Stan Geiger

School Super Headed to Prison

KOTV reported, the other day, that Larry Couch---the former superintendent of Marble City schools accused of stealing a million bucks over 10 years---has copped a plea. He will pay restitution and do 3-5 years in the slammer.

There are a couple of points to be made here.

One has to do with education funding. The Marble City district, according to KOTV, has 170 students in it. It is, in other words, a dinky little rural school district in the sticks. Yet the super was able to embezzle a million frog skins for his personal use.

Statewide, there are well over 500 school districts consuming billions of tax dollars per year. The state's largest district, Tulsa Public Schools, last I saw it reported, has an annual budget that exceeds a quarter of a billion dollars. The theft opportunities boggle the mind.

Undaunted, liberals continue to scream that public education is underfunded.

Meanwhile, I read a blog entry from a local liberal a few days ago. I don't do a lot of that. But hey, a guy needs a laugh every now and then.

This fellow argued people that commit nonviolent crimes shouldn't go to prison. He said we need counseling programs for people that commit drug or financial crimes, as he bemoaned the fact that Oklahoma has a lot of people behind bars.

Okay, so what about Couch? He didn't kill anybody; he just stole a million dollars in tax money. No prison time for him? Just a wagging of the finger and a chat with a sociologist?

What about Bernie Ebbers? You remember him, the former kingpin of WorldCom that made himself one of the richest dudes on the planet by stealing from people. Financial crime. No prison time for Bernie?

The liberal argument here seems to be that I should go to prison if I crack some guy in the back of the head with a stick and steal his wallet, but a guy that wears a white collar while stealing from millions of people should get a walk.

What if I were in a park and decided to let Mr. Johnson grab some air in front of a 5-year-old girl? I haven't hurt anybody; I never touched the girl. Give me my counseling and let me be on my way, the liberals say.

What about a guy that cons a 90-year-old woman out of her life savings? He didn't beat the woman and steal her money; he just took advantage of her addled mind and talked her out of it. No prison time for that guy?

What about cooking meth? That's a drug offense, but not a violent crime. Meth cooks shouldn't be put out of business and locked up? Ever seen before-and-after pictures of a meth addict? It ain't a pretty sight.

On the drug issue, I will concede this: We have a silly attitude toward marijuana in this country, and we squander a lot of public resources because of that attitude.

I've never smoked pot. A lot of people chuckle when they hear me say that, but it's true. I have, however, been known to pull a cork from time to time. So I take no condescending attitude when it comes to dope smokers. I see little difference between intoxicating oneself with alcohol and intoxicating oneself with weed.

I can go to any number of liquor stores in town, buy a bottle of whatever, and, in the confines of my home, drink myself cross-eyed on any day of my choosing without violating any laws. But if I choose to replace my cocktails with a fatty, I become a criminal.

The ages-old argument against legalizing marijuana has to do with the weed leading to harder drug use and crime. If one follows that logic, then drinking leads to the same and should, therefore, be outlawed.

Oh wait, we tried that once. It didn't work. In fact, statistics show that in the days of prohibition alcohol consumption increased. Al Capone and Joe Kennedy made a lot of money, though.

I know people I went to high school with that have been smoking dope for 30 years. They aren't criminals. They aren't crazy. They have mortgages, kids and jobs just like everybody else. They vote, pay taxes and, on occasion. they even go to church.

If people want to smoke a little pot, so what? If people want to grow a little pot in the backyard, so what? Let's put the cops, the courts and the prison space to work on real crime.

But when it comes to real criminals, bust their asses and let them rot in a cell for all I care. Counseling will do neither them nor society any good at all.

Prisons aren't there to punish, in my view. And they aren't there to rehabilitate. Prisons exist to segregate. They are holding tanks for people that seem incapable of being decent citizens in a society. Prisons are necessary so people that are capable of living as decent citizens can go about their business without becoming victims.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving a guy a break. People make mistakes, and I'm not in favor of throwing a guy away for getting on the wrong path. I'm comfortable with cops, lawyers, judges and juries, that know the specific facts in a given case, cutting a fellow some slack, that he might get straightened out and go on with his life. But I'm sick of hearing news reports about heinous crimes committed by people that have arrest records as long as a leg and have been in and out of the system countless times.

Liberals often point to poverty as a reason for crime. What an horrible position to take. There are many hardworking, decent people that don't happen to have a lot of money. To let a criminal off the hook by playing the poverty card pisses all over them.

Besides, it's quite obvious that all crime does not come from poor folks. There are just as many filthy-rich crooks as there are poor crooks.

Ya know, I try very hard to stay away from the liberal versus conservative chatter. A good idea is a good idea; a bad idea is a bad idea. I care little about from which side of the aisle a notion comes. But, sometimes, the liberal agenda is just too retarded to ignore.

---