Huffy Flounce

God's the one who decides who should be parents or not. Obviously he's doing a bang-up job in that department.

Sometimes you just gotta click through: http://www.freep.com/article/20140519/N ... cnic-table

Not again Dad!

St. Louis Archbishop Claims He Wasn't Sure It Was Illegal for Priests to Have Sex with Kids

Jesus H. Christ.

Holy dogshit, this is even better than those swordfighting Indian dudes.

Or, maybe, as good. Or whatever, you judge.

Florida woman named Crystal Metheney fires missile at car

I assumed that the "more acceptable than ever" hotlink would take me to the Louis C.K. routine, and I was right.

Georgia Waffle House Worker Fatally Shoots Customer Who Refused to Leave

"Earlier this year, the Republican-dominated Georgia legislature passed the so-called 'guns everywhere' law, which the NRA called 'the most comprehensive pro-gun reform bill in state history.'”

"Guns everywhere" law? I'm of a mixed opinion where gun laws are concerned, but anything called (or even "so-called") a "guns everywhere" law can't be a good thing.

I still do not understand America and guns.

I understand it, I guess, but I don't like it.

The situation with guns is sort of like the situation with modern zoos. There was a time and place for zoos that has mostly passed. We've arrived at a point in society where we recognize that, while zoos are informative and can give people firsthand exposure to a range of exotic animals, keeping animals captive is a morally sticky thing. Also, we have television and nature programming to give people a better sense of how animals function in the wild. Our forebears didn't have that.

On the other hand, we have thousands and thousands of animals that were bred in captivity and would never make it in the wild. Euthanizing them all would also be morally sticky. There are also some animals that have survived extinction thanks, in part, to the efforts of zoos. Because of this, some people argue that zoos are essential and must go on.

America is up to its neck in guns. There's something like one gun per person in America, even though only something like forty percent of Americans own guns. (Don't trust these stats.) Guns have been in homes for way too long. They're used to being in homes. If we release them into the wild, they might die. They might also breed like wildfire. They might also create weird, giant hybrids that sweep into a region, eat all the berries, and murder all the apex predators. Do we want that? Can we afford that? Wouldn't it be best just to keep them as they are and where they are? Have they not survived and flourished in this state for centuries? Have they not enriched our lives?

All right. Guns aren't much like modern zoos.

Maybe they are more like aquariums?

That's offensive.

And fishy.

The Swollen Goiter of God wrote:All right. Guns aren't much like modern zoos.

Actually, they're more like Kodak film!

Especially when that Kodak film is taken to the bear habitat and put toward the preservation of a Kodiak moment.

Mal Shot First wrote:Actually, they're more like Kodak film!

You mean they used to serve a useful purpose amongst the general populace but now that time has passed and they should be a niche product in the hands of true professionals with a real need?

First there was this, then there was this.

Of course, as we all know, correlation does not imply causation.

Unless you look like that in your mugshot!

Dozing off after Work While Black Now Illegal on NYC Subway Trains

The video in the link has been removed. It's still here:



The article's title is admittedly leading. I don't know the full story. I'm also not perfectly clear on the legality of sleeping in a subway car in transit.

I *did* manage to find this after digging around on New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority website (Transit Adjudication Bureau: Rules of Conduct & Fines: Section 1050.7: Disorderly Conduct):

MTA wrote:No person on or in any facility or conveyance shall:
...
(c) sleep or doze where such activity may be hazardous to such person or to others or may interfere with the operation of the Authority's transit system or the comfort of its passengers.

Seems there's some room for interpretation. Was he dozing hazardously? I guess it could be argued that he slept at the risk of being mugged or beaten while unconscious. Was his sleeping discomfiting to other passengers? I guess the only way to know would be to ask all the passengers in the car with him.

Would he have been arrested had he been white? There's no real way to know. The video picks up in the middle of him resisting arrest. Did things start off with him being gently nudged, ticketed, and asked to leave the train? Dunno.

What penalties and/or fines is one subject to incurring if caught sleeping on a train? From Section 1050.10 ("Fines and Penalties"):

MTA wrote:Pursuant to section 1204(5-a) of the Public Authorities Law, any person committing one or more violations of these rules shall be subject to either:

(a) criminal prosecution in the criminal court of the City of New York, which court may impose a fine not to exceed twenty-five dollars or a term of imprisonment for not longer than ten days, or both; or
(b) civil penalties imposed by the transit adjudication bureau in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars per violation (exclusive of interest or costs assessed thereon).
(c) These rules may be amended or added to, from time to time, at the sole discretion of the New York City Transit Authority or Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority in accordance with law.

1. The schedule of such civil penalties will be set forth in an internal procedure manual of the transit adjudication bureau and may be revised from time to time, including provisions for repeat offenses.

2. In addition to a civil penalty for one or more violations of these rules, an additional penalty, not to exceed fifty dollars, may be imposed upon the failure of a respondent in any proceeding commenced with respect to any such violation to make a timely response to or appearance in connection with a notice of violation or order issued by the Authority in such proceeding.

Were they acting in accordance with their own guidelines? It's hard to say. The bit where they say these rules "may be amended or added to, from time to time, at the sole discretion of the New York City Transit Authority or Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority in accordance with law" gives them a good bit of wiggle room.

Some New Yorkers on-line say that you're OK to nap as long as you remain sitting upright and don't take up a second seat. The only time I ever tried to sleep in a semi-public New York space was the time my flight was canceled and I couldn't afford to stay overnight in a hotel. I spent three long hours trying to sleep on the tile floor in the airport and gave up.

Here's another thing I'm not clear on: do passengers have ready access to these rules? On the MTA page I linked to, it reads, "These rules are posted on this site as a convenience to members of the public. Official text of the New York City Transit Rules of Conduct can be found at 21 NYCRR, Chapter XXI, Part 1050. To view Rules of Conduct, click on the categories below."

Are all prospective passengers expected to visit the site? Does the MTA make a copy of the rules available both at the stops and in the cars? Is this even required of the MTA? It seems to me like it would be a tough thing to police. People are going to nod off late at night while riding on the subway. It seems almost like an inevitability. It's late at night, things are quiet, your seat is vibrating, and there's not much of anything exciting to look at.

I'm inclined to believe that the cops were out of line. Mostly just because the majority of cops I've known have been assholes. My paternal grandfather was a cop. He died when I was two, so I didn't really know him. My paternal uncle was a cop. He can be a douche. I'm not sure what he was like as a cop. I never saw him on the job.

This one's old, but I haven't seen it posted:
Renisha McBride, 19, was shot in face by Detroit homeowner

"A post-mortem examination report released on Monday confirmed that McBride had been shot in the face."

I imagine the post-mortem examination went something like this:

[Cop wheels body bag into morgue.]

Cop: Here's one for you. Lady got shot in the face.
Coroner: *I'll* be the judge of that.

[Coroner unzips body bag.]

Coroner: Yep.

Here's a story about a Minnesota man who shot a teenager three times after she asked him not to ride his lawnmower through her yard.

Here's a video:

Nude Beach Blow Job Jet Ski Fight Leads to Wife’s Death

If you immediately assumed this happened in Florida, give yourself a gold star.

Manatee County!