The SoapBoxers

Note: this article was written in July of 2010. As such, if does not contain any information on Jaycee’s story after that point.

The state of California recently agree to pay Jaycee Dugard $20 million.  This raised some eyebrows in a state suffering from staggering budget deficit.

If you’re not familiar with Dugard, I’ll give you a short recap.  Dugard was abducted from a bus stop outside her home in 1991 – in sight of her stepfather and classmates.  The stepfather gave chase on a bike, but couldn’t keep up with the car.  For the next 18 years, Dugard lived with abductors Phillip and Nancy Garrido.  She worked in their print shop and even interacted with customers. 

In 2009, authorities became suspicious of Garrido and eventually determined that the young woman living with him was Dugard and the 12 and 15 year old girls were her daughters (fathered by Garrido).

Some people feel that Dugard deserves no compensation, suggesting that she had multiple opportunities to escape over the years.  After all, she was interacting with customers in Garrido’s business – not being locked in a dungeon.  When authorities finally closed in on Garrido, Dugard maintained that she was “Alyssa” and didn’t reveal her true identity during initial questioning.  These observers wonder if Dugard stayed because she wanted to stay.

There is, however, a perfectly rational explanation for this.  Stockholm Syndrome refers to a situation where a victim begins to have positive feelings toward the captor.  The victims sometimes perceive lack of abuse (or a temporary break from abuse) as kindness.  The victim forms a strong bond with the captor and perceives the captive in a positive manner.  Many experts feel that Stockholm Syndrome results from the powerless victim adopting an attachment to the most powerful adult in their environment – similar to the attachment a baby feels for its mother. This isn’t some sort of pyschobabble – the FBI suggests that 27% of kidnapping victims suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.

If Dugard was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, she would not have been capable of simply walking away.  Physically, the opportunity would have been there, but psychologically, she would not have been able to break free.

OK, at this point hopefully you see that Dugard probably wasn’t at fault for failing to escape.  But why give her $20 million?  Most kidnapping victims don’t get $20 million as a sympathy gift from the government.

Nor is this the case with Dugard.  The settlement was reached to resolved claims that the state failed to properly supervise Phillip Garrido, who was on parole.  Authorities had made several visits to the Garrido home, but failed to question the presence of Dugard.  What was Garrido on probation for?  Kidnapping and sexual abuse – crimes that probably should have heightened the awareness of authorities.

Is the settlement too much money?  It’s definitely a lot of money, but will be whittled down by attorney fees and possible taxes.  Still, what’s left should allow Dugard to invest conservatively and provide sufficient funds for her as she works to build a new life with her daughters and the rest of her family.  Hopefully she’ll be able to take the money and live a quiet life out of the spotlight of the media.

And in other crime news …

The voting for World’s Worst Mother is over … and the winner is Aimee Louise Sword.  The Michigan woman tracked down the son that she had given up for adoption and began a sexual relationship with him.  The son was 14 at the time.  On Monday, Sword was given a sentence of nine to thirty years in prison.  I’m not sure there are words to describe how sick and twisted this is.  No only did she have a sexual relationship with the son (which, by itself, is very twisted) but she essentially stalked him to do it.

[Update: on March 2, The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelphs (Westboro’s pastor).  This particular article was written in July of 2010.  An article relating to the SCOTUS ruling will appear on The Soap Boxers in the coming days.]

The Westboro Baptist Church (which has no ties to mainstream Baptist churches) is an organization which spends its time spreading hatred.  The group has gained much of their notoriety for protesting at the funerals of soldiers who have died fighting for their country.  The protesters carry anti-gay signs, which tends to cause a bit of confusion.  A while ago, my wife asked me what the connecion was – since the soldiers, in almost every circumstance, are NOT gay.

Her mistake was trying to apply logic to a situation where none exists.  WBC claims that dead soldiers are God’s punishment for the country’s tolerance of gays.  As someone who is a proponent of equal rights for all, the assertion that the US is tolerant of gays seems to be not particularly accurate.  Certainly, we are not as tolerant as many of our European allies.

This issue has caused me quite a lot of internal conflict.  I am a firm believer that free speech is a very important personal freedom.  However, I also believe that one person’s expression of free speech should not infringe on the rights of another.  While the right to mourn in peace is not granted by the Constitution, it IS granted by the concept of “being a human being.”

I have even gone so far as to wonder if perhaps the 1^st Amendment was in need of some revision.  While I believe that the Constitution is a very important document, I also believe that the founders would have wanted this to be more of a “living” document than it has become.  What’s my evidence of this?  The fact that they made ten changes (The Bill of Rights) before the ink was even dry.  223 years later, the total number of amendments stands at just 27 (and the purpose of the 21^st was simply to repeal the 18^th).

After a bit of searching, I now realize that we don’t need to change the constitution to prevent hate mongers from using it as a shield for their speech.  There is already a restriction in place.  In 1942, in the case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire, the United Stated Supreme court unanimously ruled that this sort of speech is not protected.

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting words” those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Chaplinksy is going to get another test soon.  WBC protestors were present at the 2006 funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder.  Three months after the funeral, the family sued for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  A jury ruled against WBC and awarded $10.9 million in damages.  In 2009, an appeals court ruled that the WBC’s action were protected by the first amendment and ordered the plaintiff (the dead soldier’s father) to pay WBC’s attorney fees ($16,000).

Not surprisingly, many people have lined up behind the Snyder family.  Political commentator Bill O’Reilly has offered to pick up the tab, and thousands of others have pledge donations.

The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari to the case of Snyder vs. Phelps (Fred Phelps is the head of WBC) and the case will be on the docket when the Court convenes in the fall.

The list of people filing amicus (“friends of the court”) briefs is a who’s who of political bigwigs, including 43 US Senators and the Attorneys General of all but two states (Maine and Virginia).  It is my hope that the Court will rule in favor of the Snyder family and further clarify and reinforce the thoughts first addressed by Chaplinsky.

While we wait for the decision of the Court, the Patriot Guard Riders are not standing idly by.  Members of this motorcycle organization gather at the funerals of veterans (at the request of the family) and rev their engines in an effort to drown out the protestors.

A quick note to the readers – you may begin seeing less content on the weekends.  Health-related issues and other life priorities have caused several writers to be unable to write on a regular basis.  The end result is that I have been writing up to 5 articles per week.  This can be a bit of a drain, and it is probably not viable long term, considering other projects underway and competing life priorities.  In the future, the weekend articles will be a bit less rigorous.  Most weekends are going to have a weekly recap on one of the days – a series of short blurbs about the news of the week.  The other day will feature a question of the week.  I’ll ask a question, give my answer, and solicit responses from readers.  On occasion, I’ll run a fiction story in place of one of these articles.  It might sound a bit counter-intuitive, but many times I can write a fiction piece faster than a non-fiction article of comparable length.

So, without further ado, comments on the news of the week:

Joran van der Sloot, the prime suspect in the disappearance and presumed murder of US teenager Natalee Holloway in Aruba in 2005, confessed to the beating death of 21 year old Stephany Flores in Peru.  Flores’ body was found in a hotel room in Peru with indications that she had been beaten to death.  If police had been able to find more evidence to tie him to Holloway’s appearance, Flores would still be alive today.  After van der Sloot’s arrest, it was revealed that the FBI had been investigating him for an plot to extort money from Natalee Holloway’s mother.  Van der Sloot claimed to have information about the location of Natalee’s body.  My hope is that the Peruvian justice system will mete out a swift and severe punishment.

I recently stumbled across an email from March of 2009 suggesting that Ford might be a good stock to buy.  The gist of my argument was that Ford’s domestic competitors were in dire straits, and that Ford would be able to swoop in and steal market share, especially from folks who are adamant about buying American.  On the day the email was sent, Ford stock closed at $2.76 per share.  At the close of the day on Wednesday, the share price was at $11.28 – more than 4 times the March 2009 level.  It’s pretty rare that I give stock tips (particularly since I’m a big fan of diversified portfolios), but I’m a bit disappointed that I didn’t take my own advice.

Another stock that might be a good buy right now?  BP.  In the last couple of months, the share price has been sliced in half.  Yes, the cleanup will be costly and the lawsuits will be numerous.  However, bear in mind that this is a company with $100 in equity (not assets, but actual equity).  Even after shelling out a hefty amount of money related to the cleanup, BP should emerge on solid financial footing.  Even a post-tax cost of $30 billion (containment, cleanup, and compensation to affected parties) would leave them with net assets of $70 billion – and most independent projection are pegging the cost at less than half this amount.  The stock currently has a PE ratio of 6 – and they pay substantial dividends.  Of course, this ignores all ethical and environmental concerns – obviously, you may choose to ignore BP stock for this reason.  I’m not defending BP – I’m just suggesting that from a pure financial sense, the investment might make sense.  Note: I am not a financial advisor.  This tip is provided for entertainment value only.  Invest at your own risk – I am not liable to losses that may result from investments in BP stock.

Stephen Strasburg lived up to the hype on Tuesday night, striking out fourteen batters and allowing just four hits against the Pittsburgh Pirates.  Strasburg and two relievers combined to strike out 17 Pirates.  On the flip side, Pirates pitchers recorded just a single strikeout in the game.  Strasburg faces off againt the Indians at noon today.

Ubaldo Jimenez struggled a bit with command of his pitches during rainy weather on Friday night, allowing 5 hits, 5 walks, and 3 runs through 6 innings.  It was good enough to allow Jimenez to notch his 12th win of the season.  Jimenez typically pitches into the 7th inning, but this game was called because of rain after six innings.  Ubaldo is 12-1 through his first 13 starts, with a 1.16 ERA.

Iowa State’s Lisa Koll (the best athlete you’ve never heard of?) won the 10,000 meters and 5,000 meters at the NCAA track meet.  Koll became the fifth fourth woman to ever achieve this historic double.  She conserved her energy in the 10K on Wednesday night, and it paid off in the 5K, as she ran away from the field – winning by 30 seconds (an enormous margin) in the 11th fastest time by a collegiate woman.  Koll will be signing with a shoe company soon, and will be setting her sights on the 2012 Olympics.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 (with Thomas and Scalia dissenting) that the federal government has the power the keep some sex offenders behind bars indefinitely if officials determine that those prisoners may “prove to be sexually dangerous in the future.”  (Note: this affects only inmates in the federal system, not those in state prisons.  See United States vs. Comstock for more information).

I think that most people would agree that sex offenders do pose a threat to society and that they should be dealt with harshly by the justice system.  I agree with this, and the rest of this article should not be construed as condoning any of the actions of the offenders.  I most certainly do not condone their actions.

I do, however, have a problem with this Supreme Court ruling.  The primary building block of justice in this country is the jury trial.  The accused is entitled to a trial, and if convicted, is sentenced appropriately.  At the end of the sentence (or, more often, earlier), the prisoner rejoins society.

This SCOTUS ruling appears to subvert the decision made by the jury.  The ruling makes a complete mockery of the sentencing process.  Why should the jury waste their time determining an appropriate sentence when, in the end, it really won’t matter?

I understand the severity of sexual crimes, and also am familiar with research that suggests that it may not be possible to rehabilitate these criminals.  However, murder is also a severe crime, and we do set some murderers free after they serve their sentences.  This will continue to be standard operating procedure for all other crimes – criminals will be arrested, be convicted, serve their time, and then rejoin society.  Only sex offenders in federal prisons will be at risk of having their sentence extended indefinitely.

Are the current sentences handed down by juries too short?  If that’s the case, there is a better way to fix this.  Have congress and state legislatures impose more strict punishment for those crimes.  Then, from this date forward, impose those sentences upon those convicted of sex crimes.  However, I do not feel that it is appropriate to retroactively impose the law upon those whom have already been sentenced.

Am I defending sex offenders?  No, certainly not.  I am, however, defending justice.  It brings to mind a line from the movie Ghosts of Mississippi.  The defense attorney, defending the killer of civil rights leader Medger Evers, reminds the jury that “if the system doesn’t work for Byron De La Beckwith , it doesn’t work for anyone.”  If the system doesn’t work for sex offenders, does it really work at all?

I have discussed his ruling with several people, including a couple of hard-on-crime guys with backgrounds in law enforcement.  At this point, everyone seems to agree that the prisoners should be set free when their sentence is complete – while at the same time acknowledging the serious nature of the crimes and the high probability that the criminals will re-offend following their release.

I expect this Supreme Court ruling to remaining in place for many years.  The fact that it was a 7-2 decision means that change 1 or 2 members of the court will not swing the court to the other side.  The president’s Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, actually argued the case on behalf of the government in her role of Solicitor General.

It seems, then, that it would be left up to congress to pass a law that would neutralize the impact of this ruling.  I’m not holding my breath – supports of such a law would no doubt be painted as supporters of sex offenders by their opponents.  I doubt that any politician is willing to risk being slapped with that label.

This week, we found out that President Obama’s nominee will be current Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Let’s get one question out of the way. What, exactly, does the Solicitor General do? She represents the government of the United States before the Supreme Court in cases where the government is one of the parties involved in the lawsuit.

Kagan is coming under fire on a few different fronts. Kagan hired 32 tenured and tenure-track professors when she was Dean of Harvard Law School. Only seven of these faculty members were female, and only one was a racial or ethnic minority. This could be explained by a relatively small sample size, or simply by the overabundance of white males in the law school ranks. Or it could be indicative of bias during the hiring process.

Kagan’s lack of judicial experience is also a concern to many. Although Kagan has considerable experience in academia, she has never presided over an actual trial.

Despite this, it is quite possible that Kagan will be confirmed by the Senate. If she joins the high court, it would have three female justices for the first time ever (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor being the other two).

Perhaps more important is her age. At 50, she would be the youngest justice currently serving on the court (although she’s considerably older than Justice Joseph Story, who was just 32 when he was appointed by President Madison in 1811).

Age is an important consideration in a Supreme Court Justice because the justices are appointed for life. A justice cannot be fired. There is a good reason for this, of course – to insulate a sitting justice from political pressure. An influential senator cannot strong-arm a justice with any threats.

While the judicial branch is separate from the executive and legislative branches, it is nonetheless affected by those branches. Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The end result is that the justice often represents the views of the president who appoints them. It would be nice if justices were selected based solely on merit, but this simply is not the case. Every president attempts to influence the court with the justices they appoint.

Appointing a Supreme Court Justice is perhaps the most impactful thing a president can do – influencing important judicial decisions for decades after the president leaves office. I’m not a big fan of having the other two branches exert so much influence over the judicial branch, but I’m also not sure how this could be achieved in a more fair manner, aside from setting the confirmation bar very high (80%?) to ensure bipartisan support? I’m not sure if even the ghost of George Washington could get 80% approval in the Senate.

The justices are also not oblivious to political ramifications. Justices will often time their resignations to occur during the tenure of a president who is likely to replace them with a similar justice. When a justice is unable to this – for example, if they die suddenly – there can be a seismic shift in the makeup of the court.

From a partisan perspective, then, the perfect justice would not only align with the beliefs of the President and Senate, but would also be young and in good health in order to influence the direction of the court for many years to come before voluntarily stepping down at the perfect time for a suitable replacement to be seated on the court. The next step in vetting a nominee (if it isn’t already being done) may be a deep look into the medical history of the nominee and the nominee’s family, in an effort to determine the nominee’s susceptibility to heart attacks, strokes, and other ailments that could kill or incapacitate a justice.

I wonder what sorts of birthday presents a justice gets? Perhaps a health club membership and a fruit basket from the leader of the party that aligns with their beliefs – and an annual membership at the Gorge Yourself 24 Hour Buffet from the leader of the opposing party?

Since the birth of my son at the tail end of last year, I have been recording lots of episodes of TruTV’s Forensic Files and watching them during nighttime feedings.  In the past three months, I have watched literally dozens of episodes.  During this time, I’m learned lots of lessons from some of the killers who are, well, not so smart.

Note: we don’t condone any sort of criminal activities.

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice …

Everyone knows that you shouldn’t mess with success.  If something works the first time, you should try it again, right?  Not always.

A recurring theme are men who kill their wives.  Sometimes, after a suspicious – but apparently accidental – death, an anonymous caller will notify the police that the man’s first wife died in similar circumstances.  If the women died in car accidents, you can make the argument that it’s simply coincidence.  Car accidents are fairly common.

If the women both drowned in the bath tub, this is a bit harder to explain away as a coincidence.  This isn’t a particularly common way to die, so the odds of it happening to two of your spouses is pretty unlikely.

Moral of the story: mix it up a little bit.  If you’re going to kill multiple spouses, you need to use different methods.  Or, of course, you could simply refrain from killing people.

Failure to observer a proper mourning period

Everyone has a different length of time for mourning.  Some people never get over the death of a spouse.  Others are able to move past the tragedy and eventually find love again.

But if you return from Vegas with a new wife a couple of weeks after your first wife died, police are probably going to take a second look at you as a suspect.

In one particularly notable case, the husband and his fiancée actually sent out wedding invitations (just to HER family and friends, apparently) BEFORE the first wife was dead.  I guess this is somewhat understandable, since people need to be able to save the date on their calendar.

Moral: Thirty days hath September, April, June, and minimum mourning periods.

Gotta give them credit

Every once in a while, the cops are able to determined that a killer purchased poison (or other items involved in the crime) by examining credit card receipts.  Apparently, the term “paper trail” means nothing to these people.

Moral: Cash is king!

Not what it’s cracked up to be

When examining broken windows at a crime scene, the cops check to see if the window was broken from the outside or the inside.  If the window was broken from the outside, most of the glass will fall inward.  If it is broken from the inside, most of the glass will fall on the outside.

Since the vast majority of criminals break into houses rather than out of them,  when there are indications that a window was broken from the inside, it typically means that the scene was staged.

Moral: Take a moment and actually step through the crime scene, starting at the point of entry.  If you’re going to kill someone, you needn’t be lazy with the details.

Recently, the Catholic Church voiced its criticism of the blockbuster movie Avatar, claiming that the movie encourages the worship of nature and is at odds with Christian theology.

Several years ago, the Church voiced its opposition to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.  The criticism had the effect of making the book even more popular, as many people read it in an effort to determine what, exactly, was so offensive.  As a practicing Catholic, I was intrigued.  It’s possible that I may have read the book anyway, since it’s my type of story, but the Church’s criticism ensured that I would read it.

What was my opinion of the controversy?  Much ado about nothing.  I thought that the book told a good story, but it was just that – a story.  While Brown portrays aspects of his books as realistic, they are nonetheless shelved in the fiction section.

When it comes to Avatar, I find it hard to believe that any intelligent person would see the movie as anything but fiction with some nice eye candy.

I am puzzled at seeing the Church portray works of fiction as being such a threat to Catholicism.  Fiction, by definition, is something that is made up.  Attempting to commence a serious debate about a work of fiction conjures up the mental image of Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

Another puzzling aspect is the choice of works to criticize.  The Da Vinci Code did portray certain aspects of the Church in a negative light, but it’s hardly the most negative portrayal of Catholics in popular fiction.  One of my favorite authors, the late William X. Kienzle, often portrayed seriously flawed Catholic clergy in his books – and Kienzle was a former priest himself.

If you take a look around the book store or movie theater, there are lot of books and movies that would be more appropriate targets of criticism.  It would make more sense to criticize movies that glorify senseless slaughter (and thus marginalize the value of human lives).

Honestly, if the Church wants a fair fight, they should limit their criticism to non-fiction books.  I have no doubt that they are many non-fiction books that are in disagreement with Catholicism.  Their authors may be happy to engage the Church in meaningful discussions of the differences.

It would seem that the Church is choosing targets based on the popularity of the work.  This seems slightly absurd.  When engaging in criticism, why not lash out at those that are most deserving of the criticism, rather than shooting at the targets that ensure that the criticism will spill the most ink on newspaper pages?  In the words of Martin Sheen’s character in The American President, “You Fight the Fights that Need Fighting.”

In closing, I respectfully ask the Catholic Church to avoid commenting on fiction in the future.  Fiction works are not intended to be accurate portrayals of the facts, but are intended as pure entertainment.  When I have questions about theology, I’ll consult the Catholic Church.  When I have questions about works of fiction, I’ll consult secular sources.

On January 14, 2010, Zarberg posted an article that used two examples to show how politicians “put other’s lives on the line so they can get more money.” I could have posted comments, but I would have needed too many. Instead I have opted for a rebuttal, not a refutation.

I also was profoundly affected by the events of 9/11. I was not in New York City at the time, although my sister in law was. She is a doctor and immediately attempted to render aid. She was sent to Columbia Medical Center, so she was never in any direct danger, though none of us knew that at the time. I was at work and watched the second aircraft impact live on TV. I watched what I thought was my employment opportunity exploding as I am an aerospace engineer working in the aircraft field.

Unlike many of the extremists on air and on line, I never wanted to make a glass parking lot anywhere. I quickly realized that the people who had perpetrated this crime were a tumor that had to be surgically removed to save the people around them. So my first contention with Zarberg is that we went into Afghanistan to perform that surgery (still on-going), the Iraq war was almost a year later.

Admittedly, the arguments for going to war with Iraq were suspect, mostly because no one would listen to anyone else. If we look at Colin Powell’s UN speech, there is no talk of Nuclear Weapons being on hand (the only weapon of mass destruction NOT found in Iraq), only the effort to obtain them. The idea that the BUSH administration was deceitful is interesting as most of the evidence came directly from Saddam Hussein through his speeches, declarations and USE. His best defense would have been “yeah I had them but I used them all on the Kurds and Marsh Arabs.” Instead he claimed to have them, was going to use them on any invader and dared the rest of the world to stop him. That is exactly what the US, UK, Poland and 15 other countries did after getting permission from the UN.

With all of that, I still think that the US was wrong in the argument to go to war. We were already at war. The Iraqis had violated every element of the cease fire they had begged for. They had fired upon allied units, killed civilians, blocked UN inspectors from doing their job, violated the no fly zones and been caught diverting money for food to arms.

I wish I could rebut the one trillion dollar price tag, but the costs are all lumped together. These costs include every penny spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan but are routinely associated only with Iraq. Part of that cost would have been incurred regardless as we have ships at sea and troops deployed even when we are not at war. A lot of money has been spent rebuilding both countries not just from war damage but from the ravages of 30 years of dictatorship. The New Jersey and Missouri National Guards have paved more miles of road and built more bridges than exist in New England. The US has built water and power plants (two commodities that Sadam used to control his people) and repaired the other civil structures that were left to languish so that one man could build himself numerous palaces. All of this is included in that price tag.

One of the things that Zarberg did not comment on, is that the US hired “Contractors” to arrest and detain people. Under what laws? These people are exactly what the Hague and Geneva Conventions dating back to 1866 were meant to stop. They are mercenaries, who are a law unto themselves, providing a buffer of responsibility for the hiring nation.

As far as the trend in US politics to be nasty just because the other guy proposed something, I agree with Zarberg completely on his observation but not his conclusion. I do not believe that politicians are out to hurt anyone, even for their own gain. All of the politicians I personally know (from both sides) truly believe that what they are proposing will be good for people. Each of them is, of course, blinded by their own convictions. The problem that most politicians run into is that they fail to recognize unintended consequences. The reason for this is that if they truly studied every possible affect before acting, nothing would ever get done. My biggest complaint about recent political action is that everything has to be a crisis, and every crisis has to be solved by spending a lot of money.

It seems that the most authoritative spokes persons are those people who have plenty of time to be on the 24 hour news stations. This is not news, nor is it authoritative, it is just opinion usually included in yelling matches where neither side listens or hears.

The discussion of Joe Lieberman being for and against expansion of medicare and the implied verdict of him being paid off is hard for me to discuss. I personally like Joe Lieberman. To be aghast that he received campaign donations from insurance companies is like being aghast that a senator from Nebraska received donations for the grain industry or that one from California received donations from internet companies. The biggest industry in Connecticut is insurance. His apparent change of support for the medicare expansion has to be viewed in light of the latest version of the health care reform bills. Most of these bills go way beyond what he supported (expansion down to age 50) to include every person in the US, citizen or not. Joe is a fiscal conservative (which is why I like him) so he does not like the huge price tag for this all encompassing effort. He is a social moderate (another reason I like him), which is why he is supportive of helping those people who are close to medicare age, and are in need of healthcare coverage.

Zarberg’s conclusion that all is bought and paid for by greedy corporations that don’t care about individuals is interesting. It is also self defeating if true. When a corporation truly doesn’t care, their product will have nothing to do with what people want. That product will not be purchased and the company will either have to change its product or go broke. The only benefit corporations get from paying politicians is the promise not to be punished by regulation or taxation. The only product anyone has ever proposed that each of us would have to buy on pain of fine or imprisonment whether you want it or not is up for a vote right now – health care.

Tiger Woods
We haven’t talked about the Tiger Woods situation yet. Part of the reason for this is the fact that there really aren’t a lot of details yet. The picture that seems to be emerging is that there was some sort of argument about alleged affairs that Tiger may have had. There is additional speculation about whether Elin Woods smashed the car window s with a golf club in order to help him out, or smashed them prior to the accident, chasing him in a fit of rage.

On Tuesday, there was additional drama at Tiger’s house, as an ambulance transported a female to the hospital. After hours of speculation, it turned out that it was Tiger’s mother-in-law who was complaining of stomach pains. She was released on Tuesday afternoon.  This would appear to be completely unrelated to the earlier incident, but did serve to put Tiger back into the media spotlight again.

Tiger has always been very focused on the golf course – but will this be what causes him to lose focus and fail in his attempt to break Jack Nicklaus’ record of 18 major championships (he currently stands at 14)? Tiger has always been a very private person. He has more money that he could probably spend in a lifetime – is it possible that he could walk away from the game in his prime? Stranger things have happened.

[Update: On Friday night, a day after I wrote this article, Tiger announced that he will take an “indefinite” leave of absence from golf.]

Sadistic People
A report of a recent crime in CNN really caught my attention. A woman thought that another woman was having an affair with her husband and was pregnant with his child. The woman forged a prescription for an abortion-inducing drug on a doctor’s stolen prescription pad, had a pharmacist fill the prescription, and then called the pregnant woman, pretending to be from the woman’s doctor’s office and telling her she needed to take this drug immediately.

The pregnant woman believed this, and took the drug. She had to be taken to the hospital, where here baby was born two months early (and is still in an intensive care unit).

That’s not the end of the story, though. After the baby was born, the other woman tried to poison the kid by attempted to sneak tainted breast milk into the hospital.

I have no idea if the woman’s suspicions of an affair were warranted. In any case, why punish an unborn child? That’s just twisted.

You can read the full story on CNN

The Salahi Saga

The attorney for Tareq and Michaele Salahi has responded to a congressional subpoena by saying that the couple does not intend to testify, but would instead invoke their 5th amendment rights.

Let’s review the 5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

First of all, I’m not even certain the the 5th amendment applies.  Let’s read the clause regarding self-incrimination:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Of course, a congressional hearing is not a criminal case, so this would not apply.  I suppose that an argument could be made that this clause applies:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury

However, I don’t think that the Salahis’ behavior could qualify as an “infamous” crime.  More importantly, though, is that taking the 5th would completely contradict the assertion that the Salahis were invited to the state dinner.  If they truly did nothing wrong, then why would they fear self-incrimination?

I stumbled across Michaele Salahi’s Facebook page while writing this (on December 10) and was quite amused.  Not only does the page have photos from the state dinner (with a status that begins “I was honored to be invited to attend the First State Dinner hosted by President Obama & the First Lady …” but also has photos with other celebs, including Donny Osmond.  Oh, and there’s also contact information for Michaele, in case you want to book an appearance.  Hilarious.  [Note: it seems that content is being actively removed from the page – I’m not sure how much will still be there when you read this.]

4Info is a wonderful, and largely free, service that allows people to get all kinds of updates on their cell phones via text messages (note: they do charge for some of their content). I reviewed them on The Soap Boxers a while ago, and I am a big fan. I get lots of sports scores via 4info, and also get the result of every Troy Tulowitzki at bat.

Verizon Wireless, the nation’s largest wireless carrier, has launched a frontal attack against 4Info. As of Friday night, it began blocking calls sent via 4Info’s 44636 short code. This apparently is related to a Verizon policy about ads in text messages, although it appears that 4Info is being singled out, while other providers are not. 4Info’s CEO indicates that a new short code will be available perhaps as early as Monday, but I am concerned that Verizon will simply block the new short code as well.

It is important to note that the users of this service are fully aware of the fact that they will be receiving ads in the text messages. This is the reason why many of 4Info’s service are free – because the advertisers are footing the bill. The ads themselves are rather unobtrusive. At the bottom of a recent sports score is the ad “Gift ideas from Best Buy”, followed by a URL that will take you to that ad. Another message has an ad from Robitussin. I personally have never followed the link to any of the sites, but I have absolutely no problem with the ads. Knowing that Troy Tulowitzki hit a home run a minute ago is well worth the cost of seeing an ad on the bottom of my cell phone.

If you’re a Verizon customer, call and complain. If your neighbor’s teenager can send a thousand text messages a month to their friends, there is no valid reason to deprive you of your messages from 4Info. I suspect that this is an attempt at a money grab on the part of Verizon – in spite of the fact that people are already paying for text messaging (either a la carte, or baked into the cost of their packages). If you are thinking about switching to Verizon, take a moment to re-think your decision. Even if the 4Info issue doesn’t personally affect you, do you want to do business with a company that pulls these sorts of shenanigans? I certainly wouldn’t.

(at this point, we shift gears and become an anti-Verizon rant)

It really doesn’t surprise me that Verizon is the company in the middle of this. Honestly, I’m not impressed with the company. About a decade ago, I tried (and failed) to get DSL through Verizon. I work in IT, and have a very good working knowledge of networking. It was quite obvious that the problem was on their end. I spent hours on the phone with them one weekend trying to get the problem resolved. I was given the complete runaround, bounced from one area to another (and other times having me perform actions that obviously would not fix the problem). Of course, I had to repeat the information every time – this COMMUNICATION company apparently had no way to COMMUNICATE this information via some sort of problem tracking system. Finally, I gave up and canceled the order. I went back to dial-up.

I was given two options for returning the DSL modem. They could send me a box through the mail, or I could drop it off at the local Verizon Phone Mart. I decided to make it easy for them (big mistake) and save them the shipping by dropping it off at the store. The people at the Verizon Phone Mart seemed a bit perplexed at what to do, but took the modem.

A week later, I got a call from Verizon Phone Mart. They still had no idea what to do with the modem, and wanted me to pick it up. I told them that I’d contact the Verizon DSL people and ask them to contact the store. When I contacted the Verizon DSL people, they agreed to contact the store and assured me that this would be no problem. Awesome. Problem solved, right?

A week later, I get another call. The Verizon Phone Mart never got a call. Yeah, the DSL people essentially blew off someone in their own company. So I picked up a modem and arranged for Verizon to send me a box (at their expense).

And then there was the billing. For months afterwards, I was billed for service I had canceled. Every month I’d call, and the charge would be removed – only to appear the next month. Finally, one month, in an avalanche of strange credits on my bill, the charge went away and never returned. Of course, they even made a mistake on this bill. They actually credited me slightly too much. I’m normally a pretty honest guy – if a cashier doesn’t scan an item, I’ll point it out. This time, however, I kept my mouth shut. I was afraid that if anyone tried to fix this, they’d make a massive mistake and my bill would be messed up for the next year. I might be willing to spend hours on the phone convincing them that they owed me money, but I certainly wasn’t willing to spend hours on the phone convincing them that they owed ME money.

Welcome to The Soap Boxers.  If you drifted here from Lazy Man and Money, feel free to take a look around.  We’re not a niche  blog, but more of a broad based web magazine.  We cover news, sports, domestic and mideast politics, and much more.  Every Friday brings a new fiction short story.  So explore the archives, subscribe to our RSS feed, or simply stop by again tomorrow.  Thank you for spending a few minutes of your day with us.