Happiness Workshops And A Radioactive Pedophile, Plus Spit

News of the Weird Daily
Friday, February 27, 2009

Court-ordered respect is still a buyer's market
Two Portland, Ore., women have decided that $50,000 each is fair compensation for being forced to show a cop their underwear during a traffic stop in 2006. The cop was convicted and has resigned, but do Portland taxpayers realize how many months strippers have to work, night after night, showing far more than their underwear, to make $50,000? (Also this week, Edith Freemon got a second life in her lawsuit against a Nashville restaurant that she knew, and maybe everyone in Nashville knew, specialized in customers' throwing peanut shells on the floor. Yes, Clumsy Edith fell down, and sued, and the state appeals judges said she is entitled to her day in court.) KATU-TV (Portland) /// The Tennessean
Comments 'buyers_market'

More Things to Worry About

Researchers from Germany's venerable Max Planck Institute conclude that regardless of where on Earth you live, the range of bacteria in your spit shows pretty much the same variations. Reuters via Yahoo

A judge warns cops to watch out when trying to apprehend that UK child pornography fugitive . . because he's radioactive! Daily Mail

Good news for U.S. trade balance: The Australian gov't spent about A$1m (US$640k) last month on sending a bunch of bureaucrats and teachers through "happiness workshops" run by U.S. feel-good guru Martin Seligman. The Australian

Copying the notorious al-Qaeda strategy of killing Muslims in pursuit of Islamic dominance, anti-U.S. protesters in central Sweden burned down three Swedish-owned stores. BBC News

A county court supervisor in Newnan, Ga., took on a second job last month after cost-of-living increases were eliminated, leaving him at $93k. (Bonus: He's manning the drive-thru window at Wendy's) (Seriously) Times-Herald (Newnan)

Comments on Things to Worry About?
Comments 'worry_090227'

People Whose Sex Lives Are Worse Than Yours
Oh, my, another phone freak: Some guy called a KFC in Manchester, N.H., said he was from corporate and needed 'em to check the fire extinguisher and that if they got their clothes wet, they needed to take them off right then because of the chemicals. WMUR news report: "The workers said they became suspicious when the caller then told them to urinate on each other." WMUR-TV
Comments 'manchester_kfc'

People Whose Sex Lives Are Worse Than Yours (Bonus)
And here's this Cincinnati morgue attendant again. Kenneth Douglas was the recent final solution to a convoluted murder case of 25 yrs ago [NOTW M073, 8-31-2008], in that it was his sperm inside the victim but only because he had sex with the body in the morgue after someone else had murdered her. Douglas is serving prison time as we speak, but now further DNA testing has shown that he got busy with at least two other corpses, and he has been charged again. Associated Press via WTOL-TV (Toledo)
Comments 'kenneth_douglas'

Your Daily Jury Duty
["In America, a person is presumed innocent until the mug shot is released"]
The backstory is just plain weird so Donna Greenwell and Brandy Romero could well be innocent. (Really, now, trade two kids for $175 cash and a cockatoo?) TheSmokingGun.com
Comments 'greenwell_romero'

Editor's Note
I inform you that MSNBC legal talking head Dan Abrams has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today making a point that Your Editor has made at various times over the years: "Presumption of innocense" is for jurors inside a courtroom; for everyone else, "presumption of innocence" is bullshit. If the pre-trial public evidence is solid, he's guilty (only exception: if the prosecutor out-and-out made up the evidence). If the accused had exculpatory evidence (and you know the drill, e,g,, Oh, I'm looking forward to the trial so I can present my evidence and clear my name), guess what, he has already presented it to several prosecutors and their bosses, to no avail. Prosecutors hate like hell to embarrass themselves and raaaaaaarely go to trial exposed like that. Thus . . guilty! If you look carefully at the public evidence, you have no business according any "presumption" of innocence. The guy's only chance is if his lawyer can out-worm the prosecutor or smarm the jury. If that works, the guy'll be declared "not [proven] guilty," and he'll be free to go on that charge. But he'll never be "innocent" . . because he did it. The evidence says so. Wall Street Journal
Comments 'presumption_innocence'

Today's Newsrangers: Ginger Katz, Sandy Pearlman, Hal Dunham, Scott Langill, Bill D'Archangelo

     Posted By: Chuck - Fri Feb 27, 2009

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.