Frank Miller is a dear friend. He and wife Jeannine lost their beloved 19-year-old son Ryan, a Marine Corps hero killed in action in Iraq. Frank forwarded the following piece which I felt compelled to republish in my blog. I came up with the title.
Picture a grave in a cemetery. Whose grave? Sadly, it's the grave of Casey Sheehan.
After three years, and a Dept of Defense payment of $250,000 to the "Peace Mom", Cindy Sheehan has not had the time or bothered to have a headstone placed on this young hero's grave. And, she doesn't even have to pay for one, the Dept of Defense will provide one:
"The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) furnishes upon request, at no charge to the applicant, a government headstone or marker for the grave of any deceased eligible veteran in any cemetery around the world. For all deaths occurring before September 11, 2001 , the VA may provide a headstone or marker only for graves that are not marked with a private headstone.
Flat markers in granite, marble, and bronze and upright headstones in granite and marble are available. The style chosen must be consistent with existing monuments at the place of burial. Niche markers are also available to mark columbaria used for interment of cremated remains."
Apparently she can find time to condemn our government on at least 3 continents, get arrested various times, go on vacation in Hawaii, have photo ops with the Marxists in Venezuela, but can't seem to find the time to properly mark her son's grave. Ever wonder what the expression "stuck on stupid" meant? Well here is an example.
The grinning idiot who was pictured clinging to Jesse Jackson is Cindy Sheehan....the sob sister who protested the war at Bush's ranch, who lost her son in the war, the same son she gave up in her divorce when he was 7 years old. And by the way if you wonder why she has so much free time ...she is going through another divorce right now and guess what? She is giving up custody of another son.
CORRECTION (October 28, 2007)
Kay Daly, also a good friend, referred me to Snopes.com so I could see that the above remarks about Cindy Sheehan contained some significant misinformation. I do not ever knowingly want to spread any misinformation and I know Frank Miller well enough to state with certainty that he does not want to do so either.
There is an awful lot of phony baloney going out over the internet, the Cindy Sheehan slander being a good example. This has taught me a lesson. From now on, before I forward or publish any derogatory third party information, I am going to check out its authenticity with Snopes.com.
By searching "Cindy Sheehan" on Snopes.com, a very reliable website, I learned that Casey Sheehan's grave has had a headstone since May, 2006. Sheehan explained why it took two years for her son's grave to be marked. Although some of her excuses seem questionable, I believe that the accusation of deliberate neglect is not true. Furthermore, the accusation that she gave Casey up is also untrue because she was still married to his father when their son was killed in Iraq.
I want to apologize to my readers for the misinformation in this blog. However, I still believe that Cindy Sheehan's grief is somewhat phony. In my opinion, she had a far left-wing political agenda before Casey ever met a hero's death and she has used his death to further that agenda.
Sheehan's outrageous public condemnations of our country and its President are inexcusable. Her embrace of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is proof that her's is an anti-American agenda. There are ways to protest against the war without undermining our country and its soldiers. Sheehan has dishonored her heroic son's death big time.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
A TRULY GREAT ROLE MODEL
Professional athletes, with their puffed-up egos, are held up as role models for America's youths, especially for its minority youths. Football players with their showboating endzone antics and undereducated basketball players are held out as beacons of hope for escaping from the ghetto.
Unfortunately, pro-athletes are poor role models even when on their best behavior because the chances of some ghetto youth making it to the pros are slim to none. And rarely does a week pass by without reports of a pro being arrested for the type of misconduct common among many ghetto youths.
Most pros fail to obtain a college degree. That is not because they did not need one with their outrageous salaries, but because they cannot pass freshman English or the required math and science courses. How then do they manage to stay in school for the duration of their playing elegibility?
I can describe the practice of the university from which I graduated and which I suspect is what is done in most colleges and universities. The athletes who could not pass freshman English were enrolled in every available one-credit-hour physical education activity course. Badminton and ping pong are just two examples, and I am not kidding.
By receiving a grade of "A" in each of these courses they maintained the minimum overall grade point average required to remain enrolled in school. In most of these courses, they were not even required to attend classes. The whole practice is nothing but a sham.
All the athletes at my university were white. At that time, black athletes could only attend black schools. Today, many black athletes are poorly prepared academically. This is especially true of black basketball players, most having spent their pre-college days shooting hoops instead of paying attention to their school work. Some of these guys couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the "c" and the "t".
Why do colleges admit these academically deficient athletes? Football and basketball are big-time money makers. The colleges milk these guys for what they're worth for as long as they are eligible to play. Once their playing days are over with, they are tossed out sans a degree. And, most of these guys never make it in the pros.
A role model should be someone who has managed to succeed in the face of adversity such as a severe physical disability. If black kids need a role model, and they surely do, they should not look to a football or basketball player, but to someone like Ralph Green, a black paralympics skier.
Ralph Green grew up in the drug infested and violence plagued Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, New York. He did not get involved with the gangs that were prevalent in his neighborhood. He attended school, made good grades and, at 15, was a promising quarterback on his high school football team.
In 1992, while walking with a friend, Ralph was shot down for no reason on a street corner in his neighborhood. He was severely wounded and remained in a coma for several days. He recovered, but only after his left leg had to amputated.
With the encouragement of his mother, Ralph was determined not to let his handicap get the better of him. His mother told reporters, "As good as he was in football, he'll be even better in something else." And sure enough, he was.
Today, Ralph is one of the best paralympic skiers in the world. Win or lose, he is a real champion. He puts to shame all those purported pro football and basketball role models. Ralph Green is a truly great role model for all youths, no matter the color of their skin.
Unfortunately, pro-athletes are poor role models even when on their best behavior because the chances of some ghetto youth making it to the pros are slim to none. And rarely does a week pass by without reports of a pro being arrested for the type of misconduct common among many ghetto youths.
Most pros fail to obtain a college degree. That is not because they did not need one with their outrageous salaries, but because they cannot pass freshman English or the required math and science courses. How then do they manage to stay in school for the duration of their playing elegibility?
I can describe the practice of the university from which I graduated and which I suspect is what is done in most colleges and universities. The athletes who could not pass freshman English were enrolled in every available one-credit-hour physical education activity course. Badminton and ping pong are just two examples, and I am not kidding.
By receiving a grade of "A" in each of these courses they maintained the minimum overall grade point average required to remain enrolled in school. In most of these courses, they were not even required to attend classes. The whole practice is nothing but a sham.
All the athletes at my university were white. At that time, black athletes could only attend black schools. Today, many black athletes are poorly prepared academically. This is especially true of black basketball players, most having spent their pre-college days shooting hoops instead of paying attention to their school work. Some of these guys couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted them the "c" and the "t".
Why do colleges admit these academically deficient athletes? Football and basketball are big-time money makers. The colleges milk these guys for what they're worth for as long as they are eligible to play. Once their playing days are over with, they are tossed out sans a degree. And, most of these guys never make it in the pros.
A role model should be someone who has managed to succeed in the face of adversity such as a severe physical disability. If black kids need a role model, and they surely do, they should not look to a football or basketball player, but to someone like Ralph Green, a black paralympics skier.
Ralph Green grew up in the drug infested and violence plagued Bedford-Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn, New York. He did not get involved with the gangs that were prevalent in his neighborhood. He attended school, made good grades and, at 15, was a promising quarterback on his high school football team.
In 1992, while walking with a friend, Ralph was shot down for no reason on a street corner in his neighborhood. He was severely wounded and remained in a coma for several days. He recovered, but only after his left leg had to amputated.
With the encouragement of his mother, Ralph was determined not to let his handicap get the better of him. His mother told reporters, "As good as he was in football, he'll be even better in something else." And sure enough, he was.
Today, Ralph is one of the best paralympic skiers in the world. Win or lose, he is a real champion. He puts to shame all those purported pro football and basketball role models. Ralph Green is a truly great role model for all youths, no matter the color of their skin.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
DAMN THAT LITTLE GIRL
According to psychiatric experts and the bleeding hearts among us, some of our most vicious criminals are to be pitied for being victims of an abusive childhood. To these apologists it is obvious that a misbegotten childhood can be responsible for such dastardly deeds as murder and rape. That contention would be laughable were it not for the fact that the courts have bought into that crap.
Take the case of Fernando Garcia. This poor soul, an alleged victim of an abusive childhood, was convicted for the 1987 rape, beating and strangulation in Dallas of 3-year-old Veronica Rodriguez. Garcia was sentenced to death in 1989. Now, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the death sentence because the jury did not adequately consider Garcia's abusive childhood and history of drug use.
Pardon me while I wipe off my tears. Poor old Fernando just couldn't help himself while the 3-year-old was brutally raped by him, bitten 12 times, severely beaten on her head and strangled to death. A sicko psychiatrist testified that Garcia had a long history of drug abouse and claimed to have been sexually abused as a child, factors which could have led him to commit this horrible crime.
The 5th Circuit Court ruled that Garcia's jury was improperly instructed by the trial judge with respect to circumstances which might mitigate against a death sentence. In the court's opinion, "A juror who credited Garcia's evidence of an abused background and believed that his childhood, or his substance abuse, made him less culpable could not . . . have given effective voice to this conclusion through the special (instructions) in this case."
Damn that little girl. If she were still alive today, she should be ashamed of herself for bringing forth Garcia's repressed childhood memories. It was obviously her fault that poor old Fernando raped, bit, beat and strangled the 3-year-old. You appellate judges and psychiatrists must be real proud of yourselves.
Take the case of Fernando Garcia. This poor soul, an alleged victim of an abusive childhood, was convicted for the 1987 rape, beating and strangulation in Dallas of 3-year-old Veronica Rodriguez. Garcia was sentenced to death in 1989. Now, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the death sentence because the jury did not adequately consider Garcia's abusive childhood and history of drug use.
Pardon me while I wipe off my tears. Poor old Fernando just couldn't help himself while the 3-year-old was brutally raped by him, bitten 12 times, severely beaten on her head and strangled to death. A sicko psychiatrist testified that Garcia had a long history of drug abouse and claimed to have been sexually abused as a child, factors which could have led him to commit this horrible crime.
The 5th Circuit Court ruled that Garcia's jury was improperly instructed by the trial judge with respect to circumstances which might mitigate against a death sentence. In the court's opinion, "A juror who credited Garcia's evidence of an abused background and believed that his childhood, or his substance abuse, made him less culpable could not . . . have given effective voice to this conclusion through the special (instructions) in this case."
Damn that little girl. If she were still alive today, she should be ashamed of herself for bringing forth Garcia's repressed childhood memories. It was obviously her fault that poor old Fernando raped, bit, beat and strangled the 3-year-old. You appellate judges and psychiatrists must be real proud of yourselves.
Friday, October 19, 2007
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE MEDDLES IN OUR DOMESTIC AFFAIRS
The International Court of Justice at The Hague was established to settle legal disputes between the world's nations. This court is commonly referred to as the "World Court" and it is supposed to settle major issues such as border disputes between two countries. When it was established, there was no intent for the court to interfere in any nation's domestic affairs.
Mexico, whose most profitable export is that of its citizens who daily enter the United States illegally, does not have a death penalty. Our southern neighbor is upset with us because we have sentenced a number of its citizens to death for murdering our citizens in cold blood. Almost all of the condemned were illegal aliens. Mexico went to the World Court to claim that the condemned were deprived of their rights under the 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.
According to the Vienna Convention, whenever a citizen of a foreign country is arrested he must be advised of his right to obtain the assistance of his country's consulate. Most of the Mexicans who have been sentenced to death were not advised of their right to consular assistance. Local authorities did not intentionally violate the Vienna Convention - they just did not know anything about that treaty.
The World Court ageed with Mexico and ruled that our state courts must review the death sentences of all Mexicans who were not advised of their right to consular assistance. As a result, Texas is now fighting the Bush administration in the United States Supreme Court over the President's demand that it stay the execution of Jose Medellin and a dozen other Mexican murderers who have been condemned to death.
The President asserts that each of the states are obligated to abide by the Vienna Convention to which the United States is a signatory. Medellin and a dozen other Mexicans on Texas' death row were denied their rights under that treaty because the local police failed to notify them that they were entitled to obatin the assistance of the Mexican consulate. The President's remedy for the treaty violation is to force the state courts to review the convictions and death sentences of more than 50 Mexican murderers.
Appearing before the Supreme Court, the Texas Solicitor General contended that if the Bush administration were to prevail, it would give the President unprecedented power over the courts and the World Court authority over our laws. He told the Justices that no other nation, including Mexico, would allow American citizens in their custody to use their court systems to enforce rulings by the World Court.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this issue in the coming summer. Antonin Scalia, the court's most conservative member appeared to side against the World Court while its most liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg indicated that our state courts were obligated to abide by that international court's ruling. President Bush, who has managed to alienate much of the world against the United States, is now alienating many of our own states for siding with the World Court.
Overlooked in this whole sordid affair is the object of Mexico's ire - the death sentence of its sterling citizen, Jose Medellin. Poor old Jose was convicted of participating in the brutal gang rape and murder of two Houston teenage girls. There have never been any questions as to Medellin's guilt, only questions about his rights.
During the more than 12 years this "puke" has been sitting on death row, there have already been several appellate court rullings against him on the consular issue. Medellin should have been "topped" (con lingo for executed) years ago. Mr. President, what about Medellin's victims and their loved ones? Justice delayed is justice denied.
Mexico, whose most profitable export is that of its citizens who daily enter the United States illegally, does not have a death penalty. Our southern neighbor is upset with us because we have sentenced a number of its citizens to death for murdering our citizens in cold blood. Almost all of the condemned were illegal aliens. Mexico went to the World Court to claim that the condemned were deprived of their rights under the 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.
According to the Vienna Convention, whenever a citizen of a foreign country is arrested he must be advised of his right to obtain the assistance of his country's consulate. Most of the Mexicans who have been sentenced to death were not advised of their right to consular assistance. Local authorities did not intentionally violate the Vienna Convention - they just did not know anything about that treaty.
The World Court ageed with Mexico and ruled that our state courts must review the death sentences of all Mexicans who were not advised of their right to consular assistance. As a result, Texas is now fighting the Bush administration in the United States Supreme Court over the President's demand that it stay the execution of Jose Medellin and a dozen other Mexican murderers who have been condemned to death.
The President asserts that each of the states are obligated to abide by the Vienna Convention to which the United States is a signatory. Medellin and a dozen other Mexicans on Texas' death row were denied their rights under that treaty because the local police failed to notify them that they were entitled to obatin the assistance of the Mexican consulate. The President's remedy for the treaty violation is to force the state courts to review the convictions and death sentences of more than 50 Mexican murderers.
Appearing before the Supreme Court, the Texas Solicitor General contended that if the Bush administration were to prevail, it would give the President unprecedented power over the courts and the World Court authority over our laws. He told the Justices that no other nation, including Mexico, would allow American citizens in their custody to use their court systems to enforce rulings by the World Court.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this issue in the coming summer. Antonin Scalia, the court's most conservative member appeared to side against the World Court while its most liberal justices, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg indicated that our state courts were obligated to abide by that international court's ruling. President Bush, who has managed to alienate much of the world against the United States, is now alienating many of our own states for siding with the World Court.
Overlooked in this whole sordid affair is the object of Mexico's ire - the death sentence of its sterling citizen, Jose Medellin. Poor old Jose was convicted of participating in the brutal gang rape and murder of two Houston teenage girls. There have never been any questions as to Medellin's guilt, only questions about his rights.
During the more than 12 years this "puke" has been sitting on death row, there have already been several appellate court rullings against him on the consular issue. Medellin should have been "topped" (con lingo for executed) years ago. Mr. President, what about Medellin's victims and their loved ones? Justice delayed is justice denied.
Monday, October 15, 2007
EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL? NOT WITH A MERCENARY EXPERT WITNESS SYSTEM
The recent intoxication manslaughter trial in Houston of District Court Judge Pat Shelton's daughter highlighted the myth of equal justice for all. Defendants who can afford to hire excellent attorneys can also afford to hire the best expert witnesses that money can buy. Unfortunately though, most defendants cannot afford a good attorney or an expert witness.
The indigent are provided either with a court appointed attorney or with a public defender, depending on which system a jurisdiction employs. Some court appointed attorneys are so inept that, were it not for such appointments, they would not be able to earn a living as lawyers. Except in capital cases, the chances of a poor defendant getting a court appointed attorney who is really competent are slim. And the poor have almost no chance of obtaining expert witness testimony in their behalf.
A public defender's office, which is funded and staffed the same as a district attorney's office, usually provides the indigent with a much better defense than that provided by court appointed attorneys. The public defender's office will have investigators on its staff and will have funds for hiring expert witnesses to rebut the testimony of experts hired by the prosecution.
Expert witnesses have been called "hired guns" because their expertise is for sale. In preparation for both criminal and civil trials, attorneys can obtain published lists of expert witnesses who will testify favorably for one side or the other. Some of these mercenaries will testify for either side, depending on which side offers them the most money.
The published lists include experts in structural engineering, chemistry, physics, income loss, long-term care costs, accident reconstruction, forensic science and for every medical specialty. These experts can command more than $400 per hour for time spent on case preparation and on the witness stand, plus expenses for travel, lodging and meals. Those expenses can add up because these mercenaries will not be staying at Motel 6 or eating at Burger King.
Mental health experts are the showpieces of a corrupt mercenary expert witness system. When Sirhan Sirhan was tried for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, several psychiatrists and psychologists testified for each side. The prosecution's experts claimed the defendant was sane, while the defense's experts testified that he was not sane. Due to the conflicting testimony, the jurors took the unprecedented step of insisting that the trial record reflected their disgust with the psychiatric testimony which they considered to be absolutely worthless.
The Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney cases are excellent examples of psychiatric shenanigans. Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub in their Houston home. Laney bludgeoned her children with a stone, killing two sons and critically injuring a third in their New Chapel Hill home near Tyler, Texas. Both mothers had a long history of psychotic episodes prior to the murders, and both reported the killings by calling 911.
In the Yates case, the prosecution used the testimony of Park Dietz, a California psychiatrist who had not practiced psychiatry for 25 years and who earned his living entirely by testfying as an expert for the state. Dr. Dietz testified that Yates was sane because she knew the differnce between right and wrong. In the Laney case, he testified that the defendant was "crazy" because she could not tell the difference between right and wrong.
Yates claimed that the Devil told her to kill the children. Laney claimed that God had told her to do it. Apparently, Dr. Dietz believes you are sane if the Devil tells you to kill your children, but you are crazy if God tells you to kill them. Dietz was paid a total of $142,000 for his work in the two Yates trials.
In the second Yates trial, the prosecution also relied on Michael Weiner, a New York psychiatrist. Allegedly, Dr. Weiner first approached the defense and offered to testify that Yates was not sane. When the defense did not meet his price, he turned to the prosecution which, unaware of his overtures to the defense, accepted his offer to testify that Yates knew the drownings were wrong and that she was motivated to kill her children for selfish needs. Weiner's consulting group was paid $243,000.
Psycho babblers aside, Judge Shelton's daughter Elizabeth was accused of killing the passenger in her Lexus SUV by crashing into the back of a truck while driving on a freeway with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. During her trial, an accident reconstruction expert hired by the defense testified that intoxication played no part in the crash because the truck driver caused the collision by drifting over into Shelton's lane. The accident reconstruciton expert hired by the prosecution testified that the truck driver had not moved into her lane.
Is there a way that we can level the playing field between wealthy and poor defendants in the criminal justice system? For the poor, court appointed attorneys would have to be replaced with an adequately funded public defender's office. And then, a radical change would have to be made in the way expert witnesses are selected.
A novel approach would require legislation to establish a state pool of recognized experts who are willing to serve if called upon to testify in a criminal trial. Those experts could come from anywhere in the United States and Canada. They would be chosen by a state commission headed by the Attorney General. The other commissioners could be selected by a committee of the State Bar to include a retired felony trial judge, a District Attorney, and a Public Defender or prominent defense attorney.
The experts in the pool would be paid a generous annual retainer by the state. Their travel, lodging and meal expenses would be paid for by the court in which they testified. They would receive no additional compensation for their work. While neither the prosecustion nor the defense would be permitted to employ their own expert witnesses, they would have the right to cross-examine any court appointed experts.
A selection from the pool will be made during a pre-trial hearing if the trial judge determines that an outside expert is needed to clarify questionable evidential issues, laboratory analyses, or the mental state of the defendant. He would select the appropriate expert or experts, subject to the approval of both the prosecution and the defense. If the judge makes no such determination, either side could request the appointment of an expert witness from the state pool. The trial would not start until the expert was ready to testify as to the issue in question.
The court's selection of a neutral expert from the state pool would free a jury from having to decide which conflicting expert testimony to believe. A jury should not be placed in the position of having to decide the sanity of a defendant based on the contadictory testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists. Nor should a jury of lay persons be subjected to conflicting scientific or technical testimony from experts paid by one side or the other.
There can be no equal justice for all when the poor are deprived of competent cousel and while the availability of expert witnesses remains beyond their reach. To achieve the goal of equal justice, we must start by running the "hired guns" out of the the criminal justice system and by ensuring that each defendant will obtain the services of a good attorney.
The indigent are provided either with a court appointed attorney or with a public defender, depending on which system a jurisdiction employs. Some court appointed attorneys are so inept that, were it not for such appointments, they would not be able to earn a living as lawyers. Except in capital cases, the chances of a poor defendant getting a court appointed attorney who is really competent are slim. And the poor have almost no chance of obtaining expert witness testimony in their behalf.
A public defender's office, which is funded and staffed the same as a district attorney's office, usually provides the indigent with a much better defense than that provided by court appointed attorneys. The public defender's office will have investigators on its staff and will have funds for hiring expert witnesses to rebut the testimony of experts hired by the prosecution.
Expert witnesses have been called "hired guns" because their expertise is for sale. In preparation for both criminal and civil trials, attorneys can obtain published lists of expert witnesses who will testify favorably for one side or the other. Some of these mercenaries will testify for either side, depending on which side offers them the most money.
The published lists include experts in structural engineering, chemistry, physics, income loss, long-term care costs, accident reconstruction, forensic science and for every medical specialty. These experts can command more than $400 per hour for time spent on case preparation and on the witness stand, plus expenses for travel, lodging and meals. Those expenses can add up because these mercenaries will not be staying at Motel 6 or eating at Burger King.
Mental health experts are the showpieces of a corrupt mercenary expert witness system. When Sirhan Sirhan was tried for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, several psychiatrists and psychologists testified for each side. The prosecution's experts claimed the defendant was sane, while the defense's experts testified that he was not sane. Due to the conflicting testimony, the jurors took the unprecedented step of insisting that the trial record reflected their disgust with the psychiatric testimony which they considered to be absolutely worthless.
The Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney cases are excellent examples of psychiatric shenanigans. Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub in their Houston home. Laney bludgeoned her children with a stone, killing two sons and critically injuring a third in their New Chapel Hill home near Tyler, Texas. Both mothers had a long history of psychotic episodes prior to the murders, and both reported the killings by calling 911.
In the Yates case, the prosecution used the testimony of Park Dietz, a California psychiatrist who had not practiced psychiatry for 25 years and who earned his living entirely by testfying as an expert for the state. Dr. Dietz testified that Yates was sane because she knew the differnce between right and wrong. In the Laney case, he testified that the defendant was "crazy" because she could not tell the difference between right and wrong.
Yates claimed that the Devil told her to kill the children. Laney claimed that God had told her to do it. Apparently, Dr. Dietz believes you are sane if the Devil tells you to kill your children, but you are crazy if God tells you to kill them. Dietz was paid a total of $142,000 for his work in the two Yates trials.
In the second Yates trial, the prosecution also relied on Michael Weiner, a New York psychiatrist. Allegedly, Dr. Weiner first approached the defense and offered to testify that Yates was not sane. When the defense did not meet his price, he turned to the prosecution which, unaware of his overtures to the defense, accepted his offer to testify that Yates knew the drownings were wrong and that she was motivated to kill her children for selfish needs. Weiner's consulting group was paid $243,000.
Psycho babblers aside, Judge Shelton's daughter Elizabeth was accused of killing the passenger in her Lexus SUV by crashing into the back of a truck while driving on a freeway with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. During her trial, an accident reconstruction expert hired by the defense testified that intoxication played no part in the crash because the truck driver caused the collision by drifting over into Shelton's lane. The accident reconstruciton expert hired by the prosecution testified that the truck driver had not moved into her lane.
Is there a way that we can level the playing field between wealthy and poor defendants in the criminal justice system? For the poor, court appointed attorneys would have to be replaced with an adequately funded public defender's office. And then, a radical change would have to be made in the way expert witnesses are selected.
A novel approach would require legislation to establish a state pool of recognized experts who are willing to serve if called upon to testify in a criminal trial. Those experts could come from anywhere in the United States and Canada. They would be chosen by a state commission headed by the Attorney General. The other commissioners could be selected by a committee of the State Bar to include a retired felony trial judge, a District Attorney, and a Public Defender or prominent defense attorney.
The experts in the pool would be paid a generous annual retainer by the state. Their travel, lodging and meal expenses would be paid for by the court in which they testified. They would receive no additional compensation for their work. While neither the prosecustion nor the defense would be permitted to employ their own expert witnesses, they would have the right to cross-examine any court appointed experts.
A selection from the pool will be made during a pre-trial hearing if the trial judge determines that an outside expert is needed to clarify questionable evidential issues, laboratory analyses, or the mental state of the defendant. He would select the appropriate expert or experts, subject to the approval of both the prosecution and the defense. If the judge makes no such determination, either side could request the appointment of an expert witness from the state pool. The trial would not start until the expert was ready to testify as to the issue in question.
The court's selection of a neutral expert from the state pool would free a jury from having to decide which conflicting expert testimony to believe. A jury should not be placed in the position of having to decide the sanity of a defendant based on the contadictory testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists. Nor should a jury of lay persons be subjected to conflicting scientific or technical testimony from experts paid by one side or the other.
There can be no equal justice for all when the poor are deprived of competent cousel and while the availability of expert witnesses remains beyond their reach. To achieve the goal of equal justice, we must start by running the "hired guns" out of the the criminal justice system and by ensuring that each defendant will obtain the services of a good attorney.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
I RUSH TO DEFEND LIMBAUGH
Rush Limbaugh in now embroiled in a big brouhaha over on-air remarks he made where he allegedly called all anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." A rush to judgement followed with congressional democrats attacking Limbaugh for besmirching heroic soldiers who served their country in Iraq.
If you've read my blogs, you know that I do not admire Limbaugh and I am certainly not one of his dodoheads - oops - I mean dittoheads. I've derisively referred to Rush as "Roach Limburger" and consider him nothing more than a bombastic buffoon who often distorts facts or doesn't even get them right in the first place. Rush is a braggard with a humongous ego. I've described him as a "Texas Blivot" - ten pounds of shit in a two pound bag.
Media Matters, a "progressive" organization dedicated to exposing conservative misinformation, manipulated Limbaugh's remarks to a caller on his radio show so they appeared like Rush condidered ALL anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." There was an immediate rush to judgement which condemned Limbaugh for calling anti-war combat veterans unpatriotic and phony soldiers. Well, I've got to rush to Rush's defense because that was really not what the blowhard did.
Three times a week, I do volunteer work at a nature center. On my way home, I listen to a radio station which broadcasts Limbaugh's program. The only reason I listen to him is that I'm too lazy to change stations. I happened to be listening when a dodohead called in to talk about veterans who speak out against the war. In his "phony soldier" response, Limbaugh was talking only about one particular anti-war veteran, Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to be an Army Ranger, when in fact he was not.
When Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers" he was referring to outspoken anti-war veterans who falsified their combat experiences like MacBeth, Jimmy Massey, Micah Wright and Amorita Randall. Massey falsely accused his Marine unit of committing mass genocide against Iraqis. Wright claimed to be an Army Ranger, which like MacBeth, he had never been. And Randall, in a New York Times article, claimed being in a Humvee that was blown up in Iraq and being raped twice while in the navy, when she had never served in Iraq.
Clearly, those four, and any other war protesters who falsify their combat experience, are phony soldiers. That did not stop congressional democrats from rushing to condemn Rush on the floor of the House and the Senate. Still smarting from criticism for their reluctance to condemn Moveon.org for its add referring to General Petraeus as General Betray Us, and for the way they, including presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, questioned the general's honesty during congressional committee hearings, democrats pounced on Limbaugh's remarks as proof that they support our troops.
Attacks against Rush on the floor of the Senate took up much of that body's time, time which should have been devoted to dealing with our nation's problems. In long-winded speeches, majority leader Harry Reid and Tom Harkin, among other democratic senators, condemned Limbaugh for calling our soldiers in Iraq "phony" and payed flowing tributes to the patriotism, bravery and sacrifices of our troops. Harkin even suggested Limbaugh may have been high on drugs.
It is interesting to look at the vote on the congressional resolutions condemning the Moveon.org ad. While support for the resolution was nearly unanimous among republicans, the same cannot be said for the democrats. In the House, 79 democrats opposed the resolution, while six chose not to cast a vote. In the Senate, 25 democrats, including Senators Reid, Harkin and Clinton, opposed the resolution, while three, including Senator Obama, chose not to cast a vote.
As much as I dislike him, I must commend Limbaugh for the way he has always backed our troops. Rush has done much more than just mouth his support for the soldiers in Iraq. The congressional democrats, on the other hand, saw the Media Matters manipulation of Rush's remarks as an opportunity for trying to convince us that they really support our troops. However, the congressional attacks against Limbaugh amounted to nothing more than A DISINGENUOUS PHONY EXERCISE in damage control over the alliance between democrats and Moveon.org.
If you've read my blogs, you know that I do not admire Limbaugh and I am certainly not one of his dodoheads - oops - I mean dittoheads. I've derisively referred to Rush as "Roach Limburger" and consider him nothing more than a bombastic buffoon who often distorts facts or doesn't even get them right in the first place. Rush is a braggard with a humongous ego. I've described him as a "Texas Blivot" - ten pounds of shit in a two pound bag.
Media Matters, a "progressive" organization dedicated to exposing conservative misinformation, manipulated Limbaugh's remarks to a caller on his radio show so they appeared like Rush condidered ALL anti-war veterans "phony soldiers." There was an immediate rush to judgement which condemned Limbaugh for calling anti-war combat veterans unpatriotic and phony soldiers. Well, I've got to rush to Rush's defense because that was really not what the blowhard did.
Three times a week, I do volunteer work at a nature center. On my way home, I listen to a radio station which broadcasts Limbaugh's program. The only reason I listen to him is that I'm too lazy to change stations. I happened to be listening when a dodohead called in to talk about veterans who speak out against the war. In his "phony soldier" response, Limbaugh was talking only about one particular anti-war veteran, Jesse MacBeth, who claimed to be an Army Ranger, when in fact he was not.
When Limbaugh used the term "phony soldiers" he was referring to outspoken anti-war veterans who falsified their combat experiences like MacBeth, Jimmy Massey, Micah Wright and Amorita Randall. Massey falsely accused his Marine unit of committing mass genocide against Iraqis. Wright claimed to be an Army Ranger, which like MacBeth, he had never been. And Randall, in a New York Times article, claimed being in a Humvee that was blown up in Iraq and being raped twice while in the navy, when she had never served in Iraq.
Clearly, those four, and any other war protesters who falsify their combat experience, are phony soldiers. That did not stop congressional democrats from rushing to condemn Rush on the floor of the House and the Senate. Still smarting from criticism for their reluctance to condemn Moveon.org for its add referring to General Petraeus as General Betray Us, and for the way they, including presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, questioned the general's honesty during congressional committee hearings, democrats pounced on Limbaugh's remarks as proof that they support our troops.
Attacks against Rush on the floor of the Senate took up much of that body's time, time which should have been devoted to dealing with our nation's problems. In long-winded speeches, majority leader Harry Reid and Tom Harkin, among other democratic senators, condemned Limbaugh for calling our soldiers in Iraq "phony" and payed flowing tributes to the patriotism, bravery and sacrifices of our troops. Harkin even suggested Limbaugh may have been high on drugs.
It is interesting to look at the vote on the congressional resolutions condemning the Moveon.org ad. While support for the resolution was nearly unanimous among republicans, the same cannot be said for the democrats. In the House, 79 democrats opposed the resolution, while six chose not to cast a vote. In the Senate, 25 democrats, including Senators Reid, Harkin and Clinton, opposed the resolution, while three, including Senator Obama, chose not to cast a vote.
As much as I dislike him, I must commend Limbaugh for the way he has always backed our troops. Rush has done much more than just mouth his support for the soldiers in Iraq. The congressional democrats, on the other hand, saw the Media Matters manipulation of Rush's remarks as an opportunity for trying to convince us that they really support our troops. However, the congressional attacks against Limbaugh amounted to nothing more than A DISINGENUOUS PHONY EXERCISE in damage control over the alliance between democrats and Moveon.org.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
DEAD MAN TALKING
A year-and-a-half ago I published THE LATEST ASSAULT ON THE DEATH PENALTY: THIS RED HERRING MAY HAVE LEGS (MARCH 12, 2006) because lawyers had come up with a novel approach to stop executions by filing appeals claiming that lethal injections resulted in excruciating pain, thereby violating the cruel punishment prohibition of the Constitution. Such appeals stopped executions in Florida, Missouri and California.
Those red herrings did have legs and now the death penaly is on life support. Last Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the cruel and unusual "pain" appeals in two Kentucky cases. The court ruling will not be handed down before next summer, thereby effectively halting most, if not all, executioons scheduled between now and then. What a shame!!!
Despite reports to the contrary, there is no reliable proof that lethal injections result in excruciating pain, a condition that is masked because the lethal cocktail allegedly paralyzes the prisoner and renders him unable to cry out. All of that is pure conjecture. In this case, the abolitionists have given us nothing but a "dead man talking" scheme to abolish the death penalty.
Last December, Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all pending Florida executions after it took 34 minutes and a rare second dose of chemicals to put a prisoner to death. Abolitionists use this case to bolster their claim that lethal injections are cruel. But, this particular incident resulted from an execution botched by a poorly trained prison guard, rather than from a failure of the drugs. And most noteworthy, there were no reports indicating the prisoner suffered any pain.
A case against lethal injections has been made in California (the land of nuts and fruits) by a member of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists who claimed that the combination of drugs used in executions - sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride - had been rejected by his peers because they would likely cause pain in animals. If that's the best the abolitionists have to offer, there may yet be hope for the death penalty.
Tlhe Supreme Court's decision to hear the lethal injection arguments has reinvigorated the death penalty abolition movement. Who would have thought that a court with a majority of conservative justices would ever consider what I believe to be a frivolous death penalty issue?
Newspaper editorials across the nation are now calling for a halt to executions until the court renders its decision on the lethal injection issue. The left, with its rabid opposition to the death penalty, is jumping up and down with joy. Now it is no longer inconceivable that a conservative court may yet rule the death penalty itself, no matter the method of execution, to be cruel and unusual punishment.
The irony of it all is that lethal injections came into being as a more humane way of executing prisoners than by electrocution, gas, hanging or firing squad, methods which are all still legal. Of the 38 states with death penalties, ten still allow electrocutions, five still allow death by gas, two still allow hanging and two others allow death by firing squad. In 37 states, lethal injection is the preferred method of execution, while Nebraska requires execution by electrocution.
Lost in the arguments over lethal injections and the call for an end to the death penalty, is any concern for the murder victims and their loved ones. God help us if those vicious killers who inflicted so much pain on their victims should themselves be made to suffer some pain.
If you read my blog of March 12, 2006, you know there is good empirical evidence that the death penalty served as a deterrent to premeditated murder, especially during the years before it became common for the condemned to stay alive for up to 20 years or so because of endless appeals.
The abolitionists claim the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. They say it is merely an act of revenge. Revenge may be the Lord's, but I say revenge is sweet. Texas is referred to as the execution capitol of the world. MAKES ME PROUD TO BE A TEXAN! I hope the Supreme Court does not remove the death penalty from life support. I pray that the court will help it make a full recovery to enjoy a long, long life.
Those red herrings did have legs and now the death penaly is on life support. Last Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the cruel and unusual "pain" appeals in two Kentucky cases. The court ruling will not be handed down before next summer, thereby effectively halting most, if not all, executioons scheduled between now and then. What a shame!!!
Despite reports to the contrary, there is no reliable proof that lethal injections result in excruciating pain, a condition that is masked because the lethal cocktail allegedly paralyzes the prisoner and renders him unable to cry out. All of that is pure conjecture. In this case, the abolitionists have given us nothing but a "dead man talking" scheme to abolish the death penalty.
Last December, Gov. Jeb Bush suspended all pending Florida executions after it took 34 minutes and a rare second dose of chemicals to put a prisoner to death. Abolitionists use this case to bolster their claim that lethal injections are cruel. But, this particular incident resulted from an execution botched by a poorly trained prison guard, rather than from a failure of the drugs. And most noteworthy, there were no reports indicating the prisoner suffered any pain.
A case against lethal injections has been made in California (the land of nuts and fruits) by a member of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists who claimed that the combination of drugs used in executions - sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride - had been rejected by his peers because they would likely cause pain in animals. If that's the best the abolitionists have to offer, there may yet be hope for the death penalty.
Tlhe Supreme Court's decision to hear the lethal injection arguments has reinvigorated the death penalty abolition movement. Who would have thought that a court with a majority of conservative justices would ever consider what I believe to be a frivolous death penalty issue?
Newspaper editorials across the nation are now calling for a halt to executions until the court renders its decision on the lethal injection issue. The left, with its rabid opposition to the death penalty, is jumping up and down with joy. Now it is no longer inconceivable that a conservative court may yet rule the death penalty itself, no matter the method of execution, to be cruel and unusual punishment.
The irony of it all is that lethal injections came into being as a more humane way of executing prisoners than by electrocution, gas, hanging or firing squad, methods which are all still legal. Of the 38 states with death penalties, ten still allow electrocutions, five still allow death by gas, two still allow hanging and two others allow death by firing squad. In 37 states, lethal injection is the preferred method of execution, while Nebraska requires execution by electrocution.
Lost in the arguments over lethal injections and the call for an end to the death penalty, is any concern for the murder victims and their loved ones. God help us if those vicious killers who inflicted so much pain on their victims should themselves be made to suffer some pain.
If you read my blog of March 12, 2006, you know there is good empirical evidence that the death penalty served as a deterrent to premeditated murder, especially during the years before it became common for the condemned to stay alive for up to 20 years or so because of endless appeals.
The abolitionists claim the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. They say it is merely an act of revenge. Revenge may be the Lord's, but I say revenge is sweet. Texas is referred to as the execution capitol of the world. MAKES ME PROUD TO BE A TEXAN! I hope the Supreme Court does not remove the death penalty from life support. I pray that the court will help it make a full recovery to enjoy a long, long life.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
JUSTICE FOR JENA? FORGET IT
Lately, there has been much in the news about the alleged injustices in "The Jena 6" case. What I am going to say about this case will probably result in accusations that I am a racist. As a matter of fact, I have been called a racist on many occasions. Is that because I hate minorities? Is that because I feel superior to minorities? Is that because I favor discrimination against minorities? The answer is a resounding "no" to all three questions.
Actually, I abhor all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination and intolerance. Because I call my shots as I see them, I am sure there have been occasions when my views on minority or religious issues have pissed-off some blacks and Hispanics, and lots of Muslims. In the past, I've been accused by white liberals of being a racist. They've even called me a Nazi. Call me insensitive if you like, but does that make me a racist? That aside, let's get to the administration of justice in the central Louisiana town of Jena.
Jena is a sleepy little Southern town of some 3,000 residents, 85% of whom are white. While its high school is integrated, students tended to cluster socially around their own racial group, as is the case in every high school in the country. There is a sort of voluntary resegration in which different groups stake out their own territorial domain. In Jena's high school, white students chose a shady oak tree as their domain.
Here is a synopsis of the events that heightened racial tensions in Jena. A black student asked for and was given permission by the principal to sit under the "white tree." White students then hung some nooses from the tree. That led to a number of fights between black and white students, as well as other incidents, some involving adults. Several weeks later, six black youths brutally attacked a white student, beating and kicking him into unconsciousness.
"The Jena 6" were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder, a charge which was subsequently reduced. Only one has been tried so far. Mychal Bell, 16 at the time of the unprovoked attack, was tried as an adult and convicted by an all-white jury on charges which could have sent him to prison for 15 years. An appeals court overturned the conviction, ruling that Bell, who had four prior violent crime convictions, should not have been tried as an adult. With his prior history of violence, he was denied bail and remains in custody pending juvenile court proceedings.
Let's look at the complaints of racial injustice by black activists, including those of Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson. They complain that the three white students who hung the nooses from the tree should have been arrested and charged with committing a hate crime. The school authorities considered the incident a prank and sent the three to an alternative school for a month and then placed them on two weeks of in-school suspension.
In my opinion, as a prank the nooses were neither funny nor innocuous. They were offensive and painful to blacks because, as we all should know, the nooses are symbolic of a dark period in our history replete with the lynchings of innocent blacks. But a hate crime? I don't think so. Now, it would have been a hate crime had the students gone to the home of a black resident and hung a noose from the homeowner's tree. By the way, come to think of it, when "The Jena 6" attacked that white student, they were by law committing a hate crime.
The black activists complain that no white students were arrested for fights they got into with blacks, while "The Jena Six" were arrested and charged with a number of felonies. They contend that, like the other fights, "The Jena 6" incident should have been handled like a simple school-yard altercation.
Say what?!!! None of the other students were hospitalized. The victim of "The Jena 6" was brutally beaten, kicked and rendered unconscious by six assailants and had to be taken to a hospital where he was treated for a concussion, swollen shut eye, and other injuries to the face, ears and hand. Even though the victim attended a social function after his brief stay in the hospital, that was definitely not a simple school-yard altercation. It was what it was - a felonious assault.
The activists complain about the attempted murder charges, claiming that if the assailants had been white, they would never have faced any serious charges. I do not agree that the charges were racially motivated, but I do agree the authorities should never have charged the six with attempted murder. Nationwide, upon an arrest, it is not unusual for the police to pile on multiple charges on top of the most serious charge they can come up with, a practice I have never favored.
The acitivists complain that Bell was convicted by an all-white jury. That complaint is groundless because no blacks were excluded from the jury. Fifty blacks were included in Bell's jury pool but none of them bothered to show up for the juror selection proceedings.
I am sure that some of Jena's whites are racists because there are racists of all colors in every community of this country. So, were "The Jena 6" the victims of a racially biased justice system? Not at all. When Mychal Bell and his five codefendants started kicking the downed victim, a simple assault escalated into a felonious assault, their shoes becoming dangerous weapons, soft sneakers notwithstanding.
Jena has been unfairly tarred and featherd as a hotbed of racism because the felonious assault arrest of six black youths led to a distorted media frenzy which was pounced upon by black activists. Consequently, thousands of demonstrators and hundreds of police descended on Jena last week.
And who led the demonstrations in Jena? Those racist reverends, Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, the former shouting his trademark slogan, "No justice, no peace." The results? Whatever racial tensions there may have been in Jena have now been exacerbated. Any winners? Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, of course. Any losers? The town of Jena and its residents, both white and black. Justice for Jena? Forget it.
Actually, I abhor all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination and intolerance. Because I call my shots as I see them, I am sure there have been occasions when my views on minority or religious issues have pissed-off some blacks and Hispanics, and lots of Muslims. In the past, I've been accused by white liberals of being a racist. They've even called me a Nazi. Call me insensitive if you like, but does that make me a racist? That aside, let's get to the administration of justice in the central Louisiana town of Jena.
Jena is a sleepy little Southern town of some 3,000 residents, 85% of whom are white. While its high school is integrated, students tended to cluster socially around their own racial group, as is the case in every high school in the country. There is a sort of voluntary resegration in which different groups stake out their own territorial domain. In Jena's high school, white students chose a shady oak tree as their domain.
Here is a synopsis of the events that heightened racial tensions in Jena. A black student asked for and was given permission by the principal to sit under the "white tree." White students then hung some nooses from the tree. That led to a number of fights between black and white students, as well as other incidents, some involving adults. Several weeks later, six black youths brutally attacked a white student, beating and kicking him into unconsciousness.
"The Jena 6" were originally charged with attempted second-degree murder, a charge which was subsequently reduced. Only one has been tried so far. Mychal Bell, 16 at the time of the unprovoked attack, was tried as an adult and convicted by an all-white jury on charges which could have sent him to prison for 15 years. An appeals court overturned the conviction, ruling that Bell, who had four prior violent crime convictions, should not have been tried as an adult. With his prior history of violence, he was denied bail and remains in custody pending juvenile court proceedings.
Let's look at the complaints of racial injustice by black activists, including those of Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson. They complain that the three white students who hung the nooses from the tree should have been arrested and charged with committing a hate crime. The school authorities considered the incident a prank and sent the three to an alternative school for a month and then placed them on two weeks of in-school suspension.
In my opinion, as a prank the nooses were neither funny nor innocuous. They were offensive and painful to blacks because, as we all should know, the nooses are symbolic of a dark period in our history replete with the lynchings of innocent blacks. But a hate crime? I don't think so. Now, it would have been a hate crime had the students gone to the home of a black resident and hung a noose from the homeowner's tree. By the way, come to think of it, when "The Jena 6" attacked that white student, they were by law committing a hate crime.
The black activists complain that no white students were arrested for fights they got into with blacks, while "The Jena Six" were arrested and charged with a number of felonies. They contend that, like the other fights, "The Jena 6" incident should have been handled like a simple school-yard altercation.
Say what?!!! None of the other students were hospitalized. The victim of "The Jena 6" was brutally beaten, kicked and rendered unconscious by six assailants and had to be taken to a hospital where he was treated for a concussion, swollen shut eye, and other injuries to the face, ears and hand. Even though the victim attended a social function after his brief stay in the hospital, that was definitely not a simple school-yard altercation. It was what it was - a felonious assault.
The activists complain about the attempted murder charges, claiming that if the assailants had been white, they would never have faced any serious charges. I do not agree that the charges were racially motivated, but I do agree the authorities should never have charged the six with attempted murder. Nationwide, upon an arrest, it is not unusual for the police to pile on multiple charges on top of the most serious charge they can come up with, a practice I have never favored.
The acitivists complain that Bell was convicted by an all-white jury. That complaint is groundless because no blacks were excluded from the jury. Fifty blacks were included in Bell's jury pool but none of them bothered to show up for the juror selection proceedings.
I am sure that some of Jena's whites are racists because there are racists of all colors in every community of this country. So, were "The Jena 6" the victims of a racially biased justice system? Not at all. When Mychal Bell and his five codefendants started kicking the downed victim, a simple assault escalated into a felonious assault, their shoes becoming dangerous weapons, soft sneakers notwithstanding.
Jena has been unfairly tarred and featherd as a hotbed of racism because the felonious assault arrest of six black youths led to a distorted media frenzy which was pounced upon by black activists. Consequently, thousands of demonstrators and hundreds of police descended on Jena last week.
And who led the demonstrations in Jena? Those racist reverends, Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, the former shouting his trademark slogan, "No justice, no peace." The results? Whatever racial tensions there may have been in Jena have now been exacerbated. Any winners? Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, of course. Any losers? The town of Jena and its residents, both white and black. Justice for Jena? Forget it.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
ONCE AGAIN, JESSEE JACKSON SHOWS HIS TRUE COLORS
Twenty-three years ago, the Reverend Jessee Jackson revealed himself to be nothing more than a hateful bigot. During the past week he has done it again. Why does the media keep treating this charlatan with kid gloves? Why do the democratic presidential candidates keep sucking up to this racist hypocrite? There is only one reason - he's black.
In 1984, while Jackson was seeking the democratic nomination for president, he had a conversation which he thought was private and off-the-record with Milton Coleman, a Washington Post reporter. During that coversation, Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown." The term Hymie stems from the once popular name - "Hyman" - given to Jewish boys and is used as an ethnic slur by bigoted gentiles.
A highly publicized storm of anger erupted in the Jewish community when his bigoted slurs were revealed. At first, Jackson denied the remarks, but when the Washington Post stood behind its reports of the slurs, he accused Jews of trying to defeat his presidential bid. With Jackson at his side, his long-time ally Louis Farrakhan, the rabid anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, then threatened Coleman and warned Jews that "If you harm this brother (Jackson), it will be the last one you harm."
In my blog BLACK ANTI-SEMITISM (September 6, 2006), I informed you that, by and large, blacks have always been one of the most anit-Semitic groups in this country, ranking right up there with the KKK and other Christian survivalist groups. That would explain Jackson's slurs, as well as fellow demagogue Al Sharpton's conduct against Jews in the Crown Heights riot and in the Freddie's Fashion Mart protest.
Now once again, Jackson has shown his true colors. Jackson criticized presidential candidate Barack Obama for not forcefully condemning the alleged injustice of "The Jena 6" case by accusing him of "acting like he's white." Jackson was speaking at Benedict College, a predominantly black school in Columbia, South Carolina. That was clearly a racist remark, suggesting that whites are bad.
When his remarks were published, Jackson first said he could not remember making the "acting like he's white" comment. Later, he released a statement saying he was " taken out of context." Like hell he was. Over the years, Jackson has revealed himself to be what he truly is - a racist and a bigot.
There seems to be an unwritten law in the mainstream media that you can report the racist remarks of black demagogues like Jackson and Sharpton, but you cannot comdemn them for their racist demagoguery. Hence the kid glove treatment. And in order to curry favor with black voters, democratic politicians put a high premium on their appearance in public alongside the two racist reverends.
When prominent whites make racist remarks they are raked over the coals by the media and deprived of their livelyhood. In 1988, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, a sportscaster, was fired by CBS over an innocuous, but stupid explanation he made for the success of black athletes. And more recently, there was the Don Imus affair. Snyder and Imus lost their jobs, while Jackson and Sharpton are frequent guests on news talk shows and democratic presidential candidates continue sucking up to those racist hypocrites.
In 1984, while Jackson was seeking the democratic nomination for president, he had a conversation which he thought was private and off-the-record with Milton Coleman, a Washington Post reporter. During that coversation, Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown." The term Hymie stems from the once popular name - "Hyman" - given to Jewish boys and is used as an ethnic slur by bigoted gentiles.
A highly publicized storm of anger erupted in the Jewish community when his bigoted slurs were revealed. At first, Jackson denied the remarks, but when the Washington Post stood behind its reports of the slurs, he accused Jews of trying to defeat his presidential bid. With Jackson at his side, his long-time ally Louis Farrakhan, the rabid anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, then threatened Coleman and warned Jews that "If you harm this brother (Jackson), it will be the last one you harm."
In my blog BLACK ANTI-SEMITISM (September 6, 2006), I informed you that, by and large, blacks have always been one of the most anit-Semitic groups in this country, ranking right up there with the KKK and other Christian survivalist groups. That would explain Jackson's slurs, as well as fellow demagogue Al Sharpton's conduct against Jews in the Crown Heights riot and in the Freddie's Fashion Mart protest.
Now once again, Jackson has shown his true colors. Jackson criticized presidential candidate Barack Obama for not forcefully condemning the alleged injustice of "The Jena 6" case by accusing him of "acting like he's white." Jackson was speaking at Benedict College, a predominantly black school in Columbia, South Carolina. That was clearly a racist remark, suggesting that whites are bad.
When his remarks were published, Jackson first said he could not remember making the "acting like he's white" comment. Later, he released a statement saying he was " taken out of context." Like hell he was. Over the years, Jackson has revealed himself to be what he truly is - a racist and a bigot.
There seems to be an unwritten law in the mainstream media that you can report the racist remarks of black demagogues like Jackson and Sharpton, but you cannot comdemn them for their racist demagoguery. Hence the kid glove treatment. And in order to curry favor with black voters, democratic politicians put a high premium on their appearance in public alongside the two racist reverends.
When prominent whites make racist remarks they are raked over the coals by the media and deprived of their livelyhood. In 1988, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder, a sportscaster, was fired by CBS over an innocuous, but stupid explanation he made for the success of black athletes. And more recently, there was the Don Imus affair. Snyder and Imus lost their jobs, while Jackson and Sharpton are frequent guests on news talk shows and democratic presidential candidates continue sucking up to those racist hypocrites.
Monday, September 17, 2007
ACLU SUPPORTS SEN. CRAIG
No wonder that cops detest the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has filed a lengthy brief with the court in support of shithouse sexual solicitor Sen. Larry Craig's attempt to have his guilty plea withdrawn. The ACLU contends that Craig was exercising his protected speech rights under the constitution when he solicited sex from an undercover police officer inside a public toilet. The ACLU also contends that Craig was a victim of entrapment.
In fairness to the ACLU, on numerous occasions over many years, that organization has come to the defense of individuals and groups that have been deprived of their civil rights or liberties. For that I must commend the ACLU. However, whenever someone complains about mistreatment by the police, the ACLU seems quick to assume that the accuser is being truthful in claiming that cops beat the supreme shit out of him or otherwise violated his rights.
Let's look at the entrapment issue. Legally, entrapment is a defense only when an officer entices someone to commit an offense which that person would not have otherwise committted. Let's take a prostitution sting operation as an example. When a female undercover officer, wearing a cleavage revealing blouse and a micro mini-skirt with fishnet stockings and garter belt, stands on a street corner or walks up and down the sidewalk, does that constitute entrapment if a man stops his car and negotiates a price with her for sex? Absolutely not.
In that situation, the motorist recognized what he believed to be a prostitute, stopped his vehicle and entered into a discussion of what kind of sex he desired and how much it was going to cost him. Regardless of how provocatively the female officer may have been dressed, he was already inclined to engage the services of a prostitute. Thus, there is no entrapment.
Now, had the female officer jumped in front of his car, forcing him to stop to avoid running over her, and then offered her services to him, that would definitely constitute entrapment. Entrapment would also occur if the officer flagged down the motorist from the sidewalk and she initiated the offer for sex. However, if the peovocatively attired officer had merely loitered along the curb, it is not entrapment if the motorist decides to stop and shoptalk sex with her.
In Craig's case, the arresting officer did not slide his foot into an adjoining stall to touch the senator's foot. He did not brush his hand underneath the partition. Nor did he stick his dick through any stall opening or otherwise expose himself to entice Craig into seeking sex. The officer was sitting in a stall during a shithouse stakeout, waiting for some creep to solicit him for sex. That was not entrapment. It was the senator who encroached an adjoining stall to touch the officer's foot and it was the senator who brushed his hand underneath the partition.
As to the senator's rights in a public toilet, the ACLU contends that soliciting sex in a private place is protected speech rgardless of where it happens. "It is not a crime to solicit sex that would occur in private. It is a crime to solicit sex that would occur in a public place." The ACLU argues that the state cannot prove Craig intended to have sex inside that public toilet. Accordingly, he committed no crime.
How about the ACLU's contention that Craig had a free speech right to solicit sex in a public toilet? What a crock of shit! I could care less if men have consentual sex with each other in the privacy of a home or motel room. I could care less if Sen. Craig had made sexual advances to another man in a gay bar. But in a public toilet? Bullshit!
What about the rights of "straight" men in a public restroom not to be subjected to unwanted and unpleasant sexual advances by other men? When Craig's actions in a public place infringe on the rights of others, that behavior constitutes an unlawful offense. The only right Sen. Craig had in that men's room was to enter, find an empty stall, take a crap and wipe his ass, and leave, all without bothering anyone else or being bothered by anyone else.
On this one the ACLU is full of crap! We may not like it when that organization comes to the aid of the KKK or neo nazis when their rights to hold a parade or public meeting have been denied, but these despicable groups have the same rights the rest of us do. But to defend Craig's lewd conduct in a public place on the grounds he has a free speech right to do so, that's a real stretch.
In fairness to the ACLU, on numerous occasions over many years, that organization has come to the defense of individuals and groups that have been deprived of their civil rights or liberties. For that I must commend the ACLU. However, whenever someone complains about mistreatment by the police, the ACLU seems quick to assume that the accuser is being truthful in claiming that cops beat the supreme shit out of him or otherwise violated his rights.
Let's look at the entrapment issue. Legally, entrapment is a defense only when an officer entices someone to commit an offense which that person would not have otherwise committted. Let's take a prostitution sting operation as an example. When a female undercover officer, wearing a cleavage revealing blouse and a micro mini-skirt with fishnet stockings and garter belt, stands on a street corner or walks up and down the sidewalk, does that constitute entrapment if a man stops his car and negotiates a price with her for sex? Absolutely not.
In that situation, the motorist recognized what he believed to be a prostitute, stopped his vehicle and entered into a discussion of what kind of sex he desired and how much it was going to cost him. Regardless of how provocatively the female officer may have been dressed, he was already inclined to engage the services of a prostitute. Thus, there is no entrapment.
Now, had the female officer jumped in front of his car, forcing him to stop to avoid running over her, and then offered her services to him, that would definitely constitute entrapment. Entrapment would also occur if the officer flagged down the motorist from the sidewalk and she initiated the offer for sex. However, if the peovocatively attired officer had merely loitered along the curb, it is not entrapment if the motorist decides to stop and shoptalk sex with her.
In Craig's case, the arresting officer did not slide his foot into an adjoining stall to touch the senator's foot. He did not brush his hand underneath the partition. Nor did he stick his dick through any stall opening or otherwise expose himself to entice Craig into seeking sex. The officer was sitting in a stall during a shithouse stakeout, waiting for some creep to solicit him for sex. That was not entrapment. It was the senator who encroached an adjoining stall to touch the officer's foot and it was the senator who brushed his hand underneath the partition.
As to the senator's rights in a public toilet, the ACLU contends that soliciting sex in a private place is protected speech rgardless of where it happens. "It is not a crime to solicit sex that would occur in private. It is a crime to solicit sex that would occur in a public place." The ACLU argues that the state cannot prove Craig intended to have sex inside that public toilet. Accordingly, he committed no crime.
How about the ACLU's contention that Craig had a free speech right to solicit sex in a public toilet? What a crock of shit! I could care less if men have consentual sex with each other in the privacy of a home or motel room. I could care less if Sen. Craig had made sexual advances to another man in a gay bar. But in a public toilet? Bullshit!
What about the rights of "straight" men in a public restroom not to be subjected to unwanted and unpleasant sexual advances by other men? When Craig's actions in a public place infringe on the rights of others, that behavior constitutes an unlawful offense. The only right Sen. Craig had in that men's room was to enter, find an empty stall, take a crap and wipe his ass, and leave, all without bothering anyone else or being bothered by anyone else.
On this one the ACLU is full of crap! We may not like it when that organization comes to the aid of the KKK or neo nazis when their rights to hold a parade or public meeting have been denied, but these despicable groups have the same rights the rest of us do. But to defend Craig's lewd conduct in a public place on the grounds he has a free speech right to do so, that's a real stretch.
Friday, September 14, 2007
KILL ONE OF US, WE KILL YOU !!!
Within a five-day period, shooting incidents in Odessa, Texas and Miami, Florida took the lives of four police officers and left three others wounded. In Odessa, three officers died. In Miami, one officer was killed and three wounded. There was a marked difference between the way these two incidents concluded, one with a satisfying ending and the other with a dissapointing one.
On Saturday night, September 8, three Odessa officers responded to a domestic disturbance call. They were met outside the home by Judy White who complained that her husband, Larry White,58, had been mistreating her. The officers, wanting to talk to Larry White, could not gain entry through the front door.
When they went into the back yard, White came out shooting, killing officers Arlie Jones, 48, and John Gardner, 30, with shots to the head, and fatally wounding officer Abel Marques, 32, with a shotgun blast to the face and throat. White, an avid hunter, had been drinking beer all day long. After a four hour standoff, this cop killer surrendered to officers who had surrounded the scene.
On Thursday morning, September 13, four Miami-Dade County police officers were in their car on a burglary stakeout when they observed a vehicle driving eratically. They left their stakeout to follow the vehicle and made a traffic stop. The driver, Shawn Labeet, 25, came out shooting and killed officer Jose Somohano, 37, while wounding the other three, with a female officer being the most seriously injured.
Labeet escaped and an extensive manhunt for this cop killer ensued. When he was tracked down some twelve hours later, he was wearing body armor. Labeet was then killed by the officers who found him. Two different cop killings, two different outcomes, one satisfactory and the other one not.
The killing of a police officer, whose duty is to protect society, is the most capital of capital crimes. I am reminded of a cop killing many, many years ago. Two crooks killed a police officer in New Jersey. When they were tracked down to a room in New York City, the cops did not yell "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded." Instead, without warning, they kicked in the door and entered the room with guns blazing. Within a few seconds two cop killers were dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
NOW, THAT WAS A SATISFYING ENDING. Naturally, what followed was that civil libitarians howled like stuck pigs, accusing the New York cops of assassinating and disregarding the rights of the New Jersey killers. Not being politically correct, in a case involving cop killers, I say "fuck the civil libitarians." But you ask, what about due process? Well, those killers received exactly the same due process they provided the cop they killed. And that brings me to the Odessa police killings.
If I had been in charge of that operation, Larry White would no longer be among the living. He was alone in his home while the Odessa officers sweet-talked him for four hours. The minute I found out he was alone, my officers would have fired dozens of tear gas shells into that house and shot him dead if he came out. If he failed to come out, I would have had my officers enter the house wearing heavy duty full-body armor with guns blazing until the bastard was dead. No negotiations, no asking him to surrender.
White is now facing extended and expensive court proceedings. During his trial some psychiatrist is bound to psycho-babble that this cold blooded cop killer is the victim of prenatal trauma and an abusive childhood. He couldn't help himself because his mama looked backwards in the mirror when she was pregnant and his daddy took away his rubber duckie while he was in the bathtub. And, after he has been sentenced to death, he will have ten years of appeals on those issues and on the claim that he was inadequately represented by incompetent counsel.
Justice was served swiftly in Miami with the shooting death of a cold blooded cop killer. Unfortunately, in the Odessa case justice has been delayed and will continue to be delayed for many more years to come because the police negotiated for a politicially correct peaceful ending.
In my years as a criminal justice educator, I always advocated the highest standards of proper and ethical law enforcement and I never defended bad policing. In every course, I placed a great deal of emphasis on human relations in the administration of justice. However, when it comes to cop killers, I draw the line and say "Kill one of us, we kill you !!!" I am certain that deep down in their hearts all cops, from the lowest rank to the highest, feel the same way I do. Career-wise, they just cannot afford to admit it.
On Saturday night, September 8, three Odessa officers responded to a domestic disturbance call. They were met outside the home by Judy White who complained that her husband, Larry White,58, had been mistreating her. The officers, wanting to talk to Larry White, could not gain entry through the front door.
When they went into the back yard, White came out shooting, killing officers Arlie Jones, 48, and John Gardner, 30, with shots to the head, and fatally wounding officer Abel Marques, 32, with a shotgun blast to the face and throat. White, an avid hunter, had been drinking beer all day long. After a four hour standoff, this cop killer surrendered to officers who had surrounded the scene.
On Thursday morning, September 13, four Miami-Dade County police officers were in their car on a burglary stakeout when they observed a vehicle driving eratically. They left their stakeout to follow the vehicle and made a traffic stop. The driver, Shawn Labeet, 25, came out shooting and killed officer Jose Somohano, 37, while wounding the other three, with a female officer being the most seriously injured.
Labeet escaped and an extensive manhunt for this cop killer ensued. When he was tracked down some twelve hours later, he was wearing body armor. Labeet was then killed by the officers who found him. Two different cop killings, two different outcomes, one satisfactory and the other one not.
The killing of a police officer, whose duty is to protect society, is the most capital of capital crimes. I am reminded of a cop killing many, many years ago. Two crooks killed a police officer in New Jersey. When they were tracked down to a room in New York City, the cops did not yell "Come out with your hands up, we have you surrounded." Instead, without warning, they kicked in the door and entered the room with guns blazing. Within a few seconds two cop killers were dead from multiple gunshot wounds.
NOW, THAT WAS A SATISFYING ENDING. Naturally, what followed was that civil libitarians howled like stuck pigs, accusing the New York cops of assassinating and disregarding the rights of the New Jersey killers. Not being politically correct, in a case involving cop killers, I say "fuck the civil libitarians." But you ask, what about due process? Well, those killers received exactly the same due process they provided the cop they killed. And that brings me to the Odessa police killings.
If I had been in charge of that operation, Larry White would no longer be among the living. He was alone in his home while the Odessa officers sweet-talked him for four hours. The minute I found out he was alone, my officers would have fired dozens of tear gas shells into that house and shot him dead if he came out. If he failed to come out, I would have had my officers enter the house wearing heavy duty full-body armor with guns blazing until the bastard was dead. No negotiations, no asking him to surrender.
White is now facing extended and expensive court proceedings. During his trial some psychiatrist is bound to psycho-babble that this cold blooded cop killer is the victim of prenatal trauma and an abusive childhood. He couldn't help himself because his mama looked backwards in the mirror when she was pregnant and his daddy took away his rubber duckie while he was in the bathtub. And, after he has been sentenced to death, he will have ten years of appeals on those issues and on the claim that he was inadequately represented by incompetent counsel.
Justice was served swiftly in Miami with the shooting death of a cold blooded cop killer. Unfortunately, in the Odessa case justice has been delayed and will continue to be delayed for many more years to come because the police negotiated for a politicially correct peaceful ending.
In my years as a criminal justice educator, I always advocated the highest standards of proper and ethical law enforcement and I never defended bad policing. In every course, I placed a great deal of emphasis on human relations in the administration of justice. However, when it comes to cop killers, I draw the line and say "Kill one of us, we kill you !!!" I am certain that deep down in their hearts all cops, from the lowest rank to the highest, feel the same way I do. Career-wise, they just cannot afford to admit it.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
DENIS LEARY ON LARRY CRAIG
I just got through watching the Jay Leno show on NBC. One of Jay's guests was Denis Leary, the actor-comedian and Emmy nominated star of FX's Rescue Me. Denis and Jay got into a discussion of Sen. Larry Craig's recent arrest for lewd conduct in a public toilet. Denis called the good senator a liar and gave three examples accordingly.
No. 1. Denis mentioned the press conference Sen. Craig held in which he said "I am not gay." Denis told Jay that anytime someone has to hold a press conference to announce they are not gay, they're gay.
No. 2. Denis talked about Craig's excuse for his foot sliding into the adjoining stall by telling the arresting officer that he spread his legs because he is big. Denis laughed that lie off by pointing to basketball star Shaquille O'Neal who is a great deal bigger than Craig. Denis said that if you spread your legs based on your size, Shaquille would have been arrested every time he used a public toilet.
No. 3. Denis laughed at Craig's claim that he placed his hand down only because he dropped a piece of toilet paper on the floor and wanted to pick it up. Denis asked Jay if he had ever been in an airport toilet. Denis went on to say that the floors there are so filthy, that if you dropped a fifty dollar bill on the floor you wouldn't ever pick it up.
As you know, in my blog CONSERVATIVE FAMILY VALUES COLLIDE WITH A SHITHOUSE STAKEOUT (August 29, 2007), I too called Sen. Craig a liar. Using his own comedic style, Denis Leary has reinforced my personal belief that Sen. Craig is indeed a liar. In this "he said, he said" controversy, I have to go with the arresting officer's version and judgement.
No. 1. Denis mentioned the press conference Sen. Craig held in which he said "I am not gay." Denis told Jay that anytime someone has to hold a press conference to announce they are not gay, they're gay.
No. 2. Denis talked about Craig's excuse for his foot sliding into the adjoining stall by telling the arresting officer that he spread his legs because he is big. Denis laughed that lie off by pointing to basketball star Shaquille O'Neal who is a great deal bigger than Craig. Denis said that if you spread your legs based on your size, Shaquille would have been arrested every time he used a public toilet.
No. 3. Denis laughed at Craig's claim that he placed his hand down only because he dropped a piece of toilet paper on the floor and wanted to pick it up. Denis asked Jay if he had ever been in an airport toilet. Denis went on to say that the floors there are so filthy, that if you dropped a fifty dollar bill on the floor you wouldn't ever pick it up.
As you know, in my blog CONSERVATIVE FAMILY VALUES COLLIDE WITH A SHITHOUSE STAKEOUT (August 29, 2007), I too called Sen. Craig a liar. Using his own comedic style, Denis Leary has reinforced my personal belief that Sen. Craig is indeed a liar. In this "he said, he said" controversy, I have to go with the arresting officer's version and judgement.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
ONE CASE WITH MULTIPLE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE
Mike Nifong, the malicious rogue prosecutor in the Duke rape case, has just finished serving 24 hours in jail for criminal contempt. He was sentenced to jail for intentionally lying to the court when he told a judge that he had turned over all DNA evidence to the defense. Nifong, disbarred last June for more than two dozen acts of misconduct, could have been sentenced to 30 days in jail.
While the families of the defendants and their lawyers felt justice had been done, I most certainly do not agree. His having been disbarred aside, considering what Nifong cost the defendants and their families over the course of a year, he deserved nothing less than the maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. 24 hours? Shit, that's not even a slap on the wrist. That's just a little pat. Paris Hilton served 23 days for something less serious than lying to the court.
Nifong, currying the votes of Durham county blacks for his reelection as District Attorney, rushed to judgement on false accusations of rape by a black stripper against three white Duke lacrosse team members. During daily news briefings, this rogue prosecutor publically villified the accused. His reelection campaign turned into a malicious prosecution because, from the begining and for months thereafter, he chose to ignore mounting evidence that the stripper was lying and that the accused were innocent.
The three lacrosse players will always carry the stigma of accused rapists, the result of Nifong's misconduct, despite their having been officially exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing. During the course of a year, the services of lawyers cost the families of the defendants several million dollars. There was justice in Nifong's disbarrment, but not enough. The 24 hour jail sentence constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
There have been other gross miscarriages of justice in this case, among them the conduct of "The Group of 88," that of the loudmouth reverends Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, and that of the hyper-active media. 88 Duke faculty and staff members led by professors from the African and African-American Studies department, took out a full page ad in Duke's student newspaper villifying the lacrosse players as racist and sexist white privileged hooligans.
These left-wing academics constituted a lynch mob. Even after the accused were exonerated, each of the 88 refused to even consider an apology or a retraction of their racially charged statements, Instead, they broadened their condemnation to include all of the campus as a center of racism and sexism. Tenure and academic freedom notwithstanding, they should have all been fired for fanning the flames of racial hatred. Their continued employment at Duke is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were quick to jump on the anti-Duke bandwagon. Their presence at demonstrations for "racial justice" in Durham helped to further fan the flames of racial hatred. Any peep out of them since the exoneration of the accused? Not a word. Instead of being condemned as race baiters, these two continue to be rewarded with appearances on television news programs. And, the leading democratic presidential candidates continually suck up to these two charlatans.
Sharpton continues to be a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and on that network's Tucker Carlson show. Matthews and Carlson slobber all over themselves whenever he appears on their shows, despite his checkered past - his leading roles in the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax, in the 1991 Crown Heights riot, and in the 1995 deaths of eight people following a demonstration he led against the Jewish landlord of Freddie's Fashion Mart. Sharpton and Jackson's part in the Duke rape case without any meaningful rebuke, constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
The print and television media covered this story with the zeal of a feeding frenzy, devoid of any semblance of fairness or objectivity. Their coverage, including that of the New York Times, quickly helped to convict the falsely accused in the court of public opinion. The media pictured Durham as a great racial divide with privileged whites oppressing poor blacks. When the accused were exonerated, the media did a quick fade-out. No apologies on television or in the printed press - another gross miscarriage of justice.
To a lesser extent, the failure to prosecute the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, is also a miscarriage of justice. And the Duke administration - which immediately fired the lacrosse coach and cancelled the lacrosse season, and then suspended the accused students - got off way too easy. I cannot recall another case with so many miscarriages of justice.
While the families of the defendants and their lawyers felt justice had been done, I most certainly do not agree. His having been disbarred aside, considering what Nifong cost the defendants and their families over the course of a year, he deserved nothing less than the maximum sentence of 30 days in jail. 24 hours? Shit, that's not even a slap on the wrist. That's just a little pat. Paris Hilton served 23 days for something less serious than lying to the court.
Nifong, currying the votes of Durham county blacks for his reelection as District Attorney, rushed to judgement on false accusations of rape by a black stripper against three white Duke lacrosse team members. During daily news briefings, this rogue prosecutor publically villified the accused. His reelection campaign turned into a malicious prosecution because, from the begining and for months thereafter, he chose to ignore mounting evidence that the stripper was lying and that the accused were innocent.
The three lacrosse players will always carry the stigma of accused rapists, the result of Nifong's misconduct, despite their having been officially exonerated of any criminal wrongdoing. During the course of a year, the services of lawyers cost the families of the defendants several million dollars. There was justice in Nifong's disbarrment, but not enough. The 24 hour jail sentence constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
There have been other gross miscarriages of justice in this case, among them the conduct of "The Group of 88," that of the loudmouth reverends Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, and that of the hyper-active media. 88 Duke faculty and staff members led by professors from the African and African-American Studies department, took out a full page ad in Duke's student newspaper villifying the lacrosse players as racist and sexist white privileged hooligans.
These left-wing academics constituted a lynch mob. Even after the accused were exonerated, each of the 88 refused to even consider an apology or a retraction of their racially charged statements, Instead, they broadened their condemnation to include all of the campus as a center of racism and sexism. Tenure and academic freedom notwithstanding, they should have all been fired for fanning the flames of racial hatred. Their continued employment at Duke is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson were quick to jump on the anti-Duke bandwagon. Their presence at demonstrations for "racial justice" in Durham helped to further fan the flames of racial hatred. Any peep out of them since the exoneration of the accused? Not a word. Instead of being condemned as race baiters, these two continue to be rewarded with appearances on television news programs. And, the leading democratic presidential candidates continually suck up to these two charlatans.
Sharpton continues to be a frequent guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and on that network's Tucker Carlson show. Matthews and Carlson slobber all over themselves whenever he appears on their shows, despite his checkered past - his leading roles in the 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax, in the 1991 Crown Heights riot, and in the 1995 deaths of eight people following a demonstration he led against the Jewish landlord of Freddie's Fashion Mart. Sharpton and Jackson's part in the Duke rape case without any meaningful rebuke, constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice.
The print and television media covered this story with the zeal of a feeding frenzy, devoid of any semblance of fairness or objectivity. Their coverage, including that of the New York Times, quickly helped to convict the falsely accused in the court of public opinion. The media pictured Durham as a great racial divide with privileged whites oppressing poor blacks. When the accused were exonerated, the media did a quick fade-out. No apologies on television or in the printed press - another gross miscarriage of justice.
To a lesser extent, the failure to prosecute the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum, is also a miscarriage of justice. And the Duke administration - which immediately fired the lacrosse coach and cancelled the lacrosse season, and then suspended the accused students - got off way too easy. I cannot recall another case with so many miscarriages of justice.
Friday, September 07, 2007
DOWN THE DRAIN WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS
I hope what follows will get you pissed off more with the government than with me. I am going to bitch about the way billions of our tax dollars have been wasted and will continue to be wasted on NASA, on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and on the Hurricane Katrina disaster. I'm referring to manned spaceflight since the end of the Cold War, the money given to the 9/11 victims, and the money appropriated for the rebuilding of the low flood-prone areas of New Orleans.
MANNED SPACEFLIGHT. The space program started out as a competition for prestige during the Cold War (1946 - 1991) between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1957, we were shocked when the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik I, the first earth orbiting satellite. In 1961, we were shocked again when the Soviets launched the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. What followed was a race to see who would place the first man on the moon. The United States won that race in 1969.
Once we had beaten the Soviets to the moon, they immediately abandoned any further attempts to send their Cosmonauts there. Why? What would have been the point? Instead, the Soviets turned to building a space station. Not to be outdone, we decided to build a bigger space station. Our project became so expensive that, since the Cold War was over, we invited Russia to join us in building and maintaining the current space station. Several years ago Russia ran out of funds and since then we have been subsidizing their part in this joint venture.
Will the space station ever be fully completed? Some experts do not believe so. And, if it is ever completed, how much use will we get out of it? The predictions - very little, if any. We have sunk billions and billions of dollars into manned space flight with relatively little in return, except for our pride. It is true that a good number of useful innovations for use by industry and in the home have been developed through the space program, but most of those came into being well before the end of the 20th Century.
Recently, President Bush ordered NASA to carry out a project which will return us to the moon. Good grief, what in the hell for? Apparently, to launch manned space flights into outer space. Billions and billions more of tax dollars going down a black hole. Instead of going to the moon, many experts believe we can learn everything there is to know about Mars and the other planets through the use of unmanned space vehicles.
Todate, NASA has received more than 419 billion dollars (more than 618 billion dollars when adjusted for inflation). Most of these funds have gone toward the manned spaceflight programs. And now, they are spending billions more on developing a new fleet of manned space shuttles. I am all for unmanned space exploration, like the two rovers that have been operating on Mars for the past 43 months, but let's put an end to the endless drain of our tax dollars for manned spaceflight. Let the private sector take over this boondoggle for what it's worth.
9/11 VICTIMS COMPENSATION. The terrorist attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon, as well as the Pennsylvania airliner crash, killed 2,551 civilians and seriously injured 215 others. 460 fire fighters, police officers and medics were also killed or seriously injured. The federal government established the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund as an airline bailout program because in order to receive any compensation from this fund, each recipient had to agree not to sue the airlines used by the terrorists.
By the end of 2004, the 9/11 victims, individuals and businesses, had received 19.6 billion dollars (51%) in insurance payments and 15.8 billion dollars (42%) in government compensation. New York businesses received 62% of the total compensation. An average of 1.2 million dollars in government payments was made to each of the widows and widowers of those killed, with some receiving up to 4.7 million dollars. Those govenment handouts were made in addition to any funds they may have received from insurance companies.
Many of the 9/11 victims were not satisfied with the handouts, demanding even more from the government. I'll bet that many of the 9/11 victims who have received these government handouts have long complained about the handouts given to welfare recipients. By contrast, the Oklahoma City bombing victims received no compensation from the government, even though the bombed building belonged to the federal government. Having seen how the 9/11 victims were compensated, the Oklahoma City victims then clamored for equal compensation from the government.
I truly feel deeply sorry for the loss of lives and their effect on the surviviors, but I do not believe the federal government had any obligation whatsoever to compensate the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 attacks. Shit happens! Although some would argue to the contrary, the government was not at fault in either case and thus, no federal compensation is warranted, the probable bankruptcy of airlines notwithstanding. As far as I'm concerned, almost 16 billion of our tax dollars have gone down the drain.
REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS. With the breach of the levees, 80 percent of New Orleans was flooded by Hurricane Katrina. Especially hard hit was the Lower Ninth Ward, an area populated mostly by poor working class blacks. Who can forget the pictures of those poor souls standed at the New Orleans Convention Center under the most horrifying conditions imaginable.
Was the federal government responsible for the failure of the levees. To some extent, yes. The government could have done a better job maintaining those levees. Was the federal government responsible for the Convention Center debacle. Most certainly not. That was the fault of the inept city government, led by the "Chocolate City" mayor, Ray Nagin.
Congress has allocated 62 billion dollars for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Most of that funding is to be spent on rebuilding New Orleans. The government should help to rebuild that city since it failed to adequately maintain the levees, But, rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of New Orleans just doesn't make any sense. Civil rights activists have made the Lower Ninth Ward into a racial issue. The working class blacks of New Orleans deserve better than to be subjected to a similar disaster, one that is bound to happen again if the flood-prone areas in which they resided are rebuilt.
If the government is going to spend billions of dollars rebuilding New Orleans, they should spend the money on building homes in areas adjacent to New Orleans which are not likely to flood. The Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of the city should just be razed and abandoned. Their former residents should be given homes in areas not subject to flooding. Any expenditures on the flood-prone residential areas of New Orleans would only constitute another humongous nonsensical waste of our tax dollars.
MANNED SPACEFLIGHT. The space program started out as a competition for prestige during the Cold War (1946 - 1991) between the United States and the Soviet Union. In 1957, we were shocked when the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik I, the first earth orbiting satellite. In 1961, we were shocked again when the Soviets launched the first man, Yuri Gagarin, in space. What followed was a race to see who would place the first man on the moon. The United States won that race in 1969.
Once we had beaten the Soviets to the moon, they immediately abandoned any further attempts to send their Cosmonauts there. Why? What would have been the point? Instead, the Soviets turned to building a space station. Not to be outdone, we decided to build a bigger space station. Our project became so expensive that, since the Cold War was over, we invited Russia to join us in building and maintaining the current space station. Several years ago Russia ran out of funds and since then we have been subsidizing their part in this joint venture.
Will the space station ever be fully completed? Some experts do not believe so. And, if it is ever completed, how much use will we get out of it? The predictions - very little, if any. We have sunk billions and billions of dollars into manned space flight with relatively little in return, except for our pride. It is true that a good number of useful innovations for use by industry and in the home have been developed through the space program, but most of those came into being well before the end of the 20th Century.
Recently, President Bush ordered NASA to carry out a project which will return us to the moon. Good grief, what in the hell for? Apparently, to launch manned space flights into outer space. Billions and billions more of tax dollars going down a black hole. Instead of going to the moon, many experts believe we can learn everything there is to know about Mars and the other planets through the use of unmanned space vehicles.
Todate, NASA has received more than 419 billion dollars (more than 618 billion dollars when adjusted for inflation). Most of these funds have gone toward the manned spaceflight programs. And now, they are spending billions more on developing a new fleet of manned space shuttles. I am all for unmanned space exploration, like the two rovers that have been operating on Mars for the past 43 months, but let's put an end to the endless drain of our tax dollars for manned spaceflight. Let the private sector take over this boondoggle for what it's worth.
9/11 VICTIMS COMPENSATION. The terrorist attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon, as well as the Pennsylvania airliner crash, killed 2,551 civilians and seriously injured 215 others. 460 fire fighters, police officers and medics were also killed or seriously injured. The federal government established the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund as an airline bailout program because in order to receive any compensation from this fund, each recipient had to agree not to sue the airlines used by the terrorists.
By the end of 2004, the 9/11 victims, individuals and businesses, had received 19.6 billion dollars (51%) in insurance payments and 15.8 billion dollars (42%) in government compensation. New York businesses received 62% of the total compensation. An average of 1.2 million dollars in government payments was made to each of the widows and widowers of those killed, with some receiving up to 4.7 million dollars. Those govenment handouts were made in addition to any funds they may have received from insurance companies.
Many of the 9/11 victims were not satisfied with the handouts, demanding even more from the government. I'll bet that many of the 9/11 victims who have received these government handouts have long complained about the handouts given to welfare recipients. By contrast, the Oklahoma City bombing victims received no compensation from the government, even though the bombed building belonged to the federal government. Having seen how the 9/11 victims were compensated, the Oklahoma City victims then clamored for equal compensation from the government.
I truly feel deeply sorry for the loss of lives and their effect on the surviviors, but I do not believe the federal government had any obligation whatsoever to compensate the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing or the 9/11 attacks. Shit happens! Although some would argue to the contrary, the government was not at fault in either case and thus, no federal compensation is warranted, the probable bankruptcy of airlines notwithstanding. As far as I'm concerned, almost 16 billion of our tax dollars have gone down the drain.
REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS. With the breach of the levees, 80 percent of New Orleans was flooded by Hurricane Katrina. Especially hard hit was the Lower Ninth Ward, an area populated mostly by poor working class blacks. Who can forget the pictures of those poor souls standed at the New Orleans Convention Center under the most horrifying conditions imaginable.
Was the federal government responsible for the failure of the levees. To some extent, yes. The government could have done a better job maintaining those levees. Was the federal government responsible for the Convention Center debacle. Most certainly not. That was the fault of the inept city government, led by the "Chocolate City" mayor, Ray Nagin.
Congress has allocated 62 billion dollars for the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Most of that funding is to be spent on rebuilding New Orleans. The government should help to rebuild that city since it failed to adequately maintain the levees, But, rebuilding the Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of New Orleans just doesn't make any sense. Civil rights activists have made the Lower Ninth Ward into a racial issue. The working class blacks of New Orleans deserve better than to be subjected to a similar disaster, one that is bound to happen again if the flood-prone areas in which they resided are rebuilt.
If the government is going to spend billions of dollars rebuilding New Orleans, they should spend the money on building homes in areas adjacent to New Orleans which are not likely to flood. The Lower Ninth Ward and other flood-prone areas of the city should just be razed and abandoned. Their former residents should be given homes in areas not subject to flooding. Any expenditures on the flood-prone residential areas of New Orleans would only constitute another humongous nonsensical waste of our tax dollars.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
EUROPE'S EXTERMINATED JEWS REPLACED BY 20 MILLION MUSLIMS
Those of you who have been reading my blogs know that I have written several blogs on the hatred against Jews and other infidels by fundamentalist Muslims. A good friend just sent me the English translation of an article which was published in one of Spain's newspapapers on May 22, 2007. The article, ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ, was written by Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez, a Spanish author.
Rodrigez writes about the aftermath of the holocaust in which six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. It must be noted that, while Hitler and the Nazis planned, rounded up and transported Europe's Jews to extermination camps, they were far from being solely responsible for the holocaust. The people of most other European countries did not hesitate to assist the Germans in finding and rounding up the Jews for shipment to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps.
Long before the rise of Nazi Germany, Poland was well known for a series of anti-Semitic progroms. The Poles, possessed by a virulent hatred of Jews, did not just assist their Nazi occupiers in identifying and rounding them up, but they did so most willingly. The people of Austria, the Balkans, Greece, France, Spain and other Nazi occupied European countries also helped the Germans find and round up the Jews. Unlike those Nazi collaborators, the people of Denmark tried their best to protect the Jews in that country.
Of course, right after the Nazis were defeated, a multitude of Germans and other Eropeans crawled out of the woodwork to proclaim that each had hid out a Jew from the Nazis. If that had been true, the number of Jews who would have survived the holocaust would be several times the total number of Jews who existed in the world before the rise of Nazi Germany.
Rodrigez writes about what Muslims have done to "our beautiful Spanish cities," but his complaints also apply to France, England and other European countries. Ironically, the 20 million Muslims welcomed by Europe are people whose hatred of the Jews they have replaced, equals if not exceeds the hatred of the Nazi era Poles.
Rodrigez impressed me most for being the only author I know of, who blamed all of Europe for the holocaust, not just Nazi Germany. But then, what about the rest of the world? The Muslim world applauded and supported Hitler's extermination of the Jews, while the Christian world, including the United States, turned a blind eye to their plight.
Following is the English translation of the Rodrigez article.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance,
religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for
people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
Rodrigez writes about the aftermath of the holocaust in which six million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. It must be noted that, while Hitler and the Nazis planned, rounded up and transported Europe's Jews to extermination camps, they were far from being solely responsible for the holocaust. The people of most other European countries did not hesitate to assist the Germans in finding and rounding up the Jews for shipment to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps.
Long before the rise of Nazi Germany, Poland was well known for a series of anti-Semitic progroms. The Poles, possessed by a virulent hatred of Jews, did not just assist their Nazi occupiers in identifying and rounding them up, but they did so most willingly. The people of Austria, the Balkans, Greece, France, Spain and other Nazi occupied European countries also helped the Germans find and round up the Jews. Unlike those Nazi collaborators, the people of Denmark tried their best to protect the Jews in that country.
Of course, right after the Nazis were defeated, a multitude of Germans and other Eropeans crawled out of the woodwork to proclaim that each had hid out a Jew from the Nazis. If that had been true, the number of Jews who would have survived the holocaust would be several times the total number of Jews who existed in the world before the rise of Nazi Germany.
Rodrigez writes about what Muslims have done to "our beautiful Spanish cities," but his complaints also apply to France, England and other European countries. Ironically, the 20 million Muslims welcomed by Europe are people whose hatred of the Jews they have replaced, equals if not exceeds the hatred of the Nazi era Poles.
Rodrigez impressed me most for being the only author I know of, who blamed all of Europe for the holocaust, not just Nazi Germany. But then, what about the rest of the world? The Muslim world applauded and supported Hitler's extermination of the Jews, while the Christian world, including the United States, turned a blind eye to their plight.
Following is the English translation of the Rodrigez article.
ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ
By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez
I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.
The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.
And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance,
religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.
They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime.
Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.
And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.
We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for
people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.
What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
CONSERVATIVE FAMILY VALUES COLLIDE WITH A SHITHOUSE STAKEOUT
Here we go again. Another prominent Republican conservative advocate of virtuous family values has bitten the dust. U.S. Senator Larry Craig got himself arrested for lewd conduct in a public restroom. Sex solicitation in the men's shitter - how low can you get?
Responding to numerous complaints of inappropriate sexual conduct in a particular men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, an undercover police sergeant was assigned to bust miscreants in that facility. Last June, while the officer was sitting in one stall during his shithouse stakeout, Sen. Craig entered an adjoining stall, sat down on the crapper, slid his right foot underneath the partition to touch the officer's left foot, then reached his left hand (the officer saw Craig's wedding band) down to brush the underside of the partition.
The officer, his foot being well inside his stall, then arrested the senator for lewd conduct. Sen. Craig accused the officer of entrapment and of being the one who solicited sex. Denying that he had brushed his hand on the underside of the partition, he told the officer "you saw something that didn't happen," Nevertheless, Sen. Craig pled guilty in August to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct.
When news of his arrest became public some two months later, the senator denied being gay and vehemently insisted he did not engage in any inappropritate behavior. He claimed it was all just a misunderstanding and that he only pled guilty so it would all go away. Now he claims to be the victim of a dumb (he earned a master's degree) cop's imagination and insists the only mistake he made was to plead guilty to an offense he did not commit. Liar, liar!!!
In addition to his protestations of innocence, the good senator claimed he was also the victim of a five-month long "witch hunt" by his local newspaper, The Idaho Statesman. After the lewd conduct arrest became public, The Idaho Statesman then published allegations that Craig previously had oral sex with a 40-year old professinal man in a restroom at Washington's Union Station. Whopee!!!
The senator's defenders question the undercover sergeant's judgement resulting from some innocuous foot and hand movements. They should wake up and smell the roses. Police officers trained to work the shithouse stakeout know lewd conduct for what it is and do not make such arrests unless they are convinced the charges will stand a good chance of holding up in court. Men's restrooms in transportation terminals, public parks and shopping malls are often used by gay men for a quickie oral sex encounter.
In the '50s and '60s, when I worked the streets, there was so much lewd conduct by gay men in California's public park restrooms that the men's rooms, not the women's, were constructed with false ceilings which allowed officers to hide up there, observe any lewd conduct through peepholes, and make the appropriate arrests, of which there were many. Civil libertarians eventually convinced the courts to rule that peeping-tom cops hiding in false restroom ceilings constituted an unlawful invasion of privacy.
Sen. Craig is just the latest fallen member of the fraternity of social conservatives who trumpet the virtues of family values. There was Ted Haggert, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Reverend Haggert, who had also been the religious adviser to President Bush, had a three-year sexual relationship with male prostitutes and was a user of crystal meth. And, there was U.S. Senator David Vitter, another staunch social conservative family man, who was exposed as a phony for having engaged in sex with Wahington prostitutes.
Why were Craig, Haggert and Vitter such ardent champions of family values? These consevative hypocrites used the oldest trick in the world - strongly support traditional morals and publicly condemn other people's behavior, like infidelity and gay life styles, thereby covering up their own participation in the very same behavior. Hmmm, how many other family values trumpeting social conservatives are out there having sex in a men's shitter?
Responding to numerous complaints of inappropriate sexual conduct in a particular men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, an undercover police sergeant was assigned to bust miscreants in that facility. Last June, while the officer was sitting in one stall during his shithouse stakeout, Sen. Craig entered an adjoining stall, sat down on the crapper, slid his right foot underneath the partition to touch the officer's left foot, then reached his left hand (the officer saw Craig's wedding band) down to brush the underside of the partition.
The officer, his foot being well inside his stall, then arrested the senator for lewd conduct. Sen. Craig accused the officer of entrapment and of being the one who solicited sex. Denying that he had brushed his hand on the underside of the partition, he told the officer "you saw something that didn't happen," Nevertheless, Sen. Craig pled guilty in August to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct.
When news of his arrest became public some two months later, the senator denied being gay and vehemently insisted he did not engage in any inappropritate behavior. He claimed it was all just a misunderstanding and that he only pled guilty so it would all go away. Now he claims to be the victim of a dumb (he earned a master's degree) cop's imagination and insists the only mistake he made was to plead guilty to an offense he did not commit. Liar, liar!!!
In addition to his protestations of innocence, the good senator claimed he was also the victim of a five-month long "witch hunt" by his local newspaper, The Idaho Statesman. After the lewd conduct arrest became public, The Idaho Statesman then published allegations that Craig previously had oral sex with a 40-year old professinal man in a restroom at Washington's Union Station. Whopee!!!
The senator's defenders question the undercover sergeant's judgement resulting from some innocuous foot and hand movements. They should wake up and smell the roses. Police officers trained to work the shithouse stakeout know lewd conduct for what it is and do not make such arrests unless they are convinced the charges will stand a good chance of holding up in court. Men's restrooms in transportation terminals, public parks and shopping malls are often used by gay men for a quickie oral sex encounter.
In the '50s and '60s, when I worked the streets, there was so much lewd conduct by gay men in California's public park restrooms that the men's rooms, not the women's, were constructed with false ceilings which allowed officers to hide up there, observe any lewd conduct through peepholes, and make the appropriate arrests, of which there were many. Civil libertarians eventually convinced the courts to rule that peeping-tom cops hiding in false restroom ceilings constituted an unlawful invasion of privacy.
Sen. Craig is just the latest fallen member of the fraternity of social conservatives who trumpet the virtues of family values. There was Ted Haggert, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Reverend Haggert, who had also been the religious adviser to President Bush, had a three-year sexual relationship with male prostitutes and was a user of crystal meth. And, there was U.S. Senator David Vitter, another staunch social conservative family man, who was exposed as a phony for having engaged in sex with Wahington prostitutes.
Why were Craig, Haggert and Vitter such ardent champions of family values? These consevative hypocrites used the oldest trick in the world - strongly support traditional morals and publicly condemn other people's behavior, like infidelity and gay life styles, thereby covering up their own participation in the very same behavior. Hmmm, how many other family values trumpeting social conservatives are out there having sex in a men's shitter?
Monday, August 27, 2007
BUTT OUT !!!
Outsiders keep butting into the way Texas treats its criminals. Recently, the European Union called on Texas to stop an execution. And now, a Maryland author condemns the way inmates, particularly those on death row, are treated in Texas prisons.
The European Union, on the eve of the 400th Texas execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1982, called on Governor Rick Perry to put an end to this practice. The European Union urged Gov. Perry "to exercise all powers vested in his office to halt all upcoming executions and to consider the introduction of a moratorium in the stae of Texas."
To the governor's credit, his office told the European Union that this was none of its business. "230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yolk of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas."
The execution went on as scheduled. This was not the first time the European Union has tried to stop executions in Texas. In 1998, along with other death penalty abolitionists, the Eropean Union called on Texas not to execute Karla Faye Tucker, a notrious cold-blooded pickax murderer. Tucker, who found religion on death row (don't they all?), was also executed as scheduled. Justice was served when Governor (now President) Bush rejected all pleas on her behalf, including one from the Pope in Rome.
Now, along comes Dave Zirin, an author of sports books who resides in Maryland. Zirin has become the pen-pal of a Texas death row inmate. He got pissed off when Texas correction officials barred one of Zirin's books which he tried to send to his pen-pal. The authorities were concerned that several passages in his book could incite inmates to rebel against prison rules. In an op ed piece in yesterday's Houston Chronicle, Zirin criticized the treatment of Texas prizon inmates. He also slammed Gov. Perry for executing 159 murderers since he took office in 2001.
Zirin's op ed piece blasted Texas officials for "the fact that the people on the (death) row have no civil rights, no access to radio or television, or even arts and crafts." Well, pardon me. Zirin must think people are on death row for singing off-key in a church choir. Zirin writes that the banning of his book "reveals how aware Lone Star jailers are of how inhumanely they treat their prisoners." Do the complaints of an imprisoned pen-pal qualify this Maryland sports writer as an expert on Texas jails?
I have this to say to the European Union, the Pope, Zirin, and all the other death penalty abolitionists from outside the state - BUTT OUT !!! You have no business sticking your nose into the internal affairs of our state. Don't worry about how we handle our affairs. The United States Supreme Court will keep us from mistreating our prison inmates and ensure that all those on death row have received every protection afforded by our laws. Look to solve the many problems in your own back yard.
The European Union, on the eve of the 400th Texas execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1982, called on Governor Rick Perry to put an end to this practice. The European Union urged Gov. Perry "to exercise all powers vested in his office to halt all upcoming executions and to consider the introduction of a moratorium in the stae of Texas."
To the governor's credit, his office told the European Union that this was none of its business. "230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yolk of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas."
The execution went on as scheduled. This was not the first time the European Union has tried to stop executions in Texas. In 1998, along with other death penalty abolitionists, the Eropean Union called on Texas not to execute Karla Faye Tucker, a notrious cold-blooded pickax murderer. Tucker, who found religion on death row (don't they all?), was also executed as scheduled. Justice was served when Governor (now President) Bush rejected all pleas on her behalf, including one from the Pope in Rome.
Now, along comes Dave Zirin, an author of sports books who resides in Maryland. Zirin has become the pen-pal of a Texas death row inmate. He got pissed off when Texas correction officials barred one of Zirin's books which he tried to send to his pen-pal. The authorities were concerned that several passages in his book could incite inmates to rebel against prison rules. In an op ed piece in yesterday's Houston Chronicle, Zirin criticized the treatment of Texas prizon inmates. He also slammed Gov. Perry for executing 159 murderers since he took office in 2001.
Zirin's op ed piece blasted Texas officials for "the fact that the people on the (death) row have no civil rights, no access to radio or television, or even arts and crafts." Well, pardon me. Zirin must think people are on death row for singing off-key in a church choir. Zirin writes that the banning of his book "reveals how aware Lone Star jailers are of how inhumanely they treat their prisoners." Do the complaints of an imprisoned pen-pal qualify this Maryland sports writer as an expert on Texas jails?
I have this to say to the European Union, the Pope, Zirin, and all the other death penalty abolitionists from outside the state - BUTT OUT !!! You have no business sticking your nose into the internal affairs of our state. Don't worry about how we handle our affairs. The United States Supreme Court will keep us from mistreating our prison inmates and ensure that all those on death row have received every protection afforded by our laws. Look to solve the many problems in your own back yard.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
COMMONALITIES AMONG DOPERS AND DOPE DEALERS
Last night I was privileged to address over 500 diners at the annual conference banquet of a state narcotic officers association. The next time I wear the suit I was wearing, I will probably be in a box. Anyway, the occasion reminded me of some resarch I did several years ago on what, if anything, dopers and dope dealers have in common.
As you may know, college professors are expected to conduct research and have their findings published if they want to keep their teaching positions. In the academic community it's "Publish or Perish." My study on the commonalities of dopers and dope dealers was empricical, rather than scientific. My study was done while accompaning narcotic officers as they conducted numerous drug raids and as they arrested lots of dopers and dope dealers.
What I found was amazing. It seems that the mothers of almost every doper and dope dealer had given the same names to their offspring. Those names were not "Billy Bob" or "Jesus Miguel." Empirical evidence has disclosed that the name commonly given was "Mother Fu--er" and which I will refer to from now on as "M.F." for brevity purposes.
How did I arrive at this finding? Apparently, in today's politically correct society with its demand for a kinder gentler police force, police officers must have been instructed to address citizens by their names whenver possible. Time after time, I heard officers calling dopers and dope dealers by their names. Following are just a few of the cheerful greetings I recorded.
"This is the police. We have a search warrant. Open the door, M.F." "On the ground, M.F." "Stop M.F., or I'll shoot." "Drop that gun, M.F." "Hey M.F., don't talk Mexican." "What did you call me, M.F.?" "Listen M.F., shut up." "Hey M.F., get out of the car and on the ground." "Gotcha M.F., you're busted."
I could go on and on, but now you know how I arrived at my findings. When my left-wing colleagues saw the results of my study, they became apoplectic. Those commies felt compelled to debunk my research. I think their study was flawed because they only contacted their dope dealers. In any case, this is what they found - the majority of police officers were also named "Mother Fu--er" by their mothers.
That was not the first time those commies tried to debunk one of my studies. I once surveyed hundreds of police officers to detect similarities among common citizens. The study revealed that many citizens appeared to have been named "Asshole" by their mothers, with "Dickhead" being the next most popular given name. My left-wing colleagues countered with a study of commonalities among police officers. They found that ALL police officers were named "Asshole."
Come to think of it, I remember that many of those left-wingers were also named "Asshole." "M.F." and "Asshole" appear to be our country's most popular given names. Say what? Did I just hear you say those commies have all called me "Mother Fu--er?" I am so shocked that the only words I can find to express myself are those of the immortal Jackie Gleason in his role as Sheriff Buford T. Justice - "Sumbitch, what the hell is the world coming to?"
As you may know, college professors are expected to conduct research and have their findings published if they want to keep their teaching positions. In the academic community it's "Publish or Perish." My study on the commonalities of dopers and dope dealers was empricical, rather than scientific. My study was done while accompaning narcotic officers as they conducted numerous drug raids and as they arrested lots of dopers and dope dealers.
What I found was amazing. It seems that the mothers of almost every doper and dope dealer had given the same names to their offspring. Those names were not "Billy Bob" or "Jesus Miguel." Empirical evidence has disclosed that the name commonly given was "Mother Fu--er" and which I will refer to from now on as "M.F." for brevity purposes.
How did I arrive at this finding? Apparently, in today's politically correct society with its demand for a kinder gentler police force, police officers must have been instructed to address citizens by their names whenver possible. Time after time, I heard officers calling dopers and dope dealers by their names. Following are just a few of the cheerful greetings I recorded.
"This is the police. We have a search warrant. Open the door, M.F." "On the ground, M.F." "Stop M.F., or I'll shoot." "Drop that gun, M.F." "Hey M.F., don't talk Mexican." "What did you call me, M.F.?" "Listen M.F., shut up." "Hey M.F., get out of the car and on the ground." "Gotcha M.F., you're busted."
I could go on and on, but now you know how I arrived at my findings. When my left-wing colleagues saw the results of my study, they became apoplectic. Those commies felt compelled to debunk my research. I think their study was flawed because they only contacted their dope dealers. In any case, this is what they found - the majority of police officers were also named "Mother Fu--er" by their mothers.
That was not the first time those commies tried to debunk one of my studies. I once surveyed hundreds of police officers to detect similarities among common citizens. The study revealed that many citizens appeared to have been named "Asshole" by their mothers, with "Dickhead" being the next most popular given name. My left-wing colleagues countered with a study of commonalities among police officers. They found that ALL police officers were named "Asshole."
Come to think of it, I remember that many of those left-wingers were also named "Asshole." "M.F." and "Asshole" appear to be our country's most popular given names. Say what? Did I just hear you say those commies have all called me "Mother Fu--er?" I am so shocked that the only words I can find to express myself are those of the immortal Jackie Gleason in his role as Sheriff Buford T. Justice - "Sumbitch, what the hell is the world coming to?"
Sunday, August 19, 2007
HILLARY CLINTON DOES NOT DESERVE THE SUPPORT OF SELF-RESPECTING WOMEN
Hillary Clinton is an ambitious woman and a smart presidential candidate. So far, she has not made any mistakes in her campaign for the nations's highest offfice. Among the other candidates, Hillary is clearly the queen bee of the democrat hive. National polls give her a substantial lead over her competitors. Her support comes mostly from women. Given Mrs. Clinton's marital history, I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting woman would ever support her candidacy.
Hillary's husband, former President Clinton, has cheated on her numerous times. There was the affair with Gennifer Flowers, who claimed it lasted for 12 years. Good old Bill first claimed he did not even know Flowers. When she produced a telephone tape recording in which each called the other "honey" several times, Bill remained silent. Hillary, on the other hand, brushed the recording off by exlaiming that "honey" was a common way Southerners addressed each other. Yeah, right.
Then there was the Paula Jones affair. She claimed that Bill sexually harrassed her in a hotel room. Bill denied it. Two state troopers supported her allegations. She sued and received an $850,000 out-of-court settlement paid for by Bill's political supporters. Hillary responded to Jones' charges by exclaiming that she and Bill were the victims of a "vast right wing conspiracy." Bill and Hillary obviously had their personal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" agreement, an arrangement which the President also applied to gays in the military.
Being Jewish, I was pleased to see that Bill Clinton had a close relationship with Jews - well that is, with at least one Jew. While at "work" in the Oval Office, good old Bill received several blow jobs from Monica Lewinsky, a young White House intern. Who can forget Bill wagging his finger at a national television audience and proclaiming "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Yeah, right, it was all just a vast Jewish conspiracy.
More noteworthy is Bill's purported encounter with Juanita Broaddrick, a nursing home operator. She claimed that in 1978, when then Arkansas Attorney General Clinton was campaigning for governor, he forcibly raped her in a Little Rock hotel room. At the time, she did not report it to the police, fearing no one would have believed that the Attorney General had raped her. Bill denied having been in Little Rock at the time, but State Police records and the hotel registry revealed he was there. Several well-respected investigative journalists, who were skeptical at first, now believe Broaddrick's rape account was credible.
Vast right wing conspiracy or not, why in the world would Hillary remain married to a man who has cheated on her repeatedly? Many say it is because she really loves the man. Yeah, right. A wife might forgive her husband once, and possibly even twice, but any self-respecting woman would have thrown her husbnand out on his ass and headed straight to divorce court after a third transgression. My take is that Hillary stayed with Bill only because it furthered her personal political ambitions. Love's got nothing to do with it.
So, why would any self-respecting woman vote for another woman who, in order to serve an ambitious personal political agenda, threw her own self-respect out the window? There can be only one answer. Women are so desperate to have one of their own gender elected President, that they will disregard Hillary's lack of character. Come on ladies, get real - Hillary does not deserve your support.
Hillary's husband, former President Clinton, has cheated on her numerous times. There was the affair with Gennifer Flowers, who claimed it lasted for 12 years. Good old Bill first claimed he did not even know Flowers. When she produced a telephone tape recording in which each called the other "honey" several times, Bill remained silent. Hillary, on the other hand, brushed the recording off by exlaiming that "honey" was a common way Southerners addressed each other. Yeah, right.
Then there was the Paula Jones affair. She claimed that Bill sexually harrassed her in a hotel room. Bill denied it. Two state troopers supported her allegations. She sued and received an $850,000 out-of-court settlement paid for by Bill's political supporters. Hillary responded to Jones' charges by exclaiming that she and Bill were the victims of a "vast right wing conspiracy." Bill and Hillary obviously had their personal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" agreement, an arrangement which the President also applied to gays in the military.
Being Jewish, I was pleased to see that Bill Clinton had a close relationship with Jews - well that is, with at least one Jew. While at "work" in the Oval Office, good old Bill received several blow jobs from Monica Lewinsky, a young White House intern. Who can forget Bill wagging his finger at a national television audience and proclaiming "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Yeah, right, it was all just a vast Jewish conspiracy.
More noteworthy is Bill's purported encounter with Juanita Broaddrick, a nursing home operator. She claimed that in 1978, when then Arkansas Attorney General Clinton was campaigning for governor, he forcibly raped her in a Little Rock hotel room. At the time, she did not report it to the police, fearing no one would have believed that the Attorney General had raped her. Bill denied having been in Little Rock at the time, but State Police records and the hotel registry revealed he was there. Several well-respected investigative journalists, who were skeptical at first, now believe Broaddrick's rape account was credible.
Vast right wing conspiracy or not, why in the world would Hillary remain married to a man who has cheated on her repeatedly? Many say it is because she really loves the man. Yeah, right. A wife might forgive her husband once, and possibly even twice, but any self-respecting woman would have thrown her husbnand out on his ass and headed straight to divorce court after a third transgression. My take is that Hillary stayed with Bill only because it furthered her personal political ambitions. Love's got nothing to do with it.
So, why would any self-respecting woman vote for another woman who, in order to serve an ambitious personal political agenda, threw her own self-respect out the window? There can be only one answer. Women are so desperate to have one of their own gender elected President, that they will disregard Hillary's lack of character. Come on ladies, get real - Hillary does not deserve your support.
Monday, August 13, 2007
IS THAT ANY WAY TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY?
I've been really dissapointed in the field of presidential hopefuls, both democarat and republican. My preference, John McCain, seems to be dead in the water. Guiliani supports gun control, so the only way he'll get my vote is if he is the republican nominee and Hillary, who would never ever get my vote, is the democrat nominee.
Flip-flop Romney has flopped with me because he flipped his stance on immigration, abortion, health care, gun control and other issues. The second tier republicans are a bunch of also-rans. Obama, as you know from one of my recent blogs, has a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease. Edwards is too far left for me. Biden suffers from diarrhea-of-the-mouth. I could vote for Richardson, but he's not going to get the democrat nomination. The rest of the democrats are hardly worth considering.
Back to Mitt Romney. He has five grown sons, ages 26 to 37. Because he opposes withdrawing our troops from Iraq, he was asked why none of his sons were in the military, serving our country. His answer was absolutely astounding. He stated that his sons were serving their country by helping him campaign for the presidency. This begs the question - is that any way to serve your country?
How can one serve his country? Numero uno is to join the military, risking life and limb in defense of our country and its national interests. When I joined the army during WWII, I was paid (if my memory hasn't failed me) $36 a month and there was an expectation that I could get my ass shot off. Today, because ours is an all-volunteer military, the pay is somewhat competitive with that of the private sector. Many join our armed forces to obtain college benefits. If they have the intelligence required for college, they've got to realize that by joining the military, they may be required to wage war and to kill or be killed.
There are other ways to serve our country, but they pale by comparison to service in our military. Police officers, federal law enforcement officers and firefighters serve our country. Holding public office is a way of serving the country. Service in the Border Patrol or the National Park Service are other ways. Service in the Peace Corps and its domestic counterpart, the Americorps, in no way compares to service in our military where one may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice.
This brings me back to that flip-flopping phony Romney again. The audacity of the man's statement that his five grown sons are serving their country by helping him campaign for the presidency is beyond comprehension. Even if Romney had never flip-flopped on any issue, that statement alone would keep me from ever voting for him, Hillary as his opponent notwithstanding. He has insulted and belittled every member of our military. The Romney boys serving their country, my ass!
Flip-flop Romney has flopped with me because he flipped his stance on immigration, abortion, health care, gun control and other issues. The second tier republicans are a bunch of also-rans. Obama, as you know from one of my recent blogs, has a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease. Edwards is too far left for me. Biden suffers from diarrhea-of-the-mouth. I could vote for Richardson, but he's not going to get the democrat nomination. The rest of the democrats are hardly worth considering.
Back to Mitt Romney. He has five grown sons, ages 26 to 37. Because he opposes withdrawing our troops from Iraq, he was asked why none of his sons were in the military, serving our country. His answer was absolutely astounding. He stated that his sons were serving their country by helping him campaign for the presidency. This begs the question - is that any way to serve your country?
How can one serve his country? Numero uno is to join the military, risking life and limb in defense of our country and its national interests. When I joined the army during WWII, I was paid (if my memory hasn't failed me) $36 a month and there was an expectation that I could get my ass shot off. Today, because ours is an all-volunteer military, the pay is somewhat competitive with that of the private sector. Many join our armed forces to obtain college benefits. If they have the intelligence required for college, they've got to realize that by joining the military, they may be required to wage war and to kill or be killed.
There are other ways to serve our country, but they pale by comparison to service in our military. Police officers, federal law enforcement officers and firefighters serve our country. Holding public office is a way of serving the country. Service in the Border Patrol or the National Park Service are other ways. Service in the Peace Corps and its domestic counterpart, the Americorps, in no way compares to service in our military where one may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice.
This brings me back to that flip-flopping phony Romney again. The audacity of the man's statement that his five grown sons are serving their country by helping him campaign for the presidency is beyond comprehension. Even if Romney had never flip-flopped on any issue, that statement alone would keep me from ever voting for him, Hillary as his opponent notwithstanding. He has insulted and belittled every member of our military. The Romney boys serving their country, my ass!
Saturday, August 11, 2007
A FAIR TAXATION SYSTEM
Our federal income tax system should be changed, if not eliminated. The current system causes the government to lose trillions of dollars in tax revenue through the use of loopholes big enough for an 18-wheeler to drive through and which serve to enrich accountants, tax preparers, and tax lawyers. Everytime Congress has "reformed" the income tax, special interest lobbyists have made sure that loopholes remain for the benefit of their clients.
Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? The answer to this question cannot be answered with a straight yes or no. The rich do pay a disproportionate share of taxes, but they escape having to pay even more through the use of exemptions and loopholes, which are not beneficial to the average taxpayer. Corporations can reduce their taxes by setting up "headquarters" in Caribbean tax havens.
The income tax just isn't fair. It cheats the government, as well as the average taxpayer. It needs to be changed, or better yet, eliminated. The current system of tax brackets and exemptions should be eliminated. The tax brackets should be replaced with four distinctive income ramges. One bracket would be a poverty level income bracket, while the other three would cover low, middle and high income levels.
People in the poverty bracket would not pay any income taxes. Those with low incomes would only have to pay a small percent of their income in taxes, those in the middle group a larger percent, and those in the high group a yet larger percent of their income. Income ranges in the four brackets can be determined by Congress and should be adjusted every so many years to account for changes in the buying power of the public.
All exemptions for individual taxpayers should be eliminated except in cases of catastrophic medical expenses and catastrophic property losses, such as those resulting from hurricanes and other disasters. Corporations doing business in this country should not be exempt from paying a portion of their taxes because their headquarters are elsewheres. And, corporations should not be allowed any deductions other than for expenditures used to modernize or expand their businesses and to repair or replace facilities damaged or destroyed by natural disasters.
Better yet, the income tax should be eliminated and replaced with a "value added" tax system, the system by which people in most European countries are taxed. A value added tax system uses a national sales tax to produce revenue for the government. In that system, everyone pays their fair share of taxes. And in that system, there would be no need to have a large internal revenue agency.
A value added tax system would shrink the Internal Revenue Service from a gargantuan bureaucracy to a small collection agency and eliminate the need for individual income tax forms, tax accountants, tax preparers and tax lawyers. Everyone, no matter their level of income, would pay a percentage of their purchases in taxes. Every corporation and organization, including churches, would be taxed for their purchases. Then, if groceries, medicines and medical care were exempted from the value added tax, that would constitute a fair taxation system.
Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? The answer to this question cannot be answered with a straight yes or no. The rich do pay a disproportionate share of taxes, but they escape having to pay even more through the use of exemptions and loopholes, which are not beneficial to the average taxpayer. Corporations can reduce their taxes by setting up "headquarters" in Caribbean tax havens.
The income tax just isn't fair. It cheats the government, as well as the average taxpayer. It needs to be changed, or better yet, eliminated. The current system of tax brackets and exemptions should be eliminated. The tax brackets should be replaced with four distinctive income ramges. One bracket would be a poverty level income bracket, while the other three would cover low, middle and high income levels.
People in the poverty bracket would not pay any income taxes. Those with low incomes would only have to pay a small percent of their income in taxes, those in the middle group a larger percent, and those in the high group a yet larger percent of their income. Income ranges in the four brackets can be determined by Congress and should be adjusted every so many years to account for changes in the buying power of the public.
All exemptions for individual taxpayers should be eliminated except in cases of catastrophic medical expenses and catastrophic property losses, such as those resulting from hurricanes and other disasters. Corporations doing business in this country should not be exempt from paying a portion of their taxes because their headquarters are elsewheres. And, corporations should not be allowed any deductions other than for expenditures used to modernize or expand their businesses and to repair or replace facilities damaged or destroyed by natural disasters.
Better yet, the income tax should be eliminated and replaced with a "value added" tax system, the system by which people in most European countries are taxed. A value added tax system uses a national sales tax to produce revenue for the government. In that system, everyone pays their fair share of taxes. And in that system, there would be no need to have a large internal revenue agency.
A value added tax system would shrink the Internal Revenue Service from a gargantuan bureaucracy to a small collection agency and eliminate the need for individual income tax forms, tax accountants, tax preparers and tax lawyers. Everyone, no matter their level of income, would pay a percentage of their purchases in taxes. Every corporation and organization, including churches, would be taxed for their purchases. Then, if groceries, medicines and medical care were exempted from the value added tax, that would constitute a fair taxation system.
Friday, August 03, 2007
HILLARY HAS GOTTA BE WILD ABOUT OBAMA'S TONGUE
A little political discourse, if you please. On the Democratic side of the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of unintentional, but welcome help from Barack Obama. Thanks to Obama, Hillary continues to widen her lead in the national polls.
Yo momma loves Obama. Obama Girl has a crush on Obama. But, Hillary and Bill - they've gotta be wild about Obama's tongue. Lately, it seems that almost every time Obama opens his mouth on foreign policy, he trips over his own tongue. He's got the fastest tongue in the west - like a Formula 1 race standing start, it gets away well ahead of his brain.
In a recent debate, Obama said that if elected president, he would soon meet with the much hated leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, each without preconditions. In one fell swoop, Obama lost the State of Florida by his desire to talk with Castro. He didn't help himself with the Jewish vote either by wanting to talk with Ahmadinejad of Iran, who has vowed to vaporize Israel.
On a later occasion, Obama said he would disengage our troops in Iraq and shift our military focus to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then comes the zinger - Obama warned General Musharraf, the Pakistani president, that he would order American forces into Pakistan unilaterally if that country failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists. Nevermind that an uninvited incursion would topple our ally Musharraf who is barely hanging onto power against an opposition which may not be friendly to us, or that Pakistan is a nuclear power.
The most recent foreign policy gaffe came when he answered a question about his possible use of nuclear weapons. Obama answered that he would never resort to the use of nuclear arms - and then, after a prolonged pause while his brain slowly caught up to his tongue, he stuttered to add "involving civilians." Hillary then clobbered Obama for telling our enemies they need not fear our nuclear might even though she had previously declared she would not use nuclear weapons either.
Obama has also made notable gaffes on any number of subjects. For instance, complaining to an Iowa farm group about the rise in grocery prices when prices for their crops had not risen, Obama asked, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Duh. That group of farmers grew corn and soybeans, not arugula, a herb of the mustard family. And to them, Obama didn't make any sense because there is no Whole Foods store anywhere in Iowa and many of those farmers had never heard of arugula before.
His defenders attribute Obama's gaffes to inexperience. To that I would say lack of experience is not the problem - Obama's problem is that he puts his mouth into motion before he puts his brain into gear. Or, he may have a debilitating illness - foot-in-mouth disease.
In just one week of foreign policy statements, Obama went from saying he would sit down with our enemies, to saying he would attack one of our allies, to saying he would take the decades-old nuclear option off the table. His mesmerized supporters, who are hoping for a new beginning from an Obama presidency, will soon awaken to the fact their beloved candidate is more hype than hope.
Yo momma loves Obama. Obama Girl has a crush on Obama. But, Hillary and Bill - they've gotta be wild about Obama's tongue. Lately, it seems that almost every time Obama opens his mouth on foreign policy, he trips over his own tongue. He's got the fastest tongue in the west - like a Formula 1 race standing start, it gets away well ahead of his brain.
In a recent debate, Obama said that if elected president, he would soon meet with the much hated leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, each without preconditions. In one fell swoop, Obama lost the State of Florida by his desire to talk with Castro. He didn't help himself with the Jewish vote either by wanting to talk with Ahmadinejad of Iran, who has vowed to vaporize Israel.
On a later occasion, Obama said he would disengage our troops in Iraq and shift our military focus to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then comes the zinger - Obama warned General Musharraf, the Pakistani president, that he would order American forces into Pakistan unilaterally if that country failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists. Nevermind that an uninvited incursion would topple our ally Musharraf who is barely hanging onto power against an opposition which may not be friendly to us, or that Pakistan is a nuclear power.
The most recent foreign policy gaffe came when he answered a question about his possible use of nuclear weapons. Obama answered that he would never resort to the use of nuclear arms - and then, after a prolonged pause while his brain slowly caught up to his tongue, he stuttered to add "involving civilians." Hillary then clobbered Obama for telling our enemies they need not fear our nuclear might even though she had previously declared she would not use nuclear weapons either.
Obama has also made notable gaffes on any number of subjects. For instance, complaining to an Iowa farm group about the rise in grocery prices when prices for their crops had not risen, Obama asked, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Duh. That group of farmers grew corn and soybeans, not arugula, a herb of the mustard family. And to them, Obama didn't make any sense because there is no Whole Foods store anywhere in Iowa and many of those farmers had never heard of arugula before.
His defenders attribute Obama's gaffes to inexperience. To that I would say lack of experience is not the problem - Obama's problem is that he puts his mouth into motion before he puts his brain into gear. Or, he may have a debilitating illness - foot-in-mouth disease.
In just one week of foreign policy statements, Obama went from saying he would sit down with our enemies, to saying he would attack one of our allies, to saying he would take the decades-old nuclear option off the table. His mesmerized supporters, who are hoping for a new beginning from an Obama presidency, will soon awaken to the fact their beloved candidate is more hype than hope.
Monday, July 30, 2007
A WHITE RACIST CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM ?
A recent study by the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based think tank, found that blacks in the Unided States are imprisoned at more than five times the rate of whites, although they make up less than 20 percent of the population. Latinos are jailed at nearly double the white rate.
In Iowa, the rate for blacks was more than 13 times that of whites. Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut incarcerate blacks at 12 times the rate of whites. In Wisconsin, our most liberal state, the rate was more than 10 times that of whites. Texas, my home state, imprisons blacks at nearly five times the rate of whites, with 667 whites and 3,162 blacks locked up for every 100,000 people in the state. Surprisingly, Georgia and Mississippi only had a black-to-white ratio of 3.3 and 3.5 respectively.
These ratios beg the question - are black and latino prisoners the victims of a white racist criminal justice system? The answer will depend on who you ask. Marxist academics, white liberals, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black activists will say these disparaging statistics are further proof that minorities in this country are the victims of white racism. Conservatives and criminologists will say that minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, hence the disparaging rates.
The Sentencing Project study concluded that these ratios "reflect a failure of social and economic interventions to address crime effectively." Marc Mauer, the think tank's executive director, added that there is racial bias in the justice system.
One can argue all day long whether the federal government, the states, and local communities are doing enough to intervene socially and economically in the plight of poverty stricken minorities and whether or not such interventions would result in a dramatic reduction of minority crime rates. The sad fact is that the poor commit a disproportionate amount of crime and a disproportionate number of blacks and latinos are poverty stricken.
School drop outs, teen pregnancies, fatherless families, drug addiction, peer pressure to join street gangs and unemployment, conditions which are prevalent among the poor, are significant factors contributing to a continuing life of poverty and a high rate of crime. Simply put, there are a lot of latinos, and even more blacks, committing a disproportionate amount of crime with the result they will end up in prisons at a greater rate than whites.
Is there racism in the justice system? I would say, by and large no. Are poor blacks less likely to get probation than affluent whites? Yes, but not because of racism. Poor whites are also less likely to get probation. Concern for the public's safety is, and should be, the determining factor as to whether or not a law breaker is granted probation.
What about the disparity in sentencing for drug offenses? Fewer whites are caught with powdered cocaine than blacks selling crack cocaine, thus there are more blacks in prison for cocaine offenses. Is this the result of racism? No, it is not. Drug enforcement agencies find it much more difficult to make cases against powdered cocaine dealers than against crack cocaine dealers. Powdered cocaine offenses take place out of public view, while crack cocaine is sold openly on every street corner in every poor black neighborhood.
If blacks are the victims of a white racist criminal justice system, how does one explain the incarceration ratios of two deep-Southern conservative states, each with a huge poor black population? If the justice system is racist, why are blacks imprisoned at less than four times the rate of whites in Georgia and Mississippi, while in almost all-white Wisconsin, a state which prides itself for enjoying good race relations, the rate is more than 10 times that of whites?
There is only one logical explanation - blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. So, one would have to conclude that, despite appearances and allegations to the contrary, the criminal justice system is not racist.
In Iowa, the rate for blacks was more than 13 times that of whites. Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut incarcerate blacks at 12 times the rate of whites. In Wisconsin, our most liberal state, the rate was more than 10 times that of whites. Texas, my home state, imprisons blacks at nearly five times the rate of whites, with 667 whites and 3,162 blacks locked up for every 100,000 people in the state. Surprisingly, Georgia and Mississippi only had a black-to-white ratio of 3.3 and 3.5 respectively.
These ratios beg the question - are black and latino prisoners the victims of a white racist criminal justice system? The answer will depend on who you ask. Marxist academics, white liberals, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other black activists will say these disparaging statistics are further proof that minorities in this country are the victims of white racism. Conservatives and criminologists will say that minorities commit a disproportionate amount of crime, hence the disparaging rates.
The Sentencing Project study concluded that these ratios "reflect a failure of social and economic interventions to address crime effectively." Marc Mauer, the think tank's executive director, added that there is racial bias in the justice system.
One can argue all day long whether the federal government, the states, and local communities are doing enough to intervene socially and economically in the plight of poverty stricken minorities and whether or not such interventions would result in a dramatic reduction of minority crime rates. The sad fact is that the poor commit a disproportionate amount of crime and a disproportionate number of blacks and latinos are poverty stricken.
School drop outs, teen pregnancies, fatherless families, drug addiction, peer pressure to join street gangs and unemployment, conditions which are prevalent among the poor, are significant factors contributing to a continuing life of poverty and a high rate of crime. Simply put, there are a lot of latinos, and even more blacks, committing a disproportionate amount of crime with the result they will end up in prisons at a greater rate than whites.
Is there racism in the justice system? I would say, by and large no. Are poor blacks less likely to get probation than affluent whites? Yes, but not because of racism. Poor whites are also less likely to get probation. Concern for the public's safety is, and should be, the determining factor as to whether or not a law breaker is granted probation.
What about the disparity in sentencing for drug offenses? Fewer whites are caught with powdered cocaine than blacks selling crack cocaine, thus there are more blacks in prison for cocaine offenses. Is this the result of racism? No, it is not. Drug enforcement agencies find it much more difficult to make cases against powdered cocaine dealers than against crack cocaine dealers. Powdered cocaine offenses take place out of public view, while crack cocaine is sold openly on every street corner in every poor black neighborhood.
If blacks are the victims of a white racist criminal justice system, how does one explain the incarceration ratios of two deep-Southern conservative states, each with a huge poor black population? If the justice system is racist, why are blacks imprisoned at less than four times the rate of whites in Georgia and Mississippi, while in almost all-white Wisconsin, a state which prides itself for enjoying good race relations, the rate is more than 10 times that of whites?
There is only one logical explanation - blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime. So, one would have to conclude that, despite appearances and allegations to the contrary, the criminal justice system is not racist.
Friday, July 27, 2007
LEGALLY INNOCENT BUT MORALLY GUILTY
Yesterday, as I was listening to my favorite radio station, two news anchors were discussing the "court of public opinion" concerning the dog fighting indictment of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, the murder trials of O. J. Simpson and actor Robert Blake, and the child molestation trial of Michael Jackson. They felt the public held all four of these celebrities guilty even though Vick has not yet been tried and the other three were acquitted by juries.
For the most part, the court of public opinion is molded by news media coverage and that is especailly true with respect to celebrities. There has been so much media coverage on the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that everyone has an opinion as to the character of these spoiled and pampered primadonna party animals.
Lohan, who has been in and out of "rehab" like a jumping jack, has just been arrested for DUI, Driving With a Suspended License, and Possession of Cocaine. At the time of arrest, she was awaiting trial on another DUI charge. While being searched during her latest booking, police officers found a packet of cocaine in her pants pocket. Of course, Lohan claims the cocaine was not hers.
In the Vick case, the Falcons quarterback has just pleaded innocent to charges that he, along with three others, ran a dog fighting ring for gambling purposes. It should be noted that in our country the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty at the conclusion of a trial. With all the media attention thus far, I suspect that Vick has already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
The Simpson case set a new criminal justice standard - jury nullification. Simpson benefitted from an inept team of prosecutors and a clever defense team which resorted to playing the race card. In the face of concrete evidence that Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend Ron Goldman, the predominantly black jury had already reached its decision before the presentation of closing arguments.
When the Simpson jury retired to the jury room they had already nullified the evidence. The jury just "schmoozed" around long enough to make it look like they had been deliberating before returning to the courtroom to announce their verdict of acquittal. In the court of public opinion, Simpson may be guilty as sin, but this has not prevented that creep from continuing to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
Robert Blake, best known for his starring role in the Barettta television series, was acquitted of shooting his estranged wife to death outside a trendy restaurant. The authorities waited a long time before presenting their case to a grand jury, wanting to make sure they had all their ducks in line. Another inept prosecution and a brilliant defense also led to an acquittal by jury nullification. Unlike Simpson though, Blake lost all of his money paying for his defense.
Weirdo pop star Michael Jackson likes to sleep with little boys. When initially investigated for child molestation, Jackson reportedly paid the parents of his victims millions of dollars to keep them from bringing any charges against him. When he was finally brought to trial for molesting one of the boys, a key witness - a previous victim - refused to return from Europe where he was living off of the hush money given to his parents.
Wacko Jacko, with his oft-reconstructed putty nose, was acquitted by a jury to the cheers of his fans. The court of public opinion is divided in this case. To Jackson's millions of fans, the moon walker can walk on water. In the United States, those who are not his fans believe he is guilty. In Europe and Asia, where heterosexual and homosexual relations by adults with children seems to be more or less acceptable, this case was seen as much to do about nothing.
When an obviously guilty person is acquitted by a jury, the legal community refers to the accused as being LEGALLY INNOCENT BUT MORALLY GUILTY. That would seem to be the case with Simpson, Blake and Jackson. But what happens to those who are falsely charged, as in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, where the accused are both legally and morally innocent? Amazingly, the court of public opinion in the Duke case continues to be divided, with many blacks still convinced the accuser was telling the truth.
The Duke lacrosse players were victims of an unholy alliance - a rogue prosecutor, a salivating news media, the inflammatory rhetoric of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and a lynch mob of 88 malicious educated idiot professors. The falsely accused players were convicted in the court of public opinion due to the trumpeted rush to judgement by the participants in that evil alliance.
Kathleen Parker of the Wahington Post Writers Group says the Duke players became victims of the "Nifong Syndrome - the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief. Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor ....., was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics, and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary."
Parker goes on to ask "Why? Because the lies supported their own thruths. In the case of Duke, that 'truth' was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer." So there you have it - the falsely accused can be screwed by the criminal justice system and the criminal justice system can be screwed by jury nullification.
For the most part, the court of public opinion is molded by news media coverage and that is especailly true with respect to celebrities. There has been so much media coverage on the trials and tribulations of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan that everyone has an opinion as to the character of these spoiled and pampered primadonna party animals.
Lohan, who has been in and out of "rehab" like a jumping jack, has just been arrested for DUI, Driving With a Suspended License, and Possession of Cocaine. At the time of arrest, she was awaiting trial on another DUI charge. While being searched during her latest booking, police officers found a packet of cocaine in her pants pocket. Of course, Lohan claims the cocaine was not hers.
In the Vick case, the Falcons quarterback has just pleaded innocent to charges that he, along with three others, ran a dog fighting ring for gambling purposes. It should be noted that in our country the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is found guilty at the conclusion of a trial. With all the media attention thus far, I suspect that Vick has already been convicted in the court of public opinion.
The Simpson case set a new criminal justice standard - jury nullification. Simpson benefitted from an inept team of prosecutors and a clever defense team which resorted to playing the race card. In the face of concrete evidence that Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her friend Ron Goldman, the predominantly black jury had already reached its decision before the presentation of closing arguments.
When the Simpson jury retired to the jury room they had already nullified the evidence. The jury just "schmoozed" around long enough to make it look like they had been deliberating before returning to the courtroom to announce their verdict of acquittal. In the court of public opinion, Simpson may be guilty as sin, but this has not prevented that creep from continuing to enjoy the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
Robert Blake, best known for his starring role in the Barettta television series, was acquitted of shooting his estranged wife to death outside a trendy restaurant. The authorities waited a long time before presenting their case to a grand jury, wanting to make sure they had all their ducks in line. Another inept prosecution and a brilliant defense also led to an acquittal by jury nullification. Unlike Simpson though, Blake lost all of his money paying for his defense.
Weirdo pop star Michael Jackson likes to sleep with little boys. When initially investigated for child molestation, Jackson reportedly paid the parents of his victims millions of dollars to keep them from bringing any charges against him. When he was finally brought to trial for molesting one of the boys, a key witness - a previous victim - refused to return from Europe where he was living off of the hush money given to his parents.
Wacko Jacko, with his oft-reconstructed putty nose, was acquitted by a jury to the cheers of his fans. The court of public opinion is divided in this case. To Jackson's millions of fans, the moon walker can walk on water. In the United States, those who are not his fans believe he is guilty. In Europe and Asia, where heterosexual and homosexual relations by adults with children seems to be more or less acceptable, this case was seen as much to do about nothing.
When an obviously guilty person is acquitted by a jury, the legal community refers to the accused as being LEGALLY INNOCENT BUT MORALLY GUILTY. That would seem to be the case with Simpson, Blake and Jackson. But what happens to those who are falsely charged, as in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, where the accused are both legally and morally innocent? Amazingly, the court of public opinion in the Duke case continues to be divided, with many blacks still convinced the accuser was telling the truth.
The Duke lacrosse players were victims of an unholy alliance - a rogue prosecutor, a salivating news media, the inflammatory rhetoric of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and a lynch mob of 88 malicious educated idiot professors. The falsely accused players were convicted in the court of public opinion due to the trumpeted rush to judgement by the participants in that evil alliance.
Kathleen Parker of the Wahington Post Writers Group says the Duke players became victims of the "Nifong Syndrome - the mind virus that causes otherwise intelligent people to embrace likely falsehoods because they validate a preconceived belief. Mike Nifong, the North Carolina prosecutor ....., was able to convince a credulous community of residents, academics, and especially journalists that the three falsely accused men had raped a black stripper despite compelling evidence to the contrary."
Parker goes on to ask "Why? Because the lies supported their own thruths. In the case of Duke, that 'truth' was that privileged white athletes are racist pigs who of course would rape a black woman given half a chance and a bottle o' beer." So there you have it - the falsely accused can be screwed by the criminal justice system and the criminal justice system can be screwed by jury nullification.
Monday, July 23, 2007
JESSEE JACKSON HIRED A CHILD MOLESTER AS YOUTH COUNSELOR
As you know, for some time I have been blogging about those two charlatan preachers, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Recently, a friend sent me some interesting information on a Jackson staff appointment that was made in 2001 which, even though it is old news, I want to include in this blog. Here is the information as I received it.
"You can't make up stuff better than this and Snopes verifies that it is true. (www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp) Ain't politics grand?
Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds to (his) Rainbow PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Cinton's last-minute forgiveness (pardon) spree.
Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.
This is a first in American politics: an ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate...won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate... then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.
His new job? Ready for this?? YOUTH CONSELOR. Is this a great country or what?"
Convicted of sexual abuse charges in 1995, Reynolds was a 42-year old married man when he had sex wth a 16-year old girl and asked her to take porno photos of a 15-year old. In hiring a child molester as a youth counselor, Jackson has demonstrated one of the reasons why I hold him and Al Sharpton in such utter contempt.
"You can't make up stuff better than this and Snopes verifies that it is true. (www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp) Ain't politics grand?
Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat Congressman Mel Reynolds to (his) Rainbow PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Cinton's last-minute forgiveness (pardon) spree.
Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud, and lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.
This is a first in American politics: an ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate...won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate... then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.
His new job? Ready for this?? YOUTH CONSELOR. Is this a great country or what?"
Convicted of sexual abuse charges in 1995, Reynolds was a 42-year old married man when he had sex wth a 16-year old girl and asked her to take porno photos of a 15-year old. In hiring a child molester as a youth counselor, Jackson has demonstrated one of the reasons why I hold him and Al Sharpton in such utter contempt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)