A fair and balanced compendium of spontaneous exclamations and excited utterances, with 22 entries on the front page.

And, now, Home of the YATSASS™ Reports

Yet Another True Story About Stupid Studies:

Wednesday, January 25, 2006


Maybe He Needs the Money?

How does he offend me? Let me count the ways...

The real estate mogul and TV star said on Tuesday he was suing an author who wrote that Trump was not a billionaire and pegged his net worth at no more than $250 million.


Donnie! Donnie! Lend me your comb! And, shut up!

- 30 -



Saturday, January 21, 2006


His prerogative?

"The New York Daily News reports that R&B singer Brown, 36, told friends that he plans to file for divorce from Houston, 42, after several years of an infamously tumultuous marriage."

Yeah, that's the ticket, Bobby is finally cutting that dead weight loose.

In other news, the New York Stock Exchange told friends that it thought prices were too high, and it was planning to cut the Dow Jones average by a couple hundred points, Heather Graham told friends that she only planned on doing one episode of Emily's Reasons Why Not, and the producers of West Wing mentioned that they were thinking of giving network TV the heave ho.
- 30 -



Friday, January 20, 2006


YATSASS: Smart healthy people choose foods more wisely than stupid drunks

Actually, that's my conclusion. The scientists in Copenhagen seem to think that Wine drinkers choose healthier foods. Of course, what can you expect from researchers working in a town named after chewing tobacco? Here, you read, you conclude:

They tend to buy more fruits, vegetables, olives, low fat cheese and cooking oil than beer drinkers who are more likely to consume ready meals, soft drinks, sugar, sausages, lamb and butter or margarine.

"This study indicates that people who buy wine purchase a greater number of healthy food items than those who buy beer," said Professor Morten Gronbaek of the National Institute of Public Health in Copenhagen.

I'd tend to agree with you, Mort. That is if I stopped reading your report before I got to the end. See, when I got to the end, I found this, which, I might remind you, Mort, was written by you, Mort:

Gronbaek said wine drinkers tend to be educated, healthy and lean or they are middle-aged women who drink moderately while beer drinkers are less educated, healthy young men who have a higher alcohol intake.

So, doesn't that really tell us ( you and me, Mort) what this study really said? I know that it makes sense, but please, Mort, don't let that stop you... could it be that educated, healthy lean people eat healthy food, and that, and I am refering to your report here, less healthy men who drink alot eat more crap?

I think we both know the truth, Mort. That's really what you figured out, isn't it? But that would hardly be worthy of publishing, would it? Except of course, here.

- 30 -



What are YOU looking at?

Hats off to Google for having the stones to stand behind their famous Do No Evil motto. While Yahoo, MSN and countless other gutless geeks have handed over their database records to the Feds just cuz they asked, Google has stood up and said, No. Make me.

You may not be aware of this, and thank Google it's been brought to your attention now, the White House (actually, the moron who lives in it) issued a subpoena last summer demanding a list of all terms that were searched during one week - tens of millions of searches, and a list of one million randomly selected web addresses.

Now, this demand is not only obnoxious and noxious, but also over reaching, inappropriate and probably illegal. And I'm not just talking EFF/ACLU, I'm talking private enterprise, big business and Big Brother. Here's why:

Let's look at the second part first - kind of a W way of doing things anyhow - the million randomly selected web pages. Can't the White House just do this itself? Stupid question come to think of it. This is the same White House that needed to have someone to load up W's iPod for him. But, heck, after that trained Internet professional finished that 6 minute job, couldn't he have surfed a million sites for the Prez with the remaining 39 hours and 54 minutes in his government job work week? But, in all seriousness, aren't those million web sites, to the extent that Google, or for that matter MSN, Yahoo, you or I have them, proprietary intellectual property? If the White House wanted to know more about commuting, could they subpoena a million cars from General Motors? Or, more on the point, if the White House wanted a million random phone numbers, could they make AT&T provide them, or should they just get out the phone book? Why should a private enterprise be forced by law to provide their goods to the governmment?

On to the first part: while the White House says it isn't yet (yet added by me) seeking data that ties personal information to the search requests, that doesn't mean they won't eventually. I know that holocaust analogies are trite, if not offensive, but that notwithstanding we must observe that the Nazi's didn't start out by exterminating Jews. First identify, next assemble and transport... step by step, inch by inch... got it? Next thing you know, they'll be listening to our private phone calls and scanning our emails...say what?... they what? ... you don't say! (well, you better not say on the phone, I guess ) ...damn! Once again, it would seem that the White House has done the second part first.

So, until some judge somewhere sides with all things decent, I have a favor to ask from all freedom loving, privacy cherishing, private enterprise supporting people everywhere: could you please, please, please, click one or more of the buttons below?



America thanks you.
- 30 -



Thursday, January 19, 2006


YATSASS: Stressed Out Moms Think Their Babies Are Annoying

This just in from YATSASS, Department of the Obvious:

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Mothers with a history of prenatal drug use who are stressed out by parenting are known to view their babies as more reactive, and as having a more difficult temperament. Now, a new study shows that this is as true for stressed-out moms with no history of drug use.

Yessiree folks, Dr. Stephen Sheinkopf of Brown Medical School in Rhode Island must have been so afraid of perishing that he found the wherewithal to publish one of the most unremarkable findings in recent memory. He actually determined that mothers who think their babies are difficult, will expect them to be difficult in the future and will be stressed out about it...

an infant's behavior at 1 month of age predicted both the mother's ratings of the infant's temperament at 4 months and the mother's level of parenting stress. This was true whether or not the infants were exposed to cocaine in utero, Sheinkopf and his team note.

This was also true of blue-eyed, green-eyed and brown eyed babies, and of moms of all cup sizes. It also would appear that the mothers' choice of orange juice style [lots of pulp, little pulp, or no pulp] had no effect on their perceived levels of stress. It may be a bold extrapolation (but, really, what other kinds are there?) however I'd venture to guess that shoe size, dominant hand, and choice of pronunciation of the words 'tomato' [ t&-'mA-tO and t&-'mä-tO] and 'often' ['o-f&n and 'of-t&n] also had no bearing on the outcome, although the word 'potato' [p&-'tA-tO, p&-'tA-t&, b&-'tA-tO, b&-'dA-tO, b&-'dA-d&] may be significant. Or it may not.

But you gotta love the good doctor's conclusion:

Sheinkopf added that "though this is not a treatment study, it would suggest that moms should seek out help and utilize help out there to be happy, successful, well-adjusted parents."

This is darned near YATSASS perfection. Here we have a call for yet another stupid study, and a qualified conclusion rolled in to one. I think what Dr. Dave was trying to say was Get Help?

- 30 -



Tuesday, January 17, 2006


Tourette's case shows holes in disability law?

No, I don't think this case shows holes in the law. In fact, as long as this law does not apply to this case, it shows a tad of common sense, in an otherwise bleak landscape of stupid federal acts. If the Americans With Disabilities Act did protect the right to whoop and curse in a movie theater I'd begin to wonder if your freedom to extend your arm really does still end at the tip of my nose.

Let's take a look, shall we?

A thirteen year old kid goes to a movie theater in New Hampshire, on the day after Christmas, to see The Chronicles of Narnia. Now, given the time and date, I'd have to believe there were a whole bunch of families there, all excited to see and hear the story of the lion, witch and wardrobe. But this kid suffers from Tourette's Syndrome; she whoops and curses uncontrollably at times. This particular time was most inopportune as many of the theater's paying patrons complained to the management that someone was screaming and swearing and the titles hadn't even finished running on the screen.

The theater manager took this poor kid out to the lobby where they spoke, and, according to the manager, the kid decided to leave - she was not told she had to. But, what if she had been told to shut up or get out? Isn't that what everyone in America is supposed to do in a movie theater, whether they have a disability or not? Nope! Not according to the ADA - in fact, it would appear that had the kid screamed and cursed just a little more, she could have had a nice fat judgment against the theater, instead of just a rain-check for a private screening.

According to the US Department of Justice, protection under the law depends largely on the severity of the syndrome. Spokesman Eric Holland wouldn't comment on Irizarry's case, but said others with Tourette's syndrome have won civil cases under ADA bylaws. "Not everyone with Tourette's meets the definition of a 'person with a disability,' because the condition may not substantially limit the person in any major life activity," he said.


Now I may not be as sharp as Judge Alito, but it would seem to me that means that the more noise you make, the better your chances of being protected under the law. Great! Apparently, while you still can't yell Fire! in a crowded theater, you might be able to yell Fuck!, as long as you do it enough.

What's next? Ski areas have to provide wheel chair accessible ski lifts? How about retrofitting playgrounds so quadriplegics can use the monkey bars?

But things are gonna get dicey here, and this law will come around and bite us all in the butt (Ass! for you Tourettes sufferers.) I mean look. If everyone with any disability is allowed to inconvenience and disturb everyone else under the law, here is where we go: The deaf and hard of hearing (I mean auditorilly challenged people) should be able to insist that the sound be turned up to a volume at which they are able to understand all of the dialog. But, mind you, under the law, only the most deaf among us would have that right - so we're talking top volume. And speaking of talking, wait until the visually challenged people get into the act: certainly, the theaters should be required to provide free assistance to them, in the form of personal narrators who could describe the on screen action to them. And the mentally impaired? Certainly there should be an interpreter provided to 'splain it to them. [ in a snide aside, it would seem that most of the body builders from Revere and Medford already have that, but they're called girlfriends ] Naturally, they'd all have to speak quite loudly - not just the body builders and their girlfriends - which might upset the deaf people, who would once again need the volume turned up.

But then again, maybe that's not the problem. It could be the solution: all the whooping and hollering of the Tourettes patients might very well be drowned out!

- 30 -



Friday, January 13, 2006


Alitosis

Main Entry: Alitosis
Pronunciation: &-lÈ-tO-s&s
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Latin halitus breath, from halare to breathe

: a condition of fetid stench, hanging in the air at the Senate Judiciary Comittee Hearings into the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States, as a result of hyperventilation by Democrats and Republicans alike. More at Bork Breath. Condition may be treatable with Sca-listerine
- 30 -



Wednesday, January 11, 2006


YATSASS: Kenneth, you're all wet. But in the afternoon I'll be alert...

Hats off to Kenneth Wright of the University of Colorado at Boulder. He has managed to waste his time and our money studying groggy and hazy people. His conclusion: it is worse to be groggy upon awakening than it is to be groggy from lack of sleep.

Praise the lord - finally an answer to the question that's been...hmm... keeping me awake at night. No, wait, dammit... now that I can get to sleep it's going to be worse, according to the study:

"We found the cognitive skills of test subjects were worse upon awakening than after extended sleep deprivation," he said.

Very interesting... but shtoopid! as Arte Johnson used to say.

That befuddled feeling usually lasts for at least a few minutes but may be detectable for up to two hours, Wright wrote in a report published in this week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I wonder if that befuddled feeling can be diminished with, oh, say, maybe... coffee? Would Starbucks be willing to spring for me to do a study? [see, I'm catching on to that private enterprise funding thing...]

The findings are relevant to emergency workers such as firefighters, or for truck drivers and resident doctors who must spring into action after awakening from naps. A groggy driver is accident-prone, and a hazy doctor might make a mistake calculating a drug dosage, the report said.

Perhaps, but I think not, unless we are all to remain in our sleep deprived or just awakened states in perpetuity.

But, even though I've not yet asked 16 people, and have received no funding, I think I can pretty safely assume that a person who has just awakened will not be in that state for very long, whereas a person who is deprived of sleep will remain that way and worse, unless and until they do sleep. Which of course will then, somewhat alchemically, transform them from sleep deprived to awakening.

Wright's study of 16 subjects found the most severe impairments were evident on performance tests taken during the first three minutes after awakening from an eight-hour sleep.

Huh? Wha? Hey-turn-out-that-light! Oh, uh... I'm OK now...

So really Mr. Wright, if I understand what you're telling me, is that if I am to receive an injection from a doctor, it would be better to get one from a resident on the tail end of a double, than from a doctor who just got out of bed. Right? But what happens if I wait 3 minutes? The doctor is 3 minutes more awake, and the resident is 3 minutes more sleep deprived. Heavy! What if they both have a cup of joe?

Man! This is deep!

Ken Wright! Here's mud in yer eye. The first YATSASS of 2006

With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill and Bessie Braddock.
- 30 -



Tuesday, January 10, 2006


I'm Pretty Sure They Meant "Grayscale"

For reasons irrelevent to this, I found myself at the Reading Public Schools' web site, where I found a link to a document describing a Martin Luther King Day celebration. Name of the document:

2006_MLK_Flyer_black_and_white.doc

Dunno, seemed kind of ironic to me.

- 30 -



Saturday, January 07, 2006


I LOVE Pat Robertson

As long as this guy lives, no one can ever properly accuse me of saying the most outrageous, pigheaded, narrow minded, bigoted, stupid, outlandish, wrong headed, imbecillic, provocative, race baiting, self serving, or downright dumbest thing ever.

No matter what I say or do, Pat will top me. Almost daily.

Do you realize that Pat Robertson is God's punishment to America for being such a lazy, intolerant, self indulgent and self righteous nation?
- 30 -



Sunday, January 01, 2006


Happy New Year - Dick Clark's Creepy New Year's Eve

Happy New Year. I've had a bottle of cheap champagne, so forgive me if the following is offensive or insensitive; then again holy effin' cow - that resolution didn't even last a minute!

Was that Dick Clark thing tonight creepy or what?

I mean, let's take a look at reality: most people younger than I am don't even know who the hell the guy is: go ahead, ask them; he's the host of TV's Bloopers or he's the really old New Year's Ball drop dude.

To most people older than I am, he's the devil incarnate - the man who brought Satan's music to America. Whatever happened to Rosemary Clooney and Guy Lombardo? Now all we have is hip shaking, frugging, watusiing, and worse.

To most people my age and slightly older, he's the guy who put his name on Chuck Berry's songs, put Philadelphia on the map, and until recently, must have had a portrait of himself in an attic somewhere where looked like he was about a billion years old.

Because he is, about, a billion years old. It was always my generation's joke that Dick Clark never aged. Band Stand, Pyramid, Bloopers, New Years, whatever... Dick Clark never aged. He always looked great. He was always... Dick Clark.

Well, this year, he did not. And I don't mean to be cruel... I'm just completely freaked out. I had heard he'd suffered a stroke. I had recently heard that Regis was going to do the ball drop instead of the Teflon Dick, and had to admit that I was a bit disappointed when I heard that bit of news.

But, seeing Dick did nothing to make my New Year's Eve rockin'. He slurred. He stuttered. He sputtered. Sh*t! I thought he was Harry Caray!

Did he really want to be there? Did he know he was there? It was like watching Muhamad Ali at the SLC Olympics... just exactly why did someone feel the need to wheel him out, yet again?

Clark and Ali. Once icons; once counter culture heroes; once guys on the edge... but now... going the way of all flesh. Is this what we need on New Year's Eve?

The kids don't know who he was. The elders never liked who he was. We, in the middle... the boomers... always had mixed emotions. Yeah we liked him - and we hated him. The more we truly loved rock and roll the more we loved AND hated him. But did anyone need to see him tonight? I don't think so.

It made me feel a lot older than I am. It made the older people feel really old. And it just plain old creeped out the kids.

Can we make a resolution that for New Year's Rockin Eve 2007 we will not see Dick Clark (or Ryan Seacrest?)

[p.s. The Bangles still look and sound awesome. Susanna still has that eye thing going on. Made me feel young again. Did you catch the FMP's on Hilary Duff? Good lord, I really feel old now.]
- 30 -



© 2002-2008 Rob Falk, All Rights Reserved. All Wrongs Denied.
Your mileage won't vary; it will be less.
Subscribe to Rants!

addtomyyahoo4
Subscribe with FeedlySubscribe with BloglinesAdd to netvibes
Subscribe with SubToMe

...with other readers:

original feed View Feed XML

Subscribe by E-mail


And, if I'm broadcasting from my Phone, here it is:

Current