so a mistrial was declared in a DUI case because of the News-Press and its pro-DUI pro-Peter Lance stance and now a possible drunk driver walks free?? ahh, let's wait until he kills someone..the judges need to stop recusing themselves, stop declaring mistrials and put a muzzle/GAG order on the News-Press and Lance until after the trials...Judge Eskin, stop being such a pussy!! Hannah Beth, talk to your husband!!
so I 'm waiting for Peter Lance's series that he promised on the Rant TV show..he's gonna go after all those cops "protecting" the DUI officer who arrested him....a quick psychological profile of Lance would be alcoholic and narcisisstic..it's all about him....
but I don't see a continuation of the series in the News-PRess, maybe they decided that trying a case on the front page was not exactly a bright idea
so I 'm waiting for Peter Lance's series that he promised on the Rant TV show..he's gonna go after all those cops "protecting" the DUI officer who arrested him....a quick psychological profile of Lance would be alcoholic and narcisisstic..it's all about him....but I don't see a continuation of the series in the News-PRess, maybe they decided that trying a case on the front page was not exactly a bright idea
but I do see a front page story by correspondent Michael Elseth....the headline reads: "Agencies follow basic rules in DUI stops..but many drivers don't know what they are required to do"...
this was a more tempered story and maybe the News-Press is backtracking its support for Lance... but duh..how about not drinking and driving for starters..
this was a more tempered story and maybe the News-Press is backtracking its support for Lance... but duh..how about not drinking and driving for starters..
now I know that some drinkers like to say it's legal to drink and drive in California, up to 0.08 blood alcohol..but if you stop and think about it, you see this is an excuse....the road is littered with people who have drunk and killed believing that one beer is no different than seven beers...but even one beer, one Coors or Bud, can mess with you motor skills....that's why you get pulled over, because you're weaving and slightly paranoid....then when you get roughed up by the cops, you start crying to Wendy...hey is it legal to drink and fly a helicopter?? there's lots of things that are legal in California..it's legal to hit yourself in the head with a hammer.... and here's some other things you can do in America:
It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile.
It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile.
There are currently no federal laws governing or restricting the ownership of flame-throwing devices. Some states have laws restricting possession of flamethrowers, with violations only considered to be misdemeanors, but 40 states have absolutely no laws whatsoever concerning flamethrowers. Only in America would a device capable of launching rivers of fire at people be less regulated than marijuana.
Salvia divinorum is a member of the Lamiaceae family, which makes it a cousin of the mint plant. When properly prepared, salvia can be smoked in order to bring on incredibly intense, at times paralyzing, hallucinations. Most salvia trips are short in duration, but very powerful and jarring. All side effects of salvia are gone within an hour, and it doesn't show up on standard drug tests.
Depending on the amount of smoke inhaled, users of salvia may experience hallucinations on par in intensity with those caused by drugs like LSD or DMT. Since most users lose consciousness and drift off into a world of fractal shapes and green women as soon as they hit the pipe, it has not gained much popularity as a 'party' drug.
speaking of cousins, it's legal have an incestuous marriage in Alabama...
we need a hanging Judge in Santa Barbara!!
6 comments:
Been dinnin' about five-time emmy award winning reporter Peter Lance and the News-press DUI mess and it occurred to me that the ONLY reason the News-Press ran this story is because it was by someone, a five-time emmy award winning friend of the news director, who was caught for DUI and who was going to do everything he could do to get off. There was no decision or motivation to look into rogue cops, per se, just a decision to run with a story by a hooked fish who was desperately trying to wriggle free. The series wasn't motivated by any lofty principle involving watchdog journalism. Then, after the fact, the mantra became: a rogue cop is worse than a drunk driver. The simple fact is this: if the person arrested was not a (five-time emmy award winning) friend of the news director, the piece would never have seen the light of day. Never mind the "disturbing allegations." They are a smokescreen. The whole series was motivated by an alleged (five-time emmy award winning) drunk driver who wanted to beat the rap ... and the news director obliged him ... but only because the (five-time emmy award winning) defendant/writer is a friend of the news director. That is an ethically bankrupt way of wielding the power of the press. The "disturbing allegations" against the officer are byproducts of an effort borne of the usual self-interested "journalism" practiced at the news-press in the mccaw era. Had a non-five-time emmy award winning friend/reporter with a dui allegation approached the news director with this story he or she would have been rebuffed, but not because the story lacked merit (which it lacks if for no other reason than its motivation), but because the writer was no five-time emmy award winning friend of said news director. If the story was legitimate, as much investigation would have gone into the credibility of the five-time emmy award winning suspect as went into the credibility of the arresting officer. So, in review, three things motivated this series: the desire on the part of a five-time emmy award winning suspect to uses his connection to the np news director to beat a DUI charge, a DUI attorney who has a clear financial motive in the case being decided in his client's favor, and a news director who wants to use his position to dole out favors to friends while claiming that doing so is in the public interest. The "disturbing allegations" are just byproducts of naked self-interest used to justify the series in the first place. The contention that this is watchdog journalism rings hollow. That's not watchdog journalism, it's propaganda. The "disturbing allegations" part is just a smokescreen for the ethically bankrupt motivations behind this latest, sorry episode in the paper's recent history.
so what you're saying is the watch dog has fleas..
more like ... mange.
Did you notice the several paragraphs about the robbery at Bank of Montecito failed to give the location? But then, Wendy does have a thing about addresses!
"We intend to write more about the scourge of child pornography and we intend to uncover and expose anyone, including any former or current employees of our paper, who traffics and delights in the sexual abuse of children. The story has just begun." -- Wendy McCaw, 2007
Back in summer 2006, some of the remaining editors handling the Old Spanish Days coverage for the News-Press were given an article to run in the paper. It had racist undertones and read like a comic's monologue at a whites-only nightclub. The editors decided to ignore it, hoping it would eventually fall through the cracks and be forgotten. It wasn't — it got shifted to the opinion pages. The author was Buddy Winston, a friend of Nipper's who used to write for the Jay Leno show. He eventually got his own column in the paper, called Words of Winston.
Post a Comment