Who's Your Daddy?

Dennis Hatchett, a 29 year old minimum wage worker, has father 21 children by 11 different women. The children range in age from 11 months to 11 years.

"I had four kids in the same year. Twice." Hatchett admitted.

According to the Huffington Post, Hatchett was in court last week, appearing on the docket 11 times in regards to 15 of the 21 children who he's not paid child support for on a timely basis.

Though the guy is a Darwinian success and is assured of a large number of descendants to carry one his genes, I couldn't help but wonder what the fuck was he thinking. I do know, however, which head he was thinking with.

My comment to the Huffington Post article follows below:

Now, I can't blame the guy for wanting to get laid a lot with a wide variety of women. I've had a rather large number of lovers over the years, myself.

However, in 30+ years of being sexually active, I have only ONE child. I know what a condom is for and I'm not afraid to use them.

I raised the one child I had to adulthood, and wasn't interested, nor did I have the financial resources, to raise more. One was more than enough for me.

I'm wondering if this guy has chicken fat for brains by siring so many kids he can't afford to support.

Hell on Earth

Maybe this world is another planet's hell !
--Unknown

I've never believed in the concept of some people going to any sort of hell after they die. I've always maintained that if there's a hell, it's right here on Earth.

I'm not sure there's an afterlife. I'd like to think that there is, as I hope I will see my parents and other loved ones again one day.

But I can't wrap my mind around the idea of there being an afterlife and some people spending an eternity in the torment of a hell, especially for such silly reasons as picking the wrong god to worship and the like. It's easier to imagine people like Hitler in hell, but I usually think of such people being consigned to oblivion instead.

Thoughts?

Steroid Disaster

I have to wonder what prompts some people to turn themselves into walking freaks as this moron has. And this guy’s story is even worse than it looks. Not only has he turned himself into a living action figure, his arms actually popped from this extreme steroid-induced body modification. I’m nominating this one as a future recipient of the Darwin Award

Click below for the video.

Steroid Disaster

Funny Commercial

I’ve posted about TV commercials that annoy the crap out of me in a few past entries. Today, I thought I’d be different and write about one that is currently my favorite. I could see how people could find this one annoying as well, but there’s something about it that hits my funny bone just the right way and makes me laugh.

This one is the latest in a series of Alltel commercials where Chad the Alltel guy outwits four dweeby, dorky representatives from four other cell phone companies who wear brightly colored polo shirts.. In this most recent commercial, Chad is standing on the sidewalk trying to persuade a family to switch cell phone companies. The four dorks come along and the guy in the yellow shirt, a pudgy, short guy with a Richard Simmons lookalike hairstyle, starts ranting and raving:

So what if I smell like sour cream and failure and my mother is embarrassed by me and tells people I’m part troll!

This commercial is shown about a hundred times a day, but it cracks me up every time. I think the guy who plays the dork in the yellow shirt probably has a brilliant career ahead of him in comedy.

One Right Way?

"The plague of mankind is the fear and rejection of diversity: monotheism, monarchy, monogamy and, in our age, monomedicine. The belief that there is only one right way to live, only one right way to regulate religious, political, sexual, medical affairs is the root cause of the greatest threat to man: members of his own species, bent on ensuring his salvation, security, and sanity. "
— Thomas Stephen Szasz

Since my earliest childhood, I've instinctively rejected the idea that there is only One Right Way to do various things. My natural inclination has always been to think in shades of grey, rather than adhere to the simplistic, dualistic limits of black and white thinking. My instinct has never been to unquestioningly herd with the flock, but rather to ask why, doing my own research if necessary. And if I don't find the answers to be logical, reasonable, or currently relevant, I reject them.

Humans by nature are ingenious and malleable. We are able to adjust and adapt to various situations, often finding multiple ways, albeit by different means, to arrive at a workable solution. Few things in life require a single method of accomplishment, as "All Roads Lead to Rome" tends to be the rule, rather than the exception.

However, humans throughout history tend to have an atavistic fear of difference, however benign. The desire for uniformity, for mass conformity, probably is at the root of most human conflict. The idea that all the pieces of a puzzle need not be of universal shape and design in order to fit together in a harmonious whole is nowhere near attaining critical mass at this point in human history, if it ever does.

Nevertheless, there will always be a sizable minority of contrary souls like me to make sure the idea is never extinguished.

Thoughts?

Clueless People

In the last few days, I've been reminded of just how clueless and oblivious many people are.

The other night, I went through the McDonald's drive-through line. I had the misfortune to pull up behind an aging SUV which was belching toxic blue smoke from its tailpipe. Because the line was slow moving, as usual, I had to endure the toxic fumes from this hunk o'junk for several minutes before getting my food.

As I sat there doing a slow burn at the cretin behind the wheel of the elderly oversized vehicle, I couldn't help but wonder why this moron didn't just park the old bomb and go inside to get his food, instead of subjecting people behind him in line to the noxious odors.

I'm sure doing so never crossed the three brain cells of this obnoxious jerk and if it did, I'm sure he didn't give a flying fuck about anyone else.

A few days later, I pulled into another fast food joint, which has a rather narrow U shaped parking lot around the building. The clearly-marked spaces are on the outer edges of the U, with no parking against the building, so as allow traffic to move freely around the narrow lot.

When I pulled in, another oblivious idiot had parked his full-size Cadillac perpendicular to and against the building at a ninety degree angle. Directly opposite to this car was a full size long bed pickup truck, correctly parked at an angle between two white parking lines. As I pulled into the lot, I saw that the narrow space between the moron's Caddy and the truck was not enough for even my small sports car to slip through.

If I'd been driving an old crate, I'm not sure I would not have smashed into the idiot Cadillac like the woman did in Fried Green Tomatoes. There were others backed up behind me who, I'm sure, were entertaining similar notions in their head.

/rant over

A Difference of Degree, Not Kind

Miss California is in the news again, this time concerning the topless photos she posed for. Pageant officials are set to strip her of her crown and give it to the runner-up, Miss Malibu.

I don't see why anyone is surprised that she'd pose for topless photos. As I see it, the only difference between posing for such photos and competing in a beauty pageant is one of degree rather than kind.

Both activities involve her capitalizing on her physical appearance for personal gain.

So, I see no problem whatsoever with her choosing to pose for these photos.

What does bother me is the rampant hypocrisy, both hers and that of those who run these beauty pageants. Hers because of her holier than thou comments about same sex marriage and that of the contest's promoters for failing to acknowledge that soft core porn and beauty pageants are simply two points on the same continuum.

And as far as her original comments about same sex marriage goes, who really cares what she had to say, anyway? It's a beauty pageant for crap's sake; it's not as if anyone expects these women to be Rhodes scholars. I'm actually surprised that these pageants still exist in 2009, to be perfectly honest.

Thoughts?

Reactionary Support

Last night, I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on the radio. Miller is a former cast member of Saturday Night Live turned conservative talking head. He’s not as rabidly right wing as most of them on the radio, but he has affected an irritating “hepcat” persona on the air, constantly using old-time jazz musician lingo, calling everyone “baby” and referring to people as “cats”.

Anyway, he was talking last night about who he would support in 2012 for the Republican ticket. He mentioned Newt Gingrich as a possibility for President, but that’s not what inspired today’s blog entry.

What got me to typing was his assertion that he favored Sarah Palin to run as VP again. He went on to say that he supported her because all those in the political arena whom he couldn’t stand were against Palin and “hated” her.

Essentially this is a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” kind of a deal, which isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of Palin. Miller didn’t cite any positive reasons he supported her, as he didn’t mention any of her accomplishments that he thought would make her a good VP. Instead his endorsement was on the lines of “if they hate her, then she’s got to be good!”.

No wonder the Republican party is in decline, as so many of them base their positions on what they’re against, rather than what they’re for. The Republican party has become the party of negativity.

Thoughts?

The Potential for Influence

I visited the Time Magazine website today, where they had a list of who they considered to be the 100 most influential people in the world. The list was broken down into several categories.

Michelle Obama made the list, which isn’t surprising, considering who she's married to. Having the ear of the President of the United States certainly gives a person the potential to very influential indeed.

But it irritated me that Mrs Obama was named number one in the category of heroes, ahead of a real hero, Chesley Sullenberger, who was number 2 on the list.

I’m sure that Michelle Obama is an extremely intelligent and capable woman, as well as being a fine wife and mother, but she does not fit the definition of “hero”, especially when compared to Sullenberger, who is the genuine article.

Let’s face it; the only reason she made the list at all is because of whom she chose to marry. And as far as I’m concerned, wise romantic choices are in no way heroic. She has the potential to be quite influential in other spheres of influence and to be a role model for young women, but this doesn’t make her a hero.

And she’s been First Lady for only a very short time. It’s way too early to tell whether she’ll be able to exert true lasting influence in that role as did First Ladies Eleanor Roosevelt, Edith Wilson, Betty Ford, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few. I’m betting that she will, but right now, to include her on such a list is premature.

Thoughts?

The Ego of God

As my regular readers know, I often listen to radio broadcasts of those with whom I disagree, searching for ranty blogging fodder. The other night, while monitoring a Focus on the Family broadcast, they had a couple on the show who had recently lost one of their young children.

The mother went on about she railed against God for taking her child, wondering why a loving God would allow such a thing because she couldn't see a loving God being indifferent to her suffering. She couldn't what purpose, what good could come from the death of a child.

She then went on to say that she eventually realized that her child's death did serve a purpose, as it served to "glorify God". I'm not quite sure what she meant by this; perhaps by how she and her husband as Christians handled their grief served as an example to others and how others in their faith community responded.to their tragedy. I don't know, as she didn't make it all that clear.

I nearly choked when I heard her serenely assert that God allowed her child to die in order that He/She/It could be glorified. I don't know about her, but I couldn't worship a God whose ego was so big that it required the occasional sacrifice of little children for the purpose of being "glorified". Just how shaky is the Big Guy's self-esteem, anyway?

Maybe the idea of an attention whore deity allowing a child to die for the purposes of "glorification" comforted this woman, but I find the idea completely appalling and offensive.

There is no happy reason for the death of a child, but I'd rather live with that uncertainty than to think my child died to stroke the ego of God. If I were a religious person, such a thing would destroy my faith rather than make it stronger.

Thoughts?

Word Play

This image represents one word. Post your guess in the comment box below.

Conservatives Looking for Government to Solve Their Problems

Recently reading an Alternet article, Super Prude Prosecutors Charge Teens With Pornography and Worse For Sexy Text Messages by JoAnn Wypijewski, I learned that 3 teen boys and 3 teen girls from Greensburg Salem High School in Pennsylvania were charged with child pornography.

The articles stated that, "the girls, ages 14 and 15, are charged with taking pictures of themselves, nude or seminude; the boys, 15, 16 and 17, with receiving them."

In other words, no pedophile adults were involved in any way in this "crime", nor were the teens forced or duped into creating and sending these photos. They were just teens being teens, exploring their sexuality as adolescents have done for generations.

The images were found when the students' cell phones had been confiscated by school officials, currently a common practice for unauthorized use of cell phones on school grounds during school hours.

What was not standard practice was the fact that these students' phones were not merely locked in a drawer, untouched, until they were returned to the students or their parents. School officials snooped into the private files of the phones in question where they discovered the private images, not meant for public consumption. The students involved were not suspected of any crimes, but merely for breaking the school rule about cell phone use by students.

The article also stated:

No one knows how many kids are poised for long sentences, life sentences (a possibility under federal law), plea deals that cast them in the pariah-land of sex offenders. Prosecutors have gone after teens in at least Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

My response to this article follows below:

Conservatives Looking for Government to Solve Their Problems

Conservatives are always hooting and hollering about the evils of "big government" and constantly extol the virtues of handling matters as much as possible in the private sector.

By criminalizing all types of adolescent sexual exploration and activity in the manner outlined in this article; behavior that has traditionally been handled solely by the parents of the teens involved, conservatives are looking to the government to play a role that should rightly remain that of a parent.

Hypocrisy, much?

The potential to stamp out normal teenage sexuality with such draconian laws is very low, even if a large percentage of our society considered this a worthy goal. (I don't).

However, the potential for ruining the future adult lives of normal teenagers is very high, and extremely inadvisable.

Let's leave a parent's role to parents and not expect the government to parent our children in regards to sexual expression among consenting parties.

Let us not return to 17th century Puritan sexual ethics. It's a bad fit for the 21st century.