Dumbass.

Some bets are just stupid and sick.

Hat tip to Boortz.

Yummy!

PETA wants world-famous Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Ice Cream to tap nursing moms, rather than cows, for the milk used in its ice cream.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is asking the ice cream maker to begin using breast milk in its products instead of cow’s milk, saying it would reduce the suffering of cows and calves and give ice cream lovers a healthier product.

The idea got a cool reception Thursday from Ben & Jerry’s officials, the company’s customers and even La Leche League International, the world’s oldest breast-feeding support organization, which promotes the practice — for babies, anyway.

PETA wrote a letter to company founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield on Tuesday, telling them cow’s milk is hazardous and that milking them is cruel.

“If Ben and Jerry’s replaced the cow’s milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers — and cows — would reap the benefits,” wrote Tracy Reiman, executive vice president of the animal rights advocacy group.

Wise, wise, PETA. How in the world did the rest of us have the brains to get dressed in the morning and start walkin’ around, before you came along? Please, do interfere with our lives some more. Or try to. Fun to watch, and on your end, I’m sure it beats the heck out of a real job.

H/T: The Saloon.

Me, this morning:

What is in the water that left-wingers drink? Their ideological opponents say something, and their first response is to be horrified and indignant; this is to be expected when being horrified and indignant is the one weapon in your arsenal you’ve been hauling out most often over the last 75 years or so.

The greatest (non-porn) movie to bring to a bachelor party the modern world has ever seen, How To Murder Your Wife…right after the solution to the Case of the Faberge Navel. Time index 0:13:58:

Charles: Mr. Lampson himself is terribly upset.
Stanley: Of course he’s upset. He’s a lawyer, he’s paid to be upset.

I’m just shocked, dismayed and horrified!

No I’m not. I’m thirsty. Goin’ out for a beer run.

Ever think maybe people reacting with phony outrage to things might be the real cause of global warming?

Via Karol, an article comes to our attention, written by some kind of travel advice columnist type guy, for spoiled rotten brats.

It may seem like paradise – getting away from it all with your loved one to that beach hotel on the Cote d’Azur or an idyllic island in the Greek archipelago for a glorious week or two.

And that’s the rub. Periods of unstructured time – the break from routine – can play havoc with relationships. If you are used to having time apart, being together all day, every day, for several days can send the best relationship into an acrimonious tailspin.

I have known relationships to survive, not so much in spite of, but because of, the regular absence of one partner on business trips.

Absence really can make the heart grow fonder. Hence the adage, “I married him for better or for worse; but not for lunch.”

Monsters.

Sorry, I have bad memories about this. Those are from half a lifetime ago; nowadays, I can’t even imagine being coupled-up with someone across from whom I’d desire that kind of distance. At that point, a woman becomes nothing more than a name. Perhaps a warm body to keep in bed at night; and, one may have the sense of phony decency to avoid sleeping with others, but only to avoid social stigma. What’s the point, really? How much affection can you have for someone, without wanting to be around them?

I have trouble keeping my cool about this, so offensive do I find it. It really isn’t so much old, bad memories, as much as more modern, in-the-moment fatigue. It’s the same thing I was bitching and bellyaching about over here, really.

It isn’t hard at all to figure out what today’s Eleventh Plague of Egypt is. We have been consumed with a passion, to get all the props and accolades for instigating, reciprocating and nurturing relationships with those around us — but to accept none of the associated responsibilities, burdens, and just plain ol’ pains-in-the-ass. We want to be known for our “People Skills” without having to work for them.

How many are ready to sympathize with this plight of “Too Much Time With Him In Aruba” or wherever — but at the same time — are ready to jump in and hiss & spit their venom at Sen. Gramm for his Nation of Whiners crack?

Gramm earned for himself a Shakespearean brand of protest, from where I see things. His comment wandered far too close to the truth.

Via Rottweiler, a sordid tale of rules trumping things they ought not. It involves a rescue boat, and it seems the time line looks like this:

June 11: General purpose semi-inflatable lifeboat at Hope Cove suspended from active service by the Maritime and Coast Guard Agency because of concerns about the structural integrity of the hull.

August 12: A 13-year-old schoolgirl is swept out to sea 150 yards. Hope Grove Station Officer Ian Pedrick asks the Coast Guard for permission to use the boat to rescue her, then loses radio contact.

What happens next is where it starts to get a little silly…

The four-strong crew braved heavy surf to help save the girl, but their courage was not appreciated by their bosses at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

Their boat has been confiscated and locked up, and their station officer and his crew, who are all volunteers, are now under investigation following the rescue.

Now villagers say a holidaymaker could die because of what they say are “health and safety rules gone mad”.

I’m impressed that, if you read the original article to the end, you see some pencil-neck bureaucrat is dishing out some sound bite justifying this lunacy by saying “The health and safety of the boat crews and those who they may render assistance to is of paramount importance.” What a fascinating piece of logical warp this is. So let me get this straight — if the boat isn’t there, the swimmer dies, but of course the swimmer does not fall under the definition of “those who they may render assistance to” and so, in that manner, “those who they may render assistance to” are doing just great because the MCA had the wisdom and foresight to make sure this dead swimmer, who is dead, was not being rendered assistance.

I realize this is an imperfect analogy because when the boat caught up to the girl, it seems she was being rendered assistance by a diver. But I don’t really know what exactly that means. There is nothing in the article to indicate there was serious merit to these concerns over the hull integrity; the boat had been credited with over 91 rescues without any safety-related incident; and common sense seems to declare rather forcefully that a swimmer in trouble will have a much better chance with the boat than without it.

The operation was a complete success; the patient died.

Misha titles his own post “Let ‘er drown!” And that reminds me of a line from one of the greatest war movies ever made:

Aid: This is from General Alexander, sir…reminding you that you are not to take Palermo.

Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.: Send him a message, Cod. Ask him if he wants me to give it back.

A little girl made the eleven o’clock news because she has a bullet in her head. Doctors just failed to extract it from her skull so tonight she has to go to bed with it for the first time.

The local newscaster showed us what the bullet looks like by holding up what I recognized as a .22 long rifle cartridge in front of the camera. The next shot was a close-up of the little girl’s head with the bloody wound in plain view. Unmistakable implication: What that guy just showed you, is buried in there.

Not explicitly stated, but nothing offered to the contrary.

How does this nonsense make it to air?

Sorry Becky. I do think your point about “yellow journalism” has a grain of truth behind it; I’m certainly not saying Time Magazine was well-served running with this “pact” based on what little evidence they had. I agree they should probably take another look at that process.

But your skepticism was a little bit too solid. Your demand was that we forget how human nature works, and those things never work out very well. This seems to have happened and been validated as a “pact,” in all the ways that matter to me anyway.

None of the rising juniors TIME identified as being members of the pact have come forward publicly, but nine Gloucester High students have talked to TIME about the girls who decided to get pregnant. Some described the pregnant teens as having little parental supervision. “They could stay out all night if they wanted,” says a classmate, whose parents requested that she not be identified by name. Others noted a herd mentality. “I think the plan was a lot about peer pressure,” says Nicole Jewell, a rising junior who describes herself as being friends with some of the girls involved. “But a lot of girls were excited to be a part of it.”

So did the girls make a formal pact to get pregnant together or not? Without comment from any of the pregnant students themselves, it may be impossible to determine exactly what they agreed to, and when. So far, the only school official to use the word pact is Sullivan, who reportedly now says he does not recall who told him about the pact in the first place. But what does seem clear based on TIME’s reporting is that some of the girls in question did at least discuss the idea of getting pregnant at the same time, and that too little was done to educate the girls on the potential ramifications of that choice.

Does she ever close it? I don’t know if it is what it looks like, but it brings back bad memories. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah…

Still not as bad as what has become one of my favorites: Posing for the camera…smiling into it…with a cell phone pressed against your ear.

The radio guys finally fed me enough GooglFood for me to use my GooglSkilz on this. Up until now, they’ve just been playing the clip, and based on that I went out hunting at least twice over the last month, to no avail.

The lady interrupting (and claiming she isn’t) is Monica Conyers, wife of Congressman John. Her speaking style is much more invigorating than her husband’s; I would suggest it’s the exact opposite. One wonders how the conversations go over the dinner table.

Now that the nugget is found, I still think it’s a little strange that so little has been said about this. And yes, I spent some time in Detroit. So I know, I know…not ranking real high on functional, productive municipal governments.

It’s still a little strange.

She gets her come-uppins, and from an eighth-grader, no less…

I’ve stooped to the level of burning up valuable time arguing with people like this, and I’m unhappy about it because, having graduated from the eighth grade, I should be a more responsible steward of my own time, energy and effort than that. It’s an infinite loop. Just like what you see above. The iron-clad argument is served up…you just said this is wrong, and here you are on tape doing it…and back comes the ricochet. THAT is because HE just got done doing it to ME. Getting a “yes I admit that is wrong” is more difficult than eating jello with chopsticks. And as far as what would lend meaning and purpose to the dialog, the Holy Grail of “I will try to make sure that never happens again” — just forget it.

Must be pretty sweet, running a household on the income of a Congressman plus a high-ranking Detroit City Council member. And neither one of the two of them seem to understand how to communicate verbally. America — what a country.

…and I think this goes for all children. We have an unfortunate tendency, as parents and caregivers, to conceal from them the things they’ll need to know whey they grow up.

Is it shame? Probably. This seems, to me, to be the stuff we have that we weren’t designed to have. Like it’s the stain we painted on ourselves the day Eve got Adam to eat that apple. We tend to be very weak when it comes time to look at people who are better than we are, and say to ourselves “I am flawed, for I am not like that; I shall put great effort into trying to improve myself.” We tend to think highly of the way we do things, when we see others who do things better; and, to think more highly of the other, when we find out he makes a bigger mess than we do.

1. People who litter, don’t want anyone else picking it up.
2. People who break the law, tend to act superior to people who do not.
3. People who don’t read anything, don’t want anyone else to be well-read.
4. People who don’t work hard, don’t want anyone else to work hard either.
5. People who don’t believe in God, don’t want anyone else to believe in Him either.
6. People who don’t engage in free trade, don’t want anyone else to engage in it either.
7. People who follow arbitrary rules, want everyone else to be forced to follow the same rules.
8. People who wear ugly, ratty and dirty clothes all the time, don’t want anyone else dressing up.
9. People who don’t write anything down, get upset and frustrated when they see someone else has.
10. People who talk a lot, have a tendency to form acrimonious relationships with people who do not.
11. People who don’t exercise their right to free speech, don’t want anyone else speaking freely either.
12. Women who are ugly because they don’t take care of their bodies, don’t want anyone going to Hooter’s.
13. People who don’t and can’t show any class, have a strong likelihood to feign offense on behalf of someone else.
14. People who don’t make a material success of themselves and their efforts, don’t want anyone else to prosper either.
15. People who have been duped by something and have come to realize it, want everyone else to be duped in the same way.
16. People who are overly concerned about their emotions, don’t want anyone else to be overly concerned with thinking.
17. People who will not protect their families from harm, come up with creative and ingenious ways to condemn those who will.
18. Students who get poor grades, have been known to show some nasty behavior toward fellow students who get better grades.
19. People who live in the same town where they were born, have an envious and vituperative attitude toward people who do not.
20. People who don’t take care of their health and physical appearances, tend to have some pretty harsh words for people who do.
21. People who won’t take the initiative to see what needs doing and do it, don’t want anyone else to take the initiative either.
22. People who wear the latest fashions, tend to get nasty and vicious toward other people who spend their energy on other things.
23. People who are lazy when it comes to teaching their sons to be men, don’t want masculinity to be appreciated by anyone else either.
24. People who imagine themselves as part of a group, with no individual identity, don’t want anyone else to have an individual identity either.
25. People who can’t solve problems because they don’t think rationally, work pretty hard to avoid acknowledging that someone else solved a problem.
26. People who have taken mind-altering drugs, have a tendency to show an imperious, snotty and condescending attitude toward people who never have.
27. People who make a conscious decision not to offer help or defense to someone who needs it, don’t want anyone else to help or defend that person either.
28. People who have never built anything and don’t imagine they ever will, have a desire to destroy that which builds, and preserve whatever is likely to destroy.
29. Wives who diligently avoid doing anything that might make their husbands happy, engage in delusion when excoriating other wives who will do those things.
30. People who imagine they’ve been “oppressed” in the past, single out supposed beneficiaries of said oppression, and imagine themselves entitled to their property.

Update 7/3/08:
I should add something about words, because I know a lot about people that I wasn’t told when I was a child about what people mean when they use certain words. Some of the words we use don’t mean what they are supposed to mean. Among those words, some of them never mean what they’re supposed to mean. They mean, if anything, the exact opposite.

Everyone/body: This one has to come first because it is, by far, the most abused. This is annoying to everybody, this is the only meeting date we found that will work for everyone, we need to put this guy someplace where he won’t piss everybody off, everybody agrees this is a good idea, everybody’s tired of you, we need to form a policy that will work for everyone. The word “everybody” does not mean everybody, and “everyone” does not mean everyone. Those words mean “me; an elite club of people I’ve met who agree with me; and anyone I meet from here on who agrees with me.”

Torture: This word has no definition save for “stuff I wouldn’t like having done to me if it was me.” That’s not really a problem, except it tends to be tossed around rather breezily as an argument for doing away with some sort of punishment or aggressive interrogation, and both of those are rather pointless if they aren’t unliked right?

Constitution: “Shredding the Constitution” means “doing something you wouldn’t be allowed to do if I had my druthers.” It has nothing to do with that old piece of parchment or anything metaphorically based on it. It’s a buzzword thrown in to make it sound like you’re sagaciously citing an historical document, when all you’re doing is expressing a personal taste.

Civil liberties: What you use instead of the word “Constitution” when you’re afraid that, if you actually use the word “Constitution,” someone will ask for a more specific citation. There is no “civil liberty” document with all those pesky articles and sections and amendments, so you can just opine away about “civil liberties” until you’re blue in the face and no one will ever call you on your crap.

Common-Sense: What I want, and hell with everyone else.

Tolerance: This is another one of those “opposite” words. Usually, when you’re accused of being intolerant it means you’ve tolerated something someone wishes you didn’t. And, if you’re credited with being tolerant, it means you’ve refused to tolerate something.

Open-minded: Another “opposite” word. Open-mindedness is demonstrated by a steadfast refusal to be told certain things. If you weigh the evidence even-handedly and show a fair consideration to all possible conclusions, you haven’t long to wait before someone will call you closed-minded.

Diversity: If “diversity” means anything at all, it certainly doesn’t refer to actual diversity, especially with regard to skin color. Today you can claim to be embracing “diversity” if everyone in your office has exactly the same skin color, as long as it’s a “good” color.

Science: Has two definitions, an old one and a new one. The old one has to do with learning facts and forming reasoned conclusions from the facts…testing them with theories…all that good stuff. The new definition has to do with keeping a ++ahem++ open mind (see above) about possible explanations…which means, of course, safeguarding sacred cows against reasoned challenge. Or, as I put it in the glossary, “a credentialed collective of academic elites who use democratic, political and coercive techniques to decide amongst themselves what is so.”

Skeptical: Another “opposite” word. Skeptics, once told what to think, dutifully think that and nothing else. If you’re told what to think and you start coming up with these annoying problems with it and pesky questions, you are not showing proper “skepticism” — although this is the essence of the classic definition of the word.

Fascist: Nobody has the slightest clue what this word means anymore. It’s just something liberals call you when you back them into a corner.

Greed(y): Nobody knows what this word means either, it has lost all definition. If we are pressed to come up with one, it would be “expressing or acting on a desire to keep your property after I’ve decided you should be deprived of it.” Protesting or resisting theft.

Solidarity: This means, according to the dictionary, “union or fellowship arising from common responsibilities and interests”; but in real life there’s a twist to it because you have to have communist goals. There is no “solidarity” if you are forming a fellowship for the purpose of…legalizing the private possession of firearms, setting up a system of private school vouchers, petitioning Congress to drill stateside for oil, or abolishing the capital gains tax. Solidarity means upholding no standards of performance save for that which is mediocre. A perfect example is all those nitwit teenagers changing their middle names to “Hussein” to show solidarity. “Showing solidarity” has to have something to do with sameness — you don’t set a new bar and challenge people to make themselves better, in any way, for solidarity.

Wealthy: It no longer means having a high net worth or enjoying a high income. If I tell someone you are a “wealthy” person, what that really means is you have something I wish you didn’t have. On your economic status in relation to me, or to that other person, it says nothing. You can be much poorer than me, and I can still think you’re “wealthy” if I have ambitions about making you even poorer than you are now.

Words fail. Again.

A Cambodian father and mechanic learned the hard way not to inflate children when he inserted an air hose designed to fill car tires into his 5-year-old son’s anus and blew him up, local media reported on Thursday.
:
The paper said the child’s stomach became distended and his concerned mother rushed him to hospital, where he remains in a stable condition and is expected to make a full recovery.

A few good farts…an enema…some kind of operation, worst-case scenario, in case some component of the alimentary canal got ruptured. And all’s well, one hopes. (Assuming a big ol’ air bubble didn’t enter the bloodstream.)

But at the end of the misadventure, daddy’s still a dumbass.

H/T: FARK.

The Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award goes to Shrink Wrapped, of whom we learn via Gerard’s Side Lines…

It is very easy, in these days when news is synonymous with entertainment and most people confuse feelings with facts, for our political system to become unbalanced in the face of passionate advocates of the pseudo-science of the day.

In context, the issue under discussion is the hysteria involved in the supposed vaccine-Autism connection, but it could apply to a lot of other things as well.