The gas station I normally buy from adjusted its price per gallon by about twenty cents amid the sudden panic that there would be no more gas because of Ike.  But several gas stations around South Carolina decided to take advantage of the opporunity and reportedly raise their prices above the $5.00 mark.

But now South Carolina’s attorney general is on the case.  A little-known law in South Carolina allows the attorney general to prosecute businesses for price gouging any time an emergency is declared (even in another state) by the president.  Bush declared emergencies in Texas and Louisiana last night.

This law comes into play if a commodity’s price might be affected by some sort of emergency situation, and targets businesses who raise prices too high.  There was no concrete definition provided for what makes a price high enough for prosecution, but if I owned a gas station and I raised the price per gallon by a buck or more in a single day, yeah, I’d be worried.

I suspect that for most people, the thought of someone bringing a gun into a classroom is a scary thought.

Apparently, it’s not that scary an idea for some teachers in Texas, because a small school district in Harrold, Texas has decided to let teachers and school staff members carry concealed firearms.

Just ponder that a second and ask yourself if you’d be okay with that if your child was in that classroom.

Granted, the intent of this unusual, unorthodox decision is to protect students against school shootings.  But in most cases, that’s what police resource officers are for.  Unfortunately, the school is a half-hour away from the nearest sheriff’s office, so a quick police response is unlikely.  And there are specific conditions anyone who carries a handgun must follow to the letter to minimize problems.

But if I were a parent in Texas, I think I’d be calling for a new police substation rather than gun-toting teachers.

A video game is being blamed for a real-life murder.  No, really.

A teen in Thailand is accused of robbing and murdering a cab driver — and apparently he confessed to having done so — to imitate scenes from the game “Grand Theft Auto.”

Police said the youth, an obsessive player of the video game, showed no sign of mental problems during questioning and had confessed to committing the crime explicitly because of the game.

“He said he wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game,” chief investigator Veeravit Pipattanasak told Reuters.

He wanted to find out if robbing someone was really as easy as the game depicted?  So why did he not stop at robbing him?  Why kill the person?

In cases like this, a lot of people immediately start blaming the video games.  This suspect, apparently, was a frequent player of the game.  I’ve watched a lot of television in my time, and I’ve seen lots of robberies, killings, and all other types of delinquency being committed by various characters in various shows.  You can spend about a week watching a soap opera and pretty much see a little of everything when it comes to bad behavior.

I’ve never once planned to have an affair with someone, rob someone, or kill someone, just to see if it’s really as easy in real life as it is depicted in something that’s fictional.

The next time someone says video games should be banned because they spawn such bad behavior, I want to ask that specific person if they think that they’d seriously go kill someone if they sat down and played “Grand Theft Auto.”  Really.  Would that be all it took for them?

That’s not to say that there isn’t a line that gets crossed a little too often.  But anyone who would seriously go emulate such extreme behavior has a lot more going on than just being a little too hooked on a video game; and if just being exposed to violent storylines is enough to send such people over the proverbial edge, where do the bans stop?

Do we just lock everyone into sound-proof rooms where they can have no contact with other people and no contact with any “dangerous” ideas?

After all, even the Bible contains stories of murder.

A deputy in Colleton County, South Carolina was shot to death early this morning after responding to a silent alarm at a home. The homeowner was not home at the time of the apparent break-in, but the homeowner’s son, who was also notified by the alarm company, arrived on the scene and found the wounded officer, Deputy Dennis Compton, who died shortly after 3:00am.

It goes without saying that this killing, and the continuing search for the deputy’s killer or killers, has been the big story of the day here in the Lowcountry.

At one point, I was in the feed room at my Channel 37, listening to a press conference conducted by Colleton Sheriff George Malone. At one point, a reporter asked Malone how old Compton was. The sheriff looked down at his notes and said Compton’s birthdate was 11-23-68.

I felt chills.

He was just one year older than me. One year to the day.

We never know just how much time we have, do we?

Yesterday I had to drop by a home improvement store to buy two cans of spray paint for an upcoming project. When I got up to the cash register, the first thing I was asked for was my date of birth.

Odd, I thought. But I gave it.

The cashier entered the date, then rang up the two cans.

“So why did you need my date of birth?” I asked.

“Well, that’s so they can track purchases to make sure people aren’t buying spray paint for young people to inhale.”

As I slid the credit card through the reader, I decided not to let that one just slide by.

“Well, how does having my date of birth prove one way or the other whether or not I’m buying spray paint for young people to inhale? Of the people born on the same day as me, how does it know which one I am? And if you’re just taking my word for it, how do you know that’s really even my birthday?”

He blinked at me for a moment, then smiled.  “Hey, they just gave me the rule.”

“Oh, no problem,” I said, assuring him that I wasn’t trying to be a troublemaker, but was just questioning a rule that makes absolutely no sense at all.

When I go to the drug store, I have to sign a register to buy Sudafed, which I only take when my sinuses are really acting up. But I have to hand over my driver’s license, too. So the information they’re getting is actually coming from an official ID. (Assuming it’s not fake.)

But just asking me to give my birthdate means that there’s no verification. I could make up a random date. Then just give the spray paint to some hoodlums.

With reliable information like that, it’s a good thing I’m not the type.

I was just reading the most recent edition of West Of, a local newspaper devoted to covering the West Ashley neighborhood of Charleston.  One of the stories describes how an elderly woman fell victim to a “flim-flam” scam at a local post office.

As George Carlin might say, this story is “full of things that piss me off.”

Here’s what happened, according to the article:

“The victim said she had been approached by two unknown suspects….  She said both were well-dressed, and the man was wearing attire similar to a preacher, and he told her he led a church in North Charleston.  The suspects told the victim that they had seen a man in the parking lot drop a box that contained $64,000 in US currency, and when they tried to give it back to him, he refused to take it.”

Let me pause for a second.  If you dropped a box that contained $64,000 in any currency, would you refuse to take it back?

The story continues:

“The suspects told the woman they would give her $20,000 if she would give them some money in return.”

Let’s think about this for a second:  here are two strangers, apparently church leaders, who just found money.  Why wouldn’t these characters give the money — all of it — to their own church?  (That’s of course if they were adamant about not doing the right thing, which would be turning it in to the police.)

And if they’re going to hand you $20,000 of money that isn’t theirs to begin with, and will then keep the remaining $44,000 for themselves, why would you need to give them anything in return?  If they want you to hand them $5,000, for example, why not just take this “fee” out of your “share?”

If they approached me with such a scheme, I’d say that I’d be fine with taking just $15,000…or even $10,000.  They could keep the other half of my take with my complements.

If that didn’t float their boat, they could just give me $100 and I’ll go have a hell of a nice dinner.  And they can negotiate some screwball trade with the next average Joe who walks by.

The woman, unfortunately, then handed these people almost four thousand from her Social Security check, but the suspects said that wouldn’t be enough for them to be motivated to give her $20,000.  So she withdrew more money from her bank, gave it to one of the suspects, who promptly disappeared.

But really…why would anyone fall for this?  On what level does this possibly sound legit?  Am I missing something?
Folks, please call your folks or any elderly relatives who are still alive and discuss this story with them.  If any of them say they’d go for it, you might consider making sure someone accompanies them whenever they have banking business to do.

For their own sake.

Oh, the craziness that exists in my home state of South Carolina.

Over the weekend, I visited family and friends who live in Lexington County. I was reminded of a ridiculous set of laws I had forgotten even existed. The laws in question are known as “Blue Laws” and were originally enacted to prevent businesses from opening on Sundays, to allow for employees to attend church.

Over the years, much of the state has eased or thrown out blue laws altogether. For example, in Charleston County, I can go to a Super Wal-Mart at any hour of the day or night, and buy anything they sell. (The one possible exemption to this is alcohol, but since I almost never buy even a bottle of wine, I wouldn’t know, anyway.)

While I was shopping in this Lexington County Super Wal-Mart, I noticed that sections of the store had been roped off with a single line of thin yellow rope. I didn’t really think anything about that, since most of the time when I’m in a Wal-Mart store, something is always blocked off, either for floor cleaning or restocking. I got the items I needed and proceeded to the checkouts. That’s when it was pointed out that I wouldn’t be able to buy the majority of what was in my buggy until 1:30 that afternoon.

At the time, it was 12:15.

Ironically, on my way to checkouts, I stopped and spoke to a man named Tony, who attends my parents’ church. He’s a worship leader and Sunday School teacher. He was all suited up, and clearly had come from church. So my shopping in the store at that time would have been absolutely possible even if I had attended church myself that morning.

Back in Charleston, my pastor has a great phrase for the kinds of people who would enact Blue Laws to begin with. He refers to them as “J-FARS.” That’s Jesus Followers Acting Really Stupidly.”

Does anyone believe that Jesus really cares whether I buy a pair of khakis at 12:15pm or 1:30pm on a Sunday? Wouldn’t He be much more interested in whether or not I believe in Him? (And contrary to what some overly-righteous might have you believe, you do not have to be in church every time the door opens just to do that.)

Blue Laws were never a good idea. But in this day of churches offering multiple worship times, plus the internet offering new and innovative ways to worship, they’re now not only a bad idea, but a hopelessly backward example of J-FARS.

They need to go. At once.

Can I get an “Amen?”

It could be the greatest ridiculous law ever conceived.

A law being considered in Florida would require eating establishments to make sure that there is enough toilet paper in the restrooms.  The law will also regulate the cleanliness of restaurant bathrooms, according to this article from CBS4 in Miami.

The really sad thing is that anyone who owns a business would ever need lawmakers to help them maintain an adequate supply of toilet paper.  That’s not exactly an area in which anyone should ever want to come up short.

This weekend, author Patricia Cornwell spent $250,000 for full page newspaper ads to defend her recent $1 Million dollar donation to the Crime Scene Academy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Last week, Cornwell told reporters that she decided to donate the money to help teach law enforcement officers how to handle crime scenes after being disgusted by what she saw while following police:

“I’ve seen cops walk through blood. I’ve seen them leave their own fingerprints on a window. I’ve seen bloody clothing put in a plastic bag, instead of a paper bag, so it decomposes.”

In the ads, she says this:

“What has been publicized certainly does not accurately reflect my deep respect and admiration for these hardworking law enforcement professionals.”

And she adds that her comments were directed at the general public, not police.

“I’ve been riding with the police for 30 years. I care about these people and I’m not criticizing them. Any mistakes investigators make are not their fault. Too often they don’t have the training or resources they need, which is what the donation is meant to address.”

She then complained about television shows like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, which she accuses of “misinforming people about police.” TV, she says, has led people to believe they’re helping police when they meddle with crime scenes. Of course, crime fiction in print would never do such a despicable thing, the author did not add.

I like ‘CSI,’ and I don’t recall seeing episodes that encourage people to tamper with evidence in any way. I’m pretty sure, in fact, that those people who stage evidence generally find themselves in legal hot water by episode’s end.

So if it’s really time that we “take control of our crime scenes again,” as Cornwell has stated, then maybe crime fiction of any kind should be banned universally. That way, no one would ever get a wrong idea.

Think she’d go for that?

She says TV has led people to think they’re helping when they meddle with crime scenes, and cites an instance in which robbery victims laid out index cards highlighting evidence for the police to find.

The South is known for good, down-home cooking. If it involves grease, those of us who live here are all over it. If it involves a more healthy cooking method, then we have to have a little more coaxing to give it a try. You probably wouldn’t be surprised that there are Southern states that rank at the top in obesity.

In Mississippi, a lawmaker wants to do something about that and his plan is causing lots of eyebrow raising.

Rep. W.T. Mayhall, Jr. (R) has proposed House Bill 282:

“An act to prohibit certain food establishments from serving food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health; to direct the Department to prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese and to provide those materials to the food establishments; to direct the department to monitor the food establishments for compliance with the provisions of this act; and for related purposes.”

It’s one thing for government to attempt bans on smoking in public places (which I favor) or on using dangerous trans-fats (which I have mixed feelings about). It’s quite another for government to attempt to ban the serving of food to people based on whether they are obese. In fact, there are many problems with this plan:

• All people who are obese are not necessarily so solely because of food. Some people who are borderline obese can be pushed over the scale by medication, for example. Also, a lack of exercise is also sometimes at least as much to blame as inadequate portion size.
• The solution to being obese isn’t to stop eating. Your body still needs fuel. You should certainly eat less, but if you stop eating completely, your body begins burning lean muscle tissue and fat. It’s the lean muscle tissue that you do have that helps burn the fat that you shouldn’t have.
• It has the potential to be a psychological nightmare for people who are obese and already have to fight low self-esteem. The last thing they need is to be pulled aside during an evening out with friends and be shown the door and embarrassed.
• It’s distinctly punitive. The policy wouldn’t take into account anyone who is actually making progress towards losing weight: for example, a patron who is on a weight loss and exercise plan, and who has already lost 100 pounds, but still falls just inside of the “obese” range, would be treated just the same as someone who refuses to exercise or eat responsibly. Doesn’t seem quite fair, does it?
• How do you actually measure this? One’s Body Mass Index (BMI) is a comparison of height to weight. So this means that you’d literally have to measure every person who walks in the door: you’d have to weight them and determine their height, then calculate the index. Can you imagine waiting in a line for that?
• The BMI isn’t absolute. One year ago, when I weighed 290, my blood sugar level was in the “Pre-Diabetic” range and my cholesterol was at 239, thirty-nine points into the “red zone.” But after losing 50 pounds, my blood sugar level was well into the normal range as was my cholesterol. The lipid markers all showed good readings, even though I was still technically “obese.” BMI also doesn’t take into account whether a person is carrying a lot of muscle weight or is “big-boned.” It is only a flat ratio of height to weight, and no fitness expert I’ve ever spoken with considers it the defining method of figuring one’s healthy weight.

Most BMI indexes suggest that I should weigh less than 180. Sure. Nothing would thrill me more. But I think I have an equal chance of sprouting horns. On the other hand, I have an uncle who just turned 75, who has been significantly overweight for decades. At his most recent doctor’s visit, his doc marveled at his cardiac condition, and said he has the heart of a thirty-year-old. While that may certainly be the exception and not the rule, it does happen.

There are lots of ways to encourage people to do the right thing when it comes to food. Unfortunately, this isn’t one of them. Not by a long shot.

In today’s Post and Courier, there was an interesting article about an Arizona woman who hosts Tupperware-style parties at her home, but it’s not plastics that she’s selling: her product is the Taser.

Her target customer is women who want to protect themselves from possible attackers.

There are plenty of ethical questions that can be raised about the public being able to buy Taser C2 “personal protector” weapons. The one good thing, perhaps, is that Taser requires a criminal background check before it will release the code that will actually enable the device to work.

That aside, one particular quote from the seller jumped out at me:

“Shafman says many of her female customers love that the C2 is small enough to fit in their purses and that it comes in a variety of colors. When it comes to choosing weapons, she says, a lot of women want them in pink.”

Seriously. I am not making this up. Go read the article for yourself if you don’t believe me.

We’re talking about a weapon that could disable a potential kidnapper, rapist, or killer. Who gives a damn what color it comes in? It’s supposed to save your life, not match your shoes.

Some people are so stupid.

Yesterday, Aruban police announced the arrests of Dutch student Joran van der Sloot, 20, and two Surinamese brothers, Satish and Deepak Kalpoe, who are 21 and 24 respectively, in the Natalee Holloway case.

Holloway, 18, vanished without a trace back in 2005.  While she has been “presumed dead,” there has been no definitive evidence that she actually died, and no clues as to where she may be.  The three suspects even had conflicting stories about their final hours with her, but they have never admitted anything that would indicate that they were involved in her death.

What is interesting, and it is a question I have not seen asked, is how the three men can have been arrested on “suspicion of involvement in voluntary manslaughter and causing serious bodily harm that resulted in the death” of Holloway if there is no firm evidence that she actually is deceased.

I wonder what this “new evidence” is.  And I wonder how you can truly arrest someone on suspicion of manslaughter or bodily harm resulting in a death if it hasn’t been definitively established that a death ever took place.

Here is an interesting little exercise in perception, based upon a real event recently reported by the Associated Press.  It may challenge your beliefs on a particular police practice; I hope it will also be eye-opening in terms of revealing how simple details can radically chance your impressions.

I begin with this:

Police in Chicago are investigating an officer’s use of a Taser.

How do you feel about Tasers?  I think that if they keep officers safe while subduing a suspect that is unruly, out of control, or threatening himself or others, it’s better than the police using a gun or a nightstick.  Not everything can be “talked out,” contrary to what some might have you believe.

But enough about my thoughts.  Think for a moment about the Taser.  Is it good or bad?  Are there times when the use of it is genuinely justified, particularly when its absence might result in an officer drawing a loaded firearm instead?

Got your answer?  Okay.  Let’s move to the second piece of the puzzle:

The suspect who was tasered was swinging a hammer when police arrived at the home.

A hammer, I’m fairly confident, can qualify as a deadly weapon.  If you were a cop on the scene, would a scene like this have made you consider reaching for the Taser?

Here’s the next fact:

The suspect suffers from schizophrenia and dementia, and is “easily confused,” according to a relative.

This fact, if true, would seem to reduce the chance that a peaceful solution could be reached without anyone being hurt without some kind of measure taken to subdue the suspect.  Can you reason with an “easily confused” schizophrenic?  Maybe, maybe not.

But the key point here is that schizophrenics generally do not wear signs that label them as such.  So police arriving on a scene might have had no way whatsoever of knowing that the suspect was schizophrenic and not genuinely angry or drug-crazed.

So here we come to the critical question:  based on what you know right now, would the use of the Taser be justified?

Think about it.  It’s a “yes” or “no” answer.

Got your answer?  Good.  Here’s another piece of the puzzle for you:

The suspect was a woman.

Does that change your answer?  Women are perfectly capable of packing a punch just like men.  There are women I know who I wouldn’t want to tangle with.  But I wonder if the fact that the suspect was a member of the “fairer sex” might make anyone do a flip-flop on the Taser topic.

Here’s one last little fact:

Said woman is 82 years old.  She is about 5’1” and weighs no more than 160.

I recently helped my mom with a project she was working on, and I ended up working alongside an 86-year-old (not my mom) I’d have sworn was in her early 60s at best.  Some people don’t show their age.  But let’s say that while this woman was capable of swinging a hammer in a manner that seemed threatening, is her age enough to make you say “no” to the Taser?

I’d like to know your opinion…and whether it changed as the full picture began to emerge.

Here’s a disturbing story about a child drinking bleach meant for laundry.  The article quotes police reports that claim that the child’s mom was asleep (and high on drugs) when the incident occurred.

I refer you to the second line:

“The mother has not been charged, and the 3-year-old’s great-grandmother said Thursday that authorities have blown the whole incident out of proportion. She said the child was never in any danger and was in her care when she drank the bleach.”

We’ve all drunk plenty of bleach in our time, right?  No problem at all.  Those poison control agencies that tell you to “seek medical attention immediately” are probably blowing bleach dangers out of proportion, too.