For anyone missing me terribly I am still drunk from election celebrations and will return after Thanksgiving family visits.
For anyone missing me terribly I am still drunk from election celebrations and will return after Thanksgiving family visits.
I have not posted for a while but today's news has dragged me back to the keyboard. And now that my hysterical laughter has subsided slightly I find myself able to type again. The news is that a top-level Evangelical pastor, Ted Haggard, has been accused of having sex with a male prostitute as well as buying methamphetamine from him. Earlier today he admitted to buying the meth, but denied the sex and stated that he had thrown the meth away without using it. Supposedly he was with the male prostitute in the first place to have a massage. WHAT A LOAD OF SHIT! The unending hypocrisy of these people makes my spleen want to implode. He threw away the meth just like my manhood plays Jingle Bells. And what if he did? Buying it with the intention of using it is no different to actually using it, for a man in his position, with his supposed beliefs. Though I can't prove it, I am pretty damn certain he also shtupped the guy. This asshole is the president of the National Association of Evangelicals -- a group representing more than 45,000 churches and 30 million people - and he does not go to male prostitutes for a massage. He goes to them for blow jobs. Obviously I have no evidence for that, but it's my blog so piss off if you don't like my conclusions! Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with any guy shtupping another guy. Have at it, with male prostitutes or pool boys or whatever tickles your fancy. What I have a problem with is walking out of your sordid love nest and campaigning and voting against gay rights or same sex marriages or preaching to your cult following about the furnaces of Hell that await dirty homosexuals. I have a problem with hypocrisy. I have a major problem with the power that these people hold in this country, care of one of their psychotic number being in residence in Pennsylvania Avenue. I have a problem with how insanely religious this country is becoming. The Pilgrims came here in the first place for religious freedom, but nowadays woe betide you if your religion happens to be "none of the above". Good luck to any political candidate for any major office who comes out as an Atheist or Agnostic. In 2001 the percentage of adults in the US identifying themselves as of one religion or another was 85%. Which makes it self-evident that the majority of the thousands of adulterers and fornicators and rapists and murderers and directors of Enron out there are all religious and are thus also hypocritical scumbags. "Sin" all you like, but don't then be a deceitful prick and bitch about Clinton, or your new neighbor down the street who got caught cheating on his wife, or the old one who enjoys a few too may drinks. Don't go around back-slapping each other with your fellow tight-ass religious friends who have mostly all dipped into the trough of sin, or dived headfirst into it. We're human. It's what we do. But you get a lot more respect from me if you just do it and keep your mouth shut before more hypocritical bile oozes from your lips about others. Most of all though, don't stand up on an altar and damn all those other sinners to Hell while your crack pipe is still warm in your pocket or the musky aroma of your boyfriend is still all over your sweaty body. He who is without sin, cast the first stone. He who is not, kindly shut the fuck up.
Just a quick post to reassure the massive hordes of readers who come here that I am not neglecting them. As soon as I have something suitably interesting to say, it shall be said. For now I will leave you with what are clearly the two most important stories of the day. Firstly, and try to contain yourselves here, Wham! are reuniting for a concert at Christmas. And secondly, it seems that in the Bahamas they still flog people with the cat-o'-nine-tails. Perhaps if Wham were to go to the Bahamas, they too would receive a flogging. Perhaps they'd like it?*
* The author in no way means to suggest that gay men are any more or less likely to enjoy corporal punishment than non-gay men. No offence is meant to either gay men or straight S & M fetishist men.
And another thing. Enough with this bullshit description of Foley's messages as "over-friendly". Ann Coulter, on that other schmuck Bill O'Reilly's show on Tuesday, downplayed the severity of the messages, several times saying that Foley asking a boy what he wanted for his birthday was no big deal. Well, for anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to view the text of some of the more vile exchanges, please go to this link. Masturbation, hand-jobs, lotion, ejaculation...it has it all. And people like Coulter and other Republican assholes really need to shut the fuck up, because this goes way beyond "over-friendly", and for that uber-bitch Coulter to downplay it and decribe it as something innocent should be grounds for enforced muzzling.
I was replying to comments on my last post, but then decided this topic needed it's own post. The commenters were discussing the Foley saga in terms of whether it is a political or moral issue. Well, the morality issue brings one major aspect to the forefront for me. Where the Hell is the Religious Right now? They're pretty damn quiet, aren't they? If this had been a Democrat the religious outrage would have been like an exploding supernova. Where's Falwell now? Or Robertson? Or any of these gargantuan hypocrites. That shithead Falwell is the one who brought up that one of the Teletubbies is gay because he carries a handbag and is the color of gay pride...that he is a danger to the children. How about a sick fuck who emails teenagers and asks them to come over for a massage, what does that do for the children? But do we hear anything from the asshole on this? That, to me, is one of the biggest crimes which has emerged out of all of this, and is not getting its fair attention. It is seemingly ok to use religion to sway politics if it helps the Right, but these same shitbirds say nothing if religion and morality could somehow hurt the Right on election day. What the fuck is up with that? Political hypocrisy is one thing, but if I'm wrong and there is indeed a God, I hope the silence of the Right dooms them to an eternity of shovelling shit in very hot temperatures. Indeed, it is of quite some comfort to me to know that if I am indeed wrong about the existence of any form of deity, that I will be able to kick in the nuts these assholes who thought they were headed up to the good place but then found out that there was no place there for hypocritical scumbags.
So we all know by now that Congessman Foley is a sick fuck. What doesn't seem to be mentioned is that he is also a complete moron. How stupid do you have to be to write your twisted pederast emails to teenagers that actually work with you? In Congress! At least your run-of-the-mill sicko paedophile has the sense to write anonymously in chat rooms. But this idiot writes to boys openly, in his own workplace. If I didn't know better I'd say he was a sleeper agent, trained since birth by the Democrats to infiltrate the Republicans and find a way to set off as big a shit-storm as possible from within. And as for the Republicans, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert not only should resign but should also be bitch slapped by his fellow Republicans. He knew about Foley and did nothing, for which he should be removed for neglecting a child in need. But he has also opened the door for all the flak the Republicans are now taking. Of being told about Foley's messages, Hastert's office put out a statement saying the "Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation", though he does not deny it took place. Well that's complete bullshit. Who the hell gets told that a fellow congressman is sending obscene messages to children and not only does nothing about it, but forgets even being told? If you ask me he's a lying cocksucker and as culpable as Foley. As are all Republicans who knew about it and did not immediately have Foley removed. And they are all pretty much as stupid as Foley was, for not protecting themselves from exactly the situation they find themselves in today by dealing with Foley as soon as they knew about him. Please tell me the difference between the Foley situation and this invented scenario - you find out one of your children's teachers is writing inappropriate emails to students. You do nothing about it. OK, we know in this scenario the teacher is a villain, but isn't the parent who does nothing about it equally villainous? Isn't allowing someone to remain in a position of power with many young students - in Foley's case, pages - under their wing, downright evil? Especially since the only reason to do so here was to avoid a little political embarrassment. Hmm, a little political embarrassment versus a child violated by a grown man using his position of power to ensnare said chid. Tough call. What a bunch of cocksuckers. It's actually the only good thing, and what a good thing, to come out of all this - the increased potential for the Democrats to take back the House and Senate. Granted the Senate is still a stretch, but this link shows it may not be as great a stretch as once it was. Finally it looks like we can put an end to the tragic situation of having both the House and Senate controlled by the same party as the most unqualified buffoon ever to have sat in the White House.
In what could be considered the height of hypocrisy in light of my earlier post ranting about the excrement that is Reality TV, I watched Survivor last night. Not only did I watch it last night, but I always watch it. Perhaps I should have mentioned this when I was deriding all forms of Reality TV, but it didn't seem the place to air my guilty little secret. It's still Reality TV, but it is the best/least awful of the genre - it was the first of the recent craze and remains the most interesting. I'm not going to go into a defence of the show, though I have one prepared in my head. Instead I am writing in particular about this season's controversial gimmick. For those who don't know, the 20 survivors have been split into 4 tribes by race. There is an Hispanic tribe, a black tribe, a white tribe and an Asian tribe. Anyone stumbling across this post having any problems with my descriptions of these tribes for reasons of Political Correctness can blow it out their ass. Nothing pisses me off more than that. Don't be so bloody stupid and instead worry about things that actually matter. Now, where was I? Ah yes, the racial divisions. There has been much made of the show's decision to employ this gimmick, but the protests relating to racism bother me. To suggest that this premise is inherently racist is bizarre and incorrect. What would be racist would be if certain tribes got different treatment than others, if they were somehow degraded or belittled where others weren't. If the Asian tribe were punished, for example, or made to crawl through mud just for being Asian, then there would be racism. But merely splitting players into groups based on their race and then allowed to all play the game equally is not remotely racist. And one who suggests otherwise simply doesn't understand the definition. I am struggling to see any difference between the racial split and the male/female split employed a few seasons ago. If all males (or all people called John, or all bald people) are put on one team but then given equal treatment, there is no form of prejudice being used to disadvantage anyone. In fact, the male/female split probably deserved more criticism, as on the face of it one would expect that the men had been handed an unfair advantage. Survivor is a very physical game and no one can deny that, in general, men can run faster or lift more than women. And yet the women gave the men a spanking. Ironically though, despite getting to something like a 6 women to 1 man advantage, the man ended up winning. Amusingly to me, they were brought down by an all too true stereotype. Once they had neutralized the male threat incredibly efficiently, they started the bitchy catfighting that is often, for me, their least attractive trait. They then proceeded to pick each other off one at a time, all the time making enemies of one another, and allowing the man to reach the final two with relatively few enemies and to walk off with a million bucks.
There is one aspect of potential racism in this show which I shouldn't gloss over. Though I refute that the show and the splitting of the tribes is in itself racist, it could lead to racist ill-will from one tribe towards another. And from the fans of one tribe towards another. But it could instead lead to feelings of ethnic pride, which are a good thing when they are not mutated into negative feelings towards tribes of a different ethnicity - that is, if those feelings are because of the ethnicity. But what is wrong if the black tribe feel antipathy towards the white tribe solely because they are a rival team? Surely that is no different to me, as a Dallas Cowboys fan, disliking every Washington Redskin because they are a Redskin, irrespective of any of their other attributes. The black tribe can dislike every member of the white tribe just because they are a member of the rival team that is the white tribe, and not because the skin color of the individual members is white.
Any viewers of the show that feel anything negative for any of the four tribes based on their color were already racist to begin with, and as such they long ago lost any right to an opinion on this or any other subject. No one will be driven to racism by watching this show. But if anyone is, then fine. That simply means that they already had it in them to turn out this way one day, and they've simply outed themselves early so that they can one day burn in the Hell that I don't believe in, but ironically many of them do.
People are stupid. I mean, a lot of people are stupid. And then some people are really, really stupid, as is evidenced by this article. Apparently at least 10 stingrays have been found dead and mutilated in Australia. That's right, to avenge Steve Irwin's death people are going vigilante against stingrays. If you're not with us, you're against us, damnit! It's a good thing the Crocodile Hunter wasn't killed by a dog, or poodles everywhere would be in microwaves right now.
In other news, Saddam Hussein in an angry outburst, during the testimony of a Kurdish witness, shouted "We will crush your heads". How delighted his lawyers must have been by his witty repartee.
I have been driven to write this post by Dooce's most recent post. For those new to the blogosphere, Dooce has one of the most popular (and best) blogs out there. Well, her latest post was about the MTV Video Music Awards and she might as well have plucked mine and my wife's thoughts from our heads with some tongs and slapped them down on her blog. Thank all that is holy that I have a Tivo or I would have gnawed my own head off. And before you ask why watch it at all, talk to my wife. Much like a highway rubbernecker, she wanted to see the gruesome nightmare for herself. So I wanted to echo Dooce's comments and add a point of my own about the sewage system that is MTV which she left out and which scares the crap out of me. And perhaps her too, since she too has offspring - perhaps she'll grace me with a comment?
So, what is it that scares the crap out of me? What if my kids grow up to be MTV kids? What if they dress like that, talk like that, find crap like that entertaining? What if they find Jackass the height of culture? What if they want to "pimp their rides" - what the fuck is that anyway? What if they find it cool to refer to their female friends as "hos" and "bitches" and "skanks"? What if they consider the ghastly noise I heard on stage to even be "music". And like Dooce, I'm no old fart who talks about kids and their new-fangled things. I'm 35 with a large, constantly updated music collection ranging from The Beatles to Abba to Green Day to Mozart to Dave Brubeck to Scott Joplin to Coldplay. At any given time my kids could be listening to The Girl from Ipanema or Dancing Queen or American Idiot - they certainly have the opportunity to have very eclectic tastes. So it's not just me being tragically unhip. But will they be lured to the dark side regardless? Either by the magical techniques of hypnosis or subliminal advertising which MTV undoubtedly uses to get viewers, or more likely just because their peers watch it and so they will feel that they have to in order to fit in. I would be distraught if my little boys grew up to be that kind of vacuous, offensive dope. And I fear that if it's going to happen there is little I can do about it. Even if I bury our TV under the pool, they will try it at their friends' houses as surely as they will masturbate. I suppose my only hope is that in these early years I can make them so classy and culturally savvy that they will snub their noses at it of their own volition. Either that, or maybe I can get hundreds of hours of 80's MTV on video and keep playing it on a loop for 14 years until they leave for college - perhaps they'll never know that Toto are not a new group.
Two things bug me. ABC's propaganda film Path to 9/11 coming to your TV soon and poo on my bathroom wall next to the toilet. Both of them are shit, the only difference is ABC's broadcast is offensive shit, where the other is just evidence of my son not having quite perfected doing his own wiping yet. In case the film is new to anyone, it is a film purporting to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and it details how the Clinton administration was to blame for 9/11. It was written by an avowed Conservative and has several completely fictional scenes made out to be facts taken from the 9/11 Commission Report. ABC are airing it over 2 nights, for 6 hours without commercial interruption. Coincidentally enough, this is also shortly before the mid-term elections where the Republicans look likely to receive a good ass-whooping. Not a bad distraction from the thunderous mistakes of the present administration and a smearing of the last Democrat one. With any luck it will be pulled before broadcast. This link leads to the latest development. It is a letter from Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger detailing scenes which have been pulled directly from the same area from which my son's poo came. And they should know, as the film details as "fact" certain fictions which these two are supposed to have carried out. Make sure to click on the link leading to the actual letter - it makes for interesting reading. To get the whole story from the beginning you can surf back through the stories on that same site.
As for the literal poo, I'm not too sure how that happens. I can see that the wiping doesn't go exactly according to plan and leaves him with certain deposits on his fingers, but I don't know why they always get smeared on the wall above the toilet paper rather than the paper itself. Or his clothes. Or his hair. Or his brother. Perhaps I'll have to invest in a "Poo Cam".
Ann Coulter – what an ass monkey. The plan is for this to be an occasional series of articles, each one on a different “antichrist”, which for my purposes will be defined as someone who really, really pisses me off. This could be because they are evil or malicious or mean-spirited or just really stupid. Stupid really bugs me, so that’s why the likes of Britney will find themselves on the end of my diatribe soon.
Now where was I? Oh yes, Ann Coulter, what an ass monkey. There isn’t a lot of original thinking I can add on this topic as the fact that she is a total imbecile has been well documented, and so much idiotic swill has oozed out of her snout that going through it all would be redundant. So I’m just going to remind us all of some of her highlights, point out why she’s actually good for the left (more on that later), and I’ll also insult the horse-faced buffoon a little, just because it makes me feel better. I’ll also link liberally (no pun intended) so folks can get to much of her verbal excrement from one place.
Some of her most precious pearls:
A nice selection of the filth she spews. Does she mean it? Does it matter even if she doesn’t, the damage is done? Has she now become nothing more than a figure of ridicule? If one must use up any thought time on the harridan, I suppose these are the answers as I see them. She doesn’t mean all of it. Probably. Her “career”, her existence in the public consciousness which is her very lifeblood, now depends upon the controversies that spring forth when she opens her trap. And when, as of late, she has a book to promote, watch out! If one can set aside one’s animosity towards her for a second it might be possible to admire her marketing and promotional savvy. She certainly knows how to move “books”. Would it be more acceptable if it were calculated incitement of controversy to induce book sales than if it is just the crazed ravings of a certifiable lunatic? That will depend on each individual and what they consider acceptable in the pursuit of making as many bucks as possible while one is marketable. Freedom of speech and all that. But is it Hate speech? And if it is the case that she infects the ether with her obnoxious rantings only for self-promotion, does there come a point when she will have tipped over the peak of Mount Gone-Too-Far and both her and her career will careen downhill into oblivion faster than you can say “aardvark look-alike bitch”?
This could well become the case if people would make more of her recent plagiarism controversy. Turns out she’s a thief. And a cheat. And a liar. See here, here and here for sites dealing with that. In short, the pea-brain has been found out, and great swaths of her writing appear to be pilfered with no credit given whatsoever. Ordinarily this spells the end for a writer, but it looks as though she may slime her way through this.
But then there’s this option – she’s good for the left, she’s the worst thing that’s happened to the right and she should stay exactly where she is and keep up her buffoonery. Could this be the case? Here’s the theory, though I’m not necessarily sold on it yet. The theory goes that her crazed ravings bring everyone’s focus to what is worst and most divisive and ugly and damaging about politics and partisan politics and punditry. She is so extreme that the only people who take her remotely seriously already hold her beliefs anyway and are just as certifiable as her. Nothing she says could ever convert anyone’s beliefs or win over any supporters from the other side. Ever. The only thing she can and does accomplish is to drive away fence-sitters. Those in the middle, swaying, not knowing where to go, hear her vomitus emitting from her gaping hole and get driven away very quickly. The more she becomes any kind of face of the right, the more she turns the right into a joke. If I lived on the right I would want her living alone on an island with only a volleyball or coconut to talk to as soon as practicable. The poor volleyball would be begging the coconut to stomp on it's head to save it from her droning, nasal, vacuous bullshit.
I don’t know if that theory holds water, but it seems sound to me. So maybe the left should be embracing her (and rapidly bathing afterwards). But that’s only the case if one wants to win at all costs. If one believes that she and all those like her – Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, etc. – are simply divisive idiots who cause greater chasms between us all and make the airwaves and the country in general a less pleasant place to be, then one should start the process for an enforced muzzling law. Particularly when she gets downright mean-spirited, as with suggesting that the four 9/11 widows were grateful for their husbands deaths.
All that said, I wrote this to get things off my chest and for what little comedy my limited talents can muster (and here's a rather funny Ann related video that's well worth watching). But there’s still that freedom of speech thing and another unique invention known as a remote control. I suppose we could always just throw the remote at the TV and leave the room. Or just tune in to Air
Anyone interested in seeing me carry on this new series of Antichrists, feel free to let me know. Potential future victims include Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Katherine Harris, Paris/Britney/Jessica/Lindsay, and many more.
So I'm at a crossroads/dilemma with my new blog. I don't know what I want it to be. Should it have the political bent that the previous few entries have had, or should it be one of those "slice of my life" blogs but with humor/humour? I have peeps on both sides of the pond so I thought I 'd include both spellings to avoid shit from any of them. That's also the first time I've ever used the word "peeps", either spoken or written. I think it may be the last.
I'm getting to my aforementioned Antichrists piece, but something I just read really pisses me off. Sean Hannity, for those who don't know he is a right-wing Fox "News" TV pundit, and he may well get his own Antichrist column from me, said on his radio show yesterday:
"there are things in life worth fighting and dying for, and one of 'em is making sure (House Democratic Leader) Nancy Pelosi doesn't become the speaker."
Hannity was seeking to make sure that Republican voters come out and prevent an embarrassing turnaround in the upcoming mid-term elections. My problem is this: does this not almost sound like a call to suicide bombing? Obviously that's extreme and not what he meant, but is it acceptable to say that it is worth fighting and dying to keep the Democrats from winning an election? "Fighting and dying"? I know not many people have come across this blog yet, but any who do I'd appreciate a comment if you agree, to reassure me that I am not going insane in thinking this is not acceptable. Or if you disagree, so I can know for sure that I have gone insane.
I have an idea for a series of posts. It shall be titled The Antichrists and each one will deal with a different person who I feel to be a plague on the earth. My first victim is going to be Ann Coulter. Too easy I hear you say. That's as maybe, and I may have nothing original to say on the matter, but she just bugs the shit out of me so I'm going to have my say anyway. Expect future pieces on some or all of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Katherine Harris, Paris/Britney/Jessica/Lindsay, and many more. Perhaps if anyone likes the series I'll even take requests. If all goes well expect the first one up later today.
So, picture the scene. We've got the kids in bed, we've had our dinner, and we're sitting down to relax in front of the television. Let's have a look what we have saved on the Tivo. Ooh good, Deadwood. I'll have some of that. So we put our feet up, relax and hit play.
Swearengen's in his usual good form. A f***ing c**t here, a c***sucker there. Mr Wu joins in too, "Sweargen, c***sucker", with far more emphasis than I can possibly muster with my simple bold and underlining tools. Ooh, was that another "C" word and something disturbing about brine from that particular region? Outstanding. Hold on a sec, what was that noise? "Did you hear that dear?" And I very quickly develop a pit in my stomach as I realize that I recognize that sound. Yes, it's the sound of one of my very young children under the dining table rather than asleep in bed. Marvellous. How long has he been there? How much has he heard? Tomorrow, can I expect to be flooded with questions like "Daddy, what's a f***ing c**t?" Or, "What does a c**ksucker look like? Does it live in Africa? Does it have horns? Show me a picture of one on the computer." I guess I can only hope that he arrived very recently, missing all that language and only catching the blow job scene. Excellent.
Just a quick one before bed. This kind of thing interests me. This shows the 50 most viewed Wikipedia pages. Worth it for me just for my now more complete knowledge of the Irukandji jellyfish.
There is a potentially controversial article in today's Sunday Times (UK) about obesity. The article postulates that fatness and obesity are directly related to poverty and ignorance. That rich, educated people are rarely fat. Also in the article is this:
Obese means not just podgy, but dangerously, disablingly, distastefully fat, as in American fat.
I have to admit to having a chuckle when I read that. And for full disclosure I am an expat Brit living in the US. And I love the US so it is not a sleight on this country, but no one can deny the preponderance of vast, humongous people shaking the sidewalk as they walk along. Those who actually do walk anywhere, that is. And, as the article itself shows, Britain is not immune from this problem. In fact, they are probably second only to the US. But the US certainly must have a problem for Americans to be used as examples whenever the conversation turns to obesity. Not just in this article, but whenever I travel outside this country I find the topic comes up an inordinate number of times. "Oh, you live in America, isn't everyone beastly and fat over there?" To which, after today's article, I can now respond "No, only the poor, stupid ones apparently."
I have two main points I want to consider. First, is the article's theory true? Second, are the parents of obese kids stupid or evil? As for the first point, I am leaning towards it being half true. Or maybe three quarters. Half true because I buy the notion that the poor find it harder to eat healthily on a purely financial basis. Three quarters because I don't think that ignorance or lack of education plays that large a role. But it does play some role, so I'm accounting for a bit of stupidity in there with the poverty.
We shop at Whole Foods (a healthy, largely organic food supermarket) and Publix (a major supermarket chain). And it is patently obvious upon simply perusing the receipts that when we do a weekly shop at Whole Foods we are paying around $100 more than when we do it at Publix. Healthy, natural foods are more expensive than processed crap. I recently heard an old lady in the checkout line explaining, as though ashamed since no one had asked her, that she was buying a loaf of 20 cent supermarket-brand white bread because it was all she could afford. There is no doubt that it is cheaper to eat like shit. It is also easier, especially if you go for the fast food option ahead of cooking your own cheap, unhealthy crap. It occurs to me that there is also a laziness factor involved here which no doubt goes hand in hand with the "no exercise" cause of obesity. Better to drag yourself into the car and drive two blocks for a super-sized quadruple cheeseburger than to walk to the kitchen and have to stand there making, or zapping, something. But yes, coming back from my tangent, lower incomes certainly play a part. But lower education?
On that one I'm torn. On one side of the question, I have a few friends myself who, though not obese, could stand to shed a few dozen pounds. And most of these are highly intellectual, college-educated people in very successful careers. I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are smarter than me, but they would. They are well-off and clever, so where do they come into the equation? And on the inverse side of the same query, if stupidity played any part in fatness, Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan would be like a pod of blue whales. So I'm not sure I can agree on that. The one quarter fraction that I gave to the ignorance side of the theory comes for those people out there, and I suppose there must be some, who are so ignorant that still now they don't realize that eating crap and living on the sofa results in a couple of extra pounds gained. But other than that I don't believe that any lack of education allows you to never stumble across the information that eating fast food and other crap might be somewhat detrimental to your figure.
Now for part two. Are the parents of obese kids stupid or evil? I believe that these are your only choices. And I'm not talking about anyone who is obese through some kidney condition or any other ill-health or accident. Or even those cases that do exist where the obesity is hereditary. I am talking about obese kids, seemingly nearly always the product of obese parents, made that way by their bad diet. Parents have full and total control over what their small children ingest, from infancy through to at least early teens. Maybe before that they get the chance to sneak the odd candy bar here or there at a friend's house, but obesity comes from a long campaign of overfeeding crap to your children. So, does this happen out of moronic ignorance or plain Beelzebub-worshiping evil? For surely the obese parents are all too well aware of whatever unpleasantness life throws at an obese person. From whatever personal feelings of discomfort, to actual fatness-induced illnesses or diseases, to the mockery of cruel children, to the difficulties of getting around in one's day-to-day life. There may be exceptions, but I would be enormously surprised to hear any obese person turn down an offer from a well-meaning genie to turn them into a healthy, fit, thin person. That just wouldn't happen. And that being the case, any loving obese parent, who by definition as a parent would want the very best life possible for their child, is not going to want their child to grow up obese themselves, with a catalog of obesity-related diseases. According to the Times article, two thirds of diabetes cases in Britain are of the avoidable type 2 associated with obesity. Also, obesity increases your risk of having major illnesses, such as stroke, heart disease, some types of cancer and osteoarthritis. Clearly no parent wants that for their child. So, all that said, I now state that any parent who knows the effects of a bad diet and yet still stuffs their children so much and so often that they become obese at such a young age is either irretrievably stupid - they really don't know the effect that their diet will have - or unconscionably evil - they know but still willingly opt to give their children a shorter and more unpleasant life than they otherwise could and should have had.
Go see this marvellous and slightly scary picture, The Mad Tea Party. There's other great artwork on his site.
Seriously, there's something very wrong with some people and we should all be very scared of them.
I picked a good day to start doing strange news stories. Though I have to say, I thought I'd done this a few times myself in college.
This crazy cow needs to be either in a padded cell or being molested in a regular prison. She should have been in jail already for stealing a national election. I know this is the land of the free, but you should be able to imprison someone for this level of nonsense. After reading the article, just think how much better the whole world is for the last religious nut she had a hand in getting elected.
I think I'm going to regularly bring attention to particularly interesting or bizarre stories I come across. This one definitely counts as bizarre. Or twisted.
The term “Reality TV,” when entered into Google, returns 21,800,000 hits. “Reality Television” another 3,000,000. So just short of 25 million hits. What the Hell is wrong with people? Seriously. Albert Einstein said “We cannot despair of humanity, since we ourselves are human beings.” But I’m sorry Albert, if you were subjected to “The Bachelorette” or “Joe Millionaire” you too would begin to despair of humanity. And if Reality TV is something unpleasant to you, then summertime is the 9th Circle of Hell. While the few scripted shows that still manage to claw their way onto the schedule take a rest, the B-list of Reality TV shows comes to take a dump on our heads. Can you imagine that? An actual B-List of what is already the Z-list of TV shows. That’s when we’re blessed with “Dancing With The Stars,” “So You Think You Can Dance 2” and “My Fair Brady,” the latter of which I admit I had never heard of until two minutes ago, but it sounds like a true horror. The standard-bearer, however, for this dreadful spate of swill has to be “Big Brother,” the very concept of which makes the mind boggle when one realizes that millions watch it: A group of normal people live in a house together and we see them sitting around talking to each other. Well, I am a normal person and my friends are normal people, and if I want to hear a bunch of normal people talking about their normal lives I can just invite them to my house and actually “live it.” The absurdity of watching a bunch of people I give no damn about sitting talking about their normal boring existence is hard for me to fathom. One wouldn’t stay and listen to a table of strangers talking in a restaurant for an hour. So why watch them just because they’re on your idiot box? And never has that term been more appropriate. Fortunately this phenomenon has no direct effect on my existence, as summer becomes a good time to catch up on missed movies or, God forbid, reading a book. The effect is more one of the sorrow it causes me to know that millions of my fellow inhabitants on this planet crave so little in the way of entertainment. I was going to say that so many of my fellow inhabitants were braindead morons, but then I would most certainly be insulting a lot of readers of this blog…if I ever get any readers on this blog! The point is, as long as the majority of people find this stuff to be entertainment – and the networks not being stupid, you can be sure that the majority does have a taste for this drivel – I fear for the future of us all. Hopefully evolution will start taking care of these folks. Although since, as our president states, the jury is still out on evolution, we might have to deal with the problem ourselves. I bet he’s an avid fan of The Biggest Loser.
By the way, I know that my "autographs" post a couple of days ago was a long one and that it's a bad idea to drive viewers away in the first couple of days of a new blog. So I shall try to keep it succinct from now on. Unless requested otherwise because my words are like a long overdue fix to a crack whore!
Does anyone else find this peculiar? All very natural, but...hellllo!
What the fuck is the deal with autographs? Seriously, I don’t get it. First of all I have to come clean about something, which may destroy my credibility before I even start. I went to a convention. Yes, one of those conventions. I have no defense so no attacks are necessary. I concede in advance. That said, what the fuck is the deal with autographs? People were lining up for hours to get a signature. Why?
A little elucidation. At these conventions, the stars come up on stage and recount stories and/or take questions from the audience. This is the part of it for which I attended. And I defend it thus: Would there be anything wrong with an avid fan of, say, The Godfather attending a Q & A session with the cast of that film? Clearly no. Watching Michael and Sonny share experiences and funny anecdotes of their time working on the film would be fascinating. By the same token, fans of Sci-Fi Show X would enjoy hearing stories of what went on during the filming of said show. I will purposely avoid the topic of those fans that ask the mind-blowingly inane questions and seem unable to separate the actor from the character. I have no defense for these people and would be the first in line to smack them in the head. But the others who, like me, just want to hear the actors speak and ask questions? With that I have no problem. And if that was all there was to conventions then no one would be snickering.
At this time I should also mention that I am not going to deal with the dressing-up factor that many find so peculiar. Because it is.
But the autographs! I really don’t get why having a person’s name scrawled on a photo is so wonderful. Especially since after several hundred of these autographs it must indeed look like just that, a scrawl. Or what my 3-year old calls “scribble-scrabble” when he is displeased with his own artwork. And to wait over an hour for it! And what gets me even more, people in huge numbers go and line up for these autographs while another actor has taken to the stage. So to a great number of these people the autograph is more important than the Q & A’s with the actors. An hour in line to get a scribble on a photo rather than an hour spent watching and listening to the actor for whose scribble they will be lining up next, no doubt then missing the next actor. And I haven’t even pointed out that they pay for these things. A lot. Some signatures, for the bigger stars, are worth $70 or so a pop. Inconceivable.
For a moment I found myself feeling sad for those giving the autographs. But then the math of this made my brain explode and I’m not sure what I’m missing. To clarify, the main stars command $50 to $70 per “scribble-scrabble.” On one day of the convention I witnessed people with the numbers 1 to 500 on their tickets being invited to go and get their autographs. 500 x $70 = $35,000!!!!!! Can this be right? It can’t. Can it? $35,000. In three or four hours. For “scribble-scrabble.” Holy Crap! What the Hell is going on here? Now as far as I could tell the big-name celebrities only did this for one day. But had they opted for another there is little doubt that another 500 would have forked out the money. There were 5000 in the room at the time! Regardless, there’s always another convention just around the corner to go sign some more. And I should mention here that I have absolutely no problem with the actors making as much as they can. If people are willing to part with their money for a name on a piece of paper then so be it. If I could get 500 people to give me $35,000 a day for my toenail clippings I would have the clippers out before you could say “scribble-scrabble.” This has taken me off on a tangent. I hadn't worked out the numbers as I started to write and I was literally stunned at what the actors make for signing their name. I’m not even going to touch the fact that I just looked up the prices to make sure I didn’t make any factual errors, and saw that one actor was charging $169 per signature. Apparently he had “graciously agreed to sign a limited number,” but at those prices he’d only need 150 to go over 25 grand. Not bad for an hour or so's work.
But like I said, I’ve gone off on a tangent. And since that’s the case I’m going to head down another one. Earlier I glossed over the mind-blowingly inane questions that people ask the actors on stage. It occurs to me that those who have never attended such an event may not realize what I’m talking about, so I have a couple of examples for you. One example of a sad person and one of a slightly desperate person. This will win me no friends in the sci-fi fan community, but I can live without them. Example 1, the “sad, can’t separate TV from reality” fan: “Don’t you think, if the show hadn’t been cancelled, that you could have become captain?” The actor didn’t really know how to answer that one. Example 2, now that I’ve read my notes again I shall call this the “completely desperate and not-just-a-little-scary person”: (the scenario - an actress who played a strong female character has taken the stage and our scary fan is female) “I just wanted to tell you that I love you. You’re my hero. You’re my role model. I look forward to coming here every year to hear your words of wisdom. I’m sorry, my voice is breaking, but I’m just so emotional when I’m around you.” I’m not making this shit up. She spoke those words to an actress who played a character on a TV show 5 years earlier.
As it turns out, that very night I had a couple of drinks with the actor who fielded the sad question from my first example. And once I was alone with him away from the mad throng, safely enclosed in an elevator, I asked him how he handled these absurd questions again and again. His response was that this may be his last convention for quite some time. He is more patient than I. My response after a few of these questions was to wish I could cut off my head and kick it in front of a speeding bus. You would think that one could just sit there and see the funny side of it. But I found myself wondering when evolution had stopped working. I don’t know what it is, but as every year passes I find myself having less and less time for stupidity. Oh, one more thing speaking of stupidity. One couple came up to the mic with two poodles which they had named after some character or other…mercifully I didn’t hear as I was punching myself in the ears at the time.
A few years back I got drunk with an actor at the hotel bar where another of these conventions was taking place. Yes, ok, so I went to another one once. I just busted myself. See paragraph above about it being ok if you’re just going for the Q & A’s. And then add the coolness quotient of getting drunk with the member of the cast who played the rugged security guy, kinda like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. That makes it ok, doesn’t it? I won’t do it again, I promise. Anyway, as I was saying, I was getting really quite drunk with one of the stars and as such I can’t absolutely vouch for the figure I’m going to quote. I remember he likes to fish. I remember that when I went to the convention early the next morning my eyes were bleeding and he looked fresh as a daisy, which made him seem all the more rugged and me feel like a little girl. But I can’t remember with certainty the amount he said he got paid to come to these conventions. I think it was $5000, along with flights and hotel. And what I now know must have been a crapload more in autograph money. And he wasn’t even the lead of the show, so extrapolate for yourself how much the main stars of the biggest shows might receive between attendance fees, autographs, photographs and the rest. Funny thing, celebrity. That night remains in my mind as one of the cooler evenings I have spent. For my drinking partner, however, there is no recollection of that one night among a horde of similar nights with people just like me. Well, not just like me. I mean, they probably lined up for hours for autographs and wore silly outfits and make-up all day. Not me. No sir, I looked down my nose at them, safe in my seat right next to them.
As I write this I still don’t know if I’m going to submit it somewhere as an essay, keep it for myself, or post it on a blog which I’m planning to start. If it’s on a blog that it's now being read, I guess I can prepare myself for unpleasant comments from the fans - or at least I would if anyone were ever to read this. I’m not meaning to insult anyone. I think anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money. Other than buying ingredients for dirty bombs that is. And I see nothing wrong with conventions. With fans getting together to discuss a show or a genre that they love with other fans, and listening to the stars of these shows. But nothing is going make me understand the whole autograph thing. It is simply beyond me. And yes, I know that they can become valuable and then be sold on eBay to other like-minded folks. But that just opens a whole other can of
weirdos worms - people who spend their money on eBay for autographs which they have no way of knowing are genuine. Indeed, apparently 75% of autographs sold on eBay are fake. But there would be no market for it at all if everyone just stopped being like-minded about what is, after all, just “scribble–scrabble.”
Actually, I think that maybe I do mean to insult the people with the poodles.
Kids running around, frolicking, having fun. What a wonderful sight. Oh, but hold on. What’s that behind the kids? Oh yes, a slot machine. And a craps table. And a hundred more of each. And if clocks were allowed in casinos we’d see that it’s 2 in the morning. What the fuck is that all about? I have made several Vegas trips and each and every time I witness the same thing. And every time I react the same way – What the fuck are people thinking? That’s another one of life’s big mysteries to me. Although actually it probably isn’t. I probably know the answer but just don’t want to say it. But what the heck, I’ll say it anyway. Selfish bastard parents. They want to go to Vegas, Godammit, and no stinking kid is going to get in the way of that. So instead of a nice family-friendly vacation we’ll just drag the little bastards to Vegas with us. It’ll make a nice change from the trailer park.