Where Are His Pants?

I ran across the cartoon below today.  While I'm a little tired of the whole "From Penn State to the State Pen" witticism, I thought that this cartoon was interesting only in the sense that the artist made it look like Sandusky isn't wearing any pants!  I can't imagine that this was on purpose, but come on!  Doesn't it look like he's pantless?!  You know it does. Behold! 
  

 

And again, I realize that it's not a misrepresentation of anything that went on, it's just weird. And kinda funny. That's all I've got.

Sphere: Related Content

Loophole!

If I were a lawyer (and I think that we can all breathe a sigh of relief that I am not), I think that I could help this woman that was arrested in Florida (of course) the other day.  I'm pretty sure that I could get her off on a fairly glaring, yet rather subtle, technicality.  See if you follow me here. 

What we have is a 400-pound woman, a one 52-year old Patricia McCollum, who was sitting at a bus stop in Fort Lauderdale.  She allegedly decided that she needed to change clothes, perhaps to something more summery as the seasons have changed, and felt that the best place to do so was right there at the bus stop.  She is currently sans home, so I guess that changing right in the middle of everything was the best that she felt that she could do?  I don't know.  Me, I'm thinking, what's the rush?  Wait until it's dark outside before you go off doing something like that.  Find someplace besides a bus stop for cryin' out loud.  Other people sit on that thing.  I'm pretty sure they don't want someone's bare arse on it.  But I digress. 

So you've got a naked, homeless, 400 pounder at a bus stop.  Naturally, she got arrested.  The charge?  According to UPI, she was charged with "...exposure of sexual organs in public".  Hold it.  Wait just a minute there.  Exposure of sexual organs?  For real?  Is that even possible with a 400-pound woman sitting on a bus bench?  I'm not so sure that it is!  I'm not so sure that would be possible without some sort of a series of levers and pulleys in order for things to be exposed.  400 pounds is a whole lotta woman.  And while she may not have been clothed, I'm going to go ahead and guess that her sexual organs were not exposed to anyone (and probably haven't been for quite some time).  

I realize it might not be the best defense anyone has ever come up with, but it certainly can't be the worst one either.  And really, the solution to things like this is to simply not change your clothes in public no matter how much you weigh.  But I'm thinking that if someone weighs 400 pounds and is naked in public, you're going to have to come up with something a little bit more applicable than "exposure of sexual organs in public"  because that simply didn't happen.  Naked or not, it didn't happen.  

Sphere: Related Content

It's IN The Name!

In a story that shows just how uptight some people can actually be, we have two women who were arrested for exposing their breasts whilst on a public golf course.  Oh, did I mention that it was during what had been dubbed a "naked golf tournament"?  Yeah, it was.  And they were (wait for it) naked.  Go figure. 

According to The Telegraph, "...a "naked" golf tournament was taking place at the golf course."  Now, I haven't played golf in a number of years, so I don't know if this is a new thing that happens frequently or just at the Woodlands Golf Club in unincorporated Madison County outside Alton city limits in Missouri.  But I do know that if I heard that there was a naked golf tournament going on, I wouldn't be all that surprised to see naked golfers.  OK, I might be a little surprised that anyone would willingly participate in such an event, but if that's what it's supposed to be, I don't know why anyone would have a problem with it. 

But as I'm sure that you've probably guess by now, someone obviously did have a problem with it.  A one Capt. T. Mike Dixon "...said investigators responded to the golf course in reference to a complaint of women exposing their sexual organs while on the golf course."  Well, of COURSE they were!  It was a naked golf tournament!  It's right there in the name!  Naked!  He went on to say that "...when investigators arrived they observed  Alicia L. Binford, 43, and Shelly L. Lewis, 45, "lewdly exposing their breasts on the golf course property."  Again, right there in the name.  Naked!  Oooh.  Wait a minute.  Maybe it's bad naked.  You know, there's way more bad naked out there than there is good naked.  Maybe this was a double case of bad naked.  Let's look at their mugshots.  Behold! 

OK, those two ladies are not going to be bad naked.  No, they're going to be good naked.  The one on the left kind of looks like Jennifer Aniston, for cryin' out loud!  How would that be bad naked?!  And I know I'm going to be repeating myself here, but since they were arrested, I feel that it needs to be reiterated that it was a naked golf tournament!!  Do we have a more revealing mug shot?  We do?!  Bring it! 

Yeah, they were obviously the very, very good (or at least perfectly acceptable) sort of naked.  Seriously, if you're calling the cops because you've just seen one (or even better, both) of these women in public without a shirt and with their presumably glorious breasts bared for all to see, you need to check yourself.  Especially if it's during a naked golf tournament.  (Have I said that enough?  I'm not sure that I have considering that they were arrested.) We might need more of this sort of thing, not less! 

Sphere: Related Content

Naked Meltdown Part Deux

I just cannot get enough of naked guy on a street corner flapping his arms like a chicken. I don't know why. I find this particular story just awesome. But I really do. And now we have close up video footage of the guy having his meltdown. Again, the reason for this was said (by his organization) to be "exhaustion and dehydration". He sure is moving around a lot for someone who is so "exhausted". I mean, I've been really tired before. I don't know if I've ever "suffered" from "exhausted", but there have been times when I've been pretty damned tired. You know what I didn't do? Every single thing that this guy did, that is correct. If it doesn't play, please click here. You won't be sorry. It's a naked meltdown at its finest.

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

The Weiner Proposal

For those of you who don't have the "pleasure" of living in or nearby San Francisco, the land of fruits and nuts, let me just warn you about something. If you go to San Francisco, the chances are greater than average (as compared to other cities of the same size) that you're going to see a penis. That's because walking around naked in San Francisco is still legal. But all that's about to change! Oh, of course they're not going to make you put pants (or a shirt) on. But they are contemplating making you have to put something between yourself and any sort of receptacle that you sit on so that other people who sit there aren't sitting where your bare ass just was.

Now, when I tell you that this law is being proposed by a Scott Weiner, please refrain from any chuckling and/or guffawing that may arise (pun probably intended). According to the stupidvisor supervisor (and the Daily Mail), "...the legislation would ensure that public health standards are met by requiring nudists to put a towel or similar item between their body and a public seat." And while I think that I appreciate that, I think that would I would appreciate more is requiring people to at least wear pants.

I guess I find it difficult to believe that "public health standards" are met if someone is naked in public. That doesn't seem like they'd be met at all. And while San Francisco likes to bill itself as a liberal and tolerant city, I think that they're doing themselves more harm than good with this one. Letting people walk around naked is eventually going to hinder your city, especially if you're counting on tourism to bring the bucks into the city. I just don't want to be on any public street where there is at LEAST a 50/50 chance (and probably more like 75/25) that I'm going to see an unfamiliar wang. (Unfamiliar Wang. Not a bad name for a band.) And I still don't understand what the disservice would be done if the city were to require people to wear clothes in public. At the very least, a loincloth. Because in general, the types of people who are going to be walking around in public naked are not going to be those with a spectacular dingus. (Spectacular Dingus. Another good name for a band. Maybe they could open for Unfamiliar Wang.) Put some damn clothes on!

Sphere: Related Content

Nuts & Nudity - Together at Last!

That's it, people! We have officially, OFFICIALLY come off the rails! It's over! Nothing more to see here! Move it along! That's right. Back you go! Back. BACK! Sweet mother of God, what have we done. What hath we wrought? I'll tell you what we've wrought. We've wrought the worst kind of wroughting you could ever think to wrought. That's right. We've wrought the worst wrought we've ever wrought before. You might have thought we've wrought, but you were wrong. Three words will show just how much wrong we've wrought.


Levi. (That's one.)

Johnston. (That's two.)

Naked. (Threeeeeeeeeeeee!!)

See? This is what happens when we (and by "we" I mean a society that gulps up every morsel of celebrity chum that is thrown into our shark infested waters with a thirst for knowledge about everything and everyone) act like we're interested out of sheer interest in an individual that we are merely interested in because we're making fun of them. While in theory, a perfectly harmless scenario, but in reality, most of those that we mock are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. (Translation: Too dumb to know we're dissin' 'em.)

That's what's happening with ol' Levi "Used To Be The Future Son-In-Law Of a Failed Vice Presidential Candidate" Johnston. He came on the scene as the guy who knocked up Bristol Palin and was going to marry her. Then the whole "might end up in the White House" scenario flew the coop and that whole "going to marry her thing" flew right behind it, closely followed by that whole "going to finish high school thing" as well. And for some reason, there was still some sort of odd interest in him. Maybe it's that he rather oddly has a sort of 80s look going on about him.

I think that the interest in Levi Johnston was slightly, just slightly perpetuated by the man-boy himself. I mean, if you continuously knock someone as hot as Sarah Palin, eventually people are going to listen to a little bit of what you say. Or, at the very least, be interested in what's going to come out of your blowhole next. And not necessarily interested out of interest, more so interested out of sheer amazement that someone could be so damned clueless. (For the record and in case you were previously unaware, it's not OK to bash the grandmother of your child in public. It's just not. Unless she's in prison having been convicted of murder, don't drag your family crap around for the whole world to see. It doesn't do a whole lot for smooth family relations, if that's what you were hoping for, either.)

But now this whole fake interest-interest thing has been taken to a whole new level. Levi Johnston is posing for Playgirl. Good Lord, is that necessary? I'm guessing it is, if you're him. Seriously. Let's think about this. I know that there was talk of him having a book deal, but I think that there are enough picture books on the market as it is. Talk shows aren't going to continue to pay him to spit out little tidbits about Sarah Palin that may or may not be true. He has nothing of substance to say. To describe him as slightly vacuous is an understatement. Translation: The gravy train has ground to a screeching halt.

Now, I'm not going to pretend to know what Playgirl offers one to pose nude. I realize some folks think that they're good enough, that they're hot enough that they'd do it for free. Those people are the kind of people that, if naked, would drive magazines out of business if they actually took them up on their free-nude-photos offer. The kind of people that some people (no names) would want to see naked need to be bribed paid and paid rather handsomely. The usual, however, I don't think is more than a million. I say that because it's always a big deal when someone is offered a million bucks to pose nude. If that was typical, it wouldn't generate as much tongue wagging. (Tongue wagging - another high paying position.)

But speaking of how Levi Johnston is trying to make a little money off of some nuts, he's also in a new advertisement for pistachios. I can't say I'm a fan of the ad. I'm all for the whole tongue-in-cheek thing (more so when it's either my tongue or my cheek), but when it involves your family or or your child, I just don't think you should go there. You can decide. Here's Levi Johnston advocating for nuts. And for Wonderful Pistachios.

Yeah, see? Too much. Aside from it making fun/light of the fact that he knocked up his girlfriend when they were both 17, it's a ridiculous premise. There's Levi being flanked on one side by a behemoth of a man while 3 or 4 people off screen say in semi-loud voices while 2 or 3 flashbulbs go off, "Levi! Levi!" It's as if the most unenthusiastic person in the world's dog has just run off and they're trying to get it to come back. "Levi! Levi!" And while that alone could be the punchline, the real punchline is when the announcer voice says, "Levi Johnston now does it with protection." Meaning the bouncer. Implying a condom. Selling pistachios. Hey, whatever works. (Man, I love pistachios. And I'll continue to love pistachios in spite of the fact that Levi Johnston is hawking them. They're good. He is not.)

Once Levi Johnston is naked and in Playgirl, then, then can we please make him go away? Please? What if we buy the nuts? How about the pistachios?

(Side note: Don't get me wrong, I'll be checking out that issue of Playgirl. I'm sure as hell not buying it, but I'm definitely going to see what all the fuss is about. And don't worry. It's not like I'm not going to be sharing with y'all. Oooohhhh, you can expect QUITE the post when THAT issue hits the newsstands. You know it.)

Sphere: Related Content

WAY More (or Less) Than Just Casual Fridays

If you're hired as a consultant, you have to assume that it's because people want to know what you think. That doesn't mean that they have to follow through with your suggestions, but it does mean that they think that you know enough to warrant hiring you to consult. But you must have some serious powers of persuasion or something if you are called in to help out a struggling business and your suggestion is that the staff go to work completely naked. And they do. Behold!

From across the pond (which is NOT far enough in this case) from our friends at The Telegraph, we learn of a business psychologist, a one David Taylor, who offered his expertise to the workers at onebestway after he was "called in to help the firm after six staff members were forced into taking redundancies at the start of the credit crunch." Given the choice of clothes or redundancies (which I'm not totally sure exactly what those are, but it sounds a little bit like furloughs or layoffs) I'm taking the clothes. 10 times out of 10. Clothes.

Mr. Taylor's theory was that "...by stripping off their clothes, staff could also strip away inhibitions and talk to each other more openly and honestly." Um, clothes are not so much what is inhibiting me from talking to other people openly and honestly. It's more so that those I feel inhibited around are sneaky, lying weasels who just happen to be wearing clothes. They'd still be a sneaky, lying weasel without clothes. They'd just be a naked sneaky, lying weasel.

He explained his rationale by saying "Inviting an organisation to go naked is the most extreme technique I've used. It may seem weird but it works. It's the ultimate expression of trust in yourself and each other." I'll agree with part of that. The "It may seem weird" part. THAT, albeit a HUGE understatement, I fully agree with. I'd also agree with the "It's the ultimate expression" part, but nothing after that. It IS an ultimate expression. One that would get you FIRED, likely arrested and probably committed in most cases.

But like I said earlier, but because someone suggests something, that doesn't mean you have to DO it. That wasn't the case in this instance, but it's still true! Regardless, "Despite some initial reluctance, nearly all the staff took off all their clothes – except for one man, who wore a posing pouch, and one of two female workers, who kept on black underwear." Really? Initial reluctance? I'm pretty sure that I'd have more than just "initial" reluctance. And "reluctance" is an understatement. If you'd seen some of the folks that I've worked with, you'd be scanning the office for the nearest eye bleach stations.

What is wrong with people? You know, I'm even going to include the three folks who kept some stitch of clothing on in that question there. Because seriously, you're at WORK! In your UNDERWEAR! Why not just take it to the next level and be butt-ass naked? (Everybody's doing it!) Leaving on your underwear shows an level of indecisiveness that I find unsettling. Either take a stand or don't, but don't act like you're going to have SOME level of dignity there, ladies, while you're parading around the office in only your underwear. Granted, they could have possessed a full and ample bosom that would make most disregard the fact that they were wearing underwear, but it's the principle of the whole thing, not so much the logistics. (What am I talking about? I became distracted after "ample bosom". It happens!)

I'm assuming that this is a rather small office because the article notes that a one 23-year old Sam Jackson was "the only woman to go fully naked" and the other female worker kept on her underwear (which the article felt the need to mention was black in color. Why is that necessary? I really don't have time to daydream about the chick wearing just black underwear when I'm too busy recoiling in horror at the thought of a naked office.).

The same Ms. Jackson described the "transformation" as not being an instant one. "It took a week of David being in the office for us to build up courage. The first few steps were very nerve-racking but, once I got to my desk and got used to it, I felt totally comfortable." So y'all managed to keep your sanity for a week, did you? She also says that after disrobing "It was emotional but we found we were much more able to talk to each other honestly – and have been since. The company has improved massively."

Yes! Yes, I imagine it WOULD be "emotional" being at work without any clothes on! "Emotional" isn't the half of it!! I'm at a loss as to why the focus would be on the "emotional" aspect as opposed to that of the NAKED aspect! And if you're only able to talk to each other "honestly" when you don't have any clothes on, then I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that "honestly" you're going to have some issues with future relationships in your life. Be that they may be work related or friendship based or romantic involvement, if you can't be honest with clothes on, well, good luck. Let me know how it goes at church next week, wil ya?

The article doesn't mention if any of these folks were married and that's really a pretty big factor, I think. I'd really like to know if the two that thought they were showing some modesty by leaving on their underwear were married. I'd be willing to bet that all of the totally naked people were single. And really, with only two women in the office, to the guys, wouldn't that just be like being in a men's locker room, but with the added bonus of a couple of naked chicks? I think it would be! Tell me, when the guys were talking and being all "honest" were they sitting at their desks so that no one else would be able to see just HOW "honest" they were really being about this little freak show of an experiment?

I'm telling you, this David fellow is a dangerous man. I don't know how he managed to convince these folks to do this, but he did. He convinced MORE THAN ONE person that it was a GOOD IDEA to NOT WEAR ANY CLOTHES while they were AT WORK. AND interact with each other! Not just that, he managed to convince EVERYONE in that office to take off the vast MAJORITY of their clothes! People thought it would be a good idea to see EVERY single man's grundle and EVERY single woman's hoots at work ALL the live long day!

I'm going to need to know if he can convince another office full of workers to do the same thing before I confer upon him the title of Grand Poobah of the Mind F**k Technique. It could be that these folks were all morons and that WOULD explain quite a bit. But if they're not morons then he should be able to get the same results at a different business, right? And if he can do that, check yourself. We're all in BIG trouble.

Sphere: Related Content

Technically, It's a Landing Strip

No one likes it when their flight is delayed. But I'd imagine that it's more miserable when one's flight is delayed because of some jackass on the plane who's making life difficult for other passengers. You've heard the story. The drunk. The disorderly. The disrobing. The disruptive. The...um...hey. Wait. What was that one? Right before 'disruptive'? Yeah. The disrobing? Uh, what now?

According to the LA Times a man identified as a one Keith Anthony Wright, age old enough to know better at 50, was aboard a US Airways jet that originated in Charlotte, NC and was on the way to Los Angeles. For some reason, Mr. Wright decided that all of the clothing that he was wearing was suddenly too cumbersome or something. Whatever the reason, it rendered the clothing unnecessary for Mr. Wright, who shed every stitch that he was wearing mid-flight. Seriously. Behold!

Look, I'm all for someone not talking during the flight. I can only stand to hear about the life and times of someone who, if all goes well, I will likely never see again in my life. You don't want to talk? Fine with me. You don't want to talk, but you DO want to take off all of your clothes and just sit there like nothing's out of the ordinary? That's not so fine with me, you fruitcake.

Of course, flight attendants (and I'm sure screaming passengers) requested that Mr. Wright put his clothing back on, but to no avail. The thing is, from what I can tell, he wasn't doing anything other than being naked. Granted, that's enough! I agree! But it just makes it so odd. I mean, there are plenty of completely disgusting things that he could have been doing as he sat there unclad. But he just appeared to be sitting there. That is, until he got into a fight with the two off duty cops who were on the flight. Then he was a bit unruly.

Fortunately, the guys with the clothes won and managed to subdue him to the point where they could put those plastic-tie handcuffs on him and attach him to the seats. Oh, and cover him up with a blanket until they made an emergency landing in Albuquerque where he was arrested and ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. You think?!

If I were on that flight, as I've previously stated, I'd be annoyed. Perhaps that is what motivated a one Marius Langlete, who was seated across from the Naked Gun and helped restrain him, to take several pictures with his phone and immediately upload them to the Internet. Ah, technology. Is there anything it can't do?

One of Mr. Wright's family members who commented on his 'behavior' gave the excuse that he is "bi-polar", to which I say, "Please pipe down." There are a lot of fully clad people out there who are bi-polar. Being bi-polar has nothing to do with whether or not you keep all of your clothes on at all time throughout the flight. Just like you keep your tray table in that upright position, you keep your damn clothes on, got it? I don't care if you're bi-polar or homicidal (well, I do kinda care about the homicidal part, especially if you're in the middle seat next to me, because everyone in that seat is just cranky), the unsaid rule that society in general has agreed upon is clothing is MANDATORY regardless of your mental illness!

Sphere: Related Content

Only In Florida

People amaze me. Actually, the people in Florida really amaze me. How do those people manage to keep themselves alive day after day? They don't really seem to have the mental capacity, nor the means to do so. Of course, that's just my conclusion that I've come to after reading one too many "news stories" about the antics of those in the Sunshine State.

From Panama City, Florida (and the NWF Daily News) , we learn that a man had seen two people having sex in a "nearby wooded area". We also learn that when the police showed up and spoke to the voyeur, he said that he "couldn't give police a description of two people he had seen having sex, because they were nude." Huh?

OK, I can possibly understand not being able to provide an estimate of the public fornicators heights. The article doesn't mention if they were vertical or horizontal, but even if they were vertical, there's quite a bit of contorting that has to take place in order for that to work out the way you'd like it to. You need to be fairly bendy. So I've heard.

The officer who was lucky enough to respond to this call said that the witness had "described seeing a man and woman, both totally naked, engaged in sexual activity in a nearby wooded area." I'm glad they put in the part about how they were both "totally naked" whilst they were having all of the wooded area coitus that they were. Actually, now that I think about it, they were clearly very committed to following through with this activity. That's some commitment to strip all the way down in public. A lot of folks? Probably very content just so slide their baggy gym shorts over to one side. So I've heard.

"He was unsure of any description since they were nude. He could only describe them as a light-skinned black man and a white woman." Now, that sounds like a "description" to me. I wouldn't expect the lad to be able to give eye color or anything like that. But I'm thinking he could at least go with hair color, average weight, degree of agility, things of that nature. The 'no clothes' part, however, you'd think would make the 'suspects' easy to track down, yes?

Well, something made it easy to track them down because after the officer poked around the area for a while he managed to find a couple matching the description. Both coital partners were arrested because they had warrants that were issued for a failure to pay fines. Now, I was wondering if they were clothed when they were arrested or if they were still sans clothing and that was how the officer knew it was them that he was looking for.

Turns out, they were clothed when the officer located them. The article doesn't specifically say that they were clothed, but I gathered that they were when I read the final sentence (which I did not see coming, by the way. Never saw it coming.). "Both were arrested, and the man was found to be carrying a steak knife in his pants." WTF?!?

Well, perhaps that explains why they were completely nude. "Baby, let's ditch these gym short because not only am I happy to see you, I've got this steak knife in my pocket." Good Lord.....

And, as always, the NWF Daily News headline links on the side of the page provide me with brief and comical insight, as well as a reminder that the gene pool in Florida is looking rather shallow these days. Florida headlines include:

• Suspects write expletive in road, leave out a letter (They forgot the 'k'. Oh, and they wrote it with a fire extinguisher.)



• Woman uses counterfeit bill to buy French fries (In JULY. Just now reporting it. Way to stay on top of things, Florida.)



• Milton man struck and killed by train while fishing (While fishing? A train? They're doing it all wrong!)


• Boy starts fire with lighter (In other news, man starts flood by turning on tap.)



• NWF State College Women down Lurleen B. Wallace (I'm not sure if I should feel sorry for Lurleen or very happy for her.)



• Fort Pierce man accused of punching woman for opening sardines and Vienna Sausages

What the hell, Florida? What the hell?

Sphere: Related Content

Get Dressed And Stop Clowning Around

I understand that if you're some sort of group or organization and you haven't figured out how to weasel cash out of the government just yet, you're going to need to come up with funds in order to keep whatever it is that you do going. In order to raise these funds, said groups will usually hold some sort of "fundraiser" (Clever, no?) where they will typically sell something to raise money. Usually, the thing that they sell is in some way related to the organization and what they do. Girl Scouts sell cookies. (Granted, cookies aren't exactly related to being the actual scout, but they've been doing it for so long, that's just how it is. You say "Girl Scout", I think "Mmmm...cookies.") Livestrong sells yellow things. And the list goes on.

The graduates of San Francisco's Clown Conservatory Class of 2008 (Yes. There is a Clown Conservatory. Clown College, if you will. I guess calling it a "conservatory" makes it sound more serious, though I don't know what the point of that would be. They are clowns, thus the lack seriousness factor is automatically implied.) had been talking about how great they felt, physically, from all of the training that they were receiving. They also talked about how they felt like they had bonded to each other. (Well, what do you expect when you're crammed into a little teeny car with 50 other clowns? You're going to get close!) They decided that they wanted to do something that would make them feel great by doing it together. And what better thing for a bunch of recently graduated, fit feeling, clowns to do than to make a nude clown calendar to sell. Wait. What?

According to the folks over yonder at the Contra Costa Times, the lead clown on the project, a one Chad Benjamin Potter, explained the theory behind the idea by saying, "Our goal was to create this sort of craziness in your mind. When you think of clowns you think of costumes and makeup and hair. When you think naked clowns, that's something else entirely." Well, he got that right. I do think of something else entirely when I think of naked clowns. Come to think of it, I've never thought of naked clowns before now and I'm not sure that many other people have ever thought of naked clowns either. (If you have, just admit it; you're a perv.) But I'm thinking about it now! And I really don't like the entirely different thought that pops into my head at the thought of it. Ugh.

Chad went on with his attempts to justify this sort of thing by adding, "But of course we wanted to do something that everyone can enjoy." And if that was really what they wanted, it's a complete mystery as to why they went with the "naked clown" theme, as that seems like something next to no one can enjoy. He says it offers a "touch of modesty". "I am going to sell (the calendar) to my grandmother and I also want to sell it to my niece and my nephew." Hey, Chad. You know what else offers a "touch of modesty"? Right. Clowns that are not naked! Wearing clothes, be it on clowns or others, is the very definition of a "touch of modesty". It's really a rule to follow at all times. Want to be modest? Wear clothes! It always works.

The article goes on to explain that "Sales of the calendar will help raise money for the Judy Finelli Fund, a non-profit organization set up through the Circus Center. Finelli, 60, is a lifelong clown who co-founded the San Francisco School for Circus Arts, now the Circus Center. In 1989 she was diagnosed with MS. Today she is quadriplegic." And while I will be the first one to admit that this sounds like a fabulous cause, I will also be the first one to say that selling calendars with naked clowns in them is not the way to raise money for such fabulous cause. Selling calendars with naked clowns on them is the way to horrify the public in general and cause a decrease in the number of circus-goers in the future. You know. For fear of all of the nakedness running rampant amongst the clowns, as evidenced by January through December, 2009.

An art student, a one Gabriela Alonso, took the photos of the naked clowns. She did so "in a studio and, secretly, in public places." Secretly in public places? How do you accomplish THAT? And who is it a secret from exactly? The public or the clowns? (Dear God, please, please let it be the public. Please let there not have been naked clowns traipsing about the city.)

The overall goal here, is to raise (get ready for this lofty ambition) $1 million. A million bucks. From selling a 16 month calendar with naked clowns in it? Um, how much is this calendar in the first place? $100,000 each? Because I could maybe see you guys finding ten weirdos to buy one of these things, but I'm having a hard time seeing you guys finding around $100,000 weirdos to buy one of these things. A million bucks? Come on, you clowns! You have to know that's completely unrealistic. Why do you do things like that? Is it because you're clowns and therefore you cannot be serious about anything? Including reality and basic economics? This will not end well. I can see it coming.

But, look, if you're interested or whatever, the Naked Clown Calendar has a website (of course they do) and you can check it out and even purchase it (for $20, not $100,000) from there. I have no doubt that however much money they raise will be put to good use. And if I thought I could stand to look at naked clowns all the live long day for 16 months, I might buy one. But I can't, so I won't. And while the cause is good, this still seems strange to me. And I can't help but think it's going to turn out like the time that those seven ladies over there in Madrid (that's in Spain) did a nude calendar to raise money for their kids' school and ended up with 5,000 extra calendars and a lot of debt. And judging from the picture below, I'm sure you can understand why that was. Let's hope the clowns as a bit more successful in their naked endeavor. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd write.)

Sphere: Related Content