[via LA Times, natch]

What started as a Web site that was intended to be a spot in which we as reporters (and consumers) could gripe about the state of reporting, news, politics, pop culture and sports has become a place where we gripe about the state of reporting, news, politics, pop culture and sports. So mission accomplished! USA! USA!

Yeah, yeah. We get a lot of crap for people not liking our points of view. What stuns us — though by this point, it shouldn’t — is how many people have opinions about the goings-on of this country — and other countries — without having any idea what the fuck they’re talking about. Just look at — let’s see — nearly any post and the comments that follow to see what we mean.

Some things we’ve learned:

• Jim Carrey’s not as dumb as we thought.
• The south is still fighting the Civil War.
• Everyone loves a good Sarah Palin post.
• Some people are so crazy that it’s amazing they can function.
• Virginia is for lovers, and Texas is for the batshit crazy (with a few notable exceptions, of course).
• Quentin Tarantino’s defenders, after coming across like dicks, can be kind of nice in a condescending way.
• Josh sunburns easily.
• Dave hates rednecks.
• Mexican Josh is a great addition to the team. (Also, he’s a real person, not just Josh in a sombrero.)
• Therapists love us. (Draw your own conclusions.)

So to our friends, thanks for being with us this year. There’s nothing like someone sending you a quick e-mail to let you know you’re “way off the fucking mark” but still agreeing to have breakfast with you Saturday to know that there’s still a way to have civil debate in this country. And to our detractors, we really do it all for you. So thank you. And fuck you, too.

Until last week, paleontologists could offer no clear-cut evidence for the color of dinosaurs. Then researchers provided evidence that a dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx had a white-and-ginger striped tail. And now a team of paleontologists has published a full-body portrait of another dinosaur, in striking plumage that would have delighted that great painter of birds John James Audubon.

“This is actual science, not ‘Avatar,’ ” said Richard O. Prum, an evolutionary biologist at Yale and co-author of the new study, published in Science.

Thanks, Dr. Prum, for that really insightful comment. Not only have you probably correctly judged that most Americans are dumb enough to associate science with Avaghey, but you’ve also proved you’re just cynical enough to add a buzzword into your quote so that maybe Google will point a few more readers to you.

And you, New York Times, are guilty of the same thing, and also of shitty news writing. Using a quote that has no place in the context of the rest of the story? And no explanation as to what the good doctor means? That maybe his stupid quote is a reference to the magical colorful fairyland of Pandora? Bleh.

Weak. Just plain weak. How about instead of cutting staff as necessary you cut everyone and start over? You’re really getting into LA Times territory here.

“In an attempt to ‘go incognito,’ I Sharpied the logo out on my sun visor so photographers would be less likely to recognize me and bother my kids or other vacationers.”

Yeah, you were attempting to be incognito. (See this post for our thoughts on that.) She then uses the word “incognito” twice more in her statement. Did she learn a new word and want to show off? Hey, LA Times: Here’s a trend story for you!

We’re guessing she didn’t remember how much she dislikes Asians, and was stunned so many live in Hawaii.

And no, that debate is not coming from World Net Daily or the LA Times (though to be fair, neither of those institutions really practices journalism). It’s coming from the BBC. The goddamn BBC! Oh, whither BBC?

We’re not making up the fact that the BBC actually asked the question: “Should homosexuals face execution?” Here’s a screen shot.

The best part is the follow-up. “Yes, we accept that it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an Anti-Homosexuality Bill being debated on Friday by the Ugadan parliament…” And we thought Uganda had come so far since Idi Amin!

Anyway, the BBC, doubtless in a drive to get viewers to its site, has missed the point. The point is not whether homosexuals should be executed for being homosexuals. The point is: What Western news organization in its right fucking mind would pose that question?

We’re all for freedom of the press because it allows us to write that Michele Bachmann is a lying, scheming, small-minded twit. With the caveat that the British press is not free as is the American press, there’s still a responsibility that an editor has to his readership: Don’t pander. Don’t incite. Don’t be part of the problem. By asking that question, an outlet such as the BBC gives the question a legitimacy that it shouldn’t have.

The rest of the BBC’s piss-poor debate fodder is as follows:

Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual ‘offences’ be monitored? Send us your views.

No, there should not be any level of legislation against homosexuality. Even the British government, late to the table as always, decriminalized homosexuality in 1967. What’s wrong with you?

So to our point: Fuck you, BBC. We’ll leave the final word with commenter “Gay Guy.”

Wow! What a terrible headline! That’s just…awful. So so so so bad. How do we know it’s bad? 1) It thinks it’s cute; 2) It’s trying too hard; 3) It uses, lamely, a reference to an apocryphal story about the first President; 4) It’s from the — wait for it — L.A. Times. That, friends, is a perfect shitstorm.

Read the original blog post here, and stay away from sharp objects and firearms as you do.

• Sixty-eight percent of Iowa Republicans view Sarah Palin favorably, which means Iowa Republicans are just as dumb as other Republicans, despite their fancy caucusness. CNN Political Ticker

• Homes sale rise from jack shit in September to better than jack shit in October and it means…something? Nothing? L.A. Times

• This is the lead story on the chicagotribune.com. No wonder journalism is doomed. Chicago Tribune

• Philippines still not safe 43 years after John, Paul, George and Ringo barely escape with their lives. New York Times

• Frank Rich gauges the Sarah Palin phenomenon correctly when so many have failed. New York Times
  

You fucking hacks. What’s wrong with the word “wrote”? Doesn’t have that I’m-a-douchebag quality you were looking for? Let’s be clear about something. The word “penned” immediately, in the context of having written anything, lets the reader know a couple things:

1) You think the person or subject about which you’re writing is, like, super important.

2) You’re a self-important asshole.

We know. How is that different from Some Country for Old Men, a site for self-important assholes? It probably isn’t, except when we’re writing with self-importance, we write better than you do. So there.

“Penned” doesn’t lend an air of writerly panache to your work. It lends an air of turds. Use the word “penned” when you mean “wrote” or “written” and you’re a — wait for it — hack. You’re probably also a pretentious fop and a total dickhead, just so we’re clear.

A search of the past seven days on the New York Times shows that the word is used by readers (big surprise) and bloggers (likewise). It’s not used in stories. Give it time, though. The newspaper industry has gone to shit so it can’t be long before the copy editors add “penned” to the AP Style guide.

Following are some examples of just how wretchedly and awkwardly the word “penned” sits in sentences. Writer, publication and any subjects are spared the humiliation of knowing just how shitty they are (or have been rendered), mostly because nothing can save them.

Guitarist [B.G.] composed most of the tunes on [the album], but drummer [S.Z.] penned ‘You Me Who,’ which might explain that crazy beat.”

Barf.

Lord Byron challenged his friends to each write a supernatural tale. Mary Shelley penned ‘Frankenstein’; the boys were not nearly as successful.”

You know, Mary Shelley probably did pen Frankenstein because it was published in 1816. You fucking hack.

Ugh. Continuing.

The tales were the first in American literature to give human characteristics to animals and were unique because of the heavy dialect in which Harris penned the tales.”

…in which Harris WROTE the fucking tales. Wrote! And while we’re at it, find a different word for “tales” so you don’t have to use it twice in the same sentence.

You know, I have to quit finding examples or I’ll go insane. Suffice it to say that none of the writers or reporters I came across in my travels were respected writers or reporters. The examples I found were written by hacks.

Christ, Fat America, why do you suck ass so?

And everyone out there is black, which in this metaphor means fat. You’re so fat that you wrote a book called Fat!So? You’re so fat your cereal bowl comes with a lifeguard. You’re so fat you got baptized at Sea World. You’re so fat the last time you saw “90210″ you were on a scale.

Are we cruel? Maybe. Are you fat? Definitely.

So we were reading the LA Times this morning (yes, we know: big mistake), and we ran across this story about — and we swear we’re not making this up — fat activists. These unapologetic fatties are working toward a day “when fat phobia becomes as intolerable as racism.”

Nice idea (not really). Problem: Your logic is retarded. You can’t change the color of your skin unless you’re Michael Jackson (RIP). You can eat less McDonald’s. Or walk up a flight of stairs. Or get off your goddamn Segway.

Before we blow a gasket bitching about these fatties, we’re going to get into this article, breaking it down nearly line by line.

Getting heavy people to feel comfortable in their skin, however ample, and focus on healthy behaviors is only half the fat-acceptance battle; the other half is getting society to make room for fat people.

Anyone notice that the lede sentence has a fat joke? “However ample.” And society’s going to need to make room, for sure. Because fat people are fat and take up more space than the rest of us. Because they’re fat.

Marilyn Wann of San Francisco is among the nation’s fat activists.

Yes, apparently that’s a thing.

She became passionate about defending the rights of fat people when she was denied health insurance based solely on her weight.

You know what else she’s passionate about? Pizza.

That same week, a guy she’d been seeing told her he was embarrassed to introduce her to his friends because of her body.

We understand why he feels that way.

“If I’d kept silent, I would be yielding to discrimination,” said Wann, who is 43, 5 feet 4 and 290 pounds, and considers herself a healthy, physically active person.

Now, we’re not doctors and neither is Wann, but we’re sure our doctors and hers would agree that “healthy” and “physically active” are not the best descriptors for her. Unless her physical activity is eating pies.

“I don’t think anyone should be excluded from love or rights based on weight.”

On this point, we agree.

So, like growing numbers of Americans[...]

– ha! growing –

[...]in recent years, she spoke up. She started a zine for fat people, wrote the book “Fat!So?” and helped pass an ordinance in San Francisco making it illegal to discriminate based on height and weight. She now does corporate training to promote fat acceptance in the workplace. She’d like to change two beliefs: that people chose what they weigh, and that weight equals health. Both are false, she says.

Except they’re not false. Sure, people don’t choose their weight, per se. But they do have — barring some glandular problem — control over what they put in their bodies and how often they move. Again, barring say, a thyroid problem, there’s a contrast between eating spinach, walking a lot and not being fat, and eating spaghetti bolognese, not walking anywhere and being fat.

Size tolerance, fat-acceptance activists say, should be right up there with religious tolerance, ethnic tolerance and gay tolerance.

Again, false. Again, we’re talking, for the most part, choice. We’re talking effort. We’re talking not drinking a milkshake every day. If a black person wanted to change the color of his skin, he couldn’t (except Michael Jackson). No matter how hard gay people try not to be gay — even Larry Craig and Charlie Crist — they’re going to be gay. And sure, you can go from being a Christian to being a Jew, but it’s a more difficult process than not stuffing doughnuts in your face.

“It’s the culture that has to change,” says Judith Matz, director of the Chicago Center for Overcoming Overeating. “I look forward to the day when fat phobia becomes as intolerable as racism.”

And we look forward to the day when litter becomes lollipops.

Joanne Ikeda is emeritus professor of nutrition at UC Berkeley, where she taught nutritional sciences for 37 years. She’s also a member of the National Assn. to Advance Fat Acceptance.

Oh, oh! And let us guess: She’s also fat.

“I joined NAAFA because I wanted to hear these people’s stories, and get insight into their experiences. When I heard people talk about going to the grocery store and having strangers take food out of their carts, I wanted to cry.”

In fairness, you shouldn’t walk up to a fat person in a grocery store and remove food from her cart. That’s really fucked up. Plus, it’s playing with fire.

Ikeda, who is 65, 5 feet 2 and 190 pounds with a BMI of 34.7, says others make unfair and untrue assumptions about fat people.

First, we were correct. She’s fat. Second, what’s this about unfair assumptions?

“People assume if you’re heavy, that you’re lazy, and that you have no self-control . . . . They think you’re stupid, and don’t exercise. If I could give one message, it would be, ‘Don’t prejudge.’ “

We don’t think fat people are stupid.

Most people feel ambivalent about fat people, says Lesleigh Owen of Monrovia, who is president of the Los Angeles chapter of NAAFA. “They think they should treat people well regardless of their size, but also view them as a big problem driving up healthcare costs.”

LOL! Big problem! Anyone notice this article is bursting with fat jokes?

Owen, who is 35, 5-feet-7 and 360 pounds, teaches sociology at Chaffey College in Rancho Cucamonga. She’s married and likes how she looks. She swims and belly dances. “I consider myself very healthy, and I think my doctor would agree.”

Which doctor is this? The one who killed Michael Jackson? We’d love to get your doctor’s opinion.

“When people say fatties are driving up the healthcare costs, I want to point out how arbitrary that is that they would single out that group and not the people who talk on their cellphones while driving, or who don’t wear helmets or seat belts, or who drive too fast, or who are stressed out all the time. Where’s the hue and cry about them?”

OK, let’s stop being deluded. We understand that you think you’re happy with the way you look. But your delusion shouldn’t extend to rising health care costs and their links to obesity. That’s not arbitrary. It’s fact. And as for your ridiculous suggestion that there’s no uproar about any of the other things you mention, here’s an article about banning texting while driving. Here’s a statement about wearing a fucking helmet. There are 49 states with seat belt laws. We’re guessing there was a hue and cry about those things, because rarely do laws and ordinances get passed because everyone’s cool with, say, drunk driving. As for an outcry about driving too fast, really? Really? You’re throwing that in with being fat? Are you fat? You sound fat.

“It’s true, we shouldn’t judge people by their weight,” says Janet Pregler, director of the Iris Cantor-UCLA Women’s Health Center and a professor of clinical medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. “Obesity is not their fault. But it isn’t true that we should stop trying to help them.”

We agree. We suggest you start with Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food. His simple suggestion: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” There, we just helped you. And, Dr. Pregler, “Obesity is not their fault”? Categorically? Again, we’re not doctors, but that seems disingenuous.

Meanwhile, folks like Wann, Ikeda and Owen are trying — not for thinness, but for overall good health. Not for personal acceptance, which they’ve achieved, but for more acceptance from society. And they’re gaining it — slowly.

Of course, they’d probably gain it faster if they weren’t so fat. Or did cardio.

Sure, cupcakes are delicious (again, duh). They’re also bad for you. Like, super fucking bad. So why not export the fat and sugar to Jordan? After all, Queen Rania’s a fan (rumor)!