"Case closed."
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label death. Show all posts
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Celebrity Death Text, #10
From Nate Eppler, via Chris Bosen:
"There are only two sure things in life: death and saxes."
"There are only two sure things in life: death and saxes."
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Celebrity Death Text, #7
Two for one today, both from Nate Eppler:
"The funeral will not be televised."
And:
"Greased."
"The funeral will not be televised."
And:
"Greased."
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Celebrity Death Text, #6
Quick update for a very sad celebrity death text:
"Ooooooh Noooooooo!" - from Nate Eppler
or
"Snap into a casket!!!" - from Dustin Schletzer
or
"Snap into a pine tree!!!" - from Nick Phillips
or
"Off to the steel cage in the sky." - me
I can't express how hilarious it is that "Celebrity Death Text" has caught on at a local level. I even sometimes get texts from people wondering "what will the text be?" when celebrities die. Is it morbid? Perhaps. Is it tasteless? Usually. Is it hilarious? Always.
"Ooooooh Noooooooo!" - from Nate Eppler
or
"Snap into a casket!!!" - from Dustin Schletzer
or
"Snap into a pine tree!!!" - from Nick Phillips
or
"Off to the steel cage in the sky." - me
I can't express how hilarious it is that "Celebrity Death Text" has caught on at a local level. I even sometimes get texts from people wondering "what will the text be?" when celebrities die. Is it morbid? Perhaps. Is it tasteless? Usually. Is it hilarious? Always.
Friday, January 7, 2011
A Very Serious Look at the Second Amendment
[*Author's note: I must give props (or a terrorist fist bump, if you watch Fox News) to D. Eric Setterlund for the subject of this post. It was our conversation and his info that put this into my head.]
As law school semester 4 draws nigh, I figured it may be time to write a law-related post.
Not to be confused with this law-related Post.
No, the issue we at Boss Blog would like to tackle is one of much more importance, one of much more gravitas, one that is much more topical:
The Second Amendment.
Now, perhaps you've heard of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sure, that sounds familiar. Popularly, the Second Amendment is constantly being overshadowed by the First Amendment, who perpetuates the idea among all the other Amendments that the Second Amendment is just the "first loser." That First Amendment sure can be a dick. It's like he just gets to say whatever he wants.
Except "tits."
Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the Second Amendment's meaning or anything (you can enroll in law school or join the NRA for that), but I do want to talk about a particular ruling from the Supreme Court and how that could affect the Second Amendment's application, and how that could potentially ruin your world. Now, don't worry, this isn't going to get political - we're all going to laugh along the way, and maybe at the end you'll have learned something, too.
NOTE: for all you legal-types that might be reading this, you can skip ahead to the part below about the Second Amendment specifically, as I will be discussing the Citizens United case and how rights are incorporated for the uninitiated. Or you can read it, and then call me out for my oversimplification of what is probably a very complicated issue...
We turn our attention first not to the Second Amendment, but instead to the prevailing notion that corporations are treated like people under the law, receiving many of the protections citizens have, because of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Notwithstanding a compelling argument that this is not case precedent, but instead an erroneously over-cited headnote to a case (see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)), the modern American system of jurisprudence does extend many rights to corporations as if they were people.
See, the 14th Amendment is a really important Amendment to the Constitution. Before we get into how that works, though, a little background:
You probably didn't learn this in high school or college US History (I guess you have to spend another $80,000 or so to get the real knowledge, but I'll give it to you for free), but it turns out that our forefathers were REALLY concerned with the government they were creating having too much power. These were guys that rejected the English monarchy, after all, so they were very protective of states' rights, and wanted to make sure their Federal government didn't overreach. As a result, all those "rights" in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, jury trials, freedom from having to quarter troops, etc.) were rights you had as a citizen of the US, but not necessarily rights you had as a citizen of your state. They wanted to make sure the states were sovereign and could decide things for themselves. As a result, the Constitution had to be ratified by the States for them to be part of the Union, but not everything in the document was binding on the States.
Say what?!
Don't make him say it.
Yeah, I know, Arnold, but it's true. Over time, a lot of these rights were extended to citizens of each state, meaning their local governments weren't allowed to pass laws that infringed on them (e.g. Tennessee can't pass a law that says Tennesseans are not allowed to protest in a public park). This process was called "incorporation", meaning some rights in the Bill of Rights were now "incorporated" to the states.
So, how did they decide which ones were incorporated and which ones weren't? Well, we could spend an entire semester on that (and if you enrolled in Steve Mulroy's Constitutional Law class you did ... my God, did you), but basically the rights that were deemed "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition" were the ones the Supreme Court said were incorporated. Slippery test, eh? Anyway, like I said over time a lot of these rights were incorporated.
Enter the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment guarantees "due process" to all citizens of the States before they can be deprived of their life, liberty, or property. Further, all citizens of a State are guaranteed equal protection under the laws of their jurisdiction, and no state can abridge the privileges or immunities guaranteed to these state citizens by the federal government.
So, that's a lot, right?
The 14th Amendment said no state can pass laws that take away your federal "privileges and immunities" (like speech), no state can pass laws that don't provide for "equal protection" (like de-segregating the schools), and no state can deprive you of your life, liberty, or property without "due process" (meaning you get a proper trial on the one hand, or if the right is SO fundamental, they can't touch you at all - like marriage, oh wait...).
So you see the 14th Amendment became the shortcut to "incorporation" of those other rights that weren't incorporated yet to the states. If a right given by the Constitution to the citizens of the US (but not necessarily the citizens of the States) was "fundamental," then the 14th Amendment came along and said it was incorporated to the states.
Let's add that up:
If a right is fundamental, then it is incorporated to the citizens of the states. If a corporation is a citizen of a state, then it also is guaranteed the rights of citizens of the state.
Exactly. So a corporation, even though it's definitely not a person, has rights.
Weird.
This is where Citizens United enters the picture.
Maybe you remember this decision? It's the one that President Obama called out the Supreme Court justices for during his State of the Union address in 2010.
"I'm looking at you, Samuel Alito."
Basically (like very basically), it said that there were not differences when people spoke or when a corporation spoke, because they both had First Amendment protection.
The case was about campaign finance. Citizens United wanted to show Hilary: The Movie via On-Demand TV within 30 days of a primary. This is not allowed under a previous ruling and statute that said corporations can't use their general fund for "electioneering," and that regulation of political speech is OK if you're talking about a corporation as the speaker.
Well, the Supreme Court came along and overruled that stuff, saying that based on the First Amendment, which is "incorporated" to all citizens of all states, corporations have the right to political speech just like you and I do. So a corporation can engage in political speech and no one can stop them.
Without getting into a huge debate here, can anyone see how that could be bad?
Maybe/maybe not.
So let's add that up:
If the First Amendment has been incorporated to each state in the US, then all citizens of those states have the right to speech outlined in the First Amendment. If a corporation is deemed a citizen of State, then they have the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment (even political speech) just like a citizen of the state has, too.
Exactly. That's what Citizens United says.
Great, so how does the Second Amendment play into that? "From my cold, dead hand," and all that hoi polloi?
Going back to our initial discovery that not all the rights in the Bill of Rights were guaranteed to every state, it turns out the rights in the 2d Amendment are some of those. So that whole debate on gun control that raged throughout the 1980s (and through today) needed to be decided by the Supreme Court. Could a state ban the sale of a weapon? Could there be any regulation of firearms in this country?
Well, states certainly tried that, and garnered both failure and success. We're not going to debate gun control pros and cons (save that for family gatherings with relatives from Arkansas or Michigan, right?), but we are going to cover the next development in our discussion of this "incorporation" business:
Two very important Supreme Court decisions that decided the fate of the 2d Amendment and whether your state government or federal government could pry that gun from your "warm, alive hand."
Too soon?
The first, D.C. v. Heller, held that the 2d Amendment was incorporated to the District of Columbia, because that's federal territory, and that the 2d Amendment guaranteed an individual right, so the powers-that-be didn't have as much regulatory power as they thought they did.
The second, McDonald v. City of Chicago, held that the 2d Amendment outlined a fundamental right, thus it is incorporated to the States because of the 14th Amendment.
Now, these cases didn't do away with regulation of firearm possession completely (much to the chagrin of militia-nuts across the country), but it did go a long way in saying that it is a fundamental right to have a weapon, thus there are very strict rules about the regulations that are allowed.
So now that we have all the pieces, let's add it up:
If the 2d Amendment is a fundamental right, then it's incorporated to the states, meaning every citizen of every state has a right to keep and bear arms.
If a corporation is a citizen of a state, then it has the same rights as a citizen of that state.
Thus, a corporation has the right to keep and bear arms.
Go ahead and say it.
That can't be right, can it? Surely people can see why this would be bad, right? Regardless, it could be true. I wouldn't doubt that a few corporations will try, and it will take a Supreme Court ruling to decide the matter.
Why don't we go ahead and look into the future and see how this will play out.
If Corporations Have 2d Amendment Rights, the World is Over as We Know It,
by Carl Eppler:
If corporations are extended the rights of the 2d Amendment (since they are considered citizens and citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right of arms bearing) then the following things will happen:
"They threw in the reflective face-shield for free!"
"Your options have vested. Fully."
then become this:
"Your options have vested. Partially."
quickly devolving to:
"The only option is: Death to all who oppose me!"
"Listen, we really need to get those quarterly reports done, okay?"
then become this:
"Listen, we really need to get these launch codes ready, okay? And are those quarterlies ready yet?"
ultimately ending in:
"Listen, we really need to get those quarterly reports done, okay?"
"Yeah, I didn't wear a tie today, we're just really down-to-earth here at Blackwater, Inc."
then become this:
"You really need to come to GRIPS with the stock-splitting plan. Har, har har!"
resulting in:
"No, I don't mind the title Vice President of Henchmen, I just feel like whenever I put a proposal in the shareholder report, no one takes it seriously."
I think I've made my point, right?
We know exactly how this will play out, America! We've seen it for years in important societal commentaries like G.I. Joe and James Bond films. We have to be alert to the corporate menace that are "ruthless, terrorist organizations determined to rule the world and also turn profits each quarter in order to keep their stock price high!"
Again, I bet this happens. I have no doubt a corporation will push the issue of: stockpiling weapons, or making their employees carry guns, or hiring mercenaries in the HR department, or holding another company hostage with a hydrogen bomb, and eventually the State will step in and shut them down, and then they'll sue the State and the Supreme Court will have to decide. That, or we'll have to start a daring special missions force to stop them. Worse yet, we may have to hire a British secret agent to infiltrate them and have sex with their most beautiful corporate assistants (I guess that's the same thing, isn't it?).
It's like inventing a robot that can punch people. Everyone agrees that's stupid, right? We know how that will end because we've seen Terminator, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Wargames. Who would be dumb enough to put money into researching that?
Oh. My. God.
So please, Supreme Court, be aware of the warning signs and don't let this happen. Don't let yourselves become the next robotic punching bag for "science" ripe for eventual enslavement by machines.
And next time you see a memo at your workplace that says:
"TO: All partners
FROM: Destro Labs, Inc.
RE: Increasing Global Presence via Weather Domination"
please take heed, and don't say I didn't tell you so.
As law school semester 4 draws nigh, I figured it may be time to write a law-related post.
Not to be confused with this law-related Post.
No, the issue we at Boss Blog would like to tackle is one of much more importance, one of much more gravitas, one that is much more topical:
The Second Amendment.
Now, perhaps you've heard of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Sure, that sounds familiar. Popularly, the Second Amendment is constantly being overshadowed by the First Amendment, who perpetuates the idea among all the other Amendments that the Second Amendment is just the "first loser." That First Amendment sure can be a dick. It's like he just gets to say whatever he wants.
Except "tits."
Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the Second Amendment's meaning or anything (you can enroll in law school or join the NRA for that), but I do want to talk about a particular ruling from the Supreme Court and how that could affect the Second Amendment's application, and how that could potentially ruin your world. Now, don't worry, this isn't going to get political - we're all going to laugh along the way, and maybe at the end you'll have learned something, too.
NOTE: for all you legal-types that might be reading this, you can skip ahead to the part below about the Second Amendment specifically, as I will be discussing the Citizens United case and how rights are incorporated for the uninitiated. Or you can read it, and then call me out for my oversimplification of what is probably a very complicated issue...
We turn our attention first not to the Second Amendment, but instead to the prevailing notion that corporations are treated like people under the law, receiving many of the protections citizens have, because of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Notwithstanding a compelling argument that this is not case precedent, but instead an erroneously over-cited headnote to a case (see Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)), the modern American system of jurisprudence does extend many rights to corporations as if they were people.
See, the 14th Amendment is a really important Amendment to the Constitution. Before we get into how that works, though, a little background:
You probably didn't learn this in high school or college US History (I guess you have to spend another $80,000 or so to get the real knowledge, but I'll give it to you for free), but it turns out that our forefathers were REALLY concerned with the government they were creating having too much power. These were guys that rejected the English monarchy, after all, so they were very protective of states' rights, and wanted to make sure their Federal government didn't overreach. As a result, all those "rights" in the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, jury trials, freedom from having to quarter troops, etc.) were rights you had as a citizen of the US, but not necessarily rights you had as a citizen of your state. They wanted to make sure the states were sovereign and could decide things for themselves. As a result, the Constitution had to be ratified by the States for them to be part of the Union, but not everything in the document was binding on the States.
Say what?!
Don't make him say it.
Yeah, I know, Arnold, but it's true. Over time, a lot of these rights were extended to citizens of each state, meaning their local governments weren't allowed to pass laws that infringed on them (e.g. Tennessee can't pass a law that says Tennesseans are not allowed to protest in a public park). This process was called "incorporation", meaning some rights in the Bill of Rights were now "incorporated" to the states.
So, how did they decide which ones were incorporated and which ones weren't? Well, we could spend an entire semester on that (and if you enrolled in Steve Mulroy's Constitutional Law class you did ... my God, did you), but basically the rights that were deemed "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" and "deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition" were the ones the Supreme Court said were incorporated. Slippery test, eh? Anyway, like I said over time a lot of these rights were incorporated.
Enter the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment guarantees "due process" to all citizens of the States before they can be deprived of their life, liberty, or property. Further, all citizens of a State are guaranteed equal protection under the laws of their jurisdiction, and no state can abridge the privileges or immunities guaranteed to these state citizens by the federal government.
So, that's a lot, right?
The 14th Amendment said no state can pass laws that take away your federal "privileges and immunities" (like speech), no state can pass laws that don't provide for "equal protection" (like de-segregating the schools), and no state can deprive you of your life, liberty, or property without "due process" (meaning you get a proper trial on the one hand, or if the right is SO fundamental, they can't touch you at all - like marriage, oh wait...).
So you see the 14th Amendment became the shortcut to "incorporation" of those other rights that weren't incorporated yet to the states. If a right given by the Constitution to the citizens of the US (but not necessarily the citizens of the States) was "fundamental," then the 14th Amendment came along and said it was incorporated to the states.
Let's add that up:
If a right is fundamental, then it is incorporated to the citizens of the states. If a corporation is a citizen of a state, then it also is guaranteed the rights of citizens of the state.
Exactly. So a corporation, even though it's definitely not a person, has rights.
Weird.
This is where Citizens United enters the picture.
Maybe you remember this decision? It's the one that President Obama called out the Supreme Court justices for during his State of the Union address in 2010.
"I'm looking at you, Samuel Alito."
Basically (like very basically), it said that there were not differences when people spoke or when a corporation spoke, because they both had First Amendment protection.
The case was about campaign finance. Citizens United wanted to show Hilary: The Movie via On-Demand TV within 30 days of a primary. This is not allowed under a previous ruling and statute that said corporations can't use their general fund for "electioneering," and that regulation of political speech is OK if you're talking about a corporation as the speaker.
Well, the Supreme Court came along and overruled that stuff, saying that based on the First Amendment, which is "incorporated" to all citizens of all states, corporations have the right to political speech just like you and I do. So a corporation can engage in political speech and no one can stop them.
Without getting into a huge debate here, can anyone see how that could be bad?
Maybe/maybe not.
So let's add that up:
If the First Amendment has been incorporated to each state in the US, then all citizens of those states have the right to speech outlined in the First Amendment. If a corporation is deemed a citizen of State, then they have the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment (even political speech) just like a citizen of the state has, too.
Exactly. That's what Citizens United says.
Great, so how does the Second Amendment play into that? "From my cold, dead hand," and all that hoi polloi?
Going back to our initial discovery that not all the rights in the Bill of Rights were guaranteed to every state, it turns out the rights in the 2d Amendment are some of those. So that whole debate on gun control that raged throughout the 1980s (and through today) needed to be decided by the Supreme Court. Could a state ban the sale of a weapon? Could there be any regulation of firearms in this country?
Well, states certainly tried that, and garnered both failure and success. We're not going to debate gun control pros and cons (save that for family gatherings with relatives from Arkansas or Michigan, right?), but we are going to cover the next development in our discussion of this "incorporation" business:
Two very important Supreme Court decisions that decided the fate of the 2d Amendment and whether your state government or federal government could pry that gun from your "warm, alive hand."
Too soon?
The first, D.C. v. Heller, held that the 2d Amendment was incorporated to the District of Columbia, because that's federal territory, and that the 2d Amendment guaranteed an individual right, so the powers-that-be didn't have as much regulatory power as they thought they did.
The second, McDonald v. City of Chicago, held that the 2d Amendment outlined a fundamental right, thus it is incorporated to the States because of the 14th Amendment.
Now, these cases didn't do away with regulation of firearm possession completely (much to the chagrin of militia-nuts across the country), but it did go a long way in saying that it is a fundamental right to have a weapon, thus there are very strict rules about the regulations that are allowed.
So now that we have all the pieces, let's add it up:
If the 2d Amendment is a fundamental right, then it's incorporated to the states, meaning every citizen of every state has a right to keep and bear arms.
If a corporation is a citizen of a state, then it has the same rights as a citizen of that state.
Thus, a corporation has the right to keep and bear arms.
Go ahead and say it.
That can't be right, can it? Surely people can see why this would be bad, right? Regardless, it could be true. I wouldn't doubt that a few corporations will try, and it will take a Supreme Court ruling to decide the matter.
Why don't we go ahead and look into the future and see how this will play out.
If Corporations Have 2d Amendment Rights, the World is Over as We Know It,
by Carl Eppler:
If corporations are extended the rights of the 2d Amendment (since they are considered citizens and citizens are guaranteed the fundamental right of arms bearing) then the following things will happen:
- Corporations will begin purchasing weapons. Not to stockpile or anything, just to have them, you know, because they have to protect themselves. Don't worry, we'll keep them in a locked safe, unloaded.
- Corporations will hire private security forces. Now that other hostile corporations have weapons, we really need to protect ourselves from those other irresponsible gun-owning corporations. Some of those guys really put the "hostile" in "hostile take-over." Zing!
"They threw in the reflective face-shield for free!"
- Corporate CEOs will start off looking like this:
"Your options have vested. Fully."
then become this:
"Your options have vested. Partially."
quickly devolving to:
"The only option is: Death to all who oppose me!"
- Board meetings will start off like this:
"Listen, we really need to get those quarterly reports done, okay?"
then become this:
"Listen, we really need to get these launch codes ready, okay? And are those quarterlies ready yet?"
ultimately ending in:
"Listen, we really need to get those quarterly reports done, okay?"
- Shareholders and VPs will look like this:
"Yeah, I didn't wear a tie today, we're just really down-to-earth here at Blackwater, Inc."
then become this:
"You really need to come to GRIPS with the stock-splitting plan. Har, har har!"
resulting in:
"No, I don't mind the title Vice President of Henchmen, I just feel like whenever I put a proposal in the shareholder report, no one takes it seriously."
I think I've made my point, right?
We know exactly how this will play out, America! We've seen it for years in important societal commentaries like G.I. Joe and James Bond films. We have to be alert to the corporate menace that are "ruthless, terrorist organizations determined to rule the world and also turn profits each quarter in order to keep their stock price high!"
Again, I bet this happens. I have no doubt a corporation will push the issue of: stockpiling weapons, or making their employees carry guns, or hiring mercenaries in the HR department, or holding another company hostage with a hydrogen bomb, and eventually the State will step in and shut them down, and then they'll sue the State and the Supreme Court will have to decide. That, or we'll have to start a daring special missions force to stop them. Worse yet, we may have to hire a British secret agent to infiltrate them and have sex with their most beautiful corporate assistants (I guess that's the same thing, isn't it?).
It's like inventing a robot that can punch people. Everyone agrees that's stupid, right? We know how that will end because we've seen Terminator, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Wargames. Who would be dumb enough to put money into researching that?
Oh. My. God.
So please, Supreme Court, be aware of the warning signs and don't let this happen. Don't let yourselves become the next robotic punching bag for "science" ripe for eventual enslavement by machines.
And next time you see a memo at your workplace that says:
"TO: All partners
FROM: Destro Labs, Inc.
RE: Increasing Global Presence via Weather Domination"
please take heed, and don't say I didn't tell you so.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Celebrity Death Text, #5
This one came today from my brother, Nate, as a response to my own. He definitely one-upped me regarding Harold Gould, the actor who played 'Kid Twist' in The Sting:
"Stung."
Nice work, Nate.
"Stung."
Nice work, Nate.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
A Hilarious Celebrity Death Text I Received...
I received this celebrity death-text recently:
"Gary Coleman's casket - it already has his name on it."
Amazing. Big ups to Jennifer Sutch, knocking it out of the park on her first celebrity death-text!
"Gary Coleman's casket - it already has his name on it."
Amazing. Big ups to Jennifer Sutch, knocking it out of the park on her first celebrity death-text!
Friday, May 28, 2010
Celebrity Death Text, #4
"Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, St. Peter?"
or
RIP Gary Coleman, cause of death: different stroke. [*thanks, Nick Phillips!]
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Celebrity Death Text
C-Murder. Eppi Pen. Amon-Ho-Teppler. Epp. Soul Brother No. 2.
I've been known by many names, but I'm here to let you know that I'm for realz on the intehnets.
The last time I blogged, it was over at Myspace. I'm sure you all remember Myspace, right? That fake social networking site (so 2005) that my brother Nate dubbed, "The Detroit of the Internet"? Well, for all its shortcomings, the one feature I did like on Myspace was that it had blogging built in. I found that when I did blog, it turned out pretty funny. And 2 or 3 people even read the thing! Minimal interweb celebrity was at my fingertips...
But then Myspace got played out by Facebook (just like Detroit got played out by...every other available city in the US), so I had to make the switch.
So this brings me to my first proper post: Celebrity Death Text.
What is Celebrity Death Text?
Celebrity Death Text is a competition my brother and I inadvertently came up with (due to the advent of text messaging, picture phones, and the continuing trend of celebrities dying) back in 2005.
"I bet his last words were: Motherfucker."
I laughed out loud. I had not heard that Richard Pryor had died, and I was saddened to find that out, but this was the best way for the news to be delivered.
From that day on, whenever a celebrity died, it was sort of a race to see who could send the text first, and who could be the funniest. It really didn't matter the level of celebrity or notoriety either, we Epplers are equal opportunists. There were a couple that were untouchable though (James Brown, Michael Jackson, Steve McNair, I think Ted Kennedy - that one would be too easy anyway), we're not totally bereft of hearts, you know.
Some highlights from this endeavor:
Peter Tomarken (the former host of Press Your Luck, died 2006)- "...and stop"
Howard Zinn (famous historian, activist; died 2010) - "History."
Mary Travers (of Peter, Paul, and Mary; died 2009) - "Maybe she should have hammered out cancer."
Paul Gleason (character actor, best known for Principal Vernon in The Breakfast Club; died 2006) - "He got the horns."
And there were others, all distinctively hilarious...but the undisputed winner (authored by me, I might add) was:
"See you later, alligator."
So, the tradition continues to this day (as celebrities will not stop dying), and I encourage you, dear reader, to get in on the action. As soon as you see a celebrity has died on AOL, get out your phone, take a pic, come up with a cold-heartedly hilarious tag-line, and send it off. You'll make someone's day, as long as it's not the widow/er.
I've been known by many names, but I'm here to let you know that I'm for realz on the intehnets.
The last time I blogged, it was over at Myspace. I'm sure you all remember Myspace, right? That fake social networking site (so 2005) that my brother Nate dubbed, "The Detroit of the Internet"? Well, for all its shortcomings, the one feature I did like on Myspace was that it had blogging built in. I found that when I did blog, it turned out pretty funny. And 2 or 3 people even read the thing! Minimal interweb celebrity was at my fingertips...
But then Myspace got played out by Facebook (just like Detroit got played out by...every other available city in the US), so I had to make the switch.
So this brings me to my first proper post: Celebrity Death Text.
What is Celebrity Death Text?
Celebrity Death Text is a competition my brother and I inadvertently came up with (due to the advent of text messaging, picture phones, and the continuing trend of celebrities dying) back in 2005.
- a little background may be in order: my brother Nate is the smartest and funniest person I know. He would tell you that I'm smarter, but I know the only reason he tells people that is to make me feel better about myself, so maybe I am smarter than him since I can see through his facade? But maybe he knows that I know, thus making it all the more apparent how much smarter he is than me under those circumstances. Either way, he would not tell you that I'm funnier.
"I bet his last words were: Motherfucker."I laughed out loud. I had not heard that Richard Pryor had died, and I was saddened to find that out, but this was the best way for the news to be delivered.
From that day on, whenever a celebrity died, it was sort of a race to see who could send the text first, and who could be the funniest. It really didn't matter the level of celebrity or notoriety either, we Epplers are equal opportunists. There were a couple that were untouchable though (James Brown, Michael Jackson, Steve McNair, I think Ted Kennedy - that one would be too easy anyway), we're not totally bereft of hearts, you know.
Some highlights from this endeavor:
Peter Tomarken (the former host of Press Your Luck, died 2006)- "...and stop"
Howard Zinn (famous historian, activist; died 2010) - "History."
Mary Travers (of Peter, Paul, and Mary; died 2009) - "Maybe she should have hammered out cancer."
Paul Gleason (character actor, best known for Principal Vernon in The Breakfast Club; died 2006) - "He got the horns."
And there were others, all distinctively hilarious...but the undisputed winner (authored by me, I might add) was:
"See you later, alligator."
So, the tradition continues to this day (as celebrities will not stop dying), and I encourage you, dear reader, to get in on the action. As soon as you see a celebrity has died on AOL, get out your phone, take a pic, come up with a cold-heartedly hilarious tag-line, and send it off. You'll make someone's day, as long as it's not the widow/er.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)