It's A President Eat Dog World Out There

For some reason, people have decided that now is a good time to bring up the fact that President Barry ate dog when he lived in Indonesia.  I can't possibly imagine how this is suddenly a revelation for some folks considering that this information was in his book "Dreams of my Father" which was published in 1995.  1995!  So, seventeen years ago, the guy writes about something that happened in his childhood which was a perfectly accepted practice for the culture that he was living amongst and NOW people want to make a big deal about it?  This can only mean that it's just going to get worse when the election starts to get closer.  But before things get worse, what say we just make fun of them in a fashion that really the Internet can do best, shall we?  I know!  Let's take pictures of various dogs in various poses and humorously caption them with references to President Barry's eating dogs almost fifty years ago.  Like this:  

 Or this:
 

We can always make it more interesting with The Most Interesting Man In The World:

Yes, we can?

And this  one is my favorite.  Mainly because I think that "Labradoodle" sounds funny.  Labradoodle. HA!  See?

How fun, right?  Yeah, whatever.  Can we let this go now?  Please.  There are eight gazillion things that need to be fixed right now and a bunch of yahoos are focusing on what President Barry had for dinner when he was four.  And you wonder why I think we're doomed?  That is why!

Sphere: Related Content

Everything Is Better With A Bag Of Weed

For some reason, I spent some time yesterday reading about the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana.  I don't know why.  It was Saturday.  I had time.  Anyway, the two sides pretty much boiled down to two very distinct arguments.  The people who are on the con side pretty much have your typical anti-drug attitude about why it shouldn't be legalized.  And they tend to make fairly logical arguments.  (I'm not saying that some of them are a bit alarmist, because holy crap, some of them most certainly are!  But it's not like you're ever going to have a ton of people on one particular side of an issue who agree on their reasoning for their particular issue.)  But the folks that are manning the pro-legalization tend to always kind of revert back to one issue overall.  Don't get me wrong.  They do try to make their points, but I find that everything that they say seems to end up sounding like this bit from Family Guy.  (I have no idea why it is set at about twice the normal speed, but it's the only one I could find without a ridiculously long self-serving introduction AND that contained actual scenes from the show instead of just words on a screen.  Sooooo, sorry, I guess.) Behold! 

 

Sphere: Related Content

Hold Your Son Responsible, Sir

I've had enough of parents protecting their precious little snowflake children when the kids are obviously in the wrong.  Kids are going to make mistakes when they grow up.  Most likely, given the scope of a lot of regular teenage mistakes, they'll be fine.  Maybe not always great, but fine.  And even if they're not great, it's highly unlikely that it's because of ONE mistake that they made as a teenager.  (The exceptions to this sweeping generalization are obviously things like pregnancy and felonies.)  But the point here is that if they do something wrong and they admit to doing it wrong, what you as a parent are not supposed to do is then turn around and sue the school district because the school kicked your kid out of an honors English class because he cheated. 

And according to the San Jose Mercury News, that's exactly what happened.  It would seem that Jack Berghouse's son was caught cheating in his honors English class.  Now, at the beginning of the year, all of the students had to sign an "Academic Honesty Pledge.  Not only that, but his mother signed it as well.  Said pledge explained that if a student was caught cheating (among other offenses) that they would be removed from the honors English class and placed into a regular English class.  Berghouse's son got caught cheating.  He was expelled from the class.  That's when Berghouse sued.  


Mr. Berghouse claims to be concerned about his child's future and says that his expulsion from this particular honors English class could make it so that his son doesn't get into the college of his choice.  I'm kind of wondering at this point how many choices the kid is actually going to have once the colleges that he will apply to get wind of this fiasco.  Oh, yeah, I'm sure there are plenty of colleges out there just a-clammorin' to have a student with a lawsuit happy parent.  Sure there are!  Come on in, son!  Aside from being completely baseless, I have the feeling that this lawsuit is going to end up doing more harm than it will good. 


Mr. Berghouse, who is a lawyer, said "I'm getting a lot of hate calls at my office.  I had no freaking idea this would happen."  Really?  You had NO idea that people would be mad as hell that you were coming to the defense of your son who admitting to cheating in a class?  You had NO idea that people wouldn't take well to your suing the school district to get your son reinstated into a class that he got himself kicked out of?  You had NO idea that people would be angry that you don't teach your son to accept responsibility for stuff when he messes up?  NO idea at ALL, Mr. Berghouse?  I have a difficult time believing that.  Did he actually think that people would be on his side?  The kid signed a pledge not to cheat!  He cheated!  And Mr. Berghouse thinks that the school shouldn't follow through with the stated consequence that was outlined in the pledge?  Wow.  OK, then.  The only time I've ever been that delusional is after several bottles of wine.


Mr. Berghouse went on to explain "There is the possibility this will cause permanent harm. What university will it keep him out of? Will that have far-ranging consequences in what kind of job he can get?"  He's right.  This could cause permanent harm.  I doubt that it will, but he's right that some colleges might not want a student who is a cheater.  (Go figure!)  Regardless, that's why there are measures in place to discourage cheating.  Funny how they didn't work on his son.  Gee, with his attitude, I can't imagine why.  Hmmm....Well, he also said, "He knows it's wrong...You cannot imagine the mental and emotional penalty that has been inflicted upon him. We've offered several penalties, anything other than being kicked out of the English program."  But...but...a punishment isn't a punishment if it's something that you WANT to DO!

He signed a pledge saying (essentially) that he would not cheat.  The pledge specified that if any of the things outlined in the pledge were not adhered to that the student would be removed from the program.  The kid signed it and his mother signed in.  And now they're upset because he cheated and the school followed through?!  They want a DIFFERENT penalty?  Why would that even work?  Could you imagine if our justice system worked that way?  ("Uh, your honor...I know that my client admitted to embezzling millions of dollars and squandering the funds on an alpaca farm just outside of Toledo.  But if you send him to jail, that will really affect his ability to make any money in the future.  Therefore, we'd like to suggest a different penalty.  Perhaps picking up trash or reading to the blind.  We just don't think that jail is the right thing, even though my client knew he was committing a crime.") 

I'd like to ask Mr. Berghouse what he would say to all of the students in his son's class who did NOT cheat.  See, they didn't cheat and they're allowed to be in the program.  Doesn't it devalue the hard and honest work that the other students are doing to allow a cheater to come back to the class because of his daddy is afraid it will ruin his future?  I'd be mad as hell if a kid that had been caught cheating was allowed to be in an elite class with me when I had spent the whole time NOT cheating.  That's the thing.  The rules for staying IN the class are quite simple.  Don't cheat.  And really, if the kid couldn't grasp that concept, should he really BE in Honor's English to begin with?  He doesn't sound all that bright. 


Wouldn't it be great if the consequences from this are EXACTLY what they should be?  I mean that sincerely.  Wouldn't it be extremely just if some kid who did not cheat ended up with the spot at college where Mr. Berghouse's son would have been if he didn't cheat?  I think that would be perfect.  Granted, I don't think that's going to happen because I think that Mr. Berghouse is overreacting and that his son's entire academic future does not hinge on this one SOPHOMORE Honor's English class.  I'm pretty sure that he'll be OK in spite of the asshattery that he displayed by cheating.  It's not like he killed someone.  Though if he had, I'm sure Mr. Berghouse would come up with a reason why he shouldn't be punished.

I hope that Mr. Berghouse continues to get angry phone calls at his office.  They don't need to be hateful.  They don't need to be mean or threatening.  But people like Jack Berghouse are responsible for the dumbing down of America.  They're also responsible (as ironic as this is going to sound) for people not taking responsibility for anything that they've done!  Your child is not a precious little snowflake that should be exempt from all consequences for his poor choices!  And you don't get to choose your punishment, either!  Is that becoming a thing?  I think I remember writing about that recently.  Something about someone else who got caught doing something illegal and was upset because they were being charged even though they offered to right the wrong that they had been accused of.  That's not how this works!  And if things go the way that they should go, that's not the way that it will ever work! 

Sphere: Related Content

Poison Safety

Gather 'round kids!  It's story time!  I don't usually tell personal tales, but this one is pretty much on theme with the ridiculous stuff that I usually write about that I figured I should share. 

I bought this bottle of wasp poison off of the Internet.  It appears to be sort of like a weapon of mass destruction in disguise.  I'm really not even sure if it's legal for me to possess this in the over-regulated nanny state of Fascist-fornia over here.  (And if it is illegal, then this story is completely made up.  Something I'm working on.  Yeah, that's it.  NOT factual at all in the case of any possible illegality.)  But these wasps won't leave and I want them to.  I've tried several other methods and nothing works.  None of this really matters.  What matters is that I had a bottle of an extremely hazardous substance in my hand. 

So I'm getting ready to use this stuff and I take off the cap.  I look down and there is one of those safety seal devices over the opening of the bottle.  A safety seal!  It's poison!  I understand having the safety cap so that kids (and not particularly savvy adults) can't get into it accidentally and because it prevents spills.  I get that.  What are they trying to keep out with that seal?  Are they afraid I'm going to put vitamins or something in there to counteract the deadly substance?  Why is there a safety seal on poison? 

Naturally, pulling one of those things off of poison wasn't any easier than pulling it off a bottle of ketchup or something like that.  I grab the bottle with one hand and the safety tab with the other and attempt to pull it cleanly off.  Naturally, because it's there for safety and because it's an extremely toxic chemical, it goes all over the place (just like the ketchup always does).  Mind you, if I had just opened the lid and it was just normal, I wouldn't have spilled a freaking drop.  But in the name of safety, I ended up being covered in wasp killer.  That can't be good.  Sure, I washed it right off, but I would have rather not had to wash it off, you know?  But all in the name of safety, no matter how stupid and counter-intuitive it may seem! 

Sphere: Related Content

That's Not A Pizza

Are we in agreement that wacky food items with insanely high calorie counts have kind of jumped the shark?  I'm not the only one, right?  Yes, I know that people still like to get all breathless about things whenever some restaurant out there introduces some new menu item that is just CRAZY.  But I just don't feel like it's that big of a deal anymore and it's becoming some sort of squeezing blood out of a turnip attempt at reeling people in. I'm not into it anymore.  I'm not sure exactly when I lost interest.  It was definitely after the KFC Double Down because that thing wasn't as much of a gimmick as it was plain ol' delicious.  But I digress.  The latest abomination trying to gain media attention in lieu of just advertising is from the fine folks over there at Pizza Hut.  Behold! 

Now, if you're thinking "Oh, what the hell is that?" you're not alone.  That is apparently a cheeseburger pizza.  It's a "pizza" with a crust made out of little cheeseburgers.  Now, in what way is that a pizza?  Because it's round and incorporates a dough as the basis for the food item?  I thought that we had all been pretty clear for quite some time as to what constitutes a pizza.  Taking burger items and baking them in a flat ringed circle and then throwing condiments in the middle is not a pizza!  It's something, I'll give you that.  But pizza?  Come on.  You know it's not.  I'm being sucked in this time.  Not only does that look disgusting, it looks wrong.  And that's probably because they're calling it a pizza.  It's not a pizza.  Look at it!  It's NOT pizza!

Sphere: Related Content

But He Could Pay It Back

How did student loans end up being a big topic of discussion for President Barry?  How did they end up being a big topic of discussion for a bunch of people, really?  I mean, we're talking about student loans here.  No one was forced to take out these loans.  Nor was anyone forced to take out an exorbitant amount of money with whatever interest rate came along with that money.  So why are some people acting like because they can't afford to pay for a decision that they made on their own, that their loans should be forgiven or something like that because they can't afford to pay them back?  That's the confusing part for me.

Now President Barry is in on it.  And what he has to say about it, I find to be absolutely ridiculous.  According to the Huffington Post, President Barry was at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill giving a speech to students who I imagine just as eager as can be to lap up what he was saying.  And what he was saying was something along the lines of "We didn't come from wealthy families. So when we graduated from college and grad school, we had a mountain of debt. When we got married, we got poorer together."  He didn't appear to mention that he did receive a scholarship to Occidental College.  And those will help!  But left out that part.  It's hard to make people feel responsible for themselves when you want to make sure that they feel as if everything is stacked against them. But here's the part that I found astonishing.  He apparently mentioned that "they only finished paying off their student loans about eight years ago." 

Let's take a look at that.  He finished paying off his loans in 2004.  Now, he attended Harvard Law School, so I'm pretty sure that someone as smart as he is didn't go into it thinking that it would be cheap.  I did some calculations and with the aid of an inflation calculator I figured out that three years at Harvard Law from 1989-1991 when he graduated would have been about $131,678.09 at the time.  (Adjusted in 2010 dollars, tuition is $47,600 per year plus $25,000 for "room, board, books, travel and personal".  I don't know about you, but when I went to college, I didn't have any travel expenses.  Then again, I didn't go to Harvard.)  I have no idea what sort of loan he took out, so I don't know what sort of interest he paid.  Again, he didn't mention that stuff. 

So he graduated in 1991 and it took him 13 years to pay off his student loans.  That comes out to a payment of around $1,149.63 per month.  Now that's just for himself.  He did say "we had a mountain of debt".  Michelle went to Princeton on a scholarship, but she also went to Harvard Law School, so let's assume that she had the same amount of debt and owed a payment of around $1,149.63 per month.  That's  $2,299.26 per month.  Again, this is without interest.  Add on about 5% interest makes another $57.48 per month per loan or $114.96 per month for both.  That would make their total monthly payment around $2,414.22.  For thirteen years. 

So, let me get this straight.  He and his wife went to Harvard freaking Law School and racked up loans for (by my estimation) somewhere around $263356.18.  For those of you unfamiliar with numbers, that's over a quarter of a million dollars.  Is he really complaining about making enough money with a Harvard law degree that he was about to pay back over a quarter of a million dollars in only thirteen years?  You have to be kidding me. 

See, it needs to be pointed out here that he went to a prestigious university that cost an incredibly insane amount of money, but earned a degree that was actually at least worth what he paid for it.  He didn't go to Harvard and pay that sort of money just to end up with an art history degree which he would then use as a qualification to make my caramel macchiato at Starbucks.  What did he think was going to happen when he went to Harvard?  Probably exactly what actually happened.  He accumulated a debt that he would be able to pay off.  (After all, he graduated in 1991 and was first elected as a US Senator in 1996.  Senators make $165,200 now which is the equivalent of $120,129 in 1996.  So only 5 years out of college and he was definitely making over $100,000 per year.  And that's not to say that he wasn't making at least that much before then.  That's just a definite figure for a definite year.  Michelle was making at least that much as well.  Actually, from what I can figure out, she was probably making more than him for a while.) 

The point here is that he took on debt that he could afford.  That's not a problem.  These people that take on massive amount of debt when they're not going to Harvard and then they don't make a ton of money because they got a degree that doesn't exactly print money (theater and fashion majors, I'm looking at you) are the ones that are the problem.  It's not the same.  And I don't see why taxpayer dollars (Translation: my money) should be going to pay off loans for people who took them out when they couldn't afford them.  I'm not saying that the system is perfect.  But I am saying that there are a lot of people complaining about things that are totally their own doing.  And I'm getting a little tired of fixing other people's problems.


I can't believe that he stood up there and acted like only paying off his student loans eight years ago was some sort of a big deal when he and Michelle likely had over $260,000 in debt to pay back. And it only took him thirteen years!  That seems like awfully quick for the amount of money that was involved.  But those students at UNC Chapel Hill just lapped it all up.  Since when did disillusioning the young in this manner become a fashionable thing to do?  Getting a college education is SO important.  Getting it at the expense of your future financial stability is not a good idea.  Can't we push that message a little bit more?  Just a little?  Please? 

Sphere: Related Content

Not So Peaceful There, Ron

Do you remember Ron Artest? He's the guy who was on the Indiana Pacers back in 2004 and started a huge brawl at an NBA game by jumping into the stands and grabbing a spectator and punching him because he thought the fan had thrown something at him. Even if you don't remember hearing about that, I'm sure that just my brief description gives you a pretty good idea of what a class act he is. (By the way, he ended up getting himself suspended for an entire year with that display of lunacy. Seems like he got off a little easy if you're asking me. I don't like to go to NBA games where I have to worry about whether or not one of the players is going to snap off and attack a fan and incite a mini riot inside of an arena. It's not South American soccer!)

Last year, Mr. Artest changed his name. And he didn't change it to Bill or Fred or anything even remotely resembling a name. Yeah, he changed it to Metta World Peace. See, that's not really a name. It's words, but not so much words that would make up the name of a person. But it does sound peaceful. It has the word "peace" right there. Metta World Peace. OK, I'm just never going to get used to that. And I'm not so sure that anyone else should get all that used to it either. They certainly shouldn't be expecting him to actually be peaceful, for cryin' out loud.

The other night, the LA Lakers (who Metta World Peace Artest plays for) were playing against the Oklahoma City Thunder. Artest makes a dunk and then to celebrate, he full force elbows a one James Harden right in the face. Real peaceful! Now, Artest (I'm not calling him anything with the word "peace" in it if he's going to be acting like that) tried to argue his case to the referee that he was just "celebrating" the dunk that he just made. The problem with that excuse is that after he lays out James Harden, he just goes on like nothing ever happened. Harden is on the floor, writhing in pain from just being elbowed in the head. Artest doesn't do anything other than walk away. Doesn't go check on him. Nothing. Just starts to whine to the ref when it becomes obvious that he's about the be ejected.

If someone is going to call themselves something as stupid as Metta World Peace, I guess I shouldn't really expect that person to behave in any sort of manner other than one filled with that same stupidity. And I guess that same stupidity is maybe why it never crossed Ron Artest's mind to check on the guy that he just leveled to the floor with an elbow to the head? I don't know what this guy's problem is, but I think he might be just a little too violent for the NBA. Maybe he should try hockey. They love to beat the crap out of each other. It sounds right up his alley. The video of this horror is below. Someone needs to elbow him in the head, preferably with a hammer. (I know that doesn't really make sense, but I really want someone to hit him in the head!)

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Cheat The Hookers

Listen, I don't care if you frequent prostitutes. That's your business. But if you're a Secret Service agent and you're hired to protect the President of the most powerful leader in the world whilst your in the middle of a narco-state like Colombia, I'd prefer that you not get yourself a hooker while you're working. Call me crazy, but that's just the way I feel. But that's not even my biggest issue with prostitutes. If you're going to hire yourself a hooker, make sure that you pay her whatever it is that she charges. Don't try and rip her off after you've already had all of the sex. Not even a little. Especially if it's you and one of your Secret Service buddies who want to be with her together (you weirdos). Seriously, don't act like you guys should only pay her for one of you rather than both of you just because you guys were there at the same time. What is wrong with you? At the very least, you've gotta be realistic. No one enjoys being a hooker. And I'm sure that the hookers would just appreciate it, considering that they just had sex with you, if the least you could do is pay them what they're owed. And for God's sake, don't insult them when the bill is $800 by offering them $29. What in the world could you possibly be thinking by doing THAT? And now look what a mess it all is. Good move, cheapskate jackass. OK, I think I'm done here.

Sphere: Related Content

Google, You Have Some 'Splaining To Do

Hey, Google? Yeah, um, what the hell, man?! All I wanted to know is whether or not you're supposed to wash fish after you buy it. That's all. Verrrrrry simple inquiry. Could have really been satisfied with a simple yes or simple no. But that's not what happened, Google. And you know what happened! You did it! Would you like to explain yourself? Don't look at me like that. You know exactly what I mean! The second result! The second result! (Click to enlarge.) HOW does that end up as one of my choices?! Get it out of there! I don't want to know!

Sphere: Related Content

Does This Change Anyone's Mind?

Guess what?! A new picture of George Zimmerman has been released (for some reason). Now, you might remember (or you might not because you might have blocked it all out of your mind because you just couldn't stand to hear about a bunch of speculation over and over and over again) George Zimmerman is the guy who shot Trayvon Martin about a month ago. If you don't know what I'm talking about, might I suggest you volunteer to be on this man's jury. They're looking for people like you. When the video of George being taken into the police station surfaced, I heard way more than my share of "He looks fine to me" and "I thought that he was in a fight". Too rarely did I hear "He could have been cleaned up by the paramedics" and "That video is so blurry that it might as well have been shot with a potato". Anyway, here's the new picture. Behold!

Well, how 'bout that? Looks like the back of his head was bloody because he had been injured. Just like he had said that it was. Just like the police report said that it was. And I'm not saying that this means anything one way or the other. But it does mean that something happened out there before everything got kind of shooty. I'm not saying that I know what happened (and neither do you, by the way). There are only two people who know exactly what happened and one of them is dead. If I hadn't gotten so sick of hearing this story misreported and misrepresented ad nauseum, I might be interested in what people who were so quick to jump to a conclusion had to say about this. (I'm sure they're already got their conspiracy theories a-brewin'.) What I'd like to know is why this information is just trickling out? Or actually, why it's coming out at all? But considering how irresponsible the media has been up to this point, I see no reason to expect them to handle all of this any differently.

Sphere: Related Content