An Inside Joke...

So, when you listened to Casey Serin's most recent Friday Night Fraudcast?

Did you feel like you were going crazy?

You know?....Particularly when the woman with the question voice?

Just wouldn't stop talking?

You know the one?

Every sentence that came out of her mouth went up at the end?

So instead of making statements, she was asking questions?

And then she tried to talk Casey out of committing suicide?

Because she's had a lot of tragedy in her life?

And, you know, Casey Serin has never alluded to suicide?

But that didn't stop her?

And so, maybe you, like me, felt like YOU wanted to commit suicide?

Were thinking about the practicalities of balancing a shotgun in your mouth and pulling the trigger with your big toe?

Because this fucking person wouldn't shut the hell up?

And while you understood that she was delivering an anti-suicide speech, she was actually succeeding in advocating FOR suicide?

Because the longer she talked?

The more you were convinced you didn't want to live?

And you never knew it was possible to have a more annoying voice than Casey Serin?

But you found someone who did?

And you hope she never procreates?

And so on?

And so on?

And so on?

Oh, and did I mention?

I just say that because....?

Well, I once had a friend of a friend's hairdresser?

And her great-aunt once....?

And even though you've been lulled into some sort of hypnotic stupor?

You still want to blow your own head off in order to make her voice stop?


It's moments like this that makes me question why the Catholics can't understand that THIS is purgatory.....

On a completely different topic, someone who's been referred to as one of Casey Serin's supporterz is coming out of the woodwork.

More soon...

Jackass of the Week Award - The City of Hot Springs, Arkansas

Bumbling Barney Fife wasn't allowed to put bullets in his gun when he patrolled the streets of Mayberry. It was a given that he was a hazard to public safety. This was a funny repeated theme in the tv series, with the Don Knotts character running around doing crazy slapstick.

But in real life, many police officers exhibit that they do not have the judgement to carry an loaded weapon in public. Now don't get me wrong. This is not a cop-bashing post. But it is a post to question where we draw the line. What should be done when an officer exhibits behavior that indicates he or she does not have the necessary judgement to wear a badge?

Incidents of excessive force occur everyday in the United States. And every once in a while, those incidents are captured on film for the world to see and judge. Just such a thing happened on June 21, the day now known as "Go Skateboarding Day." This day was created by skateboard advocates, and has been formally instituted by the U.S. Congress.

But in Hot Springs, Arkansas the day didn't go so well. A group of skaters was stopped by a local police officer, who put one of the young men to the ground and held him there by his throat. This image was captured on one of the skaters' cell phones, and two other kids quickly turned on their video cameras.

For those who haven't noticed, the video camera has been a ubiquitous tool in a skater's life since the devices were first available on the shelves of electronics stores. It's always good to have a record of yourself pulling an insane trick that you might not ever again duplicate, film your friends eating pavement as they try to outdo you, and maybe, just maybe, you might eventually get noticed and sponsored.

In this case, the students filmed a disgusting case of a local cop using bizarrely excessive force on this group of kids. The point of contention here seems to be that the officer was trying to stop, or even cite, the kids for skateboarding in a place that wasn't zoned for it. But it ended with police officer Joey Williams grabbing no fewer than three kids by their necks, some of them as young as 13.

The kids' videos were, of course, immediately posted to YouTube. It's not the Rodney King beating by any stretch, but take a look and judge for yourself if this should fall into either category of "excessive force" or "police brutality."

The first thing that struck me is the sheer size difference between this cop and the kids. The second, and the thing that has everyone up at arms, is his putting a 13-year old girl in a headlock, particularly when she looks like she weighs about 80 pounds. Officer Joey Williams has to be at least three times her weight.

AP articles say that the choke hold on the girl actually lifted her feet off the ground. That's obviously some really good police work in action. I also noticed that when Officer Joey Williams had the two kids in a headlock, there was another police officer standing next to him, who obviously didn't feel that the situation warranted his stepping in, as he stands to the side, looking like he doesn't want any part of this.

With nearly a million page views as of this writing, the YouTube video is getting a lot of air time. On the noticed and sponsored
Reason http://reason.com/blog/show/121095.html
blog, participants had some insightful comments from citizens across the United States and abroad. Some of my favorites:

"...you do blame the cop, for a wildly disproportionate response to the situation. He probably walked by three dozen violations of nitpicky city ordinances before he decided choking a 13-year-old was a good idea."

"So cops are allowed to choke minors who violate a city ordinance? No one in the video was "resisting arrest" -- that little girl surely wasn't. Just because someone may be violating a fucking ordinance doesn't give cops the right to rought them up. Also, isn't violation of a city ordinance usually punishable by fine, not arrest?"

"And nothing in the video indicates that the girl was under arrest when she decided to run....So he put a teenage girl in a headlock without cause.... I think that's over the line."

"I love the "resisting arrest" line thrown in there. As Americans is it not our right and duty to resist unlawful arrest?"

In response to the widespread attention that the video has gotten Mayor Mike Bush told the Associated Press that "Unfortunately, the video shows it pretty good....Bush called Williams "one of 100 best and finest we've got" in the city's police department."

Here's the only really funny part of this story, and one I haven't seen noted anywhere else. Consider Mayor Bush's statement, then read this statement taken verbatim from the Hot Springs website:

"The 99-officer Police Department provides basic police services in addition to various other special community programs such as Drug Awareness, Neighborhood Watch, Personal Safety, Housewatch, and Home/Business Security Analysis."

On the same website, there is a special section called the Mayor's Youth Council. Not surprisingly, no results were found for the search of "police choking."

Officer Joey Williams has been placed on administrative leave (which, if you ask me, is a euphemism for paid vacation) while higher powers investigate the incident. But what more can be said after watching the video? Why should this officer continue to have power, authority, and lethal weapons on the streets of America?

If the way this officer handled the situation is ultimately deemed appropriate, does that give me the right to make a citizen's arrest when someone mouths off? Because by Officer Jackboot McOverreact's standards, this would be disturbing the peace. Can I then throw that individual in a headlock, or push him to the ground and hold him by his neck in the name of persuing said citizen's arrest?

Of course, I'm a "civilian," which is police-speak for "the law applies to you and not me." I thought it would be interesting to see what other officers were saying about this incident, and when I came across some of their comments, my stomach turned.

It's unfortunate that these comments will likely reinforce many people's views that police are corrupt, uneducated, and abuse their powers ad infinitum. These comments are not meant to reflect the feelings or opinions of all police officers on the topic. But out of the hundreds of statements I read, I found exactly two officer comments that were flatly critical of Joey Williams:

"azcop2...Leaving a handcuffed suspect behind while you chase another one? Trying to take TWO kids into custody simultaneously (and looking like a fool in the process? Forget the punks, this cop is in serious need of officer safety re-trainig AND temper control."

"emore66...I dont know...Officer looked foolish...I think you have to pick your battles kids riding skateboards on sidewalk not sure it is worth it...I guess what town you work for dictates..."

Other officers did not give their whole-hearted support for Joey Williams, but their dissent fell largely into the "procedural" category:

"JP1...Even after watching a video that the kids "edited", my comment is that they deserved everything they got. Had this happened with one of my officers when I was Chief, I'd of had some serious talks with parents. (However, I would not have left a handcuffed kid on the sidewalk while I chased off another one. We would have found out who he was and got him later.)"

"lupd...looks like the punks needed more than what they got...that said there were some tactical errors on the officers part, but nothing that would be considered police brutality."

"cpd6a2...completely baited! Piece of crap kids need a major spanking. It was nothing but a big joke for them. Officer never should have left a handcuffed kid on the ground by himself to chase after another. Get help and then deal with the rest."

"DetSgt31...Write the kids' tickets for skateboarding, pull the parents in for raising such brats. The problem lies with the parents also, hold them directly responsible. Maybe a trip to the woodshed for Mom and Dad will get them thinking."

"orchevycop...Wow, skateboarding must be an arrestable offense there. Officer might be in the right, but he need some more training in verbal encounters."

Unfortunately, the vast majority of police officer comments read more like these. In considering the tone and intent of these comments, I think that cities and counties across the nation should begin to seriously consider regular and repeated psychological profiles of their officers.

I don't mean that in a humorous tone whatsoever. The reality is that if cops are thinking this way about their jobs and their concepts of what falls into that category is so incredibly broad-based and out of line, we really need some monitoring in place before we send these people out into the streets to utilize their so-called judgement, while heavily armed, in split-second scenarios.

Again, you may judge for yourself. (A sidenote: between the Mayor of Hot Springs and these officer comments, my overriding sense at this point is that it's a story fraught with poor grammar.)

"cross_rifles: Got to do what ya got to do!"

"OHDEP76...All they had to do was comply in an orderly manner and the situation would never have escalated. The officers may have been on the aggressive side, but within reasonable force for sure."

"88pdx...One easy word to learn: COMPLY!"

"pcpc601...hey turd, ya know what failure to comply is?!? if ya didn't, now you do..."

By far the worst comments, in my opinion, are the ones that advocate "ass kickings" to compensate for what they perceive as poor parenting:

"jcarnes718...I didn't see anything wrong on the Officers part. These teenagers think they can do whatever they want to whom ever. I think an ass whipping needs to be handed down to these punks."

"Bears:...When the parent fails the Police step in to do what is needed."

"Bodie: Nothin' Wrong Here...Nothing wrong here that I see. Kids gotta grow up and take an ass kickin' sometime if parents ain't doin' it it's up to the police. It's the parents tax dollars at work."

I have to say that I find these statements to be chilling. It's easy to chalk this kind of bravado up to officer banter, but the real concern is that these people really think that their job is not to protect and serve; not to keep the peace; not to enforce laws; they're saying that it is their job to kick someone's ass to catalyze certain behaviors.

In watching this video, it seems that Officer Joey Williams falls into this category. This outrageous abuse of power didn't stem from enforcing laws or getting dangerous thugs off the street. It was driven purely from Joey Williams' own ego. He didn't like that the kids questioned his authority and he was going to show them that he was da man.

Because this out of control police officer has not been fired, or heaven forbid, at least suspended without pay, the City of Hot Springs, Arkansas hereby wins the Jackass of the Week Award.

"Fair" to Whom?

Liabilities and restrictions on property owners have been continually litigated in U.S. courts. Perhaps the most severe law that affects property owners is the so-called "Fair Housing" Act.

By definition, Fair Housing prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability)."

Last week, a friend in the midwest went to post a "for rent" ad in the local weekly. As he included the specifics of that property to the newspaper office, he included, "no pets," thinking of his expensive hardwood floors. The classifieds operator quickly corrected him, saying, "No pets except for service animals." Because, obviously, his town has decided that pet urine/feces/scratching is endemic to discriminating against the "differently abled."

Several years ago, I rented out one of our properties to a military family with two hyperactive toddlers. When they broke their lease due to an overseas transfer, I walked through the building to find the toddlers had taken a black permanent marker to no fewer than ten white walls and two wood doors.

When I deducted the re-paint (it takes three coats to cover Sharpie, BTW) and door replacement from their security deposit, I received over a dozen phone calls from a military lawyer at their overseas base, who was threatening to sue my family if his clients did not receive a full refund. Of course, I had to pay our attorney hundreds of dollars to tell me, "It's not worth it. Return the money." I was also inadvertently paying for their attorney, who, courtesy of the U.S. military system, was representing the couple on the tax dime.

Particularly offensive to me was that I couldn't get a handyman to come paint in time to rent the following month. So I spent three evenings after work doing the work myself, charging them only for the necessary materials. If I had hired someone, their deposit would not have covered the entire cost of the work.

Since then, I am loath to rent to families with children. They're hard on properties. Same with pets. But I can't come out and say that, and the whole process frustrates me so that I've offloaded that part of my obligation to a family member with more free time.

But with the numerous restrictions that property owners experience, why should we be hampered with this Fair Housing nonsense? After all, in jurisdictions around the country, property owners are held liable for gang and drug activity conducted on their premises; it is becoming increasingly common for communities to pass legislation that forbids property owners from renting to illegal immigrants.

Ironically, except for a handful of states and cities with sexual discrimination laws, it is still acceptable to print "no gays." Personally, I find this highly offensive.

While the government wants to induct us into some sort of citizen police patrol, there are no guidelines for this. How would I know if the charming "student" that I might rent to is actually planning to cook meth in the basement? How would I know if the seemingly normal young couple are gang members? If the lady with an accent is a legal citizen?

So, in reality, various governments are forcing me to discriminate against housing applicants. But I can't say that one house is "within walking distance to a prominent synagogue" because it somehow implies that I'm looking for a Jewish tenant.

Now, the left-wing nation of Kalifornia wants to expand Fair Housing to roommate and house-share situations. As of today, it is still legal for me to write an ad that says just about any damn thing if I'm looking to share my own space with another human.

Enter bureaucrats and lawsuits:

"The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego are suing the popular website roommates.com for violating federal anti-discrimination law by allowing ads that express roommate preferences. The ads cited in the lawsuit—presumably the worst of the bunch—include one requesting “no drugs, kids, or animals” and one that specifies “no psychos or anyone on mental medication.” Another advertiser writes that he would “prefer a Christian male, no women allowed in home, living for Christ.'"

While a similar lawsuit against Craigslist was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Chicago, this new suit is headed through the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit. So I'm guessing there's a 60-40 chance the plaintiffs will win.

Why??? WHY?!?!? I don't want to even consider sharing my home with a nineteen-year old ecstacy-popping nightclub DJ. Similarly, I don't want to rent any of our properties to crazed breeders with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

And why should I?!?!? I'm liable for their behavior; I'm liable if they hurt themselves on the property; I'm liable for the damage and destruction they may cause. So why do the legislative and judicial branches continually hamstring property owners?

In short, rather than expanding Fair Housing, I'd prefer to see the courts strike down Fair Housing. Because this isn't a national issue. It's a homeowner issue. And, as the Ninth Circuit will decide, it's an issue of how we live our lives in peace and security behind closed doors.

The government can't have it both ways. They can't decide that those who hold legal liability, whether a homeowner or lease holder, cannot mitigate said liability.

We're All So Effing Special

It was just a matter of time. In fact, I was expecting it as I wrote. In reality, it didn't take very long for the morons to roost over the Generation layZee story.

An astute reader picked it up and put a thread of the same name on a forum called Aantares. In short order, the self-righteous Boomers came out of the mist to wave their Righteous Indignation flags.

The forum Admin, who had obviously read the post, went so far as to agree with the fact (definition:a thing done; the quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence) that Boomers were responsible for the highest divorce rates in history.

I was kind enough to include this same link in the original post, so that readers questioning the voracity of this phrase could take a paltry second to quelch any disbelief themselves.

But really, isn't it just easier to look at the three sentences that other, ahem, Readers, have taken the time to post, and just comment on that? Certainly, Aantares poster Raksha prefers this method.

It starts just how I imagined it would when I originally wrote the Generation layZee piece:

"As a Baby Boomer mom, I can't even begin to tell you how outraged I am!!!"

Everyone, please note that Raksha is in a froth, as evidenced by her triple exclamation marks. Her insight into parenting, and how she herself is an icon of the institution, is presented as, well, as fact:

"Parenting was one of the very few things I DIDN'T fail at, dammit!!! I'm still not sure WHY I didn't fail, but I'm not about to let the purveyors of conventional wisdom tell me I failed when I didn't!"

Raksha, you silly twit. I am hardly a "purveyor of conventional wisdom." All four of the people who read this blog with any regularity are splitting their sides laughing right now.

"I believe one reason I didn't fail was BECAUSE I tried to be a friend to my kids whenever possible. Of course, you can't do that when they're very small, but I dislike authorities and authoritarianism and was never comfortable in that role."

Hmmm...sounds just a tish like you're actually validating the things I said in the original post, where I claimed that Boomers preferred to eschew parenting and take the more passive role of being their children's little buddies. Really, it's a tremendous model. As we can see from generational evidence, it's working out really well.

In fact, the generation who had grown friends in lieu of parents are now charged with producing functioning, contributing members of society themselves. Been in a coffee shop lately? A mall? A restaurant? Have you tried to enjoy a great meal while a toddler screams his head off a nearby table while the parents feign situational deafness? Have you tried to order at a counter and been nearly knocked over by a free-range small child?

"I think this statement is total and complete b.s. and furthermore I feel personally insulted by it."

Well, Raksha, if it feels good, do it. Wait...didn't I say that in the original piece?

Raksha, you know why you should be "completely outraged" and "personally insulted?" Because I wrote that piece just for you, precious. You are so unique and special that I decided to write an entire blog post about your specific style of parenting and how your children are subsequently performing in the world.

Since I obviously fell short in making you feel good about yourself, I am forced to apologize. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I can only imagine the tremendous ripple effect this has produced in your life...loss of appetite, sleep deprivation, unable to perform simple tasks. My word, this blog should come with some sort of disclaimer akin to those in drug commercials!

But the thing is, sweetie, you never read the damn post. You're just an ignorant breeder who took one line out of a 984-word piece and drew a wealth of assumptions. Had you actually bothered to read the article before spewing your ignorant (definition: destitute of knowledge or education; lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified; resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence; unaware; uninformed) opinion, you would have seen that the post painted the broadest strokes of generational traits.

After all, people spend entire professional careers trying to identify and catalogue generational characteristics. I feel confident in asserting that I came nowhere close in a blog post.

But you're unique and special, Raksha. You can apparantly not only debunk the theory from the twenty words that you read, you can do it all because you're living proof! Your children are no doubt miracles. And it is precisely because you are so special that I am devoting an entire blog post to you.

But it's not like you'll actually read it.