Simon FitzKit...In The Field!

Can You Google

January 3, 2009
Leave a Comment

While trying to find out the answer to a burning question of mine last night (namely “Can you sacrifice a creature and simultaneously regenerate it in Magic: The Gathering?”), I began to type the question verbatim into Google.
In the past, I’d have used the search engine specifically built for that kind of search format, but I’m still mourning the loss of their mascot (previously mentioned here), and I can only assume he has not yet escaped the carbonite.

So I began typing into Google, and –helpful search engine that it is– it popped up a list of the most likely searches that begin with the words ‘can you.’ Let’s take a look-see, shall we?

Top result by far: Can You Run It, as people try to find the website of the same name that automatically tests your computer and tells you if it meets the minimum requirements to run almost any computer program/game, a site that has a nearly impossible url to remember ( and thus must be googled for. …Although to be fair, maybe people thought that url was for the Bobbitt-fetish site: Can Your Unit.

Can You Spot the 44th President refers to the now fairly well-known Obama-win drawing:

I love the fact that this was almost certainly drawn over at least a few days’ time, as the artist just held his breath and crossed his fingers that his art would be relevant and not just an eternal What-If of a .psd file.

And then there’s the ‘Can You Get Pregnant’ questions. I would love to see those searchers’ google ads these days.

…Or maybe not.

But more than anything else, I like to imagine that all 10 of these searches came from the same person. I actually wouldn’t be surprised…Bristol.

…Oh, and for those who are wondering: No, you can’t. You’re welcome.


Word up!

October 3, 2008
Leave a Comment The world’s foremost word-mapping program. So cool. I made the ones above, but this one’s currently my favorite:

Man By Your Stand

October 3, 2008
Leave a Comment

I hate talking about politics so much. I know so precious little about the intricacies and double-binds that obviously go into every single sentence fragment uttered by the Big Dogs that I can never hope to make a rational and calm argument about anything vaguely connected to the topic.

But that’s okay because talking about politics is like that for everybody.

Imagine you and someone else are having a discussion about politics. When you’re two people who disagree about the issues, you quickly fall into snarking at one another’s failings in debate tactics and personal hygiene. When you’re two people who agree about the issues, you fellate each other’s egos until you find some tiny point you disagree on and …GOTO Line 20. (Sorry; Q-BASIC joke)

But here’s the thing I’m really sick of: calling out candidates for voting against bills about stuff they say they’re for (and vice versa). Rider clauses. Fricking rider clauses will do this argument in nearly every time; you go to vote for a bill as a whole, and people will tack on completely unrelated rider clauses to force opponents of the “main” clause to be FOR the bill as a whole (and vice versa).

But nobody thinks about rider clauses because they’re all so niggling and annoying that it’s hard to keep track of them.\

So I propose every government official open an Excel Spreadsheet right now and start a Three-Reason List: For every bill you vote(d) on, every addendum you attack(ed), every single piece of legislature that crosses/crossed your desk, you list your top 3 reasons for that decision. Then, when someone attacks your tendency to flip-flop, break out your reasons, and you won’t have to play the “Conditions had changed” Vaguery Card.

* If one of your top three reasons for voting for/against a bill is “was paid by Big Tobacco to vote that way,” you still have two reasons that you can say out loud. More importantly, it’s all in Excel, so you can Sort Data by “Reasons”; if you can’t easily count the “was paid by __________” entries, perhaps it’s time to consider some self-policing.

* Have an extra column describing what “Proposal 245a-40991z” actually was about. This will save time in the short- and long-term.

* Use the list to remind yourself of whether you were for or against the war, abortion, tax cuts and government reform. Because, let’s be honest: sometimes you just forget that kind of thing and let your aide sit in and vote for you.

I Guess Jihad To Be There

May 31, 2008
1 Comment

Dunkin’ Donuts ran the following ad, starring Rachael Ray holding some coffee in a park:

It apears to be very harmless. However, it apparently caused an internet blogosphere meltdown in which Dunkin’ Donuts was accused of supporting terrorism. As reported in The Independent:
“The offending item, though, is the scarf, which reminded one blogger of the keffiyeh head-dress worn by Arab men, an item which a second blogger – picking up the theme and running several miles with it – dubbed ‘jihadi chic’. The Little Green Footballs blog, a conservative favourite, accused Dunkin’ Donuts of ‘casually promoting the symbol of Palestinian terrorism and the intifada’.”

And Dunkin’ Donuts pulled the ad, causing ANOTHER blogosphere meltdown, as bloggers called the company cowardly for caving “in the face of an out-of-control conservative blogosphere.”

(PS: ‘blogosphere’ is a fun word, isn’t it?)

Out of control? Maybe, but obviously, we can all agree it wasn’t out-of-control enough. Let’s remedy this situation forthwith.

(turns around and centers self, then quickly turns back around)

What. The F. Has Dunkin’ Donuts gone crazy? A little too much of their Arabic blend? This ad is a blatant promotion of terrorism! Look at that scarf Rachael Ray is wearing; it’s a f**king keffiyeh head-dress worn by Arab men! Arab MEN. And she, a woman, is wearing it out in the g*dd*mn park, like she isn’t cowering from God and men’s sight! Put some f**king clothes on, you whore of Babylon (i.e. Babylon in Iraq, you terrorist!) By putting Rachael Ray in that keffiyeh, DD, you’re offending Americans who don’t want to see some kind of g*dd*amn Hamas fashion show…but you’re also offending Arabs who’ll see this ad, think, “That woman is wearing a man’s headdress around her neck, and it isn’t because her husband’s choking her with it! Crossdresser! Abomination! Abomination! Abomination! I’ll bomb a nation!”

And terrorism will ensue.

But that’s not all. Some of my distinguished blogosphere associates have stopped at the jaunty heretical scarf, but not I. No, the men behind this advertisement are unbelievable in more ways than one. They said in their “apology” yesterday, “The possibility of misperception detracted from its original intention to promote our iced coffee.”

“Iced coffee?” ICED COFFEE?!? Sounds like, ‘Iced Kofi’ –as in Kofi Annan, ex-UN Secretary General, who is currently on the board of directors of the UN Foundation– and it is outrageous for Dunkin’ Donuts to blatantly be recruiting terrorists to assassinate Kofi Annan in an online ad like that. Now, my blogosphere enemies (I’m looking at you, Rene Duquesnoy Joomlas on your Ass!) might say that there have been thousands of ads for iced kofi, and I’ve never spoken up before, but I say to you, SHUT UP! Those ads were distasteful, yes, but not necessarily proterrorist.

This ad is special because of all the secret visual handshakes it’s giving to terrorists. Look closer. There’s a building in the background, an American landmark of enormous importance to the citizens of our great country, and it is being highlighted for destruction. I hope our military and law enforcement services are on-site at that building…wherever it is (maybe that’s a gold statue of Jefferson or something? Is it maybe the Holocaust museum? Help me out, blogosphere cohorts!) It’s an American treasure though, regardless of what building it actually is, and Dunkin’ Donuts is outright commanding terrorists to bomb it to kill Kofi Annan, and Rachael Ray is there so they know they’ll only have a 30-minute timeframe to work with.

And under the logo, what does it say? AMERICA RUNS. “On Dunkin'”? Perhaps. “From terrorism”? Definitely.

(…Maybe if I click on ‘Find A Store’ it’ll tell me where that building is.)


Okay, I’m done.

Whoa-whoa-whoa, Barack Up A Second!

January 29, 2008
1 Comment

I don’t think people understand equality any more.

From the video (for when the video is taken down at some point in the future):
“They have found themselves a good Negro, and so they’re going to vote for him. Now that’s the kind of Negro… ‘Now Jesse Jackson…Look over there at…’ –Here’s what all those middle-America white folk are saying…Here’s what they’re saying, all those liberal bleeding-heart white folk…here’s what they’re saying: ‘Jesse Jackson, look over there. Now if you’ll be a good boy like Barack and don’t talk bad to us, don’t smart-mouth us, don’t talk about us, don’t say nothing about us, we’ll vote for you too. See, Barack’s a good Negro.'”

So now not bringing up race is being a race-traitor? A bright new future boils down to repeating the horrors of the past? I’m sorry, Mr. Honorable James David Manning, but you’re not helping The Dream out any. You’re saying you want to be separate, that being a black politician demands that you denounce white politicians at every turn. That’s separation from white folks, and I’m pretty sure I heard your father and his friends looked down on that sort of thing a few years back.

Of course, I also heard that politics was about making friends with as many people as possible so they like you and your ideas enough to completely fill in the bubble next to your name on any given Tuesday… but maybe I’m getting American politics confused with a popularity contest or American Idol or something similarly exactly-like-American-politics. So, you’ll understand if I’ve been working under the assumption that making people not like you is a good way to get people to not vote for you.

But then, I shouldn’t really expect that kind of consideration from you, since you do have videos on your site titled “Reverend Manning Repents” and “Sing O Ye Barren” — and both of them do begin with a short speech by a young woman identified thusly:

Not the kind of thing you want to associate with “barren” or “repenting” is all I’m saying.