My earlier blog today focused on the facts some politicians and a couple of well-known religious leaders (read that "politicans of the cloth") forget to talk about when they push for tougher Illinois gun laws.
One of the points I raised is that the bad guys, aka the people who spray crowds with machine gun fire and randomly kill little kids and pregnant women, don't pay attention to laws already on the books that are designed to control access to firearms. . . so what would "tougher laws" accomplish? Who would they help (other than the politicians looking for the fear vote, of course)?
Case conveniently in point: Over the weekend, Chicago police acting on a search warrant raided the home of a Hegewisch neighborhood resident. According to the Chicago Tribune web site today, the officers, ". . .discovered five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition . . ."
Did the individual have as required by state law, an Illinois Firearm Owner ID card? No. Is he a licensed Federal Firearms dealer? I'm betting he is not. Did he possess the required permits to own handguns in the city of Chicago? Doubtful.
Guys like him laugh at existing gun laws! So why write more of them?
Some of our elected representatives and other irresponsible fear mongers grab headlines and camera time acting tough to impress their constituents. If they really want results, however, they won't come from "tougher" laws.
We need money to pay the salaries for more tough cops, to work the tough cases and to make the tough arrests that take hauls like "five handguns, three assault rifles, a double barreled shotgun, hunting rifles, 21 magazines, a fully loaded 75-round drum magazine, 3,000 rounds of ammunition..." off the tough streets.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Ducking Mr. Drive-By
I'm as horrified as the next guy about drive-bys that kill the innocent, in whatever part of town they happen to be.
I'd get in line to protest gun violence,too, as long as the guns being protested are those in the hands of gang-bangers, drug dealers and anyone else using them for criminal purposes.
A Chicago priest is calling on Springfield to enact "tougher" gun laws. The Tribune's online edition doesn't spell out exactly what the good reverend wants those laws to say but I imagine it's more of the same kind of thing that we've heard from Rev JJ, Mayor Dick and the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Here are some of the facts they never share with their audiences:
Illinois already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.
One cannot legally buy a firearm in this state without first obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card, which requires a background check. Another check is conducted at time of purchase and the buyer is then subject to a waiting period of 72 hours before a handgun can be delivered, 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun.
Illinois has no concealed weapons permit for civilians. We live in one of two states, Wisconsin being the other, that restricts concealed weapons to police officers.
Under Illinois law, a firearm cannot be carried in a vehicle unless it is unloaded, in a case and in the trunk.
Chicago, where the majority of gun crimes occur, has even stricter local ordinances regarding handguns.
Individuals wanting to legally purchase an automatic weapon can do so only after obtaining Federal certification from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Such certification is a lengthy process, requires a local law-enforcement sign-off and is relatively expensive.
All of these laws are regularly disregarded by those who wantonly spray bullets into crowds and kill children and by every crook who carries a pistol in their belt and produces it to stick up a liguor store.
Crooks pay no attention to the statutes now on the books. Why would enacting more restrictive laws make us safer? Criminals buy illegal weapons. Their suppliers don't fill out forms or require FOID cards. The people who sell guns to gang-bangers don't warn them against carrying concealed.
Wake up!
Yes, certainly, Illinois could act to entirely ban civilian handgun ownership. To what purpose? The state legislature could ban all rifles and shotguns, too. Why? Who would it help?
Sure, calling for tougher laws about anything sounds . . . well . . . tough.
It's a feel-good, political solution without real-world substance and, like most political solutions, it helps only the politician.
Out on the street, meanwhile, folks still be duckin' Mr. Drive By.
I'd get in line to protest gun violence,too, as long as the guns being protested are those in the hands of gang-bangers, drug dealers and anyone else using them for criminal purposes.
A Chicago priest is calling on Springfield to enact "tougher" gun laws. The Tribune's online edition doesn't spell out exactly what the good reverend wants those laws to say but I imagine it's more of the same kind of thing that we've heard from Rev JJ, Mayor Dick and the rest of the anti-gun crowd.
Here are some of the facts they never share with their audiences:
Illinois already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.
One cannot legally buy a firearm in this state without first obtaining a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) card, which requires a background check. Another check is conducted at time of purchase and the buyer is then subject to a waiting period of 72 hours before a handgun can be delivered, 24 hours for a rifle or shotgun.
Illinois has no concealed weapons permit for civilians. We live in one of two states, Wisconsin being the other, that restricts concealed weapons to police officers.
Under Illinois law, a firearm cannot be carried in a vehicle unless it is unloaded, in a case and in the trunk.
Chicago, where the majority of gun crimes occur, has even stricter local ordinances regarding handguns.
Individuals wanting to legally purchase an automatic weapon can do so only after obtaining Federal certification from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Such certification is a lengthy process, requires a local law-enforcement sign-off and is relatively expensive.
All of these laws are regularly disregarded by those who wantonly spray bullets into crowds and kill children and by every crook who carries a pistol in their belt and produces it to stick up a liguor store.
Crooks pay no attention to the statutes now on the books. Why would enacting more restrictive laws make us safer? Criminals buy illegal weapons. Their suppliers don't fill out forms or require FOID cards. The people who sell guns to gang-bangers don't warn them against carrying concealed.
Wake up!
Yes, certainly, Illinois could act to entirely ban civilian handgun ownership. To what purpose? The state legislature could ban all rifles and shotguns, too. Why? Who would it help?
Sure, calling for tougher laws about anything sounds . . . well . . . tough.
It's a feel-good, political solution without real-world substance and, like most political solutions, it helps only the politician.
Out on the street, meanwhile, folks still be duckin' Mr. Drive By.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Dead Freshman and a Bit on Bullying
Two Rutgers University freshmen alledgedly shot secret video of a fellow freshman having sex with another guy. The subject of the video, 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, later jumped off the George Washington Bridge to his death. The couple allegedly behind the video has been arrested and could face even more charges if the case is determined to be a bias crime. I hope it is. The mopes won't see jail time but, at the very least, I hope Rutgers boots them out and the victim's family pummels them in court.
Bullying is a hot-button topic with me.
I was bullied from about age 8 to age 12. Daily and unrelentingly. I'll say two things about it. No one except a victim knows how frightening it can be and fighting back, sometimes viciously, may be the only answer. I pushed one kid's head through a window and fractured the skull of another. The bullying stopped but my family also dealt with some legal repercussions. So let me also say that fighting back may carry its own price tag.
Bottom line: whatever the circumstances, no one should ever be made to feel the only way out is off a bridge. I'll take a courtroom over a body bag any day.
I doubt the couple at Rutgers had any idea their video "prank" would turn out the way it did. At the same time, they allegedly went out of their way to humiliate another person. Whether they feel any remorse is questionable. If the case reaches a courtroom, I imagine we'll see some crocodile tears but who knows whether it will be real emotion or poor-poor-me grief.
As this case illustrates, bullying is not just about punching and kicking and it doesn't always stop after grade or high school. Witness the cruelty of a certain preacher and his followers from a Topeka, Kansas "church" who trot out their bias against homosexuals at funerals of soldiers and others.
And what do you want to bet that those fools intrude when the Clementi family lays their child to rest?
Bullying is a hot-button topic with me.
I was bullied from about age 8 to age 12. Daily and unrelentingly. I'll say two things about it. No one except a victim knows how frightening it can be and fighting back, sometimes viciously, may be the only answer. I pushed one kid's head through a window and fractured the skull of another. The bullying stopped but my family also dealt with some legal repercussions. So let me also say that fighting back may carry its own price tag.
Bottom line: whatever the circumstances, no one should ever be made to feel the only way out is off a bridge. I'll take a courtroom over a body bag any day.
I doubt the couple at Rutgers had any idea their video "prank" would turn out the way it did. At the same time, they allegedly went out of their way to humiliate another person. Whether they feel any remorse is questionable. If the case reaches a courtroom, I imagine we'll see some crocodile tears but who knows whether it will be real emotion or poor-poor-me grief.
As this case illustrates, bullying is not just about punching and kicking and it doesn't always stop after grade or high school. Witness the cruelty of a certain preacher and his followers from a Topeka, Kansas "church" who trot out their bias against homosexuals at funerals of soldiers and others.
And what do you want to bet that those fools intrude when the Clementi family lays their child to rest?
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Who Cares What's in the Paper Anymore?
Chicago Tribune TV critic Maureen Dowd is leaving the Tribune.
She says it's because of a diminished interest on the part of management in what she does, ie: watches and comments on a lot of television programs. She doesn't think she'll be replaced.
((Note to Randy Michaels: I'd be happy to take half her salary and work from home...))
C'mon. Who cares what a local critic thinks about what's on TV? Or what's good/bad about the movies? For that matter, who gives a rat's butt about a local critic's review of local theatre or books by local authors or, for that matter again, new cars?
And seriously, why do we need to have all those sports commentators taking up space? I don't care about the nitwits in the front office of the Cubs and how they choose players. Or all the stupid trades the Bears or the Blackhawks make. What's that to me?
Frankly, I'm not really interested in the opinions of a bunch of people who used to cover the news and now sit back in their suspenders and drink coffee all day and write stupid editorials, either. What difference do they make, huh? It's not like politicians get elected, or not, or policies/laws get enacted, or not, based on what some silly newspaper has to say.
Frankly all that mostly biased political coverage could go, too. For example, how many people in Illinois really care that Blago tried to sell a Senate seat? Huh? And those stupid "sidebars" and "soft features?" Bah! Columnists? I never agree with them anyway.
I just read the paper for hard news. Oh wait. I don't read the actual "paper" any more at all. Just look online.
Then you have to consider those stupid advertisements, too. I don't read 'em. Don't use 'em. Don't buy crap based on them. Do you really need them?
So what the heck, Randy Michaels and Sam Zell, get rid of all the extras and save yourselves some money.
When you think about it, all those big rolls of paper have got to be mucho expensivo.
She says it's because of a diminished interest on the part of management in what she does, ie: watches and comments on a lot of television programs. She doesn't think she'll be replaced.
((Note to Randy Michaels: I'd be happy to take half her salary and work from home...))
C'mon. Who cares what a local critic thinks about what's on TV? Or what's good/bad about the movies? For that matter, who gives a rat's butt about a local critic's review of local theatre or books by local authors or, for that matter again, new cars?
And seriously, why do we need to have all those sports commentators taking up space? I don't care about the nitwits in the front office of the Cubs and how they choose players. Or all the stupid trades the Bears or the Blackhawks make. What's that to me?
Frankly, I'm not really interested in the opinions of a bunch of people who used to cover the news and now sit back in their suspenders and drink coffee all day and write stupid editorials, either. What difference do they make, huh? It's not like politicians get elected, or not, or policies/laws get enacted, or not, based on what some silly newspaper has to say.
Frankly all that mostly biased political coverage could go, too. For example, how many people in Illinois really care that Blago tried to sell a Senate seat? Huh? And those stupid "sidebars" and "soft features?" Bah! Columnists? I never agree with them anyway.
I just read the paper for hard news. Oh wait. I don't read the actual "paper" any more at all. Just look online.
Then you have to consider those stupid advertisements, too. I don't read 'em. Don't use 'em. Don't buy crap based on them. Do you really need them?
So what the heck, Randy Michaels and Sam Zell, get rid of all the extras and save yourselves some money.
When you think about it, all those big rolls of paper have got to be mucho expensivo.
Blago and the Kids Killed In Drive-Bys
It doesn't surprise me that many people are ready to put the Blagojevich case behind them.
"IL is short on money and 12 year olds are getting shot in Chicago by gangs, but there is money to keep spending on a victimless crime like the Blago case," says one Facebookian. "Why are we wasting money on this? It's pointless. We give him too much press. If you want to hurt him, ignore him," says another. Yet a third says, "Let it go. He's been kicked out of office, and found guilty of a felony. Send him off to do his time and get on with other more important things."
It's no wonder we continue to have corruption in Illinois government. Folks like these don't see cause and effect.
Let me put it in terms they might be able to understand.
Say your parents leave all their money, every dollar, in cash hidden in their mattress. That's the money they use to feed and clothe you, to take you to Six Flags, to buy you Christmas presents.
On a regular basis, your big brother steals money from the mattress to buy games for his computer. Your dad goes into the mattress to pay for a few hookers. Your mom steals just because she knows the cash is there.
Pretty soon, your parents start telling you, you can't have new clothes for school this year. No more Cap'n Crunch for breakfast. No extra cash for the rides at Six Flags. And come Christmas, well, you get a nice orange in your stocking but not much else.
Let's make it even more personal. Your brother then takes your computer and sells it. He gives your bike to one of his friends.
Pretty soon, your parents tell you they have to move to a tiny apartment and you can't have your own room. In fact, you have to share a bed with your brother.
Think that's a silly comparison? You think Illinois politicians don't work like that?
Wait 'til after the fall elections when your "parents" show you their plan for taking back some of that money you earned working at the drugstore, L'il Tommy. Money they "need" because their mattress is getting empty.
"Why's the mattress empty, Mom and Dad?" Gosh, son, we don't know. But if you want to keep living here, you have to turn your paycheck over to us every month.
We'll keep taking care of you, son. Trust us.
Wake up, Illinois.
Governor Rod may try to cover himself with the bodies of dead kids so you don't notice, but he committed crimes that affect every single one of us. He tried to SELL a bleeping U.S. Senate seat for crying out loud.
Sure that kind of thing gets done under the table all the time. But THIS time, there's evidence. THIS time the Feds almost nailed him.
I say retry the mope until he's convicted and put him away until those thousand- dollar suits of his turn to rags.
"IL is short on money and 12 year olds are getting shot in Chicago by gangs, but there is money to keep spending on a victimless crime like the Blago case," says one Facebookian. "Why are we wasting money on this? It's pointless. We give him too much press. If you want to hurt him, ignore him," says another. Yet a third says, "Let it go. He's been kicked out of office, and found guilty of a felony. Send him off to do his time and get on with other more important things."
It's no wonder we continue to have corruption in Illinois government. Folks like these don't see cause and effect.
Let me put it in terms they might be able to understand.
Say your parents leave all their money, every dollar, in cash hidden in their mattress. That's the money they use to feed and clothe you, to take you to Six Flags, to buy you Christmas presents.
On a regular basis, your big brother steals money from the mattress to buy games for his computer. Your dad goes into the mattress to pay for a few hookers. Your mom steals just because she knows the cash is there.
Pretty soon, your parents start telling you, you can't have new clothes for school this year. No more Cap'n Crunch for breakfast. No extra cash for the rides at Six Flags. And come Christmas, well, you get a nice orange in your stocking but not much else.
Let's make it even more personal. Your brother then takes your computer and sells it. He gives your bike to one of his friends.
Pretty soon, your parents tell you they have to move to a tiny apartment and you can't have your own room. In fact, you have to share a bed with your brother.
Think that's a silly comparison? You think Illinois politicians don't work like that?
Wait 'til after the fall elections when your "parents" show you their plan for taking back some of that money you earned working at the drugstore, L'il Tommy. Money they "need" because their mattress is getting empty.
"Why's the mattress empty, Mom and Dad?" Gosh, son, we don't know. But if you want to keep living here, you have to turn your paycheck over to us every month.
We'll keep taking care of you, son. Trust us.
Wake up, Illinois.
Governor Rod may try to cover himself with the bodies of dead kids so you don't notice, but he committed crimes that affect every single one of us. He tried to SELL a bleeping U.S. Senate seat for crying out loud.
Sure that kind of thing gets done under the table all the time. But THIS time, there's evidence. THIS time the Feds almost nailed him.
I say retry the mope until he's convicted and put him away until those thousand- dollar suits of his turn to rags.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Inception an Interesting Conception
It wasn't the best movie I've ever seen, but it sure was one of the oddest. At three hours, it certainly was long.
I think folks are right. To understand the intricacies, one really needs to sit through all three hours at least twice. I got the basics after the first half hour. The next two and a half were mind-numbing. Not boring, just way too much. . .crap. If someone would just explain the subtle stuff I missed while I sit in a more comfortable chair that would be great.
I didn't really enjoy the film, more just endured it. Leonardo was terrific, however. Not that he got to the depth of emotion the sub-plot required but he was intense and believable. Seeing it in iMax was a treat. The size of the screen added another dimension to the special effects, which were Oscar worthy.
The imagination that went into Inception is worthy of another Oscar for Best Dreamed Up Plot.
Speaking of dreaming, the nightmare that is the coverage of Lindsay Lohan continues. I saw an article that she was released from jail after serving two weeks of her 90 day sentence for whatever it was that got her into trouble. Now she goes into rehab. She's scheduled next to appear in a biography of Linda Lovelace. How very, very appropriate.
I think folks are right. To understand the intricacies, one really needs to sit through all three hours at least twice. I got the basics after the first half hour. The next two and a half were mind-numbing. Not boring, just way too much. . .crap. If someone would just explain the subtle stuff I missed while I sit in a more comfortable chair that would be great.
I didn't really enjoy the film, more just endured it. Leonardo was terrific, however. Not that he got to the depth of emotion the sub-plot required but he was intense and believable. Seeing it in iMax was a treat. The size of the screen added another dimension to the special effects, which were Oscar worthy.
The imagination that went into Inception is worthy of another Oscar for Best Dreamed Up Plot.
Speaking of dreaming, the nightmare that is the coverage of Lindsay Lohan continues. I saw an article that she was released from jail after serving two weeks of her 90 day sentence for whatever it was that got her into trouble. Now she goes into rehab. She's scheduled next to appear in a biography of Linda Lovelace. How very, very appropriate.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Sunday Snippets
From the patio table in the sunshine, with Socks Monster the Feline Action Hero relaxing on the bricks nearby (yep, he's got the aluminum reflector set up along with his iced tea and current novel)...
Chelsea Clinton has her wedding dress. It was on Yahoo just now. How lovely she looks. How little I care. I hope she has a terrific wedding and a long and happy life with her beau.
----
Chicago's CBS-2 is bringing back two stalwarts who drove the ratings for the station back in the 70's and early 80's. Bill Kurtis, most recently seen "discovering the Internet" for AT&T and seeking justice on Justice Files on cable, and Walter Jacobsen, will be anchoring Channel 2's 6pm newscasts. It's a shame they agreed to the re-pairing for a number of reasons, primarily because it smacks of a last stand by CBS to stay in the news game at 6. Family Feud would have been better.
----
The Blago trial jury is deliberating our former governor's future. My best guess is he may do a year or two but will walk on the primary count of trying to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. Why? The Government stopped short of presenting its entire case. Interestingly enough, the Defense, after promising Blago would testify, backed down entirely and presented no case whatsoever. I find that . . . odd. It suggests to me a scenario where the Defense predicted Blago would testify in such a way that information derogatory to certain political, or perhaps business, interests would come out in open court. The Government decided that should not happen and agreed to ratchet back if the Defense agreed to keep Blago's mouth shut. I'd hate to think that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a guy regarded even among his peers as incorruptible, would allow such a thing to happen on his watch.
Then again, maybe that's not what happened at all.
Do we think we will ever get the real story? Nah.
Have a great Sunday everyone.
Chelsea Clinton has her wedding dress. It was on Yahoo just now. How lovely she looks. How little I care. I hope she has a terrific wedding and a long and happy life with her beau.
----
Chicago's CBS-2 is bringing back two stalwarts who drove the ratings for the station back in the 70's and early 80's. Bill Kurtis, most recently seen "discovering the Internet" for AT&T and seeking justice on Justice Files on cable, and Walter Jacobsen, will be anchoring Channel 2's 6pm newscasts. It's a shame they agreed to the re-pairing for a number of reasons, primarily because it smacks of a last stand by CBS to stay in the news game at 6. Family Feud would have been better.
----
The Blago trial jury is deliberating our former governor's future. My best guess is he may do a year or two but will walk on the primary count of trying to sell Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. Why? The Government stopped short of presenting its entire case. Interestingly enough, the Defense, after promising Blago would testify, backed down entirely and presented no case whatsoever. I find that . . . odd. It suggests to me a scenario where the Defense predicted Blago would testify in such a way that information derogatory to certain political, or perhaps business, interests would come out in open court. The Government decided that should not happen and agreed to ratchet back if the Defense agreed to keep Blago's mouth shut. I'd hate to think that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, a guy regarded even among his peers as incorruptible, would allow such a thing to happen on his watch.
Then again, maybe that's not what happened at all.
Do we think we will ever get the real story? Nah.
Have a great Sunday everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)