Sunday, February 28, 2010
HEY, PERSISTENCE DOES PAY OFF
Who says persistence doesn’t pay off? An octogenarian succeeds once more in obtaining free room and board.
WOMAN, 80, GETS THREE YEARS FOR ANOTHER BURGLARY
Doris Thompson is an atypical octogenarian: She specializes in stealing from medical offices, has a rap sheet dating to 1955 and has already served nine stints in prison.
By My-Thuan Tran
Los Angeles Times
February 26, 2010
Eighty-year-old Doris Thompson has made a long career of petty theft and burglarizing medical buildings. And although this week she was sentenced to three years in state prison for her latest crime, officials aren't sure that's enough to stop Thompson's escapades when she is released.
"She likes to burglarize medical suites for some reason. That's her niche," said Paulette Paccione, the Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case.
On Wednesday, Thompson, who has a rap sheet dating to 1955 and has landed in state prison nine times, pleaded guilty to a commercial burglary she committed in December, when she hid in the restroom of the Children's Medical Group office in Torrance and waited until employees left for the day.
A security camera caught Thompson prying open drawers with a chisel and screwdriver, Paccione said. From the building, Thompson took $400 in cash and checks, stamps totaling $25, a plastic urine container and an audiogram device used to test hearing-impaired children, valued at $1,000, said Sgt. Jeremiah Hart of the Torrance Police Department.
This was not the first time Thompson targeted the building, Hart said. In 2005 and 2006, she burglarized other medical offices in the complex while wearing a wig, he said.
During the investigation of the December burglary, a Torrance detective recognized the woman in the surveillance camera from a crime bulletin put up by Beverly Hills police a few years earlier for a similar crime, Hart said.
"That's her M.O.," Paccione said. "What she does is she goes in with her little burglar bag. She takes cash, stamps, whatever she can find."
Paccione said Thompson, who has used 25 aliases, is a rare woman. "You usually don't get 80-year-old female burglars."
She said Thompson told the judge she probably deserved a longer sentence.
"I don't think this will stop her from doing this again," Paccione said. "She's not really apologetic about it. This is her thing."
WOMAN, 80, GETS THREE YEARS FOR ANOTHER BURGLARY
Doris Thompson is an atypical octogenarian: She specializes in stealing from medical offices, has a rap sheet dating to 1955 and has already served nine stints in prison.
By My-Thuan Tran
Los Angeles Times
February 26, 2010
Eighty-year-old Doris Thompson has made a long career of petty theft and burglarizing medical buildings. And although this week she was sentenced to three years in state prison for her latest crime, officials aren't sure that's enough to stop Thompson's escapades when she is released.
"She likes to burglarize medical suites for some reason. That's her niche," said Paulette Paccione, the Los Angeles County deputy district attorney who prosecuted the case.
On Wednesday, Thompson, who has a rap sheet dating to 1955 and has landed in state prison nine times, pleaded guilty to a commercial burglary she committed in December, when she hid in the restroom of the Children's Medical Group office in Torrance and waited until employees left for the day.
A security camera caught Thompson prying open drawers with a chisel and screwdriver, Paccione said. From the building, Thompson took $400 in cash and checks, stamps totaling $25, a plastic urine container and an audiogram device used to test hearing-impaired children, valued at $1,000, said Sgt. Jeremiah Hart of the Torrance Police Department.
This was not the first time Thompson targeted the building, Hart said. In 2005 and 2006, she burglarized other medical offices in the complex while wearing a wig, he said.
During the investigation of the December burglary, a Torrance detective recognized the woman in the surveillance camera from a crime bulletin put up by Beverly Hills police a few years earlier for a similar crime, Hart said.
"That's her M.O.," Paccione said. "What she does is she goes in with her little burglar bag. She takes cash, stamps, whatever she can find."
Paccione said Thompson, who has used 25 aliases, is a rare woman. "You usually don't get 80-year-old female burglars."
She said Thompson told the judge she probably deserved a longer sentence.
"I don't think this will stop her from doing this again," Paccione said. "She's not really apologetic about it. This is her thing."
Saturday, February 27, 2010
DON'T RAIN ON THEIR PARADE!
After the Canadian women’s hockey team beat the U.S. to win the gold medal in the Winter Olympics, they held an on-ice celebration by guzzling champagne, chugalugging beer and smoking stogies - and they were probably Cuban cigars at that. Attaboy gals, way to go! After all, that’s the way hockey players celebrate.
It didn’t take a hot New York minute for the do-gooders and the “they’re role models” crowd in the media to rain on the Canadian women’s parade with a shower of criticism. God forbid they should behave so unbecoming of Olympians.
What a bunch of killjoys! Come on you old fogies, get a life! After all, them gals was playing a man’s game!
It didn’t take a hot New York minute for the do-gooders and the “they’re role models” crowd in the media to rain on the Canadian women’s parade with a shower of criticism. God forbid they should behave so unbecoming of Olympians.
What a bunch of killjoys! Come on you old fogies, get a life! After all, them gals was playing a man’s game!
BONDSMEN KNOW THAT 'D-RAY' CAN SELL ENOUGH DOPE TO PAY FOR HIS BOND
I got a kick out of the way this story was written. That’s why I’m posting it.
THE CASE OF THE COPS AND THE RABBIT
The Police News
February 27, 2010
GALVESTON - Friday, as some Galveston Police Narcotics officers were snooping around town keeping an eye on the population of drug dealers, drug users and others who engage in drug related occupations, they noticed several known, local police characters hanging around a car parked at the Time Out Food Mart, 710 Holiday Drive. One of the characters was "toaking a blunt." (smoking a a marijuana cigar)
Seeing that, the officers invited themselves to join the party and decided at that point to detain them all until they could determine just who was doing what.
One of the characters in the crowd was an old familiar face to the officers. In fact, he is an old familiar face to probably every cop in Galveston County and beyond.
He's known on the streets, and in the jails, "D-Ray" or "Dee". His real name is Dominique Alonzo Stokes and he's a 30-year old crook who has made his way through life since his teen years as somewhat of a drug dealer and who knows what else.
In police circles he is also known as a "rabbit." Rabbits are characters that take off running everytime they see a cop coming down the street. And in case the cop happens to catch up with him, they usually have to fight him to arrest him. If you catch a rabbit, the fight is on, they say.
That's what happened Friday when three narcs caught "D-Ray." Sgt. Gilbert Gomez had him collared and told him to put his hands on top of the car so he could pat him down. D-Ray didn't agree and started acting tough and jerked away from Gomez. With that action, officers Robert Owens and Joey Quiroga joined in and after a brief tussle and some rolling around on the ground, D-Ray was cuffed up and given a comfortable place to rest in the back seat of a police car.
No surprise to anyone there, the officers found D-Ray to be holding cocaine and marijuana. Once again D-Ray was given a free ride to the county jail, courtesy of local taxpayers, where he was registered for a room and charged with the manufacture and delivery of drugs, assaulting a policeman, resisting arrest, evading arrest, (he did try to run but they got him, remember "rabbit"?) and possession of marijuana.
We should point out that in cases where the police have to fight the bad guy to get him in cuffs, they still charge him for assaulting the cop, even though he looses the fight. It goes to the old saying, "you can't win for losing."
Two of D-Ray's partners in crime who were hanging out in the crowd were also invited to go along to the county jail. Even though they didn't participate in the scuffle with the cops, Theodore Smith, 35, went to jail for possession of some marijuana and 6 outstanding municipal court warrants, and Walter Spurlock, 27, had a warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.
D-Ray's bonds total $267,500. You would think that's a mighty big bond and wonder if he could ever get out of jail. Hide and watch. Drug dealers have no problem making bond because bonding agents know they can come up with the money. The just go out and sell some more drugs.
Here's a brief glance at D-Ray Stokes rap sheet. These are crimes he has actually been convicted of. It doesn't include the one's he got away with or got dismissed in court.
1996 Reformatory in Brownwood, Texas for juvenile criminals
1998 Galveston PD - Resisting Arrest
2000 Galveston PD - DWLS (driving while license suspended)
2000 Galveston PD - Drug possession – Felony
2000 Galveston PD - Possession marijuana
2000 Galveston PD - Evading arrest or detention
2001 Houston PD - Man/Del Drugs
2002 Galveston PD - Evading arrest in a car (police chase in cars)
2003 Galveston PD - Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon & terroristic threats & aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
2004 Holliday Unit for offense committed in 2000 (He finally went to prison but apparently was not rehabilitated)
2006 Galveston PD - Tampering with evidence
2006 Galveston PD - Evading arrest (running from cops. Vilolation of the "rabbit" act)
2008 Galveston PD - Resisting arrest or search
This is probably an interesting story to many readers. We tell it a little different than the socially and politically correct, mainstream media tells it, but that's because we tell it like it really is. This is not an unusual story. It's just another routine day in the life of a a narcotics cop.
THE CASE OF THE COPS AND THE RABBIT
The Police News
February 27, 2010
GALVESTON - Friday, as some Galveston Police Narcotics officers were snooping around town keeping an eye on the population of drug dealers, drug users and others who engage in drug related occupations, they noticed several known, local police characters hanging around a car parked at the Time Out Food Mart, 710 Holiday Drive. One of the characters was "toaking a blunt." (smoking a a marijuana cigar)
Seeing that, the officers invited themselves to join the party and decided at that point to detain them all until they could determine just who was doing what.
One of the characters in the crowd was an old familiar face to the officers. In fact, he is an old familiar face to probably every cop in Galveston County and beyond.
He's known on the streets, and in the jails, "D-Ray" or "Dee". His real name is Dominique Alonzo Stokes and he's a 30-year old crook who has made his way through life since his teen years as somewhat of a drug dealer and who knows what else.
In police circles he is also known as a "rabbit." Rabbits are characters that take off running everytime they see a cop coming down the street. And in case the cop happens to catch up with him, they usually have to fight him to arrest him. If you catch a rabbit, the fight is on, they say.
That's what happened Friday when three narcs caught "D-Ray." Sgt. Gilbert Gomez had him collared and told him to put his hands on top of the car so he could pat him down. D-Ray didn't agree and started acting tough and jerked away from Gomez. With that action, officers Robert Owens and Joey Quiroga joined in and after a brief tussle and some rolling around on the ground, D-Ray was cuffed up and given a comfortable place to rest in the back seat of a police car.
No surprise to anyone there, the officers found D-Ray to be holding cocaine and marijuana. Once again D-Ray was given a free ride to the county jail, courtesy of local taxpayers, where he was registered for a room and charged with the manufacture and delivery of drugs, assaulting a policeman, resisting arrest, evading arrest, (he did try to run but they got him, remember "rabbit"?) and possession of marijuana.
We should point out that in cases where the police have to fight the bad guy to get him in cuffs, they still charge him for assaulting the cop, even though he looses the fight. It goes to the old saying, "you can't win for losing."
Two of D-Ray's partners in crime who were hanging out in the crowd were also invited to go along to the county jail. Even though they didn't participate in the scuffle with the cops, Theodore Smith, 35, went to jail for possession of some marijuana and 6 outstanding municipal court warrants, and Walter Spurlock, 27, had a warrant out for his arrest for driving with a suspended license.
D-Ray's bonds total $267,500. You would think that's a mighty big bond and wonder if he could ever get out of jail. Hide and watch. Drug dealers have no problem making bond because bonding agents know they can come up with the money. The just go out and sell some more drugs.
Here's a brief glance at D-Ray Stokes rap sheet. These are crimes he has actually been convicted of. It doesn't include the one's he got away with or got dismissed in court.
1996 Reformatory in Brownwood, Texas for juvenile criminals
1998 Galveston PD - Resisting Arrest
2000 Galveston PD - DWLS (driving while license suspended)
2000 Galveston PD - Drug possession – Felony
2000 Galveston PD - Possession marijuana
2000 Galveston PD - Evading arrest or detention
2001 Houston PD - Man/Del Drugs
2002 Galveston PD - Evading arrest in a car (police chase in cars)
2003 Galveston PD - Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon & terroristic threats & aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
2004 Holliday Unit for offense committed in 2000 (He finally went to prison but apparently was not rehabilitated)
2006 Galveston PD - Tampering with evidence
2006 Galveston PD - Evading arrest (running from cops. Vilolation of the "rabbit" act)
2008 Galveston PD - Resisting arrest or search
This is probably an interesting story to many readers. We tell it a little different than the socially and politically correct, mainstream media tells it, but that's because we tell it like it really is. This is not an unusual story. It's just another routine day in the life of a a narcotics cop.
AND THIS JERK ACTUALLY SERVED IN CONGRESS
FORMER CONGRESSMAN CRAIG WASHINGTON SUES THE TWO TEENAGERS HE SHOT AT
By Chris Vogel
Houston Press
February 26, 2010
In July 2009, former U.S. Congressman Craig Washington admitted in court to illegally shooting at a pair of teenagers who were trying to park in a private lot that he owned in Midtown. The shots struck the car, the boys were unharmed and Washington eventually received two years of probation.
Now, in a bizarre twist, Washington is suing the two young men, Taylor Brooks and Evan McAnulty, to the tune of $600,000 each. It is only the second time in 18 years, says Houston crime victims advocate Andy Kahan, that he can remember an offender suing the people whom he was sentenced in criminal court for injuring.
"It's preposterous, it's ludicrous, it's any other adjective I could possibly conjure up," Kahan tells Hair Balls. "It's really sad that the boys and their families have to endure not only being victimized but then having to be re-victimized later."
In the lawsuit, Washington claims that he was awoken one night while sleeping at his law firm by the sounds of someone trying to park in his lot and that Brooks and McAnulty tried to run him over with their car. He is suing based on claims that he was assaulted and that Brooks and McAnulty were trespassing and damaged his property.
The lawsuit leaves out the part about Washington illegally shooting at the two guys.
Washington's attorney, Athill Muhammad, declined to comment, saying he was waiting to get instructions from Washington before making any statement.
In the criminal case, Washington initially tried claiming self-defense, but the grand jury indicted him anyway. The prosecution eventually ended when Washington made a plea deal to get the two years of probation in the pre-trial diversion program, which allows offenders to potentially expunge their record.
"The fact that Washington shot at and almost killed my son, admitted to it in court, is again saying it's self-defense, which the grand jury didn't buy in the first place, and is now suing the boys is unbelievable, says Brooks' mother, Debbie. "He's making a mockery of himself."
But wait, the plot thickens.
Washington's lawsuit in Harris County District Court is dated December 31, the same day Brooks and McAnulty's parents filed a lawsuit against Washington in small claims court. Debbie Brooks says they decided to sue because Washington has not shelled out the $1,500 in restitution that he was ordered to pay for shooting up Brooks' car, as well as for intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental anguish. The most anyone can sue for in small claims court is $10,000.
"The boys did not give him any trouble that night," says Debbie Brooks, "and they were not there very long. They mistakenly thought they could park there. Washington should have called the police if he was that upset, but you don't take the law into your own hands and shoot."
These are not the only lawsuits Washington is dealing with right now. The U.S. government is currently suing Washington in Houston federal court, claiming he owes slightly more than $600,000 to the IRS in unpaid taxes - roughly the same amount he is suing each teenager for.
"Maybe he's trying to get us to pay his IRS bill," says Debbie Brooks. "Who knows? This whole thing is so crazy."
By Chris Vogel
Houston Press
February 26, 2010
In July 2009, former U.S. Congressman Craig Washington admitted in court to illegally shooting at a pair of teenagers who were trying to park in a private lot that he owned in Midtown. The shots struck the car, the boys were unharmed and Washington eventually received two years of probation.
Now, in a bizarre twist, Washington is suing the two young men, Taylor Brooks and Evan McAnulty, to the tune of $600,000 each. It is only the second time in 18 years, says Houston crime victims advocate Andy Kahan, that he can remember an offender suing the people whom he was sentenced in criminal court for injuring.
"It's preposterous, it's ludicrous, it's any other adjective I could possibly conjure up," Kahan tells Hair Balls. "It's really sad that the boys and their families have to endure not only being victimized but then having to be re-victimized later."
In the lawsuit, Washington claims that he was awoken one night while sleeping at his law firm by the sounds of someone trying to park in his lot and that Brooks and McAnulty tried to run him over with their car. He is suing based on claims that he was assaulted and that Brooks and McAnulty were trespassing and damaged his property.
The lawsuit leaves out the part about Washington illegally shooting at the two guys.
Washington's attorney, Athill Muhammad, declined to comment, saying he was waiting to get instructions from Washington before making any statement.
In the criminal case, Washington initially tried claiming self-defense, but the grand jury indicted him anyway. The prosecution eventually ended when Washington made a plea deal to get the two years of probation in the pre-trial diversion program, which allows offenders to potentially expunge their record.
"The fact that Washington shot at and almost killed my son, admitted to it in court, is again saying it's self-defense, which the grand jury didn't buy in the first place, and is now suing the boys is unbelievable, says Brooks' mother, Debbie. "He's making a mockery of himself."
But wait, the plot thickens.
Washington's lawsuit in Harris County District Court is dated December 31, the same day Brooks and McAnulty's parents filed a lawsuit against Washington in small claims court. Debbie Brooks says they decided to sue because Washington has not shelled out the $1,500 in restitution that he was ordered to pay for shooting up Brooks' car, as well as for intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental anguish. The most anyone can sue for in small claims court is $10,000.
"The boys did not give him any trouble that night," says Debbie Brooks, "and they were not there very long. They mistakenly thought they could park there. Washington should have called the police if he was that upset, but you don't take the law into your own hands and shoot."
These are not the only lawsuits Washington is dealing with right now. The U.S. government is currently suing Washington in Houston federal court, claiming he owes slightly more than $600,000 to the IRS in unpaid taxes - roughly the same amount he is suing each teenager for.
"Maybe he's trying to get us to pay his IRS bill," says Debbie Brooks. "Who knows? This whole thing is so crazy."
Friday, February 26, 2010
REFORMING OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM
Central Falls, a city of just one square mile, has more children living in poverty than anywhere else in Rhode Island. Central Falls High School is consistently one of the worst-performing public schools in Rhode Island. Just 7 percent of 11th graders tested in the fall were proficient in math. Only 33 percent were proficient in writing, and just 55 percent were proficient in reading. In 2008, just 52 percent of students graduated within four years and 30 percent dropped out.
So how did the Central Falls school superintendent deal with the poor performance of the high school students? She fired the principal and all 74 teachers because the teachers union refused to go along with her plan that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school without any increase in pay.
While I do not sympathize with the union and incompetent teachers, I do feel sorry for the good teachers who find themselves teaching under intolerable conditions. Schools all over the country have been struggling with educating children who live in poverty.
Here are two major problems as I see it:
There are way too many incompetent teachers in our public school systems. The jobs of those incompetents are protected by the teachers unions. Some teachers may be good in certain subjects but are not competent to teach other subjects that may be assigned to them. Other incompetent teachers are the beneficiaries of affirmative action, having graduated from minority colleges with courses taught at a lower level than comparable courses in predominantly white colleges and universities. I have had students with B.S. Degrees from Prairie View A&M and Southern University in my criminal justice classes who were functionally illiterate.
There are too many disruptive students in our public schools. For the most part these are students who live in poverty stricken neighborhoods. They receive no educational support from their families and are attending school only because of our compulsory education laws. This is not to say that all poverty stricken kids are disruptive, but those that are make learning difficult for other students and interfere with a teacher’s ability to manage the classroom and to teach the students who want to learn.
So how do you solve the problems of incompetent teachers and unruly students? There is only one way and that is to undertake a drastic reform our public education system.
To begin with we need to eliminate most of the Education Courses in our colleges and universities that are required in order to obtain a teaching certificate. Most of these courses are taught by an entrenched faculty of education professors who have spent little if any time actually teaching in a public school classroom. Most of these courses are a waste of the prospective teacher’s time. I cannot think of a single education course that I took that actually helped me in my role as a high school teacher. In place of these worthless courses, students should be required to take a concentration of courses that they intend to teach.
So, to start out with, we need to do away with the Education Degrees and with the Schools of Education. Prospective teachers do NOT need more than two or three education courses and these can be taught in a division like social sciences. That will allow students to take more courses in the field(s) in which they want to teach. More math courses, more science courses, more English courses, etc.
In all instances, public school teachers should be hired only to teach specific courses. That requires licensing them as math teachers, science teachers, English teachers, etc. And that means teachers must pass a proficiency exam before they can be licensed in any specific teaching field. Specific course licensing will, to a large extent, eliminate the hiring of incompetent teachers. That will eliminate the need for teachers unions to protect the jobs of incompetent teachers. If that goes contrary to affirmative action, that’s just too bad. Competence should always trump affirmative action when it comes to the education of our children!
We need to revise if not eliminate our compulsory education laws. We should not require students that are not interested in getting an education to attend school past the fifth or sixth grade. Get rid of the disruptive little bastards so that our good teachers can teach and those students who want to learn can learn.
The goal of our public schools should be to provide the knowledge and ability for students to compete in the job market, not to prepare everyone for going to a college or university. What about the dropouts? Will they enter into a life of crime? Quite possibly. However, I doubt if that would lead to a significant increase in the crime rate because most of these kids would turn to a life of crime even if you forced them to remain in school until they reached the age of 16.
In order to compete in the job market, disadvantaged youths need to be able to read, comprehend what they read, and write coherently. They need to master a certain level of math, they must be able to use a computer, and they need to acquire some technical skills. That means establishing more technical-vocational schools. Such schools would entice some kids to remain in school who would otherwise want to drop out.
I remember that when I was a kid in New York, the city school system had a bunch of technical schools. There were automotive schools, a needle-trade school to prepare kids for jobs in the garment industry, machinist schools, a culinary school, etc. There was even a merchant marine school that was conducted on a ship docked in the harbor. Those have gone by the wayside because the educational mantra of the liberals is ‘a college education for all.’
Regardless of how we approach the problem of incompetent teachers and unruly students, we need a drastic overhaul of our public education system. Until we do that, there will be many more school failures like that of Central Falls High.
So how did the Central Falls school superintendent deal with the poor performance of the high school students? She fired the principal and all 74 teachers because the teachers union refused to go along with her plan that included a longer school day and tutoring before and after school without any increase in pay.
While I do not sympathize with the union and incompetent teachers, I do feel sorry for the good teachers who find themselves teaching under intolerable conditions. Schools all over the country have been struggling with educating children who live in poverty.
Here are two major problems as I see it:
There are way too many incompetent teachers in our public school systems. The jobs of those incompetents are protected by the teachers unions. Some teachers may be good in certain subjects but are not competent to teach other subjects that may be assigned to them. Other incompetent teachers are the beneficiaries of affirmative action, having graduated from minority colleges with courses taught at a lower level than comparable courses in predominantly white colleges and universities. I have had students with B.S. Degrees from Prairie View A&M and Southern University in my criminal justice classes who were functionally illiterate.
There are too many disruptive students in our public schools. For the most part these are students who live in poverty stricken neighborhoods. They receive no educational support from their families and are attending school only because of our compulsory education laws. This is not to say that all poverty stricken kids are disruptive, but those that are make learning difficult for other students and interfere with a teacher’s ability to manage the classroom and to teach the students who want to learn.
So how do you solve the problems of incompetent teachers and unruly students? There is only one way and that is to undertake a drastic reform our public education system.
To begin with we need to eliminate most of the Education Courses in our colleges and universities that are required in order to obtain a teaching certificate. Most of these courses are taught by an entrenched faculty of education professors who have spent little if any time actually teaching in a public school classroom. Most of these courses are a waste of the prospective teacher’s time. I cannot think of a single education course that I took that actually helped me in my role as a high school teacher. In place of these worthless courses, students should be required to take a concentration of courses that they intend to teach.
So, to start out with, we need to do away with the Education Degrees and with the Schools of Education. Prospective teachers do NOT need more than two or three education courses and these can be taught in a division like social sciences. That will allow students to take more courses in the field(s) in which they want to teach. More math courses, more science courses, more English courses, etc.
In all instances, public school teachers should be hired only to teach specific courses. That requires licensing them as math teachers, science teachers, English teachers, etc. And that means teachers must pass a proficiency exam before they can be licensed in any specific teaching field. Specific course licensing will, to a large extent, eliminate the hiring of incompetent teachers. That will eliminate the need for teachers unions to protect the jobs of incompetent teachers. If that goes contrary to affirmative action, that’s just too bad. Competence should always trump affirmative action when it comes to the education of our children!
We need to revise if not eliminate our compulsory education laws. We should not require students that are not interested in getting an education to attend school past the fifth or sixth grade. Get rid of the disruptive little bastards so that our good teachers can teach and those students who want to learn can learn.
The goal of our public schools should be to provide the knowledge and ability for students to compete in the job market, not to prepare everyone for going to a college or university. What about the dropouts? Will they enter into a life of crime? Quite possibly. However, I doubt if that would lead to a significant increase in the crime rate because most of these kids would turn to a life of crime even if you forced them to remain in school until they reached the age of 16.
In order to compete in the job market, disadvantaged youths need to be able to read, comprehend what they read, and write coherently. They need to master a certain level of math, they must be able to use a computer, and they need to acquire some technical skills. That means establishing more technical-vocational schools. Such schools would entice some kids to remain in school who would otherwise want to drop out.
I remember that when I was a kid in New York, the city school system had a bunch of technical schools. There were automotive schools, a needle-trade school to prepare kids for jobs in the garment industry, machinist schools, a culinary school, etc. There was even a merchant marine school that was conducted on a ship docked in the harbor. Those have gone by the wayside because the educational mantra of the liberals is ‘a college education for all.’
Regardless of how we approach the problem of incompetent teachers and unruly students, we need a drastic overhaul of our public education system. Until we do that, there will be many more school failures like that of Central Falls High.
'MY FAVORITE THINGS'
To commemorate her 73rd birthday, actress and singer Julie Andrews made a special appearance at New York's Radio City Music Hall. One of the musical numbers she performed was her own version of "My Favorite Things" from "The Sound Of Music," the movie in which she starred way back in 1965.
Here are the new lyrics Julie Andrews used in her version of “My Favorite Things”:
Maalox and nose drops and needles for knitting,
Walkers and handrails and new dental fittings,
Bundles of magazines tied up in string,
These are a few of my favorite things.
Cadillac's and cataracts, and hearing aids and glasses,
Polident and Fixodent and false teeth in glasses,
Pacemakers, golf carts and porches with swings,
These are a few of my favorite things..
When the pipes leak, When the bones creak,
When the knees go bad,
I simply remember my favorite things,
And then I don't feel so bad.
Hot tea and crumpets and corn pads for bunions,
No spicy hot food or food cooked with onions,
Bathrobes and heating pads and hot meals they bring,
These are a few of my favorite things.
Back pains, confused brains, and no need for sinnin',
Thin bones and fractures and hair that is thinnin',
And we won't mention our short, shrunken frames,
When we remember our favorite things.
When the joints ache, When the hips break,
When the eyes grow dim,
Then I remember the great life I've had,
And then I don't feel so bad.
Here are the new lyrics Julie Andrews used in her version of “My Favorite Things”:
Maalox and nose drops and needles for knitting,
Walkers and handrails and new dental fittings,
Bundles of magazines tied up in string,
These are a few of my favorite things.
Cadillac's and cataracts, and hearing aids and glasses,
Polident and Fixodent and false teeth in glasses,
Pacemakers, golf carts and porches with swings,
These are a few of my favorite things..
When the pipes leak, When the bones creak,
When the knees go bad,
I simply remember my favorite things,
And then I don't feel so bad.
Hot tea and crumpets and corn pads for bunions,
No spicy hot food or food cooked with onions,
Bathrobes and heating pads and hot meals they bring,
These are a few of my favorite things.
Back pains, confused brains, and no need for sinnin',
Thin bones and fractures and hair that is thinnin',
And we won't mention our short, shrunken frames,
When we remember our favorite things.
When the joints ache, When the hips break,
When the eyes grow dim,
Then I remember the great life I've had,
And then I don't feel so bad.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
HALLUCINATING ABOUT REDUCING PAROLE RECIDIVISM
One of the problems with parole is that many parole officers, usually the sissy social worker types, must be living in a different world.
In a letter to the Houston Chronicle here is what an “officer and supervisor for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice parole division” offers as a solution to the problem of recidivism:
“………. a program of pre-parole counseling, in which all those being released are given the knowledge of what to expect from their parole officers, is totally ignored. If a prospective parolee knew what to expect from his or her parole officer, recidivism would decrease by enormous numbers. I can attest to the fact that it takes at least two years to fully train a new parole officer to be effective in the field. In the meantime, untrained officers write up thousands of [parole] violations, technical or otherwise, that bring about recidivism rates that are basically unwarranted. Pre-parole counseling of inmates ………. would solve a lot of problems dealing with [prison] overcrowding and recidivism.”
Those remarks would be considered hilarious by those of us who are pragmatists except for the fact that the criminal justice practitioner who made them expects to be taken seriously.
Recidivism would “decrease by enormous numbers” with pre-parole counseling? Is this guy for real? To begin with, this guy simply doesn’t understand the meaning of recidivism! In the case of parole, recidivism refers to a parolee COMMITTING A NEW CRIME, not a technical violation like failing to report to his parole officer.
If a parolees are going to be supervised by “untrained officers,” how can you tell prospective parolees what to expect from their parole officers? You can’t even tell them what to expect from experienced officers because they range from the sissy social workers to the cop-types, with every type in between, each supervising parolees from their respective perspectives.
Is the pre-parole counselor going to be honest and tell those prospective parolees that their parole officer, whether experienced or not, will hardly make any field visits, and the few times he does, it will usually be by appointment, thus giving the parolee time make it appear as if everything is going just hunky-dory? Of course he’s not going to tell them that.
Recidivism is brought about by the parolee’s decision to commit a new crime, not by a parole officer’s decision to write up some bullshit technical violation.
When I was on the faculty of Sam Houston State University, I used to volunteer at the Ferguson Unit of the Texas prison system by doing group counseling for problem inmates and by giving classes (pre-parole counseling if you prefer) to inmates about to be released. I told them how to succeed and how to fail, once they found themselves in the free world. My classes included advise on how to obtain employment, how to dress for a job interview, how to talk to prospective employers – none of that stupid con-lingo or ghetto speak – and how to comply with their parole conditions.
About half of each group appeared to be there because they were really interested in the pre-release classes, while the other half were there only because they were ordered to attend. And that happens to equal the nationwide parole recidivism rate of around 50 percent. Does that mean that the half that didn’t give a shit about the pre-release classes were the ones who committed new crimes? Not at all! Most likely, half from each group – the group that wanted to be there and those who didn’t – would end up being returned to prison for committing new crimes.
I do agree that too many parolees are returned to prison for minor technical violations. Part of the problem is that parole officers who are overwhelmed by unreasonably large case loads may resort to reducing those case loads by returning parolees to prison for bullshit technical violations. Is that practice justified? No! Does it add to prison overcrowding? Of course it does. But that has nothing to do with the recidivism rate, the rate of new crimes committed by parolees.
I would venture to say that there are far more parolees returned to prison for committing new crimes than those who are returned on technical parole violations. The writer of the letter to the Chronicle who believes that recidivism would “decrease by enormous numbers” with pre-parole counseling has got to be hallucinating.
In a letter to the Houston Chronicle here is what an “officer and supervisor for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice parole division” offers as a solution to the problem of recidivism:
“………. a program of pre-parole counseling, in which all those being released are given the knowledge of what to expect from their parole officers, is totally ignored. If a prospective parolee knew what to expect from his or her parole officer, recidivism would decrease by enormous numbers. I can attest to the fact that it takes at least two years to fully train a new parole officer to be effective in the field. In the meantime, untrained officers write up thousands of [parole] violations, technical or otherwise, that bring about recidivism rates that are basically unwarranted. Pre-parole counseling of inmates ………. would solve a lot of problems dealing with [prison] overcrowding and recidivism.”
Those remarks would be considered hilarious by those of us who are pragmatists except for the fact that the criminal justice practitioner who made them expects to be taken seriously.
Recidivism would “decrease by enormous numbers” with pre-parole counseling? Is this guy for real? To begin with, this guy simply doesn’t understand the meaning of recidivism! In the case of parole, recidivism refers to a parolee COMMITTING A NEW CRIME, not a technical violation like failing to report to his parole officer.
If a parolees are going to be supervised by “untrained officers,” how can you tell prospective parolees what to expect from their parole officers? You can’t even tell them what to expect from experienced officers because they range from the sissy social workers to the cop-types, with every type in between, each supervising parolees from their respective perspectives.
Is the pre-parole counselor going to be honest and tell those prospective parolees that their parole officer, whether experienced or not, will hardly make any field visits, and the few times he does, it will usually be by appointment, thus giving the parolee time make it appear as if everything is going just hunky-dory? Of course he’s not going to tell them that.
Recidivism is brought about by the parolee’s decision to commit a new crime, not by a parole officer’s decision to write up some bullshit technical violation.
When I was on the faculty of Sam Houston State University, I used to volunteer at the Ferguson Unit of the Texas prison system by doing group counseling for problem inmates and by giving classes (pre-parole counseling if you prefer) to inmates about to be released. I told them how to succeed and how to fail, once they found themselves in the free world. My classes included advise on how to obtain employment, how to dress for a job interview, how to talk to prospective employers – none of that stupid con-lingo or ghetto speak – and how to comply with their parole conditions.
About half of each group appeared to be there because they were really interested in the pre-release classes, while the other half were there only because they were ordered to attend. And that happens to equal the nationwide parole recidivism rate of around 50 percent. Does that mean that the half that didn’t give a shit about the pre-release classes were the ones who committed new crimes? Not at all! Most likely, half from each group – the group that wanted to be there and those who didn’t – would end up being returned to prison for committing new crimes.
I do agree that too many parolees are returned to prison for minor technical violations. Part of the problem is that parole officers who are overwhelmed by unreasonably large case loads may resort to reducing those case loads by returning parolees to prison for bullshit technical violations. Is that practice justified? No! Does it add to prison overcrowding? Of course it does. But that has nothing to do with the recidivism rate, the rate of new crimes committed by parolees.
I would venture to say that there are far more parolees returned to prison for committing new crimes than those who are returned on technical parole violations. The writer of the letter to the Chronicle who believes that recidivism would “decrease by enormous numbers” with pre-parole counseling has got to be hallucinating.
COUCH SLOUCH ON NBC OLYMPIC COVERAGE
In “How the Soviets Ruined the Olympics” (2-21-10), I told you all that I stopped watching the Olympics years ago. Now humorous sports columnist Norman Chad, the Couch Slouch, has given us some more reasons not to watch NBC’s coverage of the Olympics.
NBC ALMOST MAKES OLYMPICS RIVETING
By Norman Chad
Houston Chronicle
February 22, 2010
For those of you watching the Winter Olympics — and apparently there are millions of lost souls doing just that — you may have noticed, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein's famous line about Oakland, there's no there there, only it's colder.
NBC is giving us 17 straight nights of winter inactivity — imagine if you had tuned in to Roots in 1977 for eight consecutive evenings and Kunta Kinte never got off the couch.
I have nothing against biathlon or speedskating or luge.
The problem is: there are only a dozen or so Winter Olympic sports spread out over hundreds of TV hours and thousands of commercials.
It's like going to a three-ring circus with only one ring in operation.
Here are the major storylines of these Winter Games:
• • Johnny Weir is not wearing fur.
• • Apolo Anton Ohno won Dancing with the Stars in 2007.
• • Lindsey Vonn is nursing a bruised shin suffered while training for Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue.
It's reached the point where I look forward to that Weather Channel fella coming into NBC's Olympic studio to update the weather — he's exciting to watch, and I keep thinking he might even give a five-day forecast for L.A.
On a positive note, NBC is losing so much money on the Winter Olympics, it might need a bailout from Jay Leno.
(Incidentally, if NBC wanted higher ratings, it should've marketed these Games as emanating from Vancouver-o.)
And who can argue with any event that sidelines the National Hockey League for two weeks?
The NHL shuts down during the Olympics, and MLS stops play during the World Cup.
So can't we get the WNBA to go on hiatus during QVC's Fashion Week?
As much as I dread sitting down daily for a long day's journey into nightmarish nothingness, I can find little fault with NBC's primary studio broadcasters.
It's nice to see MLB Network lends its top voice, Bob Costas, to NBC for a fortnight, and it's nice to see Al Michaels working more than 16 Sundays a year.
But, frankly, I'd rather hear Costas interviewing Willie Mays about The Catch in 1954 than Evan Lysacek about The Quadruple Jump in 2010, or lack thereof.
(By the way, when did Mary Carillo get this good? She's so smart and measured, she could double as a yardstick. When you're on TV long enough, you're bound to say something stupid — she never says something stupid. Heck, if she did an investigative series on the problems anthills face during rainstorms, I'd be glued to it.)
At this moment, I feel compelled to briefly discuss the whole live-vs.-tape-delay issue on NBC, simply because it is the topic in which I get the most reader e-mail.
Personally, I don't care when it's happening — I mean, would I enjoy Friday Night Lights any better if it were live instead of taped? — but there are a lot of angry viewers out there ready to storm 30 Rock, or wherever The Peacock sets up its live-on-tape shop these days.
I'm not 100 percent sure Bob Costas is sitting in a studio in Vancouver; I wouldn't be surprised if he were in St. Louis, or Passaic, N.J. And I guarantee you that's a gas fireplace burning brightly behind him.
Best I can tell, if NBC Sports covered New Year's Eve, it would tape-delay midnight.
I live in Los Angeles — the same time zone as Vancouver — where we get the entire Games on tape delay, like poker.
In fact, by the time NBC's prime-time coverage premieres on the West Coast, the only people who don't know that Shaun White has won a gold medal that day are those playing poker.
I understand NBC is having trouble programming 10 p.m. weeknights.
Here's an idea: Year-round delayed coverage of Olympic men's halfpipe!)
I also must inform viewers that on NBC, when it does say “LIVE” in the corner of your screen, that means, “Maybe LIVE, maybe not.”
Footnote: This column used to be live, but lately I've found it reads better the longer it's delayed. NBC might want to take the same tack with Al Trautwig.
NBC ALMOST MAKES OLYMPICS RIVETING
By Norman Chad
Houston Chronicle
February 22, 2010
For those of you watching the Winter Olympics — and apparently there are millions of lost souls doing just that — you may have noticed, to paraphrase Gertrude Stein's famous line about Oakland, there's no there there, only it's colder.
NBC is giving us 17 straight nights of winter inactivity — imagine if you had tuned in to Roots in 1977 for eight consecutive evenings and Kunta Kinte never got off the couch.
I have nothing against biathlon or speedskating or luge.
The problem is: there are only a dozen or so Winter Olympic sports spread out over hundreds of TV hours and thousands of commercials.
It's like going to a three-ring circus with only one ring in operation.
Here are the major storylines of these Winter Games:
• • Johnny Weir is not wearing fur.
• • Apolo Anton Ohno won Dancing with the Stars in 2007.
• • Lindsey Vonn is nursing a bruised shin suffered while training for Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue.
It's reached the point where I look forward to that Weather Channel fella coming into NBC's Olympic studio to update the weather — he's exciting to watch, and I keep thinking he might even give a five-day forecast for L.A.
On a positive note, NBC is losing so much money on the Winter Olympics, it might need a bailout from Jay Leno.
(Incidentally, if NBC wanted higher ratings, it should've marketed these Games as emanating from Vancouver-o.)
And who can argue with any event that sidelines the National Hockey League for two weeks?
The NHL shuts down during the Olympics, and MLS stops play during the World Cup.
So can't we get the WNBA to go on hiatus during QVC's Fashion Week?
As much as I dread sitting down daily for a long day's journey into nightmarish nothingness, I can find little fault with NBC's primary studio broadcasters.
It's nice to see MLB Network lends its top voice, Bob Costas, to NBC for a fortnight, and it's nice to see Al Michaels working more than 16 Sundays a year.
But, frankly, I'd rather hear Costas interviewing Willie Mays about The Catch in 1954 than Evan Lysacek about The Quadruple Jump in 2010, or lack thereof.
(By the way, when did Mary Carillo get this good? She's so smart and measured, she could double as a yardstick. When you're on TV long enough, you're bound to say something stupid — she never says something stupid. Heck, if she did an investigative series on the problems anthills face during rainstorms, I'd be glued to it.)
At this moment, I feel compelled to briefly discuss the whole live-vs.-tape-delay issue on NBC, simply because it is the topic in which I get the most reader e-mail.
Personally, I don't care when it's happening — I mean, would I enjoy Friday Night Lights any better if it were live instead of taped? — but there are a lot of angry viewers out there ready to storm 30 Rock, or wherever The Peacock sets up its live-on-tape shop these days.
I'm not 100 percent sure Bob Costas is sitting in a studio in Vancouver; I wouldn't be surprised if he were in St. Louis, or Passaic, N.J. And I guarantee you that's a gas fireplace burning brightly behind him.
Best I can tell, if NBC Sports covered New Year's Eve, it would tape-delay midnight.
I live in Los Angeles — the same time zone as Vancouver — where we get the entire Games on tape delay, like poker.
In fact, by the time NBC's prime-time coverage premieres on the West Coast, the only people who don't know that Shaun White has won a gold medal that day are those playing poker.
I understand NBC is having trouble programming 10 p.m. weeknights.
Here's an idea: Year-round delayed coverage of Olympic men's halfpipe!)
I also must inform viewers that on NBC, when it does say “LIVE” in the corner of your screen, that means, “Maybe LIVE, maybe not.”
Footnote: This column used to be live, but lately I've found it reads better the longer it's delayed. NBC might want to take the same tack with Al Trautwig.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
OUT WITH THE YOUNG, IN WITH THE OLD
I am over 60 and the Armed Forces thinks I'm too old to track down terrorists. You can't be older than 42 to join the military. They've got the whole thing ass-backwards. Instead of sending 18-year olds off to fight, they ought to take us old guys. You shouldn't be able to join a military unit until you're at least 35.
For starters: Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10 seconds. Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.
Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. 'My back hurts! I can't sleep, I'm tired and hungry' We are impatient and maybe letting us kill some asshole that desperately deserves it will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
An 18-year-old doesn't even like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee so what the hell. Besides, like I said, 'I'm tired and can't sleep and since I'm already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical SOB....
If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real stretch.
Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we're used to soft food.
We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using them for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from the screaming and yelling.
They could lighten up on the obstacle course however. I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training.
Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy, too. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a good looking chick. He still hasn't figured out that a baseball cap has a brim to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.
These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them off into harm's way.
Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten coward terrorists. The last thing an enemy would want to see is a couple of million pissed off old farts with attitudes and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.
And while we’re at it, how about recruiting Women over 50 .....with PMS !!! You think us men have attitudes? If nothing else, put those hair-trigger broads patrolling the border. Holy fucking shit!!!.....they will have the Mexican border secured the first night.
For starters: Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10 seconds. Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.
Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. 'My back hurts! I can't sleep, I'm tired and hungry' We are impatient and maybe letting us kill some asshole that desperately deserves it will make us feel better and shut us up for a while.
An 18-year-old doesn't even like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee so what the hell. Besides, like I said, 'I'm tired and can't sleep and since I'm already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical SOB....
If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real stretch.
Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we're used to soft food.
We've also developed an appreciation for guns. We've been using them for years as an excuse to get out of the house, away from the screaming and yelling.
They could lighten up on the obstacle course however. I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training.
Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy, too. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a good looking chick. He still hasn't figured out that a baseball cap has a brim to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.
These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to learn a little more about life before sending them off into harm's way.
Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten coward terrorists. The last thing an enemy would want to see is a couple of million pissed off old farts with attitudes and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.
And while we’re at it, how about recruiting Women over 50 .....with PMS !!! You think us men have attitudes? If nothing else, put those hair-trigger broads patrolling the border. Holy fucking shit!!!.....they will have the Mexican border secured the first night.
'THE USE OF A GUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE IS IN ITSELF A GUN CRIME'
An educated idiot among gun control nuts, in this case a high school teacher, declares that “I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.” I’ll bet you this jerk is also opposed to the death penalty. I can just hear him say that “the execution of a murderer is in itself a murder crime.
IDEOLOGY TO DIE FOR
by Mike Adams
Townhall.com
February 23, 2010
It is a truism to say that there are many anti-gun ideologues among our educational elites. But few are as honest as Doug Van Gorder – a math teacher at Brockton High School. He admits that he would rather lose a child than exercise his right to defend himself with a gun. In the wake of a recent school shooting, he wrote this in a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe:
"Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment. But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime."
Morally speaking, I have no problem with anti-gun ideologues who wish to place themselves in peril by waiving their rights of self-defense. You almost have to respect someone who is willing to die for his beliefs. But when he decides that others should also die for his beliefs the real trouble begins.
There are actually a lot of Doug Van Gorders in the world. In fact, there are whole organizations of them. The Brady Campaign for Gun Control is the first that comes to mind.
The Brady Campaign for Gun Control provides a scorecard on how states are doing in regard to gun control legislation. If you don’t have enough gun control laws you get a low score from the Brady bunch. For example, West Virginia receives a score of 4 out of a possible 100. Utah actually scores zero.
Right now, there is a post by a blogger named Don Surber circulating widely around the internet. Don has cleverly compared the homicide rates in some of the states getting low Brady scores with states getting high Brady scores. Consider the following comparison:
*Utah, the state with a zero rating, has only 1.5 homicides per 100,000 citizens. Less than half of those homicides are firearm related.
*California scores the highest according to the Brady report with a whopping 79. But they have 5.83 murders per 100,000, which is a rate nearly four times higher than Utah. Over 2/3 of the homicides in California are firearms related.
I can just hear liberals saying “People in Utah don’t need guns. There’s hardly any murder in their state.” Few probably make the connection between lawful gun ownership and low crime rates. Remember, these are the people who, in the 1990s, said that “despite the low crime rate, prison populations are higher than ever.” Back then they just could not connect the dots and figure out that crime was down because the criminals were locked up.
It all goes back to ideology. Liberals refuse to believe in deterrence theory because to do so admits to the fallen nature of man. To them, man is inherently good, not evil. Moreover, he is perfectible. The liberal is willing to die to preserve his vision of himself and others. And he wants you to die for his vision, too.
Don Surber’s comparison is clever but not dispositive. The data he examines is cross-sectional so its use is limited. What we really want to see is what happens after the laws the Brady Campaign opposes are actually put in effect.
Fortunately, we know the answer when it comes to concealed carry laws. Sixteen peer-reviewed studies show that allowing citizens to lawfully carry reduces violent crime rates. Ten peer-reviewed studies are inconclusive. But there are, to date, no peer-reviewed studies reaching the opposite conclusion; namely that allowing citizens to lawfully carry increases violent crime rates.
Nonetheless, the Brady bunch continues to fight for laws that will cause themselves and others to remain helpless in the face of criminal assault. They would sooner lay your child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
The anti-gun lobby must realize that law abiding citizens need guns in a society that cannot ensure that criminals will not have them. But even if guns could be kept from criminals they would find other means to kill. After all, passengers without guns have flown airplanes into buildings.
The gun control extremist has at least two things in common with the Islamic extremist. He has a willingness to die for his fundamental beliefs. And he has the sanctimony to demand that others go with him.
IDEOLOGY TO DIE FOR
by Mike Adams
Townhall.com
February 23, 2010
It is a truism to say that there are many anti-gun ideologues among our educational elites. But few are as honest as Doug Van Gorder – a math teacher at Brockton High School. He admits that he would rather lose a child than exercise his right to defend himself with a gun. In the wake of a recent school shooting, he wrote this in a Letter to the Editor of the Boston Globe:
"Some propose overturning laws that made schools gun-free zones even for teachers who may be licensed to securely carry concealed firearms elsewhere. They argue that barring licensed-carry only ensures a defenseless, target-rich environment. But as a progressive, I would sooner lay my child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime."
Morally speaking, I have no problem with anti-gun ideologues who wish to place themselves in peril by waiving their rights of self-defense. You almost have to respect someone who is willing to die for his beliefs. But when he decides that others should also die for his beliefs the real trouble begins.
There are actually a lot of Doug Van Gorders in the world. In fact, there are whole organizations of them. The Brady Campaign for Gun Control is the first that comes to mind.
The Brady Campaign for Gun Control provides a scorecard on how states are doing in regard to gun control legislation. If you don’t have enough gun control laws you get a low score from the Brady bunch. For example, West Virginia receives a score of 4 out of a possible 100. Utah actually scores zero.
Right now, there is a post by a blogger named Don Surber circulating widely around the internet. Don has cleverly compared the homicide rates in some of the states getting low Brady scores with states getting high Brady scores. Consider the following comparison:
*Utah, the state with a zero rating, has only 1.5 homicides per 100,000 citizens. Less than half of those homicides are firearm related.
*California scores the highest according to the Brady report with a whopping 79. But they have 5.83 murders per 100,000, which is a rate nearly four times higher than Utah. Over 2/3 of the homicides in California are firearms related.
I can just hear liberals saying “People in Utah don’t need guns. There’s hardly any murder in their state.” Few probably make the connection between lawful gun ownership and low crime rates. Remember, these are the people who, in the 1990s, said that “despite the low crime rate, prison populations are higher than ever.” Back then they just could not connect the dots and figure out that crime was down because the criminals were locked up.
It all goes back to ideology. Liberals refuse to believe in deterrence theory because to do so admits to the fallen nature of man. To them, man is inherently good, not evil. Moreover, he is perfectible. The liberal is willing to die to preserve his vision of himself and others. And he wants you to die for his vision, too.
Don Surber’s comparison is clever but not dispositive. The data he examines is cross-sectional so its use is limited. What we really want to see is what happens after the laws the Brady Campaign opposes are actually put in effect.
Fortunately, we know the answer when it comes to concealed carry laws. Sixteen peer-reviewed studies show that allowing citizens to lawfully carry reduces violent crime rates. Ten peer-reviewed studies are inconclusive. But there are, to date, no peer-reviewed studies reaching the opposite conclusion; namely that allowing citizens to lawfully carry increases violent crime rates.
Nonetheless, the Brady bunch continues to fight for laws that will cause themselves and others to remain helpless in the face of criminal assault. They would sooner lay your child to rest than succumb to the belief that the use of a gun for self-defense is somehow not in itself a gun crime.
The anti-gun lobby must realize that law abiding citizens need guns in a society that cannot ensure that criminals will not have them. But even if guns could be kept from criminals they would find other means to kill. After all, passengers without guns have flown airplanes into buildings.
The gun control extremist has at least two things in common with the Islamic extremist. He has a willingness to die for his fundamental beliefs. And he has the sanctimony to demand that others go with him.
Monday, February 22, 2010
CARNATION MILK
A little old lady from Wisconsin had worked in and around her family dairy farms since she was old enough to walk, with hours of hard work and little compensation.
In 1907, she read an advertisement offering $5,000 to anyone who could come up with the best slogan for Carnation Evaporated Milk. The producers wanted a rhyme beginning with "Carnation Milk is the best in the land."
She thought to herself, I know all about milk and dairy farms. I can do this! She sent in her entry, and several weeks later, a black limo pulled up in front of her house.
A man got out and said, "Carnation loved your entry so much, we are here to award you $2,000 even though we will not be able to use it!"
This was the little old lady’s $2,000 entry:
CARNATION MILK IS THE BEST IN THE LAND
HERE I SIT WITH A CAN IN MY HAND
NO TITS TO PULL, NO HAY TO HAUL
NO BUCKETS TO WASH, NO SHIT TO PITCH
YOU JUST POKE A HOLE IN THE SON-OF-A-BITCH
Carnation ditched the idea of a rhyme and came up with this slogan instead: CARNATION CONDENSED MILK, THE MILK FROM CONTENTED COWS.
In 1907, she read an advertisement offering $5,000 to anyone who could come up with the best slogan for Carnation Evaporated Milk. The producers wanted a rhyme beginning with "Carnation Milk is the best in the land."
She thought to herself, I know all about milk and dairy farms. I can do this! She sent in her entry, and several weeks later, a black limo pulled up in front of her house.
A man got out and said, "Carnation loved your entry so much, we are here to award you $2,000 even though we will not be able to use it!"
This was the little old lady’s $2,000 entry:
CARNATION MILK IS THE BEST IN THE LAND
HERE I SIT WITH A CAN IN MY HAND
NO TITS TO PULL, NO HAY TO HAUL
NO BUCKETS TO WASH, NO SHIT TO PITCH
YOU JUST POKE A HOLE IN THE SON-OF-A-BITCH
Carnation ditched the idea of a rhyme and came up with this slogan instead: CARNATION CONDENSED MILK, THE MILK FROM CONTENTED COWS.
BLACK ENGLISH MANURE
In “Affirmative Action Works Wonders” (2-17-10), a former California correctional officer described a meeting conducted by the black warden of the prison where he worked in which she spoke in ebonics (ghetto speak) to the staff in attendance. I would think it highly inappropriate to address a group of professionals as if they were ghetto dwellers who do not have a command of the English language. Could it be that this beneficiary of affirmative action doesn’t know any better than to talk in ghetto speak?
It appears that the University of North Carolina – Wilmington actually offers a course in Black English, or if you prefer, ghetto speak. To me, the value of such a course ranks right up there with African-American Studies, Women's (Feminist Male Bashing) Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, Transgender Studies and other such tripe. These cultural diversity studies are just plain worthless to students except for those who plan to teach African-American Studies, Women's Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies or Transgender Studies.
Black English, favored by ghetto dopers, thugs and hoodlums, is spoken by those who have little if any command of the English language. Instead of advocating that disadvantaged black youths be taught the proper use of English, politically correct academicians would prefer that the rest of us learn to speak ghetto speak.
Here are some of Mike Adams’ thoughts on Black English from today’s Townhall.com:
“ ……… my feelings about Black English require little elaboration. Black English just makes me feel filthy when I repeat it. Kind of like when the feminists chant the c-word in The Vagina Monologues. In White Redneck English we say “At (not “dat”) just ain’t right.”
By way of analogy, imagine that you see a large pile of dog manure in your front yard. There’s no need to walk over to the pile and pick it up to know it is manure. There’s no need to rub it on your face or take a bite out of it to know it is manure. You do not have to “immerse” yourself in it or in any way analyze it to know it is manure. You just need to scoop it off your lawn before someone steps on it and tracks it into your hizzie.
It’s the same way with Black English. It is self-evident that it is simply pseudo-intellectual manure. It has no place in higher education.”
It appears that the University of North Carolina – Wilmington actually offers a course in Black English, or if you prefer, ghetto speak. To me, the value of such a course ranks right up there with African-American Studies, Women's (Feminist Male Bashing) Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies, Transgender Studies and other such tripe. These cultural diversity studies are just plain worthless to students except for those who plan to teach African-American Studies, Women's Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies or Transgender Studies.
Black English, favored by ghetto dopers, thugs and hoodlums, is spoken by those who have little if any command of the English language. Instead of advocating that disadvantaged black youths be taught the proper use of English, politically correct academicians would prefer that the rest of us learn to speak ghetto speak.
Here are some of Mike Adams’ thoughts on Black English from today’s Townhall.com:
“ ……… my feelings about Black English require little elaboration. Black English just makes me feel filthy when I repeat it. Kind of like when the feminists chant the c-word in The Vagina Monologues. In White Redneck English we say “At (not “dat”) just ain’t right.”
By way of analogy, imagine that you see a large pile of dog manure in your front yard. There’s no need to walk over to the pile and pick it up to know it is manure. There’s no need to rub it on your face or take a bite out of it to know it is manure. You do not have to “immerse” yourself in it or in any way analyze it to know it is manure. You just need to scoop it off your lawn before someone steps on it and tracks it into your hizzie.
It’s the same way with Black English. It is self-evident that it is simply pseudo-intellectual manure. It has no place in higher education.”
Sunday, February 21, 2010
HOW THE SOVIETS RUINED THE OLYMPICS
Except for hockey, I stopped watching the Olympics years ago. Why? Because the Soviets ruined the Olympic games during the Cold War.
The Olympics were designed so that the best athletes from all over the world could come together every four years to compete in various sports. All of the competitors had to be amateurs. That all changed when the communist government of the Soviet Union set out to establish its superiority in sports over the United States and its allies.
The Soviets took promising young kids away from their families and placed them in special boarding schools and sports camps. All their expenses were paid for by the communist government. The government furnished all the trainers and the latest conditioning and training equipment available at the time. The athletes were also provided with generous spending allowances as they grew older. In effect, by the time they tried out for the Olympics, they were true professional athletes.
When the Soviets started to amass a bunch of gold medals, protests by the U.S. and other countries about Russia's paid athletes fell on deaf ears. Rather than antagonize the Soviets, the Olympics committee changed the rules allowing for professional athletes to compete.
And that’s where we are today – almost all the Olympians are professional athletes. It’s gotten to the point where every four years, in the middle of its season, the National Hockey League suspends play for two weeks so that its multi-millionaire star players can leave to compete in the Olympic Winter Games for the countries of their birth.
For wealthy countries like the U.S., Canada, Russia, Britain, Germany, Japan and China, it’s no longer the best men and women amateurs that are competing. It’s the best professional athletes that money can buy, money that comes from governments and corporate sponsors. That has put the athletes from poorer countries at a distinct disadvantage because their governments and corporate sponsors cannot afford to provide them with the best trainers, equipment, housing, diets and generous spending allowances.
As far as I’m concerned, all that professionalism has ruined the Olympics.
The Olympics were designed so that the best athletes from all over the world could come together every four years to compete in various sports. All of the competitors had to be amateurs. That all changed when the communist government of the Soviet Union set out to establish its superiority in sports over the United States and its allies.
The Soviets took promising young kids away from their families and placed them in special boarding schools and sports camps. All their expenses were paid for by the communist government. The government furnished all the trainers and the latest conditioning and training equipment available at the time. The athletes were also provided with generous spending allowances as they grew older. In effect, by the time they tried out for the Olympics, they were true professional athletes.
When the Soviets started to amass a bunch of gold medals, protests by the U.S. and other countries about Russia's paid athletes fell on deaf ears. Rather than antagonize the Soviets, the Olympics committee changed the rules allowing for professional athletes to compete.
And that’s where we are today – almost all the Olympians are professional athletes. It’s gotten to the point where every four years, in the middle of its season, the National Hockey League suspends play for two weeks so that its multi-millionaire star players can leave to compete in the Olympic Winter Games for the countries of their birth.
For wealthy countries like the U.S., Canada, Russia, Britain, Germany, Japan and China, it’s no longer the best men and women amateurs that are competing. It’s the best professional athletes that money can buy, money that comes from governments and corporate sponsors. That has put the athletes from poorer countries at a distinct disadvantage because their governments and corporate sponsors cannot afford to provide them with the best trainers, equipment, housing, diets and generous spending allowances.
As far as I’m concerned, all that professionalism has ruined the Olympics.
AFFORDABLE LIQUID HEROIN
If it’s happening here, it’s bound to happen in the rest of the country.
HEROIN TAKES ON A NEW LOOK
By Karn Dhingra
The Galveston County Daily News
February 21, 2010
FRIENDSWOOD — A liquefied version of black tar heroin is gaining ground on marijuana and prescription drugs as the drug of choice for teens in North County suburbs, Friendswood police said.
The teens might not even realize they are using heroin because of the way it’s being marketed by dealers, Lt. Josh Rogers said.
In some cases, teens charged with possession of liquefied heroin, which is dark brown and typically carried in eyedropper vials, knew it only as “Liquid O,” Rogers said.
The “O” stands for opium, the main ingredient in heroin. The mixed drug police are battling comes in various forms.
In 2009, heroin possession accounted for 15 percent of the city’s drug arrests compared to 45 percent for marijuana possession and 24 percent for prescription drugs, Rogers said.
“In 2006 and 2007, liquid heroin was not on our radar,” Rogers said.
Friendswood police made only two heroin-related arrests in 2006 and 2007, Rogers said. But police didn’t realize liquefied heroin was being sold and distributed in the city until they made three arrests in early fall 2008, Rogers said.
“It might have been here earlier, but we didn’t know.”
In 2009, Friendswood police made 30 liquefied heroin-related arrests, Rogers said.
Rogers heads the Friendswood Police Department’s Field Support Unit, which is charged with investigating and suppressing the influx of liquefied heroin in the city.
Liquid O is black tar heroin that has been heated and mixed with warm water and put in half- to one-ounce eyedropper vials that are hard to detect because of their size and ubiquity, Rogers said.
“We’ve found liquid heroin in Visine bottles.”
Dealers also are marketing liquefied heroin against the stereotype of the emaciated heroin user with track-marked arms. Rogers said.
“It’s neater and cleaner than what the typical junkie in the alley is injecting.”
Liquefied heroin is inhaled through the nose rather than injected in a vein and goes for $5 to $10 a drop. One gram of black tar heroin that sells for $400 to $500 can yield up to 90 dosages of liquefied heroin, Friendswood Police Chief Bob Wieners said.
Wieners and Rogers both said the heroin comes from Mexico, South America or Afghanistan and is being distributed from southeast Houston into North Galveston County.
Why North Galveston County?
“We believe the Clear Lake area [where NASA is located] is being targeted because of its affluence,” Wieners said.
Police also have found a connection between users of liquefied heroin and prescription drug abuse. Users addicted to opiate-based drugs such as Hydrocodone and OxyContin have turned to liquefied heroin because it is getting more difficult to obtain prescriptions for the drugs.
And the liquefied black tar heroin is somewhat analogous to crack cocaine, in that even though it’s relatively expensive, the price for single doses is within reach, Rogers said.
HEROIN TAKES ON A NEW LOOK
By Karn Dhingra
The Galveston County Daily News
February 21, 2010
FRIENDSWOOD — A liquefied version of black tar heroin is gaining ground on marijuana and prescription drugs as the drug of choice for teens in North County suburbs, Friendswood police said.
The teens might not even realize they are using heroin because of the way it’s being marketed by dealers, Lt. Josh Rogers said.
In some cases, teens charged with possession of liquefied heroin, which is dark brown and typically carried in eyedropper vials, knew it only as “Liquid O,” Rogers said.
The “O” stands for opium, the main ingredient in heroin. The mixed drug police are battling comes in various forms.
In 2009, heroin possession accounted for 15 percent of the city’s drug arrests compared to 45 percent for marijuana possession and 24 percent for prescription drugs, Rogers said.
“In 2006 and 2007, liquid heroin was not on our radar,” Rogers said.
Friendswood police made only two heroin-related arrests in 2006 and 2007, Rogers said. But police didn’t realize liquefied heroin was being sold and distributed in the city until they made three arrests in early fall 2008, Rogers said.
“It might have been here earlier, but we didn’t know.”
In 2009, Friendswood police made 30 liquefied heroin-related arrests, Rogers said.
Rogers heads the Friendswood Police Department’s Field Support Unit, which is charged with investigating and suppressing the influx of liquefied heroin in the city.
Liquid O is black tar heroin that has been heated and mixed with warm water and put in half- to one-ounce eyedropper vials that are hard to detect because of their size and ubiquity, Rogers said.
“We’ve found liquid heroin in Visine bottles.”
Dealers also are marketing liquefied heroin against the stereotype of the emaciated heroin user with track-marked arms. Rogers said.
“It’s neater and cleaner than what the typical junkie in the alley is injecting.”
Liquefied heroin is inhaled through the nose rather than injected in a vein and goes for $5 to $10 a drop. One gram of black tar heroin that sells for $400 to $500 can yield up to 90 dosages of liquefied heroin, Friendswood Police Chief Bob Wieners said.
Wieners and Rogers both said the heroin comes from Mexico, South America or Afghanistan and is being distributed from southeast Houston into North Galveston County.
Why North Galveston County?
“We believe the Clear Lake area [where NASA is located] is being targeted because of its affluence,” Wieners said.
Police also have found a connection between users of liquefied heroin and prescription drug abuse. Users addicted to opiate-based drugs such as Hydrocodone and OxyContin have turned to liquefied heroin because it is getting more difficult to obtain prescriptions for the drugs.
And the liquefied black tar heroin is somewhat analogous to crack cocaine, in that even though it’s relatively expensive, the price for single doses is within reach, Rogers said.
A GREAT AMERICAN WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT PRESIDENT
A truly great American, retired four-star general and former secretary of state Alexander Haig, has just passed away. Haig was a Korean War hero, a patriot and an outstanding statesman. He would have made a great president.
Haig, as Nixon’s chief of staff, facilitated the smooth takeover of the presidency by Gerald Ford when Nixon resigned in disgrace over the Watergate scandal. He served our country as secretary of state in the Reagan administration. His tenure was marred by frequent clashes with other cabinet membrts and policymakers.
Haig was a candidate for president in 1980 and in 1988, but he could not overcome a single gaffe he made when, after Reagan was shot, he declared that “I am in control here in the White House until the Vice President returns.”
That’s really too bad. He would have made a much greater president than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and, yes, Barack Obama. Haig would have been a forceful no-nonsense president, traits sorely lacking in other presidents.
May Alexander Haig rest in peace.
Haig, as Nixon’s chief of staff, facilitated the smooth takeover of the presidency by Gerald Ford when Nixon resigned in disgrace over the Watergate scandal. He served our country as secretary of state in the Reagan administration. His tenure was marred by frequent clashes with other cabinet membrts and policymakers.
Haig was a candidate for president in 1980 and in 1988, but he could not overcome a single gaffe he made when, after Reagan was shot, he declared that “I am in control here in the White House until the Vice President returns.”
That’s really too bad. He would have made a much greater president than Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and, yes, Barack Obama. Haig would have been a forceful no-nonsense president, traits sorely lacking in other presidents.
May Alexander Haig rest in peace.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
THIS DECADE'S 'TAWANA BRAWLEY' BUSTED
Shortly after 11:30 p.m. Wednesday, [the Durham, N.C.] police received a 911 call about a domestic dispute at 2220 Lincoln St. Authorities said they believe the call came from one of the three children inside the house When officers arrived, they found [the suspect] and her boyfriend, Milton Walker, 33, fighting. According to police documents, [the suspect] scratched, punched and threw objects at Walker and told him, "I'm going to stab you, motherfucker!" She then went into a bathroom and set his clothes on fire in the bathtub, police said. Officers called the fire department to put out the flames.
And who was the suspect in this case? None other than Crystal Gail Mangum, the stripper who in 2006 made false allegations of gang rape against members of the Duke University lacrosse team. Police charged her with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer. She is in the Durham County jail under a $1 million bond.
Let’s refresh ourselves with the Duke “rape” case. Mangum accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang raping her during an off-campus frat-like team party.
Mike Nifong, the politically motivated prosecutor relentlessly pursued the charges filed against the accused players, despite mounting evidence that they were innocent. The Duke administration immediately fired the lacrosse coach, cancelled the lacrosse season, and suspended the falsely accused students.
88 Duke faculty and staff members, "The Group of 88," led by professors from the African and African-American Studies department, took out a full page ad in Duke's student newspaper vilifying the lacrosse players as racist and sexist white privileged hooligans.
Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were quick to jump on the Crystal Gail Mangum bandwagon. Their presence at demonstrations for "racial justice" in Durham helped to further fan the flames of racial hatred.
The families of the accused players faced near financial ruin in trying to defend their sons. Though falsely accused and declared innocent of all charges, the players will forever carry the stigma of accused rapists.
So what’s happened to Mike Nifong, the malicious rogue prosecutor in the Duke rape case? He was sentenced to serve 24 hours in jail for criminal contempt by intentionally lying to the court about the rape case when he told a judge that he had turned over all DNA evidence to the defense. (He could have and SHOULD HAVE been sentenced to 30 days.) Then he was disbarred.
What about Duke University President Richard Brodhead and his cohorts who were so quick to rush to judgement? The families of 38 of the lacrosse team's 47 members who were not accused filed a lawsuit against Brodhead and other defendants for multiple claims of harassment, deprivation of civil rights, breach of contract and other claims. “The Group of 88” escaped unscathed while adamantly refusing to apologize for their vilifying attack on the lacrosse players.
And what about Jackson and Sharpton. These charlatans disappeared into the darkness once the rape hoax had been exposed, which is typical of these two rabblerousing phonies once they’ve stirred up a pot full of racial hatred.
Crystal Gail Mangum is a worthless piece of trash. She is the Tawana Brawley of this decade. Sharpton took on the leading role in the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax in which the 15-year-old black girl falsely accused six white men, including a police officer and a prosecutor, of having abducted, raped, tortured and smeared feces all over her. As a result of the false charges and the harassment that ensued, one of the accused committed suicide.
The Tawana Brawley hoax led to fame and fortune for the reverend Al Sharpton. He has never apologized for his role in that tragic hoax. He and Jackson have never apologized for the trouble they generated in the Duke rape case. And since Sharpton has already achieved his fame and fortune, you will not see him coming to the defense of Mangum, this decade’s Tawana Brawley.
And who was the suspect in this case? None other than Crystal Gail Mangum, the stripper who in 2006 made false allegations of gang rape against members of the Duke University lacrosse team. Police charged her with attempted first-degree murder, five counts of arson, assault and battery, communicating threats, three counts of misdemeanor child abuse, injury to personal property, identity theft and resisting a public officer. She is in the Durham County jail under a $1 million bond.
Let’s refresh ourselves with the Duke “rape” case. Mangum accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang raping her during an off-campus frat-like team party.
Mike Nifong, the politically motivated prosecutor relentlessly pursued the charges filed against the accused players, despite mounting evidence that they were innocent. The Duke administration immediately fired the lacrosse coach, cancelled the lacrosse season, and suspended the falsely accused students.
88 Duke faculty and staff members, "The Group of 88," led by professors from the African and African-American Studies department, took out a full page ad in Duke's student newspaper vilifying the lacrosse players as racist and sexist white privileged hooligans.
Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were quick to jump on the Crystal Gail Mangum bandwagon. Their presence at demonstrations for "racial justice" in Durham helped to further fan the flames of racial hatred.
The families of the accused players faced near financial ruin in trying to defend their sons. Though falsely accused and declared innocent of all charges, the players will forever carry the stigma of accused rapists.
So what’s happened to Mike Nifong, the malicious rogue prosecutor in the Duke rape case? He was sentenced to serve 24 hours in jail for criminal contempt by intentionally lying to the court about the rape case when he told a judge that he had turned over all DNA evidence to the defense. (He could have and SHOULD HAVE been sentenced to 30 days.) Then he was disbarred.
What about Duke University President Richard Brodhead and his cohorts who were so quick to rush to judgement? The families of 38 of the lacrosse team's 47 members who were not accused filed a lawsuit against Brodhead and other defendants for multiple claims of harassment, deprivation of civil rights, breach of contract and other claims. “The Group of 88” escaped unscathed while adamantly refusing to apologize for their vilifying attack on the lacrosse players.
And what about Jackson and Sharpton. These charlatans disappeared into the darkness once the rape hoax had been exposed, which is typical of these two rabblerousing phonies once they’ve stirred up a pot full of racial hatred.
Crystal Gail Mangum is a worthless piece of trash. She is the Tawana Brawley of this decade. Sharpton took on the leading role in the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax in which the 15-year-old black girl falsely accused six white men, including a police officer and a prosecutor, of having abducted, raped, tortured and smeared feces all over her. As a result of the false charges and the harassment that ensued, one of the accused committed suicide.
The Tawana Brawley hoax led to fame and fortune for the reverend Al Sharpton. He has never apologized for his role in that tragic hoax. He and Jackson have never apologized for the trouble they generated in the Duke rape case. And since Sharpton has already achieved his fame and fortune, you will not see him coming to the defense of Mangum, this decade’s Tawana Brawley.
NO 'MISTAKE' IN TIGER'S APOLOGY
If you’ve been a reader of my blogs, you know that I have ranted several times about sports figures and other notables saying they made a ‘mistake’ after they got caught committing a wrongful act. Mistake my ass! After watching Tiger Woods give his carefully stage managed apology, I was pleasantly surprised that his professional speechwriters did not have him claim that he made a mistake.
Woods apologized to everyone but Osama bin Laden. How sincere was Tiger’s apology? That question is hard to answer because, except at the very beginning when he almost welled up some tears, his scripted presentation was devoid of any emotion.
Here is how Sean Pendergast of the Houston Press saw Tiger’s apology:
BUDDHISM ANNOUNCES THAT IT HAS DROPPED TIGER WOODS
By Sean Pendergast
Houston Press
February 19, 2010
So there you go. Tiger Woods is sorry. Or so he says.
If we can sift through the 15 minutes where time stood still in sports bars around the country, if we can somehow ignore all of the "hostage crisis"-level coverage this is getting on CNN, ESPN, and the Oxygen Network, then we can all step back and see this for what it is -- one guy (a billionaire athlete, granted, but still...) who cheated multiple times on his wife (a blonde Swedish knockout, granted, but still....) and got caught.
Happens every day. I don't condone it at all, trust me. But as I sat there watching the enormity this had all taken on, thinking about Tiger Woods being treated in Mississippi for a month for an addiction to sex (and the millions of men wondering "Ok, so this is an addiction that I have?"), and now watching him apologize to a nation as though he had just detonated a nuclear warhead in the middle of Times Square, all I could think was "Is this all necessary?"
In the end, the only ones that truly require an apology are Elin and the kids. Tiger can apologize to his sponsors and his close friends if he wants, but he doesn't need to do that on national television. Call them all personally. Visit them. Hell, fly them to Florida on your private jet and tell them face to face how sorry you are, Tiger. (To be fair, maybe he has; I don't know, and really I don't care.)
The fact of the matter is your crime, Tiger, is being naive enough to think you wanted to (or needed to) get married. Because if your "sense of entitlement" had been brewing for that long, what purpose did marriage serve? In the end, if you have no wife and kids, none of this an issue. You save yourself a trip to Mississippi, and really all you become is Derek Jeter with community college-level admissions standards. That's all. (Which makes it all the more crazy that Jeter decided to turn in his bachelor card in the midst of watching Tiger flame out.)
The sheep in the media will follow Tiger through the figurative gates of hell this afternoon saying how he appears sincere and rehabilitated and asking "what more could he say or do?", so forgive me if I'm not that guy. Step back and ignore the message in his speech this morning, which was "I intend to change, please believe this," and you'll see a guy who hasn't changed at all (and I'm not talking about his robotic mannerisms or condescending demeanor).
Tiger Woods is, was, and always will be about two things -- precision-level control of his image and environment, and ruthless aggression. I don't mean aggression like "physical harm" aggression; I mean the desire to mentally, figuratively reach into your chest, tear your heart out, and then discard it like an empty Coke can. It's what's made him the most feared athlete when it matters in the world. It's what also MAKES him the guy who would schedule his "apology speech" right in the middle of a golf event sponsored by a company that stopped believing in him (the Accenture Match Play).
Tiger Woods, changed man? Please. If I may break down excerpts of his speech today (my comments preceded by "SP"), indulge me...
"Many of you in this room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me, you worked with me, or you supported me. Now every one of you has good reason to be critical of me."
SP: Ok, so NOW we have good reason to be critical of him. We didn't before, but now we do. So any of you who have criticized Tiger in the past, you were wrong. You better get your shots in now before adult swim is over because I'm sure soon it will not be OK anymore to criticize the chosen one.
"Elin and I have started the process of discussing the damage caused by my behavior. As Elin pointed out to me, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words. It will come from my behavior over time."
SP: Or if you're Kobe Bryant, it will come from a $4 million ring. Continue....
"I am also aware of the pain my behavior has caused to those of you in this room. I have let you down. And I have let down my fans. For many of you, especially my friends, my behavior has been a personal disappointment. To those of you who work for me, I have let you down personally and professionally. My behavior has caused considerable worry to my business partners, to everyone involved in my foundation, including my staff, board of directors, sponsors, and most importantly, the young students we reach. Our work is more important than ever."
SP: Notice no mention of any fellow golfers on the PGA Tour who frankly are hurt directly in the money clip more than anyone outside of Tiger's immediate family by Tiger's absence from the golf scene. Yet another indicator of the "ruthless aggression" I spoke of earlier. You're either with Tiger or against him, and frankly hundreds of trips down the eighteenth fairway on Sundays after four days of owning all of you fools is a little much to overcome. You're all against him.
"Thirteen years ago, my dad and I envisioned helping young people achieve their dreams through education. This work remains unchanged and will continue to grow. From the Learning Center students in Southern California to the Earl Woods scholars in Washington, D.C., millions of kids have changed their lives and I am dedicated to making sure that continues."
SP: TRANSLATION: "See, I'm not such a bad guy!"
"But still, I know I have bitterly disappointed all of you. I have made you question who I am and how I could have done the things I did."
SP: Actually, quite the contrary, Tiger. None of us knew who you were before. To your point made earlier in today's "apology," you are a private person. So with all due respect, all you did was clarify and confirm who you are. Thank you. Continue....
"I'm embarrassed that I have put you in this position. For all that I have done, I am so sorry. I have a lot to atone for."
SP: Other than explaining the fetish with greasy spoon waitresses, I would disagree. Just get back out and swing the clubs again, please. Ultimately, that's all we really care about.
"But there's one issue I really want to discuss...."
SP: Uh oh, Tiger's getting the look on his face like Hulk Hogan would back in the day before he was getting ready to "HULK UP" and drop the big boot....
Woods apologized to everyone but Osama bin Laden. How sincere was Tiger’s apology? That question is hard to answer because, except at the very beginning when he almost welled up some tears, his scripted presentation was devoid of any emotion.
Here is how Sean Pendergast of the Houston Press saw Tiger’s apology:
BUDDHISM ANNOUNCES THAT IT HAS DROPPED TIGER WOODS
By Sean Pendergast
Houston Press
February 19, 2010
So there you go. Tiger Woods is sorry. Or so he says.
If we can sift through the 15 minutes where time stood still in sports bars around the country, if we can somehow ignore all of the "hostage crisis"-level coverage this is getting on CNN, ESPN, and the Oxygen Network, then we can all step back and see this for what it is -- one guy (a billionaire athlete, granted, but still...) who cheated multiple times on his wife (a blonde Swedish knockout, granted, but still....) and got caught.
Happens every day. I don't condone it at all, trust me. But as I sat there watching the enormity this had all taken on, thinking about Tiger Woods being treated in Mississippi for a month for an addiction to sex (and the millions of men wondering "Ok, so this is an addiction that I have?"), and now watching him apologize to a nation as though he had just detonated a nuclear warhead in the middle of Times Square, all I could think was "Is this all necessary?"
In the end, the only ones that truly require an apology are Elin and the kids. Tiger can apologize to his sponsors and his close friends if he wants, but he doesn't need to do that on national television. Call them all personally. Visit them. Hell, fly them to Florida on your private jet and tell them face to face how sorry you are, Tiger. (To be fair, maybe he has; I don't know, and really I don't care.)
The fact of the matter is your crime, Tiger, is being naive enough to think you wanted to (or needed to) get married. Because if your "sense of entitlement" had been brewing for that long, what purpose did marriage serve? In the end, if you have no wife and kids, none of this an issue. You save yourself a trip to Mississippi, and really all you become is Derek Jeter with community college-level admissions standards. That's all. (Which makes it all the more crazy that Jeter decided to turn in his bachelor card in the midst of watching Tiger flame out.)
The sheep in the media will follow Tiger through the figurative gates of hell this afternoon saying how he appears sincere and rehabilitated and asking "what more could he say or do?", so forgive me if I'm not that guy. Step back and ignore the message in his speech this morning, which was "I intend to change, please believe this," and you'll see a guy who hasn't changed at all (and I'm not talking about his robotic mannerisms or condescending demeanor).
Tiger Woods is, was, and always will be about two things -- precision-level control of his image and environment, and ruthless aggression. I don't mean aggression like "physical harm" aggression; I mean the desire to mentally, figuratively reach into your chest, tear your heart out, and then discard it like an empty Coke can. It's what's made him the most feared athlete when it matters in the world. It's what also MAKES him the guy who would schedule his "apology speech" right in the middle of a golf event sponsored by a company that stopped believing in him (the Accenture Match Play).
Tiger Woods, changed man? Please. If I may break down excerpts of his speech today (my comments preceded by "SP"), indulge me...
"Many of you in this room are my friends. Many of you in this room know me. Many of you have cheered for me, you worked with me, or you supported me. Now every one of you has good reason to be critical of me."
SP: Ok, so NOW we have good reason to be critical of him. We didn't before, but now we do. So any of you who have criticized Tiger in the past, you were wrong. You better get your shots in now before adult swim is over because I'm sure soon it will not be OK anymore to criticize the chosen one.
"Elin and I have started the process of discussing the damage caused by my behavior. As Elin pointed out to me, my real apology to her will not come in the form of words. It will come from my behavior over time."
SP: Or if you're Kobe Bryant, it will come from a $4 million ring. Continue....
"I am also aware of the pain my behavior has caused to those of you in this room. I have let you down. And I have let down my fans. For many of you, especially my friends, my behavior has been a personal disappointment. To those of you who work for me, I have let you down personally and professionally. My behavior has caused considerable worry to my business partners, to everyone involved in my foundation, including my staff, board of directors, sponsors, and most importantly, the young students we reach. Our work is more important than ever."
SP: Notice no mention of any fellow golfers on the PGA Tour who frankly are hurt directly in the money clip more than anyone outside of Tiger's immediate family by Tiger's absence from the golf scene. Yet another indicator of the "ruthless aggression" I spoke of earlier. You're either with Tiger or against him, and frankly hundreds of trips down the eighteenth fairway on Sundays after four days of owning all of you fools is a little much to overcome. You're all against him.
"Thirteen years ago, my dad and I envisioned helping young people achieve their dreams through education. This work remains unchanged and will continue to grow. From the Learning Center students in Southern California to the Earl Woods scholars in Washington, D.C., millions of kids have changed their lives and I am dedicated to making sure that continues."
SP: TRANSLATION: "See, I'm not such a bad guy!"
"But still, I know I have bitterly disappointed all of you. I have made you question who I am and how I could have done the things I did."
SP: Actually, quite the contrary, Tiger. None of us knew who you were before. To your point made earlier in today's "apology," you are a private person. So with all due respect, all you did was clarify and confirm who you are. Thank you. Continue....
"I'm embarrassed that I have put you in this position. For all that I have done, I am so sorry. I have a lot to atone for."
SP: Other than explaining the fetish with greasy spoon waitresses, I would disagree. Just get back out and swing the clubs again, please. Ultimately, that's all we really care about.
"But there's one issue I really want to discuss...."
SP: Uh oh, Tiger's getting the look on his face like Hulk Hogan would back in the day before he was getting ready to "HULK UP" and drop the big boot....
Friday, February 19, 2010
A GRATING BLEND OF KNOWINGNESS AND UNREALISM
George Will has described the academic culture as “that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism.”
Man, did he ever get that right! Once you spend some time on campus, you will come to recognize that many academics wake up in a new world every day.
Man, did he ever get that right! Once you spend some time on campus, you will come to recognize that many academics wake up in a new world every day.
SHERIFF PEPE LEPEW (2)
Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca, reacting to outcries about his deputies being too quick on the draw, is instituting a new policy designed to reduce the number of people getting shot by LASO.
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 Lee Baca. Pepe LePew Baca has no credibility with me. This is the guy whose department consistently shows favoritism to Hollywood celebrities.
After only 72 hours of confinement, Baca released Paris Hilton from a 45-day jail sentence with an electronic monitoring bracelet to detention in her family's multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion. After an angry judge ordered her re-jailed, Baca gave Hilton special visiting priveleges. He also released actress Michelle Rodriguez, former star of ABC's Lost, from jail after she served less than one day of a 60 day sentence.
And this is the guy whose department tried to cover up his personal friend Mel Gibson's rant against Jews during a drunk driving arrest. 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.
As for Baca’s new policy, it doesn’t appear to be much different from the previous confrontation policy. The new policy seems deliberately vague and looks like a ‘cover your ass’ ploy which makes it easy for Pepe LePew to fault his officers. His claim that the policy was designed to “keep deputies from placing themselves in harm's way” is a big joke. Baca’s new policy is nothing more than an attempt to avoid civil liability in LASO shooting cases and the panel of experts who wrote it appear to be little more than ass kissers.
SHERIFF BACA TO ANNOUCE NEW POLICY MEANT TO REDUCE VIOLENT CONFRONTATTIONS BETWEEN DEPUTIES, SUSPECTS
By Richard Winton and Andrew Blankstein
The Los Angeles Times
February 17, 2010
In response to an increase in fatal shootings by L.A. County sheriff's deputies, Sheriff Lee Baca today will announce a revised policy aimed at reducing violent confrontations between deputies and suspects.
Under the new policy, deputies will be encouraged to contain suspects and wait for back up rather than immediately confronting and attempting to arrest them.
"When dealing with a perceived armed suspect, sworn members shall be cautiously persistent in performing their duties," the policy states. "Consistent with this philosophy, while every situation is not absolute, in many cases, it may be safer to chase to contain rather than chase to apprehend."
The policy change is important because it is a key factor in how the department decides whether a deputy acted appropriately during a shooting. Deputies fatally shot 16 people in 2009 compared to nine in 2008.
The new containment approach stems from an expert panel Baca convened in September to address what deputies should do if a person they believe is armed runs from them.
That panel of veteran training officers was convened after a series of much-publicized deputy-involved shootings during chases. One of those killings involved a deputy shooting a 36-year unarmed man through a gate during a foot pursuit.
The man, it was later learned, was not the robbery suspect deputies were seeking. The new deadly-force policy will be announced later today by Baca.
According to a copy of the proposed policy change, it is intended to keep deputies from placing themselves in harm's way or putting anyone else in jeopardy.
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 Lee Baca. Pepe LePew Baca has no credibility with me. This is the guy whose department consistently shows favoritism to Hollywood celebrities.
After only 72 hours of confinement, Baca released Paris Hilton from a 45-day jail sentence with an electronic monitoring bracelet to detention in her family's multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion. After an angry judge ordered her re-jailed, Baca gave Hilton special visiting priveleges. He also released actress Michelle Rodriguez, former star of ABC's Lost, from jail after she served less than one day of a 60 day sentence.
And this is the guy whose department tried to cover up his personal friend Mel Gibson's rant against Jews during a drunk driving arrest. 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.
As for Baca’s new policy, it doesn’t appear to be much different from the previous confrontation policy. The new policy seems deliberately vague and looks like a ‘cover your ass’ ploy which makes it easy for Pepe LePew to fault his officers. His claim that the policy was designed to “keep deputies from placing themselves in harm's way” is a big joke. Baca’s new policy is nothing more than an attempt to avoid civil liability in LASO shooting cases and the panel of experts who wrote it appear to be little more than ass kissers.
SHERIFF BACA TO ANNOUCE NEW POLICY MEANT TO REDUCE VIOLENT CONFRONTATTIONS BETWEEN DEPUTIES, SUSPECTS
By Richard Winton and Andrew Blankstein
The Los Angeles Times
February 17, 2010
In response to an increase in fatal shootings by L.A. County sheriff's deputies, Sheriff Lee Baca today will announce a revised policy aimed at reducing violent confrontations between deputies and suspects.
Under the new policy, deputies will be encouraged to contain suspects and wait for back up rather than immediately confronting and attempting to arrest them.
"When dealing with a perceived armed suspect, sworn members shall be cautiously persistent in performing their duties," the policy states. "Consistent with this philosophy, while every situation is not absolute, in many cases, it may be safer to chase to contain rather than chase to apprehend."
The policy change is important because it is a key factor in how the department decides whether a deputy acted appropriately during a shooting. Deputies fatally shot 16 people in 2009 compared to nine in 2008.
The new containment approach stems from an expert panel Baca convened in September to address what deputies should do if a person they believe is armed runs from them.
That panel of veteran training officers was convened after a series of much-publicized deputy-involved shootings during chases. One of those killings involved a deputy shooting a 36-year unarmed man through a gate during a foot pursuit.
The man, it was later learned, was not the robbery suspect deputies were seeking. The new deadly-force policy will be announced later today by Baca.
According to a copy of the proposed policy change, it is intended to keep deputies from placing themselves in harm's way or putting anyone else in jeopardy.
IT'S NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT TO RECOGNIZE THEM AS 'JIHADI ATTACKS'
‘SEE-NO-ISLAM’ STRATEGY DISGRACES FALLEN SOLDIER
by Diana West
Townhall.com
February 19, 2010
Remember last June when President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia because, as he put it, "It was very important to come to the place where Islam began and seek his majesty's counsel"?
I argued at the time, gagging, that rather than visiting "the place where Islam began," the president of the United States should have gone to the place where Islam had just ended the life of a U.S. soldier. I refer to the U.S. Army-Navy recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark., where on June 1, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad fatally shot Pvt. William Long, 23, and wounded Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18. The two soldiers had been standing outside having a smoke.
As usual, the president didn't take my advice, or even my further suggestion that he turn the attack into an opportunity to declare in a major address that the 21st-century era of jihad was over. Instead, he journeyed to lands where jihad is a sacred institution, and in Cairo made another speech entirely, boosting and even preaching on behalf of Islam. His only comment was to call the attack, belatedly, "a senseless act of violence."
Senseless? This was an act of jihad, and both soldiers, along with the fallen and wounded at Fort Hood, should receive the Purple Hearts they deserve. Muhammad himself has made his jihadist intentions against the U.S. military clear, beginning first with his statement to police, and later in collect phone calls to the Associated Press from Pulaski County jail. On June 9, the AP quoted Muhammad calling the attack "a act, for the sake of God, for the sake of Allah, the Lord of all the world, and also a retaliation on U.S. military." He wasn't guilty of murder, he said, "because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason." Such a definition jibes with Islamic law, which, for example, permits the killing of "non-Muslims at war with Muslims." Muhammad also told the AP he wanted revenge against the U.S. military for its perceived offenses against Muslims and the Koran.
We haven't heard much about the case since Pulaski County prosecutor Larry Jegley asked for a gag order on the gabby jihadi -- a step a prosecutor will take, former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy tells me, to prevent the jury pool from being "poisoned" and to ward off potential defense claims that a fair trial was not possible.
But lead prosecutor Jegley has now entered bizarro territory, telling the New York Times this week that his team, as the paper put it, "considers (the attack) a straightforward murder case and that they intend to try it without delving into Mr. Muhammad's religious conversion, political beliefs or possible ties to terrorists. `When you strip away what he says, self-serving or not, it's just an awful killing,' said Larry Jegley ...`It's like a lot of other killings we have.' "
It is? Do "a lot" of middle-class murder defendants in Pulaski County convert to Islam in 2004 and worship at an Ohio mosque frequented by convicted terrorists in 2005 and 2006? Do "a lot" of them travel to Yemen in 2007 where, ABC News reported, "it is believed that Muhammad attended the Damaj Institute, an Islamic institute attended by a number of radicalized U.S. converts (including) John Walker Lindh? Do "a lot" get themselves arrested for overstaying their visa in Yemen, and possessing a fake Somali passport? Do "a lot" finally get deported back to the States in 2008? (Bio highlights courtesy the NEFA Foundation.) Do "a lot" fire on U.S. soldiers at a military recruiting center?
I'm not the only one confounded by the prosecutor's inexplicable and highly disturbing decision to follow a see-no-Islam strategy. Muhammad himself recently wrote to the judge claiming he was encountering legal obstacles to changing his plea to guilty. Avowing affiliation with al-Qaida as a member of "Abu Basir's Army," Muhammad further emphasized the fact that the incident was a "a Jihadi Attack ... justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad -- To fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."
This was an act of war against the United States and should be treated as such. Especially for the sake of the fallen, this is no time for the prosecutor to run off the battlefield.
by Diana West
Townhall.com
February 19, 2010
Remember last June when President Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia because, as he put it, "It was very important to come to the place where Islam began and seek his majesty's counsel"?
I argued at the time, gagging, that rather than visiting "the place where Islam began," the president of the United States should have gone to the place where Islam had just ended the life of a U.S. soldier. I refer to the U.S. Army-Navy recruiting center in Little Rock, Ark., where on June 1, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad fatally shot Pvt. William Long, 23, and wounded Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, 18. The two soldiers had been standing outside having a smoke.
As usual, the president didn't take my advice, or even my further suggestion that he turn the attack into an opportunity to declare in a major address that the 21st-century era of jihad was over. Instead, he journeyed to lands where jihad is a sacred institution, and in Cairo made another speech entirely, boosting and even preaching on behalf of Islam. His only comment was to call the attack, belatedly, "a senseless act of violence."
Senseless? This was an act of jihad, and both soldiers, along with the fallen and wounded at Fort Hood, should receive the Purple Hearts they deserve. Muhammad himself has made his jihadist intentions against the U.S. military clear, beginning first with his statement to police, and later in collect phone calls to the Associated Press from Pulaski County jail. On June 9, the AP quoted Muhammad calling the attack "a act, for the sake of God, for the sake of Allah, the Lord of all the world, and also a retaliation on U.S. military." He wasn't guilty of murder, he said, "because murder is when a person kills another person without justified reason." Such a definition jibes with Islamic law, which, for example, permits the killing of "non-Muslims at war with Muslims." Muhammad also told the AP he wanted revenge against the U.S. military for its perceived offenses against Muslims and the Koran.
We haven't heard much about the case since Pulaski County prosecutor Larry Jegley asked for a gag order on the gabby jihadi -- a step a prosecutor will take, former prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy tells me, to prevent the jury pool from being "poisoned" and to ward off potential defense claims that a fair trial was not possible.
But lead prosecutor Jegley has now entered bizarro territory, telling the New York Times this week that his team, as the paper put it, "considers (the attack) a straightforward murder case and that they intend to try it without delving into Mr. Muhammad's religious conversion, political beliefs or possible ties to terrorists. `When you strip away what he says, self-serving or not, it's just an awful killing,' said Larry Jegley ...`It's like a lot of other killings we have.' "
It is? Do "a lot" of middle-class murder defendants in Pulaski County convert to Islam in 2004 and worship at an Ohio mosque frequented by convicted terrorists in 2005 and 2006? Do "a lot" of them travel to Yemen in 2007 where, ABC News reported, "it is believed that Muhammad attended the Damaj Institute, an Islamic institute attended by a number of radicalized U.S. converts (including) John Walker Lindh? Do "a lot" get themselves arrested for overstaying their visa in Yemen, and possessing a fake Somali passport? Do "a lot" finally get deported back to the States in 2008? (Bio highlights courtesy the NEFA Foundation.) Do "a lot" fire on U.S. soldiers at a military recruiting center?
I'm not the only one confounded by the prosecutor's inexplicable and highly disturbing decision to follow a see-no-Islam strategy. Muhammad himself recently wrote to the judge claiming he was encountering legal obstacles to changing his plea to guilty. Avowing affiliation with al-Qaida as a member of "Abu Basir's Army," Muhammad further emphasized the fact that the incident was a "a Jihadi Attack ... justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad -- To fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."
This was an act of war against the United States and should be treated as such. Especially for the sake of the fallen, this is no time for the prosecutor to run off the battlefield.
CLASSIFIED AS LOW-RISK OR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS (5)
Here is yet another example of inmates who were or would have been classified as low-risk or non-violent offenders before they were released from prison:
DEAD MAN WALKING
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrections blog
February 19, 2010
On February 14 a non-serious, non-violent, low-level parolee, John Aguilera J-62291, was terminally rehabilitated by a SWAT sniper in beautiful West Covina. The cops responded to a shots fired call which turned into a stand-off. The SWAT team rolled up and Aguilera was spotted holding a handgun to the head of a hostage. The SWAT sniper rehabilitated Aguilera and four hostages were released unharmed.
A review of Aguilera's parole face sheet shows all problem areas as left blank. Similarly the distinguishing marks and tattoos section was left blank.
Does that mean DAPO [the parole division] was preparing to drop him into the Non-Revocable Parole category?
As a further interesting note it appears that, as of today, Aguilera is still being carried as an active parolee. I don't know how long it takes to bump someone off officially in DAPO but in the institutions it was a matter of less than an hour usually. Four days seems a bit excessive to me, but I have never been a parole agent and I don't know what normal is out there.
EDITOR’S NOTE - While early releases come fast and furious, it seems to take quite a while to terminate a dead parolee from the active parole roster. Here is how a parole agent explained it in response to Bob’s post:
Discharging a dead parolee actually can take some time. A proof of death letter is required by the county coroner, and in LA that alone can take weeks.
Once the documents have been obtained, a discharge review goes to Case Records North/South and is provided to the BPH for final discharge. BPH can kick it back for more info, and the crime reports/coroner reports can take a while to obtain for this process to happen.
The case is normally dropped to MS pending discharge and the comments updated in CalParole to reflect deceased. The problem areas and other areas left blank in CalParole are likely left blank because agents are being furloughed three days per month [for budget cutting purposes]. In addition, the department is NOT paying proper overtime to correctly manage caseloads. Since the division is not paying agents overtime, things are not getting done.
Things are not likely going to change, as our new director thinks that parole units getting a ZERO PERCENT error rate on data reports is more important than doing home calls, arrests, or protecting the community.
DEAD MAN WALKING
By Bob Walsh
PacoVilla Corrections blog
February 19, 2010
On February 14 a non-serious, non-violent, low-level parolee, John Aguilera J-62291, was terminally rehabilitated by a SWAT sniper in beautiful West Covina. The cops responded to a shots fired call which turned into a stand-off. The SWAT team rolled up and Aguilera was spotted holding a handgun to the head of a hostage. The SWAT sniper rehabilitated Aguilera and four hostages were released unharmed.
A review of Aguilera's parole face sheet shows all problem areas as left blank. Similarly the distinguishing marks and tattoos section was left blank.
Does that mean DAPO [the parole division] was preparing to drop him into the Non-Revocable Parole category?
As a further interesting note it appears that, as of today, Aguilera is still being carried as an active parolee. I don't know how long it takes to bump someone off officially in DAPO but in the institutions it was a matter of less than an hour usually. Four days seems a bit excessive to me, but I have never been a parole agent and I don't know what normal is out there.
EDITOR’S NOTE - While early releases come fast and furious, it seems to take quite a while to terminate a dead parolee from the active parole roster. Here is how a parole agent explained it in response to Bob’s post:
Discharging a dead parolee actually can take some time. A proof of death letter is required by the county coroner, and in LA that alone can take weeks.
Once the documents have been obtained, a discharge review goes to Case Records North/South and is provided to the BPH for final discharge. BPH can kick it back for more info, and the crime reports/coroner reports can take a while to obtain for this process to happen.
The case is normally dropped to MS pending discharge and the comments updated in CalParole to reflect deceased. The problem areas and other areas left blank in CalParole are likely left blank because agents are being furloughed three days per month [for budget cutting purposes]. In addition, the department is NOT paying proper overtime to correctly manage caseloads. Since the division is not paying agents overtime, things are not getting done.
Things are not likely going to change, as our new director thinks that parole units getting a ZERO PERCENT error rate on data reports is more important than doing home calls, arrests, or protecting the community.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
WASTING OUR SCHOOL DOLLARS
The other day, a bunch of us old farts at the nature center where we volunteer were discussing the state of education in the U.S. Much was made of the fact that truck drivers are paid more than teachers and that football coaches are paid more than school principals.
When I said you could blame the high wages truck drivers earn on the teamsters union, my fellow volunteers disagreed with me. They contend that the trucking companies can afford to pay high wages because they will pass those costs onto their customers, whereas the schools can only pass their costs on by raising taxes, something the taxpayers are loathe to accept.
We all agreed on one thing – school districts in this country was a lot of money. For example, the school district in which I live has been on a continuous building spree for years and years. That is because NASA, which is within the district, has attracted an ever growing population. Every time a new school building goes up, its design is different from that of the last new school that went up. And every new school has to be more palatial than the last one that was built.
Some years ago, I went before the school board and asked them to stop using a different architectural plan for every new building that they were planning to construct. I pointed out that the savings in architectural fees alone would be quite substantial. The board members and the superintendent just sat there looking like deer caught in a car’s headlights.
They went right on building new palaces, each different and more palatial than the preceding one. And each time they opened a new school, the school board members and the principal would be there to publicly brag about what a wonderful building it was.
That’s a far cry from the high school that I started teaching at in 1954. South Oak Cliff High School was a brand new building, the newest in the Dallas school district. It was a simple design, square with a big courtyard in the middle. No palace by any stretch of the imagination. There was no air conditioning , despite the fact that it gets damn hot in Dallas.
Obviously, air conditioning would have enhanced the learning process at South Oak Cliff and no school building in a hot climate should be without it. But would a palatial building have enhanced learning? Not by a long shot, the exclamations by educators to the contrary notwithstanding. There is no reason why a building designed like South Oak Cliff, but with air conditioning, would not suffice today and it would save the taxpayers a ton of money.
South Oak Cliff had a large student enrollment. We had one principal, one assistant principal and one guidance counselor. The assistant principal was responsible for school discipline. The guidance counselor was there primarily to help students plan for the future and to counsel those with disciplinary problems. That’s not the case today.
In the school district where I live, each high school grade level has its own principal and support staff. The district has an army of counselors because school counseling has become a cottage industry. And there are an overabundance of assistant superintendents. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have an assistant superintendent for toilets and urinals.
When I went to high school, we experienced the same kind of problems today’s students do. Several of my classmates died in auto accidents. One of my classmates cut off a finger in woodshop. They laid his finger on the shop’s windowsill for all to see. We never had any counselors rush in to administer grief or trauma counseling and we all survived alright without it.
Do we really need all these counselors? Of course we don’t. Do students really need all that grief counseling every time a classmate gets killed, or trauma counseling every time a classmate gets an ingrown toenail? Of course they don’t. Kids are pretty resilient and in most instances will survive very well without the help of a counselor.
If school districts would stop building palaces, stop being top-heavy in administrators, reduce the number of principal personnel, get rid of most counselors and reduce the ridiculous salaries of coaches, they would be able to pay their teachers better salaries while saving the taxpayers a bundle of money. And none of those cuts would be detrimental to the educational process.
When I said you could blame the high wages truck drivers earn on the teamsters union, my fellow volunteers disagreed with me. They contend that the trucking companies can afford to pay high wages because they will pass those costs onto their customers, whereas the schools can only pass their costs on by raising taxes, something the taxpayers are loathe to accept.
We all agreed on one thing – school districts in this country was a lot of money. For example, the school district in which I live has been on a continuous building spree for years and years. That is because NASA, which is within the district, has attracted an ever growing population. Every time a new school building goes up, its design is different from that of the last new school that went up. And every new school has to be more palatial than the last one that was built.
Some years ago, I went before the school board and asked them to stop using a different architectural plan for every new building that they were planning to construct. I pointed out that the savings in architectural fees alone would be quite substantial. The board members and the superintendent just sat there looking like deer caught in a car’s headlights.
They went right on building new palaces, each different and more palatial than the preceding one. And each time they opened a new school, the school board members and the principal would be there to publicly brag about what a wonderful building it was.
That’s a far cry from the high school that I started teaching at in 1954. South Oak Cliff High School was a brand new building, the newest in the Dallas school district. It was a simple design, square with a big courtyard in the middle. No palace by any stretch of the imagination. There was no air conditioning , despite the fact that it gets damn hot in Dallas.
Obviously, air conditioning would have enhanced the learning process at South Oak Cliff and no school building in a hot climate should be without it. But would a palatial building have enhanced learning? Not by a long shot, the exclamations by educators to the contrary notwithstanding. There is no reason why a building designed like South Oak Cliff, but with air conditioning, would not suffice today and it would save the taxpayers a ton of money.
South Oak Cliff had a large student enrollment. We had one principal, one assistant principal and one guidance counselor. The assistant principal was responsible for school discipline. The guidance counselor was there primarily to help students plan for the future and to counsel those with disciplinary problems. That’s not the case today.
In the school district where I live, each high school grade level has its own principal and support staff. The district has an army of counselors because school counseling has become a cottage industry. And there are an overabundance of assistant superintendents. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have an assistant superintendent for toilets and urinals.
When I went to high school, we experienced the same kind of problems today’s students do. Several of my classmates died in auto accidents. One of my classmates cut off a finger in woodshop. They laid his finger on the shop’s windowsill for all to see. We never had any counselors rush in to administer grief or trauma counseling and we all survived alright without it.
Do we really need all these counselors? Of course we don’t. Do students really need all that grief counseling every time a classmate gets killed, or trauma counseling every time a classmate gets an ingrown toenail? Of course they don’t. Kids are pretty resilient and in most instances will survive very well without the help of a counselor.
If school districts would stop building palaces, stop being top-heavy in administrators, reduce the number of principal personnel, get rid of most counselors and reduce the ridiculous salaries of coaches, they would be able to pay their teachers better salaries while saving the taxpayers a bundle of money. And none of those cuts would be detrimental to the educational process.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WORKS WONDERS
Blitzkrieg promotions for those of the right color. From a former California correctional officer:
The warden at one of the institutions I worked could barely put a coherent sentence together. Unless you understand Ebonics [ghetto speak]. Even with her secretary helping her out, many of her memos read like something written by a 12 year old ghetto child.
We once had to endure an hour of "training" featuring this gal telling us how great she was, how she and her driver had just returned from Rancho Cucamonga after an on duty visit to the CALPERS (retirement) office to determine benefits and how great they were, and how much she loved running our institution.
She spent two years on the line as a visiting officer before the first of many rapid promotions, but she never forgot to tell us how she spent her time on the line and was one of us.
We once promoted six to sergeant at that joint. Five of them were short....(under 5'8") black females. The warden was a short black female. Don't get me wrong here.....the other promotion did go to a white guy. At the time....I was accused of being racist for pointing this out.
It was and is blatant and disgraceful. In my experience, on a good day....about half of the promotions that were doled out were due to actual competence. One could still promote based on actual competence......but I personally got so pissed off at the system that I said "fuck it" early on.....
The warden at one of the institutions I worked could barely put a coherent sentence together. Unless you understand Ebonics [ghetto speak]. Even with her secretary helping her out, many of her memos read like something written by a 12 year old ghetto child.
We once had to endure an hour of "training" featuring this gal telling us how great she was, how she and her driver had just returned from Rancho Cucamonga after an on duty visit to the CALPERS (retirement) office to determine benefits and how great they were, and how much she loved running our institution.
She spent two years on the line as a visiting officer before the first of many rapid promotions, but she never forgot to tell us how she spent her time on the line and was one of us.
We once promoted six to sergeant at that joint. Five of them were short....(under 5'8") black females. The warden was a short black female. Don't get me wrong here.....the other promotion did go to a white guy. At the time....I was accused of being racist for pointing this out.
It was and is blatant and disgraceful. In my experience, on a good day....about half of the promotions that were doled out were due to actual competence. One could still promote based on actual competence......but I personally got so pissed off at the system that I said "fuck it" early on.....
WHO SAYS POT IS LESS DANGEROUS THAN BOOZE?
AREN’T YOU SUPPOSED TO BE PRETTY MELLOW COMING BACK FRO0M AMSTERDAM?
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
February 17, 2010
Robert Wade Prince, 47, is from Alabama. We have a feeling he's called "Bobby," if not "Bobby Wade."
He was coming back from Amsterdam when he got a little annoyed with things, and began making a series of seriously bad decisions that ended up with him getting arrested at Bush over the weekend and now facing prison time much longer than he probably considered possible.
Let's break down the chronology, as provided by the U.S. Attorney's office:
1) Prince had became boisterous and was yelling loudly despite repeated admonitions by the flight crew to cease.
Perfectly understandable. It was a Continental flight, and you know how long it takes them to get you a damn beer when you need it.
2. Prince is also alleged to have grabbed a female flight attendant by the arm.
Not so good, Bobby Wade. No touchee, dude.
3) After a female passenger seated next to Prince complained about Prince inappropriately touching her and his yelling, a male flight attendant asked a federal air marshal to exchange seats with the female passenger.
Ah -- we take it you don't consider yourself ruled by the "no touchee" mandate. But we're trying to put ourselves in the place of this woman: not only is she being groped, she's being groped by a guy who's yelling. Son, that's no way to seduce a woman.
4) Prince allegedly attempted to block the air marshal from taking the seat.
In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
5) After the air marshal identified himself as a federal officer, Prince allegedly struck the air marshal about the torso twice.
The question must be asked, Bobby Wade -- have you read any newspaper or seen any TV news since, oh, mid-September 2001? (Allegedly) striking an air marshal is a genius move. And are we to believe that it didn't settle things down right away?
Apparently not:
6) Prince was restrained and as a result of his unwillingness to cooperate had to be forcibly removed to the crew rest area of the plane. For the remainder of the flight, the complaint alleges Prince was belligerent and verbally abusive to the air marshal.
Yeah, you pussies!! Just take these cuffs off and we'll see who the real man is!!!
Of course, Wade might have a completely different version of events, but he's busy today being arraigned.
And on account of his little blow-up, he faces more than if he just tussled with a bouncer.
Interfering with flight crew members and attendants carries a punishment range of up to 20 years upon conviction while assaulting an officer carries a maximum punishment of eight years imprisonment. Both offenses are also punishable by fines of up to $250,000 each. The third charge -- assault -- carries a maximum punishment of six months incarceration and a $5,000 fine.
Keep making Bama proud, Bobby!!!
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
February 17, 2010
Robert Wade Prince, 47, is from Alabama. We have a feeling he's called "Bobby," if not "Bobby Wade."
He was coming back from Amsterdam when he got a little annoyed with things, and began making a series of seriously bad decisions that ended up with him getting arrested at Bush over the weekend and now facing prison time much longer than he probably considered possible.
Let's break down the chronology, as provided by the U.S. Attorney's office:
1) Prince had became boisterous and was yelling loudly despite repeated admonitions by the flight crew to cease.
Perfectly understandable. It was a Continental flight, and you know how long it takes them to get you a damn beer when you need it.
2. Prince is also alleged to have grabbed a female flight attendant by the arm.
Not so good, Bobby Wade. No touchee, dude.
3) After a female passenger seated next to Prince complained about Prince inappropriately touching her and his yelling, a male flight attendant asked a federal air marshal to exchange seats with the female passenger.
Ah -- we take it you don't consider yourself ruled by the "no touchee" mandate. But we're trying to put ourselves in the place of this woman: not only is she being groped, she's being groped by a guy who's yelling. Son, that's no way to seduce a woman.
4) Prince allegedly attempted to block the air marshal from taking the seat.
In for a penny, in for a pound, right?
5) After the air marshal identified himself as a federal officer, Prince allegedly struck the air marshal about the torso twice.
The question must be asked, Bobby Wade -- have you read any newspaper or seen any TV news since, oh, mid-September 2001? (Allegedly) striking an air marshal is a genius move. And are we to believe that it didn't settle things down right away?
Apparently not:
6) Prince was restrained and as a result of his unwillingness to cooperate had to be forcibly removed to the crew rest area of the plane. For the remainder of the flight, the complaint alleges Prince was belligerent and verbally abusive to the air marshal.
Yeah, you pussies!! Just take these cuffs off and we'll see who the real man is!!!
Of course, Wade might have a completely different version of events, but he's busy today being arraigned.
And on account of his little blow-up, he faces more than if he just tussled with a bouncer.
Interfering with flight crew members and attendants carries a punishment range of up to 20 years upon conviction while assaulting an officer carries a maximum punishment of eight years imprisonment. Both offenses are also punishable by fines of up to $250,000 each. The third charge -- assault -- carries a maximum punishment of six months incarceration and a $5,000 fine.
Keep making Bama proud, Bobby!!!
BORDER PATROL APPLICANT NOW BEHIND SECURE BORDERS
THANK GOD JOSEPH MONTROSS IS A BLITHERING IDIOT
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
February 16. 2010
Sure, Joseph Montross is a sick individual -- he not only enjoys child pornography, he produces it, and being a sick individual is pretty much a prerequisite for that. But, luckily for the rest of society, Montross is also inutterably stupid.
Or maybe we're judging him too harshly.
Let's say you're a child pornographer. It's probably not something you casually mention to the neighbors over cookies on National Night Out; you're smoother than that.
But you are cursed with ambition. You want to work for the Border Patrol. So you apply for the job, which is a friggin' law-enforcement job. You continue with the hiring process even after you find out it includes a lie-detector test. And then you show up and take the lie-detector test.
You are, indeed, an idiot. Thank God.
Houstonian Montross, 30, failed the lie-detector test. As the U.S. Attorney's office puts it: "Montross, who had applied for employment with CBP, had admitted during a pre-employment polygraph examination to possessing child pornography on his home computer."
Hey, so maybe he didn't fail the lie-detector test, since he answered honestly. He just failed the "Are You In-fucking-sane?" test.
The sordid details:
In July, 2008, while reviewing the images and videos found during the forensic analysis, an ICE agent observed videos that contained child pornography and appeared to be made by Montross. Based on this information, federal agents went back to Montross' residence on July 21, 2008, and searched for additional computers and equipment. The majority of the images and videos were found on the external hard drives. Montross admitted to federal agents that he made ten of the videos. Agents seized approximately 9,000 images and 107 videos most of which had been downloaded via the internet. The images included prepubescent females involved with bondage, penetration, oral sex and masturbation.
Montross has been sentenced to 30 years in prison. US Attorney's office spokeswoman Angela Dodge tells Hair Balls that upon his release, he will be subject to court supervision for the rest of his life.
The official statement from the US Attorney's office says "Montross has been ordered to register as a sex offender and will be prohibited from accessing the internet or visiting/attending any place where children under the age of 18 congregate for the duration of his term of supervised release."
It doesn't specifically mention barring him from re-applying for the Border Patrol, but we guess that's a given.
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press
February 16. 2010
Sure, Joseph Montross is a sick individual -- he not only enjoys child pornography, he produces it, and being a sick individual is pretty much a prerequisite for that. But, luckily for the rest of society, Montross is also inutterably stupid.
Or maybe we're judging him too harshly.
Let's say you're a child pornographer. It's probably not something you casually mention to the neighbors over cookies on National Night Out; you're smoother than that.
But you are cursed with ambition. You want to work for the Border Patrol. So you apply for the job, which is a friggin' law-enforcement job. You continue with the hiring process even after you find out it includes a lie-detector test. And then you show up and take the lie-detector test.
You are, indeed, an idiot. Thank God.
Houstonian Montross, 30, failed the lie-detector test. As the U.S. Attorney's office puts it: "Montross, who had applied for employment with CBP, had admitted during a pre-employment polygraph examination to possessing child pornography on his home computer."
Hey, so maybe he didn't fail the lie-detector test, since he answered honestly. He just failed the "Are You In-fucking-sane?" test.
The sordid details:
In July, 2008, while reviewing the images and videos found during the forensic analysis, an ICE agent observed videos that contained child pornography and appeared to be made by Montross. Based on this information, federal agents went back to Montross' residence on July 21, 2008, and searched for additional computers and equipment. The majority of the images and videos were found on the external hard drives. Montross admitted to federal agents that he made ten of the videos. Agents seized approximately 9,000 images and 107 videos most of which had been downloaded via the internet. The images included prepubescent females involved with bondage, penetration, oral sex and masturbation.
Montross has been sentenced to 30 years in prison. US Attorney's office spokeswoman Angela Dodge tells Hair Balls that upon his release, he will be subject to court supervision for the rest of his life.
The official statement from the US Attorney's office says "Montross has been ordered to register as a sex offender and will be prohibited from accessing the internet or visiting/attending any place where children under the age of 18 congregate for the duration of his term of supervised release."
It doesn't specifically mention barring him from re-applying for the Border Patrol, but we guess that's a given.
A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
Cameras which will show that a police officer acted properly are a double-edged sword in that they will also show possible misconduct. While we’re into all this new technology stuff, why not eliminate police misconduct by developing real RoboCops?
TINY CAMERAS SEEN AS FUTURE IN POLICE WORK
By Jeff Martin
USA TODAY
February 16, 2010
When Fort Smith, Ark., police officer Brandon Davis opened the door to a home during a domestic assault call Nov. 11, he faced a man aiming a handgun directly at him.
"Put the gun down! Put the gun down!," Davis screamed before fatally shooting Eric Wayne Berry, whose wife, Connie, had called police and said her husband was threatening to kill her, prosecutor Daniel Shue stated in his report.
What happened in the confrontation was captured on video in a way some law enforcement officials say could dramatically change police work.
A tiny camera worn near Davis' ear showed clearly that the officer had acted properly, Fort Smith Police Chief Kevin Lindsey says.
The camera system, sold by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser International, is being tested this month by officers in Fort Smith, Cincinnati, San Jose and Aberdeen, S.D.
"There's no doubt in my mind that this is the wave of the future in policing," Cincinnati Police Chief Tom Streicher says. "If we've got a way to actually record the events as they unfold, what better evidence is there for us to bring forward?"
Dennis Kenney, a professor at the City University of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the technology has its drawbacks. "It raises tremendous privacy concerns," he says. "It's only a matter of time before one of these hits YouTube."
Representatives of Taser International say the video is transmitted to a secure site with no way for officers or others to tamper with it.
"You can't erase it. You can't edit it," says Sgt. Ronnie Lopez of the San Jose Police Department, where 18 officers are testing the system.
A variety of new cameras are being developed for use on officers and in police cars because of rapid advances in digital technology, says Deputy Chief Dean Hairston of the Danville, Va., Police Department. Hairston tracks the issue nationally.
Devices have gotten smaller, "and you have the ability now to capture and store a lot more data than you previously could have," Hairston says. "We're building things that allow us to have an electronic tether on that officer."
About $5,700 would pay for an officer to be equipped with the system for three years, says Tom Smith, co-founder and chairman of Taser International.
Tough economic times could make it difficult for some departments to afford the technology, says Elizabeth Smith, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.
However, "if a police department is able to buy it and save a few million dollars in lawsuits, then it's probably worth it for them to do it," she says.
Lindsey says he thinks the cameras will become more prevalent in the next five to 10 years.
"I think the public has an expectation, and rightly so, that modern police departments have a way of recording the efforts of their departments," he says.
----------
Martin reports for Sioux Falls (S.D.) Argus Leader
TINY CAMERAS SEEN AS FUTURE IN POLICE WORK
By Jeff Martin
USA TODAY
February 16, 2010
When Fort Smith, Ark., police officer Brandon Davis opened the door to a home during a domestic assault call Nov. 11, he faced a man aiming a handgun directly at him.
"Put the gun down! Put the gun down!," Davis screamed before fatally shooting Eric Wayne Berry, whose wife, Connie, had called police and said her husband was threatening to kill her, prosecutor Daniel Shue stated in his report.
What happened in the confrontation was captured on video in a way some law enforcement officials say could dramatically change police work.
A tiny camera worn near Davis' ear showed clearly that the officer had acted properly, Fort Smith Police Chief Kevin Lindsey says.
The camera system, sold by Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser International, is being tested this month by officers in Fort Smith, Cincinnati, San Jose and Aberdeen, S.D.
"There's no doubt in my mind that this is the wave of the future in policing," Cincinnati Police Chief Tom Streicher says. "If we've got a way to actually record the events as they unfold, what better evidence is there for us to bring forward?"
Dennis Kenney, a professor at the City University of New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says the technology has its drawbacks. "It raises tremendous privacy concerns," he says. "It's only a matter of time before one of these hits YouTube."
Representatives of Taser International say the video is transmitted to a secure site with no way for officers or others to tamper with it.
"You can't erase it. You can't edit it," says Sgt. Ronnie Lopez of the San Jose Police Department, where 18 officers are testing the system.
A variety of new cameras are being developed for use on officers and in police cars because of rapid advances in digital technology, says Deputy Chief Dean Hairston of the Danville, Va., Police Department. Hairston tracks the issue nationally.
Devices have gotten smaller, "and you have the ability now to capture and store a lot more data than you previously could have," Hairston says. "We're building things that allow us to have an electronic tether on that officer."
About $5,700 would pay for an officer to be equipped with the system for three years, says Tom Smith, co-founder and chairman of Taser International.
Tough economic times could make it difficult for some departments to afford the technology, says Elizabeth Smith, associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota.
However, "if a police department is able to buy it and save a few million dollars in lawsuits, then it's probably worth it for them to do it," she says.
Lindsey says he thinks the cameras will become more prevalent in the next five to 10 years.
"I think the public has an expectation, and rightly so, that modern police departments have a way of recording the efforts of their departments," he says.
----------
Martin reports for Sioux Falls (S.D.) Argus Leader
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
KOWTOWING TO CAMPUS MUSLIMS
One man’s free speech can be another man’s forbidden speech. In academia, Muslims are encouraged to express their hatred of Jews and of Israel and to interfere with the right of free speech by Jewish speakers.
WELCOME TO UC ISLAM
by Mike Adams
Townhall.com
February 16, 2010
Muslim students are not always cowards. But the Muslim Student Union (MSU) is often the least tolerant and most cowardly student group on a given college campus. The gulf between the speech they prevent and what they practice with administrators' consent is enormous. What follows is a summary of a recent, and increasingly typical, incident. I have included links to video of the incident for verification. I have also included the chancellor's complete contact information so that “infidels” can express disgust with unchecked Muslim bigotry and intolerance on our nation’s campuses.
Last week, MSU members sabotaged a speech by Israel's Ambassador to the U.S.A. This happened at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). UCI has a reputation for harboring a particularly aggressive Muslim student population. Ambassador Oren's well-publicized speech was open to the public. The audience numbered approximately 500. At one point, the ambassador had to leave the room, surrounded by body guards, for more than 20 minutes. Ultimately, he finished his remarks, but, due to the disruptions, there was no time for the planned question and answer session. It is worth noting that the speaker is American born and a Princeton and Columbia graduate. He has been a visiting professor at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.
Before entering the hall, protestors prayed loudly outside the building. Ambassador Oren's speech was interrupted ten times. Each interruption was by a lone male student of middle-eastern descent. Each time, dozens in the crowd loudly acted up in support. Despite faculty admonitions, even expressions of faculty embarrassment, the interruptions continued.
The interruptions appear to have been pre-planned then coordinated on site. Witnesses described text messaging between the disruptors and at least one reading his interruption from a crib note. Apparently the protestor was unable to memorize a one-sentence line. Welcome to UC Islam.
Oren maintained his composure despite the chaos. Several times he spoke gently to the protesters, reminding them of mid-east hospitality customs and U.S. free speech rights. After the last interruption, the group loudly left in concert and continued protesting immediately outside the hall. Twelve were arrested.
UCI administrators had every reason to suspect trouble, yet did little or nothing to prevent it. Neither did they stop it once it began. At least one reliable organization gave UCI advance warning of the protest and how it would be orchestrated. Prior to Ambassador Oren's arrival, UCI MSU wrote a protest letter published in the school paper and on its own website.
For years, UCI MSU has sponsored a one week pro-Palestinian/virulently anti-Israel demonstration/fair. Recently it's grown to a two-week fair. Intolerance used to rule the day. Now, it rules the fortnight. Imported Arab and other speakers are viciously propagandistic. The hyperbole has increased year by year but there have been no shout downs. The MSU receives more tolerance than it is willing to give. The administration approves of this sort of free speech. For more than a year, the UCI administration has been "investigating" that certain MSU speakers publicly solicited, then forwarded, donations to Hamas. If true, this violates UCI regulations -- and federal law.
Readers of this column need ask themselves whether this looks more like a university in Iran than a university in California
To date, I’ve seen nothing about this in the main edition of the Los Angeles Times. But suppose the Syrian ambassador had been interrupted just once by the Jewish Student Association. Do you think they would have found that newsworthy? I’m just wondering.
WELCOME TO UC ISLAM
by Mike Adams
Townhall.com
February 16, 2010
Muslim students are not always cowards. But the Muslim Student Union (MSU) is often the least tolerant and most cowardly student group on a given college campus. The gulf between the speech they prevent and what they practice with administrators' consent is enormous. What follows is a summary of a recent, and increasingly typical, incident. I have included links to video of the incident for verification. I have also included the chancellor's complete contact information so that “infidels” can express disgust with unchecked Muslim bigotry and intolerance on our nation’s campuses.
Last week, MSU members sabotaged a speech by Israel's Ambassador to the U.S.A. This happened at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). UCI has a reputation for harboring a particularly aggressive Muslim student population. Ambassador Oren's well-publicized speech was open to the public. The audience numbered approximately 500. At one point, the ambassador had to leave the room, surrounded by body guards, for more than 20 minutes. Ultimately, he finished his remarks, but, due to the disruptions, there was no time for the planned question and answer session. It is worth noting that the speaker is American born and a Princeton and Columbia graduate. He has been a visiting professor at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown.
Before entering the hall, protestors prayed loudly outside the building. Ambassador Oren's speech was interrupted ten times. Each interruption was by a lone male student of middle-eastern descent. Each time, dozens in the crowd loudly acted up in support. Despite faculty admonitions, even expressions of faculty embarrassment, the interruptions continued.
The interruptions appear to have been pre-planned then coordinated on site. Witnesses described text messaging between the disruptors and at least one reading his interruption from a crib note. Apparently the protestor was unable to memorize a one-sentence line. Welcome to UC Islam.
Oren maintained his composure despite the chaos. Several times he spoke gently to the protesters, reminding them of mid-east hospitality customs and U.S. free speech rights. After the last interruption, the group loudly left in concert and continued protesting immediately outside the hall. Twelve were arrested.
UCI administrators had every reason to suspect trouble, yet did little or nothing to prevent it. Neither did they stop it once it began. At least one reliable organization gave UCI advance warning of the protest and how it would be orchestrated. Prior to Ambassador Oren's arrival, UCI MSU wrote a protest letter published in the school paper and on its own website.
For years, UCI MSU has sponsored a one week pro-Palestinian/virulently anti-Israel demonstration/fair. Recently it's grown to a two-week fair. Intolerance used to rule the day. Now, it rules the fortnight. Imported Arab and other speakers are viciously propagandistic. The hyperbole has increased year by year but there have been no shout downs. The MSU receives more tolerance than it is willing to give. The administration approves of this sort of free speech. For more than a year, the UCI administration has been "investigating" that certain MSU speakers publicly solicited, then forwarded, donations to Hamas. If true, this violates UCI regulations -- and federal law.
Readers of this column need ask themselves whether this looks more like a university in Iran than a university in California
To date, I’ve seen nothing about this in the main edition of the Los Angeles Times. But suppose the Syrian ambassador had been interrupted just once by the Jewish Student Association. Do you think they would have found that newsworthy? I’m just wondering.
OBAMA HAS BEEN PRAGMATIC ON GUN CONTROL
OBAMA SPURNS GUN CONTROL
by Steve Chapman
Townhall.com
February 15, 2010
Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.
So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.
Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked -- except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking him on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."
Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. … There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."
The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.
So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Clinton -- and allowed to expire in 2004 -- has no visible place on his agenda.
Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.
Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.
But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate -- the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.
In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.
Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.
Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.
Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.
EDITOR’S NOTE – This is how one of my friends reacted to Chapman’s article: Oh, bullshit! He just hasn't gotten to it yet and now he won't because he's squandered all of his political capital on health scare and 'cap-and-tax.'
by Steve Chapman
Townhall.com
February 15, 2010
Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.
So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.
Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked -- except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking him on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."
Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. … There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."
The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.
So he has proposed nothing in the way of new federal restrictions on firearms. Even the "assault weapons" ban signed by President Clinton -- and allowed to expire in 2004 -- has no visible place on his agenda.
Not only that, he's approved changes that should gladden the hearts of gun-rights supporters, a group that includes me. He signed a law permitting guns to be taken into national parks. He signed another allowing guns as checked baggage on Amtrak. He acted to preserve an existing law limiting the use of government information on firearms it has traced.
Still, the NRA is not rushing to recant. A spokesman admits the president has signed some provisions it favors, but notes that they were attached to legislation he wanted, making them hard to veto. Says Andrew Arulanandam, "He has disappointed us with his appointments," particularly Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, neither a darling of the shooting set.
But those are petty matters given Obama's overall refusal to do anything to advance gun control. On this issue, he took such a strong, clear position during the campaign that he has no room to maneuver. That was not accidental. It was deliberate -- the equivalent of burning his ships to eliminate the option of retreat.
In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.
Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.
Off the table is exactly where he intends to keep it. Last year, 65 House Democrats wrote Holder vowing to "actively oppose" any effort to restore the assault weapons ban. The president has enough trouble getting legislation that enjoys overwhelming support in his party. He is not about to pick a fight with centrist Democrats over gun control.
Opponents of gun control should not rely on Obama's innermost sentiments on the subject. He obviously doesn't cherish the right to keep and bear arms. But for those who favor Second Amendment rights, here's the nice thing about having such a canny politician in the White House: He doesn't have to.
EDITOR’S NOTE – This is how one of my friends reacted to Chapman’s article: Oh, bullshit! He just hasn't gotten to it yet and now he won't because he's squandered all of his political capital on health scare and 'cap-and-tax.'
DEATH FROM OLD AGE ON DEATH ROW
I have always maintained that the death penalty does deter premeditated murders and felony murders. The only reason the death penalty may not deter such murders is because the killers do not believe they will ever be executed should they be sentenced to death.
Viva Leroy Nash is just one of many condemned inmates who have spent more than two decades on death row. Nash, 94, the oldest death row inmate, has just died of natural causes. Due to endless appeals, he had been lingering on Arizona’s death row for more than 26 years. During that time Nash became deaf, blind, crippled, mentally ill and developed dementia.
Nash spent most of his life in and out of prison since 1930. I930 he was sent to Leavenworth for an armed robbery. He spent 25 years locked up for killing a Connecticut cop in 1947. In 1977 Nash received two consecutive life sentences for a robbery and murder in Salt Lake City. In 1982 he escaped while on a prison work crew. Three weeks after his escape he killed a Phoenix coin shop employee during a robbery, the crime for which he received the death sentence in 1983.
Endless appeals have kept Nash and other cold blooded killers on death row for more than 10, 20 and 30 years, thus making a mockery of capital punishment. Only a tiny percentage of murderers are ever sentenced to death. There has to be a better way of resolving the post-sentence process than to let the condemned linger on only to die of old age.
Viva Leroy Nash is just one of many condemned inmates who have spent more than two decades on death row. Nash, 94, the oldest death row inmate, has just died of natural causes. Due to endless appeals, he had been lingering on Arizona’s death row for more than 26 years. During that time Nash became deaf, blind, crippled, mentally ill and developed dementia.
Nash spent most of his life in and out of prison since 1930. I930 he was sent to Leavenworth for an armed robbery. He spent 25 years locked up for killing a Connecticut cop in 1947. In 1977 Nash received two consecutive life sentences for a robbery and murder in Salt Lake City. In 1982 he escaped while on a prison work crew. Three weeks after his escape he killed a Phoenix coin shop employee during a robbery, the crime for which he received the death sentence in 1983.
Endless appeals have kept Nash and other cold blooded killers on death row for more than 10, 20 and 30 years, thus making a mockery of capital punishment. Only a tiny percentage of murderers are ever sentenced to death. There has to be a better way of resolving the post-sentence process than to let the condemned linger on only to die of old age.
LIFE IS LIKE A ROLL OF TOILET PAPER
Andy Rooney once said, “Ive learned that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes.”
Damn it! Andy sure got that right.
Damn it! Andy sure got that right.
Monday, February 15, 2010
WHO AM I?
* I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with numerous women.
* I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.
* Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
* My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
* I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
* I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
* That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
* I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
* I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.
* I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
* I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.. This bolstered my ego.
* At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
* But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.
* I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the
plan was clinched tight.
* I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.
* I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.
* I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope', together we could change our country and the world.
* So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
* I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
* I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
*Who am I?
*ADOLF HITLER
I’LL BET YOU WERE READY TO PIN THIS ONE ON PRESIDENT OBAMA.
* I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.
* Later in life, questions arose over my real name.
* My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.
* I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.
* I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.
* That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
* I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
* I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.
* I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.
* I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.. This bolstered my ego.
* At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my country.
* But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.
* I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the
plan was clinched tight.
* I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to all people.
* I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.
* I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope', together we could change our country and the world.
* So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.
* I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.
* I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
*Who am I?
*ADOLF HITLER
I’LL BET YOU WERE READY TO PIN THIS ONE ON PRESIDENT OBAMA.
AMBUSHES CRY OUT FOR KEEPING THE DEATH PENALTY (3)
Here is how one officer reacted to the latest ambush of a police officer: And they want to throw us under the bus every time one of us has to shoot a suspect. I hope I never have to pull the trigger but, if I do, I plan to win. I WILL come home to my family! I hope this suspect suffers greatly, one way or another .
STATE TROOPER SHOT IN HEAD, LIVES
A Washington State Patrol trooper survived an attempted execution early Saturday morning, adding to law-enforcement fears that they are being targeted for violence
By Jonathan Martin and Keith Ervin
The Seattle Times
February 13, 2010
A Washington State Patrol trooper survived an attempted execution early Saturday morning, adding to law-enforcement fears that they are being targeted for violence.
Just after midnight, Trooper Scott Johnson, a decorated 25-year veteran, was processing the car of a drunken-driving suspect in downtown Long Beach, Pacific County, when a "scruffy-looking" man emerged out of the dark, according to the State Patrol.
The man mumbled something, and Johnson acknowledged him. When Johnson turned his attention back to the car, the man drew a small-caliber pistol and fired twice at the back of the trooper's head. The gunman then ran away.
One bullet grazed Johnson's ear. The other remained lodged in the back of his head. Remarkably, Johnson was in stable condition at a Portland hospital — alert, cracking jokes and able to describe the gunman to investigators and take a call from Gov. Chris Gregoire.
"I'll tell you what, the good Lord or somebody was looking out for him," said Long Beach Police Chief Flint Wright, who visited Johnson, a well-known local figure, at the hospital.
The incident comes amid one of the bloodiest stretches for Washington law enforcement in at least 50 years. Nine law-enforcement officers have been shot since Halloween, and six of them died. They include four Lakewood police officers — Sgt. Mark Renninger and Officers Tina Griswold, Ronald Owens and Greg Richards — killed in the deadliest single attack on police in state history.
"This is constantly on our minds," said State Patrol Capt. Robert Johnson, no relation to Scott Johnson, at an afternoon news conference. "It's a trend the likes of which we do not recall seeing."
"I am troubled that we've had yet another police officer ambushed while performing what should have been a simple law-enforcement task," State Patrol Chief John Batiste said in a statement. Batiste joined Johnson's family at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) Hospital in Portland, where the trooper was being treated.
Around midnight, Trooper Jesse Greene pulled over a woman in Long Beach on suspicion of drunken driving. Johnson, working solo in a patrol cruiser, arrived at 12:20 a.m., allowing Greene to take the driver in for processing.
A tow-truck driver arrived and was preparing to tow the car when the shooter suddenly appeared. The man exchanged words with Johnson and opened fire at 12:40 a.m. Johnson got off a shot, but there was no indication at the scene that the man was wounded, said Patrol Sgt. Freddy Williams.
The tow-truck driver, George Hill, radioed in the shooting.
STATE TROOPER SHOT IN HEAD, LIVES
A Washington State Patrol trooper survived an attempted execution early Saturday morning, adding to law-enforcement fears that they are being targeted for violence
By Jonathan Martin and Keith Ervin
The Seattle Times
February 13, 2010
A Washington State Patrol trooper survived an attempted execution early Saturday morning, adding to law-enforcement fears that they are being targeted for violence.
Just after midnight, Trooper Scott Johnson, a decorated 25-year veteran, was processing the car of a drunken-driving suspect in downtown Long Beach, Pacific County, when a "scruffy-looking" man emerged out of the dark, according to the State Patrol.
The man mumbled something, and Johnson acknowledged him. When Johnson turned his attention back to the car, the man drew a small-caliber pistol and fired twice at the back of the trooper's head. The gunman then ran away.
One bullet grazed Johnson's ear. The other remained lodged in the back of his head. Remarkably, Johnson was in stable condition at a Portland hospital — alert, cracking jokes and able to describe the gunman to investigators and take a call from Gov. Chris Gregoire.
"I'll tell you what, the good Lord or somebody was looking out for him," said Long Beach Police Chief Flint Wright, who visited Johnson, a well-known local figure, at the hospital.
The incident comes amid one of the bloodiest stretches for Washington law enforcement in at least 50 years. Nine law-enforcement officers have been shot since Halloween, and six of them died. They include four Lakewood police officers — Sgt. Mark Renninger and Officers Tina Griswold, Ronald Owens and Greg Richards — killed in the deadliest single attack on police in state history.
"This is constantly on our minds," said State Patrol Capt. Robert Johnson, no relation to Scott Johnson, at an afternoon news conference. "It's a trend the likes of which we do not recall seeing."
"I am troubled that we've had yet another police officer ambushed while performing what should have been a simple law-enforcement task," State Patrol Chief John Batiste said in a statement. Batiste joined Johnson's family at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) Hospital in Portland, where the trooper was being treated.
Around midnight, Trooper Jesse Greene pulled over a woman in Long Beach on suspicion of drunken driving. Johnson, working solo in a patrol cruiser, arrived at 12:20 a.m., allowing Greene to take the driver in for processing.
A tow-truck driver arrived and was preparing to tow the car when the shooter suddenly appeared. The man exchanged words with Johnson and opened fire at 12:40 a.m. Johnson got off a shot, but there was no indication at the scene that the man was wounded, said Patrol Sgt. Freddy Williams.
The tow-truck driver, George Hill, radioed in the shooting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)