What do you enjoy reading the most here on my blog?

Search My Blog

Thursday, August 27, 2009

PETA Wants A Lighthouse

Okay, so if you're an avid reader of my blog, you already know that when PETA is in the title, something stupid is going on and it usually involves a dumb media stunt by PETA or is making fun of a PETA press release. And this post is no different. Today's article is about PETA and their next attempt at obtaining a public landmark to convert into an insipid "activity center" to "raise awareness" of some "travesty" that is befalling the animals.

PETA is applying through a federal program to take over Grand Haven's Lake Michigan lighthouses and turn them into their anti-fishing headquarters where they will set up "education centers" for visitors to learn all about fish.

I'm personally shocked that nowhere in this PETA/fish article was it brought up that PETA prefers to call them "sea kittens".

It's been a while since PETA tried to pull off a "let's take over a building and come up with a crazy way of 'educating' the people about our cause" maneuver. The last was covered in "PETA and Lobsters" - detailing PETA attempting to take over an old prison and educating the masses in Maine (over 50 miles from the coast) about the plight of the lobsters, including putting rubberbands on visitors' fingers. So their latest attempt is to basically, well...

I'll let this quote from the article try and explain the plan:

"We want to renovate the Grand Haven lights as a memorial to the billions of fish killed annually by sport fishermen, as well as for their flesh (commercial fishing industry)," said Lindsey Rajt, manager of PETA's campaigns department. "We also want to make it a fun and educational place."

Tentative PETA plans call for an education center, where visitors would learn about fish. There also would be a cafe, offering vegetarian fare including "faux fish."

Signs would likely announce the lighthouse as home of PETA's Fish Empathy Center.

Okay - right off the bat I'd like to point out that "billions of fish" relates MORE to the commercial fishing industry (AKA: feeding humans) than the sport fishing aspect. And yes, we eat fish. But here's a logic puzzle for PETA:

Humans are animals, and anglers catch fish so they can eat.

Fish are animals, and anglerfish catch fish so they can eat.

Why is one animal angling fish for food acceptable, but not the other? Do we need to set up an undersea education station for anglerfish so they can learn that fish are people too and don't deserve to be eaten?

But PETA's never really understood the concept of "humans are animals" and refuses to comprehend that the things they say we should not allowed to do are things they say the other animals should remain allowed to do. Let's move on.

So PETA, you'd like the lighthouse to be:
1. A memorial to the billions of deceased fish.
2. A fun place to visit.

Error: does not compute. You wouldn't expect us to be okay with a "Hiroshima Waterpark" or "Auschwitz Activity Center" or "Six Flags over Darfur", right? So why should you be allowed to think for a second that death can also be fun? That would make you no better than the sport fisherman you're rallying against, who have fun thanks to dead fish.

I need to make one more point regarding the conflicting ideals PETA has regarding "fake options".

PETA is against fake fur because it perpetuates fur as a popular STYLE and therefore seems to condone wearing fur in general.

PETA is in favor of fake meat products ("faux fish", tofu, Unturkey, etc.) even though it perpetuates meat as a popular TASTE and therefore condones the eating of meat in general.

PETA - you don't make any goddamned sense in anything you do.

I wish that this article were able to poke as much fun at PETA as I get to do, but I do give them credit for a choice quote and running with it in the article.

Locals are dumbfounded by the proposal.

"It doesn't make any sense to me at all," Capt. Dan Tebo said Tuesday, a mile offshore in his Grand Haven-based fishing charter boat the D'Ann Marie. "We fish here for the fish. That's what God gave them to us for."

What do you think? Are you as dumbfounded as these people? Don't you agree that PETA is a collective of lunatics always trying to one-up itself in the insanity department? Leave a comment and let me know your thoughts!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Tweet to RedEye: Paula and Idol

Okay, just a quick update. It's been a very long time since I've had anything of mine posted in the RedEye - especially since it's been six months since I've done much writing/blogging/anything other than my normal rut. Well, thanks to Twitter (or actually, thanks to the Gmail app that added Twitter to my Gmail inbox) I've at least been able to do some Tweeting in response to the RedEye's Tweets and well...

redeyechicago: Paula Abdul is not coming back to Idol. Wow. Will you miss her? http://su.pr/1cYuHX

@AaronBSam: Not like they're killing her off - the show will manage and if ratings really drop, they'll beg to get her back. No biggie.

And it got printed in today's RedEye!

I'm making my way back, baby! 140 characters at a time!

Read more!

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

IDIOTIC PRODUCT: Dissolving Bikini

Stop right there - I know exactly what you're thinking. "But Aaron, how can a bikini that dissolves in water, leaving that gal nekkid and wet and nekkid possibly in any universe be considered an idiotic product??" I initially thought so too, as I saw the headline on Fark.com and instantly clicked to find out what was this awesome thing and is this a joke or a real product - but as I read the article and logic started to sink in, I eventually had to admit that there's no foreseeable way to actually enjoy this product as the creators intended, nor can I think of a logical reason to purchase it at all...

The only thing going for this product is how much it riles up feminists - but if these ladies bothered to go through the same thought processes I did, they'd stop clamoring and recognize the Dissolving Bikini as the idiotic product that it is.

Let's start it off with the intended purpose listed in the article written by Spike.com as the "Ultimate Revenge Gift":

So the article assumes that somehow you actually managed to land yourself a girlfriend (even though you have a brain that would conceive this as being a good idea for "revenge") but now she's your ex-girlfriend (big surprise) and you want to get back at her (so obviously she dumped you). Here's all that the article can manage to suggest:

"A German company has invented a marvelous new bikini that disappears once a girl puts it on and takes a swim. The sexy swimsuit disappears by dissolving in water, leaving a woman completely nude and embarrassed. The sexy black swimsuit looks like a real bikini, feels like a real bikini and fits like a real bikini. The only difference is it’s made from a material that completely melts away after a few seconds in water."

So, what's the plan here? How is it that you're going to:

1. Get your ex-girlfriend to wear this bikini? I mean let's face it - it's not like you're going to have this product shipped in its original container, bearing the large "GET NAKED BIKINI" label. She might pick up on the fact that it's going to dissolve. Which means you've got to purchase it and remove it from the packaging and possibly repackage it. But is your ex really going to accept a bikini as a present from you? "Hey, I know you dumped me in a horrible fashion that left me bloodthirsty for revenge, but I bought you this skimpy bathing suit to show you there's no hard feelings." Okay, so maybe you can try the "oh, I'm just returning your stuff you left at my place so here's your skimpy bikini back" ploy. Odds are probably 75% that she doesn't actually own a bikini that looks like that one, and 99% that she wouldn't have left it at your place. But, on the off-chance that your ex-girlfriend really did own a black bikini like that AND she left it at your place, does she really think it's clean enough to just put on? Which brings us to the next challenge of how are you going to:

2. Get your ex-girlfriend to not wash it before wearing? Even the moderately unhygienic of females would not trust a pre-worn or pre-owned bikini bottom to be clean enough to just put on. Especially if it was in the hands of an ex-boyfriend. There's always the possibility that someone else was wearing it (your new girlfriend, or even YOU). And of course, once she decides to wash the dissolving bikini, the only satisfaction you'll get out of the equation is knowing that she'll be very confused on laundry day when her new/used bikini has gone missing. Which isn't much of "revenge", is it? Speaking of which:

3. How do you get to enjoy this?? Okay, so let's assume that you've managed to slip this awesome bikini trap past your ex-girlfriend and she's somehow decided to wear it without washing it. Where does that leave you? What kind of break-up did you have that you're pissed off enough to want to exact revenge on her, but still on good enough terms that she accepts the gift and will WEAR IT AROUND YOU?

Is there a pool party that you were both invited to before the breakup? If so, isn't it going to be pretty obvious what's happened when the plan comes to fruition and after the three glorious seconds between the bikini dissolving and her realization that she's now naked - now you're left with a confused woman who won't take long to piece together the fact that YOU gave her that bikini and YOU are the cause of the embarrassment. She may not have any clue how/why the situation occurred, but she knows you're to blame and odds are that violence will ensue shortly.

So your alternative is to make the transaction and then HIDE somewhere, spying on her until that moment when it all comes together and she's wearing it and you're out of sight and you get to watch the embarrassment and confusion! (This is based on the notion that you haven't been arrested in that timeframe for stalking or being a Peeping Tom.) Even so, you're once again counting on the bikini-clad situation involving a setting that would embarrass her upon being naked. Jacuzzi time with her new beau could wind up as a sexy surprise for both of them and backfire on you completely, wouldn't it?

In the end, your only real alternative is to use it with different motives.

I mean, you could use them to have fun with your current girlfriend. She might be trusting enough to accept a bikini as a gift and be convinced to not wash it beforehand. But even then, you have to be at a certain point in the relationship where she's not going to leave you as a result of the nudity-inducing prank. And if that's the case and she's that comfortable being naked around you, then why are you bothering with the bikini at all? That's wasted time, money and effort!

You could be a random jackass and switch real bikinis in stores with the dissolving brand and pray that nobody can tell the difference and you haven't been spotted by security cameras when the lawsuits start coming in - but where's the fun in that?

No, any way you look at it - there's no use for this seemingly-hilarious product without getting sued, arrested, injured or missing out on the fun.

And that proves that the Dissolving Bikini is an IDIOTIC PRODUCT.

What do you think? Have I missed a scenario where this product becomes non-idiotic? Do you agree with the article that this product "demeans women"? Leave a comment and join the debate!!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!