Patriots Day

I may be proved wrong, but I think today's bombing at the Boston Marathon is the work of domestic, far right terrorists.  Patriots day is their holiday.  It allows them to rave on about their bizarre, unjustifiable, beliefs about the proper way to be an American.  Throw in that it'a almost the anniversary of the Waco siege (April 19), tax day, and it's every right wing militiaman's wet dream.  And just for the cherry on top, Congress is considering gun control legislation. Take my word for it: The face of terror in the United States is white, Christian, and far right.

Riding the Bike

 As I've noted before, I love my bikes.  I was out riding today (Across the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles if anyone cares.)  when I was passed by a whole bunch of guys on fixies.  Most of them were on the standard, metal frame conversion jobs, but one guy was riding a converted Cervelo.  Now, it might be possible to find a Cervelo frame, on sale,  under $2,000, but not a full bike.  Too, the guy riding it was taller than me but he was on a smaller bike.  He was also wearing those basketball type shorts and an old ratty tee shirt.

Maybe this was a guy with far more money than sense, but the average cyclist, willing to put down all that money for a top of the line bike isn't going to convert it to a fixed gear, he's not going to buy a frame that's way too small for him, and he's probably going to wear the whole Lycra thing.  That bike was almost certainly stolen.  I've got to say, I see converted fixies that may not have been stolen by the person riding it, but were clearly taken by someone, often enough to wonder why Lo-jack doesn't make some more profit with a bike tracker.

Guns and the Ordinary

President Obama and VP Joe Biden have begun to offer up some proposals for new gun legislation and the right, predictably, is fretting that we're going too fast.  Meanwhile, James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter has made his first court appearances, and the NRA is once again pointing out that it's not guns, it's mental illness.

On quick question for the gun lobby.  Does that mean that they support a not guilty by reason of insanity finding  for Holmes?  If so, I congratulate them and add my support for that position.  Of course, that's highly unlikely.  Knowing the far right, I suspect that they'll try and have it both ways.  The insanity of the shooter means that the easy access to guns is not relevant to what happened at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, and Sandy Hook Elementary, but by god, we'll take that nut out and hang his ass by the neck until dead.  (Or shove in the needle as the case may be.)  I have to say, though, the gun nuts may be right.  The crazies will out.  But, are the anomalous mass shootings, tragic though they may be, the real gun problem?  I think not.  The real gun problem is.....

Husband shoots wife, wife kills husband, six year old finds family gun and shoots four year old sibling,  fender bender and one guy pulls his nine mil from under the front seat, drunk gets asked to leave party and  returns with his shot gun, drug deal gone bad, drive-by, man looses job and he decides to kill himself, wife and kids,  stupid young man feels disrespected, scared neighborhood watch member shoots young black man wearing a hoodie, and it goes on and on and on and on.  Start dealing with the ordinary, day by day gun violence, and I'll be impressed.

Fountain Pen

I turned on the noon news hoping for coverage of the violence in Libya but L. A.'s status as the car chase capitol of the world stymied my efforts.  Yes, once again TV coverage was all car chase all the time.  Today's version had a couple of guys who had robbed a Bank of America making a last run through the streets of south central, a  neighborhood south of downtown Los Angeles.

What was different about this one was that the two suspects threw their loot out the car window.  I have no idea whether they thought that crowds would block streets allowing them to escape, or whether they just figured, "What the hell, we're going to jail anyway, so why not spread the wealth".  Of course, the TV commentators did the whole morality thing and condemned those who were scooping up money, but the way I see it....why not?  The American financial industry lobbied congress to legalize behavior that is little more than grand theft on a planetary scale, so why not get a little of our own back.

 During the great depression, there was a wide held belief that bankers had destroyed the American economy and impoverished the majority of ordinary citizens.  Bonnie and Clyde, Pretty Boy Floyd, and John Dillinger were viewed as folk heroes.  I'm actually surprised that bombs haven't gone off on Wall Street and bank presidents haven't been assassinated.

There is a great line form an old Woody Guthrie song, "some will rob you with a six gun, some with a fountain pen."  Jury nullification, anyone?

Bang Bang, Shoot 'em Up

Let me get this straight.  Jared Lee Loughner strolls into a super market parking lot with his legally acquired arsenal,  opens fire, kills six and wounds thirteen including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.  He gets hauled up before Judge Larry Burns who decides he's too bat shit crazy to stand trail.  So Burns orders Loughner to a federal prison hospital to be forcibly medicated.  A couple of years latter, with his schizophrenia under control, he returns to the Burns court, now cured, so that he can plead guilty and avoid a death sentence.

Okay, I admit it.  I'm not a big time lawyer or a distinguished judge.  But shouldn't the issue be whether or not Loughner was nuts when he pulled the trigger rather than now, after two years of forced treatment?  Ah, but we have to worry about the feelings of the victims.  If feelings are what's important, than perhaps we should just take a poll.  Thumbs up, treatment and release when no longer a danger to society.  Hand held on a level plane, then life in prison and hope the guy doesn't get shived in the shower.  Thumbs down, then a quick visit from the needle.  Ah Rome, what we can learn form your barbaric ways.

Once again, I'm making the unpopular point that the insane should be treated rather than imprisoned for their crimes.  I ran across an interesting study from the U.S. Justice Department in 2006.  (From the Bush Justice Dept, not those socialist hippy Obama guys.)  It seems that over half of  the prison population was suffering from some sort of mental illness a way back in '06.   Forty-five percent in the federal system.  Come on guys, wouldn't it be cheaper to treat people with mental illness before they end up in jail?  Goodness, that might require a national health care system.  Can't have that.

Meanwhile back in the cesspool, also Known as Texas justice.  The lone star state has executed a man with the lofty I.Q. of 61.  Didn't the Supreme Court rule that you can't execute the mentally retarded.  Ah shoot.  He weren't no retard, he was fakin' it.  Remind me to avoid Texas if I can ever afford another vacation.

Roman Polanski 2

Well, I'm not really all that surprised. Roman Polanski is a free man, at least if he never ventures out of France or Switzerland. I always thought it unlikely that the Swiss would extradite Polanski to Los Angles to face sentencing for his rape (Plea bargained down to unlawful sex with a minor.) of a 13 year old girl.
-
What has always bothered me is the large number of people, who should know better, that seemed to just brush off what Polanski had done as some sort of right for those creative enough to have directed Chinatown. Let's be clear about what happened. Roman Polanski had forcible sex with a thirteen year old after giving her drugs and alcohol. He admitted this. He also admitted that he knew she was thirteen and that it was against the law for a man in his forties to have sex with a minor. In her initial interviews with the police, the victim claimed that she said no. Even if she was lying, it is still against the law. If she was telling the truth, she was forcibly raped by Polanski. Some of Polanski's supporters claim that the victims mother, basically, pimped out the girl to Polanski. There is no proof of this, but even if it were true, it is not legal to have sex with a thirteen year old, even if the mother consents. Many of Polanski's supporters point out that the victim, now a mother in her own right, would prefer that this all go away and that any prosecution of Polanski end. In the United states one does not commit a crime against a person, but rather against the laws of the state. It is irrelevant what the victim thinks. Many of Polanski's supporters argue that he was unjustly made an example of for his crimes, and was receiving unusually harsh treatment. In fact, in being allowed to plea bargain down to statutory rape from forcible rape, he was treated with a great deal of leniency. Polanski fled the jurisdiction when he learned that the plea bargain negotiated by his lawyers and the DA's office might not be honored by the judge. Plea bargains only go into effect when the judge signs off, and Polanski was informed of that possibility ahead of time.
-
For those who would argue that there was a lynch mob mentality in the United States surrounding Polanski's case, I would refer them to the death of Emmit Till. A request for extradition is far from being a lynching. For those who would argue that what Polanski did was not "rape rape," whatever that means, I would ask them to refer to the facts of the case. For those who would argue that Polanski has been punished enough I would ask them where in the law does it say that someone who has suffered in life is exempt from rape laws. For those would argue that his film career justifies his actions, I would ask what are the limits of the creative exemption to the law. Is is battery, robbery, rape, murder?
-
Roman Polanski is a great director. I have another blog that I've made up, primarily for my movie buff friends http://www.greatmovieslist.blogspot.com/, and sooner or latter I'll add Chinatown, Knife in the Water and Rosemary's Baby to the list. But even though I admire his movies, that doesn't mean I think he should get away with rape and fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid jail time.
-
Is it just me, or are there others out there that find the Swiss claim that national interests were involved in denying the extradition request a little weird?

Bring Back Beheading!

The Supreme Court has banned the three drug cocktail as a painful means of execution and therefore unconstitutional. My home state of California, seeking to kill people in a humane way, is moving towards a single drug method of execution. My question for both the Court and those states that still have the death penalty: Why not beheading?
-
If we really think it's important to kill in a humane fashion, it's hard to beat the ax. One very quick chop, an immediate severing of the nerves in the spine, and it's all over in the only method that is close to being painless. The only reason why the United States wouldn't emulate this advanced means of death is squeamishness on the part of prison personnel. I admit that, if I were a prison guard, I would be a bit traumatized, seeing the prisoner's head plopping into a basket, and the fountain of blood squirting across the execution chamber. But what of it? In the name of humanity, shouldn't our representatives be able to stomach a little mess? Yes, beheading is the way to go. If it's really our aim to kill in a sensitive, humane fashion, than the blade is the only method of execution that guarantees a fast and painless end. And if we don't really care about the suffering of the condemned, than let's go back to the garrote! Now that's deterrent.

Don't Have a Heart Attack in Lomita

Just heard a story on the local TV news, and I don't have any information beyond the two minutes, on air report, so take this one with a grain of salt. Lomita, California will be charging $300 for every 911 call from Lomita residents, and if you're driving through town, it will be a hefty $400 charge. My former, next door neighbor's boyfriend used to beat the shit out of her and I had to call 911 a couple of times a month. If L.A. starts to charge for 911 calls, I'll have to think twice about calling the cops. Got to wonder how many people are going to end up dead because the good Samaritans of the world aren't willing to go broke to do the right thing?

Huck

Pay attention. I'm about to do something I rarely do. I'm going to defend a Republican.
-
Poor Mike Huckabee is taking it on the chin for his grant of clemency, while governor of Arkansas, to Maurice Clemmons, who killed four police officers in Washington state. Don't get me wrong, if this sends Huck's political career to the elephant's graveyard, I'll be quite happy. But, it is my opinion that we send too many people to prison; we send them to prison at too young an age; we keep them behind bars far too long. Huck was right to try and give offenders a second chance.
-
While it appears that Huckabee was making clemency decisions based more on references to Jesus, than appeals to reason, it should be noted that the impulse to not throw people away, like so much garbage, is a right one. I just went out to the desert for a few days of hiking and while headed home, I made a couple of stops at convenience stores and fast food joints. I saw so many young people, some working the counters, and some customers, and I noticed how ill educated they seemed. As I noted in my last post, we once had one of the finest education systems in the world, but, then we made the decision to cut taxes and defund education, destroying the foundation of our society.
-
It's been so many years since Ronald Reagan chose tax cuts over everything else, that these poor kids don't even realize that tax cuts for the wealthy few, has taken any future that they might have had, from them. We've now gone through several generations of young people that are fit for little more than menial jobs, drug abuse, and crime.
-
Huckabee's mistake was not an impulse to grant clemency, but rather membership in a political party that has created the under lying problem. In supporting conservative economic policies that have wiped out several generations of the young, he and his Repug cohorts, have guaranteed that crime will rise, and that granting clemency will be an issue.

Tour of California and Road Rage

At last, some details about the 2010 Tour of California, and it's looking pretty good for those of us from the southern part of the state. There is one stage that goes into Sierra National Forest that should have some nice climbs. What's really nice is that it starts in Visalia, which is a decent distance form the L.A. area, but not so far that it would be a multi-day trip. That particular stage ends in Bakersfield, a bit less than 100 miles from downtown Los Angeles. Speaking of downtown L.A. a time trial that doesn't leave the center city is a poor substitute for, as an example, the Santa Monica pier to downtown, but with subway and light rail it should be easy to get to. A circuit from Thousand Oaks, over the Santa Monica Mountains to Pacific Coast Highway and then back over the mountains to Thousand Oaks should have some nice climbs and fast descents. The route that looks the most interesting to me is Pasadena to Big Bear. The route goes past Crystal Lake, up route 39. That should be fascinating since route 39 is closed past the lake. The road is still there, but hasn't been used by cars for more than decade. The route does go through Wrightwood, so it has to be route 39 all the way. I'm guessing that the riders will be going through, or near Victorville, before climbing up the north slope of the San Gabriel Mountains to Big Bear. Finally, a summit finish.
-
The L.A. road rage trial of Dr. Christopher Thompson continues. I'll never make the argument that we cyclists are little angels. I've seen far too much bad behavior from my fellow bike riders to write that! But, the Thompson case isn't a he said, he said case, it's about a driver who purposely stopped short in front of two cyclists. Witness, LAPD traffic investigator Robert Rodriguez has testified that Dr. Thompson told him that he did it to teach the two cyclists a lesson. One rider went over the doctor's car and rolled over into traffic. The other went through Thompson's car's rear window. I won't make the argument that the good doctor was trying to kill the the two riders, but he clearly meant to do some harm, and if found guilty, should do some prison time for what was clearly an assault with a 2,000 pound car on a couple of 20 pound bikes.
-
I do have another blog about hiking, and cycling. I try and limit that blog to posts about actual trips, so I thought The New Common Sense a more appropriate place for Tour news and observations on the Thompson case. Anyone interested can check out Self Propelled at www.selfpropelled-wjy.blogspot.com/. Too, I've blogged about the possibility of a fourth grand tour in North America. Anyone interested in an imaginary Grand Tour of California can go to the archives and find posts published on 7/15/09, 7/20/09, and 8/3/09. For a post on the idea of a Tour of North America with rotating locals, go to 8/18/09. Hey, I needed a break from all of the political posts.

Roman Polanski

I'm getting so tired of people defending Roman Polanski. Yes, he has suffered far more than most of us can ever know. And yes he is a very talented movie director. And yes, it's highly unlikely that he is a child predator. Still, he did rape a thirteen year old girl, and that shouldn't be forgotten.
-
Those who seek to defend Polanski usually make those three arguments. But, as far as I know, there is no exemption in the law for personal suffering. Having lost his mother to the Nazis, having survived in the Warsaw ghetto during World War 2, having had his pregnant wife murdered by the Charles Manson gang, are all pretty terrible things, and I'm not arguing any sort of equivalency, but I can go to some of the gang infested areas of Los Angeles, and find gang members who were abandoned by their fathers, who had crack head mothers, and who saw childhood friends and family gunned down in front of them. I'm often accused of being soft on crime because I think those things should be taken into account when those young men are arrested and tried for their crimes, but I've never argued that they should be allowed to walk.
-
Is there a talent exemption in the law? When one sees how some Hollywood people are treated by the LAPD, one might think so, but it's not true. The fact is, the grand jury transcript from Polanski's victim's testimony paints a picture of a child, drugged by a man 30 years older than her, who then proceeded to anally, and vaginally penetrate her. Had Polanski been charged with forcible rape, and had he been convicted, he would have been looking at a decade in prison. The fact is, when he was allowed to plead to the much lesser offense of statutory rape, he was treated very leniently. His position in the Hollywood community probably got him treated far better than the average defendant, but even his status as star movie director couldn't get him a complete pass. He may not have had a history of child rape, and he may never have committed another such crime, but that doesn't matter. He pleaded guilty to the crime he was accused of, and that's the only question involved.
-
And as far as his victim's wish to let things be forgotten. It's The State of California vs Roman Polanski. It doesn't' matter if she wants to forget things. Her wishes are not relevant. Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to a very serious crime. He was warned that plea deals aren't valid until the judge signs off. He fled the jurisdiction to avoid jail time, which is another crime in itself. I don't think the book should be thrown at him, but I do think, if he is extradited to the United States, he should be given some jail time, both for the rape, and for jumping bail.

Michael Vick

As a sports fan, I've had my fill of the ongoing Michael Vick saga. To tell the truth, I'm so bored by it ,after all this time, that I'd rather just ignore the whole damn thing. But, every so often I hear or read something so stupid, that I feel the need to comment, and the latest example of Titanic stupidity I've run across is about Vick.

-

Huffington Post blogger, and assistant professor of psychology at Cornell University, Peggy Drexler, has, in my opinion, completely missed what should be the two main points to be made about Vick. In her latest piece on Huff Post, she argues that Vick's crimes were so depraved that he shouldn't be allowed to play football again. Work, yes, but not play football. (As if football, as a profession, is so special that only the sainted should be allowed to play.) To tell the truth, every time I hear that argument, I get the distinct impression that the person making that point, is less upset about the crime, and more bothered that it was an animal that was the victim. Come on people. I love dogs too, but let's not forget that the victimizing of a person is more important that the victimizing of a dog. But as I wrote, Drexler is missing two big points, and putting Vick's crimes into perspective, while a valid point to discuss, isn't one of them.

-

The first point is, most cultures have some elements of barbarism in them. Vick grew up in an environment where dog fighting was considered acceptable behavior. I'm not a cultural egalitarian who believes that there is no right or wrong, just different. The torturing of animals as a form of entertainment is disgusting to me, and I think it should be outlawed. I live in southern California, and we have a large Hispanic population, many of whom are immigrants from Mexico, and many of them see no harm in cock fighting. It's not that Hispanics are evil, blood thirsty, bastards. It's that they were raised in a culture that finds blood sport acceptable. When I hear on the news, or read in the papers, that there has been a bust of a cock fighting ring, I'm happy. However, thinking that cock fighters should be jailed for years, and have their right to make a living stripped from them, or have their future employment limited to certain professions, because they were entertained by chickens fighting to the death is ridiculous and way over the top. And if you think I'm making the argument that people of color are just not up to "white" moral standards, think again. Our proud, American culture, finds the death penalty acceptable. We have no problem with sending 12 year old children to prison for life. And as our California budget mess proves, we aren't all that bothered by having funds stripped away for health insurance for children whose parents are so broke that they can't afford to cover their kids. Proud, white America can live with children dying from preventable causes, as long as our taxes don't go up. Now that's barbarism! Should Vick be given a pass because, in the deep south, where he was raised, dog fighting is an acceptable practice? (Among poor whites, as well, I might add.) Absolutely not! Vick did the crime, and with the addition of the illegal gambling, prison time was just. It's just that dog fighting, like cock fighting, doesn't' rise to the level of extreme, irredeemable depravity.

-

And the second point that Drexler misses? There are laws, legal contracts, and social contracts. The social contracts I'm writing about are the things that we, as a people, agree to abide by, without the force of law. I was born in 1955, and when I was a child, if a person used a certain word that began with the letter "F" in general conversation, he would soon find himself ostracized. The use of polite and respectful conversation was considered an important part of a civilized existence. We now feel free to say fuck at any time and anywhere. Not a very pleasant way to live. Anyway, one of the things that was once part of the social contract was that when someone had committed a crime, once they did their time, they were free to make a new life for themselves. I don't know whether it's an out growth of the media age, always searching for content, or a genuine sense of never ending fear, but we seem to have entered an age of perpetual punishment. There are certain crimes, and dog fighting seems to be one of them, that, for many, can never be forgotten. Again, I'm not making light of Vick's offence, but he's done his time; he's lost his wealth; his name has been dragged through the mud, and he deserved it! But when does it end? Should he be punished forever because it makes us feel better? Forget about Michael Vick for a moment. Study after study have been done, and they all agree: A convicted felons chance of going straight is directly related to his or her ability to find housing, and employment. Perpetual punishment may make many feel better, to see the criminal suffer in perpetuity, but it's counter productive. It makes neither fiscal sense, or social sense, to set up prisoners to fail after their release. Vick is a big name criminal who should remind us, that we want convicted felons to succeed after they are released from prison. Let Vick play football again.