If it has a stripe like a skunk, if it lifts its tail like a skunk, and if it stinks like a skunk, it must be a skunk. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASO) is at it again. And it stinks like a skunk. The sudden early release of Paris Hilton by Los Angeles Sheriff Pepe LePew had a real stench to it.
After getting caught driving with a suspended license three times while on probation following a drunk driving arrest, Paris Hilton was finally sentenced to serve 45 days in jail by a judge who had lost patience with the partying Hilton Hotel heiress' thumbing of her nose at the law. Well before she ever turned herself in, LASO declared that, for good behavior, Paris would serve only 23 days at most.
Then, after only 72 hours of confinement, LASO released Paris with an electronic monitoring bracelet to detention in her family's multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion. At first, LASO announced they had released Paris in accordance with the direction of the court. During an unusual press conference, a spokesman for the courts denied that assertion, pointing out that Judge Michael Sauer had specifically ordered that Paris would not be allowed any work release, furloughs or use of an alternative jail, or electronic monitoring in lieu of jail. LASO then changed its story to say Paris had been released because of a medical condition.
A public outcry about justice for the wealthy and for celebrities as opposed to justice for common folks led the prosecutor to seek a new hearing before Judge Sauer. Instead of being driven to the courthouse in her family's luxury SUV, a weeping Paris was handcuffed and transported in a sheriff's squad car. The judge ordered her back to jail. With tears streaming down her face, she turned to her mother and cried out "mom" several times and screamed "this isn't right" as she was handcuffed again and led out of the courtroom.
An angry Sheriff Lee "Pepe LePew" Baca then held his own press conference. He explained that his jail was overcrowded and that he was under federal court orders to reduce the jail population. He claimed that "low level" offenders, like Paris, were routinely released once they had served ten percent of their sentence. He intimated she was jailed while already afflicted with a psychological disorder and her release was based, not on her low level designation, but on a deteriorating mental health condition.
If you believe that I'll sell you some ocean front property in Arizona. You can bet that among common folk inmates, not all low level offenders are routinely released upon serving only ten percent of their sentence. And, if LASO were to release all inmates with deteriorating mental health problems, Sheriff Pepe LePew's jail would be half empty and no longer under federal court supervision.
By the way, LASO took the unprecedented step of inviting Paris Hilton's personal psychiatrist to come to the jail and examine their inmate. That just isn't done without a court order. Sheriff Pepe LePew had to know that in having Paris examined by her own psychiatrist, he could count on a diagnosis which would justify her immediate release. Another example of celebrity justice.
Wait, that's not all. When her sister and an ex-boyfriend came to visit Paris after her reincarceration, LASO ushered them right into the jail, past the common folks standing for hours in long lines while waiting their turn to visit loved ones. That travesty was followed up on the next visiting day, when her parents were afforded the same favorable treatment. Pepe LePew's spokesman asserted it was routine for high-profile inmates to receive visitors during lunch, a time when the visiting room is normally cleared out and closed. What a crock! There is no good reason why Paris' visitors shouldn't have to wait in line like everyone else.
And, concerning Paris' medical condition, what is a 26 year old woman under treatment and medication for a psychological disorder doing drinking and carousing around all the time all night long? Paris was not calling out "mom, this isn't right" while on the nightly party circuit. David Letterman had it right when he referred to her medical condition as "rich bitchitis."
Pepe LePew Baca has no credibility with me. This is the guy whose department released actress Michelle Rodriguez, former star of ABC's Lost, from jail last year after she served less than one day of a 60 day sentence. And this is the guy whose department tried to cover up Mel Gibson's rant against Jews during his drunk driving arrest last July. He and/or his commanders ordered the arresting deputy to sanitize the arrest by rewriting the initial report, deleting all references to Gibson's anti-Semitic outburst.
Had TMZ.com, a celebrity news website, not obtained and released a copy of the initial report, no one would have ever learned of Gibson's hateful tirade. Oh, did I forget to mention that Gibson is a personal friend of Pepe LePew Baca? Since taking office, this stinkpot of a Sheriff has been accused of using his authority to benefit friends and supporters, and he has accepted thousands of dollars worth of free meals, sports tickets and trips. Peter J. Pitchess, the former long-time (1958-82) respected Sheriff of Los Angeles County, must be turning over in his grave, what with that awful stench arising from his beloved LASO.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
KOWTOWING TO MUSLIMS' HATRED OF JEWS
Just recently, the United Kingdom removed the Holocaust from its school curriculum because it offended the Muslims in Britain who claim Nazi Germany's attempt to exterminate the Jews never occurred. Why in the world should Muslims be offended by the teaching of the Holocaust, an event that had absolutely nothing to do with the believers in their faith? Why? Because Muslims, by and large, hate Jews.
This hatred of Jews started long before the birth of the State of Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the Nazi era, most Arab leaders openly expressed their admiration and support for Adolf Hitler because of his regime's efforts to eradicate the Jews throughout all of Europe. Hatred by Muslims is not confined to the hatred of Jews. The Quran leads true believers in the Muslim faith to hate all infidels, and that includes followers of the Christian faith.
At this time, Saudi Arabian government school textbooks refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Muslims, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread the faith by waging Jihad (Holy War) against Christians and Jews. (For more details, refer to my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS?, June 16, 2006.)
It's about time the Western World stopped all this gobbledygook about radical Muslims as opposed to moderate Muslims. Those that hate infidels are not radical Islamists. They are fundamentalist Muslims, the true belivers in the teachings of Muhammad. Islamists are no more radical than Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists of the Jewish faith. While Orthodox Jews disparage Reform Jews as "Christians without Christ," Islamists deem Muslims who have assimilated into Western society as infidels. The only real radicals among Muslims are those Islamists who become involved in suicide bombings.
Why teach about the Holocaust? When America and the rest of Europe became aware of the Nazi persecution and extermination of Jews, those nations stood idly by. They did nothing when the Nazis forced Jews into ghettos, banned them from most jobs, and identified them with the mandatory wearing of yellow stars, all well before they herded them into concentration camps where six million Jews were exterminated. Hopefully, as a result of teaching the Holocaust, the world will never again stand idly by in the event any identifiable group is targeted for genocide.
Why did the British kowtow to this Muslim hatred of Jews? England and Western Europe are beset with a large Muslim immigrant population which has not assimilated into European society. Having brought along their religious hatreds, these immigrants have committed acts of terrorism and stroked the fires of resurgent anti-Semitism throughout the region. The European governments are extremely fearful they will continue to be targets of Muslim terrorism carried out by the true believers in the teachings of Muhammad.
The British are fooling themselves if they believe that, by caving in to the hatred of Jews, they will be safe from Muslim terrorism. Appeasement never works. They should have learned that from the Nazi era. When in 1938, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler to prevent a war between England and Germany, the Fuehrer saw this as a sign of weakness which only fed his appetite for world conquest.
The British should show some Churchillian backbone by standing up to Muslims and their hatreds, and by restoring the Holocaust to the school curriculum. Jews were not the only Nazi victims. Teaching the Holocaust can also serve as a memorial to the 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who, in addition to the six million Jews, died at the hands of Hitler's Germany.
This hatred of Jews started long before the birth of the State of Israel and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the Nazi era, most Arab leaders openly expressed their admiration and support for Adolf Hitler because of his regime's efforts to eradicate the Jews throughout all of Europe. Hatred by Muslims is not confined to the hatred of Jews. The Quran leads true believers in the Muslim faith to hate all infidels, and that includes followers of the Christian faith.
At this time, Saudi Arabian government school textbooks refer to Christians and Jews as enemies of Muslims, equate Christians to swine and Jews to apes, and urge the faithful to spread the faith by waging Jihad (Holy War) against Christians and Jews. (For more details, refer to my blog MILITANT MUSLIMS: EXTREMISTS OR TRUE BELIEVERS?, June 16, 2006.)
It's about time the Western World stopped all this gobbledygook about radical Muslims as opposed to moderate Muslims. Those that hate infidels are not radical Islamists. They are fundamentalist Muslims, the true belivers in the teachings of Muhammad. Islamists are no more radical than Orthodox Jews, the fundamentalists of the Jewish faith. While Orthodox Jews disparage Reform Jews as "Christians without Christ," Islamists deem Muslims who have assimilated into Western society as infidels. The only real radicals among Muslims are those Islamists who become involved in suicide bombings.
Why teach about the Holocaust? When America and the rest of Europe became aware of the Nazi persecution and extermination of Jews, those nations stood idly by. They did nothing when the Nazis forced Jews into ghettos, banned them from most jobs, and identified them with the mandatory wearing of yellow stars, all well before they herded them into concentration camps where six million Jews were exterminated. Hopefully, as a result of teaching the Holocaust, the world will never again stand idly by in the event any identifiable group is targeted for genocide.
Why did the British kowtow to this Muslim hatred of Jews? England and Western Europe are beset with a large Muslim immigrant population which has not assimilated into European society. Having brought along their religious hatreds, these immigrants have committed acts of terrorism and stroked the fires of resurgent anti-Semitism throughout the region. The European governments are extremely fearful they will continue to be targets of Muslim terrorism carried out by the true believers in the teachings of Muhammad.
The British are fooling themselves if they believe that, by caving in to the hatred of Jews, they will be safe from Muslim terrorism. Appeasement never works. They should have learned that from the Nazi era. When in 1938, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Hitler to prevent a war between England and Germany, the Fuehrer saw this as a sign of weakness which only fed his appetite for world conquest.
The British should show some Churchillian backbone by standing up to Muslims and their hatreds, and by restoring the Holocaust to the school curriculum. Jews were not the only Nazi victims. Teaching the Holocaust can also serve as a memorial to the 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who, in addition to the six million Jews, died at the hands of Hitler's Germany.
Monday, June 04, 2007
CHILDREN OF THE DAMNED
It is estimated that there are some 45 million people in this country who are without any kind of health insurance. The adults among this group, most of whom are employed, have fallen into the crack between those who earn too much to qualify for medicaid and those who do not earn enough to afford paying for health insurance. These unfortunate folks are the damned who receive little if any health care.
Of the millions who are uninsured, nine million are children. Usually, the only time they get to see a doctor is during a medical emergency. Then they are treated in hospital emergency rooms at great expense to the taxpayers and hospitals. These children get no preventive care and, like their parents, receive little if any treatment for non-life threatening ailments.
Many physicians and dentists refuse to accept medicaid patients because the government only pays a set fee for their services. As a result, children have died simply because they had no health insurance. One young boy had an infected tooth. His mother, who was eligible for medicaid, could not find any dentist willing to accept medicaid patients. The infection spread to the boy's brain. By the time he was hospitalized, it was too late. He died soon afterwards.
This is the richest country in the world with the best medical services available anywhere, but only to those who can afford them. It seems a crime that 45 million people in our land are deprived of affordable health care, especially since nine million of them are innocent children. Collectively, we spend several hundred billion dollars a year on nonessentials for our personal pleasure. There is no reason why we cannot and should not chip in to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I have been a long-time advocate of universal health care for our country so that every citizen can receive adequate medical attention. I took this position long before I ever heard of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, that capitalist-hating darling of the left wing, whose latest film ("Sicko") purports to expose the evils of our health care industry.
What kind of universal health care should we adopt? That is a hard question to answer. Some advocate that we adopt socialized medicine systems like those in Canada or Britain. But, both of those systems have many problems and are a real drain on government budgets, resulting in very high taxes. There are good socialized medicine programs in Germany, Sweden, and some other European countries, but their citizens pay a high price in taxes for health services.
Others advocate that we make affordable health insurance available to all citizens. That would require the government to subsidize those without the means to pay for that insurance. Would those government subsidies require an increase in taxes? Not necessarily. Some experts claim that the cost of subsidies would be more than offset by the savings from fewer indigent hospitalizations which would come with the normal health care provided to those who cannot afford it now.
Our society should be ashamed of itself for allowing 45 million people, nine million of them children, to be damned with inadequate or no health care. If the rest of the Western World can provide health care to all of its citizens, the country that developed the atomic bomb and went to the moon should be able to develop a universal health care plan, one that would be absent of the problems experienced by Canada and Britain. The time for us to act is now, not later.
Of the millions who are uninsured, nine million are children. Usually, the only time they get to see a doctor is during a medical emergency. Then they are treated in hospital emergency rooms at great expense to the taxpayers and hospitals. These children get no preventive care and, like their parents, receive little if any treatment for non-life threatening ailments.
Many physicians and dentists refuse to accept medicaid patients because the government only pays a set fee for their services. As a result, children have died simply because they had no health insurance. One young boy had an infected tooth. His mother, who was eligible for medicaid, could not find any dentist willing to accept medicaid patients. The infection spread to the boy's brain. By the time he was hospitalized, it was too late. He died soon afterwards.
This is the richest country in the world with the best medical services available anywhere, but only to those who can afford them. It seems a crime that 45 million people in our land are deprived of affordable health care, especially since nine million of them are innocent children. Collectively, we spend several hundred billion dollars a year on nonessentials for our personal pleasure. There is no reason why we cannot and should not chip in to provide health care for those who cannot afford it.
I have been a long-time advocate of universal health care for our country so that every citizen can receive adequate medical attention. I took this position long before I ever heard of documentary filmmaker Michael Moore, that capitalist-hating darling of the left wing, whose latest film ("Sicko") purports to expose the evils of our health care industry.
What kind of universal health care should we adopt? That is a hard question to answer. Some advocate that we adopt socialized medicine systems like those in Canada or Britain. But, both of those systems have many problems and are a real drain on government budgets, resulting in very high taxes. There are good socialized medicine programs in Germany, Sweden, and some other European countries, but their citizens pay a high price in taxes for health services.
Others advocate that we make affordable health insurance available to all citizens. That would require the government to subsidize those without the means to pay for that insurance. Would those government subsidies require an increase in taxes? Not necessarily. Some experts claim that the cost of subsidies would be more than offset by the savings from fewer indigent hospitalizations which would come with the normal health care provided to those who cannot afford it now.
Our society should be ashamed of itself for allowing 45 million people, nine million of them children, to be damned with inadequate or no health care. If the rest of the Western World can provide health care to all of its citizens, the country that developed the atomic bomb and went to the moon should be able to develop a universal health care plan, one that would be absent of the problems experienced by Canada and Britain. The time for us to act is now, not later.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
AEROSPACERS GONE WILD 3
"You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at leasst 900 miles. And now, from the maker of America's best adult diapers, stay tuned for the next chapter of AEROSPACERS GONE WILD."
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Last March, Lisa Nowak became the first astronaut ever to be fired by NASA. The Navy then assigned Lisa, who holds the rank of captain, to a nondescript job at the Corpus Christi (Texas) Naval Air Station. Lisa is scheduled for trial on attempted kidnapping and other charges in Florida in late September. Lisa is accused of attempting to harm Airforce Captain Colleen Shipman, the current lover of her former lover, fellow astronaut Bill "Billy-O" Oefelein.
CURRENT EPISODE: Billy-O, Nowak's and Shipman's hot lover, became the second astronaut to be fired by NASA. Billy-O, a naval aviator with the rank of commander, was assigned to a non-flying post at the Navy's Network Wafare Command in Norfolk, Virginia, effective June 1. This places him closer to where Colleen is stationed, but much farther away from where Lisa is stationed.
NEXT ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Will Lisa and Billy-O be drummed out of the Navy for their adulterous relationship? Lisa and her lawyer are preparing for her defense in Florida. She will probably claim that she was only trying to keep Billy-O from being injured after she read Colleen's e-mail to Billy-O, telling him her "first urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground, and love the hell out of you."
"Stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD, brought to you by the makers of Depend, the adult diaper preferred by astronauts on a mission to get there first. You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at least 900 miles."
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Last March, Lisa Nowak became the first astronaut ever to be fired by NASA. The Navy then assigned Lisa, who holds the rank of captain, to a nondescript job at the Corpus Christi (Texas) Naval Air Station. Lisa is scheduled for trial on attempted kidnapping and other charges in Florida in late September. Lisa is accused of attempting to harm Airforce Captain Colleen Shipman, the current lover of her former lover, fellow astronaut Bill "Billy-O" Oefelein.
CURRENT EPISODE: Billy-O, Nowak's and Shipman's hot lover, became the second astronaut to be fired by NASA. Billy-O, a naval aviator with the rank of commander, was assigned to a non-flying post at the Navy's Network Wafare Command in Norfolk, Virginia, effective June 1. This places him closer to where Colleen is stationed, but much farther away from where Lisa is stationed.
NEXT ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Will Lisa and Billy-O be drummed out of the Navy for their adulterous relationship? Lisa and her lawyer are preparing for her defense in Florida. She will probably claim that she was only trying to keep Billy-O from being injured after she read Colleen's e-mail to Billy-O, telling him her "first urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground, and love the hell out of you."
"Stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD, brought to you by the makers of Depend, the adult diaper preferred by astronauts on a mission to get there first. You can depend on Depend to keep you dry for at least 900 miles."
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
BOO! BOO A LA ESTADOS UNIDOS!!
Long ago, I lost interest in beauty pageants. When I was young, I did enjoy the swimsuit competition. Then the feminists screwed it all up by pressuring the pageants to minimalize the swimsuit competition, claiming that it was degrading to women. In its place, up popped a silly question and answer segment designed to determine the brightest of the contestants.
The only time I pay any attention to these spectacles is when they are involved in some sort of scandal or controversy. Which brings me to the Miss Universe pageant which just concluded in Mexico City. Poor Rachel Smith, Miss USA. She slipped and fell on her butt during the evening gown competition, Yet, she showed a lot of class when she picked herself back up. Unfortunately for her, the Mexican audience had absolutely no class, booing Rachel throughout the pageant.
What did Rachel do to derserve this booing? Absolutely nothing whatsoever! Poor Rachel was a victim of the hatred Mexicans and other Latinos have for the government of the United States. This hatred is based a lot less on our immigration and Iraq policies than on the long history of our interference in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In order to protect our business intrests, we have supported tinpot military dictators who ignored or oppressed the poverty stricken masses and we openly or clandestinely supported the overthrow of elected leaders with communist leanings.
In the past, our government has done everything possible to ensure that the leaders of "Banana Republics" were friendly to the American businesses which exploited Latin America for its rich resources and for its cheap labor. These leaders and their families and friends were often rewarded with huge payoffs and other perks, such as mansions and secret bank accounts in the United States.
Throughout Latin America, society has consisted of a small percentage of extremely wealthy families and a huge population living in the squalor of abject poverty, a perfect breeding ground for communism. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise to our government when communists were elected to power or when dictatorships were overthrown by Marxist insurgents claiming to fight for the poor masses. The Cold War with the Soviet Union served to intensify our efforts to defeat Latin America's Marxist insurgencies and to topple leftist leaders from office.
In Cuba we supported an oppressive and corrupt dictator, General Fulgencio Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and with American corporations. Immediately after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, our government supported his overthrow, not because of his suspected communist leanings, but because he was seen as unfriendly to the established American business interests in Cuba, Thus, we drove Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union.
In 1973, we clandestinely participated in a military coup which overthrew Salvador Allende. a Marxist who had been elected President of Chile. For years, we contunued to support the military dictaorships of Chile, including that of General Augusto Pinochet, a cruel, oppressive and corrupt dictator.
In Nicaragua we were long-time supporters of the Somoza family dictatorship, another group of corrupt military officers who accumulated immense wealth from American corporations. In the 1970s, the Sandinistas, a Marxist group led by Daniel Ortega, came to power after fighting and defeating the Somoza family's National Guard. The Reagan Presidency then bankrolled and supplied the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who, after a long and bloody civil war, overthrew Ortega's Sandinista government.
And now, we are in conflict with Hugo Chavez, a populist and socialist, who was elcted President of Venezuela in 1998. Chavez won on the promise of helping the poor by forcing foreign oil companies and other corporations to share more of their profits and wealth with Venezuela. In 2002, a military coup sponsored by the wealthy and supported by the United States, overthrew Chavez. But, in just a few days, Chavez was able to resume his Presidency when the poor took to the streets in huge numbers, demanding that their popular leader be returned to power.
So, because of our opposition to pro-poor Latin American leaders, Rachel Slmith had to endure the indignity of booing at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City. Even though our interference in Latin America's internal affairs may have earned their disrespect, that in no way justified the rude behavior of the audience. Which begs the question - if the Mexicans hate us so much, why should we support immigration legislation and other policies which will benefit Mexico's economy and its wealthy class, all to the detriment of our taxpayers and many American workers?
The only time I pay any attention to these spectacles is when they are involved in some sort of scandal or controversy. Which brings me to the Miss Universe pageant which just concluded in Mexico City. Poor Rachel Smith, Miss USA. She slipped and fell on her butt during the evening gown competition, Yet, she showed a lot of class when she picked herself back up. Unfortunately for her, the Mexican audience had absolutely no class, booing Rachel throughout the pageant.
What did Rachel do to derserve this booing? Absolutely nothing whatsoever! Poor Rachel was a victim of the hatred Mexicans and other Latinos have for the government of the United States. This hatred is based a lot less on our immigration and Iraq policies than on the long history of our interference in the internal affairs of Latin American countries. In order to protect our business intrests, we have supported tinpot military dictators who ignored or oppressed the poverty stricken masses and we openly or clandestinely supported the overthrow of elected leaders with communist leanings.
In the past, our government has done everything possible to ensure that the leaders of "Banana Republics" were friendly to the American businesses which exploited Latin America for its rich resources and for its cheap labor. These leaders and their families and friends were often rewarded with huge payoffs and other perks, such as mansions and secret bank accounts in the United States.
Throughout Latin America, society has consisted of a small percentage of extremely wealthy families and a huge population living in the squalor of abject poverty, a perfect breeding ground for communism. Thus, it should not have come as a surprise to our government when communists were elected to power or when dictatorships were overthrown by Marxist insurgents claiming to fight for the poor masses. The Cold War with the Soviet Union served to intensify our efforts to defeat Latin America's Marxist insurgencies and to topple leftist leaders from office.
In Cuba we supported an oppressive and corrupt dictator, General Fulgencio Batista, who was in league with the American Mafia and with American corporations. Immediately after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, our government supported his overthrow, not because of his suspected communist leanings, but because he was seen as unfriendly to the established American business interests in Cuba, Thus, we drove Castro into the arms of the Soviet Union.
In 1973, we clandestinely participated in a military coup which overthrew Salvador Allende. a Marxist who had been elected President of Chile. For years, we contunued to support the military dictaorships of Chile, including that of General Augusto Pinochet, a cruel, oppressive and corrupt dictator.
In Nicaragua we were long-time supporters of the Somoza family dictatorship, another group of corrupt military officers who accumulated immense wealth from American corporations. In the 1970s, the Sandinistas, a Marxist group led by Daniel Ortega, came to power after fighting and defeating the Somoza family's National Guard. The Reagan Presidency then bankrolled and supplied the Nicaraguan Contra rebels who, after a long and bloody civil war, overthrew Ortega's Sandinista government.
And now, we are in conflict with Hugo Chavez, a populist and socialist, who was elcted President of Venezuela in 1998. Chavez won on the promise of helping the poor by forcing foreign oil companies and other corporations to share more of their profits and wealth with Venezuela. In 2002, a military coup sponsored by the wealthy and supported by the United States, overthrew Chavez. But, in just a few days, Chavez was able to resume his Presidency when the poor took to the streets in huge numbers, demanding that their popular leader be returned to power.
So, because of our opposition to pro-poor Latin American leaders, Rachel Slmith had to endure the indignity of booing at the Miss Universe pageant in Mexico City. Even though our interference in Latin America's internal affairs may have earned their disrespect, that in no way justified the rude behavior of the audience. Which begs the question - if the Mexicans hate us so much, why should we support immigration legislation and other policies which will benefit Mexico's economy and its wealthy class, all to the detriment of our taxpayers and many American workers?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
NICE KITTY - OH SHIT !!!
Once in a while, it doesn't hurt to tell a deprecating story on yourself, especially if it's really true. Yesterday, something happened that I will never forget as long as I live in the few years that I have left. My wife is on an out-of-state trip for a week, leaving me to babysit Angie, our cute little Maltese.
Yesterday afternoon, I took Angie out into the backyard so she could pee. She did her business, God bless her. Then she took a few steps toward one of the flower beds, stopped and took the three-legged pointer stance. We were about 15 - 20 feet away. I saw what looked like a kitty cat in the bushes. I could not see clearly because I've had capillary leakage (bleeding) in both eyes for well over a year.
I wanted to shoo the intruder away, so Angie and I approached to within two or three feet of the kitty. It did not run, but it raised its long bushy tail - oh shit!!! It was only then that I realized it was a skunk. Too late! Angie and I were both sprayed. We both stunk like - well, unless you've smelled a skunk's spray, it's awfully hard to describe. I immediately stripped naked and threw my clothes in the middle of the yard.
We went back inside. I sponge bathed Angie in a solution of half and half vinegar and water. Did the same for myself, then took a shower using dishwasher detergent instead of the usual Dial soap. Then I sprayed everything with Febreze. All to no avail. The problem is that you can't get stunk spray out of a dog's coat. Angie has really spread it around. Now, more than 24 hours later, the whole house smells like a skunk.
Well, it was a cat of sorts - a polecat. I just hope the neighbors did not file a police report about their kids hearing loud cussing and seeing me running around the yard naked. But if they did, that's nothing compared to what the wife will do to me upon her return. If the house still stinks, you know who'll get blamed - it wont be cute little Angie. Laugh if you must, but please pray for me!
Yesterday afternoon, I took Angie out into the backyard so she could pee. She did her business, God bless her. Then she took a few steps toward one of the flower beds, stopped and took the three-legged pointer stance. We were about 15 - 20 feet away. I saw what looked like a kitty cat in the bushes. I could not see clearly because I've had capillary leakage (bleeding) in both eyes for well over a year.
I wanted to shoo the intruder away, so Angie and I approached to within two or three feet of the kitty. It did not run, but it raised its long bushy tail - oh shit!!! It was only then that I realized it was a skunk. Too late! Angie and I were both sprayed. We both stunk like - well, unless you've smelled a skunk's spray, it's awfully hard to describe. I immediately stripped naked and threw my clothes in the middle of the yard.
We went back inside. I sponge bathed Angie in a solution of half and half vinegar and water. Did the same for myself, then took a shower using dishwasher detergent instead of the usual Dial soap. Then I sprayed everything with Febreze. All to no avail. The problem is that you can't get stunk spray out of a dog's coat. Angie has really spread it around. Now, more than 24 hours later, the whole house smells like a skunk.
Well, it was a cat of sorts - a polecat. I just hope the neighbors did not file a police report about their kids hearing loud cussing and seeing me running around the yard naked. But if they did, that's nothing compared to what the wife will do to me upon her return. If the house still stinks, you know who'll get blamed - it wont be cute little Angie. Laugh if you must, but please pray for me!
Monday, May 28, 2007
A MOUTH AS BIG AS HER BUTT
There are a number of Hollywood limouzine liberals who have injected themselves into politics in an abrasive manner. Barbara Streisand and Alec Baldwin promised to leave the United States if George Bush were to win a second term as President. If only they had kept their promises. Streisand and Baldwin have made some outrageous radical statements, but they are moderates when compared to Rosie O'Donnell.
O'Donnell has criticized our invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. She said that the 3,000 deaths of innocent people did not justify our killing of innocent people in the country which sheltered the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. She claims that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and, because "we are bombing innocent people in other countries," America is the world's worst terrorist state.
O'Donnel believes that Building Seven of the World Trade Cemter was deliberately destroyed on 9/11 by sinister forces in the U.S. government. She sided with Iran in the British hostage incident by claiming the British entered Iranian waters as a deliberate provocation, comparing it to the Gulf of Tonking incident which led to the Vitenam War. Commenting on Islamic terrorists, O'Donnell stated, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam."
O'Donnell is the most radical gun control freak in the land. She would outlaw guns for everyone with the exception of police officers. She advocates jailing anyone who owns a gun. She has called for the impeachment of President Bush. She is one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq.
Now, Rosie O'Donnel has every right to express her opinions. That is the American way. But, her mouth is as big as her butt. She should have been fired from ABC's The View months ago for constantly making outrageous unsubstantiated charges against our government during a time of war.
O'Donnell has finally left The View. She got pissed off at the producers and quit in a huff because they showed her hassle with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on a split screen. ABC and Barbara Walters did not fire her because she increased that program's viewership tenfold. Money talks, bullshit walks.
I have lost all respect for Barbara Walters, who I used to admire. She never publically criticized O'Donnell's ridiculous and outrageous postions. Instead, Walters always chose to defend Rosie as a valued and beloved co-host of The View. Count on O'Donnell getting her own show on some TV network and count on gullible viewers tuning in by the millions.
O'Donnell has criticized our invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. She said that the 3,000 deaths of innocent people did not justify our killing of innocent people in the country which sheltered the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. She claims that we have killed 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and, because "we are bombing innocent people in other countries," America is the world's worst terrorist state.
O'Donnel believes that Building Seven of the World Trade Cemter was deliberately destroyed on 9/11 by sinister forces in the U.S. government. She sided with Iran in the British hostage incident by claiming the British entered Iranian waters as a deliberate provocation, comparing it to the Gulf of Tonking incident which led to the Vitenam War. Commenting on Islamic terrorists, O'Donnell stated, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as Radical Islam."
O'Donnell is the most radical gun control freak in the land. She would outlaw guns for everyone with the exception of police officers. She advocates jailing anyone who owns a gun. She has called for the impeachment of President Bush. She is one of the most outspoken critics of the war in Iraq.
Now, Rosie O'Donnel has every right to express her opinions. That is the American way. But, her mouth is as big as her butt. She should have been fired from ABC's The View months ago for constantly making outrageous unsubstantiated charges against our government during a time of war.
O'Donnell has finally left The View. She got pissed off at the producers and quit in a huff because they showed her hassle with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck on a split screen. ABC and Barbara Walters did not fire her because she increased that program's viewership tenfold. Money talks, bullshit walks.
I have lost all respect for Barbara Walters, who I used to admire. She never publically criticized O'Donnell's ridiculous and outrageous postions. Instead, Walters always chose to defend Rosie as a valued and beloved co-host of The View. Count on O'Donnell getting her own show on some TV network and count on gullible viewers tuning in by the millions.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
CHINA EXPORTS POPULATION CONTROL
We all know that China, the world's most populous country, has been practicing population control for both people and their pets. By law, Chinese couples are allowed to have only one child and they face heavy fines for having any additional children. Households are limited to one registered pet dog. Unregistered dogs are clubbed to death by the police, often in front of their horrified owners.
Globalization has made it possible for China to export a form of population control. It did not take long for clever Chinese entrepreneural captalists to discover they could increase their profits by substituting cheaper falsely labeled ingredients in food products and medicine, and with bulking up some products by secretly adding a cheaper substance. However, oops, the mislabled ingredients or bulked-up products are often poisonous.
A good case in point. Last year a Chinese company shipped a load of diethylene glycol to Panama. That chemical is the potent poison found in antifreeze. The product was falsely labeled as glycerin, a syrup often used in medicines, which is much more epensive than diethylene glycol. The Panamanian government mixed together the ingredients for several hundred thousand bottles of cough medicine, believing the diethylene glycol to be glycerin. As a result, 365 people died, many of them children.
Earlier this year, cats and dogs in our country were poisoned by eating tainted "cuts and gravy" style pet food manufactured by Menu Foods, a Canadian company. Menu Foods, which makes pet foods for most brands sold in this country, obtained the wheat gluten used in moist pet foods from China. Unbeknownst to Menu Foods, the Chinese had added melamine, a substance found in plastics, to the wheat gluten in order to bulk it up. The melamine led to kidney failure, killing many cats and dogs.
The most recent exportation of population control from China involves 6,000 tubes of toothpaste. When the shipment arrived in Panama it was discovered that the toothpaste had been adulterated with diethylene glycol, the same substance which, when used to make cough medicine, killed nearly 400 Panamanians last year. Some of the tainted toothpaste was shipped on to the Dominican Republic. An Australian newspaper reported that the toothpaste containing diethylene glycol had also been exported from China to Australia. And now, the Nicaraguan pol9ice have also seized 6,000 tubes of Chinese toothpaste suspected of containing diethylene glycol.
Scientists believe that if the world's population continues to increase at its present rate, the earth will not be able to produce enough food to sustain life. In that event, will people turn to cannibalism in order to survive? Why has the People's Republic failed to control its food and medicine industries when it controls almost every aspect of Chinese life? Hmmm, rather than trying to control the populations of other countries, could the exportation of poisonous foods and medicines be a way for China to soften us up as it prepares to fight in World War III?
ADDENDUM: On May 31, it was reported that Chinese made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been found on the shelves of our country's dollar-type stores.
Globalization has made it possible for China to export a form of population control. It did not take long for clever Chinese entrepreneural captalists to discover they could increase their profits by substituting cheaper falsely labeled ingredients in food products and medicine, and with bulking up some products by secretly adding a cheaper substance. However, oops, the mislabled ingredients or bulked-up products are often poisonous.
A good case in point. Last year a Chinese company shipped a load of diethylene glycol to Panama. That chemical is the potent poison found in antifreeze. The product was falsely labeled as glycerin, a syrup often used in medicines, which is much more epensive than diethylene glycol. The Panamanian government mixed together the ingredients for several hundred thousand bottles of cough medicine, believing the diethylene glycol to be glycerin. As a result, 365 people died, many of them children.
Earlier this year, cats and dogs in our country were poisoned by eating tainted "cuts and gravy" style pet food manufactured by Menu Foods, a Canadian company. Menu Foods, which makes pet foods for most brands sold in this country, obtained the wheat gluten used in moist pet foods from China. Unbeknownst to Menu Foods, the Chinese had added melamine, a substance found in plastics, to the wheat gluten in order to bulk it up. The melamine led to kidney failure, killing many cats and dogs.
The most recent exportation of population control from China involves 6,000 tubes of toothpaste. When the shipment arrived in Panama it was discovered that the toothpaste had been adulterated with diethylene glycol, the same substance which, when used to make cough medicine, killed nearly 400 Panamanians last year. Some of the tainted toothpaste was shipped on to the Dominican Republic. An Australian newspaper reported that the toothpaste containing diethylene glycol had also been exported from China to Australia. And now, the Nicaraguan pol9ice have also seized 6,000 tubes of Chinese toothpaste suspected of containing diethylene glycol.
Scientists believe that if the world's population continues to increase at its present rate, the earth will not be able to produce enough food to sustain life. In that event, will people turn to cannibalism in order to survive? Why has the People's Republic failed to control its food and medicine industries when it controls almost every aspect of Chinese life? Hmmm, rather than trying to control the populations of other countries, could the exportation of poisonous foods and medicines be a way for China to soften us up as it prepares to fight in World War III?
ADDENDUM: On May 31, it was reported that Chinese made toothpaste containing diethylene glycol has been found on the shelves of our country's dollar-type stores.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A NORMAL PART OF BLACK CULTURE ?
Recently, Kathleen Parker, a Wahington Post Writers Group columnist, wrote an op ed piece about a white teacher who was constantly subjected to reprehensible racist slurs and other indignities by her black students while school officials excused such behavior as normal black culture. Since most of you probably have'nt read Parker's column, I am going to cover some of the highlights.
Elizabeth Kandrac was a teacher at Brentwood Middle School, a predominantly black school, in North Charleston, South Carolina. She made frequent complaints to school officials about being subjected to racially charged verbal abuse. In addition to a daily barrage of vulgar language, Kandrac had books and desks thrown at her, and had her bicycle tires punctured.
Other teachers and students corroborated Kandrac's account. One male teacher, a war veteran, "testified he would rather return to (fight in) Vietnam than to Brentwood." When officials with the Charleston County School District failed to take any remedial action, she took her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to Parker, the students' slurs "make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon." Parker wrote, "Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could only be construed as hostile and threatening. Here's a sample: white b---, white m--- f---, white c---, white a---, white ho." School officials told her that if she couldn't handle the foul language she was in the wrong school.
Since they believed the same vulgarities were commonly used in black homes, school officials simply considered the racially charged profanity as a normal part of black culture. Instead of acting on the complaints, Kandrac's competence was questioned and when her EEOC complaint was made public, she was suspended. Eventually she lost her job.
Parker wrote, "Here's what we know without question: If majority white students had used similar language toward black students and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times until heads rolled. A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media - their faces all over the evening news - whiile the reverends Al (Sharpton) and Jessee (Jackson) organized protests."
So, instead of being able to cash in on her abuse, this white teacher was fired. Kathleen Parker is to be commended for bringing this sordid example of reverse discrimination to our attention. And who is responsible for imposing this racially biased double standard on our society? Blacks? No, nor any other minority group. It's white liberals on a guilt trip over past wrongs commited against blacks in this country.
I must confess that I often use vulgar language. That does not make it right. Black, white, yellow, purple or whatever color one might be, the use of offensive language, racially charged slurs, and threatening behavior is not justifiable. Black culture, my ass!
Elizabeth Kandrac was a teacher at Brentwood Middle School, a predominantly black school, in North Charleston, South Carolina. She made frequent complaints to school officials about being subjected to racially charged verbal abuse. In addition to a daily barrage of vulgar language, Kandrac had books and desks thrown at her, and had her bicycle tires punctured.
Other teachers and students corroborated Kandrac's account. One male teacher, a war veteran, "testified he would rather return to (fight in) Vietnam than to Brentwood." When officials with the Charleston County School District failed to take any remedial action, she took her complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
According to Parker, the students' slurs "make shock jock Don Imus look like a church deacon." Parker wrote, "Let's be clear: What these children called this teacher is beyond reprehensible and could only be construed as hostile and threatening. Here's a sample: white b---, white m--- f---, white c---, white a---, white ho." School officials told her that if she couldn't handle the foul language she was in the wrong school.
Since they believed the same vulgarities were commonly used in black homes, school officials simply considered the racially charged profanity as a normal part of black culture. Instead of acting on the complaints, Kandrac's competence was questioned and when her EEOC complaint was made public, she was suspended. Eventually she lost her job.
Parker wrote, "Here's what we know without question: If majority white students had used similar language toward black students and teachers, the case would have been plastered on the front page of The New York Times until heads rolled. A black Kandrac would have a million-dollar book deal, a movie contract and hundreds of interviews to juggle. Her oppressors and those who passively facilitated her abuse would have been pilloried by the media - their faces all over the evening news - whiile the reverends Al (Sharpton) and Jessee (Jackson) organized protests."
So, instead of being able to cash in on her abuse, this white teacher was fired. Kathleen Parker is to be commended for bringing this sordid example of reverse discrimination to our attention. And who is responsible for imposing this racially biased double standard on our society? Blacks? No, nor any other minority group. It's white liberals on a guilt trip over past wrongs commited against blacks in this country.
I must confess that I often use vulgar language. That does not make it right. Black, white, yellow, purple or whatever color one might be, the use of offensive language, racially charged slurs, and threatening behavior is not justifiable. Black culture, my ass!
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
IMMIGRATION TOMFOOLERY
The following comments were made by a close friend who is a retired state police agency manager and were made in response to my blog MEXIFORNIA, MEXAS, MEXIZONA AND NUEVO MEXICO.
In 1986 the immigration laws were revamped and thousands or millions of Mexicans were granted amnesty. One reason this law passed was because of the stiff penalties that were written in for employers of undocumented workers and the money which was appropriared for enforcing the immigration laws. Guess what? No money ever filtered down to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Border Patrol. In fact their budgets were eventually cut.
The sad thing is that we already have sufficient laws that if enforced would take care of the immigration problem. I was recently in Arizona and spoke to a law enforcement official who told me that they still catch and release illegal immigrants with no penalties. The National Guard was even deployed to the border. All they are allowed to do is watch, report and take no action. Several men dressed like soldiers recently crossed the border in southern Arizona displaying automatic weapons in front of three National Guardsmen. They did nothing but stand there and scratch their asses. They were later given a commendation for following orders.
Several Texas Sheriffs, whose counties were on the border with Mexico, were given millions of dollars last year to augment the border patrol with enforcing immigration laws. Supposedly, local officers from other jurisdictions were going to be imported to the area to help out. It turns out that few illegals were arrested by the local deputies and the overall expenditures amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per arrest. Where did the money go? Give me a break!
In 1986 the immigration laws were revamped and thousands or millions of Mexicans were granted amnesty. One reason this law passed was because of the stiff penalties that were written in for employers of undocumented workers and the money which was appropriared for enforcing the immigration laws. Guess what? No money ever filtered down to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Border Patrol. In fact their budgets were eventually cut.
The sad thing is that we already have sufficient laws that if enforced would take care of the immigration problem. I was recently in Arizona and spoke to a law enforcement official who told me that they still catch and release illegal immigrants with no penalties. The National Guard was even deployed to the border. All they are allowed to do is watch, report and take no action. Several men dressed like soldiers recently crossed the border in southern Arizona displaying automatic weapons in front of three National Guardsmen. They did nothing but stand there and scratch their asses. They were later given a commendation for following orders.
Several Texas Sheriffs, whose counties were on the border with Mexico, were given millions of dollars last year to augment the border patrol with enforcing immigration laws. Supposedly, local officers from other jurisdictions were going to be imported to the area to help out. It turns out that few illegals were arrested by the local deputies and the overall expenditures amounted to tens of thousands of dollars per arrest. Where did the money go? Give me a break!
SACK DRAGGING COPS
The following comments were made by a close friend who is a retired state police agency manager and were made in response to my blog CAN'T COPS HAVE FUN ANYMORE?
The reason the Washington Chief of Police put up the warning signs to police officers during National Police Week is because of the complaints from local business owners. There is nothing worse than a bunch of drunk cops who believe that they are entitled to free drinks, meals and discounted room rates. If they don't get it, look out! This permeates law enforcement from top to bottom.
Beer distributors and liquor wholesalers have always been big targets. They have to hide when any retirement party or promotion is announced. They will wind up furnishing all the beverages sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Add to that other freebies like hospitality rooms, ice, bartenders, and clean up crews. Of course, in return you seldom see a beer truck or whiskey drummer getting a ticket. In fact, I have literally seen beer trucks getting police escorts through traffic snarls to get to county fairs and concerts to sell their products. What the cops don't know is that most of the product that gets donated to their parties is usually out of date and scheduled to be destroyed.
Cops who accept or solicit freebies are called sack draggers. I once worked with a cop in a major Texas city who never paid for a meal. He would literally make sure that his meal was free by saying to the waitress, "Cops eat free here, right?" If he was denied a free meal, he would make a scene and leave. Upper management cops are just as bad. The only difference is that they put the arm on upper scale restaurants. No fast food for lieutenants or above.
Christmas at the cop shop is a wonderful time of year. Gift baskets of liquor, frozen turkeys and hams litter the squad room. Each year Dillard's department stores send a letter to every police and fire department offering a substantial discount for Christmas shopping on a certain date. It's a nice gesture. The loser is the restaurant owner in the mall that gets hit with all the cops and their families who expect to eat free.
The reason the Washington Chief of Police put up the warning signs to police officers during National Police Week is because of the complaints from local business owners. There is nothing worse than a bunch of drunk cops who believe that they are entitled to free drinks, meals and discounted room rates. If they don't get it, look out! This permeates law enforcement from top to bottom.
Beer distributors and liquor wholesalers have always been big targets. They have to hide when any retirement party or promotion is announced. They will wind up furnishing all the beverages sometimes to the tune of thousands of dollars. Add to that other freebies like hospitality rooms, ice, bartenders, and clean up crews. Of course, in return you seldom see a beer truck or whiskey drummer getting a ticket. In fact, I have literally seen beer trucks getting police escorts through traffic snarls to get to county fairs and concerts to sell their products. What the cops don't know is that most of the product that gets donated to their parties is usually out of date and scheduled to be destroyed.
Cops who accept or solicit freebies are called sack draggers. I once worked with a cop in a major Texas city who never paid for a meal. He would literally make sure that his meal was free by saying to the waitress, "Cops eat free here, right?" If he was denied a free meal, he would make a scene and leave. Upper management cops are just as bad. The only difference is that they put the arm on upper scale restaurants. No fast food for lieutenants or above.
Christmas at the cop shop is a wonderful time of year. Gift baskets of liquor, frozen turkeys and hams litter the squad room. Each year Dillard's department stores send a letter to every police and fire department offering a substantial discount for Christmas shopping on a certain date. It's a nice gesture. The loser is the restaurant owner in the mall that gets hit with all the cops and their families who expect to eat free.
Monday, May 21, 2007
CAN'T COPS HAVE FUN ANYMORE?
Cops deserve a break every so often and they have their own way of having fun. So, why has District of Columbia Police Chief Cathy Lanier prohibited the thousands of visiting police officers, who will be in Wahington for this week's National Police Week activities, from having any fun?
Chief Lanier has ordered that fliers warning officers to obey the capital's rules about disorderly conduct, public intoxication and profanity, be prominently posted in all bars and hotels, and passed out downtown. The fliers included the statement that "The unacceptable behavior of some participants in activities associated with National Police Week has not gone unnoticed." Shit, can't cops have fun anymore?
No profanity? For cops, profanity is the primary means of communication, while English is their second language. This prohibition has the effect of silencing cops. Isn't that a viloation of a cop's right to free speech? No public intoxication? Hey, that's downright un-American. Drinking to excess is a way of allowing officers to get their minds off all the assholes, including some of their fellow cops, they have to deal with day in and day out. And, what about disorderly conduct? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder - isn't that the God-given right of common behavior for off-duty cops?
Here are some examples of the unique ways cops have fun. When the fuddy-duddy police chiefs of several neighboring communities prohibited all public off-duty drinking in their jurisdictions, their officers all went to a particular bar in the one neighboring community which permitted such drinking. Oh, what fun was had by all. There were the knock-down drag-out brawls and once there was even a shoot-out between two officers from different departments.
In one area, officers got together with some bar owners for an exclusive once-a-month cop's night. The way it worked, the cops and their guests were charged a cover fee which entitled them to all they could drink for free. Outsiders, unless they were good looking babes, were barred from these "private" parties. These Romanesque-like orgies came to a screeching halt after some imbecile cop brought his wife along. Seeing so many of his fellow married officers, whose wives were her friends, in the intimate company of other women caused a vituperative eruption of volcanic proportions. She threatened divorce and ratted the affair to the local police administration. What a killjoy!
I've been to a few police conferences in my time. For some officers, trashing hotel rooms is a favorite activity. One one occasion, a bunch of drunk officers drove through a number of (formerly) beautiful hotel flower beds. Once, in the middle of the night, a couple of officers shot at the resident swans in a hotel pond. Fortunately, they were so drunk that they missed the poor creatures. And then there is the joy of staggering down the corridor at three or four o'clock in the morning while shouting at the top of your voice so that all the other hotel guests on that floor can share in the fun you are having.
I remember one conference in San Diego (California) when a whole bunch of us crossed the border into Tijuana (Mexico). After imbibing at a few bars we ended up at a theater of sorts where they staged live sex shows. When there was a call for volunteers, about a dozen of our fellow officers scurried up to the stage. I can tell you that those amateurs performed admirably with a troupe of professional ladies, and they were able to do so in front of several hundred theater patrons. Now, those cops really had fun.
It looks like Chief Lanier is taking all the fun out of National Police Week. As a woman, she seems to have a narrow-minded viewpoint about off-duty fun at police gatherings. Thanks to Cathy Lanier, all good fun loving manly cops finally have a real reason to claim that women have no business doing police work.
Chief Lanier has ordered that fliers warning officers to obey the capital's rules about disorderly conduct, public intoxication and profanity, be prominently posted in all bars and hotels, and passed out downtown. The fliers included the statement that "The unacceptable behavior of some participants in activities associated with National Police Week has not gone unnoticed." Shit, can't cops have fun anymore?
No profanity? For cops, profanity is the primary means of communication, while English is their second language. This prohibition has the effect of silencing cops. Isn't that a viloation of a cop's right to free speech? No public intoxication? Hey, that's downright un-American. Drinking to excess is a way of allowing officers to get their minds off all the assholes, including some of their fellow cops, they have to deal with day in and day out. And, what about disorderly conduct? Well, that's in the eye of the beholder - isn't that the God-given right of common behavior for off-duty cops?
Here are some examples of the unique ways cops have fun. When the fuddy-duddy police chiefs of several neighboring communities prohibited all public off-duty drinking in their jurisdictions, their officers all went to a particular bar in the one neighboring community which permitted such drinking. Oh, what fun was had by all. There were the knock-down drag-out brawls and once there was even a shoot-out between two officers from different departments.
In one area, officers got together with some bar owners for an exclusive once-a-month cop's night. The way it worked, the cops and their guests were charged a cover fee which entitled them to all they could drink for free. Outsiders, unless they were good looking babes, were barred from these "private" parties. These Romanesque-like orgies came to a screeching halt after some imbecile cop brought his wife along. Seeing so many of his fellow married officers, whose wives were her friends, in the intimate company of other women caused a vituperative eruption of volcanic proportions. She threatened divorce and ratted the affair to the local police administration. What a killjoy!
I've been to a few police conferences in my time. For some officers, trashing hotel rooms is a favorite activity. One one occasion, a bunch of drunk officers drove through a number of (formerly) beautiful hotel flower beds. Once, in the middle of the night, a couple of officers shot at the resident swans in a hotel pond. Fortunately, they were so drunk that they missed the poor creatures. And then there is the joy of staggering down the corridor at three or four o'clock in the morning while shouting at the top of your voice so that all the other hotel guests on that floor can share in the fun you are having.
I remember one conference in San Diego (California) when a whole bunch of us crossed the border into Tijuana (Mexico). After imbibing at a few bars we ended up at a theater of sorts where they staged live sex shows. When there was a call for volunteers, about a dozen of our fellow officers scurried up to the stage. I can tell you that those amateurs performed admirably with a troupe of professional ladies, and they were able to do so in front of several hundred theater patrons. Now, those cops really had fun.
It looks like Chief Lanier is taking all the fun out of National Police Week. As a woman, she seems to have a narrow-minded viewpoint about off-duty fun at police gatherings. Thanks to Cathy Lanier, all good fun loving manly cops finally have a real reason to claim that women have no business doing police work.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
MEXIFORNIA, MEXAS, MEXIZONA AND NUEVO MEXICO
A group of senators from each party have reached a compromise on an immigration bill which, if it becomes law, will put an estimated 12 million illegal aliens on the path to citizenship. Its detrators claim the bill will grant amnesty to the illegals because their presence in this country will be immediately legalized. Its supporters deny that the bill grants amnesty because the illegals will have to meet a number of specific requirements and pay some hefty fines in order to acquire citizenship.
Where do they get this 12 million estimate from? No one really knows how many illegal aliens there are in this country. There are probably more than 20 million. 12 or 20 million, that is a staggering number. It will be logistically impossible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Besides, if we were to deport just a couple of million or so, the results would be catastrophic.
Americans thrive on cheap labor. The illegals work on our farms, in construction, on our garbage trucks, in our homes as domestics, on our yards, in our food processing plants, and in many other kinds of low-skilled jobs. Thus, deporting significant numbers of illegals could bring our country close to economic collapse. But, calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is akin to calling illegal drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists" and will not solve anything. So what is the answer to this immense problem?
Well, if we do nothing, which is what we are doing now, they will just keep coming. We can discourage this invasion by not allowing their children to attend our public schools, by denying them free medical services and by denying them any welfare benefits. But, many people would consider the denial of these services to be cruel and inhumane. We could build an impenetrable wall along the lenght of our border with Mexico, but that would cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
There is no good solution to the illegal immigration problem. The previous amnesty law (1986), which was intended to stop the influx of illegals, unleashed a tsunami of unlawful border crossings which continues unabated. If the compromise immigration bill passes and becomes law, we will have more than 20 million new citizens within eight to 13 years.
It is not inconceivable that by the year 2020, a majority of voters in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico will chose to secede from the union and petition for annexation by Mexico. Then Mexifornia, Mexas, Mexizona and Nuevo Mexico will become new states in northern Mexico.
Where do they get this 12 million estimate from? No one really knows how many illegal aliens there are in this country. There are probably more than 20 million. 12 or 20 million, that is a staggering number. It will be logistically impossible to deport millions of illegal aliens. Besides, if we were to deport just a couple of million or so, the results would be catastrophic.
Americans thrive on cheap labor. The illegals work on our farms, in construction, on our garbage trucks, in our homes as domestics, on our yards, in our food processing plants, and in many other kinds of low-skilled jobs. Thus, deporting significant numbers of illegals could bring our country close to economic collapse. But, calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers" is akin to calling illegal drug dealers "unlicensed pharmacists" and will not solve anything. So what is the answer to this immense problem?
Well, if we do nothing, which is what we are doing now, they will just keep coming. We can discourage this invasion by not allowing their children to attend our public schools, by denying them free medical services and by denying them any welfare benefits. But, many people would consider the denial of these services to be cruel and inhumane. We could build an impenetrable wall along the lenght of our border with Mexico, but that would cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
There is no good solution to the illegal immigration problem. The previous amnesty law (1986), which was intended to stop the influx of illegals, unleashed a tsunami of unlawful border crossings which continues unabated. If the compromise immigration bill passes and becomes law, we will have more than 20 million new citizens within eight to 13 years.
It is not inconceivable that by the year 2020, a majority of voters in California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico will chose to secede from the union and petition for annexation by Mexico. Then Mexifornia, Mexas, Mexizona and Nuevo Mexico will become new states in northern Mexico.
Friday, May 18, 2007
CALLED BY GOD OR THE DEVIL?
I suspect that most of you have read or heard about the stupid sadistic asshole from Arkansas who placed his two month old infant daughter inside a microwave oven and turned it on for up to 20 seconds. As a result, the child suffered critical burns to her face, neck, shoulder and a hand.
Joshua Mauldin, 19, told Galveston (Texas) police investigators that he was under stress over being left alone with the baby in a hotel room. He became agitated and tossed the baby on one of the two beds, then on the other before hitting her in the groin. Mauldin then put the baby in the hotel room safe, then in a refrigerator and finally inside the microwave oven.
Mauldin told the police that he left the small town of Warren, Arkansas because "he was called to be a minister by God." He decided to start his ministry as a preacher in Galveston, a city once known for its wide open gambling and prostitution. Let's hope Mauldin confused God with the Devil. Otherwise, his calling will give preachers a bad rap.
There are only three other known instances in which a child was burned in this manner. In 2006, an Ohio mother was charged with killing her baby by cooking the child to death in a microwave oven. It is extemely hard to contemplate the commission of such a horrendous cruel crime.
Mauldin is being held in jail, unable to come up with his bail, which has been set at $250,000. Thank the almighty God for that. A grand jury has indicted Mauldin on a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm. If convicted, he faces a sentence of five to 99 years in prison. Considering the nature of this crime, or the one in which a mother recently mutilated the genitals of her three month old infant son, how can any self-respecting person be opposed to the death penalty?
Joshua Mauldin, 19, told Galveston (Texas) police investigators that he was under stress over being left alone with the baby in a hotel room. He became agitated and tossed the baby on one of the two beds, then on the other before hitting her in the groin. Mauldin then put the baby in the hotel room safe, then in a refrigerator and finally inside the microwave oven.
Mauldin told the police that he left the small town of Warren, Arkansas because "he was called to be a minister by God." He decided to start his ministry as a preacher in Galveston, a city once known for its wide open gambling and prostitution. Let's hope Mauldin confused God with the Devil. Otherwise, his calling will give preachers a bad rap.
There are only three other known instances in which a child was burned in this manner. In 2006, an Ohio mother was charged with killing her baby by cooking the child to death in a microwave oven. It is extemely hard to contemplate the commission of such a horrendous cruel crime.
Mauldin is being held in jail, unable to come up with his bail, which has been set at $250,000. Thank the almighty God for that. A grand jury has indicted Mauldin on a charge of injury to a child causing serious bodily harm. If convicted, he faces a sentence of five to 99 years in prison. Considering the nature of this crime, or the one in which a mother recently mutilated the genitals of her three month old infant son, how can any self-respecting person be opposed to the death penalty?
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
A BUMP IN THE ROAD TO RUIN
"Somebody help me." You've probably seen the television commercial with that plea by the guy who had it all - wife and kids, huge house, beautiful lawn, riding lawnmower, sumptuous swimming pool, large SUV and big boat - but was "in debt up to my eyeballs."
I'm sure you've seen the commercial which says, "Lower your payments an average of $400 a month." Or the one which says, "Consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment.." These commercials are ads for the refinancing of homes or for a debt consolidation loan. Unless the debtor changes his spending ways, these solutions are merely a bump in the road to ruin.
The major cause of debt is that good old American invention - the credit card. If you don't have cash on hand, buy it with a credit card. You don't have to be uneducated to run up huge debts. Studies have shown that college students, who run up substantial debts with credit cards, will continue with their undisciplined spending habits once they have graduated and entered the real world.
The ideal financial situation is the one in which a consumer is relatively debt free. That requires a lot of self-discipline - one should never spend beyond one's means. The most glaring example of undisciplined spending is our federal government, with Congress and the Administration running up a humongous deficit by breaking every principle of fiscal responsibility.
Except for a mortgage and for automobile payments, one's purchases should never exceed one's ability to pay them off within 30 days. Debt can lead to a lot of problems. It is the leading cause for our high divorce rate. When good people become desperate debtors, they may turn into thieves and robbers.
Keeping up with the Joneses is one of Anerica's most serious financial diseases. That, and the easy availability of credit cards, is a prescription for finacial disaster. I know of several people who kept getting pre-approved credit card applications long after they went through bankruptcy. I know of dead beats who are being hounded by bill collectors, including collectors for credit card companies, that keep geting those same credit card applications.
Refinancing a home or obtaining a debt consolidation loan simply enables the debtor to keep on spending like there's no tomorrow. The only way to get out of debt is to change one's lifestyle. No more unnecessary purchases. No impulse buying. No more going out to eat every night. No more cruises or other costly vacations if one cannot afford them. No boats or other recrecatioal vehicles. It means driving a compact car instead of a luxury vehicle.
Getting out from under debt also requires one to cancel and destroy each and every credit card once they have been paid off. Home refinancing and debt consolidation, by themselves, are only temporary fixes - a bump that might slow one down for a short while, before it's full speed ahead again on the road to ruin.
I'm sure you've seen the commercial which says, "Lower your payments an average of $400 a month." Or the one which says, "Consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment.." These commercials are ads for the refinancing of homes or for a debt consolidation loan. Unless the debtor changes his spending ways, these solutions are merely a bump in the road to ruin.
The major cause of debt is that good old American invention - the credit card. If you don't have cash on hand, buy it with a credit card. You don't have to be uneducated to run up huge debts. Studies have shown that college students, who run up substantial debts with credit cards, will continue with their undisciplined spending habits once they have graduated and entered the real world.
The ideal financial situation is the one in which a consumer is relatively debt free. That requires a lot of self-discipline - one should never spend beyond one's means. The most glaring example of undisciplined spending is our federal government, with Congress and the Administration running up a humongous deficit by breaking every principle of fiscal responsibility.
Except for a mortgage and for automobile payments, one's purchases should never exceed one's ability to pay them off within 30 days. Debt can lead to a lot of problems. It is the leading cause for our high divorce rate. When good people become desperate debtors, they may turn into thieves and robbers.
Keeping up with the Joneses is one of Anerica's most serious financial diseases. That, and the easy availability of credit cards, is a prescription for finacial disaster. I know of several people who kept getting pre-approved credit card applications long after they went through bankruptcy. I know of dead beats who are being hounded by bill collectors, including collectors for credit card companies, that keep geting those same credit card applications.
Refinancing a home or obtaining a debt consolidation loan simply enables the debtor to keep on spending like there's no tomorrow. The only way to get out of debt is to change one's lifestyle. No more unnecessary purchases. No impulse buying. No more going out to eat every night. No more cruises or other costly vacations if one cannot afford them. No boats or other recrecatioal vehicles. It means driving a compact car instead of a luxury vehicle.
Getting out from under debt also requires one to cancel and destroy each and every credit card once they have been paid off. Home refinancing and debt consolidation, by themselves, are only temporary fixes - a bump that might slow one down for a short while, before it's full speed ahead again on the road to ruin.
Monday, May 14, 2007
RESTAURATEUR OF THE YEAR
It's really great to know that money doesn't count for everything to some people. Jeff Ruby, the owner of a swanky steakhouse in Louisville, gave O.J. Simpson and his entourage the heave-ho from his restaurant the night before the Kentucky Derby.
Simpson and a party of twelve had been seated in the restaurant. Another customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing the legally innocent but morallly guilty murderer of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. It was then that Ruby asked Simpson to leave. He and his guests left quietly. His lawyer, calling the ouster a publicity stunt, announced that Simpson would not sue Ruby.
Ruby explained that he was sickened by the attention Simpson still gets. "I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families (Nicole's and Goldman's). The way he continues to torture the lives of those families with his behavior, attitude and conduct." Ruby did not want to experience the attention Simpson was getting in the steakhouse, saying that it "makes me sick to my stomach."
Jeff Ruby gets my vote for Restaurateur of the Year. Can you imagine how much he would have made had he served Simpson's party of twelve? How many other restaurateurs would have sacrificed a large sum of money like that? And what does it say about the people who make up Simpson's entourage? To me, they're nothing but a bunch of pukes who have no shame.
Simpson and a party of twelve had been seated in the restaurant. Another customer came up to Ruby and was "giddy" about seeing the legally innocent but morallly guilty murderer of his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman. It was then that Ruby asked Simpson to leave. He and his guests left quietly. His lawyer, calling the ouster a publicity stunt, announced that Simpson would not sue Ruby.
Ruby explained that he was sickened by the attention Simpson still gets. "I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families (Nicole's and Goldman's). The way he continues to torture the lives of those families with his behavior, attitude and conduct." Ruby did not want to experience the attention Simpson was getting in the steakhouse, saying that it "makes me sick to my stomach."
Jeff Ruby gets my vote for Restaurateur of the Year. Can you imagine how much he would have made had he served Simpson's party of twelve? How many other restaurateurs would have sacrificed a large sum of money like that? And what does it say about the people who make up Simpson's entourage? To me, they're nothing but a bunch of pukes who have no shame.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
THOSE PRODUCT REGISTRATION CARDS
Have you recently purchased a new television set, a new computer printer, a new refrigerator, or any other new product which carries a 90 day, a one year, or a limited life-time warranty? If so, did you return the product registration card? When you fail to return the registration card, you may be in for a rude awakening if the product develops a defect within the stated warranty period.
Consumer protection laws require the manufacturer to stand behind their warranties, whether or not the purchaser registered the product purchase. What I don't like about those cards is that they include a check list for a lot of personal information such as your annual income, your educational attainment, your occupation, your family and household make-up, your hobbies, and other crap. They do that to sell this information to other merchandizers. That's why you get more and more junk mail.
Let me tell you what happened to me. Believing that the warranties would be good even if I didn't mail in the product registration cards, I just stopped mailing them in. When a new (top brand) computer printer I had purchased went on the blink, I contacted the manufacturer in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual. I was informed that because I did not register the product at the time of purchase, the warraanty period started on the date of manufacture, rather than on the date of purchase. While my printer was serviced in accordance with the warranty, I lost half of the covered one year period by not returning the product registration card.
Now, I always return the product registration cards and I strongly suggest all of you do the same if you want to be covered for the entire warranty period. However, when I send the cards in, I do not check off any of the personal information items. I only list my name, address, and phone number, the product name and model number, the serial number if called for, and the place and date of purchase. By the way, the manufacturers also want your registration so they can notify you in case of a product recall. So, for your own protection, don't forget to return those product registration cards.
Consumer protection laws require the manufacturer to stand behind their warranties, whether or not the purchaser registered the product purchase. What I don't like about those cards is that they include a check list for a lot of personal information such as your annual income, your educational attainment, your occupation, your family and household make-up, your hobbies, and other crap. They do that to sell this information to other merchandizers. That's why you get more and more junk mail.
Let me tell you what happened to me. Believing that the warranties would be good even if I didn't mail in the product registration cards, I just stopped mailing them in. When a new (top brand) computer printer I had purchased went on the blink, I contacted the manufacturer in accordance with the instructions in the owner's manual. I was informed that because I did not register the product at the time of purchase, the warraanty period started on the date of manufacture, rather than on the date of purchase. While my printer was serviced in accordance with the warranty, I lost half of the covered one year period by not returning the product registration card.
Now, I always return the product registration cards and I strongly suggest all of you do the same if you want to be covered for the entire warranty period. However, when I send the cards in, I do not check off any of the personal information items. I only list my name, address, and phone number, the product name and model number, the serial number if called for, and the place and date of purchase. By the way, the manufacturers also want your registration so they can notify you in case of a product recall. So, for your own protection, don't forget to return those product registration cards.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
STINKO DE MAYO
In the United States, Cinco de Mayo is a holiday which is celebrated by people of Mexican descent to honor Mexico's victory over the French at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. Parades are held in cities with large populations of Mexicans, including citizens of this country and those who are not citizens, whether they are here legally or illegally. Mexiczn flags are prominently displayed in those parades.
The public display of the Mexican flag is a symbol of loyalty to Mexico and, accordingly, it is an affront to many Americans. Parade sponsors try to sugarcoat the holiday by claiming that it is only a celebration of culture and diversity. The defenders of Mexican nationalism point out that other ethnic groups in this country have their own celebrations. Fair enough - let's look at some other celebrations.
The Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Parades held on that day, by and large, do not involve the carrying of the flag of Ireland. Many people, whether Irish or not, wear green items of clothing on the holiday which celebrates the fable that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland. That explains why many a good Irishman drinks to excess - they found themselves seeing a bunch of slithering snakes which were supposed to be extinct, an experience more frightening than seeing pink elephants.
Columbus Day is a celebration of pride for Italians in this country. It honors their countryman who, while financed by the Queen of Spain, is given credit for the discovery of America. That discovery is also notable for an exchange of gifts between the Europeans and the American Indians. The Europeans gave the Indians smallpox and other diseases, while the Indians returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. You will see few, if any, Italian flags carried in Columbus Day parades.
The Chinese and Vietnamese have their own New Year celebrations. No foreign flags there. The only Vietnamese flags ever publicly displayed were those carried by disloyal American anti-war protestors during the '60s and '70s. These New Year celebrations are notable for dragon dances in which six or more men line up underneath a dragon costume and, starting with the second one in line, butt their heads against the butt of the man in front of them.
Cinco de Mayo and its Mexican flag waving is fine when celebrated in Mexico. You don't see Mexicans in Texas celebrating San Jacinto Day, a holiday honoring the defeat of the Mexican army by a small rag-tag band of Texans. General Santa Anna, who slaughtered the vastly outnumbered defenders of the Alamo, bravely led his troops at San Jacinto while naked in the sack, thrusting his weenie into the pistil of The Yellow Rose Of Texas.
(Colonel James Morgan, a wealthy landowner who lived in close proximity to the San Jacinto battlefield, claimed he sent Emily West, his mulatto paramour, to shack-up with Santa Anna so as to divert the general's attention away from leading his troops. In recognition of that historic seduction, Morgan's identured servant Emily came to be known as The Yellow Rose Of Texas.)
To those who say that we do not have a right to be affronted by the Mexican flag waving, I say horseshit. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed the Houston 1836. 1836 was the year that the City of Houston was founded, but it also happened to be the year of Santa Ana's defeat at San Jacinto. Houston's Mexican community was so offended by the name that the team changed it to the Houston Dynamo. Cinco de Mayo? No, its Stinko de Mayo!
The public display of the Mexican flag is a symbol of loyalty to Mexico and, accordingly, it is an affront to many Americans. Parade sponsors try to sugarcoat the holiday by claiming that it is only a celebration of culture and diversity. The defenders of Mexican nationalism point out that other ethnic groups in this country have their own celebrations. Fair enough - let's look at some other celebrations.
The Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day. Parades held on that day, by and large, do not involve the carrying of the flag of Ireland. Many people, whether Irish or not, wear green items of clothing on the holiday which celebrates the fable that St. Patrick chased all the snakes out of Ireland. That explains why many a good Irishman drinks to excess - they found themselves seeing a bunch of slithering snakes which were supposed to be extinct, an experience more frightening than seeing pink elephants.
Columbus Day is a celebration of pride for Italians in this country. It honors their countryman who, while financed by the Queen of Spain, is given credit for the discovery of America. That discovery is also notable for an exchange of gifts between the Europeans and the American Indians. The Europeans gave the Indians smallpox and other diseases, while the Indians returned the favor by giving the Europeans syphilis. You will see few, if any, Italian flags carried in Columbus Day parades.
The Chinese and Vietnamese have their own New Year celebrations. No foreign flags there. The only Vietnamese flags ever publicly displayed were those carried by disloyal American anti-war protestors during the '60s and '70s. These New Year celebrations are notable for dragon dances in which six or more men line up underneath a dragon costume and, starting with the second one in line, butt their heads against the butt of the man in front of them.
Cinco de Mayo and its Mexican flag waving is fine when celebrated in Mexico. You don't see Mexicans in Texas celebrating San Jacinto Day, a holiday honoring the defeat of the Mexican army by a small rag-tag band of Texans. General Santa Anna, who slaughtered the vastly outnumbered defenders of the Alamo, bravely led his troops at San Jacinto while naked in the sack, thrusting his weenie into the pistil of The Yellow Rose Of Texas.
(Colonel James Morgan, a wealthy landowner who lived in close proximity to the San Jacinto battlefield, claimed he sent Emily West, his mulatto paramour, to shack-up with Santa Anna so as to divert the general's attention away from leading his troops. In recognition of that historic seduction, Morgan's identured servant Emily came to be known as The Yellow Rose Of Texas.)
To those who say that we do not have a right to be affronted by the Mexican flag waving, I say horseshit. When the San Jose major league soccer team relocated to Houston, it was renamed the Houston 1836. 1836 was the year that the City of Houston was founded, but it also happened to be the year of Santa Ana's defeat at San Jacinto. Houston's Mexican community was so offended by the name that the team changed it to the Houston Dynamo. Cinco de Mayo? No, its Stinko de Mayo!
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
I'M CALLING ON BEHALF OF - - - -
Like many others, I make contributions to a number of charities. I give what I think I can afford, once a year, except for some emergencies, such as the Katrina disaster, when I made additional contributions to the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Since I do not earn enough to itemize deductions, my contributions are not intended lower my income taxe payments. I chose organizations that do work in areas of special interest to me.
Since charitable organizations are exempt from the fedetral and state "no call" lists, every week I get a number of telephone solicitations that start out with, "Mr. - - -, I'm calling on behalf of - - - - -." These telemarketing calls are a real nuisance, especially since they are usually made while I am occupied with something that requires my complete attention. My response is a truthful one - "We do not accept solicitations over the phone."
Most of these solicitations are from professional fund raisers who, by contract, may retain up to 50% or more of what they raise by these calls. Some are outright scams. The most notorious scams are from telephone solicitors purporting to represent the rank and file officers of local, state or federal police agencies. These scam artists will usually resort to an intimidating tone once you start to turn them down.
What really frosts me is that I get calls or written solicitations from charities which are already the recipients of my annual contributions. Many years ago, I started out giving $100 each year to the Special Olympics. Ever since, I have been getting mailings from that charity at the rate of about once a month. I got so aggravated by these frequent mail solicitations that I reduced my contributions, first to $50, then eventually to $25. The only reason I am still donating to Special Olympics is because it is a worthy cause.
For 35 years, I was a member of a Zoo, paying $100 anually for my membership. From time to time during those years, I gave additional money to the zoo's "Adopt an Animal" program. When the zoo was raising money to construct a new primate section, I made a substantial contribution to that project. For eight years, I worked as a volunteer in the primate section. Three days a week I cleaned cages and habitats. I became a real expert in one area - just call me a Professor of Primate Poop.
One evening a couple of years ago, I received a telephone call which really ticked me off. "Mr. - - -, this is Judy from the zoo." I knew there was no Judy on the staff and I found out the zoo had hired a professional fund raiser. After donating nearly $5,000 to the zoo, I get hustled by a deceptive out-of-state telemarketer - no thanks. You can bet that her true name is not even "Judy." That, together with the cavalier way I was shown the gate when I stopped volunteering, is the reason this zoo will never see another red cent from me. (I quit because, at my age, I no longer felt safe driving the 26 miles between my home and the zoo.)
Another thing that bugs me about charities is that once you start contributing to them, most will include your name, address and phone number on a list of their donors which they sell to other fund raising organizations, a practice which only leads to more of those annoying mailings and telemarketing calls.
Now, when I get a call from a charity to which I am already making annual contributions, this is what I tell them - "Look, I donate to - - - - - once a year what I can afford and I get sick and tired of getting calls from you for more. If you call again, - - - - - will never get another dime from me." Their usual response - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll put you on our no call list."
There are many worthwhile charities and I intend to keep on giving to those which share my interests, provided they stop hustling me for additional contributions. My suggestion is that you check to see how much of your contribution is applied to fund raising. Anything above 10% is too much. The Smile Train and the Nature Conservancy are two outstanding charities.
The Smile Train, an organization of physicians which performs cleft surgery on little children in third world countries, applies 100% of all contributions to these surgeries and to the training of doctors in those countries. The fund raising costs are borne entirely by the doctors who do the cleft surgeries for The Smile Train.
The Nature Conservancy does not send me annoying mailings. It goes about quietly buying up large tracts of land for nature preserves all over the world, land that is threatened by development. Unlike the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy does not ask anyone to sign petitions, nor does it politicize its cause.
Since charitable organizations are exempt from the fedetral and state "no call" lists, every week I get a number of telephone solicitations that start out with, "Mr. - - -, I'm calling on behalf of - - - - -." These telemarketing calls are a real nuisance, especially since they are usually made while I am occupied with something that requires my complete attention. My response is a truthful one - "We do not accept solicitations over the phone."
Most of these solicitations are from professional fund raisers who, by contract, may retain up to 50% or more of what they raise by these calls. Some are outright scams. The most notorious scams are from telephone solicitors purporting to represent the rank and file officers of local, state or federal police agencies. These scam artists will usually resort to an intimidating tone once you start to turn them down.
What really frosts me is that I get calls or written solicitations from charities which are already the recipients of my annual contributions. Many years ago, I started out giving $100 each year to the Special Olympics. Ever since, I have been getting mailings from that charity at the rate of about once a month. I got so aggravated by these frequent mail solicitations that I reduced my contributions, first to $50, then eventually to $25. The only reason I am still donating to Special Olympics is because it is a worthy cause.
For 35 years, I was a member of a Zoo, paying $100 anually for my membership. From time to time during those years, I gave additional money to the zoo's "Adopt an Animal" program. When the zoo was raising money to construct a new primate section, I made a substantial contribution to that project. For eight years, I worked as a volunteer in the primate section. Three days a week I cleaned cages and habitats. I became a real expert in one area - just call me a Professor of Primate Poop.
One evening a couple of years ago, I received a telephone call which really ticked me off. "Mr. - - -, this is Judy from the zoo." I knew there was no Judy on the staff and I found out the zoo had hired a professional fund raiser. After donating nearly $5,000 to the zoo, I get hustled by a deceptive out-of-state telemarketer - no thanks. You can bet that her true name is not even "Judy." That, together with the cavalier way I was shown the gate when I stopped volunteering, is the reason this zoo will never see another red cent from me. (I quit because, at my age, I no longer felt safe driving the 26 miles between my home and the zoo.)
Another thing that bugs me about charities is that once you start contributing to them, most will include your name, address and phone number on a list of their donors which they sell to other fund raising organizations, a practice which only leads to more of those annoying mailings and telemarketing calls.
Now, when I get a call from a charity to which I am already making annual contributions, this is what I tell them - "Look, I donate to - - - - - once a year what I can afford and I get sick and tired of getting calls from you for more. If you call again, - - - - - will never get another dime from me." Their usual response - "Oh, I'm sorry, we'll put you on our no call list."
There are many worthwhile charities and I intend to keep on giving to those which share my interests, provided they stop hustling me for additional contributions. My suggestion is that you check to see how much of your contribution is applied to fund raising. Anything above 10% is too much. The Smile Train and the Nature Conservancy are two outstanding charities.
The Smile Train, an organization of physicians which performs cleft surgery on little children in third world countries, applies 100% of all contributions to these surgeries and to the training of doctors in those countries. The fund raising costs are borne entirely by the doctors who do the cleft surgeries for The Smile Train.
The Nature Conservancy does not send me annoying mailings. It goes about quietly buying up large tracts of land for nature preserves all over the world, land that is threatened by development. Unlike the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, The Nature Conservancy does not ask anyone to sign petitions, nor does it politicize its cause.
Monday, April 16, 2007
JESSEE JACKSON AND AL SHARPTON IDENTIFIED AS ROGUE RACE-BAITING TERRORISTS
Who had the audacity to call Jessee Jakson and Al Sharpton terrorists? Don Imus? No. Rush Limbaugh? No. The Grand Lizard of the Kook Klucks Klown? No. The Duke lacrosse players who were terrorized by these two charlatans? No. It was Jason Whitlock, a columnist for the KANSAS CITY STAR. Appearing on MSNBC's TUCKER television program during its coverage of the Imus flap, Whitlock had some harsh things to say about these two "leaders" of the black community. According to the April 12 program transcript, Whitlock made the following remarks.
"But these guys have driven the issue and -- and I would say to CBS, don't negotiate with terroriists, because that's what Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton are. They go around the country lighting fires and dividing people, and then start picking everyone's pocket."
"You never see them go back and apologize for the messes they make. Jessee Jackson todaly, right now, should be down at Duke, apologizing to those soccer (sic) players, rather than trying to turn these basketball players at Rutgers into the ultimate victims."
"He owes the people down at Duke an apology for going and stirring in that mess, and dividing people and dividing this nation. They're terrorists. They go around this country starting fires, and they need to be stopped."
Is Whitlock some kind of honky (white) bigot? No. He is a respected black journalist - or at least up to now he was. Whitlock was immediately attacked by black commentators for the remarks he made on TUCKER and for similar things he wrote in a column on the Imus flap.
When Tucker Carlson asked Whitlock why Jackson and Sharpton "have so much power?," Whitlock replied, "Now, this one here, I will put on the media." He went on to say, "other than Jessee and Al lining their pockets, they have done nothing."
OK, so Whitlock misidentified the sport of the falsely accused lacrosse players, but that should not detract from his factual description of Jackson and Sharpton as terrorists. It has long been charged that, given the opportunity, these shake-down artists will confront corporations, threatening to hold demonstrations in front of their offices and threatening them with boycuts of their products if they did not make substantial contributions to Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Sharpton's National Action Network. If you and I made such threats, we would be facing criminal charges for extortion.
Although I have been criticizing Jackson and Sharpton for many years in much the same way as Whitlock, I have never thought of them as terrorists. They pretend to be civil rights advocates when in fact they are practitioners of perpetual victimhood. That is the only way they can get the photo-ops and media spotlight they need to keep the money rolling in, so they don't have to get a job and work for a living like the rest of us. It takes a lot of courage for a black man to take them on. Jason Whitlock is a very brave man.
Kathleen Parker, a WASHINGTON POST columnist, describes Jackson and Sharpton as "those two rogue race-baiting reverends." She's sure got that right. Come to think of it, by combining Whitlock's and Parker's description of these phony preachers, we end up identifying Jackson and Sharpton as rogue race-baiting terrorists. African-Americans would have a better chance at a piece of the American pie if they would only give the boot to those charlatans, stop wallowing in victimhood, and quit blaming every misfortune on racism.
"But these guys have driven the issue and -- and I would say to CBS, don't negotiate with terroriists, because that's what Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton are. They go around the country lighting fires and dividing people, and then start picking everyone's pocket."
"You never see them go back and apologize for the messes they make. Jessee Jackson todaly, right now, should be down at Duke, apologizing to those soccer (sic) players, rather than trying to turn these basketball players at Rutgers into the ultimate victims."
"He owes the people down at Duke an apology for going and stirring in that mess, and dividing people and dividing this nation. They're terrorists. They go around this country starting fires, and they need to be stopped."
Is Whitlock some kind of honky (white) bigot? No. He is a respected black journalist - or at least up to now he was. Whitlock was immediately attacked by black commentators for the remarks he made on TUCKER and for similar things he wrote in a column on the Imus flap.
When Tucker Carlson asked Whitlock why Jackson and Sharpton "have so much power?," Whitlock replied, "Now, this one here, I will put on the media." He went on to say, "other than Jessee and Al lining their pockets, they have done nothing."
OK, so Whitlock misidentified the sport of the falsely accused lacrosse players, but that should not detract from his factual description of Jackson and Sharpton as terrorists. It has long been charged that, given the opportunity, these shake-down artists will confront corporations, threatening to hold demonstrations in front of their offices and threatening them with boycuts of their products if they did not make substantial contributions to Jackson's Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Sharpton's National Action Network. If you and I made such threats, we would be facing criminal charges for extortion.
Although I have been criticizing Jackson and Sharpton for many years in much the same way as Whitlock, I have never thought of them as terrorists. They pretend to be civil rights advocates when in fact they are practitioners of perpetual victimhood. That is the only way they can get the photo-ops and media spotlight they need to keep the money rolling in, so they don't have to get a job and work for a living like the rest of us. It takes a lot of courage for a black man to take them on. Jason Whitlock is a very brave man.
Kathleen Parker, a WASHINGTON POST columnist, describes Jackson and Sharpton as "those two rogue race-baiting reverends." She's sure got that right. Come to think of it, by combining Whitlock's and Parker's description of these phony preachers, we end up identifying Jackson and Sharpton as rogue race-baiting terrorists. African-Americans would have a better chance at a piece of the American pie if they would only give the boot to those charlatans, stop wallowing in victimhood, and quit blaming every misfortune on racism.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
IMUS IS NOT A BLACK HIP-HOP ARTIST
This time, Don Imus, the radio shock-jock, has really let his mouth overload his ass. By now, unless you live under a rock, you have heard that he denigrated the Rutgers women's basketball team, which reached the finals of the NCAA tournament, by referring to the players as "nappy-headed hos." His racially charged remarks constituted a hurtful insult to the eight black team members.
Imus, who I do not believe is a racist, was trying to be funny. Like his good buddy Kinky Friedman, he has told racial and ethnic jokes on many past occasions. Imus should have taken a page out of Kinky's book. At the start of the last Texas gubernatorial race, Kinky's polling nmbers were amazingly high (just below those of the incumbent governor), but his candidacy quickly flamed out when his past jokes came back to bite him in the ass. His long ago nightclub comedy routine came to light and did not sit well with the Texas electorate.
Imus' problem was that he sees himself as both comedian and political commentator. Politicial notables and media personalities have been frequent guests on his radio program. Had Imus stuck strictly to his role as a shock-jock, as has his arch enemy Howard Stern, his reprehensible remarks about the Rutgers players would not have created the same degree of outrage that is now swirling about him.
Imus, reduced to the pathetic image of a groveling tortured soul, has apologized daily to no avail. Leading the charge in demanding that he be fired are those paragons of hypocricy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make their living by fanning the flames of racial hatred whenever and wherever the opportunity arises, only to depart without extinguishing the fires they lit. No one demanded that Jackson be fired as head of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition when, in 1984, he made his infamous anti-Semitic "Hymietown" crack about New York City, and when he called Jews "hymies" - and he was not trying to be funny at the time.
Politicians and media personalities continue to suck up to Sharpton, despite his leading role in 1987 in the Tawana Brawley hoax which ruined a falsely accused prosecutor's career and led to the suicide of a falsely accused cop. (See my blog DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA PERSONALITIES SUCK UP TO A CHARLATAN, January 28, 2007.) Sharpton has never apologized for his reprehensible role in that hoax. To this day he continues to insist that Brawley's false accusations were true and that he became involved only because she came to him for help. That is a bald-faced lie. Sharpton and his two cohorts initiated their involvement with Brawley after the police investigation became public, and that involvement is what marked him a leader in the black community. Nor has Sharpton ever accepted responsibility for the eight deaths he caused in 1995 after he organized and led a protest against a Jewish landlord.
Since Sharpton and Jackson have loudly injected themselves into the Imus flap, it should be mentioned that they also led the black outrage in the Duke University "rape" case. The accusations by a paid black exotic (nude) dancer that she had been gang raped by white Duke lacrosse players at an off-campus team party also turned out to be a hoax. Just today, the North Carolina Attorney General droped all charges and announced that the accused players had been completely exonerated. Are Sharpton and Jackson going to apologize for their role in stirring up the black community against the falsely accused players? Don't hold your breath!
Imus is not a black hip-hop artist. Where is the black outrage against the hip-hop pop culture in which black rappers freely rap about "bitches," "hos" and "niggas?" Although Sharpton and Jackson have denounced "gangsta" rap, they have never organized any demonstrations of black outrage against the offending rappers or their record label companies. Nor have those two charlatans ever led any protests against black comedians like Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock for the frequent use of the same vocabulary in their comedy routines.
Today, MSNBC announced it will no longer simulcast Imus' broadcasts. In the end, as with MSNBC, he may still get fired by CBS. Imus could also lose his radio show because some of his biggest sponsors are withdrawing their ads or because his audience might desert him. Thus far, Aetna, American Express, GEICO, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble and Staples, among others, have pulled their ads from his program. As always, money talks, bullshit walks.
Imus, who I do not believe is a racist, was trying to be funny. Like his good buddy Kinky Friedman, he has told racial and ethnic jokes on many past occasions. Imus should have taken a page out of Kinky's book. At the start of the last Texas gubernatorial race, Kinky's polling nmbers were amazingly high (just below those of the incumbent governor), but his candidacy quickly flamed out when his past jokes came back to bite him in the ass. His long ago nightclub comedy routine came to light and did not sit well with the Texas electorate.
Imus' problem was that he sees himself as both comedian and political commentator. Politicial notables and media personalities have been frequent guests on his radio program. Had Imus stuck strictly to his role as a shock-jock, as has his arch enemy Howard Stern, his reprehensible remarks about the Rutgers players would not have created the same degree of outrage that is now swirling about him.
Imus, reduced to the pathetic image of a groveling tortured soul, has apologized daily to no avail. Leading the charge in demanding that he be fired are those paragons of hypocricy, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who make their living by fanning the flames of racial hatred whenever and wherever the opportunity arises, only to depart without extinguishing the fires they lit. No one demanded that Jackson be fired as head of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition when, in 1984, he made his infamous anti-Semitic "Hymietown" crack about New York City, and when he called Jews "hymies" - and he was not trying to be funny at the time.
Politicians and media personalities continue to suck up to Sharpton, despite his leading role in 1987 in the Tawana Brawley hoax which ruined a falsely accused prosecutor's career and led to the suicide of a falsely accused cop. (See my blog DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA PERSONALITIES SUCK UP TO A CHARLATAN, January 28, 2007.) Sharpton has never apologized for his reprehensible role in that hoax. To this day he continues to insist that Brawley's false accusations were true and that he became involved only because she came to him for help. That is a bald-faced lie. Sharpton and his two cohorts initiated their involvement with Brawley after the police investigation became public, and that involvement is what marked him a leader in the black community. Nor has Sharpton ever accepted responsibility for the eight deaths he caused in 1995 after he organized and led a protest against a Jewish landlord.
Since Sharpton and Jackson have loudly injected themselves into the Imus flap, it should be mentioned that they also led the black outrage in the Duke University "rape" case. The accusations by a paid black exotic (nude) dancer that she had been gang raped by white Duke lacrosse players at an off-campus team party also turned out to be a hoax. Just today, the North Carolina Attorney General droped all charges and announced that the accused players had been completely exonerated. Are Sharpton and Jackson going to apologize for their role in stirring up the black community against the falsely accused players? Don't hold your breath!
Imus is not a black hip-hop artist. Where is the black outrage against the hip-hop pop culture in which black rappers freely rap about "bitches," "hos" and "niggas?" Although Sharpton and Jackson have denounced "gangsta" rap, they have never organized any demonstrations of black outrage against the offending rappers or their record label companies. Nor have those two charlatans ever led any protests against black comedians like Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock for the frequent use of the same vocabulary in their comedy routines.
Today, MSNBC announced it will no longer simulcast Imus' broadcasts. In the end, as with MSNBC, he may still get fired by CBS. Imus could also lose his radio show because some of his biggest sponsors are withdrawing their ads or because his audience might desert him. Thus far, Aetna, American Express, GEICO, General Motors, Proctor & Gamble and Staples, among others, have pulled their ads from his program. As always, money talks, bullshit walks.
Monday, April 09, 2007
CIVIL RIGHTS FOR EX-CONS?
Many years back, ex-felons, criminals who have served their time and are said to have paid their debt to society, were denied the right to vote and to hold public office, both recognized as basic civil rights. Back then, an ex-con could vote or hold public office only if he had been granted a rarely bestowed pardon by the governor of the state in which he had been convicted. Civil libitarians questioned the appropriateness of what they perceived as perpetual punishment.
Over the years, most states have come to restore these rights automatically once the felon has completed his sentence. Some have waiting periods before these rights are automatically restored. Florida, Kentucky and Virginia require ex-felons to apply for the restoration of their civil rights regardless of how long they have been out of prison. However, Florida is about to grant the automatic restoration of civil rights to ex-cons who have not been convicted of certain offenses, such as sex crimes, murder, and other crimes of major violence.
Ex-felons are generally barred from receiving the state licenses required of teachers, law enforcement related personnel, lawyers, doctors, realtors, barbers, beauticians, and others. Back in the '60s, California started hiring some ex-felons as correctional counselers if they met the educational requirements for these positions. Because they were less likely to be conned by the cons, those counselers were much more effective than the ones who had never been incarcerated. Ex-felons are also prohibited from possessing firearms, a reasonable denial of second amendment rights.
Ex-felons also have problems in obtaining ordinary employment. In most instances, bonding companies will refuse to bond them. Many businesses are reluctant, if not opposed, to hire ex-cons even though there is not a shred of evidence that their work performance and on-the-job behavior is any different from that of ordinary employees. This leads them to falsify employment applications, and when that is discovered, they are fired even if they have been performihng well on the job.
California and other states used to require drug offenders to register upon completion of their sentence. That is no longer the case. Now, all states require sex offenders to register with the police agency having jurisdiction over their place of residence. Whenever they move, they are required to notify that agency and to register with the appropriate police agency if they move to a different jurisdiction. In most places, sex offenders are prohibited from living within a specified distance of any school, day care center, park, or any other place where children might gather.
Miami has some of the toughest sex offender restrictions in the nation. Sex offenders in that city are prohibited from residing within 2,500 feet of any place where children might gather. That makes it impossible for them to reside anywhere within the City of Miami. Those restrictions have the effect of making sex offenders homeless. Miami has an ordinance prohibiting the homeless from taking up residence under bridges. Recently, however, the probation department placed six sex offenders underneath one of the bridges because there was no other place for them to live. They were ordered to register with the police as residing under the bridge and they are visited nightly by a probation officer.
During World War II, many ex-felons served with distinction and honor in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Indeed, a substantial number of prison inmates were granted early releases so that they could volunteer for service in the armed forces of our country. Since the end of the Viet Nam war, ex-cons have been barred from serving in the all-volunteer military services. Because our armed forces have been stretched to the limit by the war in Iraq, waivers have been granted to some ex-felons in an effort to overcome a serious decline in recruitment.
Even though I am a hard law and order advocate, I have always felt that ex-felons should have their civil rights restored. Since we want them to be good citizens, we should give them the right to vote and to hold public office if they have paid their debt to society. Because the recidivism rate is about 50%, a waiting period of no more than five years after discharge from a felon's sentence may be appropriate. Instead of a blanket prohibition against granting occupational licenses, applications by ex-cons should be considered on a case by case basis.
Sexual predators, especially child molesters, should be required to register, but restrictions on where they can reside, unlike those in Miami, should be reasonable. You can bet that those six sex offenders under that Miami bridge will soon dissapear to take up residence somwhere in the city and, because they will be living less than 2,000 feet from children, they will not register as required.
The denial of civil rights to ex-felons is a denial of justice. Once, they have served their time and paid their debt to society, ex-cons should not continue to be punished.
Over the years, most states have come to restore these rights automatically once the felon has completed his sentence. Some have waiting periods before these rights are automatically restored. Florida, Kentucky and Virginia require ex-felons to apply for the restoration of their civil rights regardless of how long they have been out of prison. However, Florida is about to grant the automatic restoration of civil rights to ex-cons who have not been convicted of certain offenses, such as sex crimes, murder, and other crimes of major violence.
Ex-felons are generally barred from receiving the state licenses required of teachers, law enforcement related personnel, lawyers, doctors, realtors, barbers, beauticians, and others. Back in the '60s, California started hiring some ex-felons as correctional counselers if they met the educational requirements for these positions. Because they were less likely to be conned by the cons, those counselers were much more effective than the ones who had never been incarcerated. Ex-felons are also prohibited from possessing firearms, a reasonable denial of second amendment rights.
Ex-felons also have problems in obtaining ordinary employment. In most instances, bonding companies will refuse to bond them. Many businesses are reluctant, if not opposed, to hire ex-cons even though there is not a shred of evidence that their work performance and on-the-job behavior is any different from that of ordinary employees. This leads them to falsify employment applications, and when that is discovered, they are fired even if they have been performihng well on the job.
California and other states used to require drug offenders to register upon completion of their sentence. That is no longer the case. Now, all states require sex offenders to register with the police agency having jurisdiction over their place of residence. Whenever they move, they are required to notify that agency and to register with the appropriate police agency if they move to a different jurisdiction. In most places, sex offenders are prohibited from living within a specified distance of any school, day care center, park, or any other place where children might gather.
Miami has some of the toughest sex offender restrictions in the nation. Sex offenders in that city are prohibited from residing within 2,500 feet of any place where children might gather. That makes it impossible for them to reside anywhere within the City of Miami. Those restrictions have the effect of making sex offenders homeless. Miami has an ordinance prohibiting the homeless from taking up residence under bridges. Recently, however, the probation department placed six sex offenders underneath one of the bridges because there was no other place for them to live. They were ordered to register with the police as residing under the bridge and they are visited nightly by a probation officer.
During World War II, many ex-felons served with distinction and honor in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps. Indeed, a substantial number of prison inmates were granted early releases so that they could volunteer for service in the armed forces of our country. Since the end of the Viet Nam war, ex-cons have been barred from serving in the all-volunteer military services. Because our armed forces have been stretched to the limit by the war in Iraq, waivers have been granted to some ex-felons in an effort to overcome a serious decline in recruitment.
Even though I am a hard law and order advocate, I have always felt that ex-felons should have their civil rights restored. Since we want them to be good citizens, we should give them the right to vote and to hold public office if they have paid their debt to society. Because the recidivism rate is about 50%, a waiting period of no more than five years after discharge from a felon's sentence may be appropriate. Instead of a blanket prohibition against granting occupational licenses, applications by ex-cons should be considered on a case by case basis.
Sexual predators, especially child molesters, should be required to register, but restrictions on where they can reside, unlike those in Miami, should be reasonable. You can bet that those six sex offenders under that Miami bridge will soon dissapear to take up residence somwhere in the city and, because they will be living less than 2,000 feet from children, they will not register as required.
The denial of civil rights to ex-felons is a denial of justice. Once, they have served their time and paid their debt to society, ex-cons should not continue to be punished.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
PRICE GOUGING TAXPAYERS AND SICK SENIORS
Lately, we have been bombarded with television commercials praising the Medicare Drug Prescription Program and asking us to oppose any changes thereto which may be proposed by Congress. Fred Thompson, former U.S. Senator from Tennessee and current District Attorney on television's LAW AND ORDER, editorialized the same message over the radio. Why the campaign to keep the drug prescription program in its present form?
The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a possible repeal of the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. This provision results in the price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors. The Veterans Administration has the right to negotiate drug prices with the result that, in many cases, it gets drugs for less than half of what they cost Medicare.
Which members of Congress wrote the Medicare drug prescription bill? None of them. It was written by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry. That industry spends over a 100 million dollars a year lobbying Congress. Those lobbyists sneaked in the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating the price of drugs. When presented to Congress, the bill was so voluminous that few members of Congress or their staffs were able to read it before it was voted on.
Whenever anyone suggests that the prohibition against price negotiations be repealed, they are told that the drug manufacturers have to charge the prices they do in order to have the millions and millions of dollars needed for research and development. The development of new life-saving drugs, they claim, would be impeded if the negotiating prohibition were to be removed from the Medicare drug prescription law.
The pharmaceutical industry has always claimed that it spends most of its income on research and development. That is not true, and never has been. They spend far more money on marketing and lobbying than they ever do on research and development. In addition to the cost of lobbing, the industry spends obscene amounts on television commercials, print media ads, and pitches for their drugs to physicians and hospitals.
For a couple of years back in the mid-'50s, I worked as a "drug detail man" - now known as a pharmaceutical sales representative - for a small pharmaceutical manufacturer. My job was to call on doctors and persuade them to prescribe my company's products in their medical practice. I was given plenty of samples to leave with them and I was able to take them out to lunch or dinner occasionally. Once, I was even able to take a doctor to the Patterson-Harris world heavyweight boxing championship fight. However, my company did not have the resources to compete with its larger competitors in enticing doctors to prescribe the drugs being pitched.
What were some of these enticements? Actually, bribes would be a more accurate description. Some pharmaceutical companies would provide interest free loans to furnish the offices of new doctors. Many of those loans would be forgiven if the doctor prescribed their drugs exclusively. Most companies provided gifts to doctors. One company gave doctors expensive pens. Once the word got around, dcctors would ask the detail man for one of the pens. Those doctors were told that they could have one only if they would use it to prescribe his company's products. For their favorite doctors, some companies covered the costs for office Christmas parties.
Las Vegas was in my territory. When I pitched my company's products to the chief physician of a large clinic, this is what he told me. "Look, I'll be frank with you. Every month, - - - - - - takes all of our people and our wives or husbands to a dinner show at one of the casinos. You do that, and I'll be glad to have us prescribe some of your products. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and ours by calling on us." One can only speculate on how much it cost to take six doctors, six nurses, three receptionists, three lab technicians, and four business office employees, together with all their wives, husbands, girlfriends or boyfriends out to a Las Vegas casino for dinner and drinks every month.
In those days, pharmaceutical advertisements were limited to multi-full-page color spreads in medical journals. Even then, marketing expenditures far exceeded the expenditures for research and development. Do the pharmaceutical companies end up paying for the obscene amount they spend on lobbying and marketing? No! They profit from it by charging consumers higher prices. The Veterans Administration gets its drugs for a lot less than Medicare. The Canadians get the same drugs for a lot less than Americans. The price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors will continue as long as Medicare is prohibited from negotiating for the price of prescription drugs.
The pharmaceutical industry is fighting a possible repeal of the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. This provision results in the price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors. The Veterans Administration has the right to negotiate drug prices with the result that, in many cases, it gets drugs for less than half of what they cost Medicare.
Which members of Congress wrote the Medicare drug prescription bill? None of them. It was written by lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry. That industry spends over a 100 million dollars a year lobbying Congress. Those lobbyists sneaked in the provision which prohibits Medicare from negotiating the price of drugs. When presented to Congress, the bill was so voluminous that few members of Congress or their staffs were able to read it before it was voted on.
Whenever anyone suggests that the prohibition against price negotiations be repealed, they are told that the drug manufacturers have to charge the prices they do in order to have the millions and millions of dollars needed for research and development. The development of new life-saving drugs, they claim, would be impeded if the negotiating prohibition were to be removed from the Medicare drug prescription law.
The pharmaceutical industry has always claimed that it spends most of its income on research and development. That is not true, and never has been. They spend far more money on marketing and lobbying than they ever do on research and development. In addition to the cost of lobbing, the industry spends obscene amounts on television commercials, print media ads, and pitches for their drugs to physicians and hospitals.
For a couple of years back in the mid-'50s, I worked as a "drug detail man" - now known as a pharmaceutical sales representative - for a small pharmaceutical manufacturer. My job was to call on doctors and persuade them to prescribe my company's products in their medical practice. I was given plenty of samples to leave with them and I was able to take them out to lunch or dinner occasionally. Once, I was even able to take a doctor to the Patterson-Harris world heavyweight boxing championship fight. However, my company did not have the resources to compete with its larger competitors in enticing doctors to prescribe the drugs being pitched.
What were some of these enticements? Actually, bribes would be a more accurate description. Some pharmaceutical companies would provide interest free loans to furnish the offices of new doctors. Many of those loans would be forgiven if the doctor prescribed their drugs exclusively. Most companies provided gifts to doctors. One company gave doctors expensive pens. Once the word got around, dcctors would ask the detail man for one of the pens. Those doctors were told that they could have one only if they would use it to prescribe his company's products. For their favorite doctors, some companies covered the costs for office Christmas parties.
Las Vegas was in my territory. When I pitched my company's products to the chief physician of a large clinic, this is what he told me. "Look, I'll be frank with you. Every month, - - - - - - takes all of our people and our wives or husbands to a dinner show at one of the casinos. You do that, and I'll be glad to have us prescribe some of your products. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and ours by calling on us." One can only speculate on how much it cost to take six doctors, six nurses, three receptionists, three lab technicians, and four business office employees, together with all their wives, husbands, girlfriends or boyfriends out to a Las Vegas casino for dinner and drinks every month.
In those days, pharmaceutical advertisements were limited to multi-full-page color spreads in medical journals. Even then, marketing expenditures far exceeded the expenditures for research and development. Do the pharmaceutical companies end up paying for the obscene amount they spend on lobbying and marketing? No! They profit from it by charging consumers higher prices. The Veterans Administration gets its drugs for a lot less than Medicare. The Canadians get the same drugs for a lot less than Americans. The price gouging of taxpayers and sick seniors will continue as long as Medicare is prohibited from negotiating for the price of prescription drugs.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
APOLOGIZE FOR SLAVERY?
Virginia recently became the first state to pass legislation officially apologizing for slavery. Several other southern states are now considering similar legislation. Several black members of congress are seeking to have the United States apologize for slavery. No one can deny that slavery represented a very shameful and inhumane period it our nation's history.
This begs the question - should Americans apologize for slavery? I say no. Why not? Well, for one thing, slavery in this country was abolished in 1865, following the end of our Civil War. That was almost a century and a half ago. For another, we need to recognize how blacks became slaves in the first place.
Dominant African tribes raided the villages of other tribes, capturing their men, women and children, then selling them to Arab slave traders. Those Arabs then sold the captives to European slave traders who shipped them off to America where southern plantation owners bought them at open slave auctions. Thus, it would seem plausible that Africans, Arabs and Europeans should apologize for their part in slavery before we consider apologizing for America's participation in that sordid enterprise.
Many black activists are not only demanding an apology, but they also want the states and the federal government to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. They point out that Jews who survived the holocaust, and the heirs of those who didn't, were paid reparations by post-Nazi Germany. That's pure unadulterated hogwash. Most of those reparations were made for property, businesses, bank deposits and personal belongings stolen from Jews by the Nazis and for life insurance policy claims. No reparationns were made for the thousands of Jews in concentration camps who were forced to work as slave labor in Nazi war plants.
If apologies are due for past wrongs, then what about apologies to the American Indians? Driven off their lands by white settlers, forced to live on reservations and robbed of their native culture by the government, American Indians were left to live in squalor and afflicted with a high rate of alcoholism.
While we're at it, do we owe Jews an apology? On November 9, 1938, "Kristallnacht" was the beginning of a Nazi progrom against Jews in Germany and parts of Austria which led to the relocation of Jews to concentration camps and the confiscation of their businesses and property. Many thousands sought asylum in the United States, but our government refused to allow in Jewish refugees, even though the Roosevelt administration knew that the Nazis intended to exterminate them. Just a relatively few Jews were able to immigrate, and then only if they had American sponsors who would guarantee to provide for all their needs. Thus, our government condemned thousands of Jews to extermination in the gas chambers of Nazi concentration camps.
This brings us to the Japanese-Americans during World War II. Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, West Coast residents of Japanese ancestry were uprooted from their homes, farms and businesses, and interned in relocation centers. The government claimed the relocation, which appeared to be racially motivated, was justified on the grounds that they might aid Japan to invade our country. With few exceptions, those interned in the crowded camps were loyal to the United States. When they were released, these hapless citizens found that many of their homes, farms and businesses had been appropriated (stolen) by white Americans. Eventually, the government paid reparations to most former internees for their losses. If we owe blacks an apology, don't we owe an apology to loyal Japanese-Americans for uprooting them into internment camps?
While I do not believe we owe anything to anyone for something that ended a century and a half ago, I do believe that we should apologize to blacks for the Jim Crowism which treated blacks in the South as sub-human, and for the nationwide discrimination against blacks in education, employment, housing and civil rights, which followed the abolition of slavery and continued well into the last century. That chapter in our recent history is just as shameful as slavery itself.
This begs the question - should Americans apologize for slavery? I say no. Why not? Well, for one thing, slavery in this country was abolished in 1865, following the end of our Civil War. That was almost a century and a half ago. For another, we need to recognize how blacks became slaves in the first place.
Dominant African tribes raided the villages of other tribes, capturing their men, women and children, then selling them to Arab slave traders. Those Arabs then sold the captives to European slave traders who shipped them off to America where southern plantation owners bought them at open slave auctions. Thus, it would seem plausible that Africans, Arabs and Europeans should apologize for their part in slavery before we consider apologizing for America's participation in that sordid enterprise.
Many black activists are not only demanding an apology, but they also want the states and the federal government to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves. They point out that Jews who survived the holocaust, and the heirs of those who didn't, were paid reparations by post-Nazi Germany. That's pure unadulterated hogwash. Most of those reparations were made for property, businesses, bank deposits and personal belongings stolen from Jews by the Nazis and for life insurance policy claims. No reparationns were made for the thousands of Jews in concentration camps who were forced to work as slave labor in Nazi war plants.
If apologies are due for past wrongs, then what about apologies to the American Indians? Driven off their lands by white settlers, forced to live on reservations and robbed of their native culture by the government, American Indians were left to live in squalor and afflicted with a high rate of alcoholism.
While we're at it, do we owe Jews an apology? On November 9, 1938, "Kristallnacht" was the beginning of a Nazi progrom against Jews in Germany and parts of Austria which led to the relocation of Jews to concentration camps and the confiscation of their businesses and property. Many thousands sought asylum in the United States, but our government refused to allow in Jewish refugees, even though the Roosevelt administration knew that the Nazis intended to exterminate them. Just a relatively few Jews were able to immigrate, and then only if they had American sponsors who would guarantee to provide for all their needs. Thus, our government condemned thousands of Jews to extermination in the gas chambers of Nazi concentration camps.
This brings us to the Japanese-Americans during World War II. Right after the attack on Pearl Harbor, West Coast residents of Japanese ancestry were uprooted from their homes, farms and businesses, and interned in relocation centers. The government claimed the relocation, which appeared to be racially motivated, was justified on the grounds that they might aid Japan to invade our country. With few exceptions, those interned in the crowded camps were loyal to the United States. When they were released, these hapless citizens found that many of their homes, farms and businesses had been appropriated (stolen) by white Americans. Eventually, the government paid reparations to most former internees for their losses. If we owe blacks an apology, don't we owe an apology to loyal Japanese-Americans for uprooting them into internment camps?
While I do not believe we owe anything to anyone for something that ended a century and a half ago, I do believe that we should apologize to blacks for the Jim Crowism which treated blacks in the South as sub-human, and for the nationwide discrimination against blacks in education, employment, housing and civil rights, which followed the abolition of slavery and continued well into the last century. That chapter in our recent history is just as shameful as slavery itself.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL - BUTT OUT !!!
Roy Lee Pippin, who is scheduled to be executed next week, complains that life on Texas' death row is "a living hell." He has been lingering on death row for 12 years under what he considers horrendous conditions. His complaints have been taken up by Amnesty Internatioal, the London based human rights group.
In a letter to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Amnesty International accuses Texas of violating international human rights agreements by the way the State operates its death row unit. The group listed the following violations: The condemned are isolated in small cells 23 hours a day; they are not allowed to watch television; they have no work program; and they are not allowed to participate in group recreation and religious services. Amnesty International claimed that such "inherently inhumane" treatment can cause severe physical and mental harm.
Pardon me, while I get out my hanky and wipe away my tears. Heaven forbid that we should be so cruel to cold blooded killers. Have these bleeding hearts considered that the victims of death row inmates are isolated six feet underground in cramped coffins 24 hours a day and kept from working, watching television, or recreating? Is Amnesty International suggesting we turn death row into Club Med? That group disregards the fact that those on death row are not there for singing off-key in a church choir. Pippin, for instance, is there for killing two men who were believed to have stolen $1.6 million from his Columbian drug cartel bosses.
Amnesty International should concentrate on ensuring that prisoners of war are treated humanely. If they are concerned about the treatment of incarcerated criminals, they should spend their efforts at improving the conditions under which inmates serve time in many Latin American, Asian and African prisons. The living conditions in those prisons are far worse than those on Texas' death row. Of course, all this has really more to do with Amnesty International's vehement opposition to the death penalty than with its complaints about death row. So, Amnesty International, butt out of Texas!
In a letter to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Amnesty International accuses Texas of violating international human rights agreements by the way the State operates its death row unit. The group listed the following violations: The condemned are isolated in small cells 23 hours a day; they are not allowed to watch television; they have no work program; and they are not allowed to participate in group recreation and religious services. Amnesty International claimed that such "inherently inhumane" treatment can cause severe physical and mental harm.
Pardon me, while I get out my hanky and wipe away my tears. Heaven forbid that we should be so cruel to cold blooded killers. Have these bleeding hearts considered that the victims of death row inmates are isolated six feet underground in cramped coffins 24 hours a day and kept from working, watching television, or recreating? Is Amnesty International suggesting we turn death row into Club Med? That group disregards the fact that those on death row are not there for singing off-key in a church choir. Pippin, for instance, is there for killing two men who were believed to have stolen $1.6 million from his Columbian drug cartel bosses.
Amnesty International should concentrate on ensuring that prisoners of war are treated humanely. If they are concerned about the treatment of incarcerated criminals, they should spend their efforts at improving the conditions under which inmates serve time in many Latin American, Asian and African prisons. The living conditions in those prisons are far worse than those on Texas' death row. Of course, all this has really more to do with Amnesty International's vehement opposition to the death penalty than with its complaints about death row. So, Amnesty International, butt out of Texas!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
GOOD POLICING AND QUESTIONABLE POLICING
GOOD POLICING: Santa Ana (California) police officer Rufus Tanksley has been giving money, gifts and advice to a homeless couple. Tanksley has encountered many homeless people during his 18 years as a police officer, most of them being drug addicts, alcoholics or mentally ill. John F. Martin, 54, and Marlena Gammelgard, 52, were different. Martin lost his electronics repair business and Gammelgard, a college graduate was laid off as a court cashier. They were down on their luck and left homeless.
In 2003, Tanksley "sold" the couple a 1990 Chevrolet Geo for $500, but he never asked them for the money. Occasionally, when he spots them sleeping in the car, he sticks an evelope containing $20 on the windshield. From time to time he takes them to a movie. At Christmas, he takes them to his home and fixes them a hearty breakfast. He got them a motel room when it was too cold to sleep in the car. Tanksley is helping the couple he believes to be "good people" down on their luck because years ago he himself had been down on his luck. Officer Tanksley desrves to be recognized nationally as an "Outstanding Officer of the Year."
This is not the first time than officers of the Santa Ana Police Department have played a significant charitable role. Many years ago, I came across a case where officers from that agency had arrested an office machine repairman for forgery. He was sentenced to prison, leaving his wife and children in difficult financial straits. Every week during this man's imprisonment, Santa Ana police officers took up a collection with which they purchased a week's worth of groceries for his family. Now, that's good policing.
Also years ago, I came across a case where Corona (California) police officers arrested a woman for the burglary of a bakery in which she stole a dozen or so loaves of bread. When the officers found that this single mother was only trying to provide some food for her hungry children, they persuaded the owner of the bakery to drop the charges which had been filed against her. At the suggestion of the officers, the baker also began to provide day-old bread and other bakery items to the woman and her kids. That's another example of good policing.
QUESTIONABLE POLICING: Recently, the Baltimore police arrested a 7-year old boy for riding a dirt bike on the sidewalk. His mother alleges that at the time of the arrest her son was merely sitting on the bike when an officer jerked him off by grabbing his neck. The bike was confiscated and the boy was arrested. He was taken to the staion house where, according to the boy, he was fingerprinted and had his mug shot taken, then handcuffed to a bench and interrogated, before being released to his parents.
Ouch - what a public relations nightmare. While he may have gone "by the book," the arresting officer should have used his discretionary powers and, with the backing of his supervisor, done his duty by impounding the bike, writing the boy a citation, and delivering him and the citation to his parents without taking him to a police station. Questionable policing? No, this is worse - it's piss poor policing.
And then, there is the "cops are armed and dangerous" case in which three New York officers have been indicted in the shooting death of an unarmed groom on his wedding day. Five undercover cops fired nearly 50 rounds which also wounded the groom's two companions. I will not defend bad policing. However, I always try to look at questionable cases from the officer's perspective. As such, I defended the actions of the Los Angeles officers in the Rodney King case, a position for which I was roundly criticized. ("Presumption of Officer Guilt: The Administration of Justice is Race Driven," TEXAS POLICE JOURNAL, July, 1996)
I have also defended the actions of several officers in cases where they shot someone to death with multiple rounds, even when some of those rounds struck that person in the back. Officers in fear of their lives instinctively fire multiple rounds because subconsciously they lack confidence in the accuracy of their shooting ability. No amount of training can immunize an officer from going into a panic mode the moment he thinks he is facing death. An instinctive shooting frenzy will usually be set off once one officer opens fire when several officers are present during a perilous situation.
The five New York undercover cops were conducting an investigation in a strip club when, according to the officers, they overheard the groom and his two buddies talking about going to his car to get a gun. Outside the club, the groom's car ran into one of the undercover police cars. When the five cops approached his car, one of the officers warned the others that someone was reaching for a gun. They all opened fire, killing the groom and wounding his buddies. No gun was found. Of the three indicted officers, one fired four shots, another fired 11, and the third fired 31.
Because the three strip clubbers were black, there was an immediate outcry in the black community about racist cops being quick to kill young blacks. This shooting reminded blacks of the 1999 shooting of an unarmed African immigrant who was shot 41 times. The current outrage was fueled by none other than the Reverend Al Sharpton, that charleton who was one of the three sleazy race-baiting provocateurs in the Tawana Brawley hoax. Never mind that two of the five officers were black. And now, Sharpton is complaining about the other two officers not being indicted.
I do find it impossible to defend the officer who fired 31 rounds. Unless he was firing two guns simultaneously, he would have had to eject one clip and insert another during the fusilage. By the time he reloaded, all the shooting would have been over because none of the other four officers fired more than 11 shots. It will take a psychiatrist to figure out what possessed him to fire all those rounds.
Just as with the Los Angeles officers in the Rodney King case, the indictments of the three New York cops appear designed to placate the black community. Would there have been any indictments had the groom and his two companions been white? I doubt it - absent malicious intent, the shootings probably would have been put to rest as an unfortunate tragedy, which is exactly what this shooting was.
By the way, where is the community outrage whenever cops are shot? Recently, within a short time span, two unarmed New York auxiliary cops were shot to death and two regular officers were wounded. Where was charleton Sharpton when these officers were shot?
In 2003, Tanksley "sold" the couple a 1990 Chevrolet Geo for $500, but he never asked them for the money. Occasionally, when he spots them sleeping in the car, he sticks an evelope containing $20 on the windshield. From time to time he takes them to a movie. At Christmas, he takes them to his home and fixes them a hearty breakfast. He got them a motel room when it was too cold to sleep in the car. Tanksley is helping the couple he believes to be "good people" down on their luck because years ago he himself had been down on his luck. Officer Tanksley desrves to be recognized nationally as an "Outstanding Officer of the Year."
This is not the first time than officers of the Santa Ana Police Department have played a significant charitable role. Many years ago, I came across a case where officers from that agency had arrested an office machine repairman for forgery. He was sentenced to prison, leaving his wife and children in difficult financial straits. Every week during this man's imprisonment, Santa Ana police officers took up a collection with which they purchased a week's worth of groceries for his family. Now, that's good policing.
Also years ago, I came across a case where Corona (California) police officers arrested a woman for the burglary of a bakery in which she stole a dozen or so loaves of bread. When the officers found that this single mother was only trying to provide some food for her hungry children, they persuaded the owner of the bakery to drop the charges which had been filed against her. At the suggestion of the officers, the baker also began to provide day-old bread and other bakery items to the woman and her kids. That's another example of good policing.
QUESTIONABLE POLICING: Recently, the Baltimore police arrested a 7-year old boy for riding a dirt bike on the sidewalk. His mother alleges that at the time of the arrest her son was merely sitting on the bike when an officer jerked him off by grabbing his neck. The bike was confiscated and the boy was arrested. He was taken to the staion house where, according to the boy, he was fingerprinted and had his mug shot taken, then handcuffed to a bench and interrogated, before being released to his parents.
Ouch - what a public relations nightmare. While he may have gone "by the book," the arresting officer should have used his discretionary powers and, with the backing of his supervisor, done his duty by impounding the bike, writing the boy a citation, and delivering him and the citation to his parents without taking him to a police station. Questionable policing? No, this is worse - it's piss poor policing.
And then, there is the "cops are armed and dangerous" case in which three New York officers have been indicted in the shooting death of an unarmed groom on his wedding day. Five undercover cops fired nearly 50 rounds which also wounded the groom's two companions. I will not defend bad policing. However, I always try to look at questionable cases from the officer's perspective. As such, I defended the actions of the Los Angeles officers in the Rodney King case, a position for which I was roundly criticized. ("Presumption of Officer Guilt: The Administration of Justice is Race Driven," TEXAS POLICE JOURNAL, July, 1996)
I have also defended the actions of several officers in cases where they shot someone to death with multiple rounds, even when some of those rounds struck that person in the back. Officers in fear of their lives instinctively fire multiple rounds because subconsciously they lack confidence in the accuracy of their shooting ability. No amount of training can immunize an officer from going into a panic mode the moment he thinks he is facing death. An instinctive shooting frenzy will usually be set off once one officer opens fire when several officers are present during a perilous situation.
The five New York undercover cops were conducting an investigation in a strip club when, according to the officers, they overheard the groom and his two buddies talking about going to his car to get a gun. Outside the club, the groom's car ran into one of the undercover police cars. When the five cops approached his car, one of the officers warned the others that someone was reaching for a gun. They all opened fire, killing the groom and wounding his buddies. No gun was found. Of the three indicted officers, one fired four shots, another fired 11, and the third fired 31.
Because the three strip clubbers were black, there was an immediate outcry in the black community about racist cops being quick to kill young blacks. This shooting reminded blacks of the 1999 shooting of an unarmed African immigrant who was shot 41 times. The current outrage was fueled by none other than the Reverend Al Sharpton, that charleton who was one of the three sleazy race-baiting provocateurs in the Tawana Brawley hoax. Never mind that two of the five officers were black. And now, Sharpton is complaining about the other two officers not being indicted.
I do find it impossible to defend the officer who fired 31 rounds. Unless he was firing two guns simultaneously, he would have had to eject one clip and insert another during the fusilage. By the time he reloaded, all the shooting would have been over because none of the other four officers fired more than 11 shots. It will take a psychiatrist to figure out what possessed him to fire all those rounds.
Just as with the Los Angeles officers in the Rodney King case, the indictments of the three New York cops appear designed to placate the black community. Would there have been any indictments had the groom and his two companions been white? I doubt it - absent malicious intent, the shootings probably would have been put to rest as an unfortunate tragedy, which is exactly what this shooting was.
By the way, where is the community outrage whenever cops are shot? Recently, within a short time span, two unarmed New York auxiliary cops were shot to death and two regular officers were wounded. Where was charleton Sharpton when these officers were shot?
Friday, March 16, 2007
ROOM AND BOARD FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT
Now, I've heard it all. On the evening of March 14, I was watching the COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMAN television program on MSNBC. Near the end of that program, Olberman designated the Law Lords of Birmingham, England as "the worst persons in the world." He described the Law Lords as being "a kind of super-appeals court." Why did he believe they were the worst persons in the world?
Olberman reported that "brothers Michael and Vincent Hickey spent 18 years in jail for a murder they did not commit. When their convictions were overturned, each was awarded huge settlements, more than a million dollars each. But now the Law Lords have sent the Hickey brothers a bill. Vincent owes $244,000. Michael owes $478,000. Why? Room and board during their 18 years of false imprisonment."
I have to agree with Olberman's worst persons designation. I can't believe that the Law Lords had the chutzpah to charge those poor bastards room and board for the 18 years they spent in prison for a crime they did not commit. To those of you who think that a million bucks each is too much to pay for all those years in prison, I would ask - as a productive member of society, how much is 18 years of your own life worth?
I have always been, and continue to be a strong law and order advocate. But, I also have a strong sense of justice. Whenever society, whether English or American, falsely imprisons a person over a prolonged period of time, it should be expected to pay for this miscarriage of justice by adequately compensating that individual for the loss of his freedom and the loss of wages he might have earned had he not been incarcerated. And, he should certainly not be charged room and board for his time in prison!
Olberman reported that "brothers Michael and Vincent Hickey spent 18 years in jail for a murder they did not commit. When their convictions were overturned, each was awarded huge settlements, more than a million dollars each. But now the Law Lords have sent the Hickey brothers a bill. Vincent owes $244,000. Michael owes $478,000. Why? Room and board during their 18 years of false imprisonment."
I have to agree with Olberman's worst persons designation. I can't believe that the Law Lords had the chutzpah to charge those poor bastards room and board for the 18 years they spent in prison for a crime they did not commit. To those of you who think that a million bucks each is too much to pay for all those years in prison, I would ask - as a productive member of society, how much is 18 years of your own life worth?
I have always been, and continue to be a strong law and order advocate. But, I also have a strong sense of justice. Whenever society, whether English or American, falsely imprisons a person over a prolonged period of time, it should be expected to pay for this miscarriage of justice by adequately compensating that individual for the loss of his freedom and the loss of wages he might have earned had he not been incarcerated. And, he should certainly not be charged room and board for his time in prison!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
AEROSPACERS GONE WILD 2
PREVIOUSLY ON AEROSPACERS GONE WILD: Lisa Nowak's rendezvous with Colleen Shipman in the parking lot of the Orlando airport did not go well for Lisa. She was arrested and charged at first with attempted kidnapping, and then with attempted murder. Released on bail, she was suspended by NASA for 30 days upon her return to Houston. William "Billy-O" Oefelein flew to Florida to comfort a shook-up Shipman between them sheets on her bed.
CURRENT EPISODE: Lisa stays in seclusion. Billy-O returns to NASA following his tryst with Colleen. The Florida prosecutor refuses to accept the police charge of attempted murder, chosing instead to have Lisa indicted for attempted kidnapping, among other charges. She faces the possibility of a 25 year term in prison. NASA requests that Lisa be reassigned by the Navy, thus effectively firing her as an astronaut. At the end of the 30 day suspension, the Navy transfers Lisa to the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station and assigns her to a position in the flight training program.
A Florida court released documents from the investigation into this case. Billy-O, when questioned by the police, first balked at admitting that Lisa had been his girlfriend. "Well I --- yeah, I don't, it's hard to consider her a girlfriend, she was an ex, um, I --- I wouldn't --- she was an ex-interest, I guess." After trying to hem and haw his way around the question, Billy-O finally admitted that he started shacking up with Lisa in 2004, a year before his divorce.
At the time of her arrest, Lisa was carrying some e-mails which she had retrieved from Billy O's computer. One related to a charm Colleen had given Billy-O. During his 13 day mission as the pilot of the space shuttle Discovery, he e-mailed her a picture of the charm floating in the shuttle. Unable to see it, Colleen responded, "I don't see the charm though! pant, pant, it's like those erotic hidden picture games that they have at the bar . . . only you're fully clothed in the picture."
Before he returned from the flight, another of Colleen's e-mails provided Billy-O with some LUST IN SPACE. "Will have to control myself when I see you. First urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground and love (screw) the hell out of you."
COMING EPISODES: Will her attorney try to keep Lisa out of prison by claiming that she was merely trying to stop Colleen from throwing Billy-O on the ground, thereby preventing a possible injury to the poor fellow? Will Billy-O remain with NASA? Will the Navy courtmartial Lisa and Billy-O for adultery?
What if Colleen becomes pregnant? Will fellow Floridian O. J. Simpson, the legally innocent but morally guilty murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, come forth and claim that he may be the father of Colleen's unborn child? Far fetched? Not really. After all, O.J. now claims he may be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's infant daughter. Soap lovers, stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD.
CURRENT EPISODE: Lisa stays in seclusion. Billy-O returns to NASA following his tryst with Colleen. The Florida prosecutor refuses to accept the police charge of attempted murder, chosing instead to have Lisa indicted for attempted kidnapping, among other charges. She faces the possibility of a 25 year term in prison. NASA requests that Lisa be reassigned by the Navy, thus effectively firing her as an astronaut. At the end of the 30 day suspension, the Navy transfers Lisa to the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station and assigns her to a position in the flight training program.
A Florida court released documents from the investigation into this case. Billy-O, when questioned by the police, first balked at admitting that Lisa had been his girlfriend. "Well I --- yeah, I don't, it's hard to consider her a girlfriend, she was an ex, um, I --- I wouldn't --- she was an ex-interest, I guess." After trying to hem and haw his way around the question, Billy-O finally admitted that he started shacking up with Lisa in 2004, a year before his divorce.
At the time of her arrest, Lisa was carrying some e-mails which she had retrieved from Billy O's computer. One related to a charm Colleen had given Billy-O. During his 13 day mission as the pilot of the space shuttle Discovery, he e-mailed her a picture of the charm floating in the shuttle. Unable to see it, Colleen responded, "I don't see the charm though! pant, pant, it's like those erotic hidden picture games that they have at the bar . . . only you're fully clothed in the picture."
Before he returned from the flight, another of Colleen's e-mails provided Billy-O with some LUST IN SPACE. "Will have to control myself when I see you. First urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground and love (screw) the hell out of you."
COMING EPISODES: Will her attorney try to keep Lisa out of prison by claiming that she was merely trying to stop Colleen from throwing Billy-O on the ground, thereby preventing a possible injury to the poor fellow? Will Billy-O remain with NASA? Will the Navy courtmartial Lisa and Billy-O for adultery?
What if Colleen becomes pregnant? Will fellow Floridian O. J. Simpson, the legally innocent but morally guilty murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, come forth and claim that he may be the father of Colleen's unborn child? Far fetched? Not really. After all, O.J. now claims he may be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's infant daughter. Soap lovers, stay tuned to AEROSPACERS GONE WILD.
Monday, March 12, 2007
MUG THE MUGGER
As many of you know by now, a New York mugger punched out a 101 year old lady in the foyer of her appartment building, breaking her cheek bone in the process. He followed that up by punching out an 85 year old lady outside her apartment building. Each robbery netted him less than 40 dollars. MSNBC's Tucker Carlson labeled this thug "the leading candidate for a public flogging."
During the latter half of my 25 years as a criminal justice professor, I concentrated on teaching HUMAN RELATIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. I always advocated the principles of good police work which requires officers, among other things, to refrain from using excessive force druing an arrest, regardless of any provocation on the part of the arrestee.
Years ago, I attended a law enforcement conference in San Francisco. The keynote speaker was a federal official with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration in Washington, D.C. who was formerly a California peace officer. The speaker happened to be black. He started his presentation with the obligatory joke. "In the good old days, 10, 15 years ago, the police were not prejudiced. We just kicked the shit out of everyone."
When I was a cop, did I participate in some ass-kicking arrests? I'm not going to lie about it - sure I did. Did the arrestees deserve to get the shit kicked out of them? You bet they did. Which brings me to the asshole who mugged the two (probably many more) elderly ladies. When he gets caught, his lawyer will plead that this punk was the product of a teenage school dropout's unwanted pregnancy, deprived of a loving family relationship, beaten by several of his alcoholic mother's live-in boyfriends, addicted to drugs, and on top of everything else, a victim of racism.
Well, I'm sorry, but the principles of good police work be damned. In this case the mugger should be mugged. I hope some good old New Yorkers catch this asshole before the police do. Civilians will kick the supreme shit out of him and that is what he most certainly deserves. But, if cops catch this punk first, I hope he is stupid enough to resist arrest.
During the latter half of my 25 years as a criminal justice professor, I concentrated on teaching HUMAN RELATIONS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. I always advocated the principles of good police work which requires officers, among other things, to refrain from using excessive force druing an arrest, regardless of any provocation on the part of the arrestee.
Years ago, I attended a law enforcement conference in San Francisco. The keynote speaker was a federal official with the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration in Washington, D.C. who was formerly a California peace officer. The speaker happened to be black. He started his presentation with the obligatory joke. "In the good old days, 10, 15 years ago, the police were not prejudiced. We just kicked the shit out of everyone."
When I was a cop, did I participate in some ass-kicking arrests? I'm not going to lie about it - sure I did. Did the arrestees deserve to get the shit kicked out of them? You bet they did. Which brings me to the asshole who mugged the two (probably many more) elderly ladies. When he gets caught, his lawyer will plead that this punk was the product of a teenage school dropout's unwanted pregnancy, deprived of a loving family relationship, beaten by several of his alcoholic mother's live-in boyfriends, addicted to drugs, and on top of everything else, a victim of racism.
Well, I'm sorry, but the principles of good police work be damned. In this case the mugger should be mugged. I hope some good old New Yorkers catch this asshole before the police do. Civilians will kick the supreme shit out of him and that is what he most certainly deserves. But, if cops catch this punk first, I hope he is stupid enough to resist arrest.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
SHORT TAKES UPDATES
ANNA NICOLE SMITH. The decomposing corpse of Anna Nicole was finally laid to rest next to her son's grave in the Bahamas. The funeral was held up at the last minute when her mother petitioned a Bahamian court to stop the proceedings so she could take possession of the body and have it moved to Texas for burial. The court turned down her request and the funeral went on after an hour's delay.
When Anna Nicole's mother arrived at the chapel, she was roundly booed by spectators lining the street. Howard Stern, her lover, blasted the mother during his eulogy. At the burial site, Anna Nicole's mother could be seen feverishly dumping shovel load after shovel load of dirt on the grave. Finally, instead of walking around it, she stomped across the grave on her way out of the cemetary.
Anna Nicole's mother vowed to continue her fight to have both the body of her daughter and that of her grandson moved to Texas. She is represented by John O'Quinn, a prominent Houston tort lawyer. Meanwhile. none other than O. J. Simpson joined the list of those claiming to be the likely father of Anna Nicole's infant daughter. Yes, that's O.J., the legally innocent but morally guilty murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
PRES. FELIPE CALDERON. After mobilizing 20,000 army troops in the war against that country's drug lords, the president of Mexico took additional steps to strengthen that effort. He is seeking approval by Mexico's congress to merge the four federal police agencies - the Federal Preventive Police, the Federal Investigative Agency, the Immigration Police, and the Customs Police - into a unified federal law enforcement orgaqnization.
Calderon wants to provide that agency with the latest technology in the fight against crime. And, he is trying to root out endemic government drug corruption by calling on all Mexcian citizens to report any knowledge they may have of such corruption among the police, prosecutors, the courts, and other government agencies.
JOSEPH NICHOLS. Nichols' prolonged fight to avoid excution has finally come to an end. Nichols, who complained that Texas was trying to kill him when he had already served a life sentence (over 25 years of numerous appeals) for the same crime, was put to death this past Wednesday.
Nichols did not go quietly. When asked if he had any last words, Nichols said he did and then spewed forth a tirade of expletives against his executioners and against the State of Texas for putting him to death. There is an upside for Nichols though - he is no longer serving that life senteence.
When Anna Nicole's mother arrived at the chapel, she was roundly booed by spectators lining the street. Howard Stern, her lover, blasted the mother during his eulogy. At the burial site, Anna Nicole's mother could be seen feverishly dumping shovel load after shovel load of dirt on the grave. Finally, instead of walking around it, she stomped across the grave on her way out of the cemetary.
Anna Nicole's mother vowed to continue her fight to have both the body of her daughter and that of her grandson moved to Texas. She is represented by John O'Quinn, a prominent Houston tort lawyer. Meanwhile. none other than O. J. Simpson joined the list of those claiming to be the likely father of Anna Nicole's infant daughter. Yes, that's O.J., the legally innocent but morally guilty murderer of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
PRES. FELIPE CALDERON. After mobilizing 20,000 army troops in the war against that country's drug lords, the president of Mexico took additional steps to strengthen that effort. He is seeking approval by Mexico's congress to merge the four federal police agencies - the Federal Preventive Police, the Federal Investigative Agency, the Immigration Police, and the Customs Police - into a unified federal law enforcement orgaqnization.
Calderon wants to provide that agency with the latest technology in the fight against crime. And, he is trying to root out endemic government drug corruption by calling on all Mexcian citizens to report any knowledge they may have of such corruption among the police, prosecutors, the courts, and other government agencies.
JOSEPH NICHOLS. Nichols' prolonged fight to avoid excution has finally come to an end. Nichols, who complained that Texas was trying to kill him when he had already served a life sentence (over 25 years of numerous appeals) for the same crime, was put to death this past Wednesday.
Nichols did not go quietly. When asked if he had any last words, Nichols said he did and then spewed forth a tirade of expletives against his executioners and against the State of Texas for putting him to death. There is an upside for Nichols though - he is no longer serving that life senteence.
Friday, March 09, 2007
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A TEXAS BLIVOT
Ego gone wild. I could hardly believe my ears this mornoing as I was listening to that Texas blivot, Roach Limburger - oops, I mean Rush Limbaugh - on my car radio. Good old Roach was offended by one of his good old dittoheads who called in to complain that Limburger had not done enough for conservatives. Roach responded by tooting his own horn for damn near 10 minutes.
Roach claimed over and over again that he had been personally responsible for the election of a Republican Congress and the election of Presidents Bush I and Bush II.. He said, "I spawned the Republican revolution, I spawned the Republican House of Representatives, I spawned the Republican Senate, I spawned the election of two Repbublican Presidents," and he repeated his "I spawned" statements multiple times during his response to a seemingly dissapointed dittohead.
It takes a hell of a lot of nerve and an inflated super ego on Roach's part to make such far fetched outlandish claims. Now, I'm sure you've been asking yourself, what in the world is a Texas blivot? A TEXAS BLIVOT IS 10 POUNDS OF SHIT IN A TWO POUND BAG.
Roach claimed over and over again that he had been personally responsible for the election of a Republican Congress and the election of Presidents Bush I and Bush II.. He said, "I spawned the Republican revolution, I spawned the Republican House of Representatives, I spawned the Republican Senate, I spawned the election of two Repbublican Presidents," and he repeated his "I spawned" statements multiple times during his response to a seemingly dissapointed dittohead.
It takes a hell of a lot of nerve and an inflated super ego on Roach's part to make such far fetched outlandish claims. Now, I'm sure you've been asking yourself, what in the world is a Texas blivot? A TEXAS BLIVOT IS 10 POUNDS OF SHIT IN A TWO POUND BAG.
Monday, March 05, 2007
JOURNALISTIC CROWN JEWELS
Every once in a while you will learn that some journalists are the crown jewels of their profession. Three such jewels are Dana Priest and Anne Hull of the Washington Post and Bob Woodruff of ABC News. These journalists uncovered the deplorable conditions under which our wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan are treated in the Walter Reed Army Medical Center's outpatient facilities and the deplorable treatment given Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans by the Veterans Administration.
Dana Priest and Anne Hull conducted an intensive investigation of the outpatient facilities at Walter Reed after getting a complaint from a soldier wounded in Iraq. What they found is appalling. The building used to house outpatients was found to be infested with rats and roaches. The walls were covered with black mold. There were holes in the ceiling and walls. The place was found to be in a terrible state of disrepair. For inpatients, once the outstanding initial treaatment phase has been completed, the quality of care given the wounded at Walter Reed and other military hospitals starts going down the tubes. There is a reluctance to recommend discharge from the service and there is a lot of foot dragging in determining disability rates.
To their credit, the two Washington Post staff writers did not immediately go to the Defense Department with their findings. Had they done so, the army likely would have covered up the deplorable conditions or, at best, would only have disciplined some low level hospital staff persons. Instead, Priest and Hull published their findings in the Post before contacting any officials, much to the chagrin of the Bush administration and of the Defense Department.
After their story was published, repairs to the outpatient facilities were started and the Secretary of the Army fired Walter Reed's commanding general. Then Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, forced the Secretary of the Army to resign. Now, President Bush is calling for a commission to look into the treatment of our wounded veterans and Congress will hold hearings on the same matter.
Bob Woodruff, who was critically wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq, has uncovered a mountain of ineptness with the Veterans Adminsistration medical programs which is robbing military veterans of the proper medical care they should be receiving. Woodruff, who is quick to point out that he owes his life and remarkable recovery from a traumatic brain injury and other wounds to the excellent care he received at our military hospitals in Iraq, Germany, and in this country, found such care lacking for wounded veterans once they had been discharged from the service.
Woodruff found that the Veterans Administration was totally unprepared for, and overwhelmed by the number of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wounded veterans were subjected to bureaucratic red tape, making it hard for them to receive proper medical treatment. Those seeking treatment are required to fill out a pile of paperwork and to provide proof they were wounded - one brought his Purple Heart. There were instances of totally blind patients being placed in front of eye charts during their medical examinations. Veterans were sent to military base clinics for specific medical problems only to find that these clinics did not have the capability to treat those problems.
Is the Bush tax cut, which really benefits only the top one percent among taxpayers, responsible for the shoddy practices of the Veterans Administration? If so, should that tax cut be rescinded and some of the added tax revenue used to beef up the Veterans Administration? Hopefully, the investigations resulting from Woodruff's work will ensure that the wounded troops, who have been discharged from the service, will receive the medical treatment they deserve.
Priest, Hull and Woodruff are truly the crown jewels of their profession. Our veterans have been well served by these three journalists. The Washington Post can be very proud of Priest and Hull. Likewise, ABC can be very proud of Woodruff's work, following a long recovery from the wounds he suffered. Our nation should also be very proud to have these three journalists in our midst. We are all the beneficiaries of their diligent work.
Dana Priest and Anne Hull conducted an intensive investigation of the outpatient facilities at Walter Reed after getting a complaint from a soldier wounded in Iraq. What they found is appalling. The building used to house outpatients was found to be infested with rats and roaches. The walls were covered with black mold. There were holes in the ceiling and walls. The place was found to be in a terrible state of disrepair. For inpatients, once the outstanding initial treaatment phase has been completed, the quality of care given the wounded at Walter Reed and other military hospitals starts going down the tubes. There is a reluctance to recommend discharge from the service and there is a lot of foot dragging in determining disability rates.
To their credit, the two Washington Post staff writers did not immediately go to the Defense Department with their findings. Had they done so, the army likely would have covered up the deplorable conditions or, at best, would only have disciplined some low level hospital staff persons. Instead, Priest and Hull published their findings in the Post before contacting any officials, much to the chagrin of the Bush administration and of the Defense Department.
After their story was published, repairs to the outpatient facilities were started and the Secretary of the Army fired Walter Reed's commanding general. Then Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense, forced the Secretary of the Army to resign. Now, President Bush is calling for a commission to look into the treatment of our wounded veterans and Congress will hold hearings on the same matter.
Bob Woodruff, who was critically wounded by a roadside bomb in Iraq, has uncovered a mountain of ineptness with the Veterans Adminsistration medical programs which is robbing military veterans of the proper medical care they should be receiving. Woodruff, who is quick to point out that he owes his life and remarkable recovery from a traumatic brain injury and other wounds to the excellent care he received at our military hospitals in Iraq, Germany, and in this country, found such care lacking for wounded veterans once they had been discharged from the service.
Woodruff found that the Veterans Administration was totally unprepared for, and overwhelmed by the number of troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wounded veterans were subjected to bureaucratic red tape, making it hard for them to receive proper medical treatment. Those seeking treatment are required to fill out a pile of paperwork and to provide proof they were wounded - one brought his Purple Heart. There were instances of totally blind patients being placed in front of eye charts during their medical examinations. Veterans were sent to military base clinics for specific medical problems only to find that these clinics did not have the capability to treat those problems.
Is the Bush tax cut, which really benefits only the top one percent among taxpayers, responsible for the shoddy practices of the Veterans Administration? If so, should that tax cut be rescinded and some of the added tax revenue used to beef up the Veterans Administration? Hopefully, the investigations resulting from Woodruff's work will ensure that the wounded troops, who have been discharged from the service, will receive the medical treatment they deserve.
Priest, Hull and Woodruff are truly the crown jewels of their profession. Our veterans have been well served by these three journalists. The Washington Post can be very proud of Priest and Hull. Likewise, ABC can be very proud of Woodruff's work, following a long recovery from the wounds he suffered. Our nation should also be very proud to have these three journalists in our midst. We are all the beneficiaries of their diligent work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)