Just Say No

I'm not necessarily against scams. The thing about most scams is that it's fairly obvious they're scams. It's a wonder (to me, anyway) that they ever work in the first place. Therefore, as a proponent of "A fool and his money are soon parted", I have a hard time being overly sympathetic toward people who get taken to the cleaners by people who aren't even cleaners. You need to pay attention. If it's too good be true, it probably freaking is! Thus, don't do it! And I know that some softhead out there is going to be thinking "What about the elderly?" The elderly need to pay attention to! I understand that they're all nice and want to help and always have those weird peppermint candies in their purse that they're always trying to give away, but that's no reason to try to take advantage of them. They need to THINK. (And this is coming from someone (me) with an elderly mother. Lemme tell you, that old broad isn't going to help anyone with anything. And that could not make me happier. I don't know if it's because she doesn't want to get scammed or just because she's mean, but I really don't care. It's an effective strategy against evil-doers.)

But not everyone has any sort of built in B.S. beacon in their head. Let's look at a story from the Orlando Sentinel. Yes, it should come as no surprise that this goes on in Florida, but it can (and does) happen anywhere. Here's the scam: Someone who is over 60 years old and Hispanic is approached by two Spanish speaking people. The two people tell the person that they are in possession of a winning lottery ticket. How exciting! To make it even more exciting, it is, of course, a multi-million dollar lottery ticket! Oh, but then comes the sad news. The sad news is that the lucky couple are in this country illegally. See? Sad! But the person (about to be known as "The one with no more money") can help make this situation not so sad by cashing the ticket for the Spanish speaking foreigners.

Now, to me, I can see that situation occurring. The part about where a couple of illegals buy a lottery ticket and win the friggin' thing. I can also see them needing someone else to cash the ticket for them. Both of those things make perfect sense to me. Everything else, however, does not. They don't have any friends who are legal? What about the nice lady at the welfare office who I'm sure helps them get benefits? She couldn't do it? (These are rhetorical questions because, as you know, the whole situation is fake. Please don't email me with answers to these questions. I understand. You, on the other hand, clearly do not. I'm surprised you even read this blog. Grateful, but surprised.) The other thing that doesn't make any sense to me is why they need money first. The part that doesn't make a lick of sense to me at all is why anyone would give it to them first.

Yes, for some reason, this scam involves the person withdrawing a ton of money from their bank account and then giving it to the scammers. In turn, the scammers give the person the lottery ticket and then take them to a grocery store where they can turn it in. It's when the person is inside and finding out that the ticket is worthless that the scammers have drove away, likely never to be seen again, and taken all of the scamees money with them. In the most recent case, it was $14,500. What a bunch of a-holes.

Does the person deserve to lose that money? Well, I'm not trying to be a royal jackass here, but they kind of do! It's a pretty easy nut to crack in this instance. What say you check what the winning numbers are BEFORE you go taking every dime you have out of savings? Is that so far out of someone's realm of problem solving skills that it would have never occurred to them? And if so, WHY is that?! Why would you not question why they need YOUR money first? Apparently, it was for "collateral". I'm not giving someone ALL of my money for freaking collateral. And if you're someone who considers giving all of YOUR money to someone you've never met who isn't even in this country legally, you might deserve to lose that money. I'm just saying. Granted, I am also wondering how someone who could fall for something like this could have been able to amass that kind of money in the first place, as their dense, dense way of thinking doesn't seem like it would allow for the accumulation of riches.

And even though I've just explained my stance on the scamees, don't take that to mean that I am perfectly OK with people being scammers. I am not. Those who prey upon older people are the scum of the earth and should be treated in such a manner. People like that are not fit to breathe the air that is inhaled by humans. I despise people like that. Despise. But the only reason, the only reason that their scams can work at all is through the cooperation of those who are being scammed. If those people would just stop and think things through for a few moments, I really think that things would turn out a lot better in the end for everyone. Well, except for the scammers. But then again, that is the point!

According to the article "Many do not report the thefts out of embarrassment and fear their adult children will think they are senile". Yes, I can understand that. If my mom told me that she gave all of her money to a couple of Spanish speaking shysters, do you know what the first question I would ask her would be? Naturally, it would be "I didn't know you spoke Spanish." But after that? I would absolutely be questioning her state of mind. Why can't these people think of these things before they make these completely ill-advised moves? Why can't they just think, "If I get taken, my kids are going to be looking at homes for me. I'll be completely embarrassed AND broke. Maybe I won't give my life savings to two people I've never met who can't even follow our immigration laws. Yeah, maybe I won't do that." I don't get that. I doubt I ever will. Why are people so eager to help people that they've never met? I hardly want to help anyone. Maybe more people should adopt my surly attitude about goodwill toward men. It's not always overly pleasant, but there would be a lot less of this sort of thing happening, that's for sure.

Sphere: Related Content

You People Fell For That?

Sometimes there are scams that I am just amazed that some people are able to pull off. And it's not because the person or the people pulling the scam are stupid. It's because the people getting scammed are actually going along with it and letting it happen! We're not talking about some complicated scheme that anyone would have fallen for or that no one could have done anything to stop it from happening. No, we're talking about a scam that is so perplexing to me, I can't believe that ONE person fell for it, let alone THIRTY.

Here's the scoop: According to an article by the wiry folks over there at Wired, over in Wisconsin an 18-year old male "...was sentenced to 15 years in prison Wednesday for an extortion scheme". OK, what kind of extortion scheme. Oh, you know. The kind "...that had him tricking male classmates into sending them nude photos of themselves". You may be asking yourself, "That's a scheme?" Well, it is when he was "...then blackmailing them with exposure if they didn’t have sex with him." Oh, yeah. That's a scheme all right! Wait. What?

Correct. Meet 18-year old (and old enough to know better) Anthony Stancl. Behold!

Yeah, that seems about right. Anyway, Mr. Stancl apparently "...posed as a girl on Facebook and tricked more than 30 male classmates into sending him photos of themselves." Now, you know that these photos that were sent weren't just any photos. No, they were the photos of the nude variety.

Let's just stop right here for a moment, shall we? What is it with younger people taking pictures of themselves naked? Or just taking pictures of their genitals? And then sending said pictures to other human beings. How does that work? Do you take a picture of your penis and send it out to all of your friends with the caption "Here's what my wiener looks like on Tuesday."? I don't understand the motivation behind these actions. And when you're sending said genitalia photography over the Internet are you thinking, "Oh, it'll be fine. Things only stick around on the Internet for like a week or so. It'll be gone soon." Or are you just planning to never have any sort of a job where you work with the public or what? Why are you sending pictures of your reproductive organs to other people? Why?

Since those questions, among others, cannot be answered right now, let's continue with how this scam worked. So Mr. Stancl found 30 guys who were really proud of their manhood and they snapped a couple of Glamour Shots (maybe with the penis by a lake or with the penis in the middle of a meadow) and sent them to Mr. Stancl, but who they thought was "Kayla". Huh. OK. Then what?

Well, as Mr. Stancl began receiving photos of male genitalia, he needed to keep them organized so he organized them within 40 folders on his computer and named each folder "after a victim whose photos were in the folder. In one case, police found 24 pictures of a single victim." 24?!?! Really? One for every hour of the day? (Here's my penis at noon! Here's my penis during rush hour!) Seems odd.

And it was odd. But to me, it wasn't as odd as the fact that seven of the victims claimed that Mr. Stancl "...threatened to post their nude pictures on the internet or send them to their friends unless they engaged in sexual activity with a male friend of “hers.” When the victims met with the male friend, who was Stancl, the perpetrator performed oral sex on the victims and took a photo of the activity with his cellphone." Wait. What now?

HE performed oral sex on THEM?! Huh. I would have thought he would have wanted it the other way around. He did all of the performing, eh? Strange. But what's stranger is that those folks thought that was a good idea.

I don't get that line of thinking at all. I guess because the victims were still in high school that they went along with this little plan. I mean, seriously. What went through their heads? "I'm not gay or anything, but this guy is going to post a picture of my penis online unless I let him get me off in an oral manner. Um, OK." NO! That's not right! That's not logical! But that's what happened.

The whole thing came unraveled when Mr. Stancl, still posing as "Kayla" ended up actually having sex with one of the male victims and then instructing the victim to send him a nude picture of his brother. That's when the victim went running to his parents and told them about this crazy, Facebook penis picture scheme.

Mr. Stancl has now been sentenced to 15 years in jail. Since he seems to enjoy performing fellatio, I'm sure that over the next 15 years, he'll be able to find plenty of willing participants to let him do his thing to them. Plenty of them. So let this be a lesson to you, kids! If someone wants a picture of your penis, just say no. Because really, no one wants to see that. No one. I promise. That's why y'all wear pants.

Sphere: Related Content

FARCES of Coal

I shouldn't have to come up with reasons for why you don't want to be a moron. Or a dumbass. You should care about whether you are a dumbass or a moron or not. I mean, if you're really dumb or you're really moronic, I realize that maybe hard to do. You know, what with genetics and all. But it's important that you pay attention and you try to stay if not a step ahead, than at least caught up. Otherwise, unscrupulous groups and organizations with nothing else to gain except for their own personal interests will try to take advantage of you and your soft, soft head. If you need a helmet, please put it on now and I'll explain to you how things like this work. Let's begin.

There is a group out there called FACES of Coal. FACES stands for "Federation for American Coal, Energy and Security." Catchy. They're pro-coal. Now, if you've been following the shrieking of the environmentalists lately (and by "lately" I mean "always") you have undoubtedly heard that coal is bad. Or maybe you've heard that coal is very bad. Very, very bad. It's only good for putting in naughty children's stockings. I had heard that one of their slogans was going to be: "Coal: The only energy source used to punish those who misbehave."

Before I continue, I would like to state that I don't know enough about coal to say whether I'm pro-coal or anti-coal. I am definitely anti-coal in my stocking, that much I can state with great assuredness. Other than that, I don't know. I know coal is dirty and soot-y, but I also know it gets hot as hell and is a fabulous heat source. If you were to ask me if the soot and what not is a fair trade for the warmth and heat, the answer might be "Probably not." But an awful lot of folks rely on coal as a way to keep warm, including our delightful lawmakers. Tell you what, as soon as the folks up there on Capitol Hill start acting concerned that the Capitol building is heated by the Capitol Power Plant which runs on coal, then I will act concerned as well. But as long as we're keeping the fat, rich asses of our Senators and Congress folk all nice and roasty warm with coal, I don't see this country's usage of coal going anywhere anytime soon, whether I agree with it or not. But that doesn't mean that I want to be lied to about it.

The folks over there at the FACES of Coal have a website which shows pictures of all sorts of folks. Folks that I suppose we're just supposed to assume are pro-coal. The really weird part about it? They don't have any pictures of miners. No pictures of miners families. No pictures of mines. Now granted, mines and miners (when they're working!) are not the cleanest things you've ever laid eyes on. Coal is a dirty business. Literally! So that could be why. But couldn't they have at least thrown in one of those helmets with the cool light on the front of it somewhere in some photo? What about one of those little picks that I always see little cartoon miners carrying around? Something like that? Nope. Nowhere.

Instead you get photos of things like a woman standing out in front of a flower shop with a bunch of flowers. Flowers that would never grow that pretty and that bright if they were all choking under the dark cloud of coal soot.

Photos of people all congregated together and all wearing white and looking quite spiffy and clean. They'd never be that white if they were working in a coal mine. I can't imagine that they'd even be that white if they were working anywhere near a coal mine!

Photos of people...white river rafting? Those people are in favor of coal? Really? I don't know that they really are. Are they sure about this?

Wait. Firefighters are in favor of coal power? They are?

So are kids doing science projects? (At least they're wearing goggles. Now if we can just get some of those helmets with lights on them, then you'll really be on the road to convincing me!)

So all of these people support using coal as energy? Interesting. See, now if we had craniums that were just as soft as melted ice cream, we'd believe this. But we don't, do we? No. Of course not. We're going to want to know more about these alleged coal supporters. And while we might not be softheads and might be very inquisitive, we might also just be a little lazy and hope to God that someone else does this work for us. All hail the mighty Grist.org. They seem to be the folks that sort of noticed that these random people might not have been so random after all. In fact, these people were deliberately chosen to be the faces of coal for the FACES of Coal website. But not because they actually suppose using coal, but because their pictures were available at iStockPhoto.com. Behold!

The people in the white hallway? The ones who seemed just a little too clean (and way too diverse)?
Oh, what the hell?! Even fireman guy?!

Are you kidding me?! The science kids? But they had goggles!!

Aw, not the white water river rafters too!! Say it ain't so!!

All right, now cut that out! The last three were compliments of the folks over there at Appalachian Voices. Wow. People who want us to support using coal think that we're just idiots. When in reality, folks, this is the Internet. If I have learned one thing from the emergence of said Internet, it's that lots of folks have lots and lots and lots of time. Just the sort of time that you need to put in a little thought and a little effort so as to uncover scams like the FACES (or should that be FARCES) of Coal folks. (By the way, those folks that have that kind of time would seemingly not include the folks over there at FARCES of Coal because they couldn't even take the time to go out and take pictures of real coal supporters and could only squeeze in enough time to raid the photographic coffers over at iStockPhoto.com. Don't get me wrong; those people in those photos could very much be supporters of coal as an energy source. But I highly doubt that they were found under the "People Who Really Like Coal" category at iStockPhoto. Just a hunch.)

So keep that helmet on if you need it and just keep on paying attention! It'll get better for you. It'll get easier. And if you're helmet free because you're not a softhead, well, congratulations. I'm sure that reading this blog was of great help to you! (Actually, it's probably because you're not a softhead that you've read this blog. And it's because I'm not a softhead either that I'd like to say thank you very much and I appreciate it.) Either way, don't believe everything you read and if it's on the Internet, be very, very skeptical, especially if someone is trying to get you to join "their side". Always think twice. Then run. Quickly. In the other direction. As fast as you can.

Sphere: Related Content

Step Right Up and Throw Away Your Money!

I guess I'm a little slow. If I were a little faster on the uptake, perhaps I would have thought of this brilliant idea which totally exploits the adage "A fool and his money are soon parted."

At San Francisco International Airport (known for some reason as SFO. Why the "O"? Is it supposed to represent the globe since its the International Airport?) they have installed kiosks that will allow those who so choose to free themselves of the guilt that they carry around by flying around. Wait. What? Guilt? Whatkinda guilt?

The kinda guilt that you have when you fly because you're contributing to global warming by leaving carbon footprint! You know! That kind! Don't you feel guilty when you fly? (NO! But go on!) Well, pack your bags, 'cause you're going on a guilt trip!

Here's the theory: If you fly, you contribute to global warming by getting on that plane. God forbid that you do anything differently (such as not fly), so in order to make yourself feel good (no clue as to whether or not it actually does anything to help the environment) what you're supposed to want to do is to give money to...um, someone and then you're supposed to trust (yes, trust) that they're going to use the money to...um, do something that will help the environment.

In case that was too complicated, let me simplify: There is a machine that takes people's money that they willing put into it and they get nothing in return other than a warm and fuzzy feeling that they've created in their own mind. Is this a great country or what?!

So what's the average cost of being a fool and needing to part with some money? Let's find out, shall we? Of course there is a carbon footprint calculator at the kiosks for you to use. And if you're not at the kiosks (but want to get some sort of an idea as to how far you have to fly in order to lose X-amount of money should you choose to contribute to this project with absolutely no guarantee that your money will be spent for anything useful at all) you can use the handy calculator online to figure out how big of a sap you are how much it will cost you.

For instance, it says that if we take a long flight of 6,000 miles (round trip) that is allegedly using or burning or making 5,608 pounds of CO2 (aka carbon dioxide) that is equal to 2.543 tons and at $13.50 per ton our guilt can be absolved for a mere $34.34. I wonder what it would take to absolve their guilt? Oh, that's right. They likely have none.

Here's my first (but not my last) problem with this: The figure that they're using for a "ton" is 2204.6 pounds. That is not a ton. 2000 pounds is a ton in the US. 2204.6 is a metric ton. Metric? Since when does the US operate on the metric ton principle? I don't think we do! Oh, wait. Is it that damn "International Airport" designation again?! No, I'm guessing that it's that a metric ton is 204.6 pounds more than a US ton (or short ton) and that benefits them considerably. I noticed that we're not calculating the flight length in kilometers, why is that? Because they don't want to, that is correct.

They don't seem to give any sort of formula as to how they have calculated the amount of CO2 which they are claiming per flight. OK, they give a formula as to how to calculate how much money you can give them, no questions asked. But they don't give you a formula as to what was taken into consideration when determining the CO2 amount. How many people were on this plane? What kind of a plane was it? What direction was it flying? Was there a headwind? A tailwind? A side wind? (Is there a side wind? God, I hope not.) Does the plane use the same amount of fuel regardless as to the number of passengers? Do they take the size of the crew into consideration? (I mean how many crew members there are, not if they need to butter their sides to squeeze themselves down the aisle or not.) Shouldn't flights with more people on them cost you less money to throw away than flights with less people on them? Because with a whole boatload, er, planeload of people, all of the sinning can be split up over all of them, but if you only have two people on the plane, then you're going halfsies with the sin. Not good.

And what does your money go toward in order to absolve you from your guilt? Why, according to the website, it goes to the "...Garcia River Forest, a conservation-based forest management project located in Mendocino County, California." It goes on to tell us about that particular forest and how it is "...dominated by native Redwood and Douglas Fir trees that are remarkably resilient to pests, fire, and disease." Well if they're do damned resilient, why is it that money is needed for them? They seem to be doing just fine on their own. With me so far? Of the $13.50 per ton of CO2 that they're charging you, $12.00 of it goes to "...covering costs associated with locating, researching, and verifying high quality projects as well as the other general operating costs typically incurred by any organization." Wait a minute. How is it supporting the forest one minute and then going on to support a bunch of locating, researching and verifying? Wouldn't "researching" cover the "locating" and the "verifying"? You might notice it doesn't say that they're doing anything once they're done with all of the "researching". So they're just looking into stuff and you're supposed to pay for it. Sounds fair. Sure. And do tell, what "other general operating costs" might they they speaking of? Who knows?!?!

But here's the BEST part! According to Anthony Watts over there at Watts Up With That? (catchy) "...you can buy a ton of carbon offset on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) for 20 cents. That’s about 60 times less than what you would pay at the SFO kiosk!" Behold!

Oh, for hell's sake. What?!?! And an article in the Times Online details how the "clean energy auditor" was suspended by the UN because they couldn't prove that they did anything or that if they did that they were qualified to do so.

Look, if you're going to feel that guilty about flying around that you need to just throw your money away, please don't throw it into a kiosk at SFO. Please throw it to me. I promise to detail every little thing that I do with it. Here, I can detail it right now just to save time.

• I bought beer. Then I drank it. I don't remember much after that, but your money was already gone, so it's really a moo point.

Done!

Sphere: Related Content

The List of Non Performing Performers

Just in case you've been waiting with baited breath for the announcement of who will be headlining or even just performing at the latest Michael Jackson tribute concert, you can breathe once again. The day of the announcement is finally here! Well, most of the announcement is finally here. Sort of. A little. Hey, he got up there and shouted out names, what more do you want?!

The oft procreating Jermaine Jackson had announced that he was organizing a tribute concert for his newly deceased brother (a la ingesting enough tranquilizers to sedate an elephant), Michael Jackson. He decided to hold the concert in Vienna (yes, that Vienna! The one that is NOT in the US.) at the Schoenbrunn Palace because, according to Jermaine, "Michael loved castles." Now, I don't necessarily know if when most people hear the name "Michael Jackson" that they automatically think of his love of castles. Unless "castles" is some sort of euphemism, in which case, Oh! Castles! I gotcha!

My theory on having Vienna for the location of the concert is that it will be more difficult to track down and trace all of the money pocketed from the fraud that Jermaine is about to perpetuate. Now I'm not saying there isn't going to be a concert. Granted, I have my doubts, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that when one of the "important charities and worthy causes" that will directly benefit from this concert just happens to be "Jermaine’s own EARTH CARE FOUNDATION whose goal is to ease, as well as hopefully eliminate, the suffering of children around the world." The problem with that is the mere existence of the Earth Care Foundation is questionable at best. There doesn't seem to be any documentation of its existence other than in Jermaine's head. But apparently if you stick the name "Michael Jackson" on any product or service, people just go completely ape dung over it and rush to get in line for whatever it is. That's why Jermaine has been getting away with promoting this concert under a premise that I don't believe I can recall having been used before.

I'm calling the premise the "Wait and See Method". Also known as "Stalling". Commonly referred to by the person utilizing the method as "I hope I can pull this off and not get killed by the angry mob." When this concert was announced back in June (I don't even think that Jacko was cold yet before Jermaine was off to foreign lands, touring prospective castle venues), there wasn't even a lineup to announce along with the announcement. Then in August, a few details were leaked out. I use the term "details" extremely loosely, as it was still all a "maybe they will, maybe they won't" format when trying to nail down who would be performing at this thing other than Jermaine!

According to Entertainment Daily, Georg Kindel of World Awards Media GmbH was quoted in August as saying that "...Jermaine is assembling the lineup of about 10 “of the biggest artists of our time.” Uh-huh. When "Austrian media reported that Madonna, U2, Lionel Richie and Whitney Houston might be among the artists performing" and Kindel was asked to confirm that, he replied, "I don’t even know myself who will take the stage." Um, aren't you the promoter? Shouldn't you know things like that? I'm thinking you should!

But for the benefit of the doubt, let's say he's telling the truth (and he could very well be) and it's Jermaine who is doing all of the booking and negotiating or whatever it is that they do to organize these things. Tell me, since when has Jermaine Jackson had such pull with the "10 biggest artists of our time"? Just curious. I must have missed that part or something because I haven't heard the name "Jermaine Jackson" 10 times in the last ten years. Now suddenly everyone who is anyone in the music business is his BFF? I don't think they are!

When Madonna's people were asked to confirm that she would be performing, her people said that she was touring and would not be appearing at the castle. Whitney Houston's people said something similar, only without the touring part. Thus, they said "no" also. So why would anyone be planning a huge concert and then start announcing names of performers who they haven't even talked to, let alone booked?! Because they can. It says so right on the tribute website: "This website does not intend to convey the impression that the artists and personalities depicted here within have agreed to participate in the said event in any way, shape or form. " Wait. What now?

It's a website promoting the tribute concert for Michael Jackson. Who else, other than either Michael Jackson OR people who are going to perform at the tribute concert, would be depicted?? It's not like it's Wikipedia with a little of something for everyone. No, it's a tribute concert website where it should be showing you who is going to be doing all of the tribute-ing! That's why they would be depicted at all in the first place! And that's probably the reason why Jermaine has continued along the lines of announcing a lineup whose participants have absolutely no idea, and in a lot of cases, no intention of performing in Vienna.

So yesterday, Jermaine announced the lineup. Here we go. Here are the participants which we were led to believe would be the 10 biggest artists of our time. Ready.....?

• Akon
• Angela Bassett
• Chris Brown
• Mary J. Blige
• Natalie Cole
• Sister Sledge
• US5 (German boy band)
  

Wait a minute. What happened to the lineup for the tribute concert? Those can't be the headliners. Those are just a bunch of names. I have yet to see a top ten artist in there. (What's with the German boy band? US5? Never heard of them. Are they German or are the from the US? Make up your mind!) What now? What do you mean that's them?!?! Angela Bassett?? She doesn't sing! Oh, sure, she played Tina Turner in that one movie, but that was a movie! She isn't really Tina Turner!

And good idea to have a guy who beats up women in there as well. Chris Brown. What a loser. Good idea, put him on a stage thousands of miles away from people who would like nothing better than to give him just a little bit of what he gave Rihanna.

And Sister Sledge? Really? Have they had a hit since 1979's "We Are Family"? When Jermaine mentioned the "top ten artists" did he mean from the current decade? I guess I assumed he did. Apparently, I was wrong. Wow.

That lineup, while not, um, horrible? While not horrible, it is hardly what I would have expected given the hype of it all. Thus, I think that the lineup is absolutely terrible considering that (wait for it) Chris Brown and Mary J. Blige say that they are not performing in the show. Wait. What now?

Correct. Chris Brown and Mary J. Blige and not performing. Yes, yes, I know the Jermaine just said that they were performing. But they're the performers and they say that they're not performing. But don't worry! According to the AP, after obvious displeasure and disappointment was heard from members of the press covering the announcement of anyone whose name Jermaine felt like throwing out there, Jermaine told the reporters, "We're very excited — the list is growing more and more (with)....many major Bollywood names and artists from the Middle East also would be involved." WTH?

Bollywood? The Middle East? That excites you, Jermaine? Bollywood? What would be a "major name" from the Middle East? Saddam Hussein? That's all I've got. Are you kidding me? Where are the real artists, like Madonna and U2? According to a defensive Georg Kindel, "This is not the final lineup — maybe some of the names you mentioned you will hear within the next couple of days." Yes, but will we hear those names in association with them playing at the tribute? Of course not. Because this is the biggest scam ever. And what's killing me is that people are buying the whole deal.

Why are there not more questions about this thing? Why isn't someone in the media looking into Jermaine's "foundation" (which will likely prove to be about as authentic as George Costanza's "Human Fund" and their slogan "Money for People") and what they've accomplished? They should! Because they will learn that it's just a scam. That it doesn't exist. That Jermaine is going to pocket millions of dollars for a concert whose main performers might very well end up being Dr. Teeth and the Electric Band!

But if someone were to investigate it, I would highly doubt that it would be the AP. And even if it was the AP, I don't know that they are capable of putting together that sort of a story. I base that assumption on this sentence from the article cited above: "Over the course of the evening, Jermaine will sing a duet with his late brother, probably with video of Michael to be projected onto nearby walls." ::::blink ::::: :::: blink :::::

Probably? Probably?! Really?! You think that in order for Jermaine to sing a duet with his late brother, that they will probably use video of Michael?! Really?! They're not going to exhume his ol' bones and have him strung up like some sort of a marionette?! Video? Really? Way to go, AP. Way to go.

Sphere: Related Content