Until today! While searching for something on a totally unrelated music topic, I spotted this headline off on the side of the website I was looking at.

Pete Doherty Jailed for Six Months Over Drugs Charges.

Oddly enough, that was what triggered my initial rant back in 2007. He was jailed for drug charges and it was on the back page of my newspaper and….who the *&$*&! is Pete Doherty?

When I looked at my archive here at the blog, I had made a bet of $50 that he’d be dead by 30. Well, if I had truly put the money down I’d have lost. He’s 32 now. Still, if he doesn’t get himself cleaned up at some point, the next headline will be…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101027/od_yblog_upshot/very-early-photographic-images-of-humans-discovered

The article itself is very interesting if you’re interested in photography and the history of photography (or just history in general). The earliest known photo of a human is from 1838. The photo in this article was taken in 1848. What’s got me in an uproar is the stupid comments people post. I mean, seriously, people are idiots! And they have access to computers and they post comments on news stories on Yahoo!

Here’s a fine sampling of the collective IQ on commenters on Yahoo…

“Please look at the human figures very close. Why is it that it appears that you can see all the way though both figures. I belive that we maybe looking at 2 ghost here. Anything is possible you know.”

“whats so important about this picture i mean its just some ppl like they have never seen them before”

“this is a non-story”

“Why is this rellevant?”

You mean relevant? Well lemme tell ya why!!

For those who know nothing of the history of photography, even in the most general of terms, this is an interesting find. Early photographs were mostly of stationary objects for a reason, as it took several minutes for the images to expose on the photographic surfaces being used at the time (ie, metal).  Most folks back then, and probably most of us even now,  would not want to sit still for several minutes for their picture to be taken (I believe exposure time in early photography was upwards of 10 minutes, or longer).

That’s why this is relevant. The two people at the river’s edge there had to have been standing there for several minutes while the picture was being taken. They appear ghost like because they didn’t stay put during the entire exposure time, but long enough for them to show just enough on the film.  

Have you ever seen an old photograph, from the Civil War and after, of people and they aren’t smiling? You think things were really depressing and dire back then right? In many ways they were but the real reason why people didn’t smile in those early photos was because the exposure time was so long. Think about it. Could you hold a smile for 10 minutes or more for a picture?

Thus, I end my complete and total rant against humanity.

Because women’s magazines just seem to scrape further and further along the bottom of the barrel.

I don’t read them often and the only time I do is when I go to the hair salon (which is only a couple of times a year), as there’s nothing else to read. So recently I’m at the salon and I’m flipping through this magazine called Women First (or maybe it’s First for Women or something) and was essentially bombarded with articles and images that reinforced the outrageous idea of the perfect female figure and essentially told me, directly and indirectly, that I was worthless.

If that wasn’t bad enough, there was ad on the inside cover for a new TV show called Huge premiering on ABC family (June 28th) that centers around an over weight teen being sent to the fat farm for the summer. The photo was of the young woman to star in the show, in a one piece bathing suit looking just a little uncomfortable.

Meanwhile the rest of the magazine was full of women in bikinis showing off fabulous figures all with articles about how they obtained these outrageous proportions. Nice tans, flat stomachs, gorgeous legs with not a single spider vein and all of them tall and lean and beautiful!

A real feel good issue for the start of summer, ya know? Phphtpt. I’m five foot four and … not lean enough for this magazine. But sheesh, y’all. Give it up! Not everybody can look like Kim Kardashian okay???

Even the story about a young up and coming female country singer had her posing in a bikini (in case you missed the cover photo). Then there was a weight loss ad with a “25 year old” woman posing in, what else, a bikini. (She looked just a little bit older than 25 tho’. Trust me. She wasn’t 25. Nonetheless, she looked great but c’mon, don’t lie to me about her age).

There was Kim Kardashian in an ad with some weight loss magic potion or something. And she was wearing…yup, yer catching on, a bikini! Then there was a section showing various female celebrities looking “stressed,” (as in, no make up, sweatpants, t-shirts and baseball caps – you know, looking basically like, um, the rest of us?) and then looking all dolled up (but not necessarily in a bikini, which I was surprised). Then there was a blurb about whatever the magic potion was that helped them get that way, (like, some concoction to put on the face to make the skin appear more even or tan or tight or fake or whatever.)

Then there was the highlight of the whole magazine. How to look good naked! The statistic in the article claims that some 75% of us females want to look better naked.

I must be in that 25 percentile because I don’t give a hoot. I got what I got y’all. It curves a little too much here, it’s a little too flabby there. I’m pale enough to be a geisha girl. Take it or leave it.

Keep in mind, I’m happy with the way I am and I know I look fine the way I am. My gripe is that as a culture and society we women beat the crap out of ourselves (and each other) for any and every little “flaw” these magazines can shine their brightest spotlight on. Belly fat? Boobs too small? Butt too big? Legs too short? Thighs too wide? Face too long? Well, guess what sweetheart? You suck!

Forget that. You wanna talk about nice curves and lean figures? Lemme show my latest issue of my favorite car magazine…

No. No, no, no, no, no. No. Just no. No way. NO. Absolutely NO!

What did NBC not learn from the Knight Rider remake attempt? Have they not noticed the pattern over the years with all the horrible film “remakes” of classic tv shows? And do they really think Steve Carrell, who was in the failed remake of Get Smart, is going to do anything for this project, more or less get it right?

What part of NO does NBC not understand?

After blowing up late night comedy as we know it, hanging Conan O’Brien out to dry and then loosing a fortune on the Olympics, what, prey tell, does NBC think it’s going to achieve with this Rockford remake?

They’re not.

I predict the show will not last for a full season. And that’s being generous.

As most of you know, James Garner is one of my all time favorite actors. I’m sure Mr. Mulroney is a fine actor, but no one, no one, can replace James Garner as Jim Rockford.

No one.

Well I couldn’t provide the utility or the phone bill because neither is in my name. My bank statement is an electronic statement and I wondered if they would accept this but it was all I had.  I downloaded the estatement anyway, printed it and mailed it off.

I got an email that it wasn’t acceptable as it did not show my bank’s name or logo on it. (Did I mention it’s an estatement? My bank simply sends out the generic statement that would be printed on statement paper if it were mailed, the statement paper of which has the damn logo on it).

So I called iGoBanking and explained that my statement is an estatement and that I do not currently get statements in the mail. Could I send them an older statement? I was told I could if it was less than 90 days old. My last paper statement was over six months ago.

The woman on the phone, however, asked me to forward my estatment to her to look at, which I did. Half an hour later, I received an email saying my application was declined.

By the way, I was trying to open a CD. I was trying to give THEM money! I could maybe understand if this were a loan application, but where they obviously verified my credit report, I don’t understand what the big deal was. My credit report shows I’ve lived at my current address for a very, very long time.

Ah well, their loss. I have no qualms about taking my business elsewhere, but I can’t believe I’m the only person in this particular situation, where utilities are not in my name and I do a lot of banking online and get a generic estatement. I tried iGoBanking originally because at the time of this writing, they have the highest CD rate in the land. If iGoBanking doesn’t want deposits from customers, then they simply should just drop their rates, not make folks go through loops and then be turned down for something that is really rather insignificant to the deposit application.

I should also note that I’ve opened online accounts, CDs and what have you, through other online financial institutions and never had this issue before.  So it looks like iNoGoBanking with iGoBanking.com!