What an amazingly topsy-turvy view:
Lindsay, Mar 19, 2008 (CNA).- The firing of a county library employee who disobeyed her supervisor in reporting to police a patron who was viewing child pornography has focused attention on permissive library “free speech” policies.
Brenda Biesterfeld, a librarian assistant in Lindsay, California, was ordered by her supervisor not to report a man who was looking at pictures of naked boys on the library’s public computer. She called police anyway. On the 39-year-old man’s next visit, police caught him allegedly viewing child pornography.
The man, Donny Lynn Chrisler, was arrested on March 4 on suspicion of violating child pornography and obscenity laws. Police say they found “kiddie porn” in Chrisler’s trailer home.
Biesterfeld said she had a hostile conversation with her supervisor, Judi Hill, after she ignored the supervisor’s orders and notified police. “She kind of threatened me,” Biesterfeld said. “She said I worked for the county, and when the county tells you to do something, you do what the county tells you. She said I had no loyalty to the county. I told her I was a mother and a citizen also, and not just a county employee.”
Biesterfeld was fired on March 6. A letter from Tulare County Librarian Brian Lewis said that probationary employees such as Biesterfeld can be terminated at any time if they don’t perform at a level “necessary for fully satisfactory performance in the employee’s position.”
However, a Lindsay city councilwoman said that six weeks before the firing, she was told that Biesterfeld was doing a great job.
On March 14, the Linsdsay City Council sent a letter to Tulare county supervisors complaining about Judi Hill’s “abrupt, demanding and demeaning” phone call to a police captain telling him to call off his pornography investigation because the city had “no business interfering” with library matters.
Do you want to know an indisputable and very obvious truth? The Minutemen who stood fast at Lexington and Concord; the boys in blue who won Gettysburg; the Doughboys who charged into the Argonne; the Marines who raised Old Glory on Iwo Jima…not a one of them fought for the right of creeps to view pornography. This is free speech:
Guy A: I think that taxes should be raised.
Guy B: I think tha taxes should be lowered.
Guy A: I say you’re a bloody fool for believing that.
Guy B: Well, so’s your old man.
Free speech is not and cannot ever be someone fondling himself while looking at dirty pictures - to say that it is a matter of free speech is to betray either an amazing ignorance of what freedom is, or an amazing cowardice afraid to stand up for what is right. But here we are - not only is this library (and many others around the nation; I’ve heard of this issue plenty of times - just not quite so starkly as this) allowing people to view pornography on public-owned computer (your tax dollars at work, boys and girls), but illegal pornography…and then getting mad when someone has the nerve to report a crime to the police.
We live in one utterly screwed up world, my friends - and the screwing up was uniformly and quite deliberately done by liberals…oh, sure; they didn’t mean it to come out this way, but any one with the sense God gave little, white mice could see where it would wind up…when you ease up on depravity all you get is more of it. Why? Because human beings are fallible - they will screw up, and the more you allow them to do so, the more they’ll do it. Life has rules not because someone arbitrarily is trying to stop fun from happening (though liberals are making a stab at that, too, with their asinine anti-smoking and anti-alchohol campaigns), but because people need rules to live in a civil society.
We’d better stop this pretty quick - the rot has gone far enough. A time when there is a dispute about whether a kiddie-porn consumer should be turned in to the police is a time when the final line has already been crossed, and if we don’t back up then things really will go to pieces.
Tags: morality, pornography, public libraries, public morality
March 20th, 2008
In re: the “lady” who wore a trampy outfit on the plane and now is doing a Playboy spread:
It never ceases to amaze me how some ‘modern’ women choose to ‘celebrate’ their femininity - by posing nude in the pages of Playboy magazine in desperate attempts to extend their 15 minutes of fame. The latest dingbat to bare all is Kyla Ebbert, the gal who was asked back in July by a Southwest Airlines flight attendant to ‘adjust’ her revealing attire - or leave the plane. What’s the title of the pictorial spread? “Legs in the Air.”
Oh my. How original (eye roll)…
…Seriously, what is wrong with people today? And why the hell would her boyfriend support her decision to do this? Wouldn’t a boyfriend who truly loved his significant other put his foot down over something like this? And before any uber-fems start screaming, yes, I know ultimately it’s the woman’s choice but I can tell you right now if I had a b/f, and he came over to the house and announced, “Honey, I’m going to pose in Playgirl. What do you think?” he’d get an earful, and if, in the end, he decided he was still going to go through with it, it’d be time to say adios.
There are some things that you just don’t do, and sharing your body with the world - whether it’s through pictures or sleeping around - is one of those things. This has nothing to do with prudishness and everything to do with possessing a strong sense of propriety, not to mention self-respect. Your body is your temple, and should be reserved only for the person you intend to marry or are married to.
Does all this mean ST would support a ban on smut mags? Of course not. We, thankfully, live in a free society, the Constitutional rights of which I fully support. Not only that, just because I don’t like something doesn’t mean I want to see it done away with. I’m just expressing my opposition to women who, in my view, take their freedom to express themselves to extremes. Who was it that said with freedom comes responsibility?
Now, for anyone who wants to take a stab at the good Sister: keep in mind that she’s exceptionally smart and drop-dead gorgeous. As Winston Churchill once observed, you can’t snub a beautiful woman - the snub recoils, and the woman remains beautiful.
Anyways, Sister is right - one of the things I find exceptionally tiresome is the old-fashioned, worn out notion that we need sexual liberation in order to get things right in our world. That if we would just be more free and open about our sexuality, we’d all be happier..I can’t imagine how we can get more open about it than we are now, but I can say that nothing has become more boring over the past half century than sex. Clue: when you do a thing a lot and talk about it a lot, you’ll swiftly run up against the dregs of it…such as some nitwit of a gal parlaying her horrid fashion sense into a nude spread for a magazine catering to foolish boys and dirty old men (and anyone who isn’t creeped out by Hefner these days is just plain weird, in my view).
What would have been avant garde here is if the woman had learned how to dress and started a campaign to de-ho the fashion sense of young women (and before you get started; yes, we need a campaign to de-gangsta the fashion sense of young men). That would have taken some intellect and some moral courage - dropping her drawers is something a trained monkey could do.
Tags: pornography, public morality
November 19th, 2007
We’re at it again:
NEW YORK (AP) — A candy bar, a wallet, even a pair of baggy pants can draw deadly police gunfire.
The killing of a hairbrush-brandishing teenager last week was the latest instance of police shootings in which officers reacted to what they erroneously feared was a weapon. It has revived debate over the use of force, perceptions of threats and police training.
“We have cases like that all over the country where it can be a wallet, a cell phone, a can of Coca-Cola and officers have fired the weapon,” said Scott Greenwood, a Cincinnati attorney who has worked on police use-of-force cases across the country and who is a general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.
“It does not necessarily mean it was excessive use of force,” he added. “However, those types of incidents do give rise to greater suspicion on the part of the public about how police use force and they call into question the training departments are using to train officers to perceive and respond to threats.”
The New York Police Department says the officers who fired 20 shots at 18-year-old Khiel Coppin on Nov. 12 were justified in their use of force. The mentally ill teenager approached officers outside his mother’s home with a black object in his hand - the hairbrush - and repeatedly ignored orders to stop.
The officers were responding to a 911 call in which Coppin could be heard in the background saying he had a gun. But in a second 911 call Coppin’s mother told the operator her son wasn’t armed, and after officers arrived she repeated that to them.
“Why did the police not heed the warnings … that her son was unarmed?” said Paul Wooten, the family’s attorney. “Why was it necessary for the overwhelming use of deadly force? Five police officers, 20 shots, eight hits. Is there no proportionality?”
In the news story, the mental illness the dead man suffers from is not defined. Other news stories I read indicate Coppin was supposed to be taking un-named anti-psychotic drugs, but still no definition that I can discover of his precise mental illness. I have found out that Coppin has a history of run-ins with law enforcement; various robberies and assaults for which he was arrested. This time, say the cops, when they were called - by Coppin’s mother - Coppin was challenging the cops to kill him; while doing this, Coppin brandished an object in his hands which turned out to have been a black hairbrush. It was night time when the incident occured.
So, what we’ve got is a young man with a record of violent crime threatening cops that he has a gun, at night, while brandishing a dark object. Naturally, ACLU types are calling for an investigation. Of what? Presumptively, given that Coppin is black, that he was shot by cops because of racism. We can expect, shortly, that Shaprton and Jackson will get out there and blow some smoke over the issue.
Nothing is more stupid in the issues of American law enforcement than the concept that black Americans get shot by cops because of racism. Certainly, there are racist cops out there - but why would a cop, or a group of cops, risk their careers and pensions (not to mention the risk of jail time), just because they had a racist feeling against black people? Suppose you were to find that each cop involved in this shooting was a card carrying member of the KKK - it would still be a complete absurdity to claim that Coppin was shot because he was black and/or because the cops are racist.
Coppin wasn’t shot because he’s black - he was shot because he was a violent man who refused to obey the orders of the police. And if he was mentally ill, then he was on the streets because many years ago, the ACLU types who are now asking questions about this case sued to allow insane people the right to refuse psychological care - in spite of what the left want you to believe, homelessness wasn’t created by Ronald Reagan, but was created when we emptied the lunatic asylums and made it very difficult for cops to arrest people for vagrancy. Put insane people on the streets and let them eventually start acting aggressively against the police and they will end up shot. Period.
If a police man orders me to halt, I halt. Once halted, I will treat the officer will all the respect due to his position as an officer of the law and his inherent dignity as a fellow human being (natually, I fully expect the officer to extend this to me). I won’t mouth off; I won’t use foul language; I sure as heck won’t get aggressive or attempt to resist the instructions of the officer. If I am being unjustly detained, I will obtain legal help and have the matter set right in a court of law, not in my acting like an ass out on the streets with an armed cop. Mr Coppin would be alive today if one of two things had happened:
1. If insane, had he been committed to a psychiatric hospital for treatment of his illness.
2. If not insane, had he simply obeyed the law and the dictates of common sense.
It isn’t the cops who shot him who need investigating, but those groups which prevent us from getting lunatics of the streets, and those influences in modern life which instruct a young man of unstable mental and moral character that its ok to argue with the man who has a gun pointed at you.
Tags: law enforcement, public morality
November 19th, 2007
