Governmental Light Bulb Clean Up

Basically, the government has decided that it knows what light bulbs are best for the public to use. Therefore, the regular light bulbs that we've all grown to know and love since the days of Thomas Edison are out and those damn curly, swirly CFL bulbs are in. That's right. Sometime in 2012, you will no longer be able to choose which light bulb you want to use. This in the "Land of the Free". I understand that the new ones will save you a minimal amount of money over the course of the bulb. I also understand that I am the one who pays my electric bill. And as long as I pay for it, why does the government get to tell me which bulb to use? Besides, I hate the light that comes off of those swirly things. It's too fluorescent for me. It's a very harsh light. I'm a rather delicate flower in some areas and the light in my home that I bathe myself in is just one of those areas.

Another thing that you're going to say goodbye to? Cleaning up a broken light bulb without having to follow a series of directions that spans over four pages and requires just about everything except a Hazmat suit (and I'm sure that one would actually be preferred). I'm not kidding. What we have here is a document that appears to be put out by the Connecticut Department of Public Health and is entitled: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs What To Do If A Bulb Breaks Wait. What now?

I would have thought that the answer would have simply been "Sweep it up". Oh, no. No, no, no. That's the old way of doing things. The new way is much different. And of course, different is better. And since this is the ONLY choice for a light bulb that you're going to have pretty soon, I suggest you pay attention. You're going to need the following:

• Disposable gloves
• Flashlight
• Duct tape or other sticky tape
• 2 index cards or stiff pieces of paper
• Zip-lock bags
• Damp paper towels or rags
• Portable window fan (optional)

That's right. Six items. Or seven if you're going to utilize the option of breaking out your portable window fan. But don't worry. Considering that you're supposed to leave the area that the bulb is broken in for at least fifteen minutes, you'll have plenty of time to gather your supplies. And before you do any of that, make sure that you "Turn off forced hot air heat, central air conditioners, and fans." And "Open windows to allow fresh air in." Oh, but don't do any of this if you're pregnant. If you're pregnant, you are specifically instructed to not do it and to find someone else to do it for you. You're also supposed to keep infants, small children, women who are pregnant and pets out of the room...if you've broken a light bulb.

In cleaning up of the shattered bulb, you are not allowed to vacuum or sweep and for heaven's sake, don't use a metal dust pan. (They don't give any reason for not using the metal dust pan, but I suspect that spontaneous combustion is involved.) No, you're supposed to pick up the big pieces with your gloved hands and then use the index cards to sort of scoop the other pieces into piles and then you use the sticky tape to pick up those pieces. Shove all of that into a ziploc bag when you're done and seal the crap outta that sucker, lest you succumb to...something.

Once you're done with that, you're supposed to pat the area down with the damp paper towels or rags and then seal those and the gloves in another ziploc bag and put them both "...in an outdoor trashcan immediately" as "Getting the waste out of the house right away is an important safety step." And even though you've been all safe up to this point, it's also imperative that you "Wash your hands and face after the waste has been removed from the house." Also, Continue to ventilate the room for as long as possible (at least several hours)." That's right. Hours. (Hey, it helps exhaust the "dirty air' out of the building!) I don't know about where you are, but winter gets a little chilly around here. I'm not so sure that I want to ventilate my room for several hours in the middle of winter. Sooooo, try to only break bulbs during the warm weather months.

That's just the cleanup for hard surfaces. For rugs or area rugs, there is a whole different set of instructions which span a couple of pages. And one of the things that they mention is that if you break one of these CFL bulbs on an area rug is to consider disposing of the entire rug! Oh, and after all of this is cleaned up and you've changed out of your Hazmat suit, remember that "...pregnant women and young children should stay out of a room where a CFL has broken until several days after the clean-up." Several DAYS?! What in the world is IN these things?! I'm really not thrilled about having this toxic item in my home when my regular bulbs (the ones that I pay for and that I pay for the energy that they use) work just FINE! I am going on a regular light bulb shopping expedition in the coming days as I stock up on enough regular bulbs to last me for the rest of my life. Which, if they keep coming up with asinine restrictions on items that I can and cannot use in my own home, is going to be in the very near future.

You Can't Review What You Haven't Seen

I am constantly amazed by the incredible myriad of idiocy that I have to choose from every day in order to write something in this little box. And for today, from the file of "Who Thinks This Is A Good Idea?" and under the sub-heading "Who Thought Up This S*** In The First Place" we have this: Movie reviews by people who have not seen the movie.

I kid you not. I am not dry shaving you. This is a real thing. I was checking out Fandango.com yesterday because I wanted to read the reviews for the newly released Mars Needs Moms. Regardless of what the reviews turned out to be, I had planned on seeing this movie because it is based on the book by the incredibly amazing and insanely talented, not to mention rather the witty and quick with a quip Berkeley Breathed. If you're unfamiliar with Mr. Breathed's work, I suggest you stop whatever you're doing right now and wonder what you've really accomplished in your life up to this point. The answer should be "Not nearly enough, as I have missed out on the awesome humor and keen insight of the Bloom County comic strips and the subsequent Sunday strips, Outland and Opus." In short, your life has been wasted. But there's still time to save it! (Not much time, really, but I try to be optimistic in situations like these.)

So there I am at Fandango and I click on the Reviews tab. As I began to read, I noticed that some of the reviews were strangely opinionated. So much so that it was if they hadn't seen the movie at all. And that is when I discovered that they hadn't. See, Fandango let's you review movies if you haven't seen them. I have absolutely NO idea why that would be. I am open to suggestions, however. What good does someone's opinion of something that they've never seen do for me? Not a thing, I'm thinking. But let's look at some of the reviews by people who have never seen it and see if I'm wrong. Maybe there IS something to be learned from people merely giving an opinion based on pure speculation gained from doing nothing. (There won't be, but play along, will ya? I need to draw this post out a little bit.)

Let's see...oh! Here we go. Here's one that reads: "I am so excited about this movie! It is going to be hilarious!! I love the book, so this should be epic!!! Yay! :) " Um, OK? Yeah, I loved the book too, but that doesn't mean anything. You know what other books I loved? The Cat In The Hat. The Firm. How The Grinch Stole Christmas. The DaVinci Code. Were they epic? Hardly. Were they hilarious? Kind of, but they weren't supposed to be, so that really wasn't a selling point. What boggles me ever more is that four out of six people found this "review" to be helpful. Helpful? In what way?! She hasn't seen it yet! She's merely excited! THAT is "helpful" to some folks? For cryin' out loud...(Then again, four out of nine people found a review that simply read "No no no!" to be helpful, so I think it's fair to say that we're beyond help at this point.)

Next we have: "Havent seen it yet but i just no its going to be tbe biggest peice of crap anyone is ever going to see so dont watch it." This individual is apparently a cinematic clairvoyant. Too bad that all of the studios can't just hire him to look at a poster of a movie that they've made and give his opinion on the degree to which it will be a piece of crap. (ie, Big, bigger or, in this case, biggest.) And if he says that he can no that it will be such a sizeable piece of poo without having watched it, who are we to not heed his warnings?

Here is more speculation, only this time, it appears to come from a child. "I think it'll be a so so movie. I think the idea is a little too crazy, but I think people will enjoy it. It'll be good for moms because the kids ( about my age ) will learn to obey their moms. For the kids, I think they will love it for it's humor. I'm not completely sure about that, but I'll just have to go to find out!!!!" Really? You think the idea of a kid having to go to Mars to save his mother who has been kidnapped by Martians is a little too crazy, do you? Interesting. I'd never thought of that. (This is really wearing me out more than I had anticipated.)

From someone who seems to have just barely mastered the English language (and perhaps, even more recently, his way around a keyboard): "Don't go. This movie doesn't look that good to watch. I mean, I've seen many cartoons and most are good. I just don't think this one will be as good." Lots of cartoons are good. Some cartoons are bad. This one doesn't look good. Well, it doesn't look as good. Well, it doesn't look that good. To watch, of course. Maybe it's good if you're not watching it. But this looks bad. (Isn't this review kind of like saying, "I've had food. Most food is good. But that food doesn't look like it will be good food. Don't eat it. Even if you think it looks like something you'd like. It could be bad food that you won't like.") Never mind that it's not really a cartoon. I'm just thankful that no one found that 'review' to be useful.

And finally, from the Ironic Chastising Department: "People are funny. They write a bad review or rate a movie bad when they haven't even seen it.. Who writes a bad review based off the movie poster you're just an idiot. Go see the movie then you're allowed to say something. I'm sure this movie will be good and I'm sure the rating will change when people actually go watch it." Go to the movie and then say something. But make sure that you write your 'review' telling people that you're sure it will be good before you go see it. Yeah, sure. That makes sense.

Really, I didn't care what the reviews were, as I was going to see it regardless because I can't imagine not seeing anything that Berkeley Breathed does. (To say that I am a huge fan of the man would not even do my fandom justice. I met him for the first time just a couple of years go and I almost cried. OK, I cried a little bit in line while I was waiting. But I managed to compose myself by the time I got up there, lest he thought I was the star-struck moron that I was trying so desperately to hide.) But I was just amazed that reviews for something that someone hasn't even watched are allowed on a movie site. I could see if it were someone's two-bit blog or some crap like that. (In case you were wondering, this blog is clearly at least three-bit, so don't start expecting inane movie reviews to be popping up any time soon.) But on a site that is supposed to be giving information, not speculation, about movies? I find it asinine and annoying. And you can expect my full review of Mars Needs Moms after I've seen it.

That's A Stabbin'

Have you ever gotten so angry at someone that you can't even finish what it is that you're doing because it's much more important for you to jump up and stab that person right that very second? Yes? No? Well, if your answer was no, then you are clearly not David Davis of Stamford, Connecticut. He chose stabbing over finishing his haircut. And for more reasons that one, he should have just continued with the haircut and then commenced with all of the stabbing.

Here's the story: The aforementioned Mr. Davis was having his hair cut at an apartment. Now, that's not the typical place one goes for a haircut (if one is older than five, that is), so I guess I shouldn't be overly surprised that not a lot of typical stuff went on during this haircut. The Huffington Post tells us that midway through his haircut, he felt the need to jump up, grab a pair of scissors (which I'm assuming were being used by his 'barber') and stab another man in the back. I would really like to know what was so enraging to Mr. Davis that he just couldn't sit there any longer and felt the need to really get a-stabbin' immediately.

At some point, the police showed up after Mr. Davis had impaled and fled. No problem, though. The police dog found him hiding in a nearby apartment and he was arrested. Yeah, it's a shame that he didn't get to finish his haircut before his mugshot. If you're going to commit a crime, try to make sure that you won't look like a complete freakazoid when you eventually get arrested and photographed. Behold!

Good Lord. Granted, he looks like a complete fool in that photo, but judging from the size of that 'fro, he wasn't exactly overly dapper to begin with. And according to him, the fracas got started when he was approached by the stabee the victim in what he described as "an aggressive manner." That's why he picked up the scissors. It was self-defense. It is hard to imagine how much defending himself he had to do when you consider that the victim was stabbed in the back. Usually, when people have their back to me, I'm not really feeling all that threatened by them. I certainly don't feel the need to arm myself with a pair of scissors. But then again, I have no idea what goes down in the haircutting hoods of Stamford.

No One Wants An Electric Car

Even though yesterday I said that this subject made my ass tired, I think that I'm going to have to talk about it now because I just paid $3.85 a gallon for gasoline and I'm not happy about it. Maybe, if I thought that prices would go down anytime soon, I wouldn't be so concerned about it. Maybe, if I thought that there was a reason for it (gasoline goes up all the time for no reason at all, so I'm not so sure that unrest in Libya is not so much of a reason as much as it is a semi-reasonable sounding explanation), I wouldn't be so annoyed by it. Or maybe, even if I thought that there were people working on a solution that wouldn't involve such a dependence on oil, it wouldn't cause me great despondence. But none of that is happening. The price isn't going to go anywhere but up. I have no idea if the craziness in Libya has anything at all to do with it. And the people who are "working" on getting us all something besides a gasoline powered automobile have their heads so far up their collective asses, I don't know how they'd come to be able to drive the thing in the first place if they ever did manage to create a viable alternative method of individual transportation.

See, I've been hearing about the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf for at least three or four years now. Both are supposed to be wonderful electric cars that will be the beginning of a beautiful friendship with things that don't run on gasoline. And believe me, I would take great pleasure in being able to flip both barrels at every single gas station that I drove by, were I given the opportunity or the alternative to drive something that doesn't require gas. And before you start harping about public transportation to me, just stop it. I'm not about the environment. I mean, I am. But I'm not so much about it that I'm going to be inconvenienced by the bus. Good Lord, no. I'm about not having to feign any sort of a relationship with abhorrent dictatorships in the Middle East simply because they're sitting on top of a bunch of oil that we want. That's what I want. I want to not give a flying crap what happens over there in the sand lands. Give me an alternative to gasoline and I'll be able to not give that flying crap.

And briefly, before I move onto ranting about the Volt and the Leaf, I need to mention that while I don't want to have to worry about what happens in the sand lands, there is an alternative at our fingertips that doesn't require any innovation what so ever. If people would stop being so damned concerned about whether or not a pigeon gets a drop of oil on its wing and let people start drilling out the 100 to 200 year supply of oil that is underground in the United States, we would have a great deal less to concern ourselves with. Y'all in Afghanistan want to blow the crap out of each other because you're fighting over a group of rocks? Have at it! Think I give a crap? I don't! You know why? Because we have oil, you backwards living weird beards! Fight amongst yourselves. I'm outta here!

Whew! That felt good. Now, on to the electric cars. I'd like to start with the name of the Nissan Leaf. Um, that's not exactly the coolest name that you ever could have come up with. It's a little sissy-like. The Leaf. Does it run on leaves? No? Does it have anything to do with leaves? No? OK, then. So how about naming it something that doesn't make you feel like a freaking pansy when you mention it? "I drive a Leaf." Yeah, I'd never tell anyone that. At least the Volt sounds kind of cool. Unfortunately, that's about all that they got right.

A car that runs entirely on electricity must get that electricity from somewhere. The Leaf and the Volt are able to be plugged in directly to an outlet in your home (provided you buy some sort of an adapter that runs, from what I can figure out, somewhere between one and two thousand bucks). Thus, they're using the energy that is generated to electrify your house. Where does that energy come from? Why, it comes from coal! Wait. I thought that the idea of the electric car was to get away from coal usage so that it would be 'green' and good for the environment? It was! But is it really doing any good for the environment when the electricity that it uses is produced by coal? Hard to say, but my guess is no. My guess is that it makes it so that you don't pump all of the harmful emissions into the air. So that's good. But is it really a 'green' product? I take umbrage with that statement (mainly because it's extremely rare that I can take umbrage with anything).

With both the Volt and the pansy-ish Leaf in production, let's take a look at how sales have gone so far. We'll even do a little comparing to other vehicle models that are not electric. First the Volt. According to their monthly sales report, there were 281 Chevy Volts sold in February. 281. That's it. What was GM's best selling vehicle? Why, that would be the behemoth Chevy Silverado C/K Pickup. They sold 31,728 of those bad boys in February. That's almost 113 times as many Volts as they sold. Oh, and their mileage? Right around 15-17 mpg in the city. Yeah, if that doesn't tell you that people don't care about electric cars, I don't know what does.

But maybe the Leafs numbers will tell you that very same thing in a different way. According to Autobloggreen, while Chevy was only able to unload a mere 281 Volts, Nissan could only get rid of a paltry 67 Leafs in February. 67. And it's ten thousand dollars cheaper than the Volt! 67! Why do I have the feeling that they could give these things away and people still wouldn't want them?

And that brings me to my final point. The price of these things. The base price of a Chevy Volt is $40,280. Yes, you can qualify for a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 and that will take it down to $32,780, but that is still a lot. (Personally, I don't see why my tax dollars should help someone else buy a car that may or may not do any good to the environment. Then again, I don't see a lot of the need for a bunch of crap that my tax dollars are spent on, so maybe that's my problem.) In comparison, the Leaf starts at $32,780 and with the maximum tax credit, that could go as low as $25,280. Then again, without the maximum tax credits, you're looking at two very small cars that are over $30 thousand and $40 thousand dollars. There aren't a lot of people who are going to pay that for a car. Wait. I take that back. The Chevy Silverado is more than the Volt and people seem to have no problem paying for that.

What have we learned here? Plenty. But the main point is that people don't want electric cars. People want big, big cars. And they want to drive them fast and they want to pull a boat behind them all the time and without using a trailer! That's what we want! Drill on US soil or in US waters for our own damn oil! Make big-ass cars and stop trying to make us drive shoe boxes with solar panels! This is a failed experiment! Please stop! Please! I can't take any more inane-ness in this department! No one wants an electric car! Got it?! Good!

Noodle This One Through

You're going to love this guy as much as I do. And when I say "love" I mean "want to slowly strangle until I've seen every shade of blue known to man and hope that I discover a new one". You know. Love. This bloke is apparently in Wisconsin for the protests. He also apparently lives in Wisconsin and is currently (but perhaps not for much longer) employed at something called Noodles. It appears to be a restaurant which serves some sort of pasta. Noodles, if you will.

From the fine folks over at The Blaze we are treated to an interview of this particular Noodles employee. He gives his rationale as to why the economic model of America (the most successful country on the planet in the history of the planet) needs to change. He also spends a fair amount of time pointing out the obvious as if it is some sort of an atrocity. It's as absolutely frustrating as it is absolutely hilarious. I've taken the time to transcribe some of his thoughts below. See what you think.

"You either work for someone else or you work for yourself. And most people work for someone else in a way that they aren’t free. You don’t really get to decide your work. For example, I work at Noodles, a restaurant, and basically it’s a dictatorship there. We’re told exactly what we’re going to cook, how we’re going to cook it, what time we’re going to get there. And basically if they don’t like what we’re doing, they try and tell us what to do. If we don’t listen, they get rid of us. And so we’re not able to actually cooperate in a way that we make decisions together. I try to convince my fellow employees that we should have a union at Noodles so it’s a source of power to start with and then I think in terms of the bigger picture, we need to look at revolutions in a way that you actually get rid of any sort of dictatorship is by having workers take control of the place where they work."

If that seems like a lot to plod through all at once, allow me to help you. Basically, his employment at the Noodles is unbearable or unfair or something because it is essentially a dictatorship (and not a place of business, apparently). It earns the dictatorship label in his own mind because they tell you what to cook, when you have to show up and how long you have to work. And in ultimate dictatorial fashion, if you don't like the rules then you are fired. Clearly, there is no freedom at the Noodles and thus, it is bad. I realize that all of this sounds very similar to a job, but he seems to have it mistaken for a dictatorship. This man needs a helmet. Stat!

Basically, he's saying that he'd like to come and go whenever he likes and cook whatever he feels like at a pace that he deems to be appropriate. Sure. That seems like it would work. Of course. Never mind that he is applying dictatorship to the workplace and that's a completely incorrect application of the theory. His method would be fine because everyone would be doing what they wanted without having anyone tell them what to do. At work.

But wait! There's more. The person shooting this video then asked our little socialist/communist, "Would your plan, your vision for Noodles, would it include the owner?" His response? Pretty much the sort of nonsense that you'd be expecting right about now, having just read his previous load of crap. He said, "If the owner wanted to cooperate with us as an equal and provide his skills that he had, we would definitely cooperate with him. He'd have to abdicate his position as being an owner and controller of us and he would have to recognize that we run Noodles together. And basically, if he doesn't want to cooperate with us, he's against us." Holy crap.

So let me see if I've got this straight. In this jackwagon's world, he would be an equal to the guy who had the initial vision, gathered up the start up money, and built this business (which apparently has 240 locations in 18 different states and employs around 3,000 workers, hopefully not all of which share the same mentality as this dude). That guy, the entrepreneur, is supposed to be an equal with this cook who comes off as having the IQ of a turnip and who may or may not show up for work, depending on how he feels. That sounds like a fabulous business model, son! I can't believe that someone else hasn't made their fortune in that exact same way! Good Lord...

The video of this socialist/communist who doesn't understand economic theory as it applies to the individual workplace very well is below. (And if it loads all funny, you can just click here and watch it on YouTube. The good stuff starts right at the 3:38 mark. Feel free to start there, lest your head explode trying to listen to all of it.) Try listening to him with your eyes closed. When you open them, you'll notice that he looks precisely like he sounds. What is it about that sort of voice and the seeming inability to grow any sort of meaningful facial hair that always seems to be present in these sort of softheads? Is it because they're already like that and that makes them this way? Or do they take on these ridiculous beliefs and then adopt those sort of traits? I don't know which one it is either, but it annoys the crap out of me. Whatever he's protesting against in Wisconsin, I am wholeheartedly in favor of. Sign me up. Just keep him away from me.

The Internet Lies

I really don't understand a lot of stuff. That's kind of why I'm here. To figure stuff out. But I am convinced that there are some things that I will just never understand. Crimes where the victim needs to play an extremely crucial role in the wrongdoings are some of the things that I don't understand. And I'm not talking about scams where people are bilked out of their life savings. While I don't profess to say that I totally understand how those can happen (and I tend to subscribe to the "A fool and his money are soon parted" explanation for most of them), they sometimes (rarely) have a (microscopic) shred of plausibility to them. (I don't really think that. I'm just trying to be nice. Really, I don't get how they ever happen, but that's probably just me.) But when the crime involves having to coerce the mother to engage in sexual acts with her child, it really boggles the mind. Wait. When they...what now?

Yeah, I'm still trying to noodle this one through. According to an AP story which appeared over yonder at the Huffington Post, the individual that we're describing here is a one Steven DeMink. The article starts off confusing me, as it reads "Online...he presented himself as Dalton St. Clair, an attractive single father and psychologist". Now, I don't know if he included a picture of himself online, but this is the perv we're talking about. Behold!

Yeah, not so much in the attractive category if you're asking me. It also doesn't seem like he would have much going on in the smarts category either, but his little ruse seemed to work. I'm going to tell you what he did and then you tell me if these mothers, who were unthinkably somehow unknowingly complicit in his little scheme, should really be parenting at all, OK? My answer is a massive NO. Maybe they could be good parents one day, but clearly right now is not that day. Perhaps give them something to practice taking care of first before moving up to actual humans. I'm thinking of a perhaps a houseplant. Not much can go wrong there...unless you're the plant.

This guy would go into chat rooms on the Internet and somehow convince "...single mothers...to sexually assault their children as a form of therapy." And he did this for (wait for it) more than a year! That he was able to do it even once is astonishing to me. What kind of mother would go along with this sort of advice? Well, in some cases, this perv "...promised the women a date if they followed through with his directions." A date? In exchange for sexually assaulting your own child? THAT was a relevant factor for some of these idiots? Are you dry shaving me?! How is that possible? Who ARE these people?! I guess they're people like this woman: Apparently, "In one case, Demink started online chats with an Oregon woman about the sexual development of her 8-year-old autistic son...He told her to engage in sexually explicit conduct with her son as a way to teach him about sex...and she did so while Demink watched on a web camera." Excuse me for a moment while I find a wall to bang my head against.

They were on the freaking Internet! Don't they know that the Internet lies?! He said he was a psychologist, so that was good enough for them?! Have they also recently lost a lot of money to a Nigerian prince? Are these women being allowed to continue caring for their children? I don't think that it's an overreaction to ask that question, nor do I think it's an overreaction for someone else to be in charge of these particular children. What kind of person are you who has some guy on the Internet tell you to engage in some form of sex with your autistic son and you think it's a good idea and you do it?! WITH a webcam running?!

Well, the answer to that is right there in the police report. See, "Demink intimated to these women that the result of the therapy would be healthier children." Oh. OK, then. I didn't know that he told them that it would help their children. That makes all of the difference. Totally understandable now. Of course. I should have known that there was a reasonable explanation for all of this insane lunacy. Sweet fancy Moses, what is going on here?!

Oh, look! Here's some information about one of the women! This might help us. OK, it says that this particular individual met this guy on "....an online dating site called singleparentmeet.com." All right. Nothing wrong with making friends online. But then, "She told police she performed sex acts on her young son as directed by her online male friend." All right. There's absolutely something wrong with that! As directed by?! The direction I can fully comprehend. It's the following through with it that still boggles me! Maybe her mother (who was inexplicably interviewed for this story) can help shed some insight on what her daughter was thinking. She said that "...her daughter was "depressed and lonesome" after her divorce." Uh-huh. I'm going to need more than that. "I don't know how he wrangled her in...She could have turned off the computer and gone the other way. He must have had a power over her." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

A power over her?! How about just admitting that your daughter is a complete dumbass?! Power? What kind of power? I've read this story several times (in hopes that I read it wrong at least once) and it makes no mention of him being overly tricky or magic or anything like that. He's just a big, perverted dope who managed to convince not one, not two, but at least seven women from all over the country to sexually assault their children because it would "help" them.

Seven. I have just lost all faith in humanity. I have nothing left. Seven. Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Oregon New Hampshire, Idaho and Florida (of course). Those folks are spread all across the country. If it was contained to a particular region (like Florida, as I had expected), maybe I would have some faith left. But it's not. It's from one coast to another and everywhere in between. I don't really know what else to do with that other than to completely abandon any shred of hope that I may have ever had. For cryin' out loud, "Because the Internet told me to" is about the worst excuse I have ever heard in my life and it happened in this instance at least seven times. Yeah, I give up. Good Lord...

Don't Name Your Kid That!

I'm very happy for the folks in Egypt that their revolution was successful in getting their dictator to step down. Congratulations! Go out and celebrate, Egyptians! But don't get all carried away and start naming your newborn children wacky names after social networking sites may have played a pivotal role in all of the revolutionizing, OK? Dude that named his daughter Facebook, I'm talking to you.

That's right. According to the Daily Mail, some Egyptian man named his new daughter Facebook. Her full name is Facebook Jamal Ibrahim. Yeah, that's pretty. Um, but seriously now. Facebook? That's not a name! That's a thing! And even if it was going to be a person's name (and it is not), it certainly wouldn't be a little girl's name. That's an asinine boy's name if I've ever heard of one.

But apparently the thinking of the little girl's father was not along the same lines as my own thinking. Shocking, I know. See, "He is said to have called her Facebook because he was so happy with the role played by the site in organising protests in Tahrir Square and other cities throughout Egypt." OK, then. Couldn't he have commemorated the events by naming her Tahrir? That's kind of a cool name, actually. I wouldn't mind being named Tahrir and then being able to tell people about why I was named that. I would absolutely mind being named Facebook and then having everyone look at me funny when they first heard my name. Hey, wait a minute! Why is the father the only one who I am hearing about being the one to name her? Wasn't there a woman attached to the uterus that this child popped out of? Doesn't she have a say in any of this? What's that? Oh. Right. They're not quite like that. Dictator or not. Bummer. Sorry, little Facebook.

But I guess it could have been worse. She could have ended up being Facebook Twitter Yahoo! News Ibrahim.

Could You Please Keep It Down?

I don't like it any more than anyone else does when people make noise in a movie theater. What is wrong with those people? Why is it so hard for them to be quiet when they're in a big room filled with a bunch of other people being quiet? I mean, being quiet is pretty easy. You just sit there and don't talk and you've done it! You're quiet! It's the making noise that takes some effort. Granted, not a lot of effort, especially if everyone else is being quiet, but some effort. So, why not just be quiet? And if someone does ask you to be quiet, just do it. Simply stop the offending behavior and watch the movie. Please, whatever you do, do not resolve the issue by shooting and killing the person who was offended. That's really not going to help much.

According to our friends across the pond at The Guardian, a couple of folks at a cinema in Latvia had an encounter after one of the patrons was accused of eating his popcorn too loudly. I am not quite sure how that's possible. Popcorn isn't exactly the loudest of all of the concessions offered. Then again, some people are just pure ruffians when it comes to eating. They'd be much better off just snapping on a feed bag. Might even be quieter. Who knows?

Apparently, "The assailant, 27, reportedly had a brief argument with the man, aged 43, who was sitting next to him during a screening of Black Swan". Two guys, at the movies, watching Black Swan? Were their wives or girlfriends with them? I'm just saying. If they were each there alone, then maybe it was an unwelcomed advance gone horribly awry. Stranger things have happened. Like what happened next, for instance.

It seems that the 27-year old didn't take too kindly to the 43-year old telling him to keep his popcorn chomping down. So when the movie was over, the 27-year old pulled out a "legally registered firearm" and shot the 43-year old dead as can be. After that, he just stood around and waited to be arrested (which he was). I find it amusing that he waited until the end of the movie. It's like he was thinking, "I am going to kill that guy, but first? I need to know what's up with these little ballerinas." Very strange. Not as strange as killing the guy, but strange none the less. Note to self: Don't go to the movies in Latvia.

Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.