Dorks v. Nerds

I feel like the definitions of a "Dork" and a "Nerd" need to finally be defined so that the next time you give a swirly to a co-worker, you are calling him the correct derogatory term.  I thought of a couple ways to do this, but using a compare/contrast tactic was the one I liked best, so let's break it down:

• A Dork is not ashamed to admit that they saw The Avengers.
• A Nerd is not ashamed to admit that they saw The Avengers while dressed as Thor.

• A Dork likes to play big name video games (Halo, Gears of War) as well as the lesser known titles (Skyrim).
• A Nerd has played every video ever made.  Ever.

• A Dork might own the complete box set of Star Wars and/or Lord of the Rings.
• A Nerd definitely owns both, plus the full set of action figures and at least one costume from both movies.

• A Dork knows what an MMORPG is only because of the World of Warcraft South Park episode.
• A Nerd owns at least one MMORPG account with a character named after Cartman.

• A Dork enjoys playing movie trivia and is generally pretty good at it.
• A Nerd is the one who probably came up with and wrote those movie trivia questions.

• A Dork is socially acceptable.
• A Nerd.  Not so much.

• A Dork can quote you some pretty obscure quotes from TV and movies.
• A Nerd can quote you the entire scrolling open from all six Star Wars movies.

Basically, think of the main characters from The Big Bang Theory and you have a nerd.  Dorks are much harder to identify in everyday life, but the best way to do it is by making any reference from the TV show Lost and see if you get a reaction.  If so, it's because that person is a dork and they miss watching new episodes of that show and/or are still somewhat disappointed by how it ended.  Well, we all learned something today, and hopefully what you learned is that guy with his head in the toilet is a nerd.  Have fun.

"I debated showing a picture of a Star Wars themed wedding instead of Olivia Munn in the Leia bikini.  I think I went with the right choice."

NOKW - Minority Report

Here comes the next chapter in our "I'm Okay With, I'm Not Okay With" series (if you don't know what this is, click here for all of the past posts):

Movie:  Minority Report

Basic Plot:  Tom Cruise is a cop who works in the Future Crimes Division where (obviously) future crimes are seen by three weird kids that hang out in a pool all day.

I'm Okay With:  The fact that you can arrest someone for a crime that hasn't actually happened, who's to say they wouldn't change their mind at the last second when they realize what they are doing?  The fact that it is not a crime that the three kids who can see into the future are drugged and forced to sit in a pool all day against their will.  The fact that the futuristic roadways look more like deathtraps than they do a safe way to get to work.  The fact that Tom Cruise's character is addicted to drugs and has been for a long time and not a single one of his co-workers notices.

I'm Not Okay With:  The fact that TC's character's retina scan still works when he breaks into the Police Station after having been accused of a future murder.  Think about that.  TC is on the run because his fellow police buddies think he is going to kill a guy and yet they don't bother to erase his security clearance which allows him into the most secure room in city (possibly the country).  You know, the room with three kids who can see into the fucking future.  Sure, the police were probably thinking that there is no way this guy would show his face around considering he is a wanted man and there are a ton of scanners around looking for him.  But they also know that you can get your eyes taken out and replaced with another set just so you can evade said scanners.  So, why did they keep TC's retina data on the security clearance list and not on the "Sound An Alarm If These Eyes Show Up" list?  I am not okay with that.

"This movie was meh, but those future computers were pretty badass."

Stupid State Laws - Colorado

Here comes another post about a state law that still exists on the books and why it is ridiculous (to see them all, click here):

Colorado

"It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor."

Okay, this one apparently only applies to Denver, but still, why can't you lend your vacuum to your neighbor?  What happened to the concept of friendly neighbors in Denver?  Did it deteriorate so much that they had to make laws to stop it?  Were too many shitty neighbors borrowing vacuums and not giving them back that a law had to be made to punish the idiots that kept on lending their vacuums anyways?  Is Denver trying to imply that their city is so clean that vacuuming is redundant?  What in the hell was the motivation behind this law?  I'm so confused.

"Alright buddy, where did you get that vacuum?  No response, huh?  Just like I thought, you borrowed it, didn't you?  You're coming with us and you are not going to like lock up."

Trout v. Harper

Player A:  .356 BA, 74 Runs, 16 HRs, 49 RBIs, 31 SBs

Player B:  .267 BA, 52 Runs, 9 HRs, 29 RBIs, 13 SBs

If you couldn't guess by the title of this post, then the answer to who is Player A and B is obviously either one or the other of those two names.  But why would I ask which is which?  Well, Player A is Mike Trout of the Los Angeles Angels and Player B is Bryce Harper of the Washington Nationals and they are the two super-hyped rookies taking Major League Baseball by storm.  Also, for whatever reason, the media likes to compare the two, but based on statistics alone, it's not even a contest, Mike Trout is by far the superior of the two.  So, that begs the question - why do they keep comparing them when Mike Trout blows Bryce Harper out of the water (get it, water and Trout)?  Mike Trout is the runaway Rookie of the Year leader and he is quite possibly the AL MVP vote leader at this point in the season.  He leads the AL in batting average and stolen bases.  Oh, and he didn't even get called up to the big leagues until the end of April, so he is a month behind the rest of the league.  Meanwhile, Bryce Harper is having a decent year, but he is not doing anything special like Trout.  The only thing that is going in Bryce Harper's favor is that he is 19 years old and the numbers he is putting up are pretty good for his age.  However, Mike Trout is only 20 years old, so it's not like age is that big of a factor.  On top of all that, Trout is currently the number one ranked fantasy player according to Yahoo! and I have to point out once again that he has played a month less than the rest of the players in the majors, making that ranking even crazier.  By the way, Harper is ranked 149th overall in fantasy baseball and is the 43rd best outfielder, which isn't anything to brag about.  So, why are these two guys being compared to each other?  I don't know, but I just wanted to end the debate today.  Mike Trout is the King of Rookies......and fish.

"But at least Bryce Harper leads the league in the 'Most Times People Have Said They Wanted to Punch Him in the Face'  statistic and it looks like someone beat me to it."

Mason and the Airplane

It's Friday, so let's see if I can up come up with something awesome to tell you guys about my awesome nephew Mason.  A couple of weeks ago, my sister was taking Mason and his little brother, Doc, to pick up their older brother from school (or from whatever else it is that little kids do during the day) when they saw a bunch of firetrucks fly by in the other direction.  And because all of my sister's kids are obsessed with any sort of truck, she followed them so that Mason and Doc would shut up.  Well, when they got to their destination, they saw this:

Apparently a small airplane failed to take off and instead plowed through the fence at the end of the runway.  So, what does this have to do with Mason?  Nothing that we know of.  But then again, can we definitively rule out foul play?  No, not when Mason just so happened to be in the area.  So, until they pull the black box out of that thing and can prove that Mason had nothing to do with that wreck, I'm just going to go ahead and assume he was behind it.

"Mason and his minions observing their handy-work."

Movie Review - The Dark Knight Rises

Well, I just saw The Dark Knight Rises and since I already gave you guys a review of The Amazing Spider-Man, I thought I would do the same for this movie.  If I see anything else this summer (which is doubtful, a Total Recall remake and a Matt Damon-less Bourne movie just don't sound worth spending money on), I will do the same.

I don't want to say anything that will give away the ending, so I'll start out by saying I loved it.  The plot was great, although at times I thought it was a little far-fetched, even for a Christopher Nolan Batman movie.  I thought the pace of the movie was amazing.  Considering it was two and a half hours long, you never noticed because there were no slow spots and if there were, they were so quick and an action scene was never far away (plus, there was no Maggie Gyllenhall to drag this movie down, and I still think she is the reason The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture).  Also, I thought this movie showed a lot more humor than the last two movies, Batman had a couple of legitimately funny liners and even though he wasn't supposed to be funny, I laughed at everything Bane said.

Speaking of Bane, I thought Tom Hardy did an amazing job with the character considering that the only acting he could actually do was with his eyes.  Virtually his entire face was covered by a mask and all of his dialogue was voiced over, so the only way Tom could act was through his eyes and body language and he nailed it.  And considering that Tom Hardy is a couple of inches shorter (5'10) than Christian Bale (6'0), Nolan really made me believe that he was huge.  I also thought Anne Hathaway's portrayal of Selina Kyle (note I didn't say Catwoman b/c she wasn't technically Catwoman, just a cat burglar that dressed in tight leather on occasion) was interesting and I thought she did a good job with it.  And as for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, I was surprised how believable his tough cop character was.  Considering I always think of him as that kid who looked like Mitch Kramer from Dazed and Confused on 3rd Rock from the Sun, I thought he did a great job with his character.

The action scenes were incredible and the final showdown between the Caped Crusader and Bane was really intense and I absolutely loved it.  The only complaint I have about the movie was the really fake CG scenes involving the Bat-Cycle.  For some reason it looked so fake compared to any other CG used in the movie and that takes into account that they had a huge CG Bat-Plane-like thing flying all over Gotham City.

As a whole, this movie was a great way to finish of the trilogy and I would highly recommend seeing it.  Also, I would like to give my heart out to the victims of the Colorado shooting and I hope they allow the victims of that tragedy to beat that coward to death with socks full of quarters.

Rating (out of 5):  4.75 Farts

What's in a Nickname?

Nicknames are pretty cool for the most part (unless you give them to yourself).  Even if they are slightly derogatory they are usually formed out of good-natured fun....or are they?  Sometimes nicknames can have some ad things behind them and be a warning for who your friends should be.  Just because someone's buddies call him "Slim", it doesn't mean he is skinny, nor does it mean it's ironic and he's fat; he may be dying of cancer and is going to get really thin from the treatments.  Now had you known that, you might not want to hang out with that person because they might die soon.  So below I have listed some common nicknames and raise a few questions as to why someone would have said nickname.  Enjoy.

Buddy

     Normal:  You are very friendly and don't have any enemies.

     Possible:  You are no one's buddy and this is a completely ironic nickname.  Go fuck yourself.

Slick

     Normal:  You are great at making deals and manipulating people.

     Possible:  You look like your hair has grease in it.

Kid

     Normal:  You are younger than the people you hang with or at least look that way.

     Possible:  You are a kid and the adults you talk to can't remember your name.

Bossman

     Normal:  You are a boss at work.

     Possible:  You are my boss.  Sorry for the shitty nickname.  Please give me a raise.

Chief

     Normal:  Your are the leader of almost any situation.

     Possible:  You are an Indian chief, your full name is Chief Ducking Frog.

Sport

     Normal:  You are great at sports or a generally good person to hang with.

     Possible:  You constantly argue that NASCAR is a sport and everyone in your life hates you for it.

Matrix

     Normal:  You are super agile and quick.

     Possible:  You own a Toyota Matrix.

‘Lil (fill in the blank)

     Normal:  You have the same name as someone famous or in your inner circle that is older than you.

     Possible:  You are little.

Don

     Normal:  You are the shit; people are scared of you and respect you.

     Possible:  Your real name is Donald.

So remember nicknames are not always as they appear - make sure you know their true origins.

"Nicknames can be better than they appear - I call her 'Crease'."

Penn State Sanctions

The NCAA handed out sanctions against Penn State yesterday for concealing Jerry Sandusky's heinous crimes.  Penn State is supposed to pay a $60 million fine, will have a four year bowl ban, lose ten scholarships a year for four years, and vacate 111 wins from 1998-2011.  But why?  Were Jerry Sandusky's acts beyond awful?  Yes.  Was Joe Paterno and the other Penn State higher-ups covering it up inexcusable?  Yes again.  But what makes the NCAA think they have any say in this matter?

The NCAA is supposed to regulate the athletics of the universities they govern, it's right there in their name, so how can they punish Penn State for something that had absolutely nothing to do with sports?  Was there a lack of institutional control?  Sure, but the Penn State higher-ups were not covering up recruiting infractions or drug use by athletes.  They were covering up something way worse, but that something had nothing to do with the outcome of football games.  Hell, there was even talk of giving Penn State the "Death Penalty", but once again, for what infractions?  The "Death Penalty" is for schools that blatantly pay players or a school whose coaches give their players steroids, not for something that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with football.

Was it wrong what Penn State did?  Yes.  But personally, I think the NCAA has no authority here and should stay the hell out of it because the guilty parties will be punished plenty enough by the law.  The guilty people involved have and will go to prison, so taking away bowl games and scholarships only hurts the players and they had absolutely nothing to do with it.  Besides, the negative reputation the school now has will affect recruiting and that should be punishment enough for the school's football program.  


However, I finally heard an argument that makes me think that the NCAA may actually be in the right with their punishment.  Basically, because Penn State covered up these horrific crimes, they did not receive the negative press back in the day like they are now.  So, had the truth come out in 1998, then they would be in the same boat that they are in today and that would have affected their recruiting which in turn would have affected the outcome of football games.  And that is technically in the NCAA's wheelhouse.


Even then, I still think that Penn State should tell the NCAA and their punishment to suck it and that they should continue to play in bowl games and continue to give out those lost scholarships and continue to call Joe Pa the winningest coach of all-time because the NCAA's punishment is absurd and has basically made Penn State a Division II school playing at a Division I level.

"Penn State already had to take down the statue of their best head coach in school history, how does taking away bowl games and scholarships make the situation any better for the victims?"

NOKW - G.I. Joe

Here comes the next chapter in our "I'm Okay With, I'm Not Okay With" series (if you don't know what this is, click here for all of the past posts):

Movie:  G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Basic Plot:  I'm not sure exactly, but there was a ton of fighting and explosions and leather-clad hotties.

I'm Okay With:  The fact that I not only watched this movie, but actually liked it.  The fact that there is no one named Joe in the entire movie (unless Brendan Fraser and his short onscreen time was named Joe).  The fact that there are so many things to make fun of in this movie that we are just going to skip ahead to the most ridiculous thing about this movie.

I'm Not Okay With:  The fact that the whole movie's plot revolved around the bad guys stealing a weapon from the good guys when that weapon was manufactured by the bad guy in the first place.  You see, one of the bad guys is a weapons manufacturer and he made some ridiculous missile that can eat through anything which he then sells to the US Military.  While on route from the bad guy's factory, he has leather-clad bad chick try and steal it.  But why bother?  He is the one who makes it, couldn't he just make one for himself and give it to his fellow bad guys to use?  Sure, I guess he had to give the good guys one when he told them he was making it, but then why didn't he just not tell the good guys and then give one to the bad guys to unleash on the unprepared public?  Wouldn't that have been a lot easier evil plan?  And had he done that, G.I. Joe wouldn't have recruited the two new guys that were key in taking the bad guy down.  I am not okay with that.

"Here are two very good reasons to watch this movie."

Stupid State Laws - California

Here comes another post about a state law that still exists on the books and why it is ridiculous (to see them all, click here):

California

"It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale."

Oh man, there are so many questions to be asked about this silly law.  Why do whales get the short-end of the stick on this law?  Is it because they are the only animal in California that is large enough that you can't miss it when you shoot at it from a moving vehicle?  Do vehicles include boats?  How many roads in California are even close enough to the ocean that you wouldn't have to carry a sniper rifle with you in order to even hit a whale while driving?  Is it illegal to shoot whales while your vehicle is not moving?  I feel like whales should hire a good lawyer and get these questions cleared up, because otherwise, they are getting screwed over with this law.

"However, there is no law against shooting at a moving vehicle that looks like a whale, somebody should clarify that for us, too."

Clemson Tattoo

Check this very real tattoo out and see if you can spot the hilarious spelling error:

If you can't figure it out for whatever reason (there are only two words and one is misspelled), then I will tell you this - it's not Clemons.  Well, that's all I've got for today, just thought this was funny enough to pass along.

Batman Franchise Over?

With the last movie in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy coming out this weekend, I have a question that needs to be asked - is the Batman franchise over?  Seriously, because these last three Batman movies were so awesome, is there any way to make a new Batman movie that won't be compared to and fail to live up to the this trilogy?  I honestly don't think it's possible.  Therefore, is the Batman franchise dead?  Or is some idiot going to come along and cast an actor as Batman that has no chance of living up to Christian Bale and make a movie that will pale in comparison to Christopher Nolan's vision of the Batman universe?  After having seen these movies, I always thought Nolan created a perfect mix of a comic book character in a real world.  It always felt as if Bruce Wayne/Batman could actually exist in our world and that his villains were not unrealistic, and that they could be real people terrorizing our real public.  Sure, some of the things that the Joker did was kind of outlandish and he probably wouldn't have gotten away with it in our universe, but a crazy person running around with makeup on could and probably has happened.  While Tim Burton's two movies were very good, I couldn't imagine it really happening in our world like Christopher Nolan's adaptation did (and the other two movies aren't even worth mentioning, they were too ridiculous).  In any case, I can't wait to see The Dark Knight Rises, but I also have to realize that this might be the end of the Batman franchise for a very long time....or at least until a movie studio casts Shia LeBeouf or that kid who played Peeta from The Hunger Games to play Batman and ruins the franchise more than the George Clooney movie did.

"Alright, so maybe a guy in a costume riding a super expensive motorcycle isn't exactly something you would see on an everyday basis, but it's still possible.....maybe."

Star Wars Cantina Song

DORK ALERT!!!  Just watch this, it's worth it:

How awesome was that?  If you didn't watch that video because you are either lazy and/or at work, then it is the music video for LMFOA's Party Rock Anthem and they dub the Catina song from Star Wars over the music.  And it is awesome.  It really does look like they are dancing to that song.  I just felt like the dork world should see this video and I bet you are glad I did.

Why Isn't This Standard - The DH

Baseball is a great game.  As seen by the steroid era bringing in tons of  fans, the game is based solely around one thing - the monster dongs!  There is one big exception to this - the pitcher.  In the NL without the DH, pitchers don't hit 3 or 4 times a game.  Why?  What's the point?  No one else on the field has to be that well rounded.  Other defensive players make a few plays a game, not every pitch.  If a pitcher spends all his time practicing his craft, why should he be punished for it by having to hit?  It doesn't make any sense, which is why the DH should be standard throughout baseball.

Pitchers hitting is not a fun thing to watch.  Best case scenario is they lay down a good bunt.  Yawn.  The two best pitchers in the NL this year have been  (arguably) Matt Cain, R.A. Dickey,  They are hitting a combined 13 for 74 with 4 RBIs, that's a .175 batting average.  Vogelsong is 2 for 29 with 21 strikeouts.  Wandy Rodriguez is 0 for 32...yikes.  Altogether, NL pitchers before the All-Star break have hit a combined 9 home runs.  9 home runs in over 1200 games.  This just goes to show that nothing good happens from pitchers hitting.  There are outliers (in average, not in power) but hey, if you have a pitcher that can hit then let him hit.  That would make it even more unique to ever see a pitcher bat.

Sometimes teams don't even want their pitchers to swing.  They all save their arms for pitching because...well...they're pitchers.  If they do get a hit do you really want your ace out there running the bases making injuries that much more likely?

When baseball was in the Olympics they used.....just kidding, no one cares.  Baseball is America's national pastime and we do what we want.

There are a few sad people that get way too into pitchers' hitting stats.  This website even discussed the Braves pitchers' BABIP.  The deep blogs are the only ones that care.  John Q. 99% public just want to see monster dongs.  The AL knows this and because they have the DH, they can overpay and/or give guys longer contracts because when a player can't move anymore, the team can just move that guy to the DH.  This lets the fans enjoy great players a few years longer.

I think we can agree that there needs to be one rule for all of baseball.  No one should gear their team towards their league's rules only to have to follow other people's rules just because Justin Verlander started nailing Kate Upton right before the All-Star game.  So do the right thing MLB, add the DH everywhere. Better yet, fire Bud Selig then add the DH.

" I have always liked twins. "

Morning Wood

While this may be an uncomfortable topic for some, I recently read something fascinating about Morning Wood and I thought the world should be more informed.  Do you know the actual reason as to why guys sometimes wake up with a Stub Chub?  No?  Well, it's because their Fun Gun actually raises to attention about every 85 minutes while they sleep and lasts for about 25 minutes.  Basically, if you wake up with a Morning Glory, it is because your Happy Gilmore just so happened to be at full mast during one of its normal nightly cycles.  Being a guy, I feel like I should have known that my Long Dong Silver did this at night by this point in my life.  It would have cleared up a very big question I had about my Pocket Rocket while growing up.  Well, I just thought the world should be more informed about a dude's Pitched Tent when he wakes up in the morning.  You're welcome.

"A Funky Fatty.  That officially makes ten Boner references in this article."

NOKW - Gladiator

Here comes the next chapter in our "I'm Okay With, I'm Not Okay With" series (if you don't know what this is, click here for all of the past posts):

Movie:  Gladiator

Basic Plot:  Maximus and his slave buddies fight to the death in the Coliseum for the enjoyment of others, kind of like football, but with less pads.

I'm Okay With:  The fact that their are numerous historical inaccuracies in this movie, such as Commodus not only not killing his father, Marcus Aurelius, but also ruling Rome for 12 years and not just a few short months, also he was murdered in his bathtub, not in the Coliseum.  The fact that all of the gladiators looked like they worked all day every day despite being locked up in a cage when not fighting.  The fact that Russell Crowe's character was Spanish, yet didn't look remotely Spanish (however, Sean Connery's character in The Highlander was also Spanish, but still talked with a Scottish accent, so that portrayal was way worse).

I'm Not Okay With:  The fact that all of Rome finds out that Maximus is not only alive, but a slave being forced to fight as a gladiator and he is not freed immediately.  Hell, people even start calling him general and still do nothing about the fact that he is a slave.  Sure, after a couple more close calls with death and really cool fight scenes later, someone finally gets around to trying to get him away from the city, but shouldn't he have been free as soon as it was known he was enslaved.  He is Rome's top general and still the current leader of their army, so if he was enslaved against his will, you would think he could simply walk out of the Coliseum, get his army, and murder the hell out of pre-crazy Joaquin Phoenix.  You could argue that Commodus was doing everything he could to make sure Maximus didn't go free and was killed during the games, but everyone hated that guy, so why didn't Maximus have more allies?  I am not okay with this.

"Why yes, we are quite entertained, thank you for asking."

Stupid State Laws - Arkansas

Here comes another post about a state law that still exists on the books and why it is ridiculous (to see them all, click here):

Arkansas

"The Arkansas River can rise no higher than to the Main Street bridge in Little Rock."

OK, that is just stupid.  Who do the cops arrest during a really big flood?  And for that case, is this law specific to river itself?  If the river does go above the Main Street bridge, do they fine the river or put it in jail somehow?  And for that matter, why is this even a law when there is no way to even actually enforce it?  Way too many questions, not enough answers.  (Side note - it is also a law that you have to pronounce the name of the state by saying, "Arkansaw", I guess they really hate Kansas and don't want to be associated with them in any way.)

"Now listen here, buddy, you rose above the Main Street bridge last week, so you are going to have to come with us and spend a couple nights in jail to think about what you did."

MLB and College Baseball

Why is it that when you watch an NFL game, you can pretty much associate all the best players to the college they played for, but when it comes to baseball, you can probably only name one or two players' respective schools?  I know Ryan Braun went to Miami, that's about it.  So, why is this?  I can come up with a couple of reasons:

1. The obvious answer is that most players are Latin American and in all likelihood came to America on a floating piece of wood so that they could get their chance at playing baseball in the states.  Oh, and they probably went straight to the minors instead of bothering to learn anything at a college, especially English.
2. With football, there is a rule in place that all players have to have been out of high school for three years before they are eligible to enter the draft.  In baseball, there are a multitude of weird rules concerning draft eligibility.  First, you can enter the draft straight out of high school.  However, if you enter college, you are then required to stay at that school for a minimum of three years before you can enter the draft again.  That is unless of course that player goes to a junior or community college, in which case, they can enter the draft after only one year.  In other words, all the best players go directly to the majors and bypass college.
3. The players that are drafted out of college are generally not that good.  I looked it up and between 2000 and 2009 (I picked those years b/c it takes a few years to get to the majors and the usual MLB career isn't much longer than 10 years), 243 1st Round picks were drafted out of college.  Out of those 243 picks, 26 made the All-Star team.  That means that only 11% of 1st round college players made the All-Star Team which isn't very good if these guys are supposed to be the best players in the draft and considering that All-Star rosters are huge.
4. Unlike football, baseball players spend a couple years in the minors, therefore, you forget about them by the time they make it to the majors and/or they never actually make it to the big league.

I guess in the end you don't identify MLB players with their college is due to a multitude of reasons.  What I didn't add in that list is the fact that almost every college football game is broadcast on TV and if it weren't for ESPN showing the College World Series, I doubt people would even know there is college baseball.

"If you are going to pay that much money to sit behind home plate, then at what point would you think that bringing a book would be a good idea?"

Lyrical Lies - Somebody That I Used to Know

This column will strip away the catchy instrumentals and analyze the ridiculousness of the lyrics in popular songs.  I understand it is taking things to the extremes, but that's what I do - I go to extremes.  I am not going to comment on repeating lines or verses other than to occasionally note how much repetition there is in all songs.  In this addition, the stuff in red is what the girl is singing.

Song:  Somebody That I Used to Know
Artist:  Gotye

“Now and then I think of when we were together
Like when you said you felt so happy you could die” 

That’s where your mind went right off?  Remembering when she said she could die?  Kind of morbid.
“I told myself that you were right for me
But felt so lonely in your company”  

How right can you be if you feel lonely?  No way this whole song is about being dissed by a girl who made him feel lonely even when he was with him, right?
“But that was love and it's an ache I still remember”  

Well I was wrong.  It aches when you got rid of the lonely feeling, huh?  Do you now feel smothered by being single?  You are an enigma Goyte.

“You can get addicted to a certain kinda sadness” We know, we have all seen Jersey Shore.
“Like resignation to the end, always the end”  
More of this super upbeat guy – he reminds me of Richard Simmons.
“So when we found that we could not make sense
Well you said that we would still be friends
But I'll admit that I was glad that it was over”  
Very adult of you.  You talked it out, decided to go separate ways but be friends – which no one actually means.  Typical break-up.  He doesn’t think they are actually going to still be friends does he?

"But you didn't have to cut me off
Make it like it never happened and that we were nothing "
He did not get the memo.  Can you imagine how surprised she was when she heard this - "Wait, you actually wanted to be friends?  Why?  We aren't even doing it anymore?"
"I don't even need your love, but you treat me like a stranger
And that feels so rough"
I guess she didn't know he is the only guy who likes to be surrounded by ex-girlfriends.  What a bitch.

"No, you didn't have to stoop so low
Have your friends collect your records"
She has records?  This changes things - dump that bitch.
"And then change your number"
What a bitch again!  I can't believe she didn't want to talk to you!?!?  And to change her number after only a few hundred calls - in-excusable.
"Guess that I don't need that though"
Poor guy, so many pressures in your life.
"Now you're just somebody that I used to know"
That's the definition of an ex!  So much complaining.

"Now you're just somebody that I used to know"
What
"Now you're just somebody that I used to know"
Oh - Got it


Oh good- now we get to hear her side of the story...
"Now and then I think of all the times you screwed me over"
Now it comes out - you are an ass.
"But had me believin' it was always something that I'd done"
And really manipulative.  Nice.

But I don't wanna live that way
Reading into every word you say
You said that you could let it go
And I wouldn't catch you hung up on somebody that you used to know-oh-oh
Sounds pretty realistic to me.  Why would Gotye even let this part in here.  Best case scenario - this song blows up, someone listens to the words, and everyone hates me.  Makes no sense.

"(oh)"
I left this in here because you could basically put this under the entire song.

Now hit that repeat button about 40 more times on the "somebody that I used to know" and you have the rest of the song!

"This is the girl in the music video.  Of 100 pictures this is the closest one to hot."

Ghost Hunters

I was listening to a random podcast the other day and one of the comedians on that podcast said something that I found hilariously true.  He said, "How is it possible for there to be so many ghost hunting shows on TV when not a one of them has actually found a ghost?".  I can honestly say that I have never once watched one of these stupid TV shows, but I still found that that statement couldn't be more true.  So, I looked it up and not only are there a lot of ghost hunting shows, but they have also been on the air for way too long to have not caught a single ghost.  Here are five such shows and how long they have been able to scam money out of their respective networks.

Ghost Hunters (SyFy) - 8 Seasons/166 Episodes
Ghost Adventures (Travel Channel) - 6 Seasons/70 Episodes
Paranormal State (A&E Network) - 5 Seasons/83 Episodes
Most Haunted (It's British) - 185 Episodes
Ghost Lab (Discovery Channel) - 2 Seasons/26 Episodes

That is 530 Episodes of ghost hunting shows and zero successfully hunted ghosts.  Actually, I think we are going about this all wrong.  If they are supposed to be ghost hunters, then why haven't we actually seen a single one of these so-called "experts" hunt down and kill a ghost.  Am I right?  That is what hunters do, they hunt down and kill their prey, but these idiots have failed over 500 times to do just that, but they somehow keep getting their shows renewed.  Something about that doesn't seem logical.

"Look!  A ghost!  Let's pee are pants and runaway instead of actually doing what our show says we do!"

Fantasy Football v. Fantasy Baseball

DORK ALERT!!!!  I'm going to be talking about fantasy sports today, so I thought I would go ahead and warn our large contingent of female readers (hi mom) to look away.

So, which is better - Fantasy Football or Fantasy Baseball?  Let's break it down:

Fantasy Football

Pros:  You only have to set up your line-up a minimum of once a week.  It is literally the only reason I watch the NFL.  It is funny to me to be watching a random game with some buddies and be the only person in the room getting upset when a back-up running back scores a TD for your favorite team (one time before fantasy sports were popular, I started yelling at the TV when Randy McMichael scored and nobody in the room knew what was wrong with me).
Cons:  Way too much luck involved.  It is possible to have the best team in your league and still not win a single match-up all season.  One injury can derail your entire season.  They need to come up with better scoring rules for running backs because the league only has about a half of a dozen every-down backs anymore and they are so valuable that I feel like it is hurting the fake sport.  Playoff teams (the real ones) rest players at the end of the season when it matters most to your fantasy outcome, aka the fake playoffs.

Fantasy Baseball

Pros:  The anticipation of baseball season is so welcome because basketball is so stupid.  It has the most fair outcome of the two fantasy sports because your final results are based on the entire season, day in and day out, instead of weekly match-ups like fantasy football.  Injuries are not nearly as devastating as in fantasy football.  Sure, it sucks if your 1st Round pick is out for the season, but you can still compete, but if your 1st Round running back is out, your season is definitely in jeopardy (not the show).
Cons:  The season is SOOOOO long.  And I can't stress that enough because it might be the only con about fantasy baseball, but it is such a big one that it hurts the fake game.  Personally, I generally stop caring about it once college football starts up and I'm sure most people feel the same way.

-The winner is definitely going to be fantasy football and that is mostly due to the fact that as you get older, the less time you have to spend on stuff like this.  So, would you rather check your line-up once or twice a week for four months or everyday for six months?  In the end, that is what it comes down to and that is why I think fantasy football is ultimately better.  That and football has cheerleaders.

"Tebow getting Tebowed.  Sweet."

Movie Review - The Amazing Spider-Man

Since I just saw The Amazing Spider-Man, I thought I would give you guys a review of the movie.  Also, if I see anything else this summer, I just might let you know if it is worth seeing or not.  Here goes.

First things first, I thought this adaptation of Spider-Man was better than the first trilogy and I really liked the first two (that third one was an abomination).  And I would make fun of the fact that they are re-booting the series only ten years after the original, but after seeing this one, I really can't because it was good.  The thing I thought this movie did better than the original was that they used far less CGI.  Except for the villain, The Lizard, the director used more realistic shots of Spider-Man and I thought that gave the movie a cooler look and made it more real.  On top of that, the costume they used somehow looked more realistic than the original, like something a real person would wear if they just so happened to be a super-powered spider person.  The plot moved along smoothly and the actors were all great.  Also, unlike the first movies, they showed that Spider-Man could actually be injured.  When Tobey Maguire's Spidey got hurt, he always bounced back without even a bruise, but Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man was constantly bruised and bleeding, which I thought gave him a more human feel.  And speaking of Andrew Garfield's portrayal, I thought his Peter Parker was more true to the comic books.  He was smart dork, but had a great sarcastic wit about him, while Tobey's Peter was just a straight-up nerd.

The only thing I didn't like was that I think they kind of botched the "from normal teenager to spider-powered kid" sequence.  It seemed rushed, but at the same time, they did have a great scene when Peter came home the first time after realizing what he had become that almost made up for that (I won't give anything away in case you haven't seen it, your welcome).

I would recommend seeing The Amazing Spider-Man.  If you enjoy these kinds of movies, you will definitely enjoy this one.

Rating (out of 5):  4.25 Farts

NOKW - Lord of the Rings 2

Here comes the next chapter in our "I'm Okay With, I'm Not Okay With" series (if you don't know what this is, click here for all of the past posts):

Movie:  Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Basic Plot:  The second movie in the trilogy has Frodo and Samwise teaming up with Gollum, meanwhile Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli are hunting down the other hobbits.  Also, there is the awesome battle of Helms Deep.

I'm Okay With:  The fact that three of the heroes were trying to catch an entire army of orcs with no real back-up in case there was a fight.  The fact that a bunch of trees were able to take down Isengard in like five minutes.  The fact that Frodo would ever think of trusting Gollum to take them into Mordor without knowing that Gollum would definitely have ulterior motives.  The fact that spell-check is okay with pretty much every word from the Harry Potter series, but thinks every name and place from Lord of the Rings is misspelled despite that series being around since the 50's.

I'm Not Okay With:  The fact that Gandolf was able to beat the Balrog by using a sword and some wicked awesome magic, but then never uses any worthwhile spells the rest of the series.  Seriously, the Balrog is a massive, fire-breathing demon and Gandolf took down that guy like he was his bitch, but when faced against lesser enemies in the rest of the series, he generally just uses a sword and relies on others to take those bad guys down.  Don't you think that it would have come in handy for Gandolf to use some badass spell to help defend Minas Tirith?  Yes, it would have.  What about when they faced a cave troll in the first movie?  But no, instead he runs around killing orcs with his sword.  I am not okay with that.

"That tiny little guy in the bottom right is Gandolf. and yet he killed that monster taking up the rest of the picture."

Stupid State Laws - Arizona 2

Here comes another post about a state law that still exists on the books and why it is ridiculous and because I found another one I really liked from the state of Arizona, we are going back there (to see them all, click here):

Arizona

"Donkeys cannot sleep in bathtubs."

What I want to know is if this law is meant to stop humans from making donkeys sleep in bathtubs or is it specifically meant for donkeys?  In other words, did Arizona have an unruly donkey who kept breaking into people's houses and sleeping in their bathtubs?  I really hope that was the case and if so, I really want to meet that donkey and allow him to sleep in my bathtub any time.  But if the law was meant for humans, why in the hell would someone force their donkey to sleep in a bathtub?  And for that matter, why would that matter?  Sure, it's uncomfortable to sleep in bathtubs, but it's a donkey, they usually sleep in a barn, so you would think sleeping indoors would be worth it.

"Oh, it must be illegal b/c they are too big to sleep in there.  That silly donkey."

Fun With Analogies

I've always thought that the analogy "It's Like Shooting Fish in a Barrel" never made any sense.  Think about it. If someone says that something is as easy as "shooting fish in a barrel", do they actually know this from experience?  Because I would imagine shooting fish in a barrel could actually be pretty difficult.  Unless you shoot at the fish from point-blank range, I bet it would be really tough to actually kill the fish with the actually bullet.  If you miss the fish (which is the most likely case), then all you would end up with is a slowly leaking barrel and no dead fish.  In either case, I guess the fish would ultimately die, but it defeats the purpose of the analogy.  Well, that's all I've got, it's Saturday, sue me.

"Maybe they should change the saying to 'Shooting Fish at Point-Blank Range in a Small Bowl on Top of a Barrel'."

Mason and His Neighbor

You're damn right I have another story about my awesome nephew Mason and here it is.  As I've discussed earlier, Mason tends to wander off and on occasion and steal things.  Well recently, he has gotten into the habit of breaking into his neighbor's house on a regular basis.  He likes to go over there and pilfer his neighbor's pantry and help himself to any sweets he finds.  One day, he made his way into the neighbor's office and was drawing/coloring on some computer paper when Mr. Greg (the neighbor) walked by and Mason scared him half to death.  So, Mr. Greg says "Hey Mason, I like your drawing, but I'm getting ready to leave", to which Mason responds "See ya", and keeps right on doing whatever it was he was doing.  A couple of weeks later, Mr. Greg found Mason in the pantry where Mason was complaining that there were no Scooby Snacks for him to eat.  Mr. Greg tells him that he hadn't been to the store lately and Mason says "OK", takes a coke, and heads home.  Three days after that, Mason sees Mr. Greg pulling down the driveway and the first thing out of Mason's mouth is "Have you been to the store yet, Mr. Greg?".  My sister swears she feeds her kids, but feels if Mason keeps this up, she will have to have her husband start mowing his yard for free (he owns a landscaping business).  So, in the future, if you find a random kid in your house, don't be alarmed, it is probably just Mason looking for food or drawing pictures in your living room.  Just feed him and he will spare your life......for now.

"Here is Mason wearing a fake pair of glasses I gave him."

The Rubberbandits

I felt like getting a random song stuck in your head today, so please watch this video, you won't regret it:

That's all I've got for today, but it was well worth it, wasn't it?  Try and get that song out of your head because I know I couldn't the first time I saw the video.......and can't get it out now, damn me!

Why Isn't This Standard - Visitor's Tax

There are a lot of countries out there - just look at a map.  Many of these countries have special monetary deals just for being a member of their country.  Discounts are offered on everything from food to alcohol to cars.  From the extensive research I have done (none) to the many experts I have talked to (two friends), it seems African countries are the ones that are perpetuating this scam.  It sounds like a joke, but a vacationer and a local walk into a bar, order the same drinks, and the local will sometimes save 90% (in Eritrea)!!!!!!!!!  This would seem like a genius way to raise money for your country without stealing it (taxes) from your citizens.  Where can you think of that has an economy that isn't so hot and needs money but doesn't want to raise taxes?  Who would complain?  It's a no-lose proposition.

Other countries also charge a departure tax.  Don't know what that is?  That's a tax to LEAVE their country.  Can't pay to get out?  Then you will have to pay to stay in.  I have paid $50 for this luxury.  Another huge profit generator.  According to the internet, over 50 million people visit the US every year.  I say we charge them $20 each for the trouble of stopping and giving them directions and furthering stereotypes.  That is One Billion extra revenue a year.  BOOM.  Done.  Do I want to be president?  Not really, but everyone says I should be with all these ideas.

America must do this.  You appease anyone not wanting taxes raised and you appease anyone who wants to deter foreigners (the South).  Who doesn't fit into those categories?

"I only accept cash up front for directions, you Frenchy.  You don't like that, then my sister/wife here will give you free directions to Hell."

Commercial Advice

Someone needs to inform marketing departments that hiring Fergie as a commercial spokeswoman is a terrible idea.  Just look at that picture below and tell me that when you see her promoting a soft drink that it actually makes you want to drink it.  I know I don't, she's scary-looking/butt-ugly.  For that matter, why do makeup companies hire Drew Barrymore to promote their products when A) her career peaked decades ago, and B) she is far from attractive.  This same rule applies to Queen Latifah (by the way, does anybody remember that Queen Latifah started her career out as a terrible rapper?).  I can only assume they hire these women because other women won't be intimidated by them and might actually buy their products.  But if that was the case, then why do they also hire supermodels and actresses like the super-hot Kate Beckinsale to promote their stuff?  It makes no sense.  Well, that's all I've got.

"I'm sorry if she haunts your nightmares tonight."

NOKW - The Hangover Part II

Here comes the next chapter in our "I'm Okay With, I'm Not Okay With" series (if you don't know what this is, click here for all of the past posts):

Movie:  The Hangover Part II

Basic Plot:  Zach Galifianakis and friends run around Bangkok (hehe) while trying to remember the night before.

I'm Okay With:  The fact that this was the exact same movie as the first one, except in Bangkok (hehe) and it was Stu's soon-to-be brother-in-law that is missing this time.  The fact they are making another one of these movies despite having already done the exact same movie twice (if you can't tell, I didn't like this one).  The fact that the main characters don't end up dead or in jail after starting a riot.  The fact that Stu is not ragged on more after getting banged by a transvestite stripper.  The fact that Mike Tyson would fly all the way to Stu's wedding to sing a song even though they stole his tiger in the first movie.  The fact that Doug is 0 for 2 in going out on the town with his buddies on these crazy nights.

I'm Not Okay With:  The fact that the whole plot is based around the fact that Stu's brother-in-law, Teddy,  was stuck in an elevator due to rolling blackouts and the gang couldn't find him.  The key to that sentence being "rolling" blackouts, which means that the power would have come back on at some point and Teddy would have easily gotten out.  The blackouts happen randomly throughout the movie, but the power comes back on, however magically, it doesn't at the hotel they woke up in.  That is stupid.  On top of that, Teddy was supposed to be some sort of genius and even if he was missing a finger, he should have easily found a way out of that elevator.  But movie logic decided to have the power stay out at their hotel and made Teddy an idiot at a time his brains should have helped him out.  I am not okay with that.

Stupid State Laws - Arizona

Here comes another post about a state law that still exists on the books and why it is ridiculous (to see them all, click here):

Arizona

"You may not have more than two dildos in a house."

Now that is just silly.  Does this mean that the police raid sorority houses all the time?  Or do they wait for a bachelorette party and bust a bunch of drunk chicks and start handing out tickets?  (By the way, spell-check doesn't recognize the word "bacholerette" for some reason, it is a word, right?)  Which lawmaker thought that having two dildos in one house should be illegal?  Was it someone who liked sharing, but their roommate didn't?  Gross.  Nothing about this law makes sense to me and it definitely had to be mentioned.

"Ten seconds later the police busted in and Delta Iota Lambda Delta Omega (see what I did there) was never the same again."