Insanity isn't funny, but sometimes how our ostensibly sane institutions deal with it is. Take the case of Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Ms. Nestler is the woman who got a temporary restraining order against David Letterman to keep him from thinking about her and sending her secret coded messages through the television.

The typed statement submitted to the judge reads like a case study in delusional disorders. The tale it spins is, Nestler acknowledges, "highly un-believable" but "ENTIRELY TRUE". It's a good thing she says that up front so the judge would know to take her seriously.

Letterman is apparently obsessed with Nestler, a woman he didn't know existed until she got the restraining order against him. He had accomplices too: Regis Philbin, Kathie Lee Gifford, and Kelsey Grammer, who all were "entirely aware of the reality of me being the person Mr. Letterman wanted to marry, and at the same time, was the person, through my willingness to learn, who wanted to train me via intense observation, to be his co-host on the Late Show with David Letterman." Um, yeah.

How does Nestler know all this? Because Letterman "talks in a 'code'" which Nestler had to learn. Talking in code is "common in the television industry", as we all know. The coded communication began in 1993, on the first night Letterman's show aired from the Ed Sullivan Theater. Nestler became captivated and started sending "supportive thoughts of love to him", believing that "thoughts are things". Letterman began responding with looks and gestures and code words such as "Nevada". That last one was particularly remarkable because Nestler hadn't yet written to Dave to tell her she lived in Nevada, yet somehow he knew that was where she lived! Soon thereafter, he proposed to her on his show, calling her by her first code name, "Oprah". Other messages continued even via Late Show musical guests who would embed messages to her in their lyrics. Letterman also insisted that she watch Live with Regis and Kathie Lee, which she didn't like but had to watch because "Dave hammers and hammers until he gets his way." (Now we begin to understand why she needed a restraining order; it's just cruel to force someone to watch Kathie Lee Gifford.)

But that wasn't all! Nestler was becoming sleep-deprived because Letterman wanted her to watch television programs at all hours as part of her co-host training. By 1998, after years of trying to do what Letterman asked, she just had to tell him that she couldn't be his co-host. It was at that point that Letterman began using Kelsey Grammer, through his show Frasier, as a conduit for his messages to Nestler. Unfortunately, Grammer (unlike Letterman's good friend Regis Philbin) didn't approve of their relationship. Entire Frasier episodes were devoted to telling Nestler of Grammer's disapproval were based upon their communications with one another.

It wasn't until after Letterman had his coronary bypass surgery that Nestler realized she no longer loved him. Letterman, however, just couldn't let go of her love or the prospect of her becoming his co-host. That must be when the harassment started, necessitating the restraining order ordering Letterman to:

• not threaten, harm, alarm or annoy Plaintiff
• stay at least 100 yards away from Plaintiff and from Plaintiff's residence, workplace and children's school
• not telephone Plaintiff or contact Plaintiff in any way, either directly or through others
• not block Plaintiff in public places or roads

And it was so ordered at 2:55 p.m. on December 15, 2005, by Santa Fe District Court Judge Daniel Sanchez, who must have gotten his law degree from Bob's Mail Order Law School. But that doesn't mean that Judge Sanchez is not a reasonable person. Yesterday, he lifted the restraining order at the request of Letterman's lawyers. I hope Judge Sanchez' brain doesn't hurt after his difficult deliberation in the matter. Those who wish to express their opinions to Judge Sanchez can do so at:

Judge Daniel A. Sanchez
New Mexico District Court
First District
Division VII
P.O. Box 2268
Santa Fe, NM 87504-2268
Phone: 505-827-5056
Fax: 505-827-5055/7998

(Hat tip to Free New Mexican for all the documents.)

Massachusetts is somewhat famous for it's set of so-called Blue Laws, that set of prohibitions on what can and cannot be done on Sunday. The laws go back to colonial times when "keeping holy the Sabbath" was the business of the legislature, and they have evolved ever since. The most recent changes have involved abolition of parts of the law and relaxing of others. Among the vestiges of the old laws that remain is the requirement that liquor stores be closed on Sundays and holidays. This year, with Christmas falling on a Sunday, it would seem that the stores kill two birds with one stone. But that isn't the way it worked.

On Monday, Dec. 26, all stores may legally open, but one line of stores is losing out this year on Sunday and Monday business during the Christmas holiday - package stores. Under state law, package stores and other alcohol licensees may not sell liquor during those two days. Natasha Dunker, state outreach coordinator for the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission (ABCC), said the state law that authorized package stores to sell liquor on Sunday also included a clause requiring stores to close the Monday after a Sunday holiday. Dunker did not know why that provision was included.

I'm all for having a day of limited retail activity, when workers aren't forced to toil like they do every other day of the week. I am especially sympathetic to holiday closings because I know first-hand what a drag it is to have to work on a holiday. But Monday wasn't a holiday. Many non-retail businesses were closed Monday as their Christmas holiday, but that's only because the benefits packages promised to their employees promise certain paid holidays. There is certainly no expectation that families will travel over the river and through the woods to Grandma's house on the day after Christmas. If they do, there's no good reason why they shouldn't be able to pick up a bottle of Grandma's favorite wine on the way.

Don't hold your breath for the rocket scientists over in the Massachusetts State House to come to their senses and change the law. Most of them aren't that smart.

Labels: local

Men are probably unaware of this, but women's clothing sizes have nothing to do with actual measurements. When we go out to buy a new pair of pants, we don't look for waist and inseam like guys do. Our shirts don't come in neck sizes. Besides bras, the sizes of what we wear are arbitrary. Pants in 32/30 will always be the same size, but size 8 long may or may not be what you think.

Last week, while completing my Christmas shopping, I bought myself a new pair of jeans. I'm supposed to wear a size 8, but unfortunately I have gained some weight and am now as heavy as I was about five years ago before I went to Weight Watchers and lost 30 pounds. At that time, I was wedging myself into a size 12. I sure didn't want to start buying fat clothes, but I was willing to compromise and buy a 10, hoping it wouldn't be too small for now.

Amazingly, the size 10 jeans are too big. Even after washing and drying three times. I wish I could say that my recent weight gain was all in my boobs, but that isn't the case. I'm the same size I was five years ago. It's the clothes that have changed.

Do clothing manufacturers think we're stupid, that if we put on a size 8 and it fits, we'll think those extra pounds aren't really there? Are they really doing us any good by enabling our denial about our unhealthy eating habits and lack of exercise? Are my coronary arteries going to not get clogged simply because of what the label on my Levis says?

Merry Christmas again. No, I don't mean "belated Merry Christmas". I'm sending you more Christmas greetings because Christmas isn't over. It is true that the federal holiday of Christmas occurs on December 25. But the "twelve days of Christmas", so well-known because of the popular song, actually begin on Christmas day. December 25 isn't the twelfth day; it's the first.

Perhaps you're thinking that I am wrong. After all, you can't find a Christmas song on the radio on December 26. Many people start taking down their trees and other decorations about now. Even the Christian church celebrates the time leading up to Christmas, right?

OK, so you're a little confused. The pre-Christmas period that begins on the fourth Sunday before Christmas (which is typically the first Sunday after Thanksgiving) is the season of Advent, not Christmas. There is no significance to the twelfth day before Christmas or any of the subsequent eleven days. Count twelve days after Christmas, however, and you will arrive at a very significant commemoration—Epiphany, the observance of the magi's visit to the infant Jesus. Some cultures emulate the magi and exchange gifts on Epiphany rather than Christmas day. Observant Christians are unlikely to take their Christmas trees down before January 6.

All of which is lost on the radio stations, which obviously take their cue from the stores. The retail industry, as we know, "celebrate" Christmas only to the extent that it helps them make money—which is to say, not at all after December 24. Keep in mind are the same businesses that have Memorial Day sales, as if stocking up on summer clothes or buying a new chain saw at 30% off somehow honors Uncle Joe who died in Vietnam back in '68.

But I digress. Don't take my word for any of this; check out this site for some more information. While you're reading, I'll spin some more Christmas music.

To all regular readers and occasional visitors, the Den Mother sends Christmas wishes.

George W. Bush's detractors have said it for years now, but I didn't believe them. Now, I admit it. They were right. Bush is a liar.

How do I know this? Saddam Hussain said so. And we all know how trustworthy he is.

The federal Transportation Security Administration has put into effect the most recent changes to its list of items that cannot be brought onto aircraft via carry-on baggage or on a passenger's person. A sampling of items that are and are not allowed:

PROHIBITED		PERMITTED
billy clubs brass knuckles mace/pepper spray stun guns dynamite hand grenades plastic explosives gas torches lighters tear gas sharp-tipped scissors serrated or pointed-blade knives box cutters ice picks meat cleavers sabers/swords drills hammers cattle prods guns pool cues		cigar cutters corkscrews knitting needles nail files blunt-tipped scissors umbrellas walking canes non-serrated plastic or round-blade knives screwdrivers 7 inches or less in length

Seems to make sense—no meat cleavers, pepper spray, or dynamite. Then again, can't a 7-inch screwdriver plunged into the chest be just as deadly as a 7-inch knife? What's the difference between being beaten with a walking cane versus a pool cue? Can't the blade of a disassembled cigar cutter be used in the same manner as the blade of a box cutter?

DISCLAIMER: The following is humor. It is not intended to belittle mental illness. I work in a mental health-related job and have almost 15 years of psychiatric treatment under my belt. So chill.

Schizophrenia – Do You Hear What I Hear?

Multiple Personality Disorder – We Three Kings Disoriented Are

Amnesia – I Don't Know if I'll Be Home for Christmas

Narcissism – Hark the Herald Angels Sing about Me

Mania – Deck the Halls and Walls and House and Lawn and Streets and Stores and Office and Town and Cars and Buses and Trucks and Trees and Fire Hydrants and...

Paranoia – Santa Claus Is Coming to Get Me

Borderline Personality Disorder – Thoughts of Roasting on an Open Fire

Personality Disorder – You Better Watch Out, I'm Gonna Cry, I'm Gonna Pout, Maybe I'll Tell You Why

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder – Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells, Jingle Bells...

Agoraphobia – I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day but Wouldn't Leave My House

Senile Dementia – Walking in a Winter Wonderland Miles from My House in My Slippers and Robe

Oppositional Defiant Disorder – I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus So I Burned Down the House

Social Anxiety Disorder – Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas While I Sit Here and Hyperventilate

Democratic and media hyperventilating notwithstanding, it turns out that President Bush's practice of tapping into e-mails and phone calls involving terrorism suspects without first obtaining a warrant is legal after all, if analysis by a former assistant Attorney General in the Clinton Administration is to be believed.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

At issue is the specific use of wiretapping and e-mail surveillance of communications between a party in the United States and a party in a foreign country where the intent is to gather intelligence related to national security threats. We aren't talking about indiscriminate spying, despite what recent headlines suggest. Even so, Americans instinctively believe such activity to be prohibited without a warrant issued by a court with appropriate jurisdiction. That's what prevents your local, state, or federal government from monitoring your e-mails or listening in on your phone calls for no reason. There may be a good reason to do so, but a judge has to be convinced before allowing it. No warrant, no wiretap.

But there's a wrinkle known as the Foreign Intelligence Service Act (FISA) which established procedures for foreign intelligence gathering as opposed to regular law enforcement of, say, your local mafia boss or drug dealer. FISA allowed for the creation of a secret court through which warrants can be obtained in a manner more secure than going through the regular judiciary, thereby ensuring greater secrecy than is available via our openly operating courts.

What Bush has done is authorize electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence gathering, but without warrants from the FISA-created secret court, apparently using the same justifications used by his predecessors.

Despite available information that Bush may be correct in claiming the legal right to do what he did, it's unlikely that the court jesters who pass for today's Democratic party leadership will end up with egg on their face on this issue. Why would they, unless journalists call them on it? Most journalists can't grasp the intricacies of complex laws involving safeguarding of national security and therefore can't accurately report them. Democrats will use the lack of accurate coverage as an excuse to call (again) for Bush's impeachment, knowing that most of their constituents presume what they see reported is true. But even if their current approach wins them points in their holy war against Bush, it's a huge mistake for them to take that road if their interest is in justice. What they should be focusing on is not whether what Bush has been doing is legal (it is) but rather whether it should be legal.

Legal, of course, doesn't necessarily equal right, and it's appropriate to enact laws that reflect shifts in the people's understanding of what is and is not acceptable behavior by their elected officials. The Supreme Court recently ruled that it's legal for municipalities to use eminent domain to give one person's private property to another private party for private use, but I'm not aware of anyone except real estate developers who thinks that's a good thing or who wouldn't want to see the use of eminent domain tightened up via either statute or constitutional amendment. Abortion on demand and state-sponsored execution are legal, but that hasn't stopped many people (myself included) from expending considerable energy trying to abolish them, as our forebears did a century and a half ago when the hot-button issue was slavery. The list of injustices that were once legal but are no longer is a long one. There is nothing wrong with society's occasionally recognizing that we haven't always done the right thing and rectifying it.

Now I'm not an expert on such things, but I am somewhat familiar from news coverage since the September 11 terrorist attacks that the use of the FISA secret court is on the increase—and that it has always been essentially a rubber stamp. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the court established by FISA has approved 18,742 warrant applications since 1979 and denied only four (hat tip to Joshua Micah Marshall). That's a ratio of 4,685.5 approvals for every denial, for those keeping score at home. If there is a reason why that track record should be considered insufficient to allow the federal government the leeway its agents say they need, let it be argued on the floor of the United States Congress. If no such reason exists, a law should be enacted explicitly removing from presidents henceforth the authority to act outside the bounds of the secret court.

Unfortunately, the same people who are now most boisterously calling for Bush's head on a platter are also the least likely to actually do something constructive and pursue a change in the law. Why? For starters, they aren't nearly as concerned about whether Bush broke the law as they are consumed with hatred for the guy. Just as Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) argued during President Clinton's Senate trial that he would vote to acquit even though he believed Clinton was guilty, there are those now who would vote to convict Bush even if they believed him to be innocent of whatever charges were brought against them. It's called blind partisanship, and increasingly it's what people in Washington do. But more importantly, they won't push for a change in the law because they want to keep the option open for future presidents of their preferred political stripe. For evidence of that fact, note that none of them batted an eyelash when President Clinton and President Carter asserted the same power which Bush stands accused of exercising (hat tip to Matt Drudge).

Those who are truly interested in civil liberties and maintaining Americans' constitutional rights would do well to distance themselves from the Democratic feeding frenzy and instead focus on the root issue of how much power the president—any president—should have. Eviscerating Bush, while no doubt immensely satisfying to Washington's carnivores, is a waste of time.

This decision makes eminently good sense. (It's long, I know, but well worth reading.)

Synopsis: a federal court has ruled as unconstitutional a Pennsylvania school board's decision to require the introduction of "intelligent design" into ninth grade science classes. As a religious person might say, Hallelujah! The nonsense has gone on long enough. It's about time we all acknowledge—and say out loud—the following:

1. "Intelligent design" is not science. It cannot be supported or disproved by scientific methods and, in fact, can only be accepted as a matter of faith. Calling it an "alternative" to evolution is a ruse to inject religious indoctrination into the science classroom.
2. Those who insist on the teaching of "intelligent design" are not trying to present any "alternate theory" at all. They are trying to denigrate an existing theory they don't like but can't disprove scientifically.
3. Contrary to fundamentalist Christian claims to the contrary, Darwinian evolution is not inconsistent with the existence of a divine creator, who could have created the universe in the manner theorized by Darwin if s/he had wanted to. It is inconsistent with the simplistic literal reading of the Genesis story of creation in six days, which is the real reason why fundamentalists seek to discredit it.
4. This ongoing foolish insistence on portraying God as a simplistic magician borders on blasphemy.

That last one is a "theory" I can embrace.

Can you imagine a U.S. congressional election in which 70% of eligible voters turned out to vote, defying threats of violence, not complaining about long lines or security searches, and being genuinely excited to be there?

A celebratory atmosphere took hold in some locations. In the eastern Ramadi neighborhood of Sufiya, candy was being handed out, as people came to vote.

Khalilzad said that people arrived to polls with families "almost like going to a wedding."

(CNN)

That sure isn't like any election day I've ever seen. But we're spoiled here, aren't we? We expect democracy to be convenient, and when it isn't—such as when we have to wait in long lines—we complain about being "disenfranchised". Or we just don't go at all. We don't appreciate what we have. We take for granted what others in the world willingly and even gleefully risk their lives for: self-determination.

Lawyer Mahdi Al Rahim, who arrived from Baghdad two days ago, said the election was a crucial step in Iraq's future.

"The elections are fantastic," he said. "It's the first time we practise democracy right."

(The Australian)

Today the Iraqi people, whom some say don't want democracy or are incapable of maintaining a representative government, are turning out in droves to elect a parliament. It is the third election in the long process of building a government to replace the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, who was always "elected" unanimously because no one else was on the ballot. Now, they have more than one choice, and it makes them happy.

It isn't just the freedom to choose who runs their government that has them excited. It's also the prospect of long-term stability and eventual autonomy. They don't like being occupied by the Americans and coalition nations, but they—unlike some U.S. Democrats— recognize that withdrawal must be tied not to a calendar but to successful completion of a process.

One man hoped the election would bring an end to the occupation, but this would depend, he said, on maintaining unity.

"Stability can only come from unity. When we have stability," he said, "then the Americans can go."

(BBC)

Have you seen this one? I got an e-mail today with images showing that someone (according to the images, someone at this Italian web site) has figured out that the current version of the U.S. $20 bill foretold the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Honestly, I haven't seen anything this contrived since the virgin Mary showed up on a grilled cheese sandwich.

The heading is "INCREDIBLE THINGS HAPPEN IN AMERICA..." and the message instructs you to fold a new $20 bill in half...

...then fold again exactly as below.

Now fold the other end exactly the same way, and voila!

The image of the burning Pentagon.

But wait, there's more. Turn it over and you see...

...the burning World Trade Center towers. "What a coincidence!" the e-mail gushes. "A simple geometric fold creates a catastrophic premonition printed on all $20 bills!!! COINCIDENCE? YOU DECIDE!"

"As if that wasn't enough," it goes on to say, "look at this!"

OK, that last one requires a bunch of folds not already done.

The only problem with this supposedly amazing coincidence (besides the fact that you need a heck of an imagination to see what you're supposed to see, and the fact that you have to fold the bill in a manner that no one folds their money, and the fact that Osama bin Laden's name doesn't really begin with a zero) is that the new $20 bill didn't go into circulation until October 2003, two years after the catastrophic event the folded bill is said to have predicted.

That's a "premonition"? I can do that. I predict that Massachusetts will have a big snow storm last Friday. And look, it happened. Remarkable!

It's maddening, really, to a die-hard death penalty opponent like me, to see the irrational love-fest over convicted killer Stanley "Tookie" Williams, founder of the vicious Crips street gang. To hear Williams' celebrity supporters, you'd think California was about to execute St. Augustine. What they don't realize is that their particular form of advocacy actually cheapens the cause of abolition.

Williams is scheduled to be killed by lethal injection by the state of California in nine hours, having been convicted in 1981 of the 1979 murders of Albert Owens, Yen-I Yang, Tsai-Shai Yang, and Yee-Chen Lin. Prior to that, he founded and ran the notorious Crips, one of Los Angeles' and subsequently the nation's most dangerous street gangs. He has reportedly turned into a model prisoner, authoring several books urging kids to stay away from gangs, which has prompted his supporters to call him reformed. He has also reportedly failed to cooperate with law enforcement officials who want his help combating gang activity, leading skeptics to doubt his sincerity.

I don't think Williams should be executed. I don't think anyone should be executed, not even the most heinous confessed sociopathic serial killer. I also think that my opposition to the death penalty requires the intellectual honesty to admit that many, if not most, death row inmates have no apparent redeeming qualities. None, except their humanity. Even if their behavior has been inhuman and inhumane, they remain humans who should not be killed. Pre-meditated killing is wrong, whether by one person on a street corner or twelve people in a jury room.

What bothers me about the powers that be in the anti-death penalty movement is that they cannot resist the need to portray the killers as the victims. According to the case updates posted on the web site of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, there are always mitigating circumstances. For example, the NCADP states that Tookie Williams "maintains his innocence", "has completely reformed", "has written an award-winning series of children's books that warn about the perils of the gang lifestyle", and was nominated by a member of the Swiss Parliament for the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize! Forget what I said about St. Augustine—this man is Mother Teresa.

Is no convicted killer ever responsible for his or her actions? It seems not, based on other recent NCADP case profiles:

• Robin Lovitt, who killed Clayton Dicks, "has maintained his innocence from the beginning". Furthermore, "the prosecutor's case ... is circumstantial at best." (Lovitt's sentence, scheduled to be carried out on November 30, was commuted.)
• Daryl Linnie Mack, who killed Betty May, "suffers from anxiety and psychotic disorders" and "has shown signs of rehabilitation in prison." (Mack's death sentence, scheduled to be carried out on December 1, was stayed.)
• Kenneth Lee Boyd, who killed Julie Curry Boyd and Thomas Dillard Curry, "dropped out of school", "[served] in the army and went to Vietnam", "suffers from a history of alcohol abuse", and "suffered from an intestinal illness that had resulted in the removal of both his stomach and his gall bladder on two separate occasions." (Boyd was executed on December 2.)
• Shawn Humphries, who killed Dickie Smith, "did not intend to kill" his victim. He "suffered an extensive history of emotional, physical, and substance abuse" and "suffered from ineffective counsel." (Humphries was executed on December 2.)
• Wesley Eugene Baker, who killed Jane Frances Tyson, "maintains that he did not shoot" his victim and "was driven to live on the streets at the age of nine because of his abusive, alcoholic stepfather." (Baker was executed on December 5.)
• Tony Egbuna Ford, who killed Armando Murillo, Myra Murillo (mother), Myra Murillo (daughter), and Lisa Murillo, was convicted in part on the basis of eyewitness testimony, which is "notoriously inaccurate." He was "denied the funds to obtain an expert witness on eyewitness identification problems." (Ford's death sentence, scheduled to be carried out on December 7, was stayed.)
• John Nixon, who killed Virginia Tucker, was sentenced to death "possibly because of the incompetence of his trial attorneys" who were "overburdened". He "once rescued a boy from drowning in a flooded irrigation ditch" and "pulled a woman from the burning wreckage of a plane crash", "[served] in the United States' military during the Second World War", and "earned a GED in prison and trained others as mechanics." He "suffers from chronic alcoholism" and "severe passive-aggressive personality disorder". (Nixon is scheduled to be executed on December 14.)

You get the point. In all cases, the killer either didn't do it or he did it due to factors beyond his control. His lawyer was incompetent or the judge was unfair. He did nice things for people before and/or after the murder. And for any or all of the above reasons, he shouldn't be executed.

Again, I want to make clear that I agree these men shouldn't be executed. But I don't need to make excuses for their horrible actions to make my point. Why do the NCADP, Jamie Foxx, Snoop Dogg, Bianca Jagger, Jesse Jackson, Mike Farrell feel the need?

The flaws in such an approach to combating an issue as serious as state-sponsored killing are many, first among them being that proponents of the death penalty almost always support it as punishment for the act or acts for which the person was convicted, not because of or in spite of what he may or may not have done before or since. It's great if he did something positive afterward, the reasoning goes, but none of that brings back the victim. Second, if a death sentence was due to ineffective counsel or a multitude of other reasons, the same could be said for a life sentence or even the conviction itself. Third, arguing that condemned prisoners should be spared because of mitigating circumstances gives tacit approval to executing those with no mitigating circumstances.

But the biggest problem with the "here's the litany of reasons why so-and-so should not be executed" is that the reasons never include the simple argument that pre-meditated killing is wrong. We aren't talking about defense of self or others either, despite what death penalty proponents claim. We have a means of protecting guards and inmates from prison violence: solitary confinement with limited access to other inmates, prison staff, and any object that can be used as a weapon. We can start by rejecting those ridiculous claims that every convict has a constitutional right to uninspected care packages and metal shop classes.

I believe in loss of liberty as punishment for bad deeds, in time added on for bad behavior rather than time off for good behavior, in welcoming reformed prisoners to engage in magnanimous work with other convicts while they serve out their sentences, and in making those who take the lives of others spend the rest of their natural lives—however long that may be—paying for it. I don't think death is ever an appropriate punishment, even for the worst bad people. Others may disagree, but they can never say that my opposition to capital punishment is blind to the seriousness of heinous crimes or indifferent to the need for justice for the victims.

If only the rest of the abolitionist community would be as realistic and resist the temptation to justify their position by canonizing killers.

After an unusually mild autumn, we are now in the throes of our first major winter storm of this season. (The prior snowfalls that melted within a few days don't count.) Here, in no particular order, are a few of the thoughts that have run through my head since I awoke this morning:

• People are idiots.
  
  That thought actually runs through my mind at least twice a day, but what prompted it this morning was the dim bulb who decided to park his/her SUV in the middle of the driveway in the company lot where I park.
  
  

• I love snow, except...
  
  ...when I have to shovel it, brush it off my car, drive in it, or pay for all the heat I have to use when it's cold enough for it. The only good thing about snow is that it's pretty to look at, preferably through the window of a room where a fire is roaring in the fireplace. Unfortunately, I don't have a fireplace.

• People are idiots.
  
  Note to those who think it's a great idea to snowblow their driveways with the chute pointed onto the street: thank your luck stars I'm not a snow plow operator because if I were, you'd have a plow pile in front of said driveway approximately the height of your front porch roof.

• Snow makes my brain shut down.
  
  When I left my house this morning, I was laden down with a purse, briefcase, bag with breakfast and lunch, tray of desserts from a party last night to share with co-workers, and my winter boots. I dropped the boots on the back porch lest I drop them into the four inches of snow that had already fallen, planning to go back for them after I cleared my car. They're still on my back porch, which means that I'll be walking to my car after work in regular shoes with snow up to my knees. OK, sometimes I'm an idiot too.

• Have I mentioned that people are idiots?
  
  The weather forecast for today called for heavy snow this morning into early afternoon. It's supposed to taper off after about 3:00, so that by the evening commute, driving should be  good , er,  not too bad , er, still horrible but better than at, say, 2:00. So naturally, the brain trust that runs the local campus of the company where I work decided to close at 2:00. I'm not falling into their devious trap, though; I'm staying until the roads are plowed.

I really should just move to someplace warm and snow-free, but unfortunately you can't have this

or this

without some of this

So I'm staying put. I will continue to complain, but I'm staying put.

Labels: local

New England football fans don't much care what anyone else thinks of our players. We've become so accustomed to the rest of the sports world underestimating the value of our can't-miss kicker, immovable-object defenders, right-place-at-the-right-time receivers, and take-no-prisoners quarterback. So forgive us if some us might respond to Sports Illustrated's selection of quarterback Tom Brady as 2005 Sportsman of the Year with great big "So What?"

We've known how great Brady is since 2001. As usual, it just took the rest of the country awhile to catch up. A bit like how Aerosmith's "Dream On" shot to the top of the charts back in 1976—three years after it became a hit in Boston.

P.S. Hooray for a second consecutive New England Sportsman/men recognition. The 2004 winners, as you may recall, were the Boston Red Sox, naturally.