A crime of passion turns ends in something utterly unbaweavable.
I mean this is something straight out of a Damon Wayans movie.
A crime of passion turns ends in something utterly unbaweavable.
I mean this is something straight out of a Damon Wayans movie.
![]() |
Ever since the 1980s, it has become common place for people to align fits of insanity or even poor judgment with an addiction to crack-cocaine. We’ve all heard it before.
“Brittney did what to them kids? Oh, she must be on crack.”
“He paid how much for that? He must be on crack.”
“You think that house is going to be worth how much in a few years? Sheeeeeeeeet. You must be on crack.”
But notice how no one ever says you must be on cocaine. Consider the following:
“What do you mean he’s not supporting the troops? He must be on cocaine.”
“You really think the Superdelegates within the Democratic party should decide who the Presidential nominee should be? You must be on cocaine.”
“Do you really think we live in a color blind society? You must be on cocaine.”
Why is that? Obviously, I am being coy. We all know the reason for it. At any rate, I am going to start using the “you must be on cocaine” line until it catches on. IntheKut readers feel free to join in.
It amazes me what passes for news, especially once the mainstream media gets caught up in the horse race. This piece could have been done by a bunch of Hillary supporters.
The overall sentiment of this piece is not sound all that different from how Hillary Clinton tried to dismiss Obama’s spate of wins on the eve of the Chesapeake primary. According to CNN’s political ticker:
Clinton has publicly dismissed the caucus voting system since before Super Tuesday, seeking to lower expectations heading into a series of contests that played to Obama’s advantage. His campaign features what many consider to be a stronger and more dedicated grassroots organization than Clinton’s.
Noting that “my husband never did well in caucus states either,” Clinton argued that caucuses are “primarily dominated by activists” and that “they don’t represent the electorate, we know that.”
I wonder what the subtext here is all about.
On Valentine’s Day we frequently hear relationship experts tell couples they need spontaneity to keep the flame of passion alive, communication to sustain the bonds of intimacy, honesty to promote mutual respect. But little attention is paid to the wisdom of the strategy of the wear-you-down-method.
What’s that? Simply put, it can simply be described as hard headed persistence in wooing a woman. Women beware! Some men can be frighteningly committed to this approach. And they do it because it works.
In her essay, “Marry Him! The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough” Lori Gottlieb Writing for March issue for the Atlantic Monthly, illustrated the cold realism inspired by the the wear-you-down-method.
Money quote:
Then there’s my friend Chris, a single 35-year-old marketing consultant who for three years dated someone he calls “the perfect woman”—a kind and beautiful surgeon. She broke off the relationship several times because, she told him with regret, she didn’t think she wanted to spend her life with him. Each time, Chris would persuade her to reconsider, until finally she called it off for good, saying that she just couldn’t marry somebody she wasn’t in love with. Chris was devastated, but now that his ex-girlfriend has reached 35, he’s suddenly hopeful about their future.
“By the time she turns 37,” Chris said confidently, “she’ll come back. And I’ll bet she’ll marry me then. I know she wants to have kids.” I asked Chris why he would want to be with a woman who wasn’t in love with him. Wouldn’t he be settling, too, by marrying someone who would be using him to have a family? Chris didn’t see it that way at all. “She’ll be settling,” Chris said cheerfully. “But not me. I get to marry the woman of my dreams. That’s not settling. That’s the fantasy.”
Now that’s what I call cold blooded calculation. I don’t condone it, since there are obvious flaws to this strategy, but you do have to admire his resolve, even if it distorts one’s sense of reality and comes at the expense of much greater fulfillment.
NYT Laugh Lines blogger Streeter Seidell on why “the look at me” generation isn’t as politically active as their baby boomer generation once were.
It’s easy to be politically active when you’ve got nothing else to do. Your TV was nowhere near as entertaining as ours (Spoiler Alert: Gomer Pyle does something dumb in tonight’s episode) and only NASA had satellite radio back then. We live life as if in an all-you-can-eat buffet of distraction. How are we supposed to find the time to protest when HBO just put the next episode of “The Wire” on demand?
I can definitely sympathize.
To understand the rough and tumble world of both the Republican and Democratic primaries, we need a paradigm shift that disregards polling, policy positions, and debating skills and instead examines successful methods of self preservation in the animal kingdom.
I’m serious.
After all, the term “horse race” just doesn’t convey the predatory nastiness of the attacks and the unpredictable nature of the outcomes of each contest. But the video below does capture the vicissitudes of American political life.
Watch it.
Damn. Now that’s the real “comeback kid.”
(H/T: Jonathan Chait at The Plank)
Few things are as frustrating as having to deal with an overflowing toilet. Now imagine if an off duty police officer overheard you swearing in your own bathroom in the midst of that frustration and tried to have you arrested because of your private tirade. Well, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, that’s what happened to a mother in Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Check out the story in the press release below.
Judge Finds Scranton Mom Who Swore at Her Overflowing Toilet Not Guilty
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 2007SCRANTON, PA – Scranton police got an earful yesterday, when a judge ruled that Dawn Herb did not violate any law by swearing in her own home. Ms. Herb was cited for disorderly conduct in October for cursing at her overflowing toilet after she was overheard by her neighbor, an off-duty Scranton police officer.
Judge Terrence V. Gallagher found Herb not guilty of violating a state law against using obscenity, ruling that although her language “may be considered by some to be offensive, vulgar and imprudent . . . such representations are protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment.”
ACLU cooperating attorney Barry Dyller, who defended Herb at her trial, said, “The Scranton police were wrong to charge her with a crime for exercising her constitutional right to express herself. In this country you have the right to let loose a few choice words, whether it is in your own home or outside of it.”
Since at least 1971, when the Supreme Court held that a man could not be prosecuted for wearing a jacket that read “Fuck the Draft” in a courthouse, the courts have upheld a person’s right to speak his or her mind, even in ways that might not be considered polite.
But on the evening of October 11, Scranton police handed Dawn Herb a disorderly conduct citation for cursing about an overflowing toilet inside her home. According to Herb’s account, when her neighbor heard her cursing near an open bathroom window, he shouted at her to “shut the fuck up.” When she told him to mind his own business, he phoned his friends at the police department. Within minutes, two police cars were parked outside Herb’s home, and she was facing up to 90 days in jail and a $300 fine. “At first, I just went inside and cried,” said Herb. “I was thinking, ‘How will I pay this fine?’” Herb’s four-year old son has worried that the police will take his mother away.
“Police do not have the legal authority to enforce etiquette,” said ACLU staff attorney Valerie Burch. “What may be profanity to some is poetry to others. Both are constitutionally protected expression and the police can’t charge people for either.”
Only in America.
Here is a collection of the most funniest and outrageous commercials created this year. The spot featuring a father breast feeding his kid is hilarious.
(H/T: Top Ten Videos)
Perhaps, I am just too ignorant about the pervasiveness of steriod use in professional sports or don’t love baseball enough or fail to appreciate the pressures young athletes feel to take performance enhancing drugs, but I really do not care about this whole roids controversy at all. I mean how does this affect me? Or people I should genuinely care about?
Of course, I agree those who broke the law should be punished and that reforms should be adopted to discourage anymore widespread use, but does this scandal really merit being on the home page of the New York Times or Washington Post or any other major news organization’s website?
Oh Puleeze!
We have a genocide in Darfur, the CIA destroying tapes of torturing people, Katrina victims being evicted from homes, conservative hawks politicizing intelligence reporting, a deficit that’s out of control, global climate change, millions of people without health care, and we are talking about grown men taking drugs to excel at a kids game as if its some national crisis.
Punish those who are responsible, crack down on the sellers of the drugs, and then let’s focus on more important things.
Recent Comments