a additional celebration of our gloriously deceased leader: Kim Jong-Il!

so somewhat recently (pretend we’re not WAY behind the curve on this one, okay) the world lost one of its most hilarious gentlemen ever: North Korea’s one and only Kim Jong-Il. you may remember him from such updates as that one where i discussed my heroes and how Kim Jong-Il made the cut because, aside from the fact that the rest of my heroes were deemed “laughable at best” by the Irishman, he did not urinate or defecate like mortal humans do. and please note that when i say “most hilarious gentlemen ever,” it’s implied that i mean “unless you’re a resident of North Korea, in which case he wasn’t hilarious at all because he was too busy murdering your entire family for not clapping furiously enough after his latest three or four holes-in-one round of golf.”

alas, he’s now dead and thus all that comedy must come to a stop. so before we forget all about him, let’s remember the ridiculous things he said or did that we didn’t cover last time, done in the same style, possibly relying on the internet once again.

again, i must demand that you CLAP YOUR HANDS FOR KIM JONG-IL!

and we have many additional ones!

while it certainly seems like his look would be best called “original,” he may have stolen it from the greatest to ever do it: Elvis Presley! sure, Elvis was a massive sex symbol and ladies everywhere got as wet as October when confronted with his look of giant shades, jumpsuits and a bouffant hairstyle … but actually, isn’t that sex symbol you’re thinking of Kim Jong-Il? you would not be forgiven for mistaking his beauty for the wretched inferior look of Presley!

don’t think for a moment that it’s contradictory to have a “a humble log cabin in a secret camp on Mount Paekdu, a sacred site for Koreans” because you’re just being fooled by the fact that your worthless country doesn’t have log cabins and secret camps everywhere they should! the fact that at the moment of his birth “a star is said to have risen above the mountain and shone brightly” in addition to the fact that “a double rainbow appeared and spring broke out spontaneously” should make it clear to you how superior to Jesus he was, especially considering Jesus had only a star and some rag-tag shepherds! never mind that he was born in early July!

sometimes people make fun of me for my weird OCD moments, such as when i painstaking arrange stacks of paperwork so that binder clips fall into a neatly-stacked ‘staircase’ or when i refuse to use the telephone, but this is only because i lack the secret police necessary to kill everyone who dares to make fun of me! on the other hand, Kim Jong-Il is fussy to the point of having “female workers inspect each grain of rice to ensure that they meet the leader’s standards,” which is just AWESOME, since like epilepsy, which Kim Jong-Il might also have, OCD is a sign that the gods have touched you! or, in the case of Kim Jong-Il, touched themselves!

and also from the previous link: “South Korean actress Choi Eun Hee, who was abducted to North Korea and spent eight years there before escaping, was shocked when Kim served her a bottle of liquor that contained a snake “moving about and looking like it was belching,” Choi wrote in a memoir.” there is no joke here. i would seriously drink liquor that contained a live (and presumably aggressive) snake. back to the regular concept!

KIM JONG-IL HAS GREAT HAIR! wait, didn’t we do this last time?

like i said, KIM JONG-IL HAS GREAT HAIR! still have doubts?

to reiterate, KIM JONG-IL HAS GREAT HAIR! yeah!

presuming all your problems consist of “lack of food,” “needing more food” and “currently dying from the incredible lack of food,” like the problems of everyone else in the world’s greatest country! in any event, Kim Jong-Il learned of this German man, Karl Szmolinsky, who some might call the world’s foremost breeder of giant rabbits and who i call “this guy Spiegel used to CONSTANTLY write about,” and wanted him to come to North Korea, start a rabbit farm and thus solve all of said nation’s hunger problems. so what if Szmolinsky was never to go to North Korea and would end up suspecting that his famous rabbits “had been eaten by top officials and that that was the real reason why he wasn’t getting a visa?” only a man as great as Kim Jong-Il deserves such delicious rabbits!

i don’t think Kim Jong-Il meant anything by it when he “purified” Pyongyang of all disabled residents and/or short people prior to North Korea’s 1989 World Festival of Youth and Students; obviously a short man like himself understands the superiority of short people (as i argued last time). some have claimed he fooled the short with pamphlets “describing a wonder drug that would raise their height” in order to ship them away to uninhabited islands, but the truth is surely this: Kim Jong-Il fought to create glorious short people societies where the short could live free of tall people interference! and not that he left them to starve to death on cold rocks that offered no food or shelter!

and not in a joking, Paul Mooney-style way! whereas most of your world governments keep all kinds of information secret from the unwashed masses, Kim Jong-Il tells his unfed masses the way things really are, releasing “scores of books telling “all the truths of the world”.” personally, i would like to know things like “who REALLY shot JFK” and “where did AIDS REALLY come from,” not to mention “yo RZA, how many bites did it take you to chew your fucking arm off?” but will my government tell me? probably not, but Kim Jong-Il will!

because the blood of virgins is– you know, i think that’ll do it. i’m over Kim Jong-Il being my hero. jamming yourself full of virgin blood is a bit of a creepy deal-breaker, you know?

anyway, the man’s been dead for like two months or so, and while at one point i thought he might rise from the grave like the phoenix before him and spray down South Korea’s sinful population with a jet of atomic fire, much like HIS hero Godzilla, it actually seems like he’s really dead, and we’ll never have to suffer through another awkward and INCREDIBLY late listicle like this one. now THAT is a reason to celebrate!

please remember, your sincere charity pales in comparison to the cast-off scraps of IMPORTANT CELEBRITIES

sometimes, these updates occur when our humble narrator (that would be me) is incredibly tired after what can only be described as “a hard day of pushing all those pencils around,” and then proceeds to do the following: come home, pass out somewhere randomly, wake up late, decide to write a probably overdue update at four in the morning.

now, if the update is excellent, hey, it seems that this system works, right? but if it’s not… well… maybe we should just see where this one goes?

Kim Kardashian
almost 11% of the proceeds from whatever the hell it is Kim Kardashian is doing here will go towards something other than making the Kardashians richer

when celebs auction their stuff for charity, they often keep most of the profits

honestly, i assume the average celebrity not named Bill Murray or Geoffrey Holder is a terrible person, which may be unfair to the one or two of them who are NOT raging assholes, but is probably correct 99.4% of the time. that said, i DON’T assume they’re all lying con artists using charity (or, more accurately, “charity”) as a means to enrich themselves, but maybe i should:

“Many times the public assumes that all the proceeds go to charity and not the celebrity,” Glenn Selig, President/CEO of Selig Multimedia, told FOX411’s Pop Tarts column. “But that is often not the case. The public should never assume that 100 percent goes to charity.”

now, okay, i am willing to accept the notion that charity DOES require something to reimburse the celebrity for the amount of money they have to pay that assistant to drive the bag of discarded property over to wherever the charity operates. i suspect, however, that this will get a lot worse than “we had to spend a small percentage of the income on administrative costs.”

“Exhibit A: Kim Kardashian. Kim, who has an estimated net worth of $35 million, has been auctioning off her personal goodies via eBay Giving Works for several years, even before she was a well-known reality star. Her auctions are promoted with the tagline “Charity Auction Supporting the Dream Foundation.” “My dad passed away from cancer so the funds go towards granting wishes for terminally ill adults,” Kardashian told Pop Tarts regarding one of her auctions back in 2009. … So how much of the proceeds from these sales will go to Kim’s charity? Ten percent — the minimum required by eBay’s “Giving Works” arm. The percentage is stated below each auction item, and Kardashian acknowledged the 10 percent figure while promoting the event on her blog.”

alright, so i am not sure which of these is worst:

A. giving the absolutely MINIMUM required by the charity, when you could probably do slightly better in terms of the actual charity (let’s say you give away a mere 25%) and STILL reap the benefits of the PR boost and the secret “charity” profits;
B. mentioning your father died of cancer as part of your justification for charity works (because we all know a rich person can’t give to charity without a sad narrative) WHILE giving the absolute minimum and/or making more of the money than the charity does;
C. that this would even occur with someone who has a net worth of 35 MILLION DOLLARS.

however, the correct answer is D: Kim Kardashian’s continued fame and/or existence. but wait, wait, there’s bound to be a defense:

“Kardashian has given more on some occasions. She put herself up for auction last year – offering the opportunity to attend her Las Vegas birthday bash, in which the “winner and guest will get to skip the line and be escorted in to the VIP room where they will get 5 minutes to wish Kim a happy birthday, take photos, and have up to 2 items signed.” The starting bid was $5,000 and it was listed that “25 percent of the sale price will benefit the Dream Foundation.””

sorry, but all this does is highlight the fact that one, you COULD give more regularly, but consciously choose not to, and two, that at best, someone worth 35 million dollars is going to give a charity $1250 while pocketing $3750 … for five minutes of their time in which you can wish THEM a happy birthday. it’s a solid racket, i admit. i only wish MY ass was so attractive that i could make this kind of money.

“A source close to the Kardashian family insisted that Kim and her sisters are and always have been very charitable in many areas, and that the majority of the items they put up for auctions aren’t things they were given, but things they purchased personally. “They strongly believe that every little bit counts and there have been many instances where they have privately donated the whole sum of an earning to a charity, and they would like to continue to do some of these things privately,” the insider said.”

so, in other words, you’ll publicly admit the very minimal charity donations you HAVE to get while claiming secret generous ones that don’t have to meet any degree of verification? sure, that seems 100% true. and telling me it wasn’t a gift, but something you purchased yourself says what, that you’ve got to make some money back on that $1000 purse you bought, or it’s not worth your time to donate to charity? garbage.

but maybe this is just what everyone does?

“On the other end of the spectrum, however, are several stars who give 100 percent of auction proceeds to charity. Last year Sienna Miller auctioned off items … with 100 percent of the proceeds benefitting International Medical Corps … In 2010, Miley Cyrus opened up her closet of clothes and accessories to the public via eBay, donating all the proceeds to Get Your Good On … In 2009, several items were auctioned off from the Collection of Barbra Streisand via Julien’s Auctions, in which all proceeds went to the Streisand Foundation, founded more than two decades ago by Streisand to aid humanitarian causes worldwide. Rocker Steven Tyler, too, cleared out his wardrobe, giving all proceeds to MusiCares and the Musicians Assistance Program (MAP)…”

and i fucking HATE Barbra Streisand. this list goes on to include Charlie Sheen, Nick Cannon, Bette Midler and the Edge, some of whom are terrible people (Nick Cannon, i’m looking at you). now some of them might be worth more than a mere 35 million dollars, but on the other hand, i think they might actually understand the point of charity?

“I would suggest consumers not assume that celebrities are being completely selfless,” Selig said. “They should find out the financial arrangement for a cause marketing project and then decide whether to support it.” Steven Yamin, founder of the Conscience Entertainment Group, a Los Angeles-based philanthropic public relations firm, thinks that as long as intentions are clearly stated, every little bit counts. “Often, the awareness creates more value than the proceeds from an auction,” he said.”

true, the “awareness” is a good thing … but it’s also because the awareness is supposed to encourage ADDITIONAL donations… and wouldn’t the awareness still be occurring if the celebrities in question donated more than the absolutely minimum? exactly. and let’s not fall all over ourselves excusing it because we shouldn’t assume “celebrities are being completely selfless”: we never did. they benefit from the PR of being famous charitable people. it gets them good press and helps them network. the trade-off, though, is that they “earn” this by actually giving away money and time.

“In the case of the Kardashian clan, the family has auctioned off hundreds of items over the years, including some very high-priced personal goods including Rob Kardashian’s Range Rover and sister Kourtney’s Maserati. So even with just 10 to 15 percent donations on a regular basis, they may have raised more money than those who donate all their profits. Kim Kardashian also has a 100 percent feedback rating; so, if anything, she doesn’t let down her buyers.”

yes, i am sure that if Kourtney Kardashian auctioned off a Maserati and gave 10% of the proceeds to charity, then she gave more to charity than i did last year just from that alone. on the other hand, i didn’t sell something i own on eBay, pocket 90% of the profits and then pat myself on the back… and i’m also pretty sure i’m not worth millions of dollars.

perhaps the sad, rant-inducing part of the whole matter is really this: Americans are a very charitable people. it’s one of the best things about them. so to see our celebrities (or “celebrities,” even) portraying themselves as doing what millions and millions of us do –give away our money and/or time to help those who need it– while secretly just mostly making money from it is a little sad. maybe more than a little sad? it’s a good thing i stopped believing in anything in anything good about life years ago!

Mark Wahlberg
Mark Wahlberg, immediately before fighting ALL THAT TERROR

Mark Wahlberg comments about fighting back on 9/11 plane, apologizes for comments about fighting back on 9/11 plane

i could largely boil this down to “every time i remember that Wahlberg has been virulently anti-gun, i kind of hope he dies in a fire and thus post accordingly on the internet,” but let’s pretend it’s just random mockery:

On being scheduled to be on one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center
“If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.'”

first off, this is ALWAYS big talk. even if the person in question would actively fight back –and a lot of people would, especially these days– the statement is still something easy to throw out there when you’re NOT in that situation. second, it overlooks the fact that for generations, everyone was told and told and told again NOT to fight back in that situation, which is seen in the fact that the passengers on Flight 93 fought back AFTER they learned that it was less a hijacking and more a suicide mission. this is not to downplay what they did, but it’s worth noting that even they might not have fought back had they not known.

but i digress slightly; in Wahlberg’s case, they was immediate outcry, resulting in this:

“Mark Wahlberg has issued a statement apologizing for his comments: “To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with, and to suggest I would have done anything differently than the passengers on that plane was irresponsible. I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention.””

…which is clearly a bullshit apology, because if we break it done, it’s incredibly lame.

“To speculate about such a situation is ridiculous to begin with”: well, no, it’s not. speculating about random situations is just something that people do; i’m sure many (if not most) Americans speculated about what they would have done in the same situation, if only in the context of “hey, what if this happened again, and i was on the plane?”

plus, am i supposed to believe he’ll never speculate about anything not mundane again? because i don’t.

“-and to suggest I would have done anything differently than the passengers on that plane was irresponsible”: well, maybe, and it’s clearly not worded in the kindest of ways, but i’m going to go ahead and slightly defend the position. do i know people who say, with a straight face, that if they’d have been on one of the planes that crashed into a 9/11 target, they’d have tried to fight back? yes. do i believe them? yes. now, they don’t make themselves sound like big men compared to the people who died, and they generally allow that, yeah, they wouldn’t have easily killed all the hijackers and got the plane landed safely… but the sentiment of “fuck it, i would have TRIED” is still sincere.

however, once you back down to “this was irresponsible,” then i can’t give you credit for being sincere. so there’s also that.

“I deeply apologize to the families of the victims that my answer came off as insensitive, it was certainly not my intention”: fact. he just wanted to sound like a tough guy.

and the REAL question not being asked is this: where the hell did this question come from? was it just a random question? did it spring from another remark? the world may never know.

okay, let’s not be so serious as we close this out:

Michael West

man says ghost beat his wife?

first off, i LOVE the fact that they threw a question mark into the title of the story, as if there’s a question about what actually happened here. one, the “ghost beat my wife” is clearly a fictional story, so we know it didn’t happen, and two, GHOSTS ARE NOT REAL. the movie Ghostbusters was not real. the movie Ghost was not real. but again, even if you want to argue this point –i mean, i grant that Patrick Swayze died, i just don’t think he’s solving crimes from beyond the grave– we can agree in this particular case there was no ghost, right? here we go!

“A Wisconsin man accused of beating his wife is saying that a ghost did it. Police in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin arrested Michael West, 41, after responding to a domestic disturbance on the night of Jan. 15 … West’s wife Rebecca was “crying very hard and was bleeding out of her nose” when cops arrived at the scene, according to the complaint.”

first off, let’s get this right out of the way: Wisconsin is the most Communist state in America. also, for some reason, there will actually be no mention of alcohol and/or a dog named Skeeter in this story. usually, when some redneck (and yes, they have rednecks in Wisconsin) flips out on his wife, someone’s drunk… but not this time. disappointment reigns!

“She told police her husband punched her in the face several times and strangled her until her vision went black after an argument about financial issues. When police asked Michael West what happened, he said his wife had fallen several times, injuring her face.”

as sad as this sounds, at least he went to the default, technically possible story first: i didn’t beat my wife, she just fell repeatedly onto my fists! luckily for comedy on the internet, he did not stick with this story long:

“When police asked about the marks on her neck, West changed his story. “A ghost did it,” he said, according to the complaint. Cops said West cursed and tried to resist as they arrested him.”

a ghost did it! i’m actually reminded of, of all things, a very-long-ago-and-presumably-no-longer-online house of hate update wherein Saddam Hussein was quoted as blaming everything bad in Iraq on nameless “thieves.” i doubt anyone but me remembers this, but there we are.

but the real problem remains: we know he beat his wife, we know he cursed and fought the cops, we know he seriously claimed that his wife’s injures were caused by the apparition of a deceased person who, i suppose, really dislikes his wife. from this, scientists worldwide can determine one thing with certainty: this man was filled with alcohol. why was this not in the article, Roque Planas? also, Roque Planas, why is your name 100% awesome?

politics 2012: in the future, when asked the cause of my alcoholism, i will simply answer, “Newton Leroy Gingrich”

making updates that prominently feature political topics is a tough one for me, for several reasons. as an introduction of sorts, let’s quickly break them down: one, i don’t like to talk politics on a “website” devoted to “humor” because it’s a divisive topic, and thus something that runs counter to humor; two, i have a deep fear that my three-person audience doesn’t agree with my politics (which i suppose is what i get for promoting the legalization of heroin and/or blowing up the moon); and three, politics makes me SO. VERY. ANGRY… which is in itself a dilemma.

see, i only write two kinds of updates that approach entertainment: the ones where i am just being completely random, or the ones where i am FURIOUS. i can often get J.Miles to vouch for the latter. the thing is, though, that i don’t necessarily LIKE being so angry and then saying to myself, “okay, time for jokes.” but… for the good of the internet… let’s give it a shot.

Newt Gingrich
Newt Gingrich: the patron saint of people i wish were trapped in a pit of angry snakes

2012 Politics Episode I: Newt Fucking Gingrich

so let’s start with Newt Gingrich. THIS FUCKING GUY. if there’s one thing i have learned from this year’s Republican primary, it’s that New Gingrich is a terrible, terrible person. now, the thing is, i often used to take the position that he was similar to Richard Nixon: smart, but INCREDIBLY unlikeable, and i think you could point to the Republican’s congressional success in the 1990s to support this claim. but after all this recent stuff… well, i will phrase it this way: i have taken to telling my grandfather that if this election was a choice between Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann, i would have to vote for Bachmann. if that’s not a clear point, know that i am notorious in his household for bashing Michelle Bachmann.

i don’t actually know what i hate most about Gingrich right now. is it the fact that he bashes Romney for flip-flopping on issues while essentially doing the same thing himself? sure. is it the fact that he poses as an upright, moral conservative while wife #2 dishes dirt about Newt’s shady dalliances with wife #3 during their marriage? absolutely. let me be honest: there are times when i feel i am the only man anywhere to the right of center who possesses the ability to keep it in his pants when confronted by pretty girls who are not my wife/girlfriend/”special lady” … a mathematical figure made all the more absurd when you consider that, all things considered, women COMPLETELY REJECT MY MANY CHARMS. personally, i think Bill Hicks said it best when he wrote that song about how chicks dig jerks.

BUT I DIGRESS. no, what actually makes me burn with the fury of one thousand rampaging elephants is the whole “grandiose” thing, to borrow Santorum’s word, which i will do because Santorum is, believe it or not, what the British would call “spot on” as regards this issue. “grandiose,” of course, being some halfway-French term for “characterized by affectation of grandeur or splendor or by absurd exaggeration”; Wikipedia helpfully adds that it’s “is chiefly associated with narcissistic personality disorder, but also commonly features in manic or hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder.”

it is the WORST thing about Gingrich: the constant over-hyping of himself as a once-in-a-lifetime historical figure. it’s one thing to have a high opinion of yourself; frankly, i imagine most of these politicians do, because you simply HAVE to have a lot of confidence in yourself to make all this work. as an opposite example, i personally have accomplished next to nothing in my life because i consider myself to be completely worthless… but then again, i never find myself acting like a raging prick on nationally-televised debates, so i guess i have my strong moments.

anyway, anyway, let me close the rant out in this SLIGHTLY redundant fashion (and by slightly, i mean “totally stealing a joke i made earlier today”): so i was reading this Romney-For-President internet site thanks to a random link to the excellently-titled “I Think Grandiose Thoughts” page of burning on Newt Gingrich, and on this page i discovered an AWESOME list of people that Newt Gingrich has compared himself to, which includes:

–Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (“I am much like Reagan and Margaret Thatcher”; obvious choices for a Republican, but clearly figures who outstrip him in achievement and, dare i say it, likeability);

–Abraham Lincoln (“I begin as Lincoln did”; can’t hurt to compare yourself to American’s greatest president, i guess);

–Woodrow Wilson (“I am the most seriously professorial politician since Woodrow Wilson”; granted, he WAS book-smart, but what a really weird choice for a GOP figure to claim to parallel! plus, Wilson was a fucking scumbag);

–Henry Clay (“I was not a presider, I was the leader … I think Henry Clay’s probably the only other speaker to have been a national leader and a speaker of the House simultaneously”; the arrogance of this statement is hidden by the fact that Americans don’t remember Henry Clay at all anymore);

–Charles De Gaulle (when discussing his departure from Congress, “I believe in the sense that, you know, De Gaulle had to go to Colombey-les-Deux-Églises for 11 years”; not only is this another bizarre pick for a GOP guy –remember that Gingrich’s camp has bashed Romney for speaking French during this primary– but it smacks of a desperate desire to sound really, really smart on Gingrich’s behalf);

–William Wallace (“Remember Braveheart? These people want somebody who plants a flag in the ground, gives a speech and yells “Charge!” That is, someone like him.”; i have to say again that thanks to some personal history of mine, it’s HILARIOUS to me whenever someone compares themselves and/or their life to William Wallace, but unfortunately, this is one of those not-on-the-internet inside jokes);

–Pericles (a source describes Gingrich as “‘an unstable personality’ who talks about four or five great people in history, including Pericles and himself; personally, though, i think this is less conceit and, again, more desperate desire to sound really, really smart on Gingrich’s behalf);

–the Duke Of Wellington (Gingrich likens an appropriations triumph “to the way the British expeditionary force maneuvered against the French during the Peninsular War”; i personally call this notion solid support for Ron Paul’s declaration that Gingrich is a chickenhawk);

–a Viking (Gingrich “terms himself a ‘Viking'”; this one is too fucking hilarious to mock);

–Thomas Edison (Gingrich describes GOPAC, which he led at the time, as the Bell Labs of politics, and added “the first thing you need at Bell Labs is a Thomas Edison”; i can actually see a parallel here, in that Edison was known to be an incredibly unlikeable, unpleasant person, but then again, he was also smart and accomplished some things);

–Vince Lombardi (Gingrich compares Republican achievements to the Green Bay Packers under Lombardi at a time when he’s mysteriously the Speaker of the House; i myself view him as more of a Rich Kotite figure);

–the Wright Brothers (Gingrich asks an audience “to embark with me on a voyage of invention and discovery … to be as bold and as brave as the Wright brothers”; this one is just fucking WEIRD);

–Moses (although, in fairness to Gingrich, this is given as “at one point, he likened himself, lightheartedly, to Moses. he’d help them cross the Red Sea once again, Gingrich vowed, but only if they promised, this time, to stay on the other side”; i’d like to believe this truly was a joke).

seriously, though, fuck this Newton Leroy Gingrich character.

Jennifer Granholm
Jennifer Granholm: seen here relating to me through… uh… her wearing glasses? POLITICIANS ARE JUST LIKE JANKLOW!

2012 Politics Episode II: this time i watched Bill Maher for some reason

and to be honest, i don’t know why i did this. i HATE Bill Maher. first, he commits the greatest sin of any comedian: he’s not actually funny. sure, he’s incredibly smug and he’s convinced he’s the smartest man in any room –so while he also hates Gingrich, it seems they have something in common– but he’s not funny. and that’s a deal-breaker: i don’t care what a comedian’s politics are, but he’s got to be FUNNY. take Bill Hicks: he was probably, all things consider, about where Maher is, or maybe to the left of him (or maybe libertarian or something, what the fuck do i know)… but he’s also HILARIOUS. celebrity politics remain worth overlooking as long as they’re producing SOMETHING to take my mind off this miserable fucking existence, man.

plus, as a pro-gun guy, i have seen Bill Maher gleefully try to stack his panel against stances he doesn’t like (say, pro-gun stances), and i have to say this: if your argument possesses that much merit, show me that it does, don’t have some vapid actresses there to bob their heads to co-sign you while you fucking preen and reek of smugness, okay? USE YOUR FUCKING WORDS TO CONVINCE ME.

but i digress. so i happened to watch this episode of Maher’s current show, whatever it’s called, because i SUPPOSE i make poor life decisions, and as part of his panel, he had on former governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm, who at some point began to discuss the topic of Mitt Romney’s lack of blinding success in this primary. to her, a key point was that Mitt Romney being a turbo-rich guy who’d changed many of his positions made him someone that the average guy just can’t relate to. it’s a good point and i completely understand what she means. but there’s something that doesn’t seem right about this, i thought…

…and then, later, when i was outside roaming around in the snow, the thought was fully formed: why is the person who tells me the man worth tens of millions can’t relate to the common man always someone who’s worth mere millions… and who ALSO can’t relate to the common man? or, to put this a more vulgar way, why is it always one rich fucking asshole telling me that another rich fucking asshole doesn’t understand me at all, but THEY SERIOUSLY GET WHAT MY LIFE IS ABOUT?

three quick points for the illustrious Granholm, and anyone else who fits this bill:

–one, i don’t know Granholm’s finances, so i don’t know that she’s actually worth millions. but you know, with politics being what they are, i assume ANYONE who was governor for eight years is either a) worth millions, b) will be worth millions once they start fucking lobbying or c) both a and b. that said, i’m a man about things, so i’m willing to admit i’m wrong if someone will show me that a lawyer who graduated from Harvard, was a US attorney, was governor for two terms, and hangs out with millionaire Bill Maher is NOT a millionaire.

–two, seriously, rich people, stop pretending you “get it.” i’m middle-class, so i don’t waste time pretending to “get” what it’s like to be lower-class/poor/whatever, because i DON’T. oh, sure, i am completely filled with empathy for my fellow man, because if there’s one thing i DO know, it’s that life is short, life is shit, and then you die, and this concept applies to all of us who aren’t raking in that television comedian cash. but i don’t sit here and go, “well, you see, Granholm doesn’t get what it’s like to be in poverty, whereas i do, because i have SLIGHTLY LESS MONEY THAN SHE DOES.”

–three, i do admit this: hanging out with Bill Maher when he likes your politics is bound to make you look smart and magnanimous in comparison, because he is a jerk.

Jon Huntsman: excited to meet your random goat? hell yes! and it can even bite him, and he won’t mind! man, i miss this guy already

2012 Politics Episode III: a requiem for Jon Huntsman

okay, let’s bring it down to the sad part of this update: and now, janklow with an open letter to Jon Huntsman. well, why did you do it? are you some sort of jerk or something? do you not understand what you’ve left me with in the Republican primary?

seriously, though, as someone who’s not voting for any man who signed off on the concept of banning assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns (i’m looking at you, Obama), let’s consider the Republican primary options remaining in 2011-2012:

–a bloated bag of hateful wind who claims to be the only conservative in the race;
–a crazy person from Texas who’s far too libertarian to be elected president, and thus wastes my vote;
–some dude from Louisiana that NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF, EVER (even if he was also on that same episode of Bill Maher’s show);
–an incredibly expensive-looking robot that seems to constantly change its political positions as it TOTALLY RELATES TO ME, FLESHBAG;
–an ultra-conservative who… well, Google is telling me something about “frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.”

and that’s considering we’ve ALREADY eliminated a crazy person from Texas who’s NOT Ron Paul, a frightening woman who does not need facts because random fictional women tell her things, and that guy that fucked every woman in Georgia. ALL OF THEM.

mostly, though, what i’m sad about is that you totally seemed like a nice, regular guy, Jon Huntsman, even if you DO speak Chinese and worship some weird pseudo-Christian god that South Park ABSOLUTELY SAVAGED with their awesome comedy. and while i know you too are turbo-rich and cannot understand me or my life at all … i also never heard you say you could, and that was nice. maybe you DID say it out of earshot, but fuck it, i know, all the politicians have to say it. i guess i just have to come to terms with that like i’ve come to terms with every other sad thing in life.

still, i’ll miss you. come back and visit me in 2016 when my options are that above list minus whoever lost to Obama in 2012.

Huntsman... spider
another thing i will miss: a Google search for “Huntsman” results in many AWESOME SPIDER PHOTOS

2012 Politics Episode IV: closing thoughts

finally, you know what else is fucking lame? having 2011 have contained anything to do with a 2012 presidential election. we’ve still got TEN MONTHS TO GO. at this rate, we’re spending half a president’s term running for the next term. jesus fucking christ, America, get it together, please.

warning: at some point, this week’s update will feature a picture of a dog biting a dildo

i am just going to be 100% honest with you, Loyal Reader: this update is incredibly late because i just wasn’t feeling the writing. maybe it’s because it’s 2012 now and i feel old and sad and would rather have just stayed in bed and eaten burritos all week long, but whatever the cause … so little motivation. but here it comes now! and i swear that i tried to add some jokes!

Romeo and Juliet: A Modern Day Sequel
when the cover of the book has this kind of shitty computer art, you KNOW the book’s going to be a masterpiece

Romeo and Juliet: A Modern Day Sequel

so one of the things that seems to happen fairly often, and which i am known to be critical of, is people comparing themselves to Shakespeare. people like Nicholas Sparks do this for reasons i can only assume to be things like “overcompensating for negative remarks by critics” and “effects of severe brain injuries suffered early in life,” but whatever the cause, i always find it childish and annoying. you can’t even attempt to compare yourself to writers in your particular genre? you HAVE to go right to Shakespeare?

however, i have now discovered there are worse ways to defame the memory of one of history’s greatest writers. i don’t recall where i found this link to James Edwards’ Romeo and Juliet: A Modern Day Sequel, but let me be frank: i assumed it was simply a modern day retelling of the story, like in that movie with Leonardo DiCaprio and a sexually-confused Harold Perrineau Junior, but it turns out i was wrong:

“Romeo Montague dies for Juliet and his spirit chases her through time. He awakens in this age on a volcano in Hawaii where he meets a wise Zen Master who teaches him about the modern world. Sadly for Romeo though, there is no sign of his beloved wife, Juliet. As the years pass, his memory of Juliet fades. Yet one day, Romeo logs into an Internet chatroom and meets a beautiful young actress by the name of Emilie. For some mysterious reason, both fall in love almost instantly. Romeo slowly comes to realize this intelligent, shy, and alluring young woman is his wife, Juliet — now reincarnated as the famous Hollywood starlet, Emma Gallant. As the two star-crossed lovers recount their past lives in ancient Egypt and Atlantis, they must fight through many obstacles before they can meet again.”


now, i’ve read a little Shakespeare in my day, to include Romeo & Juliet, and there are some concepts presented here that i do not recall having ANYTHING to do with the original work:
–anyone’s spirit chasing anyone else through time, or spirits traveling through time at all;
–Zen Masters of whatever sort;
–past lives in ancient Egypt and Atlantis;
–also, Atlantis existing at all?

plus, if you’ve setting up a concept that Romeo and Juliet’s spirits have traveled through time after death due to INCREDIBLE LOVE, is it really “for some mysterious reason” that “both fall in love almost instantly?” wouldn’t the reason be all that incredible, time-defying love? the only concept slightly more confusing than this is how James Edwards has not already hung himself in his bedroom closet after realizing what a terrible, terrible person he is.

what truly breaks my spirit (at least until it travels through time and finds my true love), though, was reading a customer review that gave this book five stars.

“As a meditation teacher, I was curious about James Edwards’ sequel to Romeo and Juliet. The idea of soulmates and reincarnation has always fascinated me. It was amazing to witness the intense, multi-life love affair as it is played out against the backdrops of Hawaii, New York City, Hollywood, Ancient Egypt, and Atlantis. We can feel our own past lives in each of these realities as James Edwards blasts opens the doors to these dimensions.”

all i want EITHER of these gentlemen (assuming that Michael Raboy is not James Edwards’ sad alias) to do is explain to me what all this Buddhist-praising, past-life-referencing has to do with the original play to such an extent that calling it a “modern-day SEQUEL” is justified. would it be correct for me to write the Tempest: A Future-World Sequel where Prospero is a space-wizard and Caliban and Ariel his alien robots? actually, now that i look at that idea written out… no one better steal my idea.

apparently, a dog found a dildo
…and that’s the image result i got searching for “court OKs barring high IQs for cops”; it’s clearly too ridiculous NOT to use

court OKs barring high IQs for cops

yeah, it’s about what the title makes it seem like:

“A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.”

so while i understand the court was addressing the more narrow question of “was this particular man discriminated against,” and while i understand the logic behind their decision… what exactly is the logic behind the New London PD taking a PUBLIC position that “an IQ of 125 is just too damn high for our police officers to have?”

“But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training. The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.”

seems to me like the real solution here is to put it to the prospective officers this way: if they’re hired and then quit within (insert time frame here), they then owe the police department (certain amount of money to compensate for the wasted training), as opposed to saying, “what we REALLY need in this police department is more idiots who lack career options. let’s give them all firearms and the responsibility to monitor drug dealers with access to ready cash!”

plus, i’d like to know what the percentage of people undergoing training and then quitting REALLY is, because while this can happen at ANY employment that involves significant training, i also can’t imagine it’s THAT prevalent.

“Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law. But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.”

and also… a rational basis for the policy? either they CAN show some numbers (which, were i the New London PD, i would have immediately released in a PR move), or they expect me to believe that people of stupid-to-average intelligence don’t ever get bored with their work. let me tell you something: i have worked with stupid people. i have worked with people of average intelligence. many of them ALSO get bored and quit their jobs, or at least get bored and do their jobs badly.

but what do i know? my IQ is around 160; i am already bored with this story! needs more robots!

Cam'ron & Vado
Cam’ron still appears to LOVE the color pink; Vado seems more conflicted

and now to close on a final note, i need to link/quote this following article on the grounds that i have found it to be the most hilarious thing i have read in the last few months. you see, there’s a site/blog/whatever known as Refined Hype that covers rap-related news; as a fan of hip-hop, i often read it. one of their writers has a regular feature (Rap Lines That Make No Fucking Sense) that i enjoy. it’s always good, but in this case, said article cited a line from the Cam’ron song “Motivation”:

“I’m pissed again / say his name wrong and get wrapped like a mummy / like that man from Michelin.”

Wait, Cam thinks the Michelin Man is a mummy? That’s secretly the funniest thing I’ve ever heard.
I can only assume he’s gone through his entire adult life believing the Michelin Man is a mummy – lord knows why he thought a tire company would use a mummy as their mascot. How many people has he mentioned this to in casual conversation? And no one’s bothered to correct him?

Cam’ron: “Yo, I never understood why Michelin uses a mummy to sell tires.”
Jim Jones: “That’s not a mummy man, he’s like…a dude who’s made up of tires or whatever.”
Cam’ron: “That’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard you say, Jim.”
Juelz Santana: “Yeah, it’s definitely a mummy.”
Jim Jones (shaking his head in disbelief): “Fine, whatever. It’s a fucking mummy.”

this fictional exchange makes me laugh uproariously EVERY TIME I READ IT. is it the sincerely insane notion that Cam’ron really thinks the Michelin Man is a mummy? is the the fictional Jim Jones (who himself is a ridiculous hobo-like figure known for appearing unwashed and mumbling nonsense) being the voice of wisdom? I HAVE NO IDEA. i only know you will never find it as funny as i do … assuming you find it funny at all. it’s possible you don’t.

next “week”: we’ll try to increase the percentage of hilarious material i am responsible for from around 66% to closer to 100%. hey, it could happen! DON’T JUDGE ME!