Originally, I thought this was going to be the idiot of the day. Then, I was going to morph into Big Brother run amok. But, the story reads a lot different than the obvious.
And, it sort of finishes with:
“‘I didn’t know what to tell her,”‘ Spruill said the constituent told him before Spruill vowed to stop such displays.
“I said, ‘Sir, I’m going to be a laughingstock, but I’m going to do it,”‘ he said.
Fox then goes on to illustrate some other “offbeat” bills in Virginia. In this case, the only thing offbeat about it is Spruill singling out rubber hitch testicles. If he had broadened it to include all sexual organs, then I think it would have been a little less offbeat and make a lot more sense. And quite frankly, carting around a five year old myself, I can appreciate the predicament whoever thought publicly displaying testicles on a hitch placed on all the parents of small children in. The legislature can’t ban stupid or inconsiderate. However, they can let them know what stupid is by giving police the ability to correct their stupid actions. If whoever thinks rubber testicles is a fashion statement wants everyone to know they have a thing for rubber testicles, they can display them at home or INSIDE their vehicle in such a way as to not impress small kids. Since apparently some people aren’t bright enough to figure out the impact they are having on innocent children, and the parents thereof, it’s up to people like Lionel Spruill to make a public fool of himself in order to protect our children from the inconsiderate idiots.
Kudos to Mrs. Moon for pointing out that I needed to address this important issue.
( BTW, the idiot of the day is not Del. Spruill, it’s the idiots driving around with their rubber testicles exposed to small children. )
11
Dec
Here’s the headline:
Here’s the reality:
Although a fashion “statement” for the last twenty years or so, they look stupid. They make the wearer look even more stupid. I mean scary stupid. The impression I get is they are so stupid they can’t keep their pants up. That’s about as stupid as one can get. I don’t like being around people that stupid, intentionally or not. When I was that age, excess apparel was annoying and dangerous, often getting hung on very inappropriate things causing undo peril such as car doors and bicycle chains. Therefore, one learned by the age of, six or so, to keep the clothes close to the body. Obviously these people never figured that out. That’s scary stupid.Â
Now, I know you can’t ban stupidity. However, we can protect and do protect people through legislation. We make people not smoke in public. We make people wear seatbelts whether they want to or not. We therefore need to ban all saggy pants. Playboy doesn’t agree that resorting to laws since common sense and consideration for others isn’t working. However, if it gets this horrendous and obnoxious fashion statement off the streets and back into the dark alleys where it belongs, I’m all for it.
A jury in Shepherdsville just found McDonalds liable for $6.1 million in the case of a worker who was basically raped during work hours. The whole thing was caught on tape. It went on for hours. Basically, a prank caller directed a McDonald’s employee and her fiancee to do things to an employee and the other employee complied, with the assistance of her fiancee. The verdict was bizarre enough, $16.1 MILLION for a basically minimum wage job. By my calculations, the victim made what she would have made at McDonalds for the next 3,400 years or so. That struck me as being just a little out of line. For performing some bad things, the fiancee got some jail time. But, this is where it starts getting weird. The girl who directed the fiancee to do these awful things that amounted to $16.1 million in liability, took an alford plea, which means the evidence is so overwhelming there’s no need to prosecute. THEN, she sued McDonalds and won a million for herself. Not a bad nights pay for assisting in a rape and assault. The guy who instigated all this, David Stewart, was found not guilty regardless of overwhelming evidence that he was doing something like this at the very least. Since his arrest, the calls stopped.
Sometimes the proof is in the pudding.
The accusation against McDonalds was they knew this was happening and didn’t do anything to warn the employees about it. McDonalds claimed that it not only was in their handbook, but they did do some things to warn employees. To me that’s irrelevent. No cop is ever going to CALL and tell someone to detain someone else, much less perform illegal acts. I think the victim in this case should have been compensated to some degree. However, how in the hell the supervisor, Donna Summers, could plead guilty and THEN sue for liability is beyond me. How in the hell a guy can get caught calling fast-food restaurants all over the country that just happened to be experiencing prank calls and NOT be held liable is beyond me.Â
This whole case is FUBAR.
29
Aug
When I was in college, I had a frat brother who was the queerest human male on this planet. He wasn’t just gay, he was flaming. He loved being gay and flaunted it excessively and publicly. This guy was about six feet four inches and probably in the neighborhood of about three hundred pounds. Now, I wasn’t the least bit gay, or even the least bit curious, so it was loads of fun for me to watch this guy harass the life out of young preppy frat wannabes at the local bars. Because of this, I had to associate with him in public. I enjoyed the carnival show, and he tended to run with a very, very, physical and rough crowd, so I was pretty safe physically. It almost never led to anything as he would usually just drink himself into a stupor and pass out. Because of his extremely aggressive and overt nature, I learned a lot about the gay community whether I wanted to or not. If I walked into a bar and a shot of tequila was brought to me, I was the object of some gay man’s desire. If I accepted, I was expected to at the very least meet the person and acknowledge their advance. It was always my friend, so I always accepted. There were other signals and cues that my friend made me aware of, and I saw them in practice fairly often as he generally would be able to single out the gay guys out of the hundreds of drunk people in any bar. I live in rural Kentucky, gay guys for the most didn’t make it that obvious then. My friend however, could single them out in a heartbeat. One thing I was never made aware of by him or any of his bunch was tap, tap, tap in a stall. Now, according to Michael at Gayorbit.com, every gay guy knows this. Some guys in the comments claim they didn’t know it, but others assure them they are just out of touch or not practicing enough. Now, this kinda bothers me. The average duration it takes for me to take a good pee is about fifteen to twenty seconds or so. I’m just not one of those people that goes on and on. Addititonally, I’m a fidgety pee’r. I just don’t like standing still for any reason at all. Often, I will tap my foot. In the duration of an average pee, I can easily see that being tap, tap, tap. Am I being lewd? Would I have been arrested in Minnesota? Are a lot of gay guys po’d at me because I sent a signal and walked away? Sheez. I will never tap my foot in a stall again. Ever. Guaranteed. And if I am lost in thought or drunk or something and accidentally do tap my foot to the perfect rhythm and get busted for being lewd, I’m fighting it all the way to the Supreme Court. Being bored and having rhythm doesn’t prove I’m gay and they’d have no other evidence to prove otherwise.
This is nuts. Larry Craig is probably a victim in this case. However, because he did the stupidest legal move you can by being his own attorney and pleading guilty, he’s in a world of hurt and it’s his fault. But, the ramifications of this situation are pretty unnerving to me. I usually could care less if someone’s occupying the stall next to me. Now, chances are it’s either a gay guy cruising or a cop or both. I think from now on I’ll just wait till it’s empty.
I pretty much figured this would happen a lot sooner than I did find it. Jeff Fecke at Shakesville ponders:
That was the setup, a writer responds with:
…I can understand a certain amount of glee that yet another Republican has been caught out on his hypocrisy. But I think the incident, as described in MB’s post, is entrapment and pretty ridiculous, considering that nothing sexual happened. And yes, it’s blatantly homophobic.
I don’t really consider this a homophobic issue in the least. If he had been busted soliciting a female prostitute for public sex I’d have the same opinion. US Senators and Cognressman merit a different level of legal scrutiny in my opinion because these are the people that make the laws we all have to live by. If they have no respect for those laws, why should anyone else? And, I see the inverse happening as well, if people have no respect for those laws, why should a Senator? My guess is Craig is waiting this out right now to see if it just blows over as so many other indescretions have. If the media fight turns into a homophobe issue as opposed to a Craig-breaking-the-law issue, he will have won and proven my point. A lot of people are also curious as to why there was even a cop in the bathroom in the first place. According to another answer there, and the one I expected, was apparently this was a problem in that particular bathroom. Now, I’m all for individual rights and stuff, but I have a four year old boy. Do I need to say more? All I ask, whether straight or gay, or even if you’ve got a thing doing it yourself, is keep it where it’s appropriate. That’s all. Public restrooms mean all kinds of people will be there. That includes kids.
Bottom line, this ain’t a homophobe issue. It’s an issue of stupidity and disrespect for anyone else who might have wondered in there. That’s the very last qualities I think Idaho expects from their Senator.Â
NOTES:
- Shakesville seems to be a good read. I like Fecke’s style. He seems to do as I do and look at things from more than one angle at the same time. My article here implies Fecke might be making the case for the homophobe card, he’s not. Not at all. But, he acknowledges those issues could be raised. And, that is a very valid point. )
- H/T James Joyner again. I’m sure that makes his day.Â
 I’m not going to try to interpret James’s post, just read it.
82 minutes.
Â
Lindsay Lohan copped a plea for seven misdemeanor charges and got ten days. She was busted stoned out of her gourd and carrying drugs while harassing another driver. She gets ten days.
Paris Hilton got busted for wrecking a car and got forty-five days. She only had to serve 23 of course. However, that is more than double the time Nicole AND Lindsay have to serve COMBINED.
Where was Rocky Delgadillo this time?Â
Where are all the media saying these two need to taught a lesson?
Something ain’t right in California.
This just in ( sorta ):
Plame’s Suit Against Top Officials Dismissed
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and the others could not be held liable for the disclosures in the summer of 2003 in the midst of a White House effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said that such efforts are a natural part of the officials’ job duties, and, thus, they are immune from liability.
I have had a few things to say about the Plame Affair. I have had even more to say about Joe Wilson. Some people have not bought my argument that this whole charade was a media frenzy orchestrated solely by Joe Wilson. A while back, I wrote this:
The person who should have been indicted for outing a “covert CIA operative” is Joe Wilson.
Where have we heard that before? That’s exactly what the judge ruled. By making himself an issue, Joe Wilson outed Valerie Plame.
Meanwhile, I’m sure Keith Olbermann will have a few choice words on the issue, again. But, what Keith won’t admit, either to himself or to the public, is he was WRONG. A lot of people went bonkers when Bush pardoned Libby for the non-crime, but the fact is there was no crime committed. But the fact is, Libby obstructed NOTHING. There was no crime for Libby to obstruct. As much as all the people who emailed me and broke down sobbing that the Constitution had been completely destroyed, the fact is the Constitution did exactly what it was supposed to do. This case was tried by the media, and THEN by the courts. The media found everyone BUT the person who committed crimes guilty, the courts found otherwise. They didn’t sentence Joe Wilson to prison or fine him $250,000 for outing Valerie Plame. But, they did land the responsibility of this fiasco squarely in his lap. Exactly as I anticipated.
Now, what would make my day is for Libby to sue the life out of Joe Wilson for slander and a host of other issues. Now, in my opinion, THERE’S something with some meat to it.
I saw this one coming a mile away and about a year ago. It starts with this:
Harsh or not, the reaction is about as expected:
|
|
|
||||
|
|||||
71% are quite certain Libby merited a year in the pokie for……..
This is where I get my rocks off. Do this first:
I’m gonna bet nowhere near 980,000+ take this poll. The reason is simple, people don’t even want to think about what Scooter was convicted of. It’s complicated. And, it flies in the face of all the media and Nancy Pelosi’s who convicted him way before the trial was even held. He’s a political bigshot, and worse, a Republican Bush man. How often did MSNBC fully explain the circumstances of his conviction? Not very often I imagine. Now that I’ve vilified everyone taking the poll and most all major media, here’s the answer:
Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice of a crime that was never committed.
The only thing Scooter was apparently guilty of was being too close to the President. So, I think it’s proper Bush protect him from an obviously biased jury and judge. They convicted him when no crime had been committed. They gave him basically the maximum sentence. They refused to allow appeals of the trial in regards to the fact no crime had apparently been committed.
And through all that, practically none of the major media ever questioned the witch hunt that was obviously playing out. So, after condeming Scooter, look a little more closely at what he was convicted of. If you are willing to do that, I’m willing to debate this issue. He may be no saint, but no one deserves to be abused by the legal system.
9
Jun
Mary Winkler is now serving 60 days for killing her husband.
This was an awful week for the justice system if you ask me.
A common practice of insurance companies is giving discounts to people with good credit scores. The adverse way of looking at it is they penalize people with bad credit scores. A couple of people were unhappy that their credit scores were used to rate their insurance and sued. It made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with the insurance companies. Some people weren’t too happy with this:
In a not-so-thoughtful analysis, Justice David Souter offered one line of reasoning to rule in favor of insurers: Credit score penalty notices would become so commonplace that they would “go the way of junk mail.” Really, he did write that…..
Birnbaum and others have long argued that consumers should know exactly how much the penalty is, and what the ideal credit score is, so they can check for credit report errors and aim for the ideal score. That was the argument put forth by plaintiffs in the Safeco and Geico cases.
But Geico offered a more tortured, and ultimately more persuasive, argument. It said that it could calculate insurance premiums based on a “neutral” credit score — in other words, what consumers would pay if credit scoring was never used at all. Only consumers who paid more than this “neutral credit score” rate suffered an adverse action and should be notified, the firm argued. The judges agreed….
In this case, our nation’s highest court of referees missed a foul call. The tortured logic of protecting us from junk mail (why start now?) is comical. Allowing insurance companies to set the bar for when adverse notices are sent is akin to giving the fox the keys to the chicken coup…..
Not all states allow insurance firms to consider credit scores. The practice is banned in California, for example. Call your state legislator and ask him or her to support a ban on the use of credit scores to set insurance rates in your state. Congress could amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require more adverse action notices by insurers, but that€™s a pipe dream at the moment…..
I got all kinds of issues with Bob Sullivan’s gripes.
- What he seems to want is for the insurance companies to notify people when every credit score is evaluated. That’s not the intent of the law. The law is that an ADVERSE result be reported. What Safeco and Geico stated was that they do that. What they don’t do is report is the people who are not penalized. That’s the intent of the Fair Credit Laws in the first place. Using Sullivan’s logic, every single time someone accesses my credit score, not even accessing my credit history, they would be required to send me a notice. As Souter noted, people would be inundated with credit reports. That’s just not necessary and achieves nothing. All I want to know is if there is something on my credit that would cause a bad report. If I get an adverse report from someone checking it, that tells me there is something bad on my report. If I don’t get penalized, then there is nothing bad on my report. That part can just be assumed by the average consumer. There is no reason to assume otherwise.
- Sullivan cites California as a state that does not allow credit scores to affect premium rates. Look at the lowest rates in California and compare them to the lowest rates in states that do not bar that practice. I’ll bet I pay a LOT less in auto insurance than anyone in California does for equal coverage.
- What Sullivan is proposing is my auto carrier be compelled to carry people with bad scores in the same pool as I am. All that does is penalize those who have good credit scores. It’s a very simple fact that people who scam insurance companies most likely are in financial trouble. People in financial trouble most often have very bad credit scores. Adversely, people who are financially responsible and are not in financial trouble do not have bad credit scores and do not usually scam insurance companies. Being as we are less likely to scam an insurance company, we are less likely to file a claim, people who file fewer claims should be rewarded with lower premiums. That’s the way it is, that’s the way it should stay.
- He singles out Souter as if Souter had the only vote, but he didn’t. In most cases all NINE Justices supported the decision. Some dissented on varying interpretations of the reasoning, but when nine lawyers agree on something, there must be some reason to it.
This just strikes me as more of the personal responsibility issue I’ve been harping on. People who have bad credit scores KNOW they have bad credit. What Sullivan wants is basically to eliminate using credit scores to rate insurance premiums. In other words, you can rip off financial institutions all you want, but those financial institutions will be forced to treat you exactly as anyone else. That’s not the way I see things. Some people accept the responsibility of doing everything they can to be financially responsible. Some people have to be forced to be financially responsible as they don’t value others’ stuff. If something like cheaper insurance helps compel them to behave responsibly in our society, so be it.
Now, don’t take this as a blanket statement that I’m bought and sold to insurance companies. I’m not. I think they’re the biggest part of our health care crisis. However, I think the Supreme Court got this one right and that’s the only point I’m arguing here.
