Census Worker Hanged in Kentucky

The Associated Press reports on the frightening killing of a census worker in rural Kentucky. Thanks to Il Principe for the tip.

The FBI is investigating whether anti-government sentiment led to the hanging death of a U.S. Census worker near a Kentucky cemetery. The word 'fed" was scrawled on the dead man's chest, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

The body of Bill Sparkman, a 51-year-old part-time Census field worker and teacher, was found Sept. 12 in a remote patch of the Daniel Boone National Forest in rural southeast Kentucky. The Census has suspended door-to-door interviews in rural Clay County, where the body was found, pending the outcome of the investigation.

Investigators are still trying to determine whether the death was a killing or a suicide, and if a killing, whether the motive was related to his government job or to anti-government sentiment. An autopsy report is pending.

That last paragraph is pretty funny. Of course they have to explore every possibility, but to me it seems extremely unlikely that someone scrawled "fed" on his chest after the guy himself committed suicide. What do you think?

Even as illustrated in town hall meetings today, there is a distinct hostility in a large segment of the population toward people who work for their government.

This fits in perfectly with some of our recent discussions of the influence people like Glenn Beck have on the kinds of folks who live in rural Kentucky. The oft-repeated claim that the federal government was going to take their guns away, which has proven to be laughably mistaken, as well as the suggestions of FEMA concentration camps and death panels for the elderly, has driven many people over the edge.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Plaxico Gets 2 Years

Yahoo News reports on the story of Plaxico Burress's sentencing.

Former Super Bowl hero Plaxico Burress apologized to his family and tearfully kissed his wife and young son goodbye Tuesday before he was led away to prison to begin serving a two-year sentence on a weapons charge.

Burress, at the time a star receiver with the New York Giants, was at the Latin Quarter nightclub in Manhattan last November when a gun tucked into his waistband slipped down his leg and fired, wounding him in the thigh.

The gun was not licensed in New York or in New Jersey, where Burress lived. His license to carry a concealed weapon in Florida had expired in May 2008.

When we discussed this last time I suggested that he not be sent to prison. I think this confused some of our pro-gun commenters who think I'm unreasonably against guns and anything to do with them. Actually, I don't think all gun crime should be punished severely and certainly not with prison sentences.

I think Plaxico was stupid, he made a stupid mistake. Although what he did endangered others, he himself was the only one hurt. To me it seems a terrible waste to put talented behind bars if heavy fines and strict supervision would accomplish the task of ensuring they don't do it again.

What's your opinion? What's accomplished by his incarceration? Phuck Politics said it was racial. Do you think that could be the case?

His attorney, Benjamin Brafman, said previously that Burress was thinking of his family — including his wife and young son, Elijah — in taking the plea, but Brafman questioned the fairness of the recommended prison sentence.

"This was not an intentional criminal act," Brafman said the day of the plea. "In my judgment, a two-year prison sentence is a very severe punishment."

Before sentencing Tuesday, Brafman called Burress "a fundamentally decent man."

"This is a very real tragic case in many, many ways," Brafman said.

Defense attorneys will say anything. "This was not an intentional criminal act," is pretty funny, but calling the 2-year sentence "very severe punishment," seems right to me.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Murder / Suicide - 90-Year-Old Man Charged

The Associated Press reports on this sad story.

A 90-year-old retired physician has been charged with killing his terminally ill wife at their Southern California home but remains hospitalized after turning the gun on himself.

Dr. James Fish was charged Monday with voluntary manslaughter and could face 21 years in prison if convicted.

Authorities say Fish apparently wanted to end his wife's suffering when he allegedly shot 88-year-old Phyllis Fish on Sunday at their Leisure World home in Laguna Woods.

District attorney's spokeswoman Susan Schroeder says Fish gave the bedridden woman morphine and first used a gun that didn't fire. A caretaker called 911, but prosecutors claim Fish got another gun and shot both his wife and himself in the head.

There's certainly a big difference between this case and the frequent incidents of abusive male gun owners shooting their wives. I find it almost hard to believe this man will be charged with anything.

On the other hand, I realize we cannot allow people to decide willy-nilly when euthanasia is appropriate. I would never condone people taking guns out of their closets to address medical emergencies, but in this case I feel only sympathy for Dr. Fish.

What's your opinion? Although this is an extreme twist on "doctor assisted suicide," do you think what he did is morally acceptable? Does this present more evidence of my own confused stance? I'm opposed to capital punishment, pro-choice on abortion and pro-euthanasia in certain cases.

What do you think?

(Cross posted on Man with the Mud-Rake)

Rasmussen Reports

The Los Angeles Times published an article about the recent findings in the Rasmussen Reports on guns.

The polls, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, asked whether the Constitution guarantees the right to own a gun and what was behind the recent increase in gun sales.

Among Americans polled, 75% said the Constitution guaranteed the right to own a gun. The percentage of "yes" answers was higher among Republicans (92%) and lower among Democrats (64%). Among others, 71% answered yes.

Isn't it fascinating that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that much? Does this poll show that 36% of Democrats believe there is no constitutional guarantee? I wonder how many of the Democrats who made up the 64% think although there is a constitutional guarantee, it's a bad idea. What do you think?

Here's another good one.

Republicans and Democrats were evenly divided as well: 63% of Republicans polled said they opposed stricter gun laws while 62% of Democrats said stricter laws are needed.

I'm not sure if I would call that "evenly divided," but it is interesting. I suppose you could say that Republicans who oppose stricter gun control are 63%, while Democrats who oppose stricter gun control are 38% or less assuming there are some undecided. Let's say the undecided ones are only 8%. That means in the question of opposing stricter gun control laws the difference is 63% to 30%. Does that sound about right to you?

Why do you think there are such great differences between Republicans and Democrats. My own idea, very unscientific and totally without proof, is that among the Republicans you've got the mindless close-minded masses who cannot think outside their pre-conceived notions of how things should be. These are the millions who listen to Beck and Limbaugh and O'reilly for their inspiration. Among the Democrats, on the other hand, you've got the open-minded, the seekers, the idealists, folks who are generally better educated and better able to distinguish right from wrong.

What's your opinion? Please feel free to leave a comment.

Speaking Truth to Power - Amonasro

The story of Aida is told from the perspective of the Egyptians. Their territory has been invaded by their traditional enemy the Ethopians led by a guerriero indomable, an unconquerable warrior, Amonasro. Nevertheless, the Egyptians win the day, Amonasro is captured and brought before the Egyptian king.

At 2:20 begin the lines I'm talking about, the culmination of his address to the king.

Ma tu, Re, tu signore possente,
A costoro ti volgi clemente;
Oggi noi siam percossi dal fato,
Ma doman voi potria il fato colpir.

But you, O King, are a mighty lord.
Look with mercy on these captives.
Today we are laid low by fate:
tomorrow, such might be your lot.

Capital Punishment and Murder

Amnesty International published an article about the declining numbers in both executions and murders. (via Il Principe)

The FBI’s annual crime report – Crime in the United States, 2008 – which was released Monday reveals that, like death sentences and executions, murder rates in the U.S. declined slightly in 2008. This has been the trend for a number of years, as has been the fact that homicide rates vary from state to state, with the states of the Deep South generally having the highest murder rates.

As usual, states without capital punishment generally had lower homicide rates than the states that execute. In fact, all but one of the 14 states with no death penalty in 2008 had murder rates below the national rate of 5.4 per 100,000. The lone exception, Michigan, had a homicide rate of 5.4, equal to the national rate.

Homicide rates in the U.S. are of course still way too high. That 1 in every 20,000 Americans was murdered last year is nothing to be proud of, but by now it should be clear to all that, as the consensus of criminologists agree, the death penalty has nothing to do with solving this problem.

It's interesting that they conclude from the fact that States with fewer executions have fewer murders that capital punishment is not a deterrent. What do you think the reason is? Some say the reason is there are more guns, but in spite of the fantastic chart constructed by Linoge, I think there are various interpretations.

I enjoyed the observation about "states of the Deep South generally having the highest murder rates." Now, why would that be I wonder? What do you think? They certainly have a lot of guns down there.

What observations can you come up with from this report?

Please leave a comment.

Another Mayor Against Illegal Guns

The Rutland Herald published a feature article written by Mr. Casey Jennings. It seems to be a brief attack of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, its founder Mayor Bloomberg and the local Mayor Chris Louras of Rutland Vermont. Mr. Jennings describes the MAIG like this:

Essentially, it is a front group for a handful of rabidly anti-Second Amendment mayors who founded it, which in fact lobbies for gun control and misrepresents itself as a "reasonable" group going after illegal activity.

Of course he mentions the sting operation, supposedly sponsored by Bloomberg to investigate straw purchases of guns in other states. Jennings says "they acted illegally and were guilty of a felony crime." Well, I doubt that's true since they were never charged with a crime in spite of the gun crowd's tireless efforts at repeating the incident.

There's the mandatory rehashing of the failed attempt at concealed carry reciprocity.

Currently, some states do not even allow non-residents to carry a gun for protection. New York is one such state. It is impossible for any nonresident of New York to carry a handgun in that state legally, and in much of that state, close to impossible for residents.

One of the commenters, of which there are several good ones, pointed out something that struck me about that above description. "Some states don't even allow..." It made me laugh.

What's your opinion? Do you agree with Mr. Jennings' description of the MAIG? Do you think they acted criminally in the famous undercover incident? Do you think the reciprocity law is still a possibility, that we haven't heard the last of it?

Please leave a comment.