No Time For Bronchitis

I seem to be noticing a slight trend these days in the whole "man on the street interview" department. It seems that ever since Antoine Dodson graced us with his poetic words of wisdom when telling us to "Hide yo kids, hide yo wife and hide yo husband 'cause they're rapin' everrbody out here!" that the goal is to find the wackiest person to interview for the local evening newscast. And that appears to be exactly what occurred when Ms. Sweet Brown (I swear that's her name) was interviewed after her apartment building caught on fire. At least, I think that it's her apartment building. It's not overly clear to me. (She seems wacky enough that she might have fled her own dwelling even if it wasn't the one burning to the ground.) But what is clear is that she's pretty colorful. Seems like she'd make an entertaining neighbor. Check her out below. Click here if she doesn't show up.

Sphere: Related Content

The Fiery Unit

Sure, you're going to be a little bit upset when you find out that your husband is having an affair. You might even contemplate some sort of revenge upon him and, perhaps, his straying unit. But if that's going to be the case, you're really going to need to think about what you're ultimately hoping to accomplish, here. Because while you might only set out to simply burn your husband's penis out of rage, should you end up burning down the entire house and killing him in the process, you're going to have a lot of explaining to do.

Let's go to the land down under to a suburb of Adelaide, South Australia called Unley. There we'll find a one 46-year old Rajini Narayan. We'll find her to find her husband has been having an affair. According to news.com.au, for some reason, in December of 2008, Ms. Narayan's husband was lying in the couple's bed and gave Ms. Narayan "...his email password and she found emails detailing the affair." Well. That's one way to do it. Needless to say, his wife was less than thrilled.

After learning of his affair, she allegedly said to him, "You say you loved her. I'm going to burn your penis. I'm going to tell your family what you have done." Shouldn't she have just chosen one? Tell his family OR burn the penis? And did she really say it like that? I mean, that seems rather matter-of-fact. Why would she say that? It really ruins the surprise of all of the penis burning that would take place later if you're asking me.

Now, her attorney claims that "...the words were "spoken from Narayan's heart" because of a "genuine, if wildly misguided" belief she would keep her husband." Hmm. Do you really want a husband with a burned penis? I don't know that you do. I certainly don't know why you would. Granted, it would probably stop him from having affairs, but that doesn't mean that Ms. Narayan, as the one doing all of the burning, is going to be benefiting sexually from such a deed either. But Mr. Narayan apparently didn't seem to care about his wife's plans/threats, as he allegedly "...rolled away from her, turning his back on her. He said: `No you won't, you fat, dumb bitch'." And she wants this guy...why? Burn his weenie off. That's how I feel about the situation right about now.

And that's apparently how Ms. Narayan felt as well, as she doused her husband in petrol and proceeded to have herself quite the weenie roast. However, her act of revenge wasn't just limited to the man's unit. No, she managed to burn him over 75 percent of his body at the same time she burned down the family home. The crispy cheater died a few days later. Whoops.

Ms. Narayan is, of course, on trial for killing her husband. She doesn't appear to be denying that she acted the way that she did. And while one can sympathize with someone who finds out that their spouse is cheating on them, can they really sympathize to the point where they're OK with them burning them to death? Perhaps. Perhaps if, like the prosecutor says, "Ms. Narayan had told a tarot card reader, who she had visited just days before the attack on her husband, that her husband would not let her reduce her working hours because she was paying for the other woman." No pun intended here, but what a dick.

I'm not so sure why Ms. Narayan couldn't just up and leave. There's no way in hell I'm staying with some guy who tells me that my paycheck is helping pay for some other woman that he's having an affair with. Yeah, I know that burning his penis off sounds really great and all. But the thing about fire is that it's pretty hard to contain to just one bodily organ, especially when the whole body is doused in fuel. I can't imagine that she won't be found guilty. Then again, I couldn't imagine that Lorena Bobbitt was going to get off either. Stay tuned!

Sphere: Related Content

J-Lo Induced Arson

I guess if you're going to watch a movie with your wife, it's probably a good idea to make sure that the movie doesn't contain an actress which will cause said wife to burn your boat, burn your go-kart, burn your jacuzzi and threaten to put your dogs to sleep. Wait. What now?

Correct. Naturally, this took place in Flori-duh. And as we learn from the NWF Daily News, there's all sorts of strange going on in this one. What we have here is a one 34-year old and old enough to know better Shannon Wriska of Milton, Florida, who had watched a movie with her husband, a one Robert Wriska. While we do not know which movie they watched, we do know that it starred Jennifer Lopez. We later learn that Mrs. Wriska is not a fan of the J-Lo, as evidenced by her wacky behavior after the unknown movie. (In her indefensible defense, if she was somehow forced to sit through the God awful Gigli, I can understand being a tad bit irate. It's time out of your life that you'll never get back.)

According to the police report, "Robert stated his wife was very jealous of the actress and did not like him seeing her in the movie. He said an argument ensued over the ...and Shannon later left the house". Very jealous of the actress? Look, I'm not defending this nutjob, but did Robert have any part in perpetuating the jealousy? Any comments like "I wish you looked like her" or "I'd divorce you and marry her in a second"? Anything like that? It still doesn't justify what happened later, but it would lend just a bit of understanding to the seemingly disturbed woman. (And she left? Really? Over J-Lo on the TV? It's not like J-Lo was in their living room. But she left anyway. Hmm. OK, then.)

Now, would you think that a normal person would still be mad about this the next day? (It IS a movie, after all. And really, it's Jennifer Lopez. She's hot and all, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see what folks see in her past the obvious attractiveness.) The key phrase there would be "normal person", which Mrs. Wriska does not seem to be. That's because the next day, when she saw Robert drinking over at their neighbor's house (Oh, come on! Like you couldn't figure out that alcohol was going to be involved in this! Please! I've taught you better than that, haven't I?), Shannon then walked outside of their trailer (And don't you even try to tell me that you didn't see it coming that they lived in a trailer, either! You knew it! I knew it! We all knew it! There had to be alcohol AND a trailer involved!) and "...started pulling hoses off of the motor of his go-kart and lit it on fire". (All right. I didn't really see the go-kart coming into the picture, but I can't say I'm overly surprised at this point.)

As Robert tried to put out the flames on his beloved kart "...he saw Shannon drive away in her vehicle with his dogs, saying she was going to “put them to sleep"." Oh, yeah. That's real normal there. What is wrong with you, ma'am? Seriously. What kind of crazy, drunken, J-Lo hating, go-kart torching woman does such a thing? Probably the same kind of woman who also tries to torch a boat after the go-kart owner resumes drinking beer with the neighbor.

Seriously? Seriously. After Robert went back over to the neighbor's (probably for some much, much needed alcohol) "...someone came in the house and said that Shannon was lighting Robert’s boat on fire and that she was attempting to light a Jacuzzi on fire by pouring gasoline inside of it". (I'm kind of impressed (or amused) that they live in a trailer in Flori-duh and yet have plenty of toys. Go-karts, boats, Jacuzzis, the works. Why the trailer, folks?) Can we just presume that the jacuzzi was empty when she was pouring gasoline inside of it? In this case? Umm...probably not.

As you would imagine (or at least, hope) Shannon was later arrested. When being interviewed at the jail, "...she stated both she and her husband had been fighting throughout the night of Sept. 1 and into the following day. Shannon said Robert called her several times, verbally “harassing” her." Oh, no. Not verbally "harassing" her! You're going to get yourself a go-kart burnin' if you keep that up! Or will you? She also stated that "...Robert lit the go-kart on fire, and (she) didn’t admit to lighting anything on fire." Of course she didn't. Noooo. That boat and that Jacuzzi just spontaneously combusted. And of course he would light his own go-kart on fire. Sure, that makes sense. Or maybe it doesn't. What makes more sense is never watching a movie with Jennifer Lopez in it if this woman is anywhere around you. Oh, and by the way. She looks just like you think she does. Behold!

Told you so.

Sphere: Related Content

A Man's Love For His Toys

There's a lot of sadness in today's tale. After all, what would you do if you found out that your mother had gotten rid of that which you had considered to be your life partner and you realized that you would have to go the rest of your life without that partner? Would you burn down your family's home in an attempt to kill yourself? Would you answer these questions differently if your life partner was a toy? Wait. A...toy?

Correct. A toy. What we have here is the story of a Japanese gentleman, a one 30-year old Yoshifumi Takabe. According to the Australian Broadcasting Company, Mr. Takabe and his possessions had been living with his mother. His possessions apparently included enough of his toy robot figures to fill 300 boxes to the ceiling. Now, I'm sure you're thinking that might be a little strange, but they weren't just any toy robots. No, they were "...robot toys were figures from the Gundam animated TV series, which started in the 1970s, about space wars involving giant robots." I'm sure that has you thinking just a little bit differently about him, doesn't it? (Hey, I didn't say it was for the better. I just said it was different!)

I'm all for a collection of vintage toys. (Are the 1970s considered vintage? For the sake of this argument, let's say that they are. I think it might kind of help our impression of Mr. Takabe just a shred. Or not.) But 300 boxes stacked to the ceiling? That's an awful lot of robot toys. What was the show again? Gundam? It's gotta be a Japanese thing, right? Well, even if it's not, it's definitely a Mr. Takabe thing.

This story continues with Mr. Takabe's mother throwing out some of the toys. While I understand her not being overly thrilled (or able to move) in a home with 300 boxes of robot toys, throwing out only some of them seems rather passive-aggressive if you're asking me. It's not like throwing out a box or two is going to make a dent in the enormous collection that has been amassed. She must not have known that Mr. Takabe would become "...suicidal after losing the figures" because he said they "...were partners he wanted to spend his life with." Hmm.

You know, as odd as that sounds, perhaps Mr. Takabe was simply a realist. I'm guessing that with the 300 boxes of robot toys, he was thoroughly immersed in the ways and culture of the un-layable. The toys might have been the perfect mates for him. Polygamy toy heaven. Or something like that.

Not able to deal with the prospect of living without some of his toys, Mr. Takabe set the family home on fire because "...he wanted to die with his robots in the fire." OK, then. If someone wants to die in a fire, there's really only one requirement. That would be to stay in where the fire is at. Apparently, Mr. Takabe wasn't real clear on that concept, as he managed to escape the fire unscathed.

He appeared in court and pled guilty to burning down his house and, presumably, the rest of his toys. Isn't he going to be a little devastated at this point? I mean, talk about overreacting? At least before, he had some toys and a place to live. Now he has no toys and, well, I guess he kind of has a place to live. Jail is definitely a place to live. Man, and he thought he wanted to die before. I'm guessing he won't think that he had it so bad after a little time in a Japanese jail. Then again, perhaps he could meet himself a different sort of life partner, now that his toys are gone.

Sphere: Related Content

Father of the Year Front Runner

I believe that we have a front runner candidate for Father of the Year. I mean, it's really going to be hard to top a guy who takes funds that were donated to his only surviving son (after the rest of his family, his girlfriend and two other children, were killed in a house fire) and spends all of the money within three months on such expenditures as hookers. Um, wait. What now?

Correct. Meet Tubal Eduardo.

Mr. Eduardo experienced an unbelievable tragedy on March 12, 2007, when his girlfriend, Heather Marchie and two of his three children, Tubal Jr., 5, and Angelina, 4, were killed in a fire in the home that they shared with Mr. Eduardo and with his third child, a one Noah (who appears to have been around 3-ish). Now, according to NJ.com, after said tragedy, there was a fundraiser that was arranged by the "...parent-teacher association at the Weston School". Apparently, one of the children who was killed in the fire had been attending that school prior to death. The funds raised were to go into an account for Noah and were to be used so that Noah would be able to have something for his future. It was a very nice gesture, really.

But what was not so nice of a gesture was this alleged scumbag allegedly siphoning the funds for his own personal use. According to WCBS-TV, there was $38,000 raised for little Noah. As of the filing of court papers for this unimaginable act, there was $114.27 left in that account. Hmm. Seems to be a little short, doesn't it? Yep. It does. I wonder where it went?

Well, if you consult another article by the fine folks over there at NJ.com, you'll learn that allegedly some of the funds, "at least $7,107 went to First Professional Referral Services." Um, what's a professional referral service? "I believe it’s an escort service," said a one Detective Michael Schutta in court. Oohhh. I see. (Referral service? What are they referring people to? Free clinics? Penicillin, perhaps?) I wonder what kind of hookers these were? I mean, were they regular, couple hundred bucks an hour, hookers? Or were they like Eliot Spitzer's whores who could run thousands of dollars? It's hard to say which one would be better if you had to choose. The whole idea is completely reprehensible.

So, let me get this straight. This guy loses his girlfriend and two of his kids in a fire. He and his little baby son survive. The kind, kind people at his deceased child's elementary school hold a fundraiser for the surviving child. They raise 38 grand. (They do allot 5 grand for the father, by the way.) And this guy takes the money and buys hookers with it? Are you kidding me?! How does one excuse that sort of behavior?

I don't know how "one" excuses it, but I know how his defense attorney is excusing it and it is absolutely despicable. According to a one seemingly horrible individual, a one defense lawyer Maureen O'Reilly, "...her client had just endured a tragedy. " Huh. When my dad died, I considered that to be a tragedy. I didn't siphon money from a (non-existent) fund and go get myself a bunch of hookers. I mean, I was pretty overwrought at the time, but not money-stealing, hooker-hiring overwrought, you know?

This awful human being also makes sure that we understand that after the fire, "Eduardo had nothing" and that"A good part of his family was gone." Yeah, I understand that. Get to the part where it's OK to steal from your son in order to buy yourself some hookers. Get to that part. "Mr. Eduardo used the funds in order to live," she said. Among the purchases was an 8-year-old car. "I hardly believe that's living the high life." That's not the part I was expecting.

I don't give a crap as to whether he purchased an 8-year old car or an 8-year old child! (He had just lost almost his whole family, don't forget. Child purchasing, while wrong, might have seemed more warranted.) The point is that it wasn't his money! What part of that don't you understand, you soul-less, reptilian, defense attorney, you?!

Aside from the hooker funding, there were also "$14,346.75 in cash withdrawals, and $2,472.22 for food, gas and lodging." That "food, gas and lodging" I'm assuming is hooker related. I'm wondering if the whole "He bought an 8-year old car" defense is what explains the nearly fifteen grand in cash withdrawals. Do we next get to hear about how stupid he was that he paid that much for an 8-year old car? I can't imagine that we will (and I pray to God that we don't).

It would appear that all that this scumbag can get is a five year jail sentence if he's found guilty. Granted, anything can happen (innocent until proven guilty, remember!). But if he's found guilty, it's up to five years in jail. That seems like an awfully short period of time for someone who was stealing from his little boy who had survived a fire that killed the majority of his family. It seems like not quite long enough. Definitely the front runner for Father of the Year. Definitely.

Sphere: Related Content

Recalling the Recall, as I Recall

Is all clothing supposed to be flame retardant? I don't recall that it is. I know that sleepwear is supposed to be flame retardant, but I guess I always thought that applied to a) things that you actually slept in, and b) mostly for children's sleepwear. I knew children's sleepwear is to be flame retardant (which explains why I spent my childhood clad in a Hefty bag when I slept), but what constitutes sleepwear. I ask because I just stumbled upon this headline: "Fire danger - six deaths reported from robes that catch fire." Whaaaa....?

Now, first of all, the headline is poorly written. It makes it sound like the robes are just suddenly bursting into flames. While sounding pretty cool, that's not really the case. Here's the thing about fire: It burns things. It's not very discriminate either. It burns damn near everything. What does fire not burn to the point of destruction? Very little if anything at all. I'm trying to think of something that fire or heat would not alter in some form and I'm drawing a blank. Dirt. That's all I'm coming up with. Dirt doesn't burn. Maybe gems, but don't quote me on that. You know, things like diamonds, rubies, emeralds. (I feel like I'm on Pyramid. Ooh! Things in a pirates booty! Or is that bounty? Never mind.) I don't think that heat can alter those. But metals, glass and textiles all will feel the wrath of the flame.

The first line of the article is confusing to me. It reads: "In the two months since a line of robes were recalled over flammability concerns, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has learned that six people have been burned to death wearing them." Now, does that mean that since the recall, six people met a charred and unfortunate end? Or does that mean that the robes were recalled and only after the recall did they learn that before the recall, six people had been burned to death? I can't imagine that it means either one because if it refers to the second scenario, then whey did they recall them in the first place? How would they have known about the death by flambe' if no one had experienced it? I don't get it.

The story continues with "The CPSC said five of the six victims were women -- three in their 80s -- and all were cooking when their robes caught fire." Um, wait. What now?

So, let me get this straight. These robes did not spontaneously combust whilst being worn. No, these robes, it sounds like, were being worn whilst cooking. Now I don't know if I can assume what "cooking" implies; whether that means over a range top stove or with an oven. But am I the only one who sees a couple of corresponding factors that could lead to these fiery deaths that are not going to be solved by recalling the particular robe?

First of all, five of these folks were in their 80s. Now, I'm not saying that if you're in your eighties that you should be sitting in an easy chair with a shawl around your shoulders. But I am saying that if you're in your eighties, perhaps there's the possibility that you're not quite as alert as you were when you were younger. Perhaps that's a reason for not noticing that your sleeve had gotten a little too close to the burner and was now aflame.

Second, five of the six folks were cooking at the time of all of the fire. So, should I assume that an alternative item of clothing would have caught fire the same way that the robe did or would it not have caught fire the same way that the robe did? I understand how if a garment is totally combustible that if one little piece of it is ignited how the entire thing could become engulfed in flames in a matter of seconds. That I get. But is this robe any more combustible than any other article of clothing is my question.

Here's my point: I have yet to read how this is the fault of the robe and why the robe is being recalled. What would be wrong with putting a label on the robes that said "Do not use near fire or heat source such as a range or an oven"? Look, don't get me wrong. If the product is unsafe, it should not be sold to consumers. But how is this robe unsafe? If you're cooking with a long dangling sleeve and it dips itself into the grease that you're making your fried chicken with and then that grease laden sleeve goes up next to a burner on the stove, guess what? It's going to catch on fire no matter what it is. How is this the robe's fault?!

According to the press release "The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction." How is wearing that particular robe an "unreasonable risk"? I don't think it is. If the robe is made out of some sort of fabric that will conduct fire at a greater rate than any other fabric, that's a different story. That becomes the story of "What dumbass decided to make a robe out of that particular fabric in the first place?"

I don't want people to die unreasonably. I'm not all that thrilled when people die reasonably, to tell you the truth. But this just makes no sense to me. I'd really like to know what the sixth person was doing when their robe caught fire if they weren't cooking. The government seems to be having a tighter and tighter grip with it's hand in everything that the public is doing and/or consuming these days and I can't tell if it's doing anyone any good. I'm not so sure that recalling these robes is necessary. I'm far from convinced that it's going to do any more good than issuing a statement that says "Don't cook in this or you could die" would do.

Am I missing something here? Let me know if I am. I almost feel like I must be because the whole recalling of all of the robes seems a bit dramatic to me considering that, given the facts presented, telling people to not cook while wearing the robes would be equally effective.

Sphere: Related Content

It's A Christmastime House Fire!

(Side note: My apologies for the lateness of this post. I could have just bagged it for the day, but I haven't gone 358 days straight with a blog post only to miss a day one week before the year is over. No way. I might be lazy, but I enjoy a good streak. And if you had the day that I had yesterday, you would have been exhausted also. I was caught up in a whirlwind of a plethora baked goods and, oddly enough, Quarter Pounders With Cheese. It was a heckuva day. Very tasty, but a heckuva day and I was exhausted. I'm just sayin'.)

What I like about Christmas is that even though things are all, you know, Christmas-y and stuff, some things never change. Things may look a little different and they may even feel a little different, but beneath it all, everything is just the way it has always been. It's just brightly decorated and festive right now is all. Underneath all of those twinkling strands of lights is all that you've been familiar with all along. And idiots are no exception. Idiots abound all year 'round! And not just in Florida, either! (Though that is where the headquarters are located.) Idiots are everywhere.

This year's Christmas time tale of "What could possibly go wrong?" comes to us from New Bedford, Massachusetts, where a homeowner decided that it was time to remove the ice from the back porch of his house. He decided to do so by hooking his blowtorch up to a 20 pound propane cylinder and using that to thaw the ice. Do you see where I'm going with this festive tale? (If you were hoping for a Christmas miracle, well, you're going to be disappointed.)

It would seem that some genius decided that the element of fire would be the best way to thaw ice. And while that does follow the guidelines for the physical properties of both ice and heat, that science doesn't exactly take into consideration the element of the wood. ie, The wood that the house is built out of. (Ooooohhhh! THAT wood!) Yes. That wood, Einstein.

According to South Coast Today "...the building's owner was trying to melt the snow and ice on the back porch using a large torch hooked up to a 20-pound propane cylinder." Now, for those of us who may not be Hank Hill, a 20-pound propane cylinder is roughly the standard size tank that is commonly seen on BBQ grills. Maybe about the size of 10 human heads, creatively stacked. It's a lot. Remember, this guy was trying to thaw ice, not cook a steak. Meat? A little denser than ice. (I have no idea if meat is really more dense than ice. It seems like it would be, however, so I went with it. I might be a liar, but I'm an honest one.) But regardless of the thickness of the object the flame is point at, fire is fire and it's going to burn things that burn. Ice. Meat. Wood. All burners. All highly susceptible to the almighty "flame".

The South Coast Today article also states that "Those who were home escaped safely after being alerted by smoke alarms." (This sentence roughly translates into "Those who were home escaped after hearing the man who set the house on fire yelling, "Oh, S***! I set the G-D house on fire!") It took about 25 firefighters approximately 30 minutes to extinguish the flames of idiocy. "Snow and ice impeded the fire trucks' mobility. Firefighters guarded against hoses freezing and prevented streets from icing over from the running water." Huh. Funny, I'm not reading about how the firefighters prevented the streets from freezing by using a blowtorch on them! Not surprisingly but definitely unfortunately, those thirty minutes were enough to do around $30,000 worth of damage to the home. Ho, ho, nooooo!

"The homeowner will not be charged in the accidental fire." Charged with what, exactly? Not stopping and thinking? Failure to ponder? Did he do this around products that specifically say "Do not store near heat or flame"? (That was the question, wasn't it? Can this moron be charged with anything? Nope! He's already clearly guilty of being a moron. And besides, it's Christmas! Let's let the moron be with his family during this, the most holiest time of the year.)

Fortunately, there was a quote from Fire Captain Kruger that will provide us all with a bit of knowledge to tuck away in our brains for future use. He said, "This is an example of how you should not use a cutting torch to thaw out frozen water pipes or anything else. When you have wood framing, it will cause a fire." Wait. I take that back. Don't store that way for future use. Laugh at it and toss it away. Far, far away. That's because this is NOT "...an example of how you should not use a cutting torch to thaw out frozen water pipes or anything else." It's an example of how fire burns things!! Fire burns a LOT of things! And regardless, I was not under the impression that people in general needed a refresher course every now and then as to what it is that fire actually does! It's really not a complicated lesson. Here, I'll tell you all you need to know about fire that will help you make rational decisions in regard to fire in the future. Ready? (Feel free to take notes if you'd like.) It's hot! It burns! It hurts! Lesson over. Who wants egg nog?

And it's not just because the guy had "wood framing" that there was a fire. It wasn't spontaneous combustion. It was what now? The idiot, that is correct.

You know, maybe it's just because it's Christmas, but I'm kinda starting to feel sorry for the guy. I mean, after all, he was probably outside trying to get the ice off of the back porch because it was easier than being all warm and toasty inside where his wife was constantly nagging him about something. If she wasn't nagging then she was telling some insanely boring story about people he'd never met and, if he was lucky, never would have to meet. So he goes outside for a little peace and quiet and warmth from the light blue glow of the torch tip and what happens? Dammit, if that siding did not just catch on fire at the very moment he leaned over to light his Marlboro! Of all the bad luck! Now the guy is stuck with his wife in some hotel or some other small quarters that he cannot escape from. And you know that until the end of time, this guy, on every Christmas, is going to have to hear his wife say, "Remember how Bill burned down the house that one Christmas Eve?" or "Remember the time that Bill was drunk and tried to melt off the ice and burned the house down instead?" or "Bill, tell your niece's new boyfriend about the time that you damn near killed us all by setting the house on fire on Christmas Eve!"

What am I saying? He set the house on fire with a blowtorch he was using to melt ice! He deserves every second of it! Just as you deserve this Christmas knowledge that I have bestowed upon you. Use it wisely. The gift of knowing all about fire is nothing to take for granted.

Sphere: Related Content

Flames Underneath

(Side note: You'd think that a computer is a computer, yes? That's what I'd think! But I'm using a friend's computer right now and it's not that it's difficult, it just "feels" different. Granted, the fact that I just woke up to write this and it's the middle of the night might have something to do with my current state of ineptness, but when you're not at home/where your regular computer usually is, you have to make do with what's available. And I'm doing that, yet it's just not the same. But I'm too tired to drive back to my place, so computer that isn't mine it is!)

Men are fascinated with tools. They love them. Apparently, just having a penis isn't enough. After all, the penis has only a couple of tool-like functions. The drill (power and hand) and, well, maybe that's it. I guess if you consider a hose to be a tool then that would count, but I'm not, so it won't. Regardless as to the number of tool-like functions of the penis, it certainly can't shoot fire. Thank God.

The bigger the tool is, the bigger tool the man will be. That's the rule. The more dangerous the tool is, the more likely it is that something will go horribly awry. And the farther south you go, the more the chances increase that an easily preventable occurrence will, in fact, occur. I think it has something to do with the more humid climate and the less capable grey matter of the human brain in the south. And this little tale of moronicism takes place in Georgia. Georgia shares a border with Florida. Enough said.

Welcome to Sargent, Georgia to the home of ones Galen and Tammy Winchell, likely no relation to the founder of that fabulous donut chain of yore. (I'm assuming it's yore. I couldn't get an answer earlier, but I have yet to see one anywhere, so yore it is.) Their home was apparently a haven for many, many cobwebs underneath the eaves of the exterior of the home. Now, most people, upon seeing cobwebs underneath their eaves, would desire to get rid of them. (People like to be tidy.) But then again, most people would use a broom or a Shop-Vac. You know, something that doesn't emit FIRE. You see where this is going, right?

According to the Times-Herald, Mr. Winchell, clearly the brains behind this operation, decided it would be a good idea to remove the cobwebs using a blowtorch. Had the blowtorch not actually been blowing flames at the time of the de-cobbing, his pressing need to use manly tools at all times might not have resulted in, you guessed it, fire. So not only were the cobwebs eradicated, so was one end of their home.

Now when the firefighters got there, the article says that their response "was hampered until the power company got to the scene to disconnect the power, which ran through the attic of the home." Is this protocol for every time that there is a fire? Wait for the power company? Is that why their vehicles have those orange swirly lights on top of their cars? That would be good to know because I've never been able to figure out why a power company employee needed an "I'm important, so move over" light on top of their vehicle. But considering that the fire department had to wait for the power company to show up before the fire could be put out, I'm not so sure that light is much of a factor in anything. Certainly it doesn't facilitate a speedy arrival to a building which is burning itself to the ground after being set on fire by its idiotic owner and his cobweb removing device, the handy blowtorch.

I'm pretty much thinking that if you're that moronic, you don't deserve a house. Home ownership requires just a touch of common sense, of which this guy would seem to have none. Perhaps one might use said blowtorch to remove the cobwebs from the attic in his skull where his brains should be.

What have we learned? Let's review: A blowtorch shoots out a flammable flame. You shouldn't use your blowtorch to remove cobwebs from underneath the eaves of your house. If you do, you're a moron and you will, eventually, set your house on fire and watch it attempt to burn itself to the ground long before the power company arrives. And according to a one James Gantt, a Coweta Fire Investigator , it is advised against to use one's blowtorch as a method to rid one's home of cobwebs.

Sphere: Related Content