Monday, July 30, 2007


A recent study by the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based think tank, found that blacks in the Unided States are imprisoned at more than five times the rate of whites, although they make up less than 20 percent of the population. Latinos are jailed at nearly double the white rate.

In Iowa, the rate for blacks was more than 13 times that of whites. Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut incarcerate blacks at 12 times the rate of whites. In Wisconsin, our most liberal state, the rate was more than 10 times that of whites. Texas, my home state, imprisons blacks at nearly five times the rate of whites, with 667 whites and 3,162 blacks locked up for every 100,000 people in the state. Surprisingly, Georgia and Mississippi only had a black-to-white ratio of 3.3 and 3.5 respectively.

These ratios beg the question - are black and latino prisoners the victims of a white racist criminal justice system? The answer will depend on who you ask. Marxist academics, white liberals, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black activists will say these disparaging statistics are further proof that minorities in this country are the victims of white racism. Conservatives and criminologists will say that minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, hence the disparaging rates.

The Sentencing Project study concluded that these ratios "reflect a failure of social and economic interventions to address crime effectively." Marc Mauer, the think tank's executive director, added that there is racial bias in the justice system.

One can argue all day long whether the federal government, the states, and local communities are doing enough to intervene socially and economically in the plight of poverty stricken minorities and whether or not such interventions would result in a dramatic reduction of minority crime rates. The sad fact is that the poor commit a disproportionate amount of crime and a disproportionate number of blacks and latinos are poverty stricken.

School drop outs, teen pregnancies, fatherless families, drug addiction, peer pressure to join street gangs and unemployment, conditions which are prevalent among the poor, are significant factors contributing to a continuing life of poverty and a high rate of crime. Simply put, there are a lot of latinos, and even more blacks, committing a disproportionate amount of crime with the result they will end up in prisons at a greater rate than whites.

Is there racism in the justice system? I would say, by and large no. Are poor blacks less likely to get probation than affluent whites? Yes, but not because of racism. Poor whites are also less likely to get probation. Concern for the public's safety is, and should be, the determining factor as to whether or not a law breaker is granted probation.

What about the disparity in sentencing for drug offenses? Fewer whites are caught with powdered cocaine than blacks selling crack cocaine, thus there are more blacks in prison for cocaine offenses. Is this the result of racism? No, it is not. Drug enforcement agencies find it much more difficult to make cases against powdered cocaine dealers than against crack cocaine dealers. Powdered cocaine offenses take place out of public view, while crack cocaine is sold openly on every street corner in every poor black neighborhood.

If blacks are the victims of a white racist criminal justice system, how does one explain the incarceration ratios of two deep-Southern conservative states, each with a huge poor black population? If the justice system is racist, why are blacks imprisoned at less than four times the rate of whites in Georgia and Mississippi, while in almost all-white Wisconsin, a state which prides itself for enjoying good race relations, the rate is more than 10 times that of whites?

There is only one logical explanation - blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. So, one would have to conclude that, despite appearances and allegations to the contrary, the criminal justice system is not racist.

Friday, July 27, 2007


Yesterday, as I was listening to my favorite radio station, two news anchors were discussing the "court of public opinion" concerning the dog fighting indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, the murder trials of O. J. Simpson and actor Robert Blake, and the child molestation trial of Michael Jackson. They felt the public held all four of these celebrities guilty even though Vick has not yet been tried and the other three were acquitted by juries.

For the most part, the court of public opinion is molded by news media coverage and that is especailly true with respect to celebrities. There has been so much media coverage on the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that everyone has an opinion as to the character of these spoiled and pampered primadonna party animals.

Lohan, who has been in and out of "rehab" like a jumping jack, has just been arrested for DUI, Driving With a Suspended License, and Possession of Cocaine. At the time of arrest, she was awaiting trial on another DUI charge. While being searched during her latest booking, police officers found a packet of cocaine in her pants pocket. Of course, Lohan claims the cocaine was not hers.

In the Vick case, the Falcons quarterback has just pleaded innocent to charges that he, along with three others, ran a dog fighting ring for gambling purposes. It should be noted that in our country the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty at the conclusion of a trial. With all the media attention thus far, I suspect that Vick has already been convicted in the court of public opinion.

The Simpson case set a new criminal justice standard - jury nullification. Simpson benefitted from an inept team of prosecutors and a clever defense team which resorted to playing the race card. In the face of concrete evidence that Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend Ron Goldman, the predominantly black jury had already reached its decision before the presentation of closing arguments.

When the Simpson jury retired to the jury room they had already nullified the evidence. The jury just "schmoozed" around long enough to make it look like they had been deliberating before returning to the courtroom to announce their verdict of acquittal. In the court of public opinion, Simpson may be guilty as sin, but this has not prevented that creep from continuing to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous.

Robert Blake, best known for his starring role in the Barettta television series, was acquitted of shooting his estranged wife to death outside a trendy restaurant. The authorities waited a long time before presenting their case to a grand jury, wanting to make sure they had all their ducks in line. Another inept prosecution and a brilliant defense also led to an acquittal by jury nullification. Unlike Simpson though, Blake lost all of his money paying for his defense.

Weirdo pop star Michael Jackson likes to sleep with little boys. When initially investigated for child molestation, Jackson reportedly paid the parents of his victims millions of dollars to keep them from bringing any charges against him. When he was finally brought to trial for molesting one of the boys, a key witness - a previous victim - refused to return from Europe where he was living off of the hush money given to his parents.

Wacko Jacko, with his oft-reconstructed putty nose, was acquitted by a jury to the cheers of his fans. The court of public opinion is divided in this case. To Jackson's millions of fans, the moon walker can walk on water. In the United States, those who are not his fans believe he is guilty. In Europe and Asia, where heterosexual and homosexual relations by adults with children seems to be more or less acceptable, this case was seen as much to do about nothing.

When an obviously guilty person is acquitted by a jury, the legal community refers to the accused as being LEGALLY INNOCENT BUT MORALLY GUILTY. That would seem to be the case with Simpson, Blake and Jackson. But what happens to those who are falsely charged, as in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, where the accused are both legally and morally innocent? Amazingly, the court of public opinion in the Duke case continues to be divided, with many blacks still convinced the accuser was telling the truth.

The Duke lacrosse players were victims of an unholy alliance - a rogue prosecutor, a salivating news media, the inflammatory rhetoric of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and a lynch mob of 88 malicious educated idiot professors. The falsely accused players were convicted in the court of public opinion due to the trumpeted rush to judgement by the participants in that evil alliance.

Kathleen Parker of the Wahington Post Writers Group says the Duke players became victims of the "Nifong Syndrome - the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief. Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor ....., was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics, and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary."

Parker goes on to ask "Why? Because the lies supported their own thruths. In the case of Duke, that 'truth' was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer." So there you have it - the falsely accused can be screwed by the criminal justice system and the criminal justice system can be screwed by jury nullification.

Monday, July 23, 2007


As you know, for some time I have been blogging about those two charlatan preachers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Recently, a friend sent me some interesting information on a Jackson staff appointment that was made in 2001 which, even though it is old news, I want to include in this blog. Here is the information as I received it.

"You can't make up stuff better than this and Snopes verifies that it is true. ( Ain't politics grand?

Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds to (his) Rainbow PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Cinton's last-minute forgiveness (pardon) spree.

Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.

This is a first in American politics: an ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate...won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate... then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.

His new job? Ready for this?? YOUTH CONSELOR. Is this a great country or what?"

Convicted of sexual abuse charges in 1995, Reynolds was a 42-year old married man when he had sex wth a 16-year old girl and asked her to take porno photos of a 15-year old. In hiring a child molester as a youth counselor, Jackson has demonstrated one of the reasons why I hold him and Al Sharpton in such utter contempt.

Friday, July 20, 2007


Please bear with me if I seem to be belaboring my opinons about the Muslim faith. I do not want to offend those liberal Muslims in the United States who are loyal American citizens and who do not support Islamic militancy. However, I am compelled to respond to an op ed piece by Javeed Akhter which originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun.

Dr. Akhter, a physician, is a founding member of the International Strategy and Policy Institute, a Muslim-American think tank. In his article, Dr. Akhter pictures true Islam as a peaceful and human-life defending faith. He claims that only a "tiny but loud fraction of clerics" preach a "minority ideology" which is a "lethal misinterpretation of the verses" in the Quran. He charges that those clerics pick and chose a few verses out of the holy book to justify violence.

According to Dr. Akhter, Islam protects human life because the Quran states "If you save one life, it is as if you have saved all mankind." He claims suicide bombers break the faith because suicide "is explicitly prohibited in Islam. Injunctions of the Quran and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad prohibit it in unequivocal terms."

Dr. Akhter also claims "killing of the innocents is expressly prohibed" by a verse in the Quran which reads "If you have taken an innocent life, it is as if you have killed all humanity." I'm afraid that Dr. Akhter is himself misinterpreting his holy book. The Quran verses on saving lives and not taking innocent lives do not apply to infidels, but only to the believers in Islam.

The Quran clearly proclaims "Death to the infidels." And, the Prophet Muhammad commanded the faithful to spread Islam "by the sword." The term "suicide bombers" is one coined by us Westerners. By Islamic standards, they are not committing suicide. Islam considers those we call "suicide bombers" to be brave warriors engaged in jihad (holy war) who will be rewarded with martyrdom when they blow themselves up.

Byran Daly, co-director of the new film ISLAM, WHAT THE WEST NEEDS TO KNOW, gave a picture much different from that of Dr. Akhter when he appeared on MSNBC's "Tucker" July 16, 2007. Daly emphasized that the Prophet Mohammed was an aggressive and cruel warrior, and that Islam was far from a peaceful religion hijacked by a small mninority. Following are some exerpts from the program transcript.

Daly stated "Allah orders Muslims to conquer the world and institute the laws of Allah over the whole earth through warfare, following the example of Mohammed's conquest of the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century. His order is set down in the Koran, which is the immutable eternal word of Allah. It stands for all time and cannot be changed or questioned from an Islamic standpoint." By the 17th century, Islam had conquered much of the world before being stopped by the superior power of Western civilization.

Daly also stated that the Prophet Mohammed "was not a pacifist preacher, but was a very successful warlord." Daly described Islam as not just a religion, but also as a political force "that it was always meant to be." Islam is a governing "theocracy that does not divide church and state, the religious and the secular." The Quran directs the faithful to go forth and establish Caliphates by force throughout the world.

Dr. Akhter is guilty of using the same tactics he accuses his alleged tiny fraction of Islamic clerics as using - picking and chosing select verses from the Quran to prove a point. And, he is being intentionally disingenuous as he knows very well his asserted fraction of clerics applies only to the Western world. In Muslim countries, clerics in many mosques and madrassahs (religious schools) preach jihad, referring to numerous passages in the Quran which call for the slaughter of infidels.

Contrary to Dr. Akhter's assertion that Islam is a peaceful and kindly religion, history has shown and continues to show that the Muslim faith has always been and remains a militant religious movement which resorts to killing innocent men, women and children in carrying out the Quran's conversionist and expansionist commands.

Monday, July 16, 2007


When I first started blogging, I had every intenntion of concentrating on criminal justice-related matters. However, as you have seen, I have published quite a number of blogs on Israel and on the fallacy of "moderate" Muslims. I admit that I am biased and you know that I am an ardent hard-line supporter of the State of Israel. Let me explain why.

I was born in Germany. My parents and I came to the United States in 1936, three years after Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party came to power. My father had been in command of a German army machine gun platoon during World War I. He served on the Eastern front until he was wounded in Poland. After he recovered from his wounds, he was awarded the Iron Cross and served on the Western front until the end of the war.

When the Nazis came to power, my father was forced out of a management position with Germany's largest department store chain and he was arrested and detained for a time by the Gestapo. Although he had always been a law-abiding patriotic German citizen, my father lost a very good job and was arrested simply because he was Jewish. He saw the handwriting on the wall and we left Germany for the United States. Millions of other Jews were not as fortunate.

We were able to come to America only because we had distant relatives here who were willing to sponsor us by guaranteeing to look after our basic needs. It was easy to leave Germany because the Nazis were glad to get rid of the Jews. The families of two uncles and an aunt also came to America. Another uncle drowned in the English Channel when, bound for Argentina, his ship struck a mine and sank.

When the rest of the world became aware of Hitler's "final solution," the Nazi term for the extermination of the Jews, did it open its doors to Jewish refugees? No, it did not. It stood idly by while six million Jews were exterminated during the holocaust. The Muslim world, on the contrary, applauded Hitler's attempt to rid the world of Jews. Even the United States, which during the Nazi era was beset with endemic anti-Semitism, refused entry to Jews who were unable to obtain an American sponsor and, thereby, must share some of the responsibility for those put to death in Hitler's extermination camps.

Where were the victims of Nazi persecution to go? Since biblical times, Jews have lived continually in the land which became known as Palestine, albeit in relatively small numbers. In 1917, The Balfour Declaration, named after the British prime minister at the time, expressed Britain's support for the establishment of a national Jewish homeland in Palestine. However, even after the end of World War II, the British, under pressure from the Arabs, turned back shiploads of Jewish refugees attempting to land in what was to become the State of Israel.

Today, there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism throughout Europe. That hatred of Jews is fueled by Muslims and neo-Nazis. A concerted effort to boycott Israel is being led by the same intellectuals and left-wing academics who have always sided with the Palestinians and accuse the Israelis of Naziism.

In the United States, left-wing academics have succeeded in getting a number of well-known universities to divest themselves of any investments they held in Israel. Former President Jimmy Carter, never a friend of the Jewish state, falsely accuses Israel of committing atrocities against the Palestinians and of practicing South African style apartheid.

The college from which I retired in 1993 had a number of avowed Marxists on its faculty. This element controlled the college administration by getting a majority of trade union members elected to its board of trustees. The Marxists, hiding behind the doctrine of Academic Freedom, persistently condemned American free enterprise and our government's domestic and international policies, never once saying anything positive about the good old U.S.A.. And, of course, they constantly attacked Israel in their one-siced lectures.

Israel is the only country in the world which welcomes Jews no matter where they come from. It took in most of the few holocaust survivors because no other country wanted them. It took in many Jews from Poland and the former Soviet Union, both of which have had a long history of virulent anti-Semitism. Israel is the only refuge for Jews who are being oppressed simply because they are Jews. So, now you know why I am an ardent supporter of Israel. And, why am I a hard-liner? Because the Muslim world is firmly committed to the destruction of Israel.

Israel is being pressured by the international community to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians. Israel cannot afford to give up all of the West Bank if it is to have secure and defensible borders. It cannot give up East Jerusalem for the same reason. It cannot accept the return of Palestinian refugees. All of the Arab demands are designed to bring about the eventual disappearance of the Jewish state. If that were to happen, what country will take in the unwanted Jews of the world?

Monday, July 09, 2007


A retired state police official responded to my blog, JUST GET ANOTHER LINE OF WORK, which mosly concerned the Houston mayor's cavalier attitude about a mother trying to meet her autisitc child's treatment costs by working as a topless dancer. Here is what he wrote:

"I regulated topless bars for many years. The majority of the topless dancers that I arrested for durg possession, prostitution, public lewdness and a host of other unsavory offenses professed to be student nurses just trying to pay their way through college. In fact, most of them were drug addicted prostitutes who were pimped out by their outlaw biker 'old man.'

I remember you being assaulted by a topless dancer that we arrested in a southwest Houston strip club. She really kicked the shit out of you! One of her forms of identification was a methadone treatment card.

I used to get complaints from a lot of wives that their husbands had been stolen from, beaten up or succumbed to temptations of the flesh at topless bars. If a person thinks that the people who work at these places are above participating in criminal behavior, then they must believe all topless daners are student nurses."

How well I remember getting kicked in the shin. Ouch! Just being reminded about it makes me feel the pain all over again. And, I was just along as an observer. How did my friend, the retired police official, respond to the kicking? He laughed like hell as I "did the chicken."


The City of Houston has been battling sexually oriented establishments for a decade, spending more than $1 million in legal costs so far while defending an ordinance which prohibts the location of such businesses within 1,500 feet of schools, churches, child day-care givers and parks. In effect, this ordinance would force all sexually oriented business - topless clubs, massage parlors, spas, nude "tanning" salons and some adult bookstores - out of the city.

In yesterday's edition of the Houston Chronicle, there was a featured story on the controversy between the city and this industry. The article called attention to the plight of a mother with an autisitc child. She worked as a topless dancer in an upscale club in order to pay for her daughter's therapy which has cost her some $60,000 in the past year. She did not earn enough in her previous employment to cover the child's treatment costs and her living expenses.

The mayor of Houston has been adamant in his defense ot the 1,500 foot restriction. He readily admits he would like to see all sexually oriented businesses driven out of the city. He dismissed the plight of the mother with the autistic child by suggesting she obtain another line of work. "There's bound to be a better way to address the challenges of a young mother trying to take care of a child and make ends meet than ..... have her take off all her clothes and dance in front of strangers," the mayor was quoted as saying.

The mayor's cavalier and callous dismissal of that mother's plight is very easy to make if you are a mult-millionaire, which the mayor is. He needs to get real. A young mother without professional skills will be unable to obtain the kind of employment which will earn her enough to meet costly medical expenses in addition to her living expesnses. The mayor's attitude is akin to Marie Antoinette's attitude about her hungry French subjects - "Let them eat cake."

I'm neither in favor of nor opposed to topless clubs. The only times I've been to these places was as a vice officer or by accompanying police officers when I was a criminal justice professor. The lap dancing that goes on in these extablishments is a disgusting form of prostitution. Massage parlors, spas and nude "tanning" salons are nothing more than fronts for prostitution and I wouldn't lose any sleep if they were all driven out of town.

The topless clubs would not be in business if there was not a big demand for that type of entertainment. For topless clubs, 500 feet would seem to be a more reasonable distance than the 1,500 foot restriction sought by the City of Houston. Although many topless dancers are prostitutes and drug addicts, frequent on-site police checks would help protect nearby surroundings by deterring unlawful activies within these establishments.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007


The recent terrorist acts in London and Glasgow should put to rest all that malarkey about "radical" and "moderate" Muslims. Seven of eight suspects arrested worked for the British National Health Service, six of them as physicians who are supposed to cure you, not kill you. These terrorists were not poor uneducated Muslims angry at their miserable lot in the United Kingdom. The eighth suspect, also a medical doctor, was arrested in Australia.

If you read my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS? (June 16, 2006), you know that I have long believed the terms "radical" and "moderate" when applied to Muslims are a lot of baloney. As with the Christian and Jewish faiths, what you find are Muslims who are fundamentalists and Muslims who are reformist.

The fundamentalists are not extremists or radicals. They are the true believers. Fundamentalist Christians interpret the Bible literally. Fundamentalist Muslims interpret the Quran literally. As with Reform Jews, Muslims who have assimilated into Western societies have diluted their religious beliefs so as to fit in with and be accepted by their predominantly Christian neighbors.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims in the Middle East, in Africa, in the Caucasus, on the Indian subcontinent and in Southeast Asia are fundamentalists - the true believers in Islam. So are those who live in the unassimilated Muslim communities which exist throughout Europe.

To the fundamentalists the words of the Quran are sacred. Muhammad commanded the faithful to spread Islam "by the sword" and the Quran calls for "death to the infidels." Among the true believers with their literal interpretation of the Quran, suicide bombers are a fringe group of militant Muslims who are willing to die as martyrs in the name of Allah.

Recent surveys reveal that the young Muslim population of Britain sympathizes with and supports suicide bombers. A significant number of all British Muslims prefer Sharia (Islamic religious law) over secular law. These "moderate" Muslims also support the murdering of Jews in the United Kingdom simply because they are Jews. They expresss little, if any, disapproval of atrocities committed by militant Muslims.

One of the doctors in the Glasgow attack deliberately set himself on fire and repeatedly shouted "Allah achbar" (God is great) before authorities doused the flames. Since the end of the Cold War, almost all acts of international terrorism have been committed by Muslims shouting "Allah achbar."

Rarely has the "moderate" Muslim community ever condemned any of these acts of terror. Fundamentalist clerics in the United States and Europe preach Jihad (holy war) against the West. When is the politically correct crowd going to cut out all this malarkey about 99 percent of Muslims being moderate?

Monday, July 02, 2007


Recently, I published a blog on the unfortunate encounter our dog Angie and I had with a skunk. Most of my freinds who read that blog thought the incident was hilarious. So, I thought I'd reach back a number of years, 53-plus to be axact, and give you another self-deprecating tale of woe.

My significant other and I had been married less than a year. I was teaching at a high school in Dallas. Back in those days cancer was incurable if not deteted in its earliest stage. The newspapers, radio and television all carried frequent warnings about "the seven danger signals of cancer." You guessed it - I had at least a couple of those suckers. Of course, so did just about everyone else. My danger signals consisted of chronic abdominal pain and excessive gas.

As we were approaching the two-week Christmas-New Year school break, I decided I would apply for a medical examination at the Dallas Veterans Hospital. When I was accepted and told I would be hospitalized for at least a week, I suggested to the wife that she visit her folks who lived on a farm in Oklahoma just across the state line from Kansas. Because we did not have enough money for her to fly, she decided to take the "milk train," a term used to describe a train that stopped at every small town on its route.

In those days, if you were an ambulatory patient in a VA hospital, you went to eat in a chow hall rather than in the ward. You also helped other patients get around whenever you could. The hospital had a theater and during my third evening there, I decided to go see a movie. After the movie, another patient in a wheel chair asked me if I could push him to the elevator so he could return to his ward.

On the way to the elevator this patient, a middle aged man, asked me what I was in the hospital for. When I described my symptoms, this guy broke down completely and started crying. I asked him what was the matter. "Three weeks ago, I checked in with exactly the same problems. Last week they opened me up and found out I had cancer and they've given me only a few months to live. And, you're so young."

That was another one of those "oh shit" moments. I felt like I'd been kicked in the stomach by a horse. My legs started to buckle and I had to support myself on his wheelchair. As soon as I got him to the elevator, I turned away and staggered to the nearest pay phone. I called my bride collect. She had only arrived at the farm a few hours earlier.

When she came to the phone, the first thing I blubbered out was, "Honey, you gotta hurry back, I'm dying!" You can imagine her reaction. After we both calmed down somewhat, I explained to her that, according to the dying patient with the same symptoms, I had cancer. She said she would catch the milk train back the next morneing. That made me feel a tiny bit better.

The next morning I skipped breakfast, remaining in bed and stewing in self-pity. When the doctors came by while making their rounds, the lead physician noticed my awful appearance and asked me what was wrong. When I told him that I knew I had cancer and had only a short time left on this earth, he wanted to know what gave me that idea.

I told him about my experience of the previous evening. Then he really lid into me. "You dumb shit, we don't know yet what's wrong with you, but we do know you don't have cancer and your're certainly not dying." I replied, "Oh yes I am." When he wanted to know what I meant, I told him about my phone call to the wife and said, "When she gets back here, she's going to kill me!" The doctor said, "I'll help her."

Anyway, I've learned to live with my spastic colon, now referred to as irritable bowel syndrome. And, it was a miracle - the wife did not kill me, kick my ass, or divorce me. But, the honeymoon was definitely over.