World of Suck

In this huge nanny state, we have ratings and warnings and such things they tell us if we could be offended at the media we've decided to view. And if so, how offended they think we could be. They coach it in terms of protecting our youth, but it's really more of an offensive meter.

What I don't understand is how fucked up the system is. Or rather, the systems. They don't seem to agree on anything.

First off, there is no rating in print media. No book comes with a sticker telling you that it has some fucked up imagery inside. I suppose you could say the shrink wrap on skin mags equates to an adult only rating but I think that's a stretch.

Music has only 2 ratings. Explicit lyrics and Not. That means that music is either OK for kids or not OK for kids, without really defining what age that line exists at. For some reason, 2 groups is enough for music.

But not for say... Movies. Because it's visual, we apparently have to add a whole slew of new ratings. G for everyone, PG for older kids, PG-13 for teens, R for adult supervision and NC-17 for adults only Honestly, that seems pretty reasonable. The only real issue I have with it is that the NC-17 rating is used as a bludgeon to prevent movies from going overboard. It functions as an effective ban on the movie because it can't get into major theaters with that rating. That ban allows the rating board to effectively censor movies or force them to be edited into their guidelines, which are often vague, enigmatic and often enforce their own mores over the true content of the movie (please, go watch This Film Not Yet Rated for more).

Next up we have TV. Movie guidelines aren't enough for TV. They need more. Y for all children, Y7 for older kids, Y7/FV for.. older kids, but with fantasy violence... yeah whatever.... G for general consumption, PG for tweens, 14 for teens, and MA for adults. To me, the Y-G breakdown is odd, but I guess I can understand it for helping parents find programming for their child's age group.

Finally, we have video games. Which has yet another rating system. C for childhood, E for everyone, E+10 for everyone that's over 10 (not really everyone, right?) T for teen, M for mature (adults only) and AO for adults only. I know, it sounds like I stuttered, but I didn't. M and AO have the exact same requirements. The concept is like R and NC-17, but they failed at definitions because the rule is the same, only an adult can buy it. Also, much like the movie industry, the game industry uses AO as a bludgeon to force games to conform to a standard or risk a loss of sales.

I know, that's all a very long winded explanation of things you probably already know. But I think it's important to go through all of that to get to my point. Those systems have some generally easy to see crossover in ratings, on the surface. But once you go deeper, they don't really agree on much. Homosexuality in music is fine, but it's almost a certain R in movies. Violence is fine in movies, but not in games. Sex is cool for books, but right out in TV.

The problem is that all these systems use a different set of rules to define themselves. They can't agree on what is offensive or how offended to be by it. You can Fuck 3 times, but not 4. You can show nipple, but not ass. You can allude to drugs, but not show someone using them. Two guys can live together, but not if they're gay.

The ratings groups have a difficult job. They have to walk a fine line of moral objection across a diverse spectrum. But the way it is now, it's not useful. You have a bunch of systems that are close to one another in form and function, but diverse on the content of those ratings. And other media that is either totally unregulated or nearly so.

The whole set of systems are just fucked up. It's no wonder parents get confused.

Little green muffin
Pistachio and walnut
Sweet nutty goodness

So I eat Clif Bar's. Let me qualify that, I used to eat Clif Bars. There's only two flavors I buy: Crunchy Peanutbutter and Lemon Poppy. The reason I only buy those two flavors is because:

1. I can't eat anything with chocolate in it, so that means Chocolate Almond Fudge, Chocolate Brownie, Chocolate Chip, Chocolate Chip Peanut Crunch, Cookies n Cream (chocolate cookie), and Cool Mint Chocolate are all out. For that matter Peanut Toffee Buzz is out because I can't have stimulants (Green Tea) neither.

2. Some of the other flavors are just gross. You could choke them down if you had to, but no one buys them. The fact that I see dust on them in the stores affirms this fact. Apricot is one example, Cranberry Apple Cherry, Black Cherry Almond, Blueberry Crisp are others. I've tried to like them, but when I get to the end of the bar I'm forced to toss the last few bites because I just can't stand it any more.

3. I've been fooled into buying Banana Nut Bread but... it has chocolate in it too.

Now my favorite, the one I could always eat happily, was Lemon Poppy. Great flavor. I know I'm not the only one who enjoyed it because it was always the first flavor to sell out in the supermarket. In fact (at least in my area) you could almost never lay your hands on more than two or three at a time. So it came as a huge surprise when they discontinued it. I mean what's the marketing strategy here? That if the vast majority of their customers are buying a particular flavor they need to eliminate it to force them to eat other flavors? Because there's a backlog of Apricot or Blueberry Crisp rotting in the warehouses perhaps?

I emailed Clif, not all that politely either, basically asking them why they decided to punt my favorite flavor. I also mentioned that if they didn't bring it back I'd be forced to become a full-time Larabar customer. I didn't get a reply.

A friend of mine emailed them nicely and got a reply - although the information value of the response was essentially worthless:

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to contact us here at Clifbar&Co. Lemon Poppyseed Clif Bars have been discontinued and we no longer have any in stock. I will gladly log your vote to bring it back. In the meantime is there another flavor that you are interested in trying? If so please reply to this email with your mailing address.

Take care,
Jeff - Consumer Service
800-884-5254 ext.105

www.clifbar.com

Well Jeff, since no one replied to my email input here's my answer. No - there aren't any other damn flavors I'm interested in. And I'm pretty tired of eating only crunchy peanutbutter so yeah, I'm moving to Larabars now.

Glhf.

AT&T Statement on NSA Issue

San Antonio, Texas, June 27, 2006

At AT&T, we vigorously protect our customers' privacy and only share information as specifically authorized by the law.

The news media have carried reports alleging that AT&T is participating in an unlawful NSA terrorist surveillance program. Unfortunately, the law does not permit AT&T to respond to those allegations.

The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause "exceptionally grave harm to national security" and would violate both civil and criminal statutes. Under these circumstances, AT&T is not able to respond to such allegations.

What we can say is AT&T is fully committed to protecting our customers' privacy and would not provide customer information to any government agency except as specifically authorized under the law.

Dude in Missouri held up a convenience store. Police were called in. He stole a car and attempted to evade police. During the pursuit, the suspect shot and injured a cop. They caught him and arrested him.

He was convicted of a number of crimes relating to the burglary, car theft, and shooting the cop. He was also convicted of 2nd degree murder. You might wonder, how did the murder bit get attached?

Well, apparently a cop was on route to the search area to join the pursuit. 40 miles from the area, with his lights on, siren blazing, the cop came over a hilltop. A tractor trailer crashed into him and killed him.

The jury found that the cop would still be alive if this guy hadn't committed his crime, so it was his fault.

Personally, it's bullshit. I'm all for tough laws and all, but the cop got killed by his own actions and the actions of an unrelated truck driver. Would he still be alive? Maybe, but that doesn't mean this guy is guilty of murder. It's pretty fucked up, IMO.

Honestly, throw the book at the guy for the stuff he was responsible for. Attempted murder on the cop he shot. Burglary, grand theft auto, whatever. But you can't assign guilt to the guy because some cop that was responding to the call ended up dead 40 miles away from the scene of the crime.

So last night I was in the liquor store, buying stuff to take on a camping trip this weekend. One of our group is a girl who doesn't drink beer, only girly drinks. So I was forced to look in the dreaded "malternative" cooler. And that's where I found the worst product ever.

Smirnoff Source. It's pure spring water, plus alcohol, and a small amount of flavoring. Yes, it's just watered-down vodka. And they expect people to pay for that. I can't imagine any environment in which this drink is necessary. Presumably it's aimed at people in clubs, but clubs have bars, and bars can give you a shot of vodka in a glass of water if you want. Of course, nobody has ever in the history of the universe ordered a shot of vodka in a glass of non-sparkling water, but that didn't stop the geniuses at Smirnoff from putting that in a bottle.

A couple years ago, I had a similar reaction to "Nice and Easy" vodka, which was only 60 proof. It was just regular vodka, watered down slightly. But in retrospect, that makes at least a little sense, if you want weak drinks but don't want to mess with the proportions. Flavored alcoholic spring water, on the other hand, is just moronic.

I've done this topic before. I know I have.

I picked up Unreal Tournament 2004 again. It's been six months or so and I thought I'd go a few rounds. Shake the rust off.

I spend a lot of time working my hit scan. Gotta get the aim dependent aim back, because the game is dominated by it. Sniper rifle, lightning gun and shock. If you don't have it, you're doomed.

I do not cheat. I do not have a program installed to help me aim. My aim isn't even that good (just over 35% in fact).

So, I'm amused that I'm received 5 accusations that I cheat in the past week. So here are some tips for those pathetic players out there who assume botting before they assume skill.

First off, CTF-Face is a sniper map. When I set up my tent and sniper rifle up on the ground in front of the base, you have to find a way to deal with it. If you try to just teleport past me, you'll discover that I can aim at you by tracking the movement of the translocator and shoot you the second you appear.... even in mid-air. Complaining about it won't help you.

Also, you are on the blue team. That means you're bright blue and show up nicely against the base color. So, when you go up top and slide down the side, you're visible, especially when facing a *ahem* accomplished sniper. This means that as you fell, I followed you down with my scope, and when you stopped on a ledge, I put a bullet through your head. Nothing mysterious there. No magic. No artificial aim. No radar. Simple, easy mouse movements and a fatal left click.

Want more tips? I got 'em. Just because you don't know my name or clan tag doesn't mean I'm an aliaser/botter. I know because I wear my clan tag and name proudly. It just means that you're a little punk bitch who hasn't been around long enough to be afraid when I announce that I'm on flag defense.

Claiming to spectate me and decide I'm cheating is also idiotic. I don't snap aim. I don't follow people through walls. I hit around 1 out of 3 sniper shots. Most of the people on the server can tell I'm not cheating because I move well and spam well. That's why they laughed at you.

So, when you accused me of cheating, it just pissed me off and makes me target you more. Consider that your last tip.

I want to injure someone. This isn't really unusual I know. But there is a new guy here at work. Works in a nearby office. Don't know him, don't have any clue what department he works for, don't give a fuck.

You see, he has his instant messaging on. Not a big deal. But he has the volume on high enough that we can hear it 25 feet away. And every time he gets or sends a message... a little BONG like a small church bell goes off. Much louder than the standard sound for AIM and MSN and all.

Every time. He's been IMing someone for about 3 hours now. Almost constantly. My headache is not pleased with this man and his annoying ass BONGing laptop.

I was going to just bash his hands and break the laptop speakers. But then I thought that it's better to destroy the entire laptop to get rid of the wav file. Finally, I decided that the only way to be sure is to nuke him from orbit.

As a hardcore video game player, it's well known that I value game play over aesthetics. But just for a moment, lets step back and LOOK at the games we play.

As graphics have improved, the industry has been pushing more and more realistic models and environments. Recently, one particular thing has stood out at me over and over again. In the drive to achieve aesthetic perfection, logical design has been cast aside. The key example here is armor.

It's not really that complicated to apply logic to armor. Torso and head should receive the bulk of the armor. Limbs and extremities receive less armor in order to allow greater flexibility. All logical, right?

So, explain to me why the foot soldiers in Gears, UT, Quake and other games all put the majority of their armor on their shoulder pads? Why do they wear boots that look to weigh over 40 lbs? Gloves that would do justice to Hellboy? Why do the women expose their bosoms to the world instead of wearing the light chest plate the men wear? Open face plates, but heavily armored ankles??

Seriously?

I dunno. As I'm sitting here looking aqt preview pics of UT3, the thought occurred to me, so I followed it up. All the sci-fi shooters do the same thing. I just can't figure out why anyone would think to design armor that way.

Yesterday could have been a new first for the Senate. There was a guest chaplain in to read the opening prayer. A Hindu prayer. The first time that religion's voice had been offered that honor.

Not a monumental or amazingly special first, but a good one.

And if that was all that happened it would have been a footnote in the historical archives of a country that prides itself on religious freedom. Most likely, no one would have heard about it or thought overly much about it.

But sadly, it's not. Some dumb fucks decided to interrupt the guy just before he spoke.

"Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight." Continuing into "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!" as they were taken from the senate floor.

Seriously people. Try not to be ignorant bigots. You make the rest of the Christians look bad. Most of them are good people. But idiots like you are a fucking dark mark on them.

So, Operation Save America, who drove all the way to DC from North Carolina to be dicks. They even put out a press release taking responsibility and making some very common misstatements about the Founding Fathers.

Fuck you, asshats. You fail to live up to the precepts of your religion and, at the same time, besmirch those who practice your faith. Sit down, and shut the fuck up.

Well, looks like someone is upset that this allowance is being cut. "What me accountable? Not to teh likes of you!"

“I don’t think Congress ought to be running the war,” Mr. Bush said. “I think they ought to be funding the troops.”

As an Ohio republican cared to point out:

“We have a role to express our opinion in regards to the way he does anything,” Mr. Voinovich said in an interview. “He should welcome our point of view because it does reflect the point of view of the people who elected us to office.”

The people? Remember us? You weren't elected king, jackass. Just president.

Yes there's nothing like getting your conservative sanctioned viewpoint from home-schooled kids. Clearly they're my favorite source for expert opinions.

Bored? Have several hours to kill reading witticisms from the Flat-Earth Einsteins? Go here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/

Warning: the stupidity factor is near biblical proportions.

Today, there were many people without power due to damaged equipment and downed power lines from storms that went through the area yesterday. Then today we were oppressed with 90+ F temperatures. Between a weakened infrastructure and higher than normal demand, someone had to pull the short straw and lose power.

My city pulled that short straw and at 11 am National Grid plunged it deep into our rectums while they plunged us into non-air conditioned darkness without so much as warning or advisory on how long they expected it to last. At City Hall, new police cadets were being sworn in. Businesses, who struggle in this post-industrial city and rely on daytime customers, were getting ready for lunch rush.

My gripe isn't that we had to lose power for the greater good - my gripe is that the arrogant bastards at National Grid decided to pull the plug without even a courtesy call to the city mayor and the larger office buildings. Its not like this was an outage caused by outside factors - it was a conscience decision.

No one should ever be willfully forced into an "emergency" situation. If they had given a mere hour's notice to officials: The city could have gotten police to direct traffic at affected lights. Larger commercial structured could have removed the less mobile out of the buildings more safely. Area businesses could have prepared by sending home unneeded staff and food establishments could have made less food. Their careless act could have endangered our community's safety and cost businesses money in a town were times are tough.

A big fat boo to you National Grid!

Let me introduce you, loyal readers, to my latest target of rage and disgust.

Jennifer Roback Morse. PhD even. God only knows what she got her doctorate in, but it certainly couldn't have been the medical profession. I fucking hope it isn't at least.

Why has she earned her place on my list of ignoramuses?

Well, she recently penned one of the most idiotic articles I've ever seen. Once again, as loyal readers, you know that sets the bar pretty fucking high. Ok.. To be fair... top ten. Worst is pretty harsh. Still, I had difficulty even attempting to catalog all of the lies and distortions in her article on contraception and sex ed.

You see, she wants to get the government out of sex ed. By that, she means Planned Parenthood and similar groups that teach about various methods of safe sex. Not the abstinence only crowd. They should be allowed to suck the government teat.

I can accept that viewpoint. I disagree, but I accept the position. What I find reprehensibly unacceptable is lying to achieve your goals. Distorting facts to confuse people. And alluding to causation with unrelated correlation.

She's a liar, and a bad one.

For example, she uses interesting versions of statistics. Instead of the proper usage failure rates of condoms, she lists the "common usage" as though it was the norm. So, instead of the 2% failure rate of properlly used condoms, she lists the rate as 15%. 15% is the rate of failure including improperly used protection. Because the failure rate is so high, she contends that we must give up on teaching condom usage and focus on abstinence, which has a 100% success rate.

Couple problems here, beyond her woeful ignorance of course. First off, the lack of real sex ed is what leads to improperly used condoms. The real interesting usage of that stat is to say that 13% of condom failures are due to people using them in an improper manner, so education is needed to close that gap. But hey, she's a slack jawed idiot. My expectations are probably too high for her. Secondly, I bring up a argument regarding her usage of the 100% rate. Yes. She's right. It is. If you do it right. If you don't, not so much. See? Since we're including improper usage, can we get some stats on kids that failed to use abstinence protection properly? That is, how often did the people who fucked without protection get pregnant? We ARE including improper usage, right? Idiot.

But she's not done. Oh no. That sort of stupidity is just the tip of her mental juggernaut. She goes on to say that a cohabitating teenager on the pill has a 48.4% failure rate. That's amazing. Simply amazing. You'd think someone would have noticed the pill doesn't work as well for teens 'living in sin'. I mean, seriously... how do you think the pill is designed to detect that? I mean, it would have to have some sort of sensor to alter it's chemical structure in order to fail more than the .3% failure rate associated with proper usage. Because short of chemical change, usage is the key factor. If it fails that much in certain socioeconomic groups, we're not talking about a drug failure. We're talking about an education problem.

And that's what she's trying to block. Getting sex ed out of schools. Abstinence only. No funding for educational programs like Planned Parenthood that offer alternatives and medicinal advice on how to prevent parenthood and have safe sex.

Honestly, this bitch is the fucking problem she's trying to solve. I suggest suicide.

There have always been "dirty" coaches. These are the types that encourage their players to do more than just mentally intimidate the other team, but actually go so far as to injure them. For the most part it's accepted, especially in full contact sports like lacrosse and football. The soccer-fairies notwithstanding, you expect a lot less deliberate injuries in other sports like basketball and baseball. They happen, yes, but it's generally not anything like hockey where blood is part of the institution.

Kiddie leagues are also not without their dastardly types, although it's not too often you hear news about a teammate being asked to take out one of their own. The case in point is one little league coach that offered to pay one of his team $25 for beaning the autistic boy on the team, ostensibly to keep him off the field.

Before I continue with my opinion on this topic, I'd like to remind the reader where they are - consider it a public service announcement or "station identification". This is World of Suck, where our opinions are, usually, slightly off color.

But back to the story: Coach offers kid money to bean teammate, kid gets thwacked with a few balls but nothing serious, people find out, case goes to court and the coach is slapped with 1 to 6 years in jail.

Downs was convicted of corruption of minors and simple assault for offering $25 to an 8-year-old boy to hit his mildly autistic teammate with a ball while warming up before a June 2005 playoff game. The younger boy testified at trial that, on Downs' instructions, he purposely threw a ball that hit his teammate in the groin, then threw another that hit him in the ear.

Of all the things I have an issue with it's offering the teammate money. To be honest I have a problem with the whole "everyone needs to be equal" bullshit. Realistically the parents of the autistic kid should have had the common sense not to force their child onto other people. Following that, I'm sorry, sidelining ineffective members so the team can win isn't really all that bad in my book. It's happened for years and fifty years ago, the autistic kid never would have been let on the team to begin with.

The better way to handle the situation would have been for the parents to keep their kid out for the high-pressure game, and if not, the coach should have asked them to. If that wasn't an option he should have talked to the kid and asked him to sit out for the good of the team, and then in the last resort talk to the team about minimizing the weak link by having the rest of them play harder.

I don't outright condone his asking a teammate to take him out with a ball, but then again in the grand scheme of things he was only trying to do what was best for the whole team after being saddled with an ineffective player. And yes, money should never have entered into it.

But one to six years? I don't think so.

The White House has once again told Congress to pack sand. They're not going to turn over documents and are claiming executive privilege. The democrats are making some simpering little grunts about maybe doing something about it.

Know them, it'll be non-binding and pointless. Wouldn't want to accidentally serve the country if it could potentially look bad during the elections. (By the way, thanks a lot Ken Star. Your little witch hunt has made it impossible to effectively check the President's power without looking like a partisan hack)

Whatever.

I find it difficult to summon outrage over it. Hell, annoyance is getting harder to summon at this point.

Honestly, that bothers me a little. When something is as fucked up as this administration, I should be able to be pissed at them and remain that way until it's resolved. But they're wearing me out. That's obviously their intention.

But I find myself more and more just shrugging it off and sighing. They won't stop fucking up. No one can apparently stop them from doing it. Checks and balances are fucking broken. The people are pissed at Bush. And pissed at Congress for sitting there and not doing anything about it. Not so much as a pro forma censure.

It's hard to bring up that same level of outrage day in and day out. I guess people can get used to just about anything. Real life boiling frog syndrome.

I shop at Walmart frequently, more due to convenience than adoration. My neighborhood Walmart has a "No Solicitation" sign posted prominently on the two main front doors. Clear enough, not that I am selling anything. However this sign obviously means "Solicitation with management's approval only" since I am frequently accosted, especially on weekends, by this or that local charity on my way in. This afternoon was no different. It was yet another kids sports group asking for donations. Call me a crumugen if you like, but I am not inclined to donate money so little suburban kids can walk around in professional looking uniforms. My money, my prerogative and I find the local homeless shelter a more deserving charity. What was different about this afternoon was that two of these little darlings, gazing pleadingly with big blue eyes, were flanking the door. Flank is a generous statement, I nearly had to turn sideways to get through the pig-tailed gauntlet.

I quickly said "Sorry, no" as I scurried into the store. Then as if my entrance wasn't bad enough, I had to repeat the process on the way out (I knew I should have went the long way and checked out the at the garden center). My emotions were somewhere between guilt and annoyance. Guilt for not throwing in a few cents, annoyance for having to deal with it every weekend I go to pick-up a few things.

My question is: Walmart, who are you trying to prevent from solicitation? Seems to me you let every freakin group in the area come and beg on your door step. I can understand, if you let one you must let them all, but can ya give us a break????

On 6/24/07, U235 discussed SUV's backing over of children in "No Sympathy, None Whatsoever". I am finally reading April's issue of Reader's Digest and low and behold - an article about just that - the tragedy of kids getting crushed by SUVs.

Guess what? There is a web-site: kidsandcars.org ; that asks you to go to another website to support legislation: safecarsforkids.org

Like all legislation, there are portions that I support, like windows that won't just keep closing even if there is an obstruction. My answer would be to remove the one-touch closing feature on many cars. Then it is up to the operator (driver or passenger nearest the window being closed) to know if there is an obstruction. Wait! That's right! This is for people who don't want the responsibility to think.

And anti-rollaway? Does that mean my beloved standard transmission will become a thing of the past? People with standard transmissions accept rolling as a fact and use it to their advantage at times.

I modified my message to read:

Since 2000, over 1,100 children have died and thousands more have been seriously injured in non-traffic incidents involving vehicle backovers and power window strangulations. And this is a tragedy.

Many vehicles have large and dangerous blind zones, power windows that can inadvertently close on necks, hands, and fingers, and brakes that can easily shift out of gear. These are issues of which consumers need to be aware, but legislation that increases consumer vehicle costs considerably are not needed. I am writing to ask your to modify the bi-partisan child safety legislation, the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007.

This legislation would require the federal government to issue a rear visibility standard to ensure a driver can detect the presence of a child when backing up - Rather auto retailers should be required to offer this equipment to people who wish the convenience as an alternative to getting out and looking behind their vehicle.

The bill would also direct the government to consider a safety rule on the need to require power windows to automatically reverse direction if there is an obstruction in the path of a power window or panel. This is similar to technology already mandated by the federal government in automatic garage doors to stop children from being killed or injured - Rather, automatic closing windows should be banned and the responsibility of knowing if the window can be safely closed placed on the operators shoulders

Another provision in this commonsense legislation will save lives by preventing vehicle rollaway that occurs when a child easily shifts a parked vehicle into gear. Finally, the legislation calls for data collection and a consumer information program alerting the public to these dangers.

While it is a tragedy when a child dies, much can be done through education.

Perhaps, you too, wish to participate in the political process.

"We will not surrender. We will be martyred, but we will not surrender," cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi told GEO television, a private channel. "We are more determined now."

[...]

[Government spokesman Tariq] Azim told Dawn News Television that Ghazi's talk about martyrdom was a bluff, noting that his brother, chief cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz, had said the same thing and then was arrested trying to sneak out of the complex disguised as a woman in a full-length burqa and high heels.

It's nothing less than amusing that an uber-masculine religion, one that feels their women need ambulatory, full-body tents, can be reduced to this. So where's the macho posturing? I guess it's pretty difficult to manage when you're trying to sneak away from your own embarrassing arrest in high heels and a burqa.

One would think that to be caught dressing as a woman (heels included) for any muslim man should result in instant excommunication (or the approximate for that religion). I can't recall any Japanese officials trying to flee the country in a Kimono, any southern generals in a full bell skirt with hoops, or ... well I guess there isn't much camouflage to be offered by the majority of African tribes.

So what exactly gives here? Do they still get their virgins in heaven if they're shot while trying to escape in this "disguise"? Do they have to give the burqa back to the woman they forced it on to begin with? Do they have to be directly related to borrow it in the first place? Or are there special "manly" versions used just for these occasions?

It's pretty fucking weak that any man would dress up as a woman to escape capture. Especially from ultra-zelots who regard women as sub-human.

The just desserts would be instant castration after capture... then heck, let him go - he could use the burqa full time after that.

MsWord. It's the veritable document standard for most of the world. Well, for material that needs to retain its flexibility and editibility for content (otherwise the unreserved emperor is Acrobat). Over the years this app has become the King Kitchen Sink of features. Spell checkers were de rigueur in the early 80's. Grammar in the late 80's. Thesaurus? Check. Fonts? Out the kazoo. Tables and bullets, templates and clip art, macro's and embedded links Word has so much... junk.

Most of these features aren't used. A sane user never would, much less someone who wants to hand off responsibility for the document and never see it again. But my coworker came up with a gem of an idea for a feature that would skyrocket Word to unfathomable popularity. Indeed this is a feature that would hardly take any work whatsoever. This feature is the "Bullshit Meter".

Utilizing Word's already useless grammar checker and some smorgasbord of the statistics and other fabulous (rarely used) features like the summary generator, Word would estimate the percentage of bullshit in the document and produce a true/false value as to whether the document was actually worth reading.

Think of the value! Already Word can summarize the document for you... but if it were to tell you, with a single mouse click, if it was worth the next hour or two of your life? Now that's priceless.

Actual quote overheard amongst coders:

"And this is what we'll call polymorphism at the complier level"

Brother, I feel your pain.

There's so much discussion lately about germ spreading and contamination that sanitizing products have proliferated faster than nukes during the Cold War. However the top of the heap for 'personal grottiness' these days has nothing to do with bathrooms or even flu epidemics. It's cell phone schmutz.

It's bad enough when you have to rub the display of your cell on your clothes to make it visible enough to read, but the overall nastiness of having to borrow someone else's phone is enough to make the ordinary person break out in hives. Even passably clean cells have a build-up of biological detritus in the corners that inclines the borrower to want to grab a pair of latex gloves before utilizing the device. ...And then you get to put it next to your face.

Yummy.

Of course, I suppose, there's the solution of the pleather (yes *pleather*) and vinyl phone condoms. This cell-sac is usually donated during the purchase of the expensive tidbit of electronics by an overly grateful vendor as a token of gratitude to the buyer. But it's far from ideal. Given the shallowness of the buttons the plastic inhibits ease of use, encourages mis-dials and registers long term users as either 'anal' or 'nerdy' (generally both).

One imagines that, given the invention of stainless steel, perhaps science one day will provide us with the miracle of grot-free plastics. Perhaps even a mutation on the organisms that eat oil slick off the waves during spills (hands-fee anyone?).

Until then however? Keep your phone recharged, and scrub well between uses on the denim. And remember to wash your pants.

There is an as-of-yet-unrecognized force in the universe that trumps virtually all of the "basic forces". As a refresher here are the four basic forces:

- Gravity
- Radioactive Decay (weak atomic)
- Nuclear (within the nucleus or strong atomic)
- Electromagnetism

I will now introduce a force, against which all others (well perhaps not Nuclear) pale. It is a common force, and one that many of us have seen in practice and yet failed to identify.

This force is the attraction between pet hair and an LCD screen.

I defy anyone, anyone at all, to be able to trump the attraction between a strand of squiggly fur and an active display. You might be able to move it around on the screen, but it is beyond human capacity to actually *remove* the hair.

Like many great scientific discoveries there may be little practical application. However I take great solace in the fact that I have brought this phenomena out into the light where others may recognize that, when faced with cat fur on the screen, you might as well just live with it because there's no fucking way you're getting it off.

Thank you.

... apparently some people can give better head than Paris. Well ok, most anyone can, but it's not all the time that the someone is a balding old asshole.

WASHINGTON, July 2 — President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. was the act of a liberated man — a leader who knows that, with 18 months left in the Oval Office and only a dwindling band of conservatives still behind him, he might as well do what he wants.

Actually the press is wrong. He *always* did what he wanted to, and fuck the rest of us.

Indeed, to administration critics, the commutation was a subversion of justice, an act of hypocrisy by a president who once vowed that anyone in his administration who broke the law would “be taken care of.”

Wrong again, the president never said *how* they'd be taken care of. They just didn't get the drift. He always takes care of his buddies.

“I respect the jury’s verdict,” he said. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”

Respect means you don't overrule the will and laws of our country. Of course if you don't feel that you're above the law then all bets are off.

Fuck you, you fat fuck.

We recently got voice mail in my office. We have still been instructed to only give out our secretary's phone number. I work for a state agency and we are a bit behind the times. Somehow, some numb-nuts from a federal agency got my desk phone number - Correction - OLD desk phone number, where I haven't sat in about four months. Perhaps there is logic to only using the secretary's number!

The numb-nuts asked the guy who is now sitting there to transfer him to MY supervisor (not to be confused with the guy who is in my old cubie's supervisor, since we don't even work for the same people). The guy in my old cubie tells me numb-nuts called when I get back to my desk. I asked if numb-nuts left a last name or phone number, to which the guy shakes his head no. I guess numb-nuts thought that he was so memorable that I would remember him merely from his first name and agency he worked for, so memorable that he would stand out from the hordes of people I must deal with daily. Later, I get an e-mail from a person who I deal with frequently that originated from the numb-nuts (well, same first name, same agency anyway) - so at least I know what he was calling about.

What is the point of this rant?
1) Don't assume you and I are so tight that you can just call my desk when ever you want. We're not that tight unless I tell you we are. Otherwise, call the secretary - that is why I give people that number.
2) I may have given my direct line to you for a conference call or something. I also told you to loose the number after the call. I meant it!
2) Don't assume that the person who answers my phone, or in this case OLD phone, is my secretary and is ready, willing and able to transfer you call to whomever else you want to talk to in my absence.
3) LEAVE A PHONE NUMBER! Don't think you are so charming that I remember who you are. Unless I talk to you a couple times a week and/or you look like Johnny Depp and/or you have a voice like Barry White, I probably won't. Even if I do remember who you are, I probably can't find your phone number in the shambles I call a cubicle. Furthermore, I'm not psychic. If I was that good, I've have a stint in Vegas, baby, making way more money than I am making now and not sitting in a lousy windowless cubicle. Why you are calling would be really nice, too, but not quite as necessary.

What does it take and whom do I have to pay (or alternatively murder) to get a spray bottle that will actually *spray* when it is pointed at the target? I mean gods, this transcends all activities, be it killing weeds or cleaning a carpet, one needs to point the damn thing at what you're using it for right? And when pointed, and hand-crampingly pumped it needs to function, correct?

I'm of the mind that it's some Machiavellian plot, wherein the chemical manufacturers deliberately create a system that ensure you can no longer use the product with any dexterity once the contents are down by 50%. This, in turn, leads to the massive proliferation of half-empty cleaners, solvents, killers and other skin-dissolving gunk piled into a Mount Fuji of toxic liquids under the sink (remember to child lock those cabinets parents!).

Admittedly the bottles are cheap and don't pollute the environment (other than with the chemicals they contain). And likely, any improvement in the design may raise the price for the consumer. But then again the consumer will actually be able to use *all* of the product, and not just half.

So then, how hard is it to create a system that would permit spraying when the bottle is tipped at a slight angle... you know, to actually *aim* at the offending source? Some sort of shrinking bladder within the bottle, somewhat less expensive than what they use for fuel tanks on fighter jets, might be an idea. Or a spring-loaded diaphragm that kept the contents under pressure?

Are you idiot manufactures out there listening? I'm giving out these ideas for free here.

Lets say that those ideas are too costly to manufacture. A ~very cheap alternative would be to put one of those little plastic ball-n-tube widgets on the outside of the bottle, the type you see on shipping containers that need to be kept upright. The manufacturer could put marks on the tube to let the user know when the bottle was tipped too far to be effective. Cheap, simple, fairly foolproof, yes?

Regardless, there is nothing more damn annoying than using a bottle of crap which you have to pump by hand and not having it perform. Like a limp boyfriend, you either need to get him an aid to assist his performance, or dump him for some new guy altogether....