here is no shortage of idiots in the world, which is good for me because I enjoy pointing them out. Here's a fresh batch of idiocy.
Prison guards in Belgium oppose the tightening of prison security. You see, there have been a number of recent prison escapes, and naturally the prisons want to lock down the prisoners. The guards don't like that idea. They're afraid the prisoners will turn violent in their escape attempts if they can't escape easily. Currently, prisoners simply walk out the front door
. Here's a quote: "We could build prisons that nobody could get out of, but they would be unbearable." Ummmm, yes. That would be the point of prison: nobody gets out. What a bunch of candy-ass pussies.
Wet and windy
It's time to start letting people die and stop saving them from their own stupidity. Case in point: evacuating an area when there is a hurricane on the way. Some people refuse to evacuate. For whatever reason, they think they'll be safe staying home (or they're suicidal). Never mind that it's a MANDATORY evacuation, these idiots stay put. I say fine, let them stay. I hope they die a horrible death via a 2x4 through the head. Or perhaps a terrified drowning in their own living room.
Those people are the fruitcakes that invariably end up on RealTV
in a video of an "amazing rescue!" I think it would be even more amazing if the video showed them on their roofs as their neighborhood turns into a lake, with a voiceover that laments their demise. Instead of describing a heroic rescue, the narrator would say, "Sadly, this gentleman did not evacuate and is now suffering the consequences of his choice." Then the water would slowly rise and eventually pick the man up and carry him away, never to be seen again. A terrible tragedy? Hardly. An increase in the country's median IQ? Absolutely. Related articles here
Bush leading in polls
President Bush has been leading in the polls since right around the Republican National Convention. Some polls
show him currently leading by 9 or 11 points. What do you suppose happened after those results were published? I'll tell you what happened. Liberals and Democrats filled the radio and television airwaves with hate talk aimed towards Americans. I've heard normally reasonable personalities go insane over this news. Accusing Americans of being ignorant and stupid. Therein lies the problem. If the Democratic party really believes the majority of people are stupid, how can they win over voters? If I walked into your living room and told you you are stupid, would you vote for me? Of course not.
The Benefactor (aka Mark Cuban)
Mark Cuban's vanity television project airs on ABC. I read a review of how stupid the show is but decided to see for myself. The review was correct, the show is stupid. Very stupid.
The show is called The Benefactor
. It's basically a rip-off of Donald Trump's The Apprentice
. But while The Apprentice
has rules, The Benefactor
has Mark Cuban's whimsy. On The Apprentice
the contestants engage in team-based challenges and someone from the losing team gets "fired" by Trump. On The Benefactor
the contestants hang out with Cuban and he arbitrarily decides who to kick off. For example, on the first show he cut a guy because he mentioned that the show might be "stupid". With all the righteousness he could muster, Cuban kicked him off while growling, "nobody calls my show stupid." I suspect if The Donald overheard someone half-jokingly call The Apprentice
stupid, he would laugh and agree that it is a bit silly.
Cuban is made to be the star of the show, but he is too unlikable and arrogant for any viewer to want to watch more than 5 minutes of him. Also, he comes across as a big frat-boy dummy. I suspect he must be at least a little bit smart to have attained his success, but he's not showing it here. For christ's sake, he had contestants play a game of Jenga to determine who would stay or go, all the while proclaiming it the "most important game of your life," and "one million dollars on the line." Most important game of their lives? It's fucking Jenga! And, ahem, sorry to interrupt you in the middle of your God complex, Mr. Cuban, but one million dollars was not on the line. Only the final winner of the show gets that prize.
So if he's cutting people based on such criteria as an off-handed "stupid" comment, I wonder what is next on the agenda. Will a challenge consist of matching Cuban shot-for-shot at a bar stocked with tequila? If you only take one shot, he'll cut you. If you down more shots than him, he'll cut you. If you drink with your left hand, then switch to your right, he'll cut you. The contestants won't know because there are no rules, it's just whatever Cuban feels like doing. Which was probably great fun for him, but stupid and arbitrary for viewers.
What other future tasks might there be? Channel surfing challenge? A cutthroat match of head-to-head Tetris? Timed dish washing? I'll never know because I'm not watching another episode.
On the other hand, Las Vegas
is back on NBC now. If you like this website, you'll like that show. It features a bevy of curvy babes, and prominently features Nikki Cox and her sweater meat. Check it out, and turn off the volume if you need to, it doesn't matter what they're saying.
Michael Moore Prediction
The intent of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11
is to kick President Bush out of the White House. My prediction is this ... if Bush loses the election, Moore and his film will be hailed as the greatest triumph of an entertainment and political crossover ever. It will show up in future history books as a side note, a demonstration of mass media influencing the political process.
However, if Bush wins the election, then what? Will the film still be remembered as a political influence? Or will it be remembered as a nice try? And if we're unsure of the answer to that question, what does that say about the film? Is it really that big a deal? Does it really have voter influence?
While on the subject. I've noticed a trend in which supporters of this film, and Michael Moore himself, will always ask a person who opposes the film, whether they've seen it. And if the person answers negatively, they roll their eyes and throw their hands up, as if to say "You can't have an opinion because you haven't seen it." What is the implication there? That everyone who sees the film agrees with it? That if the person had seen it, he would field a different opinion? This is clearly not the case, as the people who dissect the film the most have in fact seen it. Besides, you don't have to see the film to know what it's about. There are summaries of it printed everywhere you look. Read a few of those and you get a very good idea of what the film is about, certainly enough information to determine whether you agree with the politics of it.
Did you know that September is "Be Kind To Editors and Writers Month?" Well it is, so don't send me any stupid email asking stupid questions until next month. Thanks. Keep on truckin'!