Grr. A couple of days ago I came up with an idea of doing a parody of the 9/11 conspiracies in the comment section of Hot Air and was about to create a whole Loose Change like video with me trying to break steel with ice cubes and trying to cause a plastic ship (plastic is even weaker than steel) to break in two by dumping a whole bag of ice on it.
Now I see this has appeared today.
My video was going to be much more awesome, but now my thunder has been stolen so why even bother. This is why I need to be able to do this stuff full time so I can’t be beat to the punch like this. You people need to figure out a way to make blogging more profitable for me.
We’ll work on this soon.

(click to embiggen)

[pic via One Digital Life]
What I really don’t understand is why anyone would own a python that wasn’t named Monty.
But I guess the bigger question here is: why was there a snake in the Google offices in the first place?
I speculate thusly:

---

• Satan trying to tempt Google away from its “don’t be evil” philosophy. Didn’t realize the Chinese had beaten him to it.
• Mr. Jingles, the official Google office mouse, has peed on the CEO’s keyboard for the last time!
• Google’s “Toilet Internet Service Provider” feature clogged up and they got confused when the plumber asked for a snake.
• Part of Google’s new ad campaign, “So easy, a python could do it!”
• Samuel L. Jackson themed party took a bizarre, yet not wholly unexpected, turn.
• Needed a lawyer to advise them about the pre-Katrina Google Earth images scandal. That’s as close as they could get on short notice.
• Determined to find out once and for all whether it really tastes like chicken.
• Snake had to be silenced before he could tell the world the horrifying truth: Google Search is people!
• Came to complain because Google Language Tools doesn’t contain an option for Ophidian
• It came with the stripper.

---

As far as I’m concerned, anything that distracts Google from its main business of tweaking its search algorithm to filter out conservative content is a GOOD thing.

That’s the third highest ranking member of the U.S. government being submissive and respectful of the sensibilities of a terrorist regime actively fighting our country.
It’s just a bit too serious an offense to make a joke about.
…at this moment.
UPDATE:
To be fair, I should mention she only wore the hijab while in a mosque and did make the sign of the cross at the tomb of John the Baptist, but it’s the picture that tells the whole story and is what the rest of the Middle East will see. In the end, this trip will be nothing but a photo-op for the terrorist leaders of Syria.

Have you voted in the straw poll this week?

It would be bad if a certain presidential candidate thought we didn’t like him.

I saw a story about how global warming is threatening many species of animals with extinction, which got me thinking: Why should we care?
I was going to write a list of all the plants and animals that we could do without, but then I realized it was pretty much all of them. It’s actually much shorter to write a list of plants and animals we actually have a use for, as, when you really think about it, it’s not that many.
USEFUL ANIMALS
To be honest, we don’t actually need any animals as we can survive on plants alone, but here are the ones that we get by far the most use out of:

What do all these animals have in common? They’re completely useless!

1. The Chicken: It was hard to choose what animal is most useful to use… and it came down quite literally to an issue of taste. The chicken wins because its used in so many different dishes as well as producing the egg which is used for just as many different recipes. Also, it’s small and compact and easy to raise. Thus I declare the chicken the most useful animal (other than humans). And how many chickens are there in the world? 80 jillion billion? No chance of it going extinct.
2. The Cow: I like steak. I like cheeseburgers. I don’t particularly care for milk, but it is needed in lots of recipes I like. So the cow gets spot number two. I don’t know how many cows there are, but obviously there are enough of them to threaten the planet with global warming due to their gaseous output. Of course, they like it warm, so bully for them. Once again, extinction threat is zero.
3. The Pig: I’m surprised I ended up putting the producer of bacon all the way down in the number three slot, but, because the previous two each produce two kinds of food, the pig simply loses out. Yes, the pig is smart, but we’re much smarter. It’s not like Arnold is going to come up with a unified field theory. They’re only use to us is food, and they fulfill that role well. And (you’ll begin to notice a pattern here), there are a jillion pigs out there and of no threat of extinction.
4. The Dog: He may be man’s best friend, but, if I had to choose between him and chicken, steak, or bacon, I’m afraid he loses out. Now, since we’re civilized, we don’t eat dogs, but they’re the only service animal out there that hasn’t been completely replaced by modern technology. We have better transportation than the horse and better ways to scare Romans than the elephant, but the dog still wins on bomb and drug sniffing versus our best technology. Also, if you want someone to lead blind people around all day without getting bored, no better option than the dog. For guarding purposes, they often get over zealous, but that’s still good for certain situations. As for possibility of extinction, ask any pound and they’ll tell you we actually have far too many dogs.
5. The Tuna: I felt I should put some fish on here, so I went for the versatile tuna. Good as a gourmet meal and an everyday sandwich. The top three animals beat all fish hands down, though. As for chance for extinction, I have no idea other than there always seems to be more than enough cans of them at every supermarket in America.
And, I think that’s absolutely ever single animal we might ever have a use for. Any other animal you can think of might be fun to have around for some reason, but, if you’re honest, you’ll admit they’re not actually useful (or, at least, not replaceable by modern technology). I know some people will be upset I left out cats, but, come on, they’re completely useless. And I don’t consider companionship a use since you can get that from other people. Any pest control they do can be better done with modern traps and poisons.
I assume one day we’ll be able to process plants into meat without the animal in between, and then we’ll pretty much never need animals ever again. Currently, veggie burgers are horrendous, though.
USEFUL PLANTS
Plants are still needed because they can turn dead matter, water, and sunlight into food and get oxygen from carbon-dioxide — things we can’t seem to do too efficiently ourselves. The thing is, every single plant does those actions, so it hardly matters which plants survive as long as some do. Here’s what we’ll want to keep:
1. Grain: I’m not going to bother to list every plant that we eat, but the core ones are all more than abundant and have absolutely no chance of going extinct. I mainly just want them to feed to the chicken, cow, and pig so they can naturally process plants into more tasty material.
2. Trees: Most things we make of wood can be better made with synthetic materials now, but wood still has some use beyond sentimentality. You can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a tree, so no worry of them going extinct in general. As for trees most useful for wood, the lumberers know which ones those are and plant plenty. I honestly don’t find fruit bearing plants that useful, because fruit is not that filling a food or as essential as grain and corn. It’s a luxury and not useful enough to make this list.
You’ll notice with plants that we plant plenty of all the ones we find useful — and those also tend to be the more rugged plants. There is no chance of essential plants going extinct or of us losing so many plants we don’t have enough oxygen (at least before we can have technology replace plants at oxygen production). As for the aesthetic value of plants, just go buy a painting from Wal-Mart.
OTHER USEFUL ORGANISMS
It’s my understanding that there are a number of microscopic organism we need to survive, but there’s like a billion of them on each of us so there’s no chance of us running out of them. Also, since I’ve never seen an environmentalist never miss a chance to yell about something but I’ve never seen one yell about a microscopic organism going extinct, it’s my guess that microscopic ogranism pretty much never do go extinct. They’re tiny and there are billions of them; we can’t even wipe out a specific species if we tried — at this point in time, at least.
So, that’s about all the life forms we currently need or have great use of. I can’t think of any insect we actually need — and I pretty much hate all of them.
Anyway, one day we’ll make technology that can do all the functions of plants even more efficiently and then nanotechnology can replace microscopic organism. At that point — I say within the next hundred years — we’ll have absolutely no more use for the “environment” or the “eco-system” as they call it. Those slave chains will have been cast off.
Some argue that we can’t let things go extinct because then future generations won’t get to experience.
That argument is pure rubbish.
Dinosaurs, the most interesting animals ever, have been dead for millions of years, and kids do just fine reading about them in books. For those of you who really like plants and animals and want to be a pack rat about them, take a few pictures and a few DNA samples of the ones you like and then they’ll be preserved for all time. I think its a pretty reasonable assumption that sometime in the future we’ll be able to resurrect any animal from a DNA sample, so I honestly don’t see why we worry about extinction at all.
I guess this whole post is just a long way of saying that, if you’re logical about it, environmentalism is nothing but a huge waste of time and energy on something of waning importance.

“No, you’re a dork!”

As most of you have probably figured out, I don’t know anything more about the issues than you; I’m simply much much smarter than you and thus can analyze things much better with that little information. Still, I can’t quite figure out why in the world I’m supposed to care about this prosecutor scandal. As I understand things, every president fires all the federal prosecutors (or whatever they are) at the beginning of his term and hires his own people. What happened here is that Alberto Gonzales fired some later than that and put Bush “cronies” in their place. Instead of admitting the reason of firing them was to hire cronies, he gave weaselly answers.
Now, the Democrats, who haven’t legitimately cared about anything other than their political prospects since the first couple weeks after 9/11, and pretending they care about the fate of a couple Republican lawyers. They want Gonzales fired for some reason that I’ve never quite understood.
I don’t like either the Democrats or Gonzales, so it’s just hard to motivate myself to follow this stupid thing. On the other hand, it’s been in the news a while so it seems like I should at least understand what it’s basically about.
So, is this nothing wrapped in nada, or, by ignoring it, am I fiddling while our republic burns?
I always wanted to learn to play the fiddle.

Kenneally’s Irish Pub in Houston has a message for Al Gore:

Click to biggie-size the image.

After much speculation and months of waiting, the DNA results are in. At long last the name of the father is now known.
Is it Larry Birkehead. Is it Howard K. Stern? Is it the Prince?
Is it Larry David? Is it Howard Stern? Is it Prince?
The answer, at last, is known, and the answer, at last, is here. Here at IMAO the news source everyone turns to after all other sources are exhausted.
You will probably not believe it, in fact you may not be able to comprehend it. The answer may in fact anger you to the point of sheer, utter, complete and total madness.
The name of the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby is….

Continue reading ‘DNA Results Are In!
Anna Nicole Smith’s Baby Daddy Confirmed!’ »

If there’s one e-mail I constantly get (other than “What does IMAO stand for?”) it’s people complaining about the guilty feeling they get from viewing all the free content IMAO contains. What they always say is “I just wish there were more ads I had to view on your site in exchange for the posts.” Well, quite uncharacteristically, I listened to you and added a new ad.
It’s a banner ad and sometimes it’s animated. Yay!