Issues
More car crushing idiocy…
It would appear that Australia is taking a page from Californias law book of senseless and excessive practices:
Street racers in Australia will soon see their beloved cars being deliberately smashed by the authorities in videos posted on the Internet.
The often flashy, souped-up vehicles will be wrecked in crash tests under laboratory conditions, the New South Wales state government announced. – [Yahoo/AFP]
Now I’m sure some of you out there are thinking “Serves them right!”, but I assure you, this law is not a good thing. There is a reason this hasn’t been done in the past. This is technically a violation of an individuals rights. When convicted killers go to prison, even they do not have their belongings destroyed. They may be confiscated and cataloged, but they get them back when they get out. If they get out.
So how exactly can anyone think that this is a fair penalty for any lesser crime? I’d rather impose this penalty for drunk drivers, rather than street racers. At least the street racers are actually in full control of their faculties, and some of them (let me iterate the *some*) are actually really good drivers. The same cannot be said for drunks. But the kicker is that ultimately, as a deterrent, it wouldn’t work for that either.
These kinds of knee-jerk, intimidation-based legislative decisions set very dangerous precedents that could have very profound future ramifications. And to top it off, it’s not like this is going to deter anyone from street racing anyway. Most of the folks who street race will do it regardless of the penalties. Literally. These laws are little more than public displays to make others feel like something is being done about the problem, when in fact, it will have little effect on any hard core racers.
However to their credit, the Australians have adopted a better use for the vehicles than just crushing them. They will be used for crash tests. Which is orders of magnitude better than Californias pointless “crush ‘em all” solution. But both laws are seriously troublesome. The law will have to be very specific on what constitutes “street racing”, and even then I’m sure many police officers will still abuse it, much like how the “aggressive driving” box is seemingly checked on tickets at will, as opposed to, let’s say, the tickets of drivers who actually meet the legal definition of “aggressive driving”…
Aussie street racers to see cars crashed by govt – [Yahoo/AFP]
More handgun mayhem.
A recent case regarding whether an Oregon school teacher could bring her handgun to school has been decided:
Shirley Katz, who has a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun, argued she needed the Glock semi-automatic pistol to protect herself from her ex-husband. She sued the school district when it told her carrying a gun was against a district policy prohibiting guns.
Circuit Judge G. Philip Arnold agreed with the district, saying “The District has a right to enforce this policy.” he noted that employees “accept their jobs subject to, and knowing, the policy.” – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Well now. That’s too bad. I can sympathize with the need for the district to remain in control. But this ruling won’t prevent any disgruntled students, irate ex-husbands, explosive bearing gang members or crazed faculty from bringing firearms on campus either.
Unless the district installs metal detectors. And hires some really burly security guards. But of course they’d have to arm the security guards, ’cause they would be useless against an armed assailant if they didn’t have a projectile weapon of some sort. Like a taser. Or a firearm. Except your average taser has an average range of about 15 feet. And is single shot. Not much help against a firearm wielding opponent. Unless they are less than 15 feet in front of you, and you are a crack shot.
It seems to me that while the district seems to be ignoring the basic fact that these rules do not protect the ones who follow them. Only the ones who break them. They do not prevent anyone from bringing a firearm into the school, unless the rule is supplemented by active security measures, such as metal detectors and random spot checks that physically prevent them from being broken. And that just breeds an atmosphere of oppression. Not to mention that even those measures can be circumvented.
So what exactly is the point of such a restriction? At the end of the day, it seems entirely easier to just arm the teachers. It would be much, much cheaper, and orders of magnitude more effective. If not with firearms, then at least with tasers. Sticking ones head in the sand in a gunfight only guarantees that ones hind quarters will get shot off…
Teacher loses fight to take gun to class – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Use the crosswalk… Or else…
Most of the time, I find myself ranting about the flaws in our legal system, but today we have a unfortunate example of a man who appears to have a rather poor grasp of the basics, and subsequently cause himself a little more grief than neccesary:
Leroy Franklin Cladd Jr. was cited for not using a crosswalk late Thursday night. He balked at signing the ticket, a misdemeanor that landed him in jail. He was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time, police said. – [Yahoo/AP]
OK. To be fair, I can see where this guy erred. Honestly, why would they throw you in jail for jaywalking? But that’s the problem. They didn’t throw him in jail for jaywalking. They threw him in jail for refusing to answer to the charge of jaywalking. Big difference.
In case you don’t see the difference, let me spell it out for you. Jaywalking. No big deal. But if, perchance, you get caught by a bored officer with nothing better to do, you get a citation. The citation is merely a charge, an accusation of an infraction. Your signature on a citation is not an admission of guilt or innocence, it is simply a way of legally ensuring that you will show up, to either challenge the accusation, or admit guilt and make restitution.
If you don’t sign, you are not legally bound to voluntarily answer to the charge at a later date, so the only way to ensure that this happens is to arrest you on the spot, throw you in jail, and bring you before the next available judge. It’s that simple. It may seem a little harsh for a crime as piddling as jaywalking, but there you have it. The law ain’t perfect.
Seriously, the man should have just signed the doggone citation. At least that way, he might have had a few drinks at the bar before they came and arrested him for not showing up in court…
Fla. man jailed for jaywalking – [Yahoo/AP]
Guns, violence, and you…
There’s an interesting case taking shape in Washington. It involves guns and the second amendment. Looky:
The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital’s 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership.
The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous.
Are they now…?
Critics say the law has done little to curb violence, mainly because guns obtained legally from the district or through illegal means still are readily available.
And I just so happen to be one of those critics…
Heller said Washington remains a dangerous place to live. “People need not stand by and die,” he said in court papers.
And I would tend to agree…
He said the Second Amendment gives him the right to keep working guns, including handguns, in his home for his own protection. -[Yahoo/AP]
We shall see. To be perfectly honest, this whole debate makes no sense, and really overlooks the fundamentals of the problem at hand.
Removing guns from the picture will not remove the threat of violence. The Brady bunch seem to think that guns are a big problem in our society. They are wrong. Our society is jacked up. That’s the biggest problem with our society today. They need to focus on fixing our societal problems, not treating the symptoms of the these problems.
Even if they are to make all firearms illegal in the US, criminals who need weapons will simply get them on the black market. They are simply making it difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire guns. The criminal element doesn’t use legal channels to procure firearms anyway, so it won’t make any significant difference to them. And while this is a secondary issue, violating another’s rights just so your irrational fears can be assuaged is sheer, unadulterated nonsense.
And no matter what any law makers say, law enforcement officers cannot possibly protect everyone. The result? Law abiding citizens of the good old U.S. of A. will be left defenseless, while the criminals remain armed. If an armed robber breaks into my home while I’m in bed one night, I would consider being unarmed a darned bad position to be in. But somehow this group of illogical, emotionally blinded gun pacifists seem to think that this won’t ever happen if they make firearms illegal.
The funny thing about these people is that most of them are so focused on the “guns” that they don’t seem to be able to see anything beyond that. Let me give you an example to illustrate how some Brady folk think:
A man is robbed at gunpoint. When asked what the most heinous thing about the experience is, he responds: “Having that gun pointed at me was so scary. He could have shot and killed me! We need better gun control laws.” OK. That sounds rational doesn’t it? But wait, it gets better. A week later he’s robbed at knife point. When questioned again about the experience he proclaims “It’s a good thing he didn’t have a gun. He could have just shot me and taken my money!”. Aaalrighty then. I suppose knives can’t kill then. Right.
A week later this same man gets beat up, in the same area he was robbed twice before, by a high schooler with a baseball bat, then robbed, stripped naked and left bleeding in a ditch. Later, queried once again, he replies, “At least he didn’t have a gun. He could have shot me.” Heh. Sure thing. If you aren’t at least chuckling to yourself at the narrow mindedness of this perspective, you should slap yourself. Twice. Really, really, hard.
Seriously, the man was robbed three times, almost stabbed once, and beaten half to death with a baseball bat, and yet all he could think about is “I didn’t wanna get shot.” Yes, OK, you got me. This story is fictional. But it accurately illustrates the error of the many arguments gun control lobbyists are using. Guns do not cause violence. They are simply a tool, like a knife or a bat.
You are no safer if guns are outlawed because they can still be obtained illegally. And more importantly, you can still be killed, quite easily in fact, without the benefit of a gun. Banning anything that can kill you is a senseless endeavor. Even as you sit there now reading this, there are at least 10 non-firearm related items in your immediate vicinity, that can be used to kill you. Trust me.
Honestly, I think the only people that can make these arguments are people with a blind, abject, paralyzing fear of guns, unable to see nothing else. But the problem is that these people will still continue live in fear, even after guns have been make illegal, and will proceed to try and ban anything and everything they can think of.
Whereas, on the other hand, there are actually some very tangible benefits to everyone being armed. I think a criminal would think twice about robbing some random people on the street, if they though there was a good chance they might get shot in the process. But that could just be me.
Now truth is, I don’t keep a gun cocked and loaded on my nightstand at all times in case of a break in. Primarily because my little cave isn’t likely to get burgled out here in the middle of nowhere. And also because nothing I own is irreplaceable. But I don’t see where I have the right to do anything to prevent others who live in more dangerous neighborhoods from taking steps to defend themselves against a break in. That just isn’t right. And that is where I have a problem with these people.
OK, I’ll stop preaching from atop my pile of automatic rifle crates now.
Supreme Court could take guns case – [Yahoo/AP]
Robin Hood is a freakin’ thief… Wait, What?
Today I ran into an article that didn’t make much sense to me. Not that I’m particularly hard to confuse, but I’d like to think I’m reasonably adept at understanding simple allegory. At issue today is the definition of the “Robin Hood” complex:
A former bank executive who was said to have “Robin Hood” mentality has been sentenced to 41 months in federal prison for taking money from some accounts and repaying others, as well as pocketing some of the money for himself.
A psychologist who testified at the sentencing hearing said Mariotti had a “Robin Hood” mentality because he took money from the bank to help support bad loans he had made. In one case, he paid off a $45,000 loan, said his attorney, Ron Hamm. – [Yahoo/AP]
Ah. Uh Huh. So is this how a Robin Hood complex is defined nowadays? I might be wrong, but wasn’t the primary distinguishing characteristic of Robin Hoods antics the fact that he pretty much gave everything he stole to the poor?
Now seeing as this banker executive wasn’t exactly poor, but used the money he stole to pay down his personal debts, that sound more to me like… What’s the word…? Ah, yes. Embezzlement. If course I’m no expert.
I kinda think Robin Hood would be insulted to be compared to this guy. But if a psychologist says it’s a “Robin Hood” complex, who are we lowly peasant folk to argue…
‘Robin Hood’ banker jailed for fraud – [Yahoo/AP]
Important News Flash! Zombies Are Real!!!
From the “What the…!?” department, comes an article that may contain evidence that proves the existence of zombies, perhaps as early as 3000BC!! Read on:
Hierakonpolis is a site famous for its many “firsts,” so many, in fact, it is not easy to keep track of them all. So we are grateful(?) to Max Brooks for bringing to our attention that the site can also claim the title to the earliest recorded zombie attack in history. In his magisterial tome, The Zombie Survival Guide (2003), he informs us that in 1892, a British dig at Hierakonpolis unearthed a nondescript tomb containing a partially decomposed body, whose brain had been infected with the virus (Solanum) that turns people into zombies. In addition, thousands of scratch marks adorned every surface of the tomb, as if the corpse had tried to claw its way out! – [Neatorama/Archaeology]
This is absolutely amazing. Especially given the many discussions that have been cropping up on a number of forums I frequent on the topic. The article goes on to describe other details, as well, specifically, how to deal with a zombie outbreak, as well as a few basic tips on using common garden implements as defensive weapons against zombies.
We have no “living” zombies as it were, to validate any of these scientific findings, at least not yet, but the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling. I would strongly urge everyone to find a copy of the zombie survival guide, and prepare accordingly. As if this weren’t enough, I came across an article on cracked.com detailing through 5 scientifically valid ways a zombie apocalypse could actually happen.
I myself will be training an anti-zombie task force consisting of a crack troop of highly trained, cybernetically enhanced special ops bobcats to deal with front line security, a unit of green beret night owls for perimeter surveillance, a contingent of commando hawks for forward observation, and of course a few local grizzlies for logistics, supplies and such. This should allow me to remain safely in my cave for the duration of any outbreak.
I would suggest you all take similar measures to protect yourself.
ZOMG! Archaelogists Found Evidence of Zombie Attack in Ancient Egypt! – [Neatorama/Archaeology]
5 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Apocalypse Could Actually Happen – [Cracked.com]
Laaaaaaaw, is a many splendored thiiiiiing… Not.
OK, forgive my musical refrain. I ran across an article today that kinda illustrated how important it is that the laws be objective, not morally motivated, and constantly revised to stay current with the changing times:
Dying in parliament is an offence and is also by far the most absurd law in Britain, according to a survey of nearly 4,000 people by a television channel showing a legal drama series.
And though the lords were clad in their red and white ermine cloaks and ambassadors from around the world wore colourful national costumes, at least nobody turned up in a suit of armour. Illegal. – [Yahoo/AFP]
Obviously many of these laws probably had some practical logic to them when they were made, and merely suffered from being too broad or too specific in scope. However the same is true of many of the laws on the books today. They are based on historical or social standards that are either obsolete or irrelevant today.
On the other side of the coin, there are laws placed on the books, that are simply poorly thought out. Most often emotional the result of knee-jerk reactions by over zealous lawmakers. For instance banning baggy pants? No tag in school? No hugs?!? Seriously, how is banning baggy pants supposed to reduce the crime rate of a city? (see <Dumb Laws.com> for a big list of really wacky laws… Fair warning, you may laugh yourself into oblivion 
)
But on a more serious note, the law has become a means for activists to push their own agendas, as opposed to protecting the society at large, and no, the two are not the same thing. An equitable legal system does not discriminate against anyone on the bases of race, color, creed, beliefs, etc, so it is absolutely ludicrous that any one should have to face prosecution simply because of their choice of clothes. What we are seeing is an abuse of the legal system. And it really needs to stop.
Die and you’re under arrest! Britain’s most stupid laws – [Yahoo/AFP]
Necros. Not just for forums any more…
From the “What the…!” Dept., I bring you a dose of mind numbingly unbelievable reality. The sensitive among you may want to skip this post. Otherwise, read on:
A Teaneck hospital lab technician has been jailed after being accused of sexually abusing the corpse of a 92-year-old woman, authorities say. – [Yahoo/AP]
Erm. Where to begin. Ya know, I’ve got no problem with older ladies getting it on with younger men. And if you’re a young guy who likes older women, more power to you. But isn’t there a cut-off point? Don’t you have some set of criteria to help you determine exactly how old is “too old”? And wouldn’t death be a major eliminating factor? I mean, you would think that rigor mortis would be a good indicator that she’s probably way too far past her peak for the relationship to work. But it could just be me.
To be honest, (no offense intended to any 90+ year old ladies who may be reading this) I have difficulties imagining getting it on with a live 92 year old woman, never mind a dead one. But this guy… well… At least you can say he ain’t picky. That’s not what I’d say. You can say it. If you want to. But I think he’s just plain nuts.
Tech accused of abusing elderly corpse – [Yahoo/AP]
Contrary Clergymen
You know, I am fully aware that priests are human beings, just like everyone else. But I’d hope that, once you became a man/woman of the cloth, you would at least try to leave behind the things that us regular folks are prone to do. But given some of the news I’ve been reading lately, I’m not sure there is any significance to being a priest anymore.
You have perverted priests, priests being annoying, bell ringing farts, priests engaging in petty feminism, and even priests who are, apparently, not above a little drinking, driving and brawling:
Priest Manuel Raul Ortega, who was not wearing clerical dress but was clutching a prayer book when captured, launched himself at the traffic cop who pulled him over earlier this week.
“The individual became very violent because they were going to tow away his car. He attacked a policeman and was taken away,” said transit department spokesman Hector Lozano on Thursday. – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Yes the Church welcomes everyone with open arms. I know. They are only human. Indeed. And they aren’t cops or government officials. But members of the clergy are often looked up to as the moral pillars of a community, and I’m beginning to think that, much like that Indian judge who was sentenced to take law school all over again, these clergymen/women might benefit from another stint in seminary school…
Drunken priest punches cop, jailed – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Death by Mad Stinkfoot…
It is a rather disturbing thought that it is actually possible to get stabbed to death on account of telling someone their feet possess a, shall we say, “malodorous” quality…
William Antonio Serrano, 20, was charged with murder.
“Serrano and the victim, who are roommates, got into an argument in which the victim told Serrano his feet had a foul odor,” police said in a statement. “At that time, Serrano retrieved a knife and stabbed the victim numerous times.” – [Yahoo/AFP]
Given the actions of this guy immediately after the incident, I have no doubt in my mind that this is a textbook example of amygdala hijacking. However amygdala hijacking is only part of the problem. It usually occurs as a response to something else. And some of these “other” things are downright stupid.
Ya know, people today are entirely too quick to anger, often over trivial matters. Or even absolutely weightless words. What happened the old “sticks and stones” adage? How can someone become mad because they were told their feet stink?
If it’s true, well, I would think that a considerate human being would apologize and try to do something to remedy the problem. If it’s false well, then, why get your tighty whiteys in a twist about it? Let alone get so mad that you stab another human being a few times over it?
Our social values are totally jubar. It seems like everyone has a right to thier own opinion, except where it disagrees/offends with someone else. Then it auto-magically turns into insensitive blasphemy. I will never understand.
Death. On account of stinky feet. Unbelievable.
Roommate killed over ‘stinky feet’ – [Yahoo/AFP]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…