Ridiculous Things I Read About Today

Wow. I read a bunch of ridiculous things today and now I must share.

I was reading about Barry Bonds' upcoming trial for perjury. The perjury charges (and there are ten of them) stem from his telling a grand jury back in December of 2003 that "he never knowingly took steroids." Yeah, right. Did you see Barry Bonds back then? He was a mammoth. Of course he took steroids. Everyone in baseball took steroids and he was no exception. His arms were gigantic. His trained testified that at one point, he had to order new hats for Barry because his head was bigger. I don't know about you, but I don't know of many adult males whose head suddenly starts to grow if they are not on steroids.

But all of that isn't my point. My point is what I read in an article over at the Huffington Post. The article was talking about the hearing on Friday and it said, "Dressed in a dark suit and slimmed down from his San Francisco Giants playing days...." That's all you need to know. Gee, I wonder WHY he was all slimmed down? Could it be that there isn't any reason for him to take steroids any more? Yeah, that's a tough one to noodle through. Man, I hope they find him guilty. I know that there were a lot of players that roided up during the 1990s. But Barry is so smug about it. AND he did a lot of damage to the game by going on the juice. Guilty, guilty, guilty. Can't wait to see how that one turns out.

And then there's Nadya Suleman. Man, I have had about enough of her to last a lifetime. She was on Oprah the other day along with Suze Orman. You know who Suze Orman is, right? She's that attractive lesbian woman who gives sound financial advice in a rather obnoxious manner. She was on there to go through Octomom's finances. I don't know why they needed Suze Orman for that. I could have told you that she's broke. But in the discussion of her finances, Suze Orman asked Octomom if, back before she had herself impregnated with enough embryos to fill a gumball machine, she knew then what she knows now, would she have had the extra eight children. (Please remember that at the time that she pulled this completely inexcusable and utterly insane stunt, she already had six kids which she had no means of supporting. Oh, and of course there has never been a father in the picture.) It took her forever to answer the question, but she finally came out and said that if she had known then what she knew now that she would not have gone ahead with trying to have a litter of children. OK, what now?

What, exactly, is it that she knows now that she didn't know then? Let's see....she didn't have a husband then and she certainly wasn't going to get one in the near future. She didn't have a way to support herself and her six kids back then and she certainly wasn't going to be able to in the near future. How could she have not foreseen that this was going to turn out badly?! She now has fourteen children. What does it cost the taxpayer to pay for those fourteen children? And how much is it going to cost the taxpayer when they're over eighteen and end up in jail or, for the girls, knocked up themselves? Oh, come on! You think that those kids are going to grow up and be just fine? I doubt it. I'd love to be wrong, but I doubt it.

And finally, let's just wrap this up with the guy who is quickly shaping up to be the D-Bag of the year, Jesse James. As you may or may not care to recall, Mr. James was married to the ridiculously attractive Sandra Bullock and decided that it would be a good idea to cheat on her with at least one (but more like six) heavily tattooed skank(s). Mr. James has recently become engaged to another be-tatted woman, Kat Von D. In regard to this new found bliss, he says, " 2010 was actually the best year of my life because I fell in love with my best friend. An amazing woman who stood behind me when the world turned their backs." Yeah, the world can be a fickle bitch when you cheat on a beloved (and super hot) public figure like the delicious Ms. Bullock. What a maroon. I'm guessing that Sandra Bullock would probably express different sentiments about how her 2010 went. Oh, but that wasn't the best thing that he said. This serial cheater actually had the stones to say "Growing old with her is going to be a f****** blast!"

Right. Like the two of you are going to stay married long enough to grow old together. You guys won't even be married long enough to buy a new couch, let alone to grow old together. I'm pretty sure that a gallon of milk could last longer than your eternal bond is going to. And while I find his statements absolutely vacuous, I'm almost more amused at Kat Von D for agreeing to marry this dirtbag. You think that you're different, do you, cupcake? You think that y'all were meant for each other? You think that he isn't currently cheating on you? You must have answered yes to all of those semi-rhetorical questions, as you're actually going to marry him. Wow. Good luck with that.

And those are the ridiculous going-ons that I read about today. What about you? Got anything good for me?

So, Is It Dangerous Or Not?

I'm not a big fan of people suing some company because there was an accident that involved the particular company's product. Look, accidents happen. Do you sue the manufacturer of a knife if you accidentally cut yourself with it? Well, I don't and you (hopefully) don't, but some low lifes do. But I always thought that they believed in their ridiculousness. I guess I thought that they really believed that the knife manufacturer should have warned the public that their product had sharp edges. I mean, I guess I would have thought that was the case in the story of a boy whose parents are suing the manufacturer of a baseball bat company because their son got beaned in the head by a ball that was hit with said bat. But then I read that they're still letting their son play baseball. With the same bat. Wait. What?

Correct. Meet Jake Schutter. Jake is 11 and plays baseball in Moneka, Illinois. Last May, Jake was pitching for the Moneka Blaze when, according to the

Chicago Sun Times "...a ball hit off a metal baseball bat crashed into the side of his head". The resulting bash to the noggin resulted in Jake losing the hearing in that ear. Naturally, the parents decided to sue Easton, the company that makes said bats. I find it mildly interesting that they didn't sue the manufacturer of the ball of that bashed into him. Why is it only the bat's fault and not the ball's fault?

I don't know either. But I do know that Jake's parents have said in their lawsuit that "...the manufacturer created a dangerous product that should not be on the market" and they're asking that "Easton pay for his injuries and suffering as well as attorney fees." And all the while, they're continuing to let their son play baseball with the dangerous product that should not be on the market. Yeah, sure. That makes perfect sense.

Oh, for cryin' out loud, no, it does not! If the bat is so damned dangerous and if you, as a parent, honest to God believed that, why, why, WHY in the world would you let your kid continue to play with said bat?! Well, you wouldn't. And that's probably because you don't (believe that, that is). But that doesn't mean that it's going to keep you from suing. Even the boy recognizes that these things happen and it's the chance that you have to take when you're playing sports! He said, "...he has no choice but to continue using a metal bat because all of his peers use it.“If everyone has a metal bat, why wouldn’t I have a metal bat?” Exactly.

What I want to know is what is going to happen if the kid gets beaned in the head again. What if he loses an eye or a nose or an ear or something like that. Then what? (Actually, I'd kind of like to see someone lose a nose from playing baseball. That'd be something to see.) Are they going to say that they shouldn't have dangerous products on the market because even people who have been injured by said product in the past might be too dense to realize the alleged danger and continue playing with them until the product finally just kills them? Given the proven non-rational thinking of these folks in the first place, I'm guessing they might attempt to legitimately make that point. I'm guessing that they'd fail miserably, but what's to stop them from trying. I can't wait to see how this one pans out. Unless, of course, it pans out with the company having to pay money to these folks. That I can do without.

Idiotic Things I Read Today

You'd think that I'd be happier, what with the election finally over. Finally, I can have the TV on for more than 5 minutes without being bombarded with an ad by Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown telling me why their version of hell is better than their opponent's. But I'm irritated. I started perusing the Innerwebs this morning and just found idiocy after idiocy. Let's review.

My semi-beloved San Jose Mercury News ran a piece detailing the most awesome victory parade in San Francisco for the World Champion San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series in most excellent fashion on Monday. When describing the size of the massive crowd, the article read: "Those arriving in downtown San Francisco -- where police officers gave crowd estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1 million -- were greeted by gigantic orange and black balloons that bobbed on the traffic signals."

That's the BEST you can do?! Somewhere between 200,000 and a freaking million? OK, that's not really an estimate. That's just pulling numbers out of your arse. Anyone could come up with an estimate like that! What good does that do anyone? That's just a ridiculous way of saying "The crowd was very, very large". You morons.

Then there was an article over at Politics Daily. I'm not going to bag on the writer of the article so much, as I do kind of like what she tends to write. She was probably just having an off day. The point here is that the article focuses on the folks that Sarah Palin endorsed. The title of the article reads "Sarah Palin's Midterm Scorecard: A Winning Record, but Some Key Losses". In essence, it goes on to detail how Sarah Palin supported "...more than 100 conservative candidates during the primary and general elections." Um, OK. I guess she can do that being how she's being whatever it is that she's being these days. (I still haven't quite figured that out yet.) It then goes on to say, "A Politics Daily tally puts Palin's Tuesday successes at 62 wins, 23 losses and seven contests that are still too close to call, with Palin's candidates trailing in five of those races."

Let's do the math. She supported more than 100 candidates. She currently has 62 wins, 23 losses and 7 undecided. That's 92! That's not more than 100. What gives? On top of that, what makes these "wins" or these "losses" Sarah Palin's to absorb? Aren't there a lot of people out there who would support just about any conservative candidate, no matter how wacky they appeared (Christine O'Donnell, I'm talking about you)? I think there are. Since when did the wins and the losses of the conservative candidates fall squarely on the shoulders of Sarah Palin? She's a former half-term governor who once spent a couple of months running for Vice President! (And don't get me wrong. For the most part, I like Sarah Palin. But her endorsement of someone certainly isn't gold by any means and it shouldn't be construed as such.)

And finally, I'm really getting tired of how any time an animal attacks a human, it is made into some sort of sensationalistic news, as if something like that is so shocking and so unheard of that we should all just be in a state of disbelief that it ever occurred. Take this headline from The Huffington Post: "Peter Evershed KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe." Um, yes. I would imagine that five lions WOULD kill a man.

To begin, I get thoroughly annoyed when the media runs the name of some person afflicted by tragedy in a way that makes the reader feel as if something horrendous has happened to someone that they knew. Does anyone know who Peter Evershed was, other than people who actually knew him? No. He was a 59-year-old businessman from Zimbabwe. But the headline makes the reader initially feel as if they've just read "Brad Pitt KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe". (And, in this example, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Brad to have actually been in Zimbabwe. He could have been over there buying another child to complete his collection. They don't have one from Zimbabwe yet, do they?)

See, animals eat meat. Humans are made of meat! Of course they're going to eat a human if they're given the chance. It's a big piece of meat! Why is that so shocking to people? Or maybe it's only shocking to the media. I'm not sure. But in another example of the inexplicable shock that this article tries to convey is when they quote some Zimbabwe guy as saying, "We appeal to everyone to exercise extreme caution. Animals have become extremely unpredictable." Wait. What now?

Have become? Animals have become unpredictable?! They're animals! Aside from that, since when is a wild animal eating human considered "unpredictable"? Seems pretty predictable to me. If you showed anyone a picture of a human standing in the wild with a bunch of lions walking around and you asked that person to guess what might be about to happen, I'd guess that nine times out of ten (with the tenth being the moron who wrote the article) the person you are asking would correctly infer that the chap in the picture is about to become lion lunch! HOW is that unpredictable?!

I've had enough. I'm going to go watch a little TV without a political ad in sight to try to make myself feel better.