Temple Visit

I went and visited the Manti Temple yesterday. It was the first time in a long time that I've gone to the temple to do work for someone. I've been to a few weddings recently, and those are nice, but I felt better doing work for someone else. The guy I got endowed for was named William C. Perry. He was born in Texas in 1875, I guess they couldn't find a death date because it wasn't printed on the card. He was probably a cowboy. He became an adult at a time of major technological advances. Steam engines, automobiles, airplanes, modern manufacturing practices, automatic pistols, rifles and machine guns.

I guess I've lived in a similar time. When I was born, CD's were brand new technology, there weren't cell phones, there were CB radios. The internet was a military experiment involving Stanford, MIT, and the University of Utah. Video phones were a special effect in Star Trek movies.

Cameras used film, and the fancy ones would advance the film automatically after each shot. Now you can fit a telephone in your pocket, and can use skype to see the face of the person you are talking to. Phones can take pictures now, the only people who use film are artists who have time to make chemical prints. Photoshop is a computer program now, not a workshop where you develop pictures. You can now buy TV's that have a better picture than some people are capable of with their own eyes.

The computer I'm using is not physically attached to anything, just sitting here on my lap. The first test of the internet was a text message that crashed the internet halfway through. Now I can upload HD videos to youtube, and there are millions of videos on youtube.

So hopefully William C. Perry's existence is more enriched now, mine certainly is. I really should go more often. All the stuff I let get in the way really isn't worth much.

Carrying a Handgun at School

Recent events at the University of Utah have brought up the subject of guns and self defense on campus. I would like to address a few points that are brought up by people trying to discourage on-campus self defense.

The first that is stated by people who haven't thought the issue through, "When the police show up, how will they know the difference between the bad guy and the good guy?"

Easy.

The good guys comply with the police commands. The bad guy shoots at the cops.

Carrying a gun, having it in an active killer scenario does not mean that your brain turns off. Plus most active killer scenarios involve one psycho shooting at the crowd. The Mumbai style assaults are thankfully really rare. So there is only really one place where there is danger. This thought was recently made in the Daily Utah Chronicle: The likelihood of stopping a rampaging shooter is muddled by the misdirection and chaos of such events—a nightmare for responding police.

In an event where there is only one bad guy, sure there will be confusion and chaos, but it will be crystal clear where the shooting is happening. It's where the gun shots are coming from. People may be running around, but they will be running away from the shooting. If your goal is to stop the shooter, then you move toward the shooting and shoot the guy who is trying to kill defenseless people in the crowd, or who is moving from room to room, shooting the people inside.

When the police arrive, they will make a lot of noise, it will be hard to miss, especially if you are expecting them at any second. So when you hear the cops, put your gun away, take cover and point to where the bad guy is.

In addition, the police only know something is happening if someone calls them. After the shooting starts, it will take some time for someone to call the cops, then the dispatcher has to get information out of the caller, like where it's happening and what the guy looks like. Then the dispatcher has to sort out the information, summarize it and pass it on to the officers, who have to fight through traffic on the street or the University's sidewalks, and then find the bad guy.

If the bad guy is in your classroom, or right outside your classroom, you are going to have to deal with the bad guy before the police arrive. And if you don't fight back, you are going to die.

Another is that there is a risk that the student may miss the bad guy and hit other innocent people. Honestly it could happen, if the armed student doesn't practice or is unfamiliar with how firearms work. Anyone who has a concealed firearm permit is at least 21 years old, and they have taken a class that reminds them how dangerous, both legally and physically, a gunfight is.
They have invested time and money into getting the gun and permit. They probably go shooting periodically. They may seek out some private training to help them to shoot accurately. If they've ever gone out in the desert to 'shoot stuff' then they are aware that bullets go through things. All those factors will be going through their mind as they move through the building, looking for the bad guy. (or better yet, an exit)

It has been shown that in most active shooter incidents, the bad guy changes his plan at any sign of resistance. This doesn't mean simply holding the door shut. If the bad guy gets into the room, the occupants need to attack him. Throw books, backpacks, desks, any thing at him until he leaves or you can get his gun away. When he's being pummeled with textbooks and backpacks, his attention will diverted away from shooting people. The longer his attention is diverted, the more opportunity the class will have to tackle him. There is danger in rushing toward a man with a gun, yes, but the alternative is to rely on a mass murderer to spare your life. The choice is between a 95% chance of being killed while cowering or maybe a 90% chance of getting killed while attempting to stop the bad guy. Doing ANYTHING will increase your chance of surviving such a situation.

We have seen from the Tucson shooting and even the Virginia Tech shooting that in the face of death, some people will still put themselves in danger to protect others. At Virginia Tech, a professor who had survived the Holocaust, held the door to his classroom shut, trying to use his body as a shield. He was killed, I don't remember if he prevented the bad guy from getting in, but I'll bet his last thoughts weren't, "Boy I'm glad I'm not allowed to carry a gun here at school."

The first person to confront the guy in Tucson was a grandmother in her 60's, who rushed him when she saw him attempting to reload. If she was brave enough to confront the guy with her bare hands, think of how much more effective if she had a gun? Maybe she wouldn't have had to wait until the bad guy ran out of ammo.

If people are willing to fight, even if it is dangerous, why should they not be allowed and encouraged to use a gun? A handgun allows someone to inflict damage on a bad guy from a distance, instead of having to charge him first. In an active killer situation, the targeted people are already at a disadvantage. Why should that disadvantage be amplified by making rules against students legally carrying a gun?

Another argument is that someone with a gun might flip out and start killing, that the stress of college is too much for some. First, do you think that making a rule banning handguns on campus is going to stop a flip-out? Second, and more importantly, people who receive a permit have passed a criminal background check. They have shown that for at least twenty one years, they have been able to avoid having a run in with the cops. They are not the type of person that flies off the handle and gets into fights with people, they don't drink too much and get themselves arrested, etc. . . They aren't in the habit of being dangerous to the community. The state trusts them to be responsible with a gun as they go about their business everyday, and enrolling in a University doesn't suddenly change their judgment or the years of good decisions they have made up until this point in their life. It's just common sense.

If I've left anything out, or been unclear on any points, let me know and I'll try to address it.

The Tucson Shooting

There has been a lot of opinionating on the shooting in Tucson. It was a tragedy brought about by a single disturbed person. It’s interesting that people still try to discuss the ‘violent rhetoric’ even after it’s been shown that this guy was obviously crazy. I’ve heard programs where the announcer basically says that yes, the partisan rhetoric probably had nothing to do with this case, but the rhetoric really is creating a situation that could lead to a situation like this.

Tom Ashbrook talked about how this kid had grown up in the current environment of nasty political rhetoric. But I think someone who is crazy will seize upon anything they hear and expand it into whatever crazy reason to hurt people. They don’t think rationally. There was no Tea Party or Sarah Palin when Hinckley took a shot at Reagan. He was trying to impress Jody Foster. The guy in Florida wasn’t whipped into a frenzy by Glenn Beck, he decided to end his life while killing school board members and the reason he gave was because they fired his wife. Two years ago.

The President, in his memorial speech, said that Right vs. Left rhetoric was not the cause of this, and yet people seem to be still trying to bring it up.

In fact, we have sort of similar situations between this and the guy in Florida. Except the Florida guy didn’t spawn a bunch of angry tweets about Sarah Palin. Why is that?

Could it be because that guy didn’t hurt anyone? Maybe it was because it was caught on video and his intentions were pretty irrefutable.

The Florida school board were all elected officials, Florida is a mostly gun friendly state, the shooter was deranged and bent on mayhem. Did the latest guy get more coverage because he succeeded in killing people? That could be part of it. I don’t want to think of news people as being so arbitrary as to run with the Arizona thing simply because Giffords is a Democrat in conservative state. That contradiction can’t be the only reason why this story got so much coverage.

Maybe it’s due to Cable news’s new found obsession with Twitter. They pay attention to Twitter and then it influences the way they edit their content. When Twitter got all bent out of shape, unleashing all the pent up rage against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, the producers of news decided that the “controversy” was what people wanted to hear, and so they chased after the opinion of their audience, instead of trying to determine the facts. That could be a symptom of a lot of things wrong with the news these days.

So, instead of blaming media characters, let’s look at what allowed this kid to purchase America’s most popular 9mm handgun. Some say that we need a law to prevent dangerous crazy people from buying guns. Sounds reasonable.

What they don’t say is that such laws already exist.

Ok, then how do we define crazy? Is someone a crazy dangerous lunatic in the eyes of the law if they have had a session with a therapist? Most people would say no, because most people have had contact with psychiatrists at some point in their life, and are not crazy. What about people who are diagnosed with certain mental illnesses? Someone who is described as a paranoid schizophrenic or a sociopath, probably shouldn’t be able to buy a weapon, right?

What if the diagnosis was made 20 years ago? Can people change? (I don’t know about schizophrenia, personally, I’m just thinking with a keyboard here.)

As a child, I was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder. It meant that I had to work harder than most kids to keep my attention span at an age appropriate level. It used to take me four hours to do 30 math problems in elementary school. Having the diagnosis and a mild ritalin prescription helped me to learn how to focus appropriately. I feel like I have basically addressed the problem by now.

But does it mean that I shouldn’t be able buy a deadly weapon? I don’t think that past diagnoses by themselves are a good predictor of future behavior. I have the opinion that past behavior is a better predictor of future behavior. The law agrees. (Or I agree with the law)

The Justice System punishes people according to what they have done, based on evidence that proves that they did it. It doesn’t work 100%, but the idea behind it is good. So if someone has never been convicted of a crime, could you legitimately call them a dangerous person? I mean, everybody has dark thoughts at some point in their life, everyone loses their temper and says hurtful things. But if they never physically harm anyone, they aren’t really a danger. They are able to control their impulses and not commit crimes.

People who are unable to control their impulses, or who decide that their own desires are more important than social norms are criminals. They break the law.

However, most humans live lives out of habit. So criminals make a habit out of committing crimes. Since people are mostly born good, they have to work their way across the spectrum to being hardened criminals. So most criminals start out with petty crimes like shoplifting. Once they start getting into the habit of committing felonies, our Justice system says they can no longer be trusted with a firearm. It may not stop them from getting their hands on one, but it carries stiff penalties when they get caught with one.

The instant criminal background check that is conducted when you purchase a handgun looks for felonies in your past, things that would prohibit you from owning a handgun.

So how was this wacko in Tucson able to go buy a handgun at Cabela’s?

He didn’t have a criminal record that would prohibit him from doing so.

He had admitted to smoking pot and he had some run-ins with the police, but I believe you have to be convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor within five years to be prohibited from owning a gun. That means you have to have a trial and a sentence passed against you. For most people this is a reasonable process.

But this kind of thing that happened in Tucson is so rare that it makes national news when it happens. This guy had a unique jump to the dark side, going from pot smoker to mass killer. He doesn’t fit the norm of criminal progress, so he kind of took us off guard.

That leads us to ask, Could we have done anything to prevent this from happening? Probably not a whole lot, since he seems to have been harboring a grudge against Giffords since 2007. I’ve read that he has had numerous interactions with law enforcement, perhaps at some point they would have noted his strange behavior and been able to get him an evaluation that would have made him a prohibited person.

But on the other hand, it’s not a crime to be disturbed or crazy, so maybe no one wanted to pry into this guy’s business.

In instances like this, we try to find a reason why something like this happened. As Michael Bane said recently, the why doesn’t really matter. As a society, we can’t predict when something crazy is going to happen, our models for prediction are based on reason, not random insanity. If we were to attempt to actually know enough about the lives of all Americans, we would get the surveillance state of the UK. And that experiment hasn’t worked, there is still violence there. In fact, it has become so expensive that they are beginning to dial back the government’s involvement in the lives of the citizens, encouraging people to be more responsible for themselves.

What we do know is that the situation could have been much worse if no one had acted. If I understand correctly, it was someone’s grandmother that was the first to tackle the bad guy when he attempted to reload his weapon. Other people in the crowd joined in and got his weapon away from him. Joseph Zamudio came running from Walgreen’s, prepared to shoot the bad guy, but found he had already been subdued. All of those people deserve medals. They acted with the safety of others in mind, at extreme danger to themselves. Our president needs to recognize the heroism of these people.

For the families left behind, all I can say is that I’m sorry, though I had nothing to do with the tragedy. I don’t know what to say to someone who has lost a daughter for no good reason. At least we can be confident that she is now in a safe, happy place, where she is free all cares and sorrow. And I hope that the man that cut her life short is punished to the full extent of the law.

Thoughts on God, Life and Death

I’ve left that previous entry up for quite a while now. I mostly posted it because it had gotten me rattled and taught me that it’s incredibly stupid to argue with strangers on the bus. On the other hand, if someone were accosting me on a bus, I would hope that a fellow passenger would come to my aid, even if they felt like a fool afterward.

This past Sunday I fasted for the first time in a long time. I fasted to be able to get a job. Or to have more motivation to look harder for a job. It’s frustrating to fill out application after application, to send my resume to email after email, and to hear back from maybe 1% of the time, and then they tell me no 100% of the time.

But, and this is a pretty big but, nobody is obligated to hire me. I shouldn’t be upset that the employers that have a lot of money floating around, don’t want to take a chance on a College graduate who has not done an internship at a major agency. They have their own livelihood and reputation to think about, after all.

So I’ll keep looking, send applications to companies who say they are looking for someone with my skills. And in the meantime keep applying for the (allegedly) easier to get jobs that will get me a paycheck quickly.

In church, we were discussing how to persuade someone that they should accept the gospel. We said that accepting the gospel, getting baptized and all that jazz would bring happiness. The teacher replied with, “Ok, so if I join up and then terrible things happen to me, does that mean it’s not true?”

The answer, of course, is no. God exists whether or not bad things happen to you. Bad things may happen to you if you believe in God or not.

I thought for a minute and my answer was that if you have truly accepted the gospel, you will have peace and clarity within yourself, and so even then if you lose your job, get a disease or lose a loved one, you wouldn’t say that your life is horrible.

In 2010 I lost a couple of cousins. One died of a drug overdose of some kind, in front of her toddler children. I hope her kids can get over it, but kids as young as hers were can get over things like that. For her, it was the last in a line of very poor decisions. I wish she hadn’t died, it seems like such a dumb thing to die over, but she was the one that made that decision.

My other cousin, was a soldier in the 101st Airborne division, who was killed in Afghanistan. I guess in a way his decision to join the army and be in the infantry was what placed him in Afghanistan, but his death seems to be a lot more unjust than my other cousin’s. He was serving his country, had gone through grueling training to become a Ranger, had achieved the rank of Sergeant, he was a good person doing good things.

His death brought a lot of grief to the family. But I have to say that I felt his funeral was a positive, uplifting experience, and at the same time, very sad. I was sad for his wife, and for his mom, both of whom were overcome with grief. The worst part was when his casket was closed for the final time, and the funeral began. It will be a long time before it’s opened again, and Aaron steps out in a perfected state.

I’ve been to funerals before, but they are mostly for old people who have lived a full life, nobody is really shocked that they died, and everyone’s ok with it. It was really depressing to think of all the things that Aaron and his wife won’t get to do together, they hadn’t even had a one year anniversary yet.

On the other hand, I was impressed by the soberness of the military personnel, in the way they conducted themselves at the funeral. There was a great deal of ceremony and respect in the attitudes of all present. There was a group of soldiers who took shifts standing guard at either end of the casket. They stayed there through the entire viewing. The Patriot Guard Riders were in attendance, including a good friend and teacher of mine, to create a sense of safety and comfort by surrounding the church were the funeral was held, and the gravesite during the interment. Even Brandon, Aaron’s twin, executed his orders to the letter as Aaron’s official escort.

I felt happy to hear the loving tributes written by Aaron’s comrades, one of whom has joined Sgt. Kramer on the other side. I found myself wishing I could have known this man better. I feel good knowing that he is ok, now. If soldiers are treated with such care and reverence by those of us left behind, I can only imagine the amount of love and care they receive when they reach the other side. My grandfather, Keith, was undoubtedly the first person that Aaron met when he passed, and Aaron is not very far from his family here on Earth. I also feel optimistic about Sgt. Flannery, because Aaron is undoubtedly the first person he must have met when he passed.

The purpose of the gospel, in times like this, is not to diminish, or disrespect anyone’s grief. It’s not there to make us feel guilty about feeling sad at the loss of a promising, smart young person. I think that probably throughout human history and through all cultures, there is a wishful hope that we will see our loved ones again. Logic or prevailing ideas may try to drive that notion away, but most people want to believe that death is not the end of a person.

The restored, complete gospel of Jesus Christ affirms those instincts. It assures us that we will see our loved ones again, that they exist somewhere and are being taken care of. It eases the pain of death, by letting us know they aren’t gone forever.

I still feel a tremendous sense of regret that I didn’t know Aaron very well, I still feel a tremendous sense of waste that someone so smart and good could have so much time and money invested in them by the United States, only to shot out in the middle of nowhere, by people who want to impose their violent and evil perversion of Islam on others. But at least Aaron Kramer is not lost forever, even if we won’t be able to embrace him for a while.

If I ramble, I apologize, I didn’t get to write this all in one sitting.

"Public Space"

Today while riding the bus on my way to take a test, there were a two young mothers with 2-3 year old kids. The kids were enjoying themselves, as 3 year old kids do.

Eventually a man about my age got on the bus. He on a ratty t-shirt, sweat pants that were riding a little low, and great big, Elton John-esque sunglasses. I remember thinking that he was probably heading to the university, because he seemed to exude the "look at me! I live an alternate lifestyle" vibe.

The kids eventually were rambunctious, laughing loudly and hitting the window while their mom's spoke to each other over the back of the seat.

Big sunglasses man says, in a loud voice, "This is a public space! Public space!" I thought to myself, "Did he just tell that young mother to get her kids to shut up? I think he did." That made me mad. Who does this guy think he is?

I don't think the mothers paid him any attention, but I started to prepare a response in case he tried it again.

He did. "Hey, you're in a public space here, you need to control your kids."

Me-"Hey buddy you're in a public space, too. She's not smoking or doing anything harmful, her kid is being a kid."

Him- "But she is in a public space, she has a responsibility as a parent to control her children."

When he responded, I learned that adrenaline dumps and the fight or flight instinct show up even in a non life-threatening situation, because my mouth got dry, my throat tightened, I felt something like cold water suddenly in the middle of my chest, and my arms and hands felt cold and slightly numb and tingly.

From here on out, I don't remember exactly what I said, neither of us were speaking very eloquently, we probably both had that confrontation response flowing through our veins.

I said something like, "There just being kids, they're too young to know any better."

He said, "They're giving me a headache, would you like it if I started screaming?"

Me-"No, but you aren't three." The noisy kid looked like he was three.

At some point I said that the mom didn't deserve to be harassed for taking the bus to save some money. He responded by pointing to the stroller she had brought on board, saying she shouldn't have it because it was made in China, it polluted carbon during the manufacture, and that it was taking up half the room on the bus.

It was in the space that was designated for wheelchair users, and there were none of those on the bus.

His comment about the stroller really took me off guard, so I said what I thought.

"Are you saying that she should have carry a forty pound kid in her arms everywhere she goes instead of using a stroller?"

He said no, but the kid was loud, he had had a seizure this morning, and that his heavyset, black-wearing, tattooed female friend could probably control the kids. At least I think that's what he said.

I wondered if he was being serious, that he was worked up enough that he would go over and try himself to quiet the kid. If he tried it, well, I wasn't going to let that happen.

But that's the kind of thing you think about when your lizard brain thinks a fight is on its way. Of course he didn't do anything like that.

During our conversation, I twice told him that if he was really that bothered, he could get off at the next stop and take another bus. He said that the mom had a responsibility to "control her kid" so that Mr. Sunglasses could ride the bus in peace.

My stop was fast approaching, the argument had run its course, and I was late for a test so I got off. It took me a really long time to fish out my electronic bus card out of my shirt pocket and untangle it from the iPod headphones that were in there.

It also took me a long time to consider, and answer the test questions when I got to class.

Guy thinks the bus is his own personal limousine, and that he has the right to impose his own will and values on other people, in the name of public space. What a self righteous, left wing jerk.

Why do people think Chicago is a good place to live?

There is a blog written by a Chicago Police officer, that really illustrates the problems and corruption of the city government there.





This is the link, and since I can't link directly to their post for some reason, I'll just repost this article that is in response to an editorial in a local paper. I feel it sums up the Chicago Police Department's current situation.

I'll put the paper's words in italics.


Sun Times in the Tank
*** WARNING***

Long post. We're going to take the Sun Times to the woodshed.

No wonder the dead-tree media is dying. Get a load of this "editorial reply" to yesterday's whinny screed by J-Fled. Try not to vomit:

*

It is easily the most dangerous and frustrating job in Chicago. The hours you work are miserable. The respect you deserve is not always forthcoming.

Your pay could be better. And God help you if you should have a bad day, lose your cool and get a little too rough. People who have no idea what you go through and put up with every day will be the first to call for your head.

It is the most dangerous and frustrating job in Chicago -- cop.

So far so good. Now it heads downhill:

*

But here is the other side of the coin: If you can't handle the pressure, you shouldn't be a cop. If you torture suspects in a police station basement, you shouldn't be a cop. If you beat up a woman bartender, you shouldn't be a cop. If you pummel a man handcuffed in a wheelchair, you shouldn't be a cop.

Because all you do is sow distrust in Chicago's neighborhoods for all police officers, the vast majority of whom would never in their wildest dreams beat up a woman bartender or slug a man handcuffed in a wheelchair. What you're doing is hurting your fellow officers, sullying the reputation of an entire department.

Um, none of those people are cops anymore. Each of those cases cited went through the process and were summarily adjudicated. Maybe not in the rapid-fire manner so often preferred by media types, but the wheels of justice ground slowly to an outcome, none of which made all parties happy, but the cases ended.

* It was with that in mind that Mayor Daley hired Police Supt. Jody Weis three years ago to clean up the department's image.

Oh, so now J-Fled was hired for an "image" problem? That's the first we've ever heard about that. Nice to see the Sun Times is moving the goalposts again for Shortshanks to protect his legacy of hiring this ass.

* It was an image that sorely needed restoration. Chicago was going through a mini-spree of police brutality cases. The much-maligned Office of Professional Standards was seen as turning a blind eye to rogue cops. Seven members of the elite police Special Operations Section were charged with a litany of crimes, including a conspiracy to kill a fellow cop. And it seemed like everyone in the nation had watched the video of off-duty officer Anthony Abbate attacking bartender Karolina Obrycka.

"Mini-spree?" What? When? Who? Can someone cite these cases? SOS? Seven cops in a unit of 350? On a force of 10,000? And can anyone tell us what's going on with that "conspiracy" case? You have to love how the Sun Times cites an allegation that's about to be dropped shortly as entrapment to bolster their editorial. And the reason "everyone in the nation watched the video" is because every media outlet played it over and over and over. Honest to god, we'd see ABC News running a story about Chicago cops rescuing a dog on the lake ice, and the next shot would be, "You may remember the Chicago Police Department is under a cloud after a drunk asshole beat a bartender." It was a running joke at that point.

*

But three years later, all is not well inside the Chicago Police Department. Weis, in a long letter that appeared in Monday's Sun-Times, criticized the police union for trying to continue "business as usual." And an anti-Weis march by potentially thousands of rank-and-file officers is scheduled for Wednesday outside police headquarters.

Weis, a career FBI agent and the first outsider in nearly 50 years to serve as Chicago Police superintendent, clearly has made mistakes. Promptly replacing 21 of 25 district commanders left many officers on the street wondering if the top brass understood the challenges they face. His decision to wear a uniform even though he never was a street cop offended those who were. And merit promotions for two officers who worked as drivers for Weis angered cops who work the streets who had been passed over.

No one wanted business as usual. J-Fled refused to work with the union. He instituted changes in direct violation of signed contractual agreements and then had to backpedal constantly. His missteps were numerous and the advice he received was from people who had never operated under a contract in their careers, i.e., clout babies. The immediate replacement and shuffling of district commanders, along with the other brass, was a power move by Daley to break up the old guard. J-Fled had ZERO knowledge of the CPD, yet he's making 30 and 40 moves of exempt personnel based on what exactly? Oh yeah, phone calls. And when he wouldn't return Daley's phone calls, Shortshanks replaced J-Fled's Chief of Staff with well-known political insider Michael Masters Masters Masters, who's primary duty was to pick up the phone and tell Jody it was the mayor on the line and he better get his ass over to answer it.

The "business as usual" was all from the fifth floor of Headquarters, not the union. The superintendent's driver making "merit" sergeant was just the icing on the cake. Cline did it. Hilliard did it. J-Fled was signaling loud and clear that nothing had changed.

*

Most controversial was Weis' decision early in his tenure to call in federal authorities to probe the case of Officer William Cozzi, who had been caught on video beating a man shackled to a wheelchair. Cozzi already had been suspended for two years without pay.

Looking at that incident now, it's a legitimate question whether Weis reacted too quickly, coming down too hard on a veteran officer with an otherwise commendable record who already had been punished. And without a doubt Weis had a political tin ear for department politics, clearly never anticipating how deeply unpopular -- even loathed -- that one decision would make him among the rank and file.

Word is that Daley himself, after hearing about J-Fled's recommending the Cozzi case to Fitzgerald, asked aloud, "What the hell did he do that for?" J-Fled is backtracking this so severly he's leaving skidmarks on the pavement and in his shorts. We recall very clearly, though we can't currently locate the article, that J-Fled called this the "worst case of police brutality" he had ever seen in his career. As anyone with half a brain can attest, J-Fled must not get out much.

* But a thoughtful, respectful discussion of Weis' failings was never ventured. Rather, Weis has been subjected to the cheap-shot warfare of 24-hour anonymous bloggers.

Respect is a two way street. J-Fled held five town hall meetings and then never again. His Deputy Superintendent Bartender Bea took down names and had at least one officer dumped from his assignment after the first meeting - that kind of chilled the subsequent meetings. He visited maybe ten roll calls that we ever heard about. Pointing out bad decisions and poor moves isn't "cheap-shot warfare." That's legitimate criticism of a bad leader. J-Fled's whining about "it's everyone elses fault" speaks to a poor leader with no ability toward introspection - witness the Morale Survey that STILL hasn't seen the light of day. Ask the Lieutenant who got dumped from her spot after insisting the results should be released about that one.

And even if you add up all the hours blogged from here, Shaved and Crimefile, it doesn't add up to 24 hours a day. We do find it interesting that the Sun Times editorial was published without a name attached to it though - anonymously you might say.

*

For their part, the police union and rank and file officers need to show they don't want "business as usual" and are determined to gain the respect of citizens still terrified by the years of police torture under recently convicted former Police Cmdr. Jon Burge.

Ummm, yeah. Because everyone we run into is oh, so terrified of Jon Burge. You can't find 1 person in 10 who even knows or cares about Burge. You people are morons.

*

Now that Mayor Daley is not running for re-election, it seems unlikely Weis will remain when his contract is up early next year. The next superintendent needs to stand up for officers when they're in a pinch, but must like Weis have zero tolerance for cops who cross the line.

God help him (or her) if he runs into the same ugly buzz saw that's taking Weis down.

Thank god he's gone shortly. He's been a disaster. And the reason superintendents haven't stood up for cops in a pinch is directly traceable to Shortshanks. You think Phil Cline went hat-in-hand to Meeks because Meeks was racially profiled? Meeks was wrong, but Daley needed Meeks' votes, so Phil was sent south to embrace a race baiter. It's about votes for The Machine.

And it's funny how J-Fled's tolerance seems to be endless when it's politically connected gold stars with their assorted body parts in the wringer. Ernie, Tony, Ruth, Bea, Penny, Frank, Mike, the list is extensive.

The buzz saw taking J-Fled down is of his own making. A litany of bad decisions; a complete inability to self-evaluate and adapt to the situation; the arrogance typical of an FBI product too wrapped up in his own importance; a history of attacking the messenger (FBI whistleblower Wright; Lt. Andrews); and of course, running from the sound of gunfire.

It sure seems that the Sun Times is fully on board with the "re-hab J-Fled's image" as much as they were with the "destroy the CPD" kick they were before. Who are they taking their marching orders from?

Gummy Bears

Funny, I am pretty sure that I remember Gummy Bears being made of, you know, sugar and gelatin.

Well after a recent trip to Smith's it turns out I've been wrong all along.




So if you are looking gummy bears, head to the whole grain section.

In other news, I didn't get picked for the Richter7 internship.