Yet Another Reason To Remain Anonymous

She really was pretty and fresh once. Sort of looks like Reese Witherspoon. Sad ending to a sad life.

I swore I wouldn't blog about her, but someone must speak up against this gross injustice. No, not secret prisions abroad. Anna Nicole Smith's autopsy is available for public viewing. I never realized that one's body after death had absolutely no right to privacy. Smith's family need not worry about grave robbers. What would be the motive? Every sick curiosity is readily answered and available on-line. Anna's tattoos are well described, as is the pus on her buttocks ("green and creamy"), the fact that her anus was "unremarkable" (thank goodness), and her vagina had a typical amount of wrinkling (HUH?!). What a relief to know one part of Anna's poor, abused body remained injection and silicone free. Actually, it isn't any of my freakin' business and a rather horrible invasion/perversion of privacy.

Why not have the Coroner publicly state the official cause of death only? Perhaps there is a justification to release the toxicology report. Non pertinent details should be sealed. Does the public have any real need to know, exactly, the length and depth of scarring involved with repeated breast augmentation? (Anna's left nipple did not fare as well as her right.)

Perhaps the greatest invasion of privacy? This pathetic woman's WEIGHT (178 pounds) was also reported. Those were the horrified gasps of my eight female readers you just heard. Wrinkled genitalia and unremarkable orifices, that's bad enough... but publishing her weight?! Unforgivable! Anna Nicole Smith will never be able to rest in peace now. BTW, Slim Fast, not TrimSpa, was found by Smith's bedside. There's a craptastic last meal for you.

I wonder if there are any more interesting autopsy reports available on line. River Phoenix? Colbain? JFK? Elvis? Wonder what parts of their bodies were "unremarkable" or suffered the normal amount of wrinkling. I could be up all night.

Polly wishes to be cremated immediately following her death, thanks.

Oh Goodie Gumdrops!!!

Peoria's latest folly is ready for tours. Kind of. I'm leaving now to be the first in line. Not.

Lets Demolish The School Board Instead

I almost, but not quite, feel badly for the District 150 School Board. They keep on having to pay penalties for one really bad mistake over and over again. The Board failed to inform the public before going forward with their plans to erect a school in Glen Oak Park. Polly is part of an itty bitty minority who thinks a school in that decaying locale was a good idea, but I recoginize The Board's decision to act on the sly and not even attempt to get the public's blessing was stupid, arrogant, and unforgivable.

As usual, it isn't the players who pay, but the tax payers. The proposed school is a dead deal, at least at that locale. So what to do with the $877,500 worth of property The Board purchased and can't use? Pay fines of course! Better yet, spend a lot more money they don't have and tear the sucker down! One of the now vacant homes owned by District 150 has code violations. The house needs a new roof and the garage needs new paint.

The School Board still hasn't learned its lesson. Apparently they hold out hope that they will get their school just the way they want it, where they want it... in the park. How can we tell? Instead of making the necessary repairs and selling off the properties, it appears that The Board is going to pay for demolition instead.

What's that cliche again? Something like, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. AND THOSE THAT LEAD NEVER FRIGGIN' LEARN"

Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers?

So, if you come across $700 cash in -say- a public restroom on your lunch hour, are you obligated to turn it in or attempt to find the owner? What if you actually watch the person forget to pick up their wad of cash before exiting? Certainly the classy, most honest thing to do would be to turn it in, or try to find the owner, or remind the absentminded doof to take his/her money. However, the question is: Are you legally obligated to do so?

In this case it wasn't $700 cash, but a $700 voucher left behind in a slot machine at a casino. The voucher was discovered by an off duty cop, who apparently decided that it was his lucky day and turned in the voucher as his own for cash.

The original winner came back to the slot machine and alerted casino employees that someone had taken his voucher. Employees took the time and trouble to look at security video and confronted the cop. The Cop admitted no wrong doing, but did pay the original winner $700.

So, did the Cop do anything wrong? Clearly, he wasn't as upstanding a citizen as he could of been, but did he steal? I don't think so. It may be reasonable to expect police to behave as model citizens, in which case maybe they shouldn't be in a casino in the first place, but finding something isn't the same as stealing. Especially since the voucher, unlike a piece of jewelry for example, had no identifying markers to prove who owned it.

I don't think the Cop did anything illegal, so why is he on administrative leave? For not being a hero? The guy was at at casino, not church. Luciano's language, that the cop "took" another gamblers winnings, is harsh, especially when considering impressive nature of this particular cop's record.

Ask yourself honestly, in a casino environment, where everyone is trying to win something for nothing, what would you do?