J-Lo Induced Arson

I guess if you're going to watch a movie with your wife, it's probably a good idea to make sure that the movie doesn't contain an actress which will cause said wife to burn your boat, burn your go-kart, burn your jacuzzi and threaten to put your dogs to sleep. Wait. What now?

Correct. Naturally, this took place in Flori-duh. And as we learn from the NWF Daily News, there's all sorts of strange going on in this one. What we have here is a one 34-year old and old enough to know better Shannon Wriska of Milton, Florida, who had watched a movie with her husband, a one Robert Wriska. While we do not know which movie they watched, we do know that it starred Jennifer Lopez. We later learn that Mrs. Wriska is not a fan of the J-Lo, as evidenced by her wacky behavior after the unknown movie. (In her indefensible defense, if she was somehow forced to sit through the God awful Gigli, I can understand being a tad bit irate. It's time out of your life that you'll never get back.)

According to the police report, "Robert stated his wife was very jealous of the actress and did not like him seeing her in the movie. He said an argument ensued over the ...and Shannon later left the house". Very jealous of the actress? Look, I'm not defending this nutjob, but did Robert have any part in perpetuating the jealousy? Any comments like "I wish you looked like her" or "I'd divorce you and marry her in a second"? Anything like that? It still doesn't justify what happened later, but it would lend just a bit of understanding to the seemingly disturbed woman. (And she left? Really? Over J-Lo on the TV? It's not like J-Lo was in their living room. But she left anyway. Hmm. OK, then.)

Now, would you think that a normal person would still be mad about this the next day? (It IS a movie, after all. And really, it's Jennifer Lopez. She's hot and all, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see what folks see in her past the obvious attractiveness.) The key phrase there would be "normal person", which Mrs. Wriska does not seem to be. That's because the next day, when she saw Robert drinking over at their neighbor's house (Oh, come on! Like you couldn't figure out that alcohol was going to be involved in this! Please! I've taught you better than that, haven't I?), Shannon then walked outside of their trailer (And don't you even try to tell me that you didn't see it coming that they lived in a trailer, either! You knew it! I knew it! We all knew it! There had to be alcohol AND a trailer involved!) and "...started pulling hoses off of the motor of his go-kart and lit it on fire". (All right. I didn't really see the go-kart coming into the picture, but I can't say I'm overly surprised at this point.)

As Robert tried to put out the flames on his beloved kart "...he saw Shannon drive away in her vehicle with his dogs, saying she was going to “put them to sleep"." Oh, yeah. That's real normal there. What is wrong with you, ma'am? Seriously. What kind of crazy, drunken, J-Lo hating, go-kart torching woman does such a thing? Probably the same kind of woman who also tries to torch a boat after the go-kart owner resumes drinking beer with the neighbor.

Seriously? Seriously. After Robert went back over to the neighbor's (probably for some much, much needed alcohol) "...someone came in the house and said that Shannon was lighting Robert’s boat on fire and that she was attempting to light a Jacuzzi on fire by pouring gasoline inside of it". (I'm kind of impressed (or amused) that they live in a trailer in Flori-duh and yet have plenty of toys. Go-karts, boats, Jacuzzis, the works. Why the trailer, folks?) Can we just presume that the jacuzzi was empty when she was pouring gasoline inside of it? In this case? Umm...probably not.

As you would imagine (or at least, hope) Shannon was later arrested. When being interviewed at the jail, "...she stated both she and her husband had been fighting throughout the night of Sept. 1 and into the following day. Shannon said Robert called her several times, verbally “harassing” her." Oh, no. Not verbally "harassing" her! You're going to get yourself a go-kart burnin' if you keep that up! Or will you? She also stated that "...Robert lit the go-kart on fire, and (she) didn’t admit to lighting anything on fire." Of course she didn't. Noooo. That boat and that Jacuzzi just spontaneously combusted. And of course he would light his own go-kart on fire. Sure, that makes sense. Or maybe it doesn't. What makes more sense is never watching a movie with Jennifer Lopez in it if this woman is anywhere around you. Oh, and by the way. She looks just like you think she does. Behold!

Told you so.

You Dumbass

There needs to be a criminal charge for dumbassery. Now, if you're unfamiliar, dumbassery is similar to asshattery, only instead of being an asshat, you're a dumbass. I suppose that there could be multiple criminal charges, one for asshattery and one for dumbassery. I'm not picky. I would just like there to be something available that accurately reflects what it is that someone has done in certain instances. You know. Like telling a flight attendant that you have a bomb in your carry-on luggage. You dumbass.
That's right. Some moron, one who goes by the semi-fabulous name of Draco Slaughter, piped up when, according to NBC New York, "...a flight attendant noticed a carry-on bag near the rear of the jetliner and asked those nearby if they knew its owner." It's hard to tell from the craptastic reporting if Mr. Slaughter (I can't decide whether or not I really want to call him Draco even though it's pretty cool sounding) did, in fact, actually own the bag. What is fairly clear from the craptastic reporting is that Draco (I'm sticking with Draco) "...said it was mine and kidding I also said that there could be a bomb in there." Brilliant. Simply brilliant. You dumbass. It probably really didn't help anything that his last name was Slaughter. Don't get me wrong. It wouldn't have been any better if his last name was "Cutelittlekittens". I'm just saying.

It's bad enough that he said what he said. We're not all that joke-y in this country about this kind of crap, you know? Call us silly. Call it 9/11. Call it whatever the heck you want to, but just don't say that you have a bomb in your luggage. And really don't say that you have a bomb in your luggage when you're at "...Long Island MacArthur Airport in Ronkonkoma, about 50 miles east of New York City". Yeah, New Yorkers especially are still not ready to joke about bombs and airliners. Too soon. Almost ten years, but still too soon.

Draco was arrested after he left the aircraft. Naturally, a couple of hours was spent searching the plane and, thankfully, no bomb was found. Unfortunately, that did sort of delay the plane from taking off to reach its final destination of West Palm Beach, FL by a couple of hours. Sure. Travelers don't mind wasting two hours at the airport because some dumbass said he had a bomb in his bag. Yeah, that's the kind of thing that everyone will just laugh and laugh about later on, right? Not so much.

When asked about the incident by reporters afterwards, a one MacArthur Airport Commissioner Teresa Rizzuto said, "We take this stuff very seriously." Yes, we know. You're supposed to. I don't know what sort of questions she was asked, but did the reporters really expect her to say anything other than what she said? Were they hoping for a "Yeah, whatever. We thought about just flying off, but figured maybe we should look around a little bit. So we had the guy that usually vacuums the planes take a stroll down the aisle and told him to let us know if anything blew up." Oh, but how I can only wish that one day someone will respond with, "What the hell did you expect us to do? Next question!"

He was "...held on bail Monday at his arraignment in Suffolk County District Court. His court-appointed attorney entered a not guilty plea on his behalf to a charge of reporting a false incident, a felony." Did I mention that Draco is 75? Yep. 75. 75 and dumber than a box of hair. Behold!

Huh. Seems to have an awfully vacant stare. Yeah, that seems about right. It says that Einstein is "...due back in court on Friday. If convicted, he could face up to seven years in prison." See, this is where I think that a charge of dumbassery is in order. I'm not sure what the penalty would be, but I'd have it be something more practical that seven years in prison. I'm thinking he has to reimburse everyone who was on that plane (and had to wait for over 2 hours because of his little stunt) the cost of their ticket. That seems reasonable. And no flying for a couple of years. No train either! Only buses. Public transit buses! That alone is punishment enough even if you haven't committed a crime.

Sign On The Dotted Line

I've come across a new aspect of abusive relationships. Sure, some folks say that those who stay in abusive relationships "have it coming" or some crap like that (they don't, of course). But the question now is do they "have it coming" if they sign a contract in which they consent to the abuse beforehand? Wait. What now?

Correct. For some reason, this story is coming to us from our friends across the pond at The Daily Mail, even though it takes place in Seattle, Washington. What we appear to have is "A violent boyfriend forced his pregnant girlfriend to sign an 'abuse contract' allowing him to beat her whenever he wanted." But that's not all! Like any contract, there were clauses and terms that spelled out what the contract was all about. And "Under the terms of the contract Graydon Smith,31, was allowed to punch, kick and throttle his 19 year old girlfriend." And if you're wondering what this sort of loser looks like, I'm going to say that he looks about exactly what you think he looks like. Behold!

See? Was I wrong? Of course not. But let's not be too hasty to judge this lad! After all, not only were there terms, there were also restrictions, for cryin' out loud. There were certain things that he couldn't do. That's only fair, right? (Why those certain things didn't include the abuse in the first place is a bit beyond my capacity to understand this sort of thing.) "His only restriction was that he wasn't allowed to punch her stomach." Awww.....see? What a great guy! He was looking out for the unborn! What a peach. That is, if by "peach" I really mean "A-hole".

This all came to light when the girlfriend's stepfather "saw Smith throttling his daughter" and subsequently called police. Might I just note that most fathers/stepfathers would have done a little throttling of their own had they been witness to such an act. I'm thinking ol' Graydon got off easy by having the cops called.

When the cops arrived, this dimwit "...admitted to police that he had made his girlfriend...sign the contract giving him free rein to carry out domestic abuse." I am dying to know what this admission came about. I can only assume that he was confronted by the cops and, because he's practically Einstein, pulled out the contract and showed it to them. I'm also assuming that it involved some use of the term "See?" Again, pure speculation on my part, but only because it's completely asinine to expect that anything sane would be taking place at this point.

I'd like to know how long this was going on before he was busted. I mean, did his 19-year old girlfriend really think that there wasn't anything that could be done because she signed some idiotic contract that allows for her to be beaten? Oh, I almost forgot: Anywhere but in the stomach region. You know, because he's such a caring individual.

The article ends with these two gems of sentences: "Unemployed Smith has been charged with assault and harassment. He is being held on £75,000 bond." Oh, what?! He's unemployed?! Shocking. Simply shocking.

Reverse Natural Selection?

Sometimes, you just have to see things to believe them. And I think that a lot of the times when that is the case, once you see them and once you believe them, that doesn't necessarily mean that you understand them. That's why you're usually left just wondering what in the world is wrong with a lot of people. And that would include wondering what in the world is wrong with the media covering such stories.

Take, for example, the family of Ardi Rizal. Ardi and his family live in Indonesia. And according to the Washington Post, there has been somewhat of an uproar after "Shocking photos of....Ardi Rizal puffing away on up to 40 cigarettes a day" came to light. Sure, sure. I know a lot of people smoke 40 cigarettes a day. I don't know how in the world that they afford it, but I know that they do it. The thing that makes this a little bit more of a head scratcher is that Ardi is 2. As in "years old". Two years old. Smoking up to 40 cigarettes a day. Wait. He's two and he...? That's right.

While I am usually a huge fan of the Washington Post, I am not a huge fan of how they covered this story. If they were trying to win some sort of a prize for presenting the subject in the most irrelevant manner possible, then they were on top of their game. Other than that, well, I'm just glad I didn't pay for it or anything (even though I still feel a little gypped). They talked to a one Matthew Myers of something called the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids which is located in Washington, D.C. Mr. Myers was quoted as saying, "This reflects a pervasive problem in many low-income countries where tobacco companies market their products to an uneducated public." Really? Are they marketing their products in such a way that it is implied that babies should be smoking cigarettes? No? OK, then. Anything else?

Unfortunately, yes. He also stated that "...anybody, at any age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia". Wait. What now? Anyone, regardless of age, can buy cigarettes in Indonesia? Oh, now I see why that's a relevant fact! Of course. Because this two-year old wouldn't be able to smoke if he hadn't been able to go out and purchase the cigarettes that he's smoking on his own, right? Of course not! What does that have to do with anything?! Oh, nothing? Let's move on.

Now, a one Seto Mulyadi, who heads the country's child protection commission, "...blamed Ardi's two-pack-a-day habit on advertising and clueless parents." Well, that's a little bit better. Though I'm still not sure what advertising has to do with this. I'm really liking the pointing the finger at the clueless parents, however. It's probably an understatement to say that's the most likely culprit here.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's check in with this toddler's parents and see if they strike us as being of the clueless bent, shall we? First, we'll hear from the boy's mother, Diana. "He's totally addicted. If he doesn't get cigarettes, he gets angry and screams and batters his head against the wall. He tells me he feels dizzy and sick." She apparently doesn't seem to see her part in all of this. She apparently doesn't seem to think that she is the parent and that she is in control and that, eventually, all of the screaming will subside. Hmm. Yep, there are definitely indicators of cluelessness here. Let's check in with the father next.

But wait. Before we do that, I should probably also mention that not only does this two-year old smoke two packs a day, he also "...weighs 56 pounds. He's too fat to walk far so he gets around on a plastic toy truck." Yeah, see, just when you thought that it couldn't get any sadder, then it does. Let's quell that sadness with anger, OK?

The boy's father, Mohammed, is the moron who gave the kid his first cigarette when he was 18 months old. Nice job, Mohammed. Now your kid is incredibly fat and addicted to cigarettes. How does that make you feel, Mohammed? "He looks pretty healthy to me...I don't see the problem." Really?! He can't walk, you dumbass! Do you see other two-year olds getting around on a plastic toy truck whilst smoking a cigarette? No? Then he's NOT OK, you nitwit!

Seriously, I know that there are different cultures and all of that, but this has so much wrong with it that I really can't even make up anything good to say about it. I guess they're not fortunate enough in Indonesia to have things like Child Protective Services or stuff like that? (That really is a question, as I have absolutely no idea about the social services of the Far East.) Oh, wait. I just read that there is some intervention being attempted with this family. "Concerned officials offered to buy the family a car if Ardi quits." A car?! That's how social services work in Indonesia? They bribe folks to do the right thing?! Grand. Good luck with that, Indonesia. Gooooood luck with that.

The video of this tragic, preventable and completely unnecessary situation is below. If it doesn't load, try clicking here. Oh, yeah, and thanks (I think) to my friend for bringing this to my attention.

Ardi Rizal - The real SMOKING BABY !! free videos" classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 width=364 height=291 type=application/x-shockwave-flash>

Lindsay Lohan: The Gift That Keeps On Giving

I've been waiting for this day for a long time. In some ways, I had hoped that it would never come. But in other ways (a lot of other ways), I couldn't wait for it to arrive. And now that day is finally here! That's right. Lindsay Lohan is in trouble again. Woo-hoo!

Do I really enjoy watching the fall of the once bright and shining star? Yeah, I kinda do. If they weren't such douchebags on their way up, their fall down might not be so enjoyable. But they are and it is and that's why we're at where we are today. And I think it's only going to get better.

Here's the scoop: According to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, Lindsay Lohan "...has been on probation since August 2007 after pleading guilty to misdemeanor drug charges and no contest to three driving charges." Now, see, she was supposed to be in court for stuff related to her probation this last Thursday Yeah, but see, she was in Cannes. Allegedly for the Cannes Film Festival. I don't recall reading anywhere about her actually attending any films. Parties? Yes. Films? Not so much.

Now, she fully intended to be back in the States for her court date. Oh, sure! Of course, she did! Absolutely. But....well....someone stole her passport. Yeah. That's it. Someone stole her passport. Uh-huh. So she couldn't come back. Not without a passport. Yeah, that's the ticket. Dog ate my homework. She lost her passport. But don't worry. She managed to find a way to pass the time. Behold!


Huh. Interesting way for someone who is on probation to pass the time. Is that cocaine? Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. It's hard to tell, especially if you're asking Lindsay because she told Radar Online "That's a set up that's so untrue.” Now, she didn't say how it's a set-up or what is untrue, but that's what she said. I'm thinking she would have been better off (and probably more believable) if she had just gone with "Nuh-UH!"

OH, wait! I just read over at Huffington Post that she explains the photo with the "white powder" (and her holding what appear to be short tubes similar to the kind used as substance snorting implements) as "I thought I was taking a picture with a fan." Uh-huh. That's how you pose for your fan pictures? What kind of a fan was this? Ceiling fan?

So, she misses her court date and the prosecutor and the judge are not happy. The judge issues a warrant which is recalled almost immediately because someone posted the $100,000 bond to get the warrant recalled. I didn't know that you could do that. I thought you had to at least show up in person and then get the bond posted. Maybe there are different rules for the has-been and strung out.

And yesterday was court! Woo-hoo! She showed up to court wearing a shirt that was pretty much opened up all the way down to the lower end of her sternum. If she actually had any breasts, they would have been falling out all over the place. The judge ended up ordering her to wear an alcohol monitoring bracelet and also required her to submit to drug and alcohol testing every week. As you can imagine, that did not sit well with Lindsay. Her attorney tried to argue that the alcohol monitoring bracelet would interfere with her plans to shoot a movie (currently titled "Machete" and sounding like quite a winner) in Texas.

Now, I don't know how abstaining from drinking alcohol is going to interfere with a movie shoot in any of our southern states. And fortunately, the judge wasn't aware of any reasons either. When Lindsay's lawyer did protest too much, the judge said "...that she was prepared to spend a half-hour reading Lohan and (her attorney) a list of her reasons for ordering the bracelet, drug tests and an alcohol-education program." Half an hour? That's it?

Look, she's had one of these bracelets on before. That was three years ago back in 2007. She's had plenty of time to continue to wreck the train that is her life. Will she be able to pull it off again this time? She's going to have to go until at least July when her next hearing is. (I think that's when they will be discussing her "losing" her passport.) She's going to be missing at least one of the prime summer drinking months (the prime months being all of them), not to mention all of the prime coke snorting days (those seem to be all of them for her as well). And honestly, I can't tell you which way I want this one to turn out. On the one hand, I'm all for anyone getting their act cleaned up. But on the other hand, this could get pretty entertaining if she keeps going down this road. Let's see if she can make it until July without any problems and then decide, shall we? That seems fair, considering that I'm not sure that she can make it until Thursday without any problems.