A NATION OF COWARDS

It's really too bad black community leaders in Virginia and elsewhere, as well as the national media were so quick to leap to the stage to condemn as insensitive a state official's comment that black people need to "get over" the commonwealth's history of slavery. Oh, we can certainly understand that there are many reasons they would issue comdemnations, including that fact that it is morally reprehensible to enslave people. But on the less-than-altruistic side of the ledger, other reasons in doing so include the fact that it keeps community leaders in the public eye... it gets them air time and column inches, and their modeling of righteous indignation cues their followers into how they should behave.
The comments by the Virginia legislator reportedly came in response to a demand, by some person or group, that Lawmakers in that state issue an apology for the state's involvement of the institution of slavery. Now, putting aside the fact that no one in the curent legislature was even yet born, let alone supported the policy, when slavery was legal, shouldn't we ask if such a demand is even worthwhile? What would it accomplish? I mean, if a man breaks into your home, robs and shoots you, leaving you confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your life, will an apology make up for the suffering you and your family endured?
And by the same token, what good are those who hold themselves out as leaders, but fail to assume a leadership role resolving deeply rooted social problems? ... Instead of climbing onto the stump to chastise someone who says something we find (rightly or wrongly) offensive, why didn't those so-called leaders avail themselve of the perfect opportunity to open a national dialogue aimed at resolving what is perhaps the most deeply rooted and contentious issue in American society? The fact that they didn't, marks them as cowardly and unfit for leadership, as all they have done is expressed pain and anger while failing to exorcise the source.... It won't be easy or painless, but real leaders help fix problems and don't use them to further entrench their social status.

MAYBE THEY'RE JUST RUBBING OUR NOSES IN IT

Despite its continuuing refusal to justify letting an elected official take a walk away from a DUI charge, a visit to the Ocean City Police website brings visitors to the top headline, which reads (in red letters)"Report Drunk Drivers...Dial 911."
Now, why in the name of GAWD would anyone even bother to do that, especially since Chief DiPino says it's really up to the responding officer to decide if he wants to do anything about it, and she doesn't second-guess them.

SECRET MEETING OF DELAWARE'S HOUSE ETHICS COMMISSION

Delaware State Rep. John C. Atkins will meet may meet with justice today when he appears before the House Ethic Committee to explain his behavior last October, when we was given a pass by Ocean City Police for drunken driving, and was later arrested for domestic violence. You'll note the emphasis on the word "may," because that meeting is not open to the public. That policy is more than just a little troubling, because it prevents public oversight and it appears to deny Atkins his constitutionally guaranteed protection against double jeopardy. But let's put that issue aside for a moment and address only the secrecy.
Frankly, I'm hard-pressed to understand why this meeting is not open to the public. Atkins has no expectation of privacy on this issue. He's a public official who derives is salary from the tax-payers, and while some might suggest that there is a line of demarcation between his private and public lives, he clearly assumed his public role when he flashed his legislative ID to the cops who stopped him. That means whatever he said or did in that exchange is subject to public scrutiny and oversight.
To close the hearing to the public is to deny it that scrutiny and oversight.

KEEPING DR. KING'S LEGACY IN PERSPECTIVE

There is an almost palpable, but unspoken perception that this day, the day set aside to remember the life and works of Martin Luther King Jr., belongs exclusively to black people. That feeling, I think, exists almost universally across the various races in this country. The popular memory and teachings are that King incited the black race in this country to stand up against both social and codified racism, and that's true. But it's only part of the truth.
The rest of the truth is that Dr King sought equality and justice not just for a single ethnic group, but for everyone. And the fact that one group benefitted more immediately than any other, is likely because of the entrenched racial seperatism that was so deeply woven into the American fabric at the time. But conventional wisdom and popular memory often seems to ignore the fact that Dr. King clearly championed justice and equality for everyone, whatever their race, religion, or social status. He brought together is own followers with SNCC and SCLC to expand the demand for equal access to jobs and justice, voting rights, fair housing laws, equal educational opportunities and perhaps most importantly, human rights. Even on the day he died in Memphis, he was there to lend support to striking sanitation workers, not simply because of their skin color, but because what they were doing was right and benefitted those without power.
And when we remember Dr. King, we need to remember he was a man of the cloth, a preacher with an unshakable belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ and Mahatma Ghandi. And nowhere was that more clear than when he delivered what was probably eleoqent and stirring speech of the 20th century.
"And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:
Free at last! Free at last!
Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

HOW MANY BUSHIES DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHTBULB

How many members of the Bush administration does it take to change a light bulb?

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed;

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb;

4. One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of light bulbs;

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb;

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner: Light Bulb Change Accomplished;

7. One administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally in the dark;

8. One to viciously smear #7;

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along;

10. And finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.

SLOOOOWLY THE WHEEL BEGINS TO TURN

Delaware Representative John Atkins, the legislator stopped for drunken driving in Ocean City, in October, has reportedly asked the state ethics board to determine if he violated house ethical standards when he flashed his legislative ID to the cops who stopped him. It's a step in the right direction toward resolving the controversies attending the stop. ... Now, let's see how the bosses in Ocean City handle their end of the stick.
Of course, we'd like to say we have confidence the city will also refer the matter to their ethics commission, but two things prevent that. First, they haven't done so, and secondly I can't recall a time when the commission has ever found a violation. But that could be because the members are all friends of the mayor and/or city councilmen, collectively or individually. That's not to suggest that the commission members are crooked, only that their thinking could be colored by their friendships.
In the end, however, it may not matter because the city seems committed to ride out the controversy instead speaking to the elephant in the room.
As I write this, the Daily Crime is moving a story saying the city has the full support of MADD, that they are convinced the officers acted appropriately... So I guess the officers' promise they would not arrest Atkins, even before any field sobriety tests were administered, is appropriate enough for those who pretend to want drunken driving dealt with harshly. But I doubt it is for anyone who has been victimized by a drunk driver, or who could be a victim of a drunken driver. ... I mean, if Atkins was not given special consideration, then that means Ocean City police regularly let drivers go free who demonstrate they have consumed nearly twice the amount of alcohol allowed by law. And that, in turn, means they're not enforcing the law equally and fairly ... doesn't it?

GIVE ME A CLUE

So Cal was inducted into the Hall of Fame and Barry Bonds wasn't because of questions about steroid use. But I just don't understand the prohibition on steroids... somebobody give me a clue. Yeah, I've heard the horror stories about steroids, and I have no reason to doubt them. But let's frame this question in its true light: Professional sports are not a game. Any "game" that pays individual players upwards of $10 million per year is not about funsies, it's about business and really big money. And while we hear a lot of talk condemning performance-enhancing drugs by the media and the MLB, I haven't heard team owners making similar statements.... Maybe that's because they are the ones whose fortunes rise or fall in relation to their teams' performance.
Listen, steroid use can shorten a user's life. It's been said they can produce cancers and cardiac issues, and professional atheletes know those risks. If they then choose to use them, it logically means they are adults and had excercized due dilligence and assumed the risks.
But what about giving them an "unfair" physical advantge over those players who don't use performance enhancing drugs? Well, the same question can be posed about weight-training, diet, physical fitness and even genetics. After all, a basketball player who's 6'10" has an advantage over one who is 5'8".

OH YEA, OH YEA, OH YEA: THERE'S A NEW LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY IN OC AND NOBODY'S GOING TO JAIL... CAN WE GET AN 'AMEN'

Yesssssss... Ocean City police chief Bernadette DiPino brought out the dogs and ponies today to provide an in-depth explanation of why it was perfectly fine for two of her line officers to give a "get out of jail free" pass to a Delaware state delegate back in October. This despite blowing a .14 BAC in a preliminary breath test.
According to a story published in today's online edition of the Daily Crime, DiPino reportedly supports the offiers' decision not to arrest Rep. John C. Atkins, R-Millsboro on the night of Oct. 29. DiPino says officers have wide lattitude in making a decision to arrest drunken drivers. ... Is that so?... Well by that logic, someone could call in a bogus bomb threat and the investigating officers could let the perpetrator go because, while they did technically break the law, no one was actually hurt. ... Oooo this is the new police logic in law enforcement... Yeah, I can see all kinds of applications for this thinking... terroristic threats; no arrest, no jail... it's a matter of officer discretion. .... Brandishing a firearm- don't worry, it's officer discretion.... yeah, this is a good thing DiPino did... Thing is, what if the average Joe doesn't have the juice it takes to avoid a night in the slammer over such 'minor' misdeeds, where no one get hurt?... No problem. WIth an open door policy like this, it's only a matter of a short time before it's okay to get help from everybody's good friend, Ben Franklin. Never go anywhere without him, right Chief?