“far be it from me to claim to truly know what motivates guys to write awesomely bizarre graffiti”

so usually these updates are a listing of news articles highlighting something(s) that i find hilarious, or a listing of news articles highlighting something(s) that i find infuriating; what we’ve done here today is try to blend that together into a mixture of “stuff that i find to be comedic, but with an aftertaste of just bitterness and disgust.” you see, we’re doing some high-level psychological experiments over here at HOH, and what we’re currently wondering is that if we mix in frustrating things with the comedy, can we ruin that comedy for you?

i have tried to explain to our research staff that no one reads anything i post, regardless of the content, but they were not to be dissuaded, and i don’t really want to argue with people in those full-body suits that scientists wear when they’re working with dangerous viruses. i find those suits to be off-putting and creepy. so here’s the update.

graffiti-filled Brooklyn courthouse bathroom
keep it classy, Brooklyn, keep it classy

Brooklyn courthouse bathrooms are a haven for lewd graffiti artists

so it’s probably not news that i find ridiculous bathroom graffiti to be hilarious and interesting; i may have even once written an update in which it featured prominently. so it’s a safe bet that if throw up any article about “lewd graffiti artists,” my passion for ridiculous graffiti will win out over my prudish opposition to anything that can be described as “lewd” every time. every. single. time. anyway, so there’s an article about this or something:

“Despite efforts to keep all courthouses graffiti-free, thugs have turned spots at the Brooklyn Criminal Court building into a canvas for lawbreakers’ tags and profanity. “Apparently, visitors are taking out their frustrations with the justice system on the rest rooms’ walls and surfaces,” said Mark Daly, a spokesman for the Citywide Administrative Services Department. “It is difficult to keep [them] clean.”

now, far be it from me to claim to truly know what motivates guys to write awesomely bizarre graffiti on things, but somehow i doubt it’s more complicated than a mission to take our their frustration on the justice system. does it make sense that guys who ARE frustrated with something in the courthouse are going to berserk in the bathrooms? i suppose so, but you know there’s going to be an equally large number of stupid kids just being stupid kids. anyway, let’s get to that lewd graffiti?

“The courthouse at 120 Schermerhorn St. has the dubious distinction of being the most graffiti-ridden in the system, officials said, with Manhattan Criminal Court a close second.”

i don’t know how you determine what courthouse has the most graffiti in it, but however you do it, i sort of wish it was my job. “well, Jim, the Schermerhorn courthouse has more than 130% the “i love sucking big black dicks” content of any other courthouse in New York City. and don’t even get me started on the proliferation of “tap for blowjob” in here, because it’s simply appalling.”

“The men’s rest rooms in Brooklyn have become eyesores, with graffiti all over the mirrors, windows and walls. Much of the spaces are covered in garish, scribbled curse words, profane drawings and tags for neighborhood crews like Power Players and Rich Boyzz.”

okay, let’s get serious for a minute. i get that, as this article notes, there is a constant flow of offenders coming through, so it’s a little difficult to determine who is doing what in terms of graffiti, without even getting into the issue of assigning cops to stake out bathrooms. but that said, if guys are tagging their neighborhood crews in there… and we know where those crews are located… would it really be THAT difficult to deduce at least who some of these offenders are?

“”It looks like a dirty bathroom at a park, not a courthouse,” said Julius Trowell, 54, who came to settle an open-container arrest warrant. “It makes it depressing to come here.””

says the man in his fifties that’s there to settle an open-container arrest warrant. huh. say, let me tell you something that would make ME depressed to come to a courthouse…

“”It’s a public building. It’s an issue we hope to address as soon as possible,” Daly added. After calls from the Daily News, court officials said a cleaning crew will be painting over the graffiti this weekend, Daly said.”

Daly, i have to say, i understand your problems, but i also have to tell you that this sounds a little bit suspicious. “we can’t resolve this, there’s no funding, there’s no time… wait, you say the news called about this? get some paint in there!”

“”The building looks better now, but people still damage the rest rooms because the guards don’t see you there,” said Chris Singh, who operates a food stand. “I’ve seen people writing graffiti. They look at you and keep going. They don’t care.””

now, i don’t mean to tell Chris Singh to do anything that will put him in harm’s way (seriously), but here’s the thing: maybe you can tell some court officer about the guy who’s in the bathroom tagging it with graffiti RIGHT NOW so that they could catch him in the act? because the only graffiti i support enjoying and laughing about is the ridiculous kind, and this certainly doesn’t sound like it. what a goddamn tease!

okay, a couple of quick animal-related shots:

awesome black guinea pig
guinea pig owners, be warned: the above might be mistaken for drugs by police agencies

drug police strike guinea pig cage

so given my preference for promoting and/or defending ridiculous rodents for pets, you know i had to hone in on this news story immediately:

“Yorkshire cops have apologised after swooping on a suspected Bradford cannabis “hothouse”, only to find a couple of pampered guinea pigs languishing by an electric heater. Six officers in three vehicles descended on Pam Hardcastle’s house after a police chopper’s dope-busting camera picked up a suspicious infrared hotspot.”

the two things that are the absolute best about this description are:
01. the fact that this wasn’t just an honest error involving a couple of cops raiding the wrong house, but that it was one involving three vehicles AND a police helicopter;
02. the description of the guinea pigs as “pampered” and “languishing,” both because this language is way too ornate to describe chubby rodents, and because having owned many a guinea pig, i can picture EXACTLY how content a languishing guinea pig looks. and it is priceless.

“Back at the scene, meanwhile, Hardcastle’s mum explained to the anti-drug SWAT team her daughter “had guinea pigs in the garage and would have a heater in there to keep them warm”.
The coppers, however, pressed on with the operation, and having gained entry to the facility, “took one look at the guinea pigs, then left”.”

now, i am not saying these officers should have taken the mother at her word if they truly believed that there was a grow-op in that garage. what i am laughing at is the disgusted expression i am visualizing on the faces of the officers who entered and looked those languishing guinea pigs right in their faces.

unrelated guinea pig nerd note: one of these pigs (Simon) appears to be all black, which is ridiculously cool AND rare for a guinea pig. accordingly, i’d let him have a heater and languish wherever he wanted.

janklow and cujo
above: our hero janklow apparently trying to train HIS dog to respond to people arguing

man allegedly trained dog to bite woman during arguments

so, background: this story is hilarious to me because, in my youth, i knew of a dog that did a very similar thing: my trusty sidekick and house of hate mascot, Cujo. now, he wasn’t TRAINED to bite anyone during arguments, but he was disgusted by arguing in the house, and if you got into a heated debate, he’d burst into the room and bark angrily at the person yelling until they were quiet. he did, on another hilarious occasion, silence a profane outburst directed at my mother by biting the child delivering it, which was wrong (on a biting level) and hilarious (on a every-other-level level). i really miss that dog. anyway, there’s an article:

“A 56-year-old Orland Park man who allegedly trained his dog to bite a 54-year-old woman during arguments has been charged with misdemeanor domestic battery, according to an Orland Park Police report released Jan. 7.”

things i am curious about: how exactly do you train a dog to do this? i know how they train police dogs to attack, but it takes multiple people and some replication of the scenarios in question; did this guy hire another mid-50s lady to stand in his yard wearing a protective suit and scream profanity and demeaning remarks at him? i suppose, given the legal ramifications of the matter, that we may never know the truth of the matter.

“Police responding to a 7:50 p.m. Dec. 23 disturbance at the man’s home on the 11700 block of Brookshire Drive said they encountered a 54-year-old woman with red marks on the side of her face, and a bite mark on her leg. The woman said the marks occurred from being grabbed by the man. She said the man trained the dog to bite her when they argue; the injury occurred during one of their arguments.”

two things i am confused about:
01. if this guy was just going to grab her face and thus leave blatant evidence for when the police arrived, then what’s the point of training a dog to do your dirty work for you?
02. did this dog bite her during the incident the police were called for or not? because it sounds to me like they came, found the guy had roughed her up, and then she threw in, “oh, by the way, he also trained his dog to bite me when we argue sometimes.” so maybe this is all a beautiful lie?

at least the story i told you about my dog is true. that dog was awesome.

Julian Assange
maybe my fundamental problem with Assange is that he cannot be photographed in any manner that’s not ridiculously pretentious?

Julian Assangefires back at ‘idiot’ critics, threatens to sue newspaper for publishing ‘his’ leak

so periodically, i feel compelled to read something about the latest developments with International Hero Julian Assange, get kind of annoyed about it, and then whine about it here. so let’s not make any more bones about it and get right to the meat of things. let’s start with the thing about ‘idiot’ critics:

“In an interview with MSNBC Wednesday, Assange said he wondered whether the United States was descending into a “state of anarchy” after the withering criticism of him by those outraged over WikiLeaks’ publication of classified war and diplomatic documents. Assange called them idiots, “trying to make a name for themselves.””

let me skip over the part where Assange cannot be considered an unbiased party (like a newspaper) and get right to the part where he claims people attacking him are “trying to make a name for themselves,” which presents us with two confusing aspects:
01. these people “trying to make a name for themselves” include such people as Joe Biden, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. whatever you think of them or their comments, or even Assange’s actions… don’t we all acknowledge they already HAVE made names for themselves?
02. is Assange trying to accuse people of seeking fame based on his acts when it seems fairly certain he’s actively seeking fame based on other people’s acts? because i have to be honest, i think that’s what’s going on, and that it’s a little hypocritical.

“In an interview with the Times of London, Assange compared himself to Martin Luther King Jr. When he was locked up briefly in London’s Wadsworth prison, he said a black guard handed him a note that read: “I have two heroes in the world, Dr. King and you.” That sentiment, Assange said in a New York Times account, “is representative of 50 percent of people.””

things i do not believe about this:
–Assange’s anecdotal evidence;
–Assange’s ability to calculate percentages

but perhaps i am just a negative skeptic and i am not giving proper credit to a man who’s a righteous crusader? well, there’s also the second of the above article:

“In Rusbridger’s office, Assange’s position was rife with ironies. An unwavering advocate of full, unfettered disclosure of primary-source material, Assange was now seeking to keep highly sensitive information from reaching a broader audience. He had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released.”

three things that are awesome about this paragraph:
01. the part where Assange is actively arguing against his position of full disclosure of sensitive material because it damages his personal interests, something that he feels governments have no right to. because surely they don’t control access to things because of their interests!
02. the part where the concept of leaking controlled documents is used against Assange to leak documents, which has the duly hilarity of STILL leaking the documents (for those who are pro-leak) while burning Assange (for those who are anti-Assange). everyone wins!
03. the part where Assange has the impressive audacity to claim ownership of leaked documents from various governments and officials that he did not create at all … and then to do it because he has a FINANCIAL INTEREST. because i’m sure when the US is saying they own the cables, and they have an interest in said cables, and Assange is going on and on about the righteousness of his position, they have no leg to stand on, right, Julian?

i have been thinking that, at some point, people who are supportive of the leaks as a concept would at LEAST come around and acknowledge that Assange is a hypocritical asshole (and possible rapist), because surely we as rational, intelligent people can differentiate between the benefits of someone’s deeds (though, to be clear, i personally strongly disagree with that position) and the reprehensible nature of that person as a person. instead, we’ve got people commenting how rape shield laws are terrible because they protect Assange’s accusers. i mean, hey, i assume such things are done because it’s in said people’s financial interests, but what the fuck do i know? i don’t get page views like that, you know.

Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *