PORTLAND, Ore. -- Thousands of bomb-sniffing dogs nationwide are now out of work as airport security focuses its attention away from the relatively minor threat explosives pose, toward the more pressing threat brought on by lip gloss and moisturizers.
Thanks to Wilhelm McShane, however, many of these dogs are not going to be queueing up at the unemployment lines. Due to a stenography error nearly 30 years ago, McShane became an expert at training dogs to sniff out unconventional substances, something he is now very thankful for.
"They all laughed at me. Ultimately I lost my job over it," McShane said, sitting in the swing on his front porch. "It wasn't my fault I missed the meeting that day and got an inaccurate job request. How was I to know they meant 'bomb'-sniffing dogs? The job request form very clearly said 'balm-sniffing dogs,' and that's what I gave them."
When asked if he'd go back to work, nearly 30 years after his dismissal, McShane said that he had decided to let bygones be bygones and do what's best for his country.
"If the safety of the country depends on me, who am I to turn them down because of a hurt ego?" said McShane, as he sipped from his lemonade. "But look who's laughing now," he added with a gleam in his eye.
Sean Gleeson has one of those awesome email addresses that just plain makes sense. First name @ last name dot whatever. I've wanted something along these lines for a long time, but the trouble is that my last name is already taken in any of the TLDs I'm interested in. Plus, I'm pretty attached to my current email address. Then there's the fact that I'm not terribly fond of my last name...
With that in mind, I'm giving serious thought to simply changing my name to my email address. I'm not sure whether I'd be able to make my middle name "@" or have to spell it "at," and I'm not sure about having a dot in the last name, but it's something I'm definitely thinking about.
I'm kind of hoping I'll confuse some spammers in the process and start getting penis pill information in the postal mail in addition to my inbox.
I need to refute something from Sean's disproval of my latest effort to explain The Sun's photo.
The lemon: I feel this is one of those flaws in my rendering that I mentioned in my previous post. In actuality, I believe the lemon is sitting on the edge of a glass of strawberry lemonade rather than the martini glass I drew, accounting for the pinkish splotches seen running across the inside of the lemon's pericarp. Sure, the pericarp doesn't look white, but that's because it is in the shadow cast by the thicker edge of the slice. If you've ever seen a slice of lemon that's been sitting around a little while, you'd notice that the "meat" of the lemon actually shrinks as it dehydrates, accounting for the shadowing. Let's take another look at Sean's blowup:
Now, while you might argue that the pink splotches of strawberry foam are too high up on the lemon to have come from inside the glass, I'd have to assure you that those darn things are always slipping off the edge of the glass, especially when they're cut as thinly as this one is. Also, you might argue that Brits don't drink strawberry lemonade, making it impossible to even find any in the UK. That's a pretty good point, but I'd have to argue that if anyone were to have a chance of getting a strawberry lemonade where there is none, it's sure going to be someone who: a) is hanging out with a member of the Royal Family, b) has nice tits, or c) has both nice tits and a member of the Royal Family. In fact, I'd be surprised if someone matching those qualifications didn't order something impossible at every chance.
Unfortunately for me, it is Sean who is making the rules here. So, if he says it's a "button", and that it's pinned to Miss Pinkham's top, I simply have to accept it and move on. So here I go, moving on.
You'll notice that there's a button pinned to Miss Pinkham's top:
You'll also notice that this button is being pushed off to one side -- making it nearly perpendicular to her torso, as a matter of fact. Sean maintains that Miss Pinkham's breasts are following the axiom that "the breast line is one head-height below the chin," and therefore exist in the state shown in his diagram:
If there is nothing up in the upper portion of Miss Pinkham's top, then what is pushing said button to such a perpendicular angle? If there were no breasts up there, the button ought to be flat against her breast-free upper chest, no?
I feel that because my initial video footage disproved the bulk of Sean's argument against the authenticity of the photo in question, I actually do deserve the award, so I'm going to just go ahead and claim it without Sean's approval. However, Sean is right that the question of the raised left breast really needs to be answered. Since I've not yet adequately proved a case for the raisal of said breast, I have a moral opposition to the outright taking of Sean's award without his approval. So what I've done is taken half the award without permission, until which point Sean feels the need to award me the other half. You'll now find the following image proudly and boldly emblazoned on my website for the world to see, so that they will know that I deserve the "Sean Gleeson Researcher of the Century Award."
Since I've already proven the "shadows" portion to Sean's approval, I'll now prove the "left breast lift" portion as well. This solution is incredibly simple, requires no magic garment, and fits completely within what we know about the event.
I've simply extended the photograph below the bottom, using my imagination to fill in the details:
Now I'm no painter, and I have considerable trouble with anatomy, but I feel that despite the flaws in my rendering, this is a representation of a completely plausible situation. Sure, we don't know that this is what actually happened, but I feel that anyone would have to admit that a table could certainly account for Harry's "weight bearing" arm, the lifted breast, and the mystery "floating lemon wedge" -- which, inexplicably, was never initially questioned.
Q E D.
UPDATE: Crap! Foiled again. On to the next round, I guess...
It seems I'm a participant in an unfolding scandal. I was under the impression that I'd have more time to prepare a statement, but it seems the story is breaking faster than I had expected it would, prompting me to hurry this post out the door. Please excuse any typos, spelling mistakes and/or bad grammar. (My grammar is so bad that one time, she rode her Harley right into an IHOP and demanded a "Rooty-Tooty Fresh and Fruity" or she'd tear up the place.)
Entertainment Weekly contributor Sean Gleeson recently made some allegations incriminating tabloid newspaper The Sun in yet another scandal over the Bad Boy Prince photograph they published. The Sun has printed a retraction, apologizing for the timeline mistake, but Sean maintains that editors at the paper willfully manipulated the photo in question, increasing Miss Natalie Pinkham's chest size dramatically.
Sean's allegations were based on "impossible shadows", which I determined to be nothing more than the natural behavior of light on 3D objects. (Or, in this case, boobs.) Sean demanded video evidence to back up my assertions, so I decided to put aside all modesty and demonstrate the shadow-forming power of a pair of small breasts. Assuming I wouldn't be able to get permission from the owner of the only female breasts I have access to, I decided the only thing to do was use mine. If you've ever wanted to see me topless, now is certainly your chance.
In any case, because of my selfless actions, I'm now up for the prestigious "Sean Gleeson Researcher of the Century Award," which as of yet, has not actually been awarded to anyone before. Also coming with the award is a pint of Guinness, which due to not living in the same part of the country as Sean, I'll be asking he give to the charity of my choosing. (I choose the Oklahoma City Alcoholism Center.) Tomorrow morning, Sean will announce whether I've won it or not, but either way, it's going to be huge news. Heck, it's huge news already. I'm sure by now you've seen countless links to Sean's extremely influencial site from places like boingboing, digg, fark, slashdot, the Sun, and -- of course -- perezhilton.
Here's my little tribute to pop radio, composed from the "best bits" of Ashlee Simpson and Gwen Stefani's recent releases. I hope it makes your ears bleed as much as it does mine. (And I mean that in a good way; I don't actually wish harm to fall upon your ears.)
See, I never used to eat fast food. Never at all. I was lean, mean, and healthier than anyone I knew. Chicks dug me. My doctor wrote a paper on human bodily health using me as a benchmark for perfection.
Then I saw you eating all that delicious-looking food in your film Super-Size Me and everything changed. I had to have some. Then I had to have more. Now I can't go a day without eating greasy, fried, DELICIOUS food from any number of drive-thru eating establishments. The larger the portions the better. Hell yes I'd like bigger fries for just $0.39 more.
Thanks a lot,
p.s. "30 Days" is very enjoyable, even when I can see the hands of the editors shaping things according to the message you want to put forth.
I just saw defective yeti's post about the "ashtray mouth" campaign our tax dollars are supporting and was immediately struck by how awesome the picture he linked to is. I decided that I'd go ahead and quickly clean all the branding and text off the image so that creative individuals might put it to better use.
Called in every day, only to find out that my services wouldn't be required.
No jurors were required to show for 10 of the 14 days.
The day I did have to go (and ultimately do nothing but waste 3 hours), I got a neat little pamphlet from which I'll share with you now.
From the "Do's and Don'ts" section:
1. DO work out differences between yourself and other jurors through complete and fair discussions of the evidence and of the judges's instructions. DON'T lose your temper, try to bully, or refuse to listen to the opinions of other jurors.
2. DON'T mark or write on exhibits or otherwise change or injure them.
4. DON'T draw straws, flip coins, or otherwise arrive at your verdict by chance, or the decision will be illegal.
8. DON'T try to uncover evidence on your own. Never, for example, go to the scene of an event that was part of the case you are hearing. You must decide the case only on the basis of the evidence admitted in court.
So basically, had I been called upon to serve, I couldn't have actually acted out any of my TV jury fantasies anyway. What a bummer.
I don't think Family Guy is funny. Hopefully by the time we're through here, you won't either.
Sure, there's a really clever joke from time to time, but overall the entire show consists of out-of-context silly things that seem funny, due to the way they're juxtaposed with the actual plot-driven stuff. The kicker, though, is that those things are not funny by themselves -- they require the context-twist in order to seem funny. Really, it's just a terrible trick being played on you, the viewer.
See, the storylines actually aren't very funny most of the time and generally require "padding" to reach the full 22-minute running time. How better to spice up your unfunny, too-short storyline than with seemingly funny moments that can be inserted willy-nilly without any actual scripting? This juxtaposition of completely unrelated -- and probably manatee-generated -- out-of-context scenes is just a crutch the writers use to fill their otherwise unfunny timeslot.
Once you become aware of this technique, it is impossible to not be angered by the constant use of it -- at least if you're me.
In case you don't understand what I mean, or simply refuse to believe it, I've prepared a couple audiovisual aids.
I've taken the first half of a random episode off my PVR and edited all of the out-of-context things into a separate file, leaving us with a Family Guy storyline (unencumbered by random crap) and a bunch of random Family Guy crap (unencumbered by unfunny Family Guy storyline.) Everything that was in the first segment of the episode is in the two files; nothing has been lost except the opening credits.
If you've watched both of these files, you'll have seen that the contents of the episode simply aren't funny (or as funny anyway) without the context-shift, meaning that it isn't the show or writers that are funny -- it's simple juxtaposition that's making you laugh. One could take any out-of-context clip and place it within an episode of Family Guy and achieve exactly the same results -- which, many have argued, is exactly what the Family Guy creators do from week to week.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with liking Family Guy or enjoying the gimmick they use, I just think it's important that people understand the distinction. I would like to stop hearing about how hilarious the people that make the show are, though, at least until they stop relying on this lame-ass gimmick and start actually being hilarious.