WTF? New Words?

The Oxford English Dictionary added some new words, phrases and symbols the other day. Does it seem to you like they just did this the other day? It felt that way to me. That's when I learned that they update the thing every three months. Really? Every three months? That seems a bit extreme to me, but they take this sort of thing fairly seriously over there.

Even though I knew that one particular addition was inevitable, I was not looking forward to it. Yes, that's right. LOL made it in. I guess in some ways, that's good. I mean, maybe now people won't think that it stands for 'lots of love' and text inappropriate condolences. (Example: "I heard your mom died. I'm so sorry. LOL!") I've just never been a big LOL fan. I think that's because I never believe that people are actually L-ing OL when they write that. Something has to be pretty danged funny for me to be vocal with my amusement and I feel that it's that way for the majority of other folks as well. But I'm pretty sure that CQTM (Chuckling Quietly To Myself) isn't going to catch on anytime soon.)

They also have added OMG (Oh, my God), BFF (Best Friends Forever) and IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). But for some reason, they have yet to add WTF. That HAS to be in there eventually, right? I checked the Oxford Dictionary Online to see if there was a definition for the F-word. Not only was it defined, it was quite thorough. I was pleased. Thus, I'm guessing that WTF can't be far behind. If you're going to have IMHO in the dictionary, you have to have WTF. Not that I'm the measuring stick for any of this stuff, but I don't think that I have ever used IMHO. WTF, on the other hand, is a daily staple.

But what really surprised me wasn't all of the acronyms that they shoved in there. (They also included the heart symbol. As in "I Heart New York". It means you love something. I'm not thrilled with the thought of the dictionary turning into some sort of hipster rebus.) It was all of the words that made it in that, astonishingly, weren't in there already. I'm perfectly OK with them adding things like "fnarr fnarr" (used to represent sniggering, typically at a sexual innuendo), "kleftiko" (appears to be some sort of lamb dish), "rozzle" (some sort of slang that either means hugging, joking around, or thinking someone is hot) and "yidaki", which I think is a type of didgeridoo. (No word on whether didgeridoo was already in there or not.) Those are words I've never heard of and if they're going to make them official words, that's fine. But what about "rude"? Wait. What?

"Rude". They added "rude". According to the page where the updates are, "rude, n.1" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary. They didn't have that in there before? It appears that they're defining it this time as a noun, so maybe that's the difference? Words that I would have thought would have already been in the dictionary include "router, n.6", "la-la land, n.", "dotted line, n. and adj.", "biker, n.", "car crash, n.", "headline, v.", "rototill, v.", "taquito, n.", and "stonewash, n., v.".

Car crash? Cars have been crashing since the invention of the car and they're just now getting around to putting it in the dictionary? And biker? Really? That wasn't in there before now? Amazing. How did stonewash elude the pages of the OED for so long? Where were these people in early 1990s? I don't get it. I thought they would have been a little more on top of things.

A Horse Is A Horse, Of...Course?

Seriously? I've got nothing today. It's not like it's a totally slow news day, but pretty much. They're still protesting in Wisconsin and there isn't a Democrat Senator in sight. Sarah Palin has spoken up and stated that President Barry's problem is that he's inexperienced. This coming straight from the mouth of a woman who didn't quite manage to finish out half a term as governor. We've got a college professor at Northwestern University who apologized for the live demonstration for one of his classes of a couple of people using a sex toy. (A sex toy that, as it turned out, was attached to the end of a reciprocating saw, for cryin' out loud.) And the Nissan Leaf, the car that was supposed to cut our nation's dependence on oil so that we can stop kissing the ass of the sand lands, managed to sell 67 in the month of February. Not 6,700. Not 67,000. 67. (Mind you, we're a country of over 300,000,000 people. They sold 67. Gas is going to be $4 a gallon any day now. And you and I are going to be bending over at the pump and paying it. We are so scroomed.) And while that seems like a lot of stuff to choose from, it all just makes my ass so incredibly tired I cannot even tell you. (And yeah, I don't know what the deal is with that sheep. But it kind of sums everything up in a weird sort of way.)

So for today, compliments of BuzzFeed, what say we just enjoy the best family portrait ever. At least, I think it's the best. It could be the worst. All I know is that it has a little bit of everything. Daughter with a look of despair on her face and what appears to be an expired guinea pig hanging from her belt. A woman in a wheelchair in the background. Dad with an arm garter with one dollar bills tucked into it. Did I mention that the dad is also wearing some sort of horse costume so that he looks like a centaur? He is. And the mom with a child's airline pilot wings stuck to her forehead and her ample cleavage mostly squashed into her failing corset. There's no telling how far south these folks live. I'm also going to guess that there isn't a full set of teeth between the three of them. Behold!

The Internet Lies

I really don't understand a lot of stuff. That's kind of why I'm here. To figure stuff out. But I am convinced that there are some things that I will just never understand. Crimes where the victim needs to play an extremely crucial role in the wrongdoings are some of the things that I don't understand. And I'm not talking about scams where people are bilked out of their life savings. While I don't profess to say that I totally understand how those can happen (and I tend to subscribe to the "A fool and his money are soon parted" explanation for most of them), they sometimes (rarely) have a (microscopic) shred of plausibility to them. (I don't really think that. I'm just trying to be nice. Really, I don't get how they ever happen, but that's probably just me.) But when the crime involves having to coerce the mother to engage in sexual acts with her child, it really boggles the mind. Wait. When they...what now?

Yeah, I'm still trying to noodle this one through. According to an AP story which appeared over yonder at the Huffington Post, the individual that we're describing here is a one Steven DeMink. The article starts off confusing me, as it reads "Online...he presented himself as Dalton St. Clair, an attractive single father and psychologist". Now, I don't know if he included a picture of himself online, but this is the perv we're talking about. Behold!

Yeah, not so much in the attractive category if you're asking me. It also doesn't seem like he would have much going on in the smarts category either, but his little ruse seemed to work. I'm going to tell you what he did and then you tell me if these mothers, who were unthinkably somehow unknowingly complicit in his little scheme, should really be parenting at all, OK? My answer is a massive NO. Maybe they could be good parents one day, but clearly right now is not that day. Perhaps give them something to practice taking care of first before moving up to actual humans. I'm thinking of a perhaps a houseplant. Not much can go wrong there...unless you're the plant.

This guy would go into chat rooms on the Internet and somehow convince "...single mothers...to sexually assault their children as a form of therapy." And he did this for (wait for it) more than a year! That he was able to do it even once is astonishing to me. What kind of mother would go along with this sort of advice? Well, in some cases, this perv "...promised the women a date if they followed through with his directions." A date? In exchange for sexually assaulting your own child? THAT was a relevant factor for some of these idiots? Are you dry shaving me?! How is that possible? Who ARE these people?! I guess they're people like this woman: Apparently, "In one case, Demink started online chats with an Oregon woman about the sexual development of her 8-year-old autistic son...He told her to engage in sexually explicit conduct with her son as a way to teach him about sex...and she did so while Demink watched on a web camera." Excuse me for a moment while I find a wall to bang my head against.

They were on the freaking Internet! Don't they know that the Internet lies?! He said he was a psychologist, so that was good enough for them?! Have they also recently lost a lot of money to a Nigerian prince? Are these women being allowed to continue caring for their children? I don't think that it's an overreaction to ask that question, nor do I think it's an overreaction for someone else to be in charge of these particular children. What kind of person are you who has some guy on the Internet tell you to engage in some form of sex with your autistic son and you think it's a good idea and you do it?! WITH a webcam running?!

Well, the answer to that is right there in the police report. See, "Demink intimated to these women that the result of the therapy would be healthier children." Oh. OK, then. I didn't know that he told them that it would help their children. That makes all of the difference. Totally understandable now. Of course. I should have known that there was a reasonable explanation for all of this insane lunacy. Sweet fancy Moses, what is going on here?!

Oh, look! Here's some information about one of the women! This might help us. OK, it says that this particular individual met this guy on "....an online dating site called singleparentmeet.com." All right. Nothing wrong with making friends online. But then, "She told police she performed sex acts on her young son as directed by her online male friend." All right. There's absolutely something wrong with that! As directed by?! The direction I can fully comprehend. It's the following through with it that still boggles me! Maybe her mother (who was inexplicably interviewed for this story) can help shed some insight on what her daughter was thinking. She said that "...her daughter was "depressed and lonesome" after her divorce." Uh-huh. I'm going to need more than that. "I don't know how he wrangled her in...She could have turned off the computer and gone the other way. He must have had a power over her." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

A power over her?! How about just admitting that your daughter is a complete dumbass?! Power? What kind of power? I've read this story several times (in hopes that I read it wrong at least once) and it makes no mention of him being overly tricky or magic or anything like that. He's just a big, perverted dope who managed to convince not one, not two, but at least seven women from all over the country to sexually assault their children because it would "help" them.

Seven. I have just lost all faith in humanity. I have nothing left. Seven. Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Oregon New Hampshire, Idaho and Florida (of course). Those folks are spread all across the country. If it was contained to a particular region (like Florida, as I had expected), maybe I would have some faith left. But it's not. It's from one coast to another and everywhere in between. I don't really know what else to do with that other than to completely abandon any shred of hope that I may have ever had. For cryin' out loud, "Because the Internet told me to" is about the worst excuse I have ever heard in my life and it happened in this instance at least seven times. Yeah, I give up. Good Lord...

How Old IS Al Davis?

I enjoy sports. So I pay attention when changes go on in sports. I especially pay attention to any time the owner of the Oakland Raiders makes an appearance in public. Al Davis is at least 130 years old and he's not wearing it well. The other day, he gave a press conference to introduce his new head coach and to try to explain some of why he fired the previous coach. All of that has nothing to do with what I found to be the more interesting (and frightening) aspect of said press conference. And that would be Al Davis' general appearance these days. Brace yourselves. It's not pretty. (Al's the one sitting down.) Behold!

Oh, good Lord! What the hell is that?! That is Al Davis. I think. It could be Nosferatu. Let's see if we can spot a difference between the two.

Hmm. Yeah, they might be the same person. Wow. What the what? Should he be out during the daytime? What's the deal with his head? Why isn't he having someone else do the speaking for him? He's scaring the children. Maybe they just photographed his bad side. Maybe he has a...a...good...side? Maybe? (I know! I know! I'm stretching it! Geez! YOU try and think of something to say in this situation. It ain't easy!) Where was I? Oh, that's right. Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud! It got worse! How could it have gotten worse?! Is there anything worse than that? (You know that I already know the answer to that, don't you?) Brace yourselves again. It's about to get real. Real scary.

My eyes! MY EYES! Kill it! Kill it with fire! NOW!! And if you're not going to kill it with fire then someone needs to make sure that his one eyeball doesn't pop itself loose because that's exactly what it looks like is about to happen. Would it hurt you to smile once in a while there, Al?

Holy crap. Wow. Yeah, it looks like it might. Never mind. Just go away and it will be like we never brought it up, OK? Good. Good. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go bleach my eyeballs.

A Lesbian, A Ferret And A Missed Connection

I've always wondered if the 'Missed Connections' section of Craigslist ever works. I mean, if you happen to bump into someone in the grocery store and you think they're hot but you're too nervous to say anything to them and so you go home and post the basics of the encounter in the 'Missed Connections' section, does anything ever become of that? I can't imagine that it would. Sure, there's the whole blind squirrel finding a nut once in a while thing (and really, all that does for me is conjure up some image of this little squirrel wearing dark glasses with a white cane), but it is even that frequent that one would find who they are looking for via Craigslist in 'Missed Connections'?

Not only do you have to use Craigslist, but the person that you're looking for also has to use Craigslist. Then they have to be able to noodle through that you are, in fact, the person that they are talking about. I guess that the more detail that the searcher puts in his post then the more of a chance that the searchee would recognize themselves in said post. I suppose that if you do that, you're not supposed to worry about what everyone else will think if you put down those details that the object of your desire would connect with.

What is all of this leading up to? Naturally, it's a post on Craigslist in the 'Missed Connections' section. This particular post is out of Cleveland. I don't know if this sort of thing is common in Cleveland or what the deal is there, but it's definitely one of a kind, I'll tell you that much. If you can figure out what has gone on in this instance, more power to you. I'm still noodling the whole thing through, myself. Here's what we have: The post is titled "Britney with the ferret - m4w (Cleveland westside)" and it reads as follows:

I feel so stupid doing this

I am the ugliest guy you ever met and old

and you are the prettiest gal I have ever met and young

I know you are a Lesbian and have a wife

I am so attracted to you with my head, heart and................... well other parts as well

please tell me your ferrets name so I know its you

Um, OK. Wait. What now? So...it's a stupid old guy trying to find a married lesbian named Britney with a pet ferret? Is that what I'm getting from this? Wow. OK. I have SO many questions, I don't even know where to start. I mean, kudos to the guy for going out on a limb like he did. That takes guts. Now here come the real questions. How does he know all of this about Britney? Did she have her ferret with her during their encounter? Was her wife there? Is he aware of what a lesbian is? Does he know there is no need for capitalization? How old is old and how ugly is ugly? Am I the only one dying to know the name of the ferret?

I have to say, I really hope that this chick gets back to him. Britney, if you're out there, contact the old and ugly guy who has a thing for you (and possibly your ferret). It would make his day. And if you don't want to contact him, how about contacting me?! I'd love to know the name of your ferret, not to mention what in the hell went on over there in Cleveland between you two! Or I could just be your go-between. I will make this work! Drop me a line!

Can't Touch That

Meet the latest "fringe" candidate to upset the incumbent in a primary, a one Christine O'Donnell, a Republican from Delaware. Ms. O'Donnell was able to beat out former Delaware governor and nine-term congressman, a one Mike Castle, for the nomination. While I am all for booting out folks that have made politics their lifelong career (while not doing much more than furthering their own power and ridiculously inflated egos), I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being...oh, what's the word I want? Controversial? Maybe, but not quite. Nutty isn't quite what I'm going for either, although it is closer. How about bizarre? That seems to work. Let me try it out. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being bizarre. Yeah, that's it. And so is she. Bizarre, that is.

This woman has interesting opinions on just about everything. Even things where you wouldn't think that you could have an opinion because you didn't know that a certain angle even existed, she does not disappoint. Take, for example, an appearance this woman made on C-SPAN in 1996. (I know, I know. It's a little weak to be going through footage from 14 years ago. I agree. But I'm assuming that, since this is her stance from a moral perspective, she pretty much still holds this opinion.) She stated that it is a "...misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality." Wait. She thinks that it's what now?

A misconception, that is correct. She went on to elaborate by saying, "The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality. So you can't get around legislating morality." Oohhh. I get it. Wait. No, I don't. What the hell is she talking about? Isn't this like proving a negative? If you're not doing one thing than you're automatically doing the opposite thing? That's not always true. And in this case, I'm pretty sure that it isn't true at all.

Now, if that was the only slightly strange thing that she had voiced in the past, I'd probably let it go. But she doesn't stop there. No, she's big on morality. In 1998, she was on Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect". I'm not sure why she was there, but she was. In fact, she was on a panel with Martin Mull, Jasmine Guy and Eddie Izzard discussing the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky fiasco. (I cannot come up with one thing that all of these folks have in common. Jasmine Guy? Really? To discuss politics? Wow. It's like the iPod 'Shuffle' feature picked those guests. I'm actually finding having these four people on the same show for some reason a little more interesting that what Christine O'Donnell actually said.) She didn't want to let ol' Willie Jeff off the hook that easily. And do you know why? School shootings, of course. See, "If we as a nation tolerate sin, generations to come will reap the effects of that....For example, we took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, now we're having weekly shootings practically." Oh, good Lord, woman.

It's hard to imagine that taking the Bible and pray out of public schools was the only thing stopping school shootings for all of the years prior to 1998. But what any of that has to do with a President getting blown in his office by a plowhorse of an intern is beyond me.

As I'm sure you've guessed by now, she's not so much a fan of the evolution. In 1996, she was a spokeswoman for something called the Concerned Women of America. For some reason, she was on CNN debating a one Michael McKinney, am evolutionary biology professors over there at the University of Tennessee. Her take on evolution was: "The tests...they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory." Merely a theory? As opposed to what? Creation? Why, yes, actually. "Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

Thank you for breaking down what six days amounts to. She didn't really get into the evidence that she says is out there that supports that other than the Bible saying that it's so. She gives more evidence that there are 24 hours in a day than she does to prove creation. I'm also thinking that those concerned women should be a little more concerned that she is going around spewing out ridiculousness like she was.

And you know that I've saved the best for last! And what could be better to save for last than her views on masturbation? Not much, let me tell you. Would you be surprised to learn that she is pro-abstinence? Of course you wouldn't. We all saw that one coming. (No pun really intended there, though it's not bad.) Back in 1996, she was on MTV's "Sex in the 90s" speaking about her campaign

"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So, you can't masturbate without lust...The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue...You're gonna be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" Has this woman ever had sex in her life?! Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Look, lady...if you think that taking care of business yourself is on a par with having sex, you are clearly mistaken. Taking care of business yourself gets the job done; there's no doubt about that. But it is a far cry from having sex. You know why everyone wants to have sex? Because it's great! Masturbation isn't a substitute for sex! You could sit around all day long pleasuring yourself like a monkey in a cage, but that isn't going to change the fact that you're not going to turn down sex instead should it present itself. And how in the world is it committing adultery? What if you're doing it, but you're not in a relationship with anyone? Are you cheating on yourself? I don't think that you are. And if you expect me to believe that this woman has never pleasured herself, that is more ridiculous than her statement that you're committing adultery if you do.

The good thing is that if she is elected to the Senate, it's highly unlikely that she'll be involved in any sort of legislation aiming to curb masturbatory practices amongst Americans. So you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things that she may do if she's elected, but dictating (again, no pun intended) the relationship that you have with your own genitalia is not going to be one of them.

Rhymes With Boy Schism

Some things are just better left unsaid. Forever. Just don't ever say them. Case in point would be the suggestion that one one Rosanna Scotto came up with during an on-air debate. Better left unsaid, I'm telling you.

Here's the situation: The issue at hand was phrased by the aforementioned Rosanna Scotto as "Should milk that's not from a cow be called milk?" Apparently, the milk industry is having issues with other things being called milk. Whatever. Have they just become aware of this? Apparently. Anyway, that was the question posed.

One of the ingenius newspeople there responded with "Sure. We call mother's milk 'milk' and it's not from a cow." Wait. What now? Yeah, it's not from a cow, but it's still MILK, you moron. What a weak argument. That's the best you could come up with? So far...yes.

The person who phrased the question responded with "They're talking about things like soy milk. You know, rice milk." OK, I think we're clear here. While those two things, the soy and the rice, don't necessarily excrete milk as defined, they do excrete a milky substance which I would think would qualify as milk. I mean, come on. If something is labeled "soy milk" am I really expecting that the soy in that instance came from a cow? Am I going to be surprised to learn that soy milk did not come from a cow? I don't think that I am.

Anyway, the genius who made the mother's milk analogy piped in with "Yeah, what else are we going to call it? Soy juice?" And here is where the problem began.

Apparently, Rosanna was on some sort of a roll with what else to call the juice that is not from a cow, but that is still milk-like in substance. And she blurted out the uncouth answer of....well....the video is below.

Wow. Did she really say that? I think she did. I don't know if I can actually type those words out. I know I don't want to. How about if I just say that the name that she suggested for the soy milk was "Soy something". Let's just say that it rhymes with "boy schism", OK? How's that? Yes, I know. It's terrible? Really, ma'am? You felt it was OK to just blurt that out, did you? Is this really what we've come to? (No pun intended.)