My wife got a speeding ticket about an hour ago. She was speeding. She knew she was speeding. She was late for a class.
So she tells the cop all of this, and he gives her a ticket. Big deal, right?
Well, Capt. Draconian Cockboy also said something to her that I am going to complain about. Big time.
After looking over her ID he pointed out to her that he could give her a ticket for “working without a Montana license.” He made the point that he was “going easy” on her by not giving her this second ticket. The dick. Had he been aware of this facet of life a like to call “law,” he would know that students are not allowed to seek residency in Montana while attending school full time. In other words, my wife — full time student — cannot become a resident of Montana until such a time that she is no longer and student.
I of course am assuming that Capt. Draconian Cockboy did know the law because he is a cop and I assume (wrongly?) that police officers are required to have at least a rudimentary understanding of law (how else would they write tickets for jay walking?). So, assuming that Capt. DC knows this is the law, he was just fucking with my wife to start off his morning with a quick quota-filler and a side of douchery.
But more than this, is it right to have such an asinine law enforceable in the first place? How are out-of-state students to live in Missoula without gainful employment? These students pay more for the same education that is squandered by so many in-state students. In paying more they need employment should they want to eat food. So they work. They contribute tax dollars and real money to our state and economy. And they’re criminals?
Well, yes, according to Capt. Draconian Cockboy, they are.
Okay. Fine. So Capt. DC could have given her a ticket for working without being a state resident. I guess. Sure. Unless…. wait… wait.. I know this one… just give me a minute…
Oh yeah. A cop cannot just start writing you tickets for random things when he pulls you over. He can only begin to charge you with readily apparent crimes.
This cop pulled my wife over for speeding and the began questioning her about her employment, which he had no reason to do. Ever heard of the Fifth Amendment?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
It’s a biggie. People are not held to answer questions by those representing the law, unless those representing the law have evidence.
Let’s step back. Every heard of the Fourth Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can’t give me a ticket for something that you had no way of proving given the original offense unless there is cause. Example: Had Alisia been holding a bag of pot in her lap (which she would never do as she does not smoke, eat, or otherwise take part in the use of marijuana), she can be charged with that. But, if the bag were in the trunk, the cop cannot search for the bag just because he wants to.
He also cannot threatened her with a ticket concerning her residency when he pulls her over for speeding. The cock.
Something needs to be done about this backward and harmful law. And soon. Hear that legislature? Get to work or get ready to kiss those sweet out-of-state student dollars goodbye.
Yesterday a lot of Missoulians got super excited that Tenzin Gyatzo, the 14th Dalai Lama is coming to our burg in 2011. Aside from the fact that his visit is over a year away, there are more reasons to not be excited this.
First off, I have to say that I think China is a terrible totalitarian-minded regime that crushes people. I find their human rights record grotesque, and their leaders to be awful, empty husks of humanity. But that said… the Lama isn’t that great of an alternative.
Mr. Gyatzo views himself as the rightful leader of Tibet. He believes himself to be spiritually on high, even being referred to as “His Holiness.” Here’s my first issue with him. He sees himself as both the political and spiritual leader of Buddhist and the nation of Tibet. In other words, he is a theocrat.
I know that America is no pearl of democracy, or bastion of freedom, but we are not a theocracy (in fact, we made our first constitutional amendment a refutation of theocratic government). What Mr. Gyatzo wants is a theocratic rule of Tibet. He is not for a “free” Tibet. He is in fact for implementing a religious dictatorship. It’s sick. It’s un-American. It should not be something supported by our government, the CIA, or our treasured D-List actors like Steven Seagal (who Mr. Gyatzo has claimed is a reincarnated lama).
Under his rule people would have to be Buddhist, and his word would be the end-all-be-all of any conflict within the government of the faith. That’s such an awful and evil thing to me that I can’t help myself from going insane any time someone says he should have Tibet back. Why would we wish that upon a people so under siege (not Under Siege, a film by reincarnated lama Steven Seagal)?
But we do support him. We give him asylum, and money, and so many of us praise his wonderful, humble living style. Which is my second issue with Mr. Gyatzo, by the way.
The lamas class in Tibet had a much higher standard of living than other people. They did not live in humble poverty, but in monasteries and temples. There was gold, and an abundance of food while below many lived in unending poverty and filth. Some people will say that I’m buying into Chinese propaganda concerning Tibet’s past, but even the Dalai Lama himself has said that serfdom existed, but then — in a stunningly weasel move — says that serfs in Tibet were treated better than serfs in China. As if that makes it better. As if we are to think that one oppression is okay by default because it could be worse. It’s like he’s saying, “Sure, you don’t have any rights and live in poverty, but over there they only have turnips! So be glad you’re over here in poverty and filth. Back to work.”
It is easy, however, for him to make these claims as he rides around in his LandRover doing commercials for Apple.
But of course this second issue is just an extension of my overall annoyance with American’s loving on this man. He does not deserve his nation back (and the Chinese also do not deserve it, FYI). The people of Tibet deserve the lives proclaimed — but not believed in — by so many bumper stickers: a Free Tibet. They deserve to have voting rights, freedom of speech and belief. And the Dalai Lama would not give this to them. He would make his ideas and beliefs the law.
He is no better than the leaders of Iran, really. Sure, he is against the death penalty, but he is also against people engaging in sexual acts like masturbation. (He also believes that homosexuals are incapable of being Buddhist because they engage in sexual acts he finds offensive.) While he will not kill people in cruel, and awful ways as the Ayatollahs will, he will take away freedom just the same.
But still America will continue to lift this man up as a courageous and giving soul. He will continue to get money from Richard Gere, and Sharon Stone (in a way he’s like Scientology).
Our leaders will praise and welcome him during so many gatherings.
And all the while the only victim will be the truth.
Wow. I thought I was kicking people in the teeth when I said a gay man compiled the modern Christian Bible.
Anyway, I’ve been busy these past few months trying to write a novel and working my ass off at…work. I’ll be updating more frequently.
For over 20 years the Super Bowl, the biggest American sporting event, has used the game’s halftime show to feature outdated, “safe” acts that are rarely offensive. (Who didn’t roll their eyes when the Anaheim High School Drill Team preformed during Super Bowl I, am I right?) And the practice needs to end. Soon.
Here’s a short list of outdated and “safe” acts that have graced the Halftime Show:
Super Bowl XXII, 1988: Chubby Checker
Super Bowl XXVI, 1992: Gloria Estafan
Super Bowl XXVII, 1993: Michael Jackson
Super Bowl XXVII, 1994: The Judds
Super Bowl XXVIII, 1995: Tony Bennet
Super Bowl XXX, 1996: Diana Ross
Super Bowl XXXI, 1997: ZZ Top, James Brown
Super Bowl XXXII, 1998: Boys II Men
Super Bowl XXXIII, 1999: Gloria Estafan (again!), Stevie Wonder
Super Bowl XXXIV, 2000: Phil Collins
Super Bowl XXXVII, 2003: Sting
Super Bowl XXXVIII, 2004: Janet Jackson, Janet Jackson’s weird nipple-clipped boob
Super Bowl XXXIX, 2005: Paul McCartney
Super Bowl XL, 2006: The Rolling Stones
Super Bowl XLI, 2007: Prince (toned down, given religion and losing most of the sexy)
Super Bowl XLII, 2008: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
Super Bowl XLIII, 2009: Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band
And now, introducing our new inductee that promises not to offend or confuse any viewer:
Once treated as a dangerous, insane band, The Who are now old men.
And they’re now just Pete Townshend and Roger Daltry. They’re sober. They eat right. There may be explosions during the show, but rest assured that they will be handled by professionals, and not a drunk Keith Moon.
So, what the fuck is the point of having The Who then?
Because out of all those artists listed above, how many do you like at least one song of, or could hum at least one song? Each and every one of them. And when you get into The Stones, Bruce, Tom, Paul and Prince: We all like them. Those guys all rock and anyone saying different is a liar who should be dressed like a wolf and set free near Sarah Palin.
We all like these artists because these peeps crank out the hits. One wrote “Satisfaction.” Another wrote “Purple Rain.” Good lord, Paul McCartney was a Beatle. These aren’t some namby-pamby one-hit-wonders. These cats are destined for a prolonged superstardom even in death. But they’re all old acts. All of them. No one watching has to see something too new, something they could describe as “the shit the kids listen to now-a-days…”
That’s my issue here. There are very few instances of featuring even newish acts in the Super Bowl. In 2001 at Super Bowl XXXV Britney Spears performed–but with Aerosmith. Justin Timberlake performed in 2004–but with Janet Jackson and her boob. Whenever there is something new, it is curbed with something old and safe…or at least that’s attempted.
What if we did this in other events, or in the game itself?
Bob Costas: “All right we’re about to start here in Dolphin Stadium here in beautiful Miami, Florida. Football fans over 50 will be glad to see that for the first few snaps the Steelers are starting Joe Namath as an ode to Super Bowl III, we assume Ben Rothlisberger will be starting after that followed by a cameo by Joe Montana for a critical 3rd down early in the 2nd half.”
I’m not asking for the Decemberists to play, but why not Wilco? How about Kayne West?
The NFL has allowed Up with People to perform four times, dammit! I’ve never met a football fan who likes motivational, happy, dancing/singing troops in my life. Why not allow for a band composed of members under 40, just at the very least?
Saying that killing is wrong is an easy philosophical stance. It’s like saying you like Oreos. We pretty much all agree, save for a few sociopaths (Michelle Malkin). Most of us, however, make exception in this stance.
Murderers? Kill them. Rapists? Kill them.We want to see these people punished so deeply that they will never breath again.
So when you take the opinion that even the awful members of our society who rape, murder – or both – should not be put to death, you find yourself on the receiving end of some bad PR.
Ain’t that right Mikey D?
But people advocating the death penalty do have a point, which I think Mr. Bernard Shaw was attempting to touch on with his question (but utterly failed too because he’s a horse’s ass). We all want revenge when we’ve been wronged. That’s not the issue though. The issue behind the death penalty is simple: Is it ever okay to kill someone? If you answer no go here and enjoy this LOLcat. Go take a nap.
If you’re like me and you think that killing is wrong unless someone is hurting you or a loved one, well good, stick around. Let’s talk because I think you’ll find this interesting. And if you’re someone who believes in capital punishment, I’ve got someone for you to meet.
Most of the time when people — especially liberals — use the “Hitler defense” I cringe. God, I think, are they really doing that? But when we’re talking about the death penalty, it’s relevant.
Karl Brandt was Hitler’s doctor. He was the leader of the Action T-4 Euthanasia Program. He enjoyed his work, spending hours removing organs, measuring craniums, and dissecting brains (not to mention seeing how he could poison people). The people he worked with, however, found the work too disturbing. These were lower forms of life to the Nazi Supermen, everyone agreed on that. But…they were killing children as well as adults. Obviously the adults were evil…but the kids? Why were they having to suffer the bathhouses?
Brandt did not come up with the name, but he did invent what we now know as “lethal injection,” the “humane” death given by every state still executing people (even Nebraska where they still use the electric chair as well, sick bastards).
He used it to murder children as part of the Holocaust.
Lethal injection made the whole death scene nicer. The children of gypsies, Jews, and Poles, looked like they were asleep. So peaceful. They just lay there and….slowly….as if touched by an angel…they…just… stopped.
The coworkers felt better.
Lethal injection involves three drugs: Thiopental sodium, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. The thiopental sodium puts the individual to sleep, briefly. The pancuronium paralyzes the diaphragm, stopping breathing. The potassium chloride stops the heart.
Death happens quickly. Most of the time. Unless we’re talking about executions in the state of Ohio, where recently the state attempted 18 times to execute a man by lethal injection, missing his veins each time. Now Ohio is going to use only one drug instead of three because they think it will work better. They’re not sure, of course, but they’re going to try it anyway. (Brandt’s philosophy of human experimentation lives on well, apparently.) Of course, even when they get the drugs in, sometimes the executors use too little of the Thiopental. When they do this the person on the table regains consciousness partway through their death and experience suffocation, and heart failure in full awareness. Onlookers do not see this because of the paralyzing effects the drugs have.
The folks die in agony. The people celebrate that such a cruel, inhumane monster is dead. It is illegal, by the way, to do something like that to a dog.
So, I ask you this: Is it really okay with you that the United States uses Nazi ideas to kill people?
But maybe this argument only annoys you. After all, American rocket science was led by former Nazis, and we got to the moon. You can look at me and ask, “Hey, some of those Nazi ideas weren’t evil, so, so what if this is connected to a Nazi?” Fine. Good comeback. One question remains though.
If killing an innocent person is wrong and the perp should be executed, and we execute an innocent person, shouldn’t we all be put to death? It’s called a paradox, and there are few as big as the one presented by the death penalty.
Meet Cameron Todd Willingham. Okay. You can’t meet him. He’s dead. Has been for a few years. But his name should stick with you because if you believe in the death penalty this is an innocent man you murdered.
In 2005 the state of Texas executed Willingham for killing his three children in an arson fire set in 1991. But here’s the issue, he didn’t. Many insane things happened at Willingham’s trial. He had a skull tattoo which prosecutors linked to “sociopathic behavior.” And his Led Zeppelin poster was described as “cultish.”People who first gave reports to police saying how they needed to restrain him from re-entering the house, changed their opinion in court and painted Willingham as someone more like the Joker.
Prosecutors told Willingham that if he just pleaded guilty they’d let him live. All he had to do was admit murder, and he would simply rot in jail. He wouldn’t admit to it. He claimed innocence to his death.
In August 2009, five years after the state of Texas executed Willingham, a report on his trial was released. Dr. Craig Beyler, an ouside investigator hired by the Texas Forensic Science Commission found that the fire marshalls behind the case completely disregarded scientific evidence. He described the investigation as more like mysticism — meaning that the men wanted him to be guilty, so they let their minds invent his guilt.
Dr. Beyler concluded that there was no evidence linking Willingham to the crime, nor even evidence of a crime. It was a fire. A random fire that tragically killed several children. And their father too paid the ultimate price.
So now where are you on this? Ready to submit to your execution for killing someone innocent? No, you say? The death penalty is acting as a deterrent even though 1,135 people have been executed since a 1976 US Supreme Court decision okayed the death penalty again?
Well, maybe your right. Maybe ideas die with people. Maybe if we kill enough murderers and rapists there will be a day when we’re all safe. Yep. Pretty open and shut. Killing people kills ideas. Amen.
Wait… oh man. How did I forget that. Jesus! No. I mean it. Jesus Christ of Nazareth, executed by Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate by means of crucifixion. Not to mention the hundreds of persecuted Christians who continued to proselytize despite death threats.
Yup. Kill the man, kill the ideas.
I’m not advocating for freeing murderers and rapists. I’ve already said on this blog that three Sexually Violent Predators in my neighborhood should go back to jail and rot. I believe that in my heart. I do not want these people on our streets. I say lock them up forever. Small cells. Cafeteria food. No TV. I do not give a shit. But don’t kill them. Killing does nothing except perpetuate death. Let men and women who commit these crimes sit and think for 60 years about what a dumb move that was. Let them never have their own shirts, linens, or privacy.
But do not by any means put the blood on my hands. Your revenge is not worth it to me, and mine should not be to you. We need to get over this idea that stretches back probably even before Moses. An eye for an eye blinds the world not literally, but in our hearts. We like to believe that the monsters around us are not human, but they are. The BTK killer was a Boy Scout leader. Ted Bundy was a Young Republican. John Wayne Gacy was his town’s Man of the Year once. When we say it is okay to kill them, we say it is okay to kill.
And for me, unless that person is right here, right now harming me, I can’t do it.
Let’s start with this one fact: Roman Polanski is a child rapist. No debate makes sense once you have that admission at the table. He raped a young girl, and he deserves prison–not a holiday in France for 30 years.
He is also a movie director, so some in the field have come out and supported freeing Polanski, and have even sympathized with his plight.
But I think this little bit of info may have gone by the wayside in all the Polanski talk recently. There are two names on his list of international celebrity supporters that should pop out automatically: Woody Allen and French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand. The reason is this: both men have been part of child sex controversies, and both deny it.
Famed director Woody Allen and his partner Mia Farrow broke up in 1992 after Farrow discovered some improper activity perpetrated by Allen. Saddened, Woody soon began dating his former “stepdaughter” Soon-Yi Previn. Previn shared a home with Allen and her adopted mother Mia Farrow, for over a decade while the two adults dated. Then, Farrow found nude photos of the then 21-year-old on Allen’s computer and dumped him.
Remember, that was in 1992. I’ll do the math for you: Allen had known Previn since she was 11.
Allen and Previn dated for five years and wed in 1997, tabloid scandals still ensconcing the union for the obvious reasons. To prying eyes it looked like a father figure preying on a young girl who, by virtue of his stature in her life, was trusted and was exploiting it. At least it looked that way to me (in hindsight; I was seven at the time) because it was a father figure preying on a young girl who, by virtue of his stature in her life was trusted and was exploiting it. I’m not alone in this opinion. Allen’s son Ronan Seamus Farrow says:
“He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent…. I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children.”
Now, French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand is a whole other ball of bastard.
In 2005 Mitterand wrote a book called The Bad Life (French: La mauvaise vie), a novel inspired by his actual life–an autobiographical novel, if you will. This is curious since the book follows a protagonist (presumably the author, since that’s what autobiography means) as he enjoys sex with boys in Bangkok. Since coming out in support of Polanksi, Mitterand has had to face an obvious question: Did you sleep with boys?
He denies it, of course because while he’ll support freeing a child rapist, he’d like to avoid the label. But let me be on the level with you. The novel I’m working on has certain autobiographical elements. The protagonist grew up in Montana, fell in love a few times, works through some loss issues, and not once does he ever rape a child. You know why? Because the novel has certain autobiographical elements and I do not rape children. No one in their right mind would write something autobiographical and include scenes of adult-on-child sex, unless they were indeed — on some level — proud of some prior adult-on-child sex act.
Is there any wonder why Polanski, a bastard of epic proportions, has the support of people like this? Those who exploit and use are of course going to fully support someone just like them. Polanski supporters can point to the fact that the man was afraid he would go to jail so he ran, or they can argue that he was a bit “off” after the Manson Family brutally murdered his wife. The cold hard truth, however, is that he raped a 13-year-old girl. He drugged her, and took advantage of her. He admitted to it. Call him a great director and a fine artist all you want, but that doesn’t change what happened.
If you want my pity, I have none. And if you want some advice…find better friends.