Charlie Sheen Tattoo - LOSING!

I thought that the nation had reached its idiocy threshold simply because the Charlie Sheen "concerts" (or whatever you want to call them) have been selling out wherever it is announced that he is going to "tour" (or whatever you want to call it). Seriously. Selling out. He sold out TWO shows at Carnegie freaking Hall! I thought the answer to the old question "How do you get to Carnegie Hall" was "Practice. Practice. Practice." I guess the new answer is "Hookers. Crack. Fired from a hit TV show." But apparently the idiocy threshold was just barely cresting, as I just learned that someone has gotten themselves permanently inked with the atrocity below. Behold!

What I don't get is how anyone could have a tattoo like that AND have the word 'winning' underneath it. I think if I were the tattoo artist, when I got to that point I'd have to say, "Enough is enough."

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, etc.

What we have today is a video. It's a video that is without splick. That is to say, it is inexplicable. Actually, the video itself isn't so bad. It's the song that accompanies said video that I'm having a problem with. And it could be that I just don't get it. I'm not dismissing any possibilities. But I really think that I am being fairly accurate when I say that this might be one of the biggest piece of crap songs that I have ever heard in my life and I cannot for the life of me understand how in the world the video has garnered over 19 million hits on YouTube AND has made it into the top fifty downloads on iTunes! Since Blogger is being super fabulous this evening and may or may not be letting me put up the video (check at the bottom of this post to see if it's here), you might just have to click on the YouTube link above to check out this atrocity. I'll wait.

Are you back? How are your ears? Have you stabbed them out with sporks yet? The chick singing is a one thirteen year old Rebecca Black. And that brings me to some of my questions. (Trust me, there isn't enough room here for all of my questions.) Question one: Why does she feel to sing a song that is basically telling us the days of the week and the mundane-mess of her days? And in such a matter of fact way. She gets up. She goes downstairs. She eats cereal. And then comes the real pickle of her day...trying to make that gut wrenching decision as to whether she should sit in the front seat or the back seat! Then comes our lesson on the days of the week. Well, most of them. Thursday comes before Friday. After Friday is Saturday. After Saturday is Sunday. Thank God that her week in her song only seems to have four days as I don't think that I could have stomached hearing about Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday! Seriously, I've heard songs that were basically about nothing, but this takes nothing-ness to a whole new level.

But wait! There's more! Suddenly, right in the middle of this debacle, a 30-year old rapper (for some reason) pops up in the middle of the video and begins his own matter-of-fact lyrics about absolutely nothing. Then after he's done, it's back to the thirteen year old white girl to continue singing about how it is Friday and "We so excited...We gonna have a ball today." Painful lyrics and poor grammar. Fabulous. What's with the rapper? What's he driving? Why is he having anything at all to do with a little 13-year old white chick? He seems to be chasing down the middle schoolers in the bus so that he can party it up with them. Why? Because it's Friday, that is correct.

I can only assume that this is some sort of quest to try to find the next Justin Bieber or something like that? I don't know where else this chick came from, nor do I particularly care. I wish that she'd go back there and take her song with her, though. And I don't necessarily care what day of the week that she does it on. She doesn't even need to sing to me about it. Even though she probably would and it would probably go something like this: "And Mary didn't care for me or my little song. So I went back from whence I came. My song was never played again. Not even on Friday. Or the day after that, which happens to be Saturday. Or the day after that, which I will tell you is Sunday. Now I am going to go upstairs to my room and never come out again. I don't know what to tell you about the rapper. My Dad wants to hurt and maim him, though. I think I smell biscuits."

Sphere: Related Content

Those Don't Go In There

Just because you can do something with your body, that certainly doesn't mean that you should. In fact, I'm going to come out against most things that you can do with your body. I'm going to come out vehemently against using your body as some sort of a storage unit/hidey hole for foreign objects in a last ditch effort to avoid getting in even more trouble.

You can tell where this is going, right? According to the news source for lovely Scranton, Pennsylvania, thetimes-tribune.com tells us the story of a one 27-year old (and old enough to know better) Karin Mackaliunas. She was apparently at the scene of some sort of automobile crash when the car was being towed. (It is unclear to me if she owned the vehicle or had anything to do with the vehicle because the media sucks and this is a poorly written article that I'm attempting to work off of here. Bear with me. These really aren't overly important details to the gist of the tale, but it does irritate the crap out of me that they're not there.) And for some reason, an officer asked for Ms. Mackaliunas "...to be detained because she was suspected of stealing items from the inn." What inn, you ask? How the heck should I know? The media sucks, remember?

She was detained and the cop found three bags of heroin in her pocket. (That gives me a pretty good idea of why she was suspected of wrongdoing in the first place. Folks that go around with heroin in their pockets are the type of folks who you would think stole everything from the inn, including the manger out back.) She gets arrested and gets driven back to the police station. It was on that ride back that the officer noticed that our heroin enthusiast was a little fidgety.

They get back to headquarters and some sort of a struggle ensues between this young lady and the arresting officer. It's unclear as to why there was a struggle. What is clear is that at some point "...Ms. Mackaliunas asked to speak with Sergeant Michael Mayer and told him she had hidden more heroin in her vagina." Of course.

The vagina is not a reasonable method of transporting drugs. It's also not a reasonable method of transporting other items as well. After a search by a doctor at Community Medical Center, it was discovered that this woman was also storing "54 bags of heroin, 31 empty bags used to package heroin, 8.5 prescription pills and $51.22." Wait. What now?

That's right. She practically had an entire freaking CVS Pharmacy up her hoo-ha. What. The. Hell. And look, I can sort of understand the drugs. And I can sort of understand the drug bags. (You have to be prepared to bag up the new drugs that you get. And what better receptacle to put your drugs in than a bag that has been sitting in a woman's vagina for God knows how long. Ewww. Don't do drugs, kids. And for God's sake, don't do any that came out of someone's vagina.) And I guess I can understand the 8.5 prescription pills. But for the love of all that is rational, I cannot fathom why she would shove fifty one dollars and change up there! Why the change?! What were you afraid of, cupcake? My God! Do you realize how much stuff that IS? If you don't, I have prepared this handy graphic to help you visualize this scenario. Behold!

Shocking, is it not? And as surprised as I am that she shoved all of that up there, I'm also surprised that it stayed up there. I mean, seriously. Without going into overtly graphic detail, if you have the square footage to cram all of those wares in there, I'm guessing that the front door isn't all that secure. You follow me? Good, because I don't want to have to explain that it must be like those swinging doors you see in the old timey saloons. Flappin' back and forth after a patron enters the bar. Wow. I think I just grossed myself out with that visual I just provided. Yep. I certainly did.

One final note here. If you're someone who enjoys doing drugs, any drugs, and someone offers you drugs that she has just pulled out of her vagina, you need to take a good hard look at your priorities in life if you're going to consider doing those drugs. Seriously. And take your time.

Sphere: Related Content

Bully For You!

There's a video that's been making the rounds on the Innerwebs recently and I find it completely awesome. Essentially what we have is your typical school bullying situation, only this time, it's a little weasely kid picking on a much bigger kid. And the much bigger kid takes it...for a while. And when he's done taking it, he is done taking it. The picked on kid wrestles around with the little jackass for about all of four seconds before he gets a good enough grip on him to pick him up and body slam him into the ground. It's beautiful. I've watched it several times and it just doesn't get old. I think that my favorite part is watching the kid try and figure out how to stand up and walk again as he stumbles around in circles wondering what in the hell just hit him. And even better is how the picked-on kid just stands there for a minute and makes sure that he's done. He really could have let him have it some more. The little a-hole is lucky that he didn't get the real pounding that he had coming to him. But it's still a great thing to watch. Bullying isn't cool. I'm all for this approach to getting kids to stop. If the video below doesn't load or whatever, click here and watch it on YouTube.

Sphere: Related Content

That's Not Slavery

Currently, the chances of a 2011-2012 NFL season are not good. Almost non-existent, if you will. Something about the collective bargaining contract expiring and the players unions and the owners not being able to agree on new terms. And while I lean toward being on the side of the players (there's no reasonable argument for why the season should consist of eighteen games instead of the current sixteen), I really don't feel sorry for anyone in this scenario except for the fans. All I want is for September to roll around and have NFL games on TV. That's what I want. And I don't care how they make it happen just as long as they make it happen.

Seriously, who am I supposed to feel sorry for in this scenario? It's millionaires arguing with billionaires. There's an awful lot to not like there. (And the NFL is super hot right now. It would be asinine for both sides to end up forgoing an entire season because of any of this.) But you know what makes the whole thing even less likable? When one of the players compares the current agreement in the NFL to "modern-day slavery". For cryin' out loud.

According to an article over at The Huddle at USAToday, a one Adrian Peterson was talking to Yahoo! Sports and made the following statement: "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football."

Now, look...I don't know what "modern-day slavery" would even look like. Because slavery, in and of itself, seems like it would be a timeless profession. You work for someone, you do what they tell you to do, you don't have a choice in the matter and you don't get compensated for your work. That's slavery. So, would "modern-day slavery" simply be with different clothes and with different chores? I guess it would. It's hard to say why I'm taking so much time trying to noodle this one through, as his entire statement is asinine.

I think what he was trying to say is that by making the players play an extra two games per season and not giving them any more monetary compensation for those two games, it is like when people were slaves and didn't get paid for the work that they were forced to perform. What he neglects to realize is that the non-modern-day slaves were not millionaires who were seen by millions on TV every Sunday. Yeah, not a good comparison. Not a good comparison at all. And I don't know that the real slaves of yore would take all that kindly to your making that comparison, as they were far from millionaires. They were barely dollar-aires.

I didn't know if there was any way that I could feel any less sorry for the parties involved. But apparently, I can. Quit your whining, Adrian Peterson. Focus on getting talks between the owners and the players back on track so that I can watch football all the live long day every Sunday for four months come September. That's what's really important here. My leisure time. So chop-chop! Time's a-wastin'.

Side note: The article at USAToday, which was published at 1:07 EST, noted that Yahoo! Sports, where the ill-advised "modern-day slavery" comment first appears, had removed that comment from its story at 2:47 EST. Although it does go on to say that the author of the story did confirm on his Twitter page that Peterson had made the remark. Even weirder than that is that it goes on to say that by 4:24 EST, Yahoo! Sports had returned Peterson's comments to the article. Good to know that Yahoo! Sports will be editing the content of interviews in their articles as to not "offend" anyone. Nice. Just what we all don't need. Edited reporting. Jackasses. I've sent them an email asking them why they removed the comment in the first place. I'm sure you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that I have not yet heard back. Don't hold your breath, either. I'm not.

Sphere: Related Content

Too Soon? Apparently.

You know the Aflac duck? That cute little spokesbird for (duh!) Alfac that everyone thought was so cute when he yelled "Aflac!" that they decided to stop using him as much? Yeah, that duck. Well, as it turns out, that's really not a talking duck. No, see they were only pretending to have the duck talk and the voice that we heard was really that of professional obnoxious person Gilbert Gottfried. But now, the duck has gone quiet as Mr. Gottfried has been fired due to making "offensive" tweets about the current situation in Japan.

When do you think people are going to learn that there is a certain amount of time that one must wait after a disaster or mishap before it will be "okay" to mock it? I'm guessing never, as this sort of thing seems to happen whenever tragedy strikes. You know when people make a joke and follow it up with "Too soon?" There's a reason for that! Sometimes, it's just too effing soon. And I guess that it was too soon for Mr. Gottfried's jokes. Speaking of the jokes, let's take a look at what it takes to get one fired as the voice of a duck these days.

Our friends at BuzzFeed compiled the ten "most offensive" tweets before they were removed from Mr. Gottfried's Twitter feed. (Why do people even bother removing stuff that they regret putting online? Don't they know that the Internet never forgets? Nothing is ever erased from the Internet. It's there forever. There's no point. Just embrace it and your ill-advised tom foolery and move on.) I don't know if they're in any particular order and even if they were, I don't know if Number One or Number Ten would be the most offensive. But those are good places to start. Listed at Number One:

Yeah, that's not good. It's also not funny. Not even close to funny. Maybe Number Ten will be better. Let's find out...

Again, not funny. It's barely sophomoric humor. And I realize that it's in poor taste, but are these really enough for someone to get fired over? After all, he is a comedian. (Granted, I've never found him overly amusing, but that doesn't change what he does.) What else? Oh, how about Number Three.

OK, that's not bad. That's kind of funny. I'm not trying to be offensive (because I rarely try), it's just kind of funny. It would be funnier if there hadn't been a horrifying disaster just a couple of days ago. I'll agree with that. But that's the funniest one out of the bunch. Most of them are like this one:

See? That's not only stupid, it's just not funny. And BuzzFeed only has the ten worst tweets that he did. How many were there total? Why did he feel the need to make lame tweet after lame tweet after lame tweet? I don't know, but now he's reaping what he hath twat, as Aflac wasted no time in firing the man. And while I think he could have used better judgment, I don't know that he deserved to be fired for what he twat. He's the voice of a duck. The duck only says one word: Aflac. Good work if you can get it, I suppose. But how many people even know that he's the voice of the duck? How many people even saw the tweets? I'm guessing that the people in Japan have other things to worry about at the moment other than the 140 character random thoughts of Gilbert Gottfried.

Sphere: Related Content

You Can't Review What You Haven't Seen

I am constantly amazed by the incredible myriad of idiocy that I have to choose from every day in order to write something in this little box. And for today, from the file of "Who Thinks This Is A Good Idea?" and under the sub-heading "Who Thought Up This S*** In The First Place" we have this: Movie reviews by people who have not seen the movie.

I kid you not. I am not dry shaving you. This is a real thing. I was checking out Fandango.com yesterday because I wanted to read the reviews for the newly released Mars Needs Moms. Regardless of what the reviews turned out to be, I had planned on seeing this movie because it is based on the book by the incredibly amazing and insanely talented, not to mention rather the witty and quick with a quip Berkeley Breathed. If you're unfamiliar with Mr. Breathed's work, I suggest you stop whatever you're doing right now and wonder what you've really accomplished in your life up to this point. The answer should be "Not nearly enough, as I have missed out on the awesome humor and keen insight of the Bloom County comic strips and the subsequent Sunday strips, Outland and Opus." In short, your life has been wasted. But there's still time to save it! (Not much time, really, but I try to be optimistic in situations like these.)

So there I am at Fandango and I click on the Reviews tab. As I began to read, I noticed that some of the reviews were strangely opinionated. So much so that it was if they hadn't seen the movie at all. And that is when I discovered that they hadn't. See, Fandango let's you review movies if you haven't seen them. I have absolutely NO idea why that would be. I am open to suggestions, however. What good does someone's opinion of something that they've never seen do for me? Not a thing, I'm thinking. But let's look at some of the reviews by people who have never seen it and see if I'm wrong. Maybe there IS something to be learned from people merely giving an opinion based on pure speculation gained from doing nothing. (There won't be, but play along, will ya? I need to draw this post out a little bit.)

Let's see...oh! Here we go. Here's one that reads: "I am so excited about this movie! It is going to be hilarious!! I love the book, so this should be epic!!! Yay! :) " Um, OK? Yeah, I loved the book too, but that doesn't mean anything. You know what other books I loved? The Cat In The Hat. The Firm. How The Grinch Stole Christmas. The DaVinci Code. Were they epic? Hardly. Were they hilarious? Kind of, but they weren't supposed to be, so that really wasn't a selling point. What boggles me ever more is that four out of six people found this "review" to be helpful. Helpful? In what way?! She hasn't seen it yet! She's merely excited! THAT is "helpful" to some folks? For cryin' out loud...(Then again, four out of nine people found a review that simply read "No no no!" to be helpful, so I think it's fair to say that we're beyond help at this point.)

Next we have: "Havent seen it yet but i just no its going to be tbe biggest peice of crap anyone is ever going to see so dont watch it." This individual is apparently a cinematic clairvoyant. Too bad that all of the studios can't just hire him to look at a poster of a movie that they've made and give his opinion on the degree to which it will be a piece of crap. (ie, Big, bigger or, in this case, biggest.) And if he says that he can no that it will be such a sizeable piece of poo without having watched it, who are we to not heed his warnings?

Here is more speculation, only this time, it appears to come from a child. "I think it'll be a so so movie. I think the idea is a little too crazy, but I think people will enjoy it. It'll be good for moms because the kids ( about my age ) will learn to obey their moms. For the kids, I think they will love it for it's humor. I'm not completely sure about that, but I'll just have to go to find out!!!!" Really? You think the idea of a kid having to go to Mars to save his mother who has been kidnapped by Martians is a little too crazy, do you? Interesting. I'd never thought of that. (This is really wearing me out more than I had anticipated.)

From someone who seems to have just barely mastered the English language (and perhaps, even more recently, his way around a keyboard): "Don't go. This movie doesn't look that good to watch. I mean, I've seen many cartoons and most are good. I just don't think this one will be as good." Lots of cartoons are good. Some cartoons are bad. This one doesn't look good. Well, it doesn't look as good. Well, it doesn't look that good. To watch, of course. Maybe it's good if you're not watching it. But this looks bad. (Isn't this review kind of like saying, "I've had food. Most food is good. But that food doesn't look like it will be good food. Don't eat it. Even if you think it looks like something you'd like. It could be bad food that you won't like.") Never mind that it's not really a cartoon. I'm just thankful that no one found that 'review' to be useful.

And finally, from the Ironic Chastising Department: "People are funny. They write a bad review or rate a movie bad when they haven't even seen it.. Who writes a bad review based off the movie poster you're just an idiot. Go see the movie then you're allowed to say something. I'm sure this movie will be good and I'm sure the rating will change when people actually go watch it." Go to the movie and then say something. But make sure that you write your 'review' telling people that you're sure it will be good before you go see it. Yeah, sure. That makes sense.

Really, I didn't care what the reviews were, as I was going to see it regardless because I can't imagine not seeing anything that Berkeley Breathed does. (To say that I am a huge fan of the man would not even do my fandom justice. I met him for the first time just a couple of years go and I almost cried. OK, I cried a little bit in line while I was waiting. But I managed to compose myself by the time I got up there, lest he thought I was the star-struck moron that I was trying so desperately to hide.) But I was just amazed that reviews for something that someone hasn't even watched are allowed on a movie site. I could see if it were someone's two-bit blog or some crap like that. (In case you were wondering, this blog is clearly at least three-bit, so don't start expecting inane movie reviews to be popping up any time soon.) But on a site that is supposed to be giving information, not speculation, about movies? I find it asinine and annoying. And you can expect my full review of Mars Needs Moms after I've seen it.

Sphere: Related Content

Help Out Japan

Hey. Japan is effed up right now. Fortunately, this time it wasn't caused by the US out of retaliation for an ill advised sneak attack at the beginning of a World War. But that's really not much of a consolation when your island country has been struck by an earthquake which has now been measured at a whopping 9.0 on the Richter Scale. And they're still being constantly bombarded with aftershocks that are between 5.0 and 7.0. Those are aftershocks. If an earthquake of that size hit anywhere in the US, it is all that would be talked about on the news. That is a HUGE quake. And the Japanese are experiencing multitudes of those huge quakes almost constantly right now. And as if the earthquake wasn't enough, there was a massive tsunami which only made things a bazillion times worse. I don't get that. It's like pouring salt in the wound. Is it necessary? I guess it is, but it's definitely rude on the part of Mother Nature or whoever is in charge of this sort of thing.

You know what I find interesting about this disaster in particular? The people of Japan have had their lives ruined in the blink of an eye. (Well, two blinks. The first blink was the earthquake and the second blink was the tsunami.) And you know what makes this disaster different from other ones that have happened in recent memory? There's no looting. There's no despicable behavior like that. I'm impressed. It's a sociological phenomenon that should be studied. No looting. Amazing. Way to go, Japan. And as you know, I'm not one for a lot of compassion. That's why, when these disasters strike, as soon as the looting begins, that's when my compassion goes away. If people have the energy to break the glass on store windows and haul out big screen TVs and 57 pairs of Nike shoes, I figure that they can use that energy to help themselves and that I really shouldn't interfere. Not to mention that I lose a lot of respect for anyone like that.

But not in this case. In this case, these people need help and they're deserving of it. (Please don't judge me based on that sentence. You know what I mean.) And it is rare that I ever advocate just giving away your money, but in this case, I'm going to suggest that if you can spare a few bucks, that you donate it to the American Red Cross so that they can get some help out to Japan. If you're not a fan of the American Red Cross (even though I cannot imagine why you wouldn't be), then donate some to an organization that you feel would be of assistance in helping out the people in Japan. Just do something if you can. You'd want someone to help you out, wouldn't you?

Sphere: Related Content

The Invincible Idiot

I remember having that invincible feeling when I was younger. God, it was great. Not giving a crap about anything you do is a fabulous feeling. The only problem with it in the scenario that I'm describing is that at the time that you're doing it, you don't know how great it is to feel so invincible. You just feel that way because you don't know any other way to feel. You're under the impression that nothing bad will happen to you no matter what you do. And that includes jumping off of the Golden Gate Bridge when you're on a field trip. Wait. What now?

Apparently, according to KTVU, "...a male student from Windsor High School in Sonoma County leaped from the bridge at approximately 11:15 a.m. Approximately 45 students and two teachers were at the bridge for the school field trip". OK, then. That's a really stupid thing to do on many levels. Level One, more than 9 times out of 10, you're going to die. Level Two...well, I think that Level One really covers all we need to know here. The most likely outcome (even though that miraculously was not the case this time) is that you're going to be dead moments after you step off of the bridge. How this kid was able to swim away and then walk away practically unscathed is beyond me.

After he made it to the shore with the help of some surfers (a couple of whom this dipwad almost landed on when he jumped) "The student told paramedics that he's a recreational bridge jumper, and has done stunts like this before". What the what is a 'recreational bridge jumper'? Is that just another word for a 17-year old idiot who just took a plunge into the San Francisco Bay? Is that opposed to a professional bridge jumper? What sort of profession is that? How often are those sorts of services needed? I'm guessing not often, but that's probably only due to the incredibly low levels of intelligence if this guy is any indication of those who participate.

And the stunts that he claims to have done before, were they also on field trips with his school? 45 kids and two teachers and this guy still manages to climb over all of the obstacles that they put up in hopes of stopping the unstoppable? Of course. He's a 17-year old. Not only do they feel invincible, they're remarkably determined at performing the inadvisable. But if you're thinking that this was a dare, oh no, think again. See, "Students said they wanted to make it known that no one dared the student to jump or egged him on." Uh-huh.

Do they really think that we're dumb enough to believe that? You have got to be kidding me. The only question is whether more kids dared him to than didn't dare him to. (And if there was going to be a second question, it would be whether or not either of the teachers participated in any of the daring. I'm not implying that they did. I'm just curious.) "We would never encourage that," said a student who likely did just that. Yeah, right. I'm not saying that they're to blame. No, that responsibility lies squarely on the wet, wet shoulders of the moron who actually jumped. I'm just saying that anyone who says that they would never encourage something, especially trying to get a classmate to jump off of a bridge, is not the most truthful individual you're ever going to run across.

I'm not sure what sort of notoriety this stunt is going to bring the kid at school. He's either going to be hailed as the new king of the village or shunned as the new village idiot. (Well, as another village idiot. There are a lot of openings for idiots when you're in high school.) The student under mental observation for a short time after being 'rescued', but I don't know what they're going to find out other than he's 17 and has balls the size of coconuts. But I'm sure that he'll be making the media rounds in a little while here, so we'll get to hear first hand what this moron has to say about all of recreational bridge jumping activities. Makes me kind of glad we're going to be hearing about that tsunami for a while.

I know this much, though: If this little stunt makes it so that the debate about having better barriers on the Golden Gate Bridge is reignited, I'M going to jump off of the bridge. It doesn't need more suicide barriers. If people want to kill themselves by jumping off of the bridge, that's their decision. Land of the free. Remember? Sure, it's sad. Suicide usually is. But do you know what is even sadder? Trying to idiot-proof everything in society in the quest to achieve the impossible goal of trying to make everything safe and sound for everyone all of the time. And even sadder than that (if you can imagine something being sadder)? That's right. Trying to use my tax money to pay for it. Sad, sad, sad.

Sphere: Related Content

A True Fan

There are an awful lot of different kinds of strange out there. And I'm not trying to imply that strange is bad. It is what it is...strange. But don't get me wrong, it's not like all strange is OK. It's not. That's why it's called strange. Look, I'm clearly leading up to something here, so what say I just cut to the chase, all right? OK, then. What we have today is a man who has an incredible fondness for a one Julia Roberts. I know. What's not to love? Well, if I had to choose, I'd say that it would be the manner in which this man expresses his affection for the actress is what is not to love. Behold!

Oh, what the hell is that?! That, my friends, is a one Miljenko Parserisas Bukovic. (You may pronounce that any way that you'd like.) From the good folks at The Daily Mail, we learn that Mr. Bukovic is a newspaper vendor from Valparaiso, Chile. We also learn that he became enamored with the lovely Ms. Roberts after seeing her in Erin Brokovich, for which she won an Oscar. It was a really good movie and she was really good in it, but I don't know that I have ever seen anything so good by anyone act so good that it made me want to go out and get 82 tattoos of the person who did all of the acting. And that's just one of the many, many ways in which Mr. Bukovic and I are different.

This 52-year old man has tattoos of Julia Roberts as Erin Brockovich all over his torso and arms. And let me tell you, it's a good thing that someone told me that the tattoos were supposed to be Julia Roberts, as I would not have guessed that. Ever. I've spent a fair amount of time (3-4 minutes tops) looking at the same pictures I've included here and I have yet to see one image that really stands out as being undeniably Julia Roberts. Not one. There is at least one that maybe could be her, but I would have had to have been drinking for quite some time in order to agree to that.

Below is a picture of the lovely Miss Roberts as she appeared in a scene in Erin Brockovich. After you're done ogling her lovely breasts, please let me know if you can find any of his tattoos that even come close to looking like this. (Being 'vaguely female in appearance' does not count.)

Sphere: Related Content