STILL ON PATROL

Fishers of Men

Remember Matthew 4:19?  "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

The Associated Press is reporting the following story:

A man who was drowning in a Maine river is recovering after someone reeled him in with a fishing rod.

Bob Greene of Hallowell says he heard what he thought was a bird early Thursday as he was having his morning coffee. He then realized there was a man bobbing in the Kennebec River.

He says a 911 dispatcher told him to throw something to the man. He snagged the man's shirt with a fishing lure and reeled him in.

The rescued man is in critical condition at a Portland hospital.

Hallowell Police Chief Eric Nason says Greene did the right thing by calling police first and not jumping into the water.

Great Story!  I wonder what pound-test line he had on that rod?  It would be a great commercial for the fishing linemaker and the rod/reel maker, too.  Wonder if Maine has a fishing record alongside those for trout and bass for "homo sapiens"?

All kidding aside, big kudos to Bob Greene for being aware of his surroundings and for cool quick thinking in an emergency.

The Slippery Slope of Re-Defining Marriage

This story from Virginia illustrates the slippery slope on which our nation, and its churches, are treading when we start to recognize marriage as anything other than a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman.  It seems that  Antonio E. Blount, 31, and Justin L. McCain, 18, obtained a marriage license and were married in a civil union in Virginia, where same-sex marriage is not recognized.  They were able to do so by way of McCain cross-dressing as a woman; due to the block for "M" or "F" being obscured by the Virginia seal on the license, no one noticed McCain's driver's license showing an "M". 

The case did not come to light until McCain returned to Court a few weeks later seeking a name change to "Penelopsky Aaryonna Goldberry," which the court clerk said "raised a red flag" and led to further inquiry into who McCain really is/was.  No kidding.  Bet he just loved Gene Robinson's shoes, too.  (By the way, did you notice the age difference?  Such age gaps seem almost to be the rule in recently-publicized M-M same-gender unions.)  Now, Virginia prosecutors are evaluating whether to press misdemeanor charges for misleading a public official.

McCain now apparently claims to be transgender, although it is unclear whether that means he has had surgery, or is taking hormonal treatments, or simply wears women's clothing.  This raises the issue of whether, and under what circumstances, a transgender person can be considered to have truly "changed gender."  Is it enough to wear opposite-gender clothing and live as the opposite from your birth gender?  Or should a legal change of gender require some form of medical intervention, such as drugs or surgery?

Some courts have recognized "gender identity", a rather amorphous concept of accepting as a person's gender that which they identify that they "feel like internally."  This is apparently still a minority position which cannot at this time be identified as a trend.  The majority of states will change gender on a birth certificate after gender reassignment surgery, but not just on "gender identity."

I suppose our liberal friends would say the solution is simple - just let any human of any description marry any other human, no questions asked.  Or better yet, why bother with the institution of marriage at all?

I'm sorry but I just cannot live with that.  Both God and society have always defined marriage as being between a man and a woman.  Why is it that our society seems to have some abiding need to profane what has been a sacred relationship?  Many would argue, what about the divorce rate?  Well, I'm one of those statistics, as is Corinne - we're both trying to get it right the second time around.  We're not perfect and neither were our first spouses.  The point is, however, that we should strive to achieve that which God has made sacred, not profane and devalue it to the point where it has lower standards than adopting a pet at the humane society.

WANTED: A Realistic Energy Policy

As gasoline prices skyrocket, taking prices for nearly everything else we need for daily living with them, we are finally starting to hear some serious discussion of needing major revisions in our national energy policy.  Unfortunately, none of that discussion is emanating from government leaders, most particularly not from the Democrats.  Obama on energy?  Can you spell c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s?  McCain?  Mostly silent.

Let's eliminate the obvious.  Taxing energy companies will not work.  Anyone who has ever studied economics knows that taxes are regressive, meaning they slow development.  Besides, any taxes imposed on energy companies will inevitably be passed on to consumers. Consumers do not need any more upward pressure of energy prices.  Taxing "Big Oil" might feel good for a moment, but ultimately it is regressive, and, well, stupid.  I am as offended by billion-dollar "record" profits as the next person, but taxing them is not the answer.

The second fallacy is that if we simply force Americans to conserve, this whole thing will improve.  The reality is that a vast majority of Americans are powerless to adopt some of the so-called energy conservation measures the greenies propose.  Millions of Americans drive trucks and SUV's because their employment requires it - they pull a trailer, carry equipment, etc., and that little Prius hybrid just won't get it done.  Millions of Americans commute because they have to for their job - they cannot afford to relocate to higher-priced neighborhoods closer to their work, but they have to work to stay alive instead of going on welfare.  The simple truth is that America, unlike Europe, is a big, spread-out country with little to non-existent public transportation or rail transportation.  We need our cars to work.  Millions of Americans might like to trade in their older, less efficient car for a new model, but simply cannot afford to do so - have you priced a new car lately?  With the rising costs of food, gasoline, etc., their disposable income to make a down payment or a car payment has dried up and blown away.

The third fallacy is that we need to develop alternate fuels as a solution to the present crisis.  While spending millions or billions on alternative fuels makes some sense, there has been ongoing research in this area for many years, and to date nothing economically feasible has come about.  I read recently of a modified Toyota Prius that had been outfitted with solar panels and got 100 miles per gallon of gasoline.  Problem was, the solar panels cost between $2,500-$3,000 and the lithium-ion battery to store the solar energy cost $40,000, and probably would have to be replaced at some point.  So, by the time you would save enough in gasoline at the rate of $500 per year, you would have to have driven this Prius far longer than the normal life cycle of a human being to recover its additional cost.  This is all too true of many alternative sources - they may save fuel but they are not a realistic solution for the foreseeable future.

The first thing we should realize when we pull our collective heads from the clouds is that we need realistic solutions, now.  While it would be a fine thing for us to develop energy alternatives for the long term, Americans are suffering today and need help, sooner rather than later. The most realistic solution on the table is that we must develop our own energy sources, that we as Americans control, and remove ourselves from the manipulations and political gamesmanship of the international energy market.  These resources are right before us, and need only a realistic re-appraisal of draconian environmental legislation and a balancing of the needs of the environment versus the needs of our economy. 

For example, there is a major oil reserve under the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that would  go a long way toward easing our situation.  While some environmentalists deride the quality of this reserve, the same people said Prudhoe Bay in Alaska wouldn't amount to much, and yet 30+ years later it is still producing a significant amount of oil.  The proposed area of drilling in ANWR is comparable to the size of a postage stamp placed on a football field.  The rig at right is in the Gulf of Mexico, but has not "ruined" the miles of beaches or many wildlife preserves in the region.  Rather, many such oil rigs provide an entirely new eco-system for sea-life.  Would we prefer to maintain such pristine wilderness totally unaffected?  Yes.  Can we as a nation afford the luxury of such preservation?  NO.  The real world says we cannot do so, unless we are willing to bring economic ruin down on our heads and to endure the political insecurity fostered by our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

I have written about another potential source for oil, that being vast deposits of oil shale in the American west - there is enough oil shale in three states, primarily on Federally-owned land, to yield our projected oil supply for the next 350 years, according to the Rand Corporation.  Environmental concerns have been overcome - where we formerly would have had to mine the shale and be left with vast piles of useless rock, there is technology now to heat the shale in place, without harming the surrounding environment, to extract the oil.  Why is this not being developed?  There is no credible answer to this question.

It is a certainty that actual oil production does not cost the $130 per barrel it has now risen to on global markets.  This price is nothing more than rank profit-taking by oil producing nations, many of which support our enemies around the world while at the same time bleeding us based upon the demand for the supply they control.  It is also a certainty that the very day the U.S. removes its recto-cranial inversion on energy policy and announces that we are going to drill in ANWR and develop commercial extraction from oil shale, global oil markets will plummet.  We would not even have to wait until these new sources come on line and start producing - the threat of America flexing its own energy muscle would stop the thievery that is going on by the oil-producing nations of today.  Once these new sources come on line, we would experience the dual benefit of markedly lower energy prices and vastly enhanced national security by not exposing ourselves to those who today keep us twisting on the spit of energy dependency.

I cannot understand what prevents us from taking these clear and direct steps to improve our lot, other than stupidity and entrenched blind obeisance to the environmental lobbyists.  Oil drilling does have an environmental impact, but with modern technology those impacts can be controlled to acceptable levels and in some respects made into advantages.  The dire predictions of the effect of the Alaskan pipeline have been proven false, as have many other dire predictions environmentalists have made over the years about oil production and drilling.  It is well past time we move past these illusory concerns and take those steps that can bring economic peace and security to our country.

Obama Resigns Church - Can You Spell S-H-A-L-L-O-W?

This weekend brought the announcement that Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama has resigned his membership in the controversial Chicago  church formerly pastored by Jeremiah Wright.  The immediate question in my mind was, "why now?"  After all, Obama was never sufficiently offended to walk away from this church when Wright was screaming from the pulpit such things as "God Damn America" and other racist and anti-America invective.  Obama didn't even resign when Wright took to the news/interview shows a month ago and repeated many of his incendiary remarks and outright attacked Obama for his Philadelphia speech on racism, wherein he tried to repudiate much of what Wright has said from the pulpit.

Was it the mocking of Hillary Clinton by a guest preacher a couple of weeks ago?  I seriously doubt it.  My bet is Obama actually enjoyed that little episode until the Clinton campaign voiced "outrage" and took offense.  He was, at that point, forced to back further away from his church.  Was that the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back?  Maybe, but I sense a stronger cynicism in Obama's resignation.  It appears to me to be nothing more than a desire to stop taking political hits over his choice of a church.

If Obama was a man of principles such as he would have us believe, why would he not have confronted Wright years ago over his brand on reverse racism, promoting African-American hatred of whites and of this country?  The clear answer?  Before, it didn't matter to Obama.  Before, he wasn't tantalizingly close to the nomination to run for President.  Before, he wasn't staring down the spectre of John McCain having the very tool he needs to rally the religious right to the GOP's banner once again.  Now, it matters, where before Obama's vaunted "principles" did not cause him to take sufficient offense to speak out.  This action belies Obama's shallow hold on his so-called "principles", which are in reality a cynical, pragmatic set of talking points designed to get himself elected.

In a Presidential election it is critical to look beyond the rhetoric and pretty words, phrases and slogans to try to determine what sort of President each candidate might be.  One way to make this analysis is to look at the type of people each of the candidates has chosen with which to surround themselves, not only in the political campaign, but in their previous, pre-campaign lives.  After all, it is from this pool of people that one can expect that many of the people who will be appointed to run the government will be chosen. 

When any of the three still-fighting candidates is examined, this is a scary prospect.  McCain has been a little to tight for comfort with Washington lobbyists; Clinton has been too close to many politicos whose values and beliefs have been moving targets.  This is not unexpected in a Presidential candidate, for to reach this level on the political food-chain, many, many sell-outs have already taken place.  After all, one cannot reach election to city council in most American towns without selling out to one or another local power base.  Why should presidential politics be any different?

But Obama, well, his past associations are downright frightening.  Only Obama has openly associated himself with so many people who hold views diametrically opposed to the mainstream of America.  His pretty words and high-minded rhetoric notwithstanding, American voters must look past those and evaluate who the man is and who he would bring with him if elected to the White House.  If what we have seen so far is any indication, the prospect of "President Obama" should be abhorrent.

Some Perspective, Please, On Railroad Accidents?

I was doing my typical lunchtime scan of CNN.com when I saw another one of those screaming digital media headlines - "Sunbathing Girls Maimed By Freight Train." Sounds like the train jumped the tracks and randomly found two girls on a beach somewhere and attacked them, doesn't it?

Of course, that's not the story at all.  From what authorities have determined so far, two girls, age 13 and 14, had skipped school in Lebanon, Maine, and were sunbathing on a railroad trestle over a small body of water.  They were actually lying ON THE TRACKS when a train came along, at about 15 mph.  The engineer apparently saw them, threw on the brakes, blew his whistle, but they did not move until it was too late.  One girl lost a leg and the other a foot; they remain in the hospital.

For two young people to be so senselessly injured is a tragedy, to be sure.  But the reality here is that the blame the media always wants to put on the railroads is quite misplaced.  First of all, no one has any business being on or around a set of railroad tracks, no matter the level of activity those tracks support.  The old joke, which is not so funny in this instance, is "You can always tell when a train's been there - it leaves its tracks."   The point is that trains do not roam randomly - they run on a set of tracks which are easy to avoid.   The collision of a human being, or an automobile, with even a slow-moving train is always going to end badly for the person or the car.  The only sensible thing to do is STAY OFF THE TRACKS.  PERIOD. 

Besides, train tracks are private property, no matter which railroad owns them. Trains have the right of way 100% of the time — over ambulances, fire engines, cars, the police and pedestrians.

Second, whether or not you've ever taken a physics course, another reality with trains is that they're very heavy.  A typical locomotive weighs approximately 400,000 pounds or 200 tons. When 100 railcars are added to the locomotive, the train can weigh approximately 6,000 tons. The weight ratio of an automobile to a train is proportional to a soda can and an automobile.  Trains cannot stop quickly. It is a simple law of physics: the huge weight and size of the train and the speed of the train dictate how quickly it can stop under ideal conditions.  Momentum = Mass (weight) X velocity (speed).   A 100-car freight train traveling at 55 miles per hour will need more than a mile to stop — that's approximately 18 football fields — once the train is set into emergency braking.  Even a small freight train moving 15 mph like the one in Maine cannot stop on a dime.

Yet, time after time, we hear and see news stories about a train "slamming into" a car at a crossing, never mind whether the numb-nuts behind the wheel probably either didn't look, or ignored the signal, or even worse, saw the signal and tried to beat the train.  I got to ride an "Operation Lifesaver" crossing safety train several years ago and witnessed a young mother pushing an infant in a stroller on a city street.  She saw us coming, heard the horn, and yet still broke in to a sprint, pushing the stroller, and dashed across the tracks barely ten feet in front of the nose of the locomotive.  The passengers held their breath in fear; the Kentucky State Troopers on board stopped the train, pursued the woman on foot, and cited her for wanton endangerment of the child.  Similar foolishness happens every day.

To be sure, there are train accidents that are the railroad's fault.  Crossing signals on occasion do not work and provide a warning to pedestrians and motorists.  Trains derail and damage property.  Sometimes noxious chemicals spill and force evacuations.  Railroads are not, by any stretch of the imagination, perfect.  They are heavily regulated by the federal government, but are still businesses operated by human beings, and thus subject to failure.

But for once, I would like to see a little perspective.  This freight train in Maine was not wantonly roaming the countryside looking for young girls to "maim."  It was where it belonged, doing what it was supposed to do.  Although news reports have not yet confirmed it, I suspect it was within the applicable speed limit, and its warning horn was functioning.  The media does a disservice to the community by not making it clear that in this instance and many others the railroad was not at fault, but the person who is on the tracks when they should not be there is the real issue.  Proper, factual reporting without all the over-hyped drama might add a little to the public's understanding of safety around railroads.  C'mon, CNN and your media brethren - a little perspective, please?

Today Is Memorial Day - Please Honor Them

The origins of Memorial Day fall somewhere in the smoky aftermath of the War Between the States, most likely borne of the widows, orphans and loved ones of the War dead decorating their graves with flowers.  General John Logan, by then commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, made what is accepted to be the first formal declaration of Memorial Day on 5 May 1868, asking that people honor their deceased loved ones and friends from the WBTS on May 30.  The remembrance day spread somewhat slowly, but after WW I it was expanded to include all American war dead, and has become a national holiday with uniform acceptance and observation.

Remembrances on Memorial Day range from the widow or parent of a casualty of war laying flowers on a  grave, to larger gestures such as the 3rd U.S. Infantry placing small U.S.flags at each and every one of the 260,000+ graves at Arlington National Cemetery then standing guard over them through the weekend.  In St. Louis, local Boy Scout organizations place flags at the 150,000+ graves in the Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery.  Boy Scout organizations also place candles at 15,000+ gravesites in the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Cemetery on Marye's Heights.

But we need not be part of one of these large remembrances, nor do we have to have suffered loss in our own families to partake in Memorial Day.  Every soldier who has shed his or her blood for America deserves our thoughts this day, from the first Minuteman who fell at Lexington and Concord, to the last soldier who died in Iraq.  Without them, we would be nothing - we would not have the freedoms we take for granted, from the ability to blast TEO or our political leaders on these blogs, or to cast our vote for the candidate(s) of our choice.  To that end, I watched "Recount" on HBO last night, and the speech by James Baker at the end, that even in the mess of the 2000 Presidential election we were able to have a peaceful transition of power with no tanks in the streets and respect for the rule of law, really rang true.  For this we owe our soldiers of all ranks and stations, an enormous debt of gratitude.

One remembrance that has been suggested, that does not require much effort by any of us, is to, at 3:00 p.m. this day (or really any time), pause, say a few words of prayer, or listen to "Taps" in memory and an expression of respect of our soldiers.   The haunting melody of Taps can be heard through this link.  There are no "official" words to the tune, but below are perhaps the most popular.

Day is done,
gone the sun,
From the hills,
from the lake,
From the skies.
All is well,
safely rest,
God is nigh.

Go to sleep,
peaceful sleep,
May the soldier
or sailor,
God keep.
On the land
or the deep,
Safe in sleep.

Love, good night,
Must thou go,
When the day,
And the night
Need thee so?
All is well.
Speedeth all
To their rest.

Fades the light;
And afar
Goeth day,
And the stars
Shineth bright,
Fare thee well;
Day has gone,
Night is on.

Thanks and praise,
For our days,
'Neath the sun,
Neath the stars,
'Neath the sky,
As we go,
This we know,
God is nigh.

Left Hand, Please Meet Right Hand?

I picked up a USA Today this morning to read with my breakfast on the road in Hindman, KY.  Vastly improved from its initial "McPaper" days, I enjoy reading a USA Today about once a week to get what my local paper has missed. 

One article this morning reached out and poked me in the eye - according to the Federal Government Accounting Office (GAO), some 60,000 businesses that have government contracts have failed to pay a collective $8 BILLION in Federal taxes.  An additional $1 BILLION is owed by health care providers who do Medicare/Medicaid business.  Yet, due to Federal privacy laws, the GAO is prohibited from publicly naming them.  Because I left the paper on the table for someone else to read, I had to find the same story on the Internet so I could write this post.  To my further chagrin, in doing my search I have discovered that this problem has been reported by the GAO for a number of years, but not only has nothing been done to rectify the situation, it is getting geometrically worse.  In 2005, for example, the total was 33,000 contractors and $3 BILLION.

Two examples from this year:  The Defense Department paid over $1 million to a firm that owes the IRS $10 million; and a company that provides security guards for the Justice Department (!) owes over $400,000 in taxes and has not filed returns for several years.

There is apparently no way within the Byzantine Federal bureaucracy for the IRS to notify other agencies of tax delinquencies so that information can be taken into account in the contract-letting process.  Thus, companies that do not pay their taxes actually get an advantage in the bidding process - by not paying taxes, their operating costs are lower, and they can submit a lower bid than competitors that are in compliance with the law.  There is as of now no penalty or disqualification for non-payment, nor any mechanism for the IRS to automatically garnish government payments.  There is presently legislation in Congress to deal with this situation, but my questions are:  (1)  Why did it take so long when this problem has been known for years? and (2)  Why is this legislation sitting in committee with no apparent haste to get it passed?

The IRS has caught a few of these situations and gotten taxes paid from contract payments, but it  appears that these are less than 10% of the overall number of delinquent companies.  It is incredible to me that, with all of the technological advances that exist today, some system has not been devised to get this information where it needs to be without compromising privacy concerns.  That said, why is there a privacy concern when the issue at hand is illegal tax evasion that in some cases may be criminal?

This is but another example of how the Federal government, primarily Congress, has gone overboard on privacy legislation and regulations over the last two decades.  Such laws as HIPAA and others affect almost every aspect of our lives, sometimes to our detriment.  For example, we were told when our daughters went to college that we could not access their grades or academic records, even though we were paying the bills.  One orientation presenter advised us to threaten to cut off the money if we didn't receive our child's PIN number to access her grades, which we did.  But this is a silly extreme that is reproduced in many contexts daily by overboard privacy legislation.

Having just gone through the annual ordeal of doing our tax returns, this story really makes me angry.  Average citizens such as ourselves could not get away with this sort of practice, at least not for long.  We should demand similar compliance and enforcement among those businesses that make a living from government contracts.

Delta + Northwest Merger = What?

One of the biggest stories this week from the business world is that the respective Boards of Directors of Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines both voted to approve a merger of the two carriers.  Is this simply coincidence with Delta CEO Richard Anderson having come to that position only 8 months ago from Northwest?  The timing seems fortuitous, even though Anderson, upon taking the Delta job, denied that his move was to bring about just such a merger.

Nevertheless, the merger, if approved, would form (by some measures) the world's largest airline.  Both Delta and Northwest deny that there would be any significant reductions in routes and service, but concede that some administrative and ground services jobs will be lost where the airlines have redundant coverage.  Major hurdles to be crossed include working out pilot seniority agreements with the respective branches of the pilot's unions (Delta's says "no problem" but Northwest's seems not so sure), and integrating Delta's non-union ground services with Northwest's unionized workforce.  U.S. government approval may also pose some sticky problems, especially concerning the status of such regional carriers as Comair and ASA.

From the perspective of an occasional flyer, I see two big concerns - rising air fares and deteriorating service.  Any major merger such as this inevitably reduces competition, particularly in markets where both carriers fly.  Most analysts have candidly said this merger will provide opportunities for the combined carrier to raise its fares to meet rising operating costs, with less fear of losing business to discount carriers.  Okay, I see that point, but my question is why should I be in favor of that?

As for service, there is little question that over the entire industry, the quality of service has declined drastically.  For a very good example, see my earlier post on air travel being a "leap of faith" and the manner in which some of my family were treated by Delta employees at JFK International in New York.  With less competition, I would predict that the level of service will further decline until passengers are treated little better than a bulk commodity on a railroad boxcar.

It would seem to me that if such mega-mergers are going to be allowed in the airline industry, Congress should get off its collective duff and pass an Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights.  New York state tried this, but was smacked down by a Federal court that declared that airline regulation was a matter of interstate commerce Constitutionally left to the Federal government.  The "interstate commerce" line of cases is well-established, and has been used to strike down many state initiatives (stepping into a void left by the Feds) to improve safety and service such as an Illinois attempt to require more extensive road spray suppression devices on large trucks. If the Federal courts are going to so jealously guard the right of the Federal government to regulate interstate commerce, then the Federal government need to quit playing partisan "gotcha" and get busy doing something with this power.  Otherwise, the growing body of horror stories of airlines lack of proper maintenance, lack of customer service, delayed flights, lost baggage, and so on will only continue and worsen.

Don't get me wrong - I haven't gone all liberal, big government here - I fully support the right of these airlines to try to make a go of this merger, at least in theory.  I am concerned, though, that the merger in practical application will become little more than an excuse for speeding up the downhill slide of airline travel in America.  Air carriers have shown they cannot be left to their own devices in so many respects; had they not done so, I would be much less likely to favor government stepping in to enforce some modicum of safety and service.

Bearing the Cost of Irresponsibility

You may have seen the story over the past few days - a Kentucky man, Andrew Tuttle, who had been kayaking in Tennessee, called  his wife as he got on I-75 to tell her when to expect him home.  When he did not show up, she became concerned and notified police.  A massive search ensued, including dozens of law enforcement and emergency personnel, aircraft, and even searchers on horseback riding the numerous ravines along the interstate.  No trace of Tuttle was found.  Family members grew increasingly frantic with all sorts of horrible scenarios playing out in their minds.

Until Tuttle turned up.  In Key West.  Asleep in his car.  When police made the connection by running his  I.D. through computers, he was placed in connection with the Cumberland County, TN, Sheriff's office, which had been heading the search effort.  Tuttle's explanation?  He was "just driving around" because he "didn't feel like going home."  When asked what they should tell his wife, Tuttle joked that once she found out he was alive, "she would probably kill him."  Because there was nothing illegal in an adult choosing to not go home, Tuttle was released in Key West and apparently has still not returned home.

I guess I can understand if someone needs some time alone to think, or whatever.  Tuttle had been married only a comparatively short time - maybe married life wasn't going well.  Or maybe something else in his life had gone awry - his father had observed that he had lost weight and been under stress lately.  But, come on, if you need time, need to do some soul-searching, TELL SOMEBODY WHERE YOU'RE GOING, or at least that YOU'RE ALIVE.  The act of simply wandering off like Tuttle did demonstrates a monumental recto-cranial inversion of the first magnitude.

And what of the thousands of public dollars spent on the search along I-75, when Tuttle was cruising his way down the Florida peninsula?  When I last heard, there was going to be no effort to charge Tuttle with this expense.  I think this is wrong.  Just like the infamous "Runaway Bride" case in Atlanta a few years ago, when someone willfully causes this sort of panic and causes this sort of public expenditure, there should be some sort of reckoning.  Granted, the "Runaway Bride" perpetrated a kidnapping hoax, which multiplied the law enforcement involvement, but in my opinion that case is only a few shades of gray different than Tuttle's.

Some would argue that we don't charge people when, for example, their boat gets caught in a storm and the Coast Guard needs to rescue them, sometimes at the risk of their own lives.  But I see a fundamental difference even in situations where one could charge the participants with negligence, e.g., ignoring a weather forecast, as opposed to cases such as this, where an intentional decision was made to "disappear" or run away from one's life, with no notice to anyone of what is about to happen.

Don't get me wrong - I am sympathetic to Andrew Tuttle.  I've been through the deterioration of a marriage and divorce in my past, and the urge to run away can be compelling.  I've had my share of life's issues, too, and have similarly felt the urge to run and hide.  But the key here is not whether one gives in to the urge - the issue is having the small modicum of responsibility to tell someone, ANYONE, "Hey, I'm going to get away for a few days to clear my head.  Don't worry about me.  I'll check in."  While loving family would still worry, at least they would likely not mobilize law enforcement and emergency personnel in multiple states, costing thousands of public dollars.

In these tight economic times, we cannot afford to have public assets so wasted.  We cannot as a society afford to condone such irresponsibility to occupy public assets when others may be in need.  Some accounting by Mr. Tuttle is definitely called for in this case.

Modern Commercial Flight: A Leap of Faith?

With the overall deteriorating conditions in the airline industry, the decision to take a commercial flight anywhere, for any purposes, seems to require a true leap of faith that something untoward will not happen.  What was once an enjoyable experience has become, in far too many cases, an ordeal far beyond the benefit of the availability of airline travel.  I indeed feel sorry for those whose business or profession requires frequent airline travel - they should be receiving combat or hazardous duty pay.

The most prominent current example is the rarity of the photo at left - an American Airlines jet in flight.  This week, hundreds of American flights have been grounded so that electrical wiring inspections and repairs can be effected.  One must wonder who has been asleep at this particular switch - has American simply dropped the ball on maintenance in favor of the short-term bottom line?  Or, has the FAA simply failed in its regulatory responsibilities?  Most likely it is a combination of these factors, but the end result is virtually an entire airline company being grounded for the better part of a week.

The FAA has long been criticized for short-changing airline safety.  Right here in Lexington, some would blame the FAA for only having one controller in the tower when Comair Flight 4191 a little over a year ago attempted to take off on the wrong runway , a too-short private strip, instead of the main commercial strip.  While others would argue "pilot error" due to the pilots apparent failure to check their compass heading before take-off, there is at least some merit to the thought that the safety net of controller oversight was a bit too thin that morning, leading to a crash and 49 fatalities.

But the deterioration is not just on the safety front.  Airline service has gone downhill to the point that is is below non-existent.  Passengers are trapped on runways in overheated jets for hours.  The now-infamous Jet Blue incident ran to ten hours, to the point where bathroom holding tanks overflowed and effluent was running in the aisles.  Yet if passengers rebel at inhuman treatment, they are charged with a Federal crime.  The State of New York tried to pass a passenger's Bill of Rights, only to see it struck down in the Federal courts as an unconstitutional "interference with interstate commerce."  There is little hope of similar Federal legislation - after all, Congress gets privileged service at airports and by airlines - why do they care?

Some family members of mine recently experienced what has become a too-typical airline horror story.  My brother-in-law, his wife, and their three children had traveled to Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic for spring break.  Their return flight, via New York's JFK Airport on Delta, was delayed over three hours, allegedly due to "weather."  (They later discovered there had been no bad weather in New York.  Did Delta lie?  You decide.)  Over one hour of the delay was spent sitting in the plane, on the runway, with no air conditioning.  One man who tried to step out the open door to get a breath of air was arrested by airport security.

Upon arrival at JFK, around 8:30 p.m., their connection to Cincinnati had long since gone.  Delta had not re-booked anyone, and offered no hotel vouchers, no transportation vouchers, and no meal vouchers - the passengers were on their own.  Delta employees, all of whom displayed horrible, offensive attitudes, said the delay was "not their fault" so they owed the passengers nothing.  My family members stood in line for approximately one hour to re-book their flight, and were waited upon by someone who was clueless in operating Delta's computers.  They were re-booked on a flight that did not depart until 4:30 p.m. the next day.  In the meantime they had called my home, because we were looking after their dogs, to let us know that dog care duty would be extended one day.

I got on the Internet via the Orbitz service, and found numerous flights from the New York area that left far sooner than the one Delta had chosen.  One in particular from JFK had more than ample seats left on Orbitz, so I am confident there were plenty of seats to have accommodated returning them home on a flight that reached Kentucky before they eventually even left New York.  But this flight was never offered by Delta.  There were also many options from LaGuardia or Newark with ample seats available, but Delta did not offer those flights, nor ground transportation for five people with nine bags.  They were essentially abandoned by Delta and left entirely to their own devices.  They found a Holiday Inn and spent the night, opting to stick with the flight on which they were booked rather than hassle with Delta any further.  All-in-all, this additional odyssey cost over $800 additional expenses on which they had not planned, including $200 per night rooms, and $20 cheeseburgers and $10 drinks at the hotel bar.

In a time when many major airlines have entered bankruptcy, are all facing rising fuel costs and aging airplane fleets, and are competing for passengers and their very survival as businesses, I find it amazing that they have become such abject failures in the one thing they do control, customer service.  In the past when my work required much more extensive travel, I faced delayed and canceled flights, and then almost always received assistance from the airlines in re-booking, and in subsistence while I was stranded.  As demonstrated by my family's experiences, and the hundreds of other horror stories we hear, the days of useful customer service are apparently gone.  Now, we have airlines who lie to passengers about the causes for delays, and offer no useful help in their need to adjust and find their way to their destination.  We have airlines that do not offer any subsistence assistance, leaving many passengers to sleep as best they can in dirty, drafty terminals, and eat over-priced fast food from kiosks.  If travelers do not have the savvy or technology to get on-line and rescue themselves, they are merely helpless sheep with whom the airlines can trifle as they wish. 

I am so thankful that my work has changed and I do not fly nearly as often as I once did.  But I pray for those who must do so, for they must face the travails of an airline system that is of questionable safety and from which they will receive little care or assistance if travel plans go awry.

Living in a Globally-Warmed, Drugged-Out World

The Associated Press has recently favored us with the latest scare about the world we live in.  Now, we have to worry about the residue from prescription drugs that may be found in our public drinking water.  The AP reports that in a five-month investigation, it has uncovered evidence that trace amounts, often measured in parts per billion or trillion, of many popular or common prescription medications have been found in the water supply of 24 major metropolitan areas. 

The drugs apparently get into the water supply via both direct dumping and flushing, and through human waste wherein the drugs are not completely metabolized.  Certain drugs are deemed "resistant" to typical methods of water processing and remain in the water supply in miniscule amounts.  While these amounts do not come near to any sort of clinically-effective dose, there is much speculation over what prolonged exposure to minute amounts of pharmaceuticals might cause in human beings.

A recent Harvard University study has even proposed that fluoridation of public water supplies, long believed to be a critical weapon in improving dental health, may now be a factor in the development of bone cancer.  So now what do we do?

Those who resort to bottled water to avoid the "dangers" of tap water are now being criticized because of the massive recycling problem being created by the billions of little plastic bottles in which their new favorite beverage is delivered.  Not to mention that many vendors of bottled water have admitted that their product does not come from a super-secret mountain spring, but from the same tap water we can receive at our kitchen sink.

How depressing it is to live in today's world.   Al Gore and his friends warn that we are going to cook ourselves to death with global warming, but have been noticeably missing in action this winter when the prevailing source of unusually high levels of moisture through the United States has resulted from cooling of Pacific Ocean waters by La Nina.  We are bombarded by diametrically opposite food studies on a weekly basis wherein we cannot now decide between butter or margarine, sugar or artificial sweetener, etc., etc., etc.  (I personally cling to the study that says red wine and dark chocolate are good for you!)  And now we might some day develop all manner of drug allergies and reactions, if not downright mutations, from the pharmaceuticals in our water supply.  In other words, even the water and air isn't safe.

It is no small wonder that paranoia and other mental disorders are so common in 21st-century humanity.  After all, if crazed gun-owners don't shoot us down in our streets, homes or college campuses, then our food, air, and/or water supply surely will do us in with all sorts of unnatural maladies.  Our politicians tell us that we are all at risk if there is not universal health care, even to the point of threatening to garnish our wages to buy insurance if we don't have it.  Ever waking moment is a risk - breathing the air, drinking the water, driving our cars, nay, even the unseen death-rays emanating from my computer and television screens.  Why, I can feel the weeks and months draining away even as I enjoy the nonpareil picture on my plasma television.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic, and no, I don't mean to belittle the legitimate risks and dangers in our world.  But every time I read one of these stories some small part of me begins to think I should not have gotten out of bed this morning.  But then, of course, I become fearful that my memory-foam mattress may be exuding some sort of insidious chemical that is rotting my few remaining functional gray cells.  Agggghhhhhhh!

What I do resent is the endless patter of those who peddle scare tactics on a daily basis.  Even television weather-persons these days seem hell-bent to scare us into our basements, or to resurrect the 1960's bomb-shelter craze, over every storm front to come our way.  I have even started to question whether there is some kick-back conspiracy between TV weather people and grocery stores, because every dire, adrenaline-rushing, eyes-bulging Doppler radar forecast of unprecedented (a) snows (b) thunderstorms and floods, and/or (c) "straight-line winds"  (huh?) sends nearly everyone to the local grocery to "stock up" as if the Apocalypse is truly at hand.

I am tired of being encouraged by the media to live a frightened life.  In the "sacred" name of the "public's right to know"  (which I still cannot find in the Constitution), the modern media seems to be in a race to see how quickly they can send us all running around like so many Chicken Littles.  The upshot of all this scary reporting is that many of us are now thoroughly imbued with the "Cry Wolf" syndrome, where we tend not to listen to any of it.  One day, when something legitimately scary comes along, will we listen, or will we blow it off as more media hustle?  Only time will tell. In the meantime, we should question whether the daily scare reporting is responsible journalism, or merely greedy capitalism aimed at increasing ratings and sales.  As consumers of this tripe, we ultimately control its continued growth by refusing to tolerate it.

Sick and Twisted Reaches a New Low

News today from Baghdad, Iraq, is that two mentally disabled women were laden with explosives then sent meandering into two crowded marketplaces, where they were detonated by remote control.  Approximately 100 people have been killed and scores wounded.

What does this say to the world about Muslim extremists, that they value women so very little and care for their mentally disabled not at all?  Where at least homicide bombers make some form of choice, these women were probably clueless as to their fates until they evaporated.

And what does it say about organizations such as the Episcopal Church that seem to want to pander to these people at every possible turn?

Americans Frustrated With Economy

The political saw, "It's the economy, stupid" has become transformed in the minds of many Americans, myself included, to "It's the stupid economy."  I took Economics classes in college (aced 'em all) and still retain some understanding of economic theory, etc.  I will have to admit, however, to being forever soured on economics as a useful science by a Microeconomics professor who, after spending half a semester going through a complex economic model in infinite detail, proclaimed the whole thing "useless" because it ignored several "real life" factors. I cannot help but wonder how many of the economic models in use today are also "useless" because they have little connection to "real life."

It strikes me that these days a great deal of the "economy" is being affected not by "real life" factors, but by a relative handful of economists, investors, and analysts who seize on sometimes infinitesimal events to sway the markets, and the economy, in a series of wild swings that ultimately only ending up costing John Doe in the street as he takes another shot in the wallet.  Why else do we see reporting of a Fortune 500 company's profits being down by a few million cause ridiculous, wholesale declines in the market?  Did the American business community all of a sudden become that much less valued because Wal-Mart has less of a Christmas than they had hoped?  Or is it a case of influential stock traders setting themselves up to reap another round of obscene profits by manipulating the stock markets and grasping at the flimsiest of excuses for doing so?

And why else do we see such things as Shell Oil announcing record $27 billion (yes, billion with a "B") profits in the fourth quarter of 2007 when John Doe is today paying average gasoline prices over $3.00 per gallon?  This is not product pricing based on costs of production, but rather based on the market manipulations of commodities traders that result in consumers paying for gasoline based upon "concerns" of traders over the latest bombing in Baghdad, not what it costs Shell and its brethren to deliver gasoline to the pumps.  Again, the average consumer is being screwed by faceless market manipulators.

And why are we not developing home-grown resources such as oil shale, of which we have enough to last centuries into the future, and for which technology exists for its use in an environmentally-responsible fashion, instead of being bled dry by OPEC and other oil producers such as the hateful Venezuelan President?  Perhaps the answer is that the eventual upshot of oil shale development would be gasoline below $1.00 per gallon and a reduction in profits for oil commodities traders?

And why are consumers being raped by credit card interest rates that in former times were called usury (illegally and immorally high interest)?  I will grant you that credit card debt is a consumer's worst nightmare and should be avoided if possible, but we are all bombarded by the twin lures of easy credit and and a consumer society that makes us feel less than nothing if our car is over two years old and we don't have the latest technology in our living rooms.  Most of us, myself included, lack the ability to withstand the siren song of consumer credit.

I have grown weary of economists pontificating about "consumer confidence" as if average American are somehow partially at fault that the economy is allegedly heading toward recession.  It's not an issue of consumer confidence, it's rather an issue of consumers realizing how badly we're being screwed by a handful of mysterious, faceless and nameless money people who function in offices somewhere hundreds of miles away.  Those people are driving home to their million-dollar McMansions in their Beemers and Hummers while the rest of us are driving our '98 Chevy with 160,000 miles and others are losing their homes through foreclosures. 

All that seems to happen to ease our economic pain is an endless run of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, which strike me as an uphill, albeit to some extent effective, battle against the other forces manipulating the economy.  In this election year, I am struck by how little we have heard from candidates about solutions to the problems that vex the rank-and-file voters.  We've heard next to nothing about any plan or proposal to look into the reasons behind the wild swings in the stock markets, or why large multinational oil companies still are making billion-dollar profits while consumers take it in the neck at the pumps,  or why so many consumers are being killed by credit cards.  It is the economy, stupid, and the candidate who can look America in the eye and offer a coherent plan to deal with the out-of-control elements that are manipulating our economy will go a long way toward getting my vote, and I'll bet the vote of many others.

"Meanest Mom on the Planet"

I love this story !  A West Des Moines, Iowa, woman, has not only acted as a responsible parent with "tough love" but she is letting the world know about it.  Jane Hambleton has put up her 19-year old son's car for sale 3 weeks after buying it, after finding booze under one of the seats.  There had been two rules for the car when it was purchased:  No booze, and keep it locked.  The son claims the booze was a passenger's, but Mom says rules are rules.

Here's the twist, though.  Mrs. Hambleton placed an ad in her local newspaper which reads: "OLDS 1999 Intrigue. Totally uncool parents who obviously don't love teenage son, selling his car. Only driven for three weeks before snoopy mom who needs to get a life found booze under front seat. $3,700/offer. Call meanest mom on the planet."  So far she has received nothing but positive feedback on the ad, from as far away as Georgia.

Good for you, Mrs. Hambleton !  Speaking as a parent who has dealt with more than a few car-related issues over the last several years, I am in awe of your moral courage to make your rules stick to the letter.  Your son may now think you're "totally uncool", "snoopy", and "mean" but I suspect he also gets the point, at least in this instance, that rules are meant to be followed, not circumvented.  Were more parents willing to let their children suffer the consequences of their bad or foolish actions as you have, perhaps we would not be reading or hearing of so many teen deaths in tragic accidents, or other such misdeeds by our young.

Now that this story is getting more media attention, I suspect you will start to hear some criticism, particularly from some of the media-based pseudo-psychologists who think it is their purpose in life to butt into other people's lives.  Ignore them.  You are doing the right thing.  Hard lessons must be taught when our children deliberately choose to ignore the rules we set for them.  As I tried to explain to our daughters many times, I was trying to deal with them and teach them while I still controlled the consequences.  Once it gets outside the family, such as with a DUI arrest or open alcohol container violation, it is a police/court matter and there is nothing I can do.  I hope your son has received your message, loud and clear.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Case Argued Before Supreme Court

Monday past, the case of Baze, et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.  This is the case in which it is being debated whether the lethal injection protocol in use in 36 of 37 states is constitutionally-prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment."  The protocol, which begins with a sedative, phenobarbital, then follows with a paralytic, pancurium bromide, and finishes with heart-stopping dose of potassium, arguably carries a risk of the first drug inducing ineffective sedation with the second drug paralyzing the inmate, then the potassium inducing extreme pain as it courses through the veins.  Opponents have proposed a single-drug protocol, a massive dose of phenobarbital, which they claim does not have the pain risk despite it generally being considered a slower method.  Phenobarbital also carries some side effects of causing grimacing and other mannerisms by the dying inmate which the paralytic drug in the three-drug protocol is designed to block.

Court watchers are having a field day guessing which way the Court will decide the case based upon the questioning of the attorneys.  Conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia backed counsel for the inmates into the corner of agreeing that the Constitution does not mandate an execution with no pain, and pressed them to define what is "cruel and unusual."  Justice Scalia also pointed out that the Court had previously approved the electric chair and firing squad as Constitutionally-acceptable methods of execution, both of which are now out of vogue.  Chief Justice John Roberts posed the "what if" question, inquiring what would happen if the Court endorsed the single-drug protocol and then the next inmate scheduled for execution appealed with an argument that the single-drug method was "untested." Several Justices were concerned that the case record did not contain much, if any, scientific date with which to compare the two protocols, nor a finding by a lower court determining as between the two which was a better method.  Qualifications of the execution team and of the Warden(s) overseeing the execution were also debated.

There are many ways to induce perspective into this debate, for if it is confined to a sterile scientific discussion there is probably no good way to resolve it.  The prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" arose in an era when we had not progressed far beyond those gruesome methods of execution prescribed by European law, not to mention a creative variety of torture and punishment devices which were deemed deplorable by our enlightened Forefathers. 

The guillotine was only then coming into wide use in France - it was thought at the time to be humane until the heavy volume of executions during the French Revolution revealed the problems a dulling blade could cause.  English executions were primarily done by axemen chopping the head off inmates, although the tour guides at the Tower of London will tell visitors that the axemen were usually drunk and it was not unusual for the execution to take several "chops."  Particular offenses against the Crown, such as those of Scottish patriot William Wallace, brought an even more gruesome evisceration (removal of intestines while live and conscious) followed by drawing (stretched between two horses) and quartering (beheading followed by cutting the body into quarters - Wallace's body parts were sent to the "four corners of England to show what happened to those who opposed the Crown"). Taken in this perspective, then, the methods used in America, and the end of public executions, do not seem to be quite so awful as their opponents would argue. 

On the other hand, in a technologically advance society one would think that there would be less scientific debate about how to execute a human being efficiently.  The problem, of course, is that medical personnel do not participate in this kind of research due to their professional oaths, and few scientists are interested in devoting their work to killing.  We are thus left with an execution protocol which in some states is prohibited for use in animals but deemed acceptable for criminal execution.  The simplest resolution for this debate would seem to be to find a better drug protocol, but for a complex set of reasons one does not appear to be forthcoming.  Perhaps this should be the Court's focus?

Another matter of perspective is that in all debates over criminal punishment, the crimes and their victims cannot be forgotten, because proportionality in punishment is an essential factor in our justice system.  Death penalty cases always involve heinous crimes - murder, with some exaggerating circumstance such as killing a police officer, or multiple victims, or other circumstances which escalate the seriousness of the crime.   The two Appellants in the current case, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling, illustrate this perfectly.  Baze ambushed and killed a Sheriff and Deputy who were trying to serve Ohio arrest warrants on him.  Baze shot both in the back with an assault rifle, including shooting the Deputy in the back of the head while he lay on the ground wounded.  At trial Baze admitted the shootings but claimed "self-defense."  Bowling murdered a young couple outside their dry-cleaning business while their two-year old son watched and was also wounded.  Society as a whole will not miss either man if and when their execution is finally carried out by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Benazir Bhutto Tragically Assassinated

Benazir Bhutto, 54, was tragically assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, today.  She had been Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1988-90 and again from 1993-96, and was running again for upcoming January elections when she was killed by either gunshots or a bombing.  Fourteen others also died in the attack.  She was the daughter of former Pakistani President and Prime Minister Ali Bhutto, who was hanged in 1979 for the alleged murder of a political opponent.  Two brothers had also died young under violent circumstances.

Bhutto has been a compelling figure in southwest Asia politics for a long time.  The first woman Prime Minister of Pakistan, a largely Muslim country, had been a lightning-rod for political furor in that troubled region.  Her first political era was ended by charges of corruption, which were ultimately dropped.  She had only recently returned to Pakistani politics after an 8-year exile.  Beautiful, intelligent, and articulate, many were predicting her return to the position of Prime Minister as the head of the Pakistani People's Party next month.  On the other hand, she had been the target of threats from many quarters, not the least of which were current President Musharraf's supporters, and Al Qaeda.

Bhutto's death is a double tragedy for Pakistan.  The country has been robbed of a strong voice for progress and responsible, stable government.  In addition, it seems likely that her assassination will once again plunge the country into civil strife and internecine warfare between opposing political factions.  For the rest of the world this is frightening because Pakistan is a nuclear power.  The spectre of its nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands has haunted U.S. policy in the region for a long time, causing us to ally with and support noxious strongmen like Musharraf.

I will mourn the passing of Benazir Bhutto.  She was a voice of intelligence and reason in the most troubled corner of the world and her influence will be sorely missed. 

Marines Give Bomb-Sniffing Dog Early Retirement

I am an unabashed dog-lover and an unabashed patriot, which explains why I am typing this post with tears in my eyes.  The guy to the left is named Lex.  He was, until recently, a bomb-sniffing dog with the U.S. Marine Corps serving in Iraq.  Earlier this year Lex and his handler, 20-year old Marine Corporal Dustin Jerome Lee, were caught in a mortar attack by insurgents.  Cpl. Lee was killed, and witnesses say they had to drag the also-wounded and whimpering German Shepherd away from the body of his handler.  The dog was, even to the end, guarding his friend and master with no concern for his own condition.

Lex had recovered from his wounds, albeit with shrapnel still in his body, and returned to duty at the Albany, GA, base where military dogs are trained.  As an 8-year old, he probably had two years or so of good service to go before retirement.  Cpl. Lee's family, however, lobbied hard with the help of a Congressman to be given the dog who had been with their son to the end.  In a complete and unprecedented departure from military policy, Marine Commandant Gen. James T. Conway ordered that Lex be retired and given to Cpl. Lee's family.  Lex will go to his new home on December 21.  He will be the first dog ever to be adopted out of the military except for those who reach retirement and are kept by their handlers.

Regardless of your politics and beliefs on the war in Iraq, the young men and women who serve the cause of freedom, regardless of their posting, are heroes just as are the police and firefighters who protect us here at home.  No less heroes are the thousands of dogs who transcend being pets and provide valuable and often life-saving service to humans.  From bomb-sniffers like Lex, to drug-sniffers, to security dogs, all the way to the many dogs involved in guiding and assisting disabled humans with daily living, our furry friends embody the best characteristics the animal kingdom has to offer.  Indeed, many of their characteristics such as unconditional love and undying loyalty are qualities most humans could stand to emulate.

This is why people like Michael Vick deserve only our scorn.  Anyone who abuses an animal, whether it be a dog or any other creature, is beneath contempt. It is well that I am not a judge who sits on cases of animal abusers, for the temptation to mete out "cruel and unusual punishment" to such sub-humans would be extreme.

If you have a dog or are around one, give him/her an extra pat on the head, or better yet, a big hug, in honor of Lex's retirement.  Our canine friends, if given the proper chance, only make our lives better and more fulfilling.  They deserve the best of our care, concern, and respect, and will return our attention ten-fold if we will but give them what they deserve.

UPDATE 12/21/07:

Photos of Lex with Cpl. Lee in Iraq and with his new family:

Redskins' Safety Sean Taylor Killed

In yet another astoundingly sad tragedy, Washington Redskins' safety Sean Taylor has died after being shot during a break-in at his Miami, FL, home.  Mr. Taylor, 24, heard noises in his home and got up to investigate, when he was shot by the intruder in the upper thigh.  He suffered heavy blood loss and never regained consciousness after many hours of emergency surgery.

The stupefying culture of violence and crime which seems to pervade so much of professional sports these days has thus claimed another victim.  As Mr. Taylor himself said, these young athletes are paid "a king's ransom to play a kid's game" yet for some it leads into a world where these type of tragedies seem to happen with mind-numbing frequency. Mr. Taylor had appeared to have made a turn from earlier troubles in his life, fathering a daughter and showing a new-found maturity in his play and his relationships to others in the NFL.  Yet the culture of violence is not so easily shed and in this case it followed him to his ultimate demise.

Some would argue that the NFL, or other professional leagues, should do more to prevent these things from happening.  But, short of requiring players to live in 24/7/365 guarded isolation with chaperones every time they leave home, there is only so much a league or team can do.  Perhaps a societal adjustment in the adoration we heap on professional athletes and the multi-millions thrown at individuals who can run, throw or catch at such high levels might help.  But the only real chance we have to reduce the occurrence of tragedies like Sean Taylor is to reach out to these individuals as young men and women, before the collegiate and professional accolades and money roll in, and try to instill those values which will equip them to face the real world.  Without the tools with which to handle being paid a "king's ransom to play a kid's game" these gifted athletes are left unarmed to deal with the cold cruel world.

My prayers go to Mr. Taylor's family and teammates as they try to sort out this latest sports tragedy.

Gun Control: US v. Miller vs. the Castle Doctrine

Last Wednesday's USA Today contained an interesting juxtaposition of articles in Section A that may very well illustrate the conundrum of gun ownership in the United States.  On one hand, on page 2A it was reported that the United States Supreme Court would hear a case involving a District of Columbia law which bans handgun ownership for private use, which has the potential to become the first time the high Court would confront interpretation of the Second Amendment head-on.  Page 3A, on the other hand, carried a story about the rise of the "Castle Doctrine", which are state laws providing that a homeowner has a right to use deadly force to defend his/her home from intruders.

The last word from the U.S. Supreme Court was U.S. v. Miller in 1939.  That case upheld Federal regulation of sawed-off shotguns and has been subsequently relied upon by lower courts to uphold other forms of gun regulation, i.e., holding that the Second Amendment does not allow for unfettered gun ownership.  Chief Justice John Roberts, however, stated in his confirmation hearings that he believes the Miller case "side-stepped" the Second Amendment; he described the full scope of the Second Amendment as still an "open issue."

The Second Amendment, of course, states "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."  Pro-gun groups tend to argue the latter clause stands alone, whereas anti-gun groups tend to emphasize that guns are for militia purposes only, which in this day and age are obsolete, meaning guns should be banned.  Most gun-ban litigation has fallen somewhere in the middle, with Courts supporting "reasonable regulation."

The current case was filed by Richard Anthony Heller, a security guard at a Federal building in D.C., who  is seeking the right to keep a handgun in his home for personal protection.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment does not prevent government from making "reasonable regulation" of firearms.  It is anticipated that the case will be heard for argument in the Spring and probably decided by July 2008.  The Court has indicated that it will decide the case on the issue of whether the D.C. handgun ban violates the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not members of a "state-regulated militia" but who nonetheless wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use.  It remains a question of how broadly the Court will decide this issue.

The "Castle Doctrine" story illustrates how wide-ranging the Supreme Court's decision could potentially be.  Some 20 states have enacted laws in recent years which remove any legal requirement that individuals must seek a "safe retreat" from an intruder in their homes, businesses, or cars before using deadly force in self-defense.  In other words, these laws clarify the right of self-defense in certain situations to an extent where in many cases no charges are brought against the shooter.  While anti-gun groups have decried these laws as promoting vigilante justice, Department of Justice statistics do not show an increase in "justifiable homicides", but rather a 13% decrease over the period "Castle Laws" have been enacted.

All of the states which have passed Castle Doctrine laws previously provided for self-defense as a defense to any potential charge of assault or homicide.  Self-defense laws provided that any person could act in defense of self, or others, where there was a legitimate perception of a threat of death or serious bodily harm.  What Castle Doctrine laws do is create a presumption that, in certain situations, self-defense is legitimate and will exculpate one who acts with deadly force or causes serious bodily harm.  For example, under Castle Doctrine laws if a home invasion occurs and the invader is shot by the homeowner within the home, self-defense is presumed.  In most cases, this is a rebuttable presumption, i.e., prosecutors can introduce evidence to overcome the self-defense claim, but it is a difficult burden when coupled with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidentiary standard.

A third news story, this one in my local newspaper, put a compelling point on this debate for me.  The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife reported that there have been six hunting deaths this year in Kentucky, five of which related to firearms.  Three were self-inflicted accidental discharges and two were accidental shootings of other hunters.  When things like this happen, there is no question in my  mind that negligence was involved, which is inexcusable in the handling of firearms.  I  had it drummed into my head before I  hunted for the first time:  SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY.  I attended mandatory hunter safety courses.  I received extensive training from my father and a friend of his in safe handling and operation of firearms.  I was taught to be certain of a target before ever contemplating aiming a weapon, much less shooting.  Unfortunately it seems that to