Fat British women in bikinis and we wish we were stoned.


The Sun published a noxious pictorial of multi-stoned British women today. It was all I could do to contain my projectile vomiting.


(Incidentally, one British stone is about 14 American pounds).


See, I’m not faint of heart. I enjoy gore; visual depravity does not deter me, and in fact, I enjoy the sight of blood, guts, human detritus, etc., but there is something particularly repulsive about fat women in bikinis that truly tickles my aversive gag.  It’s as if there is a primal reaction that propels violently from your guts upon beholding these slabs of blubber.  It’s not natural.  I don’t care how much these women attempt to garner all SJW commiseration.


‘I won’t diet for the sun’: Meet the 75 STONE bikini babes who will flaunt their curves with pride this summer reads the headline.


They are shameless, proud and aesthetically toxic on levels seen only in Fukushima.


fat limey


Go at it, fellas! There’s plenty to go around, and around, and around.


Anne-Lise Barber, size 24 and growing
Anne-Lise Barber, size 24 and growing


Anne-Lise Barber, hailing from Norway, hasn’t experienced a cold day in her life for the last 10 years.


She proudly boasts, “For me there is plus-size and obese. I am plus size.  I eat well, I do yoga and I use a local outdoor gym. I am healthy just big and in three weeks we are off to Spain for some summer sun. I can’t wait to hit the beach.  The fact is some people have to be big – it’s either in our DNA or we are built that way. To fat shame us for embracing fashion trends and daring to wear a swim suit is plain wrong and I won’t have anyone tell me what I can or cannot do.  I used to be slimmer but I wasn’t happy and I’d rather be happy and large than slim and sad.  I’d rather be a size 24 than a size 10.”


Do we need to tell these women it’s not “shame,” per se.


It’s abhorrence?  A fine difference.  And it’s not DNA, it’s joules, and I’m not talking about the ones where your triceps or chins go.



Donald Trump’s clever plan for making Mexico pay for the wall.


Dorky typo aside, this AP report from ABC News is quite interesting.


Behind the bluster, I’ve always wondered how Donald Trump will force Mexico to “pay” for his border Wall.


Evidently, Donald Trump has distributed a two-page memo outlining a plan for making this happen. On the surface, it’s quite ingenious. In the real world of Congressional politics, me-no-so-sure…


In his proposal, Trump is reportedly threatening to change a rule under the Patriot Act anti-terrorism law to cut off money transfers sent to Mexico. Trump added that he would withdraw the treat if Mexico makes “a one-time payment of $5 to $10 billion” to finance the wall, the Washington Post reported.


So that’s the plan! Defer to the Patriot Act (the gift that keeps on giving) and label Mexico as a national “threat” or combatant of the United States. Perhaps using the aggressive onslaught of drugs from south of the border (despite the fact the free market dynamics of the northward drug seepage are obviously deeply rooted in the demand on the part of American citizens) as a basis for this assertion.


Having thus categorized Mexico as a direct threat to the United States (no small feat), Trump would then be empowered to dry up all funds travelling back south across the border. Money stays in the United States, less incentive to immigrate to the United States.  Win-win in the best-case scenario, but the Beltway and best-case seem perpetually exclusive.


Plus, with the money staying in the United States, how does he plan on “routing” it toward his Southern Wall project?  A special levy on Mexican nationals living in the United States?