Quick jottings

Okay, just checking out CNN.com for 2 seconds, I got completely pissed off. The first blaring headline says, "White House dismisses assassination call" - so I instantly think that there's some nutball out there who's gonna kill the president. Turns out that they were only amplifying (by denying) Pat Robertson's message that Hugo Chavez (Prez of Venezuela) should be killed. So what does CNN do? Show a picture of Chavez and Castro with the caption, "Chavez (left) and ally Fidel Castro in Cuba today" like they're BFF or some shit, still hellbent on communism taking over the world. Who believes this shit anymore? 1989 called, and they want their communist conspiracy theory back. And here's the lead paragraph, which CNN displays on the front page:

Bush administration officials today disavowed Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. His vice president, Vicente Rangel said Robertson's comments were "criminal." Robertson -- founder of the Christian Coalition -- labeled Chavez "a terrific danger" bent on exporting Communism and Islamic extremism.

I don't know when Castro and Chavez decided to convert to Islam, but CNN was obviously on lunch break when it happened, else it would have been a "breaking story" - I mean, this isn't the axis of evil here, only two leaders trying to feed their fucking people. Oh yeah, and Venezuela has a lot of oil. But I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with it, so don't even bring it up.

Okay, and believe it or not, something ELSE pissed me off on CNN - what the hell is this headline, "Bush raps anti-war protesters"

He's RAPPING them?? He can be rapping to them, or rapping with them, or rapping at them (though that could arguably be "spittin' at them"), but he cannot rap them. I suppose he could also WRAP them (in affection...or garbage bags).

You know, as long as I'm dissing CNN, I may as well go whole-hog. Another sidebar/headline says, "Observers fear violence will rise with gas prices" - when I first read the headline, I was thinking of UN observers, or someone else in an offical capacity. Turns out they were talking about "homies on the street" observing a rise in the amount of beat-downs administered because people are pissed about high gas prices. Nothing like being poor to whip that blood into a boil, eh? No struggle but the class struggle! And here I thought they were talking about insurgents.

Oh, and the last headline, which wasn't even lame enough to be quoted in this blog, was about new fuel economy rules. They'll be fully implemented in 2011. The sub-headline reads, "GM, Ford get lift from new fuel standards that splits light truck segment into six sub-categories." - sweet heavens to Betsy! SIX damn sub-categories??? I didn't realize there were six different models of light trucks out there! Well, I'm glad GM and Ford are at least getting a break, as they can afford the expensive moving costs of moving all our manufacturing jobs overseas. Gas is expensive, isn't it, Ford and GM? Maybe your customers feel the same way and you shouldn't have to rely on the government to push your pokey little behinds up to a halfway-acceptable fuel economy? Instead, you wonder "gee, we just finished our marketing blitz, why is no one buying our cars"? While the car-buying public says, "gee, I just went to the dealership, and these new cars have the same fuel efficiency as our old one. I'd love to spend 5 figures on a new car, then continue to throw away the same amount of money at the gas pump!"

Okay, I'm at work, so I really shouldn't be getting all "worked" up! hahahaha, I'm so funny. Remind me not to look at the mainstream news ever again, please.

/end rant