What’s wrong with this story?

Any Einsteins out there?

A 40-year-old man was killed early Saturday morning after crashing his motorcycle into a hydrant and lightpole in Burbank, officials said.

Around 2:40 a.m., a Burbank police officer patrolling the area of Alameda Avenue and Buena Vista Street noticed a motorcyclist traveling eastbound on Alameda Avenue at a high rate of speed, according to Officer Joshua Kendrick…

The officer turned on his overhead lights, but the motorcyclist took off, heading southbound on Buena Vista Street and turning west onto Riverside Drive while crossing into oncoming traffic lanes.

The officer did not pursue the vehicle due to the high rate of speed, according to Kendrick. When he caught up, he saw that the motorcyclist had struck a hydrant and lightpole on the northwest corner of Riverside Drive and Bob Hope Drive.

Of course he pursued him. He didn’t just happen to later stumble upon the cyclist on his way to some place else at 35 mph. That’s why he “caught up” with him.

In other words, he chased him. How else can you have a “caught up” without a pursuit? The officer did not then, as they call it in the law, abandon pursuit.  The BPD is making up the story that he did so in order to avoid legal liability, but the specific language they use screws it up. They shouldn’t have said on record that he caught up with anybody because you clearly can’t have it both ways.

We wouldn’t be surprised either if what really happened is that the cyclist only sped up after the cop got behind him for a possible stop. In other words, that the Burbank police initiated the pursuit. Happens all the time.

Regardless of who was responsible for the deadly pursuit, a pursuit there was. So unless you’re a mindless BPD and City of Burbank supporter — like about 90 percent of the local population —  there’s no denying this.

Remember the days when real journalism would have ferreted out the true story of a cop chasing a guy into a lightpole late at night? Now it’s just public stenography time with these papers.

Disgustingly irresponsible.



Filed under Uncategorized

Film vs. Video

Three cheers for art!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Congratulations. The Leader just published its single most stupid piece in 25 years

We don’t think we’ve ever read or seen as much stupidity as we have during this last week or two about Bill Cosby.

Regardless of how you feel about the guy (and remember folks, he’s almost 80 years old), it’s hilarious as hell to watch all of these self-righteous types twist themselves into knots trying to explain why it’s ok to immediately convict him in the court of TV opinion … while at the same time also paying lip service to the idea of necessary “evidence.”

Which somehow is a legal fiction only, according to most of these pundits, and has nothing to do with logic and a sense of certainty. It’s a technicality for conviction’s sake only, this idea of facts and evidence.

But this piece here goes One Step Beyond. It’s as mangled, confused and stupid as can be. No wonder modern day journalism is so awful. Just look at the practitioners:

Cosby’s reaction has been to hide behind his lawyers, who dismiss this mass of evidence as mere long-discredited charges. I would ask this: What other 77-year-old man has so many women telling an identical ugly, sordid, traumatic story?

Were Cosby indeed not guilty of such horrifying charges, one has to believe he would be out spending his every waking moment proving his innocence and preparing slander counter-charges to rescue his life and reputation.

Instead, he is going to great lengths to explain why he won’t dignify any of this with a response, clamming up and having his counsel lob threats at the media for potential libel.

Really? Now it’s the media’s fault? If so, come slap the cuffs on me, Mr. Cosby. Take me to court for speaking out about what you will not. But I didn’t have intercourse with any women without their consent. This is what is known as rape, in case the concept is a bit sketchy for you.

No, we’re a bit sketchy about the idea that you don’t need any evidence to make a serious charge like this, only a mass perception of its rightness. It’s a new way of crowdsourcing your brain.

Yes, it’s unimaginable that this is Bill Cosby we’re talking about, long venerated as a pillar of morality. That perception was long his best defense. How could he be a sexual predator when he was such a wholesome husband and father? We were all told to believe the image rather than the reality. And if he got a little nookie on the side, well so what?

But the jig is up. The overwhelming conclusion is that Cosby had an M.O. that he may well have pulled on dozens, if not hundreds, of women. If he did, he should be rotting in prison, not performing his next stand-up gig.

Yes, even if they waited 30, 40 and almost 50 years to make these claims.

Cosby deserves his day in court. However, in order for that day to ever come, he first has to acknowledge the issue. And there is no evidence that he plans to speak out in his own defense any time soon, sowing the seeds of his own destruction.

What court? What could Cosby possibly say that would appease these blustery, irrational scolds? Nothing in the world.

Nobody could. If Jesus suddenly came down and said he was innocent they’d just start going after Jesus. Someone would wire Mary Magdalene for the cops and it’d be all over for the Savior. The Grand Jury would get their own TV show.

Who knows if these things happened? We heard stories for years about Cosby’s on-set trailer, but we never heard that the activities were in any way non-consensual. You’d think that would have come out with all the rumors, no?

And these victims obviously had no agency of their own? Even the one who showed up to his hotel room in her pajamas. Imagine a rich and famous comedian being able to attract women. It’s unheard of! 

And who the hell cares anyway? The guy’s almost 80. Does everyone else think that they have some kind of skin in the game here? People crying themselves to sleep over these stories?

Aside from the allegations surrounding Cosby, what we’ve seen in general over the years is that something crazy happens to many of these sexual accusers as they age. Regret, self-abnegation, religion, morbidity, we don’t know what it is. But the one thing they have in common is that they all turn their fun early selves into objects of shame and repudiation. That explains why they never said anything earlier about these ancient claims — they never would have, because they didn’t feel as bad about it at the time.

What always colors these complaints is that you can easily tell that so many of these older accusers have more hangups now about sexuality than they ever had when they were young. Why is that? They often even regret the great sex that they had! Who’s responsible for this change over the years, and even better, who’s been cultivating it?

This angry, repudiating tendency towards past sexual behavior is also of course driven by the repressive right-wing zeitgeist that surrounds us all, and which is committed to revising the last 100 years in its own image. Among other things, that mid-century free love and easy sex was a big threat to the old order. Being free and easy, it undid the old benefit of possessing money and power. You no longer needed to be rich to get beautiful women, or good sex, and for a few years there (while it lasted!) that was a real pisser to people– especially to those who had missed out on the change. Religion was the least of the problem.

Anyway, since we’re going back in time on Cosby’s supposed antics, why don’t we explore the historical behavior of others?

We can start with the scolds themselves. You know, those holier-than-thou sexual practitioners of yore who are real quick to condemn Bill Cosby. Every fuck you had was wanted?

Are you sure?

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s obvious by now that the council improperly discusses regular agenda items in closed session

And then comes to a conclusion about them outside of the public view.

Here’s a good example. Although we agree with the council’s decision this week to allow the Emanu El daycare center to expand off of Glenoaks, there’s no doubt by now that they had already come to a consensus about this issue during an earlier closed session.

How can you tell? It’s easy. Whenever you see them suddenly fall into line 5-0 on a controversial issue that they were once all over the place about — and moreover, completely overturn an earlier decision from elsewhere — you can be damned sure that Albano and staff led them into this agreement in private.

We saw the same thing a few months ago with the Castleman gates. It took the council about 30 seconds to come to a unanimous decision about an issue that had gone back and forth for years. And then so matter-of-fact agreeably, like it was the most obvious thing in the world to allow that group of neighborhood bullies their gates! It doesn’t take a legal scholar to figure out that these quick agreements (and reversals) are the result of much behind-the-scenes lobbying from staff.

No? Then where else are they talking about them? It’s certainly not in front of the rest of us. At least not for very long.

The problem with a secretly garnered consensus is that the Brown Act does not allow every potential legal matter in the city to be shoved into closed session. That’s because the public is entitled to know the thinking process that lies behind their official decisions. The list of such allowable exemptions to this rule is very short. Albano though seems to think that if an agenda item involves any legal advice at all from her — such as, on Bethany, a possible violation of the Temple’s religious rights — then she can always hide the discussion in closed session.

So what goes into these secret debates and advice sessions? What exactly did the council hear from staff that made their Castleman and Bethany decisions so assured? And how often do these secret discussions about regular agenda items occur?

The public deserves to know all about what went into these official council actions of late — especially the Temple’s unhappy neighbors.

One thing we think would be fun about having Will Rogers on the council is that we doubt he’d be so agreeably blind to this kind of secrecy. Not so easily cowed as Gordon, and savvy to these goings-on for years, we suspect he’d take Albano on about these illegal meetings. And in public.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cosby show outtakes revealed for first time

Even though it’s just been cancelled, one of our better sources in the studios got a hold of some of the outtakes from that new Cosby show that was being planned by NBC.

Lab security obviously isn’t what it used to be, what with all that release print business suddenly disappearing.

Apparently they were working on it up until the every end…



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Because you certainly don’t want to say bad things about our landlords

Every few months during this upcoming election season we’re going to be reviewing the monthly non-actions of our local “Landlord-Tenant Commission.” So right now — just for fun — we thought we’d repeat this ominous warning from them about how the public speakers during their oral communications time period are not allowed to be “impertinent.”

Clearly, this means that you cannot complain too directly about how your landlord has been screwing you over, or else. Notice the veiled threat in the next sentence too about not being “boisterous” under the law either, whatever that word means. And keep in mind that this is the only Burbank board or commission which carries such a stressed warning to the public about acceptable behavior:

During this portion of the agenda, any person may address the Commission on any matter concerning the Commission’s business or on any matter which is on the agenda. If you wish to speak during this portion of the agenda, please give as much information as necessary to state your concern. The Commission requests that you observe the order and decorum of our meeting location and that you refrain from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks. Boisterous and disruptive behavior while the Commission is in session is a violation of our Municipal Code and any person who engages in such conduct can be ordered to leave by the Chairperson. Your participation in the Landlord-Tenant Commission meeting is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.

Guess who this official keep-it-down policy favors? It’s certainly not the angry tenants. Our Burbank landlords can raise your rent all they want, but don’t you dare “slander” them to a governing body.

Speaking of which, look how long ago this old discussion was:

Council considers rent control

March 02, 2002

Laura Sturza

CIVIC CENTER — City Council members are voicing objections to rent control as a way to rein in Burbank’s housing prices. “I’ve heard horror stories about rent control,” Councilwoman Stacey Murphy said at Tuesday’s council meeting.

“There’s always ways for landlords to go in a back door, to say they’re doing capital improvements and get it back that way. And there’s just too much of a tendency for slumlords.”

Burbank’s biggest housing challenge is a lack of affordable, large units for low-income renters, Redevelopment and Housing Manager Susan Evans said.

Alternatives to rent control will be considered in the coming months. One option would be the formation of a Housing Task Force made up of community members and housing professionals. The group would review issues pertaining to affordable housing and act as a planning arm.

A second possibility would be to expand the city’s five-member Landlord/Tenant Commission, which acts as a mediator between renters and owners.

In addition, the city will be looking at Glendale’s housing model, at just-cause evictions, and at the prospect of setting annual limits on rent increases.

A report on the possible formation of a task force will be brought back to the council by April 2.

Which of course never happened. Where do you think we’re living?

We’re still wondering too about all those rent control “slumlords” that Murphy was talking about. Beverly Hills, Palm Springs, West Hollywood, Tarzana, Pacific Palisades, Woodland Hills? Maybe Berkeley and San Francisco?

Horrible places, yes.

Murphy was also contradicting herself, because if any local landlord can get around rent control through “capital improvements,” then why in the world should they need to neglect their properties because rent control will turn them into unprofitable slums? The “no great brain” that Ted McConkey used to call her is only uttering the standard landlord propaganda about the dangers of rent control.

But Burbank clearly needs rent control and rent stabilization laws because we simply can’t keep going on this way. Fifty and 60 percent of your total monthly income just for housing? When will it end? What’s left over for Whole Foods?

That’s bad enough, this hit on discretionary income, but the rent situation itself is also as artificial as hell. Most of our local landlords are now predators who combine together to gauge their rent increases on a set percentage or dollar amount. It’s become an annual thing for them as well, almost universally without exception, and when they do it all in the same way now (as they all do) then that’s not “the market” talking any more.

None of these new rents are based upon competition between providers, either. If so, why then are they all mostly the same now? They’ve become regular set amounts which have nothing to do with the landlord’s own expenses or investments, which is what kind of used to happen in the pre-1980 days. It’s no longer “Let’s just factor in a reasonable return” time in the landlording industry.

Only chumps do that. If you still have one of these rare old-fashioned types you’re lucky. Nowadays most of our local landlords all look to each other for guidance on their self-mandated increases, if not fix the market directly through mutual agreement on tactics, timing, vacancy disclosures (or lack of), and general policies on increases. Nowadays your rent is based upon whatever is the most that your landlord can get, not what’s reasonable or fair. What other industry does this?

If their mortgages are long paid off, so what? The rent’s still $1800 a month. And with captive consumers who need a place to live — which describes all of Southern California — this puts every possible consideration into their court.

Like what are you going to do if you don’t like it? Move?


Think of it this way. If rent increases were truly based upon this so-called “marketplace” myth that landlords love to throw around whenever they’re challenged, then how come they never go down for the tenant?

When have your landlords ever lowered the rent on you? Even in times of increased vacancies and lowered economic expectations your rents either stay the same or they go up slightly. Even if the unit next door is lowered in price because it’s been on the market for more than a month, which is rare, why didn’t yours with the same configuration go down too?

That’s some “market,” eh? This never-goes-down behavior just proves that modern landlording is a rigged game propped up by lies and manipulation, and abetted by the elected officials who we insist on putting into power all the time. But you know, things can change.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

It’s been nice


A hundred year run isn’t so bad. There’s no point to it any more though.

Kodak sales of motion picture film have declined by 96 percent over the last 10 years, due to the conversion of digital film.

Hollywood studios stepped up to keep motion film in production. In July, several studios agreed to buy enough movie film from Kodak to keep the plant open. Conboy said that wasn’t enough to help the ailing industry.

“Kodak has sold only 10 percent of the motion picture film that it hoped to sell for calendar year 2014, way behind plan. Here’s a case of a company looking to cut costs. From my understanding, only one of those studios has actually signed on to that deal,” Conboy said.

Studios? They still have those?

Oh yeah. Like Hasbro and stuff.


Yeah, those are gone too.


Filed under Uncategorized

Good for him

Look what the tour bus dropped off on 42nd street. Go home, non-New Yorkers.


So who cares if the other side goes apeshit on Thursday night. They had their chance. And Mexicans were living here first anyway:

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama will outline a plan on Thursday to relax U.S. immigration policy and grant relief from deportation to as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants in a go-it-alone move that will deepen a partisan divide with Republicans.

The White House said Obama will deliver a televised speech on Thursday night laying out the plan followed by a trip to Las Vegas on Friday to build support. Nevada is home to the highest proportion of undocumented immigrants in the country.

Frustrated by years of congressional inaction on what most in Washington agree is a broken immigration system, Obama said in a web video posting that he is now prepared to act unilaterally.

This is what Obama should have been doing from the beginning. The GOP made it clear before he was even elected that they were not going to work with him on anything of substance — except maybe passing their agenda. Whether it was supported or not by the people made no difference.

There’s no issue here: Republicans are thugs and obstructionists. They’re not the good guys; they don’t give a damn about anything but themselves and their money. For the last 30 years the more rightward of their party has done everything they can to destroy this country in their own image, and they’ve almost succeeded.

They’ve definitely destroyed whatever good remained of their own party.


Filed under Uncategorized

The Dog Maidens’ Tale




Someone pointed out a couple of hours ago that we missed one of the best of the Protectorates recent community pleadings.

Yes, we’ve definitely been remiss the last few days…


You are a young man, and like so many men before you – you have the courage to sign up for the military, to give of yourself because you believe in a higher calling and a higher purpose.

People can say what they will about the military or the government but I have rarely heard anyone take issue with the young men and women who dedicate themselves to their country.

So, again, you are a young man and you join the military. Before you set off for your first deployment you spend the day with the people you love, but especially your best friend – your dog Dukey. He’s a big lovable German Shepard. You leave for your first deployment. And while you are away on your first deployment, your grandmother dies. When you return safely your best friend, however, is waiting for you, and if anything would take away the sting of your loss it is Dukey.

You are deployed once again. This time, your grandfather dies while you are away. Again the solace you find comes from your friend and loyal companion who greets you with love when you return home safely… and in one piece. Coping seems to be the way of things.

You are deployed a third time. Unbelievably this time your second grandmother passes. And as more is taken away from you – you appreciate the dog who greets you each time you come home more and more. Because home is, slowly but surely, starting to feel like a horrible trick. You leave and serve your country and each time something you love is taken from you. It leads you to wonder would this ever stop happening? With every mission would fate steal from you something you loved?

We think there’s actually an easy solution to this. We’d never have gone to begin with. But to interject a bit, does the grandfather and two grandmas die when he returns or just when he’s gone?

Because if it’s the latter, why then is going home the trick? It would seem like being gone is the real problem. Which — as suggested above — we’d have brought up earlier as more than troubling.

It is now present day. You are awaiting being deployed for the fourth time. Mercifully, no one has died, and in fact you just got married to the love of your life. But then you are informed by command that you are being stationed in Alaska. You prepare for your move and just four days before you are set to leave – Dukey is hit by a car. You now expect that your fourth loss will be your best friend.

We should have known. After you run out of dying grandparents the pets are always the next in line with these stories.

But, is this the military’s fault, the wife’s, or what?

This is not a family of means. This is a man of duty. Unlike most jobs he cannot simply say to his new boss, “I can’t get up there for a month, I have to take care of my dog and he cannot travel.” Nor on his salary can this servicemen afford the thousands of dollars it will cost to heal his best friend.

Isn’t there a wife around now who can take care of Duke? We don’t understand. What are wives for in this world of theirs? Any of the Duggar kids would have done it with no fuss.

Or, did she die too some time along the way? You never know — this guy’s obviously not batting a thousand in the luck department.

They often say that life does not give you more than you can handle. I disagree… I say that life does not give you more than you and the people who support you can handle. No person is an island. We need help, we need to be lifted up, we need someone to have our back – and the crueler the moment, the more we need this help.

It is Veteran’s day on Tuesday. Our country does not have the greatest track record of taking care of our soldiers. I want to show… no, I need to show this soldier, his unit, and everyone else who has ever served that: “Your country DOES love you. Your country DOES appreciate your sacrifice. Our village DOES stand behind you.”

Yeah, and forget about grandma and grandpa. Those three are on their own.

But what DOES this sudden change of story angle have to do with Duke? And where’s that new wife while we’re at it? Did she run off with the butcher yet? Or maybe Duke?

The story goes on for a bit more, but we’ve had enough. Suffice to say that Veterans Day now somehow involves rescuing pets.

The things that ring through these people’s heads. The really sad thing is that they think it’s just like poetry, only better.


Filed under Uncategorized

Schmucks of a feather flock together


FireShot Screen Capture #199 - 'Harry Timuryan I LinkedIn' - www_linkedin_com_in_harrytimuryan


And so must certain local realtors. Twas ever thus.

To note: this letter today in the Leader is not satire. It’s for real. This guy actually means it:

Recovering from possibly the lowest voter turnout election in Los Angeles County history you would think that the Burbank City Council candidates would gear up their campaigns and start talking to their residents. Considering Burbank has an election coming up in a couple of months, which in itself is unusual, I don’t see a single candidate sign on lawns or businesses except from Chris Rizzotti’s campaign.

It’s obvious from the Rizzotti for City Council signs on people’s lawns and window displays that Chris has taken the proactive approach and is reaching out to Burbank residents. What a new concept, he’s actually not waiting until the last minute to bombard and confuse the voters by playing political games. By reaching out early he’s actually giving people the time to get to know him so that Burbank residents can make an informed decision. He’s actually asking us to hold him to a higher standard. Wow, what a novel idea!

It’s about time that a city has a candidate that is focused, hardworking, forward-thinking and most importantly prepared to do what is right for the community, not himself.

Chris is the type of candidate each and every single one of us should be supporting and voting for. I wish that Los Angeles had a Chris Rizzotti that I could vote for.

Harry Timuryan
Los Angeles

You have to be a certain kind of a personality to come up with such a twisted rationale for Rizzotti’s clearly obnoxious and over-aggressive campaign. It’s like saying that a noise polluter in the neighborhood should be congratulated because of the way he helps keep people awake and productive at night.

Rizzotti’s putzy behavior is not attractive. It’s thuggish and unruly, especially during the holidays. Education (of all things) has nothing to do with it. This guy (and his Lucrezia Borgia of a second wife) think that he’s going to win a seat on the council by ramrodding everyone else along the election trail while also getting a few idiotic shills to throw some roses in their path for appearance’ sake.

See a pattern here? This wacky response was posted to a recent Leader letter that protested Rizzotti’s premature campaign activities:


FireShot Screen Capture #200 - 'Letter_ The wrong season for campaigning - Burbank Leader' - www_burbankleader_com_opinion_tn-blr-letter-the-wrong-season-for-campaigning-20141114,0,4438942_story



Yeah, that was it. It had nothing to do with this odious Rizzotti couple sending out their campaign signs three months early so that they could get a jump on everyone else.

This woman Reynoso — and yes, she is one of those Protectorates in fact (you can always spot them by their inarticulateness) — completely missed the point about the original complaint.  Instead, just like the out-of-town real estate interest above, she completely redefines the issue so as to aggressively place the complainer on the defensive.

The way it works is easy. If someone calls what you happen to like “bad” you just say it’s something else. Then everything’s on your terms alone, and never theirs. There’s nothing ever to refute, and they’re just being so silly to complain!

Rizzotti’s wrong? Heavens no. Your obnoxiousness is my virtue.  War is peace, too. Up is down when you need it to be, and that guy you see stealing beer from the liquor store is actually promoting the brand to his friends.


Filed under Uncategorized

When you move near Glenoaks, you automatically lose your right to complain about moving near Glenoaks

This manufactured brouhaha about Temple Emanu El wanting to expand their preschool program into a house that they bought next door reminds us of the fancy chicken place that wanted to locate on Magnolia Blvd about 15 years ago.

When news got around about the plan all hell broke loose. Every neighbor from Chandler to Burbank Blvd seemed to drift down from the rafters to grieve in public about how dare anyone would attempt to set up shop across the alley from a bunch of houses. And on a commercial street no less!

Yes, what was this world coming to.

The chicken place got rejected of course, but not before Monte Carlo down the street also got singed a bit in the process. Apparently its neighbors viewed this council hearing as an opportunity to get their own digs in at the adjacent restaurant — which had only been there for about 40 years or so — because they too were shocked and outraged about how its customers were taking advantage of the free public streets to park in front of their yards.

Oh, the humanity.

Look, when you move next door to a street like Magnolia or Glenoaks you get what comes with it. No one suddenly pounced this stuff on you one morning. You’re not living in San Marino or Bradbury, either. It’s just Burbank, and there’s a signal at the corner to boot. So let the Temple have their daytime day care facility. It’s not going to hurt anyone.

It could be worse. It could be Muslims. Then just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth.



Filed under Uncategorized

What’s a mother to do?


Look what we have to look forward to.

The Whole Foods catering menu for Thanksgiving has come in, and we don’t have a clue now as to what kind of turkey we should be buying this season. Life used to be so simple: it was whatever Lucky’s had frozen in the back with that minimum $20 purchase.

We certainly hope this doesn’t have anything to do with the United Nations…


FireShot Screen Capture #198 - 'Animal Welfare Standards I Whole Foods Market' - www_wholefoodsmarket_com_about-our-products_quality-standards_animal-welfare-standards


Step 6 is where the Protectorates come down at gunpoint to keep you from buying one, but that apparently only applies to some locations.

Maybe though trying to rescue these things would be the easiest way out. Are we still supposed to eat them?

Next week: the fixins’! We hear you might have to take a special class before you can address the stuffing issue. Don’t even ask if you keep kosher.

And people thought just getting there would be hard.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We have our dog park!

And the Rescue Rangers can help lead the way. They pioneered the trend.


It turns out the solution to the dog park is right in front of us: we can simply convert Brace or McCambridge now with no problem.

No one will miss them:

America’s next generation of youngsters should be called “Generation Rex.”

If you’re wondering why playgrounds around the city are so quiet and dog runs are packed, a new report has an answer: More and more US women are forgoing motherhood and getting their maternal kicks by owning handbag-size canines.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that a big drop in the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 29 corresponds with a huge increase in the number of tiny pooches owned by young US women, reports the business-news site Quartz.

Dog-crazy New York ladies told The Post that they aren’t surprised by the findings — and that they happily gave up diaper changes, temper tantrums and college funds for the easy affection of their doggy “child.”

“I’d rather have a dog over a kid,” declared Sara Foster, 30, a Chelsea equities trader who says her French bulldog, Maddie, brings her more joy than a child.

“It’s just less work and, honestly, I have more time to go out. You . . . don’t have to get a baby sitter.”

…Mary Smith, 25, of Murray Hill, said her 6-month-old French bulldog, Toliver, brings her as much joy as a baby would.

“Dogs are better! Look at Toliver! He’s great, except he snores a lot. He even has his own Instagram,” Smith said during a walk with the pooch. “A dog is easier to transport than a child. It’s less final than having a child.”

You know though that if you criticize or make fun of this rather selfish and oddball replacement tendency you immediately get hit with the furious accusation that you’re mandating a necessary maternal and sexist role for women…by the same women who make no bones about wanting to mother animals.

Figure it out.


Filed under Uncategorized

From the Head-Up-Ass Department

We all know this guy is never funny, but can someone explain what the joke here is supposed to be?




It took four panels for him to make no sense. If these are off days for watering — whatever those are — then what’s the problem? If “off” means “no,” then why would Gordon necessarily be doing this? Has he been caught at it recently or something? Does his office even have a lawn?

Let’s play editor here. What a real newspaper editor would do is send this 4-panel crap back to that “Bert Ring” or whatever his name really is and tell him to just keep the third one without any caption.

It’s all too much. The lack of talent, taste and judgement in this town is a source of never-ending misery for anyone who was raised right. Or, like some few, who raised themselves to know anything. Which used to be in style.

You want funny? Here’s funny:


Screenshot 2014-11-16 at 11.45.34 AM


Filed under Uncategorized

So what’s the deal with the flag?

Are these people for real?

God bless America we guess, and especially Burbank.




Some people aren’t happy about the idea in general. Happy Holidays though to everyone else.

This has got to be the worst group of council candidates in local history. The only ones who have a chance of winning are dickheads.

Speaking of which, anyone figured out yet what the problem is here with “Animals”? What have they been lacking in?





Oh, they mean animal rights.




Filed under Uncategorized