smockmomma: August 2004 Archives

Police: Drunken man drives home after passenger decapitated

MARIETTA, Ga. (AP) — A drunken driver ran off the road and sideswiped a telephone-pole support wire, decapitating his best friend, who was hanging out the passenger window, police say.
John Kemper Hutcherson, 21, then drove 12 miles back to his suburban Atlanta home early Sunday and went to sleep in his bloody clothes, leaving the headless body in the truck, police said. . .

Officers said Hutcherson appeared remorseful after they found him sleeping inside his home Sunday morning, covered in blood and visibly drunk.

Hutcherson was jailed in 2001 on a number of traffic charges, including driving under the influence. He pleaded guilty to underage possession, and the other charges were dismissed.

if you can stomach the whole story, click here.

caveat lector: mature content and language and at the risk of offering way TMI...

our dear mr. luse posts a lengthy article entitled philosophy on the rocks that has me thinking so hard my head hurts. two words in mr. luse's article immediately caught my attention: philosophy -- which was my minor in college -- and unchastity -- which was my major.

mr. luse writes:
college professors surely find themselves sorely tempted ... aha! at last -- a subject on which i am fully qualified to hold forth.

to which i respond, aha! me, too. of course, i was leaning over the other side of the professor’s desk. perhaps i should point out that my major was less physical than intellectual. of course, i suppose that could be even more scandalous, especially when one considers the fact that Christ Himself refuses to let us off the hook when we excuse ourselves with "well, i didn't actually do anything." that sticky point of lust in the heart being equated with actual adultery ... boy, that one smarts. especially for a recovering flirt-a-holic. but at the time, i considered my little hobby a harmless recreation that afforded me the attention i was desperately seeking.

if i had an “A” for every university professor i flirted with … oh, wait, i did, even in trig which was quite a feat, but there was one exception: my favorite philosophy professor. yes, the one who taught Aristotelian ethics, in fact. so don't lose heart, mr. luse.

of course, i still had a major brain crush on said professor. what's more, i had this terrific brain crush and still only managed “B“s. of course, the "B"s were quite a blow to the old ego because i had what i considered a legitimate crush on him. but he gave me the grades i deserved. oh, his virtue was very sexy. poor guy could hardly win for losing, you say. but, this professor was smart. a genius. what did he do? he introduced me to his wife and child. the line was very. clearly. drawn.

by the way, is there such a thing as a legitimate crush? what is the difference between a crush -- say, mere infatuation -- and lust? is lust purely sexual? is real lust only sexual? is that why i even use the phrase “brain crush?” in order to seperate the infatuation of mind vs. attraction to body? the fact that i don’t know the exact difference truly scares me. i mean it. that’s why my head hurts.

and while most women can appreciate a nice bod, we're much more inclined to be attracted to brains than brawn. here i'm speaking mostly for women in my socio-economic situation because in "my culture" the importance of financial security ranks above physical security. i'm not particularly worried about gang bangers. the only drive-bys in my neighborhood are committed by me when i drop off avon orders. so the brain crush winning out over the brawn crush is legitimate. i still insist that men learn to love the women they’re attracted to while women become attracted to the men they love. but, i digress.

what exactly constitutes lust? and while i make no excuses for my behavior "way back when" i think it's important to point out that it is very easy for these particular temptations -- the teacher-student variety -- to occur, especially today. think about it. more girls are growing up in homes completely without male role models, especially decent male role models. the innate and healthy desire to be loved and nurtured by a man is left woefully unfulfilled for at least half of the female population in modern america. where do these girls turn to?

and my question remains: is the intense desire really sexual, or is that the only way we know how to define it in our sexploitative [sic] culture? when does infatuation trip over that teeny tiny fine little line and into the abyss that is lust? how do we teach our girls the difference? should we?

hey, wanna think about something even scarier? with so many single parent homes, these latch-key girls, growing up and growing nubile at an alarming, and alarmingly early, rate are turning to anybody who will give them the attention and (what passes for) love they are thirsting for. why do you think “pop lesbianism” is so blooming popular?

as a culture we’ve sexualized shampooing our hair, for pete’s sake, what do we expect from our girls? how long has it been since you’ve been to a baby gap? we’re dressing our infants, yes, infants, God help us, like two-bit whores in tight leopard skin hot pants. one retailer made little girl underwear emblazoned with the phrase “eye candy” across them. oh, these wicked buyers, you say. no, i say, what’s the message these dumbass mothers are sending? and, sorry gals, it ain’t just the garden variety reprobates who are doing it. our precious church-going moms are dressing with less taste, not to mention less class, than some bourbon street drag queens. turn on TBN for five minutes, and then i dare you to contradict me. this isn’t anything new either. i have the pictures to prove i was running around in a gold lame bikini when i was seven. what the hell was my mother’s thought process there?

i suppose that it is because i carried this plank around in my eye for so long that i notice the speck immediately in other young women. before i “got religion” but after i “straightened up” i used to see young ladies, and i use that term loosely, strutting their stuff. “nice ass” or “great ta-tas” i’d comment. when the gal gasped in horror, i’d make some nasty comment about advertising merchandise that wasn’t actually for sale. i was only slapped once. of course, i probably did much more harm than good and i still don’t know what the answer is.

i agree we should learn to dress modestly, but puh-lease. that doesn’t really scratch the surface of the problem, does it? well, maybe just the surface, and at least it’s a start.

smock's literary either/or

| | Comments (3)

i'm actually surprized mamaT and i differ on so many! of course, we agree when it counts!

The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.
-Psalm 9:17

from Luke Films, Inc.

| | Comments (3)

LIVE Monday, August 23rd at 8 p.m. ET on EWTN: Lindsay Younce to appear on “The Journey Home” with host Marcus Grodi. Encores: Tuesdays at 1 a.m. and 10 a.m. ET; Saturdays at 11:00 p.m. ET.

LIVE Thursday, August 26th at 8 p.m. ET on EWTN: Lindsay Younce and Leonardo Defilippis to appear on “Life On The Rock” with host Father Francis Mary. Encores: Fridays at 1 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET; Sundays at 11 p.m. ET.

Be sure to catch these inspiring interviews LIVE this week as Lindsay and Leonardo share more about the experience of bringing the message of Saint Thérèse to the silver screen. In addition, have an opportunity to watch a sneak peak of THÉRÈSE and learn more about how you can voice your support for the release of THÉRÈSE in your local movie theaters this October. For more information on these inspirational EWTN programs, please visit

And that’s not all…! On Wednesday, August 25th at 10:30-11 a.m. ET, Lindsay and Leonardo can be heard on Ave Maria Radio’s Catholic Connection program with host Teresa Tomeo. Set your station at 990 AM WDEO or 1440 AM WMAM in the Detroit/Ann Arbor area or listen LIVE online at

smissing in action


poor mamaT has been running this site for quite awhile now and i wanted to take a moment to thank her and congratulate her -- thank her for such a job well done and congratulate her on her ability to refrain from strangling either specialK or me.

i have it on good authority that specialK will be posting soon. i seem to have fallen into the direct marketing abyss but kindly thank our readers for their patience.

from your catholic voice:

Breaking news!

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court announced its ruling earlier today in the matter of the homosexual marriages performed by San Francisco officials earlier this year. The judges held, by a 7-0 vote, that the city officials exceeded the scope of their authority in allowing these pseudo-marriages contrary to California law, which - because of the passage of Prop 22 in 2000 - protects marriage as only between a man and a woman.

On the secondary question of what to do with the 4,037 homosexual marriages, the justices ruled 5-2 that the marriages were illegal, null, and void. Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar agreed with the majority that the officials exceeded the scope of their authority, but disagreed on the question of the dispensation of the pseudo-marriages. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald George said, ". we agree with petitioners that local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions. We therefore shall issue a writ of mandate directing the officials to enforce those provisions unl ess and until they are judicially determined to be unconstitutional and to take all necessary remedial steps to undo the continuing effects of the officials' past unauthorized actions, including making appropriate corrections to all relevant official records and notifying all affected same-sex couples that the same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect." (emphasis added)

The issue of the constitutionality of homosexual marriages is still before the lower courts in California, highlighting the need for passage of a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage at the constitutional level nationwide.

We must not let anyone weaken and undermine marriage further. Please join YCV in strengthening it for our children and grandchildren by CLICKING HERE.

ever wonder...

| | Comments (1)

...when "catchin' up" becomes gossip?
...when "tellin' it like it is" becomes detraction?
...when a "fib" becomes a lie?
...when "just checkin' his bod" becomes adultery?
...when "one more helpin'" becomes gluttony?
...when "five more minutes" becomes sloth?

as saturday confession fast approaches, i start to ponder these things. it is in the day-to-dayness of my sinfulness that actual sin becomes so difficult to put my finger on. the doozies, the whoppers, the great big sins are easy to identify. it's the venial sin that i'm always inclined to pass off by way of euphemism. was it really easier when i was protestant and the herald "a sin is a sin is a sin" was the blanket statement i needed to feel guilty about every thing?

pop on over

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

to popcorn critics for my review of m. night shyamalan's the village, shyamalan's most catholic film to date.

Senator Tom Daschle, Senate Minority leader, was the one person who held the liberals together to filibuster the Federal Marriage Amendment, thus keeping the American people from having their voices heard in this matter.

Sen. Daschle is leading the fight to use our children and grandchildren as guinea pigs in a grand social experiment promoting homosexual marriage. You see, if the people are kept from voting, then some liberal federal judge will rule that homosexual marriage is legal and throw out the marriage laws in 50 states. That is precisely what Sen. Daschle is trying to do. He is willing to sacrifice our children and grandchildren to get the big money and a handful of votes from the homosexual activists.

Shortly before the vote, Sen. Daschle said that his office was not receiving any phone calls on the FMA. There will be another effort made to allow the Senate an opportunity to vote on the FMA later.

Just one phone call is all I am asking. Please make that call today. If the line is busy, please keep trying until you get through. Ask why he is unwilling to allow your Senator to vote on this matter.

Sen. Daschle's number is 1-202-224-2321. If that number is busy, call 1-202-224-5556. His fax number is 202-224-6603. Those numbers go straight into his office.Please be kind and polite, but firm.

Thanks for caring.


Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
American Family Association



About this Archive

This page is a archive of recent entries written by smockmomma in August 2004.

smockmomma: July 2004 is the previous archive.

smockmomma: September 2004 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.