CHRISTMAS, MMV
           Due to the upcoming Christmas holiday, readers of
           the Rice Report get a bonus double feature this
           week.  I hope you enjoy them.
                               ---
                    SOCCER MOMMIE'S COMPLAINT
      
      Aren't you surprised?  Aren't you outraged?  George Bush
      and the "evil" NSA have been spying on the public!  What
      horrors!  Am I just being my sarcastic self?  You betcha.
      
      Folks, I got news for ya.  The horse left the barn about
      89 years ago, and your outrage is a day late and a bit
      more than a dollar short.  And the barn door ain't about
      to git shut.
      
      Ever withdraw 10 grand or more from your bank account?
      Uncle Sammy knows all about it.  Under the guise of 
      preventing a mythical crime known as "money laundering,"
      banks have been required to report all such withdrawals,
      or all such requests for money orders, to the FBI for
      at least the last l2 years.  Is that spying on the public?
      you betcha!  So, tell me, Mr. and Mrs. Sanctimonious
      Suction Pump, where was your outrage when that was enacted
      into law?
      
      Ever change your banking habits from one week to the next?
      Uncle Sammy knows all about it.  Under the guise of 
      preventing money laundering (again) Congress enacted the
      "Know Your Customer" program in the late 90s.  Banks are
      required to work up a profile of your transactions and
      then report deviations therefrom to ... that's right, the
      FBI.  Is that spying on the public?  You betcha!  So,
      tell me, where was your outrage when that was enacted into
      law?
      
      Ever buy a postal money order?  Well, Uncle Sammy knows
      all about it.  Under the guise of preventing money
      laundering (again) Congress enacted the "Under the 
      Eagle's Eye" program in the late 90s.  Your local post
      office is required to report all "unusual" transactions
      you make to the FBI--including money orders.  So, tell 

      me, Soccer Mommie, where was your outrage when that became
      law?
      
      Did you use a telephone during the crazy days of the 
      l980s?  Well, Uncle Sammy knows all about.  In one form
      or another, some version of project Echelon has been 
      screening the phone calls of U.S. and other citizens
      world-wide since at least the early l980s.  Is that
      spying on the public?  You betcha.  So, tell me, 
      Soccer Mommie, where was your outrage in the crazy 80s?
      
      Remember that census form that more than 75% of you
      willingly filled out 5 years ago?  Did you tell Uncle 
      Sammy how many people lived in your house?  What language
      they spoke? The number of your bathrooms? Computers?
      TV sets? Bedrooms?  Telephones?  Is that spying on 
      the public?  You betcha.  But guess what?  You gave 
      it all up for free, Soccer Mommie!  In fact, it's my
      guess that if Uncle Sammy came to your front door and just
      asked for the transcripts of your telephone calls, the 
      same 75% of you would willing give that up, too--
      Soccer Mommie!
      
      Would you tell your next door neighbor how much money 
      you make?  No, of course you wouldn't, Soccer Mommie.
      But every April l5th you tell Uncle Sammy the intimate 
      details of your financial intercourse that wouldn't 
      even come up in pillow talk with your paramour.  And
      you're worried about Uncle Sammy hearing the details of 
      your B.S. telephone calls to ... whom?  Your mother-
      in-law?  Huntin' buddies?  Girl friend(s)?  
      
      Compared to what you've already given up to Uncle Sammy,
      your B.S. telephone calls wouldn't rate a millionth of
      a Nielsen point on a cancelled reality show.  Oh, and
      most of you make your B.S. cell phone calls where I,
      and the rest of the world, can hear them, anyway.
      NSA is just recording what you already give away--freely.
      
      so, Soccer Mommie, shut up and get a reality check.  

    
      People who help build the glass houses shouldn't complain
      about the stones ... let alone the voyeurs.
                              ---
      
      TOOK, TOOK, TOOKIE DON'T CRY; TOOK, TOOK, TOOKIE, GOODBYE!
      
      Poor Arnold--Schwarzenegger, that is; he took a lot of
      heat last week, primarily for doing the right thing,
      which was letting the law run its course on Stanley 
      "Tookie" Williams.  CNN (the communist News Network, for
      those of you who are out of the loop) had any number of
      reasons as to why Arnold did what he did.  Firstly,
      there was Arnold's desire to be seen as a "tough" 
      governor.  Secondly, there was Arnold's desire for 
      rapproachment with his alienated Republican base.
      Thirdly, there was Arnold's desire to recoup his loses 
      after the his failed ballot initiatives (although, 
      how executing "Tookie" would have recouped anything was 
      never explained).  Fourthly, was Arnold's desire to
      appear tough on gang crime rampant in southern California.
      
      Yes, CNN had any number of reasons Arnold was so mean
      to "Tookie," except, as usual, the right one.  And what
      was that you might ask?  Well, simple, ... "Tookie"
      deserved it.  That was one thought that never crossed 
      a news desk.  Let's review the record.  
      
      Not long after founding Murder, Inc., otherwise known as
      the Crips, "Tookie" went on a mini crime spree.  He
      robbed a convenience store and murdered the clerk with
      a shotgun.  If anything's an assault weapon, a full bore
      l2 guage shotgun is.  For close quarter combat around the 
      neighborhood it would be my favorite.  "Tookie" would 
      later laugh about the incident as he imitated the 
      the screams of the clerk as he was blasted to kingdom
      come.  
      
      "Tookie" then went to a motel.  He robbed that, too.
      The motel was run by a Chinese family, mother, father,
      and daughter.  All three got the business end of

      
      "Tookie's" shotgun.  He exterminated an entire family.  
      When his little crime spree was over, "Tookie" went back 
      to his day job as CEO of Murder, Inc..  That alone 
      should have merited him the death penalty.  Of course,
      it didn't.
      
      Finally, the law caught up with "Tookie" and after 
      spending nearly thirty years on death row, guess what?
      "Tookie" reformed!  And, how did that happen?  Well, he
      became a regular Dr. Seuss, writing children's books
      about the evils of joining gangs.  A Swiss college
      professor even nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize,
      just like Jimmy Carter!  Oh, there's no parallel here
      at all, and I don't mean to imply that there is one.
      After all, Jimmy Carter's gang--the Democrats--are far
      more practiced and successful at extorting and robbing
      the public than the Crips ever could be.  In fact,
      compared to left-wing politicians, the Crips are just 
      pikers.
      
      Some people might find this comparison insulting.  In
      that case, let me take this opportunity to apologize to
      the Crips.
      
      But, back to "Tookie's" "reformation"--it's a strange
      animal, is it not?  On the one hand his lawyers and 
      faithful supporters vehemently proclaim his innocence,
      on the other they say he's "reformed."  If he's innocent,
      what has he reformed from?  Writing bad and useless 
      children's literature?  And if he's reformed, then,
      of course, he wasn't innocent to begin with.  It's a 
      blatant enough paradox that even my students can 
      understand it.  
      
      Actually, "Tookie's" "reformation" is irrelevant to the 
      case at hand.  suppose Dr. Seuss became successful for
      writing children's books, then went on a murder spree.
      Later, he returns to his old ways, tired of a life of
      slaughter.  We certainly wouldn't excuse Dr. Seuss his
      trepasses, so why excuse "Tookie" just because he 

      
      becomes Dr. Seuss?
      
      Suppose Jimmy Carter--who actually won a Nobel Peace
      Prize--suddenly goes on a murder spree AFTER winning
      the prize.  Now, does the prize have any weight in 
      determining the penalty?  Of course not.  For that
      matter anybody can nominte anybody for a Nobel prize.
      "Tookie's" lawyers just searched the world for someone
      who would be foolish enough to do it.
      
      Or, look at it another way.
      
      I give one of my slovenly students the "F" he so richly
      deserves.  Twenty years later he comes to me and claims
      a) he's reformed, and b) he's been nominated for a Nobel
      prize.  Therefore, I should change his grade of twenty
      years earlier.  Clearly, it's a non-sequitur.  (I have
      no doubt that this is actually going to happen to me 
      once I've been teaching long enough.)
      
      No, the point is not about reform.  The point is about 
      giving someone what they deserve based on what they've
      earned.  Reform is beside the point.
      
      Arnie did what he did not for political facade, but
      because it was the right thing to do.
      
                             --M.A.Rice