The Ancient American Idol Finale

I am a fan of American Idol.  I've watched every season except for the first one.  And I've noticed that things have gone downhill since the days of Carrie Underwood.  (Then again, how could things not go downhill after her?  Have you seen her?  Have you heard her sing?  She's amazing.  That's when the show peaked.)  And while I can remember some of the past contestants, I'm not so great at remembering the acts that they've had during the past seasons.  But I have noticed something about the finales. 

The finale the other night had on such guest stars as Neil Diamond, Chaka Khan, John Fogerty and Reba McEntire.  Aerosmith even showed up an played a set.  (Jennifer Lopez did a song as well.  I don't really remember what she sang because I was too busy trying to figure out why she was wearing sparkly MC Hammer pants.)  There was also a tribute song to Robin Gibb.  (If you're going to have tribute songs during a celebratory finale of something, can't you at least make it an upbeat song?  Why must every remembrance tune be some slow and schmaltzy that just takes all the wind out of your sails?  Though I am willing to concede that for the recently departed Robin Gibb, playing Stayin' Alive, while upbeat and likely his most famous song, would have probably been slightly inappropriate.  At the very least, ironically uncomfortable.)  And as I'm watching these dogs and ponies get trotted out onto the stage, I began to wonder if they were going to have anyone out there who was under sixty. 

What is the fascination with ancient music stars being brought out for the American Idol finale?  They always do it and I always don't get it.  And they wonder why their ratings are dropping?  How about not catering to the 50 and over crowd during the shows?  Considering that the main audience is the 18-49 demographic and the main voting demographic is teenage girls and family members of contestants, I'm not so sure that they're doing themselves any favors by bringing Neil Diamond on stage.  Don't get me wrong.  I love me some Neil Diamond.  But I just don't think that he's exactly a fit for American Idol. 

There were more age appropriate to American Idol acts that were at the finale.  Rihanna did her thing, whatever that's called.  (I'm not a Rihanna fan.  The only reason that I would consider going to see the Battleship movie is if I knew that she got killed in it.  That would make it worthwhile for me.)  And I think that Jordin Sparks sang.  Jordin Sparks, if you aren't familiar, was the last American Idol winner that wasn't a WGWG.  That's White Guy With Guitar to you.  But other than those two, and the already rejected American Idol wannabes from this season (one of whom I did not recognize at all and had no recollection of him ever being on the show, let alone singing), it was a senior citizen fest.  All they needed was a shuffleboard court painted on the stage and it would have been like an old folks home up there. 

And I keep reading about how the ratings are down from previous seasons.  Well, of course they are!  American Idol had massive, massive ratings there for a while.  Phenomenal would be one way of putting it.  Of course they're going to go down eventually.  And even though they're down, they're still higher than (from what I can tell) all of the scripted shows that are out there.  So while I don't think that they should be that worried right now, if they keep inviting the elderly to sing on their show, then maybe there will be cause for worry.  Actually, I think that I'd be more worried that they have this successful show and they don't seem to know how to cater to their target demographic.  Then again, I guess with the ratings that they get, maybe they don't need to cater to anyone.  Other than the elderly, from what I can tell.

Sphere: Related Content

Just Keep Quiet

Once again, a scumbag was arrested for a heinous crime.  And once again, at least one family member had to speak out in favor of said scumbag.  I've said it countless times before, but I guess that it's time to repeat it.  Please, relatives of scumbags, do NOT defend these asshats when you speak with the media.  Better yet?  Don't speak to the media.  I don't need to see you, armed with minimal information, defending someone who appears to be clearly guilty (or, at the very least, mired in some extremely questionable circumstances which could use a whole lot of explaining) simply because you're related to them.  Please stop this.  Please stop this now.

The alleged scumbag is Antolin Garcia-Torres.  He's being charged with kidnapping and murder in the case of the disappearance of Sierra Lamar.  They arrested him after having him under 24-hour surveillance because his DNA was found in her discarded bag of clothes after she disappeared.  After his car was impounded, they found Sierra's DNA inside of his car.  Of course, he's told his mom that he's never seen her before.  Naturally.  Actually, what he said was "I've never seen that lady. I've never made contact with her."  (I kind of thought that was a weird thing to say about a 15-year old.  "That lady"?  Really?  She's 15, dude.)  


Anyway, his sister was interviewed and she has decided that he's innocent.  There's his DNA all over the place and his sister has the nerve to say that he's innocent.  What she said (among other things) was "It wasn't him."  Right.  Of course.  Because she knows what he's been doing at every moment of every day.  It wasn't him?  Please pipe down.  She has absolutely zero basis to say such a thing and in light of the evidence that's out there, I find it rather insulting that she'd go there.

She went on to say, among other things, "I'm sure he didn't do it. We're all sure."  Well, I gotta tell you, I'm not so sure.  Has anyone explained to her about the DNA evidence that they have?  It's probably pretty unusual for a guy to have the DNA of someone that he's never met in his car.  It's probably equally as unusual for the guy to have his very own DNA on the clothing of someone he's never met as well.  I wonder if his all knowing sister has any explanation for any of that?  I'm guessing that she doesn't.  Did I also mention that she called him "genuine" and "sweet".  Yeah, those are not the adjectives that you want to use when describing someone in his situation. 


If, God forbid, you ever find yourself in the unfortunate situation that Antolin Garcia-Torres' sister finds herself in, might I please request once again that you say nothing in defense of the person.  Please don't tell us what a great guy you think he is.  Please don't tell us that you know he's innocent, when in reality, you know nothing.  Please don't say anything that even remotely comes to the defense of likely and alleged scumbags who kidnap young 15-year old girls and allegedly kill them.  (Do you have any idea how much I despise feeling the need to throw in the 'allegedly' part?  I'm a big fan of DNA evidence.  And also of reality.)  Just keep quiet.  There's nothing that you can say at that point that is going to make anything any better.  The situation is a mess and  you need to start dealing with that.  The best way to deal with it?  Not do interviews where you defend those sorts of people.  That's going to be best for everyone involved. 

Sphere: Related Content

That Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means

You know how I'm always saying that the media sucks?  You know, there's a reason that I say that.  It's mainly because the media sucks.  It sucks SO bad.  And today I have a glaring example of their suckitude.  Seriously, this just boggles my mind.  How this is even a thing is beyond me. Maybe you can help me figure it out.

Remember Desmond Hatchett?  He's the dumbass who has fathered 30 children with eleven different women (who are also dumbasses) and he's only 33 years old.  I guess that for some reason, people like it when there is a nickname given to people in the news.  Tanning Mom.  Octomom.  The Barefoot Bandit.  Son of Sam.  People love a nickname.  So I guess that it would be natural for one to be bestowed upon Mr. Hatchett.  Personally, I'm good with 'dumbass'. It's fitting, it's catchy, it's easy to remember.  (And even if  you forget it, you can just think of someone that has had 30 children in 19 years and can't pay for them and remember it that way."Ohhhh!  The dumbass!  That's it!"  See?  Easy to remember.)  But no, apparently the media had to go and give him the stupidest name that they could come up with.

Here's how it starts off over there at the usually reputable Los Angeles Times: "Hatchett, nicknamed Octodad by various media outlets, gained considerable notoriety last week after WREG in Memphis posted a story and video describing his struggles to keep up with child-support payments for his 30 children."  Honestly, my despair is such that at this point, I almost don't know where to go with this.  But I'll try.  (And really LA Times?  You're usually SO much better than this.  Check yourself.  Please.)

Octodad?!?!  The media is calling him Octodad?!?!  Are they not aware that the reason that Octomom was dubbed Octomom is because she had octuplets?  And that having octuplets means that she had eight babies?  And that 'octo' is the prefix for 'eight'? Do you see what I'm driving at here?  Octo...eight...I don't know how else to explain it.  Then again, I feel like that must not be a sufficient explanation if the freaking media is calling him Octodad when he has thirty children!  Octo isn't the prefix for thirty!  Dumbass is the prefix for thirty! 

Octodad. Good Lord. Look, Octomom is a ridiculous name, but at least it's etymology is essentially correct.  We don't just put "octo" in front of a word to indicate that they have a lot of kids. We're not calling the Duggars the OctoDuggars.  (Octogars?  I'm really struggling with what sounds good here.  And the answer is probably 'nothing' because it's all so gosh darned stupid.)  We don't call Kate Gosselin OctoKate.  (Yes, I realize that she actually does have eight children.  But I'm running out of examples of people who have overused their uterus.)  The media needs to stop calling this dumbass Octodad.  I'd be happy to explain to them why that should be.  Send them my way.  Wait.  Can I do that without coming completely unglued on them? Probably not.  What say they just stop and we all call it good?

Sphere: Related Content

I'm In The Wrong Business

I am clearly in the wrong business.  What I should be doing to make my fortune is to find some sort of vapid celebrity to endorse a product that is probably worth no more than fifty cents and then turn around and sell said product for twenty-five dollars.  And if things go really well, I'll be able to sell some of those items without any celebrity endorsement.  That's right.  My other ridiculous marketing ploy will have worked so well that I'll just be able to crank out crap and have people buy it for no other reason that it's from the same place that sells the crap that that one celebrity endorses.  Let's see...I'm going to need a cheap product.  Oooh!  Oooh!  I know!  Lollipops!  Perfect.  Now I just need my vapid celebrity.  Oooh!  Oooh!  I know!  Kim Kardashian!  Perfect.  She's the queen of vapid.  (OK, I concur that we'll probably have to explain to "the queen" what vapid means, but that's really neither here nor there.)  No.  No.  That's too stupid.  That would never work.  Who would pay twenty five dollars for a single lollipop?  (You see where this is going, right?) 

Apparently there is a place called Couture Pops and they sell ridiculously priced items.  One of those items, you guessed it, is lollipops.  But not just ordinary lollipops!  Oh, wait.  Yeah, never mind.  They are ordinary lollipops.  The stick-ular area seems to be adorned with some sort of baubles.  And there also appears to be a clear plastic, protective case for the actual licking area of the lollipop.  Other than that, they're regular lollipops.  Regular lollipops that go for twenty-five dollars.  Behold!

OK, I know you can't really see the lollipop, so here's a close up.  Behold! 

Just remember:  Twenty-five bucks.  But it's not just Kim Kardashian who is endorsing these things.  There's also a Britney Spears lollipop.  Behold! 

 Here's a lollipop endorsed by Mel B of the Spice Girls (and long ago fame): 

What about a lollipop endorsed by Nicole Scherzinger (recently fired from American X Factor and from the yesterday fame of the Pussycat Dolls):

 Need a lollipop endorsed by The Situation from Jersey Shore?  They've got you covered, moron. 

 What about one endorsed by Hello Kitty?  Here it is! 

Do you see how asinine this is?!  They're all essentially the same thing.  And that "thing" is a lollipop!  Who endorses it doesn't give it a special hidden value!   Hello Kitty isn't even a real cat, for cryin' out loud!  How do you justify that?  (Oh, it's so expensive because it's endorsed by a fake, yet wildly popular in Japan, feline character that pre-teen girls find whimsical.  That'll be twenty-five dollars, please.)  Seriously, I don't know if I can make my brain become so soft that I would actually think up something this ridiculous and that would actually make money.  That there are people out there that can figure out that there is a market for twenty-five dollar lollipops that all look the same except for the celebrity du jour who endorses them is just astounding to me.  Simply astounding. 

Sphere: Related Content

He Paints With What?

Look, all I know is that there's this guy who calls himself Pricasso because he paints pictures using only his wiener as a brush.  Well, that's not totally accurate.  It's just the brush strokes for which he uses his crank.  The backgrounds are all done by using butt cheek prints.  (Wow.  Versatile.)  The weirdest part?  (Yeah, it gets weirder.)  The weirdest part is that he's actually kind of good.  I mean, it seems like he's kind of good.  His pictures actually look like something.  The subject matter is certainly more recognizable than when a gorilla throws paint at a canvas and someone calls it art.  I am sort of basing this assessment solely on my perceived and assumed inability to be able to paint anything with my body parts, though.  There's a video of him doing his thing below.  Behold! 
 

  

OK, I don't know about you, but I don't know if I could ever actually buy one of this guy's paintings and have it in my house.  They're only fifty bucks each, which is quite a bargain for art these days!  But the fact doesn't change that the painting has had his schlong ALL OVER IT.  And really, I'm not looking to start that sort of trend in my home.  Just because it's OK for one guy to rub his wiener all over a canvas, does that mean it's OK if my guests start doing that as well?  (Yes, yes, I'm misanthropic.  But occasionally I'll have people over.  And occasionally, one of them will have a penis.  Do I want him getting out of line?  I think not.)  I can't even think about the butt cheeks part of this whole equation.  In some ways, I think that revolts me more than the penile painting does.  Seriously, what's wrong with a brush?  Couldn't he be quirky in some other way that doesn't involve genitalia?

Sphere: Related Content

Poor Darwin

So, Fort Lee, New Jersey has gone ahead and banned texting whilst walking.  That's right.  While walking.  In the 'Land of the Free', you are no longer allowed to text while you're walking in Fort Lee, lest you end up with a $54 ticket.  It's actually technically when you're jaywalking, but that's a separate ticket in and of itself, so I'm not quite sure why they felt the need to add texting to it.  Then again, the entire idea is so completely asinine that it's probably pointless for me to try to make any sense of it at all.

According to MSNBC, "...Fort Lee saw three fatalities and more than 20 pedestrian accidents since the beginning of the year".  And that statement alone is enough for me to pose the question "Won't this thing eventually work itself out on its own?"  See, because I'm going to guess that the 20 pedestrians who were involved in an "accident" (whatever that means) aren't going to do it again if they were injured enough.  Stupid should hurt.  And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that those three people that were killed certainly won't be doing it again.  Why does the government need to be involved?  Why can't the "fine", instead of being $54, simply be a head injury when one walks into a pole because they weren't paying attention to where they were going?


What's that you say?  It's being done in the name of safety?  If that were actually true, there would be a lot less potentially dangerous things around us.  If people are so worried about safety, why isn't there a ban on backyard pools yet?  Those things are a death trap!  We should ban those in the name of safety.  What about exposure to the sun?  That's potentially dangerous, what with the skin cancer and all.  Why don't we have a law that you are required to use sunscreen before you go outdoors?  All in the name of safety!  We've gotta have that law, right?  What about when the temperature outside goes above ninety degrees?  Isn't there more of a potential for heat stroke at higher temperatures?  Shouldn't we have a law saying that you must stay inside in order to protect yourself when it's really hot?  All in the name of safety!  While we're at it, since we already have a seat belt law, why don't we add to that having drivers be required to wear helmets when driving.  I know that those would potentially spare dozens of lives that would otherwise be lost if the vehicle operator what helmetless.  Seriously, where in the hell does it stop? 

I can't believe that law even passed at all.  Maybe this Fort Lee, New Jersey just isn't a particularly bright town.  Three fatalities related to texting since January?  It's only May, for cryin' out loud.  And while I can find plenty Google search results about this law, I have yet to find any evidence that the people in Fort Lee are really so stupid that they end up getting killed due to texting while strolling about.  I did find this article, which does mention pedestrian deaths, but in no way alludes to them being related to texting.  Now, I'm not saying that the people who passed this law were being disingenuous in the name of safety.  I'm just saying that I can find no mention of it even occurring before this law passed.  Oh, well.  I guess if we're all going to be safer as a result, the reason shouldn't matter right?  God, we're so doomed.  

Sphere: Related Content

Thirty? Thirty.

I got an email yesterday from a friend and all the email said was "Blood pressure feeling low?  Read this one:"  Then there was a link to a news story about a one 33-year old Desmond Hatchett.  And let me just tell you, my friend was right.  My blood pressure went from very sedentary to near coronary attack.  Consider this a warning that the same thing could happen to you!

What we have could be seen as just a regular ol' story about a guy who would like a little bit of his child support payments to be cut back.  He's having a hard time getting his minimum wage job to make ends meet for himself and his children.  But that's where any sense of normalcy stops in this story.  See, Desmond is the father of not one, not two, not even ten, but thirty children!  That's right.  Thirty.  And get this:  The oldest is fourteen.  So, let's do the illegitimate math here, shall we?  He managed to seed thirty children in 19 years.  Good thing that he managed to have four babies in one year...TWICE.  Other wise, I don't think that he would have been able to achieve such a status in such a short period of time.  But that only takes care of eight kids.  He still managed to squeeze in another twenty two children in only twelve years.  For all intents and purposes, that's two kids per year.  Did I mention that there were eleven (ELEVEN) different women involved in this sperm factory gone awry?  Yeah, there were.  Eleven.  Eleven stupid, stupid women.  

Now Desmond works a minimum wage job.  Hard to imagine that someone who would be so irresponsible as to have thirty children in fourteen years would only be qualified to work a minimum wage job, isn't it?  But I will give him credit for at least working and at least trying to do one thing right.  There's that.  It's not much and really, I'm not sure that it counts for anything.  But I guess that I appreciate his working at all.  And out of his minimum wage paycheck, the state garners the maximum fifty percent to go for child support.  As you can imagine, trying to spread fifty percent of a minimum wage paycheck isn't going to go very far.  And it doesn't.  Some of the mothers only receive $1.49 per month in child support.  And NO, I did NOT misplace the decimal point there.  That's one dollar and forty-nine cents in child support.  Aside from it being insulting, why would you bother?  There are so many things wrong with this story that I don't know where to start OR where to stop.  I do know that my blood pressure is likely to require medication before I'm done typing all of this out.  (Thanks for that, CW!)

Minimum wage in Tennessee is $7.25 per hour.  Holy crap.  Assuming the Father of the Year works a full work week of forty hours, he's looking at a whopping $290 per week.  Let's take out a third for taxes.  That's right around $96.  Now we're looking at $204 per week.  Split that in half and Desmond is taking home $102 per week.  Maybe a little more if I wasn't accurate with what gets taken out for taxes.  $102 divided by 30 (as in children) comes out to exactly $3.40 per month, per child.  That's just insane.  And pointless.  Look, even though I think that the guy should be financially responsible for all of his children, what in the hell good does $3.40 a month do anyone in this situation?  How about if all of the mothers rotate and every month, one of them gets the $102?  If they go by the $3.40 a month plan, they're only getting around $36 a year from him.  Doing it this alternate way practically triples that income for them!  But I digress.  

This is as big of a fuster cluck as there could ever be.  He's currently petitioning the state of Tennessee to help him with his child support payments.  What is supposed to be done in a situation like this?  It's lose-lose all the way around.  I think that the only rational thing to do here would be for the state to agree to step in IF Desmond gets snipped.  There HAS to be a doctor out there who would perform that surgery on Desmond for free.  Hell, I'm not a doctor and I'D gladly do it! I'd also gladly chop it right on off for him, but I'm pretty sure stuff that like isn't allowed.  (Probably only because I'm not licensed, though.) I also think that the women who he repeatedly impregnated (and who KNEW about his situation beforehand) need to agree to some counseling in order to receive any sort of benefits.  You have a weird way of looking at things if you're hooking up with this guy and not caring if you get knocked up.

And you know, while they're at it, might as well get ol' Desmond a little counseling too.  What in the hell goes through his mind in the situations that he gets himself into that will inevitably result in him impregnating someone AGAIN?  Back in 2009, he did an interview with something called VolunteerTV.  It went something like this:

"Do you intend to keep having children?" WVLT asked.
"No." Hatchett replied.
"You're done?"
"I'm done. I'll say I'm done."
"What made you say that?"
"I didn't intend to have this many. It just happened," Hatchett said.

Jesus.  Where do I start?  I guess with the obvious.  It didn't just happen!  He's not the unluckiest guy in the world, though I'm starting to believe that he may be the stupidest.  I should also point out that at the time of that interview, he only had 21 children.  Now he has 30.  You know.  Because it just happened.  Now, not only is my blood pressure through the roof, my head hurts from pounding it on my computer desk.  IT DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN, DAMMIT!  Uh-oh.  There go my lungs.  Breathe.  Breathe!  

Can we hook him up with Octomom?  They seem like they'd be a perfect fit for each other.  Both are totally clueless and surrounded by children.  He might be able to teach her a thing or two about at least trying to make a living.  And she could teach him a thing or two about doing masturbatory porn as a means of support.  Hmm.  That might not be the best idea after all.  Forget it.  Sterilize both of them and let them go at like rabbits. 

Sphere: Related Content

Do you know who Manny Pacquiao is?  I had heard the name, but I was unaware of his significance.  After learning that he is a boxer, I'm still not overly sure of his significance, but at least I know who he is.  Then again, Forbes magazine listed him at Number Four on their list of most influential athletes in the world.  Huh.  So there's that.  The point here is that he came out and said that he was against same-sex marriage.  He said that he didn't have anything against gay people (a lot of his friends are gay, of course), but he just wasn't into the whole dudes marrying dudes and chicks marrying chicks dealio.  And that's fine.  It's his deal.  Just like President Barry said, most people that are against gay marriage aren't coming from a hateful perspective.  This should be reiterated to the folks who run some mall in Los Angeles, as they have banned him from the premises because of his opinion. 

The mall is called The Grove and this was their tweet after hearing about another person's opinion:  

 

Quick! Someone call in the irony police!  He's NOT welcome at your mall because he holds the very same opinion that the majority of people in thirty states also hold?!  Is The Grove aware that same-sex marriage is NOT legal in the very state that their mall is IN?!  Do they realize that there is a constitutional amendment in their state that bans same-sex marriage?  Do they also realize that it was voted upon by the people of that state?!  That's right, folks!  The majority of people in the ridiculously blue state of California voted against same-sex marriage.  Over seven million of them. And The Grove is banning someone who holds the same belief as a majority of those voters?  Good Lord. 

My favorite part of that is "not a place for intolerance".  Really?  Cause y'all seem a little bit intolerant yourselves there.  Not letting someone into what I'm assuming is a public mall (as I have yet to see a private mall) because they believe something different than you for reasons that are not rooted in hate?  Yeah, that seems intolerant.  See, tolerance goes both ways, you jack holes. See, tolerance can be defined as "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own". How tolerant are you being, The Grove?  Doesn't sound like very tolerant at all.

Again, this has nothing to do whether I am for or against gay marriage.  I am simply pointing out the idiocy of it how it is portrayed in the media.  The media has done a fine job making it seem like everyone is in favor of gay marriage and it's really just a handful of bigots who are holding everything back.  In reality, it's quite the opposite of that.  The majority of Americans are not in favor of gay marriage.  That's just the reality.  I know that you wouldn't get that impression from everything you read or see on the news, but that's where we're at.  So knock it off, The Grove.  Start practicing your tolerance by accepting that there are a whole lot of people who are different than you. 

Sphere: Related Content

Separated At Birth

It could just be me, but have you ever noticed that Mitt Romney looks like Gul Dukat from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine?

What'd I tell you? They're probably the same. Kinda like how I'm pretty sure that Newt Gingrich is the artificially inflated alter ego of the Keebler elf.

I'm pretty sure that they're the same. I mean, Newt looks like he loves cookies. And the elves love to BAKE cookies. Soooo...there's that. But as striking as their similarities are, it doesn't really compare to those between the Tanning Mom, Patricia Krentcil and Zira from Planet of the apes. Behold!

Similarities. Similarities EVERYWHERE.

Sphere: Related Content

Not Another Reality Show

Are you familiar with Patricia Krentcil?  She is the lady who was accused of taking her 6-year old daughter into a tanning bed with her.  And the bottom line to that story seems to be that overzealous school workers were a bit hasty in making their accusations.  And you know me.  I'm always up for a good public lynching.  But in this case, I'm not getting the sense that anything actually happened to the daughter.  Now Ms. Krentcil on the other hand...well...there are other reasons to despise her, most of which I'm about to get into right now!  Ms. Krentcil has been dubbed the "Tanning Mom".  Have you seen her?  Brace yourself.  Behold! 

 Yep.  That's her.  That piece of bacon in a blonde wig is Ms. Krentcil.  In case you haven't figured it out, the woman likes to get her tan on.  She's clearly not well in the head, not to mention in the epidermis.  Good Lord, how can anyone think that looks good?  I guess to each their own, but seriously?  We all know that can't be healthy.  The ugliness of it all aside, that's just not good for you.  And do we really want to be encouraging people to end up looking like shoe leather?  I don't think we do.  But I fear that is the message that will be sent if what I read is true and this woman might be getting her own reality show. 

That's right.  According to, well, her, when asked if she is going to be doing a reality show, she replied, "There are a couple of people that want me."  Holy crap.  I certainly hope that isn't true.  And really, I think that I would probably lean more toward this woman being a bit delirious as opposed to functioning in reality.  Why in the world would anyone want to produce a reality show about a woman who looks like an old shoe?  (Not the old woman who lived in a shoe.  That's been done before and was, to my recollection, quite successful.  This would be about a woman who looks like a shoe.  It just doesn't have quite the same playful charm as the former.)

Why would anyone want to portray this woman in a TV show?  According to CBS, Ms. Krentcil "...has reportedly been banned from at least 63 tanning salons in the tri-state area."  Some tanning salons "...have taken extra precautions and have placed "wanted" posters behind their counters informing employees to keep her off the premises."  Really?  You need a picture of this woman for people to reference?  You couldn't just say to your employees "If anyone comes in looking like a piece of beef jerky, do not allow them to "tan" here"?  I don't blame them for not wanting her in their establishments.  She isn't exactly a poster child for tanning responsibly (if there is such a thing anymore).  But at least two people want to put her on TV?  Fabulous. 

Like I said earlier, her claims seem dubious at best.  But if you're still thinking that maybe she's telling the truth, let's look at another one of her delusions.  She said that she would absolutely consider posing for Playboy.  Now, wouldn't you think that in order for someone to say something like that, there should at least be some element of truth or desire to the statement?  Like if someone was in the condition that Playboy might actually fancy, then you could state your position on whether or not you'd want to participate or if you'd decline.  But does she really think that Playboy is going to come a-callin'?  (For the record, Playboy has stated "It wouldn’t even be considered.”)  Maybe she could pose for something else, though.  Like a company that makes shoes or leather products.  Slim Jim has some tasty dried meat snacks.  Maybe she could be their spokeshole? 

I'm just not ready to accept that questionable lifestyles can lead to full-time employment.  That's all.  Jersey Shore.  16 & Pregnant.  Jon & Kate Plus 8.  This woman.  It's just not something that makes me want to stand up and shout "U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!"  You know?  How about a show that follows the individual through several therapy sessions?  Something.  Anything other than just letting them live their weirdo life in front of an audience whilst reaping in a large check. 

Sphere: Related Content