Can't She Do That Later?

Look, I'm a big fan of good personal hygiene. Big fan! You know what I'm an even bigger fan of? Privacy, that is correct. Put those two together and you have really got something going for yourself. But if you try to do one of those without the other, do you know what you have? Problems. See, if you make sure you have privacy but you forget about the personal hygiene, then you're all by yourself, but you're smelly. That's not good for you. But what's even worse is if you decide to take care of the personal hygiene, but you do not have the privacy. And by "taking care of personal hygiene" I mean washing your privates with a jug of water. Oh, and by "you do not have the privacy" I mean that you're on a subway train. That's right. What we have here is a woman on a subway train sans pants and washing herself with the aforementioned jug of water. There are so many degrees of wrong to this that I pretty much don't know where to start. Maybe you'll know after you watch it. (And by the way, I realize that this video says that it is Part 1 of 3. I don't find that parts 2 and 3 are really necessary. It can only get worse, don't you think?) If the video below doesn't load, please click here.

Sphere: Related Content

Schmear Tactics

Oh, the misrepresented story masquerading as news is back again. This time, it's in the form of a crazy woman (who sounds like a completely pain in the ass) at Starbucks. Well, she was at Starbucks. That is, until she started screaming like a banshee because she wouldn't "order correctly". Whatever.

According to the pithy folks over there at the NY Post, a one self-proclaimed stickler for correct English, Lynne Rosenthal, went to a Manhattan Starbucks the other day and ordered herself a plain, toasted, multigrain bagel. She kind of flipped out a little bit when the employee (called a 'barista' by Starbucks because they have invented their own language over there) asked her a question. I'm sure you're wondering what sort of question could be so offensive that it would cause someone to flip their lid. You'd better be sitting down. That's right. Are you sitting? OK, good. Because I'd hate to have you standing up when you learn that the barista asked her, "Do you want butter or cheese?" Wait. What?

Look, I understand her annoyance with this sort of thing. If you say you want something plain, you want something plain. I get that. (I actually had an experience once of ordering a 'plain cheeseburger' at a fast food drive thru. I received a piece of meat between the bun. NO cheese. When I mentioned that they forgot my cheese, they said that I ordered it that way because I said 'plain'. I tried to point out that it was a cheeseburger, but I was greeted with that doe in the headlights look that seems to afflict most fast food workers.) If she wanted butter or cheese, I'm sure she would have said that she wanted butter or cheese. But she said plain. Plain, as the word itself indicates, means just that. Plain. Alone. Without anything else. But at Starbucks, that sort of logic is kind of lost. That's why they asked her if she wanted butter or cheese.

Her explanation for her dislike of this question went something like this: " I just wanted a multigrain bagel...I refused to say 'without butter or cheese.' When you go to Burger King, you don't have to list the six things you don't want. Linguistically, it's stupid, and I'm a stickler for correct English." Translation: I felt like being a pain in the ass that day.

And that's not the only day that she felt like being a pain in the ass. She admitted that she doesn't use vernacular such as"tall" or a "venti". "Instead, she insists on making a pest of herself by ordering a "small" or "large" cup of joe." OK, so she's on a completely pointless, one-woman mission. How's that working out for you over there, cupcake?

But what annoyed me about this whole story was how it was presented. The folks over at something called DNAinfo went with the headline "English Prof Claims Starbucks Booted Her For Ordering 'Incorrectly'." Yeah, that's not what happened at all. After she refused to answer that she did not want butter OR cheese on her PLAIN multigrain bagel (duh), the moronic barista couldn't get it through her head that PLAIN meant no, she did not want butter and/or cheese. Therefore, the barista wouldn't/couldn't fill her order. That's when Ms. Rosenthal began yelling. That's right. Yelling. Yelling, "I want my multigrain bagel!"

It may or may not surprise you that right about then is when the manager called the cops. One of the employees added a little bit more to the equation when she said that the woman refused to answer AND "She called [the barista] an a- -hole." Oh, there it is. Nice.

But of course, Ms. Rosenthal complained that "It was very humiliating to be thrown out, and all I did was ask for a bagel." You twit. All you did was NOT ask for a bagel. What you did was make an ass out of yourself by yelling like a Neanderthal and calling people a-holes. That's not just asking for a bagel.

The NY Post reports that Ms. Rosenthal claims to have a Ph.D. from Columbia and is an English professor. Of course, we're just supposed to take this crazy woman's word for that, as there was no follow-up by any media agency "reporting" on this incident. You can tell the media anything and it's highly unlikely that they're going to try to find out if it's true. All they want to know about is what kind of a freaking bagel she ordered. They managed to get that in the story several times. Whatever.

I have several problems with this woman. One, if she hates Starbucks and the way that they do things so freaking much, why does she continue to go there? Because she's one of those people who likes to be a pain in the ass under the guise of "making a point". And two, she's in freaking New York and she goes to Starbucks for a bagel?! Is she insane?! Of all of the authentic places in New York that you can get a bagel, she chooses Starbucks? Obviously, I was right. She's cuckoo.

Sphere: Related Content

Large As A Barge

Everyone needs to have a goal, right? Sure. That explains why a woman in New Jersey in on a quest to become the world's fattest woman. Weight. Wait. What now?

Correct. The world's fattest woman. That's a goal. And let me tell you, PT Barnum is spinning in his grave right about now. Meet Donna Simpson and her table full of food that will kill you. Behold!

I'm loving the red tablecloth. As if that is going to make this massive McDonald's buffet for one somehow seem more elegant. (It's not, by the way.) Ms. Simpson is aspiring to become the world's fattest woman. She's definitely already sealed her place as the world's most ill-intentioned woman, but let's just see where she's headed with this other goal of hers, shall we?

Currently, Ms. Simpson is enormous. She is tipping the scales (probably at the truck stop) at an incredible 550 pounds. Now, granted, I wrote this last night, so she's gotta be at least 555 or 560 by now from what I can tell. According to Guinness, she is the heaviest woman to have ever given birth. (Mind you, Guinness only follows these records for humans, otherwise it might be a jowel to jowel race between her and a blue whale.) But that's not "good" enough for her. No, she wants to completely eat up the competition (literally, I fear) and become the world's fattest woman. That's her goal. To be really, really fat. Um, OK?

No. No, it's not OK. It's not OK on several levels. First of all. Look at this woman. Look! Behold!

That's not good. That's not good for anyone. It's not good for her. It's not good for that scooter. It's not good for anyone wanting to get past her. It's all bad. Bad, I tell you. Bad. Aside from all of that wrongness, can you come up with one argument against my stating that I believe her to be mentally ill? Who does something like that? Someone with a mental problem, that is correct.

Ms. Simpson (why is it so hard for me to use the term "Ms" with this woman? Then again, why is it so difficult for me to use the term "woman" with this woman?) has a boyfriend and two children by said boyfriend. The boyfriend, a one Phillippe Gouamba, must be equally mentally ill, as she claims that he is a "belly man" and that encourages her weight gain. However, I have noticed that in all of the interviews with her and all of the article written about her, that he is never directly quoted. I don't know if he is able to speak for himself. Perhaps she ate him in her quest for to be the largest female ever. But we never hear directly from him, so keep that in mind.

I'm sure her children are just beaming with pride over this. They're definitely thinking of all of the things that they'll be able to get away with, considering that their mother can't go more than twenty feet without becoming winded. Thus, she uses a motorized scooter to get around most of the time. (Who makes a scooter than can carry that sort of a load? I'm guessing that they must be the same company that makes those indestructible black boxes on airplanes.) Let's take a gander at the happy family, shall we? Behold!

Um, OK then. Is her son a cartoon? He looks like Nipsey Russell on crack. What's up with that? Look, I realize that I shouldn't be mocking the children. This will probably be the last time that I do so. But really, I feel sorry for them because they're going to go the majority of their life without a mother as I'm sure that she will meet an early demise due to what she is doing to her body. Of course, that's just my opinion. Ms. Simpson, I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn, doesn't believe that extra weight has anything to do with health problems. OK, then. Good luck with that.

Say, are you moving around OK there, ma'am? You know, people that do not weigh as much as a blue ribbon heifer at the country fair are actually able to walk more than twenty feet under their own power. You know, people that do not have the girth of an airplane hangar don't need a motorized scooter to facilitate their own mobility. I'm thinking your ridiculous weight does impact your health. It certainly impacts your lifestyle.

Whenever I hear these stories of people that are really pushing the limits of what the human skin can contain, I always wanted to know one thing. How in the world are they paying for all of this food? That was the question that I thought that I wanted to know. I learned today that while I thought that I wanted to know, I really did not. I did not want to know. That's because I learned that Ms. Simpson pays for her average $750 weekly grocery bill by receiving payments on her website from people who fork over their cash for the "privilege" of watching her eat. Oh. My. God.

I've always said that if there is one thing that the Internet is good at, it is that is makes it so that whoever you are and whatever you're into, you know that you are not alone in this world. Clearly, if Ms. Simpson is making AT LEAST $750 a week from weirdos out there who want to PAY cash money (legal tender, for cryin' out loud!) to watch her eat, there is someone out there that can relate to you no matter what you're into. Then again, I pay money to go to the zoo. That doesn't mean that I'm turned on by the animals. All that means is that I find them fascinating to watch. I'm going to hope that the folks whole are paying money to watch this cuckoo bird eat are in the same category as folks who go to the zoo.

As I cannot fathom what this woman is actually thinking, I'm going to have to speculate wildly and assume that she is hoping for some kind of fame that would come along with being the world's fattest woman. After all, Manuel Uribe, the world's fattest man, has himself a TV show. Yeah, the last time that I watched that, it was essentially a documentary on how to wash a fat man. (It's just what it sounds like. It's a huge ordeal, it takes hours and yes, it does involve a rag on a stick.) But before you go all thinking how great it would be to have your own TV show, let's just remember that a) your show is called "World's Fattest Man", and b) you're the world's fattest man! Also, Manuel Uribe hasn't left his bed under his own power for at least seven years. (He did get married a couple of years ago, but he was on the back of a flatbed truck. You decide how you feel about that.)

This woman clearly has issues. She seems to have some sort of a desire to be loved and/or wanted by the masses (not being her own, of course) . I'm not quite sure if she realizes that, by going public with her "goal" to be the world's fattest woman, she will undoubtedly receive attention that will be less than what I'd call positive. Of course, she will blow that off as a hatred of fat people (which it's not). Has she thought about the fact that she has a 3-year old daughter that she can't keep up with at 550 (or 555 or 560) pounds and that she'll likely be bedridden at 1,000 pounds? Apparently not. She doesn't seem to be able to think past her next 27 orders at McDonald's. It's hard to know what to hope for here. The obvious thing would be that she comes to her senses and applies for The Biggest Loser. But since that's not going to happen anytime soon, do I hope that she doesn't croak it before she makes it to 1,000 pounds? I guess I do, but I'm open to options. It's just too bad that she isn't.

And to see Ms. Simpson in all of her glory, click here. But let me just warn you first, it's NOT pretty! You might want to have some eye bleach handy. No one warned me! Consider yourself appropriately warned. It's too late for me, but you might be able to save yourself if you know what you're in for.

Sphere: Related Content

Not the Best Career Path

The most sensible thing to do in life is just to find your niche and go with it. You are, however, going to have to make sure that when applying that principle, you want to make sure that your niche is of a legal bent. That is to say, don't make "habitual criminal" your niche.

Ah, but sadly, that advice came a bit too late for a one 86-year old Ella Orko (pretty name) who was arrested in Cook County, Illinois for shoplifting, according to Chicago Breaking News Again. Actually, that arrest was her THIRD arrest. In FOUR MONTHS! But don't worry! Really. She doesn't have dementia or anything like that. Whew! That's a relief, eh? Yeah, they know it's not dementia because she has 13 convictions on her record. That sounds like a lot, but then when you realize that she's been arrested SIXTY ONE times, it means that she's been convicted of only about 20% of her crimes. See? Now that I put it in perspective for you, it doesn't seem that bad, does it?

Nope. It seems worse.

Ms. (I'm exercising great liberty with that term here and just going with what it says for this one) Orko was first arrested in 1956 for petty larceny. Now, in 1956, you could steal a heck of a lot more than you could today for it to be considered petty larceny. So who knows what she was lifting back then. A cantaloupe? A Studebaker? Many more choices back then I would imagine. But that wasn't good enough for her and she aspired to have more in her life and managed to get herself arrested for grand larceny two years later.

Only two years and already she's made quite the move up the criminal ladder! She's a go-getter all right! And that knack she had for committing the steal-y sort of crimes and getting arrested for said crimes has continued to this very day. If that was her goal, she's extremely goal oriented, as she managed to get herself arrested 61 times since 1956. That's at LEAST once a year. That's also at LEAST once a year too many. It's a wonder they could keep track of all of the arrests, as she's used over FIFTY aliases during her stint as a professional lawbreaker, according to National Post. That's almost one alias per arrest. Well, she's innovative, I suppose. (What the hell else do you say about an 86-year old woman who has spent her entire life stealing? Innovative, I thought, was KIND.)

Wondering yet what an 86-year old career criminal shoplifter looks like? Of course you are. And far be it from me to disappoint. Behold!

(I swear that's her!) So what does an 86-year old woman need so badly that she must steal it? (And steal it all at once, it would appear.) Well, allegedly she helped herself to: "five packs of salmon, 11 packs of AA batteries, two packs of L’Oreal RevitaLift anti-wrinkle cream, eight boxed jars of Olay face cream and four jars of instant coffee." Hold it! What?!

Five packs of...SALMON, was it? What kind of "packs" of salmon? FIVE? Eleven packages of batteries?! How many remote controls has she stolen does she own! OK, that face cream and stuff? I've learned recently that stuff like that is expensive, and I'm sure that as a lifetime habitual criminal, she doesn't have a lot of cash lying around to splurge with, so that makes sense. (Though if these are the brands that she has BEEN using, I'd suggest trying a different brand. I don't know if those are working all that well. I'm just sayin'!) And listen, if you're going to steal coffee, don't steal instant. Steal yourself a Mr. Coffee and some real coffee and then make yourself a decent cup of joe. Who steals instant? Maybe she didn't have any room left to steal any filters. That must be it.But how was this possible? A one Robert Perez, the police spokesman said Orko "...hid the items in her pants." Wait. What? In her pants? What kind of pants was she wearing? Parachute pants? Made from an actual parachute? Cargo pants? The size of cargo ships? How are you going to fit all of that stuff in your PANTS?! You couldn't, could you? Let's try to imagine this, shall we? Behold!Yeah, see, that just looks silly. Did she really think no one was going to notice her walking out of the store like that? With salmon stuffed in her pants? (I'm really hung up on the salmon for some reason. I don't get that at all.)

Fortunately, this can all be explained away by the police spokesman when he said, "Supposedly, she's a habitual shoplifter." Um, "supposedly"? Arrested 61 times since 1956, used over 50 aliases, been convicted 13 times, yeah, I'd SAY she's a "habitual shoplifter"! When do you have to be back to your post at the Department of the Obvious, sir?

Well, look on the bright side. She IS 86 years old. Perhaps death will make an honest woman of her shortly.

Sphere: Related Content

At Least She Wasn't A Teacher

You'd think that we'd heard just about every excuse for the having of all of the sex by the older woman with the underage boys, wouldn't you? Not only would you think that, you'd HOPE so! Because if we had heard ALL of the excuses, then perhaps this would stop happening! I doubt it, but again, it's that HOPE thing. (You hope for a lot of things. You don't get most of them, but it's the hope that keeps you from hanging yourself in the meantime.) And while I'm glad that today's story of a woman having sex with a couple of underage boys doesn't involve a teacher and a middle school, it's still hardly anything I can condone.

Today we're going to go to Anderson, CA, a small town about 150 miles north of Sacramento, for some parenting tips from a one 30-year old Deborah Lee Towe. See, Ms. Towe was just trying to be a good parent and all by trying to protect her 14-year old daughter from other teenage boys. You know how the whole teenage courtship/mating thing can go. Awkwardly at best, that is correct. But she was just looking out for her daughter and trying to protect her from advances from the horndogs that are teenage boys. Nothing wrong with that. Sounds like superb parenting. Oh, wait. Did I mention that her method involved the boys having sex with HER instead so that they would leave her daughter alone? Yeah, that's what she said. Sure! What a brilliant idea! A woman who, by the way, is married with two sons and the daughter, decides that rather than talking to her daughter about, well...anything really, but instead decides that a better course of action would be to divert the attention of said potential teenage male suitors with her own vagina!

Brilliant! Or not so much. Now, from what I can gather from the information supplied by Redding.com, there are 48 pages worth of police report on this matter. 48! That's a small novel! And within said small novel it explains that how this whole thing came to light was that the vice principal of Anderson Middle School told police that "...two female students told him that the mother of one of their friends was having sex with boys." Now, I have to wonder if the daughter knew. Oh, granted, the entire school knew! You think a 15-year old boy is going to do it with a 30-year old woman and NOT tell everyone he comes in contact with? Oh, no, he is. (He probably Twittered it.) And she absolutely knows now just to what extent her mother went to in order to 'protect her'. I guess I'm just curious as to whether she told her friends or her friends told her or how that all came about. Either way though, that's just rough. Too bad that this woman couldn't have protected her daughter from her own mom. Ugh. Annnnnny way....Where was I? Oh, right. Once upon a time.... (I've really gotta get a harp.)

It would seem that one of the boys involved "struck up a friendship with Towe while visiting her home." Most likely to see her DAUGHTER! A point clearly missed by Ms. Towe, as the boy also told police that "...he had sex with her in the back seat of her car at Wal-Mart in Anderson and that they also drank alcohol." Aw, and she showed him a little romance as well, how sweet.

Drank alcohol? Like rubbing alcohol? Nah, couldn't be. Why don't they just say what it was? I'm guessing wine coolers (we're talking about some place called Anderson, California, mind you). Yep, an older woman, luring in a young lad into her Saturn with the temptation of Bartles & Jaymes and the implication of a forbidden liaison in the Wal-Mart parking lot. What teenage male would pass that up? None. And you know why? Because everything aside from the woman is irrelevant. Teenage boys need nothing more than a willing partner and that's good enough. Really, the only reason that they need the woman at all is because she's the one who carries around the vagina all the time. If they could get hold of that and not have to bother with the woman, they would. (I know a lot of guys who are like that too. Sad.)

See if you can spot a pattern in behaviors here. So another boy that ended up being a party to this, um, party told police that Ms. Towe "...had sent sexually suggestive text messages and a photo to his cell phone." OK, so now she's stupid AND immature. The cell phone photo? Ma'am, do you see that man standing next to you in this family photo? Yeah, he's your HUSBAND! What say you keep the cell phone photos of yourself strictly between you and him rather than sending said photo to a 15 year old boy (who will keep that photo for the rest of his life and possibly have it made into a 3'x4' poster for his dorm room wall at college. Just so you know.).

The boy told police that this Mother of the Year candidate "...had told him to come over and "do stuff." " Yeah, stuff. STUPID stuff. So naturally, what happened? They had sex, correct. Where? In a parking lot, correct! Only this time at the Anderson Heights Elementary School (probably because that was where she felt the most comfortable).

And yet another boy told police "...that he and Towe had kissed, but "that's pretty much it." " Later on, however, he fessed up to the fact that "...they intimately touched each other at her home." Now I have no reason to disbelieve that's all that happened because if they had actually HAD sex they would have been in a parking lot somewhere. Maybe the one behind the Dairy Queen or over at the Feed Lot. who knows? But the fact that he said they were at her home leads me to believe that they did not have sex. Not just because they weren't in a parking lot, but also because in her home (or ANY home, really) would be somewhere that you would expect people to be having sex. But since this woman has to be one of the dumbest individuals on the planet, I would expect her to do the opposite of normal. And so far, she has not disappointed in that arena! Nope! Fulfilled all expectations of stupidity laid out in front of her! (And those weren't the only expectations that she fulfilled for something laid out in front of her, that's for sure.)

I will say that I'm not totally convinced that the one boy didn't have sex with her. Come on, the kid is 15 years old. She's 30 AND she wants to have sex with him (to keep him away from her daughter, don't you know?). If you're the 15 year old, you HAVE the sex! You just do! I guess it's the statement that "they intimately touched each other" that makes me think that they really did have sex because the last time I checked, having sex DOES involve intimate touching! If you're having sex, there's some pretty intimate touching going on. So who knows? He's probably just trying to get out of being grounded when his parents find out about all of the touching that was or wasn't going on all intimately.

A cop who was interviewing Ms. Towe said that he made the statement:" 'You must have felt pretty attractive.' To which she replied, 'I did, I felt young, I missed all those years.' " All of WHAT years? The years where you would fornicate with someone's mother who was twice your age? Hey, I missed those years too! But I'm not sleeping with teenage boys! In fact, MOST of us are not sleeping with teenage boys (much to the dismay of teenage boys everywhere)! And you felt young? Lady, you're THIRTY! How 'young' were you hoping to go there? You couldn't have just put on a plaid skirt and had some naughty Catholic schoolgirl fantasy thing going on with your husband instead? You could have fit the parking lot at the Wal-Mart or the Dollar Store into that fantasy somehow. AND if you had gone that route, you wouldn't currently be sitting in jail with a $250,000 bond. Younger AND not in jail! What more could a gal want?

According to the report given on KRCR-TV, "People who live in her suburban neighborhood are shocked." Well GOOD! I imagine they are shocked. They should be! People who DON'T live in her suburban neighborhood are shocked! Why is that part of the news? It would be news if they WEREN'T shocked! Something like: "Oh, sure. We see this kind of thing all the time around here. No big deal. Women and boys. Boys and ducks. It's just another Saturday night in Anderson." Now THAT would be news!

But, hey, from the Department of The Sun is Hot, the mainstream media is almost completely inept and getting closer and closer to becoming just like Ms. Towe's parenting skills. Totally useless.

Sphere: Related Content

Now THAT'S Soliciting

Huh. I know very little about prostitution other than what the basics entail. And most of that I learned from that glorious 1982 movie, "Night Shift'. Who would have thought that combining the setting of a morgue and the business of prostitution would make for hilarious cinematic viewing pleasure. To quote Michael Keaton's character, Bill, "PROSTITUTION. What does that mean really? Sometimes it helps to understand a word if you break it down, so lets do that now shall we? 'PROS'...it doesn't mean anything. You can forget about that. 'TIT'...I think we all know what that means. 'TU' and 'TION'....Of course, from the Latin 'to shun'; To say "Uh-uh!" "No,thank you!" "I don't want it!" To push away. It doesn't even belong in this word really." That's a pretty good summary of my knowledge.

But no matter how shallow my knowledge, I can dig pretty deep when trying to figure out the best way to go about something. I'm all for a little trial, a little error (hopefully a little bit less on the error side than on the trial side), and seeing what does what. Therefore, I feel I can state with 98% confidence that the way to go about being a prostitute and soliciting your...um...prostitors? Oh, wait, got it! Customers! The way to go about being a prostitute and soliciting your customers does not involve stopping traffic so that passing motorists will practically be forced to notice you advertising your craft....by bearing your breasts. Wait. By what? What the what?

Correct. Now, surprisingly, this story does not originate in Florida, but rather in Maryland (which might earn itself the nickname "Florida of the Northeast" if its residents keep up behavior like this much longer). The folks over there at Baynet.com bring us the story of a one 39-year old "Sheila C. Vernon, of no fixed address." (I really like the use of the word "of" there. Couldn't they just have wrote "Homeless"? "Nomadic"? "Globetrotter"? "Of no fixed address" just kills me for some reason. Judging from the looks of things, I'm guessing that since her address isn't "fixed", it's probably "broken". It's also a pretty good bet that she is "Of no fixed income" as well.) It is alleged that on May 10, at 9:25 am, the ol' hookering business was a little slow and so Ms. Vernon decided to take matters into her own hands (which she usually does after she's secured a client) and drum up a little business herself. Absent a sandwich board and a bell, she apparently turned to Page Two in the 'Soliciting for Solicitors" handbook (Page One is an illustration of how to prop yourself up on the side of a street corner lamppost) and decided that standing out in front of traffic and giving suggestions to passing motorists was just the thing to get business booming again.

What it actually did was get the cops called. When they showed up, Ms Vernon was apparently, "...standing in the roadway soliciting the operator of a motor vehicle, who she had stepped in front of, for sexual acts and exposing her breasts." When was this again? May 10th? Mother's Day?! You're out in the middle of the road on Mother's Day looking for business?! I'm sure that it's exactly that very capitalistic ingenuity and unbridled enthusiasm for your craft that has her own mother simply beaming with pride! And at 9:25 in the morning as well. Kind of adds a double entendre meaning to "The early bird gets the worm."


Hopefully it will not surprise you to learn that Ms. Vernon "...was placed under arrest, charged with prostitution, two counts of indecent exposure and incarcerated in the Detention Center." She is apparently awaiting a hearing in front of someone with more authority than me who will be able to ask her, "What is wrong with you?"


I'd like to know how long she was out there, baring "the girls" as her business cards, before the cops showed up. Were all of her hooker clothes at the dry cleaner or something and she was afraid that potential clientele wouldn't recognize her as said hooker and so she felt the need to make it clear that she was? It wasn't even a button down top (which would have been much more convenient)! It's hard to be inconspicuous when you're literally lifting your shirt up and shouting out prices or items or however the hell that sort of thing works. The way I described it right there, it kinda sounded like a cattle auction, so I'm thinking it's probably not like that. Very much.

I am very grateful for the pictures of this incident! All of which were lifted with neither permission, nor malice, from Baynet.com. They're quite classic. She appears with her arm outstretched to the sides in more than one instance, leading me to believe that's the universal hooker gesture for "You want a piece of this?" She looks like an angry hooker, but can ya blame her? It's 9:25 in the morning on Mother's Day and you're out in the middle of traffic trying to sell your body to the highest bidder. Well, the lowest bidder. OK, fine, the bidder. Anyone will do! Anyone but the cops.

And thus, another Mother's Day in Maryland comes to a close before the day really even got started. But when you start your day off like that, I'm thinking it can never end too soon.

Sphere: Related Content

Paging Charles Darwin

In an unfortunate instance at the SF Zoo in December, 2006, a tiger escaped from its enclsoure, killed one person and mauled two others before the tiger ended up being shot and killed for (in reality) just doing what tigers do. And while extremely unfortunate and unfair for the tiger, it was either that or let the tiger run the zoo and eat whoever she wanted (which is really not a good promotion for ticket sales). But what about if the tiger was going all "tiger" on someone and the tiger wasn't in it's enclosure and the person that the tiger was tango-ing with wasn't a zookeeper or someone else who had a legitimate reason to be in there with the tiger? Then what? Let the tiger be a tiger or help out the moron who ended up in the tiger's cage? Do we help them or do we page Charles Darwin and let him take care of it? What if it were a polar bear and not a tiger? See, that's a fairly important distinction to make here because it was a polar bear and it was a moron who climbed down into the polar bear's enclosure. Hilarity did not ensue. Video did. Hilarity? Not so much.

Enter The Berlin Zoo in (surprise) Berlin, Germany. It would seem, at least according to CNN, that a woman who was at the zoo apparently felt the need to be a bit closer to the polar bear exhibit and so she "...climbed a fence and jumped into its habitat during feeding time." Now, while going into the polar bear area is a remarkably stupid thing to do, it's at least twice as stupid to do so during feeding time. Hell-o! It's right there in the name! Feeding time! The time when polar bears feed, that is correct.

The folks across the pond at Mirror.co.uk, described the scene as "...the terrifying moment when a woman tried to make friends with one of the world's most fearsome predators." Does anyone really think of the polar bear as "one of the world's most fearsome predators?" At first? I'm going to have to say no, they don't. To most people, it's a bear in the sense that a teddy bear is a bear also. It just doesn't register that this is an animal that would have no problem ripping you to shreds, no matter how nice you were to it. Yes, even if you just wanted to pet it, the polar bear would still want to eat you. Why? Because humans are made of meat, that is correct.

The Mirror.co.uk is much kinder in it's assessment of the situation that I am going to be as it states "Apparently oblivious to the danger she leapt a fence and scaled a wall to jump into an enclosure containing four polar bears." Apparently oblivious to the danger? I'm thinking this chick is oblivious to a lot more than just danger. She doesn't seem to be so keenly aware of 'Keep Out" signs either, not to mention, seeming to have lost any sort of a grip on reality and or common sense. That woman should not be allowed to wander freely about. Or, then again, maybe she should and then we could just let that work itself out on its own with a little Darwinian nudging.

After jumping into the enclosure where the meat-eating bears are kept, the woman then had to swim 30 meters to get to where the bears were! That's a little over 90 feet, which is a bit farther than I would want to travel in order to put my made of meat self directly in front of a carnivorous beast at feeding time. But she was OK with it. She was OK with the whole process...right up until the time that, according to a witness, the bear "...pounced on her in the water and seemed to grab her neck in his jaws." Again, what is with the people in this story trying to downplay this whole deal? "Seemed to grab?" It's a polar bear and a person. No offense, witness person, but you don't have to worry about the polar bear suing you for slander or libel or anything if you had just said, "grabbed her neck." I know it grabbed, you know it grabbed. There's no need to try and pretty up the story by inserting "seemed" there.

The polar bear grabbed and bit and the woman yelled and screamed. Seem about right to you? Me too. Seems about right. Meanwhile, some of the zookeepers tried to distract the bear while others attempted to rescue the woman by throwing useless styrofoam life rings at her and trying to hoist her up out of the moat. I understand that the styrofoam rings may have been all that was available and at their disposal for this rescue, but look at the picture below on this woman getting chomped on. A styrofoam life ring is not going to be the most effective life saving device with a person of her, um, stature. She seems to be a sturdy gal, probably tough to knock down. Styrofoam will not be of service to a woman of her girth.

Continuing with what seems to be a pattern of speaking kindly and in a non-accusatory manner by the folks over there at the zoo, a police spokesman stated: "The woman has proved herself to be careless by jumping into the enclosure." Um, NO. The woman has proved herself to be either a dumbass or a crazy person, quite possibly a little of each, by jumping into the enclosure. Careless is when you leave your shoes lying out where someone can trip over them. Jumping into a moat filled with polar bears is idiotic.


This genius spokesperson also said, "Logic tells us that polar bears will do this type of thing in this situation." Um, wrong again! Nature tells us that polar bears will be polar bears. When he says "This type of thing" does he mean "be a bear"? It's what he should mean, but I don't think he did.

It is thought the perhaps the woman wanted to be close to Knut. Knut, in case you missed it, was the first polar bear born in Berlin in 30 years back in 2006. You would have thought that Knut was really Brad Pitt in a furry white suit because about the same number of people who are obsessed with Brad Pitt were obsessed with that little bear (who is now a big and bite-y bear now).This is mental illness at it's finest and it's being treated as an incident involving a "careless" woman and a polar bear who acts out of "logic". ::::: sigh:::::::

Below is video of the bear being a bear and the woman being a moron. When I saw the link proclaiming "Watch polar bear attack woman," I wasn't real sure I wanted to see it, but I watched it for two reasons. One, it was only a minute long and I have a short attention span. Two, the media sucks, therefore making it at least probable that it was being sensationalized in order to attract viewers. Taking the second reason foremost into consideration, I watched it and I was right. There's nothing in there that I would call horrifying or terrifying or any -ify-ing words to describe it. It does contain one of the styrofoam life rings breaking in half as they try to lift the woman out of the enclosure a la a derrick, thus providing a bit of amusement.

But what if the bear had really gone all bear on this woman and started tearing her apart? Are we supposed to shoot the bear at that point? I guess, as an alleged civilized society, we kind of have to. But if you're someone who jumps in a moat to be with polar bears, that behavior right there classifies you as a moron. So does that mean we have to be civilized and infiltrated with the unwise as well? Seems sort of like, in the long run, we might be better off doing it the other way instead. I'll bet these sort of instances don't happen very often after letting it just work itself out, I'll tell you that.

The good photos in this post were swiped with neither permission, nor malice, from Sky News, which was the only site that I found that had something other than the same AP article (which was regurgitated by all other sites) and the same freeze frame shot from the video (which was also regurgitated by all other sites). They captioned the photo of the bear actually attacking the woman with: "This was the predictable, if shocking, outcome." Nice job, Sky News guys.

Sphere: Related Content