Of Course That Happened!

I don't understand why some people feel the need to make stuff up to get all worked up about. There are plenty of things out there that are extremely irritating and bothersome. And they're not hard to find. It's not like you have to look for them or anything. They're right there. That's why I'm a little perplexed about the latest details coming out about the Amanda Knox ordeal/fiasco.

She still hasn't said much since she was released from an Italian prison where she spent the past four years for maybe/maybe not murdering (or at least taking some part in) her roommate. And really, what is there to say? ("Yeah, I was in jail. Yeah, it sucked. Oh, wait. You're not expecting me to tell you that I was really guilty now that they've let me go, are you? I didn't think so. So, we're right back to 'it sucked'.") And since there isn't a lot to say, the media is now taking what has been said and they are running with it as if she was in Abu Ghraib. Here's their latest over-compensation: Amanda Knox was sexually harassed in prison.

Um, OK. Harassed? That's it? In prison? Personally, I don't think that I'd be complaining if that's the worst thing that happened to me if I was in prison. (Why might I be in prison, you ponder? Come on. We all know that one day I'm going to twist off, probably when California is completely insolvent, and do something nutty. I don't know exactly what form my discourse will take, but it will likely be spectacular. And personally, I hope it involves fireworks. They're pretty. But I digress.) So...what? She had to put up with a bunch of "Hey, baby" and "Lookin' good"? In prison? I'm OK with that. No complaints here. Granted, she doesn't seem to be the one complaining. The media is falling all over itself trying to act like that was so outrageous that it happened. What's amazing is that more didn't happen to her. Seriously, have you seen her? She's kinda hot. Of course she was sexually harassed!

I'm curious as to why there is a different standard or why there was a different stance taken with Amanda Knox than there was with the three idiot hikers that got themselves arrested in Iran. In both instances, an American was jailed in a foreign land for a crime that they said that they did not commit. (Granted, Iran is run by a crazy man, but Silvio Berlusconi isn't exactly the epitome of leadership over there. He appears to be about as mobbed up (not to mention horny) as they come.) But with the idiot hikers (their new moniker), the money that needed to be forked over to pay their ransom was paid for by the United States (aka, you and me). Amanda Knox needed attorneys and legal assistance when she was imprisoned abroad, but you didn't see the country forking over the money for that. No, her family mortgaged their houses and forked over the cash that they raised. Why was it different? I don't get it.

But whatever the reason, I doubt that it will be any different the next time something like either one of the above scenarios happens again. In the meantime, I think that Amanda Knox is going to be just fine. I'm sure that she'll get over her "sexual harassment" she experienced in the Italian prison. Now if only the media could get over it just as easily, then we'd be in a lot better shape.

Sphere: Related Content

The Crucification of Common Sense

Do trends start here in America and are picked up by the folks over in Europe or do the trends start in Europe and are picked up by the folks over here in America? Either way, there's a scary one that has reared it's head and the outrage seems not as much as I would have expected. I don't know if it's due to complacency or idiocy, but I fear the latter.

According to our friends across the pond at The Telegraph "....seven judges in Strasbourg said the display of Christian crosses, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be "disturbing" for children from other faiths." Wait. What now?

Correct. Apparently, Italian schools frequently have some sort of crucifix hanging somewhere in the classroom. So how distracting are these crucifixes? (Or is it crucifii?) From what I can tell, these crucifixes are not life sized replicas of the one in which Jesus (allegedly) used. No, they seem to be small and able to be affixed to the walls of said classrooms. They don't seem to light up, be aflame, make noise or do anything other than simply hang there. Hmmm. It seems odd that this would be a problem, doesn't it? When you learn how this idiotic case came to be in front of the seven judges of the apocalypse, it's really not so odd at all.

See, this is the result of a lawsuit that was brought about by an atheist woman, a one Soile Lautsi, "...who complained that her children had to attend a state school in northern Italy which had crucifixes in every classroom." Um, I don't think they did. They had to attend a state school which had crucifixes (I guess crucifii is out!) in every classroom? Let's think about this for just a moment, shall we?

Let's assume that the entire school is just riddled with crucifixes. That would seem to indicate that the school has a certain way of thinking about things. They're big on the crucifix! The entire school would join the crucifix's Fan Page on Facebook if there was one. (Please don't tell me if there is. I just cannot handle any more weirdness.) I don't know if she should be so concerned about the crucifix being in the classroom if it's put there out of a belief in Jesus Christ dying upon that symbol as a way to save the rest of us from out sins. Thus, why is this about the symbol and not about the ideology? Because this pain in the ass woman is an atheist, that's why.

In defense of atheists that I know, y'all are wonderful people. Y'all are brilliant people! I have no problem with your beliefs. But can I ask if there's anything that you can do to reel in people like the cuckoo bird that created the swirling maelstrom of s***? Anything? Because it's people like her who really give all atheists a bad name. (Actually, it's people like her who give all human beings a bad name, but I digress.)

If this woman doesn't want her children attending the school with all of the crucifixes in it, what say she put her children in a different school? What say she home school them? Now, I realize that by her home schooling them, they're likely to turn out just as nutso as she is and that would be unfortunate. I get that. But I am SO over having everything being altered because ONE person claims to be offended.

According to the P.O.S. ruling, "The presence of the crucifix could be ... disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities." Wait. What? "Could be"?? Could? Do they mean "might"? Might? As in "Monkeys might fly out of my arse." (They're not gonna, but they might!) THAT kind of "might"? Lots of things might happen. Does that mean that we need to start changing everything that everyone (sans one moron) is perfectly OK with? I don't think it does! Then again, I'm not some 200 year old judge in Italy, apparently.

Lady, I've got news for you. Your kids are going to need to learn to ignore more outside influences in their life than simply a damn crucifix hanging on a wall. I love it when these rulings come out and they are always, without a doubt, always totally vague on HOW the disturbance might occur. And in the case of the atheist versus the crucifix, I don't see how the disturbance could occur. See, the crucifix is a religious symbol that is rooted in the belief in God. If you don't believe in God, the crucifix means nothing. How can you be offended by something that means nothing to you that you don't believe in? Are they also offended by pictures of ghosts and goblins at Halloween? Those don't exist, yet I'm sure that there are representations of those displayed prominently during the Halloween season. How are ghosts and goblins any different than a crucifix when it comes to being an atheist? I don't see that there is a difference. All I see is that this woman is still a pain in the ass.

I don't understand why her relocating to someplace that was more accommodating to her belief system was not an option. Oh, wait. She did relocate. She is Finnish and possesses Italian citizenship! Was she unaware of the overly Catholic influence throughout Italy when she moved there?! I find that hard to believe and yet she moved there anyway. It must not have bothered her enough to go there on purpose. To live! And wait a minute! The Finnish flag is just a sideways crucifix (minus the dead Jesus, of course)! Has she sued Finland as well?! It might offend someone that it's a sideways crucifix! (It probably would offend someone to know that Jesus was missing as well!)

I also don't understand why things that "might" happen are supposed to dictate our actions. And finally, I really don't understand exactly what in the hell would happen to her kids if they had to continue to go to school with a crucifix hanging on the wall. It's not like they're making them carry some 10-foot wooden crucifix across the playground every day at recess (though I personally would have rather done that than had to endure another game of Dodge Ball). Good luck, Italy! You're going to need it! (But quick! Someone put that Jesus bobblehead doll on the bus!)

(Side note: I'd like to thank my friend Patty for bringing this lunacy to my attention. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a wall that I need to go finish banging my head against.)

Sphere: Related Content

There Will Be None Of That In Italy

Apparently they've gone a little bit law-crazy over there in Italy. Or so say folks I've never heard of over there at the International Herald Tribune. (It's the global edition of the New York Times, don't you know.) According to those guys, there have been several instances this year of "quirky municipal rules concocted by overzealous mayors in the interest of their constituents." Ah, yes. The old "in the interest of their constituents" excuse. That's political talk for "You're to dumb to know any better, so we're going to make all of your decisions for you. Once again, it's only because you're too stupid to do it yourself." There's a lot of that going on in the US right now. Too many cities enacting laws that are for the "good of the people". (Ridiculous Example One: San Francisco passing a law that bans pharmacies from selling cigarettes. because "A pharmacy is a place you should go to get better, not to get cancer." Are they going to ban other things that are bad for you from being sold in a pharmacy? No, of course not. Is anyone forcing you to buy the cigarettes in the pharmacy? No, of course not. Are you going to buy them somewhere else if you want them? Of course you are. What good does this do? None.) Here's the thing about the "good of the people": Those who can figure it out, will get "the good". Those who can't, won't. It's SO much easier that way.

But back to Italy where they have completely lost their minds. "In the Amalfi Coast town of Positano, fireworks have been forbidden except on Saturdays between 8:30 p.m. and 11 p.m. Fireworks can "alter an animal's psycho-physical state," prompting "panic attacks" or "aggressive behavior," according to one rationale listed in the ordinance." Um, OK. But between 8:30pm and 11:00pm on Saturdays, the fireworks do NOT do all of those things to an animal? See, I should have paid more attention during Physics class. Who knew? And is it some tradition or social norm in Italy that I am unaware of where fireworks are set off all the time, every day/night? Why are fireworks so rampant in Italy? Why isn't once a year good enough for these people? It works for us! (Then again, we're too stupid to regulate ourselves, so once a year is probably for our own good.)

"In Forte dei Marmi, Tuscany, lawn mowers and electric hedge clippers must be silent on weekends." I'm not sure if that means that you can't use your mowers and hedge clippers on the weekends or that if you do they have to be silent. I've never seen or heard a silent lawn mower, but I'd like clarification anyway. You know, just to be as big of a pain in the ass and these new laws are going to be. What else?

"In Novara, Piedmont, the mayor banned groups of three or more people from meeting in some public parks between 11:30 p.m. and 6 a.m." Is that a problem in Italy? Informal, middle of the night, park meetings? Are there throngs of park meeters causing havoc in Novara? But, of course, it's not uniform, so some parks = BAD and some parks = OK. And two people = GOOD, but three people = BAD. Oh, sure. Perfectly sensical. And it gets even more so.

Clogs (Yes, the controversial wooden shoe that has no place in any sort of modern day footwear practice. It needs to stay in the past and in children's story books involving Dutch children. Who in the hell wears a wooden shoe and for what purpose? If you're in Italy and you're wearing a clog, you have strayed far, far from your windmill and need to find a map. And while you're at it, put on some real shoes!) have been outlawed on the streets of Capri since1960. And in 2004, sand castles, yes, castles made of sand, were decreed "potentially dangerous to beachgoers in Eraclea, a resort on the Adriatic" Wait. What? Potentially dangerous? How? Ready for this? Because they "obstruct the passage along the beach". The beach? Otherwise known as the freaking coastline? How big were these sand castles that people were making over there and who was making them? So because the people there are so dumb as to not have the mental capacity to figure out how to go around a seemingly obstructive sand castle, they just banned the making of castles out of sand all together. Brilliant. That will help. No one.

Over in Astia, they have started patrolling the beaches with helicopters in order to....that's right! To hunt down "the vendors of counterfeit designer bags." Oh, for crying out loud, what the HELL, Italy?! What the HELL?! I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't think that all of the bag counterfeiters should just walk around the beaches unpunished, but ARE they? I mean, seriously, are your beaches just so infested with counterfeit designer handbags that the only solution to the problem is to call in the aerial reinforcements? That just seems a bit extreme (not to mention really freaking weird!). And do you really need freaking helicopters to monitor this apparently widespread and seedy practice? I don't think you do. And that's just one of the ways to illustrate how different we are. There are others. Good God, there are many, many others. What is wrong with you people?! Do you not see the insanity you are perpetuating? Apparently not. :::sigh::::

So if you find yourself still wanting to visit Italy in the near future and before they've come to their senses, be prepared to have more rules than you did when you were in high school. And if you're not sure if what you want to do is allowed, you're going to have to decide if what you want to do would be considered "fun". If it is, don't do it. Italy clearly has imposed a ban on fun (as well as normalcy) and I'm sure that it's inevitable that they will short invoke a war against Christmas. Stay tuned, won't ye?

Sphere: Related Content