I recently heard that there were about three billion websites now operating around the world, but instead of saying like a sensible person "That’s enough" I’ve decided that means there’s always room for one more, and here it is. I took its title from a sports column we used to have in New York which lives in the memory of all its old readers. It featured characters like Al Weill, the fight manager with the wonderful built (sic), Professor Ilitch of the Prosperity Institute with his Secret Play for beating the horses, available to the public for a reasonable price, Phainting Phil Scott, the English heavyweight, and other such individuals often found in the vicinity of Madison Square Garden or Belmont Racetrack. Not to mislead, I don’t intend to write sports or introduce unusual characters found on my travels, but instead to deal in a general way with issues that bother me, and now and then to retail a joke or a story or a verse that will be a appreciated by a cultivated audience such as I hope to attract. How will I know they’re cultivated? Because I attracted them. The benchmarks that will find me on a search engine are Catholic, ex-cop, law and order guy, tackles issues with originality and humor too. That’s me. The judges are you. THE NEWS OF THE WEEK IN REVIEW Does the New York Times still have a Sunday section with the above title? Now I have it, for today at least. I won’t hang onto it though. I haven’t yet shackled myself to commenting on current events as they happen. I write as I like, whether it’s about something that happened yesterday, today or a hundred years ago. But sometimes current events can be pretty compelling so that you give in to them and go with the flow. The big deal this week was of course the State of the Union address by the President to Congress, which gave rise first to speculation about what he might say, then about what he ought to say and finally what he shouldn’t say. This kept all the commentators busy right up to curtain time. Then the speech itself was delivered and immediately became material for analysis of what was said, how it was said and what did it all mean. If you’re in the news business that’s about as good as it gets. You now have something you can chew on for a month at least. These SOU’s or whatever acronym they go under unfortunately are too much of a circus really to qualify as serious politics deserving of the respect of the commoners. What we get is an applause contest. The speaker, the President, serves as a cheerleader, the kind who hollers out “Wadda We Want?” “When Do We Want It?” The cheering section makes the responses, as they say in church and the show goes on. They give us applause, cheers, standing ovations, and as the reports of Stalin's speeches used to read : “Prolonged, stormy applause, shouts of “Long live the great Stalin!” “Glory to the party of the people!” “Victory to …whoever.” , Our applause festivals are different of course. There’s also an anti-applause factor. The opposition doesn’t wear out its hands clapping them, just the seat of its pants sitting down and refusing to clap. This outrages the clappers and drives them to greater heights of enthusiasm. Do they calm down towards the end of the affair? You bet they do. So much for the circus aspect of things. It’s silly maybe, but at least it’s funny. The laundry list, that is to say the speech, may be equally silly but it’s never as funny. Bill Clinton started it as I recall. Every detail of his contemplated projects was brought out until saturation point was reached and there were no more sidewalk repairs or sewer systems to be announced to a waiting world. It reminded me of the so-called monthly command conferences that I used to go to in the police department. There were never less than thirty topics on the agenda, ranging from shoe shines to bomb plots, meaning that nothing really made any impression due to the surrounding fog. Sorry, but I get the same feeling from other kitchen-sink speeches even those produced by the President of the United States. Other things continued to happen even as the world stood still for the Speech. Mr. Tassone, the former superintendent of the Roslyn school district here was back in the news. Since being convicted of stealing several million dollars from the district’s funds he’s been languishing in jail upstate under a sentence of four to twelve years. He is now being released after serving less than the minimum. Good conduct and rehab training earned him this remission. Some Roslyn people have objected to this outcome and they may be right, but my reaction is centered on another aspect of the case. The local paper has featured a full-page picture of Tassone as he appeared at his trial in 2006. He wears an orange prison uniform and has his hands shackled in front of him with the cuffs attached to a belt around his waist. He looks exactly like a jihadist or a mass murderer should look. The trouble is he’s neither of these or any other kind of violent criminal either. He’s simply a white-collar guy who got too frisky with his expense account and his purchase orders. White-collar always leaves a paper trail and so it went with him. No one was hurt by him except in the pocketbook. He got punished for this and I approve that just like everyone else. What I don’t approve is the lack of discrimination shown in treating such a person as if he were a violent criminal who threatened the public safety. Do I hear the D.A. saying “We treat everyone the same”? In a pig’s eye they do. They don’t do it to any white-collar person who refuses to go into court cuffed so if that’s what they want they’ll have to carry him in. He gets his way. What’s going on is an ugly kind of charade meant to demonstrate the D.A’s, dedication to political correctness. I mean, all these minority individuals charged with mugging, gang-banging, gun possession, burglary, etc., etc., how must they feel when they see non-minority prisoners uncuffed just because they didn’t attack anybody or do bodily harm to a victim? What kind of justice is that ? They may well ask. Only I would let them go on asking until they figured out the answer for themselves. It would not be the one the equal-rights people would like. Equal rights are for equal crimes. We won’t go on with equal treatment for a bad bookkeeper and a drunk driver leaving the scene of a fatal accident. Most of this week’s news seems to have annoyed me and I haven’t even finished with it yet. I’ll save that for next week After that, back to ancient history. It’s better for the temper.
Designed and Hosted by Online Ontime Ltd.