Department of WTF: Case #612

Woman Sues After Police Destroy Her Home During 10-Hour Standoff With The Family Dog

So, when given a key and consent from the occupant, officers instead chose to grab an armored vehicle and go through several windows and the attic. Even if they believed the suspect might be dangerous, there has to be some middle ground between full-scale assault and simply unlocking the door and stepping inside.

This happened back in 2014 but there’s been no coverage of the Caldwell cops’ 10-hour, one-dog standoff until now. Thomas Johnson of Fault Lines suggests that might have something to do with the local paper of record.

I can’t stop laughing/crying at the ridiculousness of this…


Teenage girl struck and killed in SE Portland

Teenage girl struck and killed in SE Portland: driver arrested

Witnesses say one car stopped to let the girl cross and then the gold Lexus went around the car that was yielding to the teenager.

“A lot of people will stop and let people go but other people won’t notice that’s what they’re doing,” Dunagan said. 

The girl was pronounced dead at the scene.

Horrifying and utterly avoidable. Just tragic.

Equal Opportunity Bullshiting

Don’t get me wrong, I really like Slate’s Political Gabfest. I’ve listened to their weekly podcast for over a decade now. Jayme and I even went to their live show here in Atlanta at Georgia Tech’s Ferst Center a month or two ago.

That’s why it drives me crazy when I hear the type of discussion I heard on this week’s episode.

(For those who have not listened to the gabfest before, they always break each episode into three segments, followed by Cocktail Chatter. That means they discuss three main topics for roughly 10-12 minutes each.)
The first segment was all about Donald Trump’s (relentlessly) ridiculous week. While trying to get his campaign “back on message”, he had a relatively normal Monday talking about a (somewhat coherent, although see the “charts” video for evidence of being not-so-coherent) economic policy. Then, his week fell apart. He suggested that the “second amendment people” might have a way to stop Hillary Clinton, basically saying they might consider assassinating her. He also called President Obama the founder of ISIS. Yes, you heard that right, the founder of ISIS (what the actual fuck?!?). And even when offered a way to back off of these comments later in the week, he simply doubled down on them.

So, commentary, commentary, commentary…

Then, the second topic was about how politicians can/should apologize in the age of constant media. And this was all about Hillary Clinton’s remarks to Chris Wallace regarding her interview with the FBI Director concerning the email server thing.

Again, commentary, commentary, commentary…

Here’s what angers me. They have set these two topics up to be a back-to-back questioning of the candidate’s bona fides. First, let’s present this candidate’s foibles. Then, we’ll point out the other’s.


One is by an assclown who is suggesting that people might think about MURDERING A SITTING PRESIDENT and the other’s is over the candidate’s word choice about a fricking email server. (Believe me, if I hear her say anything to the effect of “it depends on your definition of ‘is'”, I’m going to hurl.)

How are these two even remotely the comparable? Why should anyone make that argument? Did they realize they were doing this in setting up the segments this way?

I see this so much, especially when it comes to Trump. Every stupid fucking thing he does (and there are so very many examples to choose from) is followed by some mention of a Hillary flaw. Most of the time, it’s the damn email server.

Just so frustrating…

Life’s Too Short to Fold Boxers

Boxers live in drawers. They are not displayed for visiting company. They are not meant to be an object of desire. They serve a purpose. It’s certainly not a glamorous one, but a necessary one. They are not designer. They are Hanes or Fruit of the Loom. They strive to be utilitarian.

In recognition of that, I feel they do not need to be coddled. They don’t need to be crease-free. They will be under jeans or slacks or shorts, which will, by definition, shape them to your leg’s outline anyway.

Therefore, I don’t feel the need to fold them.

That’s right. I said it.

Call: “Hello. I’m Lee, and I do not (normally) fold my boxers.”
Response: “Hi, Lee!”

I don’t have a space shortage in my boxers drawer. No need to cram. No need to spend the time to make them ergonomic. They’re fine. They are welcome to fall where they may.

Time is precious to me.
Having my boxers neatly folded is not.

Life’s too short.