This has been an unusual Christmas season. We've lost a few public faces and one from the neighborhood as well.
Ron Santo. Even if you weren't a Cub fan, you couldn't help knowing who he was. I was impressed and touched by the way he handled the way his diabetes ravaged his body. Both legs amputated and yet he continued working, continued cheering his beloved Cubs. He showed courage and grace.
Elizabeth Edwards, who died yesterday at 61. Diagnosed with breast cancer she continued working in her husband's campaigns, first for Vice President and then for President. She dealt with the death of her son. Eventually, she faced her husband's infidelity. An impressive person, she is one of my heroes.
So too was comedian Leslie Nielsen. He came to real celebrity with the movie "Airplane," and followed it with the "Naked Gun" series. Slapstick humor and goofy lines defined him as a guy who embraced his inner clown. He loved silliness, as do I.
My neighbor from across the street died last week, too. Izzy was a quiet fellow with, it's an understatement to say, a loving and devoted family. His death brought literally hundreds of people to our neighborhood to mourn him and comfort his wife, including many of the staff members from the care home where he finished out his days. One of them said she usually never attends the wakes of patients but Izzy's good humor and kindness made him special. I'd known him for twenty-plus years just as someone to visit with at the end of the driveway but I mourn the loss of a friend. He was one of the good guys.
Rest in Peace.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Testing The Pat Down
I made a prediction a couple of days after 9/11.
Amidst all the calls for increased security and the public opinion polls that said Americans were ready for more aggressive protocols to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, I said, "Wait a few years. That tune will change."
It certainly has.
From "Don't touch my junk!" t-shirts to the planned "Opt Out Day" Wednesday, the traveling public has expressed the opinion that full-body scanners and pat downs really aren't necessary if they result in inconvenience, embarrassment and the potential for health risks from added x-rays.
Just out of curiosity, and because Kansas City uses private security screeners (as Congressman Joe Mica of Florida wants to see replace TSA at all the nation's busiest airports), I tested out a pat down at Kansas City International Airport yesterday on my way home to Chicago. KCI has full-body scanners but they are only used by the airport's two busiest airlines, Southwest and Delta. I was flying United.
I left a flashlight and a pen in my pockets as I went through the metal detectors. After I "beeped" three times, I was asked to step aside. I assumed the position: standing, hands out to the sides forming a "T." As the security agent frisked me, he explained he was checking my loose clothing for any metal objects I might have forgotten to put in the bin.
The pat-down was fast, semi-professional and didn't appear to draw attention from my fellow passengers. I say semi-professional for two reasons. The agent didn't touch my rear pockets and he wasn't aggressive enough in places where even embarrassed rookie cops in training are aggressive. Had I been wearing a shoulder, belt or ankle holstered weapon, he would have found it. If I'd had a a gun hidden in the area of my groin or a knife in my back pocket, I would have boarded the plane armed.
I watched for about a half hour as about a dozen other passengers were patted down. None voiced an objection. None received more thorough treatment than I. Some were patted only above the waist.
The conclusions I draw from my individual experience are that not all passengers are treated the same way and "pat downs" are not effective if done half-heartedly. I'm sure some security officers do a better job than others. Some do far worse.
Congress is not willing to mandate, nor is the traveling public willing to accept, the cost or inconvenience of truly aggressive security measures carried out by trained anti-terror professionals. The politicians, and the people, have fallen back to believing that, "It won't happen here...again." We all want to get swiftly to our destinations...not wait hours in line. We aren't even willing to trade momentary indignity for better safety.
As a result, Congress has provided unarmed, poorly paid security screeners to do an unpleasant job in the best way they can. The better they do it, the slower the line moves and the more complaints they receive.
As a result, we get TSA and private contractors who, in some highly publicized cases, frisk babies, the elderly, and those in wheelchairs. Colostomy bags break open. Genitals get touched, sometimes harshly. Inappropriate comments are made at indelicate times.
Is there a more efficient way? Not in a country as big, or as opinionated, as ours.
Will the procedures now in place prevent another tragedy? They have so far.
Will there be more complaints, even more lawsuits? Count on it.
Do people feel safer?
Answer that one for yourself.
Amidst all the calls for increased security and the public opinion polls that said Americans were ready for more aggressive protocols to keep us safe from another terrorist attack, I said, "Wait a few years. That tune will change."
It certainly has.
From "Don't touch my junk!" t-shirts to the planned "Opt Out Day" Wednesday, the traveling public has expressed the opinion that full-body scanners and pat downs really aren't necessary if they result in inconvenience, embarrassment and the potential for health risks from added x-rays.
Just out of curiosity, and because Kansas City uses private security screeners (as Congressman Joe Mica of Florida wants to see replace TSA at all the nation's busiest airports), I tested out a pat down at Kansas City International Airport yesterday on my way home to Chicago. KCI has full-body scanners but they are only used by the airport's two busiest airlines, Southwest and Delta. I was flying United.
I left a flashlight and a pen in my pockets as I went through the metal detectors. After I "beeped" three times, I was asked to step aside. I assumed the position: standing, hands out to the sides forming a "T." As the security agent frisked me, he explained he was checking my loose clothing for any metal objects I might have forgotten to put in the bin.
The pat-down was fast, semi-professional and didn't appear to draw attention from my fellow passengers. I say semi-professional for two reasons. The agent didn't touch my rear pockets and he wasn't aggressive enough in places where even embarrassed rookie cops in training are aggressive. Had I been wearing a shoulder, belt or ankle holstered weapon, he would have found it. If I'd had a a gun hidden in the area of my groin or a knife in my back pocket, I would have boarded the plane armed.
I watched for about a half hour as about a dozen other passengers were patted down. None voiced an objection. None received more thorough treatment than I. Some were patted only above the waist.
The conclusions I draw from my individual experience are that not all passengers are treated the same way and "pat downs" are not effective if done half-heartedly. I'm sure some security officers do a better job than others. Some do far worse.
Congress is not willing to mandate, nor is the traveling public willing to accept, the cost or inconvenience of truly aggressive security measures carried out by trained anti-terror professionals. The politicians, and the people, have fallen back to believing that, "It won't happen here...again." We all want to get swiftly to our destinations...not wait hours in line. We aren't even willing to trade momentary indignity for better safety.
As a result, Congress has provided unarmed, poorly paid security screeners to do an unpleasant job in the best way they can. The better they do it, the slower the line moves and the more complaints they receive.
As a result, we get TSA and private contractors who, in some highly publicized cases, frisk babies, the elderly, and those in wheelchairs. Colostomy bags break open. Genitals get touched, sometimes harshly. Inappropriate comments are made at indelicate times.
Is there a more efficient way? Not in a country as big, or as opinionated, as ours.
Will the procedures now in place prevent another tragedy? They have so far.
Will there be more complaints, even more lawsuits? Count on it.
Do people feel safer?
Answer that one for yourself.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Watching the War Through a Medal Winner's Eyes
None of us really gets a sense of what war is about unless we've fought in one or heard a compelling story from someone who has.
Sgt. Sal Giunta is the first living Medal of Honor recepient since Vietnam.
President Obama presented his award yesterday at the White House. He has been interviewed everywhere.
After one has been a cop and then spent time as a reporter covering the harshest kinds of violence this side of a war zone, you realize that real heroes don't bluster. The truly tough guys aren't loud or obnoxious. They don't gladhand a room, perfect a grin for the cameras or offer up snappy soundbites.
Whenever a person is officially lauded for acting "above and beyond," whether a soldier, cop, firefighter or just a dad or mom protecting their family, you seldom hear them speak in terms of "I" unless it's to say, "I was just doing what anyone in that situation would have done."
Real heroes prefer the pronoun "we."
So it comes as no real surprise that Sgt Giunta, who looks like a cross between Tom Hanks and CSI:New York's Gary Sinise, is quiet and humble. His eyes are devastatingly sad because, for all his courage, he was not able to save the life of his best friend. As well spoken as he is, sometimes he repeats part of the interviewer's question to give him time to answer. And most of his answers are simple and to the point, self-effacing without being cool.
He truly doesn't seem to understand why he has been singled out when everything he did in war was accomplished while surrounded by a team of soldiers just as professional as he was. On Sixty Minutes , he told Correspondent Lara Logan, "I don't think I did anything that anyone else I was with wouldn't have done. I was in a position to do it. That was what needed to be done. So that's what I did."
He praises his wife for "being there" for him and for giving him the strength to get through it all.
He misses those who were killed, telling the President during the award ceremony he would give back the Medal of Honor if he could just have his friends with him again.
Sgt Giunta's story, his description of the ambush that led to his nomination for the award, the comments of the other soldiers from his squad who were with him, make for compelling reading and viewing.
No matter how you feel about the U.S. having troops in Afghanistan or about war in general, you should look up the reports online. The Sixty Minutes piece is excellent and his last line in the interview will leave you with a lump in your throat.
He and his buddies fought for us. The very least we can do is listen to their story.
Sgt. Sal Giunta is the first living Medal of Honor recepient since Vietnam.
President Obama presented his award yesterday at the White House. He has been interviewed everywhere.
After one has been a cop and then spent time as a reporter covering the harshest kinds of violence this side of a war zone, you realize that real heroes don't bluster. The truly tough guys aren't loud or obnoxious. They don't gladhand a room, perfect a grin for the cameras or offer up snappy soundbites.
Whenever a person is officially lauded for acting "above and beyond," whether a soldier, cop, firefighter or just a dad or mom protecting their family, you seldom hear them speak in terms of "I" unless it's to say, "I was just doing what anyone in that situation would have done."
Real heroes prefer the pronoun "we."
So it comes as no real surprise that Sgt Giunta, who looks like a cross between Tom Hanks and CSI:New York's Gary Sinise, is quiet and humble. His eyes are devastatingly sad because, for all his courage, he was not able to save the life of his best friend. As well spoken as he is, sometimes he repeats part of the interviewer's question to give him time to answer. And most of his answers are simple and to the point, self-effacing without being cool.
He truly doesn't seem to understand why he has been singled out when everything he did in war was accomplished while surrounded by a team of soldiers just as professional as he was. On Sixty Minutes , he told Correspondent Lara Logan, "I don't think I did anything that anyone else I was with wouldn't have done. I was in a position to do it. That was what needed to be done. So that's what I did."
He praises his wife for "being there" for him and for giving him the strength to get through it all.
He misses those who were killed, telling the President during the award ceremony he would give back the Medal of Honor if he could just have his friends with him again.
Sgt Giunta's story, his description of the ambush that led to his nomination for the award, the comments of the other soldiers from his squad who were with him, make for compelling reading and viewing.
No matter how you feel about the U.S. having troops in Afghanistan or about war in general, you should look up the reports online. The Sixty Minutes piece is excellent and his last line in the interview will leave you with a lump in your throat.
He and his buddies fought for us. The very least we can do is listen to their story.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Following Up Mr. Drive-By
My earlier blog today focused on the facts some politicians and a couple of well-known religious leaders (read that "politicans of the cloth") forget to talk about when they push for tougher Illinois gun laws.
One of the points I raised is that the bad guys, aka the people who spray crowds with machine gun fire and randomly kill little kids and pregnant women, don't pay attention to laws already on the books that are designed to control access to firearms. . . so what would "tougher laws" accomplish? Who would they help (other than the politicians looking for the fear vote, of course)?
Case conveniently in point: Over the weekend, Chicago police acting on a search warrant raided the home of a Hegewisch neighborhood resident. According to the Chicago Tribune web site today, the officers, ". . .discovered five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition . . ."
Did the individual have as required by state law, an Illinois Firearm Owner ID card? No. Is he a licensed Federal Firearms dealer? I'm betting he is not. Did he possess the required permits to own handguns in the city of Chicago? Doubtful.
Guys like him laugh at existing gun laws! So why write more of them?
Some of our elected representatives and other irresponsible fear mongers grab headlines and camera time acting tough to impress their constituents. If they really want results, however, they won't come from "tougher" laws.
We need money to pay the salaries for more tough cops, to work the tough cases and to make the tough arrests that take hauls like "five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition..." off the tough streets.
One of the points I raised is that the bad guys, aka the people who spray crowds with machine gun fire and randomly kill little kids and pregnant women, don't pay attention to laws already on the books that are designed to control access to firearms. . . so what would "tougher laws" accomplish? Who would they help (other than the politicians looking for the fear vote, of course)?
Case conveniently in point: Over the weekend, Chicago police acting on a search warrant raided the home of a Hegewisch neighborhood resident. According to the Chicago Tribune web site today, the officers, ". . .discovered five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition . . ."
Did the individual have as required by state law, an Illinois Firearm Owner ID card? No. Is he a licensed Federal Firearms dealer? I'm betting he is not. Did he possess the required permits to own handguns in the city of Chicago? Doubtful.
Guys like him laugh at existing gun laws! So why write more of them?
Some of our elected representatives and other irresponsible fear mongers grab headlines and camera time acting tough to impress their constituents. If they really want results, however, they won't come from "tougher" laws.
We need money to pay the salaries for more tough cops, to work the tough cases and to make the tough arrests that take hauls like "five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition..." off the tough streets.
Ducking Mr. Drive-By
I'm as horrified as the next guy about drive-bys that kill the innocent, in whatever part of town they happen to be.
I'd get in line to protest gun violence,too, as long as the guns being protested are those in the hands of gang-bangers, drug dealers and anyone else using them for criminal purposes.
A Chicago priest is calling on Springfield to enact "tougher" gun laws. The Tribune's online edition doesn't spell out exactly what the good reverend wants those laws to say but I imagine it's more of the same kind of thing that we've heard from Rev JJ, Mayor Dick and the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Here are some of the facts they never share with their audiences:
Illinois already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.
One cannot legally buy a firearm in this state without first obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card, which requires a background check. Another check is conducted at time of purchase and the buyer is then subject to a waiting period of 72 hours before a handgun can be delivered, 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun.
Illinois has no concealed weapons permit for civilians. We live in one of two states, Wisconsin being the other, that restricts concealed weapons to police officers.
Under Illinois law, a firearm cannot be carried in a vehicle unless it is unloaded, in a case and in the trunk.
Chicago, where the majority of gun crimes occur, has even stricter local ordinances regarding handguns.
Individuals wanting to legally purchase an automatic weapon can do so only after obtaining Federal certification from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Such certification is a lengthy process, requires a local law-enforcement sign-off and is relatively expensive.
All of these laws are regularly disregarded by those who wantonly spray bullets into crowds and kill children and by every crook who carries a pistol in their belt and produces it to stick up a liguor store.
Crooks pay no attention to the statutes now on the books. Why would enacting more restrictive laws make us safer? Criminals buy illegal weapons. Their suppliers don't fill out forms or require FOID cards. The people who sell guns to gang-bangers don't warn them against carrying concealed.
Wake up!
Yes, certainly, Illinois could act to entirely ban civilian handgun ownership. To what purpose? The state legislature could ban all rifles and shotguns, too. Why? Who would it help?
Sure, calling for tougher laws about anything sounds . . . well . . . tough.
It's a feel-good, political solution without real-world substance and, like most political solutions, it helps only the politician.
Out on the street, meanwhile, folks still be duckin' Mr. Drive By.
I'd get in line to protest gun violence,too, as long as the guns being protested are those in the hands of gang-bangers, drug dealers and anyone else using them for criminal purposes.
A Chicago priest is calling on Springfield to enact "tougher" gun laws. The Tribune's online edition doesn't spell out exactly what the good reverend wants those laws to say but I imagine it's more of the same kind of thing that we've heard from Rev JJ, Mayor Dick and the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Here are some of the facts they never share with their audiences:
Illinois already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.
One cannot legally buy a firearm in this state without first obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card, which requires a background check. Another check is conducted at time of purchase and the buyer is then subject to a waiting period of 72 hours before a handgun can be delivered, 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun.
Illinois has no concealed weapons permit for civilians. We live in one of two states, Wisconsin being the other, that restricts concealed weapons to police officers.
Under Illinois law, a firearm cannot be carried in a vehicle unless it is unloaded, in a case and in the trunk.
Chicago, where the majority of gun crimes occur, has even stricter local ordinances regarding handguns.
Individuals wanting to legally purchase an automatic weapon can do so only after obtaining Federal certification from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Such certification is a lengthy process, requires a local law-enforcement sign-off and is relatively expensive.
All of these laws are regularly disregarded by those who wantonly spray bullets into crowds and kill children and by every crook who carries a pistol in their belt and produces it to stick up a liguor store.
Crooks pay no attention to the statutes now on the books. Why would enacting more restrictive laws make us safer? Criminals buy illegal weapons. Their suppliers don't fill out forms or require FOID cards. The people who sell guns to gang-bangers don't warn them against carrying concealed.
Wake up!
Yes, certainly, Illinois could act to entirely ban civilian handgun ownership. To what purpose? The state legislature could ban all rifles and shotguns, too. Why? Who would it help?
Sure, calling for tougher laws about anything sounds . . . well . . . tough.
It's a feel-good, political solution without real-world substance and, like most political solutions, it helps only the politician.
Out on the street, meanwhile, folks still be duckin' Mr. Drive By.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Dead Freshman and a Bit on Bullying
Two Rutgers University freshmen alledgedly shot secret video of a fellow freshman having sex with another guy. The subject of the video, 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, later jumped off the George Washington Bridge to his death. The couple allegedly behind the video has been arrested and could face even more charges if the case is determined to be a bias crime. I hope it is. The mopes won't see jail time but, at the very least, I hope Rutgers boots them out and the victim's family pummels them in court.
Bullying is a hot-button topic with me.
I was bullied from about age 8 to age 12. Daily and unrelentingly. I'll say two things about it. No one except a victim knows how frightening it can be and fighting back, sometimes viciously, may be the only answer. I pushed one kid's head through a window and fractured the skull of another. The bullying stopped but my family also dealt with some legal repercussions. So let me also say that fighting back may carry its own price tag.
Bottom line: whatever the circumstances, no one should ever be made to feel the only way out is off a bridge. I'll take a courtroom over a body bag any day.
I doubt the couple at Rutgers had any idea their video "prank" would turn out the way it did. At the same time, they allegedly went out of their way to humiliate another person. Whether they feel any remorse is questionable. If the case reaches a courtroom, I imagine we'll see some crocodile tears but who knows whether it will be real emotion or poor-poor-me grief.
As this case illustrates, bullying is not just about punching and kicking and it doesn't always stop after grade or high school. Witness the cruelty of a certain preacher and his followers from a Topeka, Kansas "church" who trot out their bias against homosexuals at funerals of soldiers and others.
And what do you want to bet that those fools intrude when the Clementi family lays their child to rest?
Bullying is a hot-button topic with me.
I was bullied from about age 8 to age 12. Daily and unrelentingly. I'll say two things about it. No one except a victim knows how frightening it can be and fighting back, sometimes viciously, may be the only answer. I pushed one kid's head through a window and fractured the skull of another. The bullying stopped but my family also dealt with some legal repercussions. So let me also say that fighting back may carry its own price tag.
Bottom line: whatever the circumstances, no one should ever be made to feel the only way out is off a bridge. I'll take a courtroom over a body bag any day.
I doubt the couple at Rutgers had any idea their video "prank" would turn out the way it did. At the same time, they allegedly went out of their way to humiliate another person. Whether they feel any remorse is questionable. If the case reaches a courtroom, I imagine we'll see some crocodile tears but who knows whether it will be real emotion or poor-poor-me grief.
As this case illustrates, bullying is not just about punching and kicking and it doesn't always stop after grade or high school. Witness the cruelty of a certain preacher and his followers from a Topeka, Kansas "church" who trot out their bias against homosexuals at funerals of soldiers and others.
And what do you want to bet that those fools intrude when the Clementi family lays their child to rest?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Who Cares What's in the Paper Anymore?
Chicago Tribune TV critic Maureen Dowd is leaving the Tribune.
She says it's because of a diminished interest on the part of management in what she does, ie: watches and comments on a lot of television programs. She doesn't think she'll be replaced.
((Note to Randy Michaels: I'd be happy to take half her salary and work from home...))
C'mon. Who cares what a local critic thinks about what's on TV? Or what's good/bad about the movies? For that matter, who gives a rat's butt about a local critic's review of local theatre or books by local authors or, for that matter again, new cars?
And seriously, why do we need to have all those sports commentators taking up space? I don't care about the nitwits in the front office of the Cubs and how they choose players. Or all the stupid trades the Bears or the Blackhawks make. What's that to me?
Frankly, I'm not really interested in the opinions of a bunch of people who used to cover the news and now sit back in their suspenders and drink coffee all day and write stupid editorials, either. What difference do they make, huh? It's not like politicians get elected, or not, or policies/laws get enacted, or not, based on what some silly newspaper has to say.
Frankly all that mostly biased political coverage could go, too. For example, how many people in Illinois really care that Blago tried to sell a Senate seat? Huh? And those stupid "sidebars" and "soft features?" Bah! Columnists? I never agree with them anyway.
I just read the paper for hard news. Oh wait. I don't read the actual "paper" any more at all. Just look online.
Then you have to consider those stupid advertisements, too. I don't read 'em. Don't use 'em. Don't buy crap based on them. Do you really need them?
So what the heck, Randy Michaels and Sam Zell, get rid of all the extras and save yourselves some money.
When you think about it, all those big rolls of paper have got to be mucho expensivo.
She says it's because of a diminished interest on the part of management in what she does, ie: watches and comments on a lot of television programs. She doesn't think she'll be replaced.
((Note to Randy Michaels: I'd be happy to take half her salary and work from home...))
C'mon. Who cares what a local critic thinks about what's on TV? Or what's good/bad about the movies? For that matter, who gives a rat's butt about a local critic's review of local theatre or books by local authors or, for that matter again, new cars?
And seriously, why do we need to have all those sports commentators taking up space? I don't care about the nitwits in the front office of the Cubs and how they choose players. Or all the stupid trades the Bears or the Blackhawks make. What's that to me?
Frankly, I'm not really interested in the opinions of a bunch of people who used to cover the news and now sit back in their suspenders and drink coffee all day and write stupid editorials, either. What difference do they make, huh? It's not like politicians get elected, or not, or policies/laws get enacted, or not, based on what some silly newspaper has to say.
Frankly all that mostly biased political coverage could go, too. For example, how many people in Illinois really care that Blago tried to sell a Senate seat? Huh? And those stupid "sidebars" and "soft features?" Bah! Columnists? I never agree with them anyway.
I just read the paper for hard news. Oh wait. I don't read the actual "paper" any more at all. Just look online.
Then you have to consider those stupid advertisements, too. I don't read 'em. Don't use 'em. Don't buy crap based on them. Do you really need them?
So what the heck, Randy Michaels and Sam Zell, get rid of all the extras and save yourselves some money.
When you think about it, all those big rolls of paper have got to be mucho expensivo.
Blago and the Kids Killed In Drive-Bys
It doesn't surprise me that many people are ready to put the Blagojevich case behind them.
"IL is short on money and 12 year olds are getting shot in Chicago by gangs, but there is money to keep spending on a victimless crime like the Blago case," says one Facebookian. "Why are we wasting money on this? It's pointless. We give him too much press. If you want to hurt him, ignore him," says another. Yet a third says, "Let it go. He's been kicked out of office, and found guilty of a felony. Send him off to do his time and get on with other more important things."
It's no wonder we continue to have corruption in Illinois government. Folks like these don't see cause and effect.
Let me put it in terms they might be able to understand.
Say your parents leave all their money, every dollar, in cash hidden in their mattress. That's the money they use to feed and clothe you, to take you to Six Flags, to buy you Christmas presents.
On a regular basis, your big brother steals money from the mattress to buy games for his computer. Your dad goes into the mattress to pay for a few hookers. Your mom steals just because she knows the cash is there.
Pretty soon, your parents start telling you, you can't have new clothes for school this year. No more Cap'n Crunch for breakfast. No extra cash for the rides at Six Flags. And come Christmas, well, you get a nice orange in your stocking but not much else.
Let's make it even more personal. Your brother then takes your computer and sells it. He gives your bike to one of his friends.
Pretty soon, your parents tell you they have to move to a tiny apartment and you can't have your own room. In fact, you have to share a bed with your brother.
Think that's a silly comparison? You think Illinois politicians don't work like that?
Wait 'til after the fall elections when your "parents" show you their plan for taking back some of that money you earned working at the drugstore, L'il Tommy. Money they "need" because their mattress is getting empty.
"Why's the mattress empty, Mom and Dad?" Gosh, son, we don't know. But if you want to keep living here, you have to turn your paycheck over to us every month.
We'll keep taking care of you, son. Trust us.
Wake up, Illinois.
Governor Rod may try to cover himself with the bodies of dead kids so you don't notice, but he committed crimes that affect every single one of us. He tried to SELL a bleeping U.S. Senate seat for crying out loud.
Sure that kind of thing gets done under the table all the time. But THIS time, there's evidence. THIS time the Feds almost nailed him.
I say retry the mope until he's convicted and put him away until those thousand- dollar suits of his turn to rags.
"IL is short on money and 12 year olds are getting shot in Chicago by gangs, but there is money to keep spending on a victimless crime like the Blago case," says one Facebookian. "Why are we wasting money on this? It's pointless. We give him too much press. If you want to hurt him, ignore him," says another. Yet a third says, "Let it go. He's been kicked out of office, and found guilty of a felony. Send him off to do his time and get on with other more important things."
It's no wonder we continue to have corruption in Illinois government. Folks like these don't see cause and effect.
Let me put it in terms they might be able to understand.
Say your parents leave all their money, every dollar, in cash hidden in their mattress. That's the money they use to feed and clothe you, to take you to Six Flags, to buy you Christmas presents.
On a regular basis, your big brother steals money from the mattress to buy games for his computer. Your dad goes into the mattress to pay for a few hookers. Your mom steals just because she knows the cash is there.
Pretty soon, your parents start telling you, you can't have new clothes for school this year. No more Cap'n Crunch for breakfast. No extra cash for the rides at Six Flags. And come Christmas, well, you get a nice orange in your stocking but not much else.
Let's make it even more personal. Your brother then takes your computer and sells it. He gives your bike to one of his friends.
Pretty soon, your parents tell you they have to move to a tiny apartment and you can't have your own room. In fact, you have to share a bed with your brother.
Think that's a silly comparison? You think Illinois politicians don't work like that?
Wait 'til after the fall elections when your "parents" show you their plan for taking back some of that money you earned working at the drugstore, L'il Tommy. Money they "need" because their mattress is getting empty.
"Why's the mattress empty, Mom and Dad?" Gosh, son, we don't know. But if you want to keep living here, you have to turn your paycheck over to us every month.
We'll keep taking care of you, son. Trust us.
Wake up, Illinois.
Governor Rod may try to cover himself with the bodies of dead kids so you don't notice, but he committed crimes that affect every single one of us. He tried to SELL a bleeping U.S. Senate seat for crying out loud.
Sure that kind of thing gets done under the table all the time. But THIS time, there's evidence. THIS time the Feds almost nailed him.
I say retry the mope until he's convicted and put him away until those thousand- dollar suits of his turn to rags.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Inception an Interesting Conception
It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it sure was one of the oddest. At three hours, it certainly was long.
I think folks are right. To understand the intricacies, one really needs to sit through all three hours at least twice. I got the basics after the first half hour. The next two and a half were mind-numbing. Not boring, just way too much. . .crap. If someone would just explain the subtle stuff I missed while I sit in a more comfortable chair that would be great.
I didn't really enjoy the film, more just endured it. Leonardo was terrific, however. Not that he got to the depth of emotion the sub-plot required but he was intense and believable. Seeing it in iMax was a treat. The size of the screen added another dimension to the special effects, which were Oscar worthy.
The imagination that went into Inception is worthy of another Oscar for Best Dreamed Up Plot.
Speaking of dreaming, the nightmare that is the coverage of Lindsay Lohan continues. I saw an article that she was released from jail after serving two weeks of her 90 day sentence for whatever it was that got her into trouble. Now she goes into rehab. She's scheduled next to appear in a biography of Linda Lovelace. How very, very appropriate.
I think folks are right. To understand the intricacies, one really needs to sit through all three hours at least twice. I got the basics after the first half hour. The next two and a half were mind-numbing. Not boring, just way too much. . .crap. If someone would just explain the subtle stuff I missed while I sit in a more comfortable chair that would be great.
I didn't really enjoy the film, more just endured it. Leonardo was terrific, however. Not that he got to the depth of emotion the sub-plot required but he was intense and believable. Seeing it in iMax was a treat. The size of the screen added another dimension to the special effects, which were Oscar worthy.
The imagination that went into Inception is worthy of another Oscar for Best Dreamed Up Plot.
Speaking of dreaming, the nightmare that is the coverage of Lindsay Lohan continues. I saw an article that she was released from jail after serving two weeks of her 90 day sentence for whatever it was that got her into trouble. Now she goes into rehab. She's scheduled next to appear in a biography of Linda Lovelace. How very, very appropriate.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Sunday Snippets
From the patio table in the sunshine, with Socks Monster the Feline Action Hero relaxing on the bricks nearby (yep, he's got the aluminum reflector set up along with his iced tea and current novel)...
Chelsea Clinton has her wedding dress. It was on Yahoo just now. How lovely she looks. How little I care. I hope she has a terrific wedding and a long and happy life with her beau.
----
Chicago's CBS-2 is bringing back two stalwarts who drove the ratings for the station back in the 70's and early 80's. Bill Kurtis, most recently seen "discovering the Internet" for AT&T and seeking justice on Justice Files on cable, and Walter Jacobsen, will be anchoring Channel 2's 6pm newscasts. It's a shame they agreed to the re-pairing for a number of reasons, primarily because it smacks of a last stand by CBS to stay in the news game at 6. Family Feud would have been better.
----
The Blago trial jury is deliberating our former governor's future. My best guess is he may do a year or two but will walk on the primary count of trying to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. Why? The Government stopped short of presenting its entire case. Interestingly enough, the Defense, after promising Blago would testify, backed down entirely and presented no case whatsoever. I find that . . . odd. It suggests to me a scenario where the Defense predicted Blago would testify in such a way that information derogatory to certain political, or perhaps business, interests would come out in open court. The Government decided that should not happen and agreed to ratchet back if the Defense agreed to keep Blago's mouth shut. I'd hate to think that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a guy regarded even among his peers as incorruptible, would allow such a thing to happen on his watch.
Then again, maybe that's not what happened at all.
Do we think we will ever get the real story? Nah.
Have a great Sunday everyone.
Chelsea Clinton has her wedding dress. It was on Yahoo just now. How lovely she looks. How little I care. I hope she has a terrific wedding and a long and happy life with her beau.
----
Chicago's CBS-2 is bringing back two stalwarts who drove the ratings for the station back in the 70's and early 80's. Bill Kurtis, most recently seen "discovering the Internet" for AT&T and seeking justice on Justice Files on cable, and Walter Jacobsen, will be anchoring Channel 2's 6pm newscasts. It's a shame they agreed to the re-pairing for a number of reasons, primarily because it smacks of a last stand by CBS to stay in the news game at 6. Family Feud would have been better.
----
The Blago trial jury is deliberating our former governor's future. My best guess is he may do a year or two but will walk on the primary count of trying to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. Why? The Government stopped short of presenting its entire case. Interestingly enough, the Defense, after promising Blago would testify, backed down entirely and presented no case whatsoever. I find that . . . odd. It suggests to me a scenario where the Defense predicted Blago would testify in such a way that information derogatory to certain political, or perhaps business, interests would come out in open court. The Government decided that should not happen and agreed to ratchet back if the Defense agreed to keep Blago's mouth shut. I'd hate to think that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a guy regarded even among his peers as incorruptible, would allow such a thing to happen on his watch.
Then again, maybe that's not what happened at all.
Do we think we will ever get the real story? Nah.
Have a great Sunday everyone.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Defense Games and the Blago Kids
The trial of Governor Blagojevich is about to go to the jury. What a relief.
As I've said before, I don't think the G made its case on the major counts. It just didn't come across that way in news reports, anyway. Maybe if I'd been a juror sitting there day in and day out...
I hope the prosecution nails him. I'd like to see the slimey, shifty, sneaky SOB go away for a few years somewhere there are no TV cameras and no soft shoulders of the media to cry upon. Because that's precisely what the media has allowed him to do. At every opportunity. It's been shameless, one-sided coverage with no real attempt to determine what damage he might have done had he succeeded in his schemes.
The media has allowed him to bob and weave and shake his finger and smile and sign autographs and act the boob right there on TV. It's let him get away with bringing his kids to court, without finding social workers or shrinks to tell us how really damaging that can be.
The media loves a show, and Blago's lawyers have certainly put one on.
They've argued (in the media...so far the judge won't let them say it in front of the jury) that the Government didn't call certain witnesses because their testimony might have been helpful to the defense. Oh please. The "missing witness" defense is as classic as "if everything goes against you, attack the lawyers."
If Sam Adam and Company felt so strongly that the uncalled witnesses could have helped them, why didn't they subpoena them for the defense? In fact, why did the defense roll over at the last minute and call NO witnesses in Blago's favor, even Hair himself?
Cross examination.
So, instead of sitting up there like a man and taking the prosecution's shots in an effort to make his own case, our former governor brings his kids to the courtroom as a distraction for the jury.
It's all a show, something that has defined Illinois politics for years.
Reality happens behind closed doors. And, thanks to the rollover Illinois media, it's allowed to stay there.
As I've said before, I don't think the G made its case on the major counts. It just didn't come across that way in news reports, anyway. Maybe if I'd been a juror sitting there day in and day out...
I hope the prosecution nails him. I'd like to see the slimey, shifty, sneaky SOB go away for a few years somewhere there are no TV cameras and no soft shoulders of the media to cry upon. Because that's precisely what the media has allowed him to do. At every opportunity. It's been shameless, one-sided coverage with no real attempt to determine what damage he might have done had he succeeded in his schemes.
The media has allowed him to bob and weave and shake his finger and smile and sign autographs and act the boob right there on TV. It's let him get away with bringing his kids to court, without finding social workers or shrinks to tell us how really damaging that can be.
The media loves a show, and Blago's lawyers have certainly put one on.
They've argued (in the media...so far the judge won't let them say it in front of the jury) that the Government didn't call certain witnesses because their testimony might have been helpful to the defense. Oh please. The "missing witness" defense is as classic as "if everything goes against you, attack the lawyers."
If Sam Adam and Company felt so strongly that the uncalled witnesses could have helped them, why didn't they subpoena them for the defense? In fact, why did the defense roll over at the last minute and call NO witnesses in Blago's favor, even Hair himself?
Cross examination.
So, instead of sitting up there like a man and taking the prosecution's shots in an effort to make his own case, our former governor brings his kids to the courtroom as a distraction for the jury.
It's all a show, something that has defined Illinois politics for years.
Reality happens behind closed doors. And, thanks to the rollover Illinois media, it's allowed to stay there.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Believe What You Will
My friend, Lindsey, gave me the news earlier this week.
Doctors found cancer in her brother Eric's pancreas last Friday. He is 25.
Lindsey's family was devastated.
I prayed for them.
I prayed as an older member of my church once suggested, by asking for a miracle. Hey, it sure doesn't hurt to ask.
I was going to write a note to the Uplift Team at church today, in fact, to get some help in prayer.
Just now, however, Lindsey texted me:
"You will never believe this. I still don't. They called this afternoon and said it was a fluke.
"There was nothing there.They did the test over twice and his pancreas is completely normal.But the test they did last Friday...the doc was sure it was cancer.It's unbelievable.They said it must've just been a shadow, but these docs are the best of the best...."
Nope, I said.They may be good, but they aren't The Best.
Choose to explain this any way you wish. My feeling is...for those who read this and who are not Believers...here's your invitation!
Praise God.
Doctors found cancer in her brother Eric's pancreas last Friday. He is 25.
Lindsey's family was devastated.
I prayed for them.
I prayed as an older member of my church once suggested, by asking for a miracle. Hey, it sure doesn't hurt to ask.
I was going to write a note to the Uplift Team at church today, in fact, to get some help in prayer.
Just now, however, Lindsey texted me:
"You will never believe this. I still don't. They called this afternoon and said it was a fluke.
"There was nothing there.They did the test over twice and his pancreas is completely normal.But the test they did last Friday...the doc was sure it was cancer.It's unbelievable.They said it must've just been a shadow, but these docs are the best of the best...."
Nope, I said.They may be good, but they aren't The Best.
Choose to explain this any way you wish. My feeling is...for those who read this and who are not Believers...here's your invitation!
Praise God.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Another Chicago Cop Murdered
I'm damned angry. If you live, and vote, in the city of Chicago, you should be, too.
Officer Michael Bailey was 62, just weeks away from mandatory retirement.
A Chicago police officer for twenty years, he was shot in his own driveway. He was still in uniform, having returned home after a shift spent guarding Mayor Daley's home.
Think about that. He was in uniform! What does that say about the people who attacked him? What does that say about the climate of violence in that one South Side neighborhood? In fact, he's the second off-duty cop still in uniform to be killed this month.
How ironic that he was part of Mayor Richard Daley's security team. Mayor Daley, the guy who says the city's wallet is empty and he can't afford to hire more cops. Mayor Daley, the guy who doesn't want law-abiding citizens to own handguns but allows violent criminals to feel so safe on the streets that they brazenly attack a uniformed police officer in his own driveway.
Will it make a difference that Daley personally knew this fine, brave copper? Of course not. He'll make a few meaningless media statements and perhaps attend Bailey's funeral. I certainly hope he is not allowed anywhere near a lectern on that sad day.
The City of Chicago needs to hire more cops. At least enough to replace those who are leaving in record numbers. Will that happen? No. As John Kass points out in the Tribune, "(The) mayor and his rubber-stamp council have spent all the money. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of deals went to the cronies. And now there's no money left to hire cops."
I absolutely believe that to be true. He's cheated you and the city and now, not even his cops are safe.
Be angry. Be furiously angry.
Better yet, come November, be votingly angry.
Officer Michael Bailey was 62, just weeks away from mandatory retirement.
A Chicago police officer for twenty years, he was shot in his own driveway. He was still in uniform, having returned home after a shift spent guarding Mayor Daley's home.
Think about that. He was in uniform! What does that say about the people who attacked him? What does that say about the climate of violence in that one South Side neighborhood? In fact, he's the second off-duty cop still in uniform to be killed this month.
How ironic that he was part of Mayor Richard Daley's security team. Mayor Daley, the guy who says the city's wallet is empty and he can't afford to hire more cops. Mayor Daley, the guy who doesn't want law-abiding citizens to own handguns but allows violent criminals to feel so safe on the streets that they brazenly attack a uniformed police officer in his own driveway.
Will it make a difference that Daley personally knew this fine, brave copper? Of course not. He'll make a few meaningless media statements and perhaps attend Bailey's funeral. I certainly hope he is not allowed anywhere near a lectern on that sad day.
The City of Chicago needs to hire more cops. At least enough to replace those who are leaving in record numbers. Will that happen? No. As John Kass points out in the Tribune, "(The) mayor and his rubber-stamp council have spent all the money. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of deals went to the cronies. And now there's no money left to hire cops."
I absolutely believe that to be true. He's cheated you and the city and now, not even his cops are safe.
Be angry. Be furiously angry.
Better yet, come November, be votingly angry.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Mayor Daley's Reality
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has made it clear. He only supports the idea of cops, politicians and his well-connected friends owning handguns. He certainly doesn't want the Average Windy City Joe or Josephine to have that privilege.
I figure that following all the new requirements set forth in the Daley gun ordinance will take about five or six years, especially if I'm right and the mayor has ordered that his new bureaucracy run as slowly as a kid to get a cavity filled.
Daley purports to be against gun violence. His argument appears to be...if you keep guns away from legitimate buyers, there won't be any guns. No matter that the "illegitimate buyers", AKA the bad guys, never paid attention to his gun ban and now have no interest in the red tape of his new law. They buy their guns where they can find them. Yes a certain number of them are stolen from legitimate owners, but that number is so infinitesmal it really doesn't matter. Accidental deaths from gun accidents are also a concern but they aren't what's killing innocents on an average of two or three a night.
Daley, as usual, is all about political puffery, not protecting his citizens. I'm sure his argument seems logical to those who work in lofty offices and listen to NPR all day and have never fired a handgun (ewwe those scary things? Never! cries Buffy from her 25th floor Lincoln Park condo with doorman and security) but all it does is show me how shallow and desperate he really is.
As usual, the regular guy suffers.
I figure that following all the new requirements set forth in the Daley gun ordinance will take about five or six years, especially if I'm right and the mayor has ordered that his new bureaucracy run as slowly as a kid to get a cavity filled.
Daley purports to be against gun violence. His argument appears to be...if you keep guns away from legitimate buyers, there won't be any guns. No matter that the "illegitimate buyers", AKA the bad guys, never paid attention to his gun ban and now have no interest in the red tape of his new law. They buy their guns where they can find them. Yes a certain number of them are stolen from legitimate owners, but that number is so infinitesmal it really doesn't matter. Accidental deaths from gun accidents are also a concern but they aren't what's killing innocents on an average of two or three a night.
Daley, as usual, is all about political puffery, not protecting his citizens. I'm sure his argument seems logical to those who work in lofty offices and listen to NPR all day and have never fired a handgun (ewwe those scary things? Never! cries Buffy from her 25th floor Lincoln Park condo with doorman and security) but all it does is show me how shallow and desperate he really is.
As usual, the regular guy suffers.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
What's Good for the Goose is Lousy for Libraries
For some years now, a fellow named Bruce DuMont has been building his dream.
A political commentator and television host, he's championed the Museum of Broadcast Communications. That's a 62,000 square foot repository of all the good things that we remember from TV in Chicago through the decades. Clips of old news programs from when real journalists, not clueless, blow-dry anchors delivered the evening reports. Kid stuff like Bozo the Clown, The Ray Rayner Show and even Garfield Goose, "The King of the United States". If you grew up in Chicago during the 50's,60's and 70's, you'll know what I'm talking about.
The MBC is a wonderful idea. Problem is, lack of promised state funding halted construction four years ago. The good news for Bruce DuMont and others, however, is that Governor Quinn just cut a check for six million dollars, putting contractors back to work. He announced it at a meeting of the media elite last week. The facility is scheduled to open next year.
That's great, but . . .
At the same time, the North Suburban Library System, a consortium of over 650 academic, public, school, and special libraries in north suburban Cook, Kane, Lake and McHenry counties, is running out of money. State funds allocated by the legislature have been withheld for this year.
The NSLS has operated for twenty years with no budget increase and, in fact, last August, had its budget cut by sixteen percent. Without the state money this year, many programs will cease. Layoffs have already begun.
In a recent letter (http://www.nsls.info/articles/detail.aspx?articleID=272), Executive Director Sarah Ann Long told members, "From our recent Needs Assessment Survey, we know van delivery service is the most important service for the majority of members. We will take all necessary steps to preserve this service intact. But most other services and programs will be dramatically reduced, eliminated, or spun off." Long goes on to say she will be one of those who is leaving.
Bottom line, there's no money for libraries but, somehow the Governor found six-million for Garfield Goose.
Sure the Museum of Broadcast Communications is a fine idea and an educational one, too. But what about the basics? Like books available on inter-library loan at no cost to low-income school children? Computers for use by families that have none? After school and summer programs? Books for shut-ins and the elderly?
Let's look beyond the libraries. What about the money for the state police which, according to stories in Downstate papers, has had to scale back manpower in many districts? Districts where troopers are the primary backup for local officers when they get into a jam?
How about money for other basics like school districts? How about paying the bills owed to the vendors who have supplied goods and services to state agencies?
While the Governor and legislature kiss up to Garfield, the rest of us get goosed.
A political commentator and television host, he's championed the Museum of Broadcast Communications. That's a 62,000 square foot repository of all the good things that we remember from TV in Chicago through the decades. Clips of old news programs from when real journalists, not clueless, blow-dry anchors delivered the evening reports. Kid stuff like Bozo the Clown, The Ray Rayner Show and even Garfield Goose, "The King of the United States". If you grew up in Chicago during the 50's,60's and 70's, you'll know what I'm talking about.
The MBC is a wonderful idea. Problem is, lack of promised state funding halted construction four years ago. The good news for Bruce DuMont and others, however, is that Governor Quinn just cut a check for six million dollars, putting contractors back to work. He announced it at a meeting of the media elite last week. The facility is scheduled to open next year.
That's great, but . . .
At the same time, the North Suburban Library System, a consortium of over 650 academic, public, school, and special libraries in north suburban Cook, Kane, Lake and McHenry counties, is running out of money. State funds allocated by the legislature have been withheld for this year.
The NSLS has operated for twenty years with no budget increase and, in fact, last August, had its budget cut by sixteen percent. Without the state money this year, many programs will cease. Layoffs have already begun.
In a recent letter (http://www.nsls.info/articles/detail.aspx?articleID=272), Executive Director Sarah Ann Long told members, "From our recent Needs Assessment Survey, we know van delivery service is the most important service for the majority of members. We will take all necessary steps to preserve this service intact. But most other services and programs will be dramatically reduced, eliminated, or spun off." Long goes on to say she will be one of those who is leaving.
Bottom line, there's no money for libraries but, somehow the Governor found six-million for Garfield Goose.
Sure the Museum of Broadcast Communications is a fine idea and an educational one, too. But what about the basics? Like books available on inter-library loan at no cost to low-income school children? Computers for use by families that have none? After school and summer programs? Books for shut-ins and the elderly?
Let's look beyond the libraries. What about the money for the state police which, according to stories in Downstate papers, has had to scale back manpower in many districts? Districts where troopers are the primary backup for local officers when they get into a jam?
How about money for other basics like school districts? How about paying the bills owed to the vendors who have supplied goods and services to state agencies?
While the Governor and legislature kiss up to Garfield, the rest of us get goosed.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Unconventional Interrogation?
I'm going to take a wild guess that Joran van der Sloot, the fellow accused of beating and then strangling to death a Peruvian woman in his hotel room last week, confessed to the murder after facing some creative and unconventional interrogation by police.
Just a guess, mind you.
Van der Sloot, as you might recall, is the suspect in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway in Aruba. In fact, he was arrested twice and actually confessed several times to various scenarios involving Holloway but was released when authorities in Aruba failed to turn up enough evidence to keep him in custody.
In the most recent case, he's accused of breaking his female companion's neck after discovering she had read details about the Aruba investigation on his laptop.
Wouldn't you just hate it if your current girlfriend found out most of the world had you figured as a murderer?
I'm sure I'll hear objections but I think this is exactly the sort of case that begs for unconventional interrogation of the suspect. It's a shame the Peruvian cops didn't clear up the Holloway matter with Mr. Van der Sloot while they had his attention.
It's unfortunate, too, that U.S. law doesn't allow creative interrogation of some suspects. Particularly those who have killed a wife, or two, and then laughed in the faces of the cops, the families of the victims and the public.
With Van der Sloot and the others I'm thinking of, we're talking psychopaths of course. Predators who not only have no feelings, but delight in ripping the hearts out of those who do. For them, the mere act of murder isn't enough. Their true delight comes from our horrified reactions. They revel in the anguish they cause.
One of them even attempted to recruit a new victim right in front of us. You remember that, don't you? He proposed marriage. She accepted. Then her family and friends convinced her that her sweet patootie was actually something feral-hungry with sharp teeth and claws.
These are the sort of individuals who should face a much more unusual police interrogation. One designed to elicit specific answers to specific questions and then the promise of a guilty plea.
The sort of interrogation that requires a mop and a bucket to clean up afterward.
Just a guess, mind you.
Van der Sloot, as you might recall, is the suspect in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway in Aruba. In fact, he was arrested twice and actually confessed several times to various scenarios involving Holloway but was released when authorities in Aruba failed to turn up enough evidence to keep him in custody.
In the most recent case, he's accused of breaking his female companion's neck after discovering she had read details about the Aruba investigation on his laptop.
Wouldn't you just hate it if your current girlfriend found out most of the world had you figured as a murderer?
I'm sure I'll hear objections but I think this is exactly the sort of case that begs for unconventional interrogation of the suspect. It's a shame the Peruvian cops didn't clear up the Holloway matter with Mr. Van der Sloot while they had his attention.
It's unfortunate, too, that U.S. law doesn't allow creative interrogation of some suspects. Particularly those who have killed a wife, or two, and then laughed in the faces of the cops, the families of the victims and the public.
With Van der Sloot and the others I'm thinking of, we're talking psychopaths of course. Predators who not only have no feelings, but delight in ripping the hearts out of those who do. For them, the mere act of murder isn't enough. Their true delight comes from our horrified reactions. They revel in the anguish they cause.
One of them even attempted to recruit a new victim right in front of us. You remember that, don't you? He proposed marriage. She accepted. Then her family and friends convinced her that her sweet patootie was actually something feral-hungry with sharp teeth and claws.
These are the sort of individuals who should face a much more unusual police interrogation. One designed to elicit specific answers to specific questions and then the promise of a guilty plea.
The sort of interrogation that requires a mop and a bucket to clean up afterward.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Memorial Day 2010
Lord, why must there be war?
Do we just like to fight?
Like children in a schoolyard, do we feel the need to punch and kick each other into submission just because we’re frustrated and can do nothing else?
Or are we led to conflict by our leaders for political reasons, over territory, for power or to assure a steady flow of oil? Or are there more glorious reasons: the freedom of oppressed people suffering under the yoke of dictatorships? Are we fighting for them, Lord, or are we fighting for us, to show off our mettle and assert our strength, just because we can?
Since the beginnings of this nation, Lord, we have thrown ourselves into combat. In doing so, we have sacrificed so much. We have brought generations of young men and, now, women, home in body bags. We have condemned countless others to lives in wheelchairs or worse. We have broken the hearts of their loved ones. Spouses must learn to cope without their partners, children without one or the other of their parents, parents without their children.
And what of those who now face the daily grind of war, Lord? The combatants who must live daily, not only in fear of their own death but with the knowledge they may have to take the lives of others to survive. And there is terror at home, as deaths in battle are reported almost as an afterthought on the evening news.
Lord, as the Cross testifies, you are no stranger to suffering.
We ask you for peace.
We pray the conflicts will stop and that you will bring our troops home unscathed and whole of heart.
Until then, Lord, on this Memorial Day, please bless and hold close those who serve and those who have lost friends and loved ones in any of our armed conflicts. Please include those from law enforcement and the fire service, as well. We owe so very much to our heroes, both living and fallen. Please keep them in our hearts always.
In the name of Jesus, who sacrificed for us all, Amen.
Do we just like to fight?
Like children in a schoolyard, do we feel the need to punch and kick each other into submission just because we’re frustrated and can do nothing else?
Or are we led to conflict by our leaders for political reasons, over territory, for power or to assure a steady flow of oil? Or are there more glorious reasons: the freedom of oppressed people suffering under the yoke of dictatorships? Are we fighting for them, Lord, or are we fighting for us, to show off our mettle and assert our strength, just because we can?
Since the beginnings of this nation, Lord, we have thrown ourselves into combat. In doing so, we have sacrificed so much. We have brought generations of young men and, now, women, home in body bags. We have condemned countless others to lives in wheelchairs or worse. We have broken the hearts of their loved ones. Spouses must learn to cope without their partners, children without one or the other of their parents, parents without their children.
And what of those who now face the daily grind of war, Lord? The combatants who must live daily, not only in fear of their own death but with the knowledge they may have to take the lives of others to survive. And there is terror at home, as deaths in battle are reported almost as an afterthought on the evening news.
Lord, as the Cross testifies, you are no stranger to suffering.
We ask you for peace.
We pray the conflicts will stop and that you will bring our troops home unscathed and whole of heart.
Until then, Lord, on this Memorial Day, please bless and hold close those who serve and those who have lost friends and loved ones in any of our armed conflicts. Please include those from law enforcement and the fire service, as well. We owe so very much to our heroes, both living and fallen. Please keep them in our hearts always.
In the name of Jesus, who sacrificed for us all, Amen.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
I Agree With Sarah Palin...OMG!
During last night's appearance in Chicago, Sarah Palin took on Highland Park officials who have refused to allow the girls varsity basketball team to travel to Arizona for a tournament in December.
Hell may freeze over but I agree with her.
The school district's reasoning, explained in an email to me yesterday from Superintendent George Fornero, is thus: "We cannot commit at this time to playing at a venue where some of our students’ safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law." Fornero denies the school district is playing politics by boycotting the Arizona tournament. "Rather," he says, "Under long standing constitutional law, all school districts are required to provide an education to all children within the District’s borders regardless of immigration status. Similarly, when our students travel, the school district is responsible, both legally and ethically, for their safety, security and liberty.
Fornero hasn't answered my question about who specifically made the decision. I find that odd. Did he wake up in the morning and kill the trip? Did the decision come from one of his assistants? The District 113 School Board? If, indeed, it was the school board, was it put to a public vote or agreed upon by a series of private phone calls so the nasty media (and voters) wouldn't have a chance to see how each member felt about the issue?
Or did the dictum come from Highland Park City Hall where, employees tell me, most significant issues are decided the old fashioned way: in back rooms by certain select individuals?
Bottom line, is it really the safety and liberty of students that school officials are worried about? Or are some Highland Park leaders taking a personal jab at the new law?
Frankly, I think Arizona is nuts. The immigration measure is a publicity stunt and will be overturned as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews it.
I also think Highland Park is overreacting. The likelihood of a group of student basketball players being in any way touched by the law is minimal.
It's the fear of the backroomers running Highland Park that the city will be somehow embarrassed that has caused them to act.
Hell may freeze over but I agree with her.
The school district's reasoning, explained in an email to me yesterday from Superintendent George Fornero, is thus: "We cannot commit at this time to playing at a venue where some of our students’ safety or liberty might be placed at risk because of state immigration law." Fornero denies the school district is playing politics by boycotting the Arizona tournament. "Rather," he says, "Under long standing constitutional law, all school districts are required to provide an education to all children within the District’s borders regardless of immigration status. Similarly, when our students travel, the school district is responsible, both legally and ethically, for their safety, security and liberty.
Fornero hasn't answered my question about who specifically made the decision. I find that odd. Did he wake up in the morning and kill the trip? Did the decision come from one of his assistants? The District 113 School Board? If, indeed, it was the school board, was it put to a public vote or agreed upon by a series of private phone calls so the nasty media (and voters) wouldn't have a chance to see how each member felt about the issue?
Or did the dictum come from Highland Park City Hall where, employees tell me, most significant issues are decided the old fashioned way: in back rooms by certain select individuals?
Bottom line, is it really the safety and liberty of students that school officials are worried about? Or are some Highland Park leaders taking a personal jab at the new law?
Frankly, I think Arizona is nuts. The immigration measure is a publicity stunt and will be overturned as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court reviews it.
I also think Highland Park is overreacting. The likelihood of a group of student basketball players being in any way touched by the law is minimal.
It's the fear of the backroomers running Highland Park that the city will be somehow embarrassed that has caused them to act.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Young People, Partying and Common Sense
A cretinous piece of street garbage wielding a baseball bat attacked a couple of innocent women on their way home from a night of clubbing in the Bucktown area of Chicago early this morning. Both women are in the intensive care unit and the prognosis, at least for one of them, doesn't look good.
My heart goes out to these young women and their families. I pray that the parents of one of the girls, an Irish exchange student, will be able to get to Chicago to be with their daughter given the disruption of flights overseas caused by the volcanic ash eruption.
News stories say the women were out celebrating. The attack occurred when they were walking home at 3:30am.
Therein lies the problem.
They were alone, on the streets of Chicago, at 3:30am.
Of course they had a right to be there and to expect they would get home safely. Unfortunately, the person who attacked them had other ideas. And he was the one with the bat.
The one with the weapon usually wins.
The moment they left that club, those women ceased being nice girls out for a night of fun. They assumed the unfortunate role of "targets of opportunity."
They didn't deserve what happened to them. Few victims of violent crime do.
But when you engage in behavior that makes you a target, you contribute to your victimology. I'm not assessing blame. I am evaluating risk.
Male or female, alone or in a small group, going out on the streets of a major city at 3:30 in the morning after a night of partying, especially if alcohol is involved, is like wearing a big neon sign that says, "I'm helpless, attack me."
Think before you drink. Think before you party at all, regardless of the beverages you imbibe. Before you go out for the evening, consider your options for getting home and make sure you stick with your plan. If you can't count on your friends, have enough cash to call a cab.
Feral creatures of the night sniff the air for the scent of innocents.
My heart goes out to these young women and their families. I pray that the parents of one of the girls, an Irish exchange student, will be able to get to Chicago to be with their daughter given the disruption of flights overseas caused by the volcanic ash eruption.
News stories say the women were out celebrating. The attack occurred when they were walking home at 3:30am.
Therein lies the problem.
They were alone, on the streets of Chicago, at 3:30am.
Of course they had a right to be there and to expect they would get home safely. Unfortunately, the person who attacked them had other ideas. And he was the one with the bat.
The one with the weapon usually wins.
The moment they left that club, those women ceased being nice girls out for a night of fun. They assumed the unfortunate role of "targets of opportunity."
They didn't deserve what happened to them. Few victims of violent crime do.
But when you engage in behavior that makes you a target, you contribute to your victimology. I'm not assessing blame. I am evaluating risk.
Male or female, alone or in a small group, going out on the streets of a major city at 3:30 in the morning after a night of partying, especially if alcohol is involved, is like wearing a big neon sign that says, "I'm helpless, attack me."
Think before you drink. Think before you party at all, regardless of the beverages you imbibe. Before you go out for the evening, consider your options for getting home and make sure you stick with your plan. If you can't count on your friends, have enough cash to call a cab.
Feral creatures of the night sniff the air for the scent of innocents.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Roger Ebert is Annoying
Ebert calls the new movie Kick Ass "morally reprehensible" because it depicts an eleven-year old girl as a cartoonishly violent martial artist and assassin, punching and chopping her way through a gang of thugs and using language that would make a standup comedian blush.
Yet Roger had no such criticism for a movie last year that I felt was one of the most reprehensible and unneccessarily brutal that I'd ever seen. In Last House on the Left a gang of killers beats and rapes one teenage girl and shoots another in the back as she is trying to escape. And the rape scene is arduous and graphic.
Yes, Kick Ass is unquestionably violent. And yes, the little girl has a potty mouth (which, I agree, could have been toned down, probably to better effect). She also gets punched out toward the end by a far bigger and stronger adult. But come on, Roger! You gave Last House on the Left four stars and mentioned the rape only in passing. Kick Ass got two thumbs down.
Kick Ass is a dark comedy crafted from the cartoon of the same name. The "super hero" characters are what Peter Parker might have become if he had only the suit and a bellyful of moral outrage (and enough Lotto winnings to buy an arsenal that includes a bazooka, Gatling gun and a jetpack). It's campy and fun and devilishly unrealistic in a Jackie Chan, John Woo, chop-socky sort of way. Most important, however, it has heart and characters who care about each other.
I can't begin to say that about the trash that is Last House on the Left which looked to me as though it was written and filmed by a bunch of people with some frightening sexual fantasies.
Roger, your moral compass is seriously skewed.
Yet Roger had no such criticism for a movie last year that I felt was one of the most reprehensible and unneccessarily brutal that I'd ever seen. In Last House on the Left a gang of killers beats and rapes one teenage girl and shoots another in the back as she is trying to escape. And the rape scene is arduous and graphic.
Yes, Kick Ass is unquestionably violent. And yes, the little girl has a potty mouth (which, I agree, could have been toned down, probably to better effect). She also gets punched out toward the end by a far bigger and stronger adult. But come on, Roger! You gave Last House on the Left four stars and mentioned the rape only in passing. Kick Ass got two thumbs down.
Kick Ass is a dark comedy crafted from the cartoon of the same name. The "super hero" characters are what Peter Parker might have become if he had only the suit and a bellyful of moral outrage (and enough Lotto winnings to buy an arsenal that includes a bazooka, Gatling gun and a jetpack). It's campy and fun and devilishly unrealistic in a Jackie Chan, John Woo, chop-socky sort of way. Most important, however, it has heart and characters who care about each other.
I can't begin to say that about the trash that is Last House on the Left which looked to me as though it was written and filmed by a bunch of people with some frightening sexual fantasies.
Roger, your moral compass is seriously skewed.
Monday, April 5, 2010
All Bluster, No Muster
Not really surprised to learn that Blago's been fired from The Celebrity Apprentice.
The Sun-Times story this morning says our former governor couldn't work a computer at "even the most basic level" and had trouble using a smartphone. It also comes as no shock at all that he tried to run his team from Orlando while they were working in New York. Shades of a governor who was terrified to leave Chicago and assume the appropriate seat of power in Springfield.
It's pretty sad, actually. A man so desperate for attention that he's willing to become a bumbling idiot on national television. And to repeat the performance in one way or another for months and months, every time he's given the opportunity.
He's mentally ill, of course. The question is: is he exposing himself this way to set up a fallback insanity defense when his corruption case goes to trial? Or is this the way a sociopath melts down when he's not smart enough to stay in control? Or, another possibility, is this just a guy having all the fun he can, knowing the end is approaching?
But who is ultimately at fault? We elected him, didn't we? We pulled the levers that put him in office without doing a whit of due diligence to determine whether his qualifications were real or a political sham.
We're poised to do it again. Two mopes running for governor. Two mopes running for the U.S. Senate. To apply the word "statesman" to any of them is a joke of diabolical proportions.
Whether "crook" is also an accurate description remains to be seen but, after all they are Illinois politicians.
And we are the Illinois electorate that has not learned from its mistakes.
The Sun-Times story this morning says our former governor couldn't work a computer at "even the most basic level" and had trouble using a smartphone. It also comes as no shock at all that he tried to run his team from Orlando while they were working in New York. Shades of a governor who was terrified to leave Chicago and assume the appropriate seat of power in Springfield.
It's pretty sad, actually. A man so desperate for attention that he's willing to become a bumbling idiot on national television. And to repeat the performance in one way or another for months and months, every time he's given the opportunity.
He's mentally ill, of course. The question is: is he exposing himself this way to set up a fallback insanity defense when his corruption case goes to trial? Or is this the way a sociopath melts down when he's not smart enough to stay in control? Or, another possibility, is this just a guy having all the fun he can, knowing the end is approaching?
But who is ultimately at fault? We elected him, didn't we? We pulled the levers that put him in office without doing a whit of due diligence to determine whether his qualifications were real or a political sham.
We're poised to do it again. Two mopes running for governor. Two mopes running for the U.S. Senate. To apply the word "statesman" to any of them is a joke of diabolical proportions.
Whether "crook" is also an accurate description remains to be seen but, after all they are Illinois politicians.
And we are the Illinois electorate that has not learned from its mistakes.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Two Stories To Make You Smile
My friend, Barb, is likely on her way to Mexico this morning with her husband. I'm sure she felt very blessed to be getting on the plane.
Earlier this week, a drunk driver hit her while she was driving to work on the Kennedy. He was alledgedly doing about one-hundred miles an hour. His car burst into flames. He got out, ran and was later captured. Barb tells me a Good Samaritan helped her out of her car before it caught fire.
A Good Samaritan. Imagine that. Have fun in Mexico, Barb.
The Tribune is reporting about another Good Samaritan this morning.
Dan Coyne, a social worker for the Chicago Public Schools, is donating one of his kidneys to his favorite supermarket cashier, Myra de la Vega. They met at the store. She told him about her renal failure and the eight-hours a day of dialysis she undergoes after her shifts at a Jewel in Evanston. Coyne decided to help her.
Have fun with your new life, Myra.
Good Samaritans. An interesting concept. Go with God's Hand on your shoulder, good people.
And some folks say they have never seen a miracle.
Earlier this week, a drunk driver hit her while she was driving to work on the Kennedy. He was alledgedly doing about one-hundred miles an hour. His car burst into flames. He got out, ran and was later captured. Barb tells me a Good Samaritan helped her out of her car before it caught fire.
A Good Samaritan. Imagine that. Have fun in Mexico, Barb.
The Tribune is reporting about another Good Samaritan this morning.
Dan Coyne, a social worker for the Chicago Public Schools, is donating one of his kidneys to his favorite supermarket cashier, Myra de la Vega. They met at the store. She told him about her renal failure and the eight-hours a day of dialysis she undergoes after her shifts at a Jewel in Evanston. Coyne decided to help her.
Have fun with your new life, Myra.
Good Samaritans. An interesting concept. Go with God's Hand on your shoulder, good people.
And some folks say they have never seen a miracle.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
More Dumb Crooks
I barely finish one blog about dumb crooks and, wow, get to write about more.
Seems like a Chicago man who's been arrested sixty-four times got nailed again the other day. He allegedly hid inside the Loop Macy's until after closing time and then tried to escape with some merchandise. Cops were wise to his stunt and confronted him. He reportedly resisted and was Tasered. While some may argue that Tasers are cruel and inhumane and instruments of torture, I really don't feel sorry for this guy. Do you? If you do, write and tell me why, please. Happy to have you air your feelings.
And then we travel out to Schaumburg which seems to have been home to a bunch of hookers lately. After getting stung in a sting a week ago, one of the young ladies allegedly went back to the same hotel with a buddy the other night and tried to hold up a couple of other upstanding citizens at gunpoint. A gunfight broke out. The accused hooker's boyfriend of two years (according to her mama) wound up dead and the victim and a couple of others including the alleged hooker, were wounded.
Flash forward to today in court. The accused hooker, now charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery, hears the judge set her bail at 3 million dollars and collapses, hyperventilating to the courtroom floor. I wonder if she pulled the same stunt when she was was arrested for battery, aggravated assault and resisting arrest in Winnebago County last year; or when she received a three-year sentence for a Kane County robbery conviction in 2006; or when she got probation in a 2004 felony retail theft charge and, separately, for aggravated battery to a police officer in Kane County in 2004?
For those wondering why she was charged with murder in this case without firing a shot, it's called the felony murder rule and provides that anyone charged in a felony crime resulting in death can be held responsible for that death.
What's great about this case, however, is that no one who really matters died. I don't see the boyfriend as any loss to society (was he also her pimp?). And were the 'victims' of this alleged 'robbery' really victims?
The Tribune quotes her mama as saying, "I can't believe this is happening. I can't believe she lost her boyfriend and is charged with his murder."
Believe it, Mom.
Seems like a Chicago man who's been arrested sixty-four times got nailed again the other day. He allegedly hid inside the Loop Macy's until after closing time and then tried to escape with some merchandise. Cops were wise to his stunt and confronted him. He reportedly resisted and was Tasered. While some may argue that Tasers are cruel and inhumane and instruments of torture, I really don't feel sorry for this guy. Do you? If you do, write and tell me why, please. Happy to have you air your feelings.
And then we travel out to Schaumburg which seems to have been home to a bunch of hookers lately. After getting stung in a sting a week ago, one of the young ladies allegedly went back to the same hotel with a buddy the other night and tried to hold up a couple of other upstanding citizens at gunpoint. A gunfight broke out. The accused hooker's boyfriend of two years (according to her mama) wound up dead and the victim and a couple of others including the alleged hooker, were wounded.
Flash forward to today in court. The accused hooker, now charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder and attempted armed robbery, hears the judge set her bail at 3 million dollars and collapses, hyperventilating to the courtroom floor. I wonder if she pulled the same stunt when she was was arrested for battery, aggravated assault and resisting arrest in Winnebago County last year; or when she received a three-year sentence for a Kane County robbery conviction in 2006; or when she got probation in a 2004 felony retail theft charge and, separately, for aggravated battery to a police officer in Kane County in 2004?
For those wondering why she was charged with murder in this case without firing a shot, it's called the felony murder rule and provides that anyone charged in a felony crime resulting in death can be held responsible for that death.
What's great about this case, however, is that no one who really matters died. I don't see the boyfriend as any loss to society (was he also her pimp?). And were the 'victims' of this alleged 'robbery' really victims?
The Tribune quotes her mama as saying, "I can't believe this is happening. I can't believe she lost her boyfriend and is charged with his murder."
Believe it, Mom.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Buffoons of Crime and Religion
I know it's going to surprise many of my thousands of loyal readers but, in the interests of fairness, I must admit I have been called a buffoon once or twice in my life.
That said, I would like to point to several others who have taken bufoonery to way, way higher levels.
There are the two winners who reportedly conspired to kill the ex-girlfriend of one of them in Darien, Illinois last week. Dumb alledgedly convinced Dumber to hammer through a window into the exes parents' home and go on a shooting spree. Dumber alledgedly killed the exes parents and her brother. Fortunately, he missed the ex and a couple of others.
Police rounded up Dumb and Dumber shortly thereafter and even taped them bitching at each other after their arrests. They could and should face the death penalty. In fact, in Doug's World, they'd just be taken out in back, shot in the head, and dumped in a sewer.
Same for the two evidently criminal masterminds who alledgedly conspired to burn down a Cicero, Illinois apartment building for the insurance money. Cops busted the two of them last week. Mastermind Number One reportedly told Mastermind Number Two, "Set the fire in the afternoon when the kids are at school." The apartment building went up in flames at 6:30 one morning and the fire killed seven people, including children and even a newborn.
And then we come to my favorite Buffoons: a family of them, in fact. I call them the Phlegms. They are members of a religious cult, led by the Rev Pherd Phlegm, in my opinion one of the more aggressively evil bastards of our time. The Phlegms claim God hates homosexuals and they take their message, in particular, to the funerals of those who have died in the service of our country. The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the appeal of a case filed against Rev. Phlegm and his snot-nosed crew. The lower court and a court of appeals denied the claim of a military family that the Rev's demonstration at their son's funeral caused them harm. We'll see what the Supremes have to say.
My guess is, the Justices will uphold the Phlegms' wanton and intentionally cruel displays of prejudice, all in the name of nothing more than getting cheap publicity for their buffoonery, as Free Speech.
However, I suspect the Highest Court will view the Rev Phlegm and his followers with far less tolerance.
That said, I would like to point to several others who have taken bufoonery to way, way higher levels.
There are the two winners who reportedly conspired to kill the ex-girlfriend of one of them in Darien, Illinois last week. Dumb alledgedly convinced Dumber to hammer through a window into the exes parents' home and go on a shooting spree. Dumber alledgedly killed the exes parents and her brother. Fortunately, he missed the ex and a couple of others.
Police rounded up Dumb and Dumber shortly thereafter and even taped them bitching at each other after their arrests. They could and should face the death penalty. In fact, in Doug's World, they'd just be taken out in back, shot in the head, and dumped in a sewer.
Same for the two evidently criminal masterminds who alledgedly conspired to burn down a Cicero, Illinois apartment building for the insurance money. Cops busted the two of them last week. Mastermind Number One reportedly told Mastermind Number Two, "Set the fire in the afternoon when the kids are at school." The apartment building went up in flames at 6:30 one morning and the fire killed seven people, including children and even a newborn.
And then we come to my favorite Buffoons: a family of them, in fact. I call them the Phlegms. They are members of a religious cult, led by the Rev Pherd Phlegm, in my opinion one of the more aggressively evil bastards of our time. The Phlegms claim God hates homosexuals and they take their message, in particular, to the funerals of those who have died in the service of our country. The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the appeal of a case filed against Rev. Phlegm and his snot-nosed crew. The lower court and a court of appeals denied the claim of a military family that the Rev's demonstration at their son's funeral caused them harm. We'll see what the Supremes have to say.
My guess is, the Justices will uphold the Phlegms' wanton and intentionally cruel displays of prejudice, all in the name of nothing more than getting cheap publicity for their buffoonery, as Free Speech.
However, I suspect the Highest Court will view the Rev Phlegm and his followers with far less tolerance.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Guns, Guns and More Guns
If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Chicago handgun ban when it rules in June, I'll be overjoyed.
I will also be apprehensive.
I enjoy target shooting and I agree with the folks who believe the Second Amendment gives us the right to own firearms, including handguns. I also agree, however, that there can and should be restrictions on that right.
For example, if one of my neighbors could legally own an automatic rifle, I suspect he would be out shopping for one now. To repel the hordes of whoever from raping and pillaging when the evil red menace takes over the world. Actually have two neighbors who think like that. It's sort of comforting, really. I know I'll be well protected when Mad Max comes calling. Or at least, all the shooting at that end of the street will let me know when he's in the neighborhood.
The problem is that one of those neighbors doesn't believe he needs any training to own a firearm. "I've messed around with guns since I was a kid," he told me a few weeks ago. "So now I got my FOID card, where do I go to buy a pistol?"
Some gun safety is intuitive. Assume it's always loaded. Don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Those sorts of things.
As with many activities, however, the problem arises when you don't practice. Practice handling your weapon and practice using your weapon.
If the Supreme Court throws out Chicago's gun ban, many people will buy a handgun without a moment's thought of learning how to appropriately and safely use it. They'll ooh and ahh over it, show their friends, throw it in a drawer and leave it for the next burglar who stops by to take it when they aren't home. Or worse.
Yes, you have a right to own a handgun. Absolutely. With it, however, comes responsibility to know how and when to use it. And how to store it in such a fashion that it will be available to you when necessary and not be the spoils of someone else's looting spree. Or, worse, your child's curiosity.
Serious gun owners know the rules and accept the requirements of ownership.
It's the frivolous ones who make me nervous.
But you go, Justices. Rid Chicago of Daley and the Rev JJ's law. Maybe then some of the bad guys will be a little nervous, too.
I will also be apprehensive.
I enjoy target shooting and I agree with the folks who believe the Second Amendment gives us the right to own firearms, including handguns. I also agree, however, that there can and should be restrictions on that right.
For example, if one of my neighbors could legally own an automatic rifle, I suspect he would be out shopping for one now. To repel the hordes of whoever from raping and pillaging when the evil red menace takes over the world. Actually have two neighbors who think like that. It's sort of comforting, really. I know I'll be well protected when Mad Max comes calling. Or at least, all the shooting at that end of the street will let me know when he's in the neighborhood.
The problem is that one of those neighbors doesn't believe he needs any training to own a firearm. "I've messed around with guns since I was a kid," he told me a few weeks ago. "So now I got my FOID card, where do I go to buy a pistol?"
Some gun safety is intuitive. Assume it's always loaded. Don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot. Those sorts of things.
As with many activities, however, the problem arises when you don't practice. Practice handling your weapon and practice using your weapon.
If the Supreme Court throws out Chicago's gun ban, many people will buy a handgun without a moment's thought of learning how to appropriately and safely use it. They'll ooh and ahh over it, show their friends, throw it in a drawer and leave it for the next burglar who stops by to take it when they aren't home. Or worse.
Yes, you have a right to own a handgun. Absolutely. With it, however, comes responsibility to know how and when to use it. And how to store it in such a fashion that it will be available to you when necessary and not be the spoils of someone else's looting spree. Or, worse, your child's curiosity.
Serious gun owners know the rules and accept the requirements of ownership.
It's the frivolous ones who make me nervous.
But you go, Justices. Rid Chicago of Daley and the Rev JJ's law. Maybe then some of the bad guys will be a little nervous, too.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Sheriff to Students: "Ignore the Rules"
The pro-handgun Sheriff of Latimer County, Colorado is challenging Colorado State University's handgun ban in a controversial way.
Sheriff James Alderden says the ban will not reduce crime but, indeed, have the opposite effect of letting crooks know the students are helpless. The new CSU rule also covers pepper spray.
Alderden says if a student carrying one of his lawfully issued concealed carry pistol permits is arrested, he will refuse to book the student into his jail. He also says he will go to court and testify on that student's behalf.
I hold permits which allow me to carry a concealed firearm in about forty states (ironically, not in my home state which has no option for concealed carry by non-law enforcement personnel). I was trained first as a law enforcement officer and NRA-qualified handgun instructor. I have updated my training in some fashion every year since I renewed my interest in handguns and target shooting about four years ago.
I support reasonable concealed carry laws with mandated, real-world training.
All of that said, I don't agree with Sheriff Alderden's position.
The University has the right to set rules on its campuses. I don't like the fact my home state doesn't allow me to carry a concealed weapon but, it's the law. I don't like it but I follow the law.
Sheriff Alderden has told the media that students will be "okay if they don't get caught." Unfortunately, that's the way a lot of politicians look at the world. It's also the way the bad guys think. Is that the way the Sheriff encourages young people to approach life?
I believe in the Second Amendment and in laws that allow appropriately trained individuals to carry concealed weapons. I think Colorado State University officials are short-sighted in adopting a rule that prevents lawful carry by permit holders.
But. It's their campus...their rules. Work to change the rules, Sheriff. Don't urge your permit holders to break them.
Sheriff James Alderden says the ban will not reduce crime but, indeed, have the opposite effect of letting crooks know the students are helpless. The new CSU rule also covers pepper spray.
Alderden says if a student carrying one of his lawfully issued concealed carry pistol permits is arrested, he will refuse to book the student into his jail. He also says he will go to court and testify on that student's behalf.
I hold permits which allow me to carry a concealed firearm in about forty states (ironically, not in my home state which has no option for concealed carry by non-law enforcement personnel). I was trained first as a law enforcement officer and NRA-qualified handgun instructor. I have updated my training in some fashion every year since I renewed my interest in handguns and target shooting about four years ago.
I support reasonable concealed carry laws with mandated, real-world training.
All of that said, I don't agree with Sheriff Alderden's position.
The University has the right to set rules on its campuses. I don't like the fact my home state doesn't allow me to carry a concealed weapon but, it's the law. I don't like it but I follow the law.
Sheriff Alderden has told the media that students will be "okay if they don't get caught." Unfortunately, that's the way a lot of politicians look at the world. It's also the way the bad guys think. Is that the way the Sheriff encourages young people to approach life?
I believe in the Second Amendment and in laws that allow appropriately trained individuals to carry concealed weapons. I think Colorado State University officials are short-sighted in adopting a rule that prevents lawful carry by permit holders.
But. It's their campus...their rules. Work to change the rules, Sheriff. Don't urge your permit holders to break them.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The Squeak of the Tiger
Why did any reporter cover Tiger's speech today?
Yeah, yeah, I know they gotta. But still. I would have liked to see the mainstream media take the approach the Golf Writers did. Everyone should have boycotted his little morning mea-sorta-culpa up to and including his huggy-kissy time with his mama.
Why?
Most reporters weren't even allowed in the room. They watched from a hotel a mile away.
Pool reporters were present for the speech...but not allowed to ask questions.
The whole thing amounted to what one sportswriter called an "infomercial" and was scripted down to the last hug and handshake by Tiger's handlers. To me, that's not news coverage. That's like using one of the dozens of video news releases sent to newsrooms every day.
He said nothing stunning or newsworthy. Yeah he's sorry. Wonderful. He's as sorry as the guys on trial for murder who cry for the judge when they're sentenced. Is he sorry for what he did, or is he sorry he got caught? Is he sorry he devastated his wife and family or sorry that he's unlikely to get any quiet action on the side for awhile, at least while he's in sex-addiction therapy?
Frankly, the Tiger story got more coverage than it deserved anyway. This guy plays golf, for crying out loud! He's not the President with the nuclear arsenal at his disposal. He's not even a politician who embarrassed himself and his constituency by getting caught screwing when he claimed to be hiking or discovered knocking up a videographer while running for President.
Tiger Woods is a professional athlete who disappointed some of his fans, probably impressed some others with his virility and stamina, enraged women and right-thinking men who disapprove of random adulterous affairs and ticked off his sponsors and a bunch of guys in goofy colored pants who (skillfully) hit little white balls into holes in the ground in unusually pristine surroundings.
And we wonder why the media doesn't root out corruption in government any better than it does.
It's too busy following pecker tracks.
Yeah, yeah, I know they gotta. But still. I would have liked to see the mainstream media take the approach the Golf Writers did. Everyone should have boycotted his little morning mea-sorta-culpa up to and including his huggy-kissy time with his mama.
Why?
Most reporters weren't even allowed in the room. They watched from a hotel a mile away.
Pool reporters were present for the speech...but not allowed to ask questions.
The whole thing amounted to what one sportswriter called an "infomercial" and was scripted down to the last hug and handshake by Tiger's handlers. To me, that's not news coverage. That's like using one of the dozens of video news releases sent to newsrooms every day.
He said nothing stunning or newsworthy. Yeah he's sorry. Wonderful. He's as sorry as the guys on trial for murder who cry for the judge when they're sentenced. Is he sorry for what he did, or is he sorry he got caught? Is he sorry he devastated his wife and family or sorry that he's unlikely to get any quiet action on the side for awhile, at least while he's in sex-addiction therapy?
Frankly, the Tiger story got more coverage than it deserved anyway. This guy plays golf, for crying out loud! He's not the President with the nuclear arsenal at his disposal. He's not even a politician who embarrassed himself and his constituency by getting caught screwing when he claimed to be hiking or discovered knocking up a videographer while running for President.
Tiger Woods is a professional athlete who disappointed some of his fans, probably impressed some others with his virility and stamina, enraged women and right-thinking men who disapprove of random adulterous affairs and ticked off his sponsors and a bunch of guys in goofy colored pants who (skillfully) hit little white balls into holes in the ground in unusually pristine surroundings.
And we wonder why the media doesn't root out corruption in government any better than it does.
It's too busy following pecker tracks.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Where's My Million Dollar Office?
First this disclaimer: I am not, never was and likely never will be Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The only chance for me to get the job of Speaker will be if Future President Palin asks me to serve. By then, she will have suspended all elections and be appointing lackeys to various posts to make it "look" like we have a functioning representational government. I'm sure she will allow me to lackey from home three days a week.
For a million dollars worth of retirement office, I could lackey with the best of them. I have references from past employers.
That office is what I really want. And the **Perks** that come with it. I figure I'll lackey a year, then slide down the slush fund highway to my retirement.
Former Speaker Denis Hastert has his million dollar **Perk** retirement office out in Yorkville. Funding is mandated by Congress. According to the Chicago Tribune this morning, former Speakers have been awarded **Perks** by the taxpayers since 1959.
According to the Tribune, with that simple and austere looking office comes a rent payment each month to his cronies, retirement jobs for the staff who served him so nobly for years (among other things, a hundred G a year for a secretary...hmmm...wonder how full-time wink wink that job is. Maybe I'd rather be a retired Speaker's secretary), a vehicle, money to throw at other former cronies for "consulting work," plus all expenses paid for **Perks** like Comcast and Direct TV.
All this for a guy who charges $25,000 to give a speech. Of course, he can't use his retirement office or his retirement staff of junior lackeys or any of his **Perk** computers or **Perk** Blackberries to arrange those. He also can't use the funds or the office to help him in the lobbying work he does for a couple of minor foreign countries. Noble statesman that he is, I'm sure he abides by those rules. **Perks** only stretch so far. Cough cough.
I promise I won't charge 25G to give a speech. Once I lackey, then retire and move into my new **Perk** office, I will stay the same humble guy I am now. My fee for speech-giving will remain at a few hundred bucks, a nice tray of cookies and some flat soft drinks.
What I'll really want to do is spend time in my **Perk** retirement office. Perhaps I'll hand out **Perks** to some of my cronies, too. I'll need a staff of course. A vehicle. And consultants.
Maybe one of them can be former Illinois Speaker of the House George Ryan. Old Speakers need to hang together and George loved it when I worked in Springfield and hummed "George of the Jungle" whenever he walked into the statehouse press room. George is living in his retirement office at public expense right now but I hear it's not as plush as Denny's and he wants out to tend to his ailing wife.
If he and Lura Lynn last that long, I'm sure President Palin will grant him his wish. Then he can go to work for me and we can both spend our days watching TV in my austere **Perk** retirement office.
I wonder if the **Perks** for a retired Speaker include more than basic cable? We'll for sure want to catch the reruns of Prison Break.
The only chance for me to get the job of Speaker will be if Future President Palin asks me to serve. By then, she will have suspended all elections and be appointing lackeys to various posts to make it "look" like we have a functioning representational government. I'm sure she will allow me to lackey from home three days a week.
For a million dollars worth of retirement office, I could lackey with the best of them. I have references from past employers.
That office is what I really want. And the **Perks** that come with it. I figure I'll lackey a year, then slide down the slush fund highway to my retirement.
Former Speaker Denis Hastert has his million dollar **Perk** retirement office out in Yorkville. Funding is mandated by Congress. According to the Chicago Tribune this morning, former Speakers have been awarded **Perks** by the taxpayers since 1959.
According to the Tribune, with that simple and austere looking office comes a rent payment each month to his cronies, retirement jobs for the staff who served him so nobly for years (among other things, a hundred G a year for a secretary...hmmm...wonder how full-time wink wink that job is. Maybe I'd rather be a retired Speaker's secretary), a vehicle, money to throw at other former cronies for "consulting work," plus all expenses paid for **Perks** like Comcast and Direct TV.
All this for a guy who charges $25,000 to give a speech. Of course, he can't use his retirement office or his retirement staff of junior lackeys or any of his **Perk** computers or **Perk** Blackberries to arrange those. He also can't use the funds or the office to help him in the lobbying work he does for a couple of minor foreign countries. Noble statesman that he is, I'm sure he abides by those rules. **Perks** only stretch so far. Cough cough.
I promise I won't charge 25G to give a speech. Once I lackey, then retire and move into my new **Perk** office, I will stay the same humble guy I am now. My fee for speech-giving will remain at a few hundred bucks, a nice tray of cookies and some flat soft drinks.
What I'll really want to do is spend time in my **Perk** retirement office. Perhaps I'll hand out **Perks** to some of my cronies, too. I'll need a staff of course. A vehicle. And consultants.
Maybe one of them can be former Illinois Speaker of the House George Ryan. Old Speakers need to hang together and George loved it when I worked in Springfield and hummed "George of the Jungle" whenever he walked into the statehouse press room. George is living in his retirement office at public expense right now but I hear it's not as plush as Denny's and he wants out to tend to his ailing wife.
If he and Lura Lynn last that long, I'm sure President Palin will grant him his wish. Then he can go to work for me and we can both spend our days watching TV in my austere **Perk** retirement office.
I wonder if the **Perks** for a retired Speaker include more than basic cable? We'll for sure want to catch the reruns of Prison Break.
Monday, February 15, 2010
I'm Puzzled
This Alabama professor who allegedly shot three of her colleagues to death Friday night apparently went to a shooting range with her husband recently.
That, in itself, really isn't strange.
What's odd is that the husband is quoted as saying he didn't know where the gun came from that she used at the range, nor why she suddenly had an interest in going to the range at all.
Here's the way the Associated Press story sums it up, "Bishop's husband said nothing unusual happened on their trip to the shooting range, and that she didn't reveal why she took an interest in target practice. Nothing in her behavior before the shooting foreshadowed the violence last week, either, he said."
Let's rewind and read a part of that again, shall we? "Nothing in her behavior before the shooting foreshadowed the violence last week, either, he said."
Nothing at all? Really. What about the behavior of acquiring a deadly weapon?
Call me weird but if I was married to someone who, at age 19, shot and killed her brother and she suddenly came home with a pistol and, out of the blue, wanted to go to the shooting range, I think I would at least ask, "Gee honey, where did you get the gun and why?" Or maybe even, "Who are you angry at, sweetheart?"
And I think I might worry. Just a tad.
Foreshadowing of violence is not always labeled. But, in this case, suddenly showing up with a handgun and wanting to go to the range, it is pretty darn clear. I'm not saying the husband could have done anything at all but maybe, just maybe, if he had paid a little better attention, perhaps asked a few questions to determine her state of mind?
Nah. That's asking too much. It's easier to say nothing tipped him off.
And I sure would like to know where the gun came from and how she got it.
That, in itself, really isn't strange.
What's odd is that the husband is quoted as saying he didn't know where the gun came from that she used at the range, nor why she suddenly had an interest in going to the range at all.
Here's the way the Associated Press story sums it up, "Bishop's husband said nothing unusual happened on their trip to the shooting range, and that she didn't reveal why she took an interest in target practice. Nothing in her behavior before the shooting foreshadowed the violence last week, either, he said."
Let's rewind and read a part of that again, shall we? "Nothing in her behavior before the shooting foreshadowed the violence last week, either, he said."
Nothing at all? Really. What about the behavior of acquiring a deadly weapon?
Call me weird but if I was married to someone who, at age 19, shot and killed her brother and she suddenly came home with a pistol and, out of the blue, wanted to go to the shooting range, I think I would at least ask, "Gee honey, where did you get the gun and why?" Or maybe even, "Who are you angry at, sweetheart?"
And I think I might worry. Just a tad.
Foreshadowing of violence is not always labeled. But, in this case, suddenly showing up with a handgun and wanting to go to the range, it is pretty darn clear. I'm not saying the husband could have done anything at all but maybe, just maybe, if he had paid a little better attention, perhaps asked a few questions to determine her state of mind?
Nah. That's asking too much. It's easier to say nothing tipped him off.
And I sure would like to know where the gun came from and how she got it.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
In the News...
Authorities in Tennessee are holding a fourth grade teacher accused of shooting and wounding two principals at his school. It happened during a snow day yesterday in Knox County Tennessee. The kids had all been sent home before he allegedly opened fire, critically wounding one of the women but putting both of them in the hospital.
A former employer is quoted as saying this same suspect was arrested in the 1990's for making threats toward him and carrying weapons.
The suspect's brother says his family tried earlier this year to get a restraining order on the guy because of "mental problems." It was denied.
Okay, first question: why didn't the school district know any of this? And if his arrest history was known, why did they hire him to teach fourth graders? Sure it's unfair to armchair quarterback but come on! An arrest record for threats of armed violence?
The topics "violence" and "schools" bring to mind a couple of ridiculous experiences I had while on book tour.
The first one occurred at the high school in the town where I live. They invited me to talk during a symposium called Focus on the Arts, about my job as a crime reporter. I walked in the door and they handed me a sheet of instructions that listed all of the subjects I was not allowed to mention. School policy dictated no discussion of such things as: violence, death, guns, knives, street gangs, murder, blood, gore ... all of which which were, of course, the daily makeup of my job...that I had been invited to describe.
The second took place at a large high school in a nearby suburb. The son of a friend was in an English class and his teacher invited me to lecture on writing mysteries. She emphasized to me beforehand that she was quite the true-crime buff and invited me to feel free to talk about my work as a crime reporter as well.
What greeted me when I walked into the classroom was a lifesize poster of John Wayne Gacy. Next to it, grim pictures of Jeffery Dahmer and a host of other well-known serial murderers. The true-crime buff was true to her word. Along with having her class learn about fictional mysteries, she had instructed them to pick their favorite serial killer, from a list she provided, study up on him, and write a paper. Some of the students admitted to me later they had never heard of their "favorite" before the class and had nightmares from doing their research.
Oh, but the best part of the class was the Q and A session! Right before it began, teach passed out the questions. Made sense, I thought. Some students might be embarrassed to ask stuff in front of the class, or might bring up inappropriate topics. Was I ever surprised. "Have you seen a lot of dead people?"; "When you were a cop, did you kill anyone?": "What's the grossest thing you have ever seen?"
School daze for sure.
A former employer is quoted as saying this same suspect was arrested in the 1990's for making threats toward him and carrying weapons.
The suspect's brother says his family tried earlier this year to get a restraining order on the guy because of "mental problems." It was denied.
Okay, first question: why didn't the school district know any of this? And if his arrest history was known, why did they hire him to teach fourth graders? Sure it's unfair to armchair quarterback but come on! An arrest record for threats of armed violence?
The topics "violence" and "schools" bring to mind a couple of ridiculous experiences I had while on book tour.
The first one occurred at the high school in the town where I live. They invited me to talk during a symposium called Focus on the Arts, about my job as a crime reporter. I walked in the door and they handed me a sheet of instructions that listed all of the subjects I was not allowed to mention. School policy dictated no discussion of such things as: violence, death, guns, knives, street gangs, murder, blood, gore ... all of which which were, of course, the daily makeup of my job...that I had been invited to describe.
The second took place at a large high school in a nearby suburb. The son of a friend was in an English class and his teacher invited me to lecture on writing mysteries. She emphasized to me beforehand that she was quite the true-crime buff and invited me to feel free to talk about my work as a crime reporter as well.
What greeted me when I walked into the classroom was a lifesize poster of John Wayne Gacy. Next to it, grim pictures of Jeffery Dahmer and a host of other well-known serial murderers. The true-crime buff was true to her word. Along with having her class learn about fictional mysteries, she had instructed them to pick their favorite serial killer, from a list she provided, study up on him, and write a paper. Some of the students admitted to me later they had never heard of their "favorite" before the class and had nightmares from doing their research.
Oh, but the best part of the class was the Q and A session! Right before it began, teach passed out the questions. Made sense, I thought. Some students might be embarrassed to ask stuff in front of the class, or might bring up inappropriate topics. Was I ever surprised. "Have you seen a lot of dead people?"; "When you were a cop, did you kill anyone?": "What's the grossest thing you have ever seen?"
School daze for sure.
Monday, February 8, 2010
What Chumps We Are...And They Know It
What chumps we are, the voters of Illinois.
We select a candidiate for Lieutenant-Governor with a remarkable past and no skill-set toward governance whatsoever.
It's not the consorting/cavorting with a convicted prostitute that I'm talking about. That's a big so what? to me. Cover Springfield as a reporter for awhile and you'll understand why. Hookers and politicians go together down there like massage oil and warm hands.
It's the steroid and spousal abuse he also proclaimed. Oh absolutely he was up front about his shortcomings. And God bless him for it. You have to admire the guy for going into a political race with that kind of baggage and making it public.
I've long said we need a few "citizen politicians," Candidates without ties to the Machine. Candidates with a strong business background and a studied, if not practicial, understanding of Illinois politics. The guy voters chose as the democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor is a successful pawnbroker. It's likely he knows something of business.
He certainly did not understand Illinois politics.
Nor, apparently, do we.
First of all, the elected candidate for Democratic Lieutenant Governor is placed on the ticket with the elected candidate for Governor. That's a guy who is already is going to have a tough race. He is backed by the President of the United States and the Democratic National Committee. It should have been obvious to the Pawnbroker, and to us as voters, from the very beginning that the Democrats would never allow him to run in the general elections in the fall. But it took a visit with the Illinois Godfather, otherwise known as the Speaker of the Illinois House, to convince him. The deed is now done. The Pawnbroker is toast.
But through it all, the Godfather and the rest, have been laughing at what chumps we are. First that we would want to put a guy with his lack of credentials and obvious history, in office. And second that we accept, without challenge, the other candidates fielded by the Democrats. And, frankly, the Republicans as well.
Illinois is going into the elections in the fall with a slate of political hacks and lame wannabes on both sides. Every single one of them is connected in some way to the Chicago Democratic Machine.
What the Pawnbroker's rise and fall shows us is what the Godfather and others have always known. What those in power always know.
The sheepdogs lead the sheep. The manipulators lead the chumps. The Mayor and the Godfather select the candidates. And we elect 'em. Every time.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
In the News...
Three stories in the news caught my eye today.
Betty Broderick is up for parole. Back in the early nineties, she shot and killed her ex-husband and his much younger wife after a really nasty divorce. She portrayed herself as a victim and a bunch of women supported her. She became the poster child for housewives who feared their husbands would dump them for younger babes. That happens so frequently in California. Books were written about her. Merideth Baxter (from "Family Ties")played her in a couple of TV movies.
Frankly a prosecutor friend of mine put it best: the solution for a bad marriage is divorce, not murder. Especially not a double murder where the killer slips into the house and kills the happy couple in bed.
A big thumbs down on Betty to the California Parole Board. No, I don't think she's a risk to society at large. But I sure wouldn't lay odds on the survivability of any new boyfriend who pisses her off.
Speaking of "victims," Conan O'Brien is reportedly signing a deal today that will give him $32 million to leave NBC in the wake of the Jay Leno fiasco. His staff will split an additional $12 million. It's been one of the better and more fun stories to watch in this grim new year. A bunch of idiots with money to burn screwing each other.
And now, thanks to the US Supreme Court, another bunch of idiots with money to burn will be able to use it to bankroll American elections.
The Supremes ruled today that business, unions and non-profits can contribute more freely to political candidates. It's a freedom of speech thing, say the Justices.
My favorite quote comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the High Court's conservative members, voting with the majority.
He says, "The appearance of influence or access," he wrote, "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."
Oh really?
Betty Broderick is up for parole. Back in the early nineties, she shot and killed her ex-husband and his much younger wife after a really nasty divorce. She portrayed herself as a victim and a bunch of women supported her. She became the poster child for housewives who feared their husbands would dump them for younger babes. That happens so frequently in California. Books were written about her. Merideth Baxter (from "Family Ties")played her in a couple of TV movies.
Frankly a prosecutor friend of mine put it best: the solution for a bad marriage is divorce, not murder. Especially not a double murder where the killer slips into the house and kills the happy couple in bed.
A big thumbs down on Betty to the California Parole Board. No, I don't think she's a risk to society at large. But I sure wouldn't lay odds on the survivability of any new boyfriend who pisses her off.
Speaking of "victims," Conan O'Brien is reportedly signing a deal today that will give him $32 million to leave NBC in the wake of the Jay Leno fiasco. His staff will split an additional $12 million. It's been one of the better and more fun stories to watch in this grim new year. A bunch of idiots with money to burn screwing each other.
And now, thanks to the US Supreme Court, another bunch of idiots with money to burn will be able to use it to bankroll American elections.
The Supremes ruled today that business, unions and non-profits can contribute more freely to political candidates. It's a freedom of speech thing, say the Justices.
My favorite quote comes from Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the High Court's conservative members, voting with the majority.
He says, "The appearance of influence or access," he wrote, "will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."
Oh really?
Monday, January 18, 2010
No Makeup Application Zone
Oprah wants everyone to stop texting and driving.
Her heartfelt (as much as anything coming from her mouth really can be) message today explained that those who text and drive are eight times more likely to have an accident than someone who is merely driving. That's TWICE as likely as someone using a cell phone the old-fashioned way...for talking.
I'm guilty of both and, as judgemental of DUI drivers as I am, I'm going to stop doing the mobile phone thing as much as possible. A friend told me today, he always pulls to the side of the road to text. I do too, although not always intentionally.
But I have a bigger gripe that Oprah didn't address.
What about drivers who are putting on their makeup at 80 mph? Or, as was noted by a friend, balancing their checkbook, calculator in one hand, pen in the other? Or even chatting with a friend in the passenger seat? Or many friends, as in the much touted way to green up our driving experience, the car pool.
"Your car is not a phone booth!" Oprah exhorts. She is absolutely correct.
It is also not a dressing room. That mirror hanging from the windshield, or the back of your sun visor, is not for putting on makeup. Your steering wheel is not a desk or a dining room table. Spill a drink, kill a child.
Keep it in mind.
Her heartfelt (as much as anything coming from her mouth really can be) message today explained that those who text and drive are eight times more likely to have an accident than someone who is merely driving. That's TWICE as likely as someone using a cell phone the old-fashioned way...for talking.
I'm guilty of both and, as judgemental of DUI drivers as I am, I'm going to stop doing the mobile phone thing as much as possible. A friend told me today, he always pulls to the side of the road to text. I do too, although not always intentionally.
But I have a bigger gripe that Oprah didn't address.
What about drivers who are putting on their makeup at 80 mph? Or, as was noted by a friend, balancing their checkbook, calculator in one hand, pen in the other? Or even chatting with a friend in the passenger seat? Or many friends, as in the much touted way to green up our driving experience, the car pool.
"Your car is not a phone booth!" Oprah exhorts. She is absolutely correct.
It is also not a dressing room. That mirror hanging from the windshield, or the back of your sun visor, is not for putting on makeup. Your steering wheel is not a desk or a dining room table. Spill a drink, kill a child.
Keep it in mind.
Friday, January 15, 2010
A Friend Died for the Second Time Today
This time, he won't be coming back.
John McElroy would have been 66 on his birthday at the end of February.
He and I were friends for thirty of those years.
He taught me good habits as a cop (except that he drove faster than any human being ever drove a law enforcement vehicle), told great stories, endured many of mine, made me laugh and finally, tonight, made me cry.
John was a stalwart and caring friend. He seemed to know just when to call to keep me out of trouble and listened with interest and good humor, no matter how bizarre the tale I told him. His adventures, on the other hand, always made me grin. In fact, if I answered the phone and heard, "It's McElroy..." I knew I could expect a treat: wonderful conversation, rapier wit and the kind of warmth that can only come from a kind, kind heart.
John died for the first time a number of years ago.
He had a heart attack while teaching a class as an agent of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. He was dead several minutes before being shocked back to life with emergency gear that had been installed just days before at the Highway Patrol Academy.
Later, eyes twinkling, he would tell me he'd died but was "rejected" and "sent back."
John's "death" and a continuing heart condition led to an early retirement from the KBI. He went on to become Executive Director of the Kansas State Gaming Agency, as well as an active sailor, RV enthusiast and fan of Segway scooters. In fact, John set legal precedent when he sued for Segway access to a Topeka shopping mall.
I had the good fortune of talking with John at least weekly, sometimes more often, in the months since he was diagnosed with stomach, esophageal and liver cancer in August. I learned four important things during our talks. Though one tough and unyielding old bird in most ways, he was a devout Christian. He accepted his fate and wasn't afraid to die. And he promised to keep laughing at me from Heaven every time I mess up.
John died this morning in hospice in Topeka. His wife, Martha, tells me he was at peace and that his last words were, seemingly out of nowhere, "Yes, yes."
I have no doubt whatsoever that means he wasn't "rejected" this time.
Rather, I know John accepted the Lord's invitation to join Him in a place where he will have the wind at his back, his sails crisply trimmed and his favorite beverage close at hand.
Go with God's Hand on your shoulder, my friend.
I await your laughter.
John McElroy would have been 66 on his birthday at the end of February.
He and I were friends for thirty of those years.
He taught me good habits as a cop (except that he drove faster than any human being ever drove a law enforcement vehicle), told great stories, endured many of mine, made me laugh and finally, tonight, made me cry.
John was a stalwart and caring friend. He seemed to know just when to call to keep me out of trouble and listened with interest and good humor, no matter how bizarre the tale I told him. His adventures, on the other hand, always made me grin. In fact, if I answered the phone and heard, "It's McElroy..." I knew I could expect a treat: wonderful conversation, rapier wit and the kind of warmth that can only come from a kind, kind heart.
John died for the first time a number of years ago.
He had a heart attack while teaching a class as an agent of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. He was dead several minutes before being shocked back to life with emergency gear that had been installed just days before at the Highway Patrol Academy.
Later, eyes twinkling, he would tell me he'd died but was "rejected" and "sent back."
John's "death" and a continuing heart condition led to an early retirement from the KBI. He went on to become Executive Director of the Kansas State Gaming Agency, as well as an active sailor, RV enthusiast and fan of Segway scooters. In fact, John set legal precedent when he sued for Segway access to a Topeka shopping mall.
I had the good fortune of talking with John at least weekly, sometimes more often, in the months since he was diagnosed with stomach, esophageal and liver cancer in August. I learned four important things during our talks. Though one tough and unyielding old bird in most ways, he was a devout Christian. He accepted his fate and wasn't afraid to die. And he promised to keep laughing at me from Heaven every time I mess up.
John died this morning in hospice in Topeka. His wife, Martha, tells me he was at peace and that his last words were, seemingly out of nowhere, "Yes, yes."
I have no doubt whatsoever that means he wasn't "rejected" this time.
Rather, I know John accepted the Lord's invitation to join Him in a place where he will have the wind at his back, his sails crisply trimmed and his favorite beverage close at hand.
Go with God's Hand on your shoulder, my friend.
I await your laughter.
Thousands Dead Just Another Photo Op For Some
The sight of Anderson Cooper blithely sitting on a pile of rubble in Haiti reporting on rescue efforts going on not two feet behind him turns my stomach.
Try that in this country, Andy, and somebody's liable to come upside your head with a brick. And deservedly so.
Yes, it's a disaster of monumental proportions and the networks need to, in their words, put a human face on it. But, just because you can get up close and personal because there are no authorities around to bust you for it doesn't mean you always need to do the casual campfire squat next to people working their ass off, or shove the lens of your camera literally into the face of a grieving father who has lost his family.
Good reporting is necessary but Haiti is a disaster, not a photo op. Cover it, don't lampoon it with silly live shots. A hand waving for help from under the ruins of a building tells the story so much better than anything that Andy Cooper can possibly say or do.
Try that in this country, Andy, and somebody's liable to come upside your head with a brick. And deservedly so.
Yes, it's a disaster of monumental proportions and the networks need to, in their words, put a human face on it. But, just because you can get up close and personal because there are no authorities around to bust you for it doesn't mean you always need to do the casual campfire squat next to people working their ass off, or shove the lens of your camera literally into the face of a grieving father who has lost his family.
Good reporting is necessary but Haiti is a disaster, not a photo op. Cover it, don't lampoon it with silly live shots. A hand waving for help from under the ruins of a building tells the story so much better than anything that Andy Cooper can possibly say or do.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Lifetime Lockups for Sexual Predators
Should rapists, pedophiles and the like be dropped into a black hole and forgotten about? I suspect most victims, cops and politicians would say yes.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today challenging a federal law, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which does the next best thing.
The Walsh Act, along with statutes in twenty states, provide that convicted sex offenders who have served their time can be confined past their release date, usually in a mental health facilty. In other words, you do the crime, you serve your time...and then you serve more. Maybe a lot more. The extended commitment can be indefinite. Many offenders will be locked up for life. Not for what they've done...but for what they MIGHT do in the future.
Lawmakers acknowledge civil committments are expensive, perhaps three times the cost of prison, but they argue the program is designed to give serious sexual predators extended treatment and a shot at rehabilitation not available to them while serving their criminal sentence.
Those taking a more liberal view claim it "demonizes" predators.
What it really does is "incapacitate," them, in the words of law school dean Eric Janus, author of "Failure to Protect."
"Incapacitation" works for me. Let's come right out and say it. These are not likely candidates for rehabilitation. These are violent predators who will hurt more people if they are released from custody. Freedom for them should never be an option.
A "black hole?" Perhaps not. But civil commitment of sexual predators is the best we can do.
Let's hope the Supreme Court rules the Adam Walsh Act is constitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today challenging a federal law, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which does the next best thing.
The Walsh Act, along with statutes in twenty states, provide that convicted sex offenders who have served their time can be confined past their release date, usually in a mental health facilty. In other words, you do the crime, you serve your time...and then you serve more. Maybe a lot more. The extended commitment can be indefinite. Many offenders will be locked up for life. Not for what they've done...but for what they MIGHT do in the future.
Lawmakers acknowledge civil committments are expensive, perhaps three times the cost of prison, but they argue the program is designed to give serious sexual predators extended treatment and a shot at rehabilitation not available to them while serving their criminal sentence.
Those taking a more liberal view claim it "demonizes" predators.
What it really does is "incapacitate," them, in the words of law school dean Eric Janus, author of "Failure to Protect."
"Incapacitation" works for me. Let's come right out and say it. These are not likely candidates for rehabilitation. These are violent predators who will hurt more people if they are released from custody. Freedom for them should never be an option.
A "black hole?" Perhaps not. But civil commitment of sexual predators is the best we can do.
Let's hope the Supreme Court rules the Adam Walsh Act is constitutional.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Terminal Nakedness
EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, has used a Freedom of Information request to discover that the body scanners TSA wants to deploy at airports can not only store images, but transmit them as well.
Naturally, TSA's public relations campaign promises passengers won't be at risk of having their electronically recorded nakedness displayed online for all to see. TSA counters EPIC by saying the machines' storage and transmittal functions will be disabled prior to shipment to the airports. I'm guessing that anyone with a twelve-year-old's computer expertise could hack in and change the settings. I suppose you'd need a twelve-year-old's mentality to think of doing it in the first place.
It's an interesting controversy. TSA says the devices will help them protect the traveling public. But should such a program be allowed to go forward if it raises concerns about personal privacy?
Would such an issue have been raised in the immediate wake of 9/11? Would it be raised in other countries, Israel for example, where terrorism is always a concern?
Questions to ponder.
Personally, I'd rather be scanned than sorry. Then again, having my naked image sent around the world without my approval could only help sell books.
Wes Clark Jr.(son of General Wesley Clark, the former Presidential candidate) may have the best idea of all. He suggests we all fly, "naked and unconscious with no baggage."
I accept that option only if airlines make the seats more comfortable.
Naturally, TSA's public relations campaign promises passengers won't be at risk of having their electronically recorded nakedness displayed online for all to see. TSA counters EPIC by saying the machines' storage and transmittal functions will be disabled prior to shipment to the airports. I'm guessing that anyone with a twelve-year-old's computer expertise could hack in and change the settings. I suppose you'd need a twelve-year-old's mentality to think of doing it in the first place.
It's an interesting controversy. TSA says the devices will help them protect the traveling public. But should such a program be allowed to go forward if it raises concerns about personal privacy?
Would such an issue have been raised in the immediate wake of 9/11? Would it be raised in other countries, Israel for example, where terrorism is always a concern?
Questions to ponder.
Personally, I'd rather be scanned than sorry. Then again, having my naked image sent around the world without my approval could only help sell books.
Wes Clark Jr.(son of General Wesley Clark, the former Presidential candidate) may have the best idea of all. He suggests we all fly, "naked and unconscious with no baggage."
I accept that option only if airlines make the seats more comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)