I am Michael Crook. Much like the dwarf planet Ceres, I am content to remain in my orbit, largely left to myself. I do not "blog," and I am never one to intentionally seek the proverbial spotlight. Also, with the exception of Twitter [Profile], I do not have a presence on social networking sites as I find such sites to be rather elementary.
A true homebody, I prefer to stay at home as much as possible, perfectly content to sit back and use my laptop while watching television and enjoying burritos and Pepsi®. I also quite enjoy my iPhone® and I absolutely get as much use out of it as one possibly can.
One thing you should know about me is this: I especially hate drunken drivers. I have no tolerance for them, their excuses and their attempts to appear as though they are good people who made a "mistake." More often than not, when the drunkard is hauled into court, he or she ends up having more rights and considerations than the victim or the victim's survivors. Their friends will typically scream at the top of their lungs about how the drunkard is a good person and that it was "an accident." Good people do not drive while drunk. And drunken driving is never an "accident," because to do requires a series of intentional and malicious acts. It is as simple as that, in my opinion.
When a drunken driver claims a crash was an "accident," he or she is being disingenuous at best. The person in question did not drink to the point of intoxication and then get into the car--while drunk--by accident, and he or she did not put key to ignition by accident. He or she did not start the car and put it into gear by accident, and did not take to the roads by accident. Therefore, driving while drunk is never a "mistake" or an "accident."
That is especially so since everyone knows drunk driving is wrong. Thus, there is no excuse for driving drunk, no matter many crocodile tears the drunkard pretends to shed. Any remorse a drunken driver feels is for himself or herself, never for the victim or victims they slaughtered to satisfy their drunken bloodlust, in my opinion. A person who is evil enough to drive while drunk is, I feel, incapable of feeling true remorse or guilt, because if that person were truly sorry, he or she would not have done it to begin with.
Again, drunken driving is clearly a malicious, planned and intentional act, since the person in questions knows they are drunk or are getting to that point, so drunken driving can never be excused. Never. Anyone with half a brain knows that there are options for people who inbibe when they know they will be driving. Indeed, choosing a designated driver is always smart, as is hiring a taxi or calling one's friends.
If a person is so irresponsible as to be under the influence of alcohol, and then malicious enough to want to drive on top of that evil, he or she can make it right by choosing one of these options. Because there are options, a drunken driver--especially one who injures or kills--can never be redeemed or forgiven.
Those who drive while under the influence (and by that, I mean even one sip!) make me wish that DUI was a death penalty crime. If it were up to me, I would make it so anything above a BAC of 0.00 while driving would be a felony, with the death penalty if anyone dies or is injured. That is not a harsh punishment.
Consider this: the drunkard would have knowingly driven while drunk (intent) and then aimed a loaded weapon (the car) at the victim, which qualifies as murder, in my opinion. It is my opinion that anyone who ever has or ever will drive drunk is a threat to society and should be treated as such.
Sadly, very few states take serious action against drunken drivers and hand out weak sentences (piddly fines and maybe a short suspension of one's license) when no death is involved, and cake walk sentences like ten years when a fatality is involved, almost rewarding drunken driving. This is why drunken drivers take to the roads. They know that they will wind up having more rights than their victims, especially if they are able to find an attorney filthy enough to defend such an act. So much for justice in America.
I feel that any lawyer who defends a drunken driver is reprehensible and should burn in Hell right along with the drunkard he or she defends. Because of the amount of evil I feel it takes to defend in any way a drunkard who drives, I truly wish upon every attorney who ever has defended, is now defending, or ever will defend a drunken driver the death of a spouse or child--preferably the latter--at the hands of a drunken driver. Then we will see how the attorney likes it when that person is defended.
If said attorney does not like getting a healthy dose of comeuppance, then I daresay he or she is not only reprehensible, but is also a cowardly hypocrite. I wish the same upon anyone else who would in any way stand up for or defend a drunken driver.
No, there can be no tolerance or forgiveness for drunken drivers. It is my belief that it takes a pathetic, slovenly, evil and malicious person to consume alcoholic beverages, and I further believe that it takes a malicious, bloodthirsty, evil person to drive while drunk. There is no other explanation and it is not up for debate.
Follow me on Twitter or just check me out. I mean, if you want to and stuff.Click here
The topic of mental illness is a popular one these days. So, then, I would like to put my two cents in. You see, more than a few people have called me "crazy." I agree.
Throughout my life, I have attempted suicide several times, and I dealt with what I would later find out was depression. It was so bad that in high school, I would often take several sleeping pills before getting on the bus, hoping to just drop dead on the bus or in class. As one might expect, I stumbled and fumbled through my classes and probably acted irrationally in general. I cannot say for certain as there is a large portion of my high school years that I simply do not remember. Had I been more aware of mental illness and what it can do to a person, I would have sought help.
Following an involuntary three-day confinement in a mental facility in 2013 after an unpleasant incident, the fact that I am crazy became official.
It was at that point that I was diagnosed with bipolar/manic depression disorders, schizophrenia and a few personality disorders. As a result, I am on several medications, including Divalproex 500 mg, Bupropin HCL XL 300 mg and Quetiapine Fumarate 250 mg.
I do not, however, let the fact that I am mentally ill define me. I refuse to. The fact that I am mentally ill is only one piece of the puzzle that is I. Far from "suffering from mental illness," as some might put it, I am enjoying every minute of it! But seriously, I deal with the difficulties that come with the conditions that I have, such as the severe mood swings, the occasional voices and the manic episodes, but the medications that I am on help.
There should never be a stigma attached to mental illness. It is a serious topic, and people who are diagnosed with mental illness are just as normal and valid as someone who has not.
Being mentally ill took some getting used to once I learned what was wrong with me. For example, I do have to admit that it was humbling to check off the "bipolar" box under a question about disabilities for a job that I applied for. But again, I do not let it define me, and as long as I am mentally capable of working, I will do so as I do not intend to use my mental illness as a means to play the system.
I would add, however, that those with mental illness should be treated with the same love and respect as those with more traditional disabilities.
I never have much cared for socializing to begin with, so it follows that I tend to not be around other people in social settings. I do not attend parties, raves, shindigs, hoedowns, hootenannies, celebrations, feasts, potlucks, balls, banquets, get-togethers, reunions, feasts, functions, gatherings, meetings, picnics, box socials, ice cream socials, rallies, outings, revivals, square dances, support groups or anything of the sort.
I do not do what many people, for whatever reason, seem to do, which is engage in "small talk" in certain social situations. I am quite content to wait in the queue, using my iPhone® until I am called. I do not see the advantages of socialization, nor am I in any way interested in so-called "friendships" and so forth.
It is a shame that society has deemed it normal to socialize while punishing those who do not walk in lockstep with that mindset with labels that pertain to their mental health. Wanting to be alone and not wanting to socialize are traits that are not abnormal, no matter what any health care professional may say.
Indeed, I do enjoy alone time, and I insist upon getting as much of it as humanly possible.