Jeff Bezos' Penis: A Quantum Quandary

By Thesal Thayer►

Jeff Bezos has recently affirmed that even the world's richest man is not above dick pics. Via Medium (the pinnacle of contemporary journalism), Bezos publicized emails in which AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer (a close second in terms of journalistic integrity), threatened to publish “below the belt” pictures of the billionaire. Bezos evidently sent the pics to his mistress in the midst of an affair that would end up ending the Amazon founder’s marriage. Bezos has stood firm in the face of what appears to be extortion, passing off the pics as breezily as he would accusations of labor abuse, and has not capitulated to AMI's apparently politically motivated demands.

Jeff Bezos, pictured here with an impressive pants-tent.
Bezos' bravery has rendered his naked selfie something of a moot point, and so we the penis-hungry public are as of yet without the world's richest dick-pic. The trillion-dollar question, then, still remains unanswered: what is the size of Jeff Bezos' penis? How mighty is the wealthiest phallus on the planet? The question is as massive in scope as Bezos' wealth, representing a quandary of no less than quantum proportions.

At present, Bezos' penis is, for the inquisitive masses, akin to Schrodinger's cat. To synopsize quantum superposition, a theoretical model in which a subatomic particle can exist as a combination of multiple states corresponding to different possible outcomes that can only be determined when observed, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrodinger suggested a curious analogy involving a cat in a steel box. Until the cat has been observed, it remains both alive and dead. From the perspective of the prying public, Jeff Bezos' penis also exists in a quantum state. Until we are able to view the dick pic in question, Bezos’ penis is both large and small.

At this point, most definitely, there are a few quantum physicists among our readers who are balking at the present author’s interpretation of the situation. "Large" and "small" are subjective value judgements vis-a-vis the penis, the quantum physicists will say, certainly not as objective as "living" and "dead". Moreover, Jeff Bezos' penis could be any value on a vast continuum of humanly possible penile lengths and widths, and so a simple binary in the style of on/off, yes/no, living/dead would be grossly inappropriate for measuring his member. But those quantum physicists, I contend, are not thinking about Jeff Bezos' penis hard enough.

With regard to men like Bezos, penis size does map on to an objective binary. For superlative men in any meaningful field—industry, sports, cinema—penis size can be categorized in two clear-cut categories: large (7.5 inches and above) and small (6 inches and below). With this in mind, we can safely say that captains of industry like Bezos are either a) in the “large” category and operating largely on the attendant confidence or b) in the “small” category and compensating vigorously for their horizontally challenged physiques. One thing is for certain: a wealthy man cannot have an average-sized penis. Indeed, for the wealthiest of men, the extremity might only be more exaggerated.

Thus, we can safely hypothesize that Bezos' penis exists in one of two states: extremely large or laughably small. Until AMI releases the pictures, however, Bezos' penis will remain both a Doric column and a miniscule nub in the minds of all concerned parties. Given this uncertainty, the editorial staff at Ewedrooper puts out an earnest plea to its fellow concerned and reputable journalists at the National Enquirer: publish the Bezos penis pics, and allay this state of quantum confusion.

***

Thesal Thayer was born in Youngstown, Ohio. He is the editor of Done to Death: the Last Zombie Anthology Ever.

Image attribution: 0110 [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], from Wikimedia Commons.

Stormy Daniels to Join Legends Football League

By Stephen Kunk ►


From porn super-starlet to Donald Trump's controversial concubine to All-American everywoman, Stormy Daniels has done almost everything and everyone. Now the multitalented mother of one is going to try her hand at football. 

Stormy Daniels dons the gear for a 
photo session at the LFL spring combine
Hollywood insiders have reported that Daniels is in the process of finalizing a contract with the Cleveland Callipygians, an expansion team in the Legends Football League. The LFL is perhaps better known by its former name, the Lingerie Football League; the organization has been rechristened but the skimpy uniforms remain virtually unchanged. Stormy’s contract will be for $130,000. In order to avoid salary cap issues, Daniels will be given the LFL base salary of $12,500 up front, with the rest to be paid as part of a personal services contract to LFL owner Mitch Mortaza.

Daniels will see only limited on-field action, handling onside kicks and providing backup to the Callipygians' tight end. From the sidelines, Stormy may also serve as an unofficial head cheerleader. The role will be a new challenge for Daniels, who, in her pornographic career, has more often been cast as the milf/businesswoman/school teacher than the nymph/school girl/cheerleader.

"Even on the sidelines, Stormy's presence will further swell our largely male fan base," said Callipygians' head coach Butch Davis. "She'll also be a source of inspiration for our team. It takes a special person to bounce back from presidential death threats. The way she has fought through so much adversity to get to this point is inspiring for young girls everywhere."

Daniels sees teen and pre-teen girls as her target audience.

"I really hope I can help bring more young girls to LFL games," Stormy said, "either on TV or in person. This way they can see just what kinds of opportunities there are for women in American sports."

Stormy’s Callipygians kick off the season April 5th at home against the Minnesota Milfs.


###

Stephen Kunk is a staff writer for Ewedrooper. He lives in Oregon with his wife and two daughters.

Thus Spake the Story out of Florida


By Charles Norwood▸

A man has been arrested after threatening to kill his neighbor with kindness.

During an altercation over a noise complaint, Mr. Bryan Stewart of Milton, Florida threatened his neighbor with a machete that had the word "Kindness" written on its blade. Stewart apparently had named the machete Kindness, a clever double-entendre that wound up earning him an aggravated assault charge, with bail set at $10 000.

But while Mr. Stewart's pet-name for his machete is admittedly hilarious, it also raises a few questions.

For one, why did Stewart not receive an attempted murder charge? It would seem that the act of naming the machete Kindness speaks directly to motive. The expression, after all, is not "to hurt somebody with kindness" or "to aggravatedly assault somebody with kindness." It's "to kill." So it seems obvious that when some deranged reprobate lunges out with a machete named Kindness, his intention is murder. Otherwise, the joke just wouldn't work.

Is it possible that the police (and/or public prosecutor) were tittering so archly at the wry wit that they failed to put two and two together?

The accused (right) and his intellectual predecessor (left)
Secondly, and more importantly, were Mr. Stewart's actions even intended as a joke at all? It's easy to interpret his nicknaming of the machete as humorous, but a little reflection reveals that it's actually much, much more. It's a profound philosophical statement about the relationship between power and morality. Most people probably laugh or scoff when they read about Stewart in the headlines, but I really think he was trying to get at some of the same things articulated by Nietzsche a century and a half before him.

What does it really mean to "kill someone with kindness"? It suggests that revenge is petty. It suggests that revenge lowers you and that the best alternative to revenge is to take the higher road and to live well and to rise above the impulse to retaliate. And by writing "Kindness" on his machete's blade, Stewart is responding to that suggestion. He's saying that vengeance and "the higher road" aren't mutually exclusive. It's not either/or. And, by implication, the choice to take the proverbial higher road doesn't have anything to do with being civilized or some kind of lofty idealism. It has to do with being weak and cowardly.

It's a rationalization used by people who are too scared to take revenge.

Nietzsche, recall, made a distinction between "slave morality," which congratulates itself on its meekness, and "master morality," which takes what it wants from the world and makes no apologies. Stewart, similarly, 150 years later, articulates a distinction between those who let their neighbors make noise complaints against them (slaves) and those who assertively take revenge on neighbors who slight them by asking them to make less noise (masters).

The word "Kindness," written on his machete blade, is actually an argument. It's Stewart's thesis that morality merely evolved as a mechanism for coping with powerlessness. And it went right over everybody's head.

Perhaps Mr. Stewart wanted to end up in jail. Perhaps, being low-income, he realized that imprisonment would be the only way for him to access the resources needed to develop his ideas. Prisons, after all, have libraries and offer PhD equivalency programs (which I'm sure somebody as smart as Stewart would tear through in three to six).

***

Charles Norwood lives in Toronto, where he is involved in a number of criminal activities. He is the author of Epistemology Bloody Epistemology, a novella in which philosophical schools have degraded into rival gangs.

Image Credits: Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office (the photo that's not Nietzsche)