Where Reason And Intoxication Collide

Two news items I saw late last night both dealt with admitted rapists. One, in Massachusetts, a former high school teacher admitted raping a student, and was set free without having to serve a single day in prison. The other, in Vermont, I believe, is only serving 60 days.
I personally believe that in cases of rape and murder, there should be standard sentences handed down through the judicial system. Any crime of which you are found guilty of causing serious harm or death to another person should carry with it sentences untouchable by judicial discretion. Cases like the two I've listed above seem to be a disgusting trend lately in our courts.
So, what, if anything, can be done to ensure that those who cause harm to others are held accountable for their actions without a loophole setting them free or a good lawyer getting them miniscule sentences?

(I don't think these stories have been posted yet to the web, but were reported late last night on local and cable news outlets)

Why do grocery shoppers want a separate plastic bag for their bread? Bread already comes in its own fuckin' plastic bag.

For as long as I've given a damn about film, I've contended that the best westerns were made by Italian directors. I've never changed my opinion on that, but it had initially been based on A Fistful Of Dollars and its kin. I've since seen others such as Django that have really done nothing but validate my belief that spaghetti westerns are more stylish and violent than the John Wayne, do-gooder American westerns. I recently watched a documentary called Spaghetti West on IFC, which was insightful into the motivations behind these films. What infuriated me was that every time they covered a picture I hadn't yet seen, and I was intrigued, they gave away the fucking ending! At least five flicks covered in the documentary were spoiled because whoever directed the piece didn't see fit to mention that there may be spoilers lurking around. Something similar occurred when I read Great Expectations a few years back. It was a simple re-read for me, so I read the "new and improved" intro, which did guess what? Gave away all necessary plot points with no warning. For someone stumbling upon the book for the first time, they'd have a difficult time caring about the text if they knew what would happen. Dickens' dialogue and prose is definitely interesting enough to hold interest, but still, reading a book for the first time is great because you have no clue what's going to happen.
About three years ago, I also realized that Asian filmmakers were making much more effective horror films than Americans were. Takashi Miike's films (Audition, Ichii The Killer) understand that build up in horror cinema is probably it's greatest tool. A few weeks ago I saw Bravo' s 100 Scariest Movie Moments, which would be a good segway into some great foreign horror to someone who's never seen any. Another problem. After they show the scariest scenes from the movies, the actors who are doing the commentary give away endings and more defining moments, effectively ruining anyone's desire to see the movies. Audition is a great example. Audition builds itself up during the first hour or so as a dysfunctional love story. The last segment of the film is twisted, unnerving, and outta-fucking-sight. If you watched Bravo's doc, however, you'd already know the ending, which is the movie's biggest surprise.
What is the point of all this commentary giving away the art? Is it so these people can boast about how much they know regarding the subject matter?
My favorite horror flick is Suspiria, but I don't know how affected I'd be by it if I had known the ending beforehand.

The only time I ever use my military service in Iraq to argue a point is when it involves actors. I am a firm believer that everyone has a right to say whatever they please, no matter how inappropriate or how offensive it is perceived by other people. I haven't boycotted the products of every actor who has come out against the war. I haven't tossed out my Martin Scorsese DVDs. I haven't cracked my copy of Apocalypse Now in half because it stars Martin Sheen.
Well what, exactly, the fuck is my point?
I bring this up because there are two geniuses skulking around Hollywood who I will not support by paying to see their films: Tim Robbins and Sean Penn. I laugh when I hear anti-American rhetoric spewed from the likes of Julia Roberts and Harry Belafonte. I laugh because their personal reasons are unfounded, baseless. Some people argue the occupation of Iraq with zeal and logic that sounds educated, just not people ever nominated for Oscars. Tim Robbins and his mother/wife Susan Sarandon were banned from the Baseball Hall of Fame for their remarks. The most notable thing that Robbins said, the thing that affected me the most was that the U.S. military "lives too well". However broad that statement, there's no truth to it. In Iraq, my friends and I slept in sand, in military humvees, and bombed out houses. Say what you will about the necessity of our military, but it is effective, and service-members truly believe they fight for the individual rights of Americans the world over. Even when I'm not deployed, I live in a room no bigger than Motel 6's smallest room. I haven't "lived well" for five years. I don't complain (usually), I'm just illustrating a point. I have no problem with Americans with great personal wealth, good for them. But when one of them tells me I live too well, while they support government welfare, I have to throw the bullshit flag up. I'm just as outspoken as the next person when it comes to federal government, but the Hollywood talking heads are simply ridculous. Sean Penn is a known terrorist sympathizer, I don't need to mention what about that fact pisses me off. Are my sources good? Do I know for a fact these things are true? Of course I do, I don't march into a battle of wits unarmed. But my old dusty copy of Jacob's Ladder is in the garbage, as is my copy of Mystic River (directed by the sole Hollywood Libertarian, Clint Eastwood). All I can say in the end is that it's a Goddamn shame. I know this entry bounces everywhere, but I am drunk.
I wonder what sort of response I'd get if I went on television and said I thought Hollywood liberals live too well. I'd get a sea of dumbfounded faces and I'd likely get called a baby killer by Barbara Streisand.

Whenever I have several days off in a row, I like to brew some joe and read the news, and see how the federal government has decided to further fuck us up. Today looks to be a slow news day, save for the stall in the transit union negotiations. So I dug up this old gem that made me particularly mad from about seven days ago.

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20051215-112826-9119r.htm

The questions that flooded my head were so many, that I had to step outside and smoke. Of course smoking is bad for you, but those who smoke choose to do so. We are already used to laws that allow the government to dictate what we can and can't do to ourselves (except Roe V. Wade, a decision disguised as a woman's right to choose). Where are smokers and drinkers right to choose? It's legal to abort a child, but illegal to smoke around one. The woman in the article stated that she changed her smoking habits by smoking outside, where her children wouldn't be affected. No one's ever been able to find a documented case of someone contracting lung cancer from second hand smoke. Does that mean all those non smokers who beat their kids are better parents somehow because they have healthy lungs? This is just as bad as those deluded activists at TheTruth.com who claim people are suckered into smoking by the "evil cigarette corporation", rather than making the decision for themselves.

Supporter of a centralized state government. Would you use that sentence to describe a rebel? The Cuban Marxist (not even a citizen of Cuba at birth) has become some sort of symbol of youthful resistance in America. Rage Against The Machine started this whole ridiculous movement when they started equating their music with images of Guevara, who was an avid supporter of the hard-to-kill dictator Fidel Castro, and indeed, his bitch. There are several hypocrisies involved in this whole mess. First of all, Rage Against The Machine claimed to be against "evil corporations", signing with Sony, perhaps one of the world's largest corporations. Castro, once known to make citizens stand up for three hours during a baseball game while he gave a self-indulgent speech, will invoke a nasty grimace to anyone who hears his name. Meanwhile, though, Guevara, who enforced Castro's policies through guerilla warfare, is "cool" and a "rebel" and romanticized by films like "The Motorcycle Diaries", which paint him as a young freedom-oriented idealist. His picture on shirts is a disgusting display of ignorance and communist oppression. The main issue most of the time is that kids who buy his bullshit have no idea what he's about. Keep in mind, above all else, that this champion of human rights help put into place a state government that has executed tens of thousands of Cuban citizens that peacefully disagree with communism. A common billboard found in Cuba was one that translated in English means "We're doing well" next to Castro's profile.

What better news day to begin talking about one of the biggest detriments to the American working class-unions. Like Karl Marx, government unions claim to champion the working man, but fail miserably. Less than a week before Christmas, the New York Transit Worker's Union decided to strike because 6% of their wages, up from 2%, are to be taken for their pensions. These working class martyrs are inconveniencing thousands of non union workers in the midst of a blisteringly cold winter by refusing to run public transportation lines. Several N.Y. citizens, who don't have thirty dollars a day to spend on taxis, having already secured passage by train with payment. The major problem with unions is not their working class sensibilities, I don't think anyone has a problem there, but their readiness to use any new policy passed internally to stop working. You don't invoke much sympathy or gain many friends by being lazy, forcing schools and businesses to close, and being what becomes a practical pain in the ass. Certain bus drivers and train operators make upwards of 50,000 dollars a year in the Transit Union, receiving annual raises of between 3 and 4%. That's a lot to be guaranteed on a yearly basis. No other occupation makes that promise. Are there honorable union workers? Absolutely. Even the most staunch blue collar union workers have to follow suit and strike when their peers are angry about some silly little wage inconsistency or another. The idea of unions is rooted in socialist politics, which champion the idea of taxes. Why, then, do unions not strike over income taxes, withholding taxes, capital gains taxes, or any other little hidden tax the federal government has seen fit to steal from them? Simple, they accept tax policy as absolute, effectively making them ineffective anytime something happens to their paychecks they don't like. Why now? The existence of unions has cost us a hockey season and convenient travel for what used to be America's urban symbol of freedom.