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.

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.

Un-Beliebable

Is there any way that we could get away from asking questions of certain people who have no idea what they're talking about and have no business answering certain questions that they're asked? And by "certain people" I mean celebretards and Justin Bieber.

It was all I could do not to write about a press release that came out about a week ago, which started out: "REAL HOUSEWIVES STAR DANIELLE STAUB GIVES ADVICE TO EGYPT'S MUBARAK." Really? Who was asking? And who cared? And which of those two was the most dense intellectually? It had to have been a toss up. An excerpt: "Staub, who notoriously walked away from the show, was asked whether it was time for Mubarak to walk away as well...'If he feels in his heart that it's really time then, yeah, it is time," Staub stated." Kill me now. Don't delay! I'm standing by! But wait, before you do that? Could you tell me what's wrong with her face?

But I'm having a hard time not commenting on the Justin Bieber article in Rolling Stone. Again, why someone is asking these questions of ANY sixteen year old is beyond me, but asking them of Justin Bieber is simply stupefying. For instance, Bieber (who may or may not be a 30-year old lesbian impersonating a teenage boy) was apparently asked if he had any plans to become an American citizen. Thank God, he does not. He seems to be very fond of his homeland, America's Hat. But his reasons are...annoying at best. He 'jokes', "You guys are evil...Canada's the best country in the world...We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

Are you kidding me?! His bodyguard has to PAY For his OWN BABY?!?! It's madness!! Hey, Bieber. He works for you, you little twit! If you're so big on your socialist system, what say, since you have WAY more money than your peon of a bodyguard, YOU pay for it?! And you DO pay for your doctor in Canada! It's just not directly! How do you think they get paid?! Where do you think that money comes from?! And there's a big freaking difference between your bodyguard having to pay for his own child and someone's premature baby getting to stay in the hospital as long as it needs to. Those two aren't the same thing. Is your bodyguard so idiotic that he didn't have insurance before deciding to have a baby? Pipe down, little lesbian.

The article continues to annoy me by apparently asking him "...what political party he'd support if he was old enough to vote." He responds with "I'm not sure about the parties...But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad." OK, so he's not going to join the...Korean...Party? What does that have to do with anything at all? Does he know that there is a North AND a South Korea? He makes it sound like he does not. But I guess it's good to know that he would be against doing things in Canada the way that they do things in at least one of the Koreas. (This guy still goes to school, right? Perhaps a little more focus on political parties around the globe is in order.)

And here's my favorite part. Here's where the interviewer asks a 16-year old boy about his opinion on, you guessed it, abortion. Listen, here's my opinion on asking people their opinion on abortion: It's pointless. No one is going to change anyone else's mind based on their opinion. It just doesn't happen. Once your opinion is formed, it's going to take something pretty major for you to go over to your perceived dark side. All asking for opinions on abortion ever does is start arguments. It's highly unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal in this country, so what's the point in arguing about it? I understand that some of you don't like it, but it's not going to change, so I suggest you get used to the fact that there are going to be some goings on in the world that you don't like.

But I digress. Back to Bieber. The article claims: "He does have a solid opinion on abortion." Oh, good! A solid opinion. Lay it on me. "I really don't believe in abortion...It's like killing a baby?" That's his solid opinion? One that ends with a question which inquires about the very issue being discussed? Let's see if we can narrow down the view of a 16-year old boy who may or may not be a lesbian. "How about in cases of rape?" Ohhhh! The devil's advocate clause that always comes out when people are against abortion. Let's see how he handles it! "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that." Sweet fancy Moses. Are you dry shaving me?

He thinks rape is "really sad"? Do you now? Really sad? Yeah, that's the very least of what rape is! But I'm going to overlook that simply because his claim that "everything happens for a reason" has be so infuriated that I can barely type. So if a woman gets raped by a schizophrenic scumbag dripping with syphilis and becomes impregnated with his demon child, you "don't see how that would be a reason"?! For reals?! Oh, how I only wish that I could say "Who asked you?", but I can't because some dimwit actually DID ask him! For the purpose of what I cannot imagine.

Why would you ask a 16-year old, let alone a 16-year old boy, about abortion in the first place? Unless...maybe he really is a 30-year old lesbian. Have you been to Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber? If that website can teach us anything, it's that we really have no idea what he is. And I'm good with that. I don't need to know what he is anymore than I need to know what he thinks. If I never heard another word from or about Justin Bieber for the rest of my life it would be too soon. Because, you know, everything happens for a reason!

An Unhappy Meal

When, exactly, was the downfall of responsible parenting? When was it that parents simply gave up and blamed everyone and everything else for their unwillingness to do the hard stuff? I know that people have been like that for a while, but it seems that more recently it has been OK to vocally be that way. Take the Sacramento woman who is suing McDonald's for "deceptive advertising". Want to hear her example of their "deception"? They're putting toys in Happy Meals. I swear. And we're doomed.

According to the fine and thrifty folks over there at Wallet Pop, a Sacramento woman who isn't shy about being named in this insanity, a one Monet Parham says in her lawsuit that "Dangling a toy in front of a child is like putting a scantily clad woman in front of men." Good Lord. I can't believe she went there. There is so much to not like in that statement that it's hard to know where to begin, but I'll give it a good go here. I'm going to start with "Are you on glue?" (I tried to find a picture of this individual and the only one I could locate offhand was what appears to be what she uses as her profile picture on Facebook. I'm sure you won't be surprised at all. Behold!)

Um, yeah. Ok, then. Where was I? Oh, yeah. She must be, as in the article, she goes on to exemplify her incompetence as a person in charge of raising children when she says "My children really want the toys that are in those meals. I'm concerned about the health of my children frankly...I don't think it's OK to entice children." Soooo...because your children really want something, you have to get it for them? And of course, in this scenario, you're being forced to eat at McDonald's, otherwise why else would you be in such a situation where the health of your children is jeopardized because you have to buy them an unhealthy meal with a toy because you were forced to take them there to eat. Oh, wait. Those are all choices that someone with half a spine could actually make. Never mind. Carry on.

The article also includes the revelation that "...the meals often get cold while her children -- ages 6 and 2 -- play with the toys instead of eating." So, now McDonald's is responsible for her not being able to keep the toys from her children until they're done eating to play with them? Wow. I had no idea that McDonald's was such a powerful parenting entity. I might have actually decided to have children if I knew that McDonald's could have raised them for me!

What is wrong with this person? Does she honestly believe this nonsense that she is spouting for the sake of her lawsuit? Why can't she tell these kids no? Are they giants? Particularly menacing giants? Why does she have to take them to McDonald's? Why does the 2-year old even understand the concept of a Happy Meal? Why is she feeding McDonald's to a 2-year old? So many questions. So few answers. Actually, I take that back. There is one answer. She's a moron who can't stand up to a freaking two-year old.

It's unclear to me in what context the woman was saying the things that I've quoted. Oh, how I wish that the person she was talking to could have asked the follow up questions that I just asked. Not because there would have been any sort of rational explanation, but because it would have been ten times more amusing to hear her explain why she's such an irresponsible parent who is completely incapable of telling her children no.

The children aren't buying these meals. She is. She is taking absolutely no responsibility for her part in this and it angers me. If it's all about the toy, shouldn't she be suing other fast food franchises that include toys in their meals for children? (She probably isn't suing them because she doesn't take her children there, thus they don't want their toys. Ah-HA! Problem solved.) For that matter, she better include Cracker Jack in her lawsuit. After all, they've been including "toys" with their unhealthy product since 1896! (I realize that it's a stretch to call the things that are in Cracker Jacks "toys". I was trying to make a point!) I hope that someone is around to interview her after she loses. I'd like to hear what her strategy for keeping Happy Meal toys out of the hands of her own children is going to be then.

Racist Cupcakes? Really?

Today's story about a company caving into complaints about nothing (instead of standing their ground because they did nothing wrong) involves...*spins wheel*...Duncan Hines amid complaints that allege that their commercial for what appeas to be some sort of cupcake frosting is...*spins wheel*...racist.

Before I even get into the ridiculous incident which sparked these ridiculous cries of racism, I have to bring up the point that I always bring up when this happens (and it happens far too frequently). That point being do these people making these claims actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial are racist? Do they actually think that Duncan Hines and the makers of this commercial decided this would be a good idea because it was racist? Do they actually think that the makers of this commercial and Duncan Hines thought that the best way to express their racist views was under the guise of trying to sell cupcake frosting? Really? Because if you do think that this commercial is racist and if you do think that any of these things that I just listed are true, then you need to wear a helmet at all times. And not just one of those skull cap helmets, either. I'm talking full noggin, full facial covering helmet. And possibly a suit of armor as well. You are a soft, soft individual. So soft.

Since Duncan Hines was cowardly and, instead of standing up to these morons shouting "Racist cupcake makers!", they have pulled their ad from YouTube. I wanted to include the ad first, have you watch it and then tell you what the problem is that some people wanted to have with it. (Naturally, there's no telling just how many people saw this as a problem. These days, it could have been one. Who knows?) But since the ad isn't there anymore, I'm just going to past the link to it here. So, do me a favor. Watch the video, but don't read anything in the article that accompanies it just yet. Just watch the video and then continue reading. Fair enough? (Come on. I rarely ask anything of you other than to just read my drivel on a daily basis and pass the link along to everyone you know and random strangers. You can do this for me just this once, right?

::: waiting ::: ::: waiting :::

You're back! Nice to see you again! OK, so now you've seen the video. Did you see how it was just oozing and dripping with racism? Did you see how all of those cupcakes were calling each other the N-word? Did you see how the black cupcakes had to sit at the back of the bus? Of course you didn't! Partly because there wasn't a bus, but mostly because there WAS NO RACISM!

I turned to the good folks over there at the New York Daily News to find out what the dealio was. Turns out, there are people out there that think that those cupcakes actually resemble (wait for it) people in blackface. ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Wait. I thought that they looked kind of like the claymation California Raisins dudes. Were those racist? They weren't, were they? Nah. I'm pretty sure they weren't. Almost positive. OK, soooo...what now?

Correct. Blackface. I was seriously confused. I still am. They really don't look like they're in blackface to me. Let's look again. Here's a cupcake from the commercial:

And here's "World's Greatest Entertainer" (as he was dubbed back in his heyday) Al Jolson in blackface:

Yeah, I still don't get it. I decided to check other sites to see if there could be any rational light shed on this and sadly, there was not. I did learn of a blog called Racialicious which delved into the subject lightly. And by 'delved' I mean that there were more comments than there were words in the article itself. And those people need my helmets! Holy canoli, I was stunned. Sadly, sadly stunned. The only legitimate point that someone over there made was that the title of this ad was "Hip Hop Cupcakes". There wasn't really any hip-hop involved in the thing, though. I guess if you mention hip-hop, it automatically means that you must be talking about black people? I wonder if there would have been all of this to-do about it if they had simply called it by a different name?

It's chocolate frosting or chocolate glaze or something chocolate on white cake cupcakes! If anything, wouldn't that be a harmony of black and white, coming together in harmony for the sake of all that is delicious? Why is it racist? That's right. It's NOT! Oh, but one person opined "Clearly there are no minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines." Hmmm. Interesting assumption. And not surprising since you also assume that it's clearly a concerted work of shouting racism across the baked good airwaves. What if there ARE minorities in the board room where they work on advertising at Duncan Hines? Then what?? Is it still racist in your mind, oh-wee-little-commenter? What's your race? It's almost as if it would make you feel better if people actually were racist. It's such an odd thing to want, especially considering how against it you claim to be.

I cannot tell you how angry made-up racism accusations make me. Just because I am white, that doesn't make me a racist. I am tired of defending my non-racism. I am tired of mentioning that I have plenty of friends who are not white. I am tired of hearing the black vs. white argument, as I don't see that there is one within my circle of existence. Yes, I realize that it does exist out there, but how much of that is a continuation of the apparent desire to make SURE that it exists with asinine claims of blatant racism against entities such as the makers of freaking cupcake frosting?!

Screw you, Duncan Hines. You know it's not racist, so why didn't you just say so and let the commercial keep running up on YouTube? Why aren't you releasing statement that declares how angry and incensed you are at any accusation that your company ran a racist commercial? Why aren't you standing up for yourself for what you know is true? I've said it before (and unfortunately, I'm still waiting for it to happen), but I guarantee you that the first company to respond to accusations like this in the manner that I've suggested will be hailed as the retail messiah from sea to shining sea. If Duncan Hines had stood up to these accusations, I would have bought Duncan Hines products for the rest of whatever and I would have recommended them to everyone I know at any given opportunity. Now? Well, now I'm buying Betty Crocker. She hasn't proven herself to be a corporate wussy yet.

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.

But Iran Doesn't Like Us

Remember the three American "hikers" that had inadvertently hiked into Iran whilst they were attempting to hike along the Iran-Iraq border? And remember how they were taken into custody by the Iranians? And remember Iran released the girl but the other two have been in custody ever since because Iran says that they were spies? Well, if you didn't remember, consider yourself caught up.

Before I continue, I just need to say a few things about the situation that put those three folks in the position that they are/were in. First of all, if you're in the Middle East and you want to go "hiking", I cannot for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't be either more cognizant of where the borders were or wouldn't just hike really far away from the borders to begin with. Hiking so close to Iran's borders seems to be just asking for trouble if you're asking me.

Second, I find myself conflicted as to how Iran is dealing with this situation. On the one hand, I am fairly certain that these folks were not and are not spies. On that same hand, I really have absolutely nothing to base that on other than the fact that they don't seem like they would be spies. This ideology is based loosely on watching the Pink Panther when I was a child. Oh, and Scooby Doo. Thus, if I am Iran, what do I do? I have to say that I will lend a certain degree of respect to a country that protects its borders. I'm not even so sure that I'm concerned with how a country protects its borders, as long as it does so.

Those perspectives that I have are the reasons why I'm not overly sympathetic to the hikers. Sure, people make mistakes. But, come on! How delusional are you if you think you'll be just fine if you accidentally hike into Iran? You should be wearing a helmet at all times if that's how your mind works. And then I read an opinion piece by Sarah Shourd, the freed female American hiker, over there at CNN. And her logic in the piece is a bit surprising. It's as if she has no clue as to the history between the United States and Iran. Then again, this is the same person who was doing all of the border hiking, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Sarah states in her piece that "At a very personal level, I never would have been kept in jail for 14 months if Iran and the United States had a better relationship." I'm not so sure that I believe that to be accurate. It sounds nice, but I doubt it. The United States has pretty good relationships with other countries whose citizens have been caught spying. We don't just let them go. Again, you have to go on the basis that Iran is using, that being that they were spies or doing something that would harm Iran, in order to justify them keeping them in custody. Then again, they were not in the country lawfully, so I guess you don't even really need to justify it with anything other than that.

She goes on to say that "How different our situation would have been if the United States had an embassy in Iran when Shane, Josh and I were arrested on the border with Kurdistan, where we had gone hiking." Um, is she kidding me?! The United States did have an embassy in Iran. Perhaps she is unaware of the little disturbance that took place in that embassy in 1979 when Sixty-six Americans were taken captive when Iranian militants seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Perhaps she is also unaware that 52 of those hostages were held for a total of 444 days. And if that's the case, I guess she also didn't hear about the eight American servicemen who lost their lives during a rescue mission. And she thinks that we need an embassy in Iran? Are you dry shaving me?

Allow me to show you a picture of what the former US embassy in Iran looked like after the hostages were taken. Picture is courtesy of Wikipedia.

Oh, sure. They just loooooove us. She also has the nerve to say "I hope our leaders find the courage to begin to break from our nations' hostile past..." Do you now? Our leaders? Plural? Explain to me what the United States is supposed to be doing when I'm A Dinner Jacket (Ahmadinejad) continues with his nuclear program against everyone's wishes? Explain to me what we're supposed to do with a guy, who wants to blow Israel off of the map, who is intent on making his country a nuclear power? It's not a hostile past that is all of the problem. It's the hostile present, cupcake. I should also note that there are some former hostages who believe that Ahmadinejad was actually one of their captors and have identified him as such. If that's the case and he's now the President of Iran, I'm not so sure that the "courage" is going to be "found" by him to "break from our nations' hostile past".

Look, I totally understand that her two friends are still being imprisoned over there in Iran and she wants to have them freed. Therefore, I can understand why she wouldn't write anything that would be overly critical or take a harsh tone with the Iranian government. But I can't understand why she would write anything like what she did in the first place. Does she really think that it's going to matter what she says? I don't think that it is. Then again, this woman does seems to have a fairly delusional way of thinking when it comes to international relations, so I guess it's to be expected.

Your Tax Dollars Hard At Waste

Today I learned about ExpectMore.gov. (It's actually called www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore, but ExpectMore.gov will get you there.) It is a website, the purpose of such is apparently to make me very angry. It definitely sucked out most of my WTL (Will To Live) and kind of filled me with an HFOH (Heart Full Of Hate). Let's see if it makes you angry as well!

The purpose of the site (which is run by the Federal government) is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of all Federal programs and then rate whether the program is Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective or Results Not Demonstrated. According to the page which explains what each rating actually means, Results Not Demonstrated means "...that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing." In other words, they're just screwing around. An Ineffective rating means that "Programs receiving this rating are not using your tax dollars effectively. Ineffective programs have been unable to achieve results due to a lack of clarity regarding the program's purpose or goals, poor management, or some other significant weakness." Well, that doesn't sound good. I guess the rating "Piece of S**t" didn't sound very official and that's why they went with Ineffective.

They have so far evaluated about 98% of the Federal programs and that amounts to 1,015 of them. Do you want to know how many are below Adequate? (And let me just tell you that the definition of Adequate isn't anything to throw a party over. It is indicative of a "...program that needs to set more ambitious goals, achieve better results, improve accountability or strengthen its management practices." Seriously, do you feel good about that? I don't.) Ready? 199 out of 1,015 are a complete waste of money. 19.6%. And that's not even ALL of the programs yet! More to come! Stay stuned!

Twenty percent of the governments programs have been deemed by the government to be doing nothing other than pissing away your money! That's astounding. Take a look at your next pay stub. Look at what you paid in Federal taxes. Take twenty percent of that and realize that, not only did you work to earn it and you can't have it, it isn't doing a damn thing and is being wasted. And when you hear what some of these programs are, you're going to be wondering why they were ever given money in the first place.

There's the Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program. It's goal is "To improve the likelihood that persons eligible for the Food Stamp Program (FSP) will make healthy food choices within a limited budget and choose physically active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) and My Pyramid". Uh-huh. Like that's going to happen. Of course, they really have no way that they're doing this. And that's why their budget has gone from $600,000 in 1992 to (brace yourself) $147 million in 1992 and THAT was eight years ago! So in ten years, their budget grew to 245 times what it started out at! And if I'm reading the chart correctly (it's a little hard to follow and I know that's completely shocking to you) their funding for 2008 was $312 million. That means that it's doubled and then some in two years. And it's not doing anything! I wish I could have a budget for some worthless piece of crap double in the span of only two years. Good Lord. Got your axe handles at the ready? Torches? Pitchforks? I'm just getting started.

There's the National Writing Project which is "...to promote K-16 teacher training and professional development in the area of writing. The Project consists of one national office and a network of local sites through which teachers have access to training, professional development, and current research about the teaching of writing." HOW MANY teachers does that scope actually make up? Is it enough to make it worthy of $22 million in funding in 2008? Since when do our grades go from kindergarten to Grade Sixteen?! Isn't that a senior in college? Shouldn't they know how to write by then? Why do they still need to be taught how to write?

There is the Black Lung Clinics Program (BLCP) which received $6 million in 2008 and is "...to establish and operate clinics that identify, diagnose, treat, and rehabilitate active and retired coal miners with occupational exposure to airborne particles resulting in respiratory and pulmonary ailments." I'm sure that you'll be comforted and satisfied to learn that "Since implementation of the Black Lung Clinics Program in 1979, only one independent assessment of the program has been conducted. This assessment did not provide an evaluation of the program's effectiveness and was limited in the range of issues addressed." Oh, good. So, in thirty-one years there has been ONE assessment. Sure. That seems easily explainable. Not by me, of course.

Let's not forget the Workforce Investment Act - Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers which got $83 million in 2008 for the purpose of providing "...competitive grants to fund training, employment, and other services to help economically disadvantaged farmworkers and their families. Through these services, the program seeks to help them achieve economic self-sufficiency by strengthening their ability to gain stable employment." What the what?! You'll also want to know that "Each year, more than 60 percent of the program's approximately 30,000 participants receive only supportive services, like emergency cash assistance." Wait a minute.

30,000 participants and they get $83 million dollars?! For the guys that pick the strawberries that are frequently permanently visiting here from foreign lands?! Emergency cash assistance?! I know some folks who could use some emergency cash assistance. Oh, but they're citizens and they don't pick strawberries. Why is this sounding more and more backwards the more I go on. (And by the way, do you want to or should I tell the Federal government that it's not "farmworkers", it's "farm workers"? Two words. We're doomed.)

And these few that I have listed were merely some of the Ineffective programs. There are plenty of programs with ridiculous sounding names that were rated Results Not Demonstrated. Programs like the $49 million Mentoring Program (I swear to you that's what it's called), the $120 million Teaching American History program, the $20 million Packers and Stockyards program and the $4.783 billion Universal Service Fund E-Rate program which is supposed to "...help ensure that the educational benefits of telecommunications services are provided to schools and libraries. The program provides discounts on these services in varying amounts based on demonstrated economic need." (What, exactly, do they mean by "telecommunications"? A PHONE?!)

Now, maybe some of those or the other 169 programs whose results cannot be demonstrated are actually doing some good. Since they results can't be demonstrated, I'm sure that some jackass congressperson will make that argument. Hard to imagine that if they were actually doing some good that they wouldn't be able to prove it, though. Hard to imagine. It's also hard to imagine that 20% of these Federal programs don't do squat. And they wonder why we're having budgetary issues. They wonder why the consumer isn't spending more. It's because the country is being run by a bunch of folks who keep spending our money on crap like this. That's why.