The Occasional Muse
My humble opinion on current events
September 25, 2003
Is 30 Years Too Long for
Is 30 years in prison too harsh a sentence
for a rapist? Albert Stephen Farnsworth, 21, thinks
so. According to the story, he feels the sentence will "stop him
from getting married and starting a family."
Someone needs to tell Mr. Farnsworth that
there's an easy way to avoid spending 30 years in the slammer. Don't rape
a 12-year-old girl.
That's right. On February 4, Farnsworth and
a buddy, who will receive a similar sentence October 31, kidnapped and
sexually assaulted a twelve-year-old girl as she walked to school.
After spending a productive and wholesome
evening using methamphetamine and watching porn movies, the two gentlemen
decided to rape a young woman. At 7:15 the next morning, they snatched the
girl off the sidewalk, stuffed her in a van, took her to a guesthouse, and
But Farnsworth thinks the penalty is harsh.
He reportedly told a probation officer that he "regretted" the
crime but suggested that because a life was not taken, why should his?
But the girl, now 13, left Arizona and
can't return. Her mother describes her as a "shell" of the girl
she used to be. She shows no emotion and won't speak of the rape to
anyone. She was once "carefree" and is now a "scared little
So you see, Mr. Farnsworth, you did steal a
life. You took a happy young girl, robbed her of the life that she knew,
and replaced it with a far worse one.
Think 30 years is too long? You're lucky I
wasn't the sentencing judge.
NOW Defensive over Endorsement
Carol Mosley-Braun has announced for
president. She has zero chance of winning. She served one scandal-riddled
term in the Senate. Such meager qualifications did not stop the National
Organization for Women from endorsing her, which is a joke. She's not the
best candidate in the Democratic field, not even close. They endorsed her
solely because of her gender.
The New York Times called the
endorsement silly, which it is, but naturally NOW disagrees. She -
surprise! - said the Times' charge "smacks of sexism."
Furthermore, "Are they going to call a civil rights group silly, or a
veterans group, or a labor union, for making an endorsement they don't
agree with?" Gandy asked. "We know they wouldn't use that
language with any group of men." Oh, Ms. Gandy, the Times says
all sort of harsh things about male politicians, mainly conservatives and
Republicans. That's politics.
But my favorite Gandy quote is this little
gem: "We want to get more women participating in the political
process, and thereby helping to defeat George Bush," she said.
"When Carol Moseley Braun is at the table, even the guys in the race
speak to women's issues."
Did you catch that? Even the guys.
In other words, without the heroic Braun, the guys would not be speaking
to women's issues! Does she really believe this? And does anyone really
believe her? I'm sure it's news to the other Democrat candidates, who no
doubt consider themselves proud feminists.
The idea that any male politician would not
speak to women's issues unless he were running against a woman is just
stupid. Women are half the electorate, so it's good politics to attract
their votes by addressing their concerns. But beyond that, most men have
at least a couple female relatives. You know, mothers, grandmothers,
sisters, aunts, nieces, daughters, wives. These men aren't concerned about
their issues, simply because they're men?
Could such a notion be called sexist?
The Recall's Recall is
Does that headline make sense? I think so.
The rest of the judges on the Ninth Circuit have corrected their three
wayward colleagues and ruled that the California recall is perfectly legal
and may proceed as planned. The ACLU will not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,
because it even it knew a lost cause when it saw one.
Did you catch the debate last night? What a
circus. Arianna Huffington was just a waste of time, space and air. Arnold
was an empty suit mouthing the usual platitudes, long on quips and barbs,
short on substance and ideas. And Republicans in California think Arnold
will make a good governor?
The most impressive candidate was state
senator Tom McClintock - serious, composed, articulate, intelligent,
substantive - everything Arnold is not. But he's been hung with the
dreaded "unelectable" campaign because, for some reason, too
many people think Arnold would make a better governor. They've been urging
McClintock to drop out to give Arnold a clear shot at Bustamante.
Look, I live in Arizona, so I don't have a
stake in this. But it's obvious that McClintock is the best candidate.
Arnold is a horrible candidate - unlike previous entertainers who have
successfully transitioned into politics, he has no real political
experience. Heck, even Jesse Ventura was mayor before he became governor.
And the press has been just wonderful. You
know, that same media who constantly whines about negative campaigning,
and political mudslinging, and how we need to clean up the political
process and restore civility. That same press has reported almost
exclusively on the few barbs thrown in the debate, and ignored the
considerable substance. How does that make any sense? The media is either
hypocritical, stupid, or blind.
Whichever it is, the American people