One of the great problems with our political climate right now is illustrated by the excitement generated by television talk show hostess/mogul Oprah Winfrey as she campaigns for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
Now, Winfrey has every right to campaign on behalf of the candidate of her choice and use her celebrity status to advantage. The candidate who benefits obviously has the right to use her in any way they -- and she -- find acceptable.
What bothers me is the commotion caused by a television personality on the campaign trail.
I think this is an "only in Iowa" sort of thing. First, you have Obama claiming the lead in polls from New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, so Oprah is just giving a rocket some extra boost. Secondly, as stated before, in Iowa you're looking at party activists (unions and anti-war voters on the Democrat side, evangelicals for the GOP), and they're looking for any excuse to look excited for their candidate. Plus, such people are probably more celebrity conscious than the rest of us. Finally, how often do you get someone like Oprah in Des Moines?
I think the Oprah factor will matter less as time goes on and we move on to other states. I don't know about you, but who she endorses won't matter much when I make my ultimate decision on whom to vote for in the California primary. I am still undecided, after all.
Regular people like us really don't give a darn about what the celebrities say. It's troubling that there are a few people out there who do.
---
Here's our government at work. The CIA admits it destroyed tapes of secret interrogations of terrorism detainees. Ooops. In government work, you just don't destroy records of any sort, especially in something controversial. The whole issue how to handle the detainees is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Pretty dumb thinking at Langley.
Now it comes out that Congressional leaders of both parties responsible for intelligence (there's an oxymoron for you) were briefed on interrogation techniques in 2002 and none objected at the time. Waterboarding was one of the methods displayed. One of the operatives at the briefing says they were encouraged to get even tougher on the detainees.
Yep, our government. A lose-lose situation.
---
Opponents of California's Three Strikes Law, which mandates 25 years to life sentences for criminal defendants upon their third conviction of a serious charge is under attack again. According to the Associated Press in this story a commission will be created in an attempt to reform the state's sentencing laws. Voters overwhelmingly support Three Strikes. Defendants advocates -- lawyers -- don't.
What this story fails to tell you, and what Three Strikes opponents never mention, is that judges and prosecutors have all sorts of leeway in Three Strikes cases. Strikes are waived all the time if justice dictates that a defendant shouldn't be sentenced to such an extreme term.
In the case of the prisoner mentioned in the story, the conviction which gave him the sentence seemed like it was not terribly serious, but we know nothing of the circumstances in the case. They were conveniently left out of the story. You don't get 76 years in prison for nothing. If he did, it would be overturned on appeal.
Three Strikes works just fine, has the outs that the judicial system needs in cases where it does not apply and has strong support among voters.
