It Is Wrong To Throw Things

In This Section

Vol 35 Issue 31

Rotating Knife Vortex Closed Pending Safety Investigation

NORFOLK, VA—By the order of the Virginia Safety Commission, the Norfolk Rotating Vortex Of Sharp Knives public-works project was temporarily closed Monday. "Until we deem that this whirling knife vortex fully complies with all state and federal safety regulations, we unfortunately have no choice but to shut it down," commission spokesman James Fenten said. Vortex operators are angry. "Closing the vortex is costing dozens of workers their paychecks," project supervisor Carl Blaine said. "It's costing the city $100,000 every day it's down. This city needs a gigantic, funnel-like chasm with whirling, razor-sharp steel blades protruding from all sides, and it needs it now."

Kleenex Box Inadequately Covered

EMPORIA, KS—Area widow Gwen Reid is said to be "crocheting frantically" following Tuesday's discovery of an uncovered Kleenex facial-tissue box in her home. "Dust is falling on the box as we speak," said Reid, struggling to complete a side panel for a pink cozy. "This is worse than the uncovered spare roll of toilet paper in the bathroom last year." In the past, Reid has knitted coverings for such once-naked items as the TV Guide, radio and grandfather clock.

Natural Light Very Important To Local Man

HACIENDA HEIGHTS, CA—The natural light of the sun is extremely important to homeowner Gregg Dorner, it was reported Monday. "Natural light definitely opens up the place. The living-room space just breathes a lot more and has a much greater sense of play ever since I installed the skylight," Dorner said. "Natural light also really suffuses the kitchen area and mutes the colors. I think it softens the lines, too." According to neighbor Alexander Faulk, the Dorner home looks "exactly the same" as when artificial lights were used.

Area Man Killed In Committee

NEW YORK—K&L Advertising executive Nathan Lohaus was killed in committee Monday, his life voted down by an 11-3 margin at the 2 p.m. departmental meeting. "We threw Nathan out there and discussed him at length, but in the end we decided he just wasn't viable," K&L creative director Marcus Somers said. "We had a lot of really high hopes for Nathan, and we certainly tried to make him work, passing him back and forth and letting everybody take a stab at him, but in the end he just died on the table." Somers extended his "deepest regrets" to Lohaus' wife and children.

The Candidate And Cocaine

Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush continues to dodge questions about whether he has ever used cocaine or other illegal drugs. What do you think?

A Profanity Primer

It enrages me beyond all tolerance to see what has be-come of people these days. There is not one man jack in a hundred with any back-bone any-more! Why, scarcely one man in ten butchers his own swine, wives are no longer taken by brute force, and duels are hardly ever fought, and then only with childish pistols, I am told, not the great spiked leaden mattocks of my youth! Why, the thick and fiery blood of this great Republic must be but a thin, pinkish drool in the veins of its so-called manhood.
End Of Section
  • More News
TV Listings
Just Like Everything Else!: Fox 8 p.m. EDT/7 p.m. ABC Pete's wife is still on him about building that darn shed, these kids are going to be the death of Sheila and Dave, and the hot next-door neighbor is up in EVERYBODY'S business! Sunday nights on ABC couldn't be any more familiar!

Special Coverage

Energy

Small Business

It Is Wrong To Throw Things

It has become incumbent upon me, in light of certain matters which have been brought to my attention, to address the problem of throwing things. I believe I can best serve my country in this matter by firmly standing by the traditional posture and position of this court in instances in which an object or series of objects is manually propelled by one party without the specific or implied consent, or request, of one or more other parties, i.e., that it is wrong to throw things.

Accepting the previous as a definition of "throwing" acceptable for this brief, and "things" simply as read, even a casual observer will note that the throwing of things is wrong; those who question my basis for argument may refer to the many precedent-setting decisions on yelling, most notably Sandt-Horowitz v. Board, 1982. However, in acknowledging that physical discomfort and damage may result from thing-throwing, we also must acknowledge the argument, "But yelling and throwing [things] are two completely different things." We shall therefore start with the first case:

The thrower may state that he or she did not intend to hurt anybody, and what's the big deal, anyway, as in Rehnquist v. Rehnquist, Jr., 1970, 1971 (various), 1972. Here we see a clear case of willful, pre-meditated intent, as applied to prosecution, begging the question of why the subject was throwing things in the first place. A basic principle of law is the establishment of responsibility, which in this case leads to the thrower, regardless of intent. Malice or carelessness bears on sentencing, not on the specific legal points involved.

Second, the interior/exterior argument--that a plaintiff was only instructed not to throw things in the house--begs the question of property value (NOT environmental disposition) as opposed to human rights. Or, to quote Mother v. Rehnquist, 1940, "So you know not to break a vase in the living room, but it's okay to throw gravel at your sister in the driveway?" Then, as now, the judge's question is rhetorical but valuable; even an expensive vase has less value than a sister, regardless of how bratty. We therefore infer that, if we as a society decree that one should endeavor not to throw things at objects, we must also rule that it is wrong to throw things at people.

This bears directly on a potential subclass of argument, such as, "But Dan Marino throws things all the time!" He does, of course, but only in cases in which consent from wide receivers and running backs is implied. He does so in a spirit of cooperation, and he does not throw "things," but a ball expressly designed for the purpose of being thrown and, subsequently, received; res ipsa loquitor. I would strongly advise you not to waste my time with any other wasteful, sophomoric outbursts of this kind, for doing so will lead me to hold you in contempt.

The object thrown is immaterial, as is the object thrown at or toward; I had hoped you would have the good sense to see this by now, but I shall explain. The plaintiff may say, "It was just a piece of paper. It's not like I threw a hand grenade or something." After advising the subject to watch his mouth, lest it be washed out with soap [Rehnquist v. St. Agatha's Catholic School For Boys, 1942], we ask: Isn't it? A piece of paper might not cause the same degree of personal or property damage as a hand grenade, it is true, but it is merely a matter of degree. Does that paper not cause the destruction of a pro forma lawful state, namely a nice, clean house? And haven't I ruled in the past that it hurts other people's feelings, not to mention poses a potential safety hazard, when you get a nice, clean house all dirty?

I have spoken. A short recess is now in order while I deliberate on who is to clean up this mess.

Next Story

Onion Video

Watch More