Nobody's Business

Killer Headline

While I'm quickly skimming the day's headlines, my brain sometimes transposes a word, which means I read what isn't really there. Usually that makes for gibberish, but today this transposing error gave me pause.

The headline in question was

Convicted Cop Killer Sentenced to Death

What I thought I saw for a moment was

Convicted Killer Cop Sentenced to Death

That made me do a doubletake.

For the record, I have no problem with the sentence meted out to a lowlife gangsta thug who shot two police officers execution-style.

But what does it say about our country that we never see the second (phantom) version of that headline? You're sure there's no double standard? You're sure that cops whose callous, reckless, even criminal behavior results in the violent deaths of citizens receive the same kind of justice that applies to you and me?

Then show me a bona fide headline proving it.

I'll make it a lot easier for you: the headline doesn't have to be about a cop who got a death sentence. A life sentence will do.

Still too hard? How about a 30-year sentence? 25 years? 20?

Anyone?

Whose Body Is It Anyway?

If you're a resident of Suffolk County, NY, the Board of Health claims jurisdiction over your body. Want to get your tongue pierced, or modify your body in other artful ways? The board says fuhgeddaboutit. Your ears are yours to do with as you please, pierce away — but your septum, mouth, and genitals, for instance, are the board members' domain, not yours.

If only there was a parlor that could modify the meddlesome disposition of health nannies.

[thanks, Emily!]

Giving the Fat Police a Heart Attack (6)

I was in Portsmouth, New Hampshire recently and had lunch in a local restaurant called Fat Belly's. Awesomely enough, Fat Belly's serves a 'Belly Busting Burger,' which consists of mushrooms, bacon, cheddar cheese, and a fried onion ring, all heaped on top of a one-pound hamburger patty. I'd guess it's around 2,500 calories. In a pinch, it could feed a family of four.

No, I didn't order the Belly Buster, but now I kinda wish I had, just so I could show you a picture (I found a pretty good approximation on the Net, though!). Fat Belly's monster burger surely dwarfs the piddling McDonald's third-pounder that Mickey D's caught so much flak for recently because it was deemed "too big."

Which leads me to dark thoughts about something that never fails to get my goat: selective indignation.

I doubt that even the most clenched-fisted food nanny has ever picketed or publicly railed against Fat Belly's or another non-franchise, non-chain restaurant. But why not? Given that Morgan Spurlock and his comrades object to supersized portions of fattening food, why don't they go after the places that really know how to pile on the calories?

I think it's because, mixed in with food activists' aversion to supposedly unhealthy meals, is an intense dislike of capitalism with a capital C. It's the 'big is bad' syndrome that has its purest practitioners in the preening, moping malcontents of the whole Adbusters scene. These people also harbor a deep grudge — no less bitter for being latent — against the tens of millions of Americans who freely choose to dine at fast-food restaurants, who like it there, who wouldn't want it any other way.

It's amusing to realize that while Schlosser and Spurlock and the rest of their gang are likely to embrace the dictum that all politics is local, they insist on fighting only what is global. This perhaps makes sense as a PR strategy (no one likes the meddling mofos who picket the neighborhood Sloppy Joe's). But the approach lacks principle. If you object to a business because you believe it does something evil, you're honor-bound to raise your voice even more against a business that does the same evil things times three. Either that, or you should cop to the fact that your principles are malleable, your sincerity doubtful, your actions duplicitous.

This selective indignation is also a sign of gutlessness. Attacking a faraway mega-corporation takes no courage and entails no social risks. Personally getting into the face of of the neighborhood Al Delvecchio, however — well, though I'll defend anyone's right to eat anything in any quantity, I'll lift my châpeau to whoever has the balls to do that.

Cops Gone Wild

If Anthony Abbate, who stands accused of viciously beating and kicking a female bartender, had been a carpenter or a clerk or a bond trader, he would have received no special favors from the police — quite the contrary, most likely. But Abbate is a cop, and so it wasn't hard to find other cops who'll protect him.

Anthony Abbate should have walked in and out of a Cook County courthouse like any other accused criminal Tuesday morning, Chicago Police Supt. Phil Cline said. Instead, the burly Chicago cop, who is accused of pummeling a petite female bartender during a drunken rage, was shielded from the media by on-duty Grand Central District officers, who apparently were acting on the orders of their captain when they used police vehicles to hide Abbate as he left the Northwest Side courthouse.

Oh, police apparently also ticketed the cars of journalists trying to cover Abbate's hearing, and threatened to arrest them.

There are two silver linings here. An embarrassed and angry Police Superintendent Phil Cline isn't taking any more shit from his officers, sending out a crystal clear message that he'll ask for the badges of cops who obey neither the law nor the bounds of ethical behavior. And the local press isn't pussyfooting around on this one, calling violent rogue officers (there has been at least one other Chicagoland police beating recently) "thug cops" — in a headline, no less.

Incidentally, the attack by the drunken 250-pound cop on the 115-pound bartender was caught on video. Watch it here. He beats the living crap out of her because she refused to serve him any more alcohol.

Yeah, he deserves to wear a uniform all right: an orange jumpsuit.

Pennsylvania's New Drunk Driving Bill: It Blows

They just never fucking stop, do they? 

A bill introduced last week in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives would mandate that every car sold in the state be equipped with a breath testing device. State Representative Paul I. Clymer (R-Bucks County) insists that every motorist must prove that he is not drunk before starting a vehicle. Clymer's proposal would require that, by 2009, all new cars sold in Pennsylvania have a device installed to estimate the amount of alcohol on the breath of a driver. If the machine believes the driver's BAC is greater than .025 percent — significantly less than the legal limit of .08 percent — the car will not start. 

That means that, for people of average weight, one beer or one glass of wine could put them over the limit.

The proposed measure will hurt the local economy. If every car sold in Pennsylvania must be equipped with a breathalzyer, lots of residents are going to buy their new vehicles in New Jersey or Maryland. Actually, although I live in Maine, I did buy my last car in Pennsylvania, just a few months ago, because that's where I happened to find a good deal and an honest dealership. Needless to say, I won't go back there for my next one if it comes with a little tattle tube that demands my unreserved obedience to tight-arsed moralists like Paul Clymer.

The initiative will also decimate the revenues of the state's bars and restaurants, no doubt to the delight of officials who've been promoting the 600-plus state-owned liquor stores, including special outlet booze-shops that are strategically located near high-traffic highways and where the offerings include larger bottles, or two bottles shrink-wrapped together, that are discount-priced. (How's that for keeping the roads safe?)

Lastly, and most importantly, the law hurts citizens, by seeking to force every one of them, including teetotalers, to pay for a device intended to selectively immobilize their own cars. It's mind-numbingly obnoxious. 

Hey, why not require everyone in Pennsylvania to buy a mandatory ankle bracelet with a GPS, so that the authorities can monitor if citizens enter a house of ill repute, or trespass on the lawn of the municipal building?

I hate drunk drivers, but I positively despise small-time fascists like Paul I. Clymer. If his inane bill becomes law, I'd have no problem with a massive grassroots civil disobedience campaign that encourages people to disable or foil the in-vehicle breathalyzers.

My suggestion to Pennsylvanians: When the time comes, buy a bunch of balloons. Blow them up, put binder clips on them to keep the air in, and stash them in your trunk before you drive to the restaurant or watering hole of your choice. Have a few glasses of whatever's your pleasure. When it's time to go home, take one of the balloons, remove the clip, slip the business end over the breathalyzer's mouthpiece, and start your engine. Then give the remaining balloons to fellow patrons who aren't obviously drunk but who would have gotten stranded without your kind gesture (and ask them to do the same for others next time they go to a bar or restaurant).

And if the legislature subsequently outlaws balloons in cars, well, then I guess it's time for torches, pitchforks, and a quick visit to Mapquest to determine the shortest route to the Statehouse.

Nanny Staters: How Far They've Come

I don't think I would've been able to state as neatly what this blog is about as Jonathan Turley just did in USA Today.

Texas Rep. Wayne Smith is tired of hearing about parents missing meetings with their children's teachers. His proposed solution is simple: Prosecute such parents as criminals. In Louisiana, state Sen. Derrick Shepherd is tired of seeing teenagers wearing popular low-rider pants that show their undergarments — so he would like to criminally charge future teenagers who are caught "riding low."

Across the USA, legislators are criminalizing everything from spitting on a school bus to speaking on a cellphone while driving. Criminalizing bad behavior has become the rage among politicians, who view such action as a type of legislative exclamation point demonstrating the seriousness of their cause. As a result, new crimes are proliferating at an alarming rate, and we risk becoming a nation of criminals where carelessness or even rudeness is enough to secure a criminal record.

There was a time when having a criminal record meant something. Indeed, it was the social stigma or shame of such charges that deterred many people from "a life of crime." In both England and the USA, there was once a sharp distinction between criminal and negligent conduct; the difference between the truly wicked and the merely stupid.

Legislators, however, discovered that criminalization was a wonderful way to outdo one's opponents on popular issues. Thus, when deadbeat dads became an issue, legislators rushed to make missing child payments a crime rather than rely on civil judgments. When cellphone drivers became a public nuisance, a new crime was born. Unnecessary horn honking, speaking loudly on a cellphone and driving without a seat belt are only a few of the new crimes. If you care enough about child support, littering, or abandoned pets, you are expected to care enough to make their abuse a crime. 

Whole thing here.

Out of many dispiriting reader comments, probably the most depressing one — essentially, "But it's all for the common good!" — comes from (drum roll) London, England. What a surprise.

 [Thanks, Nicky!]

Drug Harm: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

Short of taking whatever the drug czar's office tells you as the gospel, how do you actually assess the relative harm that drugs inflict — say, XTC versus Budweiser? Here's a good try from the U.K.

You develop a rating system that takes three factors into account: the physical harm the drug does to to the user; the addictiveness of the drug; and the severity of the drug's long-term effect on friends, families, communities, and society. That's what a team led by professors David Nutt from the University of Bristol and Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council, has just done. They asked a range of experts to rate the dangers of twenty different drugs, from tobacco to LSD, resulting in "a comprehensive 9-category matrix of harm."

The new matrix puts alcohol and tobacco toward the top in terms of harmfulness. Those widely accepted drugs were deemed riskier than pot, and much more dangerous than substances like LSD, methamphetamines, and XTC.

Five or ten years ago, these results would have been a powerful argument for decriminalizing cannabis and other relatively benign drugs (and rightly so). No longer. The more likely outcome, given the way British authorities have been cracking down on alcohol and tobacco, is that smoking and drinking will increasingly become a target of health nannies and zealous anti-sin legislators, who can now claim triumphantly that lighting up or having a few beers is more harmful than taking meth or LSD.

I have a feeling I will be linking back to this post quite a bit in the future, saying, with considerably more exasperation than satisfaction, 'I told you so.'

U.K.: 007 Goes Into the Trash Business

Convinced that the U.K. doesn't have enough surveillance cameras, the town council of Ealing is going to install hidden cameras in food cans and hollow bricks. This is necessary to keep an eye on terrorists and violent criminals.

No wait, it's not. Sorry. It's to catch citizens who put their trash out on the wrong day.

A council is planning to catch residents who leave rubbish out on the wrong day — with cameras hidden in baked means tins. Sneaky Ealing Council in West London will also put the tiny CCTV bugs inside house bricks to film offenders. Householders caught breaking strict new rubbish rules — dubbed "enviro-crimes" — will be fined up to £1,000. The surveillance plans have outraged residents who say it is the latest example of Big Brother Britain. It follows a £2million scheme adopted by six councils to put the devices in wheelie bins.

A spokesman for Tory-controlled Ealing yesterday said the £200 movement-sensitive bugs — which may be placed on existing rubbish piles — would become a "vital tool" in catching wheelie bin mis-users and graffiti artists. He said: "To catch vandals and enviro-criminals, cameras disguised as anything from tin cans to house bricks will instantly email images to the council’s CCTV control centre."

Next up are probably cameras installed inside laundromat machines, to catch people who don't separate their whites from their colors, or who dare choose the wasteful extra-hot setting.

Lithuania: Insult the Pope, Pay $1,400

First the good news: Lithuania, perhaps in a stab at being just like a civilized country, places no prior restraints on free speech. So when a broadcaster announced it had scheduled a TV series spoofing the pope, and the Catholic Church wanted it banned from the airwaves, a Lithuanian court told the monsigniors to take a hike.

The bad news is, that wasn't the end of it, and now it's not the usual gaggle of church ladies but government busybodies who are sticking their noses where they don't belong.

Lithuania's television watchdog has fined the director of MTV Networks Baltic for airing Popetown, a controversial cartoon series that pokes fun at the Roman Catholic Church. The 13-member Radio and Television Commission voted unanimously to fine Marius Veselis 3000 litas ($1435), commission chairman Jonas Liniauskas said.

The cartoons, which depict the Pope as a rotund 77-year-old obsessed with his pogo-stick and surrounded by toys, provoked a storm of criticism in Lithuania, where 80 per cent of the population is Roman Catholic. The commission made its decision after the Inspector of Journalists' Ethics, Romas Gudaitis, said Popetown should be banned because it portrayed the clergy as destructive and incited religious discrimination. 

Do Lithuanian catholics, those poor things, not have an off button on their TV sets? Shall we pass the collection plate to alleviate their suffering?

But more to the point, chew on that — Inspector of Journalists' Ethics. Yeah, you can really claim the ethical high ground when you rob others of the right to free expression, and side with an oppressive institution famous for its misogynists and child-buggerers. Also note that that sentence appears to be illegal in the Baltic state.

Belly Good TV

The new season of Penn & Teller's Bullshit kicks off tomorrow (Thursday night at 10 p.m. on Showtime) with an episode on obesity. As you can see in this preview, the gents will, among other things, be tearing into the deeply flawed body mass index (BMI), a silly rule of thumb that was thought up by an obscure Belgian doctor in the nineteenth century, back when bloodletting had just barely fallen out of favor and phrenology was thought to be a momentous scientific breakthrough.

Last year, the Mayo Clinic declared the BMI ready for the scrap heap.

Focusing on heart disease, the Mayo analysis concluded that carrying a few extra pounds does not lead to a higher mortality risk. On the other hand, people who had the ideal body weight, as defined by the BMI, stood a higher chance of premature death than those who were a tad tubby.

And yet public-health alarmists in dozens of countries, including the United States, continue to make policy based on the discredited standard.

It's a perfect topic for Penn & Teller. Install yourself in your La-Z-Boy with a couple of beers and a bag of Doritos, and enjoy.

[hat tip: Phil Nelson]