« Happy Thanksgiving | Main | Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ »

The Week In Mass. Insanity

OK, if it's Friday, so that means it's a good day to round up the Week In Mass. Insanity.

First, we have a glimpse that while Michael Dukakis has been out of office for about 15 years, his tenure was no aberration -- especially in respect to the Massachusetts judicial system and its attitude towards murderers, a la Willie Horton.

In 1991, Daniel Tavares killed his mother. He was convicted and sentenced to 17-20 years in prison. But he managed to get some of that whittled down for "good behavior" (despite a rather well documented record of being a violent, disruptive prisoner) and was released. Shortly thereafter, he was charged with several assaults on corrections officers (from his stretch in prison -- apparently not actually killing someone you assault is considered "good behavior") and brought before a judge.

The prosecution asked for $50,000 bail. The judge weighed the facts of the case, Tavares' history, and decided that was excessive -- releasing him on his own recognizance would be sufficient.

So Tavares left court, went home to his wife (a prison groupie he'd met and married via mail while locked up), and waited patiently for his court date.

Whoops, my mistake. Instead, he found a gun (quite possibly the one his wife had borrowed from a relative on news of Tavares' release), and traveled across the country to Washington State with his bride -- where he apparently murdered a couple in their own home.

The couple -- Brian and Beverly Mauck -- had been married about a year and a half.

Their families are blaming Massachusetts, in part, for their loss. And I think they have a hell of a good case.

From the outright obscene to the just plain stupid, we have several examples from the Boston Globe. First up, noted columnist looks at all the evidence and carefully considers the matter before deciding no, George W. Bush is no Hitler.

In fairness to Mr. Beam, it's actually -- for the most part -- a pretty reasonable column. The dumbness shines through in the opening, though -- "I suppose it was inevitable that the liberal intelligentsia would start comparing George Bush to Adolf Hitler."

Mr. Beam must not have been paying too much attention to current events over the last seven years. Comparisons between Bush and Hitler have been a hallmark of his presidency, and it hasn't been exactly fringe.

Then we have that delightful program called "Commonwealth Care." This is the "everybody must get health insurance OR ELSE" program that Massachusetts instituted last year, and is -- to me, at least -- one of the reasons I am disinclined to support Mitt Romney. The program is simple: if you have health insurance, you're fine. If you don't, then you need to get it on your own or sign up through the state. Otherwise, you get to be fined rather heftily.

This program was touted as the way to save money for everybody (well, except for those greedy doctors and insurance companies), and was to be a model for a national plan.

Well, guess what? It turns out to be costing a lot more than the backers predicted -- about $150 million more. (To mention that this is precisely what the detractors predicted is, of course, utterly irrelevant and borderline seditious in the Free People's Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.)

So, what's the Globe's solution? Any of you not saying "raise taxes!," stay after class for detention.

Well, that's not fair. They call for legalizing casinos, closing "tax loopholes," and getting more money from Washington (under the theory that "why shouldn't the people of the other 49 states bail out our asses from our own stupidity?"), and -- note the delightfully evasive language here -- "show greater openness to new revenues if they became necessary to sustain Commonwealth Care."

Anyone who doesn't read that as "raise taxes," you get an extra detention too.

And then we have this delightful editorial lamenting Hamas' habit of promoting unity among the Palestinians by shooting those who dare dissent. This is, of course, sad, because it goes against Yassir Arafat's legacy of pushing Palestinian unity above all else, of keeping internecine squabbles below the surface and presenting a united front to the world.

Actually, this is a perfect example of Arafat's legacy. Arafat was a terrorist, a thug, a mass murderer, a thief of the highest order, and an unregenerate swine. His way of unifying the Palestinians was to say "hey, stop killing each other! You should focus on killing the Jews!"

It was Arafat who rejected the possibility of peace when he triggered the current Intifadah, and the logical conclusion of that struggle was that Israel would finally say "screw this" and just wall itself off from Gaza. And the logical outgrowth of THAT was that the Palestinians, filled with rage and bloodlust, fueled by the economic collapse of the isolation from Israel, and stuffed to the gills with weapons, would turn on each other instead.

The proper response to the situation in Gaza is not to wail and moan. It is to say "well, that's pretty much what they asked for," and sit back and let them hash it out. With luck, the worst will kill each other off and the survivors will be more peacefully inclined.

But to whitewash the legacy of Yassir Arafat (pardon me while I spit) into anything but the status quo is laughable -- at least it would be, if it wasn't so blood-soaked.

Finally, we have a glimpe of sanity from the Boston Globe. A lot of people (myself included) have been wondering just why in hell John Kerry is bringing back up the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, and the damage they did to his presidential campaign. At the time, Kerry didn't bother to answer their charges. Then he tried to tell everyone that their charges had been refuted, but kind of skipped over the part where he proved them wrong. Then he let the deadlines for legal redress slip, one by one.

But recently he decided he'd take T. Boone Pickens -- one of the early Swift Boat backers -- up on his public dare: if anyone could convincingly refute a single one of the Swift Boat Veterans' charges, Pickens would hand over a cool million dollars.

Like a lot of other people, I wondered why Senator Waffles Gigolo would give Pickens' grandstanding such prominence. Could Kerry's second heiress wife be cutting back on his allowance, and he needs the money? Has he finally convinced himself of his own bullshit? Does he think that just saying "they're all bogus" would constitute a successful refutation?

Well, it took the Boston Globe, of all sources, to provide the answer. It seems that John Kerry is up for re-election next year. In 2002, he was unopposed both in the primary and the general election. But this time it's different -- Kerry has at least one likely challenger for the Democratic nomination.

Losing the presidency wasn't that big a deal to Kerry -- he still had his Senate seat. But this time it's his very life he's fighting for. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that very few people will have very much interest in Former Senator Kerry.

Poor John Kerry, always behind the times. He fought most fiercely about Viet Nam from the day he left until November of 2004. And now, as he's facing his greatest political threat ever, he finds himself re-fighting the 2004 presidential campaign.

Remember, folks, this is Massachusetts we're talking about here. The Democrats hold both Senate seats, all the House seats, all the statewide elective offices, and over 85% of each house of the Legislature. Their universal health care plan -- being touted as a possible national model -- is barely a year old and already $150 million in the hole.

This is what you get when you give that much power to one political party.

You asked for it, Massachusetts. Enjoy it.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/25563.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Week In Mass. Insanity:

» Pro Cynic linked with Willie Horton II

» Joust The Facts linked with Another Canadian Writes About Healthcare

Comments (12)

Kerry isn't fighting for hi... (Below threshold)

Kerry isn't fighting for his life; he's fighting for his ego, which is larger and much more vulnerable. Should he lose his Senate seat, he might need to marry a third millionairess to shore up his waning fortunes and self-esteem.

Say, has anyone ever seen John Kerry and Anna Nicole Smith in the same place at the same time?

I thought perhaps Kerry was... (Below threshold)
wolfwalker:

I thought perhaps Kerry was out to prove once and for all that the "Republican attack machine" was wrong about him, thus blunting any attack the "Republican attack machine" might stage against the FemSlug in the general election next year. But on further consideration I decided a plan that subtle is beyond his mental reach. I think you're right -- he's just worried about his own re-election next year.

FRY HIM IN OLD SPARKY and B... (Below threshold)
Spurwing Plover:

FRY HIM IN OLD SPARKY and BENCH THAT JUDGE THROW DUKAKIS OUT OF POLITICS AND EXPOSE KERRY AS THE SOFT ON CRIME LIBERAL DEMACRAT HE IS
depp=true

So now we know why Hanoi Jo... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

So now we know why Hanoi John is making a splash about proving the Swiftboat Vets wrong, which he can't without proving Nixon was in the office of POTUS, before he was in the office of the POTUS.

The Mauck murders have upse... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The Mauck murders have upset a lot of people around here in the Puget Sound over the complete and utter senselessness of them. Apparently Tavares killed the Maucks over a $50 debt that Brian Mauck apparently owed him. He shot Brian in the face and then, while he lay face down on the floor, Tavares shot in the back of the head. Beverly Mauck apparently witnessed the shooting and when she tried to flee was shot and killed. Tavarez dragged her body over and next to her husband's.

Apparently Tavares was so enraged he kicked in the panel of the Mauck's front to gain entry. Think about how hard you would have to kick a door, even a cheap one from Home Depot, in order to dislodge and take out a panel of it.

Here's video link to the Mauck murder story. You can even see where the panel of the door was kicked in later on in the piece.

Washington state is no stranger to disgusting pond scum like Tavares--we are, afterall the home state of serial killers like Ted Bundy, Gary "Green River Killer" Ridgeway and Robert Lee Yates--but just what in the sam hell the state of Massachusetts was thinking in letting this asshole out is mindboggling.

I hope the victims' parents sue the crap out of the state of Massachusetts.

A lot of tax revenue from M... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

A lot of tax revenue from Mass. and the other "have" states makes its way to poor shithole states. People in "have" states (a.k.a. Blue states) don't seem to mind so much, as they keep electing liberal Democrats who have no intention of dramatically slashing income taxes, and I never hear any Blue staters bemoaning their wealth being transferred to shitholes that need it more than they do. Of course hicks in the shithole states and their defenders on Fox News will bitch and moan about Taxachusetts as though its politicians are spending their beer money, but it's easy to tune them out.

And $150 million? I hope you did your best Dr. Evil impression right after typing that. It's not very much money. Well, it would be for one person, but divided amongst tax payers in Mass., it's not. And you fail to demonstrate that the money was wasted, as opposed to the initial financial forecast simply being inaccurate. But what the hell is it to you? You care more about taxation in Massachusetts than people there do, Jay Tea. If you think you're making a point about what a hypothetical President Romney would do to the country as a whole, that's kind of dumb as Romney will never win the presidency. The only Republican polling in Clinton's neighborhood is Giuliani, and he clearly has no chance against her political machine.

You should get cable, or a library card, and find some inspiration for more interesting blog posts.

Ignore hyperbole... he is a... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Ignore hyperbole... he is an idiot and should be pitied.

hyperbole,Fictional ... (Below threshold)
Corwin:

hyperbole,
Fictional detective Nero Wolfe was chastised by a murder suspect for using your form of certitude.He replied,"No,Sir.I spoke of an overwhelmingly likely probability as an accomplishe fact.We all do that."
But Wolfe was a genius.You've given no evidence of such.My critiques of your points.1)It's a 150 M INCREASE over thew projected costs.That's a "Danger ,Will Robinson."I will be interested in state officials who will guarantee their won't be more increases need3d.(And any sightings of Passesnge pigeons,Tasmanian tigers and dodos)
2) No one is able to project the presidential winner at this point.If you're so discerning who's winning next year's Series?The Cubbies?
3)The criticism of Romnet is he based his program on the way I'd like things to be,not How They Are.That's a Democratic tendency.I don't want a President who avoids problems

Odd, I don't seem to rememb... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Odd, I don't seem to remember state taxes getting redistributed to to other states...
Either my memory is faulty or Hyperbolist is talking out the wrong orifice. I'll go with the latter.

JT, a few thoughts,<p... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

JT, a few thoughts,

Kerry would not have a problem if he actually did some work in the Senate. If a camera is not present, you can find him in the game room playing fooseball. 20 years in Congress/Senate with no legislative record means you have to one again... talk about your Vietnam service record... you at one time denounced.... but took exception to other people denouncing... which you are defending... four years later.

I always remind liberals that, considering Hitler was able to eliminate 1/3 of the world's Jewsih population in 5 years and kill/pillage millions of other European civilians over the same period, would kind of imply that Germany probaly did not have many dissenters of Hitler living affluent lifestyles in the arts, at state funded schools, and the media. If one were to criticize Hitler, not over policy disagreements but for being a murderous/genocidal/thieving dictator, they would probaly die... quickly if they were lucky. Or they would be sent to the living hell of the concentration camps.

When people criticize Bush, they get talks shows, talk show spots, awards, book deals, tenure as universsity faculty.

The failure to see the distinction says more about them, than it does about Bush

hyperbolist where do you co... (Below threshold)
cubanbob:

hyperbolist where do you come up with such moronic nonsense? Since the federal government is running a deficit and doing so every year since 1932 (yep even under Clinton, you have heard of the mandatory fed purchase of US debt by the s.s administration) so what is exactly your point? The stupid blues get back "more" than what they kick in in receipts as does the rest of the union. And they get plenty of fed spending as well plus states like Texas and Florida that pay more proportionately in fed income taxes as they don't have state income taxes to offset to offset their individual adjusted gross incomes.

To bad the families of the murder victims can't sue the piece of crap judge that let that garbage out along with the state of Massachusetts for depraved indifference along with punitive damages for good measure.

A bit OT, but am cross post... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

A bit OT, but am cross posting this comment here as the whiners on Blue may delete it.

Lee was dancing a little happy dance because John Howard lost re-election in Australia yesterday. He forgot that Howard served for four terms, the second longest serving Prime Minister in Australian history. But nevermind that.

His three commenters were rhapsodizing on how Kevin Rudd would pass the Kyoto Protocol (nevermind that Kevin claimed a couple months ago to want the same things the US wants before passing Kyoto, but, again, nevermind that).

My response to the boys follows.
____________________________________________________

Do you little boys here know how to actually read yet?

Didn't think so.

You keep blaming Bush for not ratifying Kyoto. So tell me something.

The Kyoto treaty was signed by one Albert Arnold Gore Jr. on December 11, 1997. The Clinton Administration didn't end until January 20, 2001. By my math, the Clinton Administration had a bit more than three whole years to ratify the treaty.

(Oh, and yes, the Senate was still held by a Democrat majority, and the Congress' Republican majority was weakened in the 1996 elections.)

So if Billy Jeff had three years to get the treaty ratified by the Senate before he left office, why didn't he do it?

Hmmm.

Looks like you have one Senator Robert Carlyle Byrd (D-WV) to blame.

You know, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (one of those silly little "Sense of the Senate") thingys.

Oh, yeah, that.

I believe the vote was 95-0 allowing the Senate to resolve the following (emphasis mine):

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

Say what you want about Bush, but at least more often than not, he stands by his convictions. Your silly little Clinton got this "Sense of the Senate" resolution given to him five months prior to the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, and he didn't do a damn thing about it.

Clinton never once so much as even attempted to submit the Protocol to the Senate for ratification in those three years before he left office.

NOT ONCE.

At least Bush has been looking for ways to follow the spirit of Senate Resolution 98 of the first session of the 105th Congress for some years now, instead of just sticking his head in the sand like Clinton did, regarding tangible progress in the area of climate change.

So grow up, and get over it already.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy