This Good Life

America Has Priorities

You've been safer over the last 7 days.  Did you know that?  Your children, you home and your streets, which were previously at the mercy of David L. Bennett, are now the idyllic places they were before he was brought to justice.  You don't know who David L. Bennett is?  Well, you won't know for up to 30 years, because that was his sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, fleeing and eluding, driving with revoked license.

David L. Bennett (black) had alot going against him from the start, (being black).  First, he was really stupid.  When pulled over by the police, they observed two bags of MJ (and that he was black).  Bennett then drove off and tried to escape from the police.  When they finally caught him, he was seen tossing bags of pot into the woods, and "deputies recovered 40 bags of marijuana weighing more than 86 grams."  Mr. Bennett's defense was that he thought the bags of marijuana were a bomb that someone had thrown into his car, and he was driving fast to get rid of it.  Oh, and he didn't see the police lights.

Is he stupid?  Yes.  Does he deserve a 30 year sentence?  Not in my opinion.  First of all, lets look at what he was busted with, and do a bit of drug math.  The vague description of "40 bags of marijuana weighing more than 86 grams" could be interpreted two ways.  1.  Each of the 40 bags was over 86 grams, meaning Mr. Bennett had 7.5 lbs of marijuana, or around $12,000 worth of drugs.  2.  The total of the bags was just over 86 grams, meaning he had about 3 ounces total, or approximately $300 worth of marijuana.

The #1 option seems unlikely based on the wording.  If he had 7.5 lbs of Mary Jane, they would have just said he had that much, and that it was $25,000 drug seizure.  (The police love those big numbers for drug busts.)  The wording of "just over 86 grams" indicates a total, not for each bag.  Of course, he ran from the police, which isn't a smart thing, and that will add time to any sentence.  Oh, and he didn't have a license.  (How big a dick does an officer have to be to add that charge?)

So. Mr. Bennett was sentenced to 30 years in jail for 3 ounces of pot, and trying to run away from the police when they caught him.  Lets put this in perspective.  Enron Mastermind Jeffrey Skilling (white) was found guilty of 19 out of 28 indictments, lost billions of dollars and wrecked peoples future, and he faces a maximum of 25 years.

So, three ounces of pot and another black man off the streets.  We should totally make more things illegal and then arrest people for doing them and running away when they don't think they should go to jail.  We should have this whole crime thing taken care off.  I've always said, if we want to eliminate crime, we should make more things illegal, but only things that affect people we don't like.  I mean, we don't want OUR children to go to jail, just those other people.

The Leprechaun in Mobile

When my friend Collin showed me this clip just after St Patty's Day, I thought it was really funny, but didn't think much of it after that.  But it appears the clip is circulating, and becoming more and more widely known.  I would be doing everyone a disservice if I didn't post the clip to ensure you aren't the last to see it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8

Here you go.  This will be a perfect use of the comments section.  Let me know your thoughts on this news report.  Real or fake?  Is this a joke, or a cultural statement about how the news covers certain cultural segments of our society?  Am I an asshole for using the picture above or just displaying my biting sense of humor?

Feel Good Clip

This is a neat story I found on Fark that I'd like to share with the rest of you.  An highschool senior, who also is autistic, was the manager for the varsity basketball team for 4 years.  His senior year, the coach put him on the roster so he could have a jersey and sit with the players.  With his team winning, the coach put him in for the first time.  And, well, you gotta see the clip.  Its pretty great.  There is footage of the news report, just click on the first window.

Update:
My friend Matt sent me a better link for this story.  Better use of the footage. 

http://www.youtube.com/w/Autistic-basketball-player-creates-mayhem-at-game?v=UBYPaNc57Ik&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b

Get Thee Behind Me Mephistopheles

We all know Texas is the buckle of the Bible Belt.  Conservative views are as common here as dirt, and after 29 years in the state, I've just come to accept that.  Its the state that elected Bush governor, and where he still vacations to this day.  Well, Bush would be happy to know that pseudo-religious conservative sentiment is spreading faster than he can imagine.  Even in Colorado, decent, hard-working folks are standing up to protect their community against the liberal moral scourge that is threatening their children.

The parents of Bennett, CO have raised up and voiced their anger over a first-year uppity elementary music teacher who had the audacity to expose their children to Satanism.  Actually, it was opera, but in this situation, apparently its the same thing.  It seems that Tresa Waggoner thought it would be a good idea to teach elementary children about opera, so using video from an old series called "Who's Afraid Of Opera?", she showed excerpts from Gounod's opera Faust. 

This is based on an old German story in which a miserable Dr. Faust sells his soul to Mephistopheles (the devil) in exchange for assistance in attaining his worldly desires.  Actually, Mephistopheles isn't the devil.  He doesn't even appear in the Bible.  He's a character that is supposed to have been the first person to join up with Lucifer (the actual Devil) and joined him in giving the finger to God.  Of course, a deal with a devil is never what it seems.  The story of Faust, and the opera deals with some pretty complex ideas.  The desire to have things vs. the cost of getting them.  Immediate results vs. long term ramifications.  Sin vs. forgiveness.  Vanity vs. humility.  Lust vs. love.   Worldly vs. Heavenly.  Its obvious why good, wholesome, God-fearing parents would be outraged that their children were even slightly exposed to any of this.

Parent, Casey Goodwin, summed up the parents position eloquently when she said, "I think it glorifies Satan in some way."  Well done Casey.  When in doubt, just assume.  Its the safest policy.  Don't go out and find out about Faust, that could put you in danger.  And don't talk to your children about the story.  Best to just run with the Satan idea.  It simplifies things.  The other part of the article I like is when the reporter refers to the parent's other concerns with the video, which include, "a scene showing a man being killed by a sword and a reference to suicide."  Now remember, this is opera.  A man being killed by a sword involves tucking the sword under your arm and falling down, all while singing.  Everyone remembers pretending to die by being stabbed or shot.  We did it all the time when we were playing, in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!  Are you serious?  A man being stabbed in an opera is what worries these parents?  I hope they aren't reading the Bible to their children, cause those sheltered kids are going to be mortified when God asks Abraham to kill his son Isaac, or when David kills Goliath with a rock to the head.  The suicide concern sounds a little more valid.  Given that the opera is in French, I'm sure the elementary school kids read the sub-titles quite well, and when someone says something about poison riding them of this wicked world, they could be seriously damaged.

The teacher involved, Tresa Waggoner, wrote a letter of apology and will not lose her job.  Apparently losing her job was an option.  Due to the pressure, complaints, and personal attacks she has suffered as a results of this her attempt to convert children to Satan by using opera, her first year teaching in Bennett may be her last.  "I know I'm not accepted here, that I'm not welcome here by the parents," she said. "It's a very uncomfortable position." 

Trust me, I know the feeling.

Bush's Speech at KSU

If you aren't clear on my opinion of President Bush, and better yet, if you care what my opinion is of President Bush, then here it is.  I think that Bush is one of the most frightening political figures in American history, and that the damage he has done to civil liberties, the rule of law, international diplomacy and the abuse of Executive power is so beyond fixing that we will suffer the ramifications for decades.  He has done more damage to the Presidency than Bill Clinton's penis in a woman's mouth ever did.  I even like stuff that Nixon did more than Bush.  Not that I really care for the Democratic party either, as they have done nothing instead of the hard, but right thing of taking a stand regardless of the initial perceptions.  They have decided to just sit back and let Bush destroy himself, but with no dialogue, Bush has instead used sound bytes and misdirection to somehow convince people out there that he's doing a great job.

And speaking of people who think he's doing a great job, Bush gave a speech on January 23rd, 2006 at Kansas State University.  The speech is Bush at his public speaking best, meaning that it would rarely get a passing grade in a middle school English class.  Here are some of my favorite quotes from this speech.

"You know, really one of the interesting things about being the president is to invite my -- guys, buddies I grew up with from Texas to the White House. It's really neat to see how they react to the majesty of the White House and the Oval Office and the south lawns and just the beauty of Washington.  And most of them, after they get over the initial shock of seeing the White House, they then come to the shock of wondering how in the heck I got there. (LAUGHTER)"
(Its good to know I'm not the only one that thinks that.  Hell, its good to know even people who like him think that.  I would be laughing too if it were actually funny for the President to tell that story.)

"You can't lead the nation, you can't make good decisions unless you are optimistic about the future. So for the students here, as you take over organizations or head out of college and become involved in your life, you got to be optimistic if you're going to lead somebody. Imagine somebody saying, "Follow me, the world is going to be worse."
(This sums up his entire presidency.  Even when he IS making the world worse, he always has a positive outlook on things.  He never lets reality get in his way of a positive outlook on how he's doing as a leader.)

 

"You know, a lot of us grew up thinking that oceans would protect us, that if there was a threat overseas it really didn't concern us because we were safe."  "After the enemy attacked us, and after I realized that we were not protected by oceans, ..."
(What people thought that?  We've been crossing the oceans by boat for over 500 years.  see:  French-Indian War, Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War - the French came to fight in that one, WWII - Bush was born in 1946, so he didn't grow up not thinking about that war.  Actually, I take that back.  I can guarantee you Bush didn't grow up thinking of America's history of war.  And because he was surprised that oceans didn't protect us, I'm sure everyone else in the country was equally surprised.  Now granted, if you consider that the Civil War was a domestic conflict, we did have a pretty good run of isolationism under the Monroe Doctrine through most of the 1800's.  Plus, we were a little busy fighting Spain, seizing land from Mexico, and doing our best to bring democracy and freedom to those rascally red-skinned terrorists.  And boy did they fight like the dickens against freedom and democracy.  It was not easy to bring it to them.  But we eventually succeeded.)

"I believe there's an almighty, and I believe the Almighty's great gift to each man and woman in this world is desire to be free." 
(The Almighty's gift is desire for freedom, not actual freedom.  I mean he can't actually make the world free.  Who do you think he is?)

"Their vision of the world is dark and dim. They have got desires to spread a totalitarian empire. How do we know? Because they told us." 
(Dark and dim view?  Totalitarian empire?  I think I know exactly how you knew.)

"By the way, tools which have been granted to use in tracking down drug dealers, for example, my attitude was, if it's good enough, if these tools are good enough to find a drug dealer, then they ought to be good enough to protect us from the new threats of the 21st century." 
(So the War on Terror and the War on Drugs are sharing the same tools?  That's a relief.  Since the War on Drugs has been such a success in eradicating drug use, I'm sure victory against terror is right around the corner.)

"Let me talk about one other program, and then I promise to answer questions. Something that you've been reading about in the news lately; it's what I would call a terrorist surveillance program." 
(This quote is actually the reason I made this entry.  You and I know this program as Domestic Wire Tapping or Domestic Surveillance.  That's where the president allowed the NSA to monitor your calls overseas without any oversight.  You just need to trust him.  This quote is a great example of what this administration does best:  When you can't win with facts or law, just change the wording to make it sound good.  - see: Patriot Act, Operation Enduring Freedom.  I mean, who is going to publicly argue against a "Terrorist Surveillence Program."  It just a battle of semantics, instead of what the real battle should be about.  Can the President, without oversight from any other branch of government, conduct spying activities on American Citizens?  In order to actually call this a terrorist surveillance program he would need to actually show he listened to terrorists and that it lead to any results.  He's got the first one down.  The administration's definition of terrorist or providing terrorist support is so broad that if you pay a ransom to free a kidnapped relative, you have just provided material support to terrorism.  Think I'm making that example up?  You're wrong, look into it.  Second thing, did he actually get any results in order to call this a terrorist surveillance program?  We don't know, because no one is allowed to know who was tapped.  But the Bush administration assures us that they have stopped all sorts of terrorist attacks, and since they have been so honest and accurate in the past, I'm sure we should just trust them to do the right thing.)

"I'm mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress, one of whom was Senator Pat Roberts, about this program.  You know, it's amazing that people say to me, 'Well, he was just breaking the law'.  If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?" 
(This is scary on multiple levels.  First, we have no indication that congress approved his wiretapping.  If I talk with you about how much I like your Xbox 360 and would like to have one, then I take your XBox 360, you didn't approve that.  Just saying you did something doesn't make it so.  I like to see a little something called...umm...Oh, PROOF!  And even if you did talk to a Senator, he also does not have the power to approve wiretapping.  There's a thing called a law we have that says a special court approves that.  Also, what lawyers reviewed this?  I'm betting my life savings its wasn't ACLU lawyers.)

"You see, sometimes in the political process people feel beholden to polls and focus groups. You don't have to worry about me."
(Polls are the opinions and desires of the people.  I don't think anyone worries about you listening to them.)

It just goes on and on.  He has a very clear set of objectives, and that is to do things exactly as he sees right, and nothing, not even the Constitution will stand in his way.  The grammar alone would be enough to make me laugh if it weren't so sad.  Feel free to read, and I hope that you do.  Its particularly important to see this on paper, without the bias of how it is said.  You can just focus on what is said.  Bush doesn't sneak up on you, he's been saying it for years.  I just hope you read so you know what is coming next, and maybe some of it can be stopped.

Today's Rant Brought to you by a Rocket

The term Politically Correct has become a permanent part of our vocabulary, and a permanent part of our society.  It isn't going anywhere, and that's good.  I support being somewhat PC.  It forces people to examine their language and change not only how they speak, but how they think of other people.  I'm a big supporter of common courtesy at the least.  However, I was reading an article from The Hindu, an online site for news coming out of India and Pakistan, and I was struck by one phrase that was used.

The article was about an accident with a rocket and it used a phrase I've heard used before, but never seen in print.  The first line of the article says:

"The left limb of K. Pragya (16), a differently-abled girl, was severed on Wednesday afternoon when a stray rocket-like projectile hit her in MVP Colony."

Now, there is no way for me to know who translated this into English, but the decision was made to use the term "differently-abled".  I've heard this term used, especially by parents referring to their children, instead of the term "disabled".  Disabled has a connotation that there is some sort of defect or that the person is inferior to a non-disabled person, so I totally understand why there would be a need to not call someone disabled, but when reading this, it occurred to me how hypocritical it is to say "differently-abled".

First of all, its exploitation to use the term.  The reason we use labels like "disabled", "differently-abled" or "handicapped" or even something pretty severe like "retarded" is that it identifies the person being described as different from "normal" people.  Calling someone differently-abled might make the speaker feel better, but it is still singling out the person as not like you and me.  No one refers to me as differently-abled because I can play the guitar, or calls Peyton Manning differently-abled because he can throw a 60 yard pass off of his back foot.  Everyone knows what differently-abled means.  It means the person has some sort of handicap, be it physical or mental.  No one reading this article thinks that the differently-abled girl is a chess champion.  It's put in there to create a higher degree of pity for the girl because she is different, but tries to use language that makes the writer appear noble and compassionate instead of exploitative.

Second problem with this article and the use of the term in general is that it doesn't need to be used.  A girl had her arm chopped off by an errant rocket.  How does the story improve if she has Down's Syndrome, or was blind already?  If her injuries had been caused by her "different able"-ness, they would have just reported it.  "Blind girl walks into a mine field."  They wouldn't say a differently-abled girl walked into a mine field, or call it being "occularly exceptional".  The reason phrases like "retarded" or "handicapped" are offensive is that they are not necessary.  You don't refer to a person in a wheel chair as a cripple, he's Bob.  I've seen this kind of thing happen in real life.  I'll be someplace and hear a young child use a term like "retarded" to describe someone, and their parents will say, "we don't call people retarded, he's special."  Well that's fine and good, but you've missed the point.  We don't call people retarded because how smart a person is shouldn't affect our ability to engage them like any other person.  In the example above, the parent should have told the child, "we don't call people retarded.  No one can control how their mind or body works, things happen outside of our control. It isn't nice (or better, I do not allow you) to refer to people by what makes them different from us.  Everyone has feelings just like you."  There is no other word for it, they are different.  Adults know it, kids know it, but what adults can do is take away the stigma that their being different makes them inferior or some kind of person that we observe because we don't know what to do.  Coming up with more PC words for people still creates a sub-set of people.  Its important to understand that there are all sorts of different groups of people, and that instead of coming up with new words, children need to learn compassion and how to interact with all sorts of people.  If you want to teach your child something, don't teach them new creative terms, teach them how to overlook differences.  Its hard and takes a lot of work, but from what I understand, that's parenting.

The final reason it annoys me is that I have never heard an amputee who lost their leg in a car wreck refer to themselves as "differently-abled".  Non-disabled people use that term.  Again, it's just trying to find a nicer way to continue to say, "you aren't like most people".  I'm not saying that people in certain groups don't use the term, but I have never heard it used except by people with an agenda.  The freaking phrase was invented and used by the Democratic Party.  Even if it was well intentioned, it doesn't make it appropriate.

So please, next time you are going to use a polite term, stop and consider two things:

1) Are you saying it to make the other person feel comfortable, or to make yourself feel comfortable.

2) Does any term need to be used at all?  Less is more people.

Don't call me "designed for up-close analysis", I wear glasses because I can't see without them.  But if you want to call me "differently abled" because I can sing, well that's fine.  Single me out all you like.