Congratulations?

Well, it's official. Chaz Bono is saving up to buy a new wang!

For those of you who may have been blissfully living under a rock somewhere and are unaware of this situation, may I be the first to say congratulations. (And second, can I join you?) Let me bring you up to speed. Chaz is the new man name of Chastity Bono, the daughter of Cher and the late Sonny "Look Out For That Tree" Bono, who decided she was really a dude and has been transitioning toward the goal of becoming a dude. Chaz has been doing this by taking proactive measures such as having both breasts lopped off after his/her 40th birthday and taking male hormones such as testosterone. (Wow. All I did after my 40th birthday was be 40. And I did so with all of the parts that I turned 40 with!) And if you've seen this person lately, you could easily get the impression that part of this transition involved this person eating Chastity. Behold!


Yeah, that's a big person right there. But back to the penis. While Chaz has taken several steps toward becoming a guy, Chaz has not yet opted to have a penis attached or Velcroed on or however that works. But I guess that Chaz is finally ready to make the plunge and has told Rolling Stone all about it! See, you can get the surgery done fairly basic or you can add on some options. So, I guess it's like buying a car or something. (Get one with air conditioning, Chaz! And power windows! You don't want to have to crank that thing by hand!) And really, how many options are there and what are they for? I mean, I don't have a penis of my own, but from what I understand, they only do a couple of things. How many options are really necessary for those things?

According to an article over at The Daily Mail, Chaz told Rolling Stone, "I could get a phalloplasty, which builds the phallus from a donor site on your body, but I'm currently leaning more towards a metoidioplasty". OK. Hold on just a minute here. I don't know what in the world a 'metoidioplasty' is and I'm not sure that I'm all that concerned about it at the moment. That's because I'm way more focused on the part about where they grow you a new wiener from a donor site on your body! What the what?! Like where exactly? I guess they could grow it behind the ear. Granted, you wouldn't be able to put pencils there any more. You know, because of all of the penis that was there. But I suppose it could be done. Wait. Why am I being so complacent all of a sudden?! We're talking about growing a penis on another part of the human body! There should be no complacency!

OK, just calm down. (I wasn't talking to you. It was more for me.) But wait. There's more! The article also goes on to quote: "It's a process that uses what you already have down there, which has grown larger from the testosterone." Umm...can I just be the first one to say EW! See, because I have lady parts and they seem to be at a lovely ratio the way that they are. I can't imagine them growing larger (and you can't make me imagine it, either!). He also seems to think that when it's...you know...soft that it's about three inches. Again, the thought of someone's lady parts being three inches long is just wrong on many different levels. Chaz is also stated that "...it grows considerably....I don't know what the average difference is, but when I'm having sex I probably get three or four times larger." Really? Three to four times larger? I find that hard (no pun intended) to believe. Don't get me wrong. I'm not asking for proof or anything. I'm just saying that those seem like lofty goals.

Bono also admitted in the article that his ex-girlfriend was against him going through with the "bottom surgery". That's really not all that surprising considering that Chaz was going out with this chick when he was still and chick. Her being a lesbian doesn't really seem like it would bode well for an individual who wants to grow their own penis. I guess I'm surprised that she stuck around as long as she did. I mean, it's kind of inevitable that a woman who wants to be a man will one day want a penis. Am I really saying all of this? I need to stop this. Now. Good Lord.

moreless

No One Would Like That

I have a raging cold right now and I feel like absolute hell. Not hellish enough to not spend some time browsing the Internets now and then, but still pretty bad. And whilst I was doing said browsing I came across this:

Why would I like that?! I'm guessing that no one would like that, especially the guy whose wiener was attacked by a snake in a toilet! Good Lord, people.

moreless

My Shortest Written Opinion Ever

This could quite possibly be the shortest commentary that I have ever had on just about anything. AND the most remarkable part about it is that I think I have a point of view that's kind of hard to disagree with. Then again, I think that about a lot of things. What do I know? Now, mind you, I didn't read this entire article. I came up with my opinion based solely on the title. I realize that I'm giving a lot of credence to the person who wrote the title and I'm really hoping that it's accurate. If it's not accurate, I might have to rethink my position, but I don't think that it would alter it by much.

Here we go...Over there at the Huffington Post is an article with the following title: "Sex With Animals Can Lead To Penis Cancer: Study".

My response to the aforementioned study? Good.

The end.

moreless

That's A Wrap

No one wants herpes. Even less people want AIDS. They're both bad, but one's a little more death-y than the other. And I think that more people would talk about how they don't want gonorrhea and syphilis more if they were easier to spell. And while these things are bad and pretty much everyone does not want them, you wouldn't get that impression from all of the people that don't want to use a condom. And for some reason, you can't explain the greatness of the condom to people so that they will listen. Well, until the poster below came along. (Pun not really intended.)

Isn't that great? My favorite part was the pleasure graph (though I think that they're giving the genital wart removal a little too much credit judging from the size of that bar). I also enjoy that in this condom-wearing world, Cleveland is a state. (It's funny because it's not a state at all.)

moreless

That's Not A Sock

According to CNN's iReport (which lets me know that they don't check any sort of content that is submitted to their site by readers AT ALL, so you know that this is totally legit) there is a semi-pro baseball team in Amarillo (that's in Texas) called the Amarillo Sox. Catchy. I guess that they needed a costume for their mascot. The mascot being a sock, of course. As in Amarillo Sox. Now, before I continue with a story that you know will go horribly awry, I'm going to show you how other teams with the nickname "Sox" deal with their mascot situation. First, the Chicago White Sox. Behold!

Kind of weird, huh? His name is Southpaw. I guess he's a monster. Whatever he is, that's their mascot. Now, let's look at the mascot for the Red Sox. Again, a team with the Sox moniker in need of a mascot. Behold!
Interesting. Another green monster for a team without the word 'green' in their name. His full name is Wally the Green Monster. But even though these two teams decided to go with some sort of monster character as a mascot, don't think that the Amarillo Sox were going to follow suit. Oh, no. They were going to attempt to go for a literal interpretation of their team's name. That being, a sock. Behold! Oh. Unfortunate. That doesn't really look so much like a sock, per se. No, it looks a little bit more like...well...you know. I will say this about it. He does look excited. Very, very excited. According to the general manage of the Amarillo Sox, a one Mark Lee, said “It was not the way I wanted it.” Really? You didn't intend for the mascot for your team to look like a giant banana boner? Had something else in mind, did you? Huh. You don't say.

moreless

Just Stop Being A Perv!

Holy crap. Look, I know that I've wrote way too much about penises this week (Penii?) and in more ways than one. I've wrote about people who are named after schlongs (Anthony Weiner) and people who just are acting like dicks. (Anthony Weiner again. Shocking, I know.) And since he won't resigns and keeps pulling crap, I have to keep getting all bent out of shape about it. (Which, by the way, is what I wish would happen to his wang.) And yesterday, he pulled the ultimate lame-ass move for someone who has been caught acting like the pig that they are. That's right. Anthony Weiner went into "treatment".

Treatment for what? You jackass! Treatment for how to not act like the downtown corner trenchcoat flasher? Treatment for how not to act like a 14-year old boy in the full throttle of hormones surges? Treatment for the proper care and usage of a flipping cell phone?! Treatment for how to be a better liar (because you have sucked at lying the entire time)? Treatment for how to not cheat on your wife of about one year who is newly pregnant? Any of those? Any of 'em? Bueller? Bueller? Treatment for WHAT?! You don't need "treatment". You need a friggin' belt! And you need to keep it ON your pants so that you're not tempted to drop them and take pictures of your thing and send them over Twitter to college girls! That's what he needs!

Go! Go away, take your penis with you (as if he'd ever go anywhere without at least an 8x10 glossy of it) and just go away. Please listen to people in your party who are requesting that you resign. Just stop making a mockery of this whole deal and making people think about your weenie. Go! At least if you resign and go away, then you can be your pervo self and not a pervo Congressman. It's none of my business what you do if you're not part of a government that my taxes help support. Get out. Go! And good luck with your "treatment". I hope your wife has lunch with Lorena Bobbitt. She might have some tips on how to handle something like this.

moreless

The Money Shot

So Anthony Weiner sent the money shot. That's right. He sent a relatively unobscured photo of his genitalia to some chick via his cellular telephone. That's right. It's a telephone that also takes pictures. And it sends those pictures to other people whether they want them or not! What a great time to be alive! Or not. I'm kind of starting to think that it's the latter.

He kind of has to resign now, doesn't he? I mean, now that it has come out that he has been sending pictures of his naked manhood to college girls that he met online via Twitter (of all things), can he really still be a member of Congress? I think that's really the question. And it bothers me that I don't have a freaking answer.

On the one hand, he's obviously a total perv. But what if he is a perv who gets the job that he was elected to do done? Should it matter than he's a total perv? I don't really know if it should, but I know that it does. Shouldn't there be some sort of moral standard for our elected officials? And I don't think I'm being all that radical by suggesting that one of those standards be NOT taking pictures of your junk and texting it to people. No, wait. Let me revise that. I don't think that I'm being all that radical by suggesting that one of those standards be to NOT GET CAUGHT doing whatever it is that you do with your various body parts.

Private lives are supposed to be private, just the same way that private parts are supposed to be private. Look, what you do with your weiner in your own time is your own business. Take as many pictures of it as you want. Put different little hats on it or dress it up for special occasions. I really don't care. But I sure don't want to know about it! The day I get a picture on my phone of some guy's wang with a little bowler hat and a necktie on it (where the tie would go if it HAD a neck) is the day when that person is forever after declared a perv and and idiot. He could have avoided both labels by just not getting caught OR by simply not doing something so freaking weird.

If you're interested in the money shot, you can click here and it will take you there. But remember, it's a shot of an erect penis. Do I really need to shout that it is NSFW? It's not safe for work. It's not safe for home. It's not safe for anywhere! (How did he get that angle? Is there a timer on the camera on his phone? I'm so confused.)

moreless

Grilling The Weiner

Let me ask you something. How many pictures of your wang are out there? If you're woman and therefore, wangless, perhaps you can take a moment to inventory how many pictures of your lower regions are floating around out there. I have done the same. Now, I don't know about you, but my total was zero. Thus, if you were to ask me this question, I would have an immediate answer. (I should take this opportunity to mention that figuring out that there are zero pictures like that of me out there (or ANYWHERE) took me less than two seconds.) I would have that answer so rapidly because it shouldn't be something that one has to think about for longer than the two seconds that I allotted myself. Apparently, Anthony Weiner does not fall into the same category as I (and, hopefully you) do.

When I first heard about this story, I didn't think that it could possibly be real. A

guy named Weiner is being accused of sending a picture of his weiner via Twitter?! It's like a dream come true for me! But that is what allegedly happened. (And between you and me, it totally happened. I just have to throw in "allegedly" because that's what you do when you know something totally happened.) According to Yahoo! News, "...a lewd photo was sent from the congressman's Twitter account to a 21-year old female college student via the social networking site--and it was visible for all the public to see." Yeah, that's a problem. Not as much of a problem as his reaction to what happened, but definitely a problem.

He sure didn't take it all that seriously at first. I'd be rather alarmed if someone was sending pictures of my wang across Twitter (and just not because I don't have a wang) and it wasn't me doing it. But no, he just said, "Look, this is a prank and not a terribly creative one...I was hacked. It happens to people. You move on." Huh. You're not even just mildly curious as to who is sending pictures under the assumption that the sender is you? Even if you're a congressman that doesn't bother you? You just want to move on? Just like that, eh? Yeah, that's usually a sign that someone doesn't want to talk about something. Here's a tip: Things like this? Try and be really upset about them. It's more believable than acting like you don't care if people send lewd pictures and make them from you. That's not believable AT ALL.

And the more that he "answered questions" about this, the more not believable it became. For instance, when Luke Russert asked him in an interview "That's not a picture of you?", his reply was not really what I would have expected from someone with NO knowledge of these sorts of shenanigans. He said, "You know, I can't say with certitude. My system was hacked. Pictures can be manipulated. Pictures can be dropped in and inserted." OK, now he's just saying words. (And for the record, it's an "account" not a "system". But I digress.) That doesn't make any sense. If pictures can be manipulated and you DON'T have any pictures of your grundle out there, then you should be able to say "NO, it's not my weiner." But more than once that is not what happened with this guy.

In a different interview, this time the the monotone voiced Wolf Blitzer, he danced around the question again. Wolf made the astute observation that "...he should be able to recognize his own underwear." Yes! Yes, he should! But again, Mr. Weiner (God, I love typing that!) replied in a way that is unimaginable to me when he said "...It certainly doesn't look familiar to me but I don't want to say with certitude to you something that I don't know to be the certain truth." How can you NOT say with certain truth that those pictures were not of you if you don't take pictures like that of yourself?! I could say for certain if a picture like that was of me. It would absolutely not be for the sole reason that there ARE NO pictures like that of me! I don't need to think about it.

Seriously, what about this exchange: Wolf continued to grill the

Weiner (I needed a BBQ-ing pun in there somewhere) directly if he had ever taken a picture like the one in question of himself. The response was less than convincing when he said "I can tell you this. There are... I have photographs. I don't know what photographs are out there in the world of me. I don't know what things have been manipulated and doctored. And we're going to try to find out what happened." Let me save you the time! I know what happened! You send a picture of your junk over Twitter to some college chick in Washington! Mystery solved!

I noticed that he didn't elaborate a whole lot on "I have photographs." Really? Of your erect manhood inside of your underwear? Why do you have those photographs? Just because your name is weiner doesn't mean that it has to be all about the weiner. Who does that? What a moron. No one wants to see a picture of your penis. They're not that great. They're kinda funny looking and I have no idea how you guys walk around with one of those things down there. But again, I digress. There are better ways to deny that you've done something extremely inadvisable than to do everything BUT deny it. Does he think we're idiots? Or is he just an idiot? Considering that it seems fairly obvious that he did send a picture of his slightly covered genitals, I'm going to go with the latter.

moreless

What's He Pointing At?

There is not crap on TV on Saturday nights. Well, there is crap on TV. Lots of it. But there isn't any crap worth watching (for the most part) on Saturday nights. Sometimes you can hope for a good movie, but for the most part, it's crap. And last night I ended up settling on watching Back to the Future III. Not crap by any means. I did notice something a little weird, though.

At the end, when Doc and Clara come back to 1985 with their two boys, Jules and Verne, they're talking with Marty and Jennifer. And as Doc is yammering on about how no one's future is set in stone just yet (unless you're Lindsay Lohan and in that case, you're pretty much screwed) and it is what you make it, one of the boys makes this odd hand gesture toward his penis. That's right. Toward his penis. It was sort of like a 'come hither' gesture followed by very distinctive pointing. And if you've ever seen Back to the Future III then you know that it has absolutely nothing to do with a penis whatsoever! The video of it is below. I'm open to suggestions as to what the what was going on there.

moreless

A Penis With Personality

You know what will happen when a bunch of city supervisors over at your local City Hall enact a law which completely takes away your freedom of choice under the apparent guise of them knowing better than you? That's right. People near and far are going to want to enact another one which limits your freedom to choose even more. I'm not talking things like abortion and guns here, but that's only because I'm talking about San Francisco. No, when you factor San Francisco into the mix, you have to include wacky things like Happy Meals and the male foreskin. Wait. What now?

Yeah, there's a sentence that I never thought I'd type. At least, I never thought that I'd have the opportunity to include both 'Happy Meal' and 'foreskin' in the same sentence and have them both be relevant. But thanks to San Francisco, such a sentence AND such a concept is now possible. Try not to hang yourself until you finish reading. (I know how tough that will be. I had to resist the urge to hang myself until I finished typing.)

As you may or may blissfully not be aware, last week, San Francisco passed a law that forbids fast food outlets from giving out a toy with a meal that is not deemed "healthy". Personally, I think the easiest way around that law, rather than succumb to what San Francisco thinks that you should do and/or eat, would be to sell the toy and include the meal for free. There's no law against that. Yet. But I digress. Now, there might be a measure on the ballot next year "...that would make it a “misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the…genitals” of a person under 18." So sayeth CBS San Francisco. Good Lord, people.

I'm all for the not being able to mutilate genitals. Don't get me wrong, as that sounds like a fairly reasonable provision. However, to need a separate law for it would be, you guessed it, completely ridiculous. That's because you typically don't define a medical procedure as 'mutilation'. But back to the foreskin. (Again, a sentence I never thought I'd type.) The author of this asinine bill is a one Lloyd Schofield who claims that the circumcision IS genital mutilation. Uh-huh. OK, then. What else?

He seems to be going on the belief that circumcision is a religious practice. And yes, it has been for many years and still is in some instances I would assume. But I would be surprised if the majority of circumcisions that are being performed today are being done so because of a religious belief. I would also be surprised if the majority of people thought of circumcision as a religious rite as opposed to seeing it as a medical procedure. I checked with the CDC (at their website) and they don't have any guidelines on whether or not a circumcision should be performed for health reasons. According to the CBS article "Scientists with the Centers for Disease Control are still studying whether circumcisions are healthier, and have promised recommendations to the public." Oh, good. A foreskin promise. That's something to look forward to.

Haven't we always been told (or taught) that circumcision cuts down (pun probably not intended, but completely inevitable) on diseases and is just cleaner or easier to clean? I don't know the specifics, not ever having had a foreskin, I'm just going on what I've learned in various health/anatomy classes. I'm also going to go with what was on Seinfeld when Elaine asked Jerry if he had ever seen one that wasn't circumcised. He said he hadn't and she went on to tell him that it wasn't good. "No, had no face, no personality, very dull. It was like a martian. But hey, that's me." Do you want a weenie with no personality ? I don't think you do.

The point here (surprisingly enough) isn't about the penis. It isn't even about the foreskin. It's about the government trying to ooch its way into every aspect of the life of a private citizen and the decision that they should be making ON THEIR OWN. You don't need to the government to tell you what kind of food you can buy for your child. You're supposed to be responsible enough to make that decision on your own. Yes, yes. I realize that we are surrounded by morons. And I also realize that we are surrounded by morons with children. But we can't let the freedoms of the capable be taken away by the moronic. Technically, the moronic are supposed to suffer as a result of their poor choices. I realize that consequences are practically non-existent in a socialist society, but we're not totally there yet, so there's still hope.

I'm semi-interested in whether or not the author of this bill has had his snipped off. I don't know why I'm semi-interested in that, but I just am. Regardless, it doesn't mean that he gets to try to dictate (again, no pun intended, but pretty funny none the less) what others do with theirs. Why are people not up in arms about the very thought of this happening? I'm not exactly sure, but that alone frightens me more than the possible ban on circumcision does.

moreless

Another Sort Of Pop-Up

Look, all I'm saying is that if you're reading your kid a pop-up book and you happen upon an image like the one of the elephant below, maybe you just turn the page real quick and move on before your kid starts asking too many questions about the elephant's...um....trunk. Yeah. That's it. His trunk.

moreless

The Fiery Unit

Sure, you're going to be a little bit upset when you find out that your husband is having an affair. You might even contemplate some sort of revenge upon him and, perhaps, his straying unit. But if that's going to be the case, you're really going to need to think about what you're ultimately hoping to accomplish, here. Because while you might only set out to simply burn your husband's penis out of rage, should you end up burning down the entire house and killing him in the process, you're going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Let's go to the land down under to a suburb of Adelaide, South Australia called Unley. There we'll find a one 46-year old Rajini Narayan. We'll find her to find her husband has been having an affair. According to news.com.au, for some reason, in December of 2008, Ms. Narayan's husband was lying in the couple's bed and gave Ms. Narayan "...his email password and she found emails detailing the affair." Well. That's one way to do it. Needless to say, his wife was less than thrilled.

After learning of his affair, she allegedly said to him, "You say you loved her. I'm going to burn your penis. I'm going to tell your family what you have done." Shouldn't she have just chosen one? Tell his family OR burn the penis? And did she really say it like that? I mean, that seems rather matter-of-fact. Why would she say that? It really ruins the surprise of all of the penis burning that would take place later if you're asking me.

Now, her attorney claims that "...the words were "spoken from Narayan's heart" because of a "genuine, if wildly misguided" belief she would keep her husband." Hmm. Do you really want a husband with a burned penis? I don't know that you do. I certainly don't know why you would. Granted, it would probably stop him from having affairs, but that doesn't mean that Ms. Narayan, as the one doing all of the burning, is going to be benefiting sexually from such a deed either. But Mr. Narayan apparently didn't seem to care about his wife's plans/threats, as he allegedly "...rolled away from her, turning his back on her. He said: `No you won't, you fat, dumb bitch'." And she wants this guy...why? Burn his weenie off. That's how I feel about the situation right about now.

And that's apparently how Ms. Narayan felt as well, as she doused her husband in petrol and proceeded to have herself quite the weenie roast. However, her act of revenge wasn't just limited to the man's unit. No, she managed to burn him over 75 percent of his body at the same time she burned down the family home. The crispy cheater died a few days later. Whoops.

Ms. Narayan is, of course, on trial for killing her husband. She doesn't appear to be denying that she acted the way that she did. And while one can sympathize with someone who finds out that their spouse is cheating on them, can they really sympathize to the point where they're OK with them burning them to death? Perhaps. Perhaps if, like the prosecutor says, "Ms. Narayan had told a tarot card reader, who she had visited just days before the attack on her husband, that her husband would not let her reduce her working hours because she was paying for the other woman." No pun intended here, but what a dick.

I'm not so sure why Ms. Narayan couldn't just up and leave. There's no way in hell I'm staying with some guy who tells me that my paycheck is helping pay for some other woman that he's having an affair with. Yeah, I know that burning his penis off sounds really great and all. But the thing about fire is that it's pretty hard to contain to just one bodily organ, especially when the whole body is doused in fuel. I can't imagine that she won't be found guilty. Then again, I couldn't imagine that Lorena Bobbitt was going to get off either. Stay tuned!

moreless

Wash Your Willie!

We don't hear a lot about how all of that stimulus money is being spent, do we? We don't even hear whether it worked or not. Some folks say it did, some folks say it didn't. Since I guess that opinion depends on how your current situation is, it's really hard to say. But if I had to guess, I would say that the stimulus money hasn't done all that it could have done because it has been spent on dumbass things that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy over here. Hmm. Perhaps 'dumbass' is a bit harsh. I don't know. You tell me. Is it 'dumbass' to spend almost a million dollars "...on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex." Wait. What was the question?

The question was just what you read that it was. According to something called CNS News, "The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009" on just such a study. The care and feeding of one's grundle in Africa. Paid for with stimulus funds that were paid for by your tax dollars. Why is this an important study? Well, from what I can tell, it's not. It's not even close to being an important study. It's certainly far from being worth almost a million bucks of dough that was supposed to be injected into the American economy, that is pretty clear to me.

But I could be wrong. Let's go over some specifics. First of all, this is a multi-tiered study and it's only the penis washing part that received stimulus money. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd type.) Second, they decided upon the genitalia cleansing goal because they "...have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision" so they're going to attempt "...to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow."

Now, one of the first things that I thought (that was printable) when I heard this was, "Why does anyone give a fat rat's ass whether or not African men can keep their unit clean after all of the sex?" That question is a little hard to answer, as it wasn't made real clear (shocking, I know). The closest that I could find to an answer was in the part of this grant that said: "If we find that men are able to practice consistent washing practices after sex, we will plan to test whether this might protect men from becoming HIV infected in a later study." Wait. What?

Um, don't we know how HIV is spread? Does bathing one's grundle prevent HIV? I'm not so sure that it does. I'm pretty sure that it won't. It sounds kind of like a fairly simple solution to not get HIV. Just wash off the ol' unit after the inadvisable coitus that you just engaged in and go about your way! That's not what we've been taught. Is it? I don't think that it is. But maybe they know something I don't. I, personally, don't own a penis, so I don't know how this might possibly translate into the real world. Do you have a penis? Do you wash it? Do you have HIV? I guess if you answered yes to the first two questions and no to the third, then I can deduce that the practice does work? Good Lord, I hope that's not the conclusion that I come to.

You know what part of this makes me think that this is just a complete waste of time? All of it, that is correct. But do you want to know specifically which part? It's where they explain "If most of the men in the study wash their genitals after sex, are willing to do so after the study ends, and report that their partners accept the regimen, the researchers will develop another study to see if the “penile cleansing procedure” actually works to prevent HIV infections." These are the kind of folks who just do not see the benefit in washing the wang after doing the ol' horizontal watusi. These are the kind of folks whose partners might be unaccepting of a dried-off dingus. What possible benefit were they offering these folks to participate in this study?

What is the water situation over there, anyway? I'm guessing that indoor plumbing is out for most of the folks that would be involved in this sort of practice, yes? How feasible is this anyway? I'm guessing not very. How feasible is it that the stimulus money that was spent on penis polishing practices did not stimulate the US economy? Again, I'm guessing not very. And how feasible is it that this could be justified by the weasel that got the money for this study? Judging from the fact that he did not answer the question (posed by CNS News), "The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?” I'm going to stick with my answer of 'not very'.

Too bad they couldn't have used this money to teach some of the People of Wal-Mart how to wash themselves. Or, at the very least, dress themselves. Now that would have been justifiable!

moreless