Victoria Osteen Gave Me Hemorrhoids

I found some awesome stuff this week in the newspaper this week. None of which has to do with John Edwards.

Let's face it: is anyone in total shock over this? I always thought ole John with his $400 hair cut was a little creepy.

I'm curious about what The Enquirer is holding over his head, which would merit a confession after denying the relationship for so long.

Anyway . . .


Crazy Story Number One: Victoria and the Flight Attendant

I totally love this.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5930118.html

I have a plan:

Every time someone acts the even the slightest bit obnoxious towards me I'm so calling a lawyer and suing over hemorrhoids.

How are they going to prove otherwise? Nobody wants to question hemorrhoids.

Seriously though, nobody needs to get rich off of Osteen's histrionics. My concern with suing the wife of the smiling preacher is that she would appear to be the victim.

I don't think I want the world to perceive her as a victim.

Besides, despite the whole concept of "it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" thing, the Osteens have found a way to hire lawyer extraordinaire Rusty "I am Arthur Anderson" Hardin. You know, the same attorney who went nose to nose with the mind of a generation, Anna Nicole Smith.

I don't think you can win a frivolous lawsuit against ole Rusty. The dude is mean. He doesn't mind bringing up uncomfortable information like getting drunk on a plane wearing a half million dollars worth of jewelry and then passing out, only to awake with no jewels.

That's Anna Nicole, not Victoria Osteen.

It'll be interesting to see how all this pans out.

Issue Number Two: The Case of the Missing Sex Toys

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5930980.html

So . . . what are your thoughts? I ain't buying this whole "destroyed" excuse.

But my readers who are nonTexans are probably a little dumbfounded at the moment.

Is it a problem to sell "marital aides" in Texas?

Yes, up until February 13, 2008, apparently.

A little background on this sudden concern regarding the "female tension releaver":

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/11/obscenity.trial.reut/

Now, let me tell you how we know about this:

In the spring of 2004, Karen was teaching a journalism class. They were learning about editorials and she had the kids research a controversial issue (of their choosing-- no this was not on the list) and then write an editorial based upon conclusions drawn from their readings. Most of the kids picked the typical teenage topics: legalizing pot, lowering the drinking age, some random environmental issue, abortion, condom machines in the restrooms at school, mandated school prayer (this is Texas, people), etc. So anyway, Karen is reading these very predictable (and mostly pretty bad) editorials and she runs across, low and behold:

Texas Doesn't Toy with Sex

She had to give the kid an A just for originality.

Guess What???

We got a contract on the house. Cross your fingers, dudes.