SeaViews: Insights from the Gray Havens  May 2001 (formerly the _Rochester Rag_, formerly the _News from Detroit_) Motto: The surest way to get a reputation for being a trouble maker these days is to go about repeating the very phrases that the Founders used in the struggle for independence. -- C.A. Beard Editorial: email Steve Anon ftp site News Archives Standard disclaimers apply. In addition, the author makes no guarantees concerning the grammatical accuracy of his writing. Submitted text files must be in raw or compressed (.Z, .gz or PK Zip) ASCII. Image files must be in raw or compressed (see above) GIF89 (or older). On last month's Fix; the answer to last month's Fix, "Should pregnant mothers in jail be aloowed to keep their children when born?" is I actually had an instinctive "yes" answer when I first heard this question - proving that even I am not immune from knee jerk emotional liberal outbursts. My thought was that having a kid would bring out maternal instincts and cause the women to mature - increasing the chance for rehabiliatation. But then I watched an interview with a mother of three, pregnant in jail with her fourth, who was a repeat cociane dealer. She claimed, "But ah jis know havin this chile is gonna change my life." Yeah sure. Tell it it the judge baby.   On, it's good to be the King; In April, my lovely bride got an interesting letter from the U.S. Department of Education office of postsecondary education.  It was with regard to her student loans.  Now, it turns out that we overpaid. As a result, we were owed a refund. It came in a form letter. "Dear Sheryl: the department has discovered that you were over charged on your student loan account.  You were charged a greater amount for collection costs that was allowed by the loan agreement.  The amount of the over charged is $2.16. If your account was already closed, he will receive the check for this amount (if it was over five dollars), if you follow the instructions below...." Then follow a list of 12 steps of instructions necessary to get your refund.  However, because the amount that we are owed is less than five dollars, the US Dept of Eduction will not actually send us the refund. Two days later, we had a similar letter from her other student loan, this one for $3.50. I called  the U.S. Department of Education and pointed out that if we added the two different amounts together we would exceed the five dollar threshold.  I was informed that was not legal to do. Do me a favorr, tell  the IRS this year that if you pay them, but under pay by five dollars, you'll write them an IOU that you will never actually honor.  Let me know how that goes. It's good to be the King.   On the Change in the Senate;  Much has been made in the past week (May 25) about the conversion of Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords from Republican to an independant - mainly about how the Senate is now in Dem control, and that this will derail the Bush legislative agenda. However, I'd like to remind everyone of some things. [Note: some pundits are claiming the Senate is now 50/50 with one independant. There are 50 states. 2 senators per. Do the math.] First, the Dems still don't have a clear majority. The Senate was 50 R/49 D and one indepedant, now its 49 R/ 49 D and two independants. During the January changeover to this new Congress, majority leader R Trent Lott inked a deal with Minority leader D Tom Daschle that there would be a power sharing agreement for committees chair-ships. That deal was to last throughout the 2 year duration of this Congress unless there was a clear majority change. There has not been - nevertheless - Daschle is seeking to reneg the deal and have sole Dem control of all committees. So we have yet another example of the Reps stupidly trying to play nice, even when they had a majority, and the Dem leadership renegging on deals and calling a tie a majority. This behavior should surprise noone. Second, the Bush tax cut bill passed the Senate last week 63/37, and the Senator from Vermont was one who voted against it. So how will his defection affect the Bush agenda? Finally, several years ago Dem Senator Phil Gramm became a Rep. Did he fool his voters and change clothes once elected? No. He announced his conversion, resigned, and stood for reelection as a Rep. to give his voters a chance to change their minds. The Vermont senator does not have that class. On earthquake painting; Those of you with physics training know what a Foucoult Pendulum is. Imagine the bob has a needle on it that sweeps over a bed of sand. Then imagine an earthquake occurs. Goto the following site to see the result. http://www.earthquakerose.com/   On Life on Bainbridge Island; The press has its paparazzi, the educated its illuminati, and  avid readers its literati.  On BI, we have what I like to call the pretentiatti. That is, people who assume they are great simply because they reside here. Not only do they assume they are great, but that their possessions are too - this extends to housing values. To whit - our landlord is selling our house out from under us and is asking $320K for a 1500 square foot home on 2 acres. Now this may not sound as absurd to you as it should, until you look at the history of the pricing of this house from 1990 forward.     year sold price percent increase/year 1990 $158,000 baseline 1994 $173,000 2.4 1997 $188,000 2.9 2001 $320,000 17.5 So you say, "But Steve, maybe the realty market is that hot on BI?" Well, a recent article in the paper shows that tax assesments on the island are within 10% of sale value, and based on tax records our house is assessed at $198K, so it should sell for $218K. When I offered that to our landlord for the place, he sighed deeply and acted insulted. Similar reactions from other rental and for sale properties all over the island. So the upshot is, in a couple of months Sheryl and I will leave the lovely view that we currently enjoy, and head for uncharted waters further west of Seattle. But, I digress. The real message I want to leave here is the following survey which is also online supposedly at www.artshum.org/ppolls.html. As you look at the dichotomy between people here and the rest of the US, you will come to realize that not just California is the land of fruits and nuts.   Page updated 5/31/01. The Way We Live Now Poll Results This poll was based on a nationwide survey of 1,003 adults conducted for The New York Times Magazine in May 1999 to shed light on the inner lives of Americans: their beliefs, senses of identify, values, satisfactions, and anxieties. The Bainbridge Island results are compared below to The New York Times results to determine how closely Bainbridge Islanders fit the national mold.   Age: Under 30 30-55 over 55    2 67 31 Gender:   Female   Male     68 32        A. Morality 1. Do you think what is shown on television today is less moral than American society, more moral, or an accurate reflection?   less more accurate not sure     Bainbridge: 53 4 30 13     USA: 49 9 37 8     2. Do you agree or disagree with the following: The growing income gap in American is morally wrong.   agree disagree not sure       Bainbridge: 66 21 13       USA: 49 43 8       3. When a child (under 18) does something unlawful, do you think his parents should be held responsible in some way?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 69 11 20       USA: 70 17 13       4. Do you think grown children have a moral responsibility to take care of their parents?    yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 77 18 5       USA: 90 7 3       5. Do you think all people start out inherently good?    yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 60 21 19       USA: 73 22 5       6. Do you think that those who get to the top in society tend to be less moral than others?    yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 27 56 17       USA: 39 54 7       7. Do you agree or disagree with the following: Lying is sometimes necessary, especially to protect someone's feelings.   agree disagree not sure       Bainbridge: 64 29 7       USA: 60 37 3       8. Have you ever cheated, even a little, on your taxes or business expense accounts?   yes no         Bainbridge: 47 53         USA: 15 85         9. Do you think immoral thoughts are okay, as long as they don't lead to immoral actions?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 75 15 10       USA:  51 42 7           B. Identity 1. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Being an American is an important part of who I am. agree disagree not sure       Bainbridge: 75 18 7       USA: 98 8 1       2. Do you think America was a better place when people had a stronger attachment to where they lived and didn't move around as much? yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 54 30 16       USA: 61 30 9       3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: It is possible in America to be pretty much who and what you want to be. agree disagree not sure       Bainbridge: 61 29 6       USA: 85 14 1       4. How important a role did your religion play in making you who you are today? large role  some role small role  not sure     Bainbridge: 31 29 38 2     USA: 48 31 19 2     5. How important a role did your race play in making you who you are today? large role  some role  small role  not sure     Bainbridge: 39 41 16 4     USA: 29 29 42 4     6. How important a role did your education play in making you who you are today? large role  some role  small role        Bainbridge: 75 20 6       USA: 50 34 16       7. Did the amount of money your parents had influence who you are today? yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 70 26 4       USA: 39 59 2       8. Do you think that the amount of money you have will influence (or has influenced) who your children turn out to be? yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 72 20 8       USA: 46 51 3       9. Which do you think shows more of who you really are: your role at work or your role at home? work home do not work outside home       Bainbridge: 32 49 19       USA: 17 75 8           C. Intimacies 1. If you got married today, would you expect to stay married to that person for the rest of your life? yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 85 5 10       USA: 86 11 3       2. Do you think a marriage between two people of the same sex should be legal?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 78 8 14       USA: 28 62 10       3. Are you absolutely certain that your partner is faithful to you?   yes no not in a relationship       Bainbridge: 78 11 11       USA: 86 10 4       4. Do you sometimes still think about your first teenage love?   yes no not until I read this question       Bainbridge: 67 20 13       USA: 59 40 1       5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: It has become harder to find true love in today's society.   agree  disagree  not sure       Bainbridge: 33 47 20       USA: 61 32 7       6. When a society becomes very open about sex, do you think people enjoy it less?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 12 58 29       USA: 37 51 12       7. As long as you are faithful to your partner, do you think it is okay to fantasize about having sex with someone else?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 77 8 15       USA: 46 48 6       8. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Compared with satisfying work or friendship, sex is overrated.   agree disagree not sure       Bainbridge: 63 31 8       USA: 62 30 8       9. Are you satisfied with your sex life?   yes no not sure I have one       Bainbridge: 56 29 15       USA: 75 1 9           D. Spirituality 1. Do you think you are more, less, or about as religiously observant as your parents?   more  less about as        Bainbridge: 18 48 34       USA: 21 29 50       2. Do you believe in some kind of an afterlife?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 55 26 19       USA: 81 12 7       3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: The best religion would be one that borrowed from all religions.   agree disagree not sure       Bainbridge: 59 24 17       USA: 42 45 13       4. Have you ever meditated or practiced yoga?   yes no         Bainbridge: 57 43         USA: 69 31       5. Have you ever made a decision based on a horoscope or a fortuneteller?   yes no         Bainbridge: 13 87         USA: 9 91       6. Do you follow any religious practices because it is better to be safe than sorry, or do you firmly believe in your religious practices?   safe  believe not sure       Bainbridge: 5 61 34       USA: 13 72 15       7. Do you usually pray in the hope of a reward, without hope of reward (i.e. to honor your god), or do you not pray at all?   with hope of reward without hope of reward do not pray  not sure     Bainbridge: 14 43 38 5     USA: 35 45 16 4   8. Have you ever prayed for something bad to happen to someone else?   yes  no not sure  did it work?   Bainbridge: 8 87 2 3   USA: 7 91 2 0   9. If you believe in hell, do you personally know someone who you think will end up there?   yes no not sure, but hopeful      Bainbridge: 10 53 28     USA: 38 53 9         E. Satisfactions 1. Would you keep your present job if your salary were cut 25 percent?   yes no not sure/don't have a job     Bainbridge: 52 27 21     USA: 31 55 14     2. If you suddenly had three extra hours in the day, how would you spend them?   work  friends  family self not sure   Bainbridge: 3  18 33 33 13   USA: 7 11 65  13 4   3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: Most people who have children lead richer lives than do people without children.   agree  disagree not sure     Bainbridge: 47 36 17     USA: 63 29 8     4. What is the main reason that you participate in a civic activity such as voting or community service?   satisfying not sure right thing to do no time/don't participate not sure   Bainbridge: 53 44 2 1   USA: 34 44 19 3   5. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I wish I got more credit for what I do and who I am.   agree  disagree  not sure     Bainbridge: 37 52 11 11     USA: 48 50 2     6. Do you ever daydream about being famous?   yes no I am famous  Not sure   Bainbridge: 45 44 11 0   USA: 32 60 0 8   7. In measuring your success in life, do you place more importance on money than you normally admit to?   yes no not sure     Bainbridge: 36 57 7     USA: 34 65 1     8. Are you more likely to have negative feelings such as sadness, anger, or loneliness on weekdays or on weekends?   weekdays  weekends  both  equally not sure     Bainbridge: 22 10 47 21     USA: 38 23 15 24     9. Do you measure your professional success primarily in terms of how much money you make?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 9 86 5       USA: 19 79 2           F. Anxieties 1. What is the biggest stress in your life?   love life family job pressures time pressures  money  not sure Bainbridge: 8 14 7 43 24 4 USA: 8  18 23 19 22 10 2. Do you think you weigh too much, too little, or just about right?   too much  too little  about right       Bainbridge: 56 1 43       USA: 46 6 48       3. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: It bothers me sometimes that my life did not turn out as I expected.   agree  disagree  not sure       Bainbridge: 37 59 4       USA: 35 63 2       4. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I still feel guilty about a some things I did when I was young.   agree  disagree         Bainbridge:  43 55         USA: 53 47       5. In the past month, have you been awakened by a nightmare?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 31 66 2        USA: 21 79 0       6. Have you talked at least once to a therapist or counselor about a problem?   yes no          Bainbridge: 76 23         USA: 33 66       7. When you hear about a shooting at a store or office or school, do you worry that such a thing could happen to you or someone you love?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 61 37 2       USA: 72 25 3       8. Do you personally know someone who has tried to commit suicide?   yes no not sure       Bainbridge: 71 24 5       USA: 51 48 1         On big time profits with Prudential; For those of you who thought you could not make money in a bear market, look at the following and eat your hearts out. Guest Editorial: William F. Buckley, Jr. May 27, 2001 The Humble Patriot You need only know Jim Jeffords to trust his motives, I've heard it said (three times) in 24 hours. This gives a little advantage to those who don't know Jim Jeffords, because some of us do not trust his motives.     If he is trying to cast himself as an Emersonian individualist, he fails. "Jeffords, and Fellow Vermonters, Emphasize Tradition" was one headline. Individualists care naught for tradition; they care for their conscience. Most of us believe in the supremacy of conscience, but the question before the house, if inquiring about the purity of Mr. Jeffords' motives, is: What was it that triggered this geological shift in conscience?     In his statement on Thursday he reported that he had "serious, substantive reservations about the budget" and that he anticipated disagreeing with the president on "very fundamental issues -- the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment and --" And ? And what on earth else? Whippoorwills? "And a host of other issues, large and small."     Anyone who has served as a Republican congressman and then senator for 27 years has had plenty of time to get the swing of things under the GOP banner. True, under President Clinton, Jeffords voted 75 percent of the time on the Clinton side of divided issues. But that long endurance as a member of the Republican Party would have given him, one assumes, time enough to discover irreconciliable institutional differences some time before May 24, 2001. What was it that so suddenly pushed him over the brink?     His followers tell us that he is not a trivial man. Therefore we must rule out the failure of the White House to invite him to tea when a fellow Vermonter got an award as the catalytic agent of his disaffection. He was reputedly annoyed by his exclusion, but surely big men don't let an annoyance engender a political revolution.     He didn't agree with the budget. But the tax-cut part of the budget was reduced from the $1.6 trillion President Bush campaigned for over a period of six months. That reduction, to $1.35 trillion, was in part the doing of Sen. Jeffords himself, which substantiates that he was having an influence of his own on GOP policy. Why didn't he complain last November that the budget was a sundering difference between him and Bush?     Differences on the judiciary? So Mr. Bush opposes abortion -- but unlike Bill Clinton, has never said he would be governed in his nominations to the judiciary only by solidarity on that subject. Missile defense became a national objective 18 years ago under Reagan. Clinton backed the idea, though not expansively. How was Jim Jeffords affronted by the White House's proceeding with a policy for which Bush had fought as a national candidate? What is it about Bush's energy policy that explains a dissolution of lifelong party ties to the GOP?     And -- before we forget -- just what are the "host of other issues, large and small" that made continued life as a Republican unthinkable for him?     What is dishonorable about the event is the clear exercise of what I dub the "skyjacker's leverage" -- one man pulling out a pistol in a crowded airplane. You don't argue with what he tells the pilot. What Sen. Jeffords did, holding the one critical vote, was an act of consummate democratic infidelity. It is one thing to cross the aisle to plead your case for association with the other political party, building that case and aiming to seek validation in a general election. Jeffords didn't do that. He coasted along as a Republican without any significant complaint before, during and after Bush was nominated and elected.   Then the histrionic challenge loomed. Whee! Jim Jeffords has the power to reorient the entire political composition of the U.S. Senate, with changes in the leadership of committees that preside over health, defense, human services and justice. A man of greater moral responsibility would have declined self-gratification of this kind: submitting his case to deliberative democratic processes; giving his own constituents an opportunity to weigh his case, and others their case; and, indeed, the president, his.   But the story told us nothing more than that to some people temptations are, if not irresistible, irresistible to the second-class among them. "Those who don't know me may have thought I enjoyed the limelight," he said in his press conference. "Nothing could be further from the truth." Jim Jeffords just hates the limelight, but good, brave, loyal soldier that he is, he'll just put up with it, in the service of his ego. William F. Buckley, Jr. is editor of National Review, a TownHall.com member group. Letters: Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:59:50 -0500 From: dhgay@uswest.com To: sglanger@Oakland.edu Subject: RE: lastcall     [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]     [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]     [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ] Steve,  "Should pregnant mothers in jail be aloowed(sp?) to keep their children when born?" What does this have to do with Jefford's defection from the Republican Label? Was he born while his mother was in jail? I'm afraid that I have to take the "moderate" approach to this issue. I don't think we could come up with a fixed rule about women in jail keeping their children born in jail. I would take this on a case by case basis. There will be times when it is in the best interest of the child to be put up for adoption. There are times when it is in the best interest of the child to be raised by his/her mother even if she is a convicted felon in jail. The best approach might be to say that she can't and allow the mother to appeal to a judge and present her case for keeping the child. If she can't convince a liberal judge, then she probably wouldn't be a good mother. Or you could do it the other way and make the State prove that she is not fit to be a mother to her child. I don't think the first approach violates the mother's rights since she is already a convicted felon (in jail for more than 9 months). Once you are convicted, you no longer have the same rights that a law abiding citizen enjoys. However, the justice system seems to give convicted felon's more rights than ordinary citizens (WJC for examples). Dave Gay Quote(s) of the month: this month we have several, courtesy of Liberals that until January defended Bill Clinton to their last breath. "Snake oil pitch man.   I hope they get him criminally." -- Ed Koch, former Democratic mayor of New York City, quoted in the New York Times. "  When the stench of his corruption started to rise around him and with the press and politicians screaming foul, Clinton thought of a ploy : I will seek refuge around my Negro friends.  Harlem here I come." -- Greg Kane, liberal reporter for the Baltimore Sun. "Is clear now that we have made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Clinton is unfit for public office.  Had she any shame, she would resign." -- editorial in the New York Observer " Disgraceful" -- Jimmy Carter, on the Mark Rich pardon, quoted in Washington Times. "Outrageous" -- Barney Frank on the Mark rich pardon, quoted in the New York Times. "The Clintons are terribly self absorbed... everywhere they go, they leave a trail of disappointed, disillusioned friends and staff members to clean up after them." -- Hamilton Jordan, Carter chief of staff,  in the Wall Street Journal "The Clintons are a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they have betrayed everyone who has ever believed in them. Since neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but to turn their backs on them." -- Bob Herbert, liberal editor for the New York Times. "I feel sometimes defending President Clinton is like being in the Mafia -- I just can't get out.  You know, I feel like Michael Corleone. How to I get out of this business?" -- James Carmel, quoted on Fox TVs O'Reilly factor. Fix of the month: thanks to Sheryl for this idea "Should politicians be allowed to be elected under one party, then change parties in office without standing for reelection (as Phil Gramm did when he went from Dem to Rep)?" News: California; 1.  May 20: Gov. Grey Davis claims that Reliant Energy of Texas, one of the suppliers from which California is buying electricity, is price gouging the state of California.  Gov. Davis makes this claim because the normal price per megawatt is 30-40 dollars whereas Reliant is charging over $1900 per megawatt. Joe Bob Perkins, CEO of Reliant, explains the reasons as being related to the clean air act. "What many people may not be aware of is that there are many power plants that we cannot run on a day-to-day basis because they're emissions did not meet EPA clean air requirements.  When California asked for more power than we could produce with  clean systems, we had to activate the coal fired plants that we are only  licensed to operate eight days per year.  We have now been running them for several weeks straight and face continuous fines from the EPA.  We're passing the costs of those fines onto the state of California.  If Gov. Davis has a problem that, he should call his friends at the EPA.  Unlike power producers in the state of California, in Texas we cannot sell electricity at a loss."     Michigan; 1.  April, Gaylord: patent enforcement has reached a new low.  Jam maker JM Smuckers is suing the tiny Michigan based Albie's Foods for the rights to market the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Lookup patent 6,004,596 at www.uspto.gov/patft and you'll find: "A crustless sandwich: ... where a first bread layer having a first perimeter surface coplanar to a contact surface and wherein said first filling is comprised of peanut butter and a second filling is comprised of a jelly..." Smuckers claims that they invented the concept of "Uncrustables" first and a competing product by Albie's called the EZ Jammer is an infringement.   Maine; 1.  In April 30: Maine legislator Joseph Brooks, a Democrat, has proposed a nickel per butt deposit on cigarettes.  That's on top of taxes that already totaled $1.26 on cigarettes. Given 20 cigarettes per pack, the total tax on a four dollar pack of cigarettes will be $2.26. Smokers will be able to claim their deposits by depositing the butts in automated counting machines and bottle return areas.   Washington D.C. 1.  April 30: A consortium of asbestos companies are now suing the big tobacco companies. The asbestos industry has already lost a large class action lawsuit initiated by their employees, who sued that the union member workers died in the plants from white lung disease, a condition that management was fully aware of. Asbestos managers now seek to recoup some of their losses, claiming that asbestos inhalation by smokers causes exponentially more illness then asbestos inhalation alone.  Further, they claim that blue-collar workers were unfairly targeted by tobacco advertisements. 2.  April: the current issue of Geophysical research letters claims that principal means of gathering data about air surface temperatures above the ocean has error rates on the order of 40 percent. While scientists have used weather station instruments to measure land-based air temperatures, they've had to rely on ships water temperature  logs to make an extrapolation of the air temperature above the water. It turns out that the relationship between water and surface air temperature does not follow the simplistic model which has heretofore been used. The upshot?  As the London telegraph reports, global warming claims have been made based on false data.   3.  May 1: A  new rider has been attached to the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform act" (alternately, "the incumbent protection act"). In addition to restricting the amount of money that a candidate could spend to purchase air time, the new rider would prevent candidates from a creating new spot ads within two months of the election day. What this would essentially do is prevent a candidate for responding to false allegations in the days leading up to the election.  For instance, if an opponent should happen to get free time on a TV interview show, they could make numerous false statements.  The attacked candidate would not be able to spend money to refute the claims, and so would have to rely on a free interview from the local media to respond.   Net News; 1. These are called Darwin Awards, but since nobody died in them I'm confused.   >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 9 >> > > > Yankton, South Dakota: A woman was arrested at her >> > > > step son's Boy Scout meeting. While watching a >> > > > policeman demonstrate his drug dog's ability, the dog >> > > > found a bag of grass in her purse. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 8 >> > > > Colorado Springs: A guy walked into a little corner >> > > > store with a shotgun and demanded all the cash from >> > > > the cash drawer. After the cashier put the cash in a >> > > > bag, the robber saw a bottle of scotch that he wanted >> > > > behind the counter on the shelf. He told the cashier >> > > > to put it in the bag as well, but he refused and said >> > > > "Because I don't believe you are over 21." The >> > > > robber said he was, but the clerk still refused to >> > > > give it to him because he didn't believe him. At >> > > > this point the robber took his drivers license out of >> > > > his wallet and gave it to the clerk. The clerk >> > > > looked it over, and agreed that the man was in fact >> > > > over 21 and he put the scotch in the bag. The robber >> > > > then ran from the store with his loot. The cashier >> > > > promptly called the police and gave the name and >> > > > address of the robber that he got off the license. >> > > > They arrested the robber two hours later. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 7 >> > > > A woman was reporting her car as stolen, and >> > > > mentioned that there was a car phone in it. >> > > > The policeman taking the report called the phone >> > > > and told the guy that answered that he had read >> > > > the ad in the newspaper and wanted to buy the car. >> > > > They arranged to meet, and the thief was arrested. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 6 >> > > > San Francisco: A man, wanting to rob a downtown Bank >> > > > of America, walked into the branch and wrote "this >> > > > iz a stikkup. Put all your muny in this bag." >> > > > While standing in line, waiting to give his note >> > > > to the teller, he began to worry that someone had >> > > > seen him write the note and might call the police >> > > > before he reached the teller window.So he left the >> > > > Bank of America and crossed the street >> > > > to Wells Fargo. After waiting a few minutes in line, >> > > > he handed his note to the Wells Fargo teller. She >> > > > read it and, surmising from his spelling errors >> > > > that he was not the brightest light in the harbor, >> > > > told him that she could not accept his stickup note >> > > > because it was written on a Bank of America deposit >> > > > slip and that he would either have to fill out a >> > > > Wells Fargo deposit slip or go back to Bank of >> > > > America. Looking somewhat defeated, the man said >> > > > "OK" and left. The Wells Fargo teller then called >> > > > the police who arrested the man a few minutes later, >> > > > as he was waiting in line back at Bank of America. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 5 >> > > > >From England: A motorist was unknowingly caught in >> > > > an automated speed trap that measured his speed >> > > > using radar and photographed his car. He later >> > > > received in the mail a ticket for 40 Pounds and a >> > > > photo of his car. Instead of payment, he sent the >> > > > police department a photograph of 40 Pounds. Several >> > > > days later, he received a letter from the police >> > > > that contained another picture...of handcuffs. >> > > > The motorist promptly sent the money for the >> > > > fine. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 4 >> > > > Drug Possession Defendant Christopher Jansen, on >> > > > trial in March in Pontiac, Michigan, said he had >> > > > been searched without a warrant. The prosecutor said >> > > > the officer didn't need a warrant because a "bulge" >> > > > in Christopher's jacket could have been a >> > > > gun. "Nonsense," said Christopher, who happened to >> > > > be wearing the same jacket that day in court. He >> > > > handed it over so the judge could see it. The >> > > > judge discovered a packet of cocaine in the pocket >> > > > and laughed so hard he required a five minute >> > > > recess to compose himself. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 3 >> > > > Oklahoma City: Dennis Newton was on trial for the >> > > > armed robbery of a convenience store in district >> > > > court when he fired his lawyer. Assistant district >> > > > attorney Larry Jones said Newton, 47, was doing a >> > > > fair job of defending himself until the store manager >> > > > testified that Newton was the robber. Newton >> > > > jumped up, accused the woman of lying and then >> > > > said, "I should of blown your (expletive) head off." >> > > > The defendant paused, then quickly added, "If I'd >> > > > been the one that was there." The jury took 20 >> > > > minutes to convict Newton and recommended a 30-year >> > > > sentence. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 2 >> > > > Detroit: R.C. Gaitlan, 21, walked up to two patrol >> > > > officers who were showing their squad car computer >> > > > felon-location equipment to children in a Detroit >> > > > neighborhood. When he asked how the system worked, >> > > > the officer asked him for identification. Gaitlan >> > > > gave them his drivers license, they entered it into >> > > > the computer, and moments later they arrested Gaitlan >> > > > because information on the screen showed Gaitlan was >> > > > wanted for a two-year-old armed robbery in St. Louis, >> > > > Missouri. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > RUNNER-UP # 1 >> > > > Another from Detroit: A pair of Michigan robbers >> > > > entered a record shop nervously waving revolvers. >> > > > The first one shouted, "Nobody move!" When his >> > > > partner moved, the startled first bandit shot him. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > THE WINNER >> > > > A Charlotte, NC, man having purchased a case of very >> > > > rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against >> > > > fire among other things. Within a month, having >> > > > smoked his entire stockpile of cigars and without >> > > > having made even his first premium payment on the >> > > > policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance >> > > > company. In his claim, the man stated the cigars >> > > > were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance >> > > > company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason >> > > > that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal >> > > > fashion. The man sued.... and won. In delivering the >> > > > ruling the judge agreeing that the claim was >> > > > frivolous, stated nevertheless that the man held a >> > > > policy from the company in which it had warranted >> > > > that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed >> > > > that it would insure against fire, without defining >> > > > what it considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was >> > > > obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure a >> > > > lengthy and costly appeal process the insurance >> > > > company accepted the ruling and paid the man $15,000 >> > > > for the rare cigars he lost in "the fires." >> > > > After the man cashed the check, however, the company >> > > > had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own >> > > > insurance claim and testimony from the previous case >> > > > being used against him, the man was convicted of >> > > > intentionally burning his insured property and >> > > > sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine. >> > > >