|The theory is Ethan Crouch shouldn't go|
to jail for killing four people in a
drunk driving crash because he's rich.
First we go to Texas where Ethan Crouch, 16, was found guilty of a drunken driving crash that killed four people and injured nine others.
Usually, when there is an immense tragedy like this and people die becuase of the drunk driver, said drunk driver goes to jail for a long time. As well they should.
But Crouch just got probation, not the 20 years in the slammer prosecutors wanted. See, we should feel sorry for the not-monetarily poor Crouch.
His family is rich, says television station WFAA in Dallas, and his parents never punished him for any misbehavior, thinking that wealth brought privilege and you should do anything you want.
In short, we should feel sorry for Crouch because he suffers from "affluenza"
Yeah, and I guess we shouldn't feel sorry for his victims, who apparently were too stupid to get rich and possibly somehow avoid the carnage Crouch caused.
So, Crouch will spend a couple years at most in a cushy facility where he will probably continue to be taught that since his family has money, he can literally get away with murder.
Next we move onto a guy named Greg Gopman, one of those Silicon Valley millionaires who get rich creating these weird apps or companies that are supposedly the Next Big Thing but are really worthless.
He's made something called AngelHack, which doesn't sound like anything worth spending time on.
However, Gopman has some interesting theories on the proper place of the homeless, mentally ill and poor people, according to Valleywag.
|Rich guy Greg Gopman said poor people|
sould have the common courtesy of
not showing their faces in public.
Basically, Gopman is offended when he walks through cities like San Franciso and sees people begging or sleeping on the streets. Don't they know their proper place? Shouldn't they hide away in back alleys and ghettos so we don't have to experience the aesthetic pain of seeing such unfashionable people?
They don't add value anyway, goes Gopman's thinking.
I'll bite. Just for laughs and giggles, let's indulge Gopman and evaluate people just on the basis of the "value" they bring for the rest of us. Sure, some of the people Gopman sees are not "valuable" in that a few might be petty criminals, or just unpleasant people.
But are all of them? Aren't some of the people Gopman doesn't like interesting, have potential, are actually contributing somehow? How does Gopman know they're not.
And is Gopman valuable? He invents these sort of time wasting apps that don't really contribute much of anything to society. And is anybody who looks down on human beings so much truly valuable? I don't think so.
So Gopman, in my view, is less valuable than most of the people he disparages. Gopman should just hide in back alleys and ghettos and give us the courtesy of not hearing from him or seeing him.
Gopman later deleted his Facebook post and apologized for his remarks, at least somewhat. But some of his buddies were offended that he took down the offensive post. Someone named Alice Zhang wrote this on his Facebook page:
"Don't apologize to those bleeding heart liberals out there. They are part of the problem because they condon parasitic behavior. I've traveled all over the world (including third world countries) and San Francisco is the only place where I've seen people (the homeless) taking a (censored) on the street. If it were up to me I'd put them all in labor camps."
Well! Congratulations Alice! You're even more worthless than Gopman. Quite an achievement!
Next, we have Philadelphia blogger Sarah Lockard. I don't know how rich she is, but she sure is trying in the most tacky ways possible.
|Sarah Lockard says she's valuable. So if you send|
her an email or post on her Facebook page,
you'd better pay her $75 each time you do it.
She's trying to sell a restaurant a favorable review, or at least some nice mentions in her blog by her if they feed her family at Christmas for free.
Worse, and I doubt anybody will ever actually pay her, but Lockard is demanding $75 for any contact to her through her blog, according to Jim Romenesko.
"Every text, email and biz correspondence with AroundMainLine.com is billable," is her quote.
Yeah, I suppose time is money, but really. I do some freelance writing. An editor emailed me asking me to do an (easy, local) story. So should I bill her $75 just for offering me work?
Um, no. She can just pay me for doing the actual article, thanks.
I like to think that Lockard was just kidding about the $75. She deleted the post demanding the money from people who correspond with her for any reason.
However, money is tight. I certainly won't ask anyone reading this post for any money. I don't need it. But I'm afraid my budget is too small to support Sarah Lockard of Philadelphia. You'll just have to get on without me.
And maybe do us all a favor and just shut up already.
Lockard has no reason to worry I'll contact her. I wouldn't even if she paid me $75. She sounds like too much to me.