Octo Nightmare

Brace yourselves.  Octomom has done her masturbatory porn video.  It should be out by June.  I guess there's a lot of editing or something that goes on with these things?  I don't really know and I don't really think that I want to, either.  Actually, there are a lot of things that I didn't want to know about this.  And I'm going to share them with YOU.  How lucky do you feel?  What if I told you that by 'lucky' I meant 'nauseous'?  Better?  Yeah, not really for me either.  Well, you've been warned.  Here we go. 

According to the Huffington Post, in true Octomom lunatic fashion, Nadya Suleman says of her first porn video "I'm very excited for it to come out!"  Well, that makes one of us.  She's excited for it to come out?  Why would that be?  She is a laughing stock.  She is vehemently hated by many (and for good reason).  She's dead broke.  And now she's doing solo porn.  That's exciting for her?  I can think of a lot of other adjectives that I would have thought of before using 'exciting'.  Words like 'humiliated', 'upset', 'ashamed' and 'desperate' come to my mind.  But not hers.  Nope.  She's excited.  If that right there doesn't tell you all that you need to know about this chick, I don't know what else I can do for you. 

Here are some other excerpts from her thoughts on what is apparently the apex of her life.  "My first shoot was amazing...Such a learning experience for me in so many ways. I don't think I could have asked for a better crew to work with. They were so patient and willing to teach me. I owe a lot to Wicked Pictures contract star Jessica Drake; she opened my eyes to a whole different world of self-pleasure that I could have never imagined. They made me look so glamorous, and for the first time in my life, I felt beautiful and sexy. I'm very excited for it to come out!" 

A learning experience?  What in the hell did she learn?  Not to have fourteen babies when you don't have a job, a place to live or a spouse?  And I'll bet that her eyes were opened to a "whole different world of self-pleasure"!  It would definitely be a different world to be doing yourself surrounded by lights and cameras and an entire crew of people.  You know.  Because usually when you're doing that, you're typically alone!  And I don't care what she says and I don't care what she was wearing, doing masturbatory porn is not glamorous.  Maybe her and I have different definitions of the word (which wouldn't surprise me as I can't find a single thing that we have in common other than we're both female, and quite frankly, I'm ashamed to have that much in common with her), but what she just went through was not glamorous.  It doesn't surprise me that it was the first time she felt beautiful and sexy, though.  It's probably really hard to feel like you're either of those things when you're harboring practically and entire baseball team in your uterus. 

But here's the part that kinda made me wanna throw up a little bit.  It's definitely the part that I read at least three times and each time all I could muster up was "Wtf?"  It's the part that said "At the shoot, Nadya also posed for a set of photographs in which she's seated at the head of a long table, her body covered with SpaghettiOs"  Wait.  Wait.  I said WAIT!  SpaghettiOs?!  Number one, why would you waste perfectly good SpaghettiOs in such an obscene fashion?  And number two, did I mention wtf?  Yeah, WTF?!  Did THAT make her feel beautiful and sexy?  To have her both slathered with a delicious childhood treat that she probably feeds to her own children?  How is being covered in SpaghettiOs anything but disgusting?  And whose idea was that?  Was it hers? I don't get it. 

Even after it is explained, I still don't get it.  It says "For the pictures, we had her topless with a thick sparkly red choker with a big red heart in front and red and white polka dot panties ... like 1950s style...SpaghettiOs were all over her body and she's even throwing the SpaghettiOs toward the camera. The label on the can was changed from SpaghettiOs to say 'Saucy Octos.'"  Uhh...what?  How is being in red and white polka dot panties and covered with SpaghettiOs "like 1950s style"?  I don't fancy myself a historian or anything like that, but I am fairly familiar with the styles of the 1950s and I have never encountered a style that included being covered in SpaghettiOs.  Ever.  And wtf is a 'Saucy Octo'?  They're not shaped like eights!  They're shaped like Os!  It's right there in the name SpaghettiOs.  Not SpaghettiEights! 

I don't understand any of this.  Then again, she is, by most definitions, mentally ill (in at least one form or another), so I guess that this isn't supposed to make a ton of sense.  There's still no word on how much she was paid to do this, but whatever it is I don't see how it's going to solve her long term problems.  And while she might have declared bankruptcy, I went through the paperwork and she hasn't filled out everything that she needs to.  If she doesn't turn in the required forms in a couple of weeks, her case is automatically dismissed.  And when (if) she does turn in the required forms, one of those will be a statement of her earnings and whatever she earned for the great SpaghettiO fiasco will need to be reported.  I'll get back to you when that information is available.  In the meantime, let's just try our hardest to forget all about this.  It's certainly not worth the nightmares that it will induce by remembering it.  But if you do want to remember it, there are a bunch of photos over at TMZ that should suffice. 

Sphere: Related Content

The Force Doesn't Dance

I have a little blasphemy for you today. See, apparently, a new Star Wars video game came out for the XBox360 Kinect. Kinect is the thing where you don't have to use a controller and can essentially just flail about to get your character to move and do things. Well, in this game, I guess you're Han Solo. And the things that it has you do are not anything that Han Solo would ever do! That's right. He dances.

I...I...I really don't know what to say. And while it's funny, it just makes me too darn sad to actually laugh. (Also, it kind of has a tune that is similar to Jimmy Kimmel's spoof "I'm F***ing Ben Affleck" in parts. A little tidbit that you might notice makes it even sadder AND even funnier, especially when the words "GREAT" or "AWESOME" come pulsating out of Han's crotch.) Here you go. Don't say I didn't warn you. As always, if it doesn't load, click here.

Sphere: Related Content

Public Buffoonery

I'm guessing that by now, you've seen the Kony 2012 video that was everywhere. And if you haven't seen it, you're still not going to see it here. Don't get me wrong. That Kony guy is bad and probably needs to be shot. But I question the integrity behind the "charity" that made the video. So there's that. But there's something else, too! Yeah, the guy who made that video, a one Jason Russell, was arrested yesterday for what the media keeps calling "public masturbation". I didn't really know what that meant, but then this video appeared over at TMZ and while I think the media got the terminology wrong, the video is worth a watch. Pretty awesome to see someone who is obviously in the throes of some sort of mental snap.

Do you see what I'm saying?! In what way was that any sort of public masturbation? That was more like "stand on the corner naked and flap your arms like a chicken". I don't know if that specific instance is in the Los Angeles penal code (Heh-heh. Penal.), but I guess that it should be given this display! Holy moly. I don't even know what you'd call that (other than really freakin' weird), but it's definitely probably something that you're going to get arrested for. (Don't try this at home, kids!)

If it didn't load, click here. You won't be sorry!

Sphere: Related Content

Speak Up, Cowards

What in the world is wrong with people? Yes, this time I do have specific people in mind. And I don't think that I will ever understand them. I'm open to any explanations that anyone might have for this sort of behavior, though. (The problem is that I don't think that I'm going to like any of the explanations in this instance.)

Here's the condensed version of what I'm referring to: Over there at Penn State where the football program is revered by all. But what probably isn't revered by all are the alleged actions of a one Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky was a former defensive coordinator for Penn State. While he hasn't worked there in an official capacity for a number of years, he had access to all of the football facilities, so it might as well have been like he worked there. Anyway, there have been allegations made and charges filed against Mr. Sandusky that he sexually assaulted young boys in the shower. And 'sexually assaulted' is just the nice way of putting it. He raped little boys. Allegedly.

OK, so that's bad, right? Yes! Yes, it's bad! It's very, very bad! But wait! I'm not done! See, it turns out that allegedly people knew about this and said nothing. That's right. People knew that this alleged pervert was raping young boys (as young as freaking ten years old, for cryin' out loud) and did nothing. Both the Athletic Director, a one Tim Curley and Penn State's senior vice president for business and finance, a one Gary Schultz, have both been charged with perjury and some other things because they allegedly lied to the grand jury investigating Sandusky and because they also failed to properly report suspected child abuse. Scumbags. Oh, excuse me. Alleged scumbags.


And this is where my question comes in. HOW on earth does someone know about something like this that is going on and doesn't do anything about it?! How?! Look, I can understand someone who is a pedophile. There is something wrong with their brain. It's an easy explanation. It doesn't excuse any sort of behaviors that they might have at all. But I understand what is wrong with a pedophile. What I don't understand is what is wrong with someone who allegedly knows that ten or eleven year old boys are being raped and that person in the know does absolutely nothing about it. Oh, wait. I take that back. They did do something. They lied about it.

I don't know that I could control myself if I learned that someone that I worked with was using the facilities at my place of employment as grounds for his molesting and sexually assaulting children. Apparently, at one point, a janitor actually walked in on Sandusky while he had a young boy in the shower up against the wall and was in the process of raping him. HOW do you not just kill that guy right then and there? What is wrong with those people? Why would you lie to protect someone like this? Why would you not help those kids? Pedophiles make me absolutely sick, but I think that the people that stand by and do absolutely nothing when they know that something is going on make me even sicker.


This whole thing makes me absolutely sick. And I wish that the media would stop reporting this as if it's a sports story. It's NOT a sports story. Just because sports are involved doesn't make it a sports story. (That's like saying that the OJ Simpson trial should have been in the sports section. Please.) This is a story about a bunch of abuse that was allowed to continue because of cowards. And there is a name for people like that. The thing is that is won't matter what the name is when they're burning in hell. And that can not come soon enough if you're asking me.

Sphere: Related Content

There's A Class For That?

I heard something mentioned today that I didn't think could possibly be true. With a little perusing of the Innerwebs, however, I discovered that it WAS in fact true. And that's when I realized just how ridiculous things have gotten.

See, I heard that part of Lindsay Lohan's sentence (for whatever her most recent shenanigans were that saw her appear in court) is to attend (wait for it) anti-shoplifting classes. What the hell are those?! Anti-shoplifting? You need an entire class to work on that concept?! How does that work?! If the class is any longer than how long it takes to say "Don't steal from stores", I'm going to need more information. Anti-shoplifting classes. Wow. Just wow.

Sphere: Related Content

Then What Was It?

DISCLAIMER (Or maybe it's a WARNING. I'm not sure what to call this. But whatever it is, just know that you've been informed.): Today's post is going to be kind of short. And that's pretty much a coincidence when you compare it to how the rest of the week is probably going to be. The posts for at least the next eight days are going to be kind of short. I don't think that what I am embarking upon what can be considered a "vacation", but it does involve a lot of traveling, a hell of a lot of driving and at least three different states. It will also involve seeing a whole lot of people that I haven't seen in years and that's going to be quite fun. But don't worry! I'm not going to forget about you, my loyal patrons. My posts might be short and they might even be a little late on some days, but they will be there. I promise. Now that you've been sufficiently warned and informed, what say you tell me if you can explain something to me.

What we have here is a young woman who was found dead at a mansion in Coronado, California. According to 10news.com, "Autopsy results and evidence gathered...will not be available to the public as the investigation continues". OK, I get that. That seems reasonable. Here's the part I'm having trouble with: See, "The woman found dead at a Coronado mansion on Wednesday was discovered naked with her hands and feet bound hanging from a balcony off the main house by a rope around her neck". Yipes. Horrible, right? Absolutely. No doubt about that. That's not my question. My question comes after learning that "...authorities are not prepared to call her death a homicide." Because seriously? What else are you going to call it?!

The chick is totally naked with both her hands and feet bound by "...what appeared to be an orange electrical cord". And she's hanging off of a balcony with a rope tied around her neck? But they're not just quite ready to jump to the crazy conclusion that it was a homicide?! What the hell else would it have been? (If she offed herself, that's one hell of an impressive suicide. She should get some sort of posthumous medal or plaque or something for that.) I can't possibly imagine. But the Sheriff's Captain, a one Tim Curran, said that the woman died "violently" and "I'm not really prepared to comment on what led us to believe that, but the scene does indicate some type of very suspicious circumstances." Huh??

Look, I wasn't there or anything. I wasn't present when a search warrant was executed. I'm not a cop and don't even play one on TV. But come on! Do they really need more than a woman with all of her limbs bound with an electrical cord and a noose around her neck hanging off of a balcony to indicate some type of "very suspicious circumstances"?! I'll comment on what led them to believe that, and it's what I just said! If that situation isn't suspicious then I don't know what in the world would be suspicious.

I really hope that they can get to the bottom of this, but with the sort of logic that has already been demonstrated, forgive me if I don't hold my breath, OK? Seriously, what else could it possibly be? I'm open to suggestions.

Sphere: Related Content

WTF? New Words?

The Oxford English Dictionary added some new words, phrases and symbols the other day. Does it seem to you like they just did this the other day? It felt that way to me. That's when I learned that they update the thing every three months. Really? Every three months? That seems a bit extreme to me, but they take this sort of thing fairly seriously over there.

Even though I knew that one particular addition was inevitable, I was not looking forward to it. Yes, that's right. LOL made it in. I guess in some ways, that's good. I mean, maybe now people won't think that it stands for 'lots of love' and text inappropriate condolences. (Example: "I heard your mom died. I'm so sorry. LOL!") I've just never been a big LOL fan. I think that's because I never believe that people are actually L-ing OL when they write that. Something has to be pretty danged funny for me to be vocal with my amusement and I feel that it's that way for the majority of other folks as well. But I'm pretty sure that CQTM (Chuckling Quietly To Myself) isn't going to catch on anytime soon.)

They also have added OMG (Oh, my God), BFF (Best Friends Forever) and IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). But for some reason, they have yet to add WTF. That HAS to be in there eventually, right? I checked the Oxford Dictionary Online to see if there was a definition for the F-word. Not only was it defined, it was quite thorough. I was pleased. Thus, I'm guessing that WTF can't be far behind. If you're going to have IMHO in the dictionary, you have to have WTF. Not that I'm the measuring stick for any of this stuff, but I don't think that I have ever used IMHO. WTF, on the other hand, is a daily staple.

But what really surprised me wasn't all of the acronyms that they shoved in there. (They also included the heart symbol. As in "I Heart New York". It means you love something. I'm not thrilled with the thought of the dictionary turning into some sort of hipster rebus.) It was all of the words that made it in that, astonishingly, weren't in there already. I'm perfectly OK with them adding things like "fnarr fnarr" (used to represent sniggering, typically at a sexual innuendo), "kleftiko" (appears to be some sort of lamb dish), "rozzle" (some sort of slang that either means hugging, joking around, or thinking someone is hot) and "yidaki", which I think is a type of didgeridoo. (No word on whether didgeridoo was already in there or not.) Those are words I've never heard of and if they're going to make them official words, that's fine. But what about "rude"? Wait. What?

"Rude". They added "rude". According to the page where the updates are, "rude, n.1" was added to the Oxford English Dictionary. They didn't have that in there before? It appears that they're defining it this time as a noun, so maybe that's the difference? Words that I would have thought would have already been in the dictionary include "router, n.6", "la-la land, n.", "dotted line, n. and adj.", "biker, n.", "car crash, n.", "headline, v.", "rototill, v.", "taquito, n.", and "stonewash, n., v.".

Car crash? Cars have been crashing since the invention of the car and they're just now getting around to putting it in the dictionary? And biker? Really? That wasn't in there before now? Amazing. How did stonewash elude the pages of the OED for so long? Where were these people in early 1990s? I don't get it. I thought they would have been a little more on top of things.

Sphere: Related Content

A Horse Is A Horse, Of...Course?

Seriously? I've got nothing today. It's not like it's a totally slow news day, but pretty much. They're still protesting in Wisconsin and there isn't a Democrat Senator in sight. Sarah Palin has spoken up and stated that President Barry's problem is that he's inexperienced. This coming straight from the mouth of a woman who didn't quite manage to finish out half a term as governor. We've got a college professor at Northwestern University who apologized for the live demonstration for one of his classes of a couple of people using a sex toy. (A sex toy that, as it turned out, was attached to the end of a reciprocating saw, for cryin' out loud.) And the Nissan Leaf, the car that was supposed to cut our nation's dependence on oil so that we can stop kissing the ass of the sand lands, managed to sell 67 in the month of February. Not 6,700. Not 67,000. 67. (Mind you, we're a country of over 300,000,000 people. They sold 67. Gas is going to be $4 a gallon any day now. And you and I are going to be bending over at the pump and paying it. We are so scroomed.) And while that seems like a lot of stuff to choose from, it all just makes my ass so incredibly tired I cannot even tell you. (And yeah, I don't know what the deal is with that sheep. But it kind of sums everything up in a weird sort of way.)

So for today, compliments of BuzzFeed, what say we just enjoy the best family portrait ever. At least, I think it's the best. It could be the worst. All I know is that it has a little bit of everything. Daughter with a look of despair on her face and what appears to be an expired guinea pig hanging from her belt. A woman in a wheelchair in the background. Dad with an arm garter with one dollar bills tucked into it. Did I mention that the dad is also wearing some sort of horse costume so that he looks like a centaur? He is. And the mom with a child's airline pilot wings stuck to her forehead and her ample cleavage mostly squashed into her failing corset. There's no telling how far south these folks live. I'm also going to guess that there isn't a full set of teeth between the three of them. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

The Internet Lies

I really don't understand a lot of stuff. That's kind of why I'm here. To figure stuff out. But I am convinced that there are some things that I will just never understand. Crimes where the victim needs to play an extremely crucial role in the wrongdoings are some of the things that I don't understand. And I'm not talking about scams where people are bilked out of their life savings. While I don't profess to say that I totally understand how those can happen (and I tend to subscribe to the "A fool and his money are soon parted" explanation for most of them), they sometimes (rarely) have a (microscopic) shred of plausibility to them. (I don't really think that. I'm just trying to be nice. Really, I don't get how they ever happen, but that's probably just me.) But when the crime involves having to coerce the mother to engage in sexual acts with her child, it really boggles the mind. Wait. When they...what now?

Yeah, I'm still trying to noodle this one through. According to an AP story which appeared over yonder at the Huffington Post, the individual that we're describing here is a one Steven DeMink. The article starts off confusing me, as it reads "Online...he presented himself as Dalton St. Clair, an attractive single father and psychologist". Now, I don't know if he included a picture of himself online, but this is the perv we're talking about. Behold!

Yeah, not so much in the attractive category if you're asking me. It also doesn't seem like he would have much going on in the smarts category either, but his little ruse seemed to work. I'm going to tell you what he did and then you tell me if these mothers, who were unthinkably somehow unknowingly complicit in his little scheme, should really be parenting at all, OK? My answer is a massive NO. Maybe they could be good parents one day, but clearly right now is not that day. Perhaps give them something to practice taking care of first before moving up to actual humans. I'm thinking of a perhaps a houseplant. Not much can go wrong there...unless you're the plant.

This guy would go into chat rooms on the Internet and somehow convince "...single mothers...to sexually assault their children as a form of therapy." And he did this for (wait for it) more than a year! That he was able to do it even once is astonishing to me. What kind of mother would go along with this sort of advice? Well, in some cases, this perv "...promised the women a date if they followed through with his directions." A date? In exchange for sexually assaulting your own child? THAT was a relevant factor for some of these idiots? Are you dry shaving me?! How is that possible? Who ARE these people?! I guess they're people like this woman: Apparently, "In one case, Demink started online chats with an Oregon woman about the sexual development of her 8-year-old autistic son...He told her to engage in sexually explicit conduct with her son as a way to teach him about sex...and she did so while Demink watched on a web camera." Excuse me for a moment while I find a wall to bang my head against.

They were on the freaking Internet! Don't they know that the Internet lies?! He said he was a psychologist, so that was good enough for them?! Have they also recently lost a lot of money to a Nigerian prince? Are these women being allowed to continue caring for their children? I don't think that it's an overreaction to ask that question, nor do I think it's an overreaction for someone else to be in charge of these particular children. What kind of person are you who has some guy on the Internet tell you to engage in some form of sex with your autistic son and you think it's a good idea and you do it?! WITH a webcam running?!

Well, the answer to that is right there in the police report. See, "Demink intimated to these women that the result of the therapy would be healthier children." Oh. OK, then. I didn't know that he told them that it would help their children. That makes all of the difference. Totally understandable now. Of course. I should have known that there was a reasonable explanation for all of this insane lunacy. Sweet fancy Moses, what is going on here?!

Oh, look! Here's some information about one of the women! This might help us. OK, it says that this particular individual met this guy on "....an online dating site called singleparentmeet.com." All right. Nothing wrong with making friends online. But then, "She told police she performed sex acts on her young son as directed by her online male friend." All right. There's absolutely something wrong with that! As directed by?! The direction I can fully comprehend. It's the following through with it that still boggles me! Maybe her mother (who was inexplicably interviewed for this story) can help shed some insight on what her daughter was thinking. She said that "...her daughter was "depressed and lonesome" after her divorce." Uh-huh. I'm going to need more than that. "I don't know how he wrangled her in...She could have turned off the computer and gone the other way. He must have had a power over her." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

A power over her?! How about just admitting that your daughter is a complete dumbass?! Power? What kind of power? I've read this story several times (in hopes that I read it wrong at least once) and it makes no mention of him being overly tricky or magic or anything like that. He's just a big, perverted dope who managed to convince not one, not two, but at least seven women from all over the country to sexually assault their children because it would "help" them.

Seven. I have just lost all faith in humanity. I have nothing left. Seven. Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Oregon New Hampshire, Idaho and Florida (of course). Those folks are spread all across the country. If it was contained to a particular region (like Florida, as I had expected), maybe I would have some faith left. But it's not. It's from one coast to another and everywhere in between. I don't really know what else to do with that other than to completely abandon any shred of hope that I may have ever had. For cryin' out loud, "Because the Internet told me to" is about the worst excuse I have ever heard in my life and it happened in this instance at least seven times. Yeah, I give up. Good Lord...

Sphere: Related Content

How Old IS Al Davis?

I enjoy sports. So I pay attention when changes go on in sports. I especially pay attention to any time the owner of the Oakland Raiders makes an appearance in public. Al Davis is at least 130 years old and he's not wearing it well. The other day, he gave a press conference to introduce his new head coach and to try to explain some of why he fired the previous coach. All of that has nothing to do with what I found to be the more interesting (and frightening) aspect of said press conference. And that would be Al Davis' general appearance these days. Brace yourselves. It's not pretty. (Al's the one sitting down.) Behold!

Oh, good Lord! What the hell is that?! That is Al Davis. I think. It could be Nosferatu. Let's see if we can spot a difference between the two.

Hmm. Yeah, they might be the same person. Wow. What the what? Should he be out during the daytime? What's the deal with his head? Why isn't he having someone else do the speaking for him? He's scaring the children. Maybe they just photographed his bad side. Maybe he has a...a...good...side? Maybe? (I know! I know! I'm stretching it! Geez! YOU try and think of something to say in this situation. It ain't easy!) Where was I? Oh, that's right. Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud! It got worse! How could it have gotten worse?! Is there anything worse than that? (You know that I already know the answer to that, don't you?) Brace yourselves again. It's about to get real. Real scary.

My eyes! MY EYES! Kill it! Kill it with fire! NOW!! And if you're not going to kill it with fire then someone needs to make sure that his one eyeball doesn't pop itself loose because that's exactly what it looks like is about to happen. Would it hurt you to smile once in a while there, Al?

Holy crap. Wow. Yeah, it looks like it might. Never mind. Just go away and it will be like we never brought it up, OK? Good. Good. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go bleach my eyeballs.

Sphere: Related Content

A Lesbian, A Ferret And A Missed Connection

I've always wondered if the 'Missed Connections' section of Craigslist ever works. I mean, if you happen to bump into someone in the grocery store and you think they're hot but you're too nervous to say anything to them and so you go home and post the basics of the encounter in the 'Missed Connections' section, does anything ever become of that? I can't imagine that it would. Sure, there's the whole blind squirrel finding a nut once in a while thing (and really, all that does for me is conjure up some image of this little squirrel wearing dark glasses with a white cane), but it is even that frequent that one would find who they are looking for via Craigslist in 'Missed Connections'?

Not only do you have to use Craigslist, but the person that you're looking for also has to use Craigslist. Then they have to be able to noodle through that you are, in fact, the person that they are talking about. I guess that the more detail that the searcher puts in his post then the more of a chance that the searchee would recognize themselves in said post. I suppose that if you do that, you're not supposed to worry about what everyone else will think if you put down those details that the object of your desire would connect with.

What is all of this leading up to? Naturally, it's a post on Craigslist in the 'Missed Connections' section. This particular post is out of Cleveland. I don't know if this sort of thing is common in Cleveland or what the deal is there, but it's definitely one of a kind, I'll tell you that much. If you can figure out what has gone on in this instance, more power to you. I'm still noodling the whole thing through, myself. Here's what we have: The post is titled "Britney with the ferret - m4w (Cleveland westside)" and it reads as follows:

I feel so stupid doing this

I am the ugliest guy you ever met and old

and you are the prettiest gal I have ever met and young

I know you are a Lesbian and have a wife

I am so attracted to you with my head, heart and................... well other parts as well

please tell me your ferrets name so I know its you

Um, OK. Wait. What now? So...it's a stupid old guy trying to find a married lesbian named Britney with a pet ferret? Is that what I'm getting from this? Wow. OK. I have SO many questions, I don't even know where to start. I mean, kudos to the guy for going out on a limb like he did. That takes guts. Now here come the real questions. How does he know all of this about Britney? Did she have her ferret with her during their encounter? Was her wife there? Is he aware of what a lesbian is? Does he know there is no need for capitalization? How old is old and how ugly is ugly? Am I the only one dying to know the name of the ferret?

I have to say, I really hope that this chick gets back to him. Britney, if you're out there, contact the old and ugly guy who has a thing for you (and possibly your ferret). It would make his day. And if you don't want to contact him, how about contacting me?! I'd love to know the name of your ferret, not to mention what in the hell went on over there in Cleveland between you two! Or I could just be your go-between. I will make this work! Drop me a line!

Sphere: Related Content

Can't Touch That

Meet the latest "fringe" candidate to upset the incumbent in a primary, a one Christine O'Donnell, a Republican from Delaware. Ms. O'Donnell was able to beat out former Delaware governor and nine-term congressman, a one Mike Castle, for the nomination. While I am all for booting out folks that have made politics their lifelong career (while not doing much more than furthering their own power and ridiculously inflated egos), I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being...oh, what's the word I want? Controversial? Maybe, but not quite. Nutty isn't quite what I'm going for either, although it is closer. How about bizarre? That seems to work. Let me try it out. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being bizarre. Yeah, that's it. And so is she. Bizarre, that is.

This woman has interesting opinions on just about everything. Even things where you wouldn't think that you could have an opinion because you didn't know that a certain angle even existed, she does not disappoint. Take, for example, an appearance this woman made on C-SPAN in 1996. (I know, I know. It's a little weak to be going through footage from 14 years ago. I agree. But I'm assuming that, since this is her stance from a moral perspective, she pretty much still holds this opinion.) She stated that it is a "...misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality." Wait. She thinks that it's what now?

A misconception, that is correct. She went on to elaborate by saying, "The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality. So you can't get around legislating morality." Oohhh. I get it. Wait. No, I don't. What the hell is she talking about? Isn't this like proving a negative? If you're not doing one thing than you're automatically doing the opposite thing? That's not always true. And in this case, I'm pretty sure that it isn't true at all.

Now, if that was the only slightly strange thing that she had voiced in the past, I'd probably let it go. But she doesn't stop there. No, she's big on morality. In 1998, she was on Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect". I'm not sure why she was there, but she was. In fact, she was on a panel with Martin Mull, Jasmine Guy and Eddie Izzard discussing the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky fiasco. (I cannot come up with one thing that all of these folks have in common. Jasmine Guy? Really? To discuss politics? Wow. It's like the iPod 'Shuffle' feature picked those guests. I'm actually finding having these four people on the same show for some reason a little more interesting that what Christine O'Donnell actually said.) She didn't want to let ol' Willie Jeff off the hook that easily. And do you know why? School shootings, of course. See, "If we as a nation tolerate sin, generations to come will reap the effects of that....For example, we took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, now we're having weekly shootings practically." Oh, good Lord, woman.

It's hard to imagine that taking the Bible and pray out of public schools was the only thing stopping school shootings for all of the years prior to 1998. But what any of that has to do with a President getting blown in his office by a plowhorse of an intern is beyond me.

As I'm sure you've guessed by now, she's not so much a fan of the evolution. In 1996, she was a spokeswoman for something called the Concerned Women of America. For some reason, she was on CNN debating a one Michael McKinney, am evolutionary biology professors over there at the University of Tennessee. Her take on evolution was: "The tests...they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory." Merely a theory? As opposed to what? Creation? Why, yes, actually. "Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

Thank you for breaking down what six days amounts to. She didn't really get into the evidence that she says is out there that supports that other than the Bible saying that it's so. She gives more evidence that there are 24 hours in a day than she does to prove creation. I'm also thinking that those concerned women should be a little more concerned that she is going around spewing out ridiculousness like she was.

And you know that I've saved the best for last! And what could be better to save for last than her views on masturbation? Not much, let me tell you. Would you be surprised to learn that she is pro-abstinence? Of course you wouldn't. We all saw that one coming. (No pun really intended there, though it's not bad.) Back in 1996, she was on MTV's "Sex in the 90s" speaking about her campaign

"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So, you can't masturbate without lust...The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue...You're gonna be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" Has this woman ever had sex in her life?! Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Look, lady...if you think that taking care of business yourself is on a par with having sex, you are clearly mistaken. Taking care of business yourself gets the job done; there's no doubt about that. But it is a far cry from having sex. You know why everyone wants to have sex? Because it's great! Masturbation isn't a substitute for sex! You could sit around all day long pleasuring yourself like a monkey in a cage, but that isn't going to change the fact that you're not going to turn down sex instead should it present itself. And how in the world is it committing adultery? What if you're doing it, but you're not in a relationship with anyone? Are you cheating on yourself? I don't think that you are. And if you expect me to believe that this woman has never pleasured herself, that is more ridiculous than her statement that you're committing adultery if you do.

The good thing is that if she is elected to the Senate, it's highly unlikely that she'll be involved in any sort of legislation aiming to curb masturbatory practices amongst Americans. So you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things that she may do if she's elected, but dictating (again, no pun intended) the relationship that you have with your own genitalia is not going to be one of them.

Sphere: Related Content