) Anyway, here is a comic which pretty much describes the current media coverage of this event. What a story. R. IIIIIIIIIIIaaaaaaaaIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIaaaaaaaaIIIIIIIIIIII. P.
(Think about it.)

Sphere: Related Content

But It WAS Out Of Context!

God, the American people must be a stupid bunch. I mean, I know that the majority of them (from what I can tell) could not not find their ass with both hands and a map. But are they so dumb that the media really thinks that taking someone's comment out of context and disingenuously representing it as truth at face value is a good idea because the public will fall for it? They must because they keep doing it over and over.

The latest victim of the pathetic groups that make up the media is Mitt Romney. To me, Mitt Romney looks like a 1950s game show host. It's between that and Guy Smiley from the Muppets. Now, just in case I was too subtle, neither of those comparisons are compliments. I find Mitt to be about the most phony person I have ever seen in my life. And I've seen a lot of crap. He is as fake as can be. As the wonderfully talented Jon Stewart put it, "He looks like the guy who fired your dad." Exactly.

So when you come across as looking like a tool, it's probably best if you don't say things that will make you sound like a tool. Take, for example, what Mitt said the other day when he was talking about giving people more options in their health care. He wanted to convey that he likes to be able to have choices when it comes to who he trusts his health care to. He wanted to convey that he likes not being able to be stuck with a certain provider simply because that's the plan that an employer has chosen for its employees. Who wouldn't like to have options? Everyone like choices. The problem started with the words that Mitt used to try to get this message across. The problem got worse when the media got hold of it.

What Mitt said was, "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say, 'I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me'." Now, I know what he meant. And I know that you're smart (because you're reading this blog) and that you know what he meant. But let's both just admit that no one should really say that the like being able to fire people. That's not going to go over well. And unfortunately, that is the only part of his statement that the media has chosen to report.

Everywhere I look that is covering this incident, is reporting it in a fashion akin to "Mitt Romney Says He Likes Firing People" or "Mitt Romney Likes To Be Able To Fire People". Yeah, see, in a nation with an unemployment rate of about 10 percent, that's not a good thing to say. But the thing is that he didn't say it like that! How disingenuous and intellectually dishonest is the media being by taking what he said totally out of context and reporting it as if all he said was "I like being able to fire people"? It's one of the more irresponsible and egregious acts that a reporter can commit. And it's being committed all over the place. It also reeks of something that rhymes with 'commit'.

Mitt has said that he was taken out of context, but it's not going over very well in terms of damage control. Why is it that if you actually are taken out of context (a la Mitt) and it's so completely obvious that was the case, that if you try to explain that nobody believes you or nobody goes with that story? Yet if you say you were taken out of context in an instance where it is so obvious that it was so not the case that everyone covers that angle of the story! Some guy gets caught saying, "Let's get some hookers and some blow." And then he tries to blow it off by saying, "I was taken out of context." There's no way that "Let's get some hookers and some blow" can be taken out of context! In what world would that sort of context exist?! Apparently the one we're now living in because that's what happens.

I don't know who the media thinks it is doing any sort of favors for by behaving like this, but I find it all reprehensible. If someone's going down, I'd prefer that it be for something that they actually did as opposed to something that the media made it seem like they did. (On a similar note...Mitt, if you're reading this...do you need someone to help you with your debate question answering? I'm available! And I'm cheap (in more ways than one)! You have to do something, Mitt. You can't keep coming off as "I'm Guy Smiley and I'm firing your dad!")

Sphere: Related Content

Then Don't Say Anything

It was announced yesterday that Joe Paterno has just recently been diagnosed with a treatable form of lung cancer. Now, I'm not going to get all conspiracy theory-ish here and wonder if someone is trying to do a little damage control by making folks feel sorry for Mr. Paterno instead of currently think of him as some sort of vile individual who shields child rapists from detection. And while I'm far from the conspiracy theory type of person,I could see something like that occurring in this particular situation. I wouldn't put anything past Penn State at this point.


But here's my favorite part about this and all stories like this. Joe Paterno's son issued this statement: "Last weekend, my father was diagnosed with a treatable form of lung cancer during a follow-up visit for a bronchial illness...As everyone can appreciate, this is a deeply personal matter for my parents,and we simply ask that his privacy be respected as he proceed with treatment." Wait. What now?


Yes, I would tend to agree that being diagnosed with any form of cancer would be a personal matter for those personally involved. So I asked you...Scott, was it? I ask you , Scott, if this is so flipping personal, why in the hell did you tell the entire world about your dad's condition? Does the world need to know? I'm not so sure that they do if it's as personal as you'd like us all to believe that you think that it is. If you wanted privacy, I'm pretty sure that not telling the entire world you business is a much better way to go about getting said privacy.


I guess I just don't get how those people over there do anything. They hear about child rape and they keep that a secret. They get diagnosed with cancer and they tell the entire world. shouldn't it have been the other way around?

Sphere: Related Content

That's Still Doing Nothing

Back to the Penn State atrocity. Today's focus: Mike McQueary, the graduate assistant who saw Sandusky raping a 10-year old boy in the shower and decided that the best course of action would be for McQueary to just call his own dad. Oh, but wait. Now McQueary is trying to say that what he told the grand jury is not what actually happened. Funny, I thought you were supposed to tell the truth to the grand jury. Huh. Maybe this is being misreported because, as we all know, the media just sucks. Let's see if we can figure this out.

According to ESPN, Mike McQueary had sent an email to a friend who didn't want to be identified. From what I can infer, the email was sent recently. (I'm guessing in light of the many, many people across the country and possibly around the world who would like to see McQueary hanging from his man parts for being someone who would see a child being raped by an old man and not do anything to stop it. Funny how that works.) Here's the text of the email:

"... you are the first person I have told this ... and I don't know you extremely well ... and I have been told bye officials to not say anything ...

I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police .... no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds ... trust me.

Do with this what you want ... but I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right ... I had to make tough impacting quick decisions.

This is off record ... again ... I have not and will not say anything to anyone else."

I'm just going to start at the beginning and wonder why on earth someone would send this sort of an email to someone that they didn't know very well. That doesn't seem like a very smart thing to do. Then again, this guy isn't exactly Einstein, so I shouldn't be overly surprised. And yet, I am. It's clear, after reading this guy's email, that he thinks that everyone's public perception of him is just a misunderstanding AND a matter of semantics. See, for some reason, he seems to think that he "did stop it". He just didn't stop it physically. Oh. I see. No, wait. I don't. What the hell is he talking about?! He didn't stop anything! He "made sure" that it was stopped before he left the locker room? What, did he poke his head back in there to "make sure" that Sandusky was done?! Is that what he means?!

I think that it's fairly obvious from both his grand jury testimony and his email to his vague acquaintance that he did nothing to stop it at the time. Since (to my knowledge) it is still unknown who Victim 2 (the one who was in the shower) actually was, I'm having a hard time understanding how McQueary thinks that he stopped anything. Had he actually stopped it (and I'm using the sane person's definition of 'stopped' and not that of some moron who doesn't stop child rape when he sees it happening) and called the cops right then, this whole story would have played out a lot differently. He didn't stop anything. And he certainly didn't help the boy. He also still seems to think that he did the right thing, as evidenced by his whining "I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ." No, he is getting hammered for walking in on a horrific act taking place and putting a stop to it right that very moment. That he thinks that he did the right thing is unimaginable to me. Really, dude? Where's that boy? How's he doing? Oh, you don't know because you didn't do anything? OK, then. Pipe down.

Why the media is portraying this as anything other than what it is (which is ridiculous and lame at best) is beyond me. I know that the media sucks, but seriously. This isn't that hard to get wrong. The guy didn't do anything of substance and he thinks that he's being unfairly portrayed because he did just barely the absolute minimum and expects that to count as "something". He's a scumbag. First, he does nothing to help a little boy who is being raped by an old man and then he acts like everyone is so out of line for hating his guts? Please. Get it right, media! Nothing's changed! This guy didn't do anything, regardless of what he says in his email! Please report that!

Sphere: Related Content

It's Just Rain!

The weather is changing. And that can only mean one thing. Stupid ass suggestions from local media outlets on what to do in the case of weather.



Look, I live in an area where the climate is pretty mild. It rains periodically from about October through at least April. So for six months out of the year, it rains. And for the other six months, it doesn't rain. I know that sounds asinine of me to say it like that (you know, because it's such a simple concept that even my cat could understand it and I don't even have a cat), but it's all in the spirit of how local news media seem to think that everyone is completely retard with little to no capacity for short term memory.




This is seriously what I had to hear today: "With the rains that are forecast for the next couple of days, it would be a good idea to stay inside. When venturing out, consider using an umbrella if it is raining."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

No joke. I swear. It's as if it has never rained before, none of us have ever heard of rain and the consequences are dire. And by the way, this isn't even considered a "storm". It's just going to rain. And all hell is apparently going to break loose when it does.

I guess I just don't want to accept that those sorts of forecasts are tailored for a specific group of people that, despite my depression and disbelief, actually do exist. I can tell because for some reason, whenever it rains, they all feel the need to get in their cars and drive as if they are in the Great Blizzard of some year in which there was a great blizzard. They act as if they are driving on sheets of glass. They have their nose about two inches away from the windshield and their hands are in a death grip lock on the steering wheel at the 10 and 2 positions. And if you think that they're doing all of this in a speedily fashion, you would be wrong. 45mph on the freeway TOPS when it starts raining again. It really does wonders for the ol' blood pressure, let me tell you.

I wish that I understood this fascination that folks have with the water that falls from the sky. The power that it has to dumb people down to where they're mouth breathing morons who are terrified of a little precipitation is beyond me.

Sphere: Related Content

He's STILL Lying!

Well, here's a shocker. I hope you're sitting down because do you remember those weiner shots that were sent from Anthony Weiner's Twitter account last week? The ones that he strongly denied sending? The ones that he said were a result of his Twitter account being hacked? Yeah, he sent them. Shocking, I know.

He held a little press conference yesterday

where he finally admitted what anyone with half of a brain has known since allegations of Weinergate first surface. In short, he sent pictures of his aroused manhood to some chick that he had become acquainted with online. This is where my first issue comes in. Who does this sort of thing? (And I'm asking serious questions here because I am extremely confused.) What kind of a guy takes a picture of his crank and sends it to some chick with his phone? What is the thought process there? "Hey! Look at this! It's mine! Whaddaya think of that?!" I'm open to suggestions. I really don't get the thought mentality.

Next, how is what the Weiner was doing with his weiner any different than some guy in a trench coat flashing people on the street? I mean, are these things planned out? (If they are, I think that would make it a little bit weirder.) I don't think that they are. It seems like what happens is that there might be a little bit of sexy talk and then the next thing you know...BAM! Weiner in your inbox! (Figuratively speaking, of course...and for now). But really, is he any different from your friendly neighborhood flasher? I'm seeing a lot more similarities than I am differences. (And by the way, if you DO have a friendly neighborhood flasher, perhaps consider relocating to a nicer area. That's no way to go through life, son.)

I'd also like to point out that Weiner did a little "crying". I don't know if actual tears were shed, but his voice did

crack a few times and it was fairly obvious that he knew that he was in trouble. What fascinates me about this is that these jackasses can lie like a rug when they're trying to. They have NO trouble covering up ANY emotions when they are vehemently denying everything that they so totally did. They're emotionless, indignant snakes when they're lying. As soon as they're exposed (literally, in this case) they start crying like a little girl. Does anyone actually "buy" it when they cry? It just pisses me off more.And you know what pisses me off even more than that? Crappy media reporting, that is correct. Every freaking report out there that I have read about these schlong shenanigans tell me that the Weiner finally took responsibility for his actions. You're going to read it here first (and, from what I can tell, NO WHERE ELSE) that that's a bunch of crap. He hadn't talked for an entire minute before he was lying! I'm serious! Why am I the only one who caught that?! He said, "Last Friday night, I tweeted a photograph of myself that I intended to send as a direct message as part of a joke to a woman in Seattle." What?! It was so NOT a joke! Why is everyone just breezing right over that?! He's lying! It wasn't a joke! Later on in his lame little speech, he said, "I have exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years." Were those jokes too, you lying piece of crap?! Why is no one calling him on this stuff?!

God, the media sucks. This guy is a weird snake. I hope he has to resign. I don't like people like him in positions of power, especially after blatantly lying to everyone under the sun about showing his wang off on Twitter! Go away, Weiner! And take your weiner with you. (By the way, NBC New York has the transcript of his lame-o apology if you want to read it.

Sphere: Related Content

Oh, No They Don't

I've gotta say that I'm kind of surprised at the restraint that almost all of the news and tabloid outlets have shown by not publishing a photo of Arnold's newly announced illegitimate child that he fathered with his maid at his house when he was cheating on his wife and the mother of his four legitimate children, the lovely Maria Shriver. If only some of the media could refrain from making idiotic comparisons and/or analogies, then we might very well be on our way toward some responsible reporting of an issue that really kind of doesn't matter. But no. Leave it to ABC to ruin the very, very short streak that we were on. I present to you THEIR way of framing the story. Behold! Utter crap!

Good Lord. Really? Who thought that was a good idea? Well, over at ABC, it would be the director of Yale University's Parenting Center and Child Conduct Clinic, a one Dr. Alan E. Kazdin, as he is actually quoted using the phrase "This event is like a personal 9/11." I know that 9/11 was almost ten years ago, so I'm guessing that he WAS, in fact, around for the events that took place on that day. That's why I'm so perplexed as to why anyone would make such an idiotic statement. ( was about to say "And he's a doctor!" Then I realized that might actually shed some light on his thinking patterns as opposed to confusing me even more. He should step out of his ivory tower once in a while and see how the real world thinks of 9/11. Because while it's thought of in a lot of ways, one of those ways is not when your husband/father turns out to be a lying, cheating, seed-spreading scumbag. It sucks, but it doesn't 9/11 suck.

Sphere: Related Content

Stop Meaningless Polling!

I don't ask much of you guys. In turn, I usually get about what I asked for. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and make a request. If you or anyone you know has any pull or sway at any news or media institution, could you please see what could be done about ceasing any talk of Presidential polling numbers this early in the game? Please. Because the numbers at this point are pointless. You can't ask people if Barack Obama is going to be re-elected when you don't even know who he is running against! Make it stop!

It troubles me that no news organization has caught onto this yet. No, they just keep churning out poll numbers that are meaningless, only they do it as if they have meaning. It's not exactly like trying to tell non-addle-brained adults that the Easter bunny is real, but it's vaguely similar. The real difference in that fairly poor example is that the non-addle-brained adults can figure out that (SPOILER ALERT) the Easter bunny isn't real. In the case of the insignificant Presidential poll results, I'm afraid that people might actually be paying attention and thinking that it matters. Let me be clear: It does not matter. AT ALL.

I went back to January of 2008 and looked at the poll results for Presidential "candidates" at the time. According to the research done and compiled by American Research Group, as far as the Democratic candidates went, Hillary Clinton had a commanding lead over then-Senator Barry. They even had her at a fairly commanding lead over then-Senator Barry in December of 2007. Both of those results came at a time that was closer to the election that we are now! And the last time I checked, Hillary wasn't our President. (And the last time I checked, she was just getting over being bitter than she lost the nomination. I'm still not sure that she's over it.) And over on the Republican candidate front, in December of 2007, Rudy Giuliani was miles ahead of old man McCain. But by January of 2008, just one month later? Giuliani was nowhere to be found and it was a virtual toss up between old man McCain and pretty catcher's Mitt Romney.

So please, please remember that asking people if Barack Obama can be re-elected at this point and time is absolutely futile. Why doesn't the media understand that? Why don't they realize that they're wasting everyone's time with pointless polls this early on? Oh. Right. Because the media sucks. Yeah. All right. Back to you.

Sphere: Related Content

Now We're Talking

I don't know that I can just keep yammering on about the Jared Lee Loughner being a nutjob situation much longer. Granted, things are starting to simmer down a bit, but people are still giving way too much credit to a bunch of things that don't deserve ANY credit. Thus, I thought that today I would go with this caricature/cartoon which I found on Facebook at something called Chris Spangle's Blog. It's about the most accurate piece of "reporting" that I've run across so far on this topic. Behold! (And thank you.)

Sphere: Related Content

You Don't Want It "Repealed"

I'm warning you right now: This entire post is kind of based solely on a technicality. There's no implied meaning behind any of it. I'm just pointing something out. That's all. Don't blame the messenger. And don't accuse me of being pedantic. I just find it interesting. Barely interesting, but interesting none the less.

It looks like the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision for serving in the US Armed Forces is about to go down in flames. The study/survey that the Pentagon did was finally concluded and it showed that about 70% of folks that are currently serving said that they would not have a problem serving with other folks who are gay. Seventy percent is a pretty good majority, don't get me wrong, but I find it interesting that it wasn't higher than that. I'm not sure what it means, but I'd like to know. Sadly, I doubt that there is actually any way of knowing, so I'm just going to leave it at 70% said "OK", so woo-hoo! Or something like that.

And here's where I point out a technicality that I haven't seen addressed yet. Everyone keeps reporting that the Senate has voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Usually, when something is repealed, that means that it goes back to how it was before. For example, the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment which had instated Prohibition. After the Twenty-First Amendment had passed, things went back to how they were before the Eighteenth Amendment had been enacted. That is, alcohol was once again legal, just as it had been before Prohibition.

By calling the vote in favor of discontinuing the US Armed Forces policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", isn't that implying that things in the military will go back to how they were before DADT was implemented? That really doesn't help folks who are gay and want to serve openly, as before DADT, the policy was that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all.

Aren't there going to have to be some new rules written or old rules amended that remove any mention of whether or not someone is gay or not? Because if they simply boot out DADT, without new rules, what is to stop it from reverting right back to what it was before? Yeah, see, that's the question that I don't see answered anywhere. Not one single news source that I have read or heard or seen has addressed what the effect is going to be on gay soldiers and those who are gay who want to sign up. And of course, no one mentioned that before DADT, those who are gay couldn't serve at all. They act like DADT is so constrictive and repressive. Uh, it was a little more restrictive before DADT, don't you think?

So, that's all. It bugs me when people talk about this provision being "repealed". I think it's misleading. I also think the media sucks. That is all.

Sphere: Related Content

That's NOT What Happened!

Have I mentioned how much I despise the media? I do. They suck out loud at times. And the incident I'm about to describe is one of those times.

Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC yesterday. No great loss. I can't stand the guy. But, then again, I can't stand any of those folks who are so one-sided I wonder how they just don't tip right on over in the morning. Olbermann is particularly obnoxious, though. But that's not the point. The point is why he was suspended. And either I'm totally misunderstanding why he was suspended or everyone in the media is blatantly leaving that reason out. And I don't get it.

I'll start with The Huffington Post. Their article starts out: "MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle." OK. Now over to the LA Times blog which tells us (in an extremely pithy fashion which I appreciate) "Keith Olbermann was suspended because he donated a total of $7,200 to three political candidates who had been on his program or supported by his comments." All right, sir. And even from the New York Freaking Times which begins their article with: "Keith Olbermann, the pre-eminent liberal voice on American television, was suspended Friday after his employer, MSNBC, discovered that he made campaign contributions to three Democrats last month." Do you get it? Do you understand why he was suspended? You do? Trust me. You don't.

All three of those examples that I cited are fairly reputable (to say the least) sources of news. That's what makes me so angry. They're leaving out a key part! And it's the part for why he was really suspended! That's the thing! He wasn't suspended for making the donations! Did you get that impression from any of those sources above? Even an organization called FAIR, which stands for "Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting" got it wrong when they reported "MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been placed on indefinite suspension without pay in the wake of a Politico report (11/5/10) that revealed Olbermann had donated $7,200 to three Democratic candidates, in violation of NBC's standards barring employees from making political contributions." That's not correct!

What they're all leaving out is that Olbermann was suspended because, according to the president of MSNBC, a one Phil Griffin, "I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay." And the freaking policy to which he is referring to does NOT bar employees from making political contributions. No, it requires them to obtain prior approval from NBC News executives before doing so.

Do you see the difference? The way that it is being reported makes it sound (because that's how it sounds) like he was suspended because he donated. No. That's not it! He was suspended because he didn't obtain the approval that was required. There's a difference! Am I the only one who sees that? Why is it not being reported that way? Either way, are we supposed to feel sorry for Keith Olbermann? I can't imagine ever feeling that way toward the man. But that aside, what the hell is going on here?!

And it's not just one news source. It's EVERY news source. ALL of them are reporting that he was suspended for making political donations and ALL of them leave off the part about him doing so without obtaining approval. Why are they doing that? It's maddening is what it is. Do I think that he needed to be suspended indefinitely without pay for doing it? Look, it's not exactly like he's a strict news reporter. He's chock full of opinion! That being said, I think it's a bit harsh, but that's not the point. The point is that the media sucks! And on this one, they suck SO bad that I am almost (almost) completely speechless.

We're so doomed. This is a pretty basic concept to try and report correctly, yet everyone has it wrong. If the media can't get this right, how are we supposed to trust them to explain and report on things more complicated than why some jackass got suspended? We can't be expected to do that at all. And it saddens me. Back to you

Sphere: Related Content

The State Of The Media

It's hard to explain the state of media reporting these days. It's just so...so...bad. I mean it's just bad. You know what I mean. You've seen it. You've heard it. It's bad. And the folks over at The Onion have summarized the state of the media quite well with the video below.

Sphere: Related Content

Things I Don't Understand About Michael Jackson

There are a lot of things I don't get. A lot of them I just figure that neither I, nor anyone else was meant to know what they really mean. Stonehenge. The Bermuda Triangle. Geometry. All puzzles of nature that seem to be indecipherable to man. But another one that I'd like to add to that list is the continuing fascination with Michael Jackson. Where were you people when this guy was alive and kicking it? No where to be found, from what I recall. No where. But yet he's dead and suddenly, there's hubbub. And I don't understand the hub, nor the bub at all. Allow me to share with you some of my more recent head scratchers, shakers and bangers that I've run across pertaining to the recently deceased Jacko.

I knew that the whole "President Barry Wins the Nobel Peace Prize" ordeal was going to cause a ruckus somewhere. And it did, but in what I had considered to be an unlikely arena, that of the American Music Award nominations. From the folks over there at HitFix (and I'm not faulting them in this one, they were just the messenger) I read "American Music Award nominations: Michael Jackson snares 5, Lambert to perform." Wait. The Michael Jackson? The still dead Michael Jackson? THAT guy? Was nominated for how many? Five? Five AMAs?? For what?! Being a guy that needed elephant tranquilizers to doze off every night? Five?! How do they come up with five?! Mind you, some folks who were not nominated for an AMA award were Brittney Spears and Miley Freaking Cyrus! But the dead guy who hasn't released anything new in years (How's that Katrina relief song coming along there, Mike?) gets nominated for five AMAs. OK, then.

Sweet mother of God, he was nominated for Artist of the Year!! What year?! 1984?? And "Jackson’s “Number One” is also a contender for favorite pop/rock album." What is Number One? Are you kidding me?! I'm not saying that the AMAs were ever any sort of credible award. I'm not saying that any of the awards are any sort of credible award. I'm saying that nominating Michael Jackson for five AMAs is asinine. He's been dead for three months and he hadn't released anything at any point in recent memory before that. How does one get nominated for Artist of the Year when he wasn't even around for the entire year?! Is there an Artist of January - June Award that they give out? What is wrong with you people? Are you that desperate to feel good about something? What say you find something else, all right? Honestly. Look, here are the most recent photos I have found of Jacko at the AMAs. You know. Like when he would have been there because he would have been in contention for something. Here he is with Brooke Shields. You remember her. Wasn't she a Breck girl?

Here he is with Eddie Murphy (pre-Shrek)

Here he is with Elizabeth Taylor (and in the words of Joey from "Friends" Elizabeth Taylor would appear to be Michael Jackson's "identical hand twin".)

Here he is wearing his Sherlock Holmes homage whilst accompanied by his sister, Janet Jackson. I'll let you use your sharp skills of deduction to determine how recent (or not) that photo was taken. (Here's a hint: He was still black at the time.)

Here he is beaming behind Miss Ross. The point here is that none of these are recent.

Here's another thing I don't get re: Michael Jackson. The Michael Jackson movie "This Is It" (strangely missing the appropriate subtitle, "Sucking Money From a Corpse) hits theaters for a limited engagement showing of two weeks on October 28. The preview is October 27. Today is October 18. So do tell, why in the world, when no one in the world has seen this movie yet, are there 83, yes, eighty three reviews for this movie over there at Fandango, your online ticket purchasing, uh, place. Not surprisingly, most of the reviews, the overwhelming majority of them, for a movie no one has seen yet, are positive. I haven't had faith that I'd be able to scroll through and look for the one or two negative comments without reading so many positive comments (for a movie no one has seen) without hanging myself. There's even a section for "Fans Who've Seen It" and 23 people who are obviously below a substantially substandard IQ level, have added their opinion to that section. What is wrong with you people?

See, you can't make something great just because you want it to be great. It could suck. And if it does, will those folks still say it's great? They probably will because they're already saying it doesn't suck and they haven't even seen it yet! Yo, Fandango folks! It would seem that your site is frequented by folks with IQs slightly below that of navel lint, so you might want to disable that "Fans Who've Seen It" portion of your show until after the movie has actually had an opportunity to be viewed. By anyone!

Moving on to Part Three of Things I Don't Understand Surrounding Michael Jackson. We're entering the Autopsy Phase. What was up with that? For starters, Jacko was five feet nine inches tall. (That's 175 cm for those of you in, oh, the rest of the entire world.) He wasn't a monster (height-wise), but he wasn't short by any means. He weighed 136 lbs. at the time of croakage. (That's 62 kg for those of you still in the rest of the entire world.) I have read in every single account of this fact that being 136 lbs and standing (or, in this case, lying) five feet nine inches tall are "within normal limits." Um, no they're not! I shall cite both Metropolitan Life and something called Health Check Systems and both of their websites have height-weight charts that do not indicate that being a mere 136 pounds and MALE is "normal" if you are 5'9". Duh. Yet it's being reported as if that is perfectly fine! The Guardian goes as far to claim "Yet he was fit and well-fed." Yeah, he wasn't either of those things.

"The autopsy stated that he had a healthy heart and was actively producing sperm." Um, at the time of the autopsy he was actively doing that? I don't think he was! But regardless, do we need to know that? That he was a sperm producer? Eww! Who asked?! I didn't! I didn't ask! I'm thinking that might be a bit too much information there, Doc (or whoever else felt we needed to know that). Am I supposed to be happy at that news? Glad that he was producing a regular amount of sperm and not producing a massive amount of sperm? What if he had been producing the number of sperm for ten men? Would we then had to have heard, "He was like a sperm whale, if you will." "It's a shame that he's dead because this man had a gift!" "I've never seen anything like this! He had testicles the size of lemons!"

(Wait. I can't resist. He was actively producing sperm...but what he really wanted to do was direct. Ba-da-DA! Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Tip your servers.)

The autopsy also stated that he had "...scars around both nostrils, indicating that he had had some sort of work done on his nose." Oh, really? I hadn't noticed. Work done? You don't say! Are you sure? It looked so natural! I should really find out who his plastic surgeon was because it was so discrete, almost undetectable, if I were to ever have work done so that no one would be able to figure it out (or if I were to ever hit my head real hard and wake up feeling the need to have my nose shaved down to two slits and a point), that's the guy for me!

Now here comes the fun part. Let's see how many comments I get from people who are Anonymous and who feel the need to tell me how disrespectful I am because Jacko was such a great artist, he was acquitted, etc. But before y'all comment (and y'all know who y'all are), just remember that the humor here is a) tongue in cheek and b) is saying more about the media and society than it is about Jacko. All right? So just back off if that's where you were headed. OK. I'm done now. Thanks for reading!! Have at it.

Sphere: Related Content

Horrible Journalism Down Under

We all know that the mainstream media these days has been sucking like time's running out to ever suck again. Suck now, lest ye find thyself unable to suck no more! Or something like that. I have (and still am) been chalking it up to a combination of incompetence and just not giving a fat rat's ass about the story and caring more about how they look on TV. (And by the way, if you're watching Fox News, the "how they look" part is answered with "very, very hot" and "Good Lord, could that skirt get any shorter?".) But having just read the biggest steaming pile of crap article that I can remember in a while, I'm beginning to think that there's another factor at play here in the suckfest that is the world of journalism. I'm beginning to think that the folks that write these articles think that the readers are just stupid.

It's really the only way that I can explain an article over there at something called the Northern Territory News, which is apparently in Australia and seems to consist of many articles that are written like crap. In particular, the entry titled "Celebrating Fallen Star" is about another Michael Jackson tribute concert. Only this time it isn't being promoted by money grubbing, scum sucking, Jackson brother Jermaine. This time it's just some club called the Happy Yess that is having a Michael Jackson night. How hard would that concept be to screw up when writing about it? Not hard at all, apparently!

The atrocity opens with a sentence that easily rivals "It was a dark and stormy night" for worst opening line with "HE STARTED small and beautiful and talented, he wound up weird, tormented and dead, and he won millions of fans along the way." What the hell is that?! It's a pretty good portion of a word salad is what it looks like. "Wound up weird, tormented and dead"? Since we're all going to kick it one day, can you really say that he "wound up dead"? If it had been prefaced by something he was doing to wind up dead, that would have been better, but to just wind up dead, it's a little misleading for those who may not know the story of Michael Jackson (and his fondness for taking enough painkillers and tranquilizers to anesthetize a circus tent full of animals every night to help him sleep).

The article blathers for a couple of lines before throwing in this winner: "The capacity of the Happy Yess club is a bit less than London's O2 Stadium, at which Jackson sold out 50 shows for a tour that will never happen. So Darwin's smallest club will be filled quickly." A bit less? You think?! And the implication that because the shows which were to have featured the real Michael Jackson (well, as much of him that was actually real and wasn't the work of his plastic surgeon) were cancelled, folks will naturally flock to Darwin's smallest club. In Australia. Far, far way from London. OK then. Seems like a stretch.

The article quotes a one Leah Flanagan as saying, "All this stuff would come up in the media and you'd just say 'aww, Michael'. That level of fame would mess anybody up." I don't know if that's what folks were saying when stuff would just "come up". In fact, I don't think it was. Let me try it out and see if I remember it like that. (Let's see....Hmmm...wow! Says here that Michael Jackson was arrested and charged with child molestation. Aww, Michael!) No. No, it definitely was not like that. At all!

It continues with "Flanagan, who will play in the house band, said the tribute would not concentrate on scandal, just on the tunes." Really?! You're not going to have your tribute focus on the scandals? What tribute would ever focus on any scandal? How would you even do that? Stop the sets halfway through and announce, "And now, we'd like to talk to you about child abuse and how you can help your children avoid falling prey to dangerous and manipulative sexual pervert child predators like the one that Michael Jackson was accused of and acquitted of being."?? I don't think you are! Or would you come back from a break and tell the crowd, "And now we're going to be playing a few songs from the scandal filled years of his life. A-one! A-two!" No! You're not!

Ms. Flanagan also throws in, "You can't deny good music." What now?? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean!

But what drew my attention to this ridiculously inane article in the first place was this photo...:

...coupled with this caption: "Dressed up Happy Yess manager David Garnham is easily mistaken for Michael Jackson. " Wait. What now?!

"Easily mistaken"? Why? Because he's white?! Easily mistaken?! I don't even think that Jacko could GROW facial hair! Easily mistaken?! Are there severe eyesight problems amongst the people of Australia that they would think that chap looks like Michael Jackson?! And "dressed up"?! In what?! Those aren't even sequins on that glove! He doesn't have the BeDazzler! No, those look like little stickers that were just stuck on there! It's far from sparkly! It looks like something he borrowed from a gay clown who wasn't using it that day. That dude is a be-bearded, Australian dude and Michael Jackson was an elderly, white woman! He cannot be "easily mistaken" for Michael Jackson. Wrongly mistaken for Michael Jackson? Sure. But "easily"? I think not.

I took a few minutes to read (OK, glance at) a few other articles over there and it would seem that craptastic is their standard. But, given the absence of any real substance or quality, I suppose that settling for consistency might make you feel as if there is at least some quality standard that exists in the journalism world. But if not that, maybe it could help it so that you don't want to hang yourself when you realize this is what it's all come to. Maybe.

Sphere: Related Content