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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.