Monthly Archive for October, 2006

Wake Weekly Editorial: Stick up for constituents

I’m a bit late on this one … my friend Brian B. pointed out that the Wake Weekly has published two editorials that addresses the closing of The Corner and Burkenstocks because of the grease trap issue. Both echo some sentiments that I expressed in my (unpublished) letter that I submitted.
It appears that they don’t archive their old editorials, so I’m going to quote extensively from them here.

From the Oct. 13th issue:
Many people argued against the [water system] giveaway, telling local officials we would give up the right to control our own affairs.

That fear has now been realized.

Kathaleen Chandley may appear to be the victim in this case, but the truth is, we have all been victimized.

No more will we saunter along the North Main Historical District with a cone of ice cream in our hands.

No more will we sit in front of the big picture windows watching people pass as we eat a sandwich.

The lesson here is twofold. Town leaders should think twice before ceding authorities to other entities.

And local residents and business owners better get used to dealing with an 800-pound gorilla with little compassion for the little man.

(by Johnny Whitfield, Associate Editor)
From this past week’s (Oct. 20) editorial:
At the very least, Wake Forest commissioners should advocate, on behalf of the residents they are elected to serve, for a middle ground that gives business owners time to prepare for the expensive requirements trumpeted by Raleigh.

More appropriately, they should insist that Raleigh allow existing businesses to be grandfathered in under the rules as they existed prior to the giveaway.

If and when a business undergoes an expansion or some other major renovation, the rules in place at that time (Raleigh’s rules) should come into play.

Wake Forest has lost two well-regarded businesses in recent weeks.

Raleigh officials don’t really care.

Wake Forest’s officials should.

(by Johnny Whitfield, Associate Editor)

Houston murders are through the roof this year

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, one of the first cities to respond and offer housing to displaced residents was Houston, TX. Many of the nearly 250,000 evacuees (150,000 still remain) have thanked Houston by helping bring the total number of homicides this year to the highest in over a decade.
At least 65 slayings in 2006 have been classified as Katrina-related, meaning either the victim, suspect or both evacuated to Houston after Katrina. Police have not kept records of how evacuees have affected crime rates other than homicide. The murder rate began to rise at the end of last year, when the city recorded 334 homicides. During the previous 10 years, Houston never exceeded the 316 slayings counted in 1995.
They’ve still got a long way to go to match 1981, when there were 701 killings. Still, it’s sad.

Read More: Houston homicides spike; evacuees cited 

School Bans Tag

First it was dodgeball, now it’s tag. WRAL is reporting that Willett Elementary School in Attleboro, MA has banned tag and other “chasing” games during recess. The principle says there is too much risk of injury and lawsuits resulting from injuries.

An over-reaction? Maybe so. I played tag, dodgeball, and all sorts of other games that could have gotten me injured as a kid. Matter of fact, I probably got a good number of bruises. But I seem to have come out OK.

On the other hand, we live in a litigious society. It’s a shame when that sort of thing brings an end to childhood fun, though.

Read more: Elementary School Bans Tag During Recess

“School Refusal Behavior: A Symptom of Anxiety Order” Come Again?

Good grief. I thought I might make it through the day without having a stupid news story to gripe about, but then I ran into this gem from the Times Free Press (I’m linking to the Chicago Tribune, below, because that’s where the story originated, and the TFP doesn’t seem to have it online). The article talks about a growing threat to the emotional wellbeing of our children, one that we are finally, and fortunately starting to recognize.
Peters suffers from school refusal behavior, usually a symptom of a serious anxiety disorder. For these youngsters — about 5 percent of the student population, according to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry — the mere thought of entering a classroom is so distressing that they will do almost anything to escape.
Uh, yeah. I was a shy kid. I learned to interact with people, slowly but surely, and it was a good thing. I dunno how it would have affected me if some psychiatrist had pinned some crazy label on my behavior, and medicated me up to help me. Geez people, take responsibility for your behavior, and stop trying psychologize it all. Some behaviors are simply unacceptable, not "mind diseases" and just need to be treated as such.

Read More: When skipping school is a malady, not misbehavior

Covering the Amish Tragedy

Today, at least for a bit, I’m going to take a short break from the usual harping on stupidity in politics and in the news in general. I ran into a genuinely fascinating Newsweek article posted on MSNBC about how the media covered the Amish massacre a few weeks ago.

Personally, I was thought that many times the news media crossed the line in their coverage. Several days in a row I saw photos on the front page of web sites (or the paper) depicting members of the Amish community, and they were clearly recognizeable … and even I knew that the Amish don’t want to be photographed.

The Newsweek article delves into some of the decision-making that went on concerning how to cover the event and its aftermath, and it shows that deciding where to draw the line is not the easiest decision to make. Obviously, there is a tension between respecting the desires of a very private, secluded community for continued privacy, especially in a emotional situation like the massacre, and bringing the story to a nation hungry for news.

Consider this quote:

Paul Carpenter, a columnist at the Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., published a piece about the debate he had with his editor, Ardith Hilliard, over whether to print photographs with recognizable Amish faces. Hilliard argued that it was necessary to publish the upclose images it used because they were part of a breaking news story. “These were very gentle people who … are pacifists by belief and had imposed upon them this unspeakable horror,” Hilliard says. “In the process of storytelling, I would’ve found it extremely difficult to tell that story without in some way depicting the human beings that were affected.” Carpenter thought the paper should not have run the photos. “The mainline news media … has contempt for paparazzi and the tabloid approach to journalism,” he says. “But when you think about it, the paparazzi targets celebrities who have sought the spotlight. So which is more intrusive—that, or what we did to the Amish?”

I still wouldn’t have personally published the photos of the faces of Amish men and women, had I been editor.

Fortunately for the news media (and for those of us whose hunger for news drives them), the Amish seem just as willing to forgive those who transgressed against them and bothered them during the few days the tragedy was in the national spotlight. There are some things, it seems, that we all could learn from the Amish. Perhaps they hope that we might learn something, most importantly the value of forgiveness and not holding grudges, from them as a result of the news coverage. I certainly hope we do.

Read more: Amish Massacre Missteps?

Ken Lay no longer guilty because he’s dead …

So, while browsing MSNBC today, I stumbled upon this surprising bit of information: “Judge throws out convictions of Enron’s Lay: Fraud ruling vacated since company’s founder died before he could appeal.”

Huh? Say again?

Yes, that’s right boys and girls, since he appealed, and then died, his conviction has been vacated. Erased. Gone. Kaput.
U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, in a ruling Tuesday, agreed with Lay’s lawyers that his death required that his conviction be erased and his indictment dismissed. They cited a 2004 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that a defendant’s death pending appeal extinguished his entire case because he hadn’t had a full opportunity to challenge the conviction and the government shouldn’t be able to punish a dead defendant or his estate.
I’m not sure what’s more surprising … that a judge would “un-convict” Lay for such an asinine reason, or the fact that there’s precedent for such a ruling because some brain-dead nitwit ruled in a similar matter two years ago. And that’s not all … check this out:
Prosecutors offered no counter legal argument in the case, but asked Lake to hold off on a ruling until next week so Congress could consider legislation from the Justice Department that changes current federal law regarding the abatement of criminal convictions. Congress recessed for the elections without considering the legislation. In their motion to Lake last month, prosecutors Sean Berkowitz and John Hueston wrote that certain provisions of the proposed legislation would apply to Lay’s case, including “that the death of a defendant charged with a criminal offense shall not be the basis for abating or otherwise invalidating either a verdict returned or the underlying indictment.”
Yes, that’s right … Congress was going to consider legislation that would have prevented the sort of ruling issued today, but somehow that legislation would have then been applied to something that happened before the legislation was even considered. Completely mind-boggling. Saith the US Constitution in Article I, Section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
If the Latin there is causing smoke to boil out of your ears, here’s a bit more explanation from Wikipedia:
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for “from something done afterward”) or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
Sounds an awful lot like what the prosecution wanted was a violation of the spirit of that principle, if not the letter. Of course, how many of you out there are surprised any more when the US Government ignores the intent of the Constitution? It’s been happening for a good 170 years or more now, so we’re all used to it.

What an all-around mess …

Read more: Judge throws out convictions of Enron’s Lay 

Condi Rice Offers North Korea a “Positive Path”

CNN is reporting that, among other things Condoleezza Rice is saying the “We must remind North Korea that a positive path remains open to it through the six-party talks.”

I suppose this is much like how the bully who used to ask for your lunch money on the school bus offered you a “positive path” … you give up your lunch money, and you don’t get your brains beaten out.

Let’s be frank here … the US and/or the UN (or anybody else) trying to tell North Korea they can’t have nukes is nothing but international bullying. Yeah, Kim Jong Il isn’t the most stable guy in the world. Yeah, he doesn’t like us. Yeah, he might well pass them on to other people. But … since when do we have the right to tell North Korea what it can and can’t do?

We only have that right because we have a strong enough military to lean on people. Venezuela, for instance, doesn’t get to tell the US what to do (as much as Hugo Chavez would like to think they do), because they can’t beat up on us.

If the nuclear weapons become as commonplace as machine guns, big nations like the US can’t exert as much influence on the rest of the world. That is the bottom line.

North Korea and Nuclear Weapons

Quite predictably, most of the United States is currently in an uproar over North Korea’s maybe-it-was-a-success-or-maybe-not nuclear weapon test a few days ago. Newsweek has a story about “[t]he weird and scary saga of how an isolated, bankrupt nation went nuclear—and how the United States failed to stop it.” CNN reports that the UN has sent a “clear, strong” message to North Korea by voting to enact sanctions (given the UN’s history, the “clear, strong” message is probably something like “Stop! Or we’ll say stop again!”). MSNBC is a little more realistic in reporting that the sanctions will probably be pretty difficult to enforce.

By the way, the Newsweek article is a good read, even if I don’t agree with all the conclusions.
Now, let’s get a few things straight here:
  1. North Korea is not anywhere my list of “Top 150 Nations I’d Like To See With Nuclear Weapons.”
  2. The UN, being the useless, anemic waste of effort that it is, is not going to solve this problem.
  3. The United States didn’t “fail to stop” North Korea from getting to this point.
  4. It’s not the responsibility of the UN or the US to tell country X “you can’t have that”, as much as we’d like for it to be.
  5. Matter of fact, nobody is probably going to come up with a way to separate North Korea from its nuclear weapons, shy of a all-out invasion.
  6. The nuclear cat is out of the proverbial bag.
Nuclear weapons are nasty, nasty things … but then again, most weapons are hardly something you’d consider to be nice. Weapons are intended to kill people, and we can’t overlook that crucial fact. Given that, while the policy of trying to prevent other countries from obtaining or manufacturing nuclear weapons is flawed, and will ultimately fail, though the intention is admirable.

Think about it … would the US (or any other country or group of countries) have been able to prevent the spread of the technology necessary to produce military aircraft, or even jet-powered military aircraft? What about ironclads and armored naval ships? Missiles? Bombs? Cannons? Machine guns?

Heck no. Each of those concepts mentioned above represented a quantum leap, so to speak, in military technology, and made it possible to kill more people faster … and initially gave a significant advantage to the countries who had the technology. Eventually, though, everybody (in a general sense) got that technology, and the playing field became a bit more level. It will be the same with nuclear weapons. The idea that we can enforce peace by restricting new military technology to the US and a few other world powers is stupid, stupid, stupid. It will not will not work.

It wouldn’t have worked in the late 1940s with jet aircraft, and it certainly isn’t going to work in the internet age.

Make no mistake … as I said earlier, the nuclear cat is out of the proverbial bag. The playing field is being leveled as we speak.

The fact of the matter was, when Pakistan conducted successful nuclear tests in 1998, the cat was out of the bag. Now that North Korea appears to have done the same (and if they haven’t, then they are most certainly close), along with Iran’s continued pursuit of the same goal demonstrates that the cat isn’t just out of the bag, he’s exited the building.

It is time to switch strategies. We’re not going to deter North Korea with sanctions. Even if we bomb the living daylights out of everything contained within its miserable borders, the knowledge will escape and head somewhere else. Even if country X doesn’t get the technology from North Korea or Iran, it will come from somewhere. The knowledge is out there.

It is time to recognize that we live in a world where the risk of having nuclear weapons of some variety being used against us is getting higher every day, and take that knowledge and begin to plan how we will deal with it. We need to take measures to mitigate the threat. It’s a scary thought, and a scary world, but hiding from the truth will do nothing to change it. We must face it, and keep on living.

Long-range jet aircraft capable of delivering bombs long distances made the world a scarier place. So did long-range ballistic missiles. But, we lived on. It’s not a lot of fun to think that Kim Jong Il could pass on some sort of nuclear device to terrorists, who might detonate it in Chicago or Atlanta. It’s a far-fetched idea, but it could happen. But one way or the other, we will continue to live.

Read More:

Bra on Antenna Leads to Littering Charge

Some days I just can’t stop reading the ’stupid news’ articles. Granted, this one doesn’t seem to be labeled as such, but it should be.

Seems a seventeen-year-old girl in Bowling Green, KY, took off her bra and hung it on her car antenna. Best I can tell, she managed to do this while driving down I-75. Now, I would imagine removing the bra would be difficult enough, but getting onto the car antenna? While the car is motion? On an interstate highway? While she was piloting the car? This just boggles the mind …

In any case, that isn’t the dumbest part. Seems the bra and the antenna parted ways (you think?), and then some dude following her swerved to avoid it … and the resulting accident broke a vertabra in his neck. His passenger broke a few ribs. Pal, where did you learn to drive? You don’t swerve to avoid little stuff like that! I’m hoping you learned your lesson.
A State Highway Patrol crash report, obtained by The Blade, said that the girls told investigators that before the accident the men were motioning to them to lift up their shirts. Both men denied making the gestures.
Uh-huh.

Read more: Teen who put bra on antenna faces litter charge

Grandma Sues Over Fruitcake Slur

Hoo boy, do I have one for you today. An eighty-eight-year-old grandma in Delaware (who obviously needs to loosen her collar a bit, because it’s cutting off the air supply to her brain) is suing the USPS because an employee asked her (jokingly, I’m sure) “What kind of explosives do you have in there?” when she showed up to mail off thirty fruitcakes. Even worse … other people in the post office laughed at her! Oh no!

The subtitle for the MSNBC article seems to indicate she alleges that the postal clerk insinuated she was a terrorist … and quite frankly, anybody that mails out fruitcakes belongs in that category. That’s as bad, if not worse, than sending out anthrax, in my book.

In any case, all the laughter caused her lots of distress:
In the lawsuit, Greene said others in the post office laughed at her, leaving her upset and in tears. She said she tripped over a concrete parking barrier outside and fell, breaking her glasses and chipping a tooth.
She should have sued them too! They were obviously directly responsible for her awful mental anguish and corresponding injuries!

Wonder if she’s related to the thick-skulled buffoon who sued McDonald’s for getting burnt by hot coffee …

Read more: Grandma sues Postal Service over fruitcakes

(Note: I will admit that I have had fruitcakes that were quite delicious. But hey, it’s a lot of fun to joke about them …)