Friday, July 31, 2009

Ale to the Chief

Finally. Gatesgate is finally over. Either that or it's just beginning. And I'm not sure which one I'd prefer. As long as it isn't in the damn headlines every single day, simply rehashing the same stuff over and over. But I suspect we're going to have to hear about this "beer bonding" that these three did for a while.

Has there ever been so many flapping gums that completely miss the entire point of what they're flapping about other than this beer summit thing? Oh, sorry President Barry. It's not a "beer summit". That's right. What did you call it? Oh, yeah. "This is three folks having a drink." So...what? Did Biden crash the party or something? Behold!


Good Lord, had I known Biden was going to be there, I would have been more enthused about the whole thing! Have you heard the guy talk when he's sober?! He is a sound bite per minute, that Vice President Biden is. Get a few drinks in him and look out! Maybe he'll get really drunk like Mel Gibson and call someone "Sugar Tits" (probably President Barry). Yeah, in my dreams that would happen! But I still couldn't help but hoping that's how this little powwow would turn out. My perfect scenario would have had them all (as Jimmy Fallon put it) "doing Jaeger shots out of Betsy Ross's thimble", followed by an exchange of words and everyone stripping down to the waist as a slight scuffle ensued and finally breaking up when Sergeant Crowley broke out his Taser and started showing folks just how Mr. Zappy there works. How GREAT would that have been?! Pretty great!

But alas, none of that was to be. ::: sigh ::: Instead, they all came together as one! Now, is it just me or is it a little odd that each one of them got to choose what brand of beer they wanted to drink? AND they all chose something different. Yep, everyone coming together as one and doing it separately, that was their goal! (By the way, I think that Professor Gates was making or retracting some sort of political statement with his choice in beverage. He had originally requested Red Stripe (a beer which hails from Jamaica and which I find extremely unpleasant), but then word had it that he was drinking Samuel Adams. Soooooo....did he start off with the Red Stripe as a statement of his heritage and then worry that was going to make him seem too radical and so he went with Samuel Adams, the great American patriot who was likely not a brewer of any sort of beer? I just found it interesting that he switched, is all.)

And they drank it out of mugs. And they had snacks in a silver bowl on the table. What the hell? All that was left for them to do was to join hands and start up a rousing chorus of Kum-Bi-Ya. Seriously, though, what's with the Chex Mix in the silver bowl? It's Chex Mix for cryin' out loud! You're in the ROSE garden. You're drinking out of GLASS mugs. You've got some crunchy snacks in a SILVER bowl. Y'all are wearing TIES. What a bunch of wusses y'all looked like. (Except for Sgt. Crowley. He looked rather uncomfortable with the whole thing. Not uncomfortable in the sense that he wanted to leave or didn't want to be there, but uncomfortable in the sense that he wished he could loosen his tie and that these other folks would do the same. It's hard to be relaxed and try to work things out when you've got a little noose around your neck.)

Up until the beer was poured into the mugs (which didn't even appear to be chilled! Have they no sense of the common man over there at the White House?!), this had been billed as being a "teachable moment". Yet when the "teachable moment" rolled around, the press weren't allowed anywhere near the pansies. (And they couldn't go around the flowers either!) They took a few pictures, just so that they can prove that it actually happened? But there was no audio. There was no video. None of that. We don't even know if they FINISHED their beers! Er, beer. I think they all had A beer. Well, whoop-de-whoop! They're animals!

So not only do we not know if they finished their beers or not, we have no idea what they talked about other than there were no apologies and that two men agreed to disagree. Too bad that one of those men couldn't have agreed to disagree as to whether he should show the other one his ID to prove that he lived in the house. Had it been that simple THEN I highly doubt we'd be having this discussion.

I'm having a hard time supporting President Barry on the decision to get involved in this. Yeah, I know he said that the police acted "stupidly". Why couldn't he just have explained that comment the same way? Just said that HE acted "stupidly" and went on with his day? No, he had to play the fake-peacemaker and act like he was mediating at the G-20 summit (only it would have been the G-2 summit and that just takes all the ooomph out of it for me).

If it was such a "teachable" moment, what did we learn? I'll tell you. We learned that it is apparently just fine to yell and scream and call someone a racist, a racist cop, a rogue cop and someone who shouldn't even be a cop and to say those things directly to media so that they will be heard by the entire world. That seems to be OK. And it also seems to be OK, after you're done running someone's character through the mud, to NOT apologize for calling them a racist. That seems to be alright as well. And finally, it would seem that after you've behaved as poorly as one did, you know, with all of the calling the other person "a racist", you can expect to go to the White House and sit down and have a beer with the President and Vice President. But you WILL have to stop yelling "Racist!" for a little while so that you can feign interest in what anyone else is saying. Deal? Deal!

What a joke. It makes me more aware of how politicians work. And President Barry is the KING of having things appear as if they're getting done or that some good is going to come out of something and then just quietly moving on to the next thing without even acknowledging how something else is going or how it turned out. He's very smooth that way. Or weaselly. Your choice. Do weasels drink beer?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 30, 2009

No Horsing Around, This Guy is Unstable

Here's a fairly good example of how a story can go from bad to worse to "Oh my God" rather quickly.


The Bad: A man in Longs, South Carolina was arrested on Monday night.

The Worse: For having sex with a horse.

Oh my God: Again.

From the front page of the What The Hell Manual and also from the The New York Daily News, we learn of a one 50-year old (and definitely old enough to know better that that!) Rodell Vereen who was arrested Monday night when police were called by the owner of the unwilling equine participant (otherwise known as "the horse") who had stakes out her stables in the hopes of catching said horse humper engaging in the absolutely perverse act of inter-species relations.



I suppose I shouldn't characterize it as inter-species relations and should instead give the proper name for what Rodell was charged with. That would be one count of buggery. (Can I go back to inter-species relations, please?) What now?

What the hell is buggery? Basically, buggery is the cousin of your pal sodomy over there. It's not defined very well in the statute, but it does say that it is an act that is "a carnal copulation against nature; a man or a woman with a brute beast, a man with a man, or a man unnaturally with a woman." So a woman with a woman would be OK? Excellent. I particularly enjoy the term "brute beast" as that could also define a few men I've dated. (I really have to find a way to inject the term "carnal copulation" into more conversations. It's a bit showy, but I like it.) I'm not sure why they call it "buggery" in the current day and age, but it used to be punishable by death, so I'm willing to overlook what it's called and just be thankful that it is unlawful to copulate carnally against nature and the like. Very thankful.

So, back to the buggery! It seems that a one Barbara Kenley, the owner of the Lazy B Stables, had caught Rodell "...having sex with a horse on Thanksgiving Day of 2007." Now, that doesn't sound like anything to be thankful for, especially if you're the horse! He did end up pleading guilty in July, 2008 to said buggery and was sentenced to three years probation and ordered to get some mental health counseling. (Some good mental health counseling.) And told not to go near Lazy B Stables. Must be the time of year for him or something like that because here it is July again and Rodell's bugging around in the stables again. Maybe it's the heat.

Whatever it is, it's disgusting. Recently, Barbara Kenley had noticed that one of her horses, Sugar, had been developing infections. Again. On top of that, she noticed that some of the items in the barn, like her folding chair, had been moved. And unfortunately, Barbara knew what that meant and installed a bunch of surveillance cameras to videotape her stables when she wasn't around. And again, unfortunately she ended up seeing Rodell acting like a perverted Mr. Ed with her Sugar. More unfortunate than that was that she took the videotape to the police and they told her they couldn't arrest anyone because they couldn't identify anyone in the video. Well, anyone other than the horse. Oh, I imagine it was clear that someone else was in the video with the horse, but they just couldn't see who that individual was.

But Barbara knew who it was and she was going to do something about it. According to the Sun News, on Monday night "...she went to check on the horses and saw an unknown vehicle parked near her property." Upon further investigation she found Rodell "...behind a barn where the horses are kept and pointed a shotgun at him." (Probably not what he had in mind when he was thinking about a little foreplay.) She then called the cops from her cell and pointed the shotgun at him until the cops arrived and arrested him. Again.


When she confronted him and asked him what he was doing in her barn, he came up with the worst possible answer ever (well, the worst possible answer next to having sex with the animals) and told her that "...he was looking for a bathroom." Dude. You seem to be pretty familiar with horses. (Yeah, familiar in the Biblical sense....if Eve was a horse.) Was that woman really supposed to believe that you thought there was a bathroom in the stable? Even if she was, she didn't. Her response? "I told him he was full of crap." Then she said that "He apologized and said he didn't mean to hurt me.'' Um, OK?

Hey, horse humper! It's not the woman who you were hurting. Oh, sure, there's the psychological and emotional aspect of it, but when we're talking about the sexual violation of something that is not human, psychological and emotional take a back seat (or saddle) to the "brute beast", as the buggery statute would call it.

Now I'm not going to justify anything he did, though I am glad that he was on probation at the time of the filly fornicating and is currently in jail. But to do something like this is one thing, but to do it again after you've been caught? And at the scene of the crime again?? How does something like that get explained? Well, over there in the Atlanta Journal Constitution a forensic psychiatrist in Atlanta, a one Tracey Marks, says that “Just as people consider marijuana to be a gateway to other things, the Internet has been a gateway for bestiality to becoming more ordinary."

Um, the only thing that marijuana has been a "gateway" to is Twinkies. But I see what she's saying about the Internet. The Internet brings people together and not always in a good way. If you ever felt like you were the only one in the entire world that enjoys a nice romantic evening with a bale of hay, perhaps a carrot or two, and the equine fantasy of your choosing, you'll never feel alone again if you can access the Internet. (And not so you can go out and buy yourself a damn horse to avert said hypothetical loneliness either. Pervert.) You'll find people all over the country, hell, you'll find them all over the world! People who are just like you! Sick and wrong. It's a gateway to the congregation of the sick and the wrong. As long as they do it on a faraway deserted island, more power to 'em. Just keep them the hell away from me. AND the horses.

Man. Talk about unstable.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

No More Funds For Fatties

For all of you who reside in the US and are just in love with all of these taxpayer subsidized programs that President Barry is enacting, you'd better slow down and check yourselves just to double check to think about whether they're really a good idea or not. After all, when people start to just be handed things without any effort on their part, they become a people that I don't think having an entire country full of would be of any great benefit. I don't even think it would be of any small benefit. The only benefit I see coming out of President Barry's social programs is that the programs will give us plenty of examples of what not to do in the future should the notion ever come up again that some people should be handed everything in their lives. It doesn't end well. Just take a gander over at the UK there to see what I'm talking about.

For instance, let's look at a one 25-year old Laura Ripley who lives somewhere in the UK. According to the Daily Mail, Ms. Ripley is unemployed and overweight. The unemployed moniker is probably a stretch though, as she has never worked in her quarter of a century on this planet. And the overweight moniker could be worse, as she used to weigh 38 stone (one stone = 14 pounds. I don't know why they go with "stone". Probably because they use "pound" for their currency and would be getting the two different pounds mixed up all of the time.) and now she weighs a mere 22 stone. I'll do the math for you so that you can be shocked that she used to weigh a whopping 532 pounds and now is down to a comparatively speaking svelte 308 pounds. Still a large gal, yes. See for yourself. Behold!
Definitely tough to knock over. But I digress. Anyway, she is, of course, on the British version of welfare because she's (wait for it) too fat to work. Well, she was too fat to work...until the British government paid for gastric band surgery and she lost 224 pounds! Fabulous! Now she can work, right? Not so fast. See, part of the money that she was receiving from the government was disability money because she's what? Too fat to work, that is correct. But when you drop off 224 pounds and you end up weighing only 308, you're still linebacker material, no getting around that fact, but you're not the entire defensive line anymore, so I'd call that progress! And so does the British government. And it's just the kind of progress that they were hoping for when they were the ones that footed the bill for her gastric bypass surgery! (That's quite a system you've got going over there, Britain. Quite a system indeed.) Here's why they offered it to her. Behold!


Because of all of the weight losing, Ms. Ripley no longer gets the money that she used to receive for being what? Too fat to work, that's right! And she is now...what? Bitching about it, correct! Because when fat, one receives £600 a month in benefits, but when one gets rid of some fat then they lose about £340 a month. (Now here's where the British pound comes in. Again, different from the US pound and when converted we learn she was receiving $984.78 a month in benefits and is no longer eligible for the $558.02 of "too fat to work money". (I'm paraphrasing there, of course. I don't think that's really what they call it. It'd be a good name for it if they needed one, though.)

Now that loss of free and effortless income really is tough for some people. I think that the degree of entitlement is directly proportional to the degree of irrationality of the complaint of the hardship. Both of those factors are in direct proportion to how much other people cannot stand this sort of person. According to Ms. Ripley, "'Without my disability allowance I'm left with just £210 ($344.67) incapacity benefit which I get because of my depression, and £100 ($164.13) income support I receive every two weeks and out of that I have to give them back £70 ($114.89) towards the cost of the £500-a-month ($820.65) flat I'm living in." Seriously, does she say this with a straight face?

Listen up, buttercup. You're paying 14% of what your rent actually is, yet living in 100% of the flat. And even though you're paying that 14%, technically you're not even doing that because you're not working and that money is being given to you by your government! You're 25 years old there, honeybabe, and you've never worked a day in your life? And you're complaining about this arrangement? Is this ALL you're complaining about?

Sadly, no. See, now that she doesn't get as much free fat money, "This means she cannot afford to eat healthily - causing her to pile the weight back on." Wait. What? Can't afford it? What does she do? Glad you asked! "'I can't afford to buy Weight Watchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day', says Laura, who spends seven hours a day watching TV." Oh. My. God.

No! No! Hold that thought! There's more! See, before when she was getting the Funds for Fatties, that "...was spent on gym workouts, healthy food and having her hair highlighted." Because having highlighted hair really slims a person down, is that it? I don't think it is! See, this is what happens when people spend other people's money. They don't CARE what they spend it on because it's not theirs and they didn't have to EARN it. And they can always make justifications for why they do what they do with money that they don't have to earn. Sort of like how she explains her food choices by saying "'People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple." Um, what now?

That's why she eats crap. It's not that she can't pay for it, it's that she doesn't want to. Essentially, she's throwing a tantrum because her Funds for Fatties were discontinued. Oh, sure, she could go and get a job, but she's holding off on that because she'd like to get a tummy tuck-like operation "which would normally cost £12,000, to remove the saggy skin left behind after the dramatic weight loss, but only if she sheds a further five stone." Well, clearly, that isn't going to happen if she's all out of free money! Five stone..what is that? Seventy pounds? She just gained fourteen pounds over the past three weeks! I don't think that five stone is going to just melt off of her! But that's why she's not looking for a job to supplement her income.

Hold on. What?

Right. She's not looking for a job. Even though she's been deemed "fit to work" (and really, you'd have to be Manuel Uribe, the World's Fattest Man, at the very least in order to actually be too fat to work) and she needs the money, she's not looking because "'I'm not even applying for work at the moment because I'm only going to have to have lots of time off when I have more surgery." But you're not having any surgery until you lose another seventy pounds there, Einstein! Even if you lost a miraculous 5 pounds a week, that's fourteen weeks you're going to have until they can get you all tucked in again. MINIMUM fourteen weeks, but that's totally unrealistic, so it would be at least double that, I'm guessing. Still, that's 28 weeks. Can a person drop 70 pounds in about 7 months? Maybe, but not eating chocolate bars and chips all the live long day they can't.
But here's the best part. Here is where I completely twisted off. It's not like she's happy with this situation. No, it saddens her, as evidenced by this statement: 'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it."

Sooooooooo....by someone do you mean you?! You're the only one doing the eatin' over there! You're the only one watching seven hours of TV a day. (My God, seven hours? I'd shoot myself first.) You're the one not exercising and eating crap. If that's what you mean, then, yes, it is a shame that someone decided to choose to sabotage all of the work that had been done up until this point. See, if you had paid for that gastric bypass yourself, you would have felt like you made some sort of an investment in the whole deal. After all, if you're spending that kind of money on something, you wouldn't want it to be for nothing or to go to waste because you ballooned up like it was Super Bowl time and someone ordered up the Goodyear Blimp. But hey! You didn't spend the money, so what do you care if you end up as big as a house again? Not a bit. Nope. Don't care a bit.

Her parting plea for more free money really summed up how this woman looks at the world and what she feels that it is obligated to give to her. "I sometimes feel guilty about all the taxpayers' money that's been spent on me but I only want an extra £100 a month, that's all." I don't think that's guilt you're feeling. I think those are hunger pains. Oh, wait a minute. No they're not! Never mind, scratch that. But it still isn't guilt that you're feeling there, cupcake. (Mmmmm...cupcakes.)

That "extra £100 a month" that you want is (and pay attention here) SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY! Someone else had to get up and go to work all day, every day whilst you sat at home in your flat which is heavily subsidized (sort of like you are!) and watched TV! Tell you what...you go out and find someone who works a full time job and then explain to them that you don't want to work but you do want them to give you £100 a month from their paycheck and see how well that goes over.

Talk about a 'Fail Whale'.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Gatesgate


There are a few things that don't make sense to me about this whole ordeal involving a one Professor Henry Louid Gates, Jr. over there at Harvard and they've been bugging me ever since this incident was reported in the mainstream media. Let's take a look at what keeps me up at night, shall we? First there's the outrage.

After it hit the airwaves, Professor Gates was clearly acting outraged and leveled some extremely seriously allegations and accusations against Sgt. Crowley by calling him "a racist", "a rogue cop" and someone "who shouldn't even be a cop." While appearing on Black in America with Soledad O'Brien, Gates stated, "...this man clearly was a rogue policeman." Gates is vehemently claiming to be the "victim" of racial profiling. OK? So, remember all of the outrage.

Next, add to above said outrage that Professor Gates is categorized in every media report as being something to the effect of "one of the nation's most prominent African American scholars". Every report has to mention at least once how brilliant he is, how accomplished he is, etc. (And maybe it's because I'm not black, but I had never heard of the guy before he was arrested. Not that it means anything, but I'd like to know exactly what "most prominent" entails. It's a fair question.)

And here's where it gets confusing for me: This incident first broke in the
Harvard Crimson on July 20. Prof. Gates was arrested on the 16th. When the Crimson attempted to contact Professor Gates to get his side of the story, they were told by his assistant, a one Joanne Kendall, that the professor "...was away from Cambridge for the summer filming a documentary and would only be making periodic returns." The Harvard Crimson could not reach Gates for comment, but they did get in touch via email with a one Charles Ogletree (who is representing Gates as, of course, his attorney) who stated that "Gates has been "traumatized" by the entire affair and is now resting comfortably in his summer home in Martha's Vineyard." Yeah, that sounds traumatic. Ugh.

So we have an outraged, traumatized, allegedly wrongfully arrested, allegedly discriminated against AND an alleged victim of racial profiling who is said to be one of the "most prominent scholars" in the country. (Snooty is what we down here in the lower classes call that.) Got it?

So why wasn't he outraged then? If he was SO outraged, why did it take him FOUR days to say anything and even then, it wasn't he who brought it up! And it can't be because he was too "traumatized", as Mr. Ogletree there was perfectly able to speak for him and give an account of what happened. Perhaps Professor Gates took a break from all of the traumatization to brief Mr. Ogletree on what happened. I really don't know. But I know that usually if you're outraged about something, something that has happened to you, you're not hunkering down at Martha's Vineyard for four days. You're especially not playing it low key if you're the "most prominent scholar" in the country, are you? I don't think I am.

In fact, if I were arrested for something that I thought was racially motivated and I was one of the top thinker types (clearly, by that sentence, I am not one of those top thinker types. I do, however, make up words as I go along, and that's gotta say something.) on the subject of African Americans, I'd be telling Ogletree to get a podium set up and alert the press that I was having a news conference when I got sprung from the joint. (And it's not because of all of the "trauma" that he didn't do something like that and instead slinked off to that chick's vineyard. Come on! He was at the police station for four hours. That's hardly traumatic. It's not like there was even time for someone to make him their bitch. Those Harvard types...awfully thin skinned, aren't they?)

I'm thinking that if this was that big of an issue for Prof. Gates, that it would have been an issue after his release from the police station four hours after his arrest. And I mean immediately after. Why the wait? I have no explanation for it. I don't even have speculation. Well, OK, I have some irresponsible speculation. And that would be that he realized, whilst lounging in the vineyard of Martha, that he overreacted and that, while whether or not he needed to be arrested, his behavior (as the law is written) certainly warranted his being arrested. But he doesn't seem like the type that is going to admit that he made a mistake and that he was wrong. He's a Harvard man. And you can tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him much.

Of course, the crappiness of the press and the media these days means that this question has never been brought up. Why'd it take you so long to start screaming that all white people are racist, Professor? Why the four days? Oh, because it wasn't racial profiling and you knew it wasn't? But four days later you decided it would be a good way to further your "prominence" by coming out and saying that we're still a big, fat racist country? (Oh, we're big and fat all right! But racist?! Still?! Did we NOT just elect a black guy President of the United States? How racist can we possibly be? What, exactly, would it take for you to show you that we're NOT racist? Because I keep hearing how we are, but I never hear what you want done differently.) Do yourself and, more importantly, Sgt. Crowley a favor and apologize to the man for labeling him a racist in front of the entire country. If you think that it's SO bad to be the victim of racism (and it IS; I'm certainly not saying that it isn't!), then how bad would it be to be labeled at the racist? Pretty bad. Even worse when you're NOT one.

But please don't wait four more days to do so. Try to realize when something needs immediate attention and act accordingly, would ya?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 27, 2009

Family Man Jon Gosselin

If all goes well, when Jon & Kate Plus 8 returns to the programming schedule of TLC (formerly "The Learning Channel", but due to the minimal amount of actual "learning" taking place, it is now known simply as The Freak ChannelTLC) people will be so sickened by this whole debacle that the plunge in ratings will boot this exploitative freak show off of the air.

In case you're blissfully unaware of who these people are, well, I envy you. Jon and Kate are Jon and Kate Gosselin, a 30-something couple residing in Pennsylvania with their eight children, 8-year old twin girls and their just turned 5-year old sextuplets. The new season (which is inexplicably the FIFTH) was supposed to have kicked off in June and ran for 46 episodes (again, another inexplicable number), but instead the first episode aired and Jon and Kate announced that they were separating and would get a divorce. Talk about your plot twist!

Leading up to the non-shocking announcement, Jon and Kate were able to experience what it is like to become media and tabloid fodder, with rumors of Jon cheating on Kate with the 22-year old daughter of the doctor who did Kate's tummy tuck for free (after hauling six kids around inside of you for months on end, your skin tends to stretch out a bit, apparently). Jon, of course, vehemently (as much as a liar can be vehement about anything, that is) denied these allegations pre-separation. Post-separation he's been spotted canoodling with his little tramp in public. Oh, but wait. It was a DIFFERENT little tramp than the one that had been alleged when all of the alleging was going on.

The reasons for the divorce stemmed from Kate being a shrew and wanting to be this famous person who would do her globetrotting to various speaking engagements to talk about how wonderful of a parent she is and if she needs to give you proof then you can conveniently purchase her book at the same time that she is telling you how great she is. The reasons for the divorce also stemmed from Jon being less than enthusiastic about the television show and possibly even less enthusiastic than that about being a father to eight children at the ripe old age of 32. You could just tell that the guy's heart wasn't quite in it, but what was he going to do?

He was going to leave, that's what. And that he did. He seems to be awfully pleased with his own act, having finally learned how to "stand up for himself" instead of letting Kate just walk all over him. And at the same time, judging from his post separation behaviors, he also seems to have taken up new residence right smack dab in the middle of Fantasy Land.

Not only has Jon been out in public with the 22-year old Hailey Glassman, they went to St. Tropez together! Meanwhile, back at the sprawling family home, Kate was tending to their eight (yes, eight!) children. What's wrong with that picture? Plenty more than just him off in France with his free whore while his still-wife is at home with the kids. Whilst in the South of France and speaking with People Magazine on the phone, Gosselin had these heartwarming words to say about his family: "Every 10 minutes I keep thinking about the kids and missing them. Mady keeps calling me and asking me if I'm in France, but she doesn't understand where France is." Um, you sir, are a jackass.

So good to know that you keep "thinking about" your kids every 10 minutes. That TOTALLY makes up for you not being there! Sure! And your kids? All eight of them? They're TOTALLY fine with it. Right? NO!!! Of course not you idiot! And while I'm on the subject, your daughter doesn't need to know where France IS, moron! That's not what she's saying! She's saying that her Dad isn't there and she wants him to be! Are you really THAT out of touch with what your kids want and need?

He must be because it apparently isn't enough for the eight children to have to have their parents go through a divorce AND do it on national TV in front of the country, not to mention on the Internet in front of the entire world. I hope that TLC is not only compensating them fairly for this show, but also providing them with free lifetime therapy, as they're going to need it.

Now their Dad gets to run around with his little tramps in public and I'm sure that they'll be able to view that on the Internet if not currently, then someday. That'll sure be a treat for them, won't it? Oh, yeah! And as for Hailey Glassman, well, let's just say that she's the anti-Kate. Naturally pictures of her in all of her glory finally surfaced. Just wait until the children run across these online one day. Behold! Glory!





But wait! There's more!

More? More whores! Let's see how many chicks Jon Gosselin can bed in the first few months after separating from his wife, Kate! In fact, let's see how many chicks he can miraculously cajole into sleeping with him that have the same name as his wife! Well, we're up to ONE so far (which is a little creepy, if you're asking me). Next in line after the 22-year old! Someone a little bit older! This one is 25!! Woot! Woot! A one Kate Major! Behold!


(What's up with the hair? Does she carry a wind machine around with her in case a photo op should happen to take place? Whose hair does that?!) Where'd he come up with this one? Would you believe me if I said that she was a reporter for Star Magazine that went to do a story on him and, in her words "I didn't mean for it to happen, it just did. I went to do a story on Jon and ended up falling for him." That according to The Hollywood Gossip. Is it any wonder that she's denying that she used to work as a call girl?

Yeah, he goes for the folks who just SCREAM 'classy'. Which is the ONLY thing that can explain who Jon was hanging out with last weekend. That's right. The name that is synonmous with classy, Michael Lohan. Behold!


If that isn't proof enough as to what a media whore Jon Gosselin has become, then I don't know what else to tell you. Michael LOHAN?? Are you kidding me? That man is sludge. But he does know a thing or two about exploiting his children, that's for sure. Him and Jon should be able to swap stories for hours on end (probably in a jail cell if they follow Michael Lohan's usual path to greatness). Meanwhile, evidence of his continuing to live in a fantasy world presents itself when he told People "I'm just trying to concentrate on my family first, second my career. That's what I have to do."

Riiiiight. And the way to do all of that concentrating is to be hanging out in the Hamptons with Michael Lohan and an ex-stripper, ex-tabloid reporter blonde chick that you're shtupping. (She quit her job at Star Magazine so that she could be with Jon. Apparently, a tabloid like Star Magazine has some sort of ethical code or something and they felt that her boinking Jon would be a conflict of interest or something like that. Odd, eh? I thought so too.) Still in Fantasy Land, he added "I don't want to introduce anyone to my kids." Again, because there is NO way that they'll ever find all of this stuff on the Internet. It's so...obscure! Yeah, uh-huh. You sir, are a jackass. And not a very bright one at that.By the way, it was news to Hailey Glassman that Jon was with Kate Major. I know that's just a complete shock to the system to hear that, but apparently it's true!

I wonder if this is what he had in mind when he said that he's just trying to concentrate on his family. You know, do what's best for them. Like taking up smoking! Excellent choice! Very family oriented!

So, I think I've done a fairly good job of summing this one up for you. Jon Gosselin is a pig. Kate is still a shrew, but she's looking a hell of a lot better these days than her loser still-husband. Get a grip on yourself, Jon. (At least then you wouldn't be needing to sleep with any female you encounter.) Please disappear from the public radar and slink back into obscurity by just being a Dad to your kids so that they don't grow up to be more screwed up than they could possibly already be. And stop hanging around Michael Lohan, for God sakes. Have a SHRED of self-respect, would you? (Though if you must insist on hanging out with him, see if he can hook you up with Lindsay. I hear her and Samantha Ronson are back together and Sam Ronson would kick your doughy ass to the curb and I'd just really like to see that. Thanks!)

In the meantime, we'll all just hope the show gets cancelled, the kids get therapy and that Jon gets a life. Or at least a clue.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 26, 2009

The Gaudiness of Drug Dealers

Down south in Mexico, America's...Shoe, the drug cartels are in full swing these days. To say that it is a big business would be a gross understatement. It's enormous. And they take all of this drug trafficking thing VERY seriously. So seriously that the drug gangs in Mexico are incredibly violent (they have a penchant for de-noggin-izing those who get in the way of their profiteering) and it's really not all that safe down in the non-touristy parts of Mexico right now. (Mexico thrives on the spots that the tourists frequent. without the tourism dollars, Mexico's economy would tank. The drug lords know this and basically stay away from the high tourist destinations. They prefer to keep their organized mayhem amongst the locals and let the visitors to their country see the sights. Aahhh, the sign of a good businessman.)

Now, the gangs and the cartels are all making an incredible amount of money with the whole trading of the drugs around. And like any capitalist enterprise, a percentage of the revenue goes back into the business and what is left after that is the profit. No sense in just keeping a big pile of money around. That would appear to be the line of thinking that the drug lords tend to go with. Thus, they spend it on items to not only enhance their standing within the gang-drug-trade profession/organizations, it also enables them to look as cool as they think that they are. That is to say, not very. "Shiny" would describe their purchases with their ill-begotten funds more than "cool" would.

When a drug lord gets busted (still not real clear on how or when that happens, but it apparently does on occasion) Mexico's Asset Administration and Disposal Service (the ol' SAE) gets to gather up their belongings and sell them off and then disperse the proceeds between the attorney general's office, the court system and the health department. Huh. Diverse.


And while it's a fine idea, my question is who is going to buy this stuff? Because it would seem to me that the people who would be in the market for some of these items are the exact same type of people that the items were seized from. The drug lords! Behold!

Here we have what appears to be Mexico's version of the perp walk, only instead of parading the suspects out in front of a live studio audience, they parade them past the cache of weaponry that has just been seized from their Tuf-Shed. Behold!


But if you really want to make a statement (not sure exactly about WHAT, but a statement, nonetheless), you can always go with something a bit more flashy....more gaudy....more...Zorro the Really, Really Gay Blade, But With a Gun. Like this!

And if you'd really like to show people what kind of a drug lord you are, you can wheel and deal on this gold and diamond encased cell phone (which would show that you're the type of drug lord who doesn't know when people are laughing at them), behold!


So do you think that the local shopkeeper who is looking for a firearm for protection is going to think to himself, "I wonder if they have any solid gold Colt handguns somewhere around here? Maybe Sears? Where would I get me something like that? Ooh! And a holster with rhinestones! Yeah, I WISH."


I ran the text of the placard there in the front through Google Translate and it returned this translation:

"marcotraficante staff of the weapon is also their working tool, it aims to express the symbol of his "power", hence the preference for larger sizes, at the same time the weapon is a showcase to display their wealth, through ostentatious cachas and recorded in the body of the gun." Translation of the translation: Penis extension. Doesn't matter the country, doesn't matter the language, it's a penis extension no matter how you look at it. (And hopefully you won't have to!)

I think if Scarface were gay and had a Vegas show with a gangster theme, these would be only some of the props.Sign translation: Someting about it being a Colt .45 and it was taken at a Gold Cup National Soccer Match. Huh. Why do you need a gold, silver and be-diamonded handgun at a soccer match? In case there's a bad call?


Here we have Jesus. No! Not THAT Jesus! Jesus. Son of God Jesus. You know Him! And what personal firearm would be complete without a small gold Jesus on the side of the grip? At least, I think it's Jesus. Could be one of those Saints that they have one of for everything over there. Violente, the patron saint of drug trafficking perhaps?

Below is a gold plated Versace gun and $30,000 in cash. Hey! I don't think that gun is REALLY a Versace! Did you buy the gun at the same place where they were selling designer handbags for really cheap? That might explain it. And I've got ten bucks that says that the owner of that gun wore Sergio Valente jeans as well.
And these are just the weapons. Can you imagine what their drug financed dwellings must look like if they bling-out their firearms like that? Let's take a look and see if a drug lords taste in weaponry is similar to his taste in home decor, shall we?

Well. Here's something you don't see every day. Thank God. What the hell is that? It's like a man-made cavern INSIDE of someone's house. Well, palace. OK, DRUG PALACE. Regardless, it's freaking weird! I can't tell if that thing in the water is supposed to be a floating shoe or a canoe or what.

What drug chalet would be complete without the cache of exotic animals to serve as pets (and to hopefully get them laid)? Here we have the everyday drug dealer pet, the black panther. These particular panthers are not wearing the traditional diamond medallions that are seen on some of the more commonly owned black panthers.

So, say I was a drug lord. Where, exactly, do I go about buying myself a lion? Behold!

It's kind of like how Michael Jackson's Neverland was; just substitute all of the children with drugs and they're practically the same. You have to have a cherub doing a handstand by the pool! If you don't, the other drug lords will think that you're a wuss.
In case you're thinking about picking up some of these gems for your own personal abode and wanted to know how to go about something as odd as that, according to The Telegraph, the auctions to sell these items usually take place in "upmarket hotels or on eBay". eBay?! Next to Sarah Palin's state jet or what? That doesn't seem right. Then again, neither does burning all of the drugs that they've seized once they've got Cokey Smurf behind bars. Behold!


Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content