August 31

PORTLAND, Ore. — Thousands of bomb-sniffing dogs nationwide are now out of work as airport security focuses its attention away from the relatively minor threat explosives pose, toward the more pressing threat brought on by lip gloss and moisturizers.

Thanks to Wilhelm McShane, however, many of these dogs are not going to be queueing up at the unemployment lines. Due to a stenography error nearly 30 years ago, McShane became an expert at training dogs to sniff out unconventional substances, something he is now very thankful for.

“They all laughed at me. Ultimately I lost my job over it,” McShane said, sitting in the swing on his front porch. “It wasn’t my fault I missed the meeting that day and got an inaccurate job request. How was I to know they meant ‘bomb’-sniffing dogs? The job request form very clearly said ‘balm-sniffing dogs,’ and that’s what I gave them.”

When asked if he’d go back to work, nearly 30 years after his dismissal, McShane said that he had decided to let bygones be bygones and do what’s best for his country.

“If the safety of the country depends on me, who am I to turn them down because of a hurt ego?” said McShane, as he sipped from his lemonade. “But look who’s laughing now,” he added with a gleam in his eye.

Sean Gleeson has one of those awesome email addresses that just plain makes sense. First name @ last name dot whatever. I’ve wanted something along these lines for a long time, but the trouble is that my last name is already taken in any of the TLDs I’m interested in. Plus, I’m pretty attached to my current email address. Then there’s the fact that I’m not terribly fond of my last name…

With that in mind, I’m giving serious thought to simply changing my name to my email address. I’m not sure whether I’d be able to make my middle name “@” or have to spell it “at,” and I’m not sure about having a dot in the last name, but it’s something I’m definitely thinking about.

I’m kind of hoping I’ll confuse some spammers in the process and start getting penis pill information in the postal mail in addition to my inbox.

I need to refute something from Sean’s disproval of my latest effort to explain The Sun‘s photo.

The lemon: I feel this is one of those flaws in my rendering that I mentioned in my previous post. In actuality, I believe the lemon is sitting on the edge of a glass of strawberry lemonade rather than the martini glass I drew, accounting for the pinkish splotches seen running across the inside of the lemon’s pericarp. Sure, the pericarp doesn’t look white, but that’s because it is in the shadow cast by the thicker edge of the slice. If you’ve ever seen a slice of lemon that’s been sitting around a little while, you’d notice that the “meat” of the lemon actually shrinks as it dehydrates, accounting for the shadowing. Let’s take another look at Sean’s blowup:

Now, while you might argue that the pink splotches of strawberry foam are too high up on the lemon to have come from inside the glass, I’d have to assure you that those darn things are always slipping off the edge of the glass, especially when they’re cut as thinly as this one is. Also, you might argue that Brits don’t drink strawberry lemonade, making it impossible to even find any in the UK. That’s a pretty good point, but I’d have to argue that if anyone were to have a chance of getting a strawberry lemonade where there is none, it’s sure going to be someone who: a) is hanging out with a member of the Royal Family, b) has nice tits, or c) has both nice tits and a member of the Royal Family. In fact, I’d be surprised if someone matching those qualifications didn’t order something impossible at every chance.

Unfortunately for me, it is Sean who is making the rules here. So, if he says it’s a “button”, and that it’s pinned to Miss Pinkham’s top, I simply have to accept it and move on. So here I go, moving on.

You’ll notice that there’s a button pinned to Miss Pinkham’s top:

You’ll also notice that this button is being pushed off to one side — making it nearly perpendicular to her torso, as a matter of fact. Sean maintains that Miss Pinkham’s breasts are following the axiom that “the breast line is one head-height below the chin,” and therefore exist in the state shown in his diagram:

If there is nothing up in the upper portion of Miss Pinkham’s top, then what is pushing said button to such a perpendicular angle? If there were no breasts up there, the button ought to be flat against her breast-free upper chest, no?

I feel that because my initial video footage disproved the bulk of Sean’s argument against the authenticity of the photo in question, I actually do deserve the award, so I’m going to just go ahead and claim it without Sean’s approval. However, Sean is right that the question of the raised left breast really needs to be answered. Since I’ve not yet adequately proved a case for the raisal of said breast, I have a moral opposition to the outright taking of Sean’s award without his approval. So what I’ve done is taken half the award without permission, until which point Sean feels the need to award me the other half. You’ll now find the following image proudly and boldly emblazoned on my website for the world to see, so that they will know that I deserve the “Sean Gleeson Researcher of the Century Award.”

...continuing my efforts to win the Sean Gleeson Researcher of the Century award. If you’re just joining us, I’m halfway there..

Since I’ve already proven the “shadows” portion to Sean’s approval, I’ll now prove the “left breast lift” portion as well. This solution is incredibly simple, requires no magic garment, and fits completely within what we know about the event.

I’ve simply extended the photograph below the bottom, using my imagination to fill in the details:

Click to enlarge

Now I’m no painter, and I have considerable trouble with anatomy, but I feel that despite the flaws in my rendering, this is a representation of a completely plausible situation. Sure, we don’t know that this is what actually happened, but I feel that anyone would have to admit that a table could certainly account for Harry’s “weight bearing” arm, the lifted breast, and the mystery “floating lemon wedge” — which, inexplicably, was never initially questioned.

Q E D.

Any objections?

UPDATE: Crap! Foiled again. On to the next round, I guess…

It seems I’m a participant in an unfolding scandal. I was under the impression that I’d have more time to prepare a statement, but it seems the story is breaking faster than I had expected it would, prompting me to hurry this post out the door. Please excuse any typos, spelling mistakes and/or bad grammar. (My grammar is so bad that one time, she rode her Harley right into an IHOP and demanded a “Rooty-Tooty Fresh and Fruity” or she’d tear up the place.)

Entertainment Weekly contributor Sean Gleeson recently made some allegations incriminating tabloid newspaper The Sun in yet another scandal over the Bad Boy Prince photograph they published. The Sun has printed a retraction, apologizing for the timeline mistake, but Sean maintains that editors at the paper willfully manipulated the photo in question, increasing Miss Natalie Pinkham’s chest size dramatically.

Sean’s allegations were based on “impossible shadows”, which I determined to be nothing more than the natural behavior of light on 3D objects. (Or, in this case, boobs.) Sean demanded video evidence to back up my assertions, so I decided to put aside all modesty and demonstrate the shadow-forming power of a pair of small breasts. Assuming I wouldn’t be able to get permission from the owner of the only female breasts I have access to, I decided the only thing to do was use mine. If you’ve ever wanted to see me topless, now is certainly your chance.

In any case, because of my selfless actions, I’m now up for the prestigious “Sean Gleeson Researcher of the Century Award,” which as of yet, has not actually been awarded to anyone before. Also coming with the award is a pint of Guinness, which due to not living in the same part of the country as Sean, I’ll be asking he give to the charity of my choosing. (I choose the Oklahoma City Alcoholism Center.) Tomorrow morning, Sean will announce whether I’ve won it or not, but either way, it’s going to be huge news. Heck, it’s huge news already. I’m sure by now you’ve seen countless links to Sean’s extremely influencial site from places like boingboing, digg, fark, slashdot, the Sun, and — of course — perezhilton.

I just want to assure everyone that I’m not backing The Sun because I feel they’re innocent — I’m backing them because of my dedication to free thinking. Just like the time I proved that that bigfoot photo could actually be a hiker, or the time I proved that George W. Bush could actually have been giving the thumbs up sign, it’s about not condemning someone with flawed evidence. It’s about proving that someone could be wrong — not proving that someone is wrong.

I’d also like to assure readers that I’m not in the habit of posting homemade pornography to the internet. This time it just seemed like a necessary evil.

I hope I haven’t destroyed what little faith you have in me as a person.