THIS JUST IN: My milkshake, is better than theirs!

Announcing the 2004 winner of the Nonpareil's Reader's Choice Award for Favorite Writer ..... IT'S....ME! YAY!

I'd like to thank everyone who helped me be me, namely me, myself and I cause let's face it, if it weren't for me, who would I be? And I can't think of anyone who helped me be a better righter than everyone else who works here except for me?

I think when it's official we should go back on Todd and Tyler and talk smack about Rainbow Rowell.

Good Job and Thanks!

Just wanted to say you're doing a great job, keep it up! And remember if anything news worthy happens, keep me in mind!



Greg Jerrett
Council Bluffs Daily Nonpareil
712.325.5746
800.283.1882 ext. 5746
Read My Column
Wed/Sat@nonpareilonline.com

Local balding man shaves 'for charity'

'I'm doing it for the children ... really,' says man

FREDERICK, Md – Simon Webb, 356 Crabcake Ln. #B, shaved the last six strands of his hair Friday deciding that it needed to be done for the good of sick children. Webb donated the 10-inch strands to Locks of Love, a charitable organization that makes wigs for sick, bald children.
"I thought if I am going to take this drastic step, you know, actually shave myself bald, bald for the first time in me life and make this great big vastly different lifestyle choice that is so very much the opposite of what I used to look like then as a good Christian, I had better #uckin' do it for the kiddies, yeah? I mean, it stands to reason, right? Some little girl is going to have a magnificent wig is all I've got to say."
"He really didn't have much to make a wig FROM," said Julie Darter, president and founder of Locks of Love. "He insisted that he would donate his 'glorious mane' to needy orphan children. It was kind of creepy because while the 'lock' of hair WAS 10 inches long, it was still barely visible to the naked eye. It was like a little red rubber band all twisted up with a little hair in it. It was the most effed up thing I've ever seen."
With a single gleaming tear in his eye, Webb handed over his Lock of Love to Garter who accepted it in a public ceremony at Crowne Point Mall.
"I figured if I didn't accept it, he would keep trying to give it to me and I just wanted this whole thing to be over with as soon as possible," Darter said.
"Does this look like I might have hair if I let it grow out, d'ya'reckon," Webb asked onlookers."I mean, I know I've got no hair and YOU know I've got no hair, but do you think the birds will notice?"

Corporate morality and other oxymorons (corporate morality)7.9.02

> Here is my favorite serious George Bush quote so far in what I am sure will ultimately be three or four terms of great quotes once we get that pesky two-term limit abolished.
> Addressing the Association for a Better New York Monday, Dubya said: > "> At this moment, America> '> s greatest economic need is higher ethical standards, enforced by strict laws and upheld by responsible business leaders. In the end, there is no capitalism without conscience, no wealth without character.> ">
> The first sentence is true or at least wishful thinking. The second one should read: > "> In the end there SHOULD BE no capitalism without conscience, no wealth without character because that> '> s the way it was in the beginning ... of American capitalism anyway.> ">
> American capitalism was pretty much the invention of Calvinists who were able to accumulate huge amounts of wealth or > "> capital> "> because they believed in working themselves silly, never having any fun and saving all their money.
> There is a great misconception in the United States as to our economic system. We believe in capitalism as much as we believe in democracy, which is funny since we don> '> t live in pure forms of either one.
> We live in a republic, a representative democracy, but since most of us DON> '> T vote, that is questionable as well. Our economic system is decidedly based on consumerism and credit. Our government is so far in debt that no matter how bad your credit might be, Uncle Sam (were he an actual guy) would not only be getting calls from collection agencies during dinner, he> '> d have his car repossessed, his wages garnished and find himself on > "> America> '> s Most Wanted> "> for writing bad checks. He would also not be wearing a shirt.
> Our economy> '> s lead indicators of prosperity are all based on how much money people spend whether they earned it or not. How many new cars did we buy? How many washing machines? When our economy took its post 9/11 dip, what was the answer? Spend money for the love of God! Of course, that god was Mammon.
> Capitalism is based in self-denial and the accumulation of capital through thrift, hard work and frugality. There is precious little of that in a country that> '> s all about instant gratification. From the fast food we suck down our throats to the fat bodies we suck out of our fat bodies, America is all about instant satisfaction.
> More than that, even if any of us actually wanted to live simply, off the land or without money and consumer goods, we couldn> '> t. There is nothing wild or unowned. We do not have the division of labor that existed in the old days. We would have to do everything ourselves.
> Even if you didn> '> t bother anyone, your existence would bug enough people that they> '> d have to get you somehow. That> '> s what the ATF is for. If you live off the land, the ATF will break into your cabin and shoot you on suspicion of hording weapons. Either that or IRS agents will come to collect the taxes you owe on your nuts and berries because technically they are considered income.
> Now, I like my fast food culture as much as the next junk food/video game addict. I want my stuff. Credit, space-age polymers, new sneakers, a kickin> '> sound system, honeys on both arms, power, influence, love, respect, happiness ... all the things money can buy. It is the natural caveman inclination to take as much as we can get.
> But the world is not the unlimited grab bag it once was. There are 6 billion people living on this spaceship earth. Even 10 percent of Americans live in poverty and poverty is calculated as a family of four living on $17,000 a year.
> The pursuit of wealth has left us spent. It has hit its limits. It always does.
> Corporate greed is the bugaboo of the future. Far scarier than Robber Baron lust because it has no face, only an image and a bottom line. No individual is accountable.
> When a Republican president with an MBA chastises American business, you KNOW the problem is not just serious, it> '> s likely much worse than we suspect. If Enron and Worldcom can get rich off the illusion of wealth, the idea is just too good to pass on.
> Penalties for white collar criminals are a joke because no one can really wrap their head around them. So here is a good way to conceptualize it. If I mug an old lady for her purse, I have committed a crime for which I should be punished. If I come up with an accounting scam that puts thousands of trusting employees on the street, tanks investors and trashes the economy forcing others to commit crimes like mugging an old woman, I get probation.
> If we want to make the business world a moral place then there have to be harsh penalties for criminals of this stripe. No more country club treatment. Stick them in a cell with bank robbers, rapists and murderers. These guys aren> '> t special.
> It> '> s not just the prosperity bubble that burst, it was the morality bubble. The super-rich live in a world where people like us are just cannon fodder. They trade inside information like we trade recipes and talk about sitcoms.
> It should be an established fact that wealth, conscience and character do not necessarily go hand in hand ... in hand.
> What it really comes down to is that in spite of 2,000 years of Christianity, moral philosophizing and ethical debate, Mammon is still the most popular god in Western culture.
> -> Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.
>
>

Drug addicts complain about ban (smoking ban) 8.27.02

> New York> '> s Mayor Mike Bloomberg has managed to get the price of cigarettes jacked up to $7.50 PER PACK. Can you believe it? Remember when you could get cancer sticks for a buck? From a vending machine? At work? So you could smoke WHILE you worked? I bet you do.
> Nothing said good morning, America like that first smoke as you rolled out of bed, shaved, showered, had another smoke, poured a cup of coffee, smoked a cigarette and then headed off to the bomber plant to do your part for the war effort ... while smoking.
> Time was, any 12-year-old with a notion to could walk into the general store, get a handful of jaw breakers and a carton of Lucky Strikes for a penny. And why not? If you> '> re old enough to work 14 hours a day, by God you should be old enough to smoke, too.
> Soon, Bloomberg will manage to make it illegal to smoke even in New York bars. Can you imagine walking into a transvestite, S&M, biker bar on branding night and not being able to smoke? Me neither.
> Lots of people, well, not people so much as smokers, don> '> t like that one bit. > "> It> '> s a violation of our civil rights,> "> they shout while frantically reaching for another bullet and one of those tacky, red disposable, child-proof lighters they bought at a convenience store for 50 cents that barely works. Flick, flick, flick. Flick ... flick ... FLICK. > "> I have rights, too, you know.> "> Puff ... fuuuuuu.
> I have to agree with the sentiment behind those words. It really isn> '> t a bar if people aren> '> t smoking in it. One can hardly argue that a bar is such a healthy environment that it is wrong to poison other people> '> s lungs while those people are poisoning their livers. Besides, smoking and drinking go together like Martin and Lewis, Lewis & Clark, Lois and Clark and Clark Bars and Vodka which leads us back to smoking and drinking.
> Why should what goes on New York concern those of us who live in the rational epicenter of common sense and libertarianism that is the Midwest? Because what New York does, we> '> ll be doing six months after that. If the largest city in our country pulls off this coup with little or no rankle, then the motivation will be there for every city and state government to drop the hammer on smoking as well.
> Ames already has a ban in restaurants before 8:30 p.m. and Iowa City is working on one, too. More and more people are warming to the idea of simply outlawing cigarettes altogether, a feat that is looking more plausible every day. Smoking is going the way of the dodo and one day in our > "> Star Trek> "> future we will look back in wonder at this primitive behavior.
> Smoking tobacco is not significantly different than smoking crack or shooting heroin. In fact, studies have shown that cigarettes are at least as addictive as cocaine. Don> '> t believe me? Try quitting. People can say they like smoking all they want, but the sad fact is they are just as addicted to that drug as any back alley dope fiend.
> If you had a monkey on your back digging his nails into your neck until you fed him bananas, would that mean you really liked bananas? Of course not. You were just feeding the monkey.
> Remember the first time you inhaled smoke? That is how you really feel about cigarettes.
> When you wake up because you are having a > "> nic fit,> "> those are the same feelings junkies get when they need to spike a vein. The reason smokers so often look like death warmed over is no more complicated than why crackheads, tweekers and dopers look like hell. Poison will do that to you.
> Smokers get upset at smoking bans because they are hooked on a drug. I got hooked at 18 and even though I don> '> t want to smoke today, I like the idea of going into a bar, having a beer and stepping off the wagon.
> When I got the diabetes, my doctor said give up cheese and never smoke again. OK, I said. Now, let> '> s get something straight. I love cheese. For six months, I had no cheese and not one smoke. Then I went to the airport. After a stressful check-in, I hit the bar and found a mark to bum me just one smoke. >
> Nearly a year later, I have not so much as bought a small quantity of cheddar cheese unless it was fat free and taste free, but I still buy smokes from my co-workers on a regular basis.
> One day, the world will look upon tobacco with at least as much disdain as it views marijuana, not because all the non-smokers will make the lives of smokers miserable, but because EX-smokers, high on zealotry, will call for its ban to keep temptation at bay.
> Smoking is not pleasurable, it is not relaxing, it doesn> '> t feel good, smoke doesn> '> t taste refreshing. Smoking is a drug and smokers are drug users. As long as people are comfortable with that notion, so be it.
> With that said, public interference should really be kept to a minimum. Smoking will die on its own the less we do. In-your-face measures will act as life support. Stop Big Tobacco from selling to kids, keep the ads down, but leave the smoking sections alone and quit jacking with the prices. The only thing legislators and city councils will manage to do is make smoking even cooler than it already is. That> '> s half the reason people started anyway.
> > -> Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.
>
>
>

Dennis Miller ranting no more (Dennis Miller)7.16.02

I found out last week that Dennis Miller, the bon mot-spouting pragmatist of "Dennis Miller Live," formerly of "Saturday Night Live's" Weekend Update fame, is getting the axe from HBO. I gotta tell you, this is a world-class bummer for me.
Every writer can tell you who inspired them to do what they do and I'm not shy about the list of muckraking scribes I call influences, but I have not done enough to put Dennis Miller on that list. Primarily, I think of him as a comedian and while he has books to his credit, most of them are transcripts of his televised rants from "Dennis Miller Live."
When I started writing columns in college, it was with a copy of "Rants" and "Ranting Again" right by my side and if I had to do it all over again, the only thing I would change would be to add "I Rant, Therefore I Am" and "The Rant Zone" to that stack.
I have not subscribed to HBO once in the nine season run of "Dennis Miller Live." Luckily, I have always been able to catch up online, at a friend's house or by catching the audio-only version on scrambled HBO channels. It's just that good.
Miller has a cadence and rhythm that are surpassed only by his arcane references, practical politics and hardcore style of diatribe. He is the perfect American social commentator in my humble opinion. He is caustic, intelligent, vulgar, self-deprecating, honest and only just this side of aging hipster. He changes his position, admits when he screws up and sees life's details with magnificent clarity translating complex issues for a wider audience.
I trust a guy like Miller because when he does a commercial for 10-10-220, shills for HBO, gets canned from "Monday Night Football" or does a movie that tanks, he has no problem pointing the finger squarely at his own chest while calling himself a prostitute, a hack, an egotist all while making better use of four-letter words than the TV Guide crossword puzzle. When he opened last week's show only a few days after being nixed from HBO and a few months after being dropped from "Monday Night Football," Miller said, "How many jobs can a guy %#$@!%& lose in one year?" breaking the tension before going on to rant about corporate and personal responsibility. What style.
My early columns were practically an homage to Dennis Miller and while I will always have that taint, today I thought I would break out an old-school, Miller-esque tirade in honor of the man I hope will always be able to espouse his views in some forum.
Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but if any country at any time ever needed outspoken social critics it is the United States at the start of the 21st century. American political discourse today has about as much meat in it as Harrah's Buffet after a visit by the three tenors, Louie Anderson and Gorak the Carnivore of Meatus IX.
Dissension, competition and debate, once the foundations of American democracy have taken more hits than a drunken sorority girl on Ladies Night at the Virginia Military Institute. Our country was founded on certain principles: freedom of religion, the pursuit of happiness, the right to own property, one man one vote and that what the Indians didn't know couldn't hurt us.
But freedom of the press, the right to assemble and the need for dissent have become about as popular as Jerry Falwell at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.
No one needs to take away Americans rights to say what they want because the sad fact is that we are sheep that like to be shorn. At no time in our history has that been more obvious than after 9/11. Americans lined up to hand over their rights to individual thought so fast even a few reactionary demagogues were shocked and appalled.
After decades of main stream America shutting down and tuning out vocal minorities like the Peace Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Animal Rights, Free Tibet, Free Quebec and people who prefer non-dairy creamer to half and half, discourse and opinion are doing about as well as Keith Richard's liver at the V.I.P. tent at Oktoberfest.
Will Rogers, Woody Guthrie and Mark Twain used to rile people up and Americans liked it. Today, we like our controversy subdued and our scandals in neat, little sound bites so we can easily digest them. Newspaper readership is sinking faster than the Edmund Fitzgerald and even hard news magazines are adopting a more "reader friendly" format which is code for fewer words, bigger print and more pictures of half naked celebrities.
We should learn to love debate again, mis amigos invisibles, because disagreeing with everybody is as American as apple pie in the hands of female body builder with a bald eagle tattoo playing baseball in a red, white and blue bikini singing "Born in the U.S.A." as she slides into home plate. If that's what you think.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. Dennis Miller still rules.
- Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.

Council Bluffs man loses well (Ras man well) 8.30.02

While you're barbecuing and enjoying the last three-day weekend of the summer that Labor Day is all about the struggles and triumphs of the working men and women of the United States who put their backs into it, build things, move things and keep America on top.
Listen to some Woody Guthrie or at least some Bruce Springsteen, read "The Jungle" or "The Grapes of Wrath," maybe rent "Norma Rae" or "Matewan." Then lift a glass to people who made sure the average American doesn't have live like an indentured servant and maybe lift one for yourself too. I know you will.

*****

And now for you Labor Day weekend entertainment. A story of one working man's search for glory based VERY loosely on read events that occurred last Tuesday night in Omaha
The following news story is a parable. It is also satirical, which means it tells a greater truth than the facts allow for i.e. the thing is made up.
Now that all our legal bases are covered ...
Growing old is a pain, a fact to which the "hero" of this story can testify.
It also teaches other great working class lessons such as "never let your mouth write a check the other end of you can't cash." "Never talk yourself into believing you are tougher than you really are" and "just because they sell it, doesn't mean you have to drink it."
Read on.

OMAHA, Neb. - Kevin "The Rasmanian Devil" Rasmussen, 34, of Council Bluffs was beaten into submission Tuesday night during an exhibition of Omaha Fight Club held at Club Amnesia in Omaha. Amateur fighters and members of the audience "faced off" in submission wrestling, kick boxing and no-holds-barred brawling for the entertainment of patrons. Fights lasted up to three rounds or nine minutes.
Rasmussen's fight lasted for two minutes and three seconds and was the second longest fight of the evening.
Going into the fight, Rasmussen said he had certain reservations about his chances for victory against his opponent, a much younger, leaner man.
"Going in, I knew I was gonna get my butt kicked," said Rasmussen, who thanked God profusely for allowing him to "survive at all" his match with four-time national college wrestling champion Rob "Choir Boy" Van Garcia, 22, of Hogswallow, Vermont.
Olsen registered a complete lack of surprise at his win, but did say his opponent was much "wilier and harder to pin down" than he anticipated.
"He kept running away, but it was still pretty much over before it started," said Olsen as he wiped Rasmussen's blood and tears from his wrestling shoes. "I took one look at this old guy and I reckoned I had him. Then I saw him smoke about a pack and half of Kools while talking to some fat guy and a couple ring girls. It was at that point I was just hoping I wouldn't accidentally kill him. There is nothing more embarrassing than to have an opponent stroke out while you have him in a full nelson. Oh and he made me promise to tell everybody he looked good getting beat, can I say that here?"
Greg Jerrett, 23, of Council Bluffs was Rasmussen's ring manager. Jerrett said he had "no fears at all" going into the match that Rasmussen was going to lose.
"I had no fears at all that Kevin was going to lose," Jerrett said. "I was absolutely certain he would lose, it was just a question of how fast and how bad. I'm just glad the other guy didn't get hurt when he was kicking Kevin in the ribs. He could have easily stubbed. Luckily, Rasmussen is soft. Poor Kevin, I mean, I threw the towel in kinda fast. I almost hit him with it. That terry cloth was kinda rough, no fabric softener or anything. He could have been killed! Oh, but he looked good getting his butt kicked. Is that OK, Kev?"
During the match, Rasmussen was visibly angered by the way in which Jerrett threw in the towel.
"I told Jerrett to throw in the towel at the FIRST sign I was going to lose, not wait to see how many times this wrestler could pick me up and drop me on my head," Rasmussen said with a boldness he lacked IN the ring. Wiping a tear from his good eye, Rasmussen said, "I could have really gotten hurt! Yumpin' yiminy, didn't he see me tapping out? TAP TAP TAP! I almost broke my fingers on the mat!"
Rasmussen then began writing furiously into a folder to make sure his Dungeons and Dragons character "got the experience points for this one."
Jerrett said he would have thrown in the towel sooner had the nachos he ordered for himself and the ring girls not arrived.
"Bad timing on my part, but to be fair to me, I didn't realize he was tapping out, I thought he was convulsing," said Jerrett wiping cheese from his fingers and placing them back on the ring girl. "I guess I was focused on those nachos. They were very good nachos. I can't be expected to pay attention EVERY time Kevin Rasmussen gets beat in a fight. I'm only human. I paid attention the first 30 or 40 times I saw it, but after that, well ... you've seen it, you know what I mean."
Rasmussen swore vengeance loudly before the crowd of nearly two dozen Nebraskans for the embarrassing public beating he received.
"If it is the last thing I do, I will have my revenge for this," Rasmussen said as Life Flight paramedics restrained him for take off. "Do you hear me, Jerrett? I will get you for this!"
Rasmussen is listed in stable condition though doctors say he will be unable to wear hats for some time.
Jerrett is currently hiding at an undisclosed location in the hills of Crescent. He communicates using only smoke signals, courier pigeons and a Nokia 5800 series cell phone so he can reassure Rasmussen almost daily that even though he had his butt kicked, he "looked good any way."
- Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.

Can you live this fantasy life? (fantasy life) 8.20.02

Ah, romance. Romance is one of those things you never really have to have, like cheese, but it just makes everything it touches so much better ... like cheese.
My buddy, Pete, is one of those great catches, smart, good-looking, independently wealthy. Like most guys, he's about as thoughtless as a tzitzi fly when it comes to the ladies. Luckily for Pete, he's already married and so has no need for romance. Or so he thinks.
I called Pete the other day and got to talking about what he was doing for his ninth wedding anniversary. Nothing, he says, probably stay home. You're kidding me, I says to him I say, you think that is not a one-way trip to distaster?
Operating under the delusion that because his wife SAID she didn't want to do anything for their anniversary, Pete took that to mean that she actually MEANT she didn't want to do anything for their anniversary. Like I said, Pete is an intelligent guy, but he lacks the kind of street smarts to really keep a marriage in fine tune .
Luckily, he has me to make stuff up. I don't need any more women any closer to me than the ones I have now, so it is nice to play Cyrano de Bergerac occasionally. Some guys play fantasy baseball; I can sit back and watch how someone else's love life works under my guidance without all the fuss and extra cleaning associated with human contact.
Romance isn't just what you do to woo a woman. Romance isn't just about love and seduction. The term "romance" actually applies to an entire category of medieval tales based on legend, chivalric love and adventure. King Arthur is a prime example. Romance tales were fantasies dealing with heroism and the mysterious, they lacked a certain basis in fact.
Which is why, years later, the term has been narrowed by common usage to refer almost exclusively to the flowers and candy maneuvering men do to make women feel extra special.
Of course, modern romance is not supposed to just be some underhanded ploy to deceive the ladies, at least not so far as the ladies are concerned, it's supposed to be a genuine outpouring of uncontrollable affection that makes men act in a fashion that is counter to their base nature. "You complete me," "You make me want to be a better man," "Without you I am lost," "You clean my socks like it ain't nobody's business, baby," things like that.
In most tales of medieval fancy, romance was about killing dragons and kicking dude's butts then going off to pick daisies for some chick. They had no TV, radio or magazines so they had to do something to kill time. Occasionally, they killed each other to kill time.
Some dude tried to kick my butt the other day to look cool in front of his "lady." He gave me the time-honored Council Bluffs signal that he wanted to engage in fisticuffs, namely, he took off his shirt to show me his flabby gut and complete lack of hair.
Guys with no body hair just aren't scary, they're like furless Mexican cats, featherless Israeli chickens or N'Sync, an aberration of nature pleasing to young girls who want to keep them as pets, but hardly frightening. I dispatched him readily enough with the flat side of my longsword whilst his girlfriend didst hold my jacket.
I dig romance. I am quite the romantic. Actually, I am quite the disappointed romantic, which means my card is officially stamped "cynic," but life is still a little more interesting with the proper amount of fantasy added to the mix.
Fantasy/romance is why we flirt with people who are WAY too good-looking to condone interfering with us physically in the first place. It's why we get dressed up to go out for a night of fancy living. It's why middle-aged men drive Corvettes and why no woman on the planet wears a shoe larger than 6 or 7 unless it's the store's fault. Half the time, it's what gets us out of bed in the morning knowing that after a day of pretending everyone we work with doesn't hate us, we can spend the night at a watering hole pretending people there do more than barely tolerate us. It's why we nose dive into a book or try to reach level 10 in some electronic reality.
Fantasy is self-medication for the soul. Losing yourself in your own diversions passes the time, but making someone else's fantasies real, well that's just pure altruism. It's also vicarious living - another kind of fantasy.
So I told Pete that if he didn't want to spend the next two months wondering why his wife was mad at him, he better make some kind of effort, preferably in public, to demonstrate that he still goes weak in the knees whenever he thinks about the mother of his children.
I recommended a pizza delivered to the office that said "you rock!" in pepperoni followed 15 minutes later by flowers with a card that said "Just kidding - I love you, baby." Pete opted out of the pie and went for an arrangement so huge they had their own ecosystem and a bottle of cold duck. Six of one, half dozen of the other, I suppose.
- Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.

Executing retarded people wrong (executing retards) 6.25.02

So last Thursday, six Supreme Court justices out of nine made the call that executing mentally retarded individuals - generally regarded as those with I.Q.s of 70 or lower - might be cruel and unusual (thus violating the Eighth Amendment) and should be put on hold. As a unit, the court tends to believe the death penalty is not in and of itself cruel or unusual. So let's go with that.
O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Bader Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens said "we are not persuaded that the execution of mentally retarded criminals will measurably advance the deterrent or the retributive purpose of the death penalty."
Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist were so outraged at this decision that their rebuttal - called scathing and scoffing - said: "If one is to say as the court does today that ALL executions of the mentally retarded are so morally repugnant as to violate our national standards of decency, surely the consensus it points to must be one that has set its righteous face against ALL such executions."
In short, they are saying the other six are obviously yet secretly opposed to the death penalty and must be soft-on-crime pinkos. Scalia refused to sign the dissent "respectfully dissenting" to let everyone know they meant business.
Scalia mocked what he referred to as the "the 47 percent consensus" pointing out that only 18 states of the 38 allowing capital punishment don't execute the retarded and that is way less than half.
I would suggest it is safe to say the 12 states that don't allow capital punishment at all could legitimately and safely be counted with the 18 bringing the consensus to 30 states against executing the retarded to 20 that allow it and may or may not like being referred to as "IN FAVOR of executing the retarded."
Call me crazy, but I think that not executing retarded people is a good thing and is not the drawback to law and order critics suggest.
"Now everybody that commits murder will claim to be retarded," is the rallying cry. Yeah, because we'll never see through that.
Have we gotten so hung up on payback that we just want to kill anyone and everyone that crosses the line regardless of their capacity to know right from wrong? At some point, it is important to establish that justice can be served short of death rather than seeking the most extreme punishment in as many cases as possible.
Well, I'm with Dubya on this one, executing retarded folks is just plain wrong.
The problem is that "justice" has become synonymous with "retribution" in America. It is time to maybe step back a pace and look at what the whole point of executing people is supposed to be.
Regardless of your stance on capital punishment, whether you believe that no civilized nation should use death as a punishment, whether you think we should kill 'em all and let God figure out whose guilty or whether you think you could think of 20 things worse to do to a murderer than giving him the quick release of death, one thing seems pretty clear: if there is no chance of securing the public from future, similar crimes or of meaningfully punishing an individual in a way they and others like them are capable of understanding, then the punishment is not only unjust it runs the risk of making the public less secure.
Example. In Henry VIII's England, capital crimes were extended to include highway robbery. The logic was this would curb highway robbery by scaring the robbers straight. What it did was jack up the murder rate as highway robbers began killing everyone they robbed to keep witnesses to a minimum.
In the current case, executing a retarded guy who may or may not appreciate his crime does little to teach him an important lesson about what it's like to be an upstanding member of society nor does it send a clear message to other retarded people to behave since the idea of clearly communicating concepts to retarded people is at the heart of the matter. What do they understand? Is it reasonable to expect someone with an I.Q. of 70 or less to always appreciate the consequences of their actions?
Good and evil, that's the heart of the matter. We want to punish evil, keep it in line. Does everyone always know when they are being evil?
I appreciate that evil, if left unchecked, can spread like a virus. I also believe good people can be capable of evil and still be good. Continuing to check ourselves MAKES us good.
Good people who see nothing wrong with executing retarded people might need to do a check, that's all I'm saying. People who stand around with frying pans shouting "burn, baby, burn" at executions have definitely crossed a line somewhere. Either that or their hometowns don't have cable.
Before writing this column, I asked myself "what would Jesus do?" and funny enough Jesus wouldn't pull the switch on a retarded guy either so... safe for one more day I guess.
Granted, the Eighth Amendment is a bit vague. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It doesn't say what cruel or unusual is because they either had a general understanding of "cruel and unusual" in December, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was adopted or they wanted to let successive generations decide for themselves.
They didn't have electricity, I.Q. tests or psychiatrists in 1791 so they could not be expected to determine whether sending a charge through a retarded guy was cruel or unusual. Lucky for us, we have all of these things and should be able to either breathe a sigh of relief that something good has been done in a world full of badness or, at the very least, let it slide and respectfully dissent.
- Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.

Summer re-runs, games shows and hot topics (pledges) 6.27.02

Time to circle the wagons, load your guns and hide the kids 'n' women folk, it's political litmus test time again.
Every summer, when the sun takes longer to set, the days are hot and humid and the reality TV shows are in full bloom, some issue or other rears its head to get everyone all het up.
Wednesday, some guy (Michael Newdow) in the Wild West (Sacremento, Calif.) managed to stir up debate over the Pledge of Allegiance by getting the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to declare the current form of the Pledge unconstitutional - in particular, the part added in 1954 during the height of the Red Scare that says "under God."
Now, I suppose it is expected that all professional purveyors of opinion should be getting themselves worked up about this issue on one side or the other. For me, it's just too hot and what with the humidity turning my biscuits into dumplings, I flatly refuse to get worked up over this issue.
Chances are it is just covering up for some other much more important scandal anyway that is now buried under a morass of media flurry as pundits debate and the man on the street gives his opinion in spite of the fact that the average man on the street has never voted in any election any where at any time more important than senior class president and even then he probably voted "straight party."
I don't think anybody should be casually changing the Pledge of Allegiance from how it was written by a minister in 1892 who did not write it with "under God." That when the 1954 Congress took a statement of pure patriotism and added "under God" during the Red Scare to boost their own images in the eyes of a nation scared of communists.
They messed with the Pledge and pretty much this brouhaha inevitable. Why it took until 2002 is the only thing that really surprises me.
I would actually like to go back in time and undo everything that happened between 1945 and 1954. The United States would be much better off if we could have gone straight from kicking the hell out of the Nazis to Rock 'n' Roll, wouldn't we?
Unfortunately, we had the Red Scare in there to cast long shadows over our nation's integrity. Americans of all stripes were victimized by the ambitions of a few piggish men who ran this country ragged looking for communists, ruining careers and ultimately accomplishing nothing more than the destabilization of civil liberties by making them a privilege of the few instead of the right of all.
You know, I give my allegiance to the United States, but I won't be saying any pledges any time soon with or without the phrase "under God" in them because I am flat offended at the notion that anybody else in this country thinks I need to live up to THEIR standard of patriotism.
Pledges inherently contain the idea that there is someone saying it and someone listening to it, otherwise there would be little point in saying it at all unless one contends that saying a thing over and over again has the effect of ingraining that sentiment deeply into the subconscious.
Writing it is the same thing. You write it, for someone else to read. And who is that someone else?
Tell me, exactly what other human being of United States citizenry do you hold in such high regard that you feel you must prove yourself to them? Who do you willingly turn your fate over to? By a man's actions, that's how you know him, not a few words he can recite. That's not proof. Even the Devil can quote Scripture if he needs to.
My allegiance to the United States is not in question until somebody else tries establishing rules, tests and measures to sum up how patriotic I am in comparison to them.
Take a minute right now and make a list of every person you know whose patriotism you honestly feel is superior to yours. Use whatever criteria you wish to make that determination. Are school teachers on that list? Principles? Employers? Cops? Firemen? Congressmen? Members of various branches of government? Servicemen?
And of those people, how many are sworn to serve the public interest, the same public to which you and I belong? Even the President of the United States serves us so why should we prove ourselves to him?
Simple fact of the matter is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that "under God" is unconstitutional is just going to give everybody yet another chance to line up and beat their chests once again before the new fall lineup of TV shows starts and they realize they don't say the Pledge, haven't said it for decades and even if they did, it doesn't prove anything and that the Supreme Court will more than likely overturn the lower court ruling for a few kudos.
These things always heat up in the summer when there is nothing but re-runs, game shows and "reality" TV to distract us. Three summers ago, the flag-burning amendment was big news after nearly 10 years of dormancy even though no one saw anyone born in the United States burn a flag in person or on TV. Why? Somebody stirred up some stuff.
The extent to which the American public cares about any political issue is in direct inverse proportion to how many of us want to know what happens on tonight's episode of "Friends." Personally, I always thought Ross and Monica would get together.
- Greg Jerrett is a Nonpareil staff writer. His column runs on Wednesdays and Saturdays. He may be contacted at 328-1811, Ext. 279, or by e-mail at gjerrett@nonpareilonline.com.