Sunday, 14 February 2010

How You Get Your Daughter Through Murder

The UAH shooting there in Huntsville continues to take strange turns.

This morning....if you catch the right pieces through the various media organizations.....we come to this question that I've had for the past twenty-four hours....how do you get your daughter released from a shooting episode in Braintree, Mass from twenty-four years ago?

If you follow the episode.....Amy Bishop who shot the three professors discussing her tenure at the university.....shot her brother with a shotgun back twenty-four years ago. The cops came....brought her in....and then the word was given for the cops to release Amy back to Mom. No DA involvement. Why?

So this morning....we learn that Amy's Mom was on the Police HR board of this town of 33,000-odd folks. She was a player in promotions and hiring. Every guy on that force....owed his position in life to Amy's mom.

The records of the event? Gone. That is now easily explained. Mom's position helped.

So the Bama cops are standing there. They have to view Amy Bishop as a psychotic nut who has been a threat since her teen years. The people who just looked the other way back in Braintree? Well....there are various players who still exist in a public position. I'm thinking that Bama is going to request that they come down and explain their actions then.

Evidence on the table? There's more than enough at this point to ensure an execution....which Bama still readily approves. The folks up in Mass? They will be furious over this....but to be honest....they kinda let a problem go away very easily. Amy is an absolute threat.

Think of It as Poker, Sorta

We are two weeks away from the President's royal rumble....the meeting between the Democrats and Republicans on health care.

Let me pull the curtain back for a minute and let you view what will be laid out.

The true emphasis of this is that nothing can actually come out of the meeting. The hard core Democrats have a dozen major things which must happen or they won't vote for the heath changes. The Republicans have pretty much set the whole current process into the corner. Nothing from the 2,000-plus page bill can pass. The President now realizes the poker game is basically lost and he's standing with a hand that is lose-lose-lose.

Rather than concede this poker game and say he's lost to the public....which is what most President's would do (and even Rep Pelosi would readily concede at this point)....he's gone to the next level of losing poker. He wants everyone in the room to see his cards and let them comment on how they would have done better in this poker game if they had done "A, B, and C". In fact, he wants them to view the cards in public....on national TV....and offer their opinion of the losing cards.

After enough of these opinions on how lose with the hand of "cards".....the President will stand up and offer this passionate speech (memorized of course) and speak for about three minutes on the rights of people to have health care in America. It will be this five-star moment....the plea of poor mothers, the plea for unemployed folks, the plea for marginal pay folks, etc. It'll be a moment that you'd almost weep over.

In a normal situation....at this point....the Republicans would look like idiots and have to fold up their tent. Their gains over the past 100 days disappear overnight. Their strategy of facing up to the Democrats collapses. And the chances of getting seats in both the Senate and House disappear as night falls across the heartland. At least that should be the final outcome of this meeting.

The thing is.....if the Republicans were thinking for a moment and preparing themselves.....they could probably change this outcome.

I would select only twelve Republicans to attend the meeting....no more than that.

I would have one Republican well versed in tort reform....likely a lawyer at heart.....and let him passionately set the stage for a major change that would likely trim eight percent off the national costs for health care.

I would have one Republican well versed in the idea of letting insurance companies set up policies that go beyond state lines. A national program would likely have a major effect and decrease costs by a minimum of six to eight percent.

I would have one Republican whose only purpose is to argue the idea of higher deductibles for a generalized policy concept. Face it.....if you had a guy who had previous health history which was negative and you offered him a chance to sign up for a policy which involved the first $6000 each year to be on his own cost....and then the policy kicked in....with the same rate as most other folks in America....then he'd be open to the idea.

The other eight Republicans? Just there for looks....that's all.

Then the twelfth man. I agree with Charles Krauthammer. Bring in Rep Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. I would place Paul at the end of the room and let him quietly sit there until the President's passionate speech where the Republicans should fall apart. As quietness fills the room...Paul stands and pulls out a thin book from his jacket pocket....entitled "The Constitution".

At this point, Paul lectures the President on rights. Having a car, is not a right. Speaking up to another individual is a right. Sales of beer is a right. Having cheap car insurance is not a right. Having access to internet is not a right. And finally....Paul will let the President know that he's taken millions of Americans down a path and made them think that they actually have a right to health care. They don't.

The President will stand there and it'll be a moment that he hadn't anticipated. There is no comeback that can settle this debate with Paul. If the President still argues that it's a right.....it becomes this national debate about the Constitution and it's effects. With two supreme court replacement episodes anticipated this year.....this is the wrong time and wrong place to talk about the Constitution and its true character.

As the meeting ends that day.....the media will put the spin on the event.

Here's the thing....nothing really gets achieved to be passable. So the Democrats go to plan "B", which we already know that exists. It's the creation of a mini-bill of sorts which fits for the "51-vote" passage scenario. It'll be a bill without much to brag about other than passing a true-Democrat supported bill. Most health experts will stand there laughing because it's basically beef stew, but without beef, potatoes, salt, and pepper.

It'll be a moment worthy of Saturday Night Live....except there's no laughter by anyone. And the millions who thought that the Democrats had every card in their possession to fix a problem....wake up to realize that the Party is really marginalized and without a vision. This was a poker game with the all the right cards handed to the players on one side....yet they simply couldn't bring themselves to win. And the best they could do....was to show the losing cards in their hand and ask for the opinions of the Republicans on how to play a bad hand of poker.

Unbreakable

From one of my 99 channels I can view....is ION. Since the day that the technician hooked up the package and I started viewing.....I've been on ION four times. The amusing thing....is that the ION folks have one particular movie.....Unbreakable, which is exactly what I viewed on those four times.

ION must run Unbreakable at least twice a week. Don't ask me why or the logic. ION's thrust in the market is to put gusto and boldness back into people. Give them some enthusiasm.

Me? I'm addicted to Unbreakable and probably could watch this Bruce Willis classic daily.

I always wondered why the networks never took the concept of Unbreakable and put a TV show up with the idea. It has all of the ingredients of a five-star show.

What will I be watching next weekend? You can already guess.

The Kindness of Submission

As most of you know....I read the British press a fair amount. Today....an article from the Daily Mail popped up.

Apparently...a couple of British ministers have gotten themselves into a bit of hot water. They came up recently and wrote up some fine sermons which dealt with "modern women's" lack of obedience, which naturally is a major part of the blame for Britain's high divorce rate.

The Vicar involved? Angus MacLeay. He actually came up and spoke to his congregation at St. Nicholas Church in Sevenoaks, Kent. His recommendation? Wives ought to "submit" to their husbands.

A couple of days would pass and the local Curate.....Mr Mark Oden kinda jumped into the discussion and spoke about the issue of divorce and that things would only get better if wives would just submit.

For some crazy reason.....a whole bunch of women had problems with the sermon approach to wive's submission.

One quote left in the Daily Mail: "How can they talk that way in the 21st century?"

Naturally, that quote was spoken by a woman.

I paused over this whole mess. If the Baptists in Bama ever get ahold of a copy of this sermon.....they just might get new and fresh ideas (better than the anti-booze take). You can imagine some minister in Red Bay.....standing up and recommending a wife kinda take directions from Jimmy Joe or Karl Wayne. It'd take about sixty seconds to pass before the wife in question would cut loose and stomp on the minister in question.

Here's the thing though. Up until the early 1900s....there was a line of division amongst marriages. I won't use the word domineering or submission here.....but one side of the marriage kinda accepted things a bit more than what you'd expect in today's society. And the other side of the marriage probably took a slightly more "strong" approach to the relationship.

This arrangement of sorts....has ended. Over the past fifty years....we've accustomed ourselves to a new and bold world.....with bold relationships. The problem now is that you have to teach people the skills of cooperation and 'give-and-take'. These are not people-friendly skills that readily come to most folks....male or female.

The ministers in this case have opened a can of worms. They'd prefer to take the quick and easy approach.....just getting women to give up and become submissive to fix an entire problem. Out of a hundred women hearing the sermon....they probably convinced three women of this being a good idea. The other ninety-seven would prefer something slightly different.

So for the next six months.....a bunch of women are going to chat all day along about this terrible attitude within the church. A bunch of men will sit down at the local pub and laugh over this continued religious chat and the upset feelings amongst women. And a bunch of radio-talk guys are going to have hour after hour of chatter over the concept of submission and hint of what it means in the bedroom. It promises to be a grand year.

I love Britain.

Psychotic Nut

The Huntsville shooting case from yesterday...goes into strange directions over the past twenty-four hours.

We now know that Amy Bishop used a shotgun and shot her brother in the chest...claiming it was an accidental firing. This was back in 1986. Amy and her mom claimed that Amy was asking her brother on the method of removing shells from the shotgun, when she accidentally fired it.

The curious thing about this accidental firing...is that she fired at least three shots by accident. Most folks from Bama would sit there and scratch their head over this idea. You can't accidentally fire a shotgun three times.

After the cops came into the situation...they took her into custoday. Normally, you'd be read your rights and then booked. The strange thing is....the police chief called up the guys there....and told them to release Amy back to her mom. After that point, the episode was labeled an accident.

Naturally....folks from Bama would like to know more about this accidental shooting...but you won't get anything else...because all of the detailed reports in that case....are gonee.

The former police chief at the time? John Polio. John now says that he never told the officers to release Amy....but he kinda shuts up after that point.

So a moment of pondering. Amy Bishop is a psychotic nutcase. She was likely that way as a teenager....at age 19 when she killed her brother intentionally....and throughout the past twenty years before arriving at the UAH room to confront the tenure situation.

The action by John Polio the police chief? The mother likely laid out a scenario and enough enticement of some type...for him to buy off on this accidental firing of a shotgun three times.

Other killings? That's the strange thought. It didn't take much for her to kill her brother and get off the hook. She didn't have to find an awful hard to kill the three professors at this meeting over tenure. I would imagine that if you searched long enough and hard enough...you might find another case or two tied to her.

Just my two cents.