Hey. Here are a few of my favorite headlines and articles of recent: 

“The six-acre island for sale with a private beach and 15 ghosts” - Sky News 

A secondary headline or title above the actual article asked a question, “Devon: Would you buy six-acre Drake's Island near Plymouth with private beach and 15 ghosts?” 

Would you do that? I wouldn’t. But the actual content of the article was less about the 15 ghosts and much more about the guy trying to sell the a former military fort of an island for somewhere north of 25 million pounds. Morgan Phillips thinks the Alcatrazesque island is really swell, yet he’s ready to sell such a coveted gem? There are old cannons the size of cars on the front lawn. Mr. Phillips thinks the next owner should open a hotel. “Yes Sir, your room is in the North barrack past the old armory near the burial grounds.” 

Oh right, we forgot about the ghosts. The ghosts aren’t mentioned until the last 100 words of the article when Phillips spews, "They are here to protect us. That's what they did when they were alive and that's what they're still doing! I've seen enough to say stuff happens here that I can't explain. But all of it is really nice," he insists. 

I’m not buying it Mr. Phillips. You shouldn’t have bought the island in the first place!

“New Zealand food bank distributes candy made from a potentially lethal amount of methamphetamine” - AP News

Yeah, that sounds bad. Also, “potentially lethal”? Check this out, “The amount of methamphetamine in each candy was up to 300 times the level someone would usually take and could be lethal, according to the New Zealand Drug Foundation, which is a drug checking and policy organization that first tested the candies.” 300 times is usually lethal in the meth category. Am I out of line here?

“Meet Crush, the rare orange lobster diverted from dinner plate to aquarium by Denver Broncos fans.” AP NEWS

This headline just has a lot going on. But it’s all true. I will say there is no sign that the Denver Broncos (Walmart) offered a comment or have had any involvement at all.

“Dolphin Attacks: Nearly 50 people have been hurt over three years at Japanese beaches. Some experts say a lonely dolphin could be to blame.” - New York Times

No need to click on the article, it’s just about a horny dolphin. And it sounds like he’s attacking these people on porpoise.

“Chicken wings advertised as ‘boneless’ can have bones, Ohio Supreme Court decides” - Fox 5 NY, Jennifer Williams

I really didn’t want to dive into this story any more, but I did. Is this as dumb and stupid as it sounds? Does “can” mean that the boneless chicken is “allowed” to have bones? How did this get to the Ohio Supreme Court? After reading an ‘at times’ hilarious article from Fox 5 in New York, I think I have answers to those questions.

Some guy in Southwestern Ohio ate a boneless chicken wing and found a bone in his throat a few days later. He sued everyone in sight and the case got dismissed by all the low courts in Ohio. That’s how it got to the State Supreme Court, I guess. There should not be bones in “boneless” wings. That is why most reputable wing joints give you the option and you should be able to put faith in tour sauced poultry. But, how fractional are these bones that are “allowed” to exist in boneless wings. Is it marginal? Do these allowed bones make it a bone in, in the eyes of the everyday customer? Was the bone in throat incident and anomaly? The line between variables in this calculation appears to be razor thin. Not to mention what pissed me off the most. This headline seems ridiculous right? It’s some kind of joke. No, besides maybe a few syntax changes that is the decision the Supreme Court made. I blame this on the fat cats over at Buffalo Wild Wings. Down with wing chain conglomerates and up with mom and pop wing ding joints.