profile image

Ben Garrett

Write. Hike. Eat. Repeat.

I am a 30-something journalist from East Tennessee. My wife and I (and our twins, and dog, and 3 hermit crabs) reside on the eastern boundary of the Big South Fork, where I am editor-publisher of the hometown newspaper and she is an elementary school teacher.

Why are we all trying to speak for the Duggar victims?

I told you a few days ago why I can’t condemn the Duggar family — specifically, parents Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar — for the way they handled a pretty horrific family nightmare about 12 years ago. Many of the folks in my circles agree with me. Not surprisingly, there are a number who don’t. And that’s okay.

But I believe as firmly now as I believed then that much of the outcry around this surrounds the fact that the Duggars are a prominent Christian family and they’re despised by many in mainstream America for that fact. That doesn’t mean that folks aren’t allowed to criticize the Duggars, whether they’re Christians or not. We all have a right to our own opinion. But as a defense of my point of view, I point you to the snarky tone of many of the mainstream media stories about this incident — such as the New York Daily News

There are two additional points I’d like to make. 

1.) Josh Duggar’s crimes are being judged as those of 27-year-old Josh Duggar rather than those of 14-year-old Josh Duggar.

In the last post, I mentioned the fact that our justice system treats juvenile offenders much differently than adult offenders in most circumstances. 

Understand that I’m not defending what Josh Duggar did as a 14-year-old. And, thankfully, I don’t know anyone who is trying to defend what Duggar did. Fourteen years of age is plenty old enough to understand right from wrong. I was plenty old enough by that age to understand that doing what he did would’ve been a manifestation of pure evil. I think you know that as clearly at the age of 14 as you do at the age of 27.

In the eyes of the law, though, there is a clear difference. 

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard (or read) that Josh Duggar should be in jail right now…well, I’d have a bunch of nickels. But here’s the thing: even if Josh Duggar had been prosecuted for what he did, he would not be in jail right now. In fact, his time spent in anything even remotely resembling a jail would’ve been very short-lived. Actual incarceration, if any, would’ve been served in what is commonly referred to as a “group home,” a rehabilitation center for troubled youth. 

Do we know for sure that Josh Duggar would have even been incarcerated? That would take someone with a much better understanding of juvenile law in the State of Arkansas, but it’s a possibility to be considered. I’ve read several who have better knowledge of these situations than myself who have written that even if the matter had been reported to police right away and child services had gotten involved, the way it was handled is similar to the way it would’ve been “officially” handled. Again, I don’t know; I’m hardly an expert in that arena. But I’m pretty sure that all of the sudden legal experts that we’re seeing pop up on Twitter and Facebook probably don’t know a lot more about this aspect of the situation than I do.

The fact that Josh Duggar was 14 when he committed his crimes doesn’t make his actions any more excusable, nor does it make them any less harmful for his victims. But the passage of time — 12 years and counting — does matter.

If Duggar had been processed through the legal system at the age of 14 and had undergone a court-ordered rehabilitation program, this would all be considered part of the settled past by now. It wasn’t processed through the legal system, and so now the public wants its pound of flesh. It’s been suggested by some that Duggar’s children should be removed from his home and by many more that he should serve jail time. Yet, if the case had been prosecuted in a juvenile court and a conviction had been obtained, Duggar would not have been prevented from having children and he would not have served jail time in any format that we think of jail time. As a 14-year-old, Duggar had no say-so in how his infractions were handled, even if he did personally benefit from the decisions of the adults in his life. 

Even if we agree that Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, and the since-disgraced state trooper friend, and the church elders, and everyone else who knew of this acted selfishly, wrongly and not in the best interest of the victims, how does that change things now? 

2.) Why are we all trying to speak for the victims? 

That’s the most important aspect, to me, and also the part that everyone is glossing over. 

So many times over the last several days I’ve heard someone say the victims are being ignored, or it has become all about Josh Duggar and not about the victims. 

Clearly, the victims do matter. Molestation isn’t a laughing matter. It can leave emotional scars that take a long, long time to heal — scars that actually never do heal. And it can be even worse when the offender is a family member, living under the same roof. I personally know folks who were molested as a child and it’s something that some of them struggle with even now, as adults. 

But it takes real audacity on our part to try to speak for the victims. 

Apparently, Josh Duggar inappropriately touched and fondled five girls, four of which were his sisters. So we don’t know who one of the victims was. But we pretty much know who the other four were, because there were only five sisters in the home 13 years ago. And here’s the thing: Each of those five sisters are now adults. The oldest is 25 and the youngest is 18. They’re still very active members of the family.

The narrative from those doing much of the criticizing has been that Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar were so intent on saving their son (or simply covering up his crimes for personal reasons) that the plight of the girls was ignored. It’s even been suggested that their brother might have continued his pattern of molestation after 2003.

As children, those girls would have had little recourse if their needs and rights were being trampled by the Duggars’ parenting decisions. But, as adults, would they not break away from the family if they felt disenfranchised by what their brother did? There are few families in America whose lives are as public or are lived as illuminated as the Duggars’ are. If the Duggar daughters — the victims — are just putting on a front for the cameras, they’re awfully good actors.

In fact, one of the probable victims’ father-in-law has been very vocal in his defense of the Duggars — which, of course, has earned him the same scorn from the masses who are eager to mock the Christian faith.

The Duggars don’t get a free pass on this because they’re Christians. God forgives the sins of his people, but there’s a separate score to settle in the eyes of man. That’s as it should be. But if you remove the aspect of Christianity from it, you’ll likely find that there’s much less controversy surrounding the way this was handled.

The covenant revealed

I wonder what Noah’s first impression was when he stepped out of the ark and saw the rainbow

I’m not sure, but I’ll bet it wasn’t, “Dude, we gotta put this on Instagram!,” which was my kids’ first impression when they saw this spectacular dome rainbow tonight. It was perfect timing between the setting sun and rain to our west just before 9 p.m., creating the appearance of a bubble in the eastern sky.

Rainbow

Wet, mild the general rule for Summer ’15?

El Nino summers always have a chance of being wet and mild for our neck of the woods, and it appears that’s the way the summer of 2015 will play out.

It’s been a wet year to date here on the Cumberland Plateau, with well-above-normal precipitation thus far. We’ve received 28 inches of precipitation so far in 2015 (the normal for this time of year is 21 inches), despite a couple of abnormally dry periods through much of March and again at the end of April.

While El Nino — a warming of the sea surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean — usually means hot global temperatures, its impacts on the South can be wet and mild weather. 

The current El Nino pattern is the first since 2009-2010. You may remember that 2009 was “the summer that wasn’t a summer,” with much below-normal temperatures and above-average rainfall for the Cumberland Plateau and much of the Mid-South.

This El Nino pattern hasn’t reached the intensity of the pattern in 2009-2010, which was a moderate-to-strong El Nino, but we’re getting into moderate territory on the scale — which makes this just the second moderate El Nino pattern in 13 years.

El Nino’s impacts on our weather pattern aren’t written in stone. But this one appears to be playing out according to the playbook, at least thus far.

NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center isn’t ready to say it’ll be a wet summer for us just yet. The CPC forecast suggests a slight chance for above-normal precipitation for Tennessee and the entire Southeast for the month of June. But the three-month forecast for June-August calls for an equal chance of above or below normal precipitation for Tennessee, with the above-normal precipitation chances limited primarily to Florida, the Gulf Coast and the Great Plains. 

Meanwhile, CPC’s temperature forecasts for June and for June-August calls for below-average temperatures to be limited to Texas and the southern Plains (with above-average temperatures for Florida and the East Coast), with equal chances of above- or below-average temperatures for much of the Mid-South. (For the record, the CPC is currently forecasting above-average temperatures for our entire region for the next two weeks.)

But here’s what Accuweather has to say about Summer 2015 in its most recent forecast, published two weeks ago: 

From the Southeast to the Gulf Coast and Tennessee Valley, the summer of 2015 will bring very wet conditions as result of warm water temperatures in the northern Gulf and a building El Nino. Flash flooding could be a concern at times.

“I would consider stocking up on the bug spray this year down across the Tennessee Valley and the Gulf Coast because it looks very wet,” Pastelok said.

Extreme heat should be kept at bay, but high humidity and muggy conditions will plague the region.

As for tropical activity, the northern Gulf states could be affected as early as June.

“Water temperatures are running much warmer than last year,” Pastelok said. “It may not take much to spawn a weak tropical system to enhance the rainfall on the Gulf Coast this year.”

Take that for what it’s worth, which may not be much, because Accuweather has a habit of hyperbolizing its forecasts. But there’s probably a better chance of above-average rainfall and mild temperatures, a la 2009, than below-average rainfall and hot temperatures, a la 2007. 

Meanwhile, The Weather Channel is also forecasting below-average temperatures this summer for much of the South (with the exception of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina. Interestingly, TWC’s map expects the temperatures to follow state boundaries almost perfectly…go figure).

Why I can’t condemn the Duggars

As I watch people on social media comment on the Josh Duggar fiasco, one thing I keep going back to is Daniel Hood at the University of Tennessee.

Hood was a 13-year-old in Sullivan County in the early 2000s when he participated in the brutal rape of his 14-year-old cousin. Hood didn’t actually rape her, but he watched as a 17-year-old friend did and even helped duct-tape the girl’s wrists. A jury found him guilty in juvenile court. 

Six years later, Lane Kiffin offered Hood a scholarship to play football at Tennessee — a move that athletics director Mike Hamilton signed off on.

There was compelling evidence that Hood should be given a chance by Tennessee. Knoxville Catholic High School had already given him a second chance, and he had earned a 3.8 GPA and a 27 on his ACT. He would go on to become a model student-athlete at Tennessee — never in trouble, never in the headlines.

In 2009, when Kiffin offered Hood a scholarship, many UT fans initially balked at the decision, but almost all of them gradually came around. Comments flooded the UT message boards that were along the lines of, “We all did things at 13 that we regret,” or “What he did as a child shouldn’t be held against him as an adult.” Fans embraced Hood with open arms.

As I read my social media feeds this week, some of my friends who I distinctly remember coming to Hood’s defense in 2009 are railing against Josh Duggar — he should never be allowed to work around children, they say. The Duggars’ show should be yanked by TLC. He and the rest of his family are hypocrites. 

Duggar was 14 years old when he apparently fondled several underage girls — including his sisters — in 2002. His parents — Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar — placed him in a treatment program and, from all indications, his behavior changed and was not repeated. His wife says he confessed what he had done to her two years before they were married. 

In other words, it appears — from all outward indications — that Daniel Hood and Josh Duggar are a lot alike. They committed pretty horrific and inexcusable sexual crimes as young teenagers, but they also learned from their mistakes and earned second chances.

Except Duggar shouldn’t be afforded a second chance, if you believe some folks on social media, because he’s a Christian.

Well, they don’t say it in so many words, of course. But it’s apparent enough in the words they do say.

That isn’t to say that everyone has to be okay with what Duggar did. You don’t have to feel that TLC made a mistake in pulling the show and its reruns from the air, or that everything should be hunky-dory in light of these allegations. 

But when I see specific people who I recall defending Daniel Hood now condemning Josh Duggar, I can only shake my head. 

Truth is, many people in America despise the Duggars because of who they are and what they stand for, and they’ve been waiting for an opportunity to tear them down. And so the second chances and forgiveness that exists for secular America doesn’t exist for the Duggar family. 

Again, that isn’t to say that everyone who is truly disturbed by these appoints is just looking for an opportunity to bash Christians. I know some Christians who have a real problem with what was learned about the Duggar family this week. But I think we can all agree that for some of those — and the number is perhaps significant — who are so vehemently critical of the Duggars right now, the family’s faith and their public stances on issues involving faith are a primary reason why.

And that’s sad. Not surprising; in fact, it should be expected. But sad still.

I’ve often said of folks who wind up on the wrong side of the law that mistakes don’t define character; it’s how we respond to them that defines our character. And, by all accounts, the Duggars responded to this in a way that positively defines their character.

The media has feigned disbelief that Jim Bob Duggar didn’t report his son’s transgressions to police, using words like “bombshell” and “shocking” and “disturbing” to express their dismay. But as social commentator Matt Walsh aptly points out

I know I’m opening myself up to serious criticism here, but let me be honest with you: If my own son, God forbid, came to me and admitted to doing what Josh Duggar did, I don’t know that I’d immediately run to the cops.

Would you? Is it really that simple? The decision to have your child arrested as a sex offender would be an automatic thing for you? Really?

I guess I’m just a horrible person then.

I’ll admit that when I first read that Jim Bob Duggar didn’t notify police, my reaction was, “Whoa!” Then I thought about it. How many parents would go to police in situations like this, as opposed to trying to get help for their child in a manner that did not include law enforcement? None of us truly knows, as individuals, how we would react until we’re placed into a situation like that. But I think we can safely say that most parents — almost all, probably — would react the same way Jim Bob Duggar reacted.

That’s simply parental instinct. Once police are involved, the courts become involved. Josh Duggar would have been removed from the family, placed into state’s custody, and spent time in youth rehab facilities. (And, as a side note, teens who are placed in those facilities are often exposed to a criminal element that can lead them further down the path of self-destruction. Obviously that wasn’t the case for Daniel Hood, but it’s the case for too many juvenile offenders who wind up incarcerated and placed in programs intended to help rehabilitate them.) 

I think most families would act in a manner to preserve their family and keep it intact, if they felt that was possible. 

If young Duggar’s behavior had continued and more girls had been victimized because appropriate action was not taken to stop his behavior, I would be at the front of the pack in calling for the Duggar family to be wiped from any position of influence within American society. But that didn’t happen.

Many of those who are so critical of the Duggar family are tossing about words like “hypocrite,” scoffing at the entire Christian faith. Again, I turn to Walsh, who’s much better with words than I and, as is almost always the case, hit the nail squarely on the head with his thoughts on the situation:

A Christian failing to live up to his faith does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him cowardly, perhaps. It makes him selfish. It makes him flawed. It makes him sinful. It makes him any number of things, but not necessarily a hypocrite. A hypocrite is an insincere person who misrepresents his own beliefs. But saying that you believe something is wrong, only to turn around and do it, doesn’t prove that you never held that belief. It just proves that you were too weak to stand by it.

Actually, we don’t even know if Josh Duggar was a person of faith at the age of 14. (I’m sure that information is out there, but I’m too lazy to dig for it.) But assuming that he was, Walsh is exactly right when he points out that even though Duggar’s behavior was “horrendous” and “disturbing” and “evil,” Christians do make mistakes, “which is the whole reason why Jesus died on the cross.” 

That doesn’t excuse what Josh Duggar did. It isn’t an attempt to minimize what he did. But let’s not forget that he was a 14-year-old when these things happened. There are a reason why juveniles are treated differently by our system of justice — because, as a general rule, we don’t want mistakes committed by our youth to define their entire lives.

While recidivism is quite high among sexual offenders as a general rule, research has also shown that the passage of time greatly reduces the risk of recidivism across all types of crime. That’s why, in most states, juvenile records are sealed. For all intent and purpose, it’s as if the crime they committed never occurred. Later, as an adult, when they’re asked by a potential employer at a job interview whether they have a criminal record, they can legally say no. 

In America’s juvenile justice system, people aren’t supposed to be raked across the coals for offenses they committed as juveniles. Josh Duggar was never charged with a crime. Maybe he should’ve been, but that’s a different argument. Even if a secular Josh Duggar had been charged with a crime as a 14-year-old, the passage of 13 years without recidivism would be enough to make it okay in the minds of most Americans. Walsh points out several examples of celebrity types who have been excused in the court of public opinion for sexual-based offenses — and many of them occurred after those examples were adults. 

So why is the sauce that’s good for the goose not also good for the gander? If anyone can come up with any logical reason other than “because the Duggars are a prominent Christian family,” I’m all ears.

Forget that the entire Duggar family is being raked over the coals for this, or that their show was canceled. The real tragedy here is that this father of several young children and a contributing member of our society has lost his job, probably had his life ruined, because of a double standard that exists within our society — a double standard that has roots in a growing hatred for Christians and Christianity.

Again, this isn’t an effort to excuse what Josh Duggar did. That sort of thing is inexcusable — for an adult or for a juvenile. As a father, I would be horrified to learn that my 14-year-old son did the things that Duggar apparently did. And, as a father, if I learned that my daughter had been molested by a 14-year-old, forgiveness is not a word you would ever hear me mutter. But forgiveness is one of the basic tenets of Christianity, and it’s hard to make a legitimate argument that what Josh Duggar did delegitimatizes his testimony…let alone the testimony of his father and the rest of his family.

Josh Duggar should not be treated differently than anyone else in a comparable situation because he’s a Christian or a member of a prominent Christian family. Just from my personal social media feed, I think it’s safe to say that he has been.

That’s outrageous!

It was time for Tennessee to ditch its classic 3-stars logo for an updated look, apparently. So the state paid $46,000 to a Nashville marketing firm to design a new logo. The result? This:

7835634 G

This is out of control

If the American news media doesn’t make a concerted effort to take a responsible stand on the issue of the use of force by law enforcement, the chaos we saw in Baltimore is going to become a common occurrence in American cities.

The latest is this tweet from the Associated Press:

The AP is filing story after story that goes to great lengths to point out the race of police officers vs. the race of perpetrators. In this story, the city appears to be following procedure in a case where the use of force appears to have been justified by the police officer. Whether the man was armed is immaterial once he attacked the officer. And, once he attacked the officer, both his race and the officer’s race became immaterial. None of that stuff deserves to be the focal point of the story, much less the focal point of the tweet. But the AP continues to slide down a slope towards journalistic mockery.

Not surprisingly, the AP is catching plenty of flack — as well it should. Readers are accusing the news agency of race-baiting and fanning the flames of racism, and both those claims are hard to refute.

Shame on the AP.

Is this too far?

It’s a fine line in law enforcement: agencies want stories that generate positive press for them, yet they have a certain professional image to maintain.

If not for local law enforcement agencies or individual officers dropping a line when something goes down, I would miss many of the stories that I cover as a journalist. The sheriff will call to let me know that such-and-such happened, or the chief of police will text to say that an important arrest is about to be made.

But how far is too far? Yesterday, Lake Mary Police Department (Florida) tweeted that it was responding to a shooting incident involving George Zimmerman, even before its officers arrived on scene:

LMPD makes its tweet seem even more tacky by including the #Zimmerman hashtag.

Not surprisingly, the police department caught some flack. One Twitter user responded, “Looking for some publicity or what? Why would you tweet about a case before officers were even on scene?” Another called it a “weird” tweet and several said it was PR stunt by the police department. One user, who I would agree with, tweeted, “Unprofessional much?” while another asked, “Are you hear to protect people or be paparazzi?”

This isn’t an isolated incident. When popular rap artist “Nelly” was arrested on felony drug charges in Cookeville by Tennessee Highway Patrol last month, the Tennessee Department of Safety quickly pushed a news release highlighting the hip-hop star’s arrest.

I thought the Tennessee Department of Safety’s news release was pushing the envelope. And the Lake Mary Police Department’s tweet, especially with the #Zimmerman hashtag, was completely over the line.

Clearly the public is going to be much more interested in certain cases than in others, depending on who is involved. But why not leave it to the news media to hyperbolize and stick to the task of protecting and serving? Self-serving efforts to generate public attention are uncalled for.

And that’s especially going to be true if Zimmerman — who was shot at and slightly injured — turns out to be the victim in this case.

New England Patriots v Houston Texans

That’ll show ‘em, Roger

In the wake of its report revealing that New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady knew about his team using deflated game balls, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell today suspended the hall-of-gamer quarterback for four games, plus fined the Patriots $1 million and stripped the franchise of two future draft picks.

And Roger Goodell continues his long tradition of laughable responses to his league’s star players.

Apparently Goodell didn’t get the memos from most of America (here and here) that he had to come down hard on Brady and Belichick if he wanted to maintain any level of relevance.

Instead, he issues another slap of the wrist — to Brady. Belichick skates scott-free.

This is the same league that suspended Terrelle Pryor five games — one game more than Brady — for receiving free tattoos in college . . . yet comes up with this yawner of a punishment for someone who is mocking the very integrity of the league and the game itself.

And the real kicker? When the NFL suspended Pryor, it cited the game’s integrity.

But Pryor was just a rookie then; hadn’t even played his first snap of NFL ball. He was hardly a star at the professional level. Had he been, it’s conceivable that Goodell might have patted him on the back and asked him to start paying for his own tattoos.

The court of public opinion has judged Brady more harshly than Goodell’s court of jesters ever will. Brady’s legacy is forever tarnished — as it should be.

But if you’re looking for the NFL’s integrity, pack a lunch and get ready for a long journey. Because it’s still missing in action.

gis_ikaria

Live like an Ikarian

I was sitting in the john today, reading AARP magazine (don’t ask), and this article caught my eye. Interesting stuff:

Our team of demographic and medical researchers — funded by AARP and National Geographic — found that an amazing one in three Ikarians reaches 90. (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only one in nine baby boomers will.)

What’s more, Ikarians suffer 20 percent fewer cases of cancer than do Americans and have about half our rate of heart disease and one-ninth our rate of diabetes.

Most astonishing of all: among the islanders over 90 whom the team studied — about one-third of Ikaria’s population who are 90 and older — there was virtually no Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia. In the United States more than 40 percent of people over 90 suffer some form of this devastating ailment.

channel_catfish

Do catfish sting? You bet!

There is something of a debate among the fishing community about whether catfish sting.

All my life, I’ve heard and read about the painful sting of catfish and I’ve laughed it off. So you get finned by a catfish…it’s gonna hurt a bit but it’s no big deal; everyone who fishes long enough is going to get finned. Right? Right?!

I’ve caught catfish my whole life and never once have I been “stung.” I’ve had my fingers roughed up by their teeth, but never have I been stung.

Until yesterday.

Fishing at a local lake, I caught a small channel catfish. As I tried to get him off the hook so I could pitch his butt back into the water (channel cats are the worst-tasting of all catfish and not worth keeping, in my book), it happened. He caught me right on the tip of my middle finger with his dorsal fin.

And, oh boy, did it ever hurt.

And bleed.

I was pacing the shoreline, bleeding like a stuck pig, slinging my hand in the futile (but involuntary) effort to wave off the pain, which resulted in blood splattering me from head to toe. The bleeding stopped soon enough, but then the swelling began, with a throbbing that went from the tip of my middle finger all the way to my shoulder.

Do catfish sting? You better believe it.

I suppose I mostly scoffed at the notion of a catfish stinging because of guys like this fellow, a professional catfish guide who proclaims the whole stinging thing a myth:

Catfish don’t “sting”, let’s go ahead and get that out of the way now.

Catfish whiskers don’t sting. Their barbels or fins don’t either. They can cause some discomfort though (if you’re not careful)

The same guy goes on to point out that it’s the smaller fish (like the one I caught) and channel cats (like the one I caught) that you especially need to look out for:

The tip of these spines are pointed and very sharp (especially on smaller catfish, and especially channel cats).

He also points out that these spines contain venom that is injected into sting victims:

The spines contained in the dorsal and pectoral fin contain a venom that causes edema (swelling) and ahemolytic (causes increased blood flow in the area of the injury) if these spines puncture the skin.

So that begs the question: if these spines stick you, and they release a painful venom, aren’t we just debating semantics when we say they don’t sting?

The bottom line is that most people, including the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, calls it what it basically is — a sting. Here’s what the NCBI has to say about it:

Numerous species of fish are capable of inflicting painful or even dangerous stings by means of dorsal or caudal spines provided with complex venom glands. Catfish and stingrays have stings, not spines.

Here’s what eMedicineHealth.net recommends as treatment for catfish stings:

• Immerse the affected area in water as hot as is tolerable usually relieves pain from a sting.

• Spines should be removed with tweezers.

• The wound should be scrubbed and irrigated with fresh water.

• The wound should not be taped or sewn together.

• Oral antibiotics are usually recommended for catfish stings that become infected. Antibiotics should be taken if infection develops for at least five days after all signs of infection have resolved. Potential drug allergies should be checked prior to starting any antibiotic. A doctor can recommend the appropriate antibiotic. Some antibiotics can cause sensitivity to the sun, so a sunscreen (at least SPF 15) is also recommended for use with such antibiotics.

• Pain associated with a catfish sting may be relieved with one to two acetaminophen (Tylenol) every four hours and/or one to two ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil) every six to eight hours.

While I was spraying blood and cursing under my breath, my fishing partner went and released the fish (which was flopping around on the bank with my hook still in his mouth) back into the water. I almost threw him in the water to chase the fish down and pull it back out…I wanted to cut his head off and throw him on the bank as a warning to his catfish brethren to keep their dorsal stingers to themselves.

Posts on this page
  • Why are we all trying to speak for the Duggar victims?
  • The covenant revealed
  • Wet, mild the general rule for Summer '15?
  • Why I can't condemn the Duggars
  • That's outrageous!
  • This is out of control
  • Is this too far?
  • That'll show 'em, Roger
  • Live like an Ikarian
  • Do catfish sting? You bet!
Posts on this page
  • Why are we all trying to speak for the Duggar victims?
  • The covenant revealed
  • Wet, mild the general rule for Summer '15?
  • Why I can't condemn the Duggars
  • That's outrageous!
  • This is out of control
  • Is this too far?
  • That'll show 'em, Roger
  • Live like an Ikarian
  • Do catfish sting? You bet!