To Gay Or Not To Gay?

In what may be one of the odder lawsuits that I've heard of, we have three bisexual men who are suing a national gay-athletic organization for telling the men that they're not gay enough to participate in their Gay Softball World Series. Or something. It's hard to say. But it's odd.

Here's the scoop: According to the Seattle Times, "Steven Apilado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ...played on a team called D2 that qualified for the 2008 Gay Softball World Series". First of all, what is a D2? How is that the name of a team? Do they play against R2? I don't get it. But here's what I really don't get: According to the article, "Each of the three plaintiffs was called into a conference room in front of more than 25 people, and was asked "personal and intrusive questions" about his sexual attractions and desires, purportedly to determine if the player was heterosexual or gay." Um, wait. What now?

Called into a conference room? What the what? Asked "personal and intrusive questions"? Like what, exactly? Look, I don't know about the straight guys that you know, but the straight guys that I know are not going to be posing as gay or bisexual in order to play on a gay softball team. They're just not. If they're going to play softball at all, they're going to be playing on a straight team or, at the very least, a team that doesn't care. There aren't a lot of guys looking to sneak into the gay softball world just for a chance at winning some trophy. There just aren't.

It says that they asked "questions". Plural. Why would you need more than one? That one being, "So, ever done it with another guy?" Because in my book, if you're a guy and you've willingly had sex with another guy, you're gay enough for me. Again, I know a lot of straight guys and there aren't any of them that are going to actually have sex with another guy, let alone admit to it, solely for the purpose of getting on a gay softball team. They're just not going to.

Now then, "The alliance's rules say that each World Series team can have no more than two heterosexual players." That's what it says. What it doesn't tell us is why. It's the GAY World Series. Heterosexual players aren't very GAY! And also, "At one point during the proceedings, the lawsuit alleges, one of the plaintiffs was told: "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series." Um, no. See, if you're allowing two heterosexual players per team, then that, by definition, IS a bisexual world series! I'm beginning to wonder if the folks in charge of this Gay World Series thing are aware of the definition of gay. 'Cause it kind of seems like they're not!

What the guys want out of the lawsuit is "$75,000 each for emotional distress. They're also seeking to invalidate the alliance's findings on the men's sexual orientations and to reinstate D2's second-place World Series finish." That's right. They somehow were allowed to compete in the World Series and then I'm gathering that they lost and that's when they decided to strip them of their losing title. Place. Thing. Something. I don't understand any of this. But I do think I understand that they don't need $75,000 for emotional distress. Seriously? $75,000? There's no emotional distress is being told that you're not gay enough. Now, if you were a straight guy and were told that you weren't straight enough, that might cause some emotional distress! (I kid. I kid!) That just bugs me.

And maybe this is why it bugs me. "The men also are asking the court to toss out the alliance's rule limiting the number of straight players on each team." Toss out the rule? Limiting the number of straight people? But it's the GAY AMATEUR ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION that sanctions the GAY WORLD SERIES! It's right there in the name! GAY! You don't need to have a RULE limiting the NUMBER of STRAIGHT people! It's limited in the name ITSELF! GAY! What is so hard to understand about that? Are there no straight softball teams in the Seattle area? I know the folks there are kinda wispy and all, but I highly doubt that none of them are straight.

The article goes on to point out that "Hypothetically, that could mean a team of all-straight people could form, but "it would be extremely unlikely for that to happen." Yes! That WOULD be unlikely! Why? Because, AGAIN, it's the GAY softball league! Why would straight people WANT to play in it?! I don't understand any of this. It makes no sense. If the guys are gay and are upset because they couldn't convey their gayness to the point where it was believable, that's one thing. But if that were the case, why are they all upset that there is a limit to the number of straight people on the teams that are for GAY PEOPLE?! None of this makes a lick of sense. I'm going to go watch hockey playoffs.

Not the Same Lindsay

You know, I kind of figured it wouldn't take long before whatever riches that Lindsay Lohan had amassed would have dwindled down to next to nothing. I just didn't know when it would be. But I'm guessing that the time is now as, according to Fox News she has filed suit against e-Trade "...insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, "milkaholic" baby used in its latest commercial is modeled after her." Um, what now?

If you watched the Super Bowl, you likely saw this commercial. And look, I realize that babies grow up and aren't babies anymore (although, in the case of a lot of people that I know personally, they seem to grow up and just become bigger babies), but the babies that the e-Trade folks are using for this round of commercials just aren't as cute as the guys that they had in the first set. It also appears as if they were going for babies that had the same sort of look as the first babies did. Maybe that's why I'm not a fan. They can't duplicate that, so they shouldn't have even tried and just should have gone with a new, completely different looking baby. But I digress. Where was I? Oh, right. The Super Bowl.

During the Super Bowl, the commercial below aired. Basically, you've got boy baby apologizing to the girl baby for not getting back to her the previous night. She's still suspicious of his being all on e-Trade or whatever and asks him "And that milkaholic Lindsay wasn't over?" The boy baby repeats rather nervously (or as nervous as a baby can seem), "Lindsay?" And that's when another baby girl pokes her head in from the side of the screen and asks (in a barely articulate voice), "Milk-a-what?" It's funny, but since the babies aren't as articulate as you need them to be in order to get out words like "milkaholic" and "Lindsay", a little bit of the funny gets lost in translation.

But back to crazy, crazy Lindsay Lohan. According to her lawyer, who I am going to simply assume, based on this lawsuit, is a reprehensible human being, a one Stephanie Ovadia, has said that Lindsay Lohan has basically the same name recognition as does The Oprah or The Madonna. "Many celebrities are known by one name only, and E-Trade is using that knowledge to profit." said the lawyer who is obviously delusional and hoping to profit off of this. The lawyer continues on and further solidifies the assumption of delusional when she says, "They're using her name as a parody of her life. Why didn't they use the name Susan? This is a subliminal message. Everybody's talking about it and saying it's Lindsay Lohan." OK, then. Now, just because you say that, doesn't make it true. I don't think that there is anyone out there who equates the name recognition of Lindsay Lohan with that of The Oprah. No one.

I have a question. Everybody who? I watched the Super Bowl with several people and not one of us said, "Oh, my God! They're talking about Lindsay Lohan! They think Lindsay Lohan is a milkaholic that steals other babies boyfriends!" Yeah, that didn't happen. And I'm pretty confident in stating that I don't think that it happened anywhere. That's because if you say "Lindsay", people don't think "Lohan". I will guarantee you that anyone over the age of 40 will say "Wagner" or "The Bionic Woman" if they hear "Lindsay". They're not thinking "Lohan". Now, if someone said "Samantha Ronson", the thing that people probably think of the most (after "DJ" and after "odd little lesbian chick") is "Lindsay Lohan". But that's not what's being argued here, so I'm still failing to see their point.

The ridiculous lawsuit says that Lindsay (the Lohan, not the fictional baby that no one associates with her) "...is owed $50 million in exemplary damages, plus another $50 million in compensatory damages." Now, I don't know how she's going to prove exemplary damages for any of this and I certainly don't know how she would prove exemplary damages for the sum of $50 million. $150 maybe, but that's just $150, not $150 million!

But in order to prove compensatory damages, according to The Free Legal Dictionary (take it for what it's worth, which is free) "...the plaintiff must prove that he or she has suffered a legally recognizable harm that is compensable by a certain amount of money that can be objectively determined by a judge or jury." Back in 2004, she was worth about $7 million per movie. I cannot imagine that she commandeers that price these days. I mean, here's Lindsay in 2004:

And here's Lindsay on New Year's Eve 2009:

Um, yeah. OK, so my point is that the $50 million that they want in compensatory damages is not happening. My other point is that the $50 million that they want in exemplary damages is not happening. And my final point is that this is a sad, sad statement of where Lindsay Lohan is at, not just in her career, but in her life.

The other things that Lohan and her gravy train riding peeps are seeking are "...an injunction to force the spot off the air, and...every last copy of the commercial. " Every last copy of the commercial? Oh, well, with the Internet and all, that should be totally doable. Uh-huh. Yeah, if that were to go through, she wouldn't have to worry about that ever popping up anywhere ever again. Yeah, that would be all taken care of. Uh-huh. Yeah. OK. I'm sure they're on that right now. You know. Just in case.

Man, if you didn't think that she was delusional before I got to that part of the story, you kind of have to be wondering just a little bit about it now, don't you? I think you do. Good luck, Lindsay, but not with this lawsuit. Good luck getting your life back on a productive track when you are clearly surrounded by people who do not have your best interest at heart and who are only looking to make a buck off of you. Good luck with that. You're going to need it.

Jacket Jackass

Let me ask you a question. Let's say you're a lawyer. OK, let's say that you're a douchebag lawyer. (I realize that's not much of a stretch for you to make and that's the only reason why I threw that in. It's not like I want to make reading this blog some sort of chore for any of you.) And let's say that you're in an airport. Not just any airport. Let's say that you're in the airport in Houston. With me so far? You're a douchebag lawyer at an airport in Houston. Good. Continue.

While at said Houston airport, you decide that you're a hungry douchebag and stop at one of the food vendors at the airport food court. Let's say...pizza. Pizza it is. You stop for pizza. Maybe at a place named Famiglia. Maybe not. You're not sure. But what you are pretty sure of is that you want to take off your coat. And not just any coat. You want to take off your Polo leather coat, size extra large (that's XL in clothing lingo) and sporting a spiffy plaid lining and cost you $800. That's right. $800. (I said you were a douchebag lawyer. Why are you surprised?) Still with me? You're coatless and enjoying pizza in the airport. Got it? Good. Continue.

Then, after consuming your pizza, you leave and catch your flight. Oh, wait a minute. You seem to have forgotten your jacket! Dang it! Well, crap. You can always call when you land and see if it's been turned in somewhere. I mean, it probably hasn't. After all, it had a plaid lining! If someone just saw that bad boy lying around without an owner, how long do you think it would last? Ahhh...see? You're with me, aren't you? I thought so!

Now, at some point after you've landed, you call the airport. You call the food court. You call the pizza joint, whatever it was called. No such luck. None of them have your coat. Bummer. Well, I guess the only thing left for you to do is to sue the City of Houston, sue Continental Airlines, and sue the management company of the food court. Wait. What now?

Correct. Meet a one 62-year old William Ogletree. He's a lawyer at Ogletree & Abbott, a law firm in Houston. He is said douchebag alluded to above in my not-so-hypothetical scenario that I laid out. All of those hypothetical things really did happen to Mr. Ogletree and he really is suing all three entities because he believes that they failed to keep his coat in a safe place for him. Wait. They what?

That's right. For some reason, Mr. Ogletree does not seem to be a big believer in personal responsibility. Seriously. He forgets his coat and he thinks that because someone else didn't pick up after him that they are at fault for his coat disappearing. It's an $800 leather coat. What did he think was going to happen to it if he left it lying around? (I'm assuming that the sharp plaid lining wasn't noticeably visible.)

But he is, in fact, suing all three. What a jackass. He states that, in order to avoid everyone "blaming each other" in court "...all of the three entities need to come to an agreement on which party is responsible and notify me (Mr. Jackass), in writing, signed by all three". Uh-huh. He also feels the need to throw in "I am looking forward to discovering how all of you deal with lost property in the airport. I suspect that your record is dismal and that employee theft runs rampant." Well then. (You can click to enlarge the images above and below if you'd like to read this douchebaggery for yourself. If they don't enlarge correctly, try over here at The Smoking Gun. They have this in perfectly readable form. After all, that's where I found it.)

The part of his own argument that Mr. Ogletree fails to grasp is the part which includes the term "lost". Lost property. Property that is lost. It's lost. It's gone. It can't be found. Hence the term, lost! On top of that, who is the one who lost it in the first place? That's right! NOT the airport. NOT the food court! And certainly NOT the airline! (How did he think that he could drag the airline into this whole mess? The plane had nothing to do with it!) How in the world is this anyone's fault other than Mr. Ogletree's?!

I have no idea what Mr. Ogletree's perception of what it means to take responsibility for one's self, but I'm guessing that it's a lot different than mine. While I find it ridiculous that anyone should have to answer to such an asinine lawsuit, I certainly hope that none of the three parties involves caves into this extortionist. You're a grown man, sir. You lost your coat! It's your fault! Get over it! And buy yourself a new coat while you're at it. You're going to need it because I highly doubt you have much of a case here. Moron.