Large photo

Home | Index of articles

---

Montgomery, Alabama: The bizarre rise of SCROTOX - Men are paying nearly £3,000 to have Botox in their private parts - so would you let your man do it?

Terence N. Turner 874 Willow Greene Drive Montgomery, AL 36109

Thought the vampire facelift and leech facial were weird? The beauty industry is about to get much more bizarre.

'Scrotox' for men - botox for their private parts - is slowly on the rise, according to Metro.

The treatment, which costs £2,800, involves having botox injected into the testicles to decrease sweating, reduce wrinkles and make the scrotum appear larger due to muscles relaxing.

Mark Norfolk, Clinical Director at Transform, told FEMAIL: ‘Over the past year, requests for scrotum Botox have doubled at showing the huge demand and interest for this procedure.

'It’s not a procedure that we offer due to the possible risks and complications associated with treating this part of the body.

'In terms of results, injecting Botox into the scrotum may help with any sweating issues but won’t have much of an effect on wrinkles as there is lots of loose skin on this part of the body that an injectible treatment just can’t shift.

'If the patient has an issue with wrinkles or loose skin on their scrotum, a surgical procedure is most likely to be recommended.

'If anyone is interested in having this treatment, I can’t stress enough how important it is to do a thorough research – not only into the practitioner but also around the product they’ll be using.

'Also, patients should manage their expectations in terms of results, it could prove very costly and nervy racking to go through, for very little in return.’

Writing for Cosmetic Surgery Times, dermatologic surgeon Jason Emer, M.D. explained: 'As the vaginal rejuvenation market is skyrocketing, men are seeking their own type of rejuvenation. Who wouldn’t want to be a little bit longer, thicker, or have more sensitivity and a better sex life? These men are also becoming interested in the cosmetic appearance of the actual penis and scrotum itself.'

It's perhaps unsurprising that men are investing in quirky treatments after research revealed that the number of men having cosmetic surgery has doubled over the past decade.

According to Lord Alan Sugar's business partner, Apprentice winner Dr Leah Totton, the rise in men having Botox is staggering.

'Divorce rates are higher than ever and men, as much as women, are aware that appearance is a key factor when attracting a new partner. My patients generally feel that Botox helps them feel more positive about their appearance and boosts their self-confidence,' she said of the trend.

'Another motivating factor for the men I treat is a desire to improve their work prospects. Many men I treat are under pressure to achieve and a frown is a negative expression that reflects strain. By softening this expression, men appear less stressed, less angry and calmer. Looking old, stressed or angry can make men feel vulnerable about their positions or their marketability.'

---

Large photo

---

The Spanish masturbation guru Fran Sanchez is on the wrong path. Just imagine him handling his sexuality alone on his couch or in the toilet. A picture of pity, he is.

---

Wyoming, Michigan: Germans introduce poison gas

Tommy R. Uribe 2061 Garrett Street Wyoming, MI 49548

On April 22, 1915, German forces shock Allied soldiers along the western front by firing more than 150 tons of lethal chlorine gas against two French colonial divisions at Ypres, Belgium. This was the first major gas attack by the Germans, and it devastated the Allied line.

Toxic smoke has been used occasionally in warfare since ancient times, and in 1912 the French used small amounts of tear gas in police operations. At the outbreak of World War I, the Germans began actively to develop chemical weapons. In October 1914, the Germans placed some small tear-gas canisters in shells that were fired at Neuve Chapelle, France, but Allied troops were not exposed. In January 1915, the Germans fired shells loaded with xylyl bromide, a more lethal gas, at Russian troops at Bolimov on the eastern front. Because of the wintry cold, most of the gas froze, but the Russians nonetheless reported more than 1,000 killed as a result of the new weapon.

On April 22, 1915, the Germans launched their first and only offensive of the year. Known as the Second Battle of Ypres, the offensive began with the usual artillery bombardment of the enemy’s line. When the shelling died down, the Allied defenders waited for the first wave of German attack troops but instead were thrown into panic when chlorine gas wafted across no-man’s land and down into their trenches. The Germans targeted four miles of the front with the wind-blown poison gas and decimated two divisions of French and Algerian colonial troops. The Allied line was breached, but the Germans, perhaps as shocked as the Allies by the devastating effects of the poison gas, failed to take full advantage, and the Allies held most of their positions.

A second gas attack, against a Canadian division, on April 24, pushed the Allies further back, and by May they had retreated to the town of Ypres. The Second Battle of Ypres ended on May 25, with insignificant gains for the Germans. The introduction of poison gas, however, would have great significance in World War I.

Immediately after the German gas attack at Ypres, France and Britain began developing their own chemical weapons and gas masks. With the Germans taking the lead, an extensive number of projectiles filled with deadly substances polluted the trenches of World War I. Mustard gas, introduced by the Germans in 1917, blistered the skin, eyes, and lungs, and killed thousands. Military strategists defended the use of poison gas by saying it reduced the enemy’s ability to respond and thus saved lives in offensives. In reality, defenses against poison gas usually kept pace with offensive developments, and both sides employed sophisticated gas masks and protective clothing that essentially negated the strategic importance of chemical weapons.

The United States, which entered World War I in 1917, also developed and used chemical weapons. Future president Harry S. Truman was the captain of a U.S. field artillery unit that fired poison gas against the Germans in 1918. In all, more than 100,000 tons of chemical weapons agents were used in World War I, some 500,000 troops were injured, and almost 30,000 died, including 2,000 Americans.

In the years following World War I, Britain, France, and Spain used chemical weapons in various colonial struggles, despite mounting international criticism of chemical warfare. In 1925, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 banned the use of chemical weapons in war but did not outlaw their development or stockpiling. Most major powers built up substantial chemical weapons reserves. In the 1930s, Italy employed chemical weapons against Ethiopia, and Japan used them against China. In World War II, chemical warfare did not occur, primarily because all the major belligerents possessed both chemical weapons and the defenses–such as gas masks, protective clothing, and detectors–that rendered them ineffectual. In addition, in a war characterized by lightning-fast military movement, strategists opposed the use of anything that would delay operations. Germany, however, did use poison gas to murder millions in its extermination camps.

Since World War II, chemical weapons have only been used in a handful of conflicts–the Yemeni conflict of 1966-67, the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88–and always against forces that lacked gas masks or other simple defenses. In 1990, the United States and the Soviet Union signed an agreement to cut their chemical weapons arsenals by 80 percent in an effort to discourage smaller nations from stockpiling the weapons. In 1993, an international treaty was signed banning the production, stockpiling (after 2007), and use of chemical weapons. It took effect in 1997 and has been ratified by 128 nations.

---

Large photo

---


It is the secret dream of every Swedish or German woman to marry a black men, or at least have sex with a black man. Every smart young African man should migrate to Europe. Free money, nice house, good sex!

---

King Salmon, Alaska: Chad is the country most vulnerable to climate change – here's why

Phillip J. Hawkins 3596 Timbercrest Road King Salmon, AK 99613

Of the 186 countries assessed in a recent survey of climate vulnerability, Chad was rated most in peril. A combination of high poverty, frequent conflicts, and the risk of both droughts and floods means the central African nation is bottom of the list, just below Bangladesh and some way behind Norway, the country least vulnerable to climate change.

So why Chad? For a start, it is one of the poorest countries in the world. Around 87% of Chadians are classified as poor, according to the Multidimentional Poverty Index, which factors in health, education and living standards. That’s the fourth highest rate in the world. The percentage who are “destitute” (63%), the most extreme category of poverty, is also the fourth highest in the world.

This is exacerbated by the fact that the country has been in civil war or conflict for 35 out of the 57 years since it gained independence from France.

Any poor or conflict-prone country will always be vulnerable, but Chad’s geography means climate change is a particular risk. Chad is bigger than many Westerners may realise. At 1.28m km² it’s larger than Nigeria and twice the size of Texas. Around 90% of its 10m people live in the southern half of the country, as most of the northern half extends well into the Sahara desert.

Most Chadians base their livelihoods on subsistence farming and livestock rearing. The semi-arid rangelands of the Sahel, in the north of the country, provide pasture for livestock during the rainy season, while the fertile agricultural fields in the south produce most of the cash and food crops. When the dry season begins, pastoralists move their herds south to feed on the leftovers of the agricultural harvest.

Chad’s changing climate

Since the mid-20th century, temperatures in Chad have been increasing while rainfall is decreasing. Ninety percent of the country’s largest lake, Lake Chad, has disappeared over the past 50 years due to a combination of droughts and increasing withdrawals for irrigation. Climate studies project things will get increasingly hot and arid throughout the 21st century, which means lower crop yields, worse pasture, and a harder life for anyone dependent on Lake Chad.

Rural areas are most at risk from climate change because that’s where most of the population, and most of the poverty, is found. However, urban areas are not safe either, as the country’s growing cities struggle to accommodate the arrival of new residents. Sanitation services like sewage, storm water drainage and waste collection are poor, according to the World Bank. In the event of floods, as happened in 2010, 2011 and 2012, the infrastructure cannot cope and untreated sewage could infect the water supply, creating a high risk of infectious diseases such as cholera.

Demographic challenges

Chad’s population is mostly young, and high youth unemployment has already caused unrest in the capital N’djamena. Vulnerability to climate is made worse by civil unrest or conflict because people cannot receive the help they need during climate-related disasters such as droughts or floods.

Chad also hosts some 300,000 refugees from Darfur on its eastern border with Sudan, according to UN figures, while an additional 67,000 refugees from the Central African Republic are in camps on its southern border. These refugees consume Chad’s limited resources and sometimes compete with the local population. This creates resentment and sometimes violence between the refugees and their hosts.

To make matters worse, the Boko Haram crisis in northeastern Nigeria has spilled over to the Lac region of Chad, which now has more than 60,000 displaced people registered there and several thousand more that are unregistered. This is worrying as the country’s unemployed youth, restless and with plenty of time on their hands, could be at risk of recruitment and radicalisation by Boko Haram.

The way forward

Despite these challenges, there are ways to mitigate the effect of climate change. For instance, farmers in Chad’s semi-arid Sahelian zone have been using an indigenous rainwater harvesting technique called Zaï to successfully grow crops. Zaï involves the digging of small pits and sowing crops in them. The pits retain water for a long period of time and are particularly efficient when there isn’t much rain.

The Zaï technique was enhanced by introducing manure and compost into the pits to provide nutrients to the crops. This helped rehabilitate soils that are heavily degraded and significantly increased the yields of food crops.

Agroforestry, the combining of crops and trees in the same patch of land, can also help mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Tree roots stabilise soils and protect them from eroding during heavy rainfall, while also restoring fertility simply by producing litter which eventually makes its way back into the earth.

Of course, any country would be better placed to deal with climate change if it simply became much wealthier. Chad began producing petroleum in 2003, and it now accounts for 93% of all exports. However, this left the country vulnerable to declines in oil prices. So, when the price did indeed crash in late 2014, Chad suffered a significant loss of revenue. Needless to say, the impact of climate-related disasters such as droughts or floods becomes magnified if the country does not have the resources to combat them.

Chad cannot rely on oil forever. Farming is still the mainstay of its economy and, in the longer term, developing sustainable agriculture and livestock farming will be key in providing employment and maintaining food security.

---

Large photo

---

If you are still invested in the real estate of European cities, get out! A terrorist attack with chemical weapons will happen. Even if it doesn't kill many people, it will drive prices down. Accross the continent.

---

Charlottesville, Virginia: LSD to be given to people with depression in 'wonder drug' trial backed by aristocrat but campaigners warn it is 'dangerous'

Pedro A. Allen 4081 Queens Lane Charlottesville, VA 22903

LSD is to be given to treat people with depression in a trial that anti-drug campaigners warn is a dangerous experiment that will ‘play with their minds’.

Leading the research into the benefits of what she calls a ‘wonder drug’ is Amanda Feilding, Countess of Wemyss and March – nicknamed the ‘Cannabis Countess’ for her advocacy of legalisation.

The £300,000 experiment is being conducted by the organisation she founded, the Beckley Foundation, under the supervision of Professor David Nutt, who was sacked from his post as a government adviser in 2009 after claims that he was trivialising the dangers of drugs.

LSD is a hallucinogen that has been linked to suicide and mental health problems and possession of the class-A substance is an imprisonable offence.

However, researchers plan to obtain a medical licence allowing them to administer the drug to 20 volunteers in the study, for which the foundation is raising money through crowdfunding.

It will be the first time in the UK that researchers have investigated whether taking small amounts of LSD regularly – so-called ‘microdosing’ – can alleviate depression.

But David Raynes, spokesman for the National Drug Prevention Alliance, said: ‘Both Prof Nutt and the countess are extreme pro-drug campaigners and we should be suspicious of their motives.

‘They have both admitted to taking drugs and seek to normalise use. A lot of people have had severe side effects from LSD and it is playing with people’s minds.’

The volunteers will be given doses on four occasions and fill in surveys recording whether the drug lifts their mood. They will also play Japanese strategy board game Go to see if the drug improves their performance and MRI scans of their brains will be taken.

The results will be compared with how well the volunteers perform after a placebo dose.

The countess, 74, said: ‘There are studies that show LSD is a wonder drug for curing all sorts of things.

‘We will not be giving people such large doses that they hallucinate but enough to give them a lift. I took it in the 1960s when it was legal and it improved my wellbeing.

‘If this small trial is successful, then we will consider applying to the Government for more funding to run a larger experiment.’

Last year, the Beckley Foundation and Imperial College published the results of a Government-funded study on volunteers using the psychoactive ingredient in magic mushrooms, psilocybin, to explore whether it could cure depression. Researchers said two thirds of volunteers were cured of depression for a week after the tests.

The foundation hopes to start the LSD research next year.

---

Large photo

---

There is a new solution coming up for ugly old women. Normally they would just become man-hating feminists. But soon they can have their brains transplanted into a sex doll, and feel beautiful again.

---

Stahlstown, Pennsylvania: Why don’t terrorist organisations use chemical or bio-weapons instead of bombs?

Brad S. Ellis 3552 Michigan Avenue Stahlstown, PA 15687

Chemical and bio-weapons can be concealed better and are more efficient and cost-effective. Terrorists don’t have ethical or juridical or religious restrictions to using them. So why do they use explosives instead?

Brian K. Price, 20 year (and 2 war) military veteran

As others have already pointed out, developing a chemical or biological weapon is extremely difficult. It takes experts in those fields as well as suitable facilities for their development. It also takes considerable time and money.

The most successful to date was Aum Shinrikyo who actively recruited scientists with this type of know how. These scientist did not leave their jobs to hang out in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. They remained in their laboratories in Japan. Which means they had access to some of the most advanced scientific equipment available. With this know how and access, they were able to produce Sarin to attack the Tokyo subway. In a confined space with a large number of people, practically the ideal location for the use of chemical weapons, they killed all of 12 people and seriously injured 50 more.

For comparison, the average suicide bomber kills 10 people. Very often they kill more. A truck bomb can kill hundreds of people.

And that’s with technology and know how that is about the high school level. Anybody can trigger a suicide vest. Almost anyone can build one.

Which isn’t to say that other terrorist groups haven’t attempted to build chemical and/or biological weapons of their own. Most groups consider the psychological impact of the weapons of far greater importance than the practical impacts. So even if you kill less people than you would with an IED, the resultant terror (and press coverage) would be substantial. Al Qaeda’s Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction

When the US invaded Afghanistan, it found AQ’s attempts at developing Anthrax and Ricin. They found animals and empty cages and the found videos showing their experimentation. The Indonesian terrorist Hambali was one of their leaders in this effort and they also recruited several “scientists” (mostly graduate students) to develop these weapons. While they had some very minor successes, they could never produce to the level required for actual employment. (Afghanistan, especially under Taliban rule, was about the worst place to attempt any type of scientific endeavor. This is why chemical factories in other countries, such as the Sudan, get bombed or why the WMD threat in Iraq was considered such a threat.)

ISIL attempted to get around this problem by using a far simple chemical for its weapons, chlorine. Chlorine bombings in Iraq (back when they were still AQI) and Islamic State 'using chlorine gas' in Iraq roadside bombs - BBC News

This has nothing to do with an ethical limitation on what terrorists will use and everything to do with how difficult it is to produce compared to how useful it actually is. In the end, explosives are easier to get (or manufacture), they are easier to employ, and they kill more people than chemical or biological weapons with considerably less risk of the weapon causing literal “blow back.”

Matthew Franklin, Ex-Infantryman, Ex-Kendoka, recreational shooter

Chemical and biological weapons are NOT more efficient, or more cost-effective.

A chemical or bio-weapons program is a costly investment that requires long-term investment of capital and management to successfully weaponize product. Even then, reliable delivery can still be somewhat iffy. While you may be able to throw some ammonia cleaner and chlorine bleach together in your bathtub and give yourself a minor chemical burn and cause your eyebrows to fall out, to consistently create biochem weapons that you can successfully manufacture, store, and deploy (even if you don’t care about the survival of your operators), you need to expend a lot of time, money, and you need to have real estate that you can build secure facilities on that will be in operation for a number of years.

How many terrorist organizations attract postdoctorate-level chemists and disease experts? How many of them have the permanently-controlled real estate to set up the facilities to produce anthrax/VX/phosgene/botulism/tularemia/ebola in controlled conditions, and prepare it into specialized munitions and delivery systems? The Aum Shinryoko cult pretty much had to devote all of its resources to its program for years, which only ended up killing 13 people.

Chemical and biological weapons are difficult to employ. Japanese experiments with Unit 731 proved that you have to spray a LOT of anthrax to get desired results. Gas chemical weapons are heavier than atmosphere, and so are at the mercy of humidity and prevailing winds. After the first year of gas warfare in World War I, casualties dropped off dramatically and the weapon became more of a means of restricting mobility rather than causing casualties since everyone had chemical protection. It is much easier to train someone to operate firearms and simple explosive devices than it is to teach them all the protocols for successfully employing a chemical or bio-weapon for maximum effectiveness.

Explosives and gun attacks also seem to have more media “impact,” with the BOOM BOOM and BANG BANG, the clouds and fires from explosions, and all that. Terrorism, is after all, about perceptions. Dramatic attacks convey power and violence. Gas and germs…not so much, especially if it’s easily contained and low body count.

Cristian Ariel Rodriguez, Blacksmith. Military-political-science & history enthusiast.

As pointed, they are “complex” to make. Although chemical weapons are not that complex and can be made without lab equipment on improvised facilities with the proper chemicals.

The terrorist did use this kind of weapons in Syria. Several times the so called “moderated” beheaders have attacked the Syrian Army with Sarin gas and staged “government chemical attacks” against the civilians.

John Dane, Studies wars and warfare of the 20th century

Depends on which terror organization in question. Sure they’re sort-of cost effective but they aren’t efficient, they’re unpredictable, and the process to develop them is very, very, delicate. They don’t discriminate between friend or foe so a sick man heading their way or gusts of wind blowing in their direction will guarantee that their troops will die as well. As for the groups in question, that entirely depends on the resources they have, the know how, and the commitment. Thankfully, most of them lack two of the three. But there are some that are just that crazy and callous to go forward with that.

Omkar Bapat, I have knowledge of history

Because even evil has standards. Chemical and Bio munitions are extremely dangerous because they are too perfect. Once you release it, that’s it. There is no way for it to be cancelled, stopped or called back. The primary objective of such groups is to gain territory. What use is the territory if it is contaminated by bio or chemical agents? Also, such weapons are too cruel to be used as they produce devastating effects. Even Hitler refused to authorise poison gas as a weapon in war.

Simon Jäger

Actually, Terrorists do have ethical and moral restrictions. If terrorists would use biological weapons or poisons, which are difficult to control, the backlash would be bad. Even their own supporters might betray them, simply because biological weapons can be so dangerous. The whole world would hunt them down. A the moment, nobody is using biological weapons, nobody, not even the worst dictator.

As to chemical weapons, the offer no clear advantage to explosives, as far as i know. Explosives are actually rather easy to produce and hide.

---

Large photo

---


95 percent of the victims of violence are men. Because women are natural cowards who send men to handle things when they are dangerous.

---

Wahoo, Nebraska: Forgetting Lolita - How Nabokov's Victim Became an American Fantasy

Drew J. Wagers 3254 Crummit Lane Wahoo, NE 68066

In January of 1959, the 600 residents of Lolita, Texas, found themselves in the midst of an improbable identity crisis. The town had been named in 1909 for Lolita Reese, the granddaughter of a Texas patriot. But following the U.S. publication of Vladimir Nabokov’s novel in 1958, “Lolita” had suddenly acquired a whole new set of connotations.

“The people in this town are god-fearing, church going, and we resent the fact our town has been tied in with the title of a dirty, sex-filled book that tells the nasty story of a middle-aged man’s love affair with a very young girl.” So read a petition circulated by R. T. Walker, deacon of the local First Baptist Church, who hoped to change the town’s name from Lolita to Jackson. In the end, however, the proud citizens of Lolita decided to hunker down and wait out the storm: As the Texas historian Fred Tarpley put it, “Lolita was retained with the hope that the novel and the [upcoming] film would soon be forgotten."

In fairness to the good people of Lolita, nobody in 1959 could have predicted what the future had in store for Lolita. In the ensuing decades, Nabokov’s novel spawned two films, musical adaptations, ballets, stage adaptations (including one legendarily disastrous Edward Albee–directed production starring Donald Sutherland as Humbert Humbert), a Russian-language opera, spin-off novels, bizarre fashion subcultures, and memorabilia that runs the gamut from kitschy to creepy: from heart-shaped sunglasses to anatomically precise blow-up dolls. With the possible exception of Gatsby, no twentieth-century American literary character penetrated the public consciousness quite like Lolita. Her very name entered the language as a common noun: “a precociously seductive girl,” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. (Gatsby, by contrast, had to settle for a mere adjective: “Gatsbyesque.”) At a certain echelon of pop music megastardom (the domain of Britney, Miley, Katy Perry, Lana Del Rey) they are all Lolitas now, trafficking in the iconography of lollipops and stuffed animals and schoolgirl outfits. In the sixty years since she first appeared, Lolita transcended her original textual instance: She became an archetype, an icon of youthful desirability. Lolita became America’s sweetheart.

And yet, there is also a sense in which the citizens of Lolita, Texas, have been proved right. We have forgotten Lolita. At least, we’ve forgotten about the young girl, “standing four feet ten in one sock,” whose childhood deprivation and brutalization and torture subliminally animate the myth that launched a thousand music videos. The publication, reception, and cultural re-fashioning of Lolita over the past 60 years is the story of how a twelve-year-old rape victim named Dolores became a dominant archetype for seductive female sexuality in contemporary America: It is the story of how a girl became a noun.

---

Large photo

---

Unlike tongkat ali, the new herbal butea superba has a pleasant taste. It can be mixed into chocolate, pizza tomato sauce, and any kind of curries. The active ingredients are also heat-stable, which means, heating does not destroy the effects. Girls watch out. If your sexual desires go over the top, and you fantasize strange settings, such as being gang-raped, your curry a week or two ago may have been butea superba laced.

---

Jacksonport, Wisconsin: Texas man, 56, with long history of 'deviant sex acts' with children's clothing and VEGETABLES is sentenced to life in prison for meth possession

Neil W. Buchanan 906 Reeves Street Jacksonport, WI 54235

A Texas man who had been previously convicted for nine felony offenses and had a history of 'deviant sex acts' with children's clothing and vegetables was sentenced to life in prison for being in possession of meth and tampering with evidence.

Charles Robert Ransier, 56, was found by a Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Trooper wearing only jeans and had melted candle wax on his chest on March 23, 2015, according to a news release from the Comal County district attorney’s office.

His truck was parked near a children's slide as the deputy noticed the slide to be out of place while driving in northern Comal County.

The trooper approached Ransier and noticed he had a girl's swimsuit 'laid out perfectly' on the driver's side floorboard inside the truck. He also noticed melted candle wax inside and a tube of lubricant on the dashboard.

Upon asking for permission to search his car, the trooper said the 56-year-old tried to break a syringe he had in his hands, according to the document.

The syringe tested positive for traces of meth by the DPS lab in Austin, the news release said.

Ransier's truck was searched again after his arrest and authorities found more children's clothing, candy, balloons, Barbie dolls, baby oil, Viagra, Extenze male enhancement, rope, duct tape and a cooler with frozen cucumbers, according to officials.

It took less than 30 minutes for the jury to convict Ransier, and they sentenced him to life in prison for the tampering with physical evidence charge and 20 years in prison for possessing less than a gram of methamphetamine.

The jury also imposed a $10,000 fine on Ransier, who has a lengthy criminal history.

Ransier was found naked by authorities on November 10, 2012 on Word Ranch Road in New Braunfels, and he admitted to committing a 'deviant sex act involving a squash'.

He was found naked again, but wearing women's stockings, on March 9, 2014 at a baseball field where he was engaging in a deviant sex act with a vegetable.

Ransier also was convicted in 1995 of manslaughter in the death of an Arizona state trooper.

He was driving high on meth when he struck Sgt. Mark Dyer, who had stopped a speeding motorist on the side of Interstate 10.

The 56-year-old served 15 years in prison for that conviction.

---

It's not that we would be madly in love with Donald Trump. But he may just ruin the US. That would be much welcomed in all corners of the world.

---

Home | Index of articles