Safe Sex With Bristol And The Situation

It must be a slow news day because I've got nothin'. My head is about to explode reading about all of the TSA nonsense and so it's hard for me to format a coherent post about that. (I could probably ramble on for quite some time about how, in some fashion, this country has decided that we are only going to be attacked from the air and has focused every, single, freaking effort on that. Maybe it's because they don't want to admit, yet do realize, that there's nothing we can do to prevent some Muslim extremists (or other terrorists) from blowing up a mall.) Lindsay Lohan is still in rehab, so there's a once perfectly reliable go-to topic straight out the window. So, here I am. Nearly topic-less. Fortunately, I found a video of a PSA that Bristol Palin did with The Situation which is supposed to steer one toward either abstinence or using condoms. Yep. That's what I've got. I don't think that this is going to do any good, nor do I think that The Sitch is really in need of a magnum condom. (I'll bet it's baggy.) But at least they're both sticking to their guns. Bristol is not going to have sex and Mike is going to have all of the sex. Fine. Now go away.

Sphere: Related Content

Abstinence Has A Price

While I'm all for people talking to kids about abstinence, how much should it really cost? I mean, I don't know, I'm sure that there is a price that you can put on it, but I wouldn't say that the price is between $15,000 and $30,000, even if you are Bristol Palin. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to Radar Online Bristol Palin has "...signed with a speakers bureau called Single Source Speakers, charging between $15,000 and $30,000 a speech." Fifteen and thirty grand? EACH time she speaks?! Are you kidding me? All she has done is gotten knocked up and regretted it! Granted, she has stuff to say, but thirty grand worth of stuff to say? I can't possibly imagine. ]

I checked out Single Source Speakers to see what the deal was and because I'd never heard of them before. From what I can tell, they seem to have a theme of God and/or religion infused within each one of their speakers. But also from what I can tell, pretty much anyone can be a "speaker". That doesn't mean that you're going to command the kind of fees that Bristol Palin is getting. They don't come right out and tell you what the speaker's fees are. Instead, they use a system of dollar signs to give you some sort of an idea as to what you are looking at in terms of payment. There seems to be one dollar sign, two dollar signs, three dollar signs and then four question marks. Bristol Palin and two others get the four question marks. Those other two? Alan Keyes and Drew Brees. Wait. Drew Brees? The guy who quarterbacked the New Orleans Saints to their Super Bowl victory? THAT Drew Brees? He's in the same four question mark speaking fee group as Bristol Palin? What the what?

I didn't know who any of the other speakers on their list were. Some of them only had one name. That didn't help me out, either. Seriously, you need to have two names. A first name and a last name. Sure, there's Cher and Madonna and Bono, but none of them are speakers. And really, what did it get them? Bono is just annoying, Madonna just got divorced and Cher's daughter is now officially a man. I'm not saying that a last name would have saved them all from their fates, I'm merely pointing out that they didn't have last names and now look at 'em.

And while I understand her "need" to make money because that dirtbag, Levi Johnston, isn't going to cough up any dough, it's not like her family can't afford to help her out or anything. Her mother is Sarah Freaking Palin, for cryin' out loud. I'm sure they can spare a little spare change for their unwed daughter. But even if they couldn't, is she really worth even fifteen grand to speak for less than an hour? I don't think so.

Look, I think that her message is a good one. She had unprotected sex and got knocked up. Now she's raising a baby without a father because she picked a loser to fornicate freely with. And she has obviously realized that she made some poor choices. I am all for someone standing up and saying, "Hey, I screwed up and here's why you don't want to do what I did." That's a great message. Should it be so expensive? I don't think it should. On top of that, how long is she really going to have any clout or whatever attached to her name for those who really need to hear her message the most? Sure, adults who were adults during the 2008 election will remember who she is. Her mom is in the news for reasons I still don't understand every other freaking day, so it will be hard to forget who she is. But I don't know that the name Bristol Palin is going to have a whole lot of sway five or eight or ten years down the road. I actually question how much pull it has right now.

Can't she just write a book like everyone else and go away? It's not so much that I have anything against her, I'm just really tired of seeing and hearing from her mom all the time.

Sphere: Related Content

Tomato, Tomahto

You know, you can give anything, anything at all, any name you want to give it, that doesn't necessarily change much. Just because I say the sky is green doesn't mean the sky is really green. (All that means is that I've been sniffing glue.) Or if I call a banana a 'crook neck fruit', that doesn't mean it's going to catch on, nor does it mean that other people are going to believe me and start calling it the Chiquita crook neck fruit. That would be silly. But there's a fine line (apparently) between just making stuff up/calling stuff what you want to call it and using the old standby of a "technicality" to justify your making stuff up/calling stuff whatever you want. The "technicality" does little to reinforce your point or solidify your basis. (It works a lot better if you don't have to admit or mention that you are making the point that you're making based upon a "technicality". Yeah, people punch other people for that.)

That being said, I go now to a story that was run by the AP regarding Sarah Palin's interpretation of what does or does not constitute a high school "dropout". Specifically, Caribou Barbie's interpretation of whether her daughter or her allegedly future son-in-law are high school "dropouts". I'm sure you'll be shocked, just shocked, when I tell you that Sarah Palin says that both of them are not, repeat not, not high school "dropouts".

Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston are who Governor Palin has jumped in to defend by issuing a strongly worded statement and by speaking with the Associated Press on Wednesday. Now you may recall that Bristol just gave birth to her and Levi's son, a one small child named Tripp, less than a week ago. Now, when you've just barely turned eighteen and haven't finished high school yet, trying to work in having a baby in the midst of all of that can be pretty tricky. Not to mention having your mom run for Vice President of the United States at the same time as well. Yep, that's one hectic schedule right there.

Now, if you're me, you're thinking that seventeen/eighteen and still in high school is probably not the best time in one's life to go around procreating. Of course, if seems like the perfect time to be having all of the sex! That's what high school is for. Learning things that you'll need to get you into college and meeting other people to have sex with. That's high school. But if you're going to try and have a child with all of that, it just isn't going to work out very well. That's why folks in this situation usually stop going to school. And another word for "to stop going to school" is "to dropout". Can you say "to dropout"? Good. How 'bout you, Governor Palin? Oooh! Not so good there.

In October, the AP reported "...that Johnston dropped out of high school to work on the North Slope oil fields" and so Sarah Palin wanted to correct that information. by speaking with the AP on Wednesday and telling them that "18-year-old Levi Johnston is enrolled in high school through a correspondence program." She's just now getting around to correcting that? They reported it in October! I know, I know, she was busy running around after Old Man Grandpa John McCain for a few months there, but doesn't she have a staff? Sure she does. OK, then. So what's the reason for saying something NOW? (Actually, what's the reason for the lad not coming forward or contacting the AP and saying something? It's one of three things. He either a) doesn't know that it's being said, b) he doesn't care that it's being said, or c) it's true. Your choice. I'm going with "c".)

I'm guessing the reason for "correcting" the "mis-information" now is because it's also being reported that her daughter, the one giving all the birth the other day, had also dropped out of high school. It's one thing to have your alleged future son-in-law drop out of high school, but when you're the hottest governor of the coldest state and they start saying the same thing about your own daughter? Well, that calls for some stern words of correction to be issued immediately. And if not immediately, then right after about a million bloggers have posted about it.

"The governor said her daughter is enrolled in regular high school and has taken correspondence courses." See, that sounds an awful lot like her statement about Levi. And both of those statements seem to go on the "technicality" argument. You might notice that her statement doesn't say that either one of them are currently or actively participating in said correspondence courses/programs. She said that her daughter "has taken correspondence courses." Well, I have taken a driving test before, that doesn't mean I'm currently taking Driver's Ed. And you can be enrolled in a gym, that sure as hell doesn't mean you're going. That just means you have a little laminated card with your picture on it that, contrary to the beliefs of some, will not let you check out library books, nor operate a motor vehicle. (Go figure.) All it will do is let you go work out at the gym that you're enrolled in...IF you go there to do so. If you don't, well, the gym ain't coming to you!

See, when you go to high school, the usual expectation or popular school of thought is that one will attend said high school until they graduate. If one stops going to high school before one graduate and one has no intention of returning, it is said that one has "dropped out". If one is still enrolled in high school and stops going and doesn't appear to have any intention of returning (but has taken correspondence courses because one's mother is the governor), it can be said that one has "dropped out" in that situation as well.

How is this any different than someone who stops going to high school, say, fifteen years ago and then one day decides to enroll in some correspondence program to get their diploma? Just because they are enrolled in that correspondence program, does that mean that they are no longer a "high school dropout"? Not necessarily. In fact, it seems to me that if you voluntarily stopped going to high school for no other reason than "just because", until you actually get that diploma, you're a dropout.

The AP said that a "phone message left at the home of Johnston's mother wasn't immediately returned Wednesday." That would be the mother that just got busted for dealing OxyContin a couple of weeks ago? Maybe they should have tried texting her. I hear she's a fan. (By the way, does she have her high school diploma? Or has she taken correspondence courses in the past also?)

Call it what you want, the bottom line is both Bristol and Levi are far from being in an optimal situation at this point. Whether they're actively working to finish whatever they need to in order to receive a high school diploma, I have no idea. All I know is that right now, neither one of them has one. And it's kind of important. I'm not saying that everyone is college material, nor am I saying that everyone should be expected to go to college. But I am saying that earning a high school diploma is not too high of a standard to set, nor an expectation to be met. It's necessary. (And I don't want to hear about the one in a million case where someone didn't have a high school diploma and made a gazillion dollars. I don't care. It doesn't happen often enough to justify using it as why it's OK to not graduate from high school. Lots of things "might" happen, but most of them make horrible rationale for why someone does something. Monkeys "might" fly out of my butt, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join the circus. Or go on Maury Povich. Is he still on? Never mind. You know what I mean.)

Nice try, Caribou Barbie. I think you're hot and all, but that was a pretty weak attempt at trying to save a little face there. If you had asked me, I would have suggested that you just suck it up and not say anything. Now that you've drawn attention to it, people will be looking their way when June rolls around and they should be graduating. If they aren't ready to graduate then, expect this to rise to the top of pointless fodder once again. The media is really good at re-hashing old fodder. They're fodder hashers. And they do it well.

Sphere: Related Content

The $300,000 BLT

Ah, but I only gave it a brief mention yesterday as I had completely forgotten that we're wrapping up The Year of the Inane. No, that's not a new Chinese Zodiac creature (The Inane - Similar to a macaw, but with more distinct features around its nether regions). Silly. Pointless. Unsubstantial. Shall I use it in a sentence? "This blog can be inane." Yes, I thought that might clear things up. Now to clear up what the heck I'm talking about, as how else would one cap off The Year of the Inane but with hundreds of thousands of dollars being shelled out to an unmarried, teenage couple, both of whom have not finished high school and who just had a child out of wedlock. (This story really is ridiculous, but I'll admit to playing it up a bit with the whole "out of wedlock" terminology there. I am not a fan of that phrase. First of all, it sounds a bit too much like "headlock", which you could end up with should you not choose wisely. But really, where/when else is it ever used? I've never said, "I'm going to see my two friends get joined in wedlock." Or "They've been in wedlock for about five years now." No, the word we use is married. Unless, apparently, you're knocked up. That's when you can your oven full of a bun are more than just "not married', you're "out of wedlock". As if you don't have enough problems as it is, being an expectant single mother and all, now you have to worry about the semantics of vocabulary to boot!)

But why, you ask? Why, oh, why is someone or something or some magazine shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to unmarried, under-educated, premarital fornicators? (Oh, my mistake. Unmarried, under-educated, premarital fornicators in love. There. Is that better for all of you optimists? Oh, wait, optimists don't read this blog. Cynics and realists do. Well, at least eight of 'em do. Carry on!) Because this isn't your average, ordinary, run-of-the-mill teenage girl that got preggo. This preggo is the daughter of the hot, hot governor of Alaska who was once trying to become the hot, hot Vice-President of the US as the running mate of old, old John McCain. I, of course, am speaking of hot, hot Sarah Palin and her daughter, Bristol, who would be one half of the fornicating duo of Bristol and Levi. Levi being Levi Johnston, the son of Sherry Johnston, the official OxyContin dealer for the state of Alaska.

Word on the street (that is, if "street" = "Internet"), is that a certain celebrity news magazine (whose name I won't reveal just yet, but I will throw a teaser out there and say that the name of the magazine rhymes with "Sheeple". Chew on that for a while!) is shelling out (brace yourself) $300,000 for the baby photos of little Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston. (So in addition to Bristol and Levi, they now have Tripp and if you take the first initial from each name, you have BLT. I don't know what it means, but I'm sure it's provocative. And if it's not, well, at least I got to screw around with Photoshop for a while before I figured that out.) And I think that I can speak for all eight of you reading this right now when I say, "WTF?!"

According to The Scoop over there at MSNBC.com, "...bidding for the baby photos began at $100,000. People Sheeple won out in the end, but In Touch was the only other weekly to make serious bids." (I only had one question after reading that. What the heck is "In Touch"? Sounds like a weekly circular for pedophiles.) They added that "...most estimates hover around the $300,000 range (none of the magazines would confirm the exact figure in the end, which is standard)." OK, so it's "standard" for the magazines to not confirm how large the ridiculous sum of money is that they are paying for pictures of a baby that probably looks like most other babies, because why now? Do the magazines think it will "look bad" if the public finds out that they're bidding, of all things, bidding on someone's baby pictures? It might. But if that's the case, I doubt that it would look as bad once the baby pictures appear on the cover of the magazine! (I can't be the only one seeing the irony in a magazine whose theme is providing every possible personal detail about anyone that they think the public might be interested in, yet they have "standards" and won't say how much they're paying for something.

Why so much? According to "an editor" (I guess they don't reveal names either), "The bidding started well before the baby was born, but once Levi’s mom was arrested — well, then you had a story.” HOW??? Just because the "Hillbilly Heroin" dealer got busted, the magazines assume that the public is once again interested in something that we weren't all that interested in to begin with? I don't see how the one connects with the other one and I certainly don't see how it connects to the tune of $300K.

And just to make the story really inane, they threw in this: "No word on whether the money will go to charity, as sometimes happens in a celeb baby deal." :::: sigh :::: I'll give you the word on that one. No. No, the money will NOT go to charity. Why not? Well, first of all, Bristol and Levi are eighteen. Eighteen year olds who just became parents (one of whom dropped out of high school to take a job on the North Slope oil fields as an apprentice electrician) do not donate $300K to charity. But the even bigger reason? THEY'RE NOT CELEBRITIES!! They're the daughter and possible future son-in-law of the governor of Alaska. That's all! So why it would be expected, "as sometimes happens in a celeb baby deal" that it would happen in this instance is beyond me. It's like saying, "No word on whether or not the new kitchen sponge that was purchased actually talks, as sometimes happens in a cartoon called 'Spongebob Squarepants.' " It doesn't talk because the sponge isn't Spongebob! It's just a sponge!

You know, this really isn't doing much for everything that we're supposed to tell kids not to do with their lives. They're not supposed to drop out of high school. They're not supposed to have sex. They're not supposed to get pregnant. They're not supposed to have a baby without being married. They're not supposed to have a mother who deals drugs. And the list goes on. But in this case, you have all of those things and what are the consequences? You get $300k and a bunch of pictures of your kid in People freaking Magazine when you're eighteen, for cryin' out loud! So what have we really learned?! Do not pass 'GO'. (In this case, you can't pass 'GO'. Where are you going to go without a high school diploma whilst you're raising a child? Not far!) But DO collect $300,000!

Ugh. Even for $300 grand, it still wouldn't be worth it to me to play host to an alien being for nine months before forcibly expelling it out of my uterus in a process akin to that of shoving a pot roast through my nostril. Not even close to worth it.

Sphere: Related Content