During his term as governor of my usually frustrating state, his main focus seemed to be the passage of a statewide lottery. Ultimately, that referrendum failed because not only was there strong opposition to the idea of any lottery, but there was also opposition among many of those who favored a lottery in general to his proposal. I was one of the people in the latter category, and it all boiled down to one word: Accountability. That law didn't have any, and even if it had, it would have merely put a bandage on a more serious problem: Stabilizing tax revenue and reducing the burden on the poor and middle-class workers in Alabama. Since I've already discussed his successor's also-failed plan to correct that in an earlier post, I won't rant again.
Within the past couple of days, Alabama has passed a new sex-offender law that requires all sex offenders convicted of Class A felonies to wear an ankle bracelet upon release from prison for 10 years to life. Initially, an amendment to the bill was passed to require surgical castration on those convicted of crimes against children under 12. However, upon the advice of Attorney General Troy King, that language was removed out of concerns that it would ultimately be struck down by the United States Supreme Court and endanger the other provisions of the bill. Lawmakers have pledged to revisit the issue later. The place where the comedy ensues is that the aforementioned former Governor Don Siegelman (D-AL) is claiming that the new law, which makes Alabama's laws among the toughest in the nation, isn't strong enough. His stance was that the law should have required a life sentence and castration after the first offense, and capital punishment after the second offense. My questions to former Governor Don are thus: You had four years in office to consider this issue. By that time, there had already been a number of high-profile child murders committed by sex offenders. Why didn't you show the leadership to address the issue then? Also, have you ever even heard of the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically its Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment? And he calls himself a Democrat. lol
Also, the question of castration ignores a couple of simple facts about such crimes. As I've read many experts say, by and large, such crimes are not about sex; they're about power. Also, it's biologically impossible to castrate a woman, and as we've all seen in the news, there is an increasing number of females who commit such crimes against children. The only conclusion I can make is that this is a pathetic attempt by former Governor Siegelman to become relevant in statewide politics again. What he forgets is that he was elected on a platform of "Anyone But Fob (James)," not out of an overriding desire to see him in particular in the Governor's mansion.
4 comments:
Hi Dad (Remember you're Anakin and I'm Luke),
Just wanted to thank you for listing my blog in yours and for making quality time with your favorite future jedi knight. :-)
I realize we won't always see eye to eye on everything, but if there's any way I can help you from being lured by the dark side of the force, let me know. ;-) [Hint: the emperor is currently residing in the White House.]
Anyway, may the force be with you always! :-)))
PS I like your explanation on why you chose your blog's name.
Plus, fractals are cool. :-) I bought a book on them last year. I never finished reading it, but that is great way to approach looking at life.
Bah, for my money, Presidents Nixon and LBJ were far worse for the country than Bush (43), and that was just within the last half century. Don't even get me started on Harding, Grant, or "Stonewall" Jackson. Also, I give dishonorable mention to Carter for his actions and attitude both while in office and since his ouster. It seems that for every good thing he does, he ends up saying something that causes him to taste his own shoe leather. The very fact that Clinton, the only other living Democrat ex-President, wants nothing to do with him is a very strong statement.
I'm in hurry, but I have to comment on this. The reason that the Clintons don't like Carter is because he is a genuine progressive populist.
Clinton set up a good ole boy network on the DNC with Terry McAuliffe, and Carter came in and supported Howard Dean who is a populist, thus threatening the Clinton power base.
Believe me that Carter distances himself from the Clintons every bit as much as the Clintons distance themselves from Carter, and considering how self serving the Clintons have been in recent years, I am inclined to take Carter's side of it.
In terms of his presidency, Carter got shafted from rising oil prices from OPEC and hostage crises. Right now you can see what happens when oil prices go up. YOu get inflation; it's inevitable. Oil is what drives our economy. Until we create viable alternatives, that is just the reality Americans have to deal with. And Carter did the one moral thing he could do in his Presidency to deal with an undersupply of oil--demand efficiency.
I certainly applaud that over the bomb the hell out of whoever has oil and is has had their defenses crumbled from sanctions and weapons inspections solution.
Post a Comment