Just prior to his win over Alessio Sakara, I’d written a blog regarding the pros and cons of MMA’s newest hype sensation, Houston Alexander:
* Assaulted a police officer (borderline bad)
* Domestic abuse (very bad)
Just yesterday, commenter Old_Fogey noticed one little problem with my Bad Karma list: there was no mention of domestic abuse in the article I was reading. I was a bit surprised at first. I read the article over twice looking for the paragraph I swear I remember with that information. Then I went back over all the other articles on Houston Alexander I had read over that period, trying to find where the fuck I had heard about this.
Well, in the end I wasn’t able to find it. I’d like to imagine that the article had been changed like Fox Sports likes to do without issuing a correction. But honestly, unless there’s proof of this I’m just going to man up and say this:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO SIGN OF EVIDENCE THAT HOUSTON ALEXANDER HAS EVER DOMESTICALLY ABUSED ANYONE. I WAS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY WRONG.
Let this be a lesson to everyone: Never ever rely on me for your factual knowledge because I’m obviously a moron. I’ll try not to let my subconscious racism towards black people manifest itself in bogus claims of domestic abuse any more. I’ll also always do my best to be factually accurate and generally all of my facts will be directly backed up with a corresponding link to someone with an actual brain. I will always correct any errors on this site if people point them out, either with a correction notice in the article or, in the case of big fuck ups like this, a brand new post to digitally flagellate myself for my stupidity. Oh, and to ‘clear’ the names of guys I accuse of beating chicks up.
Sorry, but in case you didn’t notice, we’re not exactly brain surgeons over here.
**UPDATE** Wow, a correction on a correction. Looks like The Reader did remove this specific paragraph from their article:
It wasn’t his only run-in with the law. He alludes to “a whole bunch of domestic,” referring to disturbances involving women that led to police intervention.
Of course, the problem with changing articles and not explaining why is that we don’t know why the paragraph was removed. You’ll notice some fishy wording in there … ‘alludes’ being the key one. The reporter also assigns his own assumption to what ‘domestic’ is.
Sure, it might make perfect sense to a white dude from the ‘burbs that ‘domestic’ = ‘domestic abuse’, but really it could just be Ebonics for ‘fucking some bitches up, putting them in their place’. Hmm … that’s not very good either. Anyways, I think the fact that the paragraph was retracted is noteworthy enough to still justify this correction. But it does feel good that I didn’t just make this whole thing up in my head.