Hitting bottom

There was a time when Don Cannon was one of the most popular television personalities in Pittsburgh. The longtime news anchor, whose tenure here was marked by troubles with alcohol, is in hot water again. Cannon was a longtime newsman at WTAE before an embarrassing onscreen meltdown in the mid-90s ended his career there. He relocated to Philadelphia but returned to Pittsburgh a few years later to work as an anchor and reporter at KDKA before losing that job a couple of years ago following a pair of drunken-driving arrests in the South Hills. Cannon subsequently relocated to California, where he was supposed to serve his house arrest and probation sentences for convictions on the two Western Pennsylvania DUI charges. But Allegheny County authorities say he failed to do so, and Cannon was picked up Tuesday by police in the San Diego area. He also reportedly faces a new DUI charge in California. I understand that some people have problems with alcohol that they can’t control, but those people are well aware of their problems, and some of them still make a conscious decision to drink and get behind the wheel of a car. In Cannon’s case, he did it multiple times. I can sympathize with a person who makes a one-time mistake, gets pulled over and blows a .08. And I give young people a little bit of slack, because I remember (barely) being a young and irresponsible kid, myself. I don't mean that young people should not be held responsible if they violate the law, but I have some understanding of their actions. However, I don't understand it when a 69-year-old man doesn't have the good sense to drink at home.

Unenlightened rogue

This won’t come as much of a surprise, but I won't be among the huddled masses trying to get Sarah Palin to scrawl her name for me inside her new book at an event Saturday at the Sam’s Club in South Strabane Township. For one, I generally try to avoid that entire traffic-challenged plaza. Second, I think Palin is a jackass. But there no doubt will be throngs of people lining up to get a coveted wristband that will make them one of 1,000 people who will get Palin's signature on a copy of "Going Rogue." As best as I can recall, I only have two books signed by an author, and they’re two cookbooks by the same chef/writer. If Christopher Hitchens came to town, I'd probably get in line to have him sign my copy of "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." Other than that, probably not. I'd like to hear from folks who do plan to attend Saturday's event. I have two questions: 1) What is it that attracts you to Palin? and 2) What makes you think she'd be a good president? Don't waste everyone's time by telling us all the horrible things Obama is doing. Stick to making a case for Palin as a leader of the Republican Party or even its next candidate for the White House.

Big Brother debate

A borough in suburban Philadelphia is debating whether to install surveillance cameras in public places in an effort to catch lawbreakers. It brings up an interesting debate. Opponents of the move claim it could be an infringement on civil liberties, but supporters see it as a way to cut down on crime. I tend to believe that if you're a law-abiding citizen, you really have no need to fear the cameras. We already have them in stores and at ATM machines, among other places. Private citizens position them on their homes to keep an eye out for those who might do them harm or take their property. Even the O-R has them for security purposes. It's not as if the cameras proposed by Newtown Borough would be peering into people's homes. Does anybody see a problem with this that I'm not recognizing?

Windbag of change

Lou Dobbs has called it quits at CNN. On the rare occasions when I came across his show while flipping through the channels, he struck me as a pompous windbag – and another kind of bag that I won't mention here – but since I don't watch any of the talking heads on the TV news networks, I can't say that his departure will leave a hole in my viewing lineup. For those who also pay little attention to the pontificators of evening TV, Dobbs was initially a business journalist at CNN, but he gave his own career a boost when he decided to refashion himself as the Howard Beale of the anti-illegal immigrant movement. He also gave credence to the birthers, those dimwits who are convinced that President Obama was born in Kenya or Winston Churchill’s basement or the Planet Zoltron – pretty much anywhere but Hawaii. Dobbs hasn't announced his plans, other than to say that he intends to chase new opportunities and be a leader in the "national conversation." I wouldn't be surprised to see him run for public office, and I have a suggestion: Dobbs should try to reclaim for the Republicans the House seat they just lost in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. Then he could mount a campaign to stop those darned Canadians from swimming across the Saint Lawrence River and stealing the Zamboni-driving jobs of good, honest Amurkuns.

Pre-existing issue confronts Dems

Alexander Burns of Politico wrote an interesting piece http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29393.html about how a flare-up of the abortion issue has affected the current push for passage of health-care reform legislation. The crux of the story is that Democrats are finding themselves split over what restrictions, if any, should be imposed on abortion funding in whatever health-care bill emerges from Congress. The centerpiece of this clash is an amendment offered by Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak and approved by the House that would, essentially, prevent money from being spent on abortions through a proposed national health insurance exchange or a public-option plan. The real question is, should the government be in the business of paying for abortions? While I would never support a complete ban on abortions, I don't see why the government, or any insurance program connected to the government, should be paying for them. I wouldn't object to coverage of abortions in the case of rape, incest or threats to a woman's health, but I think it's highly distasteful for the government to have a role in providing abortions to people who use the procedure as birth control, often because they were too stupid, lazy or irresponsible to take precautions against pregnancy in the first place. At the same time, I could make the argument that people's tax money is used all the time for things they oppose or object to on moral grounds. For instance, I think the proposal to spend $300 million to build a maglev people-mover at Cal U. is ridiculous. And I've been sickened by the horrible waste of Americans' tax dollars to finance the war in Iraq. But no matter what abortion-funding restrictions are included in the health reform legislation, women will still be able to undergo the procedures. They just might have to dig into their own pockets to do so, and abortion-rights advocates can feel free to help those who are short on funds.