It's all getting a bit silly, really

Ah Jeremy. With your bouffant hair and deluded desires to expound your every whim upon the world, it is no surprise that at certain times you overstep your abilities (I am noticing a theme). I am, of course, talking about the furor (not that Führer) elicited from your 'grand dad view' on transgenders. However, if you are familiar with my blog, you will probably see that I'm not averse to sticking my neck out on occasion. And on that bombshell, to follow the Top Gear formula, I am going to defend Clarkson's right to have an opinion - heck, I might even support his view a little.

So 'the storm within the thimble-full of tea' is that Jeremy stated that transgenders only existed in Bangkok and were generally used as part of an allegory to your buck's night rather than actually existing. Now, if anyone understands humour, that was obviously just that. No one in their right mind should think that he was being serious. He then goes on to admonish a transgendered man's desires to have a child. And I would have to agree. That 'man' who had a child and then went on Oprah should be ashamed of herself. I have no issues with her desires to be a man but I do have issue with her still wanting to have a child. That's a women's rights; not a man's. At the point you decide to be a man is the point that you give up your right to have a child yourself. You can't sidle the fence and state that you like having stubble and playing 'Ken' (or Thomas in her case) but you also like to have the luxury of being able to procreate. You basically shat upon your desires to be treated or perceived as a man. Congratulations. You will always be a hairy masculine woman in my eyes from now on.

... not necessarily a horrible result

Clarkson also derides a parents' support of their son having a sex change prior to adulthood. And I would have to agree. At the age of 10 I was far from the grounded (some would still say childish) man I am today. My ideals and convictions have certainly changed over time and for his parents to make such a serious modification to his (and now her) remaining life is 100% insane. Even if their son's views were not to change, I would want him to be the one signing the consent form. Just as you are not allowed to smoke, drink, vote and drive prior to a certain age, you should not be allowed to make life-altering surgery just because 'this week' (note the hyperbole) you desire to be a girl. Even if you are a very pretty looking girl doesn't make your parents' current actions correct ... for now.

Now I am sure I have alienated some people with my views but, really, that is the point. I have a right to have a view that is not your own. That is what makes us human. For picketers to already be calling for Jeremy's unnamed show to be cancelled is ridiculous. If you truly want to make him ineffectual, *don't watch his show* and *don't respond in your own hyperbole*. It really is that simple. All you are doing is providing him an even greater platform and influence over public media. Similar to the call to ban Alice Cooper's 'School's out for Summer' (which made his album go platinum), all you're doing is putting money in his pocket. Genius. Well played, Jeremy.

Say yes to logic

I recently have been subjected to watching inane shows like 'Say Yes to the Dress'. And this show could not be any less ... engaging. Maybe my queer eye is playing tricks on me but almost every dress looks somewhere between garish and tasteless. Yes, if I am forced to endure the contents of this show, I at least make the effort to critique their fashion missteps. And then comes the price.

Twenty-six THOUSAND (or more) for a wedding dress? That seems like a sound investment. In what reality does that make any semblance of common sense? I can understand spending maybe a few thousand which, even then makes my skin crawl, but spending the price of a car on a dress you wear once is just silly. If you have millions of dollars in the bank account then *possibly* that is alright but, if you're like most of the general population, that is a lot of money. When did marriage become about the spectacle and living out your princess fantasies? At what point does reality rear its ugly head to your idealisms? At what point do you think, no, I won't put our relationship in a financial hole that my parents or bank will need to fill? I would hope the answer would be never but who am I to question what the princess wants? 

It looks like she had a wardrobe malfunction (and it cost 1.5 mill)

Oh, and then there's another offshoot of this show called 'I found the gown.'  But I think they haven't gone far enough. I've got another concept that should broaden their audience: "I found twenty-six thousand dollars in my pocket (that I didn't spend on a wedding dress)." Well, at least the groom and parents would appreciate it.

I am going crazy

There must be something wrong with me. Despite all clues pointing to the Emperor's clothes being transparent, they continue to not see. I am, of course, talking about facebook's revitalised stock price. Even with all these sad-sacks throwing millions of dollars in ad revenue at FB, I do not know how on earth the stock price can possibly reflect reality.

Google is a proven cash cow / golden goose hybrid with a proven revenue earning model, with net revenue of  $2.89 billion (great), a stock price of $758 and an earnings per share ratio of 32 (very good). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning an incredible $24,256.

Apple has a very strong revenue model (high profit margins), with net revenue of $13.1 billion (wow), a stock price of $459 and an earnings per share ratio of 44.1 (amazing). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning an amazing $20,241.

Ebay is a business built upon a core revenue model, with net revenue of $3.38 billion (great),  a stock price of $56 and an earnings per share ratio of 2 (goodish). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning $113.

Facebook is a 'business' built around doing social stuff ... oh, and embedding annoying ads that no one clicks on and/or games that no one buys premium stuff for, with net revenue last quarter of $131 million (fine), a stock price of $31 and an earnings per share ratio of 0.11 (ugh). To put it another way, for every share out there the company is earning $3.41.

Am I missing something? Do those numbers not disturb you? In response facebook is performing a $2 billion buy back to improve the health of their EPS (earnings per share) ratio. When facebook's company is apparently worth the same as Google or Apple but doesn't have anything resembling the net revenue or earning potential, how can this not be a dollar share?

I'll leave it for you to mull over. Class dismissed.