He Doesn't Have Cats

There are a lot of different people in the world. Some are nice, some are not so nice. But here's my take on all of them: Just be who you are and don't try to hide it and while I might not like you, I will at least respect you. You could be the world's biggest bitch or biggest d**k and as long as you don't try to pretend like you're not, I'm good. It's when people who are clearly d-bags try and act like they're not. Those people I have a problem with.

Take Newt Gingrich. His giant pumpkin head aside, he is one who will not embrace his d**kishness. And it's nothing new. Let's remember that at the time of the Clinton impeachment hearings (which you'd have thought were about Clinton getting all Lewinsky-ed in the Oval Office, but were actually not about that at all), Newt was being extremely sanctimonious about the whole ordeal and the entire time that he was doing so, he was cheating on his wife! That's a d**k move if there ever was one. Does he hang out with John Edwards? I think that the two of them would get along just swell together.

Well now, one of his ex-wives has come out with a 'revelation' that she thinks will ruin his quest for the Republican nomination for President. This would be a one Marianne Gingrich, also known as Wife Number Two. (I think she was the second wife. I'm just not sure if she was the wife that he left when she had cancer or if she was the wife that he left when she had MS. See why I think he'd get along so well with John Edwards?) Why she is just coming out with this now is beyond me. But I'm guessing that what she has to say is probably true since after she announced that she was going to make an announcement, Newt swung into full PR mode and had his daughters make statements. One usually doesn't call out the daughters unless they're worried about something. And I could see why this might worry him a little.

The point here is that Marianne Gingrich said that when she was married to Newt and found out that he was having an affair, he not only declined to end the affair, but he also asked her to agree to an open relationship. That's right. Oh, and did I mention that less than 48 hours after asking her to agree to this (she declined, by the way) "...he gave a lecture to the Republican Women Leaders Forum titled, "The Demise of American Culture" in which he decried the way liberals "talk about values." Yeah, he did.

Look, there are a lot of reasons why Newt is un-electable and this is just one of the reasons why he can't be trusted with the nomination. He had to step down as Speaker of the House because of ethics violations, for crying out loud! Does this open marriage request thing surprise anyone? It doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that people are surprised that someone who has proven himself to be grossly unethical, cheated on his wife and wanted an open marriage, all the while preaching morals and values to the rest of the world. I wonder why she's coming out with this now. And really, I'm a little disappointed that this is all that her information holds. I think I was hoping she'd say something like Newt was a cat hoarder and had 100s of cats living with him. That would have been awesome.

moreless

72 Days Of Cluelessness

Let's start off November with Kim Kardashian, shall we? Well, you and I will be starting November off with Kim Kardashian. Kris Humphries on the other hand, will not. Kim, as you may or may not be aware, is famous for being famous and has parlayed that oddly established fame into somewhat of a money machine. At her wedding just a mere 72 days ago, she actually made money on the nuptials as all of the businesses and people that do weddings wanted to essentially sponsor the grand event. But here's the kicker: After 72 days of wedded bliss, Kim has decided that she's had enough and has filed for divorce. 72 days. That's all she could muster up. Just a little over two months. On one hand, it's hardly impressive. On the other hand, it's pretty impressive. Her last marriage lasted four years. To give up on this one after barely nine weeks is definitely something.

The rumor mill (aka TMZ) claims that the reasoning behind the divorce is that her soon to be ex-husband, a one Kris Humphries, wanted to live in Minnesota and she wanted to stay in Los Angeles (to further her 'career', whatever it is). Call me crazy, but shouldn't they have maybe talked about this before all of the getting married took place? But here's my favorite part: Kim issued this statement about the marriage: "After careful consideration, I have decided to end my marriage. I hope everyone understands this was not an easy decision. I had hoped this marriage was forever, but sometimes things don’t work out as planned. We remain friends and wish each other the best.” OK, look, I don't think that you can say that you had hoped it was "forever" when you didn't even make it to Thanksgiving. Seriously, my Halloween pumpkin is going to have a longer shelf life than that sham of a marriage did. Forever? Please.

I'm also quite fond of "...sometimes things don't work out as planned". But that was the problem, cupcake. You didn't plan for anything. You planned to stay in Los Angeles and he planned to live in Minnesota. That's not much of a plan when it comes to a marriage. In fact, that's the opposite of a plan. I also don't buy the part about how it "...was not an easy decision". Of course it was an easy decision. Not an easy decision would be being married for twenty years and then having to decide if you're going to get divorced. I'm thinking that only being married for 72 days would make it really easy. ("Eh. Whatever. It's not like I wasted a lot of time on this marriage. I say I move on. Wow. That was an easy decision. Next!")

Uber-superficial people like the Kardashians amaze me. Don't get me wrong. Kim has done a fabulous job of building up brand name recognition for the Kardashians in general. Maybe she's a genius business woman. Then again, maybe she's just hot and she knows how to work it. I'm voting on the latter. And I'm also hoping that her failed marriage will send her into hiding for a while. Ah, but to dream....

moreless

A Wife Sentence

Well, here's a match made in heaven for you. What we have here are two people who are currently incarcerated (and don't seem to be getting out any time soon) who have fallen in love and have taken the plunge and married each other. All from behind bars. For some reason that I'm not quite clear on. Meet Marissa Star Bilotti the love of her life, Iftekhar Murtaza. (You can pronounce that however you'd like.) Their whirlwind romance began in January when they were both behind bars. I should mention that they're both still behind bars and will both likely continue to be behind bars for years to come. And trust, it's not a tragedy.

According to the OC Register, these two lovebirds met when "...Bilotti sent Murtaza a letter at the suggestion of another female inmate". Of course. Because that sounds like a good way to hook a fella. Find another inmate. He will probably be more likely than a free, law-abiding man to understand how she came to be in her predicament. What is her predicament you ask? Let's see...oh, here it is! She is charged with "...first-degree murder, burglary, and robbery." See, she allegedly helped her boyfriend kill some guy in 2010. She allegedly "...concealed a folded knife in her vagina while waiting in a getaway car." Sure. That's real normal. I'm sure she's a peach.

But what about him, you ask? Again, an upstanding citizen. This gentleman is charged with "...abducting the father and sister of his ex-girlfriend, beating them to death, and then setting their bodies on fire in an Irvine park in May 2007." Now, now. Let's not judge right away. Maybe there wasn't any kindling available. And besides, what if it's a misunderstanding? She doesn't want to take the chance of not marrying this prince based on a simple misunderstanding, does she? Apparently not.

"They got to know each other through a furious exchange of letters, sometimes six a day." See, I don't get that. Six a day? I understand that they don't have much else to do in there, but why not just shove the rest of the letter in the same envelope? It's certainly not very thrifty the way that they're going about it. I hope they take a look at that as they begin their life as a lawfully wedded couple. An efficient running household is really something to strive for.

From what I can tell from reading the article, there was an awful lot of red tape that had to be gone through in order to make it so that these two felons could be joined in felonious matrimony. Why this was even an option is beyond me. I certainly hope that it didn't cost the taxpayers any money. It's bad enough that the public is already likely paying for these scumbags lawyers. (Oh. Sorry. Alleged scumbags.) Why should anyone give a fat rat's ass if these guys get married or not? They're in freaking jail! For killing people! How is their being able to get married any sort of a priority for anyone?! Keep your eye on the ball people! For cryin' out loud.

moreless

Stay Classy, Mississippi

Something called Public Policy Polling did a poll the other day (shocking, I know) of the fine folks of Mississippi. According to their data, they polled "...400 usual Mississippi Republican primary voters from March 24th to 27th". I don't know what a "usual" Mississippi voter would be. Nor do I know how they differ from the "unusual" Mississippi voters. Judging from one of the results, however, I am now afraid of the "usual" Mississippi voter and I'm not really thinking that they should be voting at all.

They asked a bunch of questions about how the usual Mississippi Republican primary voters felt about a variety of potential candidates for a variety of potential politician positions. Things like Senator, President, Governor. You know. The usual choices for people that will end up doing a sub-par job at whatever they're elected to do. But then they decided to ask them a question that doesn't seem to have anything to do with politics at all. They asked if the respondents "...believe interracial marriage should be illegal". I didn't even know that something like that needed to be a question anymore. But apparently, when you're in Mississippi, it most certainly does, as 46% of respondents believe that it should be illegal. What. The. Hell.

Forty-six percent. Really, Mississippi? Almost half of you guys think that interracial marriage should be illegal? Are you dry shaving me?! And don't think that means that more than half of those polled think that it should be legal, as only forty percent answered that it should be. What is wrong with the other fourteen percent of you? You don't know? You can't figure that one out? You don't have an opinion? How can you not have an opinion on something so insane?! Wow. Wow. Wow. Oh, but wait a minute! I just noticed that the margin of error on this poll is +/- 4.9%. That means that it could be as high as over half of Mississippi thinks that interracial marriage should be illegal. Wow. Did I say wow? Yeah, wow.

I don't really know what to say about this. I'm a little stunned. I mean, sure, there are always jokes about Mississippi and how fat and backwards they are, but I hoped that they were just jokes. Clearly, they are not. Clearly, stereotypes are based on at least a sliver of reality. And in this case, they're based on at least 46% of reality. Stay classy, Mississippi. And stay there. Please. Stay there.

moreless

Coming To A Relationship Status Near You

You politically correct types are going to be the end of me. I swear. I know you're going win in the end, but I'm going to try and fight it as long as I can. And while I've got a lot of fight left in me, this sort of stuff really tires my ass out.

According to a Huffington Post article, Facebook is branching out and giving you more, yes, more choices for how to describe whatever your relationship status might currently be! How enlightened of them! Apparently, "Facebook has added two new relationship status options users can include in their online profiles: "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership." OK. So, why does this bother me? Well, you know I'm going to tell you, so what say you just calm down a minute there, Sparky? (Sorry. I'm a little cranky. Stuff like this just gives me a full head of steam.)

Before all of the enlightening, the choices were "limited" to: Single, In a relationship, Engaged, Married, It's complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated, and Divorced. OK. That's all fine and good. Are you seeing my problem with including "in a civil union" and in a domestic partnership", yet? The answer is: It seems unnecessary to me.

And it's not just the new ones that I have a problem with. How is "In an open relationship" any different from "It's complicated"? What the what is "It's complicated" supposed to mean anyway? Is it like, "I'm going to break up with him, but I'm waiting until after my birthday to see what he gets me"? Or is it "I haven't found anyone else to sleep with without emotional attachment, so I'm waiting for that first"? Or is it simply "I'm cheating on him and he doesn't know it yet"? (Did you like how in that example I made the woman the cheater instead of the man? See? I can be progressive, too!)

But back to the new options. Isn't "In a relationship" good enough? You'd think (back when the whole gay marriage debate was going on in California) that the civil union and the domestic partnership options would have been frowned upon by gay marriage proponents. Good Lord, that's all we heard about was how nothing less than a marriage would do! I mean, I guess if folks who it applies to are OK with it and everything, then I suppose it's fine. Maybe I'm just irritated that I never know what's fine and what's not with these things! It's always changing! And it's NEVER the same. Folks were absolutely militant in California about civil unions and domestic partnerships being soooo not good enough. Second-class compared to being married is what I heard a lot of. (I also heard a lot of the opposite of that. "What's next? People marrying dogs?") Which one is it?!

How come "polygamist" isn't an option? Is it because it's illegal and, therefore, doesn't have a legal status? (I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation as to why polygamy is illegal, by the way. Two consenting adults? Seems like that's their business. I wouldn't do it, but if they're not hurting anyone and I'm not supporting their lifestyle in any sort of financial way, then why would I care? Why would anyone care?) What about "swinger"? That's a choice without a legal status, just like "In an open relationship" is a choice without legal status, right? How come "swinger" isn't on there?

Maybe they should be more specific with some of these. "Engaged to an inmate". "Looking for love". "Will screw for food." I really don't know. If you're perfectly OK with a civil union or a domestic partnership tag, well grand. I just don't know that they were needed. And I've just re-read this entire thing and it's entirely possible that I'm either overreacting (not a shocker) or wrong (not a shocker, either). But it does kind of bother me for the reasons stated and probably for a couple more that I'm not quite sure about just yet. When I figure those out, I'll let you know. Just don't hold your breath. I don't plan on devoting a whole lot of time to thinking about this ridiculousness.

moreless

Keep Your Second Wife OFF Of Facebook

There's dumb and then there's just asinine. But what is it when you've gone past dumb and past asinine? Are you just so incapable of understanding anything at all and how it works that there isn't really a name for it? Or is the word that I'm looking for as simple as "idiot" or "moron"? It probably is, but this just seems like it require just a little bit more than either one of those. It's almost like the don't do the story justice, especially when the story is how a woman found out through Facebook that her husband had another wife. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to WKYC in Cleveland, the woman, "Megan" as she preferred to be called for the story because she didn't want her real name used (nor did she want her humiliation to be spread far and wide and directly attributed to her), married her husband in 2005 in a ceremony in Italy. (I have no idea why WKYC thought that was relevant to the story, but they included it and so I did the same. If only they had questioned the relevance as I had, they might not have felt the need to include it at all.) After that "She knew her husband took a lot of business trips. Now she knows why." And while that's not entirely accurate (it's not like he was really on business trips, WKYC. Try to pay attention, would you?), his being gone a lot was explained when "Her relatives pointed her to the other woman's Facebook page where Megan discovered multiple photos of her husband and the woman together." Oh. Whoops.

Yeah. Whoops. Now, it's not like "Megan" didn't have some questions about what was going on in their marriage. "Megan said she first became suspicious when her husband claimed to have been in China and even brought back gifts for the kids yet his passport had been at home the entire time." It's unfortunate that the story doesn't delve more into how that was deal with in Megan's household. It seems a little difficult to explain, as that passport for international travel is pretty necessary. (Unless you're going to the United States, in which case just come on in like millions of other folks do every year.) But the media is crap these days, so what did I really expect?

I'll tell you what I expected. I expected people to be a little more discerning about what goes on their freaking Facebook page. But I guess this sort of thing happens all the time. What a weak act you people are. Seriously. You don't have the guts to just leave someone or to tell them that you're leaving? Instead, you leave it up to them to "accidentally" find out through pictures that were posted on Facebook? Seriously. Would you not know that there are people on your Facebook who are relatives or friends with the one of the other people involved in this and who will be seeing what is on your Facebook page? Or that of the whore that you're sleeping with? What is wrong with you people?

And it's not like just having the affair and having those pictures posted was enough for this guy and his extramarital bimbo. No, "A few weeks later, dozens of wedding photos also showed up on Facebook showing Megan's husband and his new bride." Dude. You're already married. You think that isn't going to come out at some point? Let me rephrase that, you moron. You think that this isn't going to come out at some point AFTER pictures of your SECOND wedding are posted on Facebook while you're still MARRIED? How can one be so dense and yet somehow manage to keep themselves alive through adulthood? It's a mystery.

Naturally, Megan wants a divorce. Her husband, not being all that bright to begin with, says "he doesn't believe he needs a divorce because he learned after the fact that the marriage paperwork was never filed correctly in Italy and therefor they were never married." Tell you what. How about if you don't get a divorce, but you let Megan go all Lorena Bobbit on you? That seems fair.

Look, I don't know about you, but I cannot imagine having an affair if I was in a relationship, let alone if I were married. It sounds simply awful to me. Not because of the deceit that is obviously present when something like that is going on, but because of the effort. It sounds positively exhausting. Trying to keep stories straight, trying to keep lies straight, trying not to get caught, trying to keep everyone happy, etc. Good Lord, why on earth would anyone voluntarily enter into such a mess? And this guy got MARRIED. TWO wives! Isn't one wife enough?! Isn't one wife plenty?! Isn't one wife more than enough on some days?

moreless

No Divorce For You!

Slowly, but surely, the government is injecting itself into almost every aspect of our lives. How we do things. When we do things. Why we do things. When did the American people suddenly become so incompetent that they couldn't make a decision on their own? I don't know either, but if we're not careful, we're not going to be able to decide when we want to get divorced if we live in Arizona. Wait. What?

Correct. According to the azdailysun.com, a one Rep. Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) has sponsored a one bill HB 2650 which basically makes couples who want to divorce wait four months longer than they already have to wait. See, her theory is "....that requiring couples to wait 180 days will result in more people deciding they actually should stay together." Um...why?

She claims that in states where there is a longer waiting period, the divorce rate per 1,000 is 3.6 whereas in not-thinking-things-through-long-enough Arizona, the divorce rate per 1,000 is 3.9. OK, so that may be true. But thank goodness for Rep. Phil Lopes (D-Tucson), who piped up and said that what she's doing is that she's "...confusing correlation with actual causation". He also said that despite the statistics that "...there is no hard evidence that delays in granting divorce decrees actually keep couples happily married." And do you know what Rep. Barto had to say to that? You guessed it. She agreed with him. Wait. What?!

She agreed. There's no hard evidence that making people stay married longer when they're already expressed a desire to get divorced is going to actually make them decide to stay married. And Rep. Balto has been warned by a one Colleen McNally, a presiding family court judge for Maricopa County said "...that stretching out the process actually could be dangerous...domestic violence attacks actually increase the moment a spouse tries to get out of an abusive marriage." Yeah, see, I think that would be a problem. If you're forced to stay in a marriage and endure some beatings for an extra four months, that's not going to help the situation.

Adding to the ridiculousness of this idea (because you know there are supporters of it out there) are people like Deborah Sheasby, a despicable lobbyist. (I think all lobbyists are despicable, so it's not like I'm singling her out for anything, I just don't like lobbyists.) She claimed "...that in about four out of every five divorce cases, one spouse does not want out of the marriage." Yes, but see, that's why the marriage has to end! Because, in case you were absent on the day when we went over what a marriage entails, it would seem that both people need to want to be IN the marriage in order for it to be successful. Just because only ONE person wants to stay married is not really a very good reason in favor of the whole staying married idea. It's actually more of an argument for why they should get divorced.

Look, even though you can technically be granted a divorce in Arizona in as little as 60 days, that doesn't mean it's going to happen. The 60 days scenario is the "best case" scenario. If there is any negotiation, if there is any discrepancy as to who should get what, if there are children and/or property involved, or any number of other factors, you are not going to be fully divorced after the minimum 60 days has passed. Do the people that propose asinine legislation like this not see where the problem lies? I guess not. Perhaps I'll share it with them.

How about this idea instead: How about instead of making it so damn difficult for people to get divorced, why don't you make it a little more difficult for them to get married? Why is it so easy to get INTO something that is likely going to end up being the most life-altering decision that you can possibly make? Shouldn't that require a little bit more thought? Shouldn't that require a little bit more time to ponder and to plan for? How about this idea: People who go through pre-marital counseling BEFORE they get married get some sort of a tax break? People who are married and take some sort of marriage-stayin'-together class every other year get some sort of a tax break? I don't know. I'm just throwing stuff out there. It could be that requiring folks to wait before getting married is just as dumb as making folks wait before getting divorced, but I'm not so sure that it is.

If I thought that it were possible, I'd just say that the government needs to butt out of marriage all together. But since I know that's never going to happen (revenue, doncha know?), it makes more sense to me to have a longer waiting period before getting married than it does to have a longer waiting period to get divorced. I guess since it makes sense, that'll never happen either. Shame, too. I kinda thought I was onto something.

moreless

Do You Have Any Jewelry? Nope, Go Fish.

Many relationships are unequal. Sometimes the guy puts more into the relationship than the girl. Sometimes the girl puts more into the relationship than the guy. Sometimes both are just lazy asses and nothing gets put into anything. (Wait. That sounds bad. Just by the nature of the relationship, you'd think that something has to get put into something. I mean, that's just....oh, look. Never mind. Where was I? Oh, right! The woman whose former common-law husband put more into the relationship than she did so that when they broke up, there wasn't anything for her to take back and so she fried up and ate his goldfish instead. That's right.

Wait. Wh...wha...um....what now?

Correct. Welcome to Pasadena, Texas, where the women are scarce and the cows are afraid. (OK, so maybe that's not the official motto, but it was probably in the running when they were trying to decide!) Now, you know that when a sentence contains the term "former common-law husband/wife" that it's going to be a tale of class and dignity. Of course it is. No, actually, when you hear the term "former common-law" anything, it's usually going to be a tale of the sort of domestic altercation that takes place in mobile home parks and involves individuals doing what is known as the "whiskey tango". Although this little gem of a story didn't involve the particulars, I have every reason to believe that at least one of the participants has danced the whiskey tango on at least one other occasion.

What we have here is a couple who have broken up after an elongated period of time spent living together until it became sooooo long that the state of Texas just considered them to be married. (It's like Texas's way of just saying, "Fine! You don't have to get up off of your ass and go down and get married. We'll just do it for you. OK, we're done. Congratulations.") And after the break-up, the guy did what a lot of immature individuals in a break-up situation did and he took back some of the jewelry that he had given the woman.

Oh, come on, man! You're going to give her jewelry but you're not going to give her a wedding ring and make an honest woman out of her?! What is wrong with you sir? Are you not familiar with the term "a gift"? "A gift" doesn't mean that you're letting someone borrow something of yours. It means you gave it away to them! Then again, he's probably unfamiliar with the concept of something being "given away". It's not like anyone "gave away" the woman to be his bride or anything.

The woman, being fully aware of what a gift is, went over to his place to reclaim her gift (also known as "what is hers"). The man, being fully aware of what a jackass does, refused. That's when the woman decided that what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander (or is it that it "takes one to know one"?) and probably would have taken back jewelry that she gave him, only I guess that there wasn't any. So she did the most reasonable thing she could in that sort of an awkward situation and took his seven goldfish.

Wait. She what? Took his goldfish? Took his goldfish how? Took his goldfish why? Is she a mermaid? Were they their children?

The "how" is unclear, but I'm guessing that she just picked up the bowl and carefully ran away with it.I don't know how you don't stop a woman from running off with a bowl full of your goldfish, but he didn't. Instead he called the police and they went over to the woman's place in search of the abducted water creatures.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Officers went to the woman's home to see if they could retrieve the fish. A one Pasadena Police Department spokesman Vance Mitchell said that the woman said, " ‘They're in there,' and pointed to the kitchen." Finding a plate with four fried fish, officers asked where the others were. The woman answered, “I already ate those." Well, then!

Seriously, what do you say about that?! Offer her some tartar sauce? A lemon wedge perhaps? Apparently, if you're the Pasadena Police Department, you don't say much. The fish, it would seem, were bought by the couple during happier times. Thus the fish were considered to be community property. Huh. Most couples buy houses or cars together. These folks bought seven goldfish. Either that or did really well at seven carnival games. (I'll bet her ex-common law husband can flick a mean ping-pong ball into a cup of water on a rotating tray. She's probably not too bad herself!) Mitchell said, “There was nothing we could do. If he wants to pursue it, it's a civil case.”

Are you sure about that, Officer? Are you sure it's a civil case? Sounds like it might be a bit of a psychiatric case to me. Definitely a nut case!

If I were to bet on this one, I'd bet heavily that she didn't really eat the other three. It's not like it isn't easy to dispose of goldfish. They're a disposable animal to begin with. I mean, I know that there's all different kinds of crazy out there, but is there really the goldfish eating kind of crazy? There might be, but I'm guessing that this is just the goldfish stealing kind of crazy that's going on here.

Say, where's PETA when you need them?! Though even if they showed up in this instance, the woman could have thought that PETA stood for People Eating Tiny Animals and it still would have turned out the same. Guess that man knew what he was doing when he didn't marry her-marry her, eh? If only he could have warned the fish.

moreless

Anticipating Marital Disaster

Here we have one Khloe Kardashian. Behold! Wow. OK. Well. She's the daughter of....Kim? Kardashian? Oh, no. Wait. That's her sister. Robert? Richard? Kardashian? Robert. Bob. Bob Kardashian. There it is. She's the daughter of Bob Kardashian. Bob was one of the lawyers at the OJ Simpson trial on OJ's side. Literally. On his side. He sat next to him during the trial. Not a whole lot of lawyering going on with him during all of that. Definitely a whole lot of sitting, though. Until now, I had been unaware that simply sitting next to an alleged murderer was cause enough for your children to become reality stars after you croak from esophageal cancer in 2003. But apparently it is even though no one knows why exactly. The point here, however, is that Khloe Kardashian (who I realize that you still care nothing about and still have no idea who she is) is getting married this weekend to a one Lamar Odom. Odom plays in the NBA for the LA Lakers. Here is a photo of Odom before encountering the Kardashian. Behold!

Seems normal. Happy. Upbeat about things. Somewhere along the line (and that line being August from what I can tell) he met Khloe and they began dating. Six long and a wonderful weeks later and they're gettin' hitched! Of course, they announced the engagement on the 18th of September, so they had probably known each other right around 5 weeks. Sure, that seems reasonable. What could possibly go wrong? I don't know. Let's look at some photos of the happy couple and see if there's anything different about Lamar, shall we? Behold!

Oh. Well. Well, that could just be a bad day. Not everyone is photogenic every day of their life, right?

Oh. Well. So, two. TWO not great photos. That doesn't mean anything. Really?

All right. Knock it off. This is getting ridiculous. See now, now all that's happening is....

I said cut that out! Lamar! What the hell?!?! Why are you marrying this woman if she is going to make you look like that Lamar?

Oh, God. Lamar! Are you pregnant? Is that it, Lamar? No, wait. That can't be it. But then what? What is it?? I don't know exactly, but it's fishy and I smell a rat. A fishy rat. Yep. That's what I smell.

Turns out that Khloe has sold exclusive rights to the temporarily happy couple's day of wedded bliss to OK! Magazine for a sum reported to be around $300,000. Now that money goes strictly to her, none of it goes to our man, Lamar. But, according to TMZ, now Lamar wants a prenup. The only thing is that it has to be done by Sunday (that's when the wedding is) and that they have to get married on Sunday. That has something to do with one of the companies that actually puts money into one of the reality shows that Khloe is on (yes, I believe that, by some inexplicable miracle, she has more than one) is footing the bill for the one million dollar wedding, but only if they get married on Sunday. If they postpone it, deal's off.


And by the way, Lamar is 30 and his bride-to-be is 25. Neither of them have been married before, but Lamar did "spend time with" another woman for at least ten years, otherwise known as "long enough to father three children with her". It's unclear to me exactly when the relationship between Lamar and Lisa Morales ended, but here's a photo of her, compliments of TMZ. Behold!

Lamar's bachelor party was to be hosted by none other than Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis. According to the invite, the party would have featured "stripper poles, midgets and tons of candy". OK, then. Sounds classy, which must have had something to do with why he ended up cancelling it. Probably a wise move. I don't think that it's a good idea to start your marriage off as you're recovering from a night which involved the preannounced appearance of midgets. It's a bad omen. Everywhere.

So here's my question: I haven't checked the Vegas lines yet, but doesn't there have to be an Over/Under bet on how long this marriage lasts? I'll take the Unders, thanks. I'm willing to put up at least $100 that it lasts for under a year and at least $50 that it lasts for under six months. Unless, of course, she turns up preggers and then all bets are off. Had I not known that he had already fathered a gaggle of kids, I might have bet pretty heavily on his marrying Khloe out of paternal obligation (regardless of the fact that it's practically unheard of these days, not to mention seemingly non-existent in the NBA). But since that doesn't seem to be the case, I'm holding off on that one. But I am predicting doom and disaster, ie: divorce. Soon.

moreless