For those who don't know about the history of mankind ... Here is a condensed version:
Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deerin the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
1 . Liberals
2. Conservatives.
Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement...
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.
Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided
Over the years conservatives (Republicans) came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals (Democrats) are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively.
Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
This ends today’s lesson on the conservative version of mankind’s history..
Monday, February 28, 2011
WHY ARE THEY HELL-BENT ON SUPPORTING THE DEMOCRATS?
Last week, a Rasmussen telephone poll found that 51 percent of Americans want the U.S. to continue economic and military aid to Israel, while 32 percent opposed it.
Among Republicans, 61 percent favored continuing U.S. economic and military aid to Israel, while only 46 percent of Democrats favored continuing such aid.
That poll begs the question: Why are the overwhelming majority of American Jews hell-bent on supporting the Democrats?
Among Republicans, 61 percent favored continuing U.S. economic and military aid to Israel, while only 46 percent of Democrats favored continuing such aid.
That poll begs the question: Why are the overwhelming majority of American Jews hell-bent on supporting the Democrats?
HIGH-TECH NO MATCH FOR FENG SHUI AND FORTUNETELLERS
The computer programs used by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have been dismal in predicting the future behavior of ‘low risk, non-violent offenders.’ Perhaps CDCR should turn to fortunetellers to predict the future behavior of prison inmates – they could not possibly be any worse in their predictions than the computers, and they sure as hell would cost a lot less.
SUPERSTITION STILL WIDESPREAD IN HIGH-TECH ASIA
The Straits Times
February 27, 2011
TAIPEI - FROM the compatibility of her groom, to the timing of her wedding and the naming of her child, Shen Yi-ching has always turned to fortunetellers for guidance on life's big decisions.
'It's for good luck and peace of mind. I'd rather be safe than sorry,' said Taiwanese teacher Shen, 38, whose parents consulted a soothsayer to pick a name with an auspicious arrangement of Chinese characters for her.
Young and old, rich and poor, ancient spiritual practices and folk beliefs still sway daily life for many across Asia despite the region's rapid modernization. In ethnic Chinese communities, and societies where their influence remains strong such as Korea and Thailand, the age-old art of feng shui commands a huge following when it comes to seeking ideal homes, offices and burial sites.
Many of Hong Kong's skyscrapers were built in line with feng shui 'rules', while the direction of the world's biggest observation wheel in Singapore was reversed after warnings it was sapping good fortune from the city-state.
'People who are not doing well want to reverse their bad luck, and people who are successful want to retain their wealth,' said Dave Hum of Singapore's Classical Feng Shui Consultancy.
Superstitious beliefs can often be extreme. Hong Kong property tycoon Nina Wang allegedly shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars for feng shui rituals aimed at curing her terminal cancer. -- AFP
SUPERSTITION STILL WIDESPREAD IN HIGH-TECH ASIA
The Straits Times
February 27, 2011
TAIPEI - FROM the compatibility of her groom, to the timing of her wedding and the naming of her child, Shen Yi-ching has always turned to fortunetellers for guidance on life's big decisions.
'It's for good luck and peace of mind. I'd rather be safe than sorry,' said Taiwanese teacher Shen, 38, whose parents consulted a soothsayer to pick a name with an auspicious arrangement of Chinese characters for her.
Young and old, rich and poor, ancient spiritual practices and folk beliefs still sway daily life for many across Asia despite the region's rapid modernization. In ethnic Chinese communities, and societies where their influence remains strong such as Korea and Thailand, the age-old art of feng shui commands a huge following when it comes to seeking ideal homes, offices and burial sites.
Many of Hong Kong's skyscrapers were built in line with feng shui 'rules', while the direction of the world's biggest observation wheel in Singapore was reversed after warnings it was sapping good fortune from the city-state.
'People who are not doing well want to reverse their bad luck, and people who are successful want to retain their wealth,' said Dave Hum of Singapore's Classical Feng Shui Consultancy.
Superstitious beliefs can often be extreme. Hong Kong property tycoon Nina Wang allegedly shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars for feng shui rituals aimed at curing her terminal cancer. -- AFP
Sunday, February 27, 2011
ABBAS SHUNS OBAMA'S 'DIPLOMACY-BY-APOLOGY'
Here are some excerpts from a column by Caroline Glick:
A FIRST TASTE OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST
The brilliant academic president who theorized that diplomacy-by-apology was more powerful than governing-by-strength is being outmaneuvered – and outright humiliated – by the Arab world: Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Fatah
By Caroline B. Glick
Jewish World Review
February 25, 2011
The PA picked a fight with America just after the Obama administration forced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to surrender power. Mubarak's departure was a strategic victory for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and for its sister branch Hamas in Gaza.
The shift in the regional power balance following Mubarak's fall has caused Fatah leaders to view their ties to the US as a strategic liability. If they wish to survive, they must cut a deal with Hamas. And to convince Hamas to cut a deal, they need to abandon the US.
And so they have. Fatah's first significant move to part company with Washington came with its relentless bid to force a vote on a resolution condemning Israeli construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria at the UN Security Council. In an attempt to avert a vote on the resolution that the US public expected him to veto, Obama spent fifty minutes on the phone with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas begging him to set the resolution aside. Obama promised to take unprecedented steps against Israel in return for Abbas's agreement to stand down. But Abbas rejected his appeal.
Not only did Abbas defy the wishes of the most pro-Palestinian president ever to occupy the White House, Abbas told the whole world about how he defied Obama.
Abbas's humiliation of Obama was only the first volley in the Fatah leader's campaign against the US. Abbas, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and their PA ministers have sent paid demonstrators into the street to protest against America. They announced a boycott of American diplomats and journalists. They have called for a boycott of American products. They have scheduled a "Day of Rage," against America for Friday after mosque prayers.
While excoriating Obama and the US, the PA is actively wooing Hamas. Wednesday the PA accepted the legitimacy of Hamas control over Gaza. Three and a half years after Hamas wrested control over Gaza from Fatah in a bloody coup, on Wednesday Fayyad said that the PA is willing to end its objection to Hamas control over the area if Hamas agrees to participate in the general elections Abbas has scheduled for September.
At the same time as he publicly beseeched Hamas to join forces with Fatah, Fayyad announced that the PA is willing to forego US financial assistance if that assistance continues to come with political strings attached. The only real string attached to US aid is the stipulation that no US financial assistance can be used to finance Hamas.
The Palestinians understand the rules of diplomacy far better than Israel does. Israel believes that diplomacy is about getting other governments to be nice to us. The Palestinians understand that diplomacy is a non-violent means of weakening your enemies and expanding your own power. They also understand that the starting point for any effective diplomatic strategy is a reality-based assessment of other governments' interests.
As the revolutions throughout the region show, in the real world the Arabs do not care about the Palestinians. Europeans and leftist Americans care about the Palestinians. European leaders need to support the Palestinians for domestic political reasons. US leaders support the Palestinians to maintain good relations with Europe and with the American Left. Recognizing this, the likes of Abbas and Fayyad understand that no matter what they say or do the West will probably not abandon them. European leaders need them to continue carrying out their political war against Israel because that is what European voters demand. US leaders will continue to support the Palestinians because they follow Europe's lead.
The Obama administration has branded all Jewish communities in post-1967 Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as "illegitimate," and blamed Israel for the absence of peace in the region.
A FIRST TASTE OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST
The brilliant academic president who theorized that diplomacy-by-apology was more powerful than governing-by-strength is being outmaneuvered – and outright humiliated – by the Arab world: Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Fatah
By Caroline B. Glick
Jewish World Review
February 25, 2011
The PA picked a fight with America just after the Obama administration forced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to surrender power. Mubarak's departure was a strategic victory for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and for its sister branch Hamas in Gaza.
The shift in the regional power balance following Mubarak's fall has caused Fatah leaders to view their ties to the US as a strategic liability. If they wish to survive, they must cut a deal with Hamas. And to convince Hamas to cut a deal, they need to abandon the US.
And so they have. Fatah's first significant move to part company with Washington came with its relentless bid to force a vote on a resolution condemning Israeli construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria at the UN Security Council. In an attempt to avert a vote on the resolution that the US public expected him to veto, Obama spent fifty minutes on the phone with PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas begging him to set the resolution aside. Obama promised to take unprecedented steps against Israel in return for Abbas's agreement to stand down. But Abbas rejected his appeal.
Not only did Abbas defy the wishes of the most pro-Palestinian president ever to occupy the White House, Abbas told the whole world about how he defied Obama.
Abbas's humiliation of Obama was only the first volley in the Fatah leader's campaign against the US. Abbas, Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and their PA ministers have sent paid demonstrators into the street to protest against America. They announced a boycott of American diplomats and journalists. They have called for a boycott of American products. They have scheduled a "Day of Rage," against America for Friday after mosque prayers.
While excoriating Obama and the US, the PA is actively wooing Hamas. Wednesday the PA accepted the legitimacy of Hamas control over Gaza. Three and a half years after Hamas wrested control over Gaza from Fatah in a bloody coup, on Wednesday Fayyad said that the PA is willing to end its objection to Hamas control over the area if Hamas agrees to participate in the general elections Abbas has scheduled for September.
At the same time as he publicly beseeched Hamas to join forces with Fatah, Fayyad announced that the PA is willing to forego US financial assistance if that assistance continues to come with political strings attached. The only real string attached to US aid is the stipulation that no US financial assistance can be used to finance Hamas.
The Palestinians understand the rules of diplomacy far better than Israel does. Israel believes that diplomacy is about getting other governments to be nice to us. The Palestinians understand that diplomacy is a non-violent means of weakening your enemies and expanding your own power. They also understand that the starting point for any effective diplomatic strategy is a reality-based assessment of other governments' interests.
As the revolutions throughout the region show, in the real world the Arabs do not care about the Palestinians. Europeans and leftist Americans care about the Palestinians. European leaders need to support the Palestinians for domestic political reasons. US leaders support the Palestinians to maintain good relations with Europe and with the American Left. Recognizing this, the likes of Abbas and Fayyad understand that no matter what they say or do the West will probably not abandon them. European leaders need them to continue carrying out their political war against Israel because that is what European voters demand. US leaders will continue to support the Palestinians because they follow Europe's lead.
The Obama administration has branded all Jewish communities in post-1967 Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as "illegitimate," and blamed Israel for the absence of peace in the region.
BANK SECURITY SOMEWHAT LACKING
Who knows? This little girl could grow up to be a successful bank burglar. Apparently, this 14-month-old had no trouble sneaking into a Wells Fargo bank vault.
TODDLER TRAPPED IN BANK VAULT FOR 4 HOURS
The Straits Times
February 26, 2011
CONYERS (Georgia) - A 14-MONTH-OLD girl who wandered away from her mother and grandmother spent several tense hours trapped inside a time-locked bank vault and authorities pumped fresh air through vents to the crying child until a locksmith freed her, police said.
The locksmith pried the toddler unharmed from the vault on Friday night about four hours later. She went missing while visiting a grandparent who worked at a Wells Fargo bank branch in the greater Atlanta suburb of Conyers, police said.
Authorities say police and firefighters couldn't free the toddler and feverishly summoned the locksmith after the child apparently strayed into the open vault as the bank was closing on Friday - before an employee shut the vault door for the day.
Conyers Police Chief Gene Wilson told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution it was a 'very tense scene' as authorities stood by along with the relatives, and rescue workers pumped fresh air into vents leading to the vault.
Conyers police, contacted by The Associated Press early on Saturday, said they would have no immediate updates.
The child was spotted on security cameras inside the vault, which has a time-release lock, Mr Wilson said. He added that the locksmith used a large drill to breach the vault about four hours after it had been closed. -- AP
TODDLER TRAPPED IN BANK VAULT FOR 4 HOURS
The Straits Times
February 26, 2011
CONYERS (Georgia) - A 14-MONTH-OLD girl who wandered away from her mother and grandmother spent several tense hours trapped inside a time-locked bank vault and authorities pumped fresh air through vents to the crying child until a locksmith freed her, police said.
The locksmith pried the toddler unharmed from the vault on Friday night about four hours later. She went missing while visiting a grandparent who worked at a Wells Fargo bank branch in the greater Atlanta suburb of Conyers, police said.
Authorities say police and firefighters couldn't free the toddler and feverishly summoned the locksmith after the child apparently strayed into the open vault as the bank was closing on Friday - before an employee shut the vault door for the day.
Conyers Police Chief Gene Wilson told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution it was a 'very tense scene' as authorities stood by along with the relatives, and rescue workers pumped fresh air into vents leading to the vault.
Conyers police, contacted by The Associated Press early on Saturday, said they would have no immediate updates.
The child was spotted on security cameras inside the vault, which has a time-release lock, Mr Wilson said. He added that the locksmith used a large drill to breach the vault about four hours after it had been closed. -- AP
THIS IS REASSURING
We can all sleep better now that we know the Border Patrol cannot stop the smuggling of drugs and entry of illegals along 45 percent of our 2,000 mile long border with Mexico.
Borderland Beat
February 26, 2011
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that around 600 kilometers (375 miles) of the U.S.-Mexico border is insufficiently monitored (ie, not adequately protected) in order to stop drug smuggling and human trafficking. That is about 19 percent of the length of the entire border.
The GAO estimates that the U.S. Border Patrol has what it calls operational control sufficient to stop smuggling activities along about 45 percent of the some 3,200 kilometer (2,000 mile) long border.
Borderland Beat
February 26, 2011
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that around 600 kilometers (375 miles) of the U.S.-Mexico border is insufficiently monitored (ie, not adequately protected) in order to stop drug smuggling and human trafficking. That is about 19 percent of the length of the entire border.
The GAO estimates that the U.S. Border Patrol has what it calls operational control sufficient to stop smuggling activities along about 45 percent of the some 3,200 kilometer (2,000 mile) long border.
SMALL BUSINESSMAN IN BANKING FIELD NOW HIRING
To all you sorry ass racists out there, this proves that blacks can be successful without a government handout. And this small businessman who is giving a hand up to others is only in his early 20s.
TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS: BANK ROBBER SO SUCCESSFUL HE’S HIRED HELP
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press Hair Balls
February 25, 2011
Who says it's a tough job market? All it takes is a little success and employers will start hiring.
Ask the dude who's wanted in at least seven local bank robberies since November. Let's put it this way: He's hiring.
His latest escapade, at a Bank of America in the 22600 block of Tomball Parkway yesterday, featured not just one but two new employees. The stimulus is working!
Our man entered the bank and asked for a deposit slip, then walked away. A (newly hired) accomplice "walked up to the same teller and handed her a threatening note which demanded cash," the FBI says. "While the teller was removing some cash from the drawer, the other robber walked up to a different teller, and also gave that teller a note which demanded money."
They then escaped with the help of a third person, who drove the getaway car (a "mid-2000 year black Chevrolet Impala," the FBI says.)
No one was hurt.
The descriptions:
The first robber is described as a black male in his early 20s, 5'8, with a thin build. The second robber is described as a black male, early 20s, 5'08", with a thin build.
TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS: BANK ROBBER SO SUCCESSFUL HE’S HIRED HELP
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press Hair Balls
February 25, 2011
Who says it's a tough job market? All it takes is a little success and employers will start hiring.
Ask the dude who's wanted in at least seven local bank robberies since November. Let's put it this way: He's hiring.
His latest escapade, at a Bank of America in the 22600 block of Tomball Parkway yesterday, featured not just one but two new employees. The stimulus is working!
Our man entered the bank and asked for a deposit slip, then walked away. A (newly hired) accomplice "walked up to the same teller and handed her a threatening note which demanded cash," the FBI says. "While the teller was removing some cash from the drawer, the other robber walked up to a different teller, and also gave that teller a note which demanded money."
They then escaped with the help of a third person, who drove the getaway car (a "mid-2000 year black Chevrolet Impala," the FBI says.)
No one was hurt.
The descriptions:
The first robber is described as a black male in his early 20s, 5'8, with a thin build. The second robber is described as a black male, early 20s, 5'08", with a thin build.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
GERMAN POLICE BRUTALITY 'EXPOSED'
Deutsche Dillinger sues police? He must have found an American trained lawyer. 'It is clearly a breach of his human rights and caused [the bank robber] needless humiliation and embarrassment.' Come on, give me a break! How can the dipshit be humiliated when no one can see his face?
ARMED ROBBER SUES POLICE AFTER THEY PARADE HIM DOWN STREET WITH TROUSERS DOWN FOLLOWING FOILED BANK ROBBERY
Mail Online
February 24, 2011
An armed robber is suing after police humiliated him having caught him trying to rob a bank.
Phillip Niere walked into Noris Bank in Aachen, west Germany, and threatened to kill five hostages if he did not receive the £200,000 he demanded.
However, he was rumbled when a cashier pushed the silent alarm button and shortly afterwards SAS-trained police surrounded the building.
The 38-year-old surrendered after an hour and he was frog-marched by a police officer down the street with his trousers around his ankles - and his jumper over his head.
Niere, who is due in court tomorrow and is being held in a secure psychiatric facility, was told by negotiators that he would be treated with dignity.
But as this pictures hows he was granted anything buy a dignified arrest.
'The handcuffs are understandable, but what the police have to explain is why he was brought out with his jeans pulled down and his underwear on show,' a lawyer commented.
'It is clearly a breach of his human rights and caused Mr Niere needless humiliation and embarrassment.'
Only last week a Brit received a pay out of £13,000 after he was humiliated by his boss, who, furious that one of his staff had stolen hundreds of pounds from his business, hung a sign saying ‘thief’ around the man’s neck and frog-marched him to a police station.
But while the employee, Mark Gilbert, was let off with a police caution, Mr Cremer spent three months facing a charge of false imprisonment until the case was dropped.
Now, in a further blow, the businessman has paid his former employee £5,000 compensation and covered his £6,000 legal fees in an out-of-court settlement to avoid a hugely expensive civil case for the ‘humiliation’ he suffered.
ARMED ROBBER SUES POLICE AFTER THEY PARADE HIM DOWN STREET WITH TROUSERS DOWN FOLLOWING FOILED BANK ROBBERY
Mail Online
February 24, 2011
An armed robber is suing after police humiliated him having caught him trying to rob a bank.
Phillip Niere walked into Noris Bank in Aachen, west Germany, and threatened to kill five hostages if he did not receive the £200,000 he demanded.
However, he was rumbled when a cashier pushed the silent alarm button and shortly afterwards SAS-trained police surrounded the building.
The 38-year-old surrendered after an hour and he was frog-marched by a police officer down the street with his trousers around his ankles - and his jumper over his head.
Niere, who is due in court tomorrow and is being held in a secure psychiatric facility, was told by negotiators that he would be treated with dignity.
But as this pictures hows he was granted anything buy a dignified arrest.
'The handcuffs are understandable, but what the police have to explain is why he was brought out with his jeans pulled down and his underwear on show,' a lawyer commented.
'It is clearly a breach of his human rights and caused Mr Niere needless humiliation and embarrassment.'
Only last week a Brit received a pay out of £13,000 after he was humiliated by his boss, who, furious that one of his staff had stolen hundreds of pounds from his business, hung a sign saying ‘thief’ around the man’s neck and frog-marched him to a police station.
But while the employee, Mark Gilbert, was let off with a police caution, Mr Cremer spent three months facing a charge of false imprisonment until the case was dropped.
Now, in a further blow, the businessman has paid his former employee £5,000 compensation and covered his £6,000 legal fees in an out-of-court settlement to avoid a hugely expensive civil case for the ‘humiliation’ he suffered.
THE THREE MUHAMMADS
Related or not, the three Muhammads have been raking in the cash from their illicit prescription pill operations. And there’s nothing more embarrassing to law enforcement, than having a cop own some of those pill mills.
STATE CLOSES 4 LOCAL PAIN CLINICS
2 sites are owned by HPD officer
By Cindy Horswell
Houston Chronicle
February 25, 2011
The Texas Medical Board has taken emergency action to close four Harris County clinics that are under investigation as possible "pill mills," including two owned by a veteran Houston policeman, Danny Muhammad, who is also the target of a federal probe.
A third clinic that closed is owned by Durce Muhammad, a former administrator of an embattled charter school. The fourth is owned by Tamu Muhammad, a financial service industry worker. It is unclear if any of the three are related.
Dr. Akilil Graham obtained the state licenses to operate the four clinics under a state law that took effect in September. This law is designed to stop the proliferation of "pill mills" churning out dangerous prescription drugs through stricter regulations that among other things requires all pain management clinics be doctor-owned.
However, those licenses were temporarily suspended Feb. 18 when the board learned the Secretary of State incorporation records did not list Graham as the actual owner of these clinics, said Leigh Hopper, medical board spokeswoman. Instead records listed Danny, Durce and Tamu Muhammad as the owners.
Neither Graham nor the clinic owners could be reached for comment.
Graham, Danny and Durce Muhammad are also connected as directors of ResurrectionZone, which provides motivational training and self-development. The trio's photos and bios are among seven featured on the Houston firm's website, but messages left on their phones there went unanswered.
"We have no comment," said Victor Seals, a project manager for ResurrectionZone. "This has nothing to do with us."
Danny Muhammad, 40, who has served as an HPD officer since 1997, was suspended with pay in December after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Harris County District Attorney's office initiated an investigation. Neither agency has divulged details of the pending probe.
But records show Danny Muhammad formed the Oaks Medical Clinic at 444 S. Main in Highlands in 2006 and the Imed Clinic at 6806 Longpoint in Houston in 2007.
The Beaumont native, who worked as a probation officer for adults in Fort Bend County and juveniles in Harris County before joining the Houston police department, was working as a community liaison before his suspension.
At the same time, Durce Muhammad, 49, is listed on the Harris County tax rolls as owning the Preferred Medical Clinic at 1314 Federal Road in Houston since 2007.
For five years, he served as assistant principal and then assistant to the superintendant of the Alphonso Crutch charter school in Sharpstown, which came under fire from the Texas Education Agency in 2002. The school was criticized for questionable hiring practices, salaries and record keeping before closing a year ago.
Since then, Durce Muhammad founded and became the registered agent for AKH Educational Services, a consulting firm in Houston for such services as "dress for success" seminars. It's located at 1348 Federal Road near his clinic, records show.
Tamu Muhammad is listed as the owner of the fourth clinic, UMAT Clinic at 7632a Park Place in Houston. She incorporated it last June.
The owners of the four clinics were uncovered last month when the board began checking into questionable prescription-writing practices for addictive drugs at the clinics, authorities said.
Since stricter regulations were implemented in Texas, six clinics have been forced to close, and all were in the Houston area.
Besides the four closing Feb. 18, Dr. Jesus Caquias permanently surrendered his license to operate the Spring Wellness Center in Spring on Feb. 4 because it, too, was not doctor-owned.
Better Life Pain Clinic in Houston also has closed since its doctor, David Joseph Shin, was indicted Nov. 19 with engaging in organized crime.
One other law enforcement officer has also come under scrutiny for his connection to a pain management clinic. Lewis Martin Jr., a veteran Harris County sheriff's deputy who worked in the jail, and his wife were equal owners with chiropractor Michael Kabzinski in the Family Medi Clinic in The Woodlands. That clinic was sued in the wrongful death of a patient who overdosed.
A jury found the clinic was guilty of gross negligence and ordered Martin's wife to pay $745,000 in damages.
STATE CLOSES 4 LOCAL PAIN CLINICS
2 sites are owned by HPD officer
By Cindy Horswell
Houston Chronicle
February 25, 2011
The Texas Medical Board has taken emergency action to close four Harris County clinics that are under investigation as possible "pill mills," including two owned by a veteran Houston policeman, Danny Muhammad, who is also the target of a federal probe.
A third clinic that closed is owned by Durce Muhammad, a former administrator of an embattled charter school. The fourth is owned by Tamu Muhammad, a financial service industry worker. It is unclear if any of the three are related.
Dr. Akilil Graham obtained the state licenses to operate the four clinics under a state law that took effect in September. This law is designed to stop the proliferation of "pill mills" churning out dangerous prescription drugs through stricter regulations that among other things requires all pain management clinics be doctor-owned.
However, those licenses were temporarily suspended Feb. 18 when the board learned the Secretary of State incorporation records did not list Graham as the actual owner of these clinics, said Leigh Hopper, medical board spokeswoman. Instead records listed Danny, Durce and Tamu Muhammad as the owners.
Neither Graham nor the clinic owners could be reached for comment.
Graham, Danny and Durce Muhammad are also connected as directors of ResurrectionZone, which provides motivational training and self-development. The trio's photos and bios are among seven featured on the Houston firm's website, but messages left on their phones there went unanswered.
"We have no comment," said Victor Seals, a project manager for ResurrectionZone. "This has nothing to do with us."
Danny Muhammad, 40, who has served as an HPD officer since 1997, was suspended with pay in December after the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and Harris County District Attorney's office initiated an investigation. Neither agency has divulged details of the pending probe.
But records show Danny Muhammad formed the Oaks Medical Clinic at 444 S. Main in Highlands in 2006 and the Imed Clinic at 6806 Longpoint in Houston in 2007.
The Beaumont native, who worked as a probation officer for adults in Fort Bend County and juveniles in Harris County before joining the Houston police department, was working as a community liaison before his suspension.
At the same time, Durce Muhammad, 49, is listed on the Harris County tax rolls as owning the Preferred Medical Clinic at 1314 Federal Road in Houston since 2007.
For five years, he served as assistant principal and then assistant to the superintendant of the Alphonso Crutch charter school in Sharpstown, which came under fire from the Texas Education Agency in 2002. The school was criticized for questionable hiring practices, salaries and record keeping before closing a year ago.
Since then, Durce Muhammad founded and became the registered agent for AKH Educational Services, a consulting firm in Houston for such services as "dress for success" seminars. It's located at 1348 Federal Road near his clinic, records show.
Tamu Muhammad is listed as the owner of the fourth clinic, UMAT Clinic at 7632a Park Place in Houston. She incorporated it last June.
The owners of the four clinics were uncovered last month when the board began checking into questionable prescription-writing practices for addictive drugs at the clinics, authorities said.
Since stricter regulations were implemented in Texas, six clinics have been forced to close, and all were in the Houston area.
Besides the four closing Feb. 18, Dr. Jesus Caquias permanently surrendered his license to operate the Spring Wellness Center in Spring on Feb. 4 because it, too, was not doctor-owned.
Better Life Pain Clinic in Houston also has closed since its doctor, David Joseph Shin, was indicted Nov. 19 with engaging in organized crime.
One other law enforcement officer has also come under scrutiny for his connection to a pain management clinic. Lewis Martin Jr., a veteran Harris County sheriff's deputy who worked in the jail, and his wife were equal owners with chiropractor Michael Kabzinski in the Family Medi Clinic in The Woodlands. That clinic was sued in the wrongful death of a patient who overdosed.
A jury found the clinic was guilty of gross negligence and ordered Martin's wife to pay $745,000 in damages.
COOPING COPS CAUGHT ON CAMERA CATCH CAMERAMAN
The Canadian Press reports that two Quebec Provincial Police officers are under investigation by the QPP for cooping (sleeping) in their patrol car while on duty.
They were caught on video early Thursday morning by Maxime Carpentier, an amateur videographer, who was driving by when he noticed an apparently empty police car parked with it’s motor running and ‘smoke coming from the bottom’ on Highway 40 about halfway between Montreal and Quebec City.
Carpentier stopped his car, got out and walked over to the patrol car where he saw the two cops cooping inside. He proceeded to videotape the zonked-out officers while exclaiming for the tape, ‘They’re sleeping on the job.’
The cops were awakened either by his videotaping commentary or by the ice crunching underneath his feet.
One of the cops immediately said, ’Let’s see your driver’s license’ and both officers had Carpentier wait around for a half-hour before giving him a $156 ticket for ‘performing an illegal U-turn in a zone reserved for emergency vehicles.’
Carpentier posted the 20+ second video online and plans to fight the ticket in court. The video has been widely viewed on YouTube.
Jean Guy Dagenais, president of the Quebec Provincial Police Officers’ Union, defended the pair by saying they could have been on their ‘union break.’ He said that a cop on his break ‘is entitled to catch a quick nap.’
If I were the lawyer for the cooping cops, I would have them swear they were only pretending to sleep so that they could catch anyone trying to discredit the police.
They were caught on video early Thursday morning by Maxime Carpentier, an amateur videographer, who was driving by when he noticed an apparently empty police car parked with it’s motor running and ‘smoke coming from the bottom’ on Highway 40 about halfway between Montreal and Quebec City.
Carpentier stopped his car, got out and walked over to the patrol car where he saw the two cops cooping inside. He proceeded to videotape the zonked-out officers while exclaiming for the tape, ‘They’re sleeping on the job.’
The cops were awakened either by his videotaping commentary or by the ice crunching underneath his feet.
One of the cops immediately said, ’Let’s see your driver’s license’ and both officers had Carpentier wait around for a half-hour before giving him a $156 ticket for ‘performing an illegal U-turn in a zone reserved for emergency vehicles.’
Carpentier posted the 20+ second video online and plans to fight the ticket in court. The video has been widely viewed on YouTube.
Jean Guy Dagenais, president of the Quebec Provincial Police Officers’ Union, defended the pair by saying they could have been on their ‘union break.’ He said that a cop on his break ‘is entitled to catch a quick nap.’
If I were the lawyer for the cooping cops, I would have them swear they were only pretending to sleep so that they could catch anyone trying to discredit the police.
DESPERATELY SEEKING ..........
God, please have pity on those poor souls! After all, Florida is your ‘Waiting Room.’
SOME ‘SENIOR’ PERSONAL ADS FROM ‘THE VILLAGES’ NEWSPAPER IN FLORIDA
FOXY LADY:
Sexy, fashion-conscious blue-haired beauty, 80's, slim, 5'4' (used to be 5'6'), searching for sharp-looking, sharp-dressing companion. Matching white shoes and belt a plus.
LONG-TERM COMMITMENT:
Recent widow who has just buried fourth husband, and am looking for someone to round out a six-unit plot.
Dizziness, fainting, shortness of breath not a problem.
SERENITY NOW:
I am into solitude, long walks, sunrises, the ocean, yoga and meditation. If you are the silent type, let's get together,
take our hearing aids out and enjoy quiet times.
WINNING SMILE:
Active grandmother with original teeth seeking a dedicated flosser to share rare steaks, corn on the cob and caramel candy.
BEATLES OR STONES?
I still like to rock, still like to cruise in my Camaro on Saturday nights and still like to play the guitar. If you were a groovy chick, or are now a groovy hen, let's get together and listen to my eight-track tapes.
MEMORIES:
I can usually remember Monday through Thursday. If you can remember Friday, Saturday and Sunday, let's put our two heads together.
MINT CONDITION:
Male, 1932, high mileage, good condition, some hair, many new parts including hip, knee, cornea, valves. Isn't in running condition, but walks well.
SOME ‘SENIOR’ PERSONAL ADS FROM ‘THE VILLAGES’ NEWSPAPER IN FLORIDA
FOXY LADY:
Sexy, fashion-conscious blue-haired beauty, 80's, slim, 5'4' (used to be 5'6'), searching for sharp-looking, sharp-dressing companion. Matching white shoes and belt a plus.
LONG-TERM COMMITMENT:
Recent widow who has just buried fourth husband, and am looking for someone to round out a six-unit plot.
Dizziness, fainting, shortness of breath not a problem.
SERENITY NOW:
I am into solitude, long walks, sunrises, the ocean, yoga and meditation. If you are the silent type, let's get together,
take our hearing aids out and enjoy quiet times.
WINNING SMILE:
Active grandmother with original teeth seeking a dedicated flosser to share rare steaks, corn on the cob and caramel candy.
BEATLES OR STONES?
I still like to rock, still like to cruise in my Camaro on Saturday nights and still like to play the guitar. If you were a groovy chick, or are now a groovy hen, let's get together and listen to my eight-track tapes.
MEMORIES:
I can usually remember Monday through Thursday. If you can remember Friday, Saturday and Sunday, let's put our two heads together.
MINT CONDITION:
Male, 1932, high mileage, good condition, some hair, many new parts including hip, knee, cornea, valves. Isn't in running condition, but walks well.
Friday, February 25, 2011
CONGRESS HAS BEEN ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL FOR 25 YEARS
Who is Peter? Peter is the Social Security Trust Fund. Who is Paul? Paul is a pack of other government programs. And that’s why Social Security is becoming insolvent.
MAKING THINGS RIGHT
By Scott Burns
AssetBuilder
February 18, 2011
The biggest theft of investment assets was not done by Bernard Madoff. It was done by the Congress of the United States. It was not done by Democrats alone, nor was it done by Republicans alone. It was a concert of malignant bipartisanship.
The subject here is the well-deserved distrust we have for our elected representatives. Until that trust is restored it is unlikely we will fix the problem of ballooning government debt.
This column is not about politics. It is about our collective personal finances. It is about the most important source of income most Americans have when they retire, Social Security. Here’s the story.
Only three weeks ago the Congressional Budget Office released a report telling us that Social Security would operate at a deficit indefinitely.
This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Social Security was reformed in 1984. After running as a pay-as-you-go program for its first half century, the employment tax was increased enough so that it would produce a growing surplus for Social Security. The program, we were told, was sound until 2060.
Well, not quite. It is 2011 is not 2060.
Workers from 1984 onwards paid more employment taxes than were necessary to pay retirement and disability benefits. Our excess money was to be invested to build a real trust fund. The accumulated assets in the fund would be there to help cover the surge in benefit payments when the baby boomers started to retire. That would be about now.
The extra money we paid in during those years wasn’t a minor sum. Accumulated with interest, it amounts to $2.6 trillion. Every dime was “invested” in U.S. Treasury obligations. So what happened to the actual money?
It was spent.
While democrats worked to increase spending, republicans worked to reduce taxes. Both were successful. The malignant result is that our retirement money was used to support other government spending.
Now Social Security needs cash to pay promised benefits. This is not how it looks on the books. The Social Security Trustees Report for 2010, for instance, estimates that the program will cost $729.6 billion this year. Income for the year is estimated to be $840.8 billion, including $118.1 billion of “interest” on Trust fund assets. That sounds like a healthy surplus— $111.2 billion. Indeed, total income for the program is projected to exceed costs until sometime between 2020 and 2025.
What’s the problem?
The interest income is funny money. It is not cash. It is a book entry, an IOU from the Treasury. On a cash basis— taxes in, benefit checks out— the program is in deficit. When Social Security asks the Treasury for actual cash, the Treasury won’t have it.
So where can the Treasury get the cash? It can borrow it from someone else— like China. Or it can ask the Federal Reserve to expand the program of “quantitative easing” and print money. Worse, it will be doing this year after year because the trust fund, functionally, is a fraud. Every dime of the $2.6 trillion of contributions and credited interest will have to be borrowed, printed or raised in new taxes.
Having taken our money under false pretenses for a quarter century, both parties are now discussing ways to reduce future benefits. So workers were overtaxed for all those years. Then they will suffer a back door tax— a tax that won’t be called a tax— when their future benefits are cut.
Anyone who worked during the last 25 years could have invested their excess contributions to create real income security. I estimate that the Congress of the United States owes the average worker nearly $18,000. A worker at the top of the wage scale would be owed $43,000. (My calculations assume that the extra tax money from both the employee and employer portions of the employment tax was invested to earn the yield of a 5-year Treasury note.) This is not chicken feed. For each worker it is about 3 years and 4 months of the employment taxes they currently pay.
I believe that until this stolen money is returned, we have no reason to trust anyone who holds public office. Anyone. Either party. This isn’t about politics. It is about trust.
Here are concrete steps Congress should take to make things right.
First, the members of the Congress of the United States need to make a formal apology to the American people. Failure to do so will be an indication that they still don’t get it, regardless of party. We need to see some genuine remorse at what they have been doing for 25 years.
Second, to show their sincerity, they need to make reparations to workers, providing each worker with a refund of all excess payments, with accumulated interest. The refund would be in the form of a marketable U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Security obligation. It could be saved for retirement, used to pay down consumer debt, or sold and spent willy-nilly. However it is used, the total transfer— about $2.6 trillion— will be a fraction of the trillions more committed in the ongoing bailout of our irresponsible financial institutions.
Third, put Social Security on a genuine pay-as-you-go basis, with rolling adjustments to the employment tax. This would reassure present and future retirees and stand as an annual renewal of the compact between generations made in 1935. It’s the only way we will get what we pay for.
MAKING THINGS RIGHT
By Scott Burns
AssetBuilder
February 18, 2011
The biggest theft of investment assets was not done by Bernard Madoff. It was done by the Congress of the United States. It was not done by Democrats alone, nor was it done by Republicans alone. It was a concert of malignant bipartisanship.
The subject here is the well-deserved distrust we have for our elected representatives. Until that trust is restored it is unlikely we will fix the problem of ballooning government debt.
This column is not about politics. It is about our collective personal finances. It is about the most important source of income most Americans have when they retire, Social Security. Here’s the story.
Only three weeks ago the Congressional Budget Office released a report telling us that Social Security would operate at a deficit indefinitely.
This isn’t how it was supposed to be. Social Security was reformed in 1984. After running as a pay-as-you-go program for its first half century, the employment tax was increased enough so that it would produce a growing surplus for Social Security. The program, we were told, was sound until 2060.
Well, not quite. It is 2011 is not 2060.
Workers from 1984 onwards paid more employment taxes than were necessary to pay retirement and disability benefits. Our excess money was to be invested to build a real trust fund. The accumulated assets in the fund would be there to help cover the surge in benefit payments when the baby boomers started to retire. That would be about now.
The extra money we paid in during those years wasn’t a minor sum. Accumulated with interest, it amounts to $2.6 trillion. Every dime was “invested” in U.S. Treasury obligations. So what happened to the actual money?
It was spent.
While democrats worked to increase spending, republicans worked to reduce taxes. Both were successful. The malignant result is that our retirement money was used to support other government spending.
Now Social Security needs cash to pay promised benefits. This is not how it looks on the books. The Social Security Trustees Report for 2010, for instance, estimates that the program will cost $729.6 billion this year. Income for the year is estimated to be $840.8 billion, including $118.1 billion of “interest” on Trust fund assets. That sounds like a healthy surplus— $111.2 billion. Indeed, total income for the program is projected to exceed costs until sometime between 2020 and 2025.
What’s the problem?
The interest income is funny money. It is not cash. It is a book entry, an IOU from the Treasury. On a cash basis— taxes in, benefit checks out— the program is in deficit. When Social Security asks the Treasury for actual cash, the Treasury won’t have it.
So where can the Treasury get the cash? It can borrow it from someone else— like China. Or it can ask the Federal Reserve to expand the program of “quantitative easing” and print money. Worse, it will be doing this year after year because the trust fund, functionally, is a fraud. Every dime of the $2.6 trillion of contributions and credited interest will have to be borrowed, printed or raised in new taxes.
Having taken our money under false pretenses for a quarter century, both parties are now discussing ways to reduce future benefits. So workers were overtaxed for all those years. Then they will suffer a back door tax— a tax that won’t be called a tax— when their future benefits are cut.
Anyone who worked during the last 25 years could have invested their excess contributions to create real income security. I estimate that the Congress of the United States owes the average worker nearly $18,000. A worker at the top of the wage scale would be owed $43,000. (My calculations assume that the extra tax money from both the employee and employer portions of the employment tax was invested to earn the yield of a 5-year Treasury note.) This is not chicken feed. For each worker it is about 3 years and 4 months of the employment taxes they currently pay.
I believe that until this stolen money is returned, we have no reason to trust anyone who holds public office. Anyone. Either party. This isn’t about politics. It is about trust.
Here are concrete steps Congress should take to make things right.
First, the members of the Congress of the United States need to make a formal apology to the American people. Failure to do so will be an indication that they still don’t get it, regardless of party. We need to see some genuine remorse at what they have been doing for 25 years.
Second, to show their sincerity, they need to make reparations to workers, providing each worker with a refund of all excess payments, with accumulated interest. The refund would be in the form of a marketable U.S. Treasury Inflation Protected Security obligation. It could be saved for retirement, used to pay down consumer debt, or sold and spent willy-nilly. However it is used, the total transfer— about $2.6 trillion— will be a fraction of the trillions more committed in the ongoing bailout of our irresponsible financial institutions.
Third, put Social Security on a genuine pay-as-you-go basis, with rolling adjustments to the employment tax. This would reassure present and future retirees and stand as an annual renewal of the compact between generations made in 1935. It’s the only way we will get what we pay for.
DAMN YOU WOMAN, YOU ATE MY COOKIES
Maybe it’s time to consider banning Girl Scout cookies.
ROOMMATES FIGHT OVER GIRL SCOUT COOKIES, ONE ARRESTED
Assault charges were filed after a brawl between two roommates over a box of Thin Mints
Associated Press
February 22, 2011
NAPLES, Fla. - Police say a brawl between roommates over Girl Scout cookies led to assault charges against one of them.
According to the Naples Daily News, the Collier County Sheriff's Office reports that 31-year-old Hersha Howard woke up her roommate early Sunday and accused her of eating her Thin Mints.
They argued and deputies say that it turned physical with Howard chasing her roommate with scissors and hitting her repeatedly with a board and then a sign.
Police say the roommate's husband tried to separate them. The roommate said she gave the cookies to Howard's children.
Howard is charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. She was released Monday on $10,000 bail.
ROOMMATES FIGHT OVER GIRL SCOUT COOKIES, ONE ARRESTED
Assault charges were filed after a brawl between two roommates over a box of Thin Mints
Associated Press
February 22, 2011
NAPLES, Fla. - Police say a brawl between roommates over Girl Scout cookies led to assault charges against one of them.
According to the Naples Daily News, the Collier County Sheriff's Office reports that 31-year-old Hersha Howard woke up her roommate early Sunday and accused her of eating her Thin Mints.
They argued and deputies say that it turned physical with Howard chasing her roommate with scissors and hitting her repeatedly with a board and then a sign.
Police say the roommate's husband tried to separate them. The roommate said she gave the cookies to Howard's children.
Howard is charged with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. She was released Monday on $10,000 bail.
SNEAKING AN UNDECLARED HAIRDRYER THROUGH CUSTOMS
A distinguished young woman on a flight from Ireland asked the Priest beside her, 'Father, may I ask a favor?'
'Of course, child. What may I do for you?'
'Well, I bought an expensive woman's electronic hair dryer for my mother's birthday that is unopened and well over the Customs limits, and I'm afraid they'll confiscate it. Is there any way you could carry it through customs for
me? Under your robes perhaps?'
'I would love to help you, dear, but I must warn you: I will not lie.'
'With your honest face, Father, no one will question you.'
When they got to Customs, she let the priest go ahead of her.
The official asked, 'Father, do you have anything to declare?'
'From the top of my head down to my waist, I have nothing to declare.'
The official thought this answer strange, so asked, 'And what do you have to declare from your waist to the floor?'
'I have a marvelous instrument designed to be used on a woman, but which is, to date, unused.'
Roaring with laughter, the official said, 'Go ahead, Father. Next!'
'Of course, child. What may I do for you?'
'Well, I bought an expensive woman's electronic hair dryer for my mother's birthday that is unopened and well over the Customs limits, and I'm afraid they'll confiscate it. Is there any way you could carry it through customs for
me? Under your robes perhaps?'
'I would love to help you, dear, but I must warn you: I will not lie.'
'With your honest face, Father, no one will question you.'
When they got to Customs, she let the priest go ahead of her.
The official asked, 'Father, do you have anything to declare?'
'From the top of my head down to my waist, I have nothing to declare.'
The official thought this answer strange, so asked, 'And what do you have to declare from your waist to the floor?'
'I have a marvelous instrument designed to be used on a woman, but which is, to date, unused.'
Roaring with laughter, the official said, 'Go ahead, Father. Next!'
Thursday, February 24, 2011
DORINA LISSON STRIKES BACK
I am convinced that the death penalty is a deterrent to premeditated killings and felony murders. Thus, the high cost of capital cases is worth every penny as the prospect of getting executed keeps a lot of people from being added to the list of murder victims.
Several correctional officers and I have been giving death penalty abolitionist and human rights activist Dorina Lisson a bad time and with good cause when she makes ridiculous and outrageous charges against those officers. Now she has commented on my post, ‘Cost Cutting That Can Jeopardize Public Safety’ (2-22-11) with a blistering attack on the death penalty. Instead of adding her response to the comments section, I’m giving Dorina her own posting, even though I disagree with some of the points she makes.
Here is what our darling Dorina says:
WHY AMERICA SHOULD ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
By Dorina Lisson
Is the USA wasting millions of dollars ???
The biggest fallacy is that executions save taxpayers money. Fact is, death penalty cases are very, very expensive. There is a mountain of evidence that just one capital case, after all appeals have been exhausted, ends up costing taxpayers much more money than life in prison without parole.
The greatest cost of capital cases incur prior to, and during the trial, not in post-conviction and appeals proceedings.
The costs incurred for capital cases run into the millions of dollars - literally.
In view of the 'life-and-death issue' at stake, the State has an obligation to guarantee those prosecuted for capital cases receive the very best defence that taxpayers money can buy ... a top-notch team of the best-of-the-best lawyers with wide latitude in hiring a top-notch best-of-the-best experts and consultants, thereby making capital cases much more expensive.
All these costs place a huge financial burden on the already over-stretched legal justice system.
Those who passed mathematics know the costly fact, but they refuse to admit the truth - you see, it might change the public's mind about the death penalty.
Is the USA a democratic nation ???
In all democratic nations, every person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For this reason, certain safeguards must be used for death penalty cases. These safeguards include the right to various appeals process, which all take time and more money.
The appeals process of death penalty cases could be streamlined of course, but at a very different cost - increasing the possibility of executing a wrongly convicted person.
The appeals process could be shortened or eliminated ... and, if history is any guide, wrongly convicted people would be executed along the way.
The appeals process eliminates legal and other errors within the criminal justice system, but what is one or two mistakes when death penalty supporters talk about the expeditious eradication of offenders?
Let's all remind ourselves ... since 1973, a total of 139 condemned prisoners in the USA (boasts to have the best-of-the-best criminal justice system in the world) have been released from death row after evidence emerged during their appeals process of their wrongful conviction. That shameful number is 139 mistakes ... not one or two ... but a staggering 139 mistakes !!!
The fact that some mistakes were discovered with time strongly suggests that there have been other occasions when mistakes were not discovered in time ... in the so-called best-of-the-best criminal justice system in the world.
Supporters of the death penalty often argue that the best justice is quick justice. That is exactly how executions take place under strict Islamic and Sharia Laws - executing offenders via various brutal methods usually in public, while the offender's blood is still warm not years later when the offenders blood has turned cold.
Abolitionist countries all have lower rates of crime than retentionist countries. What does that suggest?
Several correctional officers and I have been giving death penalty abolitionist and human rights activist Dorina Lisson a bad time and with good cause when she makes ridiculous and outrageous charges against those officers. Now she has commented on my post, ‘Cost Cutting That Can Jeopardize Public Safety’ (2-22-11) with a blistering attack on the death penalty. Instead of adding her response to the comments section, I’m giving Dorina her own posting, even though I disagree with some of the points she makes.
Here is what our darling Dorina says:
WHY AMERICA SHOULD ABOLISH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
By Dorina Lisson
Is the USA wasting millions of dollars ???
The biggest fallacy is that executions save taxpayers money. Fact is, death penalty cases are very, very expensive. There is a mountain of evidence that just one capital case, after all appeals have been exhausted, ends up costing taxpayers much more money than life in prison without parole.
The greatest cost of capital cases incur prior to, and during the trial, not in post-conviction and appeals proceedings.
The costs incurred for capital cases run into the millions of dollars - literally.
In view of the 'life-and-death issue' at stake, the State has an obligation to guarantee those prosecuted for capital cases receive the very best defence that taxpayers money can buy ... a top-notch team of the best-of-the-best lawyers with wide latitude in hiring a top-notch best-of-the-best experts and consultants, thereby making capital cases much more expensive.
All these costs place a huge financial burden on the already over-stretched legal justice system.
Those who passed mathematics know the costly fact, but they refuse to admit the truth - you see, it might change the public's mind about the death penalty.
Is the USA a democratic nation ???
In all democratic nations, every person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. For this reason, certain safeguards must be used for death penalty cases. These safeguards include the right to various appeals process, which all take time and more money.
The appeals process of death penalty cases could be streamlined of course, but at a very different cost - increasing the possibility of executing a wrongly convicted person.
The appeals process could be shortened or eliminated ... and, if history is any guide, wrongly convicted people would be executed along the way.
The appeals process eliminates legal and other errors within the criminal justice system, but what is one or two mistakes when death penalty supporters talk about the expeditious eradication of offenders?
Let's all remind ourselves ... since 1973, a total of 139 condemned prisoners in the USA (boasts to have the best-of-the-best criminal justice system in the world) have been released from death row after evidence emerged during their appeals process of their wrongful conviction. That shameful number is 139 mistakes ... not one or two ... but a staggering 139 mistakes !!!
The fact that some mistakes were discovered with time strongly suggests that there have been other occasions when mistakes were not discovered in time ... in the so-called best-of-the-best criminal justice system in the world.
Supporters of the death penalty often argue that the best justice is quick justice. That is exactly how executions take place under strict Islamic and Sharia Laws - executing offenders via various brutal methods usually in public, while the offender's blood is still warm not years later when the offenders blood has turned cold.
Abolitionist countries all have lower rates of crime than retentionist countries. What does that suggest?
UNION BUSTING OR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?
I don’t have much sympathy for the teachers in Wisconsin, a state whose public schools rank among the worst performing schools in the country. Among the thousands of protesters at the Wisconsin state capitol, most were teachers who had called in sick. A number of school districts were forced to shut down because so many of their teachers were ‘sick.’ That shows teachers are far more interested in the thickness of their pocketbooks than in educating schoolchildren.
On the other hand, Gov. Scott Walker may have fallen on his own sword when he carried on a 20-minute phone conversation with Ian Murphy, an editor with a liberal online newspaper, who pretended to be David Koch, a billionaire supporter of the governor. The recorded conversation clearly showed that Walker’s primary goal was union busting, not fiscal responsibility. At the end of the call, Murphy says: "I'll tell you what, Scott, once you crush these bastards, I'll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time." Walker, thinking that he was talking to Koch, replies: "All right, that would be outstanding."
So, what’s the real issue in Wisconsin? I’d say it’s both union busting and fiscal responsibility.
GOV. WALKER’S UNCOMPROMISING CLARITY OF PURPOSE
By Mark Davis
politicalmavens.com
February 23, 2011
Nobody ever said this was going to be easy.
Getting into a financial mess is as effortless as breathing. Ask millions of American families. Ask the majority of the 50 states. After generations of growing used to spending nonexistent money, individuals and governments from coast to coast are facing the stark necessities of grasping basic financial truths.
It is not just rampant spending that has hurled families and various levels of government into crisis. The tanking of the national economy didn’t help matters for anyone.
But it has helped us achieve some clarity as to what we need to do. Or, should I say, it has helped some of us achieve that clarity.
A lot of Republicans won in November on the promise of tackling the tough job of getting government spending under control. Now many of those same leaders are hearing loud complaints as they seek to actually fulfill that promise.
On the national level, modest budget-cutting suggestions are condemned in drastic terms by those who have grown used to government bloat. At the state level, governors telling voters to brace for austerity are hearing the stuck-pig squeals of those who have no intention of weaning themselves from taxpayer-funded largesse.
Ground zero for this economic morality play is Wisconsin, where new Gov. Scott Walker campaigned specifically on bringing his very blue state’s budget back into the black. Part of the road back to sanity involves asking his state’s public employee unions to sacrifice a modest portion of the generous pension and health care benefits that have helped run the state’s finances into the ground.
Their response took the form of angry mobs swirling around the state capitol calling for his political head. Teachers abandoned kids and classrooms to add their voices, finding sympathetic doctors willing to abandon their ethics by writing them phony medical excuses on the spot. This is not the way to garner public support.
One poll did shown support for a compromise in which the employees agree to pitch in for health care and retirement in return for keeping their collective bargaining rights.
But those would be the collective bargaining rights that allowed this unworkable landscape to take shape in the first place. Walker is not compromising because he knows that concessions won today can be lost tomorrow unless the noxious power of public employee unions is finally subjugated to the interests of taxpayers.
We have been lectured to by no less than President Barack Obama that these union members are our friends and neighbors, and in some cases they are. But I’ll tell you a constituency that every last one of us knows closely and in large number — the taxpayers footing the bill. How about some empathy for that special interest?
Walker will be chastised for trying to “break the unions.” While he distances from that stark language, I embrace it. The modern incarnation of public employee unions (and more than a few private ones, as well) deserved dismantling long ago.
We are not in the coal mines of the 1920s, where labor leaders like John L. Lewis properly organized workers against criminally unscrupulous companies. The workforce of the 21st century is not the wasteland of worker exploitation Big Labor would have us believe.
Government workers want fair pay and benefits. Taxpayers want competent, happy government workers. The marketplace will yield both if it is freed from the jaws of the power-hungry dinosaur of unions placing the interests of the rank and file miles above the public they are supposed to serve.
If Wisconsin is the metaphoric classroom where teachers and others learn what is necessary to extract a state from financial ruin, let that lesson begin now and spread to every level of government where similar light needs to be shed.
On the other hand, Gov. Scott Walker may have fallen on his own sword when he carried on a 20-minute phone conversation with Ian Murphy, an editor with a liberal online newspaper, who pretended to be David Koch, a billionaire supporter of the governor. The recorded conversation clearly showed that Walker’s primary goal was union busting, not fiscal responsibility. At the end of the call, Murphy says: "I'll tell you what, Scott, once you crush these bastards, I'll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time." Walker, thinking that he was talking to Koch, replies: "All right, that would be outstanding."
So, what’s the real issue in Wisconsin? I’d say it’s both union busting and fiscal responsibility.
GOV. WALKER’S UNCOMPROMISING CLARITY OF PURPOSE
By Mark Davis
politicalmavens.com
February 23, 2011
Nobody ever said this was going to be easy.
Getting into a financial mess is as effortless as breathing. Ask millions of American families. Ask the majority of the 50 states. After generations of growing used to spending nonexistent money, individuals and governments from coast to coast are facing the stark necessities of grasping basic financial truths.
It is not just rampant spending that has hurled families and various levels of government into crisis. The tanking of the national economy didn’t help matters for anyone.
But it has helped us achieve some clarity as to what we need to do. Or, should I say, it has helped some of us achieve that clarity.
A lot of Republicans won in November on the promise of tackling the tough job of getting government spending under control. Now many of those same leaders are hearing loud complaints as they seek to actually fulfill that promise.
On the national level, modest budget-cutting suggestions are condemned in drastic terms by those who have grown used to government bloat. At the state level, governors telling voters to brace for austerity are hearing the stuck-pig squeals of those who have no intention of weaning themselves from taxpayer-funded largesse.
Ground zero for this economic morality play is Wisconsin, where new Gov. Scott Walker campaigned specifically on bringing his very blue state’s budget back into the black. Part of the road back to sanity involves asking his state’s public employee unions to sacrifice a modest portion of the generous pension and health care benefits that have helped run the state’s finances into the ground.
Their response took the form of angry mobs swirling around the state capitol calling for his political head. Teachers abandoned kids and classrooms to add their voices, finding sympathetic doctors willing to abandon their ethics by writing them phony medical excuses on the spot. This is not the way to garner public support.
One poll did shown support for a compromise in which the employees agree to pitch in for health care and retirement in return for keeping their collective bargaining rights.
But those would be the collective bargaining rights that allowed this unworkable landscape to take shape in the first place. Walker is not compromising because he knows that concessions won today can be lost tomorrow unless the noxious power of public employee unions is finally subjugated to the interests of taxpayers.
We have been lectured to by no less than President Barack Obama that these union members are our friends and neighbors, and in some cases they are. But I’ll tell you a constituency that every last one of us knows closely and in large number — the taxpayers footing the bill. How about some empathy for that special interest?
Walker will be chastised for trying to “break the unions.” While he distances from that stark language, I embrace it. The modern incarnation of public employee unions (and more than a few private ones, as well) deserved dismantling long ago.
We are not in the coal mines of the 1920s, where labor leaders like John L. Lewis properly organized workers against criminally unscrupulous companies. The workforce of the 21st century is not the wasteland of worker exploitation Big Labor would have us believe.
Government workers want fair pay and benefits. Taxpayers want competent, happy government workers. The marketplace will yield both if it is freed from the jaws of the power-hungry dinosaur of unions placing the interests of the rank and file miles above the public they are supposed to serve.
If Wisconsin is the metaphoric classroom where teachers and others learn what is necessary to extract a state from financial ruin, let that lesson begin now and spread to every level of government where similar light needs to be shed.
DON'T MESS WITH SHERIFF PEPE LEPEW'S BUDDIES
How dare he arrest LA County Sheriff Lee ‘Pepe LePew’ Baca’s buddy Mel Gibson.
DEPUTY WHO ARRESTED MEL GIBSON PROCEEDS WITH SUIT
Deputy James Mee claims he suffered discrimination, retaliation and harassment while arresting Mel Gibson
Associated Press
February 23 2011
LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who arrested Mel Gibson can proceed with a lawsuit claiming he suffered discrimination, retaliation and harassment.
A judge on Tuesday said Deputy James Mee can go forward with his complaint against the sheriff's department.
Mee arrested Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving in 2006 in Malibu. During the arrest, the Oscar-winning actor made anti-Semitic slurs to Mee, who's Jewish.
Mee's lawsuit claims his superiors forced him to rewrite his initial report to remove references to the rant. However, some details were later leaked to the press. Mee was investigated as the possible source but never charged.
His suit claims that he was transferred after Gibson's arrest and hasn't been promoted.
The sheriff's department has denied the allegations.
DEPUTY WHO ARRESTED MEL GIBSON PROCEEDS WITH SUIT
Deputy James Mee claims he suffered discrimination, retaliation and harassment while arresting Mel Gibson
Associated Press
February 23 2011
LOS ANGELES — The Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy who arrested Mel Gibson can proceed with a lawsuit claiming he suffered discrimination, retaliation and harassment.
A judge on Tuesday said Deputy James Mee can go forward with his complaint against the sheriff's department.
Mee arrested Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving in 2006 in Malibu. During the arrest, the Oscar-winning actor made anti-Semitic slurs to Mee, who's Jewish.
Mee's lawsuit claims his superiors forced him to rewrite his initial report to remove references to the rant. However, some details were later leaked to the press. Mee was investigated as the possible source but never charged.
His suit claims that he was transferred after Gibson's arrest and hasn't been promoted.
The sheriff's department has denied the allegations.
THOSE REALLY WERE THE GOOD OLD DAYS
THOSE OF US WHO GREW UP IN THE 1930s, '40s, '50s and '60s!!
First, we survived being born to mothers who may have smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then, after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets, and, when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps, not helmets, on our heads.
As infants and children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes..
Riding in the back of a pick- up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter, and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And we weren't overweight. WHY?
Because we were always outside playing...that's why!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. --And, we were OKAY.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem..
We did not have Play Stations, Nintendos and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVDs, no surround-sound or CDs, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms.
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from those accidents.
We would get spankings with wooden spoons, switches, ping-pong paddles, or just a bare hand, and no one would call child services to report abuse.
We ate worms, and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We spent hours playing with and breaking apart a ball of mercury into little balls of mercury with our fingers and then pushing the little balls back into one ball.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, 22 rifles for our 12th, rode horses, made up games with sticks and tennis balls, and - although we were told it would happen - we did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
There were no school counselors to help us get over the trauma of seeing a classmate’s nose bleed or for the grief following a tragic death of schoolmates.
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law and beat the crap out of us when we got home!
Those were the good old days and we survived them just fine!
First, we survived being born to mothers who may have smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then, after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets, and, when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps, not helmets, on our heads.
As infants and children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, no booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes..
Riding in the back of a pick- up truck on a warm day was always a special treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle, and no one actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter, and bacon. We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar. And we weren't overweight. WHY?
Because we were always outside playing...that's why!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on. No one was able to reach us all day. --And, we were OKAY.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride them down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem..
We did not have Play Stations, Nintendos and X-boxes. There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVDs, no surround-sound or CDs, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms.
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth, and there were no lawsuits from those accidents.
We would get spankings with wooden spoons, switches, ping-pong paddles, or just a bare hand, and no one would call child services to report abuse.
We ate worms, and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.
We spent hours playing with and breaking apart a ball of mercury into little balls of mercury with our fingers and then pushing the little balls back into one ball.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, 22 rifles for our 12th, rode horses, made up games with sticks and tennis balls, and - although we were told it would happen - we did not put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment.
There were no school counselors to help us get over the trauma of seeing a classmate’s nose bleed or for the grief following a tragic death of schoolmates.
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law and beat the crap out of us when we got home!
Those were the good old days and we survived them just fine!
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
RACIAL PROFILING OR GOOD POLICE WORK?
There are two problems with racial profiling by cops. One concerns a minority of cops who do stop blacks and Latinos because they may harbor a hatred of minorities. These cops should be weeded out because they do not belong on any poli9ce force.
The biggest problem though concerns the common belief of minorities that whenever they are stopped by the police, it is only because they are black or Latino. Sometimes the police are justified in stopping minorities because they are black or Latino. For example, if an officer observes a two or more blacks or Latinos in a car driving around slowly in an all white neighborhood, especially a neighborhood that is experiencing burglaries and thefts, it is just good basic police work to check out the car occupants.
If an officer will treat minorities exactly the same as he would treat a white person under the same circumstances, he is not engaging in racial profiling, although he will be accused of doing so anyhow. Many of these complaints are made following stops for traffic violations. A cop would face fewer racial profiling complaints if he would use his discretion by not stopping minorities for minor traffic violations such as broken taillights or failure to give a turn signal.
By making it easier to sustain racial profiling complaints, San Jose PD seems to be getting ready to sacrifice some of its officers on the altar of political correctness.
SAN JOSE POLICE CHANGE DEFINITION OF ‘RACIAL PROFILING’
By Sean Webby
San Jose Mercury News
February 21, 2011
Over the past four years, San Jose police investigated 150 racial profiling or other bias allegations against city cops -- yet the department's internal affairs unit did not sustain a single complaint.
Now, the department is broadening its definition of profiling, and its new police chief is calling for more thorough looks into claims of biased behavior by cops. The city's independent police auditor calls it a "huge" shift in the right direction, and minority community leaders say it's about time.
San Jose police changed the policy last week, making it a violation for an officer to show any biased behavior at any time during an encounter with the public. Before, it was considered a violation only if the officer first stopped an individual solely because of race, gender or other biased reasons.
"I'm bound and determined to investigate all aspects of these allegations," police Chief Chris Moore said. "Sometimes I get the feeling that some of the more nuanced issues may have been skipped."
He gave no specifics. But when asked whether he felt that his officers may have gotten away with racially profiling people, the chief said: "There's no way for me to tell. I don't believe so, given what I know about my police officers."
Independent Police Auditor LaDoris Cordell said the language change was "huge, it's very significant. If these allegations are not thoroughly investigated, then we are subject to the same type of federal oversight that you have in Los Angeles. I hope that doesn't happen in San Jose."
Late last year the Los Angeles Police Department was criticized by the federal Department of Justice for its inadequate handling of racial profiling complaints.
Moore has vowed to try to repair the strained relationship between San Jose's minorities and police, which has been accused of overly aggressive street policing and racial profiling.
Police oversight experts say San Jose's track record of not sustaining racial profiling complaints is relatively common among major departments. Such complaints, they said, are hard to prove.
"It's difficult to show an officer intended to discriminate," said Philip Eure, a national police oversight leader and head of Washington, D.C.'s police oversight agency. "Yet it's easy to show an officer pulled someone over for a lawful reason. That's the paradox."
Since 2002, the San Jose Police Duty Manual has read that an officer must not "initiate a contact solely" based on factors including race, color, nationality and gender. This definition clearly was hard to prove if, for example, an officer could rebut that the person had a broken tail light on his or her car. Police came under heavy scrutiny for arresting a disproportionate number of Latinos for public intoxication, some of whom alleged they were simply not drunk.
Using racial epithets and other overtly racist behavior would normally be covered by other officer guidelines, but more subtle issues may not be. An example would be if an officer orders the person to sit on a curb.
Cordell said a litmus test would be: "If an officer has a Latino man sit on the curb, then would the officer have a white man in a suit sit on a curb, if the circumstances were the same?"
The new definition brings San Jose more in line with other departments. The Sacramento Police Department, for example, has a policy that says: "Bias-based policing may also be defined as a police action based on an assumption or belief that any of the aforementioned classifications (race, etc.) have a tendency to participate or engage in criminal behavior."
The San Francisco police policy includes a list of steps to help ensure that people do not feel they are being profiled. One step is for the officer to provide a quick explanation of why the person has been stopped.
But even though San Francisco has a broader definition of racial profiling, last year none of the 82 complaints were sustained.
The biggest problem though concerns the common belief of minorities that whenever they are stopped by the police, it is only because they are black or Latino. Sometimes the police are justified in stopping minorities because they are black or Latino. For example, if an officer observes a two or more blacks or Latinos in a car driving around slowly in an all white neighborhood, especially a neighborhood that is experiencing burglaries and thefts, it is just good basic police work to check out the car occupants.
If an officer will treat minorities exactly the same as he would treat a white person under the same circumstances, he is not engaging in racial profiling, although he will be accused of doing so anyhow. Many of these complaints are made following stops for traffic violations. A cop would face fewer racial profiling complaints if he would use his discretion by not stopping minorities for minor traffic violations such as broken taillights or failure to give a turn signal.
By making it easier to sustain racial profiling complaints, San Jose PD seems to be getting ready to sacrifice some of its officers on the altar of political correctness.
SAN JOSE POLICE CHANGE DEFINITION OF ‘RACIAL PROFILING’
By Sean Webby
San Jose Mercury News
February 21, 2011
Over the past four years, San Jose police investigated 150 racial profiling or other bias allegations against city cops -- yet the department's internal affairs unit did not sustain a single complaint.
Now, the department is broadening its definition of profiling, and its new police chief is calling for more thorough looks into claims of biased behavior by cops. The city's independent police auditor calls it a "huge" shift in the right direction, and minority community leaders say it's about time.
San Jose police changed the policy last week, making it a violation for an officer to show any biased behavior at any time during an encounter with the public. Before, it was considered a violation only if the officer first stopped an individual solely because of race, gender or other biased reasons.
"I'm bound and determined to investigate all aspects of these allegations," police Chief Chris Moore said. "Sometimes I get the feeling that some of the more nuanced issues may have been skipped."
He gave no specifics. But when asked whether he felt that his officers may have gotten away with racially profiling people, the chief said: "There's no way for me to tell. I don't believe so, given what I know about my police officers."
Independent Police Auditor LaDoris Cordell said the language change was "huge, it's very significant. If these allegations are not thoroughly investigated, then we are subject to the same type of federal oversight that you have in Los Angeles. I hope that doesn't happen in San Jose."
Late last year the Los Angeles Police Department was criticized by the federal Department of Justice for its inadequate handling of racial profiling complaints.
Moore has vowed to try to repair the strained relationship between San Jose's minorities and police, which has been accused of overly aggressive street policing and racial profiling.
Police oversight experts say San Jose's track record of not sustaining racial profiling complaints is relatively common among major departments. Such complaints, they said, are hard to prove.
"It's difficult to show an officer intended to discriminate," said Philip Eure, a national police oversight leader and head of Washington, D.C.'s police oversight agency. "Yet it's easy to show an officer pulled someone over for a lawful reason. That's the paradox."
Since 2002, the San Jose Police Duty Manual has read that an officer must not "initiate a contact solely" based on factors including race, color, nationality and gender. This definition clearly was hard to prove if, for example, an officer could rebut that the person had a broken tail light on his or her car. Police came under heavy scrutiny for arresting a disproportionate number of Latinos for public intoxication, some of whom alleged they were simply not drunk.
Using racial epithets and other overtly racist behavior would normally be covered by other officer guidelines, but more subtle issues may not be. An example would be if an officer orders the person to sit on a curb.
Cordell said a litmus test would be: "If an officer has a Latino man sit on the curb, then would the officer have a white man in a suit sit on a curb, if the circumstances were the same?"
The new definition brings San Jose more in line with other departments. The Sacramento Police Department, for example, has a policy that says: "Bias-based policing may also be defined as a police action based on an assumption or belief that any of the aforementioned classifications (race, etc.) have a tendency to participate or engage in criminal behavior."
The San Francisco police policy includes a list of steps to help ensure that people do not feel they are being profiled. One step is for the officer to provide a quick explanation of why the person has been stopped.
But even though San Francisco has a broader definition of racial profiling, last year none of the 82 complaints were sustained.
INVOLUNTARY MUSCULAR CONTRACTIONS
A professor at the University of West Virginia School of Medicine was giving a lecture on 'Involuntary Muscular Contractions' to his first year medical students. Realizing this was not the most riveting subject, the professor decided to lighten the mood slightly.
He pointed to a young woman in the front row and said, 'Do you know what your asshole is doing while you're having an orgasm?'
She replied, 'Probably deer hunting with his buddies.'
He pointed to a young woman in the front row and said, 'Do you know what your asshole is doing while you're having an orgasm?'
She replied, 'Probably deer hunting with his buddies.'
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
OBAMA'S TRUE COLORS EVIDENCED BY U.S. DECLARATION THAT ALL ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS ARE ILLEGITIMATE
Despite evidence to the contrary, America’s liberal Jews keep clinging to the illusion that Obama is pro-Israel. When will those fools wake up to the fact that with friends like Obama, Israel doesn’t need any enemies.
HOW PRO-ISRAEL IS OBAMA? ASSESSING THE UNITED NATIONS POST-VETO FALLOUT
By Jonathan Tobin
Jewish World Review
February 21, 2011
For the past two years the hottest debate in the pro-Israel community has been over how to assess the Obama administration. Despite the tense relationship with the Israeli government, the fights picked over building in Jerusalem and the pressure for a settlement freeze, there has been a considerable body of opinion that still insisted that Obama had basically changed nothing in the Israel-U.S. relationship.
Even most of those who took this position would concede that the atmospherics between Washington and Jerusalem were considerably worse than they were during the Bush administration. But they argued that when one looked coldly at the facts about the alliance, nothing had been altered. At the very least, they would contend, Obama was no worse than Bush or any other president, since no American leader had ever fully accepted Israel's positions on territory, settlements or borders.
Their strongest argument consisted of citing the strong cooperation that has continued to exist between the U.S. Defense Department and the Israel Defense Forces. And on this point they are right, though for that to change it would have taken an overt and gratuitous effort by the White House that Obama has not made. So while he deserves credit for maintaining the close defense ties between the two allies, it is mainly for having the sense (both strategic and political) to have not tried to mess it up.
On the surface, the veto cast by the United States in the UN Security Council on Friday ought to be considered more proof of Obama's steadfastness as a friend of Israel. When all was said and done, he followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and refused to allow the UN body to brand Israel a criminal lawbreaker. That this veto took place after an American effort to head off a vote by proposing a "statement" by the president of Security Council, rather than a formal resolution, was rejected by the Palestinians was testimony to the latter's intransigence and not to Obama's loyalty to his Israeli ally. And the unnecessary explanation given after the vote that branded the Jewish state's position on the issue of settlements as "illegitimate" and went on to claim that they "threatened" peace and "devastate" trust undermined any notion of U.S. support for Israel.
Obama apologists could argue that opposition to settlements isn't new. But the talk of the "illegitimacy" of the homes of not only the more than quarter million Israelis who live in the West Bank but of the more than 200,000 who live in the parts of Jerusalem that were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967 is something different. As with the fight that Obama picked in the spring of 2010 over building houses in an existing Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, this statement escalates a long-standing disagreement into a more serious dispute. Obama's attempt to erase the distinction between the remote settlements that Israel has already said it would give up in a peace accord and those that the Bush administration conceded in a 2004 were established facts that must be respected was one thing. But Obama's willingness to treat 40-year-old Jewish neighborhoods in Israel's ancient capital as illegal settlements was quite another. Agreeing with those who wrongly claim all the settlements are illegal (as opposed to unwise or worthy of surrender for the sake of peace) was bad enough. But the American declaration on Friday (repeated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on ABC News on Sunday) that the Jewish presence there was "illegitimate" again places the issue in a different light.
Things could be worse. Had the U.S. not vetoed the resolution it would have been the final signal that this administration really was determined to cut loose the Israelis. But by showing that the veto was cast reluctantly and with ill will, the effect is not much different. So while relations could still deteriorate further, there is no doubt that Obama's negative feelings toward Israel are becoming a serious factor in Middle East diplomacy that is making the already poor chances for peace worse and increasing the possibility that Israel's foes will conclude that the Jewish state cannot count on U.S. support if new fighting breaks out along the border with Gaza or Lebanon. The work of Obama's pro-Israel apologists has just gotten more difficult. One suspects that by the time he leaves office, it will have gotten harder still.
HOW PRO-ISRAEL IS OBAMA? ASSESSING THE UNITED NATIONS POST-VETO FALLOUT
By Jonathan Tobin
Jewish World Review
February 21, 2011
For the past two years the hottest debate in the pro-Israel community has been over how to assess the Obama administration. Despite the tense relationship with the Israeli government, the fights picked over building in Jerusalem and the pressure for a settlement freeze, there has been a considerable body of opinion that still insisted that Obama had basically changed nothing in the Israel-U.S. relationship.
Even most of those who took this position would concede that the atmospherics between Washington and Jerusalem were considerably worse than they were during the Bush administration. But they argued that when one looked coldly at the facts about the alliance, nothing had been altered. At the very least, they would contend, Obama was no worse than Bush or any other president, since no American leader had ever fully accepted Israel's positions on territory, settlements or borders.
Their strongest argument consisted of citing the strong cooperation that has continued to exist between the U.S. Defense Department and the Israel Defense Forces. And on this point they are right, though for that to change it would have taken an overt and gratuitous effort by the White House that Obama has not made. So while he deserves credit for maintaining the close defense ties between the two allies, it is mainly for having the sense (both strategic and political) to have not tried to mess it up.
On the surface, the veto cast by the United States in the UN Security Council on Friday ought to be considered more proof of Obama's steadfastness as a friend of Israel. When all was said and done, he followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and refused to allow the UN body to brand Israel a criminal lawbreaker. That this veto took place after an American effort to head off a vote by proposing a "statement" by the president of Security Council, rather than a formal resolution, was rejected by the Palestinians was testimony to the latter's intransigence and not to Obama's loyalty to his Israeli ally. And the unnecessary explanation given after the vote that branded the Jewish state's position on the issue of settlements as "illegitimate" and went on to claim that they "threatened" peace and "devastate" trust undermined any notion of U.S. support for Israel.
Obama apologists could argue that opposition to settlements isn't new. But the talk of the "illegitimacy" of the homes of not only the more than quarter million Israelis who live in the West Bank but of the more than 200,000 who live in the parts of Jerusalem that were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967 is something different. As with the fight that Obama picked in the spring of 2010 over building houses in an existing Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, this statement escalates a long-standing disagreement into a more serious dispute. Obama's attempt to erase the distinction between the remote settlements that Israel has already said it would give up in a peace accord and those that the Bush administration conceded in a 2004 were established facts that must be respected was one thing. But Obama's willingness to treat 40-year-old Jewish neighborhoods in Israel's ancient capital as illegal settlements was quite another. Agreeing with those who wrongly claim all the settlements are illegal (as opposed to unwise or worthy of surrender for the sake of peace) was bad enough. But the American declaration on Friday (repeated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on ABC News on Sunday) that the Jewish presence there was "illegitimate" again places the issue in a different light.
Things could be worse. Had the U.S. not vetoed the resolution it would have been the final signal that this administration really was determined to cut loose the Israelis. But by showing that the veto was cast reluctantly and with ill will, the effect is not much different. So while relations could still deteriorate further, there is no doubt that Obama's negative feelings toward Israel are becoming a serious factor in Middle East diplomacy that is making the already poor chances for peace worse and increasing the possibility that Israel's foes will conclude that the Jewish state cannot count on U.S. support if new fighting breaks out along the border with Gaza or Lebanon. The work of Obama's pro-Israel apologists has just gotten more difficult. One suspects that by the time he leaves office, it will have gotten harder still.
FINALLY, A LIBERAL NEWSPAPER EXPOSES ABBAS
The liberal media has long adhered to a pro-Palestinian bias. It was a long time in coming, but finally a liberal newspaper has exposed ‘moderate’ Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as a liar when he claims to be in favor of a two-state solution.
Those who have listened to Abbas speaking in Arabic to his followers and the rest of the Arab world know that he has vowed over and over again that there can be only one state, a Palestinian state ‘from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.’ This means Israel will cease to exist if Abbas and his ‘moderate’ Palestinians get their way.
ABBAS PROVES HE PERFERS POSTURING TO A PEACE PROCESS
Editorial
The Washington Post
February 18, 2011
PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Abbas claims to be interested in negotiating a two-state peace settlement with Israel. For two years he has enjoyed the support of a U.S. president more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than most, if not all, of his predecessors. Yet Mr. Abbas has mostly refused to participate in the direct peace talks that Barack Obama made one of his top foreign policy priorities - and now he has shown himself to be bent on embarrassing and antagonizing the U.S. administration.
Rejecting direct appeals from both Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Abbas chose to persist on Friday with a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution that called on Israel to cease settlement construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Though the administration supports this position - and has counterproductively pressed it at the expense of its larger diplomatic aims - it vetoed the resolution, as Mr. Abbas knew it would do. For a number of good reasons, including its hope of preserving the chance of peace negotiations, the Obama administration could not allow a one-sided U.N. condemnation of Israel.
The only effect of the Palestinian initiative will be to embarrass the Obama administration at a delicate moment, when popular uprisings around the Middle East already are challenging pro-American leaders. It will have no impact on Israeli settlement construction, and it will deal a further blow to the prospects for peace talks. It will bolster the right-wing Israeli government. Conceivably, it could cause Arab protests now focused on autocratic rule to take an ugly anti-American turn.
Mr. Abbas has known all of this all along. Yet he refused to set aside the resolution even when the administration offered a generous compromise - a proposed "presidential statement" from the Security Council criticizing Israeli settlements as well as the firing of rockets at Israel from Gaza. Mr. Obama is taking considerable heat from Congress just for proposing this outcome - and yet in a 50-minute phone call Thursday, he was unable to win the Palestinian president's assent.
Mr. Abbas's stubbornness might seem spectacularly self-defeating - but only if one assumes that he is genuinely interested in a peace deal. In fact, the U.N. gambit allows him to posture as a champion of the Palestinian cause without having to consider any of the hard choices that would be needed to found a Palestinian state. It enables him to deflect criticism from the rival Hamas movement about his friendly relations with the United States. It might even allow him to head off a popular Palestinian rebellion against his own autocratic behavior - Mr. Abbas has failed to schedule overdue elections, including for his own post as president.
The Obama administration has all along insisted that Mr. Abbas is willing and able to make peace with Israel - despite considerable evidence to the contrary. If the U.N. resolution veto has one good effect, perhaps it will be to prompt a reevaluation of a leader who has repeatedly proved both weak and intransigent.
Those who have listened to Abbas speaking in Arabic to his followers and the rest of the Arab world know that he has vowed over and over again that there can be only one state, a Palestinian state ‘from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.’ This means Israel will cease to exist if Abbas and his ‘moderate’ Palestinians get their way.
ABBAS PROVES HE PERFERS POSTURING TO A PEACE PROCESS
Editorial
The Washington Post
February 18, 2011
PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Abbas claims to be interested in negotiating a two-state peace settlement with Israel. For two years he has enjoyed the support of a U.S. president more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than most, if not all, of his predecessors. Yet Mr. Abbas has mostly refused to participate in the direct peace talks that Barack Obama made one of his top foreign policy priorities - and now he has shown himself to be bent on embarrassing and antagonizing the U.S. administration.
Rejecting direct appeals from both Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Abbas chose to persist on Friday with a proposed U.N. Security Council resolution that called on Israel to cease settlement construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Though the administration supports this position - and has counterproductively pressed it at the expense of its larger diplomatic aims - it vetoed the resolution, as Mr. Abbas knew it would do. For a number of good reasons, including its hope of preserving the chance of peace negotiations, the Obama administration could not allow a one-sided U.N. condemnation of Israel.
The only effect of the Palestinian initiative will be to embarrass the Obama administration at a delicate moment, when popular uprisings around the Middle East already are challenging pro-American leaders. It will have no impact on Israeli settlement construction, and it will deal a further blow to the prospects for peace talks. It will bolster the right-wing Israeli government. Conceivably, it could cause Arab protests now focused on autocratic rule to take an ugly anti-American turn.
Mr. Abbas has known all of this all along. Yet he refused to set aside the resolution even when the administration offered a generous compromise - a proposed "presidential statement" from the Security Council criticizing Israeli settlements as well as the firing of rockets at Israel from Gaza. Mr. Obama is taking considerable heat from Congress just for proposing this outcome - and yet in a 50-minute phone call Thursday, he was unable to win the Palestinian president's assent.
Mr. Abbas's stubbornness might seem spectacularly self-defeating - but only if one assumes that he is genuinely interested in a peace deal. In fact, the U.N. gambit allows him to posture as a champion of the Palestinian cause without having to consider any of the hard choices that would be needed to found a Palestinian state. It enables him to deflect criticism from the rival Hamas movement about his friendly relations with the United States. It might even allow him to head off a popular Palestinian rebellion against his own autocratic behavior - Mr. Abbas has failed to schedule overdue elections, including for his own post as president.
The Obama administration has all along insisted that Mr. Abbas is willing and able to make peace with Israel - despite considerable evidence to the contrary. If the U.N. resolution veto has one good effect, perhaps it will be to prompt a reevaluation of a leader who has repeatedly proved both weak and intransigent.
TRAFFIC LIGHT SAFETY SETTINGS VS. RED-LIGHT CAMERAS
Some time ago, the citizens of Houston and near-by Baytown voted to remove the red-light cameras that had been installed by their respective cities. Ever since, both cities have been embroiled in lawsuits filed by the camera companies claiming breach of long-term contracts.
The camera companies, hardly disinterested parties, have released questionable studies showing that more drivers are running red-lights at the red-light intersections now that the cameras have been turned off and a corresponding increase in accidents. And the Houston police department has released its own study showing an increase in accidents at those intersections. Both studies are suspect because the camera companies are losing lots of money and HPD is no longer getting its share of the camera revenue.
On the other hand, independent studies have shown that red-light cameras have done little to reduce the number of accidents at intersections with the cameras. If anything, those studies show that the cameras have led to an increase in rear-end collisions, the result of drivers stopping suddenly to avoid running a red-light.
Despite claims to the contrary by city administrators, the police and the camera companies, safety is not the purpose of red-light cameras. The primary, if not sole purpose of those cameras is to fill the treasuries of the cities and the companies that install and operate the camera systems. Red-light cameras are a cash cow, pure and simple.
The Houston Chronicle has run several editorials concerning the vote to abolish the cameras. The editors came out strongly against the ballot measure to remove the cameras. And since the vote they have run several editorials bemoaning the results, parroting the questionable claims of the police and camera companies.
In Sunday’s Chronicle, an astute reader submitted a letter to the editors that really puts the problems associated with intersection safety and running red-lights in focus. Here is that letter:
SAFETY IS FIRST, NOT REVENUE
Your editorial “A fatal vote?” (Page B8, Feb. 10) on red-light cameras still misses the main point – safety.
Traffic engineers have long known how to reduce accidents at highly accident-prone intersections without resorting to red-light cameras.
Studies have shown for years that the best safety measures to reduce accidents at intersections are:
__Having lights in all directions go red for a second before changing to green.
__Lengthening yellow lights.
__Improving timing of lights on main thoroughfares to reduce the need to stop at red lights.
__Severe punishment (including jail time) for serial red-light runners.
These measures could be taken immediately to improve safety, but of course these measures don’t raise revenue or put money into the pockets of the camera companies or their lobbyists – which is the main point of the red-light cameras.
The people of Houston got the message[when they voted to remove the cameras] that revenue trumps safety, and they voted correctly.
STEVE CHALOUPKA
Rosenberg
The camera companies, hardly disinterested parties, have released questionable studies showing that more drivers are running red-lights at the red-light intersections now that the cameras have been turned off and a corresponding increase in accidents. And the Houston police department has released its own study showing an increase in accidents at those intersections. Both studies are suspect because the camera companies are losing lots of money and HPD is no longer getting its share of the camera revenue.
On the other hand, independent studies have shown that red-light cameras have done little to reduce the number of accidents at intersections with the cameras. If anything, those studies show that the cameras have led to an increase in rear-end collisions, the result of drivers stopping suddenly to avoid running a red-light.
Despite claims to the contrary by city administrators, the police and the camera companies, safety is not the purpose of red-light cameras. The primary, if not sole purpose of those cameras is to fill the treasuries of the cities and the companies that install and operate the camera systems. Red-light cameras are a cash cow, pure and simple.
The Houston Chronicle has run several editorials concerning the vote to abolish the cameras. The editors came out strongly against the ballot measure to remove the cameras. And since the vote they have run several editorials bemoaning the results, parroting the questionable claims of the police and camera companies.
In Sunday’s Chronicle, an astute reader submitted a letter to the editors that really puts the problems associated with intersection safety and running red-lights in focus. Here is that letter:
SAFETY IS FIRST, NOT REVENUE
Your editorial “A fatal vote?” (Page B8, Feb. 10) on red-light cameras still misses the main point – safety.
Traffic engineers have long known how to reduce accidents at highly accident-prone intersections without resorting to red-light cameras.
Studies have shown for years that the best safety measures to reduce accidents at intersections are:
__Having lights in all directions go red for a second before changing to green.
__Lengthening yellow lights.
__Improving timing of lights on main thoroughfares to reduce the need to stop at red lights.
__Severe punishment (including jail time) for serial red-light runners.
These measures could be taken immediately to improve safety, but of course these measures don’t raise revenue or put money into the pockets of the camera companies or their lobbyists – which is the main point of the red-light cameras.
The people of Houston got the message[when they voted to remove the cameras] that revenue trumps safety, and they voted correctly.
STEVE CHALOUPKA
Rosenberg
COST CUTTING THAT CAN JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC SAFETY
The San Jose Mercury News says paying the cost of the death penalty is fiscal insanity. On the contrary, I say that saving the cost of the death penalty is fiscal insanity because it, like other correctional cost cuts – early prison releases and reduced parole supervision – will jeopardize public safety.
You may ask how substituting ‘Life Without Parole’ for the death penalty can possibly put the public’s safety at risk? That’s an easy one. A deterrent to commit murder will no longer come into play if the possibility of a death penalty disappears.
The cost savings hurled out by the Mercury News are highly suspect because they are based on the dubious claims of those opposed to the death penalty. But even if correct, they are not worth risking the lives of potential murder victims.
The following editorial will have anti-death penalty zealot Dorina Lisson jumping up and down with utter joy.
BROWN SHOULD CONVERT DEATH SENTENCES TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
Editorial
San Jose Mercury News
February 20, 2011
The legislative analyst last week announced a menu of fallback options in case Gov. Jerry Brown fails to persuade voters to extend billions in taxes that otherwise will expire. It's grim, predicting devastating cuts to schools and public safety.
But there is a way to cut costs without damaging California's future: Brown should commute the sentences of all 718 prisoners on death row to life in prison with no possibility of parole. This could save the state more than $1 billion over five years.
We can invest that money in preparing kids to lead productive lives and in law enforcement to protect Californians from the criminals who are not sealed forever behind bars.
We oppose the death penalty on principle. So does the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which is advocating the commutations. But this isn't about principle. It's a matter of curbing spending on dysfunctional and ineffective programs. Capital punishment in California is both.
Each death row inmate costs taxpayers about $175,000 more per year than a prisoner sentenced to life, according to multiple sources, including housing and mandatory appeals. Taxpayers spend $125.7 million a year -- enough to pay the salaries of nearly 2,000 CHP officers or 1,850 teachers -- on capital punishment. Even worse, lawmakers plan to spend nearly $400 million to build a new death row.
This is fiscal insanity.
Even supporters of the death penalty must see that it's not working. California has executed 13 people since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. Appeals take decades because there are not enough resources to handle such a weighty process, and scrimping is not an option: More than 130 death row inmates nationwide have been freed after proving their innocence.
The system is beset by legal challenges. Executions have been on hold since 2006, when U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel set out to determine whether the state's method is constitutional. Opponents are challenging the legality of importing the execution drug sodium thiopental, which isn't made domestically.
Death penalty supporters believe we need to fix the process, not eliminate it. But we are in a crisis, and further cuts to education and public safety will only lead to more crime.
Budget cuts next year could force California to weaken its Three Strikes Law and eliminate up to $506 million in programs to prevent and prosecute crime. The state's victim compensation fund is nearly broke. Why not direct the millions spent on death row toward programs that actually help victims?
Article V, Section 8(a) of the state constitution gives the governor power to commute sentences. For any death row inmate who has been convicted of a felony twice, Brown must obtain the approval of four state Supreme Court justices. But that shouldn't be hard. The justices spend at least a quarter of their time dealing with death penalty cases, according to recently retired Chief Justice Ronald George.
Brown has offered a plan to close the budget deficit, but he says he welcomes other ideas. This is a good one. Capital punishment is an expense this state cannot afford.
You may ask how substituting ‘Life Without Parole’ for the death penalty can possibly put the public’s safety at risk? That’s an easy one. A deterrent to commit murder will no longer come into play if the possibility of a death penalty disappears.
The cost savings hurled out by the Mercury News are highly suspect because they are based on the dubious claims of those opposed to the death penalty. But even if correct, they are not worth risking the lives of potential murder victims.
The following editorial will have anti-death penalty zealot Dorina Lisson jumping up and down with utter joy.
BROWN SHOULD CONVERT DEATH SENTENCES TO LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
Editorial
San Jose Mercury News
February 20, 2011
The legislative analyst last week announced a menu of fallback options in case Gov. Jerry Brown fails to persuade voters to extend billions in taxes that otherwise will expire. It's grim, predicting devastating cuts to schools and public safety.
But there is a way to cut costs without damaging California's future: Brown should commute the sentences of all 718 prisoners on death row to life in prison with no possibility of parole. This could save the state more than $1 billion over five years.
We can invest that money in preparing kids to lead productive lives and in law enforcement to protect Californians from the criminals who are not sealed forever behind bars.
We oppose the death penalty on principle. So does the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which is advocating the commutations. But this isn't about principle. It's a matter of curbing spending on dysfunctional and ineffective programs. Capital punishment in California is both.
Each death row inmate costs taxpayers about $175,000 more per year than a prisoner sentenced to life, according to multiple sources, including housing and mandatory appeals. Taxpayers spend $125.7 million a year -- enough to pay the salaries of nearly 2,000 CHP officers or 1,850 teachers -- on capital punishment. Even worse, lawmakers plan to spend nearly $400 million to build a new death row.
This is fiscal insanity.
Even supporters of the death penalty must see that it's not working. California has executed 13 people since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. Appeals take decades because there are not enough resources to handle such a weighty process, and scrimping is not an option: More than 130 death row inmates nationwide have been freed after proving their innocence.
The system is beset by legal challenges. Executions have been on hold since 2006, when U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel set out to determine whether the state's method is constitutional. Opponents are challenging the legality of importing the execution drug sodium thiopental, which isn't made domestically.
Death penalty supporters believe we need to fix the process, not eliminate it. But we are in a crisis, and further cuts to education and public safety will only lead to more crime.
Budget cuts next year could force California to weaken its Three Strikes Law and eliminate up to $506 million in programs to prevent and prosecute crime. The state's victim compensation fund is nearly broke. Why not direct the millions spent on death row toward programs that actually help victims?
Article V, Section 8(a) of the state constitution gives the governor power to commute sentences. For any death row inmate who has been convicted of a felony twice, Brown must obtain the approval of four state Supreme Court justices. But that shouldn't be hard. The justices spend at least a quarter of their time dealing with death penalty cases, according to recently retired Chief Justice Ronald George.
Brown has offered a plan to close the budget deficit, but he says he welcomes other ideas. This is a good one. Capital punishment is an expense this state cannot afford.
Monday, February 21, 2011
CROOKS NOT TOO DETERRED BY POLICE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Looks like police surveillance cameras in Chicago and other cities have been a waste of money.
DO CAMERAS STOP CRIME?
What has been learned in Chicago
By Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune
February 20, 2011
If you want to be on TV, don't go to Los Angeles or New York. Come to Chicago, where your wish is certain to be fulfilled. In fact, you couldn't avoid it if you wanted to, thanks to the nation's most extensive network of police surveillance cameras. Anytime you walk out your door, you may find an audience.
This is one of Mayor Richard M. Daley's proudest achievements, but the estimated 10,000 devices now in operation are not enough for him. He once expressed his intention to keep adding cameras until there is one "on every street corner in Chicago."
His obvious error is to assume that if some cameras are good, more are better. Daley's policy also rests on a plausible but unproven assumption: that cameras reduce crime by deterring criminals and helping nab those who aren't deterred.
If you are going to spend millions buying, installing and monitoring this technology, you had better be able to show it yields some positive results in practice. Given the experience in this country and abroad, skepticism is in order.
The government of Britain, where cameras are ubiquitous, concluded they have had "no overall effect" on crime. Researchers at the University of Southern California looked at two neighborhoods in Los Angeles and found no visible benefit from this sort of surveillance.
Even in the studies that show cameras help, the question arises: compared to what? Any funds spent on this gadgetry cannot be spent on beat cops, probation officers, laboratory gear or jail cells. The challenge for enthusiasts is to show the technology outperforms other options.
On those issues, the jury is still out. But the latest discoveries, from Chicago, are bound to encourage the spread of surveillance video in law enforcement.
Nancy La Vigne, director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, has directed a study of the impact of cameras in Chicago, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Her preliminary findings, due to be finalized and published this year, are that they can indeed curb crime — and at a bargain price.
Her team of researchers looked at two high-crime neighborhoods on Chicago's West Side, Humboldt Park and West Garfield Park. In Humboldt Park, she told me, they found "a significant decrease in total monthly crime numbers," including property crime and violent crime. They found no evidence that the cameras merely pushed crime into other areas. In West Garfield Park, on the other hand, they saw "no impact," possibly because there were fewer cameras.
DO CAMERAS STOP CRIME?
What has been learned in Chicago
By Steve Chapman
Chicago Tribune
February 20, 2011
If you want to be on TV, don't go to Los Angeles or New York. Come to Chicago, where your wish is certain to be fulfilled. In fact, you couldn't avoid it if you wanted to, thanks to the nation's most extensive network of police surveillance cameras. Anytime you walk out your door, you may find an audience.
This is one of Mayor Richard M. Daley's proudest achievements, but the estimated 10,000 devices now in operation are not enough for him. He once expressed his intention to keep adding cameras until there is one "on every street corner in Chicago."
His obvious error is to assume that if some cameras are good, more are better. Daley's policy also rests on a plausible but unproven assumption: that cameras reduce crime by deterring criminals and helping nab those who aren't deterred.
If you are going to spend millions buying, installing and monitoring this technology, you had better be able to show it yields some positive results in practice. Given the experience in this country and abroad, skepticism is in order.
The government of Britain, where cameras are ubiquitous, concluded they have had "no overall effect" on crime. Researchers at the University of Southern California looked at two neighborhoods in Los Angeles and found no visible benefit from this sort of surveillance.
Even in the studies that show cameras help, the question arises: compared to what? Any funds spent on this gadgetry cannot be spent on beat cops, probation officers, laboratory gear or jail cells. The challenge for enthusiasts is to show the technology outperforms other options.
On those issues, the jury is still out. But the latest discoveries, from Chicago, are bound to encourage the spread of surveillance video in law enforcement.
Nancy La Vigne, director of the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute in Washington, has directed a study of the impact of cameras in Chicago, Baltimore and Washington, D.C. Her preliminary findings, due to be finalized and published this year, are that they can indeed curb crime — and at a bargain price.
Her team of researchers looked at two high-crime neighborhoods on Chicago's West Side, Humboldt Park and West Garfield Park. In Humboldt Park, she told me, they found "a significant decrease in total monthly crime numbers," including property crime and violent crime. They found no evidence that the cameras merely pushed crime into other areas. In West Garfield Park, on the other hand, they saw "no impact," possibly because there were fewer cameras.
WHY DID THE U.S. EXERCISE ITS VETO?
Make no mistake about it, the U.S. did not exercise its veto in the UN Security Council as a show of support for Israel. The real reason was because most members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican, would have been infuriated with the Obama administration had the U.S. allowed that anti-Israel resolution to pass. The Obama administration tried to have it both ways by having Susan Rice, our UN ambassador, condemn Israeli settlements in the strongest possible terms right after she exercised the veto.
ARABS FURIOUS AFTER US VETOES RESOLUTION ON JEWISH SETTLEMENTS
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
February 20, 2011
Palestinian and other Arab leaders were outraged on Friday when the US effectively vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that condemned the Jewish presence in the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria as illegal.
The Security Council’s other 14 members voted in favor of the resolution, which labeled Jewish communities in the so-called “West Bank” as the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and demanded that Israel stop letting Jews build there immediately.
Israel thanked the US for being the single UN member with any sense, and for not joining in wild condemnation of something the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, was clearly in favor of, namely, “close Jewish settlement” in all of the territories west of the Jordan River.
The White House was quick to clarify that its vote against the resolution was not an endorsement of the Jews’ right to settle in their ancient heartland.
“We reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” stated US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. “For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.”
Rather, the US vetoed the resolution because it feels the Security Council is not the proper forum to deal with the issue, and that the wording of the resolution would have only made it all the more difficult to resume bilateral peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
That did little to reassure the Palestinians.
Palestinian officials from the ruling Fatah faction began to organize a “day of rage” against the US for this coming Friday, and Nabil Shaath, top aide to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, told Washington that it should be “ashamed.”
Shaath said the Palestinian Authority would be reassessing its entire approach to the peace process in light of the US vote, especially considering that up until now, America had been accepted as the chief peace broker.
Even less courteous were Arab members of Israel’s Knesset.
Israeli Arab lawmaker Ibrahim Sarsour wrote a letter of condolence to Abbas in which he insisted, “We must say frankly to Obama: You no longer scare us and you can go to hell. We knew his promises were lies. The time has come to spit in the face of the Americans.”
A small group of around 50 left-wing Israeli Jews also protested the US veto by gathering outside the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and calling on US President Barack Obama to “stop letting Israel have its way.”
Meanwhile, Abbas declared that Friday’s vote was in fact a victory for the Palestinians, even though the resolution had been defeated.
Speaking to member of the Palestinian Academic Council in Ramallah on Saturday, Abbas noted that the 14 other Security Council Members - including Britain, France and Germany - had all voted in favor of the resolution, and that the motion had a whopping 130 co-sponsors from among the General Assembly.
With that kind of backing, Abbas said, the Palestinians are determined to not resume peace negotiations with Israel until Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of Jerusalem comes to a complete halt.
ARABS FURIOUS AFTER US VETOES RESOLUTION ON JEWISH SETTLEMENTS
By Ryan Jones
Israel Today
February 20, 2011
Palestinian and other Arab leaders were outraged on Friday when the US effectively vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that condemned the Jewish presence in the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria as illegal.
The Security Council’s other 14 members voted in favor of the resolution, which labeled Jewish communities in the so-called “West Bank” as the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East, and demanded that Israel stop letting Jews build there immediately.
Israel thanked the US for being the single UN member with any sense, and for not joining in wild condemnation of something the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, was clearly in favor of, namely, “close Jewish settlement” in all of the territories west of the Jordan River.
The White House was quick to clarify that its vote against the resolution was not an endorsement of the Jews’ right to settle in their ancient heartland.
“We reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” stated US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice. “For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.”
Rather, the US vetoed the resolution because it feels the Security Council is not the proper forum to deal with the issue, and that the wording of the resolution would have only made it all the more difficult to resume bilateral peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
That did little to reassure the Palestinians.
Palestinian officials from the ruling Fatah faction began to organize a “day of rage” against the US for this coming Friday, and Nabil Shaath, top aide to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, told Washington that it should be “ashamed.”
Shaath said the Palestinian Authority would be reassessing its entire approach to the peace process in light of the US vote, especially considering that up until now, America had been accepted as the chief peace broker.
Even less courteous were Arab members of Israel’s Knesset.
Israeli Arab lawmaker Ibrahim Sarsour wrote a letter of condolence to Abbas in which he insisted, “We must say frankly to Obama: You no longer scare us and you can go to hell. We knew his promises were lies. The time has come to spit in the face of the Americans.”
A small group of around 50 left-wing Israeli Jews also protested the US veto by gathering outside the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and calling on US President Barack Obama to “stop letting Israel have its way.”
Meanwhile, Abbas declared that Friday’s vote was in fact a victory for the Palestinians, even though the resolution had been defeated.
Speaking to member of the Palestinian Academic Council in Ramallah on Saturday, Abbas noted that the 14 other Security Council Members - including Britain, France and Germany - had all voted in favor of the resolution, and that the motion had a whopping 130 co-sponsors from among the General Assembly.
With that kind of backing, Abbas said, the Palestinians are determined to not resume peace negotiations with Israel until Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria and the eastern half of Jerusalem comes to a complete halt.
A LONG, DEEP LINGERING KISS
A tough looking group of bikers were riding when they saw a girl about to jump off a high bridge. So they stop.
The leader, a big burly man, gets off his bike and says, "What are you doing?"
"I'm going to commit suicide," she says.
While he did not want to appear insensitive, he didn't want to miss an opportunity. He asked, "Well, before you jump, why don't you give me a kiss?"
So, she does and it was a long, deep lingering kiss.
After she's finished, the biker says, "Wow! That was the best kiss I’ve ever had. Young lady, with a kiss like that you could have any man in the world. You could become rich and famous. Why are you committing suicide?"
"My parents don't like me dressing up like a girl......"
The leader, a big burly man, gets off his bike and says, "What are you doing?"
"I'm going to commit suicide," she says.
While he did not want to appear insensitive, he didn't want to miss an opportunity. He asked, "Well, before you jump, why don't you give me a kiss?"
So, she does and it was a long, deep lingering kiss.
After she's finished, the biker says, "Wow! That was the best kiss I’ve ever had. Young lady, with a kiss like that you could have any man in the world. You could become rich and famous. Why are you committing suicide?"
"My parents don't like me dressing up like a girl......"
Sunday, February 20, 2011
DORINA LISSON, WALK IN THEIR SHOES BEFORE YOU DAMN THEM!
Correctional officers are unappreciated for performing one of the most difficult public safety tasks in society – controlling the most uncontrollable and dangerous dregs of society. They are harassed day in and day out by inmates, 24-7. Correctional officers are just as confined in prison as the inmates, the only difference being that at the end of their shift they can go home – that is if they haven’t ended up in a hospital or morgue.
Recently Dorina Lisson, the Australian anti-death penalty zealot and hyper human rights activist, excoriated some correctional officers as abusive and brutal uneducated idiots, and all those on the execution team as ‘crazed sadist bullies.’ She accuses ‘many’ correctional officers of engaging in ‘predatory animalistic behavior towards prisoners.’
Lisson's concern for ‘caged human beings,’ as she calls them, would be admirable were it not for the fact that she bases her accusations on her personal opinions and on the publicized reports of highly untrustworthy complaints by inmates, their families and friends. It is obvious that Dorina has never taken so much as a single step in the shoes of a correctional officer.
Most correctional officer recruits have no real idea of what they are about to experience. Joe Bouchard, a veteran correctional officer, gives newbies some good pointers on how to survive and succeed in their very difficult and dangerous new career.
NOTES TO NEWBIES
By Joe Bouchard
corrections.com
February 14, 2011
Do you remember when you were a fish? Can you recall the discomfort, trepidation, and uncertainty of your first days in the corrections profession? For most of us, it was like carrying the weight of the world.
Although it was over 17 years ago for me, I remember my first days in corrections in the same detail as though it were my latest meal. I felt as encumbered as Atlas bearing the weight of the world on his mythical shoulders. First impressions are lasting, after all.
Working in a prison is something one has to experience to fully appreciate. Certainly, training and research help new professionals adjust. But no amount of training, reading, and reflection can match the value of actual time on the job. I believe that I learned many lessons in my first days of employment. Here are a just few of them:
__Every second is a test. Prisoners constantly tested me from all angles to see my vocational worth and general malleability. The range was from subtle ruse to blatant aggression.
__All staff eyes are watching. I knew that many colleagues were scrutinizing me very closely. They wanted to also test my mettle and reliability.
__There were so many policies to learn. I could not believe the voluminous literature that I had to become accustomed with in order to become effective at my job.
__Keep things in perspective. Initially, I failed to keep things in perspective. I was frozen in fear of litigation and physical attack. My personal worries hindered my view of the greater, interconnected picture. Gaining perspective tempered my trepidation.
__Balance is key. Obsessive fear of attack can paralyze. Complacency can make one a target. Cool vigilance is the best moderation.
__Things will improve if you keep working at it. In the early stages of my career, the stress and anxiety from each day led me to want to quit my job daily. I dreaded going into work each day.
Eventually, I discovered that, as a staff member, I could exercise considerable control of my area and of my career. I could be the architect of my own vocational fate. I merely had to apply those lessons.
For example, I realized that it is no big deal that I am tested from all sides. I simply had to pass the tests with the plain application of policy and procedure in a firm but fair manner. Also, moderation helped temper the fear and change it to respect for my environment. I learned to think ahead, yet not tire myself out on contingency plans. With all of this, the stress declined. I actually grew to like my job very much. Balance, balance, and balance.
I learned that those and other lessons are fundamental for success in corrections. I was not the only one who has ever felt “the six month jitters”. It was a common occurrence. So, in sum, Newbies are not alone. All of your colleagues have gone through the same as you.
Recently Dorina Lisson, the Australian anti-death penalty zealot and hyper human rights activist, excoriated some correctional officers as abusive and brutal uneducated idiots, and all those on the execution team as ‘crazed sadist bullies.’ She accuses ‘many’ correctional officers of engaging in ‘predatory animalistic behavior towards prisoners.’
Lisson's concern for ‘caged human beings,’ as she calls them, would be admirable were it not for the fact that she bases her accusations on her personal opinions and on the publicized reports of highly untrustworthy complaints by inmates, their families and friends. It is obvious that Dorina has never taken so much as a single step in the shoes of a correctional officer.
Most correctional officer recruits have no real idea of what they are about to experience. Joe Bouchard, a veteran correctional officer, gives newbies some good pointers on how to survive and succeed in their very difficult and dangerous new career.
NOTES TO NEWBIES
By Joe Bouchard
corrections.com
February 14, 2011
Do you remember when you were a fish? Can you recall the discomfort, trepidation, and uncertainty of your first days in the corrections profession? For most of us, it was like carrying the weight of the world.
Although it was over 17 years ago for me, I remember my first days in corrections in the same detail as though it were my latest meal. I felt as encumbered as Atlas bearing the weight of the world on his mythical shoulders. First impressions are lasting, after all.
Working in a prison is something one has to experience to fully appreciate. Certainly, training and research help new professionals adjust. But no amount of training, reading, and reflection can match the value of actual time on the job. I believe that I learned many lessons in my first days of employment. Here are a just few of them:
__Every second is a test. Prisoners constantly tested me from all angles to see my vocational worth and general malleability. The range was from subtle ruse to blatant aggression.
__All staff eyes are watching. I knew that many colleagues were scrutinizing me very closely. They wanted to also test my mettle and reliability.
__There were so many policies to learn. I could not believe the voluminous literature that I had to become accustomed with in order to become effective at my job.
__Keep things in perspective. Initially, I failed to keep things in perspective. I was frozen in fear of litigation and physical attack. My personal worries hindered my view of the greater, interconnected picture. Gaining perspective tempered my trepidation.
__Balance is key. Obsessive fear of attack can paralyze. Complacency can make one a target. Cool vigilance is the best moderation.
__Things will improve if you keep working at it. In the early stages of my career, the stress and anxiety from each day led me to want to quit my job daily. I dreaded going into work each day.
Eventually, I discovered that, as a staff member, I could exercise considerable control of my area and of my career. I could be the architect of my own vocational fate. I merely had to apply those lessons.
For example, I realized that it is no big deal that I am tested from all sides. I simply had to pass the tests with the plain application of policy and procedure in a firm but fair manner. Also, moderation helped temper the fear and change it to respect for my environment. I learned to think ahead, yet not tire myself out on contingency plans. With all of this, the stress declined. I actually grew to like my job very much. Balance, balance, and balance.
I learned that those and other lessons are fundamental for success in corrections. I was not the only one who has ever felt “the six month jitters”. It was a common occurrence. So, in sum, Newbies are not alone. All of your colleagues have gone through the same as you.
JUST A PASSIONATE LATIN LOVER
Veteran investigators describe this as one of the most horrific domestic violence cases ever seen locally. This Latin lover was reported to have tortured his estranged wife on and off for 17 hours. He released her after she made up a ruse to get away by convincing him she still loved him and pretending she had a job interview to go to, reminding him they needed the money.
When he eventually enters prison, I would expect human rights activist Dorina Lisson to make sure that those abusive and brutal uneducated idiot correctional officers, as she sees them, do not subject this ‘caged human being’ to ‘predatory animalistic behavior.’
GREGORY LONGORIA JR.: ALLEGEDLY ONE SICK, SADISTIC MOTHER-EFFER
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press Hair Balls
February 18, 2011
If the allegations contained in court papers are true, then Gregory Longoria Jr. is a very sick dude.
Documents show he's been accused of sexually abusing his estranged wife by -- and this is only part of what he's alleged to have done -- using hairspray and a cigarette lighter to burn her vagina and one of her nipples, and then pulling the burnt nipple from the body.
This was in the course of tying her up, gagging her, beating her savagely around the face and trying to smother her.
KHOU had the story first, and the Harris County Sheriff's Office will be holding a press conference on the case later today.
Court documents say Longoria went to his wife's parents' house and ordered her and their one-year-old daughter to come with him.
At an apartment in the 17700 block of Wayforest, he forced her to strip and began taking "obsene and erotic" photographs of her.
That quickly descended into the sadistic madness outlined above.
Longoria has a record that showed a checkered past: He's been arrested for theft, attempted murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault of a family member and unlawfully carrying a weapon, KHOU reports.
Court documents indicate the wife will require reconstructive surgery and be permanently disfigured from the attack.
When he eventually enters prison, I would expect human rights activist Dorina Lisson to make sure that those abusive and brutal uneducated idiot correctional officers, as she sees them, do not subject this ‘caged human being’ to ‘predatory animalistic behavior.’
GREGORY LONGORIA JR.: ALLEGEDLY ONE SICK, SADISTIC MOTHER-EFFER
By Richard Connelly
Houston Press Hair Balls
February 18, 2011
If the allegations contained in court papers are true, then Gregory Longoria Jr. is a very sick dude.
Documents show he's been accused of sexually abusing his estranged wife by -- and this is only part of what he's alleged to have done -- using hairspray and a cigarette lighter to burn her vagina and one of her nipples, and then pulling the burnt nipple from the body.
This was in the course of tying her up, gagging her, beating her savagely around the face and trying to smother her.
KHOU had the story first, and the Harris County Sheriff's Office will be holding a press conference on the case later today.
Court documents say Longoria went to his wife's parents' house and ordered her and their one-year-old daughter to come with him.
At an apartment in the 17700 block of Wayforest, he forced her to strip and began taking "obsene and erotic" photographs of her.
That quickly descended into the sadistic madness outlined above.
Longoria has a record that showed a checkered past: He's been arrested for theft, attempted murder, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault of a family member and unlawfully carrying a weapon, KHOU reports.
Court documents indicate the wife will require reconstructive surgery and be permanently disfigured from the attack.
BIMBO COP OF THE YEAR
If this broad doesn’t get the ‘Dumbest Cop of the Year’ award, I’ll eat my John Deere cap. But after seeing what she’s posted on Facebook, it’s probably more fitting to establish the ‘Kookiest Cop of the Year’ award because she would be a shoo-in for that one.
FACEBOOK POSTS ADD TO DALLAS COP’S TROUBLES
By Tanya Eiserer
The Dallas Morning News
February 19, 2011
DALLAS — A Dallas police officer who is under investigation after getting into a fight with a Plano hospital worker bragged about the incident on her Facebook page.
"I threw my boot at him, Jerry Springer style, and nailed him in the face," Senior Cpl. Cat Lafitte wrote this week, several days after police were called to the hospital Feb. 9. "It broke his glasses and cut his face and bruised it up real good!"
The six-year veteran of the force was placed on administrative leave last week while internal police investigators look into the incident and now decide whether the Facebook postings violate a relatively new department policy on social networking.
The incident did not result in criminal charges because neither Lafitte nor the hospital employee wanted to pursue them.
Lafitte could not be reached for comment after repeated attempts to contact her.
"An initial review of both the off-duty incident that occurred in Plano, as well as the postings on the social networking site, raises serious concern," said Deputy Chief Mike Genovesi, commander of the central patrol division. "Both instances have been referred to internal affairs for a thorough investigation."
Lafitte's troubles with her Facebook postings come on the heels of the department's new policy on social networking sites. The policy notes that "employees will not post items or information that may adversely affect the morale, confidence and public respect of the department."
On her Facebook page, she describes herself as an "Official Bum Roller," a police lingo reference to dealing with homeless people. In another posting, she jokes that her inspection sticker has been expired for nearly a year, but adds, "There's no way I would write that ticket to someone."
The entries are posted with settings set so that anyone with a Facebook account can read them.
Another posting is a picture that shows a small black boy surrounded by police officers. She comments, "Quick … sprinkle some crack on him!" Still another posting shows a picture of a vagrant with the words, "Help the homeless (leave Dallas)."
Lafitte was featured in a September story in The Dallas Morning News about how she was painting a portrait of a police officer with the message, "Dallas Police Department Welcomes You to Deep Ellum" on one of the pillars under the North Central Expressway.
The story described Lafitte as being a graphic novelist, roller derby skater and single mother. Lafitte told The News that she decided to go into police work while working as a nursing assistant at a hospital.
The incident involving Lafitte occurred on the morning of Feb. 9 at Medical Center of Plano. A police supervisor said Lafitte went to the emergency room after hurting her knee.
According to a Plano police report, she told police that she had received a call from a supervisor and that she began to scream and curse. Dallas police supervisors say Lafitte was upset about an impending transfer to an overnight shift at another station because the move was going to create child-care problems for her.
Lafitte told police that a hospital employee came into the room and screamed at her before trying to grab her. She said she acted in self-defense when he tried to put her in a headlock and slammed her to the ground.
The paramedic told police that that he had come into the room to calm Lafitte down and to tell her that security was on the way. He said she grabbed her leather boots and struck him in the face, breaking his glasses. He said he got behind the kicking and screaming Lafitte and "put her on the ground" in an effort to control her, according to the police report.
A friend who was with Lafitte backed up her version of events in a statement to police. But a security guard who entered the room during the struggle said he had to straddle Lafitte as she was still trying to kick the paramedic.
Another patient told police that she heard Lafitte screaming and cursing so loudly that it could be heard down the hall.
Another friend, Jennifer Olson, who has known Lafitte since high school, called her an exemplary police officer with a spotless record.
"I realize she did some venting on her FB page, but everybody does," Olson said. "She loves being a police officer."
In Monday's Facebook postings about the incident, Lafitte writes that "a 300 lb male E.R. orderly tackled me because I was cussing out my Lt. on the phone. … I took his [expletive] to school."
"Pray for my enemies, for they have crossed the wrong little girl," she wrote.
"Look for me in the news!" she added.
In other postings from that day, she wrote that she is done with the Dallas Police Department and that the "first department to me wins."
"I'm at war with the DPD command staff, but so far I'm winning," she wrote.
FACEBOOK POSTS ADD TO DALLAS COP’S TROUBLES
By Tanya Eiserer
The Dallas Morning News
February 19, 2011
DALLAS — A Dallas police officer who is under investigation after getting into a fight with a Plano hospital worker bragged about the incident on her Facebook page.
"I threw my boot at him, Jerry Springer style, and nailed him in the face," Senior Cpl. Cat Lafitte wrote this week, several days after police were called to the hospital Feb. 9. "It broke his glasses and cut his face and bruised it up real good!"
The six-year veteran of the force was placed on administrative leave last week while internal police investigators look into the incident and now decide whether the Facebook postings violate a relatively new department policy on social networking.
The incident did not result in criminal charges because neither Lafitte nor the hospital employee wanted to pursue them.
Lafitte could not be reached for comment after repeated attempts to contact her.
"An initial review of both the off-duty incident that occurred in Plano, as well as the postings on the social networking site, raises serious concern," said Deputy Chief Mike Genovesi, commander of the central patrol division. "Both instances have been referred to internal affairs for a thorough investigation."
Lafitte's troubles with her Facebook postings come on the heels of the department's new policy on social networking sites. The policy notes that "employees will not post items or information that may adversely affect the morale, confidence and public respect of the department."
On her Facebook page, she describes herself as an "Official Bum Roller," a police lingo reference to dealing with homeless people. In another posting, she jokes that her inspection sticker has been expired for nearly a year, but adds, "There's no way I would write that ticket to someone."
The entries are posted with settings set so that anyone with a Facebook account can read them.
Another posting is a picture that shows a small black boy surrounded by police officers. She comments, "Quick … sprinkle some crack on him!" Still another posting shows a picture of a vagrant with the words, "Help the homeless (leave Dallas)."
Lafitte was featured in a September story in The Dallas Morning News about how she was painting a portrait of a police officer with the message, "Dallas Police Department Welcomes You to Deep Ellum" on one of the pillars under the North Central Expressway.
The story described Lafitte as being a graphic novelist, roller derby skater and single mother. Lafitte told The News that she decided to go into police work while working as a nursing assistant at a hospital.
The incident involving Lafitte occurred on the morning of Feb. 9 at Medical Center of Plano. A police supervisor said Lafitte went to the emergency room after hurting her knee.
According to a Plano police report, she told police that she had received a call from a supervisor and that she began to scream and curse. Dallas police supervisors say Lafitte was upset about an impending transfer to an overnight shift at another station because the move was going to create child-care problems for her.
Lafitte told police that a hospital employee came into the room and screamed at her before trying to grab her. She said she acted in self-defense when he tried to put her in a headlock and slammed her to the ground.
The paramedic told police that that he had come into the room to calm Lafitte down and to tell her that security was on the way. He said she grabbed her leather boots and struck him in the face, breaking his glasses. He said he got behind the kicking and screaming Lafitte and "put her on the ground" in an effort to control her, according to the police report.
A friend who was with Lafitte backed up her version of events in a statement to police. But a security guard who entered the room during the struggle said he had to straddle Lafitte as she was still trying to kick the paramedic.
Another patient told police that she heard Lafitte screaming and cursing so loudly that it could be heard down the hall.
Another friend, Jennifer Olson, who has known Lafitte since high school, called her an exemplary police officer with a spotless record.
"I realize she did some venting on her FB page, but everybody does," Olson said. "She loves being a police officer."
In Monday's Facebook postings about the incident, Lafitte writes that "a 300 lb male E.R. orderly tackled me because I was cussing out my Lt. on the phone. … I took his [expletive] to school."
"Pray for my enemies, for they have crossed the wrong little girl," she wrote.
"Look for me in the news!" she added.
In other postings from that day, she wrote that she is done with the Dallas Police Department and that the "first department to me wins."
"I'm at war with the DPD command staff, but so far I'm winning," she wrote.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
SHOOT TO KILL? YOU BETCHA!
Let me make this absolutely clear: POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD NEVER RESORT TO THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE UNLESS THEIR OWN LIVES ARE IN IMMINENT JEOPARDY OR IN ORDER TO SAVE A CITIZEN FROM BEING KILLED BY AN ASAILANT.
In a recent op-ed about the police shooting of an unarmed naked former football player, LA police chief Charlie Beck started out by saying: Every day when Los Angeles Police officers pin on their badges and prepare to protect and to serve, they're reminded of what they learned as Academy recruits: a reverence for human life. Los Angeles Police Department officers are never trained to “shoot to kill,” only to stop a deadly threat in order to keep the community and themselves safe. This isn't a rhetorical turn-of-phrase or semantic contrivance, but a real world reality: taking a life -- anyone's life -- is never our intent. It's a tragedy when it occurs for everyone involved and for the City of Los Angeles.
Never trained to ‘shoot to kill.’ Trained ‘only to stop.’ It ‘is never our intent’ to take anyone’s life. What a crock of supreme shit! Whenever a cop confronts a person who appears ready and capable of killing the officer or inflict serious bodily injury right then and there, he better damn sure shoot to kill! And at the moment he shoots while defending himself, he has every intention of killing his assailant, make no mistake about it.
Because the public has been watching so many cowboy movies and TV action shows, they’ve come to believe that all a cop has to do to defend himself from someone shooting at him is to shoot the assailant’s gun out of his hand, or barring that, shoot him in the shoulder. That is so far removed from reality that it’s laughable.
The reality is that most officers are not really that good at shooting. Besides, there is a world of difference between shooting at a stationary target on the firing range that is not shooting back at him and shooting under the life-threatening stress of street combat.
That’s why cops are trained to ‘double tap’ - that is, to fire two rounds in quick succession every time they fire their weapon. And they will keep on double tapping until their assailant drops. Thus, perpetrators are often shot multiple times. If they are spun around when hit, they may get shot in the back, but that was not the officer’s intent. As long as the assailant does not go down, he continues to offer an imminent threat to the officer’s life. That’s not the way it is in the movies or on TV, but that’s the way it is on the streets.
I never played any word games like Chief Beck. When I used to train police officers and teach criminal justice students, I always emphasized that officers should never resort to the use of deadly force unless it was to eliminate an imminent threat to their lives or the lives of some citizens. But I always taught them that when it came time to defend themselves against what they perceived to be an immediate threat to their lives, they had better SHOOT TO KILL. And I am not about to apologize for that!
In a recent op-ed about the police shooting of an unarmed naked former football player, LA police chief Charlie Beck started out by saying: Every day when Los Angeles Police officers pin on their badges and prepare to protect and to serve, they're reminded of what they learned as Academy recruits: a reverence for human life. Los Angeles Police Department officers are never trained to “shoot to kill,” only to stop a deadly threat in order to keep the community and themselves safe. This isn't a rhetorical turn-of-phrase or semantic contrivance, but a real world reality: taking a life -- anyone's life -- is never our intent. It's a tragedy when it occurs for everyone involved and for the City of Los Angeles.
Never trained to ‘shoot to kill.’ Trained ‘only to stop.’ It ‘is never our intent’ to take anyone’s life. What a crock of supreme shit! Whenever a cop confronts a person who appears ready and capable of killing the officer or inflict serious bodily injury right then and there, he better damn sure shoot to kill! And at the moment he shoots while defending himself, he has every intention of killing his assailant, make no mistake about it.
Because the public has been watching so many cowboy movies and TV action shows, they’ve come to believe that all a cop has to do to defend himself from someone shooting at him is to shoot the assailant’s gun out of his hand, or barring that, shoot him in the shoulder. That is so far removed from reality that it’s laughable.
The reality is that most officers are not really that good at shooting. Besides, there is a world of difference between shooting at a stationary target on the firing range that is not shooting back at him and shooting under the life-threatening stress of street combat.
That’s why cops are trained to ‘double tap’ - that is, to fire two rounds in quick succession every time they fire their weapon. And they will keep on double tapping until their assailant drops. Thus, perpetrators are often shot multiple times. If they are spun around when hit, they may get shot in the back, but that was not the officer’s intent. As long as the assailant does not go down, he continues to offer an imminent threat to the officer’s life. That’s not the way it is in the movies or on TV, but that’s the way it is on the streets.
I never played any word games like Chief Beck. When I used to train police officers and teach criminal justice students, I always emphasized that officers should never resort to the use of deadly force unless it was to eliminate an imminent threat to their lives or the lives of some citizens. But I always taught them that when it came time to defend themselves against what they perceived to be an immediate threat to their lives, they had better SHOOT TO KILL. And I am not about to apologize for that!
EMPLOYERS NOT HIRING UNEMPLOYED
Reports started appearing in the press last July that employers were refusing to consider the unemployed for job openings. The Associated Press now reports that the refusal to hire the jobless seems to be a growing trend. That’s a cruel joke to play on the jobless who are desperately looking for work by answering employment ads that appear in the newspapers and on the internet.
The EEOC is investigating this practice because it may have a disproportionate impact on minorities. I say that, regardless of their color or ethnicity, discriminating against applicants who are qualified for a job opening because they have lost their former job is awfully wrong any way you cut it!
ARE COMPANIES NOT HIRING UNEMPLOYD PEOPLE?
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
February 17, 2011
WASHINGTON — Are companies saying no to jobless applicants when there are job openings?
After news accounts about the practice and requests from concerned lawmakers, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has jumped in, trying to figure out whether it's widespread and could violate federal job discrimination laws.
Commissioners at an EEOC hearing Wednesday said they are investigating whether excluding the unemployed may have a greater effect on blacks, Latinos and other ethnic minorities that tend to have higher jobless rates. There are no specific legal protections for the unemployed.
"The potential for disparate impact is there," said William Spriggs, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Labor.
Overall unemployment is 9%, with nearly 14 million people out of work. The jobless rate is 15.7% among blacks and 11.9% among Hispanics, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Spriggs said the chances of an employer considering an ethnic minority are decreased by one-third if jobless applicants are excluded. The pool of disabled applicants would be reduced nearly 50%, he said.
The EEOC, which enforces job discrimination laws, has not issued any guidance on the issue. But some on the five-member agency suggested that could be coming.
"I hope this gives our people in the field information to start thinking about a possible problem out there," said Stuart Ishimaru, one of three Democrats on the commission. "For employers it raises serious question of liability if, in fact, there is a disparate impact."
Spriggs said it would be difficult for the government to measure the problem because most job openings are not posted publicly. The Labor Department is aware of anecdotal reports that some recent company advertisements have discouraged the unemployed from applying.
He said officials are concerned the practice could hamper the government's efforts to help millions of unemployed get back to work.
"It probably has a bigger impact in the current labor market" given the current unemployment situation, Spriggs said.
Helen Norton, a professor at the University of Colorado law school, said employers and staffing agencies have advertised jobs in fields from electronic engineers to restaurant and grocery managers with the explicit restriction that only currently employed candidates would be considered.
"Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance," Norton said. "But such a correlation is decidedly weak. A blanket reliance on current employment serves as a poor proxy for successful job performance."
In one prominent report last year, an advertisement from Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was recruiting workers for a new Georgia facility, was restricted to those currently employed. The company later removed the restriction after media publicity.
Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said anecdotal evidence from job postings, conversations with job seekers and her interviews with officials at job placement firms suggests there may be a growing trend of excluding unemployed applicants, regardless of their qualifications.
"It's particularly significant that these representatives of staffing agencies have said there seems to be a growing practice," Owens said.
Fernan Cepero, a spokesman for the Society for Human Resource Management, said it takes an average of 27 days for an employer to fill an open position, and even longer for high-tech positions. Because open positions mean lost productivity, "screening out the unemployed is unproductive," he said.
The EEOC is investigating this practice because it may have a disproportionate impact on minorities. I say that, regardless of their color or ethnicity, discriminating against applicants who are qualified for a job opening because they have lost their former job is awfully wrong any way you cut it!
ARE COMPANIES NOT HIRING UNEMPLOYD PEOPLE?
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
February 17, 2011
WASHINGTON — Are companies saying no to jobless applicants when there are job openings?
After news accounts about the practice and requests from concerned lawmakers, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has jumped in, trying to figure out whether it's widespread and could violate federal job discrimination laws.
Commissioners at an EEOC hearing Wednesday said they are investigating whether excluding the unemployed may have a greater effect on blacks, Latinos and other ethnic minorities that tend to have higher jobless rates. There are no specific legal protections for the unemployed.
"The potential for disparate impact is there," said William Spriggs, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Labor.
Overall unemployment is 9%, with nearly 14 million people out of work. The jobless rate is 15.7% among blacks and 11.9% among Hispanics, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Spriggs said the chances of an employer considering an ethnic minority are decreased by one-third if jobless applicants are excluded. The pool of disabled applicants would be reduced nearly 50%, he said.
The EEOC, which enforces job discrimination laws, has not issued any guidance on the issue. But some on the five-member agency suggested that could be coming.
"I hope this gives our people in the field information to start thinking about a possible problem out there," said Stuart Ishimaru, one of three Democrats on the commission. "For employers it raises serious question of liability if, in fact, there is a disparate impact."
Spriggs said it would be difficult for the government to measure the problem because most job openings are not posted publicly. The Labor Department is aware of anecdotal reports that some recent company advertisements have discouraged the unemployed from applying.
He said officials are concerned the practice could hamper the government's efforts to help millions of unemployed get back to work.
"It probably has a bigger impact in the current labor market" given the current unemployment situation, Spriggs said.
Helen Norton, a professor at the University of Colorado law school, said employers and staffing agencies have advertised jobs in fields from electronic engineers to restaurant and grocery managers with the explicit restriction that only currently employed candidates would be considered.
"Some employers may use current employment as a signal of quality job performance," Norton said. "But such a correlation is decidedly weak. A blanket reliance on current employment serves as a poor proxy for successful job performance."
In one prominent report last year, an advertisement from Sony Ericsson, a global phone manufacturer that was recruiting workers for a new Georgia facility, was restricted to those currently employed. The company later removed the restriction after media publicity.
Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said anecdotal evidence from job postings, conversations with job seekers and her interviews with officials at job placement firms suggests there may be a growing trend of excluding unemployed applicants, regardless of their qualifications.
"It's particularly significant that these representatives of staffing agencies have said there seems to be a growing practice," Owens said.
Fernan Cepero, a spokesman for the Society for Human Resource Management, said it takes an average of 27 days for an employer to fill an open position, and even longer for high-tech positions. Because open positions mean lost productivity, "screening out the unemployed is unproductive," he said.
OUR STRATEGIC INTERESTS AT RISK IN BAHRAIN
This is not a revolution for democracy. This is a revolt by Shiites against their Sunni rulers. And the Shiites are aligned with the Iran’s Shiite theocracy.
WHY BAHRAIN MATTERS
By Paul Richter and David S. Cloud
Jewish World Review
February 18, 2011
Washington — (MCT) A burst of deadly violence against demonstrators in Bahrain has left the Obama administration again confronting the awkward task of trying to stabilize an essential allied government besieged by growing opposition from its citizens.
A tiny monarchy in the Persian Gulf, Bahrain does not have the size or cultural importance of Egypt, whose president was forced out by demonstrators one week ago. Yet Bahrain is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, and the fall of its government could scramble the strategic order in the Middle East, potentially weakening U.S. leverage and leaving Iran in a stronger position.
In an acknowledgement of the kingdom's crucial role, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other officials rushed to reach out Thursday to Bahraini officials, urging them to halt the violence and to quickly adopt political reforms that could satisfy the protesters.
Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, commanded by Vice Admiral Mark I. Fox, controls U.S. naval ships and aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Most months of the year, there are dozens of the U.S. naval vessels in the region.
The Fifth Fleet's broad mission is to protect the flow of oil and, in case of a military crisis with Iran, to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, the 29-mile choke point near the entrance to the Persian Gulf. More than 20 percent of the world's petroleum shipments travel through the strait.
"The importance of the Fifth Fleet's mission cannot be overstated," said Mark Kimmitt, former deputy director for operations for U.S. Central Command and a former senior State Department and Pentagon official. "They have the mission to keep the Persian Gulf open, defeat terrorism, prevent piracy and respond to crises, whether environmental, security or humanitarian.
"Few commands worldwide have as many daily challenges and responsibilities as the Fifth Fleet."
The administration carefully crafted its outreach to Bahrain's leadership, deploring the violence by security forces that killed at least five people, but stopping short of condemning the government. The U.S. appeared to be striving, as it did in the early stages of the Egyptian crisis, to leave the Bahraini government room to work out a solution.
Clinton, in a call to Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, voiced "deep concerns" about the security forces' violent crackdown on Thursday, and warned against more violence on Friday, when there would be "funerals and prayers."
But the U.S. message to Bahrain differed from how it approached Egypt in a key way: While Cairo for decades had resisted reforms, Clinton praised Bahrain as a "friend and ally" that has taken some steps to reshape its government. She urged "a return to the process that will result in real, meaningful changes for the people there."
In a visit to Bahrain in December, Clinton praised King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and said she "was impressed by the commitment that the government has to the democratic path that Bahrain is walking on."
The U.S. knows its handling of Bahrain is under scrutiny by other Middle Eastern allies, who saw the Mubarak regime tumble in Egypt and questioned whether the United States would support them if they faced similar unrest.
Some analysts are predicting that Saudi Arabia, worried that Iran could emerge with a new ally if Bahrain's Shia majority topples its Sunni monarchy, would send an armored column across the 16-mile causeway to Bahrain if it thought the government was teetering.
The Saudis "see this as their sphere of influence," said David Schenker, a former Pentagon official now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
U.S. officials declined to offer details on their conversations with the Saudis about Bahrain.
A U.S. defense official said the protests were causing U.S. military officials to review backup plans in case the U.S. was asked to leave Bahrain. Pentagon officials said U.S. naval vessels also put in at several other ports in the Gulf, including Jebel Ali in Dubai.
But another senior military officer said, "We're not at that point right now. We have no indication that any of this is directed at Americans or American interests."
WHY BAHRAIN MATTERS
By Paul Richter and David S. Cloud
Jewish World Review
February 18, 2011
Washington — (MCT) A burst of deadly violence against demonstrators in Bahrain has left the Obama administration again confronting the awkward task of trying to stabilize an essential allied government besieged by growing opposition from its citizens.
A tiny monarchy in the Persian Gulf, Bahrain does not have the size or cultural importance of Egypt, whose president was forced out by demonstrators one week ago. Yet Bahrain is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, and the fall of its government could scramble the strategic order in the Middle East, potentially weakening U.S. leverage and leaving Iran in a stronger position.
In an acknowledgement of the kingdom's crucial role, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other officials rushed to reach out Thursday to Bahraini officials, urging them to halt the violence and to quickly adopt political reforms that could satisfy the protesters.
Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, commanded by Vice Admiral Mark I. Fox, controls U.S. naval ships and aircraft operating in the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Most months of the year, there are dozens of the U.S. naval vessels in the region.
The Fifth Fleet's broad mission is to protect the flow of oil and, in case of a military crisis with Iran, to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, the 29-mile choke point near the entrance to the Persian Gulf. More than 20 percent of the world's petroleum shipments travel through the strait.
"The importance of the Fifth Fleet's mission cannot be overstated," said Mark Kimmitt, former deputy director for operations for U.S. Central Command and a former senior State Department and Pentagon official. "They have the mission to keep the Persian Gulf open, defeat terrorism, prevent piracy and respond to crises, whether environmental, security or humanitarian.
"Few commands worldwide have as many daily challenges and responsibilities as the Fifth Fleet."
The administration carefully crafted its outreach to Bahrain's leadership, deploring the violence by security forces that killed at least five people, but stopping short of condemning the government. The U.S. appeared to be striving, as it did in the early stages of the Egyptian crisis, to leave the Bahraini government room to work out a solution.
Clinton, in a call to Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa, voiced "deep concerns" about the security forces' violent crackdown on Thursday, and warned against more violence on Friday, when there would be "funerals and prayers."
But the U.S. message to Bahrain differed from how it approached Egypt in a key way: While Cairo for decades had resisted reforms, Clinton praised Bahrain as a "friend and ally" that has taken some steps to reshape its government. She urged "a return to the process that will result in real, meaningful changes for the people there."
In a visit to Bahrain in December, Clinton praised King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa and said she "was impressed by the commitment that the government has to the democratic path that Bahrain is walking on."
The U.S. knows its handling of Bahrain is under scrutiny by other Middle Eastern allies, who saw the Mubarak regime tumble in Egypt and questioned whether the United States would support them if they faced similar unrest.
Some analysts are predicting that Saudi Arabia, worried that Iran could emerge with a new ally if Bahrain's Shia majority topples its Sunni monarchy, would send an armored column across the 16-mile causeway to Bahrain if it thought the government was teetering.
The Saudis "see this as their sphere of influence," said David Schenker, a former Pentagon official now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
U.S. officials declined to offer details on their conversations with the Saudis about Bahrain.
A U.S. defense official said the protests were causing U.S. military officials to review backup plans in case the U.S. was asked to leave Bahrain. Pentagon officials said U.S. naval vessels also put in at several other ports in the Gulf, including Jebel Ali in Dubai.
But another senior military officer said, "We're not at that point right now. We have no indication that any of this is directed at Americans or American interests."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)