WorldNetDaily Confidential Okay, WorldNetDaily's headline is better: 'Lust-filled women on sex rampage with your kids What's really behind today's epidemic of teacher-student carnal relations ' Sadly, to find out what's behind those sex rampages by lust-filled women, you have to subscribe to WND's Whistleblower magazine, but they do give us some tantalizing hints:
The storyline is certainly not titillating to the person who writes headlines for WND! I'm assuming it was the same person who came up with the headlines for the linked story:"SEXTRA CREDIT Sexy substitute teacher 'has relations with boy' - Woman, 29, facing up to 5 years for illicit activity with 17-year-old." Would WND use a similar headline if the teacher was male? Would they devote a whole issue of their mag to their discovery of an "epidemic" consisting of about 50 adult women in the country having had inappropriate relationships with children over the past 25 years? If so, would they use the headline "Lust Filled Men On (Heterosexual) Sex Rampage With Your Children?" (Since they haven't yet, I'm guessing the answer is "no.") So, my theory is that it's the idea that it's "sexy" for female teachers to have illegal sexual conduct with their students that is behind this "epidemic." But back to WND.
Right. So David "Marketing of Evil" Kupelian's story is that while WND is, well, marketing these stories in a sensationalistic way in order to sell the mag, they actually get way beyond salaciousness and end up uncovering profound truths about the human condition.
"Whistleblower Mag: Shining a thousand-watt spotlight on sexy teachers and their carnal adventures! Their lust-fueled rampages will boggle your mind!"
Yes, some teachers don't see anything wrong with what they're doing, and one (Mary Kay Letourneau) was rewarded with a TV movie, a book deal, years in prison, a divorce, and an international reputation as a pathetic child molester.
Yes, I knew that. I remember the 2004 news reports on the study. It included this bit that WND doesn't mention:
And I also remember that there were concerns about Shakeshaft's methodology (she didn't actually conduct a study, she just analyzed existing studies and came up with a "synthesis" from them). And some of the studies she used included students reports of being on the receiving end of unwelcome "sexual looks" from other students. But hey, WND couldn't be trying to scare you into homeschooling your kids or anything, could they? On a totally different topic, let scroll down to the bottom of their story proving that there is an endless stream of reports of female teachers taking advantage of their underage male charges and see what fine products you can buy from the WND bookstore . .
Of course, way more kids are sexually abused by family members, neighbors and family friends than by teachers, but keep in mind that schools these days are where those lust-filled women are on the prowl, and buy these books from WND so you can keep your kids safe at home! And the important "Predators" issue of Whisteblower has even more
Statutory rape is WRONG! I hope everyone is clear on this now.
It's just a hunch, I'm guessing that Kinsey's name pops up at least once in both of David's articles So, per Dennis, it's the homosexuals who are behind this epidemic? (Maybe because they are refusing to have sex with the lust-filled teachers, who then have to seduce their underage male students?) No wonder Judaism rejected them! But in any case, Dennis's analysis of why Judeo-Christianity should be mandatory in this country is apparently both legendary and award-winning, so I encourage you to believe whatever he said. The most important movie of the year! (The year in question being 1955.) Taglines: "A shock story of today's high school teachers," "I'm a teacher. My pupils are the kind you don't turn
"Under-reported"? I guess Mr. Farah must not watch any of the cable news shows. (While this topic was also a staple on the latest version of "Hard Copy," which wasn't aired on a news network, you can't fault Joseph for having missed it, since it's Nielsen ratings were actually negative numbers.) But hey, this journalistic exposé does sound incredible (and properly disturbing and portentous, and not at all exploitative)! I'd consider subscribing to the mag just for this issue, if I didn't have to get Rebecca Hagelin's book as a free gift. 12:39:19 AM |
The World O' Crap Archive
Welcome to the Collected World O' Crap, a comprehensive library of posts from the original Salon Blog, and our successor site, world-o-crap.com (2006 to 2010).
Current posts can be found here.
Showing posts with label Won't Someone Think of the Children?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Won't Someone Think of the Children?. Show all posts
Friday, January 21, 2011
March 4, 2006 by s.z.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
August 16, 2005 by s.z.
How Fathers Can Win Custody to Avoid Paying Child Support
A condensed version of a book-in-progress, courtesy of Intellectual Convervative.com.
Introduction So you have a child with a soon-to-be ex-girlfriend or ex-wife, and you are wondering what is going to happen to your children. The first thing you need to be aware of is this: The laws and family court system are not set up fairly towards fathers. The laws are set up to award custody to the parent who has had the most involvement so far raising the child, which means the parent who has worked the least - this is virtually always the mother. This usually guarantees that the mother will receive custody of the child, and since child support is mandatory, that you will be paying several hundred dollars in child support to her each month. Now does this make sense?
Hell no! Why should the parent who has had the most involvement in raising the child get custody of the child? But even more importantly, why should the other parent have to pay to support that child after splitting with its mother? (As the author says later, "A fairer system would be to eliminate child support and have the parent who is fortunate enough to be awarded custody have full responsibility for providing for the children when they are with that parent." And if we had that fairer system, you could let your bitch of an ex have custody of the damned rugrats. But since we have our current unfair system, your only recourse is to get custody of the kids so that you can save some bucks. Um, and do what's best for your precious offspring. Yeah, that's the ticket!
If you believe that you are the better parent, you need to read this guide and find out everything you need to know in order to have the best chance at obtaining full custody. If you choose not to get full custody of your child, not only are you in for a lifetime of emotional headaches but a lot of child support – which you will find does not all get spent on your child.
But what if you don't believe you are the better parent? Well, fight for full custody anyway, because otherwise you'll be paying child support, and it will go toward such things as paying the mortgage for the house your child lives in -- a house that your ex will also get to live in. And that's not fair!!!
The amount of child support you will end up paying as your child grows up is enough to buy a nice house. Let’s say you split up with your ex, and you have two children together, ages 1 and 4. The court orders you to pay $500/mth per child, based on your $45,000/year income, until the children turn 21 (some states end child support when the child turns 18, and others require it through age 21 and beyond). By the time your children are grown, you will have paid $444,000 in child support. The main cost of raising a child is childcare; outside of childcare (which ends around age 12), do you really believe that $1,000 is being spent on your two children each month?
The USDA has estimated the costs of raising a child. In a single-parent home, with a pre-taxed income of $39,1000 per year, it would be $518 a month for the one-year-old, and $558 a month for the four-year-old (it gets progressively more expensive as the kids get older). So yeah, I can really believe that $1000 a month is being spent on your two hypothetical children.
As the author notes, now that your ex is single, she'll have to work full-time to support herself and the kids, and since she'll make less money than you, "how does that qualify her as a better parent than you?" (Not counting the fact that all the time she's already spent raising the kids may have contributed to her having a better relationship with them. However, if she gets custody of the children, the courts will make you pay child support. And "the main reason why the system is set up this way?"
The government would rather have you subsidize her than pay for her going on welfare. And the feminists have convinced the lawmakers and judges in society that women shouldn't have to work to support their children if they don't feel like it.
So, since she now works full-time, making her no better as a parent than you are, why should the feminists force you to subsidize her, so that she doesn't have to work to support her children? If the damn goverment would just let her go on welfare, then things would be just fine. But NOOOO! It insists that you support your kids.
But why pay child support when it's so much cheaper to just get custody of the kids -- so, let's learn "The Rules of Winning Child Custody."
1. Get an agressive lawyer
When you consider how much money you have to lose in child support over the years until your child turns 18 or 21, and the amount of emotional stress you will go through all of those years if your ex wins custody, and the fact that the court system is stacked against fathers, do you really think it's wise to handle your case without the assistance of an attorney?
Sure, lawyers are expensive, but think of all the money you'll save by not having to pay child support.
I hear you ask, "Doesn't it actually cost money to raise kids, so that if I do get custody, I'll still have to pay for their upkeep?"
Heck no! You can send them out to work as chimney sweeps, and actually make money on the deal!
2. Use the court system to wear down your ex
Whether you are representing yourself or have hired an attorney, keep in mind the more work you create for your ex, the more you will wear down her resolve to fight you and keep full custody of the kids. If your ex’s main reason for retaining full custody of your children is to collect free child support from you, it will vanish fast once all of the child support is going to pay her attorney to fight you in court.
And if, because of your aggressive use of the court system, she is forced to use all her child support funds to pay lawyers, will your kids suffer? Who cares. The important thing is preventing your ex from benefiting from your dough. (The best interests of the children never really come up in this piece, oddly enough.)
3. Keep the playing field uneven
If your ex does not have an attorney, consider yourself fortunate - this gives you a huge advantage. The less she knows about the legal system, the better chance you have that she will do something in the eyes of the court that will hurt her chances of getting custody. If she asks for your opinion on whether she needs an attorney, try to convince her that she does not need one and emphasize the cost to her.
In fact, tell her that lawyers charge a billion dollars an hour, so you certainly aren't going to use one. Say that you don't want to make this process adversarial, and that you don't see why the two of you can't work out a joint custody arrangement that will make things as easy as possible for the kids. ... And if your ex believes you, then you and your lawyer (the most blood-thirsty one in the state) can use it as evidence that she's mentally incompetent.
4. Harrass your ex, both in person and via the court system
When you talk to your ex, such as when you are arranging to exchange the children for your visitation, be sure to bring up issues with her raising your children that bother you. The more you point out ways she needs to change her behavior in order to be a better parent and maintain custody, the more you will bother her. You know your ex - will she eventually give in if you continue to bring up issues that bother her and continue to take her to court?
You know your ex -- can you cause her to have a mental breakdown if you keep harping on what a bad mother she is, and how the courts are going to take away her kids?
5. Cause your kids to bond with people in your camp, so the judge will think twice about taking them away from their new loving relationships
What you can do: Get remarried first, then file for custody. If you have relatives nearby, pay them to baby sit so they become a big part of your child’s life.
You can dump the new wife and the paid relatives once you have custody.
6. Make it look like your kids' lives suck
6. Make it look like your kids' lives suck
If you have not yet split up physically, try to remain in the house with the children and have your ex move out. If you have left the home, start building a case as to why the child is not doing well living at the house, attending the nearby school, etc. Do research on the school or daycare the child is attending to obtain evidence of why that particular facility is bad for your child. Information on schools can be found on the state department of education websites, and information on daycares is generally also available from the state, usually from the department responsible for welfare.
Start building a case about why the house the kid has always lived in, and the school he's always attended, are bad for him, even though you evidentially thought they were just fine when you were with his mother.
7. Make your ex look crazy
Collect any records you have on the mental instability of your ex or her family, including medical records, and any police reports or convictions of their physical violence. Have a tape recorder handy to tape her if she has angry outbursts.
And how do you collect medical records on your ex and her family? Well, use your imagination on that one.
And try to provoke her, so you can tape her angry outburts -- it will not only help your case, it's also good, sadistic fun!
8. Make the mother of your children appear to be a shiftless, drunken, drug-crazed slut
8. Make the mother of your children appear to be a shiftless, drunken, drug-crazed slut
If there is no substantial change in circumstances, you will need to provide the court with a composite of reasons why your ex is unfit. For example, a strong case might provide evidence that your ex abuses alcohol, drugs, sleeps around and goes from boyfriend to boyfriend who use drugs in front of the children, cannot maintain a stable residence, leaves the children excessively in daycare, which is a substandard daycare, smokes in the house and in the car although the children are asthmatic, cannot maintain a steady job, and frequently withholds visitation from you.
This would be a "strong case," hint, hint. Surely you've got reason to believe that your ex does most of the things on that list.
9. Take a tip from Coppola's The Conversation, and "Record All of Your Phone Conversations With Your Ex and Your Children"
Some states permit you to record phone conversations without the other party knowing. There is a list of all 50 states and their laws on recording phone calls located athttp://www.rcfp.org/taping/. If you live in one of the states where it is legal, you should start automatically recording every conversation you have with your ex or your kids when they are at her house.
And, through selective editing, you can use these conversations to prove all kinds of stuff..
10. At custody evaluation time, get a hired-gun psychology to counter the court's feminazi social worker
When you file for a change of custody, the court will probably order a custody evaluation. These are assessments by a social worker that usually end up favoring the mother. The type of person that is attracted to this type of job are low income women with a chip on their shoulders; they are not going to be predisposed to making a determination that children should be with their fathers. [...] One way to combat these custody evaluations is to preempt them with a psychological evaluation of your own. Find a child psychologist who has a reputation for being favorable to fathers, and preferably also one on the court's approved list of psychologists, if the court has one, and have him do a preliminary evaluation of your child.
Social workers are poor, man-hating lesbians -- that's the only reason they would think that a fine father like yourself shouldn't have custody of your two adorable children, little, um, "Boy" and "Other Kid."
11. Get your hired psychologist to ask your kids "leading questions" about how unfit their mom is
You may want to give the psychologist leading questions to ask your child, such as whether your child would rather live with you, if mother abuses drugs, alcohol, or smoking in front of the child, if people close to the mother abuse or sexually touch the child, etc. - whatever bad things your child has indicated to you about living with your ex.
If your child has indicated that the worst thing about living with his mother is that she makes him do his homework, then have the shrink ask him if his mother is damaging his mental health by pushing him too hard. If he's complained about how she withheld his allowance because he didn't clean up his room, then suggest that the psychologist ask him if she is an obsessive control freak with a cleanliness obsession. And so on.
Anyway, those are just a few of tips on "How Fathers Can Win Custody." And do your best to win custody, because otherwise you'll have to pay child support, and that can really put a crimp in your lifestyle. Plus, your ex, whom you hate, will have control of that money. And that's what winning custody is all about: spiting your ex.
6:18:24 AM
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
June 2, 2005 by s.z.
I Think It's a Federal HolidayHey, it's Norbizness's Second Birthday today (because we believe that blog life begins at conception), and so the site and its proprietor are being honored by some official proclamations. Stop by and add yours. Here's mine: WHEREAS, Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness has been credited with inventing and popularizing the nickname "Doughy Pantload" as an affectionate moniker for the Corner's best-loved personality (not counting Sodomy Derb, Kathryn Jean Lisa Loopner, or new fan favorite JohnPod NormanSon); And WHEREAS we think that nickname was pretty funny (and probably made Jonah cry); BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT Norb can have the Lucianne Goldberg novel that Anntichrist S. Coulter gave me after I'm done with it. 6:42:15 AM |
Planned Parenthood Involved in Child Molesting, Rape, Selling Baby Parts
So, it's not about protecting children from child molesters, it's about prosecuting Planned Parenthood -- except that's not what the judge said when he ruled that Planned Parenthood had to give up the records, despite the fact that this would violate the clients' doctor-patient confidentiality.
Yeah, giving a girl's medical records to the attorney general will benefit her, in that she (and other girls) will be too ashamed to go to Planned Parenthood for birth control pills or treatment for STDs, and so the sluts will just stop having underage sex -- or will have to deal with STDs and pregnancy, and thus be punished for having sex, as God intended. (None of the 84 Indiana clients under the age of 14 had an abortion, they merely received "services usually required only by patients who are sexually active" -- so presumably some of them could even have been boys.) Anyway, Planned Parenthood says it complies with the law that says that anyone suspecting child abuse must report it to the authorities. But Indiana law also says that sexual activity with a child under the age of 14 is child molesting, no matter the age of the partner -- and the AG's office suspects that PP hasn't been reporting all instances of underage sex to the authorities, which is why it wants to pursue a criminal investigation of PP. Many of the these children probably did have sex with partners who were several years older than they were, and were therefore taken advantage of due to the inequality inherent in the relationship (and in these cases, the older partner should be prosecuted, IMHO). However, others probably had relationships with kids near their own ages. Should PP report to the state each instances of a 13-year girl having sex with her 13-year-old boyfriend? If so, will Indiana prosecute both kids for molesting each other? And is it better that these kids don't get birth control pills and treatment for STDs because of fear that their records will be turned over to the cops, or is it better to violate the children's privacy and medical confidentiality in order to prosecute PP for not complying fully with the letter of the law? I guess we'll see what the courts decide.
While the Indiana AG may have been inspired by Kansas's Phill Kline, at least Indiana is being somewhat honest by stating that they want the records in order to prosecute Planned Parenthood, not to protect children from child rapists. Oh, and since Michelle's background info on the cases comes from "Life Dynamics," you should probably take it with a truckload of salt.
More about the baby parts story:
It was Life Dynamics' info that allegedly prompted AG Kline's investigation in Kansas. LD had women anonymously call Planned Parenthood offices and say that they were 13-year-olds pregnant by their 22-year-old boy friends -- and since the clinic didn't report this to the authorities, Life Dynamics claims that this proves that PP is in league with child rapists, and gave copies of their tapes to various AGs, including Kline. Kline won't say if this is what actually triggered his investigation and demand for the records of all women having late-term abortions in Kansas, but his efforts did start just two months after his efforts to hire a Life Dynamics lawyer fell through. Oh, and PP says that it invites callers to come in for an interview, and during the in-person meeting they ask about the relationship and the boyfriend's age -- and if had been confirmed that the girl was 13 and the guy was 22, the clinic would have filed a report with social services. PP also says whole investigation thing is just about Kline's efforts to stop legal abortions. Hey, maybe Life Dynamics is involved in the Indiana case too. It might make a good front page story, all right. 5:39:33 AM |
Fighting For Our Lives, And a Tax BreakOur friend Crooks and Liars writes a letter to Randall Terry over at the General's place. We know that Randall is a busy guy, what with all the scared young girls at Planned Parenthood to harass, and the political career (and the new radio show that C&L tells us about), but we hope he finds the time to reply to his humble admirer, C&L. We don't know about you, but whenever we think of Randall Terry, we think about pond scum, and that liquid that leaks out of the trash bag onto to your foot, and earwigs, but eventually we think of Alan Keyes, because (a) Alan is almost as big a wingnut as Randall; (b) Alan was there beside Randall in Pinellas Park for a couple of weeks, helping Randall to harangue Jeb Bush; and (c) like Randall, Alan is deeply involved with conservative fund raisers/marketers William Greene, Phil Sheldon, and Philip Zodhiates, as we explained earlier. In fact, on Randall's page (The Death of Terri Schindler Must Not be in Vain), about why you should give Greene and Sheldon's RightMarch more money even though Terri is dead, Randall says, "Finally, as you may know, we spent an enormous sum of money on buses, rental cars, hotel rooms, feeding people, press release costs, airplane tickets for Alan Keyes and others ... ." And airplane tickets for Alan don't come cheap! Anyway, since C&L is checking up on Randall, we thought it would be nice to see what Alan is up to. Fortunately, Renew America has the scoop in a Letter from Alan Keyes announcing the Virginia Life & Liberty PAC:
Wow, apparently liberals are literally trying to kill Alan Keyes and other committed conservatives, presumably just because Alan loves America so much. This could be serious!
So, only the committed conservative unborn, terminally ill, and zygotes are actually in danger. I'm not so concerned now. Oh, but wait, Alan is also worried about those committed conservatives who have lost all higher brain functions -- since that could be a large segment of the religious right, maybe Alan has cause for alarm.
And none of us can chew or swallow for years at a time, and so we all get our nutrition and liquid from a tube in our stomachs. .
Yes, and we all know how alert and responsive a person can be when most of their brain has been replaced by spinal fluid. We've all seen the brain scan that shows the poor woman's shrunken brain. And we know that brain cells do not grow back -- we all know that.
Well, his wife faced a situation similar to Michael Schiavo's, in that her husband was in a persistent vegetative state for several years, and his doctors told her that he would never get any better. She said he wouldn't want to continue to live that way, and asked to have the feeding tube removed, but his Catholic family disagreed, and took their case to various pro-life groups and politicians, who tried various legal methods to keep the tube inserted. But eventually the Supreme Court of Virginia "provided a definitive legal decision on the issue of law and ruled that Michele Finn had legal authority to order the removal of Hugh Finn's feeding tube; and on October 1, 1998, the feeding tube was withdrawn, and eight days later Hugh Finn died." And then, in 1999, the VA State Senate ruled that "these difficult circumstances have caused great pain to the entire family as well as considerable financial expense to resolve their respective good faith beliefs and objectives; and the Finn family should not be required to carry the financial burden incurred in the pursuit of legal due process or the ensuing legislative and public attention to this matter." So, the state awarded Mrs. Finn $48,000; Hugh Finn's brother John, who fought Michele's decision, was awarded $10,000. So, yes, the cases were similar, in that the same kind of groups that involved themselves in the Schiavos' family matters also involved themselves in the Finns' family matters.
The Florda court didn't rely on any precedent set by the Finn case, as far as I know, and the only increased "threat" resulting form the Schiavo case will be to those who have signed living wills saying that they don't want to be kept alive via a feeding tube if they're ever in a PV state. So, Alan just tell us what the heck you want.
Cool! We whack those RINO legislators! We whack them good! And then we hold the judges accountable -- PERMANENTLY! Anything you say, Alan! Or, Alan, is what you really want is to work up the Terri Schiavo base with claims that lives are all in danger so that they will donate money to help Virigina's far-right lunatic fringe in the upcoming elections?
I assume that Alan will be renumerated for his help, since that seems to be his M.O.
So, it's not really about Terri or Hugh Finn or poor, persecuted zygotes, it's about taxes? And Alan is just pushing emotional buttons to try to get the Terri Schiavo people to donate money to this effort to elect legislators who won't raise taxes for the rich? I am shocked, SHOCKED!
And the best way to protect vulnerable Americans like Terri and Hugh (and the zygotes and the frail old people) is to "return the current $1.3 billion surplus back to Commonwealth taxpayers," and forbid government agencies from providing Medicaid benefits to illegal aliens. So, donate to this PAC, like Alan asked you to. Do it for Terri. 3:33:18 AM |
March 31, 2005 by s.z.
Two Things to Think About
Either you and I got our genetic material when a sperm fertilized an egg, or we didn't. And if we did, then male masturbation is mass murder! There is no middle ground.
When the embryos form a society to fight for their basic human dignity, then I will take their cause more seriously.
Alternate scenario: Child: "Mommy, where did I come from?" Mommy: "The freezer. We adopted you from a nice, rich, couple who made more embryo-pops than they could use." Child: "Why didn't you adopt any brothers or sisters for me?" Mommy: "We did. We adopted 21 other children, but tragically they didn't survive thawing or gestation. However, at least they didn't die trying to help cure disease or help other people." Child: "Yeah, but did you ever think that they might be annoyed that you would sacrifice 21 of them just so you could have a shot at getting one live child that meets your specifications? Life has no dignity to you, does it, Mommy?" Mommy: "Shut up and eat your veal!" Child: "Mommy, I see dead blastocysts! They're everywhere! And they're pissed!" 5:33:42 AM |
That's My Wingnut!Randall Terry/Ann Coulter EditionRemember how we told you that Randall Terry is running for the Florida State Senate? (Crooks and Liars has a great recap of the story, in case you've forgotten) Well, our resident lyracist, Bill S. has composed a song for Randall -- we hope it will become Mr. Terry's campaign theme song. Take it away, Bill!
Woohoo! Encore! Let's hear it for Bill! And in case you're wondering what else Randall is up to, his "Society for Justice and Truth" site reveal that his latest crusade is demanding that state's attorney generals get client lists from Plannet Parenthood, in order to protect children from rapists.
Well, not his last dollar so much as the last dollar of the poor schmucks who donated money to buy him his new house (and Randall chose to build that new house in a state where the laws allow you to keep your $400,00 house in the event of bankruptcy). But I would take him up on his bet about those child predators being happy customers of Planned Parenthood (the recent "epidemic" of highly-publicized child abductions, rapes, and murders in Florida involved criminals who don't seem organized enough to have taken any prior victims to Planned Parenthood for abortions). So, basically Planned Parenthood is complict in child murder -- and the only way to stop them is to run then out of business.
You'd almost think that Randall was running for public office or something. Oh, and speaking of publicity-seeking whores, remember our "Is it Ann Coulter or One of Her Attack Clones?" contest (or as Bill S. called it, the "Is it Adam's-Apple Annie, or an insuffrable simulation*?" quiz)? We've been asked when we are going to announce the answers to that little test. Well, since we provided the links, we thought that you'd all just read the four columns and find out the truth for yourself. (Because who wouldn't want to read columns by Ann Coulter;Peggy Noonan, Debbie Schlussel, or Kaye Grogan?) But for those of you who had other things to do that day, here are the correct responses: 1. Peggy 2. Ann 3. Kaye 4. Debbie FlipYrWhig was the first to name them all correctly (and in the first comment, even), and wins, oh, a point towards this Condi action figure from herobuilders.com. Enjoy your point, Flip (and someday, perhaps, your action figure). Oh, and if you collect enough points, you could get this mate for her: Super Hero President Bush Action Figure *PS: Bill adds, "BTW, just in case you were wondering, my nickname for Ms. Coulter was inspired by "Apple Annie", the character played by May Robson in the heartwarming 1933 movie "Lady For A Day". Well, that's 24 hours longer than Ann Coulter's managed to be one. (Most people are more familiar with the '60's remake "A Pocketful of Miracles", but I try my hardest NOT to associate THAT turn of phrase with Coulter. For obvious reasons.) 4:50:08 AM |
From the Blogosphere and Beyond!1. Via our friend Mark from Fried Green al-Qaedas, we learn about the astounding powers of Prophet Yahweh, who is probably Las Vegas's best Seer/UFOlogist. Apparently, Prophet (if I may be so bold as to call him by his first name) is going to summon a flying saucer for the media sometime between 1 June and 15 July, and Mark, who has been accredited as a member of the press by Prophet, is going to be there to see it! (Or, at least, he's going to watch the video of Prophet summoning UFOS.) We look forward to further reports from Mark on this fascinating story.
UPDATE: Bartholomew has more about Prophet, including his search for love in the Yahoo personals. 2. Media in Trouble offers a whole week's worth of news via photo blogging, and scoops the MSN by being the first to report on the new Condi hair. Check it out!
4. And to wrap things up, Doghouse Riley offers some suggestions on how to make NASCAR fairer in a world where women are allowed to drive cars, even though some of them weigh less than Robby Gordon. Enjoy! 3:37:33 AM |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


