Police Brutality - When is it Appropriate?

College students are known for being some of the most unpleasant, misinformed, unhygienic, and malnourished people in this magnificent country. It should come as no surprise then that they are also some of the most likely to find themselves on the business end of a healthy dose of Police Brutality. What is surprising is the inevitable confused, indignant, and hungover outcry that seeps and stumbles forth from the student population in response to Incidents like the one that occurred earlier this week in Florida. If, for whatever reason, you’ve managed to avoid this news (maybe you’re so loyal a reader as to only receive important news from the Gource) you can watch the incident yourself:



Let’s take a moment to examine the video, and to see what solid facts we can discern, as knowing one’s facts is the first step in making a decision about an issue.

Fact: the student in question is undeniably obnoxious, making outrageous claims relating to the “real” outcome of the 2004 election.
Fact: the student belabors the topic of disenfranchised black voters – a term that, in an ideal world, would be redundant.
Fact: the student speaks much too loudly – the purpose of a microphone is to eliminate the need for witless, inarticulate scum-people to shout their zygotic thoughts, though by their very nature microphones are dangerous in their ability to broadcast these thoughts to large groups of people.
Fact: the student acts in an unreasonable and disruptive manner after being confronted by the police. Freedom of expression is guaranteed under this country’s constitution, and I think it’s important to realize that tasering is a valid form of expression employed by cops to convey sentiments of frustration towards scrotum-faced rabble-rousers. Furthermore I do not want to hear any “if’s,” “and’s,” or “but’s” regarding the extent to which freedom of expression is guaranteed.

Finally, the most important fact: the student is unaware of how magnificently annoying his behavior is, and, as a result, why the police deemed his arrest a just course of action. The startling lack of sentience exhibited by the student leads me to question whether or not the being in question can truly be considered human on a metaphysical level. He might look and sound human(ish), but one of the qualifying factors of being admitted into our supreme species’ ranks is one’s ability to recognize that one exists and can interact with the environment. I’m not going to bore you with a bevy of dull, dry, and damning philosophical evidence capable of sentencing this shouting troublemaker to sub-human status beyond a shadow of a doubt, as any reasonable person has already reached the logical conclusion that the recipient of this Police Brutality is not, in fact, a person.

One might look at this viewpoint and try to argue that as a sub-person the student is not subject to the laws he allegedly broke. Incorrect. You don’t have to be human to disturb the peace – I’ve had numerous neighbors with numerous dogs that proved this fact on a nightly basis. However, I am fairly confident that one can’t reasonably get upset with officers of the law using non-lethal subduing force on any noisy elephant, cussing macaw, or dangerous echidna that happens to wander into a Q&A session with a former presidential candidate. This student is no different. Had animal control been around I’m sure they could have handled the situation with tranquilizers and net-launchers, but they weren’t, so instead of getting outraged at what hippies, coddling mothers, and weaklings would describe as “excessive force” the American people ought to be upset over the excessive restraint police showed by not simply dropping this vocalization-enabled-asshole with a noisy serving of .40 caliber “shut up” Justice.

Sally Field - What Does She Know About Anything?

Nothing. What do I know: That I should really just stop committing time to televised award shows, as my track record with these programs hasn’t been great. However, it’s too late to apply this lesson to the Emmys, since I already watched them. Maybe you’ve heard about the alleged controversy that’s risen out of the ashes of this hateful 8 hour stretch of TV. If not, I’ll briefly fill you in.

Sally Field, a woman best known for being famous over thirty years ago for reasons nobody can recall has a well-documented history of terrible acceptance speeches. Apparently she won an Emmy last night (don’t ask me what for, I was fairly engrossed in designing the handsome new logo you no doubt notice at the top of this page. However, as Sally Field began yammering into the microphone I was at once unable to ignore the Emmys. My inability to ignore her was influenced by two things: the idiocy of her words and the infuriating voice God cursed Sally Field with, a voice she used to say her idiotic words. Please endure the following video of the event:



Now, you no doubt know how I feel about fat people, ugly people, irrational people, precocious women, and liberals. How unfortunate for me (and you, and everyone we know) that Sally Field happens to be all five of these things? I’m almost tempted to be annoyed with the Fox Network for failing to provide viewers with an adequate warning about the presence of this troll. I guess, however, their correct decision to cut her off and censor her egregious use of the Lord’s name makes up for their lack of foresight.

The issue is not that celebrities frequently voice their misled, unfounded, and unreasonable opinions on politics (often in the form of poorly structured sentences and/or music), it’s that they continue to get away with it. I realize that there’s a sliver of a margin of a percentage of people who might, inexplicably, agree with Sally Field on the issue of war, but I also know that there is a strong, vocal, and properly hostile majority willing to speak out in favor of the Act. It’s this group’s failure to retaliate that I’m confused by. Why do soldiers, their mothers, and people capable of thought and violence let these Hollywood elitists speak to us this way as though we were helots? This absolutely will not stand, and so I demand you, dear readers, to punch a celebrity square in their face should you happen upon one on the street.

Hurricanes - Why are They Still an Issue?

As Summer slowly gives way to its more solemn, serious, and respectable follower Autumn, the meteorologists (or weather-diviners for you traditionalists out there) find themselves hard at work taking up precious space and time on television sets across this Country. It’s hurricane season, and the news will Not Shut Up about it.

This in itself is no surprise to me, or anyone with an appropriate knowledge about the Lord and His Plans for the weather’s yearly dance. What’s troubling is the fact that, as a technological society, we have yet to overcome these storms that cost taxpayers, and network news watchers, so much of what they find important. What’s most vexing about the world’s continuing hurricane problem is the fact that it could easily be solved, but pressure from the plywood and evacuation-route sign industries have kept this solution under wraps, in the same way that environmentalists and retards will argue that the fuel industry has fought electric vehicles. Except this time, it’s the truth, and not THC-induced lunacy. Since we here at the Gource (myself especially) are committed to solutions, I will explain how to fix hurricanes for the future, in hopes that this information will be adopted by The Powers That Be in order to keep my television free of unnecessary hurricane coverage.

First, some information about hurricanes: hurricanes are enormous, hulking, water slinging storms that live in the ocean and don’t bother anyone until they stumble into resort-filled third world countries, thus putting rich Americans at risk of getting rained on. Hurricanes are not the world’s smartest weather systems – essentially they head for warm waters whenever possible. Unfortunately for third world islands, the water surrounding their beggar-strewn shores are frequently warmer than the open ocean, thus making them a target for hurricanes. Now, we haven’t got the technology to destroy a hurricane that is already formed, nor can we prevent them from coming into being in the first place. All we can do at the current time is divert them into smaller, poorer, and beach-resort-less islands by heating up the water surrounding said islands with thermonuclear weaponry. With the cooperation of the National Weather Service and the United States Military we could obliterate the hurricane problem as well as the poor island-nation problem and the we-have-too-many-warheads problem all in one fell swoop.

There you have it America, you’re welcome. Again.

P.S.

Before I get two (thousand) emails about how upsetting the use of WMD's on tropical waters would be to the ecosystems of said waters let me remind you, the reader/possible outraged emailer, that fish, hydras, aquatic mammals, and mollusks are among the least remarkable and most endangered species on the planet. Instead of looking at my proposed solution as "environmentally disastrous" try thinking of it as "finishing what we started."

Senate Ethics Violators - Can't We Punish Them More Thoroughly?

Recently, as many of our more alert readers will have noticed, there has been a considerable dip in the rate at which Grimary Gource posts are published. This is because, as per usual, the Gource is designed by and large as a forum for complaint and criticism of the state of the world. Unfortunately (for you, the reader, not for we, the writers), we latched onto a politician whose opinions we can really enjoy, and as a result, our ire has rarely been lower.

In April or so, we semipermanently relocated to Idaho to diligently serve the interests of one Sen. Larry Craig. This was, of course, until recently, when it was reported by some low-grade scandal sheets that the once esteemed "Senasstor" was trying to engage in acts that are illegal outside the home, immoral in or out, and disgusting in theory and practice, with an undercover police officer. He has since resigned, pledging to spend more time with his wife and several mistresses.
This; as far as Guiles, Gade, Gunðer, Gephie, Galley and I are concerned; is not enough. We do not believe in "slap-on-the-wrist" punishments for offenders of crimes against the Lord and Science. The Republican Party is clearly too permissive of sexual deviants.
Over the years, many prominent members of Congress' Republican Party have been outed as homosexuals. They include Jon Hinson (R-MS), Robert Bauman (R-MD), Mark Foley (R-FL), Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Ed Schrock (R-VA), David Dreier (R-CA), and now Larry Craig (R-ID). Frankly, the ease with which Larry Craig came out disturbs us. With such a history of closeted "homosexuals" voting Against gays and For decency, one would think that the Republican Party would do more to root out these catastrophes before they happen. Clearly, whatever they're trying is not working. It is time to try a new approach.
In 2002, Larry Craig voted against the inclusion of sexual orientation as a criterion for what constitutes a hate crime. Bully for him. Frankly, the idea of a "hate" crime is ridiculous. Many crimes are committed out of love. But he ultimately disappointed. His outing as a gay person is actually a hate crime against heterosexual voters from Idaho (there are some). So, to discourage further pre-Exodus activity within our congress, The Grimary Gource urges any and all persons with the means to commit what will soon be called a hate "crime" against the disgraced Senator. Hurry, though, because time is running out. This bill may reach the President's desk (to be Justly Vetoed) within months.