Not 'til you're seventeen!

Let Me Drive… PLEASE!!!
By Joseph Walther

It’s a lot of fun being retired and living in Delaware. For a guy like me, who likes to make a few bucks writing about real life experiences, Delaware can’t be beat. The material available in this state is limitless. The News Journal and General Assembly provide enough daily comedic relief to keep us in stitches for days on end. On a national level, the Three Stooges—George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney—provide daily evidence that stupidity, condescension, and arrogance do not hinder political success, depending on your definition of “political success.” There is so much material and so little time. Where do I begin?

In the interest of fairness, Delaware is a terrific place to live. Tornadoes are a rarity. Earthquakes cause a mild rumbling sensation every decade or so. Hurricanes are more frequent, but the state is so small that we seldom take a direct hit. The weather, while hot in the summer, is mild the rest of the year. Politically, the fiscal management of the state is responsible, unemployment low, and other than a few nasty hissy-fits between the parties, the political environment is pretty decent, secretive as hell, but decently secretive.

So, unless you’re the type to get all wimpy over a higher than usual exposure to cancer in some form, just come on down. The fact that we have one of the highest HIV infection rates, 45% of which come from IV drug use, should not deter anyone but the wimpiest from staking a homestead here. Oh, did I mention that our infant mortality rate is a bit elevated? No? Well don’t worry about it. We’re working on it. That’s next on the agenda, right after we make sure that no one in this state is getting a tongue split without consulting a medical doctor.

Individually, I know several state lawmakers up close and personal. They are all respectable, well-meaning, and concerned legislators who always place the interests of Delawareans right where they should be; ahead of special interest groups… um, unless the money is just too much to pass up. Yes siree! You are not going to find a Delaware politician in anyone’s back pocket. Our politicians prefer to be right there inside the briefcase, keeping their eyes on the money. Ha ha… kidding… just kidding. Everyone knows that you politicians just transfer the funds over the Internet now a days!

I reside in the City of Wilmington. I was going to move but the Mayor asked me not to because he needs the tax money. I am a proud resident of the 1st Representative District. My State Representative is Dennis Williams. At least I think he is still representing the 1st District. I haven’t actually seen him for several years and certainly, no one can accuse him of wasting a lot of paper and postage keeping his constituents informed. From what people tell me, people who claim to have actually seen him over the past couple of years, he is doing a fine job!

Representative Williams helped me get my city sidewalk repaired a couple of years ago. The city inspectors, F-Troop as we like to call them, were right on my heels and Mr. Williams came to the rescue. Come to think of it, I never thanked him! I sure hope he isn’t still mad about it. Maybe that’s why I haven’t seen too much of him. Ya Think? Well, I don’t know about the rest of the city residents, but I think a few bullets whizzing by my head is a small price to pay in return for free sidewalk repair. Looking at the other side of the shootings in Wilmington, they sure do keep people from walking all over my sidewalk. Whoa! That was a close one. I’ll dig that slug out of the wall later.

Anyway, Mr. Williams, I know you must be very busy down there in Dover, helping Representative Vansant in his quest to stamp out rampant non-doctor assisted tongue splitting and all. But, if you can manage a few minutes to pop over to Representative Wayne Smith’s office to see if he is all right, I would really appreciate it. A number of people have been worried sick about him since his sponsorship of House Bill 112. You remember it, don’t you? It’s the one proposing to increase the legal driving age to 17 from 16.

I have to tell ya, dude, if I didn’t know better; I’d swear he started to imbibe in some of that there medical marijuana. He can’t possibly expect people with IQs of two digits and higher to believe that one-year’s difference in chronological age is going to reduce teen driving accidents by any significant degree. Gee, maybe he really does! God, I sure hope not. If he does, he is a bigger menace than the teenage drivers are.

I realize that he, along with all of the co-sponsors, and a large percentage of those Delawareans who support the effort, is sincere about this. However, sincerity does not constitute immunity to stupidity. This is a stupid idea. Postponing accidents is not the same as preventing them. Instead of teenage drivers killing each other at 16 years of age, they will simply have to wait until they turn seventeen. Instead of the age group most prone to accidents being 16 to 21 years of age, it will become 17 to 22 years of age. Until the General Assembly begins to deal with root causes—underage drinking, illegal drug use, out of control testosterone, and general peer pressure stupidity—teenage drivers are going to kill one and other, boys in particular.

I define maturity as that interval between the time that I think someone is a jackass and the time that I call him or her one. Boy, am I getting mature.

Every Friday, the News Journal prints a feature called “Speaking your mind.” It is located in the Life (section E) of the newspaper. It poses a question to four young people within the region. By young, I mean anywhere from 10 to 20 years of age. The June 24th edition posed the following question. “One of the main bills in the legislation proposed by the Delaware General Assembly to reduce the number of accidents caused by teenage drivers is to raise the driving age to 17. Do you think this would be effective?”

The respondents were all female. Two of them were 15 year olds; one was 16 years old; and the last one was 17 years old. Each of the responses demonstrated attributes seldom demonstrated by the Delaware General Assembly in the aggregate: common sense and insight.

From Elyse Manto, age 15, Glenn Mills, PA: “No, not really. You still have the same driving experience. It doesn’t matter if you’re older – you could still do something stupid at age 26.” I concur, Elyse. Just look at George Bush and he’s a lot older than 26!

From Liz Guest, age 15, Boothwyn, PA: “It’s a good idea but they are going about it the wrong way. They should worry more about underage drinking and other risk behaviors involved in teenage accidents.” But Liz, knee-jerk reactions are so much easier!

From Lili Bishop, age 16, Hockessin, DE: “I guess it might help – it would be a good first step. But one year might not really make a difference.” You get it, Lili.

From Tara Patel, age 17, Greenville, DE: “I don’t see the sense in that. They’re always arguing about maturity levels, and I don’t think a year changes a person much.” This is a very elementary observation, my dear Tara, very elementary indeed.

When I was 15 years old, I thought that making someone wait until the age of 16 just to drive a car was beyond ridiculous. The closer my children came to 16, the more I tried to convince anyone who would listen to help me get it raised to around 40. I failed in my endeavor. This year, my son will be 29 and my daughter will be 26. In spite of my concerted effort to screw up their minds, they both grew into incredibly good, responsible people any father would be proud to call his children.

As parents, my wife and I agonized over their activities once they were outside of our realm of control. They were exposed to the same underage drinking, drugs, perverts, and any number of assorted dorks out to do them harm for the fun of it, just as those teenagers of today. Children grow up whether we like it or not. Sometimes they do stupid, impulsive things and whether they are 16, 17, 18, or even 20 is immaterial. Sometimes they die and/or kill someone else during these lapses. Most do not, but some do. If you believe in God, you pray a lot. If not, you hope for the best and hope that their bag of bad luck runs out before their bag of good luck.

My wife and I are happy that our children survived those teenage years, driving and all. While we both feel that some degree of parental influence played a role in their survival, we both know in our bones that some significant luck was involved. Representative Smith, Williams, Vansant, and the rest of the General Assembly, changing the minimum driving age by one year is not going to influence this by any degree worth the effort.

I need to say one last thing. My son grew up with a child who became his best friend. Each served as best man at their respective weddings. I doubt that these two will ever be anything less than “I’d die for you” best friends. Individually both are very intelligent boys, from birth to present. However, whenever the two of them, as children, put their heads together to pull off some stunt, their aggregate IQ went down several points. They are both responsible family men now. As proud as I am of both of them, I’m still not too sure about their aggregate, stunt-pulling IQ. On the other hand, it is no longer my problem. Erica and Melissa, I wish you good luck!

This ran on longer than I wanted it to. I’ll get to the Bush et al some other time.


Joseph Walther is a freelance writer. Contact him by clicking on the CONTACT ME link above or email him at TheTrueFacts@comcast.net

Not guilty but I'm giving you 10-years just to be safe!

The Gut Says You’re Guilty
By Joseph Walther


I need to talk about two issues this week. The first is the Michael Jackson verdict and the second is the Schiavo autopsy report. One carries no more significance than the other does, but the outcry over both has bordered on the absurd, not to mention stupidity. The condemnation of the Jackson Jury is beyond my comprehension. The continued denial in the Schiavo case on the part of certain people amounts to a “my mind’s made up, so don’t confuse me with facts” mentality to say to least.

Let me begin with Michael Jackson. Unless you have been in a coma over the past fifteen weeks or so, you are aware that the jury in the Michael Jackson molestation trial has returned a verdict. Not guilty on all ten counts was the consensus of the jury. The cable news networks babbled incessantly about this trial since the day it started. True to their normal reporting fashion, all of the networks were fair and balanced; and if you believe this, gullibility is your strongest trait.

The prognosticators on every network, particularly Court TV, had the man convicted and having forced anal sex with Bubba inside of the Bad People’s State Prison. The spins were so lopsided that one could not but think of Michael Jackson as pond scum of the worst kind. While I am not a Jackson fan, I don’t automatically assume his guilt. I think his antics are on the outer perimeters of Weirdo City at best and a manifestation of genuine sicko-mania at worst. I would not permit my minor children to visit the Neverland Valley Ranch, let alone sleep over night.

The jury of twelve plus four alternates sat through the entire trial and heard every shred of evidence. Not only did they hear the evidence, they were able to see and interpret things that people did not say in so many words. None of the cable news networks enjoyed this kind of vantage point. Neither did the “expert” prognosticators.

There are two kinds of guilt in this world. Real guilt is personal and based on what someone has actually done. It is independent from and irrelevant to any criminal court proceedings. Legal guilt is the second and we define this as what the state can prove. The two are in no way necessarily mutually inclusive. In other words, legal guilt and real guilt may not be the same thing. This is the reason that a jury verdict in a criminal trial must be beyond a reasonable doubt and based solely on legal guilt.

A jury in a criminal case NEVER finds a defendant INNOCENT. It only finds that a defendant is guilty or NOT guilty. A not guilty verdict does not mean innocent. It means nothing more than the fact that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

This jury, based on the evidence provided, found Michael Jackson not guilty. Many of the “experts” and most of the local yokels calling into radio talk shows, claiming that this jury blew it, based their opinions on “gut” feelings. People, who think that Michael Jackson is guilty because their guts tell them so, need to understand that a court defines this sort of thinking as REASONABLE doubt.

It amounts to a jury concluding that there really isn’t anything it can get its arms around; but, by God, a little voice in its collective head tells it that the defendant is probably guilty. It’s the same thing as the presiding judge, acknowledging the jury’s not guilty verdict, but deciding to sentence the accused to a 10-year sentence just to be safe! We’d find this unconscionable, but it is no more so than finding a defendant guilty on anything less than credible evidence and even then, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moving on, “no doubt about it" hard science solved the arguments in the Schiavo case. The medical examiners found her to have been in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery or improvement. In addition, she was blind and there was no evidence of abuse prior to the heart attack that rendered her in the controversial condition in the first place. She died from dehydration and NOT the starvation predicted by the “keep her alive crowd.” Hard science overruled subjective reasoning. The doctors’ diagnoses of her condition were correct all along. This should put the matter to rest!

I can understand her parent’s denial. I do not even like to think about losing one of my children. However, Jeb Bush’s decision to open an investigation is nothing more that stupid pig-headedness. His brother’s, the President of the United States, statement that he also disagrees with the findings is just another example of his stubbornness to accede that he could be wrong about something.

Finally, I would not blame either Michael Schiavo or Michael Jackson for pursuing malicious prosecution cases against their accusers. There certainly are grounds. In both cases, Jeb Bush and Tom Sneddon seem to have had an excessive amount of emotional involvement.


Joseph Walther is a freelance writer. Contact him by clicking on the CONTACT ME link above or email him at TheTrueFacts@comcast.net

I'll kick you ass!

[NASTY WORD] YOU!
By Joseph Walther


“You’re a [NASTY WORD]!” “Oh yeah, you’re a [EVEN NASTIER WORDS]!” Such was the language emanating from the mouths of two 14-year olds of the male persuasion. They were on the verge of physically attacking each other. This took place outside of a convenience store. I am guessing the ages but they were riding dirt bikes and had the look of early hormonal rupture, including pimply faces. What was the provocation for such verbal and, imminent physical abuse? They were disagreeing over the war in Iraq.

I put myself between the two boys because I saw the clerk inside the store pick up the phone. I was sure that he was calling the police. He would have been within his rights to do so. On the other hand, these two kids were probably echoing what they had been hearing at home.

The former was convinced that America is saving the world by getting rid of Saddam Hussein. The latter was just as convinced that America should have stayed out of it. “You liberal [NASTY WORDS]”, yelled the first kid! “[NASTY WORD] YOU”, retorted the other kid! “Take it easy”, I told the two of them. “The only thing you two are going to accomplish is receiving a free ride to police headquarters”, I continued.

The two of them left on their bikes. They may have gone elsewhere to duke it out for all I know. As they disappeared around the corner, a police squad car pulled into the parking lot. I told the officer that there was no harm done and that both of the boys had been arguing about Iraq. He just laughed and walked into the convenience store. I climbed into my car and pulled out of the parking lot.

I got to thinking on my way home. At the age of fourteen, I had no idea of the difference between a liberal and a conservative. I am sure none of my friends did, either. Of course, we knew what [NASTY WORD], [EVEN NASTIER WORDS], [NASTY WORDS], and [NASTY WORD] YOU meant, but we never used them. This had nothing to do with being good little boys and everything to do with fear and common sense. We were convinced that if our parents didn’t hear such language, a neighbor would. During the days of my youth, this amounted to the same thing and resulted in double punishment. The neighbors had unlimited delegated authority to smack the daylights out of us and our parents would do it again when we arrived home.

Not only have the discipline standards broken down, but also the right to debate over political matters. I distinctly remember my parents and others having disagreements over government policies. Patriotism did not require blind agreement to whatever the President of the United States said. War was a serious issue at that time because my dad and the dads of everyone I knew had recently returned from combat in WWII. These were the lucky ones. I had several friends whose dads never came back. In 1950, the Korean War erupted; the Pentagon began shipping many dads to Korea, and everyone knew that some of them would not return as well.

The point is that there was substantial disagreement over Korea. Sometimes it reverberated loud and clear, not only in the nation’s capital but also throughout the communities of the average Mr. and Mrs. America. No one accused the dissenters of being cowards or traitors. This is not the case in today’s environment, especially since 9/11.

The civility factor has eroded steadily over the past two decades. Intellectual debate has been one of the casualties of the erosion. Today you’re either with us or against us: a conservative or a liberal. We look at those in opposition as something similar to a plague. At the very least we call them [NASTY WORD], [EVEN NASTIER WORDS], [NASTY WORDS], and some others I dare not use because my daughter does not like it when I cuss. We rant and rave at home. It should be no mystery that our kids notice this, and do likewise. Only, they do it, to the point of punching each other, in front of convenience stores. I think we should get a grip, maybe take a Valium or two.

For the record, I was against going into Iraq. Once our President made the decision to do so, however, the debate was over. It then became a matter of how to best support our troops. I would like them home as soon as possible. As a point of clarification, my opposition to the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with security. My concern was whether the long-term outcome would be worth the reputation risk to the United States.

I also think the Bush Administration did, and continues to do, a lousy job at keeping us home folks realistically informed. I have yet to see them show proof as to reality relative to their view. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have more of a polarizing affect on the situation than a unifying one. George Bush, at least in my opinion, seems just a tad too chummy with Jesus to make me comfortable.

I think the world is better off without Suddam Hussein. I think that the Iraqi people are much better off than when he was in power. I also think the situation is much more in control than the mainstream media reports, but I guess this depends on whether we listen to people who are there or who have been there, including the troops on the ground. They are optimistic and up beat but we would never know it to listen to the mainstream media.

No one can answer the question of whether the risk involved with military action has been justified by the outcome. This is because we have no idea of the ultimate outcome. In other words, when it is all said and done and our troops are home, will Iraq be a democracy in the sense that we intended or will it be another Iranian-type democracy, where the people elect a president but the religious powers run the country. I hope that it will be the former but only time will tell.

Finally, I think it is great that 14-year olds involve themselves in the heat of the battle. I just wish they would do it using techniques that are more diplomatic. By the way, if anyone disagrees with my position on the Iraqi situation, then [NASTY WORD] YOU!

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer. Contact him by clicking on the CONTACT ME link above or email him at TheTrueFacts@comcast.net

Whaddaya mean Linda Lovelace was not Deep Throat?

W. Mark Felt: Saint or Sinner
By Joseph Walther

For decades, I was perfectly happy knowing that Deep Throat was Linda Lovelace. You can imagine my dismay finding out that it was W. Mark Felt. “Who in the world”, I wondered, “is W. Mark Felt?” The fact that he was the number two man in the FBI did not mean very much to me. Then I remembered the bad blood between Felt and Richard Nixon. Mr. Felt was a bit peeved because “Tricky Dick” didn’t appoint him FBI Director when J. Edgar Hoover died in 1972. Talk about your paybacks!

The talk shows—television and radio—hit the airwaves foaming at the mouth. Whether people deemed his actions heroic or criminal depended on party spin. The brethren on the right generally felt that he should have acted within the law instead of going to the press. Those of a more left-leaning persuasion generally felt that he did the country a great service and we should make him the first person canonized prior to death, even ahead of the late Pope John Paul II.

For those on the right, how long do you think Mr. Felt would have lasted under the Nixon administration by “going through proper channels?” Richard Nixon didn’t like Mark Felt to begin with. Get real, for God’s sake. For those on the left, Felt was no saint. He was the number two man under J. Edgar Hoover who ruled the FBI with an iron fist for decades. No one screwed with J. Edgar, even though he liked to wear dresses. Mr. Felt conducted one black bag operation after another at Mr. Hoover’s direction.

W. Mark Felt performed his duties according to the cultural norms of the FBI under Hoover. Hoover believed that the ends always justified the means as long as the means used were for the good of the country. This would be a great time for me to mention that Mr. Hoover firmly believed that what was good for Mr. Hoover WAS ALWAYS good for the country. While this does not justify what the agency did, it does explain some of the logic behind the actions, flawed or otherwise.

I make a leap of faith here in assuming that there was some degree of patriotic motivation behind Mark Felt’s decision to leak things to the press. That’s as far as I am willing to go. There was no love lost between Felt and Nixon and vengeance was a motivating force. I’ll let you readers assign the relative degrees.

I have said this before. Watergate did not bring Richard Nixon down. Let’s look at Watergate as a gift of monumentally stupid proportions. Richard Nixon handed it to Mark Felt on a silver platter. All Felt did was take advantage.

Politicians are politicians whether they reside and perform in the public or private sector. The CEO of General Motors is every bit the politician as a candidate for the United States Senate. The only difference is that there is direct accountability in the private sector that does not exist in the public sector. Politicians, private AND public, cannot survive without huge egos. Huge egos exist in both sectors. However, in the private sector, a huge ego can’t get too big before a board of directors brings it back into perspective.

This does not happen in the public sector. The egos get bigger and bigger, leading to the illusion of impenetrability. Arrogance begins showing its ugly head. Whenever ego mates with arrogance, the resultant love child is always stupidity. Add in a heaping cup of narcissism, and you have all of the ingredients of a political disaster that will register at least an 8.5 on the legal Richter scale.

Congress would not have forced Richard Nixon to resign if he had assumed responsibility for Watergate at its beginning stage. He could have claimed that it all resulted from a misunderstanding and sacrificed the participants for the “greater” good. The Republican Party would have rallied behind him. Had it been a Democrat, the same thing would have happened. After the obligatory period of sanctimonious congressional hissy fits and endless prognostications on the various talk shows, the parties would have kissed, made up, and Dick Nixon would have finished out his second term, assuming that something else didn’t get him first.

Unfortunately, Richard Nixon was like a common drunk, except Nixon was drunk on power. A common drunk pulled over by the police has the RIGHT to remain silent but lacks the ABILITY to remain silent. Nixon had no more ability to deal with a blow to his ego than a town drunk has in dealing with addictive alcohol intoxication. Had his Waterloo not been Watergate, it would have been something else eventually. Serious character flaws get their owners one way or another.

W. Mark Felt was neither villain nor hero. He did what he did for reasons that will be forever speculative. If you were a Nixon fan, you’ll call his actions despicable. If you were a Nixon hater, you’ll call his actions heroic. If you were neutral on Nixon…Yeah, RIGHT!


Joseph Walther is a freelance writer. Contact him by clicking on the CONTACT ME link above or email him at TheTrueFacts@comcast.net