The Perfect Sentence

So you’re sitting on your porch or walking down the street and the sights and sounds are pleasant and you’re in a good mood. Suddenly, fading in fast, you hear the thumpa thumpa thumpa of (c)rap “music” approaching. When it reaches you it’s blasting either from a black, shiny, leased SUV or a pathetic shitbox sedan, with uplifting lyrics like

I gonna kill da bitch
I gona kill da ho
I gonna take her head off
Wid my magnum foedy-foe

If you’re in Fort Lupton, Colorado, you can smile, knowing that that when this loser gets arrested for assaulting everyone’s eardrums with his horrible taste he’ll receive exactly the punishment he deserves.

Judge Paul Sacco sentences noise offenders to stand and listen a special mix: an hour of Barry Manllow, The Carpenters, and in what may violate the prohibition against torture, Barney. Violators must stay alert during the hour log punishment and are not allowed to read, chew gum, or do anything but listen to the tunes.

The judge says he has very few repeat offenders.

Well done, Judge Sacco. You’ve found a perfect balance of the punishment fitting the crime.

7 Comment(s)

  1. I find it interesting that people who have a problem with air pollution (“Most hate mail comes from The Facts and proves that anti-smokers are blind, stupid and driven mostly by hate”) are derided here, but when noise polluters are given strange and (probably) ineffectual punishments you applaud. Disregarding any potential harm from non-smoking, it still seems hypocritical to chastise one and not the other. I would not count myself amongst the “nicotine nannies,” I just think that noisy car radios are not nearly as annoying as having to walk through a cloud of noxious fumes on the way into work (though I’d rather have them there than in the office). Second-hand smoke and loud stereos may not be entirely analagous, but to the extent that they are I think you should be consistent.
    I also think that the statement about blind, stupid, and hate-driven anti-smokers should be qualified. I imagine a lot of non-smokers would be glad to be rid of smoking, we’re just too polite to say so (except for me right now).

    Dan Pearson | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply

  2. They are not the same thing.

    A loud speaker system can be heard for quite some distance, while a cigarette doesn’t go that far. Also, using your logic, smoking on the streets should be banned, but it should be legal in bars and clubs, since everyone is there voluntarily and it doesn’t go outside.

    Harley | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply

  3. Dan, your opinions are welcome here, but please strive for some honesty. The statement about anti-smokers isn’t about “people who have a problem with air pollution.” It’s about people who are intent on spreading hatred and fear of smokers in a fascist effort to force them into a lifestyle choice they approve of.

    There is a world of difference between non-smokers and anti-smokers. Please don’t confuse the two.

    Smokers used to be able to stay inside of a bar or restaurant and enjoy their smoke without bothering anyone except, perhaps, other people who chose to visit the same venue (knowing that smoking was allowed). Employers provided smoking rooms, often well ventilated to the outside, where smokers could congregate without bothering anyone else. But the nicotine nannies have put an end to all that. They’ve forced smokers on the streets, so the next time you walk through a cloud of “noxious” smoke please take a moment to write to your favorite anti-smoker “charity” and thank them. It’s entirely on them.

    Dave Hitt | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply

  4. I think it goes a little farther than that even, IF you are trying to compare noise pollution to SHS encountered, briefly, where smokers have been forced to go, then you had better take into account the risks associated with each nuisance, and I know the facts say that even one brief exposure to decibel levels that are to high can cause permanent damage to one’s hearing, can you prove the same about brief, transient, exposure to a burning plant leaf?
    Didn’t think so.

    Jerry Thomas | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply

  5. I don’t think I was being dishonest, but I think my statement was taken as somewhat extreme. It’s hard to make a statement one way or the other about a smoking issue without doing so.
    My point wasn’t an anti-smoking one, just that the annoying factor of car stereo’s and the annoying factor of second-hand smoke are both subjective and it seems absurd and somewhat hypocritical to defend laws against one and chastise the other. I’m not trying to crack down on smokers, just lighten up on subwoofers because it’s no worse (not that I’m a proponent of either)
    I think a lot of bad arguments are made for letting smokers smoke wherever they want, but that’s an entirely different topic.

    Dan Pearson | Sep 21, 2007 | Reply

  6. I should be more specific, with the exception of the most extreme cases, I think noise pollution laws are pretty dumb. I more thought the punishment was funny and perhaps one of the most fitting punishments I have ever seen (regardless of whether or not I support it).

    Smoking can be a bother to some people, I’ll admit that and I try to be polite and not bug non-smokers. The problem that I have is that anti-smokers (different from non-smokers) tend to be self-righteous asses who seem to act like they are the most polite people on earth and considering everyone of them that I have come across is a complete douchecoptor, I find it hard to believe.

    Harley | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply

  7. Please sent all ads and promo information by

    JamesFlils | Aug 31, 2020 | Reply

Post a Comment