$#!' The PTC Says

There's a new TV series starring William Shatner and people are protesting. I would have thought that they were protesting William Shatner, but it turns out that was the least of their concerns. (Go figure.) No, they're protesting the name of the series. Because it's called "$#!' My Dad Says". They object to the $#!'. Really?

Before I get into what is being objected to by who and why, I'd like to say that using the apostrophe as the last symbol in that title looks ridiculous. I think that the percentage sign would have been better. Then it would have been $#!%. That looks more like a curse word than $#!'. Actually, almost any symbol of substance would have been better than the apostrophe. It could have been $#!* or $#!? or even $#!~, though I'm not thrilled with the last one. But I digress.

Here's the scoop: Something called the Parents Television Council has sent letters to 340 companies that that purchase a lot of TV ad time. In the letters, the PTC was asking those companies to not buy ad time on that show unless the name was changed. That's going to be a little hard to do at this point, especially considering that the whole show is based around the Twitter feed of a 27-year old guy who lives with his dad. Justin Halpern opened the Twitter account, shitmydadsays, and tweets about just that. S**t his dad says. And it's hilarious.

My favorite tweet that Justin has posted is this: "A parent's only as good as their dumbest kid. If one wins a Nobel Prize but the other gets robbed by a hooker, you failed." Not only are those words of wisdom, but they couldn't be more true.

But back to the protest. According to a one Tim Winter, who is the President of PTC, "Parents really do care about profanity when their kids are watching TV...All parents? No, but something like 80 or 90 percent of parents. Putting an expletive in the title of a show is crossing new territory, and we can't allow that to happen on our watch." Um, what?

First of all, there isn't an expletive in the title of the show. It's symbols. Granted, they symbolize something (it's right there in their name: symbols), but what else are they supposed to do? Call it "Stuff My Dad Says"? That just seems wrong. Well, maybe not wrong, but definitely not right.

Mr. Winter said in his letter to those companies,"When you advertise on television, do you want your customers to associate your product with (bleep)?" Clearly, Mr. Winter hasn't watched a lot of TV lately. If he had, he would know that 90% of what is on TV already is s**t and advertisers have no problem at all with their product being associated with it. None.

You know, you can SAY s**t on TV now. I'm not saying that I'm OK with it, but it kind of seems like the PTC is overlooking things that are a little more blatant than a bunch of symbols that stand in place of the word s**t. But here's an idea: What say that instead of policing everything to the point of censorship, what say that you let folks monitor what they and (more importantly) their children watch on TV, OK? I'm not saying that's going to go over very well, judging from all of the crap that's already on TV that people love to watch. Have you ever seen Family Guy? South Park? Two and a Half Men? All are certifiably filthy. All are also certifiably hilarious. And all have certifiably large audiences. But if you don't like it, don't watch it. And don't let your kids watch it. For God's sake, don't let your kids watch it. But first, you'd be best served to just get over yourself, Mr. Winter. After that, maybe we'll talk. Now if you'll excuse me, Jersey Shore is on.

Sphere: Related Content

Prop 8...Again

I had thought that if I heard one more word about Prop 8 in California that my head would explode. Turns out, that's not the case. Don't get me wrong; I do feel a wave of nausea come over me. But there is no cranial explosion, so that seems good. That doesn't mean that I have the stomach for some long and droning post, because I do not. That just means that I have the capacity to muse over a point that some guy who thinks his point matters is trying to make.

If you have been blissfully living under a rock or in a world where you don't have to hear about Prop 8 all the live long day, I envy you. But here's the scoop: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (probably related to Jimmie Walker...Dyn-o-mite!) essentially overturned California's ban on gay marriage, aka, Prop 8. And now a one Tony Perkins, who is the head of something called the Family Research Council, says that the judge never should have stayed on the case in the first place because of the judge's own alleged gayness.

A homo judge?! Blasphemy! Whatever. Tony Perkins (not Anthony Perkins; that was Psycho) says that Judge Walker "...should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality." Perkins was apparently on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday and said, "I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments...This is far from over."

Now, now, Tony. Let's just calm down a little. Try and keep your homophobia in check so that you can get your facts straight (no pun intended), all right? OK, then. See, Judge Walker is not openly gay. It's a rumor, but it's not an open secret and/or fact, depending on which moniker you prefer. Usually when there's a rumor that isn't true, especially if it involves one being gay, folks tend to speak out and set the record straight (pun totally intended this time). I'm not saying that means that Judge Walker is gay. I'm just saying.

And regardless as to how I feel about Prop 8, I really do hate it when something is voted on by the people and then it is struck down by a judge. That frustrates the hell out of me. Aside from the incredible waste of time and money, the right of the people to vote is kind of an important element in this country. Having it taken away or essentially nullified by one judge could be doing more harm than good. And I realize that the people can be as dumb as a box of hair a lot of the time. That isn't up for debate. What's up for debate is when people vote for something and then they're told by a judge that they can't do that. Well, if they can't do that then don't have them vote on it in the first place. Why don't you folks get those ducks in a row and stop spending my money on rearranging your ducks?

But Tony Perkins isn't the only one with his boxers in a knot. No, according to The Huffington Post the American Family Association called the decision "outrageous and unconscionable" as well as saying that it "...should never have been allowed to happen." They insisted that "Walker...should have recused himself "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Hmmm. Interesting.

OK, I get their point. But the problem here is that there point is coming from their interests and from what they want. Of course they think that a gay judge is going to rule in favor of the gay side of things. But why wouldn't the same litmus test be applied to the other side of that argument? If it had been a straight judge and the straight judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8, wouldn't gay folks be saying that a straight judge should have recused himself because his judgment would have been "clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity"? I think that's a fair argument to make.

The thing that the AFA and that Tony Perkins guy are overlooking is that Judge Walker is just that. He's a judge. It's right there in his title: Judge Walker. Part of being a judge is being impartial. That's the inherent underlying implication of being a judge. You're supposed to be impartial. I have no idea whether or not Judge Walker's alleged gayness had anything to do with his ruling. I do know that his ruling was 136 pages long and that seems a little meticulous for someone who is just flying by the seat of their pants.

But don't worry Tony Perkins and AFA folks. You're right. This isn't over yet. Of course it is going to go to a higher court. And after that court rules (and it won't matter either way because it will be appealed by the losing side) then it will inevitably end up with the Supreme Court. Is that a good idea? I don't know. I think it's poor strategy, personally. I think that the tide is slowly turning in California in regard to gay marriage. I think that there were several factors that contributed to Prop 8 being passed. And the majority of those factors could be eliminated or remedied at another election. Giving the whole thing time might have been a better way to go. This way, even though the judge has ruled Prop 8 to be a no-go, there still isn't gay marriage in California. No, it's going to be put on hold for years. Several years. And when the Supreme Court rules, there is a fifty-fifty chance that they're going to rule in favor of state's rights. And if it comes down to that, then it's done. It becomes a Roe v. Wade situation which will be highly and hotly debated for future years, but will never change.

In conclusion, I expect Judge Walker's ruling to be overturned by one of the higher courts. I base that on the basis of his ruling which is something called "rational basis". He said that there was no "rational basis" for Prop 8. From what I can tell, rational basis is one of the easiest rulings to overturn. Therefore, it will be. It won't be soon, but it will likely happen. And you know what will happen then? I'm going to have to figure out how to soundproof my walled-off compound because people will never stop talking about it ever when that day comes. Maybe I need some sort of a dome. Like in The Truman Show? I'm open to suggestions. All I know is I can't take much more of the incessant debating on either side. I just want it over already.

Sphere: Related Content

Slow News Day Over At HuffPo

Holy crap, how slow of a news day was it yesterday over at The Huffington Post? Pretty slow if you consider that one of their stories sported the headline "Michelle Obama Does Midday Shoe Change In Ronda". Oh, for cryin' out loud. What?!

That's right. They were reporting on the fact that the First Lady changed her shoes whilst in Spain. That's where Ronda is. It's in Spain. And it's apparently a shoe-changin' city if there ever was one. Just look! Here she is with one pair of shoes on...

And here she is with another pair of shoes on! And since she's wearing the same clothes, the shoe change was clearly on the same day! ::: gasp :::

I can't decide if I'm OK with this or if it horrifies me. On the one hand, if this is all that there was to report on, that's kind of a good thing, right? But then again, on the other hand, both you and I know that even if this WAS the only thing to report on, we'd be better off with nothing. Yeah, I'm pretty sure this horrifies me. Good Lord, Huffington Post....

Sphere: Related Content

They Were Rejected For A Reason

When I saw the title of a certain article over there at AOL News, I knew how the whole thing was going to turn out for me. The title was "Unused but Useful: Oxford English Dictionary's Reject List". I enjoy words. I enjoy reading about words. I do not enjoy people making up words and expecting everyone to start using them all the time as if they had just invented the word "dog" or something to that effect. Articles about made up words usually end up annoying me. And this one did just that. Annoyed the crap out of me.

The basis for the article is something that I think we could all surmise. (And when I say "all" I mean everyone who isn't a mouth breathing, paste eating, moron.) The Oxford English Dictionary rejects quite a few words every year that are submitted to them. And God bless 'em for it. Lord only knows what we'd be subjected to if there wasn't some sort of discretion. (Not to mention common sense and the ability to just say, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. No way is it going in this dictionary.")

The author of the article, a one very competent and capable Theunis Bates, starts off by writing "Ever engaged a freegan in nonversation, or does the very idea make you want to precuperate? If you haven't a clue what we're talking about, don't worry, you're probably not xenolexic." See, I've heard of those "words" and just reading that almost made me cringe. But he goes on to say that if you haven't heard of some of those words that is because they are "...non words": Words that have allegedly been submitted to the Oxford English Dictionary...but rejected on the grounds that too few people currently use them." That's what I like. Rejection based on infrequency. Seems like a reasonable principle to have in place at all times. (For example, I reject talking to many people due to the infrequency of the number of times that they have anything of substance to say to me. Thus, I talk to very few people and I am much happier because of it. Therefore, I can conclude that such a system works very well.)

Theunis (that's kind of a cool name) goes on to tell us that all of the "...failed words are hidden away in a secret vault at Oxford". Oh, awesome! He also goes on to tell us that access to said vault by outsiders is not going to happen. Hmmm. Not so awesome. But a one 22-year old Luke Ngakane, through "...his own research and logophile contacts...quickly built up a pamphlet's worth of non words." Said pamphlet consists of 39 words. It seems to be Luke's goal to "...get as many of these unique words back into circulation." Based on the selection of words that Luke chose, I can only hope that the re-circulation of those words does not happen. Ever. They are horrible words. There is a reason that they were rejected in the first place! A lot of them use that cutesy little trick of changing one letter so that the new word simply sounds like the old word, only has a whole new meaning based upon the change of the letter. You know, like "staycation" (which is just ridiculous) and "manscaping" (which I really don't want to think about).

Let's look at some of the choices, shall we? If you're interested in Luke's entire list, it can be found in Theunis's article via the link that I provided earlier in this post.

Accordionated: Being able to drive and refold a road map at the same time. Clearly, this is a play on the word "coordinated", only with the word "accordion" incorporated into it to illustrate the folding of a map. With GPS and Google Maps and all of that these days, this word seems outdated at best.

Espacular: Something especially spectacular. So, something that is especially spectacular gets half of the word "spectacular" removed from it so that is sounds like some sort of Spanish spackle?

Freegan: Someone who rejects consumerism, usually by eating discarded food. Um, I already have a word for this sort of person. In fact, I have several. I tend to alternate between "bum", "hobo" and "Bob, the homeless guy who lives behind the bank".

Fumb: Your large toe. Is it a "fumb" instead of a "thumb" because it's on our foot and "foot" starts with an "F"? That's F-ing ridiculous. If that were logical, then wouldn't the thumb simply be called the "humb" because it's on our hand and "hand" starts with an "H"? Or would we just call the whole thing stupid because that's how I'm starting to feel by trying to comprehend all of this?

Nudenda: An unhidden agenda. We already have a word for this, too. It's called a "plan". A PLAN. Say it with me. A PLAN. Good Lord...

Precuperate: To prepare for the possibility of being ill. That's called a hypochondriac. Stop making up words.

Sprog: To go faster then a jog but slower then a sprint. Sooooo....run?

Wikism: A piece of information that claims to be true but is wildly inaccurate. Also known as a "lie" or "bulls**t". Your choice.

If I thought that this little movement had any legs, I'd be ready to stab my eyes out (and probably my ears, too, just for good measure). But I doubt it's going anywhere. I wonder if Luke has found a word for that yet?

Sphere: Related Content

Mother Of The Year Candidate Part Deux

Thanks to alert blog reader (and now blog contributor) Edge, I must sadly announce that there is now a contender to yesterday's front runner for Mother of the Year. In fact, she might be the new front runner. I know, I know. That's a short front runner reign for the asshat from yesterday, but it's not my fault. I'm not the one "...whose three children were found starving after being shut away in a hotel bathroom for as long as nine months" and whose 11-year old daughter "...was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her mother's boyfriend" during this time. Wait. What the what?

Correct. Unfortunately, correct. We learn of this atrocity from Edge and from the fine folks over there at KTLA. It's pretty much just what I just alluded to. The poor excuse for a human being in this story is a one 31-year old Abernis Santiago. (Perhaps if there's time when I'm done, we can delve into what in the heck kind of a name Abernis is.) We learn from the story that "Police rescued Santiago's 11-year-old daughter and 10- and 5-year-old sons from a bathroom at an extended-stay hotel along one of Dallas' busiest freeways in July 2009. The children, whose skeletons were visible beneath their flaky, stretched skin, were near death from chronic starvation." ::: sigh :::

Look, there are several things wrong with this situation. First and foremost seems to be that this woman was ever born into existence in the first place. Aside from that, explain to me how someone with so little regard for life (let alone the life that they brought into this world) would have three children. While it's not really any surprise that she started when she was around 20, it is a bit surprising that she continued to have the sex and have the children. It's really not some sort of complex math problem that you need to figure out in order to not get pregnant. Then again, those who are as asinine as this woman would appear to be, well, they don't really feel the need to think much about anything. That is evidenced by how this incredibly sad tale turned out.

As if I haven't painted a horrific enough picture, let's just take it a step farther. "A Dallas police detective testified Friday that the 385 square-foot, one-bedroom hotel suite appeared relatively tidy, with the cupboards stocked with crackers, peanut butter, bread and barbecue sauce. The fridge had leftover chicken and rice." Sooooo, simply not having any food wasn't an issue. (And I'm not saying that I ever thought that it was. I think I'm just making an inane point because this story makes me so crazy I want to stab my eyes out after reading it.) No, this was a conscious choice to keep the children locked in the bathroom and to NOT feed them while this scumbag and her piece of crap boyfriend, a one Alfred Santiago, were not locked in the bathroom and were fed. OK. Anything else?

Unfortunately, yes. According to a one Detective Parker Baum, "The bathroom had an oppressive stench of feces and body odor. There were blankets on the floor next to the toilet." Yeah, I would imagine that a bathroom with three small people living in it for nine months would have an oppressive stench...of everything. All I need to know at this point is if this woman got the death penalty.

And sadly, the answer to that would be no. She did, however, plead guilty to the charges of being a completely worthless human being. (I'm not sure if those were the charges verbatim or anything like that, but they were pretty close to that. But you know how the legal system always wants to sugar coat things. I decided to just spell it out in plain English that made it crystal clear what a piece of crap this woman is.) But even though she pleaded guilty, she had complaints. She "...thought her guilty plea Friday would end the proceedings and was confused after testimony continued before the jury for purposes of sentencing."I think this is unnecessary since I already pleaded myself guilty," Santiago told the judge. "I want it over with. This is pointless." Good Lord... Oh, and nice neck tattoo you've got yourself there. Very stylish. And not at all surprising.

Seriously?! It's unnecessary?! So, she was upset that she had to sit in a courtroom for a few more days of testimony? THAT was upsetting to her? I wonder if she thought that her children were upset that they had to sit in a bathroom with minimal amounts of food for nine months? I wonder if she thought that at any point during those nine months that she children thought "I want it over with. This is pointless." I'm guessing that she didn't really see the correlation between the two. Bitch.

This dips**t was sentenced to life in prison. Her dips**t boyfriend was sentenced to two 99-year sentences, to be served concurrently. That seems like an awful lot of taxpayer money that will go toward keeping them in prison. Can't we just use my fifty cent solution? One bullet. One head. Carefully placed. Granted, in this case, we'd need a dollar, but I'd kick in for that.

Oh, wait. We might need another bullet. I forgot about the defense attorney. Now, I realize that they're just doing their job. But do they have to use the weakest arguments ever? You know, like the one that this particular defense attorney, a one James Jamison used when he "...portrayed Abneris Santiago as a victim of domestic violence". I don't ever want to hear that excuse again. Being a victim of domestic violence does not cause one to lock their three children in a hotel bathroom for damn near a year! It just doesn't! I know you're trying to do your job, sir, but please don't.

No, really. I'm serious. Please don't. Because I'm assuming that you were also trying to do your job when you made the most ridiculous statement that anyone could have ever made in regard to this case when you said, "This young lady has made some pretty poor choices in life." Umm...what? I think that damn near starving your three children to death while you and your scumbag boyfriend are well fed is a little bit more than a poor choice! How do you live with yourself, sir? Drink a lot? Meth? Seriously, how? Don't even get me started on him calling her "young lady". She had already pled guilty at that point? Couldn't he just say, "My client is one guilty bitch."? That works for me.

Sphere: Related Content

Mother of the Year Candidate

This woman is definitely the front runner for "Mother of the Year 2010". I'm not sure if I should say fortunately or unfortunately she's going to be a tough act to top. Seriously, you tell me something more abhorrent than a woman marrying the guy who was charged with sexually abusing her 7-year old daughter. Can't think of anything? How about something more abhorrent than a woman marrying the guy who was charged with sexually abusing her 7-year old daughter and then helping the man elude police for a time being? Still nothing? OK, then how about something more abhorrent than a woman marrying the guy who was charged with sexually abusing her 7-year old daughter and then helping the man elude police for a time being, all only TWO hours after he was indicted? Drawing a blank, aren't you? We have a winner!

Here's the story as told by OregonLive.com. It's from an article that they published where we learn that a one 47-year-old (and clearly old enough to freaking know better) Don Edward Smock Jr., was charged with 45 felony counts of child-sex-related charges. That was back in July when "...Smock was indicted on 13 counts of using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct, eight counts of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, one count of first-degree attempted sexual abuse and 23 counts of second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse." See, this is one of those times when an indictment is simply too kind. This is one of those times that seems to require a fifty cent solution. One bullet. Carefully placed. Problem solved. What a pig.

But it gets worse. Only a mere two hours after he was indicted, Mr. Smock and the mother of his victim, a one 41-year old Barbara Lynn Whitehead, "...secretly married in a ceremony in Colton (that's in Oregon)". And naturally, when you get married, you want your family present, right? Apparently, that's just how twisted Ms. Whitehead was, as her 7-year old daughter, the one who was being abused by Mr. Smock, was there for the nuptials of this vile couple. Seriously, lady, what in the hell is wrong with you? How on earth could you possibly justify doing that? You should never have that child or any child for that matter in your custody ever again. It doesn't really get much more wrong than this. Not much. A little bit, but not much.

By the way, this woman looks just about like you'd expect her to look. Behold!

The little bit worse that it gets is that after the ceremony, "....all three drove to Portland and checked into a hotel for a weekend-long honeymoon, before Smock disappeared." Uh, I think I might hurl. I really don't want to have to speculate as to whether or not the little girl was involved in any of the typical honeymoonal activities, but I really don't put anything past this guy and his scumbucket bride at this point.

Fortunately, thanks to help from the public, scumbucket was arrested Wednesday and Mrs. Scumbucket was arrested on Monday. They ended up charging her with four counts of wrongfulness. Tampering with a witness, hindering prosecution, perjury and false swearing. (What in the world is false swearing? Is it like you're about the say the F-word and then you don't? Hardly sounds like anything that would be considered a crime. Annoying? Sure. But criminal? That'd be odd.) Four counts? That doesn't seem like nearly enough.

The 7-year old "...was taken into custody by state Child Protective Services". I think that the words of a one Detective Jim Strovink, who is the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office spokesman, pretty much sum up the actions of these two asshats. He said, "This would appear to be a new low." That's saying something. The bar, after all, is incredibly low to begin with when you're dealing with scum that sexually abuse children. I only wish that I thought that we wouldn't be able to go any lower. But I know better. There is some sick ass person out there who will do worse than this. And it probably won't take long, either.

Sphere: Related Content

Keep Your Second Wife OFF Of Facebook

There's dumb and then there's just asinine. But what is it when you've gone past dumb and past asinine? Are you just so incapable of understanding anything at all and how it works that there isn't really a name for it? Or is the word that I'm looking for as simple as "idiot" or "moron"? It probably is, but this just seems like it require just a little bit more than either one of those. It's almost like the don't do the story justice, especially when the story is how a woman found out through Facebook that her husband had another wife. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to WKYC in Cleveland, the woman, "Megan" as she preferred to be called for the story because she didn't want her real name used (nor did she want her humiliation to be spread far and wide and directly attributed to her), married her husband in 2005 in a ceremony in Italy. (I have no idea why WKYC thought that was relevant to the story, but they included it and so I did the same. If only they had questioned the relevance as I had, they might not have felt the need to include it at all.) After that "She knew her husband took a lot of business trips. Now she knows why." And while that's not entirely accurate (it's not like he was really on business trips, WKYC. Try to pay attention, would you?), his being gone a lot was explained when "Her relatives pointed her to the other woman's Facebook page where Megan discovered multiple photos of her husband and the woman together." Oh. Whoops.

Yeah. Whoops. Now, it's not like "Megan" didn't have some questions about what was going on in their marriage. "Megan said she first became suspicious when her husband claimed to have been in China and even brought back gifts for the kids yet his passport had been at home the entire time." It's unfortunate that the story doesn't delve more into how that was deal with in Megan's household. It seems a little difficult to explain, as that passport for international travel is pretty necessary. (Unless you're going to the United States, in which case just come on in like millions of other folks do every year.) But the media is crap these days, so what did I really expect?

I'll tell you what I expected. I expected people to be a little more discerning about what goes on their freaking Facebook page. But I guess this sort of thing happens all the time. What a weak act you people are. Seriously. You don't have the guts to just leave someone or to tell them that you're leaving? Instead, you leave it up to them to "accidentally" find out through pictures that were posted on Facebook? Seriously. Would you not know that there are people on your Facebook who are relatives or friends with the one of the other people involved in this and who will be seeing what is on your Facebook page? Or that of the whore that you're sleeping with? What is wrong with you people?

And it's not like just having the affair and having those pictures posted was enough for this guy and his extramarital bimbo. No, "A few weeks later, dozens of wedding photos also showed up on Facebook showing Megan's husband and his new bride." Dude. You're already married. You think that isn't going to come out at some point? Let me rephrase that, you moron. You think that this isn't going to come out at some point AFTER pictures of your SECOND wedding are posted on Facebook while you're still MARRIED? How can one be so dense and yet somehow manage to keep themselves alive through adulthood? It's a mystery.

Naturally, Megan wants a divorce. Her husband, not being all that bright to begin with, says "he doesn't believe he needs a divorce because he learned after the fact that the marriage paperwork was never filed correctly in Italy and therefor they were never married." Tell you what. How about if you don't get a divorce, but you let Megan go all Lorena Bobbit on you? That seems fair.

Look, I don't know about you, but I cannot imagine having an affair if I was in a relationship, let alone if I were married. It sounds simply awful to me. Not because of the deceit that is obviously present when something like that is going on, but because of the effort. It sounds positively exhausting. Trying to keep stories straight, trying to keep lies straight, trying not to get caught, trying to keep everyone happy, etc. Good Lord, why on earth would anyone voluntarily enter into such a mess? And this guy got MARRIED. TWO wives! Isn't one wife enough?! Isn't one wife plenty?! Isn't one wife more than enough on some days?

Sphere: Related Content

Antoine Speaks Out

If, for some reason, I had previously thought that it wasn't a good idea for any news station to interview the "regular people" when something has happened, I would like to take that thought back. I would like to take it back right now because I have been "introduced" to a one Antoine Dodson and we need to hear a little bit more from folks like him and his sister, Kelly, on occasion.

Here's the story: This took place on the 500 block of Webster Drive in Huntsville, Alabama. (And if I've keyed into something in the news from Alabama, you know it's going to be good.) Apparently, a one Kelly Dodson was at home and in her bed when an intruder climbed in through her window, climbed in bed with her and attempted to rape her. Not cool. And it's not like her window was on the ground floor. No, this chick was on the second floor. Was it Spiderman? Um, I don't think so.

It's extremely fortunate that her brother who lives with her, a one Antoine Dodson, heard her scream ran into her room to help her. So, the good thing is that he was there and no one got raped. The bad thing is that the wanna-be rapist managed to escape. But the really good thing is that Antoine and his sister both were interviewed by the local TV station, WAFF. The video is below. Behold!

Oh, is that not a sweet, sweet gift sent straight from Alabama? I believe it is. And ol' Antoine. He reminds me of someone. I just can't quite place who. Oh, wait a minute! Now I know! Donkey from Shrek! Behold!

Yeah, I knew that I had seen him somewhere before. But I'll get back to him in a minute. Let's review what his sister had to say.

"I was attacked by some idiot from out here in the projects. He, he, he tried to rape me. He tried to pull my clothes off. " I do enjoy that she calls the guy an idiot. Not a lot of victims are willing to be that straight forward. A lot of victims would rather be WAY more victim-y. But not her. She wants to make sure that we're all aware that the guy was an idiot. I appreciate that.

But what I appreciate more is her brother, Antoine, giving his impression of what happened. Let's review, shall we?

"Weeelllll...obviously we have a rapist in Lincoln Park. He's climbin' in yo windows. He's snatchin' yo people up, tryna rape 'em. So y'all need ta hide your kids, hide your wife, aaaaannnd hide your husband 'cause they're rapin' errybody out here....We got your T-shirt. You done left fingerprints behind. You are so duuuumb! You are really duuumb! For real. ....You don't have to come and confess that you this. We're lookin' for you! We gonn fiiiiind you. (This next part is a little questionable because it's hard to understand Antoine's, um, dialect. Yeah, that's it. It's difficult to understand his dialect because, um, well...oh! Because he's so upset! Yeah, that's it. Because he's so upset and...stuff.) I'm gonna you know nack! (Remember, that could be wrong. I really have no clue as to what he said. It sounded kind of foreign, but I just can't quite place that accent.) You can run and tell THAT! (Slight pause) HomeBOY!"

Yeah, that's just completely awesome. I like how he is looking out for everyone with his warnings that the community should heed. Hide your kids, but don't stop there. Hide your wife as well. And what the heck, hide your husband for good measure as well. No sense in leaving husbands unprotected. And I also appreciate the confidence level that he has in the police and their ability to solve crimes based upon minimal evidence. Usually, the impression that you get of folks in the projects is that they don't have any faith in the police. But not Antoine! Oh, no! He's fully convinced that this will result in the arrest of the perpetrator. Good for you, Antoine! Way to support your public servants!

We need more victims like Kelly and Antoine. It would make the news a heck of a lot more entertaining, that's for sure.

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Birthday To Me....

All right, this is going to have to suffice for today, as I am now :::sniff::: too damn old and will be spending the rest of the day curled up in a ball in a corner somewhere, weeping softly and waiting for sweet, sweet death to take me away.

Who am I kidding? I'm too drunk to write much more than this. Woo-hoo! Happy Birthday to Me!

Actually, I've done a bit of reading about August 2nd. If you go by the annals of history it would appear that August 2nd is just ripe for war and death and destruction. I'm not quite sure if I'm supposed to work on changing that or just go with the flow. Changing it seems like too much work and I'm old and tired. Status quo it is then.

• 1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait
  
• 1985 - Delta Flight 191 crashes in Dallas, killing 137
  
• 1980 - A bomb explodes at a train station in Italy, killing 85 and wounding more than 200
  
• 1973 - A flash fire in the Isle of Man at the Summerland amusement park kills 51
  
• 1968 - On the very day and very year that I was born, the Casiguran Earthquake strikes the Philippines and kills more than 270 and wounds 261. It's as if someone said to me, "Welcome to the world. You're going to die a violent and horrific death."
  
  

It only gets worse before 1968. More war. More troops. More death. It's a wonder half of us were even born at all, if you think about it. Oh, here are some other glorious highlights of this day:

• Albert Einstein writes a letter to FDR in 1939 urging him to develop a nuclear weapon


• The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 passes, rendering marijuana illegal in the US (This really had no effect on me at all. Especially in college.)
  
• Albert Einstein urges all scientists to refuse military work in 1931



• The first US Census is conducted in 1790
  
• And my personal favorite: In 1934, Adolf Hitler becomes Fuhrer of Germany. Ach!
  
  
  

Nice. No marijuana but plenty of Nazis on this day. Grand. There isn't really anyone all that interesting born on this day (other than myself and that's questionable. The interesting part, that is. I'm relatively sure I entered on the 2nd.) There are a few that...well...someone might know who they are, though. Maybe. With hints.

• Mary-Louise Parker, born in 1964 (You know, the actress chick. She was in...um, well...oh! Weeds. There it is. Yeah, her.)
  
  
• Wes Craven, born in 1939 (The director guy who makes creepy movies like Hellraiser.)
  
  
• Carroll O'Connor, born in 1924 (Yes. Archie Bunker. Great.)



• Lance Ito, born in 1950 (Judge Ito! From the OJ trial! Right on! At least it wasn't that crying Seidlin guy from the Anna Nicole custody hearings.)
  
  
  

That's who was born. Now, who died? (I swear, I better not be on this list.)

• Warren G. Harding in 1923 (29th President of the US)
  
  
• Shari Lewis in 1998 (The puppeteer who always had her hand up Lambchop's ass.)
  
  
  
• Alexander Graham Bell in 1922 (Made us all want to reach out and touch someone. With or without a phone.)
  
  
• Wild Bill Hickok in 1876 (Shot in the back of the head while playing poker. As an avid poker player, that's not overly comforting.)

Well, it's a pretty mello day for those being born or those croaking on this day. Not so mello for the death and destruction aspect of it all. But the rest? Fairly calm and boring.

Oh, and Happy 18th Birthday to my cousin, whose birthday also happens to be today. And Happy Birthday to Renee, because about 10 years ago, I told you that, since we had the same birthday, you'd always know that at least one other person was thinking about you on that day, even if you felt like no one gave a fat rat's ass. (Incidentally, I'll be doing the same thing.)

So let's see if I can go the rest of the day without adding to the list of death and destruction that occurs on this day. If this blog abruptly stops, you know that I was largely unsuccessful. Now...where's my beer?

Sphere: Related Content

Happy Birthday To Me...And To You

I love this song. I have no idea what is up with the pieced together video that someone did, but it doesn't really matter. The song rules. Especially today.

Sphere: Related Content