Miscellaneous Debris

Article the first: In the Oct. 20th, 2004 "Anchorage Daily News" section "B" there appeared an article on excessive force. The basic run down of the back story is the same as it is every where: "victim" claims police beat the crap out of him/her for no apparent reason, city asserts that the savage beating was suffecient force to accomplish arrest. In this particular case, the "beating" was done via taser gun. The "victim" says he was shot with said taser gun eight (that's 8) times AFTER being put in the silver braclets. The, in this case, state troopers say that it wasn't eight times and that the gun was used properly to, again, "accomplish the arrest". Here's the part that doesn't add up for me. First, let's forget about the two witnesses and the doctor that examined the eight wounds in the jail and focus just on the troopers' side of the story. Apparently, four shots from a taser gun is a, and again I quote, "level of force suffecient to accomplish the arrest, and there is no evidence he used more than was necessary." That's right, the trooper making the arrest admitted to shocking the hell out of the suspect 4 times. I should add that the trooper is 6 foot 4 and 230 lbs. while said suspect is a whopping 5'4" 140 lbs. monster. I'm bigger than he is and one shot from a taser makes me shit my pants. Now, let's add back in the witnesses and all the phsical evidence (two eyewitness, a doctor, and eight taser marks on the suspects body) and I'll make one final quote, "Alaska State Troopers believe that the evidence in the . . . arrest shows that [the trooper] acted professionally and reasonably . . ." Mmm . . . I'll sooner preach the gospel in a Taliban controlled country before driving drunk here. Apparently torture is the PROPER way to deal with us drunks.

2nd article: This is less of an article and more of a snipet. Furthermore, I'm not sure if it and/or the parties involved need to be ridiculed or if I just need some help deciphering some language. Unfortunately I couldn't find a link, but here's the gist: the ACLU refused money from donors because of some language in the rules governing the moneys. Apparently, "promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state" (Ford Foundation) and "directly or indirectly engage in, promote, or support other organizations or individuals who engage in or promote terrorist activity" (Rockefeller Foundation) is too vague. Huh? Sounds quite clear to me, any help out there?

Third Article: Funny thing about this post. It's in our paper, but it's apparently quoted from "The New York Times", however, I can't find it on the times' site. That being said, I'm going to make this one short. The title is "Tensions simmer over origins of Southern cuisine." It's written by Warren St. John. Basically it says that black and whites are fighting over who developed "southern food." My take is this: are we trying to go backwards? Isn't equality just that, equality? "I don't want to be treated any differently than anybody else." "Okay, so it's southern food." "No, it's ours, not their's." "Okay, so it's black people food." "No that's racist, we don't want to be treated any differently." "Okay, so it's southern food." Etc., etc., etc. Notice I didn't do the honkey side of that conversation. That's because we all know the white man is still holding all the other races of the world down.

Bonus rant titled Partisan Imagery: intentional mind game or coincendental truth: I wish to god I could have found the pictures but I couldn't so you'll just have to deal with a scan of a newspaper. Observe what may or may not be some partison subliminal messaging. Hmmm . . . Bush supporter: semi attractive, normal. Kerry supporter: tragedy, trailer trash. Or maybe that's just my take. I know they could have found a more attractive democrat than this. To the missus pictured, I'm sorry you look like hell. I'm sure it's some one else's fault. It always is, isn't it?

Just finished reading yesterday's paper and there are three articles which I think need to be highlighted for ridicule and/or discussion.

Consider this post a place holder until I get enough spare time to write an unharried commentary on the insanity.

In a sort of unintentional continuation of one of Marci's previous posts I must take a moment from my current public service series to rant a little about a commercial I just walked through the room on.

Here's the situation: my wife's watching TV and I'm getting more beer. As I walk from our kitchen through the den, I hear something along the lines of, ". . . vaginal odor. Simply insert it inside and it dissolves slowly releasing a relaxing fragrance . . . ". Oddly, I'm intrigued so I stop to watch the rest of the ad for Apothecus Pharmaceuticals' "Vaginal Cleansing Film". The lady on the TV is lounging on a bed clothed in, what appeared to be, a towel and talking about how her hoo-hoo-dilly stinks and she needs to stuff potpourri in it to make the smell go away. Seriously, ladies, if your cookie stinks, take it to see a qualified professional. It's not supposed to make people around you taste bile.

Is it just me, or is that sort of like putting a rose in your pocket if you shit your pants?

I already know I'm going to get about a thousand search engine hits because of this post. I may regret it.

This being an election year, we have all seen propaganda spewed forth by the various groups supporting this politician or that politician. Each of which follows, to some degree, the following Election Campaign Commercial Script Writer ver 1.4.55.63345.665 outline:

1. Call opponent(s) bad things. Some suggestions are: unamerican, communist, liar, drunk, doo-doo head.
2. Give supporting "proof". Most commonly: Sen. Biggles voted against welfare, harder punishments for criminals, straight people's right to marry, the laws of physics . . . whatever.
3. Call opponent(s) bad things again. Variation of step 1.
4. Ask for the viewers vote for your politician without giving any positive reasons (i.e. Sen. Codswaller will introduce and vote for bills that might actually help the little man)

As such, I have taken it upon myself to let anyone who frequents/occasions/stumbles upon this site know of a few websites that they can use to "fact check". Did Sen. Biggles actually vote that way? If so, how did the bill read and would you have voted any differently after having actually read the damn thing? The first two are the vote count sites for the House and Senate, respectively.

http://clerk.house.gov/legisAct/votes.html
As of today, the roll call votes section is on the right hand side.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
Also on the right hand side.

You can link to the text of the bill from those sites, but if you aren't interested in any of that and want to just go straight to the meat, check out this link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Choose or lose. Declare yourself. Insert snappy new voting tagline here.

or other place to sleep in the Atlanta area Sunday (Oct. 17th) night. Preferred host will not work Monday and/or will have a way to get me to the airport Monday afternoon. Sorry, no financial remuneration, other kinds of compensation may be negotiable but are in no way guaranteed. Please email offers and I will reply as soon as I can. We can work out the details of my stay at that point.

Christ on a bike, we're getting a roommate. And I was thinking my life couldn't suck worse.

Marci and/or Chris, call me. You won't believe this shit.

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2406