Reverse Natural Selection?

Sometimes, you just have to see things to believe them. And I think that a lot of the times when that is the case, once you see them and once you believe them, that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand them. That's why you're usually left just wondering what in the world is wrong with a lot of people. And that would include wondering what in the world is wrong with the media covering such stories.

Take, for example, the family of Ardi Rizal. Ardi and his family live in Indonesia. And according to the Washington Post, there has been somewhat of an uproar after "Shocking photos of....Ardi Rizal puffing away on up to 40 cigarettes a day" came to light. Sure, sure. I know a lot of people smoke 40 cigarettes a day. I don't know how in the world that they afford it, but I know that they do it. The thing that makes this a little bit more of a head scratcher is that Ardi is 2. As in "years old". Two years old. Smoking up to 40 cigarettes a day. Wait. He's two and he...? That's right.

While I am usually a huge fan of the Washington Post, I am not a huge fan of how they covered this story. If they were trying to win some sort of a prize for presenting the subject in the most irrelevant manner possible, then they were on top of their game. Other than that, well, I'm just glad I didn't pay for it or anything (even though I still feel a little gypped). They talked to a one Matthew Myers of something called the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which is located in Washington, D.C. Mr. Myers was quoted as saying, "This reflects a pervasive problem in many low-income countries where tobacco companies market their products to an uneducated public." Really? Are they marketing their products in such a way that it is implied that babies should be smoking cigarettes? No? OK, then. Anything else?

Unfortunately, yes. He also stated that "...anybody, at any age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia". Wait. What now? Anyone, regardless of age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia? Oh, now I see why that's a relevant fact! Of course. Because this two-year old wouldn't be able to smoke if he hadn't been able to go out and purchase the cigarettes that he's smoking on his own, right? Of course not! What does that have to do with anything?! Oh, nothing? Let's move on.

Now, a one Seto Mulyadi, who heads the country's child protection commission, "...blamed Ardi's two-pack-a-day habit on advertising and clueless parents." Well, that's a little bit better. Though I'm still not sure what advertising has to do with this. I'm really liking the pointing the finger at the clueless parents, however. It's probably an understatement to say that's the most likely culprit here.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's check in with this toddler's parents and see if they strike us as being of the clueless bent, shall we? First, we'll hear from the boy's mother, Diana. "He's totally addicted. If he doesn't get cigarettes, he gets angry and screams and batters his head against the wall. He tells me he feels dizzy and sick." She apparently doesn't seem to see her part in all of this. She apparently doesn't seem to think that she is the parent and that she is in control and that, eventually, all of the screaming will subside. Hmm. Yep, there are definitely indicators of cluelessness here. Let's check in with the father next.

But wait. Before we do that, I should probably also mention that not only does this two-year old smoke two packs a day, he also "...weighs 56 pounds. He's too fat to walk far so he gets around on a plastic toy truck." Yeah, see, just when you thought that it couldn't get any sadder, then it does. Let's quell that sadness with anger, OK?

The boy's father, Mohammed, is the moron who gave the kid his first cigarette when he was 18 months old. Nice job, Mohammed. Now your kid is incredibly fat and addicted to cigarettes. How does that make you feel, Mohammed? "He looks pretty healthy to me...I don't see the problem." Really?! He can't walk, you dumbass! Do you see other two-year olds getting around on a plastic toy truck whilst smoking a cigarette? No? Then he's NOT OK, you nitwit!

Seriously, I know that there are different cultures and all of that, but this has so much wrong with it that I really can't even make up anything good to say about it. I guess they're not fortunate enough in Indonesia to have things like Child Protective Services or stuff like that? (That really is a question, as I have absolutely no idea about the social services of the Far East.) Oh, wait. I just read that there is some intervention being attempted with this family. "Concerned officials offered to buy the family a car if Ardi quits." A car?! That's how social services work in Indonesia? They bribe folks to do the right thing?! Grand. Good luck with that, Indonesia. Gooooood luck with that.

The video of this tragic, preventable and completely unnecessary situation is below. If it doesn't load, try clicking here. Oh, yeah, and thanks (I think) to my friend for bringing this to my attention.

Ardi Rizal - The real SMOKING BABY !! free videos" classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=364 height=291 type=application/x-shockwave-flash>

What Are YOU Smoking, Arlen?

Ancient Senator Arlen Specter was handily defeated the other day over yonder in Pennsylvania. Now, it was probably his stating that the reason that he switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party was so that he could be re-elected. I don't doubt that is what he thought. What I can't figure out is why he would be so freaking boneheaded as to actually come out and SAY that's what you were thinking? Does he not quite understand that it makes it sound like it's all about HIM? Apparently not. Because he said it and now he's done.

But I'm pretty sure that it was time for him to go anyway. Look, I don't have anything against people who are old. I don't have anything against people who are ancient. But I do have issues with people who are old and out of touch, but they try and convince you that they're not. Take ol' Robert Byrd. How is that guy still a senator? Seriously. My sources (which are far from trustworthy, as I make them up myself) tell me that Robert Byrd is somewhere around 147 years old and the last coherent thought that he had was midway through the Taft administration. Why do you folks in West Virginia continue to re-elect that man? Not to mention that he used to be a member of the Klan, the man is not fit for civic duty.

But back to Arlen Specter. According to TPM, Arlen Specter did an interview with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC on May 18. (Side note: Is it just me or does Andrea Mitchell bear an odd resemblance to Barbara Walters? Maybe I wouldn't think it was so odd if they both weren't technically considered to be news reporters/anchors/whatever. Do you think that she's trying to look like that? I have a hard time believing that she naturally looks like that. I'm not implying plastic surgery (but you could make that leap if you wanted to), I'm just sayin'.) She asked him if his opponent was more vigorous than he was. Uh-huh. Remember, Andrea Mitchell is married to Alan Greenspan, so she would know a thing or two about vigor...or a lack thereof.

Arlen Specter is 80. It's fair to say that there are a lot of things more vigorous than Arlen Specter. Puppies and baby ducks, for example. Possibly Abe Vigoda. Definitely Betty White. But I find it unlikely that he is more vigorous than his opponent. Of course that's not what he thinks/thought. His response to Andrea Mitchell's question was...well...it was interesting. He said, "When you talk about Sestak being more vigorous, you must be smoking dutch cleanser." Of course. I must be...wait. What now?

Smoking dutch cleanser? What the heck is that? Dutch cleanser? I did a quick search online to see if I could find out what in the heck he was talking about (and, more importantly, if I should be smoking dutch cleanser, whatever it is). It was not easy. It is a rather obscure reference, apparently. Dutch cleanser is apparently a cleaning product akin to Comet and Bon Ami. It's been around since 1906 (so, almost as long as Arlen Specter). That's just the product. I had to dig deeper to find the meaning behind his asking if someone was smoking it.

I only found one other reference of someone using the phrase "smoking Dutch cleanser" on the Inner Webs. Guess who it was? That's right. Arlen Specter.

It was sometime in early February of 2006. According to Time Magazine he used the phrase when he was "Criticizing then Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez during hearings on the Bush administrations warrantless domestic-wiretapping program, saying Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English." Wait. Gonzalez's responses defied logic and plain English? But an obscure reference to smoking some sort of turn of the 20th century cleaning product is completely logical? I don't think it is, sir. I just don't think so.

It really didn't help his case for how vigorous he was when he answered Andrea Mitchell and mispronounced Sestak's name. I'm not sure exactly what he said, but it wasn't Sestak.

But even after the odd Dutch cleanser as a mind altering substance reference, he continued to try and make his point about how vigorous he was. He went on with, "Did you see us on the debate? Did you see us on the debate? If you didn't see it, John Bayer (could be Mayor), the moderator, wrote about it, how strong and vibrant I was and how weak he was. You saw that town meeting. That Tea Party guy rushed up at me with his fists clenched. Security wanted to throw him out. I said no, no. And I fought him right there on the spot. Verbally. Beating. Uh, when you talk about vigor, uhhhh....it's all on Arlen Specter's side."

Again, I don't think that you're helping your case when you have to repeat yourself. It's not like she didn't hear you. She's sitting right there. Perhaps you forgot you had just said that? I don't know. But I do like how he implies for a moment that he all but stripped to the waist and knocked out some Tea Party dude before throwing in that he had fought him "verbally". It also didn't help him that after he said, "When you talk about vigor" he really didn't seem to know where he was going with that. And he was talking about himself!

I don't know that you can really make a good point about how vigorous you are by using some Victorian era reference that no one else knows what you're talking about. You're certainly not helping your case. I wonder what we would be thinking if he had answered the question by saying "Are you on glue?" I'm pretty sure I would have thought that was all sorts of awesome. It wouldn't mean that I would think that he needed to or should be re-elected. But at least I'd know that he knew what year it was. I'd also know that he knew that we knew what he was talking about.