Exhausted? Again?

It's time for another Lindsay Lohan update!  And surprise, I'm not going to tell you that she's dead.  One of these days, I'm sure that I will.  But that day is not today.  Instead, I'm here to tell you that paramedics were called to her hotel room after she was 'non-responsive'.  But have no fear!  The story that she came up with is about what you'd expect.  That being highly unlikely and not very well thought out.  But she's still not dead, so there's that. 

Here's the scoop:  See, for some reason, some producer out there thought that tired and worn out looking Lindsay Lohan would be the perfect choice to play Elizabeth Taylor in some sort of movie.  I don't know exactly why that decision was made or who thought it was a good idea.  Let's just say that she wouldn't have been my first choice.  (She probably wouldn't have even been my last choice, but that's an entirely different blog post.  Sort of.)  And lately, they've been doing some filming.  This requires Lindsay to be there and to actually work.  But that didn't go so well the other night when she didn't answer her hotel room door and someone called the paramedics.  According to the article over at the Huffington Post, "Producers were concerned when she did not come out of her room".  (Translation:  We knocked.  No one answered.  Everyone assumed she was dead.  We were wrong.  This time.)

The paramedics came and went, but not before the story was all over the Internet about Lindsay being found unconscious in her room.  Thus, she needed to go into damage control mode so that people didn't start getting the wrong idea about her, of course!  (Can you imagine if people started thinking that she was on drugs or something?  The horror!)  Naturally, she did what anyone in her situation would do.  She took to Twitter to give her version of events.  As I'm sure you can imagine, anyone without a drug addled noggin may be able to find fault in her explanation.  Let's take a look.  Behold! 

 

Of course!  The old "exhaustion" excuse!  Why didn't I see that coming?!  Isn't that what they always say?  They were "exhausted" and that accounts for their odd behavior that no one else in the history of the world has ever displayed.  Wasn't she "exhausted" right before she plowed her car into a tree or something?  Probably.  But let's try to focus on the real gem of these tweets.  That being this part:  "After working 85 hours in 4 days".  Uh, does someone want to tell Lindsay that there are only 24 hours in a day?  And that 85 hours in 4 days would equate to about 21.25 hours per day?  Call me crazy (or call her crazy), but that seems, oh, excessive?  So, eleven hours of sleep in four days?  Doesn't she have a history with cocaine?  Doesn't cocaine keep you up for hours on end?  Meth does the same thing, right?  Yeah.  OK.  I'm not insinuating anything.  I'm just making a statement in the form of a question.  That's all I've got. 

 

I don't know what her deal was, but I'm pretty sure that she wasn't slaving away for 21.25 hours each and every one of those four days that she was working on a movie to portray a woman that she looks (and acts) nothing like.  And I'm not saying that she wasn't working at all.  I'm sure that she was.  I'm not even saying that she wasn't a little tired.  I'm sure that she was.  But I am saying that her explanation for these events qualifies as a work of fiction, and not a very good one at that.  Does Vegas have an over/under line on how long this chick is going to live?  I'll take 30 and the unders. 

Sphere: Related Content

HE Hit You?! Right.

Did you hear that Justin Bieber allegedly got into some sort of a scuffle with a paparazzi photographer?  According to the Daily Mail, the photographer is claiming that he was "...roughed up by the young pop star at a shopping center." He also "...complained of pain to his chest."  Oh, please. 

Have you seen Justin Bieber ever?  The guy is barely 18 years old and looks like he might weight 90 pounds if he were soaking wet.  And this photographer guy is saying that he assaulted him?  Just how miniscule was this photographer?  Does he really want to be known as the guy who couldn't handle a punch (whatever that would entail) from the extremely effeminate and rather wispy Justin Bieber?  Dude, just go home.  Don't mention a word of it to anyone.  Save whatever dignity you might have as a paparazzo and just move on. 

I don't know exactly what happened other than what's alleged by the photographer.  But I do know that some of the pictures taken after the alleged "assault" are fairly amusing.  They don't exactly show Mr. Bieber to be a seasoned fighter in any sense of the word.  He looks more like a teenager who just rolled out of bed and is rather disoriented by his surroundings.  Let's take a look at the "assailant".  Behold! 

Yeah, he looks real vicious there.  And he has his little girlfriend picking up his hat for him.  He can't pick up his hat, but he can hit a photographer?  Why is his hair so messed up?  Is it hat hair or is it from all of the alleged assaulting?  Let's look at another. 

He looks like a zombie.  And by the way dude, nice socks.  Yeah, white and green and purple striped socks.  Real manly.  Yet the photographer is insisting that the hunk of masculinity that you see above was able to hit him in the chest to an extent that required a call to 911?  Maybe the photographer was a teenage girl.  That would explain it.  A little.  Not entirely, but a little.  Another picture, please. 

Look at that one.  He can barely balance himself enough to stand upright.  Maybe it was windy outside and he's trying not to be blown over.  And really, the medallions aren't helping his causes here.  One more picture...

The purple shoes remind me of Grimace from McDonald's.  And quite frankly, Grimace is more manly than Justin Bieber is.  It'd be more believable if the paparazzi guy had said he was assaulted by Grimace.  Look at him!  He can't even put on his shoe without his 80-pound girlfriend holding him up!  I'm supposed to believe that he assaulted someone enough to do damage?  I think not. 

Sphere: Related Content

Lying And Tiger And Bears, Oh My!

If Gloria Allred is involved in something, I usually chalk the 'something' up to really being nothing. Gloria Allred is a reprehensible human being (who probably warms her body by sunning herself on a rock) and a media whore lawyer. If there is a media bandwagon to start up, she will be the first one there to hold a press conference and explain why something has gone horribly awry for her poor, misunderstood and disserviced client. But her latest client might actually have a leg or two to stand on with her claims.

Let's meet Maureen Decker. Ms. Decker was the kindergarten teacher of a one Eldrick Woods, aka Tiger. Now that some of his extra-martial dalliances with any cocktail waitress as far as the eye can see have become known, Ms. Decker has felt the need to set the record straight about a little tale that the aforementioned Eldrick has been telling folks for quite some time. How I missed hearing about this story the first time around is beyond me. But it has apparently been out there since at least 2005, so I'm guessing I must have been extremely busy. It's a whopper.

According to the gossipy folks over there at TMZ, in a "2005 book written by Charles Barkley...the golfer says, "I became aware of my racial identity on my first day of school, on my first day of kindergarten. A group of sixth graders tied me to a tree, spray-painted the word 'nigger' on me, and threw rocks at me. That was my first day of school. And the teacher really didn't do much of anything." Um, wait. What now?

Tiger Woods is claiming that on the first day of kindergarten that he was tied to a tree, spray painted upon with racial epithets and pelted with rocks? And nothing happened?! WHAT?! How is that possible?! Well, if you're asking that very kindergarten teacher, Ms. Decker, it didn't happen. No, she's claiming that it didn't happen at all. Hmmm.

Before I go into why I am tending to believe Ms. Decker, let's look at what the fine folks down under at the Herald Sun tell us about this same incident. They tell us that Tiger also said, "I used to live across the street from school. The teacher said, 'OK, just go home'. So I had to outrun all these kids going home. It was certainly an eye-opening experience." Hmmm again.

So, let me get this straight, Eldrick. I'm supposed to believe that you, a little five year old kindergartener who was attending school at Cerritos Elementary School in Cypress, California, had this happen to him on the first day of school? Really? And I'm also supposed to believe that after you, somehow, managed to untie yourself from the alleged tree, you had to outrun a bunch of sixth graders to get home? And on top of that, I'm supposed to believe that your parents did nothing?! I'm drawing the line right there.

Your parents didn't ask for a conference with the teacher? Your parents didn't go to the police? Your parents didn't go to the media? (This story has all the makings of a national news story if there ever was one. It has at least the makings of a local news story if there ever was one.) Your parents didn't go to the principal? No, you're telling us that instead, your parents (one of whom was Earl Woods, who wanted nothing more than to make his kid a star) sent you BACK to a school where their little golf prodigy was spray painted upon? Really? I'm finding that hard to believe. I don't have children, but I cannot for the life of me ever imagine that if my kid came home from school with the N-word spray painted on him when he was five years old that I would be sending him back to that school ever. Nor can I imagine that I just wouldn't say anything to anyone. That seems highly unlikely. At best.

And speaking of spray paint, what sixth graders were going to school on the first day with cans of spray paint and lengths of rope or string with which to do all of the tying to trees? And where was this tree? Weren't you kind of a little guy, Tiger? Would the N-word even be POSSIBLE to spray paint upon your little scrawny body? How'd you untie yourself? How'd you manage to outrun them? (If he had really outrun them, wouldn't we be hearing today about him being the world's fastest man instead of the world's greatest golfer? That would have been quite the accomplishment, really.) How did any of this happen, really?

I don't blame Ms. Decker for speaking up and saying that this whole thing never happened. Apparently, she's been trying to say something about it for years, but no one would ever listen to her. Now that there is all of this media attention on Tiger, I'd have to say that I agree that the arena is probably a bit more in her favor. But did she really have to get Gloria Allred to represent her? I just can't trust anything that Gloria Allred is involved in.

From what Gloria is saying, all Ms. Decker wants is an apology. That seems reasonable to want, but I certainly don't think that she should be sitting around expecting anything to change. Tiger still won't come out and say what the entire world knows, which is that he cheated on his wife with any and every bimbo that would have him. He can't admit that even though it's beyond common knowledge. And this woman expects him to admit that the whole "first day of school torture story" was a lie? That's not going to happen. And when it doesn't, I guess that's when we'll see what Gloria's next move is. Hopefully, it's to another planet.

Sphere: Related Content

For That, I'll Skip Breakfast

I'm happy to announce that I'll be able to squeeze in one more "scientific study" before the year is over. Yipee! (Does the fact that I have "scientific study" in quotes give you any idea as to how scientific I deem it to be? Not very, that is correct.)

Perhaps the folks over there at Reuters actually found this "study" and it's "findings" to be newsworthy. Or maybe it was a slow news day. This is going to be one of the few, very few, times that I'm really hoping it was due to a slow news day. Otherwise, look forward to similar "studies" in the future with similar interpretations. (Translation: Crap.)

What we have from a government-backed Japanese medical researcher is that "Teens who skip breakfast as middle school students tend to have sex at an earlier age than those who start the day with a proper meal." Sooooooo.....yeah. We're blaming it on breakfast now? I've blamed having sex on a lot of things before. Alcohol, stupidity (usually induced by alcohol), loneliness (usually induced by alcohol), extreme horniness (usually induced by alcohol). So, basically, just alcohol. (OK, so my list isn't vast. It's a list!) But I've never blamed having sex on not having breakfast when I was in 8th grade. Or 7th. Or any grade, really. That's because it sounds ridiculous! (I prefer to blame having sex on things that make more sense. Like the alcohol reasoning. Now that's a sound excuse for just about anything right there.)

According to the study, "The average age of first-time sex for those who said they ate breakfast every day as a middle school student was 19.4, while for those who skipped breakfast, the average age was 17.5." Aw, this gets worse as I go along. 17.5?? Years old? Now they're blaming not having breakfast 4 to 5 years before someone managed to get someone else in the sack for all of the sack getting in the first place? Am I the only one who thinks they're stretching it just a tad here? I didn't think so.

"The fact that people can't eat breakfast may show something about their family environment," said a Japanese scientist who could not be any more vague with that statement. "Before blaming individuals for having sex at an early age, it may be necessary to look into the sort of homes they are from." Right. The sort of homes. OK. So, we're looking for what? Breakfast-less-ness? And lots of sex? (Alright, this is starting to get silly.)

I could see it maybe if they wanted to draw the conclusion that people were having sex for the first time at a younger age because they were doing that instead of having breakfast. I could buy that explanation. Barely. But I'd still buy it. (I'd skip a meal for sex. Hell, I'd fast on every day that ends in "y" for sex.) But this is saying that they're still not having sex until years after they've missed breakfast and quite frankly, if you're hanging onto this "not getting breakfast" thing for years, you should probably stop having sex and go find yourself a good therapist or a mental institution to check yourself into.

The survey "...also showed the average age of first-time sex was lower for those who found their mother annoying." Now there you go! That's some science I get fully back! Doing anything in spite of an annoying mother? SURE! I'm not saying that I believe people are thinking, "Man! I can't believe she grounded me for that! It was nothing! What a bitch! I'm going to show her! In a few years, I'm going to have sex! Just wait! You'll SEE!" No, that's not it. I'm just all for blaming mothers for anything. It's easier and believable in a lot of cases. (Disclaimer: There are a couple of exceptions to the blanket statement I just made about mothers. You guys know who you are. And one of them is not my mother.)

The scientist who, in the future, may be looking for different sources for research funds, said that, “Those unhappy with their parents — such as for not preparing breakfast — may tend to find a way to release their frustration by having sex." Again, I ask the question, "YEARS later?" You know what I do when I don't have breakfast prepared for me? I don't wait 4-5 years and then have sex with someone for the first time. No, I make my own damn breakfast!

Also noted was that, "If children don’t feel comfortable in their family environment, they tend to go out.” Go out...and....have sex? Well, yes! I don't know that the "family environment" is really the most "comfortable" place for anyone to be having sex! I'm glad they DO leave! I would hope that they would want to! And if they didn't, I sure as hell would ask them to!

If it wasn't for the delayed reaction time between not having breakfast and having sex for the first time, I might buy into the notion that there is something that is missing in the home environment that manifests itself without a morning Pop-Tart and leads to trampiness. But that 4-5 year window really isn't bolstering that theory very much. And actually, I'm a little surprised that they're complaining (if they are actually "complaining". It's kind of hard to tell what they're doing; other than just making stuff up) that the average age that someone first has sex over there is 17.5 years old. Seventeen and a half? I can't imagine that in the US it would be higher than that. (Have you seen how girls are dressing in the US? It's like the entire population of Whorevania exploded and made its way across the country.) Back to the survey questions, Japanese scientist guys! You have to come up with something else that you've derived from your data because this missing-breakfast-makes-you-have-sex-thing isn't quite cutting it. (Hey....does skipping breakfast make you have sex? If that's the case, I'm denouncing breakfast forever! Bring on the sex!)

Sphere: Related Content