The 6th Grade Teacher Who Loved, Not Wisely, But Too Well
One of yesterday's headlines: Mary Kay LeTourneau, 35, a 6th grade teacher who had sex with one of her students, became pregnant, and had the baby which is now being cared for by the child's mother, pleaded guilty to second degree child rape, was convicted yesterday, and sentenced to -- ready for this? -- 6 months, minus time served, then three years of sex-offender treatment programs.
So what was it that convinced Superior Court Judge Linda Lau to go all soft and mushy for her sister-in-gender?
What the hell is wrong with this world?
Let's switch the gender for a moment. Let's say that the teacher was a man who got one of his 13 year old
(13 years old!!)
students pregnant. What do you suppose he would have gotten for a sentence? Well, if they didn't simply string him up from the nearest tree, he certainly would have gotten the maximum jail sentence available for the crime, regardless of whether a psychologist said he suffered from a "bipolar" mood disorder as in this case. That same psychologist, Dr. Robert Wheeler, said the incident was an "egregious" misuse of trust and exhibited an extraordinary "impairment of social judgment." He said her behavior "raises questions as to whether she can be treated in the community."
Well no kidding, doc. She's essentially a pedophile.
Give me a phreakin' break. The woman committed and admitted to child rape. Treat her as you would any man getting a young girl, whom he has been entrusted to educate in less worldly matters, pregnant. She should be in prison for the time requested by the prosecution, 6 1/2 years. Then probation, then sex offender treatment programs, and she should have to register with her local sheriff every time she moves into a new area.
Bill Gates vs. The World
I don't like Bill Gates the Businessman. I'm sure Bill Gates the person is an ok guy, but Bill Gates the Ruler of All Things Computer is something of a -- dare I say it? -- jerk. His attorneys convey an arrogance and disregard for both the law and public opinion that is staggering. Let's look over recent events:
Sun Microsystems vs. The Anti-Java. Microsoft, seeing that Java could potentially spell the undoing of MS C++ and other development tools while forcing MS to toe a not-made-in-Redmond line, decided to pull out all the stops in diluting and disparaging Sun's Java. They went too far for Scott McNealy though when they put out IE 4.0 with the claim that it was 100% compatible with Java and Javascript standards set by Sun. Sun threw down the gauntlet and is suing MS. They both put the contracts on-line for the public to see. The punchline? Microsoft's web site could not be viewed by Netscape users even though Netscape is 100% Java compliant. Turns out the producers of MS's web content used extensions to the JVM particular to IE 4.0. They quickly modified the page, but not before half the world saw it and the media got a lot of mileage out of it.
Billy Takes On Uncle Sam. If you haven't heard about the Department of Justice slapping MS with a $1 million-a-day fine for forcing computer makers to bundle IE 4.0 with Win 95, you have to be living under a rock or something. Come out, take a deep breath, and check out Mr. Gates responses to this long overdue taste of justice:
DOJ: MS violated a court order designed to guarantee a competitive market.
Billy: You have to be able to control your product.
Todd: No you don't.
When I buy a car, that dealership can put just about any option package on there I ask for. They can fix damage to the car up to 5% of the value of the car without disclosing it to the consumer, they can repaint it, they can rip out the stereo -- they can do just about anything they want to it and the manufacturer can't do squat about it. The computer manufacturers have bought the licenses for Win 95. They shouldn't be forced to buy all the other software packages that MS produces. That would be like a dealership being forced to buy parts for oil tankers just because some division of the manufacturer produced those parts as well. IE is not currently "integrated" into the OS in such a way that the two do not constitute separate products. It's an option, not a part of the OS. Changes to the final product that negatively impact the end user reflect on the dealership, not the manufacturer.Billy: The DOJ doesn't understand the word "integrate".
Todd: Why, sure they do.
To continue with the car analogy, if you bought a pickup, is the camper shell an integrated part of the truck? Only if it can't be separated from the truck and replaced with a different camper shell. Such is not typically the case, and it's not the case with Win95 and IE. Win95 operates fine without IE. IE can be replaced with Netscape Navigator. That would be like ripping off the camper shell that came with your truck and buying a new "BacPac" shell for it. Now if Ford dealerships ripped out the engine to replace it with a better one (that wouldn't be too difficult if we're talking about an Escort), then we're talking about removing an essential part of the car and putting in a different part that would essentially result in a different car.Billy: It's an attempt to stifle innovation.
Todd: Horse pucky.
What would he know about innovation? Nearly every product under the MS umbrella was either copied or bought from someone else. There is very little innovation going on in Redmond. It would take a complete lack of intelligence to see that Bill is attempting, brazenly and unapologetically, to stifle competition. That is the total sum of his actions to this point. It's no mystery, it's obvious to those both inside and outside the industry, and ole Billy is about to bite the big one this time. He better dump out his pocket change and start paying that fine.Iraq
Well, thanks to Ole George Bush, we are getting nothing but grief from that moron, Saddam Hussein. I'm telling ya, folks, I'm not a lover of war, but if we find ourselves compelled to go in again, I say we FINISH THE JOB. Take Saddam Hussein at any cost, arrest him, and turn him over to the United Nations. Assuming of course we can take him alive. And if we can't? Oops… Wouldn't that be a shame? Accidentally killing a man who has murdered thousands of his own people, some of them his own family members, on a whim! Yeah, that would certainly be a shame all right…
Folks, here's my prediction, set down this 15th of November, in the year 1997: Saddam is really close to having his first nuke built and ready to deploy. He stirred up the trouble with the weapon's inspectors because he needed just a few days free and clear to finalize it's construction. Now he's got a nuke, and he's ready to use it against the US. He doesn't want to use it against the UN forces. No, he'd be a bad guy then. He's picking on the US and being nice to everyone else because he wants to be the BMITME (Big Man In The Middle East) who dropped a nuke on the US forces that were gathering at his border. Make no mistake, Saddam has something really devious up his sleeve. I predict that the method of delivery will be something really low budget like a truck. Let's face it, with a nuke, you only have to get so close. He'll nuke the forces while they're still sitting on the border flexing, thinking they're pressuring him to give in to UN demands. This lone truck will come cruising out of the desert with a religious fanatic behind the wheel. The troops will peer at it through their binoculars, muttering to each other about what this guy wants. They'll stop the truck and ask to see papers or tell him he's entering a restricted area and he has to go back, something like that. The sweaty, pie-eyed, teeth-bared driver will turn to the soldier, a rictus of religious fervor stretching his face, and he'll scream something in Persian about the glory of Allah and his son who died of starvation/lack of medicine because of UN sanctions, and then he'll hit the button. And BOOM , real estate prices will drop to 0 for about 10 miles all around. Any troops and equipment are now so much radioactive dust melted with the sand to form chunks of black glass.
Now make that a half dozen trucks spread out along our lines, and Saddam's place in history is secure for all time, rivaling Hitler himself…
Spare the Rod…
I heard about an incident while listening to the radio that I just had to comment on. A man was arrested for beating his teenage son with a wet belt and video taping it. Now this raises two questions in my mind. First: a wet belt? I won't get into details, but my dad's belt and I met more often than we should have, and I can tell you it hurts like hell. A wet belt? Wow. Now that's gotta sting. My second question is this:
What did this kid do to deserve such a punishment?
Well, it seems the kid had been arrested a couple of times for stealing, he'd been getting into a lot of fights, and then…
…he hit his mother.
My mom and I had a few bad times when I was growing up, and there were some things said that I would cut off a finger to take back and situations I sincerely am not proud of, but I NEVER raised my hand to my mother. Never threatened to, never hinted at it, never even considered it. Yeah, my dad would probably have snuffed me in a heartbeat if I had, but it was love and respect that kept me from even considering crossing that line.
Ok, so my take on it is that the dad was well within his rights and that, in his place, if I video taped it, it would be so I could hand it to my son as a "present" afterwards and say, "If your memory ever gets fuzzy about the pros and cons of doing the kind of crap you've been up to lately, pop a little popcorn and put that in the video player… "
On the other hand, in this day and age, I wouldn't be stupid enough to record that sort of thing. The kid took the tape directly to the police. Now the dad faces the possibility, if convicted, of up to 8 years in prison for child abuse. And that's just not right.
Now, I'm for an occasional spanking if nothing else is working. A belt is an extremely effective negative reinforcement. It works. Take my word for it. I pray every day that I never find myself seriously considering using a belt on my children. But if they lay one hand on either myself or their mother, I will use the maximum punishment available to me. To be blunt, I'll take a few layers of skin off their butts and then call the cops and have them put in juvenile detention. Make no mistake, an effective negative response that children fear is what is lacking in the disciplinary regimens of this nation's families, and spanking would definitely fill that void.
Should this man go to jail? No.
His only real crime was being stupid enough to video tape something that an out-of-control teenage punk could use against him. He should be lauded for having the guts to do what was necessary to straighten that kid out, scolded for not watching his back, and his son should be sitting in jail ruminating over the results of his behaviour.The White House Tea Tapes
So Congress subpoenaed the tapes made in the White House of the tea parties held there for guests. The tapes show Clinton discussing fund raising tactics and doing a little fund raising. And the Republicans are all up in arms about it.
What unmitigated crap. What typical politics.
Jay Leno put it best when he said (paraphrased), "The man lives in the White House, the man works in the White House; where is he supposed to go to make a fund raising phone call? The 7-11 on the corner?!"
Don't get me wrong, I'm not as enamored of Bill Clinton's presidency as I was a few short years ago. The man has made mistakes. And he's a typical politician, although I have to give him points for wanting to accomplish something worth talking about during his reign. But to be honest, I'd feel this way about anyone holding that office. If he is going to raise funds, and that is what politics really boils down to, he's going to have to use the facilities available to him. You can't tell me every single President we've had hasn't done the same exact thing, so why are the Republicans so hot on it now? My guess is it's because they fear Al Gore…
Paula Jones' Sexual History
As part of the investigation into the case Paula Jones is making against Bill Clinton, Clinton's lawyers are investigating Paula Jones' sexual history. Is this right? In a word, no. Is she a gold digger? Absolutely. She waited way too long to bring charges, to the point where the statute of limitations has expired and she can now only charge that he violated her civil rights. She's a gold digger and a pawn of the Republican party. But should her prior sexual history be on display? No. A good lawyer could take Mother Theresa's sexual history and make her look like a wanton slut, and that is the only reason for bringing such findings to the public light. As evidence of lack of morals, it's so perfectly effective as to be useless. With our society's values, it can only ever be seen as evidence of lack of self-restraint, of wantonness, of disregard for God-fearing values, etc. I have no respect for her as a lady, but I feel we should respect her as a human being, regardless of her motives. One's sexual history is private. Unless the person's sexual history reflects a disregard for the law, such as pedophilia or rape, it's no one else's business.
Back to Todd's Opinion Page (if you found this through a search engine)