Sorry if I'm a bit behind-the-news-cycle on this one. I'm still catching up after my flu-related hiatus.
So yes, I'm addressing the anti-Islamic backlash in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings -- most notably Pat Robertson's characteristically rabid take on it.
I get really irritated with these demagogues who try to present themselves as eminently reasonable. "Look, I'm not prejudiced. I'm just pointing out the simple fact that Muslims are evil, violent people. That's all."
As if there's really some rational framework for expressing the premise that every single one of the approximately 1.5 billion global adherents to a religion is a violent psychopath who wants to kill you. And yes, Robertson, Islam is a religion. Get it through your skull.
]]> I feel very passionate on this issue, because it brings back memories of the days immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks. There was a lot of talk back then about how a tragedy of that magnitude would bring out the best in us as a country.I really wanted that to be true. To some extent, it was. But I also witnessed some behavior that didn't exactly make my heart swell with patriotic pride.
I was living in Philadelphia at the time, and taking jiujitsu lessons from an instructor who worked as a bouncer at several local clubs. In the months immediately after the attacks, he had to break up a lot of fights that broke out when guys would gang up on anyone they suspected of being a Muslim.
Frequently, they were wrong, my instructor said. The targets would be club regulars he knew -- guys who were Indian or even Latino. Such distinctions apparently didn't matter to the assailants.
The guy's got dark skin? He speaks with a foreign accent? Hey, that's all I need to know! He's the enemy! Let's kick his ass!
You can try all you want to put a veneer of rationality on that outlook. It won't stick.
]]>Anyway ... the Obama administration as alien invaders? Shhhhh! Don't give the birthers any ideas!
]]>Once I started feeling better, one of the first things I did was go online to make sure that the latest round of Bonusgate allegations wasn't some bizarre fever dream I had while I was laid up.
Those allegations against former House majority leader John Perzel are pretty huge. When I first read them, I found myself thinking of that Dennis Miller joke about Bill Gates -- that he's "a monocle and a Persian cat away from being the villain in a James Bond movie."
]]> Perzel, predictably, is saying that state Attorney General Tom Corbett is just picking a fight for political reasons. That's the same claim made by former Democratic minority whip Mike Veon, who was the biggest target in the last round of Bonusgate allegations.Veon said that Corbett was just picking on Democrats. Now Perzel says that Corbett went after him only to prove that he isn't just picking on Democrats.
And both Veon and Perzel claim that Corbett's ultimate goal, of course, is to make a name for himself in preparation for next year's campaign for governor.
You know what? There's probably something to that.
I remember similar behavior from U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. This was back in 2003, when Casey was state auditor general, and getting ready to run for state treasurer.
As the election got closer, it seemed like every week, Casey's office was putting out a press release about this audit or that audit. How he discovered appalling waste of taxpayer funds and resources, and how this would not stand!
So yeah, maybe Corbett is engaging in a bit of grandstanding for political purposes. WHO THE HELL CARES?
This isn't some piddling little alleged infraction that Corbett is making a big deal out of. This is Perzel allegedly using $10 million in taxpayer money for the sole purpose of getting his people elected.
Forget for a second that the $10 million could have gone for child care, or elder care, or even -- here's a radical concept -- stayed in our pockets. The idea of elected officials getting into office and then using public resources to keep themselves there is very frightening. It subverts the very concept of government being ultimately accountable to the people.
So I don't care what Corbett's motivations are. I just want to know one thing -- are the charges true?
I'm not going to write a lot right now on the latest "bonusgate" charges from Attorney General Tom Corbett. I've just worked 12 straight hours, and I'll likely come in on my day off tomorrow to write a follow-up story.
Yeah, I know -- you don't read this blog to hear me whine.
But frankly, I'm still trying to absorb the whole thing. Believe me, this will give me plenty of blog-fodder in the weeks ahead.
I'll give you a link to Corbett's Website. This press release is actually a three-parter. When you read to the bottom, click on part 2 for the next chapter. It's actually pretty compelling reading, in a scary kind of way.
Very briefly: Former Speaker of the House John Perzel and a small cabal of supporters allegedly used more than $10 million in taxpayer money to set up a bunch of sophisticated computer systems designed to track voters and get Republicans elected.
If true, it means that Vince Fumo wasn't the only dangerous megalomaniac in the state legislature.
Here's the link.
This week, I thought I'd do something different. "Oh Danny Boy," was a favorite song of my Grandpa's, a veteran himself. From what I understand, it's subject to different interpretations. Some intepret it as a song about the Irish diaspora. Some as a farewell from a dying loved one.
The way it was always explained to me when I was a kid was that it's a farewell to a young man going off to war. That always made the most sense to me, in light of the lyrics "come ye back."
Isn't that what we wish for all servicemen and women? Come back safe. Come back whole. Just come back.
(The Pogues, incidentally, are one of my all-time favorite bands.)
Just to make sure, I checked in with state Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-West Manchester. He confirmed that, yes, it's the same legislation he tried to get passed earlier this year.
In April, DePasquale tried to introduce the ban as an amendment to a bill designed to improve teen safety on the road. The House narrowly defeated it, then passed a bill that would impose an additional $50 fine on those caught driving carelessly if they were also using a hand-held device.
So why the initial rejection? Is there really anybody out there who thinks texting while driving is a GOOD thing? As I mentioned to DePasquale during a phone conversation earlier today, it seems like the kind of thing that would be about as controversial as, say, a ban on smacking toddlers with socks full of steel ball bearings.
DePasquale has a theory about that, which he first voiced back in April.
At the time, Shapiro was talking about running for the U.S. Senate as a Democrat next year. DePasquale believes some Republicans voted against the amendment because they didn't want to give Shapiro a political victory that he could use to his advantage in the Senate race.
Since then, the current occupant of that Senate seat -- Arlen Specter -- has changed his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat. Congressman Joe Sestak is challenging Specter in next year's Democratic primary, but Shapiro has long since dropped out of the race.
DePasquale hopes the Transportation Committee approval means his colleagues in the House will now realize the down side of driving while simultaneously trying to type on a minuscule keyboard. Like ... you know ... possibly killing yourself and anybody else on the road with you.
Here's the story ...
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- A bill to bar text messaging while driving in Pennsylvania is headed to the House floor.
The bill won a unanimous vote of support Tuesday from the House Transportation Committee.
The legislation would ban texting by all drivers and prohibit drivers under 18 from using hand-held cell phones when they're behind the wheel.
The bill would make violations a primary offense, meaning police could stop drivers if officers witness them breaking the law. The penalty would be a $50 fine, or $100 if the violation occurs in a school or work zone.
However, insurers could not increase premiums of drivers for violating the law.
The sponsor, Rep. Joe Markosek, D-Allegheny, said he hopes floor action will be taken before the end of the year.
]]>You can read about it here.
He's one of 17 or so applicants for the job, called "comptroller general." The other day, I was talking to my Dad (Hi Dad!) about it. My Dad speculated that since the president ultimately makes the appointment, Platts would be a long shot because Obama might want to save the appointment for a Democrat.
Granted, I'm no expert on the process. But I think Platts might have a good shot.
]]> I wish I could say that I broke this story, but it was actually a publication called "The Hill," which is published primarily for members of Congress and their staffers. "The Hill" writer Susan Crabtree (whom I contacted and who seems really cool) cited a "congressional source" for the news of Platts' application.I subsequently contacted Platts, who confirmed it.
Anyway, Ms. Crabtree writes that it's very rare for a sitting member of Congress to apply for the post. I don't have her sources in Congress, and a spokeswoman for the Congressman who's in charge of the commission that picks the comptroller general declined to name any of the other applicants for me.
All that is just a really long, roundabout way of saying that I don't know who the other applicants are, but it's a safe bet that none of them is another member of Congress. So it's not like Obama would be choosing between Platts and a Democratic counterpart for the post.
And giving Platts the job might be a good gesture on Obama's part in the name of bipartisanship. I doubt it would carry any liability for the administration.
One reason for that is Platts himself. He certainly has his share of detractors around here. But not even his critics can credibly attack him for being crooked or financially irresponsible. Take it from a guy who goes through Platts' federal campaign filings every time he runs for re-election.
Another reason is the nature of the comptroller's job. If I understand it correctly, he'd be a kind of auditor charged with making sure federal money is spent efficiently and goes where it's supposed to go. It's not a job that would afford him the opportunity to block administration policy, even if he were so inclined.
And Platts has always done a pretty good job of making friends on both sides of the aisle. He recently submitted a letter to the commission that appoints the comptroller with more than 100 signatures from members of Congress supporting his bid. More than 30 of them were from Democrats.
Platts is pretty soft-spoken in person, so this might surprise anyone who's ever met him. But he's got a reputation as something of a maverick in Congress. In the past, he's been willing to buck his party's leadership on certain issues.
I've heard that when Tom DeLay was Republican majority leader, he wouldnt even talk to Platts when they'd pass in the hallways.
Like Patts himself, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
]]>
Here's the story:
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_13707394?source=most_viewed
Basically, two county parks have become hot spots for gay men making surreptitious hook-ups. County rangers have busted 81 of them in recent months, but it continues unabated.
]]> (As a side note: I received an e-mail today questioning my use of the term "gay men," which the writer found redundant. "Gay" inherently refers to men. Would I use the term "lesbian women?"The answer is: Yes, I would and do. The reason is because I once had a conversation with a lesbian activist who told me that "gay men" and "lesbian women" are the terms they prefer. She said they consider terms such as "gays," "lesbians" and "homosexuals" to be reductive, as though you're defining people solely by their sexual orientation.)
So the county commissioners were talking about it at a press conference with myself, another newspaper reporter and three television stations in attendance. That type of press conference is my least favorite setting in which to conduct an interview. When you're all competing to shout out questions, you don't get much opportunity for nuance or subtlety in either the question or the answer.
After a while, it seemed like we were all trying to ask the same question -- a question which, in different circumstances, I would have phrased something like this:
Is this a problem just because gay men are doing it? Say word got around that parks are great places to pick up women. So I went out to the park, saw an unaccompanied female, and asked her if she'd like to go and get a drink with me. Would I get arrested?
The problem, it turns out, isn't that the men are meeting in the parks. The problem is that they're having sex there too, and apparently doing it in significant numbers.
Fair enough. If I was a parent, I wouldn't be pleased if I brought my kids there and we ran across a couple -- gay, lesbian, or straight -- having sex in public.
If I was by myself, however, I probably would be amused. Just saying.
He hadn't.
Kim Bracey, the Democratic candidate, is virtually assured of a win. Independent Steven Young is running as a write-in, which is always a long shot under the best of circumstances. And Republican Wendell Banks, frankly, isn't a viable candidate. His big campaign platform is bringing an NFL team to York. And he's been making himself scarce in recent months, when a serious candidate would have been campaigning hard.
]]> The big race really happened in May, when Bracey bested Genevieve Ray -- a serious challenge -- in the primary.That's frequently the case in places such as York, where one party holds a commanding registration lead. In York's case, it's the Democrats. And it's equally true in the largely Republican districts outside the city. The real race happens in the primary.
Think about the difficulty of finding candidates to run in districts where their party is a distinct minority. A full-fledged campaign is basically a full-time job for which you get paid nothing. It's not just a matter of persuading people to vote for you, either. Getting the petition signatures necessary to appear on the ballot in the first place can be a Herculean job.
So what do you get in return for all that effort? In all likelihood, you get your butt handed to you on election night.
My colleague on the sports desk said it's a shame that it works that way. I agree.
Interestingly enough, Ms. Bracey said something similar to me earlier tonight. I stopped by the polling place at the YMCA in downtown York, where she was hanging around to talk to voters.
She said she wished that Mr. Banks had run a more vigorous campaign, simply because it would have given her more of an opportunity to talk to Yorkers about her plans for the city.
]]>Well, there's one more incentive to vote every time: the knowledge that someone will be aware of it if I don't. That's OK. I always vote anyway. I actually get a kick out of it -- the feeling that I'm part of this big, important procedure.
And I take a certain pride in showing up during off-year elections. From interviewing people at the polls, I get the feeling I'm not the only one who feels that way.
It's the pride of a baseball fan who sticks with a team even through the losing seasons, or a music fan who was into a band before they got popular.
Voting for president? Hey, anyone can do that! We show up to vote for judges and school board members! We're hardcore, baby!
But I have to mention something that genuinely angers me about Halloween these days. It's the prevalence of "pimp and ho" costumes. As in pimp and whore, filtered through tongue-in-cheek ebonics.
It's a popular choice for couples. She dresses like a prostitute and he dresses like her pimp. Isn't that adorable?
From what I understand, "pimp and ho parties" are really popular as theme parties at fraternities these days.
]]> Look, I have a sense of humor. More specifically, I have that species of gallows humor common in newsrooms, hospital emergency rooms, police stations and any other setting where people must maintain a sense of professional detachment while dealing with some of life's more ugly and tragic episodes.The more ugly and tragic, the better it works as the subject of a joke. Call me sick, but it's a coping mechanism.
Even so, I have no patience for pimp and ho costumes, not to mention theme parties.
Despite progress in recent decades, despite the Obama presidency, black people on the whole are still poorer than white people in America. Thus, they shoulder a larger portion of the social burden that accompanies the sex trade.
That social burden includes ruined lives, drug addiction, venereal disease and horrifying violence directed primarily at women and children.
Yet none of that stops a bunch of well-off white college kids from parading around in their pimp and ho costumes as though it's something funny and cute. That's disgusting.