hahaha

I leave everything I own...to my car?

As this blogs comes to a close, I thought I should I include a weird law from the state in which I currently reside, Connecticut:

Sec. 30-97. Town and probate records not to be kept where liquor is sold.

Town or probate records shall not be kept in any room in which alcoholic liquor is sold, nor in any room from which there is direct access to a room in which such liquor is sold. Any town clerk or judge of probate violating the provisions of this section shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 30-113.

For those of you who don't know, according to Wikipedia:  " A probate interprets the instructions of the deceased, decides the executor as the personal representative of the estate, and adjudicates the interests of heirs and other parties who may have claims against the estate."  So what reason could the Connecticut legislative system have of including such an oddly specific law in the transcript of their laws?  Someone must have screwed up majorly.  I could only imagine:
Lord Connecticut:  Aye, my good pub master, I have my will with me and I'm feeling famished.  Could you hold my will and then pass me two tall mugs of your finest lager?  Sure be a shame if my last testament got soaked in ale!
Pub Owner:  M'Lord!  Anything you need sir!  Two mugs of the finest lager, on the double!
*one hour and about 3 mugs later*
Lord Connecticut:  You know, I own all of Connecticut, which currently has the most stable economy of all the colonies.  If I was to sell this great territory to hands of the treacherous secessionists, I'd be giving away this gold mine for next to nothing.  It would be almost as crazy as all the European nations joining together to create some kind of...European union. The strongest nations would be on par with the weakest nations, and there would be extraordinary superpowers.  How absurd!
*one more hour and 2.5 mugs later*
Lord Connecticut:  ...But what is freedom really?  With the taxes we pay to the Crown, we could easily afford to pay for some meaningful infrastructure in these mostly rural portions of the territory.  See that's what the Royalists don't tell you:  sending us here and telling is to report the to Crown with our profits is economic suicide!  The best thing for the territory, and the people that are contained within it, who do not plan on returning to England, would be secede and devote our materials only to ourselves and our needs!
Pub Owner:  I'll drink to that!
Lord Connecticut:  Aye, mate!  As a matter of fact, pass me the will!  I've got to make me a corollary!
And at my death, I will the entire territory, to be named (What would be a good name?  My name?  Connecticut?  You sure it'll catch on?  Okay then, we'll do that.) Connecticut, to join the other colonies and revolt against unjust taxation, and if necessary, secede.  And no, I'm not drunk.  It's the Pub Owner who's drunk.  Haha just playing.  Actually, I leave my estate to this guy (What's your name?) Remington Hilton.  He's such a great guy.  Says he wants to start something like a chain of inns around the colony to provide lodging to travelers.  Such a visionary.
Needless to say, Lord Connecticut died of alcohol poisoning at the bar, and no one was too pleased.  Except for the Hilton family.

When one door closes, it's because you got a ticket.

A bit of original tomfoolery from Oregon:

811.490 Improper opening or leaving open of vehicle door; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door if the person does any of the following:
(a) Opens any door of a vehicle unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so and it can be done without interference with the movement of traffic, or with pedestrians and bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders.
(b) Leaves a door open on the side of a vehicle available to traffic, or to pedestrians or bicycles on sidewalks or shoulders for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.
(2) The offense described in this section, improper opening or leaving open a vehicle door, is a Class D traffic violation.

Now, I researched this, and a Class D violation is punishable with a $90 fine.  $90 for leaving your door open "for a period of time longer than necessary".  Now what I want to know is how did a law like this come into being, and who determines what is and is not necessary?:
1.  Officer, I would have closed the door, but my child just farted and it smelled like death.  It was either open up all the doors or she would be charged with vehicular manslaughter.
2.  Officer, I would have closed it faster, but getting a HoverRound out of the back of a van takes quite a bit of time.  You see, I grew up in a time when mobility was freedom...
3.  Officer, I would close the door, but I know for a fact that as soon as I close it a bomb will explode.  The bomb is in the door.  As in, the moment my door touches it, the car will explode.  You can see it can't you?
4.  Officer, I did close my door.  Then you came over here and reopened it and then started threatening me with a fine if I didn't close it.
5.  Officer, I drive a Jeep Wrangler.  I have no doors.
6.  Officer, this isn't my car.  I was attempting to steal it and I didn't realize the owner was still in the seat and I was trying to get him out...oh sh*t...
7.  Officer, you can't mean to tell me that you're charging me a $90 fine for leaving my door open for 47.67 seconds?  You counted the f%cking milliseconds?!
8.  Officer, I can't close the door.  My car's spirit communicated to my spirit that our spirits would meet your spirit through this spiritual alignment...
9.  Officer, I'm Rush Limbaugh.  Get a real job.

In any case, I won't start closing my doors until I get a good reason.

Bad Reason to Start Closing Doors

This is not a good reason.

Because we should not stop for death.

It's sad when a state is best-known for their stance on capital punishment (Texas):

Sec. 12.31.  CAPITAL FELONY. (a)An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state seeks the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for life without parole or by death.

Although I normally choose to take a humorous slant on my blogs, this is something I feel needs to be addressed.  For a country that prides itself on the upholding of human rights laws and social advancement, the death penalty seems a little barbaric.  In ancient Viking times, they had a system called Weregild, in which there was a value placed on the head of each person, and if someone killed that person, then they would be exacted punishment equal to the value of the person they had murdered.  If the person could not pay, then their fate would be at the discretion of those whom they had wronged, either meaning slavery or death.  Fast forward about 1100 years and it's funny how we're still practicing the same barbaric practices.  It is impossible for any of us to put a price tag on human life, not speaking of a life for another life.  Be responding to violence with violence, it creates an environment where people aren't encouraged to do right but are scared into not doing wrong, and even then people who operate outside of fear are punished.  It just seems so base, and yet Texans proudly stand behind their practices, and that after murdering 464 inmates since 1982, 69% of them still support it.  I can just imagine:
Shirleen:  Did you hear about that latest execution?
Cindy:  You mean the one of the guy who claimed that he was asthmatic and accidentally shot his wife once in the chest while having an asthma attack?  These criminals these days are so creative.
Shirleen:  You're telling me.  Speaking of which, I got tickets to the last one.  My husband Rich is the sheriff and snagged some front row seats.  So I picked up the kids from soccer and we went and watched it.  It took a little longer than I hoped: I had a casserole in the oven and it nearly burned.  But I told my kids "Don't you dare kill your wife or Texas will kill you."  Such a good system.
Cindy:  Amen, sister.  I'm just glad it happened.  My husband said that if we didn't get an execution soon the chemicals would start to degrade, and that's $86 the state has to spend replacing them when they could just use it on some scoundrel.
Shirleen:  God bless Texas.  Speaking of which, did you see how the preacher's daughter was dressed yesterday?  We need to pray for her.

Objectification of Women?

Better known for their exquisite cheese (I'm lactose intolerant), this law comes from the great state of Vermont:

"Women must obtain written permission from their husbands to wear false teeth."

So here is the scene:  The whole family is at the ranch wedding for the daughter of the rich inn proprietor, and Daddy Remington, an up-and-coming taxidermist has commended the whole family to be on their best behavior.  There seems to be some very important political figures, and Remington has always had an aspiration to break into the field of public service.   Little does Remington know that his wife has been systematically replacing every tooth in her mouth with ivory duplicates that she has been receiving from her brother in New Hampshire.  However, things seem to be going well.  She's switched the family off red meats (on the pretext that they are more expensive and worse for your health) and has them all eating fish and poultry.  She double boils all the vegetables and fruits, and undercooks the bread just to be safe.  She even stopped brushing her teeth and now takes a gentle cloth to them every morning and night.  Unfortunately, the menu of the reception isn't as cooperative:  the happy bride and groom have decided to serve beef brisket, celery stalks, and an apple and pear parfait for dessert (Needless to say, the daughter is on the Atkins diet).  Momma Remington is a little dismayed, but has decided that she will just lay low and be modest with the food she's been given.  The meal is served and everything seems to be going well until Momma Remington forgets to complete pulverize a piece of celery on her plate and takes one loud, resounding crunch that rings for miles in the clear, Vermont plains.

And that is why there has never been a Vermont politician named Remington. Moral of the story:  Ladies, tell your man if you're lacking in the teeth department.  It will save you your shame and your husband's political career.  Also:

"Got Some Teeth" - Obie Trice

No, you can only be a scoundrel. The law says so.

From Indiana:

Chapter 10. Liquor Dealers' Permits
IC 7.1-3-10-5
Sec. 5. A package liquor store's exclusive business shall be the selling of the following commodities only:
(1) Liquor in its original package.
(2) Beer in permissible containers, if the permittee has the proper permit.
(3) Wine in its original package.
(4) Bar supplies used in the preparation for consumption of alcoholic beverages and in their consumption.
(5) Tobacco products.
(6) Uncooled and uniced charged water, carbonated soda, ginger ale, mineral water, grenadine, and flavoring extracts.
(7) Printed materials.
(8) Lottery tickets as provided in IC 4-30-9.
(9) Cooled or uncooled nonalcoholic malt beverages.
(10) Flavored malt beverage in its original package.


The way I see it, this law is kind of ridiculous.  How is it that a liquor store can't branch out and advertise to it younger consumers?  Or maybe, a liquor store owner was trying to go clean, so he was phasing out his alcoholic beverages and selling more and more soft drinks and coloring books.  The other general stores and liquor stores noticed that this integrating innovator's profit was increase many-fold and decided that he shouldn't be allowed to make that much money.  Once they discovered that the source of his great wealth was the fact that he would lure kids in with his "child-themed" novelties while at the same time retaining his more mature products, they decided that this kind of double-dipping should be outlawed, and that such institutions should exist in complete separation from one another.  Therefore, the integrator's "taxable" income drastically decreased, and order was restored.  (However, he still sold his child novelties on the down-low.)

Thou shalt not spin on the Sabbath.

This wacko law comes out of the great state of Idaho:

"Riding a merry-go-round on Sunday's is considered a crime."

Now I can actually imagine a plausible reason that this law was crafted.  So, imagine with me, that there is an ultra-conservative Orthodox Jew who settles in the great city of Boise with his family and 600 of his closest kinsmen/friends.  After twenty years of living there, he discovers that the ten kids that he has birthed in the land of plenty have been bypassing the Sabbath limits on them by doing their melakha on a merry-go-round.  Since they are spinning in perfect revolutions, they have a 0 displacement, means they haven't gone anywhere or done anything, technically.  Here's the good Hebrew's reactions:
 Good Hebrew:  Now before you chayas start looking at me like I'm some kind of alter cocker, I suggest you listen to me.  I've been shvitzing like a shtupping shvantz trying to make sure that my little angels follow the rules.  And how do you repay me?  You neophytes gather up your chutzpah and disobey me!  Well, you know what I've done?  I was at the governer's house for his boy's bar mitzvah, shmoozing with him and talking about things that we think should change around here.  I happened to mention to that shmegegge that my kids had been bypassing their Sabbath rules on  the merry-go-round, trying to outsmart me.  I suggested he make merry-go-round illegal on the Sabbath, and what do you know?  It happened!  Here's a copy of the actual bill that was signed!  *presents bill*  Now there's nowhere you can go gavalting off about how this is unfair.  You little rodents get what you deserve.  Now go in the house and ess your kosher pot roast.

**Yiddish words are in italics

Needless to say, his children soon lost interest in merry-go-round and resorted to marijuana.

I wonder what the punishment for this law was?  "You are not allowed to make more than a 179.9˚ turn for 48 hours."