 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
Recounting my three biggest blundersMarch 14, 2007 |
March 14, 2007
Somebody recently called me a
“Bush League Bill O’Reilly.” Not quite. I’m a better
writer.
Bill and I get to pontificate in print and on air. Some wonder how we got these great jobs. While I concur with the Bush League part when noting our relative compensation, we both did stuff first that qualifies us. I’ve published over a million words in a variety of publications on everything from western history to opera. Bill worked in television network news for years. The biggest real complaint I hear is: “Do you guys ever admit you’re wrong?” I can’t speak for others, although I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly back off on occasion. For myself, I have enough bad calls to fill a book, mostly supporting a rather large gaggle of stiffs who gained public office. I’ve blown some major policy matters, too. Here are three of the biggest. Term limits I supported them, mainly because the California legislature where I once worked had degenerated into a miserable clot of political hacks. Term limits simply gave us a fresher assortment of miserable hacks. Opponents from both left and right said term limits would further empower lobbyists and an unelected bureaucracy. They were correct. I was wrong. As a result of the push for a national constitutional amendment embracing term limits, I further noted that center-right frustration with bad court decisions has many calling for a laundry list of constitutional amendments on everything from defining marriage to burning flags. A pox on that. If Jimmy Madison didn’t include it, we probably don’t need it. What is included in our current constitution is the power given Congress to restrict judicial review and ultimately to impeach judges, but having a President who would appoint better judges is the real solution. That requires enough Senators with the guts to back him up, and the reason I cannot again err and support John McCain is because he botched the entire process with his hokey Gang of 14. Calling for more amendments that need more support than 51 votes in the Senate is simply a cop-out. Death penalty I became an opponent in the 1970s when libertarian allies convinced me that government was too inept to always get it right and some innocent people would suffer. I began to change my mind when the Tyson Gang broke out of prison in the late 1970s and murdered six innocent people because government was too inept to get it right and keep them locked up. Life is a series of imperfect options. Better the rare execution of an occasional innocent than the possibility that multiple guilty parties might prey again. I find that possible because there is no such thing as a “life sentence without parole.” Legislators can change laws and future administrations can sign treaties obligating us to post-modernist theories expounded in many countries that believe everybody can be rehabilitated. There are those, who, upon finding the mangled body of a murdered child, would make their first priority finding the perpetrator and “getting him some help.” Someday one of them will get elected governor somewhere and go beyond death sentence commutations and release a horde of killers only obligated to participate in therapy sessions. Impact fees Seemed fair. I already paid for my park — the new guys ought to pay for theirs, etc. We’ve watched it long enough to observe the unintended consequence. It’s become a gravy train for local governments that actually encourages growth just to collect the fees. Like meth addicts, local governments have become addicted and will stop at nothing for the impact fee fix. Built the town already? Then start the eminent-domain process and get some new stuff built. That’s what culminated in the disgraceful 5-4 SCOTUS ruling upholding it. Approving, subsidizing and condemning based on their collection are the real results of impact fees. We who have noted the always avaricious maw of government in other matters should’ve seen it coming. |
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
