It's been an odd Christmas season.
It began when my pal, Linda's, parents died within ten days of each other after Thanksgiving. You can say they were old, at 85, and sick, which they were, and raring to go Home to Jesus, which is also true. But, darn it, I miss them. Christmas won't be the same without their quirky senses of humor and love of the season.
Then there have been the police officers killed this month. Three if I'm counting correctly. All protecting and serving when they were attacked. They all had children who will wake up Christmas morning without their fathers.
Add to that the embezzlement reported from the Toys for Tots fund in Chicago and the toys stolen from the Lutheran church up in Antioch. And the general state of the economy and the strangeness of the political season.
But then comes the story of the one-hundred fire trucks.
11-year-old Kyle McGetrick of Barnegat, New Jersey is dying of cancer. Within 24-hours this week, firefighters put together a convoy of nearly one-hundred fire vehicles which cruised past Kyle's house Wednesday night, sirens blaring and lights flashing...followed by a visit from Santa and Mrs. Claus, of course.
Kyle's dad, also a firefighter, is quoted in the local Barnegat Ocean-Patch:
“I don’t know how they orchestrated it all,” Gene McGetrick said. His son has been spending most of his time in bed, exhausted from his fight against the disease he’s battled for more than half his life. “But he got himself up to go and wave to everybody. They made his night last night.”
And then, in Garnerville, New York, the Thiells Fire Department learned of a nine-year-old boy suffering from leukemia. They brought him a dog for Christmas.
From LoHud.com:
"When he saw two firetrucks arrive in front of his house one recent evening, 9-year-old Sean DePatto was worried that his house might be on fire.
Jason Trow, the fire department’s 2nd lieutenant, organized the surprise. He said he and his fellow firefighters wanted to cheer up Sean and his family.
“We’re trying to do something nice for the family. I know it’s really hard … especially during the holidays,” Trow said. “We are trying to make it a really good Christmas for them.”
Kim DePatto said the surprise visit put a big smile on Sean’s face."
All of which reminds us that, amidst the darkness and pain of this Christmas season, light shines clearly and brightly, just as it did for the shepherds in a long-ago time...
"...and there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."
May God's Grace bless and keep you this holiday season and in the new year.
((Watch the video here: http://firetruckblog.com/2011/12/23/fire-service-flash-mob-in-barnegat-new-jersey-puts-on-a-show-for-a-firefighters-young-son-in-his-final-days/))
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Governor Brownback! Time to Grow a Pair!
Dear Kansas Governor Sam Brownback,
You blew it, dude.
When Shawnee Mission East High School Senior Emma Sullivan tweeted a rude remark about you to her friends during a tour of the state capitol last week, one of your staffers snitched her off to her school. Good grief!
She claims her principal, Karl R. Krawitz, ordered that she write you an apology. Sullivan refused and the story went viral. Papers nationwide picked it up. Bloggers from Forbes to the Huffington Post castigated you for your harsh response.
Harsh? Come on! Kansas Republicans don't hide behind wimpy little school principals and their silly letters of apology, do they? They sure didn't when I lived there!
I say you lost a real chance to show that upstart high-schooler and all of her 6,000 sniveling Twitter friends just how a powerful Kansas Republican spells t-o-u-g-h.
You're Commander in Chief of the Kansas National Guard, aren't you? Within hours of learning of the offensive tweet, you could have had armed troops rappelling from helicopters into her yard.
You could have sent Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents to investigate the little rebel's family background and political leanings. Search their trash. Seize those damnable tweeterized cell phones.
Why, you could have had Kansas Highway Patrol Special Response Team troopers pepper spray her entire neighborhood!
Governor, let's be frank. You let an 18-year-old girl push you around! So what if she whined about "free speech?" You should be the one to determine who's allowed to speak freely. You're a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, for crying out loud.
Like Governor Walker in Wisconsin slammed the unions, you had a chance to hammer high-schoolers throughout Kansas into submission.
"Letter of apology?" Oh please.
You blew it, dude.
When Shawnee Mission East High School Senior Emma Sullivan tweeted a rude remark about you to her friends during a tour of the state capitol last week, one of your staffers snitched her off to her school. Good grief!
She claims her principal, Karl R. Krawitz, ordered that she write you an apology. Sullivan refused and the story went viral. Papers nationwide picked it up. Bloggers from Forbes to the Huffington Post castigated you for your harsh response.
Harsh? Come on! Kansas Republicans don't hide behind wimpy little school principals and their silly letters of apology, do they? They sure didn't when I lived there!
I say you lost a real chance to show that upstart high-schooler and all of her 6,000 sniveling Twitter friends just how a powerful Kansas Republican spells t-o-u-g-h.
You're Commander in Chief of the Kansas National Guard, aren't you? Within hours of learning of the offensive tweet, you could have had armed troops rappelling from helicopters into her yard.
You could have sent Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents to investigate the little rebel's family background and political leanings. Search their trash. Seize those damnable tweeterized cell phones.
Why, you could have had Kansas Highway Patrol Special Response Team troopers pepper spray her entire neighborhood!
Governor, let's be frank. You let an 18-year-old girl push you around! So what if she whined about "free speech?" You should be the one to determine who's allowed to speak freely. You're a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, for crying out loud.
Like Governor Walker in Wisconsin slammed the unions, you had a chance to hammer high-schoolers throughout Kansas into submission.
"Letter of apology?" Oh please.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Don't Insult John Wayne, Pilgrim
A number of years ago, I spoke to a group of school officials, discussing how they might choose to react after a mass casualty event such as the Columbine shootings.
I suggested it would be wise to brief the media sooner, rather than later, before someone like Reverend Jesse Camera Hog has a chance to show up and start spinning his own version of events.
The reaction from some members of the audience was so snap-quick and harsh, you would have thought I advocated throwing acid in the man's face
I learned a valuable lesson that day. One that some critics of the tea-party, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, and football coaches like Joe Paterno, have yet to figure out.
Don't you dare take the name of a conservative idol in vain.
As my old cop-partner Kenny P. used to say, "Call John Wayne a sissy? Why them's fightin' words!"
The ultra-conservatives, especially those who only read the headline-speak of their candidates, cling tight to idyllic, can-do-no-wrong beliefs about their heroes. So tight that, to cause any ripple in The Force, is cause for immediate retribution. Condescending remarks are usually the first volley.
"You don't understand. Herman Cain didn't abuse those women. You're so simple-minded! You're falling for the Democratic plot to undermine his campaign." Or, "Michele Bachman isn't ever wrong! She just goes off message sometimes..." Or the best one lately, "Joe Paterno did what the law said he had to do...report to his superiors. Nothing required him to call the cops. You're just like all the rest...beating up on an old man."
And then there's the fallback: "Herman didn't do anything Obama hasn't done."
Huh?
No facts. No reasoning. No logical argument. Not even an agreement to disagree.
Instant vilification.
Why is that, do you suppose?
Seems to me, if you're blind to someone's failings, maybe you really don't know enough about them. Which, in this age of politics-lite, seems to so often be the case.
I suggested it would be wise to brief the media sooner, rather than later, before someone like Reverend Jesse Camera Hog has a chance to show up and start spinning his own version of events.
The reaction from some members of the audience was so snap-quick and harsh, you would have thought I advocated throwing acid in the man's face
I learned a valuable lesson that day. One that some critics of the tea-party, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman, and football coaches like Joe Paterno, have yet to figure out.
Don't you dare take the name of a conservative idol in vain.
As my old cop-partner Kenny P. used to say, "Call John Wayne a sissy? Why them's fightin' words!"
The ultra-conservatives, especially those who only read the headline-speak of their candidates, cling tight to idyllic, can-do-no-wrong beliefs about their heroes. So tight that, to cause any ripple in The Force, is cause for immediate retribution. Condescending remarks are usually the first volley.
"You don't understand. Herman Cain didn't abuse those women. You're so simple-minded! You're falling for the Democratic plot to undermine his campaign." Or, "Michele Bachman isn't ever wrong! She just goes off message sometimes..." Or the best one lately, "Joe Paterno did what the law said he had to do...report to his superiors. Nothing required him to call the cops. You're just like all the rest...beating up on an old man."
And then there's the fallback: "Herman didn't do anything Obama hasn't done."
Huh?
No facts. No reasoning. No logical argument. Not even an agreement to disagree.
Instant vilification.
Why is that, do you suppose?
Seems to me, if you're blind to someone's failings, maybe you really don't know enough about them. Which, in this age of politics-lite, seems to so often be the case.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Sometimes the Reaction Says It All
Herman Cain has attacked the media for giving the sexual harrassment allegations story more legs than he feels it deserves. In a video bite last week, he ordered a staffer to send one reporter, who was persistently seeking his comment, a copy of the "journalistic code of ethics."
I'm not sure which "code" Cain wanted the reporter to follow but I looked up the one drawn by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). Yes, it calls for accuracy in reporting. Yes it calls for reporters to make every attempt to identify the sources of stories. It also states, "Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."
Maybe Cain didn't read that part.
Cain, like many politicians of both parties, seems to feel he can dictate what's news and what isn't. That he can snuff the story because it makes him uncomfortable. To me, that's dictatorial, not Presidential.
In twenty-five years spent covering public officials, I found that the ones who rubuked or belittled me for asking questions usually had something to hide.
I think Herman Cain does, too.
**Full disclosure. One of Herman Cain's accusers, Sharon Bialek, worked at WGN Radio during the time I freelanced there. To the best of my knowledge, we never met.**
I'm not sure which "code" Cain wanted the reporter to follow but I looked up the one drawn by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). Yes, it calls for accuracy in reporting. Yes it calls for reporters to make every attempt to identify the sources of stories. It also states, "Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."
Maybe Cain didn't read that part.
Cain, like many politicians of both parties, seems to feel he can dictate what's news and what isn't. That he can snuff the story because it makes him uncomfortable. To me, that's dictatorial, not Presidential.
In twenty-five years spent covering public officials, I found that the ones who rubuked or belittled me for asking questions usually had something to hide.
I think Herman Cain does, too.
**Full disclosure. One of Herman Cain's accusers, Sharon Bialek, worked at WGN Radio during the time I freelanced there. To the best of my knowledge, we never met.**
Thursday, November 10, 2011
It's Hard to Imagine
I pity Paterno.
No, not because they booted him.
Rather, I feel sorry that he didn't immediately walk off the field, his head down in shame, rather than announcing he'd stick around until the end of the season. Like what he did, or didn't do, twenty years ago was not really such a big deal. That maybe everything wouldn't look so bad if he could ring in another winning season.
And I feel sorry that, twenty years ago, he believed the reputation of his institution was worth more than the emotional well-being of a child. That he may still not comprehend the enormity of the thing he helped kick under the rug.
I wonder if he's ever had a sleepless night over it. I wonder if he's ever allowed himself to imagine the terror that ten-year-old boy felt in the Penn State locker room while he was alledgedly being assaulted by Joe's good friend. The hopelessness and despair and confusion that inevitably followed.
Or the fact that, by remaining silent, he may have allowed other tragedies to occur.
I wonder how Joe feels in the wake of the shameless behavior of the student rioters. They certainly do not exemplify the honor he tried to instill in his players.
Frankly, neither does he.
Football's emperor is without clothes.
And that's a shame, too.
No, not because they booted him.
Rather, I feel sorry that he didn't immediately walk off the field, his head down in shame, rather than announcing he'd stick around until the end of the season. Like what he did, or didn't do, twenty years ago was not really such a big deal. That maybe everything wouldn't look so bad if he could ring in another winning season.
And I feel sorry that, twenty years ago, he believed the reputation of his institution was worth more than the emotional well-being of a child. That he may still not comprehend the enormity of the thing he helped kick under the rug.
I wonder if he's ever had a sleepless night over it. I wonder if he's ever allowed himself to imagine the terror that ten-year-old boy felt in the Penn State locker room while he was alledgedly being assaulted by Joe's good friend. The hopelessness and despair and confusion that inevitably followed.
Or the fact that, by remaining silent, he may have allowed other tragedies to occur.
I wonder how Joe feels in the wake of the shameless behavior of the student rioters. They certainly do not exemplify the honor he tried to instill in his players.
Frankly, neither does he.
Football's emperor is without clothes.
And that's a shame, too.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Another Dandy Reason for the Death Penalty
A week or so ago, a 14-year-old girl in the southwest suburbs was murdered by a guy she found burglarizing her family's home. The Cook County State's Attorney tells us that the suspect stole her cell phone and later used it to text "cruel" messages to her parents about killing the child.
Her death is horrific. The taunting by text suggests unspeakable evil.
For cases like these, and all of the rest that are just as incomprehensible but not as widely publicized, Illinois needs to reinstate the death penalty.
A death penalty that is written to allow a defendant constitutional legal recourse but limits the number of appeals and narrows them in scope. Not a death penalty that can be subverted by endless legal maneuvering but, rather, a death penalty with mandatory review by a panel made up of professional investigators tasked to evaluate all the evidence in the case, even that which is pertinent but not introduced at trial. And not a death penalty that would allow the convict to languish while on death row. Time awaiting punishment would be spent at hard labor or, at the very least, in a cell with no television or radio, no amusements or distractions of any kind. Four walls, a cot and three meals a day. Limited exercise periods.
I believe in capital punishment for two reasons. First, if publicized and implemented on a regular basis, without anger, in a humane and efficient fashion, it may become a deterrent to others contemplating unspeakable crimes. Note the phrase, "if publicized and implemented on a regular basis." One execution once in a great while won't get the message across.
Second, while deterrence cannot be measured, putting the individual to death assures he is no longer a threat. To anyone. Correctional officers while he is incarcerated and any innocents on the outside if the system, in what often passes for mercy but is, in truth, misguided wisdom, one day decides to release him.
Capital punishment is brutal. Many good and kind souls find it morally repugnant and not socially acceptable.
I find it fundamentally unacceptable that animals wearing the disguise of human beings wantonly destroy innocent lives and then face a "maximum" penalty that many of them find laughable.
Her death is horrific. The taunting by text suggests unspeakable evil.
For cases like these, and all of the rest that are just as incomprehensible but not as widely publicized, Illinois needs to reinstate the death penalty.
A death penalty that is written to allow a defendant constitutional legal recourse but limits the number of appeals and narrows them in scope. Not a death penalty that can be subverted by endless legal maneuvering but, rather, a death penalty with mandatory review by a panel made up of professional investigators tasked to evaluate all the evidence in the case, even that which is pertinent but not introduced at trial. And not a death penalty that would allow the convict to languish while on death row. Time awaiting punishment would be spent at hard labor or, at the very least, in a cell with no television or radio, no amusements or distractions of any kind. Four walls, a cot and three meals a day. Limited exercise periods.
I believe in capital punishment for two reasons. First, if publicized and implemented on a regular basis, without anger, in a humane and efficient fashion, it may become a deterrent to others contemplating unspeakable crimes. Note the phrase, "if publicized and implemented on a regular basis." One execution once in a great while won't get the message across.
Second, while deterrence cannot be measured, putting the individual to death assures he is no longer a threat. To anyone. Correctional officers while he is incarcerated and any innocents on the outside if the system, in what often passes for mercy but is, in truth, misguided wisdom, one day decides to release him.
Capital punishment is brutal. Many good and kind souls find it morally repugnant and not socially acceptable.
I find it fundamentally unacceptable that animals wearing the disguise of human beings wantonly destroy innocent lives and then face a "maximum" penalty that many of them find laughable.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Moammar Gadhafi is Still Dead
As I watched the coverage of Gadhafi's murder/execution/accidental death by gunshot yesterday, I kept thinking of the old Saturday night live skit from the 80's where, among the top "news," came the breathless headline, "Francisco Franco is still dead!"
From the gruesome videos and video captures shown repeatedly on the networks, and that appeared this morning on the front page of Rupert Murdock's New York Post (proclaiming, "Khadafy Killed By Yanks Fan; He Had More Hits Than A-Rod"), I'd say there's no doubt Gadhafi is not only dead, but will remain so for the forseeable future. We have the pictorial evidence right in front of us.
A bullet to the head and, apparently, one to the gut, will do that.
Don't get me wrong. The guy had blood on his hands long before the mob dragged him out of that drainage tunnel. It's long believed he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988 that killed 243 people, some of whom may have survived until impact (The Sun tabloid in Britain ran a headline today saying, "That's for Lockerbie"), that he supplied bombs to the separatists in Northern Ireland, killed Americans, and committed countless atrocities in his own country. I feel no sympathy for Moammar Gadhafi.
What I'm pondering is the clumsy and garishly public nature of his death. What have we gained, or lost?
Certainly, revenge is sweet for some and they have the right to savor it. Others have argued that the visual savagery of his slaying will propel Libyans on to democracy. Yet others believe the televised brutality will send the proverbial message to other bad guys, "This could happen to you, too."
Of course, for those looking forward to their 72 virgins, that last argument may not have much impact.
What about the rest of us?
What, especially, about the kids and young adults we teach to follow the rule of law? Those who undoubtedly got a clear message from yesterday's bloody endless loop of death, that "law" isn't sacrosanct? That shooting a guy you hate in the head is okay if you do it in front of a cheering crowd and it gets broadcast on CNN?
And does this mark the "end of an era of arbitrary rule," as some have claimed, or does it really just underscore the fact that power always comes down to who's better armed and quicker on the trigger when the moment presents itself?
Beats me.
All I know is, I turned off the TV once I saw Moammar Gadhafi was still dead.
From the gruesome videos and video captures shown repeatedly on the networks, and that appeared this morning on the front page of Rupert Murdock's New York Post (proclaiming, "Khadafy Killed By Yanks Fan; He Had More Hits Than A-Rod"), I'd say there's no doubt Gadhafi is not only dead, but will remain so for the forseeable future. We have the pictorial evidence right in front of us.
A bullet to the head and, apparently, one to the gut, will do that.
Don't get me wrong. The guy had blood on his hands long before the mob dragged him out of that drainage tunnel. It's long believed he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988 that killed 243 people, some of whom may have survived until impact (The Sun tabloid in Britain ran a headline today saying, "That's for Lockerbie"), that he supplied bombs to the separatists in Northern Ireland, killed Americans, and committed countless atrocities in his own country. I feel no sympathy for Moammar Gadhafi.
What I'm pondering is the clumsy and garishly public nature of his death. What have we gained, or lost?
Certainly, revenge is sweet for some and they have the right to savor it. Others have argued that the visual savagery of his slaying will propel Libyans on to democracy. Yet others believe the televised brutality will send the proverbial message to other bad guys, "This could happen to you, too."
Of course, for those looking forward to their 72 virgins, that last argument may not have much impact.
What about the rest of us?
What, especially, about the kids and young adults we teach to follow the rule of law? Those who undoubtedly got a clear message from yesterday's bloody endless loop of death, that "law" isn't sacrosanct? That shooting a guy you hate in the head is okay if you do it in front of a cheering crowd and it gets broadcast on CNN?
And does this mark the "end of an era of arbitrary rule," as some have claimed, or does it really just underscore the fact that power always comes down to who's better armed and quicker on the trigger when the moment presents itself?
Beats me.
All I know is, I turned off the TV once I saw Moammar Gadhafi was still dead.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Stuck in the Mud, Wheels Spinning, Life Out of Control
If Chicago media critic Robert Feder has it right, Randy Michaels got stuck in the mud of a Ohio construction site last Sunday and, when the cops hauled him out, wound up busted for driving under the influence.
Michaels' mug shot topping Feder's blog makes him look like Otis, the bumbling drunk from the old Andy Griffith Show.
But I'm guessing Ben Homel, the person behind the Randy Michaels persona, isn't feeling like life is much of a sitcom.
Randy Michaels is the guy who ruined a classic radio station and gleefully gave its listeners, all of us really, his upraised middle finger while doing so. From the goofy gambling party in Colonel McCormick's historic office to an alleged tryst on the Tribune's outdoor patio, he broadcast to the world he was running the show his way and anybody who didn't like it could kiss his butt.
As I said at the time, Michaels smashed apart WGN like a kid destroying another kid's toys because he never had any of his own.
Ben Homel . . . I don't know about him.
I'm still trying to imagine how he felt when he woke up the morning after his arrest. Did he shrug it off, pop out of bed laughing, knowing he'd be reading disparaging comments about himself in the national press once again but looking forward to yet another moment in the spotlight regardless?
Or did he crawl from under the covers feeling ashamed and humiliated, one sick and sorry part of his heart realizing the life he always dreamed he'd have is just as out of reach as it's ever been?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Behind every arrogant buffoon is a frightened child curled up in a ball, terrified of the monsters in his closet.
Michaels' mug shot topping Feder's blog makes him look like Otis, the bumbling drunk from the old Andy Griffith Show.
But I'm guessing Ben Homel, the person behind the Randy Michaels persona, isn't feeling like life is much of a sitcom.
Randy Michaels is the guy who ruined a classic radio station and gleefully gave its listeners, all of us really, his upraised middle finger while doing so. From the goofy gambling party in Colonel McCormick's historic office to an alleged tryst on the Tribune's outdoor patio, he broadcast to the world he was running the show his way and anybody who didn't like it could kiss his butt.
As I said at the time, Michaels smashed apart WGN like a kid destroying another kid's toys because he never had any of his own.
Ben Homel . . . I don't know about him.
I'm still trying to imagine how he felt when he woke up the morning after his arrest. Did he shrug it off, pop out of bed laughing, knowing he'd be reading disparaging comments about himself in the national press once again but looking forward to yet another moment in the spotlight regardless?
Or did he crawl from under the covers feeling ashamed and humiliated, one sick and sorry part of his heart realizing the life he always dreamed he'd have is just as out of reach as it's ever been?
Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
Behind every arrogant buffoon is a frightened child curled up in a ball, terrified of the monsters in his closet.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Amanda Knox: Victim or Perpetrator?
With the decision that Amanda Knox go free, lots of folks are celebrating, not the least of whom are the U.S. officials who undoubtedly convinced their Italian counterparts...You're Embarrassing Yourselves...Get It Done, Now.
It's a given that the Italian authorities blew the forensics. And hey, if Amanda's blood wasn't on the knife, she shouldn't get life. Right?
So why do I have a queasy feeling that a murderer is poised to return to the party circuit and in a major way?
My opinion? Knox was complicit in Meredith Kercher's murder.
I think she'll be carefully managed in the short run. Perhaps a few tearful words when she makes it back to America, a little careful video of her making good on her wish to "lie down in a green field."
Within a week or two, however, she'll make the rounds of the talk shows. If she listens to her parents and media advisors, her appearances will be cautious and scripted. If she's on her own, I think an innate desire for attention will lead her to display her wild side.
Then, we'll hear about the book deal, maybe a recording contract. A TV movie, followed by a reality show. A little Dancing With the Stars action?
Hell, maybe she and Casey Anthony will move into a gated community together.
Sooner or later, it'll be back to the party circuit. And the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll rumors will start. Think Lindsay Lohan.
Of course, I'm a cynical SOB. Who knows? Maybe she'll disappear behind a screen of Public Relations firms and bodyguards and dutifully show up in church every Sunday.
It won't last. I think she got away with murder. I think, eventually, she'll flaunt that.
If we're lucky, maybe that's when the truth will come out.
It's a given that the Italian authorities blew the forensics. And hey, if Amanda's blood wasn't on the knife, she shouldn't get life. Right?
So why do I have a queasy feeling that a murderer is poised to return to the party circuit and in a major way?
My opinion? Knox was complicit in Meredith Kercher's murder.
I think she'll be carefully managed in the short run. Perhaps a few tearful words when she makes it back to America, a little careful video of her making good on her wish to "lie down in a green field."
Within a week or two, however, she'll make the rounds of the talk shows. If she listens to her parents and media advisors, her appearances will be cautious and scripted. If she's on her own, I think an innate desire for attention will lead her to display her wild side.
Then, we'll hear about the book deal, maybe a recording contract. A TV movie, followed by a reality show. A little Dancing With the Stars action?
Hell, maybe she and Casey Anthony will move into a gated community together.
Sooner or later, it'll be back to the party circuit. And the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll rumors will start. Think Lindsay Lohan.
Of course, I'm a cynical SOB. Who knows? Maybe she'll disappear behind a screen of Public Relations firms and bodyguards and dutifully show up in church every Sunday.
It won't last. I think she got away with murder. I think, eventually, she'll flaunt that.
If we're lucky, maybe that's when the truth will come out.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Defending Sarah
Don't get me wrong. I'm really not in Sarah Palin's corner. I just find it discouraging that author Joe McGinness and now, filmmaker Nick Broomfield, are taking such cheap hits at her. McGinniss particularly.
I know all about using un-named sources. I've certainly done it, generally to keep cops and firefighters from losing their jobs after giving me information I was entitled to get anyway. But McGinniss seems to take a special delight in dishing confidential source rumor, gossip and innuendo. His claim that he just "happened" to find a house directly next door to the Palin's but never looked over the fence . . . well, to this writer that just seems stalkerish.
Both men have gotten their scoops from talking to those who are on the outs with the Palins. Gee, you suppose they might have an axe to grind? You betcha. Joe and Nick, can I talk to the people in your lives you've screwed and see the crap they tell me about you?
Here's the bottom line. Sarah Palin is a phony. She mouths cheap phrases, quick lines that a lazy and, in many cases, under-intelligent public loves to hear. She chose to leave her job as governor to make gazillions on the speakers' circuit and on Fox and to be idolized by millions. She loves the attention. But she will never become more than that because she is having too much fun conning the people who love her so much.
So why bother to try and shake her, guys? You can't do it. And what you've produced in book and film is just trash.
I know all about using un-named sources. I've certainly done it, generally to keep cops and firefighters from losing their jobs after giving me information I was entitled to get anyway. But McGinniss seems to take a special delight in dishing confidential source rumor, gossip and innuendo. His claim that he just "happened" to find a house directly next door to the Palin's but never looked over the fence . . . well, to this writer that just seems stalkerish.
Both men have gotten their scoops from talking to those who are on the outs with the Palins. Gee, you suppose they might have an axe to grind? You betcha. Joe and Nick, can I talk to the people in your lives you've screwed and see the crap they tell me about you?
Here's the bottom line. Sarah Palin is a phony. She mouths cheap phrases, quick lines that a lazy and, in many cases, under-intelligent public loves to hear. She chose to leave her job as governor to make gazillions on the speakers' circuit and on Fox and to be idolized by millions. She loves the attention. But she will never become more than that because she is having too much fun conning the people who love her so much.
So why bother to try and shake her, guys? You can't do it. And what you've produced in book and film is just trash.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
And Now Back to the Manuscript
I finished writing my third book yesterday. After a few changes this morning, I finally typed The End on the last page of the manuscript.
It's an awesome feeling, believe me. Almost three years of hard work.
Now, I'm waiting for the inevitable question that comes once I tell most non-writers that the book is complete.
"When can I buy a copy?" or "When will it come out?" or "Will it be on Kindle?"
Their thinking: Well, gee, the book is done...I mean...then it gets published, right?
For some authors, perhaps it's a foregone conclusion.
Here's the way it's going to work for me.
First, a significant amount of editing is necessary. I suspect a couple of weeks worth at least. My editor has already been through it once. We will go through it again together.
Next, I need to find a literary agent. The agent is the go-between . . . the person who will attempt to sell my work to a publisher. I'm fortunate that there are several agents who have expressed interest in seeing what I've written. Once I submit my manuscript to them, however, it could be anywhere from two weeks to, perhaps, six months before I hear back and there is no guarantee any of them will agree to represent me. If none are interested, the agent hunt begins again.
If I'm fortunate and find an agent willing to take me on, he or she will likely want me to make changes to the manuscript. Even then, there is no guarantee a publisher will agree to buy the book. If they do, lag time between acquisition and publication is at least a year, probably longer.
So the answer to the question, "When can I buy a copy?"
Beats the heck out of me.
Stay tuned.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Well, We Didn't Default But . . .
Interest rates are going to skyrocket.
Who knows what will happen to the markets?
I'm wondering something. In ten to fifteen years, or more, will we find out that this was all a scam perpetrated by the conservative Republicans, to blow Obama from office?
After all, Congress isn't going to suffer when our economy dips. Sure, we'll vote some of the bastards out of office but we can't possibly get them all. And those who are defeated will just live off their guaranteed pensions and huge speaking fees. Deomcrats included.
So what if this was all carefully orchestrated to return the Republicans to power?
And...what if that's a good thing?
After all, how much real leadership have we gotten from the White House throughout this crisis? Zip. About all I heard him do was tell me to call/write my legislators.
Beginning to think we would have been better off electing a bowl of jello.
Who knows what will happen to the markets?
I'm wondering something. In ten to fifteen years, or more, will we find out that this was all a scam perpetrated by the conservative Republicans, to blow Obama from office?
After all, Congress isn't going to suffer when our economy dips. Sure, we'll vote some of the bastards out of office but we can't possibly get them all. And those who are defeated will just live off their guaranteed pensions and huge speaking fees. Deomcrats included.
So what if this was all carefully orchestrated to return the Republicans to power?
And...what if that's a good thing?
After all, how much real leadership have we gotten from the White House throughout this crisis? Zip. About all I heard him do was tell me to call/write my legislators.
Beginning to think we would have been better off electing a bowl of jello.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Of Debt Ceilings and Big Spending
I'm not an economist. I'm not a politician.
But I am a cynical ex-reporter and this is how I think the debt ceiling/budget/spending debate is going to end.
There will be no deal by Tuesday.
We are going to default. I'm just about certain of it.
The Republicans, especially the tea party Republicans new in Congress this session, are willing to do whatever it takes to embarrass, read that "defeat," President Obama. Many of them aren't concerned about being re-elected. They are, essentially, political terrorists with one agenda. They aren't worried about a default which, by the way, could lead to an unprecedented financial crisis...potentially a new-age Depression. Why should they be?
Senators and Representatives make great salaries. They have terrific benefits that won't be affected by what happens to the rest of us.
No, it won't be a case of the stock market diving 500 points in one day and rebounding within weeks. The losses we will see may not be made up in our lifetime.
I don't lay it all on the Republicans. The President and the Democrats in Congress will do just about anything to avoid appearing politically weak. They don't want to accept any plan the Republicans put forth because it will look to the nation as though the Republicans have won. That would seriously undermine Obama's chances for re-election next year. Or so they believe. The President would prefer to see the nation in turmoil than to act as a strong leader, unconcerned about his own political future.
So Congress and the President are at stalemate. Congress is in the midst of a civil war. It is the ultimate in political brinksmanship.
This is the moment when our political leaders will either run and hide behind cheap rhetoric and let the country down, or work together as statesmen, ignoring their own selfish concerns to craft a plan that will work now and into the future.
At this time in our nation's history, I just don't think the powers-that-rule in Washington can put aside their internecine squabbles and compromise to serve the nation.
I hope, I pray, I am proven wrong.
But I am a cynical ex-reporter and this is how I think the debt ceiling/budget/spending debate is going to end.
There will be no deal by Tuesday.
We are going to default. I'm just about certain of it.
The Republicans, especially the tea party Republicans new in Congress this session, are willing to do whatever it takes to embarrass, read that "defeat," President Obama. Many of them aren't concerned about being re-elected. They are, essentially, political terrorists with one agenda. They aren't worried about a default which, by the way, could lead to an unprecedented financial crisis...potentially a new-age Depression. Why should they be?
Senators and Representatives make great salaries. They have terrific benefits that won't be affected by what happens to the rest of us.
No, it won't be a case of the stock market diving 500 points in one day and rebounding within weeks. The losses we will see may not be made up in our lifetime.
I don't lay it all on the Republicans. The President and the Democrats in Congress will do just about anything to avoid appearing politically weak. They don't want to accept any plan the Republicans put forth because it will look to the nation as though the Republicans have won. That would seriously undermine Obama's chances for re-election next year. Or so they believe. The President would prefer to see the nation in turmoil than to act as a strong leader, unconcerned about his own political future.
So Congress and the President are at stalemate. Congress is in the midst of a civil war. It is the ultimate in political brinksmanship.
This is the moment when our political leaders will either run and hide behind cheap rhetoric and let the country down, or work together as statesmen, ignoring their own selfish concerns to craft a plan that will work now and into the future.
At this time in our nation's history, I just don't think the powers-that-rule in Washington can put aside their internecine squabbles and compromise to serve the nation.
I hope, I pray, I am proven wrong.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Comcast Part Deaux
The Internet is full of complaints about Comcast. Now they offer a "customer guarantee" but that's doing little to improve their reaction to calls for service.
Twice in the past month I have had techs to the house for the same problem. Previous post described the last visit. The first one was worse. The problem remains.
Each time, I'm treated to a litany of the same questions...suggesting that the problem is mine and not theirs. Each time I have described the problem precisely. Service interupts on a continuous basis all day...for two and three minutes at a time. In and out to the point I cannot stay online for more than five or ten minutes without an interruption.
Three years ago, I had the same issue until they moved me to a new "queue." And that, I recall, was done only reluctantly and only after months of service calls.
What's the problem with these people? I have been booted off line three times since signing on to write this post.
Twice in the past month I have had techs to the house for the same problem. Previous post described the last visit. The first one was worse. The problem remains.
Each time, I'm treated to a litany of the same questions...suggesting that the problem is mine and not theirs. Each time I have described the problem precisely. Service interupts on a continuous basis all day...for two and three minutes at a time. In and out to the point I cannot stay online for more than five or ten minutes without an interruption.
Three years ago, I had the same issue until they moved me to a new "queue." And that, I recall, was done only reluctantly and only after months of service calls.
What's the problem with these people? I have been booted off line three times since signing on to write this post.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Does This Strike You As Familiar?
From My Notes, Part 1:
Cable fellow just arrived. Couple of days beard growth, shirt out of pants, he looks like every mugshot of a pedophile you've ever seen. He enters (Socks did not hide. I think we're okay). "Where's the modem?" (sigh). I show him. (another sigh) He hooks up his Big Device. (sigh 2x). "I gotta look at the boxnthepole." Looks at box. (sigh) "Sonofa..." Goes to pole. Clumps back across yard. "Dere's some funny stuff goin' on dere in that box. Some splitters not spozed to be dere. I gotta....mumble...(sigh)." If he doesn't stop sighing, I'm getting him an oxygen bottle.
Part 2:
He briefly got lost in the shrubs just short of where he needed to go and tripped over one of the yard lights. Once at dapole, he slammed the ladder against it and I heard "Shit!" Now he's back at dabox. I wonder if he heard me a minute ago as I prepared to give my credit card to a vendor over the phone? I said,"Let me move away from the window. Sure don't want the cable guy having my credit card info!" I didn't hear a "shit" or a (sigh) so maybe I'm okay. Oh boy, here he comes with his helmet pushed back on his head looking really disgusted.
Part 3:
He just cut the cable from dabox to dapole. (sigh) Tried to reconnect.(sigh) Realized he had no slack. Dropped it. Looked at it. (sighhhhhhhh blown through his teeth). Helmet pushed back on his head, he's rolling out to datruck. We'll see if he has cable with him in sufficient amount to do the trick...
Part 4:
He returns with large spool of cable. Drops it on dapatio (sigh). Goes to dabox. Mumbles "mother____!" Walks back toward box, stepping in flowers, doing what looks like a dance step when he realizes where he is, disappears in bushes. Ladder slaps against dapole.
Part 5:
He's back on dapatio. (biggest sigh so far). Strips wire. Takes out electrical tape. Scratches self with it. Mutters something. Goes back to dabox. Focuses on dabox for about fifteen minutes. Clumps back to dapole. Strings new cable from dapole to dabox.
Part 6:
He's finished. I ask him how it went. "Well dere was a kinda mess in dere. Loose connections and this, I don't know what it was, bypass thing we're not supposed to use. I dunno why it's dere. I tightened...mumble...down to the D3 connector (sigh)...there's two lines...one not in use...I tied it off. The connections, dey were loose...mumble...up dapole. . . BUT IT WORKS GOOD NOW, HEY?"
Yeah, buddy, thanks.
Only problem is . . . after all that . . . I still have the same problem. (sigh)
Cable fellow just arrived. Couple of days beard growth, shirt out of pants, he looks like every mugshot of a pedophile you've ever seen. He enters (Socks did not hide. I think we're okay). "Where's the modem?" (sigh). I show him. (another sigh) He hooks up his Big Device. (sigh 2x). "I gotta look at the boxnthepole." Looks at box. (sigh) "Sonofa..." Goes to pole. Clumps back across yard. "Dere's some funny stuff goin' on dere in that box. Some splitters not spozed to be dere. I gotta....mumble...(sigh)." If he doesn't stop sighing, I'm getting him an oxygen bottle.
Part 2:
He briefly got lost in the shrubs just short of where he needed to go and tripped over one of the yard lights. Once at dapole, he slammed the ladder against it and I heard "Shit!" Now he's back at dabox. I wonder if he heard me a minute ago as I prepared to give my credit card to a vendor over the phone? I said,"Let me move away from the window. Sure don't want the cable guy having my credit card info!" I didn't hear a "shit" or a (sigh) so maybe I'm okay. Oh boy, here he comes with his helmet pushed back on his head looking really disgusted.
Part 3:
He just cut the cable from dabox to dapole. (sigh) Tried to reconnect.(sigh) Realized he had no slack. Dropped it. Looked at it. (sighhhhhhhh blown through his teeth). Helmet pushed back on his head, he's rolling out to datruck. We'll see if he has cable with him in sufficient amount to do the trick...
Part 4:
He returns with large spool of cable. Drops it on dapatio (sigh). Goes to dabox. Mumbles "mother____!" Walks back toward box, stepping in flowers, doing what looks like a dance step when he realizes where he is, disappears in bushes. Ladder slaps against dapole.
Part 5:
He's back on dapatio. (biggest sigh so far). Strips wire. Takes out electrical tape. Scratches self with it. Mutters something. Goes back to dabox. Focuses on dabox for about fifteen minutes. Clumps back to dapole. Strings new cable from dapole to dabox.
Part 6:
He's finished. I ask him how it went. "Well dere was a kinda mess in dere. Loose connections and this, I don't know what it was, bypass thing we're not supposed to use. I dunno why it's dere. I tightened...mumble...down to the D3 connector (sigh)...there's two lines...one not in use...I tied it off. The connections, dey were loose...mumble...up dapole. . . BUT IT WORKS GOOD NOW, HEY?"
Yeah, buddy, thanks.
Only problem is . . . after all that . . . I still have the same problem. (sigh)
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Shameful Weather Coverage in Chicago
One of the things I learned in nearly thirty years of covering news is that the general viewing and listening public is sometimes slow to react in the face of threatening weather, sometimes with tragic results.
That's not so much the case in "tornado alley" where weather warnings are commonplace and residents realize the value of staying alert to changing conditions. But I found it true regularly when I came to Chicago.
We had some bad weather in the Chicago area the other night. Three tornado funnels. Straight-line winds in excess of seventy-miles-per-hour. And an end result of more than a quarter of a million people without power.
The local television stations, one of which touts its multi-million dollar weather studio and committment to weather education, shamefully failed in their responsibility to warn the viewing public of the dangers of the approaching storm.
While The Weather Channel focused its coverage on Chicago for the time period the storm was approaching, the local stations dashed off a couple of quick messages. One station, I am told, offered visuals in the form of screen-crawls and radar but no more than minutes of advice or warnings from their meteorologists.
More than 100 people died in Joplin where, as I understand, they had very little advance warning of a terrifying storm.
In Chicago Tuesday night, by my estimate, the television stations had thirty-to-forty minutes to alert their viewers.
I recognize these stations have contractual agreements with advertisers and their networks. I also realize the stations must be sensitive to viewers in outlying areas who are not affected by storms approaching Chicago. There is also the argument that social media, smart-phones and computers all provide weather coverage.
But consider this, too.
If people had died in our storms, which excuse for television's shameful lack of coverage would have most comforted their family and friends?
That's not so much the case in "tornado alley" where weather warnings are commonplace and residents realize the value of staying alert to changing conditions. But I found it true regularly when I came to Chicago.
We had some bad weather in the Chicago area the other night. Three tornado funnels. Straight-line winds in excess of seventy-miles-per-hour. And an end result of more than a quarter of a million people without power.
The local television stations, one of which touts its multi-million dollar weather studio and committment to weather education, shamefully failed in their responsibility to warn the viewing public of the dangers of the approaching storm.
While The Weather Channel focused its coverage on Chicago for the time period the storm was approaching, the local stations dashed off a couple of quick messages. One station, I am told, offered visuals in the form of screen-crawls and radar but no more than minutes of advice or warnings from their meteorologists.
More than 100 people died in Joplin where, as I understand, they had very little advance warning of a terrifying storm.
In Chicago Tuesday night, by my estimate, the television stations had thirty-to-forty minutes to alert their viewers.
I recognize these stations have contractual agreements with advertisers and their networks. I also realize the stations must be sensitive to viewers in outlying areas who are not affected by storms approaching Chicago. There is also the argument that social media, smart-phones and computers all provide weather coverage.
But consider this, too.
If people had died in our storms, which excuse for television's shameful lack of coverage would have most comforted their family and friends?
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Mixed Feelings About Concealed Carry in Wisconsin
Wisconsin's State Assembly passed a concealed carry bill today and sent it to the governor who is expected to sign it into law.
I applaud what Wisconsin has done but take exception to the training requirements that have been reported in the media. Apparently the bill requires only classroom work, no actual range time. Bad idea.
But then, I haven't seen any state demanding real-world training for its permit holders.
Granted, many individuals who choose to carry concealed handguns already have significant experience with firearms. Unfortunately, that experience, while better than nothing, is often limited to shooting ranges at best and "plinkin' at cans' at worst. Too many people have told me they don't need or want to take even a basic class because they "know all about guns."
I was fortunate to have early police training, augmented by several advanced classes taught by the FBI. When I decided several years ago to take-up the handgun hobby again, I signed up for individual instruction in basic safety, and carrying and using a concealed weapon, as well as NRA- certified classes in everything from the basics to handgun self-defense in and out of the home. . . about 100-plus hours in all. In the next year, I hope to attend Masaad Ayoob's fine pistol training facility in Florida for more specialized classes.
Concealed carry is a deadly responsibility. It is not a game. It isn't something you do to impress your friends. States should require professional instruction and rigorous range testing before a permit is issued.
-0-
I applaud what Wisconsin has done but take exception to the training requirements that have been reported in the media. Apparently the bill requires only classroom work, no actual range time. Bad idea.
But then, I haven't seen any state demanding real-world training for its permit holders.
Granted, many individuals who choose to carry concealed handguns already have significant experience with firearms. Unfortunately, that experience, while better than nothing, is often limited to shooting ranges at best and "plinkin' at cans' at worst. Too many people have told me they don't need or want to take even a basic class because they "know all about guns."
I was fortunate to have early police training, augmented by several advanced classes taught by the FBI. When I decided several years ago to take-up the handgun hobby again, I signed up for individual instruction in basic safety, and carrying and using a concealed weapon, as well as NRA- certified classes in everything from the basics to handgun self-defense in and out of the home. . . about 100-plus hours in all. In the next year, I hope to attend Masaad Ayoob's fine pistol training facility in Florida for more specialized classes.
Concealed carry is a deadly responsibility. It is not a game. It isn't something you do to impress your friends. States should require professional instruction and rigorous range testing before a permit is issued.
-0-
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Congress and Casting Stones
So it looks like Congressman Weiner is out.
Reports in the New York Times and elsewhere say the pec-and-ab-displaying Democrat will resign after long discussions with his wife and amid threats that his colleagues planned to strip him of his committee assignments. Probably not the kind of stripping he's used to . . . but, I digress.
Yeah, he's a creep for playing around with other women while married and for the unpardonable sin of lying about it when the media came calling. Now he bows out in disgrace and goes to spend time in rehab or taking long walks on the beach. Can a nasty, but quiet, divorce be far behind?
Here's my take.
I wonder how many others in Congress are guilty of the same thing . . . or worse? Were any of those esteemed statesmen (and undoubtedly stateswomen) among the "colleagues" who urged him to quit? Of course they were!
I suspect more than a few of the finger-pointing media have their own sexual peccadillos to hide. Sure they have a job to do but, do they have the moral right to criticize anyone else? Just askin'.
Final question...what serious issues, what criminal acts, what real wrongs have gone uninvestigated and unreported while the media and pundits have been dancing all over Weiner's weiner?
Is it too much for a disgusted public to ask that we get back to the business of news sometime soon?
Reports in the New York Times and elsewhere say the pec-and-ab-displaying Democrat will resign after long discussions with his wife and amid threats that his colleagues planned to strip him of his committee assignments. Probably not the kind of stripping he's used to . . . but, I digress.
Yeah, he's a creep for playing around with other women while married and for the unpardonable sin of lying about it when the media came calling. Now he bows out in disgrace and goes to spend time in rehab or taking long walks on the beach. Can a nasty, but quiet, divorce be far behind?
Here's my take.
I wonder how many others in Congress are guilty of the same thing . . . or worse? Were any of those esteemed statesmen (and undoubtedly stateswomen) among the "colleagues" who urged him to quit? Of course they were!
I suspect more than a few of the finger-pointing media have their own sexual peccadillos to hide. Sure they have a job to do but, do they have the moral right to criticize anyone else? Just askin'.
Final question...what serious issues, what criminal acts, what real wrongs have gone uninvestigated and unreported while the media and pundits have been dancing all over Weiner's weiner?
Is it too much for a disgusted public to ask that we get back to the business of news sometime soon?
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Federal Study States the Obvious
Many of us who used to love journalism have known this for some time: with all the *new* sources of news provided by the Internet, the actual quality of reporting has diminished.
Now, the New York Times is highlighting a federal study that makes our cynical observations official.
Commissioned by the FCC, the study focuses specifically on the coverage of local and state government. It says that politicians gain power when the media is not around to question their actions and assertions...and fewer and fewer media organizations are doing so.
Reporters hold up a mirror so society can see how it is functioning.
Without that mirror, the arrogance of power goes unchecked and we all suffer.
Now, the New York Times is highlighting a federal study that makes our cynical observations official.
Commissioned by the FCC, the study focuses specifically on the coverage of local and state government. It says that politicians gain power when the media is not around to question their actions and assertions...and fewer and fewer media organizations are doing so.
Reporters hold up a mirror so society can see how it is functioning.
Without that mirror, the arrogance of power goes unchecked and we all suffer.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Journalistic Ethics Redefined
Many many years ago, before cable probably, there existed a rule in the journalism business: Impartiality is essential for credibility. It simply meant, you don't promote or publicly support the people or institutions that you may eventually have to cover.
For example, you don't say the mayor is the best ever in case the next day you have to call him an accused felon. Or something nasty like that.
Why, kids, I even remember a time when those of us in radio weren't even allowed to read commercial sponsorships at the beginning of newscasts. None of that, "And now the news,brought to you by Dumb and Dumber Chair Company."
Nowadays, though, there's a thing called "spin."
Having the ability to spin is almost as good as having "credibility." It means you can tell people you "didn't know" that something you did was unethical or that you are a moron. In many circles, that erases your misbehavior and everyone forgets about it forever. Simply put, you are no longer a moron.
So every so-called "journalist" who was edited out of the recent non-advertisement/tribute to outgoing Mayor Daley is now forgiven. They are no longer morons.
The ones who didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to spin their appearance in said commercial remain the twits and lightweights they always were.
They have discovered another important new rule of journalism: having no ethics means never having to say you're sorry.
For example, you don't say the mayor is the best ever in case the next day you have to call him an accused felon. Or something nasty like that.
Why, kids, I even remember a time when those of us in radio weren't even allowed to read commercial sponsorships at the beginning of newscasts. None of that, "And now the news,brought to you by Dumb and Dumber Chair Company."
Nowadays, though, there's a thing called "spin."
Having the ability to spin is almost as good as having "credibility." It means you can tell people you "didn't know" that something you did was unethical or that you are a moron. In many circles, that erases your misbehavior and everyone forgets about it forever. Simply put, you are no longer a moron.
So every so-called "journalist" who was edited out of the recent non-advertisement/tribute to outgoing Mayor Daley is now forgiven. They are no longer morons.
The ones who didn't avail themselves of the opportunity to spin their appearance in said commercial remain the twits and lightweights they always were.
They have discovered another important new rule of journalism: having no ethics means never having to say you're sorry.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Mayor Rahmbo: Ruthlessness Redefined
Channel 5's political blog has this to say about Chicago's new Mayor:
“Foul mouthed, iron-fisted and arrogant. Say hello to Mayor Emanuel.”
Everything I’ve read, heard and seen about the guy suggests that assessment of the new mayor is absolutely spot-on.
While Daley whined when he felt mistreated by the media, Emmanuel delights in his default Rahmbo. The tone of Channel 5's coverage displeases him, so he thinks nothing of, literally, turning his back on their cameras. Some consider it theatre. I think it's the behavior of a politician of the Mike Madigan School of Doing Whatever You Like Because You Can.
In fact, Madigan should shiver a bit. So should all of Illinois. You're either this guy's ally or regarded as something he picked up on his shoe. Emmanuel redefines ruthless. In his arrogance, he knows he can get away with most anything he chooses to do. Who is there to question him? C’mon. The Chicago media? Please. Talk about bringing a limp noodle to a sword fight.
Beware Chicago. You’ve gotten what you asked for. Good or bad, Rahmbo’s about to rip you a new one.
“Foul mouthed, iron-fisted and arrogant. Say hello to Mayor Emanuel.”
Everything I’ve read, heard and seen about the guy suggests that assessment of the new mayor is absolutely spot-on.
While Daley whined when he felt mistreated by the media, Emmanuel delights in his default Rahmbo. The tone of Channel 5's coverage displeases him, so he thinks nothing of, literally, turning his back on their cameras. Some consider it theatre. I think it's the behavior of a politician of the Mike Madigan School of Doing Whatever You Like Because You Can.
In fact, Madigan should shiver a bit. So should all of Illinois. You're either this guy's ally or regarded as something he picked up on his shoe. Emmanuel redefines ruthless. In his arrogance, he knows he can get away with most anything he chooses to do. Who is there to question him? C’mon. The Chicago media? Please. Talk about bringing a limp noodle to a sword fight.
Beware Chicago. You’ve gotten what you asked for. Good or bad, Rahmbo’s about to rip you a new one.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Open Records...You've Got to Be Kidding!
A reporter for the Chicago Reader has sued the city of Chicago to get a look at Mayor Daley's schedule, some Chicago Police documents about homicide statistics and a study that caused some personnel shifts within the police department. The suit says the reporter has previously filed Freedom of Information(FOI) requests to gain access to the information but the city has either denied or ignored them.
I applaud his efforts but suspect they will come to nothing.
Open Records and Open Meetings Acts look great on paper. The theory behind them is sound. We, as citizens, have a right to see how our government behaves. We pay for it. We should be able to watch it work. Or not work, as the case may be.
The problem: all bodies of government, in this case the City of Chicago, have great lawyers who know all the tricks to making sure the way the city really operates never comes to light.
Why would it be in Mayor Daley's interest to open his daily schedule to the public? Who knows what names would appear on it and what topics might be covered in the meetings he takes? And murder stats? A close study by a journalist could show manipulation of data, something that was unearthed in Chicago a number of years ago. Is there a reason to think procedures have changed since then? Statistics reflect what the keeper of the data wants them to show. Especially those of the Chicago Police Department.
The arrogance with which governmental bodies operate is well documented. There is freedom of information only if the bureaucrats allow it. If petitioned, they stall, using every legal and illegal method available to them, unless ordered by a court to respond. Unfortunately, that gives them the time to redact or cleanse the documents requested. Sometimes Open Records cases are just thrown out. Why? Aren't those making the rulings essentially bureaucrats themselves? Someday their decisions could come back to haunt them. Don't rock the boat.
Politicians and bureaucrats increasingly have shown their offhand regard for the rights of the people they represent. Our elected officials, and the people they hire, don't regard us as constituents. To them, we are "the citizens" and those who stand up and question them are "pests."
In 2011, "they" run the government and we have no right to question how they do it.
I applaud his efforts but suspect they will come to nothing.
Open Records and Open Meetings Acts look great on paper. The theory behind them is sound. We, as citizens, have a right to see how our government behaves. We pay for it. We should be able to watch it work. Or not work, as the case may be.
The problem: all bodies of government, in this case the City of Chicago, have great lawyers who know all the tricks to making sure the way the city really operates never comes to light.
Why would it be in Mayor Daley's interest to open his daily schedule to the public? Who knows what names would appear on it and what topics might be covered in the meetings he takes? And murder stats? A close study by a journalist could show manipulation of data, something that was unearthed in Chicago a number of years ago. Is there a reason to think procedures have changed since then? Statistics reflect what the keeper of the data wants them to show. Especially those of the Chicago Police Department.
The arrogance with which governmental bodies operate is well documented. There is freedom of information only if the bureaucrats allow it. If petitioned, they stall, using every legal and illegal method available to them, unless ordered by a court to respond. Unfortunately, that gives them the time to redact or cleanse the documents requested. Sometimes Open Records cases are just thrown out. Why? Aren't those making the rulings essentially bureaucrats themselves? Someday their decisions could come back to haunt them. Don't rock the boat.
Politicians and bureaucrats increasingly have shown their offhand regard for the rights of the people they represent. Our elected officials, and the people they hire, don't regard us as constituents. To them, we are "the citizens" and those who stand up and question them are "pests."
In 2011, "they" run the government and we have no right to question how they do it.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Watching the Eagles and Being Amazed
http://www.ustream.tv/decoraheagles
It's an amazing site. If you are a fan of bald eagles, which I am, it's awe-inspiring.
This eagle mom, you see, laid three eggs. Two have hatched in front of our watching eyes. Another is...about to hatch. Any day now. Any moment, actually. Watching her feed her eaglets, those little squeaking clumps of grey with their black faces, tumbling around the nest, reaching up with wide-open beaks to take the food Mom or Dad offers (right now it looks like morsels of fish and maybe rabbit) darn near brings tears to my eyes. And makes me laugh out loud.
Bald eagles are wonderful creatures. Viciously strong. Graceful. Beautiful. And incredibly frustrating to photograph. I whipped around on a pontoon boat and snapped the picture shown above from waist level in the one moment I had before that particular eagle swooped out of sight above Trout Lake, Wisconsin last summer.
But the site noted above provides live, near-broadcast quality video of the eagles' nest. Eagles 24-7.
If you're not the fan I am, the Raptor Resource Project (http://www.raptorresource.org/) site in Decorah, Iowa, may not do much for you.
For me it's a connection with nature and a way to observe one of the more incredible creations of Our Creator.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
On the Verge of...Ooops...IN Another War
In Libya, President Obama seems to have created an open-ended scenario, complete with vague goals and hidden agendas, so he can please all sides. That seems to be his legacy. Reagan was the Great Communicator. Obama will be known as the Great Pacifier.
C'mon, we're fighting a demonic dictator who not only has hidden himself but has craftily made it impossible for news organizations to figure out how to spell his name. Which begs the question, how can he ever be brought before the International Court as a war criminal if the warrant doesn't have his name spelled correctly? As any regular viewer of Law and Order knows, that's grounds for an immediate dismissal of the charges before the third commercial break.
I offer what may appear to many as an overly simplistic and naive suggestion. This one man is the root cause of the upheaval in his country. Even our President (I think) would agree that he should be removed from power.
Hilary's negotiations, our missiles, rebel ground fighting, political manipulation, covert operations, editorial cartoons, and the tsunami in Japan all have failed to accomplish that goal.
Let's kill him.
One bullet to the forehead should do the trick.
At least one of his associates must have a movie script hidden away that he would like to see produced in Hollywood. President Obama has many friends in the movie business. Just sayin'.
A little quid pro quo and bang...done. End of the spelling bee.
C'mon, we're fighting a demonic dictator who not only has hidden himself but has craftily made it impossible for news organizations to figure out how to spell his name. Which begs the question, how can he ever be brought before the International Court as a war criminal if the warrant doesn't have his name spelled correctly? As any regular viewer of Law and Order knows, that's grounds for an immediate dismissal of the charges before the third commercial break.
I offer what may appear to many as an overly simplistic and naive suggestion. This one man is the root cause of the upheaval in his country. Even our President (I think) would agree that he should be removed from power.
Hilary's negotiations, our missiles, rebel ground fighting, political manipulation, covert operations, editorial cartoons, and the tsunami in Japan all have failed to accomplish that goal.
Let's kill him.
One bullet to the forehead should do the trick.
At least one of his associates must have a movie script hidden away that he would like to see produced in Hollywood. President Obama has many friends in the movie business. Just sayin'.
A little quid pro quo and bang...done. End of the spelling bee.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Open Letter to My State Legislators
I ask that you vote in favor of House Bill 7 and/or Senate Bill 27 which are intended to keep Firearm Owner Identification Card information confidential.
Publicizing the names of gun owners throughout Illinois will create problems, not solve them.
First, it will cause any number of people who now own firearms legally to simply refuse to register, or re-register themselves. Because the FOID card is required for legal weapon and ammunition purchases, as people decide not to register, the black market for guns and ammunition will expand. This will increase the number of weapons bought and sold illegally in the state and criminalize those individuals who would otherwise follow the law by obtaining an FOID card.
Second, if firearm owner information is allowed to become public, those individuals will be at risk of being targeted by thieves looking to steal guns. The reverse is also true. Those residents without a FOID card will be seen as vulnerable for burglary because they, apparently, do not have a registered weapon.
Finally, what purpose is served by allowing the news media, or anyone else, to have the names of legally registered gun owners?
Since the FOID card program began in the 1960’s, law-abiding citizens have registered with the understanding that their information will be kept confidential. I submit it is a great disservice to them to release their names. I realize the opinion from Attorney General Madigan considers that only the names of FOID card holders are “public information.” With the ready availability of search engines, however, their addresses and other information about them can be easily obtained by the news media or anyone else.
I also ask what sort of precedent this sets for the potential release of other confidential information held by the state. If the Attorney General believes the Open Records Act allows the media to have access to FOID card documentation, what will they request next?
Publicizing the names of gun owners throughout Illinois will create problems, not solve them.
First, it will cause any number of people who now own firearms legally to simply refuse to register, or re-register themselves. Because the FOID card is required for legal weapon and ammunition purchases, as people decide not to register, the black market for guns and ammunition will expand. This will increase the number of weapons bought and sold illegally in the state and criminalize those individuals who would otherwise follow the law by obtaining an FOID card.
Second, if firearm owner information is allowed to become public, those individuals will be at risk of being targeted by thieves looking to steal guns. The reverse is also true. Those residents without a FOID card will be seen as vulnerable for burglary because they, apparently, do not have a registered weapon.
Finally, what purpose is served by allowing the news media, or anyone else, to have the names of legally registered gun owners?
Since the FOID card program began in the 1960’s, law-abiding citizens have registered with the understanding that their information will be kept confidential. I submit it is a great disservice to them to release their names. I realize the opinion from Attorney General Madigan considers that only the names of FOID card holders are “public information.” With the ready availability of search engines, however, their addresses and other information about them can be easily obtained by the news media or anyone else.
I also ask what sort of precedent this sets for the potential release of other confidential information held by the state. If the Attorney General believes the Open Records Act allows the media to have access to FOID card documentation, what will they request next?
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Why Does the A.P. Want A List of Illinois Gun Owners?
I was startled to see a story in today's Tribune that the Associated Press wants a list of all gun owners in Illinois and has filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act to get it.
And Attorney General Lisa Madigan, daughter of the most powerful Democrat in Illinois, House Speaker Michael Madigan, says sure, let's give it to them.
To own a gun in Illinois the state requires we register ourselves by obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification Card. The Illinois State Police, however, maintains the registry and has, apparently, taken issue with Madigan's order to release the information.
I agree with, and applaud, the State Police.
I can't think of any reason the A.P. would want the list other than to make it public. It's pretty obvious they want to do a story about the evil that lurks in every lawful gun owner's home. Probably in some misguided attempt to save us from ourselves. Their reason, of course, will be that they want to assure that the process is working as it should. How will they do that? Why publish the list, of course. Maybe run some random background checks, too.
First of all, that's an invasion of privacy. Second, it is an invitation to burglars everywhere, even though Madigan is quoted as saying gun owners' addresses should remain private. How long do you suppose it will take the media, with all the online data bases it has access to, to acquire every shred of information about individual gun owners that it wants?
Thus, burglars who are so inclined will know just where to go to get what they want.
Of course, any halfway intelligent thief will also understand that, if there's a gun in the house there's also a decent chance the owner of said firearm will choose to use it, rather than lose it.
It's the dummies I worry about. And there are far more stupid thieves than there are smart ones.
There are also the anti-gunners to worry about. What sorts of mischief will they cook up for us once they have our names?
This sort of ruling also makes me think the National Rifle Association and other groups are not so wrong in believing that liberal-leaning lawmakers would love to pass a law allowing the seizure of all firearms. Wouldn't this be a logical start to such a process?
Illinois already has among the toughest, if not the toughest, firearms laws in the United States.
Why put the lawful owners of firearms at risk of becoming victims of theft or worse by publishing a list that, rightfully, should remain private?
And Attorney General Lisa Madigan, daughter of the most powerful Democrat in Illinois, House Speaker Michael Madigan, says sure, let's give it to them.
To own a gun in Illinois the state requires we register ourselves by obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification Card. The Illinois State Police, however, maintains the registry and has, apparently, taken issue with Madigan's order to release the information.
I agree with, and applaud, the State Police.
I can't think of any reason the A.P. would want the list other than to make it public. It's pretty obvious they want to do a story about the evil that lurks in every lawful gun owner's home. Probably in some misguided attempt to save us from ourselves. Their reason, of course, will be that they want to assure that the process is working as it should. How will they do that? Why publish the list, of course. Maybe run some random background checks, too.
First of all, that's an invasion of privacy. Second, it is an invitation to burglars everywhere, even though Madigan is quoted as saying gun owners' addresses should remain private. How long do you suppose it will take the media, with all the online data bases it has access to, to acquire every shred of information about individual gun owners that it wants?
Thus, burglars who are so inclined will know just where to go to get what they want.
Of course, any halfway intelligent thief will also understand that, if there's a gun in the house there's also a decent chance the owner of said firearm will choose to use it, rather than lose it.
It's the dummies I worry about. And there are far more stupid thieves than there are smart ones.
There are also the anti-gunners to worry about. What sorts of mischief will they cook up for us once they have our names?
This sort of ruling also makes me think the National Rifle Association and other groups are not so wrong in believing that liberal-leaning lawmakers would love to pass a law allowing the seizure of all firearms. Wouldn't this be a logical start to such a process?
Illinois already has among the toughest, if not the toughest, firearms laws in the United States.
Why put the lawful owners of firearms at risk of becoming victims of theft or worse by publishing a list that, rightfully, should remain private?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
"Curveball's" Curveball, Lara Logan's Beating, Drew Peterson Live
"Curveball" lied.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, an Iraqi defector, has admitted to The Guardian newspaper that he lied to U.S. officials about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program because he wanted to "get rid of" Sadaam Hussein. Codenamed "Curveball," al-Janabi was one of the sources cited by the CIA and others in the Bush Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
None of this comes as any surprise and "Curveball" wasn't the only one making stuff up. Others came forward with little or no proof, too. The Administration was looking for an excuse to go to war. A large percentage of Americans were ready to get revenge for 9/11. Thus ... we got a war. And all the horrific casualties that go along with it.
Speaking of casualties, Lara Logan is the latest high-profile journalist to report suffering beatings and worse covering what amounted to a war zone in Eqypt, the day Mubarek announced he was leaving the Presidency. Anderson Cooper also claimed to have been beaten. Many other journalists were attacked covering the Egyptian tumult, often by government forces intent on getting revenge against the foreign media for just showing up.
It's awful and inexcusable that journalists become victims. But it is also inescapable fact in such situations and Cooper, Logan and the others knew the risks they faced. Were their injuries worth the risk? Was their reporting part of the reason Mubarek left office? I'm guessing they would say it was.
Drew Peterson, accused wife killer, will stay in jail today but his lawyers will be arguing before the 3rd District Court of Appeals that the "hearsay" evidence presented in a hearing several months ago should be ruled inadmissable. At issue is a new Illinois statute permitting the use of hearsay evidence in certain situations. Today's arguments break new ground in that they will be televised live.
I think the Appellate Court will throw out the hearsay evidence and that, eventually, Peterson will be set free.
The risks and realities of the legal system.
Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, an Iraqi defector, has admitted to The Guardian newspaper that he lied to U.S. officials about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program because he wanted to "get rid of" Sadaam Hussein. Codenamed "Curveball," al-Janabi was one of the sources cited by the CIA and others in the Bush Administration as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
None of this comes as any surprise and "Curveball" wasn't the only one making stuff up. Others came forward with little or no proof, too. The Administration was looking for an excuse to go to war. A large percentage of Americans were ready to get revenge for 9/11. Thus ... we got a war. And all the horrific casualties that go along with it.
Speaking of casualties, Lara Logan is the latest high-profile journalist to report suffering beatings and worse covering what amounted to a war zone in Eqypt, the day Mubarek announced he was leaving the Presidency. Anderson Cooper also claimed to have been beaten. Many other journalists were attacked covering the Egyptian tumult, often by government forces intent on getting revenge against the foreign media for just showing up.
It's awful and inexcusable that journalists become victims. But it is also inescapable fact in such situations and Cooper, Logan and the others knew the risks they faced. Were their injuries worth the risk? Was their reporting part of the reason Mubarek left office? I'm guessing they would say it was.
Drew Peterson, accused wife killer, will stay in jail today but his lawyers will be arguing before the 3rd District Court of Appeals that the "hearsay" evidence presented in a hearing several months ago should be ruled inadmissable. At issue is a new Illinois statute permitting the use of hearsay evidence in certain situations. Today's arguments break new ground in that they will be televised live.
I think the Appellate Court will throw out the hearsay evidence and that, eventually, Peterson will be set free.
The risks and realities of the legal system.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
"Chicago Code" No "Shield"
Shawn Ryan set the cop-show bar pretty high with The Shield. Expectations were that his new Chicago Code would be just as gritty and high tension.
If the pilot episode is an example of where Code is headed, it'll be dumped in the river by the fourth or fifth show.
The production values are terrific. Chicago Code looks like a feature film and the city shines. However...
A couple of dum-dum things struck me immediately. A chase scene, wherein the balls-to-the-wall detective instructs his partner to ram their unmarked car into the front of a line of several marked squads chasing the bad guy...is something out of Starsky and Hutch. Pulling up beside the bad guy so the detective can "negotiate" with him was ludicrous; it might have worked with snappier dialogue. "Escorting" the bad guy to see his girlfriend before taking him down . . .would get any real cop fired. Again, had the dialog been better...might have worked. It wasn't and it didn't. It just reminded me of the "Jared" commercial where the football player has tears in his eyes watching the guy propose to his girlfriend.
The main problem with Code...the characters lack motivation and aren't likeable. I have no problem with a female police superintendent...but her sudden desire to establish an anti-corruption squad isn't well enough established in the lame voiceover that opens the show. It's explained, yes, but without heart. The lead detective is so cliche (read cocky and unpleasant), it hurts to watch him struggle through his scenes. McGarrett in Five-O is arrogant, too, but his character is given great dialogue and a cast of equally strong co-stars.
Delroy Lindo, as Code's wicked alderman, has potential. He looks like the Devil in a nice suit. There's a bit at the end of the episode where he instructs his secretary/assistant to "kiss my ear" that's nicely malevolent and tells us a great deal about him.
But when you establish the bad guy as a corrupt politician with life and death power over a city like Chicago, the good guys at least gotta have potential. So far, the rest of the cast gives me no reason to think they have the balls to go up against this guy.
The Shield's pilot hooked me in the opening scenes. Chicago Code has a long way to go.
If the pilot episode is an example of where Code is headed, it'll be dumped in the river by the fourth or fifth show.
The production values are terrific. Chicago Code looks like a feature film and the city shines. However...
A couple of dum-dum things struck me immediately. A chase scene, wherein the balls-to-the-wall detective instructs his partner to ram their unmarked car into the front of a line of several marked squads chasing the bad guy...is something out of Starsky and Hutch. Pulling up beside the bad guy so the detective can "negotiate" with him was ludicrous; it might have worked with snappier dialogue. "Escorting" the bad guy to see his girlfriend before taking him down . . .would get any real cop fired. Again, had the dialog been better...might have worked. It wasn't and it didn't. It just reminded me of the "Jared" commercial where the football player has tears in his eyes watching the guy propose to his girlfriend.
The main problem with Code...the characters lack motivation and aren't likeable. I have no problem with a female police superintendent...but her sudden desire to establish an anti-corruption squad isn't well enough established in the lame voiceover that opens the show. It's explained, yes, but without heart. The lead detective is so cliche (read cocky and unpleasant), it hurts to watch him struggle through his scenes. McGarrett in Five-O is arrogant, too, but his character is given great dialogue and a cast of equally strong co-stars.
Delroy Lindo, as Code's wicked alderman, has potential. He looks like the Devil in a nice suit. There's a bit at the end of the episode where he instructs his secretary/assistant to "kiss my ear" that's nicely malevolent and tells us a great deal about him.
But when you establish the bad guy as a corrupt politician with life and death power over a city like Chicago, the good guys at least gotta have potential. So far, the rest of the cast gives me no reason to think they have the balls to go up against this guy.
The Shield's pilot hooked me in the opening scenes. Chicago Code has a long way to go.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Should George Be At Lura Lynn's Bedside?
Chicago Tribune columnist Mary Schmich suggests today that convicted former Governor George Ryan be allowed to spend more time with his reportedly dying wife, Lura Lynn.
Ryan is serving time in federal prison. He's been allowed one short visit to her bedside already.
Schmich's column has generated hundreds of comments which, of course, was the intention. Whether she sincerely believes her argument or is making it for the purpose of "sellin' papers" is something only she knows. But she says society isn't punishing George by keeping him from his terribly sick wife, we're punishing her.
The fact that Schmich and so many others care about the lovely former First Lady of Illinois is wonderful. By all accounts, she's led a good life and has been a great wife and mother. And it goes without saying that anyone who is dying deserves to be surrounded by their loved ones.
Unfortunately, through no fault of hers, Lura Lynn Ryan happens to be the wife of someone doing time.
When an individual is convicted of a crime and goes to prison, it's said their family goes to prison with them. It is an unintended but unavoidable cruelty of the criminal justice system. Fallout, some would call it. Collateral damage.
Schmich never explains why she's asking for mercy specifically for Lura Lynn Ryan.
Aren't the ill and suffering spouses of other convicts just as worthy of our concern? If we're going to ask for mercy for Lura Lynn Ryan, let's include all of the mothers and fathers who are dying. All the sons and daughters, too. The grandchildren.
Surely they're just as deserving, aren't they?
Or is it just because Lura Lynn Ryan is the wife of a prominent person that Schmich thinks she should be shown special consideration?
Or maybe she thinks of George as a big ol' teddy bear. When I covered the Illinois General Assembly, George was Speaker of the House. Because of his surly voice and manner, some of us called him "George of the Statehouse," mimicking the cute "George of the Jungle" cartoon and song.
George of the Federal Pen isn't cute. He's well known, but he certainly isn't special nor deserving of any sort of extras. He's a convicted criminal doing time for heinous acts.
And like other convicts, his family, sick or well, good people or bad, must suffer for his actions right alongside him.
Add Lura Lynn Ryan to your prayers, Mary Schmich.
That's the best and only thing we can do for her.
Ryan is serving time in federal prison. He's been allowed one short visit to her bedside already.
Schmich's column has generated hundreds of comments which, of course, was the intention. Whether she sincerely believes her argument or is making it for the purpose of "sellin' papers" is something only she knows. But she says society isn't punishing George by keeping him from his terribly sick wife, we're punishing her.
The fact that Schmich and so many others care about the lovely former First Lady of Illinois is wonderful. By all accounts, she's led a good life and has been a great wife and mother. And it goes without saying that anyone who is dying deserves to be surrounded by their loved ones.
Unfortunately, through no fault of hers, Lura Lynn Ryan happens to be the wife of someone doing time.
When an individual is convicted of a crime and goes to prison, it's said their family goes to prison with them. It is an unintended but unavoidable cruelty of the criminal justice system. Fallout, some would call it. Collateral damage.
Schmich never explains why she's asking for mercy specifically for Lura Lynn Ryan.
Aren't the ill and suffering spouses of other convicts just as worthy of our concern? If we're going to ask for mercy for Lura Lynn Ryan, let's include all of the mothers and fathers who are dying. All the sons and daughters, too. The grandchildren.
Surely they're just as deserving, aren't they?
Or is it just because Lura Lynn Ryan is the wife of a prominent person that Schmich thinks she should be shown special consideration?
Or maybe she thinks of George as a big ol' teddy bear. When I covered the Illinois General Assembly, George was Speaker of the House. Because of his surly voice and manner, some of us called him "George of the Statehouse," mimicking the cute "George of the Jungle" cartoon and song.
George of the Federal Pen isn't cute. He's well known, but he certainly isn't special nor deserving of any sort of extras. He's a convicted criminal doing time for heinous acts.
And like other convicts, his family, sick or well, good people or bad, must suffer for his actions right alongside him.
Add Lura Lynn Ryan to your prayers, Mary Schmich.
That's the best and only thing we can do for her.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
The Politics of Murder
A US Congresswoman is shot in the brain, 6 others are killed including a nine-year old girl and a federal judge and a dozen people wounded in an attack at the most unexpected of all places, a supermarket parking lot.
The immediate response...political finger pointing. The basic argument: hate mongering, both from the left and the right, is partially to blame.
I don't disagree.
I've said it before. We are a society furious with ourselves. Republicans AND Democrats, office-holders and pundits, ramp up the fear and hate while more media outlets than ever in history gleefully repeat their rants in a never-ending cycle of vicious attacks and violent slander.
And we're surprised that some viewers/watchers/readers are reacting with actual violence to what they perceive as a call to arms? When you touch fire to kindling, don't you expect it to ignite?
FBI Director Robert Mueller made the point in a news conference from Tucson today that, by virtue of the internet, "Hate speech is more available to individuals . . .the lone wolves, particularly,...than it was even eight to ten years ago." The Pima County Sheriff concurs, adding that hate speech has a special impact on "people with unbalanced personalities."
Put more directly, whackjobs who used to cover their windows with aluminum foil and scream at their televisions have started packing pistols and acting out in public.
How do you identify those whackjobs? We all know a few. Should we lock them all up? Some unstable individuals certainly should be hospitalized. If they don't appear to pose a danger to themselves or others, good luck. Won't happen. President Ronald Reagan and every administration since has made sure of that.
The obvious kneejerk reaction, then? Keep the nuts from getting guns. An easy and, in some quarters, popular call to make which carries no practical weight whatsoever. Short of banning handguns outright, what would you have lawmakers and gun sellers do?
It would be great if gunshops could install a whackdoodle detector to identify those customers with murderous intent. Some states, such as Illinois, require a waiting period between purchase and acquisition. That certainly helps avoid spur of the moment incidents but patience will out. The shooter in Arizona reportedly bought his handgun in November. No waiting period is that long. If it were, the really determined would . . . wait. Or buy illegally.
Bottom line, no Congress and no state legislature will ever be successful in an effort to ban handgun sales to the public. Just will not happen. And it shouldn't.
Many today have called for better protection for members of Congress and the federal judiciary. Bodyguards, as it were. I imagine we'll hear a great deal about that proposal in the next few weeks, just as we heard calls for better national security in the wake of 9/11. Frankly, it's a great idea but entirely cost prohibitive. Even a notoriously narcissistic Congress will never spend the money. Individual lawmakers may decide to personally take action and hire their own security personnel. It will be a short-lived solution because, frankly, after a few months with no problems and high overhead, they won't want to keep paying the bills. A couple of lawmakers vow to carry guns when they're in their home districts. I hope they're properly trained. Eventually, though, the guns will be left in desk drawers or glove compartments.
So...what's the overall solution. How do we keep such awful things from happening again?
Quick answer...we will do nothing useful. Sure there will be some short term responses and some cosmetic changes.
The fury won't subside. Guns won't go away. Armed guards cost too much.
And a year from now, what happened yesterday, just like 9/11, will be a fading memory.
Until the next time.
The immediate response...political finger pointing. The basic argument: hate mongering, both from the left and the right, is partially to blame.
I don't disagree.
I've said it before. We are a society furious with ourselves. Republicans AND Democrats, office-holders and pundits, ramp up the fear and hate while more media outlets than ever in history gleefully repeat their rants in a never-ending cycle of vicious attacks and violent slander.
And we're surprised that some viewers/watchers/readers are reacting with actual violence to what they perceive as a call to arms? When you touch fire to kindling, don't you expect it to ignite?
FBI Director Robert Mueller made the point in a news conference from Tucson today that, by virtue of the internet, "Hate speech is more available to individuals . . .the lone wolves, particularly,...than it was even eight to ten years ago." The Pima County Sheriff concurs, adding that hate speech has a special impact on "people with unbalanced personalities."
Put more directly, whackjobs who used to cover their windows with aluminum foil and scream at their televisions have started packing pistols and acting out in public.
How do you identify those whackjobs? We all know a few. Should we lock them all up? Some unstable individuals certainly should be hospitalized. If they don't appear to pose a danger to themselves or others, good luck. Won't happen. President Ronald Reagan and every administration since has made sure of that.
The obvious kneejerk reaction, then? Keep the nuts from getting guns. An easy and, in some quarters, popular call to make which carries no practical weight whatsoever. Short of banning handguns outright, what would you have lawmakers and gun sellers do?
It would be great if gunshops could install a whackdoodle detector to identify those customers with murderous intent. Some states, such as Illinois, require a waiting period between purchase and acquisition. That certainly helps avoid spur of the moment incidents but patience will out. The shooter in Arizona reportedly bought his handgun in November. No waiting period is that long. If it were, the really determined would . . . wait. Or buy illegally.
Bottom line, no Congress and no state legislature will ever be successful in an effort to ban handgun sales to the public. Just will not happen. And it shouldn't.
Many today have called for better protection for members of Congress and the federal judiciary. Bodyguards, as it were. I imagine we'll hear a great deal about that proposal in the next few weeks, just as we heard calls for better national security in the wake of 9/11. Frankly, it's a great idea but entirely cost prohibitive. Even a notoriously narcissistic Congress will never spend the money. Individual lawmakers may decide to personally take action and hire their own security personnel. It will be a short-lived solution because, frankly, after a few months with no problems and high overhead, they won't want to keep paying the bills. A couple of lawmakers vow to carry guns when they're in their home districts. I hope they're properly trained. Eventually, though, the guns will be left in desk drawers or glove compartments.
So...what's the overall solution. How do we keep such awful things from happening again?
Quick answer...we will do nothing useful. Sure there will be some short term responses and some cosmetic changes.
The fury won't subside. Guns won't go away. Armed guards cost too much.
And a year from now, what happened yesterday, just like 9/11, will be a fading memory.
Until the next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)