Okay, kids. I know it's been FOR-EV-ER since I posted, and truth be told, with the whole move and everything, I'm still not convinced I have the energy to post . . . HOWEVER, I was up late last night watching late night television (welcome to the world of the newly unemployed), and I somehow happened upon My Strange Addiction on TLC.
Holy Ramona and Beezus!
I totally lucked out, because I had to have caught the most interesting episode, possibly ever . . . and by interesting, I mean interesting like Faces of Death, interesting. I mean, this shit was bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s! I've seen some pretty crazy stuff in my day, but I'm pretty sure my mouth was gaping open in horror for the duration of the show. I just couldn't tear myself away, even though it might have been worse than that terrible email my good friend Shy (ol' dependable Shy, who always sends me shit I can never quite erase completely from my brain) sent me (with pictures, of course), about texting whilst driving . . . and that email was bad. You're just going to have to take my word for it
Okay, so enough of the dramatic introduction. This woman's strange addiction was . . . (drumroll please) . . . she eats her dead husband's ashes. Close your mouth; I'm being serious. She. Eats. Her. Dead. Husband's. Ashes. Like, wets her finger, then rolls it around in the bag full of ashes in his urn, then licks every last morsel off of her finger until it's shiny clean. The worst part? She said that they taste like rotten eggs . . . but that hasn't stopped her yet. She samples the Fun Dip about six times a day, and she has already consumed a pound of his ashes; only five pounds remain. Sick yet? I couldn't make this shit up if I tried. See for yourself . . .
. . . As effing disgusting as this story is, I think it's really sad. This woman is obviously unbalanced. I mean, I love my hubs; I really do. And I'm sure that if I [God forbid] lost him in some sort of freak accident/health emergency, that I would probably go off the rails for a little while. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't carry his ashes around with me everywhere I went. I definitely wouldn't cook meals for him; I barely do that now! The thing is, I actually feel kind of sorry for her . . . but I just can't wrap my mind around how she got there. I do understand not wanting to brush off your husband's ashes like random dirt or dust, but to eat them? That would never even occur to me.
I just had to share that tasty little morsel with you. I hope to be back on track with my daily posts sooner than later. There definitely hasn't been a shortage of things to talk about! I'll check in soon, I promise. xo
Showing posts with label sound the alarm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sound the alarm. Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 2011
Thursday, July 14, 2011
1, 2, 3, 4, I Declare a Debt Ceiling War!
Why is there so much juicy news to discuss when I'm supposed to be on vacation?? The hubs and I happened to be touring CNN today, when news of the latest developments in the ongoing debt-limit discussion came across the ticker. I just couldn't let this topic go.*
“He shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting . . . Democratic sources dispute Cantor’s version of Obama’s walk out, but all sides agree that the two had a blow up. The sources described Obama as “impassioned” but said he didn’t exactly storm out of the room . . . On exiting the room, Obama said that “this confirms the totality of what the American people already believe” about Washington, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations, and that officials are “too focused on positioning and political posturing” to make difficult choices.**
Freaking. Brilliant. Isn't that what I've been saying since the overly dramatic budget discussions, earlier this year? I'm so glad that POTUS agrees with me. Congress needs to GET. IT. TOGETHER. Last I checked, they are elected officials, and should be doing everything in their power to represent the best interests of the American people. Listen, I'm confident that nobody wants our national debt to just keep increasing with no end in sight . . . but what makes this time different than the FIVE times the debt ceiling was raised during the most recent Bush Administration (to the tune of almost a whopping $4 trillion)?? I'm just curious, because the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions, Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, each voted "yea" at least 4 times each, to approve Bush's requests (only Kyl voted "nay" on the first request; the others voted "yea" all five times).*** Did I mention that those votes of approval did NOT accompany any demands for drastic spending cuts? Hmmm . . . one of these things is not like the other.
So again, what is different now? Could it be . . . that Obama is President (the horror!), and the GOP would rather see America fall into perpetual recession-laden pieces before voting to support anything he proposes? Does it have anything to do with ridiculous political agendas and feuds that are huge roadblocks to any sort of progress, whatsoever? I call bullshit. During the Bush Administration, the GOP seemed to clearly understand that sometimes you have to spend money to make money; they acknowledged that the debt ceiling had to be raised in order for the American economy to stay on track. Unfortunately, something seems to have happened to their good sense since then, because now all they seem to be doing is dicking around and playing political games (i.e., pissing contests). Hey, no big deal, right? So what if a few people don't get their social security checks? As long as the GOP can prove their point, screw America!**** (Wait, what is their point, again?)
It seems to me like everybody on Capitol Hill has lost their damn minds with the 2012 election looming. We (the common folks that nobody seems to give a shit about anymore) all know that nothing productive gets done around election time, because everyone is too busy climbing up on their soapboxes, and mudslinging/name-calling/personally trashing their politicalopponents foes, but this is just ridiculous. Debt ceiling, shmet shmeiling. Just vote to raise it, already. Real talk -- it's not like we're going to pay it back anytime soon, right? So who gives a crap? Good ol' W promised to pay off the debt in ten years (Did he miss the memo that presidential terms are only 4 years, and presidents can only serve two terms? Last time I checked, 4 x 2 = 8 . . . oh, wait. Multiplication is kind of difficult. Nevermind.), but everybody knew he was full of it. Cantor needs to just suck it up, quit cock blocking, and get on board. Because this shit is ridiculous. You hear me? Ri-dickaluss.
My feelings can best be summed up by the following quote from a democratic aide, "This is just more juvenile behavior from [Cantor] and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work."
Get over yourselves and get 'er done, folks. The American people (remember us?) are counting on you (because we have no choice). DO THE RIGHT THING.
Thanks,
-Management
*Don't you worry your pretty little heads; I haven't forgotten about the Bachmann shrew. Her day is coming soon. I can't let that topic go, either. Because she's a racist . . . and a homophobe . . . and we don't tolerate her kind 'round here.
**Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S8h5Qu4U
***I'm really not making this up, I promise. Get the deets here. The facts have to be true if they came from a .org website, right?
****I feel like that's going to be the GOP platform in 2012: SCREW AMERICA! They sure are doing a thorough job of that right now. Right-wing, my ass. They sure seem like Wrong-wing, to me.
“He shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told reporters in the Capitol after the meeting . . . Democratic sources dispute Cantor’s version of Obama’s walk out, but all sides agree that the two had a blow up. The sources described Obama as “impassioned” but said he didn’t exactly storm out of the room . . . On exiting the room, Obama said that “this confirms the totality of what the American people already believe” about Washington, according to a Democratic official familiar with the negotiations, and that officials are “too focused on positioning and political posturing” to make difficult choices.**
Freaking. Brilliant. Isn't that what I've been saying since the overly dramatic budget discussions, earlier this year? I'm so glad that POTUS agrees with me. Congress needs to GET. IT. TOGETHER. Last I checked, they are elected officials, and should be doing everything in their power to represent the best interests of the American people. Listen, I'm confident that nobody wants our national debt to just keep increasing with no end in sight . . . but what makes this time different than the FIVE times the debt ceiling was raised during the most recent Bush Administration (to the tune of almost a whopping $4 trillion)?? I'm just curious, because the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions, Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl, each voted "yea" at least 4 times each, to approve Bush's requests (only Kyl voted "nay" on the first request; the others voted "yea" all five times).*** Did I mention that those votes of approval did NOT accompany any demands for drastic spending cuts? Hmmm . . . one of these things is not like the other.
So again, what is different now? Could it be . . . that Obama is President (the horror!), and the GOP would rather see America fall into perpetual recession-laden pieces before voting to support anything he proposes? Does it have anything to do with ridiculous political agendas and feuds that are huge roadblocks to any sort of progress, whatsoever? I call bullshit. During the Bush Administration, the GOP seemed to clearly understand that sometimes you have to spend money to make money; they acknowledged that the debt ceiling had to be raised in order for the American economy to stay on track. Unfortunately, something seems to have happened to their good sense since then, because now all they seem to be doing is dicking around and playing political games (i.e., pissing contests). Hey, no big deal, right? So what if a few people don't get their social security checks? As long as the GOP can prove their point, screw America!**** (Wait, what is their point, again?)
It seems to me like everybody on Capitol Hill has lost their damn minds with the 2012 election looming. We (the common folks that nobody seems to give a shit about anymore) all know that nothing productive gets done around election time, because everyone is too busy climbing up on their soapboxes, and mudslinging/name-calling/personally trashing their political
My feelings can best be summed up by the following quote from a democratic aide, "This is just more juvenile behavior from [Cantor] and Boehner needs to rein him in, and let the grown-ups get to work."
Get over yourselves and get 'er done, folks. The American people (remember us?) are counting on you (because we have no choice). DO THE RIGHT THING.
Thanks,
-Management
*Don't you worry your pretty little heads; I haven't forgotten about the Bachmann shrew. Her day is coming soon. I can't let that topic go, either. Because she's a racist . . . and a homophobe . . . and we don't tolerate her kind 'round here.
**Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58937.html#ixzz1S8h5Qu4U
***I'm really not making this up, I promise. Get the deets here. The facts have to be true if they came from a .org website, right?
****I feel like that's going to be the GOP platform in 2012: SCREW AMERICA! They sure are doing a thorough job of that right now. Right-wing, my ass. They sure seem like Wrong-wing, to me.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Caylee's Law
Okay, so I promised not to get all wrapped up in politics, or cram my political agenda/views down your throat . . . but this is something I feel really strongly about, and what better means with which to share it but my own humble little blog?
Guilty of murder or not, Casey Anthony waited THIRTY-ONE DAYS before reporting her 2 year-old daughter Caylee missing. I would imagine that any logical adult would agree with me that this offense alone should be considered a crime. The verdict is in, and it is not my place to continue to harp on whether or not I think Casey is guilty of murder; what's done is done. That said, I think that Caylee's Law is the real way to ensure that poor little Caylee Anthony will have some justice.
It's terrible, but things like this happen too often in our country. Children fall victim to people who, as adults, should be protecting their best interests. Because of the media frenzy that has surrounded the Casey Anthony trial, Caylee Anthony has become the posterchild for missing children everywhere. Caylee's Law would make it a felony for for parents not to report missing children. I think this law should be a no-brainer. Why would any parent not want to report a missing child? If a child is missing, a parent should report that fact as soon as possible to the authorities, so action can be taken as soon as possible. The sooner a child is reported missing, the greater their chances are for survival.
I could go on and on for days about how strongly I feel about this law, but at the end of day, the point is . . . sign it. As adults, we are responsible for the younger generations. We need to step up and accept this responsibility, and do everything within our power to make sure that our nation's youth survives and fluorishes. They are our future, we need to look out for them. Period.
So please, I beg of you. Take a minute out of your day to sign the Caylee's Law petition. Do your part. I've done mine, and I already feel like I'm helping to make a difference. I've already received emails from my State Representatives, and have had the chance to express my personal feelings on the issue. Caylee may not have gotten justice for her death, but she's getting justice for children everywhere. I'm helping. You should help, too -- it's a good feeling.
Guilty of murder or not, Casey Anthony waited THIRTY-ONE DAYS before reporting her 2 year-old daughter Caylee missing. I would imagine that any logical adult would agree with me that this offense alone should be considered a crime. The verdict is in, and it is not my place to continue to harp on whether or not I think Casey is guilty of murder; what's done is done. That said, I think that Caylee's Law is the real way to ensure that poor little Caylee Anthony will have some justice.
It's terrible, but things like this happen too often in our country. Children fall victim to people who, as adults, should be protecting their best interests. Because of the media frenzy that has surrounded the Casey Anthony trial, Caylee Anthony has become the posterchild for missing children everywhere. Caylee's Law would make it a felony for for parents not to report missing children. I think this law should be a no-brainer. Why would any parent not want to report a missing child? If a child is missing, a parent should report that fact as soon as possible to the authorities, so action can be taken as soon as possible. The sooner a child is reported missing, the greater their chances are for survival.
I could go on and on for days about how strongly I feel about this law, but at the end of day, the point is . . . sign it. As adults, we are responsible for the younger generations. We need to step up and accept this responsibility, and do everything within our power to make sure that our nation's youth survives and fluorishes. They are our future, we need to look out for them. Period.
So please, I beg of you. Take a minute out of your day to sign the Caylee's Law petition. Do your part. I've done mine, and I already feel like I'm helping to make a difference. I've already received emails from my State Representatives, and have had the chance to express my personal feelings on the issue. Caylee may not have gotten justice for her death, but she's getting justice for children everywhere. I'm helping. You should help, too -- it's a good feeling.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Cheater, Cheater, Pumpkin Eater!
This is just so sad. You know, parents send their children off to school in good faith - good faith that the teachers and administrators are qualified to do their jobs, that they will have the children's best interests at heart, and that they will be good role models for the children when their parents can't be there. School is an important part of the socialization process for children, where they meet their peers and learn both educational and life lessons. Teachers are supposed to be like second parents, to identify children's talents and strength and then nurture and foster them. But this? I really have no words. These so-called "educators" really should face the full consequences of their actions, because not only did they forsake the children's best interests to protect their own, but by cheating and falsifying test results, they denied those children the right to a proper education. They didn't just cheat the system; they cheated those kids out of the opportunity to gain the most knowledge as possible, and address areas in which they might possibly need a bit more help. And for what? All for the sake of a merit raise. It's disgusting. Good thing I don't have any kids yet . . . I'd better start saving my Benjamins, because with this impending move to Atlanta, private school is sounding more and more attractive.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
"Face It, Not Guilty - That's How I Stay Filthy"
For those of you who have been living in a hole for the past few months, I'm talking about Casey Anthony. You remember her, right? The mother who killed her adorable three year old daughter? Yeah, her. Well, as you know, the jury came back yesterday, after deliberating for less than 24 hours . . . and gave her a not guilty verdict. No, really. I know, I know. I'm rolling my eyes, too. "Bella Vida," is right. Would it have been too much for the judge to ask them [very politely] to please turn their asses right back around and take a little bit longer to think it over? I mean, this was a freaking murder trial, not a 5K race. You don't have to be the first to the finish line; you just have to make a rational decision. For shiggles, let's have a look at the charges Mommy Dearest was up against and the jury found:
- Murder in the first degree - Not guilty
- Aggravated manslaughter of a child - Not guilty
- Aggravated child abuse - Not guilty
- Providing false information to law enforcement - Guilty
- Providing false information to law enforcement - Guilty
- Providing false information to law enforcement - Guilty
- Providing false information to law enforcement - Guilty
*blinkblinkblink*
Yesterday's acquittal was definitely the verdict heard 'round the world, but in my opinion, it raises the question of the effectiveness of our judicial system. This is purely subjective, but should this verdict restore your faith in our justice system, or further demonize a dated system that never seems to work in these crazy, media-frenzy-type trials? If you ask me, it's kind of a double-edged sword. One one hand, I think we should be glad that she was acquitted of murder. Don't get me wrong, I think the chick is guilty as sin . . . but the fact remains that there was, in fact, reasonable doubt. Playing devil's advocate, perhaps we should celebrate that the jury did recognize that fact, because we are talking about murder, after all . . . and she could have been put to death if found guilty. I know that if I was on trial for murder (which I obviously would never commit because I'm a lady with class and broughtupsy - I don't even fight), I would want the prosecution to be held to their burden of proof. It's probably better to let one, relatively harmless (because hey, we're not her kid, nor are we stopping her from prancing off from bar to bar, entering hot body contests and shaking her money maker), batshit crazy, pathological liar back out on the streets than to convict (and possibly kill) an innocent person of a crime they didn't commit. I mean, look at how many tax dollars are being wasted on the West Memphis Three (sorry for the shameless plug, but I couldn't even help myself).
Now that the devil's out of the way - on the other hand, I made the comparison yesterday that this trial and verdict were eerily reminiscent of the OJ Simpson trial in 1995. You remember that one, right? Of course you do. You also remember the anger and betrayal you felt when he was acquitted, right? (Especially when he went all crazy town and wrote that book.) It's that feeling that makes people think the "justice" system in America doesn't work. That feeling you get when someone has already been tried by the general public, and there's the expectation that everybody knows the person is guilty. Or when people like LaLa Lohan spend little to no jail time, and face no repercussions for violating probation.**Yup. That's what's wrong. The burden of proof exists, but only conveniently, when people's pesky consciences get in the way. Hmph. Chalk that up to another great, but also annoying and stupid thing about America. Right there with electoral colleges and the BCS system.***
*I know that Florida retired Ol' Sparky years ago; I'm from Florida, remember? It just sounds a lot more interesting than the lethal injection cocktail they're doling out these days.
**I think I overlooked the LiLo verdict in the whole Casey Anthony melee. The broad avoided jail time [again] AND she's allowed to drink now. Fasten those seatbelts, Los Angelenos - Linds is on the loose!
***Come. On. You KNOW those things are stupid. Yeah, it's great that we have a democracy in America. Or it would be, if the popular vote actually counted for something. I think the 2000 presidential election was excellent evidence supporting the fact that the electoral college system is dated and ridiculous. No? And don't even get me started on the BCS system. Obviously, there should be playoffs. There are playoffs in every other sport. Why not college football? Now, I'm no sports guru, and I typically would be against anything extending a sports season by any means . . . but I love Gator football. (Goooooo Gators!) Oh yeah, and I'm not a moron. Any moron can see the system doesn't make sense. I'm just saying.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
It's High Time . . .
. . .that the Federal government legalize marijuana, don't you think? Don't worry, agreeing with that statement doesn't make you a raging pot head, or a drugged-out hippie. What it makes you is practical. No, really. I was flipping through the channels late last night, and happened upon a documentary on the History Channel, called "Marijuana: A Chronic History." Wow. Talk about mind blowing. The statistics alone are enough to make any logical person think twice about the legalization of marijuana. Don't believe me? See below, naysayers. You just might learn something (all facts taken from the aforementioned documentary).
Did you know . . .
But all of that aside, the real fact that every taxpayer should know is that our Federal government spends about $13.7 BILLION on marijuana possession crimes. I kid you not. Almost fourteen billion dollars to enforce laws that prohibit a drug that is proven to be far less harmful than tobacco. Really?! So here's my question: when will the government wake up and smell the cannabis and realize that it would greatly behoove our wonderful country if everybody just would relax and go ahead and legalize marijuana? I mean, this is really ridiculous. Let's face facts, people are never going to stop smoking pot. It is impossible to completely eradicate it; therefore, it is impossible to truly prohibit it. So why not make a profit off of it? The government is doing itself (and us taxpayers) a huge disservice by refusing to stop the prohibition and demonization of marijuana. If they would just go ahead and legalize it (and, in turn, tax the mess out of it), do you know how much they could make in tax revenue?? Well, tobacco and alcohol sales generate over $17 billion in tax revenue, alone. So if that is any indication, assuming marijuana would be taxed at a rate similar to that of tobacco (40-50% excise and sales tax), a $40 billion marijuana market (the tobacco market is about $75 billion) would yield about $17-20 billion in tax revenue (See diagram below).
Now, wouldn't that $20 billion be helpful, considering our current national budget calls for deficit spending . . . not to mention the tiny little detail of our national debt, which at last count was $14,447,351,480,691. No, wait. It's $14,447,351,500,336 now - because it's going nowhere but up . . . by the second. Have you ever seen so many commas in a dollar figure? Do you even know how to say that number out loud?? It's depressing. Apparently, America is just a nation with overall bad credit. So wouldn't you think that $20 billion in marijuana tax revenue could maybe do a little bit of good? Maybe? Especially when you take into consideration that legalization would also take away the need for that pesky $13.7 billion being spent to wage war on a relatively harmless substance. Oh yeah, and it would help with overcrowding in jails/prisons, AND offer the enterprising, marijuana-selling citizens of America an opportunity to do business on the up-and-up, without need for concern about imprisonment. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Listen, I'm not trying to force my humble opinion on you. If you agree with the demonization of marijuana* and cannot at all see the positives associated with its legalization, that's your business. All I ask is that you really weigh out the pros and cons. Remember, just because it's legal, it doesn't mean you have to smoke it; it just means you can. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have the option? Isn't that the premise that our country was founded upon? Democracy and the freedom of choice? I'm just saying. I don't smoke pot, either . . . but I'm fairly reasonable and can see that there are some major benefits to its legalization. For your convenience, I've given you a head start by including the first 15 minutes of that crazy informative documentary. Do me a favor and check it out! Do some research. Read the facts. If you find yourself nodding your head and suddenly agreeing vehemently with the points I made above, don't be surprised. It really is the practical choice. So when that happens - write your public officials! Send letters written on hemp and scented delicately with the essence of cannabis (grown hydroponically, please - nothing but the best and kindest) to your state Congressman. Maybe the extra subtle hints will do the trick. It takes a village, people! And if this village all rallied together, perhaps then we could solve the problems of the world with a simple toke off the proverbial peace pipe. Peace and love. :)
*Wow. I really used the word "marijuana" a lot on this blog. I hope it doesn't raise any weird governmental red flags that are now going to be tied to my name for the rest of my life. Because that would suck. Especially since I don't even smoke the stuff. Haha if you took a drink every time I said "marijuana" in this post, you'd be pret-ty intoxicated. I'd tell you to try it, but alcohol has long-term negative effects that are exponentially worse than those of marijuana. I don't want you to endanger yourself on my account.
Did you know . . .
- As of 2010, the United States boasted a population of 308,745,538? Out of that number, over 100 million (100,000,000) people have reported that they have smoked marijuana at least once before; 20 million (20,000,000) of those people smoke it regularly.
- Despite the fact that marijuana was considered legal tender in the days of America's Founding Fathers, marijuana has resulted in the most arrests in the "War on Drugs."
- At any given time, there are over 60,000 people jailed because of marijuana.
- There are currently 60-80 people serving life sentences marijuana-only offenses.
- One person is arrested every 37 seconds for marijuana-related crimes.
But all of that aside, the real fact that every taxpayer should know is that our Federal government spends about $13.7 BILLION on marijuana possession crimes. I kid you not. Almost fourteen billion dollars to enforce laws that prohibit a drug that is proven to be far less harmful than tobacco. Really?! So here's my question: when will the government wake up and smell the cannabis and realize that it would greatly behoove our wonderful country if everybody just would relax and go ahead and legalize marijuana? I mean, this is really ridiculous. Let's face facts, people are never going to stop smoking pot. It is impossible to completely eradicate it; therefore, it is impossible to truly prohibit it. So why not make a profit off of it? The government is doing itself (and us taxpayers) a huge disservice by refusing to stop the prohibition and demonization of marijuana. If they would just go ahead and legalize it (and, in turn, tax the mess out of it), do you know how much they could make in tax revenue?? Well, tobacco and alcohol sales generate over $17 billion in tax revenue, alone. So if that is any indication, assuming marijuana would be taxed at a rate similar to that of tobacco (40-50% excise and sales tax), a $40 billion marijuana market (the tobacco market is about $75 billion) would yield about $17-20 billion in tax revenue (See diagram below).
Now, wouldn't that $20 billion be helpful, considering our current national budget calls for deficit spending . . . not to mention the tiny little detail of our national debt, which at last count was $14,447,351,480,691. No, wait. It's $14,447,351,500,336 now - because it's going nowhere but up . . . by the second. Have you ever seen so many commas in a dollar figure? Do you even know how to say that number out loud?? It's depressing. Apparently, America is just a nation with overall bad credit. So wouldn't you think that $20 billion in marijuana tax revenue could maybe do a little bit of good? Maybe? Especially when you take into consideration that legalization would also take away the need for that pesky $13.7 billion being spent to wage war on a relatively harmless substance. Oh yeah, and it would help with overcrowding in jails/prisons, AND offer the enterprising, marijuana-selling citizens of America an opportunity to do business on the up-and-up, without need for concern about imprisonment. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Listen, I'm not trying to force my humble opinion on you. If you agree with the demonization of marijuana* and cannot at all see the positives associated with its legalization, that's your business. All I ask is that you really weigh out the pros and cons. Remember, just because it's legal, it doesn't mean you have to smoke it; it just means you can. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have the option? Isn't that the premise that our country was founded upon? Democracy and the freedom of choice? I'm just saying. I don't smoke pot, either . . . but I'm fairly reasonable and can see that there are some major benefits to its legalization. For your convenience, I've given you a head start by including the first 15 minutes of that crazy informative documentary. Do me a favor and check it out! Do some research. Read the facts. If you find yourself nodding your head and suddenly agreeing vehemently with the points I made above, don't be surprised. It really is the practical choice. So when that happens - write your public officials! Send letters written on hemp and scented delicately with the essence of cannabis (grown hydroponically, please - nothing but the best and kindest) to your state Congressman. Maybe the extra subtle hints will do the trick. It takes a village, people! And if this village all rallied together, perhaps then we could solve the problems of the world with a simple toke off the proverbial peace pipe. Peace and love. :)
*Wow. I really used the word "marijuana" a lot on this blog. I hope it doesn't raise any weird governmental red flags that are now going to be tied to my name for the rest of my life. Because that would suck. Especially since I don't even smoke the stuff. Haha if you took a drink every time I said "marijuana" in this post, you'd be pret-ty intoxicated. I'd tell you to try it, but alcohol has long-term negative effects that are exponentially worse than those of marijuana. I don't want you to endanger yourself on my account.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Joys of Peer Reviews
As you know, I currently do triple duty as a devoted employee, wife and student, which can honestly be overwhelming at times . . . but I'm handling it. I think. But if you're ever wondering what the hell is taking me so long to put up a post . . . cut me some slack, okay? Because I'm probably studying. Or doing homework. Or working on a multi-million dollar presentation. Or doing laundry, or dishes . . . or something else equally as glamorous. Don't be jealous. It's a fantastic juggling act, but somebody's gotta do it.
That said, I'm currently taking one of the most pointless classes I could have possibly ever taken, for the simple reason that I need to fulfill some stupid prerequisite. I'm pretty sure that I can probably write circles around these young Texans. (Especially considering the slanted state of their secondary education curriculae . . . did everyone hear about the whole textbook debate debacle last year?! Uh . . . yeah. 'Nuff said. Oh wait, actually - I feel the need to mention that Fox News [conveniently] left out other changes, including the downplayed role of Thomas Jefferson in the proposed textbooks. Right; you heard me. Thomas. Jefferson.) My theory is supported by cold, hard, facts. We have been working to complete our first essay assignment, which is a critical analysis of a short story. The whole process has been rather lengthy, because we first had to submit a rough draft to obtain two peer reviews, and then incorporate those reviews into our final draft. So, I of course waited until the last minute to turn in my rough draft (don't judge; i'm a juggler, remember?), and I'm pretty sure I ended up with the bottom of the barrel of peer reviewers. Don't believe me? In the spirit of asphinctersayswhat, please have a look-see below for a snippet from one of my reviews: (Unless you have the eyesight of a hawk, you should probably click on the image to enlarge it. Pay special attention to the comment bubbles on the right; my essay really is inconsequential here.)
That said, I'm currently taking one of the most pointless classes I could have possibly ever taken, for the simple reason that I need to fulfill some stupid prerequisite. I'm pretty sure that I can probably write circles around these young Texans. (Especially considering the slanted state of their secondary education curriculae . . . did everyone hear about the whole textbook debate debacle last year?! Uh . . . yeah. 'Nuff said. Oh wait, actually - I feel the need to mention that Fox News [conveniently] left out other changes, including the downplayed role of Thomas Jefferson in the proposed textbooks. Right; you heard me. Thomas. Jefferson.) My theory is supported by cold, hard, facts. We have been working to complete our first essay assignment, which is a critical analysis of a short story. The whole process has been rather lengthy, because we first had to submit a rough draft to obtain two peer reviews, and then incorporate those reviews into our final draft. So, I of course waited until the last minute to turn in my rough draft (don't judge; i'm a juggler, remember?), and I'm pretty sure I ended up with the bottom of the barrel of peer reviewers. Don't believe me? In the spirit of asphinctersayswhat, please have a look-see below for a snippet from one of my reviews: (Unless you have the eyesight of a hawk, you should probably click on the image to enlarge it. Pay special attention to the comment bubbles on the right; my essay really is inconsequential here.)
*blinkblinkblink* ISSHESERIOUS?! I love how she makes all of these gentle suggestions on how I should re-format my perfectly good sentences to better suit her parameters . . . and her parameters are obviously not something I should be concerned with, considering she corrected my possessive "its" to "it's." Yeah, that's right. I apparently need to change my possessive pronoun (even though I was modifying a noun, but whatever) to a contraction. How could I have overlooked such an error? The funny thing is, this is only a snippet of her review. What you're seeing actually happens to be the FOURTH time she corrected me on this glaringly obvious (sarcasm) error. Perhaps I should point her in the direction of my "5 Ways to Avoid Making Silly Mistakes That Might Make You Look Dumber Than You Are." Although, I'm confident that her silly mistakes don't make her look dumber than she is . . . she probably truly is just that dumb. I also like how she suggested that I change a proper noun to a pronoun, when I go on to use about a million pronouns after that sentence. Oh, okay. So I guess it's not that important to identify who "he" is? Got it. I'll make sure to remember that next time.
Okay, but my favorite part, the one that really took the cake, was the fourth comment she made regarding my usage of the word "than." Hahahaha! I genuinely laughed out loud when I read it. What a FANTASTIC explanation she gave (and I quote): "This is tricky, if your using than to describe different persons it is correct. If you would like to show the differences of change from when the story began, you would use then. I think than may cause a little more confusion than then." Ummmm . . . first of all, less confusion for whom? Because I wasn't at all confused, thanks. Second of all, I'm fairly certain that if you don't even recognize the need for the contraction version of the word "you're," I probably shouldn't be taking YOUR grammatical advice. Thirdly, whuck?! What? The? Hell? Is? She? Talking? About? If I'm using "than" to describe different persons? I can't even see what she's saying. Hmmm . . . I guess she was trying to say that "than" is used for comparisons . . . which it is; however, I suppose she failed to recognize that I was CLEARLY making a comparison in that sentence? I don't think "than" is actually the word she has problems with. It sounds like she really needs a clearer understanding of what the word "then" means.
Yikes. Education, shmeducation. These are your tax dollars hard at work, folks. Let's just say that I'm glad I grew up in the Sunshine State, where Thomas Jefferson is known to be one of the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence; the Civil War was not merely a case of sectionalism, but also mostly about ending slavery; America is still a democratic nation; capitalism still exists, and people know the difference between pronouns, contractions, conjunctions and adverbs.*
*No offense to all my Texas readers out there. Maybe it's an accent thing? Like my co-worker from the panhandle, who insists on referring to her heels as "hills." Yeah . . . on second thought, I'm not convinced that's actually an accent thing. I think she might just be country. She also likes "pre-proportioned" meals, because they're better for you and you eat less. *blinkblinkblink*
Thursday, June 16, 2011
A Rent-a-Center Stock Room, Hairy Knuckles, and a Runaway Jury.
I thought that since I've been so spotty with my posts lately, I should do my due diligence and give you another tidbit for the day. How's about a little afternoon delight? While getting my daily internet news fix, I came across this article about a St. Louis woman who was recently awarded what could possibly be the largest payout ever granted in a sexual harassment case. To the tune of a whopping $95 million!!! For those of you less than enthused over your afternoon reading assignment, this quote from www.nydailynews.com pretty much sums it all up in a nutshell. I boldfaced the key points for your convenience. Listen, I do what I can.
"Alford claimed that the store's then-manager, Richard Moore*, gave her inappropriate nicknames and touched her inappropriately when she first began working there in 2005. Nearly a year after she was hired, she claimed, he came up to her in the stock room and whacked her on the head with his penis. Then, later that day, he lifted her shirt and masturbated over her as he held her down, she said."
Uh . . . okay. I obviously have a lot to say about this. So . . . the inappropriate nicknames and touching wasn't enough of a red flag? You would think she would have started looking for a different job, instead of hanging around for almost a year after her manager touched her in her no-no spot. No? That aside, how exactly do you think he managed to "whack her on the head with his penis"? Is he a giant? Is she some sort of Lilliputian midget? Does he just have an abnormally loooooooong penis that he just unrolls and slings around all willy nilly, face-thumping people whenever he needs some sexual healing (if so, he must be from the Congo)? But that's not even the most intriguing part of the story. What really got me was the last sentence: "then, later that day, he lifted her shirt and masturbated over her as he held her down, she said." Later that day? So, you mean to tell me that she actually stuck around after catching a dick to the head? That wasn't enough for her to walk out? Instead, she hung out, talking people with bad credit and empty bank accounts into renting furniture and appliances, oblivious to the fact that her genitals-wielding manager was lurking in a back corner, waiting to pin her down and blow his load all over her?
Something about this sounds a bit fishy to me. Methinks we're not getting the whole story, here. Not to take sides with a sexual predator or anything, but unless Richard Moore is ambidextrous with the strength of at least five adult males . . . I honestly don't see how things could have gone down as reported. The details are a little fuzzy. Was it a run-by sploogeing? Oh, wait. It couldn't have been, because he held her down. I don't understand! How could he lift her shirt, hold her down and masturbate to the point of climax all at the same time? Sheesh, that guy is talented. I think he's in the wrong industry, leasing analog televisions to the poor. Taking into consideration his meter stick of a penis,** his ambidexterity, and his profound ability to multitask, it sounds to me like ol' [Long] Dick Moore could give Ron Jeremy a run for his money . . . and if you think for a moment that the irony of his name escaped me, you don't know me very well. Richard Moore? Dick Moore? Moore, Dick. Yeah . . . add this guy to the growing list of men whose parents groomed them to be perverts with piss poor name choices. (Have I mentioned lately how much I love alliteration?)
That said, I feel obligated to admit that I would probably withstand getting thunked in the head by pretty much any body part for $95 million. Hell, I'd even settle for the measly $40 million that she will probably end up receiving after all is said and done. I think there's a lesson to be learned here, folks: getting teabagged while trying to do your job isn't so bad if you end up with a $95 million check. Even if you had to take a pearl necklace for the team.
__________________________________________________________________________________
*This story is especially funny because the offender in question just so happens to share a government name with a certain rotund, wall-hugging, weeble wobble of an ExecutiveHall Monitor VP (with hoity-toity, high-class, fancy pants problems, no less) that I happen to know. In fact, I'm pretty sure that name was the first thing that drew my eye to the article. Well, besides the obvious key words - masturbated, $95 million and genitals. I'm curious about the flagrant fondler's current employment status. Surely he couldn't have left his cushy job selling previously owned merchandise for a lowly Executive VP position in a prosperous corporation, right?! No way it's the same guy. The one I know is WAY too short to have a jungle-man's penis long enough to thunk a grown ass woman in the head. But it's funny to imagine that they are one and the same. Pretty sure our RM prefers kitty cats, though. Oh well, I digress. That was some good stuff, eh? Nothing like an entertaining story about gennies to get your day going right; that's what I say!
**I really used the word "penis" a lot in this post. It's reminiscent of last week, when I couldn't keep Weiner out of my mouth. Hahaha pun obviously intended. That was the last reference I'll make. For real this time. But seriously, if I make any more references to the male genitalia, you guys are going to think I have some sort of misguided genital obsession. I don't. But I apparently have the maturity of a twelve year old boy, so I giggle at words like "weiner" and "penis." I like to say "penis" like "pen-iss" sometimes, just to be fancy. Oh, you didn't know? Yeah, that's right. I'm fancy.
"Alford claimed that the store's then-manager, Richard Moore*, gave her inappropriate nicknames and touched her inappropriately when she first began working there in 2005. Nearly a year after she was hired, she claimed, he came up to her in the stock room and whacked her on the head with his penis. Then, later that day, he lifted her shirt and masturbated over her as he held her down, she said."
Uh . . . okay. I obviously have a lot to say about this. So . . . the inappropriate nicknames and touching wasn't enough of a red flag? You would think she would have started looking for a different job, instead of hanging around for almost a year after her manager touched her in her no-no spot. No? That aside, how exactly do you think he managed to "whack her on the head with his penis"? Is he a giant? Is she some sort of Lilliputian midget? Does he just have an abnormally loooooooong penis that he just unrolls and slings around all willy nilly, face-thumping people whenever he needs some sexual healing (if so, he must be from the Congo)? But that's not even the most intriguing part of the story. What really got me was the last sentence: "then, later that day, he lifted her shirt and masturbated over her as he held her down, she said." Later that day? So, you mean to tell me that she actually stuck around after catching a dick to the head? That wasn't enough for her to walk out? Instead, she hung out, talking people with bad credit and empty bank accounts into renting furniture and appliances, oblivious to the fact that her genitals-wielding manager was lurking in a back corner, waiting to pin her down and blow his load all over her?
Something about this sounds a bit fishy to me. Methinks we're not getting the whole story, here. Not to take sides with a sexual predator or anything, but unless Richard Moore is ambidextrous with the strength of at least five adult males . . . I honestly don't see how things could have gone down as reported. The details are a little fuzzy. Was it a run-by sploogeing? Oh, wait. It couldn't have been, because he held her down. I don't understand! How could he lift her shirt, hold her down and masturbate to the point of climax all at the same time? Sheesh, that guy is talented. I think he's in the wrong industry, leasing analog televisions to the poor. Taking into consideration his meter stick of a penis,** his ambidexterity, and his profound ability to multitask, it sounds to me like ol' [Long] Dick Moore could give Ron Jeremy a run for his money . . . and if you think for a moment that the irony of his name escaped me, you don't know me very well. Richard Moore? Dick Moore? Moore, Dick. Yeah . . . add this guy to the growing list of men whose parents groomed them to be perverts with piss poor name choices. (Have I mentioned lately how much I love alliteration?)
That said, I feel obligated to admit that I would probably withstand getting thunked in the head by pretty much any body part for $95 million. Hell, I'd even settle for the measly $40 million that she will probably end up receiving after all is said and done. I think there's a lesson to be learned here, folks: getting teabagged while trying to do your job isn't so bad if you end up with a $95 million check. Even if you had to take a pearl necklace for the team.
__________________________________________________________________________________
*This story is especially funny because the offender in question just so happens to share a government name with a certain rotund, wall-hugging, weeble wobble of an Executive
**I really used the word "penis" a lot in this post. It's reminiscent of last week, when I couldn't keep Weiner out of my mouth. Hahaha pun obviously intended. That was the last reference I'll make. For real this time. But seriously, if I make any more references to the male genitalia, you guys are going to think I have some sort of misguided genital obsession. I don't. But I apparently have the maturity of a twelve year old boy, so I giggle at words like "weiner" and "penis." I like to say "penis" like "pen-iss" sometimes, just to be fancy. Oh, you didn't know? Yeah, that's right. I'm fancy.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Fly Down Memory Lane
I came across this article on http://www.time.com/, and I was just appalled. The long and short of it is that U.S. Airlines collected a whopping $3.4 BILLION in bag fees last year. Right. You heard me. Three. Point. Four. Billion. Dollars. That sounds like a scene from an Austin Powers movie, right? Unfortunately, the airline business appears to have become the nation's own personal Dr. Evil, with Delta leading the pack.
"Delta generated the most revenue from bag fees — $952 million — followed by the combined United and Continental at nearly $655 million. American collected $580 million and US Airways $513 million."
...$952 million? Really?! And perhaps I failed to mention that the total amount collected ($3.4B) marked a twenty-four percent increase in profits from 2009. A 24% increase? I thought we were in a recession! I think you'd be hard pressed to find another industry that can report an increase in profits - much less an increase as significant as 24%. It's just ridiculous. Meanwhile, the airlines are crying broke mouth and complaining about the rise in fuel costs. Hold on, let me put down my violin so I can get the message across. Everyone is struggling with rising fuel costs. It costs me $70+ to fill up my gas tank. We get it. But hiking up the prices on airline tickets wasn't enough? Travelers paying twice the price for fares didn't cushion the blow even just a little bit? I guess not.
This prompted me to really think about what other changes the airlines have made to compensate for the rising costs of the industry. It's time for a flight down memory lane...
Remember when . . .
...your frequent flyer miles actually counted for something? Yeah, you can absolutely still trade in your miles for a flight . . . but no guarantees that the flight will even have "frequent flyer seats" available. Unless you are trying to fly to Minnesota or Maine in the dead of winter (but not during inclement weather, because then you would inevitably be stuck at an airport for a week - if you think the airline is going to foot the bill for a delay due to an act of God . . . think again). Yeah, that's right...just like the time share tours that offer you a free vacation, there are definite scheduling limitations as to what dates you are allowed to travel. Big surprise, those dates are hardly ever convenient to any traveling that you may want to do, nor do they ever fall on a holiday.
...there was a complimentary pillow/blanket set waiting for you at your seat? I mean sure, of course you were scared to use them because they were probably carrying some form of the Gon'die (which implies that if you get it, you gon' die) . . . but at least the choice was yours. You could rest your weary head or choose to pass on the germy cesspools and possible exposure to the Ebola Virus or some random flesh-eating bacteria. Again - your choice. Because they were there waiting for you. Like the little complimentary bottles of shampoo and conditioner at a nice hotel . . . just there if you need 'em.
...airlines fed you during your flight? Yeah, the food was garbage and smelled like rotten baby vomit on a hot summer's day...but at least you got food. Granted, the smell of airplane food almost always made me reach for my complimentary puke pouch (Do they still offer those? Probably for a small fee, eh?), so this is probably the least of my concerns . . . but it's the principle. The hubs and I flew to Hawaii for our honeymoon, which is about a 12 hour trip from the Sunshine State. Don't be alarmed, Continental did feed us; HOWEVER, they fed us a microwaved "chicken sandwich" that made my elementary school cafeteria food look like gourmet, five-star cuisine. No joke, they served it to us still in the bag they microwaved it in. Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure we got a bag of chips, too. It was super classy. Needless to say, I skipped the worthless calories and sodium and starved myself all the way to Hawaii. So, that was awesome.
...airplanes had a little bit of legroom? Ok, it's not like you could cut cartwheels in between the seats, but people could actually fit their entire person into the seat without having to either (a) hang their legs into the aisle to avoid knee-jacking the person in front of them, or (b) fold themselves into unnatural positions to try to politely keep from accidentally fondling the strangers surrounding them. My favorite aspect of the lack of legroom is during landing when my knees SLAM into the seat in front of me. I'm convinced that my kneecaps will one day shatter on impact and then at least I could skip the line for free in my wheelchair. The seats are so close together now, that I could very clearly spot the older, gay gentleman (I use the term loosely) a few rows up, creeping on young, adolescent boys on his iPad the last time I traveled. True story. He must have felt my shocked and dismayed eyes piercing his perverted soul, because he glanced around casually, spotted me spotting him, and quickly returned his portable perving device to its rightful home in his murse.
...you could actually make your way down the main aisle to your seat without inadvertantly setting your ass on some unsuspecting stranger's shoulder? I'm pretty small, and I can't seem to ever get to my seat anymore with having to apologize profusely to numerous people for booty bumping them in the face. How do bigger people do it? Especially the ones that already have to buy two seats. Speaking of which, has that rule always existed? Or just since the airlines switched out the old, quasi-normal-sized seats out for anorexic midget seats? I wonder about that.
...the overhead bins were large enough to fit all of the carry-on bags of the passengers on the plane? I can't decide if the bins themselves have actually gotten smaller (along with the aisles, the seats, the sodas, and the amount of legroom), or if people have just started cramming as much junk as possible into their carry-ons in an effort to avoid those ridiculously over-priced baggage fees. Good news is, I've discovered that they don't charge you when you have to gate check your bag because there isn't sufficient room in the overhead bins. Don't tell anyone; it'll be our little secret.
I could go on and on. Travel, overall, has become just a huge violation. Your wallet gets violated when you purchase your ticket. The airline comes back for some more wallet sodomy when you check your bag (unless you fly Southworst, of course). Then there's the double (if you're lucky, like me) violation/molestation at the security checkpoint (I'm confident that Wanda, the lovely TSA agent who blessed me with a very thorough pat down and I are now going steady), and the long string of blatant violations that follow. I miss the good ol' days when traveling was an experience, rather than a chore (a chore accompanied by an unsolicited manhandling of the semi-sexual nature). Maybe if the airlines make another several billion dollar profit off of us poor economy class peons this year, we'll begin to see some sort of improvement that would make flying a more enjoyable investment . . . but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
"Delta generated the most revenue from bag fees — $952 million — followed by the combined United and Continental at nearly $655 million. American collected $580 million and US Airways $513 million."
...$952 million? Really?! And perhaps I failed to mention that the total amount collected ($3.4B) marked a twenty-four percent increase in profits from 2009. A 24% increase? I thought we were in a recession! I think you'd be hard pressed to find another industry that can report an increase in profits - much less an increase as significant as 24%. It's just ridiculous. Meanwhile, the airlines are crying broke mouth and complaining about the rise in fuel costs. Hold on, let me put down my violin so I can get the message across. Everyone is struggling with rising fuel costs. It costs me $70+ to fill up my gas tank. We get it. But hiking up the prices on airline tickets wasn't enough? Travelers paying twice the price for fares didn't cushion the blow even just a little bit? I guess not.
This prompted me to really think about what other changes the airlines have made to compensate for the rising costs of the industry. It's time for a flight down memory lane...
Remember when . . .
...your frequent flyer miles actually counted for something? Yeah, you can absolutely still trade in your miles for a flight . . . but no guarantees that the flight will even have "frequent flyer seats" available. Unless you are trying to fly to Minnesota or Maine in the dead of winter (but not during inclement weather, because then you would inevitably be stuck at an airport for a week - if you think the airline is going to foot the bill for a delay due to an act of God . . . think again). Yeah, that's right...just like the time share tours that offer you a free vacation, there are definite scheduling limitations as to what dates you are allowed to travel. Big surprise, those dates are hardly ever convenient to any traveling that you may want to do, nor do they ever fall on a holiday.
...there was a complimentary pillow/blanket set waiting for you at your seat? I mean sure, of course you were scared to use them because they were probably carrying some form of the Gon'die (which implies that if you get it, you gon' die) . . . but at least the choice was yours. You could rest your weary head or choose to pass on the germy cesspools and possible exposure to the Ebola Virus or some random flesh-eating bacteria. Again - your choice. Because they were there waiting for you. Like the little complimentary bottles of shampoo and conditioner at a nice hotel . . . just there if you need 'em.
...airlines fed you during your flight? Yeah, the food was garbage and smelled like rotten baby vomit on a hot summer's day...but at least you got food. Granted, the smell of airplane food almost always made me reach for my complimentary puke pouch (Do they still offer those? Probably for a small fee, eh?), so this is probably the least of my concerns . . . but it's the principle. The hubs and I flew to Hawaii for our honeymoon, which is about a 12 hour trip from the Sunshine State. Don't be alarmed, Continental did feed us; HOWEVER, they fed us a microwaved "chicken sandwich" that made my elementary school cafeteria food look like gourmet, five-star cuisine. No joke, they served it to us still in the bag they microwaved it in. Oh yeah, and I'm pretty sure we got a bag of chips, too. It was super classy. Needless to say, I skipped the worthless calories and sodium and starved myself all the way to Hawaii. So, that was awesome.
...airplanes had a little bit of legroom? Ok, it's not like you could cut cartwheels in between the seats, but people could actually fit their entire person into the seat without having to either (a) hang their legs into the aisle to avoid knee-jacking the person in front of them, or (b) fold themselves into unnatural positions to try to politely keep from accidentally fondling the strangers surrounding them. My favorite aspect of the lack of legroom is during landing when my knees SLAM into the seat in front of me. I'm convinced that my kneecaps will one day shatter on impact and then at least I could skip the line for free in my wheelchair. The seats are so close together now, that I could very clearly spot the older, gay gentleman (I use the term loosely) a few rows up, creeping on young, adolescent boys on his iPad the last time I traveled. True story. He must have felt my shocked and dismayed eyes piercing his perverted soul, because he glanced around casually, spotted me spotting him, and quickly returned his portable perving device to its rightful home in his murse.
...you could actually make your way down the main aisle to your seat without inadvertantly setting your ass on some unsuspecting stranger's shoulder? I'm pretty small, and I can't seem to ever get to my seat anymore with having to apologize profusely to numerous people for booty bumping them in the face. How do bigger people do it? Especially the ones that already have to buy two seats. Speaking of which, has that rule always existed? Or just since the airlines switched out the old, quasi-normal-sized seats out for anorexic midget seats? I wonder about that.
...the overhead bins were large enough to fit all of the carry-on bags of the passengers on the plane? I can't decide if the bins themselves have actually gotten smaller (along with the aisles, the seats, the sodas, and the amount of legroom), or if people have just started cramming as much junk as possible into their carry-ons in an effort to avoid those ridiculously over-priced baggage fees. Good news is, I've discovered that they don't charge you when you have to gate check your bag because there isn't sufficient room in the overhead bins. Don't tell anyone; it'll be our little secret.
I could go on and on. Travel, overall, has become just a huge violation. Your wallet gets violated when you purchase your ticket. The airline comes back for some more wallet sodomy when you check your bag (unless you fly Southworst, of course). Then there's the double (if you're lucky, like me) violation/molestation at the security checkpoint (I'm confident that Wanda, the lovely TSA agent who blessed me with a very thorough pat down and I are now going steady), and the long string of blatant violations that follow. I miss the good ol' days when traveling was an experience, rather than a chore (a chore accompanied by an unsolicited manhandling of the semi-sexual nature). Maybe if the airlines make another several billion dollar profit off of us poor economy class peons this year, we'll begin to see some sort of improvement that would make flying a more enjoyable investment . . . but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
STILL. MORE. WEINER.
Just when you think the story can't get any worse . . . you find out there's a little weiner involved. . .*
Source
. . . and he KNEW.
Shit just got real. Real(ly) complicated, that is. Should we take bets on whether or not she should stay? I feel really bad for this poor woman. Lord knows, she has probably had her fill of Weiner (I just can't help myself; it's too easy). Between all of the obnoxious headlines (touché - I totally grouped my titles in with that blanket "obnoxious;" I'll be the first to admit it), all of the random naughty pictures and the raunchy Facebook chats . . . she has to have had about as much Weiner as she can take. (How many times can I possibly use the word "weiner" in a sentence, with some sort of clever double entendre? The possibilities are seriously endless here. It's like a new game for me.) This has to be an incredibly difficult time. It's easy to say that she should leave that coozehound . . . but when there's a child involved . . . that's probably a lot easier said than done.
On top of everything else, and to add even more insult to [his] injury, Weiner now faces further probing (hehe) from the Ethics Committee:
'"Weiner will have to reveal to the ethics committee the names of the others with whom he's exchanged sex-text images," said a former House prober.'**
. . . I'm gonna go ahead and put it all out there. That "former House prober" (which, ironically, sounds awfully kinky to me) has got to have some sort of affiliation to the Republican/Tea[bag] Party. Either that, or (s)he's British. "Sex-text images"? Hahaha! It's so proper! That's like how my mom calls an ATM an "ATM Machine" or a cell phone a "cellular phone." Let's get to the real nitty gritty of the situation.
Listen, Weiner. You're gonna have to cop to who you've been fuc sexting . . . and if you have, indeed, been "misusing [your] official resources" . . .
So, there you have it. The latest and greatest of Weinergate. Whew. I'm worn out! It's way past my bedtime and that was a lot of "weiners." I'm going to bed.***
*Come on. You already knew this would be filled with tongue in cheek weiner references. If you were over it, you should have probably just skipped this post. I've gone rogue with the weiners. See how quickly that just happened? You were just minding your own business, when WHAM! I hit you in the face with another weiner. Yup. Lucky for you, this is that kind of post.
**Quote taken from www.newyorkpost.com. Remember? It's only my new favorite place to find the good stuff! Apparently they can't get enough weiner, either.
***I know, I know. I'm sorry. Weiner's been getting all of my attention lately. I'm going to try really hard to blog about something else tomorrow...but I can't make any promises. This Weiner stuff is way too juicy. Yikes. My double entendres might have just officially gotten out of control. That one scared me a little. Too much, right? Maybe that really is my cue to just leave well enough alone. I'm sure people will eventually grow tired of obsessing over Weiner's weiner and this too, will pass. I think it's safe to say that I wore Weiner out over the past three days. Yeah...it's probably time to move on. All the weiners are getting to be too much. ...okay. I really am done now.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Can't Get Enough Weiner!
Hahaha! At the sake of sounding redundant, I would like to revisit Weinergate. Humor me. This is my newest obsession (besides Casey Anthony, but that's a whole 'nother side of deviance). I have been poring over the New York Post, getting all of the latest and greatest dirt on the big weiner, Weiner...and I do it all for you. I found an amazing wealth of hilarity and decided I MUST share.*
I have to say - I am enamored with the thoroughness of the reporting on the NY Post - this is totally going to be my go-to source for all the good juice. Basically, the NY Post is launching a full-on attack on Weiner and his indiscretions. It's pretty great; I'll give you the highlights. Let's begin with who Weiner compares himself to:
Hmmm...first off, I'm a little confused as to his reasoning for comparing himself to Batman. That's just weird. Batman saves people's lives - he doesn't badger them with his perversity. Maybe it wasn't specifically Batman, maybe he just likes to wear capes and stuff and fancies himself some sort of superhero. I think that if he had a costume, it would look something like this:**
Okay and I don't know about you . . . but I'm curious as to why his tights itch. Was that supposed to be sexy? That sounds more like a warning, to me. Your tights itch? That's a personal problem that you might want to get checked out. While you're at it, lose my number. I don't want any parts of your itchy crotch. Thanks.
Now let's move on to what this weiner is doing to earn your tax dollars:
I have to say - I am enamored with the thoroughness of the reporting on the NY Post - this is totally going to be my go-to source for all the good juice. Basically, the NY Post is launching a full-on attack on Weiner and his indiscretions. It's pretty great; I'll give you the highlights. Let's begin with who Weiner compares himself to:
Hmmm...first off, I'm a little confused as to his reasoning for comparing himself to Batman. That's just weird. Batman saves people's lives - he doesn't badger them with his perversity. Maybe it wasn't specifically Batman, maybe he just likes to wear capes and stuff and fancies himself some sort of superhero. I think that if he had a costume, it would look something like this:**
Okay and I don't know about you . . . but I'm curious as to why his tights itch. Was that supposed to be sexy? That sounds more like a warning, to me. Your tights itch? That's a personal problem that you might want to get checked out. While you're at it, lose my number. I don't want any parts of your itchy crotch. Thanks.
Now let's move on to what this weiner is doing to earn your tax dollars:
Monday, June 6, 2011
Spotted! Weiner's Weiner*
Forgive me for neglecting you, but it's been a busy three days. I won't bore you with the minutia, I'll just jump right in.
Let's talk about Weinergate, shall we?
Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) retracted his initial claim that his Twitter account had been hacked and admitted this afternoon that he sent a lewd picture to a young woman as claimed. Interestingly, I'm not surprised. Additionally, he admitted that this was not the first time (and sadly, probably not the last) that he has done so, AND he admitted to explicit conversations with six women over the past three years (overshare?). "A" for sticktuitiveness, though...amidst all of the name-calling and overall general disdain, Weiner says he is embarrassed, but does not plan to retire. Read the article in its entirety here (because Fox News is so reliable, but whatever).
I guess Weiner just couldn't keep his weiner to himself. My favorite part of this article is where [BigGovernment.com publisher] Andrew Breitbart confirmed that the photos appeared to be Weiner, stating, "He's in very good shape." PAUSE. Was that envy I detected, or does somebody want himself some Weiner?? Things that make you go "hmmm..."
I hate to laugh at someone else's misfortune (who am I kidding?), but this is hilarious. I guess his advisors told him to take the "all or nothing" approach, eh? Next he'll be confessing to a college "phase" he went through where he dabbled in erotic asphyxiation and beastiality. Sheesh. What is going on with the politicians in New York?! First the Spitzer prostitution ring scandal, and now this? Those guys are obviously thinkin' with the wrong heads in the Big Apple. Additionally, am I the only person that finds irony in both of these offenders' names? Weiner? Spitzer? ...and why does it always have to be the young girls? Do you think that people would be more willing to overlook and forgive indiscretions if perhaps the women involved were of drinking age (okay, slight overexaggeration)? I think it would help a little bit...but just a little. The icing on the cake for me was during the press conference, with one reporter shouting repeatedly, "She was young enough to be your daughter!!" Hahaha consider yourself judged, ya weiner.
I think it's safe to say that Weiner is now wishing he'd kept his weiner to himself. Luckily for him, his wife of one year (sad, but true), is an aide in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office. Maybe Weiner will get lucky and she'll seek relationship advice from Hillary. We all know where she tends to stand on matters of adultery, right?
I'll leave you with a Weiner quote I found on Wikipedia. You know how people play that game where you read your fortune aloud and add "in bed" after it? Let's play that game with this quote, and swap out all of the "it"s with the phrase "my weiner"...
"I push people pretty hard [with my weiner]... I have nothing but love for people who enduredit my weiner, even if they endured it my weiner for a short period of time."
Enough said.
*Let me apologize [in advance] for my excessive use ofweiners the word weiner. It just couldn't be helped.
Let's talk about Weinergate, shall we?
Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) retracted his initial claim that his Twitter account had been hacked and admitted this afternoon that he sent a lewd picture to a young woman as claimed. Interestingly, I'm not surprised. Additionally, he admitted that this was not the first time (and sadly, probably not the last) that he has done so, AND he admitted to explicit conversations with six women over the past three years (overshare?). "A" for sticktuitiveness, though...amidst all of the name-calling and overall general disdain, Weiner says he is embarrassed, but does not plan to retire. Read the article in its entirety here (because Fox News is so reliable, but whatever).
I guess Weiner just couldn't keep his weiner to himself. My favorite part of this article is where [BigGovernment.com publisher] Andrew Breitbart confirmed that the photos appeared to be Weiner, stating, "He's in very good shape." PAUSE. Was that envy I detected, or does somebody want himself some Weiner?? Things that make you go "hmmm..."
I hate to laugh at someone else's misfortune (who am I kidding?), but this is hilarious. I guess his advisors told him to take the "all or nothing" approach, eh? Next he'll be confessing to a college "phase" he went through where he dabbled in erotic asphyxiation and beastiality. Sheesh. What is going on with the politicians in New York?! First the Spitzer prostitution ring scandal, and now this? Those guys are obviously thinkin' with the wrong heads in the Big Apple. Additionally, am I the only person that finds irony in both of these offenders' names? Weiner? Spitzer? ...and why does it always have to be the young girls? Do you think that people would be more willing to overlook and forgive indiscretions if perhaps the women involved were of drinking age (okay, slight overexaggeration)? I think it would help a little bit...but just a little. The icing on the cake for me was during the press conference, with one reporter shouting repeatedly, "She was young enough to be your daughter!!" Hahaha consider yourself judged, ya weiner.
I think it's safe to say that Weiner is now wishing he'd kept his weiner to himself. Luckily for him, his wife of one year (sad, but true), is an aide in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office. Maybe Weiner will get lucky and she'll seek relationship advice from Hillary. We all know where she tends to stand on matters of adultery, right?
I'll leave you with a Weiner quote I found on Wikipedia. You know how people play that game where you read your fortune aloud and add "in bed" after it? Let's play that game with this quote, and swap out all of the "it"s with the phrase "my weiner"...
"I push people pretty hard [with my weiner]... I have nothing but love for people who endured
Enough said.
*Let me apologize [in advance] for my excessive use of
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Whatever LOLA wants, LOLA gets...
I would say Happy Hump Day, but mine has been less than stellar this morning and it's not so happy. So I'm just gonna skip the typical chipper greeting and get right to it. Does anyone else watch Law and Order: Los Angeles (LOLA)?? I apparently caught the Law and Order bug sometime around my freshman year of college. I think I liked it so much because it was ALWAYS on! I could wake up and watch it on TNT, and then it would be on USA all day long. I can't even tell you how many L&O marathons I've had whilst laying in bed (when I should have been in class), munching on some sort of tasty snack (yes, I am one of those people whose guilty pleasure (among other things) is eating in bed). So, needless to say, I was delighted when good ol' dependable Dick Wolf (What a name! If he were American-Indian, I'd like to think his name would be reversed to Wolf Dick. Hehehe 'cause it makes me giggle.) came through with yet another addition to the L&O family (although I've heard that [not so] sadly, LOLA didn't make the cut and will not be renewed for a second season). So, I of course set my dvr to record the entire season.
HOWEVER, last night, I tuned into the newest episode and I was pissed. LOLA committed a huge faux pas and now I don't know if I can continue to watch it. I hate it when shows/networks do things like replace an actor who plays a major character (they do it most often on soap operas, I think) without warning, or have one actor make two different guest appearances as different characters (which actually does happen sometimes on L&O, but it's hard to call because there are so many of them, you can't remember which L&O the actor was on), or change major parts of the storyline because they don't do their research on archived episodes. The most blatant offense I've witnessed to date was an extremely old episode from the first season of 90210 where Donna Martin's mother was named Nancy and was played by a different actress than the woman who played her mother for the remaining duration of the series...oh yeah, and her name was Felice. Everybody knows Donna's mom's name was Felice, right??!? Well, I'm not making this up. Apparently, Donna's sweet mom Nancy's soul was eaten by this imposter Felice after Season One and nobody noticed (except me). Super convenient. But I digress. Back to LOLA.
So I watched Monday night's episode, "Plummer Park," which my Uverse® info swears first aired on 05/30/2011 . . . and Skeet Ulrich was on it. *blink blink blink* For those of you who do watch, I'm sure you can understand my confusion (spoiler alert!). Yeah, that's right. Confusion. Because Skeet Ulrich's character, Detective Rex Winters, was killed off by a Mexican druglord in the first post-hiatus episode, "Zuma Canyon," which aired on 04/11/2011. Who does that?!? Ugh. Additionally, instead of Connie Rubirosa, it was that less talented ADA, ol' whatever her name is. *SIGH* To my chagrin, this episode was obviously aired out of sequence, which I personally think was an unforgiveable oversight. All that says to me is that instead of being concerned with the quality of their programming, the producers were more interested in making their post-hiatus premiere "sexy" with the death of one of thetwo good looking men on the show main characters (not to mention the only other actor besides Terence Howard that any of us really gave a crap about). Epic fail. Good job, NBC. Way to ostracize one of the ten loyal viewers you had left. No wonder this poor excuse for a L&O spinoff is getting cancelled.
Well, this blog (again) turned out to be a lot longer than expected. So, I will bid you [and LOLA] adieu. Hopefully my day will improve and with it, my mood. But no promises. Love ya, mean it.
HOWEVER, last night, I tuned into the newest episode and I was pissed. LOLA committed a huge faux pas and now I don't know if I can continue to watch it. I hate it when shows/networks do things like replace an actor who plays a major character (they do it most often on soap operas, I think) without warning, or have one actor make two different guest appearances as different characters (which actually does happen sometimes on L&O, but it's hard to call because there are so many of them, you can't remember which L&O the actor was on), or change major parts of the storyline because they don't do their research on archived episodes. The most blatant offense I've witnessed to date was an extremely old episode from the first season of 90210 where Donna Martin's mother was named Nancy and was played by a different actress than the woman who played her mother for the remaining duration of the series...oh yeah, and her name was Felice. Everybody knows Donna's mom's name was Felice, right??!? Well, I'm not making this up. Apparently, Donna's sweet mom Nancy's soul was eaten by this imposter Felice after Season One and nobody noticed (except me). Super convenient. But I digress. Back to LOLA.
So I watched Monday night's episode, "Plummer Park," which my Uverse® info swears first aired on 05/30/2011 . . . and Skeet Ulrich was on it. *blink blink blink* For those of you who do watch, I'm sure you can understand my confusion (spoiler alert!). Yeah, that's right. Confusion. Because Skeet Ulrich's character, Detective Rex Winters, was killed off by a Mexican druglord in the first post-hiatus episode, "Zuma Canyon," which aired on 04/11/2011. Who does that?!? Ugh. Additionally, instead of Connie Rubirosa, it was that less talented ADA, ol' whatever her name is. *SIGH* To my chagrin, this episode was obviously aired out of sequence, which I personally think was an unforgiveable oversight. All that says to me is that instead of being concerned with the quality of their programming, the producers were more interested in making their post-hiatus premiere "sexy" with the death of one of the
Well, this blog (again) turned out to be a lot longer than expected. So, I will bid you [and LOLA] adieu. Hopefully my day will improve and with it, my mood. But no promises. Love ya, mean it.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Statistics
Welcome back! Hopefully none of you raptured on Saturday...because from what I hear...it didn't happen. I don't know about you, but I hate to be the first to the party! Don't fret, I'm sure Harold Camping will have a newly revised date for us soon. I betcha he's regretting that decision to put his pets down right about now. But that's enough about that. Let's move on to something a tad bit more...consequential?
So I was reading this article last week about how Psychology Today published a piece last week by Satoshi Kanazawa, entitled "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?" and honestly, I was just appalled. You would think that in this day and age, any publication with any type of clout would have the sense enough to weed out the riffraff and only publish articles of true substance. This story brought about several questions and points for me.
What demographics do you think his focus group consisted of? How many women were rated in the study? What did these women look like? Was there a control group? How can a person qualify something as subjective as a personal opinion regarding attractiveness? And most importantly, what was Psychology Today thinking?? I think my favorite part of this whole study is that black women on average are "heavier than other women" AND that black people on the whole are "less intelligent."
Really? Less intelligent? I beg to differ. At the very least, I am intelligent enough to know when smoke is being blown up my ass (and not because it feels good). Furthermore, I am intelligent enough to realize a half-baked moron who just needed a platform from which to spout his cockamamie racist bullshit ideas. Hmmm...but I am half Korean. Perhaps my Asian half is the top half. You know, the half with the brain? Yeah, that must be it.
This brings me to a point that I have always screamed from the rooftops, but no one ever seems to listen. Statistics are stupid. They can be manipulated to yield pretty much any end result you're looking for. Especially when you're a racist "psychologist" who is more interested in stirring the proverbial race pot than reporting true findings. You can't just introduce study results as inflammatory as these without giving hard facts to back them up. It's a little fishy to me that he never really gave any real information about his interviewees or the people they judged. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see what they look like. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, after all...and if the beholder isn't so beautiful...their standard for beauty may be skewed.
Luckily, Psychology Today woke up and realized how bad this article was really making them look (and received a ton of irate hate mail in response to this idiots ignorant musings), and they have since removed it from their website. Too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if this was a terrible attempt at playing devil's advocate, but all they did was succeed in pissing me (and hopefully everyone else who wasted their time reading this malarky) off. The funny thing is, not five minutes after I finished reading about Shitty Kanazawa's article, did I come across this article, singing the praises of the beauty of women of mixed race. (I can't say I disagree. *toot toot* That was my horn being tooted.) Apparently this survey was given to a very different focus group that Kanazawa's.
In lieu of leaving you with my typical biting wit, I will instead leave you with a piece I wrote several years back that I feel relates perfectly to this topic. I don't often share my poetry, but this seemed as good a time as any. See you next time!
Statistics
The colored girl is not known and hence not believed in;
She belongs to a race that is best designated by the word “problem,”
And she lives beneath the shadow of that problem,
Which envelopes and obscures her.
For years, I have possessed the spirit of men –
Bold and enterprising,
Fearless and undaunted.
Statistics (your statistics)
Show a people (my people)
Bound by their own ignorance.
Ignorance?
Do not sit up on your flowery bed of ease and attempt to bury me
Under something as simple as your statistics.
Do not waste your time attempting to suppress me
Because my intelligence is boundless and my knowledge is infinite.
For an eternity, you will find yourself trapped
By your own jealousy and hatred.
Shall it be said any longer that the daughters of Africa,
They have no ambition,
They have no force?
Any individual black woman who is forced to
Remain motionless on the outside
Will develop on the inside, a changed consciousness as a sphere of freedom.
Friday, May 20, 2011
The Rapture
Happy Friday! Well, maybe not so happy. "Why is that," you ask? Well, besides the fact that I'm nursing a well-earned-weeklong-birthday-celebration hangover this morning, today is May 20th. Do you know what that means? That means tomorrow is May 21st . . . aka the Rapture . . . aka Doomsday (if you subscribe to that Harold Camping mumbo jumbo, that is). So does that make today Doomsday Eve?
I have mixed feelings about this. Well, not really mixed feelings. I'm really just less than enraptured with the Rapture. Let's discuss.
Good luck, kiddos. Grab your hard hats and keep an eye out for zombies. I'll catch you on the flip side.
R.E.M. - It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I...
Vezi mai multe video din muzica
I have mixed feelings about this. Well, not really mixed feelings. I'm really just less than enraptured with the Rapture. Let's discuss.
- Who is this Camping guy, anyway? What makes him a prophet? What else has he prophesized? I'm not convinced I want to leave the prophecy of the end of the world as we know it in the hands of someone I've never heard of before. Wait. What's that? He's a Christian radio host? Oh, ok. That explains it. Not so much the prophet part, but definitely why I didn't know who the hell he was. I'm a little confused, though. When I Google his name, I keep seeing the word "false" in front of prophet. Hmmmm...must be a typo.
- Has anyone else picked up on the fact that May 21, 2011 is actually Camping's revised prophecy for Doomsday? Since a prophecy doesn't sound much like something that requires revision, this prompted me to do a little research (since again, I know absolutely nothing about this guy). I know he says that he knows "without any shadow of a doubt" that it will happen . . . but I'm not convinced. Apparently, he's been wrong before. Several times. I feel like I need a little bit more confirmation before I go bananas with my AmEx. (Don't judge; a girl needs to look pretty for an apocalypse, right? That sounds like some kickass survival instincts to me. They never let the pretty girls die in the movies.)
- According to Camping, massive earthquakes and other natural disasters will begin on May 21, 2011. Being that I have never lived in a state that actually experiences earthquakes, I have what may be considered an irrational fear of them. There's something about the concept of the earth shaking beneath my feet that I can't quite wrap my mind around. Furthermore, these natural disasters are predicted (by the ever-reliable Camping) to last until October??? I don't understand. Am I expected to stand in a doorjamb until October? That's just silly. What if I have to potty? This is giving me anxiety.
- Ok, so how exactly is this whole Rapture situation going to work? Apparently, approximately 200 million "righteous" will "Rapture into heaven" (I didn't realize it was also a verb), and the sinners will be left behind? Although I like my chances a tad bit better with these numbers than with the 144,000 that the Jehovah's Witnesses believe will make it to heaven . . . I'm still a little worried. How do I know if I'm righteous or a sinner? Is there some sort of Rapture manual with a checklist to help identify whether I'd be one of the ones left behind? If so, I imagine it to be something like a Cosmo quiz - "If you answered 'yes' to more than 4 of the questions . . . sorry for your luck. Enjoy the earthquakes." I don't know what to do. I have to have some sort of guidance to help me quickly determine if I need to go buy enough Doomsday supplies to last me until October, or if I just need to buy something pretty for my rendezvous with St. Peter. (Side note: I've always wondered about the wardrobe situation in Heaven. Will I have an endless closet, filled with all of the latest fashions I can't live without, with everything fitting me perfectly and looking amazing...for all of eternity? Or will I be stuck wearing whatever I died in or was buried in? Wearing the same outfit for...well...ever, sounds more like hell to me. I'm just saying.)
Good luck, kiddos. Grab your hard hats and keep an eye out for zombies. I'll catch you on the flip side.
R.E.M. - It's The End Of The World As We Know It (And I...
Vezi mai multe video din muzica
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)