White Trash Tweet

If you're a business that is going to sponsor an individual (probably an athlete), you're going to want to be sure that the person that you're sponsoring will be a good reflection of your business. If you have a classy business, you're going want to make sure that you're not sponsoring someone like Tonya Harding, for example. That won't look good at all. (Even if you're a lead pipe manufacturer. It's still probably not a good move.) So if you're a company like, say, Jaguar, you're going to want to sponsor someone who would seem to have a great deal of class. Maybe that's asking too much. How about a classy person? Some class? Let me put it another way. If you're Jaguar, don't sponsor someone who is going to Tweet "Suck on that faggots!" Wait. What?

Correct. It would seem that there is an Australian swimmer named Stephanie Rice. She's apparently a fairly big deal. At least in Australia she is. Then again, she was also a pretty big deal at the Beijing Olympics where she swam her way to three gold medals. And since three gold medals is nothing to sneeze at (unless you're allergic), Jaguar decided to sponsor this young dolphin-esque swimmer. And just like a Jaguar, she sure isn't difficult to look at. Behold!

Ah, yes. In the typical pose that one would expect from a swimmer. Laying atop rumpled bed sheets with hair all a-flowing. Sure. That's how all women look when they're just hanging out. Uh-huh. All the time. But I digress. The point here is that this woman is apparently a big fan of the Australian rugby team, the Australian Wallabies. Huh. For such a brutal sport, that's kind of a wussy name, isn't it? The Wallabies? (Granted, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the NFL went for years with their mascot as a guy with a feather in his cap who was winking. Not the most manly mascot anyone has ever dreamed up.)

But the Wallabies apparently beat the South African team. (I cannot locate the name of those blokes in any report of this because the media is now sucking worldwide. Thanks for that, sucky worldwide media.) They won 41-39 in a game that was described by The Telegraph as "a nail-biting victory". I'll take their word for it. I have no idea if that is a high scoring game or just an average score that was tight in the end or what. Not a clue. None. I guess that I just need to learn more about rugby, as I can't really assume that every publication reporting on this sort of thing is going to spell it out, but I really wish they'd maybe just give us a little clue.

Now, Ms. Rice was so excited about the victory that she did what anyone would do in that situation. That's right. She tweeted. Good Lord. I'm so over people and their tweets, I cannot even tell you. But what I can tell you is what she tweeted. And it wasn't very Jaguar-esque to tweet out to the entire world "Suck on that faggots!"

I wasn't the only one who thought that it wasn't exactly the kind of person that Jaguar might not want to sponsor. Yeah, Jaguar thought the same thing as well. They dumped her. They were more elegant about the announcement than I was just then, of course. A one Mark Eedle, who is the marketing and public affairs manager for Jaguar Australia, said, "We made a decision yesterday, and we've terminated the agreement with her."

They terminated their agreement with her?! But...but...she made a really weak apology after she was told how stupid she was! You mean that it didn't matter to Jaguar that she said, "I made a comment on Twitter on Saturday night in the excitement of the moment. I did not mean to cause offence and I apologise." That's what she says in the "excitement of the moment"? She gets so excited that she tweets "Suck on that faggots!"? You know, some people simply shout, "Yipee!" What if they had been playing a German team? Would she be tweeting what she thought the Jews should do? I certainly hope not.

Sphere: Related Content

Dollar Menu "Discrimination"

Hey, San Francisco! How's your utopia coming along? Are you making sure that you're keeping plenty of entitled homeless people around who are disillusioned about what they feel that they should be getting? You are? Ohhh. So that's why there are folks that are sans home complaining about a particular McDonald's that has done away with their dollar menu. Whatever.

Here's the deal according to SF Gate: The McDonald's in the Haight-Ashbury area on the corner of Haight and Stanyan has eliminated the dollar menu from their tasty offerings. Instead of 99 cents, those items are now $1.49, constituting a difference of a whopping fifty cents. (Now, I should probably mention that there are a gazillion homeless in the Haight area. You can't swing a dead shopping cart without hitting one. And they're far from sedate individuals. They are some of the more aggressive panhandlers that I've ever come across. You can't walk by them without them hitting you up for a "donation".) And, of course, the homeless feel that they are being (wait for it) discriminated against. Behold! The discriminatees!

That's right. They have this price hike thing all figured out. See, they're thinking that the McDonald's just doesn't want them hanging around all of the time and sitting in their patio seating. So this is "...the restaurant management's ploy to get them to go somewhere else." A simply shocking assertion. You may also not be shocked to learn that "Management locks the bathroom door and frequently calls the cops." You don't say? Yes, I'm shocked. Stunned, as it were. Uh-huh. Can you imagine wanting to lock the bathroom door and call the cops on the folks below?

I can't imagine why that would be. Why on earth would the owner of the McDonald's not want their business cluttered up with a bunch of scroungy looking homeless people who are asking your entering and departing patrons for money? Not to mention scroungy looking homeless people who take up your seats outside all the live long day. It's a mystery all right. But the owner of the franchise, a one Natalie Gonzalez, claims that isn't the reason. Well, she sort of claims that. In a statement that was issued, she asserts, "The speculation as to why I no longer offer menu items for $1 in this location is absolutely false. This was a business decision based on a number of contributing factors. And while these items are no longer available at $1, they are still available at what I believe to be a good, everyday value."

I like how she doesn't mention the "contributing factors" specifically. I'd say that having a bunch of homeless folks hanging around all of the time and pestering anyone who walks within three feet of them for their hard earned cash a "contributing factor". But for some reason, she doesn't want to say that. And I just don't get that. Why wouldn't she just say that she doesn't like the "clientele" that having a dollar menu attracts? The homeless act like they're just like everyone else, but they fail to see the obvious and striking differences between themselves and the homed. The homed tend to not ask others for money. The homed tend to wear clean clothes. The homed tend to leave the majority of their belongings in their home when they leave it. And the homed don't spend all day taking up seats in the outdoor seating area of the McDonald's. I find it to be perfectly acceptable to change your way of doing business in order to get rid of those who stand in the way of your doing business.


The other thing that really bugs me about the homeless and their fake uproar about this? That would be that they act like it is damn near impossible for them to scrounge a dollar or two. Give me a break. Get over yourself. Or get a job. Either one of those would probably work out pretty well for you. But whatever you do, just pipe down about it. You're not entitled to a dollar menu at every fast food establishment. And is that the only freaking McDonald's in town? I highly doubt it. Why don't you go be sans home outside of a different McDonald's? Say, one with a dollar menu. It's not like you've got anything else to do.

Sphere: Related Content

What's Cookin' On Labor Day?

It's Labor Day and that means picnics and barbecues if you're into that sort of thing. And if you're not into that sort of thing, then it simply means that it's Monday. But as I thought of all of the great grub that can be had at your typical American Labor Day feast, it made me really glad that I don't live in other countries where the grub isn't what I would call quite so great. I'm sure these countries are fine places to visit, but I can't that I'd want to live there with some of these items on the menus.

Take Peru, for example. Every year, they hold a festival dedicated to the guinea pig. And when I say "dedicated", I mean dedicated. Dedicated as in that's what they're cooking and serving up. Behold!

It's called cuy. Pronounce that however you'd like whilst you're trying not to gag. Maybe I would find it to be a little more appetizing if it wasn't just dumped in the fryer all whole like that. I don't want my food to have a face that can look at me. Ever. Nor do I want my food to have a discernible tail. Behold!

Served at a wild game restaurant in Guangzhou, China, those would be cooked field rats. I have no idea what the sauce or the outer coating on them is or is supposed to be. I am curious as to what purpose the tail serves. Is it like a built in stick, so you can eat 'em like a state fair food? I don't get it. Nor do I want it. Other things I don't want on or in my food? One of those things would be more than two legs. Behold!

Those would be deep fried spiders being sold in Vietnam. According to The Daily Telegraph, "... The fist-sized arachnids are crunchy on the outside and taste like cold, gooey chicken on the inside." An excellent description, though I'm not sure that I know what cold, gooey chicken tastes like, nor do I know why I would want to. They are 10 for two dollars which is quite a bargain. Still seems a little bit steep for me, however. Then again, any price to eat a deep fried spider seems like it would be too much for me. And it also seems like it would be a steep price for me to pay for anything this grotesque that is packaged in a can. Say, like these silkworm pupae that come in a can in Korea. Behold!

OK, see, I was going to say something about the "foods" before this one that alluded to there possibly not being a lot to eat in those countries and so they make do on what they have. But this kind of kills that theory. You would have to go out of your way to have this. It's not like you could just find the critters out in the barn like you could those field mice. (OK, fine. Out in the field. You knew what I meant!) That's just gross. Even with the sparkly toothpicks, they're just gross. You know what else is gross that sparkly toothpicks likely wouldn't help to be more palatable? Fish mouths! Wait. Yes, you heard me. Fish mouths. Behold!

What kind of fish have teeth like those?! No fish that I am aware of! Certainly not anything that is fit for consumption. Do you eat those little teeth things as well? I guess if you're at the point where you're already eating fish mouths, a few teeth aren't going to bother you much. I guess it would kind of be like if you were eating a cookie full of wasps, their little wings wouldn't bother you much either. Behold!

That would be what is called a digger wasp rice cracker. It is also called Jibachi Senbei. Neither terminology is going to make it look any better to me. Apparently, how this atrocity came to be was when "A Japanese fan club for wasps has added the insects to rice crackers, saying the result adds a delicious scent to the traditional fare." I don't want bugs in my food simply for a "delicious scent". No, thanks. And who has a fan club where the thing that you're a fan of becomes your lunch? If it was a Hello Kitty fan club, would they have kitten cookies with real kittens? It frightens me to think of what the answer to that might actually be.

And finally, just for something completely whack-a-do that really makes me glad that any chicken I might consume on Labor Day will be prepared on a grill and not in the fashion in which a restaurant in China prepares their chickens. That is, the fashion in which they kill the chicken involves having a snake bite its neck. Behold!

Oh, what the hell is that? It's just like what it looks like it is. It's a snake biting the neck of a chicken so that the chicken can be served in a dish called (wait for it) Snake-bit Chicken. Catchy, no? No. Now, I don't know if this is prominent all over China, but it was the specialty fare for at least one restaurant last year. The restaurant "...defended the controversial practice...saying the resulting dish was healthy and kept the customers flooding in". How is that healthy? Couldn't a chicken that did NOT have to be bitten by a snake be just as healthy? I'm thinking it might be MORE healthy to have it done that way. You know, without all of the snake and without all of the biting. You know what else I think? I think I'm going to be very thankful for whatever is being grilled around here for Labor Day.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Cartoon Fakeroversy

I guess that whole deal that some Muslims do with freaking out over cartoons that they find offensive or blasphemous or whatever the heck they want to call it, must work for them. And it must have been noticed by other groups as well. Or at least some Mexicans who are flipping out over "An American cartoonist's rendition of the Mexican flag" which depicts a "...normally a regal-looking eagle at the center of Mexico's flag riddled with bullets and bleeding." Uh-huh. And they've got their tortillas in a wad because why? Because they claim "...it's offensive to taint their national symbol with images of drug violence." Wait. What now?

Correct. According to AOL News, a one Daryl Cagle, who is employed by MSNBC.com (I'm not sure why that's important, but AOL News included it, so I figured that I would, too), drew the cartoon of the flag with the gunned down eagle as a "...reference to the drug wars that have riled Mexico and left more than 28,000 people dead there in less than four years. " That seems like a pretty reasonable visual metaphor to depict. Oh, but not for everyone. No, there are plenty of asshats out there who think that because they don't like something that other people should give a crap. And a lot of people don't. Oh, and by the way, here is the cartoon drawing in question. Behold!

One reader of some sort of a Mexican newspaper called el Universal (I have no idea what that it. It could be like The National Enquirer for all I know. After all, in that picture over there on the left, they have prominently featured a one Rihanna. Who knows what that's all about?), wrote in to say "It is a shame that a patriotic symbol like our flag, which is so beautiful to me, can be mocked by a stupid cartoonist...I think there are many other ways to graphically protest what's happening in our country." Unfortunately, he did not give any suggestions as to what those other ways might perhaps be. And really, the guy shouldn't just single out "stupid cartoonists". It can be mocked by anyone, regardless of intelligence and/or the ability to draw, and it probably has been.

Cagle has a blog which I have perused and found to be most excellent. A sample of his work can be seen on the right. He has several of his political cartoons which feature Mexico and it's impact/relationship on/with the United States. He's definitely right on target. But the fact that he has a blog means that people have easy access to communicate with him. It goes along with the blogging. (You should see some of the emails that people write me. They're not always happy if you can imagine that!) And on this issue, they certainly did. A one Ramon De Leon wrote, "I think your idea of bringing the violence in Mexico to light is excellent. Too bad you butchered it along with the Mexican flag. Laws in Mexico with regards to the use and depiction of the flag are in place to prevent this sort of stuff. Please consider taking it down and issuing an apology to the Mexican American community." Um, are you kidding?

See, laws in Mexico are different than those in the United States. Take your immigration policy, for example. Much, MUCH different. We don't have laws against freedom of speech, even when in regard to the flag. And even if we did, I doubt that those laws would extend to the flags of other nations. I can only hope that Mr. Cagle will not issue an apology. I'm pretty sure he's the kind of guy who isn't going to take it down, but a lot of people find themselves with their back against the wall and are sort of "forced" into apologizing for something that isn't worthy of an apology in the first place.

So, they're upset because someone doesn't respect their flag? Tell you guys what. How about you start respecting anything having to do with America and then we'll talk about your flag? Or, perhaps, do something about your drug violence and then we'll talk about the cartoon. But with over 12 million of your countrymen living illegally in this country and having zero respect for our laws, I'm not going to feel all that bad that you folks are all bent out of shape about this flag cartoon. It didn't get the Muslims anywhere and it isn't going to get you anywhere, so just pipe down. Or draw a cartoon about the American flag if that makes you feel better. I really don't think I care what you do, just stop making it out to be a big deal because it might be a lot of things, but a big deal certainly isn't one of them.

Sphere: Related Content

Students Who Don't Give A S***

Oh, The Onion. How I love you so. Good question. How do we accommodate students that just don't give a flying f**k?

In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Shit?

Sphere: Related Content

A Friday To Forget

I'm going to call this Hoo-Ha Friday. I'm not going to be proud of it. It's just what I'm going to do. Hoo-Ha Friday is brought to you by two individuals in two separate, yet frighteningly similar incidents. Individual Number One is featured in the video below. It seems that she was in Atascadero, California when she was arrested for DUI after she crashed into the garage of her home. Baaaaad! She was cuffed and placed in the back of the squad car. Shortly afterwards, the arresting officers noticed that she had slipped out of her handcuffs. More baaaad! They put another pair on her because they couldn't find the first pair of handcuffs. Even after she was booked into jail (where they search you...in theory), no one could find the handcuffs. It was sort of a mystery. Where could they be? Where could they possibly, yet unthinkably, be? If you guessed some sort of body cavity that only a female has, you are correct! Aaauuugghhh! All of the baaaad! You may now vomit.

My favorite part of that news report was at the end where the guy was trying to explain the inexplicable. That being why she chose to hide the handcuffs after she was able to find her way out of them. That's what they were focused on?! She was drunk! End of story! And I would hope that the ONLY reason why one would cram a pair of handcuffs up into their uterine region WAS because they were drunk. And we're talking pretty darn drunk. Handcuffs in the hoo-ha drunk, to be exact. I'd be more concerned with how she got them off in the first place rather than why she chose to do what she did in her heightened state of inebriation. And yes, that picture there is of the confiscated handcuffs inside of a plastic glove. Eww.

And as I alluded to earlier, this, sadly, is not the only incident that I have to report here on Hoo-Ha Friday. From the folks over at Cincinnati.com, we learn of another incident involving the arrest of another woman behind the wheel. It would seem that in this case, the car had illegally tinted windows. Uh, yeah. It seems that there was a reason for the illegally tinted windows. When the officer approached the vehicle and looked inside, it wasn't pretty. Inside he found a one 36-year old Colondra Hamilton "...sitting with her pants unzipped and a sex toy in her lap." And listen, let's not judge...yet. Save the judgment for after you learn that she was allegedly "...using the toy while watching a sex video on a laptop computer that a passenger in the front seat held up so she could see it." All whilst driving. Good Lord, lady....

And we're worried about people texting while driving. Wow. I'm trying to figure out what would compel a woman to pull something like this. Is she just SOOOOO busy that there isn't enough time in her day to fit in a good masturbatory porn session, so she decided that she'd kill two birds with one stone and take care of that whilst she drove to the post office or something? How in the world could she even pay attention? Would you even remember that a green light meant "go" and that a red light meant "stop" if you were in the middle of something like that? I can't imagine that you would. I also can't imagine how enjoyable that would possibly be. And by the way, in case you're wondering, driving with a dildo in your lap and a porno on your laptop whilst you drive your vehicle amounts to being charged with "driving with inappropriate alertness". That makes sense. After all, I imagine that she was paying attention, just not to the driving (which is really the most important thing to pay attention to when you're behind the wheel). Oh, and by the way, she looks probably about like you'd expect her to. Behold!

Yeah. All right, then. This has been what will hopefully amount to the last Hoo-Ha Friday ever.

Sphere: Related Content

A Shocking Outcome

Today's Dumbass Files Dumbass Lawsuit comes to us courtesy of a one Kyle Dubois from Dover, New Hampshire. (This reads a lot better if you use a game show announcer voice in your head when you read it.) Let's see who Kyle is suing! First of all, Kyle is suing his teacher, a one Thomas Kelley. But Kyle doesn't stop there! He's also suing his school district AND the city of Dover! And why is he suing, Bob? (I'm envisioning that the announcer's name is Bob.) Why, he's suing because he claims that his electrical shop teacher didn't warn him of the dangers of electricity before he hooked two clamps up to his nipples and then had another student plug him in! Wait. What, Bob?

Yep. It is just what it sounds like it is. Eighteen year old (and certainly old enough to know better) Kyle Dubois attached one of those little electrical clamp things (that look kind of like jumper cables) to one of his nipples. Another idiot student attached the other clamp to the other nipple. And the idiot student trifecta was completed when a third moron plugged in the cord. What happened next will shock you. (Actually, it'll shock him, but you already saw that it was headed in that direction.)

According to The Boston Herald and surprising no one but perhaps Kyle, after the human battery jumper was all hooked up and the current was applied, he "...received a severe shock that caused him to stagger and collapse". The article goes on to say that the shock resulted in the asshat (my terminology, not that of The Boston Herald) "...being sent to Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, where he was diagnosed as having an "out of hospital electrocution resulting in cardiac arrest, unresponsive state and respiratory failure". It doesn't state that they diagnosed him as being a complete ignoramus, but let's not rule that out, OK? OK. Oh, by the way, here's a screen grab from a 4-second cell phone video that one of this moron's classmates made of him hooking himself up to be a human Roman candle. You can tell by the fact that his pants are about three inches below the top of his boxer shorts that the boy isn't quite right in the head to begin with. Behold!

According to the documents filed in this absolutely meritless lawsuit, this moron "...suffered brain damage due to the heart stoppage. He has short-term memory loss and "other losses and disruptions" as a result." I'm not so sure that the brain damage was due to the heart stoppage. If I had to guess, I'd gather that he might have had a little bit of brain damage already going on when he went into class that day. And I can't even imagine what the "other losses" could possibly be. Has he joined the ranks of the un-layable as a result of this? Oooh! Maybe he lost his nipples. Is that it? Is he nippleless? I hope so. That would be most excellent.

Of course, the basis for his lawsuit has to do with negligence on the part of the teacher. And since the teacher works for the district, they're allegedly liable for his actions. And I guess since the district is in the city they just go ahead and sue them, too. Do you really need to be warned to not hook yourself up by the nipples with jumper cables? And even if you do need to be warned about that, does that mean that you need to be warned about sending a jolt of electricity through said jumper cables which are now affixed to one's nipples? I guess if you're already grabbing your nubbins with the nodes, you might need some sort of alternative direction. But I prefer to leave things like this to Mr. Darwin.

Here's my question: He obviously did this for a reason. What in the hell did he think was going to happen? He had to have known that plugging in his little contraption there was going to result in electricity surging through his body via Nipple A and Nipple B. (I don't know if those are the actual names of his nipples. That's about as creative as I can be right now.) Maybe if he had paid a little more attention in class, he would have realized that by getting plugged in, he was going to sent 120 volts through his body. And if they're going to be suing people, why are they not suing the other two asshats who participated in this asininity? Shouldn't they be the first people that should be included in this lawsuit?

What a waste of time and money. What ever happened to natural consequences? If some idiot hooks himself up to a surge of electricity, I certainly hope that he would get lit up like a Christmas tree or have sparks go shooting out of his nipples like it was the Fourth of July. That seems perfectly reasonable. And if someone is eighteen years old and hasn't quite grasped the fact that electricity will kill your ass, I see nothing wrong with that individual learning through experience. Case closed.

Sphere: Related Content

Deep-Fried Fair Fat Goodness

It's time once again for the State Fair of Texas and that means loads of deep-fried goodness and deep-fried weirdness. Those two are often one and the same. The eight finalists for the Sixth Annual Big Tex Choice Awards have been announced. Let's see what we have to look forward to, shall we?

Up first is the Deep Fried S’mores Pop Tart. I'm not overly impressed with this one. It's just a S'mores flavored Pop Tart that has been battered and dropped in the fryer. OK, they serve it with some chocolate syrup and whipped cream when it's done, but how practical is that, really? You can't stab a Pop Tart with a fork, so I would imagine that the consumption process of this is going to be a little tricky. Then again, I've never had a Pop Tart that has been deep-fried, so maybe that does something to the chemical composition (of which the entire Pop Tart is comprised of).

In the category of ANTTA (Absolutely Nauseating To Think About), we have something dubbed Fernie’s Fried Club Salad: Take a big ol' spinach tortilla and put in some diced ham and diced chicken, shredded lettuce, carrot strips, cherry tomatoes and some bacon. Roll that sucker up and deep fry it like you would a chimichanga and throw some deep-fried croutons on top of it when you're done. Give the insane individual who wants to eat that a side of dressing and you're done. I have several issues with this. Who wants their lettuce deep fried? Or warm, for that matter? Not I. I'm also perplexed by the description given of this atrocity over there at About.com/Dallas, as they seem to imply that it is served on a stick. How does that work? Why would you want it to work like that? A stick? No stick. Get rid of the stick.

Who doesn't want lemonade when they're at a state fair? And who doesn't want that lemonade deep-fried? Wait? Deep-fried? That's right! Deep-fried! Deep-fried Lemonade! Simply take a lemon-flavored pastry (whatever that is supposed to mean) that has been made with lemonade and bake it and then fry it up. Glaze it with some lemonade, powdered sugar and lemon zest and you've got yourself...uh, something! You've definitely got yourself something there!

If there's one food that says "Texas" it's a Frito pie. And if there's one thing that says Texas State Fair, it's Deep-fried Frito Pie. Somehow, a one Nick Bert has managed to take chili and cheddar cheese, cover it around in Fritos, batter it and chuck it in the grease without the whole thing falling apart. Now that's some talent right there! He'd better do it right. Texans don't like folks messing with their Frito pies. I have to assume that it tastes better than it looks, there. Good thing they're not judged on presentation.

Abel Gonzales, Jr. is no stranger to deep frying things for the Texas State Fair. His deep-fried butter won the competition last year. He also had winners in previous years with his deep-fried cookie dough and his deep-fried peanut butter, jelly and banana sandwich. (Why add the banana? I have no idea. Deep-fried PB&J sounds fabulous all by itself.) This year he has concocted something called Deep-fried Chocolate, though I don't know why he calls it that. It is a brownie, stuffed with a piece of white chocolate and a cherry. Then that is dunked into chocolate cake batter before it hits the grease. He tops it all off with powdered sugar, cherry sauce and chocolate whipped cream. I still don't get why it isn't called a Deep-fried Brownie.

When I heard that there was something called Texas Fried Caviar, I couldn't imagine that would go over well. Texas doesn't seem like much of a caviar state to me. Turns out, Texas caviar is black-eyed peas. Now that makes sense! Simply take some black-eyed peas fried and add some "special spices" and some Old Bay seasoning (which is presumably different than the aforementioned special spices) and fry away! (I kind of think that a better name would have been Fried Texas Caviar. Everything else starts off with "fried", so why should this be any different? It's only going to confuse fair goers.)

I've saved the best two for last! The Deep-fried Margarita and the Deep-fried Beer! Bring 'em on! I think that I'd probably be more partial to the margarita, even though I am a big fan of beer. Take some sweet funnel cake batter and mix in either tequila or tequila flavored wine. Fry that baby up and dust it with some sort of lemon-lime mixture and served it in a salt-rimmed plastic glass. It sounds lovely. Although the deep-fried beer sounds just as lovely. It's basically a pretzel pocket with beer inside. Take one bite and the beer pours out, as it should. It's beer and pretzels all in one! What's not to love? You do have to be over 21 to purchase either one of these delectables, as they're not in the fryer long enough for the alcohol to burn out, as it shouldn't.

There you have it. Deep-fried goodness at the State Fair of Texas for 2010. It's a good thing that this dealio is only once a year. If people were to eat this kind of stuff all year 'round, the results would not be good. If one were to indulge in this kind of cuisine frequently it would be as a friend of mine said last night, "They might as well have chairs lined up with IVs filled with heated Crisco. Cut out the middleman." Well said, friend. Well said, indeed.

Sphere: Related Content