Monday, October 21, 2013

Chicken Soup with Matthew Barnett and the loyal football fans of Maryville, Missouri...

On the surface this is just another case of a small town football player doing what small town football players are best known for. And before the existence of social media, that's where it would have ended.

According to multiple news sources, Matthew Barnett, a football player from a politically connected family had intercourse with a drunk and incoherent 13 year old girl. And of course it was consensual. Barnett then dumped his date's limp body onto her parents' front lawn in 22 degree weather with nothing but sweatpants and a t-shirt to protect her from the cold.'m done with this...heh...heh...

What a man.

The victim's mother found her three hours later. In my book that's attempted murder, but I've found nothing in the news that suggests anyone else feels the same way. After filing charges with the police, the small town rapist fan club harassed her family so badly they had to move to another community...then the good Christians of Maryville, Missouri burned the victim's house down. Wonderful people those Christians are.

Did I mention that the prosecutor mysteriously dropped the charges? It sure must be nice to be politically connected.

Matthew Barnett is currently a student at the University of Central Missouri.

They like mail. Send them some. A copy of this post would make a fine addition to the student newspaper...or possibly any on-campus rape crisis types would appreciate a copy. Do your best. The bought and paid for prosecutor certainly did.

You can find more interesting reading here...

and here...

and here too... Goodness he's very popular with the media.

Matthew Barnett's family claims that he is the real victim in all this...Please stop...I'm peeing my pants.

Imagine being someone like Timothy McVeigh. You want to do something "big" but you're not sure...

And then the good citizens of Maryville come along and help you make up your mind. I can't say it often enough. Every time an American community displays the customary depraved indifference toward victims of violent crime...every time they put a rapist or some other violent animal on a pedestal, they make it very easy for criminals to rationalize that demolishing a building full of people, or spraying bullets into a crowded theatre or school, or committing some similar act of mass murder is no worse than what good American Christians do every day.

Enjoy the game...and don't forget to buy a $60 t-shirt on your way out.


  1. You really seem to have your heart set on condoning terrorism. Why should victims become part of the problem by aligning themselves with the crowd that abused them in the first place? After all, you do not support the terrorism of bullies or rapists, as far as I can tell, but I am sure they have their own excuses of harming innocent targets. Perhaps I am not familiar with the complete history but did other groups of victims need to become terrorists for the majority of society to sympathize with them? Did MLK jr kill random people in public places to gain support for equal rights for blacks? or how about women's rights, does society sympathize with them because they threatened to kill innocents? ...Why should a person who cares about protecting the defenseless victims act as Timothy McVeigh did and cause even more destruction to innocent people...why not at least, if he must, only harm the guilty, those who are responsible for causing harm to the victims he wishes to protect, become a vigilante against rapists, bullies, and other abusers?...what is the mindset for shooting up/blowing up random places?...if these Timothy McVeigh types feel all mankind is to blame and they are at war with everybody then why should anyone decide to join their cause?

  2. Sorry about the delay. I was away for a few days.

    Your comment strongly suggests you have no idea what I'm doing.

  3. Can you please explain what it is you are doing?

    1. I'm attempting to undermine the legitimacy of violent behavior before technology provides a victim of violence with the means to impose an economically significant form of revenge upon us.

      And I'm not the only person who knows what's coming. The January/February, 1998 edition of Foreign Affairs included an article with the subtitle, "What if McVeigh had used anthrax?"

      I don't expect to be successful. I just want to be able to laugh and say "I told you so." when an adult survivor of community sanctioned cruelty does something truly awful.

      Is that clear enough?

  4. That's pretty much what I thought; you're saying "I'm not on the side of the terrorists but we better do what they tell us or else"...however, it is obvious that you are trying to stop bullying. How can you be sure the your fear tactics will not simply make people angry more at the bullying victims turned terrorists and try to make a genocide against nerds and all types of bullying victims by holocaust-like stereotyping and making death camps where they send those who fit the profile of a bully victim? Just because you are a sympathetic person toward the poor bullied geeks, it does not mean this is the same outcome/solution the rest of society will believe in.

    1. The sort of domestic terrorists I write about don't actually "tell us" much of anything. And they're not really terrorists anyway. They're mostly people who've been conditioned by their adolescent environment to feel angry, afraid, and utterly alone. Committing an act of destruction is simply an effort to feel less powerless. Communities knowingly produce such individuals in significant numbers. And once they do, the same laws of mathematics that determine which drunk drivers will kill people on the highway also determine which victims of community sanctioned cruelty will spray bullets into theatres and classrooms.

      Your "holocaust" scenario is unlikely. Rounding up victims of adolescent abuse and shipping them off to concentration camps would provide every terrorist group in the world with a stratospheric degree of moral credibility. American politicians prefer to commit political suicide by photographing their private parts and e-mailing it to disinterested women.

      You know the system...when enough people who matter fear for their own safety the problem will be addressed effectively. All problems tend to follow some variation of this. The challenge to victims of abuse is to inspire a sufficient degree of fear in people who matter without getting caught.

  5. I am disappointed that you laugh off my holocaust idea because I went to school during the Columbine Shooting and witnesses the aftermath of school policies for stopping school shootings and even though they officially try to also combat bullying, I remember that a thorough examination of students was made, many of the students who were slightly weird, such as drawing a picture that depicted "violence" (for example: a knight from a cartoon)..were treated as a potential Eric Harris and sent to the psychologists office to be pumped full of tranquility "medication" or sent off to mental "health" hospital for extreme versions of the same. I don't see many groups getting up in arms over a bunch of bullied nerds, after all bully victims have been throughout history left to fight for themselves and only a handful became terrorists, not an powerful organization, just of few minor annoyances to the public, it is not an organized rebellion like Al Qaeda or something, as you know.

    You are trying to put enraged bullying victims into a different category from terrorists or criminals altogether because you see them as victims but that does not mean that most of society sees it the same way. Additionally, every terrorist has an excuse and sees himself as the victim but I doubt you will indiscriminately accept the opposing parties victimhood status, such as the bullies who too say they are acting out terror on society, primarily defenseless nerdy bullying victims because the bully is so broken from some kind of abuse they received at home or any elder bully.

    Maybe you really are more educated than me and can apply history for correct strategy in regards to civil rights movements but I do not see why the almighty United States of America would give in to terrorist movements, they pride themselves in not negotiating with terrorists and when measuring the strength of power, I think a minority of disgruntled bullying victims is not match in fighting against the US military. As you can see, I am not against helping bullied victims and see bullying as an issue but I am just asking honest questions in hopes of a constructive discussion.

  6. I've read some of the news stories about kids with nail clippers being expelled. Those incidents are not a holocaust where an entire demographic group is systematically murdered. When a school panics over a drawing they're not the least bit concerned with safety. They are just covering their financial asses by over reacting thus avoiding the appearance of not reacting to a threat.

  7. It seems like you are really too focused on my idea about a holocaust, whereas I simply gave that as an example of the variety of outcomes that the public can come up with rather than your assumption that they would give in to the idea of appeasing potential terrorists, especially when this threat is primarily comprised of bullied nerdy sniveling weakling. The public may very well hate what the terrorists cause but I don't see a stubborn and prideful group, such as Americans, along with America's tremendous police and military power backing down to a bunch of cowardly evildoers. If at first they give in to these ant-bullying movements, what else will they be forced to bow down to? Will they next appease to terrorist groups who push a cause for pedophilia? about cannibals? Why should Americans cower and allow the debauchery of their rich society? I think for bully victims to go berserk and go guns blazing into their death is not a tactic and likely those who did it already were indeed not making a statement but enjoying catharsis on their last moments (although, I would say it is disgusting and misguided). I do not write a blog but if I were running this one about ending bullying, I would not see a point in endorsing the mass murderers but only focus and the harm made by the bullies, one that I, perhaps naively, believe should move society to realize the horrors caused on playgrounds to their children by uncontrolled narcissists who bring shame to any people with a drop of civility and morality in them.

  8. The most likely scenario is for adult survivors of adolescent abuse to independently stage occasional media events as they've been doing for years. American culture will gradually become less tolerant of bullying, but not in a uniform manner. Bullying, like other forms of bigotry will continue to exist and continue to be marginalized.

  9. Fowl Ideas is not pro-terrorism, he just explains it effectively. By being anti-bullying, he's far more opposed to domestic acts of bullying-motivated shootings (going postal, Columbine, etc.) than most Americans.

  10. If Fowl Ideas wanted to be pro-terrorism, he very likely never would have blogged about bullying, but joined the masses who stand by and do or say nothing about it. Anyone who brings up a question about the "status quo", and publicly asks it, is inviting the masses to think, not to bully.

    1. Oh, please. As if Fowl Ideas would ever be pro-terrorism. He told me before that he doesn't support terrorism and I believe him.