Never let it be said that people around the world are anything more than mindless drones, willing to copy any trend pushed in front of them.

So it comes as no surprise that half of the world’s media have jumped onto the fact that Jamie Lynn Spears‘ recent plopping-out of a baby and subsequent photoshoot with said ball of illegitimate flesh could have an effect on teenage pregnancy levels around the world. Because young girls are even more stupid than the everyday moron.

The world is sure to become a much worse place. Despair once again sets in.

It’s something that reads just like the synopsis of the film Idiocracy – those in the lower echelons of the IQ leagues tend to breed more, and we, the educated elite (like the hive mind that is hecklerspray) will soon be overwhelmed. And the 17-year-old sister of a mentally ill popstar having a baby is sure to make that process go a little bit faster. Don’t be afraid to let out a big sigh at that thought, we’re with you through this: the destruction of society as we know it.

So while we’re all being overwhelmed by the CREDIT CRUNCH and fearing for our lives on the streets literally covered with KNIFE CRIME we will now have to put up with every single underage girl in the country getting pregnant too. Life just gets harder and harder, and it’s all the bloody media’s fault. Oh, wait, we’re part of the media… err… we meant to say: it’s all OK! Magazine’s fault for printing that front cover with Jamie Lynn Spears on it.

Good save.

There are, of course, those out there that claim the cover and article for the magazine do nothing to promote promiscuity in youngsters. Instead, they simply show that Jamie Lynn is a responsible young adult, capable of handling herself in the big, bad world and probably not going mad, shaving her head and losing her kids.

These people are wrong.

So it may be something of an exaggeration to claim that every 16-year-old girl in the world is going to fall instantly preggers, but hey – hecklerspray isn’t one to understate. The fact of the matter is young girls suffer from being more impressionable than most other demographics and have to cope with the constant barrage of ‘me too’ celebrity culture that infects their every waking hour. When one of their contemporaries falls pregnant and goes very, very public with the details, well – it’s going to have an effect. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fat idiot. The fact that young Miss Spears picked up a hefty wodge of cash in the deal will just serve to push a few more insecure, confused youngsters over the edge.

But no, not so according to the editor of OK!, Rob Shuter, who spoke to Newsweek:

“I think it’s a very sensitive subject. I can totally understand why people have concerns about it. I can tell you too it’s nothing Jamie Lynn hasn’t had to deal with herself on a daily basis. This young girl has made some very hard choices … She can only talk about her own circumstances but she certainly is not a spokesperson for teen pregnancy. I think what we try to do in this story really carefully is say that this is Jamie Lynn’s story. This is not a girl at a high school story. This is a story about Jamie Lynn and her exceptional story in really, really unique circumstances and how she’s making decisions. That’s what this is about. We don’t set out to be the moral authority. We try to present the facts and let our readers decide.”

Shuter then went on to single-handedly destroy his own arguments as to why the article didn’t glamourise teenage pregnancy with one sentence:

“Babies are the new “it” factor in the celebrity market.”

Sigh. At least she looks good on the cover though, right?

But hey – let’s not take away from the fact that the rest of society as we know it is also full of utter, utter peons with all the intelligence and imagination of a rusty bagel. The kind of people who eat up buzzwords and end up using the term ‘carbon footprint’ without immediately breaking down in waves of laughter. Don’t worry, little girls, you’re not the only stupid ones.

We’re just waiting for the ad campaign extolling the virtues of cancer, which will result in people actively trying to ‘catch’ the disease. Just as proof that people will follow anything they see as a trend. It’ll happen, just you wait.

That’s right, it’s Tom Cruise News! Was there ever any doubt?

Yes, it would seem we live in a world where it makes more than enough sense for a comment in Playboy magazine by a TV doctor to result in said doctor being likened to a Nazi, on behalf of the Cruiser’s legal representation. We at hecklerspray are confused and annoyed by this world, but we soldier on.

It all started a few days ago when it was revealed that television doctor Drew Pinsky had spoken of Cruise’s affiliation with Scientology, remarking to Playboy magazine (possibly when surrounded by naked breasts):

“A lot of people in the public eye who behave strangely have mental illness we can learn from, and much of it is based on childhood trauma, without a doubt.”

Now, likening followers of Scientology to strange behaviour may seem like a perfectly sensible and reasonable summation, and even going so far as to bring a mental illness into things is sure to strike anyone as making perfect sense, especially when referring to how they think the thing they’re following is a bona-fide religion.

But not Tom Cruise, oh no – he seemed to take issue with this statement. Well, through his lawyer, Bert Fields, at least. Obviously unhappy with what he saw as a ridiculous overstatement that no one in their right mind could possibly come to, Fields issued this response:

“The last time we heard garbage like this was from Joseph Goebbels.”

We do feel the need to point out that Joseph Goebbels – though he may have done some evil things in his time on the planet – certainly did not liken following Scientology to mental illness. Most likely because Goebbels died seven years before the religion was invented, but there may be other mitigating circumstances too.

Now if hecklerspray were likened to a famous Nazi bastard, we would respond with fierce words and likely brutal force – we don’t stand for no jibba jabba round these parts. But it would seem the good (or evil, if you believe Cruise and co.) doctor is cut from a different cloth altogether, as he soon issued an apologetic statement, which read:

“Although Mr. Fields’s intent is clearly to slander and discredit Dr. Drew, under no circumstances is Dr. Drew making a blanket diagnosis about Scientology nor Mr. Cruise, whom he does not know. Dr. Drew was simply using Mr. Cruise as an example of someone who is recognizable to help the public understand.”

What exactly he was trying to do, by comparing followers of Scientology (namely Tom Cruise) to persons of ill mental health, we may never know. But apparently Dr Drew wasn’t trying to insinuate that followers of Scientology (namely Tom Cruise) were likely sufferers of mental illness. Obviously.

What Dr Drew should have done was liken Tom Cruise, the stoic follower of Scientology, to a Nazi. It would have made far more sense. Or Jesus.