Hello, Older Self

I should have done this.  I should have made a video when I was younger so that I could watch it when I was older and then have a virtual conversation with myself.  Then again, maybe not.  Do I really want to be remembered (in first person, none the less) of some of the atrocious things that I thought and/or did?  Probably not.  But this guy ended up having a very amusing and fairly entertaining conversation with his younger self. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Thirty? Thirty.

I got an email yesterday from a friend and all the email said was "Blood pressure feeling low?  Read this one:"  Then there was a link to a news story about a one 33-year old Desmond Hatchett.  And let me just tell you, my friend was right.  My blood pressure went from very sedentary to near coronary attack.  Consider this a warning that the same thing could happen to you!

What we have could be seen as just a regular ol' story about a guy who would like a little bit of his child support payments to be cut back.  He's having a hard time getting his minimum wage job to make ends meet for himself and his children.  But that's where any sense of normalcy stops in this story.  See, Desmond is the father of not one, not two, not even ten, but thirty children!  That's right.  Thirty.  And get this:  The oldest is fourteen.  So, let's do the illegitimate math here, shall we?  He managed to seed thirty children in 19 years.  Good thing that he managed to have four babies in one year...TWICE.  Other wise, I don't think that he would have been able to achieve such a status in such a short period of time.  But that only takes care of eight kids.  He still managed to squeeze in another twenty two children in only twelve years.  For all intents and purposes, that's two kids per year.  Did I mention that there were eleven (ELEVEN) different women involved in this sperm factory gone awry?  Yeah, there were.  Eleven.  Eleven stupid, stupid women.  

Now Desmond works a minimum wage job.  Hard to imagine that someone who would be so irresponsible as to have thirty children in fourteen years would only be qualified to work a minimum wage job, isn't it?  But I will give him credit for at least working and at least trying to do one thing right.  There's that.  It's not much and really, I'm not sure that it counts for anything.  But I guess that I appreciate his working at all.  And out of his minimum wage paycheck, the state garners the maximum fifty percent to go for child support.  As you can imagine, trying to spread fifty percent of a minimum wage paycheck isn't going to go very far.  And it doesn't.  Some of the mothers only receive $1.49 per month in child support.  And NO, I did NOT misplace the decimal point there.  That's one dollar and forty-nine cents in child support.  Aside from it being insulting, why would you bother?  There are so many things wrong with this story that I don't know where to start OR where to stop.  I do know that my blood pressure is likely to require medication before I'm done typing all of this out.  (Thanks for that, CW!)

Minimum wage in Tennessee is $7.25 per hour.  Holy crap.  Assuming the Father of the Year works a full work week of forty hours, he's looking at a whopping $290 per week.  Let's take out a third for taxes.  That's right around $96.  Now we're looking at $204 per week.  Split that in half and Desmond is taking home $102 per week.  Maybe a little more if I wasn't accurate with what gets taken out for taxes.  $102 divided by 30 (as in children) comes out to exactly $3.40 per month, per child.  That's just insane.  And pointless.  Look, even though I think that the guy should be financially responsible for all of his children, what in the hell good does $3.40 a month do anyone in this situation?  How about if all of the mothers rotate and every month, one of them gets the $102?  If they go by the $3.40 a month plan, they're only getting around $36 a year from him.  Doing it this alternate way practically triples that income for them!  But I digress.  

This is as big of a fuster cluck as there could ever be.  He's currently petitioning the state of Tennessee to help him with his child support payments.  What is supposed to be done in a situation like this?  It's lose-lose all the way around.  I think that the only rational thing to do here would be for the state to agree to step in IF Desmond gets snipped.  There HAS to be a doctor out there who would perform that surgery on Desmond for free.  Hell, I'm not a doctor and I'D gladly do it! I'd also gladly chop it right on off for him, but I'm pretty sure stuff that like isn't allowed.  (Probably only because I'm not licensed, though.) I also think that the women who he repeatedly impregnated (and who KNEW about his situation beforehand) need to agree to some counseling in order to receive any sort of benefits.  You have a weird way of looking at things if you're hooking up with this guy and not caring if you get knocked up.

And you know, while they're at it, might as well get ol' Desmond a little counseling too.  What in the hell goes through his mind in the situations that he gets himself into that will inevitably result in him impregnating someone AGAIN?  Back in 2009, he did an interview with something called VolunteerTV.  It went something like this:

"Do you intend to keep having children?" WVLT asked.
"No." Hatchett replied.
"You're done?"
"I'm done. I'll say I'm done."
"What made you say that?"
"I didn't intend to have this many. It just happened," Hatchett said.

Jesus.  Where do I start?  I guess with the obvious.  It didn't just happen!  He's not the unluckiest guy in the world, though I'm starting to believe that he may be the stupidest.  I should also point out that at the time of that interview, he only had 21 children.  Now he has 30.  You know.  Because it just happened.  Now, not only is my blood pressure through the roof, my head hurts from pounding it on my computer desk.  IT DIDN'T JUST HAPPEN, DAMMIT!  Uh-oh.  There go my lungs.  Breathe.  Breathe!  

Can we hook him up with Octomom?  They seem like they'd be a perfect fit for each other.  Both are totally clueless and surrounded by children.  He might be able to teach her a thing or two about at least trying to make a living.  And she could teach him a thing or two about doing masturbatory porn as a means of support.  Hmm.  That might not be the best idea after all.  Forget it.  Sterilize both of them and let them go at like rabbits. 

Sphere: Related Content

Really? The Cover?

Remember when Time magazine used to be awesome?  OK, maybe I'm exaggerating just a tad with the use of the word "awesome".  But it did used to be a great source of comprehensive news stories from around the globe.  The journalism was good and the topics were good.  Oh, but that Time seems to have come and gone.  And in its place, we are left with the sort of Time magazine that has this on its cover.  Behold!

Now, if you're like me, you took one look at that and your brain came up with the omnipresent "Oh, what the hell is that?" inquiry.  And I really wish that I could go into a lot of detail about what the article was actually about, but I'm not about to subscribe to Time.com in order to do that.  Besides, I highly doubt that anything in the article is going to sway me away from what I have to say about their cover.  And just for the record, the picture depicts a one Jamie Lynne Gurnet as she breast feeds her four-year old son.  Good Lord...

First of all, I'm not against breastfeeding.  You want to breast feed, have at it!  You want to breast feed in public, I'd prefer it if you'd be discreet, but again, have at it!  You want to put a picture on the cover of Time magazine of yourself breast feeding your kid who is almost five, I'm going to recoil in horror.  And it has nothing to do with partially seeing a breast!  Breasts are simply lovely!  It's really hard to get around that fact.  Breasts are gooooooood.  But to me, if you're putting that sort of picture out for all the world to see, you're about something more than just how you want to nourish your child.  You're looking for some sort of attention and you've chosen what I feel is a highly inappropriate way to get said attention. 

Speaking of attention, what about the attention that your kid is going to get out of this?  I'm sure that he'll be thrilled, just thrilled, when he's a teenager and his friends find out about this (and they will) and then the picture of him suckling on his mother when he's a four-year old, like a newborn calf, is going to cause some problems for him.  It might even be causing some problems now for him.  Why would you put your son in a position like that?  Why would you place your small child in such a vulnerable position?  I can't agree with that choice on any level. 

Something about this whole mode/style of parenting doesn't sit well with me.  It seems to be more about a certain group of people who are intent on pushing their particular lifestyle down the throats (no pun intended) of others.  I will never understand that part of humans.  Why, if they like something and someone else doesn't, the former will feel the need to make sure to flaunt the thing that the other person doesn't like right in front of them?  I don't get that.  And breast feeding your kid when they're no longer an infant seems to fall right along that line. 

I understand that there's the whole bonding issue thing.  But you can bond with your kid without breast feeding them.  I promise.  It's been done gazillions of times before and people seem to be just fine! And if it's really just about the nutrients that the kid can get from breast milk, can't you just pump and have the kid drink it after it's out of your body?  I seriously think that if you have some "need" or "desire" to have your kid breast feed after the kid is no longer a baby, you need to take a long, hard look at what your real motives are.  And if you're not willing to do that, what say you stop trying to actively push that sort of "parenting method" upon other people.  (Have you ever noticed that when people are doing something that is "controversial" (eg, crazy as a fruit bat) that all they want to do is tell you what a terrible person you are for not doing it?)  And if you're not willing to do that, what say you just take a baby step and not have a picture of you breast feeding your school-aged child on the cover of a national publication, eh? 

Sphere: Related Content

This Is Not A Good Idea

Those beauty pageants for small children? Yeah, the ones where there are little girls dressed up like pole dancers and/or whores. What's that? Oh. Right. They're not not pole dancers and/or whores. They're future pole dancers and/or whores. My mistake. But from what I can figure out, the only people who actually think that this is an OK thing to put your daughter through are the pageant moms. They seem to think it's just fine while the majority of the rest of the world finds it all completely abhorrent. I don't quite get that. I mean, if everyone hates it, why does it still exist? (While the rational answer might appear to be that everyone doesn't hate it, I refuse to accept that reason. The thought that people are OK with this depresses me.) I guess I digress. If you're still undecided on the matter, check out the little video below. This is what can happen when you put your kid in pageants. Why do I have a horrible feeling that this kid is going to have her own reality show someday?

Alana, Age 6, Best Beauty Pageant Kid, Ever - Watch More Funny Videos

Sphere: Related Content

Ten

Here's a story that has so much wrong with it in just the first three paragraphs that it's difficult to continue reading. The headline was off-putting enough. "10-year old Mexican girl gives birth to baby boy after 31-week pregnancy". Eww. And, oh God. Hard to believe that gets worse, eh? Well, I don't know if it's 'worse' exactly, but it sure as hell ain't better.

The article goes on to say that "The premature infant, which weighed 3.3 pounds, was born by Caesarian section...and is in the intensive care unit recovering from pneumonia." 3.3 pounds. I bought a chicken the other day that was more than 3.3 pounds! That's a tiny baby. But, wait! There's more. It also says that "The young mother...has returned home after the procedure but visits the baby every day to breastfeed". A ten year old. Breast feeding. Why in the world was this allowed to happen?! She's TEN! There are a lot of things that ten-year olds should be doing, but breast feeding certainly is not among those things!

Now, I don't know if the family would have been interested in an abortion (even though I kind of think that they probably should have been), but it wouldn't have mattered anyway because in Mexico, the "...minimum age of consent is 12". Soooo...wait. A ten-year old gets knocked up somehow (they are currently "...investigating whether the girl could have been raped and who the father is") and there is not an abortion option?! How is that possible?! There is every time of sick bastard in the world out there and nothing can be put past any of them. So if they just happen to get a child pregnant and that child is under 12, then that child is basically forced to go through a pregnancy!? And have a freaking baby?! Our neighbors to the south, ladies and gentlemen. How 'bout a big round of applause? No? Ok, then.

This is insane. A ten-year old is in what...fourth grade? Good Lord, a fourth grader should not be having children. And if someone is raped, I don't care how old they are, they shouldn't be caught up in some sort of a legality that puts them in the position to be essentially forced to have a child that they don't want. Way to go, Mexico. And for all of you jackass lawmakers and religious nutjobs in this country that think that abortion should be greatly restricted or outlawed altogether, you people need to step into reality for a minute and ask yourself about situations like this horror that went on. She's ten! And I'm nauseous.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Jerry Sandusky Interview

Who in the hell is Jerry Sandusky's lawyer? I need to know so that I can make sure that, should the need ever arise (and I can't for the life of me imagine a scenario in which it would) and I need a lawyer, I can make damn sure that I don't hire him. Good Lord. Is his lawyer authorizing these interviews that Sandusky is giving to the press? Oh. Wait. Did I not mention that Sandusky gave another interview, this time on camera? And did I mention that (to no real surprise) that it comes off as a complete disaster if he is still going to try to maintain his innocence (which he seems to be doing, albeit poorly)? I left those out? My bad. Here's the interview Sandusky did with a reporter who appears to be from the New York Times (The actual interview part is only about 2:45 in length. Also, try to not be annoyed when the Good Morning America guy pronounces it as 'lenth'.):

"Those allegations are false. I didn't do those things....I don't know." Right, Jerry. It's all just craaaaaaaaazy that you're being charged with at least forty counts of child touching in one form or another. "I don't know." Yeah, that's really not the best defense and it certainly is probably the worst explanation ever.


In regard to what Joe Paterno said to him after Paterno learned of the allegations against Sandusky: "I don't know that he didn't know. I know that he didn't never said anything to me." I'm going to overlook the "didn't never" debacle simply because this is just so full of crap that grammatical correctness should probably be the least of Sandusky's worries after this interview aired. Oh, and way to throw Paterno under the bus. I'm not saying that Paterno doesn't deserve to be under the bus (as he most likely does and I'd really like to be driving said bus), but way to go.


When asked about his reaction to being confronted with the time that Mike McQueary (allegedly) saw him raping a little boy in the Penn State showers: "Yeah...uh...I told him that it didn't happen. And uh, you know, in my mind, there wasn't inappropriate behavior." Oh. My. God. So, he's just one of those guys who thinks that the man-boy love is perfectly all right, isn't he? What do those sickos call themselves? NAMBLA? Given that answer (and that he was smiling about it and appeared to be adjusting his shoes when he was responding), I'm leaning in that direction. So, in his mind, raping a little boy isn't inappropriate at all. Ok, then. (By the way, it SO is!) Wow. This guy is weird. Way to go, Penn State, for letting him continue to roam your campus and bring young boys there for freaking years! The whole campus should just be burned the to ground and rebuilt or something. This whole thing makes me sick.


When asked about his bizarre response to Bob Costas when Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys, he said: "I was sitting there saying just 'What in the world is this question?'" Yeah, it's a head scratcher all right. You're charged with over forty counts of child touching and someone asks you if you're sexually attracted to young boys. Completely out of the blue! Who would have seen that coming?!


And trying to explain that question is where he dooms himself. He actually says, "Am I gonna be...If I say "No, I'm not attracted to boys" that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people. Boys...girls..." And then he stops talking because off camera, someone is speaking loudly to him. The voice over on the video suggests it might be his dumbass lawyer who was apparently cool with him doing this sort of interview in the first place.


Whatever. This is just irritating me to the point where my commentary is going to end here. This guy obviously has a jackass for an attorney and I'm actually glad about that. I hate it when these sorts of scumbags have some slick lawyer who can get them off on some sort of technicality even though they're obviously guilty as hell. Sandusky is guilty as hell and if all goes well, he'll be spending the rest of his life in prison (where one can only hope that he'll get a taste of some of his own behavior that he didn't think was inappropriate). These interviews are just too damning for him to get off, especially when he's being represented by a lawyer who not only lets him do these sorts of things, but hangs out and watches as they go down. I hope his trial is televised because with his idiot lawyer at the helm, Sandusky will probably take the stand. THAT is something that I'd like to see, as he will get torn to shreds by the prosecutors. Bring it on.

Sphere: Related Content

A Real Piece Of Work

I always think that I'm not going to be surprised by people. And then what happens? You guessed it. I get surprised. And in this case, my surprise turned to anger very quickly.



Let's meet a woman named Angel Adams. Ms. Adams lives somewhere in Florida (shocking, I know) with her twelve children. That's right. TWELVE. And technically, she has fifteen, but I guess she must have misplaced the other three because they don't live with her. Now, Ms. Adams doesn't have any job or any way to support herself. She had a baby daddy who managed to father ten of those children, but he was arrested and left her to fend for herself.



When I said "fend for herself" I meant that she was left to get all that she could out of all of the social service programs and welfare programs that she possibly could. That got a little tricky after she was evicted from her apartment for (wait for it) having twelve children in there with her. She ended up at a motel and that's where the news cameras caught up with her. Good thing, too. If they hadn't, we never would have been able to see the tantrum that she throws, as she is demanding that SOMEONE be responsible for her children. Wait. What now?



Correct. SOMEONE needs to pay. Her exact words were "Somebody needs to pay for alllllllllllll my children! And my and Gary, and all our suffering and our pain! Somebody needs to be held accountable! Somebody needs to pay!” Uh, OK. See, now my first question is "Shouldn't YOU be responsible?" But of course, the guy who was doing the story didn't ask her that. Why not? Because the media sucks, that's why. What else would explain a reporter not asking the most basic of questions?! (Another thing that we don't know? What the baby daddy was arrested for. Why don't we know? Because the media sucks. Now you're catching on! But I digress.)



This woman is one of the most delusional people that I have had the displeasure of learning about in a long time. FIFTEEN children. No job. Apparently no knowledge of modern methods of birth control. And not grateful enough that social services pays her rent and her utilities. OK, then. You really need to see this woman. Below is a montage of her various appearances on the local news. The really good stuff happens early on, though. Right around 1:50-ish is where it starts to get good.

Sphere: Related Content

Joe Must Go

(Note: Joe Paterno was fired after I wrote this. Good.)

I'm going to try to make this my last post about the Penn State child abuse cover up atrocity for a little while. We'll see. But I felt it necessary to continue to rip into Joe Paterno for his inexcusable and unforgivable lack of action when he knew that one of his assistant coaches was raping little boys.


You would think that Joe Paterno would be asked to step down immediately. And if he wouldn't step down, you would think that someone would fire Joe Paterno. That doesn't seem to be the case. Joe Paterno thinks that the best course to take right now is for him to continue coaching and then to retire at the end of the season. Seriously. And by the way, someone should mention that he was likely going to retire at the end of this season anyway! He wanted to stick around long enough to become the winningest coach in major college football. He did that by when he got his 409th win in the most recent game. Him retiring at the end of the year isn't any sort of penalty! It's just like it would have been had he not been shielding a child rapist. That's not enough. He needs to not be on the sidelines on Saturday or ever again.


Let's take a look at his absolutely pathetic statement. He said, in part: "That's why I have decided to announce my retirement effective at the end of this season. At this moment the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status. They have far more important matters to address. I want to make this as easy for them as I possibly can. This is a tragedy. It is one of the great sorrows of my life. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more." Oh, I bet that he doesn't want the Board of Trustees spending any time discussing his status. Who in the hell is he to say that at this point?! If he wanted to make this "as easy for them as I possibly can" then he would have resigned immediately so that they wouldn't have to spend any time on it! (I'm not even going to discuss the part about how it took "hindsight" for him to realize that not going to authorities about a guy who was raping children was a bad idea. Hindsight. Jesus.) This guy is unbelievable.


As far as Penn State goes, they think that the appropriate course of action is to wait until Friday to appoint a committee to look into what in the hell went on. Friday?! They're going to wait until Friday?! They don't think that this is something that maybe should be started immediately?! Sure! Wait until Friday! What in the hell is WRONG with the people over there at Penn State?! Considering that Joe Paterno seems to think that he should be out there coaching on Saturday, I'm thinking that the Board might want to convene a little bit before Saturday. Are they REALLY going to let him coach? They can't, can they? How? How?!


OK, I think that's it for now. Oh, wait. One more thing. Hey, Joe Paterno. Do you have grandkids? What if your associate had seen Sandusky in the shower with one of them? THEN would you have done something? ANYTHING? It's sad that I this question would even have to be asked. It's even sadder that I honestly don't know what his answer would be.

Sphere: Related Content

So Many People Just Don't Get It

(Scroll over the images in this post to see who's who.) Wow. People are really, seriously delusional about this sex abuse horror that involved the defensive coordinator of Penn State football. That so many people did absolutely nothing is astounding to me. But what is even more astounding is the number of people who don't seem to think that anyone did anything wrong. Well, except for the child rapist. Ahem, alleged child rapist. I'm going to assume that people are not defending him. Then again, I can't believe that people are supporting the people who did nothing, so who knows? Maybe they are on the side of a man who sets up a charity for troubled boys so that he can have easy access to fondle and rape them. Maybe.

See, it seems to be pretty well documented that this Jerry Sandusky pervert was well known in his little Penn State football circle for sexing up little boys. And what did these people who were in the know do? Well, some of them did nothing. Some told the college. And some had meetings about it and told him, essentially, "don't do that". NO ONE called the cops. And that's a fact that I find simply astonishing. How could you not call the cops? How could you not alert authorities of one form or another if you had this sort of information? I, personally, don't see how you couldn't. But a whole lot of people who worked with Penn State football seem to have a different opinion on the matter. Seeing as how they actually did do nothing, I'd say that they have a very different opinion of what should happen in instances like these.

And the beloved football coach, the ancient Joe Paterno, was one of those people who did nothing. See, when a one Mike McQueary (who was a graduate assistant at the time, but who is now the receivers coach) saw the sicko Sandusky sodomizing a 10-year-old boy in a shower at the team's football complex, all he did was tell Paterno. Of course, he waited until the next day. Because there's nothing all that pressing or urgent about child rape. Right. Anyway, what did old man Paterno do? Go to the cops? Go to the DA? Of course not! No, he decided he should notify the athletic director, a one Tim Curley, and then the vice president, a one Gary Schultz. Neither one of them felt it necessary to go to authorities either.

Now, if you think that I'm being too hard on Paterno, let me clarify my stance. I don't just want him gone. I want every single person who had even a whiff that this was going on to be fired. Every one. Every one who did nothing needs to go on their way. Doesn't that make sense? Well, to about 300 Penn State students who were outside of Paterno's house last night, it doesn't. They would think that's just crazy. That's why they went to Paterno's house to support him.
According to the Collegian Online, "Nearly 300 students gathered outside Joe Paterno's house" in support of a man who does nothing when he knows that one of his colleagues is raping little boys. And you're not going to believe what he said. (Who am I kidding? At this point, would anything that he does or says surprise you? Naaahhh.) He said, "The kids who were victims, whatever they want to say, I think we need to say a prayer for them...It's a tough life when people do certain things to you." Oh, for cryin' out loud! Are you freaking kidding me?!
First of all, the "whatever they want to say" part disgusts me. I'm pretty sure that I'd call someone who was raped when they were ten years old a victim. Whatever they want to say?! What a joke. And he thinks that they should say a prayer for them?! How is THAT going to help?! Hey, Joe! Were you praying for them when you did nothing?! How about instead of praying you actually get off of your ass and do the morally right thing for once. And while it IS "a tough life when people do certain things to you", it is an even tougher life when other people know what is being done to you and they DO NOTHING! I cannot believe this man. Is he senile? Probably. But it gets even worse.

That's right. After his completely clueless little speech there, do you know what he did? According to Fox News "Paterno held his fists over his head three times and said, "We are ..."And the crowd replied, "Penn State!" Oh. My. God. Is that all it's about with those people? JUST football? I don't get it. THAT'S his reaction?? We are Penn State? I'm sure that all of the victims (and there are plenty) are going to be really comforted to know that, as a football college, y'all are right there with each other! Where's the rally outside of the victims houses? Where's the rally of support for those who were actually harmed by all of these do-nothing a-holes? Oh, there wasn't one? Shocking. You know why there wasn't one? Because those people that were in that crowd are paste eating, mouth breathing morons, that's why.
The New York Times has the grand jury report if you'd like to read it. Be forewarned, though. It's rough. But when you get done, if you still think that it was perfectly OK for Joe Paterno and everyone else who knew about this to do nothing then you will know that there is something wrong with you.

Sphere: Related Content

They Can't BE Gay

People are running out of ways to spend the (apparently) inordinate amount of free time that they seem to have. They're turning to alternative methods of idiocy by targeting puppets to get gay married. You know. Because everyone already knows that the puppets are gay. Wait. What?

Yep. Over there at change.org there's a petition that was started by someone named Lair Scott. (I think it's a dude.) The goal? To "let" Ernie and Bert of Sesame Street fame (and likely fortune) get married. Never mind that they're puppets. Never mind that they're not gay (because they're puppets, that is correct). This guy thinks that they should be able to be married and that if enough people sign his little petition that it will happen. Or something like that. Here's the text of his petition, behold!

Let Bert & Ernie Get Married On Sesame Street In this horrific age of LGBT kids taking their own lives, they need to know that they ARE BEAUTIFUL and their lives are worth living. Aside from those that are committing suicide, the bullies that facilitate these tragedies need to learn that homophobia is NOT okay. They need to know that acceptance of their fellow human beings would indeed plant a seed of peace that will reverberate throughout the world. We are not asking that Sesame Street do anything crude or disrespectful by allowing Bert & Ernie to marry. It can be done in a tasteful way. Let us teach tolerance of those that are different. Let Sesame Street and PBS Kids be a big part in saving many worthy lives.

Has this guy even watched Sesame Street at all?! I don't think that he has. If absolutely nothing else, Sesame Street already teaches that everybody is different and that it's OK. And they all seem to co-exist quite well. You've got a big bird (literally) that has an imaginary friend (Mr. Snuffleupagus) and we're cool with that. You've got a monster that is blue and eats cookies all the time. You have another monster that is green and lives in a smelly trash can. You have Bert and Ernie who are orange and yellow. You have that simpleton red monster, Elmo. There's birds and frogs and chickens and pigs. And they all seem to live in perfect harmony, all the while teaching us about the alphabet AND numbers up to twelve. They don't need to be gay! (But I will say that Grover does have a rather effeminate aura about him. He's a little flamboyant. I'm just sayin'.)

Seriously, what is it with people? Are they just so happy with their own act that they don't even see that they're making things worse with all of their "enlightenment"? People don't need to be categorized and labeled! It's OK if there isn't a gay puppet on TV. Really. It IS! If they would just calm down and not let things go to their heads (and then come up with the ridiculous project of trying to get a couple of puppets to be "able" to get married), I'm pretty sure that things would work themselves out. I swear! Even without gay puppets, I think that things will turn out just fine.

Sphere: Related Content

Do I Still Get My Tickets?

Wow. Some people just don't get it. See, when you have a kid and you're ordered to pay child support, you're supposed to pay it because, well, that's your kid. And I don't care if she's a bitch or he's an ass. It's your kid. And if you're not going to pay for your kid, I'm perfectly OK with you being arrested. Do I care how you're arrested? Not particularly. But I would really enjoy it if there could be an element of surprise. Like someone thinking that they've won tickets to a football game, only to find out that it was all a ruse to get you to essentially surrender yourself to the cops because you owe over $30,000 in child support, you scumbag.

That's right. WRBL.com reports on a sting operation that consisted of suspects being mailed a letter which told them that they had won tickets to the 2011 Iron Bowl. They were supposed to go to somewhere called Opelika and pick up the tickets. All they needed to do was bring the letter and a photo ID of themselves and the tickets would be theirs! Allegedly. Once their identity was confirmed, they were immediately cuffed and arrested. Awesome.

There's not much more to it than that. And better than I can commentate on it is the video of these arrests happening. From elation to "Oh, s**t" in less than a minute. The best one? The last guy who, as he's being led out in handcuffs to a van, asks, "Do I still get my tickets?!" Nice!

Sphere: Related Content

The Sperminator

By now, I'm sure that you've been made aware of the extramarital dalliances of the ex-Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not only did he screw around on his wife, but he fathered a child with this other woman (who was a member of his household staff, otherwise known as a maid) about TEN YEARS ago. Holy cow. And he managed to make it through an election not once, but twice and not have this discovered? Amazing.

That's really the most amazing thing out of all of this. Well, and that Maria didn't just castrate him on the spot after she found out. She went out on a limb as she vouched for his character during the election in which he became the Governor of California. Little did she know that as she was telling everyone what a great guy he was and how well she knew him that he had an illegitimate child (with his maid) that would have been about three or four years old. Sure, he's a great guy.

See, it's one thing to cheat on your wife. It's a completely different thing to be spawning children with the hired help. And it's in a totally different league when you wife is humiliated in the public eye when all of this finally comes out. It still hasn't come out exactly why he told her, either. Considering that he was able to keep this under wraps for ten years, I can't imagine what happened at this point. He must have been paying off his mistress-maid quite well in order for her to have not even said a peep.

Cheating on your wife is just a scumbag thing to do. Not being a responsible and involved parent once you've fathered a child is an even more scumbag thing to do. Translation: Arnold is a scumbag. I hope Maria takes him for everything that he is worth and then some.

Sphere: Related Content

Most Depressing Poll Results Ever

I know that we're doomed. I know that we're scroomed. And I've seen it coming for a while now. I just didn't realize (or didn't want to realize) how bad the doomnation has become. Today, I realized it's farther along than I thought. People are more like sheeple more than ever now. And do I have a story for you to illustrate that point.

Let's refer to the article that the fine folks over at the NYDailyNews.com put together and learn about an instance in which a 6-year old boy from Oregon stole the family minivan and went out for a drive in search of some sort of snack because he was allegedly hungry. He never did get those snacks because he ended up plowing into several mailboxes before running into a truck. Oh, and in order to pay for the snacks that he was in search of, he took some "rolls of pennies". Well, at least he wasn't going to show up empty handed. And he took it upon himself to take care of his basic needs. Seems like a real go-getter, that boy. But that's not what has me concerned.

Like a lot of news stories online, there was a little poll next to the article. And, like a lot of polls next to news stories online, this poll seemed asinine to me. Here is the question: Should cars have more safety precautions to prevent kids from taking joyrides? Uhh...what? Like what sort of safety precautions? I really can't even imagine because it's a ridiculous question. How about you try to teach your kid not to drive the car when they're six, all right? OK, then. But let's look at the choices anyway, shall we?

You may choose from one of the following answers:

Yes! Kids are getting too smart these days thanks to technology. Keys are not that hard to figure out.

No. Parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids’ hands.

I'm too stupid to decide. (OK, I this one up. The real choice was "I'm not sure".)

Am I the only one who found the first choice to be not only ridiculous, but contradictory as well? Technology is making kids too smart, yet keys are not that hard to figure out. Well, if the keys are not that hard to figure out, then what does technology have to do with it? And I'm not so sure that I buy that technology is making kids too smart. It's definitely not making adults too smart, I'll tell you that. But, then again, I digress. Just to see what the percentages were, I went ahead and participated in the poll. I clicked on "No. Parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids' hands." Then I clicked "Vote" so that I could see the results. I wish I hadn't. I wish I had just walked away in my blissful ignorance and kept thinking that more people would think that people should be responsible enough to keep their car keys out of the hands of their small children. But I didn't walk away.

No, instead I looked at the results and almost totally lost it when I read that ninety four percent of the people that took the poll thought that cars should have more safety precautions to prevent kids from taking joyrides because technology is making kids too smart and that keys are not that hard to figure out! Ninety four percent thought that. Ninety four percent did not think that parents should be responsible enough to keep car keys out of kids' hands. Ninety four percent. What in the world is wrong with those people?

I want those people studied. More importantly, I want them sterilized. Now. If they can't do anything to prevent their underage kids from taking their vehicles because keys are not that hard to figure out, then it's over. We're done. There is nothing left to do but to continue to take up residence in my walled off compound and hope for sweet, sweet victory of death to overtake me. Ninety four percent of people believe that there is nothing that they can do to change or mold their children's behavior. Ninety four percent. We're scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

The Internet Lies

I really don't understand a lot of stuff. That's kind of why I'm here. To figure stuff out. But I am convinced that there are some things that I will just never understand. Crimes where the victim needs to play an extremely crucial role in the wrongdoings are some of the things that I don't understand. And I'm not talking about scams where people are bilked out of their life savings. While I don't profess to say that I totally understand how those can happen (and I tend to subscribe to the "A fool and his money are soon parted" explanation for most of them), they sometimes (rarely) have a (microscopic) shred of plausibility to them. (I don't really think that. I'm just trying to be nice. Really, I don't get how they ever happen, but that's probably just me.) But when the crime involves having to coerce the mother to engage in sexual acts with her child, it really boggles the mind. Wait. When they...what now?

Yeah, I'm still trying to noodle this one through. According to an AP story which appeared over yonder at the Huffington Post, the individual that we're describing here is a one Steven DeMink. The article starts off confusing me, as it reads "Online...he presented himself as Dalton St. Clair, an attractive single father and psychologist". Now, I don't know if he included a picture of himself online, but this is the perv we're talking about. Behold!

Yeah, not so much in the attractive category if you're asking me. It also doesn't seem like he would have much going on in the smarts category either, but his little ruse seemed to work. I'm going to tell you what he did and then you tell me if these mothers, who were unthinkably somehow unknowingly complicit in his little scheme, should really be parenting at all, OK? My answer is a massive NO. Maybe they could be good parents one day, but clearly right now is not that day. Perhaps give them something to practice taking care of first before moving up to actual humans. I'm thinking of a perhaps a houseplant. Not much can go wrong there...unless you're the plant.

This guy would go into chat rooms on the Internet and somehow convince "...single mothers...to sexually assault their children as a form of therapy." And he did this for (wait for it) more than a year! That he was able to do it even once is astonishing to me. What kind of mother would go along with this sort of advice? Well, in some cases, this perv "...promised the women a date if they followed through with his directions." A date? In exchange for sexually assaulting your own child? THAT was a relevant factor for some of these idiots? Are you dry shaving me?! How is that possible? Who ARE these people?! I guess they're people like this woman: Apparently, "In one case, Demink started online chats with an Oregon woman about the sexual development of her 8-year-old autistic son...He told her to engage in sexually explicit conduct with her son as a way to teach him about sex...and she did so while Demink watched on a web camera." Excuse me for a moment while I find a wall to bang my head against.

They were on the freaking Internet! Don't they know that the Internet lies?! He said he was a psychologist, so that was good enough for them?! Have they also recently lost a lot of money to a Nigerian prince? Are these women being allowed to continue caring for their children? I don't think that it's an overreaction to ask that question, nor do I think it's an overreaction for someone else to be in charge of these particular children. What kind of person are you who has some guy on the Internet tell you to engage in some form of sex with your autistic son and you think it's a good idea and you do it?! WITH a webcam running?!

Well, the answer to that is right there in the police report. See, "Demink intimated to these women that the result of the therapy would be healthier children." Oh. OK, then. I didn't know that he told them that it would help their children. That makes all of the difference. Totally understandable now. Of course. I should have known that there was a reasonable explanation for all of this insane lunacy. Sweet fancy Moses, what is going on here?!

Oh, look! Here's some information about one of the women! This might help us. OK, it says that this particular individual met this guy on "....an online dating site called singleparentmeet.com." All right. Nothing wrong with making friends online. But then, "She told police she performed sex acts on her young son as directed by her online male friend." All right. There's absolutely something wrong with that! As directed by?! The direction I can fully comprehend. It's the following through with it that still boggles me! Maybe her mother (who was inexplicably interviewed for this story) can help shed some insight on what her daughter was thinking. She said that "...her daughter was "depressed and lonesome" after her divorce." Uh-huh. I'm going to need more than that. "I don't know how he wrangled her in...She could have turned off the computer and gone the other way. He must have had a power over her." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

A power over her?! How about just admitting that your daughter is a complete dumbass?! Power? What kind of power? I've read this story several times (in hopes that I read it wrong at least once) and it makes no mention of him being overly tricky or magic or anything like that. He's just a big, perverted dope who managed to convince not one, not two, but at least seven women from all over the country to sexually assault their children because it would "help" them.

Seven. I have just lost all faith in humanity. I have nothing left. Seven. Indiana, Georgia, Illinois, Oregon New Hampshire, Idaho and Florida (of course). Those folks are spread all across the country. If it was contained to a particular region (like Florida, as I had expected), maybe I would have some faith left. But it's not. It's from one coast to another and everywhere in between. I don't really know what else to do with that other than to completely abandon any shred of hope that I may have ever had. For cryin' out loud, "Because the Internet told me to" is about the worst excuse I have ever heard in my life and it happened in this instance at least seven times. Yeah, I give up. Good Lord...

Sphere: Related Content