I don't Belieber you

Usually I wouldn't comment on something so trivial but Justin Bieber is a thorn in my side. It is ridiculous enough that his only discernable talent is his singing ability (helped, of course, by Autotune and a host of digital "enhancements") and we hold him up on a pedestal because of that, but his recent skirmish with the law and the rather staged look of it tipped me over the edge. It is no secret that he is a puppet of his even less talented handler Usher, and this recent chain of events only seems to reinforce this. His mugshot sports him with hair that is only slightly miffed (look through your local newspaper and find anyone who has had time to do their hair prior to being arrested), a visible base coat of foundation (unless his face is just naturally a different shade than the rest of his body), mascara (yes, mascara because very few boys his age that I have seen have long, full eyelashes like a L'Oreal commercial), and a smirk that shows how confident he is of his limited engagement in the county jail, despite the fact that most DUI recipients are at least held in the drunk tank until they can sober up.

My theory, and it is by no means any more than that is this: Usher knew that "bad boys" are popular with the teenage crowd he panders to, but he also knew that Bieber couldn't have the rap sheet of say Eminem and still be allowed by these teenagers' parents in their home. He knew however, that a DUI while a serious offense is not viewed by most people as being as serious as drug possession or assault and is a more forgiveable crime in younger people so long as no one gets hurt. He concocted this plan to give Bieber some "street cred" as it were and gave Bieber enough alcohol to blow the required 0.08, then set him behind the wheel, assured him of his bailing, and tipped the police off that Bieber was driving drunk knowing they couldn't resist such a prized catch. All of this done, of course, after ensuring that Bieber looked just "rough" enough to pass as intoxicated, but still decent enough not to look like a hard criminal.

This, of course, is both Usher and Bieber's prerogative but what really infuriates me is that MADD (Mother's Against Drunk Driving) can spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars making the police look like the NSA (the commercial where they are camouflaged as people who are obviously drunk walk by and then end with the slogan of "We'll see you before you see us" is as creepy as the thought that our own government feels no need to operate within the confines of the law in surveillance) have made not even so much as a condemnation of this immensely popular figure's mocking the very serious and dangerous crime of operating a machine that can and has killed many people, under the influence of a substance that removes inhibitions and impairs judgment even in small doses. No government agency or even the Governor of the state he was caught in (our "great" state of Florida which has a high DUI rate compared nationwide) has come forward to say this is not acceptable behavior nor behavior to smile in a mugshot for as though it were a photoshoot. No agency or person that has in the past condemned drunk driving in general has even mentioned how disgusting it is that this very public figure is, in effect, encouraging his fans to embrace him BECAUSE of a dangerous and deadly crime and is by association, encouraging the committing of said crime.

So in short, whatever you believe about Bieber and his "music", you can not believe that his actions (due to his status) were even remotely responsible or that he should have received the light treatment he did by the judge hearing his case. At the risk of contempt, one might even question how much justice this judge meted out and how much of it went back in his pocket and toward his campaign to continue in his office (in Florida we elect whether or not to allow our judges to continue in their position and election time for that is fast approaching) for surely if he had considered the repercussions of such a light treatment as allowing a drunk teen idol to not remain in jail until trial but releasing him before the alcohol had time to leave his system, he would have held him to the fullest extent of the law.

This is simply my opinion however, what do you think? Did Usher and Bieber fake this for publicity? Is Bieber's mugshot appropriate for someone who claims to care about his fans (could have hit one of them while driving drunk) and various other social causes? Have the authorities, leaders, judge, and MADD reacted appropriately? And finally, was justice served in this case? I look forward to your response.

Bad Breaking

First-some house-cleaning I am going to start doing some investigative reporting along with the op-ed pieces everyone is used to.  Hopefully this will interest and invigorate everyone.  Now on to business.
The TV show "Breaking Bad" recently featured methamphetamine that had been colored for marketing purposes.  In a classic life imitating art a form of methamphetamine is now being produced called "blue meth".  True to its name, this form of meth is methamphetamine tinted with methylene blue.  Other colored forms of meth have been on the market including pink meth which was colored using red dye #5.  Blue meth however is making people sick.  This is because methylene blue (Unlike red dye #5 which is approved for human consumption) is used as a stain in labs and a potent disinfectant.  The makers of meth likely used this rather than the FDA approved blue because bulk methlyene blue is cheaper and easier to procure (food coloring isn't cheap), however blaming the makers is an exercise in futility.  Makers are interested in the same thing as every business man, profit, and their product isn't exactly safe to begin with.  Encouraging them and giving them ideas (like coloring a dangerous drug to make it more appealing to their customers and potential customers) should be something we frown upon, not something we include in our TV programming.  The question here is not whether or not "Breaking Bad" was irresponsible or even liable for making an existing problem worse (the last thing meth needs is to make its users MORE sick), but rather whether or not we should prohibit programs from showing content that they know encourages illegal and dangerous activities.  It is a fundamental question that has been debated in the halls of congress and in the courts.  Both seem to agree that every case is different (with a few standards, like not shouting "fire" where no fire exists or inciting people to riot, etc.) but both desire a standard for what speech is protected and what is not.  So what do you think?  How far should free speech go before being prohibited or even censored to some extent?



James Bianco, Valeyard

Sovereignty

Wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to decide whether or not you wanted legal action taken against you?  Unbeknownst to most people, the States and  their employees (Governor, Lt. Governor, Sec. of State, etc.) as well as most federal officers (President, Congress and Supreme Court, which to  respond to my Google+ comment yes it is odd for such a liberal judge to issue a stay outide of her power, but she also receives a large contribution from the mormons and the Supreme Court is no stranger to seizing unlawful and unethical power.  As well as the Cabinet of states and the President which can claim sovereignty) all have this ability as well as immunity from all "minor" offenses (misdemeanors, which include Notary fraud and bribes under $5000).  Justices of our Supreme Court can even claim more power (the Supreme Court's power is specifically enumerated in he Constitution but since Marbury v. Madison they have been adding on powers under the guise of "Judicial Review") AND has the ability to hold in contempt anyone who disagrees with them.  They have little interest in justice (see Snyder v. Phelps and listen to the arguments of the justices as well as the announcement of their opinion and you can see their bigotry and complete ignorance of jurisprudence) and often times vote either to appease the public (DOMA ruling came only after a Gallup poll that said 73% of approved of repealing it) or to put themselves in the limelight because they know people forget about them (Snyder v. Phelps was issued not in the interest of protecting free speech, it was issued because Westboro Baptist "Church" was constantly in the news for their atrocious and repugnant behavior as well as Ms. Phelps complete moronic arguments in the Arizona courts).  Congress passes law that benefit their pocket books and the President has no courage to challenge any of it.  Yet we, as Americans, allow them to continue their behavior and give them infinite "Get Out Of Jail Free" cards with not one qualm.  We refuse to hold them accountable (STILL doing the Electoral College and not direct vote), and live in fear of criticizing them or even being civilly disobedient.

What do you think?  Should Sovereignty still exist and if so why?  Should the people hold everyone in office accountable to their oath to defend the Constitution and represent the will of the people or are things working out just fine as they are?  What do you think?

A NOTE WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH IS NOT PART OF ANY BAPTIST DENOMINATION AND HAS BEEN DENOUNCED BY ALL OF THEM FOR THEIR MESSAGE OF HATE AND IGNORANCE.  THEIR ACTIONS (PRIMARILY PROTESTS AND SOCIAL ACTIVITIES), IF EVALUATED BY THE IRS WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE THEM FROM A 501(c)3 (CHURCHES, RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, ETC) to a 503(b) (SOCIAL CLUBS, AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS).  THEIR STATUS AS A CHURCH IS DUE TO MS. SNYDER (THEIR "ATTORNEY" WHO HAS NUMEROUS BAR COMPLAINTS FOR UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR).



James Bianco, Valeyard

How the Judiciary Failed us today both in Utah and in the Supreme Court

It is curious how the Mormons, whose educational system is less than reputable, and who still maintain a doctrine of polygamy could be so sly. Calling upon one of the few Justices whose ignorance is only outweighed by her inappropriate mixing of her religious beliefs with civil law, the State of Utah (one could hardly argue that it is anything less than a state whose official, but unofficial, religion is Mormonism. A story, by the way that's good for a laugh if one is up to it, but I digress.) asked Justice Sotomayor for an emergency stay halting all gay marriages until the District Court of Appeals rules whether Gay marriage is constitutional. She, being the ever prudent jurist (who has apparently forgotten that the Court has already ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional) decided to grant the stay until the Appeals court decides. Thankfully, the Appeals Court judge actually was paying attention when the DOMA decision was handed down (I believe Ms. Sotomayor was having a mild stroke that month and just signed the dissent to satisfy her HEAVILY religious and conservative lobbyists-follow her paper trail and it reads like Jerry Falwell's memoirs) placed the ruling under a sort of Fast-Track. So what can we draw from this? The Judicial system was created for one purpose and one purpose alone, to handle disputes when the law is unclear or outright broken. Contrary to Ms. Sotomayor and several other judges' opinions, it was NOT created to impede the progress of law (until AFTER an initial ruling and then it should not interfere until it reverses that ruling), not to create laws, and certainly not to stop something that has stood numerous appeals and affects only one group of people (gays) in a positive way. Judges, and especially Justices, continue to build their power, issuing their own "executive orders" as it were (stays, injunctions, etc.) and issuing them based only on personal preference, not any educated interpretation of the law. We have seen this happen time and again in famous cases like Brown v. The Board of Education (Stays on the decision to integrate were issued until the Supreme Court could get their grubby mits on it, depriving blacks of what was their right at the time of the stays, as an appeals court had ruled). What is worse is that if we dislike the President and his executive orders, we can impeach him. We cannot impeach sitting Judges, even when they are so old and senile that their decisions are ignored by the others at best, but still become part of case law. We can only wait until they all die and then elect a President to place competent jurists on the bench, and elect a senate that will confirm them.

In short, doesn't it seem that rather than protecting liberty and allowing the courts to rule in their jurisdiction (Ms. Sotomayor's decision was WELL outside of the powers enumerated in the US Constitution), our courts have become places where the richer your lawyer, the better your chances, and the more you belong to whatever sociological group the judge does, the better your chances of winning? Does justice rule in our courts? What do you think?

U.S. Supreme Court puts gay marriage in Utah on hold.

Guess who's back

After a couple of injuries and a bout with the flu, I am glad to be back.  Rather than leave off where we did, I am going to lay some foundations.  The previous Executive structure was only really understood as a necessity by a few.  To show this necessity, I want to show HOW the current system has failed with a few examples and hopefully some discussion.
As it is pertinent to me I will discuss our current entitlement programs (social programs especially Social Security Disability).  We, in America, believe to some extent that we have a responsibility to care for those in our society who cannot care for themselves.  Our belief in this however, is expressed in the creation of an agency that exists not to facilitate this (even when it has already been paid for by the claimant as is the case that happens when a person claims after years of work) but rather exists to hinder this.  The initial evaluations of Social Security are made by PhD's with no medical experience and who make recommendations of work a claimant either can not perform or can never find.  Multiple impairments are not considered until the Administrative Law Judge Stage which can and often does take years to get to.  In the meantime, those who can claim and try to receive benefits are unable to work but often have ever mounting medical and other bills that exhaust the finances of the claimant and (if they are fortunate enough to have them) family/friends. 
This, it would seem, is the opposite of the original goal society expressed.  Yet it is not just Social Security, our care of the poor, elderly, and disabled is designed not to help, but rather it would seem to hinder and keep people in the neverending cycle of, at best, debt; and in the worst case (especially disability) progressively worsening health and possibly death.
Does this not seem a failure of our system and a failure of our representatives/senators to exercise our goals and desires?  On the social scale is this what we want?  Comments?  



James Bianco, Valeyard