OctoMom and the Mocktuplets

I've refrained, with great difficulty, until now to comment on Nadya Suleman, the southern California woman who gave birth to eight, yes eight, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight children on January 26. Normally (ah, the irony), my only comment would be "Are you kidding me? Eight? Did she have them in a big box under the stairs? That's a litter!" But this isn't the normal abnormality of giving birth to the entire cast of Eight is Enough. No, this is an abnormal abnormality. And those two things do not cancel each other out to make this one big ol' normal thing. Not at all. It's a freak show and a half run by a psychotic ringmaster.

For some unknown reason, the fertility clinic where a one Nadya Suleman (known by me as the OctoMom) had her IVF done must have mistaken her for a gumball machine or something and crammed at least eight embryos in there. And wouldn't you know it? Of all the "luck", eight of the embryos "stuck". And that is how she came to have fourteen children. Wait. Fourteen? What?

Correct. Fourteen. Oh, did I not mention that Ms. Suleman already had six children? I didn't? She did. Already had six! I guess then that I didn't tell you that those six were all conceived through IVF as well. They were. Hey, I'm not done yet! The ages of the six children are 7 through 2 with the 2 year olds being twins. I'll do the math so that you'll know it equates to one full-term pregnancy every year for about six years. And that equates to being pregnant for 54 months and being not pregnant for 18 months. That's a hell of a ratio there. For every one month that you are not pregnant, you get to spend three months being pregnant. On purpose!! But at least she didn't have to worry about her husband complaining or anything because she's not married. But that's OK because she lives with her parents. And even that's OK because she doesn't have a job. Annnnnddddd....now! Twist off! There ya go. Quick and painful, I know. I've been there.

Everyone wants to know what in the hell this woman was thinking and as luck (or greed) would have it, we're about to find out because she's granted an interview to Ann Curry (of all people for the first interview. Must have been the highest bidder. NBC! NBC!)) and she tells her what her rationale and thinking process was (other than broken!). And what you learn may shock you. It will not do anything good, I'll tell you that right now.

The OctoMom told Ann Curry that she had always wanted lots of kids. "That was always a dream of mine, to have a large family, a huge family, and I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I really lacked, I believe, growing up." OK, so she's still at the stage where she's blaming her parents and her childhood for her issues that she has as an adult. Great. Real mature thinking there. Great. What else?

Well, she said that she "...tried for years to become pregnant before undergoing IVF." So, just sleeping around, hoping to get lucky, eh? (It's about as good of an idea as having fourteen kids!) Great morals also. Grand. Next!

Her mother said that the OctoMom "....always blamed me for having only her (she was an only child)... She was always upset that I didn't have more." Last time I checked, that was kind of the decision of the parent, not the child. Most children do want a sibling, but they tend to get over it when they're an adult. They don't tend to become professionally pregnant. So of course, the OctoMom said that her childhood was "pretty dysfunctional." Oh, well, having fourteen kids while you're living in your mother's house? The house of the same mother who you blame for your condition? Well, that's definitely going to put the "fun" back in "dysfunctional" now isn't it? The OctoMom also said, "I didn't feel as though, when I was a child, I had much control of my environment. I felt powerless." Hmm. I wonder if that's because you were a child! The child isn't supposed to have control of the environment because they're the child! Why do you think I ended up eating things like broccoli and peas when I was growing up? Because I was the child and I didn't have a choice! What is wrong with this woman?

OctoMom's mother, Angela Suleman, stated that she was opposed to her daughter's latest pregnancy. Really? Hey, guess what? I'M opposed to your daughter's latest pregnancy as well! I'll do you one better than that! I'm also opposed to your daughter's other six pregnancies!

The folks over there at the New York Times tell us that the OctoMom's publicist, a one Joann Killeen, has said that "Ms. Suleman had not determined how she would support her family, though they were weighing several media offers, including some for financial compensation." Well that's some real good family planning right there! Don't you think that perhaps that should have been worked out, oh, say before you decided to have more children? Here's a question: How are you supporting the SIX that you already have?? Oh, I'm sorry I asked.

According to an Associated Press article "...documents reveal that Suleman collected more than $165,000 in disability payments between 2002 and 2008 for an injury she said left her in near-constant pain and helped end her marriage." Huh. $27,500 per year. So, let's see. Oh, hey! How about that?! Her disability payments started the same time that her pregnancies did! What a coincidence! (Grrrr......) And if someone is in "near constant pain" without having another human being inside of them, don't you think that playing host to an alien being once a year for six years would result in "constant pain"? I'd think so, but then again, I'm not the boneheaded doctor who signed off her disability papers either. What a scam.

A scam? Oh, I must be some sort of a cynic to think that, right? Well, duh! Cynic or not, this woman ain't quite right. Disability? Spare me. You know, there are people out there who actually need disability and they're finding it difficult to get. I think this chick is looking for a free ride probably in part due to her shopping her story around to all of the major media outlets and wanting somewhere in the neighborhood of two million bucks. And I'll tell you this: I'm all for that. As long as she uses the money to pay for her hospital bill if it turns out that she doesn't have insurance.

OctoMom's mother has said that she expects people's opinions to change now that her daughter is going public. I think she's right. My opinion has changed since this new info has come out. I can't stand this woman even more now! Her mother also said, "She's a very likable person. She's basically normal except for this obsession she's always had with children." You can't throw "except for this obsession" in there and have that justify that she's normal other than that! It's the "that" that makes this not normal! That's like saying a serial killer (sorry for the brutal analogy, but it's all I've got right now) is "basically normal except for, you know, all of the killing." See? Not normal!

This country is in the middle of it's economic downfall and everyone and their dog is cutting back and this woman goes in reverse and turns her uterus into a clown car and starts shooting out babies when she doesn't have a job or a husband and she lives with her parents! You know who needs to pay for all of this? The fertility guy that continued time after time after time to plant embryos inside of this woman as if he were planting a garden! I want him or her to pay for this. And not figuratively. Literally. Cash money. Fork it over. (I'd also like to know how the OctoMom paid for the IVF, as it is expensive and the norm seems to be around $20K. Rumor has it that she once worked at a fertility clinic or a sperm bank. I can't even begin to look into that one just yet, lest my head explode.)

I'll be watching her on the Today Show on Monday. Who am I kidding? I'm not up that early. I'll catch it online or on Dateline on Tuesday. And I'm expecting my opinion of the OctoMom to be different. I don't expect it to be good-different, but I'm expecting it to be different. I know what won't be different and that's my opinion of this whole situation. It's just wrong.

Sphere: Related Content

Joe the Dumber

I'm going to begin by quoting the title of an article that is brought to us by the highly amusing and bluntly-to-the-point folks over there at The Inquisitr. The genius that they crafted goes something like this: "Why won't Joe the Dipsh....er..Plumber just go away?" An excellent question that was posed for a valid, yet not so excellent reason. He's back. And he's not just back. He was asked back. On purpose! By the Conservative Working Group. Shoot me. No, wait. Let me finish this first, then shoot.

The Conservative Working Group is a bunch of staffers up there on Capital Hill, who regularly get together to figure out the strategies and then map out the roads of the Republican Party. They're the ones that tell Congress and the Senate what they think. And they want to know what Joe the Plumber thinks. WHY do they want to know this? I'm confused! Actually, maybe I'm not. I haven't seen much out of any politician or politically involved entity in the past year or so that makes me think that any of them have a brain bigger than a walnut (all newly elected members are exempted from that cranial comparison to the walnut). Thus, if they really are as clueless and as inept and out of touch as they seem to be, they would naturally ask JTP to tell them what he thinks should be done. Right. Of course. Now shoot.

You missed. Damn. Anyway, he had breakfast with these guys on Tuesday morning. And according to him, "It went really well.” What does that mean? You got a free breakfast? I'd consider that as having gone "really well". (I like free food.) But what did he tell them that went "really well"? Again, according to him, his "...advice, essentially, was to take no prisoners in standing up for their beliefs." Aw, crap. And they're listening to this drivel? "Take no prisoners" is not exactly the approach that I want any politician to use. "Take no prisoners" implies that one has a goal in mind and they will achieve that goal no matter what and no one will get in their way and those who do will just be shot down. Not literally, of course, more of a figurative approach in this instance.

You know what happens in a two-party system when one side adopts a "take no prisoners" approach there, Joey? Especially when it's the side that does not have control of the House or the Senate that pulls that? Yeah, the other side does the same thing and everything goes nowhere. That sounds productive. What else did you tell them today, JTP?

"It’s not politically incorrect to say you’re Republican or conservative. They need to dig their heels in and fight for what needs to be done.” And that would be...? Oh, he didn't say, that's right. JTP, if the Republicans are not looked upon in the most favorable of light, you might want to take a look at why that is and see if the reasons are valid. If they're not, then absolutely defend yourself. But if they are? Don't blame others for not liking them for it. (Here's a tip: The Democrats were in control of the House and Senate when W was still President, but since W has that "R" next to his name, all of the other "R"s take on the same stigma as the extremely detested President. You might want to point out that it's been the Democrats that have had control over the passing of bills and the guiding of the country, so if things aren't quite up to par around here these days, they would be the ones to turn to for an explanation as to how we got here. Start with that. See how it goes! You'll be surprised at how many people did not know that the Republicans were not the majority in the House and the Senate since the 2006 elections.)

Oh, Christ, is there more?! What now? He said that there is "no reason to be subtle, as long as folks inform themselves." Um, don't you think that they would have already done that by now? Don't you think a bunch of them are informed? Nice assumption that the general displeasure with politicians (and I'm not buying the "everyone thinks Reps. are evil" stuff. I think both parties are chocked full of more than enough crap weasels to go around.) But here's where we know for sure that if any sort of political staffer is actually listening to JTP and passing his ideas along to the elected officials that we are doomed. Doomed! Ready? He said, " I don’t believe there’s two sides to every story. It’s black and white. There’s right and wrong.” And there's also dumb and dumber.

So, what he seems to be saying is that his way is right and everyone else's way is wrong. Interesting. But Joe, in one breath you say that there are not two sides to every story, yet in the next breath you say that "It's black and white." Black and white. That's TWO SIDES!!! "There's right and wrong." TWO SIDES again!! See?! There ARE two sides to every story! You can't even get that straight, but you feel that you're qualified and informed enough to advise moronic congressional staffers who seem to want to hear what you have to say?! Good God, man, what planet are you from? One with only two sides? Or one that's black and white?

Also, "One thing that needs to be done is killing this stimulus package, because it’s just another example of “American government....kicking our butts left and right....It's welfare." You are clearly unfamiliar with the welfare system in this country, JTP, as welfare does not have to be paid back! This stimulus package? Oh, it has to be paid back! By me! And you! And everyone else! And their children! And their dog! And their dog's dog! I wish it was welfare! At least that way I wouldn't be paying it back for the rest of my life! Any suggestions? No? Then pipe down.

When asked about his own political aspirations (Oh, Lordy!), he says that "America will just have to wait six years until his son grows up." (Hey, I'll wait longer than that!) “I don’t know if the American public deserve me, but my son definitely deserves my time now.” What?! If we don't deserve you, King JTP, then sit down, pipe down, and get the hell out! Hey, wait a minute! Weren't you in DC this morning chowing down on pancakes and sausage (which is made out of pork. I'm just sayin'.) with a bunch of staffers? I believe you were. What happened to your SON you just spoke of?!! Aren't you supposed to be spending time with HIM?!?! I don't recall him being at that breakfast! Didn't you just get back from the Gaza Strip where you spent a week pretending that you were a reporter? Was your son with you then?! I don't think he was! Was this a sudden revelation that you had recently? This "caring for my son" act? Spare me. Spare all of us.

Some people's heads are so soft that if I pushed in toward the middle on both sides with my fingers they would end up touching. That's how softheaded someone would have to be to not only listen to this guy, but to actually make an effort to get his opinion! What qualifies his opinion as one that would supersede all other regular people opinions? I suppose if you're looking for an under qualified, fake plumber who most of the country has grown tired of and is starting to loathe then he's your guy!

Shouldn't you be standing in the line of enemy fire in Gaza or something? No? That gig is over? Well, then go home and be a father to your son, JTP and give the rest of us a much needed break from you and your "Monarchy Now!" platform.

Sphere: Related Content

The Escape Cape

When you think of "superheroes" (and who doesn't), what comes to mind first? That they're totally hot, that is correct. What about second? The cape! Correct. Superheroes have capes. Do the bad guys have capes? I'm not recalling that they do. Let's see...The Joker, he didn't have a cape, he had green hair and a crazy ass mouth.....The Penguin, he had a tuxedo with tails and a monocle....Simon Bar Sinister and his equally evil assistant Cad, they had a lab coat and Cad wore a smock or a frock or a dress (he wasn't the most manly evil-doer, but like all the dumb ones, they always see disaster headed toward their plans, why is that?)....Doc Ock, he had a long coat, but I don't think I'd call it a "cape" necessarily, especially with all of those mechanical appendages coming out of the back of it. That's hardly cape-like.

My point was that the bad guys don't have capes. If you want to pretend that you're a superhero so that you can wear a cape that's fine, but you have to do superhero-y things. If you want to be one of the bad guys, you really shouldn't have a cape at all (as I've already proven that bad guys don't wear capes). And if you're a really, really dumb bad guy, you definitely shouldn't have a cape that you've fashioned out of a sleeping bag and you shouldn't carry screwdrivers in your pants either. What?

Can you tell that we're down in Flori-duh today? Of course you can! Today's tale of Flori-duh escapades gone awry comes to us from Gainesville. And according to The Gainesville Sun, a one Marcus Lee Maddox was "reportedly wearing a sleeping bag as a cape and brandishing a screwdriver as a weapon." Um, stop using tools as a weapon? What the hell?!

Wearing a sleeping bag as a cape? Why would one do that? Even if you're not quite right in the ol' noggin' (as I'm just going to take a wild leap and say that this guy is not quite right), why would you use a sleeping bag for your cape? It's quite weighty and bulky. It doesn't make sense. If you must have a cape, do it the right way and get a sheet from your bed and tie it around your neck a la cape-style. It's much lighter, it will ripple in the wind. A cape? Well, that's just cumbersome. Use a sheet, make your cape and then take the rest of your bedding and turn the living room couch into a fort and watch a little TV in there with your cape on. It makes for a lovely Saturday afternoon!

But this guy couldn't quite figure that out. No, instead this guy had "...walked up to a Gainesville man in the parking lot of the Kangaroo store... and asked for money." (Hold on! Hold on! I had questions too, so I looked it up! Apparently, Kangaroo is the name of a chain of gas stations, I think. And I am 99% certain that they do not sell kangaroos or any other pouched marsupial there. Almost positive. Almost.) Now, the man whose money was "asked for" declined to participate in this activity and that's when Maddox "...threw off the sleeping bag he had been wearing as a cape and pulled the screwdriver from the waistband of his pants." Then "...Mattox claimed he knew the man had money and had better 'give it up.' " I see. A screwdriver? It's like Bob the Builder has begun a life of crime. ::::sigh::::: Man, people are morons.

See, the essence of the cape is that it gives off the impression of power and strength. You really don't want to mess with someone in a cape. I can't think of any caped individuals in history (or my neighborhood) with whom I'd care to socialize with ever. But this dough head throws off his "cape" and pulls out the weapon of choice of the mentally impaired - the screwdriver. He must have had to pull it out of his pants because he left his utility belt in the Bat Cave (or the Moron Cave). And it's really not very threatening to anyone when your sleeping bag cape drops to the ground and you're shoving your hand down your pants looking for your weapon to brandish. It's quite a sight, but it's far from threatening to see an angry, would-be villain wildly groping down the front of his trousers.

He apparently managed to find the screwdriver down there, though, and that's what caused the victim and a witness to go inside of the Kangaroo (store) and call the police. And it would seem that cape man there just let them go. He's not a very persistent criminal. He's going to have to show much more determination in the future if he ever hopes that this life of crime is going to get off of the ground. (That cape certainly isn't going to get him off of the ground; it's made out of a sleeping bag, for cryin' out loud.) He was "...arrested a few blocks away, the screwdriver he allegedly used to try to rob the man was found in Mattox's back pocket." Ah-ha! See? He figured out that all of the frontal groinal region groping was no way to reach for your weapon-tool. Probably walked off muttering to himself, "Man, that almost went right through my grundle. I've gotta carry it somewhere else. Maybe I'll try the pockets."

This was a poor attempt (at best) at committing a crime. The guy really should have thought things through. Time is one of the greatest deterrents. Give yourself just a little bit of time to think over crazed plans like these and most of the time, you'll start to see a couple of holes poking through your fail-proof plan there. The sleeping bag as a cape really was a bad idea to start out with and an even worse one to actually put into action. Who did he think he was? "I'm Outdoor Sleep Gear Man! I'll keep your warm at night in temperatures as low as 30 degrees below zeroooooo! But beware, I carry a screwdriver right next to my grunddlllllleee!"

Flori-duh. Accomplishing the unthinkable by getting dumber every day.

Sphere: Related Content

Wind Blows

As I'm throwing a bunch of stuff in the recycle bin, I'm looking through a stack of magazines just to make sure that there isn't a Barry Obama covered one in there (history, nostalgia, some crap like that. I'm certainly not saving them because I think I'm going to make a fortune selling them on eBay next week like the 40,000,000 other people in the country who have the exact same magazine. News flash folks: TIME Magazine has gone nationwide! It's true! Check it out at a newsstand today!), I see on the cover of the December 1, 2008 issue of TIME the question "Should You Buy a Windmill?" To which I did a Scooby-Doo head tilt and I thought, "Rooo? I don't know. Should I?" And I started to read. I should have just kept recycling.

Of course, inside on Page 71 is the story titled "Going Green" (which is just enough to make me see red these days) "Got Wind? These days, the coolest eco-savvy accessory is a wind turbine for your home." Huh. It is? Are you sure? I did not know that. And there's a reason why I didn't know that. It's because it's an asinine notion. It might be "cool" (if you're the little Dutch Boy, longing for the fields of Holland or something) and it most certainly would be an "accessory", but "eco-savvy" is questionable. "Useful" is a term that would not come to mind when speaking of the wind turbine notion. "Scam" comes to mind, though. "Softheads" comes to mind, too. And following those comes many, many questions.

Remember, I went into this with an open mind. I wanted to know if I needed a wind turbine. (I like to be prepared.) The story talks about this guy (who I'm not going to name because my comments are not exactly favorable. Granted, there's a full color photo of him that accompanied the story and it's not like you can't look it up online over there at TIME.com, because you can. I'm just going with "the guy" for now.) who "installed solar panels on his house (in Michigan) and was eager to get a little greener". (Now, I should have known when I saw the term "greener" that this would not bode well.) So he goes out and buy himself a 33-foot tall wind turbine with blades that span 7 feet in diameter and puts it 100 yards from his home.

The purpose of said turbine is to convert the energy of the wind into electricity. Electricity, as you know, is important. It's also freaking expensive because we're getting reamed by the utility companies (who have all been surprisingly quiet during this economic downturn...hmmm.....), so I could understand why someone would want to generate their own power. I'd love to put solar panels on the ol' walled-off compound roof here, but again, they're what? Freaking expensive, that is correct. So I'm still with this whole concept at this point and I'm also still waiting for the answer to the burning question "Do I need a windmill?"

According to the article (and I am not making this up), on days with a "decent wind" (and the dude lives in a place where he can feel the breeze from Lake Michigan, also known as the Breeziest of all Lakes or, if you're local, its simply Lake Really Breezy) the "wind turbine can generate 1.5 kWh" (that's kilowatts an hour for those of us not in the business of meter reading and who are simply in the business of yelling at the top of our lungs when our electric bill arrives each month). Wow! The prefix "kilo" means "thousand", so if this amount is in kWh then that has to be HUGE right? Well, that depends. It depends on whether or not you're Amish because 1.5 kWh is (and I freaking quote) "enough to power the average light bulb for 15 hours a day. Wait. What?

Correct. A light bulb. For 62.5 percent of the day. A light bulb. OK, well, then it has to be expensive right? You'll naturally be saving a huge pile of money, won't you? That depends and again, whether or not you're Amish because to run a 120V/75W light bulb for 24 hours will run you approximately (and this is just a rough estimate, so don't freak out or anything) twenty-two cents. For 15 hours a day, that's going to save you right around 13.75 cents a day! Oh, and did I mention that the turbine cost $16,000? I didn't? It did. Sixteen thousand dollars. Um, WTF??

At that rate, the thing should pay for itself after about, oh, say....313 years. That should do 'er! Are you kidding me?! I'm so confused by this article and by this concept and mostly by this guy who spent sixteen thousand dollars to run A light bulb!! The article says that "most household turbines will produce 10kW at most." Ooohh! Six and a half light bulbs! Who, other than that guy, thinks this is a good idea? Oh, let me guess. The people who make wind turbines, perhaps? Let's see, "US firms control 98% of the small wind market." Oh, this is all making perfect sense to me now. There's some air being generated here. HOT air.

Look, I understand that the more alternate sources of generating power that there are, the more stress that it takes off of the power grid. I totally get that and I am totally for that. I am also totally against paying sixteen thousand dollars to have a giant pinwheel outside the walled-off compound to run A light bulb or to save me a little over 13 cents a day! THAT I am against.

The article warns that "buying your own windmill isn't cheap". Really? Yeah, I kind of got that right around when I read that they were sixteen grand. Thanks for that. "A turbine that could produce most of your family's electricity might cost as much as $80,000 and take as long as two decades to pay back, depending on wind strength and state subsidies." Now, of course they have just mentioned earlier that most household windmills will produce 10kW at the most, but they're just throwing out the numbers for the magical windmill that will generate almost all of the power that you need? Why are they telling me that? Oh, and the 30% federal tax credit that is offered for small wind projects? Yeah, that's capped at $4,000, so if you want to maximize that, your windmill is going to have to be $13,333 or less, otherwise you'll still get the $4,000 tax credit, but it will be less than 30%. I love it when lawmakers do that. You know, make us think that they're doing something to help us out when in reality, the great numbers that they're giving us are at the low end of the scale for something that you'll need to acquire at the high end. Morons.

It goes on to say that "What's really held back residential wind power has been the lack of federal subsidies..." Um, NO, what's really held back residential wind power is a) you can't have a freaking pinwheel jutting thirty feet up in the air in a residential neighborhood, b) they cost, on the low end, over $10,000 for one of them and c) they power up A light bulb!! That is what has held back residential wind power! Not the lack of subsidies! Look at the picture below! That is what has held it back! Would you want that as your next door neighbor? Of course not!! No one would!!

Everyone that was quoted for the article was somehow commercially involved in the wind turbine business. Shocking that they were all very optimistic and enthusiastic about the future of wind as a realistic alternative energy generating source. This has the feel and the smell of the ethanol powered vehicles that were going to be the answer to shedding our dependence on foreign oil. Yep, I think the federal government purchased a fleet of about 190,000 of these vehicles that run on ethanol. The problem is that there are virtually NO ethanol fueling stations anywhere that the cars are. Thus, none of the cars have ever had ethanol in them (yet they were, naturally, more expensive than a regular car than runs on regular gasoline). Oh, and they were supposed to be such a wonderful fuel saver when, in reality, when running on gasoline, the vehicles would get around 24 mpg and when running on ethanol the vehicles would get around 18 mpg. What a great idea. Wow. Who was in charge of THAT debacle? Whoever he/she was, I'm sure they were re-elected.

Wind is not the answer to getting off of the power grid. Wind is not the answer to a low-cost alternative energy source. Wind is not the answer to generating your own power. Wind is just that. It's wind. It would be nice if we could do more with it for residential power needs, but we can't. Get over it. I'm sure that it can be used for plenty of other things that will actually benefit from the wind. I'm not saying stop studying how to harness the powers of the all mighty wind. That's not it. I'm saying stop putting all of this effort into pushing the ridiculously costly and highly inefficient wind turbines for residential homes. All of the hot air that's gone into that could generate more power than all of the wind turbines combined, I have the feeling.

Bottom line? Wind blows.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not Fashion

You have most likely never heard of John Galliano and that's OK. I really can't imagine that you would have needed to know who he is at any point in your life. Trust me, if you did need to know who the guy is and what he does, you would have. From what I can tell, the guy has definitely carved out a niche for himself and it's a good thing that niches, as a general rule, are quite small.

John Galliano is a designer. He designs "clothing". I've quoted "clothing" there because I suppose that whatever one is wearing is considered "clothing", however it is not the kind of apparel that I (or you I'm hoping) would consider "clothing". It is the kind of apparel that I would consider burning.

The Paris Fashion Week Fall/Winter 2009/2010 was last week. (Already?! I know! I couldn't believe it myself! It seems like I was just talking about this....never.) A whole week devoted to fashion? Hmmm. I'd say that the amount of time I spend thinking about my own personal fashion each day would be 30-35 seconds. Tops. (I sleep in sweats in case I'm running late in the morning and don't have time to get dressed.) I cannot fathom who could spend an entire week thinking about fashion. I can't fathom why such an elusive individual would do such a thing either. And I realize 'to each their own' (or some crap like that), but this is "clothing". Thus, if someone else is going to be wearing something and I am going to be around that person, I am going to have to see the clothing and therefore I will be affected by the clothing that they're wearing. That is why this John Galliano character and the whole Fashion-Palooza deal has me concerned. Behold! Concern:

Oh, what the hell is that? That is a satyr. A satyr is a creature that is half goat and half man. According to the Greeks, the satyr is a frolicking fellow who dances about whilst playing some sort of pipe and chasing nymphs of the female persuasion all the live long day. (It has all the makings of the outdoor forest version of the Playboy Mansion.) John Galliano's "creation" there uses the satyr as it's inspiration. Or as the object which to exactly model his creation after! Is it for Halloween? What's with the cards on his forehead? Is he on his way to play poker with the undead? The goated? What's with the blonde, curly, Brazilian goatee? I've seen stuff like this only in nightmares that I've had after consuming just a bit too much Taco Bell. WHO, who, who is going to wear that? I don't even think a goat would be wearing that, let alone the man (and the man is the one with the opposable thumbs, which come in handy when attempting to dress oneself).

Oh, but wait. There's more to the goat man than meets the eye. Behold! Full-body shot goat-man with cards on his head!

Are those feathers? On his legs? Why do we need those? Is it for Muppets? Ladies, does your man have a hankering to walk around looking for dogs to play poker with the cards on his head? All the while powdered down from head to toe in wig dust and sporting a lovely flat toed golden boot on his foot? Then do I have the outfit for....what? No? Huh. Interesting. You'd think the way that they're talking, there would really be some demand.

Of course, as I continued to read about this spectacle, the one thing that the articles focused on was the "poor economy" and the subsequent speculation as to whether that will have an effect on the show and the way that people look at the "clothing" that has been designed by Galliano and host of other creative souls. Why does it have to be the economy that would stop people from attending these shows and buying those things? (I'm still not convinced anyone has ever bought a one of these outfits. I'll need to see a receipt before I'm fully on board with that concept.) Why can't common sense kick in once in a while and realize that those outfits are crazy?! It's not too much to ask, is it? Let's see...would you rather have common sense and not have this worn or no common sense and this atrocity. Behold!

Ah, yes. The perfect out fit for the man in your life that just loves a rather large, mesh bow that is roughly the size of Kansas jutting out from the side of his neck! Yes, expect Brad Pitt to be sporting one any day now! (And probably along with that ridiculous newsboy cap he's always wearing. That oughta turn some heads...away.) That outfit is clearly the cousin of Aretha Franklin's hat.

The look of the Galliano is an oddly diverse one that I am at a loss to explain why it even exists. Again, it begs the question: Who is wearing this stuff? I haven't seen it! ANYWHERE! I watch TV! And for whatever I miss, I have an excellent source that keeps me up to date. I have seen none of these. Oh, but please! If you have seen them somewhere, do tell! Point me in the direction where you last saw this walking down the street:

You think that it's foreclosures that bring down housing prices? You try having that strut across the front lawns of suburbia and see what happens to housing prices then. Foreclosures have got nothing on the, uh, the...crack pirate there or whatever he is. That thing on his head? I think that's the bird that flew into the engine of the USAirways plane a couple of weeks ago! He really should have gone with a parrot instead.

Galliano seems to have a thing for men's underwear as well. (Yeah, that's a real shock. The dude's name emblazoned on the front of men's brief. A complete surprise!) Here are some of his underwear themed creations that will scare the holy beejeezus out of most people. Behold!

I cannot tell what the design is on the guy on the left. The one wearing the swim cap from 1932 and a tuxedo collar, that is correct. It appears to be some sort of odd three pronged homage to the male unit, but I can't really tell for sure (and I'm OK with that). The middle dude? Um, I'm guessing the only reason that this is the image that was released of this item is because, due to what appears to be a lack of sufficient girth, the model did not want to be identified. Either that or he felt it best to highlight the brief with only his muscular arms clad in a less than muscular (and far from masculine) netting fabric. As far as the guy on the right who stole the tuxedo collar from the guy on the left (and quite possibly his powdered wig thing from the legs of the goat-man above), was that his inauguration outfit? I don't know what the front of his brief says either. What is with this Galliano guy and the reading material on the frontal regions of the male undergarments? Listen, if I'm in a situation where I can get close enough to read that, I'm pretty sure that I've got other things on my mind at that moment. (Like how I got myself in a situation where I can get close enough to read that!)

He also seems to have some sort of anger toward the Revolutionary War era as he has come up with these designs as well! (Act now! Call today! Operators are standing by!)

The guy with the satchel there on the right? Is he the look of the Pony Express for the New Millennium? And that hat! Aretha, baby! You've gotta call this Galliano guy next time you're in the market for a hat that is shaped like a boat and that you can see from space. He'll do you right, I promise!

They all look rather angry, don't they? I suppose I would do if I found myself wearing a powdered wig and knee high boots. That's enough to make anyone cranky, really. But if you do see someone all angry and powdered up like this (and looking for his horse to deliver the mail), let me know! Or at least ask to see a receipt. (And make sure that they're not wearing a sandwich board and ringing a bell at the time you've seen them. That could explain a lot. It couldn't explain all of this, but it could explain that. Carry on.)

Sphere: Related Content

That Hat Is Back

The hat's back. WTF?

Yes, it's true. Aretha Franklin's Hat, known by some as Hattie (It's catchy. I like it.), is back in the news. Given the size of the thing, it's hard to say if it ever really left. Seriously, when the sunlight hit that thing and those little sparkly things (courtesy of The BeDazzler - Motown Edition) sparkled away, it was like a spy satellite had re-entered the atmosphere and landed atop the Queen of Soul's noggin there. If there is anything that exemplifies "home of the brave" more than that hat, I don't know what it is. But I do know you'd have to be brave to wear such a headcovering in public.

But I might be the only one who feels this way about Hattie. Apparently, the Smithsonian Institute wants the hat. Not to wear, for God sakes! They are putting together an exhibit about the inauguration and want to put the hat in it! The hat needs it's own exhibit. How are they going to fit anything else in there if the hat is there? A Smithsonian spokeswoman, a one Valeska Hilbig said, "We are definitely interested in Aretha’s hat. We have a large collection of American history that includes music and pop culture, and this just makes sense.” Oh, and that's where she's wrong because the last thing that the hat makes is sense!

The peachy folks down there at the Atlanta Journal Constitution are reporting that The Detroit News is reporting that Aretha said (geez, what is this? High school?) that she "...may not be able to part with it." Ah, I see. Because it's too big to get out the door? No? Huh. Interesting. Why then?

“It would be hard to part with my chapeau since it was such a crowning moment in history. I would like to smile every time I look back at it and remember what a great moment it was in American and African-American history. Ten cheers for President Obama.” What the hell is that? That's Aretha's statement she gave The Detroit News? All rightee then, let's take it from the top, shall we?

Look, you're not French. Chapeau? Oh, do you mean her HAT? I swear, people learn one French word that has that little accent sound to it (you know what I mean. When a word ends in a "u" but is pronounced like it's an "o". Sh-ah-pOH. People that love words that end in "u" generally have a hard time pronouncing words that end in the other 25 letters of the alphabet, so take it for what it's worth, will ya?) and the next thing you know, they're throwing the word around all over the place. "Oh, I think I'll need my chapeau for my visit to the chateau of my friend." Yeah, yeah, you need your hat when you go to your buddy's house. I got it. Speak English.) The other word that I've been hearing ever since Hattie sang at the inauguration is "millinery", which is a where hats are made. One who makes the hats is a "milliner" or, in the case of Hattie, a "fruitcake".

And yes, it was a crowning moment. That thing sat atop her head like a big ol' satellite looking crown is what it did. And she would like "to smile every time I look back at it"? Where is this hat? Is she just wearing it around the house now that the inauguration is over? It's not like she can try to get away with wearing it in public again and hope that no one notices! Google Earth would notice if no one else did!! Can't she "remember what a great moment it was in American and African-American history" without the physical presence of the hat? If not, that's going to be unfortunate and difficult if she's ever without the hat. What if someone asks her about what the inauguration was like from where she was? What's she going to say? "Hold on! I'll be right back! I've gotta get my hat and then I'll tell you aalllllll about it!"

Give the Smithsonian the damned hat. Otherwise it will look really silly when the exhibit has a empty large space the size of a piano crate where the hat was to have gone. It will look incomplete is what I'm trying to say.

The other thing I'm trying to say is what is up with the hat?! Apparently, the guy who crafted the hat, the milliner if you will (and if you won't, neither will I, deal?), is a one Mr. Luke Song of Mr. Song Millinery (catchy) in Detroit. Mr. Song says that he has been bombarded by phone calls from people wanting the hat!! For WHAT?! Wait a minute! How many people, you ask? Thousands of phone calls and at least 500 vendors want "the hat"! (Don't worry, Aretha. It won't be exactly like yours! No, these will have a satin ribbon bow, affixed to the hat with horsehair. Don't ask me how I know this crap. I ask myself that same question enough for both of us.) Mr. Song has a backlog of at least three to four weeks for "the hat"! Are you kidding me?! THAT hat?!

Aside from my really, really wanting to know who these people are and where in the hell they're going to wear "the hat" (Can you see yourself standing in line at the grocery store with someone in front of you wearing "the hat"? If in it's the 10 Items or Less line, that hat counts as three items by itself!), I have another question. It's about our "recession". You remember, the one President Barry is supposed to save us from? That's the one! These hats are $179. EACH!! And hundred of people are just willing to throw perfectly good money at Mr. Song in exchange for a satin bowed, BeDazzled headcovering? That's some recession we've got there. Is there some sort of a section in the Economic Stimulus Package that includes hats? Big, felt, bowed, sparkling hats? There should be! Apparently, if the Mr. Song situation is any indication, we could become a nation of milliners overnight if someone popped that into the Stimulus Package.

Maybe those folks who are willing to fork over the $179 for "the hat" are people that have lost their homes to foreclosure and now they're planning on moving into "the hat". Tough economic times, indeed.

Sphere: Related Content