PLEASE FORGIVE ME, IN ADVANCE, IF THIS HAS BEEN ADDRESSED ELSEWHERE ON THE BOARD. AFTER ALL, I'M JUST A GUY.
While sitting on the porcelin throne at my girlfriend's last night, I glimpsed the cover of (I believe) a recent issue of Star magazine. Evidently,
Ms. Britney Spears has wed, in Mexico, that sneaky-looking photographer dude she'd been "dating".
I don't mean to rain on the happy couple's parade, but a couple things struck me as odd:
1.) Isn't Batshitney still, legally, under her Daddy's control, per the courts?
2.) And if she is, then isn't Photog breaking more than a couple of laws by wedding a woman who has been diagnosed as mentally unstable? Wouldn't said
wedding be, for that reason, null and void?
3.) If Photog did, in fact, take Batshitney over the border into Mexico, isn't he in deep-ass hot water legally? If she's under Daddy's control,
then wouldn't Photog need Daddy's permission to take Batshitney to the corner Dairy Queen for a milkshake, let alone to another country for whatever
reason?
I'll leave these burning issues to you legal eagles out there. Of course, considering that this was the Star, it might all be a big pile of
bullsh*t. But at this point, whatever's going on, Tom Cruise is starting to look downright normal next to this stale Pop Tart.









After all, it worked for Sinead O'Connor.