Hey perverts…welcome to my blog.  The time is currently 1:15AM.

Lori, Laurie, Douglas, Pictures, Photos, Download, Nude, Bondage, Naked, Toys, Oral

Really, get a life.

What do you think a “moral law” is in the context of community standards?  At what point are you willing to bring into question to character of another person or even consider condemning them as an immoral human being?  I suppose murder is pretty much something we can all agree is immoral but what about stuff related to sex?  Oh yes, it can be a bit hazey can’t it?

Maybe a different question.  Do you consider yourself to be a sexually moral person?  I would bet dollars to doughnuts that in many cases, even the most outwardly adamant and righteous people may have strong doubts as to their own moral integrity regarding their sexual habits or preferences.  Shucks, I can tell you until I’m blue in the face that I know exactly what I like about sex and that my opinion of my sexual habits are just rockin’ hot n’ awesome but the only person who knows if I believe what I am saying is me.  We can talk all we want but in the end, the arguments we make regarding sexual morality are either coming from a place that would be, if light were ever to shine on it, either hypocritical or notably consistent.

I could for instance condemn sex with turkeys but secretly be the worst turkey chaser this side of the two hemispheres, though I can’t imagine I rank that high…er, that I would rank that high.  Yeah…

So anyhow, believe it or not, I’m going somewhere with this.  Just let me re-rail myself.

I’m spurred on to think about this kinda thing after reading a lengthy CBC article about a certain Judge in Manitoba, one Lori Douglas.

It seems that Douglas has had a complaint launched against her detailing how her husband (Jack King, the subject of a separate complaint from the same complainant) attempted to solicit a fellah of the darker skinned persuasion (calling dark skin a persuasion here makes no sense by the way) as a sexual partner for Justice Douglas.  The story is kinda murky in a he said, she said, he said kinda way but the bottom line for a great number of people seems to be that the fellah who launched the complaint, one Alexander Chapman, included some pretty racy photos in the details.  It would seem that he was presented with pictures of Douglas in bondage play with various sex toys and so on that, according to him, made him want to puke.

The part that makes sense to me is that Chapman says King, who was representing him in divorce proceeding at the time, acted in a manner that was unprofessional and made him feel as though he was being pressured into something.  Here he was being egged on by his lawyer to have sex with his lawyer’s wife and he contends that he figured if he said no, his lawyer may have not represented him properly.  Add to that, he also contends that the judge had told him his case needed to proceed quickly and he hadn’t enough money to change lawyers and sure, it sounds like he felt trapped.  all this is good cause for launching a complaint.  To some, it may even sound like good cause for launching a complaint against Kings wife, Lori Douglas but to me it seems like a bit of a stretch.

So that’s the sensible part.  The part that doesn’t make sense to me is that whole bit about Lori Douglas’ credibility being shot by appearing in photos showing that she clearly has a taste for leather that may make a bovine shake in its hooves.  So Lori Douglas likes bondage, can I ask why this is of any concern?

From an internet message board, I pulled the following from an anonymous user.

It is exceedingly hypocritical for a Justice to get up on high and destroy people with the Sword of Justice when she herself is a transgressor of the moral law.

I don’t get that.  Who decides what a moral law is and to add to that, there’s no solid evidence that she actually did anything with the guy who has launched his complaint.  What moral law did she break if her husband tried to solicit a sexual partner for her, possibly without her knowledge?  This is either an assumption on the part of the commenter or a focus on the bondage stuff.  Again, I don’t get it.

On the website for the Montreal Gazette, another anonymous poster says:

When your personal life exposes your professional life to ridicule, humiliation or blackmail then you should not be in any position of public trust .

In other words when people know about your unethical lifestyle you become a public liability.

And your role as a public official (judge) can be compromised … and has it?

This is not hard to figure out …

This confuses me further.  Ok, so Douglas is in pictures of her with sex toys and bondage play.  If this is something that will expose her to humiliation or ridicule, isn’t that a problem that the public at large has?  I mean, it’s the public bringing her into judgment for the pictures, not her crying about how she hates herself for liking bondage right?  The commenter implies that she leads an unethical lifestyle but again, I don’t understand that implication.  Her Husband may have acted unethically, but what did she do that was so wrong?

The blackmail thing I can agree with to a point I suppose but to me, it seems that the potential for blackmail material like this is a result of general public prudishness and a propensity for rushing to judgment.  I don’t see how pictures of this sort are a commentary on her character.  I don’t have any personal experience I can assure you but I imagine people both good and bad can be bondage fans.

Clipped from the National Post’s website, ‘MIKEMURPHY’ this one:

We have many women getting the benefit of these appointments not because of ability but more because of their gender. This one is a classic example. She is unfit to sit in the bench and perhaps will be the first in Canadian history to be removed by the Judicial Council, if she does not resign in infamy first. The cream does not always rise to the top when gender politics is involved. Many of these female lawyers are also active feminist ideologues whose judgment would indeed be impaired when dealing with gendered issues such as family court. Not one of them will say yes it will interfere with their judgment – but it will.

Why is she unfit to sit on the bench and who on earth ever mentioned anything about her being of the no penis club?  What does that have to do with this???  Oh, and of course we obviously can’t forget to throw in the feminist ideologue bit.

Really?

Perhaps the only thing people harping on this poor woman have is that she may have known that these pictures were out there and potentially answered in the negative to a question all people apply for judgships are asked.  “is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary, and which should be disclosed?” Without even actually knowing how she answered, I guess we can assume she simply said no but again, we don’t even know that much but assuming we did and she indeed said ‘no’ in reply, the argument seems to go that since this attempted hook up, pictures included, happened before Douglas was appointed to her judgeship, she knew about it and should have disclosed it to the panel that was evaluating her eligibility to be a judge.  Even if this is indeed the case, since a confidentiality agreement had been signed with Chapman, doesn’t that mean the situation would be null?  Certainly she can’t be the only gal or guy who’s attained a judgeship that likes leather right?

Ah, it just all seems like such an overblown issue to me.  Chapman receiving unprofessional legal representation and being pressured is definitely a cause for complaint but all this sex stuff?  Can you say non-issue?

Up to this point, Justice Douglas has temporarily stepped down taking up administrative duties while this complaint works its way through the system.  Chapman has been ordered to return the racy photos he has apparently kept in his possession as evidence for his complaint.

I stopped chuckling about this kind of stuff a while back.  Now it`s just ridiculously sad.

At the Dime A Dozen blog, Robert Jago has posted an incredible demonstration of how fits of hysteria, caving to baseless fears and basically letting racially motivated arguments meant to promote fear and hatred be your basis for arguments on social policy will shred your credibility.

Go head, click the link and have a peek.  You might be like me and be tired at laughing at rank stupidity and instinctive love of hegemony…but still, it’s worth a look.  Myopic mental midgets, avert your eyes.

An “array of weapons” was found amidst my intensive cloud of chuckling, according to this news story from the Globe and Mail.  This just a short while after a woman was arrested for carrying burglary tools (look near to the end of the article) that later turned out to be her office keys.  This is really quite aggravating because it would be awfully nice if police were competent and politicians didn’t spend money on absolutely asinine idiocy embodied in public policy and actions.  If this were the case, I could have perhaps a little bit of confidence in the people that I currently have pretty much zero respect for.

After the cops got all freaked out by a chick’s office keys, it seems they have decided that announcing an “arsenal of weapons” being found carried by a vehicle with a string holding one of its bumpers on would seem more credible.  As if this is some incredible success, police have been speaking about how a Hazmat team is inspecting a pop bottle found amongst other items such as a cross bow, chainsaw, baseball bat, sledge hammer, pick axe and gasoline container.  Yes, carried atop his car (a 2006 Hyundai GTL) in a makeshift travel container fashioned from sheet metal, he had weaponry that may have put Braveheart to shame…but probably not.

At this rate, I’m actually quite surprised that they didn’t include the gas in his gas tank as hazardous materials…but maybe they’re just getting to that?

So look; if you’re going to go to Toronto any time soon, just remember not to be a weaponized homeless man (HIS SHOPPING CART HAS A SHARP EDGE!) or stray 53 year old disoriented guy in a crappy 2006 Hyundai junk heap with tools being carried in it.  Oh…and don`t carry your office keys either because shucks, you may well be suspected of attempting to burgle the place you have keys for.

Honestly, is none of this cause for clinical studies of arresting officers?  This has to be genetic or something…right?

It turns out that in the “worst case” scenario, the massive oil spill could last into august if BP doesn’t get the oil gushing well plugged soon.  By that time, the gulf of Mexico may have a distinctive darkish tinge seen from space.

You know the most ridiculous “DUUUHH” kind of thing said in the article?

“I think now we’re beginning to understand that we cannot trust BP,” said U.S. Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass. “BP has lost all credibility … It’s clear that they have been hiding the actual consequences of this spill.”

Really?  you think so?  This didn’t occur to you when BP came up with their “junk shot” proposal to plug the gushing well?

This is pure idiocy.  It’s absolutely incredible that the government hasn’t grown the balls to take drastic action against against BP.  If this were a different world, I would be thinkin’ maybe we should set up a small naval force on the eastern coast of North America.  After the well is finally plugged, boats and a mess o’ shotguns put out to sea and if anything with “BP” or “Transocean” plastered on the side floats by, let fly and fire at will.

Eh, one can dream huh?