Wednesday, May 06, 2009

GETTING ON MY CYBERBULLY PULPIT

To quote a "Peter Travers" movie blurb via a Saturday Night Live skit, "I Like Anything, So This Counts!".

Well if Rep. Linda Sanchez gets her do-gooder way, we may end up with a blogosphere of inane criticism like that Rolling Stone movie man provides on a bi-weekly basis. True, I'm jumping ahead of myself... I'm sprinting to the worst case scenario... I'm getting all Andrew Sullivan hysterical up in here, but so long as everyone is talking about freakin' Star Trek (and probably will be until the end of the month... or at least until T4 comes out) I've decided to get drunk on coffee and let it rip.

Let's back up for a sec...

Megan Meier was the young woman from Missouri who killed herself after being bullied and humiliated on MySpace. It was a terrible story. The pain of a parent in a tragic situation like that must be unbearable, and a mother's desire to have something done in order prevent future tragedies of the same kind is understandable. However, what happened to Megan Meier - a victim of bullying - cannot be prevented, especially through legislation that would open up a cans-o-worms like the recently proposed "cyberbully bill" introduced by Linda Sanchez of California.

Her bill, co-sponsored by fourteen other members of Congress, defines "cyberbullying" as such:
(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(b) As used in this section--

(1) the term "communication" means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received.

(2) the term "electronic means" means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.'.
Calling that definition of "cyberbullying" vague is being polite.

For example, what does "substantial emotional distress" mean? A quickening pulse? Crying Trouble sleeping? And is there anyone reading this who has never felt intentionally "coerced", "intimidated", or "harassed" before... especially in the arena of ideas, critical opinion, and debate???


Of course, being a politician, Sanchez is trying to sell this on the back of a "let's do it for the kids!" campaign. Check out this sentence pulled from her recent op-ed in the Huffington Post:

"When so-called free speech leads to bullies having free-reign to threaten kids, it is time to act."
Errrrrk! Hold up, L.!! In your proposed legislation you said "distress to a person" and now you are saying "kids" (ie anyone under 18). Which one is it? And since most bullies of other kids are kids themselves, are you calling for the imprisonment of children? I'm confused congresswoman. Will you please explain it to me without making me feel stupid, and thus, "emotionally distressed"?

But, since we talk movies here, let's bring this issue back to the realm of movie blogging...

So, according to Sanchez's op-ed, I couldn't get in trouble for blogging how Eli Roth is a hack, but I could get in trouble if I blogged the same thing about Dakota Fanning. But in the legislation, it states that I could get in trouble in both situations. (This, of course, presumes that Eli Roth and Dakota Fanning read my blog, which I'm almost certain that they do... at least in the case of Dakota.)

Now, because Eli and Dakota are celebrities, that would probably make it harder for them to find someone like me guilty of cyberbullying (although, the conclusion of this case should make for interesting precedent concerning "public figures"), but what about when I get in a dust-up with Bill or Marilyn or Rick or Ed or Greg or Jason ? That happens, often. And while they are generally friendly fights, who knows when I'll go "Sean Penn" on one of them one day?

Well, Sanchez says her legislation "would give judges and juries discretion to recognize the difference " between blog ranting and genuine "hostile communications". Umm... yeah, relying on judge and jury discretion ain't so comforting.

In any case, to be especially safe, I now want to go ahead and formally recuse myself of possibly "substantially" nasty things that I've said about "persons" on here in the past:

---
*Bill, you were right about The Dark Knight.

*Jason, you were right about Gran Torino and JCVD.

*Documentarians, you make great films.

*Gus Van Sant, you are is NOT a pervert.

*Ed, you were right about the acting in Paranoid Park.

*Alexander Aja, you are cinema.

*Kevin Smith, you = Ernst Lubitsch.

*Rick, Alabama is the best place ever.

*Indiewire, you = Cahiers Du Cinema.

*Marilyn, I blame the patriarchy.

*Bill Maher, you are open-minded.

*Greg, down with L.R. Hubbard!

*Sacha Baron Cohen, you are awesome... awwwww, SCREW IT! Sacha Baron Cohen, you are a hateful scumbag!!!!!
---


-Fox, founder of TRACTOR FACTS, admitted "cyberbully", and proud of it!

50 comments:

Greg said...

Fuck you loser jackoff who can't get an erection because you're such a fucking loser. Oh what's the matter? Fox going to start crying?

Sorry, I'm such a bully. Anyway, legislation like this is for show and rears its head every few years. It's purpose is to show the constituents that something was attempted but it's language is too vague and all-encompassing to get past the first lower court challenge. And Sanchez knows that.

They've never been able to get this through with hate-crimes and they won't with this. For instance, and I quote from the Wikipedia entry on hate crime laws, "The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that hate crime statutes which criminalize bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech conflict with free speech rights because they isolated certain words based on their content or viewpoint."

Unanimous. Any one of us with a casual knowledge of the Supreme Court knows those guys never agree unanimously on anything so when they do it's a blunt, obvious and in-your-face violation of the constitution.

So don't worry, this will run into the same problems as people who want to make certain words illegal. That is to say it will run into the brick wall of the First Amendment and lose.

BTW, I've seen you make the Andrew Sullivan hysterical joke before and I'm curious if you read him. Whenever I browse the political blogs I find his to consistently provide reasoned and logical arguments for his views. It's not like he's a Bill Maher or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Penn or anything.

PIPER said...

I'm fucking offended by this, thus I feel bullied.

Fox, expect some papers in the mail soon.

It is always my belief that in cases such as these, there is a lack of parenting involved. And the anger and hurt associated with that comes in the form of legislation against others.

That may seem a little heartless, but I believe it to be true. Stay in touch with your kids and this shit can be avoided.

So endeth the lesson.

Ed Howard said...

I'm just glad you finally admitted that Paranoid Park is awesome.

And I agree with Greg. Obviously if this ever passed it'd be a travesty, but it'd be shut down pretty quick the first time it was challenged. The courts would never allow such a blatant violation of free speech.

Fox said...

Greg-

These type of efforts make for nice "resume padding" when it comes time for re-election. "Come on, parents, I tried to save your kids lives! VOTE FOR ME!"

I agree that in it's current form that this bill can go nowhere, simply b/c it's language is too vague. Terms in it need to be defined more clearly, because, if not, and if it passes one day... I'm freakin' taking you to court for leaking that ED secret about me that I trusted you with!!

Now, on Andrew Sullivan. I read his blog regularly. His place is a good starting point for the debates of the day, but I DO think he often falls into the Maher/ Limbaugh/Penn style of discourse and debate. He's very childish to me, reducing interesting discussions (such as his recent posts on the torture memos) to name-calling contests, as when he pointed to Charles Krauthammer's column last week as another sign of the "slide of modern American conservatism into degeneracy." Um, ok... what does that mean? It's like when Limbaugh says "liberal ideas don't work". Um, ok... what does that mean? Both are blanket statements that satisfy their choirs, but they don't offer any interetsing points. At that's fine. Both men are entertainers with a political bent. Sullivan has a schtick just like any other pundit. I kind of admire the self-marketing of different pundits. It's fascinating in a business sense.

Sullivan's a smart guy, he just turns me off a lot with his antics.

Fox said...

Piper-

I agree with you, although I sympathize with a modern parent feeling out-witted by modern technology.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't fault the emotions of a parent that just lost a child as much as I resent a politician for exploiting it.

But I completely agree with your base point, which is handle it as a parent, don't expect the government to raise your kid.

Ed-

I just hope you don't use that against me for the rest of my life.

Like, let's say that in 30 years time, I'm on a panel of people for a Gus Van Sant forum, and I'm going off on him eloquently and stuff, and then you stand up in the audience and say, "Well sir, what about, on May 6th, 2009 when you said...".

Greg said...

He's very childish to me, reducing interesting discussions (such as his recent posts on the torture memos) to name-calling contests, as when he pointed to Charles Krauthammer's column last week as another sign of the "slide of modern American conservatism into degeneracy." Um, ok... what does that mean?...

Fox, degeneracy means "to depart from its kind or genus". That's not name-calling. Sullivan's a conservative who sees Krauthammer veering away from true conservatism. Sullivan wrote "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How We Can Get it Back." He's a Thatcher/Reagan conservative all the way. Because he supported Obama a lot of people are confused and think he's liberal, he's not. Like a lot of conservatives I know he's dismayed at where the party went under Bush/Cheney and wants to get it back to the kind that thrived under Reagan/Thatcher. I don't think he's goes about it in a childish way at all. But I do think he confuses people, especially hard left-liners who think he's one of them now and hard right-liners who think he's a traitor. I think if he were truly childish or hysterical, people wouldn't be confused. In other words, anybody out there confused as to where Keith Olbermann or Bill O'Reilly stand? Exactly.

PIPER said...

Fox,

It is low hanging fruit as far as legislation is concerned. And it's too easy for a politician to look good standing behind it.

And I have yet to fully immerse myself in the cyberworld as far as my son is concerned.

He is 11. He does not have a computer in his room. He does not have a computer. He does not have a phone. But he has a lot of friends that have all of those things.

In my opinion, I did just fine with all that stuff and he will too. And he's too damn young for that.

No if you will excuse me, I'm going to cyber-bully Greg, that fucker.

PIPER said...

So Greg, if I'm reading you right, and I'd like to think I am: what you're saying is that Krauthammer is going with what he believes in, rather than following party lines? Or rather how a party sees their line?

That's wacky stuff.

Fox said...

Greg-

You could also define degenracy as: "having sunk to a lower and usually corrupt and vicious state".

Knowing Sullivan's lack of tact, I think he probably was going with something more along those lines.

I think Sullivan labels himself a conservative b/c part of his "thing" is to be feisty fence-rider. There's nothing wrong with that, but how can you label yourself a fiscal conservative and then go soft (at least in what I've read from him) on TARP and Obama's budget? I mean, if you believe in more spending, fine, but don't call yourself a fiscal conservative.

I kinda hate those two labels anyways, but...

Greg said...

So Greg, if I'm reading you right, and I'd like to think I am: what you're saying is that Krauthammer is going with what he believes in, rather than following party lines? Or rather how a party sees their line?

That's wacky stuff.
...



That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying Sullivan sees the Republican party moving away from true conservatism. What Krauthammer and others are doing is towing the party line . That's kind of the point of these things. Rather than follow principles, in this case the principles of conservatism, he's towing the line being fed to him by the party. So congrats on getting it exactly backwards. That is wacky!

Greg said...

Fox, he hates Obama's budget. I'm talking about the Sullivan at the Atlantic. Maybe that's the confusion. Is there some random guy out there named Sullivan that you're talking about?

Fox said...

In my opinion, I did just fine with all that stuff and he will too. And he's too damn young for that....

Agreed. I mean, damn, we didn't have computers, but we sure knew how to get dirty magazines when we were young.

But... you know... I was about to second your "we turned out just fine" comment, but, uh... I wonder if some of our friends & readers would disagree with that.

Greg said...

And anyway, all of this is beside the point. The point is when making a joke about being hysterical, you should use someone obviously over the top, like Olbermann or O'Reilly. It's a cleaner joke that way. Just a tip.

Greg said...

And am I the only one who has noticed (and kind of purposely steered in that direction) the incredible irony of this discussion happening in a post where Fox wrote this:

"but what about when I get in a dust-up with Bill or Marilyn or Rick or Ed or Greg or Jason ? That happens, often."

Indeed it does.

Fox said...

Fox, he hates Obama's budget. I'm talking about the Sullivan at the Atlantic. Maybe that's the confusion. Is there some random guy out there named Sullivan that you're talking about?...

I see your tact is pleasant as well. Come on, man... geez,

I said in my previous post: "(at least in what I've read from him)". I said that to preface that I could be mistaken. If he's been critical of Obama's budget, then good, I'm glad, but I know he's been soft on TARP, and his general snide reaction to "tea parties" suggests he doesn't like people that have issues with spending. He said:

As a fiscal conservative who actually believed in those principles when the Republicans were in power, I guess I should be happy at this phenomenon. And I would be if it had any intellectual honesty, any positive proposals, and any recognizable point. What it looks like to me is some kind of amorphous, generalized rage on the part of those who were used to running the country and now don't feel part of the culture at all. But the only word for that is: tantrum.

These are not tea-parties. They are tea-tantrums. And the adolescent, unserious hysteria is a function not of a movement regrouping and refinding itself. It's a function of a movement's intellectual collapse and a party's fast-accelerating nervous breakdown.
...

Yes, some of the people out on the day of the tea parties were morons, but to suggest that there was no "intellectual honesty" and to call it "generalized rage" is a perfect example of Sullivan's childishness. I love that he calls them tantrums when he in fact is having one himself in that post of is.

Further, if Sullivan failed to find ANYONE out there on the tea party days as not having a "recognizable point", then he wasn't looking very hard.

PIPER said...

Sorry, got my names mixed up.

GREG IS CYBER-BULLYING ME!!!!

I'm going to fucking call someone.

Someone give me the phone.

Greg said...

So anyway, I don't see his response as being a tantrum. If you want to do a search on a guy who posts over fifty times a day I'm sure you can find examples to back up what you say. I don't doubt that. And any doubt I do have I will give you the benefit of on the point of Sullivan and tact. But let me repeat:

The point is when making a joke about being hysterical, you should use someone obviously over the top, like Olbermann or O'Reilly.

Sullivan just isn't overtly hysterical enough IMO. I can't believe I even got into an argument where I was staunchly defending Andrew Sullivan. I just don't think he's hysterical and of all the political commentators out there (and Fox if you don't believe this next point then please visit the Huffington Post) he's among the most moderate and reasoned in my opinion. That's why I think he's a poor choice to use. But seriously, throw a dart at any name on HuffPo and you'll probably get one you can use.

And Piper, you'll be hearing from my lawyers.

Fox said...

And anyway, all of this is beside the point. The point is when making a joke about being hysterical, you should use someone obviously over the top, like Olbermann or O'Reilly. It's a cleaner joke that way. Just a tip....

Yeah, but dude... Olbermann and O'Reilly??? I mean, again, in a creating-a-marketable-persona kind of way, I admire those guys for the characters they've created for themselves, but they're kind of easy targets at this point.

As much as I may take issue with Sullivan, I still think he's a smart dude who can lay out measured posts when he pulls back on the hysteria. My thinking is that he's dangerously close to turning into a blogger version of the O'Reilly/Olbermann variety (or, more accurately, turning into a Markos Moulitsas/Michelle Malkin type... two people he often chides for their own hysteria).

Plus, my hysteria over Sanchez's bill really wasn't like Olbermann and O'Reilly b/c I wasn't yelling or foaming... just kind of sneering.

Greg said...

Plus, my hysteria over Sanchez's bill really wasn't like Olbermann and O'Reilly b/c I wasn't yelling or foaming... just kind of sneering...

I don't think you were hysterical at all. I agree with you completely on the bill.

Piper - What's your number? My lawyers keep accidentally contacting Pat at Doodad Kind of Town.

PIPER said...

I'm unlisted Ass Hat.

That's right, I called you Ass Hat.

That's a little payback for the kind of cyber-bullying you've been doing to me.

This is funny.

You and Fox are carrying on a legitimate conversation and I'm the clown in the corner making balloon animals.

Anyone want a hat that looks like a shark is eating your head?

bill r. said...

Keith Olbermann cannot be the target of cyberbullying too often. He's so self-righteous and awful and smug and horrible. All of those things and more.

Fox said...

Greg-

You're right about Huffington Post and all the places like it, but those people are really kind of irrelevant when it comes to serious discussions, aren't they?? Entertainment? Fine. News analysis? No thanks.

What I mean is that I think Sullivan is a bright guy. I LIKE the guy, but I think he's sliding the way of the HuffPo et al. I wish Sullivan would temper himself in the vein of moderates like David Brooks or Thomas Friedman. I can agree/disagree with those guys without getting all burnt up inside.

I mean, Sullivan is obviously doing things right if he gets me to visit his site and dedicate a large part of this comment section to him, I just think he needs to grow up a little (yes, I see the irony in ME saying that somebody should "grow up" but I'm just a wee lil' old film blogger who needs to talk about boobs to get hits... SO GIVE ME A BREAK!!)

bill r. said...

I haven't done a post about boobs in a long time.

Greg said...

Keith Olbermann cannot be the target of cyberbullying too often. He's so self-righteous and awful and smug and horrible. All of those things and more....

Yes.


You're right about Huffington Post and all the places like it, but those people are really kind of irrelevant when it comes to serious discussions, aren't they??...

YES.

Anyone want a hat that looks like a shark is eating your head?...

YES!!!

Fox said...

I don't think you were hysterical at all. I agree with you completely on the bill....

But I think I am being a bit premature and "hand-wavey" over the concern that this could trickle down to affect us.

It COULD, and I think it's great to point out this bill and talk about it, but as you and Ed said, I don't see it happening.

Fox said...

I haven't done a post about boobs in a long time....

Boobs are a great resourse. My first big comment post was on Helen Mirren's boobs. Yep... I learned a lot that day.

Olbermann is a boob (but the bad kind).

bill r. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bill r. said...

I...think you were hysterical. I agree with...bill...

Thanks, Greg. Pretty harsh takedown of Fox, though.

Fox said...

You and Fox are carrying on a legitimate conversation and I'm the clown in the corner making balloon animals....

Can you make balloon boobs?

And I think Greg just had a cybergasm with his "Yes... YES... YES!!!" comment.

bill r. said...

This is getting gross. Fox, Greg's right: you need to clean up your jokes!

Fox said...

I...think you were hysterical. I agree with...bill...

Thanks, Greg. Pretty harsh takedown of Fox, though.
...

You're hilarical, Bill.

Anyone have Def Leppards' "Hysteria" in their heads? I do.

Marilyn said...

You're all a bunch of patriarchal buttheads and the fact that you are even alive and speaking is the essence of bullying to me!

Unfortunately, working for PTA has exposed me to its role in some of these censorious antics. I'll admit that they try to be evenhanded, but I think their support of a V-chip is contradictory to their mission of parent involvement in their children's lives. Can't control your kids' viewing habits? Buy a V-chip.

Fox said...

Great. Right as Marilyn shows up we, start talking about boobs. I'm sure that doesn't reinforce her opinions of us.

Marilyn, are you a parent? Not that that would be weird, I just didn't know it. PTA meetings must be interesting. I have a feeling I might get mighty infuriated at one of those.

Greg said...

Just so everyone knows, you can't control your children completely. It's something every parent realizes soon enough. You can guide them and hope they make the right decisions.

The youngest knows what she's supposed to watch and what she's not supposed to watch but does she follow that if we're not in the room? Probably not all of the time, but we trust her to make the right calls enough of the time that we'll never have a V-Chip. Besides, we don't care about her being exposed to profanity and nudity. As for profanity she has three older siblings and heard everything in the book by age five but doesn't use it and knows it would be frowned upon. People freak out about nudity on tv. Four kids and I can tell you none of them in the pre-pubescent stage care anything about it anyway and when they hit puberty they've lost their minds anyway so just guide them. That's all you can do.

PIPER said...

My son has seen it all. At the age of five he ordered up a double feature porn on cable while looking for Cheaper By The Dozen.

I say treat nudity and profanity like the French treat drinking. Get it out of the way early and it won't phase them when they get older.

And yes, I can make balloon boobs. I'm wearing some now underneath my Bjork inspired stuffed animal dress in anticipation of Dancer In The Dark, happening May 18th at Doodad Kind Of Town.

I'm serious, the marketing in me never stops. Never.

Fox said...

Greg-

Agreed. When I suggest that parents should be responsible, not the government, I don't mean to imply that I think parents can control their kids. "just guide them. That's all you can do." is the best advice I can think of.

On a humurous note, I've gotten a kick out of watching my sisters bend and change since they've had kids. Beforehand it was "my kids won't watch that", "my kids won't listen to that", "my kids will never eat that!", but once that baby popped out and then that baby grew to be a high-energy five year old that could outsmart the best of us... well, then all those "idealized standards" fell away.

My favorite example is how my tomboy-ish sis tried to steer my niece away from Barbies and such, but that just didn't happen. She would just see pink and glitter in stores and it was over. Pink and glitter are like crack to my niece.

Greg said...

On a humurous note, I've gotten a kick out of watching my sisters bend and change since they've had kids. Beforehand it was "my kids won't watch that", "my kids won't listen to that", "my kids will never eat that!", but once that baby popped out and then that baby grew to be a high-energy five year old that could outsmart the best of us... well, then all those "idealized standards" fell away....


Fox, I am so very, very glad you have noticed that and brought it up here. It is one of the things that alternately provokes anger and uncontrollable laughter in a parent when a non-parent starts talking about how they would keep said kid in line. I mean, I'm sorry, but's it's effing hilarious once you have kids to hear that.

My wife and I (and probably every other parent in the world) always say nobody is a better parent than someone without kids. My God, they're perfect! They know EXACTLY what to do to get a kid to quiet down, stop crying, not throw a tantrum, not watch this, not want that. Boy! People without kids are geniuses at knowing what to do.

People really do honestly believe that you can completely mold a child from scratch into whatever you want him or her to be.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaa!!!!!

Fox said...

I'm sure one of your favorite under-the-breath murmurs from non-parents is "god, are they make their kid stop crying or what!?!". As if it were that easy.

My niece once threw a fit... A FIT! b/c her chicken fingers were touching her potatoes and she didn't like that. So my sister got another plate and separated the two food items, but then my niece said that SHE had wanted to separate them herself and started crying again. And then when my sister said she could put them back and let her do it herself my niece said that wasn't good enough either.

It was crazy. No amount of advice could solve something like that.

What the hell??? Did my blog just turn into one of those Mommy Blogs?!?

PIPER said...

I'm breast feeding right now.

Marilyn said...

Fox - I'm not a parent, but I don't run screaming from children. The hubby has 3 grandkids, so I've had some experience as a grandparent now. I don't belong to a PTA, I just work for the national office putting out their magazine. I wish I could say it's rewarding work, but I don't really know if I'm making a difference or not. I felt better about the healthcare magazines I edited; I knew people got something out of them.

bill r. said...

It was crazy. No amount of advice could solve something like that...

How about "Don't have kids"?

PIPER said...

Bill is grumpy.

Marilyn said...

No, he's right. It worked for me.

Piper, um, you've got some leakage on your t-shirt...

Fox said...

Bill hates babies.

Piper breast feeds in public.

Marilyn, what's the most bizarre magazine you've ever had to edit? I remember you told me about Obit magazine one time.

Marilyn said...

Bizarre? I don't think I've ever edited a bizarre magazine, unless you count the one that went to people who clean and sterilize surgical instruments in hospitals. I learned a lot on that one, especially, you want to be the first surgery of the day. Remember that.

Marilyn said...

BTW, it's Rick's birthday today.

Greg said...

I'm an Aries so my birthday was just recently but I don't announce it. I'll go sing to Rick and embarrass him.

And not having kids is the best solution it's true. But also, and it's not enjoyable but... just don't let the kid have his way. That's not easy believe you me, especially when the screaming kicks in but unfortunately it does become necessary, and you just have to endure it. That's why the kids were never taken to a restaurant or movie theatre until they were old enough to understand "Don't do that." By four or so they've started to get it. It's insufferable to go through (they can scream or cry for HOURS - seriously, HOURS!) but you have to. Otherwise you've got a Veruca Salk on your hands.

Fox said...

Otherwise you've got a Veruca Salk on your hands....

Veruca Salk? Is that Jonas' sister??? I kid, I kid...

Greg, though you already have 20 blogs going, I think you should start a new one in the parenting field. Nothing like making yourself even MORE busy while you're at work. You need octopus arms!

Happy Birthday Rick!

Happy Birthday Greg (whenever it may be)!

Keith said...

Parents should be raising kids and not the government. Uncle Sam should not be in the job of looking after your kids to make sure the monsters under the bed don't get them. Politicians love to talk a big game about how they are looking out for the kids and others who need their help. It's a load of bull. The government is just looking for more power and control over the people. Hopefully this doesn't pass. It would never surprise me to see a future bill pass though.

Greg said...

Greg, though you already have 20 blogs going...

But none more important than Death Ray Daughters because it's a continuing story with Episode Two up RIGHT NOW! It's only two episodes in so everyone can get caught up, just scroll down to Episode One at the bottom.

Once again, to make this plug complete, that's Death Ray Daughters.

Everyone read it and tell everyone you know to read it and tell everyone they know to read it.

Thanks. Horrifying plug now over.