Quick Hits: Law & Order Edition

• Thanks a lot, Sen. Larry Craig (R - Idaho) - Because of him I have altered my stance. Seriously, my new public restroom stance is still in the top secret development stages. But I can tell you the finished product will be narrow. A narrow mind is sure to follow. I'm also wearing skinny shoes so as not to risk accidentally bumping feet (or in Craig's case, accidentally knocking boots) with anyone else in the public restroom. And anything I drop on the floor of the can is staying there from now on. Scratch that. Anything I've ever dropped on the floor of a public can has stayed there. I am a borderline germophobe, when it comes to public restrooms. No business card I've ever had has been worth picking up from the floor of a public can, considering the germ potential. One time I picked something up that I'd dropped on a public restroom floor - a $20 bill. And, crazy as it sounds, I immediately took it to the sink and washed it w/hot water and that slimy pink bathroom soap. Then I used one of those hand driers on it. I'm nuts, I know. But my money was clean after that. Anyway, even if I drop money again, I won't be picking it up. I don't even want to know what a twenty on the floor means on the underground senatorial bathroom hookup circuit.
• Being stupid can be as much of a "habit" as eating and sleeping - Once again, I say it's a good thing that 17-year-old Nick "Hogan" Bollea, son of pro wrestler Hulk Hogan is OK, following his horrific car wreck from a week or so ago. Can't say the same yet, for his passenger, an Iraq War vet who remains hospitalized over the wreck. But this wire story confirms what I posted to my blog early last week: The kid has a speeding problem and has been stopped repeatedly driving like someone was chasing him. Take away his car keys, please!
• iPhones - This isn't about crime in the traditional sense. But if you bought an iPhone prior to this week, if you were one of those people who camped out on the sidewalk for several days in advance of the phones' June release, if you were one of those people who looked to the iPhone to be the new be all and end all, I have one thing to say to you: You got robbed! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Sorry. That was mean. But I had to get it out of my system.
• The crime of blowing smoke - Let me say first that Miami has plenty of nice, clean, scenic places to spend time. OK, it has several. But for the time being Downtown Miami isn't one of those places. So the folks who are tasked with making Downtown Miami appear to be a desirable place have come to the conclusion that what ails the neighborhood is vowels. Not just any vowels, but "Os," specifically the Os in d"o"wnt"o"wn. So now the new Downtown Miami logo will likely read in part, "Dwntwn Miami." Well, that did it for me. Before, I didn't want to hang out in Downtown Miami, because my rickety knees - and lately, rickety ankles - made me not want to hurdle the homeless laying across the steam grates in the sidewalk. I also didn't want to do it, because of the lack of reasonably-priced parking, the poop-smell that sometimes permeates the street outside the one "upscale" department store that graces downtown, the gauntlet of real, professional, needle-tracked hos (not as some chat hosts believe, college basketball players) you have to pass through on some downtown sidewalks. Oh, and let's not forget the crack heads who I have seen with my own two relatively good eyes cleaning their pipes on the Metro Mover trolley that circles downtown. Phew. I am relieved, because I am certain that Dwtwn Miami will be nothing like Downtown Miami. The riffraff, including the hos, will leave the neighborhood along with the Os, I'm sure. I see Dwntwn Miami in a whole new light...and smell.

Michael Vick is a skinny blond addict

It's official now, or will be in a few days: Michael Vick is guilty. Sort of. So feel free to bash him now.

He's poised to cop pleas next week to some wrong doing, but in the usual manner curiously reserved for people who can afford the best attorneys, it appears he won't actually have to plead guilty to the worst of what he was accused of - dog fighting, dog murder, etc. It looks like he'll get to plead to something like conspiracy, and violating interstate commerce laws, etc.

Maybe he'll get a year-and-a-half in prison, maybe a little more, maybe less. One thing's for sure. He'll serve a lot less time than if he wasn't rich and famous and hadn't had the best lawyers arguing on his behalf. The rich and famous part wouldn't be as relevant if it wasn't tied to the best (meaning high-priced) lawyers part. But who are we kidding? It would have been refreshing to see him step up and say "I did it. I didn't think about the harm, the foul, etc. But I did it. I allowed dog-fighting and executions to go on on my property. I watched the fights. I gave money to finance the fights and back the gambling element of it....I was wrong. No excuses. I'll take my lumps." To be fair though, in his position I guess I'd have tried to get a deal too. I'm pretty sure I'm not noble.

So anyway, Michael Vick has become Paris Hilton. Actually he has become Nicole Richie. Lindsay Lohan. He is rich and famous and has managed to secure a fraction of the punishment his behavior calls for. He has become another symbol of irresponsible privilege getting away with "murder." What the hell? Do you have to eat a live baby on a plate made from endangered elephant tusks to actually get a substantial punishment if you're young, rich, and famous in this country? If I ever decide to misuse the great pimp-slap of justice I'm either gonna go to Los Angeles to do it or I'll try out for a pro sports team. That way I'll be assured at least a ticker tape parade on my way into jail and on my way back out an hour-and-a-half later.

Thank God I'm unable - and unwilling to try - to picture Michael Vick in high heels, drunk, with a breast accidentally falling out of his shirt, or a drawerless butt cheek peeking out from under his skirt, or crack rocks falling out of his pocket, or crashing his car into a tree, or speeding with his lights off the wrong way up a one-way street.

But he is now a member of the sisterhood. He is a Lohan, a Richie, a Hilton. Even after he gets out of prison (if he goes). I'll never look at Vick the same again, because he'll look like a skinny blond woman to me.

How offended is too offended?

Finally, here is definite evidence that jail is apparently meant to be one of the worst places on earth, behind Hell, a smoldering pile of tires at your local municipal dump, and possibly East St. Louis, on the top 10 list.

I'm kidding. I'm sure East St. Louis is a fine, fine representative of the Illinois experience.

Anyway, I will assume you visited the link above, at this point. If you didn't though, here's the rundown: An inmate in the Broward County (Florida) Jail was convicted yesterday of misdemeanor exposure of sexual organs and sentenced to 60 days in jail.

What does exposure of sexual organs mean? In this case, "handy" self love. If you need further explanation, you don't deserve to eat fresh food or look both ways before crossing the street.

Now, this guy was "no saint (ha ha, pun intended)." He is a violent weasel, who is already serving a 10-year sentence for an armed robbery conviction.

But a female deputy at the jail saw him on video surveillance loving himself in his cell, more than 100 feet away from where she sat in a control room.

She was offended by what she saw. She said other inmates are a little more private about their self love. So this inmate was charged. A jury convicted him on the premise that his jail cell is not a private enough place to make self love in the open an acceptable act. He now has two months more to serve, in addition to the 10-year robbery sentence.

I am all for punishment. I say they should have locked him up twice as long for the armed robbery. But prosecuting this sort of act almost seems mean. Or am I nuts for thinking so? I mean, better he loves himself than a cellmate, right?

Besides, jail cells are semi-public places, a standard the jury considered in convicting this guy. Having worked as a jail counselor in the past - in my pre-reporter days - I can assure you that what you see on TV of jail cell toilets is accurate. Any inmate who uses the can does so in a sort of public manner. It can't be helped. There are no doors. So their naughty bits are bound to show sometimes. If a deputy happens to look up at the security monitor and see an inmate taking it out to relieve himself, the deputy will still see it. So is seeing it worse when the inmate is enjoying it than when he's whipped it out to perform a chore? Inmates lose rights and privileges when they get locked up. They should. On the flip side of that, when you sign up for a job "watching" convicts behind bars, I'm thinking you might see a few things you wouldn't see while working in a cubicle in an office tower somewhere.

But seriously, at what level of offense do we draw the line? So a college kid gets arrested for disorderly conduct for picking a fight at a bar. He's in the drunk tank. He and another inmate start chatting. The kid swears like a sailor in his conversation. A religious deputy overhears him and is offended by the cursing. Will that deputy be able to issue additional charges for public profanity or even more disorderly conduct? You're sitting on the phone at a sidewalk cafe, describing to your best buddy your sexual prowess from an encounter the night before. It's certainly distasteful. But what if a passing police officer hears you and gets offended - can he arrest you and recommend you be charged for being disorderly?

I understand that jail is not supposed to be fun. But, funny and absurd as this incident might be, this conviction bothers me.

Crime and cliches

Greetings, folks. Hope the weekend has been good for you so far.

I spent Friday running/driving through heavy rains and hanging out with the Pac-Man world record holder (first person to ever get a perfect score in the game - story coming in Tuesday's paper). I spent Saturday morning vegetating with Mrs. B and doing a little book shopping. Saturday evening I caught up on my news reading - Miami Herald naturally, the Virginian-Pilot, my home town paper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, my last employer, the Wall Street Journal, a couple of gossip Web sites (my guilty pleasures), and a news industry news site.

Catchin' up on my reading is what brings us to this post.

I've flip-flopped for years on whether or not "Crime does not pay" is really a true statement. I could give you dozens, maybe hundreds of examples I saw as a crime reporter of criminals making big money. Granted, in many cases the profiteering criminals eventually got locked up or killed. But for a time, their behavior did pay.

Part of it is perception. If the casual observer believes crime pays, then that notion takes on sort of a legendary quality. I once wrote an article about drug dealer profit in which former, failed dealers acknowledged that when they calculated the amount of money they made, the hours spent, and the physical effort made to sell drugs, their hourly wage came to about what they'd make flipping burgers in Mickey D's. Same article: A kid - 5-years-old, if I remember right -was hit by a car in front of his house in Milwaukee. When emergency workers went to remove his clothes to check for injuries they found a baggie of white powder in the boy's sock and got police involved. The powder turned out to be baking soda. When all the adults involved asked the boy later why he'd put a bag of white powder, baking soda, in his sock he answered that he'd seen the older boys doing it in a park near his home. So he thought it was the thing to do.

Take this guy. Crime probably paid for him here and there over the years. Unfortunately for him, the well dried up late last week.

And this guy. A city councilman in my old stomping grounds, accused of shaking down business owners in his district and conspiring with two other men to assault another guy. I understand "innocent until proven guilty," but if the charges against the alderman turn out to be true then crime once paid for him. Not anymore.

So I read about these two and I think of another cliche about crime being difficult. You know, like "pimpin' ain't easy?" Seriously, I am the biggest goof when it comes to making jokes about pimps, even though I know they're bad. But even I'm smart enough to know that the reason criminals keep going back for seconds, and thirds, and so on is 'cause crime is easy. Taking a chance on dealing drugs, robbery, burglary, or worse, is no different philosophically than gambling money. And if you place a low value on your life, maybe gambling money means more to you than risking your life and freedom committing a crime. So many criminals become repeat offenders, because even after they're caught and sometimes punished they see their prosecution/incarceration as simply a bad roll of the dice or a bad draw from the top of the deck. And they figure the odds are in their favor for the next roll.

You know what's not easy? Brain surgery. That isn't easy. Rocket science isn't easy. Tying bow ties evenly isn't easy. Keeping poison toads out of your koi pond isn't easy. Getting out of bed to go to a legit job every day isn't easy. Restraining yourself from sticking a size 12.5 boot in the behind of the idiot kid who bumps his eardrum-shattering stereo as he drives past your house isn't easy. Not choking the crime-enabling rich guy cruising a poor neighborhood looking for a weed dealer, because he doesn't want sidewalk pharmacists doing business in his nice neighborhood isn't easy. Being a good spouse or a good parent isn't easy. Being a good friend isn't easy. Breaking a sweat to help a stranger isn't easy. Just doing the right thing isn't easy.

But each of these things - except the boot-in-the-behind and the choking of the drug buyer, 'cause you could land in jail too for assault - pays way more than criminal behavior and with much greater currency than just money.

Till Sunday evening, peace and hair grease.

Why politicians bite so much

Let's turn our imaginations on high for a moment.

Remember what we used to say as kids when we lost a foot race to another kid wearing new Nikes or Pro-Keds? "His shoes made him run fast." It wasn't that he was a fast kid, who happened to have new shoes. It was the shoes that gave him the speed, we thought.

OK, now try this one on: Let's say that I have detected a pattern of single family homes catching fire in the ABC neighborhood. Not every home in the area catches fire. But among those that do, the result of the fires has been that each flaming house was doused with water, which caused severe water damage to each property.

Do you (A) demand an investigation into why houses in the ABC neighborhood are suffering so much water damage? Or do you (B) demand to know what all the damaged houses have in common that causes them to catch fire, and why it is that some houses in the burn zone are unscathed?

Please, please, please tell me your answer is "B." But sadly, if your answer was "A" you are not alone.

A few weeks ago in my former home state of Wisconsin, Gov. Jim Doyle formed a panel to study and investigate why so many state prison inmates are black and why the numbers are disproportionately high to the state's black population.

I'm not naive. I know that this country has had a history of unbalanced sentencing for criminal behavior. I know that there are people in jail today in some places who might have gotten probation for certain offenses if they'd been sentenced in other places. One need only turn to New York City in the mid- to late 1980s to see how crack or rock cocaine dealers were sentenced to lengthy, mandatory prison sentences, while powder cocaine dealers were sentenced to significantly lighter punishments. I know that the criminal justice system has treated black males more harshly in many places than white males who commit the same crimes.

It's not a felony matter. But I remember in college being pulled over by a cop (a black cop, not that it matters) who ordered me to pull what he said were illegal custom tint panels off my tail lights and headlights. I later fought it and won, 'cause like I'd tried to tell him my tint panels had been made to state specs and were very much legal. Anyway, I cut my fingers to shreds pulling those things off my lights. But my alternative at the moment, the cop said, was to leave the panels on and he'd have my truck towed. Fast-forward a couple of weeks. On the same strip of road I'm riding in the passenger seat of a buddy whose vehicle has illegal limo-tinted windows - so dark, it's like they're painted black. After scolding my buddy for the tint, the officer sent us on our way.

The answer, folks, is not to lighten one group's punishment to even things out. If Fred got away with murder, and Joe got 20 to life for murder, don't let Joe go. Give Fred 20 to life and put him in the cell next door to Joe.

But another answer lies in what we study and investigate about the commission of crime. Sure sentencing disparities bother me. But it bothers me even more that so many young guys are doing things that get them locked up in the first place.

I'm sure Gov. Doyle means well with his panel studying sentencing disparities. But I'd much rather see a panel studying why so many young men test the criminal waters at an early age, what are they missing at home, who and what are influencing them as children, what value systems are they being instilled with? I want a related panel to study the kid in a depressed neighborhood who doesn't do crime, and instead gets good grades and goes to college.

I want to see fewer young men end up in gated communities. But it's even more important that before they even get inside we make sure they and their parents have AND use the tools they need to develop a strong sense of right and wrong and good and bad and to be productive and stay on the right side of the law.

OK, I'm done. That's my grandfatherly rant for the day.