Cameron Triplett: Bomb threats and campaign finance

April 13, 2014 6:37:43 AM

  -

 

Bomb threats are not funny, and the explosion (pardon the pun) of threats recently is uncalled for. I listened to Mrs. McGill say that there is an option for the school or the State to sue the parents' of those convicted of threats to reimburse the entities responding for expenses. Why is it an option? It should be done every time. That just might make some parents take control of their children if they suddenly find that "Junior's" "prank" has cost them a few hundred thousand dollars. 

 

But what if the parent(s) can't pay? Put little "Junior" in an orange jumpsuit and let him pick up trash for a few hundred hours. Peer pressure works wonders. Or put the punk in front of the entire assembled school with his pants down and hands on his ankles and blister that rear. This kind of behavior wasn't even thought of when corporal punishment wasn't politically incorrect. 

 

The Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment," but when it was written floggings and hangings were considered usual and just, depending on the crime committed. 

 

Will these punishments be meted out? Don't hold your breath. The Bible says, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." Anybody wonder why America is so full of spoiled brats today? Look at people like Justin Bieber, Lyndsay Lohan, Miley Cyrus and just about every other rich and famous young person. Of course, back in the colonial days rich people could hire "whipping boys" to take the corporal punishment for their spoiled brats. It's still going on today, looks like. 

 

I agree, mostly, with Leonard Pitts that doing away with spending limits on campaign donations is destroying the "one man, one vote" rule in America. The system needs to be reformed so that all campaign donations for a particular office go to a common fund to be equally divided among all candidates. It's a little more complex than that, but that's the basis. 

 

What's worse than that is the push by some in the democrat machine to bring the Electoral College to an end without a constitutional amendment. All that has to happen is for the more populous states to vote to award all their Electoral College votes to whomever wins the most popular votes. When this happens, heavily populated liberal locations will determine who wins the presidential elections. Smaller states like Mississippi won't even have any real say-so in the process. We don't have much now because the party nominations are pretty well sewn up by the time we hold our primaries. 

 

That's something else that needs to be addressed but never will. Nobody in power wants to risk losing. Politics in America was never meant to be a career, but instead a service that patriotic citizens wished to perform for their fellow countrymen. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Those who trade their freedom for security will have neither" or something along those lines. We have got to keep politics as clean as possible, with one vote per person, and money buys votes through campaign ads. Even it up or undeserving people get elected. 

 

Cameron Triplett 

 

Brooksville