There's Backwards and there's . . .
There's Backwards and there's . . .
In this issue:
In what has to be one of the more interestingly-timed cases of the year, Maryland prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli (you can email him at mdosp@loyolanet.campus.mci.net. Go ahead, and tell 'em who sent you.) has decided to go ahead with a grand jury to look into the details surrounding Linda Tripp's testimony of Monica Lewinsky. Montanarelli swears that bringing the case has nothing to do with the 49 state Democrats signing a petition ordering him to do so.
What I find interesting about this state's law is the boundaries it carries. Think about it: the idea behind the statute is to protect the person at the other end of the conversation that is unaware of the taping. It doesn't matter that the person being taped resides in Virginia or Washington, D.C. They're still subject to the protections of Maryland law, even if they never set foot in the state. One might think that it would then come under federal jurisdiction for crossing state lines.
Oh, that's right. There isn't a comparable federal statute. And if there is, Tripp would apparently have immunity from it in exchange for testimony. So what's left for them to look at in Maryland. Maybe Linda should mention her bad back and see it the judge throws it all out.
Return to Table of Contents.
There is one word that is spoken the same in the Spanish-speaking nation of Puerto Rico as it is deep in the heart of the Midwest. That word is No. That word should be spoken to every member of the U.S. Senate as it prepares, without much fanfare or debate, to make Puerto Rico the 51st state.
What would Puerto Rico as a state mean: a poor state with half the tax revenue as our current poorest state, more welfare than Illinois, a state with 25% of its population currently on disability, a state where the current average income is so low that not working is a much better alternative.
You get a state with its own language and culture -- like Quebec, not that Canada's ever had a problem with them.
You also get a state with either 7 or 8 Representatives in Congress, most likely Democrats to help provide even more social welfare.
What's more surprising about this is that its being spearheaded by the likes of Al D'Amato. What's up, Al? Do you really believe that this will help you score votes in the next election? Does the rest of the GOP believe that P.R. will elect Republicans if they stand for this boondoggle? Why shouldn't they go Democrat if, say, Clinton puts a Hispanic on the Supreme Court?
(The kicker to this is that polls have shown that it might make a tenth-of-a-point difference in the Hispanic vote, not the overall vote, for D'Amato to back this. I guess Al's looking for a nail-biter.)
Call or write your Senators about this. Tell them you know, and they can't pass this quietly. Don't email them! They ignore that. They need physical paper taking up space in their office, and lots of it.
This page is Copyright 1998, Christopher J. Burke. All rights reserved.