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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.