All This Because He Wanted to Be... a Punter?

Don't know if any of you heard about this, but last year University of Northern Colorado backup punter Mitch Cozad didn't want to be the backup punter. He wanted to be the starter. Problem was, he wasn't good enough. Rafael Mendoza was better, so he was the starter.

For most college athletes, that would be motivation to work harder. Get better. Try to beat out the starter and earn the spot.

Or, you could just stab the guy in the leg. Which is what Cozad apparently did.

The trial just concluded and Cozad was found guilty of second-degree assault.

He'd had an alibi -- his then, now ex-, girlfriend. Bummer for him that she got a conscience 15 minutes after lying for him and told the truth: Cozad had left for a while in the middle of the night.

The prosecution actually brought two charges against Cozad: second-degree assault and first-degree attempted murder. I don't get the second charge, of which the jury found Cozad not guilty. Mendoza was stabbed in the leg (I think it was actually the ass cheek), then the attacker ran off. Would prosecution bring a charge like this in hopes of getting the defendant to cop a plea? Can any of you smart law folks out there enlighten me?

Anyway, Mendoza's back punting for the team and Cozad's going to jail.

Where I suspect he'll be turned into a wide receiver.

The Bridge

I can't even fathom what it was like to be on this thing.

Sad? Angry? Bored? Shoot Someone!

In one of those ironic life moments you just can't script, I was sitting here with my iPod on shuffle when Johnny Cash's "Hardin Wouldn't Run" came on. What an awesome tune. It starts off with telling a story about John Wesley Hardin losing his money shooting dice in a saloon, then pulling a gun and demanding his money back. As I was enjoying Mr. Cash's sad song, I pulled up the Rocky Mountain News on my 'puter and saw this headline:

Lone gunman opens fire in Vegas casino; 3 wounded

My first thought (well, second thought after, "How ironic") was how amazing it was that no one was killed. What a failure that guy was!

In all seriousness, how exactly did it become fashionable to get a gun and shoot at random people because you're not happy with your life? I just can't fathom it. I can grasp wanting to take out someone who had a direct impact on your life. I can grasp getting so distraught that you decide to take your own life. (though, of course, I neither condone nor recommend either of those things) But I can't for the life of me grasp the desire to take out completely anonymous strangers.

What is it about the world... about the United States... that poisons people so much? Yes, this happens in other places, but nothing like here. It's akin to terrorism, of course, but it's not the same. Terrorists are part of a larger machine; they believe that what they're doing is serving some greater purpose. For all intents and purposes, they've been brainwashed.

These shooters here are loners. There may be a couple working together, like the Columbine kids, but they're not part of anything. They're on the outside looking in. And at some point, their hatred of those on the inside grows so great, their whole view turns red with blood.

And then they start shooting.

Kids. Adults. Upper-class. Middle-class. Lower-class. Educated. Uneducated. Family men. Drifters.

That's a pretty wide range there. About the only constants are that they're men, and they're pissed.

I gotta tell you, while I'm certainly conscious of the threat of terrorism, I'm not nearly as fearful of it directly affecting my life as I am one of these psychopaths opening fire somewhere my family happens to be.

Shit, whether you agree with the policies and methodologies or not, there are at least governments out there trying to keep terrorists from attacking us. There are lots and lots of people studying and planning and counter-planning, all to end the threat of terrorism.

Who's studying and planning and counter-planning to end the threat of the angry fucker with a gun?

What's Porn Got to Do With It?

UPDATES AT BOTTOM OF POST.

A fascinating case of stolen property turned to tragedy here in Denver recently, resulting in lots of finger-pointing, speculation and armchair psychiatry.

Former Denver City Attorney Larry Manzanares resigned his short-lived post back in February amidst allegations that he'd stolen a laptop from the State Court Administrator's Office. He admitted that he'd bought the laptop from a dude in a parking lot, but said he didn't know it was stolen.

He was later charged with felony theft, embezzlement of public property, tampering with physical evidence, official misconduct and computer crime -- charges that carry penalties of up to six years in prison.

The big story, however, was that the computer had a "massive porn stash" on it.

Please note once again that none of the filed charges had anything to do with pornography.

So it was off to the races for the media -- the story wasn't that the city attorney bought a stolen computer. It was that the city attorney had porn on it.

Larry Manzanares shot himself in the head on June 22.

To date, nothing has come out stating that any of the porn was illegal porn -- no child pornography, no snuff films, etc. If that comes out, it sheds an entirely new light on the story. But from what's been reported, that's not the case.

The guy just liked porn. As lots of guys do.

Did the media's and the DA's handling of the porn aspect lead to Manzanares' suicide? I'm sure it did.

I'm not absolving the guy of his real crime, which was buying a computer from a dude in a parking lot (or, possibly, actually stealing the computer from the State).

But I don't for a minute believe that the porn was important to this case. All it did was serve to vilify the man.

And that vilification ended up costing him his life.

UPDATES: Here is a letter from the District Attorney who was assigned to this case. It explains much of how and why certain things were done and said. In one paragraph he addresses the issue of the pornography. As of yet, absolutely nothing has given any indication that there was any illegal material on the computer. And here is a story from yesterday's Denver Post, speaking to the family of Manzanares. It explains the history of depression in his family, and their speculation as to why he did it. Again, no mention of illegal material. The media ran with one tiny fraction of this story -- the most embarrassing one.

Charity

A lot's being made of Michael Moore's supposed anonymous donation of $12,000 to the guy who runs Moorewatch.com (a very anti-Moore website), Jim Kenefick to aid in his wife's medical bills. Of course, the anti-Moore crowd are taking him to task, calling it nothing more than a publicity move coinciding with the release of his latest film, Sicko. And that's exactly what it was. You can read the story directly from Kenefick here.

Whether Moore got publicity from it or not, my question is, who cares? Is a good deed only worthy if it's done with complete anonymity? Was Warren Buffet's massive donation to the Gates Foundation a big crock of shit because he held a press conference to announce the move? Of course not. Even Kenefick admits that at the end of the post I linked to above. Moore helped the guy. I'm sure Moore, who'd been working on Sicko for quite some time, saw Kenefick's predicament and though, wow, the guy who hates me is in a situation that completely illustrates the point of my movie. That's ironic.

Then Moore cut the guy a check for $12,000.

That's pretty damn generous. Publicity or not. If you found out someone who was constantly badmouthing you on the Internet was in financial need, would you send him/her a check?

I seriously doubt it. I'm not sure I would.

Judge to Paris: Get yo' skinny ass back in da joint.

Gotta admit, this made me smile.

Maybe our justice system isn't quite as whack as I thought it was.

Doing the right thing.

UPDATE: My step-daughter's middle school is under lock-down right now because a kid brought a gun to school today. Her dad is there to get her out, so she's okay. As far as I know, the gun wasn't fired. I don't know anymore details, but I'd venture to say it's helping to make the case of this post.

NBC shit-cans Imus, claiming to have done so because of his insensitivity.

Then they air the package of photos, videos and writings that Cho Seung-Hui sent them between killings, claiming to have done so because it was important for us to understand why this disturbed young man did what he did.

Excuse me while I throw up for a while.

NBC fired Imus because of money. NBC aired Cho's stuff because of ratings, which equal money.

That's it. Their bottom line is the bottom line of all of this. Period.

Imus got what he deserved, what he's spent years all but asking for. But NBC made the decision out of fear of loss of revenue from sponsors.

Their decision to air the Cho footage, and make it available to other media outlets, was reprehensible. It was exactly what Cho wanted; he's a celebrity now, immortalized not by what he did, but by the exposure he received after he did it.

Cho's dead, so it doesn't mean shit to him.

But it means a shitload to all the other psychos out there who want to be immortalized too. The message to them is quite simple:

Wanna go out in a blaze of glory? Wanna be immortalized?

We'll help you.

There is absolutely no redeaming value to broadcasting that stuff throughout the world. None.

You turn it over to the authorities, you report that Cho left behind a whole mess of disturbing self-produced materials that further show he was deeply fucked up, and you leave it at that. You don't sate the morbid curiosity of the masses for your fucking ratings. You know, I bet there was even some pride felt at NBC because Cho chose them.

I would like to point out that while almost every other media outlet showed the stuff, CBS did not. And get this: They're taking heat for not showing it.

I'm so sick of the media showing people wondering how someone can get that messed up, blaming guns, blaming a lack of guns, screaming about warning signs, screaming about what the proper response should have been, blah blah blah, and not actually stopping to consider that YOU'RE HELPING TO CREATE THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

It's indefensible.

So it goes.

UPDATE
I've moved my Vonnegut post to the top again because I caught shit for moving it before and I'm an impressionable sort. I also want to address Sour Grapes' comment regarding KV not writing solely in the SF genre: He's absolutely right, and it's an important point to be made. While his SF was what brought me to him in the first place, it was his writinig that kept me with him regardless of genre.

ORIGINAL POST
One of my very favoritest authors ever, Kurt Vonnegut, died at the young age of 84. When I was a boy, I was scifi geek through and through. As I got older and more sofisticated, Vonnegut introduced me to thinking SF. I started with the standard Slaughterhouse Five, then moved on to Deadeye Dick, Timequake, Slapstick, Cat's Cradle, The Sirens of Titan, Jailbird and Player Piano. I also really enjoyed Like Shaking Hands with God, a transcript of a couple conversations between Vonnegut and Lee Stringer. He's definitely not for everyone, but he was most definitely for me.

A memorial, or a glorification of violence?

The city of Littleton, Colorado, wants to honor Navy SEAL Danny Dietz, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2005, by erecting a statue to the fallen Littleton native. The statue, designed by sculptor Robert Henderson, would feature Dietz holding a rifle in a "parade-rest" position on one knee.

Some local parents, however, are protesting the design and location of the statue, which is close to a few schools, claiming that it glorifies violence because he's holding a weapon.

You can read the story from the Rocky Mountain News here.

I think the protest is ridiculous and the protestors are among the frighteningly large population of parents in this country who are petrified at the thought of having to actually parent. A statue like this lends a wonderful opportunity to have a conversation with your child.

But that's what I think. How about you?

$370,000,000

That's how much two people got to split between them for winning the Mega Millions jackpot.

That's three hundred seventy MILLION dollars.

$185,000,000 a piece.

After Uncle Sam takes a big bite, each will get around $75 million.

Seventy-five MILLION dollars. In the bank. Right now. Ready to spend.

Buy whatever you want. Buy two of them.

And if, by chance, you happen to have enough sense to hire someone to manage your money for you (someone good and reputable), you'll be able to turn that money into...

More money.

Or you could spend it all in a year.

What would you do?

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

James Cameron Finds Lost Tomb of Jesus.

In other news...

Oliver Stone finds Jimmy Hoffa's body.

David Cronenberg finds an island populated with midget leper necrophiliacs.

Jerry Bruckheimer discovers that Pluto has been knocked off its orbit and is now hurtling toward Earth at an unfathomable speed.

George A. Romero finds a Taco Bell staffed entirely by illegal immigrant zombies.

Add your own! It's fun!

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Another dog attack.

Heard about this story this morning and it brought our recent pit bull kerfluffle to memory. But in this case it's not a pit bull. It's a lab. I still wouldn't let my kid near a pit bull, but this is a frightening story nonetheless.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

One Scary Wedding

(AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Have you heard about this couple? They're going to get married in a graveyard.

Dude's a computer geek by day, hearse rehabber by night, so it's probably not a big surprise to their friends. Yeah, kind of creepy (though it will give oodles of pun opportunities for this post's comments...).

But know what's more creepy? The alderman want's to introduce a law to prohibit anyone else from getting married in the cemetary. “Once the horse is out of the barn, you have to have an ordinance,” he said.

Okay, it may be a bit out of the ordinary to want to get married in a cemetary, but do we really need to create a law against it? First of all, if the purpose of a law is to protect, what exactly would this law be protecting? And second of all, do they really think that, since these kids are doing it, the cemetary is now going to be inundated with wedding requests? Like there's a whole slew of couples out there who've been looking for a place for their wedding and are going to see this and say, "That's it! Why didn't we think of a graveyard before? We won't even need a florist! We'll just have the ceremony at the gravesite of someone who just died!"

Ack! You people with your laws.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

The Right to Be Offended

The whole Snickers Superbowl fiasco has brought to the forefront a fascinating topic: the dynamics between those who offend, those who are offended, and those in neither group who weigh in with their own opinion of who should or should not be offended and why.

I'm not a person who's easily offended. The major reason for that is that I don't really belong to any group that typically deals with offense. I'm male, I'm white, I'm heterosexual, and I'm Protestant but not overtly religious. That's a lot of majorities. I count myself pretty damn lucky, because I don't know what it feels like to be a victim of discrimination, stereotyping or bigotry.

So when someone who does belong to a minority of some kind claims to be offended by something else, I can do my damnest to put myself in his/her shoes and try to imagine if I would be offended in that circumstance, but it is absolutely pointless.

I have no idea. I can't . I have no point of reference; not only can I not walk a mile in their shoes, I can't even fit them on my feet.

I find it amusing, then, that so many people think they do have that ability. It takes a lot of audacity for a heterosexual to tell someone, "You're gay. That Snickers commercial was insulting you, so you should be offended."

And it's just as audacious for a heterosexual to tell someone, "You might be gay, but there was nothing wrong with that commercial and you shouldn't be offended."

I fully admit that my first reaction, upon hearing about the Snickers thing, was to think the groups protesting the spot were being oversensitive. I thought it was pretty funny myself. But you know, once again I tried to put myself in the other shoes and stopped. They still don't fit. I still don't know.

Who am I to tell them whether or not they should be offended?

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

I haven't been to Boston in 14 years...

...and now that I'm here, there are bomb scares.

Oh, and did I mention I'm in the World Trade Center today?

Happy to hear it's all a hoax...


UPDATE: IT WAS A GODDAMN PROMO FOR ADULT SWIM! Not smart, folks. Damn marketing people...

DOUBLE UPDATE: This thing has been blown wayyyyyy out of proportion. No one deserved to be arrested, that's for damn sure.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Battling road rage.

On November 8, 2005, a man named Jason Reynolds was involved in a high-speed auto accident that left two people -- in two separate vehicles -- dead on the highway and Reynolds arrested for causing the crash because of aggressive driving. Of course he claims one of the other drivers, Kelvin Norman, caused the crash, and even told the tow truck driver that Norman "got what he deserved."

Yesterday a jury found Reynolds, who has a documented history of aggressive driving, guilty of murder. And the key was that he was guilty of First-degree Murder, which means life without chance of parole.

This is the first time a Colorado jury has come back with a first-degree murder verdict in a road rage case. Needless to say, prosecutors across the country are paying close attention, because they rarely go for the first-degree charge, opting instead for manslaughter and vehicular homicide charges.

First of all, I am overjoyed that this scumbag is gone for life. He'll never be in a position to endanger someone's life on the road again, and that's a wonderful thing.

But here's my question: Was this first-degree murder?

Try, if you can, to remove yourself from what you believe the punishment should be, because I think most of us would agree that he got the punishment he deserved.

My understanding, however, is that to be considered murder in the first degree, there has to be premeditation. In other words, you have to go out with the express intent of killing someone.

While Reynolds may have been in a position where he should have known that his actions could have resulted in killing someone, I don't know that he intended to kill. Isn't this third-degree murder -- involuntary manslaughter?

Again, I think the guy deserved the sentence he got, and I know he wouldn't have gotten that sentence if he'd been charged with involuntary manslaughter. And not having heard the trial, the prosecution obviously made the case for there being premeditation. But man, it just seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

Thoughts? I'm particularly interested in hearing from Archer, Law Wench and Stan (PJ, could you email Stan and see if he'd be willing to weigh in on this one?).

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Fair and balanced?

Remember when Dan Rather's career as a news anchor ended in a bit of disgrace because he ran a story -- a story that had negative implications for the President -- before he thoroughly checked all the facts?

Seems Fox News does the same thing!

Obama never attended a Madrassa.

Read the CNN story here.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Paula is one messed-up chick.

No, not Paula from Ultrablog! How dare you...

I'm talking about Paula Abdul. Have you seen this? I can only imagine what was going through the heads of the interviewers.



I'm not an American Idol fan whatsoever. As a matter of fact, I've never watched a complete show. Every so often I've heard rumblings about Paula Abdul suspected of being drunk on the show, but I'd never witnessed it. After watching this video, all I can say is she ain't all there. She's hopped up on something, as the kids say.

I'm almost inclined to start watching this season.

Naaaah.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Winter Wonderland

The Blizzard of 2006 has hit. Well, it's still hitting. Probably about two feet out there, maybe more, and counting. Thank goodness for our snowblower!

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.

Fucking gas companies.

Here in Colorado, our two major grocery store chaines -- King Sooper's and Safeway -- have discount cards like most grocery stores do now. Some of the stores also have gasoline. If you have a discount card, you automatically get 3¢ off per gallon. But for every $100 you spend at the grocery store, you get a 10¢ per gallon discount. The last couple times I've filled up, I've paid under $2 per gallon.

Well, check out this shit. Some unnamed independent gasoline dealers took King Sooper's to court saying they were illegally selling gas below cost. The court ruled in favor of the independents, awarded them $1.4 million in damages, and now King Sooper's (as well as Safeway) has to stop doing the discount.

Fuckers. I don't know how soon they'll be stopping the program, but I'm filling up as soon as I can.

Fuckers.

READ HALOSCAN COMMENTS.