Follow by Email

What is it about nice people that attract total idiots?Nice people are martyrs. Idiots are evangelists.


Monday, December 8, 2014

Martin World News

ITEM:  Well, I got my share of the Christmas decorating done (me and Scrappy's bedroom window).  If you follow on Facebook, you've seen it.  But for you lucky few that haven't:

Not the greatest job, but hey, I managed to avoid using tape this year (wound through the blinds)!

ITEM:  Speaking of FB, I just have to share this story from Saturday/Sunday.  (And as the crest above says "Wide World of Stupid", I'm sure you'll agree it fits right in!)  The story starts with a FB friend whose adventures on social media chiefly involve the harassment of the lower intelligence subset of Liberal FB.  One such target of his is a site on FB named "The Party Of Scrooge", which quite conveniently abbreviates to "POS".  Generally, I confine myself to reading the comment back-and-forth, as attempting intelligent conversation on POS generally involves a lot of talking to yourself.  But this time, it was such a good example of why some people shouldn't be allowed access to a computer for their own sakes, my friend actually shared the entire link with a humorous prologue  describing the entertainment you can glean from such a page.

It was a post that began with a self-made meme about the "conservative game plan"-  Lie to get elected, use the media to blitz your ideas, etc.  And, out of sheer amazement, I commented along the lines of, "That sounds familiar, are they reading the Democrat Play Book now?"

In true troll fashion, POS (his real name is public knowledge, which I will protect for the sake of family members that might not be as dippy as him) replied the typical "extreme liberal" way-

"...are you really that STUPID?"

I replied that disagreeing with good reason with someone is not a good reason to be insulting, although many of his ilk think it is a proper way to make a point.  After a few minutes, though, I decided I had left him off easy, and commented a second time, postulating that he was little more than a troll with a web page, and I was sure that he would run a page with the same crap on it even if he were a Republican- because, for him, the goal is in the hate, the divisiveness, and the insults.

Never one to respond coherently, or in chronological order, POS struck back with a diatribe about how Obamacare was "just the Republican health care plan with a few good things added on."  He continued on that everyone knows the right wing controls the media...

... and that somewhere, sometime, John Gruber (you know, the guy that thinks you're stupid) called Paul Ryan the biggest liar in the country.  All very interesting, none of it having anything to do with what passed for our previous conversation.  So I told him that, as well as expressing my amazement that CNN, MSNBC, and the others are right-wing outlets, that Nancy, Harry, and Barry were so hot to put through a GOP health plan, and explained I'm not real inclined to take the word of Gruber on anything past sky color.  And about this point, he decided to address the first reply I made...

"...I called you stupid because everything on that meme is true..."

Following that up with only Republicans do what's on that meme, as well as that Republicans only worship the wealthy to the detriment of their own families.

I believe I might have brought up a few choice things about Gruber, Lois Lerner, Gitmo, etc, at that point, before I closed by disabusing him of his concept of my wealth.  But wait, there's more!  Because, just then, riding to his rescue, was some woman who decided to give me a 100-line diatribe about how Obamacare was great, it saved her family, how could I be so greedy and heartless as to oppose it, and I was just being divisive.

I explained to her that a) nobody was even talking about Obamacare, except that it may or may not be a "Republican Plan"; b) If she would kindly scroll back a little bit, she would see that I just told POS he was divisive and that he should try to have constructive conversations rather than insult-fests; and c) before she blames ME for posting something she doesn't agree with, she should read what I wrote instead of "reading" whatever she wanted to bitch about.

Honestly, I think she may have been POS in drag.  Neither one responded further.  I guess something more important must have distracted them...

ITEM:  I have quite a grab bag this week, so let's start with someone who might possibly be cut from the same cloth as POS.  Dennis Hawyer was (as in WAS) a lawyer in Kansas.  Until he took on a case where his client was charged with capital murder.  And, according to the Lowering the Bar blog, this was his first problem.
I can't find a transcript of the hearing, but it turns out the Kansas Supreme Court posts oral arguments on YouTube, so I took some notes. The state's disciplinary administrator, Alexander Walczak, who should not be listened to while driving, argued first. He noted that a hearing panel reviewing Hawver's performance "found 24 specific instances of deficiencies," ranging from procedural errors to a failure to investigate possible defenses.
And "[o]ne of the most basic [deficiencies]," Walczak noted, "was that he really had no idea of the law of capital murder."
Hey, neither do I. But this seems like it'd be more of a problem if one had actually agreed to represent a defendant charged with capital murder. Cheatham was charged with two.
Based on Walczak's argument, it's not clear what Hawver did right. Hawver did not know how to conduct "capital murder trial proceedings," Walczak said, he "was not aware how to ... death-qualify a jury during voir dire," he did not know the difference between the guilt and sentencing phase of capital murder proceedings and in fact "had no idea there was a [separate] sentencing phase." Hawver allegedly conducted very little investigation, and although he did turn up a potential alibi defense he then failed to assert it. As a bonus, he apparently introduced evidence that his client had a prior criminal conviction even though the State had conceded that was not admissible. 

Anyway, He summed up the case by explaining to the jury that the killer should be executed- hoping against hope at this point that someone actually believed him.  They did not.  Further, Hawyer found himself brought up for disbarment, which of course he appeared at dressed as...

...that's right, Thomas Jefferson.  In this guise, he admitted, "I am incompetent!" , claiming that if a lawyer believes his client to be innocent and he gets convicted anyway, he must be incompetent.  Which was much the same as his defense, basing it on the premise that there was an eyewitness, and as his client was an experienced killer, he wouldn't have left an eyewitness alive.

Oh, and that possible alibi he didn't develop?  There was a possibility that his client was out of state at the time- and he could have proved it by cell-phone records- but at the disbarment, he told the judges, "If I had known (that you could look up cell phone records), I'd have been on it like a dog on a bone!"


ITEM:  An unnamed Lakewood WA, man was arrested for doing a furniture swap with neighbors while drunk.  When the neighbors got home, they found a laundry list of furniture- a love seat, a chair and ottoman set, a cushion, a bedroom mattress, a rug doctor, three blankets, a large framed picture, a large rectangular mirror, a box of women's shoes, and- believe it or not- an iron and ironing board- missing, replaced with a recliner, a stand, various empty beer cans and pizza boxes- oh, and a traffic citation and a pizza receipt, both with name and address.

Apparently, the guy "had heard the neighbors had moved", and simply abandoned the listed items, so he called a buddy to help him "swap" some furniture.  Why he thought he'd get away with it IDK, but I'll bet he was - with the iron and the women's shoes- was planning to hide out disguised as a housewife.

ITEM:  You know what, I've still got enough this week for another post!  Tune in tomorrow, and we'll pick it up from there!


  1. Chris:
    And now you (again) know WHY I ONLY stick to BLOGGING when it comes to (anti)
    (Plus, I LOVE that SPAM and DELETE buttons on the comments...bwahahahaha)

    I much prefer my trolls to remain UNDER the bridge (or bus, whatever comes around first).

    Good post.

    Stay safe up there, brother.

    1. Sometimes though, troll-hunting is a great release...

  2. Squirrel! Love that!

    When rational discussion won't get the desired result, or people have no way to debate whatever valid points are being made with intellect, some people find it easier to just start slinging mud and resort to name calling. Then, when that fails, they make believe they've found something more important to do than be made a fool of. But, we both know they're still reading what you're posting.

    1. That's the story in a nutshell.

  3. What can I say this leaves one wondering what the hell

    1. Wait'll I get part two posted in an hour or so.

  4. I really like your christmas lights
    (yep, i am actually leaving a comment)

    1. Unfortunately, the red strand in my lights burned out Friday. Fortunately, red is my least favorite of the three colors.