Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
Dale: to your three questions:
First: I think prisoners repaying society through work is far more valuable to society than allowing them access to weight rooms to increase their strength and fighting ability. OK, some read books and even get degrees, but that's by far the minority. We need garbage collected, we need infrastructure rebuilt, we need crops picked, and many more jobs done which are less than palatable. It would save money to get prisoners to do them for 25 cents an hour rather than workers at minimum wage, and they'd get them done faster too, because prisoners would work seven days a week and far more than eight hours a day.
Second: Who's denying the need for testing on humans? On the contrary, I'm saying prisoners are the very humans we should test on! Occasionally they do get cancer, diabetes, AIDS, etc., etc., so why not test drugs on them? Animal testing takes at least ten years, and it doesn't translate well to human testing. Imagine if we had working drugs on the market ten years sooner? Now that's what I call value to society!
Third: I suggest the line be: felons. Not just violent felons like murderers, rapists, arsonists, child-abusers, etc., but also fraudsters in finance, insurance, taxes, real estate, etc. (you know, like Bernie Madoff); spies and double-agents (Robert Hansen) -- whatever the legal definition of "felon" is. We need blood, organs, tissues, etc., to save lives -- how better to repay society?
Fourth: I'm saying that the convicted felon (see above) has lost ALL individual rights except life. S/he no longer has the right to decide where all personal or business assets go. S/he lost that right upon conviction. S/he is now a slave to society, and the will should be treated as that of a missing person with no heirs other than the victims. Hell, s/he shouldn't even vote! But to be fair, all of these would be re-instated after completion of the sentence.
I disagree -- Holmes should be enslaved, forced to work at awful jobs all day every day, give blood and organs, and submit to tests of new drugs, surgeries -- and even tortures. He's young -- make him repay society by suffering as such a slave for decades to come!10 months ago
Hey Slabside: here's another one: Clinton never criticized Gingrich's adultery -- or Burton's, or Giuliani's, or even Spitzer's, Edwards's. They're all adulterers, but only the Republicans are hypoicrites. And their hypocrisy was brought out on Congress -- in public -- and cost us years and millions of OUR money to end up with ZERO convictions. Big, BIG difference! That's why Republicans should never hold public office, at any level, of any kind, period.Dec 15, 2011
Slabside: "Personal malfeasance" is all the witch-hunting GOP could get on Clinton, so they're the main reason for just about all the items on your list. Clinton wouldn't have had to spend ANY money on lawyers or plea-bargain anything if the GOP would simply have minded their own business (MonicaGate was a private family matter) rather than hold up the country's business for all those years. Heck, it was probably their preoccupation with it that prevented them from fighting all the good things Clinton did for this country! You know, like turning Bush Sr.'s deficits into surpluses, only to be turned into deficits by Bush Jr.?
But no, the GOP got the Rutherford Institute, a VERY conservative "think tank" ("Conservative thinking" is, after all, an oxymoron) to fund the "impartial" Ken Starr, who spent years of time and millions of OUR money on MonicaGate, and also FileGate, WhitewaterGate, TravelGate, CastleGrandeGate and all the rest. And the GOP were led by not only Gingrich, who had his mistress's fetus aborted, but also Dan Burton, who had the decency to let HIS mistress bear their love child -- both affairs DURING that time. That's HYPOCRISY, SlabSide, and it typifies the GOP. It's a requirement to join, along with sexism, racism, elitism, stupidity and xenophobia!
And Slabside: how many convictions did Ken Starr get? ZERO. That's right: ZERO convictions. Well, actually there was one: Charles Bakaly, Starr's right-hand man, for leaking information to the press!
One last question, Slabside: who gave the English language the "-Gate" suffix? Why it was REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon, known anti-semite, racist and homophobe, the "imperial President" who told David Frost he was above the law, and one of only two Presidents whose highest administration officials have been CONVICTED of FELONIES and SERVED HARD TIME. The other, I'm sure you know but will never admit it, is REPUBLICAN Ronald Reagan.
See the difference? Convictions: Republicans=yes; Democrats=no. Clear??Nov 28, 2011
How to get a semi-auto pistol and 75 rounds at age 22??
To Senators Kyl and McCain, and Representatives Flake, Franks, Gosar, Grijalva, Pastor, Quayle and Schweikert:
1. Please get together with Wayne Lapierre, Ted Nugent and all you other sick Republican gun-nuts and go explain to Representative Giffords's family and the families of all the others shot the other day why they don't like gun control?
2. Please explain how any 22-year-old, even if it's your son, can get his hands on a semi-automatic pistol and 75 bullets?
3. Please ditch your stupid Wild-West mentality and vote common sense for once!
Charlton "From My Cold Dead Hands" Heston has been exactly that for a few years, yet no one wants to take him at his word. Long overdue is serious effort to curb the spread of guns into the warm, live hands of not only such nuts as shot up Columbine, Virginia Tech and countless post offices, but also Dick Cheney.
Guns nuts always recite "Second Amendment!" but they extract only five words, "the right to bear arms", out of context. It's short enough even for them to memorize wholly: "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." Clearly they dislike that "well-regulated" part: I maintain that neither two Columbine students, nor one Va. Tech student, nor a post-office worker constitutes a militia, let alone regulated. OK, the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, Westies and Yakuza are militias, but regulated? The Amendment's context is a country's army defending the country – against armed enemies, hence the law's recognizing self-defense against a life threat. I consider this a gun's sole legitimate use.
Gun nuts always chant "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Two brain cells say both premise and conclusion are wrong: guns should be regulated, not outlawed, and even if outlawed, the authorities too would have guns, like the police and soldiers gun nuts so ardently support. Even they should understand: another Wild West is repeating failed history. Yet they can't wait seven days, they can't do with one gun a month, and they refuse background checks while calling themselves law-abiding – what's to hide? Their "convenience" argument is, quite simply, completely insane regarding instruments of death. They remind us that cars, purchased for convenience, kill too, but I remind them that getting a car involves a certain age, a written test, driving school, a road test, and regular renewal – imagine if that were true of guns! Actually, among well-regulated militias, it is: soldiers and officers continually train, practice and pass tests. Every gun owner should do the same: the right to bear arms necessitates the responsibility – unlike cars, guns kill by design.
We have technology that traces every gun and bullet and senses a gun's proximity to its owner's property. Robert Kennedy might say: too many gun tragedies – why? This technology isn't used – why not? Most gun nuts are also pro-life, right? Jesus would like the Bible in one hand, but not the gun in the other. That these insane, selfish, illogical, hypocritical, anarchy-favoring, Republican-voting, conservative-thinking nuts both own and use instruments of death – frequently and legally! – should scare us all.
Jan 10, 2011