How many dead college kids does it take before state governments are forced to act? Apparently that depends on the state.
The sensible folks of Minnesota are using the deaths of several college students to address the problem of binge drinking. Watering holes in college towns like Mankato offer unlimited cups of beer and mixed drinks for $5.00 from 9 PM to midnight. (No bar owner would be dumb enough to try this near a Jesuit school.) This clever sales ploy is having the exact effect you would expect.
In October, a 21-year old student died from alcohol poisoning. This brings to four students dead from drinking throughout the state. Minnesota is attempting to ban the practice of bottomless cups. Fond as I am of the occasional tipple, it is hard to argue with the state's concern. College students are particularly vulnerable (and particularly dopey). Any segment of the population willing to paint themselves in the school colors for a public appearance cannot be trusted to drink responsibly, especially when the hooch is free. From a practical standpoint, knowing "when to say when" might be "when" the money runs out.
Now slide your gaze 1,500 miles or so to the east, to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Public tragedy generates an entirely different response in the Old Dominion.
Consider the Commonwealth's reaction to the 32 brutal deaths at Virginia Tech last April. The legislature of Virginia immediately (well, seven months later) rushed into action and did ...nothing. The state imposed no additional restrictions on gun purchases. Background checks are still not required at gun shows or for private gun sales. Clearly the good old boys in Richmond consider the deaths in Blacksburg acceptable collateral damage.
Legislators from such enlightened corners of the state as Lynchburg and Roanoke argue that the gunman at Virginia Tech, Seung-Hui Cho, bought his guns legally and passed a background check. Sadly, that's true. However, had his mental condition been known to the state, and had he been denied a gun at a liscensed shop, he would have still been free to buy his weapon of choice at any of hundreds of gun shows around Virginia.
Face it folks, we are never going to pry the guns from the warm, living hands of people in America who are determined to own them. We can however, try to make it a little tougher to buy a gun if you are a convicted wife-beater or if your mental elevator doesn't ascend all the way to the top.
Slippery slopes notwithstanding, why do responsible gun owners constantly defend the rights of the irresponsible? Thousands die each year from bullets fired either in anger or by accident. Why is it so strange for a resident of Missouri or Idaho to be a concerned citizen first and a gun owner second? These people are victims of their own lobby. They support an organization that is primarily responsible for protecting the rights of killers and crazies. How does that make sense?
If the Auto Club spent my dues campaigning to allow drunks and crazy people to keep buying cars and driving on my roads, I'd raise hell. Explain to me how the NRA is different?
In case there are any Virginia State Senators reading this, please note...guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.
Crazy people with guns, and bulltes kill people.
People who can buy guns and bullets at the local expo center without ID or a background check, kill people.
I guess 32 dead wasn't enough of a body count to cause a response in Virginia. Clearly none of the legislators in Richmond had kids at VT that day.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
...or should Bill and Hillary stand farther apart so we can tell which one is running for President?
As the Bill and Hillary Show lurches toward Super Tuesday, one question looms larger and larger in the minds of the American electorate...which one of these people is actually running?
I know what the campaign posters say. I know who is standing at the podium during the endless debates. (The one in the dress, right? See also "how to identify Rudy G.") However, in the day to day news coverage the quotes from the Clinton camp are as likely to be sourced to Him as Her.
This situation is considerably more troubling to the electorate than to the candidate. If Hillary wanted to show how decisive she can be, what better way than to tell hubby to shut up and sit down?After all, Hillary is a woman (probably) and strength of will is a factor in this race. No one is confusing Mrs. Clinton with Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir. If she wishes to be taken seriously as a leader, she must first lead her noisy husband toward a corner for a well-needed time out.
Say what you will about the Bushes (and I usually do), George W. didn't have his dad running point in 2000. The first time you even saw George and Barbara was at the inauguration. But that is because Bush Sr. knew when to get off the stage. Bill Clinton apparently sees his wife's run for the presidency as an opportunity to return to the glory days of 1992. I guess it's hard to score with the babes when you have to explain to them why you're a celebrity.
The Clintons must see this "two candidate" strategy as a loser. Barak Obama has been kind up to this point. His comments about running against Clintons deux have been limited to occasional references to Bill's veracity. (Nothing new there!) Wait until the Republicans join the fun. The prospect of revisiting Bill Clinton's many sins is enough to electrify the bolts in Karl Rove's neck.
Hillary's road to the White House will be tough enough without her wayward husband standing on the podium next to her with his metaphoric fly open.
Bill should confine his speaking engagements to venues of old ladies and minorities. He should stick to praising his wife for not publicly kicking his ass for all the humiliation he caused her. "My wife has been vetted, not only by 35 years of public life but by 33 years of marriage to me."
As for me, I like Bill Clinton. What's not to like? He's engaging, funny and all too human. I also liked high school. That doesn't mean I want to relive it. There's a reason that we look back fondly on our last car or our former lovers. The mind has a short memory for pain.
Sadly, Republicans show no such inclination. If you want to be reminded in excruciating detail how Bill Clinton was impeached, disbarred and discredited in 1999 just have him stand too close to the Junior Senator from New York while she is running for president. All that mud is bound to leave stains.
I know what the campaign posters say. I know who is standing at the podium during the endless debates. (The one in the dress, right? See also "how to identify Rudy G.") However, in the day to day news coverage the quotes from the Clinton camp are as likely to be sourced to Him as Her.
This situation is considerably more troubling to the electorate than to the candidate. If Hillary wanted to show how decisive she can be, what better way than to tell hubby to shut up and sit down?After all, Hillary is a woman (probably) and strength of will is a factor in this race. No one is confusing Mrs. Clinton with Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir. If she wishes to be taken seriously as a leader, she must first lead her noisy husband toward a corner for a well-needed time out.
Say what you will about the Bushes (and I usually do), George W. didn't have his dad running point in 2000. The first time you even saw George and Barbara was at the inauguration. But that is because Bush Sr. knew when to get off the stage. Bill Clinton apparently sees his wife's run for the presidency as an opportunity to return to the glory days of 1992. I guess it's hard to score with the babes when you have to explain to them why you're a celebrity.
The Clintons must see this "two candidate" strategy as a loser. Barak Obama has been kind up to this point. His comments about running against Clintons deux have been limited to occasional references to Bill's veracity. (Nothing new there!) Wait until the Republicans join the fun. The prospect of revisiting Bill Clinton's many sins is enough to electrify the bolts in Karl Rove's neck.
Hillary's road to the White House will be tough enough without her wayward husband standing on the podium next to her with his metaphoric fly open.
Bill should confine his speaking engagements to venues of old ladies and minorities. He should stick to praising his wife for not publicly kicking his ass for all the humiliation he caused her. "My wife has been vetted, not only by 35 years of public life but by 33 years of marriage to me."
As for me, I like Bill Clinton. What's not to like? He's engaging, funny and all too human. I also liked high school. That doesn't mean I want to relive it. There's a reason that we look back fondly on our last car or our former lovers. The mind has a short memory for pain.
Sadly, Republicans show no such inclination. If you want to be reminded in excruciating detail how Bill Clinton was impeached, disbarred and discredited in 1999 just have him stand too close to the Junior Senator from New York while she is running for president. All that mud is bound to leave stains.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
...or should the primary process be renamed "Survivor, Washington D.C."?
As we eagerly anticipate February 5th, "Super Tuesday", 26 states will hold caucuses or primaries. Isitjustme is dreading February 6th, "Just Kill Me" Wednesday when the collective intelligence of my fellow Americans will be visible to the world. Nothing in the primary process thus far has led me to believe that our choices for candidates in 2008 will reflect much credit on our National IQ.
This was supposed to be the "anybody but George" election. This was to be "Listerine" vote where we wash the bad taste of the last eight years from our collective mouths. This was to be the monent when we said to the world, "We don't know what we were thinking in 2000 & 2004 but, seriously, we're over it."
Instead, we are traveling down the same road that brought us George the Lesser.
Have you ever wondered why all of the great democracies of the world have adopted the British system of government instead of ours? Countries like India, France, Greece, Denmark and Burkina Faso all have modeled their governing process after the parliamentary structure. Many of these governments were relics of the British Empire but all have maintained the system. Could it be that most countries see the wisdom of electing their leaders from the most experienced members of the legislature? Before you get to be Prime Minister, you learn your trade on the back bench. You gain experience as part of a governing process and, if you show skill as a leader, negotiator, consensus-builder and compromiser, you move up the ladder. Charisma helps but so does gravitas. Hell, we choose NFL head coaches with more care.
America has shown a particular disdain for experience. We haven't elected a senator to the presidency since Jack Kennedy. George H.W. Bush (George the Greater) was awash in experience but it was hardly the deciding factor in his election. Our curricula vitae for presidents have included: a peanut farmer, an actor, a frat boy baseball team owner and a man who never held a private sector job.
These men were all governors with zero understanding of foreign policy. Reading the New York Times (or in GWB's case, Sports Illustrated) hardly fills the gap. Being elected governor of Arkansas doesn't even qualify you to run Arkansas. By the time these guys get the hang of running the country, their first term is practically over. I know. FDR was governor of New York and Lincoln was a just country lawyer but even blind squirrels find nuts occasionally.
The experience wonks in this election are: John McCain, period. Hillary doesn't get points for being First Lady. I'm sorry but being in the pit crew just isn't the same as driving the car. The two other candidates with real chops were Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Both were swept away faster than you can say New Hampshire Primary. Rudy Guiliani ran one city...one city. (He also ran three marriages; two into the ground.) If Osama has attacked Denver, Rudy's name would be unknown everywhere west of Newark.
Note: Why does everyone laugh when Dennis Kucinich says he saw a UFO but no one laughs when Mike Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution?
The American presidential process is "all sizzle, no steak". (Or in GWB's case, "All hat, no cattle"). With the exception of John McCain, none of the front runners is qualified to be president today. (George W. Bush has been in the job for seven years and he's still not qualified.)
People should define the issues that a president will face and elect the person best able to meet those challenges. If we don't we should be prepared for another Texas lightweight or a president who has spent so much time on his knees that it has become a habit.
This was supposed to be the "anybody but George" election. This was to be "Listerine" vote where we wash the bad taste of the last eight years from our collective mouths. This was to be the monent when we said to the world, "We don't know what we were thinking in 2000 & 2004 but, seriously, we're over it."
Instead, we are traveling down the same road that brought us George the Lesser.
Have you ever wondered why all of the great democracies of the world have adopted the British system of government instead of ours? Countries like India, France, Greece, Denmark and Burkina Faso all have modeled their governing process after the parliamentary structure. Many of these governments were relics of the British Empire but all have maintained the system. Could it be that most countries see the wisdom of electing their leaders from the most experienced members of the legislature? Before you get to be Prime Minister, you learn your trade on the back bench. You gain experience as part of a governing process and, if you show skill as a leader, negotiator, consensus-builder and compromiser, you move up the ladder. Charisma helps but so does gravitas. Hell, we choose NFL head coaches with more care.
America has shown a particular disdain for experience. We haven't elected a senator to the presidency since Jack Kennedy. George H.W. Bush (George the Greater) was awash in experience but it was hardly the deciding factor in his election. Our curricula vitae for presidents have included: a peanut farmer, an actor, a frat boy baseball team owner and a man who never held a private sector job.
These men were all governors with zero understanding of foreign policy. Reading the New York Times (or in GWB's case, Sports Illustrated) hardly fills the gap. Being elected governor of Arkansas doesn't even qualify you to run Arkansas. By the time these guys get the hang of running the country, their first term is practically over. I know. FDR was governor of New York and Lincoln was a just country lawyer but even blind squirrels find nuts occasionally.
The experience wonks in this election are: John McCain, period. Hillary doesn't get points for being First Lady. I'm sorry but being in the pit crew just isn't the same as driving the car. The two other candidates with real chops were Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Both were swept away faster than you can say New Hampshire Primary. Rudy Guiliani ran one city...one city. (He also ran three marriages; two into the ground.) If Osama has attacked Denver, Rudy's name would be unknown everywhere west of Newark.
Note: Why does everyone laugh when Dennis Kucinich says he saw a UFO but no one laughs when Mike Huckabee says he doesn't believe in evolution?
The American presidential process is "all sizzle, no steak". (Or in GWB's case, "All hat, no cattle"). With the exception of John McCain, none of the front runners is qualified to be president today. (George W. Bush has been in the job for seven years and he's still not qualified.)
People should define the issues that a president will face and elect the person best able to meet those challenges. If we don't we should be prepared for another Texas lightweight or a president who has spent so much time on his knees that it has become a habit.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
...or is GWB's farewell tour not moving fast enough?
"If we don't kiss some Saudi ass over there we'll have to do it over here."
So reads the gospel according to George W. Bush.
Just so we all understand:
-the United States was attacked by nineteen men on September 11, 2001.
-eighteen of those men were Saudis.
-the President is attempting, by force-of-arms, to impose democracy on Iraq.
-Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. The King is no fan of individual freedoms.
The logical reaction to these facts would be:
1)Send the Saudis a smart-bomb candygram.
2)Move heaven and earth to break America's dependence on foreign/Saudi oil, then send them a smart-bomb candygram.
3)Clear brush in Crawford, Tx until Jan 20, 2009.
4) Agree to sell the Saudis $123 million in high tech weapons.
One suspects that Genius George's next foreign policy coup will be to sell high-speed humvees to the tribes of Darfur so the rapists can cover more ground.
Please tell me on what planet it makes any sense to sell munitions to a country that is most threatened by any American success in their region? It is true that, as long as America maintains the umbilical cord between Aramco and their suburban garages, we need to make nice. However, that doesn't mean that we provide the Saudis with the dynamite to blow the region up. Our "friends" the Israelis must be thrilled. More guns for the Arabs has always been on of their mottoes.
Why can't George and King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz just talk about areas of common interest? For example, they could discuss the most efficient method to execute prisoners. I believe the Saudis use a rusty rapier. That should please Judge Scalia. Then there's always the subject of torture. The Bush Administration has been outsourcing the brutal mistreatment of prisoners to Saudi Arabia for some time. They could re-negotiate the contract to include healthcare for the torturers.
They could chat about how to keep the population of their countries asleep while you run the country any way you like. Both appear to be experts. King Abdullah might even give George a few pointers on how to handle the press. (see also, rusty rapiers).
What remains clear is that the only thing worse than Bush foreign policy is Bush foreign policy on the road. American travel to Europe will certainly be down this summer. We are all too ashamed.
We can only hope that the price of oil rises so high that Air Force One becomes too expensive to fly... except from Washington to Crawford...one way. At that point the Saudis will have done the American people a great service.
So reads the gospel according to George W. Bush.
Just so we all understand:
-the United States was attacked by nineteen men on September 11, 2001.
-eighteen of those men were Saudis.
-the President is attempting, by force-of-arms, to impose democracy on Iraq.
-Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. The King is no fan of individual freedoms.
The logical reaction to these facts would be:
1)Send the Saudis a smart-bomb candygram.
2)Move heaven and earth to break America's dependence on foreign/Saudi oil, then send them a smart-bomb candygram.
3)Clear brush in Crawford, Tx until Jan 20, 2009.
4) Agree to sell the Saudis $123 million in high tech weapons.
One suspects that Genius George's next foreign policy coup will be to sell high-speed humvees to the tribes of Darfur so the rapists can cover more ground.
Please tell me on what planet it makes any sense to sell munitions to a country that is most threatened by any American success in their region? It is true that, as long as America maintains the umbilical cord between Aramco and their suburban garages, we need to make nice. However, that doesn't mean that we provide the Saudis with the dynamite to blow the region up. Our "friends" the Israelis must be thrilled. More guns for the Arabs has always been on of their mottoes.
Why can't George and King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz just talk about areas of common interest? For example, they could discuss the most efficient method to execute prisoners. I believe the Saudis use a rusty rapier. That should please Judge Scalia. Then there's always the subject of torture. The Bush Administration has been outsourcing the brutal mistreatment of prisoners to Saudi Arabia for some time. They could re-negotiate the contract to include healthcare for the torturers.
They could chat about how to keep the population of their countries asleep while you run the country any way you like. Both appear to be experts. King Abdullah might even give George a few pointers on how to handle the press. (see also, rusty rapiers).
What remains clear is that the only thing worse than Bush foreign policy is Bush foreign policy on the road. American travel to Europe will certainly be down this summer. We are all too ashamed.
We can only hope that the price of oil rises so high that Air Force One becomes too expensive to fly... except from Washington to Crawford...one way. At that point the Saudis will have done the American people a great service.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
...or does George Bush's passport have fewer stamps than a rural post office after Christmas?
President George W. Bush arrived in Israel on Wednesday. Fortunately, the pilot of Air Force One had a rough idea of where the country was because the Commander-in-Chief would be of little help. He skipped geography at Yale in favor of a Skull and Bones kegger. The momentousness of this occasion was exemplified by the placement of the story in The Washington Post. It appeared on page 15. George couldn't make page one if he announced that he was moving to a kibbutz. He has added new meaning to the term "irrelevant".
Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have been trying to fashion a workable plan for the Middle East. Until the 1930's it was more of a hobby than a foreign policy initiative. That changed when Mammoud went shooting at some food (sing it with me!) and up through the ground come a bubblin' crude. Oil that is, black gold, Tehran tea.
By the end of WWII we were a bit more concerned but our friends the British appeared to have things well in hand. We were at least confident enough to believe that no one would notice if we wedged a Jewish state into an underused hunk of real estate on the Eastern Mediterranean.
Throughout the 50's and 60's, the American jones for oil became troublesome but as long as the sheiks and sheikettes were happy buying planes and really cool hubcaps, the pipelines were wide open and life was good. Then came OPEC, the oil embargo, gas lines and, faster than you can say "Jeez, that Datsun is ugly" Americans were fearful of our oil dependence. That fear lasted about as long as Tom Tancredo's presidential bid, but U.S. Presidents took notice.
In 1978 Jimmy Carter brokered a deal between Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Al Sadat of Egypt. Say what you will about Jimmy Carter. That treaty was signed 30 years ago and it's still in force. Not bad for a peanut farmer.
Since then, each successive President has tried to cement his legacy as world leader by "bringing peace to this troubled region". Bill Clinton, not wishing to be remembered as "Mister pants-around-his- ankles" promised Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat everything but season tickets to the Redskins to secure a Middle East peace deal. Yasser held out for a spot on American Idol and the deal fell through. Now our "citizen of the world" President will give it a go.
The residents of the Middle East were initially grateful that an American plane flying over their country was not carrying a payload. Recent experience has taught them that American diplomacy is usually of the 50 caliber variety. However there were no smart bombs (of any kind) on this flight. If George can just manage to stop calling the locals Israelites all will be well.
It appears that the President has no actual plan to end hostilities between Israel and its feisty neighbors. His remarks have been limited to complaining about Iranian speedboats menacing our war ships and his standard "Why can't we all just get along" speech. No mention will be made of the increased jeopardy that Israel faces as a result of American nation-building in Iraq.
The president has called for "painful choices" which must be made if there is to be peace. Naturally, Israel will be asked to endure most of the pain because they are the only party in the game likely to listen to an American...except of course Oprah. The Palestinians at the conference can't hear the President over the shouts of "kill the crusaders". No matter. At least the President will be able to get some additional use out of the Mission Accomplished banner.
Presidents since Woodrow Wilson have been trying to fashion a workable plan for the Middle East. Until the 1930's it was more of a hobby than a foreign policy initiative. That changed when Mammoud went shooting at some food (sing it with me!) and up through the ground come a bubblin' crude. Oil that is, black gold, Tehran tea.
By the end of WWII we were a bit more concerned but our friends the British appeared to have things well in hand. We were at least confident enough to believe that no one would notice if we wedged a Jewish state into an underused hunk of real estate on the Eastern Mediterranean.
Throughout the 50's and 60's, the American jones for oil became troublesome but as long as the sheiks and sheikettes were happy buying planes and really cool hubcaps, the pipelines were wide open and life was good. Then came OPEC, the oil embargo, gas lines and, faster than you can say "Jeez, that Datsun is ugly" Americans were fearful of our oil dependence. That fear lasted about as long as Tom Tancredo's presidential bid, but U.S. Presidents took notice.
In 1978 Jimmy Carter brokered a deal between Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Al Sadat of Egypt. Say what you will about Jimmy Carter. That treaty was signed 30 years ago and it's still in force. Not bad for a peanut farmer.
Since then, each successive President has tried to cement his legacy as world leader by "bringing peace to this troubled region". Bill Clinton, not wishing to be remembered as "Mister pants-around-his- ankles" promised Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat everything but season tickets to the Redskins to secure a Middle East peace deal. Yasser held out for a spot on American Idol and the deal fell through. Now our "citizen of the world" President will give it a go.
The residents of the Middle East were initially grateful that an American plane flying over their country was not carrying a payload. Recent experience has taught them that American diplomacy is usually of the 50 caliber variety. However there were no smart bombs (of any kind) on this flight. If George can just manage to stop calling the locals Israelites all will be well.
It appears that the President has no actual plan to end hostilities between Israel and its feisty neighbors. His remarks have been limited to complaining about Iranian speedboats menacing our war ships and his standard "Why can't we all just get along" speech. No mention will be made of the increased jeopardy that Israel faces as a result of American nation-building in Iraq.
The president has called for "painful choices" which must be made if there is to be peace. Naturally, Israel will be asked to endure most of the pain because they are the only party in the game likely to listen to an American...except of course Oprah. The Palestinians at the conference can't hear the President over the shouts of "kill the crusaders". No matter. At least the President will be able to get some additional use out of the Mission Accomplished banner.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
...or is George Bush just lame, duck or no duck?
And the hits just keep on comin':
Item
George W. Bush, in a bold example of statesmanship, has braved the storm in a skiff by courageously signing legislation the prevents the mentally ill from purchasing guns. Bravo Mr. President! It's leadership like this that will ensure the legacy of George W. Bush. Henceforth our President will be mentioned along with giants like Millard Filmore and John Tyler.
The law was introduced in 2002 but, as usual, it took a piano falling on their heads before anyone in Washington did anything. The piano in this case was the deaths of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech in April last year. The slaughter at VT was so horrific that even the NRA was ashamed to oppose this bill.
This law adds the certifiably insane to the growing list of Americans who will be denied their Second Amendment rights. The list currently includes quadriplegics, fetuses and the dead.
In a related story, Dick Cheney is buying all the guns he can in advance of the law's effective date. With his record over the last seven years, you can't be too careful.
___________________________________________________________________
Item
The little town of Reeves, LA is breathing a little easier this year. Thanks to the efforts of its mayor, the town will no longer be marked with the sign of the beast. For forty years the people of Reeves have been forced by Ma Bell and her progeny to live with the ignominy of the number 666 as their telephone exchange.
Mayor Scott Walker has stated that, "We are good Christian people. This has been a black eye for our town; a stigma." The mayor can now turn his attention to more important issues like removing the thirteens from all house numbers and banning the sale of deviled ham from local food stores. At least the phone company will no longer be blamed for lightning strikes and tornadoes.
Several requests have been submitted to claim the 666 exchange. Notable among the applicants are the University of Arizona, De Paul University in Chicago, Duke University and of course Wake Forrest. Certain neighborhoods in New York City are also in the running. Think Hell's Kitchen.
___________________________________________________________________
Item (this from roving reporter J. O'C)
Only in New York.
Two men were arrested in Manhattan Tuesday for attempting to cash the social security check of a dead person. No big deal, you say. Perhaps, but these two geniuses were wily. They knew that the clerk at the Pay-O-Matic check cashing establishment would recognize the check's owner by sight. No problem. Our heroes ingeniously strapped the recently departed Virgilio Cintron (it was his check) to an office chair and wheeled him through the streets to the store. The crafty pair left Mr. Cintron parked in the street and when the clerk inquired about Mr. Cintron, our villains simply pointed to the corpse slumped in the chair.
The plan was foiled by a policeman lunching at a restaurant next store. So much for the best laid plans. Both gentlemen have been charged with fraud because sadly, felony stupidity is not yet a crime. That law is probably on the President's desk hiding under the "No Guns for Crazy People" legislation.
Item
George W. Bush, in a bold example of statesmanship, has braved the storm in a skiff by courageously signing legislation the prevents the mentally ill from purchasing guns. Bravo Mr. President! It's leadership like this that will ensure the legacy of George W. Bush. Henceforth our President will be mentioned along with giants like Millard Filmore and John Tyler.
The law was introduced in 2002 but, as usual, it took a piano falling on their heads before anyone in Washington did anything. The piano in this case was the deaths of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech in April last year. The slaughter at VT was so horrific that even the NRA was ashamed to oppose this bill.
This law adds the certifiably insane to the growing list of Americans who will be denied their Second Amendment rights. The list currently includes quadriplegics, fetuses and the dead.
In a related story, Dick Cheney is buying all the guns he can in advance of the law's effective date. With his record over the last seven years, you can't be too careful.
___________________________________________________________________
Item
The little town of Reeves, LA is breathing a little easier this year. Thanks to the efforts of its mayor, the town will no longer be marked with the sign of the beast. For forty years the people of Reeves have been forced by Ma Bell and her progeny to live with the ignominy of the number 666 as their telephone exchange.
Mayor Scott Walker has stated that, "We are good Christian people. This has been a black eye for our town; a stigma." The mayor can now turn his attention to more important issues like removing the thirteens from all house numbers and banning the sale of deviled ham from local food stores. At least the phone company will no longer be blamed for lightning strikes and tornadoes.
Several requests have been submitted to claim the 666 exchange. Notable among the applicants are the University of Arizona, De Paul University in Chicago, Duke University and of course Wake Forrest. Certain neighborhoods in New York City are also in the running. Think Hell's Kitchen.
___________________________________________________________________
Item (this from roving reporter J. O'C)
Only in New York.
Two men were arrested in Manhattan Tuesday for attempting to cash the social security check of a dead person. No big deal, you say. Perhaps, but these two geniuses were wily. They knew that the clerk at the Pay-O-Matic check cashing establishment would recognize the check's owner by sight. No problem. Our heroes ingeniously strapped the recently departed Virgilio Cintron (it was his check) to an office chair and wheeled him through the streets to the store. The crafty pair left Mr. Cintron parked in the street and when the clerk inquired about Mr. Cintron, our villains simply pointed to the corpse slumped in the chair.
The plan was foiled by a policeman lunching at a restaurant next store. So much for the best laid plans. Both gentlemen have been charged with fraud because sadly, felony stupidity is not yet a crime. That law is probably on the President's desk hiding under the "No Guns for Crazy People" legislation.
Monday, January 07, 2008
...or is it time to put the death penalty out of its misery?
It seems that we have been here before. On January 7th, 2008 the United States Surpreme Court heard arguments on whether execution by three-drug lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Once again the American legal system will line up on both sides of this issue and once again we will show the world the darker side of our national nature.
What is it about America that we appear so eager to find ways to express the worst in ourselves? Isn't reality TV enough? Why are state legislatures (mostly in the South) staying up nights to fashion new crimes for which death is the punishment? Even states that haven't executed anyone since the fifties are slow to wipe their capital punishment laws from the books.
As a society, we appear finally to be backing away from executing our criminals. Illinios has vacated all capital cases and New Jersey has abolished the policy all together. New Mexico, Maryland, Montana and Nebraska appear ready to follow suit. Florida, which proudly executed Ted Bundy in 1989, has 55 men who have been on death row for 25 years or more. The message is clear: lawmakers and officers of the court understand that executions are not only expensive, they are irreversible.
Nevertheless, Judge Antonin Scalia can't wait to get those three-drug cocktails flowing again. Executions in America have effectively been suspended pending the Supremes ruling as to whether the current system is cruel and unusual. The ever compassionate Judge Scalia, champion of the unborn, wonders aloud what clause in the Constitution guarantees a merciful death for murderers. The Bush judges, Roberts and Alito, seem inclined to agree. (Big surprise.)Even Beyer and Souter are reluctant to rule on this case (brought by two inmates in Kentucky).
It's easy to cheer when the likes of John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVeigh are led to the gallows but the difficulty with capital punishment is that we apply the laws so badly. Since the 1976 reintroduction of the death penalty, 126 condemned men have had their convictions vacated. Of the 1,000+ inmates who walked the last mile, at least ten died in spite of grave doubts about their guilt. Do we really think that 1% is an acceptable margin of error?
If you were reading The Washington Post today, you could hardly miss the page 2 story concerning the pending Supreme Court ruling. What you may have overlooked was a page 5, three-inch item regarding one Ken Richey. Mr. Richey was released from Ohio's death row after pleading no-contest to charges relating to a 1986 fire in which a child was killed. An Ohio appeals court overturned Richey's conviction. The specifics are dull (except to Mr. Richey) having to do with competency of council and intent but, the underlying issue is that capital cases are unnecessary and often tragic. At one point Ken Richey was less than one hour from his date with the headsmen. Mr. Richey holds a British passport and is heading out of Dodge as quickly as possible. If you can catch him at JFK, ask him if he thinks the death penalty in the U.S. is cruel and unusual.
And so, as we watch with gleeful anticipation as Virginia executes John Allen Muhammad (the Washington sniper of 2002) and Texas continues its struggle to execute teenagers and the mentally handicapped we may wish to stop and reflect. What purpose do we serve by killing our own citizens? Justice? Vengeance? Who cares? Justice Scalia may not find mercy in the Constitution but he won't find vengeance in the New Testament either. How about a little strict constructionism, your honor!
What is it about America that we appear so eager to find ways to express the worst in ourselves? Isn't reality TV enough? Why are state legislatures (mostly in the South) staying up nights to fashion new crimes for which death is the punishment? Even states that haven't executed anyone since the fifties are slow to wipe their capital punishment laws from the books.
As a society, we appear finally to be backing away from executing our criminals. Illinios has vacated all capital cases and New Jersey has abolished the policy all together. New Mexico, Maryland, Montana and Nebraska appear ready to follow suit. Florida, which proudly executed Ted Bundy in 1989, has 55 men who have been on death row for 25 years or more. The message is clear: lawmakers and officers of the court understand that executions are not only expensive, they are irreversible.
Nevertheless, Judge Antonin Scalia can't wait to get those three-drug cocktails flowing again. Executions in America have effectively been suspended pending the Supremes ruling as to whether the current system is cruel and unusual. The ever compassionate Judge Scalia, champion of the unborn, wonders aloud what clause in the Constitution guarantees a merciful death for murderers. The Bush judges, Roberts and Alito, seem inclined to agree. (Big surprise.)Even Beyer and Souter are reluctant to rule on this case (brought by two inmates in Kentucky).
It's easy to cheer when the likes of John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVeigh are led to the gallows but the difficulty with capital punishment is that we apply the laws so badly. Since the 1976 reintroduction of the death penalty, 126 condemned men have had their convictions vacated. Of the 1,000+ inmates who walked the last mile, at least ten died in spite of grave doubts about their guilt. Do we really think that 1% is an acceptable margin of error?
If you were reading The Washington Post today, you could hardly miss the page 2 story concerning the pending Supreme Court ruling. What you may have overlooked was a page 5, three-inch item regarding one Ken Richey. Mr. Richey was released from Ohio's death row after pleading no-contest to charges relating to a 1986 fire in which a child was killed. An Ohio appeals court overturned Richey's conviction. The specifics are dull (except to Mr. Richey) having to do with competency of council and intent but, the underlying issue is that capital cases are unnecessary and often tragic. At one point Ken Richey was less than one hour from his date with the headsmen. Mr. Richey holds a British passport and is heading out of Dodge as quickly as possible. If you can catch him at JFK, ask him if he thinks the death penalty in the U.S. is cruel and unusual.
And so, as we watch with gleeful anticipation as Virginia executes John Allen Muhammad (the Washington sniper of 2002) and Texas continues its struggle to execute teenagers and the mentally handicapped we may wish to stop and reflect. What purpose do we serve by killing our own citizens? Justice? Vengeance? Who cares? Justice Scalia may not find mercy in the Constitution but he won't find vengeance in the New Testament either. How about a little strict constructionism, your honor!
...or are elections only fun when the gloves come off?
OK now it gets interesting.
Prior to the Iowa caucuses there was only an amorphous mass of Democrats bickering among themselves and an amorphous pile of Republicans doing the same. Now we have winners and, more importantly, losers.
No one, least of all me, wants their presidential candidates chosen by the good people of Iowa. Were these contests organized to choose the best ear of corn or the most attractive livestock (insert your own joke here!) Iowa is as good a place as any for a decision. When, however, we are trying to determine who is the most qualified candidate to un-f**k America after the horror of George The Lesser, Iowans are a little too evangelical, rural and white for the task.
That said, at least the caucuses provide some measurable test as to how candidates are being received by a block of voters. For this we are indebted to the hardy souls of the Hawkeye State. While the rest of us are fed a steady stream of ads for E.D. and phone companies, the brave men and women of Iowa have endured the endless blather of almost twenty supplicants for president. The good news for Iowa is that, for the rest of this election, and for the next four years, they will be completely ignored.
So what have the people of Iowa given us?
First there is the twisted wreck of what once was the Hillary Bandwagon. This is what happens when you stay too long at the fair...especially the Iowa State Fair. When your campaign lasts longer than the run of Les Miz, people get sick of you. Ideas that looked good to folks at the beginning start to fade with age. A return to the peaceful, prosperous days of the Clinton presidency starts to look like more of the dynastic thinking that gave us George the not-so-great. Hillary's eight years of experience in the White House reminds us that she spent much of the time defending her husband from charges of diddling the help. That sort of experience might be useful if she were being considered for a role on Desperate Housewives but hopefully, America is looking for more.
In contrast, Barak Obama is a breath of fresh air. He's smooth, smart and seemingly without guile. He has actually been able to avoid closeted skeletons by revealing all his "secrets" at once. By refusing to "go negative" he has made it practically impossible for the Clinton camp to attack him without appearing Rove-esque. Aside from holding the door for her, Obama barely acknowledges that Hillary is even around. He is proving that you can be smart and still be likable. Remember that George Bush presented himself as folksy but competent. Turns out he was neither. Hil is in trouble and she knows it. If she loses New Hampshire her new job will be her old job: making sure Bill's zipper is up.
Mike Huckabee is Barak with a Bible. Like Obama, he represents some hope for the future rather than more of the same. Apparently even Republicans are gagging on the current band of felons in the White House. No one can spot a swine like an Iowan and they certainly identified the oinkers in both parties. Speaking of sleeping in the sty,even the affable John McCain could not overcome his new-found subservience to the will of the current administration. The message of November 2006 is still clear...we don't like the way Congress is behaving and we aren't interested in elevating anyone from that partisan mess to a higher office.
Mitt Romney, whose positions on the issues is printed on an Etch-a-Sketch, looks a little too blow-dried for the simple people of the Midwest. It's hard to connect with a guy who looks like one of the Brooks Bros. at five in the morning. Mitt was pro-choice in Massachusetts and the Christian Right isn't going to let him weasel out of that position just because he's on the other side of the Mississippi. Gov. Romney may be joining Hillary at the "What Went Wrong Cafe" come Wednesday.
We are still far from finished with this process. There's still Rudy "I swear I didn't know she was my cousin" Guiliani. His best hope is that 1) Romney and Huckabee shoot each other in New Hampshire and, 2) the rest of the country forgets about his three marriages, Bernie Kerik and his position on practically everything.
In any event, like we say in the pool room, there's a lot of green between here and there.
Prior to the Iowa caucuses there was only an amorphous mass of Democrats bickering among themselves and an amorphous pile of Republicans doing the same. Now we have winners and, more importantly, losers.
No one, least of all me, wants their presidential candidates chosen by the good people of Iowa. Were these contests organized to choose the best ear of corn or the most attractive livestock (insert your own joke here!) Iowa is as good a place as any for a decision. When, however, we are trying to determine who is the most qualified candidate to un-f**k America after the horror of George The Lesser, Iowans are a little too evangelical, rural and white for the task.
That said, at least the caucuses provide some measurable test as to how candidates are being received by a block of voters. For this we are indebted to the hardy souls of the Hawkeye State. While the rest of us are fed a steady stream of ads for E.D. and phone companies, the brave men and women of Iowa have endured the endless blather of almost twenty supplicants for president. The good news for Iowa is that, for the rest of this election, and for the next four years, they will be completely ignored.
So what have the people of Iowa given us?
First there is the twisted wreck of what once was the Hillary Bandwagon. This is what happens when you stay too long at the fair...especially the Iowa State Fair. When your campaign lasts longer than the run of Les Miz, people get sick of you. Ideas that looked good to folks at the beginning start to fade with age. A return to the peaceful, prosperous days of the Clinton presidency starts to look like more of the dynastic thinking that gave us George the not-so-great. Hillary's eight years of experience in the White House reminds us that she spent much of the time defending her husband from charges of diddling the help. That sort of experience might be useful if she were being considered for a role on Desperate Housewives but hopefully, America is looking for more.
In contrast, Barak Obama is a breath of fresh air. He's smooth, smart and seemingly without guile. He has actually been able to avoid closeted skeletons by revealing all his "secrets" at once. By refusing to "go negative" he has made it practically impossible for the Clinton camp to attack him without appearing Rove-esque. Aside from holding the door for her, Obama barely acknowledges that Hillary is even around. He is proving that you can be smart and still be likable. Remember that George Bush presented himself as folksy but competent. Turns out he was neither. Hil is in trouble and she knows it. If she loses New Hampshire her new job will be her old job: making sure Bill's zipper is up.
Mike Huckabee is Barak with a Bible. Like Obama, he represents some hope for the future rather than more of the same. Apparently even Republicans are gagging on the current band of felons in the White House. No one can spot a swine like an Iowan and they certainly identified the oinkers in both parties. Speaking of sleeping in the sty,even the affable John McCain could not overcome his new-found subservience to the will of the current administration. The message of November 2006 is still clear...we don't like the way Congress is behaving and we aren't interested in elevating anyone from that partisan mess to a higher office.
Mitt Romney, whose positions on the issues is printed on an Etch-a-Sketch, looks a little too blow-dried for the simple people of the Midwest. It's hard to connect with a guy who looks like one of the Brooks Bros. at five in the morning. Mitt was pro-choice in Massachusetts and the Christian Right isn't going to let him weasel out of that position just because he's on the other side of the Mississippi. Gov. Romney may be joining Hillary at the "What Went Wrong Cafe" come Wednesday.
We are still far from finished with this process. There's still Rudy "I swear I didn't know she was my cousin" Guiliani. His best hope is that 1) Romney and Huckabee shoot each other in New Hampshire and, 2) the rest of the country forgets about his three marriages, Bernie Kerik and his position on practically everything.
In any event, like we say in the pool room, there's a lot of green between here and there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)