That's Not A Pizza

Are we in agreement that wacky food items with insanely high calorie counts have kind of jumped the shark?  I'm not the only one, right?  Yes, I know that people still like to get all breathless about things whenever some restaurant out there introduces some new menu item that is just CRAZY.  But I just don't feel like it's that big of a deal anymore and it's becoming some sort of squeezing blood out of a turnip attempt at reeling people in. I'm not into it anymore.  I'm not sure exactly when I lost interest.  It was definitely after the KFC Double Down because that thing wasn't as much of a gimmick as it was plain ol' delicious.  But I digress.  The latest abomination trying to gain media attention in lieu of just advertising is from the fine folks over there at Pizza Hut.  Behold! 

Now, if you're thinking "Oh, what the hell is that?" you're not alone.  That is apparently a cheeseburger pizza.  It's a "pizza" with a crust made out of little cheeseburgers.  Now, in what way is that a pizza?  Because it's round and incorporates a dough as the basis for the food item?  I thought that we had all been pretty clear for quite some time as to what constitutes a pizza.  Taking burger items and baking them in a flat ringed circle and then throwing condiments in the middle is not a pizza!  It's something, I'll give you that.  But pizza?  Come on.  You know it's not.  I'm being sucked in this time.  Not only does that look disgusting, it looks wrong.  And that's probably because they're calling it a pizza.  It's not a pizza.  Look at it!  It's NOT pizza!

Sphere: Related Content

Don't Mess With The Classics

There are lots of things out there that are classics. All different sorts of things can be classics. And do you know why a classic is a classic? Because it just is, that is correct. There's something about whatever it is that works. You know what that means? You don't mess with a classic, that is correct. Hey! I'm talkin' to YOU, George Lucas! Stop making changes to the original Star Wars trilogy! They're not for the better! Sure, go ahead and improve the quality of what the film looks like all you want. But everything else? Leave it alone! Don't make Darth Vader speak before he throws the Emperor over the edge! Just don't. It humanizes the character too much, am I right? Of course I am. Watch the abomination I speak of below and tell me that I'm right. And I'm right. He should have left it alone.

Sphere: Related Content

The Star Mangled Banner

We all know that Sunday's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner at the Super Bowl was less than perfect. But in comparison to other renditions, hey, it wasn't that bad. Don't believe me. Take a gander at this. The video below was shot a couple of years ago in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Apparently, "Officers from across Hamilton County Tennessee gather in front a memorial to remember fallen law enforcement officers." That's all I know. Well, that and that the "singing" of the "anthem" is nothing like I've ever heard before. It kind of sounds the same as the anthem penned by a one Francis Scott Key. Kind of. And the guy "singing" is kind of carrying a tune, so I guess that's why it's called singing. Other than that, there aren't a lot of similarities to the national anthem of the United States actually being sung. No. In fact, there are very few if, in fact, any more than the ones I have just cited. Take a listen. Recognize any of it? It's OK if you don't. It's barely recognizable as much of anything.

See? I told you. Look, I admire anyone who can get up and try to sing in front of others, especially for something as important as a memorial for fallen law enforcement officers. I really do. But for something that important, don't you think that maybe you should just do a quick scan of the words? Maybe even rehearse it once or twice the day before? Carry the lyrics up there with you if you need to. It's OK. I won't think less of you. (Well, I won't think less of you if you read the lyrics and get it right. If you have lyrics written down and you still can't come up with the correct wording? That's odd and I cannot be a party to something like that.) But when you're up there "singing" as if your vocabulary has just been put on "Shuffle" and random words are just flying out of your mouth in a semi-discernible tune? That's exactly how you end up on YouTube and that's exactly how you end up the subject of today's post. And really, those are two things that I don't think many of us would ever strive for.

Sphere: Related Content

O, Say Can You Sing?

Congratulations to the Green Bay Packers on a Super Bowl game well played. While I enjoyed the game, I really think that the commercials were not up to par. And if you're going to try to tell me that it isn't about the commercials, well, you'd be wrong. If you're forking over $3 million for a thirty second ad spot, you're supposed to kick it up a notch. But I'm not really here to talk about the commercials. No, I'm here to talk about the national anthem. And I think I shall start out by asking, "What in the what was that?"

The anthem, most of it, was sung by a one Christina Aguilera. She claimed, at the time that she was anointed vocal belter of national tuneage, that she had "... been performing the anthem since I was seven years old and I must say the Super Bowl is a dream come true." A quick check of Wikipedia shows that Ms. Aguilera is now thirty years old. That should have given her twenty three years to practice. Too bad it wasn't twenty four.

See, she appeared (translation: she totally did) to have forgotten the words or remembered the words incorrectly at one point. I only say this because instead of singing "O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming", she came up with "What so proudly we watched at the twilight's last gleaming." Yeah, that's not right at all. She managed to correctly place and sing the words "we watched", but other than that, I had no idea what she was talking about. It's like she kind of took the second line from the anthem "What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming" and kind of mixed it in with what she was supposed to sing. And while she didn't really miss a beat while she sang it, it was still wrong.

The video of her debacle is below. If it doesn't play, try clicking here and watching it over at YouTube. I wasn't really all that fond of how she sang the rest of the song, albeit correctly. I guess I like it better when the high notes are hit instead of being taken down an octave so that they're doable for the average singer. And while I'm not calling Christina Aguilera average, her performance certainly was.

Sphere: Related Content

What's With The Macaroni And Cheese?

Parents. Well, parent in this case. What is wrong with some of them? Well, what is wrong with this one in this case. There are a number of things wrong with the mom (or supposed to be adult caretaker). These will be pointed out by the narrator of this disturbing clip, a one Tosh.0. (That's pronounced Tosh Point Oh. I don't know why. I don't know what it means. He is wearing a stunning purple sweater vest, however.) But really, the biggest question here is: "What would lead anyone to think that this is OK?" The second most nagging question here would be: "Is pouring dry Kraft Macaroni and Cheese all over yourself supposed to be sexy?" ('Cause it's not!) Yeah, I don't get that part at all. If you do understand the mac n'cheese bit and can explain it to me, please do. But I'm talking about a logical explanation. I don't want an obvious explanation along the lines of "Just look at her!" I am looking at her! And it hurts my eyes!

Tosh.0
Guess What Happens Next - Bad Mom Strips for Kids
http://www.comedycentral.com/
Web Redemption 2 Girls, 1 Cup Reaction Demi Moore Picture

Sphere: Related Content

Reverse Natural Selection?

Sometimes, you just have to see things to believe them. And I think that a lot of the times when that is the case, once you see them and once you believe them, that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand them. That's why you're usually left just wondering what in the world is wrong with a lot of people. And that would include wondering what in the world is wrong with the media covering such stories.

Take, for example, the family of Ardi Rizal. Ardi and his family live in Indonesia. And according to the Washington Post, there has been somewhat of an uproar after "Shocking photos of....Ardi Rizal puffing away on up to 40 cigarettes a day" came to light. Sure, sure. I know a lot of people smoke 40 cigarettes a day. I don't know how in the world that they afford it, but I know that they do it. The thing that makes this a little bit more of a head scratcher is that Ardi is 2. As in "years old". Two years old. Smoking up to 40 cigarettes a day. Wait. He's two and he...? That's right.

While I am usually a huge fan of the Washington Post, I am not a huge fan of how they covered this story. If they were trying to win some sort of a prize for presenting the subject in the most irrelevant manner possible, then they were on top of their game. Other than that, well, I'm just glad I didn't pay for it or anything (even though I still feel a little gypped). They talked to a one Matthew Myers of something called the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which is located in Washington, D.C. Mr. Myers was quoted as saying, "This reflects a pervasive problem in many low-income countries where tobacco companies market their products to an uneducated public." Really? Are they marketing their products in such a way that it is implied that babies should be smoking cigarettes? No? OK, then. Anything else?

Unfortunately, yes. He also stated that "...anybody, at any age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia". Wait. What now? Anyone, regardless of age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia? Oh, now I see why that's a relevant fact! Of course. Because this two-year old wouldn't be able to smoke if he hadn't been able to go out and purchase the cigarettes that he's smoking on his own, right? Of course not! What does that have to do with anything?! Oh, nothing? Let's move on.

Now, a one Seto Mulyadi, who heads the country's child protection commission, "...blamed Ardi's two-pack-a-day habit on advertising and clueless parents." Well, that's a little bit better. Though I'm still not sure what advertising has to do with this. I'm really liking the pointing the finger at the clueless parents, however. It's probably an understatement to say that's the most likely culprit here.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's check in with this toddler's parents and see if they strike us as being of the clueless bent, shall we? First, we'll hear from the boy's mother, Diana. "He's totally addicted. If he doesn't get cigarettes, he gets angry and screams and batters his head against the wall. He tells me he feels dizzy and sick." She apparently doesn't seem to see her part in all of this. She apparently doesn't seem to think that she is the parent and that she is in control and that, eventually, all of the screaming will subside. Hmm. Yep, there are definitely indicators of cluelessness here. Let's check in with the father next.

But wait. Before we do that, I should probably also mention that not only does this two-year old smoke two packs a day, he also "...weighs 56 pounds. He's too fat to walk far so he gets around on a plastic toy truck." Yeah, see, just when you thought that it couldn't get any sadder, then it does. Let's quell that sadness with anger, OK?

The boy's father, Mohammed, is the moron who gave the kid his first cigarette when he was 18 months old. Nice job, Mohammed. Now your kid is incredibly fat and addicted to cigarettes. How does that make you feel, Mohammed? "He looks pretty healthy to me...I don't see the problem." Really?! He can't walk, you dumbass! Do you see other two-year olds getting around on a plastic toy truck whilst smoking a cigarette? No? Then he's NOT OK, you nitwit!

Seriously, I know that there are different cultures and all of that, but this has so much wrong with it that I really can't even make up anything good to say about it. I guess they're not fortunate enough in Indonesia to have things like Child Protective Services or stuff like that? (That really is a question, as I have absolutely no idea about the social services of the Far East.) Oh, wait. I just read that there is some intervention being attempted with this family. "Concerned officials offered to buy the family a car if Ardi quits." A car?! That's how social services work in Indonesia? They bribe folks to do the right thing?! Grand. Good luck with that, Indonesia. Gooooood luck with that.

The video of this tragic, preventable and completely unnecessary situation is below. If it doesn't load, try clicking here. Oh, yeah, and thanks (I think) to my friend for bringing this to my attention.

Ardi Rizal - The real SMOKING BABY !! free videos" classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=364 height=291 type=application/x-shockwave-flash>

Sphere: Related Content

Enjoy Your VD

Today is Valentine's Day or, for those of us who are bitter and (technically) alone, Sunday. I don't really understand the point of this day. I mean, shouldn't you tell people that you love them all year 'round? Of course, that's provided that there are actually people that you would actually want to tell them that you love them because you actually do. That's a tall order, my friend. Very tall.

Regardless of my dislike for the holiday, if you like it, well, Godspeed. But don't screw it up, all right? If you're going to buy her (or him) something, make it something good. We love jewelry, but we usually like to pick it out ourselves. We love Victoria's Secret, but we'd prefer a gift card rather than some satin-y, scratch-y thing with garters that you'd pick out for us. (Believe it or not, there is sleepwear out there that is sexy and that does not make us feel like a five dollar hooker.) We love cash. No "but" with this one. Cash is cash. But there are some things that we do not want.

We do not particularly want flowers. Sure, flowers are nice, but you're getting so ripped off by buying flowers for Valentine's Day that it's hard to enjoy something that someone else got reamed up the wazoo for. (And if you've ever been reamed up the wazoo, you know exactly what I'm talking about.) I don't know any women who would be thrilled to be handed a box of chocolates. None. It's not that we don't enjoy candy because we do. But it's a whole box. And while we don't want to make you feel bad by not eating it, we also don't want our ass to end up being the size of Nebraska.

But let me tell you what we really don't want. We really, really, really don't want a teddy bear. We don't care if it's from Vermont. We don't care if it's dressed in some sort of 1980s aerobic gear complete with headband and leg warmers. We don't care if our name is emblazoned somewhere upon the animal. Yes, we realize that it's cute. But it's a teddy bear. And, well....with a world full of jewelry and gift cards and cash (my God, the cash!), it's difficult to be excited (or thankful) when handed a teddy bear.

The video below is courtesy of those fine folks over at Saturday Night Live. It's one of the funniest things they've ever done and it conveys the "Don't you dare buy me a teddy bear for Valentine's Day" sentiment better than anything else ever could. Enjoy your VD!

Sphere: Related Content

Gettin' Knotty

This one is odd but, sadly, it's not the first time we've heard of something like this. That probably indicates that it won't be the last either. Huh. Unfortunate.

Let's go over to Airdrie, which is in the United Kingdom (in some place called Lanarkshire, possibly North Lanarkshire) and read what the Scottish Sun has to say about one 21-year old and old enough to know better William Shaw. It would seem that Mr. Shaw managed to get himself banned from a public park. Not all public parks, just one park in particular. He was banned from Central Park in Airdrie for demonstrating behavior that's really not appropriate for a park. Actually, it was behavior that really wouldn't be deemed appropriate anywhere. However, most of those places would be outside and since a park would also be outside, it's really not going to make much of a difference that he was banned from A park because he can just go to another park. Or a forest. Or an arboretum. There are a multitude of places that Mr. Shaw could go to engage in his untoward behaviors. What's that? The behavior? Oh, I'm sorry, I almost forgot. Yeah, he was having sex with a tree. Wait. What now?

Correct. A tree. He was having sex with a tree. Fornicating with nature. (WARNING: A multitude of puns, some bad, some even worse, will be forthcoming. Be prepared.) He must have really been pining for something like that. (See? And that's only the beginning.) According to the article, this whole thing started growing roots last September when it was alleged that "...he dropped his trousers and underpants and exposed himself while in the visitor attraction." Um, I don't know about you, but behavior like that is not much of an attraction for me. No, more like a distraction at the very least. Offputting as hell is what it is.

I'm assuming that since the tree couldn't come bark to his place with him that it's what led him to allegedly try "...to have simulated sex with the tree while his trousers were around his ankles." Now, look, while I really don't need to dissect thing thing from top to bottom, I have to ask where in the hell else his trousers would have been if he was, in fact, doing what it was alleged that he was doing! I mean, sure, it's a tree and all, but the sex part is still the same and you've gotta have your pants off (from what I can remember).

He was released on bail "...on the condition that he stays away from Central Park." And again I ask, how in the world is that going to help?! It's a tree! It's knot like you can't find another tree somewhere, right? I mean, I wouldn't find another tree! I wouldn't find A tree in the first place. But apparently Mr. Shaw wood!

"Last night Shaw was unavailable to discuss the allegations at his flat." Um, I don't think that "unavailable" is the most accurate term. Unless by "unavailable" he means "unwilling" in which case it's exactly the same thing. Fortunately, there was a neighbor that was available for comment who stated "I have seen him about and he seems a quiet lad."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Um, how loud and/or quiet is one supposed to be before they will be labeled as an obvious tree humper?! I'm not so sure that the decibel level of ones voice and/or other body functions that make noise is any sort of an indicator of this sort of behavior. In fact, I'm pretty darned sure that it's NOT! AT all! What is wrong with you people who are the neighbors of weirdos? Why is that the only damn thing that you ever have to say?

Seriously. It doesn't matter if you're a tree lover (quite literally, in this case) or a serial killer, if your neighbors are interviewed they're always going to say "They were pretty quiet." Or "I didn't really know them that well." Well, of course they were and of course you didn't. Because if they weren't quiet and if you did know them well, you'd find out that they were the sort that likes to fornicate with flora! THEN would you be happy?! I don't think you wood!

Just once I'd like to hear someone say something like, "Oh, that fruitcake? Humpin' a tree, you say? Oh, well, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The other day I caught him fondling my azaleas for the umpteenth time! He's always out in his yard, pleasuring himself with the pansies. One day I caught him stroking that tree over there, calling her a 'dirty birch' or something like that. I asked him to leave." You never hear that. (Actually, I'm kind of glad that we never hear stuff like that. Carry on. You were saying? He was a quiet lad...)

I just have a couple of questions. One, how did this guy avoid getting splinters? I'm thinking that if you're going at it with a tree of all things, you're going to be running a fairly serious risk of getting stabbed in your grundle on more than one occasion. And two, if he felt like getting really knotty, do you think he'd have a treesome?

Sphere: Related Content

Jesus, You Don't Shoot Santa!

Now, listen. I understand that one could get a little upset about the overcommercialization of Christmas. For cryin' out loud, there are displays out right after Halloween if the stores wait that long. I get it. And I can also get why one would want to be against the whole corporate greed thing when it comes to Christmas. I totally understand. But if you're going to take your own little stand there, Clem, what say you actually do remember the reason for the season and you not be a jerk about it, alright?

Dateline: Nipomo, California. Sub-dateline: That's by San Luis Obispo, kind of in the middle of the state. It's where a guy named Ron Lake lives. Ron decided that he had had enough of the commercialization of Christmas and he wanted to reclaim it for Jesus. Rather, he wanted Jesus to reclaim it for himself. Sort of. Anyway, that's why he decided it would be a good idea to build a Christmas display showing Jesus shooting and killing Santa Claus dead. Wait. What now?

Correct. You know, I've read the Bible. I don't recall Jesus packing firearms at any point in the whole thing. Not once. Jesus was more of a moderate than he was a gun-toting radical, wasn't he? Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. Anyway, back to Nipomo.

It seems that this Ron Lake fellow has just had it with the capitalistic side of Christmas and so he decided to strike back by doing something that would only torment small children and disturb many adults who happened across his protest. According to the fine folks over there at KOMO News, Ron's display has "Santa is shown dead on the ground with X's over his eyes." OK. Check!

"Standing over Santa and staring down the barrel of his shotgun is Jesus." OK. Check! Um, wait. Check? Why does Santa look like Charles Manson? This is starting to get weird.

"And the dead, limp body of Rudolph is strewn over the back of a pickup truck." Annnnnddd check! (But wait! What the heck did Rudolph do?! He's like the messenger! You don't shoot the messenger! Nor do you impale leaf-less branches from a maple tree in his noggin, but I digress.)

Ron claims that "Christmas isn't about Santa; it's about Jesus. It's an expression of my repressed creativity." Repressed creativity? Look, I understand the point he's trying to make. I really do. But I also understand what kind of person would use the term "repressed creativity" in order to attempt to justify their "display". That person is known as a "jackass".

And besides, isn't that statement a little bit contradictory? Which one is it, sir? Is it about Jesus or is it about your creativity? What's that? Oh, I see! It's really about neither one and it's just about you wanting to have a little fun and make a little scene and see how many of the townsfolk you can get all riled up? Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?! Wait. Oh, that's right. He didn't say that. I said that! Well, for cryin' out loud, someone had to say it!

Yeah, the people around there are not happy with Mr. Lake's holiday ornamentation. It's not just because it's not cool. I think we can all pretty much agree on that. But where his house is located is right across the street from a school bus stop. That means that plenty of children, some of whom likely still believe in Santa Claus (a practice of which I am a huge proponent of), are going to be a little bit confused when they see jolly old St. Nick not looking all so jolly there on the ground with the Son of God standing over him, toting a Remington.

Apparently, people in town have been quite upset by this whole thing. Some have even asked the Sheriff to do something about it. (Do something about what, exactly? The First Amendment to the Constitution?) The Sheriff has said that there is nothing that they can do because of the free speech thing and because of the private property thing. I get all of that and I don't have a problem with it. But you're talking about little kids at Christmas time who are going to be affected by this. I don't know how many and I don't know if the number should make a difference, but I know that if Mr. Lake is going to stand over there and preach that it's all about Jesus, then he should take the damn thing down.

Since the Sheriff can't do anything about it, "Area residents say they may start a petition to fight the display." Um, a petition? A petition to do what exactly? Do these folks realize when Christmas is? It's in a week. And who, pray tell, will they be petitioning? Mrs. Claus? God? I'm so confused.

I don't have a problem with someone exercising their rights to free speech. That's what makes this country so incredibly awesome. But I have a problem with people taking their right to free speech and imposing their beliefs on others in a way that is completely unproductive. Does Mr. Lake really think that his being a jackass and claiming that he's some Jesus loving repressed artist is going to make people in town say, "Oh! Well...since you put it that way." Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen.

And really, the right to free speech and someone exercising their right to free speech isn't even the issue here and Mr. Lake knows it. He's just doing it to be a bitter old man, is all. I'm not saying that it's not a little amusing. It is. But he just doesn't seem like the type of guy who is doing something in the name of Jesus, you know? That's the part that irritates me. Here's my thing: If you're going to be a jackass, as least admit it. Don't try to pretend you're not a jackass. I'll have a lot more respect for you if you'll just admit it, rather than trying to blame Jesus for something, you know?

Mr. Lake says, "You can tell your kids and make it as though there is a Santa Claus and let them believe all that, but you can't explain this thing? I don't get it." Sir, you don't have to "get it". You don't have to understand why believing in Santa Claus is a good thing. You don't have to. I swear. It's OK that you're so damn bitter and (likely) alone that you want everyone to be just as bitter as you are. That's fine. But don't drag people into your self imposed hatred of everything.

He continued his blather with "Not that Jesus is a killer with a shotgun, but come on. There's a little bit of humor here, a little bit of tragedy here." Um, Jesus wasn't a killer with a shotgun OR without! I'm not recalling Jesus killing anyone, let alone Santa Claus. There is a tragedy and it's in the form of someone with a Jesus killing Santa display across from a bus stop. There's a bit of humor, but I'm going to guess that the children are going to fail to see it.

You know, Charlie Brown was against the commercialization of Christmas. Did he give Jesus Christ a shotgun and have him gun down Santa Claus? No, he picked up a piece of crap tree and all of his friends decorated it after they all realized the true meaning of Christmas. Then they sang. NO guns. NO Jesus. Certainly NO dead Santa Claus.

It's Christmas time. Jesus didn't have a shotgun and Jesus didn't act like a jackass. If you want to make sure that people remember that Christmas is more about Jesus than Santa, don't give Jesus a gun and don't be a jackass. It's pretty simple. There are many, many ways to get your point across, but Jesus, don't shoot Santa! (I couldn't resist. That pun was just dyin' to come out!)

Sphere: Related Content

Wrong Knob! Wrong Knob!

I love Sweden's news in English. I love it even more when it involves big rig truck accidents coupled with a driver under the influence and just the right amount of masturbation. Wait. What?

From The Local - Sweden's News in English, we learn of "A German trucker suspected of driving under the influence of drugs." Now, the only reason that this suspicion was brought to the attention of authorities was because said trucker actually ended up crashing his vehicle at some juncture in western Sweden. The article nonchalantly continued with, "He subsequently admitted to masturbating at the time of the accident." Subsequent to what, exactly?? And is that what they're calling it in Sweden these days? "The influence of drugs"? I don't think that they are!

But see, here's the problem when you crash your big rig during a moment of intense personal pleasurement: Once you've caused that sort of an accident, you're really going to have your hands full! (Pun totally intended. As will be all of the subsequent puns that you'll run across here.) I mean, what do you do if you have this whole accident dealio to tend to, but you haven't quite finished your previous commitments, if you know what I mean. (Of course you do. This is a story about a masturbating trucker whose shipment had gone awry, of course you know what I mean!) Well, if you're this trucker, you don't let a little thing like a flipped truck and trailer deter you. You just keep right on going about your business. Good Lord. What?

Correct. The man overturns his truck, blocks all lanes of traffic going one direction, blocks one lane of traffic going the opposite direction and what does he do? "The man remained in the vehicle with his hands apparently still clasped around his own gear stick..." And with writing like that, how can one not love Sweden's news in English? You can't! You've gotta love it. Not quite as much as this trucker guy was loving himself, but be very fond of it at least!

According to something referred to as "the local Borås Tidning newspaper", "The trucker, apparently unable to reach a satisfactory climax, then proceeded to continue to pleasure himself while in the midst of a police interrogation." OK. Wait a minute! WHAT?!

Continued?! Continued to pleasure?! That's not a lot of pleasure for those doing the interrogating!! Here's my first question during such an interrogation: "What the hell is wrong with you?!" It's followed closely by my second question in that same scenario, that being, "Do you want to stop doing that or do you want me to beat you senseless with this stick that I'm always carrying around with me?" That's how my interrogation begins in that situation! Of course, this scenario only holds true provided the man is wearing pants. If he is de-pants, pantless, or in any other state of being unclad over the nether regions, then my first question is no longer a question, it's a statement. That being "Put on your damn pants!"

A police prosecutor, a one Åsa Askenbäck, is quoted as saying, "He was masturbating while the police interrogated him." And again, my question is WHY?? WHY was he doing that?! Because let me tell you, if I'M there? Oh, he is so NOT doing that during the interrogation! NOT so much! How does one even conduct an investigation or an interrogation with someone doing...that in the midst of said process? What were the authorities doing? Shielding their eyes? Did they turn their backs? What? Are they looking in the other direction AND interrogating? "Um, sir, I'm just going to look over here while you finish up your date night there. So, can you tell me what happened? Was the crash before or after all of the masturbation?" "Can you tell me how long you've been a masturbating truck driver?" What is wrong with Sweden's policemen in Sweden?!

The same police prosecutor is quoted as also saying, "He has admitted that he was not paying full attention at the time of the accident. He was playing with himself instead of focusing on the road." Oh, do you think?! Not paying full attention at the time of the accident?! Hell, he wasn't paying full attention at the time of the interrogation! And for the same reason! I'm not even sure why the interrogation was necessary. Here you have a truck, all flipped over and blocking traffic, and a truck driver who can't even take the time to get out of the truck because he's too busy finishing off what I'm sure was a simply lovely evening! Perhaps things got a bit out of hand when he found himself telling himself, "Faster! Faster!"

Here's the thing (well, one of them): The truck flips over. Unless this man has the concentration of David Blaine, not to mention extremely agile dexterity, I find it hard to believe that he wasn't at least temporarily disengaged from his prior engagement. So he's manuevering his own gear shift knob there, the truck flips over, gets all bent over traffic lanes, and then he just calmly goes back to doing what he was doing?!?! While I can appreciate the attentiveness to the details there, I'd really appreciate it a bit more if your details didn't involve his own penis!

But in a bizarre twist that I did not see coming, "The suspicions against the man have now been extended to sexual molestation." Sexual molestation? Of what? Himself?!! Is that actually a crime in Sweden? What if you're in a truck? Is it a crime then?? I don't understand that at all.

But I do understand that "The German trucker, who is in his thirties, has admitted all of the charges directed against him." I'm sure that there will be a stiff fine associated with that one. He could be doling out money for this one hand over fist.

Sphere: Related Content