Big Is Relative

A Japanese model says that a court verdict was overturned because her breasts would have been too big to allow her to "squeeze into a room through a hole." No word on why the room had "a hole", although she did claim that the man in the room made the hole himself. OK.

The model was found guilty of property destruction for kicking in the wooden door of a man's room and crawling inside. Allegedly she felt this was necessary because he was with another woman. Huh. Different cultures are just that. Different. Nothing wrong with kicking in the door of the cheating bastard in this country. But in Japan? Not so much. They prefer the "crawl through the hole" approach to suspected infidelity. Interesting.

When appealing the verdict, her attorney held up a plate that depicted the size of the hole and said she couldn't squeeze through that because of her big breasts. A plate?! Who CAN squeeze through a HOLE the size of a PLATE?! Breasted or not breasted!! A PLATE?! Where was this plate when she was found guilty?! Odd they didn't mention it THEN, but whatever. That's not really my issue here.

No, my issue is with this photo of the Japanese model with breasts bigger than a plate. Now it could be just me, but I am not seeing where the term "big breasted" comes into play here. "Breasted", sure. Most women are. But to classify this one, er, these, er whatever as "big"? I don't know about that.

At this point, I really want to see a picture of that plate.

Sphere: Related Content

Darwin Would Be Proud

Ironically, this tale of idiocy takes place in Darwin, Australia. Darwin, as you may recall, came up with the whole "theory of evolution" idea and the concept of "natural selection". Darwin also, as you may recall, was also known as Charles.

Keep in mind: Natural selection. Theory of evolution. The irony will astound. Here we go.

Novon Moshiah wanted to take a picture of a crocodile he saw in the river that he was boating on. The crocodile, on the other hand, wanted to eat the aspiring photographer. Those are two very different agendas.

Moshiah said: "I was shocked, the animal clearly wanted to kill me. One minute I was leaning over the boat teasing it for a picture. The next minute it burst out of the water with incredible speed ... its jaws fully open. I jumped back and the croc landed on the boat and then slapped into the water. I was shaking." Uh-huh.

He was shocked. I'll bet he wasn't as shocked as I am! Who knew?! A crocodile! Not wanting to be teased by an idiot in a boat with a camera! Un-believable! One minute he's making fun of a creature that can easily kill him and the next minute, well, the creature is actually trying to kill him. Wow.

He also said this about the incident and his bewilderment at what had happened: "I began playing with it for a photo. I was pointing at it when it suddenly jumped up at me. I didn't realise that crocs were so aggressive."

He "didn't realize" they were so aggressive? How aggressive, exactly, did he think that they were? Kind of aggressive? Mildly aggressive? Not aggressive at all; in fact, they just ask you politely if they can eat you. No, what he "didn't realize" is that he is an idiot.

Look, I'll say it again. There are animals that prefer to eat meat. Humans are made of meat! Therefore, the animals that prefer to eat meat will have no problem eating a human. Stupid or not. (But most likely stupid.)

Here's a photo of our Darwinian Einstein and the creature that he didn't realize was so aggressive. Holy crap. I don't care who you are or what your personal experience with crocodiles is. If you see something like that in a river and you assume it is anything but very aggressive, well, you would be that guy in the boat.

Stupid should hurt.

Sphere: Related Content

My Popular WTF Series: At Least It's Paedophile Free!

I think I've mentioned how I feel about the overprotectiveness that some people tend to practice these days. They've practiced it so much it's almost an art form. You know what I mean. The hand sanitizer everywhere, bike helmets for kids (Hey! YOU didn't wear one when you were a kid, did you? NO! You didn't! And did you know anyone who did? NO! You didn't. And you're all just fine, aren't you? A kid on a bike with training wheels does NOT need a helmet, for crying out loud!), no diving boards at pools, fung shui, etc. OK, the last one might be a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean. If it keeps up, it's going to go too far. Oh, wait! It just did.

At Cann Hall Primary School in Clacton, Essex (England) they want to protect their students from pedophiles (which is curiously spelled "paedophiles" in England). What a great idea! I'm all for that! I hate pedophiles! How should we do this? Wait. We should do it by covering up all of the faces of the students that are on the school's website with those smiley faces that were popular during the Acid House dance craze of the 1980s? We should?

NO WE SHOULDN'T!!!!!

F-ing hell, where do I start. Would you look at this insanity? WTF?!?!

According to the headmistress Clara Reece, "The public nature of the internet is an issue we feel strongly about. Not all parents want their children's picture on there. You can't say what is going to happen with any of those pictures."

No, apparently you CAN'T say what is going to happen with any of those pictures because they are covered with freaking smiley faces!!! ON PURPOSE!!

The children's charity NCH (It's a Europe thing, I guess) made this statement in response to this idiocy, "The images shocked me, actually. What message is it giving? It looks very, very odd. If you want to obscure children's faces you can obscure them with pixels. We need to be cautious about taking images of children out of the media."

While this guy seems to be a bit more sane than those at the school, what "we need to be cautious" of is putting images like this IN the media!! What message is it giving?! (I can only assume he asked that because he had no idea either.) It's giving the message that doing things like this is a good idea. When, in fact, it is just the opposite! It is a HORRIBLE idea! WTF?!?!

Look at how ridiculous these are! WHO, WHO could have thought this was a good idea?

I want to make a modification to all of my helmets for the softheaded folk out there who think THIS is a good idea. You know those big halo things that people who have had a neck injury have to wear? Big, huge, metal halo thing that radiates out from their head at least 12 inches all the way around? Yeah, those. I want to add THOSE to my helmets for the softheaded. Because if ANYONE thinks THIS is a good idea, they're going to need extra protection for that melted cranium of theirs.

Sphere: Related Content

RIP in One Sentence Or Less

While perusing through The Telegraph.co.uk, I decided to check out their obituaries. I don't know why. Dead is dead in any country. But since I'm rather taken by their journalism style, I thought that their obituaries might follow a similar theme. They did not disappoint.

The UK version of the obituary, or at least the version of that of the Telegraph.co.uk is a very short blurb, many of which really could have and probably should have been elaborated on. But, hey, rulees are rules. (I guess. I have no idea.)

Norm O'Neill Australian batsman who had the misfortune to be compared with Bradman.

See what I mean? That's all we get! Who or what is a Bradman and what is so unfortunate about the comparison of oneself to that? I don't know either. I hope to one day learn.

Bhanubhakta Gurung, VC Gurkha rifleman who single-handedly stormed several Japanese machine-gun nests in Burma.

Definitely sounds like it warrants more than one sentence, doesn't it?

Paul Raymond Entrepreneur who amassed fortunes from nudity and property.

Absolutely warrants more than one sentence. Amassing a fortune from nudity AND property. Huh. Diverse.

Calvin Owens Trumpet-player and musical director for the guitarist BB King who became a mainstay of the blues in Belgium and Texas.

The UK is full of some very diverse fellows. Belgium AND Texas? Wow.

The Right Reverend John Yates Popular Bishop of Gloucester who later proved an inspired choice as the Archbishop of Canterbury's right-hand man.

I was unaware that the Archbishop of Canterbury HAD a right-hand man.

Brigadier John Prendergast Officer who was awarded a DSO and two MCs in a 30-year career which stretched from Waziristan to Norway.

Was awarded a what and two whats? Stretching from Wazi-where to Norway? Huh?

Lieutenant-General Dan Shomron Architect of the raid on Entebbe in 1976 and later Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces.

I've never heard of the raid on Entebbe, regardless of the year, but again, it sounds like it warrants more than a single sentence.

Mike Smith of The Dave Clark Five Mike Smith, who died on Thursday aged 64, was the singer and keyboard player in the Dave Clark Five; the group had a series of hits in the mid-1960s, and even, for brief period, rivalled the popularity and commercial success of the Beatles.

This is the guy who gets more than one sentence. The dude from the Dave Clark Five. The Telegraph felt pretty strongly about throwing in that the DCF briefly rivalled the Beatles and their success. Briefly.

Well, at least we know how the priorities stack up over there at the Telegraph.

Sphere: Related Content

Foreign Language Where? In the South.

As if the South doesn't have enough strikes against it, needing and using an alternative word for "spit" isn't helping the South evolve any faster.

Some Floridian guy spits on his girlfriend after SHE found out HE was sleeping with another woman. According to the police report, the woman became angry and asked the boyfriend (also known in the South as "the father of her child") to leave after hearing that he was "having relations" with someone else. (Having relations? That sounds Amish. Were they Amish?) Whilst he was hunting and gathering his belongings, she spit on him. It's unclear when she called the cops, but she did make it clear she just wanted him to leave and NOT to be arrested. OK.

Now I know you will be surprised that in a situation like this there are two very different versions of what occured. (Yes, it is surprising. Very.) He said that his girlfriend called the woman that he was "having relations" with so that she could "have a conversation with" the other woman. Whilst on the phone with the tramp, the guy claims he was "making faces at her". (See, I missed the part where they were both TWELVE!) This apparently sounded better to the guy than her story. For some reason, his "making faces" at her while she was on the phone with his "relation haver" is an preferable angle of this story. Oh, yeah. How hot.

Apparently this is where she told him to go. And this is also where he said he "gleeked" on her, but did not intentionally spit on her. (He what? What the hell is gleeked? How is that different than spit? Actually, how is that so similar to spit, that he had to make a point that it was "gleeking" and not spitting"? Do you think the article clears that up for me? NO! Of course not! You know why? Correct! Because it's where? In the South! That is correct! And why explain that when, assumedly, all twelve people in the South that can actually read will know what it means!)

Oh, but we do get to know how it turned out, in the legal sense. The Deputies (and I'm presuming one of them was Barney Fife) couldn't conclude a crime was committed because of conflicting statements!

I take it back. The gleeker? He's a freaking genius.

Sphere: Related Content

Cricket Streaker

The Australian press needs to study the European press for some pointers on how to add colorful descriptions to their news items. I can tell that they're trying! But they really string it out for far too long (much like this blog). And the amusing bits that they do happen to sneak in there just can't carry it through until you reach the next one. But they do get points for the photos they include with their never ending stories. Especially photos that are taken when a streaker invades a cricket match. (Why are sports competitions in other countries "matches"? Why isn't it a cricket "game"? We don't go to baseball "matches".)

Apparently, a naked dude streaked his way around the field at a cricket match. One of the players, a one Andrew Symonds, gave the naked running guy a shoulder charge and laid him out. Now, I don't know who this Symonds guy is, but according to the Australian Press and without any further elaboration, "It has been a tensions-filled summer for Symonds in the fallout over the Harbhajan racial row." Wow. I don't know what the hell that means, but it sounds intense. Enough to make you elbow a streaker as he runs by you, apparently. That's evidenced by "...a grinning, naked man unwittingly let Symonds blow off some steam" by giving him the shoulder as he went by.

Now, what do you think of when you read "During the 10th over, play was held up as the male streaker showed security a clean pair of heels - and a whole lot more."? Because in my head, I have a picture of a naked man in heels (Not stilettos. Probably a pump. Something comfortable. I'm thinking in black, too. Sensible. You know.) running across a cricket field. I just don't know what that means! What the hell is "a clean pair of heels" in Australia? And why would "a whole lot more" imply that the "more" is worse than the "heels"?

There's not much more on this guy after that. But the length of the article overall increases with this odd statement about the game of cricket in Australia: "But Australian cricketers have been known to make an example of nude intruders. " Been known to make an example of nude intruders? So this happens often? Like a national pastime? WTF? It seems to date back at least 32 years becaue "In 1976 former Australian captain Greg Chappell was so incensed by a male streaker he spanked him on the bottom with his bat at Auckland's Eden Park." I thought it was weird before, but it's definitely weird now. (Side note: Chappell was found guilty of assault after a complaint from the streaker. Nice.)

Apparently, Symonds could face a "serious punishment" if the International Cricket Council decides that he breached section 4.2 of the player's code of conduct relating to a physical assault of a rival player, an official or a spectator. And while it's comforting to know that the US isn't the only country that has to deal with idiocy like this, it's not exactly reassuring in any arena.

Sphere: Related Content

Free Speech 101

If I have to hear the whole "freedom of speech" argument one more time in the capacity of something that is completely inapplicable (not to mention totally out of line), I'm going to twist off. Oh, never mind. I just did. I also think I can speak for several others when I say, "WTF is wrong with people??" Ready for this one? You're not. Trust me. No one is.

The parents of a boy are suing a school district. OK, no shocker that there's a lawsuit out there. But it is a bit surprising that they are suing because their 8th grade son was kicked out of school for creating a phony MySpace page that profiled his middle school principal as a child molester. (I am not giving the name of the school, the principal, the dumbass kid, his dumbass parents, none of it. I can relay the incredulousness of the story without having to subject the principal, who is NOT a child molester, by the way, to any more than he has already been subjected to.) Apparently the parents have more of a problem with their son being kicked out of school than the reason their son was kicked out. That reason being their son publicly slandering the reputation of a non-child molesting individual who is a middle school principal.

Look, do you know how many tubes and hoses make up the Internet? I don't either, but there's a lot. I can surmise that because no matter where you are in the freaking world (and probably on that space station thing as well) you can get on the Internet and see it all. Worldwide. At any time. Nice.

The profile was headlined "Your Princeypal," didn't carry the principal's name, but did include a photo of him and identified that school where he was the principal, both of those items resulting in the not needing of a name. The profile has been removed. so stop searching MySpace for it while you're reading this. When it was up, it listed the principal's general interests as "giving students anal" and "jacking off in my office," and named his heroes as Michael Jackson, Adolph Hitler, and Saddam Hussein. Under "About Me" it said, "I like to give anal to the little boys at my school such as (and then there were other kid's names). I have also f-ed my assistant principal (insert name)."

This resulted in the kid getting suspended. But on February 7, he was informed that he's out. Does that seem unreasonable to anyone? Other than his dumbass parents? And, of course, him?

Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass are of the opinion that students "disrespecting teachers outside of school is an age-old tradition, and one from which teachers neither need nor deserve protection...It would be naive to think that even the most popular principal is not the subject of student ridicule and parody." Of course they are seeking Dumbass Jr.'s immediate return to school along with a judicial order protecting his off-campus speech, which previously included the observation that the principal had an affinity for the Purple Penetrator, a sex toy. Apparently they feel it's important that he keep vocalizing that item as well.

Good f-ing hell, where do I start? How about with "age-old tradition"? No, it's not an "age-old tradition" to publicly portray someone as being a self-proclaimed and active pedophile! And it's not the "disrespecting teachers outside of school" that people need to be protected from. It's people like Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass and their rightfully expelled Dumbass son that people need to be protected from. So, tell me, Mr. Dumbass, would it be OK with you if we whipped up a MySpace page with your picture and your place of employment on it and put all of your son's poetic verse on there as well so that it applied to you? Sure! Right? NO problem. Because it would be naive to think that even the biggest dumbass would not be the subject of ridicule and parody.

"Parody". I think I'm going to have to draw the line at "parody" consisting of vividly depicting someone as a loud and proud child molester (and an office sex-haver to boot.). I also think I'm going to have to draw the line at Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass walking around without a helmet. And at raising their peach of a son there.

Look, here's how the free speech thing works: This will come as a surprise to many when I say that free speech is not all inclusive. Correct, there are limits! It's not just a free for all out there. There is free speech in this country. You can say whatever you want. Your speech is protected. All of those statements: True. However, speech that results in harm is not, repeat, not protected. The example of this that seems to always be cited is that you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater because it could result in harm. (This is presuming that there is no fire.) It's a reasonable example. But the problem with reasonable examples is that they only seem to be understood by reasonable people, something that Mr. and Mrs. Dumbass clearly are not.

And although the glaring issue at hand is the slanderous MySpace page, there really is a bigger issue here which I'm sure I will never hear addressed. The bigger issue is that this is a result of a 13 year old's behavior. If you have a 13 year old or if you have an any-year old child who does something of this magnitude, that's the issue. Why is your kid thinking, not only does something like publicly portraying the middle school principal a child molester sound like a good idea, but that it is also something that he wants to and will do? The thought process of the individual who thinks like that is the real issue.

And considering that the person-who-thinks-like-that's parents have filed a lawsuit to get him back into the school he was expelled from, I really don't have to speculate as to why he thinks like that, nor do I have to speculate about why he did what he did. And while there are plenty of things that I could speculate about (like the amount of algae in that family's gene pool), I just can't. I might not have known where to start, but I know where to stop. Where can I send these helmets?

Sphere: Related Content

I Prefer My Guests To Bring Wine

What we have here are eight sentences that TheDailyRecord.co.uk felt were sufficient in reporting what is nothing short of a horrific situation. And they're not very long sentences either. EACH sentence in and of itself warrants at least one "WTF?!" and one "Did I just read what I think I read?", followed by a re-reading of the eight sentences. Repeat as needed. And even after my commentary, you still might want a quick review. Here we go.

" A GROUP of cannibals have been locked up after they ate a friend who offered to cook them dinner. " For starters, eating your houseguests is not exactly "friendly". Eating your hosts is absolutely NOT friendly.

"Alexander Stepaniuk, 41, had invited four pals to his house for a meal. " What could possibly go wrong?

"But the teacher ended up on the menu after the two men and two women beat him to death with a hammer. " I don't know when he became a teacher, but that's really the least of my concerns at this point. And while I do love how the UK press just cuts right to the chase, I'll admit I could have used a little warning; even a little easing into the point of the story. OK, I would have preferred it. But what's done is done. (But it's not well done! Sorry.)

"The cannibals, who had been drinking vodka, cut Mr Stepaniuk's body up before barbecuing the parts. " Naturally, the five most common words uttered in situations like this are present here. "Alcohol may have been involved." And they wouldn't have had to eat him for me to come to that conclusion. No, the hammer beating would have been sufficient. But what is with the mentioning of the slice and dice BEFORE the grill?! If they were attempting to make it seem somewhat civil that they just didn't throw the guy on there in one piece, well, that failed miserably. I'm just glad there wasn't a seasoning or a marinade involved.

"They were arrested after worried neighbours in Chernovtsi, Ukraine, called police." Of course they don't mention why the neighbors were worried, although I can surmise that it may have been all of the hammer bashing or the smell of burning human flesh that sparked some concern.

"Alexander Woytseshko, 34, Dmitri Chuba, 45, Lilia Kisilitsa, 23, and Svetlana Lupan, 26, admitted murder. " Again, another one of those situations where, although honesty is at the top of the list in my book, I'd rather have you not eat your friend and then be totally up front about it. Tell you what? How about you don't eat him and just lie your ass off for the rest of your life, OK?

"The monsters told cops: "We had nothing against him personally - we just wanted to see what human meat tasted like." I only wish the person who jotted down this little note had taken even more liberty to use words even stronger than "monster". You don't see that much in the US press. (Unfortunately.) So, if they ate him when they didn't have anything against him personally, what in the hell would they have done if they DID have something agianst him? Personally? Ate him while he was still alive?

"They were sentenced to between three years and life in prison." That's it. It ends there. Your eight sentences are up. This has been the story of the crazy, cannibalistic, host eating monsters. WTF?! There's really quite the discrepancy between three years and LIFE in prison. (That's assuming you're not only three. Then it becomes all encompassing. But in this situation, not so much.) I'm hoping it leans toward the 'life' side of that sentence. A situation like this one really warrants a penalty of "will never see the light of day again".

Sphere: Related Content

All Dogs Must Remain Firmly On The Ground At All TImes

Apparently, the farther south that you go, the more stories you find about paragliding chihuahuas getting stuck in trees. That's what I did and that's what I found.

But you will have to appreciate that it's being reported by telegraph.co.uk because, as we know, European online journalism? Very entertaining.

Now, it's hard to continue after the headline of "Paragliding dog rescued from tree in Australia", but I think I can follow that up with "An Australian paraglider and his pet chihuahua were left dangling from a tree more than 100 feet above the ground after a joy flight went horribly wrong." and still feel pretty good about where this story is headed.

As per the UK online reporting style, in the middle of this article are links to other articles that we might enjoy (and we might!). This time our choices are "Jesus Christ found in an American tree trunk?" and "Peruvian surfing cat is making waves." And after reading those, well, I'll admit, this little dog strapped to a kite isn't quite as intriguing as it was a minute ago. But I'm sticking with it. (And I LOVE the question mark after tree trunk. As if they're not quite sure that it really is Jesus Christ in that tree trunk.)

It appears that this guy strapped "four-year-old Emma" to his chest in a simple cloth sling and launched his paraglider...right into a tree. He used his cell phone to text his friends to get help. Why was he texting? Why couldn't he just call?! He's hanging from a tree in his glider with a dog strapped to him and he's going to text?!?! That's the situation in which you're looking around for that little Verizon dude and yelling into your phone, "Can you hear me now?! The dog and I flew into a tree. What? Yes, I know dogs can't fly. Please hurry."

And as with all UK stories, there are plenty of unnecessary details. "He was snagged in the branches of a mountain ash tree." (You know, just in case you were picturing birch.) The guy had "been fighting cancer for the past seven years and I was starting to go into withdrawals because I'm on a fairly high dose of morphine for the tumour pain." (I should probably mention right about here that he was in the tree for a little over an hour.) Oh. Morphine. Well...another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

The man continued with, "I normally don't take anything with me if I'm going flying, (no, just his DOG) but by the time I was hanging up there well into the evening it was getting pretty painful." (Again, ONE hour.) His main concern was for Emma, who had slipped out of her harness during the crash.

"It took me nearly an hour to put it back on her because of the precarious way we were perched. (That and the fact that he was busy trying to find the "w" key on his cell phone as he was texting his friends for assistance.) She knew that we were in danger, but she didn't panic or anything. " I'll give him points for using the word 'precarious' but that's it. Dude, are you sure that the dog on a kite in a tree hanging out of her harness DID NOT PANIC?!?! I'm not a dog, but I'm thinking she did because I would have panicked in that situation as a human, let alone as a dog!

The guy did seem to be genuinely grateful after being rescued from the tree he was stuck in for just over an hour with a chihuahua dangling about him as well. "I'm just so grateful that we've got these sort of people. Imagine if this was in some part of woop woop." (I thought he was out of morphine.) Oh, wait, "woop woop" is Australian slang for bushland. WTF?!

Apparently, the basics of what a "dog" should be exposed to has been forgotten. We've got Britney dressing and undressing them, we've got this guy flying them into the woop woop, what's next? They're DOGS! For the last time (I hope), they don't fly and they don't need clothes! They're dogs.

Sphere: Related Content

Honesty OR Integrity? Choose ONLY One.

I'll admit, I'm a big fan of honesty. Even if you create some sort of major, major screw up, if you at least fess up to it and say you did it, you're winning some points for that in my book (which I know is important to all of the screw ups out there). Just say so. Like drunken, Hispanic, Indiana man who, when asked why he climbed down his girlfriend chimney, replied, "Look, I'm just a-drunk. We all do a-stupid things when we're a-drunk." Good for you dude! You're right. We all DO do a-stupid things when we're a-drunk. (Like attaching the letter "a" to the beginning of words.) At least he said so.

But I guess that I've always thought (and mistakenly, it seems) that if you have "honesty" you're automatically going to have some "integrity". Not the case, I learned. No. Not the case at all. Especially if you're in the Kremlin. According to The Guardian at guardian.co.uk, "The Kremlin is planning to falsify the results of this Sunday's presidential election in Russia by compelling millions of public sector workers to vote and by fraudulently boosting the official turnout after polls close." Well, now. That seems pretty clear. Wait. Maybe I misunderstood.

"Governors, regional officials, and even headteachers have been instructed to deliver a landslide majority for Dmitry Medvedev - Russia's first deputy prime minister, whom President Vladimir Putin has endorsed to be his successor." Nope. I understood.

I really was unaware that those sort of instructions could actually be given in the case of an "election". I kind of thought that those sort of instructions were what an "election" was supposed to take the place of. See, because if you're already planning what the outcome is going to be and you can make it be what you want it to be, it really takes a lot away from the election process as a whole and in and of itself. A lot. Like all of it.

"Local election officials are preparing to stuff ballot boxes once the polls have closed with unused ballots." That seems to be pretty clear as to how this is going to work. Oh, wait, it already works this way. This is what they do. And it's what they've done. Let's go back to December.

"The Kremlin used similar tactics during December's parliamentary elections ...Russian voters had become increasingly accepting of official vote rigging and no longer regarded it as anything unusual." Apparently the only one surprised by all of this is me. And I know I don't count.

Has anyone talked to Putin about this? Well....I think so. But, I don't think he's going to be very helpful."The only person with a real vote in this country is Vladimir Putin. He has already made his position known," he added. Asked whether he intended to vote himself on Sunday he replied: "Do I look like an idiot?" (You know you'd never hear George Bush ask that question, right?)

But there has to be a reason for this, right? Ready for their reason? "They can't be Saddam Hussein or the Chinese leadership. The idea is to gain legitimacy in the west."

Legitimacy. They're striving for legitimacy by fixing their election. That sounds kind of like the opposite of legitimacy to me.

But maybe I just don't understand how it works because it's different than the election process of the US. Take the campaigning. When was the last time you were able to look at a newspaper, turn on the TV or take a (short) break from looking at porn online and not be subjected to endless stories about the Presidential candidates? Never. Right. Over yonder in Russia, "up until this week, Medvedev has refused to campaign, claiming he has been to busy." Refused to campaign? It's not like they were waterboarding him into campaigning. He doesn't have to run for Grand Poobah of Russia. (I'll tell you though, I can think of at least a couple of Presidential wanna-bes that I wish would refuse to campaign. Not to mention who I'd like to waterboard as well.)

So who is this guy running against that he's so afraid of that he has to rig the election? Well, there's "the veteran communist leader Gennady Zyuganov", "the ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhironovsky" and "a fake democrat, Andrey Bogdanov." And while I greatly appreciate the colorful descriptions and spellings, I am wholly unfamiliar with the term "fake democrat", although I do find it to be hil-arious. The whole rigging of Russian elections? Not so much.

So they're honest about the fact that they're doing something that totally undermines the whole point of what they're doing in the first place. Interesting approach. And while I appreciate the honesty, I have the feeling it might be one of the last times that anything honest comes out of Russia after the elections are over.

Sphere: Related Content