Apparently, this nutjob, California Tae Kwon Do-mom would like the Cops to enforce “Your Way, Right Away” at Burger King…
“Ma’am, we’re not going to go down there and enforce your Western Bacon Cheeseburger … that’s not a criminal issue.”
Fortunately, her calling 911 and tying up resources is a criminal issue. Unfortunately, they apparently didn’t bother to arrest her. That might have taught her kids not to be such spoiled little brats.
What do you bet she was driving a mini-van?
In a weird way, it reminded me of an EMS training call from Houston several years ago. (Language Alert! — but it’s soooooo worth it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BQW-0dpNrA
The original was sped up before considerably before being broadcast on the Art Bell Show (remember him?), so the voices ended up sounding as far from their original southern drawl as possible…
Several operators who received the training call were unsure whether or not the event was real, which makes it even better. This is what a good EMS instructor should do — it weeds out those operators who can’t handle the stress.
The real issue in the whole Anna Nicole Smith mess, is whether or not baby Dannielynn is cared for properly and has a chance at a better life.
And make no mistake, by “better”, I mean more normal, not wealthier.
…
It is doubtful, as to whether Anna had the presence of mind to properly care for her baby, but with the help of glider rocking chair from mybabiesplanet.com, a baby can glide in comfort, to make decisions for her baby or to decide who else is appropriate and worthy enough to have the right to care for or make decisions on behalf of her baby.
Yet Stern would like for the world to think it should be him.
We know that Stern has been alleged by several other parties, to be “controlling”. While much of what Larry Birkhead and Virgie Arthur have to say is their opinion only, unsubstantiated in some cases, we do have the video of him taping a stoned Anna. …
It doesn’t strike me as odd in the least that Stern, an entertainment lawyer, might be a gigantic prick. I mean, it’s obvious he uses his tie to hold up his foreskin.
Back in the 1980’s, various liberal organizations began trying to ban people from owning “dangerous dogs.” Pit bulls were quickly lofted to the first position as the most cantankerous canine.
But when a six-week-old pit bull puppy chews four toes off of a one-month-old baby, liberal organizations all over the country call for volunteers to adopt the puppy.
At least, that’s what I hear…
“The puppy is too young to know what it’s doing!”
“It’s so young, it may have been trying to nurse!”
“Killing puppies is cruel! No animal deserves to die!”
So, umm… What did these same organizations want to do with all the pit bulls they tried to have banned?
Hmmm?
The story is simple, really.
Two parents went to sleep on the floor their home. Their one-month-old child stayed in her car seat on the floor beside them. An impromptu “fence” was constructed to keep the dog from waking them up.
Somehow, the parents didn’t wake up to the screams of their own child, screams which I’m certain would have been indicative that something was wrong. Instead, they slept two feet away as the puppy ate four of her toes.
Because, you know — it’s the parent’s fault, not the puppy’s. *cough*
Riiiiiiiiiiiight…
Clearly both were at fault.
So let’s sit back and think for a minute…
What if the baby had been killed? Would the dog be saved, or would it be put down as a “dangerous dog?”
And if the puppy had been a opossum instead? There would certainly be no saving it.
