首页
<source id="3oodw" ><sup id="3oodw" ></sup></source>

      1. <s id="3oodw" ><th id="3oodw" ><small id="3oodw" ></small></th></s>
        <i id="3oodw" ><optgroup id="3oodw" ></optgroup></i>

            <input id="3oodw" ><bdo id="3oodw" ><cite id="3oodw" ></cite></bdo></input>
            <delect id="3oodw" ><ruby id="3oodw" ></ruby></delect>

            <em id="3oodw" ><progress id="3oodw" ></progress></em><input id="3oodw" ></input>
            <strike id="3oodw" ></strike>
            Showing posts with label Frivolous Lawsuits.
            Showing posts with label Frivolous Lawsuits.

            Thursday, October 2, 2014

            White Lesbian Couple Accidentally Given Black Donor's Sperm. Hilarity Ensues.

            .
            A white Ohio woman is suing a Downers Grove-based sperm bank, alleging that the company mistakenly gave her vials from an African-American donor, a fact that she said has made it difficult for her and her same-sex partner to raise their now 2-year-old daughter in an all-white community.

            Jennifer Cramblett, of Uniontown, Ohio, alleges in the lawsuit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court that Midwest Sperm Bank sent her the vials of an African-American donor's sperm in September 2011 instead of those of a white donor that she and her white partner had ordered.

            Cramblett, 36, learned of the mistake in April 2012, when she was pregnant and ordering more vials so that the couple could have another child with sperm from the same donor, according to the lawsuit. The sperm bank delivered vials from the correct donor in August 2011, but Cramblett later requested more vials, according to the suit.

            "On August 21, 2012, Jennifer gave birth to Payton, a beautiful, obviously mixed-race baby girl," the lawsuit states. "Jennifer bonded with Payton easily and she and Amanda love her very much. Even so, Jennifer lives each day with fears, anxieties and uncertainty about her future and Payton's future."

            Raising a mixed-race daughter has been stressful in Cramblett and Zinkon's small, all-white community, according to the suit. Cramblett was raised around people with stereotypical attitudes about nonwhites, the lawsuit states, and did not know African-Americans until she attended college at the University of Akron.

            "Because of this background and upbringing, Jennifer acknowledges her limited cultural competency relative to African-Americans and steep learning curve, particularly in small, homogenous Uniontown, which she regards as too racially intolerant," the lawsuit states.

            Part of that learning curve has included getting her daughter's hair cut, which according to the suit requires Cramblett to travel to a black neighborhood, "where she is obviously different in appearance, and not overtly welcome."

            She fears that her "all white and unconsciously insensitive family," which has never been able to fully embrace Jennifer's homosexuality, could have a negative effect on her daughter, according to the lawsuit.
            Look, I sympathize with this woman, as well as her partner, who is conspicuously absent from this suit. She wanted a white child. There's absolutely nothing wrong, or racist about that. When she found out about the mixup, she chose the see the pregnancy to term, and at least on the surface appears to be a loving and supportive mother of a child she didn't ideally want. So there's that.



            On the other hand, I can't help but cringe at the conflation of her lily-white town's racial climate and that of the "black neighborhood, where she is obviously different in appearance, and not overtly welcome". Seriously, what the f*ck is that sh*t? Is she trying to say that this baby's making her life harder because she has to spend a couple of hours a month around dreaded N-words to keep the child's high bun looking fresh? Because if so, I have bad news for her: raising a black child is gonna get a lot more complicated.

            I'm also not sure what she's aiming for here. The lab admitted its error. She made the decision to see the pregnancy through. She also made the decision to raise said child in an environment that she already knew to be racially hostile. I suspect a lot of her family's backlash is related to her sexual orientation as well. So where's she gonna move? She's scared of black people but has a black baby? This sh*t just don't add up.

            I feel for this woman, but I really feel for that kid. What do ya'll think?

            Question: Does this woman have a case? Is the lab liable beyond the initial admission of error and subsequent refund?

            Thursday, July 24, 2014

            Why Would Any Sane Person Buy A Car From GM?!?

            My 2nd car was a Chevy Nova, like the one you see above.[1] It was labeled a Chevy, but it was technically a Toyota Corolla, if you can recall the 80s/90s when this sorta of domestic/foreign arrangement was the norm. And that car was a total piece of sh*t, that broke down as often as it cranked up. It was a hand-me-down from my parents for a job well done in college. I handed that sh*t back and bought myself a Honda as soon as I was financially able to do so on my own.

            And now, a really poor segue...

            The hits just keep on coming for General Motors. A company that required a federal bailout a few years ago is now that may threaten the automaker's future yet again.
            General Motors expects to pay between $400 million to $600 million to compensate victims of ifs faulty ignition switch tied to at least 13 deaths.

            The families of those killed and people injured in crashes involving the ignition switch can start filing for payments next month.

            The problem with the ignition switch can cause the car to shut off while driving, disabling safety features such as air bags, anti-lock brakes and power steering. GM has admitted that its employees knew of the problem a decade before recalling 2.6 million cars earlier this year.

            The automaker has been under fire from Congressional, Justice Department and federal safety regulators for the delay and could face criminal charges.

            GM (GM) said it set aside $400 million in the second quarter to cover victims' payments. But it said Thursday in its quarterly results that because its compensation program does not have a cap, it might have to pay an additional $200 million in future quarters.

            The company also set aside an additional $874 million for the cost of repairing the record 30 million cars it has recalled so far this year. The combined $1.3 billion in reductions once again essentially wiped out the company's profit, leaving it with net income of only $33 million in the quarter.
            GM's culture of quieting (and in some cases punishing) whistleblowers directly contributed to the issues with the ignition switch, which is just another example of poor management at the top that's hurt American automakers. It's also why, although other countries have their own auto problems, I won't but buying American anytime soon. Sorry, Detroit.

            Question: What was your first car?!? Would you buy a car from GM right now?

            [1] You already know about my first car. And my latest. Right?

            Wednesday, June 11, 2014

            Halle Berry Owes $16K/Month In Child Support. Stevie J Is $1M In Arrears.

            As a guy married for nearly 13 years, I can tell you marriage is work. Mix in kids, and it damn near becomes a 2nd day job, albeit one with great benefits. The adage goes "it's cheaper to keep her", which is a nice way of telling men they're better off staying married than getting divorced and being forced to live in a van down by the river. Not that I need reminding, because I have plenty of family and friends who have had their futures wrecked by the dreaded combination of divorce and spousal support. Of course, you should contribute to the financial wellbeing of your kids, but what's a reasonable price?

            are on separate ends of a dreaded court order, and I'm wondering if how people are judging both is due to the gender of the person involved.
            Halle Berry has a hefty new expense. The Oscar-winning actress has to pay over $16,000 in child support each month to her ex, Gabriel Aubry, to provide for their 6-year-old daughter Nahla, the Los Angeles Superior Court ordered.

            Berry's monthly bill will remain in effect until Nahla turns 19 or graduates high school, whichever occurs first, according to court documents obtained by CNN. The settlement came on May 30, at the end of lengthy child support legal battle.

            The court also ordered Berry to pay $115,000 retroactively in child support, as well as to cover her ex-boyfriend's legal fees, which amount to $300,000. The "X-Men: Days of Future Past" star is fully responsible for Nahla's tuition, while both parents will divide health care costs.
            In the words of that sage American hero Jax Teller, JESUS CHRIST!!!!

            Not to be outdone, "reality TV star" Steebie . Yes, even more heinous than acting like a moron on TV and marrying Joseline.
            Reality-TV star and onetime hit producer Stevie J has been arrested after racking up what TMZ reports is a "million-dollar child support debt." According to the gossip site, the Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta star is currently in jail after he allegedly stopped paying a court-ordered $8,500 monthly child support payment in 2001.

            According to a criminal complaint seen by TMZ, Stevie J fathered two children with his then live-in girlfriend in 1997 and 1998 and was initially ordered to pay $6,500 in child support in 1999. That amount was raised to $8,500 a few years later.

            TMZ reports that Stevie J hasn't paid child support in some 13 years, bringing his estimated total back child support owed to $1,107,412!
            Breh, how can you not pay child support for 13 years? How is that even possible, and why exactly is the children's mother (how old are these kids by now, 25?) just now trying to collect?

            My theory is pretty simple: this guy probably had an agreement with the child's mother to give her whatever he could, off the grid, and she agreed. Years later, he's on reality to flossin' like he's a millionaire and she decides she wants a chunk. Turns out that chunk is well over a million dollars for two damn kids. Amazing.

            I've heard it said before, and it bears repeating: if you've ever in such a position, establish child support via the courts immediately and pay. Under the table support doesn't count in the system, and should the recipient decide your under the table arrangement isn't sufficient, she can file and recieve money retroactively, which wouldn't take into account any of what you've already paid. Or if you're in Stevie's case and suddenly go from making Bad Boy money to No Money Mo Problems money, lawyer up, go to court and get your monthly obligation modified downward. Any black man who has spent hours of his formative years in a black barbershop would know this, as well as a million and one other legal tidbits. Life hacks, my arse.

            As for Berry, well damn. $16k a month to a guy we weren't ever married to is bad enough, but I'm also wondering how she managed to lose custody in the first place. 9 times out of 10, the courts will deem the mother the optimal parent for a child unless she has some serious mental/substance abuse issues. I don't know much about Berry, but jeez, with the money she has, she must be really screwed up if the courts gave her daughter to the kid's father.

            Either way, let this be a lesson for everyone: pull out!

            Question: Thoughts? Opinions? Got a gruesome child support story of your own you wanna share?

            Monday, March 24, 2014

            The Real March Madness: Just Pay The Damn Kids Already!!!

            .
            A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that a large majority of the general public opposes paying salaries to college athletes beyond the scholarships currently offered.

            Only 33 percent support paying college athletes. At 64 percent, opposition is nearly twice as high as support, with 47 percent strongly against the idea. Nearly every demographic and political group opposes it except non-whites, for whom 51 percent support. The breakdown among whites (73 percent oppose, 24 percent support) tilted strongly in the opposite direction, echoing the perspective of NCAA President Mark Emmert.

            Only 19 percent indicated they strongly support paying salaries to college athletes. No demographic or political group, except for non-whites, had more than 25 percent expressing strong support for the idea . Though some groups were more supportive overall than others, most rejected the proposition. Just 40 percent of men, for instance, are in favor vs. 27 percent for women. Among self-professed fans of college sports, 37 percent support paying player compared with 27 percent of non-fans.

            The public, however, was split evenly when asked about the proposition of allowing college athletes to form a union to negotiate their rights and working conditions, with 47 percent supporting and 47 percent opposing.

            The racial contrast was more pronounced on the issue of unions, with 66 percent of non-whites supporting the idea but 56 percent of whites opposing it. Nearly two-thirds of respondents under the age of 40 were in favor, but 57 percent of individuals over age 50 were against.
            I'm not going to unwrap the racial disparity in views on this topic. I'll let ya'll have at that. My sentiment is as it has always been: pay the damn kids!

            The NCAA has a 14-year, $11 billion agreement with CBS and Turner Sports for the TV rights to a 68-team tournament. The NCAA sells billions in merchandise bearing the number and likeness of these athletes each year. In many states, the football/basketball coach is the highest paid public employee. NCAA President Mark Emmert was credited with nearly $1.7M in salary last year. Name me any other walk of life in which the talent gets paid zero, while the people in charge literally make billions. Go ahead, I'll wait....

            I think student athletes in revenue generating sports (men's BB and FB) should share in any annual profits those programs generate. Open the books, and do some basic math. Give the athletes some small, fixed percentage at the end of each year of eligibility that the program turns a profit and put it in an interest bearing account. If you don't play a sport that generates money (ie: baseball, track, which FB and BB actually fund at most schools) and you get nothing. You drop out of school, transfer out, fail out, turn pro, or fail to graduate within 5 years and you get nothing.[1]

            Also, allow the student athletes to get summer jobs and/or take internships in their field of study to properly prepare for post-graduate life. They are prohibited from doing so right now, which just illuminates how silly the "student athlete" moniker really is. If you're a computer science major and graduate with no relevant work experience, your degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on in today's hyper-competitive workforce. By design, the NCAA says you can't both play basketball and prepare for your future. How is that fair?

            Graduate on time and you get whatever vested amount your program has set aside for you in a 401K upon receiving your diploma. At schools that make money (ie: Florida), a football player can walk away and begin their post-graduate life with maybe $15-$20k. At schools that make nothing (ie: McNeese State) the kids get nothing. It's a fair, a free market approach that rewards those who contribute to the bottom line of universities and the NCAA, cuts down on corruption, and rewards both the school and the athletes for their shared success (or lack thereof).



            So next time you're cheering for these "kids", remember they're really getting nothing in return for their efforts. and not only could you lose your eligbility, but you could also be on the hook for your own medical bills (something that happens far often than most people know). Have an off year and you could be dropped from your scholarship altogether (ditto). How on Earth is that "fair"?

            March is "Mad" in more ways than stunning upsets.[2]

            Question: Should the kids be paid? What's with the racial breakdown in those who support paying athletes and those who don't?!?

            [1] Yeah, I know, I've written this post at least once every year that this blog has been in existence. I'll stop writing it when the problem as addressed. So there.

            [2] Duck Fuke. Always. And look at that white kid doing the Nae Nae!!!!

            Monday, October 28, 2013

            Jay Z, Barney's, Shop & Frisk, And Black Peoples' Perpetual Search For A Savior.

            I love Black people. A lot. I'm married to one, and I've created three more of them. So yeah, we're cool and whatnot. But if there's one thing about us that really annoys me, it's our insistence on holding a handful of relatively well off people responsible for the "saving" all 44,456,009 of us when something goes wrong. You'll recall the backlash Oprah Winfrey took when she donated money to start a school for girls in Africa. Folks complained about pro-athletes who didn't jump on the Jena Six bandwagon and boycott the state of Louisiana. Dr. Dre gave millions to USC, but didn't give sh*t to Morris Brown. Reverend Al Sharpton (and at one point Jesse Jackson) is expected to fly into town and launch a Million Aggrieved Black Persons march everytime some kid gets yelled at by a white teacher. And how come nobody famous broke Trayvon Martin's parents off with a lil' somethin'?

            I've always found this "pick a savior, as long as he/she is famous" line of reasoning faulty. It presumes that the person being asked to take a stand not only cares about said stand, but is actually capable of taking said stand. Just because someone can rap doesn't mean they're literate on issues as complex as racial disparities in public school funding. When you take someone (black/white/or other) and try to shoehorn them into making a social statement when they probably can't even spell "social statement", you end up with bewilidering scenes like this.[1]

            No celebrity personifies this "please save us" mentality quite like Jay Z. His rags to riches ascension from the projects to household name has been told (and embellished) ad nauseum. He's the rare rapper who can get away with calling his own wife a b*tch in a song, and skirt charges of sexism.[2] He allows himself to be used as the smiling public face of emminent domain, yet can spin it by claiming he "owns the team", when he owned about as much of the Nets as I own Sirius XM. He's a walking, talking contridiction. Actually, that's untrue. He's a business, man. Not a businessman. Expecting him to be about anything more than money is unrealistic.

            So forgive me if I can't get on board with the petition asking the Jigga Man to sever his relationship with Barney's, after to harass a couple of young black customers last week.
            Jay-Z — under increasing pressure to back out of a collaboration with the luxury store Barneys New York after it was accused of racially profiling two black customers — said Saturday he's being unfairly "demonized" for just waiting to hear all of the facts.

            The rap mogul made his first statement about the controversy in a posting on his website. He has come under fire for remaining silent as news surfaced this week that two young black people said they were profiled by Barneys after they purchased expensive items from their Manhattan store.

            An online petition and Twitter messages from fans have been circulating this week, calling on the star to bow out of his upcoming partnership with Barneys for the holiday season, which will have the store selling items by top designers, inspired by Jay-Z, with some of the proceeds going to his charity. He is also working with the store to create its artistic holiday window display.

            But Jay-Z — whose real name is Shawn Carter — defended himself, saying that he hasn't spoken about it because he's still trying to figure out exactly what happened.

            "I move and speak based on facts and not emotion," the statement said. "I haven't made any comments because I am waiting on facts and the outcome of a meeting between community leaders and Barneys. Why am I being demonized, denounced and thrown on the cover of a newspaper for not speaking immediately?" he said, referring to local newspaper headlines.

            The two Barneys customers, Trayon Christian and Kayla Phillips, said this week they were detained by police after making expensive purchases.

            Christian sued Barneys, saying he was accused of fraud after using his debit card to buy a $349 Ferragamo belt in April. Philips filed a notice of claim saying she would sue after she was stopped by detectives outside the store when she bought a $2,500 Celine handbag in February.

            As the criticism grew, Barneys said Thursday it had retained a civil rights expert to help review its procedures. The CEO of Barneys, Mark Lee, offered his "sincere regret and deepest apologies." Kirsten John Foy, an official with the Rev. Al Sharpton's National Action Network, said he would meet with Barneys officials on Tuesday to discuss the racial profiling allegations.

            Jay Z also dismissed reports that he would profit from the collaboration. He said he's "not making a dime" from working with Barneys. Instead, his Shawn Carter Foundation, which provides college scholarships to economically challenged students, will get 25 percent of all sales from the collaboration.

            "This money is going to help individuals facing socio-economic hardships to help further their education at institutions of higher learning," he said. "My idea was born out of creativity and charity... not profit."

            He also said that "making a decision prematurely to pull out of this project wouldn't hurt Barneys or Shawn Carter but all the people that stand a chance at higher education," he said. "I have been working with my team ever since the situation was brought to my attention to get to the bottom of these incidents and at the same time find a solution that doesn't harm all those that stand to benefit from this collaboration."
            There are so many things wrong with this story. Where should I begin?

            1) Jay Z thinks he's "being demonized, denounced and thrown on the cover of a newspaper for not speaking immediately?" Jigga please. You're being asked to be held accountable for the actions of the people you got in bed with. Whether fair or unfair (or downright misplaced), this is what sometimes happens when you're the sole, smiling black face attached to a multibillion dollar corporation. Deal with it.

            2) Jay Z says he's "not making a dime" and doesn't want to stop his Barney's promotion because it would cut off funds that would otherwise be going to charity. Seriously? A guy who raps about watches he can't spell and most of his listeners couldn't afford is suddenly worried about a few hundred thousand dollars? Really? We don't believe you. Cut the damn check out of your own pocket. It's just a tax writeoff anyway.

            3) "I move and speak based on facts and not emotion" has to be the biggest crock of Jigga Nonsense I've heard since American Gangster. In other words, unless these kids have proof that they were profiled, he's gonna side with the people who are paying him. And make no mistake: whether with actual cash or social currency, Barney's is paying Jay Z. If you think he's doing this out of the kindness of his heart, you prolly actually liked American Gangster.

            4) "I have been working with my team ever since the situation was brought to my attention to get to the bottom of these incidents and at the same time find a solution that doesn't harm all those that stand to benefit from this collaboration." = I had a weedcarrier Memphis Bleek Google this to see what he could find out. He didn't find anything, so I just sent him to pickup my Outback to-go order instead.

            5) In response to the claims, {read between the lines here) Barney's called Reverend Al and cut a check to the National Action Network. Damnit that man is great at extortion! He is the Michael Jordan of recordin' Extortion!

            The most ironic part of this entire story is that the two poor saps who were (allegedly) profiled as they bought those overpriced belts and bags probably got the idea from a Jay Z song.

            Just so nobody is mistaken, I don't think a petition to get Jay Z to end his relationship with Barney's is a good idea. Mostly because Jay Z isn't the sort of artist who gives two sh*ts if you get profiled at Barney's. Also because Jay Z is an ass who only cares about getting paid. And even if he wasn't that kinda guy, a better solution is to simply not give good money to people who don't respect you.

            Which would also include one Shawn Corey Carter.

            Question: Should Jay Z be more socially conscious and tell Barneys he is one of their 99 Problems? Shouldn't the National Action Network give some of that shakedown money to the actual victims of this sad episode? Are there better ways of telling Barney's "F*ck You!" than the ones I suggested?

            [1] Seriously, do you think Kanye had any idea what "Occupy Wall Street" was all about? Did 90% of the Occupiers even understand what "Occupy Wall Street" was all about? I haven't seen a black man who looked more clueless about his surroundings since... well... since I watched RGIII vs the Broncos yesterday. Seriously, Robert, get your sh*t together.

            [2] "Bad b*tch... H-Town.."

            Monday, October 14, 2013

            Philly Video Shows What Stop & Frisk Looks Like In Action.

            , a video, and an open forum. Take this convo wherever you think it needs to go. Maybe I'll chime in later, maybe now.
            This disturbing video of two Philadelphia police officers berating two men on the street was brought to our attention following today’s Daily News story about ex-cop Herbert Spellman and ongoing problems with Philadelphia’s stop-and-frisk policy.

            The YouTube video, which was filmed Sept. 27 according to accompanying text, starts with one of the cops calling out, “Yo, my man,” and the man responding, “How you doing, sir?” And it goes downhill, quickly. An officer threatens to one man that he’ll “split your wig open” and calls one a “f---ing dirty ass.” When they complain that they haven’t done anything wrong, the officer responds: “Why don’t you shut the f--- up! Everyone thinks they’re a f---ing lawyer and they don’t know jack sh--.”

            “You’re jaywalking, by the way,” the second officer adds.

            The first officer later says: “Don’t come to f---ing Philadelphia, stay in Jersey.”

            “I have family out here,” the man responds.

            “Yeah, don’t come over here,” says the cop. “We don’t want you here, anyway. All you do is weaken the country北京体彩网官方网站.”

            “How do I weaken the country北京体彩网官方网站? By working?” the man asks.

            “No, freeloading,” the cops says.

            When the man says he’s a server at a country北京体彩网官方网站 club, the officer responds: “Server. Serving weed?”
            And now, the talking pictures.



            Question: What are your thoughts on this?

            Monday, October 7, 2013

            Washington Redskins: Term Of Endearment Or Racial Slur?

            As a fan of a team that probably has the second corniest name in all pro sports[1], I can sympathize with the plight of those who want the Washington Redskins to change their name. No, Washington Wizards isn't offensive in the same sense that the Redskins moniker may be the some, but it just sounds awful. The team went from arguably one of the most gangster names in all of pro sports (Washington Bullets!) to the lamest. I didn't like the change when it happened, and I am hoping the team's ownership eventually goes back to Bullets.

            Many detractors of the Redskins name want it to be changed to something less offensive, but the team's owner has stated repeatedly that he will never do so either. The war over whether or not the name is actually offensive has waged for decades here in the DC area, with many saying it's honors Real Native Americans and others saying it's a term with a very disgraceful history. Polls of Native Americans have given mixed messages, and fans as a whole seem to be split as well. Dozens of national journalists have recently pledged to simply refer to them as The Washington Football Team which seems odd since these people hadn't given two craps until the team got RGIII and was suddenly relevant again last year. But I digress.

            Recently, , and a push to change the name seems to be reaching a groundswell.
            On the same day that NFL owners began gathering for a fall league meeting in Washington, Native American leaders, politicians and student activists gathered in a Georgetown hotel with one goal: Changing the name of Washington Redskins.

            “Washington’s team name is a painful epithet that was used against my people when we were held at gunpoint and thrown off our lands,” said Ray Halbritter, a representative of the Oneida Indian Nation . “When marketed by a professional sports team, it is a word that tells Native American children they are to be denigrated.”

            The meeting at the Ritz Carlton comes three days after President Obama took a stance in the long-standing debate, saying that if he were the team’s owner, he would think about changing the name.

            The Oneida Nation which is leading a “Change the Mascot” campaign, scheduling radio ads to run in every city the team visits, organized the panel of speakers. Among them were two students who pushed for their school to drop the name “Redskins,” a psychologist who has studied the public health consequences of the word’s use, the head of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian, Kevin Gover, and politicians Betty McCollum and D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D).

            “Believe me, we love out Redskins now, but it does not have a glorious history,” Holmes Norton said as a third generation Washingtonian. She added that she could think of no reason to continue using a word that has a negative impact on any Americans “and especially our first Americans.”

            In May, team owner Daniel Snyder said he would “never” change the name in an interview with USA Today.
            I'm a lukewarm Skins fan at best. I like the team mostly because VLatte gives me free tickets every year (thanks!) and they're a good diversion until the NBA season starts, at which point I typically ignore them. But all that said, I think the team should change the name. Enough people are offended, and given the dicey racial history of the guy who named them Redskins in the first place, I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend the moniker is some grand gesture of respect. It's obviously not.

            Besides, they could just change the name to the Washington Pigskins. It's a football term that won't offend anyone and it allows the franchise to keep the same colors, fight songs (with a tweak here and there) and sell brand new merchandise to existing fans. Seriously, imagine the influx of freshly minted bills as you sucker a family into purchasing new jerseys because the old ones are suddenly outdated?

            Maybe I'm oversimplifying this, but how hard would that actually be?

            Hail To The Pigskins!!!

            Question: Should the Redskins change their name?

            [1] Congrats Pelicans fans! You win!

            Wednesday, June 26, 2013

            Does Paula Deen Deserve Another Chance?!? Of Course She Does.

            I didn't have much to say (here) about the whole Paula Deen N*gger-Gate Controversy when it broke last week. Honestly, I just don't have the energy to dedicate to this sorta trivial sh*t, not when my favorite team has the #3 overall pick in tomorrow night's NBA Draft. So yeah, I've been focused on more important sh*t.[1]

            Deen's story wasn't particularly note-worthy for any reason other than it broke in a slow news cycle. If a 60 something white woman from rural Southwest Georgia hadn't used the word nigger at some point in her life, that woulda actually been newsworthy. Deen is a product of her environment, no matter how far she might be (corporately) removed from that environment. Had she done what 99% of people would have otherwise done and lied while being deposed, we wouldn't know anything different about her, nor would we care. She does nothing of relevance to anyone's life. She doesn't pass legislation, teach our children how to read, or fight terrorists. She's just a woman who makes butter sandwiches on basic cable. Nothing more.

            Slavery themed restaurant idea (Seriously, WTH?) aside, what did Deen actually admit to doing wrong here? She used the word nigger in a conversation with her husband in the privacy of their own 北京体彩网官方网站, after having a black man hold a gun to her head while robbing the bank she worked at. I can't think of many other instances where describing someone as a nigger would be totally appropriate, but this just might be one of them. Not saying I agree, but I understand.

            Alas, cultural cues and general rules of political correctness dictate that Deen had to lose something for admitting the using the word n*gger. That's how it is, and I'm frankly glad that's the case. We can't just have people randomly going around spouting out racial epithets with reckless abandon. The world's just a little bit better (for me) when I don't have to deal with that sh*t everyday. So yeah, Paula needs to have a couple of seats and get lost for awhile. And while I gave her props for that hostage apology video she made last week, this shit right here was unacceptable. You aren't a victim. You're making $20M a year. Miss me with that bullshit.



            Fall on the f*ckin' sword and get lost already. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, just go sit down for a few months.

            But this being America and whatnot, she'll get another chance. And why shouldn't she? People have done far worse (ie: having golden shower sex with underaged girls, and taping it!) and rebounded. As long as you can make someone else a dollar, there will always be someone else willing to pay you a dime.

            See you in about 6 months, Mrs. Deen. In the meantime, here's the hoping The Food Network gives more time to The Neelys. #reparations

            Question: What's your read on this whole story? Is it overblown? Does Deen "deserve another chance"? Is she playing the victim role here?

            [1] BTW, I think Otto Porter is gonna be a far better pro than any of the "experts" are projecting. But I digress.

            Tuesday, January 8, 2013

            Sperm Donor Sued For Back Child Support.

            .
            Kansas law governing artificial insemination is outdated and fails to recognize modern concepts of family, according to the attorney for a Topeka man being pursued to pay child support for a girl born to a lesbian couple as the result of his sperm donation.

            Kansas law says a sperm donor is not the father of a child if a doctor handles the artificial insemination.

            But the law does not specifically address the donor's rights and obligations when no doctor was involved, as was the case in 2009 when William Marotta donated sperm to Jennifer Schreiner and then-partner Angela Bauer, and Schreiner became pregnant.

            Lawyer Ben Swinnen argued Thursday that Marotta, 46, can't be declared the father of the now 3-year-old child, because the donor and moms had a written agreement that he had no parental rights or responsibilities.

            Swinnen also noted that nine states have laws saying a sperm or egg donor is not the parent of a child conceived through artificial reproduction.

            The Kansas Department for Children and Families sued Marotta in October to force him to pay child support and reimburse the state for more than $6,000 in benefits that Schreiner obtained for the child after she split with Bauer in 2010.
            Let me state this clearly: this is truly some bullsh*t.

            The man reportedly didn't know the couple and donated his specimen after answering an ad in the classified. Maybe he was hoping to get some action out of the deal, only to be greeted at the door by two women and a turkey baster. Now, years later the couple splits and he finds himself footing the bill for a child he signed away all custodial rights to. Eff the court system. I think we need a very special episode of Maury to settle this the right way.



            It's hard to believe that some states can't exercises basic common sense in a case like this and simply leave this dude alone. It's enough to have everyone know you fell for the ole' "two chicks, one turkey baster" trick[1]. It's another altogether to get slapped with back child support. This just seems so trivial and pointless, and I hope this case gets dropped.

            It does raise an interesting question though...

            Question: If there was any law on the books that you could get rid of, which one would it be? No freaky stuff please, but tell me what you'd do away with.

            [1] Happens to the best of us, amirite?!?

            Monday, January 7, 2013

            Idiotic Sandy Victim Blames President Obama Fox Not Replacing His 3 Cars.

            If I started a blog today that prominently featured my handsome brown face, and posts that routinely attacked the President for random, petty, mostly trivial sh*t, I seriously think I could make it on Hannity by Easter.



            If this dolt had taken a civics class in high school (or actually paid attention during that civics class), he'd know the President can't write checks on his own without Congressional approval. If he'd opened a paper in the past week, he'd know the GOP had just shot down two bills that would have funded Sandy relief and insurance payments.



            But hey, this is Fox News. Screw logic. And facts. And book learnin'. Just blame Obama.

            Wednesday, December 12, 2012

            Fox News Douchebag Contributor Fights Union Protestor. Loses. Badly.

            I don't condone violence. I just don't. There are so many other more reasonable ways to resolve disputes that do not involve putting your hands on another human being.

            All that said, I'm glad someone finally punched this asshole Fox News "contributor" in the grill. It has been long overdue.

            Crowder, for those unaware, does provocative Breitbart-style "cyber journalism", with the goal of making progressives look silly. His entire goal is to agitate, then put stuff on YouTube. You might recall he's the creative genius behind that poorly conceived, definitely racist "Niggers/Knickers" joke at last year's CPAC.

            So yeah, I'm just see this is payback for that ignorant sh*t.[1]



            You can't make a mockery of the Governor taking food out of people's mouths, rub it in their noses, and not expect some sorta retribution. And given how heavily edited this tape is, I'm willing to bet Crowder provoked the guy who delivered that two piece. A prideful man woulda at least tried to punch back. But gotcha journalism and pride don't necessarily go hand in hand.

            Props for talkin' sh*t like a tough guy after the fact and challenging him to an MMA fight (while putting an odd, probably illegal bounty on his head on national TV) while sitting there with your collar popped. Seems like punching back mighta been a little easier. But hey...

            This guy's a real jerk-wad.

            Question: Did Crowder deserve to get punched? Is this sorta "journalism" below the belt?

            [1] My views on the whole anti-labor jack move going on in Michigan right now are pretty obvious. No need to go there.

            Thursday, November 1, 2012

            It's Officially "Blame Everything On Obama" Season.

            After Sandy prevented me from exercising my Constitutional right (among other things) I finally voted this morning. If you haven't done so already, I'd encourage you to take advantage of your state's early voting period. Spare yourself the heartache and long lines Tuesday.

            With that out of the way, I can officially say we've not only reached Silly Season, we're now officially entering the "Blame Barack For Every Day Trivial Thing" segment of the election. Witness this tomfoolery, which (surprise!) just to happens to be , rife with inaccuracies, distortions, and plain ole' bullsh*t.



            As our resident Conservative business owner (you know who he is!) will tell you, you're not guaranteed a successful business just because. Without knowing anything about Bill's BBQ other than this ad, I can point out a few obvious problems.
            1) Outdated and oversized location.

            2) Right next door to a Taco Bell. Bamas love Taco Bell.

            3) How long does the drive-thru take? See point 2.

            4) The place in dingy and poorly lit. You're already losing patrons there.

            5) 800 items on the menu. Simplify.
            Beyond these obvious issues, it's hard to understand why this woman has the nerve to blame Obama for her lack of business savvy. Maybe she's simply not as good a business person as her family members who once ran the joint. When the economy went down (under Bush!) did she adjust her prices/inventory/menu accordingly?

            None of this is the President's fault. Blame him for the economy not recovering sooner, sure. But don't blame him for your . Don't blame him for your inability to keep up with the ever-expanding BBQ joint competition in Richmond. And don't blame him when you financially supported John McCain in 08'. .

            One thing also true, but missing from this ad: personal responsibility.

            Get some.

            Question: Is this ad just another example of the typical sleaze #TeamRomney is throwing out here at the 11th hour, or does this poor unemployed woman have a point?

            Friday, May 11, 2012

            Don't Free Lil' Boosie.

            is?

            Jurors in the first degree murder trial of Torrence “Lil Boosie” Hatch partook in a listening session of sorts yesterday (May 9), when the prosecution played a selection of Boosie’s music, supposedly recorded just before and after the shooting murder of Terry Boyd in October of 2009.

            Baton Rouge’s The Advocate reported that the jury was played a selection of a song entitled “187,” in which Boosie raps, “Yo Marlo/He drive a Monte Carlo/That bitch gray, I want that nigga dead today.” The “Marlo” Boosie is allegedly referring to is Michael “Marlo Mike” Louding, who Boosie is accused of hiring to kill Boyd. According to computer forensics expert, Konstantinos Dimetrelos, Boosie recorded this verse less than an hour before the murder took place.

            Dimitrelos also testified that on the night of the shooting, 15 outgoing phone calls were made from the cell phone of Boyd, between the hours of 11:22 p.m and 12:56 a.m and that the calls began in the vicinity of Boosie’s 北京体彩网官方网站, moved to the scene of the crime, and ended back at the Boosie residence.

            Hatch’s attorney, Jason Williams, refuted the prosecution’s notion that these lyrics implicated Hatch, claiming that the mentioned rhymes were much earlier works and were being “resampled” at the time of the recording. Boosie’s additional counsel, Martin Regan, claimed the state prosecutor, Dana Cummings, is using Boosie’s music to slander his client and that the lyrical content of “187” is “not relevant” to the case at hand.
            Here's the news story, for those of you who don't like reading on Fridays.[1]



            Here's the song where Boosie essentially snitches on himself, around the 2:20 mark.



            Try not to laugh too hard at this ignant sh*t, because again, a man is actually dead as a result of this nonsense. Maybe this is the rare case where life actually imitates life.



            Yep, "play it for the jury" indeed.

            I used to be a pretty bit fan of Lil' Boosie's music (yes, really), and if I had a shred of remaining sympathy for him, I might argue that rap lyrics are indeed "art" and shouldn't be taken seriously enough to be considered evidence in a freakin' murder case. Then again, this idiot did use real names of real people involved in a real murder, so there's no sense in blurring the lines. All the lines, of course, point to this Negro being guilty.

            #DontFreeBoosie

            Question: Should rap lyrics be permissible as evidence in a court of law? What makes rap lyrics any different than, say, journal entries?!? Is Lil' Boosie the dumbest motherlover you've ever heard of?



            [1] How is he still getting that "Lil' Boosie fade" in jail?!?

            Tuesday, November 8, 2011

            Herman Cain, Just Quit Right Now.

            .

            One of the five women to have accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment when she worked for him at the National Restaurant Association has been named and pictured, making her the second of Cain's identified 'victims'.

            Karen Kraushaar, a 55-year-old federal employee and registered Republican, was one of the two women who, in the late 1990s, settled claims of sexual harassment against the 2012 GOP presidential candidate.

            Mrs Kraushaar's lawyer released a statement from his client last week after it was first reported on Politico, starting the slew of allegations against Cain. She is unwilling to add anything more except to confirm it is her.

            Mrs Kraushaar and Sharon Bialek are now the only two named accusers. A day after Ms Bialek came forward, her reputation is already being called into question as parts of her 'gold-digging' murky past start to emerge.

            Quite a different picture of Mrs Kraushaar - who currently serves as a communications director at the Inspector General’s Office of the Treasury Department - has emerged. According to NPR, the 55-year-old lives with her lawyer husband of 26-years Kevin in Maryland.

            Before her long career in professional government jobs, Mrs Kraushaar, an accomplished equestrian, was a news reporter and editor. She is also said to have written a true story children's book with her mother-in-law.

            Her brief employment with the restaurant association was her first, and only, experience working with a private lobbying organization.

            She has also worked as a public affairs specialist at the Department of 北京体彩网官方网站land Security, the Justice Department, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, according to NPR.

            Her friends and family told The Daily that she was 'very reliable' and 'not the type of person who would make things up'.

            She was freed last week from a confidentiality agreement signed when she settled her harassment case against Cain and left the association with a cash payment in June 1999.
            Herman, for the love of Conservative Jesus, please just quit while you're ahead.[1]

            What Would Reagan Do?!?[2]

            Question: How long before Cain's list of alleged accusers becomes Tiger Woods-ish? Should dude quit while he's ahead?!?

            [1] If this blog seems like it's been "all Cain, all the time" lately, sorry. But this is a developing news story that involves two of this blog's main topics: politics and race. If anyone's offended, sorry. It is what it is, and I do what I do.

            [2] Answer: Reagan would probably have been a lost less sloppy with his.

            Monday, November 7, 2011

            Cain's Accuser Speaks. And That Broad Is Lyin'.

            [Update: I just saw Bialek's interview with CNN's Piers Morgan. She came across as much more relaxed in this setting, and minus all the circus theatrics of this afternoon's presser, she was much more credible. It was like night and day. Part of me wonders why she didn't initially announce her story in this fashion. I think she undermined her credibility with that press conference, likely to the point that nobody will care that she recovered later. I'm gonna need Cain to explain this one.]

            Ya'll know how much it absolutely kills me to co-sign a lazy Conservative talking point. Absolutely kills me. So believe me when I say I watched that Gloria Allred press conference just waiting for something ratchet to occur that would force Daddy Green to finally fess up. And wouldn't you know it, something very ratchet did indeed happen. This accuser, Sharan Bialek is about as shady as a $4 bill.

            I mean, seriously, watch this and tell me you don't already hear the feelers going out to Hugh Hefner and whoever books reality shows over at VH1. This ain't nothin' but a damn circus, folks.



            Random Thoughts:
            She looks and sounds like a washed up pRon star. Not exactly helping in the ole' credibility department.

            I knew we were in for some serious f*ckery when Allred introduced her by mentioning Cain's "Stimulus Package".

            This isn't harassment. She was no longer employed by the NRA. If this did indeed happen, it's a sexual assault. She should have gone to MPD.

            She recalls this story, and the exact timeline with the sort of precision you'd expect from something that happened last week, not 3 decades ago.

            The whole "you want the job, right?" line was straight out of a 3am Skinemax flick. It's simply not believeable. At all.

            For someone who experienced an alleged felony, she is waaaay too chipper. I'd think seeing Cain last month would have bought back a flood of painful memories. She doesn't seem too traumatized.

            This broad is lying. For what reason, I have no idea (she said she didn't want money), but she is most definitely lying.

            Cain is gonna sleep much better tonight.

            This woman does a disservice to every legitimate victim of sexual assault.

            Gloria Allred does a disservice to anyone who calls her/himself an attorney. Seriously, that woman is despicable.
            As I predicted this morning, if this woman didn't seem 100% believable, this story was only going to add fuel to Cain's totally misguided "liberal media persecution" narrative. Sadly, it would probably also overshadow the very legitimate allegations of those who worked with Cain at the NRA. It did all those things, and then some. Daddy Green comes outta this one smelling like roses.

            No need to lie, the thought that this whole sham of a press conference was manufactured to make Cain look good has crossed my mind, but I don't even think dude's smart enough to pull that off. Besides, does it really matter? Folks who love him are going to believe him anyway. Dude could pull a Jerry Sandusky right about now, and GOP voters are so hypnotized, they'd defend him.

            Daddy Green stays #winning.

            Question: Does Mrs. Bialek have a legitimate beef, or is she a plant by the Cain campaign?!?

            Tuesday, May 31, 2011

            Weiner-Gate!!!

            A popular Congressman. Twitter. A young black woman. Pictures of "junk". Hacked twitpic accounts? A Conservative hit job?

            Man, how'd I miss this one over the weekend?



            Personally, I don't trust anything with the word "Breitbart" attached to it, and I sure as heck hope Weiner takes this slimeball to court just like Shirley Sherrod did.

            Question: Is Congressman Weiner guilty of sending girls pictures of his ****, or is this yet another Breitbart scam?!?

            Friday, March 25, 2011

            For The Last Effin' Time, Here's Obama's Birth Certificate.

            , which refutes every possible argument about Obama's place of birth.

            And by the way for those morons who are tied up on nuances, a . Most states refer to the official legal document using this term.

            Case closed. D*mn. Enough already.

            Some conservative commentators have gone as far as to suggest that Obama is purposely not releasing an actual birth certificate because he wants to leave it out there as a litmus test for crazy. Namely, and Presidential aspirant who still thinks he was born in Kenya would send a clear signal to independent voters that they're not to be taken seriously. I don't think the Obama campaign is that smart/dumb. I fail to see how being considered a non-citizen would be an asset in any way, shape, or form.

            Still, that doesn't shut up the critics, who keep harping on this issue waaaay beyond its shelf life.

            Question: What's up with these "birthers"? Why are supposedly legitimate Presidential aspirants bringing up this non-issue? Is Obama's coyness about addressing this issue an intentional political tactic to separate the crazies from the sane?

            Thursday, February 17, 2011

            WorkPlace 101: Fired For Having A Beer On Facebook.

            .
            With a pint of beer in one hand and a glass of wine in the other, the worst thing you could accuse Ashley Payne of is mixing her drink. But this happy holiday picture has cost the high school teacher her job after a parent spotted it on Facebook - and complained. The picture was taken while travelling around Europe in the summer of 2009.

            But Miss Payne, 24, was shocked when she was summoned to the principal's office at Apalachee High School, in Winder, Georgia, and offered an ultimatum. She told CBS News: 'He just asked me, "Do you have a Facebook page?" 'And you know, I'm confused as to why I am being asked this, but I said, "Yes", and he said, "Do you have any pictures of yourself up there with alcohol?"' School officials also took offence to the use of the B-word on the page.

            He then offered her an option: resign or be suspended. She chose to resign.

            Miss Payne is now in a bitter legal battle with the school to get her job back.

            The English teacher later found out it was one anonymous emailer who shopped her to the school board after seeing the picture on the social networking site.

            But she is baffled how a parent could gain access to her page when she has all her privacy settings on 'high', meaning only her closest friends have permission to see her pictures.

            She admits putting the 'offensive' pictures on Facebook but says she now feels as if she had stashed them in a shoebox at 北京体彩网官方网站 for them to be stolen and showed to the principal.

            Court documents reveal that officials warned teachers about 'unacceptable online activities'. They claimed her page 'promoted alcohol use' and 'contained profanity'.

            She now wants to clear her name and claim back her job.
            BTW, there's , but since they're being total d*cks (as usual), I can't embed it here.

            Lets not be be naive here. Yes, people get fired all the time for "objectionable behavior" over social media. That's not really anything new. Still, just how objectionable is holding two alcoholic beverages? And it's not like Mrs. Payne had the photos in full view. She supposedly had her privacy settings on "high", whatever the heck that means. As you can tell, I'm hardly Mr. Facebook. I am, however, Mr. Common Sense. And common sense would dictate that there's more to this story. Mrs. Payne was on The Alan Colmes Show the other night and indicated that this is a very conservative school district. Seems like an influential parent with an axe to grind was out to get her, and get her they did.

            I suppose if there's any lesson here, it's to be really, really careful who you Friend.

            Question: Does this teacher have a legitimate lawsuit, or is this simply frivolous? Does your employer have a policy on social media use? Are there some things you simply wont post online for fear of losing your Day Job? Does this infringe on your right to free speech, or does your employer have a reputation to protect at all costs?

            Tuesday, December 14, 2010

            A Merciful Ending To The Eddie Long Saga.

            .

            Controversial anti-gay bishop Eddie Long is seeking to mediate a settlement over charges he coerced four young men into having sexual relations with him, a CNN report said. Many observers see the megachurch pastor's move as an effort to avoid a potentially nasty, public trial.

            The decision to seek a settlement runs contrary to Eddie Long's earlier pronouncements. He had earlier vowed to fight the allegations in court.

            Anthony Flagg, 21, Maurice Robinson, 20, Jamal Parris, 23, and Spencer LeGrande, 22, earlier filed separate charges against the megachurch pastor for using his influence to lure them into homosexual relationships with him. The plaintiffs alleged the anti-gay bishop took them on trips abroad, shared rooms with them and lavished them with gifts including a car, cash and jewelry – in exchange for sex.

            All four young men, who are former members of Long's Atlanta-based New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, said they were in their teens when the bishop sexually coerced them. The young males said Eddie Long had "a pattern and practice of singling out a select group of young male church members and using his authority as bishop over them to ultimately bring them to engage in sexual relationships."

            In his legal response to the suits the anti-gay bishop said each of the allegations "are not true."

            Bishop Eddie Long rose to prominence when he transformed a small congregation in Atlanta into a megachurch with 25,000 followers; among them high-profile celebrities and politicians.

            The married pastor, a father of four, is an outspoken critic of gays and lesbians. The Southern Poverty Law Center published an article in 2007 calling Bishop Eddie Long as "one of the most virulently homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement."

            In his first public address since the megachurch scandal was exposed, Eddie Long faced his congregation and said "I have never in my life portrayed myself as a perfect man. But I am not the man that's being portrayed on the television. That's not me. That is not me."
            Okay, seriously, who didn't see this one coming? Pardon the pun. And [pause].

            I could add some in-depth analysis on what the implications of this are for Long's church, why settling when you claim you're innocent is dead wrong, and how Long's actions only further tarnish the reputation of the black church, but it's a Tuesday. Who's got energy for all that?

            So how about a YouTube instead?!?



            That clip never, ever, ever gets old. Ever.

            Seriously, now that I think about it, Long and his attorneys played this one perfectly, which just goes to show that I had no idea what I was doign when ). Then he went on about his business, pretending the sh*t never happened, knowing how Negroes' attention spans last about as long as an episode of Basketball Wives[1]. Eventually something else would become "the story", Long would pay the boys (hopefully not from the building fund!) to go away and shut up, and in 6 months nobody would even remember this ever happened.

            Yup, worked like a charm.

            Cross it up, New Birth!!!

            Question: What's your postmortem on the Eddie Long saga?

            [1] The season premiere was turrible and boring. I don't see this lasting much longer on my Tivo Season Pass.

            Wednesday, September 29, 2010

            Eddie Long's Accuser Finally Speaks.

            I don't have time to add commentary to this. Watch and discuss below.



            Bonus: Long finally fesses up.[1]



            Question: What's your thought on the Eddie Long case after watching this? Does the young man appear to be telling the truth or is he a pretty good actor? Is this young man wise to speak to reporters without his attorney?

            [1] Okay, not really, but admit it. You laughed.