I Answer Other People's Letters #5010611

Today’s Victim: Dear Abby [1/06/10] Some of the following shit snipped for useless crap:

TAKING ILLICIT PHOTOS COULD LAND GIRL IN LEGAL HOT WATER

DEAR ABBY: I would like to share some important information with "Don't Want to Lose Him in the U.S.A." (Nov. 10). She's the young lady who is being pressured by her boyfriend to take photos of her classmates in the girls' locker room. The students at the high school where I teach recently attended a program on Internet and online safety. One of the things that really surprised them was learning cell phone calls don't just go from one phone to another. .... All sent messages and photos are stored on the provider's server. This means pictures deleted from the phone are never really deleted -- and text messages and photos never go away. .... "Don't Want to Lose Him" needs to clearly understand she might be prosecuted for producing, distributing and possessing child pornography. -- A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER IN CHURCHVILLE, VA.

Because if it's not a deterrent that she'd be the sidekick of a gross, perverted creep, the law surely will be. HO HO. Young people these days DON'T EFFIN' CARE, dumbass. I mean, she named her letter "Don't Want to Lose Him". You know where her priorities lie.

DEAR ABBY: Refusing to take the photos, but keeping it quiet, is not enough. I think "Don't Want to Lose Him" should make copies of your column and paste them on every locker to warn all the girls they are at risk -- even when they think they have privacy. She should also tell the principal, who may be able to provide extra protection. -- SHEILA IN GIG HARBOR, WASH.

If there's anything youngins like to do these days, it's TO READ AND FOLLOW DEAR ABBY. LOL RLY? A copy of an advice column on some kid's locker has about as much impact as a copy of The Watchtower wedged in my porch door. And what makes you think the principal gives a shit? Or that he'd even listen. Nice try. What are you? Eighty? For the record, there's never real privacy in the flippin' locker room.

DEAR ABBY: I think the issue of that young woman's low self-esteem should be addressed. Her boyfriend is holding her hostage to his wishes and desires, and will probably always do so if she continues to stay with him. It's important that "Don't Want to Lose Him" learns to love the principled, intelligent person she already is and continue to stand up for herself. Eventually, someone will appreciate her good qualities and she won't have to settle for less than she deserves. -- BEEN THERE IN ARIZONA

How is she "intelligent" considering the loser she ended up with? Especially since she doesn't want to looo~ooose him? GAG!

DEAR ABBY: "Don't Want to Lose Him" should report this to a trusted adult or school counselor. At the very least, this girl needs to know she will be doing a great service if she lets the other girls know so they can be on the lookout for someone sneaking a camera or cell phone into their locker room. She could also use some support and affection that doesn't come from a manipulative, self-serving "boyfriend." -- LISA IN SAN RAFAEL, CALIF.

School counselors are a fucking joke. You can see how they've helped me. And if she tells the other girls, I guarantee they're all gonna be on the look out for HER sneaking in a camera.

DEAR ABBY: I am a mental health professional. What "Don't Want to Lose Him" is being pressed to do is called "sexting," and it is a criminal offense in almost every state in the U.S. The young lady and whoever receives and distributes those photos could be convicted of a felony, serve prison time and live the rest of [BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH WALL OF TEXT.] -- JACQUELINE IN GIBSONIA, PA.

Congratulations on having a degree in IT'S FUCKING OBVIOUS. I hope you at least don't owe much in student loans. Really though, I love how old people define shit for the rest of us as if they discovered it first. Except I'm fairly certain sexting would be the "Lose Him" girl sending pics of herself to her creepo boyfriend.

Who the fuck cares what the definition is or the law is in this instance? This poor girl is lonely and has never been loved before. And here's this tool playing with her heart and trying to recruit her to be his skeezy voyeur cam or ELSE. Why is no one telling this chick to love and respect herself? Why has no one asked how "Lose Him" would feel if she found out one of the other girls snapped a pic of her ass and spread it all over school? Or why didn't anyone ask her if she really doesn't like having teeth that much because some of those high school chicks would totally knock them out if they found out those kinds of pics had been taken of them?

***BONUS ROUND!!***
From Dear Abby [1/03/11]:

DEAR ABBY: I became a grandmother a year ago. My son told me I have to join a social networking site if I want information about, or to see pictures of, my grandson. He claims I can find out all I need to know on his profile page. Abby, I'm not asking for pictures to be sent in the mail, nor am I requesting constant calls about what is taking place. I'm not completely computer illiterate, but I do have an aversion to being grouped with everyone else. I am his mother, but I don't feel as though he thinks of me as someone special. Am I totally out of touch with today's technology? -- OLD-FASHIONED GRANDMA IN MONTANA

Dear Granny,

If it's any solace, your letter made me seriously fucking mad. If I knew your son, I'd give a kick in the balls for you. Your son is what is known as a technology whore. He is part of the mostly middle-class segment of selfish, spoiled America with too much goddamn time on their hands. These people are so in love with iPhones and Facebook that anyone who doesn't conform to it is inconvenient. "How dare you not answer my text to my convenience! How dare you actually make me visit you and talk to you to communicate!" They take pictures of every other meal they eat and post song lyrics as a status at least five times a week. No, you are not old fashion for not wanting to join his [likely] crappy network of fellow peons.

If I were you, I would call him anyway to initiate conversation. Given the a-hole your son is, he'll probably talk to you while driving using his Bluetooth, but hey, make that technology work for YOU and not him. I would also let him know you can't join his profile thingy because "computers are just too dern hard" and you're too confused by that "FaceSpace doohickey". As an older person, make your age work for you! You can get away with it! What is he gonna do: get angry? Only a total dickwad would yell at a granny for not using a computer "correctly". If you're long distance, try reaching out to his wife or any other relative nearby and see if they can score you pics of your grandson that Mr. Pisspants can't be magnanimous enough to send to you.

Disney's Aladdin: Not as Good as I Remember It.

"The starving people of Agrabah can't eat your lousy flowers!"
Firstly, I've LOVED this movie for years. I first saw it when I was twelve, bought the soundtrack on tape, and would sing to all the songs and shit. I wanted to Netflix it recently. It's not available on Netflix as of this blogging and hasn't been for a while. Boo hoo. So I ended up borrowing a VHS, popped it in, and BAM. Upon viewing it for the first time in about ten or so years, there're so many things wrong with it. Now I'm hardly gonna declare this flick a POS. It's not. The voice work is good, the visuals are lovely, the songs are still catchy. Here's a random list of rants that kinda knock this movie down a notch. At least where I'M concerned:

1. Cut off my ear if you don't like my face, but I miss that part. Of all of the concessions for Disney to make to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The edited song is retarded. The heat is immense? It's immense in Arizona, too, but no one wants to sing a frickin song about it. I mean, they put in new lyrics but we still have some fat red-shirt telling Jafar how he had to "slit a few throats". I can live without an ear, but I kinda need my throat. It's very fucking inconsistent. And as far as unfair stereotyping is concerned, wording is a lesser offense when Aladdin, Jasmine, the Genie, and the Sultan are all as Anglicized as possible but Jafar and everyone else are "are dark-skinned, swarthy and villainous-cruel palace guards or greedy merchants with Arabic accents and grotesque facial features." I remember being bothered by that crap when I was a kid. Most offensive of all? Not enough hot Arab men. Come on now!

2. On that note, are there ANY Arab people in this film? That shit's just wrong. Robin Williams doing an Arab accent in absence of real Arabs anywhere in the flick just makes the entire room suddenly uncomfortable.

3. What the heck does this movie have to do with the story of Aladdin? We have a dude named Aladdin, a lamp, and a genie and that's pretty much where the similarities end.

4. Robin Williams is annoying as fuck. Some of you are all "well, no shit", but he honestly never annoyed me before, believe it or not. I found myself wanting to reach into the TV and strangle him. When someone comes off more annoying than Gilbert Gottfried in under a minute, there's a serious problem.

5. Horrible lessons. Such as...

* It's okay to steal what you don't got… as long as you share the loot. Aladdin can steal from hard-working folks because he's so damn hungry. In fact, he happily sings and dances about it. Jasmine can steal an apple to feed a child. They are good-looking and heroes and suffer no consequences other than getting some exercise courtesy of the palace guards. If I don't have any bread, it should be well within my rights to endanger someone else's livelihood to feed myself. This is later glamorized when we find out Aladdin's father is KING of THIEVES.

* To fulfill your dreams, you must be rich. Aladdin is poor and free and longs for money while Jasmine is rich and longs for freedom. Earlier in the film, we were meant to believe that, by both of them feeling trapped, they both just saw the grass as being greener on the other side. Instead of Aladdin embracing his freedom and Jasmine learning the responsibilities of her position and wealth, Aladdin just gets rich by association AND EVERYTHING IS ALL BETTER.

* It's okay to lie as long as you tell the truth later. Um, NO IT'S NOT.

6. The Sultan was so damn attached to adhering to the stupid law and then just changes his mind in the end. The fuck? Why'd they even bother making this a plot device? It's like they didn't make the Sultan bat-shit crazy enough and needed to prove in the end that he'd finally snapped. At least adherence to the law meant that he respected traditions. If he didn't like the law and knew the princess didn't, why didn't he change it a long damn time ago?

Also, it would have been hilarious if Jafar wishing himself a genie hadn't backfired like Aladdin thought it would. If genies can be free, then why did turning Jafar into a genie simply not make him a free genie? Even if someone had to wish genies free, the wish could've still effed up and made him a free genie. The wish itself never specified either way.

Music Review - "Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt OST"

The most awesome anime of 2010 was "Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt", hands down. It was awesome, wacky, filthy, stylish, and completely different from a lot of same-old/same-old animu crap that's been chugging its way from overseas. And at thirteen episodes long, it didn't wear out its welcome either. For you poor souls that have never heard of this great fucking show, the premise is that two fallen angel sisters are trying to earn their way back into heaven by destroying ghosts and getting coins (called Heavens) in the process. Panty is a hot-headed nympho while Stocking is a goth-lolita, bondage-loving, sugarholic. They are guided by a bad-ass priest in a 'fro called Garterbelt and sometimes helped by a green, retarded, Gir-rip-off named Chuck.

But this post isn't about the show however much I should've made a post about it. Because one of the raddest things about Panty & Stocking was the electro-dance-house soundtrack. By TCY FORCE produced by M-Flo's ☆Taku Takahashi, featuring TeddyLoid, Hoshina Anniversary, Aimee B., Booty Bronx, and a bevy of other peeps, you don't have to know who the fuck any of them are except for the fact that they make some boss tunes.

My only gripes…? Firstly, the opening music, "Theme for Panty & Stocking" is TV size at thirty-two seconds long. I would have LOVED LOVED LOVED a full-sized song.

Second, the sweet ending tune "Fallen Angel" with the vocals of Aimee B. (who some of you may know from the musically good but otherwise horrid "Devil May Cry" anime) is nearly sixteen minutes long! Why is that a problem? Well, the song itself is nowhere near that long. It's clocks out around four minutes and after about ten minutes of DEAD SPACE, we get a teaser about a possible second season. Come on, now. This ain't a record. People want to rip and keep this music. What was so wrong with having the song at the proper length and the teaser-thingy as its own unlisted track?

Third, it seems like there might be some music that didn't make the soundtrack which is bewy, bewy sad.

But the "bad news" ain't all so bad. The disc is still a great listen over-all. "Theme for Scanty and Knee Socks" wins the grand prize tho'. That track is tiz-zight! Leave it to those demon sisters to steal the show again.

5 acorns.

I Answer Other People's Letters #4010311

Today's Victim: Ask Marilyn [1/2/11]:

Some of my readers’ questions would confound the Oracle of Delphi! Here’s a selection of recent unanswerable ones worth pondering anyway:

In other words, "here's some stupid questions to amuse people because poking fun at morons is one of the perks of being an effin' genius". None of them are really 'unanswerable' as they are incredibly fucking stupid and have obviously been printed in her column for lulz, which makes it terribly sad that people are getting lulz from Parade Magazine.

As I travel the highways, I notice signs that read “Deer Crossing.” How do the deer know to cross at those signs?
—from a reader in Ovilla, Tex.

The sign was put there because the deer were crossing there first, asshat. As you clearly don't possess basic logic, please stop driving before you kill someone.

Why are the Three Musketeers always depicted with swords? Why not muskets?
—Burbank, Calif.

Because it's easier to stab someone than it is to shoot them with a musket. Plus, a sword is cooler. Don't disagree with me, douchebag. A better question would have been why the Musketeers are always last to get eaten when they're so damn tasty.

I play racquetball. The court is a large, enclosed room with a 20-foot-high ceiling and one small door, which players use to enter or exit during warm--ups, etc. Why—although this door is open only briefly—does the ball go through it about 75% of the time?
—Spearfish, S.D.

Because it hates you and I hate you, too.

Why do the eyes of life-size cardboard figures of people appear to watch and follow you as you pass by?
—Tyler, Tex.

Because they are. No, seriously, bro, it's just you. You're a paranoid idiot.

I’ve heard that the Earth’s magnetic poles are reversing. Will the strip in my credit card still work? Will my refrigerator repel my magnets?
—Portland, Maine

Send me your credit card and I'll check it for you.

Why don’t eggs taste like chicken?
—St. Louis, Mo.

Because it never formed into a chicken, fuckface. You're eating an abortion. Or as the rich chickens call them, a ski vacation.

Do I have more of a chance of catching a cold if I’m chewing gum and blowing bubbles? In other words, can airborne germs be caught by my bubble and then ingested after it has deflated and the gum is back in my mouth?
—Saddle Brook, N.J.

No. Why the hell would you think you'd have a better chance catching a cold from germy-air touching your gum than by breathing in the germy-air directly? Germ-ass.

Do you know whether Christopher Columbus brought pickles with him aboard his ships when he explored the New World?
—Cary, N.C.

That was a pickle in his pants? I just thought he was glad to see me! [RUNNER-UP ANSWER: Who fucking cares? That's not even a legitimate question.]

The city of Toledo, Ohio, is urging its residents to lose weight to the tune of one million pounds. With that much weight exiting our planet from such a small location, could it alter the Earth’s orbit around the Sun?
—Swanton, Ohio

Yes. We're all going to die. Especially if geniuses like you have bred. We had fewer and skinnier people on this planet for centuries and you think the orbit's gonna be affected by something like that? Maybe you should be more worried about all of that stupid hurling us into the sun.

In movies, when someone gets out of a car at night, why doesn’t the dome light ever go on?
—Sebring, Fla.

It broke. I broke it. Me so sorry.

I notice that global warming increased after daylight saving time started in 1974. Well, duh! More daylight is going to make the world hotter, isn’t it?
—Altadena, Calif.

Well, duh, making it 11 o'clock instead of 12 o'clock doesn't affect the actual amount of sunlight. People don't control the sun, dork-ass.

If a person on television held up a mirror facing a camera, could someone at home see his reflection in it?
—Colorado Springs, Colo.

I'm going to punch a camera and hope you feel it.

Book Review: Her Last Night of Innocence

One of the latest out of Mills & Boon, fairly certain to be published over here as a Harlequin at some point in time:

World-famous racing driver Cristiano Maresca always spent the night before a race in the arms of a beautiful woman… Three years ago that woman was Kate Edwards, and her time with Cristiano awakened her to unimaginable pleasure. But the following day the untameable Cristiano had a near-fatal crash…and then Kate discovered she was expecting his baby… Now Monte Carlo is set to celebrate Cristiano’s return to the track. Shivering with nerves, Kate braves the paparazzi to find the man who set her body aflame – and tell him her scandalous secret… That Italy’s most notorious playboy has a surprise love-child!

Firstly, I tend to like the UK covers better but this cover made me rofl. Seriously, dude looks like a Head Boy from Harry Potter. Of course, most of the people on the covers of these things don't work for me anyway but I liked this cover better when they cut off part of his face as seen on the M&B website.

"Her Last Night of Innocence" is another foray by India Grey, a relatively new author first published by M&B in 2006 with "The Italian's Defiant Mistress". The only book of her's I've read besides the one in this review is "Powerful Italian, Penniless Housekeeper", which if I recall correctly didn't wow me but certainly left me open to try her other stories.

I have to say I really, really liked the prologue, which must be a 5-acorn beginning fer sure. We meet the hero—Italian race car pimp Cristiano Maresca—and the heroine—British bottled-water marketing assistant (I guess) Kate Edwards—and immediately jump into the action, which literally ends in flames and derails Cristiano's career.

Four years later, we discover Cristiano baked his ciabatta loaf in Kate's oven, resulting in a son named Alexander. Kate was never able to see Cristiano since the fateful day of his crash and has the chance to confront him now that he's re-entering the racing game. I liked how both of the main characters have a heavy personal demon to fight. Kate lost family due to reckless driving, which creates a conflict when it comes to her feelings for Cristiano. Meanwhile, Cristiano has esteem issues from a learning disability and on top of that is struggling to race again. He lost a small chunk of his memory from before the crash and it's screwing with his ability to race. Additionally, that particular chunk of memory was super-important and without it he remembers virtually nothing of Kate or their magical evening.

Side characters like Kate's boss Dominic and Cristiano's lady-doc Fournier do their part to move the story along without feeling forced upon us. The moment when Kate becomes sick at a particular "art display" is strong and when Cristiano kisses Kate and she believes he remembers her was one of the top genuinely heart-breaking moments I've read in one of these books. Kate's urgency to return home when Alexander gets sick was also well written. All that said, this book isn't without its flaws.

It was maddening that during Kate's subsequent stay with Cristiano, telling him he had a son took priority under getting herself some hot Nascar lovin'. It was only through a misplaced letter—which you know is getting misplaced the minute the idea of writing down a secret is mentioned—that Cristiano follows Kate and meets his son. From then on, it gets a little... well... boring actually. I found myself struggling to read through the rest of this about as much as Cristiano would.

Cristiano's vampish assistant Suki was also underused. I really wanted the claws to come out with her and she was kinda "meh" throughout the whole thing that I saw no point in including her in the first place. I saw the stepping stones for some high drama in her character as Suki was at least somewhat infatuated with Cristiano but that never came to fruition other than she MAY have told a little lie. It would've rocked if she had somehow gotten that letter first but alas, she doesn't do much but snark here and there and help move Cristiano's career forward.

More drama also should've come into play with Cristiano trying to win Kate's love. As I've seen in a lot of these books, the heroine becomes a bit of a jaded pill (and rightly so) but the hero's all "I'm here now, deal". I wanted him to be more dashing and romantic! He has his jerk-modes at times and it makes him difficult to love. There was also a tidy helping of father-son mush between Cristiano and Alexander that will make fans of that sort of thing go "AWWWWW" but made me kinda stick in my finger in my mouth. I don't read these books to read about keedz.

For those that may be wary of the whole race car romance thing, the racing and the cars of said racing really take a backseat to the story so there's nothing to worry about on that front.

In any case, I felt this book was among the more decent ones I've read. Despite that it lost me in the last few chapters, there are parts of it that are pure gold. While it doesn't make my keeper list, I'm giving it a solid 4/5 acorns and will definetely check out more by India Grey.

"Mean Bloggers" Make Steve Harvey Cry

Warning, this is over 8 minutes long and watching the whole thing may be painful. Not in the "poor Steve Harvey" way or "Oh, jeez, grown man blubbering on TV. AWKWARD" way, but in the "why the hell am I watching this? Oh God, is this my life? I should go bang my head in the wall" way:


Firstly, I haven't heard of Steve Harvey since commercials for episodes of the Steve Harvey show back in 2002 or whatever. So I see this video and he's all "boo hoo, mean bloggers". Apparently he was being called out for being a bigot, among other things, and the internet is flooded with smack on the guy. Why?

Well, apparently not believing in God means a person has no moral compass. Note Tyra's uncomfortable rendition of the "polite titter":

[VIDEO ORIGINALLY HERE WAS TAKEN DOWN, BOO HOO.]
He also called atheists "idiots" on Larry King. Ironically, the transcript on that page has Joy Behar telling Steverino: "'Cause it’s a free country, thank goodness." Then Stevie wants to cry later about "mean bloggers"? I didn't see him considering any atheists' feelings. Don't dish it if you can't take it.

He has also profited from the above through a best-selling book, a paper brick with large font and a larger name full of gems like this one:

M]y girls and my concern for the future inspire me [to write this book] as well. They will all grow up and reach for the same dream most women do: The husband. Some kids. A house. A happy life. True love.

He forgot baking cookies, sewing ripped crotches on pants, and giving head dressed as June Cleaver.

Let me make it clear that I am not an atheist and don't really care what them or anyone else gets called by Steve Harvey, a person of modest celebrity that has never had a place of relevancy in my life. But sheesh, Steve, if you're gonna go calling a whole group of people idiots and dogging on their beliefs, don't be so damn surprised to find them biting back at you. What's more, who says you even have to read it? Doesn't your religion teach "turning the other cheek" or somethin'?

I will close with a quote from our pal Steve Harvey. Remember children, haters gonna hate, players gonna play, bloggers gonna blog:

You know, the Internet has become this place for evil to dwell. Y’unnerstand? They… people who blog… who have no sense of reality… they just blog about you–don’t even know you! I got kids, man, be reading stuff that ain’t true ’bout their father. You understand? I know you know. Because they–they–they–people just blog!

Frisco bans the Happy Meal; Fat-asses Rage

In case you haven't heard about this already, straight from the horse's mouth... the horse in this instance being a reliable old nag known as the Associated Press:


Or for the simpler, readable version, here's a quote from Top News Buzz:

San Francisco recently passed a law which states that breaks down the concept of giving away free toys accompanies with unhealthy restaurant meals for children. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed the law last Tuesday and had an 8-3 vote. This law would take effect on December 1, 2010.

The crazy thing is that people are actually all, "Boo, our personal freedoms! Y!" HUH? Child obesity in this country is nuts, everybody knows that. Why should a business be allowed to profit from this?

From Happy Meal insanity:

"When George Orwell wrote about government control in his novel 1984, McDonald's hadn't even invented the Happy Meal yet."

I KNEW blankety-blank Orwell would come up somewhere. This is because Orwell supported the U.S. becoming OBSCENELY FAT. Four legs good, two legs baaaad!

In How Banning Happy Meals Could Make Kids Fatter, the guy's reasoning is that kids will get their fattening meal plus toy elsewhere. Um no, it's not just the Happy Meal, it's all kids' meals. Nice try. Unless little Katelyn wants to ride her Schwinn to Oakland.

From Fast Food, Happy Meals, and Legislating Personal Responsibility:

It should be your right to make bad choices for your child; send them into a lifetime of bad habits; foster your child’s life of gross obesity; and set the stage for your child’s early death.

Look, I am not a parent, I speak out as someone that was often tossed a Happy Meal when I was a child. My parents' idea of fostering healthy living was buying skim milk to go with my giant slice of chocolate cake and half-dozen Oreos. I rather wish that, when I was a child, SOMEBODY had made the available food choices healthier.

As a person who developed weight problems as a child and then had it balloon to 210 lbs. in early adulthood, no, I do not think it's okay to preserve a parent's right to completely ruin their child's health. As a little girl, I was never educated by anyone on what to eat or how much. According to public opinion, this is clearly because I didn't have any "personal responsibility". Sure, I was only nine years old when I started packing on weight, but I should've had personal responsibility and demanded broccoli! Since you can't see me, I'M ROLLING MY EYES.

I mean, shit, did you really expect my parents to do it for me? My dad's idea of a "snack" is pieces of breaded, fried catfish in between two slices of white bread. My mom's idea of desert is half a cake, a pack of M&M's, and an ice cream cone. (But only one because she already had cake.) Hyuck! "But it's the right of people like that to fuck up your health!" You know what? FUCK YOU.

Saying crap like "America, learn responsibility!" makes the assumption that everyone has the tools, knowledge, and ability to make healthy eating choices. Of course, upper middle-class and rich people are especially stupid in this regard since the bulk of them are ridiculously blind of their own socioeconomic advantages. This is a country where you can't even give away rye and pumpernickel to poor people! How much control do you think a kid has in a household with other obese people? Adults who refuse to change? No money, no support of any kind in the home, so what chance do these children have? Can we at least start with the damn kids' meals?

The notion that this is ruling somehow Orwellian in nature is utterly ridiculous. Nobody's made it illegal to buy junior a Big Mac with fries and a large Coke. Nobody's made it illegal for McDonald's the repackage the current Happy Meal as a Mini-Combo and sell the toy seperately. You can buy the toy on its own already. The nature of the Happy Meal is in that it's aimed at children. By packaging the toy, it is specifically branded to children. Why was it okay for them to nix Joe Camel (which I don't agree with at all, but whatever) but Ronald and the ol' Golden Arches can throw a bunch of breaded salt into a fryer and market that shit directly to children? The least that can be done is to make the actual meal healthier. Why should stuff marketed to children be allowed to contribute to serious health issues later on in life?

Why I don't like it when you drink...

If anything has added to my "lame" status over the years aside from my lazy excuse for fashion sense and generally quiet, anti-social nature, it's been when people realize that I'm pretty much a teetotaler. I swear, it's like you grow an extra head when you tell people you don't consume alcohol. You're a leper and no one wants to touch you. You can't "loosen up". I've been shown pictures of people boozing away and been "regaled" with stories of them vomiting and driving drunk and I'm supposed to clap and award these losers medals.

You see, I'm clearly not "living life" or so I'm told. I find this ironic considering the people who tell me that have been proven to drink to ridiculous excesses, presumably to escape the very life they so claim to luuuuuuuuuve livin'. If you need liquor to get over your inhibitions that damn badly, I hate to break it to you—okay, actually, I'd luuuuuuve to—but you haven't made any progress. You're like an old man and his viagra: needing a dose of something-something to get the job the done but still pathetically and woefully impotent.

Anyway, I digress. The fact is I just don't like it.

1. It tastes like crap. I like to call liquor "Bath & Body Works" because it tastes like some body spray I accidentally tasted. (HA HA ho, no.) I like to taste alcholic drinks out of pure curiousity and frankly I haven't found anything I'd consume on its own without using it in food or something. You may as well tell me you eat paprika by itself.

2. It ruined my birthday party. I was a little kid and a bunch of my relatives came over and got drunk. At a CHILD's party? I mean, I'd go to school and learn the dangers of alcohol and how it's killed people and then I get to celebrate my eighth or ninth or whatever birthday with a bunch of booze-hounds. That put a worse taste in my mouth than actually tasting the stuff as an adult. Beer and cigarettes do not belong at a child's birthday party and any time I see them there, I die a bit inside. And I thought getting packs of notebook paper one year for a birthday present made me a bitter pill.

3. No respect for moderation. "WHY CANT I HAS A GLASS OF WINE?" First of all, no one's talking about a glass of wine, stupid. This is clearly about people who just chug it away like it's water that's gonna win them a Wii, conveniently forgetting that woman died. Anyway, do you think me or anyone else for that matter gives a rat's ass about someone who only has a beer or two or sips a glass of wine with their dinner? Don't be retarded.

4. It's a ridiculous status symbol. Like a douchetastic pair of over-priced sunglasses or a groovy national landmark, people can't resist posing with it in pictures with a smug sense of pride. And then they actually publish these online! Do you see me smugly posing with a gallon of milk or a quart of juice, dumbass? You DO realize it makes you look STUPID, right? And unless you're an avid wine connoisseur or the owner of Budweiser or something, you don't need to pose with any alcohol.

5. It makes you indignant of the law. My favorite one? When people are all bitching about going to jail or paying fines on multiple DWI offenses. "Damn the law! Trying to save innocent drivers by punishing me! It'soooooo unfair!" BAAAAAAAAAAAAAW.

6. It ruins sober people. I've met a lot of funny, smart folks at work and school. Or at least I thought they were. Get these folks liquored up and watch out, bro! "OHHHHH, but I'm just livvvvvin' life." Sad, because I liked you before you turned into a babbling, potato chip-spewing drunken asshat with no self-respect. Lots of awesome actors, singers, and talented people wasted by this crap. Come on, you know it. Rehab this and rehab that.

7. Point, stupid counterpoint. "But they do it in EURRRROPE!!" Then solve both our problems and MOVE TO EUROPE. "I can DIE for my country but I can'ts drink!" The fact that you compare the lost lives of our military men and women in service to our country to your legal inability to get hammered shows why you have not been deemed mature enough to drink. "Why can't I HAS A GLASS WINE?" Because in loads of lovely, retarded internet arguments, it always comes down to a damn glass of wine. Hey, I think we all know it's not about "a glass of wine" so shut-up.

8. It smells... like broken promises and dreams of Christmas past.

9. I do not feel safe on the roads on weekend nights. I really don't do it and it makes me a bit apprehensive when I am out there. "Fifty-four percent of all teen motor vehicle deaths occur on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Thirty-five percent occur between the hours of 9 p.m. and 3 a.m." And those are just teens! Boo! I don't wanna die, homes.

10. My uncle almost hit me in the head with a plate. Drunk people + repressed problems is the recipe for a made-for-tv movie on Lifetime. Tons of people with crappy lives tend to turn towards firewater, denying the fact that once they leave Beer-Narnia or wherever they go, their problems will still be waiting for them. Hey, I haven't seen anybody's life improved by the stuff either.

11. People destroy themselves and then want free organs. Truth, I tell you, truth! These people whine and whine about dying and needing a kidney or a liver after forty years of hard drinking and get all bitchy when you won't let them farm you for parts. Then they get their whatever and don't curb their bad habits. Aren't there better people these organs can go to? If you want to destroy your liver, fine, but don't make it everyone else's problem. Don't make people pony up for your medical care when you didn't give a damn about your body in the first place. Speaking of which...

12. It wastes money. (1) How much more government bread are they gonna spend on "prosecuting" spoiled rich jerks when John Law doesn't even mete out any real punishments? Let's just leave Lindsay and Paris alone. Then, when they hurt someone or destroy property, sue their asses for a megaton of cash. Rehab is a joke. Jailtime is a joke. Ankle bracelets are a joke. Stop wasting tax payer dough unless you're serious. (2) If you're so damn poor, stop buying beer and pay your rent! If I bought $50 worth of gum each week for myself, you'd think I'd have a serious problem, right? $50 worth of beer isn't any better.

13. Ridiculous level of public acceptability. In an era of "Jackass" and other MTV garbage, it's no small wonder why these antics are lauded. There is no sense of shame anymore. In fact, it's a worse crime to be a virgin or live at home than it is to have a drinking problem. This is because people who drink, like shoplifters and constantly pregnant welfare moms, are just "livin' life".

Hey, if all that crap ^ is "living life", no thank you! :)

EDIT: Forgot one! #14. Free license to act like a jerk and talk trash. But you didn't mean it because YOU WERE DRINKING. Hey, you chose to drink sober and you probably really think those things anyway, so you meant it by proxy. Prefacing insults with "He's a really nice guy but" don't help either. Especially when you then crack a joke at his expense and expect the whole table to laugh. Boo.

Yeah, I know, I'm a jerk, too. Hey, at least I own up to my shit and don't hide behind a bottle.

Music Review: Florrie - "Introduction"

Florrie's first EP is already available for download at her website: http://www.florrie.com/. If you would like to support Florrie's endeavor to bring us bitchin' music, you can pre-order the EP from iTunes... or just wait until Amazon gets it because iTunes is a piece of crap.* You can also buy other fly Florrie merch in her online store. She has a neat t-shirt of the album art on her website that I'm this close to buying because I'd totally love to wear her face. So, onto the EP... Tracks are:

1. Call of the Wild
2. Give Me Love
3. Summer Nights
4. Left Too Late

Choosing a favorite would be like choosing a favorite child although I am childless but in theory it'd be, like, totally hard to. But yeeeeeah, ahem, I love "Summer Nights"! For some reason, I imagine myself on a yellow moped in Italy riding on a stretch of road overlooking the beach. But not near any volcanos like Vesuvius or some shit because I don't want to die. Want a remix, want want want!

This entire album is poppy yet mellow. It's makes little happy marshmellows grow in my heart.

5/5 acorns.

Oh yes, and the offficial vid for "Give Me Love":


* I searched on Amazon BTW and it's there with Florrie's "Call 911" remixes for Kitsuné, it's just not available until November 15th.

Why Capital vs. Thomas is a load of horseshit.

"Lady, look out behind you!"
If you need some reading materials on the subject, you can go to either Single mom can't pay $1.5M song-sharing fine or The RIAA's latest victory over Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Here's an older article about the matter: Thomas testimony ends with tears, anger, Swedish death metal. The gist is that a Minnesota woman named Jammie Thomas-Rasset was using a file-sharing application, Kazaa, to download music. 

The nature of peer to peer file sharing means that while you download something, you are helping others download the same file through whatever pieces of the file you possess while downloading. Thus, whether you mean to or not, you are also sharing music. She apparently did this with over a thousand songs. After not paying the amount demanded by a desist letter, also known as toilet paper, the case went to trial. Over the years, she had been found liable for various amounts, with the latest amount being $1.5M. Despite the emphasis that Thomas-Rasset is a repeat offender, this lawsuit, formerly Virgin vs. Thomas, is not for damages from thousands of songs. It is only for 24 songs: 

 * Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain" 

 * Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last" 

 * Janet Jackson "Let’s Wait Awhile" 

 * Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You" 

 * Goo Goo Dolls "Iris" 

 * Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing" 

 * Sara McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery" 

 * Aerosmith "Cryin’" 

 * Linkin Park "One Step Closer" 

 * Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me" 

 * Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart" 

 * Bryan Adams "Somebody" 

 * No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People" 

 * Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run" 

 * Richard Marx "Now and Forever" 

 * Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills" 

 * Green Day "Basket Case" 

 Am I the only one who finds the fact that a song called "One Honest Heart" is up there funny? Anyway, with the latest settlement, that is a staggering $62,500 A SONG. Even half of that, $31,250, is grossly unreasonable.

 

Let's take an example: "Bathwater" by No Doubt sells for 99 cents on Amazon. (I won't even see if it's the same price at iTunes because iTunes is a piece of crap.) Rounding down, that is 31,565 people that Thomas-Rasset would have had to share "Bathwater" with to even make the latest settlement halfway logical. This still makes some big assumptions though. 

 1. Would all 31,565+ people including Thomas-Rasset have ever bought "Bathwater" in the first place? I guarantee you that if all of those people were ordered by the court that they would have to pay for the song or get rid of it, over half of them would hit the delete key. Not everything that is pirated is something that ever would have been purchased to begin with!  Hey, I like the song, don't get me wrong. But the RIAA, Capitol, and all of those other monkeys need to accept the fact that shitloads of people would rather not have a lot of music than pay for it. Therefore, what money did Capitol lose from the people who NEVER would have bought it? And why should Thomas-Rasset be liable for it? 

  2. How do you prove that she even shared it with 31,565+ people? Now I'm no lawyer, but shouldn't there be a burden of proof here? Can they just pick a number out of their ass? I mean, they were willing to settle for $5000 dollars back in August of 2005. Why isn't the figure Thomas-Rasset is supposed to pay not $5000 plus court costs or something. In what universe is it okay for that to balloon to $1.5M? Shoot, I watched Judge Pirro today and some woman was suing her ex for a car that she had been in the process of selling to him. Her original price was $800. He paid $300, but not the rest. And this lady wanted more than $500! Judge Pirro called that shit out and I'm calling out this. RIDICULOUS, friend. No effin' way. 

 3. How do you know 31,565+ people didn't already own "Bathwater"? How many of these people already had "Return to Saturn", "The Singles Collection", or the "Bathwater" single and for whatever reason just wanted a digital download from somewhere. By saying Thomas-Rasset is liable for "Bathwater" being shared without compensation, the courts are also saying these people should have bought a digital copy from Amazon or Asstunes of SOMETHING THEY ALREADY OWNED. I mean, we're still allowed to rip our CDs for our own personal use, aren't we? If my copy of "The Singles Collection" is at home and I'm a friend's house and want to sync "Bathwater" to my MP3 player, why the hell should I have to pay AGAIN? What's wrong with just snagging it online? Not to mention the folks that liked "Bathwater" so much they went and bought a CD or digital download. Where are they in this equation? Yes, they initially took it for free but is a subsequent purchase 100% meaningless? Furthermore, if my computer, MP3 player, or copy of the CD is stolen, shouldn't I be able to replace a song I've already bought? 

Now this case is too complicated to make proper points on every little issue. Although Thomas-Rasset has been accused of playing the "single mom can't feed mah keedz" card, I have no idea what bankrupting this woman is supposed to prove besides that Capitol and the RIAA are insanely greedy and effin' nutso. She stole music, she got caught. And people are like, "well, if she shoplifted a purse, blah blah blah". 

Digital media is not comparable to shoplifting a goddamn purse or a dress. People who want a song but don't want to buy it can rip an MP3 from a friend's CD, get an MP3 from a relative, or rip a CD from the library. You can't borrow a freakin' purse at the library. Purses don't have the ability to multiply beyond the realm of control. Get real, folks. One of the comments for the MSN article said something like if Thomas-Rasset had shoplifted all of the CDs these songs came from, the penalty would be NO WHERE near $1.5M. And while peer to peer file sharing has the ability to share from millions, the fact is that millions who are stealing songs like "Bathwater" are not ALL using a single source like Thomas-Rasset for all of their music needs. It's like they're trying to make her pay for every single theft of the damn songs. 

I do not believe it would be correct to merely find her liable for the initial cost of the songs, around $24. If she perjured or did anything else to affect the outcome of this case, she should be fined. Penalties and violations of the law are due for the thefts; Okay, I get it. But in a lawsuit for 24 songs, over a million bucks in damages is ass no matter how you slice it. There's no way that many people at a time want "Bathwater" or any of those other songs and that they all happened to take it from Kazaa AND from Thomas-Rasset. The MSN article points out that while the legal minimum is $750 per infringement, Thomas-Rasset has been found liable for well over that amount multiple times.

When a reporter pointed out that three juries of her peers had decided that she should pay well above the minimum, she said there's "no rhyme or reason to the numbers" but she respects jurors for doing their jobs.

Frankly, stuff like this leads me to believe that this woman is an idiot and "three juries of her peers" were in fact three juries of other idiots, which makes perfect sense. A jury is not doing its job if it truly believes this result is just. There are killers that aren't found liable for this much in civil damages for taking a life let alone a single mom taking her some music. Is it really so horrible that she needs Gwen Stefani to sing about washing herself "in your old bathwater" to forget that she's the mother of four kids who works as a natural resources coordinator? And she's Native-American so, like, didn't America already take this woman's land? Can't this shit just cancel each other out?

Then there's this tidbit from Cara Duckworth of the RIAA: "People forget about all of the individuals who work really hard to make music for a living," she said. "These people are negatively impacted whenever music is stolen and distributed to millions of people." I have hard goddamn time believing that Thomas-Russet cost No Doubt $187,500 ($62,500 * 3) in damages, let alone that she caused their songs to fall into the hands of millions of people. This isn't the ending to the last Harry Potter book where no one else had something that was distributed to the detriment of the source. "Bathwater" was out for a good five years before Thomas-Rasset decided to help herself to a free copy with many other songs on the list of 24 out for far longer. One of the millions of people who BOUGHT "Bathwater" was how Thomas-Rasset got the song in the first place. 

 And if Capitol and the RIAA are so concerned about "the individuals" who make the music making a proper living, why don't they give Gwen, Tom, Tony, the rest of No Doubt, their mixers, whoever else worked on and marketed the song some of that cheddar that was instead spent on this stupid lawsuit. If Thomas-Rasset had paid the initial $5000, how much of that would have even made it to Tony Kanal's wallet? Why doesn't Capitol spend money looking for ways to profit off this digital wave they have no hope of stopping instead of trying to get money from people who can't pay? 

I mean, Thomas-Rasset couldn't buy the music legally so what makes anyone think she can pay for it thousands of times over? This isn't teaching thieves a lesson, this is just being cruel and unfair to one who got caught.