by Kevin Coupe
There were two news stories over the past 24 hours that grabbed my attention. Since I didn't want to choose, I'm going to offer both of them up this morning.
Story 1. Sherlock Holmes once said that "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
And I can remember an old teacher of mine once telling me that sometimes the first answer that comes to mind - or even the first guess - is the right one. Everything else is just dithering.
And so it seems to be in Australia, where after a quarter-century of debate, it ends up that the dingo really did get her baby.
The case goes back to 1988, when Lindy Chamberlain was convicted of murdering her daughter, though she claimed that the baby had been snatched by a wild dog known as a dingo. Chamberlain's conviction was later overturned and the story was turned into a movie starring Meryl Streep, but debate continued to rage about whether or not she was guilty of the crime.
But now, an Australian coroner has ruled that a dingo actually committed the crime ... bringing an end to the controversial case.
My mother used to tell me that patience is a virtue. But I'm not sure that's reassuring to Lindy Chamberlain.
Story 2. The Boston Globe reports that the town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, has passed a public ordinance that, among other things, criminalizes the use of profanity in public. Police will now be able to write a ticket to people who issue vulgarities outside their homes, and the ticket will result in a $20 fine.
Critics of the new ordinance say that it is vague and hard to enforce, because it does not precisely define what is profanity and what is not.
So here's the question - which law is dumber, one that makes the use of public profanity illegal, or one that makes the selling of jumbo soft drinks illegal?