A man in Fredericksburg, Virginia was arrested and charged with two felonies for allegedly pointing his finger at some cops.  The cops say his finger was pointed “like a gun” toward them. The man denies that he did this.  The police say there are witnesses and that they will “see it taken care of in court.”   The man, David Loveless, now faces two counts of assault on a law enforcement officer by way of intimidation and two counts of obstruction of justice. Since I wasn’t there, I’m not sure whether it occurred or not.  But, I am sure that most people (especially judges) usually take the cops’ word on stories like this.

Personally, I don’t appreciate pointing.  It bothers me if someone points at me while they’re speaking.  It feels disrespectful and accusatory.  However, I’ve never called the police upon this happening, and I certainly don’t feel threatened for my life.  This is like the kid who was punished for eating his pizza into the shape of a gun.  Neither a pizza gun nor a pointed finger have the capability of inflicting bodily harm upon anyone.  They don’t deserve punishment, and certainly not felony charges.

Just another story from the home of the brave…where we can’t even stomach the possibility of someone making a gesture.

Readers of my book will be reminded that your yard sale is probably illegal.  As the weather here in the Midwest is heating up, I’m sure we’ll start seeing a few more illegal yard sales.  Actually, I see an illegal yard sale all the time.  There’s a guy who lives pretty close to me that sets up shop on most weekends in his yard. Of course, this is illegal since he is not allowed to have that many yard sales in a year.

Besides that, he is probably not checking the CPSC’s database of recalled items.  Unless he cross-checks everything on that database with the items he is selling, he is likely to be selling a recalled item, which is illegal to do.  In case you don’t think this is a big deal and that it is probably a remote possibility that he is selling a recalled item, I want to introduce you to some recently recalled items.

So far this month, 10 things have been recalled.  This is almost an item a day.  They are not necessarily seriously dangerous or faulty items, either.  Yesterday a play theater toy was recalled due to two reports of the toy falling over, only one of which resulted in minor injury (bruises).  If minor bruises are a reason for recall, we’d better recall my entire house as well as the great outdoors. I realize that this is probably done to avoid litigation, but we need to get a grip.  If basically safe items keep getting recalled, we’re likely to eventually encounter something similar to the wolf effect.

As a continuing segment on this blog, I plan to update you on recalls — not so that you can be paranoid and return all of your recalled items, but so that the regular person can become aware of how obsessed we are with safety and how absurd it is to think about crosschecking all of your items with the recall database.  I think I’ll do it at the end of every month.  This one example should hold you over until the end of March.

Back in January, I told you about a kid that was made to sit at the silent table for lunch after eating his cafeteria pizza into the shape of a gun.  After he ate his pizza into the shape of a gun, he began to play with it as if it was a gun and “threaten” other kids.  Of course, those “threats” couldn’t possibly constitute actual threats since he was just playing around with a piece of pizza.

Something happened in my house today that proves this point to me, and I thought it would serve as a nice example to show my readers.  At lunch, my son had a piece of colby cheese on his plate.  He was eating and playing around like he normally does when he showed me a piece of his cheese and said, “this cheese a bus, mommy.”  He was right.  It looked a lot like a bus.  He proceeded to drive this “bus” all over the table.  Before he consumed it, I took a picture.

The picture is included as the feature image on this post.

Now, my son is only 2.5 years old.  If he’s already doing this type of thing, I can only imagine that this is pretty normal for boys as they get even more imaginative.  It also reminded me of how innocent it is.  What if my son took his cheese bus and said he was going to “hit me” with it?  What if he tried to run me over?  I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t feel very threatened.  The boy with the pizza gun is no different.  I’m fairly certain that he was just playing around. But, we don’t live in the home of the brave anymore.

A parish councilman in Louisiana is seeking another ban in the “land of the free.”  His pet peeve annoyance?  Seeing people in their pajamas in public.  Add that to the growing list of things that people have gotten into trouble for in the 8 months that I’ve been documenting this phenomenon.  The proposed ban would cover anything that is sold in the sleepwear section of a store and carry community service as a punishment.

The councilman, Michael Williams, said that this idea came to him after he saw a group of young men in public wearing pajama pants and one of them accidentally revealed himself.  I guess he figures that, even though there are already laws against public exposure, the safe thing to do is to ban something.

It might annoy you that people wear pajamas in public, but let’s please remember that we’d all be in pretty bad shape if everything that annoyed someone was illegal.

A proposed law in Indiana would make it illegal to sing the national anthem incorrectly.  The lawmaker who is proposing this, Vaneta Becker, says she was motivated to do so after a complaint to her office of a parody version of the anthem was performed during a school program.  Even if it’s done in a joking manner, she doesn’t believe that our national anthem should be joked about. The law would apply to public schools, state universities, and private schools that receive any public funds (including vouchers).

Under this proposed bill, performers would have to sign a contract agreeing to abide by the standards.  The proposal also requires the schools holding the event to maintain a recording of the performance for two years so that they can be reviewed.

According to this article, the standards of acceptability would be set by the state Department of Education and the Commission for Higher Education.  Violators would be fined $25.

Other states already have similar laws in place.

Massachusetts and Michigan both prohibit using “The Star-Spangled Banner” as dance music, an exit march or as part of a musical medley. Both states also ban adding “embellishment or addition in the way of national or other melodies.” The law covers all public places, as well as theaters, movie theaters, restaurants and cafes.

In Michigan, where the law has been on the books since 1931, violators can be charged with a misdemeanor.

Florida law sets standards for the way people are supposed to act when the anthem is being performed.

Federal law also establishes a protocol for people listening to renditions of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which became the national anthem in 1931. People in the audience are to face the flag and place their right hand over their heart. Those wearing hats are to remove them and hold them over their hearts. If no flag is present, the audience is supposed to face the singer.

Those guidelines, however, do not specifically address melodic or lyrical improvisations.

First of all, I’d like to say that I just learned today that it is against federal law to not put your right hand over your heart while listening to The Star-Spangled Banner.

Regarding this proposed law in Indiana, I’d like to point out a few things that are annoying me about it.

• It’s vague.  The senator proposing it doesn’t propose any standards, but leaves that up to a couple of committees.  That’s kind of dangerous.  She might intend that it only cover people who make intentional changes, not those who can’t sing well.  But, we can’t read minds, and we would be put in a position to do that.  Besides that, the bill covers melodic changes, not just lyrical changes.  How on earth would we know whether someone deliberately changed the melody or if they got lost in the song?
• There’s no need for it.  There is no crisis in the butchering of the national anthem.  Sure, some of the improvisation renditions are annoying, but if all annoying things were illegal, we’d all be in trouble.
• It’s a waste of time and energy for the schools to bother with these contracts and recordings.  It might not be a huge deal, but it is just one more wasteful thing without good reason.
• It borders on violating free speech.  If someone changes the words to the national anthem in a parodied manner, they’re probably trying to make a point.  The expression of their views would be restricted.  I don’t think it is right and proper to do this with a huge, unsuspecting crowd, but this law would apply to all “performances” of the anthem, even in a school play or small program at the school.
• When I was young, the national anthem was sung at every sporting event at my school.  It was always lame when they couldn’t find anyone to sing it.  They ended up playing a tape of a recorded performance of it through the sound system.  It might have followed protocol, but it sure was boring.  I bet this will happen more often if this becomes law.  People might not want to sign a contract and do something that puts them in a position of possibly breaking the law and being further scrutinized.  And the school might not want to record all of the performances.  Instead, they could produce a CD for anyone who asks and say that this is all of their performances for the last two years.
• It is basically the result of one person whining about something that offended them.  Are we the home of the brave or not?

I’ve always been told that honesty is the best policy.  I agree with that, but this business about telling the “whole truth” might not be a part of my advice to you, especially in relationship to anyone in who is in an “authority” position over you.  Of course, if my kids are reading this some day, I expect the whole truth from you guys.  And, I promise to always use my brain when doling out punishments.

We are supposed to believe that if we send our kids to public schools, their brains will somehow be stimulated toward higher thinking, learning, and reasoning.  But, those in charge of the schools refuse to use any of those skills when issuing punishments to kids.  Just a few weeks ago, a student in Tennessee was punished for eating his pizza into the shape of a gun.  Today, I learned that a student in Georgia was given an in-school suspension for four days for accidentally bringing a small pocket knife to school and reporting it to his teacher.  I’m sure he thought that he wouldn’t get in trouble since he reported it before it was discovered.  That’s what we’re led to believe when we are told that “honesty is the best policy.”  But, the truth is that the knife probably never would have been discovered, and the boy shouldn’t have said anything.

Here is a quote from the article (emphasis added):

The Gwinnett School System insists their policy on weapons in school is not zero tolerance, yet a school spokesperson said any student found to have a weapon at school will face punishment even when a student self-reports accidently having that weapon.

“We can’t ignore the fact that there is a weapon on campus somewhere that someone can use,” said system spokesperson Jore Quintana. “This is obviously to keep the safety of our students in our schools.”

Jore Quintana should have realized that there wasn’t a weapon on campus that someone could use.  It was turned in.  Also, this has nothing to do with the safety of the other students since the weapon didn’t pose a threat to anyone.  So, what’s the real lesson here?  Keep your mouth shut because you get punished when you’re honest, and it’s best to be covert about things.

I have maintained for some time that part of the reason so many things are illegal and why the average citizen supports these laws is because, as a society, we are voyeuristic.  Let me give you an example.  The average person generally supports police stings to bust prostitutes and those that hire them because it makes for good television when an undercover cop gets involved.  We like to see the look on their faces when they are busted. We don’t stop to think about whether that law is just or whether it’s fair for the police to lie while regular citizens face huge penalties for lying to them — even if the “crime” they’re lying about isn’t considered a serious one.

These shows have been around for years.  If they were not supported by the general public, they wouldn’t be on television.  The police are always trying to make a good reputation for themselves in the community even if this requires a lot of PR work.  Obviously, they believe these shows are one example of them putting their best foot forward to catch the bad guys.

Voyeuristic shows like this tend to bring out the worst in humanity.  We are proud that we would never do something like that.  We take pleasure in another person’s pain.  We enjoy seeing them suffer through the ordeal.  We judge the criminal for being so immoral even though what we are doing is at least as bad…if not worse.

For these reasons, I avoid voyeuristic shows on principal.  This includes shows like Cheaters where no law is specifically being violated.  The show is set up to spy on people who are suspected of cheating on their significant others.  Besides the fact that it is probably staged, it is sick in the same way that the other shows are — it sets up a situation where we take pleasure in watching someone get in trouble.  As a society, if we enjoy watching people get in trouble, we will get to the point where we support every new law (as long as we don’t think it will affect us). 

Watching this kind of thing puts us in a position of looking down on someone else.  We put ourselves on a pedestal that we’re not the one getting busted.  We start to set up categories in our minds that people get filtered through.  With the number of laws on the books, we can do this for almost any scenario now.  We used to just have neighbors.  We didn’t know what their personal lives and habits were like unless or their interaction with law enforcement unless they murdered someone.  Now we have neighbors who cheat, neighbors who poach, neighbors who don’t file taxes, neighbors who fail to recycle their cat litter, neighbors who are registered sex offenders (sometimes for unjust reasons), neighbors who endanger animals, neighbors who smoke pot, etc.  We only have these categories for our neighbors because the laws exist.  And we generally take the side of the “authorities” because we are conditioned to trust them. 

All of this came up today because I read that Cheaters has opened an online store.  They now sell surveillance items for those people who suspect their lovers of cheating on them but are unable to get a spot on the show.  The interesting discussion on the referenced article is the fact that most of the items they sell may be illegal to use. 

Two people were recently kicked out of a mall in Mishawaka, Indiana after taking a picture of their grandson.  Now, I’m all for property rights.  If someone comes on my property and does something that I don’t want them to do, I surely have the right to ask them to leave.  But, the point in this case is that photography is becoming something that is looked upon with increasing suspicion. It is also increasingly dealt with by those in “authority.”  I see stories of this nature all the time.  Photography isn’t yet illegal, but it might as well be.

There was even a story recently about a man who faces time in prison for recording the police.
Please also see my aggregate list of illegal activities for the section on photography.

A Michigan couple has been cited for their Christmas display.  Last year, their decorations won Marquette Board of Light and Power’s Christmas decorations contest.  This year, their display may cost them dearly because they put up a small fence as part of the display.  They say it enhances their decorations serves to keep out people who would disturb the rest of the display.

They have to comply (take it down or move it back by five feet) by Monday or face a $50 per day fine.  Here is a quote from the article.  Afterwards, you will get a personal interpretation from myself:

We’re not trying to ruin his Christmas, but when someone reports a code violation to us, we can’t turn our heads and discriminate because Christmas is coming and you’re claiming it’s a Christmas decoration, city planner Dave Stensaas told the newspaper.

In other words:

Rules are rules and I don’t care what season of the year it is.  We couldn’t possibly use common sense in this case and make exceptions for certain times of the year when people put up temporary structures.  It wouldn’t generate much revenue if we waited until after the holidays to see if they are going to remove it or not. 

I hope to get some follow-up on this story after tomorrow.  I wonder if they will move the fence, take it down…or have a standoff with the city.  Stay tuned.

Why wasn’t planking around when I was growing up?  If you don’t know…

Planking is a nationwide craze that involves people posting photos or videos of themselves lying facedown, straight as a board, in unusual public places.

Now there’s a cause I can get behind!  It’s just random enough to be funny, it doesn’t take a lot of effort, and doesn’t really mean anything.  It’s harmless fun.  Now, it is harmless fun that is being squashed by law enforcement.

A young man in Manitowoc, Wisconsin was recently fined $303 for the charge of “disorderly conduct.”  The article never mentions anybody that he disturbed or any property that was harmed.  I think the city was just upset that he had the audacity to plank one of their squad cars.

The assistant city attorney said that lying on a squad car is “disruptive to the peace and good order of the community at large.”  However, nobody in the community seemed to mind…at least as far as I can tell.  She also said that his behavior tends to “cause or provoke disturbance.”  However, no disturbance was reported.  It sounds to me like they were just annoyed with him.  Personally, I don’t know how the judge managed to look at the picture evidence and not laugh the case out of court.