“Too fat to die” in Ohio?
An Ohio death-row inmate who weighs close to 500 lbs. (Okay wait, first of all, am I the only one wondering why someone on death row is getting enough food to weigh close to 500 lbs.? Only in America!) is arguing that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to carry out his execution. Why? Well, because he’s just too fat. No joke, he’s arguing (through his attorney) that it’ll be hard for the person who administers his lethal injection to find a vein through all of that fat, meaning that he might be poked repeatedly with the needle before the pentobarbital (the lethal agent) actually starts flowing, and/or that the gurney used during the procedure might collapse under his weight, meaning that he might fall onto the floor. Cry me a river — this guy brutally murdered a hotel clerk back in the 1980’s, so why should anyone be more concerned about his pain and suffering than he was about hers? And once he’s injected, he argues, it might take a while for the pentobarbital to take effect due to his body mass. Okay, so how about an extra-large dose?
He says that he has tried to lose weight in prison but just hasn’t had any luck. Yeah, right, I’m sure he’s been trying really hard to get himself down to a weight at which he can be executed. And get this: If he can’t get his sentence commuted to life in prison without parole, he apparently wants to have his execution (currently scheduled for January) postponed indefinitely so that he can have gastric bypass surgery at the taxpayers’ expense, followed by ample time for his weight to drop significantly. So to recap, I told you last week about a life-imprisoned murderer who’s about to get sex-change surgery at the taxpayers’ expense in Massachusetts, and this week, we have a death-row inmate wanting gastric bypass surgery at the taxpayers’ expense in Ohio. When I see things like this happening, it makes me wonder how hard it must be at times for the surviving Americans from the “Greatest Generation” (the generation that fought WWII) to even recognize our country as the same country that they fought for and subsequently built into a superpower.
(And while I’m on the subject of obesity, as I said on my Facebook page while traveling last weekend, our founding fathers might turn over in their graves if they knew how many Americans are obese today, but they’d be kicking and screaming to get out and set things right if they knew the government of New York City is using obesity as an excuse to tell restaurateurs they can’t sell legal beverages to people in whatever sizes they want. That’s the kind of oppressive government that the founding fathers declared independence, fought a bloody revolution, and drafted a brilliant Constitution to banish from our soil. Oppression in the name of benevolence is still oppression, and as long as we tolerate it, we’ll only get more of it.)
New “sexting” study, shocking findings!
There’s a new study out about “sexting,” and the findings are sure to shock you — minors who send sexually-explicit text messages are more likely to be sexually active than minors who don’t send sexually-explicit text messages! Wow, groundbreaking, and probably yet another example of our tax dollars (not) at work! When it comes to sexually-active minors, I often say the same thing to them that I’d like to say to Sandra Fluke (pronounced “Fluck,” the Georgetown law student who famously wants us taxpayers to buy her birth control pills): If you’re not mature enough to both figure out how to avoid pregnancy and obtain whatever you may need for that purpose without assistance, and/or, if you’re not mature enough to provide 18 years’ worth of an unplanned child’s psychological and material needs without assistance, then you’re not mature enough to be having sex. (Every time I’m reminded of Fluke, I think of Cee Lo Green’s “F-You” song and adapt it in my mind: “Fluke yoooooou, buy your own piiiills, pay your own biiiills, Fluke yoooooou… .”)
Topless photos of British princess published
While I’m on the subject of sexually-explicit images, there’s been a lot of press in recent days about the publication of surreptitiously-taken topless photos of a British princess (or whatever her title is) in a European tabloid. First of all, who cares? Second of all, it’s not hard to avoid this sort of scandal — keep your top on, at least when you can be seen by anyone who has a right to be wherever they’re seeing you from (i.e. anyone who’s not having to commit a crime to see you, e.g. a passerby on a distant-but-public path, an overflying pilot, etc.) — and if a person’s not inclined to avoid it, then I’m not inclined to sympathize much with that person when it happens. And by the way, the much-discussed possibility of criminal charges in this case is peculiar to Europe — here in the U.S., as long as the photographer didn’t trespass, there’d generally be no crime in the taking, nor in the publication, of such photos (as long as the subject were an adult).
Linday Lohan for Neighborhood Watch Captain?
Before I go, one more thing: I had to laugh when I heard that “actress” Lindsay Lohan (I put quotes around “actress” whenever I write about Lohan because I’m not sure if it’s really still accurate) publicly griped about another actress, Amanda Bynes (I have to admit I have no idea who she is), getting soft treatment from L.A.-area law enforcement after a series of alleged violations such as D.U.I, hit-and-run (twice), driving with a suspended license, etc. (in addition to substance-abuse concerns, there’s apparently some concern about Bynes’ mental health generally, and perhaps even some discussion of a third-party guardianship or conservatorship, a la Britney Spears). Pot, I’m pleased to introduce to you, Kettle.
(And even if the justice system in the L.A. area isn’t being as tough on Pot and Kettle as it should be, again as I said on my Facebook page from the road last weekend, we should all commend the federal agents in Chicago who just foiled an American-born teen terrorist’s attempt to detonate a car bomb there! As good as our agents are though, something like that is going to happen eventually if we don’t tighten up our homeland security immediately. We’re asking the impossible of our agents if we expect them to stop every attempt while we continue, for example, to let anyone just walk across our borders, with whatever they can carry, day in and day out, and to worry more about offending them — e.g. by asking for identification — than about our security, even when we find them inside our country illegally.)