According to Swanson it is. After all, "I know what I like and I like a lot of it."

Is this for real? When I first saw one of the new commercials for Hungry-Man dinners I thought it was a parody. I kept waiting for the punchline but it never got there. For those of you who haven't seen one they feature 2 fat men talking about what they had for lunch/dinner. One had something like "Country Fried Beef Steak with Creamy Gravy, Mashed Potatoes, Green Beans & Cherry-Apple Crumb Dessert". The other ate a watercress sandwich and a glass of water, or some similar "fou-fou" food. The light eater is then blown away by an errant gust of wind and you get one of the two taglines ("good to be full" or "I like a lot of it").

No, no, no, no, no. It is not good to be full. It is good to be not hungry. It is bad to be full. That means you ate more than your gut can comfortably hold. You overate.

Swanson is actively pushing a line of food catering to fat people and encouraging them to get fatter. If a "lot of it" isn't enough, don't worry - they offer 4 dinners in "XXL" size. What's the next campaign going to be? "Eat til you puke, we'll make more?" How about "You're fat anyway, let's go with that?" Maybe some blatant truth in advertising like "Eat, you fat fuck! Eat!"

Just more proof on why advertisers rate between politicians and Reuters correspondents on the ol' Scum 'o the World scale.

Posted by: Jim at 02:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 277 words, total size 2 kb.

From the Miami Herald

Posted by: Jim at 03:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

This approaches the upper levels of wierdness.

(hat tip to G)

Posted by: Jim at 01:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Dangerous snakes seized at Sydney Airport

(Hat tip to G for the link)

Posted by: Jim at 07:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Y'all remember Ensgilh 101, right? That's where you keep the first and last letters of a word in place and scramble the rest. It mkaes the wrods odldy rdealbe. G just sent me a follow-up:

"Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd, utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr."

Scrambled internal letters make legible words. Simply inverting the internal letters makes words that are very difficult to recognize. Wierder and wierder.

(The source for all this is reportedly slashdot.org (for the original) and the University of British Columbia's Linguistics department (for the new one). I can't find either of them at either site so I can't verify but figured I should note that in the interest of fairness.)

UPDATE: I hate it when I get got and I definitely got got this time. Inverting the letters has no more effect on readability than scrambling, except that expected characters are not seen in the beginning of the word. The major thing at work here is word familiarity. The "invert" phrase above uses many words that are not common parlance. Yes, we know all of the words but they are not words that we commonly read. The English 101 paragraph used very commonly used words. The second factor is placement in context. In the English 101 example it is very easy to read the words in context based on the words around them as there are many "gimme" words used. That is, words with 5 or less characters that we recognize without actually having to read the word and whose readability is unaffected by misspelling. This second example is built to defeat that skill. They also throw in several misplaced commas to break it into illogical segments and make it even more difficult to read.

Case in point, in correctly spelled form the "invert" paragraph has a Flesch Reading Ease of 0.0 and the "scrambled" one has an Ease of 51. The "invert" uses big words (average of 6 letters per word) while "scrambled" uses small ones (average of 4 letters per word).

We hates the tricksy linguists, my Precioussss...

UPDATE2: MojoMark points out that this is on Snopes.

Posted by: Jim at 07:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

Fun with fusion

(Hat tip to G for the link.)

Posted by: Jim at 11:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

What gems are hiding in the back pages of the Atlanta Journal Constitution? Let's take a peek.

Death math
(6 kids + (1 ATV / 1 Illegal road ride) * 0 helmets) + (1 drunk driver) = .8 kids + 5 charges of vehicular homicide

Crazy Cats Charge Comely Coeds in Cobb County

Do looks matter? Atlanta gals say Hell, yeah!

Criminal whines that she had to do time

Posted by: Jim at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

(Note to my regular readers. This is a serious one. Can you forgive me? I'll get back to humorous stuff, I promise. Garbage like this just really riles me and I must vent or explode.)

Resources

1. Changes to Presidential Financing Eyed, AP article


2. Q&A About the Presidential Public Financing Program, Bush campaign financing watchdog group (partisan group but this Q&A distills the program quite nicely)


3. The Presidential Public Funding Program, Federal Election Commission government site

Background

The Presidential Public Financing Program is funded by taxpayers who check that $3 donation box on their federal tax returns. It does not increase individual tax burden, it simply takes $3 of taxes that would go to the general fund and earmarks them for this program. Participation has declined steadily since the programs inception, falling "from a high of 29 percent in 1981 to less than 12 percent today" (2).

The program was intended to reduce the disproportionate influence of wealthy contributors, reduce the demands of fundraising on candidates and assist candidates who did not have access to large sums of money. The actual program offers matching funds for primary candidates, grants for party Presidential nominating conventions and grants for general election campaigns of major party nominees and partial funding for qualified minor and new party candidates. It also imposes spending limits on campaigns that participate in the program. (3) (emphasis mine).

Step 1: Identify the problems (per the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute)(1)

1. "the program's perennial funding shortfalls put it at risk of insolvency by the 2008 election."


2. President Bush has opted out of primary public financing for the 2004 campaign (as he did in 2000). John Kerry and Howard Dean are also considering skipping public financing. This "show[s] the system needs changes to become more attractive to candidates".

Step 2: Propose ways to fix the program (also per the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute)(1)

1. Raising the taxpayer checkoff to $5, generating an estimated $122.6 million more for the program.


2. Giving primary candidates a 3-to-1 match for the first $100 of each contribution rather than the current 1-to-1 match for the first $250 of a donation.


3. Raising the primary spending limit to the same amount as the general election, from the current $45 million to about $74 million.


4. Letting a candidate who takes primary public financing spend the same amount as someone who doesn't.


5. Allowing national party committees to spend an additional $15 million on their presumptive nominee's behalf during the spring and summer after the primaries.

Step 3: Bitch slap the 13-member task force of the Campaign Finance Institute that came up with this nonsense Fisk away

Problem 2: Wealthy and well funded candidates are opting out of matching funds for party primaries. Exactly how is this a problem? Say it again. Wealthy and well funded candidates are financing their own primary campaigns. How does this conflict with the stated goals of the program? The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that the Institute wants all candidates under the spending caps to prevent disproportionately robust campaigns from the big name candidates. That would come under campaign reform and is not in the scope of this program.

Fix 1: The main problems with the tax return check box are that people are unfamiliar with the problem. Many people either think this goes to reelect the current president (or party) and/or that it costs them $3. Raising this to $5 might bring in more for the program but not nearly enough as it does not address the central problem of taxpayer misconception. Better education and clearer description/instruction is the answer either in lieu of or in addition to this change.

Fix 2: This will increase the burden on the program by a significant amount. All minor contributions will triple in the amount of matching funds and it will not be difficult for fund raisers to get people to give less to take advantage of the factoring. This is an obvious attempt to make the program more attractive to prospective candidates in support of Problem 2, which is quite simply a bogus problem.

Fix 3: Another massive increase on the program burden to the tune of $19 million per candidate. Of course not all candidates will be able to take advantage of this increase, only the wealthiest and best funded ones. This might indeed attract a Bush, Kerry or Dean in support of bogus Problem 2 but will have a net affect of increasing the disparity between campaings of robust candidates compared to the rest. This would go directly against the premise behind bogus Problem 2, namely the leveling of the campaign playing field.

Fix 4: This one isn't too bad on its face. There is a maximum cap to how much the program will give a candidate so there wouldn't really be any additional exposure to program funds. It simply allows the candidate to spend more than the current limits without giving any more money from the program. Once again, though, this is done in support of bogus Problem 2 - attracting big money candidates to the program. This will allow candidates like Kerry and Dean to join the program, take matching funds and still spend as much as Bush, who is not participating. This does very little except to penalize the first candidate to opt out of the program by denying him the matching funds that will be used by the other big spenders.

Fix 5: Another one in support of bogus Problem 2. This does nothing to the program fund but makes the program itself more attractive to big party candidates.

Summary:

The essential problem is that the Institute task force is trying to morph the Presidential Public Financing Program into a bandaid for campaign reform. Campaign laws need to be changed but this is not the place to do it. By trying to shoehorn campaign control into the program these proposals will greatly increase the burden on the program fund while doing very little to address the absolute and concrete problem of the program's failure of solvency.

Strip off bogus Problem 2 and Fixes 2 through 5. Add educating taxpayers about the real effects of checking that contribution box on their tax returns. That is a viable solution to the real problems facing the Presidential Public Financing Program.

Note:

The Campaign Finance Institute is affiliated with George Washington University in DC and is not a political body. However, the task force members are very influencial in their fields and include "Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell; William Brock, a former Republican National Committee chairman; Carol Darr, former general counsel to the Democratic National Committee; and Richard Davis, a political consultant and adviser to Sen. John McCain." That last is of particular concern as Senator McCain is a sponsor of new campaign finance law. (1)

Posted by: Jim at 08:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1148 words, total size 8 kb.

'Cause sheep can hear a zipper from 50 yards.

But seriously now, did you know that there is a law on the books in Scotland that prevents a man from marrying the mother of his ex-wife while the ex-wife is alive? Did you know that they really do need that law?

Posted by: Jim at 09:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

And even if it did, I don't want to talk about it.

Posted by: Jim at 06:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

Satellite topples to floor in mishap

Posted by: Jim at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Darn. I can't remember from which blog I picked up this story: One 5-year-old's allergy leads to class peanut ban. It's about a California school (and isn't it always California?) that outlawed peanut butter from all kindergarden classes because one child in one class is seriously allergic to peanuts and treenuts. Anyway, Parent Center is polling to see what their readers think about it and I think the blogospherians should chime in with their votes. Go spread the word.

(Hat tip to Lovely Wife for the link.)

Incidentally, isn't it fun to say "peanut"? I like "walnut" too but "peanut" is just a little closer to naughty.

Q: What do you call it when you have two nuts in a urinal?
A: Peanuts

Q: What do you call it when you have two nuts on your chest?
A: Chestnuts

Q: What do you call it when you have two nuts on the wall?
A: Wallnuts

Q: What do you call it when you have two nuts on your chin?
A: A big fat dick in your mouth.

Posted by: Jim at 09:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

Giant squid deaths puzzle scientists

Umm...

I'm not a marine biologist or anything but I could safely posit the cause of death as being "Chopped in half".

(Hat tip to Lovely Wife for the link.)

Update: The article now says that "the scientists" are blaming scientific experiments (presumably being carried out by "other scientists") of the Spanish Navy for the squid deaths. Spain has a navy?

Posted by: Jim at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

Click the banner to see more truth in advertising at Valley of the Geeks.

(Hat tip to G for the link.)

Posted by: Jim at 06:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

Depending on where you live in the States you probably have a different general opinion of Canada. Down here in the South most people think that Canada is a separate country. Back up in the North, Canada is viewed either as a retarded step child or the largest of the 51 states. This article (link found over at Common Sense & Wonder) points strongly towards either the "retarded step child" theory or the growing "Really North California" theory.

It seems that the Canadian courts ordered that "patients should not be forced to get their marijuana from drug dealers on the streets" so Health Canada (motto "Socialized medicine at its finest!") gave a C$5.75 million (about $4.2 million real dollars) contract to have government weed grown. The problem (assuming our heads are far enough up our rectums not to notice any glaring problems yet) is that the weed blows. Comments from the first users include "Disgusting" and "It's totally unsuitable for human consumption".

The government of Canada spent C$5.75 (The "C" stands for "counterfeit", by the way) million to grow bad weed. How do you grow weed that is that bad? A good start would be to grow it "deep underground in a vacant mine section in Flin Flon, Manitoba". Yes, that's right. They are growing a crop of plants in an abandoned mine. While this might be a reasonable step for somebody trying to grow a cash crop of marijuana in the States, it does not seem quite so intelligent when you note that in this case the crop is not only legal but being grown under a government contract.

Okay, let's get off the idiocy of the farming and concentrate on the basic program. C$5.75 million (at today's exchange rate - tomorrow this could easily be eleventy billion) sounds like a lot, because it is a lot to us rational folk, but it's really not too bad for a government program. After all, this program will serve all of the marijuana using patients in Canada. Or not. Maybe it will only be servicing a handlful of people because only "Ten patients have registered with Health Canada to buy marijuana directly from the government to alleviate their medical symptoms. Another 39 applications are pending."

Yah. 49 people total, including applicants not yet approved, are reaping the benefits of this particular travesty of government idiocy. But they're not really reaping much since the weed is unsuitable for human consumption. A little basic arithmentic shows that the investment per participant is over C$117,346. That's close to 8 times what an average Canadian takes home in a year after taxes. (Note that this last statistic is an estimate. Canadian tax codes are so oppressive confusing that the average Canadian has no idea how much they take home after taxes.)

What's an unsatisfied customer to do? Well, "Wakeford and Barrie Dalley, a 52-year-old Toronto man who uses marijuana to combat the nausea associated with AIDS, are returning their 1-ounce (30-gram) bags, and Dalley is demanding his money back -- about C$150 ($110) plus taxes. Wakeford is returning his unpaid bill for two bags with a written complaint." Unfortunately, according to Health Canada spokeswoman Krista Apse "the department will not accept returns or provide refunds".

As I was a neighbor of Canada for many a year I feel deeply for our northern cousins. I will take it upon myself to solve their weedy woes. I will start a collection and when it reaches $29.99 (that's real currency, not funny money) I will personally send a subscription of High Times to Krista Apse. We'll send the free T-shirt to Jim Wakeford to help take the sting out of blowing his cash on that bad gubmint weed.

Update: I love my current job but if they need some Quality Assurance help up there I might be willing to relocate.

Posted by: Jim at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 652 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Jim at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

(Stolen from The Smoking Gun)

So Food Lion is out $200 and hopefully one employee. I say hopefully regarding the employee but I'm actually not that hopeful. Chances are the idiot who accepted a $200 bill is still working at Food Lion. I mean, we're talking about a company with such woeful Human Resources that they hired someone dumb enough to accept a $200 bill. You can't take on faith that such a company would take an obvious step like firing a moron who accepts a $200 bill.

Of course the worst thing about all of this is far more personal. Worse than the expose on corporate idiocy. Worse than revealing the rampant idiocy prevalent in our work force. Worse even than wasting several minutes of your time on this post. No, the worst thing about this exposure on the fake $200 Bush Bill is that it's going to make it that much harder for me to pass off my $300 Ashcroft Bills.

Posted by: Jim at 08:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

Reuters - New York Recalls Sept. 11 Amid New Terror Alert

With a headline like that you'd exect two things. First, some sort of recollection or remembrance for 9/11. The article is full of well ripped anecdotes and soundbites of that. Second, you'd expect something about a new terror alert. I mean it's pretty blatant in the headline, right? Says it right there at the end "Amid New Terror Alert". Only problem is you won't see anything about any terror alert anywhere in the article. Nada. None.

Why do they have to pull crap like this? There's finally a Reuters article that's both respectful and decorous and they have to screw it up with a manipulated and phony headline.

Posted by: Jim at 09:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

The Tribute in Light was back yesterday. Wierd how I didn't see it on the news at all.

Posted by: Jim at 08:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Even when it's bad, it's still pretty good.

Posted by: Jim at 07:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.