Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"My wife is 6-foot-3 and weighs 300 pounds."
If you want to find the upper ranges of broadmindedness, look to Snyder, OK, where the mayor and a city councilman have resigned rather than give in to local holy rollers outraged that chief of police Tod Ozmun's wife has appeared nude on these here internets.
Ozmun also threw in the towel, saying of his wife Doris (a plus-sized model on web stroke sites who latterly served two years on a drug offense), "My wife is 6-foot-3 and weighs 300 pounds... If there is somebody that thinks they can control her, have at it. I have tried for 11 years and haven't been able to." Chief Ozmun, who looks to be a bit of a scale challenger himself, called the frenzy over the pictures (more than 70 residents besieged city hall calling for his resignation) "ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."
"I think this is wrong and I won't put up with it," said Mayor Dale Moore, who defended Ozmun's performance as chief. "I don't want to work in a community like this."
But the most stinging rebuke came from resigning councilman Clifford Barnard:
"The citizens' concerns that we were not enforcing religious and moral beliefs was very heartfelt and I don't want to be associated with their moral or religious beliefs because I've never read anywhere in the Good Book that the Lord wanted us to persecute those that did not hold the same morals or values."
Chubby chasers alert: If the photo above leaves you wanting more, and you're not disturbed by a little adult content, you can check out Doris' site here.
|9.12.06 @ 7:58PM|#
"I've never read anywhere in the Good Book that the Lord wanted
us to persecute those that did not hold the same morals or
values"
I hate to steal his thunder, but if the Bible had a subtitle, it
could very well be "persecuting those that do not hold the same
morals or values". I don't know, though, persecution probably
doesn't quite describe stuff like Moses slaughtering a good portion
of his own people for the golden calf incident. In defense of the
townfolk, considering what's actually in the Good Book, the
self-restraint of all those folks who claim to follow it is
admirable.
|9.12.06 @ 8:08PM|#
I could see getting outraged if she wore (or semi-wore) a
Canadian flag (They have their own flag, right?) or if with that
one hand up in the air there (Holdin' that much beef over your head
should count as exercise.) she did a Nazi salute, or somethin'.
...but getting all outraged over Caesar's wife not being above
suspicion--but around it and generally all over it too--I don't get
that. It's not like she was out in public.
I suppose it's better that people get all bent out of shape about
this than the pictures on the internet or the books in the public
library or Janet Jackson's pasty. I don't know--I guess I'm feelin'
a little libertarian guilt here. ...I saw a fat woman at the beach
last week, and I have to admit I'm still pretty pissed off about
it. I mean, if we have to have public decency laws, shouldn't they
be good for somethin'?
|9.12.06 @ 8:14PM|#
Oh dear me. I'm so very, very glad I use Firefox - at least I had some preparation first. Oh my... no offense to Mrs Ozmun (truly - she outweighs me two to one.)
|9.12.06 @ 9:11PM|#
Reason comes through where the MSM fails and provides the link -
way to go!
Jeff
P.S. Yikes! But hey, she is livin' large.
|9.12.06 @ 9:14PM|#
Disgusting. I'd vote against the guy for his lack of judgment in marrying that beast.
|9.12.06 @ 9:53PM|#
After opening that string of pop-ups, I feel like the chubby
chasee... I'm lovin' it.
smaacky!
|9.12.06 @ 10:10PM|#
smacky,
Could you arrange for some mud-rasslin' between Doris and Maria
Sharapova?
Imagine the possibilities for big bucks!
|9.12.06 @ 10:59PM|#
Jeez, Doris Ozmun and the Carpet Humping Guy, side by
side.
Thank God I have to scroll down before I see the mullet guy.
|9.12.06 @ 11:29PM|#
So, this is penance for putting up the Miss Pakistani-America picture up last week?
b-psycho|9.13.06 @ 3:00AM|#
This guy has to be in the Guinness Book of World Records for the amount of liquor he drank before marrying THAT thing...
|9.13.06 @ 3:28AM|#
Interesting. Everyone is disgusted by the wife's, ummm, generosity - but not by their decision to skip the first two links and quickly click on what they knew was behind link #3.
Anthony|9.13.06 @ 7:48AM|#
i suspect is the woman was 5 foot 1 and 93 lbs we wouldnt be having this discussion
|9.13.06 @ 9:08AM|#
Ken:
It's not like she was out in public.
Nope, just on the Net, a positively private space.
b-psycho:
How long have they been married? Usually they don't look like that
at 16.
I like the lady. Kindred spirit! Independent, except I wouldn't
have the guts.
Dan T.|9.13.06 @ 9:15AM|#
The obligatory H&R snarkiness aside, isn�t the real question
here whether or not citizens have the right to expect certain
standards of behavior from their elected officials?
I mean, if you're going to be a public servant, you kind of have to
submit to the whims of the public that you serve.
|9.13.06 @ 9:37AM|#
As far as "hitting" something like this, how can one miss? It's like hitting the side of barn with a basketball.
|9.13.06 @ 10:01AM|#
DanT:
Standards of behaviour, sure, it's just whose standards.
The most liberal, the most anal retentive, the most vocal, the
religious...
I'd say the most reasonable, which implies a lot of give and take,
live and let live, apparently unacceptable concepts to a lot of
folks.
Besides, it wasn't about the office holder, it was about his wife.
Surely you're not saying public employees are responsible for their
spouses' and relatives' behaviour?
And I submit to you, if public servants had to submit to everyone's
whim, they'd never get done. Servant isn't the same as slave.
fyodor|9.13.06 @ 10:20AM|#
Dan T,
Oh jeez, do we have to explain it? I guess so. Of course they have
the "right" to demand whatever "standards" they like of their
public officials.
And we have the right to think they're stupid and be all snarky
about it.
And you have the right to question our snarkiness.
And I have the right to think you're a dumbass for framing the
issue in terms of rights.
Blah blah blah blah BLAH.
I do agree somewhat with your second sentence/paragraph. This is
predictable enough to fall into the "what did you expect?"
category. Still, that doesn't make it "okay". Or above our
snarkiness. (Of course, not much is above our snarkiness!)
Dan T.|9.13.06 @ 10:39AM|#
Now if the town of Synder banned foie gras, that would be cause for Reason-approved hysterical outrage!
fyodor|9.13.06 @ 10:48AM|#
Dan T.,
Now if the town of Synder banned foie gras, that would be cause
for Reason-approved hysterical outrage!
Um, yeah. Are you implying there's some kind of contradiction
there? I don't see how. We're against banning things, whether it's
foie gras or appearing nude on the internet, and for allowing
things, as long as they don't violate someone else's rights. Wha's
your problem?
Dan T.|9.13.06 @ 10:58AM|#
Um, yeah. Are you implying there's some kind of
contradiction there? I don't see how. We're against banning things,
whether it's foie gras or appearing nude on the internet, and for
allowing things, as long as they don't violate someone else's
rights. Wha's your problem?
Just pointing out that fundies aren't the only ones who get upset
over minor issues.
And of course nobody is discussing banning nudity on the internet
in this story at least. Not to mention that foie gras production is
(arguably) a violation of animal rights.
|9.13.06 @ 11:00AM|#
The obligatory H&R snarkiness aside, isn�t the real
question here whether or not citizens have the right to expect
certain standards of behavior from their elected officials?
They do. And if their elected officials don't meet those standards
they can get rid of them on election day. The exception being
criminal acts committed by the office holder, not his wife or
cousin.
On a side note - the net has to have done wonders for the
self-esteem of the vast number of people out of the beauty norm.
Now, no matter who you are or what you look like you can go on line
and find someone who wants to fuck you. We are truly living in a
brave new world.
Dan T.|9.13.06 @ 11:03AM|#
They do. And if their elected officials don't meet those
standards they can get rid of them on election day.
Or, they can protest/pressure officials to resign, which is what
happened here. Voting is not the only way for the people to
properly influence government.
|9.13.06 @ 11:12AM|#
"Now, no matter who you are or what you look like you can go on
line and find someone who wants to fuck you."
At least if you're a woman or a gay man.
|9.13.06 @ 11:17AM|#
This Ten Zen Monkeys post has a little more detail about the
questionable past of the Chief of Police and his "uncontrollable"
spouse:
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/09/11/police-chief-porn-queen/
Pro/Anti-Drug War issues aside, it sounds to me like there was a
lot of reason to think that this might not be the guy you wanted
heading your police force. Amusing and typical, though, that a
small town official can do pretty much whatever he pleases except
have an embarrasing wife.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.13.06 @ 11:49AM|#
And of course nobody is discussing banning nudity on the
internet in this story at least.
RTFA:
District Attorney John Wampler has asked the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to look into the matter.
"In my opinion, the photos that I was shown are obscene based on local community standards," he said. "Whether a court would agree may be a different matter."
For my money, that last quote is the most offensive thing in the
story: i.e., I know I'm wasting everybody's time and money, but
it's worth it for my air of propriety.
fyodor|9.13.06 @ 11:51AM|#
Dan T.
Oh, so it's the level of angst versus the level of severity of the
issue that is supposedly making Reason staffers and their allies
hypocritical? And you're apparently equating a couple of blog posts
(written more with eye-rolling humor than teeth gritting anger to
boot, IIRC) with a mass besieging of city hall? Dan T., sometimes
you make substantive points, and sometimes you seem to be latching
onto anything you can possibly find to supposedly discredit we
folks with whom you disagree. It's this latter tendency that gets
you called a troll, cause basically, it's just ridiculous and makes
you look desparate.
|9.13.06 @ 12:03PM|#
"Not to mention that foie gras production is (arguably) a
violation of animal rights."
Is process by which foie gras is created cruel? Maybe so. And maybe
people should think twice about eating it on that basis.
But a violation of rights? Uhh, no. Animals do not have rights,
period. They're animals, not human beings. QED.
|9.13.06 @ 12:14PM|#
Good for them, and for Mrs. Ozmun, too. I'd totally sleep with her, but I'd also love to take her out for coffee. I bet she's awesome.
goldenpig|9.13.06 @ 1:20PM|#
Yes, I have been waiting for H&R to post this link since I
read the story in the newspaper Saturday. Not going to look,
thanks; I just ate. Really, y'all are a little off your game, I
expected it here sooner!
Also, is anyone but me disturbed by how quickly this thread turned
from BBW to foie gras?
|9.13.06 @ 1:37PM|#
"The citizens' concerns that we were not enforcing religious and
moral beliefs was very heartfelt and I don't want to be associated
with their moral or religious beliefs because I've never read
anywhere in the Good Book that the Lord wanted us to persecute
those that did not hold the same morals or values."
Someone doesn't know how to read between the lines.
|9.13.06 @ 2:11PM|#
At least these local taxpayers are getting a freakshow and some good controversy for their $$$. That's gotta count for something.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245