That's NOT How You Got Pregnant

There was a headline over at The Huffington Post today that I just loved. And when I say "just loved" I mean "just made me want to stab my myself". The headline read "Man Loses iPod, Accidentally Impregnates Wife". Uh-huh. I'm going to need to know more about this, even though I'm guessing that it will increase the urge to stab.

The headline is referring to an iPhone Touch. But the guy in question (lots of questions), a one Doug Wilson, also has an iPhone 4 which he carries around in his hand all of the time. Literally. The guy doesn't put it in his pocket because, according to what he told those at the fledgling CNN, that "...would be too risky, he said, because he might miss a photo opportunity -- like that crazy "rat tail" hairdo he saw at a fast-food spot recently. ("I was like, 'I've GOT to take a picture of this!')" Um, yeah. OK. Wouldn't want to miss that! All rightee, then. Where does the pregnancy come in?

Well, somehow, this guy managed to find himself a wife at some point, a one probably lovely Ashlee. I'm guessing it was before he started carrying around his iPhone 4 with him whenever he is awake. Just a hunch. Anyway, he claims that it was Ashlee whom he "...accidentally impregnated one evening after forgetting to look at an iPod app that explains the details of the rhythm method." Wait a minute. What now?

Correct. He told CNN "That's how we got pregnant...because I lost my [iPod Touch]." If you'll excuse me for a moment, I need to find a wall upon which I'm going to bang my head for a few seconds.

OK, I'm back. Ow. Where was I? Oh, that's right. I was about to bellow "THAT'S NOT HOW YOUR WIFE GOT PREGNANT!" Your wife got pregnant because you had SEX. It's all of the SEX that gets one pregnant, NOT the app! I'm sure that it won't surprise you to learn that this man, who believes that his iPod has the power of spermatozoa, is from Arkansas. I kind of figured that something like that was in play when he got so excited about the guy with the rat tail hair.

The story doesn't conclude with Doug saying that he has now learned what the rhythm method entails or that he's invested heavily in a nice, large supply of condoms or, most importantly, that his iPod had NOTHING to do with his wife getting pregnant. Nope. None of those. It concludes with Doug asserting that "...the slip-up was yet another reminder that his phone should be turned on, in his hand, ready to accept alerts -- all the time." Good Lord. Really? It wasn't even your PHONE that had the damned app on it! (In other news, there's an app that details the rhythm method for you. According to iphoneapples.com "There are currently 180 apps available in the App Store that help women calculate their time of the month." Huh. So, 180 calendar apps are available. Good to know. Morons.)

While I am glad that they are thrilled about the impending birth of their little girl, I'm a bit afraid for that child. Granted, things were a little stacked against her in the first place, what with the Arkansas locale and all. But this whole "I got my wife knocked up because I couldn't find my iPod" is a bit troubling. I wonder if there's an app that will help one reduce the dependence upon apps? A bit ironic, sure. But in this case, probably warranted.

LeBron James Whines Again

Apparently, Tuesday was "Hater Day" as declared by a one LeBron James. Dang it! And I missed it! Dang it! I miss everything! Wait. What was it? Well, from what I can tell, it was one more time that LeBron felt the need to whine about things. Aw, poor LeBron. Always getting his widdle feewings hurt.

According to The Huffington Post, James "...declared on Tuesday via twitter that the day was "Hater Day" and shared racists tweets that were directed at him." Let's just remember that LeBron has come to the conclusion that the reason that people are unhappy with him for the way that he made his exit out of Cleveland (via a huge one hour production, complete with dog AND pony, on ESPN for an hour) is because folks are racist. That's right. If you're black and you act like an ass and other folks don't like it, it's not just because you're an ass that people don't like. It's the fact that you're black that people don't like. This, of course, is according to LeBron after he was done acting like an ass.

I guess his official tweet to kick of "Hater Day" (he could not have come up with a more ridiculous name for a more ridiculous concept) said "Today is Hater Day. Everyone please let them get their 2 mins of fame and light! I Love You Haters. Continue to make me proud of u guys! LOL". Now, I'm not sure why you'd WANT to give anyone who is a jackass their 2 minutes of fame and light (when did we start throwing light into it?), but LeBron apparently did. And his reasoning, as he explained to ESPN was "I just want you guys to see it also. To see what type of words that are said toward me and towards us as professional athletes. Everybody thinks it is a bed of roses and it's not." To which I say "Wah." Tell you what, LeBron. You give me the position that you have and the money that you make and we'll see how I do with what people say. We all know I would do horrible in the NBA, so I can imagine that some of the derision directed at me would have something to do with that, but for the salary that you're raking it, I think that I could suck it up pretty darn well. I certainly think that I wouldn't have to go crying all over Twitter, for cryin' out loud.

Let's see some of the things that have Mr. James sooooo upset. One tweet said: "hey good game last night, too bad you're a fraud, BITCH". Hmm. Quite honestly, I'm just impressed that the bloke who wrote that knew to use you're instead of your. That would make me pretty happy to receive a grammatically correct tweet and not some POS filled with 4 and 2 and U.

Another tweet read that James is "a big nosed big lipped bug eyed (racial slur). Ur greedy, u try to hide ur ghettoness." OK, the racial slur is always out of line. That's never necessary. But seriously? Does the rest really bother him? He does know that not everyone in the world thinks that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, right? Actually, I'm beginning to believe that he does not know that. Otherwise, why would he be reacting this way to tweets from anonymous douchebags on the Internet? I don't get it.

One literary genius tweeted to him: "why don't u speak by laying ur head under a moving car". Yeah, that makes no sense, moron. Putting your head under a moving car is far from a substitute for speech. On top of that, how is he supposed to get his head underneath there in the first place if the car is already moving? That suggestion contains nothing more than faulty engineering is what that contains.

I guess "Hater Day" (still hate that name) came to a close with this parting message from the founder of said ridiculous day: "U see world how people feel! Just use it as extra motivation in whatever u do best! No one can stop your dreams from becoming reality!" What the heck does that even mean? "U see world how people feel!"? Yes. Yes, I do see how they feel. Some people really do not like you at all. Some folks want you to do physically impossible things with your head in lieu of actually speaking. I see that. But I don't know that that was your original point. I only wish that he had taken his own advice and used it as extra motivation in what he does best instead of whining about how some people don't like him on Twitter.

I can't believe that this stuff really bothers him. It's on Twitter, for cryin' out loud! It's not like it's his mother who is telling him all of this stuff. These are faceless, anonymous cowards on the freaking Internet. And it bothers him? I don't get it. Do you know how many times I've been called an idiot because of something I've wrote on this blog? Let's just say that it is plenty. And each time, it does nothing more than amuse the hell out of me. I don't know these people and I don't know that I want to know them if they're actually calling me an idiot. Ideas can be exchanged without name calling. That's why when it happens, I really don't give it a second thought (though I do walk around for the remainder of the day feeling quite proud, as if I've accomplished something by annoying a stranger somewhere in the world). I wonder why LeBron can't do the same thing? Maybe all of his concern over what people think of him was what was getting in the way of him winning a championship.

Make Up Your Mind Already!

Decisions, decisions. It's hard to make up your mind sometimes, isn't it? But the bigger the decision and the bigger the consequences of your decision, isn't that reason enough to really think things through? I mean to really think things through. And sometimes, shouldn't there be a point where even though you might want to change your mind after already deciding on something that you just can't? Shouldn't there be a point where you just have to suck it up and deal with what you've chosen for yourself? Not in all cases; just certain extreme ones. Like, say, oh....having a sex change. And then changing back.

According to something called smh.com.au (whatever it is, it's in Australia), a one "Alan Michael Finch underwent male-to-female sex change surgery in 1988 aged 21 and lived for the next eight years as Helen Finch." OK. These things happen from time to time. Nothing new to see there. But the twist really comes after those eight years when Mr, er, um, Ms. Finch "...wanted to be Alan again, undergoing surgery to reverse the gender change as far as possible." Wait. What now?

Correct. Shim, er, she wanted to go back to being a dude. Now, listen. I don't know about you, but if you're asking me, I'm thinking that I'm going to make this guy wait just a little bit before he delves into this all over again. I mean, clearly he wasn't thinking all that soundly when he made the choice to have his dingus lopped off the first time. Who's to say that he's thinking all that soundly now that he wants to have his new hoots removed?

Regardless of how insane I think that all is, what I think is even crazier is this: "The High Court heard this was a difficult experience for Mr Finch, who had variously worked for Telstra, Foxtel and Qantas but who was now unlikely ever to work again." Wait a minute. He's unlikely ever to work again? Because he went from being a dude to being a chick to back to being a dude? The article doesn't explain why that is, but I'd really like to know. I'd also like to know why, if that is the case, the reversal surgery (or however they do that) was performed in the first place. Doesn't that essentially amount to incapacitating someone? Kind of seems like it if they can't work anymore.

The reason this is even a discussion is because Mr. Finch wants one of his previous employers "...to give him a total and permanent incapacity (TPI) pension benefit." It seems that the previous employer doesn't want to pay out because they determined that he would be likely to be able to work in the future. (At least someone else besides me thinks that would be a possibility.) I can't imagine why they'd be so up in arms about this. Or maybe I can.

Seriously, how is it that someone who makes these choices to do things to their body is supposed to be entitled to some sort of pension benefit that is reserved for if you are incapacitated in some way? I'm pretty sure that the intent of the benefit was in case someone was injured. I'm also pretty sure that the intent of the benefit was NOT in case someone couldn't decide if they wanted to be a man or a woman and kept switching their gender around like a game of musical chairs (or genitalia as the case may be). And what, exactly, has he been doing since 1996 when he went back to the land of boxers or briefs? Working? Not working? Contemplating a surgery to turn himself into a bear? That's an awfully long time to not work (or do whatever) and then suddenly claim you can't work anymore and someone should pay you for the rest of your life to do so.

I don't know how they feel about stuff like this in Australia, but I certainly hope that the previous employer doesn't have to pay anything out to this dude-lady. I'd really like shim him to get some therapy, but I still don't think that the employer should be on the hook for it. For cryin' out loud, who wants not one, but two sex changes in their life? I mean, sure, sometimes I regret getting the soup over the salad, but I always feel as if I've put a great deal of thought into the matter beforehand and I never change my mind after I get my soup. This guy needs to have stuck with his soup. Or his penis. (By the way, this is the only time that "soup" and "penis" will be interchangeable. Just so you know.)

Climate Change v. Santa Claus

Do people who are running for office or even the people who are already in office ever listen to what is actually coming out of their mouths? Or do they just really like the sound of their own voice? I'm getting a little tired of hearing asinine things from people and then having them explain it away by saying, "Oh, I misspoke" or something along those lines. If they would just say, "Well, that's because I'm an idiot", that's something I could get behind. The only thing that makes the idiocy even slightly tolerable is that it's A) usually amusing, and B) extremely mockable. I just wish it wasn't coming out of the mouths of folks who are supposed to be guiding this fine land of ours.

Today's case in point comes to us courtesy of the great state of West Virginia. Apparently, a one Rep. Nick Rahall, who is the incumbent Democratic for the U.S. House in the 3rd District, was asked "...six questions posed to him by members of The Register-Herald editorial board earlier this week." I don't know why only six. Why not ten? Then again, why ten? I don't know either. The point is that one of the questions was, inevitably, about climate change.

The question posed before him was "Will the EPA always have an adversarial relationship with West Virginia or is there room for compromise, and is climate change a real issue and what role does West Virginia play in the future of the environment?" OK, maybe that's why there were only six questions. I didn't realize that they were cramming more than one question into each inquiry. That's an awful lot to ask in one run-on sentence. Regardless, he did answer it. And what he said had me extremely confused.

The man replied, in part, "Climate change — to deny it exists, to just put your head in the sand and, ‘oh no, it doesn’t exist, what are you talking about,’ is about like standing on the floor of Macy’s during the month of December and claiming Santa Claus doesn’t exist. Come on, get real. There are responsible coal operators who work with us and continue to work with us, not only on climate change, but safety is another example.” Wait. What now?

He claims that to state that climate change does not exist is the same thing as claiming that Santa Claus doesn't exist? But...wait. I thought that....hmmm. Does he know something that I don't know? He does appear to be quite old. Maybe there's some sort of lore that I am unaware of? Lore that indicates that Santa Claus does exist?

Would it only be during the month of December that one could make that proclamation? I'm not sure how that plays into it. It's a charming thought, though. I'd really like it if someone did stand of the floor of the Macy's during December and claim that Santa Claus didn't exist and have that proclamation be met with a rousing round of shocked gasps from other yuletide shoppers. That would be amazing. But I'm kind of thinking it would barely get people to turn their heads. Me, it would only get to turn up my iPod so that I didn't have to be bothered by the ranting man who was spouting the obvious. Yeah, yeah. We know. Now are you going to buy that meat fork that is also a meat thermometer or can I buy it?

Now, I'm sure that if you asked this guy about this, he would simply say that he misspoke. And I'm going to pray that he did misspeak. But should this be something that you're misspeaking about? It seems a little strange that you'd take complete fiction and throw it into your argument to make a point about what is factual. Hopefully, in the future, he'll shy away from any sort of Tooth Fairy or Easter Bunny references. Then again, if he doesn't and he refers to them in the same way that he did Santa Claus, then we've got a story on our hands! And it'll be goooooood!

Survey Says? Inappropriate!

Look, I'm not sure what a "sex survey" that is given to middle school children should consist of, but I'm not really all that comfortable with the first question on such a "survey" being "What is your gender?" and having there be four choices. As I'm sure you can imagine, not all of the parents were thrilled either.

Over there at Hardy Middle School in Washington, DC, a 7th grade health/physical education class was given a "sex survey", the purpose of which is a little fuzzy to me. From what I can tell from reading the article over there at something called The Georgetown Dish, there's some sort of a non profit called Metro TeenAIDS which educates children about HIV and AIDS. It appears that in 2009, the Washington, DC Public Schools (DCPS) gave Metro TeenAIDS "...a $15,000 consulting contract and $80,000 contract...to provide programming in the schools". Supposedly, "This program has been selected by DCPS for instruction to meet [health learning standards] for the middle school grades and is used in 7th and 8th health classes (sic) throughout DCPS." Um, OK. How does this turn out to be some sort of survey given to 12-year olds and asking them about their gender while providing them with four choices?

That part isn't overly clear to me. But it does say that not only does Metro TeenAIDS (which is a ridiculous name, if you're asking me) provide some sort of an educational component, they also use their time in public schools to do research. I'm guessing that this little survey was more along the lines of the research end of things. Though, from what I can tell, a whole lot of kids learn a whole lot of new things that day. And I'm guessing that a lot of them were more than they ever wanted to know. At least, I'm hoping so.

Let's look at some of the questions and see how appropriate they are for middle school kids, shall we? Let's also see if we can figure out what in the world people were thinking when they decided that this would be a good idea, OK? Here we go...first question:

"What is your gender?"

Well, that seems pretty straight forward. Let's look at the choices.

A) Male B) Female C) Transgender (M to F) D) Transgender (F to M)

Wait. For 12-year olds? Transgender?! I'd be looking for "E) WTF". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that choices C and D are completely unnecessary. 100% not needed. What is wrong with you people?

It only gets worse.

One series of questions read:

"How sure are you that you.......

Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV?

Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex?

Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner?

Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex?

Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex?"

For 12-year olds. First of all, dental dams? Really? You expect a 12-year old to have any sort of knowledge about that? Do you want your 12-year old to have knowledge of that? And seriously, who has ever used one of those? Honestly. Sure, they probably sound OK in theory (but not really), but I don't think that they're in high demand. Where do you get them? Other than at the dentist's office when you're having something done in your mouth. Are they next to the condoms? I have no idea and neither should 12-year olds.

By the way, when the kids didn't understand what certain things were and inquired about them, "...the facilitator...brought in on a DCPS contract...started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex." Are you kidding me?! Anal sex shouldn't even be explained to adults, let alone small children!

The questions on the survey continued along those ludicrous lines and included things like "During your life, with how many peopled have you had sex (oral, vaginal, anal)?" and "In the past 30 days on how many days did you......

Have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, or within a couple of hours?

Use marijuana?

Use other non-injecting drugs (like cocaine, PCP, ecstasy)?

Inject drugs with a needle like heroin)?

Have sex?

Have sex after drinking alcohol or getting high?"

Hey, you people getting the almost $100k grant to do this sort of thing! Yeah, you. Question: Don't you think that you should tone things down a bit? Seriously. Are you trying to traumatize these kids? I'd be interested to know if EVER during the time that you've been taking this survey even ONE 12-year old answered "Yes" to having 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row or within a couple of hours. I'm guessing you have not. And what does that have to do with HIV and AIDS?

Now, of course, parents were outraged. Not just so much at the content of the survey, but more so at the fact that they had not been notified ahead of time, given a copy of the survey or given a chance to have their kid opt out of this insanity. Huh. And they're angry, eh? In what way?

I'm sure that some sort of an apology is forthcoming. That I don't doubt. But I'm sick of apologies. Here's what I want: I want someone to explain to everyone how they came to the decision to distribute this survey to the middle schoolers. I want someone to explain the logic that they were using that allowed them to come to the conclusion that this sort of thing was appropriate. That's what I want. I want a detailed description of the thinking process that goes into something that is so obviously not OK. I also want to know if anyone, anyone even ventured to say anything along the lines of, 'Uh, are we sure this is a good idea? Because this seems awfully advanced for 12-year olds." Anything along those lines? Anything? Anyone? That's what I want to know. Keep your apologies and instead explain why you're so stupid. Inquiring minds want to know.

If you'd like to see more of this absurd survey, it can be found here. And I can be found banging my head against a wall. What is wrong with people?

Whore-o-ween Costumes

Halloween needs a new name. I'm voting for Whore-o-ween. What is with all of the inappropriate costumes, not just for women, but for men as well? There's something about being able to dress like a total slut for one evening a year that is seemingly very appealing to people. I understand why it would be appealing for the men to have women as scantily clad as possible. What I don't understand is why women like it. And they're really stretching it to try and come up with new whorisms this year. It's not pretty, folks. It's weird is what it is.

How is a fish sexy or slutty? Well, it's not. Usually. Unless you're Nemo. Wait. Nemo? The Disney fish? The Finding Nemo Nemo? THAT Nemo? That's the one. Behold!

Yeah, see, she doesn't really look like a fish. She kind of looks like a Creamsicle. With a black tutu. But moving on...it must be popular to take an animated animal and turn it into a "sexy" costume, as here we have another one. I'm going to let you guess what this is supposed to be, OK? Ready. Set. Guess!

What'd you come up with? Weird nurse? Snowman creature? I'm really grasping at straws here, as I had no idea what it was supposed to be. But then when I learned that it was supposed to be Brian, the dog from Family Guy, that's when I completely understood. Yeah, right. Who am I kidding? I really thought, "WTF?" Fortunately, they do seem to put a little picture of Brian right there on the teeny-tiny skirt, just in case someone has never heard of Family Guy or who knows what a dog really looks like.

Next up, sort of sticking with the animal theme, we have a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle which sort of looks like a Teenage Mutant Ninja Transvestite. Behold!

Hmm. Didn't the actual fictional Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles live in a sewer? Yeah, nothing says sexy like a sewer. Sure. What's weirder than that, you ask? Why, I'm guessing that it would be Sesame Street character costumes with their little heads turned into creepy berets. Behold!

Uh-huh. C is for Creepy. NOT sexy. NOT normal. Creepy. And wrong. And they didn't stop with Cookie Monster. No, they bereted Elmo, too!

She looks like a cave woman. She does not look sexy and I would not tickle her. And the Big Bird costume looks completely ridiculous.

All of them look like their head is being eaten by some creature who has snuck up behind them. Are people really going to wear these? I hope not. You know what else I'm hoping? I'm hoping that a certain costume trend for men doesn't become as popular or as well known as the Sesame Street costumes are. That trend would be any sort of costume that relies heavily on the man's penis in order for the costume to be successful. Take for example, the Petting Zoo costume. It comes complete with a penis llama (there's a sentence I never thought I'd type) and a sign that warns us that the llama spits. So gross. Behold. Or do whatever.

It's just wrong. I know you guys love your penis and all, but don't dress it up. You know what else you shouldn't do with it? You shouldn't give it a job (not THAT kind of job!) or a tool.

You shouldn't turn it into a double entendre (ie, a woodpecker).

And for cryin' out loud, don't turn it into part of a lovely meal.

What ever happened to just throwing a sheet over your head and being a ghost? Is there any way that we could go back to that? The sooner, the better, really.

I Like It To Make Sense

With 500,000,000 "members" on Facebook, can't they do something useful with that sort of base? I mean something really useful. Not something that's fake-useful. (By the way, I use the quotes around members because the number of accounts is different than the number of people who actually use the service on a consistent basis. See, I can do that when I'm not one of those who benefits from trumped up numbers. But either way, it's still an enormous buttload of people.) How about if I amend that request? How about if instead of asking if Facebook users could do something useful I instead ask if Facebook users could just stop doing things that do absolutely nothing, all the while pretending as if they're saving the world from certain destruction. (Trust me. Certain destruction doesn't sound that bad when the alternative is surviving with a bunch of morons that just blindly follow something without giving any thought to what they're doing.)

Here's the scoop: A certain status update has been going viral on Facebook. It's women who are blindly doing the updating without stopping to think a) Why am I doing this, and/or b) Why am I doing this? It goes something like this: The status starts off with "I like it on the" and then women are supposed to fill in the blank with where they like it. Like what, you ask? Why, where they like their purse, of course. Wait. Wait. Their...purse? Yes. Their purse. Melissa Bell over at the Washington Post explains it "Women are posting where they like to keep their purses when they come home, but they conveniently leave out the word "purse." Oh. Ha-ha. Is there a reason for this? Of course there is, silly! It's for breast cancer. Wait. What?

Correct. Breast cancer. According to The Huffington Post (which sites other references) "October is Breast Cancer Awareness month, and the "I like it on" trend is an attempt for women to unite around that cause in a top secret way. The idea is figuratively to leave men in the dark." Um, this might be one of the stupidest "feel good" things that I have heard about in quite some time.

First of all, how does posting where you like to keep your purse (assuming that you carry a purse) help raise awareness for breast cancer? And second, how is leaving men in the dark about it helping anything at all? (I realize that it's a small percentage, but it isn't like men don't get breast cancer also.) Is it just women who should be concerned about breast cancer? Assuming that this was even a legitimate tool for raising awareness, why is it that men should be excluded from all of the being aware? Explain to me how it is that men should be excluded from caring about breast cancer? Explain to me how it is that men are not affected by breast cancer? Better yet, explain to some guy whose wife has breast cancer how breast cancer awareness should exclude him.

I'd love to hear from anyone who actually posted this on their status so that they could tell me not where they like their damn purse, but what did they think was going to be accomplished by their going along with it? I'd like to know if they in some way felt smarter by posting it or if the goal was just to feel smarter than the men who had no idea what it could possibly mean (and who, stereotypically, just jumped to the assumption that it was about sex). Thank God that the folks who have been actually been doing actual things to raise awareness about breast cancer didn't run their campaigns with inane Facebook statuses.

Listen, if you want to raise awareness about something, what say you tell folks what it is that you want them to know, OK? Wouldn't you raise more awareness about breast cancer by simply posting on your status "October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Now you know."? Or something like that? I'm sure that you probably would, but that wouldn't be nearly as cutesy as where you like your damned purse. We're so doomed. So, so doomed.