On Being Kardashian In An Unjust World, Or How Kimmie Could Do Dallas

As Pope of the All John All The Time World Church, I believe it is my duty and my responsibility to address issues that affect my flock (and I suspect there is an unintentional corollary between the use of the term "flock", which would seem to denote sheep in many instances, and the way many religious leaders feel about their followers, myself NOT included, since the AJATTWC doesn't have enough followers to make up a four-handed bridge game, let alone a flock, at least for the moment), and suggest solutions to the problems that plague our world and sometime make our lives so unpleasant.

I was shocked to learn recently, according to an article I read on MSN.com, that Dallas, the home of the MJXLY2KXXL Super Bowl this coming Sunday, is having to deal with the awful calamity of a shortage of strippers to "service" all the fans pouring into the city for the game and all the accompanying festivities. I can't help but think that Dallas, like any big city, does not suffer, under normal circumstances, from any shortage of women willing to remove their clothes for payment. Apparently, its just that there's SO many people in town for an event like the Super Bowl, many of them, I would imagine, being typical testosterone-laden male football fans, that the strip joints in the Big D just don't have the staff to accommodate all the business. (Full disclosure: I too, am a testosterone-laden male NFL fan; I may mature some day and outgrow these childish pursuits...but I doubt it.) You know, you have to feel something akin to pity for all the folks visiting Dallas for the game; they'll just have to make do with staying in their hotel rooms and checking out the porn videos on the pay-per-view TV.

I'll get back to the stripper shortage in Dallas in a moment.

So yesterday I was perusing the 'Net, as I do daily, and was confronted with the headline "Kim Weeps Over Nude Pictures In 'W' Magazine". Do tell, I thought to myself as I clicked on the link.

It seems that Kim Kardashian, of the multitudinous Kardashian family, was visibly upset over nude pictures of her that were recently published in "W" magazine, a publication I had honestly never heard of until yesterday. She broke down in tears on her and sister Kourtney's reality show, cleverly entitled "Kim And Kourtney Take NY", (although there was no indication in the article where they took it), and wept inconsolably, not about the pictures being printed, which was a given, since they were done voluntarily by Ms. Kardashian, but that the magazine had misled her about how they would be exhibited. Kim (may I call you Kim?) seemed to believe that the pics would be done "tastefully" and not expose (irony intended) any of her naughty parts, at least not graphically. However, the magazine apparently changed its mind and published the photos as shot, with all of Kim in full display. Not porn site full exposure, if you get my drift, but I've viewed the pictures in question, in an effort to be fully informed on all the details of this troubling affair, (yeah, right) and there is no doubt that Kim is female. In fact, it would appear that Kim has feminine bodily curves in places that most women don't even have places. Interestingly, KK is covered with silver body paint up to her neck in several of the shots, giving the whole collection an almost "space alien" feel. And for my money, she showed a whole lot more in her 2007 Playboy pictorial.

Now I'm not a follower of "reality" shows and their stars; frankly, the premise strikes me as inane. But its hard not to be aware of the Kardashians, given that there seems to be several hundred of them, and certainly Kim has made no effort to be inconspicuous, and in most photos I've seen of any of the sisters, Kim, Kourtney, Khloe, Kandy, Kermit, Konnie and Hiram (and my apologies to any I may have omitted), especially Kim, there seems to have been little effort taken to keep their privates, well, private.

So the idea of Ms. Kardashian being upset over explicit nude photos of herself being released to the public, with her history, seems like Bernie Madoff being pissed that he went to jail, just for a little creative accounting. Hey, guys, you ever hear of the word "hypocrisy"? Kim, you're mad because the magazine showed everything you showed? Did you get upset with the sun this morning because it rose in the east?

The magazine commented about Kim's reaction to the photos with a statement, part of which said that the article that accompanied the pictorial was meant to be "a meditation on the influence that reality TV has on contemporary culture". (For my money, you cannot use the words "culture' and "reality TV" in the same sentence, not without choking on the irony.) Probably the funniest, and I'm sure completely unintentional, aspect of this whole affair was, apparently in an effort to maintain some sense of decorum, on the cover photo, which showed Kim in all her birthday suit glory, the magazine printed a banner across her boobs, which said, "It's All About Me". But then it did get even funnier: "W" called the edition "The Art Issue". This whole Kardashian, reality TV thing relates to art the way a hippopotamus relates to a camshaft.

But I have an idea (you were pretty sure I would, right?); if Kim can just get over her upset about how cruelly and despicably she was treated by "W" magazine, she could render a tremendous civic service to the city of Dallas in their time of great need and volunteer to help alleviate the horrendous shortage the city is currently facing. I don't know what "W" paid her for the photos, but there are thousands of horny NFL fans in Dallas currently, with money to burn, whom I suspect would be more than willing to pay to view (view only, no touching) Kim's not-so-private privates.

And let me assure all you followers of the AJATTWC and my blog, that after personally viewing the photos, I can tell you two things; Kim is MORE than qualified for the job, and that her privates are way more like generals.

Love and g-strings,

PJTT

copyright 2011 Krissongs, Inc.