Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.... Really... This is John McCain's answer. This is the one he wants to be one-heartbeat (literally) away from the White House if he manages, however unlikely, to win the White House this fall. Fortunately, we as a nation will probably never have to deal with the repercussions of a choice that is dripping with transparent misogyny, serves to patronize and insult the intelligence of a very large voting block, and essentially cuts an entire flank to Barack Obama at its base.
9/2/2008 - continued....
As with many of my posts, I start them one day and finish them whenever I have time... In the couple of days that have passed since I started this one, the Palin pick has really become much more interesting (in the same way a train wreck is..). The Republicans now have to deal with Bristol-gate or whatever MSM wants to label it, as well as the undeniable specter of their VP candidate's debatable qualifications, embellishments of "reform", and overall good judgement. This question of judgement doesn't stop at Governor Palin either. The willingness to roll the dice with such a risky choice doesn't speak well to me about John McCain's executive decision making either.
I take my first strike at McCain's senior advisers. There is no way one can convince me that John McCain came to this decision on his own. If they thought they could come away with a good portion of Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters, as well as white male independents who vote with their johnson (let's face it, Gov. Palin is kinda hot), it was misogynistic beyond comprehension and underestimates the intelligence of Hillary's constituency and women in general. Sadly, their thinking was probably spot-on with the white male independents who vote with their johnson. Can't be helped. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. I can hardly fault them for trying to grab Hillary's votes... it's a great prize. However, they could have done it on a candidate's merits, her ideas, not her gender and sex appeal. I could write a book criticizing her qualifications, however, that's not the crux of my problem.
The crux of my problem is that secondly, and most seriously, I level my criticism to Governor Palin herself. Not because I disagree with her politics, because I most certainly do, but because I feel she is being irresponsible to her family. I know I'm not supposed to judge, but we can't help it, can we? We put ourselves into another's shoes and pop there goes that thinking... "I wouldn't do that... ", "What the hell is she thinking?", "Is this really what's best for her family?".... It goes on and on. How can Gov. Palin run a national campaign, raise a child with Down Syndrome, give her pregnant daughter the support and guidance she needs as she starts her family at such a tender age, and adequately serve this nation to her best ability? True, her husband is there, one hundred percent. However, it seems to me that both of them need to have the bulk of their attention focused on their family right now, not furthering the Governor's political career.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Advanced Citizenship...
I heard the United States of America referred to as that in the movie "The American President" for the first time back in 1995. It was during the climactic part of the movie in which Michael Douglas' character (President Andrew Shepherd) makes a surprise appearance at the daily White House Press briefing, giving an impromptu speech to squash his political rivals' hope of winning the presidency, simultaneously winning back his environmental lobbyist girlfriend.
That movie, written by Aaron Sorkin (also created/wrote "The West Wing" for NBC TV), highlighted two amendments to the US Constitution, but treated them in very different ways. For those of you unfamiliar with Aaron Sorkin's work, he leans heavily to the left side of the political spectrum. That's not a slam on the man, for I am a great fan of his writing. It's just a simple fact, to which I'm sure he would agree. But I digress... President Shepherd pontificates on the virtues of the First Amendment. He preaches about how clearly it is stated that every citizen has the inalienable right to freedom of speech; while from the other side of his mouth, he says that in his crime bill he is going after handguns and assault rifles. I've always thought it rather amusing how the First Amendment is always deemed to be crystal clear and without gray area (the FCC's unilateral judgment of what is "obscene" or "indecent" notwithstanding), while the Second Amendment is deemed to be open for discussion and challenge. Obviously both amendments have been challenged on either side of their merits for as long as this country has been in existence, but it is part of the genius of our forefathers that the Supreme Court exists to "keep it real". However, it seems that as our politics continually become more polarized, legislation from the bench is a very real, present and inevitable occurrence.
A recent opinion, written by Justice Kennedy (joined by the left side of the court: Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens), that reverses the imposing of the death penalty by the State of Louisiana in a child rape case misses the mark, in my opinion. The 8th Amendment, which is the cited legal basis of the majority opinion, provides for the prevention of cruel and unusual punishment.
The substance of the prevailing opinion is this...
"We cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape. It does not follow, though, that capital punishment is a proportionate penalty for the crime. The constitutional prohibition against excessive or cruel and unusual punishments mandates that the State’s power to punish “be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.”"
A laundry list of precedent was cited to sway the court. The 8th Amendment link above discusses much of the precedent cited in the recent opinion. In my opinion, the court(s) were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
I am extraordinarily disappointed in the court's failure to seize a prime opportunity to legitimize what I feel could be a useful deterrent to such heinous acts of horror on a child. Nowhere does the 8th Amendment to The Constitution refer to and mandate a "proportionate penalty". The notion that anything other than a proportionate penalty imposed constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment", particularly in instances as heinous in nature as the rape of an 8 year old girl, is ridiculous to me and offends me to the core of my being. Take some time to read the account of the child and the findings of her medical examination in the opinion and decide for yourself. It's horrifying. What's even more horrifying is the statistic put forth in the prevailing opinion that the incidents of rape of a child under 12 is nearly double the incidents of murder in all age groups. How does the court further reason the reversal of Louisiana's statute?
"But under respondent’s approach, the 36 States that permit the death penalty could sentence to death all persons convicted of raping a child less than 12 years of age. This could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty. It might be said that narrowing aggravators could be used in this context, as with murder offenses, to ensure the death penalty’s restrained application. We find it difficult to identify standards that would guide the decision maker so the penalty is reserved for the most severe cases of child rape and yet not imposed in an arbitrary way. Even were we to forbid, say, the execution of first-time child rapists, see supra at 12, or require as an aggravating factor a finding that the perpetrator’s instant rape offense involved multiple victims, the jury still must balance, in its discretion, those aggravating factors against mitigating circumstances. In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment, we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be“freakis[h],” Furman, 408 U. S., at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring). We cannot sanction this result when the harm to the victim, though grave, cannot be quantified in the same way as death of the victim."
It's obvious to me that none of the Justices have been raped. And we certainly must also thank them, in their infinite wisdom, for relieving juries of their charge to resolve these questions as part of their civic duty. Yes, note the sarcasm, please. What is the court afraid of? A rapist's blood on their hands? You can't convince me that the vast bulk of U.S. citizens would balk at allowing child rapists to be put to death, regardless of how it may inflate our execution numbers. Furthermore, if capital punishment is sanctioned by the state, and is deemed to be applicable to cases in which death of the victim does not necessarily occur (see its eligibility for drug kingpins), it would certainly seem to be applicable here. This seems like a lazy ruling to me.
In Justice Alito's dissent (joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia and Thomas), he discusses the challenge of crafting such a law that may be applied with consistency and would ultimately serve as an effective deterrent. Additionally he challenges the prevailing opinion's assertion of a lack of "moral consensus" to such a punishment for this crime.
"although state legislatures typically do not create legislative materials like those produced by Congress, there is evidence that proposals to permit the imposition of the death penalty for
child rape were opposed on the ground that enactment would be futile and costly."
"Aside from its misleading tally of current state laws, the Court points to two additional “objective indicia” of a“national consensus,” ante, at 11, but these arguments are patent makeweights. The Court notes that Congress has not enacted a law permitting the death penalty for the rape of a child, ante, at 12–13, but due to the territorial limits of the relevant federal statutes, very few rape cases, not to mention child-rape cases, are prosecuted in federal court. See 18 U. S. C. §§2241, 2242 (2000 ed. and Supp.V); United States Sentencing Commission, Report to Congress: Analysis of Penalties for Federal Rape Cases, p. 10, Table 1. Congress’ failure to enact a death penalty statute for this tiny set of cases is hardly evidence of Congress’ assessment of our society’s values."
"The Court also fails to mention that in Louisiana, since the state law was amended in 1995 to make child rape acapital offense, prosecutors have asked juries to return death verdicts in four cases. See State v. Dickerson, 01– 1287 (La. App. 6/26/02), 822 So. 2d 849 (2002); State v. LeBlanc, 01–1322 (La. App. 5/13/01), 788 So. 2d 1255;2005–1981 (La. Sup. Ct. 5/22/07), 957 So. 2d 757; State v. Davis, Case No. 262,971 (1st Jud. Dist., Caddo Parish, La.) (cited in Brief for Respondent 42, and n. 38). In two of those cases, Louisiana juries imposed the death penalty. See 2005–1981 (La. Sup. Ct. 5/22/07), 957 So. 2d 757; Davis, supra. This 50% record is hardly evidence that juries share the Court’s view that the death penalty for the rape of a young child is unacceptable under even the most aggravated circumstances."
And finally, his strongest point.
"In terms of the Court’s metaphor of moral evolution, these enactments might have turned out to be an evolutionary dead end. But they might also have been the beginning of a strong new evolutionary
line. We will never know, because the Court today snuffs out the line in its incipient stage."
Having a Supreme Court to tackle such issues are evidence that America is indeed "Advanced Citizenship". We see the alternatives every day in the news. I admire all members of the court, regardless of political affiliation, for their service to our country and I genuinely (perhaps naively) believe that each member serves the public trust to the best of their ability. However, when they get it wrong it is always disappointing. Should child rapists be eligible for the death penalty? In my opinion, absolutely. However, in this particular case, the assertion of the 8th Amendment was just too bitter a pill for me to swallow. Perhaps the 14th Amendment would have made a better argument... A post in itself for another time.
That movie, written by Aaron Sorkin (also created/wrote "The West Wing" for NBC TV), highlighted two amendments to the US Constitution, but treated them in very different ways. For those of you unfamiliar with Aaron Sorkin's work, he leans heavily to the left side of the political spectrum. That's not a slam on the man, for I am a great fan of his writing. It's just a simple fact, to which I'm sure he would agree. But I digress... President Shepherd pontificates on the virtues of the First Amendment. He preaches about how clearly it is stated that every citizen has the inalienable right to freedom of speech; while from the other side of his mouth, he says that in his crime bill he is going after handguns and assault rifles. I've always thought it rather amusing how the First Amendment is always deemed to be crystal clear and without gray area (the FCC's unilateral judgment of what is "obscene" or "indecent" notwithstanding), while the Second Amendment is deemed to be open for discussion and challenge. Obviously both amendments have been challenged on either side of their merits for as long as this country has been in existence, but it is part of the genius of our forefathers that the Supreme Court exists to "keep it real". However, it seems that as our politics continually become more polarized, legislation from the bench is a very real, present and inevitable occurrence.
A recent opinion, written by Justice Kennedy (joined by the left side of the court: Justices Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens), that reverses the imposing of the death penalty by the State of Louisiana in a child rape case misses the mark, in my opinion. The 8th Amendment, which is the cited legal basis of the majority opinion, provides for the prevention of cruel and unusual punishment.
The substance of the prevailing opinion is this...
"We cannot dismiss the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape. It does not follow, though, that capital punishment is a proportionate penalty for the crime. The constitutional prohibition against excessive or cruel and unusual punishments mandates that the State’s power to punish “be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.”"
A laundry list of precedent was cited to sway the court. The 8th Amendment link above discusses much of the precedent cited in the recent opinion. In my opinion, the court(s) were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
I am extraordinarily disappointed in the court's failure to seize a prime opportunity to legitimize what I feel could be a useful deterrent to such heinous acts of horror on a child. Nowhere does the 8th Amendment to The Constitution refer to and mandate a "proportionate penalty". The notion that anything other than a proportionate penalty imposed constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment", particularly in instances as heinous in nature as the rape of an 8 year old girl, is ridiculous to me and offends me to the core of my being. Take some time to read the account of the child and the findings of her medical examination in the opinion and decide for yourself. It's horrifying. What's even more horrifying is the statistic put forth in the prevailing opinion that the incidents of rape of a child under 12 is nearly double the incidents of murder in all age groups. How does the court further reason the reversal of Louisiana's statute?
"But under respondent’s approach, the 36 States that permit the death penalty could sentence to death all persons convicted of raping a child less than 12 years of age. This could not be reconciled with our evolving standards of decency and the necessity to constrain the use of the death penalty. It might be said that narrowing aggravators could be used in this context, as with murder offenses, to ensure the death penalty’s restrained application. We find it difficult to identify standards that would guide the decision maker so the penalty is reserved for the most severe cases of child rape and yet not imposed in an arbitrary way. Even were we to forbid, say, the execution of first-time child rapists, see supra at 12, or require as an aggravating factor a finding that the perpetrator’s instant rape offense involved multiple victims, the jury still must balance, in its discretion, those aggravating factors against mitigating circumstances. In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment, we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be“freakis[h],” Furman, 408 U. S., at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring). We cannot sanction this result when the harm to the victim, though grave, cannot be quantified in the same way as death of the victim."
It's obvious to me that none of the Justices have been raped. And we certainly must also thank them, in their infinite wisdom, for relieving juries of their charge to resolve these questions as part of their civic duty. Yes, note the sarcasm, please. What is the court afraid of? A rapist's blood on their hands? You can't convince me that the vast bulk of U.S. citizens would balk at allowing child rapists to be put to death, regardless of how it may inflate our execution numbers. Furthermore, if capital punishment is sanctioned by the state, and is deemed to be applicable to cases in which death of the victim does not necessarily occur (see its eligibility for drug kingpins), it would certainly seem to be applicable here. This seems like a lazy ruling to me.
In Justice Alito's dissent (joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia and Thomas), he discusses the challenge of crafting such a law that may be applied with consistency and would ultimately serve as an effective deterrent. Additionally he challenges the prevailing opinion's assertion of a lack of "moral consensus" to such a punishment for this crime.
"although state legislatures typically do not create legislative materials like those produced by Congress, there is evidence that proposals to permit the imposition of the death penalty for
child rape were opposed on the ground that enactment would be futile and costly."
"Aside from its misleading tally of current state laws, the Court points to two additional “objective indicia” of a“national consensus,” ante, at 11, but these arguments are patent makeweights. The Court notes that Congress has not enacted a law permitting the death penalty for the rape of a child, ante, at 12–13, but due to the territorial limits of the relevant federal statutes, very few rape cases, not to mention child-rape cases, are prosecuted in federal court. See 18 U. S. C. §§2241, 2242 (2000 ed. and Supp.V); United States Sentencing Commission, Report to Congress: Analysis of Penalties for Federal Rape Cases, p. 10, Table 1. Congress’ failure to enact a death penalty statute for this tiny set of cases is hardly evidence of Congress’ assessment of our society’s values."
"The Court also fails to mention that in Louisiana, since the state law was amended in 1995 to make child rape acapital offense, prosecutors have asked juries to return death verdicts in four cases. See State v. Dickerson, 01– 1287 (La. App. 6/26/02), 822 So. 2d 849 (2002); State v. LeBlanc, 01–1322 (La. App. 5/13/01), 788 So. 2d 1255;2005–1981 (La. Sup. Ct. 5/22/07), 957 So. 2d 757; State v. Davis, Case No. 262,971 (1st Jud. Dist., Caddo Parish, La.) (cited in Brief for Respondent 42, and n. 38). In two of those cases, Louisiana juries imposed the death penalty. See 2005–1981 (La. Sup. Ct. 5/22/07), 957 So. 2d 757; Davis, supra. This 50% record is hardly evidence that juries share the Court’s view that the death penalty for the rape of a young child is unacceptable under even the most aggravated circumstances."
And finally, his strongest point.
"In terms of the Court’s metaphor of moral evolution, these enactments might have turned out to be an evolutionary dead end. But they might also have been the beginning of a strong new evolutionary
line. We will never know, because the Court today snuffs out the line in its incipient stage."
Having a Supreme Court to tackle such issues are evidence that America is indeed "Advanced Citizenship". We see the alternatives every day in the news. I admire all members of the court, regardless of political affiliation, for their service to our country and I genuinely (perhaps naively) believe that each member serves the public trust to the best of their ability. However, when they get it wrong it is always disappointing. Should child rapists be eligible for the death penalty? In my opinion, absolutely. However, in this particular case, the assertion of the 8th Amendment was just too bitter a pill for me to swallow. Perhaps the 14th Amendment would have made a better argument... A post in itself for another time.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Obama's Audacity
Ok.... I'll admit it.... I may be drinking Obama's Kool-Aid. But isn't it tasty?
There is a growing chorus of Obama detractors saying "Why haven't we looked at his record with greater scrutiny?" or "How come the media is going so easy on Obama?". These questions were inevitable, if not from Hillary's camp, from John McCain's. But I have to tell you, I don't know if anyone cares... Is it the Kool-Aid? Has Barack Obama become a cult of personality?
The naysayers are saying "He doesn't have a specific plan", "He doesn't have the experience of Hillary Clinton or John McCain" or "This change stuff is pure rhetoric".... and I'm here to tell you, those things may be true. They probably are true. But where Obama really shines is getting people to believe in themselves and America again. He engages the populace to want to be involved in their future. He makes you believe that he really wants to do what is right and just for America. He has his opinions, obviously, but doesn't claim to have all the answers. He knows he doesn't know everything and is not averse to advocating an idea that's not his own. He's selling hope, and it's flying off the shelves.
So tell me, good people... What's so wrong with that? Did John F. Kennedy have such vast and great experience when he took office at the ripe old age of 43? Did Bill Clinton have such a great and detailed plan before he took office to enable this country to see its greatest economic growth in 40 years? Were Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" a staple of his gubernatorial term in New York? No... Each of these men were able to motivate the country through their words, which in turn allowed meaningful action to take place. If you can't get the country excited about what you're proposing, even if it's just being hopeful about change, then you're not going to get much done as president. We've seen presidents get elected by fear mongering, name calling, or simply by being the lesser of two evils. Getting elected on a message of hope and a pledge to do the right thing by the people without a laundry list of policies and programs that stand little to no hope of being passed in congress, much less realized, is better than what I've seen from the other candidates in this race.
Barack Obama is selling something that none of the other candidates are... Hope... Hope for real change. Change in what, you ask? Change would be individual to every single person in our nation. It's not policy, program, or a specific agenda he's asking you to buy into. It's a way of life. A culture. Being positive and having lofty goals for yourself and your country... Challenging your fellow Americans to accept only better things from their government... Having an honest hope that we can bridge our differences to give ourselves and our children a better quality of life... Setting a tone for this country that will be respected and admired around the world, rather than America being seen as a bully and self-serving nation.... these are not bad things.
Yep... the Kool-Aid is mighty tasty.
There is a growing chorus of Obama detractors saying "Why haven't we looked at his record with greater scrutiny?" or "How come the media is going so easy on Obama?". These questions were inevitable, if not from Hillary's camp, from John McCain's. But I have to tell you, I don't know if anyone cares... Is it the Kool-Aid? Has Barack Obama become a cult of personality?
The naysayers are saying "He doesn't have a specific plan", "He doesn't have the experience of Hillary Clinton or John McCain" or "This change stuff is pure rhetoric".... and I'm here to tell you, those things may be true. They probably are true. But where Obama really shines is getting people to believe in themselves and America again. He engages the populace to want to be involved in their future. He makes you believe that he really wants to do what is right and just for America. He has his opinions, obviously, but doesn't claim to have all the answers. He knows he doesn't know everything and is not averse to advocating an idea that's not his own. He's selling hope, and it's flying off the shelves.
So tell me, good people... What's so wrong with that? Did John F. Kennedy have such vast and great experience when he took office at the ripe old age of 43? Did Bill Clinton have such a great and detailed plan before he took office to enable this country to see its greatest economic growth in 40 years? Were Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" a staple of his gubernatorial term in New York? No... Each of these men were able to motivate the country through their words, which in turn allowed meaningful action to take place. If you can't get the country excited about what you're proposing, even if it's just being hopeful about change, then you're not going to get much done as president. We've seen presidents get elected by fear mongering, name calling, or simply by being the lesser of two evils. Getting elected on a message of hope and a pledge to do the right thing by the people without a laundry list of policies and programs that stand little to no hope of being passed in congress, much less realized, is better than what I've seen from the other candidates in this race.
Barack Obama is selling something that none of the other candidates are... Hope... Hope for real change. Change in what, you ask? Change would be individual to every single person in our nation. It's not policy, program, or a specific agenda he's asking you to buy into. It's a way of life. A culture. Being positive and having lofty goals for yourself and your country... Challenging your fellow Americans to accept only better things from their government... Having an honest hope that we can bridge our differences to give ourselves and our children a better quality of life... Setting a tone for this country that will be respected and admired around the world, rather than America being seen as a bully and self-serving nation.... these are not bad things.
Yep... the Kool-Aid is mighty tasty.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Little Victories...
Sometimes you have to content yourself to be able to control what you can, and let the rest of the chips fall where they may. Because no matter how big, bad-assed, smart, charming or good looking someone is, one really don't have as much control over the world as one would like to think one does. And deep down inside, we all know it. However, when those small opportunities arise to exert your will to the betterment of society, it is most satisfying to say you didn't let them pass you by.
In these days of high oil prices (read: high gas prices), mortgage crisis and rumored recession, many people are turning to public transportation to ease their commuting costs. This obviously results in a more crowded train. Long time riders of commuter trains reflect back on the good old days when they could lie across three seats and sleep their way into town. However, those days are long gone. With each stop closer into the city, more and more people are starting to ride. The old time riders are fairly set in their ways and seem to think that they have a right to their three seats, even though like the rest of us, they only paid for one. To be fair, it's not just the long time riders that believe they are entitled to use more seats than they have paid for. There are the people who forget that they are riding a train with five hundred other people and think nothing of bringing enough baggage to hold clothes for a family of four going on vacation for a week. Where do all of these bags go? In the seat next to them of course! To the credit of the conducters, they are generally very good about enforcing courtesy (how funny is that to read? enforcing courtesy... good lord..) and reminding folks that they only paid for one seat, so their baggage has to go on the racks above the seat. (Standing is not an option on the train that I take... The conducters are very strict about safety.) Clearly, most people recognize that we're all just trying to get to work and are very courteous about making room for other passengers, even if they aren't really happy about it. Regardless, the power struggle is always amusing to watch when the train starts to get really full and poor souls are searching for a seat.
Usually in the morning, on the train, I plug into my mp3 player and tune out the world. I have my usual group of malcontents that I sit with or near but, for the most part, socializing is reserved for the evening run back home. So this morning, I was largely engaged in my own thoughts and music, mostly oblivious to the goings-on around me as per usual. Our normal run is going along smoothly and the train is filling up. Each seating row has a configuration of 3 seats and 2 seats together, separated by an aisle. I was seated in the aisle seat of the 3 seat block. In the 2 seat block across the aisle from me was a man sitting alone with his large bag in the seat next to him reading a newspaper. He was completely absorbed, or at least pretended to be which, admittedly, we all do sometimes to avoid being singled out as the "one" to have to move or give up a seat to one of the "poor souls". However, when asked, most of us smile politely, move our things and give up the seat. This man chose a different tactic. A meek, foreign looking woman was looking for a seat and politely attempted to ask this man to allow her to sit. Once, twice, three times she said "Excuse me.." and this man did not even acknowledge her presence, let alone answer her. She was completely ignored... The man didn't even look up from his newspaper! The populace around me began to gasp, whispering and murmuring "How rude!", still this man did not acknowledge anyone or anything around him. The logic, I suppose, was that if he didn't acknowledge the woman, she would simply move on. Finally, a woman sitting the next row back allowed the foreign looking woman to sit with her. I am not typically one to judge, or stick my nose in someone else's business. After all, what if the man suffers from tunnel vision, deafness, or both? However, I saw the man smirk when the foreign looking woman turned back to sit with the other woman.... and I knew this man was just a selfish jerk. Approaching the next stop, I knew the woman sitting next to me was getting off the train and suspected the jerk was too, so I prepared. When the train came to a stop, the jerk was going to bolt off the train but I hopped up from my seat, and backing into him, I blocked his exit from his seat into the aisle and just stood there while the woman sitting next to me gathered her belongings slowly... with a smirk on her face she walked off the train mouthing "Thank you..." to me. I continued to stand in front of the jerk until the foreign woman walked past me to disembark, then I turned around to look the jerk in the eye. He said nothing, but as I sat down he squared his body to me, to which I replied "You'd better just move on...". He then just huffed and walked off the train. The remaining passengers giggled a little bit at this and I smiled... But no words needed to be said. Little victories....
In these days of high oil prices (read: high gas prices), mortgage crisis and rumored recession, many people are turning to public transportation to ease their commuting costs. This obviously results in a more crowded train. Long time riders of commuter trains reflect back on the good old days when they could lie across three seats and sleep their way into town. However, those days are long gone. With each stop closer into the city, more and more people are starting to ride. The old time riders are fairly set in their ways and seem to think that they have a right to their three seats, even though like the rest of us, they only paid for one. To be fair, it's not just the long time riders that believe they are entitled to use more seats than they have paid for. There are the people who forget that they are riding a train with five hundred other people and think nothing of bringing enough baggage to hold clothes for a family of four going on vacation for a week. Where do all of these bags go? In the seat next to them of course! To the credit of the conducters, they are generally very good about enforcing courtesy (how funny is that to read? enforcing courtesy... good lord..) and reminding folks that they only paid for one seat, so their baggage has to go on the racks above the seat. (Standing is not an option on the train that I take... The conducters are very strict about safety.) Clearly, most people recognize that we're all just trying to get to work and are very courteous about making room for other passengers, even if they aren't really happy about it. Regardless, the power struggle is always amusing to watch when the train starts to get really full and poor souls are searching for a seat.
Usually in the morning, on the train, I plug into my mp3 player and tune out the world. I have my usual group of malcontents that I sit with or near but, for the most part, socializing is reserved for the evening run back home. So this morning, I was largely engaged in my own thoughts and music, mostly oblivious to the goings-on around me as per usual. Our normal run is going along smoothly and the train is filling up. Each seating row has a configuration of 3 seats and 2 seats together, separated by an aisle. I was seated in the aisle seat of the 3 seat block. In the 2 seat block across the aisle from me was a man sitting alone with his large bag in the seat next to him reading a newspaper. He was completely absorbed, or at least pretended to be which, admittedly, we all do sometimes to avoid being singled out as the "one" to have to move or give up a seat to one of the "poor souls". However, when asked, most of us smile politely, move our things and give up the seat. This man chose a different tactic. A meek, foreign looking woman was looking for a seat and politely attempted to ask this man to allow her to sit. Once, twice, three times she said "Excuse me.." and this man did not even acknowledge her presence, let alone answer her. She was completely ignored... The man didn't even look up from his newspaper! The populace around me began to gasp, whispering and murmuring "How rude!", still this man did not acknowledge anyone or anything around him. The logic, I suppose, was that if he didn't acknowledge the woman, she would simply move on. Finally, a woman sitting the next row back allowed the foreign looking woman to sit with her. I am not typically one to judge, or stick my nose in someone else's business. After all, what if the man suffers from tunnel vision, deafness, or both? However, I saw the man smirk when the foreign looking woman turned back to sit with the other woman.... and I knew this man was just a selfish jerk. Approaching the next stop, I knew the woman sitting next to me was getting off the train and suspected the jerk was too, so I prepared. When the train came to a stop, the jerk was going to bolt off the train but I hopped up from my seat, and backing into him, I blocked his exit from his seat into the aisle and just stood there while the woman sitting next to me gathered her belongings slowly... with a smirk on her face she walked off the train mouthing "Thank you..." to me. I continued to stand in front of the jerk until the foreign woman walked past me to disembark, then I turned around to look the jerk in the eye. He said nothing, but as I sat down he squared his body to me, to which I replied "You'd better just move on...". He then just huffed and walked off the train. The remaining passengers giggled a little bit at this and I smiled... But no words needed to be said. Little victories....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)