Riot Like An Egyptian

Well. It's going DOWN in Egypt. The proverbial poo has hit the proverbial fan and it is chaos over yonder in Cairo. And while I don't want to oversimplify the whole ordeal, I do want to point a couple of things out.

First, I'm not pro-dictatorship. Dictators are really bossy. I don't like it when someone thinks that they're the boss of me, so I have to imagine that the Egyptians aren't all that keen on it either. But we're talking about one of the Sand Lands. So, you know what could be the alternative to the current government? That's right. A government that is based on Islamic Fundamentalism. That would not be good for our relations with Egypt. It certainly wouldn't bode well for Israel. They're already worried that Iran is going to get all froggy and do something. I can't imagine that they'd be real thrilled about having to watch their backs for the same sort of behavior from the Egyptians. Just remember, different doesn't always mean better. While getting rid of a dictator sounds like a good idea, it's not like they're going to end up with a democracy that is identical to that of the United States'.

That brings me to my second point. If you think that this is going to happen overnight, you're wrong. Please remember that after the uprising in Tunisia, they had three different presidents in ONE DAY! (Imagine their State of the Union addresses! "Are you better off than you were at lunchtime?") Even if the current government is overthrown, it will likely be YEARS before there is anything overly functional over there. Again, it certainly isn't going to end up looking like the United States. I totally get that all of those folks who think that the United States is so freaking great could not possibly understand why other countries would not want to mold their government in an exact mirror image of what we have going on over here. I get that. I just don't know how to explain to them that it's not true. A lot of those Sand Lands are ruled by religion (and not always in a good way). Have we learned nothing from what went down in Iraq? Apparently not. Morons.

And finally, while I'm all in favor of a nice revolution, you know what I'm not in favor of? I'm not so much in favor of the asshats that look at a time of political unrest as a justification to start looting stuff. People who are out there stealing stuff don't seem to have as much of an interest in overthrowing the government as much as they do getting a new TV for free. Same goes with looting the museums and ripping the heads off of the mummies. No one wants to see that and it perplexes me as to why someone would do that. The merchants of Egypt have little to do with the dictatorship. And I'm pretty sure that the mummies are completely blameless. So stop breaking their windows and stealing their stuff. And leave the dead guy's dome in tact, would you? You folks want to rain down your disgruntledness (it's a word) on the palaces and things like that? Have at it. Burn them to the ground if you want to (just don't tell anyone that I said it was OK). But try and stay focused, rebels. You've got a job to do. You can't carry out a thorough and effective ousting if you're running through the streets of Cairo with a flat screen TV that you just swiped from the Kwik-E-Mart. Focus, people. Focus!

moreless

Posts That Practically Write Themselves

I swear, some days, this thing practically writes itself. With a headline of "Sexy dancer too old, man tells police", I can practically take the day off. It's one of those rare times when snarky commentary almost isn't needed. Almost.

According to the citrus-y folks over there at the Orange County Register, "A man...called police at about 4 a.m. Monday after a woman he found on Craigslist took money from him without "providing proper services and he feels this is improper". A woman he found on Craigslist? Well, this can be nothing but untoward, can't it?

Correct. According to the article, "The man had contacted a girl from a Craigslist ad with a picture and a phone number. She was to perform a "sexy dance" for $200, money paid up-front". Uh-huh. A sexy dance, was it? For $200, cash money, was it? I see. Soooo, she was a hooker. What else?

Well, this may shock you, but sometimes, those pictures that people post of themselves all over the Internets? Yeah, sometimes, those pictures don't look anything like the actual people themselves! I know! Who'd a thunk it? That kind of seems to be the case here. See, "The girl that arrived was older than the girl in the picture, "causing the informant to reconsider". OK, that part I kind of get. I really wish that I knew "older than what", though. I mean, if he was expecting Rue McClanahan and ended up with Betty White, I think that's about even. But if he was expecting Lindsay Lohan (who seems to be running out of cash and might just find herself in the "sexy dance" category on Craigslist sooner than we might think) and he ended up with Courtney Love (who actually might end up with Lindsay Lohan the way things seem to be going for her lately), well, then I could see the reconsidering. Actually, any one of those four women showing up at my front door would have me heading for the hills. Especially if it were Rue McClanahan, considering she just died a few weeks ago.

But here's the part that I don't really get: "When he told the girl to keep $20 for gas and give him back the rest of his money, the girl refused and left with the entire $200." So, let me get this straight. He's expecting a young woman who is going door-to-door and performing "sexy dances". He gets an old woman who claims to be able to perform a "sexy dance". He PAYS her $200. And then what? Then he opens his eyes?! Why did he pay her at all if she wasn't what he expected? Was there some sort of magic that was promised along with this "sexy dance"? I mean, I could see paying $200 for something that was a little more than just a dance, and magic would be worth it. Changing from an old broad into a hot, young, dancing chick would seem to be worth at least $200. But since there has been no mention of any anticipated magic up to this point, I'm going to have to assume that was not the case.

Strangely, however, "Police said no one was arrested because there is no law against a "sexy dance." Deputies did not make contact with the woman from the ad, and it appears she kept the money". Yes, I realize that there are no laws forbidding the "sexy dance". But she didn't dance! She showed up and took $200 and on top of that, she was old! Very strange indeed.

But wait! There's more! "The man – whose mother was there and was "angry about it as well" – decided not to file a report". Oh. My. God.

How old IS this man, exactly? And why was he ordering a Craigslist sexy dancer when his mother was there? And why was his mother informed of said sexy dancer that he would be paying $200 for? She was angry about it as well? Did she help pick her out? What the hell is going on down there in Orange County? You know what? Never mind. I don't want to know. I'm suddenly on the side of the elderly sexy dancer.

Let me tell you what really happened. The guy hooked up with this chick on Craigslist who was a hooker. I'm going to have to guess that his mother wasn't home at the time. The mom must have come in shortly after the money exchanged hands, but definitely before any swapping of bodily fluids (and most likely chlamydia) took place. The dude came up with the "sexy dance" story because that would be more acceptable to his mother than "I got a hooker". He wanted his money back. The chick knew that he'd never say that she was a hooker because of his mom being there and all, so she just took off. Seems reasonable. Yeah, I'm definitely on her side.

And this, kids, is why you never order women off of the Internets, especially if you're expecting your mother to return home shortly. Back to you.

moreless

Father of the Year Front Runner

I believe that we have a front runner candidate for Father of the Year. I mean, it's really going to be hard to top a guy who takes funds that were donated to his only surviving son (after the rest of his family, his girlfriend and two other children, were killed in a house fire) and spends all of the money within three months on such expenditures as hookers. Um, wait. What now?

Correct. Meet Tubal Eduardo.

Mr. Eduardo experienced an unbelievable tragedy on March 12, 2007, when his girlfriend, Heather Marchie and two of his three children, Tubal Jr., 5, and Angelina, 4, were killed in a fire in the home that they shared with Mr. Eduardo and with his third child, a one Noah (who appears to have been around 3-ish). Now, according to NJ.com, after said tragedy, there was a fundraiser that was arranged by the "...parent-teacher association at the Weston School". Apparently, one of the children who was killed in the fire had been attending that school prior to death. The funds raised were to go into an account for Noah and were to be used so that Noah would be able to have something for his future. It was a very nice gesture, really.

But what was not so nice of a gesture was this alleged scumbag allegedly siphoning the funds for his own personal use. According to WCBS-TV, there was $38,000 raised for little Noah. As of the filing of court papers for this unimaginable act, there was $114.27 left in that account. Hmm. Seems to be a little short, doesn't it? Yep. It does. I wonder where it went?

Well, if you consult another article by the fine folks over there at NJ.com, you'll learn that allegedly some of the funds, "at least $7,107 went to First Professional Referral Services." Um, what's a professional referral service? "I believe it’s an escort service," said a one Detective Michael Schutta in court. Oohhh. I see. (Referral service? What are they referring people to? Free clinics? Penicillin, perhaps?) I wonder what kind of hookers these were? I mean, were they regular, couple hundred bucks an hour, hookers? Or were they like Eliot Spitzer's whores who could run thousands of dollars? It's hard to say which one would be better if you had to choose. The whole idea is completely reprehensible.

So, let me get this straight. This guy loses his girlfriend and two of his kids in a fire. He and his little baby son survive. The kind, kind people at his deceased child's elementary school hold a fundraiser for the surviving child. They raise 38 grand. (They do allot 5 grand for the father, by the way.) And this guy takes the money and buys hookers with it? Are you kidding me?! How does one excuse that sort of behavior?

I don't know how "one" excuses it, but I know how his defense attorney is excusing it and it is absolutely despicable. According to a one seemingly horrible individual, a one defense lawyer Maureen O'Reilly, "...her client had just endured a tragedy. " Huh. When my dad died, I considered that to be a tragedy. I didn't siphon money from a (non-existent) fund and go get myself a bunch of hookers. I mean, I was pretty overwrought at the time, but not money-stealing, hooker-hiring overwrought, you know?

This awful human being also makes sure that we understand that after the fire, "Eduardo had nothing" and that"A good part of his family was gone." Yeah, I understand that. Get to the part where it's OK to steal from your son in order to buy yourself some hookers. Get to that part. "Mr. Eduardo used the funds in order to live," she said. Among the purchases was an 8-year-old car. "I hardly believe that's living the high life." That's not the part I was expecting.

I don't give a crap as to whether he purchased an 8-year old car or an 8-year old child! (He had just lost almost his whole family, don't forget. Child purchasing, while wrong, might have seemed more warranted.) The point is that it wasn't his money! What part of that don't you understand, you soul-less, reptilian, defense attorney, you?!

Aside from the hooker funding, there were also "$14,346.75 in cash withdrawals, and $2,472.22 for food, gas and lodging." That "food, gas and lodging" I'm assuming is hooker related. I'm wondering if the whole "He bought an 8-year old car" defense is what explains the nearly fifteen grand in cash withdrawals. Do we next get to hear about how stupid he was that he paid that much for an 8-year old car? I can't imagine that we will (and I pray to God that we don't).

It would appear that all that this scumbag can get is a five year jail sentence if he's found guilty. Granted, anything can happen (innocent until proven guilty, remember!). But if he's found guilty, it's up to five years in jail. That seems like an awfully short period of time for someone who was stealing from his little boy who had survived a fire that killed the majority of his family. It seems like not quite long enough. Definitely the front runner for Father of the Year. Definitely.

moreless

It Puts The Lotion On Its Skin

What's going on in the world of crime these days, you ask? Same old, same old. Bunches of idiots, all trying to break the law, with some failing in a spectacular fashion.

Let's first start in Springfield, Massachusetts where Breitbart.com tells us about a one Chamil Guadarrama. Mr. Guadarrama, aged 30-years old and old enough to know better, was arrested at a Bath and Body Works with what must have had to have been extremely chafed skin. Now, allegedly, Mr. Guadarrama was chased by mall security officers. Shockingly, the most surprising aspect of this story will not be that mall security officers can actually run. No, the most surprising aspect will be that Mr. Guadarrama could barely run himself. Because his pants were stuffed full of lotion that he was allegedly stealing. All alleged 75 bottles of it. Wait. What now? Allegedly?

That's correct. Mr. Guadarrama had 75 8-ounce bottles of lotion shoved down his pants. I didn't read anywhere in the story that Mr. Guadarrama was eight feet tall, so I'm presuming him to be of normal height and semi-normal girth. Along those same lines, I'm also presuming him to be of less than below average intelligence for attempting this caper of the inexplicable.

According to the folks over at MassLive.com "...Guadarrama was found with 75 8-ounce glass bottles of lotion stuffed into his pants." Glass bottles? How did he get them all in there, you ask? "A clerk at the store spotted Guadarrama slipping bottles of lotion through his zipper..." Never mind. Too much information. (I guess I thought it would have been harmless to know, but now I'm really sorry I asked.)

Honestly, did this guy think that this would work? He has 75 bottles of lotion in his pants which are tied at the bottom with a string (you know, so the lotion doesn't fall out as he hobbles off to make his getaway). He can barely walk. He certainly can't run at anything above a lethargic trot. How was all of this falling in place in his head? I can't imagine. There's also the fact that someone at the store might notice that suddenly they're out of lotion!

That equals out to 37-1/2 pounds of lotion. And that's just the liquid! That's almost 5 gallons of lotion. And that IS just the liquid! But none of those figures are including the weight of the containers! As you can imagine with that much stuff crammed into your pants, he didn't exactly tear out of the mall like Usain Bolt or anything. According to a one Sgt. John M. Delaney, Guadarrama "...had a hard time running and was extremely bowlegged.” Ya think?! AND, in the utmost example of irony "Guadarrama’s legs were also “extremely chaffed” when he was taken into custody following his run (and) He needed the use of some of the stolen items." OK, soooo...what was going on here?

Wait. Let's wait a minute. Let's not worry about what he was thinking for just a moment and instead, let's focus on what in the hell he could need that much lotion for! Was he planning to be like that freaky guy in Silence of the Lambs? You know, the "It puts the lotion on it's skin" dude. (Creepy show. Awesome, but creepy as hell.) I needed to know! But then I might have found out and I didn't want to know anymore.

Doing your basic Google search (please click, as it's highly amusing), I came upon a Chamil Guadarrama who was a registered sex offender in Framingham, Mass. Ew!! Said offenses which landed the alleged lotion thief on the list by which those who offend sexually were stated as being: Indecent A&B on a Person over 14; Assault on Child with intent to Rape; and Rape. He appears to have been convicted of all of those in November of 2005. Ummm....Framingham? Massachusetts? Anyone? What in the hell was this guy doing out of jail? Out of prison? Out of anywhere with or without lotion?!?! Seriously, Massachusetts?! This guy is out there raping what appear to be children or at the very least, a child and y'all let him out of jail less than 5 years later?! Why would that be?! Did you cut his unit off first? No? Then I'm still going to be waiting for a logical reason as to why this guy is roaming the streets with his pants crammed with what is likely to be very pleasant smelling bodily lotions.

Note to self: Avoid Framingham, Massachusetts like the freaking plague!

This can't end well.

moreless

Worst. Getaway. Ever.

Got time for another Walmart story? This one's in Pennsylvania! That's not really that far from where the last one of these stories took place. Maybe just look at it as our sort of working our way across the Walmart denizens of the eastern states?

CBS3 gives us our report on this story. It would seem that a one 32-year old and old enough to know better Craig David Jr., of Smithfield, PA needed to have a prescription filled. Naturally, the place you'd go to have that done is your local Walmart pharmacy. The report isn't clear as to what Mr. David's prescription was, but it did say that he had "...just been released from a hospital." It would seem that he had some injuries stemming from a domestic incident (Translation: A wife and/or girlfriend beat the holy living S out of him). These injuries occurred when Mr. Davis was "...hit with a frying pan and a table leg." Judging from this incident, I'd have to say that Mr. David is apparently some sort of cartoon character. Who else gets hit with frying pans?

Anyway, he had contacted an ex-girlfriend of sorts who had agreed to pay for his medication. When she met him at the Walmart, he was still wearing his hospital gown. Judging from this behavior, I'd have to say that Mr. David is apparently some sort of cartoon character. Who else shows up at the Walmart wearing their hospital gown? Aren't you supposed to be in the hospital if you're wearing one of those?

Now, I'd think that the medication would be pretty important. I'm guessing it's some sort of pain reduction medication to help relieve any aches and pains sustained during the cast iron attack which occurred on January 1 (Happy New Year, you idiot!). But it didn't seem to be as important to Mr. David as that fifty bucks that his ex-girlfriend was going to give him to cover the cost. No, that's why he took the fifty dollars and fled. On a motorized shopping scooter. Wait. What now?

That's correct. He took the fifty bucks from her, hopped on one of those in-store Rascal-like contraptions and attempted to make his getaway. Judging from that sort of behavior, I'd have to say that Mr. David is apparently some sort of cartoon character.

How fast do those things go? ONE mile an hour? TWO? They're for hauling your ass around the store while you shop, it's not like they need to meet NASCAR qualification standards or anything. Was this Walmart at the top of some sort of hill? Some sort of very tall hill with very flat paved roads leading away from it? How could he not think that he'd get caught when he was making a getaway on an object that most people can walk faster than?

Here's the part that I really don't get: He seemed to see fit to walk into the place! He didn't need any sort of assistance doing that! Perhaps that long jaunt from the parking lot or wherever just plain ol' tuckered him out and he had planned on taking a little rest, but then realized that he had all of that fleeing to do and hopped on the scooter. I really don't know. But I can't imagine that he thought he was going to get anywhere anytime soon on one of those things! Have you ever been behind one of those in the stores? It's a nightmare. You're better off just turning around and walking clear around the entire store to get in front of them than you are waiting for them to get out of your way!

It will come as no surprise to you (I hope) that Mr. David was apprehended and charged with robbery and disorderly conduct. I don't understand why they didn't slap him with joyriding or grand theft scooter cart or something as well. I'd really like to know how far he got on that thing and how, exactly, he was "apprehended". Did the officer just jog along side of him and read him his rights? Seriously, what is wrong with people?

moreless

Do You Have Any Jewelry? Nope, Go Fish.

Many relationships are unequal. Sometimes the guy puts more into the relationship than the girl. Sometimes the girl puts more into the relationship than the guy. Sometimes both are just lazy asses and nothing gets put into anything. (Wait. That sounds bad. Just by the nature of the relationship, you'd think that something has to get put into something. I mean, that's just....oh, look. Never mind. Where was I? Oh, right! The woman whose former common-law husband put more into the relationship than she did so that when they broke up, there wasn't anything for her to take back and so she fried up and ate his goldfish instead. That's right.

Wait. Wh...wha...um....what now?

Correct. Welcome to Pasadena, Texas, where the women are scarce and the cows are afraid. (OK, so maybe that's not the official motto, but it was probably in the running when they were trying to decide!) Now, you know that when a sentence contains the term "former common-law husband/wife" that it's going to be a tale of class and dignity. Of course it is. No, actually, when you hear the term "former common-law" anything, it's usually going to be a tale of the sort of domestic altercation that takes place in mobile home parks and involves individuals doing what is known as the "whiskey tango". Although this little gem of a story didn't involve the particulars, I have every reason to believe that at least one of the participants has danced the whiskey tango on at least one other occasion.

What we have here is a couple who have broken up after an elongated period of time spent living together until it became sooooo long that the state of Texas just considered them to be married. (It's like Texas's way of just saying, "Fine! You don't have to get up off of your ass and go down and get married. We'll just do it for you. OK, we're done. Congratulations.") And after the break-up, the guy did what a lot of immature individuals in a break-up situation did and he took back some of the jewelry that he had given the woman.

Oh, come on, man! You're going to give her jewelry but you're not going to give her a wedding ring and make an honest woman out of her?! What is wrong with you sir? Are you not familiar with the term "a gift"? "A gift" doesn't mean that you're letting someone borrow something of yours. It means you gave it away to them! Then again, he's probably unfamiliar with the concept of something being "given away". It's not like anyone "gave away" the woman to be his bride or anything.

The woman, being fully aware of what a gift is, went over to his place to reclaim her gift (also known as "what is hers"). The man, being fully aware of what a jackass does, refused. That's when the woman decided that what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander (or is it that it "takes one to know one"?) and probably would have taken back jewelry that she gave him, only I guess that there wasn't any. So she did the most reasonable thing she could in that sort of an awkward situation and took his seven goldfish.

Wait. She what? Took his goldfish? Took his goldfish how? Took his goldfish why? Is she a mermaid? Were they their children?

The "how" is unclear, but I'm guessing that she just picked up the bowl and carefully ran away with it.I don't know how you don't stop a woman from running off with a bowl full of your goldfish, but he didn't. Instead he called the police and they went over to the woman's place in search of the abducted water creatures.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Officers went to the woman's home to see if they could retrieve the fish. A one Pasadena Police Department spokesman Vance Mitchell said that the woman said, " ‘They're in there,' and pointed to the kitchen." Finding a plate with four fried fish, officers asked where the others were. The woman answered, “I already ate those." Well, then!

Seriously, what do you say about that?! Offer her some tartar sauce? A lemon wedge perhaps? Apparently, if you're the Pasadena Police Department, you don't say much. The fish, it would seem, were bought by the couple during happier times. Thus the fish were considered to be community property. Huh. Most couples buy houses or cars together. These folks bought seven goldfish. Either that or did really well at seven carnival games. (I'll bet her ex-common law husband can flick a mean ping-pong ball into a cup of water on a rotating tray. She's probably not too bad herself!) Mitchell said, “There was nothing we could do. If he wants to pursue it, it's a civil case.”

Are you sure about that, Officer? Are you sure it's a civil case? Sounds like it might be a bit of a psychiatric case to me. Definitely a nut case!

If I were to bet on this one, I'd bet heavily that she didn't really eat the other three. It's not like it isn't easy to dispose of goldfish. They're a disposable animal to begin with. I mean, I know that there's all different kinds of crazy out there, but is there really the goldfish eating kind of crazy? There might be, but I'm guessing that this is just the goldfish stealing kind of crazy that's going on here.

Say, where's PETA when you need them?! Though even if they showed up in this instance, the woman could have thought that PETA stood for People Eating Tiny Animals and it still would have turned out the same. Guess that man knew what he was doing when he didn't marry her-marry her, eh? If only he could have warned the fish.

moreless

Say Cheese and Lock Up!

Here's a new one. Tiburon, California. A small town with a population of around 9,000 located along the San Francisco Bay has decided that they're going to take an extra step in their efforts to prevent crime and to solve crimes after they've taken place. But don't you worry! It only involves taking a picture of the license plate of EVERY SINGLE CAR that drives into or out of Tiburon. That's all. Oh, and we're doomed.

Yes. From the Land of the Free, we have a town wanting to take pictures of everyone's car and license plate "just in case" there's a crime that needs solving. And in a poorly written article about this Orwellian implementation, the AP states that "In 2008, police report there were 99 thefts, 20 burglaries and two auto thefts." Compare that to the 2007 figures given in the Tiburon Talk newsletter which states that there were "...99 thefts from vehicles,15 residential burglaries and 10 auto thefts." So the number of thefts remains about the same. (I'm assuming that they're both for "thefts from vehicles" as they've covered burglaries and auto theft in separate categories and there aren't any other numbers for crimes involving thievery.) Burglaries are up, but auto thefts are WAY down. So from 2007-2008, their crime rate has actually decreased and all without the use of roadside cameras documenting every single vehicle that goes through town. Amazing. How DID they do it?

Apparently it doesn't matter that their crime rate has decreased, because they're pretty hell bent on this camera idea. In 2007, the estimated property loss from theft was $500,000 and half of that was the value of the cars. And without their extremely invasive camera system, the Tiburon authorities managed to recover about $190,000. That's 38%. But in 2008 things got WAY better, as the total loss from theft was only just over $200,000 according to the City of Tiburon's Proposed Security Camera Information Sheet. According to that same document, the system is expected to cost between $50,000 and $100,000, an estimate which seems to be clearly fabricated as if pulled directly from someone's arse. (Seriously. They're saying, "It's either going to be this number OR it's going to be twice as much." You don't think that they could narrow that down just a bit for people? I mean, saying that something is going to cost a certain amount is fine, but then saying that it MIGHT be twice that much? That doesn't sound like there's been a lot of shopping around for this dealio.)

According to that same document, the question "Is this a cost-effective use of public resources?" is at least ASKED. And the answer blows me away. "No one can say for certain whether the system will help the TPD capture criminals, but it is likely to provide a very valuable tool to develop leads for solving crime."

Wait. What? Oh, riiiiiight. That means "No, but we think it's pretty cool, so we're going to go ahead with this anyway."

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, the average percentage of all stolen property that is recovered in this country is 33.4%. But while vehicles have the highest rate of recovery at 63%, the next highest rate of recovery is 12.9% and it goes downhill from there. But the point here is that Tiburon is doing just fine on their own, way better than the national average, without having Big Brother monitor every single vehicle moving through town. I can't imagine that their crime solving rate is going to improve SO much that it will pay for itself. But then again, the reason I can't imagine this is because no one is really explaining how this is going to work. Wait. What?

They explain how the SYSTEM of the photographing of vehicles would work, but they don't explain how that information is going to help them take a bite out of crime. They claim that, "Officers would search for plates of vehicles in town at the time of the crime that are connected to someone with a criminal history. Any hits would be used as leads." Um, used as leads HOW?

And what exactly would constitute a "criminal history"? Does the criminal history have to be related to the crime that the Tiburon police are investigating or can it just be any old thing? And how far back are they planning to go before deciding that an individuals "criminal history" isn't relevant in a particular instance? Yeah, NONE of this is addressed. (Again, NICE job, AP! Way to go!)

So let's say that 10 years ago "someone" was drunk and disorderly (and boy, was I were they EVER!) and let's just say, hypothetically of course, that there was some sort of an incident in a park involving, oh, say...one too many wine coolers, a couple of pigeons, and almost NO frontal nudity. And all of which led to an arrest for public intoxication. Hypothetically. Is that a criminal history that would concern the Tiburon authorities is that person had been driving through Tiburon at the time when a crime was committed? (Assuming it's a crime NOT against pigeons.) Granted, in general, it's something that's cause for concern, but in this case, is it going to be considered one of their "leads"? And if so, then what? Start hanging out in parks with decoy pigeons trying to lure the almost totally rehabilitated former criminal out into the open? I don't get it.(Also, this whole idea also makes the grand assumption that the person driving the vehicle is the person who owns the vehicle and to whom the vehicle is registered to. I see loads of problems with that aspect of this as well.)

Obviously, this idea is highly disturbing as far as the right to privacy aspect of it goes. Aside from that, there's the cost of the program, how the program will work and be implemented and whether or not it will even be effective AT ALL. I cannot see one positive aspect of this idea other than the POSSIBILITY that it MIGHT help solve crimes. But what if there were a way that would likely only cost a small fraction of what this camera idea is going to cost that would make it so that the number of crimes dropped and dropped by a lot? Less crimes would lean toward less of a need for this sort of thing, wouldn't it? couldn't it? Sure! Of course it "could". But how could that happen? How could they get the number of crimes to go down without having to use ANY taxpayer money, without having to use ANY city funds, without having to use ANY police hours, without having to do ANYTHING really? Here's an idea: Lock your damn cars.

What now?

According to the Tiburon Talk, "Most of the crimes occurred between midnight and dawn and most were thefts from unlocked cars." MOST? MOST?! You want to implement a program to help solve crimes and MOST of those crimes were because people were too boneheaded to lock their cars?!? Are you kidding me??

How does the stupidity of vehicle owners justify the "need" to take a picture of the license plate of every single damn car going in and out of your town all the live long day? Let me just see if I've got this straight. You leave your car unlocked AND you're stupid enough to keep valuable items in there and then, to your COMPLETE surprise, your stuff gets ripped off and that indicates that CRIME is a problem. How is it not an indicator that stupidity is a problem?

MOST. Most of the thefts were from unlocked cars. That is amazing. Sure, don't do a public awareness campaign encouraging people to lock their vehicles or, at the very freaking least, don't keep stuff in there that you don't want to have stolen. Why is that not an alternative to the camera thing? Why hasn't that been brought up? MOST of the thefts are enabled by the person who was stolen from. That seems to be an important factor if you're trying to decide if ANY system to help "solve crimes (that could have been prevented)" is warranted in Tiburon. But of course, that isn't mentioned anywhere.

Note to self: Detour around Tiburon.
Next note to self: Lock your damn car.

moreless