REOPEN ALCATRAZ?

Reopen Alcatraz? It was closed down on March 21, 1963, by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy Sr. He closed it because it was too expensive to operate, too expensive to maintain, and it needed massively expensive renovations. It cost 3 times as much to house a prisoner there than it did in other Federal Prisons. It has been closed for 62 years, and it has not gotten any better in that time. It could fairly be characterized as a ruin. In the 1970’s it became a national park, and it is visited by approximately 1,000,000 people per year. Why Did Alcatraz Close Down? | Gray Line of San Francisco. 

If it was expensive to operate 62 years ago, it certainly will be even more expensive to operate today. If it was too expensive to maintain 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to maintain today. If it was too expensive to renovate 62 years ago, it will be even more expensive to renovate today. But it’s a supermax facility, isn’t it? It is ideal for the worst of the worst criminals, isn’t it? What was passed for a supermax prison 62 years ago doesn’t quite cut the mustard for supermaxes, or even maximum-security prisons, today. The Feds already have a supermax: USP Florence ADMAX in Colorado. It would be a darn sight cheaper to expand USP Florence ADMAX than it would to resuscitate Alcatraz. I have been in some rough maximum security Federal Prisons (as a visitor), and they exceed Alcatraz as the day exceeds the night. There is no need to reopen Alcatraz. It will be a huge money pit, the prisoners there will not be as securely encased as they will in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons, and the officers guarding them will not be as safe as in more modern maximum security Federal Prisons. 

The only reason I can think of for opening Alcatraz is so that the Administration can say, “See how tough we’re being on the worst of the worst criminals?” As a public relations ploy, it might be worthwhile to reopen Alcatraz. As a fiscally responsible act, it would border on lunacy. 

I thought of titling this post "Birdbrain of Alcatraz" as a tribute to both the Burt Lancaster movie "Birdman of Alcatraz" and the monumentally bad judgment it would take to seriously consider reopening the prison, but I'm trying to control my sarcastic streak.

DEFUND HEAD START?

Several years ago, our youngest granddaughter was enrolled in Head Start. Because both her parents worked, my wife and I would drive her to and from Suwannee Valley Four C’s, our local Head Start program. Our granddaughter was introduced to an excellent educational program, and she prospered. She developed an intense love of reading and learning, and I became known to her classmates as “Papa Bob.” Before long both my wife and I became involved in the administration of the program, and I am still an active member of the SV4C’s Board of Directors. Our granddaughter has long since graduated from Head Start and is now in grammar school, where she continues to excel academically. Head Start gave her a solid background on which to build. It does the same for many economically disadvantaged children. I knew Head Start was a good program before I became involved on the Board of Directors, but since I became a member I have gained a deeper appreciation for the good work done by the program. Since President Trump has taken office, the program has been cut back. Although no irreparable harm has yet been done to the program, his proposed budget for 2026 does not provide for the funding of Head Start. The stoppage of Federal Funding would be disastrous for the program nationwide. I ask that you write to your Federal Legislators urging that they include Head Start funding in the 2026 budget. If you feel that Head Start is a worthy program, you can use the following link to make your Senators and Congressmen/women aware of your concerns: https://nhsa.org/take-action/

WHY TRUMP WON

Rosie O'Donnell is floating a conspiracy theory that there was chicanery in the 2024 Presidential election and that an unnamed moneybags who owns the internet "fixed" the election. This is pure baloney. Trump won because Joe Biden looked like a pitiful, senile incompetent. And he hung around too long after it was painfully obvious that he was going to get trounced in the general election. Kamala Harris started her campaign in a deep hole and never could dig out of it. Had Biden stepped down at the beginning of the primary season, and had the Democrats nominated someone other than Kamala Harris, a person who who exuded competence and confidence, and looked like neither the second coming of Karl Marx nor a radical social warrior intent on cramming an ultra-liberal agenda down the throats of common people, Trump would have been spanked. In the final analysis, Trump didn't win; the Democrats beat themselves.If they can get their act together for the midterm elections, they just might take back the House and the Senate.

Back in the late seventies Lake City had a thriving chess club. Approximately twenty players met weekly at the old rec center just off Main Boulevard. I have been trying to resurrect the chess club, but the number of players is miniscule compared to what it once was. We meet at 6:30 PM every Tuesday night at Panera. You are invited.

One recurring problem we have is that an odd number of players show up, and that means that one person has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while everyone else plays. Last week I decided to do something about that problem. I invented a three-player chess game. I know there are already-existing three-player variants of chess, but I find the boards awkward. Especially when pieces are moving through the center of the board, they behave in what I believe to be un-chessic ways. 

My solution was to use the Glinski hexagonal board and put three armies in three of the six corners. We play-tested the game at our last meeting and decided that the Glinski board, with five circles of hexagons, was too small. I went home and added a sixth circle of hexagons, and I think the board is now large enough. Here is the array of the pieces on the enlarged board:

A clearer picture of how the pieces are set up can be found in this diagram:

For clarity, I have left the squares uncolored in the diagram.

The rules are as in orthodox chess, with the differences as follows:

MOVES OF THE PIECES: Instead of a rank and file, hexagonal boards have a file and two 30-degree cants. Thus, a Rook can move in three directions rather than four. The Bishop moves through the corners of the cells in three diagonal directions. The Queen combines the moves of the Rook and Bishop.

                

                 

THE ROOK'S MOVE

THE BISHOP'S MOVE

 

The King moves one cell on the file, cant, or diagonal. There is no castling. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player. The Pawn moves one cell forward on the file and captures one cell forward on the cant. The Pawn can make an optional two-cell first move. There is en passant capture. The Knight moves one cell on the file or cant followed by one cell on the diagonal.

MOVES OF THE KING AND PAWN

MOVE OF THE KNIGHT

Because there are three diagonals, the Glinski board has three different colors for the cells. For clarity, we have kept all the cells white in the diagrams.

PLAY OF THE GAME: White moves first and attempts to checkmate either Black or Tan. Tan moves second and attempts to checkmate either White or Black. Black moves last and attempts to checkmate either Tan or White. First player to checkmate an adversary is the winner. The un-checkmated player garners a half point draw.

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST NO-NO WHEN BEING ARRESTED?

In order of likelihood of making matters worse, do not:

Offer physical resistance, either violent or nonviolent.

Attempt to escape.

Refuse to comply with reasonable directives.

Verbally abuse the officer or otherwise be disrespectful.

Doing the first two have a high degree of probability of leading to physical injury, and they will certainly lead to additional charges.

Doing the third has a lesser chance of physical injury but can lead to additional charges.

Doing the last has a low chance of resulting in injury unless you are being arrested by an unprofessional police officer or an officer who has been having a bad day. It could, however, result in additional or elevated charges. If it is a warrantless arrest, it’s the officer’s decision what charge to book you under. Almost every criminal act violates a number of statutes. Copping an attitude increases the likelihood of getting booked under the highest number of charges and/or the most severe charges. There is a high percentage of prosecutors who will simply rubber stamp the officer’s charges without engaging in the requisite critical analysis.

Here are a couple of do’s:

Respectfully decline to answer questions about the charge on grounds that the answers might tend to incriminate you. You might think you can bull skate your way out of trouble, but you’ll more likely dig a hole for yourself with your tongue.

Ask for a lawyer. You’re probably not going to get one, but this should end questioning, and if it doesn’t, whatever answers you give to continued questioning are likely to be held inadmissible.

Do remember that the officer is most likely a decent human being with a family he/she would like to go home to at the end of the shift, and in this day of escalating violence against officers they can tend to be jumpy.