This article just made my day.
TORONTO - Doris Moore was shocked when her new couch was delivered to her home with a label that used a racial slur to describe the dark brown shade of the upholstery.
The situation was even more alarming for Moore because it was her 7-year-old daughter who pointed out “n----- brown” on the tag.
Kingsoft Corp., a Chinese software company, acknowledged its translation program was at fault and said it was a regrettable error.
I honestly think, in the politically correct, overly sensitive, word squeamish society we live in, the time is ripe for somebody with a wicked sense of humor, to name their child "N-gger Brown," just for the sheer riot of watching people squirm when addressing that kid. I'm telling you, roll call in school alone would be worth attending with a bag of popcorn in hand to watch the show.
In today's Star-Tribune Letters to the Editor, there's this gem:
Fix our gun policy
It's high time for the United States to join the civilized nations of the world with respect to firearm regulation.
Like in Japan, for example, with some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, where a mayor was gunned down on Tuesdeay?
Why is ours an insane policy patchwork? In part, it is the result of the recency of our pioneer past -- merely a century or two behind us.
What's a couple hundred years? Just a drop in the bucket, really.
But in addition, entities such as the National Rifle Association have deliberately misread the Second Amendment and frightened politicians into doing the same.
Misread it? Really? Please, do tell.
They focus on "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" and ignore "for the purpose of maintaining a strong militia."
Okay, dipshit, now I'm going to rip you one, because you're trying to apparently rewrite the Constitution. This is what the Constitution says *ahem*:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This was written over 200 years ago, mind you, a time when commas were very deliberately chosen, and you capitalized "People," to make a very pointed point. The 2nd Amendment is clearly saying, because a well regulated militia is required to secure a country, the People, too, have the right to arm themselves to protect against that militia if the need arises. Those bright, revolutionary men, having just thrown off the shackles of Britsh rule through an ARMED revolution, recognized, if the need for revolution were to arise again, the People would have at least a fighting chance if they were ARMED, so the People's right to bear arms should not be infringed. It's really not that damned hard to understand. We can quibble about the liklihood of an armed revolution when our well-regulated militia of today is equipped with Tomahawk missiles and nukes, but I'd rather have some firepower handy than not in such a scenario.
A wise man recently observed that those who want the privilege should be required to form up once per month for a 50-mile march, carrying the firearm and a 50-pound pack.
RAY WARNER, EDINA
In other words, Ray Warner of Edina is a proponent of military personnel only having the right to be armed, and a populace stripped of its right to protect itself. That's a real wise man you got speaking for you, Ray. You dipshit.
UPDATE: Having just viewed the actual Bill of Rights via a Google image search, I have to admit the "P" in PEOPLE is not, in fact, capitalized. Not sure why I thought it was. Nevertheless, I stand by the interpretation of the Second Amendment.
According to an April 18, Associated Press news report out of Antwerp, Belgium, people visiting the Antwerp Zoo are being asked to stop staring at the chimpanzees.
According to the article, “a new set of rules was posted outside the chimp enclosure at the city zoo urging visitors, especially regular daily ones, not to form a bond with a particular male chimp named ‘Cheetah.’ He was raised by humans but is now trying to forge a social bond with the other seven apes at the animal park, a zoo official said Wednesday.”
First off, I think naming a chimpanzee “Cheetah” is a lot more damaging long-term to the animal’s identity development than people staring at him. Secondly, I read that news report and I was left thinking this was ultimately a great new concept for zoos: zoos where you’re not allowed to look at the animals.
Imagine, if you will, walking through a zoo, reading signs describing the animals you’re not allowed to look at. Visitors would have to shuffle through the zoo, their eyes downcast to avoid actually seeing any animals. Eventually, there wouldn’t be any need to even have animals. The zoo could just say, “oh, sure, there are animals; take our word for it.” Personally, I’d open a No-Look Zoo dedicated to extinct animals.
ZOO VISITOR: A dodo bird? Isn’t the dodo extinct?
ME: That’s what makes this exhibit so special; it’s the only dodo left alive on the planet. Just think how honored you are to be standing here in the presence of the last dodo in existence.
ZOO VISITOR: But how do I know? I want to look at it.
ME: Sorry, you know the rules. Now, if you’ll continue on through the zoo, be sure to visit the saber tooth tiger and brontosaurus exhibits. Those are worth the $18 price of admission alone.
All of the preceding nonsense was meant to segue into my own personal “chimpanzee staring” story. I know, I know, EVERYBODY has a “chimpanzee staring” story. “Chimpanzee staring” stories are practically cliché in this age of chimpanzee staring.
During the summer prior to my freshman year of high school, my family took a trip south to Arkansas, and while we were down there we stopped and visited a “safari” type of zoo where you drove your car through the park, staring at animals. Not all of the park was a drive through; some of it was walkthrough, where the animals were in cages.
In one of those cages was the most bored-looking chimpanzees I think I’d ever seen. This chimpanzee just laid there, refusing to do anything interesting for anybody. After about five minutes of staring at the languid beast we moved on down the line.
Suddenly, a great commotion rose up from the cage housing the bored chimpanzee. The cage was rocking back and forth and a great clattering and shrieking could be heard. I went running back to the cage to see what all the fuss was about. When I arrived at the cage, the chimpanzee was clinging to the sides, pushing and pulling at the bars, making the cage rock back and forth.
It was at that point something very unexpected happened. Without warning, I and several other onlookers were sprayed with some sort of warm liquid that originated from the chimpanzee. As you can imagine, I was pretty well horrified, because. . . WHAT WAS THAT LIQUID?!
Great speculation arose among us onlookers who had been doused. Were we just peed on? Was it something else none of us dared to even mention? For his part, the chimpanzee seemed quite pleased with himself, as he was laughing (yes, LAUGHING, or at least mimicking the act of laughing) and clapping his hands.
As we continued our discussion as to what just happened, the chimpanzee once again started raising a royal commotion, clearly trying to bring in another audience for his second act. This time, he managed to attract an even larger group of spectators, including my mother. Those of us who had just been doused wisely stepped back a safe distance.
Once the chimpanzee was satisfied with the size of his audience, he leapt down from the cage and, quick as a cat, drew in a big mouthful of water from his water dish, jumped back to the cage bars, and proceeded to spit the water on his unsuspecting entourage.
For my part, I was greatly relieved, because my fears about what I had been doused with were laid to rest. Chimpanzee water and saliva were, quite honestly, much preferred to the horror scenarios that had been playing in my head up to that point.
And the moral of this story is: chimpanzees like to be stared at, at least in Arkansas.
Ryan says: I really don't see the value in NBC showing that video.
Caroline says: I don't either. I'm sure they got that package and the first thing they thought was: "jackpot."
Ryan says: Oh hell yes. Then they wrap the showing of the video within the auspices of "responsible journalism."
Caroline says: Absolutely. I think I just read something yesterday (before the news of the video broke) that NBC was suffering in ratings.
Ryan says: All the major broadcast networks are. newspapers, too.
Ryan says: If they'd just admit they're fishing for an audience, and by extension, money, I'd actually have more respect for them.
Caroline says: No kidding.
Ryan says: Kid should have sent that video "Care Of, Rambling Rhodes." I would have shamelessly promoted it, admitting freely to my greedy priorities.
Caroline says: Yeah, that wouldn't have been scary at all.
Ryan says: Hell, I would have PhotoShopped and played with the lighting for increased dramatic effect.
Caroline says: Yes, there would've been a "poster" of the dirty mushroom behind him on the wall.
Ryan says: Oh, God YES!
Caroline says: This clip brought to you by Ryan's ass.
Ryan says: "Who is the Mushroom Killer?"
Caroline says: Aaaaaaaand now we're going to hell
What can I say? Articles due; crown moulding installed in the porch; it's finally spring; in other words, shit's been happening. So, I should resort to lazy YouTube linking. Here's a video of a crazy tough Japanese woman MMA fighter:
On the other hand, she has one loss, where she did get supremely schooled:
NOTE: You may have to register with YouTube for the second video.
