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.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
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)