The End of Facebook? Friday, December 11, 2009

This morning, Good Morning America reported that five American men are being deported back home because they are suspected of jihad ambitions by the FBI.


Pakistani police finally showed the pictures and US passports of the five Washington D.C. college students who made a trip to Pakistan to lend their "abilities" to jihad organizations. Funnily enough, the men were actually denied from the first groups of terrorists that they approached because of their lack of knowledge of the language and culture and their glowing Western demeanor.

These men were identified as Ramy Zamzam, Umar Farooq, Waqar Khan, Ahmad Mini, and Aman Hassan Yemer. Authorities say that the recruitment of these men started on YouTube and Facebook after Ahmad Mini, 20, praised videos of violent attacks against US troops. Facebook was used as the primary communication device.

Over the Thanksgiving break, these men took separate flights to Pakistan. They were stopped on their way to al Qaeda strongholds in North Waziristan right before the FBI caught up with them after getting tipped off by worried parents. Leave it to the parents.

Almost super hero, Clark Kent Ervin, the former inspector general of the Transportation Security Administration put it right, "We really now have the worst of all possible worlds. We have a continuing threat from what I would call Al Qaeda central, foreign terrorists. We also have, as you say, a growing threat of insider terrorism here in the United States as well."

So the bigger question is, is this the end of Facebook?!?!?!?!?! Now that Facebook has received some infamous attention and it is clear that insider American terrorists will use it to communicate with each other, will Facebook Tom be kicked off the internet?




Folks, this could be a biggest catastrophe conceivable in the eyes of all the facebook stalkers, Facebook chatters, Facebook picture taggers, Facebook event makers, Facebook I’m-too-bored-for-class-ers, Facebook everything-ers. What will the world do without Facebook?

Only Beatnik Babble Broadcast has received special Intel...

Oh wait, BRB...

Okay I was just making sure my Facebook page was okay, my poor wittle wubby cuddly SNS, no thanks to the Americans who have to travel to Pakistan to get the okay to go back and become a suicide bomb.

(minus the sombreros)

But as we were saying, we have received special Intel that Facebook will be adding a mandatory Are You A Terrorist quiz that will accurately find American terrorists and not allow them to join the site. As long as you don't dream about blowing up your hometown, we're sure you're Facebook status will be fine.

Facebook Approval (above)                Facebook Disapproval (below)

As for those five men, what's-their-names, they can expect to be sitting in a very long questioning right about now...

Moral of the day: "Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al-Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism. It is a recognition of history, the imperfections of man and the limits of reason." Barrack Obama.

Obama Sends out the Troops, Friday December 4, 2009

This past week, President Obama got up in front of hundreds of men at arms, officers, the millions watching on their televisions to announce that he will be deploying about 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Some will be out the golden gates before Christmas.

There are many different responses that are surfacing the news and net. A lot of people are disappointed. A lot of people are angry. But from what intel we've received, around 70,000 Americans are extremely happy. Who the hell are those people you ask? The troops already stationed in Afghanistan are expressing gratitude to Obama because they have been overworked and understaffed, kind of like the whole American working force is now. In a recent RedEye report, Americans are using more of their sick days and taking advantage of their employee mental health benefits due to their overload of work.

But sick days are not the nature of the army. So 30,000 extra troops is like a gift from heaven. Not only are we sending out more, NATO is hopefully going to add an extra 8,000 between 25 countries.

But a lot of initial American reactions were negative and disapproving. There were comments in the RedEye stating that people are disappointed that Obama is not "keeping his promises" or is "not concentrating enough of his own country". Political reactions were mixed.

But as a few days passed, the news analyzed the speech and whatnot and people simmered down. It didn't exactly help Obama's approval rate which was at the highest when he was elected at 69% and is currently (click on that its a good one) down to 46%, one percentage point higher than his lowest statistics.

In my opinion, Obama's speech was well done. I liked it because it was different from all the other "We're going to war!" speeches.

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times observed that the speech differed in its techniques from many of Obama's other major speeches:

The speech was notable for Mr. Obama because unlike most of his other major addresses, it did not include any personal anecdotes. There were no specific stories of soldiers he has met or families he has consoled. Instead, Mr. Obama braced Americans for the difficulty ahead and sought to put the fight in the context of history.

Another reporter commented that he appreciated Obama's non-Reagan approach that would have resulted in a scripted sentimental story about a made up "grieving spouse - a young investment banker whose wife had died in the World Trade Center - who enlisted immediately after the attacks ... and then gave his life, heroically, defending a school for girls in Kandahar. Reagan would have inspired tears, outrage, passion, a rush to recruiting centers across the nation" writes Joe Klein.

Obama did it differently though which I thought was an effective (in the long run) approach. He reminded Americans that on September 11, 2001, 3000 people were killed in one day, a day that stunned the nation. He reminded all the 4,000 cadets present for his speech that even though some were only ten years old at the time, this is still a pursuing matter of security and safety for all American people.

I thought his biggest point was when he asked everyone to remember how united we were after those attacks. Everyone wanted to go to war, wanted to protect their nation, and kill the terrorists! There was a lot of intense emotion strummin' around the place.

But he made an excellent point. We went into this war because pretty much every American wanted it. But being such a fickle nation, people got bored with the news reports, with the "lack of action", with the US getting no where. Not that Bush's attempt to find Weapons of Mass Destruction was a complete circus; but I think Obama really hit home (like I said in the long run) with Americans by reminding them about their previous united emotions to destroy terrorists.

I say in the long run because with some made up sappy sob story, people become emotional and make an emotional decision but it doesn't stick. Emotions change from day to day. By saying, remember how you felt on 9/11, people can't change how they felt eight years ago; so by remembering that day we can once again become united.

Not only did I like the speech, Obama laid out five great points as to why we should send extra troops. One, hopefully in 18 months, we'll start pulling out. Two, by sending more troops, we can more efficiently train Afghan forces to protect their own country. Three, with the added troops we can do this all at an accelerated pace meaning we may be able to pull out faster than if we didn't send these forces. Four, we can more effectively cajole and push Hamid Karzai, fraudulent leader of Afghanistan, into running a successful and responsible government. Five, Obama listened to the request of our generals who are running the show out there. Making them happy will likely make our troops happy and therefore create a more united force to complete our task.

At least Obama basically has something more substantial to say than, they have weapons of mass destruction! and things like "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

I guess America will have to see how this pans out. Most have said that this will either make or break Obama's presidency.

Moral of the day: Buy a calendar of Bush's stupid quotes and then every day you'll remember that no matter what Obama does, it's better than Bush.

Crashing the White House, Friday, November 27, 2009

Obama's first state dinner went well, except for the fact that it was crashed. Unbelievable? Nope! A couple passed the regular security measures it takes to enter the party, the addition security measures the White House is likely to have at all times, and the high security it probably had for this event, including the Secret Service.

It's true, Tareq looks like she could probably sneak past anything without being seen, but hey, that's what models do I guess. Michaele on the other hand, has a little more umph to his belly but perhaps he hid under her dress.

Anyway, the poor poor Secret Service Directly Mark Sullivan said, "the Secret Service is deeply concerned and embarrassed". Well thank you for admitting it. But can we work out those kinks pretty soon? It might result in suicide bombing, anthrax, or Bruno walking through the doors. Either one would be fatal.

This is the evidence that the Secret Service most definitely dropped the ball that night. Look how happy the fame seekers are, awww!


"The couple who attended the event without an invitation did meet the president in the receiving line," a White House official said.

Good Morning America reported, "the guest of honor, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh can be seen in the background, apprarently on the same receiving line. It is standard protocol at a state dinner for the president to introduce guests in the receiving line to the visiting head of state.

Sullivan said his agency's probe into the matter continues. 'The preliminary findings of our internal investigation have determined established protocols were not followed at an initial checkpoint, [specifically, the failure to verify] that two individuals were on the guest list,' he said. 'As our investigation continues, appropriate measures have been taken to ensure this is not repeated.'"

But the White House isn't worried, they released a statement saying they were not worried about their current protection. Phew! didn't want that to happen. 

So why would you want to crash the White House? Well the Secret Service investigations have found their obsession with being in the "limelight" so they say. They have found evidence via facebook that the couple has taken pictures with many different actors, singers, and celebrities. Now they can add Obama to their list thanks to our extra protective secret goons.

"It is a real concern if they would have had a different intent," Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent, said. "Could they have possibly physically attacked somebody? Of course they could have. They would have been wrestled to the ground and taken away. But it is a real concern about people's ability to penetrate security and then be next to people that it would be a huge issue if something happened to them."
Indeed!

Moral of the day: The White House and their events aren't that cool, you could probably spend your time somewhere else having more fun and not ending up in handcuffs [maybe].

Michael Brewer, Burned Over a Video Game, Friday, November 27, 2009

Does anyone remember Michael Brewer? The 15 year old boy from South Florida that was set on fire by his fellow classmates?

Well, if you don't, here's the run down. Last month police received a phone call with a pleading voice on the other end screaming for help and trying to explain that one of the students "just caught on fire". 

WFOR-TV: 911 Call (WARNING: DISTURBING CONTENT) (WAV)


In the background, Michael screaming in agony after just being dosed with alcohol and lit on fire. Somehow, he found the pool and threw himself into it, saving his own life. The woman on the phone could barely tell the police where she was, clearly in shock from the tragic and hateful crime.

What I find crazy and disturbing is when the woman on the phone was asked how this happen, she promptly asked Michael but he replied only with, "I don't know! I don't know!" Even after the trauma and arriving in the emergency room he still said he did not know who did this to him.

In another call made by another woman, the dispatcher asks: "They put gas on him and they lit him on fire?" She replies: "Uh-huh." In all, authorities recorded calls totaling 28 minutes, some rather calm, detached reporting of the facts, while the boy's anguish is evident in others.

This is a picture of Michael in the emergency room.

Five teenagers were charged with aggravated battery in the burning Monday, October 12 which authorities said was prompted by a dispute over a video game that escalated when someone tried to steal a bicycle that belonged to the burned boy's father.


Insane? Horrific? What-the-hell-is-this-world-coming-to? Yes, yes, and yes. When you were a freshman in high school, could you ever believe someone your own age could light another classmate on fire? I cannot imagine the tragedy I would feel if it did.

One of the teens accused flicked a lighter after Brewer was doused with rubbing alcohol. He faces an attempted second-degree murder charge. All of the teens at that time faced the possibility of having their cases moved to adult court.

Michael Brewer received skin grafts, therapy, and surgery.

Updated this past Wednesday, Good Morning America reported that the younger brother of one of the boys accused, friend of Michael Brewer, and also witness to the event, came out to police today to give more details of the incident.

Another thing I find hard to imagine, choosing to condemn your brother to a fate decided by the justice system.

Because of the new evidence, the five boys accused are being tried as adults. Trial has not begun.

Moral of the day: Don't leave any flammable substances in the reach of your raging, rebellious kids. Don't play with fire. Keep track of the water sources around you at all times.

Sarah Palin: Going Rogue, Tuesday Novmber 17, 2009

This is the Sarah Palin we all know and love.

This is the Sarah Palin that is being forced upon us.

Sarah Palin's new book Going Rogue was set to hit stores today. Here's what one reviewer thought:

There are many kinds of truth. There are truths based on facts, truths based on faith, and truths based on something that sounds as if it should be true (truthiness). Then there's the kind of truth we find in Sarah's book: stories and concepts that become truths simply because she states them. She's a lot like our Lord and Savior, Glen Beck, in that respect.

Sometimes, she states truths that would be considered ludicrous if uttered by someone else. Her claim that the McCain campaign forced her to spend $150,000 in RNC funds to dress her family in designer clothes is one example of that. Although it might be easier to believe that she acted like a trailer park Zsa Zsa who'd found a credit card left behind at a possum feed, she blames McCain staffers. That's good enough for us, because we have faith; we want to believe her truths.

But the book isn't perfect. As much as I enjoyed the few short paragraphs in which Mrs Palin laid out her policy objectives, she could have condensed it all into one sentence: "I'm going to grab an Oxo Good Grips Stainless Serving Spatula and go all mavericky on your non-white, non-Christian and non-heterosexual butts."

The book also fails to expose Mrs. Palin's intellectual brilliance and keen grasp of foreign policy issues. Why wasn't the text of her recent speech in Hong Kong included? Although it remains secret, it's rumored that she viciously rebuked the Vietcong king for his assault on the Empire State Building. That's a speech we've been waiting for nearly 75 years to hear. It's big news and should have been included.

As you read other reviews of this book, please remember that Mrs. Palin has many enemies who are eager to pan her work. The Palin family's most potent nemesis, Levi's johnston, is no dpubt fully erect and ready to spew globs of misfortune upon them for a third time. And reason-adoring intellectuals are certain to point out that an interview on Good Morning Topeka doesn't qualify as a policy summit in the Far East.

But a few bad reviews won't stop her. She's seen much worse from her kitchen window. It can't be pleasant to gaze upon Antichristograd every morning as you brew your coffee.

My review isn't complete, but I think I'll quit anyway, because writing reviews, like governing, is just too darned hard to finish.

David Letterman is another who made it obvious he was not about to enjoy the book. He did a skit on the top ten things to do besides read Palin's book which included crashing a car into a tree. He also put together a list of the top ten surprises in Going Rogue.

On top of her new book release, Palin also had a nice long talk with Barbara Walters where one of the many things discussed was this skit. Palin's response was his jokes weren't that funny anyway.
Also in said interview she answered questions about her blow out talks with Katie Couric; like the time she couldn't name any supreme court cases besides Rowe v Wade.

Besides the political shitter Palin has puked into, she also got a chance to discuss her family. Her youngest daughter said she thought mommy's moose hot dogs with cheese in the middle were her favorite dinner.  In relating news, her eldest daughter, Bristol, has a bouncing baby boy which Palin describes as coming as quite a shock. In a serious moment, she describes feeling like she slightly failed her daughter by not talking about safe sex.

Oops! Getting into hot waters you sneaky dog Barbara you. Trying to give Palin the slip on the abortion topic? No worries, Palin steered clear of this media mess up by saying that she would "council her [daughter] in choosing life."

In ending news, Palin says she has no intention of running for president in 2012 (even though we all know the world is ending anyway) but she can't see what is in store for her that long down the road. Her goal is to help America, where ever they choose to have her.

Moral of the day: If you decide to run for vice president, know the names of at least five newspapers, the New York Times for example, as well as whether or not the high school in your surrounding area has sex ed. Don't say anything on TV that might make you look stupid, Tina Fey might do a damn good impersonation of it.

side note: this video is actually some guy trying to say fox news is biased towards the republican party and disfavors the liberals... I don't want to get into that but this was the only video I could actually embed to show the skit.

Illinois Attempts to Save Lives, Monday November 16, 2009

Our generation is that of gadgets, gizmos, and new technology. We live in a virtual world, even while driving.

We’ve seen people do it, we’ve all been the culprit, texting while driving is now listed under the “dangerous things to do while ‘watching the road’”. While texting is on the rise, so are related car accidents.

Starting January 1, 2010, Illinois will attempt to save lives by enforcing the “no texting rule” while driving like the eighteen other states in the US that have similar whiplash rules. Likewise, President Obama, in September, signed an executive order banning federal workers from texting while driving on the job or in government-owned vehicles.

According to the RedEye, drivers are twenty three times more likely to get into a crash than drivers who are not distracted. According to the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, that’s more risky that trying to make a simple phone call while behind the wheel. They also released studies that showed drivers who text had their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds which by the way would be enough time to traverse a freakin’ football field going under highway speed limits. Geesh.

Not only are text-drivers worse that call-drivers… they are also worse than drunk drivers! What?! Yes, it’s true. People who text are less competent on the road that drunk drivers. Doesn’t that make you feel like your in danger basically any time your in a car? Think about it, on a Monday afternoon, clear skies, not a worry in the world, and who would have thought you would be in more peril than a Friday night snowstorm in Chicago.

As an interesting side note, leasetrader.com surveyed 3,000 drivers and found that men were most distracted by road rage, eating, drinking, and checking out other drivers. Women on the other hand, were most distracted by kids in the car, putting on makeup, and messing with the radio. No one listed texting… probably because it seems just like making a phone call. Well get with it Chicago, you may get a major fine if caught on the road 'number' punching.

This is really just a reaction of our generation to technological advances that are not going to get any better. According to the RedEye more than 740 billion texts were reportedly sent in the first half of 2009 which is nearly double since 2008. I also feel that those numbers may have risen because kids are sick of having to call their parents, and therefore teach them to text too.

Anyway, driver distraction is reported to be involved in sixteen percent of fatal crashes and twenty one percent of injury related crashes. No wonder Obama and Illinois are trying to get texters off the road. They should put up signs like the “click it or ticket” ones but they would read texting = firery explosion and subsequent death (I tried really hard to make a rhyme work, but I couldn’t, so if you think of a good one, please share).

So in conclusion,
35% of people report driving feels less safe today than five years ago
31% cite distracted driving as the reason to this feeling of danger
21% of people admit to texting while driving
90% of people rate driving a car after drinking alcohol as a serious threat to their safety
87% rate drivers who text as a serious threat to their safety
95% of people say texting while driving is completely or somewhat unacceptable

Moral of the day: leave your phone at home for a day… and if you’re like me, and leaving your phone at home for a day due to your lack of memory happens often, do it for a week. You would be amazed how relaxing it is to not constantly be texting or constantly be worried that your friends will think your weird because you aren’t texting them back.

Women Found to be More Dangerous to Themselves and Others, Tuesday November 10, 2009

Friday night in Boston a woman was almost crushed by a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority train. Said woman, obviously not aware of her dangerous proximity to the safety line, staggering in the clutches of a high blood alcohol level, put her life as well as the physical and mental well-being of others in danger;

All for the love of a cigarette. After lighting her smoke, it appears that she might be looking for the train when she stumbles and falls flat on her face as the train lights can be seen coming. Scary, right? She attempts to stumble herself to a higher altitude, but does not succeed and barely misses electrocution  on the third rail.

Fellow to-be passengers witness the fall and after realizing a lack in the safety department, vigorously, almost animalistically, start waving their hands to get the attention of the driver. One man even stood well passed the safety line, partially inside the tunnel, in desperate hopes to help. Inches before causing tragedy, the train driver pulls to the halt and the intelligent drunk women was pulled to safety.



This woman caused near termination to herself, as well as possible injury to the crazy man in the tunnel,

as well as possibly disrupting the mental well being of all other MBTA passengers that night.

In a different story, another woman is said to be a danger to herself as well as society. Her name is Elizabeth Lambert. Team member of University of New Mexico woman's soccer has been charged with unsportsmanlike conduct in their game against BMU.

As you can see in this video Lambert is a fan of kicking, punching, and pulling all in the name of soccer. We have received information that all of the girls that Lambert inflicted pain upon have had mental health issues and are currently unable to distinguish the difference between a soccer ball and a  dalmatian stuffed animal. Not only is the health of the BMU team in jeopardy, little girls around the nation watching the news and Youtube have instantly acted similarly after viewing this shocking footage. And not to mention the mental state of America, the nation of sports in HD.

These are only two of the countless women who are consistently putting themselves and others in danger. Reports show that three out of four women cross the street when the red hand is lit up meaning 75 percent of women are, like we said, dangerous to themselves and others. This may be intentioned danger or inadvertent danger but the statistics show that you should not play contact sports or have dance-offs with women any longer.

How should you avoid being mentally and/or physically hurt by a woman? Move to Boystown, where they are less populated, do not go to the bars in general, and wear a sign on your back that clearly states your intentions of a five foot radius.

Moral of the day: First learn to walk, then learn to dance, then learn to drink, and of course don't turn your back to an angry soccer blonde.