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.

moreless

Hating In Peace

I'm not a huge fan of rap (or hip hop as it is apparently now being called), but as a lover of pop culture, I do know who various rappers are. Today, we're going to take a look at a rapper called T.I. and what he thinks about gay people who don't like it when other people don't like the aforementioned gay people.

T.I. did an interview with Vibe magazine. During the interview, the subject of all Americans having equal rights came up. Here are his words of wisdom on the subject: "While T.I. makes clear that he supports anyone’s sexual preference, he then connects, in his opinion, a current oversensitivity among gay people with a consequential and ironic offense of the First Amendment. "They’re like, 'If you have an opinion against us, we're gonna shut you down.' ... That's not American. If you're gay you should have the right to be gay in peace, and if you're against it you should have the right to be against it in peace."


Soooo....wait. He's saying that if someone doesn't like you because of who you are that you should just take it? You shouldn't say anything? You should just let them have their opinion even if it's 'wrong'? And what's this about having the right to be against it "in peace"? See, if someone has an opinion of someone else that is hateful simply because of who that person is and then they kept that opinion to themselves, that would be being against it "in peace". It's the ones who are not against it "in peace" that folks have a problem with.


And wait a minute. Does T.I. know that he's black? Because he's kind of sounding like he doesn't. See, because there are and have been a lot of people who are and have been against people just because they're black. Is he saying that folks just should have let those closed minded bigots be that way in peace and not say anything about it? Is it "un-American" (in T.I.'s weird little world) to try and change narrow minded thinking when it's about skin color? It sounds kind of like it might be. And while I didn't really know who T.I. was before reading this about him, I didn't have an opinion about him. Now that I've read this though? I have an opinion, all right.

moreless

She Probably Didn't Know

Ruth Madoff is making the rounds. You might remember her as the wife of scumbag thief Bernie Madoff. You might remember Bernie Madoff as the orchestrator of the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world; to the tune of about $65 billion dollars. If you have a hard time remembering his name, just call him Scumbag. It's accurate and it works. But I digress. His wife is now promoting a book (of course) and I needed to comment on some of the delusions that she appears to be suffering from.

First of all, I'd really appreciate it if she would stop talking about this incident as if something, like that akin to a hurricane, has happened to her. She's a little too victim-y for my liking. She can be mad all she wants, but I'd appreciate it if she would direct that anger at her scumbag swindler of a husband and not everyone who justifiably hates her and her entire family. Her not acknowledging that the hatred is probably deserved (or, at the very least,justifiable) isn't going to make anyone like her any more than they already don't.

Next, I keep hearing that she isn't going to be receiving any of the profits from the book that is coming out. Now, when I first heard that, I was fairly surprised and rather pleased. Then I heard that the money would be going to her son's fiance. Yeah, that's the same as her getting the money. Do you really think that she agreed to participate in the writing of the book without requiring one cent in return? I highly doubt it. She's getting paid and I'd appreciate it if folks would stop acting like she isn't.


I watched a lot of her interview on 60 Minutes. I would have watched more than I did except that I kept getting distracted by wondering how much plastic surgery she'd had over the years in order to look the way that she currently does. But one of the things that I did manage to take away from that interview was my assessment of her involvement in the whole ripping off people trying to save for retirement dealio. She says she didn't know and I kind of don't think that she did. Think about it. How much do you know about your spouse's work? I mean the intricate ins and outs. What do you know? Not squat, that's right. I'll give her a break. I'm not so sure about the son, though. That he doesn't appear to have an upper lip isn't helping him win any credibility points with me, either. He really should have had that fixed when they were all rolling around in Scrooge McDuck sized piles of cash.

moreless

He Took The Other Options

Um, OK, so Herman Cain was on Meet the Press yesterday and he was asked about abortion. I found his answer to be both disturbing and peculiar at the same time. (I don't have much of an opinion on Herman Cain at this point, by the way. But he doesn't seem to be a guy who is actually running for President. I think he has a book out. Maybe this is just a misguided book tour.) Let's take a look at what he said. It went like this: "I do not agree with abortion under any circumstance". He was pressed on that issue and was asked, "Exceptions for rape and incest?" He replied, "Not for rape and incest...Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options.”

OK, no exceptions for any kind of abortion is ludicrous. (Then again, I'm of the bent that making abortion illegal is ludicrous, but that's just me. One thing I've learned about certain issues (with abortion being one of them) is that you're just not going to change anyone's mind. You're not. Just don't try to do that, but DO try to avoid talking about those subjects and you'll fare much better than if you ignore my sage wisdom on this topic.) But what in the world does he mean when he says that "there are other options" because those instances make up such a small number? There aren't other options if you want an abortion and abortions are illegal! What the hell is he talking about?!

Maybe he'll be a bit more reasonable on the issue of abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. Let's see...he said, "If it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision." Oh, OK. So if the mother might die, then he's good with it. Oh, but if some perverted relative rapes some younger relative and she gets knocked up, then she's on her own? I don't understand how he's OK with that exception, but not OK with other exceptions. Oh, wait. I might understand how he thinks like this. He doesn't have a uterus. thus he's completely clueless.

While I don't really think that the abortion issue needs to be a major part (or any part) of someone's campaign, I don't think that I would ever be comfortable casting a vote for someone who won't allow an abortion in the case of rape or incest. I certainly wouldn't be comfortable voting for someone who mentions "other options" without realizing that he's already taken away those options. Yeah, that wouldn't work out well at all.

moreless

No Change

I have a question for President Barry's senior advisor David Plouffe. For lack of better phrasing, "Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

See, in an article over there at Politico, they go through some of the things that Mr. Plouffe said on Good Morning America yesterday. He was asked about the Occupy Wall Street protests. He was also asked about the Republicans and what they're doing these days. And then he was asked about "...challenges facing Obama’s reelection efforts". His reply is disconcerting at best and I'm not sure if there was any follow up to what he said. And what he said was this: "I mean, some things aren’t going to change between now and next November. We’re obviously in a tough economy. We’re going to have a very close election, as most presidential elections are. So we’re going to fight for every vote and that’s what we intend to do." Wait. What?

Did he really just say that "some things aren't going to change between now and next November"?! Uh, next November is over a year away. Not much more than a year, but still more than a year none the less. What, exactly, is not going to change? Wait. Let me rephrase that. What things (as in "more than one") are NOT going to change in the next year? And why are they not going to change? What sort of campaign starts out by stating that there will be upcoming stagnancy? Not a good one if you're asking me.

That this is coming from Change-y McOptimism's camp is disconcerting to me. Look, I am tired of paying almost four bucks for a gallon of gas. I am tired of knowing so many people that are out of work. I am tired of how much groceries are costing. I am tired of NOTHING getting better and NO ONE doing anything about it. And now here comes along David Plouffe who flat out states that things just aren't going to change in the next year. Great. Now what? (And before you offer any suggestions, I certainly hope that occupying Wall Street isn't one of them. That's not going to help matters. I appreciate the effort, but it's useless.)

So if some things are not going to change in the next year (as stated by someone who really would probably know) then who in the hell am I supposed to vote for? The Republicans don't have squat over there and I won't be voting Republican for President. But how can I vote for President Barry again when it seems as if nothing is getting done and things are not better. I distinctly remember being promised change! Things still suck! That's not change. Do I want four more years of suckitude? Oh, wait. I guess that should be five more years of suckitude. Well I don't want either one. So now what? No, really. I'm asking. Now what?

moreless

You Can't Run And You Can't Hide

World didn't end. Gotta mow the lawn now. I guess that without the Rapture happening yesterday that this means that Harold Camping (the nutjob who was predicting all of the demise and luring an uncomfortably large number of softheads into believing him as well) is now the leader of a non-prophet organization? (Aside from not wanting to meet my demise just quite yet, the other reason I was hoping that it wasn't going to be the end of the world was mostly so I could use that joke today. It would have been such a waste if it had to go unsaid.)

While I'm relatively sure that it's a good thing that the world did not come to an end, there were certain people that I was looking forward to either never seeing again or knowing that they would meet a fiery and painful doom. The guy in the article below is one of those folks. You'll know which one I'm talking about when you read it. (Click to enlarge the photo if it's just too danged small.)

I'm not quite sure that he totally understood either the question that he was asked or the concept of the Rapture. He "...would run if it was serious." Um...it's the end of the world, sir. Where, exactly, would you be running to? Mars? I don't think that you can outrun Jesus. Or the end of the world, really. It's just really not possible. Sooooo...yeah. OK. I'm just going to leave it at that and see about buying more alligators for my moat that protects me from the thinking of people like Mr. Wilson. It seems like a pretty good investment, given his statement and all.

moreless

That's Not Racism!

Oh, most of news media. How I despise you so. Please stop feeling the need to make things that are completely innocent into something that is falsely inflammatory. David Gregory, I'm talking to you.

Fox Nation gives us the low down of when Newt Gingrich was on Meet the Press on Sunday with Mr. Gregory. Gregory played a clip from a speech that Newt gave in Georgia on Friday. The gist of the whole thing was jobs. This is what Newt said: "You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama's is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?" OK. Seems like a bit of a slam, but I'm OK with it. I know what he's trying to say. (He can't blame it all on President Barry though, even though he's trying.)

You want to know what David Gregory thought he was trying to say? I don't know if you do. Let's find out. David Gregory actually had the nerve to say: "First of all, you gave a speech in Georgia with language a lot of people think could be coded racially-tinged language, calling the president, the first black president, a food stamp president." Oh, for cryin' out loud. WHAT?!

Racial?! Racially tinged language?! How do you figure, Dave?? Because it was in Georgia? Well, that doesn't make any sense. Because there are a lot of black people in Georgia? No, that doesn't make any sense either. Is it because David Gregory is trying to start some sort of racial controversy that does not, in any way, shape or form even exist? I don't know if that's the motivation behind it, but it's more logical than the other two possibilities that I mentioned.

I am appalled. That's one of the more ridiculous and inane things that anyone has ever implied racism to be. Do I have to keep reminding people that he's HALF WHITE?! He's the first half white president, NOT the first black president! And if you do want to go with his being partially black, why don't you call him the first half black president?! Oh, because that wouldn't have enough opportunities to imply racism now, would it? Morons. Knock it off, David. You know better than that. The video of this asininity is below. It should make you angry and annoyed. If it doesn't, you're doing it wrong.

moreless

That's Not Slavery

Currently, the chances of a 2011-2012 NFL season are not good. Almost non-existent, if you will. Something about the collective bargaining contract expiring and the players unions and the owners not being able to agree on new terms. And while I lean toward being on the side of the players (there's no reasonable argument for why the season should consist of eighteen games instead of the current sixteen), I really don't feel sorry for anyone in this scenario except for the fans. All I want is for September to roll around and have NFL games on TV. That's what I want. And I don't care how they make it happen just as long as they make it happen.

Seriously, who am I supposed to feel sorry for in this scenario? It's millionaires arguing with billionaires. There's an awful lot to not like there. (And the NFL is super hot right now. It would be asinine for both sides to end up forgoing an entire season because of any of this.) But you know what makes the whole thing even less likable? When one of the players compares the current agreement in the NFL to "modern-day slavery". For cryin' out loud.

According to an article over at The Huddle at USAToday, a one Adrian Peterson was talking to Yahoo! Sports and made the following statement: "It's modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money … the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football."

Now, look...I don't know what "modern-day slavery" would even look like. Because slavery, in and of itself, seems like it would be a timeless profession. You work for someone, you do what they tell you to do, you don't have a choice in the matter and you don't get compensated for your work. That's slavery. So, would "modern-day slavery" simply be with different clothes and with different chores? I guess it would. It's hard to say why I'm taking so much time trying to noodle this one through, as his entire statement is asinine.

I think what he was trying to say is that by making the players play an extra two games per season and not giving them any more monetary compensation for those two games, it is like when people were slaves and didn't get paid for the work that they were forced to perform. What he neglects to realize is that the non-modern-day slaves were not millionaires who were seen by millions on TV every Sunday. Yeah, not a good comparison. Not a good comparison at all. And I don't know that the real slaves of yore would take all that kindly to your making that comparison, as they were far from millionaires. They were barely dollar-aires.

I didn't know if there was any way that I could feel any less sorry for the parties involved. But apparently, I can. Quit your whining, Adrian Peterson. Focus on getting talks between the owners and the players back on track so that I can watch football all the live long day every Sunday for four months come September. That's what's really important here. My leisure time. So chop-chop! Time's a-wastin'.

Side note: The article at USAToday, which was published at 1:07 EST, noted that Yahoo! Sports, where the ill-advised "modern-day slavery" comment first appears, had removed that comment from its story at 2:47 EST. Although it does go on to say that the author of the story did confirm on his Twitter page that Peterson had made the remark. Even weirder than that is that it goes on to say that by 4:24 EST, Yahoo! Sports had returned Peterson's comments to the article. Good to know that Yahoo! Sports will be editing the content of interviews in their articles as to not "offend" anyone. Nice. Just what we all don't need. Edited reporting. Jackasses. I've sent them an email asking them why they removed the comment in the first place. I'm sure you will be shocked, simply shocked, to learn that I have not yet heard back. Don't hold your breath, either. I'm not.

moreless

Not Working Means You Don't Work

If you ask anyone other than Charlie Sheen, they will tell you that Charlie Sheen seems a little crazy these days. In fact, most folks will tell you that it sounds as if Charlie Sheen has gone completely off the rails. But they would only say that because he sounds exactly like that is what has happened. He sounds like a crazy man. And he keeps calling into various radio talk shows to try to profess that he's not a crazy man, but I really think that's doing him more harm than good at this point. Really, I think that what would help him the most is just to keep quiet for a little while and stop irritating people who pay his salary. The other thing that would help him to not look so crazy is for him to stop saying that he's going to show up for work on Monday when there is no work to show up for. Wait. What?

Correct. See, for some reason, the guys that are in charge of the gold mine that is the television show Two And A Half Men have decided to cancel the remainder of the production season. The show has already been on hiatus for a few weeks while Mr. Sheen is supposed to be trying to kick his unhealthy ways. Apparently, things like trashing hotel rooms because you think a $20,000 hooker stole your watch and going on weekend cocaine binges coupled with unlimited sex with various mattress actresses really gets the attention of your "superiors" and causes them to think that you might have "a problem". Go figure.

But the other thing that catches the attention of your "superiors" are saying things in interviews that aren't exactly complimentary to those who are in charge. Most people, in charge of anything or not, would not take kindly to being called, among other things, "...a stupid . . little man and a p***y punk." And "This contaminated little maggot can't handle my power . . . Clearly I have defeated this earthworm with my words." (By the way, in that first quote, the redacted part does not say 'puppy'. I thought I should throw that in there just in case you were confused as to why he would be calling someone a puppy. He wasn't. It was more of a feline insult, if you will.)

So after all of this attention getting and even after all of the times that Charlie Sheen has been saying that he doesn't have a problem with anything, the New York Post reports: "Claiming he is completely sober, actor Charlie Sheen said today he plans to show up for work despite CBS's decision yesterday to pull the plug on the top-rated comedy "Two and a Half Men" this season." OK, see, those are not the actions of a person who is completely sober. Or maybe they are, but the person is just sober AND crazy. You see, Charlie, there's no work to show up for! That's part of what they mean by they have cancelled the remainder of the season! There's no more work there. It's done. And your showing up is only going to serve to make you look crazier than you already do. Please don't show up for your non-existent job/work on Monday, Charlie. Please. I realize that the show's character was sort of written just for someone like you, but even the character wouldn't show up for work when there was no work there for him. He'd stay home. You should do the same. Stay home with one of your female porn enthusiasts and stop giving interviews that make you sound like your brain is riddled with a late stage syphillitic condition.

moreless

Un-Beliebable

Is there any way that we could get away from asking questions of certain people who have no idea what they're talking about and have no business answering certain questions that they're asked? And by "certain people" I mean celebretards and Justin Bieber.

It was all I could do not to write about a press release that came out about a week ago, which started out: "REAL HOUSEWIVES STAR DANIELLE STAUB GIVES ADVICE TO EGYPT'S MUBARAK." Really? Who was asking? And who cared? And which of those two was the most dense intellectually? It had to have been a toss up. An excerpt: "Staub, who notoriously walked away from the show, was asked whether it was time for Mubarak to walk away as well...'If he feels in his heart that it's really time then, yeah, it is time," Staub stated." Kill me now. Don't delay! I'm standing by! But wait, before you do that? Could you tell me what's wrong with her face?

But I'm having a hard time not commenting on the Justin Bieber article in Rolling Stone. Again, why someone is asking these questions of ANY sixteen year old is beyond me, but asking them of Justin Bieber is simply stupefying. For instance, Bieber (who may or may not be a 30-year old lesbian impersonating a teenage boy) was apparently asked if he had any plans to become an American citizen. Thank God, he does not. He seems to be very fond of his homeland, America's Hat. But his reasons are...annoying at best. He 'jokes', "You guys are evil...Canada's the best country in the world...We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

Are you kidding me?! His bodyguard has to PAY For his OWN BABY?!?! It's madness!! Hey, Bieber. He works for you, you little twit! If you're so big on your socialist system, what say, since you have WAY more money than your peon of a bodyguard, YOU pay for it?! And you DO pay for your doctor in Canada! It's just not directly! How do you think they get paid?! Where do you think that money comes from?! And there's a big freaking difference between your bodyguard having to pay for his own child and someone's premature baby getting to stay in the hospital as long as it needs to. Those two aren't the same thing. Is your bodyguard so idiotic that he didn't have insurance before deciding to have a baby? Pipe down, little lesbian.

The article continues to annoy me by apparently asking him "...what political party he'd support if he was old enough to vote." He responds with "I'm not sure about the parties...But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad." OK, so he's not going to join the...Korean...Party? What does that have to do with anything at all? Does he know that there is a North AND a South Korea? He makes it sound like he does not. But I guess it's good to know that he would be against doing things in Canada the way that they do things in at least one of the Koreas. (This guy still goes to school, right? Perhaps a little more focus on political parties around the globe is in order.)

And here's my favorite part. Here's where the interviewer asks a 16-year old boy about his opinion on, you guessed it, abortion. Listen, here's my opinion on asking people their opinion on abortion: It's pointless. No one is going to change anyone else's mind based on their opinion. It just doesn't happen. Once your opinion is formed, it's going to take something pretty major for you to go over to your perceived dark side. All asking for opinions on abortion ever does is start arguments. It's highly unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal in this country, so what's the point in arguing about it? I understand that some of you don't like it, but it's not going to change, so I suggest you get used to the fact that there are going to be some goings on in the world that you don't like.

But I digress. Back to Bieber. The article claims: "He does have a solid opinion on abortion." Oh, good! A solid opinion. Lay it on me. "I really don't believe in abortion...It's like killing a baby?" That's his solid opinion? One that ends with a question which inquires about the very issue being discussed? Let's see if we can narrow down the view of a 16-year old boy who may or may not be a lesbian. "How about in cases of rape?" Ohhhh! The devil's advocate clause that always comes out when people are against abortion. Let's see how he handles it! "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that." Sweet fancy Moses. Are you dry shaving me?

He thinks rape is "really sad"? Do you now? Really sad? Yeah, that's the very least of what rape is! But I'm going to overlook that simply because his claim that "everything happens for a reason" has be so infuriated that I can barely type. So if a woman gets raped by a schizophrenic scumbag dripping with syphilis and becomes impregnated with his demon child, you "don't see how that would be a reason"?! For reals?! Oh, how I only wish that I could say "Who asked you?", but I can't because some dimwit actually DID ask him! For the purpose of what I cannot imagine.

Why would you ask a 16-year old, let alone a 16-year old boy, about abortion in the first place? Unless...maybe he really is a 30-year old lesbian. Have you been to Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber? If that website can teach us anything, it's that we really have no idea what he is. And I'm good with that. I don't need to know what he is anymore than I need to know what he thinks. If I never heard another word from or about Justin Bieber for the rest of my life it would be too soon. Because, you know, everything happens for a reason!

moreless

All Of The Japanese Did Not Attack Pearl Harbor

It's hard for me to know where to go with this one. Some things just speak for themselves. I have just spent a fair amount of time transcribing it, so I'm a bit worn out by it all and I'm not sure how much I have in me to discuss this. But I will give you this to chew on: It would appear that Whoopi Goldberg is so worried about being politically correct that all common sense that she might have had (and I stress the word "might" as I'm not so sure that she's ever played with a full deck) has gone right out the ol' proverbial window. In a nutshell (and this is all pretty darned nutty), in this exchange with Bill O'Reilly (video below) she admits she doesn't know what a madrassa is. But wait! There's more! She asserted that is wasn't the Japanese who attacked America at Pearl Harbor AND claims that Muslims that are in America are being more persecuted than Jews. Do you need any more? Good Lord. Seriously? The video is below. Do with it what you will. The transcription is below the video. I just can't take any more of these Whoopi Goldberg-esque morons. I can't.

BILL O'REILLY: Do you believe in the world, we have a Muslim problem?

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: No.

O'REILLY: OK.

GOLDBERG: I think we have a terrorist problem.

O'REILLY: OK. So, you don't believe we have a Muslim problem. Would you agree with me that if all the good Muslims, and I think they overwhelm the bad Muslims, OK? Would cooperate with the West, with the United States and NATO and other countries, that we wouldn't have a terrorist problem? For example, if Pakistan would cooperate with the United States, we wouldn't have the Taliban problem in Afghanistan. We would defeat them.

GOLDBERG: That would all be great if that's how it worked.

O'REILLY: But that's how it works.

GOLDBERG: But it isn't how it works, because, if you recall -- think of it this way, that crazy gentleman, I take that back because that's rude -- the gentleman that said he was going to burn the Koran, that got played all around the world.

O'REILLY: You mean the nut down in Florida?

GOLDBERG: I'm not going to say that.

O'REILLY: OK, I will. But that, you're diverting the attention.

GOLDBERG: No, no, I'm not. Listen to my point.

O'REILLY: All right. Go ahead.

GOLDBERG: So, all the people who are watching around the world saying, boy, America feels like that, so Americans....

O'REILLY: See, but I disagree. I don't think Muslims think that everybody is like that crazy guy. I don't believe that. But let's get back to Pakistan. Pakistan, if they would help us...

GOLDBERG: No, no. Bill, Bill.

O'REILLY: ...we could win that.

GOLDBERG: Bill, do you think that the people in Pakistan, the people who live in Pakistan, the poor people, the people who don't have any say, you think they don't want help to help the West?

O'REILLY: A lot of them don't. The madrassa -- do you know what a madrassa is?

GOLDBERG: No, I don't. (I have to say, I'm surprised that she admitted that.)

O'REILLY: OK. Madrassa is a school that teaches Islamic jihad and there are madrassas all over the Muslim world. They teach 4 and 5-year-old kids to hate people.

GOLDBERG: Bill, that may be true...

O'REILLY: It is true.

GOLDBERG: It may be true. I can't prove it. You've clearly been... (But you COULD prove it if you were interested in learning about something that you know nothing about. But since you're clearly not interested in the truth, let's just continue as if you have something meaningful to say.)

O'REILLY: I can.

GOLDBERG: You've clearly been to them and I will take your word for it. But that does not change the fact that when you paint all Muslims with one brush, it's bad.

O'REILLY: I'm not painting all Muslims with one brush.

GOLDBERG: But when you say Muslims killed us, when you don't specify. It's like saying whenever I see black men coming down the street, I'm scared. That's the same...

O'REILLY: Do you have a problem in history when you were taught about World War II that Japanese attacked us? Do you have a problem with that?

GOLDBERG: I have a problem with that.

O'REILLY: Do you?

GOLDBERG: Yes.

O'REILLY: But they attacked us?

GOLDBERG: The Japanese...

O'REILLY: Attacked us.

GOLDBERG: ...army attacked us. (THAT is her quibble with the statement that the United States was attacked by the Japanese?! That because ALL of the Japanese folks who lived in Japan weren't in the planes that day, that somehow changes the fact that it was the Japanese that attacked us?! Is she on glue?!)

O'REILLY: The air force did.

GOLDBERG: Sorry, the air force did. You understand my point? (If your point is that you are completely idiotic in the nits that you want to pick, then yes. We've come to an agreement.)

O'REILLY: No, I don't, because I think you are cutting the hair so thin. We have a Muslim problem in the world in the sense that 90 percent of the terrorism....

GOLDBERG: Bill, we're going to disagree.

O'REILLY: Comes from that area.

GOLDBERG: You know what? What do you mean 90 percent of the terrorists...

O'REILLY: Yes?

GOLDBERG: ...are from everywhere. They are white.

O'REILLY: No, predominantly they are Muslims.

GOLDBERG: Right now. (Yes, right now! What in the hell else would he be referring to? Wait. Don't answer that. What in the hell are you referring to? For cryin' out loud...)

O'REILLY: Right. That's what we are talking about.

GOLDBERG: Right now, everybody can say the Muslims are the terrorists. Two years ago, it was the white people that were the terrorists.

O'REILLY: What white people?

GOLDBERG: Oh, wasn't it white people that blew up Oklahoma City? (Does she know that Muslim isn't a race? It's not like you can be black or white or Asian or Muslim. Does she get that? I'm getting the sense that she does not.)

O'REILLY: Yes, two of them. Two of them.

(I have to interject. The Oklahoma City bombing was not TWO years ago. And that was DIFFERENT. If you don't understand the difference between the Oklahoma City bombing and terrorism by Muslim extremists, then I can't help you. I doubt that anyone can.)

GOLDBERG: What about all the folks...

O'REILLY: It's like saying crime is white is black.

GOLDBERG: Bill, we disagree. (It's not just Bill that disagrees with you, you nut job.)

O'REILLY: All right. We disagree.

GOLDBERG: We disagree on this.

O'REILLY: But I just want to be clear.

GOLDBERG: And it's OK.

O'REILLY: We have to have these discussions.

GOLDBERG: We must have these discussions. (And if we must have these discussions, it would really help if you don't storm off the set of your show when one of these discussions is being had. That's the only way that they're going to get had. Then again, I'm not so sure if this particular discussion is necessary. I'm finding it rather frustrating.)

O'REILLY: Right. But I just want to be clear and I'll give you the last word on this and then we'll get to your book. (Ohhhhh. She has a book. No wonder she appeared on his show. Gotcha.)

GOLDBERG: OK.

O'REILLY: I believe there is a Muslim problem in the world. (I really wish that he would specify "radical Muslim" or "Muslim extremist". That's the only part of his argument that I have a problem with. Don't get me wrong. I can't stand Bill O'Reilly most of the time. But I haven't found much to quibble with, other than this, during this exchange.)

GOLDBERG: OK.

O'REILLY: And that's what I was trying to get across to you guys on "The View."

GOLDBERG: Right.

O'REILLY: That 70 percent of Americans believe the way I do. They thought it was inappropriate to make a Muslim community center that close to Ground Zero. That was my point.

GOLDBERG: I understood your point. What did I not understand and I will just reiterate it again because...

O'REILLY: I just left out the word terrorist.

GOLDBERG: Yes. Because in this day and age when kids are getting their butts kicked because they are Muslim, OK?

O'REILLY: Not so much.

GOLDBERG: Bill, are you kidding me?

O'REILLY: New study today, Jews in America are far more likely to be persecuted than Muslims, just came out today.

GOLDBERG: You know what? I'm sure that someone believes that, but I believe that in neighborhoods where they don't want Muslims, they beat up kids. (That's exactly the problem. You can give someone like Whoopi some sort of data to back up your point and they just choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit their self-defined narrative that they're so freaking proud of. Thank God she's just a talk show participant. If she had much more influence, I'd be more concerned.)

moreless

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.

moreless

The Internet Wants Another Word With You

The other day, I brought you the tale of a one self-indulgent (and highly annoying) 11-year old, Jessi Slaughter, who learned the hard way that the Innerwebs will ruin your life (and take great joy and pleasure in doing so) should you step so far out of line that it will practically take a cannon to shoot you back down to earth in an ever so humbling and extremely unpleasant manner. That experience resulted in Jessi posting another video of herself online, only that time, it wasn't so fun for her. No, she was sobbing and upset and her lunatic father was screaming some nonsense in the background. It made me happy. Sad for humanity, of course, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Little did I realize that there was more! More golden video from this incredibly inept and dysfunctional family unit.

Now, considering that the way that little Jessi got herself into trouble and wrought the havoc of the Internets (aka 4chan.org) was by posting videos of herself online, I'm more than a little surprised that she was allowed (and seemingly encouraged) by her parents to continue to do so. Then again, their parenting skills seem to have an awful lot to be desired, so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. But I am. In a sad, sad way. I'm also glad. In a glad, glad way. Here is the latest nugget from this completely clueless girl and her completely clueless parents. The transcript (with commentary, naturally) is below.

Jessi: OK, this is Jessi Slaughter. I just wanted to tell you guys that you've ruined my life. My household has been torn. (something inaudible due to all of the weeping and the giant snot bubble stuck in her throat) Ever since you guys have been doing this. I haven't been able to do anything. (Good!)

Dad: And don't be saying suicide!

Jessi: I'm not! I'm saying I haven't been able to eat! I haven't been able to sleep!

Dad: And guess what? My daughter's not lyin'. And I'm not going to put up with any of you people's crap any more! If you ain't got somethin' nice to say about my daughter, then keep your mouth shut and any more of your comments are put on there I'm recording them all and they are being sent to...the..po-lice...department

Jessi (nodding in agreement with her clueless father): They have been being screen capped! (Yeah, no one cares about that.)

Dad: And your emails will be caught and will be found (it sounds like he says 'bound', but that doesn't make any sense. Not that the rest of what he says does make sense, I'm just sayin'.) You've said you're going to beat my daughter up? YOU will have to deal with the police. 'Cause you dun goofed. (It is here that she does a really odd thing. She puts her finger up to her lips as if to "shush" her dad. Um, we can see you. What is that all about? I'm open for suggestions.)

Now, mind you, when the clueless Dad is talking to the Innerwebs, the webcam on her computer (judging from the angle, I'd guess it's a laptop) isn't pointing at him. It's not even really pointing at a decent angle for her. The point here is that you only see dad from mid-torso down. It's half of a blue shirt and a pair of dark green khaki shorts which sport legs wearing shoes and socks. And it's yelling. It's a lovely look for those who have been recently mentally tortured by the Innerwebs.

And seriously, if you're using a phrase like "you dun goofed" whilst your attempting to defend your 11-year old daughter's absolutely inexcusable behavior, are you not just asking to have yourself turned into a meme right before our eyes? I'm pretty sure that you are.

Jessi: See? I haven't been able to eat or sleep...or...anything ever since this happened, I've been having emotional breakdowns in a row. (whimper, whimper)...hating on me....You know, whoever is making fun of me...(high pitched whine that caused three dogs to show up at my front door)...you're such a**holes. I didn't do anything wrong. I am just a fricking little girl and I know my shirt is going down! I know that! OK?! Don't call me a f**king whore for that, OK? I didn't mean...(high pitched whine again...three more dogs)...it's hard. And if you think I don't know Dahvie, I fricking DO know him. My mom has answered the phone. For him. OK? And he's been calling. And once he called when I was in school and my mom answered the f**king phone! (Very high pitched squeaking) Why are you being such a**holes??

Mom: Jessica! It's time to calm down. (She could have said "It's time to come down." No one in this family enunciates worth a damn.) It's time to come down.

Jessi: So, I....stop making fun of me! Stop it. Please.

Mom: Turn the camera off.

OK, I'm taking a whole slew of stuff from that little interchange (not the least of which is great enjoyment). There's a whole lot to like there. First of all, why is she still making videos? I'm kind of thinking that if my kid had wreaked that kind of havoc upon my home/trailer life, allowing her to go online and post MORE videos of herself would be the LAST thing I would do. (And her mom saying "Turn the camera off" is a phrase that should have been uttered quite some time ago. It also should have been followed by "Now hand over your computer.")

As far as some of Jessi's questions and requests, allow me to address them. "Why are you being such a**holes?" Um, did you see your other video? That's why. "Don't call me a f**king whore for that, OK?" Um, no. How about you wear a shirt that's a little more appropriate for an 11-year old? "Stop making fun of me." Stop making videos that induce all of the fun making.

But wait! There's more! The website momlogic managed to get an interview with Jessi's mother, Dianne. Will it surprise you to learn that she defended her daughter? Of course it won't. Will it possibly anger you? Of course it will. First of all, when asked if she knew that her daughter was posting these videos online, Dianne responded, "Jessica has a webcam and a computer. All of her friends have webcams, too, so they video chat with each other. I knew she'd made a video to apply for "America's Got Talent." She sings and sent an audition video in. I had no idea she was making other videos. I have seen her chatting with her friends, but not making videos." Wow. Could she be more clueless? Yeah, see, when I was a kid and I did things that I didn't want my parents to know about, I did it when they weren't around. That might have something to do with why you didn't see her making videos. (Does this woman need to have everything spelled out for her?)

The answer is "Yes!" When asked when it was that she found out about the videos and what her reaction was, she explained, "The (police) officers had said there were videos, but Jess denied making them. Then my mother-in-law called and said there were videos. But I haven't watched them. I can't be in the room 24/7. We tried to talk to Jess last night, but she got very upset all over again. I am trying to get her back to normal. It's taken a very emotional toll on her. I don't know if she made these videos or not, but she says she didn't. Right now, I am trying to figure out what's real and what's not. This has been very difficult to deal with." Oh, for cryin' out loud. What?!

So, police officers have said that there are videos. Your mother-in-law said that there were videos. You haven't watched the alleged videos. But your daughter continues to deny making them. Your life, however, is in turmoil. And you're still believing her? You won't take a few minutes to watch the videos that she allegedly made? Why in the world would you not? Wow. You should not be a parent. I don't usually pass judgment that blatantly around here (I prefer to be a little more subtle and a lot more funny), but come on, lady. Good Lord...

The rest of the article is simply unbelievable. I highly recommend that you read it. I love it when people who are as clueless as her mother is just speak freely as if they think that everyone in the world will agree with their point of view. Yeah, not so much. This woman has no intention of changing her child's behavior. How do I come to that conclusion? Probably from her answer to the question "What message do you have for other moms?" That answer was as follows: "Communicate with your child, try and watch them and try and believe what your child is saying to you. Give your child the benefit of the doubt, because nobody else will. And talk to your child about cyberbullying and about how bad it's going to hurt another person. They don't know or understand the dwindling-down effect of what they've created." Wait. What now?

Believe what your child is saying to you?! Lady, you dumbass, your kid is lying to you! She DID make those videos! And you're believing that she didn't because she says she didn't? Wow. And give your kid the benefit of the doubt? That's the last thing you should do! By the way, please DO take your own advice and DO talk to your child about cyberbullying. Granted, I don't know if I'd call what she did cyberbullying, but telling people that she's going to pop a glock in their mouth and make a brain slushie is going to really anger the Innerwebs. And as far as the effect of what they've created, do you realize that the only one to blame for what has been created is your daughter? She's the only one. This is her doing. I understand that Jessi was placed in protective custody for the weekend. It's unfortunate that she couldn't have stayed there.

Read the interview over at momlogic (it's linked above). It's seriously unbelievable. I wish that I could live in that perpetual state of denial. Holy crap. And I'm going to just guess that a lot of the havoc that has poured down upon the life of Jessi and her parents isn't going to stop any time soon. I can't imagine that it will stop without her mother having at least watched the videos that she had made. Tell you what, Jessi's clueless mother...how about you watch the videos that your daughter made and that over a million other people have watched and then the Internet might consider backing off. In the meantime, enjoy those thousands of pizzas that I understand were ordered to be delivered to your home. Oh, and the hookers that were ordered up as well. Can't have a really good pizza party without some hookers!

moreless