I’ve never read this book, but I can tell you aallll about it.

May 6, 2009 at 3:55 pm (Total Sarcasm) (, )

So, Kate Harding co-authored a book called “Lessons from the Fat-O-Sphere: Quit Dieting and Declare a Truce with Your Body.” It’s the subject of the top three posts on the blog so go there for more info and squeeing over its high spots on bookseller lists.

I didn’t want to clog up any of those celebratory threads by making fun of reviewers, though, so I’m doing it here.

I think the idea of people reviewing things they haven’t even read is totally hilarious and should be done everywhere. I think more people should flip through a couple of pages of a book and then go review it–or even better–just look at the title and assume its contents. In this case–said reviewers assume–from a few pages and the title, that “Lessons from the Fat-O-Sphere” is all about how we should all go bathe in pies to purposely get diabetes.

So, I’m going to go review “Lord of the Rings” and say, “is this book a joke? A book about rings? Rings are boring, stationary objects. This whole book is probably a scam contrived by DeBeers to get us to buy more blood diamonds. Do not read!”

And then I’m going to review “Walden Pond” and say “I picked up this book thinking it’d be about humor, but after reading a few pages I learned it really is about a guy who lived by a POND. So, apparently, living by a pond makes you an expert on ponds. Apparently the whole medical industry is wrong about how murky pond water is full of bacteria and parasites and is unhealthy to ingest. I could blog about organic chemistry but it doesn’t mean I actually KNOW anything about it. Living by a pond doesn’t make you an expert on ponds!”

Oh, and then I’ll review “The Seven Spirtual Laws of Success” and say, “look. I’m a law student, and I’m around a lot of lawyers. I can tell you right now not one of them would ever say there is any sort of ‘law of success.’ Don’t come crying to us when you try to sue in court to uphold this ‘law of success.’ Pffft.”

Then I’ll move onto other media. I’ll review a “Squirrel Nut Zippers” CD and say “who would want to hear a bunch of squirrels putting nuts into zippers? I sure wouldn’t. Is this a joke?”

I’ll review “Fried Green Tomatoes,” the movie, and say “I do not know how a cookbook got made into a movie, but how boring! Fried Green Tomatoes are gross, too. Why would anyone want to watch a movie about making a disgusting food? I’ve been around a lot of lawyers, and let me tell you, none of them would want to watch a movie about cooking.”

Sure, I won’t get many positive clicks for “was this review helpful to you?” But then again, being completely uninformed doesn’t stop anyone else from blasting their opinions everywhere like so much explosive diarrhea, so why should it stop me?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Oh goddammit I need to put a different channel on in the morning

April 20, 2009 at 10:20 pm (Politics, Total Sarcasm) (, , )

The Today Show isn’t even *trying* to appear to be non-partisan anymore–they just had Newt Gingrich on this morning to talk about how much Obama sucks in his opinion, and that was the whole damn piece. No figure head for the other side, nothing. I guess they’ve done this with Laura “who the fuck?” Ingrahrharhm before, I just wasn’t compelled to write about it.

Not that I feel the “hey we need to represent both SIDES!” thing actually acheives some sort of non-bias or is anything but gimmicky bullshit, but since when is the Today show anything but gimmicky bullshit? I guess what chapped my hide was that they didn’t even challenge the ridiculous shit he was saying–he was like, “dude North Korea shot a MISSLE and Obama did NOTHING! Iran is building a bomb and we’re sitting on our Laurels! We’re all doomsauced! Oh we have to be coldly indifferent to people in other countries we don’t like we totally can’t be nice to them.”

Ok I kinda get the reasoning for the latter part of that, but why the fuck didn’t Meredith Lauer (I can’t damn well remember who did the interview) ask, “well, what would YOU have done about North Korea and Iran?” ‘Cause to me it sounded like he was gung ho about getting us embroiled in a whole new mess o’ never-ending wars.

Shit I guess it’s about time we expanded this paltry empire. Gingrich for President, 2012! We’ll either be able to fly to get some seriously authentic khoresht without passports, or we will be fighting for roadkill in the streets. Exciting, either way, right??

Permalink Leave a Comment

Noctomom–like an octomom, with 9 babies instead of 8

March 4, 2009 at 8:22 am (Annoying things, Total Sarcasm, Women) (, )

<Warning: This post contains sarcasm>

Plenty has been said about how repulsive it is that the media keeps referring to Nadya Suleman as “octomom,” but I think the media might be onto something–they are just making one mistake. Nadya Suleman has fourteen kids, so her nickname should be revised to “tetradecamom.” Maybe all women should just be referred to as the number of kids they have with the greek-derived polygon prefixes followed by mom.

Every news outlet will never have to bother learning the name of a woman again–only the number of kids she has–and that’s really the important part, anyway, isn’t it? They can just use the handy geocities site linked above and never misspell the name of a woman they’re reporting about for the style & fashion section (or odd news section, whatever silly sections stories about women go into) ever again. Michelle Duggar, for example, would be octodecamom. Women with three kids would be “trimom,” Michelle Obama would be “dimom,” Hillary Clinton could be “monomom,” women with no kids could be “future-mom.”

Wait, what about women who choose not to have kids, you ask? Well, most of those silly uteri will change their minds. There will be much fewer inaccuracies still. I suppose the women who are really emphatically not wanting children can be refered to as “godforsaken abominations” to be fair.

The American people will eat it up as women all over the nation race to become the first icosamom, tracontamom, and even hectamom. The economy will be saved because everyone will have a job as a papparazi-style TV reporter or cameraperson vying to report all the news on these crazy n-moms and their crazy n-babies. The tetradecakids will totally rule the schools as the new TV celebrities.

I suppose this all falls apart when I remember it hasn’t been in the media’s interests thus far to completely dehumanize mothers of large families and strip them of their names when said mothers actually were able to land themselves a man to provide for said babies. I think the members of the media have not really thought this through–I mean it makes even more sense to forget about the names of married women because they don’t need to be rewarded by having an identity, they already have a man to have an identity for them.

Anyway, this is godforsaken abomination here with a plan that cannot fail.

((If the title of this post doesn’t make sense to you, I suggest you visit this link)

Permalink 1 Comment