"[Larry] Wilks and three other unidentified subjects began to verbally attack the 45-year-old bus driver," said police spokesman Howard Payne. "He said 'You can't tell me what to do, and you better drive this bus.'"...
Wilks told police that he "didn't have to do anything" and allegedly got into a fight with the officer before being put into handcuffs, under arrest.
Others at the scene, apparently angered over the arrest, encircled the officer and Wilks, prompting the officer to call for backup.
"After the scene was calmed, Wilks stated he was not afraid to go to jail, and that proved to be directly in line with the officer's decision," Payne said.
IN THE COMMENTS: Sofa King said:
See, this is why I drive a car.
Oh, but what if we invested a billion dollars and got some wonderfully sleek and spiffy light rail trains? Surely, the Wilks ilk would pull up their pants.
Thoughtful reasoning? What thoughtfully reasoned excerpts from the decision were quoted? And how thoughtfully reasoned do you suspect Steven's ruling was? The guy is ninety, you know and slurs his speech. Yet your conserva-times chose him to do the deed and I saw very little of what he had to say quoted here.
Wait a minute. You don't think...you think Stevens was part of the majority! BWaaaahaaa haaa! You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, you pompous windbag! Why don't you come back after at least reading the summary! I wonder if your opinion of Stevens will suddenly, conveniently completely reverse!
Ritmo's response? Something about only "skimming" the case and assuming the conservatives must have "co-opted" the "senile" liberal justice to get their majority. Suddenly, "the specifics of all this" aren't what really matter. You know: When the "specifics" don't feel like good slingable mud, you just don't care about using personal remarks against the justices as a way of saying you didn't like the outcome of a case.
I love the way the liberal's willingness to make a completely un-PC attack on a person, when that person is conservative, glares so painfully when it turns out that the target of the attack isn't actually conservative.
Tom Link, son of Lisa Link, served as a planning committee member on the project for 2.5 years.
“My mother would’ve been comfortable with the type of people that use the park, but a lot of people can’t deal with homelessness and poverty,” Link said.
Do you think a multilingual pole will turn things around?
How about an ATM machine? That's also part of the plan:
[T]he panhandling ordinance of the city states that panhandling is not permitted within 50 feet of an ATM machine, a common activity performed by the park dwellers.
“There is a perception that this plan is solely is to discourage panhandling, and I don’t support that motivation in any way,” said an opposing commission member. “Now we’re looking at an ATM that I was not thrilled with and a social engineering aspect that could be very controversial.”
Depriving Bette Davis of her cigarette reminds me of Soviet revisionism, when disgraced party officials disappeared from official photographs. Might as well strip away the toupees of Fred Astaire and Jimmy Stewart. I was first alerted to this travesty by a reader, Wendell Openshaw of San Diego, who wrote me: "Do you share my revulsion for this attempt to revise history and distort a great screen persona for political purposes? It is political correctness and revisionist history run amok. Next it will be John Wayne holding a bouquet instead of a Winchester!"
IN THE COMMENTS: Sofa King picks up on the cue to photoshop:
And kristinintexas found this startling revelation that Bette Davis was not holding a cigarette in the original photograph. (Her fur coat, however, was downgraded to cloth.)
But, of course, Bette Davis was big on smoking, and so Chip Ahoy gives us "Bette Restored:
