A Friday To Forget

I'm going to call this Hoo-Ha Friday. I'm not going to be proud of it. It's just what I'm going to do. Hoo-Ha Friday is brought to you by two individuals in two separate, yet frighteningly similar incidents. Individual Number One is featured in the video below. It seems that she was in Atascadero, California when she was arrested for DUI after she crashed into the garage of her home. Baaaaad! She was cuffed and placed in the back of the squad car. Shortly afterwards, the arresting officers noticed that she had slipped out of her handcuffs. More baaaad! They put another pair on her because they couldn't find the first pair of handcuffs. Even after she was booked into jail (where they search you...in theory), no one could find the handcuffs. It was sort of a mystery. Where could they be? Where could they possibly, yet unthinkably, be? If you guessed some sort of body cavity that only a female has, you are correct! Aaauuugghhh! All of the baaaad! You may now vomit.

My favorite part of that news report was at the end where the guy was trying to explain the inexplicable. That being why she chose to hide the handcuffs after she was able to find her way out of them. That's what they were focused on?! She was drunk! End of story! And I would hope that the ONLY reason why one would cram a pair of handcuffs up into their uterine region WAS because they were drunk. And we're talking pretty darn drunk. Handcuffs in the hoo-ha drunk, to be exact. I'd be more concerned with how she got them off in the first place rather than why she chose to do what she did in her heightened state of inebriation. And yes, that picture there is of the confiscated handcuffs inside of a plastic glove. Eww.

And as I alluded to earlier, this, sadly, is not the only incident that I have to report here on Hoo-Ha Friday. From the folks over at Cincinnati.com, we learn of another incident involving the arrest of another woman behind the wheel. It would seem that in this case, the car had illegally tinted windows. Uh, yeah. It seems that there was a reason for the illegally tinted windows. When the officer approached the vehicle and looked inside, it wasn't pretty. Inside he found a one 36-year old Colondra Hamilton "...sitting with her pants unzipped and a sex toy in her lap." And listen, let's not judge...yet. Save the judgment for after you learn that she was allegedly "...using the toy while watching a sex video on a laptop computer that a passenger in the front seat held up so she could see it." All whilst driving. Good Lord, lady....

And we're worried about people texting while driving. Wow. I'm trying to figure out what would compel a woman to pull something like this. Is she just SOOOOO busy that there isn't enough time in her day to fit in a good masturbatory porn session, so she decided that she'd kill two birds with one stone and take care of that whilst she drove to the post office or something? How in the world could she even pay attention? Would you even remember that a green light meant "go" and that a red light meant "stop" if you were in the middle of something like that? I can't imagine that you would. I also can't imagine how enjoyable that would possibly be. And by the way, in case you're wondering, driving with a dildo in your lap and a porno on your laptop whilst you drive your vehicle amounts to being charged with "driving with inappropriate alertness". That makes sense. After all, I imagine that she was paying attention, just not to the driving (which is really the most important thing to pay attention to when you're behind the wheel). Oh, and by the way, she looks probably about like you'd expect her to. Behold!

Yeah. All right, then. This has been what will hopefully amount to the last Hoo-Ha Friday ever.

The Unlikely, Felonious Candidate

As Scott pointed out in my post the other day about the debacle that is Alvin Greene in South Carolina, I left out the best part. That part being that the aforementioned Mr. Greene was charged with one felony count of, what the AP reports to be, "...showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student, then talking about going to her room at a university dorm." Now, I don't know if that's the official charge (it seems rather lengthy) or if that's just what happened, but the bottom line is that our buddy, Clem, here, is the nominee for a Senate seat and does weird things in his spare time. Allegedly.

Let's look into the accusation a little more closely. Again referencing the story over at the AP, it would seem that a one 19-year old Camille McCoy, who is described as a "rising sophomore at the University of South Carolina", alleges that while in a computer lab, Greene sat down next to her "...and asked her to look at his screen, which showed a pornographic website." First of all, what in the world is a "rising sophomore"? Is that supposed to imply that she will one day be a junior after she "rises" in the ranks? Seriously, what's up with that little moniker there, AP guys? A rising sophomore. OK, fine. Call her what you want.

But second, what's with the being able to view porn in the university computer labs? Most of the people I know can't even view Facebook from work because their fascist employers have blocked access to it (not to mention anything streaming, which sounds like it would probably include porn sites). You know what college kids want to do in computer labs? Look at porn, that is correct. You know what college kids want to do when they're not in computer labs? Look at porn, that is correct. You know what half of the Internet consists of? Porn, that is correct. Now, I'm not blaming the university, but I am suggesting that they block the porn.

But back to the allegations (which I have no reason to disbelieve that he actually did, as he seems dim enough to have pulled such a stunt). Who does that? You sit down next to some chick and pull yourself up some good ol' computer porn and say, "Look at this! Look at it!" (I'm not certain of the specific vernacular that was used. I'm merely paraphrasing.) That's a strange ranger right there. Granted, the mascot of the University of South Carolina is the gamecock, it's still no excuse for this sort of behavior.

The article goes on to document that, according to Miss McCoy, "I said, 'That's offensive,' and he sat there laughing...It was very disgusting." Hold on there, sweetheart. You look at his screen o'porn and you said, "That's offensive"? No, you didn't! What 18-year old would say it like that? You mean to tell me that you didn't call him a pervert? You didn't shout out "Oh, my God!" (Or "OMG!" as kids your age are pretty into the whole texting thing.) I find it difficult to believe that you said, "That's offensive." I'm not saying it wasn't offensive. It certainly sounds offensive. I'm just saying I highly doubt that's how you handled it.

She goes on to state that "He said, 'Let's go to your room now.' It was kind of scary. He's a pretty big boy. He could've overpowered me." Could have overpowered you? Right there in the middle of the computer lab? Granted, the kinds of folks that are usually hanging around the computer labs aren't exactly your broad shouldered, strapping lads or anything like that. But I find it hard to believe that's what went through your head at the time. Sounds like she handles things very pleasantly in her little world.

I found this next part to be the most interesting, yet it's the part that's getting the least attention. "McCoy, who is from Charleston, said she was stunned to learn that the same man she later identified from a photo lineup was running for office, much less had won a party's nomination." First of all, why do we need to know that she is from Charleston? Who cares? Why tell me inconsequential information, AP? Why? I know, I know! It's because the media sucks. I get that. But usually it's because they're not putting in enough information, rather than inserting crap that isn't even relevant to the story. Was the author of this piece under some sort of minimum word count requirement or something?

But that's not the most interesting part (it's merely the most annoying). If she was identifying him from a photo lineup, where did the police get his photo? If he was arrested before, that would be a pretty good reason for the cops to already have a photo of him, yes? I would think so. So ,how come I'm not hearing about what else he may have done before his potentially storied career as a US Senator? Oh, right. Back to the media sucks. Never mind.

This is a very strange thing to be accused of. It's an even stranger thing to do. It's unfortunate that no one had ever heard of this guy (before he won the nomination) because if they had, perhaps background checks would have been done and people would have wanted to vote for someone that they had never heard of without a pending felony charge as opposed to who they did vote for, someone that they had never heard of with a pending felony charge. And as weird as it sounds, this guy is pretty weird. He doesn't seem real bright, either. But he's the nominee for the Democratic Party for a Senate seat in South Carolina. U-S-A! U-S-A!!

Porn For The Blind

You know, I don't always think about what other people don't have or what other people can't have. Take folks who are blind, for example. I'm well aware of their lack of sight, but some of the other things that they can't enjoy must have not been all that evident to me. Like porn. How do the blind enjoy porn? Maybe they couldn't before Lisa J. Murphy came around, but they certainly can now. Kind of.

Ms. Murphy is the author/artist of Tactile Mind, "a book of nude photographs for the blind/visually impaired". From what I can tell, it's a book of raised images accompanied by Braille descriptions of said raised images. Now, I'm not blind, so I really don't know if this is something that would be desired or that would, probably more importantly, even work. And believe me, I'm vaguely familiar with porn. But I don't think that I'm familiar with this kind of porn. I don't know. You tell me. Below are some images from the website that I linked to above. All images were used with neither permission, nor malice. That being said, let's continue.

Here we have Woman In A Disco Pose. It is described as being "A tactile picture of a naked woman dancing. She wears only a detailed mask of paper and cardboard, and a belt of paper stars around her waist. One arm points to the sky." Um, yes. Yes, I can...I can see that. I just don't know why. See, the porn that I'm vaguely familiar with doesn't have masks of paper and cardboard and there is a noticeable absence of paper star belts as well. I don't get it.

Then there is the Naked Pink Elephant, described as being "A tactile picture of a woman dressed as a pink elephant. She wears a cardboard & paper mask, a chest plate with holes for her breasts, and paper "feet" tie around her wrists with ribbon. Her vagina is shaved, and her pregnant belly is small." Wait. What the what?! Again with the cardboard mask. Why is that? Is there some cardboard fetish that is specific to the blind that I am unaware of? I'm beginning to get the impression that there is!

The book doesn't contain just images of women. No, there are images of men as well. Like this one called Bad Bunny. As you can see, it's the typical sort of naked male porn that one would find in the sighted world, what with "A tactile picture of a naked man dressed as a bunny rabbit. He wears a paper bag mask, maxi pads across his chest, and a toilet paper roll with cotton balls around his penis. Paper hearts decorate the background." Good thing that those paper hearts got included to soften the whole thing up a little bit, right? Uh, your guess is as good as mine. Why...why...why does this exist?

If you can tell me what that exists, perhaps you can also tell me why this exists. It is entitled Woman With A Strap On and it is depicted as "A tactile picture of a naked woman kneeling, wearing a toilet roll attached by hosiery to her groin area. On her face is a mask with egg carton eyes." Huh. Also known around here as "Thursday night".

Then there's the Satanic Ram. It is "A tactile picture of a naked voluptuous woman dressed as a satanic ram. She wears a long cardboard mask of spires, a beard and an inverted cross. Her pubic hair forms a triangle between her legs." Right. Because nothing says "good porn" like a woman with a beard. Sure. That's real normal.

Not to be outdone by Satan, there is the Frog Prince. It's your typical frog prince. It's just what you think of when you hear the words "frog prince". It's "A tactile picture of a man dressed as a frog prince. He wears a cardboard mask with attached crown, holds a cardboard magic wand and is covered in paper spots. Paper cut-out hands cover his own, and his circumcised penis is visible." See? Just like in the fairy tales.

But let's just wrap this up with the Love Robot. Because robots are awesome! Right?! Sure! And what's better than robot porn?! (OK, fine. LOTS of things are better than robot porn! That question was mostly rhetorical! Keep reading!) "A tactile picture of a naked man dressed as a robot. He has a square mask, square box feet, and holds a cardboard gun with a heart on it. A small paper control panel is on his chest, and his penis and testicle are visible." Again with the masks! And the hearts! And wait! Testicle? Singular? Where's the other one! In the sighted world, our porn has TWO testicles! There are no hearts on things! Especially on guns! Feet are not boxes! There are no cardboard masks! What is going on here?! How is this porn?!?!

That's A Wrap!

Since I was just going on about one of the very many ridiculous bills that California legislators attempt to get passed into law, I might as well keep going and address an article which appeared in the LA Times and informs us that state regulators will be creating an advisory committee because they want to consider increasing the regulation of the porn industry in California. That's right. They want to mandate "....the use of condoms and testing for sexually transmitted diseases." Uh-huh. Wait. Condoms?

That's right. Condoms. They want porn stars to wear condoms. Wow. How hot. Or not. What is wrong with people?!!? Leave porn alone!

Now, the state regulators want to hear from the porn industry on what they think about all of this regulation. According to a one Jonathan Frisch, principal risk manager at PG&E (Wait. PG&E? The utility company?! Why is the risk manager of the power company weighing in on the porn regulation issue? What in the heck is going on over there at PG&E anyway?!), "It's going to be very, very important that we do have them at the table." At the table. In the shower. On the hood of a convertible. In a stable. All very, very important. Yeah, we know.

According to a one former porn participant Darren James, "...who tested HIV-positive during a 2004 outbreak in the San Fernando Valley's porn community (if you picked up on the key phrase there being "porn community" then I think you're a bit more understanding of how there could be an HIV outbreak in 2004) "You think you're safe, but you're not. In between scenes, you don't know what other actors are doing." Do I think about what the other actors are doing between scenes? I never have before. Is he saying that in between all of the filmed fornication that there is more fornication going on? Freelance fornication?! I've heard of taking your work home with you and stuff, but I guess I didn't figure that it included porn folks as well. Huh. Learn something new...

Mr. James was speaking before the board a crowd of about 40 at Costa Mesa City Hall. I'm not sure what the crowd was doing there. Then again, I'm not sure that 40 constitutes a crowd. Whatever it is, at one point, he turned to the 40 folks and said, "I'm living your nightmare every day." He is? My nightmare changes from day to day and I don't think that he's living any of them. It's a nightmare if I don't get my trash cans to the curb on trash day. Is that what he means? It seems awfully different, so I don't think it is. How is an ex-porn star who contracted HIV during the Great Breakout of 2004 living my nightmare?

But here's the apex of all of this insanity. A one Dr. Robert Kim-Farley, of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (and someone who has clearly never had much of an interest in watching porn), recommended "...the board mandate condom use and require the adult film industry to pay for testing." Condom use. In porn. Mandated. Great. Does he not know that people are not a big fan of the condom in general? They're certainly not a fan of the condom in porn. No one wants their porn to have a responsible feel to it. If that was going to be the case, then everyone would finally be able to come out of their darkened basements (or sex dens, dungeons, whatever) and not feel their current shame. Actually, strike that. They should be more ashamed if they're watching porn with condoms. Back to the basements, weirdos!

Dr. Kim-Farley (no relation to Chris Farley from what I can tell) also stated the obvious by saying that "Infection rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea...are seven times higher in the porn industry than in the general population, and as many as a quarter of porn performers are diagnosed with a sexually transmitted disease in any given year." Hmmm. I wonder if all of the wild sex that they're having in front of cameras and for a pittance has anything to do with it. OK, the pittance is irrelevant, as is the cameras. Let's just try and focus on the ridiculous amount of sex that they have and why they're having it, shall we? Yeah, it's a wonder some of the guys don't insert Tab A into Slot B and just spontaneously combust.

After the vote, Mr. James voiced his opinion saying that "...he wished more hard-core porn actors had come forward to tell their stories." Trust me. So do some people on that board. He also derided the board for taking so long (something that I thought was a boon in the porn industry) by saying, "They need to do more. They should have done this years ago." Dude, I don't mean to judge (or maybe I do; you don't know), but no one forced you to do porn. You say that they should have done more, but in reality, couldn't you have done less? As in less porn?!

I don't know how much money California already makes from the porn industry, but I'll tell you this much: The state needs every freaking penny that it can scrounge up from wherever it can. However much money the state makes from porn, it needs it. And what will happen if this advisory board makes porn actors in California start wearing condoms? That's right. The porn industry will pack up their unmentionables and go film the unwatchable with all of their unsheathed penises (penii?) in another state. And they'll take the state's revenue with them. A brilliant idea, California. Simply brilliant. As if it isn't hard enough to start or run a business in this state, please, go ahead and make it more difficult for an industry that fueled the development of the Internet! The porn industry makes money hand over fist (pun totally intended) and California needs that money. Please don't make it harder (pun intended again) and force them to pull out early (can't stop myself).