Monday, April 23, 2007

Getting the "Leadership" One Deserves

Alternate Post Title: Reason #(n+1)

In case I haven't mention it lately, this clown received from than two-thirds of the popular vote in his 2005 re-election bid.

With gun violence in Boston up sharply in recent years, one of Mayor Thomas M. Menino's top legislative priorities this year would strip convicted gun offenders of their right to drive for up to five years.

If I'm not mistaken, existing state law allows for most of these convicted "gun offenders" to be stripped of their right to live outside the walls of a prison for five years. You'd think such measures would also be pretty damn effective at getting these thugs out of their cars, as well. But, then again, if you're reading this blog, chances are you have the ability to think in a rational manner and apply the simplest rules of logic in a discussion of this nature.

Yet, The Honorable Thomas "M. is for Mumbles" Menino continues to operate under the delusion that passing new laws such as this will have a measurable effect on the behavior of those individuals least inclined to follow the law.

Menino, however, wants to take away something that very few gun offenders have, according to a Globe analysis of more than 100 gun convictions last year and state Registry of Motor Vehicles records of those offenders.

But, golly, it sure will feeeeeeel good to bask in the warm glow of the flash bulbs at the press conference announcing the passage of this bold initiative, and once again at the press conference five days later, where the Mayor gets to declare this latest plan a "major success", regardless of the actual consequences thereof.

To criminologists and others who assert Menino's proposal is political and not pragmatic, such numbers are further evidence that passage of the mayor's legislation would have little or no impact on the city's efforts to curb gun violence.

I'm sensing a trend.

Nolan added: "We have one of the strongest gun laws in the country and that doesn't deter [offenders].

No, but it does deter the decent, hard-working people of Boston from taking the necessary steps to lawfully provide for their own well-being, defend their families, and reduce their dependence on inept government officials for their personal protection.

The end [read: desired] result of these "strongest gun laws in the country" is that the most vulnerable residents of Boston are kept weak and defenseless, wholly reliant on the government for their every want and need. And, if they don't vote for Menino, again and again - and continue paying for his armed security detail with their tax dollars - who would be there to provide for them?

What makes people think that these people even apply for driver's licenses or have them at all?"

Ahhh...there's your problem.

You used the verb "think" when commenting on an anti-crime initiative that came out of Menino's head. That's never a prudent idea.

When the city first touted the legislation, it was Menino's brainchild.

Friday, when the Globe raised questions about its rationale, it became the offspring of the Boston Police Department.

Of course, it did.

I could go on for pages and pages on this, but I've got shit to do. So, I'll leave you with this interesting quote from a local "expert" on this subject.

James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University, said the proposed law also fails to consider young people who carry guns for self-defense.

No point in trying to explain that to Menino. His cochlear filter implants have been programmed to filter out the phrase "self defense", as well as "second amendment", "concealed carry", "lawful gun use", "victim disarmament zone", and, get the picture.

"The risk of being unarmed in the face of a threat is worse than the risk of being unlicensed in the face of needing to go somewhere," Fox said. "From their perspective the criminal justice system, whether it be the mayor and his initiative or the DA, can just take their number and wait in line with the other people who may be out to get them."

OK, maybe one more.

Given the public frustration with the rate of gun violence, [Thomas Nolan, a Boston University criminologist who was a Boston policeman for 27 years] said it is not surprising that Menino would find any proposed remedy appealing.

Financial impact? Not an issue.

Actual consequences? Please.

Abrogation of the rights of the citizenry? What's that?

We've got minds to befuddle and votes to secure, dammit!

Priorities, people!!!