Recently pulled from the archives, this is a semi-column I wrote for the Review website over the summer of 2001. Despite being the only column submitted all summer, this was not published online because Schwartz was being an opportunistic dick who was using the Review website to promote his own writings, despiting not being on the staff. So here it is, a blast from the past. (Yes, it's very dated.)
What a Long Strange Summer It's Been...
The Million Mom March
Art tries to imitate life, so it's weird when life imitates art, and weirder still when that art is South Park. Case in point, the Million Mom March. They want more and more restrictions on legal gun ownership to, "Save the Children," as if a mob of rogue guns were floating around the neighborhoods like a pack of wolves, picking off random kids. You would've thought, after the back to back school shootings in San Diego and the gun-less school massacre in Japan, that they'd eventually realize that more gun laws just aren't the solution when people just want to kill. But these mothers, like the mothers in the South Park movie, blame everything other than themselves for the bad things that happen to their kids. Just a few questions to all those wannabe-Mrs. Broflawskis out there: Who's watching your kids when you're protesting in DC? Who's teaching them from right and wrong? Who's teaching them that guns aren't toys and shouldn't be played with? The Media? Do what you want to in your free time, but don't blame law-abiding gun owners because you don't know how to be a good parent.
The Death Penalty
Capital punishment got a lot of press this summer, starting with the play-by-play description of Timothy McVeigh's execution to Sandra Day O'Connor suddenly coming out against it. I followed the McVeigh execution coverage until it stopped, and I have to admit, it was a bit disturbing. I wasn't really disturbed by fact that someone was being put to death by the government, something I'm sure McVeigh would have seen as more ammunition for his anti-government stance, but by how medical the entire procedure was. I know doctors don't participate because of the Hippocratic oath, but how can they even stand by and watch? It was like an operation, but one where the patient was certain to die on the operating table. No wonder people are saying the death penalty isn't an effective crime deterrent—it doesn't give an aura of death. Executions in the old days were quite an affair, with the condemned climbing the stairs to the scaffold, with blood squirting from a stump where the head was, with the executioner in a black hood. People would fear the sight of the scaffold, the block or the noose. But today, executions are administered via a needle. Everyone gets shots though, some people, routinely. But no one routinely has his head hacked off or his neck broken.
Having realized that fundamental flaw of lethal injection, I looked up other methods used in the U.S. The only other methods offered were the electric chair, the gas chamber, the firing squad, and hanging; but almost all of the states that have those other methods also offer lethal injection, and I can't imagine anyone preferring to be electrocuted or suffocated as opposed to getting a shot. Let's face it, pumping thousands of volts through a person is messy, and the sight of a smoking corpse emitting the foul smell of burnt hair and flesh only gives more ammunition to the anti-death penalty crowd. And that's only when it works properly. Half of the botched execution horror stories used by the anti-death penalty people are about people bursting into flames, convulsing, or needing several more shocks to actually die. They have a good point. The more complicated you make a procedure, the more likely it is that something is going to screw up. Hell, hangmen actually needed to know math to be able to avoid the embarrassment of having the condemned strangle to death or having his or her head pop off upon reaching the end of the rope. Even the most unsophisticated method, the firing squad, stands the chance of failing if all of the marksmen miss.
Thus, why don't we steal a play from Red China and go with the simple bullet to the head? Those who know me know that I rarely have anything nice to say about those red bastards, but when they're right, they're right. It's almost impossible to screw up shooting someone in the head. You can't really miss at point blank range, and if you shoot the condemned in the right place, it's painless (thank you John Steinbeck.) Traditionally, someone is suppose to put a bullet in the condemned man's head after being shot by the firing squad anyway, so why not cut out the middle man? A deterrent is no good if no one is afraid of it, and right now, criminals just don't seem to be afraid of the needle anymore.
And Speaking of Red China
People are pissed-off that the Reds are harvesting organs from executed prisoners, sometimes even using their skin (ewwww…..). The Reds figure, "Hey, if the guy is already dead, why don't we grab his internal organs or his corneas and help some people out?” Meanwhile, back in the U.S., with this debate about stem cell research going on, people say, "I have a problem with scientists creating embryos just for the stem cells, but hey, if the fetus or embryo is dead anyway, why don't we grab some stem cells and help some people out?" So, why the hypocrisy? Why are we so outraged by the Reds practicing "waste not want not" while we're doing the same? Some would argue that the Reds are going down a slippery slope, now having the incentive to execute prisoners just to get their organs—though I don't see how that could be any worse than what they're doing already. And what of the slippery slope that is taking stem cells from discarded fetuses or embryos? What's stopping scientists from aborting more fetuses or embryos just to get more stem cells?
Ultimately, this stem cell debate will test the commitment of those who have long considered themselves pro-life and will separate those who believe in the sanctity of life against those who do it to advance themselves politically. Already, Nancy Reagan has come out for it because it might, stress MIGHT, help those in the future with Alzheimers. Meanwhile, the Pope has come out against it, despite the fact that stem cell research could help others like him suffering from Parkinson's disease.
The Yanks are in first, a Republican is in the White House, and all is well…
So I watched the All-Star game a few weeks ago, and couldn't help but notice what a Cal Ripken lovefest it turned out to be. Don't get me wrong, Ripken is a great player, but stopping the game to give him an award? But anyway, everyone knows about Cal and the Streak, and the three dirt farmers in Sri-Lanka who haven't heard of the Streak yet will surely have heard about it come Cal's last game on September 30th. But let's not forget Lou Gehrig, who Cal had to beat to earn his place in history. To me, Gehrig is the American Dream personified, albeit with a tragic ending. He was the son of German immigrants, his father a janitor, his mother a cleaning lady, who got into Columbia but had to wait tables to pay for it, married a nice girl, played for the greatest franchise in sports, the New York Yankees, and arguably the greatest team in baseball history, the 1927 Yankees. Cal's streak ended because Cal felt like it, Gehrig's streak ended when the disease that eventually killed him no longer allowed him to play. Even though it seemed like life took a big crap on him, he didn't let it get him down. He was involved in charitable work until he could no longer walk. Denis Leary once said, quite callously (what did you expect, he's a Red Sox fan,) "Lou Gehrig died of Lou Gehrig's disease, who saw that coming?" and pointed out that Gehrig lead a clean life, yet died early, while teammate Babe Ruth drank, smoked, whored, and outlived him by seven years. Yes, it's ironic, and it's sad that the name Lou Gehrig to people today means a disease, and not a great ballplayer. Sure, Cal has rightfully earned his place amongst baseball's greats, but he did so surpassing one of baseball's greatest and a true American hero.
No, Seriously, the Red Sox Will Go All the Way!
Ok, not really. I just wanted to say that to curse them. May the curse of the Bambino curse you, your children, their children, and their children, and so forth. But hey, I'm not a mean guy. If the Red Sox do stand a good chance of taking out my beloved Yanks or even the Mariners, I'll stand by them, and I'll root for them to win the pennant and go the World Series, where I'll root for the Cubs to pull off a squeaker in seven. And when, yes, when the Red Sox lose, there will be a gloom over the Red Sox nation, people will tear their clothes, dress in sackcloth, pour ashes over their heads, curse Harry Frazee for thinking Babe Ruth wasn't worth as much as funding a musical and ask the Lord why He has done this to them. Then they'll realize that the Sox getting crapped on is nothing new, get piss drunk, pass out and wait for St. Patrick's day.
What a Long Strange Summer It's Been...
The Million Mom March
Art tries to imitate life, so it's weird when life imitates art, and weirder still when that art is South Park. Case in point, the Million Mom March. They want more and more restrictions on legal gun ownership to, "Save the Children," as if a mob of rogue guns were floating around the neighborhoods like a pack of wolves, picking off random kids. You would've thought, after the back to back school shootings in San Diego and the gun-less school massacre in Japan, that they'd eventually realize that more gun laws just aren't the solution when people just want to kill. But these mothers, like the mothers in the South Park movie, blame everything other than themselves for the bad things that happen to their kids. Just a few questions to all those wannabe-Mrs. Broflawskis out there: Who's watching your kids when you're protesting in DC? Who's teaching them from right and wrong? Who's teaching them that guns aren't toys and shouldn't be played with? The Media? Do what you want to in your free time, but don't blame law-abiding gun owners because you don't know how to be a good parent.
The Death Penalty
Capital punishment got a lot of press this summer, starting with the play-by-play description of Timothy McVeigh's execution to Sandra Day O'Connor suddenly coming out against it. I followed the McVeigh execution coverage until it stopped, and I have to admit, it was a bit disturbing. I wasn't really disturbed by fact that someone was being put to death by the government, something I'm sure McVeigh would have seen as more ammunition for his anti-government stance, but by how medical the entire procedure was. I know doctors don't participate because of the Hippocratic oath, but how can they even stand by and watch? It was like an operation, but one where the patient was certain to die on the operating table. No wonder people are saying the death penalty isn't an effective crime deterrent—it doesn't give an aura of death. Executions in the old days were quite an affair, with the condemned climbing the stairs to the scaffold, with blood squirting from a stump where the head was, with the executioner in a black hood. People would fear the sight of the scaffold, the block or the noose. But today, executions are administered via a needle. Everyone gets shots though, some people, routinely. But no one routinely has his head hacked off or his neck broken.
Having realized that fundamental flaw of lethal injection, I looked up other methods used in the U.S. The only other methods offered were the electric chair, the gas chamber, the firing squad, and hanging; but almost all of the states that have those other methods also offer lethal injection, and I can't imagine anyone preferring to be electrocuted or suffocated as opposed to getting a shot. Let's face it, pumping thousands of volts through a person is messy, and the sight of a smoking corpse emitting the foul smell of burnt hair and flesh only gives more ammunition to the anti-death penalty crowd. And that's only when it works properly. Half of the botched execution horror stories used by the anti-death penalty people are about people bursting into flames, convulsing, or needing several more shocks to actually die. They have a good point. The more complicated you make a procedure, the more likely it is that something is going to screw up. Hell, hangmen actually needed to know math to be able to avoid the embarrassment of having the condemned strangle to death or having his or her head pop off upon reaching the end of the rope. Even the most unsophisticated method, the firing squad, stands the chance of failing if all of the marksmen miss.
Thus, why don't we steal a play from Red China and go with the simple bullet to the head? Those who know me know that I rarely have anything nice to say about those red bastards, but when they're right, they're right. It's almost impossible to screw up shooting someone in the head. You can't really miss at point blank range, and if you shoot the condemned in the right place, it's painless (thank you John Steinbeck.) Traditionally, someone is suppose to put a bullet in the condemned man's head after being shot by the firing squad anyway, so why not cut out the middle man? A deterrent is no good if no one is afraid of it, and right now, criminals just don't seem to be afraid of the needle anymore.
And Speaking of Red China
People are pissed-off that the Reds are harvesting organs from executed prisoners, sometimes even using their skin (ewwww…..). The Reds figure, "Hey, if the guy is already dead, why don't we grab his internal organs or his corneas and help some people out?” Meanwhile, back in the U.S., with this debate about stem cell research going on, people say, "I have a problem with scientists creating embryos just for the stem cells, but hey, if the fetus or embryo is dead anyway, why don't we grab some stem cells and help some people out?" So, why the hypocrisy? Why are we so outraged by the Reds practicing "waste not want not" while we're doing the same? Some would argue that the Reds are going down a slippery slope, now having the incentive to execute prisoners just to get their organs—though I don't see how that could be any worse than what they're doing already. And what of the slippery slope that is taking stem cells from discarded fetuses or embryos? What's stopping scientists from aborting more fetuses or embryos just to get more stem cells?
Ultimately, this stem cell debate will test the commitment of those who have long considered themselves pro-life and will separate those who believe in the sanctity of life against those who do it to advance themselves politically. Already, Nancy Reagan has come out for it because it might, stress MIGHT, help those in the future with Alzheimers. Meanwhile, the Pope has come out against it, despite the fact that stem cell research could help others like him suffering from Parkinson's disease.
The Yanks are in first, a Republican is in the White House, and all is well…
So I watched the All-Star game a few weeks ago, and couldn't help but notice what a Cal Ripken lovefest it turned out to be. Don't get me wrong, Ripken is a great player, but stopping the game to give him an award? But anyway, everyone knows about Cal and the Streak, and the three dirt farmers in Sri-Lanka who haven't heard of the Streak yet will surely have heard about it come Cal's last game on September 30th. But let's not forget Lou Gehrig, who Cal had to beat to earn his place in history. To me, Gehrig is the American Dream personified, albeit with a tragic ending. He was the son of German immigrants, his father a janitor, his mother a cleaning lady, who got into Columbia but had to wait tables to pay for it, married a nice girl, played for the greatest franchise in sports, the New York Yankees, and arguably the greatest team in baseball history, the 1927 Yankees. Cal's streak ended because Cal felt like it, Gehrig's streak ended when the disease that eventually killed him no longer allowed him to play. Even though it seemed like life took a big crap on him, he didn't let it get him down. He was involved in charitable work until he could no longer walk. Denis Leary once said, quite callously (what did you expect, he's a Red Sox fan,) "Lou Gehrig died of Lou Gehrig's disease, who saw that coming?" and pointed out that Gehrig lead a clean life, yet died early, while teammate Babe Ruth drank, smoked, whored, and outlived him by seven years. Yes, it's ironic, and it's sad that the name Lou Gehrig to people today means a disease, and not a great ballplayer. Sure, Cal has rightfully earned his place amongst baseball's greats, but he did so surpassing one of baseball's greatest and a true American hero.
No, Seriously, the Red Sox Will Go All the Way!
Ok, not really. I just wanted to say that to curse them. May the curse of the Bambino curse you, your children, their children, and their children, and so forth. But hey, I'm not a mean guy. If the Red Sox do stand a good chance of taking out my beloved Yanks or even the Mariners, I'll stand by them, and I'll root for them to win the pennant and go the World Series, where I'll root for the Cubs to pull off a squeaker in seven. And when, yes, when the Red Sox lose, there will be a gloom over the Red Sox nation, people will tear their clothes, dress in sackcloth, pour ashes over their heads, curse Harry Frazee for thinking Babe Ruth wasn't worth as much as funding a musical and ask the Lord why He has done this to them. Then they'll realize that the Sox getting crapped on is nothing new, get piss drunk, pass out and wait for St. Patrick's day.
posted by J. Yeh | 01:45
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home