The Next Victim Is Justice

Local educator, William G. Keczkemethy, wrote a column in Sunday’s Globe titled, Will you be the next victim? The column focused on “violent, anti-social behavior” and the inability of our legal system and public officials to adequately address such behavior. 

Mr. Keczkemethy pointed out just how bad violent crime is in some places in the United States and how our criminal justice sometimes fails us, and he somewhat outrageously compared America to Somalia—a place which does not have a working government—saying, “And we think Somalia is barbaric and violent!”

He then wrote:

Many Americans have been programmed to question and debate anything and everything. Virtually every crime and criminal now has apologists and supporters… Some claim that criminals are not really bad, but compelled into criminality by forces such as poverty. This apologetic link between being poor and criminal is weak… Apologizing for violence undermines clear understanding between right and wrong…

Personally,  I don’t know of anyone who believes that “criminals are not really bad” or who believes people are “compelled into criminality by forces such as poverty.”  Some people do believe that there is a strong correlation between poverty rates and crime rates, but direct causation is not usually asserted, mainly because there is no way to “prove” such an assertion.

So, if Mr. Keczkemethy wants to take shots at sociologists or social workers, he can have at it.  But unless he can name names and cite some authorities that authenticate what he is saying, he is merely arguing with straw men.

But it seems his real point is in the last sentence, “Apologizing for violence undermines clear understanding between right and wrong…”

This claim led to Mr. Keczkemethy’s presentation of “three basic principles,” which he says need to be “re-established” in our society in order to “reduce violence.”

I will summarize his three basic principles as I understand them:

1. Morality is absolute: “Activists have driven the Ten Commandments from open society.” “We must teach our children that hurting others is wrong, period.” 

Without even considering his claim that moral relativism is at the root of our problems with violence (it isn’t*), I will just point out that Mr. Keczkemethy is implying that somewhere out there the “experts” are teaching children that hurting others is okay, that somehow violence is a legitimate means to an end. 

He uses “gratuitous violence in movies, music and video games” as examples.  I don’t understand the logic of this claim.  Again, no “expert” or “activist” I know of is teaching children that it’s okay to employ violence to get what they want, and unless Mr. Keczkemethy is willing to censor movies, music, and video games, consumers of such things–including parents who allow their kids to purchase them–are responsible for tolerating any violence involved, not “apologists” or “experts.”

2. “Demand primacy of rights.” “The right of law-abiding citizens to be secure from criminal injury has primacy over criminals’ rights to overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly act in ways harmful to citizens.”

What?  Who would disagree with that?  We all—experts and apologists alike—agree that criminals shouldn’t have the “right” to harm others.  Again, I don’t understand the point of this claim, unless Mr. Keczkemethy is suggesting that we preemptively arrest anyone we suspect may be harmful to “law-abiding” citizens.

3. “Guarantee swift and certain justice. Our criminal justice system has become overly complex, convoluted and filled with loopholes. “

Mr. Keczkemethy argues that criminals “play” the system and that we can do better.

Well, I’m sure we can do better, but the point of the justice system should be “justice.” If its primary concern was “protecting Americans,” as Keczkemethy suggests, then we wouldn’t have to worry too much about getting things right—justice—and could worry more about getting anyone who is simply accused of a crime “off the streets,” so that Americans could sleep better at night.

That approach might be “swift and certain,” but it wouldn’t necessarily comport with justice.

The tenor of his column suggests that Mr. Keczkemethy would be comfortable with a more intrusive government, one in which officials monitor and control our entertainment choices, somehow stop criminals before they commit crimes, and engineer a justice system that favors speed and certainty over deliberation and doubt.

I can only hope he is not teaching this stuff to his students at Joplin High School.

 

*I couldn’t help it.

Bill Ayers Covers For Obama

Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Palin and other conservatives tried to attach Bill Ayers to Barack Obama’s hip before last year’s election.  Most of them have continued throughout Obama’s first months in office to fortify the moronic meme that Ayers and Obama are ideological soulmates, as Limbaugh did in August of this year.

So, it won’t surprise these conservative conspiracists that Bill Ayers is attempting to hide his connections to Obama by pretending to be outraged at Obama’s decision on Afghanistan:

As everyone can tell, this feeble attempt by Ayers to separate himself from his ideological “son” is nothing more than a diversion. He’s trying to give Obama cover.

The real Ayers is obviously a war-loving, terrorist-hating thug, who wholeheartedly agrees with Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan.

He can’t fool conservative radio talkers.

Palling Around With Birthers

The following is why all Democrats should hope that our pal Palin will finally decide to stop exploiting her “followers” and run for president in 2012:

 

 

The Naked Middle Class

Between the dueling “job summits,” Ben Bernanke’s fight to keep his job at the Fed, the CBO’s estimate of up to 1.6 million jobs so far either saved or created by the stimulus package, the economy justifiably is back as the topic of the week.

But a really disturbing message is coming from Elizabeth Warren, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and currently serving as the chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was established under the TARP legislation last year as a legislative branch watchdog over the markets, the regulatory system, and Treasury’s management of TARP money. 

On today’s HuffPo, Warren posted an article titled, “America Without a Middle Class,” in which she begins by asking if America would still be America without a strong middle class, then assaults us with this paragraph:

Today, one in five Americans is unemployed, underemployed or just plain out of work. One in nine families can’t make the minimum payment on their credit cards. One in eight mortgages is in default or foreclosure. One in eight Americans is on food stamps. More than 120,000 families are filing for bankruptcy every month. The economic crisis has wiped more than $5 trillion from pensions and savings, has left family balance sheets upside down, and threatens to put ten million homeowners out on the street.

She points out that the so-called “boom” of the 2000s only produced an increase in median family income of 1.6%, compared with 11% in the 1990s, 10% in the 1980s and a whopping 33% in the 1960s.

Essentially, Warren claims, the Bush years only exacerbated a trend that began in the 1970s: America’s middle class is dissipating because wages have not kept up with the cost of living:

To cope, millions of families put a second parent into the workforce. But higher housing and medical costs combined with new expenses for child care, the costs of a second car to get to work and higher taxes combined to squeeze families even harder . Even with two incomes, they tightened their belts. Families today spend less than they did a generation ago on food, clothing, furniture, appliances, and other flexible purchases — but it hasn’t been enough to save them. Today’s families have spent all their income, have spent all their savings, and have gone into debt to pay for college, to cover serious medical problems, and just to stay afloat a little while longer.

Ms. Warren contrasts this situation with the enormously successful financial industry, which prospered largely on the backs of the middle class:

Consumer banking — selling debt to middle class families — has been a gold mine. Boring banking has given way to creative banking, and the industry has generated tens of billions of dollars annually in fees made possible by deceptive and dangerous terms buried in the fine print of opaque, incomprehensible, and largely unregulated contracts.

Obviously, the “creative” banking thing went awry and the government had to bail out the Wall Street gamblers to save the entire system. But what would normally be a humbling situation for normal folks, only strengthened the resolve of the big-time players to keep the status quo in place, and they now are fighting hard to “preserve the rules” that will allow Wall Street high-rollers to continue fleecing the very people whose tax money saved them from bankruptcy.

Warren has been a strong advocate of consumer rights, and she hopes that the Obama administration’s proposal to reign in some of the more egregious banking practices, through a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, will succeed, although, she says, the big banks “are pulling out all the stops to kill the agency before its born.”

Let’s hope that both parties can at least come together on this one, and protect the interests of what’s left of a beleaguered American middle class.

[Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America]

Ron Richard Is Back, And So Is The Joplin Globe

Ron Richard has made the news again.  And this time it is even in the Joplin Globe–on the front page!

According to an AP story, State Rep. Tim Jones, a Republican and the Orly Taitz of the Missouri House, confirmed that he was contacted by the FBI regarding sales tax legislation he sponsored earlier this year. The Globe version of the story adds:

The legislation at issue would have allowed Joplin and other cities to continue imposing multiple sales taxes for general purposes or capital projects—effectively negating lawsuits that contended the practice, known as tax stacking, violated state law.

Jones said the FBI was “interested in why the bill did not proceed further.”  His response:

“I told them, ‘You probably need to talk to the (House) speaker or the floor leader or both of them and find out what their official positions were on the bill.”

So, Jones thinks that Richard, the House speaker, and Steven Tilley, the House majority leader, could help the FBI figure out what happened to his bill?  Hmmm.

According to St. Louis Public Radio, Speaker Richard doesn’t have a clue why the FBI would ask him about the legislation; after all, he’s just the Speaker of the House:

“No, that does seem kind of strange…I had no idea…I haven’t had any inquiries with anybody, other than just members of our House Caucus on that issue, but I have no idea,” Richard said.

Hmmm.

The AP story explains the history of “the little bill that couldn’t”:

The bill was endorsed in early February by a House committee led by Jones. But House Speaker Ron Richard, R-Joplin, never referred the bill to the Rules Committee, which would have been the next step in the process. Richard said he held up the bill because of opposition from House Majority Leader Steven Tilley, R-Perryville. Tilley said he had done nothing improper.

The Joplin Globe indicated it had tried to contact Tilley, but was unsuccessful. And St. Louis Public Radio tried to interview Tim Jones, but Jones declined their request.  Maybe he was busy giving a deposition in Taitz’ lawsuit challenging Obama’s citizenship, who knows.

But Richard did say, according to the Globe’s version of the AP story, that he never asked Tilley, his colleague and the majority leader in Richard’s House, why Tilley opposed the bill. 

“He said he didn’t like the bill and wouldn’t have it,” was all Richard said he knew.

Let me get this straight.  Mr. Richard held up a bill because Steven Tilley was opposed to it, but Richard never asked him why he was opposed to it?  Hmmm.

Well, I wonder why Tilley might be opposed to the bill. Let’s see.

Isn’t Tom Burcham, the attorney who filed several lawsuits over the sales tax issue, a constituent of Tilley’s? 

Why, yes he is.

And isn’t Burcham the treasurer of the Missouri Leadership Committee, which gave $110,000 to Tilley’s campaign this year?

Why, yes he is.

And hasn’t Tilley raised money for the Missouri Leadership Committee?

Why, yes he has.

All of this sounds amazingly like an earlier Kansas City Star investigative report involving the Humphreys family of Joplin and Republicans in the Missouri House, including Speaker Richard, himself a recipient of $55,000 from the family, after the House passed legislation potentially favorable to the Humphreys’ family business, Tamko.

Richard denied any connection to the Humphreys money and the action in the House.

And, predictably, in this case, the Globe reports that Tilley said it was “respect” for Tom Burcham that motivated him to oppose the legislation and denies that money had any influence on him:

But “the fact that the committee he runs gave me $100,000 has absolutely nothing to do with my position on the issue,” Tilley said.

Of course, it doesn’t Mr. Tilley. That’s why Mr. Burcham gave you the money, so it would have absolutely nothing to do with your position on any issue, right?

This stuff stinks, fellow Missourians, whether you are Republican or Democrat.

Ron Richard’s lack of curiosity about why his underling in leadership, Steve Tilley, was opposed to a bill that made it through a House committee–and that Richard supported–just doesn’t pass the smell test.

It’s hard to believe that a powerful, plugged-in Republican leader like Richard didn’t know that Tilley had a connection to Tom Burcham. Or that Tilley’s opposition to the proposed sales tax legislation, which according to a story months ago, would have “crimped” Burcham’s law practice, had something to do with Burcham’s lawsuits.

That same story, from the Columbia Daily Tribune, also reported this:

As majority leader, Tilley decides which bills come up in the House. Speaker Ron Richard, R-Joplin, supported the Municipal League’s bill, but Richard said Tilley would not bring it up.

“The majority leader wouldn’t let me put it on the calendar,” Richard said. “He said he wasn’t ready to talk about it just yet. I told the Municipal League, ‘We need some help to convince the majority leader there are a lot of cities that are in jeopardy.’ ”

“The majority leader wouldn’t let me put it on the calendar“?  “We need some help to convince the majority leader“? Hmmm. And I thought Ron Richard was in charge.

This issue, coupled with the Humphrey money fiasco, calls into question Richard’s credibility and certainly taints his “straight shooter” image.

And this time, the Joplin Globe should be all over it.

Gay Conservatives Want More Dick Cheney

Among the more perplexing terms, not to say oxymorons, in the world of politics is “gay conservative.”  I know they’re out there because Obama only got about 75% of the gay vote.  But in today’s GOP, just how does that work?

Reports are surfacing that Chris Barron, a former political director of the well-known gay conservative group, Log Cabin Republicans, hasn’t had enough of Dick Cheney.  He has begun the effort to “draft” Dick for the next presidential campaign cycle:

We hope that you will join our effort to convince former Vice President Richard Cheney to run for President of the United States in 2012. No other Republican leader has the stature or experience of Dick Cheney. He alone can lead the Republican coalition to victory in 2012!

And I thought Sarah Palin was a gift from God.

Barron, who says the 2012 race “will be about the heart and soul of the GOP,” is now affiliated with GOProud, yet another gay Republican organization, because apparently the Log Cabin Republicans just weren’t conservative enough for his tastes.

The mission statement for GOProud says the group is “committed to a traditional conservative agenda.”

Hmmm.  Someone needs to tell James Dobson  and Pat Robertson, who prefer the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” approach to conservatism, that gay Republicans are in their tent and consider themselves to be “traditional” conservatives. 

According to the CNN story, Barron says his Draft Cheney group will target Tea Party events. Tea Parties?  Out of respect for common decency, I will refrain from using tea bagger for the rest of this report.

Seriously, just how do conservative homosexuals, whose sexual orientation is sinful and abhorrent to masses of their political bedfellows, cope with such dissonance?  I bet those Values Voter Summits are a real hoot.

Anyway, back to Dick.  Apparently, gay conservatives aren’t the only ones hankering to put D.C. in D.C. in 2012.  CNN reported:

At an event in Houston for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who’s running for Texas governor, Hutchison was joined by Cheney, who endorsed her bid against fellow Republican incumbent Rick Perry. During the rally, Hutchison yelled out to the crowd “Cheney 2012!” and someone in the audience quickly responded “We need you, Dick!”

Indeed, we do.

Nothing To Heid

Konrad Heid, former bank president and the Ebenezer Scrooge of the Globe’s editorial page, shouted a big “Bah, humbug!” Sunday at Elliott Denniston, though, quite disrespectfully, he didn’t mention Denniston’s name:

The Joplin Globe has a contributing voice, a retired university professor; some of my friends suggested I should read what he writes. I quickly saw their concerns.

If this is the rhetoric our young people coming out of college hear in the classroom, it is no wonder they have little understanding of fiscal responsibility for our government or themselves.

Fiscal responsibility?  Did Heid say, “fiscal responsibility?”

I know they get tired of hearing it, but I will continue saying it:  Republicans like Konrad Heid have absolutely—absolutely!—no business lecturing anyone about fiscal responsibility, after what they have done to the country. 

Not one, but two—two!—borrow-and-spend wars, both still ablaze; a mammoth prescription drug program for seniors that wasn’t paid for; a massive tax cut, mostly for the wealthy; and Mr. Heid has the nerve to criticize a “retired university professor” for not having an “understanding of fiscal responsibility“? 

You will search in vain for even a smidgen of criticism coming from The Banker about Republican malfeasance, while it was happening.

Of course, all Republicans have suddenly got that ol’ time fiscal religion down in their blessed souls, now, when they are out of power and a Democrat is in the White House.  Such jailhouse conversions should be soundly rejected by anyone who was paying attention the last eight years, especially in the form expressed by Konrad Heid, as he criticized the nameless writer:

The professor was recently quoting some report that 45,000 people die every year because they don’t have health insurance. Wow, they die because they don’t have insurance? How about because they’re ill?

Nice one, Konrad. I bet you and Barbara had a good laugh over that one.  Laughing all the way to the bank, I suppose.  Or maybe to your beloved Joplin airport, which happens to be subsidized by fiscally irresponsible taxpayers, very few of which can afford to use the damn thing.  Ha. Ha.

There is something in Heid’s ridicule of Professor Denniston’s citation that sounds so much like Scrooge, upon being solicited by a couple of Christian do-gooders at Christmastime:

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir….What shall I put you down for?“

 ”Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

 ”You wish to be anonymous?“

 ”I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned–they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”

 ”Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

 ”If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population…“ 

The similarities in spirit, if not the letter, of Scrooge’s words, is striking, but our local Ebenezer had even more Scrooge-like wisdom for us in his column: 

If we are not willing to face up to fiscal responsibility for our nation, we are on a path to bankruptcy. Too many decisions are being made on emotion and compassion; how about reality for a change?

I didn’t know reality and compassion were mutually exclusive.  Apparently, in the mind of The Banker, they are.  In any case, to whose reality is he referring? His? Mine?  One of the thousands destined to die this year due to a lack of health insurance?

I’m sure a former bank president does have a separate reality from most of the rest of us.  But Heid should remember what happened to his apparent mentor, as he pondered the possible death of the unfortunate Tiny Tim:

“God bless us every one!” said Tiny Tim, the last of all. 

He sat very close to his father’s side upon his little stool. Bob held his withered little hand in his, as if he loved the child, and wished to keep him by his side, and dreaded that he might be taken from him.

 ”Spirit,” said Scrooge, with an interest he had never felt before, “tell me if Tiny Tim will live.” 

“I see a vacant seat,” replied the Ghost, “in the poor chimney-corner, and a crutch without an owner, carefully preserved. If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, the child will die.” 

“No, no,” said Scrooge. “Oh, no, kind Spirit! say he will be spared.”

“If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.“

Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief. 

“Man,” said the Ghost, “if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child. Oh God! to hear the Insect on the leaf pronouncing on the too much life among his hungry brothers in the dust!“

Scrooge bent before the Ghost’s rebuke, and trembling cast his eyes upon the ground.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Magic

Scott Meeker’s well-composed article in Thursday’s Joplin Globe was about a courageous 26-year-old, Curtis Almeter, from Anderson, who is preparing for a double lung transplant to counter the ravages of cystic fibrosis, a genetic disease he shares with his 18-year-old brother, Tim.

The article focused on Mr. Almeter’s ability to maintain his love for photography while struggling with his disease, but I want to focus on this:

Last week, Almeter went active on the transplant list. He and his mother are staying at Barnes Lodge [at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis] and will soon move to a duplex near the hospi­tal. The call informing him that a donor has been found could come at any time. Today, perhaps, or maybe a year from now.

On a TV near where the mother and son sit, U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas is talking about his thoughts on the health care reform bill.

Almeter qualifies for Medicare and Medicaid, which will cover much of the transplant cost.

“We didn’t know that initially,” says Karen Almeter [Curtis' mother]. “It was good news…one less thing to stress over.”

God only knows what this family would do, were it not for those magic words, Medicare and Medicaid, which will cover most of the estimated $600,000 cost of the lung transplant.

Those “magic” words, which, of course, are really just the product of our collective agreement that folks like the Almeters shouldn’t have to choose between treatment and bankruptcy on the one hand and suffering and death on the other.

But these days, in the minds of some, those words, Medicare and Medicaid, stand for bloated, wasteful, “socialist,” government programs, and are used as props for intense criticism of Democratic efforts to reform our health care system.

At least part of those Democratic reform efforts are directed at people who don’t qualify for Medicare and Medicaid—people who fall between the cracks of our system—who have jobs but no or inadequate insurance, and who have to worry about bankruptcy when faced with their own $600,000 bill for medical treatment or who simply have to waive treatment and suffer through until the end.

And, of course, many do suffer through until the end, as studies show.  Thousands of Americans die each year for lack of health insurance, and we need to fix the system that tolerates such outcomes, instead of carrying swastika-emblazoned placards to tea parties and singing the word ”socialist,” as part of the Pale Face Choir.

Since Scott Meeker’s article referenced Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, our Kansas neighbor, who not only opposes the Democratic plan, but who happened to enjoy more than $500,000 in contributions from “medical interests,” in his last campaign, I thought it would be nice to watch Stephen Colbert adeptly skewer the senator, a few months ago: 

 

[Globe Photo: Roger Nomer]