Dear You: Pronounce That Correctly!

I should start by saying that I am not the grammar police.  I don't usually correct anyone unless it is funny or just bugs me to the point of no return.  I can over look a lot of the mistakes I read online, as I am so used to them at this stage.  There are just a few things that really bother me.

Let me start off by asking why people cannot pronounce the word "Car-A-Mel" ???  It has an A between Car and Mel, and it is intended to be pronounced.  I hear way too many people saying "car-mel" as if the A isn't there.  That A should get more respect!

Another one is Puerto Rico.  It's not Porter Rico, and it's not Porto Rico.  It's Pu-air-toe Rico.  Pu-Air-Toe.  How hard is this to say?  I mean it's a US territory, we should at least be pronouncing it correctly.

One that I hear mispronounced quite a bit as a sports fan is athlete.  It's two syllables: Ath-lete.  It is NOT Ath-e-lete!

A few quick hits of mispronounciation are: FeBRUary(not Febuary), et cetera(Not ex cetera) and fo-li-age(not foil-age).  A phrase that gets misspoken a lot is "For granted"(not For Granite).

Off the top of my head, yet another word that comes to my mind is "Anyway."  You might say, "Wait, who can't pronounce 'anyway' ???"  Well, most people mess this word up.  It is Anyway, not Anyways.  There is no S on this word.

I could go on and on but it would be frivolous to do so.  I could bring up the hundreds of ridiculous words that exist because of rap culture.  That could be a hundred page blog post alone.  It's not axe, it's not "why you be...", "how you be..." or "I be..." anything.  Didn't we learn correct forms of "to be" in 1st grade English?

Changing S's to Z's in words doesn't make you look awesome, nor does changing I's to Y's, or O's to AW's, etc.  I realize this happens in a lot more settings than rap culture, and it's no less ridiculous when it is being done by anyone else.  Also giving your kid a really awkward spelling of a basic name doesn't make you look cool, it makes you look illiterate.  For example, taking the name Jacob and making it Jaykob.  Other names I see spelled in ridiculous ways include Raechell, Payge, or Kymberli.

I'm not an English teacher or a grammar nazi or the grammar police, but please learn to pronounce and spell basic words and phrases correctly.  It would make the day just a little bit more bright and tolerable.  Thank you, that is all.

If Pop Music Sucks, Make It Metal

It's not a secret that I hate pop radio music.  I find no musical value in it, and most of it is cheesy and horrendous on a grand scale.  There are pop songs that remind me of certain times of my life, but that doesn't make me like them any more in any context.  There have been some pretty bad pop songs in the last 20 years, the ones that just annoy you to no end.  

It seems like music has gotten even worse as time has gone on.  If Nirvana killed Metal, then Boy Bands killed Rock.  There's not that much good rock out there anymore.  This being said, what if metal was still the mainstream music form on the radio today?  What if the people who were out singing pop had actually been metal acts?  Yes, Pat Boone did metal covers in his own style, but that sucked.  Well, some guy with a YouTube channel named Andy Rehfeldt has given us a glimpse of what it could be like with today's music.

Mixed in with pop-gone-metal remixes are remixes of great metal and rock songs, mixed into other styles.  For example, there's a Nirvana Smells Like Teen Spirit(Reggae Version) and Cannibal Corpse Hammer Smashed Face(Radio Disney Version).  These funny remixes are great, but the cream of the crop for me are the pop-gone-metal mixes.  They let us know what radio could have sounded like the last fifteen years if pop didn't win out.  Here are my top 5 "it's slightly better" pop remixes: 

My Heart Will Go On(Celine Dion)

Yes, that's slightly better.  It's weird how it almost works.  I like how he has chosen to keep the original vocal track for authenticity.  You can't deny that this insanely annoying song is slightly better this way.

Baby(Justin Bieber)

I'm on the fence about anything ever making this song better.  It's probably the most un-listenable song in the last 10 years at least.  When a song is this bad, anything can only make it go up.

You Belong With Me(Taylor Swift)

I dislike this song mostly on the basis that it's 1)A creepy stalker anthem and 2)My daughter played it way too much when it was popular.  If I never have to hear this song again, that would be great.  This only adds maybe 1/100000000th of an ounce of decency to it, but that's a start.

Hips Don't Lie(Shakira)

Every time I hear Shakira, I just want to ask her "Why do you have to sing like that?!"  I can't stand the way she sounds.  Pretty annoying.  This is probably the most annoying song she has had out on mainstream radio.  The metal probably doesn't make it any better since her voice still sounds like that, but at least it gives you something to distract you from it.

Toxic(Britney Spears)

Nothing saves Britney Spears from being ridiculous.  Not even a metal track, but it somehow fits the way the song moves forward.  Plus you can't help but laugh at the Barnum & Bailey song solo in the middle and metal again may be able to distract you from the horrible song and lyrics by Britney here.

Well that's all the best ones this guy has done so far for newer music.  I don't really think that it makes much of a difference with these songs. I still think music would have sucked, but at least there would be guitar in the songs. I have panned through and found one that I feel is particularly brilliant.  It really stands out, both comically and in the sense that it is really well done.  It's the best pop-gone-metal remix of a classic pop song.  Here it is:

Dancing Queen(ABBA)

The mix music and the vocals really seem to work in a very strange and unintentional way here.  So THAT'S why ABBA was put in the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame...

The System Worked; Americans Confused

To most people, this is the face of a cold-blooded killer.  When you ask people what they thought prior to the verdict, most people would tell you she was guilty, definitely guilty.  When you asked how they know she is guilty, they would respond with things they heard on TV or very minimal facts remembered off the top of their heads.  Basically, they just "knew."

Well today, the criminal justice system got it right.  The jury came back with a not guilty verdict on 1st and 2nd degree murder, and only charged her with lying to police officers.  She could face up to four years for those convictions, but she has already been in prison for three years.  We'll know July 7th whether or not she will get "time served" or will be forced to serve another 3-4 years.

When I say the criminal justice system worked, I know it is not a popular statement.  However, they got it right.  This is an ongoing murder investigation.  This was just one part of the dispute in the case.  Disputes in a case are generally brought before a trial and that's what happened here.  The prosecution in this case never presented a very good case.  The prosecutors stumbled over themselves like Barney Fife trying to load his one bullet into his gun.  They never proved a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The facts in this case were flimsy.  There was no true motive presented.  There was no cause of death ever presented.  There was not even a time of death presented.  The evidence was weak at best.  In a case this poorly handled, the verdict of not guilty should be the one given.  It was.

However unpopular this verdict may be, it shows us that the criminal justice system works.  Media covered this story so much that everyone suddenly felt they were an expert on the case.  Most Americans had her guilty.  I am glad to know that the jury of her peers took into account all of the facts of the case and deliberated them fully.

The media did as poor a job with this case as the prosecution.  The media blared from the rooftops "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!"  One of the worst provocateurs of this was Nancy Grace, who has basically devoted her show for the last year to just this case every single night.  I believe she staked her reputation and entire career on this case and it did not turn out that she was right.  This could damage her already falling credibility over the years to the point that she may be done.

Last night on Headline News, I saw a show where the three people speaking basically said she's guilty.  Their only debate was whether or not she would be guilty of murder-one or murder-two.  They discussed the prosecution's closing arguments almost exclusively, reiterating over and over the details that were necessary to get a murder-one conviction.  This is how the media can take a story, twist it, turn it, spin it, and create an overall idea in a majority of people's minds that becomes equal with the truth, even if it is not true.

Now by saying the criminal justice system worked, I am not saying that Casey is innocent.  I am coming at this strictly from a court-case situation.  I didn't watch the media hysteria over the last few years.  I didn't come into this with any pre-conceived notions of guilt or innocence until I read the facts of the case for myself.  After seeing the inconsistencies in the evidence, cause of death, and time of death, I realized really quickly that the prosecution wasn't in an ideal position.

Not only were they not handed a fairly straightforward case to present, but they did about the worst job possible of presenting what they had.  The defense lawyer, Mr Baez, did an excellent job in pointing out all of the inconsistencies of the evidence.

This jury will surely face scrutiny in the coming days and weeks.  I have already noticed many mediaites changing their thoughts and ideas about the case now that this verdict was handed down.  I don't see very many every day citizens doing that though.

The US Constitution includes Article III, which tells us that we are to have a trial by jury made up of our peers.  The IV Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure.  The V Amendment protects us from self-incrimination, gives us habeas corpas, and protects us from double jeopardy.  The VI Amendment gives us the right to a speedy and public trial, to have counsel for our defense, and to use witnesses in your case.

The VII Amendment gives us the right to a jury in certain civil matters.  The VIII Amendment protects us from excessive bail, excessive fines and from cruel and unusual punishments.  The XIV Amendment solidifies due process for all citizens of the United States.  I feel that if the people framing the Constitution felt the need to make trials fair, just and unbiased, with this many protections for the accused, then we should also be fair to the accused as citizens.

It makes me sick to see all these comments on Facebook, Yahoo and other places stating their hatred of Casey Anthony and wishing harm on her in the future.  In a case with NO direct evidence proving that she murdered her daughter, whether right or wrong, the verdict of not guilty is the correct one as far as trials and court cases should go.

We live in a society where people can instantly get updates on anything.  I feel like the media covered this story so much that virtually anyone who had seen even 20 minutes of coverage felt themselves an expert on criminal law and this case itself.  What people are wanting out of this case was a guilty verdict based not on fact but on preconceived notion.  We should all be better than that.

In this country you are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.  However, it has become "guilty until proven innocent" over the years.  Furthermore, in the last several years it has become "guilty until proven innocent, and even if you are proven innocent you're still guilty in most people's eyes and they wish you would get run over by a Mack truck."  It is sad that we're actually not better than that and that people are saying the criminal justice system failed, when it did not.

Casey Anthony is a really bad parent, and she's definitely a liar.  She lied many times during this case.  Being a poor parent and a liar does not mean that she murdered her child.  I myself do not know with a reasonable doubt whether she did, or did not murder Caylee.  The evidence was simply not there in my mind to have convicted of first degree murder or even second degree murder.

If I am ever accused of a crime I did not commit (and I am not saying Casey Anthony did not murder her child), I hope I get an impartial jury.  I am supposed to be granted an impartial jury by a group of my peers by the Constitution.  However, it feels like that will be increasingly harder to find with so many so-called "experts" out there who make up their minds on a case in less than 20 minutes without hearing all of the facts.

It's understandable that people want justice for a child who was murdered at such a young age.  It's understandable that people want closure.  I know this case brought out a lot of emotions in people.  It was a high profile case that you couldn't get away from, that was put out there every day.  It was hammered into our psyche.  I know this leaves the case open and people wanted it to be over.  We just can't convict based on prejudice or malice.  Again, we should be better than that.

From a Christian standpoint, the bible tells us many times over not to judge a person.  1 Corinthians 4:5 says "So don't make judgments about anyone ahead of time--before the Lord returns. For he will bring our darkest secrets to light and will reveal our private motives. Then God will give to each one whatever praise is due."  Here, Paul was restating the passage of Ecclesiastes 12:14.

Romans 2:1 tells us "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."  Matthew 7:1 puts it simply "Do not judge, or you too will be judged!"  I think that these passages are especially important for Christians to remember.  I have read some disparaging statements from people I have seen call themselves "Christian" about this verdict.

There may be another trial, in which the grandfather is tried for the murder.  Maybe or maybe not.  However,  in this case, based on all of the facts and evidence, there was simply not enough to piece together a plausable murder scenerio with a smoking gun and red hands.  Whether you like it or not, the criminal justice system worked, and we should all move on.

Dallas Mavs Proving You Wrong!

The Mavericks were the underdog coming into the playoffs.  Each series, the other team was being picked to win by fans and analysts alike.  It seems like Charles Barkley was the only person continuously picking the Mavericks to win the series' they were in.  Why did everyone hate on the Mavericks?

I know all about the Mavericks' choking problem.  Three of the last four years prior they had gone out in the first round.  So it wasn't a huge surprise when people were picking the upstart Blazers to seriously contend with the Mavs in the first round.  Then, during the first round the Mavs did choke away a 23 point lead in a game and lose.  The Mavs, however, came out on top.

In the second round, I heard again how the Lakers were getting it together finally and were going to put down the Mavs in 6 games.  Well, the Mavs swept the Lakers and looked great doing it.  Dirk was on fire.  The rest of the cast were hitting on all cylinders.  Unlike in past playoff years, the Mavs did not choke out in close games and hit all the big shots they needed.

Then the Mavs faced the OKC Thunder.  I heard how great the young Thunder team was, and how they would use their energy and youth to run over the Mavs.  The Mavericks seemingly had no chance at guarding Kevin Durant.  Oh and Russell Westbrook was also going to run over the Mavs with his skills.

Well the Mavs did have some hard fought games with the Thunder.  The Thunder are a great team and really brought it in the series.  The Mavericks were down 15 with 5 minutes left and went on a 17-2 run to push that game to OT.  Then the Mavs won in OT.  That is the moment I knew this was definitely not the Mavs team from the past.  This team had guts, skills, better players and a whole lot of balls.

The Mavericks won the series in five games, beating most people's predictions and making the NBA Finals.  After ALL that, the Mavs were still named the underdog of the series.  Going in, most fans and analysts picked the Heat, some more emphatically than others.  Bill Plaschke of the LA Times said that not only would the Mavs lose, but they would lose in five games.

Not only did you have people picking against the Mavs, but you had some analysts seeming to downplay the Mavs success altogether, and write it off as meaningless or less than great.  Chris Broussard, NBA analyst for ESPN, was asked "If Dirk Nowitzki wins the NBA Title, will this cement his legacy as one of the greatest players of all time?" and he answered "No, because this one series won't elevate him into the upper echelon yet."  That was June 4th.  June 5th, he tweeted "@Chris_Broussard: Win or Lose, Dirk boosting legacy."  Make up your mind analysts!

He was right, Dirk didn't need this series to prove he was an all time great.  Not because he isn't, but because he already is!  Dirk Nowitzki is the best three in NBA history IMO.  I don't consider him a power forward since he lives on the perimeter.  No matter what he actually plays, he's really just a really big three.  I view this series as the Big Three vs the "Big" Three.  Dirk is winning the battle, despite overwhelming doubt by fans and analysts.

So why is everyone hating the Mavericks?  When the series was tied 2-2 before last night's game, I noticed that the PTI panel was asked who would win and finally started hearing "Mavericks can win it" from some people but not Bill Plaschke.  He kept his stance that the Mavericks had zero chance to win the series.  Others at ESPN have said the same, but some are starting to change their mind.  Michael Wilbon being one.  He has started to say he believes now that the Mavs are going to win; in seven games.

I caught part of an interview between Jim Rome and someone who works for ESPN who's name escapes me.  They were discussing the NBA Finals being tied 2-2.  Then inexplicably, he Rome posed the question, "Do you think the Mavericks can come back in this series?"  Really?  If the series is tied 2-2, it's not a comeback if you win the series.  Especially when game 5 is at home for that team.  This is just how the media felt about the Mavs at that point; that they were still behind, still down, still the underdogs.  The tides have been turning.

Magic Johnson has come off the fence now and said he believes the Mavericks will win in seven games too.  Still, analysts are not giving the Mavericks full credit by saying they will win the next game.  There is no reason after game 4 to believe the Mavericks couldn't win the series, especially not to believe they had just as good a chance as the Heat to win it in six games.  On the ESPN poll before the series, most fans picked the heat to win in six games.  Second place was Heat in seven games followed by Mavs in seven games.

I understand the hesitation to say the Mavericks could beat a team with three of the Top Five draft picks from one of the best drafts in NBA history in 2003.  I understand believing that the Mavs have always choked, so why wouldn't they choke again?  I even understand citing 2006 as an example of how they failed against this team in the Finals before.  But I don't understand after seeing four games, why so many people still didn't change their mind or at least take a step back in their commentary.

The Mavs dominated most of Game 5 and now have a 3-2 lead in the series.  The series heads back to Miami, where Miami very well may win both games and win the title.  I'm not saying the Mavs have won anything yet, other than respect.  They should have won the respect of every NBA fan by now, and I am just griping simply because I don't understand why it has been so hard to obtain it and why some people still won't give respect to this team and to Dirk.

Dirk is no longer the soft guy who folds in big games.  Jason Kidd is no longer the PG who can't score and can't make the big plays when they matter.  Jason Terry is no longer just some guy who scores sometimes and not others.  Biggest of all changes, the Mavs are no longer a team that can't play defense.  The Mavericks have caused nine shot clock violations on the Heat.  They have also outscored the Heat 92.6 to 91.5.

LeBron James has been a no-show in the fourth quarter of each game, only scoring 11 points in the five fourth quarters combined so far.  Conversely, Dirk Nowitzki has scored 52 points in the fourth quarter; in Game 3, he scored his team's last 12 points.  I'm not saying Dirk is a better player than LeBron, just more clutch this series.

So no, the Mavs haven't won anything yet, but they should have won respect.  I can't believe there are still people who won't give it to them.  There are still people who say the Heat are failing instead of the Mavs are succeeding in these games.  At this point, that's just ridiculous.  They've earned the accolades.  Now they just need to finish it off.

Why Are Stalker Songs Celebrated?

Being a stalker is seriously not cool.  Nothing about it is "awesome" or worthy of praise from any point of view.  There are famous stalkers like Ted Bundy, and the above "Night Stalker" Richard Ramirez, who killed 26 people in the 80's(Ramirez did, not Bundy).  When they care caught, they usually turn out to be as creepy as you would expect.  So why have multiple artists written songs about being a stalker themselves?

I don't understand how a song with lyrics clearly implicating yourself as a crazy love-driven stalker have made the top 40 charts, but they have in the past, and in the present.  There is a point where being in love with someone turns into madness and downright stalker behavior.  There is nothing romantic about it, and it really comes off as creepy as hell.  Well here are five artists who didn't know when their love pushed them over the edge apparently.

Aerosmith - I Don't Want To Miss A Thing

This has got to be one of the creepiest stalker songs ever if you just listen to the opening lyrics: "I could stay awake, just to hear you breathing.  Watch you smile while you are sleeping."  Seriously, that's one of the creepiest lines ever written in a song.  Nothing about this song is romantic at all.  It scares the bejesus out of me, and if anyone ever said this to me, I'd be running for the hills.  Change your locks, phone number and Facebook account asap!

Taylor Swift - Love Story

Taylor Swift burst onto the scene and immediately gave us this creepy stalkerish teenybopper hit.  This whole song screams stalker to the max.  I mean, she talks about a guy who never responds until the very end of the song; and she uses phrases like "Is this all in my head?"  Well of course it is.  You are wanting some guy who doesn't notice you and you are saying all this crazy stuff you heard on some stupid Disney movie.  You can't force some dude to be with you and the story you made up from your schizophrenic mind doesn't make it legitimate.  These lyrics alone created a million new creepy stalker tweens.

Clay Aiken - Invisible

Since Clay Aiken has come out of the closet as a homosexual male, this takes stalking to the gay community.  Since it never mentions that the person he's stalking in this song is a girl, liberties have to be taken that it's a man presumably.  With lyrics like the following, this is definitely one of the most ridiculously horrific stalker songs of all time:  "If I was invisible, then I could just watch you in your room.  If I was invincible, I'd make you mine tonight."  Again, singing about how you wish you could force someone to be with you is not romantic in the least!

The Police & Sting - Every Breath You Take

This is the official stalker song.  This song literally says "Every breath you take, every move you make; every bond you break, every step you take, I'll be watching you!"  Then it progresses to "Oh can't you see, you belong to me?  How my poor heart aches, with every step you take!"  Unbelievable and this was a top hit.  The music was even re-used by Puff Daddy in his tribute song to Biggie.  This is the stalkers official manifesto, all in one song.

Lisa Stansfield - All Around The World

No song quite goes as far as All Around The World by Lisa Stansfield.  This girl isn't just going to stalk you, she's going to travel the entire world looking for you when you run away from her.  She's the stalker on steroids.  Just listen to these lyrics:  "I don't know where my baby is, but I'll find him, somewhere, somehow.  I've got to let him know how much I care.  I'll never give up looking for my baby."  Those words are not even sung, but spoken in the most insane sounding voice of all time in music history.

Listen to how far she'll go to find him:  "Been around the world and I, I, I...I can't find my baby.  I don't know when, I don't know why, why he's gone away!  And I don't know where he can be, my baby, but I'm gonna find him!"  Listen Lisa, if your "baby" is gone and you can't find him anymore, he probably wants it that way!

Don't go looking all over the world for him, he doesn't want you to find him.  He's scared of your creepy self.  Leave him alone.  Seriously, what would she have done if she found him?  Most likely murder him for leaving her.  Sure sounds like it anyways.  Later in the song she starts blaming herself for the dude disappearing, but never seems to completely come to terms with the fact that he ran away from her because she's creepy as hell.  Hands down the winner of worst stalker song ever.

Why were these songs all hits?  I guess they sounded catchy, but it seems like most people missed the lyrics and the message of each song.  Each song was written from the point of view of someone who can't get someone else to realize that they are soul mates.  They go on these strange lyrical journeys, stalking them out no matter how far they have to go, or how creepy they have to be.  I can't be the only person who noticed these?

Top 10 Black Sitcom Themes

How could you screw this up right?  This should be really easy, as there have been several amazing sitcoms over the years staring African American actors.  Well, the people over at Best Week Ever managed to do just that.  Read their list here: http://tinyurl.com/5uxmy4g

The order in which they placed their list is not even the biggest crime here.  The most obvious problem is who they left out.  First of all, shouldn't ANY list of the Top 10 opening theme/credits ALWAYS include Sanford & Son?  ESPECIALLY a list comprised of only black sitcom intros!  How can you be that stupid to leave out arguably the best intro ever on a list of top 10 intros?  Secondly, where is Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air?  That is the best intro of the entire 90's, yet it doesn't make this list?


I also felt while reading this list that the person who wrote the article had no idea that there were great children's shows featuring predominantly black characters.  With all of this being said, I have decided that instead of griping, I will put my money where my mouth is and post my own Top 10 Black Sitcom Themes/Openings Ever below.




10)Good Times


9)Hanging With Mr. Cooper


8)The Wayans Brothers


7)A Different World


6)The Cosby Show


5)Family Matters


4)Keenan & Kel


3)The Jeffersons


2)Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air


1)Sanford & Son


HONORABLE MENTION: My Brother & Me


Now really, how hard was that?  I think this list really covers the vast expanse of great black sitcom shows' intro themes/openings in full.  I am very satisfied with this list.  Did I leave something out?  Maybe, but at least the show intros here are ones that most would agree should be there.  I thought about shows like 227, Diff'rent Strokes, Cleveland Show and Sister Sister, but I think this is just right like it is.  Best Week Ever usually does a good job with their lists, but this was one list where they balked big time.

Why Can't Everyone Else Drive?!

Why is driving such a difficult thing for other motorists on the road?  No doubt most of us have common sense when we're out driving, and drive within the realm of sanity at all times.  Sure our speed may drift over that five mile per hour buffer the cops usually allow us to have, but we are otherwise, solid drivers.  Why then are there so many idiots on the road it seems?

Maybe it's because we always notice the idiot, and they really stand out when we see them doing something crazy.  I was driving at midnight in dense fog on an interstate in Kentucky, and a guy was doing at least 90 to my 60(in a 70).  He came up behind me really fast, slammed his breaks, then whisked around me and flew beyond my vision in less than one minute.

As we were farther down the road, we came up on a stopped police vehicle with it's lights on and a sign out that said "emergency scene ahead."  As we went ahead, we saw a firetruck and two police cars on the side of the road.  As we approached the scene slowly, we saw the car that had done all of that crazy driving with a smashed hood as he had wrecked into a guard rail.  I didn't see the driver, not sure if he was ok or not.

It's not just weird scenarios like that, there are stupid drivers out there every day giving insurance companies fits.  It seems like people really don't understand basic things a kindergartner would get correct.  For example, how a four way stop works.  It's really simple, cars go in the order which they stopped.  Time after time, you get that jerk who thinks they are so important, they can go out of turn, pissing everyone off and almost causing a wreck.

Another good example is that idiot who drives down the shoulder to get to an off ramp on a highway or interstate to avoid traffic.  That's not your own personal lane jackass.  Then you have the morons who think their car is invincible, as they can just drift into any lane they want without consequence.  Another person I hate on the road is that person who thinks they can beat the stoplight, but don't by several seconds.  I have trained myself to wait 2-3 seconds after my light turns green if I'm first to go, so I don't get hit by any of those idiots.

You also have stupid people who impede traffic by driving too slow.  Everyone is driving a certain way, and you have that person who goes really slow and comes up out of nowhere, such as an onramp or switching lanes.  They go so slow that you have to hit your breaks, and then a wreck is possibly caused by the chain reaction.  

There are also the people who can't park.  They park over the lines, parallel to the lines or in places that aren't even a drawn parking spot.  You park at a parking meter and go five minutes over and get your car towed, but somehow these idiots double park in front of a police station for hours and don't even get a ticket.

After taking several long distance driving trips in my life, I have noticed the worst vehicles on the road are tractor trailers.  The people who drive them must be the worst drivers on the planet.  Not only do many of them have to do days worth of driving for their job that makes them extremely tired, they also can't drive when they're wide awake.  Drifting into different lanes and off the road, passing other tractor trailers with really dangerous moves and speeds, and generally ignoring the fact that every other vehicle on the road is smaller than theirs makes them a nightmare to deal with.  I saw one tractor trailer go almost entirely on the shoulder before swerving back over into his lane on a recent trip.

Why can't people just drive, in a safe and normal way that is consistent with everyone else on the road?  Why do certain people think they own the road, or that they are more important than anyone else on the road?  You aren't, let me tell you.  If you are late, you should have left earlier.  If you are in an emergency situation such as rushing to a hospital, then you can't fault us for not moving for you.  You can't just cause a wreck because you're in a bad situation.  It's funny, there's NEVER a cop when you need one either.

Why Can't Comedians Be Funny Anymore?

In the last week, we have seen two comedians apologize for telling jokes.  The first was Gilbert Gottfried.  He tweeted some harsh jokes about Japan from his Twitter account.  One read, "Japan is really advanced. They don't go to the beach. The beach comes to them." while a second read, "Japan called me. They said "maybe those jokes are a hit in the US, but over here, they're all sinking."  The latter I see as his attempt to acknowledge that he knew his jokes were going a bit over the line but in a funny way instead of an apologetic way.

When did we get to the point where comedians have to apologize?  I am not condoning what Gilbert said, but he's a shock comedian, and you know that that is what you get with him.  We've seen him do this for years.  He has been invited to so many roasts of other celebrities over the years for THAT reason.  He's hilarious, and more so when he says something outrageous.  

At the Roast of Hugh Hefner in 2001, he told a 9/11 joke.  He got booed and responded by telling the famous Aristocrats joke.  If you are unfamiliar with this joke, you discuss a rich family doing the most insane, crude, sexually explicit, craziest things you can, until the audience is thoroughly uncomfortable and then hit them with a punchline.

 Fired? Seriously, I Have Said Crazy Stuff Before

After his Japan tweets, he was fired as the voice of the iconic AFLAC duck.  AFLAC fired him because of the tweets and said Gilbert's thoughts and ideas did not match their own and even went further to say that his tweets were not funny.  Gilbert then issued an apology a little while later.  AFLAC had employed Gottfried since 2000.  So by firing him now, we get the clear message from AFLAC: Telling jokes about 9/11, those are ok.  Telling jokes about Japanese Tsunami victims?  Not ok.  How hypocritical of them.  They have issued a nation wide casting call for a replacement.  Do we really want anyone else playing the AFLAC Duck?

Next up on this week's apologetic comedian list is George Lopez.  He was joking about the B-list stars on Dancing With The Stars.  He made a stripper joke about Kendra, he made a "your a man" joke about Wendy Williams, he said Ralph Macchio wore a toupee, and he made a joke that Kirstie Alley was fat.

Only Kirstie took offense and blasted him for his joke.  He then apologized, but why?  Why would you apologize about making a Kirstie Alley fat joke?  Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien and several other comedians have made the same jokes!  The video of what Lopez said about Kirstie Alley can be seen here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/george-lopez-on-kirstie-alley-pig-dwts_n_839753.html 

Jimmy Fallon has a bit on his show where he picks three people out of the audience to throw hot dogs in a celebrity cutouts' mouth, the most in wins a prize.  The one time I saw that game, Kirstie Alley was a cutout.  Clearly, her weight has not been off limits as a joke, and it shouldn't be.  She even had a show called Kirstie Alley's Big Life, in which she showed her daily life while on a diet to lose the weight she gained back after getting off the Jenny Craig program.

 I Am Not Even The One Who Drew This Arrow

Kirstie Alley shot back at George Lopez, saying that he hates women and should give back the kidney that was given to him by his ex-wife.  I don't really care what she had to say about this matter, but the fact that she went to a level of her own shows her hypocrisy.  She also made jokes about the situation on Twitter, so if she can joke about the joke, then the original joke stands.

Kirstie Alley is a former(?) coke abuser who is a fat, twice divorced Scientologist.  If she is off limits, that's just not fair to comedians.  Nobody who's a celebrity should be off limits in my opinion.  If you're on tv, in movies or any other kind of famous entertainer, comedians should always have free range on you.  People should really learn to laugh at themselves a little more, and take themselves less seriously.

Comedians shouldn't have to apologize for their jokes.  Whether a joke is crude and outrageous about a disaster or really goes over whatever imaginary line exists around a person, you shouldn't have to apologize for your opinion, especially as a comedian.  Yes, it's ok for the audience to boo, but in the case of George Lopez, his audience laughed hysterically when he showed that Geico commercial of the pig hanging it's head out the window.  Clearly his intended audience was his live audience, and they gave their laughs of approval.  End of story.

Do you think George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Andrew Dice Clay, Red Foxx or any other shock comedians have apologized for any of their jokes in their career?  These guys take a mic, and they go up there and they blast all kinds of people, groups and ideas, and they don't care how controversial it is.  They shouldn't care, because it is their job to entertain, and to get laughs.  There will always be someone who steps up to any comedian and says they crossed a line with them personally, and comedians can't be apologetic about it.  

The comedian is better when the comedian has free range.  I would say outside of outright racism for no reason, there aren't any other lines that shouldn't be crossed or at least toed.  Comedy is much better when the comedians are thinking less about how they're offending and more about who they're making laugh.  So stop apologizing, and keep telling jokes.  If we can learn to laugh at ourselves, we're all better people for it.

And Really, Who Can Hate On A Guy Who Can Make Seagulls Laugh???