Father of the Year Front Runner

I believe that we have a front runner candidate for Father of the Year. I mean, it's really going to be hard to top a guy who takes funds that were donated to his only surviving son (after the rest of his family, his girlfriend and two other children, were killed in a house fire) and spends all of the money within three months on such expenditures as hookers. Um, wait. What now?

Correct. Meet Tubal Eduardo.

Mr. Eduardo experienced an unbelievable tragedy on March 12, 2007, when his girlfriend, Heather Marchie and two of his three children, Tubal Jr., 5, and Angelina, 4, were killed in a fire in the home that they shared with Mr. Eduardo and with his third child, a one Noah (who appears to have been around 3-ish). Now, according to NJ.com, after said tragedy, there was a fundraiser that was arranged by the "...parent-teacher association at the Weston School". Apparently, one of the children who was killed in the fire had been attending that school prior to death. The funds raised were to go into an account for Noah and were to be used so that Noah would be able to have something for his future. It was a very nice gesture, really.

But what was not so nice of a gesture was this alleged scumbag allegedly siphoning the funds for his own personal use. According to WCBS-TV, there was $38,000 raised for little Noah. As of the filing of court papers for this unimaginable act, there was $114.27 left in that account. Hmm. Seems to be a little short, doesn't it? Yep. It does. I wonder where it went?

Well, if you consult another article by the fine folks over there at NJ.com, you'll learn that allegedly some of the funds, "at least $7,107 went to First Professional Referral Services." Um, what's a professional referral service? "I believe it’s an escort service," said a one Detective Michael Schutta in court. Oohhh. I see. (Referral service? What are they referring people to? Free clinics? Penicillin, perhaps?) I wonder what kind of hookers these were? I mean, were they regular, couple hundred bucks an hour, hookers? Or were they like Eliot Spitzer's whores who could run thousands of dollars? It's hard to say which one would be better if you had to choose. The whole idea is completely reprehensible.

So, let me get this straight. This guy loses his girlfriend and two of his kids in a fire. He and his little baby son survive. The kind, kind people at his deceased child's elementary school hold a fundraiser for the surviving child. They raise 38 grand. (They do allot 5 grand for the father, by the way.) And this guy takes the money and buys hookers with it? Are you kidding me?! How does one excuse that sort of behavior?

I don't know how "one" excuses it, but I know how his defense attorney is excusing it and it is absolutely despicable. According to a one seemingly horrible individual, a one defense lawyer Maureen O'Reilly, "...her client had just endured a tragedy. " Huh. When my dad died, I considered that to be a tragedy. I didn't siphon money from a (non-existent) fund and go get myself a bunch of hookers. I mean, I was pretty overwrought at the time, but not money-stealing, hooker-hiring overwrought, you know?

This awful human being also makes sure that we understand that after the fire, "Eduardo had nothing" and that"A good part of his family was gone." Yeah, I understand that. Get to the part where it's OK to steal from your son in order to buy yourself some hookers. Get to that part. "Mr. Eduardo used the funds in order to live," she said. Among the purchases was an 8-year-old car. "I hardly believe that's living the high life." That's not the part I was expecting.

I don't give a crap as to whether he purchased an 8-year old car or an 8-year old child! (He had just lost almost his whole family, don't forget. Child purchasing, while wrong, might have seemed more warranted.) The point is that it wasn't his money! What part of that don't you understand, you soul-less, reptilian, defense attorney, you?!

Aside from the hooker funding, there were also "$14,346.75 in cash withdrawals, and $2,472.22 for food, gas and lodging." That "food, gas and lodging" I'm assuming is hooker related. I'm wondering if the whole "He bought an 8-year old car" defense is what explains the nearly fifteen grand in cash withdrawals. Do we next get to hear about how stupid he was that he paid that much for an 8-year old car? I can't imagine that we will (and I pray to God that we don't).

It would appear that all that this scumbag can get is a five year jail sentence if he's found guilty. Granted, anything can happen (innocent until proven guilty, remember!). But if he's found guilty, it's up to five years in jail. That seems like an awfully short period of time for someone who was stealing from his little boy who had survived a fire that killed the majority of his family. It seems like not quite long enough. Definitely the front runner for Father of the Year. Definitely.

Sphere: Related Content

The Rules And Etiquette Of Swinging

This post was totally going to be about one thing, but the more that I got sidetracked, the more that it totally became about something else. See, it was going to be about this story that I read over yonder in the Sacramento Bee about a correction officer who claimed that he..."was at a San Francisco restaurant with his wife when a parolee recognized him, then gunned him down with a shot that left him paralyzed from the waist down." He ended up filing a workers' compensation claim "...that could have paid him and his wife nearly $2.5 million." That's an awful lot of cheese. Too bad that his cheese plan fell apart when it turned out that he wasn't really shot after he had left a restaurant...unless "restaurant" is slang for "swingers club". But if that were the case, then "parolee" would have to be slang for "guy whose wife the officer was banging". I checked the Urban Dictionary and it didn't say anything about that, so I'm really doubting that's the correct vernacular to use there.

That's right. The guy was at a swingers club and got shot afterwards and tried to claim it was work related. Yeah, not so much. But here's the thing: While I was reading this article, it said that this club, known by the name of Twist, is located "...at Pacific Avenue and Kearny Street in San Francisco". Huh. I don't recall any sort of swingers club being down there. Oh, that's because "there is no sign out front to advertise its existence" (which seems reasonable) and "...admittance is allowed only after the owner approves an e-mail request". OK, so this is an establishment with some rules. That's where I started to become more interested in how a swingers club operated than I did about the dipwad that got himself shot after a "session".

I figured that I'd look for this place online since it said that you needed to have your email request approved by the owner. (The owner who, I learned from the article in the Bee, is a gentleman who expects us to believe that his real name is Ivan Stroganov. Seriously, dude? You're the owner of a swingers club and you're claiming your name is Stroganov? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I don't think that's really your name. Call it a hunch.) And I found it. And lucky me! There are sets of rules and etiquette for anyone who wants to visit Twist and participate with other folks in some sort of untoward sexual practices that likely involve many naked bodies and lots of writhing and sweating. Ick.

Maybe it's because I'm a chick and I don't possess a penile unit, but the thought of the whole "swinging" scene just does nothing for me. I'm sure it's different if you're the one doing all of the checking of all of the oil (so to speak) and not the one supplying the orifices (orifii??), but I just don't get the appeal of it all. But what does appeal to me are rules. I enjoy order in things. And I find it fascinating that in a place where the whole swapping of mates goes on, they have guidelines. (Me, personally? My first guideline is "No mate swapping". But then again, that's just me.)

And this is where I got distracted...with the rules of Twist. Let's look at the first couple of rules for this particular swingers club, shall we? Rule One: Twist is an invitation only private party! No one may attend any function or come in the property without being invited to Twist. Twist is not open to the general public. Now that seems perfectly reasonable. That whole invitation thing almost makes it sounds like a dinner party. Almost. Well, come on! You don't just want weirdos wandering in off of the street and disrupting all of the freelance fornication! Please.

Rule Number Two: STD (sexually transmitted diseases) -- As it is a very private matter, we do not inquire about your status nor request any medical proof. (Oooh! You know, I...I kinda wish you WOULD!) It is your responsibility to notify the couple you are about to play with if you have any STD. First of all, can I just call attention to the term "play with"? What is up with that? But really, how do you suppose that this whole rule is implemented? I'm having a hard time imagining something like "Um, I have chlamydia! And I would like to join you now!" I don't know that something like that is going to go over all that well. Rule Number Two goes on to state "We strongly suggest addressing the issue before moving on to the lounge, where the heat of the moment can cause you to forget about it." (I guess the lounge is where everything really gets going, but that's pure speculation on my part.)

Forget about it? Are you kidding me? "Oh, that's right! I forgot I had AIDS!" I'm not liking this policy very much. You can't have a blood test required with all of those applications that are submitted? Something? Other than their word, provided they haven't "forgot" about their "condition"? That seems silly. ("You know, the whole time I was banging your wife, there was something nagging me in the back of my mind. It just wouldn't come to me. But then I remembered and you know what it is? Gonorrhea!! And full blown AIDS! But anyway, that was great. See ya around!")

Now, given the lackadaisical nature of Rule Two, I was a bit surprised by Rule Number Four: "BYOB only for wine and beer. No hard liquor is allowed." What now? Let me get this straight. You're on the honor system for AIDS and syphilis, but you have very strict rules about hard liquor? None of that. AIDS, perhaps. Gin? Out of the question!!

Rule Number Six: Cell phones, cameras or video equipment is not permitted on the property. So, leave your tripod at home, folks!

Rule Number Seven: Any conduct requiring an apology is grounds for expulsion. Well, that's interesting. You know, there are some guys who just should automatically apologize after every time they have sex. But that aside, that's a rather broad requirement. Let me get this straight. The guy with AIDS can stay, but someone breaks wind and they're booted out? That guy has visible crabs, but because that guy brought whiskey, he has to go?! Seems like an odd way to do things, but what do I know about it? I'm not a swinger (nor will I ever be).

Rule Number Twelve (yes, there were twelve!): Last but certainly not least, have fun! Ohhh! I see! That's one of the rules! Have fun! How can you possibly go wrong when that's one of the rules! I get it now! They should have put that one first to avoid any confusion! Have fun!

Now, while you probably already know more than you wanted to, let's look at some of the etiquette guidelines as long as we're here. Number One: The most important thing to remember is consideration for the next person. That includes NO pressuring anyone, NO hassling, NO rude behavior and accepting "NO" politely. That's not a problem. I learned that growing up. That's just common decency (which makes it a little odd that it's the number one rule at a swingers club).

Number Two: Arrive and leave a party as a couple. Do not initiate activity with other couples unless both you and your partner are willing to join. It is expected that if one person swings, his or her partner is free and willing to do so as well. Clearly, that is in place to avoid what would seem like the most obvious scam that could be perpetrated on such an establishment. ("If you don't mind, I'll just start banging your wife here and, uh, my wife? Oh, yeah. Um, she should be along in about ten minutes or so. She had, uh, she had a thing. Oh, she's smoking hot. Here's her picture. No, that's really her! She should be here in about fifteen minutes. Did I say ten before? Yeah, I meant fifteen. Fifteen minutes or so. Sure.")

Number Three: Good health and hygiene is essential. Don't forget lingering alcohol or tobacco on your breath may be offensive to some. Again, I just want to remind you that technically, you can have AIDS and they're not going to say anything about that because that's private. But they're going to tell you not to have tobacco on your breath. AND they're going to include on their website, the very photo below of two girls squatting down and having a cigarette. It's the ol' Smoke N' Squat! Odd. Very odd indeed.

Number Four: A positive mental attitude and good emotional health will make for more successful encounters. Oh! So it's like a self-help thing. Having a positive mental attitude will make it a lot better for you whilst your wife is taking it from all angles by some other guy. Sure. That makes sense. I'm glad they included that one.

Number Six: Don't disturb the swinging enjoyment of others in a bedroom or other swing areas with loud or prolonged talk. What, exactly, would there be to talk about? Your day at work? Yeah, it's really hard for one dude to screw some other dude's wife when you're in the little sex cubicle next to them yammering on about your day at the office? It's an odd issue to have to address, that's for sure. It's not exactly a library.

Now, there are others, but I think I'm going to stop here. I found the whole thing a bit unsavory. I guess the whole part that I don't quite understand is why would you get married if you're just going to be boinking other people? I'm sure not all couples are married, but that is my question for those who are. I guess the reason that I don't get it is that I'm not the kind of person that would be comfortable in an environment like that. Maybe it would be the same for someplace that I'm comfortable with that they wouldn't be. I can't really think of what that would be, however. If you're comfortable being with your spouse in a room full of people whilst fornicating madly with other individuals, I'm guessing that you're going to be pretty comfortable in just about any environment that I put in front of you. Just a guess.

Sphere: Related Content

Advertising With Octomom

I've never been a fan of PETA. (Not the bread. That's pita.) They're the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. They're not the People for Ethical behavior That is not Abhorrent. No, that's not them. They feel the need to always have some sort of 'shocking' method for getting people to pay attention to them and their 'cause'. If I had to guess whether they've done more to further their cause or whether they've done more to garner attention for themselves, I'd have to go with the latter. And their latest stunt pretty much demonstrates just that.

I'm sure that you're well aware of the insufferable Nadya Suleman, aka the Octomom. As you may or may not care to remember (but which your tax dollars are none the less being used to support) Suleman was the single mother with six children born from petri dishes who then went ahead and had herself impregnated once again, only to find herself carrying a litter of eight children for a grand total of fourteen. That's right. No husband. No job. No money. Fourteen children. And no freaking sense.

Since she is not currently working due to the taking care of the population of her small village (and the fact that she seems to be mentally unstable in more ways than I care to count at the moment), she is in need of cash. It seems that she garners her income by selling pictures of her lips and her brood to various tabloid media publications. (I cannot imagine how that is profitable for those magazines. Do that many people really have that much interest in her? If I think about it too much, it totally zaps my WTL. Will To Live.) But for some reason, that income isn't enough to support fourteen children (go figure) and so she is currently in danger of losing her house in La Habra, CA, so sayeth Popeater.com.

But what does that have to do with PETA, you ask (provided you read 'Octomom' and continued reading)? Apparently, PETA has "...negotiated a deal with (her) that allows them to post a PETA sign in her front yard trumping the value of spaying or neutering pets." Um, wait. What now?

Correct. PETA is paying the awful individual that is Nadya Suleman (I can barely stomach the 'Octomom' moniker) cash money to put a sign in her front yard that says "Don't let your dog or cat become an 'octomom'." Of course, those words are accompanied by a picture of a splayed out feline which is feeding a pile of hungry offspring. What. The. Hell.

According to the folks over there at OC Weekly, PETA sent a letter to Suleman and her attorney (because everyone with fourteen children needs an attorney to sort through these matters) which read, in part, "In light of recent reports that you may be facing foreclosure on your home, we'd like to offer to bolster your finances by paying to place an ad (enclosed) on your front lawn." Uh, OK. But, seriously, a placard on her lawn? How much is that even worth? A few hundred bucks? (I, of course, am speaking completely hypothetically and in a world where something like this even makes sense. It's not worth a freaking dime and we all know it.) Well, if you were thinking along those same lines as me, you're going to be rather surprised.

The letter closes out with, "Taking us up on our offer is a win-win situation: It would help you and your children to keep your home and also reduce the number of homeless dogs and cats." It what? It will help her keep her home? Let's just do some hypothetical math on this, shall we? A home in La Habra isn't cheap. Let's say a monthly mortgage payment is $2,000. In order to be in foreclosure, let's just say that she's missed six months worth of payments. That's a total of $12,000. You're telling me that her allowing the PETA folks to stick a sign in her front yard is going to net her thousands of dollars?! Hey! All of you nutjobs that actually donate money to PETA! Is that how you want your money being spent? In an advertising partnership with a mentally ill breeding sow?

By the way, the least ridiculous part of this is that there are only six kittens (from what I could count) in that picture that they're using. Clearly, math isn't their strong point and neither is accounting if they're paying this whack-a-do broad enough money to save her house from foreclosure! If they're giving out thousands of dollars to place advertising signs in individual's front yards, I am officially making it known that I am available! You want to pay me thousands of dollars to stick some sign in front of the moat at my walled off compound (to protect me from morons like PETA and Suleman), have at it. You can even make it say anything you want! I don't care! Just give me the twelve grand.

You want the sign to say "The owner of this compound participated in daily S&M sessions with Bob Barker. Have your pets spayed or neutered."? Go for it. That'll be twelve grand, please. That's absolutely ridiculous. But what might be more ridiculous is the amount of money that PETA must have if they can pull a stunt like this. Why can't I come up with an ingenious way for stupid people to give me all of their money? Why??

Sphere: Related Content

Joe Biden's Great Big Effing Deal

What is wrong with Joe Biden? Seriously. I'm not sure if this guy could find his ass using both hands and even if he did manage that feat, I'm not sure that he'd know the difference between it and a hole in the ground. I was expecting him to be a little more wackier and little less moronic. It's unfortunate. Not that I'm not thrilled to have something to mock, that's not it. I'm just disappointed at what I see as the squandering of perfectly good potential.

Let's go back a week or so to when VP Joe was hosting St. Patrick's Day at the White House and had over, among others, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen. According to the New York Daily News,"Biden asked for God's blessing for the late mother" by giving the ol' sorry-she's-dead intro of "God rest her soul" and then doing a bit of a double take. "Wait a minute. You're mother. She's still....that's right. God bless her soul. I've gotta get this right." For cryin' out loud.

Why do people say that anyways? "God bless his/her soul". Since when are we the ones giving the orders as far as God goes? What if they were an absolutely horrible individual and everyone knows that they're burning in hell? Do you still say that? I guess they do because I've never heard anyone say, "Yeah, good luck with the whole eternal damnation thing" or anything to that effect.

Then there was the day before the "historic" health care reform vote. (If I hear it called "historic" in all seriousness one more time, I'm going to lose it. "Historic" doesn't necessarily mean "good". And I'm not comparing President Barry's administration to Hitler or anything, but Hitler did a lot of things that were "historic" as well. Hitler's just a easy go-to for situations like this.) On Monday, President Barry was giving some speech about the House of Representatives' final passage of health care legislation. For some reason, Biden was right there kind of at his side. But his purpose was unclear. He just stood about a foot away from President Barry and looked at him with this dorky grin on his face. Why was he there? It was like it was Take Your Vice President To Work Day. Very strange.

But the kicker was yesterday. Yesterday, that health care reform bill was signed by President Barry. I guess he felt like he needed to let ol' Joe say a few words before he signed it, so Biden got up there and said whatever it was that he said. Then, he turned the spotlight over to President Barry. In doing so, he shakes his hand and then leans in to him to say something. (When did that trend start? The whole "We're-in-front-of-a-gazillion-people-but-I-feel-the-need-to-say-something-to-you-that's-just-between-the-two-of-us" gesture? I'm not a fan of it. Y'all feel better now that you've got a little secret? Knock it off.) Only this time, the something was barely caught on tape. (Tape? I know there isn't really tape anymore, but what else am I supposed to call it? I can't call it "video". That's just the pictures. Tape. Caught on tape. Tape that isn't really there. Someone's going to have to work on that one.)

There are a lot of things that Joe Biden could have said to President Barry. Lots of them. I can think of many brief congratulatory phrases that he could have said during that "historic" moment. "Congratulations, Mr. President." "Nice job, sir." Lots of them. Lots and lots. But Biden decided to go off the cuff with this one. And what did he say, exactly? Why, he said, "You did it. This is a big f***ing deal." Wait. What now?

Yes! Yes, it is a "big f***ing deal", Mr. Vice President. It's not only a "big f***ing deal", it's a freaking huge, M-effer of a deal. Yes! I believe it's the largest piece of legislation since Social Security was introduced. And there was Joe Biden, smiling ear to ear like he had just gotten a little doggie treat. (I'm sure he could barely contain his little tail from wagging side to side.) And that's what he says. "By the way, Mr. President, I thought I'd just take this opportunity to let you know that this is a big f***ing deal. You also might care to know that I like pie." Seriously, what is wrong with him? Did he expect President Barry to stop dead in his tracks and say, "What's that, Joe? What's a big f***ing deal? This little thing?! Really? In what way?"

The tape (and audio...whatever that's called) is below. You're going to want to turn your speakers up because while he does say it, there's all of the mindless, congratulatory clapping that can drown out his F-bomb if you let it. And look, I don't expect much out of our Vice Presidents. (I do expect them to wear different ties of different days, however. Biden seemed to be fond of sporting the blue star spangled necktie for both the passage and the signing of the bill. Doesn't he have a wife to dress him?) Heck, I don't think that I expect anything out of our Vice Presidents. But I think I do expect them to not state the obvious laced with an expletive whilst passing legislation in front of the entire world. That I'd kind of appreciate. Other than making himself look like a doddering oldster whose brain has been riddled by latter stages of syphilis, it's not a big f***ing deal.

Sphere: Related Content

Attention, Some Of You Walmart Shoppers

Unclench your underwear, America. The case of the weird, racial, overhead announcement at the Walmart in New Jersey has been solved. Now, in case you didn't follow the story last week, here's the scoop:

A bunch of people were shopping at a Walmart in New Jersey. (Yes, pretty much a dream come true, hanging out at the New Jersey Walmart. May I continue?) At some point, someone gets on the intercom and says, "Attention, Walmart customers. All black people, leave the store now." Ooh. Awkward.

As you can imagine, the silence in the store likely made it the most quiet that the store had ever been. As you can also imagine, black patrons shopping at the store were far from amused. Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty sure that the white folks weren't all that amused either. But the black folks were justifiably a little irritated by the whole thing. Really? Irritated. In what way?

According to an article over at Yahoo! Finance (why it's in the Finance section is a little unclear to me, but the article seems accurate, so I'm going with it), immediately after this odd announcement was made "...a manager quickly got on the public-address system and apologized for the remark." None the less, a rather angry mob (sans pitchforks and torches, as they were all being used for health care protests) gathered and was essentially saying things to the effect of "We need to know if this is the sort of thing that Walmart tolerates." Now, even though I know how this story ends, even if I didn't know, I'd go on ahead and guess that it is not the sort of thing that's tolerated. Call it a hunch. Call it my ability to put my finger right on the pulse of corporate America. Call it what you will. But I'd go ahead and guess that it's not OK with them.

And it wasn't. See, at this particular Walmart, all of the intercom commands were on a list right there next to the intercom. And apparently, the intercom was in an area where it is able to be accessed by not only employees, but rogue patrons with odd senses of humor as well. All someone would have to do would be to walk up to it, punch in the appropriate keys (say star-one-star) and then announce to the entire store "Attention, Walmart shoppers. Human kidneys are now on sale for half off in Sporting Goods." Never mind why a kidney is considered a sporting good in this scenario. The point is that it could happen just like that. And that is pretty much where my sympathy or whatever it is for this story ends because after this point, things just get a little too histrionic for me.

See, a 16-year old (who is pretty clearly an a-hole) was later arrested for doing this. He was charged with was charged with harassment and bias intimidation. The New York Daily News reported that "Authorities said it was unclear if the announcement was ad-libbed or premeditated and said they were investigating a second youth who accompanied the arrested teen to the store." Wait. What now?

They're unclear as to whether he thought of it right then or if he had planned this out? Is this a death penalty case? Why in the world would that make a difference? ("So...did you plan ahead of time to be this much of a jackass, or did it just hid you all of a sudden as you were looking at that Ninetendo Wii?") And what are they going to investigate the second youth for? He didn't do anything (from what I can tell). Can they charge him with "Being in the company of an a-hole"? "Accompanying an a-hole to a retail establishment?" I don't think that they can. In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't. Investigate away. Let me know how that turns out. Or don't.

Then I read that Yahoo! News reported that "Officials say several people have come forward and expressed interest in getting counseling." Translation: Several people are thinking about suing because they want the money, not because they needed counseling over a rogue statement made over a Walmart PA system by an errant 16-year old. Who are you people that you would need counseling after hearing that? If you need actual counseling by an actual counselor, I'm going to suggest that the next time you're in Walmart (if you can get over your obvious PTSD) that you buy yourself some sort of a helmet or headgear to protect that soft, soft dome of yours. Good Lord....

Seriously, some of you folks need to get over yourselves. Folks, for example, like a one Sheila Ellington, a storegoer at the time of the incident. She said, "I want to know why such statements are being made, because it flies in the face of what we teach our children about tolerance for all...If this was meant to be a prank, there's only one person laughing, and it's not either one of us." I don't know what she means by she wants to know why those statements are being made. It's as if she thinks that they were sanctioned by Walmart. And again, I'm going to have to say that I'm pretty sure that they weren't. Pretty sure. (What size is her head?)

Really, I understand why this sort of a thing would be upsetting to black folks who were shopping at the time. It's upsetting to white folks who were shopping at the time. It's upsetting to black and white folks who were not shopping at the time. But to be saying that you need counseling is ridiculous and to be asking questions like, "We need to know if this is the sort of thing that Walmart tolerates" is about one of the most ridiculous questions that you could possibly ask in this sort of situation. First of all, what do you think they're going to say? "Oh, sure. We tolerate this. No problem. Stop by next week on Nazi Tuesday for the full extent of what we'll tolerate." I don't think that's going to happen.

Seriously. According to the article, "Officials for Wal-Mart Stores Inc said the announcement was 'unacceptable'." Really? Oh! So, it's NOT acceptable to get on a PA system and tell all black people to leave the store? Look, if you're the sort of person who needs Walmart to SAY that it's unacceptable, now you know! They've said it's unacceptable. Are you happy now? Again, what else would they say?

My point here is that some things that happen are just that. They're things that happen. They don't have to have a deeper meaning other than someone is an a-hole. Actually, a lot of the time, that's the most obvious meaning of a lot of things. But you know what it was about this whole incident that I think surprised me the most? Have you ever been in a Walmart or any large store when there's an announcement made over the PA system? You can't understand a word that they're saying most of the time! It sounds like someone with marbles in their mouth is gasping for air. That anyone could understand the little jerk at all might really be the story here.

Sphere: Related Content