Countdown to Armageddon
February 8- the date loomed before me ominously on the calendar. My wife, Jen, needed to travel to Washington, D.C. for a meeting, and I was to be left nominally in charge of my four month old son, Leo, for an intimidating fifteen consecutive hours. I say nominally, because, in fairness, he is always more in control of the situation than I am- he has the power to make life very pleasant or quite miserable, depending on his whims and fancies. The longest I’d ever been in sole custody of my son prior to the dooms-date was about 3-4 hours, so I was fairly worried about how we’d both make it through the day.
My fears intensified in the days leading up to the dooms-date as we practiced bottle-feeding Leo in preparation for the big day. As I’ve noted before, Leo is a big fan of breast-feeding, and will only deign to bottle-feed if he is desperately hungry, and even then, he makes it abundantly clear that he views the whole bottle thing as an affront- an assault, in fact, on his good name. As soon as you pull the damn bottle out, you get a look that says, you expect me to lower myself to this indignity? And our prep feedings in the lead up to dooms-day were worse than ever. Leo would grudgingly allow his mom to bottle-feed him, but wanted nothing to do with me when I’d try to assume the position. Every time I’d get the bottle near his face, he’d swat it away, with a shockingly powerful thrust, almost like Shacquille O’Neil stuffing an opponent in the paint- get that shit outta here!
So I took to employing unusual, coercive tactics on him, as though I were some unethical government operative dealing with an uncooperative detainee at Guantanomo Bay. It was relatively easy to smother one of his arms up against my body and hold it there, but subduing the second arm, in order to prevent him from swatting away his bottle like a meddlesome fly, proved somewhat more difficult. The problem is, that when he’s dealing with me, he’ll only consider eating from the bottle when I’m standing up, and preferably when I’m upright and walking. Please don’t ask me why, but I have the feeling it has something to do with him making sure that I’m as uncomfortable as possible- I guess he figures that if he’s losing the breast, that he’s at least going to make sure I’m not happy either. So one of my arms is occupied holding him, and the other arm is holding the bottle- so subduing Leo’s second arm is something of a challenge. I’ve tried placing something interesting in his hand for him to grasp- but that usually only works momentarily- until he decides he wants to swat the bottle. I can try to reach around and physically restrain his second arm, but that makes him angry and it’s hard to hold him that way anyways. The last thing that entered my mind was handcuffs- but I soon thought better of it, remembering that in this country, you could probably lose custody for employing such a tactic.
A Crisis Averted
Jen left us around 5.30AM on March 8, and even before she was out the door, Leo was crying. Only 15 more hours of this, I told myself, fully expecting the boy to be inconsolable for the entire time his mom was away. At four months, he was already a moma’s boy, and this was going to be his first time without Jen for an extended period. I was certain that we were going to have a miserable time together. I put my head right up against my son- with my forehead flush up against his, and said something to the effect of, “Its just you and me today, tough guy, like or not, I’m all you’ve got.” A couple minutes later he stopped crying and we drifted off back to sleep together. I woke up some time later and was reassured to see the boy lying perpendicular to me on the bed, still asleep. I looked at my watch and was stunned, and frankly thrilled to see that it was 8.15! How on earth had we slept in so late?
Leo woke up a few minutes later, and I brought him on a little tour of our apartment, poking him in and out of every room, pointedly showing him that his mom was nowhere to be found. Everywhere we went, he was sort of craning his neck, looking to see where his mom was. Again, I worried that he’d melt down. But a remarkable thing happened- the boy rolled with it, and we ended up having a great day together. He still wasn’t happy about the whole bottle-feeding arrangement- but he did it with some coaxing- and he behaved like a gentleman for nearly the whole day. Normally, I’m accustomed to being second fiddle around the house- and I’ve come to grips with the fact that Leo would rather usually be with his mom- but on this day, he seemed to understand that I was the only game in town, and he adjusted his behavior to me accordingly, treating me to dozens of smiles and laughs the whole day.
Later in the afternoon, Jen’s mom, Kathy relieved me for a few hours and I was able to run some errands, and Jen ended up coming home on an earlier flight that evening. Leo and I had managed to make it though the day together- he tired me out but was a really good kid-but I was happy to hand him over to Jen when she got home, but part of me was already missing the good times Leo and I had together. “Someone’s happy to see his mom,” I told Leo as I handed him over to his beaming mother. For some reason, we often refer to Leo by the word “someone” instead of Leo, as in, “someone filled up his diaper,” or “someone woke up on the wrong side of his Moses basket today.” Somehow in our weird parental parlance, someone=Leo. “He doesn’t’ seem that happy to see me!” Jen complained as Leo sat content, but not ecstatic in her arms. “Jen, he’s not like a dog that’s going to attack you at the door, and its not like he didn’t have fun with me today,” I told her. The sheriff was back in town, and I knew I was again going to be relegated to deputy, but, as I lay down on the sofa and unfurled my newspaper, I felt pretty good about it.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Elite American Newspapers- Deceptive at Best
The Washington Post and the New York Times are supposed to be the cream of American print journalism, yet, when it comes to the world's most high profile foreign policy issue- the Israeli/Palestinian conflict- both papers treat Israel to what amounts to "home team" coverage. Israeli casualties are consistently given bigger play than Palestinian ones, and the headlines often only refer to Palestinian "militants" or "gunmen" being killed, even when civilians and even children have also been killed. One can usually find out how many Palestinian civilans and children have died in Israeli attacks only by reading very deep into the article.
Take today's news coverage as an example- 5 Palestinian children,including a six month old baby, four young children out playing in the streets, and more than a dozen other Palestinians were killed yesterday, yet the major American print newspapers barely covered it. The New York Times headline is "Israel continues airstrikes in Gaza" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/middleeast/29mideast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin, the lead of this article is that one Israeli civilian died, and the second paragraph refers to Israeli killing Palestinian "militants." The Washington Post coverage was even more misleading, with the headline, "Israel Kills 6 Palestinian Militants," http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700620_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines with the lead refering to Israel targeting "suspected gunmen". The third paragraph briefly refers to a six month old baby dying, but you have to read almost to the very end of the story to read about the other children that were killed in the Israeli airstrikes.
If you look around the world and read how other media outlets covered the story- you see a very different picture. Most other major media outlets logically concluded that children being killed was more newsworthy than "gunmen" being targeted. The BBC ran the headline, " Four Children Die In Gaza Strike", http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7269154.stm, and refered to 21 Palestinians killed in the last two days, while noting that 5 Israelis, and more than 200 Palestinians have been killed since the peace talks in Annapolis. China's Xinhua news service ran the headline, "Israeli airstrike on N Gaza kills 3 children", http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/28/content_7689484.htm, while Al-Jazeera went with the headline, "Children killed in new Israeli raid", http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8DFE6441-E6D5-4165-AB32-605D1CDB01BD.htm. The Guardian newspaper in the UK featured a close-in photo of the dead six month old baby lying peacefully on a mosque floor, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/israelandthepalestinians2.
Headlines and photos matter because most people do not read entire articles. If you see a headline refering to "militants" or "gunmen" dying, will you bother to read the article? I mean, let's be serious, is it really very newsworthy when a militant dies? This article is not meant to suggest that the Palestinians are blameless- their rocket attacks are inexcusable, but you have to look at the context. A few of the articles referenced above note that a total of 14 Israeli's have died in the last 7 years from Palestinian rocket attacks. No question that that's 14 too many- but during that same period of time, literally thousands of Palestinians have been killed and many of them have been children and civilians. The Israeli Human Rights Group B'tselem reports that 4,419 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces in the occupied territories for the time period Sept 29, 2000 until January 31, 2008. During this same time frame, 234 Israeli civilians and 239 Israeli soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the occupied territories, and 471 Israeli civilians and 87 soldiers were killed by Palestinians in Israel itself. According to B'tselem, more than half of the Palestinians killed were not "taking part in hostilities" against Israel. http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp Yet despite the wide disparity in casualties- more Israelis have died in car accidents during this time period than at the hands of Palestinians-the elite American news media continues to give short-shrift to Palestinian civilian casualties. Its a shame that papers like the Times and the Post can't just cover the news, and let Americans decide for themselves what's going on in the Occupied Territories.
Take today's news coverage as an example- 5 Palestinian children,including a six month old baby, four young children out playing in the streets, and more than a dozen other Palestinians were killed yesterday, yet the major American print newspapers barely covered it. The New York Times headline is "Israel continues airstrikes in Gaza" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/world/middleeast/29mideast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin, the lead of this article is that one Israeli civilian died, and the second paragraph refers to Israeli killing Palestinian "militants." The Washington Post coverage was even more misleading, with the headline, "Israel Kills 6 Palestinian Militants," http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022700620_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines with the lead refering to Israel targeting "suspected gunmen". The third paragraph briefly refers to a six month old baby dying, but you have to read almost to the very end of the story to read about the other children that were killed in the Israeli airstrikes.
If you look around the world and read how other media outlets covered the story- you see a very different picture. Most other major media outlets logically concluded that children being killed was more newsworthy than "gunmen" being targeted. The BBC ran the headline, " Four Children Die In Gaza Strike", http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7269154.stm, and refered to 21 Palestinians killed in the last two days, while noting that 5 Israelis, and more than 200 Palestinians have been killed since the peace talks in Annapolis. China's Xinhua news service ran the headline, "Israeli airstrike on N Gaza kills 3 children", http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-02/28/content_7689484.htm, while Al-Jazeera went with the headline, "Children killed in new Israeli raid", http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8DFE6441-E6D5-4165-AB32-605D1CDB01BD.htm. The Guardian newspaper in the UK featured a close-in photo of the dead six month old baby lying peacefully on a mosque floor, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/israelandthepalestinians2.
Headlines and photos matter because most people do not read entire articles. If you see a headline refering to "militants" or "gunmen" dying, will you bother to read the article? I mean, let's be serious, is it really very newsworthy when a militant dies? This article is not meant to suggest that the Palestinians are blameless- their rocket attacks are inexcusable, but you have to look at the context. A few of the articles referenced above note that a total of 14 Israeli's have died in the last 7 years from Palestinian rocket attacks. No question that that's 14 too many- but during that same period of time, literally thousands of Palestinians have been killed and many of them have been children and civilians. The Israeli Human Rights Group B'tselem reports that 4,419 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces in the occupied territories for the time period Sept 29, 2000 until January 31, 2008. During this same time frame, 234 Israeli civilians and 239 Israeli soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the occupied territories, and 471 Israeli civilians and 87 soldiers were killed by Palestinians in Israel itself. According to B'tselem, more than half of the Palestinians killed were not "taking part in hostilities" against Israel. http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp Yet despite the wide disparity in casualties- more Israelis have died in car accidents during this time period than at the hands of Palestinians-the elite American news media continues to give short-shrift to Palestinian civilian casualties. Its a shame that papers like the Times and the Post can't just cover the news, and let Americans decide for themselves what's going on in the Occupied Territories.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Amnesty: Coming Soon for an Illegal Immigrant Near You
All three of the presidential candidates with any chance to become president- McCain, Hillary, and Obama- are planning to grant amnesty to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. Yet none of them are willing to admit it. Here is how they mislead voters:
Amnesty: they all claim that their plans do not constitute amnesty because they involve fines and back taxes, learning english, and joining the "back of the line". We'll tackle each of these points separately, but for now let's focus on the is it or is not amnesty part. The key component that is missing from their plans is the going home part. Under each plan, the illegal immigrant would be allowed to stay in American indefinitely- which is exactly the reward for their illegal behavior that they want.
Fines and Back Taxes: The govenment might have a chance at collecting fines- but the idea that illegal immigrants are going to provide honest estimates of their years of under-the-table earnings is simply ludicrous. When I was in the Foreign Service, I examined that tax returns of hundreds, if not thousands of LEGAl immigrants that were sponsoring relatives to immigrate, and I can honestly tell you that most immigrants that have an opportunity to cheat on taxes (i.e. entrepreneurs, tradeseman that are paid in cash, waiters, etc) do so on a grand scale. They come from countries where only fools pay taxes and bring this same mentality to the U.S.
Learning English: Based upon my experience, many LEGAL immigrants never bother to learn english, despite the fact that its ALREADY supposed to be a requirement for citizenship, so now we are going to hold ILLEGAL immigrants to a higher standard, and expect that they are going to learn english? Some will, undoubtedly, but many will not, yet will be granted amnesty nonetheless. Why? Because is already set up for billingualism in case you haven't noticed. When I voted last week, the first question the touch screen asked me was "English or Espanol", despite the fact that only U.S. citizens can vote, and U.S. citizens are supposed to be able to speak english.
Joining the Back of the Line: Immigrating to America is not simply a matter of lining up, as though you are waiting to get on a ride at an amusement park. Yes, there are waiting periods for various categories of would-be-immigrants- but no, there is no single "line" to enter America, and no, not everyone is elligible to join this "line" that doesn't really exist in the first place. Confused? You should be- but the bottom line is that most qualify to enter as legal immigrants based upon a close family relationship to a U.S. citizen or green card holder, and if you don't have a very close relative- spouse, parent, sibling, child-etc in the States- you are often out of luck. Second, you aren't "in line" at all, if you came illegally and are allowed to stay without returning to your home country.
So, who cares really if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty? Consider the following:
DERIVATIVE EFFECT: Consider the fact that the "average" legal immigrant files between 3-4 petitions to bring relatives to the U.S. This means that if you legalize 12 million illegals, they will file somewhere between 36-48 million additional petitions to bring over their relatives, and then those people, once they arrive, will do the same thing, and on and on. So you aren't really just legalizing the estimated 12 million- within 10-15 years, you'll have an additional 35-50 million people.
RULE OF LAW or NOT SO MUCH? As a former Foreign Service Officer, I issued immigrant visas to scores of immigrants that waited in their home countries LEGALLY for many years. Sibling petitions, for example, are usually a 12-13 year wait! So what message does it send to these people that wait for more than a decade to legalize those that said- the hell with it, I'm going now? It tells them that they were dumb to wait- they could have been in the States with their families years ago. Upholding our laws is essential if we are to be a country that believes in the rule of law.
TRENDING TOWARDS THE THIRD WORLD: According to a Pew Research Center report released this week, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections, nearly 1 in 5 Americans will be an immigrant by 2050, (right now the figure is 1 in 8) and our population will have mushroomed to 438 million. Nearly all of the population growth will be attributable to immigration from the third world. Consider, also, that this projection does not account for the influx that will arrive if we have a blanket amnesty that allows some 12-20 million illegals to file petitions for their relatives to join them in the U.S.
Here are a few more staggering numbers for you:
Since the late 1980’s legal and illegal immigration to the United States has exploded. More than one third of all immigrants that the U.S has absorbed in its entire history arrived after 1970, with more immigrants arriving during the 1990’s than any prior decade in American history. Legal and illegal immigrants now account for one out of every eight persons living in the U.S. In 1970, the figure was one out of twenty-one, and as recently as 1990, the figure was one out of thirteen.
In 2006, 1,266,264 immigrants were granted legal permanent resident (LPR or “green card” status), and another 1,044,689 immigrants were naturalized as U.S. citizens. To place the later figure in perspective, consider that the high water year for immigrants naturalizing as U.S. citizens prior to World War II was in 1928, when 233,155 immigrants became U.S. citizens. Since 2000, more than 10 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S.- the highest seven-year period of immigration in America’s history. Suffice it to say that we are in the midst of the largest wave of immigration this country has ever seen.
Its also important to understand that its not just the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. but where they are coming from and what socioeconomic groups tend to dominate the immigrant population. Unlike Canada, and other nations that try to recruit highly skilled and educated immigrants, our system gives no preference to the best and the brightest around the world, with the result being that huge numbers of immigrants are unskilled and do not have high school diplomas. The social costs of bringing in huge numbers of unskilled, poorly educated immigrants is collasal. California alone spends more than nine BILLION dollars- or $1,183 per household- just to educate illegal immigrants each year, never mind legal immigrans as well. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec
What is the net effect of this huge migration from the Third World? Decling American wages is one factor. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted in the New York Times yesterday that the average median wage for Americans (adjusted for inflation) is barely higher now than it was 30 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robert+reich&st=nyt&oref=slogin There are many factors to blame for this, and wide-scale immigration is just one factor in this story, but it is an important part of why wages have stagnated, particularly for unskilled, working class Americans.
What to do about it? Let your elected representatives know that you don't support any amnesty plan that does not require illegal immigrants to return home first. No, we do not need to engage in mass deportations to solve the problem, we simply need to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and many illegals will leave voluntarily. America is a country of immigrants- and immigrants can make great contributions to our society, indeed America is a more interesting place because of immigrants, but we have seen such a massive influx over the last 15 years that right now we need a time-out to assimilate those that have arrived, and to reform our immigration system so that we can manage the flow of who comes in the future, so that we bring in smaller numbers of better educated and skilled immigrants that will require fewer social services and will assimilate more easily into American society.
Amnesty: they all claim that their plans do not constitute amnesty because they involve fines and back taxes, learning english, and joining the "back of the line". We'll tackle each of these points separately, but for now let's focus on the is it or is not amnesty part. The key component that is missing from their plans is the going home part. Under each plan, the illegal immigrant would be allowed to stay in American indefinitely- which is exactly the reward for their illegal behavior that they want.
Fines and Back Taxes: The govenment might have a chance at collecting fines- but the idea that illegal immigrants are going to provide honest estimates of their years of under-the-table earnings is simply ludicrous. When I was in the Foreign Service, I examined that tax returns of hundreds, if not thousands of LEGAl immigrants that were sponsoring relatives to immigrate, and I can honestly tell you that most immigrants that have an opportunity to cheat on taxes (i.e. entrepreneurs, tradeseman that are paid in cash, waiters, etc) do so on a grand scale. They come from countries where only fools pay taxes and bring this same mentality to the U.S.
Learning English: Based upon my experience, many LEGAL immigrants never bother to learn english, despite the fact that its ALREADY supposed to be a requirement for citizenship, so now we are going to hold ILLEGAL immigrants to a higher standard, and expect that they are going to learn english? Some will, undoubtedly, but many will not, yet will be granted amnesty nonetheless. Why? Because is already set up for billingualism in case you haven't noticed. When I voted last week, the first question the touch screen asked me was "English or Espanol", despite the fact that only U.S. citizens can vote, and U.S. citizens are supposed to be able to speak english.
Joining the Back of the Line: Immigrating to America is not simply a matter of lining up, as though you are waiting to get on a ride at an amusement park. Yes, there are waiting periods for various categories of would-be-immigrants- but no, there is no single "line" to enter America, and no, not everyone is elligible to join this "line" that doesn't really exist in the first place. Confused? You should be- but the bottom line is that most qualify to enter as legal immigrants based upon a close family relationship to a U.S. citizen or green card holder, and if you don't have a very close relative- spouse, parent, sibling, child-etc in the States- you are often out of luck. Second, you aren't "in line" at all, if you came illegally and are allowed to stay without returning to your home country.
So, who cares really if illegal immigrants are granted amnesty? Consider the following:
DERIVATIVE EFFECT: Consider the fact that the "average" legal immigrant files between 3-4 petitions to bring relatives to the U.S. This means that if you legalize 12 million illegals, they will file somewhere between 36-48 million additional petitions to bring over their relatives, and then those people, once they arrive, will do the same thing, and on and on. So you aren't really just legalizing the estimated 12 million- within 10-15 years, you'll have an additional 35-50 million people.
RULE OF LAW or NOT SO MUCH? As a former Foreign Service Officer, I issued immigrant visas to scores of immigrants that waited in their home countries LEGALLY for many years. Sibling petitions, for example, are usually a 12-13 year wait! So what message does it send to these people that wait for more than a decade to legalize those that said- the hell with it, I'm going now? It tells them that they were dumb to wait- they could have been in the States with their families years ago. Upholding our laws is essential if we are to be a country that believes in the rule of law.
TRENDING TOWARDS THE THIRD WORLD: According to a Pew Research Center report released this week, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/729/united-states-population-projections, nearly 1 in 5 Americans will be an immigrant by 2050, (right now the figure is 1 in 8) and our population will have mushroomed to 438 million. Nearly all of the population growth will be attributable to immigration from the third world. Consider, also, that this projection does not account for the influx that will arrive if we have a blanket amnesty that allows some 12-20 million illegals to file petitions for their relatives to join them in the U.S.
Here are a few more staggering numbers for you:
Since the late 1980’s legal and illegal immigration to the United States has exploded. More than one third of all immigrants that the U.S has absorbed in its entire history arrived after 1970, with more immigrants arriving during the 1990’s than any prior decade in American history. Legal and illegal immigrants now account for one out of every eight persons living in the U.S. In 1970, the figure was one out of twenty-one, and as recently as 1990, the figure was one out of thirteen.
In 2006, 1,266,264 immigrants were granted legal permanent resident (LPR or “green card” status), and another 1,044,689 immigrants were naturalized as U.S. citizens. To place the later figure in perspective, consider that the high water year for immigrants naturalizing as U.S. citizens prior to World War II was in 1928, when 233,155 immigrants became U.S. citizens. Since 2000, more than 10 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S.- the highest seven-year period of immigration in America’s history. Suffice it to say that we are in the midst of the largest wave of immigration this country has ever seen.
Its also important to understand that its not just the number of immigrants coming to the U.S. but where they are coming from and what socioeconomic groups tend to dominate the immigrant population. Unlike Canada, and other nations that try to recruit highly skilled and educated immigrants, our system gives no preference to the best and the brightest around the world, with the result being that huge numbers of immigrants are unskilled and do not have high school diplomas. The social costs of bringing in huge numbers of unskilled, poorly educated immigrants is collasal. California alone spends more than nine BILLION dollars- or $1,183 per household- just to educate illegal immigrants each year, never mind legal immigrans as well. http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec
What is the net effect of this huge migration from the Third World? Decling American wages is one factor. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich noted in the New York Times yesterday that the average median wage for Americans (adjusted for inflation) is barely higher now than it was 30 years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/opinion/13reich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=robert+reich&st=nyt&oref=slogin There are many factors to blame for this, and wide-scale immigration is just one factor in this story, but it is an important part of why wages have stagnated, particularly for unskilled, working class Americans.
What to do about it? Let your elected representatives know that you don't support any amnesty plan that does not require illegal immigrants to return home first. No, we do not need to engage in mass deportations to solve the problem, we simply need to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and many illegals will leave voluntarily. America is a country of immigrants- and immigrants can make great contributions to our society, indeed America is a more interesting place because of immigrants, but we have seen such a massive influx over the last 15 years that right now we need a time-out to assimilate those that have arrived, and to reform our immigration system so that we can manage the flow of who comes in the future, so that we bring in smaller numbers of better educated and skilled immigrants that will require fewer social services and will assimilate more easily into American society.
Monday, February 4, 2008
42mph in a 30 Zone
Since leaving the Foreign Service and relocating to the Chicago area six months ago, I've accumulted 2 speeding tickets and 4 parking tickets, for an average of one infraction per month. Is it just me or is driving and parking in this country a serious hazzard to one's pocketbook? I'm actually a fairly conservative driver, and I don't just park wherever I want, but you'd think I was a complete scofflaw with all the tickets I'm accumulating lately.
The other day, I got pulled over driving on Austin Blvd- a very busy four lane thoroughfare in Oak Park. There was quite a bit of traffic and I was going basically the same speed as everyone else- I wasn't passing anyone or weaving in and out of traffic. The officer claimed that I was going 42 in a 30, and i wanted to say, "yeah, so what!" but instead, I asked him why he chose me to pull over, and he basically just said that I was the most convenient car to pull over, while acknowledging that he could have pulled over almost anyone on the road.
As we drove away, I started cursing and, truth be told, pounded my fist a couple times on the steering wheel and dashboard. My wife, Jen, made the mistake of trying to rationalize what had just happened.
"Well, you were speeding," she said, "he was just doing his job!"
This is not what you want to hear when you get a ticket- I wanted her to share my outrage, not justify the cop's decision.
"42 in a 30, its bullshit- you think this was justified?" I yelled.
"You just have to be more careful, you can't keep getting tickets," she said.
We drove home in silence.
So far, I've tried to fight all 6 tickets, I've recieved and I've won 4 out of 5 cases so far, with the hearing for my second speeding ticket coming up later this month. Parking and speeding tickets are like a game- if you are willing to invest the time and effort to fight them, you can usually get off. For example, I think I spent a sum total of about 2-3 hours writing letters and then appearing in court to fight a $20 parking ticket I got here in River Forest. Why? Principle. The village apparently has a rule against overnight parking, but posts no signs advertising it. I went to a hearing where there was a room full of people, all there trying to fight parking tickets on the same grounds that I was. The judge dismissed dozens of cases before I took my turn- telling each person- none of whom actually lived in River Forest-that there were signs advertising the ban at the "entrance to the village".
When I got up to the podium to plead my case, the conversation between me and the judge went something like this.
"I've heard you tell several people here that there are signs advertising this parking ban at the entrance to the village, but I'm not sure which entrance you are refering to because there isn't one entrance to River Forest- there are quite a few, and I have actually gone looking for these signs and have never been able to find them."
"Do you have any evidence to support your claim?" he asked.
"Sir- I got the ticket 100 yards away from here, I could walk you over to the street myself and show you- there are no signs!"
"I'm going to give you the opportunity to come back one month from now with photos or evidence to suppport your claim," he began before I cut him off.
"With all due respect- you are asking me to prove a negative- how am i supposed to bring you photographs of something that doesn't exist?"
This stumped him and after a whispered conversation with a cop standing next to him, he dismissed my ticket! I cannot tell you how happy this made me- I was exultant, but I have to admit that I wanted to tell him that he should have dismissed everyone's tickets- not just mine- but instead I just walked out.
The bottom line is that suburban communities make a fortune on speeding and parking tickets- they purposely set speed limits at only 25 or 30mph even on very busy 4 lane road, and they purposely make parking restrictions confusing in order to hand our more tickets. Ah the hazards of life in the suburbs...
UPDATE: 2/28: I won! Free at last, free at last, thank God Almight I'm free at last! Thankfully, I didn't listen to my wife, who told me to just "pay the ticket." I plead not guilty and actually won my speeding ticket defense- not with any rubber gloves that didn't fit, or by alleging that the cop was a racist, but by acting deferential, praising the cop's professionalism and courtesy, and mildly suggesting that since he was shooting radar against 4 lanes of traffic and since I was driving around a 4 month old child and certainly wasn't speeding, that perhaps there was some mistake. The judge said he'd give me, "the benefit of the doubt." Damn it feels good to win in court!
The other day, I got pulled over driving on Austin Blvd- a very busy four lane thoroughfare in Oak Park. There was quite a bit of traffic and I was going basically the same speed as everyone else- I wasn't passing anyone or weaving in and out of traffic. The officer claimed that I was going 42 in a 30, and i wanted to say, "yeah, so what!" but instead, I asked him why he chose me to pull over, and he basically just said that I was the most convenient car to pull over, while acknowledging that he could have pulled over almost anyone on the road.
As we drove away, I started cursing and, truth be told, pounded my fist a couple times on the steering wheel and dashboard. My wife, Jen, made the mistake of trying to rationalize what had just happened.
"Well, you were speeding," she said, "he was just doing his job!"
This is not what you want to hear when you get a ticket- I wanted her to share my outrage, not justify the cop's decision.
"42 in a 30, its bullshit- you think this was justified?" I yelled.
"You just have to be more careful, you can't keep getting tickets," she said.
We drove home in silence.
So far, I've tried to fight all 6 tickets, I've recieved and I've won 4 out of 5 cases so far, with the hearing for my second speeding ticket coming up later this month. Parking and speeding tickets are like a game- if you are willing to invest the time and effort to fight them, you can usually get off. For example, I think I spent a sum total of about 2-3 hours writing letters and then appearing in court to fight a $20 parking ticket I got here in River Forest. Why? Principle. The village apparently has a rule against overnight parking, but posts no signs advertising it. I went to a hearing where there was a room full of people, all there trying to fight parking tickets on the same grounds that I was. The judge dismissed dozens of cases before I took my turn- telling each person- none of whom actually lived in River Forest-that there were signs advertising the ban at the "entrance to the village".
When I got up to the podium to plead my case, the conversation between me and the judge went something like this.
"I've heard you tell several people here that there are signs advertising this parking ban at the entrance to the village, but I'm not sure which entrance you are refering to because there isn't one entrance to River Forest- there are quite a few, and I have actually gone looking for these signs and have never been able to find them."
"Do you have any evidence to support your claim?" he asked.
"Sir- I got the ticket 100 yards away from here, I could walk you over to the street myself and show you- there are no signs!"
"I'm going to give you the opportunity to come back one month from now with photos or evidence to suppport your claim," he began before I cut him off.
"With all due respect- you are asking me to prove a negative- how am i supposed to bring you photographs of something that doesn't exist?"
This stumped him and after a whispered conversation with a cop standing next to him, he dismissed my ticket! I cannot tell you how happy this made me- I was exultant, but I have to admit that I wanted to tell him that he should have dismissed everyone's tickets- not just mine- but instead I just walked out.
The bottom line is that suburban communities make a fortune on speeding and parking tickets- they purposely set speed limits at only 25 or 30mph even on very busy 4 lane road, and they purposely make parking restrictions confusing in order to hand our more tickets. Ah the hazards of life in the suburbs...
UPDATE: 2/28: I won! Free at last, free at last, thank God Almight I'm free at last! Thankfully, I didn't listen to my wife, who told me to just "pay the ticket." I plead not guilty and actually won my speeding ticket defense- not with any rubber gloves that didn't fit, or by alleging that the cop was a racist, but by acting deferential, praising the cop's professionalism and courtesy, and mildly suggesting that since he was shooting radar against 4 lanes of traffic and since I was driving around a 4 month old child and certainly wasn't speeding, that perhaps there was some mistake. The judge said he'd give me, "the benefit of the doubt." Damn it feels good to win in court!
Monica Lewsinsky Should have been the First Lady
The wedding of French president, Nicolas Sarkozy to Carla Bruni had me thinking the other day- why are our politicians so boring? Sure, we had some fun with the Senator Larry Craig bathroom footsy thing, but in the grand scheme of things, that's pretty tame compared to a standing president getting divorced and then re-marrying someone that's dated a slew of rock stars and celebrities. Can you imagine if Clinton had decided to marry Lewsinsky rather than shunn her after getting a few blowies? Think about it- the right hated Hillary so much- how would they have responded to Monica as our First Lady? I guess I can only dream that if Hillary becomes president, Monica will somehow creep back into Bill's life.
See recent ABC news article on the Lewinsky scandal, where are they now?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/popup?id=4164980&contentIndex=1&page=1
See recent ABC news article on the Lewinsky scandal, where are they now?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/popup?id=4164980&contentIndex=1&page=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
