I was beginning to worry that stupidity was on the wane, since I hadn't found a good nominee for a while. But have no fear!
This week, it's our friends across the sea, in Merrie Olde England. Here's a link to the incomparable Mark Steyn.
It seems there is a clown over there, Tony Turner, aka Barney Baloney. (I'll let you guess which is his real name). And Barney was booked to appear at a Tesco supermarket in Leeds. And then, in the interest of public health, he was told that making balloon animals was strictly off limits.
It's all about the children, you see. You can't have balloons anywhere near children because of the risk that one of the little imps might be allergic to latex.
I'll have a bit more to say on this point later.
Sadly, it seems that poor Barney is having a hard time of it. He can no longer use a bubble machine to make bubbles for the tots. Why? Well a child might slip and fall, and we all know that plays havoc with Clown Insurance. (Remember the big crash of the clown insurance industry? Millions of clowns were put out of work, and the damage to stock markets almost caused a world-wide depression)
Of course, if you do have balloons (this being before the health risks of latex were discovered by the crack scientists at the Grocery Institute), well there are additional issues. Not everything made of balloons is good. Some things are evil.
All together now: "We can't allow clowns to make balloon guns because that encourages children to commit violence".
When balloon guns are outlawed, only clown-outlaws will carry balloon guns. Or something.
But in news that will surely warm the hearts of the Immortals, balloon swords are allowed. In case you ever run into a balloon Kurgan. Of course, kids with balloon swords are forced to fight until they're all dead, except a single child. There can be only one, you know.
So now, after that brief visit to Clown Hell, we come back to the latex allergy point. Steyn has a link in his article on poor Barney to another pundit, Rush Limbaugh, who points out the irony of forbidding an entertainer to expose children to latex. Why? Well here's Rush:
Have you heard anything more ridiculous than this? The children -- the little children -- might be allergic to latex? Meanwhile, in every damn school in the country we're urging them to wear condoms, for crying out loud! Well, what the hell is a condom made of? Give 'em condoms for every damn thing in the world that's wrong with them, and then they can't go to a circus and be around a clown with a bunch of balloons?
Nicely put. Teach kids "condoms, condoms, and more condoms" from the time that they're 5 years old, and then later tell them that latex is dangerous. Makes perfect sense to me.
So to Tesco and their idiotic attempts to protect the children from anything and everything, including fun, I hereby nominate you for this week's "WTF were they thinking?" award.
And if we're lucky, I'll find a way to get hold of Barney, who is no doubt on the verge of being transported to Australia for his crimes, and he can make a cool trophy for the winner. From forbidden balloons of course.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Perfect bedmates
This story makes complete sense to me. Why wouldn't Heidi Fleiss support Hilary Clinton? Look at how much they have in common: They're both unattractive women that chose a line of work that's based in immorality. And they both got where they are today by F***ing degenerate men.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
A sick joke gets even sicker
Just stumbled on this, via Ace of Spades. Tying in with last night's post about using comic books to prepare high school kids for College, now there's a plan afoot to present dumbed-down versions of Shakespeare. In comic book form, of course.
I'm amazed. But in fairness, Shakespeare is a tough read. I always had doubts about his plays, since they don't work too well when just reading them silently to oneself. But I recently discovered something that points out the obvious: He was writing plays for God's sake. They were intended to be presented by actors, in front of an audience. So of course they're easier to follow and more enjoyable that way.
My discovery, by the way, was a terrific mini-series called "In Search of Shakespeare" by Michael Wood. Now I enjoy the heck out of Wood's shows- maybe someday I'll write about him. But "Shakespeare" is pretty close to being his best. Part of it is wandering around England learning about Will, but he also has scenes where he has the Royal Shakespeare Company perform scenes from the plays. It makes a huge difference. The dvd of the Series could be hard to find, but it's worth the effort.
Anyhow, if you check out the first link, which leads to the article in The Daily Mail, scroll on down to the text samples. They present a nibble of text from Macbeth and another from Henry V. Now maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't think the "short versions" are the same. They leave out a lot, particularly from the Macbeth quote. I think Lady Macbeth's two lines in the original version say a lot more than the one line does in the comic version. Shakespeare was, from what I know, a careful writer- he wasn't merely trying to fill space on a page. There's a difference between His Lady Macbeth telling her husband that if he screws up his courage they won't fail, and Comic Book Guy's Lady McBeth (I took the liberty of shortening her name, since it fits the theme here) simply saying "we won't fail". To me, it's apples and oranges.
But what do I know?
Ah well. I guess I'll just give a big "Harumph" and move along.
I'm amazed. But in fairness, Shakespeare is a tough read. I always had doubts about his plays, since they don't work too well when just reading them silently to oneself. But I recently discovered something that points out the obvious: He was writing plays for God's sake. They were intended to be presented by actors, in front of an audience. So of course they're easier to follow and more enjoyable that way.
My discovery, by the way, was a terrific mini-series called "In Search of Shakespeare" by Michael Wood. Now I enjoy the heck out of Wood's shows- maybe someday I'll write about him. But "Shakespeare" is pretty close to being his best. Part of it is wandering around England learning about Will, but he also has scenes where he has the Royal Shakespeare Company perform scenes from the plays. It makes a huge difference. The dvd of the Series could be hard to find, but it's worth the effort.
Anyhow, if you check out the first link, which leads to the article in The Daily Mail, scroll on down to the text samples. They present a nibble of text from Macbeth and another from Henry V. Now maybe I'm just an old fuddy-duddy, but I don't think the "short versions" are the same. They leave out a lot, particularly from the Macbeth quote. I think Lady Macbeth's two lines in the original version say a lot more than the one line does in the comic version. Shakespeare was, from what I know, a careful writer- he wasn't merely trying to fill space on a page. There's a difference between His Lady Macbeth telling her husband that if he screws up his courage they won't fail, and Comic Book Guy's Lady McBeth (I took the liberty of shortening her name, since it fits the theme here) simply saying "we won't fail". To me, it's apples and oranges.
But what do I know?
Ah well. I guess I'll just give a big "Harumph" and move along.
A sick joke
Just finished reading this article by Fred Reed. Amazing. I'd think it was a joke, but I know this kind of stupidity can't be made up. It's just too asinine.
Like the step-daughter he refers to, I never needed comic books to learn to read. My parents just took us to the library. Every two weeks or so, we piled in the car, and away to the Edison Branch of the Detroit Public Library. There, we'd fill our arms with books, sign them out and take them home.
This even happened during the school year. We were just reminded to lessen the armload. We could read, but studying did come first.
Here's an interesting little fact: (or not. I find it interesting). When I was in school, we had "Reading" class every day. For a good many- most if not all of my grade school years. (Sorry if I'm a bit vague, but it's been a goodly number of years).
In those primitive days, being taught by known Papists, there was a little drill for Reading class. On the first day of the year, we would be given a standardized reading test. Then the scores would be evaluated, and the class would be divided up into groups based upon the reading skill level. Normally, there would be three groups- the slower kids, the average kids and the faster kids. The groups would each choose a name- the Sparrows, the Eagles, the Whatevers.
It kinda seemed to work, which is why I suspect it's a system that died out long ago.
At any rate, tying the whole tale here together, the library trips of my childhood threw the whole system into confusion. Why? Well in my grade at least (and it could well have been the same for my siblings- perhaps some day I'll ask them), the normal breakdown was inadequate. Because while the class as a whole could be broken down into their groups, there was one child who didn't fit into any of the above. A child who was waaaay the hell ahead of the fastest kids in the fast group. A child reading on a high school level- when he was in the fourth grade.
A child whose parents took him to the Edison Branch of the Detroit Public Library every two weeks, and allowed him to bring home an armload of books.
I wonder if there was any sort of correlation....?
So now young adults have to read comic books in order to learn how to speak and read their native tongue at an adult level.
It would seem funny to me, except it isn't.
Perhaps there's something wrong with our educational system. I dunno. I don't have a Master's Degree in Education, Gender Studies, or anything else. I just have this weird idea that giving kids books to read when they're young teaches them to read. I wonder if teachers today have figured that one out yet.
[Oh, and for the record: When our precocious young hero here reached high school, his reading skills had continued apace. Still miles ahead of the group. Which was actually a pain when he took a literature class. Each student was expected to read 3 books over the semester. Our intrepid hero was told by the teacher one time that he should have read at least 6. She never knew that he had done, but never mentioned them. Too much trouble to keep the required journal, since it took up time that could be better spent reading. Or hiding in his bedroom playing Risk with himself while listening to AM Radio. Our hero might have been clever, but he wasn't exactly normal.
Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure: The same test that ranked the intrepid young man as being the best reader in his class also ranked him as being below average in Math. I guess his parents should have taken him to the Math section of the library.]
Maybe someday an educational anthropologist will find under a rock an old fossilized teacher's book, and notice how things were done by these primitive teachers, and there'll be a revolution in the field. A revolution that will result in high school graduates being able to read books more complicated than "See Spot Run".
But I doubt it. That might make sense.
Like the step-daughter he refers to, I never needed comic books to learn to read. My parents just took us to the library. Every two weeks or so, we piled in the car, and away to the Edison Branch of the Detroit Public Library. There, we'd fill our arms with books, sign them out and take them home.
This even happened during the school year. We were just reminded to lessen the armload. We could read, but studying did come first.
Here's an interesting little fact: (or not. I find it interesting). When I was in school, we had "Reading" class every day. For a good many- most if not all of my grade school years. (Sorry if I'm a bit vague, but it's been a goodly number of years).
In those primitive days, being taught by known Papists, there was a little drill for Reading class. On the first day of the year, we would be given a standardized reading test. Then the scores would be evaluated, and the class would be divided up into groups based upon the reading skill level. Normally, there would be three groups- the slower kids, the average kids and the faster kids. The groups would each choose a name- the Sparrows, the Eagles, the Whatevers.
It kinda seemed to work, which is why I suspect it's a system that died out long ago.
At any rate, tying the whole tale here together, the library trips of my childhood threw the whole system into confusion. Why? Well in my grade at least (and it could well have been the same for my siblings- perhaps some day I'll ask them), the normal breakdown was inadequate. Because while the class as a whole could be broken down into their groups, there was one child who didn't fit into any of the above. A child who was waaaay the hell ahead of the fastest kids in the fast group. A child reading on a high school level- when he was in the fourth grade.
A child whose parents took him to the Edison Branch of the Detroit Public Library every two weeks, and allowed him to bring home an armload of books.
I wonder if there was any sort of correlation....?
So now young adults have to read comic books in order to learn how to speak and read their native tongue at an adult level.
It would seem funny to me, except it isn't.
Perhaps there's something wrong with our educational system. I dunno. I don't have a Master's Degree in Education, Gender Studies, or anything else. I just have this weird idea that giving kids books to read when they're young teaches them to read. I wonder if teachers today have figured that one out yet.
[Oh, and for the record: When our precocious young hero here reached high school, his reading skills had continued apace. Still miles ahead of the group. Which was actually a pain when he took a literature class. Each student was expected to read 3 books over the semester. Our intrepid hero was told by the teacher one time that he should have read at least 6. She never knew that he had done, but never mentioned them. Too much trouble to keep the required journal, since it took up time that could be better spent reading. Or hiding in his bedroom playing Risk with himself while listening to AM Radio. Our hero might have been clever, but he wasn't exactly normal.
Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure: The same test that ranked the intrepid young man as being the best reader in his class also ranked him as being below average in Math. I guess his parents should have taken him to the Math section of the library.]
Maybe someday an educational anthropologist will find under a rock an old fossilized teacher's book, and notice how things were done by these primitive teachers, and there'll be a revolution in the field. A revolution that will result in high school graduates being able to read books more complicated than "See Spot Run".
But I doubt it. That might make sense.
Monday, August 13, 2007
A single step at a time
My friend Ed sent me this link. It seems that some people- the author is presumably a liberal, being a journalist- are thinking that perhaps guns, rather than being evil, might have a place in America.
And that the Second Amendment is not only relevant, but important.
It's a tragedy what happened to the family he writes of, to say the least. But I wish in my heart that the father had gotten a gun at some point. While the gun-grabbers use as one of their arguments the fear that the gun will be used by a family member in a domestic dispute- a claim that I don't buy, under the old "guns don't kill people..." rule- in the end there's almost nothing that could have happened to this family that could have been worse than what they went through.
And the alternative- a member of the family popping one or more of the attackers, prompting the rest to flee- would have been infinitely preferable.
I do think there are other options that families can use. Any military veteran can tell you that the best defense is a "mobile" one, which can respond to a specific threat, rather than a prepared defense (think Maginot Line). Or another option is a "defense in depth", where an attacker is forced to fight his way through several layers to get at the objective.
In other words, you start off with an external camera system and an alarm, that can detect an intruder early on and perhaps deter him, giving the potential victim time to react; whether by fleeing, calling the police (obviously), or grabbing the nearest pistol.
A dog is a solid option too. But they don't work on their own. I recall someone telling my sister and me some years back that in his rural area there had been a rash of break-ins. All the people had dogs, and they all worked in the city. So the attackers knew the houses would virtually all be empty during the workday. So that's when they made their move. Pick a house, take a quick look at it, then start. If there was a dog there, shoot it- there's nobody around to hear the shot, right- and then you're in. Easy as pie.
When the time comes that I get things together again, I intend to have an alarm with motion sensors, cameras to monitor the doors (perhaps even windows) and hopefully a big protective dog- some kind of mastiff would work well.
And of course my trusty pistol by my side. And perhaps a shotgun in a convenient place. Cuz that's a weapon that says "I'm serious, and you're in serious trouble" better than anything else in existence.
*****************
It seems that the author here has had a revelation- or what in the Army was called a BFO or "Blinding flash of the obvious". I certainly don't want to cheer or say I told you so, but it seems that another person has realized what the Founding Fathers knew as well as you and I: That an unarmed person can be attacked without fear.
Tied in with this is a link from Rants and Raves, written by a man who "gets it". Lots of good stuff here.
************
Here's hoping that the poor father of this family recovers from what is surely a devastating blow. Nobody should have to deal with this kind of pain.
And here's hoping the bad guys die a slow lingering death. The kind they inflicted on their victims.
And that the Second Amendment is not only relevant, but important.
It's a tragedy what happened to the family he writes of, to say the least. But I wish in my heart that the father had gotten a gun at some point. While the gun-grabbers use as one of their arguments the fear that the gun will be used by a family member in a domestic dispute- a claim that I don't buy, under the old "guns don't kill people..." rule- in the end there's almost nothing that could have happened to this family that could have been worse than what they went through.
And the alternative- a member of the family popping one or more of the attackers, prompting the rest to flee- would have been infinitely preferable.
I do think there are other options that families can use. Any military veteran can tell you that the best defense is a "mobile" one, which can respond to a specific threat, rather than a prepared defense (think Maginot Line). Or another option is a "defense in depth", where an attacker is forced to fight his way through several layers to get at the objective.
In other words, you start off with an external camera system and an alarm, that can detect an intruder early on and perhaps deter him, giving the potential victim time to react; whether by fleeing, calling the police (obviously), or grabbing the nearest pistol.
A dog is a solid option too. But they don't work on their own. I recall someone telling my sister and me some years back that in his rural area there had been a rash of break-ins. All the people had dogs, and they all worked in the city. So the attackers knew the houses would virtually all be empty during the workday. So that's when they made their move. Pick a house, take a quick look at it, then start. If there was a dog there, shoot it- there's nobody around to hear the shot, right- and then you're in. Easy as pie.
When the time comes that I get things together again, I intend to have an alarm with motion sensors, cameras to monitor the doors (perhaps even windows) and hopefully a big protective dog- some kind of mastiff would work well.
And of course my trusty pistol by my side. And perhaps a shotgun in a convenient place. Cuz that's a weapon that says "I'm serious, and you're in serious trouble" better than anything else in existence.
*****************
It seems that the author here has had a revelation- or what in the Army was called a BFO or "Blinding flash of the obvious". I certainly don't want to cheer or say I told you so, but it seems that another person has realized what the Founding Fathers knew as well as you and I: That an unarmed person can be attacked without fear.
Tied in with this is a link from Rants and Raves, written by a man who "gets it". Lots of good stuff here.
************
Here's hoping that the poor father of this family recovers from what is surely a devastating blow. Nobody should have to deal with this kind of pain.
And here's hoping the bad guys die a slow lingering death. The kind they inflicted on their victims.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Roll out the barrel, time to party
Yes, it's that most wonderful time of the week. The time when the folks here at gun-totin-wacko award the coveted "WTF were they thinking?" award. An award to recognize those people who set a new standard in stupidity. People who do something so head-scratchingly idiotic that you can't help but think to yourself....
Well, you know what you're thinking.
And so let's bring out our presenters, Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan.
Okay, it's like totally cool that we've been asked to present this nominee for like such a like distinguished award. Like, nothing could ever be better than this, except maybe receiving the award ourselves for being like, totally stupid and immature and being stoned and like narciss... Narkizz... nersusistik... Ummm can somebody like totally explain what the word means cuz like it sounds like a like twelfth grade word and like that's like way too far advanced for us to like know, like you know?
Anyhow, so here's a nominee. He's like a professional baseball player, and he like can't really hit at all, which you'd like sorta think would be like important for somebody making like 2 million dollars a year. Sorta like you'd expect somebody making millions of dollars as a singer and actress to like be able to sing and act, do you like totally know what I mean?
[Long pause while our presenters try unsuccessfully to figure out if there's any significance to that line]
.....
Okay, let's usher these two geniuses offstage. Girls, there's plenty of Vodka and cocaine backstage. We even brought some panties in. Brit, you might find they're in your size. And we even have a coach there to explain to you how they work.
And rumor says there could be a couple of third-rate actors there that haven't already risked their health by "making love" to either of you.
Now go away. And preferably, don't come back.
[Heavy sigh of relief from G-T-W]
Okay, so anyway Neifi Perez gets a nomination for getting suspended twice for using a banned substance in baseball. What makes this nomination most impressive is that his second suspension was announced the day before his first suspension ended. And it was for the same substance. And this all costs him roughly seventy five percent of his salary for the year, which is waaaay more than he should be earning anyway, considering his batting average is quite a bit south of the Mendoza line.
Of course, in fairness to Perez, it might be A Legitimate Mistake. He says it was an over the counter medicine for ADHD that triggered the positive result, and Baseball won't say what the timeline was for testing- so the second test could have been within a matter of days of the first. Though I find that a bit hard to believe.
But no matter. Professional athletes have access to medical care and advice that is unique. The teams have doctors, therapists, and God only knows what other kind of personnel to take care of the players- hardly surprising considering the incredible salaries they make. But no, our Hero decided to run out to the local Walgreen's and pick something up to replace the prescription medicine which he ran out of. Smooth move, since that box of medicine will wind up costing him someplace in the neighborhood of $1.5 million this year, and perhaps more next year.
Though that isn't likely, since his career would seem to be in trouble. Poor hitting and an 80 game suspension came make a team hesitate to spend a couple million bucks on a player that, if he ever gets stupid again, would be suspended for an even longer time, if not outright banned.
************
Our next nominee is an offshoot of our most despicable winner ever. Yes, Michael Vick. Not only did Vick win the award himself for his attempts at creating Doggy Hell, but he also led Pro Football Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith down the path to insanity the very next week. And now he's done it again.
Last week there was an announcement by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that, as part of their celebration of a new building or something, they were going to "honor" Vick for being- and I quote here- an "outstanding human being".
Funny, most people I know are having trouble right now considering Vick to be any kind of human being. But I guess that's the advantage they have. When someone offers to "open their heart and arms to us", well gosh darn it, that person needs to be recognized.
Even now, a week later, I think this smells like indulgence selling from what used to be a respected religious group. Remember the saying which so annoyed Martin Luther? "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs".
I suspect this concept isn't alien to the SCLC. Not that this is a new idea on my part.
Now again, to be fair, it should be pointed out that Vick wasn't supposed to be anywhere near the conference for his "recognition". But it should also be pointed out that there's no evidence that Vick contacted them and asked for their help. They just decided he needed it (or else his mother asked for their help).
And once the news got out, they gave a great big "OH S---" and announced that there were no plans to "honor" this slimeball. So I guess that sorta counts in their favor.
***********
And then we have our third and final nominee. A delightful woman named Tracy Jarman. Jarman, an open lesbian (and not what some would call the "good kind" of lesbian) who happens to be the fire chief for the city of San Diego, announced that it would be a good idea if her department would take part in the City's annual Gay Pride parade.
On a volunteer basis, of course.
Oh, except for those firemen who say they were ordered to take part, and feared that they might face some kind of retaliation if they refused. So off they went.
During the course of the parade, they got to listen to such charming expressions of "Gay Pride" as "show me your hose" and "give me mouth to mouth". When the four men refused to get into the wacky spirit of things, they were subjected to increased hostility from the crowd.
Oh, and also note that no "gay pride" parade would be complete without men rubbing their crotches and blowing kisses at folks.
The men and their lawyers point out that this sort of behavior in a workplace would get the perpetrator fired in a heartbeat. But I suppose an event that your employer orders you to attend doesn't count as "workplace", now does it?
So now the men are suing, the City is apparently taking a "what did we do?" approach, and I've never heard a word out of Jarman. Under ordinary circumstances, I'd predict a quick settlement with the men, and strong disciplinary action against the person behind it. But in this case, I have my doubts. Straight men suing a lesbian for sexual harassment? In California? You're kidding, right? They'll be laughed out of court, and possibly subjected to more harassment on the way out.
But in fairness to Jarman, we have to give her the same rights as our other nominees received. You know, the whole Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Rights thing. So we'll take this opportunity to mention a few things that could mitigate her actions.
.......
......
......
Sorry, nothing's coming. I can't find any good reason for her to do this to her subordinates, other than ego. And stupidity.
Therefore, since there seem to be no witnesses for the defense, and since her actions are staggeringly ignorant, I guess we'll have to bring back our two starlets and have them award Tracy this week's trophy.
Hell, it could be a dream come true for her.
So here we go. Tracy Jarman, Fire Chief of San Diego, in the state of Mexifornia, I hereby take this opportunity to ask you, on behalf of common sense advocates everywhere, as well as your subordinates in the Department, "WTF were you thinking?"
Thank you, and good night.
Well, you know what you're thinking.
And so let's bring out our presenters, Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan.
Okay, it's like totally cool that we've been asked to present this nominee for like such a like distinguished award. Like, nothing could ever be better than this, except maybe receiving the award ourselves for being like, totally stupid and immature and being stoned and like narciss... Narkizz... nersusistik... Ummm can somebody like totally explain what the word means cuz like it sounds like a like twelfth grade word and like that's like way too far advanced for us to like know, like you know?
Anyhow, so here's a nominee. He's like a professional baseball player, and he like can't really hit at all, which you'd like sorta think would be like important for somebody making like 2 million dollars a year. Sorta like you'd expect somebody making millions of dollars as a singer and actress to like be able to sing and act, do you like totally know what I mean?
[Long pause while our presenters try unsuccessfully to figure out if there's any significance to that line]
.....
Okay, let's usher these two geniuses offstage. Girls, there's plenty of Vodka and cocaine backstage. We even brought some panties in. Brit, you might find they're in your size. And we even have a coach there to explain to you how they work.
And rumor says there could be a couple of third-rate actors there that haven't already risked their health by "making love" to either of you.
Now go away. And preferably, don't come back.
[Heavy sigh of relief from G-T-W]
Okay, so anyway Neifi Perez gets a nomination for getting suspended twice for using a banned substance in baseball. What makes this nomination most impressive is that his second suspension was announced the day before his first suspension ended. And it was for the same substance. And this all costs him roughly seventy five percent of his salary for the year, which is waaaay more than he should be earning anyway, considering his batting average is quite a bit south of the Mendoza line.
Of course, in fairness to Perez, it might be A Legitimate Mistake. He says it was an over the counter medicine for ADHD that triggered the positive result, and Baseball won't say what the timeline was for testing- so the second test could have been within a matter of days of the first. Though I find that a bit hard to believe.
But no matter. Professional athletes have access to medical care and advice that is unique. The teams have doctors, therapists, and God only knows what other kind of personnel to take care of the players- hardly surprising considering the incredible salaries they make. But no, our Hero decided to run out to the local Walgreen's and pick something up to replace the prescription medicine which he ran out of. Smooth move, since that box of medicine will wind up costing him someplace in the neighborhood of $1.5 million this year, and perhaps more next year.
Though that isn't likely, since his career would seem to be in trouble. Poor hitting and an 80 game suspension came make a team hesitate to spend a couple million bucks on a player that, if he ever gets stupid again, would be suspended for an even longer time, if not outright banned.
************
Our next nominee is an offshoot of our most despicable winner ever. Yes, Michael Vick. Not only did Vick win the award himself for his attempts at creating Doggy Hell, but he also led Pro Football Hall of Famer Emmitt Smith down the path to insanity the very next week. And now he's done it again.
Last week there was an announcement by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference that, as part of their celebration of a new building or something, they were going to "honor" Vick for being- and I quote here- an "outstanding human being".
Funny, most people I know are having trouble right now considering Vick to be any kind of human being. But I guess that's the advantage they have. When someone offers to "open their heart and arms to us", well gosh darn it, that person needs to be recognized.
Even now, a week later, I think this smells like indulgence selling from what used to be a respected religious group. Remember the saying which so annoyed Martin Luther? "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs".
I suspect this concept isn't alien to the SCLC. Not that this is a new idea on my part.
Now again, to be fair, it should be pointed out that Vick wasn't supposed to be anywhere near the conference for his "recognition". But it should also be pointed out that there's no evidence that Vick contacted them and asked for their help. They just decided he needed it (or else his mother asked for their help).
And once the news got out, they gave a great big "OH S---" and announced that there were no plans to "honor" this slimeball. So I guess that sorta counts in their favor.
***********
And then we have our third and final nominee. A delightful woman named Tracy Jarman. Jarman, an open lesbian (and not what some would call the "good kind" of lesbian) who happens to be the fire chief for the city of San Diego, announced that it would be a good idea if her department would take part in the City's annual Gay Pride parade.
On a volunteer basis, of course.
Oh, except for those firemen who say they were ordered to take part, and feared that they might face some kind of retaliation if they refused. So off they went.
During the course of the parade, they got to listen to such charming expressions of "Gay Pride" as "show me your hose" and "give me mouth to mouth". When the four men refused to get into the wacky spirit of things, they were subjected to increased hostility from the crowd.
Oh, and also note that no "gay pride" parade would be complete without men rubbing their crotches and blowing kisses at folks.
The men and their lawyers point out that this sort of behavior in a workplace would get the perpetrator fired in a heartbeat. But I suppose an event that your employer orders you to attend doesn't count as "workplace", now does it?
So now the men are suing, the City is apparently taking a "what did we do?" approach, and I've never heard a word out of Jarman. Under ordinary circumstances, I'd predict a quick settlement with the men, and strong disciplinary action against the person behind it. But in this case, I have my doubts. Straight men suing a lesbian for sexual harassment? In California? You're kidding, right? They'll be laughed out of court, and possibly subjected to more harassment on the way out.
But in fairness to Jarman, we have to give her the same rights as our other nominees received. You know, the whole Equal Rights Amendment and Gay Rights thing. So we'll take this opportunity to mention a few things that could mitigate her actions.
.......
......
......
Sorry, nothing's coming. I can't find any good reason for her to do this to her subordinates, other than ego. And stupidity.
Therefore, since there seem to be no witnesses for the defense, and since her actions are staggeringly ignorant, I guess we'll have to bring back our two starlets and have them award Tracy this week's trophy.
Hell, it could be a dream come true for her.
So here we go. Tracy Jarman, Fire Chief of San Diego, in the state of Mexifornia, I hereby take this opportunity to ask you, on behalf of common sense advocates everywhere, as well as your subordinates in the Department, "WTF were you thinking?"
Thank you, and good night.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Discriminating on the grounds of sexuality
Well, here we have another nominee. This time, it's a woman. I think. Hard to tell from the picture that accompanied the article I read. Tracy Jarman, the Fire Chief in San Diego. Jarman, a lesbian, decided that it would be a "fun event" if the fire department would take part in the City's Gay Pride parade.
On a volunteer basis, of course. Oh, except for those firefighters who say they were ordered to attend. But I guess they don't count.
At any rate, at this "fun event", they were subjected to comments from the crowd along the lines of "show me your hose" and "give me mouth to mouth". Later, the men allege, when they obviously were not replying in kind, they were subjected to increasingly hostile comments.
And of course they were forced to watch as bystanders rubbed their crotches (their own, I assume and not those of the firemen), blew kisses at the firemen, and so on.
Yeah, that's my idea of a good time. Good clean family fun.
It's bad enough that the men felt as if they were being forced to attend this idiotic bacchanal. But the thought that crossed my mind was that there have been- as yet- no repercussions for Jarman, who clearly subjected these men to a hostile environment. If she were a man, and this was a parade celebrating heterosexuality, then the fire chief would have already been dismissed from the job. But of course, she's both a woman and a lesbian. Therefore, she's safe. Because we all know that women are incapable of sexual harassment, and of course no lesbian could (or would) ever discriminate against men.
Realistically, I wonder if she knows that she likely only got the job because as a lesbian, she hit the jackpot- a minority on two counts, her gender and her sexuality. But I have no doubt she's well aware of it- her status is far too useful for someone looking for an appointed job in government.
None of which is to imply that she's completely unqualified. She might be terrific, and could have been the best candidate out there. But of course, one of the wonders of "affirmative action" and similar programs is that there's always that lingering doubt. More likely, she was a slightly qualified candidate, who's skills were exceeded by any number of heterosexual white men, but she was picked over them.
At any rate, she clearly is lacking in judgement. As I said, if this were a male putting this kind of pressure on gays or women in his department, he would be lynched. But she'll likely get away with it. My best hope is that the men will win their lawsuit, and the City will be forced to apologize and promise never to subject anyone to such harassment again. But this being California, I wouldn't bet on any of that happening.
So for volunteering some of her subordinates to take part in an event which is completely based in sexuality, where one man yelled at them "blow my hose"- a clearly inappropriate sexual comment- I nominate Chief Tracy Jarman for this week's "WTF were they thinking?' award.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Praise the Lord and mount the rape stand
Michael Vick is on a roll. Not only did he win the prestigious "WTF were they thinking?" award for his little hobby of cruelly torturing and killing dogs for his own entertainment, but his story gets better. Right after Vick won, placing himself in such esteemed company as Dhimmi Carter and NASA; Emmitt Smith, another football player, got himself nominated for suggesting Vick was being charged so that the Feds could nab a couple of Vick's buddies.
And now we have another Vick related nominee. Via WithLeather, a great sports website, we now have the story of a group that supports Vick. No that's not strong enough. It's a group whose leader, Charles Steele, said last week "We will recognize Vick for being an outstanding human being... We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us."
So what is this group that regards an accused dog-abuser as "an outstanding human being"?
Why it's the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The group founded by The Greatest American Ever, legendary plagiarist Martin Luther King Jr.
On the surface, it would appear that they're acting out of good old Christian morality- the desire to save the soul of a "man" who has shown no interest (to my knowledge) in being saved. But I think the key is in the above quote: "We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us".
Call me a cynical bastard (and you won't be the first) but when I read that, what I saw was "we will work with anyone who opens their wallet to us". It seems to be a trend in the Black Christian community- fork over some money, and voila! You're now one of The Good Guys.
After all, didn't Jesus say "it's easier for a rich man to pass the gates of heaven than anyone else, if they just open their wallets to me"?
No, this one bugs me. It just feels like they're soliciting money from him, in order to grant absolution for his sins/crimes. And even if I'm wrong(!), I don't know that he's asked for their prayers. And given that one of their other heroes, adulterer and traitor Bubba Clinton used the Southern Baptist community to make points when he was in trouble, it seems to me that the SCLC has gone the way of the old Catholic Church- the one that prompted the real Martin Luther to launch the Reformation- and is giving indulgences to anyone that will toss them a few shillings.
So let's bow our heads in honor of the SCLC and it's leader Charles Steele, and reverently ask them "WTF were you thinking?"
And now we have another Vick related nominee. Via WithLeather, a great sports website, we now have the story of a group that supports Vick. No that's not strong enough. It's a group whose leader, Charles Steele, said last week "We will recognize Vick for being an outstanding human being... We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us."
So what is this group that regards an accused dog-abuser as "an outstanding human being"?
Why it's the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The group founded by The Greatest American Ever, legendary plagiarist Martin Luther King Jr.
On the surface, it would appear that they're acting out of good old Christian morality- the desire to save the soul of a "man" who has shown no interest (to my knowledge) in being saved. But I think the key is in the above quote: "We will work with anyone who opens their heart and arms to us".
Call me a cynical bastard (and you won't be the first) but when I read that, what I saw was "we will work with anyone who opens their wallet to us". It seems to be a trend in the Black Christian community- fork over some money, and voila! You're now one of The Good Guys.
After all, didn't Jesus say "it's easier for a rich man to pass the gates of heaven than anyone else, if they just open their wallets to me"?
No, this one bugs me. It just feels like they're soliciting money from him, in order to grant absolution for his sins/crimes. And even if I'm wrong(!), I don't know that he's asked for their prayers. And given that one of their other heroes, adulterer and traitor Bubba Clinton used the Southern Baptist community to make points when he was in trouble, it seems to me that the SCLC has gone the way of the old Catholic Church- the one that prompted the real Martin Luther to launch the Reformation- and is giving indulgences to anyone that will toss them a few shillings.
So let's bow our heads in honor of the SCLC and it's leader Charles Steele, and reverently ask them "WTF were you thinking?"
Sunday, August 05, 2007
I think I'm in love
Gonna send this to my sister. I've been trying to explain to her that Engler, whatever his flaws, left office years ago and that Jen-Jen has done NOTHING for Michigan since she was elected, but no dice.
It's John Engler's fault.
Hat tip to RightMichigan.com
It's John Engler's fault.
Hat tip to RightMichigan.com
Friday, August 03, 2007
This is a joke, right?
Well well well. It's been a quiet week, at least in my corner of the world. So I've been noticing a lack of nominees for the "WTF were they thinking?" award.
But have no fear. As long as we have athletes, we'll have nominees. This one is infielder Neifi Perez of the Detroit Tigers. Long renowned for his incredible batting prowess- Barry Bonds look out- Neifi has a slight problem. Apparently he likes his stimulants.
Maybe he needs them to stay awake while he sits on the bench. Cuz call me crazy, but I don't know that a .172 batting average is quite enough to keep him in the Major Leagues for too much longer.
Now, I think he has another reason to plan on being retired.
How stupid does somebody have to be to get busted for a banned substance just before you come back... from a suspension for the same substance? I mean, come on. Did he think that the League would give him a pass because he'd already been busted? Or is he so low-energy that he can't stay awake during a baseball game (that's a freebie to any non-baseball lovers out there), and needs to take caffeine intravenously?
At any rate, it's gonna cost him a total of $1,188,525 out of an annual salary of $2.5 million.
I wonder if he's married, cuz I'd love to hear him 'splain this one to his wife.
So Neifi, here's your moment in the sun. Pop some speed while you contemplate your impending life after baseball. Because your post-baseball life is pretty damn close now.
Here it is amigo. On behalf of all sports fans everywhere, I have to ask "WTF were you thinking?"
But have no fear. As long as we have athletes, we'll have nominees. This one is infielder Neifi Perez of the Detroit Tigers. Long renowned for his incredible batting prowess- Barry Bonds look out- Neifi has a slight problem. Apparently he likes his stimulants.
Maybe he needs them to stay awake while he sits on the bench. Cuz call me crazy, but I don't know that a .172 batting average is quite enough to keep him in the Major Leagues for too much longer.
Now, I think he has another reason to plan on being retired.
How stupid does somebody have to be to get busted for a banned substance just before you come back... from a suspension for the same substance? I mean, come on. Did he think that the League would give him a pass because he'd already been busted? Or is he so low-energy that he can't stay awake during a baseball game (that's a freebie to any non-baseball lovers out there), and needs to take caffeine intravenously?
At any rate, it's gonna cost him a total of $1,188,525 out of an annual salary of $2.5 million.
I wonder if he's married, cuz I'd love to hear him 'splain this one to his wife.
So Neifi, here's your moment in the sun. Pop some speed while you contemplate your impending life after baseball. Because your post-baseball life is pretty damn close now.
Here it is amigo. On behalf of all sports fans everywhere, I have to ask "WTF were you thinking?"
Humor
This is one of the funniest things I've seen in years. Enjoy. Hat Tip to GoV, LGF and all the usual suspects.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Ladies and Gentlemen, charge your glasses!
Okay, a couple days later than I intended, it's time to award this week's "WTF was he thinking?" award.
A quick review of the candidates: First off, Senator Joe Biden gets nominated for responding to a question from a gun-owner during a debate by commenting that the man needs to have his head examined, and speculating that he might not be mentally qualified to own a gun.
Well. I grant that the questioner didn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Biden went too far. Of course, it won't matter. First off, all leftists agree with Biden that the guy must be an idiot- after all, he owns a gun. So it won't hurt him among his "base" (I use that term loosely). And I doubt the Senator has many supporters amongst gun-owners anyway, so again, it won't cost him any votes there.
And lastly, since Biden's only chance to be elected- or even nominated- is a plane crash involving every other potential Democratic candidate, it won't have the slightest impact on the presidential election anyhow.
Sorry Joey, you're an idiot, but you don't quite rise up to our level. But the good news is, this will remind you of what it's like to be a loser, so perhaps next year it won't hurt as much.
******
The next nominee was "comedian" A Whitney Brown. He made a video for YouTube, that graveyard of the most pathetic Saturday Night Live alumni ever, in which he said he supports our troops.
Or not. It turns out that this comedic giant means his taxes pay for the "fat, whining" families of the troops and-horror of horrors- he also pays the salaries of the soldiers.
Actually I doubt that. I think one has to have a job to pay taxes, and I don't know if this moron has worked since he was (presumably) fired from the crapfest that SNL has been.
But while I find his comments both insensitive and stupid, he's clearly a moron. Again, as so often, I have to excuse him on the grounds that he didn't actually make a comment that forces one to go "Huh?" so much as he just said what he really, truly believes.
Besides, there's a chance someone might read this, and I'd hate to think that I doubled his audience. And I'd feel humiliated to think that, whenever he shuffles off this mortal coil, someone might decide to list the only award that Brown won in his lifetime, and mention this one.
Sorry, A (can I make a guess what the A stands for? Pretty please?). But no dice.
******
The next candidate is Pro Football Legend Emmitt Smith. During the weekend where he was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame, Smith commented upon our last winner, A**H*** Supreme and likely future Mrs. Bubba, Michael Vick. Smith commented that Vick was charged by the Feds with Conspiracy and a few other goodies because "He's the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond so they're putting the squeeze on him to get to everyone else".
As many people, myself included, pointed out, that's the wrong way 'round. The prosecutors go after the little guys, to get the evidence to get the bigger guys. Since Fido is clearly the biggest fish among the four defendants, his testimony wouldn't be much use against them.
Of course, at least one of the other arraignees agreed. He pled guilty and is gonna help the Feds nail Rover to the wall. So it looks like Emmitt's career as a legal analyst is gonna come to a screeching halt. Possibly along with his career as a football analyst, since rumor has it that his new employer, ESPN, is concerned that he talked without thinking. But we'll see.
At any rate, Emmitt fumbled this one. He's just ignorant, but didn't quite do enough to make it to the G-T-W Hall of Fame. Of course, had he gone a bit further and made comments like his fellow retiree, Deion Sanders, who suggested that Vick "loves" his dogs, and that there are other athletes (read football players) who also participate in this disgusting "sport", then Smith would have been a shoe-in.
Better luck next time. Maybe you two should get together and write something else. If it's stupid enough, then you might well get a win.
******
And finally, our last candidate. Frankly, once this story leaked out, the contest for this week's award was over. Until somebody else starts voting, I get to make the decision as to the winners, and this one is so obvious that I can't see how anybody- even a previous winner like Dhimmi Jhimmi Carter- could have had a chance.
Last week, a report came out that informed the world that NASA has been sending astronauts up into space after they've had a couple for the....road- Sky- Atmosphere-Ozone layer? Whatever.
This is a tough call. Who's the best candidate for our esteemed award? The crewmembers that decided that the best way to go into space was in an alcoholic daze, or the administrators that were apparently told about it and ignored the problem?
Well, we have a simple solution: Give the award to the entire cast of NASA. Sure, there are a lot of people there who are trying to do their jobs well, and it's kinda hard to be blamed because somebody else is an idiot, but that's life in the Big Bureaucracy.
So to those members of the NASA gang that felt a couple shots would make you fly higher, even without a shuttle underneath you, and those higher-ups that decided to let it ride, since there was no chance of anybody ever finding out, or caring if they did find out, I say "Hoist a few beers to celebrate your victory".
And then climb into a multi-billion dollar aircraft and go for a drunken joyride. You've earned it.
NASA, I raise my glass to you and proudly ask "WTF were you thinking?"
A quick review of the candidates: First off, Senator Joe Biden gets nominated for responding to a question from a gun-owner during a debate by commenting that the man needs to have his head examined, and speculating that he might not be mentally qualified to own a gun.
Well. I grant that the questioner didn't seem like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but Biden went too far. Of course, it won't matter. First off, all leftists agree with Biden that the guy must be an idiot- after all, he owns a gun. So it won't hurt him among his "base" (I use that term loosely). And I doubt the Senator has many supporters amongst gun-owners anyway, so again, it won't cost him any votes there.
And lastly, since Biden's only chance to be elected- or even nominated- is a plane crash involving every other potential Democratic candidate, it won't have the slightest impact on the presidential election anyhow.
Sorry Joey, you're an idiot, but you don't quite rise up to our level. But the good news is, this will remind you of what it's like to be a loser, so perhaps next year it won't hurt as much.
******
The next nominee was "comedian" A Whitney Brown. He made a video for YouTube, that graveyard of the most pathetic Saturday Night Live alumni ever, in which he said he supports our troops.
Or not. It turns out that this comedic giant means his taxes pay for the "fat, whining" families of the troops and-horror of horrors- he also pays the salaries of the soldiers.
Actually I doubt that. I think one has to have a job to pay taxes, and I don't know if this moron has worked since he was (presumably) fired from the crapfest that SNL has been.
But while I find his comments both insensitive and stupid, he's clearly a moron. Again, as so often, I have to excuse him on the grounds that he didn't actually make a comment that forces one to go "Huh?" so much as he just said what he really, truly believes.
Besides, there's a chance someone might read this, and I'd hate to think that I doubled his audience. And I'd feel humiliated to think that, whenever he shuffles off this mortal coil, someone might decide to list the only award that Brown won in his lifetime, and mention this one.
Sorry, A (can I make a guess what the A stands for? Pretty please?). But no dice.
******
The next candidate is Pro Football Legend Emmitt Smith. During the weekend where he was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame, Smith commented upon our last winner, A**H*** Supreme and likely future Mrs. Bubba, Michael Vick. Smith commented that Vick was charged by the Feds with Conspiracy and a few other goodies because "He's the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond so they're putting the squeeze on him to get to everyone else".
As many people, myself included, pointed out, that's the wrong way 'round. The prosecutors go after the little guys, to get the evidence to get the bigger guys. Since Fido is clearly the biggest fish among the four defendants, his testimony wouldn't be much use against them.
Of course, at least one of the other arraignees agreed. He pled guilty and is gonna help the Feds nail Rover to the wall. So it looks like Emmitt's career as a legal analyst is gonna come to a screeching halt. Possibly along with his career as a football analyst, since rumor has it that his new employer, ESPN, is concerned that he talked without thinking. But we'll see.
At any rate, Emmitt fumbled this one. He's just ignorant, but didn't quite do enough to make it to the G-T-W Hall of Fame. Of course, had he gone a bit further and made comments like his fellow retiree, Deion Sanders, who suggested that Vick "loves" his dogs, and that there are other athletes (read football players) who also participate in this disgusting "sport", then Smith would have been a shoe-in.
Better luck next time. Maybe you two should get together and write something else. If it's stupid enough, then you might well get a win.
******
And finally, our last candidate. Frankly, once this story leaked out, the contest for this week's award was over. Until somebody else starts voting, I get to make the decision as to the winners, and this one is so obvious that I can't see how anybody- even a previous winner like Dhimmi Jhimmi Carter- could have had a chance.
Last week, a report came out that informed the world that NASA has been sending astronauts up into space after they've had a couple for the....road- Sky- Atmosphere-Ozone layer? Whatever.
This is a tough call. Who's the best candidate for our esteemed award? The crewmembers that decided that the best way to go into space was in an alcoholic daze, or the administrators that were apparently told about it and ignored the problem?
Well, we have a simple solution: Give the award to the entire cast of NASA. Sure, there are a lot of people there who are trying to do their jobs well, and it's kinda hard to be blamed because somebody else is an idiot, but that's life in the Big Bureaucracy.
So to those members of the NASA gang that felt a couple shots would make you fly higher, even without a shuttle underneath you, and those higher-ups that decided to let it ride, since there was no chance of anybody ever finding out, or caring if they did find out, I say "Hoist a few beers to celebrate your victory".
And then climb into a multi-billion dollar aircraft and go for a drunken joyride. You've earned it.
NASA, I raise my glass to you and proudly ask "WTF were you thinking?"
Friday, July 27, 2007
Oh, snap!
A quick lesson in the art of the verbal beatdown.
Bob Costas is a master.
Ward Churchill, not so much.
I'd like to see the two of them pair off. Mostly just to see a Great Indian Warrior (or so he claims) get his ass whupped by a scrawny little white guy.
As one of the commenters noted yesterday on Ace, Herr Doktor's responses to the heckler all basically classics. Among 3rd graders. But to me, the best part was his lightning quick responses. It takes him almost 30 seconds to make a reply along the lines of "well.... you suck!"
Hat tips to With Leather and Ace of Spades respectively.
Bob Costas is a master.
Ward Churchill, not so much.
I'd like to see the two of them pair off. Mostly just to see a Great Indian Warrior (or so he claims) get his ass whupped by a scrawny little white guy.
As one of the commenters noted yesterday on Ace, Herr Doktor's responses to the heckler all basically classics. Among 3rd graders. But to me, the best part was his lightning quick responses. It takes him almost 30 seconds to make a reply along the lines of "well.... you suck!"
Hat tips to With Leather and Ace of Spades respectively.
Unfriggingbelievable
I first read about this yesterday, and knew it was a strong-really strong- possibility for our little award. However, I held off on posting, since the original article said the formal report would be issued today.
Well it was. And as expected, they admitted that some of our astronauts are drinking before- and possibly just before their flights.
I don't know what's worse: That people with this amount of training and responsibilities like these would drink beforehand, or that the powers that be were apparently ignoring any warnings about it.
So, rather than try and limit it to anybody particular, I hereby raise a glass to NASA as a whole, and ask them "WTF were you thinking?"
Cheers.
Well it was. And as expected, they admitted that some of our astronauts are drinking before- and possibly just before their flights.
I don't know what's worse: That people with this amount of training and responsibilities like these would drink beforehand, or that the powers that be were apparently ignoring any warnings about it.
So, rather than try and limit it to anybody particular, I hereby raise a glass to NASA as a whole, and ask them "WTF were you thinking?"
Cheers.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Oh, to be an athlete
I had forgotten this story for a while. But it's back, and I'm pretty cheesed off. I know a thing or two about Michigan gun laws, and this is so far over the top that I can't believe it.
Rule number 1 of legally carrying a gun (in every state that I've ever heard of) is that you do not- can not- carry one if you've been drinking.
According to the story, Rogers was drunk and had a gun.
Gun violation number 1, check.
Rule number 2 is that you don't ever carry one into a place that serves alcohol on the premises. (In MI, the rule is that they can't make over half of their money from alcohol sales. My guess would be that this holds true of a strip club)
Gun violation number 2, check.
And he allegedly had it in plain view, stuck in the waistband of his pants. Here's a tip: To carry a "concealed weapon" you have to... "conceal" it. If it's in plain view, it's not concealed.
Gun violation 3, check.
And finally, he may have sorta threatened people with it, or at least had it out in plain view for the intimidation factor. That's known as "brandishing" and it's grounds for a revocation of the carrying permit. And can lead to jail time.
Gun violation 4, check.
And yet, Big Baby gets away with it completely. Yup, equality under the law. Now imagine if someone like me- 5 ft 10, and 200 pounds, white, and not rich- went into a strip club and did all of the above. Think I'd be able to shrug it off? Yeah right.
I'm contemplating a letter to the State of Michigan about this. There seems to be no debate about the facts here, and yet there are no charges being filed. Consider if something had happened- if Rogers or somebody else had gotten shot. The outcry would've been huge- drunken people carrying guns on the street! Threatening others with them for no reason! The horror! Revoke all gun permits and make all guns illegal! It's for the children!
But instead some lazy, rich black guy walks off utterly devoid of any consequences. Again. And we see how the law really operates.
It's disgusting. And it's a crime. Or in this instance, possibly 4 crimes.
Rule number 1 of legally carrying a gun (in every state that I've ever heard of) is that you do not- can not- carry one if you've been drinking.
According to the story, Rogers was drunk and had a gun.
Gun violation number 1, check.
Rule number 2 is that you don't ever carry one into a place that serves alcohol on the premises. (In MI, the rule is that they can't make over half of their money from alcohol sales. My guess would be that this holds true of a strip club)
Gun violation number 2, check.
And he allegedly had it in plain view, stuck in the waistband of his pants. Here's a tip: To carry a "concealed weapon" you have to... "conceal" it. If it's in plain view, it's not concealed.
Gun violation 3, check.
And finally, he may have sorta threatened people with it, or at least had it out in plain view for the intimidation factor. That's known as "brandishing" and it's grounds for a revocation of the carrying permit. And can lead to jail time.
Gun violation 4, check.
And yet, Big Baby gets away with it completely. Yup, equality under the law. Now imagine if someone like me- 5 ft 10, and 200 pounds, white, and not rich- went into a strip club and did all of the above. Think I'd be able to shrug it off? Yeah right.
I'm contemplating a letter to the State of Michigan about this. There seems to be no debate about the facts here, and yet there are no charges being filed. Consider if something had happened- if Rogers or somebody else had gotten shot. The outcry would've been huge- drunken people carrying guns on the street! Threatening others with them for no reason! The horror! Revoke all gun permits and make all guns illegal! It's for the children!
But instead some lazy, rich black guy walks off utterly devoid of any consequences. Again. And we see how the law really operates.
It's disgusting. And it's a crime. Or in this instance, possibly 4 crimes.
See? I told you so
Yesterday, while reviewing the nominees for the award and congratulating slimeball Michael Vick for winning the most recent "WTF was he thinking?" contest, I made the following statement about one of our nominees:
"He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)."
So today, I'm hardly surprised to see (via LGF) an article on Daily Kos which starts off with:
'The British BBC reported yesterday that President Chavez of Venezuela is creating a "single, separate party", suggesting thereby that he is creating a single party state. This is untrue, and yet another example of the pervasive misinformation the western media is distributing about the reality of Chavez and his government.'
Yeah, he's amending the Constitution to allow himself to serve for life, forcing opposition radio stations off the air, and beating up opponents all in the name of democracy.
But no fear! Our intrepid reporter "Justina" has a few other tidbits to toss out. See if you can pick out a few vague threads of her bias here:
"It is indeed ironic that Bush-Chaney administration, the most bellicose, undemocratic, and secretive in U.S. history, dares to charge President Chavez with undermining democracy in Venezuela.
...Democracy is thriving in Venezuela. I only wish it were doing as well in the United States, where the threat of dictatorship is very real."
See? Chavez=Good, Bush=Hitler.
Now on the other hand, we have a comment, (which from what I know of Kos, will likely be removed in a short while, so I add it here) which points out:
"...On a serious note, though, Hugo Chavez has been dismantling privately held businesses and NEWS organizations, nullifying official agreements and governemnt contracts with outside international contractors, and otherwise tightening his grip with an iron fist around the throats of any and all companys and corporations he see's fit, not to mention jailing outspoken Venezuelan citizens who are critical of his leadership, for quite some time. He has also decreed that thou shalt not besmirch his name under penalty of expulsion... among other dictatorial proclomations. Haven't we seen this type of blooming megalomaniacal leadership before, once or thrice, over the last... oh, couple of millenia or so? The company he keeps in private meeting rooms is dubious, to say the least, as well."
Note: All the mis-spellings are from the original. I just can't be bothered to correct the spelling of people who were never taught how to write English. Or use spell-check.
And remember, the loonies at Kos are the ones trying to become the voice of the dhimmicratic party, and leading the charge against Bush. Cuz you know, he's Hitler. And ruling by decree is A Good Thing, provided that the one making the decrees is a leftist. Refusing to give Congress the right to oversee the Executive Branch is a Bad Thing.
At least if you're a Conservative.
"He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)."
So today, I'm hardly surprised to see (via LGF) an article on Daily Kos which starts off with:
'The British BBC reported yesterday that President Chavez of Venezuela is creating a "single, separate party", suggesting thereby that he is creating a single party state. This is untrue, and yet another example of the pervasive misinformation the western media is distributing about the reality of Chavez and his government.'
Yeah, he's amending the Constitution to allow himself to serve for life, forcing opposition radio stations off the air, and beating up opponents all in the name of democracy.
But no fear! Our intrepid reporter "Justina" has a few other tidbits to toss out. See if you can pick out a few vague threads of her bias here:
"It is indeed ironic that Bush-Chaney administration, the most bellicose, undemocratic, and secretive in U.S. history, dares to charge President Chavez with undermining democracy in Venezuela.
...Democracy is thriving in Venezuela. I only wish it were doing as well in the United States, where the threat of dictatorship is very real."
See? Chavez=Good, Bush=Hitler.
Now on the other hand, we have a comment, (which from what I know of Kos, will likely be removed in a short while, so I add it here) which points out:
"...On a serious note, though, Hugo Chavez has been dismantling privately held businesses and NEWS organizations, nullifying official agreements and governemnt contracts with outside international contractors, and otherwise tightening his grip with an iron fist around the throats of any and all companys and corporations he see's fit, not to mention jailing outspoken Venezuelan citizens who are critical of his leadership, for quite some time. He has also decreed that thou shalt not besmirch his name under penalty of expulsion... among other dictatorial proclomations. Haven't we seen this type of blooming megalomaniacal leadership before, once or thrice, over the last... oh, couple of millenia or so? The company he keeps in private meeting rooms is dubious, to say the least, as well."Note: All the mis-spellings are from the original. I just can't be bothered to correct the spelling of people who were never taught how to write English. Or use spell-check.
And remember, the loonies at Kos are the ones trying to become the voice of the dhimmicratic party, and leading the charge against Bush. Cuz you know, he's Hitler. And ruling by decree is A Good Thing, provided that the one making the decrees is a leftist. Refusing to give Congress the right to oversee the Executive Branch is a Bad Thing.
At least if you're a Conservative.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
...And the next batch of nominees
Away we go. No sooner do we crown one moron, than we have to nominate a few more. Like clockwork.
Today we have three nominees to start with. First, we have Senator Joe Biden. Another in a string of candidates for a lifetime award. Last night, the Dhimmicratic Party had yet another in the endless stream of debates, which are designed to prove to us that the election cycle in this country is too long. In response to a person in Michigan (one who didn't come across as too bright, admittedly) who wondered if his "baby" i.e. his "assault rifle" would be safe under the new administration, Biden replied that the man needs to have his head examined, and said "I don't know if he's mentally qualified to own that gun". And then he turned it into a riff on keeping guns out of the hands of those folks that are "unqualified" to own them.
I'll assume for the sake or argument that the questioner, Jered Townsend, bought the gun legally. He said he did, and went on national TV to do so. Therefore, he would seem to be "qualified" to own it. Except that Biden and his buddies seem to disagree.
But then, I suppose they think I'm "unqualified" to own one as well.
Alienating a large and politically active group right off the mark is always a good move for a politician. So, Biden gets a strong nomination for this week's award, with a move that will come back to bite him if he gets the dhimmicratic nomination.
But of course, he won't.
So let's all say it together: Senator Biden, "WTF were you thinking?"
Hat tip to Eddie. Khaaaaan!!
*****
Now onto our next candidate. Remember A. Whitney Brown? Me neither. I guess he was on Saturday Night Live, sometime during the crappy years.
I know, that doesn't narrow it down too much. Only limits it to the past 20 years or so.
But this comedic genius, who apparently now is in the midst of an exclusive engagement with YouTube, (how pathetic is that, when Hollywood makes movies out of every fifth-rate SNL skit?) posted a video explaining his "support" for the troops:
"Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should. But what about those troops who are not so brave? Perhaps they just signed up hoping for some extra money for college, for the medical insurance, or even some hot gay military sex."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry, it was just too damn funny. Right?
Then there's this gem:
"But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded."
Wow. A lecture on morals and ethics now. From a man that presumably doesn't know the difference between someone that straps a bomb onto a small child, and someone who does what he can- even kill someone- to protect that same child. And the dozens of innocent people around him.
And then there's this final excerpt:
"So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You."
So, for being completely ignorant about the world, the US system, reality, morals, and (most especially) humor; A Whitney Whoeverthehellheis gets himself a nomination for this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.
Hat tip to Little Green Footballs. I'd link it, but I don't see any need to give this A Whitney Asshat any more publicity.
*****
Our final nominee is another football player, this one retired. Even better, it's our second nominee related to the "Michael Vick torturing innocent animals" trial. Over the weekend, Emmitt Smith, the all-time NFL rushing leader, and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Over the course of the weekend, he made the following comments:
"He's the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond so they're putting the squeeze on him to get to everyone else... Now, granted he might have been to a dogfight a time or two . . . but he's not the one you're after, he's just the one whose going to take the fall -- publicly."
Ummm, Emmitt, not quite. First off, as almost anyone can tell you, the Feds don't normally go after the "biggest fish", in order to get the minnows. They do it the other way around. It would appear that they've already gone after the minnows, and I suspect the little guys have already agreed to help get someone. And guess who that Someone is?
Furthermore, check your facts first. It doesn't appear that Vick went to a dogfight "a time or two". It looks like he went to a lot of them. And hosted a lot of them. And gambled a lot of money on them. And spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on dogs and equipment.
Hint: he's the guy with the money, the dogs, the property, the equipment, and the name recognition. That makes him "the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond" alright. But not just among the 4 losers that were charged. I suspect that makes him probably one of the biggest- if not THE biggest- fish in the whole dogfighting universe. (Yuck! Horrible mixed metaphor there).
So this would appear to be the Feds going after the Kingfish. If they get him, they can possibly do a lot of damage to the whole culture, and that's assuming Vick shuts up and takes his hits like a man. If not, he could wind up flipping and giving up a lot of other rednecks that like to torture dogs as well.
At any rate, Emmitt, you blew it. You're completely wrong, and completely ignorant. Rumor has it that making this idiotic comment has already put your new career as a broadcaster in jeopardy. Networks like their staff to think before they make stupid comments, you know.
And so here we have a football legend risking his legacy, and his future, to make a stupid, ignorant comment about a loser who's accused of a disgusting crime. Dude, maybe you should go on tv and dance the next time you want to make an ass out of yourself.
Congratulations, Emmitt Smith. Here's one football fan who's wondering "WTF was he thinking?"
Today we have three nominees to start with. First, we have Senator Joe Biden. Another in a string of candidates for a lifetime award. Last night, the Dhimmicratic Party had yet another in the endless stream of debates, which are designed to prove to us that the election cycle in this country is too long. In response to a person in Michigan (one who didn't come across as too bright, admittedly) who wondered if his "baby" i.e. his "assault rifle" would be safe under the new administration, Biden replied that the man needs to have his head examined, and said "I don't know if he's mentally qualified to own that gun". And then he turned it into a riff on keeping guns out of the hands of those folks that are "unqualified" to own them.
I'll assume for the sake or argument that the questioner, Jered Townsend, bought the gun legally. He said he did, and went on national TV to do so. Therefore, he would seem to be "qualified" to own it. Except that Biden and his buddies seem to disagree.
But then, I suppose they think I'm "unqualified" to own one as well.
Alienating a large and politically active group right off the mark is always a good move for a politician. So, Biden gets a strong nomination for this week's award, with a move that will come back to bite him if he gets the dhimmicratic nomination.
But of course, he won't.
So let's all say it together: Senator Biden, "WTF were you thinking?"
Hat tip to Eddie. Khaaaaan!!
*****
Now onto our next candidate. Remember A. Whitney Brown? Me neither. I guess he was on Saturday Night Live, sometime during the crappy years.
I know, that doesn't narrow it down too much. Only limits it to the past 20 years or so.
But this comedic genius, who apparently now is in the midst of an exclusive engagement with YouTube, (how pathetic is that, when Hollywood makes movies out of every fifth-rate SNL skit?) posted a video explaining his "support" for the troops:
"Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should. But what about those troops who are not so brave? Perhaps they just signed up hoping for some extra money for college, for the medical insurance, or even some hot gay military sex."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Sorry, it was just too damn funny. Right?
Then there's this gem:
"But do I still support the individual men and women who have given so much to serve their country? No. I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded."
Wow. A lecture on morals and ethics now. From a man that presumably doesn't know the difference between someone that straps a bomb onto a small child, and someone who does what he can- even kill someone- to protect that same child. And the dozens of innocent people around him.
And then there's this final excerpt:
"So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You."
So, for being completely ignorant about the world, the US system, reality, morals, and (most especially) humor; A Whitney Whoeverthehellheis gets himself a nomination for this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.
Hat tip to Little Green Footballs. I'd link it, but I don't see any need to give this A Whitney Asshat any more publicity.
*****
Our final nominee is another football player, this one retired. Even better, it's our second nominee related to the "Michael Vick torturing innocent animals" trial. Over the weekend, Emmitt Smith, the all-time NFL rushing leader, and member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, was inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame. Over the course of the weekend, he made the following comments:
"He's the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond so they're putting the squeeze on him to get to everyone else... Now, granted he might have been to a dogfight a time or two . . . but he's not the one you're after, he's just the one whose going to take the fall -- publicly."
Ummm, Emmitt, not quite. First off, as almost anyone can tell you, the Feds don't normally go after the "biggest fish", in order to get the minnows. They do it the other way around. It would appear that they've already gone after the minnows, and I suspect the little guys have already agreed to help get someone. And guess who that Someone is?
Furthermore, check your facts first. It doesn't appear that Vick went to a dogfight "a time or two". It looks like he went to a lot of them. And hosted a lot of them. And gambled a lot of money on them. And spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on dogs and equipment.
Hint: he's the guy with the money, the dogs, the property, the equipment, and the name recognition. That makes him "the biggest fish in the whole doggone pond" alright. But not just among the 4 losers that were charged. I suspect that makes him probably one of the biggest- if not THE biggest- fish in the whole dogfighting universe. (Yuck! Horrible mixed metaphor there).
So this would appear to be the Feds going after the Kingfish. If they get him, they can possibly do a lot of damage to the whole culture, and that's assuming Vick shuts up and takes his hits like a man. If not, he could wind up flipping and giving up a lot of other rednecks that like to torture dogs as well.
At any rate, Emmitt, you blew it. You're completely wrong, and completely ignorant. Rumor has it that making this idiotic comment has already put your new career as a broadcaster in jeopardy. Networks like their staff to think before they make stupid comments, you know.
And so here we have a football legend risking his legacy, and his future, to make a stupid, ignorant comment about a loser who's accused of a disgusting crime. Dude, maybe you should go on tv and dance the next time you want to make an ass out of yourself.
Congratulations, Emmitt Smith. Here's one football fan who's wondering "WTF was he thinking?"
Our third winner
Well, better late than ever, I guess. It's time to review the candidates, and crown a new idiot with the "WTF was he thinking?" award.
Our first candidate was the moron who called for the overthrow of the Bush Regime (remember, Bush=Hitler.) He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)
At any rate, we can't give this jackass the award. He of course believes this inherently. In his pathetic, ignorant view of the world, it makes perfect sense. Again, we have to bow to the insanity of the Left. While a normal person (i.e. Me) can sit here and scratch his head and think "WTF??", it seems logical to the leftists. Sad but true.
Sorry, pal. You're a fool, but you're acting completely logically. For a fool. No award for you.
*****
Our second candidate was HBO, for their new hardcore sex series "Tell me you love me". A hardcore show during prime time. Really good idea.
But I guess they can't win either. Handjobs are something that men like, especially if the woman giving it is attractive. And the woman (I guess she qualifies as an actress, though I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a documentary or not) in question appears to be hot. So while most men would prefer the real thing, and from an honest-to-God-woman-who-looks-like-an-attractive-woman-they-might-know-rather-than-a- silicone-inflated-porn-star, doing the deed will likely get some audience. It might not last too long, but at least initially, the audience will be there.
And besides, they got a couple seasons out of Deadwood, which seemed to exist only for the reason of using the F word every sentence. I'm an ex-infantryman with a potty-mouth, and even I found it to be too much.
So again, sorry. HBO might be kinda dense, but they don't quite rise to the level we require.
*************
Our third nominee was Nebraska Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, for refusing to allow an alleged rape victim to use the word "rape" in court. Ditto for any other witness. Kinda hard to prove a crime if you can't describe it.
Reminds me of the tale I once read of a woman testifying on the witness stand that the accused had made an inappropriate comment to her. Since it was so awful, to protect her virtue she was allowed to write the comment down, and then it was passed to the jury to read. When it reached an attractive woman there, she read it and passed it to her neighbor. Unfortunately, he had been dozing while the witness talked, so he missed the basic story. When he got the note from the woman next to him, he winked at her and then pocketed the note, refusing to give it up, since he said it was "personal".
But onward.... The judge in this case would ordinarily rise to the level of stupidity that would earn him the award, but there are circumstances which prevent it. First off, this is the second trial of the accused, Pamir Safi. The first one couldn't return a verdict.
This kinda set off some alarm bells in my mind, but not strongly enough.
It turns out that, as far as I can piece the story together, it's too much a matter of "he said/she said". I gather that the "victim" Tory Bowen, admitted to meeting the accused at a party, getting drunk and then finding a flat surface (or not) and doing the thing that drunken coeds often do with men they meet at parties. And doesn't deny that this first time was consensual.
The problem arises from the apparent fact that, after they had consummated their new relationship, they apparently went back to the party, where Tory did some more drinking. Later, they apparently left together, and Pamir assumed that her earlier... cooperation... meant he still had a green light, despite her alleged inability to consent to the second time.
This is a toughie. If she was drunk and he had sex with her when she was passed out, that would seem adequate to satisfy me that it was rape. However, if she consented a couple hours earlier, and was still hanging out with him and drinking afterward, then that would seem to be a matter of Tory having a guilty conscience. I.E. The old "I don't usually do this, but...." problem.
The first time she could shrug off as being drunk and horny. The second time? Well she's either a slut, or she was raped!
Guess which one the average woman would choose?
So I can't award the judge the prize. I still don't think it was a good call on his part, but it's impossible to decide if she was raped or not- if she had sex with him a few hours earlier, and it was consensual, then how can one "prove" via normal investigations that the second time was rape?
Which I guess is why the first trial ended with no real verdict.
***********
So now we come to our final candidate. Michael Vick. Let's see.... you're a multi-millionaire when you're 20, due to your incredibly physical gifts. One of the faces of the most popular sporting league in the US. Besides millions of dollars in salary, you earn millions more in endorsements. And you decide to gamble some pocket change on dog-fighting, which is illegal.
And not just that. According to the charges against you, when a dog doesn't meet your standards, i.e. isn't willing to fight to the death for your entertainment, you slaughter it on the spot. Through such humane methods as electrocution and (still my own personal "favorite") slamming it to the ground over and over.
I question whether Vick and his cronies rise to the level of "human", after acts like that.
So.... for risking his entire career, his millions of dollars, his future, his (relatively) good name, the image of the entire NFL, and possibly his freedom, in order to watch Man's Best Friend kill another animal, Michael Vick gets this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.
Congratulations, Mikey. Now I hope you burn in Hell.
Our first candidate was the moron who called for the overthrow of the Bush Regime (remember, Bush=Hitler.) He argues that Bush refused to heed a summons from Congress, and that this provides evidence of his intent to overthrow the Constitution and set himself up as El Presidente For Life. (Amazing that when Chavez does this in Venezuela, the Left cheers. When Bush allegedly plots this in the US, it's A Bad Thing. Partisanship conquers all)
At any rate, we can't give this jackass the award. He of course believes this inherently. In his pathetic, ignorant view of the world, it makes perfect sense. Again, we have to bow to the insanity of the Left. While a normal person (i.e. Me) can sit here and scratch his head and think "WTF??", it seems logical to the leftists. Sad but true.
Sorry, pal. You're a fool, but you're acting completely logically. For a fool. No award for you.
*****
Our second candidate was HBO, for their new hardcore sex series "Tell me you love me". A hardcore show during prime time. Really good idea.
But I guess they can't win either. Handjobs are something that men like, especially if the woman giving it is attractive. And the woman (I guess she qualifies as an actress, though I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a documentary or not) in question appears to be hot. So while most men would prefer the real thing, and from an honest-to-God-woman-who-looks-like-an-attractive-woman-they-might-know-rather-than-a- silicone-inflated-porn-star, doing the deed will likely get some audience. It might not last too long, but at least initially, the audience will be there.
And besides, they got a couple seasons out of Deadwood, which seemed to exist only for the reason of using the F word every sentence. I'm an ex-infantryman with a potty-mouth, and even I found it to be too much.
So again, sorry. HBO might be kinda dense, but they don't quite rise to the level we require.
*************
Our third nominee was Nebraska Judge Jeffre Cheuvront, for refusing to allow an alleged rape victim to use the word "rape" in court. Ditto for any other witness. Kinda hard to prove a crime if you can't describe it.
Reminds me of the tale I once read of a woman testifying on the witness stand that the accused had made an inappropriate comment to her. Since it was so awful, to protect her virtue she was allowed to write the comment down, and then it was passed to the jury to read. When it reached an attractive woman there, she read it and passed it to her neighbor. Unfortunately, he had been dozing while the witness talked, so he missed the basic story. When he got the note from the woman next to him, he winked at her and then pocketed the note, refusing to give it up, since he said it was "personal".
But onward.... The judge in this case would ordinarily rise to the level of stupidity that would earn him the award, but there are circumstances which prevent it. First off, this is the second trial of the accused, Pamir Safi. The first one couldn't return a verdict.
This kinda set off some alarm bells in my mind, but not strongly enough.
It turns out that, as far as I can piece the story together, it's too much a matter of "he said/she said". I gather that the "victim" Tory Bowen, admitted to meeting the accused at a party, getting drunk and then finding a flat surface (or not) and doing the thing that drunken coeds often do with men they meet at parties. And doesn't deny that this first time was consensual.
The problem arises from the apparent fact that, after they had consummated their new relationship, they apparently went back to the party, where Tory did some more drinking. Later, they apparently left together, and Pamir assumed that her earlier... cooperation... meant he still had a green light, despite her alleged inability to consent to the second time.
This is a toughie. If she was drunk and he had sex with her when she was passed out, that would seem adequate to satisfy me that it was rape. However, if she consented a couple hours earlier, and was still hanging out with him and drinking afterward, then that would seem to be a matter of Tory having a guilty conscience. I.E. The old "I don't usually do this, but...." problem.
The first time she could shrug off as being drunk and horny. The second time? Well she's either a slut, or she was raped!
Guess which one the average woman would choose?
So I can't award the judge the prize. I still don't think it was a good call on his part, but it's impossible to decide if she was raped or not- if she had sex with him a few hours earlier, and it was consensual, then how can one "prove" via normal investigations that the second time was rape?
Which I guess is why the first trial ended with no real verdict.
***********
So now we come to our final candidate. Michael Vick. Let's see.... you're a multi-millionaire when you're 20, due to your incredibly physical gifts. One of the faces of the most popular sporting league in the US. Besides millions of dollars in salary, you earn millions more in endorsements. And you decide to gamble some pocket change on dog-fighting, which is illegal.
And not just that. According to the charges against you, when a dog doesn't meet your standards, i.e. isn't willing to fight to the death for your entertainment, you slaughter it on the spot. Through such humane methods as electrocution and (still my own personal "favorite") slamming it to the ground over and over.
I question whether Vick and his cronies rise to the level of "human", after acts like that.
So.... for risking his entire career, his millions of dollars, his future, his (relatively) good name, the image of the entire NFL, and possibly his freedom, in order to watch Man's Best Friend kill another animal, Michael Vick gets this week's "WTF were you thinking?" award.
Congratulations, Mikey. Now I hope you burn in Hell.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The most despicable candidate ever.
Here's one that defines the concept of stupidity. Michael Vick. You're a professional athlete, making millions of dollars on the playing field, and millions more in promotions. Your talents are so amazing, that you're called a "freak".
So what do you do? You get into dog fighting (allegedly). You travel around the country with pit bulls, and gamble on their prowess in "death match" fights against other dogs.
This alone is enough to make you a strong "WTF was he thinking?" candidate. But you have to take things one step farther. As is apparently normal in this heinous, disgusting "sport", you take some of the helpless animals you are training, and hold "test fights" to see if they have what it takes to kill another dog for the amusement of you and your fellow cavemen. And if the dog appears to not be vicious, enough, well.... even with a contract worth over $100 million dollars, you can't afford to feed and shelter dogs that aren't paying their way, ya know? So they have to be gotten rid of.
And not in a normal fashion. No, you have to be more inhumane to the dogs that won't fight for your amusement than you are to the ones that will. According to the indictment against Vick and his cronies, the seven dogs that failed the "test" the last time-April of this year, apparently- were put down by such means as electrocution and (this one alone will reserve Vick and Co. a special placing the lowest pits of Hell), slamming them into the ground over and over until dead.
(Disclaimer: I don't know that Vick himself used this technique, but somebody apparently did, and there's apparently a 25% chance it was him. And either way, it did happen on his property, and with his knowledge.)
Sorry for the description, but people really need to understand what a piece of crap this guy is. Writing this now, even after I've read it several times, I'm still amazed. How disgusting.
So for cruelty to animals above and beyond anything that a normal person can even imagine, I give this piece of dog crap a resounding "WTF were you thinking, you piece of disgusting animal feces?"
Sorry for the tiny bit of editorializing there. But I don't apologise for saying it.
So what do you do? You get into dog fighting (allegedly). You travel around the country with pit bulls, and gamble on their prowess in "death match" fights against other dogs.
This alone is enough to make you a strong "WTF was he thinking?" candidate. But you have to take things one step farther. As is apparently normal in this heinous, disgusting "sport", you take some of the helpless animals you are training, and hold "test fights" to see if they have what it takes to kill another dog for the amusement of you and your fellow cavemen. And if the dog appears to not be vicious, enough, well.... even with a contract worth over $100 million dollars, you can't afford to feed and shelter dogs that aren't paying their way, ya know? So they have to be gotten rid of.
And not in a normal fashion. No, you have to be more inhumane to the dogs that won't fight for your amusement than you are to the ones that will. According to the indictment against Vick and his cronies, the seven dogs that failed the "test" the last time-April of this year, apparently- were put down by such means as electrocution and (this one alone will reserve Vick and Co. a special placing the lowest pits of Hell), slamming them into the ground over and over until dead.
(Disclaimer: I don't know that Vick himself used this technique, but somebody apparently did, and there's apparently a 25% chance it was him. And either way, it did happen on his property, and with his knowledge.)
Sorry for the description, but people really need to understand what a piece of crap this guy is. Writing this now, even after I've read it several times, I'm still amazed. How disgusting.
So for cruelty to animals above and beyond anything that a normal person can even imagine, I give this piece of dog crap a resounding "WTF were you thinking, you piece of disgusting animal feces?"
Sorry for the tiny bit of editorializing there. But I don't apologise for saying it.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
A gold mine of stupidity
Thanks to Ace today, we have a chance to catch up on our exclusive feature, "WTF was he thinking?" for this week. Reading along today, I found three-three as in a trio- of nominees.
So with no further ado, we'll run down the current crop. First off, we have judge Jeffre Cheuvront, in Nebraska. In 2004, a then-33 year old man had sex with 21 year old Tory Bowen. Problem was, she was drunk and passed out. She claims rape, while the defendant, Pamir Safi, claims she consented, but was just so drunk that she doesn't recall it.
Intuitively, not hard to decide which of the two is more believable. Here's a tip for Pamir, who clearly is a stud with the ladies: If she's too drunk to remember anything about it, she's probably not really capable of consenting.
Just a tip from your uncle here.
Now then, here's the problem: This genius was tried once for rape, but the jury couldn't return a verdict. So they got ready for another trial, at which point Judge Jeffre informed Tory she could not use the word "rape" on the witness stand. Similarly, witnesses are banned from using words like "victim", "assailant" and so on.
Can't do that, because they're "prejudicial" to poor old Pamir. As Ace points out, (in a quote from a judge) "The question isn't whether it's prejudicial to your case, it's whether it's unduly prejudicial. Of course it's prejudicial to your case, otherwise it wouldn't even be relevant to the case at all."
So, Judge Jeffre, congratulations: You are the first nominee for this week's award, and I salute you with a great big "WTF was he thinking?"
*******************
Now onto the second nominee, also through Ace. HBO has a new series coming (ahem) this fall. It's called "Tell Me You Love Me"; and the first episode has a woman masturbating her husband, in fully glorious detail (apparently). It's said to be the most hardcore show ever seen on TV (not counting the porn channels).
It's also going to be shown during prime-time.
But no fear, the show is actually about "relationships". And also about "bosoms and things". And the creator, Cynthia Mort pushed it through in part by asking why it's okay to show an onscreen rape (specifically in a show like the Sopranos), but not sex between a married couple.
Needless to say, the Network caved over that one.
So, since there's not that much information about it now, we'll call this nomination a short one and merely ask HBO "WTF were you thinking?"
Oh, and a quick link also, in case the one above doesn't work. The first is from the LA paper, and requires registration.
***********************
And finally, there's this moron. As Ace points out, in a day or two it'll likely be "revealed" that this is "satire". Because everyone knows that to get the best in satirical humor, you head on over to the Huffington Post. He seems to be calling for an overthrow of the "Bush Regime" (remember: Bush stole the 2000 election, and he's the reincarnation of Hitler. If you find yourself doubting either of those facts, refer to the HuffPo for more proof).
This moron, in strict accordance with leftist stupidity, harps on how Bush and his minions are refusing to obey a subpoena from Congress. Oh the horror! Congress demands that Bush provide people to tell them that he illegally fired people that he's legally allowed to fire anytime, and this proves that Bush is planning to throw out the Constitution, outlaw free speech, and imprison everyone that tries to criticize his evil plans.. As soon as he carries out his "next" terror attack, of course.
As I've mentioned before, Bush has no reason to cooperate with Congress on this issue, since he's allowed to do whatever he wants with the Executive Branch. (It's called Separation of Powers. Look it up sometime)
So for his paranoid and stupid ramblings, Eric Malone (whoever the hell he is) gets a big steamy pile of "WTF were you thinking?"
I'll announce the winner later this week.
So with no further ado, we'll run down the current crop. First off, we have judge Jeffre Cheuvront, in Nebraska. In 2004, a then-33 year old man had sex with 21 year old Tory Bowen. Problem was, she was drunk and passed out. She claims rape, while the defendant, Pamir Safi, claims she consented, but was just so drunk that she doesn't recall it.
Intuitively, not hard to decide which of the two is more believable. Here's a tip for Pamir, who clearly is a stud with the ladies: If she's too drunk to remember anything about it, she's probably not really capable of consenting.
Just a tip from your uncle here.
Now then, here's the problem: This genius was tried once for rape, but the jury couldn't return a verdict. So they got ready for another trial, at which point Judge Jeffre informed Tory she could not use the word "rape" on the witness stand. Similarly, witnesses are banned from using words like "victim", "assailant" and so on.
Can't do that, because they're "prejudicial" to poor old Pamir. As Ace points out, (in a quote from a judge) "The question isn't whether it's prejudicial to your case, it's whether it's unduly prejudicial. Of course it's prejudicial to your case, otherwise it wouldn't even be relevant to the case at all."
So, Judge Jeffre, congratulations: You are the first nominee for this week's award, and I salute you with a great big "WTF was he thinking?"
*******************
Now onto the second nominee, also through Ace. HBO has a new series coming (ahem) this fall. It's called "Tell Me You Love Me"; and the first episode has a woman masturbating her husband, in fully glorious detail (apparently). It's said to be the most hardcore show ever seen on TV (not counting the porn channels).
It's also going to be shown during prime-time.
But no fear, the show is actually about "relationships". And also about "bosoms and things". And the creator, Cynthia Mort pushed it through in part by asking why it's okay to show an onscreen rape (specifically in a show like the Sopranos), but not sex between a married couple.
Needless to say, the Network caved over that one.
So, since there's not that much information about it now, we'll call this nomination a short one and merely ask HBO "WTF were you thinking?"
Oh, and a quick link also, in case the one above doesn't work. The first is from the LA paper, and requires registration.
***********************
And finally, there's this moron. As Ace points out, in a day or two it'll likely be "revealed" that this is "satire". Because everyone knows that to get the best in satirical humor, you head on over to the Huffington Post. He seems to be calling for an overthrow of the "Bush Regime" (remember: Bush stole the 2000 election, and he's the reincarnation of Hitler. If you find yourself doubting either of those facts, refer to the HuffPo for more proof).
This moron, in strict accordance with leftist stupidity, harps on how Bush and his minions are refusing to obey a subpoena from Congress. Oh the horror! Congress demands that Bush provide people to tell them that he illegally fired people that he's legally allowed to fire anytime, and this proves that Bush is planning to throw out the Constitution, outlaw free speech, and imprison everyone that tries to criticize his evil plans.. As soon as he carries out his "next" terror attack, of course.
As I've mentioned before, Bush has no reason to cooperate with Congress on this issue, since he's allowed to do whatever he wants with the Executive Branch. (It's called Separation of Powers. Look it up sometime)
So for his paranoid and stupid ramblings, Eric Malone (whoever the hell he is) gets a big steamy pile of "WTF were you thinking?"
I'll announce the winner later this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)