You would think that the Democrat Party wouldget tired of doing things that get them labeled as Soft On Crime.  But, as Ronaldus Maximus said, “There they go again”…

Courtesy of the News Tribune:

Washington has sent 285 criminals to prison for the rest of their lives under the “Three Strikes, You’re Out” law, but about 10 percent of them would get out sooner if the Legislature changes the definition of what crimes are “strikes.”

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is proposing to do just that. He wants to rewrite the law that voters passed in 1993 and exclude offenders whose three crimes were second-degree assault or second-degree robbery.

He also wants to make the changes retroactive, which means 25 to 27 inmates serving life without possibility of parole would be eligible for shorter sentences.

Hmm. Now WHY would he want to do this?

“Given the high cost of incarceration, we need to ask if the ‘Three Strikes’ law is doing what we intended,” Kline said. “The goal in 1993 was to lock up the persistent offenders of the most serious crimes. I’m not convinced that we’ve succeeded.”

So what kind of offenses are we talking about, that Kline feels should NOT be part of 3 Strikes?

Sen. Mike Carrell, R-Lakewood, said he’s read the definition of second-degree assault. It’s a crime in which someone causes or intends to cause “substantial bodily harm” and inflicts pain “equivalent to torture,” he said.

“I want to know why you think someone who does this three separate times should not be put away for life?” Carrell asked witnesses who testified Friday in favor of Kline’s bill.

“Equivelent to Torture”?  Where is Code Pink and the ACLU?  They seem to be all upset about Gitmo, but they don’t care about letting animals like this back out on the street?

SB 5964 would require a review of prison inmates who have been convicted of three crimes – none more serious than the assault and robbery charges – and have judges resentence them.

“They are not going to walk away,” Kline said. “They will have long sentences.”

But sending someone to prison for life for committing three of the least violent crimes is out of proportion, especially considering that murderers and rapists eventually get out of prison, he said.

Sounds to me like we should tighten up on Murderers and Rapists, not let up on Assualters.

So what is motivating Kline?

Kline’s bill is one of several before the Legislature whose intent, in part, is to avoid building another $250 million prison.

“It’s not just one prison, it’s the parade of prisons,” Kline said.

The 2007 Legislature needs to correct some of the previous “hard on crime” legislatures that went overboard with little regard for the eventual cost, he said.

The idea that the cost of something deters a Democrat from spending is laughable on its face.  Could it be that the Left simply believes that no one really belongs in prison?  That everyone should be given another chance (well, a fourth chance, at least)?   Could it be that they would just rather spend the money on something else?  Or could they just be pandering to their base, and hoping that legislation to restore voting rights to felons passes?

Too bad for the victims, though.  I guess they didn’t suffer enough…

First, let me start by saying that I am not a great fan of Orson Scott Card.  In fact, this is the first work of his that I have read in at least 10 years, possibly more.

He is a good writer, but I just have not been interested in the premises of the books he has written in many years.

When I first saw the premise for Empire, it did catch my attention:  A new American Civil War, this time between Left and Right of the political spectrum.  But it just wasn’t enough to make me pull the trigger and buy it.

Then, I got stuck at Sea-Tac Airport the other day.  NOTE TO TRAVELLERS:  Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air should not bother publishing Schedules for their flights, as they are not actually adheared to, and seem to be more like guidelines, or suggestions, than any kind of actual commitment by those carriers to depart any given place at any specified time.  I recommend that they go to an AM/PM arrangement, to minimize the wear and tear on the nerves of their customers.

Since I found myself (again) with several hours to kill, and was not particularly interested in the novel I had brought along (review pending) I went shopping.

This book again caught my eye, but I continued shopping, until, in utter defeat, I decided to go ahead and give it a try.

As per my normal routing, I read the Afterword first.  I found it very insightful, and interesting, which raised my hopes for the book itself.

The first 1/3 or so went along great.  It felt much like a number of Techno-Thrillers I have read - not really Tom Clancy, but more of a Dale Brown feel.

But then it simply went off the rails.  The forces of the Tech Savvy Left includes Mechs (walking tanks), Hovercycles, and other unlikely hardware, that may be fine for a novel set 50 or 100 years from now, but simply destroys any attempt at a realistic time and place feel for a novel that is supposedly set in the here and now.

It even becomes more absurd when the mastermind and moneyman of the Left is an thinly veiled George Soros, but much smarter and even more deranged.

The basic premise was very interesting.  How do you fight a civil war, when it isn’t North Vs South, or any other defined Geographic boundry, but is more Left Vs Right, Red State Vs Blue State, Cities Vs Suburbs and Rural?

It’s unfortunate that the author didn’t spend more time expoloring this, in a more realistic manner, than turning what had the makings of a great political/techno thriller into a mere Science Fiction Novelization of a Video Game.

For what it’s worth, Card has some very interesting points to make throughout the book, and I actually identify with him and his perspective on politics and America, more than I do with many other authors.  I hope that he decides to dip more deeply from this well in the future.  He certainly has the writing ability, and political savvy, to make a signifigant impact on the genre.

Just leave the walking tanks out next time. 

Hat tip to OneFreeKorea, for pointing out this piece from NRO by John O’Sullivan:

The deal just keeps getting better for Kim Jong Il

Rudyard Kipling put it well a century ago:

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

The Dane in this week’s crisis is Kim Jong Il, the grand panjandrum of North Korea. Last week there was modified rapture in the chancelleries of the six great powers engaged in talking to Kim—Japan, China, Russia, India, South Korea and the United States—because they had negotiated a brand new compromise with him.

But can Kim be trusted to keep his side of the bargain this time?

Well, it’s true that this deal is so good for him and the North Korean government that he really doesn’t need to cheat. Kim gets to keep his rocket programs and his chemical and biological stockpiles; he gets normalized relations with the U.S., which means the removal of North Korea from the State Department’s list of “terrorist nations”; and he gets international respectability. What reasonable despot with a despicable human rights record could ask for more?At the same time he may not be able to stop himself cheating. He knows that the U.S. government, anxious to parade its sole diplomatic achievement, will be keen to turn a blind eye to any violations of this agreement. So he can probably cheat with impunity.

This is nothing more than the Carter/Clinton/Albright debacle being resusitated and propped up as a Diplomatic solution to the crisis with North Korea.  After all, it worked so well last time.  Rather than to continue with the very successful policy of choking off Kim’s access to congac and caviar, and banks to launder his drug money and counterfeit dollars, the Diplomats want to go back to appeasing him, in the hope that he will keep his word this time.

As Kipling pointed out, the moral is plain:
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to say:—
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame.
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Courtesy of the BBC:

Mexico’s parliament has condemned what it says is a border violation by US workers building a controversial barrier between the two countries.

Legislators say workers and equipment building a section of the barrier have gone 10 metres (yards) into Mexico.

Mexican legislators said they had photographs and video, taken on Monday, of the workers and heavy-duty construction equipment that showed them about 10 metres inside Mexico near the border city of Agua Prieta and the town of Douglas, Arizona.

The Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa said she had complained to the US authorities and that the men and equipment had been withdrawn.

The sheer brass cajones it takes for the Meixcan government to take this stance is breathtaking, in view of their tacit approval and support of the flow of illegals from their nation across that same border into ours, for the express purposes of providing an outlet for those discontented with the dismal economic and political situation in Mexico, and to get access to a huge influx of American Dollars (second only to Oil in its effects on propping up the Mexican economy).

So how does OUR Ambassador to Mexixo respond?  Why, like ALL American Diplomats, he APOLOGIZES:

In a statement, the US Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza said: “The US is sensitive to Mexican concerns… [and] has the deepest respect for the integrity of the sovereignty of Mexican soil”.  

Of course, the Mexicans do not return that Respect.  In the view of many Mexicans (both in Mexico and in the US), our land IS theirs.  Like the Palestinians, they have been unjustly deprived of their property, and if we won’t give it back, they will take it back, one way or another.