Screw Montana

February 20, 2009

I know you’re reading that headline and if you’re from Montana, you may not like me right now. Well, I’m speaking today as a Montanan… well, a former Montanan. I moved to Illinois a few years ago after spending over half of my life in The Big Sky state, and I look back every once in a while in fondness. Today, however, I look back in disgust. Right when I think that state starts to become progressive, the legislature goes and pulls the most backwards, awful, malicious and downright evil thing I have ever seen in politics.

Republican Senator Dan McGee of Laurel, MT recently introduced Senate Bill 46, an amendment to the Right to Privacy article in the state’s Constitution. Given the recent track record of the government’s respect for “right to privacy,” everyone should have cause for alarm. For this case, it’s well justified.

The original Constitution article reads:

The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.


The amendment Mr. Magoo, I mean, McGee wants to add to that is:

The protection of unborn human life is a compelling state interest. 


The meaning behind this is both clear, and not at all. McGag, I mean, McGee is trying to circumvent the laws concerning that one little court ruling from many years ago by changing the state’s Constitution itself to basically say that Montana doesn’t view abortions as legal. (Why play fair when you can change the rules, eh?) Speaking as an unrepentant asshole, it’s almost admirable to see how hard he is spitting in the face of the Supreme Court, excluding the fact that he’s using such diabolical and careless means to reach his goal. See, given the loose words that he is using to make his Machiavellian dream a reality, he’s essentially… well, Allyson Hagen says it best.

“This amendment would authorize governmental intrusion into every pregnancy and undermine private medical decisions made between a woman and her doctor. We should be very careful when considering amending this vital protection against intrusive and unwarranted government intervention in our state constitution.”

That’s right, folks. Should this bill pass, essentially every pregnant woman in Montana would be under scrutiny of the ever-expanding Big Brother. Nothing will stop the government from planting a flag in your uterus. Montana now has emotional (apparently) and financial interest in your unborn baby. That baby’s not yours so much as it’s Montana’s now. In essence, your little shrimp-like fetus essentially becomes the state’s chattel property. Now, there’s a word for that and I’m trying to remember what that is…. It’s on the tip of my tongue…. Oh yeah, that’s it….


No need to mince words here. Once a human becomes property, that person is slavery — plain and simple. Pregnant women are being turned into a commodity, or at the very least, bargaining chips.
At what fucking point did everyone lose their goddamn minds? This is the twenty-first century United States, not Sudan in the 1400s. We’re talking about people, here. Human fucking beings. Is this what the Republican party has reduced themselves to in order to reach their goal — promoting slavery? You already look racist, Republican party. You might want to back the fuck off of pushing this bill for fear of looking not just sexist as well, but retarded and devoid of guidance.

Regardless, this bill is such a flagrant slap in the face of civil rights that there’s no way it’ll pass. Any senator with half a brain would vote against it.

‘Unborn life’ bill passes in Senate

No way. No fucking way. Jesus Christ, it fucking passed!? IT PASSED THE SENATE!? WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!?! HAS THE WORLD GONE INSANE!? AAARRGGH! AAAAHHH!

*end transmission*


Happy Valentine’s Day!

February 12, 2009

Here is my annual Anti-Valentine’s Day e-card for this year. Feel free to send it to loved ones. Or hated ones. Whoever you feel is deserving of a reminder that despite the feel-good pap that the capitalist market shoves down our throats on some arbitrary day, the world is actually a dark and horrible place full of awful people ruining the lives of others.



The State of Illinois Vs. Common Sense

February 2, 2009

Moral absolutism is the belief that wrong is wrong and right is right, and never the two shall meet. The context of a crime is moot; it’s clear cut, black and white and without shades of gray. To a moral absolutist, the actions of a woman who steals food in order to feed her starving family are not justified — she broke the law, period.
Sometimes it’s hard to deny that someone committed a crime, especially when they admit to doing it, but what happens when the punishment doesn’t fit the crime? At what point do you surrender common sense for the sake of convicting a criminal? What is justice when you can’t justify punishing the guilty?

"Where am I supposed to look again...?"

"Where am I supposed to look again...?"

Meet Loren Swift. Mr. Swift was arrested in Illinois for marijuana possession with intent for distribution. Police found 25 lbs. of pot in his house and 50 lbs. worth of marijuana plants, which is quite a formidable stash by anyone’s standards. He had a miniature greenhouse for his horticultural pursuits and a room specifically designed for drying the buds for smoking. Police found several pieces of paraphernalia used for storing and smoking pot, along with a scale for measuring. Mr. Swift also confessed to police that he smoked pot and at no point did he ever try to deny it.

A jury of his peers recently found him innocent of his crimes.

Despite how insane that ruling seems on the surface, in actuality, the details paint a different picture. Mr. Swift is a 59 year-old Vietnam War veteran who needs a cane just to move around. At one point, they contemplated postponing his trial because doctors said that one of his feet would probably need to be amputated before his sentence would be passed. Swift claimed he smoked the pot to help alleviate the pain in his legs/ankles and to help with his post-traumatic stress disorder (he was a Vietnam veteran after all). He claimed that he never sold drugs to anyone, which the police admitted to having no physical evidence of in the first place, which is funny because that’s the main reason why he was on trial. Sure, his pot stash was ridiculous enough to assume he was going to sell it, but he could have been keeping it all to himself.
Regardless of its purpose, he smoked and possessed — I believe the technical term for it is “a shit-ton” — of pot. Medical marijuana is not legal in the state of Illinois, so his little “I need it for the pain” shtick won’t stick. He broke the law, period.

However, according to our current drug laws, if Mr. Swift was found guilty of this crime, the minimum punishment would have been serving six years in prison. Let me repeat that: If the jury found this 59 year-old, crippled Vietnam veteran guilty of possessing and smoking pot, he would have had to serve a MINIMUM sentence of six years in prison.

Given the circumstances, the jury exercised one of their not-very-well-known rights; the right of jury nullification. When a person is sentenced to a crime, it’s not only the convicted person on trial, but the law as well. If a jury finds a law unjust, they have the right to “nullify” it by acquitting someone, even when there’s insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

Did Swift commit a crime? From the law’s perspective, undoubtedly. Is the punishment worth a minimum of 6 years in a penitentiary? I would say hell no, especially when compared to other crimes of a more severe magnitude. Then again, our drug laws are broken as hell and beyond extreme in punishment. The only thing more messed up than this nation’s drug policy is the health care system… which is kind of ironic.

To read about the story, click [here].

Oh, and Happy Groundhog’s Day.

"Don't drive angry, now."
“Don’t drive angry, now.”