What Next?

I love it when this stuff just practically writes itself. So, I was reading an article over there at People.com about Natalie Portman and her latest movie, Black Swan. It's some sort of a ballerina thriller, whatever that is supposed to mean. (I wouldn't have thought that was even possible before this movie and since I haven't seen it yet, I'm still not convinced.) They quote the recently knocked up Ms. Portman as saying, "Everyone was so worried about who was going to want to see this movie...I remember them being like, 'How do you get guys to a ballet movie? How do you get girls to a thriller?' And the answer is a lesbian scene. Everyone wants to see that."

I can't say I really disagree with her on that one. Who doesn't like a couple of chicks making out? Every guy I know finds it completely enthralling. And I, myself, find it very enjoyable. But it turns out that every guy and myself are not representative of the commenters over there at People.com. And we are certainly not representative of one specific commenter.

Allow me to share with you the comments of a one Patricia Eation. Ms Eation commented "Sick, sick, sick. Portman needs to revise her statement to read, "only the sick minded loves a lesbian sex scene". Have the "gays" taken over the entertainment industry? Next they'll be gay rappers! Bottom line, STOP trying to force a twisted choice of couples on everyone. I will never accept a behavior that God hates". Wait. What now?

Gay rappers?! What the hell does that even mean? How is it that a couple of fictional ballerinas end up making out in a movie will lead to rappers being gay? I'm failing to see the connection, but I'm finding it absolutely hilarious. Gay rappers. OK, then. (I also don't know why she has "gays" in quotation marks. Is she implying that if Hollywood had, in fact, been overtaken by homosexuals, they would be fake homosexuals, thus necessitating the usage of quotes around 'gays'? I don't get that at all. But I find gay rappers to be so absolutely hysterical so I'm going to overlook it.)

I'm going to try to work that into conversation whenever a topic comes up that folks find simply unbelievable. I'm just going to slowly shake my head and say, "I know. I can't believe it. Next thing you know, there'll be gay rappers." It's going to be great. I've needed a new project for a while now. And I believe I've found it!

moreless

Keep Your Shirt On!

As you may or may not care to be aware, President Barry is vacationing in Hawaii, the state where he was born (NOT Kenya!). The other day, the White House issues "strict instructions" (whatever that is supposed to mean) that they were not allowing anyone to take any pictures of President Barry without his shirt on. Isn't he the leader of the "free world"? Doesn't sound so "free" if pictures can't be taken of him without his shirt on. But what if someone were to take a picture of a shirtless President Barry? Would that be so bad? Have you seen him without his shirt on before? Hell, no, it wouldn't be that bad. Behold!

See? I don't see what's so wrong with that! He looks fine! Since when can someone lay down rules about what one can and cannot photograph? In America! Don't get me wrong. If they were going to say that no one can take a picture of the President shirtless, I certainly wish they would have made that rule long before now. Do you know how many other Presidents have been photographed shirtless? Way too many for my taste, thanks. Let's have a look. We'll start with Bill Clinton. Really? Did we need to see this? Behold!

Put your shirt back on. Please? I also found the picture below of ol' Willie Jeff shirtless. I don't quite understand what's going on to each side of him, but I'm sure that he found it pleasurable. Probably in more ways than one.

Here's Ronald Reagan sans shirt. Why wasn't there a moratorium on photos like THIS?!

No, I don't know why it's in black and white. I'm pretty sure that he was President during the years of color photography (even though he probably spent most of his life sitting for oil paintings). And here's Gerald Ford without a shirt.

Not bad, but he's kind of old so it's kind of weird. And what's with the poolside robe? Was that an early 1970s trademark? Wearing a robe before taking a dip? Interesting. And again with the black and white picture. Here's Lyndon B. Johnson getting as close to shirtless as I am comfortable with, as he shows reporters his scar from his gall bladder surgery.
>

How many of us know an old guy who is just like that? They'll start telling you a story about something that happened to them and the next thing you know, they're practically disrobing right in front of you as if you wouldn't believe them otherwise. No, no! I believe that you almost had your grundle shot off by the Nazis, Grandpa! Put your pants back on!

I just don't get what the big deal is. If President Barry doesn't want his picture taken without his shirt on, as the leader of the free world (with the key word there being "free") I suggest that he keep his shirt on rather than telling folks what they can and can't take a picture of. I'm also going to say that I'll be deeply disappointing in all of the paparazzi out there if they can't manage to get a picture of him shirtless anyway. That's their job. After all, the word "paparazzi" is derived from an old Italian term meaning "A-holes who invade your privacy to get pictures that tabloids will pay for". Chop-chop!

moreless

Dear Uncle Bryan

You know, it's never too late to share things that you learn with the ones that you love. No matter what the time, no matter what the topic. You might be the holder of a vestibule of information that needs to be opened up so that the world might benefit from the wealth of information which it holds. I'm guessing that's what this little girl was thinking when she sent her Uncle Bryan the letter below. Thank goodness for the guy on Reddit who posted it and said, "My friend's niece sent him this letter. He thought it only belonged on the the refrigerator. I thought it belonged on the Internet." It absolutely belongs on the Internet. This is what the Internet was made for! Well, this and porn. Behold!

moreless

A Feast For A Fatty

Well, well, well. I knew I would hear about Donna Simpson again and I figured that it would be pretty soon, but I just didn't think that it would be in this fashion. I figured the next I hear, she would have been dead as a door nail. But that wasn't the case. Yet. Ms. Simpson, as you may or may not care to remember, is on a quest to become the world's fattest woman. That's right. She wants to be super, duper fat. Her goal is to reach 1,000 pounds. And not only is she is well on her way, but she's a whole heck of a lot closer thanks to her Christmas feast which she enjoyed just the other day.

Ms. Simpson, all five feet, two inches of her, defended what she ate for Christmas dinner by telling The Daily Mail, "'I eat as much as I want, whenever I want but at this time of year I really go all out. Christmas should give you carte blanche to do whatever you want." Interesting philosophy you have there, Jabba. See, I don't think that there are any days where you get to do "whatever you want". Seems sort of like an anarchist's guide to denial. Let's see if she says anything else to solidify that theory. "Donna, who insists she is healthy, told the Sunday Mirror: 'People who feel guilty about eating are hilarious." Let's see...five foot, two inches...648 pounds...yeah, you sound real healthy there, cupcake. I guess it's your abundance of health that is the reason that you need a Rascal to get around since you can't walk under your own power. You're barely ambulatory and you can roll there and say that you're healthy? I think you're the one who's hilarious.

I also think that she's the one who is gluttonous. Shall we take a gander at her Christmas feast? I think we shall. (By the way, if you're wondering how she pays for all of this food, you're going to be sorry that you ever wondered anything remotely like that at all when I tell you that she "...makes a living from being fat, getting paid to make public appearances and keeping a website where people can pay to watch her eat." See? Sorry.)

Two 25lb turkeys
Two maple-glazed hams
15lbs of potatoes (10lbs roast, 5lbs mashed)
Five loaves of bread
Five pounds of herb stuffing
Four pints of gravy (that's half a gallon!)
Four pints of cranberry dressing
5 lbs of chopped carrots
5 lbs of sweet corn
5 lbs of butternut squash
1 tray of mixed green salad including salad dressing
And a 'salad' made of marshmallow, cream cheese, whipped cream and cookies.

Holy. Crap.

The Daily Mail estimates that the caloric intake of her gastronomic gluttony is about 30,000 calories. That's about 2 weeks worth of food there for a regular person, strictly speaking calorie-wise, of course. It's also right around the caloric intake of all of the animals during feeding time at the zoo. While I assume that her enabling boyfriend cooked all of this for her, my question is where did he cook it all? Did he get it all pre-made? He'd probably have to. I wonder if he rented a wheelbarrow or a forklift to get it all in the house.

The thing that bothers me about this situation, other than the fact that it's incredibly disgusting and beyond selfish, is that this woman (and I use that term loosely, as I'm pretty sure that any gender that she might have been born with is fairly obsolete and irrelevant at this point) has children. She has a 14-year old son and a 3-year old daughter. She's going to kill herself with her carte blanche on life and they are going to be without a mother. Real nice, there. Too bad that her philosophy couldn't have included being a responsible parent to her children.

moreless

People On Drugs Need Sleep Too

I started this year off with a post about some dumbass who fell asleep with a meth lab in his car. Thus, I find it fitting that I end the year with a post about some dumbass who fell asleep with a meth lab in his car. Actually, this guy fell asleep with his meth lab in a cab. But really, for the sake of the argument, isn't that pretty much the same? I'm thinking that it is.

Here's the scoop: According to the Chicago Sun-Times, what we have is a one 25-year old (and old enough to know better) Joseph Hoffman, hailing from the fine Vancouver, Washington area. Mr. Hoffman, who was in the Chicago area for some unknown reason, decided to take a cab. I guess it must get tiring walking around a city carrying your possessions. I guess it must get really tiring if your possessions that you're carrying happen to be your meth lab. That's when Mr. Hoffman decided that it would be a good idea if he and his meth lab took a cab. (By the way, that's Mr. Hoffman over there on the right. He looks about like you'd expect him to.)

The cab driver took him somewhere (where isn't exactly clear because the media sucks) and when the cabbie went to collect his fare, he encountered a problem. The guy didn't pay up, but not because he had a problem with the fare or bolted or anything like that. No, he didn't pay up because he was asleep. SOUND asleep in the back of the cab. Yeah, it's problematic when you're trying to get money from someone and they aren't conscious. It makes it a little tricky.

The cabbie decided that he'd just take his slumbering passenger to the police station and see what they could do about it. Well, they couldn't get him to wake up either. Not knowing who Rip Van Winkle really was, they decided to search his bag for some identification. They found some, all right. He is now known as "Guy who fell asleep in a cab with a meth lab in his duffle bag."

Yep. They found three pounds of meth (which the cops claim is about $448,000 worth), and "chemical bottles holding a clear, crystalline" substance, wired to a power source." Again, it's unclear what the "power source" was because the media sucks and that was not addressed. The story goes on to say that "Police said the duffle bag included a "mobile meth lab". Wait. What was the substance wired to the power source? Wasn't that the meth lab? Are these separate things? Was the power source an alarm clock, powered by a liquid methamphetamine? I'm so confused.

But I'm not as confused as Mr. Hoffman. After he "... was taken to St. Francis Hospital in Evanston for treatment...when he woke up he allegedly gave police permission to search his temporary residence". What in the world is a "temporary residence"? Hotel room? Back alley? Pup tent at the KOA? Hard to say. Because why? Because the media sucks, that is correct. But I digress. Inside the "temporary residence" "...officers found "a gallon-size bottle of crystal material suspected to be GHB, or the so-called date rape drug, small blue pills suspected to be ecstasy, and a bag of cannabis". Wow. No wonder he was asleep. Mr. Hoffman seems like a very busy man. Naturally, Mr. Hoffman was arrested and charged with five felony counts of asshattery and dumbassed-ness.

When in court, Mr. Hoffman "...allegedly shook his head...when prosecutors said methamphetamine was worth $448,000 on the street." And while I think that Mr. Hoffman is a complete moron, I'm going to have to agree with him on this one. I've done a little research. Three pounds of meth isn't going to get someone almost half a million dollars. I'd really like to know what street that's on. According to the Department of Justice, "...methamphetamine prices nationwide range from $6,500 to $20,000 per pound, $500 to $2,700 per ounce, and $50 to $150 per gram." It's unclear to me when this was written, but even if we assume that prices have tripled since whenever and is now $60,000 per pound, they would still only be looking at $180,000. That's a far cry from $448,000. By their estimation, a pound of meth is $149,333. That's $9,333 per ounce and $333 per gram. A gram isn't a whole heck of a lot. I'm having a hard time that meth users are coughing up over $300 for a gram of stuff. I'd really like to know how the prosecution arrived at their estimate. I'm sure that Mr. Hoffman would too.

Why does one need a travelling meth lab? Is he like the old timey Fuller Brush man or the Hoover vacuum people? They just show up at your door out of the blue and start demonstrating their product right there on your porch? That seems like an odd way to run an illegal drug business. Then again, falling asleep in the back of a cab with your illegal drug factory in your duffle bag seems like an odd way to do things as well. So what do I know?

moreless

Going Completely Bonkers On Christmas

How was your Christmas? Good? Did you get that one gift that you were really hoping for? The one that you didn't know what you'd do if you didn't get it, but that you thought was so elusive that you'd never actually hold it in your very own two hands? Then when you did finally get it, did you completely flip out as if you had just won the lottery? We're talking going completely berserk. Well, the kids in the video below did go completely berserk. It's amazing how a simple item like a Wii or (back in the day) a Nintendo 64, could cause the vocal range of children to reach supersonic levels that only dogs can hear. I guess it's nice to see kids that excited about something that they've received. It kind of makes you think that they appreciate it and are grateful to have received it. Thus, their odd way of celebrating becomes amusing. (Though the kid who ran all the way down the hallway just to run all the way back and simply jump in the air was disappointing. I was expecting him to slide down that floor in his socks or do some cool dance or something. Nope. He just jumped. Once.)

moreless

Merry Christmas 2010!

I'm sure I could come up with something ludicrous to put here today. But I think I'll pass. It's Christmas. It just wouldn't seem....right. You know, kinda like one of those inflatable, lit up, manger scenes in someone's front yard? You know that the people mean well, but it just doesn't translate into the "feeling of Christmas" all that great.


I don't know if this is going to translate into the "feeling of Christmas" all that great either. So to make sure that nothing gets lost in translation, I'm keepin' it short. (But just in case it does get lost in translation, I really am shootin' for the whole "feeling of Christmas" thing here. Just so you know.)

I'm grateful for this day because it's kinda where it all started or where it all starts. Without the historical events which took place on this day, I wouldn't have a chance to be forgiven for all of the times and all of the things that I screw up. And there's a lot of 'em. Trust me. And it's not just me that has that opportunity. It's everyone. Including all of the morons that I mock incessantly. They too can (surprisingly) be forgiven for all of their evil-doings and their oh-so moronic ways.

The whole Christmas thing just makes me happy. And I try to share that happiness with others when given the opportunity. (And in forms other than this blog. Hey. Why are you laughing?) And this year I had an excellent opportunity to spread my own little version of happiness and I totally took fully advantage of said opportunity (seemingly to the delight of others, which was the point). I also try to enjoy those around me and those in my life and give them just one day where their obvious shortcomings don't annoy me. That's my way of spreadin' the joy. That alone makes others grateful as well. Give it a try is all I'm sayin'.

And you know, I really do have more heartfelt feelings about people in my life than I either care to admit or am capable of expressing without either scaring the other person or becoming inadvertently engaged to four different individuals when I'm done. And at the risk of doing either or both of those things, I'd like to let those of you that I know personally know that I think you're all just great. Some a little greater than others, which means there are a few of you who really need to start pulling your weight a bit more, but I still love ya. Usually. And for those of you whom I don't know personally but who read this blog (and don't leave jackass comments), well, I think you guys are just swell also and I appreciate all of the reading. I know it's not always easy and that's why I really appreciate the effort.

So Merry Christmas. Now go spread some cheer. Or some love. Or both. You've got the whole rest of the year for complaing and mocking all of the other crap. Today? Love, cheer, and thanks. Spread a little of that around, will ya? It's Christmas, for cryin' out loud!

moreless

Merry Guitar Hero Christmas To All!

Side note: I've been swamped all day. Baking crap holiday goods to give to people for Christmas takes a lot more time than just ambling about in the mall. It is more delicious than stuff you can get at the mall (with the exception of, perhaps, Cinnabon), but it's definitely time consuming. Therefore, I'm revisiting an awesome post from last year. It still find it awesome because I still love Guitar Hero. And I'm only a day away from new games to play.

Fine. I'll admit it. I love Guitar Hero. It's the funnest damn video game I think I've ever played. Better than the entire Tony Hawk series (which was the reason that I ever got a PS2 in the first place). Probably better than any of the games that I played in the arcades as a young hooligan. Definitely better than Pong. I love it. Granted, I am constantly mocked by my non-playing friends (Translation: all of them), but they still love me, so I'm good with the mocking.

That being said, if I knew where the folks responsible for the video below lived, I would move in across the street from them. That's right. I would leave the self-imposed isolation (to protect me from the morons of society) of my walled-off compound and be someone's neighbor for the holiday season. That's how cool I think this is. I realize that the majority of you won't think that it is as cool as I do. That sounds like a personal problem. Perhaps witnessing how video games and the Christmas season can come together as one and spread tidings of joy throughout the land will change your mind over the coolness.

I give to you (courtesy of those guys who posted it on YouTube) a Christmas Light Hero. Behold!

moreless

Now THAT'S A Response

What you are about to read is one of the most awesome letters I have ever come across. And really, I wouldn't have come across this at all if it hadn't been for something called The Last Angry Fan. It appears to be sports related and, if I'm judging on this item alone, completely awesome. It seems that back in 1974 (why it took this long for something this great to be known to the public is beyond me) there was a disgruntled Cleveland Browns fan who was also a uptight asswad. He seems very concerned about spectator safety due to the reckless abandon with which other rowdy fans are endangering innocent bystanders. By throwing paper airplanes. Read on. I swear. (If it's not big enough, just double click the image and that should enlarge it. If it doesn't click on the link above and read it there.)

Seriously, how are you supposed to reply to something like that? I can't even imagine why that guy even had season tickets. He clearly doesn't quite understand what comes along with going to live sporting events. (He's obviously not an Oakland Raiders fan. I'm pretty sure that team has a prerequisite that you be a convicted felon and are capable of hurling a D battery onto the field from the back of the upper deck.) And just how much attention do you want to pay to a nimrod like that guy? He's obviously an attorney, so I guess it could get ugly, unless....it was responded to in such a manner that only a genius could conceive of it. (Side note: Scott and Mark, this guy is clearly from your tribe. You will be proud, as he is one of your own.) Behold, the response!

I don't know where Mr. James E. Bailey, General Counsel, is to this day, but I hope he is alive and well, living a life of prosperity and has had a statue made in honor that is prominently on display in a town square somewhere. Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.

moreless

There's Nothing Wrong With Books

I should explain something about the clip I've included below. See, I'm trying really hard not to hate the kid in the video. And I'm guessing that your first inclination will be to hate the kid in the video. After all, that was my first inclination, so I can't imagine why yours would be any different. But the kid is only three. Three years old. And really, I completely blame the parents for how this kid has turned out so far. I know, I know. It seems judgmental. It probably is in its own way. But there's really nothing wrong with a little judgment in certain situations. This is one of those situations.

What we have is a small child unwrapping gifts last Christmas while the proud parents who are responsible for raising this child to get to this point are watching and videoing their precious little snowflake. The child was, well, surprised at one gift that he opened. He apparently had some preconceived notions about what Christmas is/was all about (and those notions don't include books). Those notions being that it's all about him and what he gets and he had better like it otherwise, you're going to hear about it. And the parents are going to just laugh and laugh and laugh as to make sure that this sort of behavior is encouraged in the future. Let's take a look, shall we?

See what I mean? I really want to dislike the kid, but I have a hard time because he's only three, for cryin' out loud. I have absolutely no problem what so ever disliking the parents, however. Laugh it up a little bit more there, Mom. Make sure your kid knows how cute you find it for him to be ungrateful. And you too, Dad. Make sure your kid sees you laughing over there so that he can throw a fit every time he doesn't like something.

Look, I realize that the kid is three. But I also realize that he shouldn't be turning up his nose at a gift. If he is old enough to understand that he is going to get presents on Christmas, then he is old enough to have the concept of gratitude instilled within him. He is at least old enough for a little talk about how much Santa likes books and how much Santa wants kids to like books and that those books from Santa are very special. Something. I don't think he needs a full blown lecture. He's three and it's Christmas morning. But I do think that he doesn't need an audience of laughing parents. He knew that they thought it was hilarious and he just went with it. I'm sure that reaction is going to go over real well if he ever has his friends over for a birthday party and one of them, God forbid, gives him a book. I'm sure that his little friend will love being screamed at by the kid telling him that books aren't for birthdays.

Knock it off, parents. Do your job (it's right there in your name) and parent your child.

moreless

Ho

Of course, you're not going to send a normal Christmas card if you're Paris Hilton. Considering nothing that she does is normal, why should Christmas be any different? It probably shouldn't, but I guess maybe I was hoping that it would be? I don't know. I guess I always hope that people, no matter how self-centered, self-absorbed and absolutely abhorrent one may be, maybe they can find this time of the year to think about others or simply think about what they're grateful for. Yeah, that didn't happen with her. Here's her Christmas card as proof. Behold!

Seriously. Who thinks that's a great idea for a Christmas card? To get yourself all dolled up in kind of a Marilyn Monroe-esque whorish pose while sitting in some sort of black leather and gold throne thing? I mean, I'm not against having a picture of one's self on a Christmas card. I'm just not used to seeing it be immature, heiress tarts. I'm more used to seeing Christmas cards with families on them. Like the Kardashian's Christmas card. It has their whole family on it. Behold!

Hmm. Probably not the best example that I could have used. Is anyone else feeling a Addams Family vibe from that card? How is that a Christmas card? Why are they dressed like that? Does that one chick have furry green shoulder pads on the outside of her dress? OK, then. That's kind of strange. That's all I've got.

moreless

You Don't Want It "Repealed"

I'm warning you right now: This entire post is kind of based solely on a technicality. There's no implied meaning behind any of it. I'm just pointing something out. That's all. Don't blame the messenger. And don't accuse me of being pedantic. I just find it interesting. Barely interesting, but interesting none the less.

It looks like the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision for serving in the US Armed Forces is about to go down in flames. The study/survey that the Pentagon did was finally concluded and it showed that about 70% of folks that are currently serving said that they would not have a problem serving with other folks who are gay. Seventy percent is a pretty good majority, don't get me wrong, but I find it interesting that it wasn't higher than that. I'm not sure what it means, but I'd like to know. Sadly, I doubt that there is actually any way of knowing, so I'm just going to leave it at 70% said "OK", so woo-hoo! Or something like that.

And here's where I point out a technicality that I haven't seen addressed yet. Everyone keeps reporting that the Senate has voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Usually, when something is repealed, that means that it goes back to how it was before. For example, the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment which had instated Prohibition. After the Twenty-First Amendment had passed, things went back to how they were before the Eighteenth Amendment had been enacted. That is, alcohol was once again legal, just as it had been before Prohibition.

By calling the vote in favor of discontinuing the US Armed Forces policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", isn't that implying that things in the military will go back to how they were before DADT was implemented? That really doesn't help folks who are gay and want to serve openly, as before DADT, the policy was that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all.

Aren't there going to have to be some new rules written or old rules amended that remove any mention of whether or not someone is gay or not? Because if they simply boot out DADT, without new rules, what is to stop it from reverting right back to what it was before? Yeah, see, that's the question that I don't see answered anywhere. Not one single news source that I have read or heard or seen has addressed what the effect is going to be on gay soldiers and those who are gay who want to sign up. And of course, no one mentioned that before DADT, those who are gay couldn't serve at all. They act like DADT is so constrictive and repressive. Uh, it was a little more restrictive before DADT, don't you think?

So, that's all. It bugs me when people talk about this provision being "repealed". I think it's misleading. I also think the media sucks. That is all.

moreless

Shopping For The Rich And Ridiculous

Looking to spend an inordinate amount of money this Christmas? Want to buy lavish and pointless gifts? Of course you do! And you're going to want to turn to Neiman-Marcus to help you do this! Let's see what we can piss away holiday funds on this year, shall we?

Up first is the ever pretentious Folding Electric Bike. In part, the description reads "From the trunk of your car to under your desk, this electric bike folds up to slip into tight spaces". Why would you want this in your car? Wouldn't this be in place of your car? The thing is $1,995.00, so the price is kind of in place of your car. And I'm taking an issue with how it "folds up to slip into tight spaces". Really? Behold!

Does that look all that compact to you? Me neither. It's certainly not fitting under anyone's desk. Moving right along, do you want "Supremely weird looking cool ice-like, self-powered speakers deliver 55 watts per channel with DSP optimized digital power amplification for (allegedly) amazing sound."? Then these are for you. You weirdo. With a thousand dollars to drop on this ugly crap. Are you Superman? Are they going in your Ice Fortress? No? Then why would you want these?

What about a wet/dry electric shaver? Sounds practical, yes? Of course it does. And Panasonic has one with a "...multi-flexible head that pivots 360°, pop-up trimmer, and a fully automatic self-cleaning and quick-charging system." What's not to love? Well, the $400 price tag for starters. Four hundred dollars?! For a shaver? What the hell does it do that makes it worth $400? Does it actually do the shaving for you? No? Next!

Want to stay dry during the rain? Want to do it with an umbrella with a barely discernible skull at the base of the handle? Want to do all of that AND part with $495? Oh, wait. Too pricey? Yeah, well, then the Alexander McQueen Skull-Handle Umbrella might not be for you. Then again, they describe it as "A menacing skull forms the handle of this Alexander McQueen umbrella— show it off in your umbrella rack." In my umbrella rack?! What now?! Shouldn't that say something about using it to keep precipitation falling from the sky off of you?

What about your pills? Got pills? Always losing them as they roll about? (No, I don't know why they're not in the provided containers. I'm stretching this here as it is.) Need a box to keep them in? A pill box, perhaps? How about one encrusted with a bunch of Austrian crystals in a multicolor parrot motif? Yes? For $695? No? What?

What if it was in the motif of a blue bird? Same price, different avian species depicted! How about then? No? Hell, no? What?

What about for your correspondence needs? Been looking for "...cards are an eye-catching pumpkin hue with a white border (and) are engraved with bordered monogram"? Want to spend over ten dollars per card? Mind you, these aren't gift cards or anything. There isn't even anything written on these cards with the "eye-catching pumpkin hue". NOTHING! And fifty of them will set you back $605! Behold!

Who are you people who are buying those? Seriously, I need to know. How much of a pretentious ass are you? Good Lord. I'm guessing that the people who buy those use them to send out announcements to people to tell them that they have just dropped $3,500 on this little musical Santa. Behold!

If that's too much for you to spend on something that you could probably find a reasonable likeness of for about $25, you can always opt for the $995 donkey. But be warned! I don't think that he's musical. So if you want to spend a thousand dollars on a figurine of a donkey that just sits there and sparkles, this might be the donkey for you.

Or if you prefer, there's also a handcrafted ox which Neiman-Marcus says you can use to "...complete your nativity scene". It will also complete your wallet being emptied, as the ox is $1,200. (By the way, what kind of sparkly nativity scene are they used to seeing over there at Neiman-Marcus? Just how gay was Jesus in their versions?)

moreless