I Long For Vigilante Justice

I am a huge proponent of about two percent vigilante justice. It's unfortunate that this can't actually be implemented into society as we know it because who is going to decide which two percent of things will qualify and be justified to be handled by a vigilante mob and/or individual? Personally, I think that I'd do a pretty good job at it. How about if I take a test run and you let me know how I did? OK, then. Let's see...scanning....looking....reading....oh. Wait. What's this? Ahhh. I think I have a winner! From the Sydney Morning Herald, we have "A former top South African rugby player has allegedly hacked three people to death in a revenge attack after his daughter was reportedly gang-raped and infected with HIV." Uh-huh. And?

Now, provided that the axe-wielding gentleman in question has the right people, I am perfectly OK with those actions. I would have no trouble what so ever with returning that man to live out the rest of his life amongst society. I wouldn't even care if he wanted to move in next door to me. Hell, I'd invite him to move into the neighborhood. That's someone you don't want to mess with. Screw an alarm system when your neighbor will go after evil-doers with an axe.

According to the article, the guy was thorough. "The three people were reportedly butchered with an axe last week. One person was decapitated and the head found in a dustbin nearly two kilometres away." See? He's not such a bad guy. He put the (alleged) rapist's severed dome in a garbage can so as not to deface a public venue. I'm against littering. And I'm still on this guy's side.

The guy was arrested and according to a one Lieutenant Colonel Vincent Mdunge (you can pronounce that however you'd like), "He is currently being detained in one of our police stations. We can't disclose where for security reasons." Hmm. Security reasons. As in...if people knew where this guy was there would be a non-stop parade for him in front of said police station? As in...if people knew where this guy was they would start committing their own crimes in the hopes that they'd be arrested and thrown in a cell with him so that they could shake his hand in person? I'm unclear as to the "security reasons" that they can't disclose the police station. Not that it matters to me. I, personally, don't care where he is being held. I just find it odd that they don't want to tell us.

But in my world, this guy wouldn't be in jail at all. I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing the people who raped your fourteen year old daughter and infected her with HIV. That falls directly within my two percent of vigilante justice guidelines. And if the guy were to be released today, I'd gladly contribute to a fund to buy him a new axe. What?! I'm sure he probably needs one. When you use the same axe to hack three rapists to death, I'm pretty sure that you're going to be in the market for a replacement. The old axe he can hang on his wall. Or outside of his home as a reminder to people what happens in the Two Percent Vigilante Justice World of my dreams.

Un-Beliebable

Is there any way that we could get away from asking questions of certain people who have no idea what they're talking about and have no business answering certain questions that they're asked? And by "certain people" I mean celebretards and Justin Bieber.

It was all I could do not to write about a press release that came out about a week ago, which started out: "REAL HOUSEWIVES STAR DANIELLE STAUB GIVES ADVICE TO EGYPT'S MUBARAK." Really? Who was asking? And who cared? And which of those two was the most dense intellectually? It had to have been a toss up. An excerpt: "Staub, who notoriously walked away from the show, was asked whether it was time for Mubarak to walk away as well...'If he feels in his heart that it's really time then, yeah, it is time," Staub stated." Kill me now. Don't delay! I'm standing by! But wait, before you do that? Could you tell me what's wrong with her face?

But I'm having a hard time not commenting on the Justin Bieber article in Rolling Stone. Again, why someone is asking these questions of ANY sixteen year old is beyond me, but asking them of Justin Bieber is simply stupefying. For instance, Bieber (who may or may not be a 30-year old lesbian impersonating a teenage boy) was apparently asked if he had any plans to become an American citizen. Thank God, he does not. He seems to be very fond of his homeland, America's Hat. But his reasons are...annoying at best. He 'jokes', "You guys are evil...Canada's the best country in the world...We go to the doctor and we don't need to worry about paying him, but here, your whole life, you're broke because of medical bills. My bodyguard's baby was premature, and now he has to pay for it. In Canada, if your baby's premature, he stays in the hospital as long as he needs to, and then you go home."

Are you kidding me?! His bodyguard has to PAY For his OWN BABY?!?! It's madness!! Hey, Bieber. He works for you, you little twit! If you're so big on your socialist system, what say, since you have WAY more money than your peon of a bodyguard, YOU pay for it?! And you DO pay for your doctor in Canada! It's just not directly! How do you think they get paid?! Where do you think that money comes from?! And there's a big freaking difference between your bodyguard having to pay for his own child and someone's premature baby getting to stay in the hospital as long as it needs to. Those two aren't the same thing. Is your bodyguard so idiotic that he didn't have insurance before deciding to have a baby? Pipe down, little lesbian.

The article continues to annoy me by apparently asking him "...what political party he'd support if he was old enough to vote." He responds with "I'm not sure about the parties...But whatever they have in Korea, that's bad." OK, so he's not going to join the...Korean...Party? What does that have to do with anything at all? Does he know that there is a North AND a South Korea? He makes it sound like he does not. But I guess it's good to know that he would be against doing things in Canada the way that they do things in at least one of the Koreas. (This guy still goes to school, right? Perhaps a little more focus on political parties around the globe is in order.)

And here's my favorite part. Here's where the interviewer asks a 16-year old boy about his opinion on, you guessed it, abortion. Listen, here's my opinion on asking people their opinion on abortion: It's pointless. No one is going to change anyone else's mind based on their opinion. It just doesn't happen. Once your opinion is formed, it's going to take something pretty major for you to go over to your perceived dark side. All asking for opinions on abortion ever does is start arguments. It's highly unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal in this country, so what's the point in arguing about it? I understand that some of you don't like it, but it's not going to change, so I suggest you get used to the fact that there are going to be some goings on in the world that you don't like.

But I digress. Back to Bieber. The article claims: "He does have a solid opinion on abortion." Oh, good! A solid opinion. Lay it on me. "I really don't believe in abortion...It's like killing a baby?" That's his solid opinion? One that ends with a question which inquires about the very issue being discussed? Let's see if we can narrow down the view of a 16-year old boy who may or may not be a lesbian. "How about in cases of rape?" Ohhhh! The devil's advocate clause that always comes out when people are against abortion. Let's see how he handles it! "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that." Sweet fancy Moses. Are you dry shaving me?

He thinks rape is "really sad"? Do you now? Really sad? Yeah, that's the very least of what rape is! But I'm going to overlook that simply because his claim that "everything happens for a reason" has be so infuriated that I can barely type. So if a woman gets raped by a schizophrenic scumbag dripping with syphilis and becomes impregnated with his demon child, you "don't see how that would be a reason"?! For reals?! Oh, how I only wish that I could say "Who asked you?", but I can't because some dimwit actually DID ask him! For the purpose of what I cannot imagine.

Why would you ask a 16-year old, let alone a 16-year old boy, about abortion in the first place? Unless...maybe he really is a 30-year old lesbian. Have you been to Lesbians Who Look Like Justin Bieber? If that website can teach us anything, it's that we really have no idea what he is. And I'm good with that. I don't need to know what he is anymore than I need to know what he thinks. If I never heard another word from or about Justin Bieber for the rest of my life it would be too soon. Because, you know, everything happens for a reason!

Bloodshot Mugshot

Lawrence Taylor was arrested and charged with rape today. I'm not making any guesses as to his guilt or his innocence, but when the mugshot looks like the one below, it ain't gonna be pretty. I'm just sayin'.

A Wife in Defense of a Rapist

If there was an award for the most delusional, out of touch with reality, human being on the planet, I'm pretty sure that Emmanuelle Seigner would be a hands down winner. Um, who?

Yeah, that's what I said when I heard the name, too. Emmanuelle Seigner would be the woman who is married to self-admitted child rapist Roman Polanski. Granted, you have to assume quite a bit of non-reality touchiness if you're going to consider marrying and then actually do marry Roman Polanski. That's a given. But for some reason, her comments about where his legal problems are at recently still astounds me.

According to the folks over there at ABC News, Ms. Seigner spoke with Elle magazine about her husband's recent re-incarceration. (For those of you late to the party here, Roman Polanski pled guilty in 1977 to unlawful intercourse with a minor, having plea bargained down from charges of rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor. These charges resulted from, according to testimony by the 13-year old victim, Polanski giving the victim champagne and a Quaalude and then, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop, performed intercourse (it's called rape), oral sex and sodomy upon her. She was thirteen. He was 44. Again, she was 13 and he was 44. Insert colorful adjective describing what kind of person does such a thing here.) What she told Elle was unbelievable. Then again, I find the fact that someone would actually marry a cretin like Roman Polanski unbelievable, so at least this broad is consistent.

This woman claims that "...she "understands perfectly" that women, particularly mothers, have been shocked by the 32-year-old charges." That sentence, in and of itself, is indication of quite the opposite of what she is saying. I don't know that you have to be a mother to be particularly appalled at the fact that a 44-year old man would rape a 13-year old girl as she begged him not to. No, I think you just have to be human to understand that it's a degree of sick and wrong that can't really be defined.

She continued with "But she added that at the time the crime took place, in the late 1970s, "people did not live and did not react in the same way. It was a time of craziness, the relationship to drugs wasn't the same, the relationship to sexual liberty and permissiveness neither. Today, public opinion has considerably evolved on the subjects." Oh, for the love of God. What?!

I'm pretty sure that the public opinion to a 44-year old man (have I mentioned that he was 44?) raping a 13-year old girl (have I mentioned that she was 13?) was pretty much the same in the 1970s as it is now. The only difference that I can see is that now people are more apt to use the colorful adjectives that come to mind when voicing their opinion on such a person, whereas in the 1970s they might have been more reserved in their choice of vocabulary. Either way, I'm pretty sure that acts of sodomy upon children have been frowned upon (to say the very least) in our society for quite some time...even as far back as the seventies! Good Lord, what is wrong with that woman?!

I have absolutely NO idea what in the world she could be talking about by the "relationship to sexual liberty and permissiveness". That was part of the problem. See, there wasn't permissiveness on the part of the 13-year old girl and that's why he raped her. Oh, he had to get her intoxicated with some champagne and drug her up with a Quaalude first, but there was a rape. Make no mistake about it.

The article states "Seigner said her husband of 25 years faced up to his responsibilities at the time. "My husband never believed he was above the law. The proof is that he pleaded guilty for having illegal sexual relations with an underage girl, that he got a prison sentence and that he served it," she said." Um...no he didn't. He didn't face up to squat. He was sentenced to jail for 90 days to be evaluated. (I could have evaluated him in an hour, but they wanted to take 90 days to figure out what a sick pervert a-hole this guy was.) He was in jail for 42 days and was supposed to show up for formal sentencing 3 days later. But your pussy of a husband was afraid that he wouldn't just get probation and was afraid that the judge was going to recommend a longer jail sentence. That's when he did all of the fleeing to France.

He didn't serve a sentence, you enabling twit! But regardless of that fact, let's just say that we believe you. Let's just say that you, Ms. Seigner, in all of your delusions, let's just assume that you are correct. If that's the case, then what's the problem with him coming back to the United States to straighten this thing out? If he has already served his prison time as you claim, then there should be no problem with him coming back and explaining that to the court, correct? Why is he fighting extradition from Switzerland?

Do you want to know why she was so surprised when they arrested her child-raping husband? She said, "....It seemed absurd to arrest him now, while we've been coming to Switzerland for 25 years and ... legally acquired a chalet three years ago." ::: blink:::: ::: blink ::::

You bought a chalet? You bought...a...chalet?! THAT is why you think it was absurd?! Because you bought a chalet?! Well, for God's sake! Do the courts know about the chalet?! I didn't know about the chalet! Why didn't you say so in the first place?! A chalet?! If I had known that, if I had known that you and your child-raping husband had bought a chalet, do you know what I would have thought? I would have thought that he's the same child rapist that he was before you bought the damned chalet and that he needs to come and finish standing accountable for his crimes. A chalet. God, that's weak.

You know, I suppose that it takes a certain kind of woman to be married to a guy who drugs and rapes a 13-year old when he's 44. You'd have to be the kind of woman who could justify in her own mind actually marrying someone like that. It would seem to me that Emmanuelle Seigner is exactly that woman. She's about as much in denial as someone can possibly be. This isn't about societal attitudes. This isn't about a changing of the times. This is about the rape of a 13-year old. There's not a lot of spin that you can put on something like that which will make people see it your way. There's not a lot of spin that you can put on something like that which will lessen the fact that is was a rape. And the more that you say, the more that you try to spin it, the more people will despise you and (if possible) the more people will despise your lowlife scumball of a husband. Please pipe down, stop talking and go back to your magical chalet which makes all of the wrongs of the world right again.