Anticipating Marital Disaster

Here we have one Khloe Kardashian. Behold! Wow. OK. Well. She's the daughter of....Kim? Kardashian? Oh, no. Wait. That's her sister. Robert? Richard? Kardashian? Robert. Bob. Bob Kardashian. There it is. She's the daughter of Bob Kardashian. Bob was one of the lawyers at the OJ Simpson trial on OJ's side. Literally. On his side. He sat next to him during the trial. Not a whole lot of lawyering going on with him during all of that. Definitely a whole lot of sitting, though. Until now, I had been unaware that simply sitting next to an alleged murderer was cause enough for your children to become reality stars after you croak from esophageal cancer in 2003. But apparently it is even though no one knows why exactly. The point here, however, is that Khloe Kardashian (who I realize that you still care nothing about and still have no idea who she is) is getting married this weekend to a one Lamar Odom. Odom plays in the NBA for the LA Lakers. Here is a photo of Odom before encountering the Kardashian. Behold!

Seems normal. Happy. Upbeat about things. Somewhere along the line (and that line being August from what I can tell) he met Khloe and they began dating. Six long and a wonderful weeks later and they're gettin' hitched! Of course, they announced the engagement on the 18th of September, so they had probably known each other right around 5 weeks. Sure, that seems reasonable. What could possibly go wrong? I don't know. Let's look at some photos of the happy couple and see if there's anything different about Lamar, shall we? Behold!

Oh. Well. Well, that could just be a bad day. Not everyone is photogenic every day of their life, right?

Oh. Well. So, two. TWO not great photos. That doesn't mean anything. Really?

All right. Knock it off. This is getting ridiculous. See now, now all that's happening is....

I said cut that out! Lamar! What the hell?!?! Why are you marrying this woman if she is going to make you look like that Lamar?

Oh, God. Lamar! Are you pregnant? Is that it, Lamar? No, wait. That can't be it. But then what? What is it?? I don't know exactly, but it's fishy and I smell a rat. A fishy rat. Yep. That's what I smell.

Turns out that Khloe has sold exclusive rights to the temporarily happy couple's day of wedded bliss to OK! Magazine for a sum reported to be around $300,000. Now that money goes strictly to her, none of it goes to our man, Lamar. But, according to TMZ, now Lamar wants a prenup. The only thing is that it has to be done by Sunday (that's when the wedding is) and that they have to get married on Sunday. That has something to do with one of the companies that actually puts money into one of the reality shows that Khloe is on (yes, I believe that, by some inexplicable miracle, she has more than one) is footing the bill for the one million dollar wedding, but only if they get married on Sunday. If they postpone it, deal's off.


And by the way, Lamar is 30 and his bride-to-be is 25. Neither of them have been married before, but Lamar did "spend time with" another woman for at least ten years, otherwise known as "long enough to father three children with her". It's unclear to me exactly when the relationship between Lamar and Lisa Morales ended, but here's a photo of her, compliments of TMZ. Behold!

Lamar's bachelor party was to be hosted by none other than Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis. According to the invite, the party would have featured "stripper poles, midgets and tons of candy". OK, then. Sounds classy, which must have had something to do with why he ended up cancelling it. Probably a wise move. I don't think that it's a good idea to start your marriage off as you're recovering from a night which involved the preannounced appearance of midgets. It's a bad omen. Everywhere.

So here's my question: I haven't checked the Vegas lines yet, but doesn't there have to be an Over/Under bet on how long this marriage lasts? I'll take the Unders, thanks. I'm willing to put up at least $100 that it lasts for under a year and at least $50 that it lasts for under six months. Unless, of course, she turns up preggers and then all bets are off. Had I not known that he had already fathered a gaggle of kids, I might have bet pretty heavily on his marrying Khloe out of paternal obligation (regardless of the fact that it's practically unheard of these days, not to mention seemingly non-existent in the NBA). But since that doesn't seem to be the case, I'm holding off on that one. But I am predicting doom and disaster, ie: divorce. Soon.

Sphere: Related Content

Should He Be Wearing That?

I've been following the efforts dedicated to the recovery of human remains and debris from the Air France 447 crash. Since there hasn't been a major-major crash in about eight years (thankfully) I don't really have any recent memories to compare this recovery effort to. So these questions are based purely upon my internal "WTH" mechanism, which can go into overdrive sometimes.

At first, when it was realized that something was definitely amiss with said plane, it was being reported as "Air France jet vanishes" or "Contact lost with Air France jet". I'm more OK with the 'contact lost' descriptor than I am with 'vanishes'. Vanishes? Like 'poof!'? I don't think that it 'vanished'. I never did think that it 'vanished'. Pretty much, from the beginning, when you hear a story like this, you know, unfortunately, that it crashed. You also know, pretty much, that it didn't POOF! vanish.

It was a few days after said 'vanish-ment' that I started seeing headlines like "Air France: Missing plane likely crashed." Really? Now, this was the same day that prior headlines with "Air France flight missing mid-flight." were rampant. Likely crashed? Why jumping to conclusions so soon? You sure you want to rule out "sucked out of the atmosphere by an alien craft" or "rendered invisible by magic moonbeams" so soon? It hasn't even been a day yet. You sure you want to go that route?

Of COURSE it crashed!

Look, I'm not trying to be insensitive here, but really, what other options are there? When was the last time that a plane disappeared from radar that did not crash? Don't give me the whole 'Miracle on the Hudson' dealio, because while that plane ended up making an emergency landing, if it hadn't been for Captain Sullenberger, that plane would have ended up crashing. When it disappeared from radar what was it doing? Crashing, that is correct. So why all of the "likely crashed" scenarios making the headlines second instead of first? I don't know. Do they think that "plane missing" is going to alleviate the fears of the friends and family of those on the plane? I don't think it is! That's all I need! To have in my head that a relative or a friend of mine is suddenly a participant on a real life version of 'Lost'! Actually, I think I'd prefer "Can't find the plane, prepare for the worst."

Do I think Amelia Earhart 'vanished'? I think she crashed. Just because she was never found doesn't necessarily mean she 'vanished'.
Then came the announcements that they had found debris. Buoys that would be from the plane in the event of unexpected contact with the water were found. Cargo pallets were found. A LARGE oil slick in the middle of the ocean was found. White debris, which was never explained, was found. Seats and things that would have been from the inside of the cabin were found. Great! That means that they should be able to find the rest of the wreckage, right? Yes, but only if all of those things that they found were actually from the Air France plane. Which they weren't.

What?! Not from the plane?! Well, then where the hell were they from then!? Buoys that are from airplanes and are in the general vicinity of where the plane 'vanished' are not from that plane? How do you figure that? WHAT ARE THEY FROM?!?! I don't get it.

And while I don't understand how these recovery operations work, I do find them fascinating. I love the pictures of the guys doing all of the work out there in the ocean. I love the ocean and it scares the crap out of me at the same time. I have a buddy (who's likely reading this right now. Hi!) who works with the ocean and she went freaking snorkeling in it in the middle of nowhere last year! On purpose! So while I could never do that, I find it fascinating that others can (and do!). That's why I love the pictures. But this one baffled me. Behold!

First of all, holy cats. That's the big ol' tail they're standing on. It's so odd to see people standing on things in the water that should not be in the water. But I digress. One of those things is not like the others. Can you spot the one? Let me help you. Behold!

I believe that man is wearing a Speedo! Yes, that is a Speedo. WTH?

Since when do recovery divers wear Speedos? Was he vacationing and just decided to come along for the ride with the other divers? A wayward triathlete, perhaps? Is that Michael Phelps? I don't know, but he's in a Speedo and it just doesn't seem right. I mean, it's not wrong, but you have to admit that it's a little bit out of place, yes?

If anyone knows why Speedo-Man is there, please let me know. It's things like this that keep me up at night.

Sphere: Related Content

Saving the Incompetent From Themselves

As a way of illustrating what a litigious society we have become, the winner of 12th Wacky Warning Labels contest has been announced by the Foundation for Fair and Civil Justice. Now, if you're thinking that warning labels are always necessary and that the information that they contain is vital to the well being of the user of the product, you need to put on a helmet and have a seat. The rationale behind many product warnings (in convenient label form accompanied by the Black Box of Doom) is so that the company can avoid frivolous lawsuits when some moron has an accidental mishap with a product (like catching your teeth on the net of a basketball hoop and then suing the net manufacturer because there was no warning that the net could cause him damage to his teeth. For reals.) or when some moron misuses the product in ways that were obviously never the intended use of the product. Things like blow drying your hair whilst still in the tub or whilst taking a shower. Not a good idea. Seems pretty obvious that it's not a good idea. Yet there is always a warning label on the cord that tells you not to use it around water. Who do they think is using this product? Aquaman? The Little Mermaid? (The label also says, "WARN CHILDREN OF THE DANGER OF DEATH BY ELECTRIC SHOCK!" What? Like instead of a bedtime story?)

A one Bob Dorigo Jones was the one who had originally conceived of the idea of the contest to highlight just how whacked things have become in terms of...well, in terms of everything, really. Whacked-ness is everywhere. :::: sigh ::::

Previous winners have included little gems such as my personal favorite: AVOID DEATH. I like it because that's not so much of a warning as it is a way of life, really. First thing I think of every morning when I get up? That's right. Avoid death. Periodically throughout the day? Yep, avoid death. In most situations, first and foremost on my mind is 'avoid death'. It's really my motto for longer living (and so far, so good).

DO NOT IRON WHILE WEARING SHIRT. I've been late before (hell, I'm late right now), but I've never been so late that I've been ironing my clothes as I'm wearing them. Who is that for?

NOT INTENDED FOR HIGHWAY USE (That warning would be fine if it weren't for a 13-inch wheel on a wheelbarrow.)


DO NOT PUT ANY PERSON IN THIS WASHER (Whew! For a minute there, I was worried it was going to say something about not putting animals in there either. Fortunately, it did not and Fido's bath is still a go!)


CAUTION: RISK OF FIRE (Again, a fine warning label, if it weren't on a fireplace log.)

IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR CANNOT READ ALL DIRECTIONS, CAUTIONS AND WARNINGS, DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT. (Um, wouldn't I have to READ that in order to KNOW that?)

So these stupid warning labels are unfortunately nothing new. But getting back to this year, there's a whole slew of new ones! Counting backwards to the winner, we'll start with the 4th place label on a small, 1” x 4” LCD panel which warns: DO NOT EAT THE LCD PANEL. Right. What CAN I eat?

Third place was a tie between what would appear to be a somewhat dangerous cereal bowl needing the warning label: ALWAYS USE THIS PRODUCT WITH ADULT SUPERVISION. And a bag of what are described as being "livestock castration rings" (Please don't ask because I cannot even imagine! All I know is that I am glad that I'm not someone who has to purchase and use something like that.) which bear the warning: FOR ANIMAL USE ONLY.

OK, hold on. First of all, the bowl. WTH? Is it like a trough? A bucket? What exactly is the adult supposed to be supervising when the bowl is being used? Is it aflame? Do flares shoot out of it? Is there some sort of spinning blade attached? Oh, I've got it! Small parts! Small parts! Does it have small parts? Everything with a 'small part' has that warning! Caution: Contains small parts!! (Yes, I KNOW it contains small parts. It's a SMALL product! The LARGE parts wouldn't fit in the SMALL product, you dimwit. But thanks for the warning.)

But then the castration rings. I'm under the impression that men in general are quite fond of their own manhood. They love their grundle more than life itself on some most all days. Thus, my confusion as to why it would need to be made clear that the castration rings (for the purpose of a dictoffofme) are ONLY for animals. Most grundle loving men would shudder and cringe at just such a thought. How necessary is that warning? Is health care in this country THAT unaffordable that people have resorted to home castration methods? Is castration so common that it's now being done in people's homes?

Second place went to the label found on an instruction guide for a a wart-removal product. It is questionable to me as to how the consumer for which said warning is intended for is ever going to know about the warning, which reads: DO NOT USE IF YOU CANNOT SEE CLEARLY TO READ THE INFORMATION IN THE INFORMATION BOOKLET. Yeah, but I!...You just!....It's right!...If I can't read!...And you!...But the!.....Oh, for cryin' out loud, what is wrong with people?

But this year's winner is a warning label on a product called the Off Road Commode. The concept is that it is a toilet seat which is design to fit into a trailer hitch in order to give the user some degree of comfort (not so much privacy though) when nature calls when one is presumably "off road". The warning label is NOT FOR USE ON MOVING VEHICLES. Wait. What?

I swear. Behold!

Correct. Not for use on moving vehicle. So if you were thinking that you could empty your bladder and or colon whilst sitting on this puppy cruising down the highway at a 65 mile per hour rate of speed, well, you'll be sorely disappointed to learn that isn't safe and you shouldn't do that. WTH?! The website for this product asks the question that I was asking: Who is using the Off Road Commode? They give the answers that I just simply did not have (which is why I was asking the question). According to them, those people would be:


Fishermen
Hunters
Game Wardens
Trappers
Workers in rural areas
Family members who have everything!

Look, just because your Uncle Bob has everything, doesn't mean he's going to want to take a dump behind his pickup truck, OK? Nowhere that I have seen does it indicate what you're supposed to do with the steaming pile of excrement when you've finished using said commode. While I don't need specific details, I would think that someone interested in this product might also be interested in that as well. After all, it attaches to the trailer hitch of your vehicle. That would seem to indicate that it's in a rather close proximity to either a) foot traffic or b) other people, neither of which seem like appropriate accessories for this product, or for this sort of activity. Now, if you WERE allowed to use it on a moving vehicle, well then! THAT would take care of that little problem, wouldn't it? Of course, it might cause an entirely new set of problems due to the drivers behind you on the freeway passing out when they saw what was going on.


So this is what we've become. Excellent. Are you happy? You! Teeth in the net guy who got $50,000! Are you happy that you've contributed to this element of society and it now seems to be a permanent fixture? Man, 'Land of Opportunity', I'd say! Whoever came up with that sure wasn't sh**ting, was he? And even if he was, you can bet he wasn't doing it on the Off Road Commode on a moving vehicle, that's for sure!

Sphere: Related Content