Thursday, March 30, 2023
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
Thursday, March 23, 2023
the secret covenant of your owners
Wednesday, March 22, 2023
Friday, March 17, 2023
PROTHINK
Thursday, March 16, 2023
crowbar building the mountain
Wednesday, March 15, 2023
HOME IMPROVEMENT
story of my life
I strum my guitar and I sing an outlaw love song
Thinkin' 'bout what you're doin' now
And when you're comin' back
Life goes by so fast
You only want to do what you think is right
Close your eyes and then it's past
Story of my life
Story of my life
Story of my life
Story of my life, la la la la
Story of my life
The story of my life
woodlake
story of my life
Not at all. I still have friends online but it's pretty much my immediate family that I associate with nowadays. I'm trying to get a part time job ▶️ right now. I hang out with sister, brother in law Johnny G (her husband) and her 3 Mexican daughters which are all sisters that she adopted a few years ago when their mother died from an overdose. Anyways they live 2 blocks away and come over here (my parents 🏠 house on 🎍 pine street, where they have been since 1998) at least every Sunday for lunch/supper. I live in the 2 newer basements. There are four basements. This house started as a little hunting shack and they kept building on to it. Josh and Crystal Ewald lived HERE before my parents moved in 1998. I lived at Paul Mehns house 🏠 2011 Indiana Ave in Sheboygan both upstairs and downstairs. Then I lost my 5 year job at MUTH 🪞 MIRRORS. I moved into my sister's basement on south 8th Street back then kiddy corner from PETEKS tavern and not far from Bills corner cafe. I ended up falling in love with this girl named APRIL Johnson. We moved into 🔥 fireside apartments over on south 13th in Sheboygan. I got a job at sargento cheese 🧀 in Plymouth working 3rd shift but I failed a drug test for marijuana on APRIL fool's day after working there for over a year, we were living in Cascade at the time. Had 2 girls and she got mean without the weed I became a DRUNK. She left me. We finally got divorced in 2013. My life was pretty much a depressing hell after that. I was pretty much just in my room all the time drinking and playing PS5, got FAT hated myself, ended up losing my mind and going to Winnebago asylum 3x, got multiple duis/owis, I would brake phones and computers left and right. Started stabbing everything with KNIVES until my last incident which I had stayed up all night drinking top shelf whiskey. The next morning I go outside and spray painted an anarchy logo on my/dad's red ranger. We both start arguing, I end up going for the biggest 🗡️🔪 KNIFE I had which was this massive over sized pocket 🗡️ knife, I chase him into his bedroom and he shuts the 🚪 door which I stab. And then I immediately realize what I had done. I walked outside and screamed at the top of my 🫁 lungs. Started crying and waited for the cops to take me away. It took me nearly killing my father to find sobriety and that's why I never want to 🍷🍻 drink again ever.
sUM 41 PIECES
But nothing was worth it
I don't believe it makes me real
I thought it'd be easy
But no one believes me
I meant all the things I said
If you believe it's in my soul
I'd say all the words that I know
Just to see if it would show
That I'm trying to let you know
That I'm better off on my own
This place is so empty
My thoughts are so tempting
I don't know how it got so bad
Sometimes it's so crazy
That nothing can save me
But it's the only thing that I have
If you believe it's in my soul
I'd say all the words that I know
Just to see if it would show
That I'm trying to let you know
That I'm better off on my own
On my own
I tried to be perfect
It just wasn't worth it
Nothing could ever be so wrong
It's hard to believe me
It never gets easy
I guess I knew that all along
If you believe it's in my soul
I'd say all the words that I know
Just to see if it would show
That I'm trying to let you know
That I'm better off on my own
🦃 TURKEYS
knife 🔪🗡️ party
weed
Rin tin tin
arresting ppl Jan 6th
June Spurrows
boner
window bird feeder
YOU KNOW YOU ARE A REAL PUNK WHEN
ghost vegan protein powder
Tuesday, March 14, 2023
GARBAGE CAN
double nickels on the dime
BOMG HITS FOR JESUS FIRST AMENDMENT
One of the most hotly-discussed cases of this Supreme Court Term was Morse v. Frederick, better known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case. The case arose when high school principal Deborah Morse confiscated a banner bearing that slogan from senior Joseph Frederick. Frederick had displayed the banner at a corporate-sponsored Olympic-torch-passing rally on a town street, which his class had been let out of school to attend.
On June 25, a 5-4 majority of the Court held that Principal Morse's action, and Frederick's subsequent suspension, did not violate the First Amendment.
In this column, I'll consider why the Morse Court ruled as it did.
In addition, I'll also consider the July 5 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Wisniewski v. Bd. of Educ. of Weedsport Cent. Sch. Dist., which mentions the Supreme Court's decision and foreshadows how that decision may influence the federal trial and appellate courts.
The Morse v. Frederick Decision
As I explained in a prior column, I believe Frederick was well within his First Amendment rights in holding up the banner - for two reasons:
First, the event occurred on a public street - where Morse, a senior old enough to vote, ought to have essentially the same rights as any other adult. In my view, the fact that school cheerleaders, the band, and the principal attended hardly transformed the event into a virtual extension of the school. The Court, however, disagreed.
Second, prior Supreme Court precedents on school speech had focused on the potential of disruption, and there was no evidence of any such potential here. One key case, Tinker v. Des Moines, had approved public school students' wearing of armbands meant to protest the Vietnam War precisely because their symbolic speech did not disrupt, or have the potential to disrupt, school activities. Yet the only disruption here seems to have been caused not by Frederick, but by Principal Morse, who disrupted a peaceful rally by grabbing the banner.
Then why did the Supreme Court reject Frederick's First Amendment claim? The majority -- composed of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy -- held that the principal had a right to "safeguard" her students from a message that could "reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use."
Yet this is exactly the kind of content regulation the First Amendment most abhors - not just for adults, but for young students too. After all, as the Tinker Court wisely noted, students "may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State choose to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved…"
The First Amendment Protects Messages that Encourage Peaceful Civil Disobedience
More generally, the idea that silencing speech is justified to ensure blind compliance with the status quo is anathema to the First Amendment. When the government tries to "safeguard" its citizens from a message it doesn't want them to hear, because it doesn't want them to act on it, that is classic censorship.
Granted, there is one exception to this rule, under which censorship is permitted, despite the First Amendment's protection of speech - but it covers the advocacy of imminent violence, not of lawbreaking generally. Thus, while incitement to riot can constitutionally be deemed a crime, incitement to peaceful civil disobedience cannot.
Here, moreover, Frederick was not inciting anything imminent, let alone anything violent. At most, perhaps students might have read his banner, developed a slightly more positive (or at least less serious) attitude toward marijuana, then tried the drug at some uncertain future date and/or joined a rally in support of its legalization. That's called persuasion, not incitement.
Of course, Tinker watered down the imminent violence requirement in the school context, to a requirement of "disruption." But again, even that watered-down requirement simply was not met here.
The Majority's Ruling Was Self-Contradictory, Deeming the Message Dangerous But Not Political
Ironically, even though the five-Justice majority held advocacy of illegal drug use was the banner's message, it somehow also held that "this is plainly not a case about political debate over the criminalization of drug use or possession."
This logic just doesn't work: If the banner was dangerous, it was dangerous precisely because of its ability to convince and persuade students that a particular act of peaceful civil disobedience was one they should commit. In other words, if the banner posed a threat to the school, it was because it was political, taking a stand against the criminalization of drug use by encouraging students to commit civil disobedience by breaking the law. Few, after all, both advocate lawbreaking and believe that the law to be broken is wholly just, and should stay on the books.
During the Civil Rights Era, when sit-ins were common, could a banner directed to African-Americans saying "Eat a Burger at a Segregated Lunch Counter 4 MLK Jr." have properly been deemed to fall outside "political debate"? Certainly not - even though the law allowed private segregation, and police could be called to re-segregate the lunch counter and jail the protester, just as they could be called to arrest a marijuana-smoking student today.
It's worth remembering, too, that students were key participants throughout the Civil Rights Movement, before we dismiss their arguments for civil disobedience as somehow not "political."
Justice Alito's Concurrence, Joined by Justice Kennedy: Why It's Unconvincing
What accounts, then, for the Court's decision? As an appellate judge, Justice Alito had evidenced sympathy for students' First Amendment rights. Justice Kennedy, too, at times has seemed a strong supporter of the First Amendment. So how did a five-Justice majority come about? I think one answer is that
Justice Alito, who concurred separately, and Justice Kennedy, who joined him, thought they could cabin the effects of the Court's decision. But to do so, they once only again invoked the unconvincing line between advocacy of civil disobedience via illegal marijuana use, on the one hand, and "speech that can plausibly be interpreted as commenting on any political or social issue, including speech on issues such as the wisdom of the war on drugs or of legalizing marijuana for medicinal use," on the other.
Not only is the line impossible to draw, First Amendment doctrine is quite clear that the government should, whenever possible, stay out of the business of making such fine distinctions when speech is at issue. Just as courts are reluctant to, say, go in and interpret a particular religion's tenets, they are also traditionally reluctant to closely interpret speaker's messages; that's why they favor content-neutral regulations of speech.
This untenable line also creates a trap for the unwary. Sophisticated speakers will easily get off scot-free, by avoiding actually advocating lawbreaking - as did the sarcastic students who posted this photo online - or by replacing humor like Frederick's with earnestness. Certainly, a banner saying "War on Drugs 4 the Birds" would pass muster.
Traps for the unwary, however, seem especially unfair in the high-school context. The fact that a sixteen-year-old cannot eloquently express a political view does not mean that he or she does not hold one.
A Post-Morse Second Circuit Decision Foreshadows Its Possible Influence
How will the decision influence the lower federal appellate courts and district courts? I think very likely that some more conservative courts will take courage from Morse to go over the First Amendment line in supporting school principals. A recent Second Circuit decision that gave its blessing to punishing student speech affords some insight into this possible dynamic.
That case involved eighth-grader Aaron Wisniewski's Instant Message (IM), sent from his parents' home computer and viewable by other students in his class. The IM included a crude image of a person being shot in the head, and the message "Kill Mr. VanderMolen" - Aaron's English teacher.
The three-judge panel held that the school did not violate Aaron's civil rights by suspending him for a semester (though with "access to alternative education") as a result of the IM. In so doing, it mentioned, but did not rely upon, Morse v. Frederick - suggesting that Morse was distinguishable because it had held that Frederick's being at the rally was tantamount to his being "at school," whereas Aaron had written his message off school grounds.
Still, Morse may have played role here.
As the panel noted, in the 1979 case of Thomas v. Board of Education, the Second Circuit had emphasized that a public school's authority generally does not "reach beyond the schoolhouse gate." The panel thus had to reconcile this statement with its own holding that the school could punish Aaron for using a computer in his home. It did so by pointing out that it was foreseeable that Aaron's comments might cause disruption at his school. And indeed, it was a classmate who turned Aaron in.
Would the Second Circuit have so quickly reconciled these two rulings before Morse? Perhaps not. Perhaps, instead, it might have hewed a little closer to Thomas, and worried a bit more about a school's acting against a student based on something he'd done at home.
I am not arguing that Wisniewski was necessarily wrongly decided. Unlike the banner at issue in Morse, the IM advocated violence, which I believe demands a different analysis.
Still, I do think the panel may have been too quick in its consideration and rejection of the First Amendment claims here, thanks to Morse's broad grant of authority to principals, even when that authority was exercised beyond the schoolhouse gate
.
In the wake of Morse, will courts now tolerate incursions on students' First Amendment rights -- even when those incursions are based on speech uttered far from school grounds? I think the answer is yes. It seems very likely that students' First Amendment terrain, both online and off-, and both inside and outside the schoolhouse gates, will be diminished as a result of the High Court's decision.
https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-supreme-courts-bong-hits-4-jesus-first-amendment-decision.html |
By JULIE HILDEN |
| Monday, Jul. 09, 2007 |
US CELLULAR
DEPT 0205
PALATINE, IL 60055-0205
REGARDING ACCOUNT # 853877279
DEAR US CELLULAR:
WHAT THE FUCK?? I THOUGHT I WAS ALL PAID UP?
THEN I CALL TO CHECK
IF MY OLD PHONE IS UNLOCKED
AND THEN I GET THIS FUCKING
BILL FOR $203.
FUCK YOU. YOU FUCKING FUCKERS!!
THAT IS ALL
ROBERT WEBER AKA DINGO DARE
9209188869
546 PINE STREET
SHEBOYGAN FALLS WISCONSIN 53085
PS GO FUCK YOURSELF
https://social.freetalklive.com/web/@dingodare82
HTTP://facebook.com/thedingodare
HERMIT
why have real friends. all people do is fuck with you and play games. I'd much rather live in the woods and be a hermit in all honesty.
Wendy’s Plan To Open “Hundreds” Of Stores In Australia (And Not Everybody’s Thrilled)
https://www.bosshunting.com.au/lifestyle/eat/wendys-australia-burger-restaurants/
Another major player in the burger game has been not-so-quietly eyeing our sunburnt shores, and soon enough, we may be (re)welcoming several Wendy’s Australia outposts. Although perhaps the term “welcoming” might not be the most accurate, despite the positive reception of the local pop-up event hosted circa 2021.
For background, just a few months prior, multiple reports revealed the world’s third largest burger chain (not to be confused with homegrown operation Wendy’s Milk Bar) was hungry for expansion. At that stage, consultancy firm DC Strategy had already been appointed to recruit “master franchisees” capable of slinging Dave’s Single square cheeseburgers, Frosty delights, and Baconators.
Since then, Wendy’s Chief Development Officer Abigail Pringle has confirmed there are indeed plans to purchase Aussie land for new restaurants and re-conquer territory on behalf of the US$4.8 billion (AU$7 billion) fast-food giant; having previously attempted to stake their claim here before folding in 1985 with $8 million worth of debts and eventually selling all 11 failed Melbourne stores to Hungry Jack’s billionaire Jack Cowin.
RELATED: Viral TikTok Reveals How Five Guys Fries Are Actually Made
