Weblog Sin Pies

By Charley Daniels

Bob Odenkirk rules:

By Charley Daniels

I realized today that it’s the time of year once again for me to roll out my joke about the day after Thanksgiving being the busiest day of the year for shopping AND for the sewage-treatment industry. That’s it, basically. That’s the joke.

I’ll let you digest it for a second.

Hey, are you in the mood for something that’s actually funny? If the answer is yes (and I can’t believe it wouldn’t be) you should check out these fake Craigslist postings from Kasper Hauser. This is the part where you tell me those are old and blah blah blah, but they’re still funny, and now they are also more numerous. Enjoy. (Via John Hodgman.)

Also in the “actually funny” department comes New Stereotypes. Like the name implies, it’s stereotypes re-imagined. They’re so much funnier than actual stereotypes. (Thanks Kiala.)

Sometimes you might notice that the ad above the header just says, “Your ad here.” If that’s the case, don’t worry. I have other sources of income.

By Charley Daniels

The Onion does it again:

Ninja Parade Slips Through Town Unnoticed Once Again

Charley Daniels

Frsno Bee: SoCal court reinstates ‘men only’ sex charge against woman

An appeals court reinstated a charge of indecent exposure against a woman who disrobed in front of a 14-year-old boy.

The three-member panel overturned a ruling by Riverside County Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong, who had dismissed charges against Alexis Luz Garcia last year, ruling that the law making it a misdemeanor for someone to expose “his person” didn’t apply to women.

The gist is the kid was being noisy, the neighbor punished him by exposing herself. There are a lot of great things happening here. Interestingly, the funniest part to me isn’t that she considers the sight of her naked body a punishment. That’s actually quite sad. What I’m most curious about is that there’s a person somewhere whom we have entrusted to uphold the law of the land, and the dude thinks indecent exposure applies only to men.

Prosecutors said the boy’s parents called police after the woman threatened to disrobe every time the boy played basketball.

And Riverside County Superior Court Judge Robert W. Armstrong dismissed the case. Why? No penises involved. Makes sense, right? Considerations: Is this his way of protesting the lack of a gender-neutral third-person pronoun in English? Is he one of these straight-as-an-arrow dudes who finds female nudity beautiful but male nudity immoral? Is he some sort of smart ass?

Luckily the appeals court has more sense. Well, maybe not, but at least they read the whole law before issuing a decision:

In a ruling issued Aug. 28, the appeals panel noted that another section of state law says that “words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter.”

“We can find no logical or reasonable basis for concluding women are incapable of committing the crime of indecent exposure,” the panel wrote in its 13-page decision.

Judge Armstrong must have skimmed over that section.

By Charley Daniels

At some point during my painfully optimistic formative years as a writer, I crafted an essay about election reform that suggested taking a cue from the animal kingdom. The basic gist of the article was:

Whoever kicks the most ass is in charge.

I believe that’s a direct quote. Yes, I was a real Hemingway. This was right around the time one of my writing professors remarked to a class full of people that “Charley is like Dave Barry, only more sarcastic.” It was a technical writing course, and the teacher did not mean this as a compliment.

Anyway, I was reminded of the election essay yesterday when Mike sent me this video:

Direct link

My ideas about how to pick a president were crap compared with this method. Whoever kicks the most ass? That’s not a reliable selection criterion. It’s whoever can get his or her ass kicked and still make sound executive decisions — that’s who should be in charge. Ball-kicking tolerance is an even better litmus.

Basically: Iron crotch for president in 2008!

The guys in that video even resemble our candidates in some ways. Look at that last contestant — the one on the end. He’s like Fred Thompson: not sure whether to enter the race at all. Except, if the election involved a smack in the nards, we might sympathize with him instead of suspecting he’s skirting campaign law.

Of course, you might think Hillary would be a lock if we elected the leader of the free world based on who could take the most crotch punishment, but I’d wager Mitt Romney can take a real beating down there. Interpret that any way you choose.