A Festivus For Anyone

I'm not really a proponent of giving inmates behind bars a bunch of privileges. I'm more in favor of hard labor. Chain gangs, to be precise. I think we could get a lot of stuff done with inmate labor. If nothing else, I'm at least in favor of having them crush up big rocks into little rocks, complete with that big heavy ball chained to one leg. It'd give a nice old-timey feel to incarceration! So, given my outlook on the coddling of inmates, you can imagine that I built up a full head of steam after reading that one inmate managed to get special meals because of his religious beliefs. And before you go off telling me that they're allowed special diets for religious reasons, let me tell you that his "religious belief" was Festivus. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to my local San Jose Mercury News, a one Malcolm Alarmo King (Alarmo? Really? Is he supposed to be some sort of superhero?), currently behind bars at the Theo Lacy Jail down there in Orange County, was not a big fan of salami. (I'm merely guessing that the meals were heavy on the salami, as that's the only basis that the article gives for what transpired next.) He had originally "...asked for kosher meals at the Theo Lacy jail to maintain his healthy physique." Yep. One must be in tip-top shape to prepare for all of the drug dealing that they do when they're not behind bars, don't you know?

But, alas! His kosher meals were not to be, for simply wanting to be healthy, as "...sheriff's officials reserve kosher meals for inmates with a religious need." Now, apparently, this sort of thing has to be OK'ed be a judge. The judge that was apparently involved in this instance was a one Judge Derek G. Johnson and he "...demanded a religious reason for King to receive the meals and defense attorney Fred Thiagarajah cited his client's devotion to Festivus". Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Just in case you were living under a rock during most of the 1990s, allow me to explain Festivus to you. It derives from the TV show "Seinfeld". According to Wikipedia, it was a holiday that Frank Costanza invented "...as an alternative holiday in response to the commercialization of Christmas." Sure. That seems reasonable.

Festivus doesn't have a tree. Instead, there is simply an unadorned aluminum pole (Frank found tinsel to be distracting). According to Frank, the aluminum provides a "Very high strength-to-weight ratio", an important factor to consider when choosing any holiday centerpiece. Some Festivus traditions include "Airing of Grievances," where one lashes out at others and the world about how one has been disappointed in the past year, and the "Feats of Strength" where "...the head of the household selects one person at the Festivus celebration and challenges that person to a wrestling match." My point with all of this being is that it sounds absolutely ridiculous. It also sounds just like something that would have been made up by someone.

Unfortunately, the judge didn't seem to see it that way. Nope. He saw celebrating Festivus as a perfectly legitimate claim and granted the inmates request. This went on for two months before "...the sheriff's food services staff, who interviews those needing special diets, realized Festivus sounded phony." Good Lord. It took the food services staff to figure this farce out?! I'm not trying to belittle anyone with this next question, but what is their highest level of achieved education as compared to that of the freaking judge who gave this thing the green light?!

What was that judge thinking? Even if he hadn't heard of the Seinfeld episode, wouldn't you think that if he heard "Festivus" that he might ask something to the effect of "What the hell are you talking about?" Apparently not. And that's why an inmate got kosher meals for two months that the taxpayers footed the bill for. Now...where do I air my grievances?

moreless

Prop 8...Again

I had thought that if I heard one more word about Prop 8 in California that my head would explode. Turns out, that's not the case. Don't get me wrong; I do feel a wave of nausea come over me. But there is no cranial explosion, so that seems good. That doesn't mean that I have the stomach for some long and droning post, because I do not. That just means that I have the capacity to muse over a point that some guy who thinks his point matters is trying to make.

If you have been blissfully living under a rock or in a world where you don't have to hear about Prop 8 all the live long day, I envy you. But here's the scoop: On Friday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (probably related to Jimmie Walker...Dyn-o-mite!) essentially overturned California's ban on gay marriage, aka, Prop 8. And now a one Tony Perkins, who is the head of something called the Family Research Council, says that the judge never should have stayed on the case in the first place because of the judge's own alleged gayness.

A homo judge?! Blasphemy! Whatever. Tony Perkins (not Anthony Perkins; that was Psycho) says that Judge Walker "...should have recused himself from the case due to his own sexuality." Perkins was apparently on CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday and said, "I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows -- and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that -- who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments...This is far from over."

Now, now, Tony. Let's just calm down a little. Try and keep your homophobia in check so that you can get your facts straight (no pun intended), all right? OK, then. See, Judge Walker is not openly gay. It's a rumor, but it's not an open secret and/or fact, depending on which moniker you prefer. Usually when there's a rumor that isn't true, especially if it involves one being gay, folks tend to speak out and set the record straight (pun totally intended this time). I'm not saying that means that Judge Walker is gay. I'm just saying.

And regardless as to how I feel about Prop 8, I really do hate it when something is voted on by the people and then it is struck down by a judge. That frustrates the hell out of me. Aside from the incredible waste of time and money, the right of the people to vote is kind of an important element in this country. Having it taken away or essentially nullified by one judge could be doing more harm than good. And I realize that the people can be as dumb as a box of hair a lot of the time. That isn't up for debate. What's up for debate is when people vote for something and then they're told by a judge that they can't do that. Well, if they can't do that then don't have them vote on it in the first place. Why don't you folks get those ducks in a row and stop spending my money on rearranging your ducks?

But Tony Perkins isn't the only one with his boxers in a knot. No, according to The Huffington Post the American Family Association called the decision "outrageous and unconscionable" as well as saying that it "...should never have been allowed to happen." They insisted that "Walker...should have recused himself "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Hmmm. Interesting.

OK, I get their point. But the problem here is that there point is coming from their interests and from what they want. Of course they think that a gay judge is going to rule in favor of the gay side of things. But why wouldn't the same litmus test be applied to the other side of that argument? If it had been a straight judge and the straight judge had ruled in favor of Prop 8, wouldn't gay folks be saying that a straight judge should have recused himself because his judgment would have been "clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity"? I think that's a fair argument to make.

The thing that the AFA and that Tony Perkins guy are overlooking is that Judge Walker is just that. He's a judge. It's right there in his title: Judge Walker. Part of being a judge is being impartial. That's the inherent underlying implication of being a judge. You're supposed to be impartial. I have no idea whether or not Judge Walker's alleged gayness had anything to do with his ruling. I do know that his ruling was 136 pages long and that seems a little meticulous for someone who is just flying by the seat of their pants.

But don't worry Tony Perkins and AFA folks. You're right. This isn't over yet. Of course it is going to go to a higher court. And after that court rules (and it won't matter either way because it will be appealed by the losing side) then it will inevitably end up with the Supreme Court. Is that a good idea? I don't know. I think it's poor strategy, personally. I think that the tide is slowly turning in California in regard to gay marriage. I think that there were several factors that contributed to Prop 8 being passed. And the majority of those factors could be eliminated or remedied at another election. Giving the whole thing time might have been a better way to go. This way, even though the judge has ruled Prop 8 to be a no-go, there still isn't gay marriage in California. No, it's going to be put on hold for years. Several years. And when the Supreme Court rules, there is a fifty-fifty chance that they're going to rule in favor of state's rights. And if it comes down to that, then it's done. It becomes a Roe v. Wade situation which will be highly and hotly debated for future years, but will never change.

In conclusion, I expect Judge Walker's ruling to be overturned by one of the higher courts. I base that on the basis of his ruling which is something called "rational basis". He said that there was no "rational basis" for Prop 8. From what I can tell, rational basis is one of the easiest rulings to overturn. Therefore, it will be. It won't be soon, but it will likely happen. And you know what will happen then? I'm going to have to figure out how to soundproof my walled-off compound because people will never stop talking about it ever when that day comes. Maybe I need some sort of a dome. Like in The Truman Show? I'm open to suggestions. All I know is I can't take much more of the incessant debating on either side. I just want it over already.

moreless

Lindsay Lohan's Reality Check

Oh, what a glorious day yesterday was. For myself and for anyone who loves to indulge in the world that is pop culture. Yesterday was awesome. That's right. Because Lindsay Lohan is going to jail! And this is only going to get better.

For those of you unfortunate enough to have not been able to avoid the Lindsay Lohan saga, here's the scoop: Lindsay likes to party. She also likes to party and drive. In 2007, she partied and drove her way into getting arrested. I think that she ran over a couple of inconveniently placed hedges and fire hydrants if I recall correctly. Here's her mugshot. Lookin' good, Lindsay! Behold!

Stay classy! Yeah, she looks a little wasted there. Let's face it, the chick has problems. Her two biggest problems being: a) thinking that she's better than/different than everyone else, and b) living in a constant state of denial (which also encompasses Item A up there). See, she had been on probation and was supposed to complete something like 13 alcohol awareness classes (an ironic requirement, as she seems to be perfectly aware of what alcohol is) whilst she was on probation. She was also supposed to show up for some court hearings so that her progress could be reported on to the court. This was in 2007. It's been three years. She can't complete 13 classes in three years? Yeah, I think the judge felt that way, too.

At least she showed up for court dressed a little more conservatively than she did at her last court hearing in May (when she claimed that her dog ate her passport (or something like that) and it prevented her from showing up for that hearing on time, but did not prevent her from partying away the days in Cannes). It still didn't change the outcome, but it was nice to not see her hooters falling out all over the place. Maybe if she had nicer hooters it wouldn't be an issue.

She also gave a little sob story speech to the judge that, obviously, did little to sway her. Actually, maybe it did sway the judge...into giving her more time in jail. (The prosecution had only asked for a month and the judge gave her 90 days. That's a pissed off judge right there.) She said, among other things, "I did the best I could...I did everything I was told to do and did the best I could to balance jobs and showing up...It wasn't vacation, it wasn't some sort of a joke...I thought I was being compliant...I'm not taking this as a joke, it's my life and career. I don't want you to think I don't respect you and your terms." Ironic, considering that her life and her career are somewhat of a joke these days.

And seriously? How could she have thought she was being compliant when she was missing her alcohol classes? That's not compliant! And what jobs could she possibly have been balancing? From what I can tell, there aren't a lot of folks out there that are willing to work with her. Oh, and at the last hearing? That one film that she said that she had to be in Texas to shoot? Yeah, that didn't exist. Whoops!

The judge, my new hero, a one very Honorable Marsha Revel, said, among other things, that there were "...a number of instances that would show her (Lindsay) not taking things seriously" and "I couldn't have been more clear (about my orders)...There are no excuses." Nope. There aren't. She also pointed out "...she found Lohan's apology insincere, comparing it to "somebody who cheats and thinks it isn't cheating if she doesn't get caught." That seems accurate. Man, I love that judge!

But in an instance of behavior which I can only hope that there is more of, Lohan's mother, the despicable Dina Lohan (who kind of looks like she was separated at birth from Kate Gosselin), spoke with PopEater and said, "This is so not fair to do this to my child." (Translation: Oh, my God! My gravy train!)

Lindsay doesn't have to report to jail until the 20th. I think I speak for everyone when I say that will be a red letter day for all of us. There should be some great motherly quotes when the 20th finally rolls around. It'll be awesome. In the meantime, if you need some awesomeness, the gossipy folks over there at TMZ have video of her providing the judge with her lame excuses. It's quite the performance. Not award winning and certainly not get-out-of-going-to-jail worthy, but it's amusing.

moreless

Twilight Isn't Real

I've come to the conclusion that, in general, these confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice nominee are a big, fat waste of everyone's time. What is the point there? The shaping of the court? Granted, I know that a justice can lean to the left or lean to the right. But if they're really doing their job, it shouldn't matter. I don't know how you're going to be able to figure out how someone is going to perform in the future (and for the rest of their life, actually) by asking them asinine questions during the hearings.

Take a one Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota. According to The Huffington Post, Sen. Klobuchar decided that the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan would be a good time to throw freaking Twilight into the mix. That's right. Twilight. The sparkly vampire movie series thing that I don't understand. How does that play a part in the confirmation hearings? Well, obviously, it freaking doesn't! But Sen. Klobuchar managed to cram it in there anyway. Let's see how she did that.

She started off by saying "You had an incredibly grueling day yesterday, and did incredibly well, but I guess it means you missed the midnight debut of the third Twilight movie last night. We did not miss it in our household, and it culminated in three 15-year-old girls sleeping over at 3 a.m. So I have this urge to ask you about this..."

Let me just interrupt here for a moment. So, she knows that Ms. Kagan had an incredibly grueling day the day before. Why make this day any worse for the woman by asking her a ridiculous question that is purely fictional?! I don't know the answer either. Let's see how Ms. Kagan responded.

KAGAN: I didn't see that.

Wow. She did a lot better than I would have. My response would have been either a blank stare or a string of obscenities. That's probably just one of the reasons why I'm not expecting to be nominated to the Supreme Court anytime soon.

The problem with Ms. Kagan's answer, however, it that it encourages the dimwitted Senator from Minnesota to continue along with her fictional line of questioning.

KLOBUCHAR: "I keep wanting to ask you about the famous case of Edward v. Jacob, or The Vampire v. The Werewolf."

She keeps wanting to ask her? How long has she been a-clamoring to get this out?! It's not a famous case! It's not a case at all! They're fake and sparkly vampires! There's no case! Besides, do we really want a Supreme Court justice that is into Twilight? I can't say that we do. Granted, I can't say that we don't, but I'm leaning heavily in that direction.

Fortunately, Ms. Kagan said exactly what I would have said (only without the obscenities) when she replied, "I wish you wouldn't." Yeah. Me, too.

Of course, that didn't stop Ms. Klobuchar from continuing to try to be witty when she said, "Well I know you can't comment on future cases." Aaarrgghhh! There IS no future case! Vampires AND werewolves are not real! It's a movie! They sparkle! You're a Senator! We're talking about the future of the Supreme Court here and you're asking non-sensical questions about non-existent werewolves and non-existent vampires that may or may not sparkle! What is wrong with you, Senator?

The video of this interchange is below. We're doomed, I tell you. Doomed.

moreless

Flaw and Order

Recently, here in the fine, fine state of California, some asshat Senator (said asshat being California Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez) introduced a bill that would, according to a story at Fox News (and they're fair and balanced, don't you know?), "...establish a registry of names -- similar to widely used sex offender databases -- to track and make public the identities of people convicted of felony animal abuse." Now, really, how I feel about that isn't exactly what this post is about, but I'm going to tell you what I think anyway.

And what I think is that if they're going to do this, someone is going to have to tell me where it's going to end. What I mean is that I think that sex offender databases are a good thing. I like to know where the perverts are. (Have you blue-dotted your neighborhood today?) But I'm thinking I'd also like to know where all of the folks convicted of assault are at. Add to that the folks convicted of theft, vandalism, burglary, or armed anything. All I'm saying is that it's going to have to stop somewhere and I think it needs to be contained to sex offenders. Otherwise, I think we run the risk of becoming a little too Big Brother-ish for my comfort level.

But I digress. The point here is that the folks in California (at least one of them, anyway) think that animal abuse is such a horrific crime (and it is) that those who perpetrate it and are convicted of it should be entered into some sort of statewide database. That view seems to be radically different from at least one judge in West Virginia. The judge in mention would be a one Kanawha Circuit Judge James Stucky. Let's learn more about him, shall we?

Judge Stucky presided over the sentencing of a one 18-year old (and old enough to know better) Charles Wiant. Mr. Wiant was being sentenced after pleading guilty for killing his neighbor's German shepherd with a bow and arrow. Clearly, Mr. Wiant is an asshat. That much seems cut and dried. What's not so clear is what is wrong with Judge Stucky.

Judge Stucky sentenced Mr. Wiant to spend four weekends in jail and "...serve 50 volunteer hours at the Kanawha-Charleston Animal Shelter, pay $1,000 to the dog's owners and spend a year on unsupervised probation." Hmmm. Now, the article in the Charleston Daily Mail says that the Judge " ...imposed a sentence that was suggested by the victims and recommended by prosecutors in exchange for a guilty plea." Now, while I don't know what the sentencing parameters for something like shooting a German shepherd with a bow and arrow, I know that it doesn't seem unreasonable at all. I don't know that it seems like one would need to make any concessions to such a sentence. I, however, am not Judge Stucky. And Judge Stucky "...agreed to a sentencing arrangement that will allow him to attend the Hank Williams Jr. concert at the Charleston Civic Center on April 2. Wiant's lawyer, Bill Forbes, explained that Wiant's girlfriend already has spent a lot of money on the tickets." Wait. What?

Correct. This convicted and, apparently, admitted (he pled guilty) dog murderer whose weapon of choice was a bow and arrow, will be allowed to go to a Hank Williams Jr. concert because his girlfriend already spent a lot of money on the tickets. Are you freaking kidding me?!

I think that crimes against animals are in some ways more reprehensible than crimes against humans. Regardless though, it's hard for me to be really objective on this one when I'm an animal lover. I definitely do not think that four weekends in jail is any sort of a just sentence. But it is what it is. And it's a sentence. And I don't think that it needs to be altered. And animal lover or not, I certainly don't give a fat rat's ass how much money the convicted's girlfriend spent on concert tickets. Too bad. Maybe she should have chosen a better boyfriend. Perhaps one who wouldn't get his ass thrown in jail for shooting a German shepherd with a bow and arrow and killing it? THAT might be the kind of boyfriend to have. You know, one who doesn't do stuff like that!

Just remember, kids! If you're going to be sentenced to jail in Judge Stucky's courtroom and think that you may be needing a break from the doldrums of prison life once you're in there, make sure that you purchase some pricey concert tickets ahead of time so that the Judge will let you attend! Make it a country music concert just to be on the safe side. Plan ahead!

moreless