Protesters throughout the United States have been demonstrating against a bill passed by the House of Representatives which would make felons out of illegal immigrants and those who would offer them the kind of assistance that would enable them to remain in this country. These demonstrations have been the largest since the Vietnam War era. In Lost Angeles alone, some 500,000 demonstrators turned out. Most of the demonstrators were Latinos, including both citizens and illegals. In some cities, most of the demonstrators were Latino public school stutents. In many of those demonstrations, a few protesters carried American flags. Many demonstrators carried the flag of Mexico.
The media keeps referring to the illegals as "undocumented workers", a rather innocuous term. Political correctness aside, let;s call undocumented workers what they really are - ILLEGAL ALIENS. They entered this country illegally and remain here illegally. The overwhelming majority are Latinos, most having come from Mexico, with some coming from Honduras and other Central American countries. Most estimates put the number of illegals at 12 million, while other estimates put the number at 20 million or more. Whatever the number, they are here to stay.
No matter what laws are passed, there is no way we could throw millions of people in jail, nor could we ever deport that many. Every year, while we continue to debate the immigration problem, several hundred thousand additonal Latinos sneak into this country. A viable solution, short of amnesty, does not appear to be in sight. Before we worrry about the illegals that are already here, we need to put a stop to the continuing influx of new arrivals. A high wall/fence running the length of our 700 mile boundary with Mexico seems to offer the best way to reduce the flow of illegals across our southern border. In Israel, such a wall/fence has all but eliminated suicide bombings by Palestinians.
Most of the illegals come here in search of work. They provide cheap labor for American farmers and businesses, and for private families in need of domestic help. They are hard working folks and they send most of their earnings back to their families in Mexico and Central America. While illegals do contribute to the nation's economy, their presence has come at a high cost to American taxpayers. They pay sales taxes on their purchases, but most do not pay the other taxes that our citizens must pay. They usually do not receive any health insurance benefits. Our schools are forced to use expensive bilingual teaching programs.
The failure by illegals to pay taxes, their lack of health insurance, their inability to speak English, and the crimes some of them have committed, are factors which are very costly to our health care institutions, social services, public schools, and criminal justice system. The extra funds these institutions need to handle illegals have required substantial increases in local and state taxes. And, most illegals drive without the required automobile insurance, thus driving up our insurance rates.
In one respect, the Latino demonstrations are reminiscent of the Vietnam War protests during which many demonstrators carried the flag of North Vietnam, an in-your-face defiance of "the establishment." Those anti-war demonstrators clearly sided with this nation's enemy, North Vietnam. Were the anti-war demonstrators successful? You bet they were! They provided the enemy with hope for an eventual victory. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were consistently defeated on the battlefield, suffering extremely high casualty rates throughout the war. Even the highly touted Tet offensive was a battlefield disaster in which we suffered higher than usual casualties, but in which the ranks of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were thoroughly decimated. The war would probably have been over after the Tet offensive, and we would have been victorious, were it not for the anti-war demonstrations. The war was lost on the streets of the United States, not on the battlefields of Vietnam, because the North Vietnamese hung on, encouraged by the highly publicized protests, believing that the public would eventually tire of the war and the rising number of American casualties. And they were so right.
Will the Latino demonstators succeed in killing the House legislation? Probably, but not by waving the flag of a foreign nation in our faces. Whether the demonstrators who carried the Mexican flags were American citizens or illegal aliens is besides the point. Displaying the flag of Mexico is a clear sign that the allegiance of the flag waver is to Mexico, not to the United States, and that is very offensive to most Americans. What Mexican-Americans do in the privacy of their homes is their business, but waving the Mexican flag in public is akin to someone of German origin waving the swastika in public. The Confederate flag is expecially offensive to African-Americans, and when white supremacists display the Confederate flag and the Nazi flag in public, most other Americans take offense to these symbols of racism. And, when these hate groups include the American flag in their parades and rallies, as they usually do, that is also offensive, because they are against everything our flag stands for.
In Houston, almost all the Latino protesters were middle school and high school students who cut classes in order to demonstrate. A number of them carried Mexican flags and there were no American flags in sight. The principal of Reagan High School hoisted the Mexican flag on the school's flagpole, an obvious effort to pander to his mostly Latino students. Reacting to a public outcry, the school board "disciplined" the principal (without revealing what discipline he received) for his "mistake", while praising him as a "good educator." If he is an example of a good educator then it is no wonder that many Houston public school students cannot read, write, multiply, or divide.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Raul Ramos, a professor of Texas History at the University of Houston attempted to justify the public display of Mexican flags by stating: "Most students at Reagan High School have relatives or ancestors from Mexico. The flag represents Mexican heritage as much if not more than citizenship." These are the musings of another educated academic idiot. These students can honor their relatives, ancestors and heritage by displaying the Mexican flag in the privacy of their homes. Few Anglo visitors would be offended by such an expression of pride in their heritage. What Professor Ramos does'nt seem to fathom is that there are better ways of celebrating one's heritage when the public display of a foreign flag, other than one flying in front of an embassy, consulate, or the United Nations, is an affront to most citizens of the United States.
To all those demonstrators who waved the Mexican flag, please feel free to return to Mexico and proudly fly it there to your heart's content. If you're going to protest an unjust law in the United States and you want to carry a flag in the streets, by all means do so, but make sure that it's the American flag!
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
WAIT A MINUTE OFFICER, SHE'S GOT A DESIGNATED DRIVER
More than 2,200 people have been arrested inside bars during the past six months by agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC). Drunken bar patrons were arrested for public intoxication. Employees of bars and restaurants licensed to sell alcoholic beverages were arrested for being drunk on the premises. Bar employees were arrested for selling alcoholic beverages to drunken customers, a serious violation of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code. These arrests were made in an attempt to reduce the state's drunk driving problem. Texas happens to have the nation's highest rate of DWI cases.
The way the NBC Today show, the NBC Nightly News, and most of the MSNBC news shows reacted to this story, you would think that a major violation of civil rights was being committed by the TABC agents for arresting drunks inside those bars. The news correspondents, who interviewd TABC spokespersons, implied that the arrests violated the right to privacy because they were being conducted on private property, They questioned why the arrests could not have been made once the drunks had exited the premises. The arrest of drunks, who had a sober designated driver present, was a major concern expressed by the correspondents.
TABC should be commended, rather than criticized, for cracking down on drunks inside drinking establishements, and for arresting those who continue to serve them alcoholic beverages. Because places that are licensed to serve alcoholic beverages are open to the general public, the laws of Texas and most other states recognize them as public places. Accordingly, bar patrons are legally excluded from any expectation of privacy. In Texas, all employees of licensed drinking establishments are required to attend a state-run training program which is designed to prevent the serving of alcoholic beverages to persons who appear to be intoxicated. Thus, there can be no excuse for drunks to be served in bars or restaurants.
How did the TABC agents make those arrests? Sometimes they were made by undercover officers, sometimes by agents conducting their routine bar checks. Actually, TABC has always arrested drunks in bars and those who served them. It is only the revelation that there have been more than 2,200 such arrests within the past six months that has led to this brouhaha.
And, how did those terrible TABC agents conduct those arrests? Well for starters, only those persons who appeared to be so drunk that they constituted a danger to themselves or others, were arrested. And, not every drunk was taken to jail. In some cases, they were cited for public intoxication and released to a reponsible party, such as a sober designated driver. Those who served the drunks were also arrested. Some would ask, why arrest - a citation is considered an arrest - those who did have a sober designated driver on the premises? Well, in order to make a case against those who serve drunks, there has to be a drunk that was served. The arrest for public intoxication is the proof needed to convict those bar employees. And, what about those cases when the arrest of bar employees resulted in the closure of a bar because there would be no one left in charge? That's just tough!
If there is any criticism to be made, it should be of the local police agencies which shy away from conducting routine bar checks. For some reason, political or otherwise, local agencies prefer to leave the enforcent of drinking violations in bars to TABC, the state agency. To compound the problem, many drinking establishments hire off-duty police officers for security. Since these officers are usually hired and paid directly by the proprietors, rather than by their own agency, they tend to enforce only "house rules" in order to keep their off-duty jobs. It should be embarrassing as hell for a local police agency to have TABC agents enter a bar and arrest several drunks, and those who served them, when local officers did nothing about obvious law violations committed in their presence.
When I was a California law enforcement officer in the 50's and 60's, my agency conducted frequent routine bar checks, arresting drunks inside and those who served them. Often, the bars had to close on those occasions because there would be no one left in charge. There were several reasons for those bar checks. Studies have shown that many cases of domestic violence, including murders, resulted when an intoxicated spouse returned home and a fight would ensue. Most bar brawls take place because patrons have been served too much. These drunken brawls often result in aggravated assaults and, not too infrequently, in killings. And, of course, many drunks leave bars and are involved in serious automobile accidenst, although at the time, DWIs were not our main concern - the possible violence was. Finally, the suppression of prostitution in bars was accomplished through the use of frequent routine bar checks.
Again, TABC is to be commended for arresting drunks in bars and for arresting those who serve them. On the other hand, local police agencies should be condemned for not making frequent routine bar checks, which would not only reduce DWIs, but would also prevent many acts of violence. Claiming a manpower shortage is no excuse for not conducting those bar checks.
Finally, proprietors of drinking establishments, who want off-duty officers for security, should pay the police ageny for those services, and not the officers. The officers would then be assigned to these off-duty jobs and paid for this extra work, by their own agency. In this way, the proprietor could not detrmine which officers to hire or fire, and the off-duty officers could enforce all laws in their assigned establishments, and not just "house rules." Arrests of drunks in bars and those who served them, whether by off-duty officers working security or by local and state officers making bar checks, will help to reduce the rate of DWIs, murders, and other violent crimes.
The way the NBC Today show, the NBC Nightly News, and most of the MSNBC news shows reacted to this story, you would think that a major violation of civil rights was being committed by the TABC agents for arresting drunks inside those bars. The news correspondents, who interviewd TABC spokespersons, implied that the arrests violated the right to privacy because they were being conducted on private property, They questioned why the arrests could not have been made once the drunks had exited the premises. The arrest of drunks, who had a sober designated driver present, was a major concern expressed by the correspondents.
TABC should be commended, rather than criticized, for cracking down on drunks inside drinking establishements, and for arresting those who continue to serve them alcoholic beverages. Because places that are licensed to serve alcoholic beverages are open to the general public, the laws of Texas and most other states recognize them as public places. Accordingly, bar patrons are legally excluded from any expectation of privacy. In Texas, all employees of licensed drinking establishments are required to attend a state-run training program which is designed to prevent the serving of alcoholic beverages to persons who appear to be intoxicated. Thus, there can be no excuse for drunks to be served in bars or restaurants.
How did the TABC agents make those arrests? Sometimes they were made by undercover officers, sometimes by agents conducting their routine bar checks. Actually, TABC has always arrested drunks in bars and those who served them. It is only the revelation that there have been more than 2,200 such arrests within the past six months that has led to this brouhaha.
And, how did those terrible TABC agents conduct those arrests? Well for starters, only those persons who appeared to be so drunk that they constituted a danger to themselves or others, were arrested. And, not every drunk was taken to jail. In some cases, they were cited for public intoxication and released to a reponsible party, such as a sober designated driver. Those who served the drunks were also arrested. Some would ask, why arrest - a citation is considered an arrest - those who did have a sober designated driver on the premises? Well, in order to make a case against those who serve drunks, there has to be a drunk that was served. The arrest for public intoxication is the proof needed to convict those bar employees. And, what about those cases when the arrest of bar employees resulted in the closure of a bar because there would be no one left in charge? That's just tough!
If there is any criticism to be made, it should be of the local police agencies which shy away from conducting routine bar checks. For some reason, political or otherwise, local agencies prefer to leave the enforcent of drinking violations in bars to TABC, the state agency. To compound the problem, many drinking establishments hire off-duty police officers for security. Since these officers are usually hired and paid directly by the proprietors, rather than by their own agency, they tend to enforce only "house rules" in order to keep their off-duty jobs. It should be embarrassing as hell for a local police agency to have TABC agents enter a bar and arrest several drunks, and those who served them, when local officers did nothing about obvious law violations committed in their presence.
When I was a California law enforcement officer in the 50's and 60's, my agency conducted frequent routine bar checks, arresting drunks inside and those who served them. Often, the bars had to close on those occasions because there would be no one left in charge. There were several reasons for those bar checks. Studies have shown that many cases of domestic violence, including murders, resulted when an intoxicated spouse returned home and a fight would ensue. Most bar brawls take place because patrons have been served too much. These drunken brawls often result in aggravated assaults and, not too infrequently, in killings. And, of course, many drunks leave bars and are involved in serious automobile accidenst, although at the time, DWIs were not our main concern - the possible violence was. Finally, the suppression of prostitution in bars was accomplished through the use of frequent routine bar checks.
Again, TABC is to be commended for arresting drunks in bars and for arresting those who serve them. On the other hand, local police agencies should be condemned for not making frequent routine bar checks, which would not only reduce DWIs, but would also prevent many acts of violence. Claiming a manpower shortage is no excuse for not conducting those bar checks.
Finally, proprietors of drinking establishments, who want off-duty officers for security, should pay the police ageny for those services, and not the officers. The officers would then be assigned to these off-duty jobs and paid for this extra work, by their own agency. In this way, the proprietor could not detrmine which officers to hire or fire, and the off-duty officers could enforce all laws in their assigned establishments, and not just "house rules." Arrests of drunks in bars and those who served them, whether by off-duty officers working security or by local and state officers making bar checks, will help to reduce the rate of DWIs, murders, and other violent crimes.
Monday, March 20, 2006
IS IT PROFESSIONAL COURTESY OR IS IT PROFESSIONAL IRRESPONSIBILITY?
To those of you in the police service, let me urge you to read this whole piece before you blow your top. If you do get pissed-off before you finish, stop a moment to cool-off, and then continue reading until you reach the end.
There is nothing that aggravates the public more than to see a speeding police car without its emergency lights or siren on, and the perception that an off-duty officer will not receive a citation when he is pulled over for a traffic violation. The public is not upset with a police emergeny run, even when the police car is driven at a highly dangerous speed. A motorist's worst nightmare is having a traffic collision with a police car. The public believes, rightly or wrongly, that a civilian will not be subjected to a fair and unbiased investigation of the accident. The public is also irritated by the perception that the police will give favorable treatment to the mayor or some other important public official, or to an influential member of the community.
Recently, the Houston Police Department gave chase to a Corvette which was weaving in and out of traffic, sometimes reaching speeds of over 100 mph. When the Corvette pulled over and stopped, the driver turned out to be an off-duty sheriff's deputy. The pursuing officers did not give the 12 year veteran deputy a ticket, although, to their credit, they did notify his supervisor. The media caused a brouhaha of sorts after some television reporters heard the police radio transmissions on the chase and arrived in time to observe the police letting that deputy go without giving him a ticket. Because of the media attention, the deputy cannot expect to avoid being disciplined by the sheriff's department.
If the driver of the corvette had been a 17 year old youth, would the officers have called his father and let him go without a ticket? If the driver had been an employee of Wal-Mart, would they have called his supervisor and let him go without a ticket? Of course not. A civilian would have been arrested in a hot New York minute for reckless driving and/or some other charges.
Officers claim that when they give breaks to off-duty officers for traffic violations or for some other offenses, they are merely showing "professional courtesy" to the transgressing officer. That type of professional courtsey may involve taking officers home who have been detained for public intoxication or for disorderly conduct. Sometimes it involves taking an officer home who has been stopped for drunk driving, although in that case they will often notify the officer's supervisor, especially if that officer is from another police agency. Often, such favors are also extended to the immediate family members of a police officer.
Professional courtesy? What is professional about an officer deliberately disregarding traffic laws in his police unit when he is not on an emergency call? What is professwional about not giving a traffic citation to an off-duty officer when a civilian would have been cited for the same offense? What is professional about taking a drunk driver home because he is an officer, when a civilian would have been jailed under the same circumstances? It is a professional courtesy when a doctor provides another doctor or his family with free medical services, or when a lawyer provides another lawyer with free legal services, but NOT when a doctor refuses to testify against another doctor or when a police officer lets another officer off for a law violation. However, an acceptable form of professional courtesy is the assistance provided by officers to the spouse and children of deceased or disabled comrades.
If officers believe that they will be given breaks when violating the law they are emboldened to behave irresponsibly. Professional courtesy, as the police see it, is really an act of professional irresponsibility or, in some cases, police misconduct. It is unethical and discriminatory to apply a double standard in disposing of law violations. whether committed by police officers or by civilians. There is, understandably, a strong bond in the police brotherhood, but in order to maintain the public's respect and support, the police must stop showing favoritism to their own, when they would not do so for civilians under the same circimstances. Professional courtesy, as defined for the police, should be limited to helping out the immediate family of a fallen or disabled officer, and to treating everyone with respect and courtesy whenever possible, absent of any police misconduct, and in a nondiscriminatory manner.
LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE! Police officers should have the discretion NOT to make arrests or issue citations for minor violations, but that decision should not be based on whether or not the offender is another officer. Letting someone off with a warning is often more appropriate than issuing a citation or making an arrest. Many officers will not issue a traffic citation to a civilian when they believe that he cannot afford the fine. Police officers in California refused to arrest or file charges against a desperate mother who burglarized a bakery to steal several loaves of bread, because she had no food for her three children. Instead, they persuaded the baker to keep providing the mother with day-old bread. However, the deputy with the corvette should have been cited, if not arrested for reckless driving.
The police should NOT claim they are practicing professional courtesy when they allow a fellow officer, who has broken a law, to go free. Once an officer buys into the professional courtesy mindset, he will feel inclined, if not compelled, to provide fellow officers favorable treatment in minor traffic accident investigations, in domestic disturbances, and in disorderly conduct incidents. And that mindset results in the ROUTINE PRACTICE of not issuing traffic citations to fellow officers. About the only off-duty officers who will then be ticketed are those deemed as "assholes" because they got pissed-off and were dumb enough to take their anger out on the officers who stopped them.
When a private citizen operates a motor vehicle within the speed limit, or at no more than 5 mph over the limit, he usually does so because he is afraid of getting a traffic ticket. When an off-duty police officer believes he can drive at excessive speeds with impunity, that is exactly what he is going to do.
There is nothing that aggravates the public more than to see a speeding police car without its emergency lights or siren on, and the perception that an off-duty officer will not receive a citation when he is pulled over for a traffic violation. The public is not upset with a police emergeny run, even when the police car is driven at a highly dangerous speed. A motorist's worst nightmare is having a traffic collision with a police car. The public believes, rightly or wrongly, that a civilian will not be subjected to a fair and unbiased investigation of the accident. The public is also irritated by the perception that the police will give favorable treatment to the mayor or some other important public official, or to an influential member of the community.
Recently, the Houston Police Department gave chase to a Corvette which was weaving in and out of traffic, sometimes reaching speeds of over 100 mph. When the Corvette pulled over and stopped, the driver turned out to be an off-duty sheriff's deputy. The pursuing officers did not give the 12 year veteran deputy a ticket, although, to their credit, they did notify his supervisor. The media caused a brouhaha of sorts after some television reporters heard the police radio transmissions on the chase and arrived in time to observe the police letting that deputy go without giving him a ticket. Because of the media attention, the deputy cannot expect to avoid being disciplined by the sheriff's department.
If the driver of the corvette had been a 17 year old youth, would the officers have called his father and let him go without a ticket? If the driver had been an employee of Wal-Mart, would they have called his supervisor and let him go without a ticket? Of course not. A civilian would have been arrested in a hot New York minute for reckless driving and/or some other charges.
Officers claim that when they give breaks to off-duty officers for traffic violations or for some other offenses, they are merely showing "professional courtesy" to the transgressing officer. That type of professional courtsey may involve taking officers home who have been detained for public intoxication or for disorderly conduct. Sometimes it involves taking an officer home who has been stopped for drunk driving, although in that case they will often notify the officer's supervisor, especially if that officer is from another police agency. Often, such favors are also extended to the immediate family members of a police officer.
Professional courtesy? What is professional about an officer deliberately disregarding traffic laws in his police unit when he is not on an emergency call? What is professwional about not giving a traffic citation to an off-duty officer when a civilian would have been cited for the same offense? What is professional about taking a drunk driver home because he is an officer, when a civilian would have been jailed under the same circumstances? It is a professional courtesy when a doctor provides another doctor or his family with free medical services, or when a lawyer provides another lawyer with free legal services, but NOT when a doctor refuses to testify against another doctor or when a police officer lets another officer off for a law violation. However, an acceptable form of professional courtesy is the assistance provided by officers to the spouse and children of deceased or disabled comrades.
If officers believe that they will be given breaks when violating the law they are emboldened to behave irresponsibly. Professional courtesy, as the police see it, is really an act of professional irresponsibility or, in some cases, police misconduct. It is unethical and discriminatory to apply a double standard in disposing of law violations. whether committed by police officers or by civilians. There is, understandably, a strong bond in the police brotherhood, but in order to maintain the public's respect and support, the police must stop showing favoritism to their own, when they would not do so for civilians under the same circimstances. Professional courtesy, as defined for the police, should be limited to helping out the immediate family of a fallen or disabled officer, and to treating everyone with respect and courtesy whenever possible, absent of any police misconduct, and in a nondiscriminatory manner.
LET THERE BE NO MISTAKE! Police officers should have the discretion NOT to make arrests or issue citations for minor violations, but that decision should not be based on whether or not the offender is another officer. Letting someone off with a warning is often more appropriate than issuing a citation or making an arrest. Many officers will not issue a traffic citation to a civilian when they believe that he cannot afford the fine. Police officers in California refused to arrest or file charges against a desperate mother who burglarized a bakery to steal several loaves of bread, because she had no food for her three children. Instead, they persuaded the baker to keep providing the mother with day-old bread. However, the deputy with the corvette should have been cited, if not arrested for reckless driving.
The police should NOT claim they are practicing professional courtesy when they allow a fellow officer, who has broken a law, to go free. Once an officer buys into the professional courtesy mindset, he will feel inclined, if not compelled, to provide fellow officers favorable treatment in minor traffic accident investigations, in domestic disturbances, and in disorderly conduct incidents. And that mindset results in the ROUTINE PRACTICE of not issuing traffic citations to fellow officers. About the only off-duty officers who will then be ticketed are those deemed as "assholes" because they got pissed-off and were dumb enough to take their anger out on the officers who stopped them.
When a private citizen operates a motor vehicle within the speed limit, or at no more than 5 mph over the limit, he usually does so because he is afraid of getting a traffic ticket. When an off-duty police officer believes he can drive at excessive speeds with impunity, that is exactly what he is going to do.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
THE LATEST ASSAULT ON THE DEATH PENALTY: THIS RED HERRING MAY HAVE LEGS
You've got to give them credit. The death penalty abolishionists are persistent. Now they've come up with a new idea - that lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusal punishment in that the condemned may suffer extreme pain while undergoing execution. It is amazing that it has taken them all these years to come up with that red herring, albeit a red herring that may have legs. These claims have stopped executions in Florida, Missouri, and California. In the Missouri case, even newly sworn-in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, a staunch conservative, voted to stay an execution on those grounds.
The Florida case is unusual, in that it was filed as a federal civil rights lawsuit, rather than as the traditional appeal of a criminal conviction, and should it succeed, such lawsuits will be filed for every pending execution. In this case, a bank robber who killed a police officer and wounded his partner, was granted a stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court while he was already in the death chamber, strapped to the gurney with IV tubes inserted, as the executioner awaited orders to start the flow of lethal drugs. His lawyers had argued that the lethal doses used by Florida can cause pain and thereby denied this cold blooded cop killer his civil rights to protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
In the California case, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel was concerned that the condemned are not unconscious and may suffer extreme pain during executions. The San Francisco jurist ordered the State of California to change its lethal injection method of execution. He ordered the usual mix of injections replaced with a lethal dose of barbiturates to be administered by a physician. No physicians were willing to do this because they believed it would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath - to do no harm. The doctors' refusal to participate in an execution amounts to a moratorium on the death penalty in California.
Pardon me while I shed some crocodile tears for those who kill their victims in cold blood. God forbid that they should suffer any pain during executions. If it were up to me, I would bring back the electric chair. The condemned were scared shitless at the sight of "Old Sparky" and they probably experienced some extreme pain while they were getting fried. That method of execution definitely acted as a deterrent to murders.
The abolitionists, who are so concerned for the condemned, claim that they are not unconcerned for the victims and their families. Maybe so, but they are certainly not concerned for any future victims since abolition of the death penalty would eliminate the deterrent of executions.
Why do I believe that this latest claim is a red herring? Ten years ago, our veterinarian advised that it was time for Suki, our beloved 15 year old dog, to be put down. I held Suki in my arms, and while she looked at me with her trusting eyes, the vet gave her two injections. Then he said to me, "That's it, she's gone." It is still gut-wrenching for me to recall those final moments with Suki, but I feel it is important to do so in the context of this execution by injection controversy. While holding Suki, I did not detect the slightest twitching or any other indication whatsoever, that she was feeling any pain in her final seconds of life. She just went to sleep and I really did not realize that she was dead until the vet told me so. That is why I am convinced that the condemned do not feel any pain during their execution. On the other hand, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has noted that three veterinarians claim Florida's method of lethal injection would be "prohibited if done to dogs and cats." Hmmm, three veterinarians? That sounds like one of those old "three doctors say" ads.
Even if the condemned were to suffer some pain, it does not come anywhere near the pain suffered by their victims. It must be noted that the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers are not sentenced to death. Only those convicted of the most heinous killings are likely to receive the death penalty. So why are we so concerned about the possibility that they may suffer some pain during the final seconds of their lives? Unfortunately, it is not inconceivable that this latest assault on executions may eventually result in the abolition of the death penalty.
The Florida case is unusual, in that it was filed as a federal civil rights lawsuit, rather than as the traditional appeal of a criminal conviction, and should it succeed, such lawsuits will be filed for every pending execution. In this case, a bank robber who killed a police officer and wounded his partner, was granted a stay of execution by the U.S. Supreme Court while he was already in the death chamber, strapped to the gurney with IV tubes inserted, as the executioner awaited orders to start the flow of lethal drugs. His lawyers had argued that the lethal doses used by Florida can cause pain and thereby denied this cold blooded cop killer his civil rights to protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
In the California case, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel was concerned that the condemned are not unconscious and may suffer extreme pain during executions. The San Francisco jurist ordered the State of California to change its lethal injection method of execution. He ordered the usual mix of injections replaced with a lethal dose of barbiturates to be administered by a physician. No physicians were willing to do this because they believed it would be a violation of their Hippocratic oath - to do no harm. The doctors' refusal to participate in an execution amounts to a moratorium on the death penalty in California.
Pardon me while I shed some crocodile tears for those who kill their victims in cold blood. God forbid that they should suffer any pain during executions. If it were up to me, I would bring back the electric chair. The condemned were scared shitless at the sight of "Old Sparky" and they probably experienced some extreme pain while they were getting fried. That method of execution definitely acted as a deterrent to murders.
The abolitionists, who are so concerned for the condemned, claim that they are not unconcerned for the victims and their families. Maybe so, but they are certainly not concerned for any future victims since abolition of the death penalty would eliminate the deterrent of executions.
Why do I believe that this latest claim is a red herring? Ten years ago, our veterinarian advised that it was time for Suki, our beloved 15 year old dog, to be put down. I held Suki in my arms, and while she looked at me with her trusting eyes, the vet gave her two injections. Then he said to me, "That's it, she's gone." It is still gut-wrenching for me to recall those final moments with Suki, but I feel it is important to do so in the context of this execution by injection controversy. While holding Suki, I did not detect the slightest twitching or any other indication whatsoever, that she was feeling any pain in her final seconds of life. She just went to sleep and I really did not realize that she was dead until the vet told me so. That is why I am convinced that the condemned do not feel any pain during their execution. On the other hand, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has noted that three veterinarians claim Florida's method of lethal injection would be "prohibited if done to dogs and cats." Hmmm, three veterinarians? That sounds like one of those old "three doctors say" ads.
Even if the condemned were to suffer some pain, it does not come anywhere near the pain suffered by their victims. It must be noted that the overwhelming majority of convicted murderers are not sentenced to death. Only those convicted of the most heinous killings are likely to receive the death penalty. So why are we so concerned about the possibility that they may suffer some pain during the final seconds of their lives? Unfortunately, it is not inconceivable that this latest assault on executions may eventually result in the abolition of the death penalty.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
JOIN THE SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND RECEIVE A FREE SEX BONUS
A Washington Post story by Tom Jackman reported that sheriff's deputies from the Spotsylvania County (Virginia) Sheriff's Department have been allowed to engage in illicit sexual intercourse in order to make prostitution cases against so-called massage parlors. Jackman's report states that, "They enter the massage parlors as undercover detectives. They leave as satisfied customers." According to court papers, during several visits to the Moon Spa last month, detectives allowed "masseuses" to perform sexual acts on them on four occasions and once left a $350 tip. A $350 tip of taxpayer's money! Wow, that lady must have been an terrific piece of ass!
The Sheriff claims his deputies have been engaging in sexual intercourse with massage parlor prostitutes for some time in order to obtain convictions in prostitution cases. The Sheriff advised that only unmarried detectives are used in these cases. (Obviously, the good Sheriff knows that married officers would soon become unmarried, when investigations permit or require them to have sex with prostitutes.)
Free sex! Gee whiz, if I were only young and single. It would be: Virginia, here I come and how do I sign up for the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Department?
In all seriousness, requiring or allowing officers to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute in order to make a case against her and the proprietor of the massage parlor is absolutely unwarranted. The Sheriff claims that his department is only one of a number of police agencies engaging in the same practice. However, according to the Washington Post, experts throughout the U.S. advise that they cannot find any other agencies which allow their officers to engage in sexual intercourse with prostitutes.
I have worked a number of prostitution cases. My agency had a very explicit policy - under no circumstances was an officer allowed to disrobe or allowed to have a sexual contact of any kind with the prostitute. If we thought that we could get away with it, we were "wired' to record our conversations, but this was not considered a necessity. All that was required in order to obtain a conviction was for the prostitute to disrobe, for money to be exchanged, and for the investigating officer to testify to that effect. All the experts cited in the Washington Post story, including prosecutors, agreed that this was all that was required for a conviction.
The only problems I ever experienced was when some prostitutes complained that I was not getting undressed while they were getting naked. When that happened, I would claim that the zipper on my trousers was stuck, and that always worked for me. In my opinion, an officer's integrity, and thus his credibility, would become questionable if his testimony revealed that he had sexual intercourse with a prostitute during the investigation.
Now, please give me ALL, and I do mean ALL, of the details in that investigation where the officer gave that prostitute a $350 tip.
The Sheriff claims his deputies have been engaging in sexual intercourse with massage parlor prostitutes for some time in order to obtain convictions in prostitution cases. The Sheriff advised that only unmarried detectives are used in these cases. (Obviously, the good Sheriff knows that married officers would soon become unmarried, when investigations permit or require them to have sex with prostitutes.)
Free sex! Gee whiz, if I were only young and single. It would be: Virginia, here I come and how do I sign up for the Spotsylvania County Sheriff's Department?
In all seriousness, requiring or allowing officers to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute in order to make a case against her and the proprietor of the massage parlor is absolutely unwarranted. The Sheriff claims that his department is only one of a number of police agencies engaging in the same practice. However, according to the Washington Post, experts throughout the U.S. advise that they cannot find any other agencies which allow their officers to engage in sexual intercourse with prostitutes.
I have worked a number of prostitution cases. My agency had a very explicit policy - under no circumstances was an officer allowed to disrobe or allowed to have a sexual contact of any kind with the prostitute. If we thought that we could get away with it, we were "wired' to record our conversations, but this was not considered a necessity. All that was required in order to obtain a conviction was for the prostitute to disrobe, for money to be exchanged, and for the investigating officer to testify to that effect. All the experts cited in the Washington Post story, including prosecutors, agreed that this was all that was required for a conviction.
The only problems I ever experienced was when some prostitutes complained that I was not getting undressed while they were getting naked. When that happened, I would claim that the zipper on my trousers was stuck, and that always worked for me. In my opinion, an officer's integrity, and thus his credibility, would become questionable if his testimony revealed that he had sexual intercourse with a prostitute during the investigation.
Now, please give me ALL, and I do mean ALL, of the details in that investigation where the officer gave that prostitute a $350 tip.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
POLICE STUPIDITY: A BIG VICTORY FOR CINDY SHEEHAN AND THE RADICAL LEFT
Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war protester who lost her son in Iraq and who previously camped out near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, was arrested in the Capitol's gallery just before the President was about to deliver his State of the Union message. What did she do to get busted? She wore a T-shirt that said, "2,245 Dead. How Many More?". Several hours after her arrest, the Capitol Police announced that she should not have been arrested and all charges against her were dropped. Thus Sheehan and the radical left scored a big victory.
The police officer who arrested Sheehan, clearly demonstrated how to put your instincts in motion before you put your brain in gear. Her T-shirt may have violated Congressional etiquette, but since when is the display of bad taste a violation of the law? Had Sheehan stood up in the middle of the President' speech and silently opened her jacket to display the T-Shirt, that might have constituted a public disturbance, although that is doubtful. Had she stood up during the President's presentation and shouted "2,245 Dead, How Many More?", she would most certainly have created a disturbance for which she should have been arrested.
All Americans should join Cindy Sheehan in her grief as a mother who has lost a son. Casey Sheehan, a true hero, laid down his life in the service of his country. Does she have a right to protest against the war in Iraq? Of course she does, and we should all fight to defend her right to do so! But Sheehan no longer deserves our sympathy. She has been captured by, and become a willing tool of the radical left. She has stated on numerous occasions that the U.S. is an imperialist nation, a favorite catch-phrase of the extreme left. She has publicly stated that a Jewish cabal led the U.S. into the Iraq War in the interests of the State of Israel. She went to Venezuela, where she publicly embraced its anti-American leader, Hugo Chavez, and called President Bush the world's greatest terrorist. Cindy Sheehan is no longer a grieving mother - she is nothing more than a radical left-wing trouble maker on a mission, determined to attack the President at every stop, and spewing out anti-American rhetoric at every opportunity.
How did Sheehan end up in the Capitol's gallery for the State of the Union message? She received a ticket from Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California democrat who is a fervent opponent of the Iraq War. Was it Rep. Woolsey's intent to embarrass President Bush by having Sheehan present during his State of the Union message? You bet it was! Sheehan claims that she opened her jacket, thus displaying the T-shirt, because she was warm after climbing several flights of steps. What a crock! She admits that she wanted to make a statement with the T-shirt, but claims that she had no intention of creating a disturbance, Another crock! You can bet that sometime during the President's presentation she would have stood up and called attention to herself and her T-shirt.
Stupid is as stupid does! Surely, the arresting officer must have recognized Sheehan, given all the media publicity she has received. He should have checked with his supervisor before making the arrest. Then the supervisor should have checked to make sure that Sheehan's T-shirt violated the law. After all, that T-shirt did not require a split-second life or death response. Sheehan should have been given any benefit of doubt and allowed to remain in the gallery. If the Justice Department later ruled that the message on the T-shirt, by itself, constituted a violation of the law, a warrant for her arrest would have been issued and she could have been taken into custody at her home or at her next public appearance. Of course, she should have been arrested forthwith, had she created an actual disturbance in the gallery, either before or during the State of the Union message.
What did the police stupidity of this arrest accomplish? It has brought more undeserved attention to Sheehan. Now she and her fellow radical left-wing ideologues are trumpeting the claim that the government is taking away our freedom of speech. They have been given new ammunition in their anti-war and anti-American activities, thereby giving more aid and comfort to our enemies. When the arresting officer put his instincts in motion before he put his brain in gear, he scored a big victory for the radical left and its ideology.
The police officer who arrested Sheehan, clearly demonstrated how to put your instincts in motion before you put your brain in gear. Her T-shirt may have violated Congressional etiquette, but since when is the display of bad taste a violation of the law? Had Sheehan stood up in the middle of the President' speech and silently opened her jacket to display the T-Shirt, that might have constituted a public disturbance, although that is doubtful. Had she stood up during the President's presentation and shouted "2,245 Dead, How Many More?", she would most certainly have created a disturbance for which she should have been arrested.
All Americans should join Cindy Sheehan in her grief as a mother who has lost a son. Casey Sheehan, a true hero, laid down his life in the service of his country. Does she have a right to protest against the war in Iraq? Of course she does, and we should all fight to defend her right to do so! But Sheehan no longer deserves our sympathy. She has been captured by, and become a willing tool of the radical left. She has stated on numerous occasions that the U.S. is an imperialist nation, a favorite catch-phrase of the extreme left. She has publicly stated that a Jewish cabal led the U.S. into the Iraq War in the interests of the State of Israel. She went to Venezuela, where she publicly embraced its anti-American leader, Hugo Chavez, and called President Bush the world's greatest terrorist. Cindy Sheehan is no longer a grieving mother - she is nothing more than a radical left-wing trouble maker on a mission, determined to attack the President at every stop, and spewing out anti-American rhetoric at every opportunity.
How did Sheehan end up in the Capitol's gallery for the State of the Union message? She received a ticket from Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California democrat who is a fervent opponent of the Iraq War. Was it Rep. Woolsey's intent to embarrass President Bush by having Sheehan present during his State of the Union message? You bet it was! Sheehan claims that she opened her jacket, thus displaying the T-shirt, because she was warm after climbing several flights of steps. What a crock! She admits that she wanted to make a statement with the T-shirt, but claims that she had no intention of creating a disturbance, Another crock! You can bet that sometime during the President's presentation she would have stood up and called attention to herself and her T-shirt.
Stupid is as stupid does! Surely, the arresting officer must have recognized Sheehan, given all the media publicity she has received. He should have checked with his supervisor before making the arrest. Then the supervisor should have checked to make sure that Sheehan's T-shirt violated the law. After all, that T-shirt did not require a split-second life or death response. Sheehan should have been given any benefit of doubt and allowed to remain in the gallery. If the Justice Department later ruled that the message on the T-shirt, by itself, constituted a violation of the law, a warrant for her arrest would have been issued and she could have been taken into custody at her home or at her next public appearance. Of course, she should have been arrested forthwith, had she created an actual disturbance in the gallery, either before or during the State of the Union message.
What did the police stupidity of this arrest accomplish? It has brought more undeserved attention to Sheehan. Now she and her fellow radical left-wing ideologues are trumpeting the claim that the government is taking away our freedom of speech. They have been given new ammunition in their anti-war and anti-American activities, thereby giving more aid and comfort to our enemies. When the arresting officer put his instincts in motion before he put his brain in gear, he scored a big victory for the radical left and its ideology.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
LAWFUL OUTRAGE vs. BARBARIC THREATS AND VIOLENCE
In September, 2005, several political cartoons depicting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper. One of the cartoons depicted the prophet wearing a turban in the form of a bomb. The Muslim faith considers any depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as blasphemy.
In 1989, contemprary artist Andres Serrano exhibited his "Piss Christ" (Serrano's title) photogragph of a crucifix submerged in a jar of Serrano's blood and urine. The exhibit was a deliberate attempt by the artist to offend members of the Christian faith. Serrano had received a $15,000 grant for his exhibit from the National Endowment for the Arts, an agency funded by American taxpayers. In 1990, the "Tongues of Flame" exhibit by artist David Wojnarowicz consisted of several offensive depictions of Jesus Christ, including one of Jesus "mainlining" heroin by injecting a hypodermic needle into his arm. Wojnarowicz's exhibit was also funded by the NEA.
The Danish political cartoons resulted in outrage throughout Islam. The Serrano and Wojnarowicz exhibits resulted in outrage among the Christian faithful within this country. One group expressed its outrage by lawful means. The other group expressed its outrage with threats and violence. Both groups were justifiably outraged, but the difference in which that outrage was expressed is the difference between civilized and barbaric behavior.
The Christian faithful expressed their outrage through peaceful picketing of the exhibits, through media campaigns, and through their congressional representatives. No threats were issued against the lives of Serrano and Wojnarowicz. Most of the outrage was expressed against the NEA for funding these offensive exhibits, but attempts by members of Congress to withhold its funding failed.
By contrast, the outrage of Muslims was expressed by massive violent riots throughout Islam. These occurred in Gaza and the West Bank, in Syria and Lebanon, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Indonesia, and in most other Muslim countries. An Islamic group in Pakistan offered a bounty for the murder of the Danish cartoonists, while others threatened to cut off their hands or heads. Of special interest is the fact that, while the cartoons were published in September 2005, the rioting did not start until the end of January 2006. During that interim, Islamic clerics took those cartoons and planted them throughout the Muslim world. Thus it would seem that these violent demonstrations were planned, instigated, and orchrestrated by mullahs preaching from their religious schools and mosques.
How does one explain the differences in the way the Christian and Muslim faithful expressed their outrage when their most revered religious icons were defiled. Education made the difference. The Western nations, which are predominantly Christian, have modern educations systems, while in many parts of the Muslim world, education takes place in fundamentalist religious schools. Textbooks are full of hatred against Western culture, against Jews, and even against other Muslim sects, such as the hatred between Shiites and Sunnis. While the religious schools do teach some basic skills, the emphasis is on religion, instead of on a well-rounded modern curriculum. That helps to explain why so many Muslims live in poverty - by Western standards they are simply ignorant. The dictatorial rulers in the Arab world thrive from this ignorance - it keeps them in power.
Devout Muslims throughout the world, who have been educated in modern secular schools, did not resort to violence when the Prophet Muhammad was defiled by political cartoonists. In Lebanon, the uneducated Islamists took to the streets in violent outrage, while the educated Muslim elite remained in their homes or in their work places. Muslims who are well educated share in the world's wealth, while those from the fundamentalist religious schools will continue to live in poverty and ignorance. The difference between people educated in the Western world and Islam's uneducated masses is that Westerners express their religious outrage lawfully, while Islamists express theirs by resorting to barbaric threats and violence.
In 1989, contemprary artist Andres Serrano exhibited his "Piss Christ" (Serrano's title) photogragph of a crucifix submerged in a jar of Serrano's blood and urine. The exhibit was a deliberate attempt by the artist to offend members of the Christian faith. Serrano had received a $15,000 grant for his exhibit from the National Endowment for the Arts, an agency funded by American taxpayers. In 1990, the "Tongues of Flame" exhibit by artist David Wojnarowicz consisted of several offensive depictions of Jesus Christ, including one of Jesus "mainlining" heroin by injecting a hypodermic needle into his arm. Wojnarowicz's exhibit was also funded by the NEA.
The Danish political cartoons resulted in outrage throughout Islam. The Serrano and Wojnarowicz exhibits resulted in outrage among the Christian faithful within this country. One group expressed its outrage by lawful means. The other group expressed its outrage with threats and violence. Both groups were justifiably outraged, but the difference in which that outrage was expressed is the difference between civilized and barbaric behavior.
The Christian faithful expressed their outrage through peaceful picketing of the exhibits, through media campaigns, and through their congressional representatives. No threats were issued against the lives of Serrano and Wojnarowicz. Most of the outrage was expressed against the NEA for funding these offensive exhibits, but attempts by members of Congress to withhold its funding failed.
By contrast, the outrage of Muslims was expressed by massive violent riots throughout Islam. These occurred in Gaza and the West Bank, in Syria and Lebanon, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Indonesia, and in most other Muslim countries. An Islamic group in Pakistan offered a bounty for the murder of the Danish cartoonists, while others threatened to cut off their hands or heads. Of special interest is the fact that, while the cartoons were published in September 2005, the rioting did not start until the end of January 2006. During that interim, Islamic clerics took those cartoons and planted them throughout the Muslim world. Thus it would seem that these violent demonstrations were planned, instigated, and orchrestrated by mullahs preaching from their religious schools and mosques.
How does one explain the differences in the way the Christian and Muslim faithful expressed their outrage when their most revered religious icons were defiled. Education made the difference. The Western nations, which are predominantly Christian, have modern educations systems, while in many parts of the Muslim world, education takes place in fundamentalist religious schools. Textbooks are full of hatred against Western culture, against Jews, and even against other Muslim sects, such as the hatred between Shiites and Sunnis. While the religious schools do teach some basic skills, the emphasis is on religion, instead of on a well-rounded modern curriculum. That helps to explain why so many Muslims live in poverty - by Western standards they are simply ignorant. The dictatorial rulers in the Arab world thrive from this ignorance - it keeps them in power.
Devout Muslims throughout the world, who have been educated in modern secular schools, did not resort to violence when the Prophet Muhammad was defiled by political cartoonists. In Lebanon, the uneducated Islamists took to the streets in violent outrage, while the educated Muslim elite remained in their homes or in their work places. Muslims who are well educated share in the world's wealth, while those from the fundamentalist religious schools will continue to live in poverty and ignorance. The difference between people educated in the Western world and Islam's uneducated masses is that Westerners express their religious outrage lawfully, while Islamists express theirs by resorting to barbaric threats and violence.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
ILLICIT DRUG USE: A DISEASE OF ASSOCIATION
Hey parents! Do you actually know much about the individuals or the group your teenage kids are hanging around with? Bet you don't. Well, you better take a long,hard and close look, because if their friends are into drugs, your kids are doing drugs too. How come? Because, anyway you cut it, ILLEGAL DRUG USE IS A DISEASE OF ASSOCIATION. Drugs just don't suddenly fall out of the sky into some poor soul's lap. Some stranger lurking in a doorway, grabbing a kid walking by, and offering him drugs - it just does not happen that way. To use drugs, you've got know someone who uses drugs. To get introduced to a drug dealer, you've got know someone who the dealer trusts, sort of. It's the disease of association bit.
So, you've talked to your kids about drugs. Good for you. And they've sworn on grandma's grave that they don't use drugs. You better pray that they are telling the truth. If they are not, you'll never know it just by talking to them, as THERE IS NOTHING MORE CONVINCING THAN A DRUG USER TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE THAT THEY DON'T USE DRUGS. With the prolonged use of drugs, the user may end up as a pathological liar, able to beat most polygraph examinations.
DO THEIR FRIENDS USE DRUGS? The problem for parents is that they want to believe that their kids are not into drugs. How to find out if their friends are drug users is an even bigger problem. The police are likely to know what kids in the community are into drugs, but they are unlikely to give this information to an inquiring parent for fear of facing a possible law suit. The school authorities probably know of, or suspect certain individuals or groups of involvement with drugs, but they will not reveal this information out of privacy concerns, as well as a fear of law suits. Church attendance by their friends does not guarantee abstinence from drug use, nor does being the son or daughter of the church's pastor. Graduation from a public school's DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, which police officers teach, has minimal effect on students by the time they enter high school. Participation in Chuck Norris' KICK START program, which is offered in 37 Texas schools, does not guarantee that a student will stay drug free once he leaves the program. It all depends on who a kid associates with. Often, the only way to find out who their kids are running around with, is to contact a former close friend and findout why they broke up.
SUSPECTED DRUG USE. For those parents who refuse to suspect their kids of using drugs, it will be too late by the time they recognize it. Good grades in school do not equate to abstinence, but an unexplained drop in grades could indicate drug use. Changes in basic habits, such as tidyness to sloppyness, or loss of interest in favorite activities may be indicators of involvement with drugs. If the kid is hyper-active he may be using cocaine or methamphetamines, and if he is unusally lethargic he may be using heroin or some other narcotic. If parents suspect the use of drugs, questioning the kid is going to produce only a string of strong denials. An open and trusting relationship between parents and their children is, of course, desirable and can prevent involvement with drugs. However, once that trust has been compromised and drug use is suspected, the only alternative is for parents to conduct frequent and thorough surreptitious searches of their child's room and belongings. It is important to know that drug hiding places are limited only by the user's imagination. Searches of a drug user's room and belongings will inevitably turn up drug residue, drugs, or drug paraphanalia.
Social workers and mental health professionals strongly oppose searches by parents, claiming that these will destroy any trust between parents and their children, That's a lot of baloney. Searches for drugs are no different than searching sites on the child's computer for sexually explicit messages, something child advocates recommend to protect children from sexual predators. Most teenagers will push the envelope to see what they can get away with, whether it is sneaking out in the middle ot the night to be with a boyfriend or girlfriend, skipping school, driving at dangerous speeds, looking up porn sites on the computer, getting on the internet to exchange sexually explicit messages, or worse yet, arranging sexual liaisons with strangers.. And, we are not necessarily talking about bad kids.
WHY DO KIDS GET INVOLVED WITH DRUGS? It could be peer pressure. It could be looking for a forbidden thrill. Occasionally, but rarely, drug use may result from an unhappy home life. During the Vietnam War, drug use by young people was a way of demonstrating their defiance of the "establishment," The rallying cry then was, "Alcohol is your drug, marijuana is ours." With prolonged drug use, addiction may result, and if that happens, breaking the habit will become very difficult.
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. Many psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, using their pscho-babble, unwittingly or diliberately, give their patients excuses for bad behaior, which is exactly what drug use is. Dr. Feelgood will say, "You're a drug user because your mama looked backwards in the mirror while she was pregnant." Dr. Moonbeam will say, "You're an axe murderer because your daddy took away your rubber ducky while you were in the bathtub." William Glasser, the psychiatrist who founded the practice referred to as Reality Therapy, was less interested in what happened to his patients while they were still sucking their thumbs, than in their present behavior. "You are in jail because you are a prostitute." "You are in prison because you are a crook." "You are on probation because you smoked pot." He made it clear to his patients that their criminal behavior was not the result of having experienced some traumatic event during early childhood. Dr. Glasser insisted on dealing with the here and now, and on getting his patients to take personal responsibility for their actions, thereby motivating many of them to modify their behavior. Regretably, most psychiatrists dismissed his methods and openly belittled both Glasser and the practice of Reality Therapy.
MARIJUANA. Speaking of marijuana, it is a big mistake to downplay the seriousness of this drug. Marijuana can be addictive, but worse yet, it is a GATEWAY DRUG - almost all pill-poppers, cocaine (or crack) users, methamphetamine users, and heroin addicts started out on marijuana. For that reason, the use of Marijuana should NOT be legalized, and its users, when caught, should be made to experience some jail time. 10 - 30 days in jail will take away the pleasure of smoking pot from the pleasure seeking pot smokers. Parents must emphasize to their kids that bad behavior can have serious consequences.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. How did America get so involved in the illicit use of drugs? It came about hand-in-glove with the Vietmam anti-war movement. Before the Vietnam War, illicit drug consumption was largely confined to the use of marijuana and heroin by Mexican-Americans, heroin by African-Americans, and marijuana and cocaine among artists, musicians and Hollywood celebrities. Because our Anglo-Saxon majority had little concern for racial and ethnic minorities, Mexicans and blacks received harsh prison sentences when caught holding drugs. That was before the middle and upper class spoiled brats, who were protesting against the Vietnam War on our college and university campuses, started using drugs as an additional means of defying the hated establishment. The use of drugs was often a group activity, thus giving its members the courage to confront the police during college sit-ins and off-campus protests. When the sons and daughters from middle and upper class families began to be arrested on drug charges, their prominent and influential parents became alarmed because their "good kids" would be unable to become doctors and lawyers with an arrest or prison record.
ESTABLISHING THE DRUG CULTURE. It did not take long for sympathetic judges to show leniency to drug users from "good families", thus inadverdently encouraging and increasing the use of drugs. Congress and state legislatures quickly passed new laws which reduced the penalties for drug violations. This rush to spare good white kids from having to serve prison time also eliminated some of the harsh sentences that had been meeted out to Mexicans and African-Americans. Then the psychiatrists did their part by insisting that the use of drugs was a mental health problem and and not a criminal matter, and by advocating the decriminalization of drug possession and use. Insurance companies were forced to cover addiction treatment, thus driving up health insurance costs. The counter culture of the Vietnam era has left the United States with the highest rate of illicit drug consumption of any country in the world. To the "stoned generation", thank you so much for screwing up the youths of our country with the drug culture to which you gave birth. Say what? Oh, your children are now into drugs. Tough! What goes around, comes around. You, rather than your kids, deserve to suffer from the problems you created. You never learned that AS YE SOW, SO SHALL YE REAP.
THE SIREN SONG. Why do pot smokers progess to the use of other drugs? Once the use of marijuana, or any other drug, becomes prosaic, the user will naturally seek out a more potent drug. The siren song of pleasure producing substances is so overwhelming, that substance abusers are sucked deeper and deeper into the drug culture, once prolonged use has taken effect. Addiction is both physical and psychological. When a heroin addict goes to prison, his physical addiction will soon be terminated. However, his psychological addiction will continue for years. That is why a heroin addict who has been released after ten years in prison, starts using heroin again as soon as he can reconnect with addicts on the outside. What is it about drugs that is so appealing? I have interviewed hundreds of heroin addicts on why they use and continue to use this substance in the face of numerous arrests, unpleasant physical withdrawals, imprisonment, and alienation from their families. In almost every instance, the answer was similar to this: "I USE IT BECAUSE I LIKE IT. IT GIVES ME A GREAT FEELING." No psycho-babble there.
One heroin addict, who I interviewed, came from a very wealthy family in Palm Springs, California. This is what he told me: "When I'm high, a cop can hassle me and it don't bother me. A car can splash mud all over my best threads and it don't bother me. My old lady can nag the hell out of me and it don't bother me. My kids can scream their heads off and it don't bother me. I really feel great." What did this man get from that great feeling? His multi-millionaire parents disinherited him, his wife divorced him and obtained a court order prohibiting him from seeing his two children, he was in and out of jail or prison, and he could only obtain menial work when not incarcerated. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HEROIN USERS ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE USERS OF OTHER DRUGS. Substance abusers really like whatever drugs they are using.
ADDICTION TREATMENT: There are now thousands of drug abuse clinics and programs, some of which are effective. With the majority of clinics, treatment failures are common and their patients relapse soon after leaving the program. Most discharge their patients just as soon as their insurance benefits have maxed out. The Betty Ford clinic in California is excellent, but few can afford what it costs to enter this program. In order for treatment to be successful, the addict must be highly motivated to stop using drugs. Doctors have a very high rate of addiction, They are highly motivated because their addiction can cost them everything they have invested after eight or more years of medical schooling, internship, and residency requirements, and after years of building up a practice. Treatment is a hit and miss proposition and may involve frequent relapses over a period of years.
With all the problems associated with drug abuse and with the rate of treatment failures, it is extremely important for parents to know who their children are associating with. Drug addiction is a disease of association. By keeping your kids from running around with drug users you will be keeping them from using illicit drugs and from becoming drug addicts.
So, you've talked to your kids about drugs. Good for you. And they've sworn on grandma's grave that they don't use drugs. You better pray that they are telling the truth. If they are not, you'll never know it just by talking to them, as THERE IS NOTHING MORE CONVINCING THAN A DRUG USER TRYING TO CONVINCE SOMEONE THAT THEY DON'T USE DRUGS. With the prolonged use of drugs, the user may end up as a pathological liar, able to beat most polygraph examinations.
DO THEIR FRIENDS USE DRUGS? The problem for parents is that they want to believe that their kids are not into drugs. How to find out if their friends are drug users is an even bigger problem. The police are likely to know what kids in the community are into drugs, but they are unlikely to give this information to an inquiring parent for fear of facing a possible law suit. The school authorities probably know of, or suspect certain individuals or groups of involvement with drugs, but they will not reveal this information out of privacy concerns, as well as a fear of law suits. Church attendance by their friends does not guarantee abstinence from drug use, nor does being the son or daughter of the church's pastor. Graduation from a public school's DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program, which police officers teach, has minimal effect on students by the time they enter high school. Participation in Chuck Norris' KICK START program, which is offered in 37 Texas schools, does not guarantee that a student will stay drug free once he leaves the program. It all depends on who a kid associates with. Often, the only way to find out who their kids are running around with, is to contact a former close friend and findout why they broke up.
SUSPECTED DRUG USE. For those parents who refuse to suspect their kids of using drugs, it will be too late by the time they recognize it. Good grades in school do not equate to abstinence, but an unexplained drop in grades could indicate drug use. Changes in basic habits, such as tidyness to sloppyness, or loss of interest in favorite activities may be indicators of involvement with drugs. If the kid is hyper-active he may be using cocaine or methamphetamines, and if he is unusally lethargic he may be using heroin or some other narcotic. If parents suspect the use of drugs, questioning the kid is going to produce only a string of strong denials. An open and trusting relationship between parents and their children is, of course, desirable and can prevent involvement with drugs. However, once that trust has been compromised and drug use is suspected, the only alternative is for parents to conduct frequent and thorough surreptitious searches of their child's room and belongings. It is important to know that drug hiding places are limited only by the user's imagination. Searches of a drug user's room and belongings will inevitably turn up drug residue, drugs, or drug paraphanalia.
Social workers and mental health professionals strongly oppose searches by parents, claiming that these will destroy any trust between parents and their children, That's a lot of baloney. Searches for drugs are no different than searching sites on the child's computer for sexually explicit messages, something child advocates recommend to protect children from sexual predators. Most teenagers will push the envelope to see what they can get away with, whether it is sneaking out in the middle ot the night to be with a boyfriend or girlfriend, skipping school, driving at dangerous speeds, looking up porn sites on the computer, getting on the internet to exchange sexually explicit messages, or worse yet, arranging sexual liaisons with strangers.. And, we are not necessarily talking about bad kids.
WHY DO KIDS GET INVOLVED WITH DRUGS? It could be peer pressure. It could be looking for a forbidden thrill. Occasionally, but rarely, drug use may result from an unhappy home life. During the Vietnam War, drug use by young people was a way of demonstrating their defiance of the "establishment," The rallying cry then was, "Alcohol is your drug, marijuana is ours." With prolonged drug use, addiction may result, and if that happens, breaking the habit will become very difficult.
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS. Many psychiatrists and clinical psychologists, using their pscho-babble, unwittingly or diliberately, give their patients excuses for bad behaior, which is exactly what drug use is. Dr. Feelgood will say, "You're a drug user because your mama looked backwards in the mirror while she was pregnant." Dr. Moonbeam will say, "You're an axe murderer because your daddy took away your rubber ducky while you were in the bathtub." William Glasser, the psychiatrist who founded the practice referred to as Reality Therapy, was less interested in what happened to his patients while they were still sucking their thumbs, than in their present behavior. "You are in jail because you are a prostitute." "You are in prison because you are a crook." "You are on probation because you smoked pot." He made it clear to his patients that their criminal behavior was not the result of having experienced some traumatic event during early childhood. Dr. Glasser insisted on dealing with the here and now, and on getting his patients to take personal responsibility for their actions, thereby motivating many of them to modify their behavior. Regretably, most psychiatrists dismissed his methods and openly belittled both Glasser and the practice of Reality Therapy.
MARIJUANA. Speaking of marijuana, it is a big mistake to downplay the seriousness of this drug. Marijuana can be addictive, but worse yet, it is a GATEWAY DRUG - almost all pill-poppers, cocaine (or crack) users, methamphetamine users, and heroin addicts started out on marijuana. For that reason, the use of Marijuana should NOT be legalized, and its users, when caught, should be made to experience some jail time. 10 - 30 days in jail will take away the pleasure of smoking pot from the pleasure seeking pot smokers. Parents must emphasize to their kids that bad behavior can have serious consequences.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. How did America get so involved in the illicit use of drugs? It came about hand-in-glove with the Vietmam anti-war movement. Before the Vietnam War, illicit drug consumption was largely confined to the use of marijuana and heroin by Mexican-Americans, heroin by African-Americans, and marijuana and cocaine among artists, musicians and Hollywood celebrities. Because our Anglo-Saxon majority had little concern for racial and ethnic minorities, Mexicans and blacks received harsh prison sentences when caught holding drugs. That was before the middle and upper class spoiled brats, who were protesting against the Vietnam War on our college and university campuses, started using drugs as an additional means of defying the hated establishment. The use of drugs was often a group activity, thus giving its members the courage to confront the police during college sit-ins and off-campus protests. When the sons and daughters from middle and upper class families began to be arrested on drug charges, their prominent and influential parents became alarmed because their "good kids" would be unable to become doctors and lawyers with an arrest or prison record.
ESTABLISHING THE DRUG CULTURE. It did not take long for sympathetic judges to show leniency to drug users from "good families", thus inadverdently encouraging and increasing the use of drugs. Congress and state legislatures quickly passed new laws which reduced the penalties for drug violations. This rush to spare good white kids from having to serve prison time also eliminated some of the harsh sentences that had been meeted out to Mexicans and African-Americans. Then the psychiatrists did their part by insisting that the use of drugs was a mental health problem and and not a criminal matter, and by advocating the decriminalization of drug possession and use. Insurance companies were forced to cover addiction treatment, thus driving up health insurance costs. The counter culture of the Vietnam era has left the United States with the highest rate of illicit drug consumption of any country in the world. To the "stoned generation", thank you so much for screwing up the youths of our country with the drug culture to which you gave birth. Say what? Oh, your children are now into drugs. Tough! What goes around, comes around. You, rather than your kids, deserve to suffer from the problems you created. You never learned that AS YE SOW, SO SHALL YE REAP.
THE SIREN SONG. Why do pot smokers progess to the use of other drugs? Once the use of marijuana, or any other drug, becomes prosaic, the user will naturally seek out a more potent drug. The siren song of pleasure producing substances is so overwhelming, that substance abusers are sucked deeper and deeper into the drug culture, once prolonged use has taken effect. Addiction is both physical and psychological. When a heroin addict goes to prison, his physical addiction will soon be terminated. However, his psychological addiction will continue for years. That is why a heroin addict who has been released after ten years in prison, starts using heroin again as soon as he can reconnect with addicts on the outside. What is it about drugs that is so appealing? I have interviewed hundreds of heroin addicts on why they use and continue to use this substance in the face of numerous arrests, unpleasant physical withdrawals, imprisonment, and alienation from their families. In almost every instance, the answer was similar to this: "I USE IT BECAUSE I LIKE IT. IT GIVES ME A GREAT FEELING." No psycho-babble there.
One heroin addict, who I interviewed, came from a very wealthy family in Palm Springs, California. This is what he told me: "When I'm high, a cop can hassle me and it don't bother me. A car can splash mud all over my best threads and it don't bother me. My old lady can nag the hell out of me and it don't bother me. My kids can scream their heads off and it don't bother me. I really feel great." What did this man get from that great feeling? His multi-millionaire parents disinherited him, his wife divorced him and obtained a court order prohibiting him from seeing his two children, he was in and out of jail or prison, and he could only obtain menial work when not incarcerated. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HEROIN USERS ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE USERS OF OTHER DRUGS. Substance abusers really like whatever drugs they are using.
ADDICTION TREATMENT: There are now thousands of drug abuse clinics and programs, some of which are effective. With the majority of clinics, treatment failures are common and their patients relapse soon after leaving the program. Most discharge their patients just as soon as their insurance benefits have maxed out. The Betty Ford clinic in California is excellent, but few can afford what it costs to enter this program. In order for treatment to be successful, the addict must be highly motivated to stop using drugs. Doctors have a very high rate of addiction, They are highly motivated because their addiction can cost them everything they have invested after eight or more years of medical schooling, internship, and residency requirements, and after years of building up a practice. Treatment is a hit and miss proposition and may involve frequent relapses over a period of years.
With all the problems associated with drug abuse and with the rate of treatment failures, it is extremely important for parents to know who their children are associating with. Drug addiction is a disease of association. By keeping your kids from running around with drug users you will be keeping them from using illicit drugs and from becoming drug addicts.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
HAMAS - THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
On January 7, 2006, I wrote a blog entitled ISRAEL'S FUTURE SURVIVAL AFTER SHARON, in which I stated that most Palestinians really did not want two states existing side by side, one Jewish and the other Palestinian. Instead, the Palestinians were comitted to the destruction of Israel, no matter how long it took.
Yesterday, the Palestinians held a much heralded election for their Parliament and it appears that Hamas won by a huge majority. Hamas is a terrorist organization which has claimed responsibility for many attacks against Israeli civilians. While Hamas based a good part of its campaign issues on cleaning up the corruption within the Palestinian Authority. it is absolutely opposed to peace with Israel and strongly advocates the destruction of the "Zionist entity". Hamas - thank you very much! You have proven my point about the Palestinian's goal of wiping Israel off the map.
This election should make it clear to the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and the peace advocates in the U.S. State Department, that their touted "Road Map to Peace", with two states existing side by side, is for the Palestinians, like Islamists throughout the world, merely a temporary detour on the road to Israel's destruction. Hamas, with its victory in the election for Parliament, has demonstrated that a permanent peace treaty with Israel will be nothing more than an illusion.
Israel should now unilaterally proceed to draw up a militarily secure boundary which will include a portion of the West Bank, including all of the well-established settlements, and all of Jerusalem. Once this boundary has been established, any attacks against the State of Israel can and should be met with a strong, but measured, military response.
As I stated in my previous blog, neither Amir Peretz, leader of the dovish left-wing Labor Party, nor Ehud Olmert, heir-apparent to Sharon's Kadima Party, will have the fortitude to stand up to the UN, to the EU, and to the U.S. in the unilateral establishment of a secure and defensible Jewish state. Only Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party has the backbone to establish such a state, and the Israelis will be well avised to elect him Prime Minister in the March 28th election.
Yesterday, the Palestinians held a much heralded election for their Parliament and it appears that Hamas won by a huge majority. Hamas is a terrorist organization which has claimed responsibility for many attacks against Israeli civilians. While Hamas based a good part of its campaign issues on cleaning up the corruption within the Palestinian Authority. it is absolutely opposed to peace with Israel and strongly advocates the destruction of the "Zionist entity". Hamas - thank you very much! You have proven my point about the Palestinian's goal of wiping Israel off the map.
This election should make it clear to the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and the peace advocates in the U.S. State Department, that their touted "Road Map to Peace", with two states existing side by side, is for the Palestinians, like Islamists throughout the world, merely a temporary detour on the road to Israel's destruction. Hamas, with its victory in the election for Parliament, has demonstrated that a permanent peace treaty with Israel will be nothing more than an illusion.
Israel should now unilaterally proceed to draw up a militarily secure boundary which will include a portion of the West Bank, including all of the well-established settlements, and all of Jerusalem. Once this boundary has been established, any attacks against the State of Israel can and should be met with a strong, but measured, military response.
As I stated in my previous blog, neither Amir Peretz, leader of the dovish left-wing Labor Party, nor Ehud Olmert, heir-apparent to Sharon's Kadima Party, will have the fortitude to stand up to the UN, to the EU, and to the U.S. in the unilateral establishment of a secure and defensible Jewish state. Only Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud Party has the backbone to establish such a state, and the Israelis will be well avised to elect him Prime Minister in the March 28th election.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
MODERN KEYSTONE COPS
Those of us who have seen them, have had a belly-full of laughs watching silent movies with the keystone cops. While most police officers today are well trained and deserve the public's admiration and gratitude, there are still some boneheads in police uniforms and even some good officers making boneheaded mistakes. Believe it or not, the following OH SHIT situations actually ocurred.
GUNS. A police agency had not had any officer inspections for many years when they decided to hold a surprise line-up inspection. When the inspecting officer came to one of the men in his late 60s, the veteran cop was unable to draw his revolver from the holster. The inspector could not do so either. It was discovered that the gun had not been taken out of the holster for a number of years. The leather had become moldy, thus welding the revolver to the holster. It took several hours to peel and scrape the moldy leather off of the revolver.
A police agency which allowed its officers to carry their own guns conducted its annual firearms qualification exercises. One officer carried a .357 magnum revolver with a barrell so long that he was unable to draw his weapon from its holster because his armpit got in the way.
A police chief in his 70s accompanied his officers to the firearms range for their annual qualification exercises. During timed exercises, his officers consistently got off two or three shots before he even got his gun out of the holster. With only one more exercise remaining, he was determined to draw his gun as fast as his officers. When the whistle started the exercise, he actually got off the first shot. Unfortunately, his gun never left the holster and he shot himself in his right leg, from the thigh down to his knee. Oh yes, the old chief was a retired FBI firearms instructor.
After a short car chase, the crook bailed out and headed into the woods with an officer in hot pursuit. When the crook stopped and turned around, the officer quickly drew his gun from the holster. Unfortunately, the officer lost his grip and the gun flipped end over end right into the crook's hands. The amazed crook ended up pointing the gun at the officer, Fortunately though, the crook decided to surrender, returned the gun, and allowed the officer to take him into custody.
An officer, in a one-man unit, was in pursuit of a crook driving a stolen car. After a couple of near accidents, the officer got pissed off and drew his gun, held it out of the window, and fired a shot at the fleeing crook. Guess what? His round went right down along the top of the police car's fender, The resulting fender indentation cost about $700 to repair.
CARS. An officer was dispatched to flag down a moving freight train. The officer parked his unit on the railroad tracks, turned on his flashing light bar, got out of the police car, and frantically waved his arms back and forth in an effort to get the train to stop. The officer jumped aside at the very last moment. His unit was not as fortunate, ending up smashed into smithereens about a quarter of a mile down the track. Oh yes, the train did stop.
A couple of patrol officers, while on the midnight watch in a resort community, decided to park their patrol car on the beach and catch a few winks of sleep. When they awoke, they found themselves completely surrounded by a dozen or so cars. The people in the cars wanted to spend the night on the beach and parked by the police car because in doing so, they felt safe from predators.
A couple of officers, in the same beach community, also decided to "coop" on the beach one night. Being aware of what previously happened to the aforementioned officers, they found an isolated spot on the beach and went to sleep. They were awakened with the strange feeling that their feet were soaking wet. The high tide had come in and there were already several inches of water in the patrol car. They were forced to carefully wade ashore in knee deep water. By the time a wrecker arrived, the water was almost up to the window level.
A burglar was running down an alley pursued by two officers in a patrol car. Suddenly, he turned and jumped over a six foot fence. The driving officer, without hesitation (or thinking for that matter), opened the door and jumped out to chase the burglar. The problem was that he left the car in drive. His horrified partner was left trying to control the car from the passenger side. He barely avoided smashing into a telephone pole before bringing the unit to a stop. Did they catch the burlar? Nope.
A police officer in a one-man unit was dispatched to a neighborhood with a report that there were two great danes running loose. When he spotted the dogs, he was advised to see if he could pick them up because no animal control unit would be available. He got out of his unit, approached the two dogs, and found them to be friendly. He grabbed one by the collar and coaxed it into the back of his unit. He collared the second dog, but when he opened the door, the first one tried to get out. To keep the dog from getting out, he positioned himself between the two dogs and pulled the second one in with him. Holding on to the second dog, he pulled the door shut. OH SHIT! The rear doors had no door-openers in order to keep any prisoners from escaping. The officer was locked up in the back of the police car with his two new Gread Dane buddies. He did not have a hand-held radio and, because of the screen separating the front compartment from the rear, he could not reach the unit's rado. It was more than half an hour before someone came along to let him out.
BRAVE BUT STUPID. On a serious note, every day somewhere in the United States, one or more officers will try to stop a fleeing driver by jumping in front of his car, waving at him to stop. Usually the officers are able to jump out of the way without getting hurt. Sometimes they are hit by the car. Sometimes they shoot at the driver, either before he is about to hit them, or after the fleeing car has gone by. The driver, when caught, is usually charged with aggravated assault, or even attempted murder, for intentionally trying to run down the officer. While a few of these fleeing suspects do try to run down the officers, the overwhelming majority are only trying to avoid arrest and believe that the officers will get out of the way in time. The incidents of officers jumping in front of fleeing cars, and then shooting at them, were so frequent in Houston, Texas, that recently the police department in that city issued a written policy forbidding officers from trying to stop drivers by those means.
GUNS. A police agency had not had any officer inspections for many years when they decided to hold a surprise line-up inspection. When the inspecting officer came to one of the men in his late 60s, the veteran cop was unable to draw his revolver from the holster. The inspector could not do so either. It was discovered that the gun had not been taken out of the holster for a number of years. The leather had become moldy, thus welding the revolver to the holster. It took several hours to peel and scrape the moldy leather off of the revolver.
A police agency which allowed its officers to carry their own guns conducted its annual firearms qualification exercises. One officer carried a .357 magnum revolver with a barrell so long that he was unable to draw his weapon from its holster because his armpit got in the way.
A police chief in his 70s accompanied his officers to the firearms range for their annual qualification exercises. During timed exercises, his officers consistently got off two or three shots before he even got his gun out of the holster. With only one more exercise remaining, he was determined to draw his gun as fast as his officers. When the whistle started the exercise, he actually got off the first shot. Unfortunately, his gun never left the holster and he shot himself in his right leg, from the thigh down to his knee. Oh yes, the old chief was a retired FBI firearms instructor.
After a short car chase, the crook bailed out and headed into the woods with an officer in hot pursuit. When the crook stopped and turned around, the officer quickly drew his gun from the holster. Unfortunately, the officer lost his grip and the gun flipped end over end right into the crook's hands. The amazed crook ended up pointing the gun at the officer, Fortunately though, the crook decided to surrender, returned the gun, and allowed the officer to take him into custody.
An officer, in a one-man unit, was in pursuit of a crook driving a stolen car. After a couple of near accidents, the officer got pissed off and drew his gun, held it out of the window, and fired a shot at the fleeing crook. Guess what? His round went right down along the top of the police car's fender, The resulting fender indentation cost about $700 to repair.
CARS. An officer was dispatched to flag down a moving freight train. The officer parked his unit on the railroad tracks, turned on his flashing light bar, got out of the police car, and frantically waved his arms back and forth in an effort to get the train to stop. The officer jumped aside at the very last moment. His unit was not as fortunate, ending up smashed into smithereens about a quarter of a mile down the track. Oh yes, the train did stop.
A couple of patrol officers, while on the midnight watch in a resort community, decided to park their patrol car on the beach and catch a few winks of sleep. When they awoke, they found themselves completely surrounded by a dozen or so cars. The people in the cars wanted to spend the night on the beach and parked by the police car because in doing so, they felt safe from predators.
A couple of officers, in the same beach community, also decided to "coop" on the beach one night. Being aware of what previously happened to the aforementioned officers, they found an isolated spot on the beach and went to sleep. They were awakened with the strange feeling that their feet were soaking wet. The high tide had come in and there were already several inches of water in the patrol car. They were forced to carefully wade ashore in knee deep water. By the time a wrecker arrived, the water was almost up to the window level.
A burglar was running down an alley pursued by two officers in a patrol car. Suddenly, he turned and jumped over a six foot fence. The driving officer, without hesitation (or thinking for that matter), opened the door and jumped out to chase the burglar. The problem was that he left the car in drive. His horrified partner was left trying to control the car from the passenger side. He barely avoided smashing into a telephone pole before bringing the unit to a stop. Did they catch the burlar? Nope.
A police officer in a one-man unit was dispatched to a neighborhood with a report that there were two great danes running loose. When he spotted the dogs, he was advised to see if he could pick them up because no animal control unit would be available. He got out of his unit, approached the two dogs, and found them to be friendly. He grabbed one by the collar and coaxed it into the back of his unit. He collared the second dog, but when he opened the door, the first one tried to get out. To keep the dog from getting out, he positioned himself between the two dogs and pulled the second one in with him. Holding on to the second dog, he pulled the door shut. OH SHIT! The rear doors had no door-openers in order to keep any prisoners from escaping. The officer was locked up in the back of the police car with his two new Gread Dane buddies. He did not have a hand-held radio and, because of the screen separating the front compartment from the rear, he could not reach the unit's rado. It was more than half an hour before someone came along to let him out.
BRAVE BUT STUPID. On a serious note, every day somewhere in the United States, one or more officers will try to stop a fleeing driver by jumping in front of his car, waving at him to stop. Usually the officers are able to jump out of the way without getting hurt. Sometimes they are hit by the car. Sometimes they shoot at the driver, either before he is about to hit them, or after the fleeing car has gone by. The driver, when caught, is usually charged with aggravated assault, or even attempted murder, for intentionally trying to run down the officer. While a few of these fleeing suspects do try to run down the officers, the overwhelming majority are only trying to avoid arrest and believe that the officers will get out of the way in time. The incidents of officers jumping in front of fleeing cars, and then shooting at them, were so frequent in Houston, Texas, that recently the police department in that city issued a written policy forbidding officers from trying to stop drivers by those means.
Monday, January 16, 2006
EXECUTING A FEEBLE SEPTUAGENARIAN
Clarence Ray Allen, a septuagenarian who is legally blind and nearly deaf, is scheduled to be executed by the State of California on January 17, 2006. Allen will turn 76 on the eve of his execution and will have to be pushed to the execution chamber in a wheelchair. His attorneys are appealing his death sentence to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that Allen is so feeble that his execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Why has this poor old blind man, who cannot even walk to the execution chamber,been sentenced to death? In 1980, while serving time in prison for another murder, a hit man hired by Allen killed three people. Thus, it can be said that Allen is not on death row for singing off key in the prison chapel choir.
Allen's execution has been delayed for more than 23 years by numerous appeals. At the time of the triple murder he was 50 years of age. It is not the fault of the State of California that he has become feeble while sitting on death row - that is his own fault and that of his attorneys. And, there is something wrong with a justice system that allows the filing of appeal after appeal for a period of over 23 years. After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen's request for clemency on Friday the 13th, his attorneys filed the latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Allen is executed as scheduled, he will become the second oldest inmate to be put to death since capital punishment was reinstated in this country. Last month, Mississippi executed John B. Nixon, Sr. at the age of 77. The oldest death row inmate, 90 year old Viva Leroy Nash, is awaiting execution in Arizona. It should be noted that all these old folks are awaiting execution as punishment for heinous crimes. They should not be rewarded for achieving feebleness while their attorneys extended the appeals process year after year.
Hey, where is Jesse Jackson? Oops, this guy is white. If the Supreme Court turns down Allen's last minute appeal, I will wish him a happy 76th birthday and adios!
Why has this poor old blind man, who cannot even walk to the execution chamber,been sentenced to death? In 1980, while serving time in prison for another murder, a hit man hired by Allen killed three people. Thus, it can be said that Allen is not on death row for singing off key in the prison chapel choir.
Allen's execution has been delayed for more than 23 years by numerous appeals. At the time of the triple murder he was 50 years of age. It is not the fault of the State of California that he has become feeble while sitting on death row - that is his own fault and that of his attorneys. And, there is something wrong with a justice system that allows the filing of appeal after appeal for a period of over 23 years. After Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Allen's request for clemency on Friday the 13th, his attorneys filed the latest appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If Allen is executed as scheduled, he will become the second oldest inmate to be put to death since capital punishment was reinstated in this country. Last month, Mississippi executed John B. Nixon, Sr. at the age of 77. The oldest death row inmate, 90 year old Viva Leroy Nash, is awaiting execution in Arizona. It should be noted that all these old folks are awaiting execution as punishment for heinous crimes. They should not be rewarded for achieving feebleness while their attorneys extended the appeals process year after year.
Hey, where is Jesse Jackson? Oops, this guy is white. If the Supreme Court turns down Allen's last minute appeal, I will wish him a happy 76th birthday and adios!
Saturday, January 14, 2006
IN PRAISE OF J. EDGAR HOOVER
Let me paraphrase Shakespeare: Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to praise J. Edgar Hoover, not to bury his name. The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones. So DON'T let it be with J. Edgar Hoover.
According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, for the third straight year, Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has introduced a bill in Congress to remove J. Edgar Hoover's name from the FBI headdquarters building. U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman supports this measure, stating that "this country - and the bureau - would be well-served if his name were removed from the bureau's building. It is as if the Defense Department were named for Aaron Burr." In 1998, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada attempeted to have Hoover's name removed from the building, stating that "J. Edgar Hoover stands for what is bad about this country. This small man violated the rights of hundreds, if not thousands, of people, famous and not so famous."
Judge Silberman's Defense Department analogy is ridiculous. Burr was a traitor, Hoover a patriot. As for Sen. Reid, Hoover was a great man, not a small one. Compared to Hoover, the senator is the one who is a small man. Those who want to erase Hoover's name from the public mind, are doing so because he attempted to falsely discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. and other activists during the height of the civil rights movement. They also accuse Hoover of blackmailing government officials and members of Congress by accumulating information about any embarrassing misbehavior, thus intimidating them to the extent that they would not interfere with his operation of the FBI.
Hoover was clearly wrong in his efforts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. Planting stories about King's alleged womanizing was an act of evil. Imposing King's photo on a picture of the participants at a communist party camp meeting was an act of evil. There is no excuse for what Hoover did, even though he truly believed that King and other civil rights activists constituted a threat to law and order in this country.
What about collecting embarrassing information on government officials and prominent politicians? Hoover was not the only one to do this. Bill Parker, one of the greatest police chiefs ever, did so while he headed the Los Angeles Police Department. And so did a lot of other police chiefs throughout the country. In doing so, they prevented the petty political interference with law enforcement so prevalent in many police agencies.
While today's FBI is still one of our best law enforcement agencies, it is not as good as it was under Hoover. Today's agents have so much more modern technology at their disposal. In Hoover's time agents did a lot of "gumshooing", while now they spent much of their time seated behind their computers. When Hoover ran the FBI, he demanded the utmost integrity from his agents. (Of course that ran counter to his efforts at discrediting civil rights activists.) There were no scandals during his stewartship. Agents toed the line, both on duty and off duty. Since his death, the FBI has experienced scandals from the very top to the bottom. Even within the FBI's touted laboratory, there have been fabrications and other questionable practices.
Hoover has often been falsely and maliciously accused by his detractors. While there is little doubt that Hoover was a homosexual, one of the allegations was that he partied in Washington as a cross-dresser. That charge is absolutely absurd. He was uglier than sin, often being compared in looks to his pet bulldog. So who in the world would want to look at him dressed like a woman? Besides, he would have been easily recognized in public, no matter how he was dressed or what wig he may have been wearing. While Hoover was alive, no one ever alleged that he was a cross-dresser.
Hoover was truly a great man, serving his country to ensure its security and public safety. The above described acts of evil should not define the man. His good acts and his numerous contributions to law enforcement should not be interred with his bones. Hoover should continue to be honored with his name on the headquarters building of the agency he created and led so successfully for so many years.
According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, for the third straight year, Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana has introduced a bill in Congress to remove J. Edgar Hoover's name from the FBI headdquarters building. U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman supports this measure, stating that "this country - and the bureau - would be well-served if his name were removed from the bureau's building. It is as if the Defense Department were named for Aaron Burr." In 1998, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada attempeted to have Hoover's name removed from the building, stating that "J. Edgar Hoover stands for what is bad about this country. This small man violated the rights of hundreds, if not thousands, of people, famous and not so famous."
Judge Silberman's Defense Department analogy is ridiculous. Burr was a traitor, Hoover a patriot. As for Sen. Reid, Hoover was a great man, not a small one. Compared to Hoover, the senator is the one who is a small man. Those who want to erase Hoover's name from the public mind, are doing so because he attempted to falsely discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. and other activists during the height of the civil rights movement. They also accuse Hoover of blackmailing government officials and members of Congress by accumulating information about any embarrassing misbehavior, thus intimidating them to the extent that they would not interfere with his operation of the FBI.
Hoover was clearly wrong in his efforts to discredit Martin Luther King, Jr. Planting stories about King's alleged womanizing was an act of evil. Imposing King's photo on a picture of the participants at a communist party camp meeting was an act of evil. There is no excuse for what Hoover did, even though he truly believed that King and other civil rights activists constituted a threat to law and order in this country.
What about collecting embarrassing information on government officials and prominent politicians? Hoover was not the only one to do this. Bill Parker, one of the greatest police chiefs ever, did so while he headed the Los Angeles Police Department. And so did a lot of other police chiefs throughout the country. In doing so, they prevented the petty political interference with law enforcement so prevalent in many police agencies.
While today's FBI is still one of our best law enforcement agencies, it is not as good as it was under Hoover. Today's agents have so much more modern technology at their disposal. In Hoover's time agents did a lot of "gumshooing", while now they spent much of their time seated behind their computers. When Hoover ran the FBI, he demanded the utmost integrity from his agents. (Of course that ran counter to his efforts at discrediting civil rights activists.) There were no scandals during his stewartship. Agents toed the line, both on duty and off duty. Since his death, the FBI has experienced scandals from the very top to the bottom. Even within the FBI's touted laboratory, there have been fabrications and other questionable practices.
Hoover has often been falsely and maliciously accused by his detractors. While there is little doubt that Hoover was a homosexual, one of the allegations was that he partied in Washington as a cross-dresser. That charge is absolutely absurd. He was uglier than sin, often being compared in looks to his pet bulldog. So who in the world would want to look at him dressed like a woman? Besides, he would have been easily recognized in public, no matter how he was dressed or what wig he may have been wearing. While Hoover was alive, no one ever alleged that he was a cross-dresser.
Hoover was truly a great man, serving his country to ensure its security and public safety. The above described acts of evil should not define the man. His good acts and his numerous contributions to law enforcement should not be interred with his bones. Hoover should continue to be honored with his name on the headquarters building of the agency he created and led so successfully for so many years.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
ISRAEL'S FUTURE SURVIVAL AFTER SHARON
Please allow me to regress from my usual police related blogs. Having arrived in the United States in 1936 as a refugee from Nazi Germany, I have always been a history buff, having minored in that subject during my undergraduate degree studies. Because I am jewish, I have a special interest in the State of Israel, the place of refuge for most of the holocaust survivors. And now, whether or not Ariel Sharon survives his massive stroke, it is quite obvious that his political career has come to an end. What happens now? The following background information concerns the future survival of Israel.
ISLAMISTS AND ISRAEL. Islamic true believers throughout the Middle East, in Pakistan, in Indonisia, in Malaysia, and in North Africa are firmly committed to the destruction of Israel and they do not, under any circumstances, accept the coexistence of two states - Israel and Palestine - side by side. The president of Iran has, during several recent public pronouncements, called for the desstruction of Israel. Textbooks used in Islamic schools are full of hatred for jews and for Israel. Newspapers throughout the Islamic world, including those of Egypt, are full of jew-hating cartoons. Hamas, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian grooups proclaim that their objective is the destruction of Israel. I suspect that even those Palestinians who are seeking peace with Israel now, are doing so in the belief that they will be able to destroy Israel in the foreseeable future. At many mosques, including some in the western w orld, Islamic clergy preach hatred for jews and for Israel, calling for its destruction. Tlhese "men of God" glorify suicide bombings and advocate and applaud terrorist attacks against Israel and against "the great satan", which is their term for the United States.
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED NATIONS. Ever since its inception, the EU has sided with the Palestinians against Israel. The EU wants to curry favor with the oil producing Arab states. They considered Arafat a hero and welcomed him like royalty. They condemned each and every Israeli settlement and insist that Israel give up all of the west bank and return to its pre-1948 boundaries. While they praised Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza and condemned the Iranian president's call for the destruction of Israel, their pronouncements leave no doubt that they are on the side of the Palestinians. The UN has always sided with the Palestinians. On many occasions in the Security Council, the United States had to come to Israel's aid by using its veto power. The UN General Assembly has always been overwhelmingly anti-Israel because most third-world countries have joined the Arab states in numerous condemnations of Israel. Both the EU and the UN keep calliing on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians without calling for any concessions on the part of the Palestinians. Add Russia, China and India as major players on the world stage that have consistently sided with the Palestinians.
THE UNITED STATES. The United States has been Israel's chief supporter. It has given Israel billions of dollars in economic and military aid. The degree of support has varied during different administrations, but the United States has always been a friend of Israel. The first President Bush was considered one of the least friendly presidents. The current president has been the most friendly of all, but that may be due to Preesident Bush's pre-occupation with other matters, such as "9-11" and the war in Iraq. However, the United States has always pressured Israel to grant the Palestinians concessions, some of which could compromise Israel's security. It does this in order to curry favor with Saudi Arabia and other oil producing Arab countries. The United States has always maintained that it would come to the aid of Israel should it face extinction by its enemies, but it is highly doubtful that the American public would support the shedding of American blood in the defense of Israel. Christian conservatives have been Israel's stongest supporters. The radical left in the United States, which includes many jews, has consistently championed the cause of the Palestinans.
A DIVIDED ISRAEL. Religious jews believe that God created biblical Israel, which includes all of the west bank, as the homeland of the jews and they are unwilling to give up any of this land to the Palestinians. The settlements are made up largely of religious jews. Secular jews are willing to trade land for peace, as long as Israel's security is not compromised. The Peace Now movement consists of the radical left and youths of military age. It wants to dismantle all settlements and return to Israel's pre-1948 borders in return for peace with the Palestinians. The Peace Now movement is very simmilar to that of the anti-war movement in lthe United States during the Vietnam war conflict. It is conceivable that a civil war could break out in Israel over the "peace process" between the religious and secular jews.
ANTI-TERRORIST SECURITY BARRIER. Israeli civilians have been victimized by numerous terrorist bombings. To combat these attacks, Israel is building a high wall and fence to separate jews from Palestinian terrorists. The Palestinians fear that the wall will become the new border of the State of Israel and together with the rest of the world, including the United States, have condemned the construction of this barrier. However, there can be no quesstion that the wall has stopped almost all terrorist attacks against the Israeli civilian population. (The United States is considering constructing a similar barrier along its border with Mexico.)
DEFENSIBLE AND SECURE BORDERS. To a large extent, security for the State of Israel depends on defensible borders. At its narrowest, it is less than nine miles from the west bank to the Mediterranean Sea. There is absolutely no way that Israel can be secure were it to return all of the west bank as demanded by the Palestinians. While it can dismantle its outpost settlements, the new borders of Israel must include all of the established settlements, as well as access to the headwaters of the Jordan River.
EAST JERUSALEM. The Palestinians insist on a state with Jerusalem (not East Jerusalem) as its capitol. A Palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem would be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel. All of Jerusalem must remain an indivisible part of the State of Israel. The 200,000 Palestinians living there should be offered Israeli citizenship. Those who refuse to become Israeli citizens should be expelled, but the government must compensate them for the loss of their property.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Israel is surrounded by millions of sworn ememies. Iran will probably develop nuclear weapons in the near future. It already has missles capable of striking Israel. America's nuclear weapons served as a deterrant to further expansion of the Soviet Union and deterred any nuclear attacks by the Soviets. Israel's nuclear arms have deterred Arab attacks and will continue to play a major role in that tiny nation's security.
PALESTINIAN SUFFERING. Do the Palesinians have some legitimate grievances? Of course they do. Is Israel blameless? Certainly not. The Palestinians have suffered the loss of land and lives in their conflict with Israel, but they have brought most of this suffering upon themselves. It is true that in 1948, when the Arabs attacked the newly formed State of Israel, its army drove out some of the Psalestinians living within its borders. However, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled at the urging of the Arabs who wanted to annihilate the jews without inflicting collateral casualties on the Palestinian population. When the Araqbs lost, the Palestinians were left to languish in refugee camps. The Arabs did not offer any assistance and refused to assimilate the refugees, which they easily could have done, preferring to use their suffering as a political pawn against Israel. In recent years, Arafat's intransigence and the intifada has brought on Israeli reprisals, thus furthering the suffering of the Palestinians. Thus, their grievances should be directed at the Arabs who kept them in refugee camps and at their own leaders and the militants who are responsible for much of their suffering.
ROADMAP TO PEACE OR ROADMAP TO DISASTER? The roadmap to peace, which is being pushed by President Bush, was plotted by the United States together with the UN, the EU and Russia, the latter three having a long history of siding with the Palestinians against Israel. If the roadmap requires the dismantlement of established settlements and a Palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem, it will be a roadmap to disaster for the State of Israel by compromising its security.
AFTER SHARON? ISRAEL NEEDS BENJAMIN NETANYAHU! Israel needs a strong leader who will remain resolute against pressure to make disasterous concessions to the Palestinians. The dovish Shimon Peres is not that man. Neither is Amir Peretz, the new leader of the dovish left-wing Labor Party. Ehud Olmert, the former mayor of Jerusalem who, together with Sharon and Peres formed the new Kadima party, is not that man either. It was Olmert who urged Sharon to abandon Gaza. Before Sharon suffered his latest stroke, Kadima was expected to win the March 28 election, but with Sharon unable to lead the new party, that outcome is now in doubt. Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party is the best man for the job. He is a strong leader who will not allow Israel's security to be compromised. Although it is said that he is against peace, he will make peace with the Palestinians, but it will be on terms that will ensure the security and survival of the State of Israel.
ISLAMISTS AND ISRAEL. Islamic true believers throughout the Middle East, in Pakistan, in Indonisia, in Malaysia, and in North Africa are firmly committed to the destruction of Israel and they do not, under any circumstances, accept the coexistence of two states - Israel and Palestine - side by side. The president of Iran has, during several recent public pronouncements, called for the desstruction of Israel. Textbooks used in Islamic schools are full of hatred for jews and for Israel. Newspapers throughout the Islamic world, including those of Egypt, are full of jew-hating cartoons. Hamas, Hezbolla, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian grooups proclaim that their objective is the destruction of Israel. I suspect that even those Palestinians who are seeking peace with Israel now, are doing so in the belief that they will be able to destroy Israel in the foreseeable future. At many mosques, including some in the western w orld, Islamic clergy preach hatred for jews and for Israel, calling for its destruction. Tlhese "men of God" glorify suicide bombings and advocate and applaud terrorist attacks against Israel and against "the great satan", which is their term for the United States.
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED NATIONS. Ever since its inception, the EU has sided with the Palestinians against Israel. The EU wants to curry favor with the oil producing Arab states. They considered Arafat a hero and welcomed him like royalty. They condemned each and every Israeli settlement and insist that Israel give up all of the west bank and return to its pre-1948 boundaries. While they praised Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza and condemned the Iranian president's call for the destruction of Israel, their pronouncements leave no doubt that they are on the side of the Palestinians. The UN has always sided with the Palestinians. On many occasions in the Security Council, the United States had to come to Israel's aid by using its veto power. The UN General Assembly has always been overwhelmingly anti-Israel because most third-world countries have joined the Arab states in numerous condemnations of Israel. Both the EU and the UN keep calliing on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians without calling for any concessions on the part of the Palestinians. Add Russia, China and India as major players on the world stage that have consistently sided with the Palestinians.
THE UNITED STATES. The United States has been Israel's chief supporter. It has given Israel billions of dollars in economic and military aid. The degree of support has varied during different administrations, but the United States has always been a friend of Israel. The first President Bush was considered one of the least friendly presidents. The current president has been the most friendly of all, but that may be due to Preesident Bush's pre-occupation with other matters, such as "9-11" and the war in Iraq. However, the United States has always pressured Israel to grant the Palestinians concessions, some of which could compromise Israel's security. It does this in order to curry favor with Saudi Arabia and other oil producing Arab countries. The United States has always maintained that it would come to the aid of Israel should it face extinction by its enemies, but it is highly doubtful that the American public would support the shedding of American blood in the defense of Israel. Christian conservatives have been Israel's stongest supporters. The radical left in the United States, which includes many jews, has consistently championed the cause of the Palestinans.
A DIVIDED ISRAEL. Religious jews believe that God created biblical Israel, which includes all of the west bank, as the homeland of the jews and they are unwilling to give up any of this land to the Palestinians. The settlements are made up largely of religious jews. Secular jews are willing to trade land for peace, as long as Israel's security is not compromised. The Peace Now movement consists of the radical left and youths of military age. It wants to dismantle all settlements and return to Israel's pre-1948 borders in return for peace with the Palestinians. The Peace Now movement is very simmilar to that of the anti-war movement in lthe United States during the Vietnam war conflict. It is conceivable that a civil war could break out in Israel over the "peace process" between the religious and secular jews.
ANTI-TERRORIST SECURITY BARRIER. Israeli civilians have been victimized by numerous terrorist bombings. To combat these attacks, Israel is building a high wall and fence to separate jews from Palestinian terrorists. The Palestinians fear that the wall will become the new border of the State of Israel and together with the rest of the world, including the United States, have condemned the construction of this barrier. However, there can be no quesstion that the wall has stopped almost all terrorist attacks against the Israeli civilian population. (The United States is considering constructing a similar barrier along its border with Mexico.)
DEFENSIBLE AND SECURE BORDERS. To a large extent, security for the State of Israel depends on defensible borders. At its narrowest, it is less than nine miles from the west bank to the Mediterranean Sea. There is absolutely no way that Israel can be secure were it to return all of the west bank as demanded by the Palestinians. While it can dismantle its outpost settlements, the new borders of Israel must include all of the established settlements, as well as access to the headwaters of the Jordan River.
EAST JERUSALEM. The Palestinians insist on a state with Jerusalem (not East Jerusalem) as its capitol. A Palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem would be a dagger pointed at the heart of Israel. All of Jerusalem must remain an indivisible part of the State of Israel. The 200,000 Palestinians living there should be offered Israeli citizenship. Those who refuse to become Israeli citizens should be expelled, but the government must compensate them for the loss of their property.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Israel is surrounded by millions of sworn ememies. Iran will probably develop nuclear weapons in the near future. It already has missles capable of striking Israel. America's nuclear weapons served as a deterrant to further expansion of the Soviet Union and deterred any nuclear attacks by the Soviets. Israel's nuclear arms have deterred Arab attacks and will continue to play a major role in that tiny nation's security.
PALESTINIAN SUFFERING. Do the Palesinians have some legitimate grievances? Of course they do. Is Israel blameless? Certainly not. The Palestinians have suffered the loss of land and lives in their conflict with Israel, but they have brought most of this suffering upon themselves. It is true that in 1948, when the Arabs attacked the newly formed State of Israel, its army drove out some of the Psalestinians living within its borders. However, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians fled at the urging of the Arabs who wanted to annihilate the jews without inflicting collateral casualties on the Palestinian population. When the Araqbs lost, the Palestinians were left to languish in refugee camps. The Arabs did not offer any assistance and refused to assimilate the refugees, which they easily could have done, preferring to use their suffering as a political pawn against Israel. In recent years, Arafat's intransigence and the intifada has brought on Israeli reprisals, thus furthering the suffering of the Palestinians. Thus, their grievances should be directed at the Arabs who kept them in refugee camps and at their own leaders and the militants who are responsible for much of their suffering.
ROADMAP TO PEACE OR ROADMAP TO DISASTER? The roadmap to peace, which is being pushed by President Bush, was plotted by the United States together with the UN, the EU and Russia, the latter three having a long history of siding with the Palestinians against Israel. If the roadmap requires the dismantlement of established settlements and a Palestinian capitol in East Jerusalem, it will be a roadmap to disaster for the State of Israel by compromising its security.
AFTER SHARON? ISRAEL NEEDS BENJAMIN NETANYAHU! Israel needs a strong leader who will remain resolute against pressure to make disasterous concessions to the Palestinians. The dovish Shimon Peres is not that man. Neither is Amir Peretz, the new leader of the dovish left-wing Labor Party. Ehud Olmert, the former mayor of Jerusalem who, together with Sharon and Peres formed the new Kadima party, is not that man either. It was Olmert who urged Sharon to abandon Gaza. Before Sharon suffered his latest stroke, Kadima was expected to win the March 28 election, but with Sharon unable to lead the new party, that outcome is now in doubt. Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party is the best man for the job. He is a strong leader who will not allow Israel's security to be compromised. Although it is said that he is against peace, he will make peace with the Palestinians, but it will be on terms that will ensure the security and survival of the State of Israel.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
SHUT DOWN CLUB FED? - IT'S ABOUT TIME!
A group of federal inmates, mostly white collar criminals, are suing the Bureau of Prisons because the government has shut down minimum (non) security camps and sent them to low security prisons where they are forced to mingle with common criminals. They are demanding that the Club Fed camps be reopened for them. WHOA! - HOLD THE HORSES AND GIVE ME A MOMENT TO SHED SOME TEARS.
The minimum (non) security prison camps were established to house non-violent offenders who did not constitute a risk to society. I have seen some of these camps and they resemble summer vacation camps - hence the nickname "Club Fed". Most were located on or adjacent to military bases. There is little (if any) security since inmates are not likely to walk away from the camps, because if they leave, they will be charged with escape.
Lawrence Jay Levine, who is serving a 10-year sentence for dealing methamphetamines and has acted as a "jail house lawyer" for other immates, helped write the lawsuit. He had the assistance of Ginny Carter, whose 60-year old husband, Robert, is serving time for a $17 million insurance fraud scheme. Coincidentally, Mrs. Carter is a defendant in a criminal case related to her husband's crime.
The litigants claim that their dignity has been taken from them because now they are subjected to frequent searches and other security measures, the same as the common criminals who they now have to mingle with. They demand that the recommendation of judges, that they serve their time at a camp, be adhered to.
Gee whiz! It's just god awful that corporate executives, lawyers, doctors, and others from well-to-do families, who have been convicted of a crime, are forced to suffer the indignities of searches and of having to associate with low-life common criminals. And what about the recommendations of those sympathetic judges? Those are just recommendations and the prison authorities are not obligated to follow them.
The closure of these camps appears to be based ,mostly on budget restraints, Camp Fed should have been done away with long ago. When someone commits a crime which is too serious for a probated sentence, they shoould be punished by serving their time at a facility other than a summer vacation camp, regardless of their station in life.
The minimum (non) security prison camps were established to house non-violent offenders who did not constitute a risk to society. I have seen some of these camps and they resemble summer vacation camps - hence the nickname "Club Fed". Most were located on or adjacent to military bases. There is little (if any) security since inmates are not likely to walk away from the camps, because if they leave, they will be charged with escape.
Lawrence Jay Levine, who is serving a 10-year sentence for dealing methamphetamines and has acted as a "jail house lawyer" for other immates, helped write the lawsuit. He had the assistance of Ginny Carter, whose 60-year old husband, Robert, is serving time for a $17 million insurance fraud scheme. Coincidentally, Mrs. Carter is a defendant in a criminal case related to her husband's crime.
The litigants claim that their dignity has been taken from them because now they are subjected to frequent searches and other security measures, the same as the common criminals who they now have to mingle with. They demand that the recommendation of judges, that they serve their time at a camp, be adhered to.
Gee whiz! It's just god awful that corporate executives, lawyers, doctors, and others from well-to-do families, who have been convicted of a crime, are forced to suffer the indignities of searches and of having to associate with low-life common criminals. And what about the recommendations of those sympathetic judges? Those are just recommendations and the prison authorities are not obligated to follow them.
The closure of these camps appears to be based ,mostly on budget restraints, Camp Fed should have been done away with long ago. When someone commits a crime which is too serious for a probated sentence, they shoould be punished by serving their time at a facility other than a summer vacation camp, regardless of their station in life.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Double-Dealing Corporate Crooks
Many years ago, when Bally Corporation was in the slot machine manufacturing business, I purchased sveral shares of stock in this corporation. Bally eventually got into the casino business and was subsequently taken over by the Hilton Corporation, which later established Bally Total Ftiness Corporation as a seperate entity. Bally Total Fitness has never paid any dividends on its stock. I just received its annual statement with all sorts of rosy predictions for the future. This report stated that it required an eighteen month efforrt "to correct past accounting errors" for the years 2000 through 2003, and that "it was a tremendously time consuming, complicated and costly task." Indeed, it cost several million dollars to correct these "errors."
Accounting errors, my ass! This is a relatively small company when compared to such giants as the former Enron Corporation. Since Enron's demise, there have been numerous news accounts of similar accounting and auditing shenanigans at many of America's corporattions. What in the world has happened to business ethics and integrity?
When corporations resort to "cooking the books" in order to show that they are doing much better than they really are, their accountants and auditors are, in effect, committing ROBBERY BY PEN. These false accounting reports are designed to encourage people to invest in these corporations. When these "accounting errors" are finally discovered, the stocks will "tank" and the poor suckers (investors) will end up losing money. The accountants responsible for "cooking the books" are nothing more than a bunch of double-dealing corporate crooks who deserve the same punishment as any other robbers. And the same goes for the auditors and the officers of the corporation who are aware of these illegal practices.
Accounting errors, my ass! This is a relatively small company when compared to such giants as the former Enron Corporation. Since Enron's demise, there have been numerous news accounts of similar accounting and auditing shenanigans at many of America's corporattions. What in the world has happened to business ethics and integrity?
When corporations resort to "cooking the books" in order to show that they are doing much better than they really are, their accountants and auditors are, in effect, committing ROBBERY BY PEN. These false accounting reports are designed to encourage people to invest in these corporations. When these "accounting errors" are finally discovered, the stocks will "tank" and the poor suckers (investors) will end up losing money. The accountants responsible for "cooking the books" are nothing more than a bunch of double-dealing corporate crooks who deserve the same punishment as any other robbers. And the same goes for the auditors and the officers of the corporation who are aware of these illegal practices.
Friday, December 16, 2005
Death Penalty Abolitionists Are Four-Flushing Phonies
The death penalty abolitionists who demonstrated against the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams did so on the basis that he had redeemed himself during the 24 years he sat on death row. As proof they cited childrens books he had written urging kids not to join gangs and to avoid violence. Of course they chose to ignore the fact that he used a sawed-off shotgun to kill 7-Eleven store clerk Albert Owens, 26, and motel owners Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Cen Yang, 63, and their daughter, Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, while robbing a convenience store and a motel.
Those who demonstrated on behalf of Tookie are the same bunch of perpetual protesters who show up at every anti-war rally and at every world trade conference. Many of them are recycled hippies from the doped-up anti-Vietnam war movement. Joan Baez, one of the recycled hippies, called the execution "calculated, antiseptic, cold-blooded murder." She must think that the brutal murders of Owens and the Yang family were mercy killings. Then there are the left-wing Hollywood celebrities and, of course, Jesse "Jack-in-the-Box" Jackson who pops up at every photo-op.
If the death penalty abolitionists really believed that Tookie had redeemed himself, they should have clamored for a pardon, rather than clemency. After all, once a convict has been reformed, he should be ready for release back into society. So, except for those who oppose the death penalty on religious grounds, by failing to seek a pardon for a reformed Tookie Williams, the abolitionists have shown themselves for what they really are - FOUR- FLUSHING PHONIES.
Those who demonstrated on behalf of Tookie are the same bunch of perpetual protesters who show up at every anti-war rally and at every world trade conference. Many of them are recycled hippies from the doped-up anti-Vietnam war movement. Joan Baez, one of the recycled hippies, called the execution "calculated, antiseptic, cold-blooded murder." She must think that the brutal murders of Owens and the Yang family were mercy killings. Then there are the left-wing Hollywood celebrities and, of course, Jesse "Jack-in-the-Box" Jackson who pops up at every photo-op.
If the death penalty abolitionists really believed that Tookie had redeemed himself, they should have clamored for a pardon, rather than clemency. After all, once a convict has been reformed, he should be ready for release back into society. So, except for those who oppose the death penalty on religious grounds, by failing to seek a pardon for a reformed Tookie Williams, the abolitionists have shown themselves for what they really are - FOUR- FLUSHING PHONIES.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Three Big Cheers for Gov. Schwarzenegger
God bless Arnold Schwarzenegger! Three big cheers for the Terminator who, by denying clemency to Stanley "Tookie" Williams, made it likely that this Predator will be terminated as scheluled tonight. The governor, in the face of a left wing onslaught and fears that rioting might occur in Los Angeles, did the right thing. Justice, twenty- some years overdue, will finally be served when Tookie is terminated.
Williams did not deserve mercy. He showed no mercy to a young convenience store clerk and to a motel mangement family of three, when he robbed and gunned them down in cold blood. Most prison inmates, not just those on death row, will claim to have found redemption. Even when that is true, that does not absolve them of the punishment they received. As I stated in my previous blog, Williams was not covicted of finding redemption on death row, nor was he convicted of writing childrens books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four innocent victims. When Tookie is terminated, God can have mercy on his soul.
There is something no one has taken into consideration. Had Williams been granted clemency, there would have been no guarantee that he would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Some future governor, one of a left wing persuasion, would be able to grant Tookie a pardon and release him back into society.
There is still the possibility that his defenders will be able to find a bleeding heart judge who will grant Tookie a last minute of stay of execution. Even after the holding of the clemency hearing, they went to the California Supreme Court which, before the goernor's announcement was made, denied their petition for a stay of execution. That will not stop them in their efforts to see justice denied. Hopefully, after midnight, we will be rid of this thug once and for all. Then we can celebrate the fact that justice has finally been served.
Williams did not deserve mercy. He showed no mercy to a young convenience store clerk and to a motel mangement family of three, when he robbed and gunned them down in cold blood. Most prison inmates, not just those on death row, will claim to have found redemption. Even when that is true, that does not absolve them of the punishment they received. As I stated in my previous blog, Williams was not covicted of finding redemption on death row, nor was he convicted of writing childrens books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four innocent victims. When Tookie is terminated, God can have mercy on his soul.
There is something no one has taken into consideration. Had Williams been granted clemency, there would have been no guarantee that he would have spent the rest of his life in prison. Some future governor, one of a left wing persuasion, would be able to grant Tookie a pardon and release him back into society.
There is still the possibility that his defenders will be able to find a bleeding heart judge who will grant Tookie a last minute of stay of execution. Even after the holding of the clemency hearing, they went to the California Supreme Court which, before the goernor's announcement was made, denied their petition for a stay of execution. That will not stop them in their efforts to see justice denied. Hopefully, after midnight, we will be rid of this thug once and for all. Then we can celebrate the fact that justice has finally been served.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
You've Heard It - The Police Do Not Shoot To Kill
The recent shooting of an airline passenger by federal marshalls in Miami has brought into question whether the police shoot to kill or not. Police spokespersons will always tell you that the police never shoot to kill. Instead, theysay that the police "shoot to stop" or "shoot to incapacitate." What a bunch of politically correct hogwash!
Of course, the police shoot to kill, and they are trained to do so. Police are trained to use their firearms as the very last resort for protecting themselves or other persons from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. They are trained to hit CENTER MASS, meaning the chest of the person they are shooting at, and that is shooting to kill. Furthermore, they are trained to DOUBLE TAP their shots, meaning that each time they shoot, they will fire a burst of two rounds. Double tapping ensures that if the first shot was a little off target, the second shot is more likely to be right on target - the chest of the person being shot at. If the person being shot does not die, it is only because the officer was a little off center mass.
People are always qustioning why the police do not shoot a person in the arm or leg, or why they don't shoot a gun or knife out of the hand of the perpetrator. They have been watching too many western or other action movies. Police officers are just not that good at shooting, especially during a stressful confrontation. It should be noted that if they shot at the perpetrator's arm or leg and missed, they would be more likely to hit an innocent bystander. Almost all police agencies prohibit their officers from firing warning shots because what goes up must come down, thus endangering distant innocent persons. Some officers, who claimed to have fired warning shots, were actually trying to hit a perpetrator and were too embarrased to admit they missed.
Years ago, in New York at night, as I was approaching one of my favorite bars in the Times Square area, I saw two armed men running out of the bar. At that moment, a police officer was walking his beat right in front of the bar. One of the robbers ran into and accidentally knocked the officer down. The robbers took off in opposite directions. The officer picked himself up, tapped his nightstick on the curb (a way of summoning nearby officers), and ran after one of the perpetrators who, upon reaching the end of the block, hid behind a car. When the officer got within about 20 feet of the car, the perpetrator popped his head up and fired one round. The officer fired once, shooting the perpetrator's thumb off, thus knocking the gun out of his hand. I ran up to the officer and congratulated him for shooting the gun out of the perpetrator's hand. I can still remember his response: "Shit! I wasn't trying to shoot that fucking gun out of his hand. I was trying to hit the cocksucker between the eyes."
Since officers can only use their guns to save their own lives or those of other persons, there is no reason why we can't be honest and admit that when the police shoot, they shoot to kill.
Of course, the police shoot to kill, and they are trained to do so. Police are trained to use their firearms as the very last resort for protecting themselves or other persons from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. They are trained to hit CENTER MASS, meaning the chest of the person they are shooting at, and that is shooting to kill. Furthermore, they are trained to DOUBLE TAP their shots, meaning that each time they shoot, they will fire a burst of two rounds. Double tapping ensures that if the first shot was a little off target, the second shot is more likely to be right on target - the chest of the person being shot at. If the person being shot does not die, it is only because the officer was a little off center mass.
People are always qustioning why the police do not shoot a person in the arm or leg, or why they don't shoot a gun or knife out of the hand of the perpetrator. They have been watching too many western or other action movies. Police officers are just not that good at shooting, especially during a stressful confrontation. It should be noted that if they shot at the perpetrator's arm or leg and missed, they would be more likely to hit an innocent bystander. Almost all police agencies prohibit their officers from firing warning shots because what goes up must come down, thus endangering distant innocent persons. Some officers, who claimed to have fired warning shots, were actually trying to hit a perpetrator and were too embarrased to admit they missed.
Years ago, in New York at night, as I was approaching one of my favorite bars in the Times Square area, I saw two armed men running out of the bar. At that moment, a police officer was walking his beat right in front of the bar. One of the robbers ran into and accidentally knocked the officer down. The robbers took off in opposite directions. The officer picked himself up, tapped his nightstick on the curb (a way of summoning nearby officers), and ran after one of the perpetrators who, upon reaching the end of the block, hid behind a car. When the officer got within about 20 feet of the car, the perpetrator popped his head up and fired one round. The officer fired once, shooting the perpetrator's thumb off, thus knocking the gun out of his hand. I ran up to the officer and congratulated him for shooting the gun out of the perpetrator's hand. I can still remember his response: "Shit! I wasn't trying to shoot that fucking gun out of his hand. I was trying to hit the cocksucker between the eyes."
Since officers can only use their guns to save their own lives or those of other persons, there is no reason why we can't be honest and admit that when the police shoot, they shoot to kill.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Celebrating the 1,000th Execution
A milestone was passed when, on December 2, 2005, Kenneth Lee Boyd was put to death by the State of North Carolina, thus becoming the 1,000th murderer to be executed in the United States since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. A few days earlier, Virginia missed the opportunity to reach this milestone when its governor granted clemency to another murderer shortly before his scheduled execution. Rather than holding our heads in shame, as suggested by death penalty abolitionists, we should celebrate the 1,000th execution as justice well done.
As you can tell, I am a strong advocate of capital punishment. I am firmly convinced that it acts as a deterrent to premeditated murders. I also believe that it would be a strong deterrent to felony murders - murders committed during the commission of other crimes such as robbery and rape - if those comdemned to death would not linger on death row for up to over 20 years. Back in the '50s and 60's, when I was a law enforcement officer in California, we had many armed robberies in which the perpetrator commited the robbery with an EMPTY gun. When caught, we always asked the robbers why their guns were not loaded. They always replied with words to this effect: "Man, if I used a loaded piece I might kill someone and if I got caught I would end up getting topped." (TOPPED is con lingo for executed.) Accordingly, I maintain that there is good emperical evidence that capital punishment does act as a deterrent to killings that are not committed in the heat of passion. That is why we should celebrate each execution.
The death penalty abolitionists used to argue that captial punishment does not act as a deterrent because, by asking death row inmates if they considered the possibility of being executed for killing their victims, the answer was always "no." Those questions, which even imbeciles would answer the same way, were designed to provide the abolitionists with BOGUS proof that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. And what about all the felons who are not on death row and were not asked whether they gave the death penalt any thought? The abolitionists also pointed to states, such as Minnesota, which do not have the death penalty as having lower homicide rates than those with capital punishment. That was also bogus. States without capital punishment were largely rural states, while the oters were largely urban states where the homicide rates are expected to be higher. Those opposed to capital punishment claim that it is part of a racist agenda, in that there are a disproportionate number of minorities on death row. But, the reason there are a disproportionate number on death row is that minorities in this country commit a disproportionate number of crimes and murders.
In recent years, the abolitionists have tried to shame us into aolishing the death penalty. They point out that the U.S. is one of only a handful of "civilized countries" with the death penalty. They point out that all western European countries have abolished the death penalty and that we are relegated to joining dictatorships, such as China, the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and third world countries with oppressive governments, by retaining capital punishment. That is another bogus argument. We have a very high homicide rate, while the western European nations have an extremely low rate. If the homicide rate in those countries were to rise dramatically, approaching that of the U.S., they would quickly return to the use of capital punishment.
There are those who oppose capital punishment for religious/moral reasons, and while I believe them to be misguided, I have nothing but the utmost respect for their beliefs. However, most of the abolitionists come from, or have been influenced by, the extreme left wing of the political spectrum, and the death penalty is just another issue to fault our government with.
I do share the concern that indigent defendants in capital cases are not as well defended as thoose who can afford to hire private attorneys. The remedy to that problem is not to abolish the death penalty, but to guarantee each indigent capital defendant the best possible defense. That will require a large amount of public funding. Two ways of resolving this problem is (1) through the use of a Public Defender's Office or (2) the court appointment of only the best defense attorneys with additional funds for skilled investigators and expert witnesses. The federal government has a public defender system and so do some of the states. Unfortunately, some states do not have public defenders and resort to the appointment of attorneys to defend indigents. Many of these attorneys are inexperienced or, if experienced, they do not have enough clients to sustain a good income. And they recieve little if any funding for investigators and expert witnesses. At least, in a public defender's office, the attorneys are just as good as those in the district attorney's office and there is a staff of skilled investigators and funds for the use of expert witnesses.
I am even more concerned about the possibility of executing someone who is innocent, a tragic circumstance which cannot be reversed. The Houston Chronicle recently published an investigative report which indicates that the State of Texas may have wrongly executed Ruben Cantu in 1993. Cantu, 17 at the time of the crime, was convicted of killing the victim of an armed robbery in San Antonio. Another victim of the robbery was shot numerous times, but survived. The other participant in the robbery, 15 year old David Garza, received a 20 year sentence. About four months after the robbery, an off-duty police officer, who had been drinking, was shot and wounded by Cantu during a confrontation in a bar. Cantu was not charged in that shooting, but within days, the surviving victim identified Cantu as his assailant. More than 10 years after Cantu's execution, Garza signed an affidavit stating that Cantu was not present during the robbery and named another individual as the shooter. The surviving victim now claims that the police pressured him into identifying Cantu. The defense never called a witness who would have testified that he was with Cantu in Waco, some 180 miles from San Antonio, at the time of the robbery. Most troublesome to me is the likelyhood that the San Antonio police were out to get Cantu for the bar shooting of the off-duty officer.
I am sure that innocent persons haave been executed in the past and will likely be executed in the future. As unfortunate as this is, it still does not justify abolishing the death penalty. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be akin to taking a proven life-saving drug off the market because its side effects may, on rare occasions, kill soneone.
Some believe that those who turn their lives around, while on death row, should be spared from execution. Take the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the notorious Crips street gang, who is scheduled to be executed by the Sate of California on December 13, 2005. His defenders, including several left-wing Hollywood celebrities, claim that he has turned his life around during the twenty-some years he has been on death row. They point out that he has written several children's books in which he urged them not to join gangs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to hold a clemency hearing for Willimas this week. Let us hope that the " Terminator", who has squandered the political popularity he once enjoyed, has the good sense not to grant Williams clemency. Williams was not convicted of finding redemption on death row. Nor was he convicted of writing children's books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four people and deserves to pay the ultimate penalty for his crimes.
The latest ploy by abolitionists is to claim that, during the injection process, some states use chemicals that cause the condemned to "suffer an excruciatingly painful and protracted death", thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Last week, a federal judge in Houston, granted a Texas death row inmate the right to challenge the death penalty on this issue. Give me a break! We put these cold blooded murders to sleep like we put our pet dogs and cats to sleep. Even if these absurd claims were true, so what! I'm all for bringing back the electric chair because it scared the shit out of crimials. Why are we so concerned about the suffering of the condemned? What about the suffering of the victims at the time of their death?
Most survivors of a murder victim want to see the killer put to death. Are they seeking revenge instead of justice? Perhaps, but so what! For the rest of us, the execution of a cold blooded murderer serves the interests of justice. It should be the natural consequence for committing the ultimate crime. Captial punishment does deter premeditated murder and felony murders. It would have an even greater effect if the condemned did not linger so long on death row. Of the 1,000 executions, 355 have been in Texas. That is one of the reasons I am proud to be a Texan. I hope you will join me in celebrating the carrying out of the 1,000th execution in the United States.
As you can tell, I am a strong advocate of capital punishment. I am firmly convinced that it acts as a deterrent to premeditated murders. I also believe that it would be a strong deterrent to felony murders - murders committed during the commission of other crimes such as robbery and rape - if those comdemned to death would not linger on death row for up to over 20 years. Back in the '50s and 60's, when I was a law enforcement officer in California, we had many armed robberies in which the perpetrator commited the robbery with an EMPTY gun. When caught, we always asked the robbers why their guns were not loaded. They always replied with words to this effect: "Man, if I used a loaded piece I might kill someone and if I got caught I would end up getting topped." (TOPPED is con lingo for executed.) Accordingly, I maintain that there is good emperical evidence that capital punishment does act as a deterrent to killings that are not committed in the heat of passion. That is why we should celebrate each execution.
The death penalty abolitionists used to argue that captial punishment does not act as a deterrent because, by asking death row inmates if they considered the possibility of being executed for killing their victims, the answer was always "no." Those questions, which even imbeciles would answer the same way, were designed to provide the abolitionists with BOGUS proof that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. And what about all the felons who are not on death row and were not asked whether they gave the death penalt any thought? The abolitionists also pointed to states, such as Minnesota, which do not have the death penalty as having lower homicide rates than those with capital punishment. That was also bogus. States without capital punishment were largely rural states, while the oters were largely urban states where the homicide rates are expected to be higher. Those opposed to capital punishment claim that it is part of a racist agenda, in that there are a disproportionate number of minorities on death row. But, the reason there are a disproportionate number on death row is that minorities in this country commit a disproportionate number of crimes and murders.
In recent years, the abolitionists have tried to shame us into aolishing the death penalty. They point out that the U.S. is one of only a handful of "civilized countries" with the death penalty. They point out that all western European countries have abolished the death penalty and that we are relegated to joining dictatorships, such as China, the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and third world countries with oppressive governments, by retaining capital punishment. That is another bogus argument. We have a very high homicide rate, while the western European nations have an extremely low rate. If the homicide rate in those countries were to rise dramatically, approaching that of the U.S., they would quickly return to the use of capital punishment.
There are those who oppose capital punishment for religious/moral reasons, and while I believe them to be misguided, I have nothing but the utmost respect for their beliefs. However, most of the abolitionists come from, or have been influenced by, the extreme left wing of the political spectrum, and the death penalty is just another issue to fault our government with.
I do share the concern that indigent defendants in capital cases are not as well defended as thoose who can afford to hire private attorneys. The remedy to that problem is not to abolish the death penalty, but to guarantee each indigent capital defendant the best possible defense. That will require a large amount of public funding. Two ways of resolving this problem is (1) through the use of a Public Defender's Office or (2) the court appointment of only the best defense attorneys with additional funds for skilled investigators and expert witnesses. The federal government has a public defender system and so do some of the states. Unfortunately, some states do not have public defenders and resort to the appointment of attorneys to defend indigents. Many of these attorneys are inexperienced or, if experienced, they do not have enough clients to sustain a good income. And they recieve little if any funding for investigators and expert witnesses. At least, in a public defender's office, the attorneys are just as good as those in the district attorney's office and there is a staff of skilled investigators and funds for the use of expert witnesses.
I am even more concerned about the possibility of executing someone who is innocent, a tragic circumstance which cannot be reversed. The Houston Chronicle recently published an investigative report which indicates that the State of Texas may have wrongly executed Ruben Cantu in 1993. Cantu, 17 at the time of the crime, was convicted of killing the victim of an armed robbery in San Antonio. Another victim of the robbery was shot numerous times, but survived. The other participant in the robbery, 15 year old David Garza, received a 20 year sentence. About four months after the robbery, an off-duty police officer, who had been drinking, was shot and wounded by Cantu during a confrontation in a bar. Cantu was not charged in that shooting, but within days, the surviving victim identified Cantu as his assailant. More than 10 years after Cantu's execution, Garza signed an affidavit stating that Cantu was not present during the robbery and named another individual as the shooter. The surviving victim now claims that the police pressured him into identifying Cantu. The defense never called a witness who would have testified that he was with Cantu in Waco, some 180 miles from San Antonio, at the time of the robbery. Most troublesome to me is the likelyhood that the San Antonio police were out to get Cantu for the bar shooting of the off-duty officer.
I am sure that innocent persons haave been executed in the past and will likely be executed in the future. As unfortunate as this is, it still does not justify abolishing the death penalty. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be akin to taking a proven life-saving drug off the market because its side effects may, on rare occasions, kill soneone.
Some believe that those who turn their lives around, while on death row, should be spared from execution. Take the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the notorious Crips street gang, who is scheduled to be executed by the Sate of California on December 13, 2005. His defenders, including several left-wing Hollywood celebrities, claim that he has turned his life around during the twenty-some years he has been on death row. They point out that he has written several children's books in which he urged them not to join gangs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to hold a clemency hearing for Willimas this week. Let us hope that the " Terminator", who has squandered the political popularity he once enjoyed, has the good sense not to grant Williams clemency. Williams was not convicted of finding redemption on death row. Nor was he convicted of writing children's books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four people and deserves to pay the ultimate penalty for his crimes.
The latest ploy by abolitionists is to claim that, during the injection process, some states use chemicals that cause the condemned to "suffer an excruciatingly painful and protracted death", thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Last week, a federal judge in Houston, granted a Texas death row inmate the right to challenge the death penalty on this issue. Give me a break! We put these cold blooded murders to sleep like we put our pet dogs and cats to sleep. Even if these absurd claims were true, so what! I'm all for bringing back the electric chair because it scared the shit out of crimials. Why are we so concerned about the suffering of the condemned? What about the suffering of the victims at the time of their death?
Most survivors of a murder victim want to see the killer put to death. Are they seeking revenge instead of justice? Perhaps, but so what! For the rest of us, the execution of a cold blooded murderer serves the interests of justice. It should be the natural consequence for committing the ultimate crime. Captial punishment does deter premeditated murder and felony murders. It would have an even greater effect if the condemned did not linger so long on death row. Of the 1,000 executions, 355 have been in Texas. That is one of the reasons I am proud to be a Texan. I hope you will join me in celebrating the carrying out of the 1,000th execution in the United States.
Friday, December 02, 2005
The Police and Illegal Aliens
In recent years, we have seen the city administrations in a number of municipalities, especially those with large latino populations, pressure police departments to refrain from inquiring into the legal status of non-english speaking individuals who have come to their attention during some sort of investigation. The question is, should the police refrain from enforcing our immigration laws? Should they give illegal aliens - oops, I should have said "undocumented workers" - a free pass?
I agree that the local police should not go after illegal aliens. That is the job of federal law enforcement agencies. However, when the police come across an individual during the course of an investigation, and they suspect that this individual may be in this country illegally, they not only have the right to question him or her about their legal status, but because they took an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, they have a duty to make such an inquiry. Furthermore, it should not make any difference whether the indvidual is a crime victim or the suspect in a crime. If a crime has been committed and the perpetrator is found to be in this country illegally, criminal charges should be filed and the immigration authorities notified accordingly. If no charges are called for, the illegal alien should be held for the immigration authorities.
You hear all kinds of excuses why the police should not enforce our laws against illegal immigration. Anyone who advocates this is a RACIST. If the police try to enforce these laws they will not get any cooperation from the immigrant community. The illegals do the kind of work that American cititzens refuse to do and if they are deported, we will be deprived of cheap labor services. Hogwash! The real reason the police are pressured to overlook illegals is political. In cities with large latino populations. the politicians are looking for the latino vote, pure and simple.
Personally, I'm all for immigration - the legal type. I happen to be an immigrant who came to the U.S. when I was 10 years old. Legal immigrants have made numerous outstanding contributions in the fields of science, business, and higher education. I believe that the constitution should be amended to allow a citizen who was not born in this country to become our president.
Conversely, illegal aliens put a tremendous drain on our financial resources. The children of illegal aliens overburden our public schools, thereby contributing to ever increasing school taxes. They overload our public hospitals, and since they usually do not have insurance, they cause our hospital district taxes and health insurance rates to increase. If they are involved in automobile accidents, they usually do not have insurance, which results in raising the automobile insurance rates of our citizens and legal immigrants.
Accordingly, we need to change our immigration laws and include a limited and controlled guest worker program. In the meantime, shame on the politicians who try to prevent our police from performing their sworn duties to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States of America.
I agree that the local police should not go after illegal aliens. That is the job of federal law enforcement agencies. However, when the police come across an individual during the course of an investigation, and they suspect that this individual may be in this country illegally, they not only have the right to question him or her about their legal status, but because they took an oath to uphold and enforce our laws, they have a duty to make such an inquiry. Furthermore, it should not make any difference whether the indvidual is a crime victim or the suspect in a crime. If a crime has been committed and the perpetrator is found to be in this country illegally, criminal charges should be filed and the immigration authorities notified accordingly. If no charges are called for, the illegal alien should be held for the immigration authorities.
You hear all kinds of excuses why the police should not enforce our laws against illegal immigration. Anyone who advocates this is a RACIST. If the police try to enforce these laws they will not get any cooperation from the immigrant community. The illegals do the kind of work that American cititzens refuse to do and if they are deported, we will be deprived of cheap labor services. Hogwash! The real reason the police are pressured to overlook illegals is political. In cities with large latino populations. the politicians are looking for the latino vote, pure and simple.
Personally, I'm all for immigration - the legal type. I happen to be an immigrant who came to the U.S. when I was 10 years old. Legal immigrants have made numerous outstanding contributions in the fields of science, business, and higher education. I believe that the constitution should be amended to allow a citizen who was not born in this country to become our president.
Conversely, illegal aliens put a tremendous drain on our financial resources. The children of illegal aliens overburden our public schools, thereby contributing to ever increasing school taxes. They overload our public hospitals, and since they usually do not have insurance, they cause our hospital district taxes and health insurance rates to increase. If they are involved in automobile accidents, they usually do not have insurance, which results in raising the automobile insurance rates of our citizens and legal immigrants.
Accordingly, we need to change our immigration laws and include a limited and controlled guest worker program. In the meantime, shame on the politicians who try to prevent our police from performing their sworn duties to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)