F***ed Up: Fast Food Edition

I thought this was a joke at first, but apparently this is being tested in certain areas:

http://www.foodgeekery.com/reviews/double-down-with-kfc/

Why on earth would anyone think this was a good idea? I barely can convince myself that a single fillet is worth eating, but two as the bread? What did your arteries ever do to you?

I Couldn't Let This Go...

Sam talked about it. Roland Martin talked about it. Al Sharpton was on Countdown talking about it (although to be fair, I imagine Rev. Sharpton will be everywhere talking about it, but he's getting a pass because he seems to be on a good tear right now...).

And the thing is that I really wanted to let this go. Keep in mind I will play devil's advocate for almost anyone. And in truth, had the both the Post and the cartoonist in question kept their mouths shut, I might have continued to. But both released statements and both statements together lead you to one of two conclusions.

1) the cartoonist and editor are racists that are bad at lying.
2) the cartoonist and the editor are short sighted and/or idiots.

Because really, at best they should offer a non-committal, "We're sorry if you were offended by this," statement. But no, they seem to imply that it's absolutely ridiculous to look at the image and think that somehow there was any racial overtone to it. But the problem with this, as is the case with many so-called "political satire" cartoons, is that in order to make that argument, there must be some other conclusion that can be drawn from your drawing. In reality, there should be a clear alternate conclusion, and not only was there not one, but it wasn't addressed by any of the defending parties.

Heck, I can do it if I apply myself hard enough. Earlier today I was noting that I often use the expression, "trained monkey" in sentences (i.e. "A trained monkey could do that job."). I'll note here for my own personal safety that I have been exerting a great deal of effort to cut that out of my dialogue to prevent any accidental or incidental offense of nearby ears.

So obviously, that's the clear and easy path to defusing this, right? Surely, someone at the NY Post thought to offer some explanation like that when referencing this, right? Right?

Nope. The Post's EIC notes that the carton was "...a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy." Except that it fails as a parody, as it actually depicts the event nearly as it happened, and it fails to draw any logical connection (in parody or otherwise) to the stimulus bill in Washington. Really, if the cop was saying something like, "Maybe they'll forget about that stimulus bill now..." or "Maybe that stimulus bill will keep this off the front page..." I could get in your corner on this one.

But the fact is your defense makes no sense, and your explanation has no logic. And when you fail to successfully connect something like that logically, the first and only conclusion to be drawn is that you have an ulterior motive.

So sorry, NY Post. I was going to let this go, and not manage to ramble about it for half a page. But because you can't mount anything that resembles intelligent defense, and because your only outlet was to attempt to malign Rev. Al Sharpton (who, as I noted before, is actually presenting the calm, logical argument against you in this case), I just gotta say... What the **** is wrong with you? Can no one think before they publish something like this? Because if you're telling me that a small office full of people saw this thing, and none of them thought to say, "This might not go over well..." then I've got to say that you need new people in your office.

That's assuming, of course, that you care what the general public thinks. And it's obvious that you don't consider a certain percentage of them at all when you go to press.

Why "It Works on TV" Doesn't Work in Real Life...

or... "Dear Hef, pay attention to this one."

CNN reports that a Chinese businessman had his attempt at Elimi-Date go horribly, horribly wrong. The man, who by the way had five mistresses.... five! Anyway, the man had been so affected by the recession that he had to cut back to just the one mistress. So instead of choosing one mistress, just one, based on the merits of her being and what she meant to him personally, the genius decided to take a different tactic...

He staged a private talent show in May, without telling the women his intentions. An instructor from a local modeling agency judged the women on the way they looked, how they sang and how much alcohol they could hold, the Shanghai Daily said.

There are 4 things he should not have done here. First, he shouldn't have turned the entire thing into a competition. Secondly, he certainly should not have done so without letting his five... five! mistresses know they were on the chopping block. Third, he should not have ever let someone cut a woman (known only by the name Yu in the aritcle) for being ugly, especially if he does thing four, which is this...

The judge knocked out Yu in the first round of the competition based on her looks. Angry, she decided to exact revenge by telling her lover and the four other women to accompany her on a sightseeing trip before she returned to her home province, the media reports said.

That's right. After letting the judge drop her for not looking good enough, this guy decides to get into a car with what should be a clearly upset woman and drive around the mountains. What could possibly go wrong?

It was during the trip that Yu reportedly drove the car off the cliff.

Whoops. So not only did he dump her, but he also managed to nearly get himself and all four... four! remaining women killed in the process. The guy ends up paying a chunk of change to the Yu woman's family (as she oddly enough ends up being the only person in the car to die in the crash), and all of his remaining women leave him. That's his mistresses and his wife, who was the only one who didn't know he had other women.

The New Face of Hip-Hop?

Half the joy of stumbling onto Letterman late at night is sometimes running across nonsense like this. But after seeing his interview last night, I've come to one of two possible conclusions:

1) Joaquin Phoenix has had a psychotic break and is, in fact, bat**** crazy.

2) Joaquin Phoenix is Andy Kaufman's secret love child.

Because either he has no idea what's going on in his life right now, or he's pulling a tremendous prank on the world. I'm hoping it's 2), because otherwise someone close to him should have him checked out by someone soon.


Late Show - Where's Joaquin Phoenix? - 2/11/09

What up, D-Trizzle?

I didn't want to do this one, but I can't help myself. It fits so well with Detroit, a city that has managed to have a perfect season the bad way (0-16 forever, baby!), and it is actually a song about Detroit. Allegedly. This video comes with a language advisory and a warning that despite how bad it is, the hook will linger with you. It's so cold. So very, very cold.



As much as I hate to suggest a click through on this one, it's worth checking out the main YouTube page. If nothing else, some of the video responses to this one range from classic to downright hilarious.

For the record, this song and video is what convinces me that the song I wrote would be gold. I could probably even keep the track on beat and everything.

Why You Should Leave Cougars Alone

I found this story on CNN about a mother who couldn't just stand by and let her son get convicted. She had to do something. And something, apparently, ended up being this:

She gave herself an extreme makeover -- blonde dye job, fake tan, sexy wardrobe, phony name -- and began spying on jurors. She befriended one juror to root out any possible misdeeds at the trial, and for nearly eight months, they drank at bars, smoked marijuana and shared meals in her tiny Brooklyn hideaway.

To be clear here, this woman - this married woman - went as far as to rent a separate apartment in which to hang out with this targeted juror. Although apparently, all that went on was "some flirting". Right, right...

This only drew my attention because I could have sworn that this was a Lifetime movie at some point. And if it wasn't, then it most certainly will be by the end of the year. Finally, Valerie Bertenelli can put that newly tuned Weight Wacthers body to good use. And the sad part? I'd probably watch it.

F***ed Up.

There comes a point when you see a story and no other words are there to describe it except f***ed up. The story is here.

I don't care how you feel about gun ownership, gun control, or gun whatever, I can't see any logical reason your child should be anywhere near an uzi. Case closed.