Nov 17 2012

Man Sues Wife for Making Ugly Baby: Judge Agrees He Was Victimized

When Jian Feng’s baby daughter was born, he wasn’t just disappointed that the baby didn’t resemble her beautiful mother, he was “horrified” by how “ugly” he found the little girl to be.

Feng was so horrified, he convinced himself there was no way he could be the child’s father–his wife must have had sex with a hideously ugly man to have created such an unattractive offspring.

Feng (a resident of Northern China) took his wife to court to prove that the baby was not his, but was surprised when the DNA test confirmed he was indeed the little girl’s father.

At that point, his wife admitted that she had undergone plastic surgery to beautify her face before she met her husband. The woman’s numerous surgeries cost her over $100,000 and changed her from a person Feng would never have considered marriageable into the beautiful woman he says he fell in love with.

“I married my wife out of love, but as soon as we had our first daughter, we began having marital issues. Our daughter was incredibly ugly, to the point where it horrified me,” he told the judge.

Jian insisted that he had been tricked by his wife and the judge agreed, granting him a divorce, and ordering his ex-wife to pay Feng $120,000 restitution for his troubles.

How would you have ruled in this case?

Although I do agree Feng was “tricked” by his wife into believing she was a so-called natural beauty, for him to be horrified at the sight of his own child (who is actually pretty cute) speaks volumes about him. His ex-wife should file a counter suit  for being tricked into believing she married a human being.

If I were the judge in this case, I would have agreed with him in open court about one thing: His wife did have sex with a hideously ugly man–her husband. He’s the only ugly person in this sad story.

There is no surgery available for that.

 

 

 

 


Oct 31 2012

Who Run the World, Beyonce? Girls? Amber Thinks Not.

Remember that great song by Beyoncé that hit the charts last year and quickly became our favorite girl power anthem?

“Who run the world? Girls? Who run this mutha? Girls…”

Well, Amber recorded a YouTube video calling Mrs. Carter out on this blatant untruth, and I think everyone should definitely watch it before they vote in November. (If you agree after seeing the video, please share this post.)

Not that Amber’s YouTube video is, like, at the intellectual level of a presidential debate or anything (<-best read with sarcasm, thank you)  but here is a snippet of the kinds of thought-provoking arguments young Amber makes to counter Bey’s questionable claim.

Beyoncé: “Make your check, come at they neck.”

Amber: “Indeed, make your check, but be aware that your check is going to be significantly smaller than your male counterpart’s.”

Beyoncé: “Some of them men think they freak this like we do, but no, they don’t.

Amber: “I actually agree with you on this one, Beyoncé. Men certainly do not freak this the way our culture demands that women do. Men aren’t objectified in the same way or to the same magnitude as women are–if at all.

Beyoncé: “Disrespect us? No, they won’t.”

Amber: “Yes, they will. And they do. Often. I’d like to defer to a very famous doctor on this subject–Dr. Dre…” (She proceeds to quote Dre, which you really must see for yourself to fully appreciate.)

I don’t know about you, but I would pay big bucks to see Amber debate Mitt Binders-Full-of-Women Romney.

Can we say pay-per-view!?

Note: For those of us who have danced around the kitchen with the kids and cracked our smartphone screens from excessive jubilance while under the influence of said song, Amber has included this disclaimer to accompany her video:

“It’s a song. I get it. It’s just a song…This video is not about Beyoncé. It’s not even really about this song. My point is NOT that she shouldn’t have made this song because of X, Y, and Z. My point IS: Oh, Look! X, Y, and Z exist and this song is a great tie-in to a discussion of feminism. If you’ve watched some of my other videos, you would be able to sense the sarcastic tone. Relax.”‘

 

 


Aug 15 2012

Florida Governor Rick Scott Lost Access to Welfare Urine, Going After State Workers’ Instead

I posted last September about Florida Governor (R) Rick Scott who pushed a bill through the Florida Legislature which required all welfare recipients to be drug tested. He gained Republican support for the proposed law by insisting that poor people on welfare are using tax payers to fund their drug use.

Scott is a conservative Republican billionaire who used $73 million of his own money and the support of the Tea Party to win his governorship.

The scandal here is that there was a clear conflict of interest for Scott, in that he is co-founder of a chain of drug testing clinics and he would benefit financially from the law. And, when 98 percent of the welfare recipients passed the test at a cost of $178 million to tax payers, there was no legislative move to end the testing.

Cha-ching.

In October, 2011, U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven issued an injunction halting the drug testing, finding that a welfare applicant represented by the ACLU who challenged the law would likely win his case on constitutional grounds.

So what does Scott do? No longer profiting from poor folks, he switches his focus to working class government employees by issuing an executive order mandating drug testing for all 85,000 of them.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled on Wednesday that suspicionless drug testing for state workers violated the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure.

Scott said he would appeal the decision.

Of course, his appeal will be paid for by the very taxpayers whose constitutional rights he wants to trample.

So. Friggin. Absurd.

Why has this guy not been recalled?


SEPTEMBER 2011 STORY:


Florida Governor Rick Scott was so sure people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, he insisted anyone receiving help from the Department of Children and Families be tested.

Under the sponsorship of Republican state Senator Steve Oelrich, a bill was presented to the Florida Legislature that Oelrich said was, “all about trying to break the cycle of drug dependency and using taxpayer dollars to buy illegal drugs.” The bill passed over objections from Democrats.

In July, 2011, the state began implementing the policy that requires all applicants for temporary cash assistance to pass four drug tests per year, which the applicant must pay for, before any funds can be disbursed to them. If the applicant tests negative for drugs, they are reimbursed for the test. If the result is positive, they are barred from the program.

The results: 98% passed.

The cost to the State of Florida: $178 million annually.

OK, so Rick Scott appears to have been publicly embarrassed after supporting a failed policy that is estimated to cost $5 for every $1 it saves. But, there’s more to the story.

Of course.

This is the same Rick Scott that was forced out of his CEO position at health care giant Columbia/HCA just before the company admitted to 14 felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million in welfare fraud restitution. This is the same Rick Scott who somehow (his friendship with George W. Bush, perhaps?) avoided any criminal prosecution in the federal indictment against Columbia/HCA, a company Scott co-founded and led. This is the same Rick Scott who then co-founded Solantic, a chain of urgent care centers that provide drug testing for the workforce.

In his support of the drug testing bill Scott said it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction.” Apparently it is not unfair for them to subsidize shady politicians and their business partners.

Scott is a conservative Republican billionaire who used $73 million of his own money and the support of the tea party to win his governorship.