I Long For Vigilante Justice

I am a huge proponent of about two percent vigilante justice. It's unfortunate that this can't actually be implemented into society as we know it because who is going to decide which two percent of things will qualify and be justified to be handled by a vigilante mob and/or individual? Personally, I think that I'd do a pretty good job at it. How about if I take a test run and you let me know how I did? OK, then. Let's see...scanning....looking....reading....oh. Wait. What's this? Ahhh. I think I have a winner! From the Sydney Morning Herald, we have "A former top South African rugby player has allegedly hacked three people to death in a revenge attack after his daughter was reportedly gang-raped and infected with HIV." Uh-huh. And?

Now, provided that the axe-wielding gentleman in question has the right people, I am perfectly OK with those actions. I would have no trouble what so ever with returning that man to live out the rest of his life amongst society. I wouldn't even care if he wanted to move in next door to me. Hell, I'd invite him to move into the neighborhood. That's someone you don't want to mess with. Screw an alarm system when your neighbor will go after evil-doers with an axe.

According to the article, the guy was thorough. "The three people were reportedly butchered with an axe last week. One person was decapitated and the head found in a dustbin nearly two kilometres away." See? He's not such a bad guy. He put the (alleged) rapist's severed dome in a garbage can so as not to deface a public venue. I'm against littering. And I'm still on this guy's side.

The guy was arrested and according to a one Lieutenant Colonel Vincent Mdunge (you can pronounce that however you'd like), "He is currently being detained in one of our police stations. We can't disclose where for security reasons." Hmm. Security reasons. As in...if people knew where this guy was there would be a non-stop parade for him in front of said police station? As in...if people knew where this guy was they would start committing their own crimes in the hopes that they'd be arrested and thrown in a cell with him so that they could shake his hand in person? I'm unclear as to the "security reasons" that they can't disclose the police station. Not that it matters to me. I, personally, don't care where he is being held. I just find it odd that they don't want to tell us.

But in my world, this guy wouldn't be in jail at all. I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing the people who raped your fourteen year old daughter and infected her with HIV. That falls directly within my two percent of vigilante justice guidelines. And if the guy were to be released today, I'd gladly contribute to a fund to buy him a new axe. What?! I'm sure he probably needs one. When you use the same axe to hack three rapists to death, I'm pretty sure that you're going to be in the market for a replacement. The old axe he can hang on his wall. Or outside of his home as a reminder to people what happens in the Two Percent Vigilante Justice World of my dreams.

Sphere: Related Content

Wash Your Willie!

We don't hear a lot about how all of that stimulus money is being spent, do we? We don't even hear whether it worked or not. Some folks say it did, some folks say it didn't. Since I guess that opinion depends on how your current situation is, it's really hard to say. But if I had to guess, I would say that the stimulus money hasn't done all that it could have done because it has been spent on dumbass things that have absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy over here. Hmm. Perhaps 'dumbass' is a bit harsh. I don't know. You tell me. Is it 'dumbass' to spend almost a million dollars "...on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex." Wait. What was the question?

The question was just what you read that it was. According to something called CNS News, "The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009" on just such a study. The care and feeding of one's grundle in Africa. Paid for with stimulus funds that were paid for by your tax dollars. Why is this an important study? Well, from what I can tell, it's not. It's not even close to being an important study. It's certainly far from being worth almost a million bucks of dough that was supposed to be injected into the American economy, that is pretty clear to me.

But I could be wrong. Let's go over some specifics. First of all, this is a multi-tiered study and it's only the penis washing part that received stimulus money. (There's a sentence I never thought I'd type.) Second, they decided upon the genitalia cleansing goal because they "...have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision" so they're going to attempt "...to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow."

Now, one of the first things that I thought (that was printable) when I heard this was, "Why does anyone give a fat rat's ass whether or not African men can keep their unit clean after all of the sex?" That question is a little hard to answer, as it wasn't made real clear (shocking, I know). The closest that I could find to an answer was in the part of this grant that said: "If we find that men are able to practice consistent washing practices after sex, we will plan to test whether this might protect men from becoming HIV infected in a later study." Wait. What?

Um, don't we know how HIV is spread? Does bathing one's grundle prevent HIV? I'm not so sure that it does. I'm pretty sure that it won't. It sounds kind of like a fairly simple solution to not get HIV. Just wash off the ol' unit after the inadvisable coitus that you just engaged in and go about your way! That's not what we've been taught. Is it? I don't think that it is. But maybe they know something I don't. I, personally, don't own a penis, so I don't know how this might possibly translate into the real world. Do you have a penis? Do you wash it? Do you have HIV? I guess if you answered yes to the first two questions and no to the third, then I can deduce that the practice does work? Good Lord, I hope that's not the conclusion that I come to.

You know what part of this makes me think that this is just a complete waste of time? All of it, that is correct. But do you want to know specifically which part? It's where they explain "If most of the men in the study wash their genitals after sex, are willing to do so after the study ends, and report that their partners accept the regimen, the researchers will develop another study to see if the “penile cleansing procedure” actually works to prevent HIV infections." These are the kind of folks who just do not see the benefit in washing the wang after doing the ol' horizontal watusi. These are the kind of folks whose partners might be unaccepting of a dried-off dingus. What possible benefit were they offering these folks to participate in this study?

What is the water situation over there, anyway? I'm guessing that indoor plumbing is out for most of the folks that would be involved in this sort of practice, yes? How feasible is this anyway? I'm guessing not very. How feasible is it that the stimulus money that was spent on penis polishing practices did not stimulate the US economy? Again, I'm guessing not very. And how feasible is it that this could be justified by the weasel that got the money for this study? Judging from the fact that he did not answer the question (posed by CNS News), "The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?” I'm going to stick with my answer of 'not very'.

Too bad they couldn't have used this money to teach some of the People of Wal-Mart how to wash themselves. Or, at the very least, dress themselves. Now that would have been justifiable!

Sphere: Related Content

Perhaps A More Timely Messenger Next Time?

All right, I'm done. I have had enough of this enamorment that the White House seems to have with celebrities. I've also had enough of President Barry acting like a rock star as he climbs higher and higher up atop his homemade pedestal so that all of his loyal subjects may worship him appropriately. Or inappropriately. Whatever it is, I'm freaking sick of it. Oh, and I'm sick of G-D Ashton Kutcher, too.

Look, I'll give Ashton this much: He does seem to have somewhat of a following with those in the 25 and younger crowd. I think. And while being able to reach a specific audience of people is commendable and definitely desirable, is there a reason why President Barry feels that it should be Ashton Kutcher? Because while I like the idea of an individual being able to engage the masses, I'd prefer it if I actually had just the slightest notion that the person in that position actually knew what in the hell they were talking about and could present such viewpoints in a clear fashion.

Actually, in the case of Ashton Kutcher, I'd like it if he could present his viewpoint at all. I have NO idea if he knows his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to some of the country's more pressing issues. But yet he just continues to amass a bunch of sheeplike followers who will, in turn, continue to spread whatever message it is that he wants them to in a similar sanctimonious manner. Sure, that sounds like a great idea. Just blindly follow someone because they're "famous" and you won't go wrong! Good message to send. Yeah, that should help.

Tonight as I was perusing the Internet (that's right, for porn) I saw this headline over there at Politico.com: "New White House Messenger? Ashton Kutcher" Now, because of the question mark after 'Messenger', I initially thought that it was going to be about Ashton lobbying for himself for something, anything to do with President Barry and his staff of obedient minions. Turns out that the question mark should have been after "Kutcher" as that's how you end up saying the whole sentence after you've read that the White House tapped Ashton Kutcher to (wait for it) "...help get the word out about National HIV Testing Day." ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: What now?

Oh, yeah. I almost forgot. They wanted him to help get the word out....by using Twitter.

Wait. Twitter? Twitter?

Oh, my GOD!! We are freaking doomed!! WHAT?!?!!?

Correct. According to those Politico folks, on Sunday, June 28, Ashton tweeted: "I've been asked by the white house to twet this" and then he a link to a White House blog post which had a video mentioning the 14th commemoration of National HIV Testing Day. The Politico guys seemed to have the same thought that I had which was WTF? Seemingly aware of how much Ashton digs his own act, they checked to see if the White House had really stooped to a level that is unprecedented, if my recent memory of how Presidential administrations "get the word out". Turns out, sadly, they did.

Their answer was given by a one Reid Cherlin who is the White House assistant press secretary. He said, "As technology impacts how and where people are communicating online, we are constantly looking for new ways to engage with the public. Our efforts to promote National HIV Testing Day included participation from popular users of Twitter, as well as broad social media engagement by agencies across the government.” It's over. We're putting messages to be delivered via mass communication methods in the hands of Kelso.

Might I make the suggestion that if you're interested in ways to "engage with the public" you might want to try using someone other than a celebretard to do so. You're not so much "engaging" the public as you are trying to render them starstruck.

But wait! There's more! How effective is this strategy going to be? Hard to say. But I'll tell you this much: I think his "message" might have held a little more weight with those who are over 25 (and even with those who think that Ashton is a moron, and there's no age limit for that!) if he hadn't whored himself out as the White House messenger boy. Did he HAVE to mention that our Presidential Administration is so pathetic that they're calling him up and asking him to Twitter? A bunch of Twitiots are running the show. Great!

But you know what else? You know what I would have appreciated even more than that? I would have really, REALLY liked it if he had sent the tweet BEFORE National HIV Testing Day was OVER! Wait. What now?

Correct. National HIV Testing Day was June 27, 2009. According to Politico, he sent the tweet on Sunday which was the 28th. So.....I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of all of this. You're sending Ashton Kutcher as the messenger, but he's a day late. Is he playing the part of the village idiot as well? Seems to me it was more about show than about any sort of real investment in the promotion. Oooh!! But it was a 'celebrity' who brought the message twenty four hours late, so it's OK! He's famous! He was in the movie "Dude, Where's My Car?" I'm so glad that the White House has his cell number! Otherwise, how else would we the public have known that we totally MISSED National HIV Testing Day?!

If I never see or hear about Ashton Kutcher on my Internets ever again, it will be too soon. And if I ever see or hear about Ashton Kutcher "tweeting for Obama", I'm movin' to Canada, America's Hat.

Sphere: Related Content