I Forgot They Were There, Officer

You know it's a bad day when you're booked into jail. And sure, we can all think of ways that the day that one is booked into jail can get worse. For instance, you could end up being paired with an extremely randy cellmate. Hmm. Really, that's probably about as bad as it could get for most people. But if you're a one Elizabeth Athenia Progris, who was booked into the Martin County jail somewhere in Florida (of course), it got worse in a rather unique fashion when, according to the TC Palm, "...a bag of generic Xanax tumbled "from her genital area." Oh, my.

Apparently, the 22-year-old was booked in and showered on August 13. Her occupation was apparently listed as being "dancer/housewife". How very versatile of her. Anyway, before she was all booked in, the detectives at the jail asked her if she had anything illegal on her person or in her possession. She, naturally, said that she did not. The detectives informed her that if she did, she could be charged. No problem. She still said that she didn't have anything.

I'm kind of wondering if she would have been charged if she had confessed to having anything illegal on her at this point. I guess if she would have been charged anyway, she might as well try to see if she can get it into the jail. And she absolutely did. When she was "...drying off when a deputy noticed a clear bag drop "from her genital area to the floor by her feet." Whoops! Where did that come from?!

Yep. You guessed it and I'm not going to repeat it. Because this chick couldn't do without her generic Xanax, she now "...faces felony charges of possession of a controlled substance and introduction of contraband". Really? Hoo-ha Xanax is a felony? I knew that it was untoward, but felonious?

But the best part of this article is where is tells us: "The affidavit didn't specify whether Progris simply forgot the pills were in her genital area, or how they got there." Wait. Are you serious?! It didn't specify if she forgot they were there?! Do you think that just might be because NO ONE could forget if they had a baggie full of narcotics shoved into the insides of their nether regions?! I'm guessing that's why it wasn't specified. Does the affidavit need to specify how they got there? Can't we all just put two and two together and get a uterine cavity full of contraband? Good Lord, people.

Oh, and by the way? Yep, this chick looks just like you would think that she does. Behold!

Told you so.

LiLo Is All A-Twitter

As much as I loathe Twitter and think that it is absolutely ridiculous, it is times like this which I am grateful for its existence. And by "times like this" I mean "the day after Lindsay Lohan found out that she's going to be going to jail and has taken to Twitter to express her outrage".

Here's the scoop: Yesterday, Lindsay Lohan was reminded that she is just like everyone else when it comes to the legal system when she was sentenced to 90 days in jail for failing to comply with the terms of her probation that were set back in 2007. She cried. She freaked out. She whined. And that was before she knew she was going to jail! After she found out about all of the jailing that was going to take place, that's when the real drama started. That's also when she did what any other self-absorbed, semi-celebrity would do in just such a situation. That's right. She took to Twittering.

Mind you, this is like 6 tweets all strung together since you can only tweet 140 characters at a time. But it is what it is. And what it is, is absolutely hysterical. Here we go:

"It is clearly stated in Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that....No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. this was taken from an article by Erik Luna..November 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But there were no celebrations, parades, or other festivities in honor of this punishment scheme created by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission....Instead, the day passed like most others during the last 15 years:Scores of federal defendants sentenced under a constitutionally perverted system that saps moral judgment through its mechanical rules."

It's hard to know which part of that whole screed she sees as being relevant to her own situation. Perhaps she feels that she is being subjected to "torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Perhaps she feels that the system has sapped its "moral judgment through its mechanical rules" and that's why she is going to jail. Someone should probably tell her that her issues are not part of the Federal court system and that there are NO sentencing guidelines in her situation. I mean, it's an interesting point of view and all of that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the mess that she got herself into. Nope. Nothing.

But wait! There's more! Her latest tweet read simply: "http://tinyurl.com/29kxdyf -- please RT". If you're unfamiliar with Tweet-Speak, RT means re-tweet. That's Twitter's way of saying "Psst! Pass it on!" If you click on her link, it takes you to a Newsweek article about an Iranian woman who is a mother of two and who is likely to be stoned to death as her punishment for committing adultery. (Nice system you have over there, Iran. Nice system, indeed.) Wait. What?

Is she comparing her plight to that of the condemned Iranian woman? I...I...I think she is! Hey, does someone want to tell her that it's not the same?! A spoiled, over-partied actress who can't figure out how to complete 13 alcohol awareness classes in 3 years is NOT the same as an Iranian woman who is about to be stoned to death for adultery that she may or may not have committed! No wonder she can't figure out how the whole court system and probation apply to her. My God, is she delusional or what? Holy crap. Well, whatever it is, it's definitely entertaining. And I'm sure that there's only more to come. Stay tuned!

W.W.L.L. Do?

Just in case you weren't totally convinced that Lindsay Lohan doesn't think that the rules apply to her, allow me to present you with exhibit number 1,348,729 (give or take a couple of exhibits). She's the kind of person that has her nails done and then decides that it's a good idea to have a little message painted on one of them. Now, I'm not saying that it's a direct message to the judge or to the court or to anyone for that matter, but it does give you some insight as to what kind of a lovely young lady this woman is. Moron. The picture is below. If, after clicking, it doesn't enlarge sufficiently, please do visit Huffington Post and see it for yourself in a larger than life format. It's a treat. And so is Lindsay Lohan. Aim high, sweetie!

Twilight Isn't Real

I've come to the conclusion that, in general, these confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice nominee are a big, fat waste of everyone's time. What is the point there? The shaping of the court? Granted, I know that a justice can lean to the left or lean to the right. But if they're really doing their job, it shouldn't matter. I don't know how you're going to be able to figure out how someone is going to perform in the future (and for the rest of their life, actually) by asking them asinine questions during the hearings.

Take a one Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota. According to The Huffington Post, Sen. Klobuchar decided that the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan would be a good time to throw freaking Twilight into the mix. That's right. Twilight. The sparkly vampire movie series thing that I don't understand. How does that play a part in the confirmation hearings? Well, obviously, it freaking doesn't! But Sen. Klobuchar managed to cram it in there anyway. Let's see how she did that.

She started off by saying "You had an incredibly grueling day yesterday, and did incredibly well, but I guess it means you missed the midnight debut of the third Twilight movie last night. We did not miss it in our household, and it culminated in three 15-year-old girls sleeping over at 3 a.m. So I have this urge to ask you about this..."

Let me just interrupt here for a moment. So, she knows that Ms. Kagan had an incredibly grueling day the day before. Why make this day any worse for the woman by asking her a ridiculous question that is purely fictional?! I don't know the answer either. Let's see how Ms. Kagan responded.

KAGAN: I didn't see that.

Wow. She did a lot better than I would have. My response would have been either a blank stare or a string of obscenities. That's probably just one of the reasons why I'm not expecting to be nominated to the Supreme Court anytime soon.

The problem with Ms. Kagan's answer, however, it that it encourages the dimwitted Senator from Minnesota to continue along with her fictional line of questioning.

KLOBUCHAR: "I keep wanting to ask you about the famous case of Edward v. Jacob, or The Vampire v. The Werewolf."

She keeps wanting to ask her? How long has she been a-clamoring to get this out?! It's not a famous case! It's not a case at all! They're fake and sparkly vampires! There's no case! Besides, do we really want a Supreme Court justice that is into Twilight? I can't say that we do. Granted, I can't say that we don't, but I'm leaning heavily in that direction.

Fortunately, Ms. Kagan said exactly what I would have said (only without the obscenities) when she replied, "I wish you wouldn't." Yeah. Me, too.

Of course, that didn't stop Ms. Klobuchar from continuing to try to be witty when she said, "Well I know you can't comment on future cases." Aaarrgghhh! There IS no future case! Vampires AND werewolves are not real! It's a movie! They sparkle! You're a Senator! We're talking about the future of the Supreme Court here and you're asking non-sensical questions about non-existent werewolves and non-existent vampires that may or may not sparkle! What is wrong with you, Senator?

The video of this interchange is below. We're doomed, I tell you. Doomed.

NO Right To Choose...Ever

I've done a few posts about the seemingly borderline retarded Alvin Greene winning the Democratic nomination to run for the Senate seat in South Carolina. He won the primary almost three weeks ago and still no one can figure out why anyone voted for him. Over in Nevada, there's a Republican candidate running for that Senate seat and I can't figure out why in the world anyone, especially any woman, would have ever voted for her either.

From the Nevada State Democratic Party website we learn of an interview that a one Sharron Angle did with a one Bill Manders back in January of 2010. Why this interview is coming out now is not quite clear to me. What is clear to me is that Ms. Angle should not be elected to anything. It's questionable if she should be allowed to roam about freely as she wishes. Medication might need to be involved. If no such medication is available, I'm all for a good malleting over the noggin.

Now, Manders brought up the topic of abortion. Abortion, if you're asking me, is a silly thing for people to state an opinion on. You know why? Because one side is never going to convince the other side to change their mind. They're just not. People might change their mind on their own over time, but they're not going to be simply convinced because someone presents them with a "reasonable" argument. It's a pointless discussion to have. But it sure does get some people riled up, that's for sure. And it's also a good way to identify some of the morons by listening to people's opinions.

Here's the way the exchange between Manders and Angle went. See if you have a problem with her logic/reasoning/rationale.

Manders: I, too, am pro life but I'm also pro choice, do you understand what I mean when I say that.

Angle: I'm pro responsible choice. There is choice to abstain choice to do contraception. There are all kind of good choices.

Manders: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?

Angle: Not in my book.

Manders: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?

Angle: You know, I’m a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things.

You have got to be effing kidding me.

Where to begin? Hard to say, really. I guess I can start with her being "pro responsible choice". I didn't know that we were differentiating between "responsible choice" and "irresponsible choice." And I really don't see how there can even be that distinction when referring to abortion. Pro-life means what it means and pro-choice means what it means. She can't just go around assigning her own definition to the sides that have already been defined.

She says that there is no reason at all for an abortion "in her book"? I'm glad we're not going by her book. Mainly because she doesn't seem to think that there should be the option of an abortion in the case of incest or rape. Listen, lady...I believe that God has a plan too, but I don't think that His plan involves some teenage girl getting raped by her uncle and then being forced to carry that baby to term. For instance! You put yourself in that sort of a position, Ms. Angle, and then you tell me how your "faith" is going to work in that situation. What a moron.

People with that sort of thinking pattern cannot be in government. They sure as heck cannot be in the Senate. (I'd sort of prefer that they not be on the planet.) Lawmaking requires logic and reason and facts. It requires very little reliance on faith. Ms. Angle doesn't seem to have enough cranial capacity to do anything other than rely on her "faith". Thus, vote for whoever is running against her. I don't know who that is and I'm not going to look it up. Anyone would be better than her and her "no choice" stance. And if you care to, you can listen to her stance over there at The Huffington Post.

It's Not The Same

I don't watch Fox & Friends. I don't have any intention of ever watching Fox & Friends. First of all, it's a misleading name. It's supposed to be some morning news show with a bunch of news holes discussing current events. And I suppose that is what it is. But the name makes it sound like it is going to be a kid's show. You know, with an animated fox and his friends from the forest (I envision a deer, a bear, several birds, possibly doves, and a talking frog) all having wacky adventures with a feel-good message at the end. Kind of like the After School Specials, only without all of the drugs and teen pregnancy.

But here's why I'm not watching: The people who host the show, the "friends" I guess, are morons. Complete, class A, morons. Allow me to make my case.

Meet a one Gretchen Carlson. Ms. Carlson is one of the "friends". If she were a Spice Girl, she'd be Short Skirt Spice, as she the establishments at which she buys her apparel do not seem to carry items that go below her mid-thigh (on a conservative day). The other day, she was discussing whether or not President Barry show fire General McChrystal for some remarks that he made in a Rolling Stone interview (which didn't seem all that inflammatory to me, but I wasn't the one that the remarks were about). It was during that discussion that she felt the need to point out to people (who might not have been aware of this) that the President of the United States has to make very hard, very tough decisions. Really, Gretchen? Thanks for sharing. Oh, but she didn't stop there.

No, she made sure that we all understood just what being President was all about. So, according to the huffy folks over at The Huffington Post, she presented us with a comparison...to herself. That's right. She said that her job is just like being President of the United States. Now, I haven't seen President Barry sporting any mid-thigh skirts lately, but let's take a gander at her reasoning, shall we? She said, "It's just like our job...what's the role of an anchor during huge breaking news? You remember growing up? You'd tune to the television, and that one moment during the year, they would have to carry a story all along, It's the same thing as being the President of the United States."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Good Lord, woman! What is wrong with you?! That rationale doesn't even make sense! How is carrying along a news story anything like being the leader of the most powerful nation in the world and trying to decide whether or not to fire the general who is in charge of the war in Afghanistan? I'm sure the connection is there and I'm just missing it by a little bit or something, right? WRONG! It's the most asinine comparison she ever could have come up with. And quite frankly, I don't have any faith that she could, in fact, carry a story all along. I'm actually rather skeptical as to whether or not she can carry her purse out to her car.

And I love how she says "You remember growing up?" Actually, I do remember growing up. It was fabulous. Nothing to worry about, especially the news! I certainly wasn't glued to the TV at 6am watching Fox & Friends. Is she also comparing herself to Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather or some other news fellow? She probably is. If she thinks that her job is just like the President's, then she probably also thinks that she does the same quality and caliber job as Walter Cronkite did. (Side note: Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather didn't do exactly what the President of the United States did either.)

To quote the beloved Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon."

South Carolina, What Are You Doing?!

What is going on over there with the voting populous of South Carolina? Seriously. The guy that they elected to be the Democratic candidate for the Senate seems to be only vaguely aware of what is going on around him. Not to mention that he didn't mount any sort of campaign what so ever and still managed to win with sixty, yes sixty, percent of the vote! How is that possible?! South Carolina voters, how low is your bar, exactly? Well, if Alvin Greene is any indication, there might not even be a bar.

Meet Alvin Greene. He won the primary election in South Carolina on Tuesday with sixty percent of the vote to become the Democratic candidate for one of South Carolina's Senate seats. How he won is still in question. He's unemployed (though he was honorably discharged (though not voluntarily) from the military nine months ago and lives with his parents) and has no previous political experience. I'm fine with the no political experience. Sometimes, I think I would prefer that candidates don't have any political experience. But I would prefer that they appear to have the capability to form complete sentences. Oh, and to not stare blankly after being asked a really simple question by Keith Olbermann, too.

Alvin Greene claims to have had no donations. He claims that the $10,400 that he had to pony up in order to be on the ballot was his own money. Now, I'm not saying that it isn't. I am saying that I find how incredulous the media is toward the notion that it was his own money. They act like because he is unemployed, he should have no money at all. Never mind the fact that he was in the military for about 13 years. If he was living with his parents the entire time, he could have saved quite a bit of money. Even if he hadn't been living with his parents, it's not like people can't save money or anything like that. Granted, I do find it a little odd for an unemployed guy to spend ten grand just to be on a ballot, but I don't think it's as strange as the media is portraying it to be.

Speaking of things that are strange, from what everyone can tell, this guy didn't even do anything on his "campaign". I have that in quotes because I'm not so certain that if you don't actually go out and campaign (as a verb) that you have a campaign (as a noun). I'm not running for anything, but if I don't do anything and I win, does that mean that I've run a successful campaign. I don't think that it does! I really don't.

What I find more strange is that this guy seems to be of a limited intelligence quotient. He seems vaguely aware of what he is doing. He's one step away from the freaking Senate. He sure doesn't act like it. Then again, he also doesn't really act like he knows what year it is. Let's take a look at some of the dialogue between him and the abhorrent Mr. Olbermann. Keep in mind that Mr. Greene's responses to the questions are always followed by a pause of about 5 to 7 seconds. I don't know why. It could be a tape delay thing. It could be a low mental processing speed. I'm just saying. Oh, and let me just warn you. This guy is not one of our nation's most gifted speakers.

Olbermann: What was your campaign like? Did you hold a lot of meetings?

Greene: Say that again.

Olbermann: What...was...your...campaign...like? Did you have a lot of campaign meetings?

Greene: I have just a few meetings. Not many.

Olbermann: Did you have campaign rallies?

Looking awfully perplexed Greene: Nothing...formal. Just...informal rallies. (What in the world is an "informal rally"?!) Informal meetings...rather.

Olbermann: Did you go door to door to meet the voters? How did they find out who you were?

Looking like Olbermann is speaking Chinese Greene: I just conducted a...simple...old-fashioned campaign. You know. All...all across the state of South Carolina.

Olbermann: Did you have campaign advertising of any kind?

Pondering the question Greene: I had...campaign literature. Yes, I did.

Olbermann: Many...

Not quite done Greene: I had campaign literature.

Trying to finish the question Olbermann: Many first time politicians get surprised by how much fundraising they have to do...How much fund raising did you do?

Really confused Greene: Not much....I raised...I used my own funds up to this point...in the primary...and...up until right now....and.... (Then his voice just trails off and he look blankly ahead. I guess that's how we know that he's done.)

Olbermann: Um, how do you think the people who voted for you on Tuesday knew who you were or even that you were running?

Still staring ahead Greene: I think...that...you know, I think that they....saw...I think that they...no, I just think that they recognized...they heard of my name...when I was campaigning...across the state...you know to pass the word on. Just by word of mouth! (Eureka! A complete sentence!) But I just got the word around. (Judging from this interview, I find it difficult to believe that he could get the word around. He can barely get a word out of his mouth.) You know. I had sixty percent of the vote....I had sixty percent of the vote. Sixty percent of the vote is not luck. (I'll agree with him with that. It's not luck. It might not be legitimate, but it most certainly is not luck.) You know...that's a decisive wins. (Yes. He said "wins". That's a decisive wins. Good Lord...) Sixty per....(And then he just stops and starts nodding! That's twice that he's done that. I guess it's his "thing" or something.)

There's more, but I'm going to stop here. You get the point, right? The guy seems dumber than a box of hair, that is correct.

Now, some people are claiming that Mr. Greene is a "plant" by the Republican party. That theory would have more weight if it weren't for some glaring problems. Problem one is that the guy is far from the brightest bulb on the tree. (And while he could still be a "plant", houseplant would be more like it.) Problem two is that "plant" or not, he still won with sixty percent of the vote and from what I can tell, no one has ever heard of the guy because he didn't even go out and campaign. You can plant whoever you want into whatever race you want, but if it's an election, people still have to vote for him. So that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Then again, none of this does. It does seem to have the air about it of something not being just quite right. Can you ask for an investigation based solely on the impression that the guy who won couldn't find his ass with both hands if you spotted him the left one? I don't know if you can or not, but it might be a good idea. It might also be a good idea to go out there and find folks who voted for this guy and ask them what in the world they were thinking. No, wait. Show them some of the interviews of this guy and then ask them what they were thinking. I have the feeling it would be highly entertaining!

The video of Mr. Greene and Mr. Olbermann is supposed to be below. If it doesn't show, you can try watching it here. At that same link, you can watch a different interview with something called The Root. I'm not saying that you're going to learn much more by watching that interview or anything, but I am saying that you'll see that Mr. Greene's demeanor with Mr. Olbermann was not because he was having a bad day or anything. That's how the guy seems to come across with everything. Perplexed. And in a race for a seat in the United States Senate. What could possibly go wrong?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

No Husband Is Not An Emergency

Look, I understand that people get lonely. I understand that you feel bad when your relationship or your marriage or whatever you had going on with someone else doesn't work out. It sucks. We all know it sucks. And the sooner that we replace that person that is missing (whether we threw the loser out or whether the loser ran as fast as they could in the opposite direction), the sooner that it stops sucking (or start sucking, which is better in a couple of instances). While I realize that it may seem like something that is extremely urgent that you want to have happen and that it may feel like an emergency, you're going to have to find that replacement mate in some other fashion other than dialing 911 five times in one hour. Wait. What now?

Correct. Let's meet Audrey Kay Scott, shall we? Behold!

According to Fox8 News Audrey "...is going through a divorce...She says the last five weeks have been rough. Last week when she moved into a new apartment, Audrey, who friends call Kay, decided to celebrate." Hmm. I'm guessing that if you're getting divorced and having to move into a new apartment, you're not really going to be celebrating quite as much as you are going to be drinking yourself into some sort of stupor.

Kay explains that "I drank too much vodka and I got lonely and sad because all my friends are with my husband now and I have no family." Yes, that would make one lonely and sad to be in that situation. I'm not saying that it would make one pick up the phone and call 911 looking for a new husband, but I am saying that the lonely and sad part is probably legit.

But legit or not, she did call 911. The call went something like this:

Husbandless Caller: "Get me that husband"

Dispatcher: "You need to get a husband?"

Drunken, Husbandless Caller: "Yes."

Dispatcher: "You're calling 911 to get a husband? Do you know you can get arrested for dialing 911?"

Unremorseful, Drunken, Husbandless Caller: "Let's do it."

Dispatcher: "You want to get arrested for dialing 911?"

About To Be Arrested, Unremorseful, Drunken Husbandless Caller: "Absolutely."

Seems to me that, drunk or not, Kay isn't exactly playing with a full deck. She seems to be a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Afterwards, she explained, "The officer said you cannot abuse the system we have serious things to respond to and this is not one of them and he said you need to learn this lesson, so I went to prison and I wouldn't trade any of it for anything in the world." Oh, how I only wish that reporting these days wasn't so completely craptastic that the reporter would have asked her why she wouldn't trade any of it for anything in the world. I can think of a whole lot of things that I'd trade three days in jail for. She can't think of a one. Hmmm.

Speaking of craptastic reporting, explain to me what in the world this little tidbit is supposed to mean: "Kay admits she was drinking and says she was looking for her husband, not a love connection." Seriously. What, exactly, does that mean? We know she was looking for a husband. That's the first thing she said. "Get me that husband." It seems fairly clear. Why would we think that she was really looking for a love connection (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Was Chuck Woolery the 911 operator?

Apparently, after appearing in court (having spent those three glorious "wouldn't trade them for anything" days in jail), "The judge ordered her to attend alcoholics anonymous meetings, which she is attending daily." That seems reasonable. Too bad that they don't have any meetings about things that are better than jail. Sounds to me like she could use some of those meetings as well.

But in the end, "Kay says she is sorry she called 911, but says her drunk dial ultimately pushed her toward the straight and narrow." What does that mean? Not the part about being sorry! I know what being sorry means! The part about the straight. And the narrow! I'm not so sure that I consider NOT calling 911 for a husband being on "the straight and narrow". I call that "explaining to a moron what is and isn't OK".