WEDNESDAY, May 19 Bruce Krall of Laguna Hills pays $700,000 for Bridgeville, a small town in Humboldt County up for sale on the Internet since 2002. The town's 20 residents say they are excited to have been bought by Krall, whom they will now address as Benevolent Father while averting their eyes. Krall, a financial adviser, said he was impressed by the town's physical beauty, accessibility to contact highs and as a launching pad for eventual world domination. His immediate plans are to build a small resort, something like Big Weed Ranch or Club Meds or the I'm Hungry. Are You Hungry? I'm Hungry Inn.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
THURSDAY, May 20 In a Washington Post profile of the Reverend Lou Sheldontoday, the fey head of the Anaheim-based Traditional Values Coalition (or, as I like to call him, Money) likens Massachusetts' recognition of gay marriage to Pearl Harbor. His daughter, Andrea Lafferty, agrees, saying it's "D-Day," which is just like Pearl Harbor except they are two separate events, separated by about three years, half a world. Oh, and in the former, America was attacked by the Japanese, while in the latter, America attacked German-occupied France. Just the same. Lafferty's mistake is understandable given that she doesn't have much time to read history since she spends most of it scouring gay porn with her father. Sheldon comes off as a nut in the piece, of course, which has some conservatives tiring of his act. In the National Review Online chat room, Steve Hayward complains, "Having watched and cringed over Lou Sheldon up close for too long in California, I am equally appalled at the feature in the Post today. I can't help but wonder whether this isn't a page out of Soviet disinformation, i.e., the media doing a profile of the most discreditable opponent of gay marriage as a means of tarring by association more reasonable and serious opponents of gay marriage. " Then he drops the big bomb. "Then there is this from Sheldon in 1976 (from page 68 of my book, The Real Jimmy Carter—plug, plug): 'God has his hand upon Jimmy Carter to run for president. Of course, he's wise enough not to be presumptuous with the will of God. But he's moving in the will of God." That is so gay. FRIDAY, May 21 Today we find out Ahmad Chalabi, our "best friend in Iraq," was probably passing secrets to the Iranians, raising the possibility that George W. Bush is a tool of ayatollahs—an ayatoolah. This comes a couple of days after the head of the Iraqi ruling council is blown up and a never-ending stream of pictures of abused Iraqi prisoners floods our computers and newspapers. Summing up, we have chaos, violence, betrayal and a complete vacuum in leadership. Mission accomplished! Eighty-one percent of respondents to a CNN online poll say we should get out of Iraq immediately because apparently the American people have more faith in the forces of primeval anarchy than in George Bush. That's why it's strange for people to get so upset when Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi suggests the problem isn't so much Bush's policies as his brain, i.e., he suffers from what scientists would call high amounts of "Lafferty." By the way, why are the only Democratic leaders with any balls Democratic women? . . . Speaking of men without balls, LA Times columnist Dana Parsons writes his fourth column about the Haidl rape trial, and, like the other three, his hypothesis seems to be that it's just so unseemly to be talking about things like sticking pool cues and bottles in unconscious people and can't we all just forget any of this happened and give these boys a stern talking to and go back to writing about the cute things kids say at the dinner table, you know, other than "Dad, I'm being arrested for sticking pool cues and bottles in unconscious people"? Parsons, who, along with a set of filing cabinets, is pretty much what remains of the Times Orange County Edition, seems most outraged at the trial's assault on his sense of decorum. Dude, it's a rape trial. Rape. It's horrible, and it's violent, and it's ugly and dehumanizing. That's why they call it rape. If you want to write only about only nice, happy, good-time things, perhaps you should go to work in China or at OC Metro. SATURDAY, May 22 The Los Angeles County Museum of Artis winding down its exhibition of Diane Arbus photographs. What is it about a museum that makes everyone feel like they have to offer an opinion or insight? There's always the dweeb who thinks his semester of Introduction to Western Art entitles him to put Winslow Homerin perspective. The spewing was never worse than the Van Goghexhibit a few years back when I got stuck in the mob next to some associate professor type who kept filling the ear of his put-upon and increasingly pissed-off date about grids and Freud at work in Van Gogh's flowers. This Arbus doesn't have Van Gogh-like crowds, but it's got plenty of Lafferty-esque remarks, many from people in their 60s wearing chunky silver necklaces. So, for anyone who was at the Arbus show around 2 p.m. today, I'd like to offer these corrections: (1) No, Diane Arbus' photographs were not "the inspiration for Freaks." The movie was made in 1932; Arbus didn't come into prominence until the early 1960s. (2) No, it is not "obvious" that Arbus was a huge influence on celebrity photographer Annie Lebowitz. (3) Her name is "Annie" Lebowitz, not "Jackie." (4) You're puzzlement as to why Arbus quit taking pictures so abruptly in 1972 can be best answered by the fact she committed suicide that year, a victim of depression and people discussing her work in museums. SUNDAY, May 23 Less said the better. MONDAY, May 24 Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas and a defense attorney for one of the Haidl Threetalk about the Haidl rape trial on some MSNBC show, so there's no problem anyone on the jury—any jury—will see it. The defense attorney starts in with the usual stuff—the woman was promiscuous, she had lots of sex, she enjoyed sex and having lots of sex, you know sex, she had lots of it, sex, and liked sex, with her body, the sex, having the sex with her body AND she was an aspiring porn actress—when it hits me: the defense's case is based on a false presumption. If the woman truly did aspire for porn stardom, that wouldn't have led her to lie passively and accept all manner of degradation. Anyone who watches porn knows the current sensibility in the field is for an active, communicative woman who makes her needs and wants clear. By just lying there, the girl wasn't imitating a porn star. The defense would have done better to argue she was an aspiring Mission Viejo housewife of 15 years. TUESDAY, May 25 Splitting no hairs, Dana Parsons makes clear he finds cancer outrageous and is nearly as appalled by dead puppies.