Wednesday, December 19, 2007

give him a fair trial, then hang him

I sat in a doctor’s waiting room today, and had the distinct pleasure of being so incredibly bored that I read a local newspaper. It was like chewing aspirin. An article was on page 4, upper left, occupying two columns for a third of a page. I read it. Glanced at the inset picture as it was identified in the text. Reviewed the article one more time quickly in disbelief. Then just shook my head.

The story is this: It is winter here, somebody put a load of clothes in the dryer, turned it on, and left. Dryer exhaust existed through a vent on the back porch. The firemen came, gained entry through the basement, saw nothing was wrong, and left.

So why did this story rate so many column inches and an inset picture? What was the picture of, anyway?

And now, the rest of the story … it seems that the occupant was recently charged, as the article termed, “with raping children.” That was the only identification and discussion of the charges – “with raping children.” Seems a rather indelicate way of terming his criminal charges. Further, since the charges became public, some local put a sign in the suspect’s front yard identifying the house as being occupied by a “child molester.” The neighbor that called the fire company was concerned, perhaps rightfully, that the house was on fire through arson. She was wrong, but perhaps heartfelt.

I have deep feelings about our judicial system and how it handles criminals and, in particular, those that touch children. I am, as a result, very comfortable with the idea of vigilante justice. I also understand the Constitution and criminal procedure.

I blissfully know nothing of local happenings. I knew nothing of the allegations. Regardless, this guy or his wife put in a load of clothes to dry, and went out. As a result, his name, her name, their address, his picture, some flippant reference to his charges, the sign incident – all get recounted in the paper to, I guess, remind everyone of what is going on.

I have no sympathy for him if he is guilty. I rather enjoy daydreaming of his future as the cellblock wife. But why this article? I found the handling of the faux incident to be an exceptionally poor editorial decision.

Tie him to the stake. Stuff a rag in his mouth. Surround him with dry kindling. Toss liberally an accelerant. Hold the match until the trial concludes.

I read the entire paper. What a waste of tree.

I feel myself being drawn into following politics a bit. Makes me feel dirty. There’s a concerted effort to “humanize” Mrs. Bill Clinton? What does that mean, exactly? She is human – people just don’t like the type of human that she is. Cold, lying, bitchy, tight, sleazy – and those are her supporters. Her detractors go for the pant-suit references. I have to throw up – brb.

John Edwards has a love child in the oven? So funny. I bet his fervent support of abortion-on-demand just hit a crescendo. John: They don’t, um, do DNA testing on aborted kids – I mean, fetuses, ah, wait, ah, what’s that phrase? “A mass of cells” – they don’t, right? So much for supporting wife dying of cancer, Slim. Oh yeah, procedure and evidentiary findings and all that. Sorry. Oh, fuck it! Where’s the matches? John-boy? C’mere, son …

I read on some site the headline that an MSNBC host laughed at a Republican presidential candidate. The talking heads are fools – and just for clarity, I am referring to the television hosts.

Polls are coming out by the bucketful. Seems Obama leads Iowa among likely caucus voters and Edwards leads among likely voters. Hunh? On common thing – Clinton is not leading in any of them. Guess those pantsuits linger in memory. Oh, god, gotta go. brb.

I had pizza and chili. Yeah. Just yuk. I was hungry, cut me break.

I loved reading Pravda. They are so deeply asshat-ish. The headline reads, “USA spends hundreds of billions to control Russia, Iraq and Afghanistan.” Here is every number in context from the article:

“The U.S. Senate approved the allocation of 401.8 million dollars from the budget in the financial year 2008. The funds will be used to implement assistance programs to the republics of the former USSR. In addition, the USA plans to spend 294.5 million dollars for the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania).

“ … the allocation of not less than eight million dollars for the humanitarian and civil assistance to Caucasian republics of Russia’s south: Chechnya, Ingushetia, Dagestan and North Ossetia …

“$500,000 to the U.S. Forest Service to implement a program to protect forests and animals in Russia’s Far East.

“555 billion spending bill Tuesday combining funding for 14 Cabinet departments with $70 billion for U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

“USA spends hundreds of billions to control Russia, Iraq and Afghanistan”? You people can’t read your own words. I don’t even see half a billion. You just ain’t that important, Russia. Or maybe you are jealous because your budget is so pathetic?

Alright, enough cranky …

No comments:

Post a Comment