Welcome! (I guess...)

For those of you who by some extremely unlikely set of circumstances happened to stumble upon this page, I apologize to you. For those of you who intentionally came to this page - yikes! As the title of the weblog indicates, these are my Ramblings About Whatever. There is a chance that I will ramble about just about anything (as I am in this introduction), but only a select few topics will actually make this site. Enjoy! (I guess...)

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Spears-Federline Rankings - Person of 2007

There are very few people who have not heard of Kevin Federline and Britney Spears. As to whether this fact is a good thing or a bad thing is up to one's own interpretation. (It's a bad thing.) But with all that has been going on in the lives of these two very talented individuals, I thought that it would be worthwhile to periodically provide updates of the current rankings of the two. So, what follows are the current rankings between the two, with short explanations given for each. First place votes appear in parentheses.

End of 2007 Rankings December 18, 2007

2. Kevin Federline - This should come as a huge shock to regular readers of the Spears-Federline Rankings. Federline has had an unbelievable year. He has gone from lame former backup dancer for a lame disbanded boy band to a lame former backup dancer for a lame disbanded boy band, but one who totally worked Britney Spears over in the custody battle for the former couple's children. It has been such an outstanding year that one publication has even named Federline the co-father of the year. Now granted, the Committee had never actually heard of this publication, and Federline shared the award with Larry Birkhead, so it is questionable whether this award is truly noteworthy. However, it is certainly better than any award that Spears has received. And did the Committee mention that Federline is set to guest star on the television program One Tree Hill in January? This is some outstanding work out of Federline, and it certainly should garner him the Spears-Federline Person of the Year award, but...

1. Britney Spears (1) - Britney Spears heads the year-end Spears-Federline Rankings. In what is certainly an upset, Spears impressed the Committee enough to somehow nudge past Federline at the finish line. What impressed the Committee enough to help her surge past Federline? Was it the bizarre decision to shave her head earlier this year? Was it that she still wanted to continue her marriage with a certain lame former backup dancer? Was it that she developed into a veritable alcoholic? Was it that she started to run people down on the streets at a rate that normally would be expected of someone four times her age? Was it that truly outstanding performance she put forward at the MTV Video Music Awards? No, none of these things helped, and thus Spears was miles behind Federline for this title. Nothing short of ending the Hollywood writers' strike could have saved Spears because the Committee has truly missed the Committee's favorite television shows. But then the Committee pondered this; if Britney Spears did end the writers' strike, that would increase the chances of Federline appearing in more episodes of One Tree Hill. Though no member of the Committee actually watches this program, the Committee does realize that more Federline television appearances is something that no one wants. So by not ending the Hollywood writers' strike, and sparing us from more Federline, Britney Spears wins the Spears-Federline Person of the Year.

2008 is a new year; who will get off to a fast start?

Red Light Camera Signs

A somewhat recent phenomenon in Houston, Texas is the use of red light cameras at certain intersections. Now, I have no complaint about the use of these cameras. I actually have a good laugh each time I see one of the cameras flash when some idiot runs a red light. However, what I cannot really understand is why they actually put up signs warning people where the red light cameras are located.

Isn't the point of the red light cameras to catch people breaking the law, catch people running red lights? Or is the point of the cameras to truly just stop people from running the lights out of fear of receiving a ticket? If the former is true, why alert people to where it is safe and unsafe to break the law? Really, is having these red light camera signs really that different than if banks had signs outside saying "Armed Undercover Police on Patrol Inside"? The bank robber, if believing this sign to be true, would just move on to a bank that does not have one of these signs. However, if the manager of a bank realizes that robbers are less likely to rob a bank if such a sign is present, why wouldn't the manager just put up such a sign irrespective of whether undercover police actually patrolled the bank? This question goes to addressing the second possible reason for the red light cameras that I mentioned above. If you just wanted to stop people from running red lights out of fear, why not just put up the signs everywhere irrespective of whether cameras are located there are not? Is it that the belief is that people will figure out which of the intersections really have cameras and will stop where the real cameras are and continue to run lights where cameras do not really exist? If this was the thought process behind putting up the signs, then congratulations, this seems to make sense...sort of. But this begs the following question: why do we have red light cameras?

Thursday, December 6, 2007

The Misadventures of the Fun Police: Naples, Italy

You've had it happen to you before; you take a little boy's ice cream cone and run around laughing because you know he can't catch you until some adult comes out and scolds you, telling you to give the boy back his ice cream, or you're having a perfectly good time swatting butterflies with your suit jacket on the roof of the church until your mom scolds you and tells you to come down off of the roof. These are both perfect examples of the Fun Police getting in the way of good natured fun. Allow me to give you a recent example of the Fun Police striking again...

It seems that there are some good people from the Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. who have taken/may take it upon themselves not to embarrass some other people more than they already have been embarrassed at this point. Apparently, a court in Naples, Italy has brought a case against a Chinese man accused of counterfeiting products of Disney and Warner Bros. And included among the star witnesses for the prosecution are Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Daisy Duck, and Tweety Bird. This is the sort of thing that no one can actually make up. This incident provided the opportunity for both Disney and Warner Bros. to endear themselves to an older audience. Nothing would have pleased me more than to read about, or see, people portraying these characters actually testify in this Italian court. Because these companies have either decided not to further embarrass the court (Disney) or most likely will choose not to further embarrass the court (Warner), they earn recognition as being members of the Fun Police.

Oh Fun Police, why do you injure us so? Why do you not send Tweety Bird in to testify? Let me provide some insight as to how this might play out. My Italian is a little rusty, so I'm going to just translate it all into English.

Attorney: Mr. Bird, would you please state your name for the record?
Tweety Bird: I'm a tweet wittow biwd in a diwded cage; Tweety'th my name but I don't know my age.
A: We really don't care how old you are.
Court Reporter: I'm sorry to interrupt, but did you say that your name is Tweeteeth?
TB: No, Tweety'th my name but I...
CR: ...don't know your age. Yeah, I got that part, but I don't care. But you did say your name is Tweeteeth, correct?
CR: Oh, Tweety! I have it now, you can continue on. Sorry for interrupting.
A: Thank you Mr. Bird. Mr. Bird can you explain to the court what you were doing when you encountered the defendant on the night in question?
TB: I tas in my diwded cage when tuddenwy I tawt I taw a puddy tat!
A: I'm sorry, what?
TB: I did, I did, I taw a puddy tat!

You get the picture. This could have gone on and on forever. And then if you throw in a character like Donald Duck for whom it is possibly even more difficult to decipher what he is saying, and you get a fun time had by everybody. Oh those accursed Fun Police at Disney and Warner Bros...

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

Dumb People?!? In Hollywood?!?!?

It seems that the good people at the New York Daily News have taken it upon themselves to do the job that only I should be paid to do. And what might that be? Well, it seems that the paper has named its list of the Top 50 Dumbest People in Hollywood. Naturally, I have a few issues with this article. My first complaint with it is the wording of the list, the Top 50 Dumbest People in Hollywood. What is the necessity of beginning the title of the list with the word top? Wouldn't just saying the 50 Dumbest People in Hollywood have adequately conveyed the meaning of the list? It's kind of the reason why you add the suffix -est to the word dumb in the first place. Or were they assuming that if people just saw the name 50 Dumbest People in Hollywood their readers would have wondered whether they meant the Middle 50 Dumbest People in Hollywood?

Okay, that aside, I won't necessarily bicker about the fact that in truth there are probably countless dumber people in Hollywood than some of the people mentioned on this list who just aren't famous. I get it; the point is actually to name the 50 dumbest celebrities in Hollywood. With that said, how does this Spencer Pratt character come in at number 3? I had never even heard of this guy before reading this article. Shouldn't you have to have at least a certain minimum level of celebrity to be considered for this list beyond I appear on a crappy MTV pseudo-reality show? Shouldn't you have to be known by more than the high school girls demographic to make it on this list? I don't want to take anything away from Mr. Pratt; he may very well be the third dumbest person in Hollywood. However, I would hardly call him the third dumbest celebrity in Hollywood since I still really don't have any idea who he is. And keeping with this general line of thinking, how do we come up Jeff Kwatinetz as the fourth dumbest person in Hollywood. Oh, I see, it's because he gave the green light for the Britney Spears performance at the MTV Video Music Awards... I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this selection. First of all just because Kwatinetz gave the green light for this performance, that doesn't make him a celebrity, and second, in hindsight, this was a brilliant thing for him to have done. If you are like me and you believe that Britney Spears is an overrated never-was, what could possibly be better from an entertainment perspective than that performance she had at the VMAs? Strike number four from the list; the guy is a genius.

But then of course I can't discuss numbers 13, 14, 38, and 39 except in a grouping. Here we have J. R. Rotem, Britney Spears, Kevin Federline, and Shar Jackson, respectively. My first question is why is there such a huge gap between Spears and Federline? Is it because the people who compiled the list think that Federline is that much less dumb than Spears, or it purely because Federline is completely owning Spears in this custody battle? Also, I'm not quite sure I understand the logic used in the ordering. If J. R. Rotem is penalized for being the possible baby daddy of Spears by being placed a notch lower than Britney, than how come Shar Jackson is not penalized for being the possible baby mama of Federline (note: in this case I'm not actually talking about the two kids that the two are confirmed to have, but rather I'm referencing the rumor that sprung up during the summer that she was pregnant again with his baby) by being placed one notch below the K-Fed? Let's be clear, it seems very unlikely that she would be placed on this list simply because she happened to have slept with Federline a few years ago. If the reason she is on this list is because of a recent dalliance, then why isn't she listed higher on the list than Federline because of such a frightful indiscretion?

Like I kind of intimated at the beginning, it seems that the only person who could correctly compile such a list would be me. However, I have to give them credit because they get certain things right about this list. First of all, I have no argument with Lindsay Lohan being at the top of the list. Though I have not seen/do not plan to see/have no idea what it is about/have no idea when the movie was released/is supposed to be released, there is no chance that I will ever see it, and I can pretty much guarantee you that the movie sucks/will suck. Also some of her non-work related activities go to the point where it is way too kind to describe them as foolish. Hence, Lohan seems to be the perfect candidate for number one. Also, it might come as a surprise to some that I fully support Paris Hilton's absence from this list. Why is that, you might ask? Well it's simple; she's not in Hollywood, she's cryonically frozen in Michigan right now...