Regular readers of this column know that, at times, we look at the ways Muslim countries, those nations where Islam is the national religion and the foundation for their laws, are not like us (if you’ll excuse the grammar).  Egypt and Turkey are two examples.  Both have been in the news recently for their unabashed persecution of their Christian populations.

An official policy of the Obama administration is to keep happy our pigs and those who raise them by avoiding the term “swine flu” when describing the influenza virus that jumped from pigs to people.  It is not the swine flu, but rather the H1N1 virus, they tell us. 

The Egyptian government, however, uses swine flu as an excuse to launch another round of persecution against its minority Christian population.  Even though the World Health Organization reports no swine flu in any African nation as of this writing, the Egyptian government ordered the destruction of the entire pig population in a nation where only Christians raise pigs because Muslims consider pork unclean.

Earlier this week, according to various news organizations, about 1,000 Christian pig farmers armed with stones and bottles faced off against about 200 police officers armed with tear gas and accompanied by armored vehicles.  The Christians lost. 

Now, Egyptian health officials say the pig slaughter is part of a campaign against unsanitary conditions on pig farms, especially in Cairo slums where garbage collectors live.  And since all pig-raising garbage collectors are Christians, some observers believe this is another way to harm Christians in a nation where the law strongly discourages conversion to Christianity.

Or, someone serving at the wedding of a Muslim who converted to Christianity.  Father Mattaos Wahba received a five-year prison sentence last October after his conviction on charges he helped a Muslim woman obtain an ID card that falsely listed her religion as Christian.  The woman obtained the ID of a deceased Christian woman of about her age two years before she met her future husband, according to the organization Christian Copts of California.  The priest, according to the group, had no knowledge of the woman’s fake ID.  He, instead, is a victim of Egypt’s open violation of religious and human rights.  At least in the way we understand them. 

Even the U.S. State Department describes the Egyptian government as applying discriminatory religious laws and practices, and effectively shutting out Christians from senior positions in the government, military, and education.  And forget about building or repairing churches.  An 1856 law says non-Muslims must obtain a presidential decree to build or repair a place of worship.  A church in a Cairo suburb has been waiting for a construction permit for the past 50 years, according to the State Department. 

Turkey doesn’t need a swine-flu ruse to persecute its Christians.  That government is open in its de jure and de facto forms of discrimination, including the systematic removal of Eastern Orthodoxy from within its borders.  Turkey does not recognize the ecumenical role of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the world’s 200 million Eastern Orthodox Christians, whose patriarchate dates back to the fourth century. 

At one time, the patriarchate possessed holdings on par with those of the Vatican, but it is now a small, beleaguered enclave with most of its property seized by the government and its priests and patriarch victims of constant physical and political attacks.  For instance, the government must approve a new patriarch who must be a native Turk.  The government also closed all Christian schools and the Halki Seminary that trained Turkey’s priests and patriarchs. 

In 2007, the late Congressman Tom Lantos joined 50 members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which he chaired, in sending a letter to Turkey’s prime minister urging an end to all restrictions on the religious freedom of the patriarch.  President Obama made a similar statement in his April 6 remarks to Turkey’s parliament.

Mr. Obama, however, did not mention a case under deliberation by a Turkish judge.  The monks of the fourth-century Syriac Orthodox monastery of Mor Gabriel want the court to stop a group of state land surveyors and Muslim villagers from taking about sixty percent of its property.  The monks believe the taking of their land is another way to force non-Muslims to leave.

The case of Mor Gabriel may have profound political ramifications for Turkey, as pointed out by the Assyrian International News Agency.  Turkey wants to become a member of the European Union, and protection of minority and religious rights are conditions for entry.  But, history often shows us that political expediency often trumps religious rights, particularly when the religion is Christianity in a Muslim state.

President Barack Obama’s performance on “The Tonight Show” last week prompted various friends and colleagues to discuss the question of leadership. No one came up with a definition suitable for nailing to the wall or turning into a message to scroll across the computer screen. I suggested it may be one of those things we know when we don’t see it. Kinda the reverse of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s description of hard-core pornography. He knew it when he saw it.

And that’s the curious, if not tortured, parallel between lack of leadership and porn: with both, someone’s gonna get (fill in the appropriate verb).

I used to work closely with the CEO of a billion-dollar research and education organization with thousands of employees spread out over several locations. Looking back over his tenure, I can break down his leadership style into four principles: 1) don’t make me make a decision, 2) give folks what they want, 3) make people feel good, and 4) make them laugh. I guess you could combine the third and fourth tenets to shorten the list.

Early on, the CEO told his vice presidents not to bring him any problems. “I expect you to work them out,” he said. “If you come to me for a solution, I figure the best minds here couldn’t come up with an answer, so you’ll be stuck with whatever I come up with.” 

Shortly after that, a group of downstream managers asked permission and funding to continue an annual management conference. “I had the same sort of request at my last place,” he told me. “I always let them do it, because it takes them about a year to organize one of these things, and that keeps them away from me for a year.”

He never spoke in depth on any subject, because, as I discovered, he didn’t possess any depth of knowledge or experience. But he was awfully good with smoke and mirrors. “I don’t use prepared speeches,” he told me. “I got about six or seven basic speeches I like to use, and I use a little of one here and a little of another there, to come up with something to say. I usually don’t know what I’m going to say until I get up there.  But it’s important to know that people don’t want to think hard about things and they don’t want to hear bad news. You want to give them just a few statistics to keep the subject fresh, and tell them a little history to give them some perspective on what you’re talking about.”

And then came his request of me. “I need you to find me some new jokes,” he said. “I spend about half my time finding jokes. So, you could do me a big favor by finding some new jokes for me.”

President Obama’s appearance with Leno made me look back over the past year and at the parallels with the aforementioned CEO. Let’s start with decisions. We’ll have to give the president the benefit of the doubt here and assume someone else is making the big decisions, like naming tax cheats to his cabinet, or picking a treasury secretary who was butt deep into the AIG bonus fiasco from the git-go. Those must have been examples of “If you come to me for a nominee, I figure the best minds here couldn’t come up with a good choice, so you’ll be stuck with the person I choose.” 

Next is give folks what they want. People wanted change going into the November elections. Every national poll last summer showed nine out of ten Americans did not like Congress’ performance, while eight out of ten didn’t like the president’s performance. The voters wanted change, and that was the mantra repeated by candidate Obama at every stop. It didn’t matter if the change were cosmetic and easily reversed when needed, like with John McCain’s assertion that the fundamentals of the economy are sound, a position derided by candidate Obama as a statement by someone out of touch with the realities of the American people. Then a few days ago, a bright light shone from the heavens and suddenly the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Praise the Lord and pass the ipecac.

Then came the I’m-just-one-of-you evenings with Leno, with Mr. Obama as the sole guest on a night that could have included an enhanced starlet, a stoned rocker, or a kid who whistles Chopin through his nose. No, we didn’t have one of those. Pity. I’m not sure even the most vapid of entertainers would have made fun of the Special Olympics just so folks could feel good and laugh.

Memo to President Obama: Laughter is no substitute for leadership.

A friendly conversation the other night about politics and the economy underscored the great gulf between perception and reality. The old saying is true that perception is reality, but, in reality, only if one doesn’t delve deeply into the subject in question.

Here’s what happened. The after-dinner conversation turned to those Detroit CEOs who flew on corporate jets to tell a congressional committee they need taxpayer money to survive. Our guest was incensed at the audacity of these automotive swells, the personifications of corporate greed.

I agreed their choice of transportation was boneheaded at best, and another reason why folks living at the C-level should listen to their public relations people whose job is to keep well-paid fat out of the fire. This also was a fine example of how public perception can eclipse economic reality.

Many of us who qualify as pedestrian in our jobs and lifestyle look with more than a tad of resentment upon executive transportation, whether it is a car and driver, an express elevator to the corporate suite, or a company jet. We work long hours to make our bosses look good, yet we drive ourselves to the next meeting or to the airport where we jostle our way through the lines only to wait for a flight that’s delayed. What a waste of time, we say to ourselves as we anxiously watch for the next flight update.

And that’s the point. If standing around in airports is a waste of our time, just think of the waste of company time and money for those highly paid C-suite suits. Convert your pay and their pay to hourly rates and determine the most efficient use of investor or taxpayer money.

I used to write speeches for university presidents. Every now and then someone would ask why my boss would have a full-time speechwriter. My answer was simple. It takes about an hour to write each minute of a speech. As a taxpayer, who would you prefer to spend 40 to 50 hours a week researching and writing speeches?

Then, there’s the economic stimulus argument for corporate jets. First, let’s establish the premise that the creation of jobs is one of the top reasons for the federal bailout money. If so, then why eliminate jobs simply because of envy?

“Excuse me, but your corporation gets economic stimulus money, so you’re gonna have to jettison your jet, which means you’ll have to fire the pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics, and cancel your contracts with fuel suppliers and the fixed base operator, who, in turn, will make personnel adjustments based on lost revenue. There, I feel better, because your CEO now has to ride a mule to his next meeting.”

President Obama continued this Us-versus-Them attitude in his this-is-not-a-State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress this week. He told the giddy crowd he will hold banks fully accountable for their bailout money. “This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet,” he said, adding, “Those days are over.” I guess that means you folks who sell fancy drapes and design and sew fancy drapes and supply raw materials that make up fancy drapes can start looking for other work, because fancy drapes, along with private jets, are no longer allowed.

Same is true for those bacchanalian conventions and conferences hosted and attended by companies and organizations across the land. Mr. Obama doesn’t like them. He said so in Elkhart, Ind. Companies can’t go to Las Vegas or to the Super Bowl “on the taxpayer’s dime,” he said.

In the last several weeks, Las Vegas hotels saw the cancellation of 30,000 hotel room nights at an estimated loss to the city of $20 million, according to the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. Goldman Sachs, which took $10 billion in bailout money, cancelled its technology conference and State Farm dropped its October convention expected to have 17,000 attendees.

But why stop at Las Vegas? Who needs conferences and conventions anyway? Not businesses looking for clients, or managers looking for better ways to do business, or city leaders who keep telling us convention business is essential to their economic development.

By the way, Goldman Sachs said it was leaving Las Vegas because of the company’s “best efforts to operate according to the requirements of the new landscape of our industry.” It didn’t mention, however, the $600,000 cancellation fee to the hotel or the other costs associated with moving a big event at the last minute.

Some may think the move was to control public perception. And it was, because it had nothing to do with economic reality. Mundus vult decipi

Here’s the question: When does theft become an unfortunate mistake, or asset liberation, or a temporary change of possession, or an alternate utilization of private property, or wealth sharing, or nothing more than an act of a modern Robin Hood?

That’s a question faced by University of South Florida administrators and lawyers in the local state attorney’s office over the past several days as they looked into the strange case of Abdul Rao, soon-to-be former senior associate vice president for research at the USF College of Medicine. Here’s what happened. Last week, according to published reports, Rao drove his minivan to the loading dock of USF’s  Johnnie B. Byrd Sr. Alzheimer's Center and Research Institute and helped his yardman help himself to a graduate student’s unsecured bike. Rao says the guy needed the bike so he could ride to the Department of Motor Vehicles office to replace a lost state ID and to go to a work site.

“I made an unfortunate mistake,” Rao explained in a written statement to colleagues after a surveillance video caught him boosting the bike. “I acted out of compassion for this nearly homeless man; but I failed to consider that the bicycle belonged to someone on our Alzheimer’s team. The bicycle was reported stolen. It has, however, since then been returned to its owner.”

Rao euphemized his action as a “failure in judgment.” The bike’s owner called it theft. Indeed.

Reports identify the other man as Vernon Waiters, whose extensive rap sheet includes several drug charges.

The video, posted on YouTube, shows what appears to be a deliberate shopping trip by the university researcher and the nearly homeless, but (as described by Rao) trustworthy and extremely hardworking co-conspirator. The video starts with someone riding a bike onto the loading dock. Next we see the two asset liberators drive up and check out the bikes parked off camera. Mr. Trustworthy chooses a bike, gives it a test ride, but returns it, only to come back on camera riding the larger mountain bike that the purloining pair put into the minivan before driving away.

The bike’s owner, a doctoral student, isn’t buying Rao’s belief that the campus VIP never meant to “bring harm, alarm, or disruption to anyone.” The student says it’s obvious what happened, and he wants Rao charged.

Rao plans to step down from his post at the end of this week, giving up his positions as senior associate veep for research, associate veep for USF Health, professor of surgery and molecular medicine, and medical director of clinical research for Tampa General Hospital.

Rao’s resignation denies the public the opportunity to see university administrators ponder a couple of points in their decision whether to slap Rao’s wrist or boot his thieving butt.

First, Rao makes a base salary of nearly $270,000 a year, which goes up to as much as $384,000 with administrative stipends. W hat would administrators do if, say, a housekeeper, making less than a tenth of Rao’s base take, took home Rao’s laptop, without permission, to apply online for a coupon for a digital TV converter, and returned the computer a few days later, undamaged and dusted?

Second is USF’s reputation within its external community. It’s a safe bet few community partners will accept errors in judgment by a medical researcher, not to mention a medical researcher who’s a bicycle thief in the eyes of his doctoral-student victim and possibly a host of other folks?

Of course, some members of the academy and the community may not have a problem with Rao’s twisted logic. They’re OK with asset liberation and wealth sharing, because they see the big picture small minds can’t grasp. They see the good in the end result. 

Breaking into your neighbor’s home to borrow some china for your weekend party is not a crime, because you broke back in and returned the plates, all clean and shiny. Taking your colleague’s car from the parking lot without permission so you can go to the bank and to the grocery story is OK, because you brought it back unscathed. Choosing not to pay your income taxes until you’re tapped to be the head taxman should not be held against you, because you paid the taxes and penalties when you were caught. And sneaking into this country is not really a crime, because you’re honest, hardworking, and ready to get your slice of the American pie.

I’m just being snarky, you may say. Indubitably. But Rao’s resignation deprives USF administrators the opportunity to place upon Rao a condition of employment that provides for a daily period of pillory on the campus quad where any and all may be snarky toward him to their hearts’ content.

My birthday is Jan. 20.  Every four years, the nation stops its normal course of events and holds a parade and celebration.  The quadrennial festivities began, by coincidence, at the moment Dwight Eisenhower became the 34th president of the United States of America back in 1953.  Truly, a moment in history.  But, was either event an historic moment?  After 56 years of thoughtful consideration, I vote in the affirmative to both.

History, by its very definition, is in the past; therefore, an event of historic significance, be it my birth or the inauguration of a president, does not become a momentous occasion until after it occurs.  We can anticipate with great expectation the significance of a future event, but to do more is to wallow in the shallow pit of hyperbole.

And, the wallowing over the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama as the nation’s 44th chief executive has taken away some of the “historic” joy for me.  Here’s why I say this.  Three months before the Democratic National Convention, wide-eyed journalists gushed with school-girl giddiness over the fact that Mr. Obama would accept his party’s nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech.  Yes, this would be a significant event in the histories of presidential politics and civil rights (USA Today termed it “serendipitous timing”), and the angle freshened an overly long story.  But, when journalists declared Obama the nominee (not “the presumptive nominee”), and brought to our attention the convergence of these two events, they smothered us with their unfettered excitement.  No fewer than 900 references to the serendipitous timing, but not with that wonderful phrase, turn up in a Google search for June 3-4.  Hundreds more show up in the days that followed.

Thank you for pointing it out, but stop beating me with it.

The same sentiment holds for the inauguration.  Today, just a few hours before the event, the forced creation of history by journalists and regular folks alike is making me want to turn away.  It’s like when your mother arranges a blind date with the daughter, or son, of a friend of a friend.  The build up rarely lives up to reality.

And, the sad thing is that the desire to be a part of any history is so strong with some people that they fail to see the irony in their words and actions.  Take this email describing the events at one Inauguration Day gathering in Houston: 

“The general plan is to commemorate the day with an ocular demonstration of ‘The Evolution of a Dream:  Remembering Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’ by simulcasting the swearing in of the 44th President who is a person of color.”  The follow-up email arrived a few days later with a flyer containing the Obama quote:  “This is not a White America.  This is not a Black America.  This is not a Latino America.  This is not an Asian America.  This is the United States of America.”

The new generation of journalists long for their own presidential Camelot.  Another Google search for the terms Obama and Camelot returns nearly a thousand hits.  The truth is that Camelot did not exist as a descriptive term for the shortened Kennedy administration until after the president’s assassination.  Also, keep in mind this bit of political irony purveyors of the New Camelot keep quiet:  Kennedy won the 1960 election thanks to some old-fashion Chicago vote-counting chicanery.

That historians will view my birthday this year as a significant day in the history of our nation is not totally a function of my being or of Mr. Obama’s racial mix.  The inauguration of the 44th president would have historic significance regardless of who won the election.  We could have had as president the first former prisoner of war, the first female, the first Mormon, the first Libertarian, the first former First Lady, the first cross-dressing former mayor, the first former preacher from Arkansas, the first former actor from Tennessee, the first Hispanic, the first president with hair plugs, the first . . . well, you get the idea.

My birthday and the national event that accompanies it this year are heady times, no doubt about it.  That’s why there’s something unseemly about all of the pre-birthday/inauguration hype.  Let the day be what it is to each person according to what’s important to that person.  It may be a day to celebrate the start of another year.  For some, the day may carry great ideological significance or racial pride.  And pride for others may be found in the peaceful transition of power that begins another chapter in our nation’s history. 

I intend to spend the day celebrating my birthday, celebrating a new president, and letting history sort out the significance of both.

The first comment I received from someone not on my television screen regarding the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States came via email early the day after the election. It asked simply, “Now what?” Those two words coalesced the questions facing not only our new president, but also the people of our nation, regardless of ideology or political affiliation.

Now we wait, I replied, and guard the house, and protect the chickens, and peer deep into the night and listen.

It occurred to me that my reply may sound skeptical, indeed fearful, of Mr. Obama. Quite the contrary. I meant to point out folks should react cautiously, but not anxiously.

Those who did not vote for him have no need to grab their rifles, run out into their yards with hair aflame, and fire blindly at imagined intruders. Those who voted for the current Mr. Bush the first time must remember their outrage when supporters of Al Gore derided the nation’s new leader before he could prove himself one way or the other.

Yes, there was much anger and even considerable suspicion regarding the election, bad feelings that remain to this day. But it’s different this time. The outcome is clear. No chads hanging the election in the balance. Back then, in 2000, Mr. Gore received half a million more votes than Mr. Bush. This week, Mr. Obama outpolled Mr. McCain by more than seven million votes. Even though he did not win, Mr. McCain received more votes than Messrs. Bush and Gore and even Ronald Reagan in either of his landslide elections.

Mr. Obama will become president of a nation divided strongly along many lines. Nearly 56 million of his fellow citizens preferred another candidate, another set of ideas, another plan for change. He will learn on the job, as did every other president before him, the best way to lead his nation in the direction he believes best. In the process, he will lose many of his followers, people who want to take their leader to places he does not, or cannot, go. He will find, as did every other president before him, that the Oval Office is a lonely and confining place.

That’s why we the people need to cut him some slack and resist the temptation to nitpick, to continue the mean-spiritedness that has infected our nation and has made a sport out of making sport of someone we don’t particularly like. The level of political intolerance and nasty rhetoric seems to have increased considerably during the last couple of years. Were the commentators and comedians to blame or did the campaigns set the tone that others mimicked? It doesn’t matter today. The election is over and both candidates, in their respective concession and acceptance speeches, achieved the level of eloquence we should see during a campaign, not just at the end.

Mr. McCain began his speech by asking the crowd to stop booing at the name of Barack Obama. And then he urged his supporters to join him in congratulating the next president and in offering Mr. Obama “our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromise to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited. Whatever our differences,” he continued, “we are fellow Americans.”

It is natural, he said, to feel disappointment. “But tomorrow, we must move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again.”

Mr. Obama echoed in his acceptance speech that call for national unity. He told the world that the citizens of our nation “have never been a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states. We are, and always will be, the United States of America.”

And then, on a night filled with history, he called forward the memory of Abraham Lincoln, a Republican from Illinois, who was the first to carry his party’s banner to the White House. “As Lincoln said to a nation more divided than ours,” he said, “we are not enemies, but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too.”

That statement answers the second email I received the morning after the election, sent by a person who wrote, “He will never be MY president.” Our political system, the envy of the world, allows us to embrace fully the victor while guarding the house and peering deep into the night and listening. Then, if we find ourselves at odds with what comes to our front door, we can take up our ballot, not our rifle, and change our leadership again.

When historians look back on the 2008 U.S. presidential election, they may determine race and trust were the silent and deciding factors in the surprise election of John McCain.  Those same historians may also conclude Barack Obama played a significant role in his own defeat by making race an issue and by eroding the trust of voters by refusing to place his faith in them.

Let’s begin the race issue with a disclaimer.  I looked hard at the Obama candidacy early on, because I didn’t find much in common politically with the choices at the time.  Except for Obama.  We’re both from Illinois.  We’re both racially mixed.  Neither of us conducted our youthful days in conventional ways, at least not conventional to people of earlier generations.

But, before I went Full Barry, I wanted to hear him repudiate those who could not resist the easy temptation to call him the black candidate.  I waited for him to say his father was a black man from Kenya and his mother was a white woman from Kansas, which made him the new, blended face of our nation.  I wanted to hear him say he was not a hyphenated American, because that simple mark dividing races and nationalities also divides our people as a nation.

Instead, he encouraged his followers and confederates to carry his African-American status like a battle flag to rally the troops.

I considered myself an equal mix of Anglo and Chinese until my wife pointed out this week, “Obama’s more of a white man than you are.”  After blinking my eyes a few times, I asked what she meant.

“Think about it.  Your father was part Native American.  Duh.”

I thought about it, and she was right.  My mother is full-blooded Chinese, my father was around a quarter Native American, so that makes me less than 40 percent Anglo, or white.  And (if you’ll pardon my grammar) that makes the black candidate for president more of a white man than me.

Obama’s choice to play the race card may not be lost on a sizeable portion of the non-black electorate.  Some folks already mention the Bradley Effect, which says a decisive number of people just can’t bring themselves to vote for a black candidate, regardless of what they say or do leading up to Election Day.  The name comes from former Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley, a black candidate who lost his 1982 California gubernatorial bid even though he led in pre-election polls.  

And today, less than two weeks from Election Day, it’s easy to understand why some non-black voters don’t want others to know they do not support Obama.  Who can blame them when any criticism or questioning of the candidate of change results in immediate old-school accusations of racism?

And that brings us to the second factor, the issue of trust.  Obama never really condemns the past and current political views of fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayers, pointing out, instead, that Ayers’ terrorist activities occurred when Obama was 8 years old, and, therefore, have no connection to Obama today.  If that’s true, then Obama’s position negates the argument of some black people who push for reparations because their ancestors were slaves.  That’s because slavery occurred before those living today were born, and, therefore, has no connection to anyone today.  Unless, of course, we have people who believe in slavery, in segregation, and in the superiority of one race over another.  If so, then we can make an argument that those who pal around socially, politically, or professionally with such individuals must share some level of affinity.

But Citizen Obama does not fully trust the American people to know his full and true relationship with Ayers, because he does not trust the American people to look at his life and accept him as our president.

The American people knew George W. Bush grew up around such neo-con luminaries as Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an average college student, and at one time was what some would call a drunkard who even lost his driver’s license for drunk driving, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people knew Bush was an unsuccessful businessman and person not glib or quick on his feet, but we elected him twice to the presidency.

The American people only know about Obama what Obama wants us to know.  And mistrust in the judgment of the American people may tip enough votes to McCain, a candidate the American people know well.

The lead is one of the hardest, yet most essential, elements to a news story.  It sets the tone for the article and captures the reader’s interest by using a minimum number of words.  And speaking of minimum, the good lead offers, at minimum, the meat of the story: the who, the what, the when, and the where.  The why and the how come later.

Journalists learn lead writing in Journalism 101 classes.  They hone their skill through class assignments.  They perfect the art with the help of editors or producers.

So what happened at the Houston Chronicle last week?  Someone either (1) forgot how to write a lead or (2) the Chronicle, once again, demonstrated its penchant for shoddy writing and agenda journalism.  Of course, neither alternative is mutually exclusive.

Here’s what readers gleaned from the first three paragraphs of the front-page story of the city/state section under the headline, “Teen’s hanging in jail fuels many questions”:  17-year-old Arturo Chavez sat dead in solitary confinement in the Galveston County, Texas, jail after twisting a blanket into a noose around his neck within 48 hours of his arrest on an initial charge of making an illegal left turn.

Three paragraphs to tell us a 17-year-old may have committed suicide in the county jail after a traffic stop.

By the end of the fourth paragraph, the reader gets the idea this will not be a story about an apparent jail suicide, but rather a sob-sister account of an illegal alien from Guatemala who spent much of his time improving his English and working to send money to the folks back home.

The fifth graph introduces his older brother who says Chavez killed himself because he was “so beaten down he couldn’t take the pain.”  And then, if the reader had any doubts of the paper’s agenda, the sixth paragraph tosses them out by explaining that Chavez’s life was similar to those untold others who “live in the shadows” because of their immigration status.

Reading on in the eighth graph, we learn his parents filed a federal lawsuit against the police department, the county, and the county sheriff alleging authorities didn’t do enough to prevent the suicide.

The paper devotes the next 16 (count them, 16) paragraphs on Chavez’s dissatisfaction with his tips from loading baggage at a Guatemalan bus station; the 15 days he spent sneaking into Mexico and the U.S.; the $3,500 he and his family and friends forked over to coyotes; his rise from busboy to waiter at an unnamed restaurant owned by Mario Garcia (yes, the story named the owner, but not the restaurant); the $100 a week Chavez sent home; his classes to learn English; his pride of Guatemala, the U.S., and his Mayan heritage, his happiness with his 15-year-old girl friend; and his traffic stop.

Not until paragraph 25, more than halfway into the story, do we learn Chavez was in the U.S. illegally with no driver’s license or auto insurance, and in possession of a fake identification card.  And then, the paper takes two more paragraphs before describing how Chavez escaped from jail, scrambled up a wire-topped fence that cut his hands as he resisted arrest, and how police had to zap him twice with a taser and thwack him several times in the head with a baton before he gave up.

The remaining 16 paragraphs reflect the tone of the first 24 by painting an illegal immigrant who escaped from jail and resisted capture, who endangered lives and property, and who carried what may have been someone’s stolen identity as a hard worker whose poor family had to raise the cash to return his body to Guatemala.

There is nothing wrong with telling Chavez’s story to explain why the young man chose to kill himself rather than wait for the court to release him so he could continue his voluntary life in the shadows.  The Houston Chronicle, however, did a great disservice to its readers and to all legal immigrants and naturalized citizens by burying Chavez’s criminal activities and by portraying him as an innocent victim of a racist and uncaring society that beat him down until suicide was the only way to stop his pain.

I don’t have a problem with well-written, sob-sister, agenda journalism.  Just don’t put tripas on a plate and serve it as tournedos.

 

Lost amid news about rising fuel costs, falling stock prices, mortgage foreclosures, and one African-American’s nutty surgical wish are stories of push backs by communities fed up with illegal immigration. 

Out in Thousand Oaks, Calif., earlier this month, some residents scored a small victory by effectively closing down for a day a city-sponsored day-labor center. Last year Judicial Watch wrote the mayor about the organization’s concerns that the city was violating federal immigration laws by spending more than $133,000 of public funds between 2001 and 2007 to subsidize what amounts to city-sanctioned criminal activity, since mostly illegal aliens hang out at the center. 

A small group of residents gathered on the sidewalk to wave placards and US flags at passing motorists. They also used video cameras to tape folks trying to hire illegals, which considerably cut down on business for the day. 

Out in Aurora, Colo., city council members this month will take up a proposal to change the definition of a temporary employment agency after citizens and business owners complained about people gathered at an intersection looking for temporary work. Some of the job seekers reportedly jump in front of vehicles or urinate behind the buildings. The proposal would force day laborers to stand 1,500 feet from the newly defined employment agencies. 

Lou Barletta, the three-term mayor of Hazelton, Pa., wants businesses there to work with a company that uses a federal data base to check on employees’ immigration status. Illegal immigration is the cornerstone of his campaign to oust a 12-term member of Congress. He also convinced the city council in 2006 to approve an ordinance denying business permits to companies that employ illegals. The ordinance also allowed for fines against landlords who rent to illegals, and it required tenants to register and pay for a rental permit. A federal judge said “No, no, no.”  

Federal courts around the nation struck down other attempts by cities to staunch the flow of illegals into their communities. Up in Farmers Branch, Texas, a federal judge this month quashed the city’s ban on renting apartments to illegals. Now, the city is thinking about following Hazelton’s plan.

The Fremont, Neb., city council is considering a proposal to ban the harboring or hiring of illegals or renting to them. And, officials in Escondido, Calif., want to enact ordinances that outlaw picking up day laborers from along some streets. They also want to discourage multiple families from sharing houses by requiring a permit for overnight parking.  

Opponents of the Fremont and Escondido plans say the cities’ attempts are unconstitutional. And, they’re probably right. Cities and states can’t enact laws governing immigration. That’s the job of the federal government. Plenty of laws exist to control immigration; they just need to be enforced.  

We’re starting to see some that enforcement. A few days ago, feds in Rhode Island raided six courthouses and arrested 31 illegals from Mexico, Guatamala, Honduras, and Brazil hired by contractors for the state court system. Then there’s Mack Associates, Inc., owner of eleven McDonald’s restaurants in Nevada, fined $1 million this past week after admitting to hiring 58 illegal immigrants. In Morgan City, La., Lenny Dartez, a former member of the state’s Democratic Party central committee and husband of former state representative Carla Dartez, faces up to five years in the pokey and up to $250,000 in fines for employing illegals from Trinidad at one of his companies. Citizen tips led to the arrests in all three of these cases. 

And, there is the answer. The illegal immigration issue may be a national concern, but it’s really an issue that can be addressed only on the individual level. 

Here’s what I mean. A couple of years ago, my mother-in-law nearly died after an illegal immigrant made an unlawful u-turn and rammed into her vehicle. My mother-in-law wanted to talk with her city council member and write letters to her state representatives about passing stricter immigration legislation until I pointed out that neither the city nor the state has jurisdiction. 

It’s up to you and your friends to do something about it, and that something is simply shunning those who purposely hire illegal workers, I said. Folks concerned about crime in their neighborhood establish neighborhood watches to keep out miscreants. Residents fed up with prostitution chase away the customers from the street corners. Citizens tired of drugs run off the dealers. They don’t wait for the government to enforce laws already on the books. 

Her preacher frequented the Mexican restaurant that hired the woman who hit her, so I suggested she tell the preacher to either stop going there or else they’d find a new minister. She didn’t like the idea.  

Shunning is not easy. She lives in a small Arkansas town. Shunning business owners and neighbors she’s known for decades would make it uncomfortable for her whenever she went to the country club or attended a Kiwanis meeting, she admitted. 

Some places encourage illegals to settle in their communities. But folks living in other cities, like the one’s mentioned earlier, want the illegals to go away. They can’t pass city ordinances, but they can take individual action. 

One person becomes two, who become four, which then becomes a movement. When the government won’t enforce its laws, the individual must turn his or her back on those who hire and harbor illegals. Non-violent community pressure in the form of economic and social shunning, also known as boycotts, may be the only solution.

I like satire as much as the next person, having engaged in a bit of it at the expense of  publicity-hungry nitwits. Yet, I don’t remember using satire to denigrate public employees as are some citizens in San Francisco.

Here’s what happened. Members of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco, a merry band of political pranksters, were downing some brews when they came up with the idea to rename their city’s award-winning Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant in honor of George W. Bush. They want the name change to take effect Jan. 20, 2009, which is Inauguration Day. 

Supporters of the idea suggest San Franciscans participate in a synchronized flush to christen the renamed plant just as the new president takes the oath of office.

They have more than 8,500 signatures on a petition to put the question on the November ballot. One of the organizers admits the petition drive is a silly idea to some people, but adds that their grassroots campaign is the democratic process at work.

No argument there. In fact, we need more grassroots efforts, just not at the expense of hard-working folks, such as those who operate our sewage treatment plants.

I’ve never worked in a treatment plant, but I spent a couple of summers at the bottom of sewer mains in my hometown shoveling, well, stuff. Here’s a pop quiz: Do you know what a honey dipper is, and have you ever used one?

New York City describes what new sewage treatment employees can expect for their $30,000-a-year salary: working outdoors in all kinds of weather; working under high levels of noise; working in areas that may be damp, dark, dusty, dirty and/or acrid; using a respirator; and using equipment for fecal testing.

The wastewater treatment occupation is one of our nation’s most hazardous jobs. A 1997 study at Cornell University pointed out the primary route of chemically related health problems among sewage treatment workers came from inhalation, because many plants are not designed to prevent aerial dispersion of wastewater during the treatment process.  

Treating our sewage exposes these workers to chlorinated organic solvents and pesticides, PCBs, asbestos, dioxins, polycyclic aromatics, petroleum hydrocarbons, flame retardants, heavy metals, and radioactive materials that may increase the risk of cancer or abnormal births for the workers or their families.

Earlier this month, six workers at a sewage treatment plant in Sicily died from breathing poisonous fumes.

San Francisco (where some residents apparently believe their sewage don’t stink) has nearly 900 miles of sewers, three treatment plants, 36 overflow points, four outfalls, and 17 pump stations, according to the city’s official sewage site. The proposed George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant treats an average dry-weather flow of about 17 million gallons a day and has a total capacity of 65 million gallons during wet weather. 

In 2002, a National Public Radio reporter and his producer went into Cincinnati’s sewers as part of NPR’s series on dirty work. They descended 25-feet below the streets and, in hip waders, walked into a 20-foot-diameter pipe, part of a collection site, which spews what the reporter called “an unsavory mix of storm-water runoff and brown sewage.”

Cincinnati sewer workers told the NPR team they saw themselves as “environmentalists improving the quality of peoples’ lives,” even though others may find the work distasteful.

No. What’s distasteful here is the adolescent glee in which the petition organizers and fellow Bush haters in San Francisco and around the country revel.

One organizer, ignoring the obvious irony, said he believes most politicians are narcissistic and egomaniacs, and that it’s important for “satirists” like himself and the petition-drive organizers not let politicians define their own history.

A member of a Democratic online discussion board put it another way. If Bush had any sense of remorse, the member wrote, “he would die of humiliation and shame,” at having a sewage treatment plant named after him.

Is this arrogance based in ignorance or mean spiritedness, or both?

The White House refuses to comment on the petition drive, but who would blame the president for saying he is honored to be associated with folks who feel no humiliation and shame in their work? 

The humiliation and shame rests on those promoting the petition.

Here we are with a new week and another round of posturing, politicking, and punditry regarding the price of petroleum.  As happens when folks do a lot of talking, very little is said.

I hang around educated and talented people.  Each individual has at least one university degree.  Most read, watch, or listen to more than one news source every day.  They span generations with ages ranging from the 20s to the 70s. 

Yet, not a single person among them knew the answers to some basic questions pertinent to the growing discourse regarding the rising price of oil.  A few knew some of the answers, and some knew a few of the answers.  To be fair, I had to look up the answers, or else I would have been among the shoulder shruggers.

For instance, how big is a barrel?  Answer: 42 gallons.  So, now you know that when the price for a barrel of crude oil hits $140, that’s the same as $3.33 a gallon.

What nation supplies the most crude oil and petroleum products to the United States?  Answer: The United States.  According to the Energy Information Agency (www.eia.doe.gov), our country supplied 41 percent of the oil we consumed in March of this year. 

What nation, other than the U.S. , supplies the most crude oil and petroleum products to our country?  Answer:  Canada .  Our northern neighbor accounts for 12 percent of our nation’s oil and 20 percent of all the oil we import.  The rest of the top five include Saudi Arabia (7 percent and 13 percent); Venezuela (6 percent and 11 percent); Nigeria (6 percent and 10 percent); and Mexico (5 percent and 8 percent).

How much oil do we import from Persian Gulf countries?  I’m glad you asked.  Persian Gulf countries accounted for only 16 percent of our foreign oil imports each year from 2005 to 2007.  In fact, our Persian Gulf imports declined most of this decade, from a 15-year high of a little more than 1 billion barrels in 2001 to 791.9 million barrels in 2007.

What’s the difference between crude oil and petroleum products?  Answer: Crude oil provides, among other products, gasoline, diesel and jet fuels, heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, lubricants, asphalt, plastics, synthetic fibers, detergents, fertilizers, ink, crayons, bubble gum, deodorant, tires, and heart valves.

One barrel of crude oil (which is 42 gallons, remember?), yields about 19.6 gallons of gasoline.  The other 22.4 gallons go into the products just mentioned.

How much of the cost of oil goes into the price of gasoline.  Answer:  A bunch.  We consumed about 390 million gallons of gas a day last year in our cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, boats, farm implements, and construction and landscaping equipment.  Back when crude was $68 a barrel (that was just last year), it accounted for about 58 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline.  The rest of the price came from refining costs (17 percent), federal and state taxes (15 percent), and distribution and marketing (10 percent). 

By the way, the price of crude accounts for about 77 percent of the cost of gas at $4 a gallon.

Here’s a little something you may not have considered.  What products that you buy on a regular basis are sold with tax included?  Answer:  Gasoline.  For everything else, you add the tax at checkout.

The folks in California pay 63.9 cents a gallon in state and federal fuel taxes, the most in the nation.  That’s just the base, though.  Motorists there also pay an additional 6-percent state sales tax, with some paying another 1.25-percent county sales tax plus applicable local sales taxes.  Same in Illinois , where Chicago motorists pay 12.75 cents per gallon on top of the 57.9 cents per gallon in state and federal taxes.  Some Illinois motorists also pay a 6.25-percent sales tax.

Politicians, pundits, and other TV talking heads don’t like to provide these answers, because facts get in the way of positions that pander to the mob.  We don’t point fingers at Canada , because it’s de rigueur to paint the Saudis with the broad brush of blame.  Folks float the idea of a moratorium on state and federal gasoline taxes without explaining its minimal impact on gas prices, or without mentioning the $3 sales tax some motorists pay on top of a $50 fill up.  Policymakers don’t explain that oil trades in the dollar, which is weak vis-à-vis the Euro, because that would require solutions for strengthening the greenback.

And, it’s easier for simple minds to convince simpler minds to impose windfall-profit taxes on pension funds and owners of Individual Retirement Accounts who invest in oil companies than to take on credit card issuers charging double- and triple-digit interest rates to the millions of people using plastic to pay for food and fuel.  Talk about irony.

And, we sure wouldn’t want to impose a windfall-profit tax on someone who goes from making $56,000 a year as, say, an Illinois legislator, to $165,000 a year as, say, a U.S. senator, an increase of nearly 200 percent (not counting book deals or real-estate related loans).

Mundus vult decipi (and as my magician friends add: decipiatur)

Millions of Americans spent May 26 observing this year’s federally approved date for Memorial Day by chugging beers, burning meat, and participating in a host of other activities that had absolutely nothing to do with commemorating our nation’s war dead. Meantime, thousands of school children spent the day in classrooms, much to the dismay of some parents and talk-radio hosts. 

Although Memorial Day is a national holiday, it is not a federally mandated observance. At least not in the sense that states or public entities run the risk of losing federal funding or getting a wagging finger from Uncle Sam if they choose not to close shop on that day.
 
Here’s the weird thing. The schools that stayed open on Memorial Day closed their doors on Labor Day, Thanksgiving, that period at the end of December and the first couple of days of January that used to be Christmas Break, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Presidents Day, and Spring Break.  

Houston County, Tenn., schools took off ten days in October for Fall Break and another two weeks in March for Spring Break. Lancaster County, S.C., schools took two, four-day Spring Breaks: one in March and the other in April. 

And the kids in Seguin, Texas, got out to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, something kids in Mexico don’t do. Go figure. 

School officials say they had to keep their doors open. The guy speaking for Taylor County (Fla.) High School blamed it on the state legislature that changed the academic calendar for Florida’s public schools. 

The spokesperson for Lancaster County, S.C., schools (the ones that took two Spring Breaks this year) also blamed his state’s legislature, which he’ll have to do again next year, because the school board in February approved the 2008-09 calendar that also does not include a Memorial Day holiday. 

While driving in from the ranch the other day, I listened to a local talk-radio guy in Houston lambaste school officials down in McAllen for not observing Memorial Day. He failed to point out, though, that McAllen kids almost never get out of school. They don’t get Labor Day, MLK Day, Presidents Day, Fall Break, Cinco de Mayo, or a student/staff holiday the week after returning from Spring Break like the kids up in Austin get. All the McAllen kids get are a couple of days at Thanksgiving, those days at the end of December and the first couple of days of January that used to be Christmas Break, and a week in March for Spring Break. 

There is a point to all of this. Maybe holidays are too important or too personal for legislatures, school boards, and bosses to decide. Oh, they can set aside a finite number of days that their employees can take off, but maybe they should let their employees decide which days to stay home. 

An example is Christmas. There was a time when Christmas was the day set aside to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, you know, the Messiah, the Son of God. So, who would observe such a day? Certainly not Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists. Yet they all got Christmas off. Of course, today we don’t have Christmas. We have Winter Break, those days at the end of December and the first couple of days of January that used to be Christmas Break. 

Why not let local folks decide for themselves when to work and when to celebrate whatever it is they wish to celebrate? It’s a state rights thing, only on the local level. 

Here in Texas, we have several holidays that other states probably would celebrate if they put aside their Lone Star envy. San Jacinto Day on April 21 commemorates the capture of Santa Anna and more than 700 of his troops at the Battle of San Jacinto in 1836, but it’s just another work day for most Texans. We also have to work on Texas Independence Day (March 2), Emancipation Day (June 19), and Lyndon Baines Johnson Day (Aug. 27). 

I’d like to visit Hawaii some day. Until then, I might like to stay home every June 11, eat some pineapple, get lei-ed, and celebrate King Kamehameha Day. But I can’t, because someone else decided what holidays I can have.

With the death count from last week’s earthquake in China at 51,000 and possibly rising, and with more than five million Chinese homeless, the following comments may sound cold and crass; but, please know they are not meant to minimize the horrors and sufferings of the victims and their families. For what it’s worth, my maternal grandparents came from China. End of disclaimers.

Those said, it’s time to get to the business at hand, which is the insensitive and incomplete reporting this week by National Public Radio that had a team in the People’s Republic of China preparing a series of reports in anticipation of this summer’s Olympic Games when the earthquake struck. 

The story in question aired on the May 19 broadcast of “All Things Considered”. The reporter led the feature on the start of the official three-day mourning period by calling the May 12 quake “China’s 9/11.”  My first thought, and the first thoughts of the folks I talked with who heard it, was unbelief that a major U.S. news organization, heard by millions of listeners each day, would insult the victims of the worst terrorist attack on our nation’s soil by comparing the events of Sept. 11, 2001, at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 over Shanksville, Pa., to a natural disaster.

A former colleague from back in my television news days wrote in an e-mail: “I heard it on NPR while driving to work past the U.S. Capitol and nearly ran off the road.  China's 9-11?????  Unbelievable.”

If the NPR producers back home wanted to label the quake, why not call it “China’s 5/12”? Better yet, why use any hype or hyperbole? The death and destruction speak for themselves.

A woman I know took great umbrage, because it brought back painful memories of some of the condolences offered following her sister’s murder. “People meant well, I know that, but I was offended every time someone came up to me and told me they knew how I felt, because they had a close family member die of cancer,” she said. “Murder and death by natural causes are nowhere near the same. Why do people always try to trivialize things?”

Indeed.

The second problem with the story was NPR’s failure to put in historical perspective the loss of life from the disaster. One week after the quake, officials placed the death count at about 32,000, a number that goes up each day. Again, at the risk of sounding callous, and appreciating that even one death is grief beyond comprehension for a family, the May 12 quake did not approach the loss of life of other China quakes.

A quick online search by an intern back in the newsroom would have shown NPR’s producers and editors that three earthquakes alone in the 20^th century killed as many as one million Chinese: 180,000 in Kansu on Dec. 16, 1920; 200,000 in Nanshan on May 22, 1927; and between 242,000 and 655,000 in Tangshan on July 28, 1976. The toll from the Tangshan quake is the equivalent of the death of nearly the entire population of Plano, Texas, on the low end, or more than everyone living in Fort Worth, Texas, on the high end.

And then, there is the Jan 23, 1556, quake in Shansi that killed 830,000, which would be akin to everyone living in and around Indianapolis, Ind.

In fact, even at this writing, the May 12 earthquake would not rank as the 21^st century’s deadliest in a single country. That distinction belongs to northern Pakistan, when at least 86,000 (about the population of Denton or Tyler, Texas) died on Oct. 8, 2005. The century’s deadliest occurred on Dec. 26, 2004, when the Indian Ocean quake created a tsunami that resulted in 228,000 dead or missing in 14 nations.

NPR’s producers and editors, and all who gather and disseminate news and information, should make a greater effort to put the events of the day in their proper or historical perspective, without histrionics and exaggeration.  Their audiences deserve it.

 

Please note that this week’s column is for pedophiles only. Do not read if sex with children is not on your to-do list for today. 

OK, now that those do-gooders have moved on elsewhere, I can impart some important information for all of you deviant wastes of skin. If the idea of spending a decade or more passed around in the prison shower is the only thing that keeps you from raping or sexually assaulting children, then I have some good news for you. Pack up your bags and move to Paris. Illinois, that is. 

Here’s why. Back about a year ago, Anthony J. Boyer of Paris faced one count of predatory criminal assault of a child, which carries a mandatory prison term, and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, which does not, each having to do with an 11-year-old girl. Last November, Boyer entered a guilty plea to the second charge, thereby avoiding the mandatory sentence. Still, Boyer could have landed his temptingly chubby behind behind prison walls for up to fourteen years.  

Then, on April 21, Illinois Fifth Judicial Circuit Court judge James R. Glenn sentenced Boyer to four years’ probation, along with 364 days and work release in the county jail, successful completion of a sex offender treatment program, and $5,000 in fines and costs. The judge also made Boyer pay for any counseling for the child victim, and told him to keep away from anyone under the age of 18, except for his own child, and only then with supervision. 

Now, before you pervs flinch at the thought of doing a year in the Edgar County Jail, look on the bright side. You can get out during the day and move around the community as part of your work release, stretch your legs, say “hi” to your friends, breathe clean, country air, and maybe see some little kids walking around the town square to give you something to think about when you’re in your bunk at night. Then, after a year, all you gotta do is report to your probation officer. Any other county in the country would have you dropping the soap for guys named Bubba for a very long and painful time. 

Well, that’s not entirely true. There’s that doofus judge out in Maryland who sentenced a father to four months in jail for having sex with his 1-year-old daughter for seven straight years. And, there’s that nitwit judge in Nebraska who refused to send a man to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl because she felt he was not tall enough. Then there’s the moron in Boston who gave probation to a transgendered man who raped an 11-year-old boy. Oh, yeah, that idiot judge in Alabama who gave probation to a man who admitted sodomizing his three adopted sons. 

Anyway, once you’ve done your soft time, you can mingle with others of your ilk living in Paris. Folks like Edgar Dulaney who was 62 when he assaulted a 12-year-old; Jerald Henness who was 60 years older than his 5-year-old victim; Michael Jay Howard whose victim was 6-years-old; Charles Melvin Loveless who was 41 and his victim 8; Rodney Lynn Tingley whose victim was 9 at the time of his abuse, as was Debra Toothman’s prey. A real beauty with a bad-*ss photo is Daniel Eugene Nail who was 39 when he sexually assaulted his 12-year-old victim. 

There are plenty more, such as Daniel James Barley who was 47-years-old when he lured a 10-year-old into his vehicle; and Christopher Dwayne Kennedy who was 17 when he committed two acts of sexual abuse on an 8-year-old. 

In all, Paris has 44 child-sex criminals registered with the state (www.isp.state.il.us/sor) out of a population of a bit more than 9,000. They gotta live somewhere, and in a small town, folks can keep an eye on them easier, I guess. 

Not far from the ranch is Galveston, Texas, where more than 100 of your kind walk the streets along with the other 57,400 residents. There could be a whole lot more pedophiles and sex criminals on the island, but the Texas Department of Public Safety site (https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/DPS_WEB/Sor/index.aspx) returns only the first 100 hits.  

Getting back to Paris, though, one wonders what the good folks of my hometown think about some judge putting another one of you on the streets, even if Boyer will be on a short leash for a year. One would think a small-town judge would consider the community impact of the light sentence, its affect on economic development, and the message it sends to the town’s children. 

But, maybe he doesn’t care. Justice is supposed to blind. In this case, he’s an out-of-towner from over in Charleston.