This is by far the best effort at humanizing Terri Schiavo. It is a profile on the per-son...before her illness. Very well done.
LM
------
Terri Schiavo's Unstudied Life
By Jennifer Frey
She was a girl who laughed easily at her uncle's lame jokes. A girl so innocent that she wrote to John Denver, asking him to come sing at her wedding, who went to Disney World for her honeymoon and believed that a good life meant that one day she'd be able to vacation there every year with her kids.
To view the entire article, go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64459-2005Mar24.html?referrer=emailarticle
Friday, March 25, 2005
God supports delay in Schiavo case?
According to Tom Delay, God was looking down at America -- at what Delay and the Christian conservatives were enduring from liberals, at Delay’s ethics problems, at just the overall direction the country was heading -- and God decided to intervene.
God also knew that down in Florida a woman named Terri Schiavo was at the center of a family feud between her husband and her parents. Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state by doctors who had treated her and as merely disabled by doctors who rented the video.
Terri’s husband, Michael, says that Terri told him that she never wanted to live like that. Terri’s parents say it doesn’t matter. And so they fought -- for years.
God, looking at the family fighting in Florida and Delay’s maladies in Washington, had the perfect answer.
“One thing that God brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America” Delay told a group of Christian conservatives March 18.
What specifically? “Attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against others,” Delay continued.
And so God brought Terri Schiavo to Delay, and the congressman and his colleagues took it from there. They created a new law so that the federal government could intervene. They summoned the president from his beloved ranch in Crawford, Texas, to sign the law in his jammies.
They second guessed the doctors. They questioned Michael Schiavo’s motives. They turned the attention of all three branches of government, at the federal and state levels, on saving Terri.
It all seemed to be working. They had elevated the Schiavo case. Everybody was talking about Terri. Nobody was talking about the nasty ethics charges.
But the conversation still didn’t go Delay’s way. The public supported Terri Schiavo’s brother by 63 to 28 percent. What’s more, 70 percent opposed the federal government’s intervention. Even Republican voters disagreed with their party, by a 58 to 39 percent margin, and evangelicals disagreed by a 50 to 44 percent margin.
It seems Americans felt Delay’s actions were based more on selfishness and than compassion or caring. A CBS News poll found that 13 percent of Americans think Congress intervened out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics.
Perhaps Delay was right. Terri Schiavo “helped elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Just like Delay said. Just like God wanted.
“We shouldn't worry so much about whether God is on our side as about whether we're on His.”
-Ronald Reagan
God also knew that down in Florida a woman named Terri Schiavo was at the center of a family feud between her husband and her parents. Schiavo was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state by doctors who had treated her and as merely disabled by doctors who rented the video.
Terri’s husband, Michael, says that Terri told him that she never wanted to live like that. Terri’s parents say it doesn’t matter. And so they fought -- for years.
God, looking at the family fighting in Florida and Delay’s maladies in Washington, had the perfect answer.
“One thing that God brought to us is Terri Schiavo, to help elevate the visibility of what is going on in America” Delay told a group of Christian conservatives March 18.
What specifically? “Attacks against the conservative movement, against me and against others,” Delay continued.
And so God brought Terri Schiavo to Delay, and the congressman and his colleagues took it from there. They created a new law so that the federal government could intervene. They summoned the president from his beloved ranch in Crawford, Texas, to sign the law in his jammies.
They second guessed the doctors. They questioned Michael Schiavo’s motives. They turned the attention of all three branches of government, at the federal and state levels, on saving Terri.
It all seemed to be working. They had elevated the Schiavo case. Everybody was talking about Terri. Nobody was talking about the nasty ethics charges.
But the conversation still didn’t go Delay’s way. The public supported Terri Schiavo’s brother by 63 to 28 percent. What’s more, 70 percent opposed the federal government’s intervention. Even Republican voters disagreed with their party, by a 58 to 39 percent margin, and evangelicals disagreed by a 50 to 44 percent margin.
It seems Americans felt Delay’s actions were based more on selfishness and than compassion or caring. A CBS News poll found that 13 percent of Americans think Congress intervened out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics.
Perhaps Delay was right. Terri Schiavo “helped elevate the visibility of what is going on in America.” Just like Delay said. Just like God wanted.
“We shouldn't worry so much about whether God is on our side as about whether we're on His.”
-Ronald Reagan
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Who's looking at the man in the mirror?
Someone needs to give Michael Jackson a copy of his “Bad” album and tell him to listen to track #7.
There he’d be reminded of the syrupy yet preachy tune he subjected us to in the 1980s. You may remember, “Man in the Mirror.”
In the song, the self-proclaimed King of Pop croons:
As I watch the spectacle that Michael Jackson has become, I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror. I know what most of us see, but what does he see?
I’ve come to the conclusion that while most people slow down to gawk at a car wreck, some people enjoy being the car wreck. That was Michael: serial plastic surgeries, the chimp, living in the bubble, and of course, the Peter Pan fascination.
He’s enjoyed watching us slow down and gawk. He created this appetite in us to see how far he would go. What will Michael do next? And he has to keep taking it to the next level. For someone like him who grew up in the fish bowl and on stage, the worst thing that could happen is that people stop paying attention. We speed by without slowing down. The car wreck has become part of the landscape.
And as he continues to create absurdity for attention, he doesn’t realize how pathetic he has now become.
There was Michael singing to us about the man in the mirror, but it doesn’t appear that he has done any of the difficult soul searching he urged us to do in his sappy songs.
I guess royalty requires no reflection to acknowledge its own greatness. Besides, all the loyal subjects, the entourage, the trappings, they all reinforce what he intrinsically believes.
Surely somebody in that crew could tell him what he refuses to see. Perhaps the umbrella man could also hold up a small mirror once he is indoors and relieved of his duties. Surely someone could be close enough to him to be able to grab him by his fragile neck and shake him. Perhaps if he had forged a real relationship with an adult there might be a better chance of that happening.
Fine. I’ll do it. Michael! How did you get here?! You KNEW they were coming after you. You KNEW they would try to justify the failure of the old child molestation charges. Why were you holding a young boy’s hand on TV? Why in the world are you sleeping in the same bed with them? STOP! What in the world is motivating you?
The Jessica Lunsford incident has given us an opportunity to peer into the mind of a pedophile. It turns out most of them know they are wrong but just can’t help themselves. Is that Michael?
I've narrowed the oddity of Michael Jackson to one of two conclusions. Either he is innocent and clueless or guilty and helpless. Either he created a car wreck that got out of control, or he got out of control and created a car wreck. Either way, he can’t begin to address it without heeding the message in his own music.
Hey Mike, track #7.
There he’d be reminded of the syrupy yet preachy tune he subjected us to in the 1980s. You may remember, “Man in the Mirror.”
In the song, the self-proclaimed King of Pop croons:
I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change
As I watch the spectacle that Michael Jackson has become, I wonder what he sees when he looks in the mirror. I know what most of us see, but what does he see?
I’ve come to the conclusion that while most people slow down to gawk at a car wreck, some people enjoy being the car wreck. That was Michael: serial plastic surgeries, the chimp, living in the bubble, and of course, the Peter Pan fascination.
He’s enjoyed watching us slow down and gawk. He created this appetite in us to see how far he would go. What will Michael do next? And he has to keep taking it to the next level. For someone like him who grew up in the fish bowl and on stage, the worst thing that could happen is that people stop paying attention. We speed by without slowing down. The car wreck has become part of the landscape.
And as he continues to create absurdity for attention, he doesn’t realize how pathetic he has now become.
There was Michael singing to us about the man in the mirror, but it doesn’t appear that he has done any of the difficult soul searching he urged us to do in his sappy songs.
I guess royalty requires no reflection to acknowledge its own greatness. Besides, all the loyal subjects, the entourage, the trappings, they all reinforce what he intrinsically believes.
Surely somebody in that crew could tell him what he refuses to see. Perhaps the umbrella man could also hold up a small mirror once he is indoors and relieved of his duties. Surely someone could be close enough to him to be able to grab him by his fragile neck and shake him. Perhaps if he had forged a real relationship with an adult there might be a better chance of that happening.
Fine. I’ll do it. Michael! How did you get here?! You KNEW they were coming after you. You KNEW they would try to justify the failure of the old child molestation charges. Why were you holding a young boy’s hand on TV? Why in the world are you sleeping in the same bed with them? STOP! What in the world is motivating you?
The Jessica Lunsford incident has given us an opportunity to peer into the mind of a pedophile. It turns out most of them know they are wrong but just can’t help themselves. Is that Michael?
I've narrowed the oddity of Michael Jackson to one of two conclusions. Either he is innocent and clueless or guilty and helpless. Either he created a car wreck that got out of control, or he got out of control and created a car wreck. Either way, he can’t begin to address it without heeding the message in his own music.
Hey Mike, track #7.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Two Years and Still No Super Bowl
What do the New England Patriots and the War in Iraq have in common with millions of Americans? I'll tell you in a minute. Stick with me.
Last weekend, the president reminded us that the Iraqi war reached its two-year milestone. It's hard to believe that two full years have elapsed since we first saw the orange streaks across the Iraqi night sky and became acquainted with the term "shock and awe."
In two years, the country experienced an emotional journey. We mourned with families of fallen soldiers and shared in the exhilaration of Iraqi voters. We will always remember the images of Sadam's statue falling as well as Americans hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.
The anniversary is not only a good time to reflect on where we've been but to assess what we have achieved. In his radio address March 19, President Bush laid out three accomplishments.
Lodged in those three measurements are legitimate reasons for Bush to be commended but also reasons why widespread acceptance of the war has eluded him.
It's easy to verify the first two points of measurement. Did we disarm a brutal regime? We all saw the statue fall, the leader captured, and the people vote. Check that one off.
What about free its people? "In January, over eight million Iraqis defied the car bombers and assassins to vote in free elections," Bush reported. "This week, Iraq's Transitional National Assembly convened for the first time. These elected leaders broadly represent Iraq's people and include more than 85 women. They will now draft a new constitution for a free and democratic Iraq."
Not many of those facts are in dispute either.
The third point, "defend the world from grave danger," still remains the subject of heated debate. Critics remind us that the weapons of mass destruction never materialized and nothing more concrete than Sadam's "intent" was offered as evidence of grave danger. I think it's fair to conclude that we are far from consensus on that point.
The administration complains that the media and Americans don't give them enough credit for their victories in Iraq. They are probably right. Bush can rightly claim that they have freed 25 million people from oppressive grip of an Iraqi dictatorship. In Iraq, schools and hospitals are open. The economy is improving.
These are all laudable achievements, but I still have one nagging question after reading them.
So what?
I'm happy for the progress, but it has absolutely no impact on my daily quality of life. It's like watching another city's team win the Super Bowl.
I grew up in Louisiana, which pretty much makes me an oddity outside of the state's borders. Why? I'm a Saints fan. There aren't many of us Saints fans out-side of Louisiana unless you count the support groups. Each year, we get all revved up with the promise that this year will be our year. Each year, we have our hopes dashed. Last year, we came to the brink of the playoffs only to see opportunity evaporate during the last minutes of one of the last games of the last week of the regular season.
I watched with interest as the New England Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. I can understand the excitement of New Englanders as they claimed an-other Vince Lombardi trophy (after all, LSU did win a national championship two years ago). But other than that, I didn't care. It wasn't the Saints.
That's how I feel watching Iraqis celebrate voting and new schools. I would much rather see residents of the District of Columbia vote. I would much rather see the schools in my county improve. I'm happy for Iraqis who do enjoy these accomplishments, but I'm not personally invested in them.
What would it take to get personally invested? Tell me what's in it for me -- which brings us back to the third point of measurement. The third accomplishment, "defend the world from danger," is the only one that can make Iraqi successes relevant to everyday Americans. Yet, it is the only accomplishment the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate in a convincing way.
Until they make the case for the third measurement, or prove to me why I should care, they will have a hard time generating my excitement for the first two.
What do the New England Patriots and the Iraqi War have in common with the lives of millions of Americans? Absolutely nothing. And until you convince me that they do, I'll reserve my excitement for the promise of a new Saints season. Good for your New England. Good for you Iraq. Geaux Saints!
Last weekend, the president reminded us that the Iraqi war reached its two-year milestone. It's hard to believe that two full years have elapsed since we first saw the orange streaks across the Iraqi night sky and became acquainted with the term "shock and awe."
In two years, the country experienced an emotional journey. We mourned with families of fallen soldiers and shared in the exhilaration of Iraqi voters. We will always remember the images of Sadam's statue falling as well as Americans hanging from a bridge in Fallujah.
The anniversary is not only a good time to reflect on where we've been but to assess what we have achieved. In his radio address March 19, President Bush laid out three accomplishments.
"On the this day two years ago, we launched Operation Iraqi Freedom to disarm a brutal regime, free its people, and defend the world from grave danger," Bush said.
Lodged in those three measurements are legitimate reasons for Bush to be commended but also reasons why widespread acceptance of the war has eluded him.
It's easy to verify the first two points of measurement. Did we disarm a brutal regime? We all saw the statue fall, the leader captured, and the people vote. Check that one off.
What about free its people? "In January, over eight million Iraqis defied the car bombers and assassins to vote in free elections," Bush reported. "This week, Iraq's Transitional National Assembly convened for the first time. These elected leaders broadly represent Iraq's people and include more than 85 women. They will now draft a new constitution for a free and democratic Iraq."
Not many of those facts are in dispute either.
The third point, "defend the world from grave danger," still remains the subject of heated debate. Critics remind us that the weapons of mass destruction never materialized and nothing more concrete than Sadam's "intent" was offered as evidence of grave danger. I think it's fair to conclude that we are far from consensus on that point.
The administration complains that the media and Americans don't give them enough credit for their victories in Iraq. They are probably right. Bush can rightly claim that they have freed 25 million people from oppressive grip of an Iraqi dictatorship. In Iraq, schools and hospitals are open. The economy is improving.
These are all laudable achievements, but I still have one nagging question after reading them.
So what?
I'm happy for the progress, but it has absolutely no impact on my daily quality of life. It's like watching another city's team win the Super Bowl.
I grew up in Louisiana, which pretty much makes me an oddity outside of the state's borders. Why? I'm a Saints fan. There aren't many of us Saints fans out-side of Louisiana unless you count the support groups. Each year, we get all revved up with the promise that this year will be our year. Each year, we have our hopes dashed. Last year, we came to the brink of the playoffs only to see opportunity evaporate during the last minutes of one of the last games of the last week of the regular season.
I watched with interest as the New England Patriots went on to win the Super Bowl. I can understand the excitement of New Englanders as they claimed an-other Vince Lombardi trophy (after all, LSU did win a national championship two years ago). But other than that, I didn't care. It wasn't the Saints.
That's how I feel watching Iraqis celebrate voting and new schools. I would much rather see residents of the District of Columbia vote. I would much rather see the schools in my county improve. I'm happy for Iraqis who do enjoy these accomplishments, but I'm not personally invested in them.
What would it take to get personally invested? Tell me what's in it for me -- which brings us back to the third point of measurement. The third accomplishment, "defend the world from danger," is the only one that can make Iraqi successes relevant to everyday Americans. Yet, it is the only accomplishment the Bush administration has failed to demonstrate in a convincing way.
Until they make the case for the third measurement, or prove to me why I should care, they will have a hard time generating my excitement for the first two.
What do the New England Patriots and the Iraqi War have in common with the lives of millions of Americans? Absolutely nothing. And until you convince me that they do, I'll reserve my excitement for the promise of a new Saints season. Good for your New England. Good for you Iraq. Geaux Saints!
Friday, March 18, 2005
The Steroid Show strikes out (and other annoying sports puns)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43422-2005Mar17.html
Question: If an athlete testifies about steroids and no cameras capture it, will we have to worry about any more athletes testifying?
It’s a silly question, I know, because there is no way we could have realistically expected TV news cameras to ignore this spectacle. The lure of baseball’s best, elbow-to-elbow, scowling and sobbing, proved irresistible to most Americans, whether they were baseball fans or not. So the cameras lined up, the politicians pontificated, and the players evaded. Reporters fired sports clichés faster and less accurately than a Curt Schilling fastball. The steroid show was in full swing.
Was any of this news? I’m sure there are a million ways to justify coverage, but did we learn anything useful?
Well, just in case you started pondering any of these questions, Congress of-fered up this convenient rationalization: This is for the kids.
That’s right. Mark McGwire and company were hauled in front of The House Government Reform Committee to set an example to kids all over. Listen up kids, if you take steroids, you might break baseball’s most cherished records but you will eventually face a day of embarrassment in front of our nation’s legislators. Scared straight now?
Here’s an idea: if you really want to scare kids off of steroids, make baseball players show us how the drugs really affect them.
According to webmd.com, men who use steroids might develop breasts, have their testicles shrink, experience impotency, become bald, get acne, and de-velop jaundice. Now those are real deterrents not to mention great TV. Let the cameras line up to see Mark McGwire with breasts. So Jose Canseco isn’t bald yet, but there is a long line of other effects that we could explore with parental warning. Are those pimples on your back, Sammy?
But no…. We have to suffer through politicians asking the tough ones: Do you think using steroids is cheating? Are you kidding? You subpoena star sluggers under the guise of serving the public and you inquire, “Is it cheating?”
Why are the networks even covering that? During the political conventions, broadcast networks boycotted much of the proceedings because they bemoaned them as being too boring and too scripted. Can’t we apply the same standard here? Please? For the kids?
I guarantee you if the athletes testify and no cameras show up, Congress will move on to real work.
Question: If an athlete testifies about steroids and no cameras capture it, will we have to worry about any more athletes testifying?
It’s a silly question, I know, because there is no way we could have realistically expected TV news cameras to ignore this spectacle. The lure of baseball’s best, elbow-to-elbow, scowling and sobbing, proved irresistible to most Americans, whether they were baseball fans or not. So the cameras lined up, the politicians pontificated, and the players evaded. Reporters fired sports clichés faster and less accurately than a Curt Schilling fastball. The steroid show was in full swing.
Was any of this news? I’m sure there are a million ways to justify coverage, but did we learn anything useful?
Well, just in case you started pondering any of these questions, Congress of-fered up this convenient rationalization: This is for the kids.
That’s right. Mark McGwire and company were hauled in front of The House Government Reform Committee to set an example to kids all over. Listen up kids, if you take steroids, you might break baseball’s most cherished records but you will eventually face a day of embarrassment in front of our nation’s legislators. Scared straight now?
Here’s an idea: if you really want to scare kids off of steroids, make baseball players show us how the drugs really affect them.
According to webmd.com, men who use steroids might develop breasts, have their testicles shrink, experience impotency, become bald, get acne, and de-velop jaundice. Now those are real deterrents not to mention great TV. Let the cameras line up to see Mark McGwire with breasts. So Jose Canseco isn’t bald yet, but there is a long line of other effects that we could explore with parental warning. Are those pimples on your back, Sammy?
But no…. We have to suffer through politicians asking the tough ones: Do you think using steroids is cheating? Are you kidding? You subpoena star sluggers under the guise of serving the public and you inquire, “Is it cheating?”
Why are the networks even covering that? During the political conventions, broadcast networks boycotted much of the proceedings because they bemoaned them as being too boring and too scripted. Can’t we apply the same standard here? Please? For the kids?
I guarantee you if the athletes testify and no cameras show up, Congress will move on to real work.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Anything a man can do
It was a moment that passed mostly without notice, partly with a bit of cynicism.
In one of the news conferences following the Brian Nichols murder spree, a re-porter asked why a woman was guarding a male prisoner.
The response: because a woman can do anything a man can do.
I must admit I rolled my eyes as I knew that answer had been scripted on official talking points somewhere. Some PC do gooder scribbled the words knowing they would come in handy during the crisis.
Of course women deserve equal opportunities. Of course any person performing the same service is entitled to equal pay and promotions. Of course I expect that if a woman was hired for a job, she should be expected to do it the same as any other person drawing the same salary with the same job description.
But as we heard over and over, here was 5 foot grandmother asked to guard a 6 foot 210 pound ex football player, who happened to be a black belt.
Anything?
The answer revealed itself over the course of the ordeal. First came the news that Nichols was being apprehended. Then we saw the image of Nichols being escorted out of the apartment complex by a woman. It seemed like a quiet, de-fiant moment. But the truth wasn’t revealed in that photo op.
The truth we learned from 26-year-old Ashley Smith.
Smith recalled being held “captive” for hours, in a plain spoken, compelling manner. She told how she was accosted by a nervous, trigger-happy killer and subdued him without ever laying a finger on him.
In appealing to Nichols’ humanity, Smith helped transform the aggressor into a man who realized his mistake, asked for help, and surrendered without inci-dent.
In the end, a woman brought down the same killer who was practically freed by one. She did it with the quiet strength that was probably more effective than trying to physically overpower the suspect.
The chief says a woman can do anything a man can do. He may be right, but could a man have done what Smith did?
Would he?
In one of the news conferences following the Brian Nichols murder spree, a re-porter asked why a woman was guarding a male prisoner.
The response: because a woman can do anything a man can do.
I must admit I rolled my eyes as I knew that answer had been scripted on official talking points somewhere. Some PC do gooder scribbled the words knowing they would come in handy during the crisis.
Of course women deserve equal opportunities. Of course any person performing the same service is entitled to equal pay and promotions. Of course I expect that if a woman was hired for a job, she should be expected to do it the same as any other person drawing the same salary with the same job description.
But as we heard over and over, here was 5 foot grandmother asked to guard a 6 foot 210 pound ex football player, who happened to be a black belt.
Anything?
The answer revealed itself over the course of the ordeal. First came the news that Nichols was being apprehended. Then we saw the image of Nichols being escorted out of the apartment complex by a woman. It seemed like a quiet, de-fiant moment. But the truth wasn’t revealed in that photo op.
The truth we learned from 26-year-old Ashley Smith.
Smith recalled being held “captive” for hours, in a plain spoken, compelling manner. She told how she was accosted by a nervous, trigger-happy killer and subdued him without ever laying a finger on him.
In appealing to Nichols’ humanity, Smith helped transform the aggressor into a man who realized his mistake, asked for help, and surrendered without inci-dent.
In the end, a woman brought down the same killer who was practically freed by one. She did it with the quiet strength that was probably more effective than trying to physically overpower the suspect.
The chief says a woman can do anything a man can do. He may be right, but could a man have done what Smith did?
Would he?
Sunday, March 6, 2005
Punishing pedophiles
What's a suitable punishment for someone who would sneak into a neighbor's house, kidnap a 9-year-old girl, violate her, kill her and bury her in the yard?
On a week when Congress turned its attention to baseball's steroid shenanigans and Terri Schiavo's right to live or die, here is an issue worthy of their outrage.
Police recovered the body of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford around 3:30 this morning using information supplied by John Evander Couey, a former neighbor and registered sex offender. The discovery ended a mystery that captured the nation's attention ever since the young girl was discovered missing from her bedroom on Feb. 24.
It's hard not to share the devastation of Jessica's parents, Mark Lunsford and Angela Bryant. From all accounts, Jessica was a special child. Her father and grandparents say she would always ask permission before leaving the house. Jessica laid the next day's school clothes out before going to bed. She woke herself up with her own alarm clock. She regularly attended church. She was a good kid.
I remember thinking that she sounded almost perfect. Speaking as one who has raised a 9 year old, I would pay good money to get those kinds of results. No person deserves such a horrific fate, but it seems even more tragic when it happens to a child — especially one who exhibits that level of responsibility and maturity at such a young age. With a start like that, Jessica had to be on the road to great things.
But now she has been derailed from that path.
In the hierarchy of crimes, pedophilia ought to occupy a special place. If ever there was an express lane to hell, pedophiles should have reserved seating.
Unfortunately, the plight of Mark Lunsford is not an uncommon one. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that in a one-year period, 797,500 children were reported missing. That is an average of 2,100 children reported missing each day. What's more, 198,300 children were involuntarily missing, lost, or injured over the course of a year. Nonfamily members abducted 58,200 children in the same time period.
Thousands of parents empathize with Mark Lunsford's tragedy tonight.
But what do we do with the convicted predators? John Evander Couey admitted kidnapping and killing Jessica Lunsford. Priests around the country are admitting or are being convicted of preying on young parishioners. And these are the few cases that attract media attention. Thousands of people like Couey are plotting to take someone else's child tonight.
Many people take quiet pleasure in knowing that the prison code will exact a certain level of revenge.
They nodded with satisfaction when a fellow inmate beat serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to death with a lead pipe. You remember Dahmer gained infamy by killing 17 young men between 1978 and 1991. The prevailing wisdom was that the system worked, even if it was unofficial.
We shouldn't have to depend on vigilante prison justice, however. What John Evander Couey did was vile. His punishment should be severe enough to dis-courage any other potential pedophiles from violating another child.
But Congress spent the week meddling in a major league dispute between labor and management and refereeing a family feud that was being adjudicated in the state courts. I don't mean to trivialize those issues, but I'm not convinced they needed Congressional intervention.
Here's an issue that does. I'm not usually a proponent of the death penalty, but I'm willing to break with my longstanding objections for the John Couey's of the world. A conviction of child molestation or pedophilia should bring a response that is quick and severe. In the majority of those convictions, the sentence should be death.
That law should be enacted at the federal level. There should be no escape across a state line for a convicted sex offender. They shouldn't have the opportunity to move across the street from a 9-year-old child, unbeknownst to the parents, and plot. This is a case for zero tolerance. On the first offense, pedophiles go behind bars for life. When it fits, they go behind bars to await death.
Members of Congress, this is an issue to get outraged about. Pass a law. Send a message. Do something useful.
On a week when Congress turned its attention to baseball's steroid shenanigans and Terri Schiavo's right to live or die, here is an issue worthy of their outrage.
Police recovered the body of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford around 3:30 this morning using information supplied by John Evander Couey, a former neighbor and registered sex offender. The discovery ended a mystery that captured the nation's attention ever since the young girl was discovered missing from her bedroom on Feb. 24.
It's hard not to share the devastation of Jessica's parents, Mark Lunsford and Angela Bryant. From all accounts, Jessica was a special child. Her father and grandparents say she would always ask permission before leaving the house. Jessica laid the next day's school clothes out before going to bed. She woke herself up with her own alarm clock. She regularly attended church. She was a good kid.
I remember thinking that she sounded almost perfect. Speaking as one who has raised a 9 year old, I would pay good money to get those kinds of results. No person deserves such a horrific fate, but it seems even more tragic when it happens to a child — especially one who exhibits that level of responsibility and maturity at such a young age. With a start like that, Jessica had to be on the road to great things.
But now she has been derailed from that path.
In the hierarchy of crimes, pedophilia ought to occupy a special place. If ever there was an express lane to hell, pedophiles should have reserved seating.
Unfortunately, the plight of Mark Lunsford is not an uncommon one. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that in a one-year period, 797,500 children were reported missing. That is an average of 2,100 children reported missing each day. What's more, 198,300 children were involuntarily missing, lost, or injured over the course of a year. Nonfamily members abducted 58,200 children in the same time period.
Thousands of parents empathize with Mark Lunsford's tragedy tonight.
But what do we do with the convicted predators? John Evander Couey admitted kidnapping and killing Jessica Lunsford. Priests around the country are admitting or are being convicted of preying on young parishioners. And these are the few cases that attract media attention. Thousands of people like Couey are plotting to take someone else's child tonight.
Many people take quiet pleasure in knowing that the prison code will exact a certain level of revenge.
They nodded with satisfaction when a fellow inmate beat serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to death with a lead pipe. You remember Dahmer gained infamy by killing 17 young men between 1978 and 1991. The prevailing wisdom was that the system worked, even if it was unofficial.
We shouldn't have to depend on vigilante prison justice, however. What John Evander Couey did was vile. His punishment should be severe enough to dis-courage any other potential pedophiles from violating another child.
But Congress spent the week meddling in a major league dispute between labor and management and refereeing a family feud that was being adjudicated in the state courts. I don't mean to trivialize those issues, but I'm not convinced they needed Congressional intervention.
Here's an issue that does. I'm not usually a proponent of the death penalty, but I'm willing to break with my longstanding objections for the John Couey's of the world. A conviction of child molestation or pedophilia should bring a response that is quick and severe. In the majority of those convictions, the sentence should be death.
That law should be enacted at the federal level. There should be no escape across a state line for a convicted sex offender. They shouldn't have the opportunity to move across the street from a 9-year-old child, unbeknownst to the parents, and plot. This is a case for zero tolerance. On the first offense, pedophiles go behind bars for life. When it fits, they go behind bars to await death.
Members of Congress, this is an issue to get outraged about. Pass a law. Send a message. Do something useful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
