Search This Blog

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Re-Hire Deputy Jerrod Dooley of Rains County, Texas!

This cop is a coward because he refused to let a dog eat him. I don't understand, either.
The Rains County Sheriff's deputy who shot a dog after responding to a burglary call on Friday has been fired. DETAILS HERE:
by Richard Reynolds

April 27, 2014 Sunday

Becky Seeley Limbaugh Richard Reynolds the bullet exited her face. Read the necropsy report. That would not have happened from a shot from the top or front.

Like · Reply · about an hour ago

Richard Reynolds Becky Seely Limbaugh, I've already answered this several times. Bullet trajectories are not straight lines, despite what you might have seen on CSI or Quincey, M.E. Bullet trajectories are... well known for being changed due to impact with flesh, muscle, and bone. A bullet fired into a paper target is one thing (even wind can factor into a bullet's trajectory); a bullet fired into a skull is another. I suggest you take a degree in bullet ballistics, as well as your Ph.D. in dog necropsy.

The above exchange was in reference to a dog-killing by former Deputy Jerrod Dooley of Rains County, Texas, who was fired after the Rains County sheriff stated that there was so much controversy surrounding the unfortunate event and, for the safety of Dooley and the department, the firing was necessary.  There is Dooley's patrol dashcam video that shows part of the event, but an incredibly large facebook lynch mob has developed and continues to post vitriolic comments calling for Dooley to suffer the animal-loving wrath of God and Justice and Interminable Vengeance.  Apparently, they believe that Dooley -- who was responding to a burglary call when he was approached by the excited canine, named Candy, and shot it -- is a murderous dog-killer who destroyed the dog out of cowardice and/or maliciousness.
More examples of the lynch mob's comments (and some of my sarcastic responses):

Billie Hill The dogs tail was wagging....the officer CALLED THE DOG FROM THE BACK OF THE TRUCK! The officer showed no remorse on the video!! The office admittedly was skittish because of a prior attack...he overreacted. ..he shot an innocent dog and drove off with it yelping in horrible PLEASE go play with your sea monkeys!!!!!!

Like · Reply · 31 minutes ago

Richard Reynolds No ...... my Sea Monkeys are busy attacking FBI agents because I don't have them on leashes. Where did you hear the officer "CALLED THE DOG FROM THE BACK OF THE TRUCK"? The deputy drove away because he didn't have backup there yet and the owner was shouting and upset (understandably), and officers are trained to wait for backup in potentially escalating dangerous situations. The officer didn't fire a coup-de-grace shot into the dog because he probably thought there was a possibility a vet could have saved it (the dog is clearly heard yelping after the murderous headshot). You people are just a lynch mob, and some of you are probably some of the people who the sheriff said were calling in threats to shoot the deputy in the back of the head. I'm not going away to play with my savage Sea Monkeys, Billie. I'm here for the duration. When unfair lynch mobs gather on facebook to dispense their brand of ignorant justice, I ride like a Lone Ranger of Infinite Wisdom and Sarcasm into the Breach, annoying all those loyal to the mindless mob mentality of judgmental vengeance and ignorant self-righteousness. Get used to my Sea Monkey-wrangling company, Billie. That's all I can tell you to do (until your next comment). Good luck with your witch-burnings.

Billie Hill Oh yes and one more thing before I "retire for the evening" I mentioned about people who OMIT parts of the story...the sheriff ALSO stated that he would not rehire Dooley regardless of the outcome of the investigation. ...are you also aware sir that Dooley already had several complaints filed against him before the dog shooting? Hmm

  • Richard Reynolds What were the complaints and what were the outcomes of the complaints? Cops get complaints when they give out a speeding ticket. That's a vague type of character assassination. Did you hear he also practiced black magic or voodoo?
Billie Hill, of course, did not "retire for the evening."  She went on commenting, appalled that I would dare respond to her inane analysis of the "murder" of Candy the dog (they refer to her as Candy Middleton -- apparently dogs take the surnames of their owners).
It isn't enough that former Deputy Dooley feels terrible the event occurred and that he has lost his career, the facebook lynch mob wants him to suffer eternally ... because he should have had the bravery and sense to let an unleashed, unrestrained dog potentially maul him.  "The dog was only 30 POUNDS!" the lynch mob keeps saying, not understanding that a dog's weight has nothing to do with its ability to use its powerful jaws to bite the shit out of you and rip your scrotum open.

Barney Dinosaur, who I suspect is the alias of Billie Hill, has commented on this blog that he or she feels that THE DOOMED STUFFING is garbage and I need to get another hobby.  Whatever hobby I decided upon, I'll still write THE DOOMED STUFFING, and I'll still defend people against lynch mobs on facebook.
Fuck you, lynch mobs ... with no due respect.


Wednesday, April 23, 2014

CNN: Flight 370: What Really Didn't Happen?

File:Anthony Bourdain on WNYC-2011-24-02.jpg
Anthony Bourdain being interviewed in the WNYC radio studio 2006-06-21.
Date2011-02-24 21:24 (UTC)

April 22, 2014 Tuesday

CNN -- Speculative, Inquiring, Repetitiously Murky ... We're Starting to Make Fox News Appear Almost Acceptable

Let's recap this month's news, shall we?

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went down somewhere and all month long CNN has been speculating about an almost infinite number of variables that are supported by almost no facts.  It's hard for a "24 hour" news channel to come to grips with the fact that it can't report on news that doesn't exist, so why not just spend all your air time speculating, rather than confirming facts and verifying sources?  I say, fuck it, too, let's just make shit up.

The Easter Bunny, age 204, was caught in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Easter Sunday, fornicating with a transgender jackrabbit prostitute named Bunny Bags, age 17, in the parking lot behind an abandoned library.  When asked by Albuquerque Police Department Vice Sergeant Melvin P. Diddledickie why he was engaged in the aforementioned activity with the known prostitute in broad daylight when he should have been busy planting colored eggs, the Easter Bunny replied tersely, "I've slaved for you ungrateful humans all my life!  It's my turn to live!"

Earlier this month, some other shit didn't happen, by I won't report on it because I can confirm the fact that that shit didn't happen, so it wouldn't be worthy of journalistic inquiry.

This has not been CNN.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Happy Taxes, Everyone

Uncle Sam, sans KY lubricant, about to test your rectal temperature

April 14, 2014

Happy Taxes, Everyone
by Richard Reynolds

It's the day before Americans have to file their taxes with the IRS, so I'm sure a pall of infinite sadness hangs over the majority of late-filers, myself included.

To help lift everyone out of the Deadline Blues, I thought I'd talk about what the government has done right recently.

Okay ... I'm finished.

Happy now?  No?  Fuck off ... I tried.

Happy Late Tax-Filer's Day, Americans.

Remember ... the government is spying on you, paying off communications industries to do so, supporting repressive foreign governments to hold sway over strategic oil prices, incarcerating the mentally ill to keep our neighborhoods ready for gentrification at the expense of poor people who will have to move to fuck-knows-where to be able to afford some shitty place to call home, and we have facebook comments to read that are written by quasi-literate rednecks who think the government is conspiring to make us believe in the undeniable fact that global warming and climate change are real and man-made.

At least we have reality television.  And twenty-four news channels that have about four hours of actual news per day.

So cheer the fuck up, sad bitches, and mail those 1040EZ's in quickly, before Uncle Sam knocks on your door and rapes you anally with his petrified white goatee.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

The Non-Creationist

A deity doing something important with light rays
April 8, 2014

Faith Versus Science

by Richard Reynolds

Throughout history there has been a war, or at least an unending series of minor skirmishes, between those of devout faith in spiritual beliefs and those of devout adherence to the principles of scientific inquiry.

Faith is not incompatible with science, nor vice versa.  One can separate political beliefs from scientific beliefs as well as one can separate religious beliefs from science or politics.  It rarely happens, but it can be accomplished.

I have no spiritual faith.  I am an atheist ... and I believe in provable reality.  I have political beliefs, and I try to keep them separate from scientific beliefs ... but usually I fail miserably at this.  However, I try to keep rational when my scientific beliefs come up against those whose religious beliefs deny the validity of science.  Denying the validity of the scientific method, which has been proved throughout the documented history of science as something beyond doubt, is something with which I strongly disagree.

But I recognize the value, both historical and cultural, of spiritualism.  Native American culture, the culture of the Ancient Greeks, the culture of Islam, the culture of Judaism, and almost innumerable other spiritual beliefs, have influenced such varied subjects as art, architecture, sociology, literature, and even science.  Science would no doubt have flourished without any spiritual input -- and, indeed, science often suffered at the adversarial hands of established religions.  Yet there is no doubt that when the Greeks looked up at the night sky and saw gods and other characters from their mythology, they helped plot the constellations so that upcoming scientists could work more easily in cataloguing the endless wonders of the night sky.  The Arabs and Persians contributed greatly to science and mathematics, the myth-loving Greeks contributed to the field of logic and philosophy.

Religion began in early humans as a way of making sense of a world, of a universe, which had no apparent reason before early man began creating mythologies to explain the world and the universe.  Science ... or, more properly, modern science ... came about to answer the ambiguous dogma of the various religions and mythologies of early humans.  Science needed facts to support beliefs; religion needed only faith to support beliefs.

But there is a tendency still present in religion to deny science because science does not form from mythological or religious tenants.  Science forms out of verifiable truth that can be experimented upon, challenged, and re-evaluated.  Dogmatic religions ask for no creative input; they merely want strict adherence and continued proselytizing to gain converts.  Scientists in the same field of inquiry are a disputatious lot; religionists within a sect are harmonious in their refusal to question their perception of faith in relation to the nature of the universe.

But science does not deny spirituality or religion, despite what religious zealots say.  Science -- particularly the scientific study of the anthropological development of the mind -- even states that there is probably a biological cause for the sensation of spirituality in the belief of a magical presence of "the other" or "the creator."  Scientists who have theorized on this suggest that it was early man's way of adapting to a survival mechanism.  When in tall grasses or wherever their view was obstructed, early man had to depend on a sort of sixth sense to tell whether there was "the other" or "danger" just outside of his ability to perceive it with his common senses of sight, sound, smell, and hearing.  This doesn't scientifically justify a belief in an almighty, but it shows that science does not dismiss the sense of spirituality as some kind of stupid relic of early man; rather, it was a sense developed that was imperative to man's survival ... to keep vigilant in case a tiger was nearby and ready to devour him.

Without that sense of hypervigilance (or spiritualistic thought), man might not have continued to adapt, and science might not have come into existence because Galileo's prehistoric ancestors might have been killed off by some now-extinct beast.

However, science does not owe religions or mythologies for this evolutionary salvation.  Science owes mankind only provable truths.

It is a provable truth that the Earth could not have been created 6,000 or so years ago.  The Earth is billions of years old.  There are trees that have been confirmed to be thousands of years old.  Fossils of animals existing millions of years ago exist.  Science does not need to prove the existence of God or gods or devils or Satan or anything supernatural.  Faith is fine, but truth cannot be held in the shackles of faith.

If you see an angel coming for you, go with it if that is your wish.  Or, to my preference, seek an explanation for the hallucination you've just had.  Perhaps you've eaten too many strange plants while foraging in the tall grasses of spirituality.

Good night, and don't let the tigers or angels bite.

Monday, April 7, 2014

Schadenfreude Day

April 7, 2014

Schadenfreude Day

by Richard Reynolds

Facebook commentators, as I've said before, are a crazy, sadistic bunch.  They're the internet-age equivalent of a 19th-century lynch mob.  I don't believe this is hyperbole.  Just check out some of these comments:

"Jessica Bennett What a waste. We can bring a heroine [sic] addict back from the dead but still refuse to stop making billions from cancer and kidney patients to find a cure for them, and they AREN'T trying to die. That's capitalists for you. #disgust"  [The preceding comment was in response to an article shared on KSLA's facebook page about the wide release of a commonly used narcotic antagonist that will help save the lives of people who overdose on narcotics].

Another, with replies from yours truly, from the same shared story by KSLA:

"Marcus Barnhill If you never do heroin then you won't need it.
Debating irrational facebook commentators is kind of a demented hobby for me.  Sure, it's like spitting in the ocean to hold back the tide, but futile gestures are nothing if not necessary to one's own sense that fighting against the ignorance of the lynch mob mentality is something worthwhile.
People like to judge.  I understand this; we all carry this obnoxious mutant gene that makes us want to feel better about our own inadequacies by denouncing the inadequacies of others.  But wanting people to die instead of getting medical treatment because you object to their drug addiction is a little too much.
I don't think it's being prudish to judge these commentators.  They're advocating for death by the withholding of medical treatment for people who are stupid enough to have ever used narcotics.  This obviously irrational viewpoint was such a common thread in the comments on KSLA's facebook page that I have no doubt that most people probably agree with these sots.  Most people, apparently, are truly fucked in the head.  There's a difference between schadenfreude and sadism, and the commentators on facebook readily descend into the madness of a lynch mob's sadism.  I don't know why more reasonable people don't respond on facebook to comments like these.  Perhaps people with a conscience get frustrated from trying to answer crazy logic with rational logic, or maybe rational people with a conscience just don't ever look at facebook to begin with ... maybe I'm totally irrational for being on facebook.  But if you're not spitting in the ocean, the ocean of stupidity is just going to come anyway and destroy civilization ... and at least I can say I was standing on the beach hawking loogies, trying to do something.
Good night, and good luck, lynch mob.


Friday, April 4, 2014

Jutta Brink: Tale of an Unfriender

April 4, 2014

by Richard Reynolds, "firebagger"

Facebook is a strange place full of incendiary comments, both politically and sociologically, by many different types of aggressive, yet super-sensitive individuals.  One has to be mindful of discretionary tactics when engaging in debate with them, lest they assault you with unwarranted appellations, usually "idiot," "scum," "faggot," "commie liberal," "conservative fascist," "Nazi," "hippie," "pothead," or any other of a stream of seemingly endless, vile, unwanted sobriquets that may or may not apply to your actual character or views.

I received an e-mail from one of my "friends" named Jutta Brink, for example, just the other day, which I read last night.  Jutta wrote: "Republicans oppress women!, disciminate against them, would rather have them barefoot and pregnant. So yes !, Any self-respecting woman does not and should not, and more important WILL not vote Republican !!!!, period. Sorry, Richard.~ PS, I have become to believe you're a firebagger, F that, Richard. Consider yourself blocked, no time for shit like that, nice knowing yea. "

This comment of Jutta's was in response to a comment I made on a photo she shared that asserted that women who voted Republican had no self-respect.  I felt that it was unfair to suggest that because a woman was a woman she had no right to have a political opinion that diverged from my own opinions or Jutta's.  I thought I made my comment in a respectful way, stating that I simply disagreed with the presumption that one's sex, race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation should automatically determine one's political opinions.  I even criticized the Republican Party in the comment because I believe that the GOP seems to go out of its way to say it is an inclusive party, then often uses what are, to me, the same distasteful tactics used by the producer of Jutta's photo, suggesting that women who are Democrats are supporting baby murder or other activities the GOP deems unacceptable.

I've often been called a "commie liberal," a "socialist scum," and occasionally I'm referred to as a "conservative fascist," and now I've been called a "firebagger," which I presume is a derogatory term for "Teabagger," which is already a derogatory term for a member of the Tea Party.

Let me state, for the record and for all time, I, author of this blog, "The Doomed Stuffing," which is virtually unread by human eyes, am not now, nor have I ever been, an ideologue -- one who holds opinions according to an ideology that are intransigent and infallible.  I am a human being who tries to form and hold opinions that are based on ideas and facts, and I don't believe that people who disagree with me are anything but ... well, people who disagree with me.  Sure, there are crazy neo-Nazis, racists, KKK members, gay-bashers, extremists on the left and extremists on the right.  But disagreeing with someone about something is not necessarily a condemnation of their humanity or their dignity or, for the religious-minded, their soul.

But Jutta Brink's reactionary facebook-unfriending of me was something of a surprise.  Politcally, I probably agreed with her more often than not (although I thought she often went too far in her comments ... but, hell, most of us on facebook often go too far in our comments).  What is perplexing is the contradiction in her liberality versus her willingness to denigrate women simply for being women who disagree with her.

In any case, since facebook doesn't allow you to reciprocate an "unfriending," but merely removes the entire history of your comments with your "unfriender," I thought I'd blog about Jutta's abrupt eternal dismissal of our political debates and our "friendship."  It doesn't exactly hurt my feelings that she unfriended me (we all know most of our facebook "friends" are just people we've never met, anyway), but it does kind of piss me off that facebook doesn't allow you to respond to the unfriender directly.  I'd like to tell Jutta Brink a few things about tolerance -- one being that tolerance doesn't just apply as a moral concept dedicated to protecting those who share one's own opinions.  Tolerance is a moral concept designed to protect the dignity of everyone equally -- even "firebaggers."

Goodbye, Jutta Brink.  It's been a weird ride.