Posted by
John Pittsley
• 05.31.17 09:00 pm

Screen Shot 2017-05-31 at 8.57.37 PM

What the hell has gotten into the old timers these days? Back when I was a young whipper snapper, old fogeys used to have their shit together. They’d still lose their memory and crap their pants but they still had the common decency to wear uncomfortable clothes and use actual canes. Nowadays, they use these ridiculous things from the future that make it look like they’re going on a hike with a robot or mountain climbing on mars.

Every generation’s style changes from one to the next, just like their taste in music. And with advancements in technology there’s obviously going to be some shitty forms of clothing and attire that get left in the sands of time. That’s why you don’t really see people walking around in flowing robes and open-toe sandals with olive branch crowns on their big dumb heads anymore. Good ole fashion canes don’t really fall into that category, though. They’re more like suspenders, pipes, and fishing hats; they’re a staple of the elderly’s attire and if they want their words to carry any weight, they’d better not start fucking around with them.

Old people are supposed to be wise and giving advice at all times, whether it’s asked for or not. Their bitching and moaning may get tiresome every now and then but it should ultimately instill some values or ethics in us that are necessary in maintaining our society. A majority of people will take it for granted when they’re younger, as they should. Just because the elderly are filled with knowledge, doesn’t mean the youth should listen to every single little word that dribbles out of their mouths. Being rebellious and acting like a little brat is part of being young and anyone who does everything they’re told is a classic dweeb anyways. Plus, you never really know when an old person has started to get Alzheimer’s and is actually spewing out non-sense. That doesn’t mean their words don’t resonate with the youth to a certain degree. But in order for those words to have some effect, the elderly have to play their part and that includes using a cane that doesn’t look like it was bought on SkyMall.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize people’s tastes and hobbies change as they mature. Some of this has to do with the fact that some things just lose their charm but a lot of it has to do with the fact that at a certain age, people simply aren’t able to pull off the same shit as they once were. That’s why you don’t still see Michael Jordan winning championships anymore and for the most part, adult men egging houses or killing small animals for fun. Sure, Jordan got tired of winning championships and found a new passion in gambling and golf. While most kids recognize, somewhere in their teens, that getting laid and fucked up is more fun than fucking other people’s houses up. However, if you saw an adult man TP-ing someone’s house or throwing rocks at squirrels, you’d think the guy was in Antifa or mentally handicapped. And Michael Jordan would get his ass whooped if he stepped on an NBA court, now. Same thing goes for the elderly and using technology or trying to keep up with the times, they just can’t pull it off. The only exception is using Rascal scooters but that only goes for the ones who are handicapped or are only waiting to die and are fine with being invisible cyborgs. For all the others, who want their words of wisdom and stories of the past to be heard, it’s essential they continue using outdated crap.

When someone’s giving advice, it’s important they’re speaking from a place of authority. And when someone’s complaining, it’s important they have something to bitch about. Nowhere is this more evident than with old people. They have the life experience to know what they’re talking about and their biggest complaint tends to be things aren’t as they once were. While it’s a perfectly valid claim, it’s not all that great of a thing to whine about. Especially when the quality of life continues to improve. It doesn’t help matters if they’re taking advantage of all the improvements being made to minor conveniences. They could change all that by continuing to use the contraptions of their own time or their fathers’ fathers’ time. Not just because it would give them something to complain about but because it would show they meant business when they said they wished things were the way they once were.

None of this would probably matter all too much if we still sent old people off to sea, when it was their time but we’ve civilized a bit over the years and now we let those wrinkly bastards waste away on the porch or La-Z-Boy. So, we have to look at their ugly mugs until they actually die and we stick ‘em in the ground. The fact they continue yappin’ about every little goddamned thing that makes them unhappy right up until the very end doesn’t make it any easier but maybe it would help if they could handle using canes from the time they wish we were living in.


  1. Pittsley Fan Club says:

    Heeeeeeeeeeeee’s BACK!!!
    Heeeeeeeeeeere’s JOHNNY!!!

  2. 6079 Smith, W. says:

    MY cane has a short rapier inside.
    Lip off, Pugsley.

  3. Asshole says:

    I never thought I’d miss John and his insipid writing – but I did. Some of the most important, but scarcely noted, things in life are taken for granted until they’re suddenly gone. For instance, a steady gait that is rocked by a sudden stroke leading to today’s topic – The Cane. The repercussions that flow from that can be innumerable. John, like a Talmudic scholar, has the rare gift of straining as much triviality of totally useless knowledge as is possible in observing those repercussions. John’s very own insipid writing style is a case in point. On the surface it’s tasteless, flavorless, bland, weak, wishy-washy, lacks vigor or interest, “INSIPID,” shallow work, unimaginative, uninspired, uninspiring, characterless, flat, uninteresting, lackluster, dull, drab, boring, dry, humdrum, ho-hum, monochrome, tedious, uneventful, run-of-the-mill, commonplace, pedestrian, trite, tired, hackneyed, stale, lame, wishy-washy, colorless, anemic, lifeless.
    OK. I repeated myself a few times there which also illustrates John’s writing.
    The point is none of the seeming superficiality of life is noticed until its gone. It took 15 days in the Street Carnage wilderness for us to suddenly notice John’s absence from our lives. Like the sudden sensation of a turd gone wrong that screams – I BE CONSTIPATED!! Then, and only then, did we appreciate John’s journey through the COLON of our lives.
    We missed you Johnny.

  4. A Boy Named Able says:

    I hated my brother, Cane.
    Probably why he killed me….

  5. Siegfried the Pug says:


  6. Detached Casual Observer says:

    I’m sure there is some interesting psychoanalysis that could be made of the landfill of John’s mind here on display at Street Carnage. Beyond the obvious retardation and perpetual adolescence, and the Andy Rooney Jr. whining, something deeper is taking place. But perhaps psychoanalysis is not the discipline to get to the bottom of this. Something more elemental may be required. DMT could be the key to unlocking the enigma that is Pittsley.
    Calling Joe Rogan.

  7. Wikipedia says:

    Caning of Charles Sumner

    Representative Preston Brooks (left) brutally beat Senator Charles Sumner after Sumner gave a fiery speech attacking slavery and its practitioners.
    On May 22, 1856, in the United States Senate, Representative Preston Brooks (D-SC) attacked Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA), an abolitionist, with a walking cane in retaliation for a speech given by Sumner two days earlier in which he fiercely attacked slaveholders including a relative of Brooks. The beating nearly killed Sumner and it drew a sharply polarized response from the American public on the subject of the expansion of slavery in the United States. It has been considered symbolic of the “breakdown of reasoned discourse”[1] that eventually led to the American Civil War.
    The Crime against Kansas
    In 1856, during the “Bleeding Kansas” crisis, Sumner denounced the Kansas–Nebraska Act in his “Crime against Kansas” speech, delivered on May 19 and May 20. The long speech argued for the immediate admission of Kansas as a free state and went on to denounce the “Slave Power”—the political arm of the slave owners:

    Not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin. It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire for a new Slave State, hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the National Government.[2]

    Sumner then attacked the authors of the Act, Senators Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina, saying,

    The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator.

    In addition, Sumner mocked Butler’s speaking ability, which had been impeded by a recent stroke:

    [He] touches nothing which he does not disfigure with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He cannot open his mouth, but out there flies a blunder.[3]

    According to Manisha Sinha (2003), Sumner had been ridiculed and insulted by both Douglas and Butler for his opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Act earlier, with Butler crudely race-baiting Sumner by making sexual allusions to black women, like many slaveholders who accused abolitionists of promoting interracial marriage.[4]

    According to Hoffer (2010), “It is also important to note the sexual imagery that recurred throughout the oration, which was neither accidental nor without precedent. Abolitionists routinely accused slaveholders of maintaining slavery so that they could engage in forcible sexual relations with their slaves.”[5] Douglas said during the speech that “this damn fool is going to get himself killed by some other damn fool.”[6]

    Representative Preston Brooks, Butler’s cousin, was infuriated. He later said that he intended to challenge Sumner to a duel, and consulted with fellow South Carolina Representative Laurence M. Keitt on dueling etiquette. Keitt told him that dueling was for gentlemen of equal social standing, and that Sumner was no better than a drunkard, due to the supposedly coarse language he had used during his speech. Brooks said that he concluded that since Sumner was no gentleman, he did not merit honorable treatment; to Keitt and Brooks, it was more appropriate to humiliate Sumner by beating him with a cane in a public setting.[7]

    Day of the attack

    Congressman Laurence Keitt advised Brooks and was with him when he assaulted Sumner.
    Two days later, on the afternoon of May 22, Brooks entered the Senate chamber with Keitt and another ally, Congressman Henry A. Edmundson. They waited for the galleries to clear, especially concerned that there be no ladies present to witness what Brooks intended to do.[8] He confronted Sumner as he sat writing at his desk in the almost empty Senate chamber. “Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a libel on South Carolina, and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of mine,” Brooks calmly announced in a low voice. As Sumner began to stand up, Brooks beat Sumner severely on the head before he could reach his feet, using a thick gutta-percha cane with a gold head. The force of the blows so shocked Sumner that he lost his sight immediately. “I no longer saw my assailant, nor any other person or object in the room. What I did afterwards was done almost unconsciously, acting under the instincts of self-defense,” he recalled later.[9]

    Congressman Henry A. Edmundson also advised Brooks and was with him during the assault on Sumner.

    Lithograph of Preston Brooks’ 1856 attack on Sumner; the artist depicts the faceless assailant bludgeoning the learned martyr
    Sumner was knocked down and trapped under the heavy desk, which was bolted to the floor. His chair, which was pulled up to his desk, moved back and forth on a track; Sumner either could not or did not think to slide his chair back to escape, so it pinned him under his desk. Brooks continued to strike Sumner until Sumner rose to his feet and ripped the desk from the floor in an effort to get away from Brooks.[10] By this time, Sumner was blinded by his own blood. He staggered up the aisle and, arms outstretched, vainly attempted to defend himself. But then he was an even larger and easier target for Brooks, who continued to beat him across the head, face, and shoulders “to the full extent of [my] power.” Brooks didn’t stop when his cane snapped; he continued thrashing Sumner with the piece which held the gold head. Sumner stumbled and reeled convulsively, “Oh Lord,” he gasped “Oh! Oh!” Near the end of the attack, Sumner collapsed unconscious, although shortly before he succumbed he “bellowed like a calf” according to Brooks. Brooks grabbed the falling Sumner, held him up by the lapel with one hand, and continued to lash out at him with the cane in the other.[11][12] Several other Senators and Representatives attempted to help Sumner, but were blocked by Edmundson, who yelled at the spectators to leave Brooks and Sumner alone,[13] and Keitt, who brandished his own cane and a pistol, and shouted, “Let them be!” and “Let them alone, God damn you, let them alone!”[14][15][16]

    Senator John J. Crittenden attempted to intervene, and pleaded with Brooks not to kill Sumner. Senator Robert Toombs then interceded for Crittenden, telling Keitt not to attack someone who was not a party to the dispute, though Toombs also indicated later that he had no issue with Brooks beating Sumner, and in fact approved of it.[17]

    Representatives Ambrose S. Murray and Edwin B. Morgan were finally able to intervene and restrain Brooks, at which point he quietly left the chamber.[18] Murray obtained the aid of a Senate page and the Sergeant at Arms, Dunning R. McNair.[19] As Sumner regained consciousness they were able to assist him to walk to a cloakroom.[20] Sumner received medical attention, including several stitches.[21] With the aid of Nathaniel P. Banks, the Speaker of the House, and Senator Henry Wilson, Sumner was able to travel by carriage to his lodgings, where he received further medical treatment.[22]

    Brooks also required medical attention before leaving the Capitol; he had hit himself above his right eye with one of his backswings.[23] Brooks was arrested for the assault.[24]

    The cane Brooks used was broken into several pieces, which he left on the blood soaked floor of the Senate chamber. Some, including the cane’s gold head, were recovered by Edmundson, who gave the portion with the head to Adam John Glossbrenner, the House Sergeant at Arms.[25][26] This portion of the cane eventually ended up at the Old State House Museum in Boston; it was worked to smooth the edges and finish, and then put on display.[27] Southern lawmakers made rings out of the other pieces Edmundson recovered from the Senate floor, which they wore on neck chains to show their solidarity with Brooks, who boasted “[The pieces of my cane] are begged for as sacred relics.” [28]


    The walking cane used to attack Charles Sumner on exhibit at the Old State House in Boston.
    The episode revealed the polarization in America, as Sumner became a martyr in the North and Brooks a hero in the South. Northerners were outraged. The Cincinnati Gazette said, “The South cannot tolerate free speech anywhere, and would stifle it in Washington with the bludgeon and the bowie-knife, as they are now trying to stifle it in Kansas by massacre, rapine, and murder.”[29] William Cullen Bryant of the New York Evening Post, asked, “Has it come to this, that we must speak with bated breath in the presence of our Southern masters?… Are we to be chastised as they chastise their slaves? Are we too, slaves, slaves for life, a target for their brutal blows, when we do not comport ourselves to please them?”[30] Thousands attended rallies in support of Sumner in Boston, Albany, Cleveland, Detroit, New Haven, New York, and Providence. More than a million copies of Sumner’s speech were distributed. Two weeks after the caning, Ralph Waldo Emerson described the divide the incident represented: “I do not see how a barbarous community and a civilized community can constitute one state. I think we must get rid of slavery, or we must get rid of freedom.”[31]

    Conversely, Brooks was praised by Southern newspapers. The Richmond Enquirer editorialized that Sumner should be caned “every morning”, praising the attack as “good in conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequences” and denounced “these vulgar abolitionists in the Senate” who “have been suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission.” Southerners sent Brooks hundreds of new canes in endorsement of his assault. One was inscribed “Hit him again.”[32]

    Representative Anson Burlingame publicly humiliated Brooks by goading him into challenging Burlingame to a duel, only to set conditions designed to intimidate Brooks into backing down. (As the challenged party, Burlingame, who was a crack shot, had the choice of weapons and dueling ground. He selected rifles on the Canada side of Niagara Falls, where U.S. anti-dueling laws would not apply. Brooks withdrew his challenge, claiming that he did not want to expose himself to the risk of violence by traveling through northern states to get to Niagara Falls.)[33]

    Brooks also threatened Senator Henry Wilson, Sumner’s colleague from Massachusetts. Wilson called the beating by Brooks “brutal, murderous, and cowardly,” and in response Brooks challenged Wilson to a duel.[34] Wilson declined, saying that he could not legally or by personal conviction participate, and calling dueling “the lingering relic of a barbarous civilization.”[35] In reference to a rumor that Brooks might attack him in the Senate, Wilson told the press “I have sought no controversy, and I seek none, but I shall go where duty requires, uninfluenced by threats of any kind.”[36] Wilson continued to perform his Senate duties, and Brooks did not make good on his threat.

    Historian William Gienapp has concluded that Brooks’ “assault was of critical importance in transforming the struggling Republican party into a major political force.”[37]

    Southerners mocked Sumner, claiming he was faking his injuries.[38] They argued that the cane Brooks used was not heavy enough to inflict severe injuries.[39] They also claimed that Brooks had not hit Sumner more than a few times, and had not hit him hard enough to cause serious health concerns.[40] In fact, Sumner suffered head trauma that caused him chronic, debilitating pain for the rest of his life and symptoms consistent with what is now called traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder; he spent three years convalescing before returning to his Senate seat.[41]

    Brooks claimed that he had not intended to kill Sumner, or else he would have used a different weapon.[42] In a speech to the House defending his actions, Brooks stated that he “meant no disrespect to the Senate of the United States” or the House by his attack on Sumner.[43] He was tried in a District of Columbia court, convicted for assault, and fined $300 ($8,000 in today’s dollars), but received no prison sentence.[44] A motion to expel Brooks from the House failed, but he resigned on July 15 in order to permit his constituents to ratify or condemn his conduct via a special election.[45] They approved; Brooks was quickly returned to office in the August 1 special election,[46] and then re-elected to a new term of office later in 1856,[47] but he died of croup before the new term began.[48]

    Keitt, who facilitated Brooks’ attack, was censured by the House.[49] He resigned in protest, but his constituents ratified his conduct by overwhelmingly reelecting him to his seat within a month.[50] In 1858, he attempted to choke Representative Galusha Grow of Pennsylvania (Republican) for calling him a “negro driver” during an argument on the House floor.[51]

    An effort to censure Edmundson failed to obtain a majority of votes in the House.[52]

    During the 1856 lame duck session of Congress, Brooks made a speech calling for the admission of Kansas “even with a constitution rejecting slavery”. His conciliatory tone impressed Northerners and disappointed slavery’s supporters.

  8. Logic says:

    “When someone’s giving advice, it’s important they’re speaking from a place of authority.”

    What authority does the author have? An anon streetcarnage contributor?

  9. Epimenides says:

    Logic. How dare you question the impeccable qualifications of one decidedly non-anonymous John Pittsley. His authority is self evident, a priori, empirically unfalsifiable. In other words, undeniable Street Cred. Besides, oh Logic; in yourself there isn’t proof of truth. The edifice of many a logical Sand Castle has come crashing down on the weak foundational arguments that they were built upon. The modern analogy being garbage in, garbage out. Logic, you had your comeuppance when you foolishly thought all Cretans to be liars. Now we will agree Pittsley is an inscrutable paradox, but that’s another riddle.

  10. Siegfried the Pug says:


  11. The Cane Toad says:

    Cane toad
    For other uses, see Cane toads (disambiguation).
    The cane toad (Rhinella marina), also known as the giant neotropical toad or marine toad, is a large, terrestrial true toad which is native to South and mainland Central America, but has been introduced to various islands throughout Oceania and the Caribbean, as well as Northern Australia. It is a member of the genus Rhinella, but was formerly in the genus Bufo, which includes many different true toad species found throughout Central and South America. The cane toad is a prolific breeder; females lay single-clump spawns with thousands of eggs. Its reproductive success is partly because of opportunistic feeding: it has a diet, unusual among anurans, of both dead and living matter. Adults average 10–15 cm (3.9–5.9 in) in length; the largest recorded specimen had a snout-vent length of 24 cm (9.4 in).[5]

    Cane toad
    Adult male
    Adult female
    Conservation status

    Least Concern (IUCN 3.1)[1]
    Scientific classification e
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Amphibia
    Order: Anura
    Family: Bufonidae
    Genus: Rhinella
    Species: R. marina
    Binomial name
    Rhinella marina
    (Linnaeus, 1758)
    Bufo marinus distribution.png
    Distribution of the cane toad, native distribution in blue, introduced in red
    Rana marina Linnaeus, 1758
    Bufo marinus Schneider, 1799
    Rhinella marinus[2][3][4]
    Chaunus marinus[4]
    The cane toad is an old species. A fossil toad (specimen UCMP 41159) from the La Venta fauna of the late Miocene of Colombia is indistinguishable from modern cane toads from northern South America.[6] It was discovered in a floodplain deposit, which suggests the R. marina habitat preferences have long been for open areas.[7]

    The cane toad has poison glands, and the tadpoles are highly toxic to most animals if ingested. Because of its voracious appetite, the cane toad has been introduced to many regions of the Pacific and the Caribbean islands as a method of agricultural pest control. The species derives its common name from its use against the cane beetle (Dermolepida albohirtum). The cane toad is now considered a pest and an invasive species in many of its introduced regions; of particular concern is its toxic skin, which kills many animals, both wild and domesticated. Cane toads are particularly dangerous to dogs.[8]

  12. Ground Control To My Big Dong says:

  13. Thanks for the purpose of offering many of these amazing info.

Leave A Reply