Top 100 Creepy People #61-70


Creepy Person #70- Kat Von D

Here is a woman who does not need all of the tattoos to bring attention to herself.  It is obvious that under all of that body art there is a beautiful woman, but at this point it would take years of surgery and tens of thousands of dollars to find her.  I know tattoos are very popular right now, but I am personally repulsed by them.  Fashions may come and go, but not a tattoo.  Most of these people would do better dealing with the issues that are driving them to do this to their bodies rather than getting them in the first place.  In extreme cases, such as hers it is all just too much, and creepy.


Creepy Person #69- Seth Green

The unkempt appearance that leaves him looking like the antagonist in a hillbilly horror movie would be enough to put him on the list, but he and the next Seth on the list (see the entry below) are writers of the animated show Family Guy.  It’s hilarious.  But the guys pole vault over lines that others fear to even get close to.  They are extremely creative, but their creativity often seems to be directed toward a place that is the literary equivalent of the place Oppenheimer’s creativity took him.


Creepy Person #68- Seth MacFarlane

Everything but the unkempt part in #69 applies here.  Not to get too preachy in a light hearted article, but the in the book of Romans it refers to “inventors of evil,” and these guys would be the poster boys for this.  They would make the list if only for inventing that creepy old guy who lives down the street from the Griffins.  The show is very funny, but even Family Guy needs to have boundaries.


Creepy Person #67- Jot

This one may be a little obscure for some (see this for more info on Jot ).  Jot was one of the quasi-religious cartoons that turned up from time to time in the 1970s.  He was basically a white dot with feet (which is creepy enough), and the parents in this show were like those on the peanuts, except that you could understand them.  They seemed to be sort of omnipresent.  As with another of these types of characters, Davey, from Davey and Goliath, Jot was a horrible child.  He would always to bad things, and never would make it right until his conscious got to him or he got caught.  Then it was always, “I’m sorry I stabbed little Timmy.”  “That’s OK Jot, I still love you.”  How about encouraging kids to make good decisions in the first place?  All of this forgiveness stuff gets kind of overrated if you are never motivated to be any better.  The animation in this one is creepy too.


Creepy Person #66- Anna Nicole Smith

I thought it might be too soon after her passing to put this one on the list, but the creepiness she visited on this world during her lifetime would have made it egregious not to have included her.  First there was the whole married to an ancient billionaire thing.  That alone is creepy.  Then she went through the period where she was gross and overweight, but it seemed neither she nor the media realized this as they continually showed her scantily clad body at every opportunity.  Since her passing, a video of her ‘entertaining’ some children at birthday party has come out.  Her face is made up in such a way that it would haunt the dreams of even the Joker, and she looks out of it!  It is hard not to feel pity for what became of her life, but she was undeniably creepy.


Creepy Person #65- Barney Frank

Thanks, Massachusetts.  Here we have a guy who is another nightmare for conservatives.  He sounds like the Mad Hatter and lived with a male escort who actually ran a male escort service from the house where they both lived while he was (and still is) in office.


Creepy Person #64- Elivra

Yeah, she was a hot girl who made some money dressing up like a sexy Bride of Frankenstein for Saturday morning movies.  That was a little weird, but have you seen her lately?  Up until the last couple of years she was still putting on that getup and appearing in public, and it was not pretty.  Apparently, someone finally had the talk about aging gracefully with her, and she has decided to retire, but not before taking applications for an Elvira to replace her, as if the world could not do without her.


Creepy Person #63- Robert Tilton

I guess I’ll pile all of these bastards under the same heading, so I don’t have a list completely populated by televangelists.  Bilking old ladies out of their life savings in order to fund his lavish lifestyle is pretty creepy.  Having people put their faith in you (to the point of stopping taking their medicine) and later dying of treatable illnesses, being exposed as a charlatan on network television, and closing up shop in Dallas only to reopen shortly thereafter in Florida.  And, doing all of this while dragging the name of the Holy God that you serve through the mud with you.  Creepy.  I am sure the karma cloud that surrounds this guy is enough to block out the sun.


Creepy Person #62- Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber

Have you seen this guy?  He is the Phantom of the Opera.  Cree-py.


Creepy Person # 61- Richard Simmons

He has lost a little relevance in the past few years, but the age and those horrible shorts only add to the creepiness.  I wonder who gets more creeped-out at one of his weight-loss sessions, the girls or the guys when he touches them.  If this were and list of irritating people, he would definitely score higher.

Top 100 Creepy People Criteria

Top 100 Creepy People 10-1

Top 100 Creepy People 21-30

Top 100 Creepy People 31-40

Top 100 Creepy People 41-50

Top 100 Creepy People 51-60

Top 100 Creepy People 61-70

Top 100 Creepy People 71-80

Top 100 Creepy People 81-90

Top 100 Creepy People 91-100





Teaching Our Children

People tend to use children for all sorts of things.  Many mothers and fathers refuse to discipline their children because they think their children will not love them, and they draw their personal sense of self-worth from the affections provided by their children.  This is usually a recipe for disaster when raising a child.  However, attempting to show love to a child (even if is it misguided) is better that abusing or neglecting a child any day.

I was reading an article about a man, a sex offender, who has been banned from attending his son’s graduation by a law that requires him to receive a special dispensation from the school’s superintendent in order to come onto school grounds.  In this particular case the superintendent has refused to allow any sex offenders on the school’s grounds even to attend the graduation of their kids.  Sound harsh?

It doesn’t sound nearly as harsh as the forcible rape of a fifteen year old girl which is what the man was convicted of.  Some might say that the school’s superintendent is being too harsh in dealing with the man (there are actually five parents who are not able to attend the ceremony for this reason).  However, I say that she is perfectly within her rights, and furthermore, she is taking a responsible position both in regards to the safety of her students and the the school district’s legal exposure.

The sex offender is livid at the schools response.  The offender, a Mr. James Jones, said, “I’ve already been punished for this. This isn’t about me anymore. Now they’re punishing my kids, and that’s taking it a little too far.”  I would argue that he is incorrect in this statement.  This felon has been, and is still, being duly punished for his crime just as the poor girl that he raped still has to live with the memory of what he did to her every day.  If his children are being ‘punished’ or affected in any way by this, he is the one who is responsible for it, not the state or the school district.  The fact that he is not allowed to attend the graduation is a direct consequence of his own actions that would not be occurring if he had not committed the crime in the first place.  Perhaps, if he had thought a little about the future consequences to his child (let alone the consequences to his victim), he might not have committed such a horrific crime in the first place.

He claims that he will attend anyway, and county police claim that they will attend also.  They have stated that he is subject to arrest and up to four years in prison if he attends the ceremony.

He says, “I’m always preaching education to my children. How does that make me look if I’m not there at graduation?”  And, this is where I get to my main point.  Here we have a father who claims to promote education to his children, but what is he really teaching them?  He has a perfect opportunity to teach his children a very valuable lesson about making bad decisions and the consequences thereof.  He could impress up his child the fact that ‘because daddy made a bad decision, he will not be able to come to the graduation, but that does not mean he does not love him.  He loves him all the more and will do his best to make it up to him.’

Instead of taking this golden opportunity to teach his child a life lesson, Mr Jones has chosen to splash his name in the paper, to bring up old wounds and stigmas that undoubtedly will effect his child and community, and to threaten to and possibly actually to break to the law resulting in his incarceration and separation from his children for up to four years.  What a misguided set of values he has.

In the end the point is, that he is not really worried about his child.  He is worried about himself.  He is mad  that the consequences of his earlier actions are still having a negative effect on him, and he is throwing a little fit, at the expense of his family and his community over it.  Nice example dad.