Mayoral Sanctioned Squandering

Many, many idiotic notions have been gaining steam lately. There is just a large segment of society that has embraced the asinine and gone with it. One of the more notable segments would be all of the lawmakers in various cities around the country who have voted to boycott Arizona because of their implementation of an immigration enforcement law that almost exactly mirrors federal law (but differs because it isn't as strict as federal law). Morons.

Now, listen...the last time that I checked, the majority of individual cities and states across this great nation of ours have enough problems of their own. They really don't need to be spending a lot of time worrying about what other states and cities are doing. They certainly don't need to be wasting both time and money on what other states are doing. So why in the world the Sacramento City Council was wasting their time and money on deciding whether or not to boycott Arizona (in opposition of their perfectly legal immigration enforcement law) is completely beyond me. That is, it was completely beyond me until I heard Mayor Kevin Johnson explain the rationale behind the asshattery that seems to be going on.

I realize that I should be providing a link for the quote below. But I can't find it. I had to transcribe it from the Hour 4 segment of the Armstrong & Getty Show podcast from yesterday (somewhere right around the 20:00 mark). Usually they have links to these sort of things, but yesterday they didn't. It's there, though. I swear it's there. I wouldn't mislead you. Much. But today, not at all. Here is what the mayor of Sacramento had to say about the allegations that passing such sanctions against Arizona is squandering and wasting taxpayer dollars. I hope you're sitting down.

"I would say that for those of us who believe that we squandered and wasted taxpayer dollars, um, I believe a threat, um, you know, an unjust law anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. But we squander taxpayer dollars at a lot of council meetings by wasting time on issues that are city issues. So I'd like to see us be much more efficient on the way we conduct ourselves. Not just on non-city issues, but certainly within the city of Sacramento." Wuck?!

That's right. Don't worry about the taxpayer dollars that were squandered just on the Arizona immigration law boycott because they squander taxpayer dollars all the freaking time! No worries! It happens all the time! They are completely inefficient at making the best use of taxpayer dollars! This is nothing new! Don't get yourself all in a wad over this! No big deal. It's a very every day occurrence. ::: sigh ::: I want to stab myself.

Does he realize that he admitted that the Arizona boycott was a "non-city issue"? That it is an issue that doesn't have anything to do with the city? Thus, the city shouldn't be doing anything about the issue, let alone squandering taxpayer dollars?! When I can finally locate the clip so that I can link to it, you'll have to hear how he laughs when he makes that statement. He thinks it's pretty funny that they're all a bunch of inefficient losers. Nice. Just what Sacramento needs leading it into doom. A funny man mayor. Great. Let's see how this whole boycott thing works out for you, Sacramento. Actually, with a mayor with that sort of attitude, let's just see how everything else works out for you. Enjoy your squandering!

Extracurricular Activites of a UK Mayor

What in the world is wrong with some of you people? Seriously. It's a serious question. What is wrong with you? There is clearly something wrong with some of you, otherwise y'all wouldn't be pulling some of the stunts that you're pulling. I mean, I understand the need to get laid. (Believe me, I understand!) But I don't understand what you guys don't understand about going out and getting a hooker or a whore or something to accomplish that. And the part that I don't understand is why you don't do it if your other alternative to getting yourself off is to sneak into people's homes and relieve your sexual tensions on their undergarments. But that's only when you're not busy fulfilling your duties as mayor. Wait. As what now?

Correct. As mayor. It would seem that over there across the pond in Lancashire (that's in North West England) and according to the Lancashire Telegraph, "The mayor of a Lancashire village" was caught "sneaking into bedrooms to steal and violate women’s underwear". Really? As mayor? I hear of political sex scandals in this country every other day at least. Granted, Mayor isn't exactly Governor or Senator or anything like that, but I'm sure that there's still some scandal that's out there to be had that doesn't involve all of the stealing and certainly doesn't involve all of the violating. I'm sure of it.

But this guy, apparently, was not. Accoding to the article in the Lancashire Telegraph, "Church-going Ian Stafford, 59, was a highly respected member of the community and Mayor of Preesall, near Fleetwood, before his “bluntly revolting” behaviour was uncovered". I see. Was it really necessary to put in there that he was "church going"? I don't think that it was. But if it was, what was it supposed to accomplish? Is it supposed to make people hate him more or less? Because it really makes me hate him more. Much more. Pig. But I digress. What does this sort of individual look like, you may be wondering? He looks exactly like you're think he looks. Behold!

Seriously. Tell me that if you were just shown that picture and you knew nothing of that man's history and you were given a choice of whether he was a mayor, a handyman or an ejaculating underwear thief, which one would you choose? The EUT, of course you would!

But perhaps being mayor over there in Lancashire doesn't carry the same clout or, at the very least, the same paycheck that it does over here in the US because Stafford was described as "A part-time handyman and gardener" and "had been employed for years by some of his victims who trusted him with keys to their homes." See, I just can't picture a mayor in the States as being someone's gardener. I picture pretty, pretty Gavin Newsom (the gayest looking straight man I have ever seen), the mayor of San Francisco and I can't see him doing his own gardening, let alone someone else's. Thank God that I also can't picture him doing unspeakable acts in other women's underwear drawers, either.

The pervert (I don't have to use "alleged" because he was convicted) was caught in his own insidious acts when one of the homeowners who had been violated "became suspicious" (oh, do you think?!) and set up hidden cameras. That was when Pervert Stafford was observed to be "in the bedroom naked from the waste(sp) down acting out his fantasy". Eww. Eww. And EWWW!!!

The homeowner (likely after multiple vomiting sessions) then took the evidence (which contained 14 minutes of this guy doing his thing) to the police. When they searched Pervy McJacksalot's home "...officers found stolen underwear which were marked with the women’s names on them." Of course. Because he wouldn't want to get them confused or mixed up or anything. No, that would be weird. Whatever. Freak.

I think that my favorite part of this account is where the article describe that "After hobbling into court using a walking stick, past his victims in the public gallery, his jaw dropped as he was sent down by Judge Heather Lloyd, who told him his actions were “bluntly revolting”. Oh, spare me. A walking stick?! (That's cutesy English talk for "a cane", I have the feeling.) Did the pervert have his walking stick (not to be confused with "whacking his stick") with him when he was sneaking into women's bedrooms and getting friendly with their undergarments? I'm not thinking that he did! If only judges in the US would tell people like this that they and their actions are both "bluntly revolting". That's pretty awesome.

The judge further told the sicko "To masturbate into a woman’s underwear and place it back in the drawer, repeatedly, as seen in the DVD, as you have done in other homes is bluntly revolting and the impact on your victims is high.” Why yes! Yes, it is! It is in all cases! It's bluntly revolting with an extremely high impact! Two years in jail is what this guy got? Good! I hope that he experiences some of this bluntly revolting behavior from some of his fellow inmates whilst he's serving away his time.