Sunday, September 2, 2012

Scientology Strikes Again

Scientology has struck again, and, once again, it's involving some of the major celebrities that have subscribed to that "religion" (cult).  And, probably not surprisingly, the major celebrity in question is Tom Cruise.  It has emerged that apparently after his split with actress Peneolpe Cruz in 2004 (the two had co-starred in Vanilla Sky) Shelly Miscavige, the wife of Scientology honcho David Miscavige, became tasked with finding a "suitable" girlfriend for Cruise.  The process began with actresses who were already confirmed Scientologists and were told that they were "auditioning for a part," with most (if not all) of the actresses logically assuming that the part in question was for one in a movie, and were asked a series of questions during the audition with the stone-cap "What do you think of Tom Cruise?".

Marc Headley, who was the head of Scientology's in-house studio at the time and a forced-and-later-willing disciple of L. Ron Hubbard from age seven said that he watched several of the "audition tapes."  The investigation has revealed that the front-runner was Nazanin Boniadi, an Iranian-born British actress, who would have likely dated Cruise from November 2004 to January 2005.  Part of the process for Boniadi was getting her braces removed, taking dye out of her hair, splitting up with her then-boyfriend, and passing an extensive background check, which included all details about her sex life.

The two met in New York City in November 2004, with Boniadi allegedly believing that she was entering into an arranged marriage, accompanied by an "entourage of Scientology aides," where they had dinner and later partied in Trump Tower, where Cruise had rented out an entire floor, before spending the night together, although it was apparently not sexual in nature.  Cruise allegedly told Boniadi that he'd "never felt this way before," after which she was asked to sign a confidentiality agreement.  Boniadi says that she did eventually fall in love with Cruise, but that his public displays of affection became too intense and that he was needy for that affection to be reciprocated.

At one point in time the two lived together and allegedly shared a bedroom, with Boniadi having a credit card in the name of Cruise's production company.  But the affair ended when Boniadi asked David Iscavige to repeat himself, a mortal sin in Scientology, and Cruise broke off all contact with her following the slight.  By the third week in January 2005 Boniadi was asked to move into Scientology's celebrity center, where she was told that Cruise wanted someone more like ex-wife Nicole Kidman and that she could not talk to him in person.

Boniadi later was sent to a Scientology center in Florida where she told a friend of the ordeal and mistakenly blabbed about the confidentiality agreement (she obviously violated it) and when her friend ratted her out she was subjected to punishment, namely scrubbing toilets with a toothbrush, cleaning bathroom tiles with acid, digging ditches in the middle of the night, and selling Hubbard's dianetics in the street.  Scientology spokespeople have denied the insinuation that Boniadi was punished.  Cruise met actress Katie Holmes shortly after the affair with Boniadi ended and the two eventually married, having a daughter together, but were divorced earlier this year.

My verdict:  Scientology has been known to control its members for years.  It's a cult based on a bad science fiction book which has taken efforts to preserve the works of their founder, basically meaning that 1,000 years from now the only two known writers from contemporary times who will be remembered then are William Shakespeare and L. Ron Hubbard.  I say again:  It's a cult.  If you don't want to be punished the way Boniadi (a beautiful actress who I would do everything to) was, there's a simple solution:  Don't become a Scientologist, and if it's too late for that or if you were forced into the religion the way Headley was, get out of the cult as quickly as possible.

Shit List: Squirrels

First off a note:  I'm back from sabbatical.  Expect posts over this long weekend (if you live outside of the U. S. Labor Day is Monday).

And now onto more pressing matters.  As you can probably tell by the title of my blog, squirrels have been on my shit list for a long time.  I live in a quiet place with lots of animals.  But squirrels are the true menace.  Barking at me from trees, alerting unknowing prey of my presence while in the forest, challenging my late pet cat Hollywood to fights.  But the final straw was when a semi-tame squirrel was re-released into the wild and went berserk in Bennington, Vermont, terrorizing an entire neighborhood.  And that was how Tame Squirrels and Loose Cannons was born.

But squirrels are still - and likely always will be - on my shit list.  And now they've struck again.

I thought that the U. S. Open had its lows when it rained two years ago almost constantly, and I amended that statement when it was plagued by birds last year.  Once again, I couldn't have been more wrong.  So another amendment is in order.  We've even been graced by the impending retirement of Andy Roddick and the divorce or separation or whatever that's going on with Maria Sharapova.  But none of those are what may ultimately doom the U. S. Open forever.  It's an unwanted guest at the event which has caused such a ruckus.

And you guessed it, loyal blog reader:  The guest is none other than a semi-tame squirrel going berserk and terrorizing the players and patrons in Flushing, Queens.  And as usual the media has weighed in, giving this bastard plenty of camera time and sensationalizing his every move.  You might as well parole Bucky Phillips at this rate MSNBC.  When will these poor socialist saps on the far left learn that giving these sociopaths attention is the worst thing possible?

Death to squirrels.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Life Imitates art in Quite Possibly the Worst way Imaginable

A pilot in Australia was forced to make an emergency landing last week due to having snakes on the plane.  Yes, a 26-year-old pilot was forced to land his plane due to having snakes on it.  After the plane landed it was discovered that the snake, which had crawled down the pilot's leg, was joined on the plane by a frog, although no other animals were found and both of the two known animals had disappeared by the time wildlife experts arrived.

The snake was believed to be a non-venomous green tree snake and was hunting the frog.  In case you haven't figured it out yet, this incident is somewhat similar to the Sam Jackson vehicle Snakes on a Plane, which was one of the most terrible movies ever made.  The plane will remain grounded until the snake is found.

My verdict:  You have got to be fucking kidding me.  One of the most ridiculous movies ever made is no longer impossible.  Snakes on a Plane was once flaunted as one of the most degrading movies to hit African-American culture in recent years, right behind Soul Plane, but now all of a sudden it probably holds some water.  Of all the movies that I thought might have some basis in fact later on in life this was probably one of the furthest from my mind.  But let's take a look at the rest of this story.  The airline in Oceania says that this plane will remain grounded until the snake is found, and since it's already escaped without a trace that basically means the plane will never fly again, if the spokespeople for this airline are men of their words.  And this has got to be one of the most famous examples of predatory hunting in modern history.  Snakes, frogs, crocodiles, what will turn up on your planes next Australians?  And word up to the pilot for composing himself enough to make an emergency landing with a snake crawling on him.  Looks like its time for that sequel, Snakes on a Plane 2:  More Snakes and more Planes to be released, starring 50 Cent in the role of Snakekiller.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Epic fail: Blackout Darkens Entire Nation-State

You read the title right:  All of Cyprus was without power for awhile last week.  Apparently there was a malfunction at the Dhekelia power station early in the morning which caused the blackout.  The blackout caused huge traffic jams due to the lack of working traffic lights or capable traffic directors.

And yes, this is the same Cyprus which had its biggest power station accidentally blown up (an explosion which resulted in the death of three people) in Vassilikos last year.  In order to get the power back on officials had to turn retired power stations back on and borrow power from Turkish Cypriot to the north.  Cyprus has a population of about 800,000 people.

My verdict:  If you know anything at all about Cyprus then you know this shit must have been pretty bad.  Turkish Cypriot is barely even a place.  They're more like breakaway rebels from Cyprus than anything else, and the only other country that has ever recognized them is Turkey (no big surprise there).  And yeah, things are hostile between the two Cyprus', so much so that there is now a ceasefire line between the two groups of people, much like the ceasefire line between South and North Korea, or real Korea and the bastards to the north if you prefer.  So yeah, in order for Cyprus to have to ask their evil commies to the north for help it must have been pretty fucking bad.  But this is still an epic fail Cyprus.  How hard can it be to provide electricity to 800,000 people?  And your number one power station blew up that year?  It might be a good idea to start rebuilding that shit or to make sure that you're not hedging your bets on ONE working power station.  One another note, how far have people in this world fallen when a completely modernized nation-state is all-but crippled by the lack of working traffic lights?  Fuck man, there weren't traffic lights around when my Grandma was a kid, and those folks got around just find.  We didn't even have stop lights in my hometown until I was about 11, but I was able to lead my life normally.  Maybe we're starting to depend just a little too much on technology.  Mayberry may have been a fake, over-idealized view of American life, but it was a view that most people liked and places like Mayberry really did exist back in the day.  In fact, they still exist out there today, although the accelerating world is making them disappear.  If you want to see a dying version of Mayberry, accompany me to a visit of Granville, New York and I'll show you the closest thing to perfection that there is.  Remember:  A simple life is  better life.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

A look at the war on Drugs: Which way to lean?

I'm kind of pissed at the way people are supporting the war on drugs.  There's valid support for the continued criminalization of illegal drugs, but for some reason people seem to be losing sight of this.  I've heard people say that drugs should be illegal because they're bad for you.  Valid argument, simple, easy to understand.  I've heard others say that they support the prohibition of drugs because they represent vices and for the health matters stated above, and they back that up by saying that they also support the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco products, and in some cases, even caffeine.  Valid argument, simple, easy to understand, good logic.  But then there are the more vocal proponents of the continued criminalization of drugs, such as Manon McKinnon of The American Spectator, who make arguments like the ones I'm about to outline.  This was brought to my attention through a chain started by Scott Morgan of The Huffington Post, Ranjit Dighe, economics professor at SUNY Oswego, and my associate Christian B. Rovou.  Here it goes:

McKinnon's first argument is that, basically, Ron Paul, far-right Republicans, Libertarians, and potheads are idiots.  Although the last category may be a correct assertion, it is meant to supersede the previous three categories.  In other words, McKinnon is saying that anyone who supports the decriminalization of marijuana (which is all that Paul supports) is a pothead.  If you follow this debate at all, you'll very quickly find that this isn't true.  A lot of people want marijuana decriminalized for tax purposes, and most of them don't use the drug.  Most potheads on the other hand want marijuana to stay illegal, that way they can feel rebellious and non-mainstream every time they smoke it.

Manon's next argument is that Paul (once again) is responsible for getting people to "give up" on the war on drugs.  That's not Paul's argument.  He thinks that the problems of drug abuse would be easier to battle if the substances were legal and regulated.  Saying that we're giving up on the war on drugs, supporters, is clear evidence that you have partisan views on the issue.  At least attempt to understand the arguments which oppose your own.

In the third argument McKinnon insists that people being wrongfully incarcerated for personal use is a myth.  To be fair, I don't know where McKinnon lives - or has lived - in our fine country, but to people who hold these views I have one thing to say:  Come to New York (where I live), walk up to a cop and confess to having five grams of marijuana and see what happens next.  Disclaimer:  Here's what happens next:  You'll go to prison for 15 years.  So yes, there are definitely a lot of people out there who shouldn't be in prison but are.  It's not a myth.  Do some basic research, it's actually pretty easy information to find.  Oh by the way, if you were dealing or trafficking, you'd have WAY more than five grams.  So those people that do 15 years, yeah, it was probably their own personal shit.  And I don't think that these people were incarcerated "unjustly," that's not the word I'd use.  These numb fucks break our written laws when they go to prison, that's fair and just.  I just think that it's a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, time, energy, and resources.

Argument number four, drugs have no medicinal value.  I toked up when I had melanoma, it settled my stomach and I went from throwing up 12 times a day to six or eight times a day.  I don't feel the need to apologize to anyone for my use of the marijuana in my past, and I definitely don't feel like I did anything wrong.  And nothing that anyone says is going to convince me of that.  And it's not just me saying that.  A lot of cancer patients and oncologists swear by the benefits of marijuana use, for both nausea and pain.  And some people with other illnesses - like MS - also like to use marijuana as it helps them feel better.  I mean come on, everybody knows that all of these drugs have medicinal value.  That's just a dumb argument to make.

In argument number five McKinnon seemingly tries to compare legalizing drugs to legalizing rape.  I don't even really know what he's trying to go for here.  But damn, comparing smoking weed to rape?  That's not even close to me.  If this is an argument that people are having to make to justify or defend the continued decriminalization on drugs then fuck, maybe it's time to actually legalize the shit.  Then again, I did feel like a rapist every time I smoked weed or sniffed a Percocet.  Oh wait a minute, no I didn't.  I guess McKinnon just wanted me to feel guilty and shameful for using drugs.

Argument number six, point out the crimes that legalization (apparently) wouldn't have prevented.  Okay, this actually could be a good argument to most people, but then you have to look at the logic of the statement and wonder.  These heinous, unfortunate, or sad crimes occur using the system we have in place, which has apparently failed miserably.  And your argument is to resist change, leave things as they are, maintain the status quo, ignore any attempts to help these situations, and just continue to let these crimes be committed and recommitted?  You'd think that if these things were huge problems under our current system that advocating for change, not against it, would be an obvious and logical solution, but again the partisan view comes into play.

And in the finale McKinnonlense, but it probably would have worked decently well.  Or at least a lot better than the partisan argument put forth here.

My verdict:  I've never heard a more terrible set of arguments.  Two of the arguments are outright lies (no medicinal value, no wasted incarceration).  Two out of seven are simply attacks on Ron Paul and his set of far-right, conservative supporters.  Two have simply nothing to do with the issue at all (rape argument, quote of Wilson).  And the last one, the one where McKinnon outlines the problems created by the status quo drug laws and then advocates to keep them in place, is self-defeating.  Jesus Manon, wasn't that just plain stupid?  Get a haircut, and get a real job you fucking hippie.

Extorting sex for Grades is a Crime now? Whatever Happened to the good ole days

A teacher in Oklahoma has been arrested for agreeing to have sex with multiple students in exchange for higher grades.  Investigators have identified five female students as victims of the extortion that occurred at Atoka High School, and believe that more victims remain unidentified.  The man in question is 32-year-old Casey Hauff, a former football coach.

And in true public school fashion, the incident was covered up, with the school keeping a lid on things in exchange for Hauff's resignation back on October 28, 2011, but there's only 3,000 people in Atoka, Oklahoma and the family (yes he's married with two kids) didn't leave town after the resignation, and you know you can't keep these things quiet in small towns.  Hauff has been charged with one count of forcible sodomy, one count of showing obscene material to a minor, one count of lewd or indecent proposals to a child under the age of 16, two counts of rape, two counts of sexual battery, and four counts of solicitation of a minor.  An arrest warrant was issued yesterday and Hauff turned himself in today, with bail being set at $250,000 and being released after posting bond.

My verdict:  There was a time in Oklahoma - and not so long ago - where this sort of thing was commonplace and wouldn't have been prosecuted.  No one is saying that those times were better, necessarily, but they certainly were different.  And now we have a beloved history teacher and football coach facing serious charges for getting laid by five girls.  This couldn't have been that serious of an offense, or the school probably would have went straight to the pigs and Hauff would have left town.  And damn, the pigs aren't taking any chances, charging him with just about everything under the sun, which probably means a lot of it is going to get thrown out of court.  And yup, he turned himself in.  There was no real crime here.  There were simple deals negotiated here, nothing more.  The guy got laid and the girls' grades went up.  That's right, he kept up his end of the bargain.  He's a man of his word.  And please, those girls knew what they were doing.  This happens somewhere in America everyday, chicks sleeping their way to the top.  Only in this case they happened to be underage.  The guy was 32 years old, fairly young for a teacher, and the girls all probably had crushes on him.  They wanted this to happen.  And here's proof:  Five girls have been named as victims, and only two rape charges have been filed.  That means that three of the five girls (that's a majority for those of you who can't do basic math) are admitting that the contact was willing.  And those other two girls?  Prepare to see them get ripped apart on cross examination.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Peta Tamaina's Dream come true

Gentleman, the dream of my primary antagonist Peter has come to fruition:  That's right sirs, the high court of the land in the province of Ontario legalized brothels two days ago in an attempt to make prostitution safer for prostitutes.  The decision noted that prostitution is dangerous to prostitutes and laws outlawing the illegal enterprise made it difficult for hookers to hire proper security guards.  The decision is expected to be appealed to Canada's supreme court but a decision on the matter isn't expected for at least a year.

Beginning in 2013, prostitutes will be able to work together legally in brothels and they will be able to begin hiring bodyguards on April 25, one month after the law was passed.  In a strange set of events, though, communicating for the purposes of prostitution will still be illegal, meaning that prostitutes still won't be able to proposition people in public.

My verdict:  El mello mello had a dream.  And that dream was legalized prostitution (in case you haven't figured it out yet, el mello mello is Pete).  Every good American already goes to Canada to buy hookers anyway, why not start making cheddar off of it (and by cheddar I mean money, not some kind of weird sex act Pete).  And we wouldn't want those hookers to get too hurt and scared to hook now would we (the answer is no Pete, most people don't like to spank women so hard it leaves hand imprints on their asses)?  The law takes affect in 2013 and it's probably going to get thrown out by the Canadian Supreme Court sometime next March, so the way I see it we American men will have two or three months to get our asses and dicks up to Canada come January.  And even though the prostitutes can't proposition us we can still proposition them, meaning that not only will it be okay to talk, it will actually be legal to buy the whores.  And yes Pete, it is okay to talk here in the States, so long as you don't give them any money you fucking moron, watch one episode of Cops and you'd be able to figure that out.  But of course there won't be any illicit direct communication between hos and bros up there, so how much fun could it actually be?  After all, that's what the liberals accomplished when they succeeded in their campaign finance reform agenda right?  No direct communication between superPACs and candidates right?  And that's worked out splendidly, hasn't it?  Oh yeah.  It actually worked out terribly.  Any semblance of limiting or controlling campaign spending has now completely gone out the window.  For three liberals, for three (basketball reference Pete, but you probably won't get that one because you don't lower yourself to talk to black people).  And if that communication law will be ignored, it should be a real fuck fest up there.  Looks like I'm going to Toronto!!!!  

Friday, March 23, 2012

Wisconsin boom town Ruins Tremors Franchise

You've undoubtedly heard about the boom that is disrupting a town in Wisconsin by now.  Witnesses have described the noise as sounding like a "wrecking ball hitting the house" and a "car coming through the house."  It began earlier this week, and now close to 400 people have publicly reported on hearing the noise.

Some of the witnesses have even called police reporting the noise.  And it didn't take long for people to start making light of the situation.  One person tweeted that they were making a Tremors remake in the town of Clintonville, Wisconsin.  If you're not familiar with the comedy-horror film from 1990, it involves four big worms with multiple tongues terrorizing a somehow-still-standing ghost town in Nevada. 

So far earthquakes, underground explosions, exploding gas, electrical problems, burping sewers, and frost quakes have been ruled out as causes of the booms.  So whatever is, basically, scientists don't know what it is.  I feel for the people of Clintonville.

My verdict:  I don't usually report on human interest stories like this as I'm a huge degenerate and prefer something that involves scum and debauchery, but I have my reasons for covering this, though the boom isn't my concern.  See above for what the noise isn't, but what was left out up there?  The military.  Problem solved.  They're testing something secret up there in Wisconsin.  That's all.  What I'm really concerned about is the Tremors tweet.  Well, not the tweet itself.  I'm more concerned with Kevin Tibbles' report on the boom on NBC a couple of nights ago which included clips and a brief description of the movie.  Tibbles described the worms, known as graboids, as "underground aliens."  In the movie they never really find out what the graboids are (aside from big worm-like monsters) but they speculate that they're either a cryptid of some kind, government created war machines to kill the Soviets that they abandoned after the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 (a year before the movie came out), or aliens.  But in the sequel, Tremors II:  Aftershocks, it was clearly established that the worms were in fact undiscovered cryptids.  Get your information straight Tibbles.  This is one of the proudest movies in the history of the horror franchise, spawning two sequels, a prequel, and a TV Series.  It doesn't hurt to actually put your time in with basic research.  You dishonor the memories of graboids.  I am now officially adding Kevin Tibbles to my personal axis of evil for his slight of the graboid.

P. S.  If you don't know what a graboid is, loyal reader, click here.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

A-Rod on a Shopping Spree? I'm Shocked (Sarcasm)

My associates at LeRoy in the Afternoon have informed me that New York Yankees 3B Alex Rodriguez is disputing a charge on his American Express Card of over $17,000 that apparently accrued when he took his 17-year-old niece and girlfriend on a shopping spree.  A-Rod first starting disputing the claims after he was told he could not return the expensive items when he got his statement.  He took the two ladies on the shopping spree at the Blue and Cream Boutique at the Bowery in Manhattan the day after Valentine's Day (perhaps it was a gift?).

Store managers have told LeRoy that A-Rod is a regular at the boutique.  His fiancee reportedly bought some dresses, a couple of other less-expensive goods, and a $1,200 pair of shoes.  Apparently most of the spending was done by the niece.

But sources close to the A-Rod family told LeRoy that trouble started when the niece's mother became concerned that her baseball-playing brother had showered her daughter with far-too expensive gifts.  But Blue and Cream Boutique does not deal in returns or issue refunds.  But A-Rod's fiancee has already made threats, saying that if the items are not allowed to be returned that A-Rod will be forced to take "further action."

And now, Mr. Rodriguez is officially disputing the charges.  No comment from his agent Mr. Boras.  Yet.

My verdict:  If you got it, flaunt it.  Too bad that little bitch's mother is a filthy liberal who fears capitalism.  And too bad Blue and Cream doesn't do refunds or returns.  Keep the clothes A-Rod.  Maybe you can re-gift them to the women you have intercourse with on the road.

A new low for jury duty

The excuses and methods for getting out of jury duty never seem to end.  I once knew a man named Jeff Bourn who walked into a courtroom wearing a Budweiser hat, smoking a cigarette, and pretending to be deaf, just to get out of jury duty.  Not that he would have needed any of that; Mr. Bourn had a long criminal record and no sane attorney would have put him on a jury. 

But that's a method, what about an excuse?  Some are legitimate, although the justice system doesn't care.  But then some are more legitimate.  Take my grandfather for example, who was summoned to jury duty in August 2001.  The only problem was that he died in July 2001.  My grandmother offered to bring his ashes into the courtroom to be interviewed, but she said that she didn't think the ashes would be a productive member of the jury.  The authorities agreed.

But in a new low in the increasingly-inefficient system of selecting jurors, a nine-year-old boy in Massachusetts was summoned to jury duty by the Orleans District Court.  The kid can barely ride a bike, but somehow the idiots in Massachusetts think he can decide guilt or innocence in serious cases.  The court determined that he was too young when he called into tell them of the debacle.

Apparently the mistake was made when census records mistakenly identified him as being born in 1982 instead of 2002.  But guess what ladies and gentleman, this isn't a first time mistake:  The kid was summoned for jury duty in back in 2004 as well.  And let's face it folks, it's fucking Massachusetts, it's going to happen again before he turns 18.

My verdict:  To the people of Orleans District Court:  Pull your heads out of your asses.  A nine-year-old kid?  Was there any explanation for this?  Oh yes, that's right I forgot, a mistake on the census records.  A mistake that you numb fucks first found seven years ago.  And a mistake that you probably won't rectify in the next nine years either.  Ah, jury duty.  Now I know why people detest you so much.  But I don't think I have to worry.  My criminal record isn't quite as long as Mr. Bourn's (yet), but I think it's long enough to keep me off a jury.

Porky's was Right: Women Turned on by gym

If you've ever seen the movie Porky's and you're a guy you've undoubtedly masturbated to the scene where Kim Catrall gets nailed in the boys locker room by her boyfriend after she gets turned on by the smell of the gym clothes.  It turns out that's not that far out.  A new study shows that women are having orgasms and experiencing sexual pleasure while working out at the gym.  Alfred Kinsey first discovered that some women have orgasms from physical exercise in 1953.  And for years the media has reported on "coregasms," with the belief being that most of these orgasms occur when exercising the core muscles.

The online survey found that 370 of the interviewed women experienced either an orgasm or sexual pleasure while working out, and that most of the women were heterosexual and in a committed relationship with a man.  The good news is that most of the women experienced exercise-related pleasure more than ten times in their lives, but the bad news is that they all eventually became embarrassed to work out publicly.  Another tidbit to add is that the women weren't in the midst of a sexual fantasy or thinking about someone they were attracted to.

Most of the women who had these experiences were doing abdominal exercises.  Many of the orgasms occurred when facing the floor and moving their legs up toward their chest.  A lot of other women had orgasms after they did a high number of crunches.

No one really knows what is triggering these orgasms, although they believe that with proper studying scientists can figure it out.  A lot of chicks don't climax during sex, but why worry about that when you can just do some crunches afterwards?  There's always been a mystery surrounding the female orgasm, and this newest development simply asks more questions than it answers.

But look at it this way sexually frustrated women:  If you want to learn what an orgasm is like don't look for the guy with the biggest dick, don't by a vibrator, don't embrace those bi-curious feelings you've been keeping secret since that time you made out with your friend when you were 13, just go to the gym.  Some have their doubts about these coregasms, but for those women who've experienced them, the only thing they doubt anymore is the wonders of the American penis.

My verdict:  Go to the gym.  I'm not just talking about girls either.  If you're a chick it's pretty obvious why you'd want to do this.  But back me up on this guys:  There's nothing more attractive than a girl in the throes of passion.  So ladies, start working on that core.  I wonder if this might work for guys too?  Hmm, I could stop masturbating if it does.  The doctor already told me to take it easy since I have carpal tunnel in both my wrists (I am ambidextrous after all).  Well, you'll have to forgive me for this loyal readers, but I'm going to have to cut my verdict short.  I've got some crunches to do.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

The end of Facebook: Debt Collecting on Social Networks

They say that the law always stays behind the technology, and it hasn't caught up to Facebook yet.  It appears that a lot of debt collection agents and agencies are creating fake Facebook accounts and using them to impersonate "pretty girls" and "friend" their debtors on Facebook, which is probably a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act, but we don't really know that yet as the act was passed in 1978 and didn't account for the rise of social media.  It's definitely not illegal for an agent or agency to post on your wall and ask for your whereabouts (as that's basically the same things they do over the phone), and at the same time it definitely is illegal for them to discuss your debt on a public forum, as that violates the privacy laws outlined in the Act.

Right now a lot of agencies are just using social media accounts to track down outstanding accounts.  There are some easy ways to deal with these people and avoid these problems though.  Here's an idea:  Don't run from them.  Tell them where you are, even if you don't intend to pay them.  They'll stop bothering you, although they'll probably sue you for your debt (and win).

And then it's only a lawsuit, settle out of court and you'll probably actually end up paying the bastards less than you owed them in the first place.  And if you're worried about them tracking you down on Facebook, go into your account and make yourself invisible from anyone but your friends.  If you're worried about what your friends are saying about you on Facebook or on their blog (like I do to my friends) eliminate them as your friends. 

Don't put your work or workplace on Facebook, don't post your cellphone number publicly on Facebook, keep things private.  Some people don't even make their birthday public on Facebook, and why not?  You can get a lot of information from a birthday.

Most people know not to accept friend requests from strangers, but dudes sometime do if it's a hot chick (here's a tip guys, don't).  Also, don't "like" your credit card company or banks you have an account in.  That doesn't even make sense.  I personally hate all credit card companies and most banks.  And if the bastards can still find you even when you're being safe, start printing out their posts, as much activity as you can find, make a paper trail, and nail them to their front door by the nuts.  If done properly and you can prove that they used unethical policies in violating the Act you could be rewarded with up to $1,000 in damages.

My verdict:  Pay your debts.  And if you can't, be honest with debt collection agencies.  As long as you give them a good excuse and offer them a semblance of a repayment plan they aren't going to care.  So long as they see their money being repaid sometime within the next 50 years they'll be patient.  And be careful with your Facebook and other online information.  And remember, if you don't like what other people are saying about you online, delete them as friends.  It's not an overly difficult thing to do.  And yup, if you do delete them after they've posted about you they're probably going to know why it happened.  So peace out evildoers.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Same time, same place: Woman Marries for Fifth Time

A 29-year-old woman is getting hitched for the fifth time.  Her first marriage ended after only ten days when her husband ran off with her mother (it appears that soap operas and pro wrestling story lines are not as ridiculous as they sometimes seem) and her second marriage was barely a marriage, as the groom was just a stand-in for her fiancee who left her when she was eight months pregnant and she couldn't afford to cancel the ceremony.  But alas, she remained undeterred.

I guess maybe she figured that she'd seen the worst and things could only get better?  But her third husband turned out to be a bigamist, and that one didn't last very long either.  When she was 23 she married for the fourth time, and this time the marriage looked like it was going to take for more than two weeks.

But then she took the first good husband she ever had (in four tries remember) and cheated on him.  He fourth husband filed for divorce, and now she's marrying the man she cheated with, who is line to be number five.  I guess that this brings a whole new, twisted, and warped meaning to the word "perseverance."

My verdict:  I've never been married, and I don't necessarily plan on getting married more than once or on becoming a bigamist, but it's my personal policy to cut my losses after three failed marriages.  If you haven't found love by that point in time then you never will.  I think that dating and relationships and even marriage are flawed aspects of our modern society.  I've known people all my life who will pick a questionable significant other just so that they will not be single and thus "socially abnormal."  I believe that this eventually boils down to marriage for a lot of people, who believe that society dictates that if they're not married by 33, they've failed at life in something.  Take it from me, don't rush things.  If it's meant to happen, it will.  And if you don't want my sensible explanation, look at the above bride.  Five marriages, four failed marriages, and if history is any indication she's probably working on failed marriage number five.  This is so ridiculous that it could be the basis for an episode of Maury, the favorite show of Dr. Sean Nice.  And the sad thing is that although this girl is a little extreme with five marriages, she's not that unusual in her multiple relationship disasters.  Trust everyone ladies:  You don't need to be in a steady relationship at any level to be normal.  Translation:  It's okay to be single.

Monday, March 12, 2012

My That's a big One: 14-Pound baby born in California

They said it was going to be big.  But no one thought that the C-section would yield a 13 pound, 14 ounce baby boy.  The initial estimate of the size of the child was said to be approximately nine pounds (my birth weight), which in itself is pretty big for an infant.

The gynecologist who delivered the baby says that he's delivered 20,000 babies in his life, but that this one was the biggest.  To make matters more interesting, he says that delivering a large baby via C-section is more difficult than a smaller or medium-sized infant.  The extended family of the mother did not immediately believe her claims of delivering a baby that big.

And it doesn't look like it runs in the family, as the same woman gave birth to a seven-pound girl almost three years ago.  Apparently there aren't very many newborn clothes for babies that size.  It is unclear if this baby was a hospital record, or in the greater San Diego area as a whole.

My verdict:  Tuna fish, pickles, and ice cream is not a good diet to have.  You should listen to your cravings a little bit while pregnant, but you shouldn't listen to them enough where you start carrying around a 14-pound mass in your gullet.  Pace yourself.  Think of your own diet and health as well as the health of your fetus.  A small baby isn't good, but a big one can be just as bad.  Also, most Democrats believe that a six- to seven-pound baby is more fair and balanced or "evenly distributed" than a large one or small one, so we have to think about that.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Facebook ends Another love Triangle

A prison guard living in the Seattle area has been charged with bigamy.  The prison guard married his first wife in 2001 before they eventually split up, although they never divorced.  Last December he had his last name legally changed before he entered into his bigamous second marriage.

But here's the best part:  The two wives learned about each other because they had several mutual friends on Facebook (apparently the mutual Facebook friends were all or mostly true friends of their mutual husband) and they were suggested to each other as "people you may know."  The man has been placed on administrative leave from the prison.  Oh by the way, the first wife tipped off the pigs in Washington about the dual marriages after she confronted her estranged husband about the issue and he told her to keep a lid on the situation, which led to the felony charge.

Perhaps they'll get divorced now.

My verdict:  One marriage is bad enough and most people get married multiple times these days so they know what multiple marriages can do to  person's psyche, but damn dude, two marriages at the same time?  How fucking stupid can you be?  And another thing, I realize that in the age of information people meet a lot more people and date online and probably cheat easier, but you've got to keep your women in order.  I like to think of things in the same way as my former friend Rodney "Popcorn" Robinson once so eloquently said:  In this age, all men have squeezes and main squeezes.  Now your main squeeze is the one you want to keep, and your squeezes are just the ones you want.  And if you're going to wander on your main, make sure that you don't do it publicly, like on Facebook, especially if you've committed a felony in the process.  Your main will make you pay.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Vancouver foot Mystery Solved?

I've been keeping track of many disturbing trends for a long time now.  One such trend is the Vancouver foot mystery.  If you don't know what I'm talking about don't fret, you can read about it in some of my older posts.  And I'm going to tell you all about it anyways, so don't even bother to skim through my blog.  Self-defeating?  Maybe, but this is too good of a story to ignore.

For the past couple of years severed human feet stuck inside shoes have been washing ashore on the beaches of Vancouver, British Columbia.  Actually, an investigation revealed that 12 feet washed up on the shores of Vancouver over a five year period, with six in a six-month time span.  Several theories were proposed as to where the feet were coming from, ranging from an especially deranged serial killer to an aircraft crash that had somehow gone unnoticed.

And now another, possibly more plausible explanation (or possibly not), has been proposed.  A coroner in BC has proposed that the feet are coming from people who have committed suicide by jumping off a bridge over Fraser River.  A job well-done perhaps?  Then again, this probably means that those feet aren't going to stop washing up anytime soon, at least if this theory is correct that is. 

I guess this really only means one thing:  Don't go swimming on the beaches of British Columbia.

My verdict:  Another plausible explanation for a strange phenomena that probably doesn't truly solve the mystery.  The aircraft accident was pretty far out there, as those things typically get noticed by someone.  But is the theory of a serial killer really anymore far out than the idea of continued suicides or hundreds of other equally plausible theories?  No, probably not.  A reasonable theory by the coroner, but there's really no way to either prove it or disprove it.  The only thing that I can really say is this:  As stated above, don't go swimming on the beaches of British Columbia.