The School Knows Better Than You Do

Goodbye, sweet America. Can't figure out what to feed your own child? Are you addled brained of a parent that you're going to need someone else to decide what you child should and should not eat? Well, if you answered yes to those two questions AND if you have a child and they are currently attending (or going to attend) Little Village Academy in Chicago, then you are in luck! That's right. That's because the Little Village Academy in Chicago has decided that you have no idea how to feed your kid properly and therefore they have banned "...students from bringing lunches from home altogether."

That's right. It doesn't matter if you want to pack your kid's lunch. If your child attends Little Village Academy, you can't. According to the Chicago Tribune, "...students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria." NOT ALLOWED to pack lunches from home. In the land of the free. All right then. How...how...why is this? Well, because the school knows better than you, silly.

The principal, a one Elsa Carmona, explained that "...her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices." By telling folks how to parent. By telling them that they CANNOT choose what their own child eats. By taking away their freedom to raise their child how they see fit. All right then. This is asinine. Oh, and in case you were wondering what sort of meal they will be providing the children with for their own protection, please see the photo below. It is alleged that it is some sort of "an enchilada dish". Behold!

Oh, man. Kid, I feel for ya. Ms. Carmona claims that she created this policy six years ago. The reasoning? She saw students bringing "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips for lunch. Oh, no! Flaming hot chips! Soda?! The madness! She goes on to say that "Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school." Right. Because parents are completely incapable of packing a nutritious lunch for their children to eat. Those poor dumb, dumb parents. She also says that "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception." Wait. She what?

She would make an exception for kids with allergies or some sort of medical issue? You mean, the school doesn't know how to handle things like that better than the parents do? Why not? They seem to know what's best for every other kid out there when it comes to feeding them. Why can't they execute that same sort of care for the ones that really need some help? If you answered because this is an asinine policy to begin with, please come forward and claim your prize.

And in case you were wondering who pays for all of this, let us go to the part of the article that really aggravates me. It explains that "Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch." I see. Soooo...let me get this straight. By doing this, someone actually makes money. By taking away the freedom to choose, someone is profiting off of it. Huh. And the money that someone makes comes from where again? The federal government, was it? Yeah, OK. And that money comes from where again? OH. That's right. ME!

How many times do I have to point out to morons that this stuff happens ALL THE TIME. This isn't a "free" program. It's paid for by the taxpayers! Federal taxpayers! When did it become everyone else's job to feed someone else's kid?! I didn't sign up for that! I can think of about a hundred different ways that I would like my federal tax dollars to be used and not one of them involves feeding school children in Chicago! (And most of them don't include the many, many ways our tax dollars are already being pissed away, but I digress.)

Fortunately, there are some voices of reason with this issue. A one J. Justin Wilson, who is a senior researcher at the Washington-based Center for Consumer Freedom, which is partially funded by the food industry, said "This is such a fundamental infringement on parental responsibility." Do you think?! Oh, sorry about that. He seems to be on my side. Never mind. I meant, yeah! It's an infringement. (I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Fundamental infringement. It sounds a little more responsible than "moronic" or "asinine".) He also asks the sadly rhetorical question of "Would the school balk if the parent wanted to prepare a healthier meal?" Hard to say, being as how they've banned lunches from home altogether, but I'd still like to know their answer.

Another voice of reason on this topic seems to come from a one Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach who is an "education policy professor" (whatever that is). She commented on the issue of the cost of requiring students to eat a school lunch at the cost of $2.25 a day. "We don't spend anywhere close to that on my son's daily intake of a sandwich (lovingly cut into the shape of a Star Wars ship), Goldfish crackers and milk". That lady is awesome. How cool of a mom is she? I want to know what Star Wars ship. I'm guessing the Millennium Falcon. Her son probably doesn't like crusts, so she cuts them off in a cutesy way. I like her. She's fun, she's reasonable and she's right. $2.25 a day for a school lunch? You can definitely bring a lunch from home for considerably less.

And while not all schools in the Chicago area have implemented this policy that you and I pay for (funny, I don't feel like I live in Chicago), others have come up with their own equally ridiculous policies. Take the Claremont Academy Elementary School on the South Side. Over there you can bring a lunch to school, but the school "officials" will "...confiscate any snacks loaded with sugar or salt. (They often are returned after school.)" Right. That makes perfect sense. Because the kid won't eat it after school. Noooo. If you're not eating it at school, it takes all of the fun out of it! But do you know why they do it? If you ask Principal Rebecca Stinson she'll tell you that "...most parents expect that the school will look out for their children."

If that last quote doesn't horrify you to your bones, then I can't help you here. Sure, I expect schools to "look out" for children when the children are there. But when I think of being "looked out" for, I think of the school keeping the children safe...and not safe from a Cheeto! Next thing you know, they're going to want to tell the kids what to wear, what doctor to go to, etc. And what, exactly, happens on the weekends when the school isn't around to guide these completely soft-headed parents in raising their children? What are they going to do? How will they know what to choose? Where is the school when we need it?! Holy crap. I think I made myself sick typing these last few lines. Goodbye, sweet America. With policies like the ones described here, we are not only doomed, we are screwed. We are so scroomed.

Jingle All The Way

I know that we live in an overly litigious society. And I know that it is completely out of hand. Both of these facts I am well aware of. So why am I so surprised when I see such a ridiculous result of the accumulation of those two things?

I wish I had the actual video/commercial to post here, but I can't find it online, so you're just going to have to rely on my stellar gift of colorful storytelling in order to understand what it was that I saw tonight. Once you understand that, you'll definitely understand why it was so ridiculous. The incident in question was a commercial for Degree antiperspirant or deodorant. One of those. Maybe both. It was definitely Degree, though. The premise of the commercial was simple. They had a bunchy of women (it's apparently a female under arm remedy) wear what was essentially a bracelet of jingle bells. (They used the term 'jingle bells'. Not me. Bells would have sufficed for me. We're not at the North Pole.) The idea was to get the women to realize how much they moved around all day long. Apparently, they would have had no idea of that were it not for the jingle bells making noise on their wrists.

Listen, I don't care if you're a man or a woman, but if you don't realize that you're moving all over the place all of the live long day, you are incredibly unaware of yourself. Might I suggest a class? Do you really need jingle bells on your wrists like you're some sort of wayward feline to point out that you have a busy day and are constantly moving? Personally, I don't. But the morons at Degree think that we do. And they think that some of the things that we do when we're going about our day are things like catching cabs, roller blading and folding laundry. (OK, she was fluffing a towel over a balcony, but I think that it was supposed to represent folding laundry.) The point here is that the whole commercial was ridiculous.

But here's the kicker: As they start to show their jingle bell wearer montage, a little footnote/caption thing pops up at the bottom of the screen. Guess what it said. Just guess. Here, I'll help you and give you some clues. People roller blading...getting in a cab...fluffing a towel...possibly doing some laundry...come on! You see the connection, right?! No? Do I have to spell it out for you? Fine. At the bottom of the screen it said (wait for it): Do not attempt.

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Are you freaking kidding me? Do not attempt...to fold a towel? I don't get it. Are the Degree people so afraid of being sued that they need to put that sort of a disclaimer on the advertising for their product, lest some crazy woman out there decide to get in a cab one day after seeing it on TV? Do not attempt?! Do not attempt every day actions? No one was on fire or anything. Do not attempt what?! To understand the commercial? Done! We are so freaking doomed. Doomed!

Flying High

More drug smuggling. More things I don't understand. Seriously, how do people think that they're going to get away with such an asinine plan? More importantly, how do they even attempt to pull it off?

Case in point is these two dimwits who got arrested at Lima's international airport on Saturday. According to Yahoo! News, a one 37-year old Roxana Laercia and a one 28-year old Michael Eguonoghen were trying to board a plane. The problem is that most airlines have a problem with you bringing illegal drugs onto the plane. And they don't care what amount of drugs that you have. Drugs on a plane are frowned upon. That's why I'm guessing that those folks were none too happy when this chick tried to board with 24 pounds of cocaine that was stashed "...between her clothes". I'm afraid to ask how they found out that the guy had swallowed 3.3 pounds of heroin capsules.

HOW on earth does one shove 24 pounds of cocaine "between her clothes"? Twenty four pounds of anything is a lot of that thing! Think of a five pound bag of flour. They're heavy, right? Of course they are! They're five pounds of freaking flour! Now, substitute cocaine for the flour and try toting around five of those bags. Good freaking luck! And swallowing 3.3 pounds of anything is a lot of something to swallow. Wouldn't it have been easier for him to simply shove it up his out door cavity? I don't know if my stomach could handle 3.3 pounds of something in it. That's like thirteen Quarter Pounders. Granted, you couldn't get me to eat even one Quarter Pounder. I was merely making an analogy. It's a lot of heroin to down at one time!

Anyway, they got arrested and I got confused. It's not that I don't understand why people smuggle drugs. I do. I don't understand why they do it in such dumbass ways like the one described here. Oh, wait. They do drugs. That explains it. Don't do drugs, kids. One minute, you think you're just taking a harmless toke off of a joint. The next minute, you're downing 3.3 pounds of heroin and hopping a Peruvian plane to London. That's no way to go through life, son.

Royal Wedding Ridiculousness

If you're looking for a blog where the author is crazy into the upcoming royal wedding, you've come to the wrong place. Even if you're looking for a blog where the author gives just a half of a rat's ass about the upcoming royal wedding, you've come to the wrong place. I don't think it would be possible for me to care any less about the soon-to-be nuptials of a one Prince William and his future bride, Kate Something. But there are some people who are all over this outdated sort of crap. And there's plenty of ridiculous memorabilia to mark the occasion. Apparently, there are people who buy this sort of stuff. I don't know who, but considering that they're even interested in the royal wedding at all, I guess I wouldn't put anything past them. People like that should be closely watched at all times. The woman below, who allegedly has the largest collection of royal wedding memorabilia in the world, also allegedly has a jar of sweetened milk that allegedly contains one of Princess Diana's hairs. See? She should be watched. Closely. Very closely.

Are people still buying porcelain thimbles? You can buy a Kate What's-Her-Name one if you want. I guess it could come in handy if you lose the little silver one that comes with Monopoly. I don't see the point in a regular thimble, let alone a porcelain one.

Feel like a little break from your college classes and want to chuck a Frisbee around for a while until Poli-Sci 101 starts? You could own this lovely William and Kate Frisbee and prove to all of your buddies once in for all that you likely have no testicles. I don't even think that dogs at a dog park would chase that. Do you like things that are completely outdated? You know, like the outdated concept of having a king and queen to rule over the land? If so, then you're going to love this lovely royal wedding commemorative cell phone that looks to be a leftover from somewhere around the year 2000. Will you be so excited about the royal wedding that you're just going to have an impossible time curbing all of the carnal feelings that will surface? Do you hear the words "royal wedding" and immediately get turned on? If that's the case, you'll be happy to know that you can go shagging in royal wedding style with these lovely "Crown Jewels" condoms. According to the box, they are "Lavishly Lubed" and "Royally Ribbed". They make me majestically miffed. I wonder if the lady with the princess hair milk has these?

Want to do a little teabagging after the royal wedding? What's that? Teabagging means what?! Oh, good Lord! That's not what I was referring to! I was talking about a simple cup of tea with these barely recognizable William and Kate tea bags. Behold!

What's worse that regular garden gnomes? You guessed it. Weird, royal wedding garden gnomes. I'm really not sure why these are considered royal wedding memorabilia, as there is nothing that stands out about them for this particular occasion. Sure, we know their British by their distinctive hats, but there's really no indication as to who these gnomes might be portraying. Whatever. The people who buy this sort of stuff don't seem to have a lot of sense to begin with, so I doubt that it's going to matter to them.

And finally, I have run across two items that I could possibly see myself making some use out of. One of them I could see myself purchasing and the other one I could see myself using. First, the one that I would shell out my hard earned money for. It's an ale called Kiss Me Kate. I don't care what's on the outside of the bottle, beer is beer. It could be Jeffrey Dahmer Draft or Jared Loughner Lager and I'd still drink it.

And finally, the item that I would probably get the most use out of. It's a barf bag. You know. Just in case you've had about as much of this royal wedding talk as you can take and you find yourself throne up. It would probably also come in handy if that pun caused you to feel just a little bit nauseous there. I don't blame you.

Donald Trump: Birther

As if Donald Trump wasn't whack-a-do enough, he has now come out with a rather birther-like stance about President Barry and his birth certificate. I guess this is getting press because allegedly Donald Trump is thinking about running for president. I don't really think he's going to, but I think he likes to be out there, stroking his own ego, and let others stroke it as well. (Yes, I know what sounds like, so keep your comments to yourselves!) I'm going to get behind what Jon Stewart told Extra TV when Stewart was asked what he would think of it if Trump did run for president. "A gift from God. That is, if he's to continue this, it would be a gift from God. He would be, in fact, gold-plating my living room. I'd be excited to see him do that." And while my living room wouldn't end up gold plated like Mr. Stewart's, I'd still have one heck of a good time with that one as well.

It came to light on 'The View' last week that Mr. Trump was more of a nutjob than I had previously thought. Personally, I can't watch 'The View'. All of those shrews talking at the same time in those shrill voices? And offering opinions based upon absolutely nothing other than their estrogen? No thanks. But I did catch the clip where The Donald said that he had "a little" doubt about whether or not President Barry was born in this country. He said something to the effect of there must be something on his birth certificate that he doesn't want people to see. He also thinks that it is weird that no one remembers him from early in his life. Where to begin?

First of all and for what I wish was the last time, he already has produced a copy of his birth certificate. There was also an announcement in the Honolulu newspaper after his birth. And finally, if there was anyone on the planet who would prove that he was not born in this country and thus ineligible to be president, it would be Hillary Clinton. Do you really think that she didn't have every single resource at her disposal working on this issue when she was campaigning for the Democratic party nomination? She wanted to be president so bad, she would have done just about anything short of murder in order to get it. (And really, I'm not even so sure that was ever off the table.)

But back to The Donald. Now, in an "exclusive" with Newsmax, Donald Trump has "...released his birth certificate" in an effort to...um...well...I don't know what the point of that was. One of the "points" that he makes is where he states "I went to the best college and I was a great student, and it is inconceivable to my brain that no doctor, no nurse, nobody has stepped forward to verify the birth, other than the governor. He remembers? The governor? A birth 50 years ago? Come on. He’s taking a bullet for his party." Oh, for cryin' out loud! Really?

That's the best that he can come up with? First of all, President Barry is 50. It would not be inconceivable for the people who were in the delivery room with him to be dead at this time. After all, his parents (who were a fairly integral part of the process) are dead. And I find it absolutely insane that when the governor says that he remembers the birth of Barack Obama (if that is what Donald Trump is referring to there) that it isn't good enough! That's what Trump wants, isn't it? For someone to come forward and say that they remember? Someone did! But on top of that, you know why it doesn't matter? Because he already HAS produced his birth certificate! What part of that don't those people understand?! (By the way, strangely enough, people have talked about remembering his birth. You can look at this article over at Snopes.com. Feel free to pass it on to Donald Trump if you happen to see him.)

But back to Donald Trump's birth certificate! When President Barry did provide a copy of his birth certificate, it looked like this:

OK. There it is. Also, there was this announcement (49 years ago) that appeared in the newspaper:

That's good enough for me. But Donald Trump, in some sort of weird effort to prove something, releases his birth certificate and it looks like this:

Are you kidding me!? THAT is acceptable to Donald Trump as something that proves someone was born in this country? I could make that on Photoshop in less than ten minutes! I could probably do it in less than five minutes provided that I already had a template and a nice star sticker on hand. Is it filled in with pencil? What the what is that anyway?! I have never seen a birth certificate that looked like that. Are we sure that Donald Trump was born in this country? What's underneath that sticker? What is he trying to hide?!

I find it amusing that this is still an issue with some people. Granted, I find it more annoying than I do amusing, but it's still amusing none the less. I guess that people don't realize how ridiculous they sound when they talk about not believing that President Barry was born in this country. They also don't seem to realize that when you sound like a gigantic fruitcake, it does very little to further your cause. That is, unless your cause is furthering fruitcakes. In that case, you're golden. But in the real world, you're a bit of a doofus, Mr. Trump.

It's Not A Threat, Nancy!

You might want to have an ice pick handy with which to use to stab out your ears when you listen to the clip below. What we have is the insufferable Nancy Grace, who still has a cable TV show for some reason. If you're unfamiliar with this woman, her show goes something like this: She doesn't listen to anything that anyone has to say. She will argue with her 'experts'. She has no intention of presenting both sides of any story. And she also seems very pleased with her own act. She seems to be a horrible woman, which is why I don't watch her show.

But I did run across the clip below where she is arguing with a one Bernie Rayno who is the senior meteorologist (take that for what it's worth) at something called Accuweather.com. (As I perused their FAQs, I learned that they have ads on their website to keep their content free. That's normal. I also learned that they feel that there is nothing wrong with 2 pop-up ads every five minutes. That's not so normal.) He is trying to assure Nancy Grace that there is no reason for people on the California coast to be panicking about any radiation from the damaged nuclear reactors in Japan making its way over here in harmful amounts. She does not want to be reassured. She wants to instill fear into the hearts and souls of those softheaded individuals who are actually watching her show and listening to what she says. The interaction between the two is below.

I do enjoy how the weather guy seems to know that she isn't going to want to hear anything that he has to say if it would involve calming the fears of people who are so out of touch with reality that they are actually afraid of something like this. And as for her declaring that the governor of California has declared a state of emergency, Mr. Meteorologist hit the nail on the head (though I wish he could have hit her on the head) when he exclaimed, "For radiation?!" And alas, his disbelief is warranted, as the state of emergency was issued because of excessive rainfall in some areas. I'm not quite sure what she gains from setting off a minor panic amongst the dullards of this world, but she seems to really enjoy herself.

Governmental Light Bulb Clean Up

Basically, the government has decided that it knows what light bulbs are best for the public to use. Therefore, the regular light bulbs that we've all grown to know and love since the days of Thomas Edison are out and those damn curly, swirly CFL bulbs are in. That's right. Sometime in 2012, you will no longer be able to choose which light bulb you want to use. This in the "Land of the Free". I understand that the new ones will save you a minimal amount of money over the course of the bulb. I also understand that I am the one who pays my electric bill. And as long as I pay for it, why does the government get to tell me which bulb to use? Besides, I hate the light that comes off of those swirly things. It's too fluorescent for me. It's a very harsh light. I'm a rather delicate flower in some areas and the light in my home that I bathe myself in is just one of those areas.

Another thing that you're going to say goodbye to? Cleaning up a broken light bulb without having to follow a series of directions that spans over four pages and requires just about everything except a Hazmat suit (and I'm sure that one would actually be preferred). I'm not kidding. What we have here is a document that appears to be put out by the Connecticut Department of Public Health and is entitled: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs What To Do If A Bulb Breaks Wait. What now?

I would have thought that the answer would have simply been "Sweep it up". Oh, no. No, no, no. That's the old way of doing things. The new way is much different. And of course, different is better. And since this is the ONLY choice for a light bulb that you're going to have pretty soon, I suggest you pay attention. You're going to need the following:

• Disposable gloves
• Flashlight
• Duct tape or other sticky tape
• 2 index cards or stiff pieces of paper
• Zip-lock bags
• Damp paper towels or rags
• Portable window fan (optional)

That's right. Six items. Or seven if you're going to utilize the option of breaking out your portable window fan. But don't worry. Considering that you're supposed to leave the area that the bulb is broken in for at least fifteen minutes, you'll have plenty of time to gather your supplies. And before you do any of that, make sure that you "Turn off forced hot air heat, central air conditioners, and fans." And "Open windows to allow fresh air in." Oh, but don't do any of this if you're pregnant. If you're pregnant, you are specifically instructed to not do it and to find someone else to do it for you. You're also supposed to keep infants, small children, women who are pregnant and pets out of the room...if you've broken a light bulb.

In cleaning up of the shattered bulb, you are not allowed to vacuum or sweep and for heaven's sake, don't use a metal dust pan. (They don't give any reason for not using the metal dust pan, but I suspect that spontaneous combustion is involved.) No, you're supposed to pick up the big pieces with your gloved hands and then use the index cards to sort of scoop the other pieces into piles and then you use the sticky tape to pick up those pieces. Shove all of that into a ziploc bag when you're done and seal the crap outta that sucker, lest you succumb to...something.

Once you're done with that, you're supposed to pat the area down with the damp paper towels or rags and then seal those and the gloves in another ziploc bag and put them both "...in an outdoor trashcan immediately" as "Getting the waste out of the house right away is an important safety step." And even though you've been all safe up to this point, it's also imperative that you "Wash your hands and face after the waste has been removed from the house." Also, Continue to ventilate the room for as long as possible (at least several hours)." That's right. Hours. (Hey, it helps exhaust the "dirty air' out of the building!) I don't know about where you are, but winter gets a little chilly around here. I'm not so sure that I want to ventilate my room for several hours in the middle of winter. Sooooo, try to only break bulbs during the warm weather months.

That's just the cleanup for hard surfaces. For rugs or area rugs, there is a whole different set of instructions which span a couple of pages. And one of the things that they mention is that if you break one of these CFL bulbs on an area rug is to consider disposing of the entire rug! Oh, and after all of this is cleaned up and you've changed out of your Hazmat suit, remember that "...pregnant women and young children should stay out of a room where a CFL has broken until several days after the clean-up." Several DAYS?! What in the world is IN these things?! I'm really not thrilled about having this toxic item in my home when my regular bulbs (the ones that I pay for and that I pay for the energy that they use) work just FINE! I am going on a regular light bulb shopping expedition in the coming days as I stock up on enough regular bulbs to last me for the rest of my life. Which, if they keep coming up with asinine restrictions on items that I can and cannot use in my own home, is going to be in the very near future.

You Can't Review What You Haven't Seen

I am constantly amazed by the incredible myriad of idiocy that I have to choose from every day in order to write something in this little box. And for today, from the file of "Who Thinks This Is A Good Idea?" and under the sub-heading "Who Thought Up This S*** In The First Place" we have this: Movie reviews by people who have not seen the movie.

I kid you not. I am not dry shaving you. This is a real thing. I was checking out Fandango.com yesterday because I wanted to read the reviews for the newly released Mars Needs Moms. Regardless of what the reviews turned out to be, I had planned on seeing this movie because it is based on the book by the incredibly amazing and insanely talented, not to mention rather the witty and quick with a quip Berkeley Breathed. If you're unfamiliar with Mr. Breathed's work, I suggest you stop whatever you're doing right now and wonder what you've really accomplished in your life up to this point. The answer should be "Not nearly enough, as I have missed out on the awesome humor and keen insight of the Bloom County comic strips and the subsequent Sunday strips, Outland and Opus." In short, your life has been wasted. But there's still time to save it! (Not much time, really, but I try to be optimistic in situations like these.)

So there I am at Fandango and I click on the Reviews tab. As I began to read, I noticed that some of the reviews were strangely opinionated. So much so that it was if they hadn't seen the movie at all. And that is when I discovered that they hadn't. See, Fandango let's you review movies if you haven't seen them. I have absolutely NO idea why that would be. I am open to suggestions, however. What good does someone's opinion of something that they've never seen do for me? Not a thing, I'm thinking. But let's look at some of the reviews by people who have never seen it and see if I'm wrong. Maybe there IS something to be learned from people merely giving an opinion based on pure speculation gained from doing nothing. (There won't be, but play along, will ya? I need to draw this post out a little bit.)

Let's see...oh! Here we go. Here's one that reads: "I am so excited about this movie! It is going to be hilarious!! I love the book, so this should be epic!!! Yay! :) " Um, OK? Yeah, I loved the book too, but that doesn't mean anything. You know what other books I loved? The Cat In The Hat. The Firm. How The Grinch Stole Christmas. The DaVinci Code. Were they epic? Hardly. Were they hilarious? Kind of, but they weren't supposed to be, so that really wasn't a selling point. What boggles me ever more is that four out of six people found this "review" to be helpful. Helpful? In what way?! She hasn't seen it yet! She's merely excited! THAT is "helpful" to some folks? For cryin' out loud...(Then again, four out of nine people found a review that simply read "No no no!" to be helpful, so I think it's fair to say that we're beyond help at this point.)

Next we have: "Havent seen it yet but i just no its going to be tbe biggest peice of crap anyone is ever going to see so dont watch it." This individual is apparently a cinematic clairvoyant. Too bad that all of the studios can't just hire him to look at a poster of a movie that they've made and give his opinion on the degree to which it will be a piece of crap. (ie, Big, bigger or, in this case, biggest.) And if he says that he can no that it will be such a sizeable piece of poo without having watched it, who are we to not heed his warnings?

Here is more speculation, only this time, it appears to come from a child. "I think it'll be a so so movie. I think the idea is a little too crazy, but I think people will enjoy it. It'll be good for moms because the kids ( about my age ) will learn to obey their moms. For the kids, I think they will love it for it's humor. I'm not completely sure about that, but I'll just have to go to find out!!!!" Really? You think the idea of a kid having to go to Mars to save his mother who has been kidnapped by Martians is a little too crazy, do you? Interesting. I'd never thought of that. (This is really wearing me out more than I had anticipated.)

From someone who seems to have just barely mastered the English language (and perhaps, even more recently, his way around a keyboard): "Don't go. This movie doesn't look that good to watch. I mean, I've seen many cartoons and most are good. I just don't think this one will be as good." Lots of cartoons are good. Some cartoons are bad. This one doesn't look good. Well, it doesn't look as good. Well, it doesn't look that good. To watch, of course. Maybe it's good if you're not watching it. But this looks bad. (Isn't this review kind of like saying, "I've had food. Most food is good. But that food doesn't look like it will be good food. Don't eat it. Even if you think it looks like something you'd like. It could be bad food that you won't like.") Never mind that it's not really a cartoon. I'm just thankful that no one found that 'review' to be useful.

And finally, from the Ironic Chastising Department: "People are funny. They write a bad review or rate a movie bad when they haven't even seen it.. Who writes a bad review based off the movie poster you're just an idiot. Go see the movie then you're allowed to say something. I'm sure this movie will be good and I'm sure the rating will change when people actually go watch it." Go to the movie and then say something. But make sure that you write your 'review' telling people that you're sure it will be good before you go see it. Yeah, sure. That makes sense.

Really, I didn't care what the reviews were, as I was going to see it regardless because I can't imagine not seeing anything that Berkeley Breathed does. (To say that I am a huge fan of the man would not even do my fandom justice. I met him for the first time just a couple of years go and I almost cried. OK, I cried a little bit in line while I was waiting. But I managed to compose myself by the time I got up there, lest he thought I was the star-struck moron that I was trying so desperately to hide.) But I was just amazed that reviews for something that someone hasn't even watched are allowed on a movie site. I could see if it were someone's two-bit blog or some crap like that. (In case you were wondering, this blog is clearly at least three-bit, so don't start expecting inane movie reviews to be popping up any time soon.) But on a site that is supposed to be giving information, not speculation, about movies? I find it asinine and annoying. And you can expect my full review of Mars Needs Moms after I've seen it.