pukeimmediately

urbn will give you birth defects and rot your brain

so i was perusing the urban outfitters website and looking at some pretty sweet sandals when i see at the bottom of the page:

*this product does not comply with California Proposition 65

apparently Prop 65 is a law put in effect way back in 1986 to regulate products that contain substances and chemicals that cause birth defects n’ stuff like that. products that contain this shit must have the following warning for consumers 2 see:

WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

(do u like how urban kind of watered that down a little?)

so if you go to the info section where urban outfitters proceeds to explain this little caveat to buying their shit—which is not linked, and not particularly easy to find—they have this little quip written at the bottom of the page:

What is California Proposition 65, and how does it apply to our products? Some of our products such as dinnerware, glassware, items used to serve food, wallets, handbags, purses, clutches, totes, clothing, accessories, or shoes made of vinyl or imitation leather may contain lead. In accordance with Proposition 65, we issue the following warning to our California customers: “The materials used on the exterior of this product contain lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm.” For more information regarding lead-related FAQs, we recommend you review http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts13.html.

this is kind of where my mind just exploded bc, you know, i’m sure they don’t expect most of their consumers to further investigate their prior “warning,” only to find out that their clothes/jewelery/shoes/DISHES contain LEAD which we know is neurotoxic, esp in young people. granted, you’re probably not going to get lead poisoning by occasionally wearing urbn sandals (the dishes are really appalling though), and this kind of stuff is nothing new, but is it so much to ask these companies for some fucking accountability?

hate u urbn. you will never get my money again.

Things I'm no longer tolerating part II

Watered down soap - whenever I go into someone’s bathroom at their house, or a bathroom in a restaurant, and there is hand soap that has been purposely watered down, I want to puke.

I guess people do this to make soap last longer. Personally, I feel that if you do that at home, that’s your own problem—but at restaurants, that is just fucking sick and disrespectful to your clientele. Also I think that is a health hazard because you just can’t clean your hands as well with watered down soap as you can with regular soap. If I am going to a restaurant and paying good money for a meal I expect to be able to clean my hands properly, with some good-smelling, FROTHY soap. Watered down soap does not froth, it just feels like water aka WASTE going down the sink.

Doing it at home is also really lame and it is a sign that you are a cheap person. There is nothing I hate more than cheap people, because I am a generous, giving person. If you come over to my house you will find all of the good kinds of soap, with smells ranging from fresh sea breeze to zesty lemon. Your hands will be clean and soft because I also have hand lotion next to the sink. This is a sign that I am a good, healthy person.

so I hit the internetz to see if anyone agreed that this was a gross habit and to my dismay found that many people actually do this and think it is a good idea. They even do it to their shampoo! And most of the blog entries I am seeing about this are written by moms. Awful mothers! Their children are probably the ones that don’t wash their hands properly and are spreading their infectious diseases to everyone all over the place.

Do you water down your soap?

snowball fight turns into 'snowball v gun; fight turns into 'washington post v washington city paper' fight

So it snowed in DC a couple days ago, and some aspiring social media worthless decided to tweet the internet to plan a snowball fight in dc. all of the unemployed and basically unemployed 20 and 30 yr olds went to the snowball fight. someone brought an anti-war sign! just for fun! there were like 200 people there! then they started pelting snowballs at hummers, which the wapo says is due to the ‘political sway of the crowd’ or sthg.

then some man in a hummer that got pelted got out of his car, and he brought his gun with him.

so then it was like a major bummer,man, and he didn’t shoot at anyone, but like, ‘you don’t bring a gun to snowball fights’ as the hecklers at the snowball fight put it in chants they figured out on the spot and started chanting at the dude with the gun. the dude with the gun never ended up shooting anyone, and admitted he was just pretty pissed about the whole pelting his hummer thing. so, ok. snowball fight over.

but journalism fight just begun! because as it turns out, the guy with the gun was like an officer or something. so, like, he was pork! and the wapo did a story on it all. so like, fuck. the washington city paper called the wapo out for maybe being too kind to the gun-happy hummer pork:

“Let’s recount what evidence the paper had…

1) An eyewitness account called in by an editorial aide shortly after the incident occurred. The aide said that the cop actually did pull out a gun, not that he “may” have; and

2) Video and photos that clearly corroborate the eyewitness account of the Post newsroom employee.

Yet the Post still couldn’t bring itself to say that an officer had actually taken out his gun at a snowball fight. Not, at least, until the print editions hit the streets over the next couple of days—-which is among the great points made on this issue by blogger bsom.

Take a close look at that 10:20 update on the maybe-gun-pulling cop: “The plainclothes D.C. police detective may have unholstered his pistol during the confrontation with participants in the huge snowball fight,based on video and photos posted on the Internet.”

Bold and italics are mine. They’re mine because this is the most cowardly, selfish, arrogant news conduct out there today. What the fuck is “video and photos posted on the Internet”? How does that help readers? It’s as if I can go to www.internet.com, and there, on the first screen, will be the video and photos of the snowball fight and the maybe-gun-wielding cop. “Posted on the Internet” would be acceptable if this were 1997.

The reporters used this hazy phrasing because they were too chicken-shit to do something that we all have learned to do over the past, say, decade or more. And that’s to link to competitors and acknowledge their contributions to stories.

What is important is that in one item, Fisher articulated a longstanding WaPo policy:

1) Link to other organizations only when belittling them;

2) Be sure to contrast the inadequacy of the linkees to the greatWashington Post;

3) Make sure the link to Washington Post content spans many more words than the links to lesser organizations.

Not done yet. Fisher’s item uses the term “on the blogs” in a disparaging fashion, as if this is a place where rumor and sleaze abound. You’ve heard this too: “Oh, he’s getting crucified on the blogs.” Or: “You just can’t trust what you read on the blogs.”

Sounds antiquated, just like “posted on the Internet.” But however it sounds, you can never disparage “blogs” with a broad brush if you’re a staffer at the Washington Post: The paper publishes at least 80 of them.”

so, like, pukeimmediately again, here— the city paper is annoyed that wapo wont link to other blogs. i mean, admittedly, wapo doesnt know how to use the internets yet (they still dont have an iphone app!)

this is wapo:

BUT STILL, the washington city paper is nearly as trigger happy as the gunman they so desperately want to implicate. it is NOT the media’s job to ‘create’ a story. u report the facts, and if u do more, ur worthless as fox news. if the facts aren’t there, they aren’t there. if the facts are on a blog, that doesnt fucking count. blogs do not necessarily have accountability, and its irresponsible for a subscription based paper to base any evidence for a story on a thirdparty media source. so, city paper, cede 2 ur point that media orgs need to, in general, figure out how to combat the internet. but, honestly, to simply cite another source, even link directly, is poor journalism-and if that’s the standard, citizens should prepare to kiss fair and balanced stories goodbye.

the answer to the internet media crisis for mainstream media is to increase their reporting to the level that is unreachable by dumb story-breaking bloggers- not fall to their level.

and honestly, can we implicate the real scumbags in this story for one minute? the 30 somethings who were childish enough to throw snowballs at cars? get a life-and blogging doesn’t count- 30 something nutjobs that participated in that.

things im no longer tolerating

when the new decade comes in a couple days, here’s some things im not going to allow into my consciousness anymore:

1. I am no longer tolerating people who claim that six inch subs ‘fill them up.’

No they don’t.

a six inch sub is going to be one of those things im not going to acknowledge as real when my children ask me about it, later in life.

it is masochistic to order a 6inch, even if u add Doritos(bc Doritos are not fucking real). Also Playing up the volume of a sandwich is a mistake. If people make volume in a sandwich, thats disgusting.  those poeple are most likely obese. sandwiches cannot be enjoyed properly if they are stuffed to the brim.

you cannot even eat them.

why in the heck would you pack a sandwich higher than the size that your mouth comfortably opens.

discussing this kind of thing is like sending me a jpeg of a dolphin. it just really pisses me off. Bc its like the same kind of ‘yeah right’ concept. ‘oh a 6 inch/8inch sandwich fills me up’…’dolphins are so cute’…theres no way. I don’t believe u. u are just worshipping societal norms.

Whichwich is the worst of all. it didn’t even offer the option of something larger than an 8inch sandwich. I also am not tolerating people who claim that an 8inch sandwich fills them up. No fucking way.

2. tech journalists. what percentage of the ppl who write for wired and gizmodo have degrees in engineering or computer science or even a basic science? and what percentage are just super opinionated world of warcraft fanatics? quit whisking away the hours and years of hard work of nasa scientists and wireless communications specialists with a ‘review’ or a ‘column’. and also stop blaming your general shittiness on something other than yourself.

3. Boing Boing, because its pointless.

4. Jared from Subway, bc w/ the 5 dollar footlong promotion, he is pointless.

5. Vests, tell me what the point of a vest is. I guess the vest just evolved from when we were just wearing huge chunks of metal around. a few hundred years later, we are wearing cloth shaped like armor. and everyone is going ‘wow this change happened so gradually i didn’t even notice.’

to offset any good feelings you may have gotten from the last post