So, you want to know what I think? I didn’t think so, but I am going to tell you anyway. This whole election thing is certainly interesting! First, the successes of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are not surprising. People are justifiably angry at the corrupt, rigged system and those two represent the possibility for real change. The label of ‘socialism’ aside, few people can say anything bad about the character of Sanders. Trump, on the other hand, while his message resonates, has some character issues which I believe disqualify him for any presidential consideration. Hillary, the same thing – I cannot vote for either. On the Democratic side, that leaves Sanders, whom I would be willing to take a chance on. On the Republican side, all the others default back to the rigged system.
So, sound like anyone we know? “A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, as indicated by five or more of the following: requires excessive admiration; a grandiose sense of self-importance; shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes; is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her; is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; is interpersonally exploitative, takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends; lacks empathy and is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others; has a sense of entitlement, unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations; believes that he or she is “special” and can only be understood by or should associate with other special or high-status people or institutions.” Yeah, I thought so too! You know, it also sounds a bit like Trump.
“Nostalgia” Taken Too Far? Retired engineer Harry Littlewood, 68, watching workers tear down outdated public housing in Stockport, England, recently, rushed over to ask the local Stockport Council about recovering a “souvenir” since the teardowns included his residence growing up. The council agreed, and Littlewood was awarded the toilet he had used as a boy. “I never thought I’d see it again,” he mused. He said he would probably turn it into a planter. [Manchester Evening News]
Last August, the independent Police Foundation declared it “excessive” that cops in Stockton, California, had fired 600 gunshots trying to apprehend robbers of a Bank of the West branc. None of the robbers was hit, but one hostage was — fatally, hit by 10 police bullets. According to the report, “a few” of the officers engaged in “sympathetic fire,” shooting merely because their colleagues were shooting (and since the sequence was chaotic, sympathetic fire occurred even though other colleagues were actually positioned in front of shooters). [Los Angeles Times]
“This may not seem like a good excuse, but have you ever wondered how many kids would be late — or miss school outright — if God were to suddenly appear?” asked Patrick Pipino in a note to his daughter’s teachers, explaining her tardiness to school. “It’s something like that.” And who is like unto the Lord? The Boss himself: Pipino had taken Isabelle, 12, along with her 7-year-old sister, Sarah, to hear Bruce Springsteen perform, “and darned if he didn’t play for three and a half hours.” The girls are huge Springsteen fans. But when it came to their father’s decision, his wife was not a fan: she teaches in the district. [ABC]
Shawna Cox, 59, was indicted with 15 others for the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney County, Ore. Cox filed a countersuit against the federal government, seeking “damages from the works of the devil in excess of $666,666,666,666.66 Six hundred sixty six billion, six hundred sixty six million, six hundred sixty six thousand, six hundred sixty six dollars and sixty six cents.” In the filing, Cox claims she “came to the assistance of economically vulnerable individuals who were being harassed, threatened, intimidated, persecuted and incarcerated by arrogant, narcissi [sic] Federal Government officials who have organized together to highjack [sic] and steal our Constitutional form of government from the people of the United States of America.” The lawsuit, however, was filed in criminal court, and the judge isn’t recognizing it because lawsuits are civil matters. [KOIN.com]
The ashes of a beloved Canadian biker were found on a local beach after repeated attempts to send them out to sea. Dave Watson told the CBC that he discovered a bottle containing the remains of Hugh Robert Nisbet known as “Biker Bob” on Clayoquot Island about a week after they had been cast into the Pacific Ocean for the second time. “I was coming down the beach on the ATV…noticed a bottle with a message in it, picked it up and realized it was Biker Bob,” Watson said. “I heard the story of him and just put two and two together. I thought it was pretty neat.” Nisbet’s widow, Maudine Previl, initially looked to honor her husband, who died in a motorcycle accident at age 71, by sending his ashes off to sea in November 2015. But her attempt was ultimately unsuccessful when Nisbet’s dog repeatedly brought the bottle back to shore. A few days later, 29-year-old Justin Bevis found the bottle on the beach. After reading a message inside that read “If you find me turn me loose,” he shared a ceremonial beer with the ashes before tossing the bottle back into the ocean. The bottle soon returned to the shores of Canada in late February, when a Caleb Harding and his girlfriend Bethany James discovered it on China Beach. “I would just like his friends or family to know that he is still on his journey, that he’s in good hands until we put him back in the ocean, and I just want them to know that he’s not caught up in some rocks somewhere that he’s still traveling, still seeing new things,” Harding said before sending the bottle back off to sea. Watson, a biker himself, said he plans to take the ashes out for a ride on his Harley and then make sure that Nisbet’s journey finally takes him outside Canada as the most recent carrier of Biker Bob’s legacy. “We’ll take him a mile offshore so he’ll be good and free then,” he said. “He could head far north. Maybe the next time he’s found is in Alaska.” [UPI]
Finally, New Hampshire state representatives are suggesting that society may collapse if lawmakers don’t make it illegal for women to expose their breasts in public. State Reps. Brian Gallagher and Peter Spanos, both Republicans, are co-sponsors of a bill that would slap women with a misdemeanor charges for showing their breasts and nipples with “reckless disregard” for those around them. At a public hearing, they warned that allowing women to go topless at beaches would quickly escalate, and they would soon be bare-chested at public libraries and Little League baseball games, The Associated Press reports. “It’s a shame that some folks are more concerned with exposing their breasts in public places than they are concerned about how families and children may be impacted by being forced to experience this evolving societal behavior,” Gallagher told a legislative committee, according to the AP. “This is about a movement to change the values of New Hampshire society.” Their bill — which has been contested for the past few months — is a response to the popular “Free the Nipple” social media campaign, which supports women’s freedom to bare their breasts in public. The issue of public nudity came to the fore in the state last year, when two Free the Nipple activists received citations for going topless on a beach in the town of Gilford, New Hampshire. Their case was dismissed earlier this month by a judge who said the town lacked the authority to punish the women, since there’s no anti-nudity law on the books in the state. It is currently legal for both men and women to be topless in public in New Hampshire. The proposed law would hand out misdemeanor charges for “indecent exposure” or “lewdness” to women who expose their breasts or nipples in public. Gallagher and Spanos both referenced the Gilford beach incident as something that concerned their constituents. Exposed nipples would also harm the state’s tourism industry, they argued. The proposed legislation has sparked criticism, probably not helped by comments from Republican state Rep. Josh Moore, who suggested that women who went partially nude in public should expect to be accosted. “If it’s a woman’s natural inclination to pull her nipple out in public and you support that,” Moore wrote in a Facebook post, “than you should have no problem with a mans inclantion [sic] to stare at it and grab it. After all… It’s ALL relative and natural, right?” After a public spat, the bill now includes an addendum granting an exemption to the law for women who are breastfeeding. Opponents of the bill say the law would create disparities between men and women. One New Hampshire resident told the AP the proposed law would be regressive and would take away rights women in the state already had. “We are not lunatics, we are not radical, we’re not looking to go to football games topless or libraries or school meetings,” Kari Stephens told the AP. “If there is a man in a public space who is obviously comfortable enough, then why should I not have that same right?” If the law passes, it’s expected to take effect at the beginning of next year. (Like poison ivy – you can look, but you’d better not touch!)