Good bye van der Sloot; too bad it is not forever

Now we have time to move on to bigger and better things; the jailing, finally, of Joran van der Sloot. How can it be that it has taken this long to nail that sad and slimy excuse of a human being?

Many like me still hold him responsible for killing Natalee Holloway, and this is at least some part of justice done.  I feel for the Holloway family, because despite Slooty’s statement in his recent murder, “Yes, I want to plead guilty. I wanted from the first moment to confess sincerely. I truly am sorry for this act. I feel very bad,” they are left wondering the fate of their daughter.  He is an evil and repugnant excuse for a man.

The tone alone screams yes, I am sorry, sorry I got caught. There are more people who are involved in that incident, the Kalpoe brothers, and van der Slooty’s dad, who arguably told him how to get away with the murder.  All of them should be jailed, or at least locked up until they tell the truth.

So, caught bloody handed this time, Slooty was sentenced to 28 years for murdering another young girl, Stephany Flores.  In Peru, Slooty faced a panel of judges and was left trying to figure out some way to squirm out of the horrid details of the murder he conducted in 2010.  There wasn’t much wiggle room, and Slooty eventually pled guilty to murdering the 21-year-old.

The surprising murder of a prominent Peruvian business man’s daughter shed a new light on a man who had already staked a claim to being a vicious predator. Perhaps it’s not so surprising to see Slooty back in the crime pages, but it is appalling that this couldn’t have been taken care of in 2005 in Aruba.

If all holds to form, perhaps Slooty has something even more vicious coming his way. I am sure there are those in the Peruvian penal system who would like to have a private word with Joran and perhaps work out some kind of arrangement with those who have a vested interest in the young man’s welfare.

Still, because old Slooty gave a “sincere confession” in Peruvian court there is a chance that he might receive a shorter sentence. Shorter sentence, indeed. This is precisely the kind of rascal that doesn’t need to be associated with the rest of mankind. When Rousseau drew up the Social Contract, it included provisions to protect law abiding people from those who chose to live outside the law. It is the reason we have jails, and one of the reasons things like the guillotine and the death sentence exist. Now, I am not saying that Joran baby deserves a trip up the scaffold, even though I would pay to see it, but a quick run down I-95 to Greenville wouldn’t be a bad idea either.

It’s a sad and unfortunate thing that there are people who live in our free society that have absolutely no concern about anything other than themselves. They have no regard for other people and would just as soon kill them as talk to them; in fact, they might like killing them better. Those very types of people live right here in the Tri-Cities. Yes, Virginia, there are bogeymen. You better believe it.

It wasn’t that long ago when Everett Lee Mueller abducted, raped, and murdered a 10-year old girl right in the middle of Chester. The Chesterfield police, although they suspected Mueller nearly immediately, said there were about 10 other people in the area who they felt were capable of such a deed.  Mueller is long dead; but no one knows where the other 10 might be, except maybe the Chesterfield police.

In the case of Slooty, he probably will walk the streets again.  Too bad he wasn’t tried in the Virginia.

Pres Erickson: Implausible Deniability at Penn State

Call it implausible deniability.  According to a CNN story, while talking to a group of alumni in Philadelphia last week Penn State University President Rodney Erickson tried to distance the school from the child sexual abuse scandal that rocked the campus late last year.

“It grieves me very much when I hear people say 'the Penn State scandal.' This is not Penn State. This is the (Jerry) Sandusky scandal,” Erickson said.

Oh come now, Mr. President, how can that be? While it certainly is Jerry’s comeuppance, there’s no way that PU (sic) can distance itself from the reek of this stench.  Sure, Sandusky was the active part, but there’s enough room for finger pointing to use up both hands.  If there wasn’t any shame, at the very least, to go with this, then why the big shake up at PU? Why, in fact, are you now the president?

I guess it’s just one of those, not on my watch kind of deals. Well, that didn’t happen when I was president; it’s all George Bush’s fault, right?

Well, sorry Erickson, but you’re wrong. You’re very wrong. While Mr. Sandusky is the main culprit, Penn State certainly is smeared by this, and may in fact be held liable. Now that the 1998 sex abuse complaint was found in the Penn State Police Department’s files, it’s gonna be real hard to distance the school from complicity or liability in this case.

For starters, what do you suppose was the driving force behind Joe Paterno telling Jerry he was no longer the golden child that would take over the Penn State football program?  Mmmm, let me think, wasn’t that around 1998? Does it take a rocket scientist to put this little conundrum together? Sandusky’s fall from grace started there, and, IMHO, the coach and everyone at Penn State knew about Mr. Sandusky’s penchant for little boys at that time.

So what did they do? They covered up the report, and allowed Jerry to retire. But his retirement didn’t stop his access to school property, heck they even gave him an office as professor emeritus. Perhaps that was due to his work in trying to help children through his charity, the Second Mile, which was basically a grooming service for a pedophile, specifically for Jerry. God hope he wasn’t grooming young boys for others at the school or elsewhere.

Whether the school knew or should have known about this is interesting.  There certainly is circumstantial evidence that would indicate someone had some kind of knowledge.  Heads rolled faster in this scandal than they did during the French Revolution. Isn’t there a presumption of innocence in the United States, or was that just a bit of over reaction by the Penn State powers? Why such a harsh step so quickly?

Now comes the act of trying to distance the school from the act. No, Penn State is not guilty of molesting young boys, but there certainly is a good argument that they allowed the molestation to continue. Why did they bury the 1998 report?

It will be interesting to see just how much the Second Mile and Penn State were in bed with each other. Some of the preliminary information coming out shows a close relationship between the two groups. Many people serving on the board for the Second Mile are related to high-level Penn State officials.

Let’s face it, we’re not talking about football players serving Rohypnol, Ketamine, or GHB to some unsuspecting under graduates.  This is a retired football coach, a person whose leadership at the school should not be underestimated, taking full advantage of access to kids that the Second Mile provided, and enhancing their experience through Penn State. Whether that enhancement was in going to a football practice, “working out” with a coach, or attending a bowl game. If in fact Penn State was aware of any potential shenanigans being pulled by Sandusky, they had a categorical imperative to put a stop to it. Putting a stop to it isn’t forcing Sandusky to retire. It’s kicking his butt off campus; it’s allowing the 1998 investigation to go through the normal legal process.

Ultimately, we are talking about one man’s exploitation of several kids here.  The kids need to have someone act on their behalf in such instances, and it appears that in almost every instance they were not considered at all. In fact, it appears more likely that the interest of the school in keeping its lily white reputation intact was more important than actually doing the right thing.

Trying to claim that this incident has nothing to do with Penn State is just another abuse of the children Jerry got his hands on.

At this point, owning up to what happened and making a clean sweep of things is the only way that Penn State can hope to put this incident behind them. Besides, Erickson sounds like a clown when he makes that kind of statement, and perhaps people hoping to attend such a fine institution should keep that in mind.

Just what we need, the usual Republican suspects

Sometimes as the election process moves on I am left with the feeling of being all alone. Is my feeling true, am I really the only one who thinks that the Republican Party is failing us again by not coming up with a solid candidate and instead is running through the usual suspects?

I mean, by my book, none of these fellas are the best and brightest, and the only one with an original thought might be Ron Paul. You have to think that Mitt Romney’s two wins, one by the hair on his tongue and the other where it’s almost a bad sign that he didn’t win by more votes, doesn’t exactly ring a clear bell for the next Republican Savior.

Ron Paul finishing second, by a far margin, in my mind is much more interesting than Romney’s success. I don’t think I would vote for Paul, but given the other choices in the coming election it might be that or abstain.

I don’t like the idea of abstaining; a non-vote, I know from experience, is a vote for the other guy. And if the other guy is someone I don’t want even more, maybe electing one of these retreads will be the only way to go. But like retread tires, there’s just so much you can do with them before they become dangerous. You know, no high speed driving and God forbid they get in the fast lane on the Interstate.  

So, thanks for giving us such a good selection. I’ve had better days shopping at Goodwill.

What’s the big breakdown?  Well, it looks like we’ll have to deal with the Romney thing for a while. How things break in South Carolina will add a little insight into that.  Paul is coming on strong, and has had two good outings.

The rest?

Well, while it’s still pretty early, I think some of those people would save themselves a lot of hassle, and a lot of donated cash, if they would quit right now.  According to Edward Morrissey, a senior editor for HotAir.com, a conservative commentary website, Jon Huntsman was the biggest loser of the night. By finishing third, Morrissey says, ‘Huntsman has no realistic path to any wins, let alone challenge for the nomination.’

When you consider that Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum both finished behind Huntsman, it’s hard to figure how either of them have any shot at getting a win in the primaries, too.  In fact, toss in that Gingrich couldn’t even get on the ballot in his home state, and it’s hard to figure how either of them will do anything more than provide support for Ron Paul by bleeding votes away from Romney.

While Morrisey says Huntsman is the biggest loser, it looks more to me like the American public is more the biggest loser. While we would all like a nice shiny candidate riding a white horse to the White House, we are all too aware that Donald Trump isn’t a viable candidate now either.

So what’s a conservative to do?

How can we expect this bunch of yahoos to do any better than the last bunch we had in the big office?

If elected they will likely go back to the well of supporters, and trot out the same old support teams we have had in the past. If that happens, we can expect to see a lot of familiar Washington insider names in the cabinet and other appointed positions throughout the governmental framework.

Remember, these are basically the same people who have been involved with the Washington scene since I can remember, which may not be as far back as you can remember, but my memories of those days are still pretty sharp, and I don’t think I liked the way things went back then.

In some ways, the political scene suffers from the same malaise that the American movie industry suffers from. With nothing new and exciting to offer, no sense of creativity, no willingness to explore new ideas, we are left trying to resurrect the past. We make movies from ancient comic book heroes, and remakes of movies from the distant past (can you say 1960s), and try to make the public believe this is quality. The new movies, by and large, can present a different perspective, and occasionally they pull it off, like the True Grit update two years ago, but more often they fall flat on their collective faces. They use all the modern gizmos and film making hocus pocus, and produce something like The Wild, Wild West.

The search needs to uncover a new view. We need someone who actually has some new ideas and not just a collection of old worn out ideas with new tread.  A used tire is a used tire, whether or not it’s got new clothes. It’s like the closing lines to TS Eliot’s The Hollow Men, “This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper.”

As if they needed it, more perks for the politicos

As if the politicos don’t get enough perks from being in office that we lowly constituents never get a chance at, here’s another instance in which some of the privileged are taking advantage of being in the right position at the right time.  U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, a California republican who happens to chair the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has asked for a House Ethics Committee investigation of four House members he says have received VIP discounted loans from the former Countrywide Financial Corporation.  Countrywide just happens to be the company whose subprime mortgages were largely responsible for the nation's foreclosure crisis, according to congressional investigators, as cited in a CNN story.

Apparently, Countrywide offered VIP treatment to select people who were considered “Friends of Angelo,” specifically Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide’s former CEO.  Two loan recipients have already been cleared of any wrong doing, Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), the former chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, has acknowledged receiving two loans through the VIP program. Towns stated that he was not aware of his inclusion in the program, known as “Friends of Angelo” within Countrywide. And of course that clears him of any ethical issues, although it would be pretty hard to convince me that he was unaware of the terms of the loan and what must have been a too-good-to-be-true rate.  The Senate Ethics Committee investigated two lawmakers - Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and former Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) - who also took part in the Countrywide VIP program. No charges were filed against the two senators, but the Senate Ethics panel said both Conrad and Dodd “should have exercised more vigilance” in their dealings with Countrywide.  What exactly does more vigilance mean? Should they have looked behind the terms of the loans? Did they think that senators, because they are senators, deserved such discounted rates?

This is not new news. Countryside was investigated about this in 1998, at which time they were found to be currying favor with VIPs by offering loans; they also gave loans to 153 people working for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But all of that aside, don’t our lawmakers have enough income and perks without having to take advantage of questionable borrowing?

Let’s see, their annual income is a paltry $174,000 per year; up 17 percent from the minimal 145,100 they took home, I would say earned but that is debatable, 10 years ago.

But wait, there’s more:

Retirement benefits:  they receive either Civil Service Retirement or the newer Federal Employees’ Retirement System, enacted in 1986 for employees hired after Dec 31, 1983.  Under CSRS, a member is eligible for benefits upon retirement from Congress, if they are 62 with five years of congressional service, 60 with 10 years of service, or 50 with 20 years of service.  Under FERS, a member is eligible for benefits upon retirement from Congress if they are 62 with five years’ service, 50 with 20 years’ service, or any age with 25 years’ service.

Personal Staff Allowance: Representatives’ staff allowances can be used to hire up to 18 permanent and four non-permanent aides divided between the members’ Washington and district offices.  Up to $75,000 of staff funds can be transfers to the official expense account for use in other categories, such as computer and related services.  The top salary allowed for House personal staffers in 2005 was $156,848.  A senators’ personal staff allowance varies in accordance with the size of the members’ state. Senators may hire as many aides as they wish within their allowance; typically ranging between 26 and 60, depending on the state and the salaries offered.  The max salary allowed to senate staffers in 2003 was $150,519, and for senate legislative staffers, it was $153,599. Nice salaries for someone he chooses.

In addition, the congressmen also get expense allowances.  For members, these are kept separate from personal staff allowances, and include domestic travel, stationery, newsletters, overseas postage, telephone and telegraph service, and other expenses in Washington and the members state or congressional district.  They also have a thing called the Franking Privilege, which allows them to mail official letters and packages under the members’ signature without charges for postage.  Domestic travel is included in office expenses at a minimum of $9,700 for house representatives as of 2003; and for the Senate is part of the overall population and distance, and includes travel. Foreign travel is also covered, providing they are conducting government business.  Outside employment income is limited to 15 percent of the members’ pay, but cannot be for real estate, insurance sales, law practice, medicinal practice, or service as a corporate officer or board member.

Really, it’s no wonder people want to get elected. How much do they earn?  That’s too much calculus for me to figure, although I’ve never seen a poor senator or congressman.  There seems to be no limit to their income or their ability to anoint friends and relatives with high-paying government jobs. I suppose, if one were to believe in reincarnation, it would be good to come back as a professional politician; but with my luck I would just miss the congressional cut-off and come back as a cockroach instead.

Newt: how to mount a losing campaign

How is it possible that someone running for the highest office in the land would not be able to hit the mark in his own state to get included in the primary ballot?  That is a colossal blunder, and it makes one wonder about what else is going on in Mr. Gingrich’s campaign if they can’t even pass muster on such a simple objective as garnering 10,000 signatures.

The GOP certainly has let the ball drop in this instance.  At a time when we should want every potential campaigner to be included, one of the supposed top two won’t even be on the ballot. The Republican Party of Virginia should be rightly and justifiably embarrassed that this took place.

For his part, Newt has taken the high road and has accepted responsibility for the miscue. Talking to News 4 in Washington two weeks ago, he said, “We're disappointed, but it was our fault [as a campaign].”

That’s big of him to take the hit, but there is much more to worry and speculate about than him trying to get included in a massive write-in campaign.  What you ask? Well, I guess I should just tell you; if the Republican Party can’t get that right, what does that say about their chances at getting the right man to the polls in November?

How about slim, none, nil.  What is going on with these people? It would seem a simple enough matter to get someone on the ballot. After all, I am sure there are more than 10,000 registered Republicans who would be more than willing to sign on the dotted line to allow Newt to get on the ballot.

With all the social engineering going on today, it doesn’t take but a few minutes to contact thousands of people. Getting them to sign a simple form would seem like child’s play. And children playing it must be, because somehow, someway, they missed the boat on this one.

That’s not to say that Mr. G would be my choice for a presidential candidate. I worry about having the same tired horses out in the race that failed the time before. Can we really expect such tread-worn creatures to rise to the fore and take down the dreaded Obama crusade? Puhlease!

The entire Democratic Party must be chuckling at this latest maneuver. Talk about The Gang who Couldn’t Shoot Straight, this action reeks of poor planning, horrible execution, and gross incompetence.  If you want to run for President you ought to have had the necessary signatures before you even set foot on the campaign trail in Virginia.

But Newt wasn’t alone in missing the 5 p.m. deadline; Texas Gov. Rick Perry also failed to meet the requirement.  But wait, there’s more, also missing the deadline are these also rans: Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman.

What does that mean? That means only two GOP candidates will be listed on the Virginia primary ballot: former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Representative Ron Paul.

Now you tell me how those two managed to get it done, and the other five, and most specifically, Newt, a Virginia resident, couldn’t figure out how to get on the ballot.  Upon further review, as important as this may or may not be, it points up a practical future concern. It doesn’t really matter how important it might be to be on the primary. Maybe it is important in the national scope and maybe not.  But if I were running for President, I would want to be included on all the primary ballots, even those where I hadn’t a chance to win.  To miss this only begs the question about what else might be missed in the future.  What if it came to signing a bill concerning nuclear proliferation, or a balanced budget amendment (please don’t snicker), or perhaps introducing a bill recommending salary cuts across the board for politicians (snicker now)?  Could we be sure that Newt, or any of the other four unfortunates, would be able to sign the bill in time?  Would they be able to generate enough enthusiasm to get the bill passed? Or would they just leave it up to a write-in campaign to make such a decision?

Tell you what, I have an even better idea. Why not come up with a referendum limiting time in office for all these politicians. At some point it would be nice if we could simply drive out these lame individuals and host a new crop of legislators who are more for the country and less for their own pockets. Yeah, I know, it’s a pipe dream. There’s no way they would vote in favor of it; it probably wouldn’t even get on the ballot.

Bloggers against drunk drivers

Recently my family got news about a friend of ours whose sister was killed in a drunken driving accident. She was a passenger in a car driven by another teen, who, the reports say, may have been drinking. He lost control of the car and our friend’s sister died in the crash. The driver survived, as often seems to be the case in these events.

Now, in addition to the horror he has to live with for being responsible for the death of a friend, he also has legal troubles including negligent homicide, which generally carries a 10-year sentence.  It’s a sad thing because the driver had no intention to cause such a problem, and in all likelihood thought he was doing “a good thing” by providing transportation.  But it just shows how a simple thing can turn so disastrous in a second.

As a parent my biggest fear is having to answer the doorbell in the early morning hours to face a Virginia State Trooper whose sole presence at my house is to inform me of a tragedy with either of my kids. That’s usually how it happens. A three-in-the-morning doorbell chime and the man in uniform reporting the kind of news that he doesn’t like to give anymore than you might like to get it.

It’s unimaginable how people can handle such news. For me, it would be numbing. I know I would be able to function, but a little of the luster would be gone, a little of the panache would disappear. It’s one of the two biggies I have when it comes to driving: no drinking and wear your seat belts.

When my boys were learning how to drive, I made a point of cutting out every serious accident report I could find.  Time and again, and especially in the fatal wrecks, either alcohol, failure to wear seatbelts or both were determining factors in the death.

Legal ramifications notwithstanding, just the horror of having been in such an accident can be harrowing. It happened to me when I was 16. A friend and I were hitchhiking home from town and another person we knew stopped to pick us up. We could tell he had been drinking, but it was a ride and we still had miles to go.

He was driving a maroon ’63 Chevy Impala. When we got to my friend’s house, about half way to my house, my buddy said, ‘I made it this far, I might as well see if we can make it the rest of the way.’ Never were more fateful words ever spoken.

We managed to do pretty well the rest of the way despite some perilous turns.  But then we got to the street where I lived.  Making a right hand turn at 60 miles per hour doesn’t usually work, and the physics of this one turned out as one might expect. What really saved all of us was that the car narrowly passed between two trees on our trip out into the field.  Both sides of the car were pushed in, and the force caused the hood to pop up. A couple bounces later and the hood went back down, but that just let us see the huge maple tree that was about to cause us to stop.  Had we met the Maple tree first, I probably wouldn’t be here to write this, but by the time we hit the tree we had slowed considerably.

It was no surprise that the car was totaled. It was a huge surprise that none of the three of us were seriously hurt. Sometimes, I think, the good Lord looks out for people.

Since then, as a result of having worked as a reporter, I know that typically incidents like the one I survived often end up much more tragically.  I remember scores of car wrecks that I had to report on over the years. There is a process that you go through when you take such reports, and after you listen to whatever the authorities have to say, there are the two big questions: 1. Were the occupants wearing seat belts; 2. Was alcohol involved?

There were three big accidents during the time my older son, Geordie, was getting his license. In each one, someone was either drunk or the victim wasn’t wearing a seat belt. My intent wasn’t to scare them, but to make them aware of the danger and how quickly a good time can turn into the worst event of your life, or the end of your life.

I know they think I was being overly protective, but then things like this happen and someone they know becomes a victim. In my mind, it’s worth repeating everyday:  if you drink don’t drive and if you drive, wear a seat belt.