Some things are just better left unsaid. Forever. Just don't ever say them. Case in point would be the suggestion that one one Rosanna Scotto came up with during an on-air debate. Better left unsaid, I'm telling you.
Here's the situation: The issue at hand was phrased by the aforementioned Rosanna Scotto as "Should milk that's not from a cow be called milk?" Apparently, the milk industry is having issues with other things being called milk. Whatever. Have they just become aware of this? Apparently. Anyway, that was the question posed.
One of the ingenius newspeople there responded with "Sure. We call mother's milk 'milk' and it's not from a cow." Wait. What now? Yeah, it's not from a cow, but it's still MILK, you moron. What a weak argument. That's the best you could come up with? So far...yes.
The person who phrased the question responded with "They're talking about things like soy milk. You know, rice milk." OK, I think we're clear here. While those two things, the soy and the rice, don't necessarily excrete milk as defined, they do excrete a milky substance which I would think would qualify as milk. I mean, come on. If something is labeled "soy milk" am I really expecting that the soy in that instance came from a cow? Am I going to be surprised to learn that soy milk did not come from a cow? I don't think that I am.
Anyway, the genius who made the mother's milk analogy piped in with "Yeah, what else are we going to call it? Soy juice?" And here is where the problem began.
Apparently, Rosanna was on some sort of a roll with what else to call the juice that is not from a cow, but that is still milk-like in substance. And she blurted out the uncouth answer of....well....the video is below.
Wow. Did she really say that? I think she did. I don't know if I can actually type those words out. I know I don't want to. How about if I just say that the name that she suggested for the soy milk was "Soy something". Let's just say that it rhymes with "boy schism", OK? How's that? Yes, I know. It's terrible? Really, ma'am? You felt it was OK to just blurt that out, did you? Is this really what we've come to? (No pun intended.)
It's been an extremely long day over here. Long, long, long. Anyway, enough about me. Let's get on with the news.
I don't have much to say and the video below pretty much says it all, really. A one Charlie Brooker is apparently a columnist for guardian.co.uk. While I don't typically think of The Guardian as any sort of humorous publication, this Brooker fellow is one funny guy.
The quality which our reporting media continues to strive for is at depths that are lower than most of us could have ever imagined. That is to say, it sucks. It sucks so bad that we're not sure if it can suck any more. But then we realize that it can. But fortunately, there's the wonderful Charlie Brooker to help us navigate through some of those potentially confusing newscasts and understand exactly why it is that we're seeing what it is that's being reported to us. Nice job, Charlie! There might be a glimmer of hope out there yet. Maybe.
Almost all of the awards out there that are taken "seriously" (as seriously as you can take something that is awarded subjectively) are for things that are done well. What we as a people need are awards that are for things done like crap. These awards need to be handed out at a huge ceremony. There needs to be a red carpet. There needs to be 'round the clock cable news coverage. But instead of getting a trophy, the winners are immediately shipped off to some sort of deserted island which will eventually be completely inhabited solely by winners of the P.O.S. Awards. Let's start with the Journalism category. I only have one nomination right now. I could dig a bit for competition to this nominee, but I doubt that I'd find a serious contender. So, without any further ado, here is my nomination for the P.O.S. Journalism Award:
Over there at something calledtruthout is an article by a chap by the name of Dahr Jamail. I'm not including Mr. Jamail in my nomination process here, as I am going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that he did not have a hand in the part of the process that went horribly awry over there. His article is a horrific story about a one US Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson. Spec. Hutchinson is to be deployed to Afghanistan. She has not been able to find someone to take care of her 11-month old child, Damani while she is gone. (Hutchinson is a single mother. There is no mention in the article of a father, even though one would seemingly have to exist. Hutchinson's family members have their own health issues and are unable to care for an infant as well.) She did not show up when her plane left for Afghanistan. Thus, because this is the most reasonable thing for the Army to do, she was arrested and her son was placed with Child Protective Services. She faces up to a year in jail. Sure. That makes perfect sense. What. The. Hell.
This whole story is a mess. But it's not as much of a mess as the way that they reported it on truthout. Look what they did. Behold!
Yes, yes. That's heartbreaking isn't it. It's also extremely odd and completely ridiculous when you've seen a picture of US Army Specialist Alexis Hutchinson and her SON Damani. Wait. What now? Isn't that a picture of them? Uh, no. This is, behold!
Wait a minute. So, for some reason, truthout doesn't have access to Google and couldn't come up with an actual photo of Spec. Hutchinson and her child so they went with some sort of stock photo for effect? And underneath they went with the caption of "A soldier with her child"? Do they even know if that's really that soldier's child? Do they even know if that soldier was being deployed or returning home? (Usually, you see the crying like in that picture upon return, not upon departure. Granted, I have NO idea which one it is. Purely speculating is what I'm up to.) How asinine is that?
Quick! Someone accuse them of being racist! They didn't want to show a black soldier, so instead they showed a white soldier. Quick! Hurry! Before people figure out that they are not racist, they're only completely incompetent and have no idea how to run The Google!
What's the purpose of a photo that is not of the actual person in the story? I have never understood that. I mean, I get having stock photos for some sort of advertising or display or whatever. I don't think that all of those folks in those Verizon commercials are actually Verizon customers, but they don't need to be because it isn't relevant to the depiction of the product. Is a picture that is actually of the person that the story about necessary? Why, yes. YES IT IS! Why bother using actual pictures of actual people EVER if you're going to do crap like this? Why not just have a big file of photos (I'm sure that truthout could get their employees to pose for them) and just rotate through those. Man smiling. Woman scorned. Child playing ball. School being taught. Work being attended. Dog wagging tail. Cat playing with yarn. Building from afar. No need to use the actual subjects from actual stories. Noooo! That's so old school!
This is just such a P.O.S. excuse for journalism at any level I don't know what else to say. I'd like to know the rationale behind not using an actual photo of Spec. Hutchinson and her child. I'm doubting that it's a cost issue, as the photos for other stories that I've read were provided by Spec. Hutchinson herself. It's not like they had to license it from Getty Images or anything. They're either just lazy, incompetent or both. Whatever the reason, it's inexcusable. Thus, truthout being my leading candidate for the winner of the P.O.S. Journalism Award. If a serious contender emerges any time soon, I'll let you know (but don't hold your breath.)
For the 127th time, yet another example of what makes me absolutely insane about the current state of the news reporting media. The overly arrogant and wrongly acquitted double murderer, OJ Simpson, was sentenced yesterday, basically for being OJ.
No, not because everyone knows he killed two people and got away with it. "Being OJ" refers to his attitude that he has flaunted ever since his acquittal. His arrogance, his aloofness, his oh-so-casual-yet-oh-so-not attitude that he displayed whenever he was in public (which was quite often, considering he was golfing every day whilst looking for "the real killers"). Those things compose the "being OJ" category. After all, that's what compelled him to go busting into a hotel room in Vegas with a bunch of moronic, career criminal thugs in an attempt to get "his stuff back". Yeah, you can't really do that. If someone has your stuff and they're not supposed to have it, common sense dictates that you go to the cops, not to your posse. (Then again, common sense also dictates that you do not nearly lop off the heads of your ex-wife and her friend in the courtyard of her condo either.) As you may or may not care to acknowledge (because, please, hasn't this man taken up enough of our time as it is?), OJ was found guilty of every freaking charge that was filed against him in relation to this unsuccessful, borderline-IQ-masterminded, property-recovery mission. Yesterday was the glorious sentencing! After reading numerous different accounts and publications from a variety of major media news reporting sources and outlets, I don't have a freaking clue as to how long he was sentenced for.
Everything is different. And not just a little different. Different-different! Maybe I should add them all up and then find the average. Here's what I know (or don't know. I don't even know if I know or not. How sad is that? Thanks a lot, media guys. You're a big help.):
New York Times - OJ Simpson is sentenced to at least 9 years in prison.
Associated Content - OJ Simpson sentenced to at 15 years. (Eligible for parole in six.)
About.com - OJ Simpson sentenced to 16 years in prison. Eligible for parole after 7 1/2 years.
Associated Press - OJ Simpson sentenced to at least 15 years in prison.
Los Angeles Times - Simpson is sentenced to at least 6 years in prison.
E! Online - OJ Simpson sentenced to 15 years. Eligible for parole in nine.
Fox News - OJ Simpson sentenced to Up to 33 Years in Prison.
McClatchy Washington Bureau - Simpson gets 18 Years "I'm sorry for all of it, " he says.
New York Daily News - Simpson headed to prison for up to 21 years.
About - News & Issues - OJ Simpson sentenced to 17 years in prison
Examiner.com - OJ Simpson sentenced to 18 years in Prison
Pro Football Weekly - Simpson receives 15-year prison sentence. Eligible for parole after five.
San Jose Mercury News - Judge sentences Simpson to maximum of 33 years in prison. Simpson eligible for parole in nine years.
The Associated Press (yes, again!) - OJ sentenced to as much as 33 years.
The Press Association - OJ Simpson sentenced to a minimum of 18 years.
People Magazine - OJ Simpson sentenced to 17 1/2 years.
MSNBC.com - OJ Simpson sentenced to long term
What the hell, media guys? Nine. Fifteen. Sixteen. At least fifteen. Fifteen. Up to thirty three. Eighteen. Up to twenty one. Seventeen. A minimum of eighteen. Seventeen and a half. Long term? (Way to take a stand there, MSNBC.) It's not like half of them reported 14 years and the other half reported 13 years. No. Between nine years and up to thirty three years, that's a span of 24 years! You can't even make an educated guess as to what his sentence was when you have such a broad range of choices.
The Press Association wins the award for the worst reporting of this topic with this account of the situation: "O.J. Simpson on Friday was sentenced to a minimum of 18 years by a Nevada judge. The 61-year-old will be eligible for parole after serving five years and faces a minimum prison term of six years." What the hell, Press Association? What the hell is that?
I think there should have just been a standard headline for just this one time. It could read: " If you care, he's going to jail for a long time." Oh, of course I could be more witty, punny, pithy even, but after at least 13 years of having to see that jackass and his smug face in the news every other week, I'm saving pithy for those deserving of pithy. A lot of media outlets must have felt just a bit of that same sentiment, as some crammed the OJ "news" into the headlines with other stories. We have:
Auto deal in works....Rest of TARP funds may be used...OJ behind bars
Simpson sentenced...More home debt troubles...Bush defends Iraq war
Judge shoots down NFL...Simpson heads to jail...Seahawks lose
OJ gets 15 years..."Shocking" job cuts...Ticketed in labor....
I'm not sure who is more pathetic, OJ Simpson or the folks over there at USA Today and what they were calling "Instant Analysis on OJ Simpson's Sentencing." I kid you not, this is what USA Today is passing off as "legal analysis" from a "legal analyst" these days: "With sentencing complete for O.J. Simpson, here are some of the instant reactions from ESPN's legal analyst, Lester Munson:
-- "The judge was very angry with O.J. Simpson, that was very clear." And when Simpson tried to explain his actions during the robbery, "He took a terrible risk . . . I don't think that did him any good at all."
(Since when does identifying 'anger', an emotion that most people who are not lawyers are, in fact, familiar with, qualify as 'legal analysis? And if something is "very clear", isn't it thereby unnecessary to state that which is "very clear"? At the very least, leave the "very clear" out, even if you feel so compelled to point out what "angry" looks like. Perhaps USA Today should have had Big Bird do his legal analysis. It seems to be on about that level.)
-- On the judge's comment that she began the trial wondering whether Simpson was arrogant or ignorant, and "Now I know the answer, it's both.": "It was not a big surprise for her to say that. She's a judge who has a flair for the dramatic. It was no accident that she said that. She was using notes."
(Wow. A judge not accidentally speaking. Amazing! Of course she has notes! And again with the restating of the obvious "It was not a big surprise...." From what I can tell, my cat could do better legal analysis than this and I don't even have a cat.
- Summing up, on Simpson: "I'm not so sure how he went so far wrong here. He has lawyers at his disposal. He is not totally stupid. He somehow went totally off course here."
That is where the guy becomes completely discredited in my book because OJ is totally stupid. If nearly lopping off the heads of two people 13 years ago and then getting miraculously acquitted of the crimes doesn't persuade you to live the life of a law abiding saint but rather that of a smug, condescending, self-righteous a-hole who continues to have run-ins with the law, then yes, you ARE totally stupid. Explain to me how ANY of OJ's behaviors since he "allegedly" murdered those two people are NOT totally stupid! Oh, you can't, because they are totally stupid. And so is he. Man, how do I get a job as a USA Today "legal analyst"? Seems pretty cush to me. Just sit around and state the obvious. End every analysis with "Water? Still wet. Back to you." It would be my dream job
Before OJ was sentenced, he was allowed to make a statement. And he made a statement alright. The statement that he spoke out loud and the statement that his statement made about himself. To quote the great Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon." As he stood there with tears in his eyes and a snot bubble in his throat, he ended up sounding like a little kid who was trying to get out of being punished for something he had been caught doing. He thought that he was trying to make himself sound remorseful and that it was no big deal to anyone who was actually involved, so why should it be a big deal to the State of Nevada? The thing was that his rationale was a bit ramble-y and off topic-y. It was also nothing less than completely pathetic. (Not so tough without your knife, are you?) He threw in things like:
"In the past, as we know, as you heard on the tape, Mike Gilbert tried to set me up in a porn video, tricked me into a room with hidden cameras and they still wrote in the newspaper and tabloids, they still had cover stories that OJ did it even though there was no porn video. Even though I didn't participate in it."
(Was he just talking about porn? Did he mention a porn video? Porn? How did porn get thrown into this? I mean, bravo, Nevada court system! Bravo! But seriously. Porn?)
"I think 'Hey Mike.' I yelled at him. And I think 'Hey' just like I yelled at Bruce and Beardsley and I've forgiven them. We've talked about it, Beardsley and I the next day, and, uh, Bruce and I hugged, have talked about it."
You hugged?! Oh, my dear Lord, now I have heard everything. You hugged. Oh, my God. Did he expect the judge to get up and yell, "I'm convinced! You're normal and caring! Bailiff! Release this gentleman and get me a mint julep! Or something like that!" Are you kidding me?
"My family knew what we were doing. And I don't want to hurt Bruce. I didn't want to hurt any of these guys. I know these guys. These guys have eaten in my home. I've done book reports with their kids. I've sung to their mothers when they were sick."
So he's a sick mother singer AND a book reporter doer! Fab-ulous! What does that have to do with anything? Oh, right. Nothing.
"I just wanted my personal things and I realize that was stupid of me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to steal anything from anybody and I didn't know I was doing anything illegal."
Didn't know he was doing anything illegal? See? Again, my point. Totally stupid.
The folks over at the AP have the entire statement of ramble posted if you're interested. There's about five minutes of video of the ramble below. Somewhere right around the 1:00 mark is when the inexplicable mention of porn arises. And I'll say this: If it wasn't OJ, I wouldn't believe that someone would have actually had the balls to stand up there and play the victim. But because it is OJ, I'm not surprised. He has thought that he was invincible and untouchable for the majority of his life and that sense of self entitlement and self importance only became greater after his acquittal of not one, but two murders. There is no one on the face of this earth who ever has thought or who currently does think more of OJ than he thinks of himself. He is a legend in his own mind. And he's going to have a lot of time to hang out with that legend as he sits in his little cell for....(I forgot we still haven't pinned down an exact sentence)....a while. For a while he'll be doing that.
And please, someone tell me what is up with the dude in the background there.
It's karma. And I've decided that karma is short and has sharp teeth. That's why if you're not careful, it's so easy for karma to bite you in the ass. I believe it was someone wise (or a fortune cookie) that pointed out that karma, while often referred to as being "a bitch", was really not a bitch, but was rather, a virgin. If karma was a bitch, it'd be too easy.
Double murderer finally sentenced to prison. No one cares. Back to you
Sphere: Related Content
