Go Straight To Hell; Do Not Pass 'Go'

Wanna make sure you go to hell? And I mean straight to hell. No passing 'Go'. No collecting $200. Just straight to hell. If so, then might I suggest purposefully going 85 mph on the freeway in the wrong direction in an attempt to kill yourself, but being unsuccessful and instead, killing a 35-year old woman (who was 4 months pregnant) and her 13-year old son. Oh, and then suing the family of the woman that you killed. Yeah, that should do it.

According to ABC News, in March of 2009, a then 16-year old Justine Winter allegedly caused the crash just an hour after breaking up with her boyfriend. As if going on a mission to kill yourself whilst driving 85 mph in the wrong direction on the freeway, she was texting as she did it. See? Texting and driving kills. Don't do it.

The prosecutors are focusing on a series of those texts that occurred right before the crash. They include sentiments such as "If I won, I would have you. And I wouldn't crash my car." And "That's why I'm going to wreck my car. Because all I can do is f*** up. Because I am a terrible person and I know it." She also made sure that her last words were not only known, but extremely significant. "Good bye ... my last words." Yeah, that seems pretty cut and dried there.

But that's only because I am a (relatively) sane individual. I am not Justine Winter, nor am I any of the adults who are representing her. They are all, clearly, horrible individuals. They have sued the deceased woman's (Erin Thompson) estate, "...with her husband Jason Thompson as a representative, as well as three businesses that operate and provide services on Highway 93." Yeah, she's saying that the businesses failed "...to properly maintain the highway, which was under construction at the time." Well, it is hard to maintain something that isn't going to allow a crash to happen when some idiot is going in the wrong direction, let alone 85 mph in the wrong direction.

The suit actually has the balls to claim that "...Winter suffered permanent injuries in the crash and a "loss of capacity to enjoy life." She is also claiming future loss of income as well as past, present and future medical expenses." Oh, I might just twist off right now. Yep. Here I go.

Are you freaking kidding me?! SHE has a loss of capacity to enjoy life? WHY?! Because she's in jail where she belongs?! I'm sure she did suffer permanent injuries in the crash that she caused! That was her goal! To cause herself injury! Injury resulting in death!! And future loss of income?! Please. Like this chick had the mental faculties to even earn any income. She sounds like a complete moron. A complete, self-centered moron. Besides, if all goes the way that it should go, she won't have to worry about future loss of income OR any medical expenses, as I'm sure that they'll all be taken care of by the penal system that she will hopefully be incarcerated in for the rest of whatever.

The lawsuit accuses Mrs. Thompson "...of causing the accident through "negligent driving." Right. Because a woman who is four months pregnant and has her teenage son in the car with her would be driving negligently. I'm not saying that it's never happened. I'm just saying that it didn't happen in this case. How this woman's husband has not snapped in two and strangled someone at this point is beyond me.

Naturally, after filing this lawsuit, "No one from the Winter or Thompson families could be reached for comment. Winter's attorneys, David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr., also did not return repeated calls for comment." David Stufft and Maxwell Battle Jr. Please remember those names. If you ever come across either of these individuals, do whatever comes natural. (What? I wasn't suggesting anything untoward. I could have meant something like shaking their hand. Or not.) As far as the response from the prosecution's side, "Flathead County Attorney Ed Corrigan, who is leading the criminal case against Winter, said he was concerned the lawsuit would "inflame the public". Really? Suing the family of the people that you killed could "inflame the public"? In what way?

Apparently, Justine will be going on trial, as she has been charged with two counts of deliberate homicide. (That seems about right.) The preliminary trial resulted in the judge deciding that she should be tried as an adult. Naturally, her lawyers have appealed that decision, so who knows when this is going to get underway. Oh, but it is cases like these where I wish that there were a "skip the trial" option and we just toss her behind bars and move on with our lives. Some will move on easier than others, of course. But it would likely save everyone a whole lot of grief, as if the her attorneys are willing to file suit against the victim's family, Lord only knows what their courtroom defense will end up being (other than abhorrent, of course).

Sphere: Related Content

Have You Seen My Dog?

It's not very often that I read a headline and really don't know where to start. I mean, I know there has to be a starting point somewhere in the midst of all of it, but it's like my brain demands to know everything all at once! Such was the case with a headline appearing across the pond in The Telegraph, which read "Transvestite had sex with a dog at English Heritage castle". Ah-HA! See? You felt the same way, didn't you? Had to know it all at once, didn't you? I knew it!

I found the sub-heading to be of little help, as it read "A transvestite had sex with a dog in the moat of an English Heritage castle". Yes, we know that. We just read that. OK, the part about the moat was new. But other than that, it's pretty much the same. No need to repeat. But, my God, what is wrong with you, sir?

According to the article it would seem that the owner of the pet was with a friend and taking a stroll around the castle. The article states "...the pair spotted the lone transvestite on the morning of Saturday July 10th at around a quarter to twelve." The lone transvestite. That was important because...they usually travel in packs? What's more than one transvestite? It can't possibly be a pride, can it? Not much there to be proud of. Um...a gaggle? A gaygle? Help me out here!

In case you were wondering, said transvestite "...was wearing a black dress and walking around the steep-walled, empty moat." No word on what kind of shoes or bag, if any. But a black dress on a beautiful Saturday morning? Seems a bit somber to me. Not as somber as what was about to happen, but still pretty somber. When the transvestite saw the two women, he ran away (as they are known to due in their natural habitat). But it's later where things really start to pick up. That's when "...one of the dogs chased after the man; by the time the women had caught up, the man was having sex with the pet." Good Lord. So many questions. So, SO many questions.

I'm going to assume that this was a rather large dog. Though I don't know why I'm jumping to that conclusion. I think it's because as unpalatable as human-dog sex is, it is somehow more tolerable when it's a larger creature. Something small like a chihuahua just seems especially wrong. Huh. You wouldn't think that there would be varying degrees of wrongness when it comes to having sex with a dog, but apparently, there are.

My main question is how long did it take these women to find the dog? That is one dog-screwing transvestite that doesn't mess around, let me tell you. Gets right down to business, that one does. Did the mood just strike him or something? Seriously, who sees a dog running past them when they're cross dressing in a black dress whilst wandering about the outside of a castle and thinks, "I'm gonna get me some of that!" Holy canoli, man. And what do you say when you encounter something like that. "Stop that" just doesn't seem like enough, you know?

The article goes on to say that the man was restrained by the castle staff while they called the police. That'd be hard to do. I don't know that I would want to physically restrain someone who had just been making sweet, sweet love to a canine beast. I realize that it was completely necessary, but I wouldn't have liked it. Those staff members should have got the rest of the day off after that. Or a particularly tasty scone to go with their lunch or something.

In case you were wondering the castle in particular was Pendennis Castle. That's too close to some weird spelling or insinuation of "penis" if you're asking me. I'm not implying that they were asking for it. I'm merely noting the coincidence of it all. Regardless of the name, Pendennis Castle "...is a popular family tourist attraction and was heaving with visitors in high season." That's not all it was heaving with. It seemed to also be heaving with a fair amount (in this case, ANY is a fair amount, even if it's only ONE) of animal fornicators.

But get this: "He was escorted home and later made a "full and frank confession", and received a caution for outraging public decency." Escorted home?! That's IT?! A guy wearing a dress does it with a dog in the moat of a castle and he gets a ride home?! What on earth is going on over there?! You don't lock up or at least arrest your petophiles over there? (I know. Bad pun. But I couldn't resist.) Just drove him home and gave him a stern talking to, eh? Wow. All right then. Anything else we should know?

Just that "A spokesman for English Heritage said: "This was a very rare incident". You think?! Did he feel the need to say that because he was worried that Pendennis Castle was going to get some sort of misappropriated reputation for being the sort of establishment where transvestites do it with dogs all the time?! Was that the fear? A very rare incident. Well, I should certainly hope so! Good Lord....

Sphere: Related Content

No Eel Zone

Today's lesson is (unfortunately) one in human anatomy. And while anatomy can be a complicated subject at times, this lesson is quite simple. You probably won't even need to take notes. It's one concept and it's so basic I can't believe I even need to go over it here. But, of course, there was an...incident. And I felt that it warranted a wee bit of discussion. Ready? Here we go. Today's lesson is: Some parts of the human body are OUT ONLY.

Let's go to Sichuan, China where a bunch of guys were drinking to excess and one of them inevitably passed out. Now, I'll admit that it does seem kind of amusing to do funny things to people when they're completely comatose on the living room couch, bathroom floor, wherever, really. Put makeup on them. Make funny signs and put them next to them and post the photos on Facebook. Take off all of their clothes and carry the drunkard into the stairwell. Things like that are hilarious. It's when the hilarity tries to involve live aquatic creatures that it stops becoming hilarious and starts to tread down the path of WTF?

Now, according to something called The Shanghaiist, the drunk in this story was a 59-year old man who was a chef (why they felt the need to include that is completely beyond me, as it has nothing to do with this story AT ALL!) who was taken "...to a Sichuan hospital complaining of abdominal pain, dehydration and a great deal of anal bleeding. He was soon diagnosed as being in a severe state of shock." I think I'd be in a severe state of shock as well if I had a great deal of bleeding coming from that particular area. Yes, that IS shocking, I agree.

Now, something called Guanabee tells us since the doctors couldn't figure out what was causing the pain (you know, probably stemming from all of the arse bleeding that was going on) they "...obtained permission from the family to conduct a laparotomy– a surgical incision into the abdominal wall done to examine the abdominal organs." Yipes. Yeah, you think that's bad? Just wait. It ain't nothing like bad, yet.

(WARNING: This is really not for anyone. If there was an "NO" rating, meaning it was for NO ONE, that is what this would be rated. You've been warned.) Once they cut the dude open, it was apparent what had gone wrong. What had gone wrong and what had gone IN. That's right. They found (brace yourself) "...a 50cm long, dead Asian swamp eel stuck in the man’s rectal region. The slithery fish had bit it’s way through the intestine." Oh, my God! Stop it now!

An EEL?!!? FIFTY CENTIMETERS LONG?! I'll do that math and convert that to the English equivalent so that you'll know that we're talking about 25 inches, or just over TWO FREAKING FEET LONG! IN the OUT DOOR!! Good Lord, people! OUT ONLY! OUT only!! NO EELS ALLOWED!

Here's the part of the story where I began to question how good these doctors actually were. I mean, congratulations on finding the eel after you cut the dude open, but, "...According to reports, the chef had consumed copious amounts of eel the day before, but doctors couldn’t figure out how a live eel ended up in his rectum." Wait. What now?

Is that part about the chef consuming the "copious amounts of eel the day before" a necessary part to put in this story? Or did the docs think that somehow, eating eel would cause a live one to grow inside of you? Or get inside of you? What in the hell does eating eel have to do with any of this?! (I will never look at unagi in the same way ever again. Not that I ever thought it looked all that great to begin with, but when you start putting it in this sort of a context, it's really pretty much over for previous thoughts ever returning without thinking about this horror first.)

Wanna know what having an eel that once used to be alive does when it's inserted into the OUT ONLY area of the human body? Well, first of all, the eel isn't going to like it AT ALL. I say that because "...the eel had apparently already wrought havoc on his innards, biting its way through his intestines prior to dying. Internal bleeding and infection rapidly set in." Yes, I imagine those thing WOULD set in when you have a creature inside of you trying desperately to gnaw its way out. I might not make it to the end of this post. I'm not feeling well.

Have all of you eely sleuths figured out what happened yet? Remember, I mentioned the whole drinking and getting passed-out drunk earlier in this story. Yeah, that DID play a part. Shocking, I know. (No pun intended just because it was an eel.) The article state that "The likely cause was eventually established - he had apparently been drinking with friends, and had passed out. His friends had decided it would be amusing to insert a live eel into his anus whilst he was comatose." Oh. God.

The LIKELY cause?! I'm pretty sure that having your friends shove an eel up your ass is the ONLY cause after one has been found in your rectum. LIKELY cause? I understand not wanting to jump to conclusions or whatever, but when there's only ONE conclusion, by all means, freaking JUMP! What is WRONG with you people?!

Now, not to get overly graphic here or anything, but that must have been quite the chore to get that eel up there. Granted, the thing could have done some slithering on its own, but how much is the question. That area is full of rather tight muscles. I mean, they're tight for a reason. They keep things from going out at the wrong time and, most importantly in this case, they keep things from going IN! And if you're so drunk that you don't realize that something of this nature is happening to you, you need to go to meeting or something. Anything! Granted, this guy croaked, but had he lived, I think a meeting or two would have been in order.

I'm going to leave you with one final visual image. Maybe they used a shoehorn.

Sphere: Related Content

EEWWWW!!

Directly from the file of "EEWWWW!!", we have this headline from Yahoo! Lifestyle: "I'm in love with my grandson and we're having a baby." Have I already said EEWWWW? I did? Well, something like this warrants it again. EEWWWW!!

What the what?! Correct. What we have here is extreme oddness portraying itself as fine and dandy. Granted, there are only TWO people that are in the fine and dandy camp, as the rest of us are pretty much going with EEWWWW!! Those two folks would be a one 72-year old Pearl Carter (that's right; could she have a more old person's name than Pearl Carter?) and a one 26-year old grandson by the name of Phil Bailey. He's not just any grandson. He's Pearl's grandson. Good Lord.

Here's the scoop: Apparently, when Pearl was 18, she became pregnant (presumably through the normal means and nothing incestuous) and her parents insisted that she give the baby away as to "not to bring the family into disrepute." (Yeah, I don't think her family would be all that thrilled with her current relationship if they were all worried about the disrepute and all. Sleeping with your grandson is a surefire ticket straight to disrepute. And probably to hell, also.)

She gives her baby daughter away and never sees it again. In 1983, that baby is all grown up and gives birth to Phil. When Phil is 18, his mom tells him that she was adopted. She also told him that she had brain cancer. (That must have been quite a day for ol' Phil there.) He took care of her for six months before she succumbed to her cancer. That's when he decided it would be a good idea to track down his grandmother. It took him three years, but he finally did it. And considering that I know how this story turned out, I'm kind of wishing that it took him a little bit longer, you know?

So, Phil found an address for Pearl and he wrote to her. That's quaint. A letter. I wonder if he used a quill and an ink well to make her feel more comfortable? Regardless, Pearl said that she "... was stunned to get his letter...My heart jumped that I'd be re-united with a grandson. I wrote back immediately and included my phone number." To her rotary phone, I presume?

Phil called Pearl. As Pearl describes the conversation, "We both cried but kept talking for three hours." Huh. Really? OK. After that the relationship progressed and according to Pearl, "When he emailed me a photo, I thought what a handsome and sexy man he was before pinching myself – he was my grandson!" EEWWWW!! Look, I'm OK with the seeing a photo of the guy and thinking how handsome he was. That's normal. Thinking he's sexy? When you know he's your grandson? Not so normal. I'm guessing that Pearl didn't send him an image of herself because it was really short notice to find someone to do an oil painting of her.

"Confused, Pearl talked to a friend, who told her about an article she'd read on Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA), which occurs when close relatives meet as adults and are attracted to each other." Wow. I'll give her props for telling anyone at all (though I would be interested to know if that friend has ever talked to her since), but it seems to be at this juncture that things begin to go horribly awry when Pearl concluded "I could now understand my feelings and realise they weren't wrong."

I'm going to have to disagree with that conclusion. Just because something has a name, that doesn't mean it isn't wrong! Just because you pour syrup on something, that doesn't make it a pancake!

Pearl recalls that "From the first moment that I saw him, I knew we would never have a grandmother-grandson relationship. For the first time in years I felt sexually alive." Excuse me for a minute. I think I have something in my throat. I believe it's my lunch. EEWWWW!!

They spent their first week getting to know each other by shopping, bowling and eating out. It was the second week when things got a little too close for my comfort (and it should have been for theirs as well!). That's when Pearl kissed Phil and Phil kissed her back. That's also when Pearl "...explained to Phil what she'd discovered about GSA." Upon hearing about GSA, Phil stated that he "...was thrilled and excited" because "I could be with Pearl and it was OK because she'd never raised me or been in my life." Oh! UN-fortunate! Something got lost in the translation there! Because it's clearly NOT OK! It's not a matter of whether or not she has ever been in your life! She's RELATED to you! It's OK for her to be in your life. It's NOT OK for her to be in your pants! I'm certainly glad that his mother wasn't around for him to explain to her that he's doing HER mother! That's beyond how wrong even this whole ordeal is.

(WARNING: This next part is not for children. It's barely for adults.) The night that they kissed is when "...grandmother and grandson became lovers." Oh, God. "Making love to Pearl was a real eye-opener." Oh, I don't doubt that for minute! Even though if it were me and I would most definitely want my eyes closed, I'm sure that having sex with your Grandma IS an eye-opener. No kidding. He said, "It was love combined with all this sexual tension that had been building up." Sexual tension or not, it doesn't mean you should be doin' Granny! Ever!

Now, you know that this story cannot possibly end there, right? No, what would make this freak show absolutely complete would be if they hired a surrogate to carry a baby for them. Yep, that should do it. Meet Roxanne Campbell!

Yep, that's a picture of what you think it is. They met Roxanne after they decided to use "Pearl's retirement money to find a surrogate mother and buy a donor egg to inseminate with Phil's sperm." They placed an ad and though it doesn't say where, I'm guessing craigslist? Where else would you find someone to go along with this sort of oddity?! Upon finding out of the incestuous nature of the whole thing, Roxanne says that she was "shocked". But never let a little shock hold anyone back from helping an incestuous couple reproduce! Especially if you're like Roxanne and you see that "...they're a brilliant pair and I saw how much they loved each other. I know the baby will be loved too." Sure. It'll be loved. From the retirement home, I have the feeling.

And Pearl's take on how things ended up? "I am finally going to be a mum and not forced to give up my child. Phil's going to be a great dad. I never in a million years thought at 72 I'd be "pregnant" and in love with my grandson. I make no apologies and I believe God's given me a second chance." Oh, really?! You NEVER thought you'd be in love with your grandson? I'm shocked! That never entered your mind? Go figure! And by the way, you probably should apologize. I don't know to who, but it just seems as if there's an apology that's necessary here somewhere. (I feel a little violated. I'd take an apology.) Also, while I do believe that God gives second chances, I don't think He does so in this way, exactly. Yeah, I think He does it differently. I PRAY He does it differently. Just because your cat has kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them biscuits. Or something like that.

Sphere: Related Content

Extracurricular Activites of a UK Mayor

What in the world is wrong with some of you people? Seriously. It's a serious question. What is wrong with you? There is clearly something wrong with some of you, otherwise y'all wouldn't be pulling some of the stunts that you're pulling. I mean, I understand the need to get laid. (Believe me, I understand!) But I don't understand what you guys don't understand about going out and getting a hooker or a whore or something to accomplish that. And the part that I don't understand is why you don't do it if your other alternative to getting yourself off is to sneak into people's homes and relieve your sexual tensions on their undergarments. But that's only when you're not busy fulfilling your duties as mayor. Wait. As what now?

Correct. As mayor. It would seem that over there across the pond in Lancashire (that's in North West England) and according to the Lancashire Telegraph, "The mayor of a Lancashire village" was caught "sneaking into bedrooms to steal and violate women’s underwear". Really? As mayor? I hear of political sex scandals in this country every other day at least. Granted, Mayor isn't exactly Governor or Senator or anything like that, but I'm sure that there's still some scandal that's out there to be had that doesn't involve all of the stealing and certainly doesn't involve all of the violating. I'm sure of it.

But this guy, apparently, was not. Accoding to the article in the Lancashire Telegraph, "Church-going Ian Stafford, 59, was a highly respected member of the community and Mayor of Preesall, near Fleetwood, before his “bluntly revolting” behaviour was uncovered". I see. Was it really necessary to put in there that he was "church going"? I don't think that it was. But if it was, what was it supposed to accomplish? Is it supposed to make people hate him more or less? Because it really makes me hate him more. Much more. Pig. But I digress. What does this sort of individual look like, you may be wondering? He looks exactly like you're think he looks. Behold!

Seriously. Tell me that if you were just shown that picture and you knew nothing of that man's history and you were given a choice of whether he was a mayor, a handyman or an ejaculating underwear thief, which one would you choose? The EUT, of course you would!

But perhaps being mayor over there in Lancashire doesn't carry the same clout or, at the very least, the same paycheck that it does over here in the US because Stafford was described as "A part-time handyman and gardener" and "had been employed for years by some of his victims who trusted him with keys to their homes." See, I just can't picture a mayor in the States as being someone's gardener. I picture pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom (the gayest looking straight man I have ever seen), the mayor of San Francisco and I can't see him doing his own gardening, let alone someone else's. Thank God that I also can't picture him doing unspeakable acts in other women's underwear drawers, either.

The pervert (I don't have to use "alleged" because he was convicted) was caught in his own insidious acts when one of the homeowners who had been violated "became suspicious" (oh, do you think?!) and set up hidden cameras. That was when Pervert Stafford was observed to be "in the bedroom naked from the waste(sp) down acting out his fantasy". Eww. Eww. And EWWW!!!

The homeowner (likely after multiple vomiting sessions) then took the evidence (which contained 14 minutes of this guy doing his thing) to the police. When they searched Pervy McJacksalot's home "...officers found stolen underwear which were marked with the women’s names on them." Of course. Because he wouldn't want to get them confused or mixed up or anything. No, that would be weird. Whatever. Freak.

I think that my favorite part of this account is where the article describe that "After hobbling into court using a walking stick, past his victims in the public gallery, his jaw dropped as he was sent down by Judge Heather Lloyd, who told him his actions were “bluntly revolting”. Oh, spare me. A walking stick?! (That's cutesy English talk for "a cane", I have the feeling.) Did the pervert have his walking stick (not to be confused with "whacking his stick") with him when he was sneaking into women's bedrooms and getting friendly with their undergarments? I'm not thinking that he did! If only judges in the US would tell people like this that they and their actions are both "bluntly revolting". That's pretty awesome.

The judge further told the sicko "To masturbate into a woman’s underwear and place it back in the drawer, repeatedly, as seen in the DVD, as you have done in other homes is bluntly revolting and the impact on your victims is high.” Why yes! Yes, it is! It is in all cases! It's bluntly revolting with an extremely high impact! Two years in jail is what this guy got? Good! I hope that he experiences some of this bluntly revolting behavior from some of his fellow inmates whilst he's serving away his time.

Sphere: Related Content