"Globe-trotting gay YouTube sensation and fitness guru" Davey Wavey — previously known for What Lesbians Think About Penises and What Gay Guys Think About Vaginas — recently paid a visit to a senior center to ask old people what they though about gay sex.

Okay, so the "senior center" is actually The L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center’s Seniors Services department. And most if not all of the "old people" being interviewed self-identify as LGBT.

But their responses are still priceless, and they sure beat the ones your grandparents would give. (Unless your grandparents are gay, in which case be warned: You may have trouble making eye contact with them for a while).

[video via wickydkewl]

"I don't have Oprah Winfrey money." - Zach Braff, digging himself deeper. In case you missed it, he wants $2 million from the internet so he can have creative control over his sorta sequel to Garden State. He has $1.6 million so far.

Yesterday the Hon. Pamela A.M. Campbell, a circuit court judge in Pinellas County, Fla., issued an order compelling Gawker to remove from the internet a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife, as well as a 1,400-word narrative of the video written by former Gawker editor A.J. Daulerio and 466 user-submitted comments. Here is why we are refusing to comply.

Campbell made the command at the request of Charles J. Harder, an attorney for Hogan. Hogan is suing Gawker Media and a variety of other parties in Florida state court for, among other things, invasion of privacy stemming from publication of the video of him fucking his friend's ex-wife and its accompanying narrative. Hogan initially brought a copyright claim against us in federal district court, but after a judge issued a series of preliminary rulings disadvantageous to his case, he dropped the matter and shifted his focus to the state invasion of privacy claim.

Yesterday, Campbell held a hearing to consider Harder's motion for a temporary injunction against our continued publication of the video and accompanying text. This is what Campbell ordered at the hearing's end, from a transcript of the proceedings provided by Gawker's in-house counsel:

I'm ordering that the Gawker.com remove the sex tape and all portions and content therein from their websites, including Gawker.com. Ordering to remove the written narrative describing the private sexual encounter, including the quotations from the private sexual encounter from websites and including Gawker.com.

This afternoon, she released a written order saying, in substance, the same thing. It requires us to remove the video as well as "the written narrative describing activities occurring during he private sexual encounter, including: (a) all descriptions of visual images and sounds captured on the Sex Tape or any other video of this private sexual encounter, and (b) all direct quotations of words spoken during this private sexual encounter and recorded on the Sex Tape or any other video of this private sexual encounter." Campbell, who represented the parents of Terri Schiavo in their effort to portray their daughter as conscious and alert and was appointed to the bench by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, described her order as serving "the public interest." She stated very clearly during the hearing that she had never watched, and did not intend to watch, the video that she was ordering us to remove: "I'm not going to look at the tape. I don't think at this point in time I need to look at the tape."

We publish all manner of stories here. Some are serious, some are frivolous, some are dumb. I am not going to make a case that the future of the Republic rises or falls on the ability of the general public to watch a video of Hulk Hogan fucking his friend's ex-wife. But the Constitution does unambiguously accord us the right to publish true things about public figures. And Campbell's order requiring us to take down not only a very brief, highly edited video excerpt from a 30-minute Hulk Hogan fucking session but also a lengthy written account from someone who had watched the entirety of that fucking session, is risible and contemptuous of centuries of First Amendment jurisprudence.

Campbell's grasp on the ramifications of that jurisprudence, such as it is, can be gleaned from a moment in the transcript of yesterday's hearing wherein she seemed to fail to understand the basic First Amendment principle that "speech" includes forms of communication beyond word-sounds coming out of people's mouths. This is a moment when Gawker Media's attorney, Gregg Thomas, is interrupted by Campbell to attempt to clarify a point:

THOMAS: Since 1789, we've had a Constitution that honors speech. And I'm the last person here, Your Honor, to tell you that this is the speech of the highest quality or tenor, but the cases seem to say Your Honor can't make that judgment. You can't —

CAMPBELL: Let me ask you this. I'm sorry for interrupting, but directly on that point. This is the part that was irritating to me in the lawyers' pleading, where they are describing comments that are made allegedly during this tape. So is that the speech that you are trying to protect? The speech that was made during the scope of this videotape between these two consenting adults having sex in a private setting with allegedly no notice to the plaintiff? I'm not sure what speech you're trying to protect.

THOMAS: Your Honor, I'm trying to protect multiple parts of speech. The first part is the printed version of the story. This is not a sex tape by itself, Your Honor. There is a printed version...and a sex tape that goes with it. It's not a sex tape alone. Yes, Your Honor, I'm trying to protect that speech. I'm also trying to protect the speech that's there....

CAMPBELL: I'm thinking this injunction is only about the tape.

THOMAS: Yes, Your Honor. I understand that. But I also think, Your Honor, when we think of the history of the First Amendment, we think of the Pentagon papers, maybe because I'm a First Amendment lawyer. There, a top secret document that was clearly stolen that could have injured men in war in Vietnam was considered by the United States Supreme Court. And they said we're not going to stop its publication. The analogy perhaps is not appropriate.

CAMPBELL: It doesn't even have any — it's apples and oranges, worse than that actually.

THOMAS: Well, Your Honor, I don't think I'm out of order when I say speech is speech.

Despite her misapprehension that the issue at hand was "only about the tape," Campbell has seen clear to order us to disappear a 1,400-word article—words composed and published by Gawker Media editorial employees—simply because Hulk Hogan didn't like it.

A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal.

But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down.

You can read the transcript of yesterday's hearing, as well as Campbell's ruling, below. And go here to read Daulerio's account of watching Hulk Hogan fuck his friend's ex-wife for 30 minutes, as is your right. And if you'd really like to watch the tape for some reason, it's online here.

[Image via Getty]

If you get on The Price Is Right, you don't want a dining set. You don't want a jacuzzi. You don't want to guess the price of popcorn for Plinko chips. You want A NEWWW CAAAARRRRRRR! Earlier today, one woman had a chance to win a Ferrari 458 Spyder. And she lost. Badly.

The contestant, Therese, had to play Three Strikes to have a chance to get the 458 Spyder. They even had to add a sixth number to the board in order to accomodate the price of the Ferrari.

Therese doesn't really know how much a Ferrari costs. At all, much like the vast majority of the public.

She knows it's expensive. But she thinks it's $100,000 expensive. It's more than that. Then she goes the other way and says it's $800,000. It's less than that. Then she goes for $600,000 expensive. Yeah, Therese doesn't end up winning the car.

The ancillary costs (taxes, insurance, etc) that would be associated with the Ferrari could be far too much to handle for pretty much anyone that can't already afford one. Still, cool of Drew Carey and TPIR to try and give one away. Also, she got on the show. We know how exciting that can be.

Full clip below, car comes up at 3:00.

(Special thanks to Tim Burke for the video assist!)

And, as she revealed on today's episode of Katie, she's fine with that.

A substitute homeroom teacher in Seoul was recently terminated for allegedly masturbating in front of high school students after allegedly hitting one of them for listening to music in class.

The 55-year-old, identified only as Mr. A, had apparently become upset after one student in his self-studying class refused to remove his earphones upon request.

He then proceeded to "severely beat" the student, as well as possibly another student, while the rest of the class quickly fled the room.

Mr. A followed the students out into the hallway, where he reportedly removed his pants and began masturbating in front of a classroom full of female students.

When confronted later about his behavior, Mr. A claimed he was merely holding on to his pants "because they were falling down," but a video recorded by one of the students and uploaded to several social networking sites forced him to admit he was being indecent.

The local police department released a statement following the incident saying Mr. A remains in custody, but "does not appear to have any mental problems."

Nonetheless, the Seoul Department of Education says it took immediate steps to sever their working relationship with Mr. A, and are currently in the process of taking legal action.

South Korea's leading newspaper The Dong-a Ilbo blames the incident on a "loose screening process."

According to the paper, a sharp increase in demand for substitute teachers across the country has led schools to hire "unqualified temporary teachers" in lieu of properly trained subs.

[H/T: Guyism, video via Pandora TV]

Welcome to Thatz Not Okay, a regular column in which I school inquiring readers on what is and is not okay. Please send your questions (max: 200 words) to caity@gawker.com with the subject "Thatz Not Okay."

Often a night of partying with my friends (I’m a girl, most of them are guys) ends with us crashing together in a living room. One morning I woke up to one of my best guy friends masturbating. After he let out a big sigh, he waited a few minutes and then asked, “Who wants pancakes?” Normally, I would laugh it off and give him shit about it later…but then it happened again 2 weeks later. Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he thought everyone was asleep, and apparently couldn’t hear, I didn’t bring it up because I knew that conversation would be embarrassing. Then on a trip to Vegas last month, I woke up to the bed we were on rocking and some heavy breathing coming from him. I immediately got off the bed once I realized what was happening, he stopped, cleared his throat and then started fake snoring. I really don’t want to be put in this awkward situation again, and want to tell him to cut it out. Is that okay?

Thatz okay.

First of all, nothing your friend has done up to this point (apart from initiating Pancake Palooza) has been OK. It’s not OK to stroke it in a communal sleeping space, and it’s absolutely not OK to masturbate in a bed you are sharing with a friend.

By the time they are old enough to “party,” most humans have learned that there are certain settings in which it is inappropriate to masturbate. You can be moved by a magnificent aria at the opera, but you should not take your penis out of your trousers and touch it with your hand while you are in the box. You can think to yourself that a waiter is handsome, but you should not reach under your shirt and paw at your breasts while he recites the specials.

Another situation in which it is inappropriate to masturbate is when you are sharing a bed with a casual acquaintance.

In each of the scenarios you mentioned, it would have been fine—though perhaps not ideal—for your friend to go into the bathroom and “make pancakes.” The bathroom is a free zone. Some people use their time there to pluck their unibrows. Some people use it to obsess over their bodily imperfections while they brush their teeth. Some people use it to masturbate. When you go to the bathroom, you are cordoning yourself off from the rest of society to Get Weird. You’re showing the herd some respect.

(The really polite thing to do would be to save the self-discovery for when you’re back in your own home. Since most people can manage to go a couple hours in a row without masturbating, this is usually a viable option. A good rule of thumb: if you’re not paying the utility bills, you shouldn’t masturbate there. )

The problem you face now is that your friend has become convinced he’s getting away with it. He’s jerking off in bed two inches away from a pal and thinking “The perfect crime...” He’s treating himself to a wild ride on a loveseat for one, convinced his dumb friends are none the wiser. He’s getting cocky.

And he’s going to keep getting cocky in inappropriate group settings until you let him know that you know that...y’know.

There are a couple ways to do this.

If you’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that you just caught him on three extremely horny nights, you can give him one more chance to make it through a single goddamn night without masturbating. When he fails this test, you can publicly shame him the next morning after everyone is awake.

Everyone sleep, okay? Everyone masturbate? Or just Jake?

If you want to be a little more diplomatic, the next time you find yourself sleeping near him (which hopefully will be never), before settling under the blanket, you could turn to him and explain that you are easily aroused (and NOT in the same way that he is).

I am a really light sleeper. Even the slightest movement or sound of jerking off will awaken me.

You could discreetly email him this Thatz Not Okay post (subject line: “I keep meaning to bring this up”) and, after he’s read it, encourage him check out other Gawker Media properties.

If you want to minimize confrontation, every time you wake up to hear him masturbating, you could clear your throat loudly and continuously until he stops. Maybe add a "Thanks," when he finally does, so he knows he's busted.

This kid is behaving inappropriately, so don't feel bad for calling him out on it.

And if he cooks you pancakes, please be sure that he washes his hands first.

My wife drinks WAY too much coffee. At least seven cups during the day while she's at work, of high-test snob-level lattes and great quality coffee. At night she drinks at least one and more often two cups after dinner. I have asked her to refrain at night; she often keeps me up with her caffeine-fueled chatter, and it's just plain bad for her (or anyone's) health. I recently started buying decaf for our home without telling my wife; I figure if she insists on guzzling the stuff at home, at least it will be lower octane. Is that okay?

Thatz not okay.

You knew it wasn’t okay. If you thought it was okay, you wouldn’t have done it in secret.

If your wife was old enough to consent to marrying you, she’s also old enough to decide for herself whether she wants to drink decaf, regular, or any coffee at all. If she’s a child under your care, you’re within your rights to attempt to control her consumption. However, I am within my rights to demand you turn your child bride over to children’s protective services.

Please understand, if your wife's daily coffee intake is as high as you say, her body has probably built up quite a tolerance to caffeine. She’s not keeping you awake at night because she’s all jittery from “the freaky bean” (as a long-time Diet Coke addict, I’m able to drink a can right before bed and fall asleep immediately); she’s keeping you awake because you married a chatterbox. What will you do after you realize the coffee-swap plan has failed to yield bedtime silence? Replace her sugar with roofies? Her chapstick with superglue?

(While we're on the subject, rampant, mindless chatter isn’t a side effect usually associated with coffee consumption. If she's chit-chatty to the point of mania, there's a chance that powder all over her shirt is not non-dairy creamer.)

If your wife hasn’t built up a tolerance, and is still chugging “the joe” for its effects rather than its taste, your scheme will backfire. Soon she’ll notice that her usual evening cups aren’t having their desired effect. She’ll have to up her consumption to three, four, five cups, and you’ll be worse off than you were before you decided to institute beverage martial law.

While it’s sweet you say you’re concerned for her health, it sounds a bit like you don’t want her to drink coffee because you’ve decided she drinks too much coffee. ("That shit might fly in Maxwell's House, but not in this one!") In fact, studies have found that heavy coffee consumption can have benefits as well asks risks. Drinking a lot of regular coffee could increase your wife’s blood pressure, but it could also cut her risk for diabetes by more than a third. In short, it's not like she's shooting up heroin. (If she were, switching out her heroin for decaf coffee would probably kill her, once she injected it. So what you've done is a no-no in many scenarios.)

If you're really desperate for her to kick coffee once and for all, you should crack open a bottle of wine (or espresso-flavored vodka!) and sit down for a mature discussion about why it bothers you. You could also pour energy into converting her to the Mormon faith.

Deceiving your wife shouldn't be your go-to course of action.

Submit your "Thatz Not Okay" questions (max: 200 words) here. Image via Shutterstock.

Veteran Puerto Rico newsman Saúl Cordero, current anchor of WOLE-DT's daily news program Noticias Locales, went temporarily insane during last night's broadcast after stumbling over a sentence he was reading off the teleprompter.

Unaware that he was still on live TV, Cordero proceeded to unleash a stream of discordant sounds that immediately drew comparisons to the classic Bruce Almighty scene wherein Jim Carrey uses his powers to embarrass his rival Evan Baxter, played by Steve Carell.

You know which scene I'm talking about.

This one:

And here it is again, this time superimposed over Cordero's spot-on, if unintentional, reenactment:

[H/T: Clip Nation]

Despite the recent legalization of marijuana in Colorado (and the subsequent 4/20 tourist packages and celebrations), employees in the state can still be fired by their employers if they test positive for the drug, even if they never show up to work stoned. Thursday afternoon, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that companies were within their right to terminate their pothead employees because marijuana is still illegal under federal law.

"For an activity to be lawful in Colorado, it must be permitted by, and not contrary to, both state and federal law," the appeals court stated in its 2-1 conclusion.

The case began when a medical marijuana user, Brandon Coats, 33, sued the Dish Network after the company fired him in 2010 for failing a drug test. Coats, who was paralyzed in a car crash as a teenager, had been a medical marijuana user in the state since 2009. His case was dismissed in 2011 because marijuana use wasn't a “lawful activity.” Even with the recent legalization of the drug in Colorado, the state's court of appeals still upheld the initial decision.

"This case not only impacts Mr. Coats, but also some 127,816 medical-marijuana patient-employees in Colorado who could be summarily terminated even if they are in legal compliance with Colorado state law," [Coats's attorney Michael Evans] said in a statement.

[AP, NBC News/Image via AP]

On April 9, a delivery driver for Papa John's in Atlanta was stepping out of his car when two gunmen approached him. They demanded his car and took off, leaving the driver alone with his pizza. But instead of fleeing the scene or immediately calling the police, the driver did the honorable thing – he walked the pizza to the house that ordered it, accepted his payment, and then ran to get help.

Police said the man filed out an incident report, but didn't want to be dropped off at work; According to the report, he wanted to tell his boss at a later time so he wouldn't be fired. Who can know what sort of professional relationship this guy had with his boss, but it seems likely he would be promoted or rewarded instead of fired. Then again, we all know Papa John's doesn't have the best relationship with their employees (unless, of course, Papa John himself is drunk).

[AP/Image via Shutterstock]

On Thursday, United States officials said the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has likely used chemical weapons to attack Syrian citizens. In a letter sent to Congressional leaders, the White House said intelligence agencies believe, with “varying degrees of confidence,” that Assad used the chemical weapon sarin “on a small scale.” The Obama administration said more conclusive evidence was needed before the U.S. took any action, a caution, which, considering our recent history in Iraq, is a good thing.

However, as the New York Times reports, new videos have emerged that claim to show the horrifying effects of sarin attacks on Syrian civilians. The first video shows two men in a hospital, one lying in a bed with an IV in his arm and the second sitting in front of him, speaking to the camera.

“Missiles came and they exploded, and they discharged something like water, but it was dark. It emitted a very foul smell,” says the second man, who does not identify himself. “There are still a lot of people in their homes.”

The second video shows one of the men from the first video, still on the hospital bed but unmoving, clearly in worse condition than in the first video.

“A new massacre of civilians has been committed in the town of Ateibeh during a chemical strike on the town,” the cameraman says. He then pans across the room to show two more men, one lying on a clinic bed and another, in camouflage pants, breathing through an oxygen mask.

“March 19, 2013,” the cameraman says. “A chemical strike on the town of Ateibeh in Eastern Ghouta.”

Another video from the same YouTube account shows two other victims of a what the cameraman says is a chemical attack, both of them on oxygen.

A fourth video claims to show another victim of a sarin attack. In the video, the cameraman interviews someone he says is a doctor.

“We have with us one of the doctors who deal with the victims of indiscriminate shelling on the town of Ateibeh with toxic substances whose composition is unknown,” the cameraman says. “Doctor, please, can you tell us about the symptoms that are caused by this shelling? What are the possibilities of verifying the substances being dropped on this area?”

“Unfortunately, most cases we’re getting are deaths,” the doctor says. “The cases we’re getting that are still alive are exhibiting asphyxiation, spasms, slow heart rate, very low blood pressure. Truth be told, it is probably the material organic phosphate.”

The doctor goes on to describe the symptoms in more detail and explain what treatments would be necessary to cure the victims. He ends the interview by pleading for medical supplies from the international community, even if there's no military intervention.

"Unfortunately, if the world doesn’t want to stand by us militarily or doesn’t want to help us, the least they can do is send up a few atropine ampoules,” he says. “We don’t want relief efforts. If you’re not capable of just sending us medicine, you will be held accountable by God.”

[New York Times/Photo via AP]

The man carjacked by the Tsarnaev brothers last Thursday spoke to the Boston Globe about the ordeal and his daring escape: Danny thought about his burgeoning startup and about a girl he secretly liked in New York. “I think, ‘Oh my god, I have no chance to meet you again,’” he recalled.

For those of us with a reasonable fear of the ocean, this is a worst case scenario: Last week, Dan Suski, 30, and his sister Kate Suski, 39, chartered a fishing boat in St. Lucia. Things were going fine, despite the rough seas, and the siblings even managed to hook a 200-pound marlin. They were battling the giant fish when water rushed onto the boat and flooded its engine room. As the captain radioed for help, another surge of water swamped the boat. At that point, the captain tossed the Suskis life jackets and ordered them into the ocean.

"He said, 'Jump out! Jump out!'" Kate Suski recalled in a telephone interview Thursday with The Associated Press.

The captain and the first mate soon joined them and, five minutes later, the boat sank, leaving the group stranded at least eight miles from shore. The group stayed put for the first hour, awaiting rescue. No one came. The group started to swim, but the rough waves caused the Suskis to became separated from the captain and first mate. "We would just see swells and gray," Dan Suski said.

Hours went by. A helicopter and search plane arrived but failed to notice the two siblings. They continued swimming. Eventually, the sun went down.

"There's this very real understanding that the situation is dire," Kate Suski said. "You come face-to-face with understanding your own mortality ... We both processed the possible ways we might die. Would we drown? Be eaten by a shark?"

Neither could stop thinking about sharks. "I thought I was going to vomit I was so scared," Kate said.

Finally, after 14 hours, they came within 30 feet of land only to discover the coast was covered with cliffs, making it impossible to climb from the ocean. “We knew we would get crushed,” Kate said.

They kept swimming, finally finding a small stretch of sand. Once ashore, they collapsed before again going into survival mode to avoid hypothermia. They hiked into the island and huddled together, covering themselves in grass and brush to stay warm. They spent the night like that, only moving when the sun rose. It took three hours before they found a farmer, who called police and gave them water and crackers.

They would later find out that the captain and first mate had been rescued after 23 hours in the ocean.

Despite dehydration, severe tendonitis and cuts over their feet and back, the couple didn't blame anyone for the ordeal.

"We are so grateful to be alive right now," Kate Suski said. "Nothing can sort of puncture that bubble."

[Associated Press/Image via AP]

Rescue workers in Bangladesh on Friday rushed to find survivors of Wednesday's horrific garment-factory collapse—but the death toll nevertheless climbed above 300, more than three times as high as initial reports.

"We know a human being can survive for up to 72 hours in this situation. So our efforts will continue non-stop," army spokesman Maj. Gen. Chowdhury Hasan Suhrawardy told reporters. Some 2,200 people have been rescued already, including, late last night, a group of about 40 trapped in the debris.

The collapse is the worst workplace accident in Bangladesh history, surpassing the fire that killed 112 five months ago, and workers have taken to the streets around the capital of Dhaka in protest of poor safety standards and workplace conditions , in some cases forcing factories to shut down. In response, police fired rubber bullets and tear gas.

The British brand Primark and Canadian retailer Loblaw both admitted that some of their garments were made at the collapsed factory, but other companies—like Benetton and Mango,—denied any ties, despite the discovery of documents and tags that seemed to show some of their clothes had been made at the factory.

Bangladesh is the second-largest garment exporter in the world, following only China, and also the cheapest. It remains unclear what, if any, steps manufacturers will take to prevent further tragedies; after last year's fire, Wal-Mart announced plans for a $1.8 million "health and safety institute." There are no labor unions to speak of, and those who have attempted to organize workers have been silenced: Aminul Islam, an organizer, was murdered last year in an unsolved case.

[NYT | AJE | AP, image via AFP/Getty]

Accused marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been transferred from the hospital to Federal Medical Center Devens, a prison equipped to handle inmates who require medical care.

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." What a crock of shit.

Not the New Testament verse, mind you—which the ostensibly evangelical Faith and Freedom Coalition posted on its Facebook page Wednesday. It's a sublime notion that neither earthly wealth nor stodgy tradition can save the believer—that humans of all economic and social castes are essentially equal in damnation, and in their potential for salvation. What a beautiful universe that is: no sin is too big to overcome, no pile of money is big enough to save you. This is the cornerstone of Christianity, of its highest expressions through voluntary charity and acts of love for all.

But that verse's Facebook posters, who in recent decades have secured a vertical monopoly on Christianity in the American public sphere, are the farthest, awfulest thing from this Christian ideal. They are a money-sucking, dogma-spouting, people-hating puddle of inane defecate, stacked up and sculpted into a Jesus on a cross. And they proved it Thursday by inviting Donald Trump to come speak at their June shindig. If this is what "Christian evangelism" means nowadays, Christian evangelism has no meaning.

The Trump invite is the pink sprinkle on top of the cherry gracing these evangelicals' butter cake of hypocritical dipshittery. The Faith and Freedom Coalition is led by the conservative political youngling Ralph Reed, and his group is fairly honest that its primary concern is not human salvation, but getting Republicans elected to shit. The other speakers at June's "Road to Majority" conference include Rand Paul, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, and Glenn Beck—paragons of Christlike charity, all.

Somehow, through their zeal and the crisp tweety timbre of their public shrillness, these remoras have latched onto the underbelly of our society and made their brand indistinguishable from Christianity writ large. And the apogee of their steady descent to the level of Hell that houses diabolical hosiery, linens and fucking hypocrites must have come when they called the Donald's people to check his June availability.

What sermon does "practicing Presbyterian" Donald Trump have to offer religious conservatives? Will he discuss the sanctity of matrimonial bonds? His love for the least of all God's creatures? The sin of avarice and Jesus' lesson that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"?

Of course not:

...Faith & Freedom Coalition executive director Gary Marx said the group chose to add Trump to the roster because he "has been successful in all his endeavors," and "we hope he will be equally successful in achieving his goals of returning our nation to an economic superpower."

So he's going to talk about free enterprise and how Kenyatta Mutombo Hussein Brezhnev Obama is killing it with his secular government regulations, and that's why you should put more proper Christian gentlemen in charge of secular government regulations.

Trump is the gospel of wealth. The gospel of "success," as it's been unfortunately defined by mass culture of late. More to the point, he is another thick, heavy gilded curtain meant to conceal the great conservative Wizard of Oz—the hydra of bigoted high priests in poorly-cut navy suits who have relegated the Gospel's sincere shepherds and wrested control of the temple.

The Christian answer to this sort of hypocrisy is to pray for the part of these horrible people that is worth saving, the part that is depraved by original sin and human nature rather than than by their series of personal choices to subvert and warp the lessons of religion and the hearts of Americans for political advantage.

So be it, but let's not permit love of our newspaper-stealing neighbors to dull us into political complacency against these faux-Christian evangelists. May God—and voters—not waste mercy on their souls.

[Image via AP, BigStockPhoto]

They say the postman always rings twice, but in poor little Timmy's case, the mail carrier didn't even bother knocking before shoving his special delivery down the poor little kid's throat.

The result? As one Redditor put it, "very few times do i laugh while frowning."

[Reddit via Daily Picks and Flicks]

Legendary country singer George Jones has died, WMSV reports. Jones was hospitalized last week with a fever. He was 81.

Jones, born and raised in east Texas and known as "Possum," was among country music's most enduring stars, with 14 country number-ones stretching across four decades, thanks largely to his gorgeous, distinctive voice. (The one both Waylon Jennings and Roy Acuff said they coveted.) He was also well-known for his wild lifestyle and his struggles with alcoholism (in particular, a series of legendary trips to the liquor store on riding mowers after one or another of Jones' four wives hid the keys to the car), which consumed him through the 1960s and 70s.

Though the hits were fewer and farther between in the 90s and 2000s, Jones remained active up to his death. He had planned to perform a final concert in November, and talked about an album of duets with Dolly Parton. Below, some of Jones' classics:

Here's the just-released trailer for David Gordon Green's Prince Avalanche. Emile Hirsch and Paul Rudd are goofing in the woods and there is a cute little skunk. It's worth seeing.

Making couple friends seems like a social headache. There are many chances for things to backfire. Each person has to like, or at least tolerate, three other people. It's much more complicated than a forming one-on-one friendship, for sure. But, the payoff seems like a fun assurance of double-dates for always, so it's easy to understand the effort on the part of Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni to woo over their desired couple friends, the Obamas.

Along their path to win over the American pair, someone certainly must have warned the Sarkozy-Bruni twosome that money can't buy affection. Well, Sarkozy and Bruni were like: whatever yes it can, if you buy the right gifts. And so they lavished Michelle and Barack Obama with $40,000 worth of presents in 2011. Here are some possible conversations about a few of the bestowed items:

• Is a sending Barack a bathrobe weird? You know, there is something a little intimate maybe about it, no? Not weird? Fantastic. Send it over. Monogram it with my initials. No his. No, no monogram, never mind.
• Okay—so golf is like a guy thing, so I was thinking of sending him a cool-casual sporty gift. He'll think—yeah, Nicolas and I can hang out on the course. But also it's an Hermes golf bag and it's $7,750. Too gauche? No? Great, send it over.
• Okay do you think these petite Baccarat crystal statuettes of "golfers" are a little bit bizarre? I think they could be like a paperweight maybe! Send two!

These items were just a few of the $41,675.71 worth of loot that Sarkozy gave to the Obamas in 2011. A catalogue of all presents sent to Obama by foreign governments in 2011 was released earlier today. In the U.S, all gifts given to federal employees must be declared. Gifts presented to the president or the first family will be given to the National Archives.

Sarkozy and Bruni are known for their lavish spending—including a $930,000 garden party with $6,000 just on champagne. They spent $1,020 each day floral arrangements. And once, they got $1,100 worth of takeout pizza in New York.

Sarkozy is currently under scrutiny for possibly receiving illegal funds from the late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and in 2010 was under criticizing for allegedly duping the aging L'Oreal heiress into giving him money. He is rumored to be considering another run for presidency in 2017.

[The Daily Mail, image via Getty]