Ready, Aim, Fire! Finally.

In what appears to be quite possibly the lamest, last ditch effort to save oneself from having their death penalty carried out, a one Ronnie Lee Gardner has asked the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole for clemency. His rationale? Oh, he's sorry. And he's different. And he's changed. Oh, and he thinks that he has plans (that may or may not involve Oprah Winfrey) "...to develop 160 acres in northern Utah for an organic farm and residential program for children...so he can help troubled kids avoid the kind of problems that landed him on death row." Uh-huh. Wait. What?

Correct. Meet Ronnie Lee Gardner. Ronnie's name is all too familiar to Utahns. Gardner was in a courtroom about to be tried for one murder and in an escape attempt, ended up killing an attorney. Oh, whoops! Gardner received the death penalty back in, oh, 1985. That's right. 1985. 25 years ago. How, exactly, is that a "penalty"? Should it really take twenty five freaking years to off this guy? It's not like there's a lot to argue here. He killed both of them. It's completely obvious. He did it. He's guilty. Why has he not been dead for a long time at this point? Who knows? I don't get it.

And another thing that I don't get is his latest attempt to spare his own life. Mind you, when this guy was asked what method he would prefer his execution to be, when given the choice between lethal injection and firing squad, this nutjob chose the firing squad. His reasoning? He's been shot several times before. He knows what that feels like. He doesn't know what lethal injection feels like, so he figured that he'd just go with what he was familiar with. Being shot. If you're that familiar with being shot, I certainly hope that you're not surprised that your ass ended up on death row.

But in this latest stunt (which seems like it's probably more for his own amusement and a good way to pass the time), he's trying to convince folks that he's a changed guy. Now, never mind that he "...had long been a problem inmate – instigating a riot, stabbing another prisoner and attempting multiple escapes, one of which was successful." Sure, that happened. But that was in the past. It's not the past anymore. It's the present and he's sorry. He even explains those things, according to an article over there at The Huffington Post, by telling the Board, "I was a nasty little bugger, I admit to it...I'm not changing to save my life. I've changed because I needed to change." A nasty little bugger? Um, sir, when you kill a couple of people for no reason what so ever, you're a little bit more than "a nasty little bugger". No, you, sir, are an a-hole. That's a little different.

But he has a plan! Here's the deal: Commute his sentence and he, along with the help of his brother, will get to work "...on his idea for the "Back to Basics" program" because he "...wants to help prevent kids from traveling down a path to violence and criminal activity." Hmmm. I think that this idea might have been more well received had he not already murdered two people. Now maybe that's just me, but I don't think so. After all, he apparently contacted The Oprah a couple of years ago to see if she would help him get this off the ground. I'm guessing that she declined.

And he's clearly thought this through. See, "He said he's earned about $1,300 selling prison artwork and crafts – handmade baby booties and handkerchiefs – to start the project." Yeah, um, no. How is $1,300 going to develop "...160 acres in northern Utah for an organic farm and residential program"? Oh, that's right. It's not. It's not now. It never will. And how sweet that he earned his money by handmaking baby booties! Who in the world is buying prison made baby booties?! Have y'all never heard of Baby Gap?!

I find these last minute pleas for clemency to be insulting to the memories of those who died needlessly at the hands of people like Mr. Gardner. I find it insulting for the relatives of those who died. I find it insulting all the way around. I understand that this is the way that our system works and that it's what makes our system the greatest in the world, but when it comes to pieces of trash like Ronnie Lee Gardner, I kind of wish that there was some sort of an out clause in the system.

You don't want kids to grow up and turn out like you did, Mr. Gardner? Tell you what. How about you pipe down and let those fine marksmen over there at the prison shoot a bunch of holes in you until you're good and dead? And then after they've placed your body in a Hefty bag and set it by the curb (seems like a proper burial), how about then if we tell kids about how things ended up for you? That seems a little bit more reasonable than letting you live. Fortunately, the last time that a death sentence was commuted in Utah was in 1962. And if that sort of reason prevails here, that will continue to stand as the last commutation in Utah. Then they can get down to business and execute this "nasty little bugger". Finally.

Sphere: Related Content

Unnecessary, But Needed Policies

Today's story of stating the obvious via new rules and regulations comes to us from Utah and the Canyons School District where, according to the fine folks over there at the Salt Lake Tribune, the superintendent of said school district is "...considering drafting strict rules that should keep teachers from ever having inappropriate relationships with students." I don't know whether I should be beating my head against a wall because something like this should be unnecessary or if I should be beating my head against a wall because something like this IS necessary. Either way, I'm going to have a headache by the end of this post.

According to the superintendent, a one David Doty, "In order to really prevent [sexual relations between teachers and students] from happening, you've got to draw the line way back from physical contact, but draw the lines in a way that they're not so rigid that people feel like they can't have any kind of meaningful interaction with students." Now my question is "Don't we already have a line?" And if we don't, "What happened to that line?" But probably my most pressing question to that statement is, "Where are people getting confused?"

While I agree with the man that you've got to draw the line way back from physical contact, I think I don't believe his assertion that drawing those lines will "really prevent sexual relations between teachers and students from happening." I have yet to hear any of the teachers that are caught having "inappropriate relationships" with their students (Translation: Having sex with 14 & 15 year old boys.) say that they went ahead with all of the sex because there was no line. There is a line. There is a HUGE line. There always HAS been a line. But for some reason, it seems as if there is a more frequent occurrence of people not giving a fat rat's ass about the line and therefore jumping right on over the line and into bed with an adolescent male. (The adolescent male, by the way, is the one who cares the absolute least about the line. To him, having sex with his teacher is not crossing the line. In that example, the line is very far away. The line is so far away, the line is a dot to the 15 year old guy who is banging his teacher.)

Superintendent Doty continued with "Such cases [of sexual misconduct] are rare, but I feel very strongly that if there's one thing schools should have zero tolerance for, it is inappropriate physical and emotional relationships between students and teachers." Well, YES! In fact, if there's one thing EVERYONE should have zero tolerance for, it is inappropriate physical and emotional relationships between children and adults...PERIOD! And if they were as "rare" as he tries to make them sound, I don't know that he would be spending a whole lot of time on crafting new policy to address such an issue because they are...wait for it....rare, that is correct!

It's not like policies that define what a teacher's role should be and what activities a teacher should refrain from engaging in are new. "Many districts....have policies in place that prohibit teachers from giving rides to students, dining off-campus with students, or hosting activities in their home or off-campus without prior permission from the school principal." Um, hey. Wait a minute. "Hosting activities in their home"?? You know, I've taught classes before. Let me tell you, the last thing I would ever consider doing, not to mention want to do is to have my students in my freaking house! NO way! Never. Since when did that become an issue?? And what is with "Without prior permission from the school principal"?? I don't think there should be circumstances where a teacher is hosting some sort of a function for his or her students at their home ever, even with permission! You shouldn't be asking for permission because you shouldn't want to have your students at your home. They have their own homes! They can go there. (I can see that whatever policy he comes up with will be strong! Sure. It will solve everything! What could possibly go wrong?)

"Policies regarding gifts, e-mail, text messages and other electronic communication such as social profiles on the Internet, however, are new to most districts....At the same time, crafting policy should reflect technological innovation in communications. "You've got to look at personal e-mail, texts and MySpace communications with students." Again, why would a teacher want to do or participate in the majority of those? A teacher has a school email address and the students can email the teacher at that email address. (The cool thing about the Internet is that all of those tubes and pipes and things that connect it all together make it so you can check your email anywhere at anytime. How convenient!) I do not recall being in high school and having some pressing need to get in contact with one of my teachers immediately. (Well, not while I was in high school. After I was out? That's a story for a different day!) Why would a student and a teacher need to be texting? And if you're a teacher and you're leaving comments on your student's MySpace pages, you need to stop doing that. Now. And if you're not willing to stop doing that, you need to quit. Now.

But here is where things really start to get weird. A one Carol Lear, who is the director of law and legislation (in schools) for the State Office of Education, has said "...that while every Utah school district should review teacher-student conduct policies, many are problematic for schools where the teacher may live among students. Teacher proximity to students can be hard to control, let alone monitor." What the hell does that mean? "...the teacher may live among students"? Is this some sort of weird communal school? OK, granted, it is Utah. But I lived in Utah for 20 years and I don't recall any educational communes where the teachers and students mingled freely and lived amongst each other. Does she mean "in the same community"? Because if that is what she is referring to, I see no problem with that. Yes, teachers may live in the same city as their students! And you know what else? They may do so and NOT have sex with their students! Shocking, I know! And that woman is in charge of....stuff? That might not be the best idea. I see a hypervigilant policy being unveiled in the near future.

She also says that "Many ideas sound like really great absolutes, but they have to be looked at in the context of communities and the circumstances of where the teacher lives and works." Again, what? The context of where a teacher lives in proximity to where his or her students lives has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the teacher is able to maintain an appropriate relationship with his or her students. NOTHING. The key part of a teacher not having sex with a student is self control! Not proximity! Not community! Self control.

And this is the part of the article where I realized that my world and Carol Lear's world are two very different lands. She said, "Because their social circle is often limited to the students they teach, many teachers become close friends with some students, then become so comfortable around them they forget ethical boundaries." Um, since when? Since when is a teacher's social circle "often limited to the students they teach"? I saw none of my students at the bar I went to after work to drink my sorrows away. No students there. That circle was student-free! As was my home, my car, my friend's homes, and everywhere else that wasn't work. No students! (Thank God!)

"Unless they're always vigilant, it can happen. It's not always the case that these teachers are pedophiles or psychos. Many times it's the nature of schools, and the fact that you relate to the people you're with all the time." The people I am with all the time are adults! And even when you're teaching kids, if you would rather be with those kids than with adults that are your age, there is a problem and you should not be teaching. It is not the fault of the schools that inappropriate student-teacher relationships develop. It is the fault of the teacher. That's it. It doesn't go any further than that. (Can you really fault a teenage boy for having consensual sex with his hot, hot, Algebra teacher? No way. Can you fault a hot, hot Algebra teacher for having sex with a student currently in her class? (Just had to clarify that part there.) Yes, you can fault her for that. Again, she's the what? No, not the whore! She's the adult. The ADULT. What is wrong with people?

That last quote from the misguided state worker there makes it sound like it is sooooo difficult for a teacher to not have sex with a student. Me, personally, that was probably the easiest part of my job that was always, ALWAYS left unsaid. Do not have sex with the students. OK! No problem! And it wasn't!

She's right that they all may not be pedophiles or psychos. (I would hope that the number of teachers caught engaging in this sort of behavior would NOT be "psychos", as I would want to know exactly how it came to be that the "psycho" was hired to teach at that school in the first place. I prefer schools have a "psycho-free teacher" policy firmly in place at the beginning of each school year.) But she also seems to think that having regulations and rules and policies that are strongly worded and placed into State Office of Education policies will solve the problem. It's as if she envisions specific terms defining what an "inappropriate relationship" between a teacher and a student consists of (Here's a hint: If sex is involved, it's inappropriate.) and that will solve everything! (Does she really think that a teacher might think, "Wow. That student in my second period class is really, really cute! If only it weren't for those pesky rules and regulations over there in that big thick binder! I guess I'd better not do that because the rules say not to. Darn." I don't think that's going to happen. Ever!)

I think more than anything, I'm just sad that there needs to be a policy that specifically addresses appropriate boundaries between students and teachers because either the lines have become so blurred that teachers don't know where one role stops and where another one fails to start, or too many teachers just don't care about the lines at all. And if that's what needs to be done (mainly for legal reasons, as I don't see many practical ones for it), then I'm certainly not against it. But if anyone has ridiculous expectations that a "policy" is going to change the behavior of those who would otherwise have such behavior, well, those people are in for quite a shock when that doesn't happen. If a "policy" was an actual deterrent, wouldn't cities have less crime (as a city's "policies" of what to do and what not to do are otherwise known as "laws")? Of course. But things like "policies" only work to curb undesirable behaviors in those individuals who wouldn't have had the behavior in the first place. And if that's the case, I don't know that I can actually say that it "works" at all.

For God's sake, just don't sleep with you students!! Just don't!! I don't think that I need to go into much more detail as to WHY NOT! Just don't!! And stop it!! Now!! (And put that thing away, will you? Geez! God sees everything, you know?)

I was right. My head does hurt.

Sphere: Related Content

Lawsuit Legitimacy 101

Today's "I'm A Moron And I'm Going To Waste Everyone's Time By Filing A Ridiculous And Erroneous Lawsuit Just To See If I Can Get A Few Bucks Out Of Someone Because I Am A Sneaky Weasel" segment comes to us from West Valley City, Utah. For those of you unfamiliar with the little sections of Utah, allow me. West Valley isn't quite ghetto, but it's aspiring to be. That should paint a pretty picture for you.

According to the folks at the mediocre Salt Lake Tribune, a one Richard Cleaveland, an employee of Frito-Lay for approximately 10 years, filed a lawsuit against the tasty chip maker because he claims that he "faced discrimination after he complained about hauling Christmas trees, saying it made him uncomfortable because of his Jewish faith." Naturally, he is seeking a minimum of $100,000 in damages.

I'll get to other details in a second. But for right now, here's a question: Frito-Lay is in the Christmas Tree business? Since when? I don't recall seeing any crispy snack goodness tree lots during the holiday seasons come past. Is this new?

OK, back to the insanity. Are you freaking kidding me, dude? Apparently, he is not. Cleaveland, in addition to shoving that "a" into his name where it just doesn't look right, claims that he "...voiced his discomfort in December 2004 and was denied his religious accommodation request." Now, I'd be interested to know exactly HOW it is or was that hauling the trees, ie, driving a truck full of trees, being a truck tree driver, how THAT made him uncomfortable because he is Jewish? Good thing I asked because his lawyer, a one weaselly P. Corper James (Corper?) answered that question by saying "How hauling pine trees might be an affront to faith is less important than the retaliation that followed." Translation: He didn't give a fat rat's ass about hauling the trees, but the both of us might be able to make a quick buck off of this one.

According to the article, "The complaint alleges that since making his request, Cleaveland has been subjected to insults and jokes and "forced to observe other Christmas traditions." It says he's been slapped with worse shifts, faced disciplinary notice he'd never received before, denied jobs he'd gotten in the past and has faced difficulty in securing wages. All of this has amounted to "a hostile work environment," one that's reportedly harmed Cleaveland both emotionally and financially."

Well, of course he was subjected to "insults and jokes". That's what your co-workers DO when you make some pansy ass complaint with religion as it's weak, weak basis and expect to be taken seriously. Especially if you're not a particularly religious chap.

The weaselly attorney who is clearly perpetuating the filing of ridiculous lawsuits, tried to use Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explain to people (who have already figured out that the lawsuit is a racket, and not in a good way) why this is supposed to be important. He said that "An employee can make a religious accommodation request, and that employee is protected from any retaliatory conduct as a result of the request." Fair enough. But I'm still a little unclear on the part about how the $100,000 minimum is going to help "protect" him. Oh, that's right. It's not.

Now, even if I were to briefly consider his point of view (and I use the term "briefly" loosely, as it's really going to amount to a few seconds at best), I'd have to say that his argument is weak at best. Unless the "retaliatory conduct" is coming directly from the person to whom he made the request, then he's got nothing. But co-workers who find out that this guy's feelings got all hurt because he can't get out of tree hauling duty for the chip makers (I'm still perplexed as to the connection between Frito-Law and the Christmas tree commodity is) and then they start giving him a hard time, (perhaps by swiping his yarmulke every Friday) that's called normal or, at the very least, expected.

And when this shyster-y lawyer says that "HOW the pine tree hauling affected him isn't as important as the retaliation that followed", he's completely wrong on that one. The HOW is absolutely the most important part. If it's clear (which it seems to be to me) that moving around a bunch of trees had NO affect on this guy, then I see nothing out of the ordinary if his co-workers give him a hard time about it. In fact, I'd worry about the co-workers if they didn't give someone a hard time about trying to pull a stunt like this. Please.

I'd also like to know what he means by being "forced to observe other Christmas traditions". Like what? Like how? Oh, let me guess! They gave you the day off on Christmas?! WITH pay?! Those bastards!

Things like this greatly annoy me. It's a frivolous lawsuit at best and I, for one, will be shocked, just shocked if he wins. I can't imagine that he would. If people want to file lawsuits that are based on a technicality in a theory, they really need to look into finding a new hobby or something because they have way too much free time on their hands. And if they really want people to at least TRY to take them seriously (or at least, more seriously) they should really try not asking for any money in their suit. THAT'S when we'll know if they really feel like they're being screwed over. (You might notice that doesn't happen a whole heck of a lot. And what does that tell you?)

Sphere: Related Content

Google Trends April 29, 2008

Today's Google Hot Trends are odd. Especially the top 20. You know, for such a wide variety of search topics, presumably made by people who want to know more about said topic, we sure are a nation of idiots in a lot of ways. Go figure.

• #1 keoni kai lucas (Apparently the co-founder of the Puinsai Clothing Company. Yep, right up until his car collided with a tree in Santa Monica, CA on April 27, 2008.)
  
  
• #2 homophone (Seriously? Number TWO Hot Trend of the day? A homophone?)
  
  
• #4 hcg diet (Extreme calorie reduction along with injections of human chorionic gonadotrophic hormone, the hcg. Huh. I see.)
  
  
• #5 anwar (That's it. Just anwar. WTF?)
  
  
• #6 charles nelson riley (The gay Match Game guy? Again, WTF?)
  
  
• #8 butterfly with hiccups (No clue. Sounds too cutesy for me to even feign interest.)
  
  
• #14 def leopard (This one I can fathom. They were on 'Dancing With The Stars' tonight, which I cannot fathom. Clearly a new phenomenon to most doing the trendy searching as it is spelled Def Leppard.)
  
  
• #17 a full cup (Please don't ask of what? I don't know.)
  
  
• #42 synonym of too (At NUMBER FORTY TWO?!?! OF HOT TRENDS?!?!)
  
  
• #87 john daly shirtless (I've seen it. Trust me. It's not pretty. Avert your eyes. Never look directly at it.)
  
  
• #100 american idol april 29 (They did Neil Diamond songs. Paula thought they did more Neil Diamond songs than they actually did. Oh, like you're surprised?)
  

And as long as I'm on the subject of Hot Trends, here's something that you should really consider making a hot trend of your own. UtahFM.org. From the UtahFM.org website: The best programming in Utah comes from community-driven, independent and enthusiastic Utah Free Media (UtahFM). With over 30 years experience creating interesting and engaged content, UtahFM is uniquely positioned to provide high-quality, high-enjoyment content via the Internet. We are, and always have been, listener and volunteer driven, and aim to serve as the community's host radio station. Listen as the feed flows, or pick your favorite shows from our archive for an adventure of your own choosing.

Good music from good people. There's a link on the right under the 'Linkage' heading. (I'm sure that they'll be linking to me any moment now. I can feel it!)

Sphere: Related Content