To Protect and Serve...and Put Your Grandma In Jail

When I first saw the headline stating, 89-year-old charged with keeping kids' ball, I thought Yahoo accidentally posted an Onion article. As best I can tell, it is not a phony story.

BLUE ASH, Ohio – Police in Ohio say an 89-year-old woman is facing a charge of petty theft because neighborhood children accuse her of refusing to give back their football.

Edna Jester was arrested last week in the Cincinnati suburb of Blue Ash.

Police say one child's father complained that Jester kept the youngsters' ball after it landed in her yard. Police Capt. James Schaffer says there has been an ongoing dispute in the neighborhood over kids' balls landing in the woman's yard.

Jester said Monday she has received many calls and didn't have time to discuss the matter any more.

Jester is to appear in court next month. The maximum penalty for a petty theft conviction in Ohio is six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.

~Yahoo

I think we can all relate to being kids whose ball was lost over the fence, but I can't say it happened to me very often. Regardless, I don't recall whining to my parents if the ball wasn't returned. If anything, one kid would just have to be brave enough to try and get it back without being caught. However, this was risky as it increased the likelihood that your parents would find out and get on to you for being irresponsible. Still, kids today are whiners so I guess it's not unforeseeable that they'd go crying to their parents when the old lady kept the ball. Kids being whiny isn't all that terrible, but there are some pretty bothersome things about this story.

First of all, the woman was 89 years old and the cops arrested her. 89! This lady is clearly hardcore. How many 89-year-olds do you know that live at home, as opposed to a nursing home or assisted living center? (I'm pretty sure those things are the same and they just say assisted living so kids won't feel as bad about putting their parents in a nursing home.) When she was a kid there was a little thing going on called the Great Depression so throwing the ball into her neighbor's yard probably isn't something she got to experience very often. I don't think a little time in the pokey is going to bother her much, but you can't tell me there wasn't a better way for the po-po to handle the matter.

And secondofly, what kind of lesson is the parent teaching his kids by calling the cops on the old lady? Instead of telling the kids to, you know, stop throwing the ball into the old lady's yard, the dad calls the police? I think the dad was just ashamed that his kids were such bad athletes that their balls routinely landed in unintended locations. He must have known that telling them to stop throwing the ball into the yard would be a futile endeavor. So in order for the kids to keep feeling like beautiful and unique snowflakes he called the cops on the old lady. Now the kids can act as retarded as they want without having to worry about the consequences. I expect this will serve them well in 30 years when they're members of Congress.

Personally, I hope the old lady pops all the balls she's collected from the kids and then drops them in a heap on their lawns. Or better yet, she should stand on the sidewalk and rifle a couple balls at the windows of the kids' houses. As far as I'm concerned, they've got it coming.

White People are Being Defamed!

Evidently some people are upset about a recent episode of South Park (warning: foul language). Why? It depicts people they relate to in a negative light. In an attempt to poke fun at the most recent Indiana Jones movie for basically being terrible (at least according to the show; I haven't seen the movie), South Park depicts Director Steven Speilberg and Executive Producer/"Story Creator" George Lucas actually raping Harrison Ford. They also show Lucas go after a storm trooper (Episodes I, II, and III were quite bad), but there's no mention of that. A graphic, unnecessary metaphor for making a bad movie? Yeah, I'd say so. An affront to Jewish people? Wait, what?

"It's racist," said Chaim Noiman, 22. He added that show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone should "go to hell."

"I'm not Jewish, but I think it's offensive. Raping someone is anti-religion. It's anti-anything," said Berkeley student Ekansh Arora, 21.

"This episode is not necessarily anti-Jewish," conceded Myrna Shinbaum of the Anti-Defamation League. "If anything, it's more about Chinese-American stereotypes...[but]'South Park' has been offensive and has had very anti-Jewish pieces in the past," she said. "We understand that the show is trying to satirize, but it may get lost on those who are haters."

New York Daily News

Ekansh Arora seems to be the only one who is focusing on a real issue (rape is being used as a comedic device). The others? Not so much. Apparently vengeance belongs not to the Lord, but to Chaim Noiman. Good to know.

Let's ignore that the statement issued by the Anti-Defamation League referred to "haters" (this is a professional organization?) and just focus on the merits.

Not once in the entire episode is there any mention of any of the characters being Jewish. Steven Spielberg is Jewish, but George Lucas is not. However, both men are White. But the episode aired on Yom Kippur. Shinbaum seems to basically be saying that people who hate Jews won't understand it's satire, but part of the offense comes from the timing of the show. Does she think people who hate Jews will hate them more because a "defamatory" show aires on a Jewish holiday? How many Non-Jews were aware that October 9 was Yom Kippur? I suppose hard-core anti-Semites would be aware of the holiday, but they're already haters, so it seems unlikely that South Park's depiction of a Jewish director would influence them. This offense seems tenuous at best.

The ADL's mission statement is "to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike." Yet, the depiction of Chinese as plotting to take over America receives only a passing mention. Her argument basically comes down to, "It's really offensive to Chinese, but South Park normally hates Jews so let's not forget that." I'm sure South Park co-creator Matt Stone, a Jew himself, will keep that in mind next time he depicts someone in a negative light.

This whole thing reminds me of a news blurb I read this summer.

NBC Olympics President Gary Zenkel has apologized to Australian gold-medal winner Matthew Mitcham for not profiling the openly gay diver during the network's coverage or showing his partner in the stands at the time of his victory. "We regret that we missed the opportunity to tell Matthew Mitcham's story. We apologize for this unintentional omission," Zenkel said.
imdb.com

I have no idea how many hours of programming there were during the Olympics, but I'm pretty sure at least half of those were devoted to Michael Phelps. The other half seemed to be divided between discussion of whether or not Chinese Gymnasts were really pre-schoolers and trying to figure out how fast Usain Bolt would be if he wasn't such a show-boat. And the ratings were pretty big. Sounds like NBC made sound programming decisions. Well, except for failing tape-delaying events. Now, that warrants an apology.

There were over 10,000 Olympians competing in China, but Mr. Zenkel chooses to apologize for not profiling an Australian diver, that no one has ever heard of, who likes dudes. Seriously? Was there a clamoring for this story? If so, I certainly missed it. They regret that they unintentionally omitted telling a story? How many stories did NBC unintentionally omit to tell? Where are the apologies for the 10,000 other athletes whose stories NBC unintentionally omitted to tell? Sounds like Zenkel has a lot of work to do. Basically the dude got upset so NBC tried to cover itself because one person was upset and they feared making more people angry. What a joke.

Let's see if we can stop being offended by every little thing that doesn't happen to line up with our point of view. It's a wonder this country survives its elections (although this year is still up in the air). I realize that refusing to take offense would likely result in folks like Myrna Shinbaum needing to find a new place to work, but I'm okay with that. Surely the ADL can stand to trim some of it's $50 million budget or at least use it more efficiently. In conclusion, if you do happen to see something that upsets you, my advice is, as always, "Butch up, cupcake!"


p.s. I regret that I missed the opportunity to say nice things about White people during this post. It was an unintentional omission.

Follow the Leader?

I was perusing the comments section of ESPN's recap of the San Antonio Spurs' victory over the Phoenix Suns in game 1 of their opening round series. For those of you who didn't watch the game, you can check out the highlights here. Given the NBA's television ratings (especially ratings when the Spurs are playing), I'm pretty sure most folks did not tune into the game. That's a shame because it was a classic. Anyway, back to the comments. There are way too many comments to read, but I came across one that was especially insightful into the psyche of a what seems to be a typical Suns fan:

The refs were horrible and decided the game against the Suns....AGAIN!

Looking at the box score, you can see that the Spurs were called for 3 more fouls than the Suns. They also attempted 7 more free throws and made a higher percentage of those free throws than the Spurs made of their free throws. It was an exciting game that could have gone either way. I'd like to think (for the sake of competitive fairness) that the Suns themselves wouldn't be given to such hysterical reactions. Then I remembered that this guy is their leader and that thought was quickly extinguished. And the fans' reactions made perfect sense.

Assessing Value: School is Great, So Shut Up About Your Debt

I've been hearing people complain recently about the cost of a higher education and that many students are going into quite a bit of debt in order to pay for their schooling. Never mind that there are places (Tennessee and Georgia, for example) where all in-state students receive free tuition at state schools, provided they maintain a certain GPA. In Tennessee, I believe the required level is 3.0 (that's a B). There are also prestigious universities (Stanford and Harvard, for example) that are using their massive endowments to ensure that students whose parents make less than a certain amount ($150k, I think) will leave school debt free.

That being said, the majority of students probably must still rely on some sort of financial aid. For those people fortunate enough to have their parents pay for everything, well that's nice. For everyone who is relying on student loans, it's not as bad as you think. Yours truly has attended 9 years of school, the first 6 of which relied almost exclusively on loans. I have had little to no help from the parents and inconsequential amounts of scholarships (until these last 3 years). As a result, I'm looking at about $70,000 in debt. Whoa is me. Whooooooaaaa is me!

Whatever. Consolidate that debt at a low rate and pay it off over 30 years. 30 years? Wait a second. That's like a house payment, except with a lower interest rate. People think of houses not only as places to live, but also as an investment. It's one of the few things you purchase that will usually increase in value over the years. Most people realize that. What most people fail to realize is that an education will as well.

Your house will make you money when you move out of it...and then you spend money on a new house. In the mean time you get to pay for your house and also pay taxes on it. Sign me up. Oh, and if someone could explain to me why you have to pay taxes on your home every year I'd appreciate it. I'm not paying taxes on the value of my car every year. Why should I have to pay every year for owning a home? If Ron Paul was President this probably wouldn't be happening. Hmmm, maybe we can get him to run as an Independent... Sorry, got sidetracked.

Your education is better than a house. Yes, your education will make you money as soon as you complete it. It will continue to make you money for as long as you're employed. $70,000 in school debt, at 4% interest, paid off over 30 years is about $335/month. 5% will put you at $375/month. People will spend that much a month on a car note. They'll spend $100 a month for cable (gotta have HBO). Eating out isn't cheap. Neither are cell phones, especially if you like to text. None of these things pay you back. People don't really complain about the cost of them either.

I'm guessing that most people don't have $70,000 in debt. Those that do have probably gone to graduate school (e.g., Rowrbazzle), medical school (e.g., Señor Entropy) or law school (e.g., uh, lawyers). Those folks are expecting to make more money than their friends with Bachelors degrees so their added debt will be offset. Of course there are some people who just went to some crazy-expensive private school and therefore have a lot of debt. Yeah, that probably wasn't worth it. Unless you're talking Ivy League, you're probably not going to get a better job than someone who did equally well at a state school. That's just my opinion, though.

Another option would of course be Military service. But, but, I don't wanna fight in a war, you say. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time between now and when you're put on active duty so you probably won't have to. And even if you are called up you can just get religion to get out of it. Once that happens you won't have to go to war. Yeah, you might have to pay back that money, but I'd say it's a risk worth taking. You were going to have to pay it back anyway if you hadn't joined up.

The moral of this story is, of course, quit complaining. School is worth it. Also, U.S. tax laws are stupid. And Ron Paul is the voice of the people, but he'll never be elected because he's probably crazy. And appellate court judges are completely gullible.