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.
Monday, November 28, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)