Most people want to believe prisons serve to rehabilitate criminals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the early days of our country with its religiosity, lawbreakers were imprisoned to do penance for their sins - hence the name penitentiary - but today's society is a far cry from that period in our history. Now, jails and prisons exist to punish those who chose to break our laws and to protect society from those who do.
Prisons do not rehabilitate criminals. Even though that is what we want, prisons cannot rehabilitate anyone because they are a highly structured institutional society. In the totalitarian nature of prisons, inmates are directed when to get up and go to bed, when to shit, shave and shower, when and what to eat, and when, where and how to move about. In the prison society, its members are not responsible for providing themselves with food, shelter, clothing and medical attention.
When inmates are released after several years in prison, they find it hard to adjust to an unstructured free world society. Unless they have the availability of half-way houses and close parole supervision, they are not likely to fend for themselves like the rest of us. Inmates who have been incarcerated for many years become so institutionalized that they fear being released from prison.
There have been many cases where inmates only a few days away from being released have attempted to escape knowing full-well they will be captured and sentenced to serve additonal time. There have also been cases of elderly long-term inmates refusing parole or pleading with the authorities to allow them to remain in prison upon completion of their sentences.
If prisons cannot rehabilitate criminals, then what can they do other than to warehouse inmates? They can and should provide the tools which will enable an inmate to rehabilitate himself once he has been released into the free world. Those tools should include a literacy program, a GED and higher education program, addiction treatment, psychotherapy (if deemed appropriate), tattoo removal and work skills training. Even with such programs in place, California still experiences a recidivism rate of around 50 percent.
Without gainful employment, an ex-convict will have little chance of staying out of prison. That is why tattoo removal is very important. Visible tattoos, especially those commonly obtained in prisons, are largely responsible for preventing ex-cons from obtaining the jobs they so desparately need to make it in the free world.
The work training programs in prison must be offered only for the kind of jobs which are in high demand. For example, many prisons offer inmates upholstery training. Umless the inmate is going to be released to a state which has a large furniture manufacturing industry, that program is absolutely worthless. Most upholstery businesses are small family (mom, pop and son) operations which provide few, if any, employment opportunities for an outsider.
Employers must stop making it difficult for ex-cons to rehabilitate themselves. Employers generally lobby to prevent the establishment of prison industries and training programs which could compete with the private sector. When California prison officials tried to start up new programs in which inmates could obtain a state barber or beautician liscense, private schools successfully lobbied against the establishment of these programs.
Because employment is absolutely essential to the successful rehabilitation of criminals, employers must be more willing to take chances on hiring ex-cons. Unemployment is one of the leading causes of recidivism. All the prison training programs and tattoo removals will have been in vain when ex-cons are unable to obtain gainful employment. Since those released from prison are said to have paid their debt to society, society must ensure that ex-cons are given a real chance to lead productive lives in the free world.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
A GENTILE'S PERCEPTION OF JEWS
In the "peace conference", which will take place next week at the U.S. Naval Academy and at the White House, Israel and the Jews will once again be pressured to make suicidal concessions to the Palestinians in their quest for an independent state. The "road map to peace", as envisioned by President Bush with the support of Russia's Putin, the European Union and the United Nations, is paved with the stones of Israel's destruction.
Among "The Quartet", only President Bush has been a friend of Israel. But, with his reputation in shambles, he will try to ensure his legacy by pressuring Israel into an agreement which will establish an independent Palestinian state before he leaves office, a state whose people are determined to wipe out the Jewish nation, no matter how long it takes.
When South African gentile Olive Schreiner stated (below), "So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews," she was referring to the frequent condemnations of Israel by the Europeans and the United Nations in voicing their support for the Palestinians.
Olive Schreiner's perception of the Jews, which follows, gives me good reasons to be proud of my Jewish heritage and reinforces my long-held concerns about Israel's survival in the face of passionate Palestinian and Islamic hatred.
"Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters.
They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men.
They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their 'savior.'
Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews. And while their subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it.
They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences. It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by.
So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are.
All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick.
Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead, they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues.
When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jews uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them.
The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their own curse."
Olive Schreiner, South African novelist and social activist
Among "The Quartet", only President Bush has been a friend of Israel. But, with his reputation in shambles, he will try to ensure his legacy by pressuring Israel into an agreement which will establish an independent Palestinian state before he leaves office, a state whose people are determined to wipe out the Jewish nation, no matter how long it takes.
When South African gentile Olive Schreiner stated (below), "So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews," she was referring to the frequent condemnations of Israel by the Europeans and the United Nations in voicing their support for the Palestinians.
Olive Schreiner's perception of the Jews, which follows, gives me good reasons to be proud of my Jewish heritage and reinforces my long-held concerns about Israel's survival in the face of passionate Palestinian and Islamic hatred.
"Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters.
They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men.
They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their 'savior.'
Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews. And while their subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it.
They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences. It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by.
So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are.
All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick.
Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead, they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues.
When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jews uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them.
The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their own curse."
Olive Schreiner, South African novelist and social activist
Thursday, November 22, 2007
LAWS ARE FOR CRIMINALS, NOT US
Were you about to leave for work when you discovered your car tires have been slashed? Did you go outside to pick up the Sunday paper and found your house or car have been egged? Has anyone driven down your street and spray painted the curbside parked cars? Have your house or car windows been shot out by pellet guns? Has your curbside mailbox been bashed? Have your outside Christmas or Halloween decorations been damaged or destroyed? Consider yourself lucky if you have'nt been subjected to those kinds of vandalism.
If such acts are occurring in your upper middle-class or wealthy neighborhood, are the vandals young gang members from a run-down ghetto or barrio? Most likely not. Kids from impoverished neighborhoods tend to raise hell in the familiar surroundings of their own backyards. If they're not disadvantaged kids, then who are those vandals?
Those hoodlums are kids from your neighborhood, maybe even your own sons and daughters. They are spoiled brats running around at all hours of the night, having fun by intentionally making life miserable for many of their neighbors. Since they come from good church-going families and attend good schools, they do not see themselves as lawbreakers and do not consider their idea of fun as unlawful. Their attitude: Laws are for criminals, not for us.
Parents are largely to blame for their children's delinquent behavior. There is something fundamentally wrong in the way our kids are being raised today. They are spoiled rotten by parents who want them to have a better (wealthier) life than they themselves had. Just take a look at all the cars in the student parking lot of your local high school. Kids are allowed to run around at all hours in the cars their parents gave them. Parents obviously do not teach their kids that bad behavior can have unintended consequences.
Law enforcement is not blameless either. In most jurisdiction, criminal mischief (vandalism) is not high on the list of police priorities. It should be. In 1982, criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling developed the "Broken Windows" theory which held that cracking down on minor crimes, such as vandalism, created an atmosphere of law and order that discourages major crime. In New York City, all crimes, minor and major, were significantly reduced after NYPD adapted the Broken Windows concept.
The juvenile justice system is also to blame, its courts usually treating children from upper middle-class and wealthy families differently than the children of poor families. Kids from well-off families, who have been charged with criminal mischief, are too often treated with the proverbial slap on the wrist and leave the courtroom thumbing their noses at the system.
Some years ago, several kids were riding around in a rural area of Galveston County (Texas), leaning out the car windows while bashing curbside mailboxes with baseball bats. One of the youths, the son of a respected physician, was decapitated when his head struck one of the mailboxes. That put a stop to vandalism in the area, but only until the shock of his death wore off.
Police affiliated unarmed citizen patrols have been effective in reducing neighborhood crime. However, as long as kids believe they are not committing crimes but only having fun, their neighbors will continue to be vandalized. The fact that both mom and dad are working is no excuse for a lack of parental control.
What can be done to get our youths to understand that some forms of fun may be criminal? Parents must excercise full oversight of their chidrens' lives. They must teach their kids that laws are made for everyone and that there will be consequences for breaking those laws. The police and the courts must treat vandalism more seriously than as a mere youthful indiscretion.
If such acts are occurring in your upper middle-class or wealthy neighborhood, are the vandals young gang members from a run-down ghetto or barrio? Most likely not. Kids from impoverished neighborhoods tend to raise hell in the familiar surroundings of their own backyards. If they're not disadvantaged kids, then who are those vandals?
Those hoodlums are kids from your neighborhood, maybe even your own sons and daughters. They are spoiled brats running around at all hours of the night, having fun by intentionally making life miserable for many of their neighbors. Since they come from good church-going families and attend good schools, they do not see themselves as lawbreakers and do not consider their idea of fun as unlawful. Their attitude: Laws are for criminals, not for us.
Parents are largely to blame for their children's delinquent behavior. There is something fundamentally wrong in the way our kids are being raised today. They are spoiled rotten by parents who want them to have a better (wealthier) life than they themselves had. Just take a look at all the cars in the student parking lot of your local high school. Kids are allowed to run around at all hours in the cars their parents gave them. Parents obviously do not teach their kids that bad behavior can have unintended consequences.
Law enforcement is not blameless either. In most jurisdiction, criminal mischief (vandalism) is not high on the list of police priorities. It should be. In 1982, criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling developed the "Broken Windows" theory which held that cracking down on minor crimes, such as vandalism, created an atmosphere of law and order that discourages major crime. In New York City, all crimes, minor and major, were significantly reduced after NYPD adapted the Broken Windows concept.
The juvenile justice system is also to blame, its courts usually treating children from upper middle-class and wealthy families differently than the children of poor families. Kids from well-off families, who have been charged with criminal mischief, are too often treated with the proverbial slap on the wrist and leave the courtroom thumbing their noses at the system.
Some years ago, several kids were riding around in a rural area of Galveston County (Texas), leaning out the car windows while bashing curbside mailboxes with baseball bats. One of the youths, the son of a respected physician, was decapitated when his head struck one of the mailboxes. That put a stop to vandalism in the area, but only until the shock of his death wore off.
Police affiliated unarmed citizen patrols have been effective in reducing neighborhood crime. However, as long as kids believe they are not committing crimes but only having fun, their neighbors will continue to be vandalized. The fact that both mom and dad are working is no excuse for a lack of parental control.
What can be done to get our youths to understand that some forms of fun may be criminal? Parents must excercise full oversight of their chidrens' lives. They must teach their kids that laws are made for everyone and that there will be consequences for breaking those laws. The police and the courts must treat vandalism more seriously than as a mere youthful indiscretion.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
IWO JIMA MEMORIAL SEVICE EULOGY
Al Tucker, a close friend for around 50 years, occasionally sends me some tidbits of American Jewish history. I thought this particular bit of history was well worth sharing with the readers of my blog.
Last February marked the 62nd anniversary of the start of the battle for Iwo Jima. Since Jews are rarely ever mentioned for their participation in America's wars, it is appropriate to spotlight some news and information about the Jews who fought and died in the five-week battle between 70,000 American Marines (1,500 of which were Jewish) and 22,000 deeply entrenched Japanese defenders.
An interesting fact that many Jews may be unaware of are the historic events that surrounded a Jewish chaplain on the island. Rabbi Roland B.Gittelsohn, assigned to the Fifth Marine Division, was the first Jewish chaplain the Marine Corps ever appointed. Rabbi Gittelsohn was in the thick of the fray, ministering to Marines of all faiths in the combat zone. His tireless efforts to comfort the wounded and encourage the fearful won him three service ribbons. When the fighting was over, Rabbi Gittelsohn was asked to deliver the memorial sermon at a combined religious service dedicating the Marine Cemetery.
Unfortunately, racial and religious prejudice led to problems with the ceremony. What happened next immortalized Rabbi Gittelsohn and his sermon forever.
It was Division Chaplain Warren Cuthriell, a Protestant minister, who originally asked Rabbi Gittelsohn to deliver the memorial sermon. Cuthriell wanted all the fallen Marines (black and white, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish) honored in a single, nondenominational ceremony. However, according to Rabbi Gittelsohn's autobiography, the majority of Christian chaplains objected to having a rabbi preach over predominantly Christian graves. The Catholic chaplains, in keeping with church doctrine, opposed any form of a joint religious service.
To his credit, Cuthriell refused to alter his plans. Gittelsohn, on the other hand, wanted to save his friend Cuthriell further embarrassment and so decided it was best not to deliver his sermon. Instead, three separate religious services were held. At the Jewish service, to a congregation of 70 or so who attended, Rabbi Gittelsohn delivered the powerful eulogy he originally wrote for the combined service:
"Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding. And other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores. Here lie officers and men, Negroes and Whites, rich men and poor, together. Here are Protestants, Catholics, and Jews together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many from each group are admitted or allowed.
Among these men there is no discrimination. No prejudices. No hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy. Whosoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or who thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and the bloody sacrifice it commemorates, an empty, hollow mockery. To this then, as our solemn sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves: To the right of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of White men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have here paid the price. We here solemnly swear this shall not be in vain. Out of this and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this, will come, we promise, the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere."
Among Gittelsohn's listeners were three Protestant chaplains so incensed by the prejudice voiced by their colleagues that they boycotted their own service to attend Gittelsohn's. One of them borrowed the manuscript and, unknown to Gittelsohn, circulated several thousand copies to his regiment. Some Marines enclosed the copies in letters to their families. An avalanche of coverage resulted. Time magazine published excerpts, which wire services spread even further. The entire sermon was inserted into the Congressional Record, the Army released the eulogy for short-wave broadcast to American troops throughout the world and radio commentator Robert St. John read it on his program and on many succeeding Memorial Days.
In 1995, in his last major public appearance before his death, Gittelsohn reread a portion of the eulogy at the 50th commemoration ceremony at the Iwo Jima flag-raising monument in Washington, D.C.. In his autobiography, Gittelsohn reflected, "I have often wondered whether anyone would ever have heard of my Iwo Jima sermon had it not been for the bigoted attempt to ban it."
Last February marked the 62nd anniversary of the start of the battle for Iwo Jima. Since Jews are rarely ever mentioned for their participation in America's wars, it is appropriate to spotlight some news and information about the Jews who fought and died in the five-week battle between 70,000 American Marines (1,500 of which were Jewish) and 22,000 deeply entrenched Japanese defenders.
An interesting fact that many Jews may be unaware of are the historic events that surrounded a Jewish chaplain on the island. Rabbi Roland B.Gittelsohn, assigned to the Fifth Marine Division, was the first Jewish chaplain the Marine Corps ever appointed. Rabbi Gittelsohn was in the thick of the fray, ministering to Marines of all faiths in the combat zone. His tireless efforts to comfort the wounded and encourage the fearful won him three service ribbons. When the fighting was over, Rabbi Gittelsohn was asked to deliver the memorial sermon at a combined religious service dedicating the Marine Cemetery.
Unfortunately, racial and religious prejudice led to problems with the ceremony. What happened next immortalized Rabbi Gittelsohn and his sermon forever.
It was Division Chaplain Warren Cuthriell, a Protestant minister, who originally asked Rabbi Gittelsohn to deliver the memorial sermon. Cuthriell wanted all the fallen Marines (black and white, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish) honored in a single, nondenominational ceremony. However, according to Rabbi Gittelsohn's autobiography, the majority of Christian chaplains objected to having a rabbi preach over predominantly Christian graves. The Catholic chaplains, in keeping with church doctrine, opposed any form of a joint religious service.
To his credit, Cuthriell refused to alter his plans. Gittelsohn, on the other hand, wanted to save his friend Cuthriell further embarrassment and so decided it was best not to deliver his sermon. Instead, three separate religious services were held. At the Jewish service, to a congregation of 70 or so who attended, Rabbi Gittelsohn delivered the powerful eulogy he originally wrote for the combined service:
"Here lie men who loved America because their ancestors generations ago helped in her founding. And other men who loved her with equal passion because they themselves or their own fathers escaped from oppression to her blessed shores. Here lie officers and men, Negroes and Whites, rich men and poor, together. Here are Protestants, Catholics, and Jews together. Here no man prefers another because of his faith or despises him because of his color. Here there are no quotas of how many from each group are admitted or allowed.
Among these men there is no discrimination. No prejudices. No hatred. Theirs is the highest and purest democracy. Whosoever of us lifts his hand in hate against a brother, or who thinks himself superior to those who happen to be in the minority, makes of this ceremony and the bloody sacrifice it commemorates, an empty, hollow mockery. To this then, as our solemn sacred duty, do we the living now dedicate ourselves: To the right of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews, of White men and Negroes alike, to enjoy the democracy for which all of them have here paid the price. We here solemnly swear this shall not be in vain. Out of this and from the suffering and sorrow of those who mourn this, will come, we promise, the birth of a new freedom for the sons of men everywhere."
Among Gittelsohn's listeners were three Protestant chaplains so incensed by the prejudice voiced by their colleagues that they boycotted their own service to attend Gittelsohn's. One of them borrowed the manuscript and, unknown to Gittelsohn, circulated several thousand copies to his regiment. Some Marines enclosed the copies in letters to their families. An avalanche of coverage resulted. Time magazine published excerpts, which wire services spread even further. The entire sermon was inserted into the Congressional Record, the Army released the eulogy for short-wave broadcast to American troops throughout the world and radio commentator Robert St. John read it on his program and on many succeeding Memorial Days.
In 1995, in his last major public appearance before his death, Gittelsohn reread a portion of the eulogy at the 50th commemoration ceremony at the Iwo Jima flag-raising monument in Washington, D.C.. In his autobiography, Gittelsohn reflected, "I have often wondered whether anyone would ever have heard of my Iwo Jima sermon had it not been for the bigoted attempt to ban it."
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
COME ON, GIVE HER A BREAK !
Sharon Keller is being villified by the media, both in the United States and abroad. She has been condemned by hundreds of lawyers, some demanding that she should lose her job. A "grieving widow" has sued her for causing the death of a beloved husband.
Who is Sharon Keller? What crime did she commit? You would think that she is a cold-blooded serial killer, what with all the scorn being heaped upon her. Well, Keller is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that state's highest appellate court for criminal cases. The Houston Chronicle, in an editorial, has accused her of "outrageous behavior" and called for the Commission on Judicial Conduct to take "strong action to sanciton Judge Keller for her reckless abuse of the legal system."
On September 25, 2007, Judge Keller refused to keep the court clerk's office open past the regular 5 PM closing time. That prevented the attorneys for death row inmate Michael Richard from filing a last-minute appeal to stop his execution which was scheduled for 6 PM that evening. The execution was carried out, even though three of the court's nine judges had remained in the court to accept the appeal.
Richard's appeal would have requested a stay of execution until the U.S. Supreme Court rules next summer on a Kentucky case which claims that lethal injections cause the condemned excruciating pain, thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Richard's excecution was this country's last because the Supreme Court and most states have halted executions, pending next summer's ruling.
All those - the media, sanctimonious lawyers, death penalty abolitionists, and assorted do-gooders - who are calling for Keller's scalp are screaming that Richard would still be alive had she kept the court clerk's office open past 5 PM. And then there is Marsha Richard, the late Michael's widow, one of many death row groupies across the country who decide to - God only knows why - marry an inmate convicted of murder and awaiting execution. The poor widow, who met and married her husband 15 years after his arrival on death row, is soothing her "grief" by filing a wrongful death suit against Judge Keller.
Of course, I realize that Richard would still be alive if Keller had not blocked his appeal. So, please pardon me while I get a hanky to wipe off the tears streaming down my cheeks. Completely overlooked in all the hoopla is the fact that Michael Richard has been sitting on death row for over 20 years after having been convicted and sentenced to death twice, not just once, for a brutal murder and rape.
In 1986, Michael Richard raped and fatally shot Marguerite Dixon, 53, a nurse and mother of seven, inside her home in Hockley, a small community ouside of Houston. After murdering Dixon, he took off with two TV sets and her van. Oh, by the way, he raped and murdered Dixon barely eight weeks after he had been released from a second prison term. With that knowledge, we can all now join Marsha, the grieving widow, in weeping over the tragedy of poor old Michael's early demise.
In blocking Richard's appeal, Sharon Keller is guilty only of failing to use her best judgement. Considering that this scumbag had been residing on death row over 20 years for bruattly raping and murdering an innocent victim, does she really deserve the villification being heaped upon her? Does she really deserve to be removed from office? My answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no". Come on, give Judge Keller a break!
Who is Sharon Keller? What crime did she commit? You would think that she is a cold-blooded serial killer, what with all the scorn being heaped upon her. Well, Keller is the Presiding Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that state's highest appellate court for criminal cases. The Houston Chronicle, in an editorial, has accused her of "outrageous behavior" and called for the Commission on Judicial Conduct to take "strong action to sanciton Judge Keller for her reckless abuse of the legal system."
On September 25, 2007, Judge Keller refused to keep the court clerk's office open past the regular 5 PM closing time. That prevented the attorneys for death row inmate Michael Richard from filing a last-minute appeal to stop his execution which was scheduled for 6 PM that evening. The execution was carried out, even though three of the court's nine judges had remained in the court to accept the appeal.
Richard's appeal would have requested a stay of execution until the U.S. Supreme Court rules next summer on a Kentucky case which claims that lethal injections cause the condemned excruciating pain, thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Richard's excecution was this country's last because the Supreme Court and most states have halted executions, pending next summer's ruling.
All those - the media, sanctimonious lawyers, death penalty abolitionists, and assorted do-gooders - who are calling for Keller's scalp are screaming that Richard would still be alive had she kept the court clerk's office open past 5 PM. And then there is Marsha Richard, the late Michael's widow, one of many death row groupies across the country who decide to - God only knows why - marry an inmate convicted of murder and awaiting execution. The poor widow, who met and married her husband 15 years after his arrival on death row, is soothing her "grief" by filing a wrongful death suit against Judge Keller.
Of course, I realize that Richard would still be alive if Keller had not blocked his appeal. So, please pardon me while I get a hanky to wipe off the tears streaming down my cheeks. Completely overlooked in all the hoopla is the fact that Michael Richard has been sitting on death row for over 20 years after having been convicted and sentenced to death twice, not just once, for a brutal murder and rape.
In 1986, Michael Richard raped and fatally shot Marguerite Dixon, 53, a nurse and mother of seven, inside her home in Hockley, a small community ouside of Houston. After murdering Dixon, he took off with two TV sets and her van. Oh, by the way, he raped and murdered Dixon barely eight weeks after he had been released from a second prison term. With that knowledge, we can all now join Marsha, the grieving widow, in weeping over the tragedy of poor old Michael's early demise.
In blocking Richard's appeal, Sharon Keller is guilty only of failing to use her best judgement. Considering that this scumbag had been residing on death row over 20 years for bruattly raping and murdering an innocent victim, does she really deserve the villification being heaped upon her? Does she really deserve to be removed from office? My answer to both of those questions is a resounding "no". Come on, give Judge Keller a break!
Saturday, November 10, 2007
AMERICANS ARE UNGRATEFUL SPOILED BRATS
Someone semt me the following lines which, acording to Snopes.com, were falsely attributed to JayLeno. But, because they are substantially true, I have placed them in this blog.
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right? The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, what are we so unhappy about?
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours aday, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at anytime, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year.
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital?
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know, what about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating. Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession. Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In-Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me.
Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a 'general' discharge, an 'other than honorable' discharge or, worst case scenario, a 'dishonorable' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write abook about 'how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way'...Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed every day by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country.
There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative. With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end toanother, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right? The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, what are we so unhappy about?
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours aday, 7 days a week? Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter? Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job? Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at anytime, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year.
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital?
Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames thus saving you, your family and your belongings. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world? Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U.S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know, what about the President who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating. Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession. Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The Commander-In-Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me.
Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day?
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a 'general' discharge, an 'other than honorable' discharge or, worst case scenario, a 'dishonorable' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write abook about 'how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way'...Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed every day by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country.
There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative. With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end toanother, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"
COLLEGES HARBOR A FIFTH COLUMN
The other day I read an article in the Houston Chronicle about a demonstration by members of Border Watch and a simultaneous counter-demonstration by members of various organizations at a site for day laborers in a Houston suburb. What caught my eye was the presence among the counter-demonstators of a self-professed Marxist who is a social sciences professor at College of the Mainland (COM), a small community college about 50 miles south of Houston, the institution from which I retired in 1993.
Border Watch is an anti-illegal immigration vigilante organization. Its members patrol our border with Mexico and report the sighting of illegal border crossers to the Border Patrol. Its members also demonstrate at and surveil sites believed to be gathering places for illegal immigrants. Latinos and their anglo allies accuse Border Watch members of being a bunch of racists.
The day laborer site demonstration was just one of many that the COM Marxist has led or taken a leading role in. Over the years, he and his wife, an elementary school counselor, have participated in anti-war protests and in demonstrations supporting the causes of Palestinians and illegal immigrants. At the day laborer site, his wife used a megaphone to chant, "Racists! Fascists! Hey, hey, Border Watch go away!"
Of course, the professor and his wife have every right to organize and participate in any excercises of free speech. And as they have done many times, they have the right to sponsor protests by the International Socialist Organization, a communist-front group. He and his wife also exercised their rights in founding the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, their very own Marxist-front group. But what this Marxist and his ilk do in the classrooms of our colleges and universities is an entirely different matter.
COM, located in the union stronghold of Texas City, has long been dominated by a small, but very influential group of avowed Marxists. How did it become possible for three Marxist professors to dominate the administration of the college? For starters, they had a good number of sympathizers among the college's liberal faculty and staff. But, the clincher was their ability to get local labor leaders and black community leaders to support their choice of candidates seeking election to the COM Board of Trustees.
Marxist academics, whether at COM or at any other institution of higher learning, all aim for THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISM AND THE UNDERMINING OF OUR GOVERNMENT. They have wormed their way onto the faculties of almost every college and university, small and large. They have infested the History, English and Government courses required of ALL students seeking a degree, as well as Sociology, Economics, Psychology and other courses required for many degrees. Thus, they are given a highly impressionable captive audience for their anti-capitalist and anti-American drivel.
Marxist academics DO NOT EDUCATE - THEY ATTEMPT TO BRAINWASH AND INDOCTRINATE their students! They advocate replacing capitalism with socialism, a more acceptable term than communism. Their students are subjected to a constant drumbeat of anti-Americanism and the ususal Marxist claptrap - America starts wars to enrich the oil companies and other multi-national corporations; America exploits its workers and oppresses the masses.
Marxist professors will not pledge allegiance to our country. They teach that America is an imperialist and terrorist state which, in concert with Israel, has killed MILLIONS of innocent civilians in the Middle East; our government's foreign policy is to blame for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center; suicide bombers are "freedom fighters", not terrorists; our government is controlled by the Israeli lobby; the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER Japan had already indicated it was ready to surrender; minority prison inmates are victims of our racist society; etc., etc..
Marxist professors are very clever tacticians. At the beginning of each semester, they will start out by seducing new students with oozing charm. They will cite only authorities who support their pro-Marxism and anti-Americanism to the exclusion of authorities who take opposing viewpoints. They will invite their students to debate them, but those students brave enougnh to challenge their views are put down resoundingly in front of their classmates.
In presenting only one side on controversial issues to the exclusion of opposite views, the Marxists are being intellectually dishonest and deceitful. How do they get away with that? They have the support of their seduced students. They hide behind the misunderstood and misapplied Principles of Academic Freedom, thereby obtaining the strong support of liberal colleagues. They denounce any faculty members who dare to criticize them as fascists and Nazis.
By yelling "academic freedom" they deflect any attempts to bring them to account. By invoking academic freedom they are able to hoodwink other faculty members into supporting them, thereby preventing the administration from taking any action against them since that would probably lead to a faculty revolt. So, in effect our colleges and universities are harboring a fifth column which is intent on undermining our government, replacing capitalism with communism, and destroying the pride and patriotism that students should have as Americans.
The Principles of Academic Freedom were designed to encourage scholars to search for the truth, and as such, protect a faculty member from vindictive reprisals for expressing an unpopular opinion. However, the document which established these principles specifically PROHIBITS THE FURTHERANCE OF A TEACHER'S PERSONAL AGENDA. The principles also include special obligations which require that teachers must at all times be accurate and exercise appropriate restraint.
Academic freedom does not permit professors to resort to half-truths, inaccuracies, distortions and the deliberate omission of opposing facts in their classroom presentations, techniques commonly used by Marxist academics. Academic freedom does not permit intellectual dishonesty and deceit, nor does it permit the brainwashing and indoctrination of students.
Whenever any competent professor, his personal ideology notwithstanding, abides by the dictates of the Principles of Academic Freedom, those principles should protect him from vindictive attempts to jeopardize his teaching position. What the Marxist professor from College of the Mainland and any other Marxist academic does off-campus in a non-teaching activity should be of no concern to a college administration, as long as any such activity is not unlawful. However, when any professor uses the classroom to further a Marxist agenda, he is violating the very principles which were designed to protect teachers from administrative reprisals.
Attempts by Marxist academics to brainwash and indoctrinate students should not be tolerated. Such teaching practices threaten our country's security and clearly violate the Principles of Academic Freedom, thus constituting solid grounds for termination of employment. However, school administrators have either failed to study the document estalishing the Principles of Academic Freedom or have intentionally ignored the prohibitions and obligations spelled out in that document. As a result, colleges and universities have long been sanctuaries for a fifth column bent on destroying this nation.
Border Watch is an anti-illegal immigration vigilante organization. Its members patrol our border with Mexico and report the sighting of illegal border crossers to the Border Patrol. Its members also demonstrate at and surveil sites believed to be gathering places for illegal immigrants. Latinos and their anglo allies accuse Border Watch members of being a bunch of racists.
The day laborer site demonstration was just one of many that the COM Marxist has led or taken a leading role in. Over the years, he and his wife, an elementary school counselor, have participated in anti-war protests and in demonstrations supporting the causes of Palestinians and illegal immigrants. At the day laborer site, his wife used a megaphone to chant, "Racists! Fascists! Hey, hey, Border Watch go away!"
Of course, the professor and his wife have every right to organize and participate in any excercises of free speech. And as they have done many times, they have the right to sponsor protests by the International Socialist Organization, a communist-front group. He and his wife also exercised their rights in founding the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, their very own Marxist-front group. But what this Marxist and his ilk do in the classrooms of our colleges and universities is an entirely different matter.
COM, located in the union stronghold of Texas City, has long been dominated by a small, but very influential group of avowed Marxists. How did it become possible for three Marxist professors to dominate the administration of the college? For starters, they had a good number of sympathizers among the college's liberal faculty and staff. But, the clincher was their ability to get local labor leaders and black community leaders to support their choice of candidates seeking election to the COM Board of Trustees.
Marxist academics, whether at COM or at any other institution of higher learning, all aim for THE OVERTHROW OF CAPITALISM AND THE UNDERMINING OF OUR GOVERNMENT. They have wormed their way onto the faculties of almost every college and university, small and large. They have infested the History, English and Government courses required of ALL students seeking a degree, as well as Sociology, Economics, Psychology and other courses required for many degrees. Thus, they are given a highly impressionable captive audience for their anti-capitalist and anti-American drivel.
Marxist academics DO NOT EDUCATE - THEY ATTEMPT TO BRAINWASH AND INDOCTRINATE their students! They advocate replacing capitalism with socialism, a more acceptable term than communism. Their students are subjected to a constant drumbeat of anti-Americanism and the ususal Marxist claptrap - America starts wars to enrich the oil companies and other multi-national corporations; America exploits its workers and oppresses the masses.
Marxist professors will not pledge allegiance to our country. They teach that America is an imperialist and terrorist state which, in concert with Israel, has killed MILLIONS of innocent civilians in the Middle East; our government's foreign policy is to blame for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center; suicide bombers are "freedom fighters", not terrorists; our government is controlled by the Israeli lobby; the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki AFTER Japan had already indicated it was ready to surrender; minority prison inmates are victims of our racist society; etc., etc..
Marxist professors are very clever tacticians. At the beginning of each semester, they will start out by seducing new students with oozing charm. They will cite only authorities who support their pro-Marxism and anti-Americanism to the exclusion of authorities who take opposing viewpoints. They will invite their students to debate them, but those students brave enougnh to challenge their views are put down resoundingly in front of their classmates.
In presenting only one side on controversial issues to the exclusion of opposite views, the Marxists are being intellectually dishonest and deceitful. How do they get away with that? They have the support of their seduced students. They hide behind the misunderstood and misapplied Principles of Academic Freedom, thereby obtaining the strong support of liberal colleagues. They denounce any faculty members who dare to criticize them as fascists and Nazis.
By yelling "academic freedom" they deflect any attempts to bring them to account. By invoking academic freedom they are able to hoodwink other faculty members into supporting them, thereby preventing the administration from taking any action against them since that would probably lead to a faculty revolt. So, in effect our colleges and universities are harboring a fifth column which is intent on undermining our government, replacing capitalism with communism, and destroying the pride and patriotism that students should have as Americans.
The Principles of Academic Freedom were designed to encourage scholars to search for the truth, and as such, protect a faculty member from vindictive reprisals for expressing an unpopular opinion. However, the document which established these principles specifically PROHIBITS THE FURTHERANCE OF A TEACHER'S PERSONAL AGENDA. The principles also include special obligations which require that teachers must at all times be accurate and exercise appropriate restraint.
Academic freedom does not permit professors to resort to half-truths, inaccuracies, distortions and the deliberate omission of opposing facts in their classroom presentations, techniques commonly used by Marxist academics. Academic freedom does not permit intellectual dishonesty and deceit, nor does it permit the brainwashing and indoctrination of students.
Whenever any competent professor, his personal ideology notwithstanding, abides by the dictates of the Principles of Academic Freedom, those principles should protect him from vindictive attempts to jeopardize his teaching position. What the Marxist professor from College of the Mainland and any other Marxist academic does off-campus in a non-teaching activity should be of no concern to a college administration, as long as any such activity is not unlawful. However, when any professor uses the classroom to further a Marxist agenda, he is violating the very principles which were designed to protect teachers from administrative reprisals.
Attempts by Marxist academics to brainwash and indoctrinate students should not be tolerated. Such teaching practices threaten our country's security and clearly violate the Principles of Academic Freedom, thus constituting solid grounds for termination of employment. However, school administrators have either failed to study the document estalishing the Principles of Academic Freedom or have intentionally ignored the prohibitions and obligations spelled out in that document. As a result, colleges and universities have long been sanctuaries for a fifth column bent on destroying this nation.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
A DAMN GOOD LOGICAL EXPLANATION
My mailbox receives a lot of good jokes and every so often, I get one that is really priceless. So, for a good laugh, I am taking the liberty of blogging what to me was one of the funniest jokes I've ever received.
A wife came home early and found her husband in their bedroom making love to a very attractive young woman. Furious with him, she shouted, "You are a disrepectful pig. How dare you do this to me - - a faithful wife, the mother of your children! I'm leaving you. I want a divorce straight away!"
And the husband replied, "Hang on just a minute love, so at least I can tell you what happened." "Fine, go ahead," she sobbed, "but they'll be the last words you'll say to me!"
The husband began, "Well, I was getting into the car to drive home and this yougng lady here asked me for a lift. She looked so down and out and defenseless that I took pity on her and let her into the car. I noticed that she was very thin, not well dressed and very dirty. She told me that she hadn't eaten for three days. So, in my compassion, I brought her home and warmed up the enchiladas I made for you last night, the ones you wouldn't eat because you're afraid you'll put on weight. The poor thing devoured them in moments. Since she needed a good clean-up, I suggested a shower. And while she was doing that, I noticed her clothes were dirty and full of holes. So I threw them away. Then, as she needed clothes, I gave her the designer jeans that you have had for a few years, but don't use because you say they are too tight. I also let her have the sexy underwear I gave you as an anniversary present, which you don't use because you say they are in bad taste. I found the blouse my sister gave you for Christmas that you don't use just to annoy her, and I also gave this poor girl those boots you bought at that expensive boutique and don't use because someone at work has a pair just like them."
The husband took a quick breath and continued. "She was very grateful for my understanding and help. As I walked her to the door she turned to me with tears in her eyes and asked, 'Please . . . do you have anything else that your wife doesn't use?' "
WARNING: If you did not get a good laugh out of this, contact a shrink right away! You may be in need of some serious therapy.
A wife came home early and found her husband in their bedroom making love to a very attractive young woman. Furious with him, she shouted, "You are a disrepectful pig. How dare you do this to me - - a faithful wife, the mother of your children! I'm leaving you. I want a divorce straight away!"
And the husband replied, "Hang on just a minute love, so at least I can tell you what happened." "Fine, go ahead," she sobbed, "but they'll be the last words you'll say to me!"
The husband began, "Well, I was getting into the car to drive home and this yougng lady here asked me for a lift. She looked so down and out and defenseless that I took pity on her and let her into the car. I noticed that she was very thin, not well dressed and very dirty. She told me that she hadn't eaten for three days. So, in my compassion, I brought her home and warmed up the enchiladas I made for you last night, the ones you wouldn't eat because you're afraid you'll put on weight. The poor thing devoured them in moments. Since she needed a good clean-up, I suggested a shower. And while she was doing that, I noticed her clothes were dirty and full of holes. So I threw them away. Then, as she needed clothes, I gave her the designer jeans that you have had for a few years, but don't use because you say they are too tight. I also let her have the sexy underwear I gave you as an anniversary present, which you don't use because you say they are in bad taste. I found the blouse my sister gave you for Christmas that you don't use just to annoy her, and I also gave this poor girl those boots you bought at that expensive boutique and don't use because someone at work has a pair just like them."
The husband took a quick breath and continued. "She was very grateful for my understanding and help. As I walked her to the door she turned to me with tears in her eyes and asked, 'Please . . . do you have anything else that your wife doesn't use?' "
WARNING: If you did not get a good laugh out of this, contact a shrink right away! You may be in need of some serious therapy.
FOGGY BOTTOMERS SCARED SHITLESS
Oh my God, look at what those in charge of the U.S. State Department have done! Did they piss-off Russia or China? No. Did they open direct diplomatic talks with the leaders of Iran and Syria? No. What they did was to piss-off hundreds of their own diplomats and other foreign service workers.
The State Department, which is nicknamed "foggy bottom", could not find enough volunteers among its employees to fill all the positions it needed to concuct its business in Iraq. So, it made the decision to force some of its diplomats and other foreign service officers to work at our embassy in Baghdad and on reconstruction teams in Iraq's outlying provinces.
When they heard of the decision, many of the foggy bottomers howled like stuck pigs. At a town hall meeting called to protest forced assignments, one of them alleged that the highly protected green zone in Baghdad was subjected to daily incoming fire and many agreed that assigning them to Iraq would be the equivalent of a "potential death sentence."
Having studied history in college, applicants for the foreign service had to know from the get-go that they could be assigned to work in dangerous places. During the Vietnam War, Saigon was a very dangerous place to work. In 1979, our embassy staff in Iran was seized by Islamists and held hostage for 444 days. In the early 1980s, Beirut, Lebanon was a dangerous place for Americans. All through the 1980s, Nicaragua, Honduras amd Guatemala were high risk areas for our foreign service workers.
Employers cannot afford the luxury of allowing their employees to dictate work assignments. Most teachers, if given the choice, would refuse to teach in any rough and tumble ghetto schools. Some veteran police officers may want to work only in safe high income-low crime neighborhoods and, if given the choice, would refuse to patrol dangerous low income-high crime areas.
The protesting foggy bottomers remind me of the soldiers who complained about getting sent to Iraq because they only joined the army to obtain educational benefits, not to risk their lives by fighting in a war. The bottom line is that many of our foreign service workers are scared shitless at the prospect of being assigned to work in Iraq.
It is very hard to fire any federal employee. However, refusal of an assignment would appear to constitute grounds for dismissal. State Department employees that refuse to accept an assignment in Iraq are nothing but a bunch of gutless parasites on the public payroll who should be terminated forthwith.
The State Department, which is nicknamed "foggy bottom", could not find enough volunteers among its employees to fill all the positions it needed to concuct its business in Iraq. So, it made the decision to force some of its diplomats and other foreign service officers to work at our embassy in Baghdad and on reconstruction teams in Iraq's outlying provinces.
When they heard of the decision, many of the foggy bottomers howled like stuck pigs. At a town hall meeting called to protest forced assignments, one of them alleged that the highly protected green zone in Baghdad was subjected to daily incoming fire and many agreed that assigning them to Iraq would be the equivalent of a "potential death sentence."
Having studied history in college, applicants for the foreign service had to know from the get-go that they could be assigned to work in dangerous places. During the Vietnam War, Saigon was a very dangerous place to work. In 1979, our embassy staff in Iran was seized by Islamists and held hostage for 444 days. In the early 1980s, Beirut, Lebanon was a dangerous place for Americans. All through the 1980s, Nicaragua, Honduras amd Guatemala were high risk areas for our foreign service workers.
Employers cannot afford the luxury of allowing their employees to dictate work assignments. Most teachers, if given the choice, would refuse to teach in any rough and tumble ghetto schools. Some veteran police officers may want to work only in safe high income-low crime neighborhoods and, if given the choice, would refuse to patrol dangerous low income-high crime areas.
The protesting foggy bottomers remind me of the soldiers who complained about getting sent to Iraq because they only joined the army to obtain educational benefits, not to risk their lives by fighting in a war. The bottom line is that many of our foreign service workers are scared shitless at the prospect of being assigned to work in Iraq.
It is very hard to fire any federal employee. However, refusal of an assignment would appear to constitute grounds for dismissal. State Department employees that refuse to accept an assignment in Iraq are nothing but a bunch of gutless parasites on the public payroll who should be terminated forthwith.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
AT TIMES FEDERAL JUSTICE CAN BE A JOKE
Two federal court cases have just been resolved with the utmost leniency. One case involved the tainting of ground beef with rat poisnon and the other involved the unwanted sexual groping of a female court employee by a federal judge. These cases have turned justice into a joke.
In the rat poison case, Karen Wyndham, 45, was convicted of concealing d-Con rodent poison pellets in three packages of ground beef at a Kmart in North Charleston, South Carolina. Wyndham, who had worked at the store for five years, confessed that she tainted the packages because she was pissed off at her boss for giving her an unwanted job assignment.
No one suffered any ill effects because another Kmart employee discoverd that one of the meat packages had been opened. One other tainted package was discovered in a subsequent search by store employees. A customer returned a third package that had been opened and stuffed with the d-Con pellets.
Wyndham was facing up to three years in federal prison for consumer product tampering when U.S. District Judge David Norton sentenced her to one year of home detention, followed by five years of probation. She was also ordered to pay $4,400 restitution for the tainted meat and the cost of the search by Kmart employees. Judge Norton reasoned that had he sent Wyndham to prison, upon her discharge she would have been put on supervised release for only one year. Thus he opted for the longer probation supervision period.
Her defense attorney argued for leniency because Wyndham had a history of mental health issues. He also contended there was almost no risk to the public because the tampering was so obvious. A history of mental illness? So what! Obvious tampering? Ditto so what!
The tainting could have had tragic consequences. One year of home detention is a mere tap on the wrist. Judge Norton could have given Wyndham five years of probation with the condition that she serve one year in jail. Had he done so, justice would have been served.
In the sexual harassment case, Samuel Kent, 58, the only U.S. District Judge in Galveston, Texas, was accused of groping a female court employee. He was also investigated for allegations of sexual harassment against other court employees, excessive drinking, and showing favoritism in cases he tried. The charges were investigated by the Judicial Council of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The victim told her mother and several friends that against her will "His Honor" had put his hand up under her blouse, pushed her bra up and put his mouth on her bare breast, then forced her head down to his crotch. He did not stop until he heard footsteps approaching down a hallway. Harrassment my ass! That was a sexual assault! Her supervisor had blowbn off a previous incident reported by the victim.
Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides for up to two years in prison for a person who, on federal property, "knowingly engages in sexual contact with another," and defines sexual contact as "the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing," of another's private parts, specifically including the breast. It sure looks like "His Honor" committed a felony.
Apparently the allegations were found to be true. Judge Kent was reprimanded and suspended for four months with pay. He was also transferred to Houston and ordered to complete unspecified "remedial courses of action." Ostensibly, the transfer was designed to enable other district judges to scrutinize his future behavior.
Holy shit! That punishment is really excessive. Wow! Four months suspension WITH PAY - at an annual salary of $165,200, that would be $55,068. How will poor old Judge Kent ever be able to survive? Have the 5th Circuit judges taken leave of their senses? He committed a felony. They should have asked Judge Kent for his resignation and, barring that, they should have suspended him indefinitely without pay. And, the U.S. Attorney should have filed a sexual assault case against Kent.
All federal judges are appointed for life. The only way they can be removed from the bench is through impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and subsequent conviction by the U.S. Senate. Judge Norton and Judge Kent should be impeached, Norton for his incomprehensible sentencing and Kent for his felonious misconduct. Come to think of it, so should the 5th Circuit judges who were so lenient wih Kent's punishment.
In the rat poison case, Karen Wyndham, 45, was convicted of concealing d-Con rodent poison pellets in three packages of ground beef at a Kmart in North Charleston, South Carolina. Wyndham, who had worked at the store for five years, confessed that she tainted the packages because she was pissed off at her boss for giving her an unwanted job assignment.
No one suffered any ill effects because another Kmart employee discoverd that one of the meat packages had been opened. One other tainted package was discovered in a subsequent search by store employees. A customer returned a third package that had been opened and stuffed with the d-Con pellets.
Wyndham was facing up to three years in federal prison for consumer product tampering when U.S. District Judge David Norton sentenced her to one year of home detention, followed by five years of probation. She was also ordered to pay $4,400 restitution for the tainted meat and the cost of the search by Kmart employees. Judge Norton reasoned that had he sent Wyndham to prison, upon her discharge she would have been put on supervised release for only one year. Thus he opted for the longer probation supervision period.
Her defense attorney argued for leniency because Wyndham had a history of mental health issues. He also contended there was almost no risk to the public because the tampering was so obvious. A history of mental illness? So what! Obvious tampering? Ditto so what!
The tainting could have had tragic consequences. One year of home detention is a mere tap on the wrist. Judge Norton could have given Wyndham five years of probation with the condition that she serve one year in jail. Had he done so, justice would have been served.
In the sexual harassment case, Samuel Kent, 58, the only U.S. District Judge in Galveston, Texas, was accused of groping a female court employee. He was also investigated for allegations of sexual harassment against other court employees, excessive drinking, and showing favoritism in cases he tried. The charges were investigated by the Judicial Council of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The victim told her mother and several friends that against her will "His Honor" had put his hand up under her blouse, pushed her bra up and put his mouth on her bare breast, then forced her head down to his crotch. He did not stop until he heard footsteps approaching down a hallway. Harrassment my ass! That was a sexual assault! Her supervisor had blowbn off a previous incident reported by the victim.
Title 18 of the U.S. Code provides for up to two years in prison for a person who, on federal property, "knowingly engages in sexual contact with another," and defines sexual contact as "the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing," of another's private parts, specifically including the breast. It sure looks like "His Honor" committed a felony.
Apparently the allegations were found to be true. Judge Kent was reprimanded and suspended for four months with pay. He was also transferred to Houston and ordered to complete unspecified "remedial courses of action." Ostensibly, the transfer was designed to enable other district judges to scrutinize his future behavior.
Holy shit! That punishment is really excessive. Wow! Four months suspension WITH PAY - at an annual salary of $165,200, that would be $55,068. How will poor old Judge Kent ever be able to survive? Have the 5th Circuit judges taken leave of their senses? He committed a felony. They should have asked Judge Kent for his resignation and, barring that, they should have suspended him indefinitely without pay. And, the U.S. Attorney should have filed a sexual assault case against Kent.
All federal judges are appointed for life. The only way they can be removed from the bench is through impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives and subsequent conviction by the U.S. Senate. Judge Norton and Judge Kent should be impeached, Norton for his incomprehensible sentencing and Kent for his felonious misconduct. Come to think of it, so should the 5th Circuit judges who were so lenient wih Kent's punishment.
A SOLDIER'S GRAVE, A MOTHER'S PHONY GRIEF
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)