That's Not Why

I'm going to make this brief because I had thought that we had already gone past this. Apparently not. Remember last summer when some lunatic in Norway went on a rampage and shot and killed 77 people? He was a most prolific lunatic indeed. Now he's in a Norwegian court (whatever that means) and this is the crap that he's pulling. Behold!

In case you can't read that (and have forgotten how to click to make the pretty pictures bigger) the caption on the left reads: Killer Breivik trained on video games for massacre. Anders Behring Breivik, who admits killing 77 people in Norway last summer, tells a court he used a video game to train for the shooting spree on the island of Utoya. (Wasn't Utoya Michael Jackson's sister? No, wait. That was LaToya. Honest mistake. Never mind.) And the asinine caption on the right reads "Anders Behring Breivik posted details of the murderous intentions online before last year's Norway massacre. Andrew Keen questions whether the internet, social media and video games encourage his actions." Aaaaarrrrggghhhh!

Do people really think that playing video games can lead them to kill 77 people? Really? Why would that be? Because there's killing in video games? And since there's killing in video games then that would influence someone to kill in real life? Well, in order for that to be true, wouldn't one have to look at the overall influence of video games as a whole in order to determine their effect (if any) on human behaviors? It wouldn't just be the violent stuff that influences people, right? It would be the non-violent stuff as well, wouldn't it? I don't see how you could argue a theory about video game violence encouraging violent behaviors without seeing if the video game influence encouraged other behaviors as well.

Seriously, if video games were that influential over people wouldn't the majority of people on Facebook be farmers right now? Do you know how many times Farmville has been installed? Over 110 million times. Over 63 million people dink around with that ridiculously annoying game every month. 32 million people waste time with that game every single day. Where are ALL THE FARMERS?!

Let me explain something that, if you're reading this blog, you probably already know. Sometimes, the most likely explanation for something is also the easiest explanation. I guess people don't like easy very much because those explanations almost never come up. In the case of this nutjob in Norway, I'll explain to you exactly what happened. And I'm going to try not to get all technical so that I'm easily understood. Stop me if I go too fast or there's something confusing about this. Ready? Here goes...Some people are just freaking crazy.

That's it! That's all there is. Simple enough? You'd think that it would be. But I guess that the news outlets wouldn't get enough ratings if they reported the news like: "Today in Norway, a man killed 77 innocent people. Some folks are just freaking crazy. Now we go to Bob with the weather. Bob..." I'm sorry that sometimes crazy people get in the way of not crazy people. But it happens. And it certainly isn't going to do any good to blame video games for the aforementioned craziness, all right? Video games didn't make that guy kill all of those people. He just did. And I'm sorry that it happened, but not so sorry that I'm going to start feeding into BS theories that have absolutely no basis in fact. Now for the weather...

Sphere: Related Content

This Spelling Stinks

I am a stickler for spelling, grammar and punctuation. I hate "text speak" because it makes you look like an idiot. Whose idea was it to start substituting the number 3 for the letter E? They're not the same. And they never will be. Same goes for substituting "dis" for "this" or "dat" for "that". Leaving off the E on the end of words? Just stupid. Putting a Y in place of an I? Equally as stupid. You look like a moron when you type things like "Lyke dis if u cry evertim". And when you do, you sound like this. (You're gonna need to click that to get the point here.) But the real problem arises when you mean to say one word, but you're too clueless to spell the word correctly. And in committing to said incorrect spelling, you completely change the meaning of what you were trying to say. And the difference can be huge. Need an example? Behold!

No one wants to smell like colon, you dumbasses. Cologne maybe. Colon? Highly unlikely. Then again, the whole text speak is something stupid that's popular that I don't understand. Maybe smelling like colon is another one of those popular things. But sweet Jesus, I certainly hope not.

Sphere: Related Content

Millionaires Don't Need Food Stamps

It's always nice to hear when at least someone comes to their senses. In this case, the person coming to their senses is Attorney General Bill Schuette of Michigan. Mr. Schuette decided to press fraud charges against a one Amanda Clayton because after she won a million dollars in the state lottery, she continued to collect food stamps and public assistance. You got it. Wins a million dollars. Thinks she's entitled to food stamps because she "isn't working". Riiiiiight. Good for Mr. Schuette.

According to the New York Daily News, Ms. Clayton is "...accused of collecting $5,475 in food stamps and public medical benefits over eight months". Just let that sink in. She wins a million dollars (OK, a $735,000 lump sum as opposed to the million being paid out in installments) and continues collecting money from the state because she "isn't working". Benefits aren't based on JUST whether or not you're working, cupcake! You have money! You don't need assistance! It's right there in the name! Assistance!

But for some reason, there seem to be a lot of unnecessary questions or some confusion over this most excellent move by Mr. Schuette. Naturally, some of the opposition comes from Ms. Clayton's defense lawyer, a one Stanley Wise, who said "They want to make an example of her...She's offered to repay the money. They haven't even sent her a bill. If that were the only issue, it would be over and done. They have chosen to exploit this for their purposes, and we have to deal with it." Yeah, see, it doesn't work like that. When someone gets caught stealing like a laptop, it doesn't make it OK if they just give the laptop back and say, "My bad!" As far the whole making an example out of her, I say good! I'm just sad that people even need this sort of an example. ("Citizens, I'd like to give you an example of what not to do. For example, if you win a million dollars, do not continue to take food stamps when you are perfectly capable of buying your own food. For example.)

Her mother isn't exactly seeing this for how it is either. Euline Clayton said that "...her daughter used bad judgment but that a criminal case is "crap"." You see, ma'am, most criminals use bad judgment. That's part of the criminal code of conduct. (Rule One: You must use bad judgment, as good judgment will cause you to not commit crimes.) She also noted that "The charges "are very extreme. ... They arrested her like a vulture...She didn't steal $1 million." I don't understand any of that. Arrested her like a vulture? So they circled her until she died and then they feasted on her rotting carcass? I don't think that happened. And no one is saying that she stole a million dollars. She stole $5,475. That's plenty.

The article also mentions that when a one Joy Yearout, a Schuette spokeswoman was asked "...why the attorney general chose felony charges over a civil lawsuit or why Clayton was arrested and locked up overnight for a non-violent crime", she declined to comment. I really wish that Ms. Yearout had answered with something to the effect of "We chose felony charges because she committed a felony." Seems simple and straightforward enough to me. It was kind of a stupid question to begin with if you're asking me. As far as being locked up for a non-violent crime, it might shock people to learn that people get locked up for non-violent crimes all the time. If they weren't locked up, they probably wouldn't be considered "crimes", per se. I wish I knew who made that inquiry. I'd really like to give them the answers that they so sought.

I hope this chick goes down. Yep, that's right. I'm hoping that they make a nice big, fat example out of her and all of her non-violent crime which stole taxpayer money from its originally intended purpose. If you'd like to see a video of this little snowflake in action, here's an interview that she did when she was approached by a reporter. Get ready to be angry, though. Very angry.

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

There's No Love Crimes

As I'm sure you're well aware, I don't understand people. They fascinate me, but I just don't get the majority of 'em. Criminals really perplex me, as do some of our laws for dealing with certain criminals. Those laws would include the recently coined "hate crimes". Hate crimes confuse me because they seem to attempt to make horrible things even more horrible if the reasons why the crimes were committed have anything to do with any sort of bias. Like for some reason, if you beat the crap out of someone because they're gay or because they're a certain race you don't care for, somehow that is supposed to be perceived as worse than if you had just beaten the crap out of someone without that bias. I just don't know if the person who was beaten really cares why. I'm guessing that they wished that they hadn't been beaten at all. What I'm trying to say here is that I don't understand how it's "worse" if we know the reason why someone chose a particular victim.

But apparently, it's become a fairly big deal. Let's look at the events that took place in Tulsa on Good Friday of this year. Turns out, that particular Friday wasn't quite so good for a lot of people. That's because a couple of losers decided to go on a shooting spree and ended up shooting five people and killing three of them. Not very good at all. The idiots who are allegedly responsible (Translation: they most likely totally did it) for these acts are now being charged with hate crimes because their victims were black and the assailants are not. I have no idea if they're actually racists or not. But does it really matter? It probably doesn't to the dead people. They're dead whether their killer was a racist or just an idiot. And I still don't see how one is worse than the other.

The LA Times has an article about this very thing. And in it, we learn that one of the shooters, a one Jacob England, would like to assure all of us that he's not a racist. As if that makes this any better for anyone! See how silly hate crime laws are? ("You killed my mother? Oh, but you're not a racist? Well, OK then! I feel much better the senseless slaughter of my relative. Carry on!") You can see the video of Jacob the (allegedly) Guilty at the link above. He's a little difficult to understand because he doesn't exactly enunciate very well, but it's really kind of a moot point since I don't think that anything that he has to say at this point really matters.

In the video, Jacob says, "I always got along with everybody. It didn't matter what color he was." I'm just going to go ahead and guess that he didn't always get along with everybody. And I'm pretty sure that he's not getting along with "everybody" right now. I'm guessing that there are some people out there, say...the relatives of the people that he allegedly shot, that he's not going to be getting along with so well.

For some reason, Jacob's mother had sent a letter to the folks who are now Jacob's lawyers. She probably would have just gone in and talked to the lawyers in person if she hadn't been sitting in jail for the last eleven years for something related to arson. Yeah, he seems to come from a great family. Way to go, Mom! In the letter, she writes "Our family does not hate black people...Two of my beloved grandchildren are African American." Who CARES?! You're more worried about people thinking that your son is a racist as opposed to them thinking that he is a murderer?! This is what we've arrived at?! For reals?!

She goes on to write that "Jake had a lot of responsibilities piled on him and I think it was too much." Yeah, that's not much of a defense, either. I was unaware that having a lot of responsibilities could cause someone to go out and just start shooting random people one day. I think that I'd prefer that she said that he was a racist. At least that would be relevant. Too many responsibilities? Pipe down.

Do you see what I'm saying? This guy allegedly/probably killed a bunch of people. And really, if it was someone that I loved who had been killed by this guy for what is essentially no reason at all, I don't know if having a reason is going to make it better or worse. That's why the term "hate crime" is ridiculous. It's not like there's any such thing as a "love crime". I think that most crime isn't exactly what I'd call friendly. Giving it a certain name and somehow implying that one sort of murder is worse than another sort of murder doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Sphere: Related Content

How Does This Even Happen?

Sometimes, I hear of a story that is just so odd that I don't know how to feel about it. On the one hand, it's probably terrible what a certain person did. On the other hand, if that person couldn't have committed their terrible act without complicit involvement from the "victims", am I still supposed to feel bad? I'm not sure. And in this case, it's so freaking weird that I'm just all confused.

Our story takes place in the quiet West Wales village of Cwmduad, near Carmarthen. Let's just call it the UK. A guy named Reginald Gill came up with a plan. Now, just because it's a "plan" doesn't mean that it should have had any chance at all of succeeding. That it did succeed is completely astounding and believe me, I will delve into that later. But according to The Daily Mail, Mr. Gill had a business that involved the peddling of homeopathic products and treatments. It was in this practice that he was also passing himself off as a doctor. And as in his capacity as a fake doctor in a store full of hokum, he came up with what I can only describe as the stupidest idea ever. Then again, it did work, so what do I know?

Here's what he did: This guy told women that they had breast cancer. Horrible, right? But then, he told them that he had a cure! Oh, yay! (Yeah, you know it's not gonna be real, right? Ok, good.) And the cure that he proposed was for him, the "doctor", to suck on their breasts for thirty minutes a day! Now, I don't know if that's thirty minutes each or thirty minutes total. I guess that it's probably just 30 minutes on the allegedly afflicted bosom. But that's not the craziest part. No, the craziest part is that at least three women agreed to this!

Listen, in the age of the Internet, why you would just automatically agree to have a seventy-seven year old dude start suckling on you like a new born calf? Actually, in the realm of consciousness, why wouldn't you, at the very least, get a second opinion? You don't think to yourself, "Hmmm. Well, that's a little unconventional. I've never heard of such a treatment. And it sounds perverse. I wonder if I should get another opinion?" That never crosses your mind? Not ONCE?! What is wrong with you?

Somehow, this gets out. I guess there was at least one woman who received a fake diagnosis and an even faker treatment plan and decided that perhaps it be best for her to alert some sort of authority to the matter. He goes to trial and is found guilty and sentenced to eight years. I don't know what the typical jail sentence is for something like this, but I'm not going to argue with eight years. And really, I'm not so sure that he should be going to jail at all. Maybe if he had played his cards better...

Wait! Just hear me out! He could have told the judge, "Look...I came up with an absolutely stupid idea. Perhaps, the stupidest idea that's ever been thought up. It shouldn't have worked on anyone ever! How is the fact that it worked my problem? This was a bad plan! It is laughable that anyone would have fallen for it! That they did, I don't see how that's my fault! Your Honor." And if he had said that, he would have been right! It takes two! How do those women, those clueless, gullible, softheaded women, how do they not share any of the blame! If you think about it, none of this could have ever happened without their help. I'm just sayin'.

And accompanying this guy to jail will be his 35-year old wife! What is her deal? She's married to a weirdo who is 42 years older than her (and not in a good way) and she goes along with this little plot?! How does that work? Does he present her with his patently stupid idea (that never should have succeeded on anyone ever) and she just says, "Let me get this straight. You want to pretend that you're a doctor and tell women that they have breast cancer when they really don't so that you can suck on their boobs when you tell them that's the cure...I'M IN!"

I'm telling ya, I'd like to talk to everyone involved in this fiasco. Just for like ten minutes each. I have several concise questions that I'm dying to ask the willing participants in this lunacy! Granted, most of them start with "WTF", but there are some variances.

Sphere: Related Content

I Could Do That

You know how much I hate that there is a world record category for "Most Expensive (insert food item of your choice here)"? Very much, that is correct. It's completely ridiculous because people make food that doesn't actually have food in it and then they call it expensive food and end up with some sort of a world record. Isn't that like if I took a chihuahua and put him on top of a ten foot ladder and called him "World's Tallest Dog"? I mean, it's not exactly the same, but it's pretty close.

Here, let me give you a real example. Over there at Yahoo! News, we learn about a one "renowned "Karat chef" Angelito Araneta Jr." Now, I knew that the article was going to irritate me because, as I'm sure that you've already realized, there is no such thing as a "Karat chef". Oh, sure, it's a thing...to that guy. But I don't know that if you put "Karat chef" on a resume or even if you brought it up in conversation that anyone would know what in the world you were talking about. This is important because this entire article seems to be about made up stuff that people are acting like is real stuff. It's NOT! (Please see my previous "World's Tallest Dog" example for elaboration on that concept.)

So Mr. Araneta Jr. is trying to make the World's Most Expensive Sushi. And just to be clear, that is a thing. That could be a thing. There are plenty of super pricey cuts of fish out there. But the problem I have with Mr. Araneta Jr's method is that he doesn't stick to fish. And that's really what I have contention with. If you're going to make the "World's Most Expensive" of any kind of food, I would think that the one requirement, the one minimum standard that you'd have to meet would be that what you prepared was actually food. And as I'm sure that you can guess by my tone, this is not actually food.

See, the "secret" to achieving the "World's Most Expensive Sushi" seems to be for it to be topped with not fish eggs or fish or anything of the sort, but rather to have diamonds and pearls sitting atop the little bite sized pieces (which, incidentally, also appear to be wrapped in some sort of 24-karat gold leaf thing)! Diamonds and pearls aren't FOOD. Since when does this count?! Since when can you just start putting jewels on top of food and get yourself in the Guinness Book of World Records?!

The sushi apparently appraises at $1,978.15 in US dollars. Why stop there? Why not set the sushi on top of a gold bar and park a Hummer on top of it?! That would obliterate that measly amount that this guy came up with. What's a Hummer going for these days? Fifty grand? There you go! How is that any different from what he's doing? It seems the same to me! Can't eat the diamonds and you can't eat the Hummer either. How would my way not count? And while I'm at it, I'll just use that same method for all food items. I'll put them on top of a gold bar and then park a Hummer on top of them and voila! I will OWN every "World's Most Expensive" food record that there is! World's Most Expensive Burger. World's Most Expensive Cheeto. World's Most Expensive Jolly Rancher. World's Most Expensive Churro. You name it, I'm gonna put a Hummer on it and go for the record!

I'm not sure if this guy has figured out some sort of loophole or something, but if he has, it's the most ridiculous loophole I've ever heard of. Diamonds aren't food! Why are they acting like they are? Why does this count? What am I missing? Guinness? Anyone? I'm listening!

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

Caine's Arcade

This is one of the best things I have ever seen. I love the imagination of little kids. I also love it when I come across a little kid with ingenuity and determination and a real passion for whatever it is that the kid might be into at the moment. Caine Monroy is one of those kids. Over the summer, Caine went to work with his dad every day at his dad's used auto parts store in east LA. As a fan of those arcade games where you can win prizes, Caine set out to build his own arcade using his awesome imagination, a bunch of cardboard and a whole lot of packing tape. The only problem was that there wasn't a lot of foot traffic to his dad's store because most of the store's business had gone online. Enter a guy named Nirvan Mullick. Nirvan saw the awesomeness of Caine's arcade and asked permission from Caine's dad to make a short movie about Caine. Below is that movie. It's amazing. Simply amazing. If it doesn't play, click here.

I've watched this several times. And now I can almost watch it and not want to cry! When I was little, I loved the video games in arcades. I always dreamed of having my own arcade at home. Now that I'm a "grown up", I'm slowly building that arcade in my garage. (I'm up to three games! And I'm getting ready to put in planetary carpet that glows in the dark!) I know that sort of love for something that Caine has. He says at the end of the movie that he was proud of what he had made. He should be. It's awesome.

By the way, there's also a website and there's a fund set up for donations to a college fund for Caine. So far, it's over $100,000! Obviously, I'm not the only one who finds this whole thing incredibly touching and who finds Caine to be an exceptional individual. Check it out. You won't be sorry. Way to go, Caine!

Sphere: Related Content

Still Not A Winner

Hey, guess what happened? The Mega Millions winner in Maryland came forward and guess what? I know this will shock you, but it turns out that it was NOT that possibly mentally ill woman who called herself Mirlande Wilson on the news, but who goes by Sheila Paraison on Facebook (for reasons that I still cannot ascertain). Shocking, I know!

Seriously, this woman has been going around for at least a week and telling everyone that she won. Well, that was at first. Then it was that she won, but she hid the ticket at the McDonald's that she worked at. (How that McDonald's was not torn apart McNugget by McNugget is beyond me.) After that it was that it was in her house somewhere, but she couldn't find it. (For some reason, her 15-year old daughter had been asked about this and she responded that Mirlande/Sheila wouldn't let the kids (she has SEVEN of them) look for the ticket and the girl said she was crying because "it's a lot of money". Yes. Yes, it is. Sorry to say that you won't be getting a lot of money. Also sorry to say that your mom is a bit of a cuckoo bird.) I think after that it was in God's hands. (That didn't make any sense to me either, because God can't cash it in. Why would he have it?) And the worst part about that whole fiasco is that she had gone in with a bunch of her McDonald's co-workers to buy a bunch of tickets and basically said that she won, but that she wasn't sharing because she bought her ticket separately. Yeah, OK, then.

But yesterday it comes out that the winners have claimed their prize in Maryland and (spoiler alert!) it was not Ms. Wilson/Paraison. The winners were three Maryland public school system employees who have chosen to remain anonymous. That's a little different than the woman who had been claiming that she won. Looking back, considering that she didn't win, the anonymous route probably would have saved her a little bit of humiliation. Well, that is, if she understood that she really didn't win.

See, she's still denying that she didn't win. According to the New York Post, she "...insisted yesterday that she didn’t lie when she told her lottery pool co-workers — and the world — that she had hit the Mega Millions jackpot." But...but...she didn't win. They didn't give her the money. And she was saying that she won...sooooooo....what now? I don't get it either. But after the lottery folks announced that these other three people had actually won (and apparently had the ticket, and now the money, to prove it), she said “I don’t know who lied. I’m not the liar!" But...but...you are.

Tell me something. What do you think that this woman was thinking was going to happen with this little story of hers? Did she think that the lottery people were just going to give her the money simply because she said that she won? I think that's why they make you actually show the ticket. And what about all of her co-workers at McDonald's? How did she think that this was going to go over with all of them? Can you imagine how tense things must be around that deep fryer these days? She's going to find herself minced up in one of those God-awful Snack Wraps one of these days I'd imagine. Just one more example of how I just don't get people. I don't get this crazy line of thinking. Oh, wait. That's right. She's crazy. Never mind. I got it. Carry on!

Sphere: Related Content