Private Public Safety Gone Too Far

I don't use the word stupid very often. I have no problem with other words which indicate stupidity, such as moron (my personal favorite) and, on occasion, idiotic. I'm also a big fan of the word ridiculous. But for some reason, stupid just seems a little harsh to me. That being said, I have just read what might be one of the stupidest ideas that has ever popped into the head of a human being (or animal, for that matter, and animals have been known to eat their own feces, so that should give you a measuring stick for how stupid I think this really it).

Let's hop on over across the pond to Macclesfield, Cheshire (that's in England). It is there that the fine folks at Mail Online bring us the tale of "...an initiative called Operation Golden which aims to slash burglary rates." Now, I don't know what the burglary rates are in Macclesfield, but I highly doubt that they're high enough to implement something this stupid. And that's because it's very difficult to justify stupidity to begin with.

Here's how Operation Golden works: Officers have begun testing windows and doors at night as part of a campaign to increase home security." Hmm. Now, I admit I find that concept odd. I understand wanting to increase home security. That seems like a reasonable idea. But I don't know how the window and door testing is going to help. What's that? There's more? Oh, yeah. There is.

"If they find one open, they are under orders to knock on the door and drag sleepy residents from their beds and lecture them." Um, what now?

I am admittedly completely unfamiliar with the gun laws in England. I know y'all are a bit knife-y over there, but I don't know how shoot-y things get. See, over here in the US, there are quite a few of us who exercise our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. And if my door gets knocked on in the middle of the night or I hear someone messing with my windows in the middle of the night, I'm going to exercise that 2nd Amendment right faster than anyone is going to be able to explain to me that they're the police and they're just doing a little safety check.

According to a one Inspector Gareth Woods (he's the chap who is in charge of this lunacy), "He admitted that some residents will not be happy about the wake-up call, but said: 'If we're told to get lost then that's a risk we take." It's not so much the getting told off that would be the risk I'd be worried about if I were you folks. It's the getting shot part that would concern me.

"Police say their actions are necessary as almost 40 per cent of all burglars gain access through an unsecured window or door." I can imagine. But I'm here to tell you that although only 40 percent of burglars gain their access through the windows or doors that are unsecured, 100 percent of that 40 percent would be shot at here at here at my walled off compound.

Here's my question (well, aside from the one about why anyone would think that this is a good idea): How is this not trespassing? If you're wandering about the perimeter of my home and you're trying to open my doors and trying to open my windows, how are you not trespassing? Is trespassing only something that exists in the United States? I don't think that it is. So how is this justified? Sadly, the article does not say. But it does say that "Most reasonable people will say thanks for letting them know and be grateful." Ummm, I don't think that they will. That, of course, is provided that they are, in fact, "reasonable people". Reasonable people are not going to be grateful that someone is sneaking around outside of their house and seeing if they can get in. No, if the doorbell is rang at 2 in the morning and it's a cop standing there who begins to lecture them on the safety of their own home, reasonable people are going to flip out! That's what reasonable people are going to do. It's the numb nuts who are going to thank these officers for attempting to break into their home. What is wrong with people?

While I can appreciate the whole wanting to educate the public on keeping their home safe, I'm thinking this goes a bit too far. After all, what ever happened to personal responsibility? If you leave your home unlocked, it's reasonable to think that a burglar might try to get in and steal your stuff. A reasonable person (see the paragraph above) would realize this and would lock their home. If your home is unlocked and someone steals your stuff, hey, live and learn, I suppose.

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with this plan? I'm thinking plenty. Plenty could go wrong. It's only a matter of time before an officer is shot or stabbed or whatever it is that you folks over there in England do to protect your family and your belongings from an uninvited and intrusive stranger in the middle of the night. It won't end well. It won't end well because it's stupid.

If you're reading this and you happen to live over there, please tell me what in the world is going on. I'm so confused that something so idiotic would ever be implemented that I feel as if I must be missing part of the story. I'm terrified that I'm not, but I'm hoping that I am.

Sphere: Related Content

Just a Twitter Away From an Education

From the 'What could possibly go wrong?' department, we have a story from the folks across the pond at The Guardian which tells us that school children will no longer have to study the Victorians or World War II in a proposal under which the primary school curriculum will be overhauled. Ok, then. I can see not studying the Victorians, perhaps. But that's really based on the fact that I don't know who the Victorians are and I turned out OK. (Not great, but who did?) But not studying World War II seems like a mistake (though I suppose that watching a few Tom Hanks or Matt Damon movies about World War II might suffice enough to get you through just about anything except for Jeopardy! and World War III). But what really seems like a mistake is for the kids to study Twitter and Wikipedia instead. Wait. What?

Are you kidding me? Twitter and Wikipedia? They're hardly substitutes for World War II. (Again, not knowing much about the Victorians, it's really hard to compare.) But according to the proposed curriculum, schools will be able to "...strip away hundreds of specifications about the scientific, geographical and historical knowledge pupils must accumulate before they are 11" in order to "allow schools greater flexibility in what they teach." Greater flexibility? I'd say. To go from teaching something useful and factual (which Wikipedia is not always) to teaching crap seems like the ultimate in flexibility (as long as you're not counting Pamela Anderson, because I've seen that video of her and Tommy Lee and she is definitely the epitome of flexibility).

This new curriculum was created by a one Sir Jim Rose who is the former Ofsted chief (Ofsted = OFfice for STandards in EDucation). He wants to take the 13 current "subject areas" and whittle them down to a concise 6 "learning areas". So, instead of "things you need to know" I guess they'll be taught "there are things in here that you need to know". Yeah, what could possibly go wrong?

These are the basics of some of the "learning areas". Try not to scream.

• They will become "familiar with blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter as sources of information and forms of communication " as well as becoming fluent in handwriting and keyboard skills, and learning how to use a "spellchecker alongside how to spell".
  

I can't do it. I can't make it to the end of this list without commenting. Learn how to use a spellchecker? Are you kidding me? Um, Control-S. Do I graduate? With honors?

• "...be able to place historical events within a chronology; to place the periods, events and changes they have studied within a chronological framework, and to understand some of the links between them."
  

OK, so first there was the Internet. Then bloggers or Wikipedia. I don't know which one figured out that they could just make up crap and have people believe it, no questions asked, first. Then came the podcast, because what's better than making up crap and writing it down than making up crap and talking about it? And finally, Twitter, where you can take all you've made up and broadcast it for the world to see all the live long day.

• Then there's the stuff about "...children's health, diet and physical activity, as well as their relationships with family and friends. They will be taught about peer pressure, how to deal with bullying and how to negotiate in their relationships."

How to negotiate? Guys learn that one sooner than girls. ("C'mon, baby. I'll tell you I love you if you have sex with me.") But girls do catch on. ("If you'll pay me the amount of alimony I'm asking for and give me the house and give me the car, I might think about sleeping with you again during this lifetime.")

• I found this one to be odd: "Less emphasis on the use of calculators than in the current curriculum." (OK, so they'll be sending in their English assignments that they researched on Wikipedia in 140 characters or less via Twitter and they'll be using their trusty abacus for math homework and carving their answers into a rock.)

This move "away from education" is perplexing to me. There are enough idiots out there who (technically) have been educated with a real curriculum. Can you imagine the dough heads that say, Flori-duh, for example, could churn out with a schedule like this? Look, I'm all for research skills and effective communication, but why Wikipedia? If you want to instill some web-based knowledge in their unmolded little brains, what say you start with Google? If you know how to use Google in the most effective and efficient way possible, you're going to be able to kick Wikipedia's ass with the (accurate) information that you'll be able to find. This plan does not thrill me and I'm a bit worried about the education system in general over there. (I'm also a bit worried that something like this will begin to take hold over here in the US. Sadly however, in some schools, teaching crap would be better than what they're currently teaching, which is nothing.)

It would seem that part of the rationale is that kids know about Wikipedia and Twitter and they don't know about World War II, so it's better to teach them about something they know. I thought the whole point of "teaching" something was so that people who didn't know about the subject would learn about it? But now, if they don't know about something then they are going to not be interested in learning about it at all? That seems...what's the word...oh yeah, effing ridiculous. (So it's two words. I misplaced my abacus when I was Twittering.) I hope that someone mentions this to Sir Jim Rose, but I don't know if they will because he's pretty darned scary looking over there. Yipes.

The article in The Guardian states that the "...reforms requiring schoolchildren to study Twitter and blogs would not apply in Wales. The changes would affect primary schools in England only." So there you have it. If you live in England, get your kids into school in Wales. You know, while I'm really curious as to how this is going to turn out, I have a hard time getting excited about social experiments where the end result could be of great detriment to society. Put that in your pipe and Twitter it.

And while you're at it, feel free to follow me on Twitter. (Dear God, I can't believe I just said that.) You can click on the link in the Twitter section of the sidebar over there on the right, or you can just go to the Twitter website and follow me under my Twitter name (can't believe I just said that either) OpusP. If you don't know what in the hell Twitter is, you're not alone. I still don't think I know what it is. Happy tweeting.

Sphere: Related Content

X-Fact-or Fiction?

Yep. I knew that there was something about those folks over there in England, the Chawner family who, for the past 11 years, has received benefits because they are too fat to work. That's right. Too fat to work. Fat, perhaps. Too fat to work? I don't think so. From what I can tell, these folks are scamming the system over there across the pond and people must be buying it because they've been receiving $26,000 a year for the past eleven years. I'm not buying it. Here's why:

Closer Magazine ran an article about the Chawners on March 19, 2009. That article paints a slightly different portrait of this family than an article that ran in The Telegraph on March 17, 2009. Granted, in The Telegraph article, there were definitely holes in the Chawner's story. Their claim that their enormous weight is caused by heredity, yet they eat bacon sandwiches every day for lunch. It's things like that which make me question their entire story. (It's also things like that which make me wonder where I can get a bacon sandwich. Yum. There's always room for bacon.)

The Telegraph article said that the Chawners claimed to eat cereal for breakfast, bacon for lunch and microwave meat pies and some sort of potato for dinner. That article also had Mrs. Chawner claiming that she only spent £50 a week on food (which might be true if all they bought was bacon. And there was only one of them.) The closer article makes the same claim, only it also includes that the family "spends their time watching TV and scoffing biscuits, crisps and sandwiches." (You've really gotta love a publication that isn't afraid to use the term "scoffing", don't you? That's truth in reporting right there!) The Closer also mentioned that the Chawners go through "...18 bags of crisps, 30 eggs, 12 rolls, 10 burgers, 12 crumpets, four large pies, two packets of biscuits, two packets of chocolate bars, 1kg of potatoes and a litre of wine." Ah, yes. Drown your "too fat" sorrow in that litre of wine. That'll help your diabetes, Mr. Chawner, I'm sure of it! What is wrong with people?

Speaking of Mr. Chawner, he explained how he ended up not working (he used to be a truck driver). "The diabetes was making me fall asleep at the wheel. I haven’t bothered looking for another job because driving is all I know. I’m not good at English so I couldn’t work in an office, and I’d get too tired standing in a factory." You'd get too tired? Standing?! I'm guessing that you'd probably be doing something other than just standing there, sir. See, that's the thing about dozing off. It rarely happens while you're in constant motion. And I've seen factories, mostly in cartoons, but still! Those cartoon factories have the little mice or cats or whatever they have working there always on the go! Stuff keeps coming off of that conveyor belt (candy, tires, mops, you name it) so fast that those little guys can hardly keep up! They usually end up running around quite a bit in order to prevent some sort of chaos that inevitably happens anyway. So you should really look into that factory work, as I don't think you'd be able to doze off as easily as you think.

Mrs. Chawner "...last worked in the ’80s at a horse-riding school for a few months. (Worked as what? The horse?) But she hasn’t worked since she developed epilepsy and asthma over 16 years ago, both a result of being overweight." She says, "I can’t work because I could have an epileptic fit at any time. I could work from home, putting stamps on envelopes or something, but I must admit I’ve actually never looked into it.” Yeah, why bother when the government will give you money to do absolutely nothing. Now, she can't work because she could have an "epileptic fit at any time" (a condition that, if you're prone to, can be quite frightening and extremely inconvenient), but she can go to the store to pick up that litre of wine! What if she had "an epileptic fit" whilst wine shopping? That doesn't seem to concern her as much as the working part does. Shocking, I know.

Now, if that's not enough, we can look to an article in The Times from March 22, 2009 states that "The family...spend their days in front of a TV borrowed from a friend. Said Philip Chawner: “We love TV. It’s on from the moment we get up. Often I’m so tired from watching TV that I have to have a nap.” And from Mrs. Chawner: "We all love nibbling on biscuits. I once bought some pears, but they tasted funny." Funny? Funny how? Like fruit?!

But here is where I've managed to certify these folks as freeloaders. Over there at VoteForTheWorst.com they have an article from October, 2008 which reports the Chawners were evicted from their home after "dozens of complaints about 'loud singing' keeping them (the neighbors) awake late at night." Wait. What? They were "...evicted after 130 complaints were made against them in less than a year over playing loud music, singing late at night and foul and abusive language directed towards neighbours." Um, I thought they got tired from watching TV? But wait! There's more!

In a reference to Emma, the article reads, "The 19-year-old trainee hairdresser, who famously appeared on the TV talent show wearing a wedding-style dress made by her dad..." The what made by who for what? Huh? "Emma, 19, was notoriously rejected from the X Factor last year after singing Celine Dion's Titanic 'like a baby' and wearing a 'wedding dress' handmade by her father." A 'wedding dress' made by Naps After TV guy? What? Behold!

Oh, Lord. OK, that's it! Thaaaat's it. I've had enough of these folks. They can trot around auditioning for X-Factor (which would appear to be an American Idol for England and a bunch of other countries that are not the US) and/or spend time tailoring very long dresses. They can stay up late at night singing and playing music. They can haul their stuff out of their apartment that they were evicted from because of said late night singing and music playing. But they can't work?!

England? You've been had.

Sphere: Related Content

There's Fat and Then There's Lazy

Well, UK folks, you guys win this round. And while that sounds sort of like a compliment, it's more like the byproduct of the sigh of relief that I just exhaled, as I feared this story would be located in Flori-duh. But no! Blackburn, over there in Lancashire, England is the winner of this family of four! Meet the Chawners. Behold!

From left to right we have Emma, 19, her mother Audrey, 57, Audrey's husband Philip, 53, and their other daughter Samantha, 21. These folks haven't worked in eleven years. Eleven, that is correct. And due to their "hardship", they receive £22,508 a year in benefits. (That's $32,438.53 in US dollars, by the way.) And now, according to the fine folks across the pond at The Telegraph, the Chawners claim that "the money they receive is insufficient to live on." It is probably right about now that I should probably mention that they "can't work" because they're "too fat." Wait. What?

Correct. "Too fat to work." (Their words, not mine. Accurate, but their words none the less.) They're claiming that "their weight is a hereditary condition." I imagine it is. I imagine their forefathers ate too much, just like their forefathers before them, and so on. Oh, come on! Are you kidding me?! Look, don't get me wrong, I have plenty of sympathy for those with the whacked out metabolism. But these folks don't strike me as being a victim to their own heredity as much as their are a victim to their own refrigerator. Let's see what else they had to say about their situation (before we come to the same conclusion that I just did).

The Chawners "...claim to spend £50 ($72.06 USD) a week on food and consume 3,000 calories each a day." According to The Telegraph "The recommended maximum intake is 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men." So eating too much according to the guidelines, but still claim it's "heredity". Interesting claim. What else?

Mrs. Chawner explains their daily eating habits as "We have cereal for breakfast, bacon butties for lunch and microwave pies with mashed potato or chips for dinner." For those of you wondering about the "bacon butties", that's basically a bacon sandwich. Behold!

Oh, yeah. Eating (at least) one of those every day, that won't cause a problem. Nah. (That probably has nothing to do with why Philip is 336 lbs., Audrey is 336 lbs., Emma is 238 lbs. and Samantha is 252 lbs. That's 1162 lbs!) I can only assume that they're called "bacon butties" because after eating enough of them, you're going to end up with a bacon butt.

And in Mrs. Chawner's most telling and contradictory statement yet, she says, "All that healthy food, like fruit and veg, is too expensive. We're fat because it's in our genes. Our whole family is overweight." Yes, dearie, but if it was "in your genes" I don't think you'd be telling me how expensive fruits and vegetables are. Nor would you be telling me you eat a bacon butt sandwich for lunch every day. I'm having a hard time believing that they're only spending £50 ($72.06 USD) per week on food. How much is bacon?! Well, according to Bacon Today (Bacon Today? Oh, God bless the Internet!) bacon in England is $3.49/lb (£4.41/kg). Yeah, I don't think I'm buying that. Their story, not the bacon. I'd gladly buy bacon. Mmmm....bacon.

So, because they're "disabled" Mr. and Mrs. Chawner receive "£177 ($255.09 USD) in income support and incapacity benefit" each week AND Mrs. Chawner also gets another £330 ($475.60 USD) per-month as a "disability allowance for epilepsy and asthma", both of which are a result of what? Being overweight, that is correct. Mr. Chawner brings in his share of extra benefits as well. He gets £71 ($102.33 USD) a month for his Type 2 diabetes which is a result of what? Being overweight, correct again! (He "was on a waiting list for a gastric band last year, but a heart condition made the operation unsuitable." Wait a minute. They have waiting lists for the gastric band surgery in England? Why is there a waiting list? It's not like a transplant. Regardless, did the heart condition come up while he was waiting? Because you'd think that would be something his doctor (who we have heard nothing about, nor have we heard anything from) would have known about before putting him on the list.)

Daughter Samantha gets £84 ($121.06 USD) in Jobseekers' Allowance (which seems to be like the US equivalent of unemployment) each fortnight (which seems to be like the calendar equivalent of 2 weeks), and daughter Emma "...who is training to be a hairdresser, gets £58 ($83.59) every two weeks under a hardship fund for low-income students." Emma sees things like this: "I'm a student and don't have time to exercise. We all want to lose weight to stop the abuse we get in the street, but we don't know how." And again I will point out that "student" and "don't have time to exercise" are really not the same as "hereditary condition". No, they're the opposite of "hereditary condition."

And Mr. Chawner actually said the words, "What we get barely covers the bills and puts food on the table.(Clearly it does that!) It's not our fault we can't work. We deserve more." Um, what else do you need, sir? More? Your bills are paid. Your family has bacon sandwiches. What else is there? You've been doing this for eleven years. And I'm sure this will sound crazy, but you could always work and earn more. Just a thought! Just a crazy, crazy thought.

Actually, why? Why do you deserve more, sir? What is it that makes you so "deserving" of "more"? Why is it that you're so entitled to have "more"? I missed that part. (Is it because, judging from the pictures of you, that you only seem to have that one shirt?) But you come across as a bit ungrateful for everything that you have been given by your government which was paid for (I'm assuming) by other taxpayers who work. Don't feel like you're getting quite enough free money, do you now?

Look, I'm well aware that most of us are only a couple of Krispy Kremes away from putting on a pair of sweats and never looking back. Well aware. But the majority of people...OK, wait. Never mind, because the majority of people lately seem to vary between large and huge. So now my point is that large or not, the vast majority of folks manage to work. I have a difficult time believing that these folks are SO obese (they're large, but they seem to be mobile) that they can't work even part time. I mean, come on, they don't even have a Rascal! And I see NO oxygen tanks there! (And that's a lot more than I can say about the last time I was in a Wal-Mart. People too large to walk driving their Rascals and people too large to breathe sucking in their oxygen. With all of the buzzing and the wheezing it was like being in a senior citizen science fiction movie or something.)

I have the feeling that we're going to be hearing more about these folks in the near future. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be any sort of positive report. I'm guessing something that will clear things up as to how legitimate these folks are in regard to what The Telegraph reported.

Sphere: Related Content

Most Disturbing Headline Ever

I just read what could easily be deemed as "The Most Disturbing Headline You'll Read All Year". Easily. The hands down winner. Now that I've said that, consider yourself warned. Here we go:

Man cuts off his own head with chainsaw after home was repossessed

No, it's not a headline from the National Enquirer or from World News Weekly alongside some story about that Bat Boy creature. No, that was the headline in The Daily Mail over there across the pond in not so jolly ol' England. That headline easily trumped my second choice "Man gets $300,000 for evaporating genitals". (Disturbing, yes. Equally disturbing? Hardly. Even if you're the one who has (or would it be 'had'?) the evaporating genitals, it still pales in comparison.) No need to fret, however. I'm sure you'll be hearing about the evaporating genitals soon enough.

But back to the man who cut off his own head. I thought that had to be a misprint. I wasn't even sure how that would be possible. And me, being the one who questions everything (the exact moniker is still in questionable negotiations), continued to read to find out if it was possible. Come to find out, it sure the hell is. But there are conditions. Two conditions must be met. One, you must have the inescapable desire and determination to end your own life. Two, you must be very, very mentally ill. If you don't meet the second requirement, there's no way that you're going to be able to carry out the first requirement. I don't care how badly you want to die, you cannot cut your own head off with a chainsaw unless you are at the far, far end of 'disturbia' on the 'mentally ill' scale.

Here's the scoop: A one David Phyall, of Southampton, Hampshire (again, in England) had been living in an apartment (that's a 'flat' if you're all uppity and English) that had been scheduled for demolition. All residents of the complex had been given a notice to move out on April 18. Mr. Phyall did not want to leave and the company that wanted to demolish the buildings had to take him to court to get the power to evict him So they did and they did. He didn't go quietly. Or neatly.

According to the article, (That's foreshadowing talk for 'I'm about to give some pretty sickening details here. Consider yourself warned.' That's one thing about the European press. They're not as touchy-feely as the US press. No, no, no. They tell it like it is. Or was. And they usually spare no detail.) Mr. Phyall, who was 50, "plugged the electric chainsaw into the mains and attached a timer to the socket.He then wrapped sellotape around the machine's trigger to secure it in the 'on' position and tied the handle of the saw to a table leg to hold it steady." Jesus! It's like Rube Goldberg meets Dr. Kevorkian.

He then "...rested the saw on his neck and waited for the timer to go off. The Black and Decker chainsaw sliced through his neck in an instant but kept going for a further 15 minutes." I'm sure the Black and Decker folks are less than appreciative for the plug. I know they say that 'all publicity is good publicity', but I can't imagine any part of this being 'good'. (And being as how this is very hard to imagine, not to mention extremely off-putting, I've recreated something that is probably nowhere near what we're really talking about, but it's still close enough that it'll creep you out a bit.)

The officer who discovered the 'scene' was a one Sgt. Mark Carter, who described what he found by stating, "I could see an electric chainsaw embedded in the man's neck - the blade was three quarters of the way through his neck. The handle of the chainsaw had been tied by white string to a table leg and the trigger had been tied up by sellotape.The lead was connected to a timer switch which was plugged into the wall." Oh. My. God.

And then, in the winner of the "Stating the Obvious Statement of the Year" award he said, "I have never come across an incident quite this graphic." Dude, I don't know if I've even read about an "incident quite this graphic" let alone found one! So, yeah, I'm sure you hadn't! You win! (By the way, I am in no way making fun of that dude. You walk in on something like that and you can say whatever the heck you want for the rest of your life. Provided you can actually regain the power of speech and stop rocking back in forth in a corner where you've been curled up in a ball for that past X-number of years.)

Another officer, a one Detective Sergeant Mark Huxford described what he saw by stating, "The head was still attached by the right shoulder and his head was lying to the left. A large area of carpet had blood splattered all over it because of the way the Black and Decker chainsaw had been spinning around." Oh. My. God.

So you've got a semi-headless guy lying there and a chainsaw attached to a table leg has cut through his neck and the saw is still going (because really, who's there to turn it off?) and it's flinging around blood and, I'm assuming, flesh all over the room and that's when you, the officer, walk in. I don't think I'd be able to return to work after something like that. Hell, I don't think I'd be able to go to sleep after something like that. Ever.

Do you want to know that they think it was about two days before they found his body? No? Me neither. Let's see...what else? Oh, of course his father said what the relatives of someone who does something heinous always say. John Phyall said that "...he had no idea his son had any plans to harm himself." "We had seen him a week prior to his death and he had appeared cheerful and had been making jokes. His death was totally unexpected." WHO could have expected this?!? I'm not thinking very many people could have, sir! My condolences for the loss of your son, but don't blame yourself for not seeing this one a-comin'.

The coroner on the case had said that "...Mr Phyall had killed himself in a bid to 'make a statement'." Oh, he did! That he did. The coroner also added his version of the obvious by stating, "The scene was clearly an appalling one.... it is the most bizarre case I have seen." And while I don't doubt that to be true for one second, might I just add, "Well, good!" Because I certainly wouldn't want to hear "This is the most bizarre case I have seen. Oh! Wait. Except for that one time. At band camp..."

"Mr Phyall had thought through how he was going to commit suicide very carefully - he went to a great deal of trouble to rig up the chainsaw knowing full well the result would be fatal. It was death in the most dramatic way imaginable. I find he did so to draw attention to the injustice he felt at being asked to move out of his flat." Well, it's unfortunate that he didn't think about the "injustice" that those who had to find him would feel, not to mention the 'injustice' that his relatives would feel after learning of his dramatic exit. And guess what dude? You still had to move! You still don't get to live there! Everyone else still had to move! Moron. Crazy, masochistic moron.

Sorry about the graphic nature of this. I haven't done one of these in a while. Don't worry. I'll get the post about the disappearing penis up shortly and we'll all be amused again. Back to happy! Back to happy! Unicorns! Leprechauns! Puppies! Thank God for the penis! (There's a phrase I never thought I'd say.)

The housing crisis. Who'd a thunk it would be responsible for beheadings as well?

Sphere: Related Content

Tattoos Should Never Be Mandatory

It would seem that over in there in London they have a one Reverend Peter Mullen who seems to be rather opinionated (translation: crazy) in his views of "the gays" and how they should be handled (Mmm...yeah, pun probably intended there.). His anti-gay stance (oh, puns abound in that one) felt so important to him that he felt the need to post his thoughts on his blog. (Oh, that explains it. he's a blogger. Sheesh. Bloggers!) I'm sure you can guess that hilarity did not ensue.

According to the fine blokes down under at couriermail.com.au, his blog post, among other things, deemed all gay pride parades (all? Like the Kinda Gay, the Really Gay and the Flaming Gay parades? All?) to be "obscene" and called for them to be outlawed, and "He also criticised the blessing of two gay priests at a "wedding" performed earlier this year in a City of London church." And while I understand that some people out there really have a problem with the whole gay thing and are going to say, do or write stupid, stupid things, I think he might have over empowered himself just a bit as he continued to blog his hateful and ridiculous thoughts. He probably should have left out the part where he suggested "that homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health." Wait. What?

Correct. Tattoos. And tattooing. For "the gays". He's in favor of tattooing "the gays". Actually, just so you can enjoy what he wrote in all of it's glory, the complete text read, "Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS." I see. Well, that's pretty clear now, isn't it? Yep, pretty clear. That the man is a moron who should NOT be in the position of Reverend. (I'd like him to be in the position under Bubba, the 300-pound florist down in the Castro.)

Now, right away, if you know anything at all about the gays (oh, admit it, you say you don't know, but you're pretty curious. What about that time in the garage during halftime of the Super Bowl about 10 years ago? You guys just weren't looking at his new saw!) you know that he has clearly not thought this thing through. I mean, really, fellatio doesn't kill people! People kill people! You should know that by now! And on top of that (pun SO intended) they're not billboards, sir! And they're also not looking for a little light reading at the time that they might be seeing your tattoo of hate sprawled across their posterior.

Why the chin? That seems like just poor product placement. Shouldn't he have suggested the forehead for the fellatio one? It seems like it would be more effective there. But what do I know? I'm a chick. Hey, and that reminds me, what is he planning on doing for the lesbians? Having them get a tattoo that reads "Save the bushland! Get a husband!" on their stomachs or what?

Of course, when the good Reverend was spoken to about this, he "insisted his remarks were "light-hearted jokes" and "satirical". He also proclaimed (translation: lied) "I certainly have nothing against homosexuals. Many of my dear friends have been and are of that persuasion." First of all, I don't know too many gay people who would take the notion and the suggestion that they should be involuntarily branded with an anti-homosexual message as a "light hearted joke", nor would they interpret the idea as "satirical". Homophobic and asinine, perhaps. Light hearted and satirical? Probably not. But what's with the "have been" part? How does that work? "Hey, Bob! How's it going? Long time, no see! Still gay?" (To which the appropriate answer would be, "Yep! Still an ass?")

Fortunately, the Church of England ordered him to remove the comments from his blog because they said they were "highly offensive." Oh, you think?! But Rev. Mullen also added, "What I have got against them is the militant preaching of homosexuality." Militant preaching? He must not have heard of "Don't ask, don't tell." There's no military anything involved with the gays when it comes to the preaching, especially if no one asked.

Now, of course when there's any sort of a gay slur out there, a gay rights group has to come up for air and denounce the comments. Taking their turn in the rotation this time was the gay rights group Outrage. They described the comments as "Neanderthal". Right behind him (pun way intended) was the gay rights group Stonewall. Their chief executive, Ben Summerskill, said the comments were "nonsense" and "If I were a vicar at the heart of the City of London, I might be praying about other things at the moment rather than getting hot under the collar about gay sex." Dude. Getting hot under the collar is usually how the gay sex starts! It's definitely how it ends in some instances! Nothing wrong with a hot collar, after all. (And after that collar gets all hot underneath and there's all the subsequent sex, you know what? Not so bad! In fact, done correctly, it's quite good! My God, was it good. Oh, whoops. Sorry. I digress. )

Just for the record, a Diocese of London spokeswoman said the remarks did not reflect its views. Well, I should hope not! Being a diocese and all, the homo hating? Not very church-y. Not at all. They said, "While clergy are entitled to their own personal views, we fully recognise that the content of this text is highly offensive and it is in no way reflective of the views of the Diocese of London." (Translation: We're not stupid. But he is. We don't hate gay people. But he does. We'd like to get rid of him, but you know how we roll. Anything else? No? OK, then.")

While looking for pictures of this buffoon, I ran across some photos from an event he spoke at (presumedly without all of the gay bashing and tattooed chin suggesting) a few years ago. He was at the 37th Anniversary Dinner for the Ancient Society of College Youths. I'm going to have to guess that a few people who were there that night would not be happy to learn of his comments and his tattooing suggestions that he's made of late to help control all of the militant gayness over there.

Sphere: Related Content