Free-Range Kids

Pedophile Panic at the Salvation Army: No Teen Boys Allowed, Too Dangerous

|

Cold
Public Domain

When it comes to helping families in need, the Salvation Army turns a cold shoulder to one class of people: Teenage boys. A family in Johnson City, TN, found this out recently when, on a freezing cold night, they asked the organization for shelter. But because their family of five contained a 15-year-old boy, they were turned down. 

As the dad, Tim Lejeune, explained to WMC Action News 5:

"They said he's too old to stay on the women's side, because of the women running around in their pajamas and they said he's too young to stay on the men's side in case some pervert wants to do whatever," Lejeune said.

Lejeune says his wife, their 15 year-old son, 16 year-old daughter and five year-old son, all down on their luck, have been living in their car for the last several weeks.

So instead the family headed to their car. The temperature: 18 degrees.

Somehow, local police officers came upon them and brought them to the Johnson Inn. The officers then pooled their money to pay for a room. When the night clerk figured out what was going on, he comped the room, so the officers' money went to groceries for the family.

Meantime, 911 dispatchers who had been in on the action pooled their money to provide the Lejeunes some more food.

And after that, the Salvation Army did take the family inβ€”minus the teen boy.

free-range-kids

He's not sleeping on the streets. He's now in a mental health facility. He had a breakdown, his dad says, because he thought it was his fault the family was turned away from shelter.

I blame a society so obsessed with sex crimes and predators that it has lost its mind. It cannot imagine a 15-year-old male, chilled to the bone, simply and gratefully sleeping through the night. In our worst-first fantasies, which we give the weight of fact, all young men are either innocent victims about to be violated by predators, or predators eager to prey upon innocent victims.

The Salvation Army told WMC it is now reconsidering its longstanding prejudice against teen boys.

That should make us all sleep a little easier.

Reason's annual Webathon is underway! Your (tax-deductible!) gift will help Reasonmagazine, Reason.com, and Reason TV bring the case for "Free Minds and Free Markets" to bigger and bigger audiences. For giving levels and associated swag, go here now

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

313 responses to “Pedophile Panic at the Salvation Army: No Teen Boys Allowed, Too Dangerous

  1. You know reason, none of your readers can donate any money if they all kill themselves after reading your articles. Seriously, this is the worst thing I have ever read on here. Any story where the cops are the good guys is bound to be horrible, but this is worse that usual.

    1. Go to /r/mensrights sometime, this story is typical and not at all suprising. Society is now controlled by feminists who hate boys and men and aren’t afraid to show it.

      1. Oh yeah. Those idiots. They’re as bad as the feminists on the other side.

        No, it’s not a feminist thing, it’s a “WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?” thing.

        1. So you support the college and divorce kangaroo courts that are heavily biased against the male species? Let me guess, you think there is a “War on Women” because the government doesn’t pay for Sandra Fluke’s birth control pills?

          1. Um, wow. That’s Shreek-level reading comprehension.

            (that isn’t a complement, whoever you are)

            1. Lets see actual examples of mens right advocates being “idiots”. I’m sure you have tons of them, being how quickly you resorted to calling them that.

              1. I was not referring to MRAs in general. I was referring to the idiots on that particular subreddit. I’m a libertarian, and I think that the people who post on /r/libertarian and /r/anarchocapitalism tend to be idiots as well. It’s Reddit. It draws in idiocy.

                1. I don’t disagree. I am heavily downvoted for expressing conservative / libertarian opinions even on that subreddit. And then because of the downvotes I can’t post. Talk about a self-defeating echo chamber.

                  But my only point was that you just need to glance at the article headlines to see that this kind of thing is not atypical.

            1. I think he was born yesterday.

    2. You know what is sad, libertarians should be able to love cops. They should be protecting property and tracking down violent criminals, but instead we are stuck having to hope their power will be reined in and accountability imposed. In a better world libertarians would be the police’s biggest supporters.

        1. The pax will be like fluoride- not in the atmosphere.

          1. That would make more sense. When I was in grade school, they made us do fluoride rinses once a week.

            I hated it even then.

        2. Admit it Riven, you aren’t real. You like coffee, firefly, whiskey, weightlifting, freedom, yoga pants, fuck me boots and are bisexual. You do not exist outside of my fantasies.

          1. It’s true. I’m actually just a figment of your whiskey-caffeine fueled imagination. Shhh, shh… go back to sleep.

            (Psst: I like video games and firearms, too.)

              1. but nothing in the ‘verse can stop her.

            1. *contemplates firearms sub-thread; shakes head vigorously*

              SHE IS ALL IN MY MIND!

                1. Definitely one of the weirdest scenes in that movie.

                  1. See, she gets Dune references too. I think she’s just a mass delusion we’re all having or an FBI agent who will trying to get us to plan a bombing or something.

                    1. She may get Dune references, but she also has other qualities that make up for it.

                    2. I will take your water, Mad Scientist.

                    3. I also have a night job as a hit-person. So, if you want anyone to mysteriously disappear, I can totally help with that. My prices are real reasonable, too.

                      /adjusts hidden mic

                    4. Yeah, but you’re probably part of that union… either that or you got some millionaires prized hunting dog blown up.

            2. This is where the camera pulls back, to show an autistic boy and a snow globe.

            3. I think Riven is just Postrell sock puppeting to torture us.

              1. Oh, that’s a solid theory.

                But I really don’t get why Postrel hates us when she’s busy posting ‘Tits for Science’ stuff on twitter.

                1. That’s cold, not that I blame you for your skepticism.

                  Would another unsecured online profile help? (You know, besides the Steam one linked in my handle.) πŸ˜›

                  1. I think he would say yes.

                    1. The answer is always yes, I think.

                      This is my profile on the calorie counting website I use. I think you have to have an account yourself to see many details, but there it is, anyway.

                    2. Wait a minute. Are you telling me Riven’s real, and she’s some kind of fucking minority??? GOD DAMN IT

                  2. I am denied such evil gaming content. I will have to look at that later.

                    1. Yeah, I can’t browse Steam at work, either. Psh.

                  3. Oh yeah, Steam profile pic’s are totally legit. Mine’s Sigmund Freud with a Thompson machine gun, and everyone knows I’m secretly Zombie Gangster Freud.

                    1. You mean you’re not?! How could you lie to me for all these years?

                      Although, my Steam pic and my FitnessPal pic look remarkably similar, with the exception of the haircut I just got.

                    2. As you mentioned above, people can’t see your profile unless they’re your friend on MyFitnessPal. And there’s no way I’m exercising *shiver* just to confirm a theory. I’m just not willing to take that risk.

                    3. I’m willing to be more than just a pretty handle in the commentariat to folks who are willing to do the same. πŸ™‚

                      But I understand your aversion to exercising. I, too, was once a regular person who was not obsessed with lifting PRs.

                    4. I’m 85% certain you’re real. Let’s see a facebook page.

                    5. I don’t have a facebook page anymore. Wah wah… I got rid of it earlier this year because I found it just made me hate everyone on it. Also, I didn’t want to deal with the fallout and ensuing drama after we filed divorce papers.

                    6. Subtract the divorce stuff and it’s the same reason I got rid of mine earlier this year…

                      except I keep the account and messenger to my family can contact me- because they don’t know about email unless it’s through facebook.

                    7. Instagram. You’re a chick, I know you have one.

                    8. Rather, if you are, in fact, female, you’ll have one.

                    9. I don’t have Instagram, either. I actually don’t take a lot of pictures. That’s what instagram is, right? Filters and pictures?

                    10. Hey now, IG isn’t just for wimminz.

                      I think it’s more a generational divide than anything. Gen X will do its facebooking, millenials with their IG. I dumped facebook (reasons for which we discussed and you were supposed to relay so that no one thought I was merely turning into a hermit) but retained IG. I never take selfies or even post photos of myself, but I enjoy showing people the stupid shit I do with my time.

                    11. If I had Instagram, it would be filled with pictures of my dog. That’s it. Nothing else.

                    12. Mine is mostly a mix of photos of my dog, golf courses, food/alcohol, and skyline shots.

                    13. For your eyes only Doyers.

                    14. I meant of the mysterious Riven, who apparently does everything that a libertarian male would find endearing. 2 gud 2 be tru

                    15. I just do everything I think is interesting. If you find that endearing, well, that’s just nice.

                      And I definitely don’t take gym selfies; I have too much shit to do while I’m there to posture in front of a mirror.

                      What would it take for you to believe I am who I say I am? My cell number and noodz?

                    16. Hard proof, aka dick pics.

                    17. Hard proof. xD Wouldn’t that necessitate meeting in person?

                      You’d have to visit Montana because I sure as shit am not planning any trips out to California anytime soon.

                    18. And she lives in Montana??? That’s like libertarian commune territory! Or maybe Wyoming, because Montana’s weed laws suck.

                    19. They really do.

                      Of course, that doesn’t really stop anyone, does it?

                    20. What would it take for you to believe I am who I say I am? My cell number and noodz?

                      No proof you can provide from your allegedly remote wilderness outpost will be sufficient. We will always assume that you’re actually a heavy set woman who lives in a McMansion in TX that loathes us with the fury of a thousand supernovae.

                    21. Meh, close enough, I guess

                    22. There’s a story behind that. Should you stick around (and believe me, your commitment to his community will be tested) you will learn it, through the hushed voices of grown men muttering in fearful tones. Or maniacal laughter. We’re libertarians, those are the only two volumes we have.

                    23. Well, at least I fit in that way. It’s either 1 or 11.

                      I think I’ll stick around to hear the story. I was long-time lurker before I was a humble poster who couldn’t embed a link.

                    24. So it was the tales of Warty that made you confront your ex-husband and tell him you believed there was MOAR for you out there in this world?

                      You lurker types give me an unsettled feeling. I feel I cannot trust one who does not announce their presence.

                    25. It’s all true; I just know that one day, I will help Warty and his Doomcock rule the world.

                      I eventually quit lurking! I think it’s better to read for a while before commenting. At least that way, you’re familiar with some of the standard arguments, etc. and you’re not contributing to redundancy.

                    26. For your eyes only Doyers.

                      Hurtful.

                    27. Should I ever take a gym selfie, you can locate it here.

                      I have now, at great risk to my personal safety, exposed my nekkid soul to teh world of teh series of tubez. May Allah have mercy upon me.

                    28. So instagram is blocked here at work. Surprise, surprise… Have to come back later on my PC and bookmark this for…posterity.

                    29. Like I said, the only photos of me you’ll get on there are the actual profile photo (the kid I’m pictured with being my nephew) and the sporadic photo of myself as a young lad.

                      It’s mostly Dozer (my dog), golf courses, food/booze, and sporting events. But you like dogs and he’s cute so enjoy when you get the chance.

                      I’m patiently waiting for Jesse to friend me so I can DM him all my scantily clad gym shots.

                    30. +1

                      I’m in for the pup, the food, and the liquor.

                    31. What kind of dag, Riven?

                      I really need to get another one; it’s been too long since my last.

                    32. I’m not on Instagram

                      πŸ™

                    33. It is free.

                      And way cooler than teh facebook.

                    34. I’m trying to think of a way to explain why I’m not joining Instagram that doesn’t make me sound like an incredibly cranky old man and am failing miserably.

                      *shakes fist at sky*

                    35. after we filed divorce papers

                      So… you’re single now?

                    36. Steam pic is obviously a fake. Tragic G.I.R.L. detected.

                      No, I’m not going to cross verify from the FitnessPal website, because then I might have to dream up a different type of sour for dem grapes.

          2. It’s always a fat black guy. It’s like you have never even seen ‘Catfish’ on MTV.

            1. You caught me. Here’s one of my more candid moments.

              1. Unlike the heathens that populate this once austere commentariat, I believe you are both accurately represented in your photo as well as your inclinations towards whiskey*, coffee, weightlifting, etc. etc.

                Having said that, you are no true libertarian. I have no support for that proposition other than I am the true libertarian, and like the Highlander, there can only be one.

                *and if you indeed like whiskey as spelled above, you are an inferior breed of creature. Sure, the Irish invented the whiskey. But the Scots perfected whisky.

                1. I prefer whisky, but I spell it whiskey for the heathens.

                  My current favorite is Pendleton, which is a Canadian blended whisky, but I can admit that there’s a lot of whisky and whiskey I haven’t tried. …Yet.

                  As for one, true libertarian, how do you expect to carry on the liberty when there can be only one? πŸ˜› Also, thank you. It’s nice to know I’m not just a farce to some folks.

                  1. My current favorite is Pendleton, which is a Canadian blended whisky, but I can admit that there’s a lot of whisky and whiskey I haven’t tried. …Yet.

                    You have much to learn grasshopper.

                    As for one, true libertarian, how do you expect to carry on the liberty when there can be only one?

                    The libertarian purity test and No True Scotsman conundrum has a substantial lore on H-ampersand-R. I’m merely staking my claim as pontiff of True Libertarianism.

                    1. I’m prepared to learn! So is my liver!

                      Are we in the blood now, so to speak? Competing to be tippy-top libertarian dog? πŸ˜›

                    2. My recommendation, rooted in my own personal alcohol preferences, look for Islay whiskies (Ardbeg, Laphroaig, Lagavulin, Kilchoman). Heavy peat smoke notes. I prefer the ones aged in brandy barrels as I like the complementary flavors of the brandy and the peat.

                      As for competing for being Grand Revolutionary Libertarian Overlord, I’m sorry to inform you that there will be no competition. It has been well established that there are no libertarian wimmynz. The best you can hope for is to be the Jackie O to my JFK.

                      And no, we will not be renting the fucking convertible this time.

                    3. I will do that. The gal who owns the liquor store I frequent likes to talk to me about vodkas and tequilas, but she’s a little butch for my taste. I’ll have to see how much she knows about whiskies and if she could help me out.

                      I’ll take being Jackie O over Yoko, any day. Should be fun. Sort of.

                    4. Yoko would never work for me because a) she couldn’t hold a tune if her life depended on it and b) I’m about the furthest possible thing you can get from all that hippie Lennon BS.

                      I’m more into games of brinksmanship with scary-ass Zangief sumbishes that boldly proclaim “we will crush you.”

                    5. Bourbon please

                    6. Just sayin’ the “one true highlander libertarian” would make their own damn whiskey.

                      Its actually pretty easy, if my hill-billy kinfolk in the smokey mountains can do it so can anyone else with a room temp IQ. The only real hard bit is fermenting the mash and that is more pain in the ass than complicated.

                    7. I brew my own beer. That’s difficult enough with my severe space limitations in my congested city livin’. This is the price one has to pay in order to be able to tell multiple homeless people a day that you will not give them any money.

                      I simply haven’t the room for a bone fide distillery.

        3. Needz moar interstellar

      1. If criminal laws were just, then libertarians celebrate the people who enforce them.

        1. only if the enforcement is just

          and only if they are funded on a voluntary basis

      2. I posted this a couple days ago, but according to the guys over at The Right Stuff cops should be loved regardless:

        “Pinochet needs to become popular again in libertarian circles. A heavy-handed police force isn’t always a good idea but sometimes it is quite proper. Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops. If libertarians are really out to stop crimes against the individual the real enemy isn’t the policeman; it is the street thug and the common progressive. To re-install a libertarian order we will need police, they must become the libertarian’s ally. As Murray Rothbard himself declared: “Cops must be unleashed? and allowed to administer instant punishment.”

        1. “Cops must be unleashed? and allowed to administer instant punishment.”

          Jesus. If that’s not what they’re doing now, I’d hate to see them actually unleashed.

          1. Eh, it’s not quite Santebal (Khmer Rouge secret police) level yet. But according to The Right Stuff, that should be the goal, along with camps for political dissidents and an authoritarian regime (with a lot of racism mixed in). If you see a lot of ‘libertarianism is fascism’ stuff pop up in the near future, it’s probably these guys’ fault.

        2. Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops.

          With the exception of Salt Lake City Utah.

          1. Libertarians, with their penchant for antagonizing the police, need to be reminded that street criminals are far more likely to accost you than the cops.

            I’ve never been accosted by a criminal.

            I’ve been accosted multiple times by police.

      3. You know what is sad, libertarians should be able to love cops.

        As long as they are a monopoly funded through force, I cannot love them.

    3. OK. So I’m an idiot. I don’t get why this is so obviously bad.

      1. Because the 15 year old child can not help that he was born with a penis (apparently the worse crime) yet the Salvation Army people act like being a male automatically makes him some type of predator undeserving of assistance?

        Or maybe that the Salvation Army gets billions in government grants (aka Taxpayer Money) and has no right to discriminate on the basis of gender.

    4. Unfortunately, John, there have actually been problems with this type of circumstance. I volunteer at the Gospel Rescue Mission when there was a debate over this very question: they had a womens’ shelter, and were finding that abused/addicted women and teenage boys were not a really great mix for either party. Eventually they came around to banning single moms with teenagers, simply because there were too many problems which resulted and the liability costs were too high.

      I am inclined to be on your side with this one, but having seen how it shakes out firsthand I’m not inclined to wish the management of those problems on anyone.

      1. I don’t know that the SA was so wrong here for the reason you give. But it is still a depressing horrible story.

        1. Agreed.

      2. ya know they still didnt have to turn the kid out. I can understand not wanting him to stay in a female dorm, but sending a kid out in the street is hardly safer than the male dorm.

    5. You know what? Sometimes the cops ARE the good guys. I don’t understand your problem with this story. Do you think it’s unlikely that a teen boy would be considered a possible predator just because he is male? Do you know how many public parks have rules that no adults unaccompanied by children are allowed in because the assumption is made that they must be predators looking for a child to grab? We live in the world of the sex offender industry. If anything can be twisted to have a possible perverted or dangerous context, someone will twist it that way. I really don’t think it is the ultra-feminists at blame; they just take advantage of it. I put the blame equally on the elements of the media that try to put a sexual/dangerous spin on everything and the politicians who do the same.

    6. Any story where the cops are the good guys is bound to be horrible, but this is worse that usual.

      We’ll need to do tons of research before we can conclude the cops are “good guys”. How do we know the cops didn’t beat the shit out of a homeless man the day before? Or how do we know whether those pooled funds are proceeds from asset forfeitures? The list of potential moral infractions goes on, as it would for any wearer of a badge or member of a mafioso organization. Even Tony Soprano gave to charity.

      1. They are the good guys *in this story*.

      2. So you just automatically assume all cops are up to no good in their spare time? Do you do this with other groups as well?

        I want you to try something for me. Read your own comment back to yourself, only imagine you’re talking about Jews or black people instead of cops. Now tell me how it sounds.

  2. Fuck! I have, previously, had nothing but good experiences with the Salvation Army.

    1. I’m not a big fan of the ex-cons they send to pick up donations.

      1. Ex-cons need jobs too.

        Lest they live on your dime.

  3. As a child i took shelter in the Mexico City Salvation army shelter- my dad, brothers and I on the men’s side and my sister on the womens. She was only 10, but it wasn’t an issue- it was really just for sleeping and bathing.

    We lived there for about a week while my dad got a loan from the embassy (consulate?) for bus tickets back to the states. From there we lived in the salvation army in San Diego- but it was a family shelter and we all stayed together. Soon we transferred to St. Vincent DuPaul where he was arrested for contempt of court while taking me to the bathroom.
    Overall, salvation army was good to me and mine so I continue to repay them. This is a bad policy though. perhaps I’ll write them a letter.

    1. arrested for contempt of court while taking me to the bathroom.

      Huh?

      1. That was my thought, too. Why in the world would they do that?

        1. He didn’t put the seat down after he finished?

    2. custody was changed to my mom after we fled the country for 4 years. It was the loan from the government- and having to send his passport in with repayment- that got him caught.

      He was arrested and we were flown from san diego back to houston to live with our mother we hadn’t seen in 4 years- and her new husband and his kids.

      It was as awesome as you’d expect.

      1. Ouch… Sorry to hear about that. :/ I think you turned out alright, though; you’re here, anyway!

        1. No, I’m better than alright. I’m amazing- my wife tells me that once a month at least! lol

          Also, those 4 years were aweseom (except for the 7 months living in south africa during apartheid.

          1. the most obvious and long lasting impact is my inability to type basic vocabulary words correctly.

            1. I wasn’t going to bring it up. πŸ˜›

              But I’m glad to hear you’re amazing and you’re not the only one who thinks so! (Srs, no sarc)

  4. ……..at least no one got shot?

    1. You’re a cup half full kind of guy, aren’t you?

  5. As a former teen boy, and a looker at that, I can sympathize with the Salvation Army. Everybody wanted me. There was just no getting around it.

    1. “wanted” come on, why the past tense?

      1. Alas, time has made me only desirable to cougars now. And I assume still all gays.

        1. Could be worse. I’m Mormon-bait around here.

          And a cougar would probably give you cab fare to get to her place, in addition to getting you out of her place.

            1. Besides the cab fare, the elusive cougar can also manage to cook without burning or mangling dishes all to shit. That’s got to count for something, right?

              1. “Don’t worry darling, you didn’t burn the beer!”

          1. “Mormon-bait”

            Is that like where you drive a mini-van around without any kids?

            1. hahahahaha!

              it also means that she only teases until marriage.

            2. Hah! No… Mini-vans are for squares.

              But really, it just seems like an inordinate number of Mormons have been interested in me. I’ve yet to discern why, other than various nerdy interests.

              1. 1) you are white (i’m assuming).
                2) you are nice (i’m assuming).
                3) you look like you are interested in having more than 4 but less than 30 children (i’m assuming)
                4) you give a vibe of being cool with sister wives (i’m assuming)

                Put all this together and it’s like mormon spanish fly.

                1. Those are mostly all true, so you have a good point. However:

                  1) None of my tattoos/piercings are visible while I’m dressed.
                  2) I drink and smoke. (The latter, e’erday)
                  3) Not wanting to have kids is why I’m going through a divorce.
                  4) Ok, I probably would be cool with sister-wives if there were also brother-husbands.

                  1. well, 1- they don’t even know about anything that’s not visible when you’re dressed. It’s confusing to them. 2) they think they can cure you of your sin. 3) they probably don’t know that, or – see #2. 4) they hear the first part of that sentence and stop listening.

                    1. Get out of here with your logic!

                      I am pretty superficially friendly, though; I try to compensate for my bitchy-resting-face.

                    2. We’re all only superficially friendly to strangers. That’s how I’m so good at my job.

                  2. Hmm, how quickly can you relocate to LA?

                    1. California? What, you think I have a death wish? Don’t little white girls have a rough time there?

                      Now, if you want to move to Montana…

                    2. I can’t speak for that hellhole that is NorCal, but I can say that LA has plenty of little white girl safe zones. My neighborhood is probably not one of them. I need to buy a shotgun before I can move to Montana.

                    3. I appreciate your honesty. πŸ˜› I guess I could always get my concealed carry, but I don’t think they’d honor it in California.

                      I think they just give you a shotgun when you renew your driver’s license to reflect Montana residency. Pretty sure. Don’t quote me on it, though.

                    4. If you want a concealed carry in CA, just donate to the local sheriff.

                      http://www.mercurynews.com/bay…..i_19521214

                      You’re not getting a concealed carry in LA unless you’re cozy, or know how to get cozy, with the top lawmen.

                    5. unless you’re cozy, or know how to get cozy, with the top lawmen.

                      I think I might rather get mugged and/or shot.

                    6. Oh, well then, I welcome you to my humble abode in South Central. You can be the second white person on the block (after me).

                    7. Did you just record that with your phone from Netflix? How ghetto. You belong here.

                    8. I knew you were my people.

                      As to the quality of the video, I obviously recorded it with the best potato I could find.

                      For srs: beggars can’t be choosers on YouTube.

                    9. Next you’ll link your youtube channel to prove you’re not some libertarian unicorn…

                    10. Are you kidding me? And have you guys rifling through my video history, which consists almost entirely of video game Let’s Plays, lifting technique, and USPSA stuff? No way.

                  3. I’m currently going through a bit of a Jewish streak. The best I can figure is that there are a lot of Jewish girls in the area, they usually have a cultural only relationship with religion, they tend to place value on advanced education, and they are a bit more likely to have red hair (though that last one is more about how I feel about them than the other way around).

                    1. Jewesses are known for their affinity towards backdoor activities.

                    2. /takes feverish notes

                    3. Chris, you are sick.

                    4. Oh yeah, and you’re in LA right? I remember Socal for sure, but checking more specifically. (I’m going to be in San Diego this weekend)

                    5. Ah, heading down to Tijuana for some pillz, eh? Bring those opiates up to Los Angeles and I’m sure I could drag some LA reasonoids out of their hobbit holes for a meetup.

                    6. No time for a trip to LA. Only out for a long weekend, and I already have a football game and surfing lesson to attend.

                    7. Qualcomm is a hideous stadium, FYI. And surfing lessons are for kooks. Just get drunk on the beach and swim out past the waves like us locals do, sometimes the sharks join in on the partay.

                    8. Lame, extend your visit out to Monday, fly out of LAX. You can stay on Playa’s new couch if you promise not to be a kiddy-diddler (he frowns on such things). There will be people socializing. Fun people.

                    9. I already am staying on Monday.

                    10. We’ve got a good group coming together at a divey tikki bar. If you somehow end up free, shoot me an email. Totally understandable if you can’t make it though. SDLA is a bit of a trek.

                      I don’t really know anything about SD commenters or else I’d try to get you in touch.

                    11. He also makes good food

                    12. I’m not feeding you assholes.

                    13. Why would we want you to feed us assholes?

                      (I try not to pedant, but that comma was the difference between grilled pig asshole and not)

                    14. Dunphy’s flying down from Seattle to teach you, right?

                    15. The world needs sick men, Auric. We keep the other sick men from the door.

                    16. The Jewish religion does not attach the guilt to sex the way Christianity does. There is a reason why so many gentiles are so happy to marry Jewish girls and convert. Here is a hint, it is not because the Passover meals are so fun.

                    17. The Jewish girl from our Halloween party is the least guilty about sex I’ve ever met, though I also could have tested that more by telling her that we kept our mutual friend on the couch up so much she finally just called another friend to crash there instead.

              2. You probably look fertile. Let’s hear about your hips.

                1. A regular customer at one of the coffee shops I worked at told me that I had nice child-bearing hips.

                  But he was always saying/doing inappropriate things. I don’t think he was really all there.

                  1. My years at Starbucks were full of odd and overly friendly regulars, peppered with the occasional urine soaked bum.

                    1. You should work for the Starbucks at 6th and Grand. Same mix, different percentages.

                2. You probably look fertile

                  Best internet pickup line EVER!!

                  1. Hey, at least he used a line.

                    I’m sure Warty is used to just casting his gaze in some female’s general direction and then they just gravitate toward him after that.

                    1. I’m sure Warty is used to just casting his gaze in some female’s general direction and then they just gravitate toward him after that.

                      That’s a funny way to describe dragging someone to a basement with a prehensile tentacle-cock.

                    2. Jesse mentioned cock. I think it’s time for some dick pics on this rainy day.

                    3. I think it’s time for some dick pics on this rainy day.

                      Begin the countdown to somebody posting pictures of Nixon…

                    4. Only one person has vault control of my jewels and she hasn’t been seen around these parts for an age.

                    5. WAIT, she has vault control?

                      Why was this not made clear earlier?

                      *Sends angry email*

                      *Sends apology email for angry email and pics request*

                    6. Well, she is the vault keeper. So she controls the release of said pics. Kinda like that big black guy from Thor with the sword.

                    7. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the heart wants what the heart wants, Jesse.

                    8. If my Japanese animes are anything to go by, women are just begging to be dragged off by a prehensile tentacle-cock. Or Japanese animators wish they had prehensile tentacle-cocks. Whatever.

                    9. JT, I think the Japs are just trying to work out the cultural scarring that occurred when American forces dropped Warty on them during WWII. We just said we nuked them to avoid being accused of war crimes.

                    10. Some of that’s actually accurate.

                      Take the Japs’ fetish over panties. That wasn’t a thing until we came along and said that people NEEDED to wear underpants. But then the war hit, and the only people who could afford dainty little panties were ladies of the evening. And now you know the rest of the story.

                    11. As someone with a legit undergraduate degree in asian studies I can say there is truth to this theory.

                    12. That’s what high testosterone gets you. That and premature baldness.

                    13. Yep- I’m too manly for hair!

        2. Milk chocolate is ingredient #1 for love handles you fool.

          1. I quit eating chocolate* for a while. I was blaming it for upsetting my precious, tiny stomach.

            * There is only one kind of chocolate.

            1. Why did you qualify chocolate?

              1. Well what else is he gonna do all day?

              2. Some people think there are other kinds of chocolate besides milk chocolate. I call those people morons.

                1. anything below 75% cocoa is like ordering some fruity drink at a dive bar.

                  You don’t like chocolate- you like sugar.

    2. There was just no getting around it.

      So, you’re fat?

    3. Everybody has a couple of years where they are attractive in some way, some just bloom earlier than others.

        1. Maybe you haven’t bloomed yet?

          Panther time in your future?

          1. Oh, I’ve “bloomed” alright.

    4. As a former teen boy, I wish I had known that simply observing women in their PJs really did render them helpless and innocent.

  6. Somehow, local police officers came upon them and brought them to the Johnson Inn. The officers then pooled their money to pay for a room.

    Well done, cops. Seriously, ya done good.

    And the Salvation Army won’t see me throwing money in their kettles this year, for the first time in a long time.

    1. There are a lot more reasons than this to avoid those red kettles. But this will just go on the list.

      1. This would be a good one to have printed out and ready to hand over when you go by one.

  7. “He ended up having a breakdown and ended up at Woodridge and felt it was all his fault that we were homeless that we couldn’t go anywhere, because of him,” Lejeune said.

    While not the absolute worst result, it’s pretty fucking bad.

  8. There’s a War on Women, haven’t you heard?

    Penises are EVIL!

    EVIL! EVIL! EVIL!

    1. So when’s Zardoz show up? I assume he won’t be spewing guns in this timeline because gun control.

  9. War on boyz!!!!

    Strange how I’ve never heard that from the media even though I’m sure I could come up with a lot more examples than the war on wyminz.

    1. No women brag about having binders full of teenage boys.

      1. I bet I could find at least one.

    2. Coming up with just one would be more.

  10. Pedophile Panic

    Darn fine band name.

  11. Those dang creepy kid touchers are ruining it for everyone!

  12. I’ve got an idea. Instead of turning people away because of what might happen, try calling the cops if something does happen.

    1. What, and get every family in the building shot?

    2. Because bepenised persons are guilty until proved innocent and possibly even upon proof of innocence.

      1. They have penises. What more proof is necessary?

  13. Lejeune says his wife, their 15 year-old son, 16 year-old daughter and five year-old son, all down on their luck, have been living in their car for the last several weeks.

    Apparently you can repeatedly make the same poor decisions, wind up living in your car, and this is described as “unlucky.” That adjective is the most charitable thing in the whole article.

    1. Some people really are that unlucky. They are not that unlucky forever, but they can be unlucky long enough to end up in that position. Bad things do happen and not all homeless are fucking bums who just want to beg and drink all day.

    2. Yep. I volunteered with poor families for years, and it’s the truth. The stories they tell anyone they perceive to be an authority figure, any charity or government worker, anyone in the press: it’s all about their “bad luck,” it’s all about bad things that have happened to them. They’re always “trying to turn my life around.” Their shack-ups are always “my fianc?/fianc?e.” Their kids drop out of school and start mugging people on the bus or whatever, it’s the “system’s” fault. They don’t make bad choices, it’s always, “I was running with a bad crowd.”

      The Salvation Army policy is stupid, unfounded, and cruel, but this is classic dependent-poor bullshit:

      He’s not sleeping on the streets. He’s now in a mental health facility. He had a breakdown, his dad says, because he thought it was his fault the family was turned away from shelter.

      It’s the same vague, melodramatic, urban-legendy half-story you hear from every habitually poor person I’ve ever met. The real story is probably something closer to the 15-year-old got busted shoplifting a hot dog from a convenience store and is really in jail, or he pretended to be suicidal so he could get a warm bed for 72 hours in a hospital, which while not noble acts, would certainly be more honest and understandable than the sketchy tale of woe told by Dad.

      1. Poverty is a moral condition not a monetary one. And yes, most people who are poor put themselves there. But there are exceptions to that.

        1. No John, poverty means you don’t have very much money. That’s it. You are not anyone’s moral arbiter, and having money has absolutely no correlation to being morally upright. That’s a story asshole rich people tell themselves so that they can feel good about being assholes.

          Even if you insist that poverty is a moral failure (again, whose morals?), you cannot say that children of poor parents are committing the same moral crime. Are they not victims through and through?

          It’s clear that this is a central belief that informs your politics. Even if it were correct, though, your politics don’t follow once you acknowledge that there are children in the world. Does every child, poor or rich, really have an equal shot at success in adulthood? If not, what the fuck does morality have to do with any of it?

          1. Tony,

            Poverty is not about money. If it were, we could solve poverty by giving people money. And we can’t. There are professional athletes who have made over a 100 million dollars and still ended up broke and back where they started. Why? Because they never left poverty. Poverty is about a lack of values, judgement and decision making skills. Money doesn’t change any of that. This is why helping people is so difficult. Writing them a check doesn’t ever help.

            I would explain further but you too far gone to ever understand it. You are too fanatical and too ruled by politics and too pig ignorant to ever think that poverty is something beyond money. So I won’t waste any more time trying to beat my head into this rock.,

            1. Presumably because you know you’re not going to be able to stick with this evidence-free quasi-racist hogwash and come out looking like a winner.

              Yeah, actually, giving poor people money actually makes them make better choices. You are more free to make good choices when you are desperate and starving. Your children (gonna respond to that point at least?) are better equipped to make good choices with an education (which costs money).

              Financial literacy is important for anyone with money, and apparently well-paid athletes tend to miss that class on the path to being paid millions of dollars to bash their heads into other people. Who could predict such a thing?

              Address the central point: What about children of poor parents? Are they morally unfit too? I totally agree that educating people about financial literacy is important, but the money itself is important too. Or are extremely poor parts of the world merely suffering from epidemics of moral depravity?

              1. Short of taking away people’s children for the crime of being poor, there are few things that can be done because you can’t help the child unless you can first help the parent.

                1. How about having a sophisticated social safety net so that nobody has to suffer lifelong disadvantage because of their parents’ financial situation? If leaving the poor to natural selection is all you got, then I’m gonna look somewhere else.

                  1. How about having a sophisticated social safety net so that nobody has to suffer lifelong disadvantage because of their parents’ financial situation?

                    That’s a capital idea!

                    I question if you are for such a wonderful set of institutions, you support the Democratic party, who wants the state to provide shitty one-size-fits-all monopoly that consumes vast amounts of surplus wealth with little to show for it.

                  2. Their lifelong suffering is from the stupidity genes of their parents along with the parental abuse/neglect. Economics has next to nothing to do with it.

                    The Progressive solution is to make all “at risk” children wards of the state, where the state’s agents will then either coerce/abuse them or ignore/neglect them and make them fend for themselves anyway.

              2. Presumably because you know you’re not going to be able to stick with this evidence-free quasi-racist hogwash and come out looking like a winner.

                It’s not racist, unless you are a the sort of racist who equates black people with poor people.

                Yeah, actually, giving poor people money actually makes them make better choices. You are more free to make good choices when you are desperate and starving. Your children (gonna respond to that point at least?) are better equipped to make good choices with an education (which costs money).

                No it doesn’t. Otherwise the scions of wealthy families of the 19th century would still be running the show. Instead we have the truism of “shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations”. Lottery winners generally blow their money and return to the standard of living they experienced prior to their windfall.

                Because attitude matters. Yes, people can suffer setbacks. Yes people can get lucky or suffer terrible misfortunes. But in general, over the long run, a person’s income and wealth are the product of their habits, prudence and temperance.

                1. I’d like a) evidence that habits are the primary factor significantly outweighing sheer luck and b) an argument for why people having bad habits is both a product of free will and an excuse for not providing a safety net.

                  1. I’d like evidence that a social safety net doesn’t enable and encourage bad habits.

                    1. Okay. *Points at planet earth.* Notice the countries where people are relatively wealthy, healthy, educated, and happy? Notice the countries where people are relatively poor and miserable? Now compare the level of sophistication of their safety nets and draw what conclusions you wish.

                    2. Now compare the level of sophistication of their safety nets and draw what conclusions you wish.

                      YOu mean that wealthier people can afford better safety nets?

                      Yes, I believe Adam Smith wrote about that in his book on morality.

                    3. Notice the countries where people are relatively wealthy, healthy, educated, and happy? Notice the countries where people are relatively poor and miserable? Now compare the level of sophistication of their safety nets and draw what conclusions you wish.

                      The differences among those countries come from the sophistication of the culture, not of the welfare system.

                    4. It seems that a strong welfare system is at least strongly correlated with a decent place to live. No decent place lacks one.

                    5. It seems that a strong welfare system is at least strongly correlated with a decent place to live.

                      Interesting. I would have said that the more people in any given area that are using the strong welfare system, the less likely that particular area is going to be a decent place to live.

                    6. You’re perfectly capable of understanding the concept of social insurance. If more people are on the dole it usually means the economy is in worse shape (we don’t tend to expand benefits too often), and that of course is the entire goddamn point. That’s what a safety net or a floor means. Individual people are less subject to the chaotic habits of the economy. It’s just like regular insurance, the only difference is that unlike with a car we can’t opt not to have bodies and brains. Since your only real problem is that taxes are taken to pay for it, the only hump you have to get over is your anti-tax obsession, which isn’t consistent anyway.

                    7. It’s just like regular insurance, the only difference is that unlike with a car we can’t opt not to have bodies and brains.

                      It’s not insurance. Insurance is based on actual risk and cost.

                      Since your only real problem is that taxes are taken to pay for it,

                      No, the real problem is what it pays for, which is not just a “safety net” but economic incentives that hurt the very people that ostensibly are being helped.

                      People do not oppose higher taxes, welfare spending, or other government programs because they are greedy or stingy, they oppose them because they are harmful to society: they fail to achieve their intended goals, they create poverty and dehumanize people.

                    8. If giving money to people harms them, then why should we ever cut taxes?

                    9. Correlated as a cause or an effect?

                  2. I’d like a) evidence that habits are the primary factor significantly outweighing sheer luck

                    Why don’t you start with Napoleon Hill’s Think and Grow Rich? It’s an entire book on the subject.

                    an argument for why people having bad habits is both a product of free will and an excuse for not providing a safety net.

                    I’m not sure why you think anybody here is opposed to safety nets for the poor. We may be opposed the the government providing a safety net, because the state’s safety nets tend to be like its inner city public schools – money pits which actually do nothing to help the poor while consuming money that could be used to expand the economy or in more effective forms of charity.

                2. You are more free to make good choices when you are desperate and starving.

                  Way to miss John’s point. Which is not that people make better choices when they are desperate and starving, but that people who make bad choices even when they are not desperate and starving tend to be the ones who end up desperate and starving.

                  In logic, if A causes B, it does not mean that one thinks B causes A. And your desperate attempt to pretend that John is arguing poor people are bad people when in fact he is arguing merely that people who engage in bad behaviors will end up in poverty no matter what is pretty pathetic.

              3. Your children (gonna respond to that point at least?) are better equipped to make good choices with an education (which costs money)

                Throughout history societies have had institutions that educated the children of paupers. Schools had scholarships. Schools would take on pupils who would work in the school to earn their room and board. Charitable organizations and wealthy individuals would sponsor kids to attend schools. Religious orders would run schools.

                Then there were the apprenticeships and employment opportunities that are now largely outlawed.

                Of course, nowadays the state provides public schooling, with per pupil costs that rival tuitions at the finest schools, that graduate students who are innumerate and often illiterate. You support this system, despite the fact that it essentially is the social darwinism you claim to decry.

                1. Kids in public schools do perfectly fine if the school has adequate resources. There is ample evidence for this, and the only realistic argument is that we should find a way to get money to the less-furnished schools, perhaps develop a national plan to adequately fund schools system-wide. “Leave it to charities” is obviously not sufficient and an absurd hand-wave.

                  1. Kids in public schools do perfectly fine if the school has adequate resources.

                    You mean that $10,000 per pupil is inadequate? That NYC needs more than $20,000 per pupil per year to teach kids how to read and do math?!?

                    Let me guess, you hope to win the argument by inducing your opponents to laugh so hard that they die of cardiac or respiratory arrest…

                    1. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to advance with that article, which is only about the disparities in public school funding to which I referred. I don’t know how many dollars it takes to adequately educate a person. It’s hardly a cheap thing. What about correlating that data with data on educational outcomes? I could be wrong but I don’t think a disproportionate number of well-educated people are coming from the stingy states.

                    2. I don’t know how many dollars it takes to adequately educate a person. It’s hardly a cheap thing.

                      I wonder if there are alternative educational institutions that provide an adequate education but that spend substantially less than $10,000 per child.

                      I guess that’s crazy talk. What government should do is tax people’s money away, and then loan it back to them through school bond issues and such so that schools can be funded at the necessary levels.

                    3. I suppose that education funding in this country is wildly inefficient as it is not centrally funded. The same thing causing the large disparities in funding and outcomes. If it were made a national funding priority, such as say old-age income guarantees, maybe it could approach the efficiency as, say, Social Security.

                    4. maybe it could approach the efficiency as, say, Social Security.

                      Public education is shitty enough as it is without also running an increasing deficit between revenues and benefits.

        2. I recognize that there are people who are temporarily poor; I was one of them, when I was a college student. This is why I said “habitually poor” and “dependent poor.” There are people who make smart choices but still have shitty luck (i.e. they’re laid off) but they usually manage to get back up on the horse, because they’re not dumb, and they don’t assume someone else is responsible for their rescue.

          1. It makes for better capitalism when bad luck (or poor choices, or bad morals) means merely that you have less income, not that you have to live in your car and scrounge for food. People without a safety net are either dead or a drain. With one they can contribute back in consumer spending and not using emergency room resources, etc., which makes for a healthier economy anyway.

      2. I am gonna second John by seconding Paper Wasp.

        I have extensive experience with this. The chronically poor I have known made breathtakingly bad decisions on a daily basis.

        The vast majority were easily diagnosed with personality disorders or mental illness. Thus the chronic nature of their poverty.

        On the other hand, I have seen people of sound mind reared in poverty easily and quickly raise themselves out of it the moment they were making their own decisions.

        1. So, to draw conclusions from your post….

          Being poor yet continually voting for progressive policies and candidates (or even NOT being poor but continually supporting progressive causes) despite the fact they have a track record of NOT helping poor people at all is an example of repeatedly making breathtakingly bad decisions and a good sign of mental illness.

          Which means that progressives and their supporters are either mentally ill themselves or evilly exploiting the mentally ill.

        2. So does an advanced civilized society leave the mentally ill to fend for themselves on the streets? Is that good for anybody?

          Whether you claim poverty is the result of bad morals or mental illness, it doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t do anything about it. Whether we do is entirely a question of whether we’re empathetic and sophisticated enough.

          1. So does an advanced civilized society leave the mentally ill to fend for themselves on the streets?

            Are you not capable of fending for yourself?

          2. So does an advanced civilized society leave the mentally ill to fend for themselves on the streets? Is that good for anybody?

            Advanced civilizations generally just lock the mentally ill up against their will or send them to camps in Siberia.

            Fortunately, we are not that advanced. We offer them the option of getting treatment, but give them the freedom not to make other choices.

            I hope we will never turn into an “advanced civilization”.

      3. Paper Wasp quoted the part that I also thought didn’t pass the smell test.

        The fact that news outlets continually print/report like this makes the news outlets look either lazy or dishonest.

  14. I worked for an organization that, after Katrina, took in and cared for 300+ refugees from New Orleans. For a year or so a substantial portion of our staff, me included, spent our entire efforts on that end.

    I dealt with all of the relief organizations. The only one worth a damn was the Salvation Army. Within two days of the refugee’s arrival they were given packages of food, clothing, blankets, toiletries, school supplies, medicines etc, etc. All they had to do was show up and get the stuff. If not for the SA those people would have been in serious trouble. Every other organization funneled them into a byzantine maze of bureaucracy that took months to navigate and in the end only gave them a pittance of what they actually needed.

    This story kills me. I thought they were better than this.

  15. “They said he’s too old to stay on the women’s side, because of the women running around in their pajamas and they said he’s too young to stay on the men’s side in case some pervert wants to do whatever,” Lejeune said.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ve also had problems with perverts on the women’s side, as well. The thing about these organizations is that they help a large population of homeless and mental illness types, and (especially on the women’s side) a whole lot of sexual abuse. Doesn’t look so good on the advertising tin, but all that stuff makes for a really fucked-up person sexually speaking, so many of these types of organizations ban families with teenagers due to the staggering number of problems with socialization.

    Unless you have enough cash to cover your liability, your choice as an agency is pretty much between being *very* selective about the adult population you allow to stay, or in effect banning teenagers.

    1. Yes, this sounds like another sad, unintended consequence of third party liability law.

      1. It really is a sad consequence.

        I don’t know if there’s any good way to resolve it, TBH. I don’t think it’s the fault of feminists that it is the case, though.

        1. In a manner of speaking there is a “good way”, and that is “simply” to abolish the ridiculous stretch of liability that’s occurred. But there’s no “good way” to do that, because it exists diffusely in legal culture, and attempts to ameliorate it legislatively would almost surely make more things worse than would be made better.

  16. A family in Johnson City, TN,…

    So rock me momma like a wagon wheel
    Rock me momma any way you feel
    Heeeeeeeeeeey momma rock me…

    1. I much prefer the Old Crow Medicine Show version of that song.

      Hootie should have stuck to what he knew.

      1. You might be real Riven. You have finally revealed a flaw. I hate that fucking song. It is like Exile in Loserville. How can you listen to that song and not hope the protagonist gets run over by a truck? Dumb fucker loses all of his money gambling in Boston and is hitchhiking back home to his hillbilly g/f in North Carolina. And gets all the way to NE Tennessee and he can’t call her to come get him?

        1. < blockquote You have finally revealed a flaw
          Patriarchal bastard! I’m a strong woman with zero flaws! /sarc

          I’d love to explain why I enjoy that song, but it’s just acoustically appealing to me for whatever reason. I’d like to say that the uncomplicated nature of it makes it an easy listen, but then I’ll turn around and listen to Loveshack, so… Who knows?

          The heart wants what the heart wants, John!

          1. Musically it is a good song. I liked it when I first heard it. I just made the mistake of paying attention to the lyrics and that ruined it for me. It is actually a Bob Dylan song. It never fails to amaze me how often some random song turns out to be written by Dylan.

            And there is nothing wrong with Love Shack. That song swings and any song that swings isn’t bad. Its not the rock that matters, it is the roll.

            1. Honestly, before you so explicitly stated what it was about, I only had a vague idea. Some guy gambles a little, then tries to thumb his way out to see his lady, ???, profit.

              I love Love Shack. I’m not even afraid to admit it. I even like Rock Lobster, despite your assertions of the importance of roll over rock.

              1. Rock Lobster Swings too. That is totally what it is about. He gets pickup by a truck driver on I-81 and bums some dope and gets dropped off in Johnson City Tennessee, which is like 30 miles from North Carolina and can’t be far from where he is going, but the girlfriend can’t come pick him up and he is still hitchhiking. My take is that she has moved in another b/f and doesn’t know he is coming. I think she is rocking someone else’ wagon wheel.

                1. Well, you did say that she’s a whitetrash hillbilly, maybe the only car she owns is up on blocks.

                  1. Probably. But that is still consistent with her having a new wagon wheel.

            2. Check out “Love Psych” by Neil Cicierega, which mashes up “Love Shack” with…if I told you, I’d spoil the surprise.

        2. Gambling in Boston? They haven’t even broken ground on the Everett casino yet!

      2. I agree Riven.

        What the hell John? Have you never heard a single blues, country, bluegrass song? Run together they are just an endless series of self-inflicted disasters. Celebrations of stupidity, vice, envy, jealousy, dishonesty and avarice.

        1. I have heard them all. And that one is especially pathetic and annoying. It is not soulful, it is whinny and pathetic.

          What makes the sorts of songs you mention great, is that they are either completely dark and about suicide and death or they have a devil may care sort of “this sucks but I gotta get drunk anyway” tone to them. This song is just about some guy who lost all his money and is running home to mama.

          Contrast this to a song like “Up on Cripple Creek” where they guy is talking about going back to Louisiana where he can drink and sponge off a fat chick who is glad to have the attention. That is loserville I suppose but it is not the pathetic end.

          1. Well, that’s The Band. They tend to inject class into everything. Hell, they made Joni Mitchell almost half-decent in the Last Waltz.

            1. They are one of the great American bands ever. They are everything the Grateful Dead liked to pretend they were but couldn’t be because they couldn’t sing as well and were not the musicians the Band was.

              1. Great American band is four-fifths Canadian πŸ˜› Stealth Canadians strike again! Helms, the American really was their defining vocalist though.

                1. They were a great American band who did American music. How four Canadians who joined an Arkansas Blues group as teenagers did that, just proves that genius knows no bounds.

                  I sometimes think that you have to grow up around music and in the right place to really understand it and make it well. But then I remember a kid from Toronto wrote songs like Up on Cripple Creek and a hippie kid from Berkley wrote “Born on the Bayou”, a song Holling Wolf would have been proud to have written, and I realize it just takes genius.

          1. Here is a good modern “fuck you and leave” country song.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY2GraGRMdU

            But it is not pathetic. It is a good sarcastic drunken rant at a woman who is leaving telling her not to let the door hit her in the ass on the way out.

          2. I don’t know why this isn’t considered country- but it is.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKL4X0PZz7M

  17. I hate to say it, but the Salvation Army’s fears may be well-founded. Here in Tulsa they regularly take in registered sex offenders, including pedophiles who have recently been released from prison. So, who should they turn away? A lot of pedophiles who REALLY need the Salvation Army’s help, or a teenage boy?

    1. Of course the only reason that the SA is filled with sex offenders is because laws make it effectively illegal for them to be anything but homeless. There is that.

    2. In 18 degree weather, they should turn away no one. Otherwise they’d be guilty of saving him from a fate worse than death.

      1. Exactly. Sometimes you tell the insurance company and the lawyers to go fuck themselves and assume some legal risk. You don’t turn a family down and send them to the car in 18 degree whether when you have room for them.

        1. A barn was good enough for Jesus.

          1. Yes. And in my made up story a ditch is good enough for the meatball sent by the FSM and his noodlely appendage.

          2. Actually, I think that Jesus was born in the ground floor area of a house owned by one of Joseph’s relatives. The room translated “inn” is the same word that’s translated (roughly) “upper furnished room” at the end of the Gospels, when Jesus is having His final meal with the disciples.

            The implication is that Mary is pregnant, everybody except Mary and Joseph think it’s Joseph’s baby, and they’re both poor, so they get relegated to the “Mother-in-law apartment”.

  18. Does this really count as a “Free Range Kids” problem? Kicking teenagers out into the street seems pretty free range to me.

  19. Hmm… the cops being the good guys, and Riven being a libertarian woman into all sorts of cool stuff. Either one of those things begin true is like saying the Sun rises in the West.

  20. Interesting the 5 year old boy isn’t a problem.

    1. Presumably he stays with the mother.

  21. I did some special duty working with Army families that had instances of child and spouse abuse in the mid 80’s. The womans’ shelter was run by feminists and wouldn’t take boys over 13 or so. Real animosity towards men. I was on call 24 hours in my shift, with the home phone numbers of all the county judges in my pocket, for emergency orders to take custody of abused children. The shelter people would not let me know the location of the shelter, or even the phone number, because as a man, I might help some homicidal man kill his estranged wife. That’s what they said. If I wanted to get a women into the shelter, I had to contact a woman on staff and relay the info to her. I haven’t thought of that for almost 30 years. Mean work all around. Hurt kids, raped kids, starved kids, dead kids.

  22. FRY: “Hmm, not sure is faith in humanity is restored, or still disgusted at world.”

  23. How are you going to blame the charity of an organization you would blame for turning away all the derelicts of whom some may be pervs? The dad is right though. Society is to blame because there are so many pervs that it constitutes a legit fear. It’s an ultra-sexualized nation. You gotta expect plenty of pervs. The SA was looking out for the kid.

    1. RE: Looking Out for the Kid

      Hardly. If they really were ‘looking out for the kid’, they’d do as Christ commanded…..

      ….Going the extra mile!

      But they didn’t. Did they…..

      1. ADDENDUM:

        Indeed. The SA acted like the Levite in Christ’s parable of the Good Samaratan.

        1. I know, right? And all those other people that the SA was sheltering that night just don’t count. People don’t have a right to manage their own property; it’s wrong for a charitable organization to turn anyone away for any reason that people outside the organization disagree with.

    2. by telling him his family was better off in a frozen mini-van? Isn’t that punishing the “victim”? Anyways its always nice to hear a cop story that doesn’t end with an unarmed dude being shot 36 times.

  24. It’s obviously the Christian thing to do.

    1. I know; this one instance invalidates every good thing that the SA ever did or ever will do. The Gov’t should shut them down and take over their facilities, because we just can’t trust private charities once they make a mistake.

  25. RE: Taking Council of Their Fears

    Typical of politically correct bureaucrats.

    I used to admire the SA. I used to throw $5s, $10s and $20s at their bell ringers. I haven’t been to a Target store since they stopped allowing them there.

    NOT ANY MORE!

    1. Same here and same here. Salvation Army is one of the few charities I’ll toss a few bucks to. And I’ve been staying away from Target since Target gave them the bum’s rush. Turning away the boy, well, that was just wrong.

  26. Man, that’s a really sad story.

  27. Those Lefties are generally evil, they live in a world of evil, and they presume that everyone else does too. Righties are generally honorable, they live in a world of honor, and they presume that everybody else does too. Resolution is impossible.

  28. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  29. Salvation Army Captain Michael Cox says the organization has a longtime policy that prohibits boys ages 12 to 16 from staying at the shelter. According to Cox, the policy is in place for safety reasons; ultimately to protect children.

    Cox says space limitations at the shelter do not allow the building to house maturing boys. He says that policy has only been an issue once before in the last decade or so. That said, he says the Salvation Army is now revisiting its shelter policy.

    “It was an unfortunate situation altogether, because we did not have the facilities to put that family in place,” Cox said of the situation. “We did offer further assistance and that was denied.”

    I wonder what that further assistance was?

    1. RE: Offered Assistance

      Yeah. Good question. Maybe a hot cup of coffee before being kicked out the door.

  30. TO: All
    RE: Heh

    I tried to communicate with the SA on their national web-site. They don’t allow for e-mails or phone calls, as they provide no information on contacting them by such means.

    Obviously, they’re as unwilling to communicate with the general public as Obama is.

  31. RE: Additinally

    We’re talking SERIOUS SEX DISCRIMINATION as well as AGEISM here.

    Apparently they don’t worry about lesbians……and I have to wonder why.

  32. The obvious solution to this is to have the SA censured, and possibly bring legal action. Starting an alternate charitable organization to house people in distressed circumstances takes too much work.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.