I seriously think people have lost their minds. Fox News reports that an Alliance, Ohio woman called 911 this week, drunk and in search of a husband. (Didn't people used to go to bars for that?) Anyway, Here's a transcript of "Audrey" as she ramps up her search for Mr. Right.
Drunk, desperate Audrey: “Get me that husband.”
911 operator: “You need to get a husband?”
Drunk, desperate Audrey: “Yes.”
911 operator: “Do you know you can get arrested for dialing 911?”
Drunk, desperate Audrey: “Let’s do it.”
911 operator: “You want to get arrested for dialing 911?”
Drunk, desperate Audrey: “Absolutely.”
Audrey was arrested and spent three days in jail. Talk about "Looking for love in all the wrong places." As I read this I thought that surely this was just one sad woman with an obvious drinking problem, but upon further research, what I found in regards to fake 911 calls was just bizarre.
It was just a couple of weeks ago that a 32-year old Pasco, Florida man repeatedly called 911 because his mother stole his beer. My favorite comment from boingboing.net that posted the story? One reader complained that we shouldn't take this lightly. In his opinion, mothers nationwide need to be warned that stealing your kid's beer is a criminal offense.
There are tons of them. The best? (or worst in this case) Squidoo.com reports that back in 2003 an elderly woman called 911 frantic because her mailman was passed out on the floor. The call went something like this:
Dispatcher: 911, how may I help you?
Woman Screaming: Help! Help!
Dispatcher: Calm down Ma'am, What is the problem?
Woman still hysterical: My mailman is passed out on the floor and I don't think he's breathing!
Dispatcher: Allright Ma'am, I've dispatched an ambulance
Woman: Hurry, he just blinked his eyes but I still don't think he's breathing
Dispatcher: Ma'am, perhaps he just fainted
Woman: No, no, I gave him a scratch off lottery ticket and he fell to the floor!
Dispatcher: Well he was probably just in shock
Woman (still screaming) No, he won $200-thousand dollars and I was so mad, I hit the (bleep, bleep) in the face with a frying pan!
I'm laughing so hard my stomach hurts. Hmmm, perhaps I should call 911?
Better not.
While dialing 911 is a serious matter, and people who misuse the system should be arrested, you just have to laugh at how far people will go.(or how far alcohol will take them). Since I've heard the term "Wacky Wednesday" overused by advertisers, let's call today just that. I'm looking for wacky 911 calls. Post them here. I'm sure my cop friends will have some that will make the above look tame.
Showing posts with label The Christian Commentator. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Christian Commentator. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Maybe Just a Small Hissy Fit Mr. President?
There's an interesting debate underway in regards to the president's reaction about the BP oil spill in the Gulf. His supporters say they don't need to see him scream and shout to know he's mad about the spill. His opponents say he needs to show more emotion, claiming his sense of calm gives the impression he doesn't care.
I'm torn.
I do believe the president,(like most Americans) is angry over this disaster, which is now expected to loop the entire state of Florida, and will likely involve the Atlantic coast by mid-summer. How could any leader not be angry over the destruction that the spill is causing? But does he need to kick and scream to make his point?
Not Really.
First, he doesn't have that kind of personality. He seems to typically remain calm, no matter what the situation, which ultimately is a great characteristic of leadership. Likewise, his getting emotional will not clean up one drop of oil any faster.
That being said, the other side has a point as well. President Obama seemed to show more excitement when Paul McCartney arrived at the White House recently, than he has at any point since the oil crisis began. He did delay getting involved with BP, and he does seem a bit too patient with the oil executives as they continue to make one blunder after another in their attempts to clean up the mess.
While one has to admire the president's ability to keep his cool, one can also remember the comfort brought by George Bush as he stood in the rubble in front of the World Trade Center vowing to make those who caused the damage pay. While it's been said that his show of emotion ultimately got us into two wars, I believe his display actually gave angry Americans someting to hold on to on the darkest day of our lives. A willingness to show emotion on that day, also showed a sign of great leadership. A true leader can show a sense of anger while keeping a clear head regarding his responsibilities.
While we need calm leaders, we also need to know that they care. There would be no point to President Obama throwing a hissy fit as the BP leaders scratch their heads over what to do next, but it would be encouraging to see him kick up a small fuss when yet another attempt at clean up has failed. The residents on the Gulf coast need to see that. America needs to see it. Ultimately BP needs to see it, so they feel a bit more pressure to get this clean up show on the road.
I'm torn.
I do believe the president,(like most Americans) is angry over this disaster, which is now expected to loop the entire state of Florida, and will likely involve the Atlantic coast by mid-summer. How could any leader not be angry over the destruction that the spill is causing? But does he need to kick and scream to make his point?
Not Really.
First, he doesn't have that kind of personality. He seems to typically remain calm, no matter what the situation, which ultimately is a great characteristic of leadership. Likewise, his getting emotional will not clean up one drop of oil any faster.
That being said, the other side has a point as well. President Obama seemed to show more excitement when Paul McCartney arrived at the White House recently, than he has at any point since the oil crisis began. He did delay getting involved with BP, and he does seem a bit too patient with the oil executives as they continue to make one blunder after another in their attempts to clean up the mess.
While one has to admire the president's ability to keep his cool, one can also remember the comfort brought by George Bush as he stood in the rubble in front of the World Trade Center vowing to make those who caused the damage pay. While it's been said that his show of emotion ultimately got us into two wars, I believe his display actually gave angry Americans someting to hold on to on the darkest day of our lives. A willingness to show emotion on that day, also showed a sign of great leadership. A true leader can show a sense of anger while keeping a clear head regarding his responsibilities.
While we need calm leaders, we also need to know that they care. There would be no point to President Obama throwing a hissy fit as the BP leaders scratch their heads over what to do next, but it would be encouraging to see him kick up a small fuss when yet another attempt at clean up has failed. The residents on the Gulf coast need to see that. America needs to see it. Ultimately BP needs to see it, so they feel a bit more pressure to get this clean up show on the road.
Monday, December 14, 2009
It's Too Close to Call
The debate is on about whether the death of Michael Jackson or the fall of Tiger Woods should be the top AP news story of 2009. Michael had it in the bag until November 27 when news broke that Woods had crashed his SUV into a tree and was found lying on the ground bleeding and passed out in front of his home. The accident was the tip of the iceberg for squeaky clean Tiger, as skeltons started jumping from the closet with reports about extra marital affairs, one longer term extra marital relationship, sexy text messages with his girlfriend, his backing out of his own golf tournament, and now his taking a leave of absence from golf, with the loss of some of his major sponsors.
For celebrity obsessed Americans, the literal and figurative deaths of two icons in one year is almost overwhelming. With Michael Jackson, the overdose of the surgical anesthetic Propofol gave overindulgent partygoers a moment of pause, as the search for the "big buzz" cost the King of Pop his life. The subsequent media coverage surrounding his funeral, the paternity of his children, the charges of murder against his doctor who injected him with the drug, and the settlement of his estate have created a frenzy that will have the sharks circling in the water for years to come.
Now, a new A&E reality series featuring the other four members of the Jackson 5 (brothers Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon) is a shining example of how even your own family will turn against you if money is the God they worship. Debuting last night, the show basically proved to all, that Jermaine is an egomaniac, Tito should be named Joe Jackson Junior, and Marlon, who seems to have it the most together, is the one who cracks jokes, seemingly to save his sanity. It's sad that a group who once was the shining star of Motown has allowed themselves to fall to such a low point. Maybe Neil Young was right when he said that it's better to burn out than fade away.
So, who should be the top story? Poor drug addicted Michael Jackson, or poor promiscuous Tiger Woods? Some have said that both stories are an example of how those involved were simply human, and we should forgive them and move on. Others have reminded us that no athlete or musician should be held up as an idol of worship. That position belongs only to God. While both points of view have merit, the main thing that ties the Michael Jackson death scandal to the Tiger Woods scandal is that both men handed their lives over to excess.
For one it was drugs and death,for the other is was women and career suicide, but sadly the ultimate outcome was the same. King Solomon spoke about excess in the Book of Ecclesiastes, summing up a life filled with indulgence as meaningless, if it doesn't include God. When one turns their life over to the insatiable desires of their humanity, too much is never enough, and Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are both examples of that profound truth. Too many drugs, women, friends, too much money, or anything that our culture urges us to use as a substitute for God leads to destruction which will ultimately lead to a physical or spiritual death. While it's too late for Michael Jackson, hopefully Tiger Woods will learn a lesson from his sin, and will spend his time off getting his life back on track. He's been given a second chance whether he realizes it or not, and hopefully he will be smart enough to take advantage of it.
So top story, best story, worst story, who knows? Is it Michael or Tiger? I suppose we won't know until the dawn of 2010, but one thing is perfectly clear. The stories of Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are essentially the same, and they tie for the most tragic of 2009.
For celebrity obsessed Americans, the literal and figurative deaths of two icons in one year is almost overwhelming. With Michael Jackson, the overdose of the surgical anesthetic Propofol gave overindulgent partygoers a moment of pause, as the search for the "big buzz" cost the King of Pop his life. The subsequent media coverage surrounding his funeral, the paternity of his children, the charges of murder against his doctor who injected him with the drug, and the settlement of his estate have created a frenzy that will have the sharks circling in the water for years to come.
Now, a new A&E reality series featuring the other four members of the Jackson 5 (brothers Jackie, Tito, Jermaine and Marlon) is a shining example of how even your own family will turn against you if money is the God they worship. Debuting last night, the show basically proved to all, that Jermaine is an egomaniac, Tito should be named Joe Jackson Junior, and Marlon, who seems to have it the most together, is the one who cracks jokes, seemingly to save his sanity. It's sad that a group who once was the shining star of Motown has allowed themselves to fall to such a low point. Maybe Neil Young was right when he said that it's better to burn out than fade away.
So, who should be the top story? Poor drug addicted Michael Jackson, or poor promiscuous Tiger Woods? Some have said that both stories are an example of how those involved were simply human, and we should forgive them and move on. Others have reminded us that no athlete or musician should be held up as an idol of worship. That position belongs only to God. While both points of view have merit, the main thing that ties the Michael Jackson death scandal to the Tiger Woods scandal is that both men handed their lives over to excess.
For one it was drugs and death,for the other is was women and career suicide, but sadly the ultimate outcome was the same. King Solomon spoke about excess in the Book of Ecclesiastes, summing up a life filled with indulgence as meaningless, if it doesn't include God. When one turns their life over to the insatiable desires of their humanity, too much is never enough, and Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are both examples of that profound truth. Too many drugs, women, friends, too much money, or anything that our culture urges us to use as a substitute for God leads to destruction which will ultimately lead to a physical or spiritual death. While it's too late for Michael Jackson, hopefully Tiger Woods will learn a lesson from his sin, and will spend his time off getting his life back on track. He's been given a second chance whether he realizes it or not, and hopefully he will be smart enough to take advantage of it.
So top story, best story, worst story, who knows? Is it Michael or Tiger? I suppose we won't know until the dawn of 2010, but one thing is perfectly clear. The stories of Michael Jackson and Tiger Woods are essentially the same, and they tie for the most tragic of 2009.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
The Surge, Will it Win the War?
Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus -- Sort of.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
Reactions are mixed after President Obama announced he would send 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan. After taking 92 days to make up his mind, the president made it clear last night that he would begin withdrawing the troops within 18 months.
Today, the Democrats are upset saying the cost of escalating the eight year old war is too expensive as the build up comes with a 30-billion dollar price tag. Republicans are unhappy that the president announced a definite time line for the troop withdrawal.
The Associated Press is reporting that Vice President Joe Biden, who did not support the president's decision said the new surge and exit strategy is aimed more at keeping the Taliban from overrunning Afghanistan while protecting America from another terrorist attack.
Senator John McCain who ran against Obama in last year's election said he supports the decision to send in more troops but did not agree with the announced time line for withdrawal.
"We don't want to sound an uncertain trumpet to our friends in the region," McCain said.
What do you think? A defining moment for the Obama presidency or too little too late?
A couple of things concern me about the president's decision, and the reaction to it.
First, like Senator McCain, I don't think it's ever a good idea to let the enemy know your timeline for withdrawing from any war. Military strategy is about playing your cards close to the vest. By letting the world know that we're going to be done in 18 months, the signal has been sent that winning the war is not our objective. In fact, the president never used the word "win" in his speech last night. That omission alone has to be very demoralizing to the troops who we're sending in to fight. When a country sends troops to reform a region, it's imperative that said country appears to be stable in the way they conduct the business of war. The president has made the American military look anything but stable, which will harm us in the long run.
Secondly, the Democrats are crying that the surge will be too expensive, yet Congress is spending billions to bale out banks, and the liberal politicians are working non-stop to create a multi-billion dollar healthcare plan that will provide healthcare for illegal citizens, and abortion funding and sex education for our elementary school kids. How bizarre that our national security is not as important to some in our government as a healthcare bill that will keep our children's grandchildren oppressed with massive debt.
Finally, I'm baffled as to how president Obama came up with 30,000 as the final surge number when General McChrystal originally called for 40,000. I understand we have to work with what we've got, but it seems that the president was trying to make some kind of political point when he did not explain why he cut the troop number by 10,000. I sincerely hope I'm wrong when my gut tells me that once again decisions about protecting America have been reduced to nothing more than a pawn in the game of political football. (although I fear I'm exactly on point)
So Virginia, be happy this Christmas, as we are a bit better off than we were yesterday. The president's decision to send more troops after the first of the year, should help calm a region that is rapidly spinning out of control. For the next 18 months you can sleeep a little easier at night. But remember Virginia, life is full of comprimise and you'll never be completely at peace while you walk this earth. July 2011 will be here before you know it my dear, and once again you'll be forced to fear the inevitable when Johnny comes marching home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
