You Can Wear Your Jersey Anywhere You Want

From the files of "No One Deserves To Be Beaten Within An Inch Of Their Life After A Sporting Event, You Ass", we have a column written by a one John Steigerwald. Mr. Steigerwald seems to think that if a victim of a beating was wearing a jersey from the opposing team then it is somehow that person's fault that they were damn near killed by a couple of idiotic thugs.

Let me bring you up to date. A couple of weeks ago, the San Francisco Giants played the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium. After the game, a couple of thugs wearing Dodger garb blindsided a one 42-year old Giant fan, Bryan Stow, in the parking lot. They sucker punched him and then when he was down on the ground, they repeatedly kicked him in the head before they fled like the cowards that they are. Mr. Stow, a paramedic and father of 2, is still in ICU in a medically induced coma with half of his skull removed because his brain was swelling up too much for it to fit inside of his skull when it was in one piece. He shows signs of brain damage and it's pretty obvious that his life will never be the same. While he was being kicked in the head, the Dodger clad a-holes made it clear that Mr. Stow was targeted because he was wearing a San Francisco Giants jersey. Real nice, LA. Stay classy.

Consider yourself up to date. Enter Mr. Steigerwald and his asinine column that he wrote for the Observer-Reporter.com. The title of his article is "Know when you've outgrown the uniform". The premise of his column seems to be his bewilderment at why Mr. Stow would have been so "stupid" (I'm paraphrasing here) as to wear a jersey from the opposing team to the home team's stadium. In fact, he coldly states "Maybe someone can ask Stow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years."

Uhh...wow. Let me give you the answer, Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy. He wore his jersey to the game because he wanted to. That was his team that he was cheering on and that's what he wanted to wear. Land of the free, remember? Or maybe he just didn't think that there would be people out there who would pummel someone into a coma simply because they rooted for the opposite team. Or maybe he wasn't worried about anything because stadiums are supposed to provide security. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. He didn't deserve to get beaten up because he had on a Giants jersey!

Mr. Porn-Star Moustache Guy goes on to ask "Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team?" Of course, he states no basis for that question, as there is no indication that Mr. Stow or ANYONE who wears a jersey to a game thinks that. I just bought my best friend a Giants jersey today. I'm pretty sure that she doesn't think that she is a member of the team simply because she's wearing a jersey that says "Lincecum" on the back of it. No, actually, I am positive of it. I, myself, have several sports jerseys which I enjoy wearing. I've never once equated myself to Joe Montana. Never.

His does make the astute observation that "Obviously, not every fan who wears his team's jersey to a game is looking for someone from "the enemy" to beat up." You don't say?! Then why are you acting like he did?! Why are you acting like Mr. Stow did something wrong? Do you believe that women who are scantily dressed deserve to get raped? Wait. Don't answer that. You probably do. You're such an a-hole.

Provocation is a funny thing. I mean, does it even exist if it is being ignored? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But my point isn't to get all philosophical here. The point is that someone wearing a sports jersey isn't provoking anyone. And the other point is that no one is asking to be beaten up no matter what they are wearing. People are supposed to act like human beings around one another. Bryan Stow did not deserve this and it doesn't matter why he wore his jersey to the Dodger game. Mr. Steigerwald is clearly a huge douchelord. Using his own logic, I wonder why he would write something as inflammatory as he did, knowing full well that there are going to be unstable people out there that read it and might possibly want revenge. Why would you do such a thing, Mr. Porn Star Moustache? Why? Oh, because you want to and because you can? Well, that's why Bryan Stow wore his jersey. Because he wanted to and because he could. Now, stop acting like the biggest a-hole around, Mr. Steigerwald, and donate to a fund to help the man. Do it now.

For the rest of you who aren't column writing a-holes and who would like to help out Mr. Stow's family, please visit http://www.support4bryanstow.com/ There are a variety of fundraisers going on if you're local, but there's also a way to donate if you're not. And please remember that no one deserves to get beaten. Even Mr. Steigerwald. I think.

The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

This Crosses A Line

I'm a big sports fan. Of the four major sports, I'm an avid fan of everything but hockey. And I'm learning to like hockey, so I'm sure that won't be long down the road. But in the meantime, it's just football, basketball and baseball. They're all great. The only thing that spoils sports for me are the fans that have to be giant douchebags all the time. Let's take some of the Dodger fans who felt the need to beat up on a San Francisco Giants fan after the opening day game in Los Angeles on Thursday.

According to The Huffington Post, "A savage beating by two men outside Dodgers Stadium has left a San Francisco Giants fan in a medically-induced coma". Oh, sure. That sounds reasonable. Beat a man to within an inch of his life because...well...there doesn't seem to be any reason. The Dodgers won and the cowards who did the beating were wearing Dodgers garb, so they weren't pummeling innocent bystanders out of frustration over their loss. Not that it would have made it more justified or anything like that. I was just drawing attention to how pointless it all was.

I did find some of the statements made by the Dodgers and by the Dodgers coach to be a bit annoying. For example, the team released a statement that said "It is extremely unfortunate that this incident took place on what was otherwise a great day at Dodger Stadium for tens of thousands of fans...We're committed to having the most fan and family friendly environment in baseball and will continue to make that a top priority." Yeah, other than the beating that left a 42-year old married father of two in the hospital with brain injuries, it was a great day. See, if you're asking me, the beating really negates the great day. It really negates the great day if you're the one who had the crap beat out of them.

And as far as their "fan and family friendly environment" that they "will continue" to make a top priority? Yeah, when do you think they might get started on that? I'm just asking because in 2009 "...a man stabbed his friend in the stadium parking lot after the home opener." Can you really call them friends if one of them was stabbing the other? I have a lot of friends and we don't usually stab each other. In fact, I'm fairly comfortable saying that I would not want to be friends with anyone who I thought might get a little stabby with me from time to time. Or ever, for that matter. But maybe they're working on the safety for the even numbered years first. I really don't know their plan.

But I do know an asinine statement when I read it. I'm referring to statements such as the one made by coach Don Mattingly who said, "I was disappointed...You don't want to see that. Everyone likes rivalries, but to me, that's crossing the line." Oh, really? To you that was crossing the line? You think that other people have some other kind of a line that involves beating innocent people within an inch of their life? To you? What the what was that supposed to mean, anyway? I'm trying to overlook his merely being "disappointed". I'd prefer a little more outrage for things like this.

Here's to hoping that they catch the scumbags that did this. Here's also to hoping that people stop making idiotic statements when incidents like this one occur. And finally and most importantly, here's to hoping that Bryan Stow, the guy who was injured, will recover from his injures. Get well soon, Bryan.

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.