Sharknado 2 has arrived!

In what is probably the most anticipated sequel since The Hangover Part II, Sharknado 2 is here!  And if it’s half as good as that turd, it will still be twice as good as the original Sharknado (see my original review here).

But let’s not forget what we’re watching here. You can’t go into this expecting The Godfather II. Heck, you can’t even go into this expecting Gremlins 2. Because despite appearing to have absolutely nothing in common, those two movies do share one trait: they were sequels to legitimately good movies. Sharknado 2 is a sequel to a piece of crap.  But what’s endearing about Sharknado was that it knew it was a piece of crap.  Why was it embraced more than other Syfy fare like the equally ridiculous Ghost Shark or Piranhaconda (the sequel to Sharktopus, in case you were wondering)?  Better special effects? More intriguing title?  The superior starpower of Ian Ziering and Tara Reid?  Who knows. Likely the result of a perfect storm (pun intended) involving all of those elements. 

I can’t say I remember much about the original other than it involved sharks swimming through streets and houses and any other place you would normally not see a shark. I do remember Ian Ziering chainsawing himself and another girl to safety from the stomach of a flying shark.

Perhaps it wasn’t as bad as I remember.

So Sharknado 2 begins with Fin (Ian Ziering) and April (Tara Reid) on a commercial airliner. The plane gets hit by a shark (I guess this is technically a sharkicane) which knocks an engine off, which then tears a hole in the side of the plane. People are flying out of this gaping hole and the plane is very unstable as evidenced by the extremely shaky cameras, yet Tara Reid’s hair barely moves.  In true Sharknado fashion, the cavernous hole allows sharks into an area where sharks normally shouldn’t be. A few people lose their heads and Tara Reid gets her hand bitten off, making it the second most mutilated part of her body. Fin, the surfing bartender from the original movie, is somehow able to land this huge plane with one engine missing and a giant hole in the side. Somehow, I doubt that's the most ludicrous thing I'm going to see here. Probably the most unbelievable thing in this whole monstrosity is that a character played by Tara Reid wrote a book.

Since at this point in time all storms are apparently assumed to be full of sharks, Fin decides he has to go rescue his splintered family from a Mets game before the river floods and the entire city is overrun with sharks. So, once he gets them out of there, they all head for the most obvious place to steer clear of overflowing rivers and streets filling with water... the subway! A few more people are eaten (one of them inexplicably by an alligator) and suddenly this has become more about spotting the cameos than it is about surviving flying sharks, or whatever I thought it was going to be about. 

A few of the wildly miscast cameos to this point:

Punk rock flight attendant= Kelly Osbourne

Cracked out hippie cop= Andy Dick

Creepy Surgeon= Billy Mays Cyrus (what was with that shoe polished beard?) 

As Sharknado tries to relive some of the familial melodrama that existed in the first movie, there is a scene on the subway reminiscent of the first onscreen pairing of Pacino and DeNiro in Heat. Ian Ziering and Mark McGrath flex some serious acting chops as they ride a subway and discuss dating sisters or something as the threat of sharks raining down on them gives the situation an ominous vibe. Chilling stuff. Speaking of which, wasn’t it just snowing?  Where did all of that go?

In one of the more plausible cameos, Biz Markie shows up as a pizza cook. And Al Roker and Matt Lauer are in this movie more than anyone. It actually feels like I'm watching the Today show and they are occasionally showing Sharknado 2 clips. I mean, I've seen them talk about more stupid things than sharknadoes on the Today show. In fact, any day's Today show would be a worse way to spend two hours than this.

And if instead of taking a shot for every person eaten by a shark, you take one for every cameo, you can get quite drunk.

Hank the Bigfoot

I guess everyone has seen the ridiculousness/awesomeness of Rick Dyer's Bigfoot tour. I don't know what to think of this nonsense. 800 people showed up to a Sunday show and there were two more sold out shows in Houston the past two nights. Assuming that the other shows will accommodate at least as many people as the first, at $20 a person, that is over $45K this guy has made off of Houstonians who want to look at a paper mache monster. And that doesn't even count any of the merchandise sales.

The guy is providing a service for people who want to pay money to look at a monster, but with his story of luring the beast in with some Walmart ribs and shooting it, is he guilty of some sort of fraud? I say that assuming that the thing is a fake (which it certainly appears to be). In fact, he should hope that it is a fake since if it were real, the charge against him might be murder. After all, this is a humanoid creature he has on display.

I guess the part that is bothering me the most is why this current tour is so successful. Dyer himself was caught amidst a fake Bigfoot scandal less than 10 years. Numerous others have participated in some form of hoax as well. So, why is everyone so eager to see this one?  Is it simply because of the awareness?  I have seen stories about this Bigfoot tour from many different news outlets. Why have they decided to cover this one and essentially help line the pockets of a known huckster? How did he get them to help in his bidding? The power of media is a sight to behold.

The Marius Paradox

A Denmark zoo shot a giraffe in the head, chopped it up in front of a group of children and their parents before feeding it to the zoo's lions because they did not have room for another giraffe. Bengt Holst, director of research and conservation at Copenhagen Zoo, said the giraffe was 2 years old, and while he was not officially named, his keepers had called him Marius to identify him (which is officially what names are for).

Holst declared that the zoo staff saw it as a learning opportunity because zoos have an obligation "not to make nature into a Disney World," but rather show those interested in "the real thing." If that's the case, why not just turn Marius loose in the lion pen? Kids would learn more about nature by watching how a lion takes down a giraffe, rather than watching the Copenhagen zoo's glorified butcher do his work.

Several zoos volunteered to take Marius in, but "it is not possible to transfer the giraffe to another zoo as it will cause inbreeding," Holst said. Apparently because only zoos that follow certain rules can be part of international breeding programs. In Europe, these are members of the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria, and under its rules, inbreeding among giraffes is to be avoided. So, the zoo can only deal with other zoos in its network, but because of that rule they can't let them breed?  So how/why was Marius born in the first place if they knew they didn't have room for him and couldn't move him to one of their other zoos?

Zoo spokesperson, Stenbaek Bro, said his zoo had turned down offers from other ones to take Marius and an offer from a private individual who wanted to buy the giraffe for 500,000 euros ($680,000). He said a significant part of EAZA membership is that the zoos don't own the animals themselves, but govern them, and therefore can't sell them to anyone outside the organization that doesn't follow the same set of rules. This raises the question, if they don't own the animals, what right do they have to kill it?

The EAZA said some institutions that offered to take Marius were ruled out because they did not meet the organization's strict protocols, and the Copenhagen Zoo wouldn't send Marius to an institution with "lesser standards of welfare."

It's odd that they think that killing it would be in the animal's best interests over sending it somewhere without top-notch facilities. If you could ask the giraffe, I'm sure it would have been fine living in a second-rate zoo instead of getting shot in the head and fed to lions for the amusement of some kids.

I don't have any real problem with what happened here. It's just that every explanation seems to either contradict something else the zoo has said, or other logical alternatives. Obviously, the zoo likes to have cute baby animals born on their premises in order to bring in hordes of families and discards them when the newness and cuteness wears off. It seems that the EAZA or Copenhagen Zoo could have done quite a bit of education/conservation/preservation etc. with $680,000. It would also buy quite a bit of beef for their lions.

Croc Attack!

Police have found evidence that "strongly indicates" a 12-year-old boy who was witnessed being snatched by a crocodile in a remote part of Australia was killed in the attack. Apparently this is news because everyone was expecting that the crocodile had simply taken the boy hostage and would be demanding a ransom.

In a statement, the police said they would not be specifying the “type of evidence located out of respect for the family." So, by dancing around the subject we are left to assume that they have found body parts around the water hole. Or maybe one vital body part. Or maybe a hunter killed a crocodile and when they cut it open they found another crocodile inside, and when they cut that crocodile open they found the boy inside. By not telling what they found, the police leave a lot to the imagination.  They have turned what should be a sad story into a Choose Your Own Adventure. That’s probably more disrespectful to the family than just coming out and saying that the crocodile ate the boy.

And at the end of the article, in a weird “if you enjoyed this story, you’ll also like…” cross promotion, CNN links you to two more Australian wild animal stories:

Australian boy says kangaroo saved him

Coroner rules dingo to blame for Australian baby's death

In a case of life imitating art, all of these stories have parallels to the Hollywood movies Lake Placid, Kangaroo Jack and A Cry in the Dark.

If anyone was offended by today’s entry, let me go ahead and apologize now for referring to Kangaroo Jack as “art.”

More proof, what more do you need?

Todd May finds Bigfoot Fossil

This guy finds obvious proof of bigfoot remains.  And crazy thing is, he saw a living Sasquatch just a few months ago.

Crazy thing is a nun got rich a few years ago claiming to see the face of Jesus in that same rock...crazy nun, don't you know a bigfoot when you see one?

The zoo is evil!

The baby giraffe that the Houston Zoo egregiously named Yao Ming has a bone infection. And you will never guess where the problem area is.  According to the Houston Chronicle:

"A week after Yao's birth, keepers noticed that he was favoring his rear left leg. When the limp gradually became worse, zoo veterinarians X-rayed the leg"

The poor thing was doomed from the start.

OOPS, KNOW YOUR CAMEL KEEPER

Hollande's Camel Eaten in Latest Setback to French Leader

 Published: Wednesday, 10 Apr 2013 | 2:50 AM ET

Malian authorities will give French President Francois Hollande another camel after the one they gave him for helping repel Islamist rebels was killed and eaten by the family he left it with in Timbuktu, an official in Mali said.

A local government official in northern Mali said on Tuesday a replacement would be sent to France.

"As soon as we heard of this, we quickly replaced it with a bigger and better-looking camel," said the official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

"The new camel will be sent to Paris. We are ashamed of what happened to the camel. It was a present that did not deserve this fate."

Hollande was presented with the camel when he visited Mali in February several weeks after dispatching French troops to the former colony to help combat al Qaeda-linked fighters moving south from a base in the north of the country.

The president joked at the time about using the camel to get around traffic-jammed Paris. But he chose in the end to leave it with a family in the town on the edge of the Sahara desert.

Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian was tasked with giving Hollande regular updates on the camel's status and had to inform him of its death last week, French media said.

"The news came in from soldiers on the ground," said a French government official.

French leaders have received many gifts of exotic or wild animals from Africa and further afield over the years.

Last week, a robber chainsawed a tusk off the skeleton of an elephant offered to Louis XIV by a Portuguese king in 1668. Police caught the robber as he fled, tusk under his arm.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100629394

Woman Killed by Lion

No, this isn’t about the California intern who met a similar fate. This story is much better.

And despite a person dying, this may be the best story of the year. It's probably not as much the story itself as it is the brilliant writing style of the International Business Times. According to their report:

A lion killed a woman while she was having sex in the bush with her boyfriend. The woman, identified as Sharai Mawera, was mauled to death in the attack in Mahombekombe, Kariba in Zimbabwe.

 

My first reaction to the story was, "What the heck does this have to do with international business?" But then I realized that it would be impossible for anyone with access to this information not to share it.  My second reaction was, "Zimbabweans getting mauled by a lion while getting it on in a bush? Way to propagate stereotypes, IBT!"

But it gets better:  

Her boyfriend, a fisherman who was not identified, heard the lion roar, MyZimbabwe reported. They had been having sex in a sideways position and he managed to escape wearing nothing but a condom. 

He turned back to see Mawera being mauled and rushed to a nearby road for help.

Who says chivalry is dead?  And I really have to thank the IBT for getting all of the important details for us, right down to the sexual position. And let's be honest, isn't the most shocking thing about this entire story the fact that an African was wearing a condom?

And now it's time for the author of the story to provide some history: 

While big cat attacks in Zimbabwe are fairly rare, another took place near the Zambesi River in 2010, when a man was killed by a pride of lions while he was bathing.

Tourist Pete Evershed was using an outside shower when four or five lions attacked.

 

That does sound like a freak occurrence. However:

A man in the same suburb of Kariba was mauled to death a week ago, police said. They believed he was attacked on his way home from a nightclub.

Now that may be one of the best arguments ever in support of drinking and driving! But let's not get off topic. Back to the story:

Eight villagers were killed over the space of two months and the attacks only stopped when a pride of lions was killed.

 

Wait a second! Didn't the story just say that big cat attacks were rare in Zimbabwe and then rattle off no less than ten recent deaths from just that cause? International Business Times, you just got bookmarked.

Parachuting Mice

U.S. military to air drop toxic mice on snakes in Guam

 The U.S. military plans to air drop tens of thousands of dead mice laced with acetaminophen (Tylenol) onto foliage surrounding Andersen Air Force Base, in order to control the population of the brown tree snake. Acetaminophen is harmless to humans but toxic to the brown tree snake.

 The snakes are natives of Australia, and came to Guam on board military boats after WW II. The native bird population is defenseless against the snake and has wiped out almost all of Guam's native birds, making most of the species extinct.

 The dead mice will be fitted with tiny parachutes, so they'll catch on trees to make them more attractive to the snakes. The fear is that a similar infestation of brown tree snakes to Hawaii would cause over $2 billion in damage per year.

 The new mouse drop follows a pilot experiment in 2010 that worked well. However, activists from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are expressing outrage that snakes will suffer, though hopefully the snakes at least won't get headaches. AP and CNN (9/2010) and Russia Today

Evidence of Bigfoot found! Seriously. For real.

If this doesn’t convince you, nothing will. David Arceneaux apparently saw two bigfoot-like creatures in Port Neches, Texas. Considering there is no physical evidence that bigfoot exists, descriptions of the creature vary wildly, and pictures are usually fuzzy and out-of-focus, I find it odd for something to be described as “bigfoot-like”. When there is some sort of unknown entity, shouldn’t the “like” part be attributed to something fathomable that others can relate to? It should be a reference point for the rest of us to know what the person is describing. For example, if I were to attempt to explain the Weekly World News Bat Boy story, I would likely start with the description of him as a batlike child because we all know what a bat looks like. And, in fact, Dictionary.com’s definition of "batlike" uses its own likeness example in the definition (batlike — n.  any placental mammal of the order Chiroptera , being a nocturnal mouselike animal flying with a pair of membranous wings).

Fortunately, we don’t have to depend solely on such hazy descriptions. Arceneaux was able to snap a photo (providing arrows and all) to silence any skeptics.

That photo, along with a detailed report of his encounter, should put any doubt of bigfoot’s existence to rest. This evidence is irrefutable. Not only does it prove what he saw, it gives the rest of us a distinct image of what to be on the lookout for. I have personally found this story to be a revelation and now that I have a vivid likeness of bigfoot to reference, I have discovered that bigfoot does indeed exist and I have proof of my own to share.

Horses vs. Cows, PART 2!!!

Consider the proverbial can of worms open!

The age old debate of horse vs. cow.  I really didn’t think MoleBoy had it in him to start this war, but let it begin. 

In all actuality his point is very valid.  Little does he know that he makes my case that I have impressed upon the modern world for the past several decades.  A horse is a stupid meaningless animal and it being a part of a routine diet would actually make its specie more utilitarian in everyway.  My age old philosophy is that a horse is less intelligent and less vital to humans than cows; and overall horses are generally useless piece of the world.  As useless as a never discovered butterfly that becomes extinct before it is ever discovered (maybe because it is very timid and has little butterfly heart attacks and blows away in a puff of little butterfly ash anytime a human is in proximity).

Let me begin with the argument of intelligence.  At first glance a horse may seem overly superior to a cow because of their trainability and their trickery.  Everyone has seen the gimmicky trick-horse at your local rodeo, carnival or travelling circus; it is very entertaining and impressive.  And no one has ever seen a trick cow, that is just crazy talk.  But that is exactly what they are a side show, mere cheap entertainment for the weak minded.  A cow could master countless tricks and could possibly even be taught to speak, but they are much more astute and reassured in their importance.  They are not susceptible to menial mind games of humans, if fact they actually smarter than most humans.  If you doubt this say something to a cow and see just how much it could care less.  Cows are bored to tears by our idiot demeanor.  The horse on the other hand is like Charlie Brown kicking the football, falling for every stupid little gimmick we come up with. 

Take riding it, for crying out loud.  A horse can fairly simply be broken to be ridden.  This is not an option for cows.  That is why bull riding is a sport.  Get on a cow/bull and it will do everything in its power to get you off.  Even a dog knows getting ridden is not a positive option.

And now that we are talking about riding a horse, let’s get to the horses vitality to humans.  Typically a horse is considered an entertainment animal.  Little girls don’t ask for baby calves for Christmas they ask for a pony.  A horses primary purpose is for riding and transportation.  But let’s face it, it isn’t the 1700’s anymore.  We have cars, bikes, planes, trains, hell we even have hovercrafts.  We don’t need a horse for transportation.  And even if we did, why the hell are camels here?  And they can endure a lot more harsh conditions.  And they are fast too. 

Everyone knows a cows utility to humans is the most essential of any animal in the world.  More beef is eaten in the world than any other meat.  2 billion pounds were produced last year.  There is no other point to make on this.

However, MoleBoy has a made a good point.  Time to let horse take some of the brunt of this.  EAT MORE HORSE!

Cows are also the first creature to integrate races and spell in a diversified Ebonics dialect.

Horses v. Cows

It is apparently a big deal that some people want to eat horses and an even bigger deal that others are willing to sell them horses to eat. I have never understood this. I have to admit it, while I’ve never eaten one, horses look delicious. They certainly look cleaner than cattle. So why, as Americans, is it ok to eat a cow but not a horse?  

Is it because horses are more attractive than cows? That’s probably easy to understand in a glamour-obsessed culture like ours. Would someone living in a mud hut on the side of a hill who had never heard of such publications as People, GQ or Cosmo care what an animal looked like if it supplied enough meat to feed their family for a year? Not likely. While not everyone eats them, I would suggest that any number of animals in the deer family are equally attractive to (if not more than) a horse.

Is it because they are domestic animals like dogs and cats? Maybe, but in America there is nothing more domestic than a cow. Cows are born, bred and raised under watchful human eyes. They are so domestic that there are more wild dogs, cats and even wild horses in this country than cows.

Maybe it’s because horses are smarter than cows. But Americans consume nearly the same amount of pork each year as beef, and pigs are generally considered to not only be smarter than dogs, but the average three-year-old child (and adolescent Arkansans).

So where is the logic? I say if we are truly a free country, we should be able to choose if we want to eat horses or not.  Those who don’t want to eat horses should stick to eating such lowly animals as chickens, pigs and cows. They should go to the auctions and buy as many horses as they want and let them run free in their pastures. Just don’t deny the rest of the country horse meat because of some strange rationale about why horses should be placed on some sort of pedestal.


P.S.
Happy Valentine’s Day Elizabeth Cook!