Thugs 1 People 0

By now, we know that the Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 margin has ruled that a Washington, D.C. city law banning handguns is unconstitutional. The ruling will have a nationwide impact, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) has already announced its intent to file lawsuits to overturn similar laws elsewhere.

One of NRA’s targets will be San Francisco. Maybe the Mayornoter and the Supes can mount a pre-emptive strike and work together to craft a constitutionally acceptable ordinance. But that’s a tall order given the current composition of the Supreme Court.

The court’s rationale in this case was quite simple.

Justice Scalia, mouthpiece of the Back to 1791 Movement, summed it up neatly when he said the Second Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1791 (not passed as come Tallking Pinheads continue to phrase it) is still effective today and it isn’t the duty of the courts to change it.

Translation: Jeez, any idiot ought to be able to read plain English.

Scalia believes that judges should not legislate from the bench. If society wants to change the Constitution, then society ought to amend the Constitution.

The problem is that today’s ruling changed not only the Constitution but several centuries of accepted English language usage, which is after all, the language of the Constitution.

Scalia and his cohorts effectively eliminated modifying clauses from the language and the law. Here’s how they managed to do it. The original language in the Second Amendment reads:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Now, we might rightly and fairly ask, were the Founders so dumb they inserted a boatload of extra words in our sacred text? Scalia apparently thinks so. His ruling erased everything preceding “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Almost every sane individual of my acquaintance, which includes a lawyer or two, understands that the words before the money sentence are modifying words and clauses. They are there for a clarifying purpose. They set the conditions for gun ownership and relate such ownership to a well-regulated militia.

We can better understand the Amendment if we wrote it in modern English, like this:

Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Or this way:

A well-regulated militia is necessary to a free state. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Most of us aren’t attorneys or grammarians, but we have enough moxie to understand the purpose behind Scalia’s specious reasoning. This quintessential 18th Century neocon, wants to lock pet neocon programs in concrete before GB becomes a footnote to a footnote.

And it’s possible he has succeeded. At the very least, he’s made it possible for any garden-variety thug to walk in a store and buy a gun. Of course, thugs get guns anyway, but now, they’ll become easier to buy. Wanna shoot a few more innocent people along Bay Area freeways? No sweat, pal. Tell ‘em Scalia sent you.

This ruling has also given a boost to the fortunes of gun manufacturers and a host of economic activities that profit from the sale of guns and ammunition. A thousand years from now, aliens from another universe will land and unearth millions of petrified guns and little oblong pellets that look oddly like goose droppings. “This is a dead civilization,” they will conclude and fly away to another spot.

In support of his decision, Scalia called handguns the prefect weapon for home defense. Light in weight and easy to use, handguns permit a person to use one hand to dial 911 while pointing a gun at a burglar with the other hand. What’s a homeowner to do if the burglar is pointing a Dirty Harry special at the him or her?

As an ex-member of the gun culture and an expert marksman in the military service, I can support the contention that facility with a handgun is one thing. The presence of mind and a willingness to use one under pressure are something else again. Few people possess the latter abilities.

Congratulations, Scalia! You’ve done your job for the thugs.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court,Gun Control,Antonin Scalia,Second Amendment

Resurrection

I thought Don Imus was dead. If he isn’t, he sure looks like it.

When I watched him on television a couple of days ago ’splainin’ his comment about the long rap sheet of Adam “Pacman” Jones, I would have sworn that I was watching a set of empty clothes with a mop sticking out of the shirt collar. And for emphasis, someone had stuck a Stetson on top of it.

I know that’s coarse, and I know I’m probably exposing my age bias and I apologize if my words offend anyone. But I swear, that’s what I thought, and I was always taught to tell the truth. Speaking the truth is an inalienable right under the Constitution of the United States of America. Isn’t it?

Well, that depends. If your name is Charlie Black (McCain’s high powered campaign advisor) and you say outright that a terrorist arrack on America would benefit McCaint, then your career may be in jeopardy. Even though a terrorist attack would definitely aid McCain’s election bid, shush now, Charlie, you aren’t supposed to say so out loud.

So the truth is relative and situational, and now Don Imus in his characteristically convoluted manner of talking without moving his lips and later ’splainin’ his mumbles, is in hot water for suggesting that Blacks are at a high risk of arrest on general principles in some parts of the country.

What’s going to happen to Don this time around? He was fired from one radio station for referring to a girls’ basketball team as “nappy headed ho’s.” His latest faux mumble seems tame compared to that one.

Meanwhile the Talking Pinheads will monopolize valuable air time shouting and screaming and hollering at each other while news of note is unreported or minimized.

I want to know the salacious details of Christie Brinkley’s impending divorce trial.

Late Breaker. Don won’t be fired. He’s safe for the time being.

Technorati Tags: Don Imus,Charlie Black,John McCain

Bay Area Best Place to Raise a Family

I’ve always been a lover of lists, stuff like The 100 Sexiest Jobs in Elko NV, Top Five Hunks in the History of Human Civilization, and The 100 Best Places to Raise a Family.

The latter is a real list put together by the Today Show’s Best Life editors from a plethora of sources such as the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI, and the National Center for Educational Statistics among others.

Using these data and more, the editors ranked and rated the desirability of cities based on the congeniality of a city toward the safety, health, and education of its youth.

The thing that strikes me positively about this particular list is the large number of California cities on it.

Based on my unofficial and hopefully accurate summary, Cal had 22, or 22% of the nationwide total. No other state came close to that proportion.

Moreover, 11 of the 22 are located in the Bay Area, a number still higher than the number for any other single state. If that isn’t commendable, I don’t know what is.

However, I have serious reservations about the inclusion of some of them.

Richmond, for example, came in at Number 73, high but still on the list. I’m familiar with the city and the surrounding area, which causes me to wonder about the family friendliness of a city that has become a gang and murder center fully worth the extra gas it takes to circle the town when heading to Tahoe.

Oakland at Number 84 is another city I would think seriously about if I were raising children. The murder rate in Oakland is astronomical and the schools leave much to be desired. There may be pockets of tranquility within the city limits, but even that is problematic as a gauge of family togetherness.

One other city, San Francisco at Number 67, made my seriously doubt list. SF is a great place for fun and games, but is it a commendable spot to raise kids in? There are many good neighborhoods, but the question in my mind relates to proximity. Can a parent in one of SF’s garden spots rest comfortably knowing that their adolescent darlings can jump on a bus and ride to the center of the action the minute they’re out of parental sight.

The remainder of the Bay Area cities on the cut include some that seem quite nice. Santa Rosa at Number 10 would be my personal choice. And I always considered Number 64 Concord a real nice spot.

The balance includes the South Bay Area 22, Fremont 38, Berkeley 40, Fairfield 50, Antioch 51, and Hayward 93.

Worth mentioning, not a single California city made the list of the 10 Worst Places to Raise a Family (find this list below the Top 100).

I’m surprised that Davis didn’t make the California state-wide cut. It was Number 3 on the 5 Friendliest Cities in America.

Technorati Tags: Bay Area,Oakland,Richmond,San Francisco,Berkeley,Santa Rosa,Concord

Help Prevent Child Abuse

April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month.

About 3,000,000 cases of child abuse are reported annually in America. Between 97 and 100 thousand of those cases involve children under the age of two.

The types of child abuse are many.
• Physical abuse of all kinds
• Sexual abuse
• Abandonment
• Constant criticisms
• Absentee parent or parents
• Exposure to drug or alcohol use
• Failure to provide adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, or schooling

A majority of children who suffer abuse grow up to be abusive parents. Abuse is a vicious cycle.

A large number of abuse victims also end up as alcoholics, drug addicts, and prison inmates. I once taught night classes at a prison. Almost every inmate in my classes had been sentenced for a drug or alcohol-related crime and most had been the victims of abuse as children.

Educating adults seems to be an effective method of reducing the incidences of child abuse if a child abuser can be reached, but oddly those who most need education and counseling do not respond to advertising campaigns for the simple reason that most don’t read newspapers or watch educational programs. Public service announcements are also largely ineffective in attracting potential counseling clients.

Moreover, almost all child abusers will deny that their actions rise to the level of abuse, and without observing someone actually attack a child, counselors operate at a disadvantage in investigating child abuse cases.

Even those who understand the impact of their actions are often too ashamed to seek help.

How can an ordinary citizen do his or her part in reducing child abuse? Very little, it seems. In our litigious society, we run the risk of contending with a lawsuit, or worse, a physical attack if the abuser learns our identity or even suspects it.

Perhaps the best we can do is serve as an example within our communities by treating our own children, and all children with whom we come into contact, gently and with the respect they deserve as human beings.

Children are like tiny mimes. They emulate our behaviors, our facial expressions, our reactions to them. If we lose our temper and strike our child or constantly demean it, the child will emulate those behaviors for most of its life. We can save them from a life of unhappiness by acting appropriately.

Or maybe we can make a difference if we volunteer with a child abuse agency. Here is a starting point if you wish to help a child.

Get Your Nipple Rings Removed Here!

I’m going to expose my lingering puritan upbringing and ask a stupid question.

Will someone please explain why a 37-year old woman is still wearing nipple rings?

Shouldn’t a person be somewhat grown-up by then? Is there ever a time in America when we accept adulthood and put aside our childish ways?

I am far from being a prude, but for goodness sakes, think about your kids and their kids. Do you want a six-year old hollering, “Grandma, Grandma, you’ve got nipple rings” as you baby sit at a public playground?

This isn’t a topic only about aging women. Men are equally guilty of weighing themselves down with body adornments in private places.

Body mutilation is no longer an uncivilized custom. It has become an accepted part of our civilized culture.

At one time, only salty sailors sported tattoos. And in Japan, a tattoo was a sign of the yakuza, Japan’s underworld.

Nowadays in America, tattoos have spread over every inch of the human body. A visit to any popular beach is sure to demonstrate such.

Imagine America’s next-generation Ambassador to the Court of Saint James introducing himself to the Queen in accordance with American principles of familiarity. “Say, Queen, this here tattoo symbolizes the American spirit of eternal fertility.”

Even little kids run around proudly displaying washable tattoos. And each time I see a small kid flexing a tattooed muscle adult-style, I remember an incident in Japan.

Several of us were sight seeing in Yokosuka, a town south of Tokyo. I noticed a man staggering around and pestering passersby. Obviously, he was very drunk.

As we neared, he noticed us and turned his attention our way. But he didn’t pester us as he had bothered the Japanese pedestrians. Instead, he pulled his sleeves up to display tattooed arms.

He repeated over and over, “Yakuza, yakuza,” in the sloppy-friendly manner of drunks everywhere. He was quite proud of his status as a yakuza and of his tattoos. He wanted to impress gaijin, foreigners.

As soon as one of us smiled and said, “Ah, so,” signifying that we understood, he smiled and  proudly staggered away.

Will we become or are we already a nation of pseudo-yakuza, not gangsters but a multitude of individuals possessed of the same sort of adolescent bravado and defensiveness?

Somehow I have the impression that widespread body mutilation is just another form of conformity masquerading as rebellion.

I sympathize with the 37-year old woman who was required to remove her nipple rings with pliers at great pain to her.

But nipple rings at the age of 37? Come on.

Technorati Tags: Nipple Rings,Yakuza,Tattoos,Conformity

Client Client Number 9, Rollin’ Down the New York Line

Let’s see if I can remember all of them.

One in Louisiana, one in Massachusetts, one in Chicago (or was it Detroit?), one in Minneapolis, a bunch in D.C., three in California.

Now, one in New York.

You know what I’m talking about, don’t you?

But this one is different, in spades. Idiot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor of New York, is seriously involved in an FBI investigation into a prostitution ring.

Spitzer reportedly was a client, and he may face charges under the Mann Act, a law enacted in the early part of the 20th Century, ostensibly to prosecute individuals who transported women across state lines for immoral purposes.

God help a lot of people today if a zealous investigator decides to stake out the Cal-Nev line. Are boys and girls leaving Cal for weekend getaways in Reno for church socials? Border crossings with naughty purposes in mind are the rule these days.

So what’s the big deal with Spitzer? This is, after all, the 21st Century, and we are sexually enlightened individuals. Aren’t we?

But remember, this isn’t about sex. Oh, no. This is about hypocrisy and trust and such things, sacred ethical principles that our leaders hold sacrosanct.

And no one is more sacrosanct than a Republican prosecutor with a Democratic target in his/her cross hairs (or vice versa).

Under these circumstances, enlightenment is merely a relic of another era. Spitzer is in for tough days ahead with the possibility of criminal charges looming over his head.

As far as any serious punishment for alleged criminal activity goes, however, several “knowledgeable” Talking Heads speculate that Spitzer may agree to resign in return for a slap on the wrist.

Apparently to hasten his departure, Spitzer has also been threatened with impeachment by the New York State Assembly if he doesn’t step down.

The threat must have galvanized otherwise inert politicians. He and the Lieutenant Governor reportedly began transition talks today.

Given the speed at which events are moving, Spitzer will undoubtedly be out of office sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, what about poor ole Hillary? She’s been bombarded with questions about the gov, one of her stronger supporters. So far, she hasn’t said anything about the matter, but eventually she will release a neutral statement.

And in coming days, a lot of people are going to wonder how the Democrats always seem to self-destruct with the greatest of ease. Are they trained for the task?

Inevitable Questions

1. Is there a medical or psychiatric condition known as Shooting One’s Self in the Foot?
2. Is it really the World’s Oldest Profession? Did the serpent charge Eve for that fig leaf?

Technorati Tags: Prostitution,Eliot Spitzer,New York

The United Prison Industry States of America

This is an astounding number.

2,319,258 real live humans in prisons and jails in America today. The figure includes Federal prisons, State prisons, and local jails. Roughly translated, the number means one in 99 Americans is behind bars.

Looking at the number in a global context, the United States now incarcerates more people than any other nation on earth, including China. Translating raw numbers into rates of incarceration doesn’t change the rankings. The U.S. still leads the world.

But the number of inmates is only a part of the overall picture. When individuals on parole and probation are included, the number rises to roughly 7,000,000, or one in about 40 Americans.

Given these figures, the chances are excellent that you personally know someone under lock and key or who has been imprisoned and released.

The social and economic implications of our justice system are staggering. Socially, ex-prisoners are often shunned, and depending on their crime, they may find themselves unemployable.

This means a large pool of available Americans employers are reluctant to hire, preferring instead to employ illegal aliens. No wonder the recidivism rate is sky high.

Are we to believe that America is a land of criminals as the numbers suggest? Or might we suspect that many inmates do not belong in jail, that the justice system is stacked with overzealous prosecutors out to win at any price?

That’s a part of it, certainly, but other factors come into play as well. A prime reason for our increased prison population is the long-term incarceration under illogical three strikes laws that send bicycle thieves and pot smokers to jail for years as repeat offenders.

Moreover, get-tough-on-crime laws, such as minimum sentences, restrictions on judicial discretion, and the elimination of probation for those convicted of Federal crimes, have combined to strain our prisons to the breaking point.

A natural outcome of this confluence of factors has been a steady rise in public spending on prison. In 1987, nationwide public expenditures on prison and inmate maintenance added up to about 10 million dollars. By 2007, the figure had reached the astronomical level of 50 billion with no end in sight.

Is there an answer to the shame of our overpopulated prisons? As long as our leaders fail to admit the existence of the problem, the answer is no. Only sustained public pressure will stir them into action. Unfortunately, too many ordinary Americans believe in the lock-’em-up-and-throw-away-key philosophy of crime fighting.

For those interested in statistical details, charts, and graphs, the Pew Center, the primary source of recent news articles on this topic, has an extensive database, with narrative summaries.

Pew also includes information about the State of California, the City and County of San Francisco, and other Bay Area counties.