The Daily Blog - September 14


- Evidence would suggest that Serena Williams has some rage issues. Her career has been marked by two constants on the court: a lot of wins and too many angry tirades. Fortunately for her, she has had more of the latter and that’s why she is still playing and putting herself in the discussion as the best women’s tennis player ever. Unfortunately, if she continues her court rage against officials she is going to become just as well-known for those temper tantrums as for her many major championship titles. Williams’ latest blow-up came Sunday during her loss to Samantha Stosur in the U.S. Open final. She became irate after chair umpire Eva Asderaki ruled that shouting “Come on!” at Stosur after hitting a drop shot that Stosur was attempting to return constituted a hindrance. Asderaki applied the hindrance rule, noting the scream came while Stosur reached out and got a racket on the ball, and awarded the point to Stosur.
    That was a problem for Williams, as it was a break point for Stosur early in the second set and pushed Williams further to the brink of a match she lost in straight sets. An incensed Serena went off on Asderaki, telling her, "You're out of control. You're a hater, and you're just unattractive inside. Really, don't even look at me." Hang on…..you’re unattractive inside? Unless it is Donald Trump verbally eviscerating Rosie O’Donnell in the most awesome celebrity drive-by verbal assault ever, commenting on someone being “unattractive inside” should not come flying out of anyone’s mouth unless it’s in the middle of an ugly breakup. However, at least Serena didn’t go as far as she did during a 2009 U.S. Open tirade in which she berated a much older, smaller official and threatened to shove a tennis ball down the women’s throat.
    For her most recent outburst, the United States Tennis Association finer her a massive $2,000 and cited her for a minor code violation. A (supposedly) contrite Williams tweeted of the incident, "My emotions did get the best of me this past weekend when I disagreed with the umpire. It has been a long road to get back to the US Open this year, and I am thankful to have had such a great two weeks in New York." Funny, but her actions on the court didn’t scream “thankful” or had a great week” in any language………


- Tree huggers, hope you’re happy. Your nonstop, bleeding-heart liberal efforts to hammer environmental consciousness into all of us has hit a new low and created a major headache for students, staff and faculty on two college campuses in Minnesota. Joining a handful of other campuses across the nation, Macalester and St. Benedict College have both banned the sale of plastic water bottles on their campuses. Students and employees can still bring their own water bottles on campus, but bottles will not be sold in stores or vending machines on campus. Campaigns will encourage the use of reusable water bottles, which school officials say save both money and the environment. The decision to ban the sale of water bottles has not sat well with some students, especially no the College Republicans club at St. Benedict.
    The club handed out bottles of water on Tuesday to promote their belief that the ban is unfair. School administrators point to 31 hydration stations installed across campus allowing everyone to refill whatever bottle they have as proof that toting your own bottle to school isn't a big problem. “The policy does not say that students can’t have bottled water. We’re not going to sell it in the bookstore or dining facilities here and we’re not going to use college funds to purchase bottled watered, but we’re not saying to students, they can’t drink bottled water, it’s their right,” Judy Purman, St. Benedict’s director of sustainability, said.
    Opponents of the ban have expressed concern that campus visitors may not be aware of the new rule and might arrive for events without water and intending to buy one once they show up. To combat this possible problem, the school is stepping up promotion of the new rule during the admissions process and at events. Each hydration station features a counter that’s used to count how many plastic bottles would be used to fill up these bottles. However, don’t expect that to placate the enviro-hating College Republicans at St. Benedict College because they are firm on their right to ruin the environment in any way they see fit…………


- Not so cocky now, eh Facebook? After plenty of Google+ bashing, the king of social networking looks suspiciously like it is ripping off features from both Google+ and Twitter. On Wednesday, Facebook debuted the "Subscribe" button, which will allow users to subscribe to, or follow, people and read their public posts. Along with the option to subscribe, users will also have new options to determine how much information shows up in their news feed. The Subscribe button is to connect you with "interesting people you're not friends with—like journalists, artists and political figures," explained Blake Ross, director of product at Facebook, in an official company blog post. Users will be able to click on a Subscribe button on someone's profile to receive updates from that person in your feed. It should be a useful tool for creepers, as subscribing won’t make you Facebook friends with a person but will allow you to see any links, posts or notes they make public.
    "Just like with friends, you can choose how many and what types of updates you see after you've subscribed," Ross wrote. To add a Subscribe button to their own profile, users need only visit the subscription page and click "Allow Subscribers." "Once you allow subscribers, you can decide who can comment and what notifications you get," Ross said. "You'll also see a Subscribers tab on your profile, where you can find out who subscribes to you."
    When it comes to the information users see from their actual, non-creeper friends, Facebook has added stricter controls on how much of what those friends post will show up on your news feed. The Subscribe button means users can have a compromise between blocking all news feed information from that one annoying friend who posts pictures of their ham sandwich from lunch from 15 different angles and seeing this unwanted activity. Using the subscribe button, you will now have the capability to see all updates, most updates or important updates only, or to see just photos from one friend or no game stories from another, for example.
    On Tuesday, Facebook unveiled a new friends list feature that will make it easier to categorize groups of friends. Instead of pre-set options, Facebook will automatically group people into work, school, family, and city lists based on the information they provide in their profile, along with the option to designate a person as a “close friend” or simply an “acquaintance.” In mildly related news, more than 10 minutes a day on Facebook (unless it is for business purposes) is still a massive waste of time…………

- Dudes (and possibly some chicks), the day you have long been hoping for has arrived. No matter a dude’s age or his race, odds are he has at some point fantasized about the day when he would see Scarlett Johansson nude. Because Johannson doesn’t have any fully nude scenes from the movies she has done and is too successful (and hopefully too dignified) to ever pose for Playboy, that dream seemed all but impossible - until now. Courtesy of some celebrity cell phone hackers who have anonymously become cult heroes for lonely, desperate men everywhere, two nude photos of Johansson leaked online Wednesday to celebrity gossip sites. The images aren't exactly the show-all shots men around the world have hoped for, but show more than enough to slap an NC-17 rating on a movie.
     Rather than dispute that the photos are of her or claim that someone Photoshopped her face onto someone else’s body, Johansson is channeling her energy into tracking down those responsible for leaking the photos. She and her representatives have contacted the FBI to investigate and catch the thieves who broke into her phone and stole the images, which she apparently took of herself. Whether she likes it or not, Johansson has joined a club that includes more than 50 other female stars including Ali Larter, Vanessa Hudgens, Miley Cyrus and Jessica Alba, all of whom have had nude photos of themselves stolen and leaked online.
    While there is no defending whoever stole those images, it is worth revisiting the truism that the one sure way to prevent nude photos of yourself from ending up on TMZ.com or some other gossip site is to not TAKE nude photos of yourself. As athletes from nearly every professional sport have proven (as Greg Oden nods solemnly from the corner booth), if you take a picture of your private parts, it will end up online.
    Whether the image is to text to the current love of your life or just taken in a fun (possibly inebriated) moment, if you take one of these revealing photos then you need to assume it is going to end up online. If you’re famous, quadruple the likelihood of that happening. So while most of the blame goes on whoever stole the images, these creepers cannot steal that which does not exist…………


- When in possession of a stolen diamond and trying to get away clean after the theft, what is a jewel thief to do? Hiding the stolen stone on one’s person might work, but there is always the chance that a full-body cavity search could turn up the loot. Stashing it in a large planter or underneath a trash can in a park might work, but a random passerby could find it and then your efforts were all for naught. To truly hide the diamond, there is only one option: swallow it. That’s the approach a Spanish thief took after stealing the purse of a British woman who entered a ritzy restaurant in the luxury southern resort of Marbella. The woman entered the restaurant with a friend and left her handbag on the floor by her chair, police said in a statement. From there, the criminal element took over.
    "Two well-dressed men came in, one sitting at the bar and the other next to the woman," the police report said. The men lingered for a few moments and after they left, he woman discovered that her handbag, containing $2,740 and $630 in cash, a cell phone, a pendant with a diamond worth more than $16,000 and other valuables, had disappeared. The thieves may have evaded capture had they not been traveling in a party of four, all sporting criminal records. Along with two cohorts, the thieves were discovered several hours later when , police stopped a car at a routine checkpoint and found the four occupants had criminal records.
    Knowing he was about to be pinched, the diamond thief thought quickly and decided to do some eating, so to speak. "During the operation, officers noticed one of the men putting his hand to his mouth," police said. Coupled with the discovery of a handbag as well as valuables and cash inside the car, police put the facts together and decided a visit to the nearest X-ray machine was in order.
   "This gesture and the fact that they had found the pendant without the diamond made the police think he may have swallowed it. To find the stone, those arrested were taken to a medical center where they underwent X-rays, and the diamond was located inside the stomach of one of them, who admitted swallowing it," the police report stated. All of the other stolen items were found inside the thieves’ car, leaving the diamond as the one missing piece of the puzzle. Its owner will eventually get the gem back, albeit with a possible taint of human waste or stomach acid…………


contact us                   terms and conditions                 2010 © andy harris publishing                    all rights reserved