The Doritos Ad Was Not Funny

A man knocks on a door. A pretty woman answers it. He hands her flowers and she thanks him. He has presumably come to take her out on a date. She introduces her young son to the man and excuses herself. She walks back to her room. The camera focuses on her shapely legs, quite visible given that she is wearing a miniskirt. The man stares, indeed leers, at her legs and makes a facial gesture suggesting, shall we say, sexual interest. The boy, who appears to be about 5 years old, sees this and drops his toy. The man sits on the couch and helps himself to a Dorito. The boy walks up to the man, smacks him hard across the face and says, “Keep your hands off my mama. Keep your hands off my Doritos.”

Immoral violence breeds violence; moral violence (such as just wars, police work and appropriate parental discipline) reduces violence . .

Why wouldn’t somebody understandably enraged at a child molester plan and follow him to some far-flung precinct, abduct him, bind his hands and feet, kill him, strip his body naked, hang it from a tree, and scrawl ‘fed’ across his belly? Slap his census i.d. to his side? It’s all so simple.

So many questions…
———————————————————————————————————————————
Was blogger Dan Riehl cramming his balls up a goat’s ass?

…look, before any more people start going bonkers that I’m accusing Riehl of anything, take a breath…

———————————————————————————————————————————
Was Dan Riehl chatter-chewing the hair off the bunghole of an African Elephant?

…hey, before any more Liberals start staining their g-strings that I’m accusing Riehl of anything, take a breath…

———————————————————————————————————————————

>Was Census Worker Bill Sparkman A Child Predator?
Riehl World View
Sunday, September 27, 2009

UPDATE: Before any more people start going bonkers that I’m accusing Sparkman of anything, take a breath. I’ve done a fair amount of crime blogging mixed in with politics over time. One doesn’t rule anything in or out without some firm answers. People feel free to speculate about Meth labs and pot fields but none have been reported in the area, yet. All I’m doing is looking at any and all possibilities. You’d think a moonshiner, or Meth head would have just buried the guy. Why hang him and invite the Feds into it by writing Fed on his chest? Why strip him naked and bind and gag him, which has serious sexual overtones?

I have no idea what happened, but from the reporting I’ve seen, neither does anyone else. If he adopted a boy as a single man, or was married and split with the wife and kids, who knows. But I never assume I know a story or motive until I know it. Right now we don’t. I’m simply speculating on one possible alternative, however impolite.

Someone may as well say it given some peculiar details. The strangest quote I’ve seen in all the reporting around apparently murdered Census worker Bill Sparkman is this one from his Mother located in Florida.

“I have my own ideas, but I can’t say them out loud. Not at this point,” she said. “Right now, what I’m doing, I’m just waiting on the FBI to come to some conclusion.”

She didn’t say she had been advised not to speculate. Being in Florida she has nothing to fear from Kentucky locals, so why the secrecy? Add that to the somewhat mysterious way this case is being revealed by authorities and whatever is behind it, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another surprise in store here.

The condition of the body and his being naked also seems curious. Why strip someone down to their socks only to kill them? Finally Sparkman’s bio and work history suggests at the least he was not just your average guy. No teaching degree, no full-time means of employment and no wife or kids so far as I am aware. But he certainly did gravitate towards children. I can’t help but wonder if this wasn’t a revenge killing disguised to look like something else. If he did have issues in this regard and messed with the wrong kid, it isn’t as if something like that can be ruled out until we know more.

Sparkman’s mother, Henrie Sparkman of Inverness, Fla., told The Associated Press her son was an Eagle scout who moved to the area to be a local director for the Boy Scouts of America. She said he later became a substitute teacher in Laurel County and supplemented that income as a Census worker.

There also seems to be a huge number of small unnamed cemeteries in that area. I haven’t even seen the name of the cemetery he was found in released. Interesting case, if nothing else. But I’m far from certain it has any political ramifications.

The lurid allegations are piling up, but the Senator still won’t say a thing. That’s a bad sign, as if there’s nothing to refute. If that’s the case, he could end up being one of the most reviled political figures in modern history.

And why not? Let’s see…

Ex-aide says Edwards fathered mistress’ child
(AP) – 10 hours ago

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — A man who once claimed to have fathered the child of John Edwards’ mistress says in a book proposal the former presidential candidate is the real father and that he and Edwards worked with his campaign finance chairman to hide that secret, according to a newspaper report published online Saturday.

Lying and deception, for beginners. And then he told Rielle Hunter that, after his wife’s cancer had killed her, he’d marry Hunter?

The New York Times said the book proposal by former Edwards aide Andrew Young states he helped facilitate the affair between Edwards and Rielle Hunter. According to the newspaper, Young wrote that Edwards once told Hunter they would wed after Edwards’ wife, who has cancer, died.

Edwards told Hunter that the ceremony would be held on a rooftop in New York and the Dave Matthews Bands would make an appearance, the newspaper said, citing its examination of the book proposal

Ah, DMB, sure. Great. And then political shenanigans, payoffs?

Edwards has said the affair with Hunter ended in 2006. That year, Edwards’ political action committee paid Hunter’s video production firm $100,000 for work. Then the committee paid another $14,086 on April 1, 2007. The Edwards camp has said the latter payment from the PAC was exchanged for 100 hours of unused videotape Hunter shot.

Continue Reading »

Can adoption agencies do this and should they really be this picky?

My sister’s co worker Jeremy and his wife Kayla are both atheists and cannot have babies because Kayla needed a hysterectomy a few years back. she just got over the depression she went through because of it and decided to adopt but during the interview with the agency they denied them because Jeremy and Kayla are atheists.

i think this is bull, why is it that atheists cannot adopt? and should the agencies REALLY be this strict as who adopts? there’s so many kids and being atheist is FAR from being bad unfit parents. i mean are we really going to be forced to force our kids to be religious?

So it’s still going on. The pressing matter with the parents was what’s in their heads–whether they believe in a Supreme Being. Presumably, they could just say, “Wait a minute. Wait–yes, I do believe, just now…” and that would end the problem, right there.

The Law: Can Atheists Be Parents?

After six years of childless marriage, John and Cynthia Burke of Newark decided to adopt a baby boy through a state agency. Since the Burkes were young, scandal-free and solvent, they had no trouble with the New Jersey Bureau of Children’s Services—until investigators came to the line on the application that asked for the couple’s religious affiliation.

The Burkes are now living in Carterville, Ill., near Southern Illinois University, where John Burke has worked for the past year as a speech pathologist. Nevertheless, Judge Camarata ordered the parents to send David’s sister back to the New Jersey adoption agency. Two weeks ago, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Burkes appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. If they fail in their appeal, Eleanor Katherine may have to leave the only family she has ever known and await adoption by another couple whose religious convictions satisfy the State of New Jersey.

I’m not going to try to talk sense to any more of you fame-lamed zombies on the other thread (Do not bother to mourn Michael Jackson…). You can all just demonstrate your brilliance by tackling this new post.

You all seem to know for sure that the wholly bizarre superstar, Michael Jackson, was not at all the unrepentant criminal he appeared to be, you’re all so much smarter than all the unfortunate people who have first-hand experience witnessing the behavior of child molesters. Well, then, you rigid apologists can certainly handle these questions. Should be a piece of cake for you wise old students of human nature:

If Micheal Jackson was not a child molester…

1.) Why did so many people accuse him of being one?

Pretty simple question. You guys think the accusers are greedy–if they wanted to victimize the poor innocent guy and make a bundle, the jerks had to make something up, right? Why was it always child molestation? Just about the most lurid, disgusting thing imaginable? It might be the hardest thing to prove because it’s so unbelievable, so disturbing.

Tommy Lee, Alec Baldwin settled assault cases, George Harrison, Billy Joel settled plagiarism cases. Libel, slander, negligence, harassment, take your pick. But child molesting is a typically easy, frivolous and successful case to press? Really? And someone will do this even though they’ll be forever known as a sex-crime victim? Really?

This is the bottom line: it’s the STUPIDEST thing to make up out of thin air because NO CELEBRITY WILL EVER SETTLE THE CASE. It’s too awful, too damaging, too destructive–it has to be fought tooth and nail, destroyed. A guaranteed war.

Which obviously brings up the next question…

2.) Why would he settle those cases?

At least three cases. I can’t imagine any person in the world wrongly accused of child molestation ever choosing to settle. Any case. Ever. No matter what. I would choose to throw my career away if I could press any allegation to the ragged ends of the Earth and reclaim my good name. But not the most famous guy on the planet? Even keenly aware that everybody will know that he paid off the alleged victims? Fight for your good name vs. publicly paying off the money-grubbing liars: what’s the problem? It’s a no-brainer. Unless you’re guilty. And then it’s the opposite no-brainer.

3.) Why did he sleep with others’ children?

Don’t give me the ‘innocent’ or ‘harmless’ bullshit. No typical adults ever want to do this. Men especially, for obvious reasons, but he did it over and over again. It’s insane.

Jackson: “It’s very right. It’s very loving, that’s what the world needs now, more love more heart.”
Bashir: “The world needs a man who’s 44 who’s sleeping in a bed with children?”
Jackson: “No, you’re making it – no, no you’re making it all wrong …”
Bashir: “Well, tell me, help me …”
Jackson: “Because what’s wrong with sharing a love? You don’t sleep with your kids? Or some other kid who needs love who didn’t have a good childhood?”
Bashir: “No, no I don’t. I would never dream …”
Jackson: “That’s because you’ve never been where I’ve been mentally …”
Bashir: “What do you think people would say if I said well – ‘I’ve invited some of my daughter’s friends round or my son’s friends round and they are going to sleep in a bed with me tonight’?
Jackson: “That’s fine!”

4.) Why was he ‘grooming’ children?

“Child grooming, in the context of this article, refers to actions deliberately undertaken with the aim of befriending and establishing an emotional connection with a child, in order to lower the child’s inhibitions in preparation for sexual abuse.

Examples of activities sometimes used as part of child grooming

* Taking an undue interest in someone’s child (having a “special” friend)
* Giving gifts or money to the child for no apparent reason
* Showing pornography to the child
* Talking about sexual topics
* Hugging, kissing, or other physical contact even when the child doesn’t want this attention
* Talking to the child about problems that would normally be discussed between people of the same age or more commonly, adults (e.g. marital problems)
* Becoming good friends with the child’s parents in order to gain easy access to their child (e.g. Babysitting)
* Looking for opportunities to have time alone with the child.
* Inviting the child over for sleepovers or sleeping in the same room or bed with someone else’s child.”

That’s a perfect description of Jackson’s private life. Hell, his public life, too. Nobody who isn’t a child molester behaves like this, it’s very disturbing.

5.) After narrowly escaping being found liable in the ’94 Chandler case, why did he return to his unsavory, child-centered life?

If he’s not a child molester, why would he return to behavior that nearly destroyed him and everything he had accomplished? If he knew that greedy criminals could make up and press a wholly groundless case based upon the mere appearance of a child obsession, why again prop up the appearance of a child obsession? If the whole fiasco was the worst, most wrenching event of his life, why wouldn’t he try to avoid a second episode?

“It was a nightmare, a horrifying nightmare.”–Jackson

…but a second episode followed, this time resulting in a criminal case. The guy was also a brilliant businessman and savvy mega-millionaire, but this was a typically good, reasonable decision?

6.) Why couldn’t he have relationships with adult women?

…or adult men, for that matter, or anyone? Gay, straight, whatever. How does anyone carry out a life entirely absent any romantic or sexual interest? Especially a giant, famous life–everybody else like that turns that to their advantage, they choose to have as many partners as they like, or they get the best looking, or richest or most famous.

Michael chose…nobody? Does anybody buy that? The two icons he’s being currently compared to in American life are Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley. Those two dudes went through hundreds, maybe thousands of women.

But this is who he ‘married’? This was his passion, the cherished mother of his children?

Although [Rowe] also cited irreconcilable differences as a reason for their divorce in 1999, on 4/27/05 she testified at the Michael Jackson trial that “[we] never shared a home; we never shared an apartment.”

She also stated that she had not seen her children in more than two years. Debbie had been limited to seeing her children only every 45 days, and then for only eight hours under the supervision of a nanny.

Heck, it almost sounds like he doesn’t really like the mother of his children. Sounds as if he’d rather keep her out of his and his kids’ lives.

And those are but a few of the dozens of questions I could ask that no one could possibly answer: Why couldn’t he recognize typical parents’ concerns for the children around him? Why did he have to be with children alone, away from their parents? Why did he have to have sleepovers? Why did he keep such a large porn stash around? Why did he give ‘Jesus Juice’ to teens? Why did his bedroom have an alarm for people walking down his hall? Why was he a lifelong drug addict?

No one, that is, who refuses to pull his head out of the superstar’s ass: the guy was a child molester. That’s the answer that explains absolutely everything. It’s obvious.

Which leaves us with the final question: Why can’t you admit the truth?

No child predator in history was ever so adored. Given the keys to America itself, he took whatever he pleased, and it pleased him to collect and seduce awe-stricken teenaged boys.

“We don’t know that for sure,” you might say. Naw, we know that for sure because child molesters are a strange and troubling breed of human being, and that’s absolutely what Michael Jackson was. They don’t walk, talk, look, or act like normal adults–they practically scream “Here I am, a monster” where they stand in front of you.

I was a 13 year-old skateboarder from a broken family in Southern California when I bumped into the man who owned the skate shop, Doug. He had money, he went to a lot of cool concerts, he put the teens in limos, they all went back to his condo and took jacuzzis. He was a child molester, in jail by the time I graduated high school, and I’m sure a couple of my junior high friends got hurt.

Doug: the wispy personality, the quirky passivity, the nervousness around adults, the inability to deal routinely with them, the inability to look people in the eye, and the limp-wristed handshake. This is what child molesters are like. And lest you think “Hey, my buddy’s a lot like that, and he’s just artsy–he’s no scumbag”, well, then, here’s the difference: they’re always, always, always around kids. The funky or artsy types are almost exactly the opposite.

And, sure, I’m over-generalizing. But also after a dozen or so years of studying and working in Genetics and Molecular Biology, and having grown up around at least two of them, and having gone through ACA twenty years ago and heard dozens of brutal accounts of child molestation, I am of the opinion that they really are a different ‘breed’ of human being because their behaviors are so totally bizarre, anti-social and utterly recognizable, so strikingly similar across cultures and societies.

Which is why I found it astonishing that any adult would allow a boy anywhere near Michael Jackson after the 1993-94 allegations of molesting 13 year-old Jordan Chandler.

[Jordan's father] Evan Chandler and Jackson, represented by their legal teams, then engaged in unsuccessful negotiations to resolve the issue in a financial settlement; the negotiations were initiated by Chandler but Jackson did make several counter offers. Jordan Chandler then told a psychiatrist and later police that he and Jackson had engaged in acts of kissing, masturbation and oral sex, as well as giving a detailed description of what he alleged were the singer’s genitals.^[83]

But screwed-up parents continued to do so. And the kids, they’re almost always from broken families, little surprise (predators know what they’re doing), and it was only a matter of time until another one got hurt. Another 13 year-old, Gavin Arvizo:

During the alleged sexual incidents, Jackson wore underpants, and the accuser wore underpants or pajamas. On one brief occasion the accuser and his brother claimed they saw Jackson naked, but both boys described the incident differently. According to the brother, Jackson purposefully exposed himself and his penis was erect, but according to the accuser, Jackson only came up the stairs from the bathroom to the bedroom while unclothed, retrieved something and went downstairs. Even if the incident was non-sexual, this was significant to the brothers, because they had never seen a naked adult before.

The accuser told a school administrator at a date after he had left Neverland that Jackson had not molested him. Later, at the trial, he said that this was not true, that he had lied because he was already teased after the airing of the Bashir documentary, and he feared that the teasing would get worse if he would have told the truth, which, as he now said, is as follows: on one occasion Jackson manipulated the accuser’s genitals for about five minutes, causing the accuser to ejaculate (count 2); the next day Jackson started it again (count 3) and also tried to guide the accuser’s hand to Jackson’s genitals, but the accuser pulled away (count 6). The accuser said that he was happy at Neverland, and that only after leaving did he realize he didn’t want to be there anymore.

The boy’s brother claimed that Jackson had showed them pornography, both via the Internet and magazines. Allegedly, he showed them photographs of topless women, while stating “Got milk?”. Apparently he also leaned in and whispered to Prince Michael II, who was sleeping nearby, “Prince, you’re missing some pussy” while the accuser and the accuser’s brother stared at the images on the computer screen. Other accusations include coercing the boys into “cussing,” and swearing them to secrecy, insisting that they do not tell anyone “even if they have a gun to your head.”

The exact same age and sex of teens,  sleeping with them in his bed, creating a ‘secret world’, providing them with pornography,  plying them with ‘Jesus Juice’, appearing naked in front of them–does anybody doubt that these things didn’t happen? Even his ardent defenders would likely sadly admit, yes, these events occurred, but rule out the actual sex crime.

But who the hell acts like that? This is my point–these behaviors are so bizarre and so wildly unacceptable that there’s no doubt about what was really going on: Mega-Superstar Michael Jackson was a child molester. Period. I can’t buy any other reality because no other exists. The guy was a flat-out criminal.

Time, now, to ask: ‘Aren’t we somewhat guilty of letting him get away with these horrible crimes?’ Not individually, but collectively? Weren’t we so struck by fame and those it accompanies we actually invoked a second reality for them, one in which they’re just not people any more? The Famous, they’re not assholes/they’re complicated, they’re not selfish/they’re focused, not greedy/they’re hungry, not cruel/they’re driven, not careless/they’re busy. It looks that way to me. In the end, they don’t even die, they just live on. We make them bigger than life, and anything bigger than life just can’t be alive.

Jackson was surely alive, though, as anyone is who’s cursed with an evil disease. This was child molesting, and this was a malady of his brain organization. As with other predators like him, it could probably be traced to developmental causes and perhaps, additionally, genetic contributions as well. In the future, I’m sure molestation will be recognized as a disease, but this won’t be to mitigate its evil; it’ll be to put the onus upon the seriously sick to take responsibility for his or her heinous problem and get psychiatric treatment and support as soon as possible. People will have to accept their dangerous drives and the responsibilities they demand.

And this is where I can damn Jackson with impunity. He organized his whole meteoric life to dazzle and seduce his victims. Albeit not necessarily prolific, the guy has to be recognized as one of the most effective molesters in history. There is almost no way, with the monstrous size of his intoxicating fame, that a mixed-up teen could have had a chance once Jackson put his mind to it. And how many troubled parents would have been able to figure out that the most famous person in the world was an obvious criminal, casually willing to look the part of shameless monster in public? It’s almost too much to believe, especially if you’re unfamiliar with how predators operate.

It is, however, exactly how Michael Jackson operated. One of history’s most gigantic celebrities was an open and obvious scumbag, and people practically knocked down his door to offer up their poor boys. Can we please remember that his victims will be revisiting their private hells while practically everybody else on the planet cries for the ‘tragic’ Superstar? It’d be a decent thing to do. We can also be thankful that the whole obscene string of crimes has ended now. Good riddance, fancy child predator.

JACKSON DEFENDERS: if you really think the guy wasn’t a sexual predator, then feel free to take a crack at this post. Don’t bother, you can’t win.